Geoffrey Cox MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  I wonder whether the Secretary of State can assist me with this problem. The Supreme Court is at the moment seized of the issue as to the lawfulness of the declaration of incompatibility. The fact that the Government have withdrawn their appeal does not prevent the Supreme Court from ruling on it. Let us suppose that the Supreme Court rules that the declaration of incompatibility is void. The legal position is that the declaration of incompatibility would then be void, and therefore the basis on which the Secretary of State is proceeding with the order would be removed. Surely it would be prudent to wait to see if the Supreme Court rules on it. Otherwise, we will be proceeding with an unlawful order. I ask in the spirit of genuine curiosity and inquiry, not political partisanship. It would bring the entire process into disrepute if he is in fact acting on an unlawful basis.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Why was the Attorney General’s Office represented and present? If the meeting had nothing to do with the case, why was the Attorney General’s Office present through its representative?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Attorney General’s Office has nothing to do with foreign policy.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on the question of who was present?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Duck.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  No, I will not—too short of time. There was nothing to prevent that because it was a question of fact. The fact is that the Government were not prepared to change their approach. It is a perfectly legitimate point for the right hon. Member for Torfaen to say to me, “Back in 2021, the policy of the Government was not to describe China as an enemy,” but at that time, we had not had the spying, the intimidation, and the direct targeting of this institution and the democratic assembly of our people that we have now seen by 2025. Things have moved on, and it was incumbent upon the Government to reconsider their approach, which was that they would not describe a duck as a duck. The witness was prepared to say, “It has webbed feet, it swims, it quacks, it has a bill—but we are not prepared to call it a duck.” Are you telling me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the right hon. Gentleman can look this House in the eye and say that nobody raised this problem inside No. 10 and said, “We have a policy problem. It is a roadblock to this case. What are we going to do about it?”? Is he saying that that was never discussed with the National Security Adviser, that the DNSA never raised that with any relevant Minister? The Attorney General, when he met on 3 September, said, “Well, I couldn’t intervene on matters of sufficiency of evidence.” That is perfectly true; he cannot intervene, but he could challenge. He could say, “What do you need? Is there anything I can do by way of intercession with ministries to ensure that you get the evidence that you require?” But nothing was said. Nothing was said on 3 September because “nothing” was the policy of the Government. It was to wait while this case slid down the slope straight into the pan where no doubt many of the, not inaptly named, mandarins of Whitehall were perfectly content to see it slide. There is extraordinary cheek in the right hon. Gentleman, who came to this House four or five years ago with his Humble Address when he asked for legal advice—advice on the most sensitive negotiating matters that this country was engaged in with the Berlaymont—to be disclosed for all to see, now saying that we should not see the truth of what in reality the Government were saying and doing at the time. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck, and when I apply it to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is almost certainly a complete crock of old—

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister did say he would give way to me.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an interesting experience, almost revisiting ancient times with the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) leading for the Government on this debate. While I have a great deal of sympathy with his position, I cannot sympathise with his rather bland, anodyne account of the events to date. What is clear, and it is an apophthegm often imbibed with one’s mother’s milk, is that if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, looks like a duck, it is almost certainly a duck. The problem in this case is that the Government were never prepared to describe that animal as a duck. They must have known from a very early period; indeed, the first senior Treasury counsel said yesterday that, even in August, he had made the point abundantly plain to the Government that unless they reconsidered their approach and described the blasted animal as a duck, the case would go down the pan. There was nothing to prevent the Government, through their expert witness, from saying, “In our view, China was a national security threat in 2021”—nothing at all to prevent that.

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on that point?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 13 May 2025 · Churches and Religious Buildings: Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for the work she does on behalf of the Church. She occupies a very important role and commands considerable respect for what she has been doing. I wish to add to the point that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) just made about the closure of churches, particularly in rural parishes, which is becoming an increasing problem. In my constituency, we have experienced difficulty getting the Church to recognise that it too has an obligation to stand by the side of local communities when those wonderful and precious buildings are to be closed as places of worship, and that it must help find a community purpose for them. Does the hon. Lady agree that the Church cannot ignore its responsibility?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms · Hansard source

  More

  This is a flagrant reversal of the promises that were made. The Prime Minister appeared before the National Farmers Union conference and shed crocodile tears as he said to the hundreds of farmers assembled, as well as the widely listening electorate in rural areas, that he knew what it meant to lose a family farm. His voice trembled with that emotional resonance as he conveyed to those people in my constituency, across England and in all the regions of this great country that he would never impose upon them the tax that he has imposed upon them. It is a cynical breach of a promise made by a man seeking the highest office in this land, and upon his promises, thousands of people relied: the elderly widower whose deceased spouse cannot transfer her allowance, the widows, the elderly farmers who now fear that if they do not survive for seven years, their family farm, often the work of a century of their ancestors with herds cultivated and nurtured over decades, will be lost because the family will have to sell off great portions of their farms. The farms are farmed not necessarily for the profit they make, because the profit is exiguous, but for the love of the life farmers lead and for the support of the fabric of the rural communities that we who represent them cherish and adore. It is that blow, aimed with unerring accuracy at the very heart of rural life, that is the reason for the outrage we do not hear only upon these Benches today. Listen to the horns blowing outside. That is the voice of real democracy. That is the voice of the people crying out to those of us here to change direction on this harmful and damaging decision. I appeal to the Minister, for whom I feel sorry. He has been sent out like a nightwatchman to face the fast bowling in the twilight of the evening on the test match’s last day, and it is Michael Holding coming in to bowl. I do not envy him his task. He should go back to his seniors and tell them to change direction. The time has come for the Ministry and the Ministers to accept that they are wrong. Their figures are wrong. They should change the policy.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It would be an act of cultural, social and spiritual mutilation not to continue with this scheme, which is why I do not think that the Minister will announce later that it will not be continued. My concern is that, although we are here debating this very important but limited scheme, there is on the horizon an even bigger problem with which the Government may have to grapple. My concern, if I may say so, is not for the great cathedrals of this country that will always attract their supporters—my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) represents one of the greatest cathedrals—but for the small parish churches. They are small arks that have existed down the centuries as a repositories of the spiritual aspiration, the emotions, and the cultural and historical identities, of rural communities—ancestors have been buried there and pilgrimages paid to their gravesides. One by one, these churches are clinging on only by the efforts of half a dozen or so elderly volunteers, giving up time in the last years of their lives to preserve what has mattered so much to them. What happens when those volunteers go? We are seeing it already in Torridge and Tavistock. Churches are closing—I saw the Bishop of Exeter the other day to discuss it. This scheme alone will not cause the survival of those extraordinary buildings so precious to our culture, our history and our nation. I implore the Minister to give thought to what should happen when these places of worship close. Are they to be converted into housing, often surrounded by open burial grounds? Not likely. We need to give thought to what will happen to these wonderful places, though not now sacred perhaps in some cases when they are closed, but still precious to the community’s identity and to our national inheritance. I know that the Minister will not discontinue the scheme; I would be astonished if he committed such an act of philistine vandalism, putting at risk all these extraordinary buildings for the sake of a few million pounds. I ask the Minister to consider, “What next?” Let us not stop just at this. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) has a private Member’s Bill, the Exemption from Value Added Tax (Listed Places of Worship) Bill, on repair VAT. It is time that we considered what more can be done for these buildings and not only for the buildings—which are simply bricks and mortar, stone, with wonderful cultural artefacts within them—but for what they represent: the many hopes and aspirations of so many thousands of people, even if they do not now because “The Sea of Faith Was once, too, at the full,” but now is suffering from that “melancholy, long, withdrawing roar”. I know the Minister knows exactly that to which I refer. I have complete confidence in him and I look forward to his statement this afternoon.