Jeremy Wright MP: speeches

I know that the Minister recognises the point that the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) was making to him is that, although we all want this to be a plan-led process, the NPPF still allows for grey belt designation to be achieved through an individual application, and that is what the Conservatives are also concerned about. I wanted to test him on this question of cumulative impact. He may come on to this later, in which case I apologise, but I put to him in my speech that if we look at an individual application or site, it may be difficult to make a credible argument that building there would undermine the purposes of the green belt across the plan area. On the other hand, if we look at a series of grey belt applications and their cumulative impact on the green belt across the plan area, it might be easier to demonstrate. Can he clarify which of the two the Government believe it should be?

Before the Minister does that, I understand his point earlier about guidance, and I am certainly not asking him to comment on an individual application, but the purpose of the point that I made to him earlier was to suggest that the reality of grey-belt designation is that grey-belt sites are likely to be further away from urban settlements rather than closer to them, because those closer are more likely to remain as green belt. As the Minister says, there are three purposes—A, B and D—that would enable a site to remain as green belt rather than be designated grey belt. Can he see circumstances in which a field in my constituency that is not on the outskirts of an urban settlement could possibly satisfy the test of those three requirements and remain as green belt rather than be redesignated as grey belt?

That may be very helpful, and I am genuinely grateful to the Minister, because I know he is doing his best to provide clarity. I know he would accept that the starting point for all these decisions will be the NPPF definition. I accept his point about guidance and the other qualifying criteria; we have spoken a little about the limitations that there might be on those qualifying criteria. The substantial point remains, does it not, that the definition in the NPPF of grey-belt land overwhelmingly—perhaps not in every instance, but overwhelmingly—will be met by fields, farms and greenfield sites that are not near to urban settlements. A, B and D in the list clearly each relate to the fringes of urban settlements, and the Minister knows that the green belt encompasses more than just such sites. It is inevitable, is it not, that the starting point will be that grey-belt land will be those sites that are not on the fringes of urban settlements, which is of course the direct antithesis of how the Government originally described the concept.

With gratitude for his patience, I call Lloyd Hatton.

I thank the hon. Gentleman and all Back-Bench speakers for managing a very restrictive time limit.

I call Becky Gittins. [ Interruption. ] Sorry, I have the wrong name on my list. I call Sarah Hall.

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it perfectly clear he is not giving way. All points of view in this debate must be heard, and heard respectfully. If the shadow Minister is not giving way, there is little point in continuing to bob unless he changes his mind.

I apologise again to the hon. Lady. I call Darren Paffey, I think.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to everyone who has spoken. I also thank those in the Public Gallery for attending this evening. I know some of you had to be patient to wait for a seat, so thank you for that. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered e-petition 762640 relating to a referendum on public ownership of the water sector.

I applaud my right hon. Friend’s passion and clarity on this issue. On the subject of democratic accountability, he knows that if, as the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) has made clear, no amendments to the Bill can be accepted from this House, the authority to decide whether the Bill changes passes to the other place. There must be a problem in my right hon. Friend’s argument, with this House saying, “If we are worried about the content of this Bill at the moment, we can do nothing about it, and we rely on the other place to do something instead.”

I welcome the intent that the Secretary of State has set out this afternoon, and the urgency with which she will require the relevant companies to act. I think she knows that I sympathise with the Government in respect of the complexity of this legislative area and the challenge that they face, but she may also know that my ongoing concern has been the compatibility of the individual measures that the Government may take with the ongoing responsibilities of these companies under the Online Safety Act. Would she be prepared to meet me to discuss that in a little more detail?

I know the Electoral Commission will welcome any further representations that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) wants to make. As I say, the commission keeps the languages it chooses to translate materials into under review.

I will not try, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Electoral Commission is in discussion with his local authority at the moment, and I know it would welcome any further representations — [ Interruption. ]

I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot respond to him in Cornish.

The Electoral Commission has made no formal assessment of this. It would be a matter for Parliament to introduce such legal protections. It is prescribed in law that poll cards and ballot papers must be provided in English or Welsh, but there are no other prescribed language requirements relating to election materials. The commission translates voter materials, including voter registration forms, into a range of languages, informed by census data and community insights on voter needs.

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), my colleague on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with everything that he has said. It is important to begin by recognising the remarkable determination of everyone who has sought to translate immense personal pain into an improvement in the way in which the state treats its citizens. That applies to the families who have campaigned so hard and to Members of this House who have applied their own determination to that task. As the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood and many who have spoken in this debate have said, the obstacle to delivering this legislation has really very clearly been the extent to which the duty of candour should apply to the intelligence services and to others for whom full candour may be inconsistent with professional duties, as well as the additional safeguards and modifications that would need to apply to the Bill to enable it to safely cover such people without preventing them from doing their vital work effectively. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government asked members of the Intelligence and Security Committee, including me, to become involved in the process of resolving that challenge. As the House would expect, we engaged with that process as diligently as we could, with no partisan politics, in an effort to make good law in the pursuit of greater state transparency while preserving our national security equities. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, we spent many hours on the task, engaging with both the Government and those representing the Hillsborough families. It probably would not be right or practical, in the time available, to go into the detail of all the positions taken over many months, but it is fair and important to say that throughout that time, those representing the Hillsborough families have maintained that measures and protections in existing law would prevent national security from being jeopardised if the duty of candour applied to the intelligence services. The Government, for their part, have maintained throughout this period of many months both consistently and robustly that that is not so. The Government have maintained that the only way to protect national security is to build additional safeguards, protections and exemptions into the Bill. That appeared still to be their position until very recently. Even yesterday, Government amendment 147, which gives the head of an intelligence agency the right to withhold information altogether in certain circumstances, appeared in the amendment paper for the Bill, as it had done in many previous iterations of that document. In today’s version of the amendment paper, for the first time, that amendment has disappeared and been replaced not with the detailed compromise that Intelligence and Security Committee members, who have been engaged with this process, have been working towards, along with many others, but with Government amendment 157. Government amendment 157 says, in effect, that protections already existing in the law are good enough after all—the Minister made that clear in what she said—and that no substitute further protections or exemptions need to be built into the Bill. That is a remarkable change of position, and a remarkably fast one. It is up to the Government to decide what legislation they propose to this House, and it is perfectly within their rights to propose amendments to their own legislation. We can all cynically speculate about the reasons why this sudden about-turn has taken place this week, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who spoke from the Front Bench, said earlier, it is our job to scrutinise this legislation and to ensure that whatever we put in place does justice to the determination of the Hillsborough families and everybody else to put in place a law that does not just sound good, but does good—makes real change and sticks in that task. I simply have to observe to the Minister and the House that, after all the painstaking work and hours spent, until late last week, on the basis that further safeguards were required—all the amendments drafted, redrafted and redrafted again—the Government have suddenly said that none of that is necessary. What on earth is going on? It seems to me that there are two possibilities. The first is that, for whatever reason, the Government have now cobbled together a rushed compromise that does not adequately protect our national security and that, inevitably and logically, does the job less effectively than their previous amendments sought to do. The Minister has been very clear that that is not the case. I want to take her at her word, because this is an important subject. That leaves us with the second possibility, which is that the settlement before us—a settlement that effectively replicates what the advocates for the Hillsborough families have been saying for months—could have been delivered to this House a very long time ago. That needless delay has brought a waste of ministerial time, official time, the ISC’s time, frankly, and the time of the intelligence agencies. That time could certainly have been better spent. But, far, far worse than any of that, it has brought an additional, agonising wait for the Hillsborough families and others for the law that they were promised—an additional wait that, it seems, they did not need to endure. I appreciate that the Minister has come to this matter reasonably late, but, whatever else she may need to answer, I am afraid she needs to explain all that to us and to the Hillsborough families.

I agree with the Minister that there is a great deal to welcome in Philip Rycroft’s conclusions. She talked about corporate donations. May I ask her to confirm that she is conscious of the vulnerability around unincorporated associations, which the Electoral Commission has identified for some time, and that she is focused on ensuring that that vulnerability is addressed?

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she has five minutes to sum up the debate, and she is on six and a bit. Can she swiftly get to her last sentence?

I thank all Members who have spoken so far for their co-operation. We now move on to the Front-Bencher contributions, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Order. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. I remind other Back-Bench Members who want to contribute that they should continue to bob to show that they still want to be called. I am loath to impose a time limit if I can avoid it, but, given the level of interest, if everyone can stick to about four minutes each we will get everyone in.

We have not been universally successful at keeping to four minutes. I ask everyone to now get closer to three minutes, because I need to begin Front-Bench contributions at 5.28 pm.

The debate must finish at 5.50 pm, so the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) has a minute to wind up his debate.

The debate may now continue until 4.50 pm if necessary.

I will call Michelle Welsh to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind all other Members present that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister, although they can of course intervene without prior permission. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. It is highly likely that we will be interrupted during this debate for votes on the Floor of the House. I anticipate two votes, which means that I must suspend the sitting for up to 25 minutes. If the hon. Lady, the Minister and I are all back before 25 minutes, we can proceed more quickly, if that is any incentive.

I thank the hon. Lady for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. So far, only one Member has done so, which means that he has about half an hour to speak, if he wants it. He is not obliged to take all that time, but I will call Front Benchers shortly before 3.30 pm, at the latest.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least for his remarkable display of self-control. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

All voters, including blind and visually impaired voters, should be able to vote independently and secretly. In its reports on elections in 2024 and 2025, the commission found that there have been improvements to the support available and that returning officers provided a range of accessibility equipment and support. The commission will publish a report on the May 2026 polls in the autumn, including consideration of accessibility. However, there is more to be done, and the commission has recommended improving awareness of the support available, including providing clear information on poll cards and in polling stations.

As I have said, the commission will review what happened in the May 2026 polls and make any further recommendations it feels necessary as a result. The hon. Lady makes two important points. It is important that equipment is available, and she will know that tactile devices have been found by the commission to have been available in every polling station. Her other important point is that people who are blind or partially sighted need to know about that, and communicating that information is crucial—she is absolutely right.

I will certainly make sure the commission hears what the hon. Gentleman has said. He will appreciate that judgments on these things are often for returning officers or for those managing individual polling stations, but he makes an important point about access. As I say, I will make sure the commission hears what he has said.

I am bound to say that the Home Secretary, for whom I have huge respect, is wrong to suggest that she cannot take interventions because of a lack of time—she has decided that there is a lack of time. I want to make one simple point to her, which my hon. Friend on the Opposition Front Bench has adverted to. Jonathan Hall KC produced an excellent report, most of which we will all agree with, but he did that in May last year. The Home Secretary cannot have it both ways. Either this is a desperately urgent matter, in which case the Government should have brought forward legislation long before now, or it is not, in which case we should have longer than a day to consider it, should we not? Question put.

Will the Home Secretary give way?

I was going to ask the Home Secretary later but, as she has raised the matter, perhaps I can ask her this now. On proposed new section 17C of the National Security Act and, indeed, in respect of other parts of the Bill, the knowledge of the person who may be committing an offence becomes important. Can the Home Secretary clarify—because the language in the Bill is potentially ambiguous—that the knowledge required of the person in question is that the body they are supporting or being remunerated by is a designated body? The language could be read simply to mean that the individual needs to know that the body they are supporting is a particular body, not necessarily that they know that that body has been designated. Can the Home Secretary be clear that the language refers to knowledge of designation, not simply knowledge of the particular institution or body that the individual is supporting or being remunerated by?

My right hon. Friend and Committee colleague is right in what he says, and I will come back to how and why we distinguish what the Bill proposes from the proscription regime. On what is required to prove at least one of the criminal offences set out in this Bill, clause 2 introduces a new offence under a proposed new section 17A of the National Security Act 2023. The offence involves support for a designated body, but only if such support is given for “a prohibited purpose”, which proposed new section 17A(4) sets out is “a purpose that the person knows, or having regard to other matters known to them ought reasonably to know, is prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” That is an additional element that the prosecution must prove. That will undoubtedly make this offence more difficult to obtain convictions under, and there may be good reason for that, but if there is, I want to understand what it is. I make two observations on the Government’s chosen approach in relation to that specific proposed new offence. The first is that this is not equivalent to proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. I use that expression because that is the wording the Government have used in setting out their aspirations with the Bill. Although the Government intend designation to be similar to proscription in many respects—I accept it cannot be in all respects—proscription does not require an additional motive for someone who supports a proscribed organisation, but merely that they support the proscribed organisation and know that that is what they are doing. No additional motive, demonstrating some kind of animus against the welfare of the United Kingdom, is needed, and that is an important distinction. The Government may say that the reason for that difference is to protect those who are engaging with a legitimate entity in a way that, just as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) says, can never be possible with a proscribed terrorist organisation. In that case, however, I am struggling a little with the purpose and effect of designation itself. Surely the point of designation in the Bill is to move an organisation from the acceptable column into the unacceptable column. Surely the list of reasons why someone might be designated, which I read out earlier, is there to show us that those organisations, when they are doing those things, should not be worthy of support of any kind; but that is not, I think, where this legislation leaves us.

I will come to exactly that point about the carve-outs. It is, I think, evident from a close reading of the Bill that the Government’s approach to the first of the new offences it creates differs from their approach to the next two. I want to understand from the Minister for Security—and this is my second observation—why that difference exists. I should say at this point that it is a great pleasure to see the Minister, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), in her place. As a distinguished former member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, she knows about these matters. However, I am also conscious that she has only just arrived. I hope I am setting out these specific concerns in a way that will give her two chances to answer them, on Second Reading and in Committee. If she is concerned about the lack of time between the two, she has no one to blame but her own colleagues—but we will come back to that. As I was saying, my second observation relates to precisely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns). There is a difference between the way in which the Bill sets out the first of the new offences and the way in which it approaches the other. For example, new section 17B, which amends the National Security Act, creates the offence of “Assisting a designated body”, while new section 17C creates the offence of “Obtaining…material benefits from a designated body”. Neither of those requires the additional motive of acting with a prohibited purpose. Instead, both allow for defences to be raised by those accused to establish that they were acting for a proper purpose. That would, of course, include not giving carte blanche to anyone who works for the British Government to behave as they wish, but if that person is acting within the purposes of their public appointment, it would offer them the chance to raise that defence, and would also offer opportunities to present a defence of acting in compliance with a UK legal obligation. I simply want to understand from the Minister why that approach was not taken in relation to the offence of supporting a designated body, because that would have been an attractive way forward. Perhaps the Government will say that the prohibited purpose requirement matches some of the offences in the National Security Act, where they are carried out for or on behalf of a foreign power, but the National Security Act definition includes any foreign power, benign or malign. This, of course, is different, because a designated body has already been designated by the Secretary of State as a body that is— if I can use unparliamentary language—up to no good, and should therefore, in my view, be in a different category. Perhaps we have already established that demonstrating that they were acting innocently in support of it would be a high bar for any potential defendant to meet. It would be helpful to understand the Minister’s view on that. Let me finish where I started. I agree with the purpose of the Bill; I think we all do, and it is clearly important for the Government to plug an evident gap in our legislative armoury. However, we must be certain that the way in which the Government are approaching the plugging of that gap is the right way, and that all these parts of the Bill fit together—not least, as we heard from the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), with other parts of the sanctions and other regimes. It is that process that I hope the Minister will be able to deal with, either when she winds up this part of the debate or subsequently in Committee.

I think we agree about the threat we face and about its scale. We do not need to spend the four hours allocated for this debate sharing that agreement, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) rightly said. Our job is to scrutinise the Government’s proposed response to the threat, and that is what I want to do with my time. It is especially important to do that when the timescale for consideration of the legislation is compressed, as it is today. I have huge sympathy with those who have spoken about the IRGC, but I would counsel against using this legislation to make the final decision about its proscription or designation. I do not want to steal the Minister’s lines, but I suspect that she will say to us, rightly, that it is important that we do not set a precedent, under this new system, of making designations in primary legislation, rather than by ministerial decision. There is an important procedural point there, which it will be necessary to maintain if we want to defend the flexibility that I think the Government are seeking in this legislation. However, it is right to reflect on the problem that the Government are seeking to solve. The problem is clearly the gaps that they, and many of us, perceive in the proscription regime under the Terrorism Act, which does not enable them to deal with damaging behaviour by entities, including state entities, that are not captured by the proscription regime. That is the problem that Jonathan Hall identified in his report, and the problem that the Government are seeking to remedy through this legislation. They have made it clear that their objective is to present a regime that is broadly equivalent—the Government have used the word “equivalent” in their publications relating to this Bill—to the proscription regime. I want to explore that a little, to understand exactly how the Bill is going to deliver on its objectives. I will start, as the Bill does, with the grounds for designation. The Bill is clear that in order to designate a body under this legislation, the Secretary of State must reasonably believe that it is, or has been, involved in what is described as “foreign power threat activity”, and then must consider that “designating the body is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom.” It is important to understand what foreign power threat activity is. It is defined in section 33 of the National Security Act 2023 as “the commission, preparation or instigation of acts or threats”, which are set out in subsection (3), and include obtaining or disclosing protected information or trade secrets, assisting a foreign intelligence service, entering a prohibited place, sabotage, general foreign interference and obtaining material benefits from a foreign intelligence service. Section 33 goes on to specify other acts: “serious violence against another person…endanger the life of another person, or…create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public.” I set that out in detail because it is important to understand that for designation to be attached to a relevant body, it must have been involved in that sort of serious harmful activity. That is what would justify designation in the mind of the relevant Secretary of State: the body’s activities must be considered to be different from those of a normal state or other body engaged in its normal business. In the explanatory notes, the Government give examples of things that might result in designation, such as, in paragraph 21, “a foreign intelligence service obtaining protected information and inspecting sensitive defence or intelligence sites in the UK…a mercenary group carrying out acts of serious violence on behalf of a foreign power”, or, “a network preparing to carry out sabotage or threatening to commit acts that create a serious risk to the health and safety of the public”. I set all that out because the Bill creates an offence of supporting a designated body, but in the construction of that offence, it is clear that the Government do not believe that all acts or expressions of support for a designated body are sufficient for that criminal liability. I want to understand why not.

We need to be clear about which provisions relate to which offences. The offence that I think the Minister has heard concern expressed about, and to which amendment 3 relates, is the offence under proposed new section 17A of the National Security Act 2023—in other words, the offence of supporting a designated organisation. The provisions that relate to protections for those who are acting on behalf of the UK state apply to the other two offences, not to the 17A offence, do they not? The Minister is of course right that there is a difference between the way in which the UK state needs to interact with another state entity and the way in which it needs to interact with a terrorist entity, but these offences relate to individuals not to states or, indeed, the designated body. We are talking about offences that might be charged against individuals who are themselves accused of supporting that designated body. Is not the point here—the point has been made several times—that we are setting up an additional hurdle in order to prosecute successfully for an offence of supporting a designated body? As the Minister heard me say on Second Reading, what I am concerned to understand is why that is not duplication, in effect, of the designation process itself, which distinguishes an innocent, perfectly rational state body from one that is up to no good for all the ways described in the designation process. Why do we need the prohibited purposes test in addition to the designation process?

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way again. I hope she accepts that I am genuinely trying to ensure that I have understood correctly how the test is supposed to work. I would be grateful if she also addressed the other point that I raised. I understand her argument that the intention is to ensure that, for example, those at NGO level who might engage with a designated body are not held criminally accountable for doing so. However, she will recognise that the Bill deals differently with the offences of assisting or obtaining a material benefit from a designated body. In those cases, there is provision for the defence that she has outlined, but that approach is not taken in relation to supporting a designated body. Can she explain why we have that difference?

I am grateful to all Back-Bench contributors to the debate. We now move to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Order. I thank the hon. Lady for opening the debate, and remind all Back-Bench colleagues who wish to speak that they should continue to bob—not right now, but as the debate continues—so that I know they want to speak. I am hoping we can avoid any time limits this morning. We have five Back Benchers wishing to contribute, and if they limit themselves to about seven or eight minutes each, we should be fine.

There is a great deal to welcome in what the Secretary of State has said, but she will know that detail really matters, so can I ask her two points of detail arising from her letter to Ofcom that was published today? First, she talks about launching “a rapid assessment of what highly effective age assurance looks like for determining whether someone is over 16.” Why is that work being commissioned after the announcement has been made, not before it, and given the integral importance of age assurance to her policy, is it not important for the Government to know that it can be delivered effectively? Secondly, on the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act, will the Secretary of State confirm that what is likely to happen is that a children’s access assessment will demonstrate that those platforms with highly effective age assurance in place will not need to go on and carry out a children’s risk assessment for anyone under the age of 16?

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman does not normally engage in the detail of legislation, but if he did, he would know that this is the Committee stage, where we look at the detail. What the Government could perfectly properly do is pass the legislation, as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire, and if they felt at the end of the sunset clause period that they needed further powers, they could come back to this House with further primary legislation and seek our consent to do that. The difficulty with what we have before us is that the Secretary of State has the power to extend the sunset clause indefinitely, by regulations, over and over again. That is what the wording of the Bill says, and that seems to me to be something we should not accept here. What we should do is reinstate the natural, ordinary meaning of a sunset clause, which is set out in clause (3)(1), by removing the rest of that clause. If, as the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) suggests, the Secretary of State wants to extend those powers, he should seek the authority to do so in primary, not secondary, legislation. These deficiencies in the Bill are cumulative: the power to indefinitely extend the Secretary of State’s proposed powers is more pernicious because the powers are so broad, and the huge latitude that he would have to define the public interest matters more because the Bill may apply to many more companies than might have been thought when hearing the Government’s original intentions for the Bill. Plus, of course, the Secretary of State’s consequent powers, which are set out in the rest of the Bill—having decided to nationalise and make that initial transfer decision—are mostly constrained only by the scrutiny of secondary legislation, so the initial transfer decision is all the more important. It is my view that the Secretary of State’s powers, as defined in clauses 1, 2 and 3, are simply too wide and need to be constrained. The Government make two substantive arguments in response to that view, and I want to address those arguments. The first, which the Minister put forward earlier, is that the Government are doing only what a previous Government did in the Banking Act 2009, and that the powers they seek to take here are no wider than those taken in that Act. I do not agree, for three reasons. The first reason is that the powers in the Banking Act were premised on the existence of a special resolution regime, where the bank in question was already in financial trouble. As far as I can tell, this Bill does not require the relevant steel undertaking to be in any trouble at all for nationalisation to be an option. The second reason is that the Act provides for a temporary transfer to public ownership. This Bill does not use the word “temporary”, and again, I can find nothing in the Bill that prevents a nationalisation being permanent. The third reason is that the Banking Act requires the Treasury to consult before using its powers under that Act. There is no requirement in this Bill for the Secretary of State to consult anyone, so I am afraid it is just not like the Banking Act. The Government’s second argument, which I discovered lurking in the memorandum from the Department for Business and Trade to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee—I am sure we have all read it— is that broad powers such as the right to define the public interest are “buttressed by administrative law, including the need for interferences with property rights to be proportionate”. Of course, that is so: the courts may intervene if the Secretary of State tries to use his powers irrationally or unreasonably, but Parliament should not be subcontracting our work to the courts. If the legislative powers as drafted are too broad, it is up to the legislature—us—first and foremost to constrain them. The Secretary of State has consistently maintained, as has the Minister, that he wants only the powers needed to act where Government action is unavoidable, and only for the period needed, but the powers that he has in the Bill go well beyond that, and they could and should be restricted.

I will focus my remarks on clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill and the breadth of the powers that they give to the Secretary of State. I start with the meaning of a “steel undertaking” in clause 1, which is one “that carries on a business consisting of or including…the manufacture or processing of steel, or…iron”. As the Minister will know, I raised in an intervention on the Secretary of State on Second Reading—indeed my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who speaks from the Front Bench, also mentioned this earlier—that that wording could appear to include undertakings that have as little as 1% of their business in iron or steel.

I understand the logic of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. He has referred several times to the series of proposals being made in Committee by the Conservative party, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). They come to this: that no Government should be able to create for themselves a very wide definition of what a steel undertaking should be, that they should not be able to define for themselves without restriction what the public interest may be, and that they should not be able to extend indefinitely, without parliamentary authority, the effect of the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what he objects to in those proposals?

The Minister is aware of my concern about the interaction between whatever the Government choose to ban and the workings of the Online Safety Act 2023 that we already have. I know the Minister recognises that that is an important interaction. Will he reassure me that the Government are fully aware that whether they ban access to social media entirely for children, or ban specific functionalities, we will need to ensure we do not undermine the duty of care that the OSA requires of social media platforms and others?

Yes, I can—and this is an important point. The Intelligence and Security Committee wanted to be extremely clear that we took responsibility only for the redactions that we had considered and agreed. The Government, to be fair to them, have always accepted that those redactions that the Government made without the involvement of my Committee would appear on the documents differently, and they do. The House will be able to see exactly the difference when the documents are considered. I need to make it clear that I am not an enthusiast for the use of Humble Addresses to demand disclosure of documents at all, whichever party may choose to use them. That is simply because I think it is inappropriate to involve the monarch in a political argument, but if we are to have them, or indeed any other motions that demand the disclosure of material, we should be clear about the grounds on which the Government are entitled to redact that material.

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way, and I agree with the case she is making. She is right that wide Humble Addresses are deleterious, both because there is an opportunity cost—while civil servants are looking at that, they are not looking at something else—and a real financial cost. However, does she agree that the right moment to push back on an excessively broad Humble Address is when it is being decided on? The Government have a majority; it is there so that the Government can get their way. Would it not have been better for them to have said on 4 February, “This is too broad. We will only agree to something narrower”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the concern he has expressed that there is no evidence of mitigations being put in place, there is a concern that there was not much time to do those mitigations between the point at which UKSV recommendations were received and the decision by the Foreign Office to grant vetting? There really was not much time for mitigations, as well as very little evidence that they were provided.

I am extremely grateful; the hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. I want to develop the point from a slightly different angle. What we are really interested in are the conclusions of the vetting process, not the material that leads to the conclusions. It is therefore entirely possible that we could give all the reassurances that she and the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) have made clear are important to those who contribute to the vetting process, but also make sure that, in the interests of disclosure on occasions such as this, the House can be clear about the conclusions of the vetting process without being told the raw information on which those conclusions are based.

I think we may have to wait for the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister to explain the position from the Government’s perspective. I can say only that what was put in front of us did not, I think, include the documents that the police had sought to have withheld. I cannot say that that is the case in every instance, but we do not believe that there has been complete disclosure yet. We think there will be further documents put before us, which the police currently have in their possession, so it may well be that there is further work for the Committee to do. My right hon. Friend will recognise from his long experience that we will apply the same degree of rigour and impartiality to any further documents put before us as to the documents we have already seen.

I do agree with the point that the hon. Lady makes, and I think that that argument was put very forcefully and eloquently by the hon. Member for Pontypridd, which she may have heard a moment ago. I want to return to the grounds on which the Government are entitled to redact material under a Humble Address motion or similar motions. It seems to me not only that Parliament should have clarity about the grounds on which the Government seek to redact such material but that the proper time to have that clarity is when such a motion is first agreed, not as documents begin to be disclosed in response to it. I want to make a suggestion, and I hope that the Government will see it as a helpful one, because it is genuinely meant as such. I suggest that this House agrees standard rules by which a Government may make a redaction and the reasons for it, and that those should be used in all similar situations in the future so that we have clarity. The Government have relied on a variety of legislative and common practice routes to support their right to redact, or in some cases even to withhold documents altogether, in relation to this Humble Address. I think that the process would benefit from consolidation of those reasons into a single document that the House can then endorse. It would save this argument being rerun, or at least limit it to a discussion of any specific grounds for redaction that the Government seek to rely on beyond the agreed reasons. I will turn to the content of the documents and what they tell us. I have said very little about them so far in order to, I hope, preserve the integrity of the process that the ISC has been conducting at the House’s instruction. There is, of course, lots of interest in the documents—in how, for example, the ambassador to the United States steadfastly refused to stay in his lane as a diplomat and instead offered his advice on almost every aspect of the Government’s activity; in the fact that he was held in such high regard, not to say awe, by so many members of the Government; and in the slapdash approach to secure communications, to which the Government, and perhaps also my Committee, will return. It is important to remember that this whole exercise, as I think the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee said, was supposed to be about interrogating how Lord Mandelson’s appointment as US ambassador came to be made. It would be churlish not to accept that Lord Mandelson had successes in the role. That indicates that he had merits as a candidate for the job that the Prime Minister was entitled to consider, but considering someone for a role is very different from appointing them to it—especially someone who had such obvious and well known risks, and especially to an appointment of such evident importance and sensitivity. That is why I find the process of making the appointment so concerning and so surprising. I accept that it is unfashionable or even heretical to say it these days, but I have a soft spot for the Prime Minister. I do not think it is just because I like the idea of lawyers with knighthoods being in charge, though I do; it is really because I am an enthusiast for good government. The question of whether one supports a Government’s policies is one thing, but we should all be in favour of good government none the less. I want to see responsible decision making, considered judgments, a preference for evidence over instinct, and flashy ideas properly tested to ensure that they will actually work. That is good government to me, and I thought that in this Prime Minister’s Administration I would see it, but good government requires that where a sensitive appointment carries considerable risk, extra work is done to understand that risk and mitigate it. These documents do not show that. Peter Mandelson’s letter to the then Foreign Secretary—now Deputy Prime Minister—has become famous for his assurance that the Government would not regret his appointment, and ranks up there with “peace for our time” and Michael Fish’s pre-hurricane weather forecast in the pantheon of poor predictions. But there is something else interesting about it, and that is its date—18 November 2024—which makes it clear that Lord Mandelson was at the very least under serious consideration for the ambassador position in mid-November. The vetting process did not begin until late December, with everyone then being told—this is very clear—that it should be completed in time for Mandelson to begin work in January. There are several mentions in the documents of the urgency of that from officials. We know already that the National Security Adviser considered the process strangely rushed, and in the latest drop of documents, we see that in volume II, part I, page 21 it says: “The SPAD work has shown just how slick this can be when needed.” Page 66 says: “We have had quite a bit of senior interest in the processing of this case (not the details merely that it goes smoothly)”. If officials had been asked to start that work earlier, they could have taken longer over it, and surely more time and consideration would have been beneficial in this complex and controversial case. Indeed, the haste with which things were being done was apparent elsewhere. In another document, an official points out that the Prime Minister had announced his choice for ambassador before agrément had been granted. In other words, the United States had not agreed to accept Lord Mandelson as ambassador at that point. That, the official says, should not have happened. It is, and was, clear to everyone that this was a controversial appointment: perhaps high reward, but definitely high risk. There were substantial reasons to worry about it—we have heard several of them—and almost all of them were very public knowledge. That should have given everyone—perhaps especially the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office as the appointing Department—pause for thought, yet we know from page 106 of part III of this volume that UK Security Vetting informed the FCDO of its recommendation in the last week of January 2025 and the FCDO granted the developed vetting certificate on 29 January 2025. Not much pause for thought there. Worse still, as others have pointed out, we have not seen mitigations—ones that were clearly agreed to be necessary—evidenced anywhere. Good government this was not. It has been said by many on the Government’s behalf that mistakes can be made, and that is of course true. When in opposition, the Prime Minister pointed out more than once that Prime Ministers are accountable for the tone and character of the Governments they lead and for how those Governments transact their business, and he was right. These documents show that in the making of this very important and sensitive decision, there was much wrong with the tone and character of this Government.

It is a genuine privilege to follow the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones). Knowledgeable and passionate Ministers are a huge asset to any Government, and she is a significant loss to this one. If I may say, the same can be said of the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), who sits next to her. The hon. Member for Pontypridd makes important points about the victims of Epstein, which I will not repeat, and she has added considerably to this debate. I also take the opportunity to join in the tributes that were made earlier to Alan Haselhurst, Madam Deputy Speaker, who occupied your Chair with immense dignity and considerable rigour, but did so with deep warmth and kindness. He will be missed in both Chambers of this place. Turning to the motion, I will say something about the process that has led to the publication of the documents we are now considering, and then something about their contents. On the process, I start by offering thanks to the officials of the Cabinet Office and the staff of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The whole House will now be conscious of the sheer scale of the task that lay before both those groups of people and the immense work that they all had to put in to turn the process around as quickly as they did. The House will also now appreciate that, given their nature, it was inevitable that a large number of those documents raised questions of either national security or international relations. On behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee, I want to make it very clear, as I have before, first that we are very grateful for the words of the Paymaster General, and indeed the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister on previous occasions, on the work that we have done. Secondly, I want to reassure the House that throughout the process, we were rigorous in our view that Government embarrassment was not sufficient cause for redaction of these documents. I hope the House can now see that that is the case, as there is plenty of Government embarrassment left unredacted. The prejudice that we sought to establish in relation to international relations or national security needed to be real prejudice, and not the vague possibility of that prejudice. That is the way in which we approached the task. I am confident in the redactions that we agreed to make, and indeed in the decisions we took not to support the redactions that we refused to consent to. In the process that we undertook—I have spoken about this before—two issues of process have arisen. The first is the question of who checks proposed redactions for reasons other than national security or international relations. I am very glad that the Government have agreed that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) should fulfil that role, as he has now done. The second concerns the grounds for redaction beyond the protection of national security or international relations. As many who have heard these conversations before know, I have been and remain critical of the way the Government have maintained the unilateral right to redact for other reasons. I do not propose to go through all those arguments again. I take that position not because I do not think the Government have a good case to do so, but because I think it is wrong for the Government to assume Parliament’s consent to that case.

The right hon. Lady persuades us that there is a good hypothesis, as she has described, for how this has happened, although we will never know—only the Prime Minister will know. However, does she accept that there is another hypothesis: that the Prime Minister was convinced early that this was the right thing to do, that the system accepted that that was his judgment, and that nobody sought sufficiently strongly to try to persuade him otherwise, until the appointment was finally confirmed?

I am happy to give the right hon. Gentleman that clarity. The documents that we received were unredacted documents marked with the proposed redactions the Government sought to make for reasons of protecting national security or international relations. Where we agreed with the Government, we agreed that those redactions should be made; where we disagreed, those redactions were not made. We saw all the documents unredacted, and we decided whether to accept the Government’s proposals for redaction or not. The House made it clear that it wanted the final word on those redactions—yes or no—to be ours as a Committee, and not the Government’s. I hope that is of assistance to the right hon. Gentleman.

The answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that we will have seen only the documents to which there were proposed redactions for the purposes of either national security or international relations. However, we may well also have seen other proposed redactions to the same documents. The reason that I have raised concerns in the past about the breadth of those proposed redactions for other reasons is that the Committee has seen some of those proposed redactions, but, of course, we have no way of knowing what proportion of such proposed redactions we have seen—if a document does not contain within it redactions that the Government have proposed for either international relations or national security reasons, the document would not have come before us at all.

We need to be very clear about this: the arguments the Minister is making are right, but as the hon. Lady points out, they are not a response to the arguments we are making. The argument that has been made to him by the Intelligence and Security Committee, as he knows, is that there is no harm to be found in the disclosure of the conclusions of the vetting process. We accept absolutely that the contributing material that led to those conclusions should not be disclosed. I need him to be very clear that it is our view that the conclusions could be disclosed, and there is no harm to be done to national security, which there would be if the contributing material were disclosed, by the disclosure of the conclusions. Will he confirm that?

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I want to ask the Secretary of State about the breadth of the Bill. Clause 1 makes it clear that a “steel undertaking” includes those businesses that have the “manufacture or processing” of iron or steel as part of their operations. Is there any lower threshold to that? Is a business that has only 1% of its operations in iron or steel liable to nationalisation under the Bill? Under clause 2, the Secretary of State is entitled to determine the public interest and can nationalise if it would support “the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.” I have the same question: is there any lower threshold? Would the interests of one town where a steel facility is located be sufficient to justify the nationalisation of an entire company?

Will the Secretary of State give way?

The Secretary of State is being generous. I take him at his word as I do not think that he intends to use this legislation otherwise than appropriately. However, there is an important point to be made about the language in the Bill as it stands. As he knows, the public interest test is defined in certain ways in clause 2, which states that the test “is not limited to” the grounds listed, so there could be other grounds on which the public interest might be met. I have already pointed out one aspect in which the public interest test is relatively broad. I invite the Secretary of State to look again at the public interest test to make sure that we do not just rely on his word, which I do, but that we are confident that succeeding Secretaries of State cannot misuse this power to nationalise too broadly.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question, and I thank the Minister for what he has said. As you and the House know, the Intelligence and Security Committee has been considering redactions to documents on the grounds that, if unredacted, those documents may prejudice national security or international relations. It has become apparent to us that the Government also intend to redact documents for other reasons not specifically permitted in the Humble Address or, in some cases, to withhold documents altogether. As the Minister says, the Government issued a list of further grounds on which they intended to redact along with the first tranche of documents that they published. Those grounds include email addresses, phone numbers and what is described as personal data. There is no mechanism for the House to confirm that those redactions are limited only to what is necessary, but I want to ask the Minister about material that the Government intend to withhold for yet further reasons, such as commercial confidentiality or to protect the monarch. The Government also intend to withhold some documents related to vetting in their entirety. I should make it clear that my Committee has considerable sympathy with the substantive arguments that the Government may make for withholding information beyond that currently justified in the Humble Address. There are, for example, valid concerns about the disclosure of information given in a vetting process inhibiting future subjects of vetting, or those who are asked about them, from being as open and forthcoming as they need to be for vetting to be effective. However, we cannot accept that the Government are entitled to ignore, or unilaterally alter, the terms of the Humble Address. Does the Minister accept that if the Government want to argue that the Humble Address is too broad as drafted and needs to be refined, they must come to the House and make that argument, and secure the House’s consent to any alteration? Does he further accept that without doing so, when the next set of documents is published with information withheld, the Government will not succeed in persuading the House or the wider world that this matter is closed? Finally, does he accept that if the Government took it upon themselves to redact or withhold information contrary to the terms of the Humble Address by which they agreed to be bound in February, that would be an issue not just of process, but of parliamentary sovereignty?

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on the Government’s approach to redacting or withholding documents within scope of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February 2026.

I have to say, I share a good deal of the Secretary of State’s frustration, not least because I was one of those who argued at the time that if the speed of the railway was reduced to roughly what she is proposing, it would open up a number of alternative route options, avoiding the open countryside that the line now cuts across. Can I counter-intuitively ask her to be a little more ambitious, despite everything she has said about high-speed rail? She will recognise that the strategic benefits of high-speed rail, as they were put to this House originally, were about a nationwide network, not simply a line between London and Birmingham. Can she confirm that this Government—and future Governments, hopefully—will seek to expand that network, so that high-speed rail focuses not on going faster, but on going further?

Can I ask the Secretary of State about two things? The first is education, which he has mentioned. It is, of course, important to look at education for young people in a custodial setting, but does he agree that it is also important to consider the link between attendance at education and rehabilitation for those who have received non-custodial disposals, and will he ensure that his proposals make that link clear? Secondly, in relation to advocacy on behalf of young people within the youth justice system, the Secretary of State will recognise that, with a smaller number of young people going through the system, it is more and more difficult to maintain a specialist advocacy profession and to ensure that advocates are properly rewarded for the very specific skills they need to develop. Will he look at the fee structure for advocates and ensure that we continue to encourage the right balance of skills, attention to conferences and that they get to know the client, which is particularly important for young people in the youth justice system?

Q7. Many of us across this House worked hard to pass the Online Safety Act 2023, not because we thought it would be the last word on online safety, but because we believed it was an important step forward in making online platforms more accountable for the content on their services and for the algorithms that curate it. Can the Prime Minister reassure us that whatever his Government decide to do to restrict our young people’s access to social media will not be used as cover by social media companies to do less themselves to keep young people safer online?

I thank the Minister for his kind words about the hard work of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He will recognise and want to reflect with the House that we cannot work any faster than the speed at which the documents are given to us by the Government; the last of them, as he said, is being given to us today. The process will not be complete by Prorogation, as perhaps it should have been. I would like to raise two points of concern in what the Minister has said to us this afternoon. The first is about redaction. He has made it clear that the Government intend to redact for reasons beyond the Humble Address exemption related to international relations and national security; he has described that as the names of junior officials, personal information or legally privileged information. On Thursday, I put it to the Leader of the House that the Government document describing their approach to redactions is substantially wider than that. It says: “It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including”— but of course not limited to— “commercially sensitive information.” Will the Minister please, either today or in writing, explain clearly on what grounds the Government intend to redact these documents? If, as I suspect, some of the grounds on which the Government propose to redact are beyond the scope of the Humble Address, will he confirm that the Government must return to this House and seek consent so to do? With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my final point is also about redaction. The Minister has said in his statement that the Government will not publish information that undermines or threatens our country’s national security or international relations. As he knows, in accordance with the process agreed, it will be for the Intelligence and Security Committee to determine those questions, not the Government—won’t it?

Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was about whether the Minister would confirm that it will be the ISC that determines redactions on the basis of international relations and national security.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I want to raise three points with the Leader of the House about the operation of the Humble Address agreed by the House on 4 February. I make clear that I do so on behalf of the Intelligence and Security Committee. First, I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that under the terms of the Humble Address, no one within Government has the right to withhold, deny or not disclose the existence of any document within the scope of the Humble Address. Secondly, as the Leader of the House knows, the exemptions set out in the Humble Address that relate to the Intelligence and Security Committee are about redactions that need to be made to protect either national security or international relations. Beyond that, the Government produced a document to go along with the first disclosure of material on 11 March, which set out a number of grounds on which the Government would also seek to redact information. If you will permit me, Mr Speaker, I will quote what they are. The document mentions “Individuals’ email addresses and phone numbers; the identities of junior civil servants; personal data of third parties where this is not in scope of the motion; and legal professional privilege.” It also makes reference to a “small amount of Peter Mandelson’s personal data”, and then says that “It may also be necessary for the government to make further redactions in future publications based on other public interest principles, including commercially sensitive information.” I invite the Leader of the House to confirm that if the Government intend to do so, they need to come to this House to explain what those grounds for redaction will be, because—as I hope he will agree—they are not covered by the terms of the Humble Address as it stands. It is important that the House has the chance to validate the Government’s view that further redactions would be appropriate. My third point is about redactions on grounds other than national security or international relations. As the Leader of the House knows, the Committee I am part of is going through documents now to confirm that the redactions the Government propose to make are appropriate on the grounds of national security or international relations, but no one is doing the same work in relation to redactions that the Government seek to make for other reasons. Should they not be, and should there not be an opportunity for someone in this House to look at the unredacted versions of those documents, to confirm that the redactions the Government are seeking to make are appropriate?

The Prime Minister has been very clear about his view of the urgency of his response since he learned of this vetting information, so I want to ask him about the events of last week. He will know that the Intelligence and Security Committee asked for any information relevant to vetting to be supplied to it in the first tranche of information we were to consider. We did not receive anything about vetting at that time. The Prime Minister has now told us that he became aware on Tuesday evening of the information he has set out, but the Intelligence and Security Committee was not told about the existence of that information—information that the Prime Minister must have recognised was within the terms of the Humble Address and would need to be supplied to the ISC. We were not told by his officials about the existence of that information until Thursday, after its existence had been published in The Guardian newspaper. As such, I am bound to ask the Prime Minister this: if that information’s existence had not been disclosed by the press, would we have been told about it? If so, why did the ISC have to learn of its existence from The Guardian and not from the Government?

Q2. In January last year, I raised with the Prime Minister the issue of inadequate and inaccessible compensation for those injured by covid vaccinations. The Prime Minister undertook to look into it, along with the Health Secretary, but I am afraid that more than a year later no significant progress has been made. I know that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise the risk that this issue poses to public confidence in mass vaccination—all the more important given the Prime Minister’s opening remarks in this session—and, indeed, the pain it has caused to those who have been injured or lost loved ones for doing only what their Government asked them to do. Will the Prime Minister please re-engage with this issue and ensure that his Government make swift progress in resolving it?

The Lord Chancellor has quite properly recognised the Government’s debt of gratitude to Sir Brian Leveson, but will he accept that the Government have been somewhat selective in adopting Sir Brian’s recommendations? He knows that Sir Brian did not recommend that all cases that are triable either way should have the right to elect for jury trial to be removed from them. He also knows, incidentally, that Sir Brian did not propose an increase in magistrates’ sentencing powers to up to two years; he suggested that it remain at 12 months. What the Lord Chancellor has not done is adopt some of Sir Brian’s recommendations in relation to encouraging early guilty pleas, which would have a significant impact on the backlog. Why have the Government selected for priority purposes the recommendations that would have an impact on the right of jury trial, and not some other recommendations that would have a similar effect on the backlog?

My hon. Friend is making the point that consultation on and discussion of the Bill may be fruitful if we are to properly understand its effects. One difference the Bill will make is that when a judge tries a case on his or her own, in the absence of a jury, they will be required by the Bill to give reasons for any conviction that they conclude is appropriate. Does my hon. Friend think that the Government have considered the potential impact of that on likely appeals of those decisions to the Court of Appeal?

As I hope the Minister would accept, the last trial of those accused of alleged espionage on behalf of China foundered—to put it at its mildest—because of a lack of shared understanding between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government about the evidence that the Government could properly submit in support of that prosecution. I do not expect him to comment about the specifics of this case, but would he accept that it would be sensible for the Government now to ensure that as this matter develops, no such misunderstanding occurs, and that the relationship between the CPS and the Government is in the right place to ensure that evidential conversations are held early rather than late? Finally, would he accept that it would be sensible for the Intelligence and Security Committee to be kept up to date as this matter develops, given that we meet in private and the risks of prejudicing future prosecutions are lower in our case?

I will call Rebecca Smith to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. I am afraid that there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as she knows is the convention for these shorter debates.

Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows that the terms of this debate are fairly confined to healthcare. He is perfectly entitled to set out the context, but I know that he will want to shortly come on to discuss healthcare specifically.

I can give the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) three minutes to speak.

I thank the hon. Lady very much for her co-operation and self-restraint; I extend the same thanks to all colleagues who have spoken. We will now move on to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she knows, because she heard me intervene in the debate earlier, I have been listening carefully to ensure that speakers keep to the subject of healthcare. As she also heard me say to the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is perfectly in order for speakers to talk about the context to a degree. I have been listening carefully to the shadow Minister; if what he had said had been out of order, I would have told him so. I will take the opportunity while I am on my feet to say that the hon. Lady and all Members know that this has been a serious and passionate debate throughout. I hope that Members will respect the fact that passionate contributions from both sides of the argument are perfectly rational and in order, and should be heard with the same respect that all other contributions have been heard with.

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman very much for opening the debate. I remind all Back-Bench Members that they should bob if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest in the debate; if everyone can keep themselves to five minutes or less, we will get all Back Benchers in to speak.

Order. We will need to move on to Front-Bench contributions at about 10.28 am. We have two speakers left, so if they keep to under four minutes, we can get them both in.

I am grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker; I apologise for having missed the Minister’s opening remarks, but I did hear him endorse the integrity of the ISC. I entirely agree. It is important that I say from the Conservative Benches, just as my Committee colleague the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) said from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that we have full confidence in the integrity of the Labour members of the ISC to do the job that the House has commissioned us to do. May I put to the Minister a point about the problems that the Government now have? It seems to me that the potential problems for them in complying with the Humble Address are: first, the volume of material that it may cover and, secondly, what the Metropolitan police wish us to hold for the purposes of their investigation. On the first point, does he agree that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) put it to him—if the Government seek to moderate the terms of the Humble Address in any way to take account of the volume, they must come back to the House for its consent? On the material that may concern the Metropolitan police, does he agree that as it will not be made public if it is submitted to the ISC, there is no reason to slow down the referral of documents to my Committee simply because of concerns the police may have that if material is made public it may prejudice a future trial?

Order. I gently remind Members that if they cannot stick to five minutes or less, those at the end of the list will get a lot less.

With noble exception of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), we have not been entirely successful at sticking to five minutes. I must ask those remaining to keep to below four minutes so that we can try to get everybody in.

I call Edward Morello, who has less than one minute.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to all Back-Bench colleagues for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench speeches, beginning with that of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am grateful to the Minister. It is of course up to the Minister to give way to whoever she wishes to, but she is perfectly right. The hon. Member was not here for the vast majority of the debate, and it is not courteous to the House, to this Chamber or to those who have participated in the entirety of the debate for her to seek to intervene at this late stage.

I call Charlie Maynard, but the bad news is that I can only give him three minutes.

Order. I remind all Members who wish to speak that they need to continue to bob throughout the debate, so that we know. If everyone sticks to about five minutes, we should get everybody in comfortably.

Before the hon. Gentleman replies, the hon. Lady is perfectly right that long-form content is better in some contexts, but not here.

I will call Luke Charters to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and the Minister; they may, of course, intervene, if either is prepared to take an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for these shorter debates.

Will my hon. Friend give way on that?

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I recognise that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) asks in order to assist the House. If it is of assistance, the answer to his question is that when the material is referred to the Intelligence and Security Committee, the Committee, which is independent, will act independently: it will consider the material referred to it and then decide how to respond, what to refer to publicly and what not to refer to publicly. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will act independently in this matter, as it does in all matters.

Since my hon. Friend mentions the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I am a member, may I put this to him? The purpose of the ISC is not to act as some filter to decide what should go to the rest of Parliament; it is to act on behalf of Parliament to consider material that Parliament, for good reason, cannot see. This is a motion about whether the Government should disclose all the relevant material to Parliament. In that context, is it not a perfectly usable and familiar mechanism for Parliament in circumstances such as these, by which the Government may disclose anything that they do not believe the whole Chamber can see to the Intelligence and Security Committee?

I am really grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that he takes the role of the ISC very seriously, and I appreciate that he is trying to help the House with what he has just said. However, he will appreciate that the difficulty for the House is that it needs to decide what to do in relation to the motion before it today; Members on both sides will have to decide how they should cast their vote. Although there is some reassurance in the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be involved in the Cabinet Secretary’s process, that will not be possible before we have to reach a decision on this motion. The principle here is surely this: the whole House cannot see everything. I have sympathy with the Minister in relation to national security material and, I am bound to say, rather more sympathy than my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) with regard to potentially sensitive material on international relations. Following the comments made by Government Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), is not the answer today that those on the Opposition Front would accept their motion including the concept that, if material is sensitive, it would be supplied only to the ISC, not to the whole House, but that everything should be disclosed to the House either via that route or via a route to the whole House?

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way; I know he wants to move on to the motion, but just before he does so, I would be grateful for some reassurance from him on a point that was raised by my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. The Minister has moved the manuscript amendment. If the House passes this motion with the manuscript amendment, a volume of material will reach the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that our administrative resources are limited, and we do not know what volume of material may be coming our way. The House will expect us to do a thorough job and we will seek to do one, but can he reassure me, and the House, that the Committee will have the additional administrative resources, if it needs them, to consider that material properly?

Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate, and remind all Back-Bench colleagues that you should continue to bob, please, if you wish to speak. Given the level of interest, if everyone can confine themselves to about five minutes each, we should get everybody in.

Order. As hon. Members will see, we have four speakers remaining. I want to start the Front-Bench speeches at about 2.28 pm, so that probably means that Members have about four and a half minutes each, I am afraid.

The Secretary of State has made reference to the interaction of whatever she may consult on with the operation of the current law. Following on from the comments of the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Dame Chi Onwurah), will the Secretary of State confirm that even if the Government pursue a ban on social media for the under-16s, they will not seek to dilute the child safety duties under the Online Safety Act?

As you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House would expect, the Intelligence and Security Committee has investigated the security implications of this proposal, and specifically whether the intelligence community had sufficient opportunity to feed in any security concerns, and whether Ministers had the necessary information on which to base a decision. I want to quote directly from our conclusions, which represent the Committee’s unanimous view: “On the basis of the evidence we have received, and having carefully reviewed the nuanced national security considerations, the Committee has concluded that, taken as a whole, the national security concerns that arise can be satisfactorily mitigated.” I will say, though, that we have been concerned solely with the national security perspective, not with the other arguments for or against a new embassy. It has proved more difficult than it should have been to get straightforward answers to our basic questions. The process in Government does not seem to be effectively co-ordinated, or as robust as would have been expected. In particular, there was a lack of clarity about the role that national security considerations play in planning decisions. We will take those matters up further with the Government, as I know the Minister would expect.

I welcome what the Secretary of State has said, and the robust encouragement that the Government have given Ofcom to act on this issue. When she considers Ofcom’s capacity to act, not just its willingness to do so, will she also consider whether injunctive-style relief ought to be available, so that it can act urgently when circumstances require? May I also ask about risk assessment? Because of the centrality of risk assessment to the process of the Online Safety Act 2023, it matters hugely whether a platform has assessed a risk, leading to its safety duties to do something about that risk. Will the Secretary of State discuss with Ofcom whether X has done a proper risk assessment and kept it up to date? At the very least we now know that X is on notice that its AI tools can be used for the promulgation of illegal content on its platform.

I will call Dr Allison Gardner to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members who are present that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of both the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister; subject to the discretion of the Minister and the Member in charge, they may of course make an intervention. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

I am very grateful to the hon. Member. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered mental health support for people with terminal illnesses.

I do not want to compress the debate, as I appreciate it is a very sensitive subject. If the Minister can complete what he has to say in less than a minute, I will allow him to do so. If he needs longer, I will allow that after the Divisions.

Order. I am afraid that we will now need to suspend as the Division is active. I will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes for the first Division and for 10 minutes for any subsequent Divisions. I gather that there may be several Divisions, so I apologise to the Minister and all other Members who will have to wait.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I say this mostly for the benefit of those in the Public Gallery, but we are expecting votes in the main Chamber soon. If that happens, I will suspend the sitting and we will reconvene when the votes are complete. I call Jim Shannon.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West may have a very brief word.

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but a Division has been called. I am very much in the Minister’s hands at this point, and I am conscious that there may be more he wishes to say. If he has only a minute or two of his speech remaining, I gather there will be several Divisions, so I do not want to force everyone to come back for just that. If he has more to say, there is of course more time for him to take, and the same applies to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West. I am in the Minister’s hands; does he wish to conclude now, or would he rather come back?

Order. I am trying to avoid setting a formal time limit, but people will need to help me; I am afraid speeches will need to be sub-three minutes.

I am grateful to all the hon. Members who spoke for their co-operation. We now come to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats.

I was worried when the hon. Gentleman was not on my list.

We have 10 speakers to come and I have to start Front-Bench speeches at about 3.30 pm, so speeches will need to be nearer three minutes, I am afraid. I call Pippa Heylings.

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for opening the debate. I remind Members that they should stand if they wish to be called. Members can see the level of interest that there is in this debate. If everyone keeps their speeches to between three and four minutes, I hope we will get everybody in, but I will not impose an actual time limit yet.

The Government deserve credit for taking seriously a serious report into a serious problem, but is it the Justice Secretary’s preference that the changes he has outlined to jury trial will be permanent or that they will recede when the problem of backlogs recedes? In relation to judges alone deciding either-way cases, he knows that Sir Brian’s recommendation is that the presumption should be that there would be judge-only trials for cases where the sentence may be three years or less, but that presumption could be rebutted. Is it the Government’s intention that that should be a presumption and not a definitive rule? Finally, he knows that Sir Brian also recommended that plea hearings be pushed back to allow for advice on guilty pleas to be given more clearly and more fully, and that is likely to increase the number of guilty pleas preventing cracked trials. The Justice Secretary has talked about extra funding for the criminal Bar, but will he focus that funding so that people can be advised early and we can avoid those cracked trials?

I welcome a great deal of what the Minister said in his statement. As I am sure he agrees, just as we know that China can simultaneously represent a national security threat and economic opportunity, China knows it too. That means that—even if it were not the right thing to do in and of itself, which of course it is—standing up for our national security is unlikely to prejudice any international trading relationship that we seek to pursue with China, because China respects strength. May I ask the Minister for help on one specific question in relation to the embassy? I know that he respects the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He knows that that Committee is relied upon by this House to provide judgment on matters in which intelligence is involved and the House cannot do so itself. The embassy is clearly one such matter. If the Government seek to make a decision on that before Christmas—he may not be able to say whether that is still the case—will he ensure that the ISC has all the material we need to make a judgment on behalf of the House? As yet, we do not have it.

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially so early in his remarks. I apologise to him and to the House for not being here for his opening remarks, which he has just mentioned. In them, he talked a little about Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 31. I am grateful to him for the concession that the Government are making and for the moves they intend to make. However, can I make just two criticisms of Government amendments (a) and (b)? The first is very minor; Government amendment (a) refers to the “Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2028”. That should, of course, be 2018. I know that the Minister will be able to correct that error in due course. The more substantive criticism is about data collection. The Minister will know that is the only substantive difference left between the Government’s proposal and the one that I made on Report in this place and that Lord Borwick made in the other place. When we seek to improve access for people with disabilities to charging infrastructure, we should be able to keep track of progress. If the Minister is not minded to do that in the context of this Bill, will he consider other ways in which we can be sure that progress is being made in the direction that he and I both want to see?

I recognise the strength of the case that the Prime Minister is making. He will understand the interest that the Intelligence and Security Committee has in clause 6 of the Bill, which provides for certain exemptions for those who work for the intelligence agencies. It then says that those people should report internally within their organisation any information that may be of use to an inquiry or investigation. Will he give some thought to how the Government might develop a concept of what then happens to that information, about which the Bill is broadly silent? He will understand that many will be concerned to ensure that when information is reported internally within the intelligence agencies, it none the less finds its way to those who should have it, in order to give reassurance about what the Government are seeking to achieve more broadly in this Bill.

I first of all thank the Minister for what he said about co-operation with the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter. I agree with him, as I often do, that the Government are entitled to clarity about what the question they are being asked is. The question for me is not whether the Government sought to intervene to persuade the DPP to take a different view. I do not think the Government did that. Neither do I think the Government went back and sought to change evidence it had already submitted. The question is, when the CPS asked for additional evidence, as it undoubtedly did, whether the Government chose to supply that evidence or not. That is not about interference; it is about responding to a request made to Government by the CPS. Given that we now know that the request was to make it clear in terms that, during the relevant period, China was a current national security threat to the UK, who in the Home Office or elsewhere decided that that could not be submitted in a further statement of evidence in very clear terms?

The first question was about why the deputy National Security Adviser included reference to economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that that was not the question he was being asked, nor the relevant question.

It is now clear that the Crown Prosecution Service asked the Government more than once, over more than a year, for some additional evidence on what the CPS considered to be the crucial question of whether China constituted a national security threat during the relevant period. It seems to me, having read those statements, that at least two important questions arise. The first is the one just asked by the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg). Given that it was clear at the point when the deputy National Security Adviser made his second and third statements that the question he was being asked to comment on was whether that bar of being a national security threat was met or not, what is the possible relevance of the inclusion of information about China as an economic opportunity? Surely the Minister and the Government can see that that only weakens the substance of the question that that witness was being asked to answer. It would be useful to understand whether the DNSA came to that view on his own or had it suggested to him that that would be a useful thing to include. The second question is this. The Government have been clear—the Minister has been today, and the Prime Minister was yesterday—about how disappointed they are at the outcome of the trial and how much they wanted the prosecution to proceed. Given the length of time and the number of requests received by the CPS, surely it would be logical to assume that the Government would be straining every sinew to find extra evidence to meet the CPS’s requirement. Whether they thought the CPS was right to ask for it or not, it was clear that, with that extra evidence, the CPS would have proceeded with the case as the Government say they wanted. What evidence can the Government provide to us that every sinew was strained and that they did everything they could to find that evidence? If that evidence is in fact available and others could find it, will the Government not have some explaining to do?

I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate. In particular, I thank the Chair of the Justice Committee for rearranging his Committee’s diaries so that its members could do so. This has, I hope, been a constructive debate, not least for the Minister to add to her considerations. I hope she will forgive the damage I do to her career prospects by saying that I am glad she is in a position to do it, and I know that she will approach it with the requisite seriousness that the process demands. The Minister is right to say that there is a degree of consensus—we all agree there is a problem. As she knows, the curse of this place is that we tend to identify a problem and ask an expert to help us find a solution, but when they do so, we do not always have the courage to implement the solutions that are put to us. I hope that we find that courage, because it may be that some of these solutions are controversial and have significant downsides, but the burning platform that Sir Brian has described is undoubtedly there. Therefore, we must act and must find a way of doing so with as much consensus as possible, and I know that is the approach that the Government will seek to take over the coming weeks. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1.

I understand the point the hon. Lady is making, and to be fair to Sir Brian, he is not suggesting that we remove jury trial in all cases; he is very much talking about a subset of cases in which he thinks it is worth restricting that right. However, she is right that we must balance the clear advantages of jury trials, in terms of the interests of justice, with some of the structural and organisational challenge the system undoubtedly faces. To go back to the first point I made, Sir Brian is clear that the current situation cannot persist for much longer without significant change. All the changes we might consider will have downsides as well as upsides, but we must be prepared to contemplate change of some sort. The hon. Lady is also right that people have come to see jury trials as considerably advantageous in the delivery of justice, particularly for some of our fellow citizens. However, it is also right to recognise that although we cannot blame jury trial for all the mess we are in, jury trials do take longer than other trials. I am afraid that we will exacerbate the pressure on the criminal court system if we do not at least look carefully at the prospects for restricting those sorts of trials, in addition to other changes.

Yes. My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Again, to be fair to Sir Brian, it is not within his capacity to do all the analysis necessary to follow through his recommendations and to understand quite what the effect on the system will be. However, I agree with my hon. Friend’s point. As I was about to say, we have to balance the advantages that Sir Brian sets out with the disadvantages that would undoubtedly arise from his proposals. It is hard to do that in an informed way if we do not know exactly what the resource benefits will be of implementing these proposals. Let me come on to the third area of recommendations that I want to discuss, regarding the removal of a right to jury trial, particularly in complex fraud cases, where trials can take months and where, apart from anything else, the impact on the lives and jobs of jurors can be immense. As I have suggested, this is not a new idea by any stretch of the imagination, but I am not yet certain that it would be right to conduct all such trials without a jury. Many who practise in this area, and some judges, continue to believe that juries can consider these cases thoroughly and fairly and reach appropriate verdicts, even when the evidence is complex; indeed, I have seen that for myself. The argument is made that these cases are really about dishonesty, and that it is the job of counsel and of the judge to make the issues and the evidence clear to a jury. All of those are reasonable arguments, and those of us who believe in the jury system instinctively baulk at the idea of restricting it. However, I go back to the central premise of this report: the system is under intolerable pressure, and something must be done about it. If it can be established—this goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox)—that complex fraud trials are indeed the cause of much of that pressure and, crucially, that judge-only trials would help substantially to relieve it, then given the relatively even balance of arguments for and against this change, which have been made for decades, it is perhaps a least worst option worth considering. Sir Brian’s proposal to allow most defendants to opt for a judge-only trial if they wish is of course much less controversial and well worth pursuing, as it does not inhibit the right to a jury trial if a defendant still wishes to have one. The only caveat is that we must avoid the complexity of allowing different defendants in the same case to have different types of trial. If all defendants in one trial cannot agree on a judge-only trial, I am afraid that all must be tried by a jury. Any other approach would lead to multiple trials, which could and should have been avoided because of their impact on witnesses, who would have to give evidence repeatedly, and because they would reduce or eliminate the benefit of judge-only trials in using up less court time. As I said, there is too much in this review of the criminal courts for me to be able to talk about everything, and there are some important recommendations that I have not been able to mention—perhaps others will. I want to finish where I started, with the reason this review was commissioned and the inescapable context of it: our criminal courts are under incredible pressure, and there must be a policy response to relieve it. Otherwise, we may see the expectation of fair and swift justice, which underpins our society, erode or even fail. That is not something that we—Government or Parliament—can allow to happen. If Sir Brian Leveson’s proposals are not to be adopted, others must be. On that crucial question, I look forward to hearing what colleagues and the Minister have to say.

I beg to move, That this House has considered the Independent Review of the Criminal Courts: Part 1. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Despite the title of this debate—which I will immediately concede is less than exciting—it focuses on a serious problem with significant consequences. The criminal courts of England and Wales are under very significant strain. That is translating to very long delays from early hearings in criminal cases to the hearing of trials. I was at my local Crown court a couple of weeks ago and the delay there was at least 18 months. It is as bad or worse elsewhere. That delay is not just an administrative problem; it has real, human consequences. It means a longer wait before a victim of crime or a witness in criminal proceedings can see the case resolved and move on with their lives. Of course, the longer it takes to get to trial, the harder it is to remember detail and to give the best evidence possible. For a defendant—and it is worth recalling that not every defendant is found guilty—the case continues to hang over their head along with, in some cases, the threat of potentially losing their liberty. A defendant in custody awaiting trial adds to the pressure on the prison population for longer than they should if the eventual outcome of their trial is acquittal or a non-custodial sentence. We can see that in the statistics: remand prisoners made up 11% of the prison population in 2018 but that figure was up to 20% in 2024. There are other consequences of long periods on remand. Remand prisoners are not convicted so no work is done on their rehabilitation in prison. Time spent on remand counts towards an eventual prison sentence but spending longer on remand means a greater proportion of the eventual sentence—in some cases, the majority of the sentence that is ultimately handed down—is served without any rehabilitative work being done to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Substantial periods on remand also mean that there are more cases where a custodial sentence is imposed at the end of it but the whole sentence has already been served on remand, so the offender is released immediately after the trial. That can be hard to understand and accept for victims and the public, who have to watch that offender walk free from court despite their conviction. Long delays in the criminal courts should worry us all. They certainly worry the Government, who have commissioned Sir Brian Leveson, a very senior and experienced judge, to review the operation of the criminal courts and recommend improvements. Part 1 of his review was published on 18 June and deals with the policy changes that he believes may improve the situation. I have no doubt that Ministers will have been considering those recommendations carefully and will take up some or all of them, but we in Parliament should consider them carefully too. That is why I sought this debate. I have worked with Sir Brian in a variety of roles and have huge respect for his insight and judgment. The report that he published is 378 pages long; I cannot do justice to all of it in this debate—you will be grateful to hear, Mr Efford—but I do want to say something about his analysis of the problem and some of his solutions. First, I will discuss the problem and the reasons for it. Those interested only in political attack lines will always be able to find them, but this issue deserves deeper analysis. Of course more resources will be important, and Sir Brian makes that clear, but previous reductions in funding can be at least partly explained by periods of reduced demand. The number of cases received by the Crown courts fell, for example, during the nine years I was in government from 150,000 in 2010 to 102,000 in 2019. The open caseload, which is the number of cases begun in the Crown court but not yet completed, fell from 55,000 in 2014 to 33,000 in 2018, but it has increased significantly since, standing at a historical high of 75,000 in 2024. As Sir Brian set out in his review, there are many reasons for that. It is true that the system has not yet entirely recovered from the covid pandemic, but the other reasons are more structural. Central among them is that the type of cases being heard matters as much as the overall number of cases. The criminal courts are now hearing a greater proportion of cases involving sexual offences or fraud, which are more complex and take longer to resolve, so the length of the average Crown court trial has doubled between 2001 and 2024. The complexity of trials has also been increased by the greater volume of digital evidence, including from mobile phones. All of that leads Sir Brian to conclude that we cannot go on as we are, and I think he is right. We all know how difficult it will be for the Government to find significant extra resource for the criminal court system. Even if they could, it would not be enough to address the very different workload and ways of working that the system now deals with so, as Sir Brian urges us, we should look at structural change. As I said at the outset, his review makes many recommendations that I do not have time to discuss, but I hope that the Government and the Minister, who I am delighted to see in her place, will look carefully at his proposals to end release under investigation instead of bail, which I think is sensible, and the increased standardisation of out-of-court disposals. I want to focus on Sir Brian’s recommendations in three areas. The first is how we can encourage guilty pleas, where they are appropriate, to be entered earlier. If a guilty plea is how a criminal case should and will be resolved, the earlier it is given the more quickly victims and witnesses can be reassured that they will not need to relive their experiences by giving evidence, and the more quickly valuable and scarce court time can be allocated to other cases, so that is a change worth pursuing. Those of us who have practised in the criminal courts know that there is only so much we can do to persuade a guilty defendant to plead guilty—some will always hold out until the day of the trial in the hope that the witnesses against them fail to turn up; I am afraid that delays in hearing the trial make that more likely—but Sir Brian makes three recommendations in particular that might help. Those recommendations are that the discount on sentence for an early guilty plea should be increased from one third to 40%; judges should give defendants more information on what their sentence may be if a guilty plea is forthcoming; and the plea hearing should be delayed to allow defendants to receive fuller advice before entering a plea. I suspect that the first two will receive the most attention, but I believe the third may have the most effect. Making sure that defendants know how much shorter their sentence may be if they plead guilty rather than are found guilty, and increasing that difference with bigger discounts for early guilty pleas, may well change some minds, but must not and is not intended to constitute inappropriate pressure to plead guilty when not guilty. Defence advocates, of course, have a clear professional duty to advise their clients not to plead guilty if they do not accept their guilt, but discussions between defendants and their advocates about the evidence and the law are very often constrained because they happen only at court on the morning of the trial. It is often that that truly restricts the prospects of realistic pleas at an earlier stage, so allowing more time for that advice to be given is vital. Such advice has to be accompanied, though, by changes that will make it more likely for that extra time to be productively used. If, as I hope they will be, the Government are attracted to the idea of delaying plea hearings for that purpose, it will also be important to ensure that advocates are properly incentivised, including through fee structures, to conduct conferences with their clients in advance of the plea hearing. Where the client is in custody, allowing access to the client—preferably in person, but via video link if not—must also be made easier than it is now, or appropriate advice will not be delivered early so that appropriate pleas can be delivered early. It is also worth saying again—these points have been made many times by many people, as the Minister knows—that early advice on the prosecution case and the available defences cannot be given if the prosecution evidence has not been served on the defence in time to allow it to be properly considered. Late disclosure by the prosecution remains a fundamental problem, as does the timely production of defendants in custody at court. The second area of Sir Brian’s review I want to focus on is the proposed rebalancing of work between the Crown court and the magistrates court. It is important to recognise that, as Sir Brian points out, the bulk of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates already—around 90%, in fact, with only 1% of criminal cases being resolved by jury trial. Nevertheless, because a magistrates court trial is both quicker and cheaper than a jury trial in the Crown court, it makes sense in resource terms to shift the balance further in the direction of magistrates where there would be no injustice in doing so. Sir Brian suggests that that can be done in a number of ways. Some are fairly straightforward: for example, we could increase the financial threshold for trials of criminal damage cases in the magistrates court from £5,000 to £10,000. Of perhaps more significance from a policy perspective is the suggestion of removing the automatic right to appeal a magistrates court conviction in the Crown court and replacing it with a permission to appeal process, and that of removing the right to choose a jury trial altogether for offences with a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment or less. In the circumstances, I have no substantive objection to any of those proposals, but in relation to the last of them, I invite Ministers to consider the discrepancy it would create between, on the one hand, trials of offences for which sentences of up to two years’ imprisonment could be imposed taking place in magistrates courts and, on the other, sentencing powers for magistrates remaining limited to 12 months’ imprisonment, which Sir Brian does not seek to change. I am sure that Ministers will also want to factor in the capacity of magistrates courts to do the extra work, as there is a backlog there too, and consider whether a neater way of rebalancing the caseload towards magistrates courts would be the reclassification of some offences as summary only. They will also want to factor in, of course, the need to ensure that lay magistrates have access to good-quality legal advice when hearing cases. On changing access to jury trial, the important point is an obvious one, but one that is worth making for context. As things stand, not every criminal charge entitles a defendant to a jury trial. We already restrict the right to jury trial, so this debate is about moving the threshold for eligibility for jury trial, not about abandoning a principle of jury trials for all. I should say that I have great faith in the jury system. I have sought to persuade juries for the prosecution and for the defence in Crown court trials, and I have heard many jury verdicts, and I have retained throughout my confidence that, in general terms, this is a good system for determining guilt or innocence. However, that does not mean that we should refuse to contemplate any change or to recognise the pressure on jury trials for some of the offences that occupy large amounts of court time.

The hon. Lady is right, and juries are cheap—that is undoubtedly the case—but they do not sit without a judge, and I am afraid that we pay the judge for a jury trial, just as we would for a judge-only trial. I do not think that the financial saving, in that sense, can be left out of account, and there is not much difference, in terms of what the judge is paid, whether they are hearing the case on their own or with a jury. The only difference may be that we will make better use of that judge, because the trial will complete more quickly, and they will be able to get on to other business more quickly. However, I understand the point that the hon. Lady makes.

As the Minister says, she will have to consider each of Sir Brian’s proposals, although she will know that he says that they are to be taken as a “package” and not with a “pick-n-mix” approach. Is that something that the Government accept? Will they take the view that it is either all of Sir Brian’s recommendations or none of them, or not?

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?