Max Wilkinson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  The UK life sciences sector is something that this country should cherish. It is vital to our national wellbeing, from lifesaving research to pandemic preparedness, and it must be protected. But misguided and misdirected efforts to protect this essential industry risk further undermining many of our fundamental democratic freedoms. Time and again, the Conservative Government undermined the right to peaceful protest by passing sweeping and unnecessary powers that went far beyond what was needed to maintain public safety. The Public Order Act was one of the most troubling examples of criminalising peaceful dissent and expanding policing powers in ways that we Liberal Democrats consistently opposed. It is deeply worrying to see Labour choosing to follow the same authoritarian path, rather than to revise those damaging restrictions. Rebranding research and manufacturing sites as key national infrastructure risks turning legitimate protest into a criminal offence. Peaceful campaigners, including those raising ethical concerns, should not be treated as threats to national security. The police already had strong powers to deal with dangerous or obstructive behaviour long before the Conservative Government imposed new laws; these powers are now even stronger. Further restrictions on the democratic right to protest are deeply worrying and illiberal, and it is disappointing to see the new Government pursuing them.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows that I share his enthusiasm for speeding up housing delivery, but that can only happen if we get the right infrastructure. He is aware, as I am, of the pressure around certain motorway junction upgrades, including at junction 10, which is adjacent to my constituency. Can he give me some reassurance that motorway junctions that are crucial to the upgrades that are required to deliver the housing that he so desires will not soon be scrapped?

• 15 Dec 2025 · Violence against Women and Girls Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Violence against women and girls is a stain on society. I know that the Minister shares the passion that we feel about the issue, and I know how much work she has done in this area. However, I want to follow up on some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) that were perhaps not dealt with in as much detail as we might have hoped, given the level of the briefing to the press over the weekend. To ensure that halving violence against women and girls does not become a broken manifesto promise, how will the Home Secretary and the Minister measure progress, and what consequences will be set if progress is not made quickly enough? With misogynistic content continuing to spread online, how will Ministers ensure that social media companies are upholding their duty to protect children, particularly when figures such as Andrew Tate—described by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not in the Chamber, as an “important voice” for men—are so easily accessible? The Minister seems to be somewhat frustrated about being here today to answer the urgent question, and indeed we all feel frustrated. The Home Secretary gave many of the details of her announcements to the press this weekend. Given the seriousness of the issue, and given that we have been told that the statement will be made on Thursday—the final day before the recess—does the Minister think that this is an appropriate way to conduct government?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The health of democracy unites us all in the Chamber. Carnegie UK’s 2025 report gives the UK a score of just 41%. Separately, The Economist has a new model looking at election outcomes, and after looking at more than 10,000 scenarios it concluded that running the next election under first past the post would be akin not to sending voters into a polling booth, but to sending them to Las Vegas and pulling a one-armed bandit. There is a way out for the Government—it is good news. In the new year, the Elections (Proportional Representation) Bill, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), will return to the House. Will the Government allot some time to discuss it and get behind it so that we do not risk the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) walking into No. 10 after the pull of a one-armed bandit machine?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Grooming Gangs: Independent Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The despicable, sickening crimes that we have heard about today were first reported in the press more than 20 years ago, and the victims have already waited far too long for justice, so we welcome today’s announcement. We also welcome other details in the statement, including reforms to ensure that children cannot be considered to have consented to sexual activity with adults—the fact that that was the case is a shame on our nation—and moves to close loopholes in taxi licensing, as well as the points about data collection. Some questions remain about the process. How will the Government ensure that the inquiry remains fully independent and free from political influence and pressures regardless of the strong pressures it will face, including from in this House, and that it runs to timetable? Are Ministers still in touch with the women who recently resigned from the previous panel to offer them the chance to rejoin the process now that it is gaining some pace? What steps will the inquiry take to maintain the trust of the victims and their families? Will the Home Secretary commit to implementing all the previous recommendations from the previous Casey and Jay reviews? The national audit highlighted the incompleteness of data, but it was suggestive of concerning trends related to the modes of organisation and how they relate to ethnicity, particularly in the areas where police were recording appropriate data. The Home Secretary rightly mentioned cohesion in her statement. How will this inquiry avoid stigmatising entire communities and undermining efforts to improve cohesion in this subject and in others adjacent while thoroughly investigating the matter and ensuring that victims get the justice they deserve?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a sorry saga from the very beginning. First, we were told that the fans had to be banned for safety reasons. Intelligence reports, we were told, said that Maccabi Tel Aviv fans were highly organised, skilled fighters with the serious desire and will to fight with police and opposing groups. That was false. Last week, the West Midlands assistant chief constable told MPs that the Jewish community in the local area supported the ban. This has now been found to be false, too, and he has rightly apologised. There are serious questions to be answered about West Midlands police’s handling of this decision, so will the Minister commit to support the setting up of any independent inquiries that are needed to get to the bottom this, in excess of what is already going on, if the answers are not found, so that anyone who is responsible can be held to account? Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs in this country, the Government must reassure the Jewish community of its safety. Ministers assured me last month that the community cohesion strategy would be published when it was ready. Can they assure us that the Jewish community remains part of that process, and can they give us a concrete timeline for the strategy’s publication?

• 2 Dec 2025 · Angiolini Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  All our thoughts today will be with the family of Sarah Everard. More than four years on from her horrific murder, too many women are still suffering life-changing crimes on our streets. The inquiry makes it painfully clear that women continue to feel unsafe. They change their daily routines just to avoid very real threats. That is unacceptable in Britain today. Part one of the inquiry showed that Wayne Couzens should never have been allowed to become a police officer. Multiple opportunities to stop a dangerous sexual predator were missed or ignored. As Lady Elish Angiolini warned, without radical action, “there is nothing to stop another Couzens operating in plain sight.” Today’s report underlines just how radical that action must be. The lack of basic data on sexually motivated crimes against women and the fact that over a quarter of forces still lack fundamental policies for investigating sexual offences are nothing short of horrifying. The inquiry finds that sexually motivated crimes against women in public are not prioritised to the same extent as other serious offences. We are told that prevention “remains just words” while perpetrators slip through the cracks. Those are shocking findings that shame our nation. Will the Minister commit to implementing all 13 of Lady Angiolini’s recommendations, and will she set out a timeline for their implementation? This Government pledged to halve violence against women and girls within a decade, yet the strategy has still not been published. Will the Minister reassure us that this manifesto promise will be met, as she has said? Will she tell us today when it will be published? She says it will be soon; I think people will be reassured by a date.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  He is making a lot of money on social media, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am happy to clarify that. To compound the problem, we have the sort of Budgets that this Government are giving the nation. Last year, they decided to make it more expensive for businesses to employ people. The Government also tell us that their No. 1 priority is growth but persist with needless and harmful trade barriers and increase the cost of employing people. That is at best absurd and at worst a dereliction of duty. A short time ago, deep into the weeks of endless leaks and speculation, I met concerned local businesses. They wanted the Government to do something to ease the tax burden, to tread carefully when raising minimum wages—they did not say they were against them, though—and to make it easier for their businesses to grow. The opposite has happened. Despite the spin applied last week, here is the feedback. Edward Anderson, who runs three pubs in Cheltenham, tells me his combined business rates for the three premises will increase by £27,000 a year from April. Andrew Coates tells me that the rates across his three premises will rise by £34,500, on top of the impact of the minimum wage rises costing him £25,000. Why? On occasion, those of us who ask the Government difficult questions about sensitive and divisive matters are shouted down and told we are ignoring the problem. On this matter, it is the Government who are ignoring the problem, and Ministers know it. Without properly dealing with the consequences of Brexit by striking a new trade deal with Europe—a customs union leading to single market access and stronger realignment in future—this country will continue in the slow lane. If this Government continue to be wilfully ignorant of the impact of their actions on the private sector, this country will continue in the slow lane. If the No. 1 priority for this Government truly were prosperity, they would unleash the opportunity of a trade deal with Europe and make it easier to do business here.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Just this weekend, The Telegraph reported a secret plot to reverse Brexit by taking this country into a customs union with the EU. Sign me up for that, because we would generate plenty of investment and renewal if we did. If only that were the case. As everyone on the Government Benches and in this House knows, there is an alternative to some of the pain in the Budget. The Labour party knows that it does not really need to hike taxes on hard-pressed households or batter businesses. There is a better way. Depending on which economist we ask, the impact of Brexit has been a hit to GDP of as low as 4% or as high as 8%. What is the Government’s answer? A deal with Europe amounting to a boost to GDP of about 0.3% and a trade deal with India amounting to about 0.13%. Let us not forget the deal with Trump’s America that might be worth something or not very much at all, yesterday, today or tomorrow, depending on how well the President’s Happy Meal is going down. Those piddling trade deals are used as evidence for not pursuing closer integration with the economic bloc that covers 41% of our exports and 51% of our imports. Such freedoms we have gained: the freedom for Britain to punch itself in the mouth for ever while Reform and the Conservatives tell us that the pain we feel is the sweet taste of freedom champagne and liberty oysters. At least the Government now acknowledge that there is a problem, but the delusion continues while they argue that anything other than the obvious is the solution. What is the result of that delusion? British businesses are mired in post-Brexit regulation. The cost of living is up, the size of the state has ballooned, much to the annoyance of the Conservatives who told us it would get smaller, tax is at record levels and our economy is more vulnerable to international shocks. We are all poorer, apart from the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who is not here but whose profitable grift continues.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member accept that some of the blossoming of the public sector in this country is as a result of Brexit, for which he advocated over very many years?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban · Hansard source

  More

  It is alarming that the decision made by West Midlands police was based on intelligence parts of which the Netherlands national police force has stated is not true, according to reports in the national press this weekend. The public should be able to trust the authorities to base decisions on credible, well-sourced and proportionate intelligence. Will the Minister set out where this intelligence came from, if not the Dutch police, and if she cannot, is that one of the questions she is asking West Midlands police? Who was ultimately responsible for sourcing that intelligence? What investigations has the Home Office asked for to ensure that any circulation of misinformation and the use of that misinformation by police was not prompted by antisemitic sentiment? West Midlands police have continued to defend their decision, and to say that the threat was related to a specific sub-group of fans, not the wider fanbase. Will the Home Secretary ensure that senior West Midlands police officers come back to Parliament to appear before the Home Affairs Select Committee, to defend their decision and explain why a total ban on all supporters was justified? Finally, with antisemitic incidents remaining at record highs, what steps are the Government taking to reassure the Jewish community of their safety and tackle the root causes of antisemitism? This Government promised a community cohesion strategy last year following the Southport attacks. Part of that strategy must focus on anti-Jewish racism, so when will the Minister commit to publishing it?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The last general election gave us an extremely disproportionate result, with the Government getting a massive majority on just a third of the vote. Current opinion polls show that the next election is due to be even more disproportionate, with the party currently leading the polls likely to get a majority on around 30%, perhaps even less, of the vote. Given that is the case, given that there is huge support among members of the Labour party for voting reform, and given that the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) himself supports proportional representation, is it not time that we had a proper consideration in this House of changes to the voting system, so that the next election is not a disaster for democracy?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Migration: Settlement Pathway · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I begin, I beg your forgiveness for taking a few extra seconds to reflect on the exchanges in this Chamber on Monday. I would like to use this opportunity to put on the record my utter contempt for those who abuse the Home Secretary and anybody else who is abused based on the colour of their skin or their religion. That is not what Britain stands for. The Home Secretary will, of course, choose the language that she wants to use in this debate, and I will choose my language too. The constructive and moderate tone of voice that I and the Liberal Democrats will use in discussions about immigration will remain, as will our attempts to help offer feedback as and when the Government bring forward proposals. The number of Liberal Democrats present today shows that we are not ignoring this issue; indeed, we have as many in the Chamber as there are Reform Members—and none of them is here. Like others, we are aware of the issues facing communities up and down the country, and immigrants who live here too. We agree with the Home Secretary that faith must be restored in the immigration and asylum system, as I stated on Monday, and we agree that that requires changes to policy. Of course, most of what we are discussing today is distinct from some of the discussions we had on Monday about desperate refugees and asylum seekers. We also believe that it must be acknowledged that prior to Brexit and the removal of nearly all safe and legal routes, this country had a more rational and controlled approach to immigration and asylum. The Conservative party is responsible. We think it is regrettable that the Government have not made quicker progress towards building stronger links with Europe in their work on getting control of our immigration policy, and we believe that discussions about regaining control must also come with a proper discussion about the opportunities that that provides and the potential risks. Changes to pathways to settlement must be done with regard to the economy and public services, and with fairness to individuals. We are concerned about the chilling effect that some changes could have on the economy. The UK is fast becoming a less competitive place for science and innovation, not least because of Brexit. The cost of a five-year global talent visa to Britain is £6,000 per person—around 20 times more expensive than comparable visas in our competitor countries, where similar schemes typically cost a few hundred pounds. It is no surprise that so few researchers come to Britain on these visas every year. Cancer Research UK alone spends £900,000 annually—money that could be better spent on setting up research labs instead. The Government must also be careful about the effect that their rhetoric and policy will have on our public services. The NHS is heavily reliant on nurses and staff who are not British nationals. Has the Home Secretary made an assessment of the risk that some will leave, and what steps are this Government taking to develop domestic talent in the health and care sector?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Spring bridge in my constituency was designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel. The previous county council administration put off vital work to fix the bridge after a landslip. What can the Government do to help the current Liberal Democrat administration speed up the work to get it completed, and will the Government encourage the county council to open one lane as soon as possible, for the benefit of businesses and residents who are being put off by diversions?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that the Government are looking for ways to bring order to the asylum system, which was left in total disarray by the Conservatives. Sadly, the Government have been too slow to act. Britain has a long and proud history of responding with compassion to people fleeing unimaginable horrors. That should continue in a way that is fair and sustainable, so we welcome some of what the Home Secretary has said on that score. However, it is not helpful for the Home Secretary to claim that the country is being torn apart by immigration. Acknowledging the challenges facing our nation is one thing, but stoking division by using immoderate language is quite another. I welcome the news about safe and legal routes. The Liberal Democrats have called for such routes since they were scrapped by the Conservatives, leading to more small boat crossings, but we have some concerns about the far-reaching detail behind the proposals, which seems to be missing. The Home Secretary is revoking the legal duty to provide asylum seekers with accommodation, and says that asylum seekers should support themselves and contribute to our society, yet she is still banning them from working so that they can support themselves and contribute to our society, which makes no sense. The Home Secretary relies a lot on Denmark as an example. Denmark lets asylum seekers work after six months, so will she? Can she guarantee that the burden to house asylum seekers will not fall on already struggling local councils? Can she also guarantee that we will not see a wholesale transfer of asylum seekers from hotels to the streets? The Minister for Border Security and Asylum has announced to the media that asylum seekers could have jewellery confiscated. Is the Home Secretary doing that to raise money or to deter people? Either way, does she acknowledge that many British people will see it as unnecessary and cruel? State-sponsored robbery will certainly not fix a system that costs taxpayers £6 million every day in hotel bills. If the Government plan to keep their promise to end hotel use, they must process the claims of the 90,000 asylum seekers in the backlog. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to do that within six months using Nightingale-style processing centres. Does the Home Secretary seriously believe that an overstretched Home Office that is yet to clear the existing backlog can also undertake reviews of every refugee’s status every two-and-a-half years? The UK must continue to lead international efforts to manage large migratory flows. Because the flow of people comes from Europe, the Home Secretary will need to work with the EU on a solution. The Oxford Migration Observatory has identified a clear Brexit effect. That means that people refused asylum in the EU make a second attempt here—a consequence of the Brexit delivered by the Conservatives and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage). The Minister for Border Security and Asylum refused earlier to answer whether Brexit has harmed our immigration and asylum system, so I will ask the Home Secretary now. Does she think that Brexit has made it easier or more difficult for this country to control its borders and asylum system? Does she think that reductions in overseas development spending will reduce or increase migratory flows? We have already made it very clear that we think leaving the ECHR will make no difference to securing our borders and will tear hard-won rights away from British people. It is encouraging that the Home Secretary has said that that is not part of the Government’s plan. We urge the Government to tread carefully and act with fairness, efficiency and compassion for local communities in the UK who want this issue resolved, but also for asylum seekers.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  Metaphorically trying to kill, yes. Leaving the ECHR would do nothing to halt small boat crossings but it would deny British people hard-won rights: free speech, the Hillsborough inquiry and protections for older people. The Government have announced that they are reviewing certain articles of the ECHR—the Home Secretary has just referenced it. Can she give us a cast-iron guarantee that when she is working on these changes, she will do so in partnership with other signatories to the convention and will not follow the Conservatives and Reform in seeking to isolate this country on the international stage?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policies: Danish Model · Hansard source

  More

  On the point of asylum policy, the Liberal Democrats recently defeated an attempt by the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), backed vociferously by the Conservatives, who he is trying to kill, to rip this country out of the ECHR.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Ahead of the Budget next week, the Labour Chancellor departed from years of silence on the matter by admitting that Brexit has been a disaster for our economy. Will the Labour Home Secretary follow the Chancellor’s lead by admitting that Brexit has also caused significant harm to this country’s ability to maintain order in our immigration and asylum system?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  I host a regular business forum with Cheltenham constituents, who tell me that the late date of the Budget and the speculation around it have undermined their ability to make decisions, in particular on investment. They also note that there has been nearly no speculation about pro-business measures for those trying to start or grow a business. Might the Chief Secretary to the Treasury take this opportunity to speculate on something that might be useful for the small and medium-sized enterprises and larger businesses in my constituency?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. Maternity services are a vital part of women’s healthcare, but sadly too many women are being failed. At Cheltenham general hospital, the Aveta birth centre was temporarily closed for labour and births back in 2022. Last week we learned that there will be no decision about a potential plan for reopening it until spring next year. Does the Prime Minister agree that four years is far too long to ask local mums-to-be to wait, and will he reassure me that the temporary downgrade made under the Conservatives will not be made permanent under his Government?

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  This attack has left 11 people in hospital, one of them a member of the train staff, who is in a critical but stable condition. My party’s thoughts are with all those affected: the victims, their loved ones and everyone who witnessed such a shocking event. We also want to thank the emergency services and rail staff for their swift response, as well as the passengers who intervened to prevent further harm. After this sort of incident, it is vital that the police are given the time and space they need to establish the full facts. That is ever more difficult due to the rapid spread of disinformation online in the immediate aftermath of such attacks. Within hours, social media was flooded with speculation over the ethnicity and race of the perpetrator, inciting racist and Islamophobic comments. While communities were still reeling from the horror of the attack, certain political figures on the hard right, including members of the Reform party, were already seeking to exploit the incident for political gain. Desperate to involve themselves in the tragedy, they reached for their dog whistles. They threw around baseless opinions on levels of crime when facts were available, shamelessly trying to turn this tragedy into yet another excuse to whip up fear and sow division. The shadow Home Secretary’s comments today also veered into that realm. Never is an opportunity to blame foreigners missed—that is beneath contempt. At moments like this, those who aspire to leadership must calm fears and attempt to unite, not to inflame tensions. Does the Home Secretary share my view that while knife crime must be tackled forcefully, it is important that all of us must respond with arguments grounded in fact rather than trying to stoke fear? Can the Home Secretary confirm whether the Government hold data on violent incidents involving knives or sharp instruments where three or more victims were harmed in a single incident? If so, what is the trend over the past two years, or over any other timeframe the Home Secretary has data for? Finally, she has said that the individual was not known to anti-terror police or Prevent, but when the facts are known, will she confirm that proper lessons will be learned about individuals who may pose a risk, be it as a result of mental health issues, an obsession with extreme violence or other relevant factors?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: MOD Housing · Hansard source

  More

  We share the Minister’s concern about the approach of the official Opposition. Clearly, they left us with this mess and now they feign outrage. It appears that this Government’s proposal, sadly, is to decant asylum seekers from one kind of unsuitable and costly accommodation to another. Instead, they should be tackling the real issue: speeding up asylum decisions so that those with no right to stay are returned and those with a valid claim can work, pay tax and integrate. I will pick up the Minister’s point about the difficulty of sequencing communications. As a Member of Parliament who had an asylum hotel opened in his constituency, I was informed several weeks in advance. I offered a much better alternative form of accommodation somewhere else nearby. As I found out, the Home Office was determined to open a hotel, because that alternative was not taken up. The alternative accommodation would have been more appropriate, and my constituency feels let down. The Government have promised to end the use of hotels by 2029, yet they have put forward no credible plan to achieve that. The Lib Dems have set out a plan for ending hotel use in just six months by declaring a national emergency and setting up Nightingale processing centres to bring down the backlog. Will the Home Secretary match the Lib Dem plan by declaring that national emergency today? Will the Minister confirm whether the plan that he has put forward means speeding up decisions and returning those with no right to stay, or does it simply mean shifting large numbers of asylum seekers from one form of accommodation to another? Will he share what assessment has been made of the relative merits of Army barracks that are in or next to urban areas, as opposed to those in rural areas? Finally, will he concede that cutting overseas development spending will drive more people away from conflict zones to seek safety in Europe and onward unsafely on to boats in the English channel?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  We congratulate the Conservatives on bringing forward this debate. Given recent news headlines about their own weaknesses on this issue, doing so is what Sir Humphrey would describe as a “courageous decision”. As the third party spokesperson, I feel obliged to play the role of a marriage counsellor. It is my duty to urge both sides—the Government and the official Opposition—to concede that they have made mistakes and to bring them together in the hope of finding common ground. The Government and the official Opposition truly have more common ground on this issue than they would like to admit. The common ground is clear in the DNSA’s evidence statements, and it has become clearer as this sorry saga has dragged on. It became clearer still in yesterday’s Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy that there is barely a cigarette paper between the position of the Conservative party when it was in government and the Labour Government today. The Conservative party will not admit that, because all it wants to do is pretend that the Government are entirely to blame, which is a laudable aim for any Opposition party. The Labour party cannot admit it, because it cannot publicly concede that its position on a matter central to our national security interests is the same as that of the Conservative Government they replaced last summer. It falls to us Liberal Democrats to speak the uncomfortable parts of the truth and tell it like it is, because nobody else is willing or able to do so. While some of their brave Back Benchers spoke out when the Conservatives were in government, the machinery of the Government were keen to take an approach on China that was far from hawkish. At the heart of this issue is the often unspoken suggestion that we must take a nuanced position on China because our economy is now vulnerable to international threats. The truth is that Conservatives and their allies aligned to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) cut us adrift from the EU, and they have left Britain more exposed to economic pressure from hostile states than we should be. We find ourselves in a position where the Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation whose spies hacked the data of 40 million British voters held by the Electoral Commission. The Government cannot bring themselves to describe as a national security threat a nation that has agreed a “no limits” partnership with Putin, despite Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Just 10 days ago, Beijing was publicly bullying the Government into granting permission for the new Chinese embassy at Tower Bridge, warning of “consequences” if the Government did not approve the plans. Is our weak international trading position, caused by the disastrous Brexit given to us by Conservative and Reform Members, influencing the Government’s decision making on the new embassy? It would seem foolish to argue otherwise. I would draw a comparison between that and the Government’s position on Russia, which has been listed on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. Given the “no limits” relationship between Beijing and Moscow, it is odd that Russia is listed while China is not. If the Government really wanted to strengthen the case for prosecution, perhaps placing China on the enhanced tier would have aided the prosecution, even absent the word “enemy”. The fact that the word “enemy” appeared on the original draft witness statement but was later removed again raises concerns about what was happening during the tenure of the previous Conservative Government. The public deserve clear answers not just from those on the Government Front Bench, but from those on the official Opposition’s Front Bench. Did the DNSA meet Ministers between the initial draft and the final version of the witness statement? This House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), both of whom have shown a great deal of bravery in the very best traditions of British public service. The DNSA’s witness statement referenced “backchannels” used to dissuade those two Members from criticising Confucius institutes in the UK. The Security Minister assured me that he was happy to speak with the Members in question last week about this very point. Has that meeting now taken place, and will the Minister let us know from the Dispatch Box what this Government’s understanding of the word “backchannel” is in that context? Does the word “backchannel” refer to the previous Government’s Whips, officials or others? The public deserve to know which element of the British state was attempting to prevent brave MPs from asking questions. If the Minister cannot let us know, perhaps someone on the Conservative Front Bench or anywhere else on the official Opposition Benches could clarify that for the House. Finally, I turn to the involvement of the CPS in the collapse of this trial. The Government are adamant that the failure to designate China as an “enemy” is central to the failure to prosecute. I have already addressed the question of how that word was removed from the initial witness statement during the tenure of the previous Government, but I want to draw the House’s attention to the Roussev case, which was referenced earlier, that was being prosecuted at the same time. In that instance, the judge stated that “any state which presently poses an active threat to the UK’s national security can properly be described as ‘an enemy’ in ordinary language.” The outcome of that case was the conviction of six Bulgarian nationals last July for operating as part of a Russian espionage network. The CPS has serious questions to answer about why the China case fell apart when the term “enemy” was not an issue for the Roussev case as recently as last July. Transparency and independence in national security decisions are an essential part of maintaining public trust. This case has thrown that trust into serious jeopardy at a time when the embassy planning application is already undermining the nation’s confidence in the Government’s approach to relations with China. Neither the Government nor the official Opposition have provided clarity. The public could be forgiven for thinking that both sides are ducking responsibility. The Liberal Democrats believe that we need a statutory public inquiry to get to the bottom of what went wrong and how influence over China policy caused the collapse of this case.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Rape Gangs: National Statutory Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  It has been four months and longer since the Home Office announced the national statutory inquiry into group-based child sexual exploitation. I know that Ministers will have wanted quicker progress. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches do, too. We still have no chair, no terms of reference and, most importantly, no justice for the victims who have already waited years. Now, two members of the victims and survivors liaison panel have stepped down after raising concerns about shortlisted chairs. They seem to have lost confidence in the process before it has begun. The Home Office must listen to and act on the concerns of victims—I know that the Minister will agree—and get the inquiry off the ground. That is the only way to ensure that it proceeds with integrity and the trust of those it is meant to serve. Now is the time to prioritise justice and prevention over political point scoring—I know that the Minister will agree with me on that, too—because this is an extremely sensitive matter, particularly for the victims. Will the Minister commit to publishing the terms of reference along with full details of the inquiry’s budget and staffing and a timeline by the end of the month? If not to that deadline, when will that be published?

• 20 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement · Hansard source

  More

  What a mess. We have three questions for the Minister. First, what conversations has he had with all relevant parliamentary authorities—that might include the Speaker’s Office—about plans to tighten vetting or ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff to ensure this does not happen again? Secondly, in the witness statements released by this Government, there is a reference to the use by the previous Government of “back channels” to attempt to dissuade the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from raising concerns about Confucius institutes. What is the Minister’s understanding, based on the evidence, statements and any other information available, of the meaning of “back channels” in that context? Does it refer to the previous Government’s Whips Office, Government officials or somebody else? Thirdly, given that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson still refuses today to say that China is a threat to Britain’s national security, would the Minister be comfortable with Labour MPs accepting meeting requests from representatives of the Chinese Communist party or any nations allied to China?