Question
While I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman, I must say that he did not really answer the question. It is not about state security, but individual Members of Parliament who are being attacked and from whom information is being taken so that they can be attacked in future. That is the question we are asking. I understand that Mr Miller, who was originally arrested in an FBI operation for trying to sell arms via a source through to China, revealed that an ex-detective of Scotland Yard, Keith Hunter, had been asked to compile information on the financials and personal telephone calls of certain Members of Parliament, all of whom it appears were sanctioned already by the Chinese Communist party. The bit that it is vital that the Minister answers is that when Mr Hunter was about to do this, or was doing it, Mr Miller told him that China already had the information. My question, therefore, is what do the Government know about what China has on us, and how much more is China trying to gather? It is important that these questions are answered, because it is not just us who are sanctioned, but our family members too. It is about their security—one of mine lives abroad—and it worries me. What did the Government really know about this? Why have they not spoken to each of us as individuals to explain what was happening? They could have done it under guidance with security, but none the less, they have not done it. Since Sunday, not one single security individual has attempted to contact any of us about the story in the Daily Mail , which is now being read by the British population. Will the Minister answer the question? As sanctioned individuals, with the freedom of speech that we exercise in this House, and under the protection of Mr Speaker, I simply say that this is not good enough. Why are we not being talked to? Why were we not taken to one side and informed?
Answer
The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in raising concerns about these and associated matters for many years, and we have had numerous exchanges to that end across this Dispatch Box. I have huge respect for the consistency with which he brings forward these issues. He is, though, a very experienced Member of this House, and he is inviting me to provide a level of operational detail that he will understand, and that right hon. and hon. Members and Mr Speaker will understand, I am not able to provide. To do so, or to speculate about the actions of individuals under investigation, runs a very significant risk of prejudicing ongoing investigations or subsequent proceedings. It would be recklessly irresponsible for any Security Minister to come to this House and run that risk. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will understand that, even if he does not like the response. I reiterate to the right hon. Gentleman what I have said to him previously and what I said in my earlier remarks: my door is always open to any parliamentarian who wants to take the opportunity to discuss these matters privately and in an appropriate forum that will enable a discreet exchange of views. I know that you yourself, Mr Speaker, take these matters incredibly seriously. The Government have been absolutely consistent in their stated aim to ensure that no malign actor or actors can successfully interfere with our democratic processes. I pay tribute to the last Government and the then Security Minister, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), for their important work in setting up the Defending Democracy Taskforce, but this Government have built on that work and invested in those procedures. The taskforce is the fulcrum that brings together the different parts of the national security machinery to ensure that our response is robust and proportionate. This Government will make sure that we have a proportionate response to the threats that we face, and that democratically elected parliamentarians here and those in the other place can go about their business without fear or favour.7% point-scoring 21% vibes
Verdict: RED (23/100)
Most of the reply declines to give specifics, citing the risk of prejudicing ongoing investigations. It does not address how far China is seeking further information on MPs, and it says nothing about when the Government became aware of relevant matters. The clearest part is the stated route of private, discreet discussions with any parliamentarian, but the reply does not explain why the individual sanctioned Members were not approached. A member of the public would likely need to ask again for concrete detail.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the Government's knowledge of the information that China holds on Members of Parliament. | Addressed | Hedged | The Minister declines to give the operational detail the question seeks about what the Government knows of China's holdings on MPs, and gives a stated reason (risk of prejudicing ongoing investigations). That is a reasoned refusal, so the item is covered, but it commits to no concrete fact. |
| What is the Government's assessment of the extent to which China is seeking to gather further information on Members of Parliament. | Not Addressed | Generic | The reply talks about the general aim of preventing interference and the Defending Democracy Taskforce's role, but gives no assessment of the extent to which China is seeking further information on MPs. |
| Whether the Government can confirm that China already had the information on Members' finances and personal telephone calls at the time Mr Hunter was reportedly asked to compile it, or was doing so. | Addressed | Hedged | The Minister refuses to confirm the specific point about China's prior possession of finance and phone-call information, citing the risk to investigations; the refusal carries a reason, but there is no confirmation or denial. |
| What the Government knew about the matter involving Mr Miller and Mr Hunter, and when it knew it. | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply refuses to speculate about individuals under investigation and gives a reason, which covers the 'what it knew' element in part. It says nothing at all about when the Government knew, so the question is only partly answered. |
| Why the Government has not spoken to each sanctioned Member individually to explain what was happening. | Partially Addressed | Direct | The reply offers a concrete route (private, discreet discussions with any parliamentarian) and gives the investigation-prejudice reason for not discussing matters openly. It never explains why individual sanctioned Members were not spoken to, so the 'why not' is only indirectly addressed. |