Yvette Cooper
MP for Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley · Labour · United Kingdom
“NATO has been the cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security for over 75 years, protecting more than a billion people, but to ensure it remains as strong for the next 75 years, it needs to respond to changing threats.”
“He may have seen that the Prime Minister and the Canadian Prime Minister put out a joint statement over the last couple of days to set out how we seek to work together to ensure that those initiatives, which do slightly different things, can combine and collaborate to ensure that we get the best possible impact.”
“The world must not fail the people of Sudan again. Last week, the UK convened an urgent debate at the United Nations Human Rights Council. A UK-penned resolution condemned atrocities, called for an urgent UN fact finding inquiry and urged the RSF to comply with international law and halt this attack, urging both the RSF and the Sudanese A…”
“We agree about the nature of the increasingly dangerous world we live in and the importance of us being able to defend ourselves and maintain our security. We have committed to reaching the 3.5% commitment on defence, but that is part of a 5% commitment that was made to cover broader defence and security intelligence.”
“I did take the opportunity to discuss the situation in both the west bank and Gaza with some of our allies and partners. I am deeply worried that last year’s 20-point plan for Gaza—which was hugely important and which we supported, as did the whole world—is at risk of running into the ground.”
“As I have said, our security since the second world war has very much depended on the NATO alliance, which has always been a defensive alliance that has built its strength through deterrence. Deterrence is immensely important. When we reached the end of the cold war in 1990, there was at that point a substantial peace dividend.”
The complete record
Every one of 8,060 lines we hold for Yvette Cooper, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 52 of 162.
“She said that the document was “a draft Written Ministerial Statement…due for publication imminently” that had already been briefed to MPs. Is that not true? Will he explain the answer to that? At what time did the former Home Secretary inform the Cabinet Secretary of the breach? Has a check been made of whether she sent other documents through personal emails, putting security at risk? Was there a 90-minute row about policy between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary? Given the huge disagreements we have seen in the last few weeks between the Prime Minister and the former Home Secretary on drugs policy, Rwanda, the India trade deal, seasonal agriculture, small boats—and with a bit of tofu thrown in over the lettuce for good measure—is anything about home affairs agreed on in the Cabinet?”
“I notice that the Home Secretary is not in his place this morning, unless the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith), has been appointed Home Secretary in the last few hours. To be honest, nothing would surprise us at the moment, because this is total chaos. We have a third Home Secretary in seven weeks. The Cabinet was appointed only six weeks ago, but the Home Secretary was sacked, the Chancellor was sacked and the Chief Whip was sacked and then unsacked. We then had the unedifying scenes last night of Conservative MPs fighting like rats in a sack. This is a disgrace. The former Home Secretary circulated a letter, and that seems to contradict what the Minister said.”
“Given that the Government seem to be imploding, we clearly need not simply a change of Home Secretary, but a change of Government. Can we get a new statement to this House?”
“This raises huge questions about why a Home Secretary who was responsible for security was breaching basic rules. There are also rumours that in fact this statement on migration had not been agreed across the Government, there were major disagreements and that it had been blocked by the Chancellor. She also says in her letter that she has “concerns about the direction of this government” and the breaking of “key pledges”. She says very pointedly that they have made mistakes and that “hoping things will magically come right is not serious politics.” There is clearly huge chaos at the heart of the Government. Home affairs is far too important for this kind of chaos. This is about security, public safety and the issues covered by the great offices of state.”
“On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary has been sacked or has resigned this afternoon—this is utter chaos. The Prime Minister appears to have appointed and sacked both a Chancellor and a Home Secretary, two of the great offices of state, in the space of six weeks. This is no way to run a Government. Have you had any indication from the Prime Minister that she will come to this House to answer questions arising from this? The former Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman), says in her resignation letter that she sent “an official document…a draft Written Ministerial Statement about migration, due for publication” from her personal email, and that this was against the rules.”
“Defend offence but not annoyance—it is totally illogical. Four hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion , the debate was interrupted (Programme Order , this day). The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.”
“Friends have talked about the legislation that is already in place, but the measures in the Bill will not tackle this issue. Instead they mean a police inspector will have the power to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest regardless of whether they suspect them of being involved in committing a criminal offence. It could mean people being stopped and searched in Parliament Square pretty much any day of the week when protests are taking place. The Home Secretary says that she sees herself as a champion of freedom of speech and expression. She has said that freedom of speech must be protected, but, it turns out, not if it is too noisy. Speaking is fine, but speaking too loudly could be a criminal offence. She says that being offended goes hand in hand with free speech, but she has made it an offence to be seriously annoying.”
“Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) rightly said earlier today, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society, and in our country everyone has the right to express their views peacefully. That is why we have to make sure that when we legislate in these areas we do so with care, because in a democracy people need the freedom to speak out against authority and make their views heard, and we should also have protections and safeguards against serious disruption to essential services. That is why we put forward measures; that is why we have supported buffer zones around abortion clinics, and that is why we have put forward measures in previous Bills on vaccine clinics and making sure people could not be targeted by harassment and intimidation. Hon.”
“Both those are rightly against the law already, and we have seen people rightly arrested and charged for criminal damage and for blocking highways. We support the action of Transport for London in taking out injunctions. That is why we have argued from the start for making taking injunction action smoother for organisations, but today Members from all parts of this House have also stood up for the principles of peaceful protest in the face of the truly appalling images we have seen from outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester, including a serious assault that put one protestor in hospital. Parliament must stand up for peaceful rights; as the Minister for the Americas and the Overseas Territories, the right hon.”
“The Government could have got through a victims Bill by now; they chose not to. They could have put more time into action on violence against women and girls; they chose not to. Instead, they are repeating the same debates we have had already. The Home Secretary referred to acts of violence and blocking roads. These are, rightly, already crimes. These are all, rightly, already offences. In fact, this Conservative Government have put fewer thugs and criminals behind bars because prosecutions for violent crime have plummeted on their watch. Antisocial behaviour action in many areas has totally collapsed. We have seen certain things recently that have angered all of us. Defacing works of art is a total disgrace. Blocking roads and preventing ambulances from getting through is appalling.”
“I just think it is astonishing: the Home Secretary actually talked about a “coalition of chaos”, and we can see it in front of us as I speak. I understand that the Government do have concerns in that they face issues with a selfish majority wreaking havoc, and someone who is resisting all the attempts of the powers that be to remove them—causing serious disruption, disorder and chaos, with serious consequences for the public, businesses, politics and financial markets—but they had glued themselves under the desk. We wish Conservative Members luck with their attempts to extricate another failing Tory Prime Minister from No. 10, but I suggest that that is not a reason to change the law for everyone else. This is the second Public Order Bill in the space of six months.”
“The Home Secretary is being generous in giving way. The point about institutions being able to carry out enforcement is immensely important. As well as Companies House, there is also an issue for the National Crime Agency. She may be aware that her predecessor asked the National Crime Agency to draw up plans for 20% staffing cuts. Has the Home Secretary now ruled that out?”
“On issues of national security, crime and migration, we need the sense that there is some stability: that the people at the top are capable of self-discipline, that there is collective Cabinet responsibility, and that, at least on home affairs, they are making statements in the interests of the country, rather than behaving as if they were still in the process of a leadership campaign—although I guess that is exactly what is going on. If they are not capable of getting their act together and being a Government who are focused on those matters, they should get out of the way, and give way to someone else who can.”
“Furthermore, according to the latest story this morning, the Home Secretary is not actually involved in immigration policy decisions at all, although they are at the heart of her Department. We have to wonder whether there is anything that the new Home Secretary and the new Prime Minister agree on—although, to be fair to the Home Secretary, it is not clear that the Prime Minister agrees with herself from one day to the next. There have been so many U-turns that the Cabinet is spinning in circles. I have seen 11 Home Secretaries come and go, but I have never seen anything like the chaos and confusion that we are seeing now. There are disagreements from time to time, of course, but the scale of this is actually dangerous, because the Home Office is too important.”
“We have seen a series of major public disagreements between the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister: on restoring a net migration target, and then not; on leaving the European convention on human rights, and then not; on reclassifying drugs, and then not; on seasonal agricultural workers, still unresolved; on the claim that the Prime Minister did not see small boats as a priority and did not want her to talk about Rwanda; on some kind of row with the Business Secretary about florists, which nobody could follow; and on the Indian trade deal, which is something the Prime Minister had been working on for years, and which the Home Secretary seems to have single-handedly scuppered with a passing remark during an interview with The Spectator .”
“Let me first join in the tributes paid earlier by Members on both sides of the House to Sir David Amess. His parliamentary office was just above mine, and I know that we all remember him very fondly. I rise to support the Bill’s Second Reading, and also to welcome the Home Secretary to her first full debate in the Chamber in her new post. It has been—what?—about five weeks since she was appointed, and I must say that she has been busy.”
“London’s reputation as the money-laundering capital of the world is a source of national shame. Ours is a country that has long prided itself on the rule of law and on strong economic institutions, which is what traditionally made it a good place in which to invest, but that is being undermined by economic crime. United States allies have expressed frustration at the UK’s failure to tackle fully the problem of the flow of illicit Russian funds through what they have called Londongrad, and exposure to corrupt oligarchs and networks of kleptocracy means that that undermines our national security too.”
“Last year, 4.5 million frauds were perpetrated against people across the country, a 25% increase in the last few years. This is hugely damaging to families and communities, to our economy and businesses, to our international reputation, and also to our security. The organised crime that is facilitated by weak financial systems has a deeply pernicious impact on our communities and our children, drawing young people into crime, gangs and exploitation, and fuelling the most appalling violence on our streets. It undermines our economy. It undermines legitimate businesses and financial organisations, and the thousands of people who work in them, who are standing up for high standards, are also undermined by this kind of crime and exploitation. As I have said, economic crime is deeply damaging to our international reputation.”
“The Home Secretary will have heard the points made by Members in all parts of the House: extremely detailed work has been done by many Members with great expertise in respect of areas in which the Government need to go further. I hope that the Government will listen and will be able to go further, because the whole House will agree that action on economic crime in the UK is urgently needed. This is a rough estimate, but the National Crime Agency says that £100 billion of dirty money flows through the UK every year, and that fraud is causing £190 billion-worth of damage. Economic crime is growing. According to the latest PwC global survey, 64% of businesses have experienced fraud, corruption or other economic or financial crime within the past two years, up from 50% just four years ago.”
“There are plenty of aspects of the Bill that we can discuss, but I note that the Home Secretary chose not to deny any of the chaotic things that she has been saying in the papers. This is not stuff that we have made up; these are things that the new Home Secretary has been saying, which undermine her ability, and indeed the country’s ability, to deal with issues relating to national security, economic crime, fraud and migration—all the serious challenges that the country faces. This Bill, which is long overdue, should constitute an area in which the whole country can come together and in which, across the House, there is broad agreement in the national interest. I welcome the Bill, but I am concerned that it does not go far enough.”
“The Labour party believes in stronger action to defend our national interest, our economy and our national security from the organised criminals, fraudsters, corrupt oligarchs and kleptocrats. We know that that depends on having robust powers and procedures in place to defend our economy and our financial and economic institutions from fraud and abuse.”
“We are still playing catch-up rather than looking forward, and it should not have taken a war for us to get this far. Transparency International warned about serious problems back in 2015. For years, the National Crime Agency has called internally on the Home Office, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to do much more. We were promised action in 2016, in 2018 and in 2019, but as of August, fewer than half the recommendations in the Government’s 2019 economic crime plan had been enacted. The shadow Attorney General called for action on serious corporate fraud nine years ago. As shadow Home Secretary, I called 10 years ago for stronger laws and action on economic crime and fraud. We are very clear about the importance of the matter.”
“It is right to give Companies House powers to check and challenge basic information. When we try to explain this to people, most of them are shocked to learn that it did not already have powers to check the identities of people trying to set up shell companies. We welcome the measures on cryptoassets. The new technology is outpacing action against economic crime and organised crime. The power to freeze and seize criminal assets cannot just be an analogue one in a digital age. We welcome the measures to encourage information sharing to help spot fraud and money laundering, and we welcome the measures that the Home Secretary has referred to about the ability for the SRA to increase fines. There are sensible measures in the Bill, but the delays in getting this far have caused a problem, and so do the gaps in the Bill.”
“My hon. Friend has made an important point which I hope can be explored further in Committee. There is clearly a problem when those with the deepest pockets, who effectively have endless wealth that they can draw upon, can use and abuse the court system in order to silence people. That issue needs to be addressed further. We know that this problem has a wide impact on the state of our economy and our national security. We supported the last economic crime Bill and we support this one, although there are deep concerns about how long this process has taken, and also about the gaps. We welcome, in particular, the overhaul of Companies House, which Labour has supported and has pressed the Government to get on with, and which I know has been championed by Members on both sides of the House.”
“I will keep pressing the Home Secretary, because she did not rule out the 20% staffing cuts, and we want to know that they have been abandoned. There have been wider questions about training for law enforcement in things such as cryptocurrencies.”
“She will be aware that the Office for Professional Body Anti-Money Laundering Supervision has said that 81% of professional supervisors on money laundering do not have an effective risk-based approach. I hope that we can look further at that in Committee and work with the Government on stronger measures. We have already raised with the Home Secretary concerns about enforcement, and I will keep pushing her on the question of funding for the National Crime Agency. We know that it was asked to draw up proposals for 20% staffing cuts. I think that is irresponsible at a time when we face economic crime; when the NCA’s work can benefit the Exchequer and the economy by taking strong action, including on criminal asset seizures; and when the NCA needs to deal with wider issues around organised crime, people smuggling and trafficking.”
“I do hope that the Government will look further at that. Canada and other countries have changed their laws in the most serious of circumstances, and we are keen to talk to the Government about taking forward something similar. We want to explore with the Government going further on other measures, such as provisions to enable Companies House to publish and verify up-to-date information on shareholders, and provisions on third-party enablers of organised crime and kleptocracy. The Home Secretary will know that there have long been concerns about those who help organised criminals and kleptocrats hide their money, and who cover up for crime. The regime for preventing that and for effectively regulating high-risk sectors is still too weak.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I pay tribute to the work he has done over very many years, long before other people were talking about these issues and highlighting the risks. I also pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax, co-chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) and the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). We really need to get the detail right and go further. I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has raised. Safeguards must be in place, but in an extreme time of war, when oligarchs have supported and enabled Putin’s regime and his illegal war for so long, there is a strong case for using their assets to support Ukraine.”
“Serious Fraud Office prosecutions plummeted by 60%, and SFO convictions were down from 10 in 2016 to just three last year. That is not justice, and it is not keeping people safe. It is as though the Government have shrugged their shoulders and said that criminals and fraudsters can have free rein. We must have proper enforcement in place and take action on serious crimes.”
“My hon. Friend is right. Our law enforcement needs a level of agility to keep up with the scale and pace at which organised criminals and corrupt oligarchs work and the resources that they have at their disposal. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the huge gap in the Bill when it comes to tackling fraud, particularly serious corporate fraud—many Members have raised concerns about the proposed legislation in that regard—but fraud more widely, too. It has become the single most common crime that we face, not just the most common economic crime. There were 4.5 million fraud offences—40% of total crimes—last year, and, shockingly, only 0.01% of them were charged. Charges for fraud have dropped. In 2015, 9,000 fraud charges were brought, but last year there were fewer than 5,000. That is a 47% drop in fraudsters being taken to court.”
“My hon. Friend makes an important point, because enforcement in these areas saves money—for the economy overall, and often also for public sector organisations. We need a proper enforcement plan from the Government.”
“We must stand up for our national security; for our economy; for good businesses and professional services that are being undermined; for our law enforcement bodies, which need support and backing to deliver; and, most of all, for those who become the victims—those who are exploited here and across the world. Britain should be leading the way. The Bill is welcome, but it is not yet good enough. We hope that, with concerted cross- party action, we can all get our act together and make it better.”
“The shadow Attorney General, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), originally called for action on that nine years ago, and the Treasury Committee and the Law Commission have both called for action. Corporate fraudsters should not be able to get away with sequestering millions because the law just is not strong enough. I urge the Home Secretary to look at this urgently. It will have crossed her desk while she was Attorney General, and we need rapid action. Labour will support the Bill on Second Reading, but we have to be honest that it does not yet go far enough. We should not stand for dirty money, fraudsters, organised criminals, and the deep and serious crimes that they facilitate.”
“The hon. Member makes a very important point. There are issues around both whistleblowing and safeguards for whistleblowers, and around information sharing. Information sharing is rightly included in the Bill, but many hon. Members will be aware that RUSI has pointed out that if we are looking to the future, as well as some of the issues around whistleblowing, there ought to be the potential to use artificial intelligence, for example, to spot patterns of fraud and corruption. As the hon. Member says, we need ways to detect potential fraud; we need routes—be it through whistle- blowing, information sharing or spotting things that happen—through which to identify it and then for speedy enforcement action to be taken. Let me press the Home Secretary on the need to tackle corporate criminal liability.”
“She may not be the forever Queen that I still believed in at the silver jubilee, but those values that she stood up for were forever values, and those are her legacy now.”
“It was not just about the Queen’s authority in invoking those wartime sacrifices. She captured the yearning of a country to come together just as we needed to stay apart. She invoked British values, saying that “the attributes of self-discipline, of quiet good-humoured resolve and of fellow-feeling still characterise this country”— words she used to describe us, but that so many of us have used to describe her. That is why she was so important to us: because she embodied the values that we still want to see as British—the resilience, the strength, the kindness, the fairness, the common decency, the determined optimism that things will get better because we will make them so, and that selfless duty and commitment to public service. She held up a mirror to our nation of what we want to be.”
“Clare rummaged fast but was unable to find it in her handbag before the noise eventually subsided and the call remained unanswered. The Queen simply said, “Oh dear! I do hope that wasn’t anyone important.” Many hon. Members rightly paid tribute yesterday to the address that the Queen gave just two weeks into the first lockdown. Thousands of people had already died and thousands more were being rushed to hospital, unable to breathe. Schools were closed, families were split up and churches, mosques and synagogues were all shut. Parliament had closed and the Prime Minister was very ill. All the institutions that we relied on and took for granted were either closed or under strain—except the Queen. Only the Queen, our forever Queen who had been a constant through ups and downs, could give us that message.”
“I said, “It was very kind of you to do this.” She said that it was to recognise and say thank you for public service. That said much more about her than it did about the service that any of her Cabinet Ministers had shown; it showed how, privately even more than publicly, she believed in selfless duty and valuing public service to our country. And yes, the Queen showed that sense of mischief. I do not think anyone has yet told the story that John Prescott—Lord Prescott—tells of his first Privy Council meeting with Clare Short, who was International Development Secretary at the time. According to John, she had arrived late with a large handbag and pile of papers. As they stood to hear the Privy Council business being read out, suddenly Clare’s phone started to ring.”
“Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) have all described how the Queen invited them to tea when they became Privy Counsellors and when they left office. The remarkable thing is that she did that for dozens of us—for every departing Cabinet Minister or party leader. I was invited after the 2010 election. We drank tea, and the Queen asked me how we had managed being Cabinet Ministers with kids. “Chaotically,” I said. We talked about housing as well. Others have described the kindness that she showed in those meetings, but I think it was much more than that. She did not invite us when we were on the way up; she did not invite us when we were playing a constitutional role; she invited us only when it was all over and the cameras had gone home. Most of us do not like to talk about our downfall.”
“For one of my constituents, it was the parcels that the young Princess Elizabeth sent in 1947, sharing wedding gifts across the country. She says: “I have always remembered it…There was a pineapple in it and we didn’t even know what it was.” For those of us who were children in the 1970s, it was the silver jubilee. For us, the Queen meant street parties; everyone made such a big fuss about it being 25 years that frankly we thought she had already been Queen forever. That is what she was for us and subsequent generations: our forever Queen, a constant who would serve our country for another 45 years. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and the right hon.”
“This morning, the Accession Council met to proclaim the new sovereign, His Majesty King Charles III. It was an immense honour to bear witness to that historic proclamation for the Privy Council and for my constituents in Normanton, Pontefract, Castleford and Knottingley. For us in Pontefract, it is particularly important to mark the arrival of the new King, who as Prince was a great supporter of the Prince of Wales Hospice in Pontefract—a considerably more positive association than our last constituency connection with the accession of a monarch, which involved Pontefract castle, Richard II and a rather unfortunate end. It is an honour to speak in the second day of tributes to Her late Majesty, a truly remarkable Queen. Everyone has their memories.”
“As this may be the Home Secretary’s last question time, may I recognise the unseen work that she and all her predecessors have done on national security and on warrants, which often goes unrecognised? I also join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to Oliva Pratt-Korbel, Thomas O’Halloran and the other victims of devastating knife and gun crime, which has escalated this summer. Stabbings are now 60% higher than in 2015, yet the number of violent criminals caught is at a record low. “There is a serious problem in this country with gun crime…with gangs…with knife crime”. Those are not my words, but those of the incoming Prime Minister, so why have successive Conservative Home Secretaries allowed it to get this bad?”
“But the Conservatives have cut the funding for policing and they have brought in lots of legislation that has not worked. Stabbings are up by 60%, and over 90% of violent criminals now get away with it. That is way higher than it was just seven years ago. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said: “Detection and charge rates for a range of crimes have fallen over the past five years. This has been impacted by austerity and the loss of thousands of police officers and staff…and…backlogs in the court system.” That is a damning reflection on 12 years of Conservative policies on policing and crime. On her last day in the job, will the Home Secretary tell us whether she thinks that 43 police chiefs are wrong?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Minister to make a statement on the meeting between the Prime Minister and the former KGB agent Alexander Lebedev at the height of the Skripal crisis.”
“The shadow Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), has been asking for confirmation that that meeting happened for months, so why have Home Office Ministers, Cabinet Office Ministers and Foreign Office Ministers all been covering up? It is bad enough covering up for parties and breaking the law, but covering up over national security is a total disgrace. It puts all our safety and security at risk. It is not just the Prime Minister but the whole Government who are letting the country down.”
“Did the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Security Service know about the meeting in advance? Was a detailed record made of the meeting after the event—there are rumours that the Foreign Secretary was too drunk to properly remember? Is that true? There are also rumours that Alexander Lebedev was trying to arrange a phone call from the meeting with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. Is that true? Did that phone call happen? The record of Ministers’ interests says that the Foreign Secretary accepted hospitality in Italy for himself and a guest, but he travelled home alone. Who was that guest? Did that put him in a compromising position? Yesterday, the Prime Minister referred to several meetings with Alexander Lebedev without officials. When were the others? Were any of them while he was Prime Minister?”
“That was a chemical weapon attack by Russian agents on British soil that targeted two British residents, had life-changing effects for a British police officer and killed a British citizen. On 20 May this year, Alexander Lebedev was sanctioned by the Canadian Government—a Five Eyes partner of the UK—for being one of the 14 identified people who “have directly enabled Vladimir Putin’s senseless war in Ukraine and bear responsibility for the pain and suffering of the people of Ukraine.” The UK has not yet sanctioned him. The charges against the Prime Minister are about not just a lack of integrity but a complete disregard for basic national security and the patriotic interests of the country. Those charges lie not just with him but with all those who have enabled him and covered up for him on this issue.”
“We sought this urgent question despite the meltdown in the Government because it goes to the heart of our national security. Yesterday, the Prime Minister admitted to the Chairs of the Home Affairs Committee and the Public Accounts Committee that in April 2018 as Foreign Secretary he met the former KGB officer Alexander Lebedev—the father of Lord Lebedev—in Italy without any officials and without any security. He went there straight from a NATO meeting, where the top item on the agenda was Russia, at the height of the Salisbury poisoning crisis after Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia had been attacked and before Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess had been exposed to the remaining Novichok.”
“It is not credible that these political paragraphs were only added “at the last minute”. Did the Minister give inaccurate information to the House?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister for Crime and Policing told the House that he had only added the several paragraphs launching a political attack “at the last minute”. Those paragraphs were not included in the statement that either you or shadow Home Office Ministers were given. However, the list of questions circulated to Conservative Back Benchers, which I have here—it will have taken some time to prepare and to circulate, with input from the Home Office—repeats the same script that the Minister used in his attack. In fact, those questions include nothing on the actual failings in the Metropolitan police and nothing on the reforms that are needed to the Metropolitan police or to policing across the country, but only political attacks instead.”