Alex Burghart
MP for Brentwood and Ongar · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Minister to his post. I very much look forward to him updating the House on his negotiating mandate and his conversations with the European trade commissioner.”
“I thank the right hon. Lady for her answer, but she did not answer my question. My question was about the income tax receipts that Ben Houchen will be allowed to retain. Over the summer, she said that he would not be allowed to use that to give rebates to local individuals and businesses.”
“It is perfectly reasonable to rule things out. The Minister has had plenty of time to talk to No. 10 since his interview on Sky. I am sure the Labour party would rule out many things at this stage—I am sure it would rule out leaving the European convention on human rights, getting rid of net-zero targets and bringing back the death penalt…”
“They will only have the freedom to increase the size of the state, not reduce it. It appears that this Government are rewiring the state—but just to grow it. The last point is simply about cost. How much is this reorganisation costing? How much is being spent on No. 10 North?”
“Over the Blair years, laws such as the Human Rights Act 1998 and environmental legislation created endless sources of judicial review, which made it increasingly difficult for Government to do things—to build infrastructure and so on. That is a colossal drag on the capabilities of the state. If the right hon.”
“I thank the deputy Prime Minister for advance sight of her statement. I congratulate her on her appointment—it is a major achievement—and I look forward to working with her. I also congratulate the right hon. Lady on the wording of her statement.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Alex Burghart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 13.
“The Secretary of State himself has confirmed that there have been only five terrorist convictions in the past 13 years, and as time passes, the chance of successful prosecutions will reduce further and further. In the past year alone, we have debated the manifest failings of the current system in this House: the terrible decision in the Clonoe inquest; the 1991 incident in court in Belfast last month, where a special forces soldier was acquitted by a judge, who said the case was “ludicrous”, but not before the man in question had been investigated for four years; and, of course, the case of soldier F, where no conviction was possible, despite one of the longest inquiries in British political history. The legislation before us today will perpetuate disappointment for victims and despair for veterans.”
“We created a new means of providing victims and their families with information—one that offered the opportunity to claim conditional immunity in return for information retrieval. That process is now up and running, and thanks to the excellent work of Sir Declan Morgan, to whom I pay tribute, I understand the ICRIR is currently considering about 250 cases and is taking on more every month. Confidence is growing; it is working. But the Bill before us today strips out the conditional immunity introduced by the legacy Act and reopens the door to vexatious litigation against veterans, while leaving it very unlikely that terrorists will be prosecuted.”
“I know that some of them are in the Gallery today, and some of them are sitting behind me. I would like to thank them with my whole heart for the service they gave and extend that same thanks to the brave men and women of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The generations who have come after cannot fully understand what they went through, what they saw and what they did for peace. The last Government chose to draw a line under the litigation of the troubles, and today that line is being erased. Our legacy Act was a response to the emerging legal reality—no less true than it was three years ago—that the legal system was ceasing to provide meaningful answers to victims, while dragging veterans through the courts in clearly vexatious cases. The process itself had become a means of punishment, and time is reducing the chances of convictions.”
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill because, by removing the conditional immunity scheme introduced by the last Government in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, and reintroducing inquests and restoring civil claims for Troubles-related incidents halted by that Act, the Bill will lead to veterans once again being dragged before the courts facing potential prosecution for incidents that happened decades ago, while former paramilitaries are largely untouched; because the Government’s published list of so-called protections for veterans remains unclear and not fulfilled by this Bill; because the Government has not confirmed which of these protections will also apply to former paramilitaries; because the Bill does not prevent former paramilitaries holding key roles associated with the Legacy Commission; and because the Bill risks undermining the morale of, as well as both recruitment to and retention within, the armed forces at a time of significantly heightened international tensions and threats to the national security of the UK.” I would like to start by paying tribute to those brave souls who served in Operation Banner—the longest and, surely, one of the most difficult operations that our military forces ever undertook.”
“That Government eventually dropped the legislation, not because of opposition in this House, but because of the opposition of Sinn Féin, who withdrew their support once they discovered that the scope was being extended to cover the security forces and the police.”
“Even if, as Labour now claims, the on-the-runs were not intended to grant immunity, the use of the royal prerogative of mercy on at least 13 occasions certainly was. Even if that was not enough, it was very much the intention of the last Labour Government to create a scheme for immunity. We know that because in November 2005, Peter Hain, now Lord Hain—the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—brought legislation to this House in the form of the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill, which was explicitly intended to create immunity from prosecution for terrorists. That was on the face of the Bill. The now Secretary of State was in the Cabinet at the time; he will have been supportive of that legislation—legislation that he now refers to as a moral outrage.”
“Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), which limits prison terms to two years; the decommissioning of weapons legislation, which allowed for the destruction of forensic evidence that would have led to convictions; and an effective amnesty for all those who provided information to the Independent Commission for the Location of Victims’ Remains—in short, immunity in return for information. We also had the controversial letters of comfort—156 of them. One was received by John Downey, thought to have been the Hyde Park bomber, the case against whom collapsed on the production of his letter. It had apparently been issued in error, but nevertheless that letter effectively granted him immunity from prosecution.”
“No. Let me start with conditional immunity. The legacy Act provided immunity to individuals in return for their providing an account to the commission that was true to the best of their “knowledge and belief”. That is the immunity to which the Government are now opposed, but I am afraid that that objection is born of acute political amnesia. This House will know that the Blair Government accepted that the price of ending the conflict was a departure from the norms of criminal justice in Northern Ireland. They gave us the early release of 483 prisoners, 143 of whom were serving life sentences, including, it must be said, the man who in 1984 tried to kill the entire British Cabinet; the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, referred to by my right hon.”
“In legal circles, the finding of the High Court in Belfast is considered highly disputable. Why? Because the law strongly suggests that if the same logic was applied to the peace process legislation that I have already mentioned—the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and the Northern Ireland (Location of Victims’ Remains) Act 1999—then all of that legislation would be deemed incompatible with the European convention and would have to be struck down.”
“No doubt the Government will say, as the Secretary of State already has, that they have no choice but to change our legislation because it was found to be incompatible with the European convention on human rights. But that is only partially true. While it is the case that the High Court in Belfast found that conditional immunity was incompatible with the ECHR, I am sure that the Secretary of State knows that that court, despite its considerable strengths, is not the summit of the UK legal system. The last Conservative Government were appealing the court’s finding, but when the Labour Government came into power in July 2024, they dropped that appeal and they have never explained why. They had every opportunity to take it to the highest court in the land, and they declined to do so.”
“I hate to disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but if he goes back and looks at the news stories from the time, he will discover very clearly that Sinn Féin withdrew their support for the Bill once the Labour Government decided they would extend the scope of the Bill to cover security forces and police officers. The republicans never wanted equity; they wanted a one-sided agreement that would privilege only the terrorists and not the Army. I say all that to highlight the absurdity of Labour’s opposition to our legislation, and to remind the House that the proposals presented to us today are the opposite of what Labour believed was necessary, in the words of Peter Hain, to complete the peace process 20 years ago.”
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The courts have no power to strike down statute; they can advise this House to remove legislation.”
“Since legal advice of the highest order has now twice shown that the United Kingdom can leave the convention without breaking the 1998 agreement, this is what the next Conservative Government will do. The current Government have previously said that they have to legislate because the legacy Act did not have cross-community consent, but where is that cross-community consent today? It does not exist. If there had been a cross-community solution on legacy, Stormont would have found it. I suspect that no solution is to be found, which means it is the responsibility of this House to protect those now abused by the system. The Bill will fail to do that. It will not help victims to find out the truth. It will not give comfort to our veterans. It will reopen old wounds and allow infection to come in.”
“That means that the Secretary of State has no legal basis at this time for that remedial order. He has acted—or rather, if he pushes it to a vote, he will be acting—ultra vires, because under section 10 of the Human Rights Act the Government can only issue such an order unless and until all appeals in relation to the declarations of incompatibility have been “determined or abandoned”. In this case, they have not been, and the Government must not call a vote on the order unless and until they have been. I hope that the Minister will offer some clarity on the next steps during his closing remarks. The Conservative party has been clear: the European convention on human rights should no longer be considered an obstacle to doing the right thing. It is not a holy text, and its jurisprudence is forcing Governments to do unholy things.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention; I remember that he made a similar intervention in 2017, and again in 2023, on just that point, based on the work his Committee had done. The Secretary of State has now introduced a draft remedial order to eliminate those parts of the Bill that are deemed to be incompatible. As he knows—I have written to him twice on this subject—the official Opposition do not believe that that remedial order is appropriate, and certainly not yet. That is because earlier this year the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement was granted permission to intervene in the case of Dillon before the Supreme Court, specifically on the issue of compatibility. On 15 October that intervention was heard, and if those arguments are accepted, the Supreme Court has the power to quash the declarations of incompatibility.”
“With all due respect to the hon. Lady, who I enjoyed working opposite, the last Government did not offer delay and dithering; we offered firm legislation. What she outlines, I am afraid, is an unrealistic view of the future. We have seen many cases come forward and very few convictions, and the people who suffer in that process are veterans. They are veterans like the gentleman I referred to a moment ago, from a case in 1991—four years of investigation, with a ludicrous case at the end. What is happening today is that victims are being promised something that will never be delivered, and veterans are being told that they do not matter.”
“Fifthly, in the past few days I have received a lot of communications from veterans about the role that Ireland will play in the new commission. I am sure that they will be reassured by the Secretary of State’s remarks in his opening speech that Ireland will have no formal process within the Legacy Commission. But what is clear that the Bill makes provision for the involvement of international figures. Will those international figures be given access to national security information? Will the Minister please be clear about that in his closing remarks?”
“Thirdly, the Bill pays lip service to not repeating previous investigations, as the Secretary of State said, by saying that the Legacy Commission will do so only when repetition is “necessary”—that is in clauses 30, 31, 36, 51 and 84—or when “duplication is essential”, as in clause 36. I imagine and I fear that some lawyers will have a great deal of fun with those words. How long before every attempted reinvestigation becomes “necessary” or every attempted investigation becomes “essential”? I believe and I fear that this is no protection at all. Fourthly, the protections for our veterans here are a mirage, not just because they are largely available already, but because they clearly apply to terrorists as well as veterans.”
“I am going to make some progress. We will have plenty of time in Committee to discuss our particular concerns with this legislation, but I will raise a small number of them today. First, the Bill deliberately shifts the focus towards criminal prosecutions. Clause 36 states that investigations are “to be carried as a criminal investigation unless…there is no realistic prospect of information obtained…being provided to a prosecutor.” I suspect that those most likely to be prosecuted will be veterans. Secondly, the Bill creates a five-year time limit for family members and victims to request an investigation, but there is no such time limit for public authorities. Can the Minister tell us why not? This could rumble on forever.”
“I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) and then to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson).”
“The right hon. Gentleman raises interesting and important points. We are concerned about the question of who will have access to sensitive national security information within the legacy commission’s framework? It would be good to have clarity on that from the Minister later. Sixthly, there was some confusion on the Labour Front Bench recently about whether former IRA personnel would be able to serve as a legacy commission officer or as a member of the victims and survivors advisory group. Perhaps when we get to Committee the Minister could clear that up and provide legal guarantees that that will not be the case.”
“The Labour party is in power in Northern Ireland—it has formed the Government of the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) said, it would be good to get legal guarantees about who will be able to serve on the legacy commission and the victims and survivors advisory group. Lastly, veterans have been asking publicly for the inclusion of the word “veteran” in the Bill. They do not consider themselves victims or survivors; they consider themselves veterans, and they hope that the Government will recognise them as such in legislation.”
“I think the hon. Lady is misunderstanding my point. The point that I am making is that when it is clear that vexatious complaints and vexatious investigations can begin, then everyone who served feels under threat— [ Interruption . ] For the benefit of Hansard , the hon. Lady said from a sedentary position, “Are they vexatious?” It is very clear that the case that was heard in Belfast last month was a vexatious complaint. The judge said it was “ludicrous” and that it should never have come anywhere near the court, but for four years a member of the special forces was pursued, and all his comrades and colleagues thought that if such a thing could happen, they might have the same legal action brought against them in future.”
“In conclusion, this Bill contains no meaningful protections, it has no cross-party support, and there are no legal barriers to continuing what the last Government began. We find ourselves in a situation where retired generals, SAS veterans and the like are all telling this House not to proceed. They are telling us that there will be consequences—for recruitment, for retention and for national security. This morning in a statement, Soldier Z said that “the damage being done to the morale and fibre of UK special forces and armed forces…must be understood by the public, because it’s very well understood by the SAS.” When such people speak, this House has an obligation to listen.”
“From the huge number of extradition requests that Dublin refused between 1973 and 1999 to the long, long list of cases of collusion between the Garda and the Provisional IRA that have not been properly dealt with, it is clear that the south has never taken full responsibility for the blind eyes turned and the bad acts abetted. The test of this Government’s approach will be whether Dublin delivers, or whether this—as one representative of victims has said to me in the past few days—turns out to be another case of “tea and sympathy” with no action to follow. For the record, it is my party’s strong view that if this Bill receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State should not commence the legislation until this House has at least seen the Irish legislation.”
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is a bastion of good sense. He reminds us that there is no moral equivalence between the people who were sent to try to keep the people and services of Northern Ireland safe, and the people who were terrorists. Finally, we note that, under the terms of the agreement, the Republic of Ireland has committed to legislate to enable the fullest possible co-operation of the relevant Irish authorities with the Legacy Commission. We sincerely hope that this is true, as there are many secrets of the troubles that are yet to be disclosed from sources south of the border.”
“Last week, it was reported that a similar case, from 53 years ago, may soon go to trial. No wonder that on Friday, Special Air Service veterans published a letter in the Financial Times , in which they said that “‘legacy’ has become an industry that keeps wounds open while rewriting history.” We ask the Secretary of State to think again.”
“That goes to the heart of what my party argued when passing our legacy Act. As time goes by, it becomes vanishingly difficult to obtain convictions. The 1998 agreement was 27 years ago, and the ceasefires were 31 years ago. That of course has implications for the Government’s troubles Bill, which will reopen many cases where there is no prospect of resolution, only a prospect of ongoing legal process. Under the Bill, there is almost no possibility of bringing terrorists to court, but it ultimately leaves open the likelihood of ever more vexatious complaints against our veterans. We are talking about claims like that thrown out by the High Court in Belfast last month; the judge described the challenge as “utterly divorced from reality”, although not before a former special forces soldier had to endure four years of investigation.”
“Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I, too, begin with a thought for the families left bereft by the events of that day in 1972. It was a Conservative Prime Minister who, 15 years ago, said to the House that what happened on Bloody Sunday was both “unjustified” and “wrong”, and “on behalf of our country—I am deeply sorry.”— —[ Official Report , 15 June 2010; Vol. 511, c. 740.] He did so, of course, after the publication of the Saville inquiry, which took 12 years and cost in today’s money about £325 million. Even after such an extensive inquiry, there has been no conviction. Indeed, Judge Patrick Lynch told Belfast Crown court that the evidence fell well short of the standard required. He said: “A 53-year-old statement cannot be cross-examined, nor can I assess the demeanour of a sheet of A4 paper”.”
“We now know that it was led by the National Security Adviser and attended by the Cabinet Secretary, the permanent under-secretary at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, senior representation from the Home Office and the Attorney General’s office, and the chief of MI5, but we still do not know what was said there, what was agreed or why the Government tried to deny its existence.”
“They have hidden behind civil servants and advisers, when it is Ministers who are supposed to make decisions, and in doing so, they have brought the actions and decisions of those advisers and officials into the spotlight in a way that is most irregular. Just as worryingly, there has been a persistent inaccuracy and inconsistency in the Government’s statements, to the point where this House can no longer trust a word of theirs. There are a number of examples. First, on 13 October, the Security Minister denied in this House that the mega-mandarin meeting on 1 September, which is the subject of our motion, took place. Last week, the Solicitor General admitted that the meeting did take place.”
“The deputy National Security Adviser repeatedly refused to say yes. The Government effectively refused to say what was patently apparent to anyone remotely alive to the facts of the case. This House has every reason to be told why they refused, and why, for example, the Prime Minister did not intervene to prevent the case collapsing, when we know he was warned that it was unlikely to proceed. It is also reported that the Home Secretary tried to intervene. We do not call for the publication of this material lightly. We know it is an extraordinary measure to call for the Government to publish documents relating to the formation of policy, but this is an extraordinary event. We have reached this point because the Government have been unable or unwilling to answer basic questions about what they knew when, and why they acted as they did.”
“The purpose of this Opposition day debate and of our motion is very simple: transparency—that is all that we ask for. The basic facts are that two men were arrested on suspicion of having spied on hon. Members of this House for China, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has acknowledged that this appears to have been a “gross breach of trust” against hon. Members, yet the case against the two men collapsed because, in the words of the senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little KC, the case was “effectively unsustainable”; it was brought to “a crashing halt” because the Government’s own witness, the deputy National Security Adviser, refused to provide the fatal piece of evidence. Mr Little had what he called a million-dollar question: was China an active threat to national security?”
“I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to release the minutes of the meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025, at which the prosecution of the two alleged Chinese spies, since dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service, was discussed, including all actions arising from that meeting; and further calls on the Government to publish the minutes of all other meetings where the case was discussed, whether by officials or with Ministers, all relevant correspondence between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government and between Departments, including correspondence between the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Cabinet Office, Attorney General’s Office, and the Treasury, and advice provided to the Prime Minister relating to the China spy case.”
“My right hon. Friend makes a very pertinent point and is personally very experienced in such things. It has been reported that the National Security Adviser chaired that meeting. That is to say that he was taking a very active role in what was going on. That is why it is incredibly important that the Government come clean with us about what happened in that meeting, who attended and what was decided there.”
“He said: “The test was…positively not what the then Government was prepared to, or did, say in public about China…but rather whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” This is a most important point, and one that was revisited yesterday. There is a very serious question about why the deputy National Security Adviser believed that he would “need to be in line with government policy at the time”, when the Crown Prosecution Service said that it did not need to know about policy, but about the facts. The Minister should explain to the House why the deputy National Security Adviser chose to ignore the CPS in this case. He should also tell us whether he thinks the deputy National Security Adviser complied with civil procedure rule 35, which requires him to assist the court and overrides any other obligation.”
“My right hon. Friend is right: the National Security Adviser showed a great reluctance to attend. I understand that he has now agreed to attend, although the report I read said that he was going to attend in camera. If that report is correct—the Minister has the opportunity to say it is not true—I am not sure that that is the best level of transparency that this House might expect. The second instance of inconsistency and inaccuracy that we draw attention to is from 7 October, when the Prime Minister told journalists that what mattered in this case was the designation of China as it had been in 2023, when the offences were alleged to have occurred. However, last week, on 24 October, the Director of Public Prosecutions said that that was categorically not the case.”
“The hon. Gentleman will have a perfectly good opportunity to question the people responsible in a few moments’ time. The point is that the Government have been unclear, inconsistent and inaccurate, and we are giving them an opportunity to clear this up right now.”
“The previous Government were clear on a number of occasions that China was a threat, but if the hon. Gentleman had been listening to what I just said, he would have heard that the Director of Public Prosecutions said last week that it was categorically not a question of what the last Government said. Now that I have the hon. Gentleman’s attention, I will repeat for his benefit what the DPP said: that the question was “whether China was—as a matter of fact—an active threat to national security.” It was not a question of policy; it was a matter of fact. [ Interruption. ] I am not going to go through it a third time.”
“I think there are basically two possible answers to my hon. Friend’s question. The first is that the Government cannot tell their elbow from their posterior; the second is that they do not want this House to know the truth. Either way, on a matter as serious as this, it is incredibly important that we get to the truth. Tonight’s motion presents the Government with an opportunity to be entirely transparent with us and set out the facts of the case as they were at the time—particularly on 1 October, when this all-important meeting took place.”
“That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry? The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by “the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”, and “sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”, including special advisers.”
“I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices. A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House: “Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.” —[ Official Report , 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.] We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?”
“This House has a right to see under the bonnet when the safety and privacy of its Members may have been compromised. This House has a right to know the Government’s real position and the Government’s real agenda. If this Government have nothing to hide, they should hide nothing from this House.”
“Will the Minister tell us what the material difference is between “a range of threats” and “an active security threat”? The deputy National Security Adviser was keen to make that point yesterday. Perhaps most importantly of all, do the Government believe that China is an active security threat? If not, what would it take to cross that threshold? It is time for the Government to publish all the details so that we can see what really happened here. I know that the Government will protest their innocence and claim that it is all the fault of the CPS, or the last Government, or the legislation, just as they have tried to do for weeks, but such pleas and protests are no good reason for them to refuse to publish the material we are requesting today. This House may have been spied upon. This House has a right to straight answers.”
“Ministers do get involved; it is their job to be involved. Ministers represent the Government. Ministers represent all of us. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are entirely powerless in this instance—they are not. A fifth example is that yesterday, the Cabinet Secretary said that he did not believe that the chief of MI5 had described China as a threat. On 16 October 2025, Ken McCallum said: “Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? And the answer is, of course, yes they do every day.” How on earth did the Cabinet Secretary not know that? This issue is of paramount importance. There are many other such examples. The Government have an opportunity to be clear with us today, not just about the meetings and the dealings of the past six months, but on their position as it stands.”
“I have always admired the shine on the Minister’s brass neck, and never so much as at this moment. I remember the Brexit debates, when he and many of the other gentlemen and ladies on the Labour Benches overrode legal privilege and asked for classified documents week after week. Members of this House may have been spied on, and the Government have a duty to be transparent. They cannot hide behind anything, given that they have previously asked for similar documents. Make them available!”
“I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to his post. I know that he is one of the most able performers in the Government, and he is now in one of the most important and under- appreciated roles in Government. For the good of the country, I wish him well. He is also the first Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister. We Conservatives congratulate him on how well Downing Street has been run since he took over—we have enjoyed it greatly. Phase 2 is proving to be a real belter. On the alleged spying on Members of this House, Downing Street has revealed that the Prime Minister became aware on 13 September that the case was about to collapse. When was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister first told that the trial was unlikely to proceed, and who told him?”
“Okay, I will repeat the question for the Security Minister, because either he did not hear it or he chose not to answer it. My question was very specific. We know that the Prime Minister was told on 13 September that the trial was unlikely to proceed—Downing Street has told us that. My question is: when was the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster told, and who told him? He oversees the Cabinet Office’s National Security Secretariat, and he chairs the National Security Council. When was he told?”
“I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for giving us a degree more clarity. Perhaps he will give us a degree more clarity again. Was he told that the alleged case of spying against Members of Parliament was due to collapse before the information became public and, if so, who told him?”
“I believe the right hon. Gentleman, but I find that answer extraordinary, and I think he should find it extraordinary, too. As we have already said, the right hon. Gentleman chairs the National Security Council. He oversees the Cabinet Office’s national security secretariat. The Prime Minister knew, the Home Secretary knew, the Cabinet Secretary knew, the chief of MI5 knew, the Attorney General’s Office knew, but the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister did not. Has he asked why he was not told, and what answer was he given?”