YouSaid · the spoken record
David Davis
We hold 81 passages that may be David Davis’s. We do not publish them until we can confirm who spoke. See the correction.
On the record 2004–2026
hansard · podcast
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“There are three instances where the Prime Minister made questionable statements: his insistence that there was no pressure, when there evidently was; the two versions he gave of when he saw the vetting file; and his assertion that due process was followed, when it clearly was at odds with the process described by both the Cabinet Secretary and the permanent secretary for the Foreign Office. The Prime Minister made a deeply questionable decision. We cannot know for certain whether it was due to cronyism, a misunderstanding of the role or excessive leniency towards a member of his own party—something he would never have tolerated, and quite rightly, from any other party. Whatever the explanation, the conclusion is unavoidable: the decision was wrong. To implement it, established procedures were bent out of shape.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For career ambassadors, developed vetting happens for every new post. If someone goes to become the ambassador in Tehran, they are DV-ed. If they then go to become ambassador in Washington, they are DV-ed again—but at that point, the vetting is an update, so it is lower risk. By definition, our ambassadors are, generally speaking, low-risk security personnel anyway. That is plainly not the case for a high-risk figure like Peter Mandelson. Indeed, frankly, it is hard to imagine a higher-risk appointment to a post that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) said, is of the utmost sensitivity. To appoint first and vet later is not due process, and it is certainly not prudent. It is a gamble with national security and a risk to our single most important alliance.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“23.] Those two statements are incompatible—again, a free-standing failure of the rules. What is more, that chaotic clash of opinions reinforces the impression that, far from “following due process”, as the Prime Minister has maintained on a number of occasions, No. 10 was effectively making it up as it went along. As we have already heard from the Leader of the Opposition, the then Cabinet Secretary, Simon Case, issued explicit advice on 11 November 2024: secure the “necessary security clearances…before confirming your choice.” That was reinforced this morning by Sir Philip Barton, who said of the correct process: “The normal order is vetting and then announcement.” Normal due process was clear, but the Prime Minister did the opposite. Claims that this was normal defy common sense.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If that was the only issue, it would justify being referred to the Committee of Privileges—in order to resolve what the exact truth was—but it was not the only issue. Plainly, if the Foreign Office is right, the Prime Minister is wrong—and, on that timetable, actually, deliberately wrong. Let us take some other occasions. On 4 February this year, the Prime Minister gave an unambiguous impression, when asked about Epstein’s coverage in the security clearance, that he had seen Peter Mandelson’s security vetting file, but in April he told the House that on 14 April he “found out for the first time” that Mandelson had been granted “developed vetting clearance, against the specific recommendation of the United Kingdom Security Vetting that developed vetting clearance should be denied.” —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sir Philip Barton was asked this morning about delay, attitude and pressure; when asked at the Foreign Affairs Committee if he recalled “any dismissiveness in No. 10 about the importance” of Mandelson’s vetting, Sir Philip—Sir Olly Robbins’ predecessor—described No. 10 as “uninterested” in his security clearance. The evidence that Sir Olly Robbins gave was that, throughout January, there was “constant pressure” and an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Yesterday, Ian Collard, the former head of the Foreign Office security team, corroborated Sir Olly Robbins’s account. Just this morning, again, Sir Philip Barton repeatedly emphasised that there was pressure to secure Mandelson’s vetting clearance within a “very compressed timescale”, yet the Prime Minister told this House only a week ago that “no pressure existed whatsoever”.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Indeed, it is worse than that, because this post is the nexus of the entire Five Eyes intelligence co-operation. Our service is not like that of the Americans. In the American embassy, the CIA is freestanding; the ambassador does not matter. In our service, the ambassador runs the local secret service element, as it were, so he or she is entirely responsible and has entire access. That is an issue with the Americans in particular, because they are incredibly sensitive about the corruption, or the undermining in any way, of the security of that arrangement, so we could actually have put the whole Five Eyes co-operation arrangement at risk—but my right hon. Friend has led me off on a completely different tangent. I come back to the general point.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In a debate about misleading the House, it makes me wonder when Members of this House accuse others of not voting on a motion that did not lead to a vote, so I will not take an intervention. I will certainly not take an intervention from the hon. Gentleman. He is a noise maker, not a truth issuer . On the evidence before us today—contradictions, procedural failures and an emerging pattern of conduct—there is plainly a case for referral. Where doubt exists, it should be resolved through proper scrutiny. Where a case exists, it should be tested. This case should go to the Committee of Privileges, and go today.”
House of Commons28 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a rather more mundane point of order. Last Thursday, my website, provided by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, was compromised. Malicious links were inserted, redirecting users to south-east Asian gambling websites. I guess it could be worse. We took the site down immediately. It was restored, but then came under a sustained distributed denial of service attack traceable to China. In just 24 hours, the site was hit with 142 million requests, consuming nearly 800 gigabytes of data. This is not a minor nuisance; it is direct interference with a Member of Parliament carrying out his duties. What are the House and the House authorities doing to prevent these kinds of attacks on Members’ websites, and to help MPs protect themselves against interference by a foreign state?”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He went on to say: “I cannot conclude this judgment without expressing my surprise that legal aid funding was made available to mount such a challenge”.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), read out some of the judge’s comments in that case; I will take things a little further. What happened in the Coagh firefight was that the IRA plotted to murder an Ulster Defence Regiment soldier. In the process of doing that, they were hit by an SAS patrol. The IRA terrorists all died, and an inquest found that the SAS actions were all entirely lawful. So what happened? One of the IRA members’ family used taxpayers’ money—legal aid—to force a judicial review. The judge threw that out, stating: “In this challenge, this Court is being asked to slow the passage of time down, to analyse events in freeze-frame… It is ludicrous to suggest that this court should analyse the events of the day in question in that manner”.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The recent revelation that the Attorney General, Lord Hermer, pursued cases against our soldiers, despite knowing that the allegations might be false, is indicative, I am afraid, of the attitude of this Government to the rights of our soldiers, as was the Secretary of State’s response to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). The attitude is one of undermining our soldiers at home while they fight abroad, and the same will happen under this Bill. We have already had a rehearsal or a preview of what is to come. This month’s Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Soldier B in the Coagh firefight is a perfect illustration. The shadow Northern Ireland Secretary, my hon.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and, given what I am going to say, to the fact that I was a trustee of the SAS Regimental Association for two decades up until a few years ago. This Bill was sold to the House and the country on the premise that it would deliver human rights and the rule of law. As the House knows, I pay great attention to human rights and the rule of law—so much so that I defeated my own Government in court on exactly that issue—but what we have here is neither human rights nor justice. It is a perversion of rights and a travesty of justice. The Government clearly have made promises to Sinn Féin, to IRA families and to would-be rewriters of history, including the Irish Government, putting those ahead of the interests of our soldiers.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note that the Minister for the Armed Forces is not here for the vote, and I entirely understand why: he wants to avoid association with this disgraceful legislation. If he cannot vote for it, neither should we. We should reject this disgraceful Bill out of hand.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He believes that there should be proper rule of law, which is not provided by the Bill. Indeed, given his history and his views, I would say that he has a better claim to have defended justice in our country than anyone in the House, and certainly than those on the Government Front Bench. What happened in that case is just a rehearsal for what will come if the Bill goes through. If it is passed, hundreds more—and I mean hundreds—will follow. This Bill puts the interests of the Irish Government, Sinn Féin and IRA apologists above those of our veterans, and would put rewriting history ahead of providing proper justice. It is unpatriotic, disingenuous and dishonourable. It satisfies no one. It solves nothing. Everything it touches, it makes worse.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, but it is simply the rule that in Northern Ireland, it is easier to get legal aid for these issues. I can see that there was a reason for that in the past, but it has, in effect, perverted the course of justice in a case where soldiers did nothing more than their duty. That is what is going to happen under this Bill, too, because the case went on to appeal. If anything, the judge struck down that appeal in even more robust terms than the previous judge. A brave, patriotic, honourable soldier was dragged through three courts over several years, in gratuitous actions that were funded by the taxpayer. I say “brave”, “honourable” and “patriotic”; these are not casual words. I have known Soldier B for 30 years. As well as being a brave soldier, he is a firm believer in the rule of law. He does not believe that there should be exemptions.”
House of Commons27 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister and I welcome what he has just said, but the infected blood scandal left thousands of people with severe lifelong injuries. Many of them have waited decades—some nearly half a century—for justice, and with every week that passes the likelihood that any of them will die goes up. As I am sure he is aware, IBCA announced last week that it will contact 100 people a week to begin claims, but that is not quick enough for the 18,000 people involved. It has dealt with roughly 3,000, who have been paid already, but 15,000 of the 18,000 are still waiting. Victims and families deserve compensation, and quickly, so what can he do to speed up that process?”
House of Commons23 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“St George’s day is certainly a day to celebrate patriotism. This morning, The Daily Telegraph reported that the Attorney General, when he was in private practice, voluntarily gave advice on the pursuit of British soldiers over alleged war crimes—allegations that turned out to be bogus. The article says that he realised those claims could be bogus early on in the process. That brings into question his impartiality in advising the Government on matters of human rights law as they apply to soldiers. He should therefore recuse himself from giving advice on those matters generally, but especially on the Northern Ireland legislation, which as it stands will victimise more British soldiers. Can we have a debate on Government legal advice and the shameful misuse of human rights law in pursuit of our soldiers?”
House of Commons23 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Are we going to take a significant risk with the Five Eyes relationship? Of course we are not. It should be clear, on public data alone, that this man is, or was, a significant risk. Indeed, the propriety and ethics team in the Cabinet Office flagged to No. 10 most of the issues I have just described before this process started. Mr Speaker, forgive me for being so direct, but we should remember that Peter Mandelson is a man who has proven that he is greedy for money, greedy for glamour, greedy for status and greedy for power, and that he is willing to break the rules to get them. That is the key point: he is willing to break the rules to get them. Such a man is a classic security risk in the face of Russian or Chinese kompromat, not to mention the risk posed by his known involvement with Epstein.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), the leader of my party, Mandelson was also a non-executive director of Sistema, a Russian arms dealing company led by a Putin ally. When he stood down from his role at Sistema, he took a large shareholding, which he kept for some time. All of this is in the public domain. It was in the public domain before Mandelson was appointed. There were links to China, too. I can list them over and over again: TikTok, which is owned by the Chinese state; and Shein, which is based on Uyghur forced labour. Of course, he also called time and again for closer Anglo-Chinese relationships. When appointments such as these are made, it is not a judgment beyond reasonable doubt. It is not even a judgment based on the balance of probabilities. It is a judgment on significant risk.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Of course, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic no. It was abundantly clear to anyone taking that decision that he was a significant security risk. He was a man who had twice been forced to resign from Government and who had known links to a paedophile. Mandelson was also closely associated with the Russian oligarch Deripaska, a man who had been responsible for the deaths of 100 people and was personally responsible for murders and extortion. Mr Mandelson—Lord Mandelson, as he was then—spent weekends with Deripaska in his dacha and in Moscow. He did this at weekends, of course, because the EU does not record where its commissioners are at the weekend. That is the sort of background we are talking about. As we heard from my right hon.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She was highly regarded by the State Department and the White House; indeed—contrary to what the Lib Dem leader said—so much so that President Trump called the Prime Minister to urge him to keep Pierce while expressing concern about Mandelson in one of three calls from the White House on her behalf and against him. She was a high-class, high-performance, zero-risk choice. Against that, we had the London establishment’s view that Mandelson’s amoral dark arts would somehow make him a good ambassador—a view typically espoused by people with no idea of what makes a good ambassador. Among the questions before us in assessing the Prime Minister’s judgment is whether Mandelson was a better appointment than Karen Pierce and, if so, whether the benefit of that appointment was sufficient to outweigh the clear risks.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Our ambassador in Washington stands at the nexus of the Five Eyes, with more classified intelligence crossing his desk than crosses the desks of most Cabinet Ministers. It is obviously one of the most important appointments the Prime Minister makes, but it is also one of the most sensitive. A security failure in that post could seriously jeopardise the Five Eyes relationship—the Americans are notoriously twitchy about security—so the appointee’s conduct before the appointment must be beyond reproach and their trustworthiness must be impeccable. One of our best ambassadors, Karen Pierce, was already in place.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is the public information. If the hon. Gentleman wants to get into the argument between UKVS, which we are now told was saying the risk was marginal, and No. 10, who are saying that the strike-off is a red, he can do that. I am talking about public data, and about what we should know before we start the process—”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is as plain as a pikestaff. So where do we go from here? We have a Prime Minister and a Government in power who are making decisions in the interests of their own clique within their party, and in doing so they are putting the United Kingdom at explicit risk. The Prime Minister should resign.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was because Mandelson was a leading member of the new Labour aristocracy, full stop. It was not talent, but connection. It was not even in the national interest. Plainly it was not even in the Labour interest. It was in the interest of a Labour clique. Mandelson’s appointment was a decision made with complete disregard for the known risks, which explains the Prime Minister’s lack of curiosity about the vetting. It was not a lack of curiosity; he did not ask because he did not want to know. The former Cabinet Secretary warned the Prime Minister that he should secure Mandelson’s security clearance before any appointment. He was warned on 11 December 2024 by the Cabinet Office about Mandelson’s public past. On 11 September last year, No. 10 was asked by a journalist whether Mandelson had failed developed vetting. No. 10 knew.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, no, the hon. Gentleman has had his go. Sit down. No. 10 has chosen to ignore these things, and that is critical. We have heard about the pressure that was being put on the Foreign Office over and over again. Forgive me again, Mr Speaker, for this direct quote, because it is obscene. The Select Committee Chairman recounted today how Morgan McSweeney called Sir Olly’s predecessor and told him to, “Just fucking approve it.” Speaking in the Committee, Sir Olly made it clear that he was under “constant pressure” in an “atmosphere of constant chasing”. Why? We already know that it was not because Mandelson was a materially better candidate than Karen Pierce, the brilliant, well-established, highly regarded incumbent with excellent connections to the White House.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I came in to watch the Committee. Sir Olly actually said that the advice he was given by his director of intelligence was “borderline”. One issue that was not clear was whether the pressure from No. 10 was simply on him or on all members of the channel, down to lower levels.”
House of Commons21 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That was the advice then; why did the Prime Minister not follow it?”
House of Commons20 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Prime Minister rebuffed first the Leader of the Opposition and then the leader of the Liberal Democrats for saying that the then Cabinet Secretary’s advice to the Prime Minister was to get the clearance before the announcement. I will read one sentence from a document entitled “Options for HMA Washington”, from the Cabinet Secretary of the day to the Prime Minister personally. It states: “If this is the route that you wish to take you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware before confirming your choice.” The House does not want to hear about what Mr Wormald said a year later.”
House of Commons20 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What steps are the Secretary of State and the Minister taking to prevent NHS leaders who have failed in one role from being moved to a different post within the NHS?”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Following on directly from the Secretary of State’s comments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), last month two national health service trusts in my constituency were found to be among the worst in England, one of them actually the worst. NHS England will now be brought in to turn those trusts around. However, the former chief executive of those trusts, who was responsible for overseeing their decline and was terminated in that job, has been promoted as the NHS turnaround manager for Yorkshire. Supposedly, he will be the man to correct the problem he created. That is by no means the first time that people have been found failing upwards in the national health service.”
House of Commons14 April 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can we therefore have a debate on the national health service’s habitual strategy of failing upwards managers who have let down our constituents?”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This morning’s papers report that my two national health service trusts are the worst in the country. One of the more stupid proposals of the management of one of those trusts was a plan to downgrade Goole and District hospital in my constituency. Under the leadership of the former chief executive, one Jonathan Lofthouse, those underperforming trusts repeatedly lied to me, so the House will not be surprised to hear that we had some robust conversations. Mr Lofthouse was then put on gardening leave at the astonishing salary of £285,000 a year. I would have sacked him out of hand; instead, he is now NHS England’s director of turnaround and recovery for my region, the very body tasked with fixing the failing trusts of which he was a cause. This is the institutional rewarding of failure, and it is by no means the first time.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The first is Dr Steve Watts, a former assistant chief constable who wrote the national police guidelines on the investigation of deaths in healthcare settings, and the second is former detective superintendent Stuart Clifton—the officer in charge of the investigation that led to the conviction of Beverley Allitt, one of the most prolific child murderers in healthcare history—who was actually commissioned by The Sun newspaper to confirm Letby’s guilt. Indeed, both policemen believed that Letby was guilty—that is, until they examined the hard facts, and both now believe that the Letby case is a serious miscarriage of justice.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One would think that after that case, Cheshire police and the Crown Prosecution Service would have been very careful to avoid this happening again, and to abide by all the rules and guidelines designed precisely to prevent further terrible miscarriages of justice. Let us test exactly that premise. We are uniquely assisted in the process by the fact that the behaviour of the police and prosecution has been reviewed by two separate police officers, both extremely experienced in precisely this sort of case.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In 1998, Cheshire police arrested Sally Clark and charged her with the murder of her two baby sons. In 1999, she was convicted of their murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. That conviction and sentence was overturned by the Court of Appeal in 2003 and recognised as a gross miscarriage of justice, and Sally Clark was set free, albeit after three years in prison. However, her life had been destroyed, and just four years later she died from alcohol poisoning—the grief had driven her to drink, and it killed her. The destruction of an innocent person’s life was caused by the police, the prosecution and the court swallowing bogus statistical assertions by an alleged expert in her trial. That expert eventually resigned in disgrace, although that did not save Sally Clark.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“But neither the defence nor the jury were told of Professor Hutton’s explicit warnings to the police. That is unsurprising really, because it obliterated the prosecution’s statistical argument—the foundation of their entire case. Professor Hutton believes the statistical errors are “similar to those in the Sally Clark case but worse.” I wrote to the chief constable about how those bogus statistics had been compiled. He refused to answer any of the questions I had raised and said he would “not be providing any further detail or engaging in ongoing correspondence”. So much for transparency and welcoming challenge. That refusal to answer questions from a Member of Parliament sits uneasily alongside his department’s extraordinary public relations campaign, which at the very least invaded the privacy rights of Letby’s parents.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The police then told her: “The prosecutor...has instructed us not to pursue this avenue any further.” She challenges them and the prosecutor tells them to sack it. That falls in direct contravention of part 3.3 of the “Code for Crown Prosecutors”, which states: “Prosecutors cannot direct the police or other investigators.” Dr Watts added: “This occurrence is particularly egregious...it is...not appropriate for the CPS to deter the police from acquiring evidence that may be relevant and available.” Dr Watts goes on to say that the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 “is binding upon the CPS to the same extent as the police, for the CPS to Instruct the police to ignore potentially relevant evidence would clearly be a breach of the CPIA”.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As Stuart Clifton bluntly puts it: “Evans cherry picked the cases to match Letby’s shifts and Police used this in their chart to reflect her presence at those events highlighted by Evans. One has to wonder just how he settled on those children where Letby was present.” Any qualified statistician could have pointed that out to Cheshire police. In fact, one did. In April 2018, a police officer approached one of the country’s leading statisticians, Professor Jane Hutton, asking her to put a figure on the likelihood of a nurse being on duty during “all the deaths/collapses” in the unit. It is almost a rerun of the Sally Clark argument. Cheshire police had signed a consultancy agreement with Professor Hutton. Professor Hutton warned them that its whole approach was wrong.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Three times Cheshire police’s due diligence failed—if, indeed, they attempted it at all. Crucial to the case against Letby was the infamous shift table presented as evidence that she was on duty for all the incidents when babies collapsed or died. Over a period of 13 months, there were 17 deaths—far more than the “normal” expected three or four deaths. Stuart Clifton states: “Missing from the chart used at trial are deaths which occurred whilst Letby was not on duty or those where adverse events took place whilst off duty”. Cheshire police, which compiled the table, chose to highlight only the shifts during which Letby was present, disregarding similar events when she was not. The seven deaths charged as murders were, in effect, selected because she happened to be on duty.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Another prosecution expert, Professor Hindmarsh, was dismissed from his post as an honorary consultant at Great Ormond Street hospital before—just before—he gave evidence at the trial. During the trial, while he was giving evidence, he faced a General Medical Council investigation for failures of expertise and posing a risk to his patients: an expert witness chastised for a failure of expertise. The jury knew nothing of that. Another prosecution expert, Dr Bohin, reviewed Evans’s work. She faced numerous complaints from her patients’ families and was later criticised for ignoring a key symptom in one of her patients. These are the supposed experts that Cheshire police and the CPS chose, rather than a panel of independent experts from all relevant disciplines, as the NCA had advised.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Stuart Clifton states: “It was illogical to allow Evans to both advise and be the principal prosecution witness as there is a clear conflict of interest.” If this was not warning enough to Cheshire police, it should have set alarm bells ringing when Evans declared, after just 10 minutes of reviewing the case notes, that he suspected there was “foul play”. Dr Watts states: “Evans was not independently selected but came forward himself” and “validators used to assess his opinions were themselves selected without adequate independence…by Evans himself”. What is more, Stuart Clifton said that it was “completely illogical to allow other experts…to view the findings of Evans, since experts are expected to give evidence of their” findings “and not be corrupted by others”.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Lord Justice Jackson described Evans’s evidence as “worthless”, stating that he “makes no effort to provide a balanced opinion”, and his “approach amounts to a breach of proper professional conduct”. I think that, later on, he also called it tendentious—terrifying when a single opinion will condemn a young woman to life in prison. When Cheshire police asked Evans if it should follow NCA guidance and seek other expert witnesses, he said: “I do not think it’s necessary to consider additional expert opinion at this stage.” He wouldn’t, of course. Evans was appointed as both the police adviser and the expert witness in the trial.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dr Watts points out that the “‘back door’ approach by an alleged expert who is clearly looking for work…should have sounded warning bells for the” senior investigating officer “and the investigating team”. Having practised as an expert witness for decades, Evans boasted he had “never lost” a case. That is not the mindset of a neutral expert; it is the language of someone who tailors his evidence to suit the prosecution’s case. This was clearly demonstrated when another very senior judge took the extraordinary step of writing to the presiding judge in the Letby case, alerting him to Evans’s failings in a previous case. I think the House should understand quite how unusual it is for a judge to take that step.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Instead of drawing up a multidisciplinary panel, Dr Watts states, “Operation Hummingbird…built its entire medical case around one expert.” That so-called expert was Dr Dewi Evans. The warning signs were there before the trial started. Dr Watts believes that “Cheshire police were clutching at straws to find an expert, then very quickly and uncritically took a lifeline offered by Evans”. Evans ran a business providing “expert medical advice” in court cases for a high fee. We can identify at least £80,000 paid to him for the Letby case, but the rest is concealed, and the true total is likely many times higher. Evans stated: “This was my extra money, which helped keep my daughter in horses and my son in cars.” That was his motivation. He approached the NCA after reading about the case and called it “my kind of case”.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, Dr Watts points out: “On 26 May 2017, an email record indicates that the NCA…advised” Cheshire police “to appoint a panel of relevant experts; they clearly defined the disciplines and provided a comprehensive list. They were: Forensic & Neonatal Pathologists, Forensic Toxicologist and/or Clinical Pharmacologist, a Nurse with experience of special baby units, a medical expert with experience of the working practices on a special unit for neonates, an Obstetrician, and experts to review the medical statistics.” The advice was national best practice, but Cheshire police ignored it. On 28 June 2017, the NCA advisers followed up with a list of potential experts who could fill those posts. Cheshire police blatantly ignored that, too.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The failure to refer the case meant that proper safeguards and specialist scrutiny by independent lawyers, who had not been closely associated with the investigating team, were never implemented. That is very important. It is notable that when officers in the special crime and counter-terrorism division were involved earlier this year after the Cheshire police had put 11 additional charges to them, they turned them down flat. The special crime and counter-terrorism division stated that “the evidential test was not met in any of those cases.” After failing to refer the case to the correct CPS unit, Cheshire police then failed to listen to explicit guidance from the National Crime Agency.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He says: “It appears self-evident that this case falls into all the relevant categories of Sensitivity, Seriousness and Complexity”, but the regional CPS unit, Merseyside and Cheshire, “made the charging decisions in this case.” The requirement is made plain in the current version of the CPS referrals, approvals and notifications guidance, which states in terms that “homicide allegations involving…four or more victims and…medical authorities” should be passed on to the special crime and counter-terrorism division, which is a unit in London that specialises in complicated cases. Plainly, the Cheshire police believed that there were a lot more than four victims, so this case should have automatically gone to the special crime and counter-terrorism division.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Paragraph 3.5 of the code of practice under that Act states: “In conducting an investigation, the investigator should pursue all reasonable lines of inquiry, whether these point towards or away from the suspect.” The Cheshire police did not follow the letter of the law or best professional practice. Dr Watts states that CPS guidelines and police guidance on the investigation of death in healthcare settings “require that decisions in ‘Sensitive, Serious and Complex’ cases are referred to the CPS Serious Crime and Counter Terrorism Division.” Remember that Dr Watts is the country’s expert in this area.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Dr Watts poses an important question: “Where was the decision not to treat the doctors as suspects, or the other nurses, or the cleaners?” Justice demands that the police look at everyone. It does not permit them to fixate on one individual and build a case solely around them. Dr Watts makes it plain that that is not just a moral requirement; it is the law. Section 23(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 requires “that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued”.”
House of Commons26 March 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗