-
Question
The shadow Secretary associates herself with the Minister’s remarks about Heaton Park synagogue and thanks Mr Speaker for his work on Members’ security. She expresses disappointment in the Government's ineptitude regarding foreign interference and questions the adequacy of issuing leaflets to protect Parliament from espionage.
-
Question
I find it genuinely astonishing that at no point did the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge that all acts discussed today happened under her government. Why has she not acknowledged this?
-
Question
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Over the weekend, Sir John Sawers became the latest former intelligence chief to express disbelief at the collapse of this espionage case. Given the Minister’s statement that the Government have not concealed evidence or suppressed anything, will the Minister commit to publishing a timeline showing who knew what and when?
Minister reply
On his point about releasing information, it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes. I take issue with the hon Gentleman’s analysis of the Government’s relationship with China, particularly on transnational repression. We have done a lot of work through the defending democracy taskforce to ensure that we have the right resources in the right place.
-
Question
The Government have made it clear that they regret the fact that this case is not going ahead. Will he go further than regret and say that, as a matter of law and evidence, this prosecution should have gone ahead?
Minister reply
I have used the expression ‘extremely disappointed’. The CPS and DPP are rightly independent of Government. Frankly, we go down quite a dangerous road if we get into a situation of politicians and Ministers seeking to advise them and to influence their decisions.
-
Question
There is a real threat at the moment to public trust in the criminal justice system following the collapse of this trial. Will the Minister make a commitment that he, ministerial colleagues and other advisers will co-operate fully with any scrutiny work done by my Committee or other Committees of the House?
Minister reply
I can give the right hon Lady that absolute assurance. The Government take the importance of parliamentary scrutiny very seriously.
-
Question
Following on from the point made by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, it is vital that Parliament is able to examine what has happened here. The Government have made a commitment to transparency. Will the Minister commit to engaging fully with the Committee corridor?
Minister reply
I am genuinely grateful to my hon Friend for her suggestion. I hope that she, the House and Opposition Front Benchers know that my approach will always be to make as much information as possible available to colleagues.
-
Question
The right hon. Gentleman has been consistent in expressing those concerns over many years. I would gently point out to him that the situation he describes as absurd is the same situation that we inherited from the previous Government.
-
Question
The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of this House, so let me say something to him about the National Security Adviser. Over the past year, this Government have rebuilt our international relationships, led on the global stage and signed new agreements with multiple countries to safeguard our security and to grow our economy.
Minister reply
The National Security Adviser is doing an excellent job and, if the right hon. Gentleman does not believe me, perhaps he should speak to Steve Witkoff.
-
Question
I share Mr Speaker’s fury about the collapse of this trial, as I am sure all Members do. It is a huge disappointment that this former Conservative party researcher has escaped justice.
Minister reply
Yes, I can give him that assurance, and I have made clear from this Dispatch Box on many occasions the importance that this Government attach to the National Security Act 2023.
-
Question
The integrated review refresh, which stated that the Chinese Communist party posed a threat to our people and our security, was in fact published the very day that these two men were arrested. But that in itself is a red herring.
Minister reply
I am sorry that she does not feel that the Government’s response is adequate, but I assure her that I will endeavour to ensure that this Government do as much as we possibly can to work with her and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on this issue.
-
Question
I thank the Minister for his statement and for introducing some facts to the debate—I can see that some alternative realities have come crashing down.
Minister reply
We take these matters incredibly seriously. In fact, I will have more to say about it shortly.
-
Question
The Minister and I have been friends for many years, so it gives me no pleasure to say this. The statement that he read out today, no doubt under instruction, has thrown out more chaff and set up more straw men than a Russian disinformation campaign.
Minister reply
Members will understand the history and the reasons for the concerns he has expressed. We have published guidance from the NPSA today.
-
Question
My constituents will welcome the Minister’s clarity that China is indeed a threat. Those threats to our national security take place not just here, but overseas.
-
Question
In light of judicial precedents, will the Minister refuse to approve China’s application for an embassy at the Royal Mint, given ample evidence of national security threats posed by China?
Minister reply
The issue of approving China’s embassy is not within my purview but falls under a quasi-judicial process overseen by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
-
Question
What safeguards will be included in the Elections Bill to protect our democratic institutions from foreign influence?
Minister reply
The Elections Bill will include tough new rules for assessing company donors and enhanced checks under 'know your donor' provisions to guard against foreign interference.
-
Question
Did the National Security Adviser have any influence over the contents of evidence provided to the CPS that led to the collapse of a trial?
Minister reply
I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on this matter.
-
Question
Will the Minister provide further details on measures announced today to protect parliamentarians, councillors and those in public life from foreign interference?
Minister reply
The proposals contained in the elections Bill will go a long way towards providing reassurance, but work done by the defending democracy taskforce is also important.
-
Question
Does the proposed Chinese embassy have national security implications and should the Government discourage engagement with China?
Minister reply
It is true that the proposed Chinese embassy would be very large, but issues related to its approval are not within my department's jurisdiction.
-
Question
How will the new elections Bill address interference through political funding, especially in light of Russian influence and recent cases?
Minister reply
Using public office to further Russia's interests while financially benefiting is a betrayal of our democratic values.
-
Question
What happened with the Government’s evidence provided to the CPS regarding China, and will this be published?
Minister reply
I am not in a position to second-guess decisions made by the DPP, but I hope that my earlier response addressed his serious question about publishing the evidence.
-
Question
Will the Minister include China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme to deter its harmful actions?
Minister reply
The response is not provided in the given text.
-
Question
We know that the Government withheld vital evidence requested by the DPP. Who decided not to provide this evidence?
Minister reply
The Deputy National Security Adviser, a senior official with extensive experience in national security matters, provided witness statements under legal constraints and within policy positions of the time.
-
Question
How can the argument that China was not formally classified as a threat to national security hold up when reports clearly describe it as such?
Minister reply
Activities under the previous government were based on legislation at the time. This is not about blaming but stating facts. Reports like those from the ISC in 2023 confirm China's challenge, though classifications vary.
-
Question
Was the National Security Adviser involved in providing advice to the CPS and what are his links to the 48 Group?
Minister reply
The Government balanced national security concerns with economic prosperity. The National Security Adviser does not have any links to the 48 Group.
-
Question
Will the Minister commit to publishing names of individuals interviewed in relation to Nathan Gill bribery cases for transparency?
Minister reply
Transparency is important. I will look carefully at the point and take it away, hoping she supports our elections Bill.
-
Question
Why won't the Government do everything to try to bring this case to trial?
Minister reply
This Government will do everything possible to keep the public safe, as evidenced by previous statements.
-
Question
Will the National Security Adviser appear before parliamentary committees to answer questions?
Minister reply
The National Security Adviser is a special adviser, and I would point towards President Trump’s policy advisor for context regarding U.S. concerns.
-
Question
Will all meeting content related to the CPS be published?
Minister reply
I take the hon. Member's points seriously, but legal dimensions must be considered before publishing any material.
-
Question
Does the Minister regret not using the word 'threat' in 2023 regarding China?
Minister reply
I am not involved in critiquing past government responses but acknowledge the importance of ISC reports.
-
Question
Was it considered that China was spying on Parliament?
Minister reply
China poses a series of threats to the UK, though specific details have been addressed. I was clear about these issues.
-
Question
When was China classified as non-threatening and how will this affect concerned constituents?
Minister reply
Decisions were made within legal constraints of the time. Transparency is needed to address concerns.
-
Question
Was any Minister or senior official other than the deputy National Security Adviser sighted on the decision regarding the evidence sent to the CPS?
Minister reply
The hon. Member referenced the China audit; I am sure that he will acknowledge that the then Foreign Secretary came to the House to give a statement specifically on the China audit. The reason why the China audit has not been published is that it is at a higher classification than documents that would normally be published.
-
Question
Will the Government publish in full the China audit and implement targeted sanctions against officials responsible for transnational repression? Will they ensure the new elections Bill tackles all foreign political funding?
Minister reply
The referenced decision was one for the DPP and the CPS. The reason why the China audit has not been published is due to its higher classification level. On foreign influence, there will be measures in the upcoming Elections Bill to tackle covert foreign political funding.
-
Question
Why could former Security Minister not give evidence that China was a threat? Why blame officials instead of Ministers?
Minister reply
Ministers are accountable for their decisions, but it is unfortunate when Members seek to blame officials or imply criticism towards them.
-
Question
What changed between April 2024 and September '25 regarding the evidential test for espionage charges against China?
Minister reply
With great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is what I was at great pains to explain in my opening remarks.
-
Question
Does setting an incentive for officials admitting espionage issues with China create a perverse situation?
Minister reply
No, I do not agree.
-
Question
Can the Minister explain why national security might be seen as being sacrificed due to economic dependency on China?
Minister reply
No, I do not agree. We will always put our national security first while looking for opportunities for trade with a country where there is an economic advantage.
-
Question
Why has China not been classified in the enhanced tier of FIRS despite concerns about espionage? What role did Jonathan Powell play?
Minister reply
The Government have taken a strategic approach, and any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.
-
Question
Why was evidence not provided to the CPS that China is a threat? Is it still impossible to argue this in court?
Minister reply
On providing evidence, I have tried to provide the Government’s response. We must take a strategic approach towards China while defending our national security.
-
Question
The Minister has been asked multiple times whether he will publish the minutes of the meetings in which this case was discussed. How can we ensure transparency and accountability for these decisions?
Minister reply
We are committed to openness but must balance it with operational requirements. The Table Office is currently reviewing ways to release relevant documents while protecting sensitive information.