House of Commons · Urgent Question
16 October 2025 · 29 other contributors
Opened by Neil O’Brien Con Harborough, Oadby and Wigston
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Neil O’Brien raised concerns about official secrets act case witness statements 2025-10-16 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Will the Minister confirm the three witness statements in relation to an alleged breach of the Official Secrets Act on behalf of China have been published unredacted? What are the implications for national security and transparency?
Question
Stop playing politics! This is about national security, you petty little man!
Minister reply
Thanking Mr Speaker for order, I reiterate that the DNSA faithfully and with full integrity set out the position of the previous UK Government regarding China's threats to the UK.
Question
Why did the Government not provide additional evidence when the CPS was only 5% short?
Minister reply
The decision on whether to proceed was taken by the CPS independently. No interference or involvement from the Government in this regard.
Question
Why did the CPS collapse the case instead of leaving it to a jury?
Minister reply
The decision was made independently by the CPS based on wider evidence collected over a longer period. The CPS decided not to proceed, and this is disappointing.
Question
Did the CPS tell the Government in advance that the case was at risk of collapsing? Will the Minister commit to a statutory independent inquiry?
Minister reply
The decision was made by the CPS independently. The Minister is not committed to a statutory independent inquiry.
Question
Can the Minister clarify that there was no ministerial involvement at all in discussions with civil servants and subsequently civil servants with the CPS?
Minister reply
That is absolutely my understanding.
Question
Why did the deputy National Security Adviser include information about China as an economic opportunity in his statement when it was clear that he was being asked to comment on whether China constituted a national security threat?
Minister reply
The deputy National Security Adviser was reflecting Government policy at the time. It was done to provide broader context of the Government’s position on China at the time but it was an independent decision without interference from Ministers or advisers.
Question
Why did the deputy National Security Adviser include information about China as an economic opportunity in his statement when he knew that this was not the question being asked, nor the relevant question?
Minister reply
The inclusion of information about China’s economic opportunities was done to provide broader context but it was an independent decision without interference from Ministers or advisers.
Question
Is the wording of the Act as it should be given that passing information indirectly useful to an enemy might constitute an offence?
Minister reply
Commenting on whether or not the prosecution was dropped erroneously is not something any Minister would do from this Dispatch Box.
Question
How can the Government consider approving a super-embassy for China which would give extraordinary capability to expand espionage activities?
Minister reply
The decision on the Chinese embassy will be taken by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in due course. It is completely unrelated to this case.
Question
Are there concerns that the sale of Newport wafer fab could have been adversely affected by the leak of private information?
Minister reply
I understand how seriously my hon. Friend and her constituents will take this issue. I will get back to her with a substantive answer from the team as soon as possible.
Question
How can the Government defend their response which seems bureaucratic rather than about national security leadership?
Minister reply
Just to say, I have huge respect for the right hon. Member, even if that evidently is not mutual at the moment—let us see if we can get to that place.
Question
Given the delay in updating the Espionage Act, would we be in a different position now?
Minister reply
If the current Act had been in place at the time, the case could have proceeded. Decisions were taken not to update the law more quickly, and I think that is greatly regrettable.
Question
Can he be absolutely clear on two issues: first, that there was no ministerial involvement whatsoever in pulling this case, and secondly, that the Government provided all evidence that they were asked for?
Minister reply
Yes to both. There was no ministerial involvement in the decision not to prosecute, and the Government provided all evidence that it was asked for.
Question
Given that the deputy National Security Adviser is a civil servant, who was holding him to account for his job?
Minister reply
The Deputy National Security Adviser presented evidence under successive Governments devoid of any influence from advisers or Government. He acted with integrity and calibre.
Question
Does the Minister think it would have been worth Ministers reflecting on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 75 China report and requesting sight of the witness statements provided by the senior civil servant before they were submitted?
Minister reply
No, it is not the position of the Government to vet witness statements made in such cases. The decision not to prosecute was taken based on the evidence provided.
Question
Is the Prime Minister’s story about the correct evidence being relevant to the case correct?
Minister reply
The Prime Minister's statement that there was no political interference from the Government in any of the statements made is true.
Question
Does the Government view China as a national security threat?
Minister reply
Throughout the evidence, threats that China poses are set out multiple times. There is complete consistency between the statements and the threats.
Question
Does the Minister agree with the deputy National Security Adviser's assessment of China as the greatest state economic threat to the UK?
Minister reply
Yes, I agree. The Deputy National Security Adviser did not clear what he was doing with the CPS with his superiors or Ministers.
Question
Will the Government include Chinese officials on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Minister reply
I am not across the specific details in my brief, so I will get back to the hon. Lady.
Question
Why did the Prime Minister do nothing when he learned that a major trial concerning spying on Members was going to collapse?
Minister reply
The Government wanted the prosecution to proceed and allowed every opportunity for evidence to be provided. The decision not to prosecute was taken independently by the CPS.
Question
Why does the Minister keep trying to suggest that Ministers are not responsible for the behaviour of their civil servants?
Minister reply
It is not the place of Ministers to be vetting or interfering in evidence on this matter.
Question
Why did the exact wording in the Labour party manifesto end up in the statement?
Minister reply
The wording was put in to provide wider context, but it was provided independently by the DNSA without any involvement from Ministers or political advisers.
Question
Was there a specific link between the National Security Adviser and the 48 Group?
Minister reply
I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that. But the National Security Adviser was not involved in any part of this.
Question
Can the Minister tell us whether the Attorney General shares the concern of the CPS that there is not enough evidence to prosecute?
Minister reply
Every Member of the House shares the concern that the case did not proceed, but the decision was taken by the CPS.
Question
Why did the Security Minister say that the National Security Adviser had no links to the 48 Group when he was listed as a fellow?
Minister reply
I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that.
Question
Until the statement was published last night, some of us had no idea about the details of this case, but the Government appear to be unwilling to answer three questions that have been asked repeatedly in this Chamber. The first concerns proof that, for the 14 months the CPS asked about, the DNSA at no point spoke to any Ministers or the National Security Adviser. Why, when the Prime Minister was informed that the case would collapse, did he not do everything in his power, and is there any evidence that he took any action at all? And why, if the Government are so disappointed that the case collapsed, have there been to this day no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party?
Minister reply
The House has had a detailed statement from the Government on this issue last night. The Minister will be happy to answer any specific questions in due course.
Question
Given that the Government’s position is that the bureaucrats run the Government and are in charge of everything, may we dissolve this House and save the taxpayer the money, because clearly this is not a democracy any more?
Minister reply
The Minister was asked to respond to an urgent question on this issue. He has done so, and now he will take questions from Members.
Question
You have taken a close interest in this issue, Mr Speaker—the fact that it goes to the heart of this Parliament on the protection of Members of Parliament and the secrets that we sometimes hold. I am sure that you will share my concern that someone on their very first outing has been sent out on this issue and that the Prime Minister used yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions and has not faced proper scrutiny in this House in a statement. May I gently ask whether you would seek to have him make a statement to the House?
Minister reply
The Minister is here to answer urgent questions. He will take further questions from Members.
Government Response
I thank the hon. Member for the question and for the opportunity to respond to it today. Following the Security Minister’s statement on Monday and the Prime Minister's update yesterday, the Government have published unredacted witness statements from the deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA). The substantive case clearly articulates serious threats posed by China, with all documents emphasising the significant risks faced by the UK. The decision to proceed was made purely by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), and it is disappointing that the case did not proceed as desired.