House of Commons · Urgent Question
03 December 2025 · 17 other contributors
Opened by Matt Western Lab Warwick and Leamington
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Matt Western raised concerns about official secrets act and espionage 2025-12-03 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 that the Government will work closely with the Crown Prosecution Service to tighten up communication and processes in national security cases, especially given the systemic failures identified by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy? Will he also agree that greater support should be given to civil servants acting as witnesses in such high-profile cases?
Question
Will the Minister give reassurances that the Government will work closely with the CPS to ensure tightened communications and processes, particularly when dealing with cases involving national security? Does he acknowledge that the new National Security Act 2023 may not entirely cover low-level espionage activity?
Minister reply
The Minister assured Matt Western that the Government is carefully considering the findings of the JCNSS report. He acknowledged the role of the CPS but noted operational independence. Regarding the National Security Act 2023, he stated that while it is comprehensive, they will ensure it remains fit for purpose and appropriate.
Question
Did the Government provide the Joint Committee with the minutes of the 1 September meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser? Will corrections be made to Hansard for inaccurate statements made during debates? Do the Government agree that China poses a general threat to UK national security and how can they justify supporting the Chinese mega-embassy in London?
Minister reply
The Minister did not provide specific details regarding the minutes of the 1 September meeting, but stated that corrections will be considered for Hansard. He acknowledged the report's findings on China's threat to UK security but emphasised the Government's commitment to national security and addressing these matters carefully.
Question
The Member for Widnes and Halewood asked for a timeline on the implementation of changes recommended by the Joint Committee's report, expressing bemusement over the Crown Prosecution Service’s decision to not proceed with a prosecution.
Minister reply
The Minister acknowledged the value of constructive scrutiny from Committees but could not provide additional details on the Crown Prosecution Service matter. He assured ongoing engagement and cooperation with Committees moving forward.
Question
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson urged immediate implementation of recommendations to counter Beijing’s threats, questioning the timeline for introducing new powers against foreign interference and requested clarification on placing China on the enhanced tier of the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme.
Minister reply
Minister Jarvis confirmed plans for new measures but emphasised a careful review before adding more countries to the enhanced tier, offering further discussion with the hon. Member.
Question
The Member for Hammersmith and Chiswick sought organisational lessons learned from the process and whether there would be repetition of similar issues.
Minister reply
Minister Jarvis agreed on a non-partisan approach but stressed the need for humility in handling such reports, committing to detailed review and implementation within set timeframes.
Question
The right hon. Gentleman questioned the government’s previous position on China not constituting a threat itself despite posing various threats.
Minister reply
Minister Jarvis referenced the Prime Minister's stance, emphasising that the approach towards China is neither fear-driven nor softened by illusion but rather grounded in strength and clarity.
Question
The Member for Hackney South advocated for a new Committee to cover sensitive matters not currently overseen by existing scrutiny Committees.
Minister reply
Minister Jarvis acknowledged the suggestion but no specific response was provided in the given transcript.
Question
Has the Minister considered having a hostage envoy for dealing with espionage cases from the other side, as the Ratcliffe family keep raising?
Minister reply
I am grateful to Tulip Siddiq for her work and contributions. I am joined by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs who will discuss this further with her.
Question
What has changed over the past four years in terms of dealing with espionage cases?
Minister reply
One change is the machinery-of-government change in September, placing the Security Minister in both the Home Office and Cabinet Office to better coordinate national security policy and activity. The Prime Minister's decision was right, enabling better informed decisions.
Question
Does the Minister welcome the report finding that dithering and delay by previous governments were the root cause of the case collapsing?
Minister reply
I am grateful to Dr Scott Arthur for his contributions. The point about the recommendations in the report is right, vindicating the basic argument brought forward by the Government. We will take on board lessons where necessary.
Question
Why was Jonathan Powell so passive on a matter of national security and alleged spying on Members of this House?
Minister reply
I do not believe that is a fair characterisation. The National Security Adviser acted with integrity throughout the process, adhering to specific restrictions placed on him.
Question
What steps are being taken or planned to protect Hongkongers, Tibetans and Uyghurs from transnational repression?
Minister reply
The Government brought forward a significant package of measures and welcome the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we have conducted a review of transnational repression in our country.
Question
Do the Government still have confidence in the Director of Public Prosecutions given the report's criticism?
Minister reply
It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the performance of the DPP. The CPS and the DPP are operationally independent of Government, and we approach these matters with humility.
Question
Is failing to add China to the enhanced tier of FIRS not a form of weakness?
Minister reply
The Government are looking closely at whether additional countries should be added to the enhanced tier. When a decision is made, it will be brought forward in the usual way.
Question
What specific actions will the Government take to restore confidence in parliamentary security and ensure full investigation of alleged spy threats?
Minister reply
The Government are looking very closely at whether additional countries should be added to the enhanced tier. When a decision is made, it will be brought forward in the usual way.
Question
Today, the Minister has again said that the reason the case collapsed was the inadequacy of the 1911 Act. That raises this obvious question: how come these two gentlemen were ever charged in the first place? The evidential test at the moment they were charged is exactly the same as the evidential test when the case was dropped, so how did they come to be charged under this Act if it was inadequate? Is it not quite clear that the Act was more than adequate to charge them and more than adequate to convict them?
Minister reply
I am not sure that anybody really thinks that the 1911 Act was appropriate. As the hon. and learned Member will know, because it is a statement of obvious truth, the decision to proceed was taken not under this Government, but under the previous one. All I am able to do in this House is to account for the decisions and actions taken by this Government. What this Government will always do is ensure that we protect our national security. It is our first duty and nothing matters more.
Government Response
The Minister thanked Matt Western for securing the urgent question and acknowledged the collapse of the prosecution case concerning two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. He stated that there was no evidence of improper influence by any Minister, special adviser or senior official to interfere with the prosecution, as confirmed by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy's report. The Government welcomed the JCNSS inquiry and will consider its conclusions and recommendations within a two-month timeframe. Jarvis emphasised the outdated nature of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and highlighted the measures taken by the Government to counter foreign espionage threats, as outlined in his speech on 18 November.