(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of their ability to protect Parliament from Chinese espionage in light of the collapse of recent legal proceedings.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, the UK Government remain steadfast in their commitment to reducing the threat from foreign espionage targeting UK domestic institutions and continue to drive cross-government work to respond to the threat through the Defending Democracy Taskforce. The National Cyber Security Centre and the Centre for the Protection of Critical National Infrastructure produce advice and guidance for Members of both Houses of Parliament. MI5’s National Protective Security Authority has today—22 minutes ago—launched new guidance to protect the UK’s democratic institutions from foreign interference.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I welcome and will look at the action she has recommended and mentioned. I am sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House is not in her place to answer this Question.
Will the noble Baroness agree that no step must be left unturned to safeguard the integrity of our Parliament from espionage by foreign state actors, and notably the malign and relentless activity of China? Any suggestion of executive action—or inaction—that may have led to the collapse of these proceedings must be investigated thoroughly and unequivocally condemned.
Will the noble Baroness give the House a categorical assurance that, if any evidence occurs of Chinese targeting of Members of your Lordships’ House—past, present or future—she will press colleagues in government at the highest level to ensure that those involved will be brought to court and made to answer for their actions: no ifs, no buts and certainly no secret quid pro quos?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. He is absolutely right that of course we would expect full prosecution of anybody who undertakes espionage against Members of your Lordships’ House or anyone else working in Parliament. I want to make it very clear that we are very disappointed by the CPS’s decision; it was made by the CPS as an independent body. Noble Lords will be aware that a Statement will be made by the Security Minister this afternoon, which we will have the opportunity to discuss later this week, about the actions that this Government are taking.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, the former director-general of the Security Service has warned the country that Chinese espionage has been carried out on an industrial scale, including by seeking influence over Parliament, as well as on industry and education. That is why I and these Benches warned that exempting China from the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme under the National Security Act was a strategic mistake by the Government. The Government made another strategic error by deciding, with the Conservative Party’s support, to exempt government, administration and public bodies in their entirety from the FIRS scheme—I warned them about that on 5 June. Does the Minister not agree that new guidance is fine, but it is hamstrung if the Government and the Official Opposition continue their support for the exemption from the FIRS scheme of the very areas we know China seeks to influence?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord has consistently made these arguments. I confirm what has previously been said in your Lordships’ House: no decision has yet been made on specifying China on the enhanced tier of the scheme. As noble Lords would expect, my officials continue to consider whether and how the enhanced tier can be used to provide greater protection for areas where China and other countries pose significant threats. Adding countries to the enhanced tier requires the consideration of a broad range of interests and any decisions will be brought before Parliament in the usual way.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, the Government stated that the decision not to proceed with a prosecution was entirely that of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Will the Minister acknowledge, in the light of the director’s subsequent statement, that the Government were being economical with the truth?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
While I have huge respect for the noble Lord, I absolutely will not. This was an independent decision made by the CPS: there was no ministerial or special adviser involvement. The Deputy National Security Adviser, without interference, gave three different witness statements to the CPS for its use. This is not a matter of us not assisting the case: this is an independent matter for the CPS.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while all embassies have spies in them, the larger the embassy, the more spies can fit in? Is it appropriate to have an embassy the size of the one that has been proposed for China?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, I never thought I would be discussing real estate and espionage, but we find ourselves in a strange set of circumstances. I thank my noble friend. As he is very well aware, the decision about the future location of the Chinese embassy is a matter for the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, and a decision will be brought forward in due course.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, do the Government accept that China is a security threat to our country?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is famous for asking such straightforward and easy questions. The Government are clear that our relationship with China is complex: we are to compete, to challenge and to co-operate. Choosing not to engage with China is no choice at all. Let us be clear: state agents of the Chinese Government have acted in ways that pose a potential threat to the United Kingdom. We continue to have conversations and to engage in a collaborative way with our Five Eyes partners to counter that challenge.
The Lord Bishop of Leeds
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that spying by the Chinese is not a new phenomenon but has been conducted under previous Governments as well?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The right reverend Prelate makes a very important point, including in relation to this case, which allegedly occurred under the previous Government. China and other nations seeking to get information and access to Members of your Lordships’ House is nothing new.
Lord Pannick (CB)
The Minister said in answer to my noble friend Lord Butler that the decision not to continue the prosecution was entirely a matter for the DPP, with no involvement whatever from any special adviser. Surely it is the role of the National Security Adviser to advise in relation to such a matter, and for that to be taken strongly into account by the DPP.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
As I have previously said, the Deputy National Security Adviser, on behalf of the Government, gave three different witness statements, as requested by the CPS and the DPP. We gave, and will continue to give, for all prosecutions, full evidence as available. It was a matter for the DPP to determine whether there was enough evidence to proceed and in this matter it chose not to.
Lord Grocott (Lab)
Does my noble friend recall that we once had a Chancellor of the Exchequer called George Osborne? Among the many things he said—this was 10 years ago, in the dying days of the Osborne-Cameron Government—was that we should “stick together” with China and
“make it a golden decade for both our countries”
and that the aim was to make China the second-largest trading partner for Britain. All parties are entitled to change their policies, but does my noble friend have any information on when the Conservative Party made this 180-degree shift?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I very much thank my noble friend for his question. Let me be clear about some of the interesting comments in terms of where the Opposition have been. When he was Foreign Secretary, the right honourable James Cleverly, MP, who I have a huge amount of time for, called the decision to sum up China in one word as a “threat” as
“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”.
Most importantly for your Lordships’ House, the Leader of the Opposition, when Business Secretary, said that we
“should not be describing China as a foe”.
When in government, the Opposition had some interesting views on China; so did some of their Ministers. On that basis, I think we need to be very clear about what we are talking about.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her answers. Is it the case that the witness statements of the Deputy National Security Adviser will be published? Is it the case that any communications between the National Security Adviser and the Deputy National Security Adviser relating to this case will be published? Is it the case that the National Security Adviser and the Deputy National Security Adviser will make themselves available to a committee of this House, or to a Joint Committee, in order to explain their decisions? Is it the case that the Attorney-General, who has ministerial responsibility for the Crown Prosecution Service, will share information with this House about how that decision was reached? If not, why not?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a series of questions—at Question Time there is typically just one—which I suggest that we discuss when we have the Statement repeat from the other end, because my honourable friend the Security Minister will be on his feet on this very issue within the next two hours.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, if China is considered to be a security threat, will the Government end ownership of UK infrastructure by entities connected with the Chinese Government? That kind of infiltration formed part of the previous Government’s privatisation policies.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point, which has been discussed many times in your Lordships’ House, about the role of Chinese investment in our country. The reality is that we consider both that there is an element of security threat but also that we have the potential to compete, challenge and co-operate with China. China is the second-largest economy and our third-largest trading partner; we have to have a level of engagement.
Lord Laming (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, to the average lay person, such as myself, it seems strange that the prosecution services can bring serious charges against two people and, for 18 months, these charges remain and the court is convened to prosecute these charges, and then at the 11th hour it is said that they do not have sufficient evidence? To the lay person, that seems extremely strange.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord makes a very important point. Obviously, the 18-month delay is unfortunate, which is why we are trying to fix the court services going forward. With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, there was the Roussev case, a piece of case law about the Official Secrets Act, which concerned the DPP, which is why additional information was taken and why the CPS has made its decision, from my understanding.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I remind the Minister of the old Foreign Office dictum that we have no permanent friends or permanent enemies, only permanent interests. It is in our permanent interest not to fall out disastrously with the biggest country in the world. We have to live with the Chinese and talk to them. Both sides must realise that there are things that cannot be done but, for goodness’ sake, let us stop talking about enemies and start talking about co-operation.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I hope the noble Lord has appreciated that I have said “co-operate” twice in the last 13 minutes. He is right; however, the first duty of government is to provide for our safety and security. There is a balance here between making sure that the population of the United Kingdom is safe and secure and that your Lordships can go about their work unconcerned about the threat of espionage while, at the same time, appreciating the international reality, in a very uncertain world, that we need to make sure that we engage with our third-biggest trading partner.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, will the Minister have another go at answering my question: do the Government regard China as a threat to our national security or not?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Just for the noble Lord, I will read from my pack: “The Government knows that China poses a series of threats to UK national security. We have seen Chinese espionage and cyberattacks on our soil and transnational repression of Hong Kongers”. Based on that, I think I can say yes.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, have His Majesty’s Government had any discussions with the Crown Prosecution Service about the wording of the Official Secrets Acts, in light of the collapse of this case? Is it the Government’s understanding that the wording of the Acts was a factor in the collapse of that case?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an important point, which I hope will be discussed this afternoon in the other place, so we can have a conversation about it later this week.
Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)
My Lords, when you see the background of the build-up of what China is building to create war in every conceivable way—and the number of ships and drones they are building—I have no doubt and totally support the view that China is probably the most dangerous enemy that we will have to deal with in the future.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I would not necessarily use the word “enemy”, as we have discussed in response to earlier questions. It is clear that there are areas in which we need to both compete and challenge, as well as co-operate, with China, and we will continue to do so.