Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

13:09

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on espionage cases and the Official Secrets Act.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this urgent question, following the deeply disappointing collapse of the prosecution case concerning two individuals charged under the Official Secrets Act 1911. The allegations were hugely concerning, and we recognise and share the public and parliamentary frustration about this outcome. The Government welcomed the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s inquiry and the opportunity it provided for parliamentary scrutiny on this important matter, alongside the ongoing review led by the Intelligence and Security Committee.

I will take this opportunity to thank the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, under my hon. Friend’s chairship, for its diligent and rapid work. The Government will now take the time to consider the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations properly, in conjunction with partners referenced in the report, before responding within the two-month timeframe.

However, I am glad that the JCNSS’s report has reinforced two fundamental points that the Government have made throughout. First, and as the Government have been saying for several weeks, the report makes it clear that there was no evidence of attempts by any Minister, special adviser or senior official to interfere with the prosecution. The report states that it found no evidence of improper influence. Despite ongoing questions about a meeting of senior officials that took place on 1 September, chaired by the National Security Adviser, the report clarifies that there was no deliberate effort to obstruct the prosecution.

The first senior Treasury counsel had already made the judgment on the basis of the evidence that charges could not progress by 22 August, more than a week before the meeting took place. We have been consistent throughout on these points, which runs in sharp contrast to our critics, who initially criticised the Government for intervening in the case and then, when it became clear that that was nonsense, criticised us for not intervening in the case.

Secondly, the JCNSS report reinforces a fundamental point that I have made to this House previously: the root cause of the failure of this case was the outdated Official Secrets Act 1911, which predates the first world war. The 1911 Act created an unrealistic test by requiring the prosecution to prove that China was an enemy. The Law Commission had flagged the term “enemy” as being deeply problematic as far back as 2017. The Government will continue to work tirelessly to ensure that we have the most effective structures and processes in place to support law enforcement partners in mitigating and prosecuting foreign espionage wherever we find it.

More importantly, the ongoing disinformation around the collapse of this case has been distracting from the most important issue that we should be focused on: how the Government can work across this House to ensure that Chinese espionage will never be successful in the United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister stated in his speech at the Lady Mayor’s banquet on Monday:

“Protecting national security is our first duty and we will never waver from our efforts to keep the British people safe.”

That is why, on 18 November, I set out a significant number of measures that this Government are taking to counter the threat that China and other state actors pose to UK democracy and society. In line with the JCNSS report, the Government will continue to strengthen our processes and preparedness for future threats, ensuring that we leverage our new security legislation effectively—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The Minister will know that he should have restricted himself to three minutes for his response. That appears to have been four and a quarter minutes.

[Matt Western]

I thank the Minister for his comments, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this urgent question demonstrating the importance of parliamentary security, safety and sovereignty. The case of alleged spying on behalf of China caused widespread concern among the public and Members of both Houses. My Committee, which is comprised of senior Members of both Houses, examined the timeline, and actions and decisions of the Government and the Crown Prosecution Service. While this was a highly unusual inquiry for a Committee to conduct, it was essential that Parliament examined the processes that led to the collapse of the case.

Our inquiry found nothing to suggest a co-ordinated, high-level effort to collapse the prosecution, nor deliberate efforts to obstruct or circumvent constitutional safeguards. However, we did find a process that is beset by confusion and misaligned expectations, and that can, at points, be best described as shambolic. There were systemic failures, and deficiencies in communication, co-ordination and decision making between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Government. Indeed, the episode reflects poorly on the otherwise commendable efforts of public servants to keep our country safe.

Given the conclusions I have just set out, will the Minister give reassurances that the Government will work closely with the CPS to ensure that communications and processes are tightened up, particularly when dealing with cases involving national security? Does the Minister acknowledge that the new National Security Act 2023, while comprehensive, may not entirely cover low-level espionage activity, especially given its structural parallels with the previous legislation? Finally, does the Minister agree that greater support should be given to the deputy National Security Adviser and civil servants acting as witnesses in such cases, to ensure top-level grip on cases with significant public exposure?

[Dan Jarvis]

As Mr Speaker has rightly acknowledged, these issues require a great deal of scrutiny from Parliament, and the Government are grateful for the opportunity to engage and work closely with Parliament on these matters, not least because they merit careful consideration, alongside decisive action by Ministers and senior officials. The Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), plays a vital role in providing that appropriate scrutiny. I say that not just as a Government Minister, but as a former member of his Committee. The same principle applies to the ISC, which does important work. I take this opportunity to thank the Chair and the whole Joint Committee for undertaking this work and publishing a comprehensive report as quickly as they have.

My hon. Friend the Chair highlights some important aspects of the report’s conclusions, recommendations and findings, following the work that the Committee undertook. As I have said, the Government approach this issue, and will consider the Committee’s report, with the utmost seriousness. I can give him the assurance that he seeks that the Government are now carefully considering the findings of the report. I give him and the House an absolute assurance that we will respond within the agreed timeframe. He mentioned a couple of other points that I will respond to briefly now, although I am happy to engage with him in more detail, should he think that necessary.

My hon. Friend mentioned the role of the CPS. He will understand that as a Government Minister, I am incredibly limited in what I can say about the CPS, because it is operationally independent of Government. He makes a fair challenge, and we will look carefully at the report’s findings in this area. He also mentioned the National Security Act 2023. While I am not in any way complacent about that legislation, we are in a much stronger position than we were. We keep these matters under review, and along with colleagues across Government, we are constantly seeking to assure ourselves that the legislative framework is fit for purpose and appropriate. I give him an absolute assurance that we take that incredibly seriously.

Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned the deputy National Security Adviser. Let me take the opportunity again to pay tribute to him for the important work that he does. He is a dedicated public servant, and his contribution to our national security is immense. The Government are grateful for his service, as I am sure is the whole House. I will look carefully at the points that my hon. Friend has made, and we will ensure that they are properly reflected in the response he receives from the Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

[Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)]

I thank the Joint Committee for its work. Its report is a damning indictment of the Government’s handling of the China spy case. The investigation not only found

“serious systemic failures and deficiencies”,

but calls the Government’s handling of the matter “shambolic”, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) just said. It also found—surprise, surprise—that there was enough evidence to prosecute the alleged spies. The Committee writes that

“China posed a range of threats to the United Kingdom’s national security. In our view, it is plain that, taken together, these amounted to a more general active threat to the United Kingdom’s national security.”

The Labour party tried to blame the last Government for the collapse of the case, but this investigation has exposed the fact that that is plainly untrue. I was surprised to hear the Security Minister refer to the deficiencies of the 1911 Act. I draw his attention to paragraph 40 of the report; I think he probably should have read it before he came to the House. It was this Government’s incompetence that ultimately led to these two men not standing trial, and, most worryingly, the report reminds us that there may be many more such cases. Indeed, why should there not be, if foreign spies believe that they can act against this House with impunity and effective immunity?

It is obvious that this Government are not prepared to stand firm. Over the past few days we have heard from the press—not from reports to the House—that the Prime Minister is about to sign off the Chinese mega-embassy in London, despite major security concerns, and that he is preparing to travel to Beijing. Will he, I wonder, have the backbone to stand up for our interests while he is there?

I will ask the Security Minister three very simple and straightforward questions. First, did the Government provide the Joint Committee with the minutes of the 1 September meeting chaired by the National Security Adviser, and if not, why not? Secondly, during the many debates that we have had in the House on this matter, a number of Ministers appear to have made inaccurate and misleading statements on at least six occasions. Will the Minister ensure that corrections are made to Hansard, so that the record is straight? Thirdly, the Joint Committee has concluded, from the evidence it received, that China is a general threat to the United Kingdom’s national security; do the Government agree, and if they do, how can they justify supporting the mega-embassy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Before I call the Minister, may I make the point to those on both Front Benches that the Minister responding to an urgent question has three minutes? The Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), should have taken two minutes, and I should advise the Liberal Democrat spokesperson that she has one minute. I commend the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for managing to stay well within his two minutes. I call the Minister.

[Dan Jarvis]

A few moments ago, I spoke of the careful consideration and appropriate scrutiny that this matter deserves. Many Members of both Houses and Members of all parties on the Joint Committee have adopted that view, but I have to say that I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) continues to choose a different approach. He did not seem to want to mention that much of the report refers to the time when his party was in government. Some might have hoped that he would use his contribution today to show a bit of humility, both to the House and to those in our national security community, not least given some of the low-brow political point scoring and baseless accusations that we have heard over the past few weeks.

In the aftermath of the trial’s collapse, some Opposition Members accused Ministers, special advisers and civil servants of improper interference. This report makes it clear that that was baseless and untrue. There were some who suggested that some of our most experienced and most dedicated national security experts set out to deliberately withhold information from prosecutors in order to placate the Chinese Government. This report makes it clear that that was baseless and untrue. There were some who suggested that the Conservatives’ failure to update critical national security legislation was immaterial to the case that was being brought to trial. This report makes it clear that the root cause of the collapse was the years of dither and delay that left outdated, ineffective legislation on the statute book long after we knew that it did not protect our country from the modern threats that we face. Some Opposition Members—although not all of them—were all over the place on that legislation, and were all over the place with regard to China, and some of them, sadly, still are.

On China, as the Prime Minister observed this week,

“We had the golden age of relations under David Cameron and George Osborne, which then flipped to an ice age, that some still advocate”,

but no matter how much Opposition Members may wish it to be so, not engaging with China is no option at all. We have made it clear that we will co-operate where we can, but we will always challenge where we must. When we say that national security is the first priority of this Government, we mean it, and since the trial’s collapse, I have announced a comprehensive package that will help us to tackle the economic, academic, cyber and espionage threats that China presents. The report to which the hon. Member has referred provides further useful thought on how we can best safeguard our national security, and the Government genuinely welcome that constructive feedback. I look forward to engaging with the Committee, and with responsible Members in all parts of the House, as we continue to consider how best to go on protecting our democracy and our nation.

The hon. Member asked me about the minutes—[Interruption.] He is still asking me about the 1 September meeting.

[Alex Burghart]

You never answered.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to give the hon. Member the answer. The minutes were provided by the Government to the Intelligence and Security Committee, so there is his answer. He also referred, on several occasions, to the application for the Chinese embassy. Let me explain to him, for the sake of absolute crystal clarity, what the position is with regard to the embassy. I think that will be helpful to other Members as well.

As Members will know, an independent planning decision will be made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government by 20 January. National security is the first duty of government, and it has been our core priority throughout this process. The Home Office and the Foreign Office provided views on the security implications of this build throughout the process, and we have been clear about the fact that a decision should not have been taken until we had confirmed that those considerations had been resolved. The letter recently sent to the Ministry for Housing, Communities and Local Government now confirms that all national security issues raised have been addressed. Should the planning decision be approved, the new embassy will replace the seven different sites that currently comprise China’s diplomatic estate in London.

[Derek Twigg (Widnes and Halewood) (Lab)]

I think that many of us are still somewhat bemused by the fact that somehow, despite the three witness statements, the Crown Prosecution Service thought that it could not go ahead with a prosecution. I welcome much of what my hon. Friend the Minister has said, but I think it would be useful, following the questions asked and the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), if he agreed to come back to the Committee after the Government has responded to its report and recommendations, so that we can be given a clear timeline for the changes that rightly need to be made.

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend will understand that there is nothing more I can add with regard to his point about the Crown Prosecution Service. As for his substantive point about engagement with Committees of this House, let me give him that assurance. I genuinely welcome the constructive scrutiny carried out both by the Committee of which he is a member and the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington. I think that they provide a huge amount of value, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) an absolute assurance of our continued desire to co-operate closely with them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

The seriousness of the threat that Beijing poses to our national security cannot be overstated. Any attempt by China to interfere in our democracy must be rooted out, and the Government should implement the recommendations of the Committee’s report as a matter of urgency. The work that the National Security Adviser and his deputy are doing is vital to keeping our country safe, but the report is damning, and it describes aspects of the situation as “shambolic”. The Minister has previously mentioned his plans for new powers to counter foreign interference, and I would be grateful if he could provide a timeline for their introduction.

Let me once again urge the Minister to place China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme. If he will not do that today, I wonder whether he might give us a date in the diary—say, a week before the Prime Minister’s visit to Beijing; that may well coincide with the date of an announcement on the planning permission for the mega-embassy—and give the House the clarity that it deserves.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her serious attention to these matters. I hope she will acknowledge that it was only a couple of weeks ago that I presented the House with a significant package of measures designed specifically to counter the threats that we have debating for a number of months, and I hope she will also acknowledge that it was indeed a significant package of measures, but of course we keep these matters under very close review, and I am certain that the Government will want to introduce further measures in due course.

The hon. Lady raises the issue of FIRS. As I have said to the House previously, there were Opposition Members who did not think that we would introduce FIRS on time, but we did so. It is a valuable tool and adds significant value to our capabilities with regard to our national security, but at the same time we have to very carefully deliberate the addition of more countries to the enhanced tier. We keep that under very close review, and I would be very happy to discuss the matter with her further.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith and Chiswick) (Lab)]

The Joint Committee, of which I am a member, approached this issue in a non-partisan way, and I agree with the Minister that it is a pity that the Conservatives have not taken the same approach, particularly as it started on their watch. The strong impression that I form from the inquiry is that everyone thought they were doing the right thing, but in reality they were tip-toeing around the issues and staying in their own silos. Whether the Minister agrees with that analysis or not, can he tell us what organisational lessons he has learned that will prevent any repetition of, in his own words, this “deeply disappointing” outcome?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his work on the Joint Committee, and I completely agree with the premise of his point: the Committee considered these matters in a non-partisan way. That is precisely the right approach. It is the approach that I will always seek to undertake, and I know that the majority of Members of this House will proceed in the same way.

My hon. Friend raises an entirely fair and reasonable challenge about the organisational lessons that have been learned as a consequence of this process. All Ministers, whether in this Government or in the previous Government, should have approached these kinds of reports with a degree of humility. Undoubtedly, there are lessons that will need to be identified, learned and implemented as a consequence of recent events. As I know he and the House would expect, the Government need to do that in a measured and considered way. I give him and the Joint Committee an absolute assurance that we will look at the detail of the report very closely indeed, and we will respond within the timeframe that the Committee has set us.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Having previously read out in this Chamber the relevant section of the Official Secrets Act 1911, I am pleased that the report concludes that the decision not to prosecute under the terms of that Act flies in the face of common sense. What also flies in the face of common sense is the Government’s previous position that China poses a range of serious threats but does not constitute a threat itself. Is that still the Government’s position?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I always listen assiduously to what he has to say, given the experience that he brings to this House. I am certain that he will have looked very carefully at what the Prime Minister said in his Mansion House speech on Monday evening, but on the off-chance that he has not yet had the opportunity to do so, let me tell him and the House the essence of what the Prime Minister said with regard to China, because he very clearly set out the Government’s approach. He said that China

“poses real national security threats to the United Kingdom”,

but that it is

“time for a serious approach, to reject the simplistic binary choice. Neither golden age, nor ice age…So our response will not be driven by fear, nor softened by illusion. It will be grounded in strength, clarity and sober realism.”

I agree with the Prime Minister, and I suspect that most sensible Members of this House do as well.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) for steering the report through his Joint Committee swiftly and sensitively, and for managing sensitive data. It is a great example of how the Committee corridor can really contribute to transparency for the public, and I look forward to the Government’s response. However, there are sensitive matters that are not covered by the existing scrutiny Committees of this House. I hope that the Minister will, on the basis of this example, be an advocate in Government for the establishment of a new Committee that can cover matters that do not currently have oversight because of their sensitivity.

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of the work of the Joint Committee. She is right to say it is a great example of the work of a Select Committee that has constructively contributed a very significant amount of useful information that the Government will now consider in great detail.

My hon. Friend’s second point is about the creation of another Select Committee, and she will understand that that is above my pay grade. I gently point to the fact that the Government want to have a very good, close and constructive relationship with the ISC. It will be for the ISC to take a view, but that may provide a forum for further parliamentary scrutiny of those matters.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although I have huge respect for the Security Minister and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy Committee—I sat on that Committee for five years—is it not the case that this statement actually raises more questions? It is not case closed, as there are questions that are still outstanding. That is because the weakness here is that the Joint Committee does not have access to classified material; only the Intelligence and Security Committee does. Having sat on both Committees, I know there is a stark contrast between the types of witnesses who can be called and what the witnesses can actually say. Given the earlier question, will the Minister now commit to review the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the right questions can be asked of the right Committee at the right time, so that we can have some definitive conclusions on this whole saga?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the experience that he brings to this House, not least because he has sat on both the Committees to which we have been referring. I slightly take issue with his assessment of what the report does, because the Government are very clear that it emphasises the key arguments that we have been bringing forward over the last couple of weeks.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, he has raised the MOU previously. It is an entirely reasonable point for him to raise, both publicly and privately. Let me take it away and come back to him.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

The Security Minister knows very well the case of my constituent, Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, who is accused of espionage by the Iranian state. In case he needs a reminder, her horrifying ordeal is being dramatised on BBC iPlayer at the moment. The one thing that Nazanin has said to me constantly is that a hostage envoy would have really helped when dealing with her situation. I know this is about dealing with espionage cases from the other side, but for the sake of national security, has the Minister considered having a hostage envoy, as the Ratcliffe family keep raising with me?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the contribution that she has made and for the work that she has done previously. I am joined on the Treasury Bench by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Mr Falconer), who listened very carefully to her comments, and has indicated that he would be very happy to discuss them further with her.

[Stephen Gethins (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)]

May I thank the Minister for his responses today and for the way he is responding to this matter? I know he will be as concerned as the rest of us about descriptions of the process being “shambolic” and the criticism of systemic failures. Can the Minister tell us what has changed? Secondly, what has changed over the past almost four years? Russia’s invasion of Ukraine changed the world profoundly, and China continues to provide assistance to Russia.

[Dan Jarvis]

That is an entirely fair and reasonable question, and I can give the hon. Gentleman a very straight response. One of the things that has changed is that the Prime Minister—rightly, in my view—conducted a machinery-of-government change in September, which means that, as the Security Minister, I now sit not just in the Home Office, as was the case previously, but in the Cabinet Office. The purpose of that machinery-of-government change is to ensure that we can more effectively co-ordinate national security policy and activity across Government. It is relatively early days, but my analysis today is that that was the right move to make; I think it will enable the Government to make better, more informed and timely decisions in this area. At the same time, I approach these things with a degree of humility. We will look very carefully at the findings of the report and make sure that we consider them. We will look at what changes are necessary, and respond to the Joint Committee and to the House in due course.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his responses. Throughout this affair, he has remained calm and consistent in answering points that—let’s be honest—have at times been smears from the Conservatives. I think the report from the Joint Committee has found them out, and that is why their Benches are empty today. Rather than hiding, the Conservatives should be here apologising.

Does the Minister welcome the fact that the report makes it clear that the root cause of the case collapsing was the dither and delay from the previous Government? Does he agree with the Prime Minister that that was nothing short of a dereliction of duty when it comes to our national security?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his contribution today and on many previous occasions. The essence of his point is absolutely right. I do regret the tone of some of these debates in recent weeks; some of it has been entirely unnecessary, when we should have been coming together as a House to look at what we can do to ensure that the activity that we allegedly saw here is not able to happen again. That has always been my approach throughout, and it will continue to be my approach as we move forward.

The point my hon. Friend made about the recommendations in the report are absolutely right, and I think it vindicates the basic argument that the Government have sought to bring forward. I say that with humility, because we will want to look carefully at the detail of all the findings and all the recommendations. We will do that over the next number of weeks, and we will take on board lessons where they need to be learned.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The report says that the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, apparently had very “limited” engagement about the case. In contrast, one of his predecessors, Sir Stephen Lovegrove, with whom I worked in the Ministry of Defence, said he

“would have expected to be involved intimately in the provision of the Government evidence”.

Why was Jonathan Powell—and Lord Hermer, for that matter, who is described in the report as being “not proactive”—so passive on a matter of national security and alleged spying on Members of this House?

[Dan Jarvis]

I honestly do not believe that that is a fair and reasonable characterisation of the role played by the National Security Adviser. The National Security Adviser is an extremely experienced and dedicated public servant, who is dedicating his life to keeping our country safe. The hon. Member, because he is a very well-informed and assured Member of this House, will understand that specific restrictions were placed on the deputy National Security Adviser about what he could do and what he could say. Both the deputy National Security Adviser and the National Security Adviser acted with integrity throughout this process, and I know that the House will be grateful to them for it.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

In the light of the important issues being discussed today about the concerning activities of China in the UK, can I ask the Minister what additional steps he is taking or planning to take to protect Hongkongers, Tibetans and Uyghurs from any form of transnational repression?

[Dan Jarvis]

I know my hon. Friend takes a very close interest in this subject. I hope he will have seen the very significant package of measures that the Government brought forward a couple of weeks ago. We take issues relating to transnational repression incredibly seriously. We welcome the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which we have responded. Through the defending democracy taskforce, we have conducted a review of transnational repression in our country. I hope he sees that we take these matters very seriously. The notion that any state, whether it be China or any other, would seek to harm or persecute anybody resident in the United Kingdom is totally unacceptable, and the Government have been consistent in making that point.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

This report by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is not only damning; it refers to “systemic failures”, “shambolic” aspects and “inadequate” communications. I am particularly struck by paragraphs 41 to 45, which call into question the judgment of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, described the decision not to proceed with the case as “inexplicable”, and the Committee in paragraph 45 is gentle in saying that it was “surprised” by the decision not to proceed. The question has to be asked: do the Government still have confidence in the Director of Public Prosecutions?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member will understand that it would not be appropriate for me, as a Government Minister, to make commentary about the performance of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The CPS and the DPP are operationally independent of Government. The hon. Member will have heard me say that we approach these matters with a degree of humility, and that is the right approach. I gently say to him that he may also want to approach these matters with a degree of humility, given recent events in his own party.

[John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)]

The Minister and I have clashed over Sun Tzu in the past, but at the risk of riling him again, I want to tell him that Sun Tzu said that sometimes a strategic advantage is to be had by feigning weakness. Every day we fail to add China to the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, that is not us feigning weakness; it is weakness. Is that not the case?

[Dan Jarvis]

As Christmas approaches, I hope there may be an opportunity for me to have a cup of coffee with the hon. Gentleman, and we can compare our various quotes. I give him an assurance that I never had any concern about his seeking to quote Sun Tzu. My concern was that I think it is possible to find a quote from him that matches any particular argument one wants to progress.

The hon. Member’s substantive point was about FIRS, and he will have heard what I have said today and previously. The Government are looking very closely at whether additional countries should be added to the enhanced tier. When a decision is made about that, we will bring it forward in the usual way.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank the Minister very much for his careful and helpful answers to questions. Given the collapse of the recent espionage case and the findings that failures in procedure and co-ordination undermined the prosecution, what specific actions will the Government take to restore confidence in parliamentary security, ensure alleged spy threats are fully investigated and pursue the course of justice so that something similar does not ever happen again?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as I am always. He made an important point about parliamentary security, and I hope that, as a very dedicated parliamentarian, he will know that the Government take these matters incredibly seriously. That is why we are working very closely with Mr Speaker and this House, through the defending democracy taskforce, to make sure that we have the appropriate mitigations in place to counter the nature of the threat we face.

I hold the hon. Gentleman in very high regard, and I refer him to what the Prime Minister said on Monday. The Prime Minister made an important point that is highly relevant to the question the hon. Gentleman raised:

“Protecting our security is non-negotiable. Our first duty. But by taking tough steps to keep us secure, we enable ourselves to cooperate in other areas.”

I hope he agrees—I know he does—with that.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

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?

[Dan Jarvis]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the Security Minister for his answers this afternoon.