Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Lord Pannick Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his work as part of the ISC and his work in these areas for several decades. I would expect full co-operation with the committee in terms of what happens next. We want to be as open to scrutiny as possible but, given the issues, talking within the appropriate processes—the ISC is one of them—will be a matter for his committee and future conversations.

We need to remember that this was an independent decision made by the CPS. We genuinely believed that this case was going to proceed until we were informed by the CPS just before the embargo. We provided full co-operation with the CPS, I am reassured, within the constraints available to the Deputy National Security Adviser at that time, based on what had been said.

We need to remember—the noble Lord is absolutely right—that it was not until 2019 that the integrated review first mentioned China at all. Until that point, the previous Government did not consider China worthy even of mentioning in the security review. Importantly, at the point that we are discussing, the then Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, when asked whether China was a threat, said it was

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise”

to sum up our relationship with China in one word. As I said yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition, when she was Trade Secretary, said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe but we can describe it as a challenge”.


That is the constraint within which the Deputy NSA gave his evidence. We need to be very clear about what government policy was two years ago.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

May I ask the noble Baroness to clarify the answer she gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on the important subject of transparency? He asked whether the Government will publish correspondence between officials, politicians and advisers involved with the CPS. The noble Baroness’s answer was exactly the same as that given yesterday by Mr Jarvis, the Minister in the Commons:

“it is not for me to make decisions about the publication of evidence that may be used in any further ongoing legal processes”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/10/25; col. 70.]

My question is: what ongoing legal processes? This criminal prosecution has ended and it cannot be resurrected, and there is therefore no reason not to inform the public of all the details of this so that any concerns can be removed.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. Obviously, his level of expertise in our legal processes is much more significant than mine, but neither he nor I know what plans the CPS has for any future prosecution.