Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Debate between Alex Burghart and Caroline Nokes

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Debate between Alex Burghart and Caroline Nokes

Committee of the whole House
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

It might be helpful if I begin by explaining how the Committee stage will proceed. A number of amendments have been tabled, published and selected for debate. The amendment paper and selection list are available in the Vote Office. However, because it is now after 2 pm, there is no time available for debate. Amendments that are not debated are not subsequently selected for separate decision.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is obviously deeply regrettable that the Government were not prepared for the eventualities that they have faced. We know they were not prepared because the Bill was not ready until 9.30 this morning. An obvious omission from the Bill is a sunset clause, and many Members here today have spoken in favour of such a clause. Indeed, Ministers have suggested that they want this legislation to be time-limited. Consequently, it is deeply regrettable that it sounds as though the House will not have an opportunity to vote on a sunset clause. Can you advise the House on whether there is anything that can be done at this stage to ensure that we get a vote on amendment 1 and/or new clause 2?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. He will know that it is long-standing practice that the Chair does not select for separate decision any proposition that has not been debated. It is therefore not possible for any of the amendments or new clauses to be called at this stage.

The Chair put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, this day).

Clauses 1 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Question put forthwith (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Bill read the Third time and passed.