China Spying Case
Chris Law Excerpts(3 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
First, I want to put on the record my anger and frustration, shared by many in this House, at the collapse of this case, particularly the dropping of the spying charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry and the resulting collapse of their trial, which had been due to go ahead this very month.
Secondly, I welcome Mr Speaker’s guidance on how to improve Members’ security. Members must not forget that we have a personal responsibility too to protect ourselves, our fellow Members and our staff from such foreign interference, which includes in our hiring practices and vetting of staff who can work in this building, which has not been often mentioned in this debate.
However, I want mainly to warn of the danger of some of the rhetoric that has been used to date in this case. Of course, it is the job of His Majesty’s Opposition to probe, challenge and scrutinise the Government, yet what has happened in this case goes way beyond that and risks harming us all, just as spying on our Parliament harms us all. I am talking about the repeated unsubstantiated and scurrilous suggestions that any Minister or special adviser in this Government interfered or intervened in the independent decision making of the CPS.
In an article in The Times on 15 October, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), accused the Government of deliberately choosing to collapse the case:
“It is clear the government chose to deliberately submit inadequate evidence that led to two alleged spies getting off scot-free.”
He went on:
“They must now also explain who was guiding Matt Collins in preparing this evidence.”
That is an appalling accusation to make with zero evidence and an insult to the professional integrity of the deputy National Security Adviser, and I hope the shadow Home Secretary withdraws it. Sadly, he was not alone. On 13 October, the Leader of the Opposition told the BBC:
“This looks like a deliberate decision to collapse the case and curry favour with the regime in China.”
She went on to say that she suspected that Ministers
“have decided that closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and our national security.”
Just look at those words: “looks like” and “suspect”. There is not a shred of evidence, only insinuation. That is not the language of a Prime Minister in waiting.
As the Security Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), has made clear, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case, and the CPS has confirmed that it came under no outside pressure to do so. As for the Whitehall meeting on 1 September referenced by the Opposition in their motion, crucially, Mr Collins said yesterday that there had been
“at least four lawyers in the room who ensured that there was no discussion about the evidence”
in the case.
This House has maintained a proud cross-party consensus on Ukraine, helping President Zelensky to stand up to Putin—a consensus that is, sadly, not helped at times by Reform, whose Putin apologists are indeed Moscow’s useful idiots of the 21st century. We need to maintain a similar cross-party consensus in fighting against Chinese threats.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman is making a good case about cross-party consideration of the threats China poses. I want to ask a very simple question, which I have asked in this place before: does he think that China should be on the foreign influence registration scheme, as Russia is—yes or no?
Paul Waugh
That is a matter for Ministers to decide; I am not privy to all the information that would be required to make that determination.
It is vital for our own national security and is in our national interests that we maintain a similar consensus as we have on Ukraine on the threats, challenges and opportunities posed by China. We should all stand firm in this House on issues of national security and human rights and on the threats China poses clearly to our economy, our industrial secrets, our intellectual property, our democracy and, yes, our cyber-space. We should also recognise that it is important that the UK engages with China where it is in our hard-headed national interest—and mutual interest—to do so, from climate change to global health and trade.
That is why the Opposition in government had a policy of protect, align and engage—there is that word “engage” again. How different is that really from our own compete, challenge and co-operate? I know that this place often thrives on political knockabout, with parties trying to seize on opponents’ perceived weakness, but in accusing one’s political opponents of somehow being enemies of the people and plotting non-existent cover-ups, the only beneficiaries are our real enemies abroad.
Chris Law
In 2023—we are going back a couple of years—Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee report on China warned
“that China’s view of an ideal future…would be antithetical to the UK’s interests”.
In its conclusion, China was detailed 11 times as a “threat”, an “acute threat” or a “grave threat”. Why can the UK Government today, based on a report from more than two years ago, not describe China as a threat?
Peter Swallow
The Minister quite clearly set out the range of threats posed by China. I am clear that China poses a threat. I also think that we have to be mature enough in this Chamber to accept that the way we deal with the second-largest economy in the world has to be to recognise the threats it poses to our democracy and our national security, but also all the ways in which we have to work with it.
I stood for election on a manifesto that committed to our co-operating with China where we can, challenging them where we must, and competing with them where we need to. I genuinely think that is a mature way of dealing with a state that does not share our values, and that poses a great threat to our democracy and to the way that citizens and residents of this country operate within a democracy, but that is also the second-largest economy in the world. As the former director of MI6 said on the “Today” show on the BBC this morning,
“we need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
We need a mature acceptance of the risks that China poses, and that means recognising that we cannot just walk off the pitch and not deal with the second-largest economy in the world. It is infantile and not realistic to suggest otherwise.
If the new Act had been in place sooner, it is possible that these men could have been prosecuted successfully under it. I therefore have a simple question for Conservative Front Benchers, and they need to be clear on this point: why did they wait so long to replace a vital piece of security legislation, and make sure that we had the appropriate tools to keep this country safe? I am happy to take interventions on that point.
Mark Pritchard
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I think hon. Members will take their own view on who they think is the expert on national security. I think it will be Sir Ken McCallum, who is a long-serving and distinguished member of the UK intelligence community.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and I think he hit the nail on the head. I have been thinking throughout the debate that this is not just about the failure of the prosecution, but about our approach to China—not just this year, last year or during this Government; this has gone on for years and years. The sanctions were imposed in March 2021, which is four and a half years ago. Interestingly, neither the Government of the day nor the official Opposition demanded sanctions; it was the Speakers of the House of Commons and the House of Lords who responded by banning the Chinese ambassador from entering. It has been reported that at the time, the Government attempted to overturn that decision. The key point, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central has said, is crystal clear: all of us need to work on our lines and we need cast-iron assurances that, no matter where we have been in the past, going forward we will be very clear about the real threat that China poses.
China’s history tells us that already: six decades of military occupation in Tibet; the mass detention, re-education and forced sterilisation of the Uyghur population; we have witnessed democracy come under attack in Hong Kong time and again; and there is the ever-present threat against Taiwan. China runs a global influence operation and it has been acknowledged in this House that the united front has penetrated every sector of the United Kingdom’s economy. We have been well warned.
As I said earlier, and as has been repeated many times, in 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was a “threat”, an “acute threat” and a “grave threat”. In 2022, the head of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that the Chinese threat
“might feel abstract. But it’s real and it’s pressing. We need to talk about it. We need to act.”
That is what we have failed to do until now.
If one of the key hinderances to the prosecution appears to be the concern that the Government would not be able to convince the jury that China was an enemy, how would the Minister describe a state that conducts long-term, large-scale espionage operations, including recruiting those who work in Parliament, and that poses a serious national security threat on these islands? Why has it taken the failure of this case for the Government to definitively state that China is a threat? Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis?
Sir Julian Lewis
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent and unanswerable case, but the trouble is that even in the circumstances of this case, the Government have not said that China is a threat. They keep saying that it poses a range of serious threats, but they keep baulking at saying that it is a threat. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has no hesitation in saying that China is a threat, and he should challenge the Government to do likewise.
Chris Law
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. China is a real and serious threat. I say that not just as an individual who happens to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet, who is anxious about being spied on too, but on behalf of my party and of colleagues across the House who feel the real and present threat not only to ourselves but to our constituents.
Why has this position come as a response to an embarrassing political crisis, rather than as the principled position and proactive strategy for which so many of us have been calling for so many years? Why is it, as Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, put it that
“the Chinese Communist Party’s progress towards the ‘Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation’…has met formidable resistance, not from governments, but little ole’ constituency MPs.”?
That is a really good question to consider.
The Government and the Opposition will squabble over who met with whom when, about who said what when, and about who they can blame to squeeze as much political one-upmanship from this case as possible, but the Chinese Communist party must be laughing at this House right now, as we ping-pong when it is clear that we need national security to be taken very seriously and we need to see China placed on the foreign influence registration scheme.
Public trust and the confidence of international allies are wavering, and the ongoing threat to our national security, democratic institutions and economic infrastructure remains. To conclude, it is time to end the inertia, caution and self-censorship from Whitehall and from Government when it comes to China, and to acknowledge, address and act on the threat that we continuously face.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Chris Law Excerpts(2 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I have a lot of time for the right hon. and learned Gentleman, not least because he brings an almost unique perspective from his understanding of the law and of matters relating to intelligence. He correctly made the observation that ultimately, any Government strategy on China has to take consideration of national security issues. At the same time, any fair-minded, reasonable Government have to understand the economic opportunities that exist. As a former Attorney General, he would not recommend that I get into the business of second-guessing judgments and decisions taken by the DPP. On his point about publishing the evidence, he hopefully will have heard the response I gave a moment ago. [Interruption.] I am responding to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s serious question about publishing the evidence. I hope that he will have heard the response I gave a moment ago.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Minister states:
“we will take all necessary action to deter those who seek to do us harm,”
and that includes threats “emanating from China”. Despite ongoing transnational repression of Tibetans, Uyghurs and Hongkongers, continued cyber-security attacks on this country, and Members of this Parliament being sanctioned and spied upon, there appear to be no consequences for China. Instead, the UK Government give in to its coercive, bullying behaviour. I have a straightforward question: if the Minister is serious about deterring this behaviour and these threats, will he take the necessary action and include China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
Any decision about the enhanced tier of FIRS will be brought forward to Parliament in the normal way. I can say to the hon. Member that any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities here in the UK will not be tolerated.
UK-EU Summit
Chris Law Excerpts(5 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right that the three trade deals taken together do indicate that other countries want to negotiate and deal with the UK because they can see the path that we are on. That is good and it should be welcomed, because there are huge benefits. Of course, the north-east and my hon. Friend’s constituents should benefit under all three of those deals.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The people of Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union in 2016, and overwhelmingly support rejoining it today—[Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members might want to listen. That fact has been continuously ignored by successive UK Governments. The limited measures this Government have announced do not come anywhere near to repairing the hammer blow that Brexit will continue to inflict on our public finances. Indeed, the UK Government’s own figures show that the cost of Brexit is 20 times greater, or 4% of GDP, compared with this deal. Does the Prime Minister recognise that by continuing to pursue this disastrous Brexit policy, he is demonstrating that Westminster Governments will never work in the interests of Scotland?
The Prime Minister
I find it impossible to follow the hon. Gentleman’s reasoning. He thinks we should be in the EU—that was voted on, but he is entitled to his position. However, he is also against a closer relationship. I do not understand why the SNP is against this deal. This is a closer relationship. There is a complete contradiction in the argument that he is making, which is completely out of kilter with Scottish businesses, which are welcoming what we achieved yesterday. On behalf of Scotland, the SNP should be welcoming it.
Trade Negotiations
Chris Law Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
It has been a feature of the last few months, since the President was elected, that people have thought that trade policy and tariffs are synonymous. My hon. Friend is exactly right to recognise that a growing proportion of trade is conducted electronically. The UK is an almost 81% services-based economy. We therefore have a huge interest in non-tariffs barriers—not just barriers at the border but barriers behind the border. That is an area of focus in the agreement, and one that will require further work, as is appropriate and right. We were working under huge time pressure to address the tariff issue, for the reasons I have set out, but he is entirely right to recognise that we will take forward an ambitious agenda on non-tariff barriers.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Although a reduction in tariffs is welcome, the past four months have shown the UK Government that President Trump is an unreliable partner, not just in trade but in defence and security, climate and the international rule of law. In contrast, closer relations with our trusted allies in the EU have never been more important. Given that Trump has previously described the EU as “a foe”, “very nasty” and “an atrocity”, will the Minister provide an unequivocal assurance that there are no conditions whatsoever attached to the deal that will constrain the UK’s relationship with the EU, which is the UK’s largest trading partner?
Mr Alexander
I can do no better than refer to the Prime Minister’s Mansion House speech towards the end of last year, when he said clearly that we do not want to have to choose between our friends and allies—between dealing and working constructively with the European Union and with the United States.
On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, it is important to recognise that the United States is our deepest and strongest defence ally. For the past 80 years—we should remember the day on which we are gathering—the United Kingdom has worked hand in glove with the armed forces of the United States to keep the world safe. I saw for myself, in previous conflicts such as Afghanistan, the extraordinary heroism and courage that American service personnel brought to bear alongside British personnel, so it is right to recognise that, as well as taking forward this economic agreement, there is a strong and enduring security foundation to the relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom. All that said, of course we stand ready to work with the European Union as we look ahead to the UK-EU summit on 19 May.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether there are any conditions. The single biggest concern expressed by many commentators related to SPS, given that that was one of the key agricultural areas on which the previous Government foundered in their negotiations with the first Trump Administration. That was a red line for us in these negotiations—a red line that I am glad to say we have protected.
Trade Negotiations
Chris Law Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
I can indeed. I said that this is a modern, forward-looking agreement, and that is why there is a recognition in the deal of exactly the values my hon. Friend mentions. That represents a first for India in many cases, it reflects the fact that we were determined to secure that as part of the negotiations, and it is one of the many reasons we are proud of the agreement announced today.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
Today’s trade deal announcement will be welcomed by many in Scotland, not least those in the whisky industry. In the face of volatile US tariffs, this is undoubtedly good news. However, there has been increasing pressure in the UK—even from the former Prime Minister Tony Blair—for the Government to abandon their net zero ambitions. I understand that carbon mechanisms were crucial in these trade negotiations with India. Given that the SNP Government have today reaffirmed their fullest commitment to net zero and sustainable industries, can the Minister give his reassurance that the UK Government’s climate ambitions have not been sacrificed to secure this deal?
Mr Alexander
I can give the House that assurance. I thought we were going to have an uncharacteristically warm endorsement from the hon. Gentleman until he got to the word “however”. I have to say, we have been so busy negotiating a trade deal with India that we have not had the chance to read the First Minister’s “Programme for Government” today. In the spirit of generosity, he pays tribute to the work that has been done on whisky, and I will read out the statement by Debra Crew, the Diageo chief executive, who said:
“The UK-India Free Trade Agreement is a huge achievement by Prime Ministers Modi and Starmer and Ministers Goyal and Reynolds, and all of us at Diageo toast their success. It will be transformational for Scotch and Scotland, while powering jobs and investment in both India and the UK.”
I could not have put it better myself.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this really important issue. All children and young people must be treated fairly, and there is no place for hate or prejudice in our education system. I will ensure that she gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss this further.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
On the question of assets, we are using the interest on the assets to help fund Ukraine and we are looking, with others, at whether it is possible to go further. Obviously, I will update the House if that is possible. But I have to say that, at a time when defence and security in Europe and the UK must be ramped up for all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman readily understands, the SNP maintaining its position of wanting to get rid of the single most effective deterrent that we have—the nuclear deterrent—really has to be explained in its historical context.
Ukraine
Chris Law Excerpts(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I do agree, which is why I remain committed to international development, and want to get back to a position where we can increase it. It is also why I want to work across the House to see what else we can do in the immediate and near term to pull other levers in relation to development.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I thank the Prime Minister for being consistent in his message to his allies that any future negotiated peace must include Europe and Ukraine, must be sustainable, and must protect the territory and sovereignty of Ukraine. However, achieving that lasting peace will require engagement with civic societies engaged in peacebuilding, atrocity prevention and long-term conflict prevention initiatives, all of which are currently funded by our foreign aid budget. How does the Prime Minister hope to achieve those objectives when he has just followed the Trump playbook and announced a plan to cut overseas aid spending by 40%?
The Prime Minister
I do not accept that characterisation. It is very important that we provide the funds we need for our defence spend, but what we have got from SNP Members is what we had at the Budget: yes, they want the biggest provision of money and finance for the Scottish Government that has ever happened under devolution, but no, they do not want to say how they would pay for that; yes, they want an increase in defence funding, but no, they do not want to say how they would pay for it. That is unserious.
US Steel Import Tariffs
Chris Law Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Alexander
In terms of being willing to make the big fiscal choices, we have committed £2.5 billion of public money since July to support the steel industry, with resources being funnelled in part through the national wealth fund. I can assure my hon. Friend that we have already been willing to put money, as well as commitment, behind the steel industry. He is absolutely right to recognise the strategic significance of this industry, not just on its own terms but much more broadly to the manufacturing capability of the United Kingdom. He has alluded to the risk of trade diversion, given the potential remedial action taken by other trading blocs, so I also want to assure him that we have protections that will remain in place until 2026. There are safeguards in place in relation to trade diversion, as well as the UK’s ability to act independently.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
I have listened very carefully to what has been said this morning. We have known since November that this was coming, even though the press were saying that we would somehow get a special relationship. What is clear today is that Trump shows strength towards countries that are in a position of weakness, which is where the UK currently is. Is it not now time for this Government to think very seriously about being back in the EU, where there is strength against strength through the customs union and the single market? We do not know what else is coming down the line, and Scottish businesses need to know the future—it could be whisky, it could be fish or it could be manufacturing. Can the Minister give us some assurance about how he will stand up to the strength of global protectionism?
Mr Alexander
In terms of an understanding of Scottish business, again I should probably declare an interest, given that the Glenkinchie distillery is in the Lothian East constituency. Only this morning, I met with Chivas Regal and Diageo, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am fully aware. Certainly, no one party should claim to speak for Scotland, or for Scotland’s businesses.
As for the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union, it is no secret that I was a remain campaigner and wanted the United Kingdom to stay within the European Union in 2016. I would gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that had his party been successful in its endeavour to break up the United Kingdom in 2014, the direct and immediate consequence of that choice would have been Scotland’s departure from the European Union.
Cyber-security and UK Democracy
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Deputy Prime Minister
Yes. My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The first step is to properly understand where those vulnerabilities lie. We have undertaken extensive work to ensure that we know where risks lie, and we are putting in place measures to remediate those risks.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
This is too little, too late. It is reactive, not proactive. Two lowly officials get sanctioned when half the UK population’s data and electoral roll get cyber-attacked. I do not feel that the issue is being taken seriously enough. Let me remind the House how serious this is: in October last year, MI5 warned of the “epic scale” of Chinese espionage, and reported that more than 20,000 people in the UK had been covertly approached online by Chinese spies. Our Commons Intelligence and Security Committee said that China was “prolifically and aggressively” targeting the UK, and had managed successfully to penetrate every sector of the UK’s economy. My question is simple: how can any of us here, or outside in society, trust this UK Government, when they are far too late, and do very little of what needs to be done?
The Deputy Prime Minister
I simply do not accept that characterisation, given that it was this Government who set up the NCSC, this Government who set up the ministerial cyber board, and this Government who invested £2.6 billion in our cyber-defences. I have consistently warned, time and again, about the cyber-threats facing the United Kingdom, and we are taking steps to address them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Chris Law Excerpts(1 year, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Lamont
The SNP’s position on energy, particularly in relation to oil and gas, is frankly all over the place. We do not know where the First Minister of Scotland stands on this. He described developing Rosebank as “the wrong decision”, but now seems to think that oil reserves can fund capital investment in an independent Scotland. We fully recognise the importance of the energy sector to Scotland. That includes oil and gas and renewables. I will continue to work with all parts of the energy sector to develop that for the Scottish economy.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (John Lamont)
The UK Government’s funding for levelling up has now reached more than £2.9 billion in Scotland. That includes almost £900 million of new funding announced last year. That is the equivalent of £535 per person in Scotland, and the total is set to rise with millions of pounds of further investment in 2024.
Chris Law
The Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for Redcar (Jacob Young), will meet me on Friday, but sadly that is not a courtesy that has been extended to the leader of Dundee City Council, who has repeatedly invited the Minister to a roundtable in the city to discuss funding that is critical to projects such as the Eden Project, and the life sciences innovation district among others. I have sought to continue the long-term investment and regeneration of the city through those projects in the Tay Cities region deal. Will the Minister assure me that he will urge his colleague to include those in our discussions on Friday and that his dreadful lack of engagement is from a UK Government that are committed to levelling up, not an outgoing Government winding down?
John Lamont
The UK Government are investing more than £60 million in projects in Dundee, and those projects have been identified as key priorities by Dundee City Council and other local partners. The hon. Member mentions the leader of Dundee City Council. After receiving £20 million for Dundee from UK levelling-up funds, the SNP leader of Dundee council recently said,
“This is just the UK Government element. I’m pursuing the Scottish Government as well, because we need both governments to work with us if we’re to make significant economic inroads into the challenges we face.”
I hope the hon. Member will agree to write a joint letter with me to his SNP colleagues in Holyrood asking, “Where is the money?”