China Spying Case

Debate between Dan Jarvis and Geoffrey Cox

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

As the hon. Gentleman knows—I think I may have even said this to him previously, and certainly to the House—China presents a series of threats to the Government. I will say a little bit more about that.

As time is short, I want to focus on the DNSA and the evidence that he has given, because that is important for the House. The DNSA confirmed to the JCNSS yesterday that he used language from an answer to a parliamentary question in his third statement, in which he provided the current Government’s position as context, as had been requested. The DNSA’s third statement was written in a way that ensured consistency with his first two statements.

For the sake of clarity, I will say it again: the current National Security Adviser had no role in either the substance of the case or the evidence provided. There has been misreporting, speculation and fabrication about the officials’ meeting that the National Security Adviser chaired on 1 September—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it just a moment ago. I can tell him and the House that a meeting of senior officials took place on 1 September to discuss the UK’s relationship with China. The meeting was specifically set up to provide—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me just finish my point. I will come back to the right hon. and learned Gentleman if time allows.

The meeting was specifically set up to provide the FCDO with an opportunity to discuss—at an appropriately senior official level; no Ministers attended the meeting—what the approach would be to handling engagement with China across a range of scenarios related to this case, as well as in relation to wider issues that would come up. Those who attended the meeting were operating on the basis that the trial would go ahead at the start of October.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

rose—

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

rose—

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to make a bit of progress, because time is against me.

Meetings such as this are a routine part of the NSA’s role.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The Minister did say he would give way to me.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am going to make a bit of progress, because time is against me.

Meetings such as this are a routine part of the National Security Adviser’s role of co-ordinating Departments across Government.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Will the Minister give way on the question of who was present?

[Dan Jarvis]

Yes.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

Why was the Attorney General’s Office represented and present? If the meeting had nothing to do with the case, why was the Attorney General’s Office present through its representative?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

Simply because a number of Departments were represented at this meeting, as would normally be the case.

[Sir Geoffrey Cox]

The Attorney General’s Office has nothing to do with foreign policy.

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman served in a Government a number of years ago. I can give him an assurance that this Government work collaboratively across Government with other Departments, and therefore it seems to make perfect sense that other Departments would be represented at such a meeting.

I will try to reflect some of the points that have been made in this debate, including the point from the shadow Home Secretary, who asked specifically about the Home Secretary. I can tell him and the House that no Minister—no Minister in this Government—was involved in any aspect of the production of evidence.