Oral Answers to Questions

Kemi Badenoch Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)]

Mr Speaker, thank you for marking four years since the terrible murder of Sir David Amess. I know the whole House will want to join me in remembering our former colleague. He is very much still in our hearts and minds. The way he died reminds us that the security of Members and this Parliament is paramount, so it concerns us all that the case against two people spying on Members of this House has collapsed. It is simply unbelievable.

Exactly as I expected, the Prime Minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions. [Laughter.] I don’t know what they are laughing at; we are talking about the security of this Parliament. He had to be dragged out only to repeat more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say that the last Government did not classify China as a threat, so I will refresh his memory.

In 2021, the previous Government’s integrated review described China as

“the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.”

In 2024, the then Minister for Security said from the Dispatch Box that China poses a threat. But let us leave aside the Government. In November 2022, the director general of MI5 classified China as a threat in his remarks. How is it possible that the Government failed to provide the evidence that the CPS needed to prosecute?

[The Prime Minister]

The substantive evidence was provided in 2023 by the previous Government. That is when the witness statement was submitted. I am going to disclose it; Members will all be able to read it. The substantive evidence was written, disclosed and submitted in 2023, under the previous Government. I note that the Leader of the Opposition did not indicate whether Ministers were involved in that at the time.

The Leader of the Opposition questions what is in the refreshed reviews of 2021 and 2023. Let me be clear: the then Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly), who is sitting on the Opposition Front Bench, gave a speech at Mansion House one month after the arrests. It was called “Our position on China” and set out the Government’s policy. He said in that speech that summing up China as a “threat” in “one word” would be

“impossible, impractical and—most importantly—unwise.”

He was Foreign Secretary at the time.

It was not just the right hon. Member for Braintree. The Leader of the Opposition was Business Secretary at the time. In September 2023—the relevant year—she said:

“We certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.

It is worth looking up the word “foe” in the dictionary. It does not end there. In September 2024, she said:

“I have shied away from calling China a threat”.

She is playing politics with national security.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister can read the beginning of a quote, but let me finish that quote. At the end of the quote that he just read out, I did describe China as a threat. But his whataboutery neglects the fact that the spies were charged under a Conservative Government and let off under Labour.

The Prime Minister has not answered any questions. On Monday, the Security Minister repeatedly told the House that Ministers did not take decisions and that it was the deputy National Security Adviser who had full freedom. Are the Government seriously saying that only one man—the deputy National Security Adviser—had anything to do with this failure? Is that Prime Minister seriously saying that the deputy did not discuss with the National Security Adviser, the Home Secretary or anyone in Downing Street? Is the Prime Minister seriously saying that?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, and let me explain why. First, the case was charged under the last Government, according to the evidence submitted under that Government, who set out their policy position. What was on issue in the trial is not the position of the current Government, but the position of the last Government. They carefully avoided describing China as an enemy because that was their policy at the time. As far as the position under this Government is concerned, no Minister or special adviser was involved. I will double-check this—[Interruption.] This is important. After the charging decision, the prosecution were very careful about who would then see the witness evidence. I will double-check exactly what instruction was taken, but I can be absolutely clear that no Minister was involved, no special adviser was involved in this. I am as assured as I can be that the prosecution was saying that it would be the witnesses only who would be involved in short updates to the evidence that was submitted under the previous Government.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The end of the answer was different from the beginning of the answer. What on earth is the point of us having a lawyer rather than a leader as the Prime Minister if he cannot even get the law right on a matter of national security? He keeps going back to the CPS. The CPS has said that it was satisfied that it was right to charge in August 2024. The Sunday Times reported that Jonathan Powell, the Prime Minister’s National Security Adviser, convened a secret meeting to discuss the security consequences of the China spy trial. Did that meeting happen, or is The Sunday Times making it up?

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Lady is clearly not a lawyer or a leader. The problem for her is that I do actually understand the law, and I know what has to be proven. I have also looked at the evidence that was put in under the last Government in relation to this case. There was a meeting in September; that did not involve the National Security Adviser discussing the evidence in any way. One further point: the final statement in this case was submitted in August 2025. There was no further submission of evidence, one way or the other, after any discussion in September. This is a red herring—a completely scurrilous allegation made by the Leader of the Opposition.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The Prime Minister has now twice directly contradicted the words of his Security Minister. They cannot both be right. The Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee could not get any answers from the Security Minister. The CPS said that it was satisfied that the decision to charge the case in April 2024—not August—was correct on the basis of where the law stood at that time. This is a matter of fact, not a matter of what the previous Government had thought, or of the case not meeting a legal test—it did. Something must have changed when the charges were brought and when the case collapsed. The charges were brought under the Conservatives and collapsed under Labour. Will the Prime Minister tell us what changed, and what collapsed the case?

[The Prime Minister]

I have said that I will publish the witness statements in full. The whole House will then see exactly what was set out in 2023 in the substantive witness statements, and exactly what was set out in the two supplementary witness statements. The right hon. Lady will then realise that what she has just said is entirely baseless.

[Mrs Badenoch]

The CPS has said in the clearest terms that this prosecution was dropped because this Government did not provide the statements it expected. Why should we believe a man who at the last Prime Minister’s questions said that he had full confidence in the best friend of a convicted paedophile? Forgive us if we do not trust a word he says. This all stinks of a cover up. Given his statement earlier, will the Prime Minister publish today not just the Government witness statements, but also the meeting minutes, and all the correspondence that he had with the CPS?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me be clear: the only process I want to go through is in relation to some of the individuals in the statements to make sure that they know that this is coming up. I can assure the House that there is no substantive delay here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Badenoch]

Mr Speaker, you deserve better, and this House deserves better, than the evasive answers that we have had from the Prime Minister. Even the former Cabinet Secretary Lord Butler has accused the Government of being “economical with the truth” on this issue. The Prime Minister cannot tell us why Jonathan Powell had a secret meeting, when the Security Minister said he had no involvement the case. He cannot tell us why his Government did not provide evidence that China was a threat, and I suspect that the statements will not prove that either. He is blaming his civil servants, the media and the last Government. He cannot explain why he could not see this case through. He should have seen this case through.

Let me be clear about what has happened: a serious case involving national security has collapsed because this Government are too weak to stand up to China. If the Prime Minister cannot protect the Members of this House, what does that say about his ability to protect this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The case did not proceed because the policy of the past Government did not meet the test that was necessary. That is the long and the short of it. Far from evading, I have said that I will disclose the full witness statements, and set out exactly what was in them, and exactly what the subsequent statements say. The allegation that somehow they were changed—that the first and second statements are different—is completely and utterly unfounded. This is a pathetic spectacle. Instead of taking responsibility for the fact that they failed to update the law—the review into the legislation was in 2015—the Conservatives took eight years to change the law. Had they done that more quickly, this case would have proceeded. It was their failure, and they are just slinging mud. Meanwhile, we are getting on with renewing our country, planning reforms to get Britain building again, online hospitals for waiting lists, and new opportunities for young people. Labour is building a better future; the Conservatives cannot even come to terms with their past.