China Espionage: Government Security Response

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Sun Tzu said a number of things, and perhaps they lend themselves to a debate all of its own. I am not aware of the specific point the hon. Member made, but I am happy to look into it if that would be helpful.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

According to media reports, administrators at Sheffield Hallam University told a professor of Chinese studies that she would have to abandon her research. That followed a separate defamation lawsuit against Sheffield Hallam University, as was reported by the BBC. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on the specifics of that case, but will the Government do more to support universities in resisting so-called SLAPPs—strategic lawsuits against public participation?

[Dan Jarvis]

It is worth my being clear about the importance this Government attach to academic freedom. We are incredibly proud of our universities, and as a Yorkshire MP, I am incredibly proud of Sheffield Hallam University, as I am of Sheffield University. That is, in part, why we made these announcements today and why we will be holding an event that provides a very good opportunity to engage with vice-chancellors, look carefully at the nature of the challenges they are facing and support them in responding to those challenges.

Nolan Principles

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention, but of course I am not in a position to speak for the Scottish Government. Once again, Labour Members are referring to matters in Holyrood rather than the place to which they were elected.

As I was saying, this matters because, in the context of a disastrous loss of confidence in the behaviour of public servants—including us—and in the face of a dramatic loss of public trust, is it any wonder that people do not take part in the democratic process any more? Is it any wonder that people might consider voting for parties on the far right? Is it any wonder that we see trouble on our streets?

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about people considering voting for parties on the far right; the former leader of Reform UK in Wales of course recently pleaded guilty to eight counts of bribery. Lord Nolan highlighted the need for openness; does the hon. Gentleman agree that, with £4.6 million in suspect donations coming from overseas, we need to take measures against the foreign Governments and state-linked groups intervening in our politics?

[Seamus Logan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he is obviously agreeing with the point that I made earlier.

This matters because the behaviour we are seeing is simply unacceptable. Is it any wonder that snake-oil salesmen and saleswomen obtain support? History teaches us that, when the people lose faith in the democratic process, when they lose trust in the Government, when our institutions fail them—which is what is happening before our very eyes—the door opens to dangerous people who do not have our interests truly at heart. That is why the Nolan principles really matter.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Bromborough) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to be here today debating a Bill that has been decades in the making. Before I begin, I want to join those who have already spoken in paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of the Hillsborough survivors and those who lost loved ones in the disaster. They have been through an unimaginable ordeal spanning decades, but throughout they have shown remarkable courage, dedication and tenacity to deliver justice for their loved ones. Even after the truth about the tragedy emerged, the families have not stopped campaigning. They have long called for a systemic change to prevent anything like this from happening again. We as a country owe a great debt of gratitude to their efforts, because without them we would not be debating this Bill today. As someone who grew up in a part of the world that has lived under the shadow of Hillsborough, I know how much this means to my constituents, and not least to the families of those that have lost loved ones, so I am proud that we have acted on the pledge that we made to implement this law.

The Bill addresses the key problems that we have identified time and again. How will we ultimately judge whether the Bill is a success? Two words: never again. That is the standard against which the Bill must be held. Never again should victims be wrongly blamed by the state for their deaths. Never again can we allow public bodies that are meant to protect us to lie in order to protect their own reputations. Never again must ordinary people fight tooth and nail against the seemingly endless resources of the state just to get to the truth.

As we have heard, Hillsborough is by far not the only example of the scandals and cover-ups that have emerged in recent years. The well-rehearsed list gets longer every year, and it includes infected blood, the Post Office, Grenfell, nuclear test veterans and many others that we have debated in this place. The test is that we do not add to that list, and that when tragedy strikes again and serious mistakes are made, truth and accountability are on display immediately. Let us be clear, legislation is only the starting point for this. As the Prime Minister said, a culture change is also required.

Establishing a legal duty of candour that requires bodies to act proactively, promptly and with full disclosure to assist inquiries, inquests and other investigations is a huge step forward, but it has to be delivered in practice, and that is the real challenge that we face. All too often—we have seen it in this place, have we not?—institutions act defensively, obfuscate and focus on protecting themselves when placed under scrutiny. With the guidance provided by codes of ethics and the threat of criminal sanctions, bodies and those working inside them should be forced to refocus and to put the public and their safety as their No. 1 priority, not to lie, and to actively support investigations and inquiries. That is what the public expect institutions to be doing already. While it should never have been required, this Bill will enshrine that basic principle into law at long last.

As we have seen in the NHS, however, that is easier said than done. It is nearly 10 years since the freedom to speak up guardians were introduced, but from what I can observe, there is still a long way to go to ensure that the good intentions behind that initiative are truly embraced across the board. Only in the past week I have been contacted by several people currently working in the NHS who believe that their concerns have not been listened to, or that they have been on the end of mistreatment because they have spoken out. Legislation is one thing, but culture is another, and I would suggest that changing the culture is something that needs leadership and buy-in from every single person across every single part of every single organisation.

I want to say something about equality before the law. Victims must no longer be browbeaten by lawyers in their quest for the truth, but I have some concerns about how that will work in practice, because when a public body is looking at something serious under this Bill, which it inevitably will, it will want the most senior representation it can get. If a public body can afford hundreds of pounds an hour for its lawyers, it will instruct them, but such fees will clearly be well in excess of existing legal aid rates. In that scenario, who is going to tell the public body that it has to choose cheaper lawyers? How will true equality before the law be achieved, especially if authorities only have to “have regard” to these principles? We need an overarching, independent way of monitoring this and of ensuring that recommendations from inquests and inquiries are effectively publicised and their implementation is monitored and delivered, ideally with progress reports to this place.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Clause 6 relates to the intelligence agencies, and there is an exemption for those who handle material that falls within the definition of security and intelligence. Our constituents will want to be certain that these organisations have oversight, so would the hon. Gentleman agree that this could be an additional power for the Intelligence and Security Committee?

[Justin Madders]

That is an interesting suggestion. I think a lot of Members are concerned about how this will relate to the security services, because we have had many examples in the past of where they have done things that we would rather had not happened. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, there will be some good dialogue about an appropriate way to deal with those difficult balances that have to be achieved.

I also want to raise a couple of concerns about clause 11 and the offence of misleading the public. The requirement for there to be “harm” to a victim could significantly reduce its effectiveness, which aims to deter cover-ups and obfuscation. In addition, part 2 of the Bill goes on to define who is included within the definition of a public body, and it specifically excludes the devolved bodies and both Houses of Parliament. I know that is because of the long-standing convention that Parliaments deal with their own affairs, but I am concerned that this sends out a negative message about our responsibilities in this matter. Parliament has in the past allowed other bodies to become involved in the way it does business with, for example with the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme, so there is precedent there for us to look at that again.

We should all be treated equally before the law. When trust and confidence in our institutions are at an all-time low, it is hard to underestimate the impact of the changes this Bill can deliver, but it should apply to everyone equally. Repeated examples of scandal and state cover-up are corrosive to trust and only serve those who want to sow division, so we have to get this right. This moment can mark a stark change in the way we deal with these issues, but we have to deliver it. Once it becomes law, we have to be consistent and vigilant to ensure that the Bill’s good intentions are delivered. That will mean a profound cultural shift. Hopefully the Bill will restore trust in our democracy and our institutions, so that when in future we say that something should never happen again, we can be confident that it will not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I echo many other Members across the House in paying tribute to the Hillsborough families. I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland, but I have to confess that I am a red. We heard of their plight and took that plight on as our own.

I cannot see up to the Gallery, but I say to Margaret and everybody else up there: we are thinking of you and hold you in our hearts today. This is your day. What you have managed to do has reverberated not just throughout Liverpool and the whole of the United Kingdom, but throughout the world. You have set the gold standard—a price that we should never have expected you to pay.

To lose family members at any time is extremely traumatic, but to lose them in the way that you lost your loved ones, and the subsequent cover-up—as other Members have mentioned today, this is not simply about statutory organisations and their response; it is also about the role of the press.

Last summer, whenever this Parliament sat for the first time, the Prime Minister said that this would be a Government of service, and I really do believe that this legislation is the best example of that so far. This Bill is all about service to people and service to community. When I entered Parliament last year, I found a kindred spirit in my friend, the hon. Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). This subject is personal to me and my constituents, because many people in Lagan Valley and Northern Ireland were impacted by the infected blood scandal; some of those families are my constituents. This is about a pattern and, as others have referenced—I will say it out loud for the avoidance of doubt—there is also a strong element of class within this. People do not understand. If you have been brought up and raised by the state, for want of a better word—reliant on it for financial and other support—if you are pregnant and someone tells you to take a pill because you have morning sickness, you take the pill and believe that you will be okay. And when people start to ask questions, you don’t ask why.

So many women across the UK took that pill: Thalidomide, Primodos, sodium valproate, aggressions against women as they were labouring, the Ockenden report—so many issues littering across our culture and our United Kingdom. And the pattern is always the same: transgressions against people who sometimes do not even know how to raise the alarm. If you were to ask the person on the Clapham omnibus, “Do you know what the Public Interest Disclosure Act is? Do you know how to utilise your rights in regard to that piece of legislation?”, they are going to look at you; they are going to turn around and say, “I’m not gonna tout on the boss.” That is a cultural phenomenon, and it is one that persists because we have such inequality within this country—inequality in housing and in education. We can see a huge social gulf widening every day. Why should we be surprised whenever people who are done wrong by the state feel that they have nowhere to turn? They cannot even see themselves that they have been done wrong.

This matter transcends politics, and it has been heartening to hear that echoed across the House today. This is not a matter of party politics; this is about representing our constituents to the best of our ability. This legislation is so important because it represents the UK Government finally recognising that honesty and transparency are not optional virtues; they are the foundations of justice.

Today in the Northern Ireland Assembly, my colleagues have spoken about one of the biggest health scandals of our time: the cervical smear scandal in the Southern trust, which includes part of my Lagan Valley constituency. Some 17,000 women had their smear tests read incorrectly. Two of them have already passed away: Erin Harbinson and Lynsey Courtney, both young mothers. We are still waiting for adequate responses as to why that happened, and that is in just one part of the UK.

There is another reason that this is legislation is so important and personal to me: the experience of my Lagan Valley constituents, the Conroy family. I am really grateful to my friends and Members from Northern Ireland for mentioning the Chinook crash—the case of flight Zulu Delta 576. Twenty-nine people on board were killed and there were no survivors, but what happened afterwards should be considered, and is, a stain on the corporate body of the UK. It should not be materially relevant, but fact is that all those people on board gave their lives in service to protecting people. And they were repaid by the state denying justice and just saying that the four special forces pilots were wrong—that was it; nothing to see.

If were it not for the persistence of the families of Flight Lieutenants Rick Cook and Jonathan Tapper, the families would have walked away by today. It was not until over a year ago that a documentary aired and some of the families found out that, actually, the findings relating to the Chinook crash are sealed for 100 years. I understand that is because of information related to the people on board the craft, but we can get round that with a public immunity certificate. The families deserve answers, and if this Government are serious about this legislation, this should be the first test case.

[Richard Foord]

At present it is not obvious what public servants should do if relevant material cannot be disclosed because it is of an intelligence or security nature. Does the hon. Lady think that strengthening the reach of the Intelligence and Security Committee might help to bring some oversight of the sort that her constituents, and mine, would expect?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Absolutely—

Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

No, that is really not the case. First, people who have worked with the DNSA will know that he is of the highest calibre and integrity on this matter. He presented evidence under successive Governments on this, devoid of any influence from advisers or Government on this side—I cannot say if that was the case under the previous Government, but I am sure it was. He presented that evidence freely and to the best of his ability under successive Governments.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Leaders should delegate responsibility but not accountability. The argument at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday revolved around whether a Minister or a special adviser had influenced the collapse of the case, and it was established that neither Ministers nor special advisers had involvement in the provision of evidence, but does the Minister think it would have been worth Ministers reflecting on the Intelligence and Security Committee’s 2023 China report and requesting sight of the witness statements provided by the senior civil servant before they were submitted? In essence, have the Government sought to delegate to a civil servant responsibility and accountability?

[Chris Ward]

No. It is not the position of the Government, or of successive Governments, to vet witness statements made in such cases. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what he is asking. Across the three witness statements, the deputy National Security Adviser sets out—15 or 20 times; I cannot remember the exact number—clearly and consistently the very serious threats that China poses. On the basis of that, the decision not to prosecute is taken by the CPS.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

Let me assure the hon. Member that I take very seriously the points that he has made. Clearly there will be a legal dimension to all this, but I am happy to go away, look at his point and then come back to him.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

In 2023 the Intelligence and Security Committee published a report on China in which it wrote that China was a “whole-of-state threat”. In their 2023 public response to the ISC report, the Government wrote that they recognised

“the committee’s concerns about the long-term strategic challenge”.

The ISC had used the word “threat” rather than “challenge”. Does the Minister regret that in 2023 the Government’s response did not use the word “threat”?

[Dan Jarvis]

With respect to the hon. Member, I am not going to become involved in a critique about whether the Government should have responded in a different way, because that is a matter for them. However, he mentioned the important work of the ISC. The Government consider that the ISC has a very important role to play in Parliament. It is obviously independent of Government, and it will clearly be for the Chair, the deputy Chair and the wider Committee to take a view on how they wish to proceed. As for the specific report to which the hon. Member referred, all that material would have been available to be considered by the CPS.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 10th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The BBC covered the Government’s publication of the national security strategy last month with the headline “UK must prepare for war scenario”. Often, the public will read an alarming headline like that without reading about the context, or about what it might mean for them or what they should do about it. Will the Government draw on academic expertise, such as that at the Centre for the Public Understanding of Defence and Security at the University of Exeter, in engaging with our constituents on this subject?

[Pat McFadden]

The hon. Member makes a very good point about engagement with the public. Anyone who has watched the news in recent years will know that the defence picture across Europe is changing. I made a statement to the House earlier this week on the importance of resilience. Resilience is not just a matter for Government, although the Government do have their responsibilities; it is a whole-of-society effort, and it will require proper dialogue and communication with the public.

UK-EU Summit

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

That is why it is so important that we are putting the money—more than £300 million—into working with those communities to take advantage of the deal that we struck yesterday.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

We heard from Ministers over the weekend that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. The Prime Minister said in his statement that the deal paves the way for access to the €150 billion defence industrial programme, SAFE—Security Action for Europe. If everything has been agreed, why does the security and defence partnership not include access to the SAFE industrial programme now?

[The Prime Minister]

That is because the programme itself is being developed at speed. It was only announced the other week. It was announced in response to, and as part of, the work we are doing with the coalition of the willing. Knocking out the first gateway was important. We will now work with the EU to ensure that we can access that fund as quickly as possible. It is not a long-existing fund that has been in place for years; it is developing at the moment in response to the situation in Ukraine. I think the hon. Member knows that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn), who have both raised this critical issue. I particularly pay tribute to Claire. Her courage and strength are outstanding. Family courts must never be a tool that domestic abusers can use to continue their appalling abuse. We are expanding a number of Pathfinder courts to protect the welfare of children and are reviewing the presumption of involvement that she raises.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Q9. Daniel Coffey from Cullompton lost his life while serving in Iraq. His grandfather said yesterday that Vice-President J.D. Vance“should have a lot more respect for those who lost their lives”in response to Vance’s comment about“some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”.Will the PM gently remind the US Government that the UK was there for the US following the 9/11 attacks when Lord Robertson invoked article 5, we were there for the US for the intervention in Iraq, and that they might remember our long-standing friendship when we think about security guarantees for Ukraine?

Ukraine

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It was welcome to hear the Prime Minister acknowledge Canada’s contribution to Ukraine’s self-defence and its status as a vital ally for the UK. Last week, he was asked by the press in the US about President Trump’s repeated calls for Canada to become a US state. The Prime Minister answered that he and Trump did not address the issue of Canada, but was not that meeting a good opportunity to remind President Trump about sovereignty and independence, including that of Canada?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes; it is a serious point. In the time we had available, I was most anxious to discuss the question of security guarantees, and that is why I devoted the vast amount of time I had to it. On the question of Canada, we should be absolutely clear that Canada is a vital ally to the United Kingdom and to the Commonwealth, and has played a leading part in relation to Ukraine—not least in the vital training that it has provided. We should be very proud of what the Canadians have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty McNeill]

The hon. Gentleman might not be aware that unemployment actually came down in Scotland this week. We promised that there would be no return to austerity, and workers’ payslips across Scotland were indeed protected in the Budget. More than half of employees will see either a cut or no change in their national insurance bill. The smallest businesses and charities are protected, and our decision to increase employer national insurance will raise more than £25 billion to help to rebuild Britain.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

5. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on support for the green energy sector in Scotland.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Ian Murray)]

I am in regular contact with ministerial colleagues from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on a range of issues relevant to clean energy production in Scotland. Scotland is key to the UK Government’s clean power by 2030 mission, which will deliver cheaper bills, energy security and future jobs, and drive growth in the Scottish economy.

[Richard Foord]

The roll-out of offshore renewables in Scotland should happen alongside the growth of supply chains there. That is vital if the energy transition is to deliver jobs and investment in Scotland’s oil and gas communities. It is welcome that the Government have allocated £200 million to a clean industry bonus, but that falls short of the £500 million that Labour pledged in its manifesto. How do the Government plan to strengthen the clean industry bonus to build thriving renewable manufacturing in the UK?