Joint committee on national security strategy to hold inquiry into collapse of China spy trial, MPs told
Matt Western, the Labour chair of the joint committee on national security strategy, said that his commitee met this morning and has decided to hold a formal inquiry into this.
He said the chairs of the home affairs committee, the foreign affairs committee and the justice committee were among the committee’s members.
He asked for an assurance that the inquiry would have access to ministers and officials.
Ward said the government welcomed parliamentary scrutiny. He said he was sure witnesses would be made available to the committee.
Share
Key events
Show key events only
Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature
Tugendhat claims China spy case shows ‘bureaucrats in charge of everything’ under Labour, with democracy sidelined
Tom Tugendhat, the Tory former security minister, and another target of the alleged spying operation, also raised a point of order at the end of the statement. He said:
Given that the government’s position is that the bureaucrats run the government, the bureaucrats are in charge of everything, may we dissolve this house and save the taxpayer the money? Because clearly, this isn’t a democracy any more.
Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, replied: “I’m sure [Tugendhat] doesn’t want to give up his seat quite so quickly.”
Share
Tory MP Alicia Kearns asks why China has not faced any repercussions from UK over spying case
At the end of the statement Alicia Kearns, the Tory MP who was one of the targets of the alleged spying operation (she employed Christopher Cash – see 9.39am), used a point of order to complain about the government’s failure to address some questions.
She said she wanted proof that, over a period of 14 months, the deputy national security adviser (DSNA) at no point spoke to ministers or the national security adviser about the case.
She asked why, when told the case was about to collapse, the PM did nothing.
And she asked why “to this day there have been no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party despite the government in power having every tool in their box to make clear that we will protect this house, this democracy and this country”.
Share
Updated at 13.11 CEST
Asked why Dan Jarvis, the security minister, told MPs on Monday that Jonathan Powell, the PM’s national security adviser, was not linked to the pro-China 48 Group, when until recently he was listed on its website as a fellow, Ward said Powell “was not involved in any part of this”.
Share
Updated at 13.11 CEST
Kieran Mullan (Con) asked why wording from the Labour manifesto was included in the final witness statement.
Ward said that was there to provide “wider context”. But that wording was provided by the DNSA, without involvement from ministers or political advisers.
Share
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, asked if the government regards China as a national security threat.
Ward said the evidence shows that China poses a threat multiple times.
Share
Nick Timothy (Con) said the PM claimed that the relevant evidence related to the last government’s China policy. But the evidence was changed to reflect the current govermnment’s policy. He said this showed what the PM told MPs was wrong.
Ward rejected that. He said there was no political intererence in the evidence.
Share
Richard Foord (Lib Dem) asked why the government did not request sight of the DNSA’s witness statements. He accused the government of delegating responsibility and accountability to a civil servant.
Ward said the DNSA did set out the threat posed by China.
Share
Bernard Jenkin (Con) said it was “beyond belief” that nobody was able to tell the deputy national security adviser that he needed to give the CPS the evidence it needed. He went on:
One can only conclude that this conspiracy of omission was something the government wanted, because they didn’t want this trial to go ahead.
Ward rejected this argument.
Share
‘Who the hell’s side are you on?’ – Tom Tugendhat condemns Starmer for lack of leadership
Tom Tugendhat, the Tory former security minister, said he felt very personally about this.
My home has been broken into, my files have been ransacked. Somebody had been put in my office by a hostile state, and two parties are playing politics with it. This is national security of the United Kingdom.
The elected people of Tonbridge chose me. They may have chosen wrong, but they did. The elected people of other parts of the United Kingdom chose everybody else in this house. It is up to them to choose who represents them.
And yet here we have two individuals seeking to extract information from us, and the government’s response is not as mine was, do everything you can to make sure the prosecution works. But no – process, process.
Well, who the hell’s side are you on? This isn’t about the bureaucracy. This is about leadership.
We’re not sent here to be civil servants. We sent here to lead the country and to make decisions.
Tugendhat said that Ward, a very new minister, had been sent out to “defend the indefensible”. He said Ward was sounding like a bureaucrat, not a politician. Previous attorneys general prosecuted on the state’s behalf. But this attorney general, and this PM, said “not on my watch”, Tugendhat said.
Ward said that he had huge respect for Tugendhat and that he was “genuinely not trying to play politics” with this.
Share
Government weakened case for spy prosecution by including references to China presenting economic opportunity, MPs told
Jeremy Wright, a Tory former attorney general, asked why the witness statments mentioned China presenting an economic opportunity.
What is the possible relevance of the inclusion of information about China as an economic opportunity? Surely the minister can see, and the government can see, that that only weakens the substance of the question that particular witness was being asked to answer.
Ward said that the witness statement was providing the “broader context of the position of the government at the time in relation to the situation on China”.
Share
Edward Leigh (Con) asked for an assurance that there was no ministerial involvement in the CPS decision to drop the case.
Ward replied: “That’s absolutely my understanding.”
Share
Joint committee on national security strategy to hold inquiry into collapse of China spy trial, MPs told
Matt Western, the Labour chair of the joint committee on national security strategy, said that his commitee met this morning and has decided to hold a formal inquiry into this.
He said the chairs of the home affairs committee, the foreign affairs committee and the justice committee were among the committee’s members.
He asked for an assurance that the inquiry would have access to ministers and officials.
Ward said the government welcomed parliamentary scrutiny. He said he was sure witnesses would be made available to the committee.
Share
Jess Brown-Fuller, the Lib Dem spokesperson, called for a public inquiry into this affair.
Ward said parliamentary committees would be looking at this.
Share
Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee, says as a lawyer she cannot understand why the CPS did not go ahead and put this case to a jury.
Share
In his response to O’Brien, Ward said that the Tories were at the same time accusing the government of improperly intervening in the prosecution process (to discourage prosection) – while at the same time saying the government should have intervened to ensure the prosecution went ahead.
Share
Tory MP Neil O’Brien claims witness statements show threat from China was made ‘less clear’ under Labour
Neil O’Brien said he was shocked to hear yesterday that the PM knew two days in advance that the prosecution was going to be dropped, but did nothing.
He said the government had to explain why it did not give the CPS the extra 5% it needed.
And he said the witness statements showed that Labour policy was included in the submission. These additions made it ‘‘less clear” that China was a threat, he said.
He called for the publication of all the documents relevant to this case.
He asks what the government has got to hide.
Share
Ward says the witness statements show that the evidence submitted by the deputy national security adviser “does not change materially throughout”.
He says the DNSA took “significant strides” to give the CPS what it needed.
Share
Source
