Official Secret Act Case: Witness Statements
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Baroness Finn (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister answer whether the 1 September meeting, as reported by the Sunday Times, between senior officials and intelligence chiefs in the Cabinet Office, and reportedly chaired by the National Security Adviser, Jonathan Powell, discussed the China espionage case and what evidence should be provided to the CPS? Will the Minister confirm whether the National Security Adviser provided a written update or Box note to the Prime Minister? If she can establish whether one exists, will she publish it with the related correspondence between the Cabinet Office, the CPS and No. 10?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her question. It is our third such outing on matters pertaining—well, our second, but the third in a week. To confirm, the meeting on 1 September was a discussion with the National Security Adviser about the management of the court case as it continued. There was no discussion of anything other than what would happen during the progression of the court case. Although I am sure all noble Lords have had various dealings with the person who suggested that a Box note was provided, I am not sure how he would know of such a Box note, seeing as no Box note existed. No briefing note whatever was provided from the National Security Adviser to the Prime Minister, nor was there any conversation about the case.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, this case seems to boil down to the binary political question: conspiracy or cock-up? The Government vehemently deny conspiracy, so they must believe it is a cock-up. But where and how did this happen, and how will the Government find out this fact? A Joint Select Committee plans to investigate, and I am sure that the ISC will too. Will the Government co-operate fully and quickly with these inquiries and undertake to publish everything possible that arises from them?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord raises a very important point. Our Parliament is at its best when it scrutinises the Government, and I am very pleased that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy is now undertaking its inquiry. The Intelligence and Security Committee, led by my noble friend Lord Beamish, will also undertake its investigation. How quickly those progress is obviously now a matter for Parliament. I promise noble Lords that both investigations will have our full co-operation and support. We expect this to be done quickly. All information will be given very quickly. I have met with officials today to make it very clear that Government Ministers expect full co-operation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Does the Minister agree that the DPP simply got the law wrong in deciding to drop the case? In particular, does she agree that he failed to appreciate that whether China represents a current threat to our national security is a question of fact for the jury, and that he failed to charge as an alternative attempted espionage, available on ample evidence, having regard to the leading case of Shivpuri? Will she tell the House what steps are being taken in the light of those failures?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his question and his continued interest in these matters. Although the Government share the disappointment that the prosecution could not continue, the DPP’s decision is independent of the Government. Any decision to draw on the Shivpuri case as part of legal proceedings in this espionage case, if relevant, rested solely with the Crown Prosecution Service. However, I reassure the noble Lord that the Government are dedicated to ensuring that the UK has the most robust legal framework possible to tackle foreign interference in espionage, which is why we supported, on a cross-party basis, the introduction of the National Security Act 2023. The Government will continue to keep such legislation under review to ensure that the UK’s law enforcement agencies are equipped to respond to the evolving threat landscape. Indeed, Jonathan Hall KC was appointed in February last year to act as the Independent Reviewer of State Threat Legislation under the National Security Act. I reiterate that there is now parliamentary oversight, with a parliamentary investigation. I hope all noble Lords with the relevant expertise actively seek to participate in the review, as the noble Lord has already.
Lord Swire (Con)
Can the Minister clarify for the record that anyone invited to appear before any of these committees, including the DPP, the National Security Adviser and, if necessary, the Prime Minister himself, will attend?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Lord is aware that I cannot speak on behalf of the DPP, and while I wish I was in charge of the Prime Minister’s diary, no one has given me that responsibility. However, to be very clear, we expect full co-operation and that everybody invited to attend will give appropriate evidence as requested by the committee.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
Can the Minister explain why no fewer than three witness statements were required from the Government? Are we to conclude that the Government did not make their position sufficiently clear in the first two statements?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I think it would be helpful if we went through the timescale of what happened with this case. The alleged incidents occurred. The Government—who at that point were the previous Government—met, and they instructed the Deputy National Security Adviser to provide a witness statement. At that point, and as soon as charges were made, the Deputy National Security Adviser was constrained in his wider engagement. Politicians were informed, but not involved, from that moment onwards because he was an active witness. Noble Lords have now had the opportunity over the weekend to read all the evidence statements available and will be aware, as I believe them to be, that they are a very robust statement of our position on China—the position at the time and, from my perspective, the position that needs to continue going forward.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee. Given that detailed personal information about parliamentarians and others, including human rights activists, has, according to media reports over the weekend, been handed over to a top Chinese official described as very close indeed to President Xi Jinping, what assurances and support have the Government offered to these people regarding their personal safety, and what have they been told about the specific information that allegedly has been handed over?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes the most important of points. One of the things that has been missing from conversations, including our own debate over the past week, is that people who some of us know extremely well have been targeted by a foreign state. Their lives, political careers and families have all been affected by these alleged incidents and by what has followed in the public space. There is now a duty and responsibility on us to make sure that those people are protected. With regard to the human rights activists, I know that direct conversations have happened and will continue to happen. We have been proactive in the guidance issued by MI5 and GCHQ, but we will work with everybody where they feel there is an additional security threat.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the charges were brought under the Official Secrets Act, which dates from the beginning of the 20th century, which is one of the reasons it was changed? Unfortunately, the charges were brought when it was still running and in existence. Certainly in the beginning, that Act seemed to require that someone was an enemy of the United Kingdom, whereas it has evolved that, quite clearly, a nation can be a threat to national security without having to be publicly deemed an enemy. Therefore, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that the repeated requests were being made by the Director of Public Prosecutions, not someone well versed in jury trials from his experience, because he wanted someone to say that China was an enemy. This Government and the previous Government were unwilling to say that in the current climate, where, for all kinds of reasons, we are seeking to have some sort of partnership with China on certain issues. Is that the position of the Government?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
The noble Baroness invites me to question the independence of the CPS, and I am unlikely to do so.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I apologise if I misinterpreted what she said. The legal position is a matter for the CPS, and I am not a lawyer—much to my mother’s disappointment. As to why we updated the Official Secrets Act, the noble Baroness is right that it required the definition of “enemy”. There was a reason why Members of your Lordships’ House spent many hours debating the National Security Act and why we have new legislation.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does the Minister accept that China is a malign actor? It does not have our interests at heart and that the sooner we bring the Chinese embassy plans to a swift end, the better.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are unequivocal that China poses threats to UK security, including to our democratic system, and we will continue to hold China to account for this. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work on a cross-party basis and how, with the CPS and others, we can work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again. With regard to the embassy, that is now a quasi-judicial decision, and the decision will be announced before 10 December.