Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Ward]

The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I thank him for his kind words in welcoming me. If I can speak as many times in this place as he does, I will be very grateful—[Interruption.] I am not sure anyone really wants that. He makes a very serious point about the threats posed by China and the threats posed to his constituents and all our constituents by that. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work across the parties and how, with the CPS and others, we can all work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Until the statement was published last night, some of us had no idea about the details of this case, but the Government appear to be unwilling to answer three questions that have been asked repeatedly in this Chamber, so can you, Mr Speaker, kindly help me to ascertain how we get answers to them? The first concerns proof that, for the 14 months the CPS asked about, the DNSA at no point spoke to any Ministers or the National Security Adviser. Why, when the Prime Minister was informed that the case would collapse, did he not do everything in his power, and is there any evidence that he took any action at all? And why, if the Government are so disappointed that the case collapsed, have there been to this day no repercussions for the Chinese Communist party, despite the Government in power having every tool in the box to make it clear that we will protect this House, this democracy and this country?

[Mr Speaker]

I cannot prolong the UQ. I know the hon. Lady well, and I know she will not leave it at that point of order. She will go and use all the options that are open to her, and I am sure that she will be coming back in not too distant a time.

Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who asks such a very useful question that parliamentarians should be asking themselves. Yes, I can give him that assurance, and I have made clear from this Dispatch Box on many occasions the importance that this Government attach, as I am sure the previous Government did, to the National Security Act 2023. It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation, and as my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), would acknowledge, I have paid tribute on numerous occasions to those who were involved.

My hon. Friend asks the right question. The NSA closed the loopholes that we are essentially debating today, so I can assure him that our legislative framework is in a much better place than it was a couple of years ago. That said, because this Government take these matters incredibly seriously, we constantly look at the legislative framework to assure ourselves that it is appropriate. We work very closely with Jonathan Hall KC, who has made recommendations, at the Government’s request, on our legislative framework, and we have made a commitment that wherever there is a requirement for more legislation, we will bring it forward.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The integrated review refresh, which stated that the Chinese Communist party posed a threat to our people and our security, was in fact published the very day that these two men were arrested. But that in itself is a red herring, because the Bulgaria case proved that it is for a jury to decide whether a country is or could be a threat, and it is not for the Government alone to prove that. The Minister told the House in response to our urgent question that the Government demanded that the Chinese chargé d’affaires come in for the démarche. Did a Minister do that, or did an official do it?

Secondly, given that the House has been told how disappointed the Government are with this outcome and that they seem to be quite clear about the evidence of guilt, what repercussions are they choosing to put on the Chinese Communist party? Will they be cancelling the joint economic and trade commission? Will they be putting in place sanctions? Will they be banning the embassy? If they will not act, why not?

[Dan Jarvis]

Of course, the hon. Lady has a very close personal interest in this case, and it will be well understood by Members across the House why she has expressed concerns today and previously. I am sorry that she does not feel that the Government’s response is adequate, but I assure her that I will endeavour to ensure that this Government do as much as we possibly can to work with her and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on this issue, so that she can have confidence that these matters are not able to happen again.

The hon. Lady specifically asked about the démarche I referenced in my statement—it was not an urgent question—on 15 September. As she will know, that was done through the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but I will come back to her with more details should she wish.

Official Secrets Act

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Member who has been heavily involved in this, Alicia Kearns.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I will be responding in a personal capacity, but may I start by thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the support you have given to us over the past two years? I also place on record my gratitude to our intelligence community and counter-terrorism police, who are exceptional.

From a securities perspective, today’s events are disastrous. They will embolden our enemies and make us look unwilling to defend our own nation, even when attacked in this place, the mother of all Parliaments. I am relieved that the National Security Act will make it safer and easier in future to prosecute foreign spies, but I urge the Minister to reform the Treason Act so that traitors are prosecuted and face justice, put China in the enhanced tier, and support private prosecution.

It remains unclear to me why Chris Cash and Christopher Berry cannot be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act. The evidence shows a clear line between those two, the United Front Work Department and the politburo—the very top of the Chinese Communist party. The information shared was prejudicial to the safety and interests of the UK, and I believe it put Members at personal risk. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) was told by agency heads that the evidence was overwhelming and the case beyond doubt. Counter-terrorism police this morning agreed and said the same to me—that the evidential standard had been met at the time of charges.

My question for the Minister is simple: if officials, the security services and the police agree that the case was a slam dunk, why has the Crown Prosecution Service not been able to get it over the line? If the CPS was not confident, why, given the compelling evidence, did it not put it to a jury and test it? Whoever is responsible for this decision—whether the Director of Public Prosecutions, an official in his own Department or the Attorney General—they have weakened the defence of our country today and I am desperately sorry to see it.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I completely understand why she has phrased them in the way that she has. Let me also join her in thanking you, Mr Speaker, for the work you have done to keep parliamentarians safe. Over the next few days, weeks, months and years, it is vital that we work together. I look forward to meeting you later on today to discuss how we can ensure that we work together to safeguard all our parliamentary colleagues.

Turning to the substance of the remarks made by the hon. Lady, I agree with her characterisation of the National Security Act. I will look very carefully at the points she made specifically with regard to treason. On her assessment of the decision that has been made, I completely understand why she has arrived at that conclusion, as will Members right across the House. In my opening remarks, I expressed my extreme disappointment at the decision that has been made. These remarks, and the judgments people are forming in the House this afternoon, will be heard by the CPS. I know that she will take every opportunity—as will the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), whom she referenced in her introductory remarks—to seek a meeting with the CPS at the earliest available opportunity to hear and better understand the decision-making process it has been through.

As I have said previously, I am not able to speculate on the reason why the CPS has taken this decision. I am extremely disappointed that it has done so, but I will do everything I can to ensure that Government are organised so that we can ensure we have the resources in the right place to stand against the threats that we face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call Alicia Kearns on a point of order. May I just say what a pleasure it is to see you back?

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. That is very kind. I shall be returning home to my four-month-old in a couple of hours.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker, Government Front Benchers are unable to answer the questions of this House regarding the decision making of the Crown Prosecution Service, so can you kindly advise how this House can scrutinise the Crown Prosecution Service and its decisions, as that is clearly the will of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me notice of her point of order. I believe that this is a matter for the Attorney General—who is responsible for the CPS—and as he sits in the other place, maybe we will have to use the Solicitor General as a way forward. In this case, I hope that a clear message has gone back to everybody that when we still have Members of Parliament who have sanctions, we cannot let this go in the way that seems to have been done.

Income tax (charge)

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

The right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt) has confirmed that this is his last appearance at the Dispatch Box, at least in his current guise, so I begin by thanking him for his service to government and to the country. He and I have something in common: we both inherited an awful mess from our predecessors. He was appointed Chancellor of the Exchequer as the repair man—the adult in the room—and was meant to sort things out after the disaster left by his predecessor. He was supposed to be the antidote to Liz Truss, but in recent days, he has become an ally of Liz Truss, united with her in attacking the OBR. He was brought in to praise the economic institutions, but he has ended up condemning them. However, he cannot hide from the verdict: the OBR has confirmed that the previous Government hid billions of pounds of pressures that they knew about, and the Treasury has given us a full picture of precisely what those pressures added up to.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman states that a full breakdown was provided by the Treasury yesterday, but that is just not true. In fact, the chair of the OBR said on “Sky News” last night:

“Nothing in our review was a legitimisation of that £22 billion”

claim. That was him making it very clear that the OBR does not support and has not endorsed the claim in the Treasury report. Will the right hon. Gentleman now confirm, with a simple yes or no, that the OBR does not legitimise that claim?

[Pat McFadden]

Let me read what the OBR has said:

“The Treasury did not share information with the OBR about the large pressures on RDEL, about the unusual extent of commitments against the reserve… had this information been made available, a materially different judgement…would have been reached.”

[Pat McFadden]

The right hon. Gentleman suggests that things got better after February. They did not; they got worse, and that is how we got to £22 billion. This is not just a verdict about what happened but an indictment of the Conservative party’s final period in office. The truth is that, under his watch, the Treasury had stopped doing the basic job of controlling expenditure.

Announcements were made with no money set aside, the asylum and hotel bill was funded by emptying the country’s reserves within the first few months of the financial year, hospital building programmes were announced without the necessary funds set aside to pay for them, a pay award sat on a Secretary of State’s desk while they looked the other way, and compensation schemes were announced without the full funds being set aside to pay for them. That was an irresponsible dereliction of duty that has led to us picking up the pieces and to the right hon. Gentleman attacking the independent watchdog that was set up by his own party. Even his predecessor, the former Member for Spelthorne, admitted this morning that Labour is clearing up the Tory mess. If Conservative Members are more out of touch with reality than the former Member for Spelthorne, let me tell them that that is not a good place to be.

The right hon. Gentleman referred to the IFS, which said this morning that the Chancellor

“is not wrong to stress that she got a hospital pass on the public finances.”

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Pat McFadden]

I have given way once.

[Alicia Kearns]

I thank him for giving way—oh.

[Pat McFadden]

No, I am not giving way.

The Conservatives talk about their golden legacy, and we heard the former Chancellor read out some of his greatest hits. Who are they kidding? The last Parliament was the worst on record for living standards, with British families worse off than their French and German counterparts. His Government had the second lowest growth in the G7 since the pandemic and the highest inflation in the G7 since the pandemic. They left a prison system overflowing and just days away from collapse, and rather than take responsibility for it, they cut and ran and called an early election.

I have to give the previous Government credit: some things did grow on their watch, such as hospital waiting lists, housing waiting lists, shoplifting, insecure work and the decline of our high streets. That is their record, and it falls to us to fix it and start to rebuild Britain, so there is no point in coming to this Chamber and pretending that people are making it all up.

The former Chancellor talks about business. His party stuffed business—his colleague, the former Prime Minister, said “eff business”, and then the Conservatives carried out the policy. Under them, we had the lowest business investment in the G7. Why? Because of constant chaos in their Governments, meaning that business did not know who would be leading them from one year to the next; because they caved in to their Back Benchers and blocked anything substantial from being built; and because businesses could not hire the workers they needed with so many people on the sick.

This could have been a Budget where we just muddled through—patched up some mistakes made by the Conservative party and hoped something would turn up—but that is not good enough. We have had that time and again. In fact, we have had 14 years of it—long enough to show that that approach is not going to work. The country voted for change, and this was a Budget to deliver change. It is not a time for more of the same; it is a time to choose. We did not duck the challenge or look the other way; we confronted the challenge, because that is what the country needs. This is the moment when the country turns a corner and sets out a proper plan for the years to come.

We did make tax changes in this Budget, which is never an easy thing to do. That was because the first thing we had to do was fix the foundations and put the public finances on a sound footing. With this Budget, we say how we will pay for what we will do. The first fiscal rule announced by the Chancellor is to fund day-to-day spending from the revenue that we raise, a rule that the OBR judges will be met two years early.

The IMF, to which the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash referred, has today welcomed

“the Budget’s focus on boosting growth through a needed increase in public investment while addressing urgent pressures on public services”,

so let me turn to those public services. Secondly, there will be more NHS appointments to get waiting lists and times down; more technology to improve productivity; more prevention to stop people falling ill in the first place; new surgical hubs and diagnostic centres; a hospital-building programme brought from fiction to reality, this time founded on more than hot air; new schools to help children learn; more teachers to bring out the best in every child; and more investment in further education to give people the skills they need. It is investment and reform together—not just more money into the same system, but changing the system for a new age, with productivity targets alongside the extra money.

The right hon. Gentleman also talked about welfare spending, but the Conservatives had plenty of time to sort out welfare spending. Their legacy is almost 3 million people out of work because of long-term sickness. The truth is that they did not have a plan, but they do have a record, and again, it falls to us to sort that record out. We will take tough action on welfare fraud, and we will not give up on those who can work and make a contribution, because we understand that when the sick can get treated and when every child of every background has the best chance to learn, that is not just good for them and their families but for the economy as a whole.

Thirdly, this Budget put in place help with the cost of living for millions: a rising minimum wage with extra help for young workers, fuel duty frozen, carers allowed to earn more, the triple lock protected, the household support fund extended to help the poorest, and lower deductions from universal credit. Those are the choices that we made—real help for millions of people.

Finally, we reject the path of decline for investment that the Conservatives were planning. They wanted to cut public investment by a third. That was the right hon. Gentleman’s plan—to once again cut back on the house building, schools, hospitals and transport projects that the country needs. That is a path of decline that has been chosen too often in the past. The Tories do not yet have a leader, and the only policy to come out of their leadership contest so far is to cut maternity pay, but on the question of investment, they do have a position. Budgets are about choices, and yesterday they chose: the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) railed against our new investment rule, and more Conservative Members have spoken out since. What does that mean their position is? New money for housing—opposed. New money for schools—opposed. New money for potholes—opposed. New money for research—opposed. Investment in the future itself—opposed by the Conservative party. I understand the perils of opposition. We have had long enough experience of it, but if the Conservatives really want to run around the country opposing every new investment over the coming four or five years, be our guests.

Yes, this Budget was a big choice, and in opposing the investments within it, the Conservatives have made a big choice too. We will remind them of it, project after project, year after year. They wanted to lock us into the world that voters rejected just four short months ago.