Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case

Emily Thornberry Excerpts

Monday 13th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

May I begin by expressing solidarity with the two previous Conservative Chairs of the Foreign Affairs Committee, who would seem to have suffered from having Chinese spies in their offices? That must have been very distressing, upsetting and threatening.

The DPP’s claim of needing further evidence from the Government and decision not to publish the China audit has, I think, become conflated and resulted in a great deal of muddle and confusion, and allegations that the Government are soft-pedalling on China. Before we disappear down that rabbit hole, may I take us back to basics? As I understand it, these men were charged with an offence under section 1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act: to pass on information that

“might be…directly or indirectly useful to an enemy”.

When the Crown Prosecution Service was building its case, presumably it had a witness and presumably that witness was the deputy National Security Adviser, who was there to answer this question: is China an enemy? Without that evidence, there was no point in charging the men in 2024. What has changed since 2024? We are told that what has changed is that the enemy is now—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. This House will listen to the right hon. Member with respect.

[Emily Thornberry]

It seems that there is now case law saying that an enemy is a threat to national security. Frankly, that seems to be a lower test not a higher test. But if, in 2024, there was evidence that China was an enemy and the Crown Prosecution Service had made a decision to prosecute on that basis, I cannot understand why there has been a change now. The only other answer is that the Crown Prosecution Service did not properly assess the evidence before making those charges. Moving away from all the light, heat and fury, it seems to me that those are the central points.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. She talked about muddle and confusion: she is right that there has been a lot of ill-informed commentary in previous days. That is precisely why the Government have proactively brought a statement to the House to set out the facts of the trial, and I am very happy to be able to do that.

Let me do that again for my right hon. Friend. The DPP has set out the reasons at the heart of his decision not to take this case to trial. He believed that the evidential test was not met. The DPP took an independent decision on the evidence, as was set out in his letter of 7 October. The DNSA did not materially change his evidence and was under no pressure from anyone to do so. As the Prime Minister, her constituency neighbour, has explained very clearly, the current Government’s policy position was immaterial to this assessment. It is only the Government’s policy at the time that the alleged offences were committed that is relevant.

My right hon. Friend will understand that the CPS decision to drop the case was not influenced by any member of this Government, special adviser or senior official. I have been crystal clear about that today. The Director of Public Prosecutions has given his assurance that the CPS was not influenced by any external party. As the Government have already stated, the suggestions that the Government concealed evidence or withdrew or leant on witnesses are all untrue.