China Spying Case
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Burghart
That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry?
The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by
“the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”,
and
“sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”,
including special advisers.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence?
Alex Burghart
I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices.
A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House:
“Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.]
We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?
Peter Swallow
The Minister quite clearly set out the range of threats posed by China. I am clear that China poses a threat. I also think that we have to be mature enough in this Chamber to accept that the way we deal with the second-largest economy in the world has to be to recognise the threats it poses to our democracy and our national security, but also all the ways in which we have to work with it.
I stood for election on a manifesto that committed to our co-operating with China where we can, challenging them where we must, and competing with them where we need to. I genuinely think that is a mature way of dealing with a state that does not share our values, and that poses a great threat to our democracy and to the way that citizens and residents of this country operate within a democracy, but that is also the second-largest economy in the world. As the former director of MI6 said on the “Today” show on the BBC this morning,
“we need to learn to walk and chew gum at the same time.”
We need a mature acceptance of the risks that China poses, and that means recognising that we cannot just walk off the pitch and not deal with the second-largest economy in the world. It is infantile and not realistic to suggest otherwise.
If the new Act had been in place sooner, it is possible that these men could have been prosecuted successfully under it. I therefore have a simple question for Conservative Front Benchers, and they need to be clear on this point: why did they wait so long to replace a vital piece of security legislation, and make sure that we had the appropriate tools to keep this country safe? I am happy to take interventions on that point.
Peter Swallow
As has already been set out, the threat from China has evolved over time. I would have loved it if the previous Labour Government had amended the Act, but it was the Conservative party that held a consultation, and then sat on the results for eight years and did nothing.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
In its inquiry on China from July 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee, of which I was a member at the time, concluded that China was a threat. The Committee took evidence not from junior security officials, but from the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, the director general of the Security Service and the director of GCHQ, the chief of Defence Intelligence and—this is an important “and”—all the deputy National Security Advisers at the time. That is already public; they reported to the Committee.
That report is clear and unambiguous in calling out China as a national security threat to UK interests. It is also crystal clear, taking the report as a whole, that China’s threat is both live and active. The report was from July 2023, and the alleged offences took place, apparently, from December ’21 to February ’23. I am aware that the refresh of the integrated review of ’21 was in March ’23. However, the Committee’s inquiry started taking evidence from those senior officials from November 2017 to a similar time in 2019, and then the subsequent Committee carried on its work. Senior national security officials were giving evidence to the ISC about China being a national security threat well before the offences happened in this place.
Mark Pritchard
If we have the directors of all the intelligence agencies suggesting that China is a threat, it does not get much better than that. We have great deputy national security advisers, but their line managers—their directors, their bosses—were also clearly stating that China was a national security threat. In fact, the word “threat” is mentioned 284 times in that 207-page report.
The key word in this whole episode involving the deputy National Security Adviser—that is, the DNSA for intelligence, defence and security, not the other two remaining DNSAs, unless the Minister wants to correct me—is “active”. The question is whether China was an active threat, as underscored by the testimony to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy yesterday. The evidence in the ISC’s report would suggest that China has been known to be an active threat for some time. I have mentioned the various reviews. Indeed, in his own witness statement, the DSNA refers to China conducting “large-scale espionage operations”. Again, this is not a historical reference or a past-tense reference; it is clearly referring to the here-and-now operations taking place today. There is clearly an active threat, not just a general or undetermined threat.
China being an active threat was also underscored by the director general of the Security Service’s recent speech, in which he referred to China’s
“cyber-espionage…clandestine technology transfer…interference in UK public life”
and
“harassment and intimidation of opponents”.
Once more, these threats are not just historical; they are current and active, happening in the UK right now. They have not stopped. They are increasing. They continue.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The real threat to our security is not necessarily what others do in the shadows; it is what one’s own Government hide from the light. That is the essence of what we are trying to get to in the motion before us—we are asking the Government to publish the papers.
Let me take a step back from this issue to look at the way in which the public will perceive it. This is the biggest spy story in this country’s history, at least in this century. We can get into the tit-for-tat about what the PM did or did not know, whether the National Security Adviser speaks to his deputy or not, who told the deputy National Security Adviser that he needs to toe the Government line, and how the Labour manifesto got into the witness statements, but I want to concentrate more on the bigger picture.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) rightly pointed out the behaviour of the Government. The Prime Minister could have sorted this out by coming to the House and speaking about this topic. He could have laid it all out and put it all forward. The only thing we have had has been a statement before Prime Minister’s questions. Of course, we Back Benchers cannot ask questions after such statements—there is no way for us to do so. If the Government are so angry, why is more action not being taken? Why are people not being fired, and why are we still having this debate several weeks on if all the information is so crystal clear that this House can move on?
I am worried that this is a pattern of behaviour with the Prime Minister, because we saw this with the ambassador. The Prime Minister was the decision maker on that issue, but he did not come to this House; he sent one of his Ministers. I expect that the retort from Labour Members will be, “It was always thus”, but the reason this saddens me so much is that the Prime Minister is being judged by the standard that he set. He said that he would do things differently, but he is not. He is not coming to the House to explain when he could do so. We know that the information and the decisions rest with him.
When I pushed the Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), about leadership last time, that was not directed at him—I have a great deal of respect for him. He is following the leadership of the Prime Minister, who has not come to this House to explain what is going on. If this issue is as clearcut as Labour Members have said, that would be an easy case to make and this House would believe the Prime Minister, but we are not there. That is why I worry, because it leads to a wider debate and wider concerns among the public about whether something is going on.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the most obvious point is that, despite the Government’s disappointment at the collapse of the trial—we have heard numerous Ministers, including the Prime Minister himself, stress that—it is shocking that they appear not to have done every single thing possible to bolster the case and put the CPS in the best possible position to secure a prosecution? The two just do not add up.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
It is true that the Government have repeatedly expressed disappointment, but—still more disturbingly, in a sense—so has MI5. It is quite unusual for MI5 to intervene, by means of a speech by its head which made it very clear that MI5 was profoundly disappointed that this matter had not gone to court. Had it done so, it would have been the culmination of years of work done by MI5 to try to deal with Chinese espionage in Whitehall and Westminster.
Dr Evans
I will not, because I have taken two interventions already. My worry is about what the public perceive, because it is a statement of fact that since the Chancellor went to China, decisions have been made about the Chagos islands, for example, or British Steel and £1 billion—what is going on there? A spy case has now been dropped, and there is the possibility of a super-embassy and even ID cards. My constituents are coming to me seeing a running theme.
Tom Hayes
When I hear the hon. Gentleman speak, I listen to what he is saying—I think he could be a very good replacement for the shadow Minister on the Front Bench. The question I want to ask, though, is this: what is his view on the relationship of the UK to China? Ought we to engage and, if so, on what terms, or should we be economically decoupling? What is his view about the nature of that relationship?
Dr Evans
To repeat the quote we heard earlier, we need to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is easy to call China a threat, but still to engage. That is exactly what the Chinese Government do to us: they say, “We’re embarrassed. We’re upset. You promised us something”, and we just say, “Oh, I’m terribly sorry about that.” We could stand up for ourselves and say what we think. Let us not forget that we are in a trade deficit with China; it is economically in China’s interest to be working with us, as much as it is in our interest to be working with China.
My worry, though, is that the public are joining dots. The Government will say that there are no dots to be joined, but the longer this goes on and the more incidents come out, it becomes harder to make that argument. That brings us full circle to where I started, because this is about transparency and releasing the documentation.
Peter Swallow
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way and for bringing us back to where he started. He started his speech by suggesting that the Government were intervening unduly in this case. He then went on to suggest that the Government did not intervene unduly enough. Can he be clear on this: is his position and that of the Opposition that the Government should have interfered in an independent prosecution, or not? It is unhelpful to be saying both things at the same time.
Dr Evans
I feel I am being misquoted, because I have simply asked for all this to be resolved by publishing the information. The Government could come out and say that China is a threat. I have also said that we can call it a threat and work economically with the Chinese. That is what I hope will happen. [Interruption.] I will finish at that point.
Dan Jarvis
I say to the right hon. Gentleman—whom I hold in high regard, not least for the work that he did on the ISC—that I can give him the assurances that he seeks. I can also assure him and the House how seriously this Government take the challenges that we face from countries right around the world.
Let me return to the DNSA’s evidence. As his written evidence makes clear—this is an important point that the House will want to note—from the moment the DNSA’s witness statement was submitted, he was a fully bound witness in criminal proceedings. His evidence had not yet been heard or tested in court, so his witness evidence could not be and was not shared, and this was later confirmed by the CPS.
In this debate and in recent weeks, there have been a number of different, and at times conflicting, claims about this Government’s involvement in the case, and I want to address those claims directly today. At the DNSA’s request, the word “enemy” was removed from the first witness statement during the drafting process, because it did not reflect the Government’s policy at the time. The DNSA made amendments to ensure that his witness statement text reflected his assessment of the strongest elements of the evidential material provided by Counter Terrorism Policing, by demonstrating that the information that was alleged to have been provided was prejudicial to the safety or the interests of the UK.
When CTP approached the DNSA to write a supplementary statement in November 2024, he was specifically asked to comment on whether China posed an active threat to the UK’s national security during the period of 31 December 2021 to 3 February 2023, and to confirm whether that remains the position at the time of writing. That is why paragraph 6 of the second statement references part of the current Government policy towards China.
Dr Luke Evans
The Minister is making a powerful point about the active threat. At this point in time, do the Government perceive China to be an active threat?
Dan Jarvis
As the hon. Gentleman knows—I think I may have even said this to him previously, and certainly to the House—China presents a series of threats to the Government. I will say a little bit more about that.
As time is short, I want to focus on the DNSA and the evidence that he has given, because that is important for the House. The DNSA confirmed to the JCNSS yesterday that he used language from an answer to a parliamentary question in his third statement, in which he provided the current Government’s position as context, as had been requested. The DNSA’s third statement was written in a way that ensured consistency with his first two statements.
For the sake of clarity, I will say it again: the current National Security Adviser had no role in either the substance of the case or the evidence provided. There has been misreporting, speculation and fabrication about the officials’ meeting that the National Security Adviser chaired on 1 September—the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned it just a moment ago. I can tell him and the House that a meeting of senior officials took place on 1 September to discuss the UK’s relationship with China. The meeting was specifically set up to provide—
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement
Luke Evans Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
We do not recognise those claims. Of course, given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, it would have been entirely improper for anybody to have made any comment that basically cut across the legal process that is being led by the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
I appreciate the Minister’s clarity, which he keeps talking about. On that basis, let me say this. The case collapsed. This is about leadership. He has seen all the evidence in public, and all the evidence in private. Was China spying on two Members of Parliament in this case—yes or no?
Dan Jarvis
I am happy to debate issues of leadership with anyone in this House, not least because I have spent all my professional life trying to keep the country safe. I will continue to serve in government to make sure that we do everything we can to stand against the threats we face. I had hoped, entering into government, that that process would be consensual, and that we could work across the House to keep the country safe. That has been the approach of this Government, and I am sad that Conservative Members do not want to proceed on that basis.
Security Update: Official Secrets Act Case
Luke Evans Excerpts(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman is the Minister for Security. I have been here for almost an hour and a half, and I have not heard him answer this question: was China spying on Parliament, or is it even a consideration that it is spying on Parliament?
Dan Jarvis
I have been crystal clear—[Interruption.] If hon. Members will allow me, let me say that China poses a series of threats to the United Kingdom, and I was very clear about what they were. I referred specifically to a number of particular issues. I could not have been clearer about that.
Official Secrets Act
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis
I am grateful to the hon. Member for the work he does on the Committee. I hope that when I gave evidence to the Committee, I conveyed the seriousness and importance that we attach to matters relating to transnational repression. I am genuinely grateful to the Committee for the work it has done and the report it published. I will respond to it as soon as I am able to do so.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister has repeatedly said that it is not his job to speculate on the CPS. He is right, but it is his job to defend the security of this country and therefore to ask the CPS why it has not brought charges. Has he done that? Has he rung the CPS before he came to the House to speak to it and to understand why it has not gone ahead? If not, why not?
Dan Jarvis
I accept the charge the hon. Gentleman makes against me that it is my responsibility to defend our national security, and I hope he understands that that is something I take incredibly seriously. The decision was communicated this morning. This was an independent decision, but I give him and others an assurance that we will, of course, look incredibly closely at it.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(1 month, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
I start, Mr Speaker, by expressing our sincere condolences to His Majesty the King and the royal family on the death of Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent. Her life was filled with compassion and dignity. She dutifully supported our late Queen Elizabeth II, comforted the runner-up at Wimbledon, and worked anonymously as a music teacher in Hull—typical of her unassuming nature and human touch. I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, his family, and all those whose lives she touched.
Turning to other events, I condemn the strikes that Israel carried out in Doha yesterday. They violate Qatar’s sovereignty and do nothing to secure the peace that the UK and so many of our allies are committed to. I spoke to the Emir of Qatar last night, soon after the attack, to convey our support and solidarity. He was crystal clear that notwithstanding the attacks, he will continue to work on a diplomatic solution to achieve a ceasefire and a two-state outcome, on which he and I are of the same mind. That is why I met President Abbas on Monday and will meet President Herzog later today. I will be absolutely clear that we condemn Israel’s action. I will also be clear that restrictions on aid must be lifted, the offensive in Gaza must stop, and settlement building must cease. But however difficult, the UK will not walk away from a diplomatic solution. We will negotiate, and we will strain every sinew, because that is the only way to get the hostages out, to get aid in, and to stop the killing.
Last night, Russia launched drones into Poland in an unprecedented attack. I have been in touch with the Polish Prime Minister this morning to make clear our support for Poland. We will stand firm in our support for Ukraine. With our partners and through our leadership of the coalition of the willing, we will continue to ramp up the pressure on Putin until there is a just and lasting peace.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Mr Speaker
I have sent a letter of condolence to the royal family on behalf of the Commons, following the sad news about the Duchess of Kent. Let us now come back to Dr Luke Evans.
Dr Luke Evans
One year on from the election, the country has seen a Transport Secretary resign over fraud, an anti-corruption Minister investigated for corruption, a homelessness Minister making tenants homeless, and a Housing Secretary not paying tax on her second house. We also have a Prime Minister who accepted more freebies than any other MP in the previous Parliament. Is this what the Prime Minister meant by “integrity” when he came to government?
The Prime Minister
Here is the difference: I strengthened the ministerial code and the independent adviser. The previous Deputy Prime Minister referred herself to the adviser, and there was a clear finding; she did the right thing. Contrast that with the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who was found to have breached the code under the previous Government. What did the then Prime Minister do? He ignored it. There was a resignation, but it was of the adviser, not the person who was found to have breached the code; the right hon. Lady still sits on the Opposition Front Bench. That is the difference.
UK-EU Summit
Luke Evans Excerpts(5 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Labour Government cannot answer how much the Chagos deal cost. The Labour Government cannot answer how much NHS England has cost. Can the Prime Minister tell us how much this reset deal will cost, and that there will be no further expenditure to the EU?
The Prime Minister
I have set out how the costs will be approached, but what we are not going to do is make those budgetary payments that other EU members make. We will look at proportionate payments into schemes, as is currently the case in relation to Horizon, which was negotiated by the previous Government. But the cost of the Tories to the country has been absolutely incalculable.
Ukraine
Luke Evans Excerpts(8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We are working together to do what we can to ensure that all our colleagues rise to this particular challenge that is do with capability, spending and co-ordination. Those are among the things we have been discussing quite intensively over this weekend.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The difference between “decent” and “deceit” may only be one letter, but the gap defines a man’s character. Given what we saw on Friday, whatever the context of that meeting, when the Prime Minister next speaks to President Trump will he remind him of that and make sure that decency is at the centre of any negotiations?
The Prime Minister
Nobody wanted to see what we saw on Friday—I do not think there is any dissent from that—but it is important that we pragmatically work forward to what matters most, which is lasting peace in Europe. That is what conditions the approach that I have taken to this throughout the past few days.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Keir Starmer)
This week marked three years since Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine. The courage of the Ukrainians is inspiring, and across this House we stand with them for as long as it takes. That is why we are increasing defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by April 2027, with an ambition to reach 3% in the next Parliament, as economic and fiscal conditions allow. This afternoon, of course, I will travel to the US to have discussions with President Trump about the enduring security partnership between our two countries.
I am also delighted that we have announced the first 750 schools to start offering free breakfast clubs. This is our plan for change in action, ensuring every child has the chance to thrive.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in thanking Amanda Pritchard for her service as chief executive of NHS England, and I wish her well for the future.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Dr Evans
Could the Prime Minister tell this House whether the outcome of his Budget was by design or by mistake? Did he mean to push 100,000 pensioners into poverty with his own analysis when he removed the winter fuel allowance, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to decimate family farming when he changed inheritance tax, or was that a mistake? Did he mean to tax GPs, care homes and hospices when he raised national insurance contributions, or was that a mistake? Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether they are acceptable collateral damage in his path for change, or simply mistakes that need rectifying?
The Prime Minister
I will tell the hon. Member what was a mistake: leaving a £22 billion black hole that we had to sort out. We took the difficult decisions, investing in our NHS, and I would have thought he would have welcomed the 2 million extra appointments that we have achieved in the first seven months of a Labour Government. That is the difference our Budget is making to people.
Defence and Security
Luke Evans Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising those points. They are all important, and of course, they have to be hardwired into the work we do as we go forward.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister will have the support of both sides of this House when he goes to see President Trump on Thursday. If he fails to encourage the US to become the backstop for Ukraine, though, no matter how much he increases spending in the next couple of years, there will be difficulty. What conversations is the Prime Minister having about a backstop for Europe to make sure that Ukraine gets that support?
The Prime Minister
I am not going to pre-empt the discussions I will have, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I absolutely believe that we should play our full part in any security guarantees—if that is what happens; we do not even know whether we will get to that stage—but I also absolutely think there needs to be US backing for that, because I do not think a security guarantee will be operative without that backing.
Oral Answers to Questions
Luke Evans Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Conservatives really should not groan. I went up to the Hitachi factory earlier this year, before the election. The workforce were extremely anxious about the situation, because they feared that there would be a gap between contracts—[Interruption.] That gap would have meant that people were going to get laid off, and the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) is chuntering from a sitting position, unable to understand the impact on working people.
The workforce were extremely anxious about the situation when I saw them, because they knew that if their colleagues were laid off, it would be bad for their colleagues and their community, and it would mean that they might go and get other jobs and not be able to come back if there was a new contract. I said then that I would do everything I could to ensure that we filled that gap, and I am very pleased that just the other week we were able to say that we have and that there is a contract. I went back up there to speak to the same workforce, and they were very pleased that they now do not have those anxieties. The Conservatives should be ashamed of their chuntering.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
As it is Christmas, will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating Chris Middleton, who wrote a charity song to support Age UK that has already raised £10,000? What is even better is that it is likely to beat the leader of the Lib Dems’ single to No. 1 this year, proving yet again that the Lib Dems cannot win—something that I hope we can both agree on.
The Prime Minister
I am not going to adjudicate between the contending singles for the top of the charts, but I end this Question Time by wishing a happy Christmas and a peaceful new year to everyone across the House.