Dawn Sturgess Inquiry

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 4th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for the very sensible and constructive nature of his remarks. I recognise his service as a Wiltshire MP and his obvious constituency interest in this matter. I also genuinely welcome his condemnation of the treachery that we have seen recently, and I am glad that he made that point. He raises a sensible and constructive point with regard to the NHS, and I can give him the assurances that he seeks regarding the Government’s attention to these matters. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister took the machinery of Government change back in September to ensure that I, as Security Minister, sit across both the Home Office and the Cabinet Office was to maximise the leverage and co-ordination across Government with regard not only to national security policy, but to our resilience, and we have recently undertaken the largest ever resilience exercise across Government. He is right to raise that point. I give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. We will, of course, look very carefully at the report’s recommendations in that regard. I am grateful to him for his comments today.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The number of Russian spies operating in the UK is the highest it has been since the cold war—not my words but those of the head of Counter Terrorism Policing. I welcome the sanctions today on the GRU, but the Security Minister will know that the United Kingdom is probably regarded as Russia’s No. 1 enemy—not the United States but the United Kingdom. He will also know that there are other agencies that are operating internationally and have an international footprint, such as the FSB and SVR. While noting and recognising the importance of, shall we say, diplomatic reciprocity, what more can be done, to quote him, to have a “hard operating environment” for both those agencies? Are other Russian political dissidents safe here in the United Kingdom?

Finally, on the proliferation of chemical weapons, we know that a chemical agent and a nuclear agent were used in some of the cases outlined today, so given the breakdown in many countries and the security around chemical weapons in those countries—whether in Africa or other parts of the world—how confident is the Minister that the security services are aware of where those chemical weapons might be and where they might be tempted to be deployed?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am, as always, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the expertise and experience that he brings to these matters, not least given his very long-standing service on two relevant Committees in this place. He mentioned Counter Terrorism Policing. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work that they do. I have a very good and close working relationship with CTP. They do extraordinary work and it is a privilege to stand alongside them. They are exceptional in the work that they do.

It is in part a symptom of the work that the previous Government and this Government have done to make the UK the hardest possible operating environment that increasingly Russia and other malign states are seeking to use criminal proxies to do their bidding and business in the United Kingdom. There is a lot of work taking place, not only across Government but with our allies in Europe, who we are working very closely with, and further afield to ensure that we are best placed to target malign states that are using criminal proxies. The director general of MI5 referenced that in his recent annual lecture on the threats we face.

On the right hon. Member’s point about the UK being a hard target, he will understand better than most that I am very limited in what I can say about that, and that it would be unwise to give detail that would be helpful to our adversaries. However, I can give him an assurance of the seriousness with which we take these matters. He raised an important point about dissidents. It is an issue that I keep under very close review. We make sure that we have the right mechanisms in place to provide security.

The right hon. Member’s point about chemical weapons was well made. We work very closely with our international allies to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to minimise the risk and threat. It is not easy work, and there are no guarantees of its success, but I give an assurance of the seriousness with which we take it. Our approach is to work closely with our allies.

Official Secrets Act and Espionage

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment of the work of the Joint Committee. She is right to say it is a great example of the work of a Select Committee that has constructively contributed a very significant amount of useful information that the Government will now consider in great detail.

My hon. Friend’s second point is about the creation of another Select Committee, and she will understand that that is above my pay grade. I gently point to the fact that the Government want to have a very good, close and constructive relationship with the ISC. It will be for the ISC to take a view, but that may provide a forum for further parliamentary scrutiny of those matters.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although I have huge respect for the Security Minister and, indeed, for the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy Committee—I sat on that Committee for five years—is it not the case that this statement actually raises more questions? It is not case closed, as there are questions that are still outstanding. That is because the weakness here is that the Joint Committee does not have access to classified material; only the Intelligence and Security Committee does. Having sat on both Committees, I know there is a stark contrast between the types of witnesses who can be called and what the witnesses can actually say. Given the earlier question, will the Minister now commit to review the memorandum of understanding with the Intelligence and Security Committee to ensure that the right questions can be asked of the right Committee at the right time, so that we can have some definitive conclusions on this whole saga?

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the experience that he brings to this House, not least because he has sat on both the Committees to which we have been referring. I slightly take issue with his assessment of what the report does, because the Government are very clear that it emphasises the key arguments that we have been bringing forward over the last couple of weeks.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second point, he has raised the MOU previously. It is an entirely reasonable point for him to raise, both publicly and privately. Let me take it away and come back to him.

G20 and Ukraine

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I can assure my hon. Friend that negotiations are going on in the ordinary way in relation to SAFE and a number of other issues.

I am endeavouring the get the best information I can in relation to what is developing, and I will weave it into an answer if I get anything that will help the House.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

And will you come back?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly come back, but if I am able to update the House as we go along, I will endeavour to do so, so that others can ask questions about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the principle that my hon. Friend puts forward; I am not sure I would put it in quite the terms that she does, but the sentiment is shared. This is just shocking—the idea of kidnapping children as an act of war and a weapon of war is just so disgusting, frankly. We should do absolutely everything we can to ensure not only that the children are safe, secure and returned, but that there is full accountability.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, but if I may, I will caution him. I understand that the reports referred to by the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) are from a single source—an unnamed US official. I think we might be falling into a trap here, which others want us to fall into, of bouncing the Ukrainians ahead of an arbitrary deadline of Thanksgiving day. We need to ensure that officials and all of us are able to verify sources and corroborate them, even if they are reported in the mainstream media and repeated in the United Kingdom.

I believe I am still allowed to ask a question. What reassurance can the Prime Minister give to the people of this country and of Ukraine that President Trump’s very bad 28-point plan will not now be replaced by a bad 19-point plan? We all know from history that Ukraine, Europe, the United Kingdom and even our allies, the United States, will rue the day that we roll over for Putin. If we reward the aggressor, history tells us and we know that they come back for more.

[The Prime Minister]

My instinct is with the right hon. Gentleman on the breaking news. I spoke to President Zelensky about four hours ago—I have obviously spoken to him extensively, so I have a pretty good sense of where he is at on this matter—and I intend to speak to him again this afternoon.

Ministerial Code

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Josh Simons]

I was truly shocked to read about those revelations, and I would direct that question to Reform Members. When, during the last Government, I saw Conservatives Members trashing the reputation of the Government with the public, I was running a charity and having my first child, and I was furious about it. We can always do more as politicians and as a Government to restore trust in politics, and I welcome those who support the measures that this Government have taken and the measures that we will take in the future.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The independent adviser on ministerial standards is currently appointed by the Prime Minister, and it is a genuine question for the whole House whether that model is still fit for purpose. If the adviser were incapacitated or ill—it is to be hoped that will not happen to the current one—what would happen? Would we all wait for many months? Might a new model involve bringing together three ministerial advisers to the Prime Minister on ministerial standards, so that if one were incapacitated, the other two could step in, or if there were deadlock in reaching any agreement, there would be a casting vote? Clearly, having the Prime Minister appointing the individual who oversees the highest standards of integrity in public life is not longer fir for purpose.

[Josh Simons]

To my mind, one cannot get away from the character of the Prime Minister and his or her relationship to that appointment. What matters is that if the post of adviser is vacant, it will not be allowed to remain so. Unlike under the previous Government, it will be appointed and the person will be respected. That is exactly what this Prime Minister has done and will always do because, in the end, the Prime Minister believes that restoring standards in public life and restoring trust in this House and in democracy is the most important mission for this Government.

China Espionage: Government Security Response

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Is it not clear that the threat from China is becoming deeper, wider and more serious? While I welcome the Security Minister’s statement, it does not have a single deterrent in it, as was highlighted by the shadow Security Minister. I want to be helpful to the Minister. He mentioned the encrypted system that he will introduce and fund. Will he consider reviewing Government security classifications policy, so that we can have a review of Government papers that are classified but also of the threat to this place? He mentioned China’s low threshold. Would he consider reclassifying confidential, pre-publication Select Committee inquiry documents, so that any leaking of those documents—as with the leaking of Government documents by civil servants—has a far tougher sanction?

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Member makes an important point about leaking, which is something I take very seriously as the Minister responsible for the Government security group. I can give him an assurance. I hope that the package of measures we have brought forward conveys the strength of feeling and how seriously we take these issues. As he always does, he made a number of other really useful and constructive points. Rather than come back to him now, I will look carefully at them and consider them further.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kanishka Narayan]

Let me assure my hon. Friend that the Government are committed to ensuring that every region benefits from the UK’s world-leading research base. That is exactly why we are backing Lancaster University with £4.9 million for its cyber-focus project to ensure that the region’s cyber-sector grows. With my hon. Friend’s expertise in digital innovation and her strong advocacy for the north-west, we will continue to ensure that R&D funding for the north-west is on the up.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Minister will know that Harper Adams University is a world-leading research institution. He will also be aware of the university’s agritech research centre. May I invite him, on behalf of the vice-chancellor, to visit the university to look at the excellent work on robotics, AI and sustainable farming, in particular eco-farming and increasing productivity in a way that is sustainable?

[Kanishka Narayan]

That is a very easy yes, combining my interest in agriculture and technology. I will take the right hon. Member up on his offer.

China Spying Case

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Dr Evans]

Is that an assertion of fact from the Committee’s report?

[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.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am listening carefully to my right hon. Friend’s excellent speech. Did he see, in the testimony yesterday, the intervention in which Sir Chris Wormald suddenly said that he did not believe that Ken McCallum, the chief of MI5, had described China as a threat? He intervened on the DNSA to make that point. That is fundamentally untrue, is it not?

[Mark Pritchard]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. I think hon. Members will take their own view on who they think is the expert on national security. I think it will be Sir Ken McCallum, who is a long-serving and distinguished member of the UK intelligence community.

[Chris Law]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Pritchard]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will not, because I will not get another minute, and I want to make some progress and allow other colleagues to speak.

The director general’s speech was explicit. The Security Service is very clear-eyed about the national security threat from China, even though Ministers might be tempted, arguably, to recalibrate and put economic interests over the UK’s national security interests. I wonder whether there might be other factors at work here, too, including underlying vested interests and competing interests between different parts of Government, and even some conflicting personalities. We do not have time to go into that today. Today’s debate is rightly focused on whether politics got in the way of national security.

A wider question might be why a political adviser was appointed to the role of National Security Adviser in the first place, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) said. Perhaps there is something to see here. The current National Security Adviser has wide and vast experience, and I pay tribute to him for his important role in the Northern Ireland peace process and other peace-brokering exercises he has done around the world. There is absolutely no doubt that he is a long-standing, distinguished civil servant, but the fact that an outsider, rather than insider, became the National Security Adviser might be an issue as well. Some may see that as a strength, but today’s proceedings might suggest that it could be a weakness in this case. There is a question mark about that, of course.

Back to China. The conclusions and recommendations of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s inquiry on China talk about proper oversight. We need to ensure that, for example, the investment security unit has proper oversight by the ISC, because if there was ever a place where it was likely that politics would conflict with the economic interests of this country, it was that unit. That is absolutely critical. When politics gets too close to professional, cool, calm intelligence judgments, the situation will always be fraught with danger, as this country witnessed with the Iraq war. In conclusion, when—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. I call Gareth Snell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Jarvis]

I am just going to make a bit of progress. Let me be clear about two things right from the start. First, we would not be discussing this here today had the outdated Official Secrets Act 1911 been replaced sooner. Secondly, it is the responsibility of the CPS and the DPP to bring criminal prosecutions and compile evidence. The statements submitted to the JCNSS confirm that, as does the evidence that the Joint Committee heard yesterday from the Cabinet Secretary and the DNSA.

We have been consistently clear that no Ministers and no special advisers interfered in the provision of evidence under this Government.

[Mark Pritchard]

Can the Security Minister confirm to the House that the UK Government, at ministerial level and diplomatic level, have not been threatened by the Chinese state about this trial? Has it said, “If this trial goes ahead, there will be consequences”? Is the Minister aware of any discussions or any correspondence, either from the Chinese embassy or directly from Chinese Ministers to ours, that threatens this nation?

[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.

Official Secrets Act

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

When the hon. Member takes a moment to think carefully about these things, he will understand that Government Ministers should not speculate on the reasons provided for a particular decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, which is independent of Government. It would be entirely improper for any Minister to do that. I am happy to give him and any other Member who needs it an absolute assurance of how seriously we take the threats we face from a range of different malign forces around the country. This Government will ensure that we are best able, best prepared and best resourced to guard against the nature of the threat, and nothing will stop us doing that.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The Security Minister mentioned the Official Secrets Act 1911, but he will know that it was updated in 1920 and, indeed, in 1989. As one of the co-authors of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s China report, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I say to the Minister, following the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), that that report highlighted China as a threat, not a challenge.

There has been reference to the ISC looking at the case as it is currently looking at the data leak around the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, but the reality is that the legislation that set up the Committee—one part over 30 years ago and one part over a decade ago —is not fit for purpose. A lot of trust is invested in that Committee. Is it not time that with more power and funding going to the Intelligence and Security Committee —with even more responsibility being put on it, to be fair—it should be given more powers so that this Parliament and the people we represent know there is proper democratic parliamentary oversight of the intelligence community in this country? They are wonderful and they do a fantastic job, but they are sometimes fallible.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his remarks, as well as the work he has done in this area and his service on the Committee. As a former Committee member, he will understand that the Committee is fiercely independent of Government, and rightly so, but I happen to think it does an outstanding job. It is a great asset for Parliament.

As Security Minister, I will want to work incredibly closely with the Committee and co-operate with it whenever we can. It is clearly not for me to suggest particular matters that it may wish to investigate, but knowing the Chair and the deputy Chair as I do, I think it entirely likely that it may decide to look closely at this particular matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The Conservatives decimated neighbourhood policing. People should feel safe in their communities, and that is exactly why we have committed to putting 13,000 additional police personnel back in our town centres and communities. That means there will be a named police officer in every community, armed with tough new respect orders to break up antisocial behaviour. These powers are contained in our Crime and Policing Bill, which the Conservatives and Reform voted against.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

His Majesty’s Prison Stoke Heath in Shropshire has seen six deaths in custody in less than two years. That is above the national average. Will the Prime Minister join me in calling on the Ministry of Justice to ensure that there are enough resources and that the right governance is in place at Stoke Heath?

[The Prime Minister]

The Secretary of State for Justice will look into the matter and take up the suggestion, and I will arrange for a meeting as soon as possible.

G7 and NATO Summits

Mark Pritchard Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Let me first pay tribute to the veterans in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We have already put in place a number of initiatives, particularly in relation to homelessness and veterans, and more broadly in relation to accommodation and the support for not just veterans, but our armed service personnel. That is vital not only as a reflection of their contribution, but to ensure that we deal with the retention crisis among those serving, which was caused by the Conservative party.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although we may disagree on the detail, I agree with the Prime Minister that, as far as possible in this place, it would be better to keep partisan politics out of national security issues. Who knows, I may get the Whip withdrawn for saying that, but so be it. There are things that go beyond party politics. I thank the Prime Minister for all his hard work in the national security interests of this country.

On the G7, the Prime Minister mentioned sanctions. In his statement, he said that he urged the United States to do more on sanctions. Is he aware that the United States is actually urging the United Kingdom to do more on sanctions when it comes to Russia? Can the Magnitsky legislation be widened and deepened, so that it captures more Russian assets, and possibly other countries that may have sanctions imposed on them soon—for example, Georgia?

The joint expeditionary force was mentioned at the NATO summit. The Prime Minister will know, having attended the Norway meeting some weeks ago, that Ukraine is a JEF partnership nation. Does the UK support Ukraine becoming a full member of the joint expeditionary force? If so, when might that happen?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his questions; they are all good ones, so I will endeavour to answer each part of them. Sanctions are being discussed intensely, as he will understand, and there are two elements. The first is the immediate application of sanctions in relation to Russia. We are attempting to ensure that we all act together—the US, the UK and the EU. That is the focus of our discussions and what we are urging on the US. The right hon. Member will know that there is a piece of legislation in the US that is ready to go; that needs to be co-ordinated with what we are doing. In the longer term, we need to look always at whether there is more we can do within the framework on sanctions, and we can discuss that in this House.

The right hon. Member raises an important point about Ukraine and the JEF. We have been a leading advocate of Ukraine having a role in the JEF. Ukraine already has an enhanced partnership with the JEF—the first of its kind. That was done the last JEF meeting that we had in Norway a few months ago, where we were one of the leading nations pushing for that greater involvement. We will see over time whether that partnership can be taken further, either with the JEF or NATO, but it was an important first step—not only a reflection for Ukraine but also a message to Russia.