Chris Ward MP: speeches

Speeches

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot reply on specifics of the 48 Group; I do not know that. But the National Security Adviser was not involved in any part of this, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  No, that is really not the case. First, people who have worked with the DNSA will know that he is of the highest calibre and integrity on this matter. He presented evidence under successive Governments on this, devoid of any influence from advisers or Government on this side—I cannot say if that was the case under the previous Government, but I am sure it was. He presented that evidence freely and to the best of his ability under successive Governments.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  This is the bit that I find slightly confusing about the Opposition’s approach. On Monday and today as well, they have accused this Government of political interference, including by the National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that is completely untrue. On the other hand, they are saying there should have been political interference, and that the Prime Minister should have directed or tried to help the CPS. The Prime Minister has made it very clear that that is not the case, and that no Prime Minister and no Government would interfere with the CPS on a decision to charge, which is entirely for it to make. In terms of the evidence in the three statements put forward yesterday, there is clear consistency across them. They all set out the very, very serious threats that China poses. I do not think anyone can think that that is not the case. [ Interruption. ] It was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser without interference from anyone else. They are his words. It is his choice what happens, and that is what happened. We have been through this several times—on Monday, yesterday and today. The Prime Minister has provided the evidence. It is there for Ministers and Members to see. Ultimately, the decision was taken by the CPS not to proceed and we are all disappointed in that.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I think every Member of the House shares the concern that the case did not proceed, and that there was not enough evidence, but that decision was taken by the CPS.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. Having now had the opportunity to read the statements, Members will be able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the DNSA faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the position of the previous UK Government and the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution. The first and most substantive witness statement is from December 2023, under the last Government. The second and third, which are both much shorter, are from February and August 2025 respectively. It is clear from these statements that the substantive case and evidence submitted by the DNSA does not change materially throughout, and that all three documents clearly articulate the very serious threats posed by China. The second witness statement, in particular, highlights the specific details of some of the cyber-threats that we face, and emphasises that China is the “biggest state-based threat” to the UK’s national security. The third statement goes on to state that the Chinese intelligence services are “highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the…security of the UK.” It is clear from this evidence, which all can now see, that the DNSA took significant strides to articulate the threat from China in support of the prosecution. The decision on whether to proceed, as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, was taken purely by the CPS. It is also clear that the three statements are constrained by the position of the Conservative Government on China at the time of the alleged offences. As the Prime Minister said yesterday and the Security Minister said on Monday, this Government’s first priority will always be national security and keeping this country safe. We wanted this case to proceed. I am sure all Members of the House did, and I know you did too, Mr Speaker. We are all profoundly disappointed that it did not.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said several times, this Government did everything they could to support the CPS in that process and to allow evidence to be submitted, but I gently point out again that one of the reasons that this did not proceed was Conservative policy at the time—not materially different from this policy—and the reliance on the 1911 Act.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for that and, as I say, I do recognise how personally important this matter is to him and to many Members of the House. On transparency, the Security Minister has given two statements to this House. The Prime Minister gave what I think we can all agree was a rather lengthy statement yesterday, and he used the pretty unusual process of publishing the evidence in full yesterday, so transparency is something the Government are trying to provide. The key point the shadow Minister made was about why the Prime Minister or Ministers did not interfere or try to do so. As the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, this was a matter for the CPS independently, and an important principle of this Government— [ Interruption. ] Evidence was provided independently by the deputy National Security Adviser. The Prime Minister made it clear, and this is the bit I find confusing— [ Interruption. ]

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I can promise that I will try to avoid all “gotcha” moments and finger pointing. On the question of when the CPS informed the Government, my understanding, and the Prime Minister made this clear yesterday, is that the Prime Minister was informed very shortly before the case collapsed—a matter of days before. That is on the record—it was in the House, if you need to refer to that, from the Prime Minister. In terms of future inquiries, I should have said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) that this is an issue Select Committees will want to look at as well. There is a normal process for that, but I am unable to go beyond that today.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Gentleman says, the decision on the Chinese embassy will be taken by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in due course. It is completely unrelated to this case and anything in it. That is an important point to reiterate.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, the Prime Minister said yesterday, and the Security Minister said on Monday.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Commenting on whether or not it was dropped erroneously is not something that any Minister would do from this Dispatch Box.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I am so sorry; I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That was done to provide broader context of the Government’s position on China at the time, but it was an independent decision—taken freely, without interference from Ministers or advisers—of the DSNA to do so. [ Interruption. ] It is not my position to account for that. That was his decision, and that was the evidence submitted under consecutive Governments. I am afraid that is all I can add on that point.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Throughout the evidence, the threats that China poses are set out multiple times. There is complete consistency between the two. Obviously there are very serious threats—I have read them out in my statements.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Just to say, I have huge respect for the right hon. Member, even if that evidently is not mutual at the moment—let us see if we can get to that place. The Prime Minister answered this question yesterday. I fully appreciate how personally this affects the right hon. Member, his constituency and his office. I do understand that, and I am genuinely not trying to play politics. I see his eyebrows raised at that, but I am genuinely not. I am trying to tell the story of how this situation has progressed and to reiterate from the Dispatch Box the point that the Prime Minister made yesterday and the Security Minister made on Monday, which is that the Government’s position—as it has been under successive Governments, but particularly under this Prime Minister—is that there will be no interference with the CPS in the process of this, and that every effort was made to try to deliver evidence to support its case when it was asked for.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid that I am not across the specific of that in my brief, so I will get back to the hon. Lady.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  The wording in that statement was put in there to provide wider context of the situation, but as I have said many times, and I will keep saying it, that wording is provided independently by the DNSA without any involvement from Ministers or political advisers.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I can understand how seriously my hon. Friend and her constituents will take this. If she will permit me, I will get back to her with a substantive answer on that from the team as soon as I can.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  It was. There was no political interference from the Government in any of the statements made. [ Interruption. ] It does not matter how many times hon. Members allege it; it was not the case.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  As I have said many times, the Government wanted the prosecution to proceed and allowed every opportunity for evidence to be provided for it and for the CPS to gather that. The Prime Minister has already stated when he was informed that the trial was in that process. He also made it clear yesterday, in response to the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), that it is not his position to interfere. The case was then dropped by the CPS independently.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  The deputy National Security Adviser was reflecting Government policy at the time. That was his choice of words, and it was his decision to include that. But if we look across the statements, we see there is broad consistency and no material difference on the policy relating to China, which has been pretty much shared across the House.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  No. It is not the position of the Government, or of successive Governments, to vet witness statements made in such cases. The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I think that is what he is asking. Across the three witness statements, the deputy National Security Adviser sets out—15 or 20 times; I cannot remember the exact number—clearly and consistently the very serious threats that China poses. On the basis of that, the decision not to prosecute is taken by the CPS.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  I will refer back to what I have said already: it is not the place of Ministers, under this or previous Governments, to be vetting or interfering in evidence on that matter.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend invites me to play party politics, and I have promised several times that I am not going to do that. Factually, it is true that if the espionage Act had been updated more quickly and the current Act had been in place at the time, the case would have been able to proceed. That is the case. Decisions were taken not to do that, and I think that is greatly regrettable.

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  Having now had the opportunity to read these statements, Members will have been able to confirm for themselves what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government—

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  As I say, this was a decision taken by the CPS independently, with no interference or involvement from the Government. Members may or may not sympathise with that decision. It was a CPS decision. That is why it is important that the evidence is in the public domain now and that everyone can judge from that how things proceeded. I will just make one final point. Obviously, the CPS decision was not based purely on the evidence put forward by the DNSA. It was based on much wider evidence collected over a much longer period, so the decision on whether to proceed was taken by the CPS on a much broader evidential basis.