In the Commons yesterday Kemi Badenoch quoted Mark Elliott, a public law professor at the University of Cambridge, as one of the many experts who have queried the government’s account of why the China spy prosecution failed. On the basis of what was said in the Commons yesterday, Elliott has now written a new blog, highlighting what he says are ongoing inconsistencies in the government’s story and setting out possible theories as to what went wrong. The blog is worth reading in full, but here is his conclusion.
We can, then, add a fifth possible explanation to the four set out above: that ministers prevailed over decision-making arrangements concerning highly consequential national security-related matters that afforded individual officials a wholly inappropriate degree of unilateral discretion, and that ministers failed to put in place a framework for ensuring that such decisions were appropriately stress-tested before being finalised. Like the first four possible explanations outlined earlier in this post, I do not claim that the fifth explanation necessarily describes what actually happened — but it is arguably the most likely.
The overwhelming message conveyed by the security minister [Dan Jarvis – the minister making a statement in the Commons yesterday] was that this is matter for which ministers bear no responsibility because it was handled wholly at official level. But that will not wash. Whatever uncertainties there might be about the nuances of the constitutional doctrine of ministerial responsibility, if ministers are responsible for anything, they must be responsible for ensuring that the way in which national security-related decisions are made is fit for purpose. If, then, it turns out that this is a story of official failure, it is also necessarily, and more importantly, a story of ministerial failure.
In their London Playbook briefing for Politico this morning, Dan Bloom and Andrew McDonald quote an unnamed “foreign policy operator” making a similarish point. He or she says:
This government keeps trying to make apolitical decisions about a policy that is deeply political, and in turn essentially makes political choices but doesn’t take ownership of them.
UK labour market shows signs of stabilising after job losses
Britain’s employment market has shown signs of stabilising after a sharp rise in job losses earlier this year blamed on tax rises introduced by Rachel Reeves, Richard Partington reports. As the chancellor prepares for her 26 November budget, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed the unemployment rate rose to 4.8% in the three months to August, up from 4.7% in July.
Green party reachest highest ever level in YouGov poll, at 13%
YouGov has released its latest weekly poll in the series it does for the Times. Reform UK (27%), Labour (20%) and the Conservatives (17%) all have exactly the same level of support as they did last week. But the Greens have hit their highest level ever in a YouGov poll, at 13%.
Starmer to face MPs amid continued pressure over collapse of China spying trial
Good morning. As Kiran Stacey reports, the government has today announced new plans to relax planning rules that hold up the construction of new infrastracture. It already has a bill going through parliament designed to do this, the planning and infrastructure bill, but, with the legislation close to reaching the point where it clears both houses and becomes law, the government has produced a raft of amendments that will make it stronger.
That is why Steve Reed, the housing secretary, has been doing a media round this morning. But, inevitably, most of the questions have focused on China.
Yesterday, in a private notice question in the Lords and a ministerial statement in the Commons, the government tried to kill off claims that it deliberately sabotaged the prosecution of two men who were due to go on trial for allegedly spying for China. As Dan Sabbagh explains, the various ministers and officials commenting yesterday failed to adequately explain why the trial was not able to go ahead.
Keir Starmer is expected to address the Commons today, but his statement is due to cover the Middle East peace process and his trip to India, and so MPs may find it hard to shoehorn in questions about China.
But, in his media round, Reed couldn’t avoid questions on the ground they were off topic. He restated the government’s assertion that the decision to drop the prosecution was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, not by ministers, because the law in place at the time the alleged offences was committed was too restrictive to allow a successful prosecution to proceed.
As housing secretary, Reed will have the final say over whether to approve the application from China to build a new “super-embassy” in the centre of London. A decision is due later this month. There has been a hold-up because China refused to supply unredacted plans for the building (the original plans did not specify what certain rooms in the embassy would be used for), and Reed said he would not approve the application without seeing full plans.
I expect to see everything that is being proposed before I take a decision.
More significantly, he also insisted that national security would be “paramount” in the decision process.
Speaking to Times Radio, asked if the security risk posed by China would be a factor in the decision, Reed replied:
Speaking in general terms, because I can’t comment on that particular application, then, yes, this government recognises that China poses a threat to national security and we see that from various cyber attacks and cyber incidents that have happened. That’s one of the reasons why the government has increased spending on security and defence by £600m.
Asked if the government was prepared to put the economic benefits of a relationship with China ahead of security concerns, Reed said:
For this government, as in for any sensible government of the United Kingdom, national security is paramount, and will always be paramount. The decision will be taken on the merits of the case in front of me. We would never compromise national security.
Reed was speaking as the opposition parties continued to pile on pressure over this issue.
For the Conservatives, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, wrote to the CPS asking for confirmation that, if the government does provide new evidence saying China is a threat to national security, the prosecutions can be resumed, and the trial can go ahead.
And, for the Liberal Democrats, Calum Miller, the party’s foreign affairs spokesperson, is demanding that the government publish all relevant correspondence between the government and the CPS. Referring to hints the government is blaming Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, Miller said: “The government’s attempts to duck scrutiny and scapegoat a single official simply won’t wash.”
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.
10am: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, is due to speak to the media at Southwark crown court after the sentencing of Fayaz Khan, the Afghan who arrived in the UK on a small boat and who has been found guilty of threatening to kill him.
10am: Gavin Williamson, the Tory former education secretary, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry as part of its module looking at how the pandemic affected children and young people.
11.30am: Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 12.30pm: Starmer is expected to make a statement to MPs about the Middle East peace summit and his trip to India.
2pm: The IMF publishes its latest world economic outlook report, including its latest forecasts for the UK.
3.45pm: Miliband speaks at the Energy UK conference.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
