Question

Asked by Alicia Kearns to Secretary of State for the Home Department on 10 November 2026 — tabled under the Andy Burnham government

May I first send our condolences to those who were killed in Poland? I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the urgent question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for all your support and protection for Members. It is, however, extremely disappointing that the Government did not come forward with their own statement. Members of this House and the other place—including Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend the Member for Sussex Weald (Ms Ghani)—have again been targeted by the Chinese Communist party. Money channelled through Ministry of State Security front companies was used to secure kompromat to be weaponised by the Chinese state. This is an attack on our democracy, yet it was not significant enough for a Minister to come here of his or her own accord. Most shockingly, those targeted found out from the press. The Government did not brief them—and it is unfair to say that they could not be briefed, because the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat), and I were briefed 10 days before the arrest of Christopher Cash, so people absolutely can be briefed in advance. The FBI arrested two individuals in Serbia in April 2025. They were indicted and fled to China, where they remain under Chinese Communist party protection. When did the Government first know? Has the relationship with the Five Eyes become so degraded that intelligence normally shared by the United States was withheld for over a year, or were they told and did they then decide that Members just did not deserve to know? This is a damning indictment of the Government’s approach to the Chinese Communist party. In June, the Five Eyes warned of economic honeytraps. In July, Chinese Communist party staff threatened Tibetan protesters with illegal tasers, and there have still been no repercussions. In September, MI5 warned that more than 100 university staff had been contributing to projects run by Chinese intelligence fronts. In October, the United States designated Confucius Institutes a national security threat, yet this Government have refused to implement protections that I secured in law which would enable them to be closed. This month, United Front networks reopened the overseas police stations that the shadow Foreign Secretary shut down in 2023. Meanwhile, Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong remain imprisoned in Hong Kong for speaking out for democracy. There are still zero registrations on the foreign influence registration scheme for anyone working for China, and the annual report is 133 days late under this Government. These are not incidents to be dismissed. This is an onslaught against our Parliament and our country, and the Government sit here pretending otherwise. Mandelson’s China reset has failed. It was dreamed up in conjunction with the National Security Adviser, whose vetting process was opaque at best and who remains missing in action from Parliament. This Government’s one token achievement was lifting sanctions. [ Interruption. ] Mr Speaker, to quote something you said recently, you were far more lenient with the others. What does the Chinese Communist party have to do for the Government to act? They should put it in the enhanced tier of FIRS and protect our country.
20% point-scoring

Answer

Answered by Dan Jarvis (Labour)

The hon. Lady is entitled to make her points in the way that she has done, but I am sorry that she has chosen to do so. She will be furious when she finds out who was in government between 2018 and 2023. I regret the way that she has sought to politicise these issues, which should actually bring the House together in standing to defend our democracy and the rights of Members of this House to do their duty without fear or favour. It is a sad indictment of her position that she has chosen to play the political card in the way that she has done. It is particularly regretful because she was in the House and will remember the bipartisan approach that underpinned the passing of the National Security Act 2023. That has been the approach of this Government, not least when she has had issues that have required our support. That is the endeavour in which we should proceed in order to protect our national security. That is the way in which the public expect us to behave, rather than seeking to score cheap political points. The hon. Lady made a number of points, some of which are worthy of response, but let me focus on one in particular. She spoke about FIRS and the annual report. FIRS is a very useful tool that will disrupt operational activity by our adversaries. FIRS is an instrument that was included in the National Security Act 2023, which, as I say, was an important piece of legislation that was passed on a bipartisan basis. It is this Government who worked incredibly hard to introduce FIRS on time and on budget, and it is this Government who are developing FIRS as an operational capability in our armoury. The hon. Lady asked me specifically about the timing of the publication of the annual report. I understand why she would want to do that, and I am sure that I would do the same if I were in her place. We are committed to publishing the first annual report in full, and we will do so as soon as possible, but I reiterate the point that we worked on a cross-party basis with the previous Government to legislate for FIRS. This Government are getting on with implementing that important capability, and we will bring forward the report as soon as possible.
26% point-scoring 5% vibes

Verdict: RED (4/100)

None of the five parts of the question received a substantive answer. The reply does not say when the Government learned of the Serbia arrests, whether US intelligence was withheld, or why Members were not informed. On the Foreign Influence Registration Scheme, it offers only general remarks about the scheme and does not say whether the enhanced tier will apply to the Chinese Communist Party or what would trigger action. Most of the reply is criticism of the questioner and the previous government, so the person who asked would almost certainly need to table a follow-up question.

How we got there

Question itemCoverageSpecificityRationale
When did the Government first become aware of the matters relating to the two individuals arrested by the FBI in Serbia in April 2025? Not Addressed Generic The reply never gives any date or account of when the Government became aware of the Serbia arrests; statements 1-4 are rhetorical deflection about the asker's tone and politicisation.
Whether intelligence normally shared by the United States with the UK was withheld for over a year, and what the Government's assessment is of the state of its relationship with Five Eyes partners on intelligence-sharing in this matter. Not Addressed Generic Nothing in the reply addresses whether US intelligence was withheld or the state of Five Eyes intelligence-sharing; statement 2 is a point-scoring jab about the previous government.
Whether the Government was told of this intelligence at the time, and if so, why it decided that Members of the House were not to be informed. Not Addressed Generic The reply does not say whether the Government was told of the intelligence at the time or explain why Members were not informed; it only criticises the asker for politicising the issue.
Will the Government place the Chinese Communist party in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme (FIRS)? Not Addressed Generic The reply discusses FIRS in general terms (its usefulness, its legislative origins, its development) but never mentions the enhanced tier or the Chinese Communist Party, and gives neither a yes/no answer nor a reason.
What would the Chinese Communist party have to do for the Government to take action against it. Not Addressed Generic No statement sets out any conditions or triggers for action against the Chinese Communist Party; the reply consists of rhetorical deflection.

Feedback on this grading

Think this verdict is wrong, or that the question and answer have been mismatched? Let us know.

Submitting this needs Google reCAPTCHA to block spam, which sets cookies from google.com on your device — see our Cookies policy for details. Accept these cookies to show the form.