Chris Ward MP: speeches 2025

78 published records · newest first.

Speeches

12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source
More
That is a matter for individual parties and for the Lords to look at. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on this question, because House of Lords reform is another area that the Cabinet Office is overseeing. I do agree, with regard to recent cases in particular—across the House, I should say—that there is a need to improve trust and accountability. The House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill, which we intend to take through Parliament, is part of trying to modernise and improve the House of Lords. I think it would be a big step forward if we could pass that Bill. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman on his broader point, if that is okay. Finally, as I have said, the Government are taking steps to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. We are not there yet but will keep working on it. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East for securing this debate. Question put and agreed to.
12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source
More
My hon. Friend raises a very good point, although I should remind him that I think parish councils are about to be abolished in the local government reorganisation so we might have to look at that, but I take his point, which is a fair one. [ Official Report , 17 November 2025; Vol. 775, c. 4WC.] (Correction) The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East mentioned a number of recent cases where, to put it politely, he suggests the Nolan principles may not have been abided by. I will, of course, not comment on the specifics of all of those, or indeed those where the Scottish Government may not have always abided by the principles, but I will say that the Prime Minister has made clear how seriously he takes Ministers abiding by the code. It is why he invited the independent ethics adviser—the independent adviser on ministerial standards —to address Cabinet on the first day after the election and why he has stuck ever since to a very powerful role for that position, which I think we can agree is a step forward. The final thing I want to say is that I have heard the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East say before that he believes that “our leaders…cannot be trusted to do the right thing unless they are legally required to do so.” —[ Official Report, 3 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 123WH.] After recent years, and perhaps even recent weeks, I understand his scepticism, but I do not accept his fatalism. I believe that the vast majority of our public servants and our leaders are trustworthy. I believe that every day they seek to show leadership with honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity and openness. But where public servants fail to meet those standards, there must be clear and effective accountability.
12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source
More
Absolutely. On local government, I will just reiterate that the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary set out important powers earlier in the week to try to improve standards and to hold people to account. Hopefully that will help.
12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source
More
I will come to accountability later, but I do agree that there is more that can be done on accountability. I would argue that this Government are making some progress on that, but I do agree, and I will come on to that later. I want to assure the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East and the House that the Government are committed to strengthening and upholding the Nolan principles. Indeed, just last week the Prime Minister reiterated at this Dispatch Box that those principles “are not some kind of optional extra, but the very essence of public service itself.” —[ Official Report , 3 November 2025; Vol. 774, c. 658.] It is worth reminding the House that the Nolan principles do not just apply to politicians; they apply to all public servants, elected or not, in local and national Government, as well as the civil service, the police and those in health, education, social care and other services. They also apply to those in the private and voluntary sector who deliver services paid for by the taxpayer. I do want to emphasise that the overwhelming majority of public servants seek to uphold these principles, and live and breathe them every day. In my opinion, we are too quick to point out those who fail and too reticent to point out those who live them every day. However, it is true that in recent years, as has been mentioned, public trust in our politics and our public service more broadly has been eroded. Indeed, it was in response to the events of the last Parliament—partygate, the complete sidelining of the independent adviser and the abuse of public contracts during covid—that this Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to strengthen the ministerial code and to try to breathe new life into the Nolan principles. That is why the Prime Minister put the Nolan principles up front in a strengthened ministerial code, rather than as an afterthought or as an annexe. It is why the Prime Minister has empowered the independent ethics adviser to launch his own inquiries without prime ministerial approval, which I think we can all agree is a welcome change from the last Government. It is also why the Hillsborough law, for which we have all waited so long and which I know Members across the House support, will ensure that every public authority has a legal requirement to adopt a code of ethical conduct based on the Nolan principles. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East will agree that this is an important step forward, and I hope it can be a catalyst to drive improvements across the public sector based around the Nolan principles. I know the hon. Member called today, as he has done previously, for an office of the whistleblower. I do understand why, and I know how strongly he feels about it. As he will know, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have both looked at this recently and published reports on how to improve whistleblowing in the civil service, but neither of them recommended creating an independent body due to the risk of duplication. The Government agree with that, but I do hope that he will work with us—I am sure that he will—during the passage of the Hillsborough law to try to ensure that it delivers the candour, justice, accountability and safety that whistleblowers need. [ Official Report , 24 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 2WC.] (Correction)
12 Nov 2025 · Nolan Principles · Hansard source
More
As I understand it, the Scottish Government have had a number of years to address that, and they still have not done so, so I hope the First Minister will get to that and we can clarify it. We are celebrating 30 years of the Nolan principles this year, and the principles set out by Lord Nolan in 1995—honesty, integrity, accountability, selflessness, objectivity, openness and leadership—are rightly the foundations of standards in public life across the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East said, with public trust in our public services and our politics at a low point, they are as important, if not more, as they have been at any point in the last three decades.
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
The answer is yes to both.
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
I thank the hon. Member for the question and for the opportunity to respond to it today. I appreciate how serious and personal this is for the hon. Member, who, like other Members of this House, is sanctioned by China and/or named in the witness statements. Following the Security Minister’s statement to the House on Monday, the Prime Minister updated Parliament yesterday, following the Crown Prosecution Service’s clarification that the Government were able to publish the witness statements of the deputy National Security Adviser. As the Prime Minister said in the House, he carefully considered this matter and, following legal advice, decided to disclose the witness statements unredacted and in full. I reiterate that, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, under this Government no Minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence. The Prime Minister cannot say whether that was the case under the previous Government, but I once again invite the Conservative party to clarify that.
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point, and I thank him for his kind words in welcoming me. If I can speak as many times in this place as he does, I will be very grateful —[Interruption.] I am not sure anyone really wants that. He makes a very serious point about the threats posed by China and the threats posed to his constituents and all our constituents by that. That is the central message we should be trying to get back to: how the Government can work across the parties and how, with the CPS and others, we can all work to ensure that this kind of thing can never happen again.
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the tone of his question. On the first point— [ Interruption. ] I am so sorry; will he remind me what that was?
16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source
More
That is absolutely my understanding.
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.

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →