Chris Ward MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  As I say, parliamentary scrutiny and transparency is something that, despite the allegation, we are trying to provide with statements and by publishing evidence. I am sure, going forward, that that is something that will carry on. I will come back to my hon. Friend on the precise mechanism for how we will do that, but I am sure people will be made available to his Committee.

• 16 Sept 2025 · Ambassador to the United States · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 4 Sept 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. In the last few days, I have had a huge number of emails from constituents about continued sewage discharge into our otherwise beautiful seas and the shocking record of Southern Water on this issue. I noted earlier that the Secretary of State said he had been to Bournemouth a couple of times, but can he come a little further down the coast, visit my constituency, and set out what this Government are doing to clean up our waters and hold Southern Water to account?

• 15 Jul 2025 · SEND Provision: South-east England · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing the debate. I agree with much of what he and so many others have said. The fact that we all have similar stories from our constituencies underlines the scale of the challenge. In my constituency, one in five children receives some form of SEND support, and one in 12 has an EHCP. That is far above both the Sussex and national averages. However, I suspect that is just the tip of the iceberg. At my surgery just last week, I met a couple whose son finally has an EHCP after years of fighting—but there is no place in the local authority to provide it. He will almost certainly remain out of school, joining countless others who, as we have heard, are being let down by a system that too often frustrates and limits, rather than supports and fulfils potential. I do think in this Parliament—and this may be the optimism of a newcomer—we have a real chance, perhaps a final one, to sort this mess out. I welcome the fact that the Government are not ducking the issue, and the cross-party approach that has been taken; the longer we can sustain that, the better. I also recognise the scale of the challenge ahead of us and the need to listen to those most directly affected. That is why, a few months ago, I held a SEND summit in Saltdean, in my constituency, bringing together local parents, councillors, advocates and experts to hear their experiences. In the time I have, I want to outline three of the main takeaways from that summit. First is the need to dramatically improve SEND training in schools—in particular, to introduce mandatory and expert SEND training for all new teachers as part of initial teacher training, and then as part of continuous teaching development. Of course, that must go alongside wider reforms to schools and the curriculum to ensure that more children stay in and flourish. Mandatory SEND training would support early identification, allowing proper plans to be put in place sooner. It would boost professional standards and end the postcode lottery in how neighbouring schools approach SEND so differently. There is a Bill before the House, which I have co-sponsored with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), that would achieve this. Will the Minister support it? The second major recommendation was to enhance the parental voice. That is really important and too often ignored. SEND families include not only those receiving support, but those who know how the system works and how it fails. Our summit discussed the idea of regional champions—SEND advocates, perhaps across new devolved areas—who could bring this together on a larger scale. Can the Minister say more about how she will listen to parental voices as these reforms come forward and how she will work with the sector? Thirdly, underpinning all the other points, is the need for a cultural change on how Government, Parliament and local authorities approach SEND. We need to focus less on proving exceptionalism and the limitations of SEND children, and more on how we fulfil the potential of every child; end the adversarial culture and lack of accountability that pervades in too many cases, and instead work with parents to navigate it; and, crucially, shift SEND services away from emergency, when there is already proof of trauma, to early intervention. There is a lot to unpack in those points, but they are the three main solutions that we have, and I hope the Minister will respond to them.

• 9 Jul 2025 · LGBT Financial Recognition Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I also thank the Minister, who I know is personally invested in and has been a champion on this issue. He has the respect of the House and, more importantly, of the veterans concerned. I am concerned about the pace of the scheme. One of my constituents, who is a veteran, wrote to me to say that he is 77 and has prostate cancer, two brain tumours, heart disease and other complications. We have taken this up with the MOD, yet he still has no certainty about when he might get payments and the justice that the hon. Lady talked about. Does she agree that it is now incumbent on the MOD to demonstrate that it is doing everything possible to get the payments out as quickly as possible and finally deliver justice?