Source · Select Committees · National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
Recommendation 10
10
Rejected
Some processes were excessively protracted, with extensive to and fro.
Conclusion
Some processes were excessively protracted, with extensive to and fro. From the outside some aspects look shambolic. The process for securing the DNSA’s second witness statement took nearly eight months, for example. The reason for this delay remains obscure to us. (Conclusion, Paragraph 76)
Government Response Summary
The government agreed timely evidence acquisition is a priority but rejected the committee's conclusion of an eight-month delay in securing the DNSA's second witness statement. They provided a detailed timeline and explanation of the complex review process, arguing that work was ongoing throughout.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
The Government agrees that timely acquisition and delivery of evidence should always be a priority in support of criminal prosecution processes. However, we do not recognise the Committee’s conclusion that there was a delay as work to provide these witness statements was ongoing. However, we do not recognise the Committee’s specific conclusion that there was an eight-month delay in the DNSA providing the second witness statement. This DNSA was approached for the statement by Counter Terrorism Policing (CTP) in late November 2024, with initial meetings taking place in December and the witness statement was produced in February 2025. This timeline involved complex reviews by external counsel; National Security Secretariat (NSS) officials; and the DNSA himself. These reviews were undertaken to ensure that the DNSA’s witness statement met the evidential ask he received from CT Policing and fully reflected the DNSA’s understanding of: • The senior CCP leader mentioned in his first witness statement • The threat that China posed based on his understanding of the Government’s position at the material time • The evidence provided to him for assessment by CT Policing. The initial evidential pack provided to the DNSA by CT Policing for comment in his first witness statement was also vast. A similar process took place for the third statement. CT Policing approached the DNSA’s team for a statement in May and it was submitted at the beginning of August.