Source · Select Committees · National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
2nd Report - Espionage cases and the Official Secrets Acts
National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
HC 1414
Published 3 December 2025
Government response
2nd Special Report - Espionage cases and the Official Secrets Acts: Government and Crown Prosecution Service Responses · published 12 Feb 2026
Recommendations & Conclusions
1
Conclusion
Not Addressed
The Crown Prosecution Service determined that it required specific evidence that China posed an “active...
Conclusion
The Crown Prosecution Service determined that it required specific evidence that China posed an “active threat” to UK national security at the relevant time, following a Court of Appeal ruling known as “Roussev”. It is not within the Committee’s remit …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government's response focuses on clarifying the DNSA's witness statements and timelines rather than directly addressing the Committee's stated unclarity regarding the significant legal impact of the Roussev Court of Appeal ruling.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
2
Conclusion
Not Addressed
The Deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA) would not describe China as posing an “active threat”...
Conclusion
The Deputy National Security Adviser (DNSA) would not describe China as posing an “active threat” to national security at the relevant time. We acknowledge the position from the Crown Prosecution Service that it would undermine their case that China represented …
Read more
Government Response Summary
The government welcomed the committee's findings of no improper influence or obstruction and a recommendation to consider support mechanisms for senior officials acting as witnesses. However, it did not directly address the committee's specific observation about the DNSA's phrasing regarding China as an 'active threat'.
Cabinet Office
View Details →
16
Conclusion
Not Addressed
We regret that opportunities were not taken to inform the Attorney General of the situation...
Conclusion
We regret that opportunities were not taken to inform the Attorney General of the situation in greater detail earlier on and request his assistance insofar as would be constitutionally appropriate. (Conclusion, Paragraph 116) 50 Lessons learned
Government Response Summary
The government did not address the Committee’s regret that opportunities were missed to inform the Attorney General earlier. Instead, it welcomed findings elsewhere in the report that cleared the government of improper influence or obstruction of the prosecution.
Cabinet Office
View Details →