House of Commons · Urgent Question
20 October 2025 · 30 other contributors
Opened by Chris Philp Con Croydon South
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Chris Philp raised concerns about alleged spying case home office involvement 2025-10-20 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Will the Minister confirm the Home Secretary's involvement in the alleged China spying case, including when she became aware that the case might collapse and what representations were made about the evidence? Why has the House been told previously that Ministers and advisers were not involved?
Question
When did the Home Secretary become aware that the case might collapse and what representations were made about the evidence? Why has the House been told that Ministers and advisers were not involved when The Sunday Times reported otherwise?
Minister reply
The Home Secretary was informed of the CPS’s decision only a matter of days before the case collapsed. No Minister or adviser could have changed the law at that point, and there is no evidence of any outside pressure on the CPS to discontinue the case.
Question
Was Jonathan Powell involved in a meeting on 1 September where it was discussed whether further evidence could be provided? Will the minutes of all meetings discussing this case and related correspondence be published?
Minister reply
The Home Office's involvement after the charging decision was restricted to avoid breaching CPS requirements. The Government will co-operate fully with inquiries by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy and Intelligence and Security Committee.
Question
Was anyone from the Attorney General’s Office or Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office involved in discussions about the CPS decision? Was Dan Chugg at the 1 September meeting?
Minister reply
No Minister or adviser was involved in the evidence submitted to the CPS. The Government is committed to transparency but must ensure national security issues are handled appropriately.
Question
Why has the current Government provided inaccurate information about the case? Why did Ministers know what the CPS wanted but refuse to give it?
Minister reply
The Government maintains that all evidence related to the previous Government's policy, and inaccuracies are due to differences in interpretation of national security laws.
Question
What conversations has the Minister had with relevant parliamentary authorities regarding plans to tighten vetting or ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff? What is his understanding of 'back channels' in the context of attempts by the previous Government to dissuade Members from raising concerns about Confucius institutes? Would he be comfortable with Labour MPs accepting meeting requests from representatives of the Chinese Communist party?
Minister reply
We have been working closely on vetting procedures since coming into office. The issue is important for national security and we will work with parliamentary authorities to ensure fit-for-purpose vetting arrangements. 'Back channels' likely refer to Government officials or offices, but specifics are not clear without more evidence. It is an individual Member's responsibility to decide whether to meet representatives of the Chinese Communist party.
Question
What steps is the Minister taking to ensure better protection for parliamentarians from foreign interference, given China remains a persistent threat?
Minister reply
We have renewed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce established by the previous Government. This interdepartmental body brings together Departments and law enforcement to address threats to our democratic process. The taskforce will continue to work closely with Members of this House.
Question
Was it wise for the witness statement to replicate Labour's manifesto words, and has such a replication happened before?
Minister reply
It is not for Ministers to critique decisions made by the Crown Prosecution Service. The Government have been clear that this was an independent decision taken by the CPS without any interference from special advisers or ministers.
Question
What is the Minister's assessment of risks to MPs and British nationals overseas due to transnational repression?
Minister reply
The Government take extremely seriously any threats to national security, including from China. We have done significant work through the defending democracy taskforce on transnational repression. It is completely unacceptable for any country to harm anyone living in the UK.
Question
When the CPS requested additional evidence regarding China's current national security threat status, who decided not to submit it?
Minister reply
The ISC has an important role in investigating these matters. We are committed to working closely with them on this specific issue and others related to the collapse of the case.
Question
What action is the Home Office taking to ensure that our councillors and other democratically elected people at the lower levels of government are also given the protection they need?
Minister reply
The defending democracy taskforce ensures a response rooted across government, including local government. The Government work closely with partners in local government to protect democratic processes ahead of important elections.
Question
Does the Minister accept that this matter has reinforced concerns about a lack of clarity on our position towards China, and can the Government make their position clear in the near future?
Minister reply
The previous Foreign Secretary made a statement about the China audit. While there is complexity to the relationship with China, economic cooperation where it is in national interest should proceed under clear principles prioritising national security.
Question
Does the Minister accept that appointing a highly political special adviser as National Security Adviser has contributed to suspicion of political interference? Will the DNSA give evidence in the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry?
Minister reply
The appointment was not political. The National Security Adviser is experienced and well-connected. He works hard for national security, and we should support him.
Question
Does the Minister think that I ought to refer to China as a threat given my experiences?
Minister reply
The right hon. Gentleman can choose his own words, but we want all Members to speak freely without fear. The activities he describes are unacceptable.
Question
Did the Prime Minister receive a note on this case in his ministerial red box, and did UK Government give private assurances that the application for the Chinese embassy would be approved?
Minister reply
There was no note to the Prime Minister.
Question
Will the Minister acknowledge that the Director of Public Prosecutions was clear in his letter that a statement on China as a national security threat was not forthcoming?
Minister reply
The Government were clear about the legal threshold for conviction. The decision lies with the DPP.
Question
Will the Attorney General give consent for a private criminal prosecution under the Official Secrets Act, provided evidence and witness statements are available?
Minister reply
The Minister is not responsible for actions of the Attorney General or Solicitor General. Colleagues can discuss further.
Question
When did the Home Secretary hear that the case might collapse, and did she make representations to ensure evidence was as strong as possible?
Minister reply
The final evidence went into August this year, and nothing could have been done post that.
Question
What were the obligations and commitments offered regarding the so-called super-embassy?
Minister reply
We do not recognise any claims made by senior Chinese officials. Given the nature of the legal process, it would have been improper to comment on such matters.
Question
Was China spying on two Members of Parliament in this case?
Minister reply
I am committed to keeping the country safe, and we work closely with our Five Eyes allies to combat espionage threats.
Question
Has the collapse of the spy case weakened the UK's position internationally?
Minister reply
We continue to collaborate with international allies, including the Five Eyes alliance, to address threats from foreign state actors.
Question
What steps are the Government taking against Russian interference in UK politics?
Minister reply
We take seriously any cases of foreign interference, including those involving Russia. We work with our allies to combat threats and ensure national security.
Question
What is the Government’s position on their relationship with China?
Minister reply
We assess that China poses significant threats to UK national security but also presents economic opportunities. We work closely with allies to address these challenges.
Question
Why is China not included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme?
Minister reply
We are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier and will make decisions in due course.
Question
What assurances can the Minister give that the Government will put pressure on the CPS to prosecute cases of spying?
Minister reply
We are committed to safeguarding our democracy and working closely with Mr Speaker’s commission to ensure protections for MPs.
Question
Why was further evidence not provided in the spy case?
Minister reply
The final piece of evidence was sent by the deputy National Security Adviser in August, and no Minister or special adviser could have done more thereafter.
Question
What changed between April 2024 and September 2025 for the CPS to decide against prosecution?
Minister reply
The Chinese intelligence services are described as 'highly capable' in conducting espionage operations, but this clarity did not prevent the case from collapsing.
Question
Is it correct that the Prime Minister was aware of the imminent collapse on 12 September?
Minister reply
I am unable to provide additional details beyond what has been published.
Question
I am going to give the Minister a fifth chance to answer. Did the Home Secretary make representations when she discovered that the case was about to collapse—yes or no?
Minister reply
I have given the House the response—[Interruption.]
Question
Chinese officials recently briefed Stormont’s Finance Minister on the status of a local company in his constituency owned by the Chinese state. Information on that briefing, released under the Freedom of Information Act by the Department of Finance, withheld details, citing freedom of information laws that protect confidential information obtained from a foreign state. In the current climate and in the interests of openness and transparency, does the Minister agree that it would be best to release all the details of that meeting, rather than hide behind FOI laws?
Minister reply
The hon. Gentleman has asked quite a technical question. I am not entirely clear which meeting he is referring to, but I am very happy to write to him with the details.
Government Response
I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the question, and I reiterate my previous statements: the Government is extremely disappointed by the case's collapse. The Minister for Security confirmed that no Ministers or special advisers were involved in the production of evidence or decision-making process under the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines. However, following the charging decision made early 2024, the Home Office's involvement was heavily restricted to avoid breaching CPS requirements. The Government remains frustrated by the case not proceeding to court but acknowledges that it was an independent decision by the CPS without any outside pressure.