House of Commons · Urgent Question
23 October 2025 · 16 other contributors
Opened by Robert Jenrick Con Newark
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Robert Jenrick raised concerns about alleged spying case role of attorney general’s office 2025-10-23 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 that the Solicitor General's office was informed about the risk of dropping the case in August, before it was formally dropped? The MP raises concerns over whether the Attorney General failed to ensure more evidence be provided and if he took any steps to inform the Prime Minister or government offices.
Question
It is standard practice for CPS to inform Attorney General if a case of political significance likely to be dropped. Can SG provide exact date when this was informed and whether AG asked why the case was at risk?
Minister reply
The Solicitor General states that while the Attorney General was informed, he did not intervene further as it would have been inappropriate after giving consent.
Question
Given Conservatives' close relationship with China during their 14-year tenure, can Government continue Labour's approach of balancing opportunities and values without compromising national interests?
Minister reply
The Solicitor General agrees but points out that the test applied to how China was viewed under previous government.
Question
Ministers claim no input in case despite Government Legal Service guidance requiring AG review of sensitive cases. Did AG really not review witness statements and will SG commit to a statutory inquiry into case collapse?
Minister reply
The Solicitor General confirms that once consent is given, Law Officers do not further intervene. She reiterates there was no political interference.
Question
Does official giving evidence on behalf of Government have any communication with own government after prosecutor says evidence insufficient? Labour manifesto cited in evidence despite being written post-consent.
Minister reply
The Solicitor General explains the timeline of witness statements and asserts that deputy National Security Adviser gave evidence free from political interference.
Question
Given the important national security implications of this whole sorry case, what assessment has the Attorney General’s Office made of the impact that the decision may have on confidence in our ability to prosecute alleged foreign interference?
Minister reply
This case was prosecuted under legislation that was in force when the alleged offences were committed in 2021 to 2023. The law has now changed—it took the Conservative party many years to tighten up national security legislation; it passed with support from Labour Members—and under the legislation as it stands now, it is easier to bring prosecutions of this nature because the enemy test no longer has to be satisfied.
Question
The Attorney General has a duty to superintend prosecution agencies. What action did the Attorney General take once he had been informed of the potential collapse of the China spying trial?
Minister reply
As I have set out, consent to prosecute in this case had to be granted by Law Officers, and that was done under the previous Government. Once consent is granted, it is for the CPS to prosecute a case, rightly without political interference. This case was discontinued by the CPS on evidential grounds, as opposed to public interest grounds.
Question
None of it makes sense—not the collapsed trial, Chagos or the embassy—but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) says, it all makes sense if the Government have prioritised a strategic relationship with communist China, does it not?
Minister reply
I politely remind the right hon. Gentleman that this case was to be tried under the Government’s position in relation to China between 2021 and 2023, when his party was in Government.
Question
The Solicitor General has repeatedly said that prosecutors and not politicians should decide whether to prosecute. Of course that is the case, but that is a straw man argument. The issue here is not political interference in the decision to prosecute, but political interference in the evidence that was given to the CPS, affecting its ability to prosecute. We have been told that the Attorney General was informed. Why was he informed, if not to allow him to take action to perfect the evidence? Why did he not?
Minister reply
The Prime Minister and the DPP have both confirmed that there was no political interference in the evidence given by the deputy National Security Adviser, and rightly so. The Conservative party cannot have it both ways: first, the argument was that we interfered with the evidence and now it seems to be that we did not. Which is it?
Question
The Sunday Times reported that, following a key meeting on 1 September, the Attorney General’s Office was to give advice to bolster the case of the CPS. What input or advice has the Solicitor General given to the Government on this matter?
Minister reply
In order for this case to succeed, it was based on the relationship with China at the time of the offences and how China was viewed then. I have already referred to the meeting on 1 September, which was on the presumption that the case would continue.
Question
What input or advice has the Attorney General or the Solicitor General given to the Government on the lack of inclusion of China on the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme? Given the ongoing situation, will she now reconsider and push for the Government to do that?
Minister reply
Under the law as it now stands, it would be easier to bring prosecutions in cases such as these. We are deeply disappointed that this prosecution did not go ahead, but I will get back to him on the specific points that he raises.
Question
The Solicitor General has expressed several times her and, presumably, the Government’s disappointment at the fact that this did not go to trial. That disappointment would suggest that she and the Government wish for an alternative outcome. The simple point that I and my constituents cannot get our heads around—they have contacted me about this because they are outraged and concerned—is that if the Government wish for an alternative outcome, why did they not exhaust every single possibility to bolster the case of the CPS?
Minister reply
The Government are disappointed that this prosecution did not go ahead. If the previous Conservative Government had tightened our laws in relation to national security before 2022, we may not have found ourselves in this position.
Question
When was the Attorney General informed that the case was going to collapse?
Minister reply
The Attorney General will be setting out his evidence to the Joint Committee next Tuesday.
Question
To be perfectly honest, I do not know what the point is in me asking this question, because we have had two weeks of statements and urgent questions, and Ministers keep attacking straw men and answering questions that are not actually being asked. It is pathetic. When did the Home Secretary know? What representations did she make and to whom did she make them?
Minister reply
I do not speak on behalf of the Home Secretary, but I am sure that she will be happy to address the hon. Member’s points.
Question
Does she accept the lack of confidence that has arisen from the handling of this case? What can be done to assure British citizens that their interests and security are the top priority for this Government, not trade links with China?
Minister reply
I thank the hon. Member for those kind words. This case was brought under the Official Secrets Act. There is now new legislation in place, which means it is no longer necessary to prove the enemy part of the test in order to bring a successful prosecution.
Question
When I submitted written parliamentary questions to the Attorney General, they were answered by the Solicitor General, but the Solicitor General refused to provide answers for the Attorney General, only answering for herself. How does the House of Commons hold the Attorney General to account?
Minister reply
There is a collective responsibility for the Government to answer within this House—the right hon. Member is absolutely right to ask the question—but I am not responsible for the answers that the Solicitor General provides.
Government Response
I thank Robert Jenrick for raising this urgent question. The Solicitor General confirms that once consent is given, no Law Officer intervenes in the case unless it involves a statutory requirement. She explains that if the CPS considers dropping the case due to evidential reasons, they must inform the Attorney General. In this instance, the AG was informed but did not intervene further as it would have been inappropriate to do so once consent is given. The Solicitor General asserts that there has been no political interference in the decision and highlights upcoming evidence sessions at the Joint Committee on National Security Strategy.