← Back to House of Commons Debates
China Spying Case 2025-10-28
28 October 2025
Lead MP
Alex Burghart
Debate Type
General Debate
Tags
Defence
Other Contributors: 40
At a Glance
Alex Burghart raised concerns about china spying case 2025-10-28 in the House of Commons. A government minister responded. Other MPs also contributed.
How the Debate Unfolded
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said:
Lead Contributor
Opened the debate
Calls for transparency regarding the China spy case, including the release of minutes from meetings involving the National Security Adviser on 1 September 2025. The case against two alleged Chinese spies collapsed due to lack of evidence; Burghart emphasises inconsistencies in Government statements and the necessity of publishing all relevant documents.
Julian Lewis
Con
New Forest East
Questions why the National Security Adviser did not attend meetings personally if he was involved, highlighting irregularity and lack of accountability.
Andrew Murrison
Con
South West Wiltshire
Points out the reluctance of the National Security Adviser to appear before the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, suggesting potential issues with transparency and adherence to Osmotherly rules.
Scott Arthur
Lab
Edinburgh South West
Queries whether the Government was unclear about China's threat level in 2023, emphasising confusion over policy statements versus factual assessments of China as a national security threat.
Jerome Mayhew
Con
Broadland and Fakenham
Asks for an explanation of the inconsistencies in Government statements regarding the truth of the matter.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Clarifies that the CPS decision to prosecute was based on evidence that China posed a threat, but due to changes from the Roussev case, new requirements were set for prosecution.
James Wild
Con
North West Norfolk
Asks why the Government did not provide straightforward evidence that China is an ongoing threat, highlighting the lack of commitment and transparency.
Luke Evans
Con
Hinckley and Bosworth
Questions whether it's believable that the deputy National Security Adviser operated independently without consulting his superior or receiving political guidance.
Tony Vaughan
Lab
Folkestone and Hythe
Vaughan questioned why the Security Minister provided incorrect information regarding the meetings between the CPS and government officials. He highlighted that the Attorney General had informed the House of Lords about evidential difficulties on September 3rd, suggesting the Government was aware but powerless to intervene due to a memorandum agreement.
Alex Burghart
Con
Folkestone and Hythe
Burghart emphasised the importance of transparency in the handling of national security threats and questioned the credibility of ministers' statements, citing numerous examples where government officials appeared to contradict facts or withheld information. He urged the Government to publish all details regarding their position on China as a threat.
Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office
Thomas-Symonds expressed regret over the case's collapse, emphasising that the prosecution was based on the Government’s stance at the time of the offences. He detailed the procedural steps taken under the previous government, including statements drafted by the deputy National Security Adviser and reviewed by relevant officials, highlighting that actions were taken in line with the law as it stood.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Philp challenged Thomas-Symonds's claims, citing a letter from the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) stating that the issue was one of fact and not policy. He argued that Thomas-Symonds misrepresented the DPP’s position.
The Minister stated that China poses multiple threats, including espionage and cyber threats. He emphasised the need to protect MPs from foreign interference while maintaining parliamentary scrutiny processes. The Government is working across parties to address security concerns regarding China's influence on UK national security.
Peter Prinsley
Lab
Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket
Asked for further information on how MPs are being protected from foreign intelligence services, emphasising the importance of addressing this issue urgently.
James Wild
Con
Requested to give way during the debate but no specific contribution was made in the provided text.
Alex Burghart
Con
Hemel Hempstead
Challenged the Minister on legal privilege and previous requests for classified documents, arguing that transparency is crucial given potential spying incidents. He criticised the Government's stance as inconsistent with past practices.
Max Wilkinson
Lib Dem
Cheltenham
Called for both sides to concede mistakes and find common ground on China’s threat to UK national security. Criticised the Government for not taking a stronger stance due to economic vulnerabilities post-Brexit. Emphasised inconsistencies in the listing of Russia under foreign influence while avoiding similar measures against China.
John Slinger
Lab
Rugby
Conservative Members are being opportunistic with our national security, playing political games. Labour did not interfere with evidence submission; no Ministers or special advisers were involved in the case's collapse. China is a strategic rival and partner.
Geoffrey Cox
Con
Torridge and Tavistock
The Government refused to describe China as an enemy, despite knowing it was problematic for the prosecution of spies. The decision not to designate China reflects poor national security policy that undermined the trial's integrity.
Paul Waugh
Lab/Co-op
Rochdale
Expresses anger and frustration at case collapse, warns against rhetoric harming scrutiny, criticises unsubstantiated accusations by opposition members regarding government interference in independent decision-making of the CPS.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Law questioned whether China should be included in the foreign influence registration scheme, similar to Russia.
Chingford and Woodford Green
Iain Duncan Smith criticised the Government's handling of the decision by the Director National Security Adviser (DNSA), questioning why they avoided clear statements about China being a national security threat. He also emphasised the importance of releasing minutes from the 1 September meeting where the DNSA was present.
Peter Swallow
Lab
Bracknell
Swallow highlighted threats to democracy and values posed by foreign actors such as China, Russia, and Iran. He discussed concerns about transnational repression affecting communities in places like Hong Kong and the need for social media companies to step up against misinformation and disinformation.
Chris Law
Lab/Co-op
In 2023, the Intelligence and Security Committee report on China warned that China's view of an ideal future would be antithetical to UK’s interests. The report detailed China as a threat multiple times. Chris Law questions why the UK Government cannot describe China as a threat based on this report.
Peter Swallow
Con
China poses a threat, but we must work with it where possible and challenge or compete when necessary. The way to deal with the second-largest economy in the world is by recognising both threats and opportunities.
Mark Pritchard
Con
The Wrekin
The Intelligence and Security Committee report from July 2023 concluded that China is a national security threat to UK interests. The evidence was clear, with senior intelligence officials testifying that China conducts large-scale espionage operations and interference in UK public life.
Supported Mark Pritchard's points about the Intelligence and Security Committee report and questioned Sir Chris Wormald’s intervention on Ken McCallum’s testimony that China is a threat.
Gareth Snell
Lab/Co-op
Stoke-on-Trent Central
There has been inconsistency in the language applied to China throughout this period, with officials naming it as a threat but political figures not using such terminology publicly. This may have led to the current situation where interpretations differ.
Chris Law
SNP
Dundee Central
Considers the debate not just about prosecution failure but a broader approach to China’s influence. Critiques past actions, noting that sanctions were imposed in 2021 and neither Government nor Opposition demanded them initially. Cites historical issues with China including Tibet's occupation, Uyghur population treatment, Hong Kong democracy threats, Taiwan threat, and global influence operations. Questions why the government has not unequivocally stated China is a threat until now.
Tom Hayes
Lab
Bournemouth East
Expresses anger at the collapse of the case. Criticises Conservative Government’s lack of investment in security infrastructure and inconsistent stance on engaging with Chinese firms, highlighting examples like Huawei and nuclear deals. Contrasts this with Sir Iain Duncan Smith's foresight and consistent condemnation of China. Argues that while engagement is necessary, it must be done cautiously given the risks.
Bradley Thomas
Con
Bromsgrove
Thomas supports the view that the Government's actions regarding the dropped espionage case are concerning, highlighting a lack of proactive measures to bolster the prosecution.
John Hayes
Con
South Holland and The Deepings
Sir John agrees with Dr Evans, noting that MI5's unusual public disappointment indicates significant issues in how the Government handled the case, reinforcing the need for greater transparency.
Tom Hayes questions the Labour MP's stance on UK-China relations, suggesting a need to balance engagement with firmness towards China’s economic and political influence.
Katie Lam
Con
Weald of Kent
Lam criticises the Government for allowing the espionage case to collapse and undermining national security by appearing weak or unreliable internationally, urging for a truthful explanation from the Prime Minister.
Jim Allister
TUV
North Antrim
Allister raises concerns about inconsistencies in government actions towards China, noting changes between when charges were initially brought and dropped. He warns against devolved institutions engaging too closely with Chinese officials without robust oversight.
Chris Philp
Con
Croydon South
Philp emphasises that the Government's failure to clearly state China’s threat level has hindered prosecution efforts, citing multiple instances where UK and US intelligence agencies have warned of significant threats posed by China.
Alex Burghart
Con
Brentwood and Ongar
The Security Minister was acting surprised about the case collapse when it did not come as a surprise to the Government. The CPS had pleaded with the Government nine times for evidence that could prove China's threat but was met with refusal. This indicates potential political interference in national security matters, likely due to economic interests rather than safeguarding national security.
Bradley Thomas
Lab
Asked the Security Minister about threats from the Chinese state regarding this trial and whether there were any discussions or correspondence that could indicate such threats.
Dan Jarvis
Lab
Rotherham
Defended the Government's approach to handling engagement with China and the trial, stating that it was a routine meeting involving multiple Departments. He emphasised the seriousness of sanctions against UK Members by China.
Geoffrey Cox
Con
Torridge and Tavistock
Asked about the presence of the Attorney General’s Office at the meeting, questioning its relevance to foreign policy. Criticised the Government's handling of the case involving legal professional privilege.
Requested a point of order regarding the Minister giving way.
Government Response
Thomas-Symonds defended the Government's actions, emphasising that decisions were made in accordance with existing policy. He outlined the procedural steps taken by the previous government, including the drafting of statements by the deputy National Security Adviser which were reviewed by relevant officials and submitted to counter-terrorism police for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911. The Minister detailed the threats posed by China and explained that there was no inappropriate conduct during a meeting with Chinese officials. He defended the Government's handling of classified documents, stating they would not release sensitive material to avoid compromising national security interests. The Government is disappointed with the case's collapse. It emphasises that no Ministers or special advisers interfered in providing evidence, and that officials' meetings do not involve interference in legal proceedings. The DNSA's statements were consistent with current government policy but did not reflect direct involvement from the National Security Adviser. Defended the Government’s actions by stating that it was standard practice for multiple Departments to be involved in such meetings. He emphasised national security concerns and opposition to releasing information subject to legal professional privilege.
Shadow Response
None
Shadow Response
The shadow Home Secretary accused the Government of deliberately submitting inadequate evidence leading to spies getting off scot-free. He must explain who guided Matt Collins in preparing this evidence.
▸
Assessment & feedback
Summary accuracy
About House of Commons Debates
House of Commons debates take place in the main chamber of the House of Commons. These debates cover a wide range of topics including government policy, legislation, and current affairs. MPs from all parties can participate, question ministers, and hold the government accountable for its decisions.