Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Security Threat from China

Monday 15 April 2024 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 1 Partly answered 3 Not answered 0

Key points

  • The hostile activity from Chinese authorities and state-affiliated groups poses a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the British people.
  • The government is addressing threats from around the world, including those emerging from Beijing.
  • Work is ongoing to remove "digital asbestos" from secure sites, but challenges remain in other areas.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Tim Loughton Con
Foreign Affairs
Context

No specific background event or statistic is mentioned; it focuses on the general security concern.

Question

What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the level of the security threat from China?

Answer from Thomas Tugendhat

Let me be clear that the hostile activity we have seen from Chinese authorities and state-affiliated groups poses a serious threat to the security and wellbeing of the British people. The Deputy Prime Minister spoke about the pattern of malign activity, including targeting parliamentarians and malicious cyber-campaigns by Chinese state-affiliated actors.

Answered
Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q2 Tim Loughton Con
Democracy & Elections Foreign Affairs
Context

The questioner mentions the hacking of MPs' email accounts in March, highlighting a two-year delay in FBI informing the government about security breaches.

Question

Why has it taken two years for us to be told about a serious security breach? Will he now, with his colleagues in Cabinet, make sure that China is absolutely treated and labelled as a threat?

Answer from Thomas Tugendhat

We face threats from around the world, many of them emerging out of Beijing today. The reality is that we are not shying away from answering this. However, on FIRS, it is being looked at.

Partly answered

Not addressed: specific commitment to label China as an absolute threat and timeline for actions regarding FIRS

How: Being Looked At

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q3 Chris Bryant Lab Rhondda and Ogmore
Democracy & Elections Foreign Affairs
Context

The questioner criticises the government for not providing up-to-date information on Chinese state activities affecting parliament.

Question

Why are we only ever told about things that happened years ago? If we are to take these issues seriously, we surely have to have an up-to-date and present account of the activities of the Chinese state.

Answer from Thomas Tugendhat

When there is a reason to act quickly, we do. As was the case with Christine Lee, where payment of money to a certain Member of this House was involved, exposing it fast was necessary.

Partly answered

Not addressed: providing up-to-date information on recent Chinese state activities affecting parliament

How: Reason To Act Quickly

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Q4 Dan Jarvis Lab Barnsley North
Policing & Resources Science & Technology
Context

The Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner highlighted the use of Chinese-made equipment as a vulnerability for policing and security services.

Question

Can the Minister say whether the digital asbestos of Chinese-made technology is still used in our policing and security infrastructure?

Answer from Thomas Tugendhat

Fraser Sampson's work was important to ensure 'digital asbestos' is got out of our institutions. It has been removed from the most secure sites, but there are other areas where there is work to do with potential for electric vehicles to be turned into mobile intelligence-gathering platforms.

Partly answered

Not addressed: clear commitment to remove all Chinese-made technology

How: Work Ongoing, Potential For Future Issues

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)