PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement - 20 October 2025 (Commons/Commons Chamber)

Before we come on to the urgent question on the Chinese spy case, I would like to reiterate my remarks from last week. I remain disappointed by what has happened in this case. I am, alongside the Lord Speaker, continuing to seek advice from officials and specialist legal advice on what further steps might be taken to pursue this issue in other ways. While it would be not appropriate to talk in detail about security matters on the Floor of the House, I am also speaking to officials about access arrangements.

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary to make a statement about Home Office involvement in the alleged China spying case.

I thank the shadow Home Secretary for the question, and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to it today.

As I have repeatedly set out to the House, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the wider Government are extremely disappointed that this case will not be heard in court. I have heard the strength of feeling right across the House and I share Members’ concern about the threats we face from espionage. The witness statements released last Wednesday vindicate what the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have stated repeatedly: the deputy National Security Adviser faithfully, and with full integrity, set out the various threats posed by the Chinese state to the UK, and he did so in order to try to support a successful prosecution.

This urgent question asks about the involvement of the Home Office. Following the charging decision made in early 2024, under the previous Government, the Crown Prosecution Service advised the witness that he could not share the evidence with others in government. The Home Office’s involvement following the charging decision that was taken under the previous Government was therefore heavily restricted to avoid breaching the CPS’s requirements.

Listen to that.

Order. I do not need any help from the Government Front Bench. This is a very important statement that really does affect Members of this House.

As I have repeatedly made clear in this House, Ministers and special advisers were not involved in any aspect of the production of the evidence, and I stand by that statement today. The Prime Minister has also made clear that he was informed of the CPS’s decision only a matter of days before the case collapsed. There is nothing that the Prime Minister or any other Minister could have done at that point that would have changed the law and the policy under the previous Government between 2021 and 2023. Those who have read the DNSA’s statements will know that they clearly articulated the threats posed by China based on the previous Government’s policy at the time, detailing the damage caused by the alleged offences. Ultimately, it was an entirely independent decision by the CPS to discontinue the case, and the CPS has confirmed that it came under no outside pressure to do so.

Like Members from all parts of the House, I remain very frustrated that this case will not be heard in court. We wanted to see the trial go ahead. I have made it clear on many occasions that the decision not to proceed was an independent decision by the Crown Prosecution Service, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has given assurances that there was no Government interference in that decision.

I note that the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy will be undertaking an inquiry on the case and intends to hold public evidence sessions. The Intelligence and Security Committee has also indicated that it will investigate. We welcome the launch of the inquiry and the investigations, with which the Government will, of course, fully co-operate. I have already set out the range of activity that this Government are taking to combat the Chinese espionage threat, and I hope that that is well understood. Let me also provide the House with the reassurance that the Government will take all necessary action to keep the UK safe and secure.

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told this House that no Minister or special adviser was involved in the handling of the China spy case, yet The Sunday Times has since reported that the Home Secretary had

“heard that the case might collapse and had made representations to ensure the evidence put forward was as ‘strong as possible’.”

So I ask the Minister: when did the Home Secretary become aware that the case might collapse, and what representations did she or her proxies make about the evidence and to whom? Why has the House been told—including just now—that Ministers and advisers were not involved in any way when The Sunday Times reports that they were?

The Sunday Times also reported on a key meeting that took place on 1 September—a meeting that the Government originally denied took place. Is it true that Jonathan Powell chaired that meeting? Did that meeting discuss the CPS view that the evidence provided to that point was inadequate, and the possibility of providing further evidence in the case? Will the Minister agree to publish the minutes of all meetings in which this case was discussed and the correspondence relating to it?

The Sunday Times reported that following the meeting, the Attorney General’s Office was asked to speak to the CPS. Did anyone from the AGO speak directly or indirectly to the CPS after that meeting? Can the Minister confirm that Dan Chugg from the Foreign Office was at the 1 September meeting, and that it was the same Dan Chugg who approached the Lord Speaker with a proposed deal in which the Chinese ambassador would be allowed back into Parliament? The Sunday Times also reported that the DNSA is understood to have acknowledged privately that the decision not to say that China is an ongoing threat was political in nature. Is that true?

Finally, the current Government’s position has been that all the evidence provided related to the previous Government’s policy, but we now know that that is categorically not true. In paragraph 8 of Matt Collins’s third statement, from August this year, which he copied and pasted from the Labour manifesto, he stressed the importance the current Government attach to a “positive relationship” with China, weakening the evidence compared with 2023 and bringing in current Government policy, contrary to what we have been told in recent weeks. Why have the Government been providing this House with inaccurate information, and why did Ministers know what the CPS wanted but refuse to give it to the CPS?

With great respect, a lot of what has just been said does not actually relate to the urgent question that was initially asked by the shadow Home Secretary. I have to say, the Opposition’s position is confusing. They initially criticised the Government for intervening. Then—[Interruption.] I will answer the question. I am answering it. I think it is important that on these matters of national security, we try to debate things in a reasonable and sensible way. That is the approach that this Government will seek to take. If Members opposite—[Interruption.]

Order. I think we have had enough.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Opposition’s position is confusing. They initially criticised the Government for intervening. Then, when it became absolutely clear that we had not done that, they criticised us for not intervening. They asked for greater transparency, then when we provided it they accused the Government—wrongly—of hanging people out to dry. Given that this urgent question relates to the activities of the Home Office, I am not at all clear why the shadow Home Secretary thinks it is appropriate—given accusations that have been made previously about hanging officials out to dry—to name an official in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. How does that relate to the urgent question that was asked? [Interruption.]

Order. I think I need to help a little bit. It is in order to mention another Department. You cannot ringfence this and not refer to other people. It might not be comfortable, but the fact is that a question has been asked that is within order, and that is what matters.

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker. I am simply pointing out to the shadow Home Secretary that Conservative Members have previously criticised Ministers and the Government for, to use their words, hanging officials out to dry, and now the shadow Home Secretary has just named twice an official from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. [Interruption.]

Order. I have said to the Government Front Bench that I do not need any chipping in. I certainly do not need it from all along the Opposition Front Bench.

I do wonder whether at any point the shadow Home Secretary and certain Conservative Members—not all, but certain Members—have considered the need to have some humility and acknowledge their part in this. These activities took place on their watch, when they were in government, and under the legislation of the time.

Don’t just read that out. Answer the question.

Order. Mr Philp, you have had the benefit of an urgent question. I have had the benefit—some might say—of listening to you, so I want you to have the benefit of listening to the Minister.

The shadow Home Secretary would be well advised to listen to the points being made. I am seeking to respond to the questions that he and other right hon. and hon. Members have raised. I am trying to do that in good faith, and I would be grateful for the opportunity to do so.

I remind the shadow Home Secretary that we are here today only because the previous Conservative Government did not move quickly enough to fix the glaring holes that existed in our national security laws. The charges in this case, as I hope is well known, were brought under the Official Secrets Act 1911. This antiquated legislation was drawn up before the first world war, and the Conservatives began reviewing it in 2015 because it was widely known that it was not fit for purpose. But it took eight years for them to introduce the National Security Act 2023. Fortunately, the law has now been updated, with cross-party support, but not in time to protect our Parliament from Chinese espionage. If the Conservatives had acted more quickly and the National Security Act had been in place when these alleged offences happened, the prosecution would likely have proceeded. [Interruption.]

Order. Look, I am trying really hard. People who hold positions should know better.

Let me make this point crystal clear: no member of this Government, nor any special adviser, was in any way involved in the evidence submitted to the CPS or the decision by the DPP not to proceed with the case.

There was an important omission from the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks. As hon. Members will know, the first substantive witness statement was provided under the previous Government, when the right hon. Member was a Home Office Minister, yet neither he nor the Leader of the Opposition have taken the opportunity to say what involvement Conservative Ministers and Conservative special advisers had in the main tranche of the evidence.

The Prime Minister has confirmed that no Labour Ministers or special advisers were involved with the provision of evidence for the case. Last Wednesday during Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition to confirm whether that was also the case under the previous Government. I was in the House last Wednesday, and I think that I heard the Leader of the Opposition confirming from a sedentary position that she did know the answer to that question, but the Conservative party has refused to confirm if any Conservative Ministers or special advisers were involved in the provision of evidence under the previous Government. I wonder if any of the former Ministers in the Chamber can provide the answer.

As Ministers have repeatedly said from the Dispatch Box, the Government are extremely disappointed that the case did not proceed to trial. I gently say to Opposition Front-Bench Members that they need to stop throwing mud and start coming to terms with what happened on their watch.

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and other relevant Select Committee Chairs, including me, have met the Director of Public Prosecutions and sent him a detailed series of follow-up questions. The Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), has convened an inquiry and is likely to call a number of relevant witnesses, including Government Ministers. The Minister mentioned that the ISC will be looking at this matter. Can he assure the House that the Government will co-operate fully with those inquiries and responses, and that that is the best way to take these matters forward in a thorough and timely fashion?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and for the role he has played in these proceedings. Yes, I give him the absolute assurance he seeks. There is an important role for the House to play in looking carefully at precisely what has gone on. That is why, on behalf of the Government, I very much welcome the work that will now be done by the JCNSS and the ISC. Both those important Committees have an important role, and I am sure that hon. Members across the House will want to make other contributions as part of that process.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

What a mess. We have three questions for the Minister. First, what conversations has he had with all relevant parliamentary authorities—that might include the Speaker’s Office—about plans to tighten vetting or ongoing monitoring of researchers and staff to ensure this does not happen again?

Secondly, in the witness statements released by this Government, there is a reference to the use by the previous Government of “back channels” to attempt to dissuade the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) and the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) from raising concerns about Confucius institutes. What is the Minister’s understanding, based on the evidence, statements and any other information available, of the meaning of “back channels” in that context? Does it refer to the previous Government’s Whips Office, Government officials or somebody else?

Thirdly, given that the Prime Minister’s spokesperson still refuses today to say that China is a threat to Britain’s national security, would the Minister be comfortable with Labour MPs accepting meeting requests from representatives of the Chinese Communist party or any nations allied to China?

I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Member for the points he has raised. Let me take them in turn. I lead on behalf of the Government on vetting, and a lot of work has taken place in government since we came into office to ensure that the systems and processes that underpin our vetting are fit for purpose. The hon. Gentleman is right to ask about it. Although it might seem like a reasonably niche point, it is an important one because our national security is underpinned by our ability to vet those who have access to privileged information. He, for reasons that I completely understand, made reference to a link between the work that we are doing in government and the importance of ensuring that the appropriate vetting procedures are in place for this House. I know he will understand that, fundamentally, that will be a matter for the Speaker and for this House, but I can give him an absolute assurance that we will work closely with Mr Speaker, the Deputy Speakers and all those in this place to ensure that we look carefully at what happened and satisfy ourselves that the vetting arrangements are absolutely fit for purpose.

The hon. Gentleman’s second point related specifically to two Members of this House. I do not believe that either of those two Members are in their place today. I am keen to meet them and work closely with them, and to ensure that the Government are providing the support that they may want or require. I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman and to those Members about the point that he has made.

With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s final point, which was specifically about China, I hope he will acknowledge that the Government have been crystal clear about our position with regard to China—[Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members may chuckle, but we have had this debate previously. If there are Members who think that the nature of our relationship with China can be defined by a single word, then I do not believe that they are serious about the nature of the relationship. All Members in this House have an absolute responsibility to decide for themselves what meetings they take. With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not believe that it is for Ministers to opine from the Dispatch Box about whether individual Members should take meetings or not.

Personally, I am very clear that China remains an active, persistent and everyday threat to our country and has done so for many years. In the light of this, what steps is the Minister taking on behalf of the Government to ensure that parliamentarians across this House are much better protected in the years to come from the kind of foreign interference that we saw—regularly, unfortunately—on the last Government’s watch?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not only for his question but for his previous service and for the work of his constituents with regard to underpinning our national security. He makes an important point. He will know—as will you, Madam Deputy Speaker—that the National Protective Security Authority recently published guidance designed specifically to provide hon. Members with advice and guidance to ensure that they are best able to deal with the risks and threats that all of us in this House face.

On the second part of my hon. Friend’s question, that is something that the Government take incredibly seriously. We inherited the defending democracy taskforce from the previous Government. That was a good institution, and I have on many occasions paid tribute to all those Conservatives Members who were involved in setting it up. The Prime Minister has renewed the mandate of the defending democracy taskforce. It is the fulcrum point across Government that brings the different Departments and law enforcement together, alongside Members of this House, to ensure that we are doing everything that we can to address and tackle the threats that we face. I have always believed and maintained that that should be a shared endeavour right across this House, and my door will always be open to Members of the House who would like to discuss it.

I rather thought that, in a civilised country, whether or not someone was prosecuted depended on the evidence. Was it therefore wise for the witness statement to replicate—word for word—the words of the Labour party manifesto, and has it ever happened before?

I always appreciate the Leader of the House’s questions—[Hon. Members: “Father of the House!”] Forgive me. I always appreciate the Father of the House’s questions because he brings a long-standing wisdom and perspective to these matters. I hope he will understand that, in line with the point that he made about civility, it is not for Ministers to critique the decision that was made by the CPS. The Government have made it clear to the House on many occasions that this was an independent decision that was taken by the CPS, and the DPP has been clear about the fact that no special adviser and no Minister interfered in that process.

Mr Speaker, I share your frustration at the collapse of the case. Two questions remain top of mind for Members of the House and for people in my constituency. First, what is the Minister’s assessment of the risk of spying on MPs in this House? Secondly, what is his assessment of the ongoing transnational repression of British national overseas passport holders in Milton Keynes and elsewhere across the country? Does it not show a pattern of Chinese Government activity right across the UK, which is a risk to us?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise her concerns in the way that she does. I hope that she understands, as the House does, that this Government have been absolutely clear that no interference in our democratic process is remotely acceptable and that there are no circumstances under which we will tolerate countries, wherever they may be, seeking to cause harm to anybody who is resident in the United Kingdom. She specifically mentioned transnational repression. That is something that the Government take incredibly seriously, and we have done a lot of work on it through the defending democracy taskforce. Let me say again to her and to the House that it is completely unacceptable that China or any other country should seek to harm anybody who lives here in the United Kingdom.

I first of all thank the Minister for what he said about co-operation with the work of the Intelligence and Security Committee on this matter. I agree with him, as I often do, that the Government are entitled to clarity about what the question they are being asked is. The question for me is not whether the Government sought to intervene to persuade the DPP to take a different view. I do not think the Government did that. Neither do I think the Government went back and sought to change evidence it had already submitted. The question is, when the CPS asked for additional evidence, as it undoubtedly did, whether the Government chose to supply that evidence or not. That is not about interference; it is about responding to a request made to Government by the CPS. Given that we now know that the request was to make it clear in terms that, during the relevant period, China was a current national security threat to the UK, who in the Home Office or elsewhere decided that that could not be submitted in a further statement of evidence in very clear terms?

I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman; the remarks I made earlier about the ISC, which he sits on, are genuinely meant. I think that the ISC has an important role to play in looking at precisely what has happened here, and I give him an absolute commitment that we want to work very closely with his Committee on this specific issue and on others.

Let me try to give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a bit of detail, because he asked his question in an entirely reasonable way. I reiterate the point, which I hope is understood by him and his Committee, that the final evidence went in August this year, and there was nothing that any Minister could have done post that. I hope he is crystal clear, as I am, that there was no political interference.

Let me just say something about the DNSA: he is an outstanding public servant who does a very important job and does it very well, and I think it is a terrible shame that there has been commentary about him as an individual. He has acted with integrity throughout this process, and we as a Parliament owe him a debt of gratitude for the service that he has offered. Let me say something about the evidence that he gave: in each of the three statements, the DNSA makes it crystal clear that China poses wide-ranging threats to the UK. In his third statement, he says:

“the Chinese intelligence services are highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK.”

He was very clear about that. He adds:

“China’s espionage operations threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions.”

He has been very clear in the evidence statements that he provided. I do not think that there is much more that I can add to that, other than to reiterate that it was then ultimately a decision for the DPP.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he raises an important point. We have a defending democracy taskforce precisely to ensure that our response is rooted across government—not only here but in the regions and nations. We work very closely with local government and are acutely conscious of the fact that important elections will be taking place around the country next May. We are working at pace to ensure that those elections can take place in an environment that we would all want to see. I can absolutely give him an assurance that we work closely with our partners not only in local government but in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Notwithstanding the Home Secretary’s reassurances about spads or Ministers not being involved in the advice, does the Minister accept that this matter has reinforced the growing concern in this country about a lack of clarity on our position towards China, the fear of a threat to our energy security from the involvement of Chinese companies, and the super-embassy in London? My constituents are becoming increasingly concerned about the activities of the consulate in my constituency. Can the Minister reassure us that this Government will make their position towards China absolutely clear in the near future?

I am grateful to the hon. Member because she asks an entirely reasonable and constructive question. She acknowledges, I am sure, that the previous Foreign Secretary made a statement to the House about the China audit, and I hope she will acknowledge that the nature of the relationship is complex. I am not aware that anyone in this place thinks that we should not have some form of economic co-operation with China. It is in our country’s national interest to be clear-eyed about the nature of the relationship. Where we are able to co-operate economically where it is in our national interest to do so, we should proceed, but we should proceed, as I say, with a clear set of principles that underpin that. Fundamentally, our national security comes first. This Government will of course look for opportunities to co-operate economically with China, but fundamentally, we will always do what we can to keep our country safe.

I am sorry that the Minister finds himself in a position which was not of his own making. I am also sorry that only four members of his parliamentary party out of over 400 are standing up to contribute to the debate. Does he accept that one reason for the cloud of suspicion of political interference around this matter is the decision to appoint a highly political special adviser as National Security Adviser for the first time? That has put the deputy National Security Adviser in the firing line. Can the Minister at least confirm that if and when, as I am sure it will, the Intelligence and Security Committee asks the National Security Adviser to come and give evidence in its inquiry that he will do so?

The right hon. Gentleman refers to what he described as a “highly political” appointment. With great respect to him, and he knows that I hold him in the highest regard, I disagree with his characterisation of that appointment. The National Security Adviser is someone who has huge experience of government, is extremely well connected—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may think it is not a good thing that we have somebody occupying a very important role in government who is known around the world; the Government contend that it is a good thing. We only need to look at the comments made by President Trump’s foreign affairs adviser just the other day, commending the important work that the National Security Adviser has done. He works incredibly hard to secure the security of our nation. Rather than talking him down, we should get behind him and ensure that he is supported to do the important job that he has been given.

As has been mentioned, the spokesman for the Prime Minister, when asked whether China was a threat, referred to the DNSA’s statement, which said that China conducts “large scale espionage operations” that

“threaten the UK’s economic prosperity and resilience, and the integrity of our democratic institutions”.

By anyone’s definition, that would mean that China is a threat. I am a sanctioned Member of this Parliament. That is what this is all about: I have been spied upon, and I have had a wolf warrior from China follow me around the world and impersonate me very threateningly. Does the Minister think that I ought to refer to China as a threat?

It is for the right hon. Gentleman to choose his own words. He is a very experienced Member of this House. The activities that he describes are completely unacceptable. That is why this Government have been clear on numerous occasions that we want to work across the House to ensure that all right hon. and hon. Members have the protections they need to speak their views in this place without fear or favour. If he wants to discuss those matters further, I would be very happy to do so. I hope that we can find a way of discussing these incredibly serious issues in a more grown-up way, as has been the case previously.

After the Cabinet Office meeting of 1 September, did the Prime Minister receive a note on this case in his ministerial red box, and, if so, did he approve it? Additionally, did the UK Government give Chinese officials private assurances at any point and in any form that the application for the Chinese embassy in London would be approved?

Hon. Members will know that there is a very long-standing custom whereby Ministers do not comment on the contents of the Prime Minister’s box, but under these particular circumstances I am very happy to confirm that there was no note to the Prime Minister.

May I first invite the Minister to clarify what he said in response to my question last week? I pointed out that, in his letter to the Select Committee Chairs, the Director of Public Prosecutions was clear that he had asked for a statement that China was a national security threat, and it was not forthcoming. The Minister shook his head and appeared to dispute that. Will he now acknowledge that that statement was not forthcoming?

Furthermore, when the DPP informally approached the Government after the third statement of evidence had been supplied to him to complain that the words “national security threat” were still not contained in that document, the Government consciously chose not to give any further response. Is that correct? Why, at that point, given all the things that the DNSA had already said, did nobody in the Government think that they could use the three words “national security threat”?

This is the third time that I have appeared at the Dispatch Box to answer questions from Members, including from the hon. Gentleman, so I hope that he will forgive me if I cannot remember the specific detail of the question that he put to me when we were last here. I have sought to provide clarity. In response to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) a moment ago, I gave a detailed account of the three statements from the deputy National Security Adviser.

We have been clear—as was the deputy National Security Adviser in the statements that we provided. The fact that China poses a range of threats to the UK is not in doubt. As the Government have said before, the question in this case was whether the overall legal threshold for a realistic prospect of conviction had been met in the totality of the evidence available to the CPS. Although I understand why Members will focus on the three individual statements from the deputy National Security Adviser, there was clearly other evidence available for the CPS to consider as part of this process. I could not have said more times or been more clear that the decision lies with the DPP.

Last Thursday, the Minister at the Dispatch Box agreed with me that China is indeed a national security threat, and the Government have consistently said that they are “disappointed”. As the Minister knows, I like to be helpful and constructive at all times, so I asked a KC to advise as to whether a private criminal prosecution could be brought under the Official Secrets Act. The advice I have is that the answer is yes, as long as it has the consent of the Attorney General, and as long as the Government are helpful and constructive by providing evidence and witness statements. Will the Minister confirm whether the Attorney General will give such consent and provide appropriate evidence?

For the sake of clarity, “extremely disappointed” is the phraseology that we have used. We seem to have moved on from the original question about the Home Office, and the hon. Member will understand that I am not responsible for the actions of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General. Colleagues in the other place and in government will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I would be happy to discuss it with him further.

I think the reason we are gathered here today—although I cannot see into your mind, Mr Speaker—is because of the story in The Sunday Times. That is why the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), asked this: when did the Home Secretary hear that the case might collapse? That was question No.1. Are we not owed an answer to that question? Did the Home Secretary, as The Sunday Times said, then make representations as to the evidence being as “strong as possible”? Did she or didn’t she?

We are here because of that piece, Mr Speaker; I assume, although I cannot know your mind, that that is why you agreed to this urgent question. This Minister refuses, disgracefully, at that Dispatch Box to answer the question about the role of the Home Office in this spy scandal. Will the Minister now answer, not with his obfuscation and not with his flannel? Will he answer the question directly?

We are here because of activities that happened under the previous Government. That is why we are here—I repeat the point I made earlier about Conservative Members showing a bit of humility—and I gave a response to the shadow Home Secretary.

A senior Chinese Government official invited Britain to

“fulfil its obligations and honour its commitments”

over the so-called super-embassy, but can the Minister shed light on what those obligations and commitments were? If he is going to say that no such commitments or obligations were offered, can we file that under another threat to this country by the Chinese?

We do not recognise those claims. Of course, given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, it would have been entirely improper for anybody to have made any comment that basically cut across the legal process that is being led by the Secretary of State for the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

I appreciate the Minister’s clarity, which he keeps talking about. On that basis, let me say this. The case collapsed. This is about leadership. He has seen all the evidence in public, and all the evidence in private. Was China spying on two Members of Parliament in this case—yes or no?

I am happy to debate issues of leadership with anyone in this House, not least because I have spent all my professional life trying to keep the country safe. I will continue to serve in government to make sure that we do everything we can to stand against the threats we face. I had hoped, entering into government, that that process would be consensual, and that we could work across the House to keep the country safe. That has been the approach of this Government, and I am sad that Conservative Members do not want to proceed on that basis.

Does the Minister believe that the collapse of this case has weakened the UK’s position on the international stage, and that we will see more foreign state actors trying to carry out operations of espionage against Members of Parliament?

That is precisely why we work closely with our Five Eyes allies, and why the United Kingdom hosted the five country ministerial in London just a couple of weeks ago. This needs to be a shared endeavour with our allies, our partners and our neighbours. We have a huge amount in common with our international allies, particularly the Five Eyes alliance, and this Government will continue to work closely with them. We will ensure that if any country—whether China or whoever it might be—seeks to interfere in our democratic processes or to harm those who live in our countries, we work collectively across those alliances to stand against those threats.

I would like to ask the Minister about another case of foreign interference in our politics. Nathan Gill, the former leader of Reform UK in Wales and a constituent of mine, pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from Russia. He was stopped by the police in September 2021, but only charged in February this year. Reports now suggest that the Kremlin operation targeted not only him but at least two other Members of the European Parliament and a Member of the House of Lords. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that Russian networks cannot continue to influence UK politics?

The hon. Lady raises an important case that will be a matter of concern to Members from right across the House. I can assure her that we take these matters incredibly seriously, specifically with regard to her point about Russia. I can also give her the assurances that she seeks that we work incredibly hard, alongside our allies, to make sure we are doing everything we can to combat the threat that we all know we face from Russia.

I think most people would consider things that are threatening indeed to be threats, so we can only assume that the Minister has been instructed that he cannot make such a statement from the Dispatch Box. Will he help us to understand better the Government’s position on their relationship with China. Is China an ally? Is it a friend? Will he explain that?

I would be very happy to do so. I repeat the point that I made a moment ago: no one who wants to be considered as serious thinks that the nature of our relationship with China can be defined by a single word—I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that. As I said a week ago, this Government assess that China poses a series of threats to UK national security, from cyber-attacks, foreign interference and espionage targeting our democratic institutions to the transnational repression of Hongkongers. However, we are also alive to the fact that China presents the UK with opportunities as the world’s second largest economy and the UK’s third largest trading partner. We have to be clear-eyed about both the challenges and the opportunities.

I have now asked the Government why China is not included in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme three times. On 9 June, I was told

“that particular report is coming forward in due course.”—[Official Report, 9 June 2025; Vol. 768, c. 613.]

On 15 September, I was told

“no doubt we will have more to say about it in due course.”—[Official Report, 15 September 2025; Vol. 772, c. 1194.]

And on 13 October, I was told

“any decisions about the enhanced tier will be brought forward in the normal way.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 85.]

The Government are now panicked about the Chinese embassy decision, they are desperately trying to deflect from attention on the Chagos deal that the National Security Adviser negotiated on, and they appear to be decriminalising spying for China. What is the Government’s rationale for not including China within the enhanced tier? Given the threat, when will it be added?

I am old enough to remember when Conservative Members said that we would not introduce the foreign influence registration scheme by 1 July. We worked at pace to introduce the scheme on 1 July. The hon. Gentleman knows the answer: we are looking carefully at whether other countries should be added to the enhanced tier, but we will take that decision in due course and bring it forward in the normal way.

The Minister is striving incredibly hard to answer these questions; some would say—well, with respect, we will leave it at that.

The news of suspecting spying in Parliament is worrying —there is no that this poses a huge threat to this country and to us as MPs. Mr Speaker, we owe you a debt of gratitude for the stand that you are taking on behalf of MPs to ensure that we are protected. We thank you for that. It is equally worrying that cases such as this are under no scrutiny by the CPS and no accountability is taken. What assurances can the Minister give our constituents that the Government will put pressure on the CPS to prosecute this case? Will he please understand the level of disappointment and betrayal felt by MPs because of the lack of action on the case?

It is always good to hear from the hon. Member, and I agree with the sentiment that he has expressed. I hope there is a unity of view across this House that collectively we can be incredibly concerned about what has happened. I pay tribute to the work that you have done, Mr Speaker, through the Speaker’s Commission; the Government will want to work very closely with you and look carefully at the findings of your commission.

We need to work across this House to ensure that all the protections are in place so that, as I have said previously, Members can have their say in this place without fear or favour. That is precisely why additional guidance was published just a week or so ago and why, just before the House went into recess back in July, I wrote to every single Member of this House spelling out what support and protections are in place. We take very seriously our responsibilities to safeguarding our democracy, and we want to work very closely with Mr Speaker on that process.

The Minister has been asked why further steps were not taken to provide the evidence requested in this case, knowing that the case was on the verge of collapse. He may feel that he has provided clarity, but I am afraid that he absolutely has not. Will he ask the Attorney General to come to this House and make a statement about what the CPS wanted and why that was not provided by the Government?

With great respect, it was the decision of the Opposition to table the urgent question in the way that they did; they could have chosen to table it in the way that the hon. Member describes. The Attorney General and colleagues right across Government looked very carefully at the circumstances of this particular case. I have spelled out in some detail the information that the Government are able to put into the public domain about the three witness statements published by the Prime Minister last week. The final piece of evidence was sent by the deputy National Security Adviser in August; there is nothing that any Minister or special adviser could have done thereafter.

It seems to me that the key question, which has not been answered despite three sessions on this subject, is the following. We know that in April 2024 the evidential test for prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911 was met. We also know that come September ’25, the CPS was saying that it was not met. The key question is: what changed? Part of the answer seemed to come from the CPS, when it said that it asked for Government information, which it did not get to a satisfactory level. Does that not suggest that there was a failure on the part of Government that contributed to the collapse of this prosecution? If the Government simply said, “On the one hand, China is a threat; on the other hand, it is an opportunity,” how could we ever put beyond all reasonable doubt in a criminal case the fact that it was a threat? Was that equivocation not the source of the problem?

As I have said previously, in each of the three statements the DNSA makes it crystal clear that China poses wide-ranging threats to the UK. In his third statement, in August ’24, he says that the Chinese intelligence services are “highly capable” and conduct

“large-scale espionage operations against the UK to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK”.

I do not think that there could have been any greater clarity.

The Minister has repeatedly said that he is extremely disappointed that this case did not proceed to trial. That is thin gruel if all the steps necessary to ensure that it got to trial were not taken. With that in mind, can he set out whether the report in The Sunday Times over the weekend that the Prime Minister and other Ministers were aware of the imminent collapse on 12 September is correct? If that is correct, can he set out what steps the Home Secretary took to ensure that the CPS had the evidence it needed?

I hope the hon. Gentleman understands that the point about the Government being extremely disappointed is absolutely genuine. I could not have been clearer, from day one, that the Government are extremely disappointed that we will not be proceeding with this trial. However, it is not for Ministers to opine on a decision taken independently of Government. Final evidence went in in August, and I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that there is nothing the Prime Minister or any Minister could have done thereafter.

The Minister has been asked by numerous people, not least by the shadow Home Secretary and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), when the Home Secretary knew that this case was going to collapse. We have not been given an answer. The Minister has also been asked by numerous people if the Home Secretary made representations; again, we have not been given an answer. These should be relatively straightforward questions with straightforward answers. Will the Minister answer those questions or give a reason as to why he cannot do so?

I have done my very best to provide the clarity that hon. Members are asking for. There is, of course, still an unanswered question about the position of the previous Government. The Prime Minister put that point to the Leader of the Opposition last week, and there are a number of former Government Ministers in the Chamber—perhaps they could tell us the answer.

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?

I have given the House the response—[Interruption.]

Order. Could we calm down? Marvellous. I call Robin Swann.

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?

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.

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The points of order will come after the urgent questions and the statement. Can it wait?