China Spying Case

Debate between Alex Burghart and James Wild

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has been very clear and consistent on that point.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Alex Burghart]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[James Wild]

The first senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little, yesterday said that he took the extraordinary step of having a direct discussion with the deputy National Security Adviser because he could not understand why what he said was a relatively straightforward piece of evidence—namely, that China was an active and ongoing threat—had not been provided. Why did the Government not provide that commitment?

[Alex Burghart]

That is the million-dollar question. Why were the Government not prepared to say something that was manifestly evidentially true to all and sundry?

The third example is that on 15 October, the Prime Minister said that the deputy National Security Adviser acted entirely independently, without consultation with Ministers or special advisers, and without political involvement. However, the CPS has now made it clear that there were multiple discussions about what the DNSA would and would not say, starting with one such discussion on 3 July 2025. Moreover, the DNSA’s first witness statement was sighted by

“the then National Security Adviser and the…Cabinet Office Permanent Secretary”,

and

“sent to the…Prime Minister through No.10 private office”,

including special advisers.