China Spying Case

Debate between Alex Burghart and Luke Evans

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

Is it therefore not incredible either way that the deputy NSA did not discuss the biggest spy case this century with his boss, the National Security Adviser, and was left to his own devices to provide the evidence?

[Alex Burghart]

I think we all find it difficult to believe that the deputy National Security Adviser was left entirely to his own devices.

A fourth example is that on 20 October, the Minister for Security, who is in his place, told the House:

“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.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 640.]

We now know that there were meetings between the CPS and the Government on 3 and 9 September to attempt to rescue the case. Why did the Security Minister tell the House something that was not correct?