Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Cabinet Office

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Neil Shastri-Hurst Excerpts
Monday 20th October 2025

(1 day, 23 hours ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.

Neil Shastri-Hurst Portrait Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

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?

Dan Jarvis Portrait Dan Jarvis
- View Speech - Hansard - - - Excerpts

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.