No worries! Call our UK expert GCSEs, 11plus and SATs qualified teachers.
➢ 100% proven grades 8/9 in GCSEs Maths and Science in 2025.
➢ 99 % proven success rates for 11 plus in Redbridge, Bexley, Kent and private schools in past 7 years.
➢ Outstanding proven results in KS2 SATS over the last 12 years.
➢ From year 1 to GCSEs. 12 years of success. Expert in AQA, Edexcel, OCR GCSEs exams and 11 plus mock preparation.
Speak directly to a DBS verified teacher, and discuss your child's tuition now . Shohel Ahmed, B.COM (Hons) in Accounting with Maths Mob: 07921881890, email: Shohel_1000@yahoo.com Najia Rahman Chowdhury QTS in Prim ary Mob: 07931510811.
Desk report: The witness statements published by the government last night are hefty, detailed and shed more light than ever before on what the two men were accused of. The disclosure followed a political row over the sudden collapse of the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who were accused of spying for China. It is worth at the outset stressing that Mr Cash and Mr Berry have consistently denied wrongdoing, the claims against them have never been tested in court and the government's witness statements proceed explicitly on the basis that the allegations levelled by counter-terror police are true.The publication of the evidence has raised a series of new questions for the government and Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to answer about the case, in addition to what might come next.Here's an examination of the key ones: Questions for prosecutors Firstly, the witness statements provoke more questions for the CPS,
The unanswered questions after release of China spy evidence
which carries out criminal prosecutions on behalf of the state and ultimately took the controversial decision to drop the case.In the first witness statement Matthew Collins, the government's deputy national security adviser, said that there are areas where the Chinese state poses "a threat to our people, prosperity and
security".In the second, he describes various ways in which the government believes it has been hacked by Chinese state actors. In the third, he talks of the "active espionage threat" posed by China to the UK, identifying specific activities they had carried out. Why was that not enough for the CPS to proceed with the
case? Did they really believe that on that basis they would be unable to convince a judge to proceed, and a jury of the severity of the threat posed by China? Is the CPS position that the government's witness statement did not quite use the right formulation of words to make its point about the challenge of China? If so,
Reeves plans 'targeted action' on bills in Budget
did they specifically ask the government to use a different form of words? Would it even be appropriate to seek to shape a witness's evidence in such a way?
These are questions that senior MPs asked the head of the CPS - Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson - about in a private meeting yesterday. It seems they were unimpressed by his answers.Questions for the governmentThere are questions for the government thrown up by the witness statements too. The first witness statement, which is by far the most extensive, was prepared and submitted when Rishi Sunak was prime minister. But the latter two were filed earlier this year after Labour came to office. Sir Keir Starmer's position over the past few weeks - and remember he used to run the CPS - has been that the only relevant point to this case is what the government's posture towards China was at the time of the alleged offences, which is to say when the Conservatives were in office.
Desk report: Chancellor Rachel Reeves has said she is planning "targeted action to deal with cost of living challenges" in next month's Budget. Speaking to the BBC, she said it was the job of both the government and the Bank of England to reduce inflation.
The UK's inflation rate is forecast to be the highest among the G7 group of developed nations this year and next.The BBC understands that the government could intervene to bring down energy bills, for example, by cutting the current 5% rate of VAT charged on energy.
Another option is to reduce some of the regulatory levies currently added to bills.
The government will receive the next draft from the official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), on Monday, which will reveal how much space there is for such a measure.
The expectation from most analysts is that Reeves will have to announce tax rises or spending cuts in order
to meet her self-imposed borrowing rules
Earlier on Thursday, the Institute for Fiscal Studies calculated there was a £22bn gap for the chancellor to fill, which is at the lower end of expectations.
"There's a shared job between the Bank of England
and the government to bear down further on some of the causes of inflation," Reeves told the BBC in Washington, at the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. While much of the focus has been on likely tax rises, the chancellor said the
latest information from the OBR had not changed her commitment to manifesto promises not to raise rates on income tax, VAT or National Insurance.
She blamed an "uncertain world" with rising geopolitical and trade concerns for the Budget tax moves, likely to
be focused on those "with the broadest shoulders". Referring to the concerns about the UK's economic relations with China she said: "Our national security always come first."Last week's announcement by China to tighten export controls on rare earths and other materials that are key for advanced tech manufacturing led US President Donald Trump to threaten an additional 100% tariff on imports from China, raising the prospect of an allout trade war between the two economic giants.
US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent called China's move "economic coercion" and "a global supply chain power grab".Asked about accepting the US offer to join it in its battle with China, Reeves said she was "very concerned" by China's actions and urged the Chinese government "not to put up barriers and restrict access".
Gaza: The Name of a Shared Human Pain
Saju Ahmed:
Gaza — today, this word has become more than a place.
It is an emotion, a wound, a cry shared by every humanitarian soul on Earth.
Across continents, millions carry Gaza inside their hearts like an ache that will not fade. People have gone to prison in protest — not because they were Palestinian, or Muslim, or even believers — but because they were human. They could not stay silent before injustice.
They are not bound by one religion, one race, or one nation.
Yet they are united by one truth: humanity cannot remain indifferent to cruelty.
The Children Who Refuse to Forget Our children are teaching us what conscience looks like. Ten- and twelve-year-
olds refusing to eat at McDonald’s, turning away from KFC, scolding their parents for buying certain brands.
“Do you want to eat the blood of Gaza’s
children?” they ask, their eyes wide with innocence and fury. They are too young to understand geopolitics — but old enough to know right from wrong. Their hearts recognize pain, even from thousands of miles away.
A Train, a Newspaper, and Tears That Wouldn’t Stop I’m writing this on a train. My hood pulled over my head, I’m trying to hide my tears from the strangers around me. If they see, they’ll offer sympathy — but how do you explain a grief this vast?
The tears began when I opened today’s Metro newspaper. The headline read: “Permanent Solution for Gaza.”
I froze. The words blurred. And suddenly, I couldn’t hold back anymore.
Two nights ago, after my evening prayers, I dreamt that someone told me, “Gaza has been freed.”
I didn’t believe it then. But reading that headline today, I wondered — could that dream have been a whisper of truth?
A Dream Shared by Billions
This dream — the dream of a free Gaza — belongs not just to me, but to billions around the world. They don’t care about religion, race, or nationality. They only care that no more children should be torn apart by bombs; that 2.3 million people should not have to
live trapped in what is essentially an open-air prison.
To deliberately starve people, to bomb them while they sleep — this cannot be the face of the 21st century.
If we allow this, how can we still call ourselves the best of creation?
Tears, Prayers, and the Weight of Conscience I’ve seen people who couldn’t eat because every bite reminded them of Gaza. Food sat untouched on plates as tears fell instead.
Perhaps the Merciful One has heard these silent cries — the tears of those who prayed in the stillness of night, weeping in prostration for children they’ve never met.
I think of those who sobbed seeing a child’s severed hand on television; of children who screamed in horror at the bloodsoaked hospital floors; of the elderly English woman who went to jail for standing in protest. Will their pain ever find peace?
Can Israel Be Trusted Again?
And now comes the question no one can avoid —
Can this deceitful Israel ever be trusted?
The answer is clear: trust must be earned.
Yesterday, on a train to Oxford, I saw a young woman sitting across
from me. She wasn’t Arab. She wasn’t Muslim. But on her backpack, she wore a small badge — the flag of Palestine.
Students like her, from Oxford, Harvard, and MIT — the brightest young minds of our time — now see Israel as a symbol of oppression. These are the future policymakers of the world.
Can Israel survive as a nation despised by the very generation that will shape tomorrow?
And the anger growing in our children’s hearts — it won’t fade easily. It may take three generations to heal. To escape this curse of hatred, Israel must regain the trust of the world’s humanitarians.
A Prayer for Humanity
May the children of Palestine, Israel, and every nation grow up in peace.
May the flag of humanity be raised high, by all people of conscience, across every border and belief.
May the world never again fall into the hands of the insane or the cruel.
And may we — the socalled best of creation — live up to that name, by being fully, deeply, and fiercely human. May Palestine remain free — forever.
EURO ALUMINIUM & UPVC
Discover the elegance of your home with Aluminum & Upvc Double glazing
We are here for the demonstration of our heat and sound reducing uPvc and Aluminium doors & windows.
WE ARE EXPART AT
Euro Aluminium Double Glazing
Upvc Double Glazing Door & Windows
Curtain Wall
Glass Door & Windows
Aluminium Door & Windows
Shower Door
Office Partition
Office Decoration
Home Decoration
The real problem with Britain's asylum hotels - and the woman with a bold plan to solve it
Desk Report:
Kate Wareing has dedicated her career to helping people who find themselves in a crisis because they have nowhere to live.
It's clearly personal. She worked as a housing officer at the age of 18, remembers sleeping on a sofa herself when a relationship broke up, and now in her early 50s, feels she is only a home owner because of "luck and age".
"Everybody needs the security of a home," she says. And now Kate, who is the chief executive of an Oxfordshire housing association, has an idea that she thinks could help the government with one of its most pressing challenges: how to empty asylum hotels by 2029.
The pledge to empty them was made by Labour when tensions and anger rose during the summer, in communities where some regard asylum seekers as a threat to local safety.
The cost of putting asylum seekers in local hotels is also "cripplingly expensive," points out Kate - and she makes a bold claim: the cost could be cut from about £54,000 a year to just £4,000, for each asylum seeker, by moving them to social housing. Instead of paying private contractors to provide hotel rooms, as it does now, she wants the government to pay councils and housing associations to buy more properties, adding them to the nation's social housing stock, to benefit migrants and others in need of a home.
The BBC has been told her proposal has been discussed with several government departments, including the Treasury and the Home Office.
Officials are talking to nearly 200 councils about a series of pilot projects, though the Home Office won't give details.
The question is, could it really work - if private companies haven't managed to source enough accommodation for asylum seekers, what's to say a council could? And would this alternative really help to calm the strident public debate, in the wake of the protests and counter-protests outside
the Bell Hotel in Epping and elsewhere - or might it exacerbate it?
The pandemic fuelled the problem There is no doubt tensions have been increasing.
In July 2015 a coastguard in Dover told the BBC that two migrants had been rescued from a dinghy just offshore in the Channel. It was so surprising that it made the news.
At that time people typically hid in lorries to get across
have banned asylum seekers from working for their first year in the UK - they didn't want the opportunity for a job to become a "pull factor" - so it falls to the government to support them.
The Conservatives turned to the private sector for help, handing contracts to three companies - Serco, Clearsprings Ready Homes and Mears - to provide beds.
The problem was, they ran out. Then, as lockdowns struck, hotels emptied, providing a useful source of
This summer, the argument moved to the streets, with protesters demanding the closure of asylum hotels.
Lorraine Cavanagh, campaigning outside the Britannia Hotel in London's Canary Wharf, told me: "I don't know who they are. They have no background, they have no passports, they are unidentified men who can walk around and do what they want to do with no consequences.
"Their beliefs are not the same as ours. They are coming in and trying to
the Channel. But during the Covid-19 pandemic, there were fewer lorries and would-be stowaways increasingly began using inflatable boats instead.
Small boat arrivals accounted for a relatively small 4% of total immigration to the UK for the year to June 2025, but the numbers are rising.
The pandemic also rapidly increased the use of hotels to house asylum seekers. Successive administrations
emergency accommodation. The rooms are, however, more expensive than renting houses. In October 2025, the government was spending £5.5m per day on them.
At one point, under the Conservatives, there were 400 hotels in use but they managed to reduce the number over time.
While Labour has closed three hotels since July 2024, there are still 210, housing around 32,000 people.
'Put them in a camp'
asylum seekers - Napier Barracks, near Folkestone, and a former RAF base at Wethersfield in Essex.
In 2021 the High Court found Napier Barracks, which is capable of housing 300 male migrants, to be overcrowded and filthy, requiring the government to take action.
The other facility, Wethersfield, which contains bedrooms, recreational areas and places for worship, is being expanded. Eventually more than 1,200 beds will be available.
Residents can come and go, but the High Court was previously told Wethersfield was like a prison. Three migrants bringing a case against the former Home Secretary described "tensions and outbreaks of violence" within its walls.
These "large sites" are not cheap either. The government spent £49m refurbishing Wethersfield, far more than had been estimated.
A programme to open accommodation at RAF Scampton was also abandoned in 2024 after the cost ballooned to £60m. The public financial watchdog, the National Audit Office, concluded in March 2024 that these large sites would cost even more than hotels.
Questioned by MPs in June 2025, the Environment Minister Angela Eagle said the government was moving away from "asbestos-filled buildings, poisoned land, unexploded ordinance and all those sorts of things on old army bases".
disturb and change things, that we are not used to."
Some protesters have another suggestion: put them in a military camp.
Rakib Ehsan, a senior fellow at the centre-right Policy Exchange think tank, agrees this could be useful on a temporary basis.
"At least they would be somewhat separated from local communities," he says.
Two large former Ministry of Defence sites are currently being used for
But then in September 2025, Defence Secretary John Healey popped up, during the wave of anti-migrant protests, and revealed he had tasked his planners with identifying more military sites.
Did the need for beds become greater, or did the rhetoric around using barracks for people who claim to be fleeing persecution become more acceptable, as Reform edged up in the opinion polls? Possibly both. Plans are yet to be revealed. Either way, what the government really needs now, is lots of cheaper, and better places for them to stay.
Desk Report: China obtained “vast amounts” of classified government information over a period of many years by compromising a network used to transfer data across Whitehall.
Dominic Cummings, who served as a senior adviser to Boris Johnson, said that he and the then prime minister were informed about the breach in 2020 but that there had subsequently been a cover-up.
He said he was warned at the time that disclosing some specific details of the breach would be a criminal offence. He claimed that the breach included some “Strap” material, which is the government term for the highest level of classified information.
The breach, which was confirmed by two other senior Whitehall sources, was said to have been connected to a Chinese-owned company involved in Britain’s critical national infrastructure. Tom Tugendhat, a former Tory security minister, supported Cummings’s account.
Cummings said that he and Johnson were informed of the breach in the “bunker” of No 10 — a reference to the secure room in Downing Street.
He told The Times: “The cabinet secretary said, ‘We have to explain something; there’s been a serious problem’, and he talked through what this was.
“And it was so bizarre that, not just Boris, a few people in the room were looking around like this — ‘Am I somehow misunderstanding what he’s saying? Because it sounds f***ing crazy’.” He added: “What I’m saying is that some Strap stuff was compromised and vast amounts of data classified as extremely secret and extremely dangerous for any foreign entity to control was compromised.
“Material from intelligence services. Material from the National Security Secretariat in the Cabinet Office. Things the government has to keep secret. If they’re not secret, then there are very, very serious implications for it.”
He said he would be willing to share what he knew
Dominic Cummings: Whitehall data breach gave secrets to Chinese
about the data breach with MPs and claimed that the most senior officials in Whitehall had covered it up. Cummings declined to say how the system had been breached. “If the MPs want to finally have an inquiry about it, I’d be happy to talk about it,” he said. “And many people know that what I’m saying is true and many people will back it up.
“And many people know that after the PM was notified about this in 2020, officials
to 2024, said: “I don’t want to go into the details, but the gist of what Dominic Cummings has put out is correct.”
One senior Whitehall source confirmed that at the time the government had evidence that sensitive government information was being transferred to China. They added that the information had been encrypted but there were concerns that this could still have been accessed by the Chinese.
involved in the breach. They insisted that Strap material was kept on separate secure networks.
Among the information that would potentially have been available to China would include diplomatic messages from Britain’s ambassadors around the world. It would also include information that could damage the security and resilience of critical national infrastructure as well the operational effectiveness of
from the Cabinet Office then went round telling everybody in the meeting that it was illegal for them to discuss this with the media.” The involvement of a Chineseowned company in the breach was first reported by The Spectator.
Tugendhat, who served as security minister from 2022
“It was something we were quite worried about for a while,” they said.
“It was not a comfortable situation. We were trying to manage it but it was not riskfree by any stretch.”
However, the source contradicted Cummings’s assertion that Strap data was
word threat doesn’t even begin to cover it,” he said.
“The degree of penetration in espionage, in all kinds of operations, penetration of critical national infrastructure, theft of intellectual property, the whole range of things is absolutely extraordinary. A hundred times worse than it is in the public domain.
“Everybody who has been briefed on the critical analyses of these things from the intelligence services knows this is true. The idea that it is somehow a difficult semantic question of whether to define them as a threat, or how much of a threat, is absolutely puerile nonsense. And everybody in the heart of Whitehall knows this.
“The Strap system was compromised. All sorts of systems were compromised. Fundamental infrastructure for transferring the most sensitive data around the British state was compromised for a long time. For years.” Discussing what he alleged was a cover-up of the breach, Cummings said: “The Cabinet Office’s priority, obviously, was to make sure that no one knew about it.”
He added that it was possible that even Sir Keir Starmer was unaware of the breach.
“I think it’s obvious what’s happened. There’s a political decision made that they don’t want to say certain things publicly because I think, essentially… for the core reason, right, which has been the British state that has prioritised Chinese money over its own security for decades. That is the core issue.”
Cummings said that he had been told by the intelligence services that over many years senior ministers had put economic relations with China ahead of the security of the country.
UK or allied forces’ military operations. Cummings said that he found it “ludicrous” that the China spy trial had collapsed because the government refused to describe Beijing as a threat to national security. “Anyone who has been read in at a high level with the intelligence services on China knows that the
“The answer was there’s been a political choice made in this country to prioritise Chinese money over security against China,” he said. “Strong Whitehall forces are desperate for Chinese money.”
Signing without consensus: Will the July Charter deepen division?
Desk report::The interim government is organising the signing of the July Charter on October 17 and has distributed the document to all political parties three days in advance.
The Charter makes it clear that the process undertaken over the past three weeks to clarify how implementation would proceed has failed, and the question of how constitutional reform will actually take place has become even more obscure.
The Commission has stated very plainly that the signatories will implement the reform proposals written in the Charter. However, they have refrained from explaining how this implementation will be carried out.
The main problem with implementation is that, out of the 84 proposals in the Charter, full consensus among all participating parties in the Commission has been reached on only 28. Among these, the highly impactful reform proposals include limiting the prime minister's term, allowing the opposition to chair standing committees in parliament, separating the judiciary from the government's administrative branch and establishing a separate secretariat for it, appointing a neutral election commissioner, and creating an independent police commission. Additionally, although there are notes of dissent regarding the use of Article 70, if even the agreed-upon portions are implemented, it could be a big step towards making parliament functional.
Since all sides have agreed on these 28 proposals, one might assume that implementing them will be easy. But the reality is that there is no consensus among the parties on how to implement them. Although there is agreement that these proposals should be put to a referendum, there is no consensus on how that referendum should be called. Therefore, even if all parties sign the Charter, implementation of the fully agreed proposals will not occur until they reach a consensus on how to hold the referendum.
The major problem, of course, lies with those proposals where parties have clear disagreements or have submitted "notes of dissent." There are seven proposals that have met with outright opposition from more than five parties. One of them— removing the March 7 Speech from the Constitution—has
been opposed outright by nine parties. Seven parties have objected to the proposal to establish three separate commissions. The largest party, BNP, has objected to fifteen proposals. Among these, nine proposals are also opposed by the NDM, the 12-Party Alliance, and the Nationalist Like-Minded Alliance. Only four parties have raised no objections at all: the Islami Oikya Jote, NCP, Gono Sanghati, and Bangladesh State Reform Movement. On the other hand, the parties with the highest number of objections are BASAD (16 proposals), BNP (15), and the 12-Party Alliance (13).
However, the real fault line lies in the proposals that have drawn "notes of dissent." These include issues such as the powers of the President (objected to by nine parties), the method of forming a caretaker government (seven parties), allocation of seats in the Upper House based on voting ratios (seven parties), and the procedure for appointing constitutional officers such as the Ombudsman, Auditor General, and Public Service Commissioners (also seven parties). Interestingly, on almost every issue where the BNP has lodged a note of dissent, the NDM, 12-Party Alliance, and Nationalist LikeMinded Alliance have aligned with them in opposition.
The problem with these direct objections and notes of dissent is that if any of these proposals are implemented unilaterally, the political climate of the country will become inflamed, and doubts will arise about the next election. Nearly all political analysts believe that if the election is delayed, Bangladesh will head towards instability. Thus, by failing to specify the path of implementation, the July Charter has placed Bangladesh in a precarious position. The interim government and the Consensus Commission must understand that rushing constitutional reform could plunge the country into grave danger, and recovering from that could take a decade.
They must also remember that consensus must be reached with the dissenting parties, not without them. The time required for such consensusbuilding must be allowed. To manage the current situation, organising a referendum could be a solution. Within the Commission, there was majority support for holding the referendum on the same day as the election. This referendum should focus only on those proposals in the July Charter that have achieved full
After the last page
consensus. For the proposals that have generated disagreement or notes of dissent, a longterm solution should be pursued. To this end, a long-term Constitutional Reform Assembly could be established. To ensure national unity, this assembly could include representatives from different classes and professions, similar to the Legislative Assembly of 1937. This body could comprise those elected in the forthcoming national election who will form the next government, alongside representatives of the parties that took part in the Consensus Commission, as well as women, members of civil society, professionals, religious minorities, and nonBengali representatives. The Commissioners of the Consensus Commission themselves could be entrusted with guiding this reform assembly.
This assembly, free from time pressure, would be responsible for negotiating and reaching agreement on those proposals in the July Charter that currently have dissent or objection, and for implementing them once consensus is achieved.
If we look at Indonesia's latest constitutional reform process, we see that they began in 1999 and, incrementally, they completed the final stage in 2002. In that final, fourth stage, they reached constitutional settlements on highly contentious issues on Sharia law, the Constitutional Court, and provincial autonomy. To preserve national unity, they even allowed their most conservative province to operate under Sharia law. This gradual process of implementation helped bind Indonesia's divided society together.
Bangladesh too must respect its internal differences. Mechanisms must be created to allow opposing groups to keep the dialogue going. With time, such dialogue will eventually produce consensus.
The interim government has taken time to fulfil many of its commitments to ensure the quality of its work. At this critical stage of constitutional reform, if they likewise prioritise quality over haste, the interests of the people will be protected. The signing ceremony of the July Charter may be postponed until a clear roadmap for implementation is agreed upon.
MI5 chief ‘frustrated’ by collapse of China spy c ase
Desk report: The head of MI5
has said he was frustrated by the collapse of the Chinese spy case and warned that Beijing posed a threat to the UK “every day”.
Sir Ken McCallum said the security service worked “very hard” to make convictions possible, “so it’s frustrating when they don’t happen”.
Asked directly whether China presented a national security threat, MI5’s director general said: “Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? The answer is, of course, yes they do, every day.” In a rare intervention in Government affairs during his annual address, Sir Ken also revealed that the security service had intervened to stop a threat from China in the past week.
Speaking at MI5’s headquarters on Thursday, he said: “My teams have every right to feel proud of the detection and disruption that they have done in this case and in a whole series of other cases.
“But I would invite everyone to not miss the fact that this was a strong disruption in the interests of the UK’s national security.”
The Government is facing intense scrutiny over its role in the collapse of the trial of Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry. The pair were accused of passing sensitive intelligence from Parliament to the Chinese Communist Party. Both deny the charges. Speaking to The Telegraph on Thursday afternoon, Mr Berry said: “I’ll put a statement out through the lawyers, probably later today.” In a rare intervention, Sir Ken praised the civil servant who gave evidence in the case after Labour was accused of scapegoating him.
Testimony from Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, was published by the Government on Wednesday night amid mounting questions over why it failed to describe Beijing as a national security threat. Prosecutors blamed the refusal to do so for the collapse of the case.
Sir Ken said: “I’ve worked for a number of years in adjacent roles alongside Matt Collins and I feel I have to just say that I do consider him to be a man of high integrity and a professional of considerable quality.” While Sir Ken said there were “good reasons for maintaining a substantive relationship with China”, he stressed that “MI5 will keep doing what the public should
expect of us: preventing, detecting and disrupting activity of national security concern”.
“Our track record is strong. We’ve intervened operationally again just in the last week, and we will keep doing so,” he said. “I am MI5 born and bred. I will never back off from confronting threats to the UK, wherever they come from.”
Asked directly if China presented a national security threat, MI5’s director general said: “Do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat? The answer is, of course, yes they do, every day.”
Speaking to reporters after his speech, he declined to be drawn on whether plans for a proposed Chinese “superembassy” in central London should be permitted to go ahead. He said: “MI5 has more than a century of experience of dealing with the national security risks that do flow from the presence of foreign embassies on British soil. So this is something you would expect MI5 to have a view on. “You would expect us to give our best professional security advice to the Government and you would expect us to keep that advice private.”
Amid the intense focus on threats from the Chinese state, Sir Ken said the UK had seen a 35 per cent increase “in the number of individuals we are investigating for involvement in state threat activity”. He attributed the bulk of that to the “triumvirate” of China, Iran, and Russia.
It included espionage attempts against Parliament, British universities and critical infrastructure. But he added that hostile states were also “consistently descending into ugly methods” that MI5 “is more used to seeing in our terrorism casework”.
In Mr Collins’s evidence, published on Wednesday night, he stated that the Government was “committed” to a “positive relationship” with China, despite a list of attacks against the UK by Chineselinked groups. He revealed that, at one point, Mr Cash told Mr Berry “you’re in spy territory now” when discussing sensitive material that was eventually sent to one of Xi Jinping’s top officials.
Mr Collins added: “The Government’s position is that we will co-operate where we can, compete where we need to, and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.”