Minister says Starmer adviser had no role in China spy case

A key security adviser had no role in the “substance or evidence” of the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China, the education minister has said.

Conservatives have alleged that the prime minister’s national security adviser, Jonathan Powell, played a role in denying prosecutors the evidence they said they needed to secure a conviction.

Charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry, who both deny the allegations, were dropped last month, sparking criticism from ministers and MPs.

Asked about Mr Powell’s involvement, Bridget Phillipson told the BBC: “I can give you that assurance; he has not made any conversations about the substance of the case or the evidence.”

Phillipson said ministers were “deeply disappointed that the case has not progressed” and insisted the Crown Prosecution Service was “in the best position to explain why it has failed to launch an investigation”.

Downing Street has previously denied allegations that ministers were involved in the collapse of the case.

But in a rare intervention this week, CPS chairman, director of prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, said the case collapsed because the government failed to produce evidence mentioning China as a national security threat.

The Conservatives have submitted an urgent question to parliament, asking ministers to address MPs on Monday and explain why the trial collapsed.

They argued that Mr Powell, who has sought closer ties with Beijing, had failed to provide the CPS with the necessary evidence.

Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp told the BBC ministers “must urgently explain why China chose not to disclose tons of information showing it posed a threat to national security in 2021-2023.”

He said: “Jonathan Powell appears to be behind this decision; if so he should resign.”

The prime minister said the government could only draw on the previous Conservative Party’s stance, which described China as an “epoch-defining challenge”.

“You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time the alleged crime was committed,” the prime minister told reporters in India this week.

“So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Conservative government at that time.”

Some former Conservative ministers and advisers told the BBC there was no official determination of whether a country posed a threat.

They claim a document containing “hundreds” of examples of Chinese activity that posed a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged crimes was found and could be introduced as evidence.

Sources cited the hacking of the Ministry of Defense as one of many incidents that ministers suspected China was behind.

“I don’t think there is a sane jury in the world who would look at this evidence and conclude that China is not a threat,” a source in the last government said.

Former Conservative ministers also point to public statements, including from the former head of MI5, Ken McCallum, who said there was a “sustained campaign” for Chinese espionage on a “pretty epic scale” in 2023.

The Liberal Democrats said the government’s approach to China “puts our national security at risk”.

The party has called on the government to block a planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London.

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said: “Giving the green light for a super embassy built in the heart of City London and above critical data links would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale.”

Mr Cash and Mr Berry, a former parliamentary investigator, were charged under the Official Secrets Act in April 2024, when the Conservatives were in power.

They were accused of collecting and providing information harmful to the security and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.

Under the Official Secrets Act, anyone accused of espionage can only be prosecuted if the information they pass on is useful to the enemy.

But last month the director of public prosecutions said the case “can no longer proceed to trial as the evidence no longer meets the evidentiary test”.