Government will publish evidence in collapsed China case, PM says

The government will publish evidence submitted in the now-collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China, Sir Keir Starmer has said.

Deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins provided three witness statements to prosecutors, which the prime minister said he intended to publish “in full”.

The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats had called for the documents to be released, with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accusing the government of a “cover-up”.

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) unexpectedly dropped charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry last month, prompting criticism from ministers and MPs. Both men deny the allegations.

The director of public prosecutions said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat.

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

They were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.

Mr Collins submitted three witness statements on whether China had been regarded as a threat at the time of the alleged offences – one in December 2023 and two further statements in February and August this year, after Labour took office.

Speaking at the start of Prime Minister’s Questions, Sir Keir said he was “deeply disappointed” the prosecutions did not go ahead.

He insisted that the case had to be based on the previous Conservative government’s position on China.

The PM pointed to the 2021 Integrated Review, which set out the government’s security and foreign policy priorities, and an update of that document in 2023, which he said were “very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy”.

“The cabinet secretary assures me that the [deputy national security adviser] faithfully set out the policy of the then-Tory government,” he said.

“Under this government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence.”

However, Badenoch said it was “simply unbelievable that he is trying to say the last government did not classify China as a threat”.

She highlighted a number of examples when Tory ministers and government documents had described China in this way.

“He’s blaming his civil servants, he’s blaming the media, he’s blaming the last government, he cannot explain why he could not see this case through,” she said.

“He should have seen this case through, and let me be clear, a serious case involving national security has collapsed because this government is too weak to stand up to China.”

The Tories have called on the government to publish minutes of a meeting that took place on 1 September, shortly before the case collapsed on 15 September, between National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell and the most senior civil servant at the Foreign Office, Sir Oliver Robbins.

The government maintains this meeting did not discuss the evidence relating to the case.

Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats have demanded the government make public all legal advice it received on the case and launch an independent inquiry to “get to the bottom of what actually happened”.

Barring any surprises, it is unlikely the publication of the witness statements will draw a line under the issue.

The central allegation has not been that the government toned down evidence, but that it perhaps could have provided more and chose not to.

The government maintains that is not the case and the publication of the statements may not shed any more light on that.

On Tuesday, senior government figures had suggested that the CPS had told them publishing the witness statements would be “inappropriate”.

But the CPS later made clear it would not stand in the way if ministers chose to put their evidence in the public domain.

A spokesperson said: “The statements were provided to us for the purpose of criminal proceedings which are now over.

“The material contained in them is not ours, and it is a matter for the government, independently of the CPS, to consider whether or not to make that material public.”