This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cg424d712q7o

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Minister says adviser had no role in evidence for China spy case Badenoch demands PM address 'unanswered' China spy case questions
(about 8 hours later)
Christopher Cash (left) and Christopher Berry (right) were both accused of being Chinese spies Christopher Cash (left) and Christopher Berry (right) both deny the accusation of spying for China
A key security adviser had no role in the "substance or the evidence" of the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China, the education secretary has said. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has written to the prime minister asking him to address "unanswered" questions about the collapsed case against two men accused of spying for China.
The Conservatives have suggested Jonathan Powell, the prime minister's national security adviser, had a role in not giving prosecutors evidence they said they needed to secure convictions. Charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry - who deny the allegations - were dropped in September, prompting criticism from MPs.
Charges against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry – who both deny the allegations – were dropped last month, prompting criticism from ministers and MPs. The director of public prosecutions (DPP) said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat. On Sunday, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson said ministers were "disappointed" it had not proceeded.
Asked about Mr Powell's involvement, Bridget Phillipson told the BBC: "I can give you that reassurance, he did not have those conversations around the substance or the evidence of the case." In her letter, Badenoch said the government's account of the situation had "changed repeatedly".
Phillipson said ministers were "deeply disappointed that the case hasn't proceeded" and insisted the Crown Prosecution Service was "best placed to explain why it was not able to bring forward a prosecution". Sir Keir Starmer previously said ministers could only draw on the last government's assessment of China - which dubbed it an "epoch-defining challenge" - and his government has maintained it is "frustrated" the trial collapsed.
Downing Street had previously denied that ministers were involved in the collapse of the case. Badenoch outlined "several key questions which remain unanswered" in her letter on Sunday, and asked that Starmer or a senior minister appear before MPs "to clear things up once and for all".
But in a rare intervention this week, the director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson, the head of the CPS, said the trial collapsed because the government did not provide evidence referring to China as a national security threat. She wrote: "This is a matter of the utmost importance, involving alleged spying on Members of Parliament. It seems that you and your ministers have been too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security."
The letter queried remarks made by Phillipson to the BBC earlier in the day, in which she said Starmer's national security advisor Jonathan Powell had no role in the "substance or the evidence" of the case.
Phillipson also said ministers were "deeply disappointed that the case hasn't proceeded", and insisted the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) was "best placed to explain why it was not able to bring forward a prosecution".
The Conservatives had suggested Powell, who has sought closer relations with Beijing, failed to give the CPS the evidence it said it needed to secure convictions.
Badenoch questioned Phillipson's comments: "What does this mean? If he was "not involved" in the decision over months not to give the CPS what they needed, then who was?"
Jonathan Powell, one of Sir Keir's most senior advisers and political allies, visited China earlier this year
The opposition leader also claimed the government - which had denied ministers were involved in the trial's collapse before the DPP claimed the necessary material had not been obtained - had sought to "appease China".
She disputed Starmer's comments that ministers could only draw on the previous Conservative government's position, writing: "As various leading lawyers have pointed out, this is not how the law works."
Starmer had told reporters earlier this week: "You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence".
"So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then."
Badenoch asked that Starmer clarify whether any ministers knew about the government's interactions with the CPS in which it "refused" to provide the material being sought.
She also asked if the matter had ever been raised with Starmer, including by Powell, and if an earlier denial of the government's involvement had been "misleading".
The Conservatives have submitted an urgent question in Parliament, asking ministers to address MPs on Monday to explain why the trial collapsed.The Conservatives have submitted an urgent question in Parliament, asking ministers to address MPs on Monday to explain why the trial collapsed.
They have suggested Mr Powell, who has sought closer relations with Beijing, failed to give the CPS the evidence required.
Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the BBC ministers "must urgently explain why it chose not to disclose the reams of information it has demonstrating China was a threat to national security in the 2021-2023 period".Shadow home secretary Chris Philp told the BBC ministers "must urgently explain why it chose not to disclose the reams of information it has demonstrating China was a threat to national security in the 2021-2023 period".
He said: "It looks as if Jonathan Powell was behind this decision – and he should resign if he is." He said: "It looks as if Jonathan Powell was behind this decision - and he should resign if he is."
The prime minister has said the government could only draw on the previous Conservative's position, which designated China an "epoch-defining challenge". Meanwhile, several former Conservative ministers and advisers have told the BBC there was no official designation of whether a country amounts to a threat.
"You have to prosecute people on the basis of the circumstances at the time of the alleged offence," the prime minister told reporters in India this week.
"So all the focus needs to be on the policy of the Tory government in place then."
Jonathan Powell, one of Sir Keir's most senior advisers and political allies, visited China earlier this year
Several former Conservative ministers and advisers have told the BBC there was no official designation of whether a country amounts to a threat.
They claim there is a document with "hundreds" of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences, which could have been given as evidence.They claim there is a document with "hundreds" of examples of Chinese activity posing a threat to the UK at the time of the alleged offences, which could have been given as evidence.
Sources cited the hack on the Ministry of Defence, which ministers suspected China was behind, as one of many incidents.Sources cited the hack on the Ministry of Defence, which ministers suspected China was behind, as one of many incidents.
"I don't think there is a sane jury in the world that would look at that evidence and conclude China was not a threat," a source in the last government said."I don't think there is a sane jury in the world that would look at that evidence and conclude China was 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 in 2023 said there had been a "sustained campaign" of Chinese espionage on a "pretty epic scale".Former Conservative ministers also point to public statements, including from the former head of MI5 Ken McCallum, who in 2023 said there had been a "sustained campaign" of Chinese espionage on a "pretty epic scale".
The Liberal Democrats said the government's approach to China was "putting our national security at risk".The Liberal Democrats said the government's approach to China was "putting our national security at risk".
The party urged the government to block the planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London.The party urged the government to block the planning application for a new Chinese embassy in London.
"Giving the green light to the super embassy being built in the heart of the City of London and above critical data connections would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale," Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said."Giving the green light to the super embassy being built in the heart of the City of London and above critical data connections would enable Chinese espionage on an industrial scale," Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said.
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.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.They were accused of gathering and providing information prejudicial to the safety and interests of the state between December 2021 and February 2023.
Under the Official Secrets Act, anyone accused of spying can only be prosecuted if the information they passed on was useful to an enemy.Under the Official Secrets Act, anyone accused of spying can only be prosecuted if the information they passed on was useful to an enemy.
However, last month the director of public prosecutions said "the case could no longer proceed to trial since the evidence no longer met the evidential test".However, last month the director of public prosecutions said "the case could no longer proceed to trial since the evidence no longer met the evidential test".
Additional reporting by Maia Davies