Downing Street has published witness statements from the deputy national security adviser in an attempt to end a political row over the collapse of a trial of two British men accused of spying for China. The government had faced two weeks of Conservative criticism over its role, with accusations of blocking key witnesses and hiding behind process.
The three statements from Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, present a consistent picture of China as an “epoch-defining challenge”, according to the first from December 2023 under Rishi Sunak’s government. The final statement, submitted in August under Sir Keir Starmer, said the UK wanted a “positive relationship” with China and would follow a “three Cs” approach of cooperation, competition, and challenge where necessary on national security.
Senior government figures hope the evidence will draw a line under the controversy, which they argue could have been avoided had the Tories fixed flaws in the Official Secrets Act. Downing Street has accused Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch of “overreach”, noting that the main evidence was provided under the Conservatives in 2023. Sources in Mr Sunak’s No 10 operation confirmed the Tories had access to the evidence at the time.
The Tories have highlighted a meeting between national security adviser Jonathan Powell and Foreign Office official Olly Robbins on 1 September. Downing Street insists the meeting was about broader bilateral issues and that they did not discuss the evidence. Sir Keir was told the case was in danger of collapsing a few days before it did on 15 September, his spokesperson confirmed. Collins was told by the Crown Prosecution Service that once charges were laid, he could not share his evidence further.
Legal experts remain divided on the collapse, with some believing the reliance on the term “enemy” in the Official Secrets Act made successful prosecution impossible. Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, told senior MPs the evidence provided by Collins was “5% less” than the threshold required for prosecution, and faces calls to clarify exactly how it fell short.
