Starmer’s aide discussed the potential ramifications for Beijing in the Chinese espionage case

Open Editor’s Digest for free

Rula Khalaf, editor of the Financial Times, picks her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Downing Street confirmed that Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, discussed the high-profile Chinese espionage case at a Whitehall meeting shortly before the trial collapsed.

Issue 10 said the meeting in September was to discuss the potential diplomatic ramifications with Beijing that could occur if the spying allegations were aired in court, but insisted that Powell played no role in the decision to drop the case.

Government officials said the meeting, which included Powell and Sir Olly Robins, Permanent Secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, was held in the hope of moving the issue forward.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: “It is completely normal for the National Security Adviser to be involved in discussions about national security that could impact on bilateral relations.”

This development came as MPs prepared to question Security Minister Dan Jarvis on Monday about why the trial of Christopher Perry and Christopher Cash was dropped. Both men categorically denied these accusations.

The Starmer government continues to insist that neither Powell nor any of the ministers will make “any decision” on the substance or evidence of the case, or put pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the espionage charges.

Jarvis will also use the Commons statement to announce new MI5 security guidance for members of Parliament and their staff, in an attempt to move beyond the controversy.

Starmer is expected to visit China in the coming months and the Treasury wants to develop trade relations with Beijing. Government officials acknowledge that a high-profile spying case would have strained bilateral relations.

Conservative Leader Kemi Badenoch said she was concerned about whether there had been a “cover-up” and wrote to Starmer to ask if “it remains your government’s position to claim that it was impossible to argue that China is a threat in court”.

Starmer insisted that since the trial concerned alleged crimes between 2021 and 2023, the case should depend on the Conservative government’s publicly stated position at the time on whether it viewed China as a national security threat.

Downing Street cited comments By Sir James Cleverley, Foreign Secretary in 2023, on his China policy, saying it was “impossible” to sum up China’s statehood in a single word like “threat”.

However, Cleverly added in the same speech: “We will strengthen the protection of our national security wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or our prosperity.”

Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, told MPs in a letter dated October 7 that he had been unable to obtain witness statements saying that China “at the time of the commission of the crime… posed a threat to national security”.

He said in his letter that prosecutors requested additional witness statements after charges were brought in 2024 because of a Supreme Court ruling on the meaning of the word “enemy” in the Official Secrets Act of 1911 under which Cash and Perry were charged.

The Supreme Court said the word includes countries that pose a threat to national security.

Some former CPS officials have questioned Parkinson’s letter, pointing out that the Supreme Court had made it easier, not harder, to prove espionage allegations under the 1911 Act.

Downing Street insisted that any evidence must be “consistent with policy and the threat assessment at the time of the alleged crime”.