The House of Commons was gripped by heated debate on October 15, 2025, as Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer faced mounting pressure over the government’s handling of the collapsed China spy case. The case, which had accused Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, of passing secrets to China, ended abruptly last month when the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) determined that the evidence presented did not demonstrate that China posed a threat to UK national security at the time of the alleged offences. Both men have steadfastly denied any wrongdoing.
During a tense session of Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs), Starmer announced his intention to publish in full the three witness statements prepared by deputy national security adviser (DNSA) Matt Collins, which had been central to the prosecution’s case. According to The Independent, Starmer told MPs, “I’m deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions.” He emphasized that much of the critical evidence and decision-making occurred under the previous Conservative government, framing the controversy as a legacy issue rather than a failure of his own administration.
The political storm was ignited further after Kemi Badenoch, leader of the Conservative Party, sent a letter to Starmer on October 12, accusing him and his ministers of being “too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security,” as reported by BBC. Badenoch’s sharp questioning dominated the Commons, with all six of her PMQs inquiries focused on the government’s response to the case and the decision to drop charges. She accused Starmer of “obfuscation,” adding, “It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say the last government did not classify China as a threat.”
Starmer, however, maintained that the government’s position was constrained by the Conservative administration’s Integrated Review of 2021 and its 2023 refresh, both of which were “very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy.” He explained, “The deputy national security adviser, Matt Collins, set out the then-government’s position in a substantive witness statement in 2023, which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements. The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then-Tory government. I know first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity. Those opposite who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.”
Amid swirling allegations, government sources had initially claimed the CPS was blocking the release of Collins’ evidence. However, the CPS swiftly denied this, clarifying, “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.” This denial, reported by The Daily Mail, underscored a growing rift between Downing Street and prosecutors over who bore responsibility for the lack of transparency.
Starmer responded decisively to the controversy during PMQs, stating, “Last night, the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in their view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DNSA is for the Government. I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statement. Given the information contained, we will conduct a short process. But I want to make clear, I intend to publish the witness statements in full.”
Adding to the political drama, former security minister Tom Tugendhat challenged Starmer on whether there had been any political direction given to officials before they gave evidence. Starmer was unequivocal: “Absolutely none. And I will also tell him this: I was the chief prosecutor for five years, and I can say, in those five years, which included three years under the coalition government, where we were taking difficult decisions on MPs’ expenses, not once was I subjected to political pressure of any sort from anyone. That is the tradition in this country; it is a proud tradition. It is one I uphold as Prime Minister, just as I upheld it when I was director of public prosecutions.”
Despite Starmer’s reassurances, suspicions of a cover-up continued to swirl, with Badenoch declaring in a social media post, “A major national security case has collapsed because Keir Starmer is too weak to stand up to China. The Prime Minister’s account is unravelling. With every hour it looks more and more like a Government cover-up.” The Liberal Democrats also entered the fray, with foreign affairs spokesperson Calum Miller urging the government to publish Collins’ statement: “If ministers have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear. Failure to come clean will just confirm people’s suspicions of a cover-up and that ministers are more worried about cosying up to China than protecting our national security.”
Meanwhile, a dispute erupted between Starmer and former foreign secretary Sir James Cleverly over whether China had ever been officially described as a threat. Cleverly, now shadow housing secretary, insisted he had been misquoted, explaining that while he had warned against reducing policy to a single word, he had also emphasized, “We will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or prosperity. When there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.”
Adding further complexity, it was confirmed that a meeting had taken place in September 2025 involving national security adviser Jonathan Powell and Sir Oliver Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, to discuss the trial. Starmer insisted, “There was a meeting in September, that did not involve the national security adviser discussing the evidence in any way.” This assertion was challenged by opposition politicians and outside observers, with some suggesting that normal procedures may have been abandoned.
Throughout the Commons session, Starmer continued to defend the integrity of Matt Collins, describing him as a “highly respected securocrat” who had made “every effort” to support the case in court but was ultimately constrained by the policy position of the government at the time of the alleged offences. “Under this government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence,” Starmer said, seeking to distance his administration from the outcome.
Despite Starmer’s pledge to publish the evidence and his repeated denials of political interference, the episode has exposed deep divisions in Westminster over the UK’s approach to China and the handling of sensitive national security cases. Questions linger not only about the adequacy of the evidence provided but also about the transparency and accountability of the government’s actions. As the dust settles, all eyes will be on the publication of the witness statements—and on whether they provide the clarity and reassurance that both Parliament and the public are demanding.
