Key witness statement in China spy row to be published, says Starmer

Downing Street will publish a witness statement from the deputy national security adviser that is seen as central to the decision to withdraw spying charges against two British men, Keir Starmer has said.

Updating MPs at the start of prime minister’s questions, Starmer said the statement by Matthew Collins would be released after a “short process” to ensure all the information within it could be published.

The announcement followed a statement late on Tuesday from the Crown Prosecution Service, which said it had no objection to the release of the witness statement, given that the case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry, a teacher, was no longer live.

“I therefore carefully considered this question this morning, and after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statement,” Starmer said. “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.”

The row dominated the subsequent exchanges between Starmer and Kemi Badenoch, with the prime minister accusing the Conservative leader of making “a completely scurrilous allegation” of a cover-up.

In a series of heated exchanges, former Conservative ministers accused Starmer of misrepresenting their position on China and of obfuscating the real questions in the debate.

The row followed a surprise decision by prosecutors last month to abandon charges of espionage against Cash and Berry on the basis that the evidential threshold required could no longer be met. Cash and Berry have always maintained their innocence.

The Conservatives have accused ministers of political interference in the trial, but Starmer said it was “absolutely not” the case.

The row has centred on the government’s willingness to submit evidence to the trial, saying that China poses a threat to UK national security – considered necessary for a successful prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

“It was their failure and they are just slinging mud,” Starmer said, arguing the only reason the case was withdrawn was because the previous Conservative government did not designate China as a threat to the UK.

“To be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation – a review that started in 2015 – these individuals could have been prosecuted, and we would not be where we are,” he said.

Badenoch rejected this, saying the collapse of the trial was the fault of Starmer’s government, and accused him of not being honest about what had happened. “The charges were brought under us, the case collapsed under them,” she said. “Can the prime minister tell us what changed and what collapsed the case?”

After it emerged that Collins’s witness statement was central to the decision not to proceed to trial, the CPS said it was not blocking its release.

“The material contained in [the statement] 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,” it said.

Starmer added that Collins was “a civil servant of the utmost integrity” and that his witness statement had been made without political input. “Under this government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence,” he said.

“I can’t say what the position was of the previous government in relation to the involvement of ministers or special advisers. If the leader of the opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the house.”

In response, Badenoch demanded to know if there had been any discussions involving Jonathan Powell, the government’s national security adviser, and called for the release of any minutes and correspondence between the government and the CPS over the case.

“Exactly as I expected, the prime minister had to be dragged out at the top of PMQs to give a statement that answers no questions,” she said. “He had to be dragged out to repeat only more obfuscation. It is simply unbelievable that he is trying to say the last government did not classify China as a threat.”

James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, said ministers had misquoted the last government’s stance on China. Raising a point of order during PMQs, Cleverly said that when he was foreign secretary he had pledged to “strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions” posed a “threat to our people or prosperity”.

Tom Tugendhat, a former security minister, accused the government of “trying to set up straw men and knock down things that have not been said”, and asked: “What political direction did this government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?”

In reply, Starmer said: “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.”