Starmer ‘needs to explain himself to Parliament’ over China spy case – Tories

Sir Keir Starmer could be hauled before MPs after coming under mounting pressure over the collapse of the trial of alleged Chinese spies.

The country’s chief prosecutor blamed ministers for failing to provide the crucial evidence needed to proceed, and the Tories have now demanded that the Prime Minister explains himself to Parliament.

Sir Keir has insisted the previous Conservative administration’s stance on China was the reason the case was dropped because it had not deemed Beijing to be a threat to national security at the time of the alleged offences.

The director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had tried “over many months” to get the evidence it needed but it had not been forthcoming from Sir Keir’s administration.

Critics have pointed to Sir Keir’s attempts to build relations with the world’s second-biggest economy as a possible reason for the Government’s reluctance to label China an “enemy” or threat to national security.

The Government has called China a “sophisticated and persistent challenge” but Sir Keir said it was the previous government’s views which counted in the court case because that was what applied when the alleged offences occurred – and the Tories had not called Xi Jinping’s country a threat either.

The case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry – who both denied charges under the Official Secrets Act – was dropped on September 15.

Sir Keir will face demands from MPs to answer questions about the case when the Commons returns from its conference season break on Monday.

Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake told the PA news agency: “Keir Starmer does need to explain himself to Parliament and to the country.”

The allegation was of “people spying at the heart of government, and we are not willing to say that China is a threat to our national security”.

Mr Hollinrake said: “It’s totally wrong and it is a pattern of behaviour for Keir Starmer when we’ve seen, for example, the Chinese super embassy in the heart of London, which is not in the interest of national security.”

He insisted the previous Conservative government had “always said” China was a threat to national security “in certain areas”.

Two MPs have confirmed to PA they will apply for an urgent question in Parliament on Monday, something which Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle – who has serious concerns about the China case – would have to approve.

Sir Keir, who was DPP during his legal career before being elected an MP, would not necessarily have to respond personally to any urgent question.

Mr Cash had previously worked for senior Tory MP Alicia Kearns, who called on ministers to “come clean” about the collapse of the case following the DPP’s comments.

She told PA: “The Government must come clean – who is responsible for spiking the prosecution?

“Continued stonewalling only invites further concern of concealment or conspiracy.”

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Calum Miller said: “It is shocking that a case against two men accused of acting on China’s behalf to acquire secret information from MPs has collapsed because Government ministers and officials have refused to confirm China is a menace.”

In a letter to the chairs of the Commons Home Affairs and Justice Committees, the DPP said the CPS had sought further evidence after a High Court ruling in a separate case involving Bulgarians spying for Russia in the UK meant prosecutors now had to show China represented a threat to national security.

“Efforts to obtain that evidence were made over many months, but notwithstanding the fact that further witness statements were provided, none of these stated that at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security, and by late August 2025 it was realised that this evidence would not be forthcoming,” Mr Parkinson said.

“When this became apparent, the case could not proceed.”

Sir Keir insisted that as the alleged offences took place between December 2021 and February 2023, the Tory administration’s approach to China had to be considered in courtroom evidence.

The Tories at the time declined to describe China as a threat, and the Prime Minister told reporters: “You can’t prosecute someone two years later in relation to a designation that wasn’t in place at the time.

“So this has to be the position of the last government, I’m not saying that defensively, because that was the last government.”

Asked if he laid the blame for the charges being withdrawn at the door of the CPS, Sir Keir suggested he was “not expressing a view one way or the other”.

But Nick Vamos from law firm Peters & Peters and a former head of special crime at the CPS, questioned Mr Parkinson’s explanation for the collapse of the case.

He said “the explanation from the DPP still doesn’t add up” because the Bulgarian spy case expanded rather than restricted the definition of “enemy”.

“Therefore, either the CPS did not have sufficient evidence to charge the defendants in the first place, or they misunderstood what they needed to prove”, Mr Vamos said.

He said it was “hard to fathom” why the Government refused to provide evidence that China was a threat to national security at the time of the alleged offences.