MI5 chief ‘frustrated’ by China spy case as No 10 defends Starmer’s approach

The head of MI5 has admitted he was “frustrated” by the collapse of the Chinese spying case, after Downing Street insisted it would have been “absurd” for the Prime Minister to intervene and stop its withdrawal.

Ken McCallum warned “Chinese state actors” present a national security threat to the UK “every day”, with the security services having carried out an operation against a threat from Beijing within the last week.

No 10 meanwhile insisted that Sir Keir Starmer could not have intervened in the case once the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) notified him it would be withdrawn, for fear of the Government interfering with the course of justice.

A decision on whether to approve China’s new “super-embassy” in central London has meanwhile been postponed as the row around the plans continue.

The CPS dropped the case against Christopher Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, and Christopher Berry in September after deeming the evidence did not show China was a threat to national security.

Both men, who deny wrongdoing, had been accused of passing secrets to China.

MI5 director general Sir Ken was asked if he was frustrated by the collapse of the case as he gave a speech at the agency’s London headquarters.

“Of course I am frustrated when opportunities to prosecute national security threatening activity are not followed through, for whatever reason,” he said.

The spy chief said that the alleged activity was stopped, adding: “I would invite everyone to not miss the fact that this was a strong disruption in the interest of the UK’s national security.”

In a stark warning about Beijing’s spying activities, he also highlighted attempts by China to carry out “cyber espionage”, “clandestine technology transfer”, efforts to “interfere covertly in UK public life” and the “harassment and intimidation of opponents” including pro-democracy activists.

Asked directly whether China as a whole was a national security threat, Sir Ken said: “Question one is: do Chinese state actors present a UK national security threat?

“And the answer is, of course, yes they do, every day.”

Elsewhere, No 10 faced fresh questions following the publication late on Wednesday night of witness statements crucial to the CPS’s decision to withdraw the case.

The three statements provided by deputy national security adviser Matt Collins showed the Government warned of Beijing’s large-scale espionage but stressed the desire to seek a positive relationship with the economic superpower.

Asked why Sir Keir did not intervene when the CPS said it would withdraw the case, given the Government’s evidence described threats China poses to the UK, the Prime Minister’s official spokesman said: “The suggestion that the Prime Minister should have stepped in at this point is frankly absurd.

“If he was to do so he would have been interfering in a case related to a previous government, a previous policy, previous legislation.”

Ministers have throughout insisted the collapsed case relied upon the previous Tory government’s policy towards China, which classified China as an “epoch-defining challenge” rather than a threat.

But in the last paragraph of his third and final statement in August, just weeks before the case collapsed, Mr Collins used the exact language of the current Labour Government’s “Three C’s” approach: co-operation where there are shared interests, competition in other areas, and challenge on issues including national security.

No 10 insisted Mr Collins was subject to “routine handling controls” by the CPS to ensure he was “able to give his evidence without any influence”, when asked if ministers or officials had asked him to reflect the Government’s China policy.

Speaking in the Commons, Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward told MPs that Mr Collins’ decision to include the current Government’s policy was “taken freely” and without “interference from ministers or advisers”.

Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch told the PA news agency that the witness statements proved Sir Keir had “misled Parliament”.

Mrs Badenoch added: “They were informed that the spy case was collapsing. They could have intervened to stop it. They didn’t, because they’re too weak to stand up to China.”

In a letter responding to questions from the Conservative leader, Sir Keir told her it was “plainly wrong” for her to imply the Tories treated China as an enemy as a matter of policy while in government.

He also defended one of his top advisers who has become embroiled in the row, insisting it is “simply untrue” that National Security Adviser Jonathan Powell ruled during a September meeting that China could not be defined as a threat.

A Chinese embassy spokesperson said the published witness statements were “rife with unfounded accusations against China”.

They added: “China never interferes in other countries’ internal affairs and always acts in an open and above-board manner.

“As a Chinese saying goes, ‘While the superior man is at ease with himself, the inferior man is always anxious.’ The attempt by some British politicians to smear China is doomed to fail.”

Mr Berry denied any wrongdoing, saying he was now “unfairly subjected to a trial by media, caught in the middle whilst various groups seek to use the case to their political advantage”.

He said his reports for a Chinese company concerning economic and commercial issues “contained no classified information”.

In a statement released to the BBC, Mr Berry said: “I do not accept that, in so doing, I was providing information to the Chinese intelligence services, nor is it tenable that the provision of such material could, in any sense, be considered for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state. This would have been one of many issues raised with the jury during a trial.”

A parliamentary committee will launch a formal inquiry into the case.

Labour MP Matt Western, chairman of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, said there were “a lot of questions yet to be asked” as he announced the move.

Mr Western and the chairs of the Home Affairs, Justice and Foreign Affairs committees also wrote to director of public prosecutions Stephen Parkinson to demand “a fuller explanation for the dropping of charges”.

A series of questions in their letter included whether evidence was sought from other sources such as intelligence material or ministers that might have described China as a threat, and what steps he took to make the Government aware that the case would collapse without further evidence.

Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee has, meanwhile, “received the intelligence background behind the case”, and plans to “investigate how that classified material was then used”, its chairman Lord Beamish said.

The Labour peer and former minister said his committee has the “legal power to require information from the UK intelligence community” and “will follow the evidence wherever necessary, and report to Parliament as appropriate”.