The three key questions about the China spy case that need to be answered

Published

2 days ago

October 16, 2025

admin

The government has published witness statements submitted by a senior official connected to the collapse of a trial involving two men accused of spying for China.

Here are three big questions that flow from them:

1. Why weren’t these statements enough for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) to carry on with the trial?

For this prosecution to go ahead, the CPS needed evidence that China was a “threat to national security”.

The deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins doesn’t explicitly use this form of words in his evidence. But he comes pretty close.

Politics latest – follow live

In the February 2025 witness statement, he calls China “the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security”.

Six months later, he says China’s espionage operations “harm the interests and security of the UK”.

Yes, he does quote the language of the Tory government at the time of the alleged offences, naming China as an “epoch-defining and systemic challenge”.

But he also provides examples of malicious cyber activity and the targeting of individuals in government during the two-year period that the alleged Chinese spies are said to have been operating.

In short, you can see why some MPs and ex-security chiefs are wondering why this wasn’t enough.

Former MI6 head Sir Richard Dearlove told Sky News this morning that “it seems to be there was enough” and added that the CPS could have called other witnesses – such as sitting intelligence directors – to back up the claim that China was a threat.

Expect the current director of public prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson to be called before MPs to answer all these questions.

2. Why didn’t the government give the CPS the extra evidence it needed?

The DPP, Stephen Parkinson, spoke to senior MPs yesterday and apparently told them he had 95% of the evidence he needed to bring the case.

The government has said it’s for the DPP to explain what that extra 5% was.

He’s already said the missing link was that he needed evidence to show China was a “threat to national security”, and the government did not give him that.

The newly published witness statements show they came close.

But if what was needed was that explicit form of words, why was the government reticent to jump through that hoop?

The defence from ministers is that the previous Conservative administration defined China as a “challenge”, rather than a “threat” (despite the numerous examples from the time of China being a threat).

The attack from the Tories is that Labour is seeking closer economic ties with China and so didn’t want to brand them an explicit threat.

3. Why do these statements contain current Labour policy?

Sir Keir Starmer says the key reason for the collapse of this trial is the position held by the previous Tory government on China.

But the witness statements from Matthew Collins do contain explicit references to current Labour policy. The most eye-catching is the final paragraph of the third witness statement provided by the Deputy National Security Adviser, where he quotes directly from Labour’s 2024 manifesto.

He writes: “It is important for me to emphasise… the government’s position is that we will co-operate where we can; compete where we need to; and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security.”

Did these warmer words towards China influence the DPP’s decision to drop the case?

Why did Matthew Collins feel it so important to include this statement?

Was he simply covering his back by inserting the current government’s approach, or was he instructed to put this section in?

A complicated relationship

Everyone agrees that the UK-China relationship is a complicated one.

There is ample evidence to suggest that China poses a threat to the UK’s national security. But that doesn’t mean the government here shouldn’t try and work with the country economically and on issues like climate change.

It appears the multi-faceted nature of these links struggled to fit the legal specificity required to bring a successful prosecution.

But there are still plenty of questions about why the government and the CPS weren’t able or willing to do more to square these circles.

Politics

Labour deputy leadership candidate accuses opponent’s team of ‘throwing mud’ and briefing against her

Published

11 mins ago

October 18, 2025

admin

Labour deputy leadership candidate accuses opponent's team of 'throwing mud' and briefing against her

Lucy Powell has accused Bridget Phillipson’s team of “throwing mud” and briefing against her in the Labour deputy leadership race in a special episode of Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast.

With just days to go until the race is decided, Sky News’ political editor Beth Rigby spoke to the two leadership rivals about allegations of leaks, questions of party unity and their political vision.

Ms Powell told Electoral Dysfunction that through the course of the contest, she had “never leaked or briefed”.

But she said of negative stories about her in the media: “I think some of these things have also come from my opponent’s team as well. And I think they need calling out.

“We are two strong women standing in this contest. We’ve both got different things to bring to the job. I’m not going to get into the business of smearing and briefing against Bridget.

“Having us airing our dirty washing, throwing mud – both in this campaign or indeed after this if I get elected as deputy leader – that is not the game that I’m in.”

Ms Powell was responding to a “Labour source” who told the New Statesman last week: “Lucy was sacked from cabinet because she couldn’t be trusted not to brief or leak.”

Ms Powell said she had spoken directly to Ms Phillipson about allegations of briefings “a little bit”.

Phillipson denies leaks

But asked separately if her team had briefed against Ms Powell, Ms Phillipson told Rigby: “Not to my knowledge.”

And Ms Phillipson said she had not spoken “directly” to her opponent about the claims of negative briefings, despite Ms Powell saying the pair had talked about it.

“I don’t know if there’s been any discussion between the teams,” she added.

On the race itself, the education secretary said it would be “destabilising” if Ms Powell is elected, as she is no longer in the cabinet.

“I think there is a risk that comes of airing too much disagreement in public at a time when we need to focus on taking the fight to our opponents.

“I know Lucy would reject that, but I think that is for me a key choice that members are facing.”

She added: “It’s about the principle of having that rule outside of government that risks being the problem. I think I’ll be able to get more done in government.”

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Insider vs outsider

But Ms Powell, who was recently sacked by Sir Keir Starmer as leader of the Commons, said she could “provide a stronger, more independent voice”.

“The party is withering on the vine at the same time, and people have got big jobs in government to do.

“Politics is moving really, really fast. Government is very, very slow. And I think having a full-time political deputy leader right now is the political injection we need.”

The result of the contest will be announced on Saturday 25 October.

The deputy leader has the potential to be a powerful and influential figure as the link between members and the parliamentary Labour Party, and will have a key role in election campaigns. They can’t be sacked by Sir Keir as they have their own mandate.

The contest was triggered by the resignation of Angela Rayner following a row over her tax affairs. She was also the deputy prime minister but this position was filled by David Lammy in a wider cabinet reshuffle.

Politics

UK tax authority doubles crypto warning letters in crackdown on unpaid gains

Published

4 hours ago

October 18, 2025

admin

UK tax authority doubles crypto warning letters in crackdown on unpaid gains

HMRC sent nearly 65,000 warning letters to crypto investors last year, more than double the previous year, as the UK steps up efforts to trace undeclared capital gains.

Politics

‘Additional resources’ offered by govt to reverse ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans at Villa game

Published

15 hours ago

October 17, 2025

admin

'Additional resources' offered by govt to reverse ban on Maccabi Tel Aviv fans at Villa game

The government says it is exploring what “additional resources and support are required” to allow “all fans” to attend Maccabi Tel Aviv’s match against Aston Villa next month.

Supporters of the Israeli side have been told they are not allowed to attend November’s game in Birmingham after a decision by Birmingham’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG).

The group – made up of local stakeholders, including representatives from the council, police and event organisers – said the decision was due to a high risk of violence based on “current intelligence and previous incidents”.

Politics live: MPs react to Maccabi Tel Aviv fan ban

The decision has been criticised across the political spectrum, with Sir Keir Starmer describing it as a “wrong decision” while Tory opposition leader Kemi Badenoch called it a “national disgrace”.

In a statement on Friday night, a government spokesperson said: “No one should be stopped from watching a football game simply because of who they are.

“The government is working with policing and other partners to do everything in our power to ensure this game can safely go ahead, with all fans present.

“We are exploring what additional resources and support are required so all fans can attend.”

Meanwhile, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood said: “Antisemitism is a stain on our society that shames us all. Every football fan, whoever they are, should be able to watch their team in safety.

“This government is doing everything in our power to ensure all fans can safely attend the game.”

The prime minister’s spokesman previously said Sir Keir would “do everything in his power to give Jewish communities the security they deserve”.

The Home Office offered to provide more police for the event, while Culture Secretary Lisa Nandy and Communities Secretary Steve Reed also intervened.

However, senior police insisted the ban was necessary and cited clashes and hate crime offences committed when the Israeli team travelled to Amsterdam to play Ajax last year.

The Aston Villa vs Maccabi Tel Aviv match – set to take place on Thursday 6 November – is a Europa League fixture.

UEFA, which runs the tournament, had urged UK authorities to ensure away fans could attend.