Minister Blames Deputy for Collapse of China Spy Case

Published: 14 October 2025. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online.

Labour’s security minister, Dan Jarvis, has publicly blamed Jonathan Powell’s deputy for the collapse of a high-profile case involving two alleged Chinese spies, sparking controversy and claims that an unelected civil servant has been made a “scapegoat” for a national security fiasco.

The case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry collapsed last month after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) revealed that the Government had failed to provide crucial evidence that could have demonstrated China posed a national security threat. The development marked a major embarrassment for Labour, raising questions about oversight, accountability, and the handling of intelligence in sensitive legal proceedings.

On Monday, Mr Jarvis told the House of Commons that Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser (NSA), had been tasked with providing three witness statements to the CPS, most recently in July. None of these statements was reviewed by Sir Jonathan Powell or other Labour ministers before being submitted. According to Mr Jarvis, Collins had been given “full freedom” to provide evidence about the alleged spies without ministerial interference.

“This was a matter for the deputy national security adviser – a hugely experienced, highly capable senior official who provided evidence under the previous administration,” Mr Jarvis said. “Ministers were aware that evidence was being provided to support the CPS. They did not take advice, and they were not sighted on the contents. The deputy national security adviser was given full freedom to provide evidence without interference.”

Mr Powell, a special adviser appointed directly by Sir Keir Starmer after last year’s election, is a former aide to Tony Blair, while Collins is an unelected civil servant. The statement effectively placed responsibility for the collapse on Collins, prompting criticism from opposition MPs and commentators who argue that the move unfairly shields senior figures from accountability.

Legal experts have questioned whether a single official could bear sole responsibility for such a complex national security case. The CPS said it spent “many months” requesting further information from the Government, apparently referring to Mr Collins, but the evidence it sought was “not forthcoming.” Ministers defended Collins’ evidence, arguing it could only contain official government policy on China from the time of the alleged offences. This explanation has been challenged by a series of legal authorities and former senior civil servants, including two former cabinet secretaries and two former directors of MI6.

Lord Gove, the former Conservative Cabinet minister, criticised Labour’s decision to blame Collins. “Are we really asked to believe a single civil servant is alone responsible?” he wrote on X. “I fear he may be being made a scapegoat. Why not publish the evidence, publish the correspondence between NSA and Deputy NSA, and have the NSA answer parliamentarians’ questions?”

Sir Iain Duncan Smith, a Conservative MP and noted China hawk, described the Government’s claim that Powell was not involved as “an absolute matter of substantial absurdity,” asking: “What is the point of the national security adviser who does not then involve themselves in matters of national security, as in this case?”

Tom Tugendhat, the former security minister, said Labour’s explanation “set up more straw men than a Russian disinformation campaign” and suggested the Government had thrown Collins “under the bus.” Speaking to BBC Newsnight, he said: “Matt Collins has served our country with integrity for many, many years and is a very, very fine public official. The idea of throwing him under the bus, I think, is frankly pretty low.”

Housing Secretary Steve Reed defended Collins, telling Sky News that the official had acted appropriately. “Nobody is alleging any fault on the part of that official. The official did what was asked of him, which was to provide evidence to the CPS,” he said.

Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative Party leader, described Mr Jarvis’s statement as “nonsense,” accusing ministers of deliberately avoiding naming China as a threat to prevent angering Beijing. She questioned whether it was plausible that no minister was aware of the case until its collapse. “If this is the case, it is astonishing,” she said.

Amid the controversy, MI5 issued new guidance on Monday outlining methods used by hostile states and their proxies to influence elected officials. These include attempts to manipulate policy through financial donations and targeted cyber operations such as spear-phishing. The move appeared intended to reassure MPs that steps were being taken to protect Parliament from espionage threats.

Downing Street, meanwhile, pointedly referred to Chinese “threats” to national security, including operations within Parliament, signalling a hardening of the UK’s official stance. Sir Keir’s office confirmed that Powell attended a meeting about the case but maintained that it did not influence decisions regarding Collins’ evidence. Whitehall sources suggested that the meeting had been convened to manage the anticipated fallout, assuming the trial would result in convictions for Cash and Berry, both of whom have consistently denied the charges.

The row over responsibility comes ahead of a government decision on whether China should be allowed to construct a major “super-embassy” compound on the former site of the Royal Mint in London. Security officials have expressed concern that the facility could be exploited for espionage, with fears it might provide underground access to cables serving the City of London. At the same time, officials worry that rejecting the application could provoke retaliation from Beijing.

Legal commentators argue that the focus on Collins risks obscuring wider issues about how evidence in national security cases is managed. Critics say it highlights structural weaknesses in the oversight of sensitive intelligence and the role of special advisers and senior civil servants in shaping government policy. “Assigning blame to a single individual is unlikely to address the systemic failures that allowed this case to collapse,” said one former intelligence officer.

The Cash and Berry case has also reignited debate over antiquated legislation. Mr Jarvis pointed out that a 1911 law, combined with new case law from a trial involving Russian spies earlier this year, complicated the Government’s legal position. Critics argue that the legislative framework is ill-equipped to handle modern espionage threats, leaving national security dependent on outdated procedures and the discretion of individual officials.

The public and parliamentary scrutiny of the case is likely to continue in the coming weeks. MPs from both sides of the House have expressed concern about the implications for UK security and the credibility of intelligence agencies. Some fear that the handling of the case may embolden hostile states to exploit gaps in oversight or weaken public confidence in the government’s ability to respond to espionage threats.

Security experts and former intelligence officials also warn that the embassy issue remains particularly sensitive. The potential for covert operations in underground facilities, combined with the high-profile nature of the Royal Mint site, has prompted calls for greater transparency and rigorous review processes. Observers note that the fallout from the Cash and Berry case could influence how future national security decisions are made, particularly regarding sensitive property approvals and diplomatic permissions.

Sir Keir has sought to reassure Parliament and the public of his confidence in his advisers, stating that Powell was performing an “excellent job.” Nonetheless, the debate has intensified over accountability, the responsibilities of senior civil servants, and the role of ministers in overseeing intelligence evidence. The case has become a flashpoint in broader discussions about the UK’s approach to Chinese espionage and the protection of sensitive national infrastructure.

In conclusion, the collapse of the China spy case has exposed deep tensions between ministers, special advisers, and civil servants over who bears responsibility for safeguarding national security evidence. While Labour ministers emphasise Collins’ autonomy, critics argue that assigning sole blame to one official fails to address structural issues within government and intelligence oversight. With the upcoming decision on the proposed embassy and continued scrutiny of national security practices, the controversy surrounding the Cash and Berry trial is likely to remain a central issue in UK politics for months to come.