UK played ‘key role’ in Gaza peace deal but won’t put troops on ground, minister says

Sir Keir Starmer and his team have spent the last week loudly repeating their position on the China spying case – and hoping claims they deliberately caused the trial to collapse will just go away.

As a former director of public prosecutions himself, the PM seems convinced that piling all the blame on the previous government should silence his critics. 

His legal argument is that because the offence dates back to 2023, only the official security designation in 2023 is relevant.  

But this doesn’t entirely respond to the extraordinary central allegation made by his current successor, Stephen Parkinson, that despite many months of requests, his government failed to provide evidence that China posed a threat to national security.

Every day since then, we’ve seen a drip-drip of denied, but increasingly damaging headlines – all contributing to the perception that minsters chose to prioritise the economic benefits of a closer trading relationship with Beijing over national security considerations.

Over the past few days the focus has shifted to Jonathan Powell, the PM’s national security advisor (once Tony Blair’s chief of staff), with The Times reporting cabinet ministers believe he is “too close” to China, and claims in The Telegraph that he deliberately suppressed a Whitehall investigation into Chinese spying after lobbying from the Treasury – which the Foreign Office denies.

Speaking on Sunday Morning with Trevor Philips, the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson was unequivocal in her defence of Powell.

“Yes I can give that assurance,” she replied without hesitation when asked if she could confirm that he played no role in the decision not to designate China a threat to national security. 

She went on to stress, once again, that “this was a decision taken by the CPS – we’re disappointed it didn’t go any further, and we’re clear in our approach to China, which is we recognise the challenges, the threats and the opportunities”.

She insisted that Powell does enjoy the PM’s full confidence.

But her complete dismissal of any suggestion the national security advisor was involved in discussions about a key potential threat to national security was described by the shadow foreign secretary Dame Priti Patel as “a very bold statement”.  

Patel claims Powell was clearly involved in meetings in which the government was “trying to rewrite the narrative on China”, insisting that during her own time in office, “we knew China was an adversary, a real threat to us” with plenty of classified information available to back that up.

Speaking to other broadcasters later in the morning, Phillipson seemed to have backtracked into a more cautious approach, telling the BBC Powell was not involved in discussions about the “substance or the evidence” of the case.

As a highly experienced peace negotiator, Powell’s attention this week has no doubt been focused on the UK’s involvement in the Gaza deal. 

But he should perhaps be worried by the government’s track record in giving impassioned defences of individuals who were subsequently sent packing – from Sue Gray to Lord Mandelson.

The tide of UK-Sino relations has ebbed and flowed in recent years – from David Cameron’s chummy pint with Xi Jinping to Boris Johnson’s ban on the purchase of Huawei 5G equipment.

For a government determined to generate economic growth at all costs, there are clear attractions to cultivating a closer relationship with Beijing. 

But as the ongoing coverage demonstrates, there are obvious risks to this strategy – risks escalated by ongoing concern from the US.  

The many questions raised by the case will surely dominate any attempt for a fresh start for the PM after the conference recess.

For a government led by a lawyer who promised to return honesty and integrity to Whitehall – the debate poses a real reputational threat.