Former cabinet secretary Simon Case has called for a new Official Secrets Act, warning that the China spies “fiasco” shows that the current legislation “isn’t fit for purpose”.
Earlier this week, Britain’s most senior prosecutor said that a case involving two men accused of spying for China collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat. The men in question, Christopher Cash, 30, and Christopher Berry, 33, both deny the allegations.
However, the decision to drop the case before it could be heard in court has prompted an outpouring of criticism from ministers and MPs. For his part, Keir Starmer has laid the blame squarely at the feet of the Tories, who were in power at the time, for failing to define China as a threat to the UK during the period when Berry and Cash were accused. Meanwhile, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch has accused Labour of deliberately collapsing the trial “because the Prime Minister wants to suck up to Beijing”.
Speaking exclusively to the New Statesman, Case, who served as the top civil servant under both Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak, said the episode demonstrated that it was time for Britain to have espionage legislation it could rely on.
“What this case shows us is that our framework and definitions are out of date,” he said. “Successful prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act seem to be incredibly hard to achieve despite the growing evidence of espionage conducted by other people against the UK. It’s time for us to have more effective legislation which our police and security services can rely on.”
He added: “This fiasco seems to show us that the Official Secrets Act is no longer fit for purpose.”
At the heart of the issue is Britain’s relationship with China, which has been defined both as a “challenge” by the last government, while also being one of the UK’s largest trading partners.
“China is a very difficult problem,” Case said.
“It’s undoubtedly a state with a very large security and intelligence apparatus, which it uses all around the world. At the same time, it’s an enormous source of investment and source of capital for a lot of other nations, and that causes a lot of countries, not just the UK, a definitional problem about how to approach China, given both of these things are true.”
He said the current legislation’s framework, which orgininated before the First World War, “doesn’t make much sense”.
“This thing was first written in 1911, right? It was written in the context of pre First World War spy stories. How this thing came about is absolutely extraordinary. It’s all to do with alleged spy incidents and Germans supposedly spying in places in the East of England. It’s an amazing story.
“But what seems to be the issue is when you get into the definition of an enemy in this context, as being a state who does you harm or basically wants to spy on you, it would be very odd for that definition to then have to be Parliament, government, has declared war. That would be a very odd definition of enemy. That doesn’t make much sense to me. This framework does not seem to be thought through or complete to me.”
Instead, he said, Britain should “at least have the option” of prosecuting any spies it catches, regardless of where they come from.
For instance, if a spy from a close ally was caught: “You might call them in, give them a dressing down, and say ‘don’t ever do this again’.”
[Further reading: Kemi Badenoch rides Tory conference high – for now]
Correction: The two men accused of spying for China were charged under the Official Secrets Acts (1911, 1920, 1939). In the intervening period, the National Security Act (2023) was introduced. When we contacted Simon Case after publication, he said his references to the Official Secrets Act in this interview referred to current legislation.
Content from our partners
Related
