The Guardian’s view on UK national security: A case of state failure | Editorial

TThe row over Chinese espionage has exposed worrying vulnerabilities in state operations in the UK. It cannot be in the national interest for a national security case to reach this level in the courts and then be abandoned under ambiguous circumstances. Public trust, as well as security itself, is inevitably at risk. But this issue of real importance now threatens to be shrouded in the fog of political battle between the two parties in Westminster.

For the third time this week, MPs spent Thursday trading accusations over whether the Conservatives or Labor were more to blame for the failure of the collapsed trial last month. To be fair, Latest exchanges He did not stoop to the “didn’t” level reached at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday. Politicians from Sir Keir Starmer down are fond of saying that national interest comes before party interest. But there has been little evidence of this principle in the current dispute.

The main issue is actually not whether China poses a security threat to the UK. This is a no-brainer. Many countries, including Britain, spy on their enemies – and perhaps some of their friends as well. But the threat posed by China reflects its size, wealth, and values. Deliver his annual threat to update MI5 chief Sir Ken McCallum said on Thursday that he faces this threat on a daily basis. “Do Chinese state actors pose a national security threat to the UK?” he asked. “The answer is, of course, yes.”

What is questionable is whether the British state’s processes are as refined as they need to be to deal with such cases in modern circumstances. The collapse of the alleged espionage case involving one of the three countries identified by Sir Ken as the main threats to the UK – Iran and Russia being the others – provides an answer of its own. It is very clear that this was a case of state failure.

The problem of judgment has two levels. The first is that the law has not kept pace with the pace of progress. The defendants (who denied any wrongdoing) were charged and faced prosecution under the Official Secrets Act 1911, which was still in force when they were first arrested. However, the world of security in 2025 is radically different from the world of 1911. Hence the changes brought by the United States. National Security Law in 2023. Hence also the late-stage pressure to strengthen witness statements by civil servants who were published this week. But the law should and could have been reformed years ago.

The second problem concerns prosecution decisions in national security cases. This necessarily involves finding a delicate balance between the government, as the main guardian of the national interest, and the independent Crown Prosecution Service, headed by the Director of Public Prosecutions. Ministers insist that they, like the head of MI5, want the trial in China to go ahead. But the collapse of the case suggests that this government and law enforcement officials got that balance wrong. That must change.

The collapse of the China case, whether fair or unfair, damages confidence. This makes Sir Keir’s government appear indecisive on national security. Labour’s struggle to get its story straight has not helped. This even bears distant echoes of the first Labor government, which fell after Ramsay Macdonald’s decision not to go ahead with government. Campbell The case for inciting rebellion in 1924. Labor now has a large majority, while Mr Macdonald had none at all, but Sir Keir should not underestimate the risks.