Labour’s stance on China was highlighted in a supposedly independent declaration by a top national security figure, who has faced criticism for the collapse of a case against two individuals accused of spying for Beijing.

Controversy erupted yesterday concerning testimony from Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, who informed prosecutors that Labour aimed to forge a ‘positive relationship’ with China just before the case disintegrated.

Previously, a statement issued by the same senior official, during the tenure of the Conservative government, omitted any mention of such a relationship.

Accusations have surfaced suggesting that Labour allowed the case to falter as part of a strategy to enhance economic connections with Beijing. Mr. Collins, in his witness statements, refrained from labeling China as an adversary to Britain, which reportedly undermined the prosecution under the Official Secrets Act.

Prominent Conservative figures questioned whether Mr. Collins was influenced politically to include language favorable to Labour’s position.

Both accused individuals, Chris Berry, an English teacher, and Chris Cash, a former parliamentary researcher, have maintained their innocence. Not guilty verdicts were issued when the prosecution collapsed last month.

Sir Keir Starmer also faced fresh questions about why he failed to act to try to save the case when he was warned last month it was in danger of collapsing.

During angry exchanges in the Commons, former security minister Tom Tugendhat accused the Prime Minister of putting bureaucracy ahead of leadership.

Keir Starmer with China’s President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil last year

Mr Tugendhat, one of the alleged victims in the spying case, told ministers: ‘Here we have two individuals seeking to extract information from us, and the Government’s response is not as mine was: do everything you can to make sure the prosecution works.

‘No, no, it was ‘process, process’. Well, who the hell’s side are you on? This is not about bureaucracy; this is about leadership.’

Kemi Badenoch urged the PM to ‘come clean’ and publish all documents relating to the case, including the minutes of a secret meeting involving national security adviser Jonathan Powell and Foreign Office chief Sir Olly Robbins just days before it collapsed.

The Conservative leader said: ‘Why was the evidence submitted by Labour so weak on the threat of China? Why did the evidence quote the Labour manifesto? Why didn’t Keir Starmer do something to stop the case collapsing?

‘Enough is enough. It’s time for the Prime Minister to come clean.’

Ministers were last night struggling to explain how lines from Labour’s manifesto ended up being included in the Government’s evidence submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), although they insisted Mr Collins had not faced political pressure to do so.

Mr Collins submitted an initial statement to prosecutors in December 2023, when the Tories were still in power, in which he said Chinese intelligence services are ‘highly capable and conduct large scale espionage operations against the UK and other international partners to advance the Chinese state’s interests and harm the interests and security of the UK’.

He said the kind of ‘sensitive information’ allegedly passed to Beijing by Mr Berry and Mr Cash was ‘prejudicial to the safety or interests of the UK’.

Wang Yi alongside Jonathan Powell, the British prime minister’s national security adviser, in Beijing

Mr Collins later, under the Labour Government, submitted two further short statements to the CPS.

In the final one, in August this year, he ended the submission saying it was ‘important for me to emphasise, however, that the UK government is committed to pursuing a positive relationship with China to strengthen understanding, cooperation and stability. The Government’s position is that we will cooperate where we can, compete where we need to and challenge where we must, including on issues of national security’.

The paragraph appears to be lifted almost word for word from Labour’s 2024 manifesto.

The case against the two men collapsed the following month. The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Stephen Parkinson later said that despite months of requests, the Government had failed to produce the evidence that ‘at the time of the offence China represented a threat to national security’.

Cabinet Office minister Chris Ward told MPs the statement was ‘put in there to provide wider context of the situation’, even though the alleged offences took place in 2022. Mr Ward said the comments had been ‘provided independently by the deputy national security adviser without interference from anyone else. They are his words’.

He said the decision to include them had been ‘taken freely, without interference from ministers or advisers’.

But Tory MPs questioned why a civil servant would have included party political material which did not appear relevant to the case.

Tory frontbencher Neil O’Brien, one of several MPs sanctioned by Beijing, said the words ‘weaken the case. They make it less clear that China is a threat to our national security’.

Former attorney general Sir Jeremy Wright said the inclusion of the comments ‘weakens the substance of the question that that witness was being asked to answer’.

Christopher Cash arrives at Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London in 2024

Downing Street has laid the blame for the case collapsing at the door of the Tories, saying China was not declared an enemy at the time charges were brought.

No 10 yesterday said that while the current Government’s policy on China was ‘immaterial’ to the case, Mr Collins had been right to include it. The PM’s spokesman told reporters it provided ‘context’, adding: ‘Civil servants are rightly expected to reflect the government policy of the day.’

The spokesman also flatly rejected Conservative claims that Sir Keir should have intervened when he was told the case was in danger of collapsing – but failed to lift a finger.

‘The suggestion that the Prime Minister should have stepped in at this point is frankly absurd,’ he said. ‘If he was to do so he would have been interfering in a case related to a previous government, a previous policy, previous legislation.’

But Dominic Cummings last night said the PM could have prevented the case from collapsing.

Mr Cummings, formerly chief adviser to Boris Johnson in No 10, told ITV’s Peston show: ‘If the Prime Minister was told about this case, given the facts of it and said, Prime Minister, do you think this case should go ahead or not? The case would have gone ahead. That’s how the system works.

‘The Prime Minister would speak to the attorney general and he’d say, ‘I’ve looked at this case, make sure this case goes ahead,’ call the DPP and tell them to do it.’