So who the hell's side are you on? Challenge to Starmer by 'victim' of China spy scandal - as prosecutors told Labour was anxious to woo Beijing
Labour's manifesto position on China appeared in an 'independent' statement by a top national security official accused of collapsing the case against two alleged Beijing spies.
A huge political row broke out yesterday over evidence given by deputy national security adviser Matthew Collins, who told prosecutors that Labour wanted to pursue a 'positive relationship' with Beijing shortly before the case collapsed.
An earlier statement provided by the top civil servant when the charges were laid, at a time the Conservatives were in Downing Street, had no such references.
It has been alleged that Labour allowed the case to collapse as it seeks closer economic ties with Beijing, with Mr Collins refusing to brand China an enemy of Britain in his witness statements and so delivering a fatal blow to a prosecution brought under the Official Secrets Act.
Senior Tories last night questioned whether Mr Collins had come under political pressure to include his wording.
Both of the suspects, English teacher Chris Berry and former parliamentary researcher Chris Cash, have denied any wrongdoing and not guilty verdicts were entered when the case against them fell apart 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.'
