Image source, PA Media

Today's PMQs was dominated by one subject - the now-collapsed case against two people accused of spying for China. Both men say they are innocent.

It comes after Tory leader Kemi Badenoch wrote to Keir Starmer on Sunday, asking him to address a series of "unanswered" questions about the case.

In her letter, Badenoch accused the PM and his ministers of being "too weak to stand up to Beijing on a crucial matter of national security".

Starmer gave a lengthy statement at the start of PMQs – before Badenoch had even started her questions. He began by saying the government was "disappointed" with the outcome of the case. He held the view that the key moments in the case happened under the last Conservative government.

The PM promised to publish government witness statements given to prosecutors "in full". Our political editor, Chris Mason, says this could happen within hours.

This may not be the end of the matter, as the central allegation has been that the government could have provided more evidence and has perhaps chosen not to. Ministers say this is not the case.

We're ending our live coverage now – but we'll be back for the next session of PMQs. You can continue to read more about today's developments in our main article.

We've been getting some more reaction to Starmer's announcement about the collapsed China spy case.

Mark Elliott, professor of Public Law at University of Cambridge says that while the publication of witness statements will shed some light on the situation, "questions will still remain".

"There is a lot of information in the public domain suggesting that China was considered - including by the last government - a threat to national security in 2023," he tells BBC Radio 4's World at One programme.

He says that ministers have been "at pains" to consistently say things have changed since the last government - but maintain the current government's position on China was bound by the former's stance.

"Nothing in the case law says that is the case," Elliott adds.

As a reminder, this row relates to the three witness statements submitted by Deputy National Security Adviser Matthew Collins, on whether China had been regarded as a threat at the time of the alleged offences under the previous Tory government.

Becky Morton
Political reporter

The government will publish witnesses statements provided by the deputy national security during the now collapsed China case.

Barring any surprises, it is unlikely the publication of these statements will draw a line under the issue.

The central allegation has not been that the government toned down evidence, but that it perhaps could have provided more and chose not to.

The government maintains that is not the case and the publication of the statements may not shed any more light on that.

On Tuesday, senior government figures had suggested that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had told them publishing the witness statements would be "inappropriate".

But the CPS later made clear it would not stand in the way if ministers chose to put their evidence in the public domain.

A spokesperson said: "The statements were provided to us for the purpose of criminal proceedings which are now over.

"The material contained in them is not ours, and it is a matter for the government, independently of the CPS, to consider whether or not to make that material public."

Chris Mason
Political editor

The briefings with the prime minister's team and Kemi Badenoch's team that happen every week after PMQs have just concluded, having lasted around an hour and twenty minutes.

That, for the avoidance of doubt, is a long time by the standards of these things.

The documents coming later – and it looks, right now at least, like that will be later today, sound like they’ll be quite chunky.

What else have we learnt?

The final submission of evidence from the government's deputy national security adviser was submitted on 4 August.

On 1 September, the national security adviser and the permanent secretary at the foreign office held a meeting in which what is described as the "bilateral handling" of the then forthcoming court case was discussed.

In other words, how to deal with China when a big, high profile court case about alleged spying is under way.

The government maintains that this meeting didn't get into the evidence relating to the case.

The Conservatives say hang on, No 10 hasn't always been clear about this meeting – and it is a meeting that happened before the case collapsed on 15 September. They are now demanding the minutes of that meeting are published.

The prime minister did find out the case was collapsing two days before it did, but those in government won't say how he found out.

Image source, PA Media

Sir Keir Starmer did not see the evidence submitted by the government as part of the collapsed China spy case until this morning, according to Downing Street.

Starmer began PMQs by saying the government was "disappointed" with the outcome of the case, and committed to publishing the government's witness statements "in full".

No 10 said the PM found out about the possible collapse of the trial "a couple of days" in advance, but it was not for him to intervene.

"The prime minister was made aware of the possibility of the trial not proceeding just a couple of days before the court was informed," a spokesman said.

"The prime minister had not seen these witness statements until this morning."

The official said it is for the director of public prosecutions or the Crown Prosecution Service "to make a decision on a criminal case" and not for Starmer to interfere.

Prosecutors unexpectedly dropped the case against Christopher Cash and Christopher Berry last month, prompting criticism from ministers and MPs. Both men deny the allegations.

The director of public prosecutions said the case collapsed because evidence could not be obtained from the government referring to China as a national security threat.

Downing Street promises the "fullest version possible" of the government's witness statements provided to the now-collapsed China spy case will be made public.

A No 10 spokesman tells reporters that until last night the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had made clear that witnesses have an "expectation that their evidence will not be publicly discussed in those circumstances".

He adds that the CPS had also advised that to do so - or to do so in some cases, but not in others - may affect the confidence of witnesses in coming forward.

But following Starmer's pledge in the Commons today, he says three statements from the deputy national security adviser Matt Collins will be released "after a short process".

He does not say how long that process would take.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

There were laughs in the Commons when a Labour MP raised a niche constituency issue, and cheekily drew attention to a spelling mistake on the wrapping of a chocolate bar, external given out by the Conservatives at their party conference.

“When Labour negotiates, Britian loses,” read the message, signed by Kemi Badenoch.

The prime minister suggested the Tories could not be trusted to govern if they could not spell.

Lots of accusations but no consensus on who's to blame for case collapsepublished at 13:28 BST 15 October

13:28 BST 15 October

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

There were lots of jeers and howls of outrage from Labour and Conservative MPs as the PM and Badenoch clashed over the China spying case.

There were accusations, and counter accusations, but no consensus on who's ultimately accountable for the collapse of the case.

As expected, Badenoch used all of her questions to press the prime minister on the collapse of the case.

“He should have seen this case through,” she said,

She framed it as a national security issue, suggesting the government’s handling of the case means Labour ministers can’t protect the country.

But the PM said the Conservatives were to blame for not labelling China a threat when they were in government.

He said the Conservatives were just “slinging mud”.

With witnesses statements due to be published, this row looks set to continue bubbling away.

Witness statements may bring some answers, but almost certainly not all of thempublished at 13:07 BST 15 October

13:07 BST 15 October

Chris Mason
Political editor

Image source, House of Commons via PA

The Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch sought to pick up where she left off last month with her series of questions about the former ambassador to Washington, Lord Mandelson — with this week’s series about the China spy case.

What she wasn’t aware of was that the prime minister would give a lengthy statement at the start of the exchanges — before her questions — which at least partly changed the terms of trade of the conversation to follow.

Keir Starmer holds to the view that the key detail in all of this is that the key moments happened under the last Conservative government.

The Conservatives and others think the government remains evasive about precisely what has happened here.

The witness statements, when we see them, may bring some answers, but almost certainly not all of them.

Others are asking questions of the Crown Prosecution Service.

Were they right to bring charges in the first place? Or could they have still made a compelling case in court regardless of the last government’s language on China?

This week's session of Prime Minister's Questions was dominated by the now-collapsed case against two people accused of spying for China.

It follows pressure on the government to release the evidence it submitted to the case, before it was unexpectedly dropped by prosecutors last month.

Here are the key lines

• Starmer began by saying government was "disappointed" with the outcome of the case, as he committed to publishing the government's witness statements "in full"
• Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called the collapse "unbelievable". She said it "all stinks of a cover up" and blamed the collapse on ministers being "too weak to stand up to China"
• She also asked the PM about claims that a "secret" meeting took place with his national security adviser, Jonathan Powell - Starmer said one took place but it did not involve Powell discussing evidence
• The PM quoted a former statements from Badenoch, in which she said: "We should certainly not be describing China as a foe"
• He also frequently said that the Conservatives were in power during the period concerning the case
• Asked if he would also provide meeting minutes and any correspondence with the CPS, Starmer said he would follow the "proper process"

An unexpected end to PMQspublished at 12:54 BST 15 October

12:54 BST 15 October

Helen Catt
Political correspondent

Well that was an unexpected end to PMQs as James Cleverly made a point of order to correct what he says is a misquote of what he said about the Conservative government’s position on China.

The government have heavily leant on his words in making their case about the collapse of the spying case.

It's an echo of the unusual start too - with the prime minister making a statement that came as a surprise to the opposition.

It just reinforces how complicated the detail of this story is and how much longer the questioning of it might go on.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

As we just reported, at the end of PMQs, the Speaker granted Tory shadow housing secretary James Cleverly an intervention to clarify what he had said in a speech about China.

Standing at the dispatch box, Cleverly says he was misquoted by the prime minister. He says describing China in “one word” was impossible, impractical and unwise.

Here's the section of the 2023 speech he's referring to:

“I’m often asked to express that policy in a single phrase, or to sum up China itself in one word, whether ‘threat’, or ‘partner’, or ‘adversary’. And I want to start by explaining why that is impossible, impractical and – most importantly – unwise.”

Image source, House of Commons via PA

James Cleverly - who was foreign secretary for a period under the previous Tory government - says that he has been misquoted by the PM on China (see our earlier post for how Starmer cited him).

He says that he instead said that describing China in one word or a policy was "unwise".

He says he originally said where there are tensions with other objections around China, national security will be put first.

He asks how he will get redress for this misquote - Speaker Lindsay Hoyle replies that his quotes are on the record.

PMQs concludes. Stay with us for a recap of the key exchanges and analysis from our politics team in Westminster.

Tory MP Tom Tugendhat puts it to the PM that the "real question" is whether or not the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) charged "legally and properly" in the China spy case - and if the government gave any "political direction" to their officials before they gave evidence.

"Absolutely not," Starmer says emphatically, adding that "not once" was he subjected to political pressure from anyone when he was DPP.

Prime Minister's Questions has just concluded.

There are a few more questions and responses we have left to bring you, so stay tuned for that.

We're also working on a digest of all the key lines, which we'll have with you shortly.

Plaid Cymru's Liz Saville Roberts asks Starmer why he told the BBC he wasn't sure if he would campaign in a by-election in Caerphilly next week.

Is this down to the council leader resigning from Labour and "calling on people to support Plaid Cymru," she asks.

Starmer says Labour provided £21bn - the largest ever settlement for Wales - and adds that "she voted against it".

He also says that Welsh independence would cost every Welsh person £7,000.

"They should be honest to the people of Wales about the cost of their policies," he adds.

Image source, House of Commons via PA

Cooper turns to what she describes as another "threat" to the UK.

"On Monday, the far-right, racist, hate-preacher Tommy Robinson, who is currently on trial for allegedly refusing to comply with counter-terror police, claimed that his legal costs are being paid by Elon Musk."

She says it's "outrageous" Musk - who owns the social media platform X - a man that "has so much control over what people read online everyday could be funding someone who stokes far-right extremism on our streets".

She asks if PM if he will commission security services to assess the "threat" billionaire Musk poses to UK democracy.

Starmer responds by saying that the government looks "across the board" at threats to democracy, but says he won't comment on the case of Tommy Robinson because of ongoing legal proceedings.

Lib Dem deputy leader Daisy Cooper welcomes the government's "new level of transparency" over the China spy case.

But, she says, many questions need to be answered, especially from Hong Kongers who have fled to the UK to escape Chinese oppression.

The government is now making it harder for Hong Kongers to stay in the UK permanently and the UK is refusing to rule out a new Chinese "super embassy" in London, she says.

Is the government trading safety and security for a "cosier relationship with Beijing", she asks.

"The answer is no," Starmer says, adding that the government will continue to support Hong Kongers.

Badenoch says the PM has been economical with the truth, cannot tell the public why China was not labelled as a threat and is blaming everyone else.

She adds the government is "too weak" to stand up to China.

The case did not proceed because of the last Tory government, Starmer retorts, calling the Tories' failure to update the law a "pathetic spectacle".

Image source, House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA Wire

Why should we believe a PM that during the last PMQs said he had full confidence in Peter Mandelson - since sacked - as the UK's ambassador to the US, the Tory leader asks.

"It all stinks of a cover-up," she adds.

"Given his statement earlier, will the prime minister publish today not just the government witness statements, but also all the meeting minutes and all of the correspondence that he had with the CPS," she asks.

Starmer says he'll follow a "proper process" and ensure those who are in the statements know it's coming.

"I can assure the house there's no substantive delay here, I know it is a concern to a number of people," he adds.