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 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

13:28 BST

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

13:07 BST

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

12:54 BST

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.

Badenoch says the CPS said it was satisfied with the decision to charge the case "on the basis on where the law stood at that time".

"What changed and what collapsed the case," Badenoch asks.

Starmer repeats that the government will publish the witness statements it provided to the case.

Badenoch now asks: "What on earth is the point of having a lawyer rather than a leader as a prime minister if he can't even get the law right on a matter of national security?"

She references a Sunday Times report which suggests that the PM's national security adviser, Jonathan Powell attended a "secret" meeting discussing the national security consequences of the China spy trial.

Did the meeting happen, Badenoch asks.

Starmer says there was a meeting in September but it did not involve Powell discussing evidence in any way.

He adds that the final statement in the case was made in August 2025 - prior to any meeting in September.

Back to Badenoch, who says the government should finish quoting her on how she thought China should be described.

She accuses the PM of "whataboutery".

Can it be true that only one man had anything to do with this failure, she asks.

Yes, Starmer swiftly quips back - repeating the position on China was set by the last government.

Starmer says: "The deputy national security adviser Matt Collins, set out the then-government's position in a substantive witness statement in 2023 which was subsequently supplemented by two further short statements.

"The Cabinet Secretary assures me that the DNSA faithfully set out the policy of the then-Tory government.

"I know first hand that the DNSA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity.

"Those opposite who worked with him, I am sure, would agree with that assessment.

"Under this Government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence."

The "substantive evidence was provided in 2023 by the previous [Tory] government," Starmer replies.

He quotes a speech from the then-foreign secretary, titled "our position on China," in which he said describing China as a threat would be "impossible, impractical and most importantly unwise".

He also cites Badenoch - then business secretary - as having said: "We should certainly not be describing China as a foe."

"It's worth looking up the word 'foe' in the dictionary," he adds, saying that Badenoch said she had "shied away" from calling China as a threat.

Kemi Badenoch gets to her feet for her first question. She calls the collapse of the China spy case "simply unbelievable".

She references previous occasions where China had been referred to as a threat.

How is it possible the government failed to provide the evidence the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) needed, she asks.

Joshua Nevett
Reporting from the House of Commons

There was an angry intervention from the Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle midway through the PM’s statement on the China spying case.

After hearing some murmuring from the Tory benches, Hoyle stood up and said he wanted the PM to have the opportunity to explain the government’s position on the China spy case.