Starmer’s opening statement at PMQs on China spy case
Here is the opening statement that Keir Starmer made at the start of PMQs about the China spy case.
May I update the house or the China spy case. I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this government. We will always defend against espionage.
In recent weeks, there have been baseless accusations put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts.
The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative government between the year of 2021 and 2023.
This period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021, the beginning of the period, and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out that policy.
These statements of government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy.
Instead they stated increased national security protections where China poses a threat and that the then government would engage with China to leave room open for constructive and predictable relations.
The deputy national security adviser [DSNA], 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 DSNA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory government.
I know first hand that the DSNA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity. And those opposite who worked with him, I’m sure, would agree with that assessment.
Under this government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence.
I can’t say what the position was of the previous government in relation to the involvement of ministers or special advisers. If the leader of the opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the house.
Last night the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in their view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DSNA is for the government.
I’ve therefore carefully considered this question this morning. And, after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statement here.
Given the given the information contained, we will conduct a short process.
But I want to publish the witness statements in full.
Let me say this; to be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation, a review that started in 2015, these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where.
Key events
The Lib Dems have restated their call for an inquiry into the collapse of the China spy trial. Daisy Cooper, the deputy leader, said:
The government must bolster their publication of witness statements and put all the legal advice they’ve received on this case on the public record – including advice on what evidence would be needed for this trial to go ahead.
Number 10 must also urgently launch an independent inquiry so we can finally get to the bottom of what actually happened in this labyrinthine case.
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson was also slightly evasive on whether or not income tax, national insurance or VAT could go up in the budget. In its manifesto, Labour said it would not raise these taxes. The manifesto still “stands”, No 10 said (using the curious wording adopted by ministers at Labour’s conference). But the spokesperson also said the government would also make the numbers add up.
Jason Groves, the Daily Mail’s political editor, says:
No 10 very slippery on whether Labour’s tax pledges still stand. Asked if income tax, VAT or national insurance could rise in the Budget, the PM’s spokesman said: ‘I’m not going to speculate on the Budget but as the Chancellor said today, the numbers will always add up.
Starmer only read China spy case witness statements this morning, No 10 says
Here are the main lines from the NO 10 post-PMQs lobby briefing.
-
The PM’s spokesperson explained why the government was publishing its China spy case witness statements now, when yesterday officials were saying the CPS were opposed to this. The spokesperson said:
Prior to last night, the CPS had made clear that witnesses have an expectation that their evidence will not be publicly discussed in those circumstances.
The CPS had also advised that to do so, or to do so in some cases, but not in others, would likely affect the confidence of witnesses in coming forward and hamper the interests of justice.
However, given the CPS has now greenlit the publication, we will release the three statements from the DNSA (deputy national security adviser Matt Collins) after a short process. We will release the fullest version possible.
-
The spokesperson said three witness statements would be published. The first substantive witness statement was submitted by Collins under the previous Conservative government in December 2023, and two additional ones were provided by him in February and August this year.
Cleverly accuses Starmer of misquoting him on China
James Cleverly, the Tory former foreign secretary, used a point of order after PMQs to say he had been misquoted by the prime minister.
Referring to what Keir Starmer said about Cleverly’s stance on China (see 12.13pm), Cleverly said:
In the statement that the security minister made earlier this week, and then again, in answer to a question, I have been misquoted.
It has been said that I, in a speech at Mansion House, said that describing China as a threat was impractical and, most importantly, unwise.
The quote was that describing China as one word, or our policy in one word, is impossible, impractical and most importantly, unwise.
I went on to say that our policy first, we will strengthen our national security protections wherever Beijing’s actions pose a threat to our people or prosperity.
I finished by saying, and when there are tensions with other objectives, we will always put our national security first.
PMQs – snap verdict
PMQs is not an equal contest. The prime minister gets the last word, which helps, but far more significantly he has executive advantage – information and power – not available to the leader of the opposition. Today Keir Starmer took full advantage of that, surprising MPs with a lengthy opening statement at the start of PMQs. (See 1.21pm.) He was in command right from the start and Kemi Badenoch never seriously challenged him.
Much of what Starmer said was not new. The government has been blaming the Tories for the collapse of the prosecution for days, saying if the Official Secrets Act had been updated earlier, a successful prosecution might be able to go ahead. But what was most striking about Starmer’s performance was the confidence he displayed in rebutting charges of interference, or a cover-up. The fact that he is promising to publish the three witness statements in full shows that he is fairly certain they won’t be incriminating. His assertion that the “substantive” witness statement was the one written when the Tories were in office was significant. His declaration that the final one came before the September meeting attended by Jonathan Powell undermines claims that Powell made an improper intervention. Ministers with something to hide resort to evasion; but Starmer was unambiguous in dismissing the Tory claims as “baseless”. And he was perhaps most impressive right at the end, when he spoke about avoiding political interference in prosecutions being an article of faith for him. (See 12.54pm.)
He was 90% convincing. But Starmer did not explain why, if the evidence was sufficient to justify charging the alleged spies under the Official Secrets Act in 2023, a decision was taken two years later to drop the case. The CPS has explained that on the grounds that the case law changed as a result of a ruling in a separate spy case in the spring, raising the threshold needed for a conviction. Legal experts say the court of appeal ruling in Ivanova and Rossev in fact did the opposite, lowering the threshold and making prosecution easier. If the CPS is right, it needs to explain its case more convincingly.
Badenoch gave no ground and ploughed on regardless. A reasonable person would have listened to Starmer’s case, and decided it might be best waiting until the witness statements are out before performing a judgment. But PMQs does not really allow for that sort of approach, and it is not Badenoch’s style anyway, and she just kept bashing away. Given the paucity of the evidence at her disposal, it was quite an impressive example of resilience, and Tory MPs may have liked it. But she wasn’t winning the argument.
Starmer’s opening statement at PMQs on China spy case
Here is the opening statement that Keir Starmer made at the start of PMQs about the China spy case.
May I update the house or the China spy case. I am deeply disappointed by the outcome. We wanted to see prosecutions. Mr Speaker, I know just how seriously, rightly, you take these matters. National security will always be the first priority of this government. We will always defend against espionage.
In recent weeks, there have been baseless accusations put about by the party opposite. Let me set out the facts.
The relevant period was when these offences took place. That was under the Conservative government between the year of 2021 and 2023.
This period was bookended by the integrated review of 2021, the beginning of the period, and the refresh of that review in 2023, setting out that policy.
These statements of government policy were very carefully worded to not describe China as an enemy.
Instead they stated increased national security protections where China poses a threat and that the then government would engage with China to leave room open for constructive and predictable relations.
The deputy national security adviser [DSNA], 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 DSNA faithfully set out the policy of the then Tory government.
I know first hand that the DSNA is a civil servant of the utmost integrity. And those opposite who worked with him, I’m sure, would agree with that assessment.
Under this government, no minister or special adviser played any role in the provision of evidence.
I can’t say what the position was of the previous government in relation to the involvement of ministers or special advisers. If the leader of the opposition knows the answer to that question, and I suspect that she does, I invite her to update the house.
Last night the Crown Prosecution Service clarified that, in their view, the decision whether to publish the witness statements of the DSNA is for the government.
I’ve therefore carefully considered this question this morning. And, after legal advice, I have decided to publish the witness statement here.
Given the given the information contained, we will conduct a short process.
But I want to publish the witness statements in full.
Let me say this; to be clear, had the Conservatives been quicker in updating our legislation, a review that started in 2015, these individuals could have been prosecuted and we would not be where.
Starmer says not putting political pressure on CPS is ‘proud tradition’, as he knows from being DPP during expenses scandal
Tom Tugendhat, the Tory former security minister, got the last question, and he used it to ask about the China spy case.
He said the key question was whether or not the CPS’s decision to charge the two men with spying was valid in the first place.
The real question in this whole debate is whether or not the DPP charged legally and properly. If they did, then the OSA [Official Secrets Act] is valid and all this talk about the National Security Act that I introduced is completely irrelevant.
If they did not. Why is he not charging his successor with abuse of power?
We know the reality, although he has answered the question about evidence, the real question is what political direction did this government give to their officials before they went to give evidence?
In response to the claim that the government gave political orders to prosecutors over this, Starmer replied: “Absolutely not.”
He went on:
I was the chief prosecutor in five years, and I can say in that five years, which included three years under the coalition government, when we were taking difficult decisions on MPs expenses, not once, not once, was I subjected to political pressure of any sort from anyone.
That is the tradition of this country. It’s a proud tradition. It’s one I hold as prime minister, just as I believe it when I was director of public prosecutions.
John Whitby (Lab) asks about Reform UK, and the conviction of Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, for taking bribes for making pro-Russian statements in the European parliament.
Starmer says Reform UK have serious questions to answer about this. He says voters have a choice – “Kremlin cronies sowing division or Labour patriots working for national renewal”.
Starmer sidesteps Lib Dem call for him to order security assessment into threat Elon Musk poses to UK democracy
Daisy Cooper, the deputy Lib Dem leader, was standing in for Ed Davey today.
She started by asking about Hongkongers in the UK, and asked if the goverment was putting their security at risk, by not sanctioning Chinese officials making threats directed at them, out of its desire to placate China.
Starmer said that was not true. He said the government supports Hong Kong.
Cooper then said Elon Musk is paying the legal costs of Tommy Robinson, who is on trial for not complying with a demand from counter-terrorism police. She went on:
It is outrageous that a man who has so much control over what people read online every day could be funding someone who sticks far-right extremism on our streets. If this was Putin, the government surely would act. So will the prime minister commission the security services to assess the threat that Elon Musk poses to our democracy and recommend measures to this house that we can take to stop it?
Starmer said the government had to “look across the board at threats to our democracy and must continue to do so”. But he said he could not comment on an ongoing court case.
Badenoch says:
The prime minister can’t tell us why Jonathan Powell had a secret meeting, which the security minister said he had no involvement in the case. He can’t tell us why his government did not provide evidence that China was a threat. I suspect the statements would prove that either he’s blaming his civil servants, he’s blaming the media, he’s blaming the last government. He cannot explain why he could not see this case through. He should have seen this case through.
Starmer says Badenoch is just “slinging mud”. If the last government had changed the Official Secrets Act earlier, the prosecution could have gone ahead, he says.
Badenoch claim “this all stinks of a cover up”. She asks if the witness statements will be published today.
Starmer says:
The only process I want to go through is in relation to some of the individuals in the statements, to make sure they know it’s coming up. I can assure the house there’s no substantive delay here …
It’s a process I need to go through. The honourable member will understand why that’s necessary. Then it will be published in full.
Starmer says Badenoch’s claims about China spy case ‘entirely baseless’
Badenoch claims Starmer has contradicted Dan Jarvis, the security minister. She asks what changed between the two accused being charged and the case being dropped.
Starmer says he is going to publish the government witness statements in full, so people can see what the last government said. Then Badenoch will realise what she is saying is “entirely baseless”.
Starmer says last government witness submitted in August, before controversial meeting attended by Jonathan Powell in September
Badenoch asks what is the point of having a lawyer for a leader if he cannot even get the law right.
Starmer says Badenoch is not a lawyer or a leader.
He says the last government witness statement was submitted in August this year. The September meeting attended by Jonathan Powell, first written about by the Sunday Times, is not relevant.
This is a red herring, a completely scurrilous allegation made by the leader of the opposition party.
Badenoch says the accused spies were charged under the Tories, but let off by Labour.
She asks if it can really be true that the deputy national security adviser, Matthew Collins, the official who provided the evidence to the CPS, did not discuss this with the national security adviser, Jonathan Powell.
Starmer says that is what he is saying. But he concedes that he will double check.
He says, after the charging decision, the prosecution were very careful about who was allowed to see the witness statements.
Starmer says ‘substantive’ government evidence for China spy trial was provided by last Tory administration
Kemi Badenoch says Starmer had to be dragged out to make this statement. She accuses him of “obfuscation”.
She says in 2021 the intergrated review described China as the biggest state based threat to the UK’s economic security.
In 2022 the MI5 director called China a threat.
How did the government fail to provide evidence that China was a threat?
Starmer says the substantive witness statement for this case was submitted in 2023, when the last government was in power.
He quotes James Cleverly, the former Tory foreign secretary, saying calling China a threat would be impossible and unwise.
And Badenoch was business secretary at the time. In 2-23, the relevant year, she said “we certainly should not be describing China as a foe”.
And in September 2024 she said: “I have shied away from calling China a threat.”
He accused her of “playing politics with national security”.
Starmer says government intends to publish in full its three witness statements in China spy case
Starmer is now making a statement about the China spy prosecution case.
He says he will publish the witness statements made by the government in the China spy trial case. He says he intends to publish them in full, but they are being checked first.
And he restates the government’s claim that the prosecution failed because of the stance taken by the previous government.
Starmer condemns ‘unequivocally’ death threats against Nigel Farage, and welcomes conviction of man responsible
Keir Starmer starts by paying tribute to Amess, and to Jo Cox, who was also killed.
And he condemns the death threats to Nigel Farage.
I want to take this opportunity to condemn unequivocally the death threats made against the honourable member for Clacton.
I know the house will welcome the justice that has been done. Whatever our disagreements, we are all parliamentarians.
Starmer says all violence and threats against democracy are unacceptable.
