At the Downing Street lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson took questions for about 45 minutes on the collapse of the China spying prosecution.The briefing did not provide answers to all the questions raised by Kemi Badenoch (see 10.20am) and others, but it did move things on a bit.Here are the main points.The PM’s spokesperson said it was “entirely false” to claim the government played a role in getting the CPS to drop the prosection.

(See 12.55pm.)The spokesperson said the government did provide evidence to the CPS to support a prosecution.He said:The government has provided the evidence that was drawn up under the previous government – evidence that was drawn up consistent with the previous government’s stance on China, and consistent with what the Official Secrets Act 1911 requires.The evidence was drawn up using the full range of evidence across government.

But he said the government could only provide evidence relating to what the threat assessment of China was at the time the alleged offences were committed.The spokesperson rejected suggestions the government withheld evidence from the CPS.He said:The director of public prosecutions has given his assurance that the the CPS were not influenced any external party.As we repeatedly said also in the course of the last week or so, the suggestions that the government concealed evidence, withdrew evidence, withdrew witnesses are all categorically untrue.The spokesperson rejected suggestions that Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser, sabotaged the prosecution.

Referring to a Sunday Times story, the spokesperson said:There have been various reports alleging that a meeting was held about the case in September where the national security adviser ruled that China could not be defined as a threat or took a decision to withdraw evidence or withdraw key witnesses.That is simply untrue.The national security adviser happening, nor any government minister, made no decisions on the content of any evidence relating to the case, nor has he or any government minister had any part in any decisions about the substance of the case itself.At that point, when the Powell meeting was taking place, government officials were working on the basis that the trial was going to go ahead, it is claimed.The spokesperson echoed Hamish Falconer this morning in suggesting that the Official Secrets Act 1911 should have been updated earlier.

(See 9,53am,) The spokesperson said the National Security Act which is now in force would make prosecuting alleged offences like these ones (committed when the old law still applied) easier,The new law “removes the unhelpful enemy designation language from the Official Secrets Act” and is “state agnostic”, he said,The spokesperson accepted that in some respects China does pose a “threat” to the UK.

This government, like the last one, has been reluctant to explicitly describe China as a threat.The spokesperson said that the national security strategy made it clear that China is a country with “potentially huge consequencese for the lives of British citizens”.He went on:We detailed how instances of China’s espionage, interference in our democracy, undermining our economic security, have increased.In recent years, successive governments said that China can’t be reduced to a single word – either threat, challenge or opportunity – but in reality it presents all of these things, which is why we are taking a long-term, strategic approach.In previous briefings Downing Street has avoided using the word “threat” in the context of China, and so this does seem to be a modest hardening of the government’s position.

Dan Jarvis, the security minister, has described Tory claims that Labour deliberately sabotaged the China spy prosecution as “baseless smears” and said that the trial collapsed in part because the last Tory government did not update the Official Secrets Act earlier.(See 5.50pm and 6.17pm.)John Swinney has said the Scottish government will help hundreds of overseas care workers stay in the UK as he attacked Westminster for its rising hostility to migrants.

Richard Tice, Reform UK’s deputy leader, has admitted the party cannot deliver the £90bn in tax cuts promised in its manifesto, saying it would concentrate on public spending cuts once in government.For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.In his response to Badenoch, Jarvis said that he deliberately gave her a copy of his statement so that she could have time to consider his points.But she did not engage at all with his point about the Official Secrets Act being out of date, he said.He said he hoped they would be having a reasonable debate, but Badenoch was just spreading “baseless smears”.

If she thought the government “deliberately collapsed an independent legal process through political interference”, she needed to provide evidence, he said,He also said that Badenoch herself said last year, talking abour her time as a minister, “I have shied away from calling China a threat”,And when she was a minister, Badenoch herself said China was not a foe, he said,Kemi Badenoch responded to Jarvis on behalf of the Conservatives,She rejected the government’s claim that it could not give the CPS evidence that China was a threat because the last government did not take that view.

She quoted from the integrated security and defence review published in 2021, and the update in 2023, and refers to passages in both where China was described as a threat.She went on:Even if the last government had not said China was a threat, and it did, the government only needed to convince a jury that it was a threat.She said she was astonished that Jarvis was repeating the “nonsense” being expressed by the government on this topic.She claimed the government’s case had been dismissed by a former DPP, two former cabinet secretaries, and two former heads of MI6.And she said that only today a professor of public law at Cambridge University said the government’s arguments were misleading.

She went on:Is it seriously the government’s argument that no minister knew anything about this until the trial collapsed? If this is the case, it is astonishing.But my suspicion is that it is not the case.My suspicion is that ministers did know …I suspect that they have decided that the closer economic ties with China were more important than due process and or national security, and if this is the case, if that was the decision of this government, then they should just tell us that.Jarvis ended his statement by saying the National Protective Security Authority has today launched new guidance to protect the UK’s democratic institutions.(See 5.

21pm.)The guidance will help all members in this and the other place [the House of Lords].Members of the devolved legislatures, local council members and elected representatives staff to better understand the nature of the threat.It also provides simple, effective steps for individuals at risk to protect themselves, their teams and the integrity of our democratic processes.This guidance will kickstart a wider cross-government action plan … to reduce foreign interference and espionage threats to UK democratic institutions.

This will be delivered in close coordination with the parliamentary security authorities.Jarvis restates the govenment’s insistence that it did not hold back anything from the Crown Prosecution Service when the case against the two alleged spies was being prepared.But it was hampered by the fact that it was not the policy of the last government to treat China as an enemy, he says.He says James Cleverly confirmed this when he was foreign secretary.Cleverly said calling China an enemy was “impossible, impractical and most importantly, unwise”.

Jarvis says some of the reporting about the China spying case has been inaccurate.He says the two accused were prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act, the legislation in place at the time the original offences were allegedly committed.But that was “an antiquated law” that was “clearly no longer fit for purpose in addressing the complex and sophisticated nature of the state threats that we face today”.Jarvis goes onIt has been clear for many years that this legislation has not kept pace with the modern state threats that we face today.It was evident that the Official Secrets Act was no longer fit for purpose as early as 2015, when Conservative ministers [asked the Law Commission to review it].

In 2020, the Law Commission and the intelligence and security committee of this house were both clear that this legislation, drafted before the first world war, needed to be updated as a matter of urgency.Dan Jarvis, the security minister, is delivering his statement now.Referring to his Commons statement in September, he says the goverment remains disappointed that this case did not go to trial.But that was a decision by the CPS, he says.He says he can announce today that MI5’s National Protective Security Authority is taking further steps to protect parliament.

The Commons statement on the China spying prosecution that collapsed is about to start,Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, says he is very angry about this case,He says he does not think MPs have had the protecting they need,He says he is “angry” and “disappointed”,Here is some response from Scotland’s opposition parties to John Swinney’s conference speech.

Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative leader, said:John Swinney must believe that scunnered Scots button up the back if he expects them to trust his latest half-baked plan on fixing Scotland’s GP and the wider NHS crisis.As he delivered his recycled rhetoric, he appears to have forgotten that he’s been at the heart of this useless SNP government which has left a trail of broken promises for almost two decades.His latest rallying cry to break up the country will excite diehard nationalists but everyone else is urging him to ‘move on, John’.Jackie Baillie, the deputy Scottish Labour leader, said:John Swinney laid out his three key priorities - independence, independence and independence - in a speech filled with grievance, grudge and disinformation.From reheated NHS pledges that he has already failed to deliver, to desperate attempts to smear his opponents, John Swinney’s speech was half an hour that the audience will never get back.

John Swinney was yesterday’s man in 2003 and nothing he has done over the last two decades will convince Scots otherwise.If Swinney had done his job over the last two decades, then we wouldn’t need any of his desperate wheezes.From the Scottish Liberal DemocratsVast numbers of Scots are on waiting lists and the SNP Government is seven years behind England when it comes to introducing an NHS app.No one should trust John Swinney with running the health service.pic.

twitter.com/aateYCkk3vReorganisations of councils in England could lead to the “death of democracy”, an MP has said, as a chorus of Conservatives urged the government to reconsider its plans.In its report on exchanges in the Commons during housing, communities and local government questions earlier, PA Media says:Alicia Kearns, MP for Rutland and Stamford, was among those who said proposals that threaten to tear up local council boundaries and powers in Leicestershire, Lincolnshire and Rutland could ride roughshod over residents’ sentiment.Meanwhile former culture secretary John Whittingdale stressed the need for residents to be locally represented, amid changes affecting his Essex constituency.Ministers have announced that council boundaries will be redrawn, with two-tier councils replaced with one larger unitary body that will look after all services from rubbish collection to education.

All eventual unitary bodies will need to have populations of about 500,000, forcing mergers of smaller councils, including Rutland, which only has 40,000 residents,Under the three proposals submitted to the government, England’s smallest council could be taken into new bodies, with either Leicestershire or parts of Lincolnshire,The government told MPs its consultation would be published in November,Kearns said: “Residents of Rutland overwhelmingly want to join with Stamford, yet the council’s pushing ahead with an unwanted Leicestershire merger,In South Kesteven, my constituents don’t want to join a mega-Lincolnshire council.

Yet they’re being pushed towards this.In Leicestershire my constituents do not want a Leicester city takeover.What reassurance will the government give that democracy will not die under these reforms and local people’s voices will be heard?”Rutland had its county status abolished in 1974, becoming a district of Leicestershire.However it was restored as its own county in 1997 before the Conservatives lost the general election.It led to the creation of a unitary authority.

Communities minister Alison McGovern said: “I can certainly confirm that democracy will not die.I know that officials in the department will have heard what she has said, and I will accept her question as representations on the issue of local government.”MPs are being warned that Russia, China and Iran could be trying to spy on them.As Sky News reports, MI5’s National Protective Security Authority has set that out in new guidance issued today.(See 3.

34pm.)The NPSA says:Foreign states also try to interfere with decisions and issues in the UK in a way that is deceptive, corruptive and/or coercive.This includes political interference: aimed at influencing, manipulating or discrediting political processes or decision-making to seek advantage or to harm the UK.On how politicians might be targeted, the NPSA says:Foreign intelligence officers operate undercover, posing as diplomats, journalists, academics or lobbyists, for example.Individuals working in these and other fields may also act as ‘proxies’, with their links to the state concealed.