6.48pm GMT
Early evening summary
Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, has rejected claims that the inclusion of a line about Labour’s policy towards China, quoting from its manifesto, killed off the prospect of the alleged China spies being prosecuted. (See 5.42pm.) The ‘Labour manifesto quote’ in one of the witness statements has been cited by Tories as evidence to support their claim that the government intervened to collapse the trial. In evidence to a parliamentary committee, Parkinson and other witnesses did not say anything to substantiate these allegations. Instead, they backed the government’s argument that the case collapsed because espionage legislation had not been updated and because it was the previous government’s policy not to call China a national security threat.
Christopher Berry, the man at the heart of a controversial and now-abandoned Chinese espionage case, appeared to be aware that he was supplying information to a non-commercial client, according to messages seen by the Guardian.
Nigel Farage has defended remarks made by a Reform MP who said seeing adverts full of black and Asian people “drives her mad”, arguing the intention behind her comments was not racist.
The prison officers’ union has questioned why a single member of staff at HMP Chelmsford has been “unjustly” targeted after the mistaken release of a refused asylum seeker who had sexually assaulted a teenage girl.
The energy secretary, Ed Miliband, has set aside £1.1bn a year for offshore wind power developers investing in new projects, in the latest funding round aimed at meeting the UK’s green electricity targets.
Updated at 6.56pm GMT
6.24pm GMT
Collins says, in court, he would not have described China as a generic threat – because that was not the government policy at the time.
But he would have set out all the ways in which China did pose a threat, he says.
6.23pm GMT
DNSA says he does not think there are 'huge differences' between Tories' China policy and Labour's
Collins told the committee that he did not think there were “huge differences” between the Conservative government’s policy towards China and Labour.
Asked why he included a line about Labour’s policy in his final witness statement, Collins said he was asked to include that by counter-terrorism police. They wanted current government policy mentioned.
He said he was not consciously quoting the Labour manifesto. He had taken the line about the government wanting to cooperate where it could, compete where it needed to and challenging where it had from a parliamentary statement.
UPDATE: Collins said:
I was asked to include a reference to the new government’s policy by Counter Terrorism Police (CTP), for fear that there would be a wedge driven between my witness statements and the new Government’s policy. I did that.
Just as a point of fact, I drew from an answer to a parliamentary question, rather than the Labour party manifesto.
Updated at 6.39pm GMT
6.13pm GMT
DNSA suggests he was not aware trial would collapse when he told CPS he would not say China posed national security theat
Collins says, when he draw up his first witness statement, he had not discussed that with the CPS. It was discussed with counter-terrorism police, who were investigating, and with his own legal team.
Q: In your follow-up witness statements, why could you not describe China as a threat to national security?
Collins says he set out the various ways China did pose a threat.
But he says he did not describe China as an overall threat in generic terms.
Q: Why did you do that? Was that your judgment?
Collins says he was reflecting government policy at the time. At the time the government did not describe China as a threat in a generic sense. He was describing the way China posed threats that the UK needed to protect itself from. He accepts this is a “very fine distinction”.
Q: Did anyone tell you to say that China was not a threat?
Collins says his legal team, and counter-terrorism police, were involved in the first witness statement. And that was shared with the PM.
After that, he was told he could not share witnesses statement. So further witnesses statements were just drawn up with his small team, and with counter-terrorism policy.
Q: When did you find out that the trial might collapse because of the limits of what you were saying in your evidence?
Collins says the first time he became aware the case might collapse was on 3 September, when he was told this at a meeting with the DPP.
In his letter, Parkinson said the key meeting where Collins said that he would not state in court that China was a threat to national security at the relevant time, and that he would accept, if asked, that China was not an enemy, took place on 14 August. This was Collins failing to answer the “million dollar question”, as Little put it. (See 4.56pm.)
But, on the basis of what Collins is saying, he did not realise he was collapsing the case when he said that.
Updated at 6.24pm GMT
5.53pm GMT
After a short break, the joint committee on the national security strategy is now taking evidence from Matthew Collins and Chris Wormald. (See 4.31pm.)
The chair, Matt Western, asks Collins how he feels about the collapse of this case.
Collins replies: “Disappointed.”
He says he wanted to see this succeed. He knew a lot of people had put a lot of work into this.
But he knew that the Official Secrets Act 1911 would have made things difficult.
Q: We have heard a lot about Labour’s “cooperate, compete, challenge” mantra. Was that the policy at the time these alleged offences were committed?
No, says Collins. But he says the relevant evidence was about the government’s policy at the time.
5.42pm GMT
Parkinson rejects claim Labour manifesto quote in witness statement killed off successful prosecution
Karen Bradley, the Tory chair of the home affairs committee, is asking the questions now.
Q: In the final witness statement, the DNSA quotes from Labour’s manifesto when describing the government’s China policy. (It said the government’s policy was cooperating where it could, competing where it needed to, and challenging where it had to).
(This question seems prompted by a Daily Mail report claiming the Labour manifesto quote was the “fatal blow” to the prosecution.)
Parkinson says he was not aware that was a quote from the Labour manifesto.
He says the case failed because of the evidence given in its totality.
5.35pm GMT
Little says the CPS considered whether it would have been possible to charge the accused over other offences.
But he could not see an alternative charging route, he says
5.28pm GMT
Mark Sedwill criticises CPS for treating government policy documents as statements of fact about China threat
Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary and former national security adviser, who now sits in the Lords as a crossbench peer, goes next.
Q: Why did you just ask for security evidence from the deputy national security adviser (DSNA)?
Parkinson says the choice was made by those investigating the allegations (counter-terrorism police).
He says Matthew Collins, the DSNA, seemed a suitable expert witness.
If they had called another witness, that might have undermined the case.
Sedwill says the CPS could have found other witnesses to say China is an national security threat – even if the government chooses not to use that language for its own reasons. Why didn’t you do that?
Parkinson said if other witnesses had been called, that would have undermined Parkinson, who they had to call.
He says Collins is there to represent the government’s view. He quoted from the integreted reviews of defence and security. And those referred to China as a challenge.
Sedwill says the integreted reviews were statements of policy, not statements of fact.
He says government policy documents are drafted with various objectives in mind.
He says China is a national security threat and an economic opportunity. Various governments have tried to reconcile that tension for decades.
Sedwill says the CPS should have gone to other sources to get a statement of fact.
Little says it would not have been possible to call a witness to undermine what another of his witnesses was saying.
Updated at 5.28pm GMT
5.15pm GMT
Paul Boateng, the Labour peer and former cabinet minister, goes next.
Q: Was anything said by “senior people” led you to reconsider the evidence?
Parkinson said it was just counsel and colleagues in the CPS who took this decision.
The attorney general was informed of the decision to drop the case. He was not consulted.
Parkinson said they told the AG that the CPS could not satisfy the “enemy” requirement under the law.
Boateng says China was deemed a threat to the integrity of the UK’s democratic institutions. He asks how that meant it would not be a threat.
Parkinson says that is a question they should ask the DNSA, who is giving evidence later.
5.09pm GMT
Q: Why did you not put this to a judge anyway?
Little says it would not be proper to refer the case to a judge if the CPS did not believe it had the right evidence.
5.08pm GMT
Judge would have thrown out China spy case before it even went to jury, DPP claims, given lack of key security evidence
Emily Thornberry, a barrister and chair of the foreign affairs committee, is asking the questions now.
She suggests that the evidence should have persuaded a jury that China was an enemy.
Parkinson says that may have been the case when they charged. But the case law changed as a result of the Roussev case (a Bulgarian/Russian spy trial).
He says Roussev meant the CPS had to show that the totality of the threats meant China was a threat to national security.
So the CPS asked for more. They asked for a statement from the DNSA.
But it turned out this was not just “a sticking point”, but a “critical difference”.
Q: But the court of appeal said they were not redefining the word enemy, and they were going to apply the word enemy in “a common sense way”. That means leaving it up to the jury, doesn’t it? The Roussev judgment was not imposing a restrictive definition.
Parkinson disputes this. The CPS felt it had to act within the ambit of the court of appeal ruling.
Thornberry repeats her point – that the CPS should have put this to a jury.
Parkinson says the CPS’s assessment was that this would never get to a jury.
He says their only witness was not willing to say China was an active threat.
Stephen Parkinson at JCNSS Photograph: HoC
4.56pm GMT
Lead counsel in China spy case says DNSA's response to 'million dollar question' meant case had to be dropped
Tom Little KC, first senior Treasury counsel and the barrister instructed to prosecute the case, said he realised they have to drop the case when the deputy national security adviser told them that he was not willing to say in evidence that China posed a risk to national security at the relevant time.
Parkinson said, on the basis of that, the CPS concluded that the judge would not have allowed the case to go before the jury.
UPDATE: Little said the DNSA “was clear to me that he would not say that China posed an active threat to national security at the material time”. He went on:
That was in answer to what I regard as the million dollar question in the case, and once he had said that the current prosecution for those charges was effectively unsustainable, that’s my carefully reflected position.
I didn’t jump to that immediately. I advised on 22 August, having reflected over it. As far as those charges were concerned.
There was other discussion then about alternative charges.
But I don’t think anyone should misunderstand the effect of what the witness had said, that would have been disclosable, and it brought this case effectively to a crashing halt as far as that was concerned with that witness, who is the deputy national security adviser to the cabinet, it’s very different to the position of giving away a witness who witnesses a criminal incident on the street for reasons that I hope are obvious, but we did give very careful consideration as to whether this was remediable, and I concluded, but more importantly, we concluded, that is the entire prosecution team, that it was not.
Updated at 5.33pm GMT
4.49pm GMT
Parkinson says the prosecution failed because the CPS did not have the evidence it needed.
He said, as a result of changes to the case law after the two accused were charged, the CPS had to prove that China posed an active threat to national security.
He sets out this case in more detail in his letter to the committee.
4.46pm GMT
Stephen Parkinson, DPP, tells MPs that 'nothing reached' him to suggest government wanted China spy case to fail
At the joint committe, Stephen Parkinson, the DPP, is now giving evidence.
Matt Western, the chair, is asking questions.
Q: Who do you think is to blame for this prosecution failing?
Parkinson started by saying how “disappointed” he was that this case failed.
He goes on:
If I may say so, I don’t think it is a question of blame. The responsibility of prosecutors is to place cases before the court on the basis of sufficient evidence to secure conviction.
And ultimately, the issue in this case is that we were not able to provide the evidence to sustain the case in respect of one essential element, which is the evidence that China was an enemy, as was required, by the statute.
Q: Did you ever get the feeling that the government wanted this case to fail?
Parkinson replied: “Nothing reached me [to that effect].”
4.40pm GMT
Lammy says he was 'livid' about accidental release of Epping sex offender
Lammy told MPs that he was “livid” on behalf of Hadush Kebatu’s vicitms about his accidental release.
He went on:
This was a mistake that should not have happened. But victims expect better. The public expects better at this. Government expects better from [this] critical public service.
He said Kebatu would be deported imminently.
4.37pm GMT
David Lammy, the justice secretary and deputy PM, is making a Commons statement about the mistaken release of the Epping sex offender Hadush Kebatu. There is a live feed here.
4.31pm GMT
MPs to question DPP, deputy national security adviser and cabinet secretary on collapse of China spy case
The joint committee on the national security strategy is about to start a hearing on the collapse of the China spy case.
The Conservatives have been attacking the govenrment over this for weeks now, at first implying the government deliberately lent on the Crown Prosecution Service to get the prosecution dropped, before settling on the claim that the government sabotaged the prosecution by instead withholding the evidence that the CPS needed.
Ministers have strongly denied this. But, until now, we have not heard much from the key decision makers.
There are four witnesses being questioned today.
From 4.30pm: Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, and Tom Little KC, lead counsel in the case.
From 5.30pm: Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser (DNSA), and Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary.
The government has published three witness statements submitted by the DNSA: the first from December 2023, the second from February 2025 (but dated 2024 by mistake) and the third from August 2025.
Parkinson and Wormald have both sent letters to the committee responding to their questions. Those letters, and others submitted as part of this inquiry, are here.
4.28pm GMT
Reeves suggests that spending cuts, as well as tax rises, could be needed to ensure budget sums add up
Rachel Reeves will reportedly have to find at least £20bn to make her sums add up in the budget next month. Much of the coverage about her budget options has assumed that she will use tax rises to fill the gap. But she has at least once suggested the spending cuts could play a part and, in an interview with the BBC today, she has again suggested that spending cuts could be part of the mix. She said:
We are looking, of course, at tax and spending to ensure that we both have resilience against future shocks by ensuring we’ve got sufficient headroom, and also just ensuring that those fiscal rules are adhered to.
4.23pm GMT
Alan Collins, a partner at the law firm Bolt Burdon Kemp dealing with abuse claims, has released a statement saying that Nigel Farage’s plan to get parliament to carry out the grooming gangs inquiry (see 2.22pm) is “interesting”, but not realistic. He explains.
Farage’s suggestion calling for the grooming gangs inquiry to be scrapped and replaced by a parliamentary inquiry is certainly an interesting idea, but one that would only work if there was political consensus and that looks doubtful at the moment.
Ultimately, survivors are not going to work with any inquiry if there is political wrangling, and survivor buy-in is essential for any inquiry to work.
4.19pm GMT
Meta and X won't deal with abuse problem on their platforms unless they are forced to do so by law, say MPs
A report has called for stronger oversight of social media platforms under the Online Safety Act to end abuse and intimidation towards MPs, PA Media reports. PA says:
The report by a cross-party group of MPs sought to identify how “public attitudes towards politicians and inconsistencies in the criminal justice system” have contributed to the “normalisation of abuse and intimidation towards MPs”.
It calls for stronger oversight of social media platforms under the Online Safety Act 2023, including the introduction of an elections code of practice by Ofcom.
The report, compiled by the Speaker’s Conference on the security of MPs, candidates and elections, states: “Despite the steps Meta and X have taken to mitigate some of the problems with abuse on their platforms, abusive content continues to be an issue.
“Their failure to address the larger underlying issues that drive abuse demonstrates that they do not properly understand the damaging impact they are having on democracy in the UK.
“We have no faith that Meta and X will resolve these issues unless they are legally obliged to do so.”
4.03pm GMT
During his press conference Nigel Farage dismissed claims that Plaid Cyrmu’s bigger-than-expected victory over Reform UK in the Caerphilly suggested that Reform has peaked. (See 3.11pm.)
Rob Ford, a political professor, has just published a long, and excellent, analysis of the Caerphilly result in a post on his Swingometer Substack blog and he makes a similar point. He says:
Though the snap verdict is one of Welsh voters rejecting Reform, the underlying figures suggests this is another strong result for the rising force of the right. Farage’s various parties of the radical right - Ukip, the Brexit party and Reform - have stood nine times in Welsh byelections since Ukip first appeared on the ballot in the contest to replace Neil Kinnock in Islwyn in 1995. The best previous vote share is Ukip’s 15.4% in Ogmore in 2016, while the biggest rise was UKIP’s 14.3 point rise from a standing start in Ynys Mon in 2013. Reforms’s 36% vote share and 34 point rise in Caerphilly smash both these records. Reform also registered a major advance on the 20% the party won in the equivalent Westminster seat last July, and their 16 point gain last week is roughly in line with their rise in GB-wide opinion polls.
This chart illustrates this paragraph.
3.44pm GMT
Five Reform UK councillors on Cornwall county council, including the former leader of the group, have left the party to sit as part of the independent group, CornwallLive reports. As a result, the Liberal Democrats have replaced Reform as the biggest part on the council.
3.25pm GMT
Farage claims 'DEI industry has gone crackers' - as he ducks question about whether he wants fewer black actors in TV ads
Q: Do you want advertising companies to use fewer black actors?
Farage replied:
I’m just not going to demean myself by answering that, other than to say the DEI industry has gone crackers – you know it, I know it, we all know it, that’s where we are.
And that was the final question.
Updated at 3.26pm GMT
3.21pm GMT
Farage suggests he is not in favour of parlimaent 'hounding' Prince Andrew
Q: Do you think parliament should get involved in scrutinising Prince Andrew’s finances?
Farage said that Andrew had renounced his dukedom and would be looking for a new home, probably somewhere sunny.
He said that, if Andrew were to “fight back” and start reusing his title, that would be different.
But he said “hounding people” like Andrew was not a priority for him.
3.11pm GMT
Farage claims people overstating extent to which Caerphilly byelection result showed tactical voting against Reform
Q: Do you think the Caerphilly byelection result last week shows that support for Reform UK has peaked?
Farage said that Plaid Cymru did very well because their candidate was very well known, having been a councillor for decades. So he thinks people are over-stating the extent to which this was a tactical vote against Reform, he said.
He also said that, if a result like that were replicated in the Senedd elections next year (which are being held under a PR system), Plaid and Reform would both end up with three Senedd members. “So I can’t be disappointed by that in any way,” he said.
Updated at 3.11pm GMT
3.01pm GMT
Q: [To Ellie-Ann Reynolds] Is there anything the government could do to get you to rejoin to the grooming gangs inquiry oversight panel?
Reynolds said, after what had happened, she would not touch it again “with a 10-foot bargepole”.
2.58pm GMT
Q: Would a Reform UK government keep the protections from discrimination that exist under the Equality Act? Do you understand how black and Asian people feel about comments like Sarah Pochin’s? And what do you say to police officers who are concerned that grooming gang victims are being used as political footballs?
Farage suggests the government is trying to use the survivors for political purposes. Keir Starmer is trying to get the ones who resigned to rejoin the oversight panel, he says.
He says Pochin’s comments were part of a conversation about the advertising industry.
And he says the Equality Act did not protect girls who were victims of grooming gangs.
Updated at 3.01pm GMT
2.52pm GMT
Farage says Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, will hold a press conference in November where he will give details of how Reform councils have been saving money.
2.50pm GMT
Q: What was your response to the pro-Palestine march in Tower Hamlets where masked men were shouting antisemitic slogans?
Farage said that was “one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever seen in my whole life”. It was “like a foreign invading army marching through our streets”, he said.
2.46pm GMT
Q: You said Nathan Gill, the Reform UK leader in Wales who admitted taking bribes to deliver pro-Russia speeches in the European parliament, was a bad apple. So what is your response to the Observer report saying other Reform UK MEPs were making exactly the same arguments.
Farage said:
I’ve heard of no evidence of any wrongdoing against any other former MP of Ukip or the Brexit party. I’ve heard of no other evidence of any wrongdoing.
Farage said he had known Gill for a long time and was shocked by what he did.
[Gill] used to preach every Sunday morning in … church. I thought he was so incorruptible he wouldn’t even drink coffee. So I’m pretty shocked.
He said this showed how you never really know people.
2.40pm GMT
Q: [From the Daily Express] Do you think Sadiq Khan should have to resign over grooming gangs in London?
Farage says he thinks London could be the last big grooming gangs scandal in the UK.
2.35pm GMT
Farage suggests he would have suspended whip from Pochin if he thought she was intentionally racist
Asked again about Sarah Pochin, Farage says her comments were “ugly, clumsy”.
Taken literally, “you can put the worst of all interpretations on it”, he said.
But, again, he said he did not think she was being intentionally racist.
If I felt the intention was deliberately and genuinely racist, I would have taken a different course of action.
2.31pm GMT
Farage says Pochin's comment was 'ugly', and he's not happy about it, but he does not think her intention was racist
Q: Do you agree with Keir Starmer that what Sarah Pochin said was racist?
Farage says Pochin’s words were “without doubt ugly”. He goes on:
And, taken on their own, could be read to be very, very unpleasant indeed.
I am unhappy with what she has done. I can’t underestimate that and she fully knows how I feel.
However, it was in the broader context of the DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] madness in the advertising industry.
Farage says “anybody with half a brain” knows that has been happening.
UPDATE: Farage said:
The words that Sarah Pochin used in response to a caller on Talk Radio on Saturday morning were without doubt ugly and, taken on their own, could be read to be very, very unpleasant indeed.
I am unhappy with what she has done. I can’t underestimate that and she fully knows how I feel.
However, it was in the broader context of DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] madness in the advertising industry, something which anybody with half a brain can recognise has been going on since about 2021.
So I understand the basic point.
But the way she put it, the way she worded it, was ugly.
And if I thought that the intention behind it was racist, I would have taken a lot more action than I have to date. And that is because, I don’t.
Updated at 3.32pm GMT
2.25pm GMT
Q: Isn’t this rowing back on what you originally wanted, a national inquiry?
Farage says he originally wanted a national inquiry. But nothing is happening.
So this would be the quickest way to get results.
2.22pm GMT
Farage says grooming gangs inquiry should be carried out quickly by parliamentary committee or commission
Farage says some survivors want Jess Phillips sacked.
He accepts that five other survivors have said they will only stay on the oversight panel if Phillips stays.
But those five are victims of another kind of child sexual abuse, he says.
He says the inquiry should just focus on grooming gangs.
He claims Labour just want the process to go on for ever.
He is proposing a different solution he says.
He thinks parliament should have the chance to show it is a just, fair institution.
In 2009, Fred Goodwin was ordered to appear before the banking commission – a committee set up by parliament.
Select committees can summon anyone, he says.
Parliament can sanction people if they do not appear. And it can require people to give evidence on oath. If people lie on oath, they can be prosecuted for perjury.
He says parliament should launch its own inquiry. He says he is meeting the Speaker this evening, and he will put this point to her. And he will write to Karen Bradley, the home affairs committee chair, urging her to set up a sub-committee to carry out an inquiry.
Peers should be involved too, he says, through a commission format.
He says this could happen quickly. The inquiry could be carried out in a couple of months.
And it would mean the inquiry taking place in parliament.
2.15pm GMT
Ellie-Ann Reynolds is speaking now.
She says, when Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, said claims that the Home Office was considering extending the inquiry were false, she was accusing people like her of being liars. She says victims were used to be dismissed as liars.
She says the inquiry is corrupt.
2.13pm GMT
Farage says grooming gangs scandal driven by racism, and establishment has responded with 'cowardice and neglect'
Nigel Farage is speaking now.
He says the sexual abuse of minors is not new. It has been going on for many, many years. And it normally involves perpetrators close to the victims.
But he says the grooming gangs scandal is different; it involves strangers. And it has been going on for many years. And there was a racial element to it, he says.
The difference in what we call the grooming gang scandal is that it is the mass, industrial-scale sexual assault and rape by anonymous, unknown persons.
And it’s been going on across this country on a scale that is simply unimaginable. It has been going on for many, many decades, has been going on for too long, and there is a huge racial and ethnic dimension to it.
A very large part of these crimes can be attributed to racism, and it’s absolutely worst possible form.
And yet this has been met by the collective establishment – and by that I mean social services, police, councillors, members of parliament, governments – by abject cowardice and willful and deliberate neglect.
Farage says he first became aware of this when he visited Rotherham in 2013. At first he could not believe the scale off what he was being told.
He says that Kemi Badenoch, whatever she says now, did not raise this as an issue when she was a minister.
And he claims that Labour do not care.
He says he is going to offer a solution. But first he invites Ellie-Ann Reynolds, a survivor, to speak.
2.00pm GMT
Farage holds press conference
Nigel Farage is about to hold a press conference. There is a live feed here.
He wants to talk about the grooming gangs inquiry, and he will be joined by Ellie-Ann Reynolds, one of the grooming gang survivors who have resigned from the inquiry’s oversight panel because of how the Home Office has handled it.
But Farage always tends to take a lot of questions at his press conferences, and so other topics are bound to come up – including Sarah Pochin. (See 1.56pm.)
Updated at 2.03pm GMT
1.56pm GMT
Starmer condemns Farage for failing to take action over Sarah Pochin's 'racism'
Keir Starmer has also said that the Reform UK MP Sarah Pochin was being “racist” when she said “it drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people”.
In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg yesterday, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, repeatedly refused to describe Pochin’s comments as racist – although he did do so in an interview later in the day.
Asked if Pochin was being racist in what she said, Starmer told broadcasters:
Yes, she was.
It’s shocking racism and it’s the sort of thing that will tear our country apart, and it tells you everything about Reform.
Nigel Farage has got some questions to answer, because either he doesn’t consider it racist, which in my view is shocking in itself, or he does think it’s racist and he’s shown absolutely no leadership.
I’m the prime minister of the whole of our country, our reasonable, tolerant, diverse country, and I want to serve the whole country.
He can’t even call out racism.
Asked whether she should have the whip removed, he said:
[Farage] needs to take action, it’s not a question of just the whip, this is shocking racism, it has to be dealt with and it should be rooted out of his party.
And the question for Nigel Farage is, why has he shown absolutely no leadership on this?
1.47pm GMT
Starmer says he's 'frustrated and angry' by asylum hotel 'mess' left by Tories
Keir Starmer has said that he feels “frustrated and angry” at the problems left by the Conservative government in terms of asylum seekers staying in hotels.
Asked about the problems hightlighted by today’s home affairs committee report (see 11.30am), he told Sky News in Turkey:
We inherited a huge mess in relation to pretty well all departments in government, and that includes the Home Office.
If you take the issue of asylum hotels for example, we had years under the previous government where they didn’t process claims, so tens of thousands of people didn’t have their claims processed. They were then housed in hotels – that was the policy of the last government.
We’re processing the claims much more quickly. And where people have got no right to be in our country, we’re removing them at a higher rate than the best part of a decade.
So we’re taking the action, but I can’t tell you how frustrated and angry I am that we’ve been left with a mess as big as this by the last government.
1.40pm GMT
1.24pm GMT
Two Reform UK councillors in Kent expelled from party after suspension
Two suspended Reform UK councillors have now been expelled from the party via email, PA Media reports. PA says:
Kent county councillors Bill Barrett and Robert Ford have been kicked out by email from Reform HQ which said they had “undermined” the interests of the party and brought it into “disrepute”.
Their removal comes after a leaked video of a Reform meeting saw council leader Linden Kemkaran telling members to “fucking suck it up” when they disagreed on big decisions.
With a budget of more than £2.5bn, Kemkaran also called the council a “shop window” for what Reform could do if it ran the country.
Barrett, representing Ashford, had been critical of the council hierarchy and was one of four councillors suspended following the leaked video.
Ford, for Maidstone Rural West, was suspended after allegations of misconduct from an “unofficial complaint” from several female members of Kent county council (KCC) staff.
A Reform spokesperson said: “Councillors Barrett and Ford have been expelled as their conduct undermined the interests of the party and brought Reform UK into disrepute.”
There have also been allegations of bullying from both members, which Reform has denied.
It said: “The party takes claims of bullying seriously.
“If there was any credible evidence of this we would not have hesitated to take action.”
Opposition KCC leader, Liberal Democrat Antony Hook, said that Reform were offering “chaos” and “secrecy” to the public in Kent.
He said: “Reform’s chaos at KCC continues, we know that Ford has been suspended after reported complaints by female staff, which is very serious.
1.16pm GMT
At the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson also said there were “no plans” to follow the Green party’s advice (see 10.15am) and break up the Home Office. “What we’re focused on is building on the improvements we’ve already made by rewiring the department so it secures our borders, makes our streets safer and to protect our national security,” the spokesperson said.
1.04pm GMT
No 10 says accidental release of Epping sex offender another sign of 'justice system crisis inherited by this government'
Downing Street has described the accidental release of the Epping sex offender, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, as evidence that the last government left the prison system in crisis.
At the No 10 lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said:
Prison release errors are never acceptable, and this is another symptom of the justice system crisis inherited by this government, having suffered cuts to staffing, the failure to build prison places and chronic underinvestment, meaning more errors like this happened.
Mistakes are always more likely to happen when you’re in prison crisis that demands early releases.
But that’s why we’re fixing the system, building 14,000 more prison places and overhauling sentences so we never again have a system that demands emergency releases.
The spokesperson said there were 800 mistaken prison releases under the last government. That was “symptomatic of a justice system creaking at the seams”, he said.
He said David Lammy, the justice secretary, would be setting out in his Commons statement later today what methods are being put in place to deal with this.
When it was put to him that there 262 prisoners were released in error in the year to March 2025, a 128% increase on 115 in the previous 12 months, the spokesperson said those figures were evidence of “the scale of the justice system crisis that this government has been confronted with”.
The spokesperson also said Kebatu, who is Ethiopian, would be deported “imminently”.
Updated at 1.16pm GMT
12.41pm GMT
Labour challenges Farage to withdraw whip from Sarah Pochin over 'racist' comment about black and Asian people in TV ads
Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, is holding a press conference at 2pm. In an open letter to him released this morning, Anna Turley, the Labour chair, has challenged him to remove the whip from the Reform MP Sarah Pochin after she said “it drives me mad when I see adverts full of black people, full of Asian people”.
In her letter, Turley said:
At the time of writing you have made no public comment about Sarah Pochin’s remarks, which is uncharacteristically reticent of you. I am writing to you to urgently clarity Reform’s official position:
-Do you endorse Sarah Pochin’s comments? And can you confirm if her views on race are welcome in Reform UK?
-Will you withdraw the Reform UK whip from Sarah Pochin?
Sarah Pochin’s comments were a disgrace. And your silence is deafening.Saying that seeing black and Asian people in TV adverts “drives me mad” is racist. You have the power to withdraw the Reform UK whip from Sarah Pochin. You should do it today.
In his First Edition briefing today, Archie Bland cites Pochin’s comment as just one of many examples of how racist language that once would have been restricted to extremists like the BNP is becoming increasingly normalised.
Related: Monday briefing: How radical views became normalised – from TV ads to deportation policy
12.25pm GMT
Labour MPs have been invited to “drop-in sessions” with Keir Starmer’s parliamentary private secretaries to raise any concerns they have, Kevin Schofield from Huffpost UK reports.
Keir Starmer’s 3 parliamentary aides, Abena Oppong-Asare, Catherine Fookes, and Jon Pearce, are to hold twice weekly “drop-in sessions” in the PM’s Commons office for MPs to raise any concerns they may have. News was relayed to Labour MPs in a message this morning.
Starmer needs to improve relations with Labour MPs. Following the collapse in Labour support in the Caerphilly byelection last week, there is increasing chatter about the prospect of a leadership challenge at some point. Even though it is technically much harder for MPs to remove a Labour leader than a Tory leader, Kitty Donaldson and Eleanor Langford in the i say that some Labour MPs are “discussing whether to trigger a leadership challenge against Sir Keir Starmer in a matter of weeks, citing growing concern over the party’s direction and its handling of the economy”. They say:
A senior Labour source told The i Paper there was “a cohort in the Parliamentary Labour party (PLP) who think moving against Keir [Starmer] after the budget is feasible rather than waiting until after May” to stem the losses to the party’s election machine in the local elections.
12.09pm GMT
12.01pm GMT
The Guardian would like to hear from parents who have had to live in temporary accommodation with children. There is more about the call-out here, including a form where you can submit a response.
Related: Tell us: have you lived in temporary accommodation in the UK with children?
11.56am GMT
Labour's decision to cut time refugees get to find alternative housing 'extremely disappointing', committee says
But the Commons home affairs committee’s report is also critical of some aspects of what the Home Office has been doing on asylum hotels since Labour took power. Here are some of the points it makes about Labour’s record on this issue.
The committee expresses concerns about the government’s plan to move asylum seekers out of hotels and place them in “large sites” instead, such as former military bases. (See 9.23am.) It says:
The [Home Office] is considering the use of large sites in its approach to asylum accommodation, having previously said it would move away from their use. In principle, large sites can provide suitable temporary accommodation. However, they have generally proved more costly to deliver than hotel accommodation and will not enable the department to drive down costs in the same way as expanding dispersal accommodation. If the department chooses to pursue large sites, it needs to fully understand and accept this trade off. It must learn the lessons from its previous mistakes in rushing to deliver short-term solutions that later unravel.
It says the government has still not set out a “clear strategy” for asylum accommodation.
The government has committed to reducing the cost of the asylum system and ending the use of hotels by 2029. This is a stated Government priority, but making promises to appeal to popular sentiment without setting out a clear and fully articulated plan for securing alternative accommodation risks under-delivery and consequently undermining public trust still further. The Home Office has failed to share a clear strategy for the long-term delivery of asylum accommodation.
It says the number of asylum seekers in hotels went up during Labour’s first 12 months in office. It says:
The number of asylum seekers in hotels is currently significantly lower than during the peak of hotel use—32,059 people as of June 2025, compared to 56,042 in September 2023—although the number of asylum seekers accommodated in hotels was 8% higher in June 2025 compared to June 2024.
It says it is “extremely disappointing” that the Home Office abandoned a pilot programme giving refugees 56 days to find alternative accommodation if they have to leave Home Office housing (like a hotel) because their asylum application has been accepted. The Home Office has reverted to 28 days’ notice, even though the 56 days’s notice system was said to reduce the number or refugees finding themselves homeless. It says:
Given the high level of support we received for the 56 day move on period in the evidence we received, this decision is extremely disappointing.
Last week the Home Office lost a court case over this policy.
Related: High court halts eviction of refugee under Home Office 28-day policy
Updated at 11.59am GMT
11.30am GMT
What Commons home affairs committee said about Home Office's 'chaotic' asylum hotels policy under Tories
The Commons home affairs committee has a Labour majority (like all Commons select committees) but it is chaired by a former Tory culture secretary, Karen Bradley. Party loyalty has not stopped her producing a report that is quite damning about the record of the last government.
Here are extracts from the report’s summary commenting on the Conservatives’ record.
Over the past six years, the Home Office has presided over an increasingly expensive asylum accommodation system. The expected cost of the Home Office’s asylum accommodation contracts for the ten years between 2019–29 has more than tripled, from £4.5bn to £15.3bn. External factors – the Covid-19 pandemic and the dramatic increase in small boat arrivals – and decisions by the previous government – such as pausing asylum decision-making while it pursued the Rwanda scheme – have meant that the Home Office has had to accommodate a growing number of people for longer periods of time. At the end of 2018 around 47,500 asylum seekers were accommodated by the Home Office. As of June 2025, the Home Office was responsible for accommodating around 103,000 people …
We heard powerful evidence that during the 2019–2024 parliament the Home Office focused on pursuing high-risk, poorly planned policy solutions. Failures of leadership at a senior level, shifting priorities, and political and operational pressure for quick results meant that the department was incapable of getting a grip on the situation, and allowed costs to spiral.
The Home Office has become heavily reliant on the costly use of hotels for asylum accommodation – which are unpopular with local communities and largely unsuitable for accommodating asylum seekers. It has used large scale contracts with private providers to deliver asylum accommodation, but these contracts have provided few levers to control costs and ensure that providers are delivering the accommodation required. The Home Office seems to have neglected the day-to-day management of these contracts, failing to protect value for money for the taxpayer. Two accommodation providers owe millions to the Home Office in excess profits, but the Home Office only appears to have started the process for recouping these profits in 2024 and has yet to reclaim these profits from providers. This money should be supporting the delivery of public services, not sitting in the bank accounts of private businesses.
The Home Office has undoubtedly been operating in an extremely challenging environment, but its chaotic response has demonstrated that it has not been up to the challenge.
Updated at 11.34am GMT
10.46am GMT
Social landlords in England now forced to fix emergencies within 24 hours
The first phase of Awaab’s law, which promises to protect tenants from dangerous social housing conditions, comes into force in England on Monday, in memory of a two-year-old boy who died after exposure to mould in his home, Chris Osuh reports.
Related: Social landlords in England now forced to fix emergencies within 24 hours
10.38am GMT
Freedom from Torture, a charity that works with asylum seekers, is concerned about the idea that refugees might be removed from hotels and placed in barrack-style accommodation instead. (See 9.23am.) In a response to the Home Office report, Sile Reynolds, its head of asylum advocacy, said:
Everyday Freedom from Torture therapists see first-hand the devastating impact that hotels, military sites and shared bedrooms have on people who came to this country seeking safety. Living in fear, without privacy, stability, or access to proper healthcare, strips people of their dignity and undermines their recovery.
The Ggvernment now has a crucial opportunity to once and for all transform our asylum accommodation system so that it is safe, dignified and based in our communities. They can act now to relieve pressure on hotels by making better quality and faster asylum decisions, including swiftly granting status to people from countries where they are almost always recognised as refugees like Syria and Sudan.
10.31am GMT
The average person saw “no meaningful improvement in their life” over Labour’s first year in power, a survey of thousands of Britons has suggested. In its report on the findings of a survey by Carnegie UK, a wellbeing charity, PA Media says:
An annual “Life in the UK” survey of 7,000 people carried out by charity Carnegie UK found stagnating wellbeing and persistent economic hardship for millions since 2023.
Sarah Davidson, the charity’s chief executive, said the survey “shows that between May 2024 and May 2025, the average person in the UK saw no meaningful improvement in their life”.
She added: “Public services and systems are barely working for too many households, and our research shows that poorer people, larger families and people in social housing are still getting left behind.”
Davidson acknowledged that there were “some emerging signs of hope”, with people finding it more affordable to heat their homes and “slight improvements” in mental and physical health.
But she warned that these improvements were not evenly distributed, with older, wealthier homeowners reporting much higher wellbeing than younger, poorer people in less secure housing.
She said: “Underlying all these results is the inescapable fact that significant and damaging inequalities persist across all parts of the UK.”
The Life in the UK survey asked a range of questions on economic, social, environmental and democratic topics to come up with an overall “wellbeing score” out of 100.
This year’s survey reported an overall wellbeing score of 62, one point higher than last year and the same score as 2023.
These findings help to corroborate (at least a bit) what Wes Streeting was going on about yesterday. (See 9.23am.)
10.15am GMT
Green party calls for Home Office to be broken up, saying seperate department should handle migration
The Green party has called for the Home Office to be broken up in the light of today’s report about asylum hotels. It has put out this statement from Rachel Millward, the party’s co-deputy leader.
‘Failed, chaotic and expensive’ – these are the words used by today’s report to describe the government’s asylum accommodation system, but they apply just as fittingly to the Home Office as a whole which has spent decades wasting taxpayer money in a destructive pursuit of the most hostile migration system possible.
This is just one in a litany of reports which lays bare the Home Office’s dysfunction – in this case, allowing private companies to make obscene profits while vulnerable people are put at risk and community tensions are ratcheted up to breaking point.
If we are to have a functional and fair migration system, the Home Office must be broken up so that migration can be dealt with by a department designed to make the system work, not simply project a hardline stance to the public no matter the cost to the taxpayer or the impact on migrants.
9.36am GMT
England and Wales prison checks to be enhanced after inmate released in error
Prisons are expected to begin enhanced checks before inmates are released after a man who sexually assaulted a young girl was mistakenly freed from jail, Kevin Rawlinson reports.
Related: England and Wales prison checks to be enhanced after inmate released in error
In the Daily Telegraph, Charles Hymas says prison governors are not happy about being asked to carry out enhanced checks on people being released as a matter of routine. In his story he reports:
Governors warned it would add to the workloads of already-overstretched staff and questioned whether it would solve a problem that has yet to be identified by any investigation. The new checks could take as long as 45 minutes per prisoner, one source said.
One senior governor said: “I understand the government is very eager to prevent this from happening again, but there’s an investigation which has only just been commissioned.
“Until that’s under way, the prison service won’t know what went wrong or whether the proposed checks are what are needed to prevent it happening again.
9.23am GMT
Minister says government committed to getting all asylum seekers out of hotels after report says system 'chaotic'
Good morning. When Jimmy Carter was US president, he gave a famous address in 1979 saying the country was suffering a crisis of confidence. It became known as the malaise speech, and now it is widely regarded as a mistake, because it was unduly pessimistic and because, in the presidential election the following year, voters turned to the much more upbeat Ronald Reagaan.
Yesterday Wes Streeting, the health secretary, had his own Jimmy Carter moment on Sky News, saying Britons are in despair. He said:
I am battling cultural challenges in the NHS too, whether that’s people abdicating responsibility, not listening to patients, covering things up when things go wrong.
And all of those things undermine public trust and confidence, not just in the NHS, but in the ability of government, by which I mean any government, to be able to effect change.
And there is a deep disillusionment in this country at the moment, and I would say a growing sense of despair, about whether anyone is capable of turning this country around.
Streeting also said that he was an optimist, and that he could see “green shoots of recovery”, but it is the “growing sense of despair” line that has stuck.
And today Westminster is full of news that goes some way to reinforcing Streeting’s point. This morning the media are debating a report saying asylum hotels have been a disaster, and this afternoon there will be a statement in the Commons about a farcical prisoner release. We’ve also got a press conference from Reform UK (a party that thrives by fomenting despair), and then towards the end of the day a select commitee about a botched spy prosecution that also implies the British state has a default failure setting.
Here is Diane Taylor’s story about the report on asylum hotels.
Related: Home Office squandered billions on ‘failed and chaotic’ asylum accommodation
And here is the full report from the home affairs select committee.
Steve Reed, the housing secretary, was defending the government on the airwaves this morning. He pointed out that the contracts criticised by the committee were signed by the last government. And he insisted that the government would get all asylum seekers out of hotels, by using purpose-built accommodation on sites like ex military bases instead. He told the Today programme the tovernment was looking at “modular” forms of building to ensure sites could go up quickly.
You can use modular forms of building. That means it can go up much faster than would normally be the case, and there are planning processes that we can use in these circumstances to make sure that the planning system itself isn’t delayed.
I’m expecting announcements to come on that within weeks, so we just have to wait and see.
It would be foolish to come on your show and announce things where the detail hasn’t been fully worked out, because you’d pick holes in it, quite rightly so.
So we want to get it right, but the intention is to get those former military bases is one example of it, where we could use big sites and get people on there and end the use of hotels entirely. That’s where we want to get to.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is in Saudi Arabia where she is speaking at the Fortune Global Forum in Riyadh.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Morning: Kemi Badenoch is on a visit in Essex.
Afternoon: Keir Starmer arrives in Turkey, where he is holding talks with the president, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, mostly about an order for Typhoon fighter jets from the UK.
2pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, holds a press conference.
2.30pm: Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: David Lammy, the justice secretary and deputy PM, gives a statement to MPs on the accidental release of the Epping sex offender, Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu.
4.30pm: Stephen Parkinson, the director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the joint committee on the national security strategy about the collapse of the China spy case, alongside Tom Little KC, lead counsel in the case. At 5.30pm Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, and Sir Chris Wormald, the cabinet secretary, give evidence.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated at 9.39am GMT
