Director of public prosecutions rejects claim Labour manifesto quote killed off successful China spy case prosecution – as it happened

<p>Stephen Parkinson tells committee a judge would have thrown out China spy case before it even went to jury</p><p>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.</p><p>But the <strong>Commons home affairs committee</strong>’s <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/49900/documents/268016/default/">report </a>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.</p><p><strong>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.</strong> (See<a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2025/oct/27/asylum-hotel-report-steve-reed-wes-streeting-epping-offender-prison-news-updates-politics-live?page=with%3Ablock-68ff25898f0837a8ea394310#block-68ff25898f0837a8ea394310"> 9.23am</a>.) It says:</p><p>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.</p><p><strong>It says the government has still not set out a “clear strategy” for asylum accommo