Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has accused Kemi Badenoch of abandoning a cross-party consensus on the health needs of trans children. He spoke out after the Tory leader declared that “no child is born in the wrong body” and condemned plans for a pilot of puberty blockers for young people to go ahead.

Referring to the pilot, Badenoch posted a message on social media saying:

No child is born in the wrong body.

I cannot believe we are back to square one, with NHS England backing an experimental trial of puberty blockers on healthy, vulnerable children, ignoring the damage already done.

The No1 rule of medicine is “do no harm”.

This is activist ideology masquerading as research. I’m urging MPs of all parties to sign this letter from me and Shadow Health Secretary @stuartandrew, calling for Wes Streeting to step in and stop this trial before more damage is done to children who are too young to understand what they are doing to themselves.

In April last year a landmark report by Hilary Cass, a leading paediatrician, said that children who wanted to change gender were being let down because they were being exposed to interventions for which the medical evidence was weak. It called for restrictions in the use of puberty blockers, and it said cross-sex hormones should only be used with “extreme caution” with under-18s.

The report was welcomed in the Commons by Streeting, the then shadow health secretary, and by the Conservative party. MPs, like Badenoch, who were alarmed about the increasing number of children getting medical help to transition, were particularly supportive, and in October last year Badenoch praised Cass for producing “a seminal report that has provided clarity and saved many children from making irreversible decisions that would harm their long-term health”.

Although Cass expressed caution about children getting medical help to transition, her report included evidence from children who found puberty blockers helpful and she recommended a trial of puberty blockers to establish evidence as to what the long-term effects are.

Cass also accepted that gender incongruence is a condition and she said:

There is broad agreement that gender incongruence, like many other human characteristics, arises from a combination of biological, psychological, social and cultural factors.

Responding to the Badenoch letter, Streeting said:

I’ll reply formally and fully, but I’m surprised by this letter.

The Conservatives commissioned the Cass Review and accepted its recommendations in full.

I did, too, and am implementing it.

I’m keen to maintain a cross-party approach on such a sensitive issue

Tory aides claim Badenoch never agreed with all the recommendations in the Cass report.

Lawyers are also appalled by the idea of jury trials being removed for most criminal cases.

This is from Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales.

This extreme measure on jury trials goes far beyond the recommendations made by Sir Brian Leveson in his independent report.

This is a fundamental change to how our criminal justice system operates and it goes too far. Our society’s concept of justice rests heavily on lay participation in determining a person’s guilt or innocence. Allowing a single person to take away someone’s liberty for a lengthy period or decide a potentially life changing complaint would be a dramatic departure from our shared values.

We have not seen any real evidence that expanding the types of cases heard by a single judge will work to reduce the backlogs …

The Leveson proposals were an uncomfortable compromise, only justifiable given the extensive challenges our justice system faces. To go beyond Leveson’s proposals is a step too far. With a sensible combination of funding and structural change, the government can solve the criminal courts backlog without resorting to extremes.

This is from Dame Alison Saunders, the former director of public prosecutions, on Times Radio.

I’m really surprised that David Lammy has gone this far. This isn’t what Leveson in his review recommended.

Without doubt, something fundamental needs to be done and something quite dramatic needs to be done to improve the criminal justice system because we’ve seen now there’s a record-breaking 80,000 backlog of cases in the crown court and cases taking up to four years coming to trial …

But to suddenly say ‘we’re going to do away with jury trials in the majority of cases’ I think is a reaction that is surprising, and I’m not sure bears real examination.

And this is from Stephanie Needleman, legal director at the law reform organisation Justice.

As one of the best trusted parts of the criminal justice system, juries are a key means of safeguarding fairness and public confidence. Reducing jury trials to curb delays is like reducing engine safety checks to get flights off the ground faster. There are fairer, safer options.

Juries represent the diversity of society and deliver more equal outcomes – for example, as the current lord chancellor [David Lammy] found in his Lammy Review, Black and Chinese women are found guilty at much higher rates than white women by magistrates but not by juries.

David Lammy, the justice secretary, has written to officials and other ministers suggesting only rape, murder and manslaughter cases might be heard by juries under plans to overhaul the courts system.

According to a report in the Times, in the document Lammy said there was “no right” to a jury trial in the UK and that drastic action is needed to reduce crown court backlogs.

Downing Street insisted that no final decision has been taken, but did not deny that Lammy, deputy PM as well as justice secretary, is considering getting rid of juries for most trials.

According to the Times, Lammy proposed that ony only rape, murder, manslaughter and “public interest” cases would be heard by juries. It says this could result in 75% of cases being heard by a judge alone.

In July, in a report for the government, Sir Brian Leveson, a former judge, proposed a partial restriction of the right to a jury trial. He recommended that a large number of mid-ranking offences should be heard by a judge sitting with two magistrates. The Lammy proposal goes much further.

Asked about the Times report, the PM’s spokesperson said:

Jury trials will remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases.

No final decisions have been taken, but it is right that we ask whether there are cases that need not be heard by a jury.

Asked if the PM would be comfortable with a situation where the only cases that went before a jury were homicides and rapes, the spokesperson added:

I think we’re slightly getting ahead of things. We are looking at the review, no decisions have been taken, and we will respond accordingly.

Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, said:

David Lammy once proudly defended jury trials, but now he’s in office he’s getting rid of them in virtually every case. Scrapping this pillar of our constitution because of the administrative failure to reduce the court backlog is a disgrace.

Keir Starmer has apologised to teachers after encouraging pupils to do the “six, seven” thing on a school visit, Jamie Grierson reports.

If you have no idea what the “six, seven” craze is, it’s all explained here.

Children’s health in England has been getting worse, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has said.

Speaking at a conference organised by King’s Fund, a health thinktank, and the children’s charity Barnardo’s, Streeting said that poor health was linked to poverty and he signalled that this would be a priority in the budget tomorrow.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have already all but confirmed that tomorrow’s budget will scrap the two-child poverty cap – widely seen as the single best measure that would reduce child poverty.

In his speech, Streeting said:

Children in England are sicker today than the generation of a decade ago – in fact, they face some of the poorest health outcomes in Europe.

Obesity in five and six year olds is at its highest level since records began – a health timebomb that leaves them at greater risk from some of the biggest killers like cancer and heart disease later in life.

The leading cause of hospital admissions amongst kids aged between five and nine is to have their rotting teeth pulled out.

And so what does it say about us, as a country, if we ignore a situation where our children are sicker, less happy, and less active than their peers around the world?

What kind of start in life are we giving our children?

And if we allow it to continue, then what kind of future are we leaving to them?

Our children will lead shorter, less healthy lives.

Our NHS will buckle under a tidal wave of chronic conditions.

Our society will become fractured, as those in work will be paying more to care for a growing number unable to work.

And our economy will suffer, because our businesses will be denied the talent the next generation could offer.

Those are all reasons to act.

But what’s more: health problems do not fall on children evenly.

Childhood obesity and tooth decay are both more common in the most deprived communities. Deprivation worsens mental health.

There’s no getting away from the stark truth that the poorest kids are in the poorest health.

And when a child is too sick for school, then the trajectory of their whole life is on the line …

As we look ahead to the budget tomorrow, it is worth remembering this: ever since Keir Hardie founded the Labour party, our historic purpose has been to eliminate child poverty, ensure no child is left behind, and provide every child with the best start in life.

Rachel Reeves’s plan to slash the annual cash Isa limit by 40% could lead to higher mortgage rates and deter consumers from saving, finance bosses have said. Rupert Jones has the story.

The Conservative party has criticised the decision to let mayors introduce a levy on overnight stays (see 3.29pm), calling it a “tax on British holidays”.

James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, said:

Hotels and B&Bs already pay VAT at 20%, corporation tax, business rates and national insurance. Both business rates and national insurance have already been hiked up by the Labour government. This is therefore yet another Labour tax on British holidays, pushing up costs for hard-pressed families, and yet another kick to British hospitality.

Local authorities can already introduce business improvement districts, as has happened in Manchester, allowing a levy to raise funds for the costs of tourism. But this is agreed by local firms through a referendum, ensuring the funds are only raised if they boost the hospitality sector.

Instead, Labour are imposing yet another new tax on local hospitality firms.

According to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the power to impose a tourist tax will be available to the mayors of strategic authorities (or combined authorites). These include metro mayors, but increasingly strategic authority mayors are being set up in rural areas, and so that term is now being used less.

The government has not said what a maximum overnight levy might be, but it is meant to be “modest”. The consultation will consider whether or not an upper limit should apply.

Keir Starmer said talks on a potential ceasefire in Ukraine are “moving in a positive direction” as he spoke to leaders of the war-torn nation’s allies, PA Media reports. PA says:

The prime minister led a call with leaders of the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” this afternoon after talks between Ukraine and the US in Geneva over the weekend appeared to bear fruit for a path to peace.

Addressing a virtual meeting of the coalition from the cabinet room in 10 Downing Street, Starmer said of the latest talks: “Progress was made and I welcome some of the developments that have now come forward.

“It was a chance to ensure that the draft plan fully reflects Ukraine’s interests and lays the ground for a lasting peace.”

He added that Ukraine had “proposed some constructive changes”, supported by European national security advisers.

The PM said: “I do think we are moving in a positive direction and indications today that in large part the majority of the text, Volodymyr [Zelenskyy] is indicating, can be accepted.”

Today’s call follows talks between US and Ukrainian representatives in Geneva over the weekend about a peace plan set out by Donald Trump’s administration following discussions with Russia.

Mayors in England will be allowed to introduce tourist taxes for tourists staying overnight in their areas, the government has announced.

They will be able to set their overnight levy at a “modest” rate, and the money will be used for local improvements.

Steve Reed, the housing secretary, has confirmed the move in an announcement linking it to tomorrow’s budget. Although budget decisions are supposed to be unveiled by the chancellor on the day, some of the less important ones have been pushed out in advance.

The levy will apply to people staying in places including hotels, holiday lets, bed and breakfasts, and guesthouses.

Explaining the move, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government said:

England’s mayors will be able to invest in transport, infrastructure, and the visitor economy through a new levy on overnight stays.

The fee would apply to visitors’ overnight trips, and it would be up to mayors and other local leaders to introduce a modest charge if it’s right for their area.

The move would ensure UK mayors have the same powers as their counterparts in cities like New York, Paris and Milan, where charges on short-term trips are already commonplace.

The proposal will be subject to a consultation which will end in February.

The government has not said how much the levy might be, but the Senedd has legislated for a tourism tax in Wales that will be up to £1.30 per person per night. From July next year Edinburgh will have a tourism tax set at 5%.

The move has been welcomed by many of England’s metro mayors.

Steve Rotheram, the Liverpool city region mayor, said:

For too long, cities like ours have been expected to compete on a global stage without the basic tools that other places take for granted. Cities like Barcelona and Paris raise tens of millions each year through similar schemes – money that goes straight back into improving the visitor experience and supporting the local people who keep those destinations thriving.

I’m pleased that the government has listened and acted – giving areas like ours the powers we need to support and grow our economies in a sustainable way. Our visitor economy is worth more than £6bn a year and supports over 55,000 local jobs. A modest levy is money that would stay local and be reinvested in the things that make our region stand out: our world-class culture, iconic events, vibrant public spaces and the infrastructure that ties it all together.

Repeated failures by Tory ministers and top welfare officials pushed hundreds of thousands of unpaid carers into debt and distress, and led to hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money being wasted, a devastating review has concluded. Patrick Butler has the story.

Here is the report from the review, here is the govenrment’s response, and here is the DWP news release saying that “unpaid carers will have their carer’s allowance earnings-related overpayments reviewed and potentially cancelled or repaid”.

The Green party has strongly condemned the plan announced today (see 11.49am) for a third runway at Heathrow. In a statement, the Green MP Siân Berry said:

This government is so pathetically in the pocket of Heathrow bosses and the most wealthy frequent flyers, that it will support this ridiculous and costly plan for expansion, despite the miserable disruption it will cause to everyone else’s daily lives.

These plans will trash our vital climate targets, and meanwhile cause misery on the roads, all for the benefit of the very richest people.

In the course of a reply to Rachael Maskell (Lab), Starmer give MPs an update on the reports first mentioned by Alex Sobel (see 1.29pm) about Ukraine accepting the peace deal. He said:

My understanding is this is not a new agreement, it is Ukraine confirming they are happy with the draft that emerged in Geneva yesterday, which of course doesn’t cover the question of territory.

So my best understanding is this is a confirmation of basically what came out of Geneva but it isn’t a new set of proposals or agreements in any way.

Alex Barros-Curtis (Lab) also condemned the “treachery” of Nathan Gill. He pointed out that Nigel Farage was not in the chamber, and also called for Reform to investigate what happened.

Starmer agreed. He said it should be “deeply uncomfortable” for Reform MPs to have to listen to this, knowing their party is taking no action.

Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, was the next person to speak. He said last year he donated a five-figure sum, bought a truck, filled with supplies, and with colleagues drove it to Ukraine to donate to soldiers fighting for their country. He said his support for Ukraine was rock solid.

Starmer said Tice should have said Reform will investigate the bribery case. Tice may have donated to Ukraine, he said. But, he went on:

The simple fact is this. You can’t be pro-Putin and pro-Ukraine. You have to decide between the two. And Reform is pro-Putin.

A Reform UK leader has just been convicted for taking pro-Putin bribes, he said.

Edward Leigh, the Conservative father of the house, asked Starmer if he agreed it would be totally unacceptable for Ukraine to be asked to give up territory it currently holds.

This was one of the proposals in the original, leaked 28-point peace plan.

Starmer said he agreed. The idea that Ukraine should have to give up land it now holds was “so obviously unacceptable it shouldn’t be seen as a serious proposition”, he said.

Daisy Cooper, the deputy Lib Dem leader, said many people were worried that President Trump will betray Ukraine. She said the leaked plan read like a “Russian wishlist”.

She also backed Starmer in saying Reform UK should conduct an inquiry into pro-Russian bribes. But she said the government should also launch its own inquiry into Russian interference in British democracy.

And, on the G20, she said Starmer did not mention China in his statement, even though he met the Chinese premier, Li Qiang, at the summit.

In response, Starmer said foreign intererence in British democracy was a matter of “deep concern”. But he did not promise inquiry.

As for meeting Li at the summit, Starmer said they shook hands when they saw each other in the leaders’ lounge. It would have been discourteous not to, he said. But they did not have a substantive discussion, he said.

Starmer is responding to Badenoch.

He says it is important that the Commons stays united on Ukraine. He thanks Badenoch for her support, and acknowledges the work done by the previous government.

On Russia joining the G7, he says any decision about that is a long way off. The priority now is getting a lasting peace settlement.

He says he wants to support what Badenoch said about Reform UK. (See 12.56pm.) He goes on

It is shocking, that a senior official, the leader in Wales, has been jailed for over ten years for pro-Russia bribes. That is extraordinary.

And that is why I say the Reform leadership should have the courage to launch an investigation. How on earth did that happen? And what other links are there?

Reform, with the pro-Putin approach, would have absolutely no role in bringing allies together on important issues.

Referring to the G20 summit, Starmer sums up some of the deals that were confirmed when he was there.

And he says it has been confirmed that the UK will hold the presidency of the G20 in 2027, for the first time since 2009.

Keir Starmer is now making his Commons statement about the G20 summit.

He starts by talking about Ukraine.

He says he has spoken to other leaders recently. He wants a “just and lasting peace”, he says. And he says both words – just and lasting – are important.

He says the 28-point plan, drawn up by the US and Russia and leaked last week, contained elements that were “not acceptable”.

But it also contained elements that will be “essential”, he says.

He says he is clear about some fundamental principles. “Ukraine’s sovereignty must be maintained and that Ukraine should be able to defend itself in the future,” he says. He says Ukraine’s voice must be heard. And a solution will need the consent of Nato, and of Nato, he says.

He says he will be speaking to other “Coalition of the Willing” partners later today.

Starmer says Russia is an ongoing threat to British security. He says two Russian ships have been intercepted in British waters in recent weeks.

He says last night he celebrated his daughter’s 15 birthday. Later that night he saw TV footage of a girl about the same age “being pulled from the rubble of a building in Ukraine where her mother had just been killed”.

He goes on:

It’s abhorrent beyond belief that Ukraine lives the same story every night in their cities and every day on the front line where so many Ukrainians are killed fighting for their freedom.

We should not forget that Putin’s aggression, his illegal actions and his total disregard for human life has taken a huge toll on his own people. Thousands of Russian soldiers are killed every single day – 100,000 have been killed attacking Donetsk.

In total, more than one million Russians have been killed or injured because of the depraved ambition of one man.

So we say again, this country will never falter in our support for the Ukrainian people.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has announced that luxury cars will no longer be available under the Motablity scheme, a government programme that allows some people claiming disability benefits to access a subsidised vehicle if they have difficulty using public transport.

She has also said that, by 2035, half of all cars leased under the scheme should be British built.

In a statement released by Motability Operations, the organisation that runs the scheme, Reeves says:

Backing British car manufacturing will support thousands of well paid, skilled jobs and is exactly the long-term investment our Modern Industrial Strategy delivers.

We are growing the economy to bring down debt, cut NHS waiting lists and cut the cost of living.

People will no longer be able to use the scheme to get cars like Mercedes Benz and BMW

In the Commons Wes Streeting has just confirmed that the soft drinks industry levy (aka the sugar tax – see 9.44am) is being expanded to cover “bottles and cartons of milkshakes, flavoured milk and milk substitute drinks”.

He said the government was also reducing the threshold to 4.5g of sugar per 100ml.

Karin Smyth, the secondary care minister, has rejected suggestions that the use of private finance to fund some of the proposed new neighbourhood health centres.

During health questions, Luke Evans, a Conservative health spokesperson, raised concerns that the use of private money to fund some of the centres announced today could lead to a repeat of past PFI (private finance initiative) mistakes. (See 10.12am.) Evans said that, under Labour, the government used PFI to secure investment in hospitals worth £13bn, at an ultimate cost to the public sector of £80bn. He asked for a “cast-iron guarantee” that would not happen again.

Smyth claimed that, unlike the last Tory government, Labour had learned the lessons from those mistakes. She said the new schemes would “fundamentally different”. The new health centres would be publicly owned, she said.

Ministers have backed plans from Heathrow Airport’s owners that would see the M25 moved to make way for a third runway, PA Media reports. PA says:

Transport secretary Heidi Alexander rejected a rival proposal from Arora Group, saying Heathrow’s own plans were “the most credible and deliverable option”.

The Heathrow proposals involve building a 3,500-metre runway and require a new M25 tunnel and bridges to be built 130 metres west of the existing motorway.

The Arora plan, put forward by a group led by hotel tycoon Surinder Arora, was for a shorter, 2,800-metre runway that would not require diverting the M25.

In a written ministerial statement, Alexander said the proposal would still have “a considerable impact” on the motorway, and require the compulsory purchase of more homes around the airport.

A Heathrow spokesperson welcomed the decision, saying expanding the airport “will mean more connectivity, increased trade, improved passenger experience and a huge economic boost for the British businesses that will help design and build it”.

But the spokesperson added that “further clarity” was needed on how the next phase of the project would be regulated, calling for “definitive decisions” from government and the Civil Aviation Authority by mid-December.

The planned third runway is estimated to cost £33bn, including £1.5bn on moving the M25, and is expected to be fully privately financed.

It will see Heathrow’s capacity increase to 756,000 flights and 150 million passengers per year.

The government aims to make a decision on a planning application for Heathrow’s expansion by the next election, with the third runway becoming operational by 2035.

In her statement explaining why she has chosen the Heathrow Airport Limited (HAL) scheme, not the Arora Group/Heathrow West Limited (HWL) one, Alexander says:

Following a comparative assessment of the remaining proposals for Heathrow expansion, the government’s view is that the Northwest runway scheme brought forward by Heathrow Airport Limited offers the most credible and deliverable option, principally due to the relative maturity of its proposal, the comparative level of confidence in the feasibility and resilience of its surface access plans, and the stronger comfort it provides in relation to the efficient, resilient and sustainable operations of the airport over the long-term.

The HAL scheme is considered comparatively more mature in its approach to road infrastructure. While the HAL scheme requires major works to the M25, assessment indicates that the HWL scheme would also have a considerable impact on the M25.

We know we must provide as much clarity and certainty for communities affected by expansion at Heathrow, as soon as possible. While HAL’s scheme requires more land, it would require the acquisition of fewer residential properties around the airport than HWL’s scheme.

The runway length proposed by HAL – up to 3.5km – is considered to be advantageous in terms of providing greater resilience and potential futureproofing for next-generation aircraft when compared with the 2.8km runway proposed by HWL.

New research suggests Brexit has cost the government up to £90bn a year in lost tax revenue, the Liberal Democrats have claimed.

They have released the figures based on a new study by the National Bureau of Economic Research in the US that suggests the impact of Brexit on the UK economy has been worse than critics feared at the time.

The report has been written by five economists, including one from the Bank of England. They considered almost a decade’s worth of data and in their summary they say:

These estimates suggest that by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time.

We estimate that investment was reduced by between 12% and 18%, employment by 3% to 4% and productivity by 3% to 4%.

These large negative impacts reflect a combination of elevated uncertainty, reduced demand, diverted management time, and increased misallocation of resources from a protracted Brexit process.

Comparing these with contemporary forecasts – providing a rare macro example to complement the burgeoning microliterature of social science predictions – shows that these forecasts were accurate over a 5-year horizon, but they underestimated the impact over a decade.

The Liberal Democrats asked the House of Commons library, which conducts authoritative research on behalf of MPs, to quantify what a reduction in GDP by 6% or 8% would mean for tax revenues.

The library said that if GDP were 6.4% higher in 2024/25 (the increase that would be need to compensate for the economy being 6% smaller than it otherwise would have been), tax revenues would have been £65bn higher.

And if GDP were 8.7% higher (the increase needed to compensate for the economy being 8% smaller), tax revenues would have been £90bn higher.

The library assumed the tax-to-GDP ratio remained at 34.7%.

Commenting on these figures, Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, said:

The most dishonest campaign in our history said it would save us £350m a week, but Brexit actually cost us £250m a day in 2025.

That is why we have the highest taxes ever, that is why we have sky-high bills, that is why we have a cost of living crisis.

Worst of all Labour know the cost of Brexit but refuse to do anything about it. My message ahead of the budget is clear: fix our broken relationship with Europe to end the cost of living crisis.

The Lib Dems want the UK to form a customs union with the EU. Next month they want to trigger a vote on this in the Commons.

Zack Polanski, the Green leader, has staged a photocall at Westminter to highlight his party’s call for wealth taxes in the budget. The Greens have published plans for what they call “fair wealth taxation measures”, which they claim could raise over £30bn a year.

Their proposals include a 1% tax on wealth over £10m, and a 2% tax from more than £1bn, raising £14.8bn; aligning capital gains tax with income tax, raising £12bn; and introducing national insurance on investment income, raising £6.1bn a year.

The Greens would spend the money on measures to alleviate the cost of living, including cutting energy bills, bringing energy and water companies into public ownership, getting rid of the two-child benefit cap and extending free school meals to all primary and secondary school pupils.

For a critique of these plans from the left, Aditya Chakrabortty’s Guardian column last week is worth reading.

At health questions today Wes Streeting is also likely to confirm a £300m capital investment for neighbourhood health centres in England. In a news release, the Department of Health and Social Care says the money – to be confirmed in tomorrow’s budget – will help establish a neighbourhood health service. It says:

The chancellor will double down on the government’s commitment of continuing to slash NHS waiting times in this week’s budget - today confirming the investment for hundreds of new neighbourhood health centres that will deliver healthcare direct to people’s doorsteps across the country …

250 new health ‘one stop shops’ will bring the right local combination from GPs, nurses, dentists and pharmacists together under one roof to best meet the needs of the community, starting in the most deprived areas.

The centres will be part of a new neighbourhood health service that will provide end-to-end care and tailored support - improving access to GPs, helping to prevent complications and avoid the frustration of being passed around the system.

The Financial Times says some of the new neighbourhood health centres will be funded with private capital. In their story, Chris Smyth, Laura Hughes and Gill Plimmer say the comparisons with PFI are likely to alarm some MPs.

NHS bosses have long pushed to be allowed to make greater use of external capital, including to rebuild hospitals and other large-scale projects.

But the Treasury has until now resisted. The change of heart will face fierce opposition from Labour MPs who have argued that reintroducing PFI, or a version of it, risks undermining confidence in the party’s NHS reforms.

The initial deals, which will count against the government balance sheet, are described by government sources as a “toe in the water” of private finance and justifiable on grounds of efficiency and speed.

It is not just Labour attacking Reform UK. On Sunday Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative party chair, posted a message on social media comparing a Reform UK badge to a Nazi swastika. In response to complaints, he took that post down, but replaced it with another (still up this morning) including a link to a Wikipedia page about a Nazi badge, implying the comparison has some merit. That did not quell the criticism, and yesterday Kemi Badenoch, the Tory leader, defended Hollinrake by saying he was just being funny.

But this morning James Cleverly, the shadow housing secretary, declined to fully defend Hollinrake. He said the Tory chair was “trying to make a point” but it was “not necessarily the way I would have made it”.

Cleverly told GB News:

The point that I think he is making is that – I mean, the situation with Nathan Gill, the former Reform leader in Wales who’s now been imprisoned for corruption charges having been bribed by Russia to promote pro-Moscow propaganda – is something that is worth highlighting.

Kevin sought to do that in his own way. That’s a decision that he made, but I think it is right, not that we criticise people who vote Reform – these are people who we need to win over, and indeed often win back to voting Conservative – but I think it is absolutely legitimate to ask some very, very serious questions about the motivation of some of the elected people within Reform.

Good morning. Yesterday Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, finally addressed the report published by the Guardian a week ago that quoted multiple people recalling him making racist or antisemitic comments when he was a pupil at Dulwich College in south London in the late 1970s and 1980s. Before publication, a Reform UK spokesperson told the Guardian the claims were “entirely without foundation”. But Farage adopted a slightly different line when he was questioned by Gareth Lewis, BBC Wales’s political editor, who was conducting a pooled interview (ie, one for use by all media outlets). Farage was still quite dismissive but, when pressed as to whether he ever racially abused other pupils at school, he replied: “Not with intent.”

There is a clip of the interview here, but this morning the Today programme played a fuller version (available here, from 7.16am) which is worth hearing. The questioning by Lewis was excellent.

Here is our story, by Daniel Boffey, Henry Dyer and Mark Blacklock.

And here is a timeline showing how Farage’s response to these allegations has changed over time.

But racism was not the only difficult topic Farage had to face questions about yesterday. On Friday Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, was sentenced to 10 and a half years in jail for taking bribes, when he was an MEP, to make speeches favourable to Russia, and Farage was also asked what he was doing to establish if other Brexit party MEPs had been offered bribes in the same way. (Gill was a Brexit party MEP when he took the bribes, but the Brexit party later turned into Reform UK.) Farage insists Gill was a one-off “bad apple”. Asked why he was not carrying out an investigation to see if anyone else in the party was not targeted in the same way, Farage replied:

I haven’t got a police force, I haven’t got access… I can’t access your phone message, I can’t access your emails … Unless I can do that, I can’t investigate. You’ve got to have somebody with investigatory powers.

Asked if he had asked people in his party about this, he replied:

Well, I’ve asked everybody: have you ever taken money you shouldn’t have taken from anybody … and no one said yes.

Asked if that was good enough, Farage deflected the question, and asked what Labour and the Tories were doing about people in their parties.

Labour says this is not good enough. In a statement issued in response to the Farage interview, Anna Turley, the Labour chair, said:

Nigel Farage assured the public his former right-hand man was decent and honest before he was found to have taken pro-Russian bribes. Now he says he’s as sure as he can be that there’s no pro-Kremlin links in Reform UK.

He was wrong before, and the public can have no confidence in his judgement now.

Farage must urgently take responsibility for ensuring his Party isn’t becoming a vehicle for Putin’s Russia and stop refusing to investigate pro-Russia links in Reform UK.

The Daily Mirror is also running this story, with a striking tabloid headline.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Jacqui Smith, the universities minister, gives evidence to the Commons education committee about university funding.

11.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

After 12.30pm: Keir Starmer is due to make a statement to MPs on the G20 summit.

Afternoon: Starmer takes part in a video call with leaders from the “Coalition of the Willing” countries – nations willing to contribute to the defence of Ukraine in the event of peace settlement. They will discuss the latest peace proposals from the US.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm 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.