And here are the three new Tory peers, as set out on the list from Downing Street.

Sharron Davies MBE – Campaigner for Women’s Rights & Olympic Swimming Silver Medallist for Great Britain

Simon Heffer - Professor of Modern British History at the University of Buckingham and a historian, journalist, author and political commentator

The Rt Hon Sir John Redwood - Former Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament for Wokingham

Here are the five new Lib Dem peers, as set out on the list from Downing Street.

Mike Dixon – CEO of the Liberal Democrats

Dominic Hubbard (Lord Addington) – Lately Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer, President of the British Dyslexic Association and Vice President, the UK Sports Association

Rhiannon Leaman – Former Chief of Staff to the Leader of the Liberal Democrats

John Russell (Earl Russell) – Lately Liberal Democrat hereditary Peer, photographer

Sarah Teather – Former MP, former minister and Charity CEO

Here are the new Labour peers, as set out on the list from Downing Street.

Andy (Andrew) Roe KSFM - Chair of the national Building Safety Regulator and former London Fire Commissioner

Dame Ann Limb DBE DL - Former Further Education College Principal and former Chair, The Scouts. Pro Chancellor, University of Surrey, and Chair of City & Guilds Foundation, Lloyds Bank Foundation, and The King’s Foundation

Brenda Dacres OBE - Mayor of Lewisham

Carol Linforth OBE – Lately Labour Party Chief of Staff - Operations

Catherine MacLeod - Former journalist and political adviser, Visiting Professor at King’s College London and Non-Executive Director at the Scotland Office

David Isaac CBE - Provost of Worcester College, Oxford, Chair of the University of the Arts London, Chair of the Henry Moore Foundation, and a trustee of Cumberland Lodge

David Pitt-Watson - Responsible Investment Expert. Co-founder and former CEO of the Equity Ownership Service and Focus Funds at Federated Hermes

Farmida Bi CBE - Chair of Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Vice-Chair of the Disasters Emergency Committee

Professor Geeta Nargund - Founder and former Medical Director of Create Fertility. Founder and Trustee of Health Equality Foundation

Katie Martin – Lately, Chief of Staff to the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Joe Docherty - Chair of Northern Powergrid Foundation and Trustee, Esmee Fairbairn Foundation, former Chair of Council, Durham University

Len (Leonard) Duvall OBE - Chair of the London Assembly and Leader of the London Assembly Labour Group

Matthew Doyle - Former Director of Communications to the Prime Minister and for the Labour Party

Sir Michael Barber - Chancellor, University of Exeter and adviser to the Prime Minister on effective delivery

Neena Gill CBE - Former Member of the European Parliament for the West Midlands

Nick (Nicholas) Forbes CBE - Chair, Breaking Down Barriers Commission and former Labour Leader, Newcastle City Council

Peter Babudu - Executive Director of Impact on Urban Health, former councillor in Southwark

Peter John OBE - Former Southwark Leader and former Chair of London Councils.

Richard Walker OBE - Founder and Chairman, Bywater and Executive Chairman, Iceland Foods

Russell Hobby CBE - CEO, The Kemnal Academies Trust, former CEO, Teach First and former General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers

Cllr. Dr Sara Hyde - Fabian Society Chair and Islington council’s Executive Member for Health and Social Care

Cllr. Shama Tatler - Brent Councillor and Vice-Chair of the London Labour Regional Executive, Patron of the Labour Housing Group and Head of the Labour Group Office at the Local Government Association

Dr Sophy Antrobus MBE - Senior Research Fellow and Co-Director of the Freeman Air and Space Institute at King’s College London

Tracey Paul - Chief Communications Officer at Pool Reinsurance and former policy advisor

Uday Nagaraju - Technology Consultant, Politician and Founder of AI Policy Labs

Downing Street has published a list of political peerages.

There are 25 new Labour peers on the list, five new Lib Dem peers, three new Tory ones.

Three of the peers on the list are hereditary peers who are getting an upgrade to a life peerage, so they can stay in the Lords when the legislation to remove hereditary peers finally gets passed. One of these is a crossbencher, the Earl of Kinnoull.

In the Commons MPs will soon be starting the second opposition day debate – the censure motion against Rachel Reeves. It accuses the chancellor of “misleading the country” and it is demanding four separate apologies from her over alleged, budget-related errors.

Here is the motion.

That this House calls on the chancellor of the exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, rolling the pitch for raising taxes, breaking her promises and increasing welfare spending, including her claim on 4 November 2025 that the OBR would be downgrading their productivity forecast which, as the chancellor said, had ‘consequences for the public finances too, in lower tax receipts’, when in fact on 31 October 2025 the OBR had submitted its forecast to the Chancellor that showed tax receipts would be £16bn higher than previously thought, resulting in the government’s current balance target being met by a margin of £4.2bn; further calls on the Chancellor to apologise for breaching the trust of the OBR, whose forecasts are shared in strict confidence until the chancellor has given her budget Statement; also calls on the chancellor to apologise for the misleading briefings and leaks from HM Treasury in advance of the budget statement which caused uncertainty for families, businesses and investors; and calls on the chancellor to apologise for breaking her promise after the last budget that the government was not going to raise taxes again, instead raising taxes in the 2025 budget by £26bn.

As Rajeev Syal reports, 27 of the 46 countries in the Council of Europe have signed a statement saying that interpretation of the European convention on human rights should be “constrained” to make it easier for governments to tackle unauthorised migration.

The full text of that document has been published here.

It is considerably stronger and more specific than the agreement reached by all 46 member countries.

Here is an extract.

States aligned to this statement consider it imperative to ensure that the convention framework is fit to address today’s challenges, most notably in order to meet the following challenges:

• Expulsion of foreigners convicted of serious crimes: The clear starting point is that a state party can expel foreigners convicted of serious crimes even though they have acquired ties to their host Country, eg. if they have established a family life there. In line with the principles in this statement, it is vital that the balance between individual rights and legitimate aims as per article 8 of the convention [the right to a family life] is adjusted so that more weight is put on the nature and seriousness of the offence committed and less weight is put on the foreign criminal’s social, cultural, and family ties with the host country and with the country of destination. The purpose of such a rebalancing is to ensure that we no longer see instances where foreigners convicted of serious crime, including serious violent crime, sexual assault, organised crime and human and drug trafficking, cannot be expelled.

• Clarity about inhuman and degrading treatment: The scope of “inhuman and degrading treatment” under article 3 [the ban on torture, and inhuman or degrading treatment], which is an absolute right, should be constrained to the most serious issues in a manner which does not prevent state parties from taking proportionate decisions on the expulsion of foreign criminals, or in removal or extradition cases, including in cases raising issues concerning healthcare and prison conditions.

• Innovative and durable solutions to address migration: A state party should not be prevented from entering into cooperation with third countries regarding asylum and return procedures, once the human rights of irregular migrants are preserved.

As Rajeev points out, this would explicitly allow programmes like the last government’s Rwanda plan.

The Danish government says Denmark and Italy led the way in gathering support for this statement.

The UK is “all in” on overcoming barriers to fully implementing the Aukus security partnership with the United States and Australia, John Healey has said following positive talks in the US. PA Media says:

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) said all three countries had committed to delivering the agreement after the defence secretary met US secretary of war Pete Hegseth and Australian defence minister Richard Marles at the Pentagon.

Aukus was formed in 2021 to deepen cooperation on security and defence, with a focus on helping Australia to acquire nuclear-powered submarines and developing advanced military technologies.

The US recently concluded a review of the Aukus agreement aimed at ensuring “its long-term success” and “alignment with the president’s ‘America First’ agenda”, raising doubts about the future of the partnership.

But today’s meeting “marked a decisive shift towards delivery for submarine development and turning advanced military technology projects into frontline warfighting capabilities under Pillar II”, the MoD said.

Healey added: “This is full steam ahead for Aukus. Our reviews are done. Now, we deliver.

“In this new era of threat, with adversaries who are increasingly cooperating, business as usual is not an option.

“Aukus is too significant and the stakes are too high for it to be allowed to drift. Our driving focus now is overcoming any barriers to delivery. And the UK is all in.

“With billions being invested in UK infrastructure, this programme demonstrates defence as an engine for growth – boosting our shared security, keeping our people safe and creating good jobs across our three nations.”

Keir Starmer has spoken to Donald Trump in a joint call about Ukraine with Emmanuel Macron, the French president, and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, Downing Street has said.

But that is about all that it has said about the conversation. Here is the full readout.

The prime minister spoke to the president of the United States, Donald Trump, the president of France, Emmanuel Macron, and the chancellor of Germany, Friedrich Merz today.

The leaders discussed the latest on the ongoing US-led peace talks, welcoming their efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace for Ukraine, and to see an end to the killing.

Intensive work on the peace plan is continuing and will continue in the coming days.

They agreed that this was a critical moment – for Ukraine, its people and for shared security across the Euro-Atlantic region.

Liberty, the campaign group, has said that Britain and other countries pushing for a review of the way the European convention on human rights is implemented are putting rights at risk. Referring to today’s agreement (see 1.57pm), it has issued this statement from its director, Akiko Hart.

With today’s announcement in Strasbourg, the government risks taking us down a road of no return by jeopardising the legal framework that protects us all.

Undermining the European convention on human rights risks dismantling a safety net that protects every one of us. These discussions must be rooted in facts and evidence, not exaggerated narratives and the demonisation of our communities.

For over 70 years, these laws have quietly underpinned our daily lives: giving us the ability to speak freely, love who we want and ensuring we can hold those in power to account.

The government are defending reforms to the ECHR in the name of public interest, yet they must be honest about what people stand to lose if they lay the groundwork for further diminishing our human rights. The ECHR is a vital foundation of our freedoms, and it is essential that any changes do not open the door to the slow erosion of our rights, now or in the future.

Donald Trump described Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, as a “horrible, vicious, disgusting mayor” in an interview published yesterday.

At the No 10 post-PMQs briefing today, the PM’s press secretary said that Trump was “wrong” about the mayor. She said:

Those comments are wrong.

The mayor of London is doing an excellent job in London, delivering free school meals in primary schools, cleaning up London’s air with the world’s largest clean air zone and starting record numbers of council houses.

The prime minister is hugely proud of the mayor of London’s record and proud to call him a colleague and a friend.

Asked what aspects of the Trump comments were wrong, the press secretary declined to elaborate.

In his interview (transcript here), Trump also said:

[Khan is] a disaster. He’s a disaster. He’s got a totally different ideology of what he’s supposed to have. And he gets elected because so many people have come in. They vote for him now because you know, it’s like … it’s uh, one of those things. But I hate what’s happened to London, and I hate what’s happened to Paris. I hate when I see it.

I have beefed up the post at 12.21pm with the full quotes from Keir Starmer replying to Ed Davey about the customs union, and why Starmer thinks joining a customs union with the EU would be a mistake because “it is not now sensible to unravel what is effectively the best deal with the US that any country has got”. You may need to refresh the page to get the update to appear.

On Brexit Bluesky, there is some scepticism as to whether joining a customs union with the EU that some of its supporters suggest. These are from Prof Anand Menon, who runs the UK in a Changing Europe thinktank.

On the whole customs union debate, worth bearing a few things in mind. The ‘research’ on which the claims of economic benefit are based isn’t about a CU but about the EU accepting ‘deep alignment on goods and services’ - which it won’t. 1/3

So the numbers are just plain wrong. On top of which, does anyone know if the EU will negotiate a CU of any kind with us, and what they might ask in return? They wanted 6 billion to let us into SAFE, remember 2/3

And let’s please stop with the idea that a CU of any kind will end the need for paperwork etc. The real costs of Brexit come from being outside the single market. Apart from that, it’s a fab idea, so well done lads. 3/3

I’ve so missed these discussions about UK-EU relations that are solely about us, and political positioning here, rather than about the, you know, UK-EU relationship 4/3

These are from Aslak Berg from the Centre for European Reform thinktank.

Is there a trade expert out there arguing for a UK-EU customs union? I think it’s fair to say that @davidheniguk.bsky.social @samuelmarclowe.bsky.social and myself are hardly Euroskeptics, and while we emphasise different things in talking about a CU the conclusion is unanimous

Sam: technically it wouldn’t work because of X, Y, Z

David: the EU doesn’t really want it and would in any case extract a price

Me: it wouldn’t work politically for the UK

Different emphases, same conclusion

And this is from David Henig, director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy thinktank.

All fine and technical, but the key point is that there is nothing called “Customs Union” that is simply off the shelf instantly available next-day Amazon delivery, everything will need negotiation with the EU, and their top asks of the UK will be mobility and money.

Rajeev Syal has more on what happened at the Council of Europe meeting today. He reports:

The UK has joined some of Europe’s hardline governments in calling for human rights laws to be “constrained” to allow Rwanda-style migration deals with third countries and more foreign criminals to be deported.

Twenty-seven of the 46 Council of Europe members including the UK, Hungary and Italy have signed an unofficial statement that also urges a new framework for the European convention of human rights, which will also narrow the definition of “inhuman and degrading treatment”.

And here is the full story.

Here are the direct quotes from when Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asked Keir Starmer at PMQs to criticise the new US national security strategy. (See 12.21pm.) Starmer described Europe as “strong”, after Donald Trump yesterday said it was “weak”. But he did not directly condemn the strategy document.

Davey said:

President Trump’s new national security strategy is a deeply alarming document.

Quite apart from the irony of President Trump accusing others of trampling on basic principles of democracy, it repeats far-right tropes of civilisational erasure and threatens that the US government will cultivate resistance in Europe. No wonder Vladimir Putin has welcomed that strategy.

So, will the prime minister pick up the phone and make it clear to President Trump that any attempts to interfere with our democracy are totally unacceptable?

And Starmer replied:

What I see is a strong Europe, united behind Ukraine and united behind our longstanding values of freedom and democracy, and I will always stand up for those values and those freedoms.

In response, Davey said he “didn’t hear about standing up to President Trump”.

This is what my colleague Rafael Behr said about the No 10 response to the US document on Bluesky earlier.

I can’t help thinking that when, in future, people ask what UK political leaders said as it became undeniable that US saw European liberal democracy as its no1 strategic foe, Starmer and others will regret that the answer is “not much, shuffled awkwardly, looked at their feet”.

Go on. It’s the biggest geopolitical pivot of the past 100+ years. It’s an existential moment of crisis for a set of political values that we hold to be the foundation of decent society. Would it kill you to show that you have noticed; to say, I dunno, *something*?

Ministers from all 46 members of the Council of Europe have backed plans to consider how the European convention on human rights is applied in a way that takes into account the “challenges” posed by unauthorised migration.

A new political declaration is being drawn up and Alain Berset, the council’s secretary general, said that work will begin on adopting the declaration in Moldova in May 2026 following the meeting of ministers in Strasbourg today.

In a speech, he described the convention as something that had to adapt.

He said:

In recent weeks and months, the convention has moved to the forefront of the political agenda of several member States. As we navigate today’s complex post-second world war era, some are asking a simple question. Is an instrument born in the nineteen fifties still fit for twenty-first-century challenges?

To that I say: the convention is a living instrument.

It has been passed down from one generation to the next to face the political realities of the day, providing continuity through periods of profound political change.

As a constitutional instrument of the European legal order, it is the final safeguard of individual rights and freedoms across our continent.

The agreement reached today says the Council of Europe should:

a) prepare a draft political declaration reaffirming the obligation to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the convention to everyone within the jurisdiction of member states in the context of the contemporary challenges posed both by irregular migration and by the situation of foreigners convicted of serious offences, taking duly into account in particular governments’ fundamental responsibility to ensure national security and public safety;

b) reiterate its support for the elaboration of a new recommendation on deterring and fighting the smuggling of migrants, with full respect for their human rights;

c) consider how the Council of Europe, including through the possible creation of an inter-governmental committee, can best address pressing migration issues and related policies;

d) encourage the secretary general to engage in discussions at an international level relating to migration.

David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, was representing the UK at today’s meeting.

Here is the PA Media report from PMQs.

Keir Starmer’s cabinet ministers are vying for his job, Kemi Badenoch has claimed, as the pair clashed over Labour’s record since the election.

The Conservative party leader used one of her last despatch box appearances before Christmas to list Labour’s manifesto pledges and accused the government of “making a mess”.

Badenoch used the famous slogan from her party’s 1970s dole queue poster, produced when Margaret Thatcher held her job, when she asked: “Isn’t it time that the prime minister admits that ‘Labour isn’t working’?”

Starmer defended the government’s record, saying the Conservatives should “hang their heads in shame” after 14 years in power.

At PMQs Badenoch claimed energy secretary Ed Miliband wanted to “recycle himself”, by leading the Labour party for a second time.

She asked: “Can the prime minister tell the House how much energy bills have fallen by since the election?”

The Labour party promised last year to “set up Great British Energy” – a publicly owned company – “to cut bills for good”.

Starmer replied: “I’m very pleased to say we’re taking £150 off energy bills. I can also tell her that that’s on top of the £150 we’ve taken off last year for the three million poorest families, now for six million poorest families.”

In response, Badenoch joked the government could “power the National Grid on all of that hot air”, adding that bills had risen by £187 during his premiership.

She described education secretary Bridget Phillipson as “someone else who is making a mess”, after Labour promised voters it would recruit 6,500 more teachers.

She asked: “So, can the prime minister tell the House how many extra teachers are there since [Phillipson] became education secretary?”

Starmer responded: “More than when they left office.

“And I’m very proud to say so, with an upward trajectory. They left our health service on its knees, they left our schools in a mess, they left our economy absolutely broken, they should be utterly ashamed of their record in service.”

Badenoch said he was “wrong” and told MPs that the Department for Education’s own statistics showed there were 400 fewer full-time equivalent teachers than in 2023 – a total 468,258.

Referring to a pledge to put in place 13,000 additional neighbourhood and community police officers, she asked Starmer: “Does he know anything about what’s going on in the Home Office?”

Starmer replied: “Three thousand more by the end of March, we’re rising on police numbers.”

As she began her penultimate question, Badenoch referred to government figures which showed there was a drop of 1,303 police officers between March 2024 and the same month this year.

And in their final exchange, Badenoch said: “Under Labour, everything is getting worse – jobs, bills, police numbers, teacher numbers – everything is getting worse.

“The cabinet should be doing their own jobs. What are they doing? They’re trying to compete for the caretaker’s job.”

Kemi Badenoch has questioned why Nigel Farage has not apologised for alleged racist and antisemitic comments while at school, saying the weight of the evidence of more than 20 former schoolmates is significant. Jessica Elgot has the story.

In an interview with Talk TV, Badenoch said:

A lot of people are coming out saying [Farage] did say those things. He should just apologise. If he just said: ‘You know, I was a kid, I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have said that. It was wrong. People shouldn’t speak like that,’ this would all have gone away.

And that’s the problem. It’s not that he’s racist, that he doesn’t care. And actually, I think as a serious politician, if you want to run the country, you should care about how the words you say impact people …

Interesting is it’s not one or two people. They’ve got like 20. They’ve got 20 people. So it’s a lot of people.

Whether [Farage] remembers or not, he didn’t deny it. He said, well, actually, he wasn’t trying to hurt people. Nigel’s a big boy. He should just stand up, put on his big boy pants, and just say: ‘Do you know what? I’m sorry. I didn’t mean it.’ The fact that he doesn’t want to do that is a bit strange to me. That’s what I would have done.

Kemi Badenoch revealed earlier this year that, after struggling for a while with how to strategise PMQs, she decided that it was best to treat it as a panto. Today is the best example to date of how that has turned out to be her best decision yet. She opted for the gameshow skit from the panto experience, taunted Keir Starmer with a string of public sector performance questions, then mocked him mercilessly over his answers.

Of course, she was cherrypicking. You can’t measure how an organisation like the NHS, or the Department for Education, is performing with a single statistic. But in this setting, on this occasion, it didn’t matter. She sounded confident and right, and Starmer came across as floundering.

For most of this year Starmer has been able to see off Badenoch’s attacks at PMQs by referring to the Conservative party’s record in government (the worst in post-war history, according to the experts). And he has hit back by attacking Badenoch personally, as he did today, linking her with Liz Truss.

She’s obviously spent the morning rehearsing for The Liz Truss Show, she’s probably going to be the guest star next week, both of them talking about how Liz Truss was 100% right.

But what Liz Truss said was the Conservatives need to take responsibility for their 14 years of failure. That was Liz Truss, their former leader, so perhaps she’ll heed that, get up and say sorry.

But increasingly, at PMQs at least, these defence mechanisms are no longer working.

Why? Partly because Badenoch is getting sharper (a bit) and more confident (a lot). Partly it is because, as time goes on, attacks on the record of a government led by Rishi Sunak (remember him?) are losing resonance. But largely because of the prevailing political context; Badenoch has her own difficulties, but they are not as severe as Starmer. When someone is on the back foot already, it is easier to push them over.

Of course, you are entitled to ask whether Badenoch deserves credit for treating PMQs as a panto. One of Starmer’s virtues as a human being is that is fairy contemptuous of a lot of the flippant, performative guff that surrounds Westminster politics. (It is a feature of politics everywhere, but it is particularly prevalent here.) Badenoch, on the other hand, is increasingly comfortable operating in this medium. For her, today was a notable success.

Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says the new US national security strategy is deeply concerning. He asks Starmer to tell Trump that any US interference in European democracy would be totally unacceptable.

Starmer says Europe is strong, based on its values of freedom and democracy.

Davey says he did not hear Starmer says he would stand up to Trump.

Turning to the customs union, he says he if keeps opposing the UK joining a customs union with the EU he will not be standing there in a year’s time.

Starmer says Labour has manifesto commitments on the customs union and the single market (to not join – though he does not say that).

Referring to the customs union plan in particular, he says the UK now has trade deal. It has a better deal with the US than any other country. And it would not be sensible to unravel that by joining an EU customs union, he says.

UPDATE: Davey said:

If we’re going to stand up to President Trump, we do need to strengthen our ties with Europe, not just on defence, but on the economy too.

And the truth is this government will not succeed unless it gets our economy growing strongly again, and the best way to do that is a customs union with Europe.

The prime minister’s chief economic adviser [Lady Shafik] knows it, the deputy prime minister [David Lammy] knows it, and yesterday the Labour chair of the Treasury select committee [Dame Meg Hillier] showed she knows it too when she backed our bill.

Does the prime minister fear if he keeps opposing a customs union, in 12 months’ time he will not be standing there?

And Starmer replied:

We have got a closer relationship with the EU, through our reset earlier this year. And, yes, I do want a closer relationship to the one we’ve got at the moment, we are moving towards that.

We do have manifesto commitments on issues such as single market, customs union and freedom of movement.

But I would gently point this out – that having now done significant trade deals with other countries, including the US and India, which are hugely important to the JLR workforce and on pharma, it is not now sensible to unravel what is effectively the best deal with the US that any country has got.

Keir Starmer starts by saying all MPs will want to send their condolences to the family of a soldier killed in Ukraine. He was injured in an accident away from the frontline while observe ring Ukrainian soldiers testing a new capacity. He was one of a small number of personnel in Ukraine.

PMQs is starting soon.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

John Glen (Con) asks how Reeves can say she has not breached the Labour manifesto.

Reeves says the manifesto clearly referred to rates of income tax, national insurance and VAT.

Q; Do you accept increasing the headline rate of income tax would be more progressive than freezing thresholds?

This is a claim made by the Resolution Foundation.

Reeves says she does not accept that.

Here is the Resolution Foundation chart showing why an income tax rise would have been more progressive.

John Grady (Lab) is asking the questions now. He asks Reeves how she responds to the claims from economists that the retraction in government spending she has pencilled in for the end of the decade is realistic. Do you believe those economists are wrong?

Reeves says she believes in the numbers in her budget.

Baldwin says Reeves chose not to put pro-growth measures in the budget.

Reeves says she does not accept that. That is not what she said, she says. She cites measures such as the decision to go ahead with the third runway at Heathrow as growth measures.

Q: Do you accept that your pre-budget comments led to businesses putting investment on hold?

Reeves says the previous government raised taxes to a record high.

She says she has returned stability to the economy.

Interest rates have been cut, she says. She says under Liz Truss, who Baldwin “may not want to remember”, interest rates went through the roof.

Baldwin says last year she asked Reeves if she was looking at changing council tax, or road prices. Reeves told the committee she was not looking at those. Baldwin says she would argue the budget shows Reeves is doing those things.

Baldwin asks Reeves to rule out putting capital gains tax on primary residences, or moving to a single lock for state pensions, in this parliament.

Reeves does rule those out.

John Glen (Con) goes next. He says he cannot see what new “data points” the chancellor had between 4 November, when the chancellor gave her speech implying income tax would go up, and 13 November, when the FT said that plan had been dropped. He says the forecasts from the OBR imply those data points had not changed.

Reeves says the published forecast figures were not the only relevant data points. She says there were also OBR costings for proposed policies.

As you’ll know from your time at the Treasury, pre-measures is not the final word from the Office for Budget Responsibility, because then you have post-measures forecasts.

They take into account the policy decisions that we take as a government on tax and spend … so there was plenty of additional information being shared between the OBR and the Treasury between 30 October and major measures one and indeed major measures two.

Q: What changed between 4 November and 13 November?

Reeves says she was clear on 4 November that everyone would have to contribute.

She claims that was not a breach of the manifesto.

Q: The manifesto said you would not raises taxes for working people?

Reeves ignores this point, and says she was clear in her speech on 4 November on the need to build more headroom into the plan, and on the need for everyone to contribute.

She says they did look at putting up income tax.

But they were able to keep the contribution from working people as low as possible.

Q: Who made the decision?

Reeves says she was meeting the PM two or three times a week at this point. They decided this “as a team”, because that is what they are.

UPDATE: Reeves said:

The prime minister and I met two, three times a week during the budget process. That is not always the case between chancellors and prime ministers. I recognise that. But there is a very close partnership between myself and the prime minister. And so we took him through all of the numbers and all of the options and we decided it together as a team, because that is what the prime minister and I am.

The Treasury committee is starting.

Meg Hillier, the chair, starts.

Q: Does the resignation of Richard Hughes as chair of the OBR show that, when an organisation makes a mistake, the honourable thing is for the leader to resign?

Rachel Reeves starts by paying tribute to Hughes.

She says leaks are unacceptable.

The budget had too much speculation. There were too many leaks. And much of that leaks and speculation was inaccurate.

Reeves says she wants to state how frustrated she is about this.

She is doing something about this.

A leak inquiry is underway.

A review of Treasury physical security procedures is under way, she says.

And she says the National cybersecurity Centre has been asked to do a forensic examination of the way the recent OBR report was accessed. She says that will be published.

James Bowler, the Treasury permanent secretary, says the National Cybersecurity Centre review will also look at how the March OBR report was accessed early. He says a media organisation has said it did that.

UPDATE: Reeves said:

I am grateful as well to have the opportunity to make a statement and to reiterate in the strongest terms that leaks are unacceptable.

The budget had too much speculation. There were too many leaks, and much of that, those leaks and speculation, were inaccurate, very damaging, as well as the IT security issues … The OBR’s report also noted that the spring statement had been accessed early as well.

I want to say on the record how frustrated I am and have been by these incidents and the volume of speculation and leaks, and that is why I am doing something about it, because we cannot allow this to happen again.

A leak inquiry is under way with my full support, being led by the permanent secretary at the Treasury, and we are also conducting a review of the Treasury security processes to inform future fiscal events.

We also clearly need to look explicitly at physical IT security.

The Treasury have asked the National Centre for Cybersecurity to undertake a forensic examination of recent economic and financial outlooks.

The outcome of that review, of course, will be public, and we’ll write to you with the outcomes of that review.

David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, is in Strasbourg this morning for a Council of Europe meeting where reform of the way the European convention on human rights is interpreted will be discussed.

Here is our overnight preview story by Pippa Crerer and Rajeev Syal.

And this is what Lammy said this morning, according to a Sky News report.

I’m very pleased that the initial conversations that I have had with now well over 20 member states [has] demonstrated that, on the way that some of these issues have been interpreted in member countries, we can achieve consensus and we can arrive at a political declaration that chimes with our respective populations.

We’re heading for a political declaration, and I’m very pleased to be here to kick off that process.

Keir Starmer has been tweeting this morning about the national youth strategy.

It’s our generation’s responsibility to break down barriers to opportunity for young people.

We’re investing in youth services so every child has the chance to thrive and we’re boosting apprenticeships so young people can see their talents take them as far as they can.

At the heart of the strategy is a plan to spend £500m boosting youth services. This is how the Department for Culture, Media and Sport summarises it.

-Build or refurbish up to 250 youth facilities over the next four years, as well as providing equipment for activities to around 2,500 youth organisations, through a new £350m ‘Better Youth Spaces’ programme. It will provide safe and welcoming spaces, offering young people somewhere to go, something meaningful to do, and someone who cares about their wellbeing.

-Launch a network of 50 Young Futures Hubs by March 2029 as part of a local transformation programme of £70m, providing access to youth workers and other professionals, supporting their wellbeing and career development and preventing them from harm.

-The first eight hubs to be operational by March 2026 are in Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester, County Durham, Nottingham, Bristol, Tower Hamlets, and Brighton and Hove.

-Support organisations in underserved areas to deliver high-quality youth work and activities through a ‘Richer Young Lives Fund’ worth over £60m.

-Boost young people’s wellbeing, personal development, and essential life skills through a new £22.5m programme of support around the school day in up to 400 schools.

-Recruit and train youth workers, volunteers and other trusted adults with £15 million of investment.

-Strengthen youth services through £5 million to improve local partnerships, better information sharing, and digital infrastructure, ensuring young people receive high-quality, safe, and effective support in their communities.

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, was on the media round for the government this morning. She was there to talk about the new national youth strategy being published today. There is a news release about it here, the actual strategy is available here, and here is Pippa Crerar’s story about it, based on an interview with Nandy.

In the interview Nandy expressed scepticism about the UK followng Australia and banining under-16s from having social media accounts.

She has spoken more about that in her interviews this morning. She said the government is not totally ruling out doing something similar. Asked if the UK would follow Australia if the Australian ban is deemed a success, she told BBC Breakfast:

Yes, we certainly would consider it, not only if it worked, but if young people … believed that it was working and trusted that that was a solution.

But she also stressed that at this point the government is not minded to introduce a similar social media ban for teenagers. She told Times Radio:

We don’t think [this will be a good idea]. We asked young people what they thought about it, and the overwhelming response was concerns about enforceability.

Are we seriously saying that we’re going to start prosecuting young people for going on social media?

There’s also a real concern particularly amongst girls that if people can’t see the problem with behaviour online, they won’t be able to see the problem with behaviour in the real world.

What they really wanted was more education, more advice, and particularly someone who cared about them, who they could talk to, an adult who they could trust … to be able to navigate some of this.

Shabana Mahmood’s radical plans to overhaul the asylum system could cause “unintended consequences” such as increased homelessness among people seeking refuge and growing case backlogs, Whitehall’s spending watchdog, the National Audit Office, has concluded. Rajeev Syal has the story.

Here is the NAO’s report. And here is its eight-page summary.

Good morning. It is PMQs today, but Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is also facing intense scrutiny in the Commons today. She is giving evidence to the Treasury committee at 10am and then, from about 4pm, she will face a rare censure motion in the Commons.

Anyone who listens to Commons debates regularly will have heard an MP accuse another member of “misleading” people, only for the speaker to intervene to say they must have meant “unintentionally misleading”. Under rules intended to maintain decorum in debates, MPs are not allowed to accuse each other of lying, or anything similar. But there is an exception if whether or not a particular MP has lied is the actual subject of the debate.

And that is what is happening today. It is an opposition day, meaning the Conservative party can decide the motions to be debated, and it has tabled a censure motion urging Reeves “to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, rolling the pitch for raising taxes, breaking her promises and increasing welfare spending”. There is no chance of the motion passing, but it does mean that for about three hours in the Commons in it will be open season on the chancellor.

Commenting on the motion, Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, said:

Rachel Reeves has repeatedly misled the British public. She promised she wouldn’t raise taxes on working people - and then she did. She insisted there was a black hole in the public finances - and there wasn’t.

Rachel Reeves has put party before country, so today the Conservatives are giving MPs the chance to formally censure the Chancellor and call on her to apologise to families across the country.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: The ONS publishes annual life expectancy figures.

Morning: David Lammy, the deputy PM and justice secretary, and Lord Hermer, the attorney general, attend a Council of Europe summit in Strasbourg to discuss migration and the European convention on human rights.

10am: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

After 12.30pm: MPs debate two Tory opposition days motions: first, one criticising the employment rights bill, and accusing the government of “making seasonal, flexible and part-time work more difficult”; and then another urging Reeves “to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, rolling the pitch for raising taxes, breaking her promises and increasing welfare spending”.

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.