Evening summary
The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK says it “is devastating to think of the lives that could have been saved under a different prime minister”.
In a written parliamentary statement, Keir Starmer has addressed the failings identified in today’s report of the previous government. (See 17.45)
While perhaps the most stinging criticism is directed at Johnson and his team, notably his then adviser Dominic Cummings, the report also targets the three devolved governments and scientific advisers.
Nicola Sturgeon, who is criticised in the report, insisted she tried to work constructively with other leaders across the UK but “it was very difficult with Boris Johnson”. (see 18.29)
Dominic Cummings calls inquiry a “mix of cover ups and rewriting of history” in response to piercing criticism of former aide in report.
Shabana Mahmood says four new criteria will apply to people wanting settlement: no criminal record, A-level-type English, NI contributions and no debt in a statement to MPs today. (see 13.36)
The former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle has joined the Green party, it has announced. Russell-Moyle, who represented Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, was a leftwinger who was banned from standing as a candidate at the 2024 election on the basis that Labour had received a complaint about him.
For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.
Updated
Recap of first UK Covid-19 public inquiry report
It’s worth remembering that the first of several reports from the inquiry was published last year.
The recommendations included:
The leader or deputy leader of each of the four nations should chair a cabinet-level committee responsible for civil emergency preparedness.
A UK-wide pandemic response exercise to run at least every three years and a new whole-system civil emergency strategy be put in place.
External “red teams” should regularly challenge groupthink on the principles, evidence and advice on emergency plans.
A radical simplification of civil emergency preparedness and resilience systems, (the current system’s flow chart looked like “a bowl of spaghetti”).
While the key flaws described in the report were:
The UK being prepared for the wrong pandemic, focusing on influenza.
The institutions responsible for emergency planning being “labyrinthine in their complexity”.
The government’s sole pandemic strategy (for flu, dating from 2011) being outdated and lacking adaptability.
Failure to appreciate the impact of the pandemic, and the response to it, on minority ethnic communities, and people in poor health and with other vulnerabilities.
Failure to learn from earlier civil emergency exercises and disease outbreaks.
A “damaging absence of focus” on systems such as test, trace and isolate that could be scaled up.
The second pandemic report focuses on decision-making, organisation and messaging by senior politicians including Boris Johnson.
Here’s an explainer by the Guardian’s social affairs correspondent Jessica Murray on the report’s key findings.
Dominic Cummings calls inquiry a 'rewriting of history'
Dominic Cummings – a special adviser to Boris Johnson during the Covid pandemic came in for criticism in the report for “destabilising behaviour”. (See post 17.34)
Now Cummings has issued a statement accusing the inquiry of a mix of “coverups and rewriting history”.
He said in a lengthy social media post:
He was offered the chance to respond to the inquiry’s findings before the report was released, but declined, declaring it “insider corruption”
The inquiry “has enabled a vast rewriting of history” by failing to represent the fact that scientists and experts “were completely wrong” on “most of the big questions” at the start of 2020.
He suggests experts “advised us to do almost nothing” and “advised against any serious restrictions” as the country would reach “natural herd immunity” by September
The inquiry failed to get statements from “crucial people”
It also “suppressed” his efforts to “change the physical layout of government so it could deal with a crisis”
Lessons won’t be learned because of a system “devoted to anti-learning and covering up for official failure”
“If the inquiry says I got anything right, bear in mind it’s probably got this wrong too”
“Only regime change can fix our pathological institutions.”
Updated
Government failures laid bare, says Long Covid charity
More than 1.9 million people (including 100,000+ children) in the UK are estimated to be living with Long Covid, according to the ONS, making it one of the largest mass disabling events in modern British history.
The Covid-19 Inquiry has found that the UK Government should have acknowledged Long Covid and made the risks clear to the public. It has found that by October 2020 the UK Government knew Long Covid was a significant health and policy issue.
Despite this, the UK Government failed to acknowledge Long Covid and failed to warn the public of the indiscriminate risk to adults and children.
Nigel Rothband, chair of the charity Long Covid Support, said:
“For years, people with Long Covid have been dismissed and disbelieved. The Inquiry has recognised what we have long known – there was greater suffering than there needed to have been, as a result of the government’s decisions and its lack of ability to foresee long term consequences of the virus and make prompt appropriate decisions.
Recognition is an important first step, but accountability and change must follow.”
The Inquiry’s Long Covid specific recommendations for future pandemics are:
Consideration of long term symptoms must be built into any strategy and supporting plans – there was no public health messaging on the known risk of long-term consequences of viral conditions.
The potential for long term symptoms arising from infection and any developing understanding should be communicated to the public.
Updated
Report must 'inform preparedness' for future pandemic, says Michelle O'Neill
First minister of Northern Ireland Michelle O’Neill said the report is a “welcome milestone in the long journey of recovery after the pain and trauma” of the pandemic.
“Covid was an unprecedented global emergency and this report will provide further lessons from the experience at all levels of society,” O’Neill added.
Those lessons must inform our preparedness for, and response to, any future pandemic or society-wide emergency in the future,” she said. Adding that her thoughts are with those who lost loved ones.
It comes after the inquiry noted that the Northern Ireland Executive’s approach to tackling the pandemic was “incoherent” as a result of political divisions.
Updated
Plaid Cymru would conduct dedicated ‘gap inquiry’ to scrutinise Welsh government
Heledd Fychan, a Plaid Cymru Senedd member, described the report as a “damning condemnation” of the government.
She said:
Neither Labour nor the Conservatives took decisions quickly or effectively enough – and people in Wales paid the price.
Crucially the report finds that the decisions taken by Labour ministers were the ‘likely’ reason Wales suffered the highest mortality rate, which will be devastating to all those who lost a loved one at this time.
The truth is we will never fully understand the true impact of the pandemic on Wales because Labour refused time and again to hold a Wales-specific inquiry, and blocked Plaid Cymru’s attempts to establish one. A Plaid Cymru government in 2026 would conduct a dedicated ‘gap inquiry’ to properly scrutinise the Welsh government’s decisions at the time – providing the transparency and accountability that this inquiry could not deliver.”
First minister Eluned Morgan said:
“I welcome the publication of the second report by the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry.
“I would like to thank the inquiry chair, Lady Hallett, and her team for their work and for today’s report. It is important that we remember the immense loss and suffering of so many people due to Covid-19.
“Today, our thoughts must first and foremost be with them. We will take time to read the report and will work with the other UK governments over the coming months to carefully consider and act on its recommendations.
“We are committed to learning lessons from the pandemic and continue to be actively involved in the UK inquiry.”
Updated
Nicola Sturgeon says 'buck stopped with me' in response to criticism
Speaking to reporters at the Scottish parliament former first minister Nicola Sturgeon said it was inevitable, given the unprecedented nature of the pandemic, that “mistakes and misjudgments would be made” and said she would “carry an acute sense of responsibility for this for the rest of my life.”
Addressing the criticism that her leadership was overly centralised, she said that she stood by what she described as a “conscious and deliberate decision to lead from the front and be very clear the buck stopped with me.”
She said she agreed with the Inquiry’s assessment that restrictions should have been introduced earlier, but said that all governments were concerned that earlier implementation might have affected public compliance.
She insisted she tried to work constructively with other leaders across the UK but “it was very difficult with Boris Johnson”.
“He took a particular approach to leadership that I fundamentally disagreed with and it was my job as first minister to take decisions in the best interests of the people of Scotland”
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent
Updated
The inquiry also chided Sturgeon and other senior figures for making the “inappropriate” and unhelpful claim they were aiming to “eliminate” the Covid virus from Scotland, even though that was “destined to fail” because of its open border with England.
Lady Hallett began her report by describing Sturgeon, then first minister of Scotland, as a “serious and diligent leader who took responsibility” for her decisions but she said the decision to talk of eliminating the virus in late June 2020 was misguided.
There had been no deaths and no new cases that day, however the government’s formal policy at that point was the maximum suppression of the virus. Even so, Sturgeon, Jeane Freeman, her health minister, and Gregor Smith, then chief medial officer, used “elimination” in public and in parliament.
Prof Devi Sridhar, a public health expert at Edinburgh University and an adviser to Sturgeon, had said that created the “unintended consequence” of suggesting to the public that life could return to normal.
The report noted:
“The idea of eliminating the virus from Scotland was inappropriate and destined to fail in the light of an open border with England and there being no agreement with the UK government to close it.
“[It] may also have had another unintended and unfortunate practical effect. Public Health Scotland suggested that the use of different language by the Scottish government to express policy intent led to challenges in its development of guidance.”
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor
‘Had the lockdown been a week earlier, my mother would have been saved’
I just want to go back again to Brenda Doherty, who lost her mother, Ruth Burke, in the first weeks of the pandemic. She’s been speaking in the freezing cold this evening to media at the Covid memorial wall along the Thames in London.
The report lays blame squarely at the feet of governments who acted too slowly, she says. Boris Johnson did not enact a lockdown until 23 March.
“My mummy died on 24 March 2020,” she says, her voice breaking.
The report made it clear that had the lockdown been a week earlier, people like my mummy would have been saved.”
Updated
Starmer responds to findings
In a written parliamentary statement, Keir Starmer has addressed the failings identified in today’s report of the previous government.
“[It] has found that the Government fell short, with advice lacking proper economic and social modelling, the impact on vulnerable people not sufficiently considered, and the culture in the centre of government described as “toxic”.
He notes that decisions were made in the context of the UK being not properly prepared.
He says: “Since then, improvements have been made to the way the government would respond to a major crisis. That said, it is clear that local government and our public services, including the NHS, are under immense pressure and in many cases have not fully recovered from the pandemic.”
A quick recap of key findings
About 23,000 deaths could have been prevented if the first Covid-19 lockdown was introduced even a week earlier
Chaotic government response summarised as “too little, too late”. All four governments failed to recognise scale and threat of the virus
Boris Johnson, cabinet ministers and government scientists underestimated or ignored warning signs of the virus’ spread in Italy and China
They made repeat mistakes in delaying action on lockdowns and restrictions, an “inexcusable” action given repeat waves
Johnson was too “optimistic” over pandemic’s trajectory and presided over a “toxic culture” at Downing Street which prevented clear action
Special adviser Dominic Cummings singled out for “destabilising behaviour”
Early health advice to public was “weak”, focusing largely on hand hygiene. Face masks were “positively discouraged”
Key scientists failed to act with enough urgency in government advice
Alcohol-filled parties in Downing Street “undermined public confidence in decision-making”
Children “were not always prioritised” and “suffered greatly from the closure of schools and requirement to stay at home”. The pandemic “brought ordinary childhood to a halt”.
'Devastating to think of the lives that could have been saved under a different prime minister'
Here’s the first reaction from a bereaved families group. The Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK says:
“The evidence from the inquiry is clear, and while it is vindicating to see Boris Johnson blamed in black and white for the catastrophic mishandling of the pandemic, it is devastating to think of the lives that could have been saved under a different prime minister.
“We now know that many of our family members would still be alive today if it weren’t for the leadership of Boris Johnson and his colleagues.
“As the report has found, the government’s approach to the pandemic was undermined from the beginning.
“If Johnson had listened to scientific advice and locked down even a week earlier, around 23,000 people could have been saved. Instead, throughout the pandemic, Boris Johnson put his political reputation ahead of public safety.
“He pandered to his critics when the UK needed decisive action.
“In delaying lockdowns he made them longer, more damaging to the economy and less effective, he ignored scientific advice that didn’t fit his agenda, and he ignored the impact of his decisions on the front line, repeating the mistakes of the first wave and prolonging the second.”
Updated
Sturgeon criticised for 'extremely wide' powers in Scotland's response
Nicola Sturgeon has been chastised for failing to consult the Scottish cabinet about “very significant” decisions she took during the pandemic, such as the decision to close schools, which diminished the cabinet’s role and reduced her accountability, the inquiry found.
The report said Sturgeon, then Scotland’s first minister, and her deputy John Swinney, who is now first minister, had taken “extremely wide” powers and used a gold command structure rather than consulting fellow ministers about their decisions.
“The use of the informal gold command meeting structure diminished the role of the Scottish cabinet and reduced the transparency of the Scottish government’s decision-making during the pandemic. It also deprived decision-makers of a wide range of views. The Scottish cabinet frequently became a decision-ratifying body, not the ultimate decision-making body.
“The Scottish cabinet should have been involved to a greater degree in decision- making in Scotland. This would have ensured greater transparency and enhanced accountability for decisions taken by the gold command and, increasingly, Ms Sturgeon.”
Lady Hallett’s report said the cabinet had previously found the evidence for closing schools was “not yet clear” but the next day Sturgeon and Swinney decided to close them, despite cabinet agreeing to keep that decision under review. It said:
“Although the situation was rapidly deteriorating, the cabinet should have been sufficiently agile and engaged to play its central role in decision-making and not be sidelined in this way.”
Kate Forbes, the current deputy first minister, told MSPs on Thursday the government would carry out a “thorough and thoughtful review” after it had time to study the report and its findings.
She did not comment directly on the accusations of sidelining cabinet, but said: “we are committed to learning from the past” and acknowledged “the loss, hurt and suffering of people right across Scotland” during the pandemic.
Murdo Fraser, speaking for the Scottish Conservatives, said Forbes had admitted to the Covid inquiry she was often shut out of significant decisions during the pandemic, even though she was then finance secretary.
This meant “the absurd boast that this government is committed to transparency is an insult to those who lost loved ones out of respect to them and all Scots.”
Updated
Mistakes repeated with delayed restrictions
Even after a lockdown was imposed on 23 March, the report said, mistakes were repeated, including what it called an “unwise” exit from restrictions that summer, pushed in part by Rishi Sunak, the then-chancellor.
When a second wave swept the UK, a new lockdown was again delayed, with all the four UK governments saying restrictions could ease over Christmas, giving people “false hope”, as the report put it.
It’s “inexcusable” that the mistakes were made again, says Baroness Heather Hallett, author of the report.
Just some background for readers, although most likely we all remember it well: The UK suffered one of the deadliest Covid outbreaks in Europe, with about 240,000 virus-related deaths.
This report today is the second from Baroness Heather Hallett, who is overseeing a national inquiry into all aspects of the response and handling of the pandemic.
The inquiry began two years ago and is due to run until 2027. The current focus is on children.
Updated
February 2020 'a lost month' with Johnson uninformed on growing crisis
It was “surprising” that Johnson did not do call a Cobra meeting before March, the report’s authors say, with some understatement.
“Mr Johnson should have appreciated sooner that this was an emergency that required prime ministerial leadership to inject urgency into the response.”
This was explained in part by the PM “acting in accordance with his own optimistic disposition” and accepting assurances that everything necessary was being done.
Many of these assurances came from Matt Hancock, the health secretary, described by the report as having as reputation “for overpromising and underdelivering”.
February 2020 was “a lost month” and the lack of urgency overall in government was “inexcusable”, the report found.
During the February school half-term, Johnson spent the whole week at the government’s Chevening country retreat, the report says, adding: “It does not appear that he was briefed, at all or to any significant extent, on Covid-19 and he received no daily updates.”
By the second week of March, the report said, the situation was “little short of calamitous”, with no proper plan, no testing taking place and thus no understanding about how far the virus had spread.
Updated
All four governments failed to respond in time
While perhaps the most stinging criticism is directed at Johnson and his team, notably his then adviser Dominic Cummings, the report also targets the three devolved governments and scientific advisers.
The inquiry finds that the response of the four governments repeatedly amounted to a case of ‘too little, too late’.
The failure to appreciate the scale of the threat, or the urgency of response it demanded, meant that by the time the possibility of a mandatory lockdown was first considered it was already too late and a lockdown had become unavoidable.”
Many of the same mistakes – reacting too slowly and underestimating the speed and impact of Covid’s spread – were then repeated later in 2020, as restrictions were lifted and then belatedly reimposed in the face of infectious new strains, the report adds, calling this “inexcusable”.
Updated
Pandemic not taken seriously until it was 'too late'
The first volume of the report gives a chronology of the crisis, from the start of 2020 to the final lifting of restrictions, pointing to a consistent picture of inaction despite ever-mounting evidence about a new virus that was spreading around the globe and could be transmitted between people.
Events like the early Covid crisis in Italy “should have prompted urgent planning across the four nations”, the report said, adding:
“Instead, the governments did not take the pandemic seriously enough until it was too late. February 2020 was a lost month.”
Lockdown a week earlier could have saved 23,000 lives
My colleagues Peter Walker and Jessica Murray have more detail:
The UK’s response to Covid was “too little, too late”, a damning official report into the handling of the pandemic has concluded, saying the introduction of a lockdown even a week earlier than happened could have saved more than 20,000 lives.
Detailed in more than 750 pages across two volumes, the findings of the second part of the Covid inquiry’s hearings, into how Boris Johnson’s government handled the pandemic, paint a consistent picture of delay, inaction and a seeming inability to learn lessons.
The narrative about the start of the pandemic in early 2020 is particularly brutal, describing February as “a lost month”. It questions why Johnson failed to chair a single meeting of the Cobra emergency committee that month, noting also that the response to Covid essentially halted during the half-term holiday week.
While acknowledging that the decision to impose a lockdown was unprecedented and hugely difficult, taking other action to curb the spread of the virus sooner could have meant one might have been avoided, or at least have been shorter, it said.
By the time a lockdown was inevitable, the inquiry authors went on, if it had been imposed on 16 March, a week earlier than took place, modelling suggested this could have cut the number of deaths in England in the first wave of the virus by almost half, equating to 23,000 lives saved.
Updated
Covid inquiry report released
The official report into how the UK government tackled the coronavirus pandemic has just been published.
It is a damning assessment, and finds that there were multiple delays and inaction, and failures by those in charge to learn lessons through successive waves.
More detail soon.
Sonia Lenegan has posted a good analysis of the earned settlement plans at Free Movement, a blog covering immigration law. This is her conclusion.
The paper is fairly explicit that the target here is the number of people on health and care visas. So it is low earners and our carers who the government is proposing to force into additional expensive applications and a longer period of instability before they are able settle, contrary to the rules under which they made the decision to uproot their lives and move to the UK.
I am aware that there is a view that people who are already here but have not yet reached the point where they are eligible for settlement are fair game, and some will argue that their inclusion means these changes are not retrospective. But I think that it is important to remember that many if not most of these people will have had a choice about where to move. They chose the UK, based on rules which would allow them to settle after five years. Changing those rules on them now is simply unfair and transitional arrangements are essential.
That is all from me for today. Frances Mao is now taking over.
Charities who work with migrants have strongly condemned the Home Office plans to make people wait longer until they can get permanent settlement in the UK.
This is from Dr Dora-Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre.
Shifting the goalposts on settlement is an extraordinary betrayal of migrant communities, the people and businesses who need and value their contribution, and the very idea of British solidarity. Ten years is long enough for many people to build a career, get married, and have children, so to put baseline settlement out of reach for that amount of time is nothing short of callous. It won’t make the system fairer or promote integration. It will just keep people on high-risk employer-tied visas for longer, and drive wedges between communities.
The government’s plan to add another 10 years for migrants who have been in receipt of public funds at any point during their stay in the UK is particularly dystopian. Most migrants are already excluded from public funds, so when they are permitted to access benefits, it is either because they are refugees escaping persecution, or because the Home Office has determined they are in a state so vulnerable, a change of conditions is vital. With the new proposals, the home secretary is punishing migrant families for getting sick, or becoming vulnerable.
Extending the baseline qualifying period for those sponsored in roles below RQF Level 6 (mainly carers working in social care) to a further 15 years is a stab in the back to those who answered Britain’s call for carers after Covid. Care workers were made eligible for the health and care worker visa in 2022 after the previous Conservative government recognised significant staff shortages in social care brought about by the pressures of the Covid-19 pandemic.
This is from Nick Beales, head of campaigning at the Refugee and Migrant Forum of Essex and London (RAMFEL).
Today’s announcements are truly horrifying and will harm some of the most vulnerable people in society. Shabana Mahmood has said that anyone who ever falls into debt or loses a job and even temporarily relies on state support will now face extended, potentially indefinite, bans on securing permanent immigration status.
The people affected and who will now be locked out of permanent immigration status include parents of British children, partners of British citizens, the sick and the elderly. These policies will create an under-class of people, living here amongst us but never allowed to hold permanent immigration status.
It will also flood the Home Office with additional work, which they are woefully ill-equipped to manage. They already take a year to process the most straightforward visa renewal applications, but Mahmood’s announcements this week will create hundreds of thousands of extra applications for them to process.
And this is from Jon Featonby, chief policy analyst at the Refugee Council.
The settlement consultation would seem to confirm that the switch to a 20 year route will apply to those already with refugee status. A refugee who got their status 4 years ago could, depending on timings, find themselves suddenly facing an extra 15 years, with status reviews every 30 months.
Former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle joins Greens
The former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle has joined the Green party, it has announced. Russell-Moyle, who represented Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, was a leftwinger who was banned from standing as a candidate at the 2024 election on the basis that Labour had received a complaint about him. The allegation was never publicly specified, and after the election Russell-Moyle was told the investigation into him had been dropped.
With Russell-Moyle no longer a candidate, Labour selected Chris Ward, who for many years had been one of Keir Starmer’s closest advisers, as its candidate. Ward is now a Cabinet Office minister.
Explaining his defection to the Greens, Russell-Moyle said:
For almost ten years I worked alongside Caroline [Lucas] as the MP next door. My old party has left behind millions of people who want hope and want to see change in their lives, their communities and the world around them.
In the Greens I see a party that is offering that. In the Greens I see a party I have worked with for years and I am making the jump to join them today, I urge others to do so too.
And Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, said:
I am delighted to welcome Lloyd to the party today. Lloyd will bring a huge amount to the Green party. His story is one that is all too familiar; abandoned in the interest of power and profit over people and principles. Lloyd and tens of thousands like him have not left the Labour party; the Labour party has left them.
How Home Office would decide whether to cut or lengthen settlement waiting times under new rules
The new settlement proposals from Shabana Mahmood are not straightforward. The home secretary said that the “baseline” will rise, with people having to wait 10 years, not five years, until they can apply. But, for individuals, the point at which they can qualify for settlement will then either go up or down, depending on a range of factors.
This chart, from the document, explains how those factors apply.
Chris Philp accuses Mahmood of lifting Tory ideas that Labour voted against when he first proposed them
Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, claimed many of Shabana Mahmood’s proposals were copied from the Conservatives.
In the Commons, he told her:
The idea of a 10-year route to [indefinite leave to remain] is something that we proposed in amendments to the government’s bill, I think, around about nine months ago.
The Labour party inexplicably voted against those measures and now they’ve adopted them.
I am delighted to see the home secretary has got out the copy-and-paste function on her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies.
Philp also warned that transitional arrangements could create loopholes and reiterated calls for a cap on migration numbers.
In response, Mahmood said the Tories should apologise for “messing up the system so badly”, saying they “barely have the right to ask questions, let alone propose solutions”.
Mahmood says settlement reforms needed to show immigration 'can still work'
Mahmood ended her statement saying:
Today, I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why.
I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago.
But I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities.
For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, that those who come here contribute, play their part and enrich our national life.
While they will always retain something of who they were and where they came from they’ve become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world.
Mahmood says, unlike Reform UK and Tories, Labour not proposing to remove settled status retrospectively
Mahmood said, until other parties, the government would not be removing settled status from people who already have it.
We will not change the rules for those with settled status today.
These are people who have been in our country for years, even decades. They have families here, wives, husbands, children. They’ve worked in our hospitals, taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years.
Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave them settlement, and we do not break our promises.
The Reform party – I note, not present today [ie, not in the chamber] – have said they will do this most un-British of things.
The Tories have said that they will, and said that they won’t. And I am left in as much of a muddle about their policies.
But I can be clear that this side of the house we won’t change the rules for those settled status.
Updated
Mahmood says 'Boriswave' migrants already here would have to wait 15 years before they can get settlement
Mahmood said that the consultation would also consider the rights of people in the so-called Boriswave. (See 1.20pm.)
She said people who came to the UK on the health and care visa had lower qualifications, and some of them are not expected to become net economic contributors.
For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement.
Crucially, for these and every other group mentioned here, we propose these changes apply to everyone in the country today who have not yet received indefinite leave to remain.
But the government was considering some transitional arrangements, she said.
Mahmood says benefit claimants, and people who arrived illegally, would have to wait more than 10 years for settlement
Mahmood explained the circumstances in which people might have to wait more than 10 years for settlement.
The government proposes that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival.
For those who have been paid benefits for more than 12 months, that would rise to 20 years.
To encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive in Britain illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years.
As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years – although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years.
This consultation is open on some cohorts of special interest. This includes settlement rights for children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.
Mahmood also said some people would have to wait more than 10 years for settlement.
Away from the Commons, my colleague Libby Brooks has this report on the new rules on access to single-sex spaces.
The UK government has insisted it will take as much time as necessary to “get right” new rules on access to single-sex spaces after a leak of guidance submitted by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) raised concerns that its publication was being deliberately delayed.
The equalities watchdog submitted its formal guidance on how public bodies, businesses and other service providers should respond to April’s landmark supreme court ruling on biological sex to the UK government in September. Since then, its outgoing chair, Kishwer Falkner, has urged the equalities minister, Bridget Phillipson, to approve it “as soon as possible”.
Ministers are still considering the final guidance, which must be approved by Phillipson before being laid before parliament. Phillipson said on Thursday she was going through it “thoroughly and carefully”.
She told reporters: “I have responsibilities to make sure that’s done properly and we’re taking the time to get this right.
“This is an important area and we want to make sure that women have access to a single-sex provision – that’s incredibly important for domestic violence services, rape crisis centres, so that women are able to heal from the trauma they’ve experienced.
“But of course, trans people should be treated with dignity and respect.”
The children’s minister, Josh MacAlister, said that rushing out the new guidance could risk further legal action. “We’re doing this as fast as we can and there’s no deadline that we’re putting on it. We want to get it right, and if we don’t get it right, it does risk putting this back into the courts and providing even greater uncertainty for people,” he said.
Updated
Mahmood explains how some migrants could qualify for settlement more quickly, including higher-rate taxpayers
Mahmood said other criteria are being proposed today for consultation. She said these would either add or substract from the 10-year qualifying period. They would be based on the value people offer to society.
She went on:
Those who speak English to a degree level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement.
Those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years, while those on the top rate could qualify after three - the same as those on global talent visas.
Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers, nurses, would qualify after five years.
While those who volunteer, subject to this consultation, could qualify between five and seven years.
Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them.
All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement scheme also remain unchanged.
Updated
Mahmood says 4 new criteria will apply to people wanting settlement: no criminal record, A level-type English, NI contributions and no debt
Mahmood also said new criteria would be added for people applying for settlement.
Firstly, the applicants must not have a criminal record.
Secondly, they must speak English to A level standard.
Thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions.
And finally they must have no debt in this country.
Mahmood said these four criteria would apply to everyone wanting settlement.
Mahmood says starting point for settlement to rise from 5 years to 10 years
Mahmood said that settlement in the UK should be a privilege
To settle in this country forever is not a right but a privilege, and it must be earned.
That is not the case. Settlement or indefinite leave to remain comes almost automatically after five years residence in this country.
At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.
As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million are now for now forecost to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028 – arouund four times higher than the recent average. That will now change.
Mahmood said the starting point for settlement will change from five years to 10, as the government said in its white paper earlier this year.
Updated
Mahmood accused the last government of losing control of immigration.
Using a term coined by the online right, she said that the “Boriswave” happened when immigrationt controls were lifted. She said, because the government needed to fill jobs, 616,000 workers and their dependents came to the UK on health and social care visas between 2022 and 2024.
She said more than half of those people did not even fill those jobs.
Mahmood started by making the argument that, as the daughter of immigrants, she had a particular interest in promoting social cohesion. She said that, if this broke down because of the government losing control of immigration, then people like her were more likely to suffer discrimination.
Mahmood makes statement to MPs on earned settlement rules
Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, is making her statement to MPs now about the new earned settlement rules.
Mahmood unveils plan to make UK's rules on migrants staying permanently 'by far most controlled and selective in Europe'
The Home Office has now published its policy document on “earned settlement”.
And it has sent out a news release (not online yet) with the main points of the plan. It says the proposals will make “Britain’s settlement system by far the most controlled and selective in Europe”.
For the record, here are the proposals.
Earlier this year, the government announced it would double the permanent settlement qualifying period for migrants to 10 years, with reductions for those making a strong contribution to British life.
The changes will apply to almost two million migrants who arrived in the UK from 2021, subject to consultation on transitional arrangements for borderline cases. It will not apply to those with existing settled status who have made their lives here.
Low-paid workers, such as the 616,000 people and their dependants who came on health and social care visas between 2022 and 2024, would be subject to a 15-year baseline. The route was closed earlier this year following widespread abuse.
For the first time, it can also be revealed there will be penalties for immigrants exploiting the system. The reforms will make Britain’s settlement system by far the most controlled and selective in Europe.
Migrants reliant on benefits face a 20-year wait for settlement – quadruple the current period and the longest in Europe.
Landmark proposals could see migrants only become eligible for benefits and social housing if they first become British citizens, rather than upon being granted settlement as is currently the case.
Illegal migrants and visa overstayers would have to wait up to 30 years to settle, removing the prospect of long-term residence and security in the UK.
In contrast, doctors and nurses working in the NHS will be able to settle after five years. To support economic growth, the brightest and best of international talent could have settlement fast-tracked – with high earners and entrepreneurs able to stay after just three years.
Due to record high levels of migration under the previous government, 1.6 million migrants are set to become eligible for settlement by 2030.
Transitional arrangements for those already in the UK will be set out following a consultation. However, the intention is that anyone yet to be granted settlement would be subject to the contribution-based model once the new rules are in force.
The reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have made their life here and contributed to the UK’s economy and public services.
Updated
Transport secretary Heidi Alexander rules out 'national pay-per-mile' scheme for electric vehicles in budget
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, has said the government will not be introducing “a national pay-per-mile scheme” for the drivers of electric vehicles (EVs).
Earlier this month the Daily Telegraph reported that a pay-per-mile scheme for EVs would be introduced in the budget. The paper said the scheme would come in from 2028 and that it would cost the average EV driver £250 a year.
At the time the government did not confirm the story. But it did not deny it either, and it issued a statement saying that it wanted a “fairer” scheme that would compensate for the fact that fuel duty, the main tax for drivers, is only paid by people with petrol or diesel cars.
Today Alexander ruled out a pay-per-mile scheme for EVs – at least on a national level.
During transport questions in the Commons, the Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst asked Alexander if she agreed that “a pay-per-mile charge for motorists in next week’s budget would disproportionately impact rural constituencies”.
Alexander replied:
There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme. This government is firmly on the side of drivers.
MoJ to remove right to trial by jury for thousands of cases in controversial overhaul
Criminals will be stopped from “gaming the system” by choosing trial by jury in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing, Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, had told the Guardian. Jessica Elgot has the story.
No 10 says 'only Ukrainian people can determine their future' after US and Russia draft capitulation peace plan
Downing Street has said that it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their own future.
A No 10 spokesperson made this point in response to reports that the US and Russia have drawn up a peace plan that would involve Ukraine having to cede territory and limit the size of its army.
Asked about the report, a spokesperson said:
We share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end.
Russia could do this tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion, but instead [Vladimir] Putin continues to send a barrage of missiles and drones into Ukraine, destroying the lives of innocent Ukrainians, including children and the elderly.
We welcome all efforts that seek to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.
We have been repeatedly clear that only the Ukrainian people can determine their future.
In the meantime, we will continue our support for Ukraine and help ensure that they have the military equipment and resources they need to defend themselves from such continued aggression while sustaining economic pressure on people to bear down on the revenues that are funding the war.
Jakub Krupa has more on this story on his Europe live blog.
Starmer defends government's decision to delay publication of Send review until 2026
In an interview with ITV, Keir Starmer also defended the decision to delay the publication of the government’s review of educational provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilties (Send) in England until next year. He said the government needed to take time to get this right. He said:
We do need to attend to Send provision. I think uniformly there’s a sense that the system at the moment isn’t working and needs reform.
My strong view is we need to get that reform right and therefore we need to take the time to consult with parents and others.
Starmer says school breakfast clubs 'a real gamechanger' as 500 more schools set to benefit from programme
Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, have been visiting a school near Reading to promote the fact that the government is inviting another 500 primary schools in England to apply for funding to open free breakfast clubs.
Speaking to the BBC, Starmer said these clubs were “a gamechanger”.
These breakfast clubs are a real gamechanger.
They’re free and you saw this morning how much the children enjoy them. They’re getting a decent meal, and they’re getting activity, and that sets them up for the day.
It gives them a much better chance in terms of learning and for parents it gives them a chance to drop their children off, get to work, if that’s what they’re doing, and saves them a few hundred pounds.
When the cost of living is the number one issue across the country, these breakfast clubs are really making a difference.
Rural people feel ignored by government, environment secretary Emma Reynolds told at CLA conference
Helena Horton is a Guardian environment reporter.
Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, declared she’s “more of a country girl than a city girl” in a speech to the Country, Land and Business Association’s annual conference.
She was there to defend the government’s plans for the rural economy. Unlike her predecessors, she did not taking questions from the press and all the questions she answered on stage from the CLA were submitted to her officials in advance.
She said:
I used to be the City minister, but I’ve always been more of a country girl than a city girl. I grew up in Staffordshire. My parents live in rural Shropshire, and I live down a country lane in the Chilterns.
Reynolds announced a few new policies including making it easier for farmers to build reservoirs on their land, a new rural taskforce with 50 actions to help rural businesses being published in coming months and a rural and wildlife crime strategy coming out later this month.
She spoke after a blistering attack on Labour’s rural economic policies from Gavin Lane, the new CLA president.
Speaking about the decision to extend inheritance tax to farms, he said:
I’m not sure why these taxation changes have been pursued with such vigor, or why there’s been little time for consultation, but the Treasury has decided that private capital accumulation is the problem, without understanding, in my view, that private capital investment is the solution.
Lane said that farmers and landowners are not faceless corporations and that the people in the room “live above the shop” and care about their local communities. Lane added:
You can’t ask people to pay to plant an orchard they’ll never see grow. Then tell them their kids aren’t allowed to pick the fruit.
He told Reynolds that the rural economy was facing higher unemployment a lack of investment and a lack of certainty, and that rural people do not feel listened to by Defra.
Reynolds said she was “sorry if that’s the way you feel” and said she “appreciates the engagement” from farmers and landowners.
Updated
Al Carns, a defence minister, told MPs that the Russian spy ship Yantar, that has been operating in and on the edges of British waters, would not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Responding to an urgent question in the Commons, prompted by yesterday’s revelation that the Yantar has shone lasers at RAF pilots, Carns said:
We will not let the Yantar go unchallenged as it attempts to survey our infrastructure, and we will work with our allies to ensure that Russia knows that any attempt to disrupt or damage underwater infrastructure will be met with the firmest of responses.
James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, said this was “a serious escalation by Russian forces in close proximity to our homeland”.
In response to a question from Cartlidge, Carns said the proposed defence readiness bill would be law by the end of this parliament.
Mahmood says No 10 anti-Streeting briefing mishap was 'total car crash' and a 'humiliation'
In her Political Thinking interview (see 10.36am), Shabana Mahmood also condemned the No 10 anonymous briefing last week that suggested Keir Starmer was getting ready to fight off a leadership challenge from Wes Streeting as “a total car crash”.
Asked about the incident, Mahmood said:
It was a total car crash from start to finish. It’s mortifying talking about it still. It was embarrassing for the prime minister because then he’s got to obviously sort it out and he shouldn’t be put in that position and it’s not how he does his politics …
I think it put the prime minister in a horribly embarrassing position.
But I do think that one of the functions of the humiliation of what happened over those few days, and the madness of it all, is … I just hope that the humiliation means that the individuals responsible - they know who they are – just never ever put in a repeat performance.
After the briefing, first reported by the Guardian but quickly followed up by other news organisations, Streeing insisted that he was not plotting against Starmer and Starmer said any hostile briefings were not authorised by him, and did not come from No 10.
Mahmood’s comments are probably the strongest on the record from a cabinet minister. Using the word “humiliation” twice was striking, although she made it clear she was not blaming Starmer.
Mahmood says she is considering 'big' increase in amount paid to refused asylum seekers to get them to leave voluntarily
Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, has said that she is considering a “big” increase in the amount the government pays to people refused asylum to encourage them to leave the country voluntarily.
The Home Office already gives people relatively small sums in these circumstances, as it did with Hadush Kebatu, the Epping sex offender recently returned to Ethiopia. He got £500 to help persuade him not to legally challenge his removal.
In an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson for his Politcal Thinking podcast, Mahmood said she wanted more voluntary returns and that higher payments might help to deliver this.
According to the BBC, she said looking after someone refused asylum cost about £30,000 per person. Currently the Home Office give people at most around £3,000 to leave.
Mahmood said:
I’ve already asked my officials to pilot a small programme where we offer more than what we currently do for a period just to see how that changes behaviour.
I haven’t alighted on the full sums involved yet, but I am willing to consider a big increase on what we currently pay.
I know it sticks in the craw of many people and they don’t like it, but it is value for money, it does work, and a voluntary return is often the very best way to get people to return to their home country as quickly as possible.
There are three urgent questions (UQs) in the Commons today, and business questions (questions on next week’s Commons business, not on the work of the business department), before Shabana Mahmood’s statement. Here are the rough timings.
10.30am: A defence minister responds to a UQ on the Russian spy ship Yantar.
After 11am: A Foreign Office minister responds to a UQ on the forcible removal of children to Russia.
After 11.30am: A justice minister responds to a UQ on separation centres, used to house particularly subversive prisoners.
After noon: Alan Campbell, the leader of the Commons, takes questions on next week’s business in the house.
After 1pm: Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, makes her statement on “a fairer pathway to settlement”.
It is unusual for the speaker to grant so many UQs on a Thursday. Perhaps he has decided to make Mahmood wait because he is still furious over the asylum plans being press released to the media over the weekend before they were announced to MPs.
Burnham sets out Greater Manchester's 'new model of economic growth'
Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, is giving a speech in Salford this afternoon where he will set out details of his “good growth” plans, but he has already explained much of it overnight in a news release.
Explaining what his “new model of economic growth” is, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (the body Burnham runs) says:
Over the past decade, the city region has become the fastest growing part of the UK economy, driven by a high-performing centre unrecognisable from even 15 years ago.
Our trailblazing devolution deals and unique partnership approach have fuelled annual growth of 3.1 per cent – more than double the rate of the country as a whole. A recent report from Oxford Economics praised Greater Manchester’s growth journey, calling us a “trailblazer for local devolution.”
Analysis shows that, if we can lock in the same kind of growth for the next decade, the Greater Manchester economy will be more than a third bigger than it is today – giving a further £38bn boost to the national finances.
Burnham has established a £1bn “GM good growth fund” and he is announcing today how it will be used to fund “nearly 3,000 homes, more than 22,000 jobs, and 2 million square feet of employment space”.
Explaining how this differs from other development projects, the GMCA says:
A new strategic partnership between GMCA and GMPF [Greater Manchester Pension Fund] – the first of its kind in the country – will prioritise local investment and align the GMPF’s investment to our integrated pipeline. Projects in the integrated pipeline will be able to access patient capital that aims for sustainable growth and long-term impact.
We’ll invest in a way that makes the most of every pound, delivering social as well as economic benefits.
For example, we’ll procure in a way that strengthens local supply chains, and we’ll work with development partners to create new apprenticeships and T-Level placement opportunities for our young people, while ensuring the jobs our pipeline creates meet the standards set out in our good employment charter.
We’ll recycle loans from the GM good growth fund, reinvesting the capital and interest once the monies have been repaid to kickstart other projects.
We’ll also plough back into our integrated pipeline the extra revenue generated by our investments. For example, building new homes and employment sites will generate extra council tax and business rate revenue, which we’ll invest in our communities.
The GMCA news release also highlights other Burnham policies which it says have helped.
Our Greater Manchester baccalaureate is transforming technical education, giving young people a clear line of sight to high quality jobs in our growing economy, and we’re helping residents to live healthier, happier lives and access new employment and training opportunities through our Live Well approach.
Underpinning all this is the Bee Network – our safe, green and affordable public transport system, which is seamlessly connecting people and places like never before. Next year eight rail lines will be brought into the network, which already includes bus, rail, tram, and active travel routes.
Public control over our transport system means we can make sure new housing and employment districts are connected to existing places and communities. And we can keep fares low and offer free or discounted travel to the groups that most need it, so everyone can access jobs, education and leisure opportunities.
Burnham says UK would benefit from new approach to growth and politics he's promoting in Manchester
In his Today interview Andy Burnham was also asked how he felt about Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, yesterday saying he would be willing to give up his parliamentary seat to allow Burnham to return to the Commons and stand for Labour leader.
Burnham replied:
I appreciate the support, but I couldn’t have brought forward a plan of the kind I brought forward today [his Manchester “good growth” plan] without being fully focused on my role as mayor of Greater Manchester.
And I’m providing leadership on growth, which is what I think the country needs, and is helpful to the government right now.
One of the skills you see in first-class politicians is the ability to deliver nuanced messaging – in effect, making different different points to different audiences at the same time. Wes Streeting gave a good example yesterday (also in an interview on the asylum plans), firmly defending what Mahmood is doing (for the benefit of blue Labour types, and floating voters), while also saying he was liberal enough to feel queasy about aspects of them (not something you hear from Mahmood herself, or Keir Starmer). And here Burnham was ostensibly sounding supportive of the government’s growth plans, while also implying his ideas are better than Rachel Reeves’s.
As Emma Barnett, the presenter, tried to end the interview to move on to the weather, Burnham ploughed on to say he had developed “a new way of doing politics” and that is what Britain needed.
And we’re doing this in advance of the budget, I hope, to really bring to life the growth story for the government.
I would just finish by saying this; I think part of the country’s problem is the political culture of Westminster, which is playing out in front of us right now. You go to Manchester, and we’ve built a new economy, and a new way of doing politics, and more of that is what the country needs.
This suggests Burnham is still very interested in becoming prime minister one day.
Andy Burnham urges government to rethink plans to make asylum seekers wait up to 20 years for permanent settlement
Good morning. On Monday Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, announced drastic changes to the asylum system. Today, in a statement to MPs, she will announce changes to the legal migration rules – in particular those affecting how long people have to wait until they are given a permanent right to stay in the UK.
Mahmood was strongly criticised by the Commons speaker over the amount of pre-briefing there was ahead of Monday’s announcement, and this morning the Home Office has been more tight-lipped. But the Times reports that Mahmood is expected to announce “that migrants would usually be allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain only after ten years — double the five years at present — and must meet certain conditions such as speaking English to A-level standard, having a clean criminal record and not claiming benefits”.
The Monday plans outraged some Labour figures, but the various lists of MPs who had publicly spoken out (like the New Statesman’s) never got much beyond 20 and, from the government’s point of view, internal opposition (so far) remains contained.
But this morning Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor and the most popular (with the public) of the various plausible Labour candidates to replace Keir Starmer as PM, weighed in. In an interview on the Today programme, to promote a speech on Manchester’s “good growth” plans he is giving later, Burnham said he thought it was a mistake to tell asylum seekers they would have to wait 20 years until they can get a permanent right to remain in Britain.
Burnham was at pains not to sound disloyal. He said he backed the overall intention behind the asylum plans.
I agree that Shabana Mahmood is right to grasp this nettle and have root and branch reform of the system. I agree with that.
And he said he was pleased she wanted to change the way asylum seekers are housed.
However, he also said:
But I do have a concern about leaving people without the ability to settle, one of the concerns being that if there’s a need to constantly check up on the status of countries where people have come from, that might limit the ability of the Home Office to deal with the backlog. And it also may leave people in a sense of limbo and unable to integrate.
Burnham was referring to the fact that, under Mahmood’s plans, there would be regular reviews of whether it might be safe for asylum seekers to go home, potentially going on for up to 20 years, until settlement became permanent.
He also urged the government to find a “consensus” on this.
I’m not going to say that the home secretary is wrong to call for this level of change.
What I would say is it’s really important, on the back of the measures that she’s announced, that there is a considered debate, time is taken to see if consensus can be built around it. Because that would be hugely valuable to the country if that could be secured.
Mahmood is unlikely to regard this intervention as helpful.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, are on a school visit in Berkshire to promote applications opening for another round funding for primary schools in England to open free breakfast clubs.
9am: Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, speaks at the CLA Rural Business conference in London.
9.30am: The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly figures on knife crime.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
Around 11.30am: Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, is expected to make a statement to MPs about legal migration, and changes to rules relating to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship.
3pm: Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, gives a speech.
4pm: The Covid inquiry publishes its report into government decision making during the pandemic. Journalists are getting several hours to read the report before it gets released at 4pm, and so detailed stories about what is in the report will drop at this point.
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.
Updated
