Afternoon summary
Keir Starmer has told MPs that, when the international media is allowed to enter Gaza, he expects that will lead to more debate about the “full horror” of what happened there. He made the comment during a long statement in the Commons about the peace deal negotiated by Donald Trump. Starmer praised the president for his contribution, but stressed that the process had a very long way to go. But the two-state solution now had its best chance of being implemented since the 1990s, he said.
Migrants coming to the UK to work will need to learn English to an A-level standard under new rules set to be introduced, PA Media reports. PA says tougher requirements for speaking, listening, reading and writing will be needed for certain visas, as part of the government’s immigration white paper measures announced in May. The white paper seeks to tighten controls and cut migration to the UK. Those applying for skilled worker, scale-up visa routes, and graduates under the high potential individual (HPI) visa will need to reach B2 level, instead of the current B1 standard. Applicants will have to pass the secure English language test at a Home Office-approved provider in person, with their results to be checked as part of the visa process. Commenting on the move, Dora-Olivia Vicol, CEO of the Work Rights Centre, a charity working with migrants, said:
It is bitterly disappointing to see a Labour government that promised to kickstart growth and give workers a ‘new deal’, instead recycle a version of Reform’s politics that demonises migrant workers and arbitrarily move the goal posts on what counts as integration. The last thing anyone needs after a summer of far-right violence is more tough talk based on bad data.
By the government’s own admission, most migrant workers are already fluent in English. Increasing English language requirements from intermediate to upper intermediate won’t make any difference to integration - this is already happening. It will simply make migrants feel less welcome, and reinforce false stereotypes.
The government would be wiser to look to other parts of the white paper where it promised to explore making sponsored visas more flexible for the benefit of both employers and workers.
Updated
NI Troubles bill will stop Gerry Adams getting compensation over 1970s internment, Hilary Benn confirms
New legislation to deal with the legacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles includes provisions to block Gerry Adams from receiving compensation over being interned in the 1970s, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Troubles bill being introduced today will also give legislative effect to a range of new mechanisms to deal with the legacy of the conflict.
Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn had already signalled the government’s intent to ensure the draft legislation acted on the issue of potential compensation to internees whose detention without trial during the conflict has since been ruled to have been unlawful on a legal technicality.
A supreme court judgment in 2020 paved the way for former Sinn Fein president Mr Adams to secure compensation over his internment in the early 1970s.
Adams won his appeal to overturn historical convictions for two attempted prison breaks, after he was interned in 1973 at Long Kesh internment camp, also known as Maze Prison, near Lisburn.
The supreme court ruled that his detention was unlawful because the interim custody order (ICO) used to initially detain him had not been “considered personally” by then secretary of state for Northern Ireland, Willie Whitelaw.
At the time of the case, the previous government contended that the ICOs were lawful because of a long-standing convention, known as the Carltona principle, where officials and junior ministers routinely act in the name of the secretary of state.
Adams subsequently successfully challenged a decision to deny an application for compensation for his detention.
However, the 2023 Legacy Act introduced by the last Conservative government stopped such payouts to Adams and other former internees.
The act retrospectively validated the ICOs to make them lawful and halted civil claims related to the orders.
However, in February last year, the high court in Belfast ruled that the provisions of the act related to the ICOs were incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
The Labour government did not appeal against that section of the high court judgment but Benn pledged to find a lawful means to block payouts.
The Troubles bill will seek to reaffirm the so-called Carltona principle into law – a move the government believes will prevent payouts.
While the Legacy Act’s provisions in relation to ICOs – sections 46 and 47 – were ruled incompatible with ECHR by the high court, the government is retaining those sections on the statute book until such time as the Troubles bill becomes law.
Addressing the Commons today, Benn said: “We must put beyond doubt parliament’s intention by clarifying that the relevant legislation allows such orders (ICOs) to be made by junior ministers, as well as by the secretary of state.”
Ed Miliband approves UK’s biggest solar farm at Lincolnshire site
Ed Miliband has approved the UK’s biggest solar farm, which will be built in a county where Reform UK’s anti-renewables agenda has won rising support. Jillian Ambrose has the story.
Gavin Williamson issued threat to Boris Johnson after complaining about being 'screwed over', Covid inquiry told
Sally Weale is the Guardian’s education correspondent.
Gavin Williamson’s evidence to the Covid inquiry also revealed growing tensions between him and the then prime minister, Boris Johnson, culminating in a furious email over the botched reopening of schools on January 4 2021 and the appointment of Sir Kevan Collins as the government’s education recovery tsar.
Williamson wrote:
Prime minister I always like to be polite in our conversations but I must confess to feeling a little hacked off. Not only do I get completely fucked over by decisions on January 4, that I took the shit and abuse for.
Then I get my legs cut from under me by an appointment that you do not have the proper courtesy to discuss with me and get screwed over again.
Williamson ended his message with a threat.
The last time I was treated like such an utter piece of shit by No 10 was [on] the 1st May 2019 and that didn’t work out well.
The comment about 1 May 2019 was a reference to Williamson being sacked as defence secretary by Theresa May (for allegedly leaking national security council information). Williamson subsequently joined the plot to undermine her, and he is implying he successfully got his revenge – and that Johnson is at risk of the same treatment if he does not treat Williamson with more respect.
The BBC has full coverage of Williamson’s evidence on a live blog here.
Gavin Williamson claims DfE could not plan for school closures at start of Covid because No 10 resisting lockdown
Sally Weale is the Guardian’s education correspondent.
Former education secretary Gavin Williamson has expressed regret for “many mistakes” made during the pandemic but denied that his failure to plan ahead for school closures amounted to a dereliction of duty.
Giving evidence to the UK Covid inquiry, Williamson said he wished he had done things differently, but appeared to shift blame to No 10, insisting that all key pandemic decisions were taken at the centre of government.
The hearing was told that the Department for Education had made no contingency plans for school closures as late as March 2020, because the whole thrust of the government’s pandemic response was to keep schools and the economy open.
“We were being asked to develop papers and the work that was required in order to be able to keep children within schools,” Williamson told the inquiry, indicating it would not be acceptable for the Department for Education to initiate its own Covid planning.
Something like Covid is being directed from the centre in terms of different departments’ responses. You don’t have quite the freedom just to go and start going out and consulting with lots of people.
Williamson admitted that insufficient weight was put on emerging scientific evidence, which advised that school closures may be necessary, and that the focus and emphasis of government was not sharp enough. He said:
That was the case in my department, of which I’m sorry for. I readily accept I’m secretary of state, it was my responsibility.
Former Lord Speaker Lady D'Souza faces 8-week suspension for writing to Met police chief to contest speeding charge
Lady D’Souza, a former Lord Speaker in the House of Lords, faces being suspended from the house for eight weeks for writing to the Metropolitan police commissioner on Lords headed notepaper to try to get lenient treatment in relation to a speeding offence.
In a report, the Lords conduct committee said this was a breach of the rules because it amounted to trying to intefer with a live police investigation.
Under the code of conduct for peers, members of the Lords “should act always on their personal honour in the performance of their parliamentary duties and activities”. In previous rulings, standards commissioners in the Lord have established that writing to a police officer or a judge to try to influence a case can be a breach of this rule.
An investigation was launched after Sir Mark Rowley, the Met commissioner, referred D’Souza’s letter to the current Lords standards commissioner, Martin Jelley (a former chief constable himself), saying the peer may have broken Lords rules.
In her defence, D’Souza told Jelley:
I did write to Sir Mark Rowley, the reason being that I thought there was a case to be made on the recent 20 mph speed restrictions in London and I know Sir Mark having served with him as a member of the Westminster Abbey Institute Council of Reference. I used House of Lords headed notepaper because this was the context in which I was previously acquainted with Sir Mark. My purpose being the hope that Sir Mark would refer my case to the Fixed Penalty Office for review. The alternative was to institute court proceedings for this speeding offence but I, wrongly in retrospect, chose to write to the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.
The rationale for the case I made to Sir Mark is as follows: in the particular route I take out of London the roads I follow change from 20 mph, 30 mph and 40mph. Sometimes the same road changes its speeding limits by means of a roadside sign rather than at a traffic light junction. This is sometimes confusing. Reducing speed from say 30 mph to 20 mph can take a minute or more depending on the signage and, possibly, the time of day. It is difficult to judge the difference between speeds of 21 and 27 mph without constantly checking the dash. I believed that there was room for a wider conversation on this issue and that there might be similar concerns expressed by other drivers.
I wrote to a former Commissioner of Police, a member of the House of Lords, for advice who suggested I get a lawyer to argue my case, take the case to court or write to the Chief of Police of the area in which the offence took place. […] In the event I went to Sir Mark directly.
I did consider that it might be the case that I would have to retire from the House of Lords should I lose my driving licence.
D’Souza said she was not asking to be let off; she was just trying to get the case referred to the Fixed Penalty Office for a review.
When Jelley proposed an eight-week suspension, D’Souza appealed on the grounds this was unduly harsh. But the conduct committee rejected her appeal. It said:
Lady D’Souza compares the sanction in this case with those imposed in other recent cases. Those cases are not comparable: they concerned bullying and harassment, and improper use of facilities, while this case engages “personal honour”, a founding principle of the code of conduct.
Moreover, the striking feature of this case, which distinguishes it from all previous cases in which members have sought to influence judicial or police processes, is that Lady D’Souza, by writing to Sir Mark, sought to benefit herself.
D’Souza was subsequently given a temporary driving ban for speeding.
Peers are expected to approve the suspension when they debate the report on Thursday next week.
D’Souza, a former academic, joined the Lords in 2004 as a crossbencher. She was convenor of the crossbenchers before she became Lord Speaker in 2011, serving for five years. The Lord Speaker is the equivalent of Speaker in the Commons.
Updated
UK inflation set to rise to highest in G7, IMF says
UK inflation is set to surge to the highest in the G7 in 2025 and 2026, according to the International Monetary Fund, PA Media reports. PA says:
In its latest outlook report, the influential economic body said price inflation in the UK would increase more sharply than expected in both years compared with previous predictions from July.
It came as the IMF increased its UK growth forecast for this year but reduced its prediction for 2026 amid concerns over the labour market.
UK inflation is set to surge to the highest in the G7 in 2025 and 2026, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
In its latest outlook report, the influential economic body said price inflation in the UK would increase more sharply than expected in both years compared with previous predictions from July.
It came as the IMF increased its UK growth forecast for this year but reduced its prediction for 2026 amid concerns over the labour market.
In the world economic outlook, which comes as leading politicians and central bank bosses gather in Washington DC, the body highlighted that inflation is picking up in the UK and US.
Most recent figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) showed that UK consumer price index (CPI) inflation struck 3.8% in July and August, marking the highest levels since January 2024.
The uptick has been particularly linked to accelerating food and hospitality prices, with many firms and industry groups claiming this has been partly driven by increased labour and tax costs.
Graeme Wearden has more coverage of this on his business live blog.
Mark Drakeford urges opposition parties to help Labour pass its £27bn Welsh government budget
Steven Morris is a Guardian reporter.
The Welsh government’s finance minister, Mark Drakeford, has urged opposition parties to work with it to make sure its £27bn budget is passed amid growing fears that the spending plans may be scuppered.
Unveiling the Labour-run administration’s 2026/27 draft budget, Drakeford said spending on services such as health, education, roads and the environment will rise by £800m in the next financial year - if the budget is passed.
But the plans could be wrecked if other parties refuse to help Labour pass its final budget in the new year because the government does not have a majority.
Its situation could become even more perilous if, as expected, it does not win a byelection in Caerphilly next week.
Should the budget not be passed by the start of the financial year in April, the government will initially only be allowed to spend 75% of last year’s budget, which will lead to spending cuts in public services.
Welsh government officials have already begun making contingency plans in case this happens.
Drakeford said:
My door is firmly open to working with other political parties in the Senedd [the Welsh parliament] who share my belief that a more ambitious budget can be reached and that we have a collective responsibility to pass the Welsh budget.
Academic axed from Labour conference panel for criticising energy policy
A prominent sustainability professor had events cancelled at Labour and Conservative conferences after hosts of a panel he was on said they did not want his views on oil and gas aired in front of MPs, Jessica Elgot reports.
Iqbal Mohamed, the independent MP for Dewsbury and Batley, says there are 10,000 captives still being held by Israel. Some are prisoners, but many are being held without charge. He asks Starmer if the UK will push for their release. And he asks Starmer to oppose illegal settlements on the West Bank.
Starmer just says the government backs upholding international law.
Shockat Adam, the independent MP for Leicester South, said the last thing the people of Gaza needed was having Tony Blair as a “colonial viceroy”. He asked Starmer to condemn this plan and Blair’s involvement.
Starmer said he was not going to condemn a plan he welcomed only yesterday. He said it would be for others to decide who runs the new administration in Gaza. Those appointments were still be be decided, he said. But he said it would be a mistake to try unpicking the plan now.
Danny Kruger, the new Reform UK MP, said he was in Israel recently. He said Israelis would not accept a Hamas-run state on their border.
Starmer said the agreement was clear that Hamas should play no role in the future of Gaza.
Robin Swann (UUP), said decommissioning was not concluded in Northern Ireland in the way that people assumed. He quoted from a government memo saying full decommissioning could not be achieved, and that instead there should be some “big, symbolic acts of decommissioning”, after which the process should be declared over. He said the author of that memo was Jonathan Powell, the PM’s national security adviser. He asked for an assurance that this would not happen in the Middle East.
In response, Starmer says what was achieved in Northern Ireland in relation to decommissioning was very important.
Adnan Hussain, the independent MP for Blackburn, asked what the government would do to ensure that Israelis who were complicit in genocide during the war against Gaza would be brought to justice. He said accountability and justice were needed for peace to be real and lasting.
Starmer said accountability and justice were important. He said the government were strong supporters of international law.
Updated
The Lib Dem MP Layla Moran, who is British Palestinian and who has family who escaped from Gaza, told Starmer earlier that she found it hard to be happy this week.
I want to feel happy this week, but I find it impossible, because with so much destruction and so much devastation and so many lives lost, you look back over the last two years and you ask the question, ‘what on earth was it all for?’
But history teaches us that from the depths of that despair can often launch a positive future, and there is only one way to achieve the everlasting peace that President Trump so rightly talks about, and that is that two-state solution, Israelis and Palestinians living side by side in dignity and security.
Moran said the government’s recognition of the state of Palestine was a “promise made to my great-grandfather finally made good”. She asked Starmer to make that a commitment.
Starmer replied:
I give my personal commitment that we will work tirelessly to ensure that this time we build on the signing of the agreement yesterday, through all the work that’s going to have to be done along the way, until we get to that final, lasting solution, which will have to be a two-state solution.
Julian Smith, the Conservative former Northern Ireland secretary, asked Starmer if he agreed that the government should find officials who had experience of working on the peace process in Nothern Ireland to see if they could help with the process in the Middle East.
Starmer welcomed the idea, and paid tribute to the role Smith played in Northern Ireland.
Starmer says 'internationalise the intifada' amounts to call to attack Jews, and 'no other interpretation' possible
Julian Lewis also asked Starmer if he accepted that there was no possible interpretation of the slogan “internationalise the intifada” (or “globalise the intifada”, to use the more common version) other than to understand it as “a call to attack Jewish communities around the world”.
Starmer replied: “There’s no other interpretation.” He said he was glad that Lewis had raised it, giving him the chance to clarify that “important point”.
Updated
Julian Lewis (Con) asks who will prevent Hamas retaining its weapons and seizing control again.
Starmer says this will be difficult. But it is vital. It was difficult in Northern Ireland too, and that is why the UK has offered its expertise in this area, he says.
Some Labour MPs have criticised Kemi Badenoch for the tone of her reply to Keir Starmer.
Clive Efford said that she should remember that “not every statement in this house is an opportunity for political knockabout”.
And Melanie Ward made a point of praising the role in this process played by Jonathan Powell, the PM’s national security adviser. Badenoch has implied Powell should resign over the China spy case controversy. “Not for the first time, [Badenoch] has no idea what she is talking about, and her backbenchers know that as well,” Ward said.
Starmer praises Edward Leigh for defending Palestinians' right to their own state, saying he's like 'old Tory party'
Edward Leigh, the Conservative father of the house, says he would like to hear the Commons united in saying they are “completely committed to creating a Palestinian state in the West Bank”. He says that is the “God-given right” of Palestinians.
Leigh is making a point about his own party, which opposed the government’s decision to recognise the state of Palestine and which only seems to show limited interest in the two-state solution.
Starmer welcomes Leigh’s comment, saying “that sounds like the old Tory party I used to know”.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
That sounds like the old Tory party I used to know - and I’m really pleased to hear it.
It is only, in a sense, by uniting across this house in the face of a conflict that has gone on for far too long … that we will be able to play a full part as our country in bringing that about.
Updated
Starmer says, when media admitted to Gaza, he expects further debate about 'full horror' of what happened there
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks for more detail of what the UK is doing to help ensure more aid gets into Gaza.
He says all the bodies of dead hostages need to be returned.
And he asks what the UK is doing to ensure that the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank stops.
Starmer thanks Davey for the “content and tone” of his response. (He is making a contrast with Badenoch’s.)
On aid, he says there is a need for more trucks be admitted to Gaza.
On the bodies of hostages, Starmer says he agrees with Davey.
He says, when the media are finally admitted to Gaza, he thinks there will be '“quite some debate” in the Commons about “the full horror” of what happened.
And he says the UK has told Israel that illegal settlements should not be allowed on the West Bank.
Starmer criticises Badenoch for ignoring humanitarian crisis in Gaza in her response to his statement
Starmer is responding to Badenoch.
He says he was “surprised and saddened” that, in her response to his statement, she did not mention the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the number of people killed and the denial of aid.
UPDATE: Starmer said:
I was surprised and saddened that she spent more time attacking what we actually did to help the process than even mentioning the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, without setting out in terms the number of people that have been killed, that are starving, been subjected to denial of aid, when the immediate task for any serious government is to work with allies to get that aid in at speed.
I would have expected at least an acknowledgement of that terrible situation. It shows, yet again, just how far her party has slid from [a] serious statesperson approach to diplomacy.
This is not the time for a fight about the role which any individual played.
I am proud of what [US special envoy to the Middle East] Steve Witkoff said about our national security adviser [Jonathan Powell]. He was negotiating this, he knows absolutely the role we played, and this House should be proud that we played that role.
We played that role only because of the relationship that this Government has with the [Donald] Trump administration. We are a trusted partner, working both before this peace deal and afterwards.
Updated
Badenoch accuses Starmer of lacking influence in Middle East peace process and antagonising Israel
Kemi Badenoch is speaking now.
She claims the PM’s statement shows the UK was not at the heart of this process.
It is quite clear that UK relations with Israel have been strained by the actions of this government.
Their view, and they have stated publicly, is that it looks like, under pressure from his own back benches, the prime minister has taken the wrong decisions time and time again, diminishing our influence in the region.
Some Labour MPs shout “shame” at this point.
In particular, she criticises the UK’s decision to restore funding for Unwra, the UN aid agency condemned by Israel for its alleged Hamas links, and for the decision to recognise a Palestinian state.
And she quotes Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, yesterday saying UK government claims it played an important role behind the scenes were “delusional”.
Updated
Starmer says two-state solution now has 'first real chance' of being implemented since 1990s
Starmer says the decision of the UK to recognise Palestinian statehood, along with other countries, “helped lead to a historic New York Declaration where for the first time, the entire Arab League condemned the atrocities of October”.
He says, going ahead, the UK will offer expertise in three areas: supporting the reconstruction in Gaza, supporting transitional arrangements, and ensuring security for a ceasefire monitoring process.
And he says the two-state solution now has its best chance of being implemented since the Oslo Accords were signed in the 1990s.
This is the first real chance we’ve had on a two-state solution since the Oslo Accords over three decades ago. So we are fully committed to this because a safe and secure Israel, alongside a viable Palestinian state, is the only way to secure lasting peace for the Middle East.
'None of this would have been possible without President Trump', says Starmer of Middle East peace deal
Starmer is now talking about the Middle East.
Let me now turn to the Middle East and words I have longed to say in this house for a very long time - the surviving hostages are freed, the bombardment of Gaza has stopped and desperately needed aid is starting to enter as a result of the peace plan led by President Trump.
Starmer says the relief is tempered by concern for those who have died, and for the innocent civilians killed. “This has been two years of living hell,” he says.
He says the peace deal is historic. But “what matters now is implementation”, and this has to happen as quickly as possible.
He goes on:
Let no one be any doubt that none of this would have been possible without President Trump.
But Starmer also pays tribute to international allies, and he says the UK has “worked behind the scenes for months with the US , rab and European nations to help deliver a ceasefire, get the hostages out, get aid in and secure a better future for Israel”.
The Ming Campbell tributes are over, and Keir Starmer is speaking now.
Starmer starts by saying he wants to put on record his condemndation of the vile antisemitic terror attack at the Heaton Park synagogue in Manchester.
Echoing what Shabana Mahmood said yesterday, he says:
Antisemitism is not a new hatred here in Britain. Jews have had to deal with a shameful reality that their buildings, their way of life, that children need extra protection.
We must also be crystal clear that while this was an attack on Jews because they were Jews, the Islamist extremism that motivated this sick individual is a threat to every citizen of this country.
He says the same principle applied to the recent attack on the Peacehaven mosque. “An attack on British Muslim is an attack on us all.”
The events in Manchester are subject to an ongoing police investigation and we won’t be allowing comments relating directly to them BTL. If readers don’t comply with at, comments will get closed.
Updated
Government risks losing support over digital ID scheme, Labour MPs warn
A reader BTL has asked what happened during the statement on the digital ID scheme last night. It took place quite late, after the blog had closed. But this is what PA Media filed on it.
The government risks losing support over its proposals for digital IDs, Labour MPs have said, as they raised concerns about the impact on civil liberties and the cost.
Nadia Whittome, Richard Burgon, Charlotte Nichols and Stella Creasy all questioned how necessary the IDs were, and whether the Government could spend the money better.
Technology Secretary Liz Kendall said the digital IDs would only be mandatory for employers to see on right-to-work checks, as the government bids to clamp down on illegal working.
However, Kendall added that for those who wanted to, it could improve access to public services.
Meanwhile, individuals would not face sanctions, only employers, and the police would never demand to see the IDs, Kendall said.
She said the government had learned from countries such as Estonia and Denmark who had used the IDs already, and allowed people to “tell their story once” when dealing with public services.
A consultation will begin before the end of the year, MPs heard, as they were told any system would be built “in house”.
Kendall said: “When you look across other countries and what they’re doing, it really has made government fit around people, rather than make people fit into government and its different services, and I think that’s a huge benefit.”
However, Whittome (Nottingham East) warned the government risked “burning through political capital”.
She said: “I don’t know how many doors I’ve knocked on in my 12 years as a Labour member, but I do know that not a single person has ever told me that what they really need to improve their lives, their community, this country is mandatory digital ID.
“It won’t tackle irregular working, it undermines civil liberties, it’s divisive among the public and it won’t make a difference to people’s lives.
“So I ask the secretary of state, why are we doing it? Why are we burning political capital and public money on this, instead of focusing on the issues that are really are impacting our constituents.
“I worry that this is yet another huge mistake.”
Her party colleague Burgon (Leeds East) said: “Given the serious threats that digital ID poses to civil liberties, our data security and a risk of data being handed over to US tech giants, I’m firmly opposed to digital ID.
“However, isn’t it also a really big waste of money, and shouldn’t the Government be instead focusing on what is the number one priority for people across the country, which is tackling the cost-of-living crisis, and wouldn’t the money from this better be pushed into that, while safeguarding civil liberties?”
Nichols (Warrington North) said: “I’ve been contacted by a large volume of constituents in recent weeks whose healthy scepticism that digital ID will make a material difference in tackling illegal immigration, I share.”
Creasy said she had seen figures of it costing £1bn to £2bn to establish the scheme, then an ongoing £100m a year to run it.
She also said the cost of a data breach could amount to 1.1% of GDP.
Creasy said: “[Kendall] said this would be free. Ultimately, the taxpayer will have to pay for it.”
'Not like other Liberals - he looked liked he could actually run the country' - Tim Farron pays tribute to Campbell pays tribute to
Tim Farron, the former Lib Dem leader, is paying his tribute now. He recalls first being impressed by Ming Campbell in the 1980s, long before they met.
Ming Campbell struck me as not being like other Liberals. He looked like he could actually run the country.
Among the other MPs paying tribute to Ming Campbell where Labour’s John McDonnell and Edward Leigh, the Tory father of the house, who both joined Campbell in opposing the Iraq war.
McDonnell said:
For those of us who were here during the debate on the Iraq war on all sides, I want to thank him for the legal advice we provide us and the way that he addressed that debate, because he did so without seeking any party advantage. He simply set out a legal principles from which he was making the decision, and he did so with compassion.
And Leigh said that Campbell was perhaps “too nice” to succeed in politics. He went on:
The whole episode of the Iraq war was so difficult for us in this house, in particularly those of us who broke with our party to oppose the Iraq war. And he gave us the leadership. He gave us that rigor. And he’s been proved right on that. Of course, there are no prizes for being proved right, but history will prove him right.
'Good, decent, hopeful politics' - Ed Davey pays tribute to Ming Campbell
Here is an extract from Ed Davey’s tribute to Ming Campbell.
Ming was among those few MPs who was genuinely a grandee from the first day they were elected.
But his calmness, reasonableness and intense decency [hide a] most a radical politician, a man who never forgot his roots growing up in the Glasgow tenement and he was driven by deep commitment to social justice, a man who said he was his role and the role of the Liberal Democrats to rattle the cage of British politics …
I remember how difficult the decision it was for us to oppose [the Iraq war]. It felt like we were going not just against the government, but taking on the full might of the British state and the United States.
Ming tackled it with his typically steady forensic, lawyerly approach, and gave us both the confidence and resolve to speak up strongly for what we believed. He made our position firmly rooted in respect for international law, and because it was a time when the world was in turmoil following those horrific terrorist attacks of September 11th, Ming provided principled leadership with his trademark combination of morality, courage and wisdom …
It was once said of me that [Campbell] runs the risk of giving politicians a good name. Well, he certainly did that. His passing is a moment for us to consider how we are all viewed as politicians, what changes we could make both individually and collectively, to further the cause of good, decent, hopeful politics something that Ming embodied entirely.
Farage welcomes five-year jail sentence for Afghan small boat migrant found guilty of threatening to kill him
Fayaz Khan, an Afghan who arrived in the UK on a small boat, has been jailed for five years for threatening to kill Nigel Farage.
Commenting on the sentence outside the court, Farage said:
Well, I suppose we call that a win.
It was about the maximum sentence that could possibly be given, five years, given the scale of the offence. And I thank Justice Steyn. I thank the judge for saying what she said.
But the fact is that in 18 months time this violent criminal, somebody with 17 convictions in Sweden, in 18 months time he will be in this country, living in a house of multiple occupancy or a hotel, free to walk the streets whilst his asylum claim is judged.
But Farage also claimed that the case highlighted a wider threat.
The only reason we know about this guy is because somebody sent [the video containing the death threat] to me on TikTok. It makes me wonder, how many other ‘Madapasas’ are there now in this country, or will there be, as the boats continue to cross the Channel.
And he suggested the hearing had highlighted the case for small boat arrivals being sent back to countries like Afghanistan (which is Reform UK policy). He said:
A strange twist at the end when, after the sentence, [Khan] was speaking from the dock trying to be heard, making it perfectly clear that he’d rather go back to Afghanistan.
In Germany, there are planeloads of people going back to Afghanistan – I wonder if in 18 months’ time, the only thing that stops him from being on our streets is if we have some kind of deal with Afghanistan.
I doubt it, but at least it’s a possibility, and the Germans have shown us what they can do.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, is now paying his tribute to Ming Campbell.
Keir Starmer is about to make his statement.
But, before he does, Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, pays tribue to Menzies (“Ming”) Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader who died during the recess.
Starmer to make statement to MPs on Middle East peace summit
Keir Starmer will shortly make his statement to MPs about the Middle East.
Here is the news release that Downing Street released yesterday about the peace summit co-chaired by Donald Trump in Egypt.
Here is Kiran Stacey’s analysis of the role that the UK played in getting a ceasefire deal (or, to put it another way, who was right – Steve Witkoff or Mike Huckabee?)
And here a clip of Starmer getting short shrift from Donald Trump at the summit yesterday.
WATCH: Trump asked, “Where is the UK?”
— Clash Report (@clashreport) October 13, 2025
Starmer raised his hand. Trump called him to the stage, making him think he was going to speak.
Starmer approached the podium. “It’s nice that you’re here,” Trump said, then sent him back, offending Starmer. pic.twitter.com/Y67s4JGmEM
Trans people at risk of exclusion from many UK public spaces, rights expert says
Transgender people risk being excluded from many public spaces as a result of the recent UK supreme court judgment and must be protected from discrimination, a human rights expert has said. Haroon Siddique has the story.
Cyber security chiefs describe China as 'threat actor', but sidestep questions about wider risk and collapsed spy trial
Dan Sabbagh is the Guardian’s defence and security editor.
China “continues to be a highly sophisticated and capable threat actor, targeting a wide range of sectors and institutions across the globe, including the UK,” the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre warned in its annual review published overnight.
However, in a press conference this morning, NCSC chiefs declined to go further and describe Beijing as “a current threat to national security” - the phrase sought unsuccessfully by the Crown Prosecution Service, so leading to the collapse of the trial of two men accused of spying for China.
Though Richard Horne, the chief executive of NCSC, which is part of GCHQ, acknowledged that when it comes to the cyber threat from China “the volume is rising” as it is in “all different categories of incident”, he would not be drawn any further when asked explicitly about the overall threat level from Beijing.
Using carefully chosen language Horne responded:
We have to be clear on the cyber threat that we see, and how that’s categorised in a larger threat picture is not for us to say.
Dan Jarvis, the security minister, was also at the same event, but after making a short speech that did not refer to China or any other country left without taking questions. Last night Jarvis told MPs that “every effort” had been made to support the now failed prosecution.
Human rights official urges UK to review laws after Palestine Action placard arrests
Europe’s most senior human rights official has called on Shabana Mahmood to review UK protest laws after mass arrests over the ban on Palestine Action, Rajeev Syal reports.
The Commons authorities have confirmed that there will be two statements in the chamber after 12.30pm: first, Keir Starmer on the Middle East peace summit, and then Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, on the Northern Ireland Troubles bill being published today.
Steve Reed says he was 'horrified' by women being excluded from Muslim charity run in London park
Steve Reed, the communities secretary, has said he was “horrified” and “appalled” by a Muslim charity run in a London park which excluded women from participating, PA Media reports. PA says:
East London Mosque, which organised Sunday’s run in Victoria Park alongside the London Muslim Centre, said hundreds of runners and supporters had gathered for the community event.
Billed on the Muslim Charity Run website as an “inclusive 5km race” welcoming “runners and supporters of all ages and abilities”, the event was open to “men, boys of all ages and girls under 12”.
Reed described it as “absolutely unacceptable” for women to be “blocked” from participating and said the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will determine whether any laws or regulations have been breached.
Reed told LBC Radio: “I saw these reports … and I was as horrified as anybody else. It’s absolutely unacceptable that women should be blocked from going on a fun run in a public space when the men are allowed to go out there and do that. Now we have an equalities watchdog, I’m sure that they will be aware of this case.”
“It’s getting a lot of publicity, and quite rightly so, and they will determine whether there has been any breach of the law or regulations and then I’m sure sanctions will follow as appropriate.
“But speaking for myself, I was appalled.”
He added: “We do not want a situation in this country where men are allowed to do things that women are then barred from. We cannot tolerate that.”
The annual event is described on the mosque website as having become a “highlight in the East London Muslim calendar, raising thousands of pounds for vital causes across the UK and abroad, from local youth projects, food banks and refugee support to international humanitarian relief”.
The mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, has defended the event and congratulated those who took part.
A spokesperson for the EHRC said: “The EHRC receives complaints each week about allegations of unlawful activity contrary to the Equality Act 2010. We consider each complaint carefully and take action where appropriate.”
Certain exceptions under equality law can apply to charities and religion or belief organisations, including potentially restricting events to one sex only.
A Tower Hamlets council spokesperson said: “This was an independent event held in Victoria Park, not organised by the council. Like many local charitable events, it made use of the park space. Following the reports about age and gender restrictions, the council has contacted East London Mosque to seek urgent clarification.
East London Mosque and London Muslim Centre have been contacted for comment.
76% of Labour members would back breaking manifesto promise on tax to raise cash for public services, poll suggests
It is widely expected Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will have to raise taxes by around £30bn in next month’s budget and there is a debate about how this should be done. Economists generally think the simplest and cleanest way to do this would be raise one of the big three taxes that, together, account for most of government revenue – income tax, national insurance or VAT. But in its manifesto Labour ruled out all three of these options, and instead Reeves is considering bundling up a series of smaller tax rises that could together get her to £30bn, or whatever the total is. But there is a risk she would end up with a string of “pasty tax” measures – unpopular moves with a political cost out of all proportion to the revenue at stake.
Reeves is said to be strongly opposed to breaking the manifesto pledges. But at Labour conference there were hints that this had not been 100% ruled out – in particular, in the weird decision by Starmer, and other ministers, to just say the manifesto “stands” when asked if the pledges still applies. At one point Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister and chief secretary to the PM, seemed to give the game way when he said: “The manifesto stands today because decisions haven’t been taken yet.”
If Reeves were to break a manifesto promise on tax, Labour party members would support her, new polling suggests. Survation regularly polls Labour members for the LabourList website and its latest survey suggests three quarters of members would back breaking a pledge to find more money for public services. In his report for LabourList, Daniel Green says:
In an exclusive poll of Labour members, conducted by Survation, 76% said they would back a rise in national insurance, income tax or VAT in order to put more money into public services, with 20% opposed.
While 79% of those who backed Keir Starmer in the 2020 leadership contest would support the government breaking its promise not to raise those three taxes, support was weaker among those who backed Rebecca Long-Bailey at 69%.
The views of Labour members probably won’t count for much when Reeves is finalising the budget. But there are other arguments in favour of tearing up a manifesto pledge that Stephen Bush summed up in a good column on this debate the Financial Times yesterday.
Labour’s problem is again, pretty simple. When it was in opposition, it didn’t plan enough for government. The party made a series of foolish promises on tax rises that make it hard, perhaps impossible, to satisfy its pledges on public services and growth.
So it faces a choice: which promises should it break? Its implicit promise that public services will get better, or its explicit promise not to increase income tax, value added tax or national insurance rates. Robert Shrimsley made the argument recently that it is the implicit promise that has to go: “Governments should keep explicit promises … Tearing up such a central promise would not just hurt Labour. It would be utterly corrosive to democracy, cementing the view that all parties lie” …
I don’t disagree with any of this, but where I part ways with Robert is I think the “all parties lie” ship has not just sailed — it has reached the new world, declared its independence from the mother country and established the world’s pre-eminent superpower …
A big part of why the UK is where it is right now is that in 2019 and 2024, the winning party ran on a “public services will get better — the big taxes will stay at the same level” ticket that just could not be reconciled with reality.
Updated
Parenting advice on social media is often poor quality, says Phillipson
Parents who turn to TikTok influencers and Instagram gurus for advice on everything from potty training to childhood vaccination are at risk of falling victim to misleading and poor quality information, Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, has warned. Sally Weale has the story.
In the Commons yesterday Kemi Badenoch quoted Mark Elliott, a public law professor at the University of Cambridge, as one of the many experts who have queried the government’s account of why the China spy prosecution failed. On the basis of what was said in the Commons yesterday, Elliott has now written a new blog, highlighting what he says are ongoing inconsistencies in the government’s story and setting out possible theories as to what went wrong. The blog is worth reading in full, but here is his conclusion.
We can, then, add a fifth possible explanation to the four set out above: that ministers prevailed over decision-making arrangements concerning highly consequential national security-related matters that afforded individual officials a wholly inappropriate degree of unilateral discretion, and that ministers failed to put in place a framework for ensuring that such decisions were appropriately stress-tested before being finalised. Like the first four possible explanations outlined earlier in this post, I do not claim that the fifth explanation necessarily describes what actually happened — but it is arguably the most likely.
The overwhelming message conveyed by the security minister [Dan Jarvis – the minister making a statement in the Commons yesterday] was that this is matter for which ministers bear no responsibility because it was handled wholly at official level. But that will not wash. Whatever uncertainties there might be about the nuances of the constitutional doctrine of ministerial responsibility, if ministers are responsible for anything, they must be responsible for ensuring that the way in which national security-related decisions are made is fit for purpose. If, then, it turns out that this is a story of official failure, it is also necessarily, and more importantly, a story of ministerial failure.
In their London Playbook briefing for Politico this morning, Dan Bloom and Andrew McDonald quote an unnamed “foreign policy operator” making a similarish point. He or she says:
This government keeps trying to make apolitical decisions about a policy that is deeply political, and in turn essentially makes political choices but doesn’t take ownership of them.
UK labour market shows signs of stabilising after job losses
Britain’s employment market has shown signs of stabilising after a sharp rise in job losses earlier this year blamed on tax rises introduced by Rachel Reeves, Richard Partington reports. As the chancellor prepares for her 26 November budget, figures from the Office for National Statistics showed the unemployment rate rose to 4.8% in the three months to August, up from 4.7% in July.
Green party reachest highest ever level in YouGov poll, at 13%
YouGov has released its latest weekly poll in the series it does for the Times. Reform UK (27%), Labour (20%) and the Conservatives (17%) all have exactly the same level of support as they did last week. But the Greens have hit their highest level ever in a YouGov poll, at 13%.
Starmer to face MPs amid continued pressure over collapse of China spying trial
Good morning. As Kiran Stacey reports, the government has today announced new plans to relax planning rules that hold up the construction of new infrastracture. It already has a bill going through parliament designed to do this, the planning and infrastructure bill, but, with the legislation close to reaching the point where it clears both houses and becomes law, the government has produced a raft of amendments that will make it stronger.
That is why Steve Reed, the housing secretary, has been doing a media round this morning. But, inevitably, most of the questions have focused on China.
Yesterday, in a private notice question in the Lords and a ministerial statement in the Commons, the government tried to kill off claims that it deliberately sabotaged the prosecution of two men who were due to go on trial for allegedly spying for China. As Dan Sabbagh explains, the various ministers and officials commenting yesterday failed to adequately explain why the trial was not able to go ahead.
Keir Starmer is expected to address the Commons today, but his statement is due to cover the Middle East peace process and his trip to India, and so MPs may find it hard to shoehorn in questions about China.
But, in his media round, Reed couldn’t avoid questions on the ground they were off topic. He restated the government’s assertion that the decision to drop the prosecution was taken by the Crown Prosecution Service, not by ministers, because the law in place at the time the alleged offences was committed was too restrictive to allow a successful prosecution to proceed.
As housing secretary, Reed will have the final say over whether to approve the application from China to build a new “super-embassy” in the centre of London. A decision is due later this month. There has been a hold-up because China refused to supply unredacted plans for the building (the original plans did not specify what certain rooms in the embassy would be used for), and Reed said he would not approve the application without seeing full plans.
I expect to see everything that is being proposed before I take a decision.
More significantly, he also insisted that national security would be “paramount” in the decision process.
Speaking to Times Radio, asked if the security risk posed by China would be a factor in the decision, Reed replied:
Speaking in general terms, because I can’t comment on that particular application, then, yes, this government recognises that China poses a threat to national security and we see that from various cyber attacks and cyber incidents that have happened. That’s one of the reasons why the government has increased spending on security and defence by £600m.
Asked if the government was prepared to put the economic benefits of a relationship with China ahead of security concerns, Reed said:
For this government, as in for any sensible government of the United Kingdom, national security is paramount, and will always be paramount. The decision will be taken on the merits of the case in front of me. We would never compromise national security.
Reed was speaking as the opposition parties continued to pile on pressure over this issue.
For the Conservatives, Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, wrote to the CPS asking for confirmation that, if the government does provide new evidence saying China is a threat to national security, the prosecutions can be resumed, and the trial can go ahead.
And, for the Liberal Democrats, Calum Miller, the party’s foreign affairs spokesperson, is demanding that the government publish all relevant correspondence between the government and the CPS. Referring to hints the government is blaming Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser, Miller said: “The government’s attempts to duck scrutiny and scapegoat a single official simply won’t wash.”
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.
10am: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, is due to speak to the media at Southwark crown court after the sentencing of Fayaz Khan, the Afghan who arrived in the UK on a small boat and who has been found guilty of threatening to kill him.
10am: Gavin Williamson, the Tory former education secretary, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry as part of its module looking at how the pandemic affected children and young people.
11.30am: Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 12.30pm: Starmer is expected to make a statement to MPs about the Middle East peace summit and his trip to India.
2pm: The IMF publishes its latest world economic outlook report, including its latest forecasts for the UK.
3.45pm: Miliband speaks at the Energy UK conference.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
