Afternon summary
Keir Starmer has said Kemi Badenoch is “losing the plot” after the Tory leader said that Rachel Reeves should be investigated by the Financial Conduct Authority for market abuse in relation to pre-budget speeches and briefings. (See 1.47pm.)
Markus Campbell-Savours MP has had the Labour whip suspended for voting against the government plan to extend inheritance tax to farms. (See 5.17pm.)
Eleven Labour members of the Senedd have sent a letter to Keir Starmer accusing him of bypassing devolution. They particularly criticised the plan to give money to towns through the Pride in Place programme bypassing the Senedd and the Welsh government. Acting like this was “at best deeply insensitive, at worst a constitutional outrage”, they said. The BBC has further details here. In response, Phyl Griffiths chair of the YesCymru pro-independence campaign, said:
When Westminster can ignore the Senedd, bypass Welsh ministers and take decisions about Wales from London, even in fully devolved areas, and even when the same party is in government in both Westminster and the Senedd, it shows clearly that devolution cannot protect Welsh democracy.
The Police Federation of England and Wales has published research showing that, by 2030-31, because of the government’s decision to freeze income tax thresholds for another three years, 98% of full-time police officers will be in the higher rate tax band.
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
Markus Campbell-Savours MP has Labour whip withdrawn after voting against plan to extend inheritance tax to farms
Markus Campbell-Savours has had the Labour whip suspended for voting against the government plan to extend inheritance tax to farms, Tom Sheldrick from ITV Border reports.
EXCLUSIVE: I understand that Penrith & Solway MP Markus Campbell-Savours has been suspended as a Labour MP after he voted against the government’s plans to impose inheritance tax on farms last night
See 2.30pm for more on the vote last night.
According to Sky News, Campbell-Savours has lost the whip because he voted against the government on a budget measures, and that counts as a confidence issue.
Why CMA advised urged ministers to change rules to stop parents being lured into buying more expensive baby formula
Unicef UK, the children’s charity, has welcomed the government’s plan to encourage paents to buy cheaper formula milk. (See 3.13pm.) But it has urged the government to go further. Shereen Fisher, the director of its baby friendly initiative, said:
Infant formula is not optional – it’s a basic necessity for many babies and their families. Ensuring every child can be safely and affordably fed must be at the heart of any credible child poverty strategy.
For too long, families have faced inflated prices for this essential product. The CMA has shown that many formulas are vastly overpriced, with many families struggling as a result.
Today’s announcement signals the first step to tackle these issues, improve affordability and strengthen infant feeding support. The government should now look to implement the remaining CMA recommendations to bring down prices and curb marketing practices that put unfair pressure on families who want the best for their child. Children cannot wait.
As Peter Walker reports in his story, the government plan is based on recommendations in a report from the Competition and Markets Authority in February.
The CMA said the formula milk market had “a number of specific features that distinguish it from other consumer goods markets”. The CMA said:
Our evidence indicates that most parents and carers who need or choose to use infant formula experience a degree of vulnerability because most feeding decisions come with high pressure on a parent to do the best they can for their baby. Our consumer research found that ‘when it comes to choosing a brand for their infant, consumers want to purchase “the best’’– whatever that means to them.’ There is evidence that parents who experience feelings of guilt around formula milk use as opposed to breastfeeding are particularly vulnerable, as are those making unplanned decisions to use formula milk in hospital settings and/or under time-pressure.
Guilt is detrimental to consumer outcomes in this market because it puts parents at risk of spending more than they need to. Our consumer research found that the desire to purchase a premium brand is ‘felt particularly strongly amongst mothers who had hoped to exclusively breastfeed. They have heard “breast is best” and therefore feel even more guilt if they make a rational budgeting decision in their choice of formula brand.’ More generally, parents often use price as a proxy for quality and so would actively choose a higher priced product. We heard that, while the reasons are complex, lower income families may feel increased stigma and judgment, which may drive some of their choices towards brands deemed higher quality.
'Failed former Tory MPs' who join Reform UK unlikely to be selected as candidates, Zia Yusuf says
“Failed Tory MPs” are unlikely to be chosen as parliamentary candidates for Reform Uk at the next election, Zia Yusuf, the party’s head of policy has said.
He made the comment in a post on social media promoting a Daily Telegraph story saying that “washed-up” former Conservative MPs who have joined Reform will not be prioritised when parliamentary candidates are being selected. The story was attributed to unnamed party sources.
This week it was announced that three more former Tory MPs have gone over to Nigel Farage’s party.
Yusuf said:
I’ve had many messages from Reform grassroots worried about former Tory MPs joining our party.
I want to be clear to our Reform grassroots: YOU will be prioritised in candidate selection for our next class of MPs, NOT failed former Tory MPs.
You didn’t just join Reform, you built it.
You built what is already the most extraordinary, historic political movement in British history.
According to the Telegraph, 20 former Tory MPs have joined Reform, as well as the two Reform MPs originally elected to parliament as Conservatives.
Updated
German president tells Starmer relations with UK in 'far better shape' than during Brexit period
Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the German president, has said that the UK-German relationship is in “far better shape” than in the “difficult” post-Brexit period.
Steinmeier is on a state visit to the UK and, meeting Keir Starmer in Downing Street, he said that the two countries were managing their relationship better then in the Brexit era.
He said relations had improved with the July signing of the so-called Kensington Treaty to deepen ties in areas ranging from defence to immigration. He went on:
We have a new security situation in Europe, if not in the whole world. So therefore there is a need of closer cooperation.
But we were talking also about economic and closer ties between our companies, about the exchange of people.
So therefore, after some years with growing difficulties after 2016, I think we are in a far better shape and we have to engage in improving the situation and coming closer in this changing world with new threats to all of us.
The Liberal Democrats aren’t convinced by Nigel Farage saying he is not planning a pact with the Tories. (See 9.33am.) A Lib Dem spokesperson said:
Nigel Farage and Robert Jenrick keep denying a Reform-Conservative pact in public but plotting one behind closed doors.
The public can see right through it. The Tories are so desperate they would happily do a deal to put Nigel Farage in Number 10.
Jenrick rules out defecting to Reform UK
Some senior Reform UK figures think Nigel Farage should get Robert Jenrick to defect from the Tories, offering him the post of Reform’s candidate for chancellor, Steven Swinford from the Times reports. He also says Tory figures believe that Jenrick is unhappy because Kemi Badenoch is in a stronger position than she was, meaning that Jenrick’s chances of replacing her are fading a bit.
Jenrick himself does not sound keen to go. Asked on Times Radio this morning about the prospect of becoming Reform’s candidate for chancellor, Jenrick replied:
It wasn’t very long ago that I was running to be leader of the Conservative party, so I’m not going anywhere.
Foreign Office lost ‘opportunities to influence’ US after Harry Dunn death, review finds
The Foreign Office failed to treat the Harry Dunn case as a crisis and lost “opportunities to influence” the US after diplomatic immunity was asserted on behalf of the suspect, an independent review has concluded.
In a written ministerial statement, Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, said:
The report provides a comprehensive assessment of the handling of the case by the FCO, and makes 12 recommendations, ten of which are specific to the FCDO. It finds that failings and omissions were made in response to the incident, including a failure to recognise the family as allies in achieving justice for Harry. I have accepted all the recommendations, and, with my department, I am committed to ensuring that any similar case in future will be handled with the benefit of improved practices in light of the Review, in particular with regards to family engagement and support for victims. No family facing a crisis of this kind should have to fight for the support they deserve like Harry’s did.
The baby formula announcement (see 3.13pm) was the latest example of Keir Starmer using his opening remarks at PMQs to unveil some political news.
According to Ben Bloch at Sky News, Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, does not like this habit and complained to him about it at PMQs. Judging by the “Labour source” comment, Starmer does not seem too worried about this.
Help to cut baby formula costs could save parents up to £500, Starmer says
At PMQs Keir Starmer said that government has a new plan to save the parents of new babies up to £500 from cheaper formula milk. (See 12.01am.) But it was not clear from his brief comments exactly how this would work.
Peter Walker has more details in a story here.
Here is an extract.
Ministers will accept a series of recommendations made in February by the Competition and Markets Authority intended to help inform parents about baby formula products that are cheaper than the best-known brands, such as nutritionally identical supermarket own-brand ones.
The measures will include the use of standardised packaging in hospitals and other healthcare locations to stop the influence of marketing on new parents, and rules setting out that all infant formula products must be displayed together in shops.
People will be allowed to use gift cards, vouchers, loyalty points and coupons to pay for infant formula, something that has been barred in the past because of efforts to prevent deals for baby formula, so as to encourage breastfeeding instead where possible.
And here is the Department of Health and Social Care’s news release.
No 10 won't say if Labour MPs who abstained in vote on extending inheritance tax to farms face sanctions
Downing Street refused to say at its post-PMQs briefing what would happen to the Labour MPs who rebelled in a vote last night on the plan to extend inheritance tax to farms.
Only one Labour MP, Markus Campbell-Savours, actually voted against the government in this division. He represents Penrith and Solway.
But, from the division lists, it looks as though at least 20 Labour MPs deliberately abstained. Only 318 Labour MPs voted for the measure. Only 15 minutes earlier 347 Labour MPs voted for a different budget measure, and 15 minutes after the inheritance tax vote 340 Labour MPs voted for a further budget proposition.
The full list of Labour MPs who did not vote for the inheritance tax extension is here. But many of these MPs will have had permission to be away, and it is impossible to tell from the list whether someone was abstaining deliberately, or if they missed the vote for some other reason.
Asked if the rebels would be punished, No 10 said this was a matter for the whips.
The National Farmers’ Union asked Labour MPs to abstain in the vote and, after it happend, the NFU president Tom Bradshaw said:
The MPs who have shown their support are the rural representatives of the Labour party. They represent the working people of the countryside and have spoken up on behalf of their constituents.
Jon Craig from Sky News has compiled a list of Labour MP who did not vote who also represent rural constituencies.
In the debate, explaining why he was voting against the government, Campbell-Savours said:
There remain deep concerns about the proposed changes to agricultural property relief (APR).
Members across the house have made the case against these changes, changes which leave many, not least elderly farmers, yet to make arrangements to transfer assets, devastated at the impact on their family farms.
Many farmers feared this was coming. Some transferred in advance. Others contacted Labour candidates who reassured them, based on public commitments from the then shadow secretary of state for Defra [Steve Reed], that APR would not be touched.
I was one of those Labour candidates, and it’s for that reason I’ll be voting against the budget resolution enabling these changes.
Updated
The Conservatives have again ruled out a pact with Reform UK. At their post-PMQs briefing, a Tory spokesperson said that, with Kemi Badenoch as leader, there “absolutely, 100%” would not be a pact with Nigel Farage’s party.
No 10 says Tories should apologise for 'baseless smears' after report says government did not intervene in China spy case
Downing Street has said that the Conservatives should apologise for the “baseless smears” they made about Labour interfering to block the China spy prosecution.
The report out today from parliament’s joint committee on the national security strategy says:
We did not find evidence of a coordinated high-level effort to bring about the collapse of the prosecution. Nor did we find evidence of deliberate efforts to obstruct the prosecution, circumvent constitutional safeguards or frustrate our inquiry.
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM’s press secretary said:
The Tories have to apologise for throwing around for weeks baseless smears with Robert Jenrick going as far as to say that people should be sent to prison, despite the government making repeatedly clear that there was absolutely no political interference in the case.
PMQs - snap verdict
According to polling by YouGov released this morning, the number of people who view Kemi Badenoch as a prime minister in waiting has risen from 9% at the start of November to 21%. That may have been a consequence of the speech she gave in response to the budget last week, which was remarkable both for its unpleasantness and its effectiveness. But, on the basis of today, she does not deserve to go much higher.
Badenoch’s position in her own party has strengthened in part because she had a good run in September at take-down politics. She went after Angela Rayner, who resigned as deputy PM, and, less than a week later, after a particularly strong PMQs performance on the topic, she took some of the credit when Peter Mandelson quit as ambassador to Washington.
But these two hits may have warped the thinking at CCHQ because, in their quest of another scalp, the Tories seem to have lost all judgment. For weeks they aggressively accused the government, and Jonathan Powell in particular, of leaning on the Crown Prosecution Service to drop the China spy trial, despite there being no evidence to support this claim at all. That has been confirmed by a parliamentary report out today. Badenoch demanded Reeves’s resignation over a housing rental mishap, even though it was quickly established that this was the fault of a lettings agency. At that point Badenoch was also saying Reeves should have to resign if she put taxes up in the budget. Then, after the budget, Badenoch said that Reeves should be sacked because she “lied” to the public with a speech about the state of the public finances. This claim also ran into the buffers when the OBR, which published the information that led Reeves to make her claim, yesterday said explicitly that it did not agree with Badenoch’s take on the chancellor’s speech.
But the Tory conspiracy machine went into full overdrive on Sunday when Mel Stride, the shadow chancellor, sent a letter to the Financial Conduct Authority claiming that Reeves’s pre-budget speech, and Treasury briefing, amounted to “market abuse” and calling for an investigation.
And this is what Badenoch was referring to at PMQs today with her second question, when she said:
We now know that the head of the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility] was forced out for telling the truth that the chancellor did not need to raise taxes on working people. We also know that the chancellor was briefing the media, twisting the facts, all so she could break her promises and raise taxes.
If she was a CEO, she would have been fired and she might even have been prosecuted for market abuse. That’s why we’ve written to the Financial Conduct Authority [FCA], so will the prime minister ensure the chancellor fully cooperates with any investigation?
Starmer replied: “She’s completely losing the plot.”
The PM had a point. As Mel Stride knows full well, there is a huge difference between a FTSE 100 CEO trying to manipulate a share price for financial gain and a government minister trying to put a partial spin on economic data, which is something that happens at the time. Reeves may have been less than fully candid when she spoke about her budget choices on 4 November, but this is not unusual in Westminster politics and the idea that it merits an FCA investigation is fanciful. When Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, tried to defend this in a Today programme interview, he accused Reeves of putting misleading information about the budget into the public domain for political advantage. Nick Robinson shot him down quite easily by pointing out that that is exactly what the Tories are doing when they claim taxes are only going up in the budget to fund higher benefits for people who don’t work.
As the PMQs exchanges went on, Badenoch did make some stronger points. And she was entitled to point out that the decision to remove the two-child benefit cap was a big reversal from Starmer’s position on this last year. But it felt as if her reasonable criticisms of the budget were devalued by the wilder conspiracy claims.
Does this matter? In the era of conventional politics, party leaders worried about their credibility, and they would avoid associating themselves with the kooky stuff because it would stop them being taken seriously. Badenoch just doesn’t seem to mind. It feels like a mistake, but perhaps she has concluded that it does not really matter any more because, with so much politics now online, the boundaries of reason have been swept away.
Bernard Jenkin (Con) asks about Vladimir Putin turning down the terms for peace in Ukraine. Putin said he was ready for war with Europe. How ready are we?
Starmer says Putin is the aggressor. He is dragging his feet. We have to put pressure on him, he says. The government will continue to do that, he says.
And that’s the end of PMQs.
Shockat Adam (Ind) says Islamophobia is real. In opposition Labour propose having a definition of Islamophobia, but the party has now dropped that, he says. He says freedom of speech is important, but Islamophobia is real, and he mentions several constituents he says were killed for being Muslim.
Starmer says we should condemn all forms of hatred, including anti-Muslim hatred. He says the government will act on it.
Starmer says Reform UK-Tory pact would be 'unholy alliance of austerity and failure'
George Freeman (Con) says a recent deepfake AI video said he was joining Reform UK. He says that is as likely as Reform producing coherent policies. He urges the government to address the problem of deepfakes.
Starmer acknowledges this is a serious issue. But he says, if Freeman is not joining Reform, other Tories are. Three of them went this week. He says he saw the FT story today. Nigel Farage is proposing “unholy alliance of austerity and failure”, he says.
Updated
Andrew Pakes (Lab) asks about child poverty.
Starmer says the Tories should be ashamed of the way they dragged thousands of children into poverty.
Paul Waugh (Lab) says Rochdale, his constituency, is near the top of the child poverty league. He asks for an assurance that the government will continue to tackle this.
Starmer says measures like the £150 cut in energy bill, the rising living wage and the freeze in prescription charges should help.
Starmer says he won't allow definition of Islamophobia to bring back blasphemy law
Graham Stringer (Lab) asks for an assurance that there will be no reintroduction of a blasphemy law via a definition of Islamophobia.
Starmer says he is happy to give that assurance.
Layla Moran (Lib Dem) asks about two constituents facing unreasonable service charges for leaseholders. Will the PM back Lib Dem plans to end these rip-off charges?
Starmer says the government’s leaseholder and freeholder bill should address this. He says Moran is making good points.
Oliver Ryan (Lab) asks if the PM will support a modern framework for neurology in the NHS.
Starmer says the 10-year plan for the NHS should improve care in this area.
Jerome Mayhew (Con) says Rachel Reeves implied in her budget that she was cutting taxes for small businesses when the opposite is the case. Will the government at least admit that?
Starmer says temporary business rates relief was put in place by the last government. That is coming to an end. And there is a revaluation.
But there will be transitional relief, he says.
Starmer says only 3% of criminal cases will be affected by decision to restrict access to jury trials
Paul Holmes (Con) says Starmer in the past said jury trials should be in place for all criminal trials.
Starmer says the Tories left a system where victims of serious crimes are having to wait three or four years to come to trial. That is not justice, he says.
Starmer says only 10% of criminals cases go to crown court. And 7% plead guilty at crown court. So this decision (the proposals to restrict jury trials) only affects 3% of criminal cases, he says.
Starmer rejects call from Lib Dems for UK to join customs union with EU
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks if the PM will convene Cobra to discuss the problem with the water supply being cut off at Royal Tunbridge Wells.
Starmer says he is aware of this problem, and wants it sorted out.
Davey says the PM’s economic adviser is telling him to join the customs union as a means of boosting growth. Will the PM take this advice?
Starmer says he wants closer relations with the EU. But the government has “clear red lines” on the customs union and the single market, he says. (He is referring to the government saying it won’t join them.)
Updated
Claire Hanna (SDLP) asks if Starmer agrees that it would be sensible for the government to prepare for possible Irish reunification, to prevent what happened with Brexit, when the country voted for leaving the EU without a plan being in place.
Starmer says the government supports the Good Friday agreement (which proposes a referendum on reunification, but only when there is evidence of clear support for the idea).
Badenoch says we saw “a broken budget for Benefits Street”. (She has to say it twice, as she mangles the alliteration first time.) She says Starmer only cares about one person’s job – his own.
Starmer says Badenoch wants to put 500,000 children back into poverty. And she wants the chancellor to resign because the economy is improving.
Badenoch says Starmer removed the whip from MPs who voted to remove the cap last years.
John McDonnell, who she calls a “hard-left” Labour MP, said he and his allies had won. He was right, she says.
Starmer says Badenoch should be ashamed of what the Tories did on child poverty. He says she should apologise.
Badenoch says Reeves faked things like her CV. She lives in la-la land.
She says Starmer used to say getting rid of the two-child benefit cap was unaffordable. How did it become affordable when it was needed to save the PM’s skin?
Starmer says getting rid of the cap will lift 500,000 children out of poverty.
Badenoch asks why the head of the OBR had to resign over market sensitive leaks when Reeves didn’t.
Starmer defends the government’s record.
He says the OBR said yesterday that Reeves’s 4 November speech was not misleading. So Badenoch should apologise.
Starmer says Badenoch is 'losing the plot' after she claims Reeves faces inquiry into market manipulation over budget
Badenoch says the head of the OBR was forced out for telling the truth, that the chancellor did not need to raise taxes.
And Rachel Reeves was briefing the media.
If she was a CEO, she would be fired. And she might even be prosecuted.
So will the government cooperate with any FCA investigation?
Starmer says Badenoch is “losing the plot”.
Updated
Kemi Badenoch starts by paying tribute to the former Tory MP John Stanley, who has died.
Does the PM agree that when an organisation “descends into total shambles” the person at the top should resign.
Starmer says he is very proud of what was in the budget.
Ian Lavery (Lab) asks about poverty in the north-east of England. He says they are a proud breed, and deserve “much more than this”. Is there much for them to look forward to?
Starmer says the Tory MPs should be ashamed of heckling Lavery for talking about poverty. He says the government is acting to cut poverty.
Keir Starmer starts by saying the budged helped to tackle the cost of living.
Today the government is going further. It is cutting the price of infant formula milk by issuing new guidance to retailers. This could save some parents up to £500 a year, he claims.
Updated
This is from Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, on Nigel Farage’s denial of the FT story. (See 9.33am.)
A handy reminder that in 2019 Farage did a deal to put Boris Johnson in No10 and push through his disastrous Brexit deal.
But instead of taking responsibility, of course Farage plays the victim.
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is starting soon.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Streeting defends puberty blockers trial after Badenoch breaks with Cass report and condemns it
Wes Streeting has also defended his decision to allow a trial of puberty blockers to go ahead for young people with gender incongruence – despite Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, denouncing the plan.
In his interview on the Today programme, Streeting said that the trial was going ahead in line with a recommendation in the report by Hilary Cass, a leading paediatrician, that urged a rethink on the provision of medical interventions for trans children.
The Cass report was welcomed by all the main parties when it was published last year, especially by MPs alarmed at the extent to which puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones were available to trans children. But last week Badenoch, who had in the past praised Cass, effectively turned her back on some of the Cass conclusions when she wrote an open letter to Streeting urging him to halt the puberty blockers trial.
The letter, which is similar to one written earlier by the hard-right independent MP Rupert Lowe, has now been signed by dozens of Tory MPs and peers. In a messsage about it yesterday on social media, Badenoch said;
More colleagues have joined me and @stuartandrew in opposing an NHS puberty-blocker trial on vulnerable children. Medicine should protect, not experiment to satisfy activist dogma. We will not stand for it.
@wesstreeting must put a stop to this dangerous trial immediately.
Asked about this on the Today programme, Streeting said he wanted cross-party support for the Cass recommendations to continue and that the trial was subject to “rigorous” ethical and safety checks. He said:
We are following the Cass review, commissioned by the previous Conservative government. In opposition we accepted all of the recommendations, and we wan it to work in a bipartisan way. That is the approach we are now taking in government.
It was Hilary Cass and who, sounded the alarm about the prescription of puberty blockers for this purpose, for this patient group without adequate evidence. She also recommended this trial.
And just to reassure people, the process of setting up this trial has gone through some of the most rigorous checks in terms of ethics, safety and clinical oversight.
It it will not be the case that a child, young person, can say, I want to be on this trial and then they’re on it. They have to go through rigorous, assessment in terms of their physical health and their mental health that parents will need to be involved and consenting.
We will need to be sure that parents are not having undue or improper influence over their children in terms of this, in terms of their own ideological viewpoints or standpoints …
So I am satisfied that this trial has been built, with ethics and safety at the heart of it.
Streeting says no NHS services will be cut to fund cost of UK-US pharmaceuticals deal
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has said that no NHS services will be cut to fund a zero-tariff medical drugs deal with the US.
He has also dismissed claims that the agreement will cost the UK £3bn, saying that he regards £1bn as a more realistic figure.
On Monday a landmark deal with the US was announced, affecting tariffs and what the NHS pays for American pharamceutical products. The negotiation was launched in response to US complaints that the current pricing mechanism doesn’t properly compensate firms for the cost of research.
Asked about a claim the deal will cost the NHS £3bn a year, Streeting told the Today programme:
I don’t recognize the £3bn figure. So I’m going have to pour over how honest the King’s Fund have reached that … I think we’re looking more like the order of magnitude of around £1bn.
Asked if the money for this would have to come from the NHS budget, Streeting said: “We are not going to cut NHS services to fund it.”
He also insisted that the deal was good for the UK.
What our negotiators have achieved is remarkable. They’ve achieved 0% tariffs.
We’ve dealt with a complicated negotiating environment where we’ve had a domestic negotiation with life sciences here in the UK at the same time as our life sciences sector and life sciences more broadly have been negotiating with the Trump administration. And we have too. So it’s been very complicated. We’ve all been spining lots of plates. But we’ve got to a position which is good for growth and good for patients.
My principal position is I want to make sure that people in this country have access to the latest medicines, I want as much discovery to take place in the UK.
Streeting says he was 'surprised' by experts' prostate cancer screening recommendation, hinting rethink possible
On Friday last week the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) released advice saying it did not think prostate cancer screening should not be made available to the vast majority of men across the UK.
In an interview on BBC Breakfast this morning, Wes Streeting, the health secretary, said that he was “surprised” by the decision. He also hinted that the recommendation might be ignored.
He explained:
I’m looking very carefully at why the national screening committee reached that decision.
I’ve always said these things have got to be based on science and evidence, not on politics.
But the recommendation did surprise me.
This is contested. I’ve got people in the prostate cancer community and not just really prominent patients and celebrities and politicians who’ve used their experience and their voice in this debate, but among scientists and researchers.
This is a draft recommendation. They consult on this for three months, and then we have to make a final decision.
What I’m going to do is get some of those leading, best scientific voices and competing opinions around the table to thrash this out, to really interrogate the data and make sure that when I come on your programme having made a decision, it’s the right decision for the right reasons, the best evidence and the public can then understand why we’ve made the decision and the scientific community can understand why we’ve made the decision.
But I am interrogating this data and recommendation because it did surprise me.
A consultation has been launched on the UKNSC recommendation, and a final decision will be made in March.
Updated
Preparing evidence for Covid inquiry has cost government £100m in staff and legal costs, figures show
The public inquiry into the Covid pandemic has cost the government more than £100m to respond to so far, PA Media reports. PA says:
Transparency data from the Cabinet Office shows the overall cost for responding to the UK Covid-19 Inquiry, including for legal advice and dedicated staff working on preparing evidence.
The cost is on top of the £192m cost of the inquiry itself so far. The inquiry is expected to become the most expensive in British history.
The documents, analysed by the BBC and seen by the Press Association, reveal 248 full-time equivalent staff were working on the government response to the Covid inquiry at the last count.
The figures show:
– £56.4m was spent by the government on legal costs from April 2023 to June 2025 inclusive, with £26.2m in the 12 months to March 2024, £25m in the 12 months to March 2025, plus £5.2m in the three months from April to June 2025.
– £44.6m was spent on staff costs across this period, made up of £18m in the year to March 2024, £21.6m in the year to March 2025, and £5m in the three months April-June 2025.
– The combined total for legal and staff costs for the period April 2023 to June 2025 is £100.9m, though the true amount could be higher as the costs are “not based on a complete set of departmental figures and are not precise for accounting purposes”, according to the Cabinet Office documents.
– The number of full-time equivalent staff working on the overnment’s response to the inquiry stood at 265 at the end of the 2023/24 financial year, had risen to 286 by the end of 2024/25, and then fell to 248 across April-June 2025.
Wes Streeting accuses BMA of 'juvenile delinquency' over plan for fresh strike by resident doctors before Christmas
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has accused the BMA of “juvenile delinquency” after it announced plans for another resident doctors strike in England before Christmas.
As PA Media reports, resident doctors will strike for five days from 7am on 17 December until 7am on 22 December as they continue their fight with the government over training and pay. It follows similar strike action by resident doctors, formerly called junior doctors, between November 14 and November 19, and other previous strikes.
On Sky News this morning, asked if he had “had it” with doctors’ unions, Streeting replied:
With the BMA, certainly.
I mean, whether it’s the rhetoric and the behaviour of the BMA around general practice, whether it is yet another round of unnecessary strike action being proposed by resident doctors who’ve had a 28.9% pay rise, we’ve seen an outbreak in the British Medical Association of juvenile delinquency, and it is irresponsible, because we know that the NHS is under real pressure …
Since we came to office, there are real signs of green shoots of recovery, whether that’s on the waiting list, whether that’s on patient satisfaction with general practice, whether that’s the investment we’re putting into urgent emergency care – we could be leaning into this together.
Instead, the BMA is not only holding back the NHS’s recovery and inflicting damage on patients, it’s also self-defeating for their members who are having to work in these conditions.
Jenrick says Tories and Reform UK won't do deal because both party leaders are opposed
Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, has been giving interviews for the Conservative party this morning. He has also dismissed the report about a possible election deal of sorts between his party and Reform UK. But, as with Nigel Farage (see 9.33am), he seems to have chosen his words carefully.
Asked about the story on Times Radio, Jenrick said:
I can’t speculate on what Nigel might have said at a boozy lunch in the City to his mates. All I can say is that my leader Kemi Badenoch said there won’t be a deal. Nigel Farage has said there won’t be a deal so there won’t be a deal.
Asked how he felt personally about the prospect of a deal, Jenrick replied:
There won’t be a deal. These are two distinct political parties and their respective leaders have said no deal. So it’s as simple as that.
That was his second reference to Kemi Badenoch being opposed to a deal. There are some people in the Conservative party who believe that, by the time of the next election, a different leader will be making the decision – although since party conference, where Badenoch’s keynote speech was widely praised, and in the light of her much-improved PMQs performance, there is a lot less talk about that then there was in the summer.
Earlier this year Sky News revealed that Jenrick told a Tory dinner in private that, while he would like Reform UK support to collapse, if they were still doing well at the time of the next election “one way or another” the Tories would have to unite with them to defeat Labour.
Farage has also said similar things in the past. Last year he told Nick Robinson’s Political Thinking podcast:
I just don’t see long term how people like myself and Richard Tice don’t finish up at the same political party as a Jacob Rees-Mogg or a Suella Braverman … There is going to be – this has been talked about, by the way for decades – but there is going to be a realignment of the centre right of British politics.
Labour accuses Farage of 'shady backroom plot' with Tories
Labour says the Financial Times story (see 9.33am) shows that Nigel Farage is willing to be propped up by the Conservative party. A Labour spokesperson said:
Nigel Farage isn’t even hiding it anymore – he’s happy for failed Tories to prop up his party, whether they choose to join Reform or not.
The Conservatives broke public services and hammered family finances. They and Reform would inflict Tory austerity on Britain all over again, meaning savage cuts to local schools and hospitals.
This shady backroom plot will send a shiver down the spine of people up and down the country, and shows you simply can’t trust Nigel Farage.
Farage says deal with Tories ‘as they are’ would cost Reform UK votes, as he dismisses claim he’s contemplating electoral pact
Good morning. The Financial Times today has a good story that will renew speculation about the prospect of Reform UK and the Conservative party doing some sort of deal before the next general election. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has said the story is “false”. But a close reading of his “denial” suggests that his thinking on this topic is rather more nuanced than that word implies.
In their story, Anna Gross and Julie Steinberg say that Farage has told donors that he expects some sort of pact between the two main rightwing parties before the election. They say:
One donor said Farage told them he expected to do a deal with the Tories, whether it be a merger or an agreement on co-operation between the two parties, to ease Reform’s route to election victory.
The person added that the Reform leader said such a deal could only be done on his terms, in part because Farage felt betrayed after the pact he made with the Tories at the 2019 election.
Another associate who met with Farage in recent months said the Reform leader described a pact or merger as inevitable but added it might take some time.
The person added that Farage said Reform held more power so any agreement would be made on his rightwing populist party’s terms.
Responding to the story in a post on X, Farage said:
A false story in the FT tonight claims Reform would do a deal with the Tories.
After 14 years of dishonesty & lies they should never be forgiven. The idea I’d work with them is ludicrous.
They betrayed my trust in 2019 & we will ensure they cease to be a national party in May.
The reference to May is important. Farage is referring to the Scottish parliament and Senedd elections. In Wales the polls suggest that Reform UK is on course to be the biggest party, and the Tories are polling at a level where they may struggle to win more than a handful for seats. In Scotland the SNP is comfortably in the lead, but here too Reform UK seems on course to easily outperform Kemi Badenoch’s party.
Farage also gave a quote to the FT before it ran its story and, although it largely echoed its tweet, it included an important qualifier (highlighted in bold). He told the paper:
After next May, the Conservatives will no longer be a national party.
I would never do a deal with a party that I don’t trust. No deals, just a reverse takeover. A deal with them as they are would cost us votes.
So it may be true that Farage has no intention of doing any sort of deal with Badenoch’s Conservative party. But it also seems to be the case that Farage does not think that sort of party survive until 2029, and that he is contemplating how he cooperates with some Tory rump faction under a different leadership. Many commentators think, if that is the situation, there will be some sort of electoral deal.
Keir Starmer may choose to bring this up at PMQs. Here is the agenda for the day.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
2.15pm: Helen Miller, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and Ruth Curtice, chief executive of the Resolution Foundation, give evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget.
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
