Badenoch suggests final Tory migration policy would be more radical than leaving European convention on human rights – as it happened

6.15pm GMT

Early evening summary

• Kemi Badenoch has said the Conservatives under her leadership are committed to having “a strict numerical cap” for immigration, “with visas only for those who will make a substantial and clear overall contribution”. During a speech and Q&A at Westminster, she also called for more data to be published on “the real costs and benefits of different types of migration”. (See 3.53pm.) Asked about leaving the European convention on human rights, she said she did not view it as a “silver bullet”, but that leaving the ECHR was “not even the most radical thing that we probably will have to do”. (See 4.02pm.)

• Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have both declined to repeat the chancellor’s comments at the CBI conference on Monday, where she said she would not be “coming back with more borrowing or more taxes”. (See 2.10pm and 5.21pm.)

• Esther Rantzen, whose terminal cancer diagnosis led her to campaign for the legalisation of assisted dying, has issued an impassioned plea to MPs to vote this week on a “vital life-and-death issue”.

• Proposed cuts to England’s most beautiful landscapes pose an “existential threat”, the managers of the National Landscapes Association have warned.

5.55pm GMT

In her speech this afternoon Kemi Badenoch first raised a criticism of Keir Starmer first set out by the Guido Fawkes website. She said:

The prime minister himself once said that there is a ‘racist undercurrent’ which ‘permeates all immigration law’.

Starmer used that language in a review of a book published in 1987.

Badenoch did not seem to consider the possibility that at that point Starmer might have been right. Two years ago Amelia Gentleman got hold of an internal Home Office report written by a historian exploring the causes for the Windrush scandal and it made precisely this point. The report, which has not been published, said:

During the period 1950-1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK …

As a result, the experiences of Britain’s black communities of the Home Office, of the law, and of life in the UK have been fundamentally different from those of white communities … Major immigration legislation in 1962, 1968 and 1971 was designed to reduce the proportion of people living in the United Kingdom who did not have white skin.