Jeremy Corbyn said that the UK had been complicit in war crimes in Gaza in his Commons speech earlier calling for a public inquiry. (See 3.59pm.)

He said that, while the last Labour government originally resisted calls for a public inquiry into the Iraq war, eventually it had to set one up. When it reported, he apologised as Labour leader for the what Labour government had done, he said.

He said history was now “repeating itself” and that “genocide” was happening in Gaza.

Over the past 18 months, human beings have endured a level of horror and inhumanity that should haunt us all: entire families wiped out, limbs strewn across the street, mothers screaming for their children buried under the rubble, human beings torn to pieces, doctors performing amputations without anaesthetic, children picking grass and dirt from the ground thinking they might find something edible to eat. The survivors face lifelong mental health consequences which will go on for generations.

Home by home, hospital by hospital, generation by generation, we are not just witnessing, we are witnessing a genocide – this time, live streamed all over the world.

Today, the death toll in Gaza exceeds 61,000 and at least 110,000 people, or one in 20 of the entire population, have been severely injured.

Corbyn said that the UK had been complicit in all this.

Britain has played a highly influential role in Israel’s military operations. First, Britain has been supplying weapons to Israel, weapons that have been used to bomb the people of Palestine.

This, of course, started with the previous Conservative government, but has continued with the current Labour government. In fact, between October and December 2024 alone, more arms export licences were granted than were approved by the previous government for the whole of 2020, and 2023.

In September the government suspended some licences, but continue to allow supply of F-35 components to the global pool. The foreign secretary has accepted the fact that F-35 jets are being used in violation of international humanitarian law, yet at the same time admits those parts go into the global supply chain and could therefore go to Israel.

They know full well the implications. By justifying the continued licencing of these parts, our government is admitting its complicity in what are quite clearly war crimes. I find this truly astounding.

Corbyn said an inquiry was needed because of the government’s “evasion, obstruction and silence” in response to questions about the government’s support for Israel

Transparency and accountability are the cornerstones of democracy. The public deserves to know the scale of the UK complicity in these atrocities.

He said an inquiry would consider questions like: what arms have been sold to Israel; where have they been used; have the Americans or Israelis been using the RAF Akrotiri, the airbase on Cyprus; what video footage does the UK have from the war zone; what intelligence has been given to Israel; and what legal advice has the government had about genocide.

Corbyn ended saying:

Today, we teach children about history’s worst war crimes against humanity. They’re asked to reflect about how those crimes ever came about. Our future history books will report with shame those that had the opportunity to stop this carnage but failed to act to achieve it.

Yesterday the Guardian ran a story saying legal analysis of the planning and infrastructure bill suggests it could put more than 5,000 of England’s most sensitive, rare and protected natural habitats at risk because it weakens protections for nature.

Today Adrian Ramsay, the Green party co-leader, has issued a statement saying this report shows that the bill is dangerous. He says:

This new analysis, suggesting thousands of important wildlife sites are at risk from the planning and infrastructure bill, should serve as a wake-up call. Nature in the UK is already in serious decline, with one in six species at risk of extinction, and species declining by 19% since 1970.

This bill is dangerous, giving the green light for developers to pursue profit rather than meet the needs of people for homes and nature for protection.

We can and we must tackle both the housing crisis and the nature crisis but as it stands, the legislation fails on both counts. It clearly weakens nature protection while doing precisely nothing to ensure that new housing is genuinely affordable. The government has refused to specify social housing targets, and has given developers a license to bulldoze nature.

Helena Horton, Sandra Laville and Patrick Barkham say that about two dozen Labour MPs will try to amend the bill to beef up protections for the environment.

But, in an article for the Guardian, Nick Williams, who until recently was an economic policy adviser to Keir Starmer, defends the bill, saying it will make environmental protection measures more effective, not less effective. Here is an extract.

The truth is that our current framework for protecting habitats has been in place for decades but has failed to prevent nature loss. This is because we approach conservation in the least effective way possible, with tens of thousands of individual site-by-site protections. Ecological science is clear that this is outdated. Modern conservation strategies recognise the necessity of interconnectivity and scale for supporting complex ecosystems …

The government has proposed a solution. The bill will establish a nature restoration fund, which will support a number of strategic nature restoration schemes across the country at a scale that is genuinely impactful.

Natural England will produce a series of “environmental delivery plans”, underpinned by ecological science, explaining how it will deliver an “overall improvement in conservation status” for a given environmental feature. This test is set out in the legislation. Unlike now, performance will be regularly measured against what was promised and the approach in the plans must be amended if they are not delivering. This will mean results are easier to evaluate and scrutinise, as well as making enforcement simpler. Crucially these schemes will operate across council boundaries, because nature does. Instead of creating their own bespoke schemes, developers will financially contribute to much greater environmental outcomes nationally. This is what is meant by a “win-win”.

And here is the full article.

In the Commons Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, has just asked a question about his proposal for a public inquiry into the UK’s military support for Israel.

He has got the chance to make a speech on this under the 10-minute rule bill procedure later. But ministers don’t reply to those speeches. So, with Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, still taking questions about his statement, Corbyn asked if the government would support an inquiry into the UK’s policy with regard to parts for F-35 jets. He said the UK sells parts into the global supply chain. But it claims not to know where those parts go. He said he did not believe that, and he thought that the government knew exactly where those parts go.

In response, Falconer said these issues have been discussed extensively in the courts. He said he could not see what a further inquiry would achieve.

Hamish Falconer, the Middle East minister, is still responding to questions in the Commons after making his statement on Gaza. MPs from all sides of the chamber are calling for the government to more to aid gets through to Palestinians who are starving.

In his opening statement Falconer said the government was “appalled by repeated reports of mass casualty incidents in which Palestinians have been killed when trying to access aid sites in Gaza”. He went on:

Desperate civilians who have endured 20 months of war should never face the risk of death or injury to simply feed themselves and their families. We call for an immediate and independent investigation into these events for the perpetrators to be held to account.

It is deeply disturbing that these incidents happened near the new Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites, they highlight the utterly desperate need to get aid in. The Israeli government says it has opened up aid access with its new system, but the warnings raised by the United Kingdom, United Nations, aid partners and the international community about these operations have materialised and the results are out.

Israel’s newly introduced measures for aid delivery are inhumane, foster desperation and endanger civilians. Israel’s unjustified block on aid into Gaza needs to end – it is inhumane. Israel must immediately allow the United Nations and aid partners to safely deliver all types of aid at scale to save lives, reduce suffering and maintain dignity.

Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent covering trade and Brexit.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has said “essential steps” are taking place “at pace” to turn Keir Starmer’s recent tariff pact with Donald Trump into an implementable deal that once entered into force will see 27.5% tariffs on cars and 25% tariffs on steel eliminated.

He was speaking at a brief press conference in Brussels, unveiling 13 new partnerships with third countries to develop critical minerals supplies, including one pact to financially support Tungsten West, a closed mine in Devon.

Reynolds welcomed Trump’s decision last night to exempt British steel and aluminium from his new 50% tariff saying it “reflects the recent breakthroughs” with the US.

But he added:

The two essential steps we are continuing to progress at pace is, first of all, the implementation of the agreement we have on sectoral tariffs. Steel and aluminum is part of that, alongside automotive, aerospace and the other critical sectors.

We’ve had the decision not to extend 50% but we need to bring that 25% down to effectively zero … that is one piece of work which we continue to progress at pace.

Reynolds, who met the US trade representative Jamieson Greer on the sidelines of the OECD summit in Paris yesterday, said the “deeper negotiation about reciprocal tariffs” was “ongoing”. He added:

We don’t want to see additional barriers to trade being put in place, and we continue to work constructively with all partners to secure that.

During PMQs, Keir Starmer told Ed Davey that he was confident that the UK would finalise the details of its trade deal with the US by 9 July, the deadline set by President Trump. The UK is currently exempt from steel tariffs because the deal is in the pipeline, but Trump has implied the UK will be hit by the tariffs if he does not get the deal he wants in five weeks’ time.

Starmer told Davey:

We have a deal and we are implementing it and within a very short time I am confident we will get those tariffs down in accordance with the deal.

At the post-PMQs briefing, the PM’s spokesperson was asked why the PM was confident about being able to finalise the deal and he said that was because of the UK’s “constant dialogue” with the US.

But the spokesperson would not guarantee that the deal would definitely be in place by 9 July. He said:

Obviously our aim is to implement this deal as quickly as possible and you have just heard from the PM in the house that we are hoping to provide an update on that in weeks.

Here is the PA Media story from PMQs.

Keir Starmer sidestepped calls to say whether he will scrap the two-child benefit cap as he was accused of presiding over “chaos, chaos, chaos”.

The prime minister said he is “absolutely determined” to “drive down” child poverty, although he declined to give further details ahead of the publication of the government’s strategy on the issue.

His remarks came as Kemi Badenoch pressed Starmer to say how many pensioners would have their winter fuel payments restored and asked about the future of the two-child benefit cap amid “U-turn after U-turn” from the PM.

The cap was introduced in 2015 by then-Conservative chancellor George Osborne and restricts child welfare payments to the first two children born to most families.

Badenoch said Starmer has “not stabilised the economy” before adding: “He has no clear answers on what he’s doing, it’s just chaos, chaos, chaos. He’s making announcements with no detail.

“So let’s move to another area of confusion. Can we get a simple answer: will the government keep the two-child benefit cap?”

Starmer replied: “I am absolutely determined that we will drive down child poverty, that’s one of the proudest things of the last Labour government, that’s why we’ve got a taskforce, that’s why we’ve got a strategy, and we’ll set out that strategy in due course.

“But we drive child poverty down. Under them, poverty always goes up.”

Badenoch countered: “I didn’t ask him about a taskforce, I asked him if he’ll keep the two-child benefit cap, and he doesn’t know. It’s just chaos and uncertainty. He has no details, he is briefing something and causing a lot of confusion to the people out there.

“But on that two-child benefit cap I’ll tell him this: I believe in family, but I also believe in fairness. On this side of the house, we believe that people on benefits should have to make the same choices on having children as everyone else. What does the prime minister believe?”

Starmer replied: “I believe profoundly in driving down poverty and child poverty, that’s why we’ll put a strategy in place.”

Two weeks ago Kemi Badenoch was widely seen to have messed up at PMQs when she asked Keir Starmer about a policy U-turn which, if she had been listening properly, she would have heard him announce a few minutes earlier. Every leader has a bad PMQs from time to time. When you do, it is best to move on. Instead, Badenoch today chose to return to this territory. Not for the first time, her script seemed to have been drafted along the lines of ‘this is what I would have asked last time if I only I had been thinking more quickly’.

Badenoch asked Starmer to say how many pensioners would now get the winter fuel payment, if he would apologise, and how much the U-turn would cost? She did not get an apology, and she did not get answers to the two policy questions. She seemed to be strategising on the basis that she would be able to make Starmer look evasive. But this only works when a PM’s failure to answer a question looks unreasonable to members of the public, or to their own MPs. No one expects prime ministers to apologise all the time (although in some respects it would be nice if they did), and Starmer’s refusal to answer the policy questions just sounded routine in the circumstances. If Badenoch had persisted (by asking repeatedly, for example, about Mrs X from Y on average pensioner earnings, and if she would get now get the WFP), she might have made him squirm a little, but she didn’t.

Right at the end of PMQs we saw a second example of Badenoch, instead of ignoring a bad moment and moving on, returning to it in a way that only seemed to make things worse. This was the Tory response to Starmer implying she was pro-Moscow during the exchanges. Bringing the issue up allowed him to use this line which successfully skewered two opponents in one go.

If she carries on echoing Kremlin talking points like this, Reform is going to be sending her an application form for membership.

As PMQs finished, Jesse Norman, the shadow leader of the Commons, used a point of order to complain about Starmer raising Russia. (See 12.46pm.) And the Conservative party issued this statement.

It is truly astonishing that at PMQs the prime minister read out a tweet written in the Kremlin, designed to divide the western alliance on Ukraine. Is there any low to which Keir Starmer won’t sink to distract from his political problems? This was the first time a Labour leader has repeated Kremlin propaganda in parliament since Jeremy Corbyn and the Salisbury poisonings.

Accusing Starmer of repeating “Kremlin propaganda” smacks of desperation, but it is not hard to see why the Tories feel aggrieved. Badenoch is not a pro-Russian politician. But in an interview on Sky News on the Sunday before last she said that that Ukraine is fighting a proxy war “on behalf of western Europe against Russia”, and this led the Russian embassy to put out a longish message on X that started:

@KemiBadenoch has finally called a spade a spade.

Ukraine is indeed fighting a proxy-war against Russia on behalf of western interests. The illegitimate Kiev regime, created, financed and armed by the West, has been at it since 2014.

What Badenoch seemed to be saying was that, in fighting Russia, Ukraine is fighting a war that matters to the whole of Europe – which is what Starmer thinks, and which is the government’s position. It was just the use of the word “proxy” that aligned with Russian messaging. The Tories may feel that Starmer is being unfair, but they should probably have just taken the hit instead of reviving memories of a Badenoch verbal gafffe.

For the record, here is the full quote from Badenoch in that Sky interview. She was not really talking about Russia at all; instead she was talking about Israel, and arguing that the UK should be fully aligned with Israel on Gaza policy. This is an area where the policy diffference between her and Starmer is much more real than it is on Russia and Ukraine. It is also an area where the Tories are probably out of step with UK public opinion. Badenoch told Sky News:

Israel is fighting a proxy war on behalf of the UK, just like Ukraine is on behalf of western Europe against Russia. We have to get serious. We have to get serious. That was a terrorist plot in London against the Israeli embassy. We saw two Jewish members of the Israeli embassy in DC killed, whose side are we on? We need to make sure that the hostages are returned. No one wants to see a war in Gaza. Palestinians are suffering. Netanyahu is complaining that he thinks our leaders are carrying out the wrong action. He has every right to say that. What I want to see is Keir Starmer making sure that he is on the right side of British national interest? That cannot be on the side of Hamas.

David Davis (Con) says Starmer once wrote a book on miscarriages of justice. But people only get compensation if they can prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt. This means 93% of victims do not get compensation.

Starmer says this is an important issue. He will ensure the government considers this.

Sarah Pochin, the new Reform UK MP, asks Starmer to ban the burqa in the interests of public safety, as some other European countries are doing.

Starmer welcomes Pochin to the Commons, but says he will not follow her advice on this. He says Pochin should tell her party leader to abandon Liz Truss economics.

UPDATE: Pochin said:

Given the prime minister’s desire to strengthen strategic alignment with our European neighbours, will he in the interests of public safety follow the lead of France, Denmark, Belgium and others and ban the burqa?

And Starmer replied:

Can I welcome her to her place, but I’m not going to follow her down that line.

But now she is here and safely in her place, perhaps she could tell her new party leader that his latest plan to bet £80bn of unfunded tax cuts, with no idea how he’s going to pay for it, is Liz Truss all over again.

“Although considering I think [Pochin] was a Conservative member when Liz Truss was leader, she probably won’t.

Badenoch says Starmer had to look in his folder to see what he believed in.

Starmer says he has looked in his folder, for the quote from the Russian embassy praising Badenoch. He reads it out.

[The embassy] put out a statement saying the leader of the opposition has finally called a spade a spade, Ukraine is indeed fighting a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Western interests.

Starmer says, by contrast, he stands by Ukraine.

Kemi Badenoch says Reeves is rushing her winter fuel payment plans “because she has just realised when winter is”. How many pensioners will benefit?

Starmer says Badenoch is catching up on two weeks ago (a reference to Badenoch seeming to miss the WFP announcement from Starmer two weeks ago).

He does not answer the question.

Clive Efford (Lab) says the 2012 Olympics showcased the UK at its best. He asks if the government will back the bid for the UK to host the 2029 World Athletics Championships in London.

Starmer says the Olympics were one of the greatest achievements of the last Labour government. He recalls Tessa Jowell’s contribution.

But he won’t answer the question.

The Conservative party says the £15bn for transport infrastructure announced by Rachel Reeves today is essentially just a rehash of the Network North city region sustainable transport settlements set out by the last government in 2023. Gareth Davies, a shadow business minister, said:

Rachel Reeves is scrambling to salvage her failing economic plan after the prime minister has made U-turn after U-turn, punching holes in her credibility.

She needed to do better than copying and pasting announcements made by the previous Conservative government. The country is not falling for their lies anymore. Britain deserves better.

PMQs is imminent.

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

Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.

Party leaders are kicking off the final day of campaigning in the key Holyrood byelection in the central Scotland seat of Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse. It’s been a closely fought campaign, marred by Reform UK’s escalating racist attacks on Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar.

While Nigel Farage accepted on his one and only visit to Scotland on Monday that he did not expect his party to win tomorrow, there has been speculation that Reform UK might push Scottish Labour into third place in a contest that is being seen as a significant bellwether for next year’s Holyrood elections.

This morning Sarwar was out early on the campaign trail with his candidate Davy Russell, a local figure who has drawn criticism for his unwillingness to engage with the media but who Scottish Labour sources insist is a popular choice whose lack of polish cuts through with voters.

Sarwar was reportedly heckled about Waspi women – one of many Westminster-led policies that have come up on the doorstep, hampering Labour’s campaign.

Meanwhile SNP leader and Scottish first minister John Swinney urged voters in the constituency to back his party in a bid to “stop Nigel Farage”, talking up Reform UK’s prospects and saying that when he’s on the doorstep more voters tell him they want to vote Reform than Labour. Critics have pointed out that the unexpected popularity of Reform in this byelection has served the SNP well in terms of framing, although they too appear to be losing voters to the rightwing populists.

Q: Do you hope to scrap the two-child benefit cap?

Reeves said that was a policy inherited from the last government. The government is “determined to reduce child poverty as a moral mission”, she said.

And that was the end of the press conference.

Q: Will we get more details about the winter fuel payments policy in the spending review next week?

Reeves said she made difficult decisions last year. But the economy is now on a firmer footing. She went on:

The economy is in a better shape, but we have also listened to the concerns that people had about the level of the means test, and so we will be making changes to that.

They will be in place so that pensioners are paid this coming winter, and we’ll announce the detail of that, and the level of that, as soon as we possibly can.

But people should be in no doubt that … more people will get winter fuel payment this winter.

Two weeks ago, when Keir Starmer announced the winter fuel payments U-turn at PMQs, No 10 was unable to confirm that it would be implemented in time for more pensioners to benefit this winter.

But on Monday Keir Starmer hinted that the government will announce exactly how many pensioners will get their winter fuel payments reinstated in the spending review next week.

Q: In the light of Mark Rowley’s comments (see 9.13am), which crimes would the government be happy for the police to ignore?

Reeves says she is increasing spending on the police in the spending review, adding: “So that’s not a choice that I would recognise.”

Q: Will you repeat the claim you made last year about last year’s budget being a once-in-a-generation tax rising event?

Yes, says Reeves.

She says she raised £40bn in the budget last year. She goes on:

I have absolutely no intention of repeating a budget on that scale again.

Q: What did you think of Angela Rayner’s proposals for tax rises?

Reeves says Rayner proposed tax rises worth about £3bn in total. She says in her budget last year she raised taxes by £40bn in total, which was “much more”.

(In fact, the Rayner plans would have raised more than £4bn, the leak suggested.)

Q: Will you repeat your election pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT?

Reeves says she has already answered that in her reply to Carl Dinnen. (See 10.14am.) She goes on:

The commitment that we made in the manifesto not to increase the key taxes that working people pay - income tax, VAT and national insurance – are promises that we stand by. We will implement what was in our manifesto.

Q: [From ITV’s Carl Dinnen] Are Labour’s manifesto commitments on policing, housingn and energy at risk?

There have been reports saying the spending review settlements will mean some commitments cannot be funded.

But Reeves denies this. She replies:

We made those commitments in our manifesto and we stick to them. All of the manifesto commitments that we made were fully costed and fully funded.

Reeves says she is today announcing £15.6bn in transport investment. (See 9.30am.)

And she explains why transport is so important.

Connectivity is an absolutely critical factor in unlocking the potential of towns and cities outside of London – one of the areas in which previous governments have promised most but delivered least, and that will now change.

Let me tell you why it matters.

Modern growth rests on dynamic, connected city regions, creating clusters of activity so that people can get around, communicate, share ideas, commute, find good work and earn wages that flow back into strong local economies.

The stronger transport links within cities and the towns around them create opportunity by connecting labour markets and making it easier for firms to buy and sell goods and services in different places to different people.

Labour’s strong investment in the past in strongly integrated transport systems, including in London, helps explain London’s global success and also its advantages over other UK cities.

Now we want London to succeed, but it is the lack of that infrastructure which puts England’s other great cities, Birmingham, Liverpool, Newcastle, at a disadvantage compared to their European counterparts that have this infrastructure, and it helps to explain our underperformance relative to other European economies.

If we were to increase the productivity of those second cities in the UK to match the national average, our economy today would be £86bn larger.

Reeves says she has also changed how the Treasury’s “green book” evaluates projects when it decides if they are worth investing in.

The Treasury green book sets the guidance for how public servants assess the value for money of government projects. It may sound dry, but it is one of the reasons why there hasn’t been enough investment in the north and the Midlands for decades.

I have heard from mayors across the country, from Andy [Burnham], but also from Steve Rotheram, the mayor of Liverpool, that previous governments have wielded the green book against them as an excuse to deny important investments in their areas and their people.

That is why, in January, I ordered a review of the green book and how it is being used to make sure that this government gives every region a fair hearing when it comes to investments.

I will publish the full conclusions of that review next week. However, I can tell you now that it will mark a new approach to decision making in government, and an end to siloed Whitehall thinking, making sure that government is taking account of the reinforcing economic effects of infrastructure investment in housing, in skills, and in jobs.

(The argument against the old rules was that they focused on potential overall gains to the UK economy, which meant that transport projects in the south-east, which would stimulate economic activity by high-earning workers, invariably seemed better value than projects elsewhere in Britain that would stimulate economic activity by workers earning less.)

Reeves says her changes to the fiscal rules last year will make more investment possible.

The decisions that we made in October mean that, for the first time, the Treasury actually takes account of the benefits and not just the costs of investment, and together, the fiscal rules mean that, unlike our predecessors, we will not be balancing the books by cutting investment.

And that is why we can increase investment by over £113bn more than the last government plans, meaning public investment will be at its highest sustained level since the 1970s.

Reeves says in the spending review next week “not every department will get everything that they want”.

And she goes on:

I have had to say no to things that I want to do too, but that is not because of my fiscal rules. It is the result of 14 years of Conservative maltreatment of our public services, our public realm and of our economy.

Reeves says recent figures showed UK to be the fastest growing economy in the G7.

And she says real wages rose more in less than 10 months under Labour than they did in the first 10 years of the last Conservative government.

Rachel Reeves is speaking now. She is speaking at the Mellor bus factory in Rochdale.

She starts by saying she wants to explain how Labour will build a stronger Britain.

She knows how hard it has been, she says.

She says the central barrier to growth has been underinvestment.

The central barrier to economic growth has been underinvestment. For too long, Britain has lagged behind every other G7 economy when it comes to business investment as a share of GDP. One of the consequences was that the last parliament was the worst on record for living standards.

Her policy is build on three pillars, she says: stability, reform and investment.

Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, is introducing Rachel Reeves.

He says he is pleased the government is backing Manchester Bee transport network with £2.5bn. He goes on:

With the funding provided by the government, we will create the UK’s first fully integrated, all-electric, zero emission public transport system, and we will do that by the end of the decade.

Since it does not seem to be available yet on the Treasury’s website, here is the list of transport projects for English city regions that Rachel Reeves is announcing, as set out in a Treasury press release last night.

Good morning. A week today Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will unveil the outcome of the spending review, which will set spending budgets – day-to-day (“resource”) and capital – covering most of the rest of this parliament. Many departments will get resource budgets that feel like cuts, but the Treasury has a more positive story to tell on capital spending and today Reeves is giving a speech announcing a £15bn spending spree on transport projects, mostly in the north of England.

Pippa Crerar and Jessica Elgot have all the details in our splash story.

As Pippa and Jess report, the Home Office is one of three departments that has yet to settle its budget with the Treasury. According to a report in the Times, in a bid to help the Home Office, Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, Gavin Stephens, the head of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and Graeme Biggar, the head of the National Crime Agency, have written to the PM saying they are “deeply concerned” about what is in offer for the police. They say:

We are deeply concerned that the settlement for policing and the [NCA], without additional investment, risks a retrenchment to what we saw under austerity. This would have far-reaching consequences.

Policing and the NCA have seen a sustained period where income has not kept pace with demand. Often, this has been masked by attempts to defer costs in the hope of more income in future, but that now leaves policing with very limited room for manoeuvre.

A settlement that fails to address our inflation and pay pressures flat would entail stark choices about which crimes we no longer prioritise. The policing and NCA workforce would also shrink each year.

The Times has summarised this in its splash headline as meaning the police chiefs are saying proposed cuts will mean “some crimes must be ignored”. That sounds grim, although the headline writer may have forgotten that many crimes are ignored already. In its election manifesto last year, Labour had a striking line about the police. “Labour has a straightforward vision for policing and criminal justice. When you call the police, they should come.”

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.20am: Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, gives a speech in Greater Manchester on infrastructure spending.

9.30am: Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, gives evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee about pensioner poverty.

Morning: Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is campaigning in Hamilton ahead of the Scottish parliamentary byelection tomorrow.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

12.30pm: Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, uses the 10-minute rule bill procedure to propose a bill calling for a public inquiry into “UK involvement in Israeli military operations in Gaza”.

4.40pm (UK time): John Healey, the defence secretary, holds a press conference with his German and Ukrainian counterparts after a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels.

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.