The ayes voted 117, the noes 379, giving a majority of 262.

The ayes voted 379, the noes 137, giving a majority of 242.

Stella Creasy, the Labour MP who tabled the main alternative amendment (see 5.05pm), is speaking now.

She says her new clause 20 (NC20) is based on best practice in abortion law elsehwere.

She says only her clause is decriminalisation. It would remove abortion from the criminal law, protecting clinicians (who are not protected by Antoniazzi’s NC1) as well as pregnant women.

Antoniazzi cites other examples of women prosecuted for abortion offences. She goes on:

Each one of these cases is a travesty enabled by our outdated abortion law.

Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the 1967 Abortion Act, the law underpinning it dating back to 1861, the Offences against the Person Act, means that outside those conditions, it remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence.

Originally passed by an all-male parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls.

Since 2020 more than 100 women have been criminally investigated …

Women affected are often acutely vulnerable victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation, girls under the age of 18 and women who have suffered miscarriage.

The abortion debate is starting.

The Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi is opening the debate. That is because her amendment is the lead amendment, NC1 or new clause 1. It will be put to a vote at 7pm.

Here is the text of her amendment.

To move the following Clause —

“Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”

And here is Antoniazzi’s description of what this will do.

This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation, removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval.

Judith Cummins, the deputy Speaker, says that if NC1 is passed, then the rival decriminalisation amendment, from Labour’s Stella Creasy, will not be put to a vote because the two amendments are not consistent.

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent, covering Keir Starmer at the G7 in Canada.

The UK will look into a more “transactional” approach to granting visas for countries which refuse to take back national who are refused asylum, Keir Starmer has said at the G7 summit in Canada.

Asked during a media Q&A about way to reduce the numbers of people arriving unofficially in small boats, the prime minister indicated that countries which refuse to cooperate with returns could then see their nationals find it harder to get UK visas.

This would also be the case, he said, for countries which did not cooperate on efforts to prevent their nationals heading towards Europe and potentially the UK to claim asylum.

Describing a G7 session on migration at the summit in Kananaskis, Alberta, on Monday, Starmer said:

I also, at the session yesterday, made clear that we are looking at issues like a smarter use of our visas, looking at whether we should tie our visas to the work that the countries we’re dealing with are doing on preventative measures and on return agreements.

The UK currently has returns deals with 11 nations including Albania, India, Pakistan, Vietnam, Iraq, Nigeria and Bangladesh. A process whereby people refused asylum can be swiftly sent back is seen as a notable disincentive, with the number of Albanian nationals seeking asylum in the UK having dropped sharply.

Starmer said:

We’re looking at what we can do on returns agreements. We’ve done a number of bilateral returns agreements. So the question is, again, whether it’s possible to go a bit beyond that. But we are including looking at this question of visas now, and whether we can’t be a bit smarter with the use of our visas in return in relation to countries that don’t have a returns agreement with us.

This would be, he added, “much more sort of transactional” in approach.

More widely, Starmer said, he had spoken at length at the summit with France’s President Emmanuel Macron, the Italian prime minister, Georgia Meloni, and Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, about asylum and small boats. He said:

It was a central part of my discussion, certainly with France, with Germany and with Italy in the bilaterals that we had.

I think we need to strengthen our existing tools, but then go further and see what else we can do. And that is a piece of work we’re looking at with the French in particular. So we’ll see where that gets to.

At the joint session on migration, Starmer said, he “put out a series of proposals on what we should be doing in terms of counter-terrorism, powers, sanctions and the way that we are able to work together on that and returns agreements”.

He added:

I obviously raised it specifically, and indeed in detail, with President Macron, and in terms of the specific actions that I want us to take together, as I did with Georgia Meloni, slightly more upstream with her, which is where she’s shown some success in reducing her own numbers, and with Friedrich Mertz as well, because some of the boats are transiting through Germany.

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent, covering Keir Starmer at the G7 in Canada.

Keir Starmer said he rushed to pick up papers dropped by Donald Trump at the G7 summit in Canada mainly to avoid anyone else stepping forward to do so and being tackled by the president’s security team.

Speaking to reporters in Kananaskis a day after Trump fumbled some of the documents about a UK-US trade deal, with a sheaf of papers tumbling to the ground, Starmer said he had little choice but to bend down and help out.

I mean, look, there weren’t many choices with the documents and picking it up, because one – as you probably know there were quite strict rules about who can get close to the president.

I mean, seriously, I think if any of you [the media] had stepped forward other than me, I was just deeply conscious that in a situation like it would not have been good for anybody else to have stepped forward – not that any of you rushed to.

There’s a very tightly guarded security zone around the president, as you would expect.

As well as dropping the papers, Trump wrongly announced that he had agreed a deal with the European Union, not the UK, and some of his answers were unclear and rambling.

Asked if he had any concerns about Trump’s health, Starmer rejected this:

No, he was in good form yesterday, and I mean we had – I don’t know how many sessions yesterday together as the G7 and then into the evening session as well.

As Starmer and Trump spoke to the media on Monday before their private talks, the US president was again effusive in his praise for the prime minister.

Asked why Trump liked him so much, Starmer replied:

I mean, that’s really for him to answer me, but I think it’s that we do have a good relationship. I think that is in the national interest.

Frankly, there has long been a close relationship between the US and the UK, as I’ve said many times, on defence and security and intelligence-sharing in particular. I’m very pleased that I’ve got a good relationship with him, notwithstanding, as both he and I acknowledge, that our political backgrounds are different.

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent, covering Keir Starmer at the G7 in Canada.

Keir Starmer has hit out at Kemi Badenoch and other Conservatives for politicising the issue of grooming gangs after having, as he put it, done almost nothing about the issue when in power.

Speaking to reporters at the G7 summit in Kananaskis, Starmer was critical in particular of Badenoch, the Conservative leader, and Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary. Referencing his claim that some politicians had jumped on a “far-right bandwagon” on the issue, Starmer said this involved “calling out politicians – nobody else – who in power had said and done nothing, who are now making the claims that they make”.

Asked if Badenoch was weaponising grooming gangs, Starmer called on people to “just compare and contrast” his record prosecuting gangs as director of public prosecutions, and his call for mandatory reporting of such offences, and the record of the Tory leader.

Kemi Badenoch, if I remember rightly, was the minister for children and for women, and I think the record will show that she didn’t raise the question of grooming once when she was in power, not once. Not one word from the dispatch box on any of this.

Chris Philp, I think, went to 300-plus meetings when he was in his position in the Home Office, and at not one of those meetings did he raise the question of grooming.

The question for Kemi Badenoch is, you were in power, you had all the tools at your disposal, I was calling even then from mandatory reporting, why didn’t you do it? Why didn’t you say one word about it?

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent, covering Keir Starmer at the G7 in Canada.

MPs are going to have a free vote on decriminalising abortion, which is viewed as a conscience issue at Westminster, not a party political matter.

But Keir Starmer has signalled that, if he were in London, he would be voting for reform. He told reporters:

It is a conscience issue, therefore it is a free vote. And therefore in that sense, it’s in the same category as assisted dying.

But my longstanding in principle position is that women have the right to a safe and legal abortion, and that’s been my longstanding position.

In the Commons MPs are now voting on an amendment to the crime and policing bill. They have just finished the first part of today’s report stage debate, and when the voting is finished they will start the second stage of the debate, dealing with amendments relating to abortion. This will run until 7pm when the vote, or votes, will take place.

Here is Hannah Al-Othman’s preview story.

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent, covering Keir Starmer at the G7 in Canada.

Keir Starmer has rejected the idea that Donald Trump might want to directly involve the US in helping Israel attack Iran, saying that his discussions with the US president at the G7 summit made him convinced Trump genuinely sought peace, pointing to Trump’s decision to also sign a leaders’ statement about the need for de-escalation.

Speaking to reporters at the summit in Kananaskis, Canada, Starmer said he was sitting next to Trump at Monday evening’s leaders’ G7 dinner at which the statement was drafted, “so I’ve no doubt, in my mind, the level of agreement there was in relation to the words that were then issued immediately after that”.

Asked if the US might help attack Iran, Starmer said:

I don’t think anything that the president said either here or elsewhere suggests that. The wording of the G7 statement is very clear about de-escalation and de-escalation across the region, and obviously including the situation in Gaza for a ceasefire.

So I think that the statement really speaks for itself in terms of the shared position of everybody who was here at the G7 and that was a statement that was agreed.

Asked about Trump’s comments about not wanting a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, Starmer said:

I think what he said was he wanted to go beyond a ceasefire, effectively, and end the conflict. And I think he’s right about that. I mean, a ceasefire is always a means to an end. The end we want to see is the de-escalation and back to negotiations – a deal to deal with the Iranian nuclear program, and, of course, the wider question of conflict across the Middle East, including Gaza.

More than 50 councils across the UK will receive a share of £1.2m to combat the scourge of chewing gum litter on the country’s high streets, the Department for Environment, Food And Rural Affairs has announced today.

Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.

An independent Scotland is “within reach”, its achievement “the defining choice for this generation”, John Swinney has told an audience of public, private and third sector representatives at a conference in Edinburgh this lunchtime.

The first minister told Scotland 2050, a one-day conference with the stated aim of envisaging Scotland’s long-term future:

Independence is the defining choice for this generation, have no doubt. Because the UK status quo has proved itself incapable of delivering on the hopes and ambitions of the people of Scotland.

That is why, like a clear majority of Scots, I believe that our nation should have the right to choose.

Such a Scotland is within reach, I have no doubt. But if we want it, we have to work for it, we have to vote for it, we have to actively, purposefully, and I hope also joyfully, make it happen.

It’s interesting to hear Swinney’s full-throated rhetoric in the context of ongoing criticism of the SNP’s “disastrous” strategy at the recent Hamilton byelection, which saw them lose the pivotal central Scotland Holyrood seat to Labour, and arguably talk up the threat of Reform.

Although rumblings about plots to oust him as leader have been dismissed as the usual suspects on manoeuvres by senior party figures, it remains the case that there is disquiet amongst MSPs and activists about the party’s plans for Holyrood election campaign – how can the party get its independence-supporting base to the ballot box, given the low profile Swinney has given it, even sacking his minister for independence? And how does the SNP sell independence to more doubtful voters, with a cost of living crisis still biting and no clear route to a second referendum?

Most curious of all, polling just ahead of the Hamilton byelection suggested that the threat of a Reform success was actually pushing more voters to support independence. Asked how they would vote in a hypothetical referendum if Nigel Farage was prime minister, the Yes side’s lead doubled to 16 points, with 58% of Scottish voters saying they would back independence.

Downing Street has said that the situation in the Channel is “deteriorating”.

A No 10 spokesperson used the word in a readout of Keir Starmer’s meeeting with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, at the G7 summit in Canada yesterday. It seemed to be a reference to small boat crossings, which are at a record high for this time of the year.

The spokesperson said:

[Starmer and Macron] looked ahead to the upcoming UK-France Summit in July and agreed that their teams should pursue high-ambition outcomes that deliver for the British and French people.

Migration should be a key focus given the deteriorating situation in the Channel, they confirmed - adding that they should continue to work closely with other partners to find innovative ways to drive forward progress.

They also agreed that the summit presents an opportune moment to further enhance our existing defence and security co-operation.

In a report on attempted crossings today, PA Media says:

French police teargassed migrants desperately trying to reach the UK as No 10 admitted the situation at the English Channel was getting worse.

Hundreds gathered on the dunes before making dashes towards the Channel at Gravelines beach near Calais, all intent on boarding a single dinghy on Tuesday morning.

The French authorities stood by and watched as those not deterred by the gas waded into the water intent on boarding a single dinghy to risk the Channel crossing.

The scenes at Gravelines unfolded just hours after a meeting between Keir Starmer and Emmanuel Macron in Canada to address a situation No 10 acknowledged was “deteriorating”.

Some 16,545 people have crossed in small boats so far in 2025 according to Home Office figures, a 45% increase on the same period in 2024.

At Gravelines on Tuesday, migrants of all ages who made it to the sea had to wait in waist-deep water for almost an hour before any of them were able to board the small boat.

Rachel Reeves is considering caving in to City lobbying and softening changes to inheritance tax that affect wealthy individuals who would previously have been “non-doms”, reports suggest. Heather Stewart has the story here.

Keir Starmer has said that the US-UK-Australia Aukus submarine pact is going ahead.

Speaking alongside Donald Trump at the G7 summit yesterday, Starmer said “we’re proceeding with” Aukus, Politico reports.

There has been some doubt about the future of the deal, which will secure thousands of jobs in the UK helping to construct nuclear-powered attack submarines for Australia, because last week Washington said it was reviewing it.

Starmer said Aukus was “a really important deal to both of us” and he suggested a review was just routine for a new administration.

Keir Starmer has been urged by two Labour MPs to “jump” at the chance to push for reform of the European convention on human rights (ECHR).

In a joint article for the Times Jake Richards (Rother Valley) and Dan Tomlinson (Chipping Barnet) say that it is increasingly clear that international human rights law will be changed, and that what is unresolved is whether it will be done by progressives or rightwing populists.

Pointing out that they represent “red wall” and “blue wall” seats respectively, they say a recent ITV News report, showing foreign suspects wanted for murder and child rape are being protected from extradition by human rights law, highlights the need for change.

They acknowledge that the government has already said it wants to produce new guidelines affecting the way article 8 of the convention (the right to a family life) is interpreted by judges in asylum cases. There are concerns that the courts are treating mitigating factors as “exceptional” far too often.

But the two MPs suggest they want the government to go further. They say:

A recent letter drafted by nine European allies called for an “open-minded conversation about the interpretation of the ECHR”. It was welcomed by the Council of Europe [the body overseeing the convention], who said the convention needed “adaptation” and that there would be “no taboo” in discussions.

The government should jump at this opportunity. From bogus asylum claims to the deportation of dangerous criminals, the unwieldy reach of the modern operation of the ECHR can hamper effective government. The prime minister is right to call for an “insurgent” approach to governing, to cut through constraints to deliver on political priorities.

Keir Starmer has announced a new wave of UK sanctions against Russia.

In a news release, Downing Street said:

The 30 targets strike across Russia’s financial, military and energy sectors in response to Putin’s continued aggression. His repeated refusals to engage seriously in peace has redoubled the UK’s resolve to apply a stranglehold on the Russian economy.

The new sanctions crack down further on Putin’s shadow fleet, targeting 20 of his oil tankers. The UK is also tightening the net around those who enable Putin’s illicit oil trade, sanctioning Orion Star Group LLC and Valegro LLC-FZ, for their role in crewing and managing shadow fleet vessels.

Today’s action also targets Russia’s military capabilities, hitting the military agency leading the development of Russia’s underwater intelligence gathering operations (GUGI), protecting the UK from attacks on subsea infrastructure, restricting Putin’s war machine and increasing our security at home.

In addition, two UK residents Vladimir Pristoupa and Olech Tkacz operating a shadowy network of shell companies, have now been sanctioned for collectively funnelling over $120 million of electronics, many of which are on the Common High Priority goods list, to Russia.

Commenting on the sanctions, Starmer said:

We know that our sanctions are hitting hard, so while Putin shows total disregard for peace, we will not hesitate to keep tightening the screws.

A long-awaited Stormont plan to target poverty has been criticised as “underwhelming”, PA Media reports. PA says:

Communities minister Gordon Lyons (DUP) launched an extended 14-week public consultation on the executive’s anti-poverty strategy 2025-35 today.

He described it as being based on three pillars of minimising risks of falling into poverty, minimising the impact of poverty on people’s lives and working to help people get out of poverty.

Figures indicated that around 18% of those in Northern Ireland live in relative poverty, and 15% live in absolute poverty, with 25% of children living in relative poverty and 21% of children living in absolute poverty.

The strategic commitments from across departments include continuing the extended schools programme, working with partners to scope out an NI debt relief scheme, a commitment to develop an executive disability strategy and a fuel poverty strategy.

Speaking in the Assembly, Lyons described a “legacy of delay” in taking forward an anti-poverty strategy.

“When I took office, I made it clear that one of my priorities would be tackling poverty,” he told MLAs.

“After a legacy of delay in taking this work forward, I wanted to work at pace to develop a strategy which could help make a meaningful difference to those experiencing socio-economic disadvantage in our society.

But Mark H Durkan (SDLP) from the official Opposition at Stormont described the document as “underwhelming”.

He contended it didn’t just “call into question the executive’s ability to tackle poverty”, but also their appetite and ambition to do so.

Helena Horton is a Guardian environment reporter.

The government will not be recommended to turn water companies into not-for-profit companies under its “root and branch review” of the sector, review author Sir John Cunliffe has said.

At the launch of the Cunliffe review, the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs said that all options - except nationalisation - were on the table, and that a non-profit model such as that used in Wales was being considered.

But Cunliffe has now said the ownership structure is not the problem causing sewage spills, financial mismanagement and water shortages caused by a lack of investment.

He told the Commons environment committee this morning that the review will not be recommending one ownership structure for the industry. He said:

If the question is whether we will recommend a wholesale transfer to another [ownership] model, what we won’t do is say we will move the whole sector to a different model. I’m not sure how you get there without spending a very large amount of public money to buy the assets and that’s outside my terms of reference.

Feargal Sharkey, former Undertones frontman turned water campaigner, said:

I had absolutely no expectations for this commission whatsoever and so far I am yet to disappointed.

I fail to comprehend how the interpretation of a root and branch review of the water industry is to completely exclude the issue at the heart of the industry which is ownership of the industry and the financial abuse of the water companies.
Sir John is refusing to look at this because the government has told him not to.

At the committee, when asked by MPs if his report was going to be “tinkering” if it was not recommending an overhaul of how water companies are owned, Cunliffe said:

It’s not tinkering, it’s trying to be evidence based. I don’t think looking at the models, the evidence we have, it’s not a big data set but I don’t think the conclusive evidence is there to make a big change like that.

He added that the terms of reference set by environment secretary Steve Reed rule out using public money to nationalise water companies.

Cunliffe said that in the review he will “think about the investors, how they want to take their money out, are they prepared to put more equity in as investment goes up, are they looking for capital gain, are they looking for a stream of dividends over time?” and what the rules were around those issues. “It looks maybe weak but I don’t think it is,” he said.

He also said the review would not make any recommendations about bonuses and pay for water company CEOs.

I don’t have a problem with there being bonuses for the financial performance provided they are not at the expense of the public good. We are not going to make recommendations on particular renumeration packages for chief executives.

There is a tension here between people taking pay packages they don’t deserve and recruiting and retaining. These are pretty big companies, the penalties for failure are pretty enormous. What we won’t get into is whether this [pay] is excessive.

Councils should “think carefully” about the need to cooperate with the national inquiry into grooming gangs, Louise Casey told the home affairs committee.

She says councils should not take the view that, just because they might have carried out serious case reviews into abuse allegations, that meant there was no need for a further investigation.

But she also said she did not want to see people scapegoated.

Asked if there should be a specific focus on Bradford, she said:

I would urge them – Bradford, anywhere – to think carefully about not being open to scrutiny and to change, and I would urge them to think carefully.

And I realise it’s nerve wracking, because in the midst of all of this are some human beings that are leaders, and I don’t mean political leaders necessarily, but social workers, team leaders, police officers. We all know that when it gets nasty, they are named and very nasty people can do very nasty things to them, but you all know that, you’re MPs.

So we have got to be careful about not scapegoating people and creating a hate-monger thing. At the same time that we have to make sure that we get the inquiries right and that people are held to account locally.

So I would say to anybody who can see themselves in this report, be open to it.

Q: Do you regret the tone you took in the Commons yesterday?

Badenoch says:

I do think that we should take the politics out of it.

But she goes to attack Labour – claiming they were the first to politicise this issue.

But who was it that said when we raised this issue that we were pandering to the far right? That’s what brought the politics into it. Who was it that said that this was dog whistle politics? It was Keir Starmer and his ministers.

She says it is her job to hold the government to account.

She says, speaking here on a platform with survivors, she is not being political.

But in the Commons she will raise politics, she says. “We are politicians – politics is what we do.” She goes on:

When I’m in the Houses of Parliament, when I’m in the Commons, I will do politics. And I think that it is wrong for people to tone police those who are pointing out when something has gone wrong.

That is what happened to Sajid Javid when he was talking about ethnicity. That is what happened to Suella Braverman.

That is what happened to many people who were bringing up these cases. I remember hearing one survivor say that they reported that an Asian man had taken their son and the police were more interested in the language she used and said that she couldn’t describe him as that, that that was racist.

That’s what really worries me.

Q: Will you offer an apology to survivors for the failures of the past government?

Badenoch says she has apologised to survivors.

But apologies are easy, she says.

She says:

I have apologised, but what I find extraordinary is that more people are interested in prosecuting a government that did some things … rather than looking at what needs to happen right now ….

No one here has asked me for more apologies. They have heard the apologies. Apologies are easy. What we need to see is action.

We can sit here and say sorry all day long, but what I actually want to see is an inquiry that gets at the bottom of this.

Yesterday Badenoch was demanding an apology from Keir Starmer.

Badenoch is now taking questions.

She starts with Charlie Peters, the reporter who has led the GB News coverage of this issue.

Q: Will you ensure Westminster, including the CPS, are investigated by the inquiry over cover-up allegations?

Badenoch says the inquiry should follow the evidence. No one should be out of scope, she says.

She says most of what was in Louise Casey’s report “I felt I had seen before, and I knew”.

She says a national inquiry could have been ordered sooner.

Kemi Badenoch is holding her press conference now.

There is a live feed here.

She says she thinks the views of survivors have not been heard enough. That is what she will focus on today.

She says the Tories welcome the decision to hold a national inquiry.

She says she decided a national inquiry was needed when the scale of the problem became apparent.

Jake Richards (Lab) ask Casey why she changed her mind on a national inquiry.

Casey says, early on, she was doubtful about the need for another inquiry. The Alexis Jay one was very thorough. And, as someone who has written reports that have not been implemented, she knows the importance of focusing on implementing recommendations.

But she says, without a national inquiry, she realised they would not deal with the issue of accountability.

She says she is in favour of catching criminals. Her view initially was, if money was available, it should go to the police, to help them catch criminals.

But then the government said it would set up five local inquiries. But Oldham was the only council that wanted to do one, he says. The others were not volunteering.

And then she looked at the assurance reviews carried out for Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester. These showed that authorities were withholding information, and lawyering up. These reviews were taking years, and not getting to the truth.

Casey says in the past government has talked relentlessly about the need for better data sharing between departments.

But she says there is a need to consider making this mandatory.

She says, until she came back to this issue to conduct her audit, she did not realise the “paucity of technology” available to support the police. She goes on:

I was there when the tragedy of Soham happened. We knew at that point that if we had had better data sharing there’s a possibility that we might have saved those girls’ lives. There’s certaintly an absolute clarity that intelligence would have been much faster in either avoiding it or or actually finding that dreadful human being earlier.

And we’ve known that forever onwards. And so I think there is also an issue that the Home Office can’t drag their feet on, looking at police intelligence systems, given we’ve living in the 21st century. Probably everbody in this room can connect within seconds. Yet we had Befordshire police finding a young boy that was being, in my mind trafficked to London. But the data intelligence system did not make it easy for them to find that he was in Deptford and being circled and dealt with by predators.

Casey says this may not be a big issue for the public, but it is “a very big issue for the system”.

Referring to the national inquiry, Casey says she wants this to be different from the types of inquiry that have happened before.

On data, she says national data on grooming gangs is “incomplete and unreliable”. That is to put it mildly, she says.

She says this is a form of irrresponsibility.

She says:

I feel very strongly on issues that are as searing as people’s race, when we know the prejudice and racism that people of colour experience in this country, to not get how you treat that data right is a different level of public irresponsibility.

Sorry, to put it so bluntly, I didn’t put it that bluntly yesterday, but I think it’s particularly important if you are collecting those sorts of issues to get them 100% right.

And if you are not getting them 100% right, please don’t use them to justify another position, which is potentially what happened.

That may be well meaning, it may not be well meaning, but that’s how the data has run. And I think the sooner we bring a close to that – my view is collect something or don’t collect something. For God’s sake, don’t half collect it. That’s a bloody disaster, frankly.

She says, even where data has been collected on ethnicity, it has only talked about people being of Asian or Pakistani heritage. She says that bundles people together in one big grouping. It is not helpful, she says.

UPDATE: Casey also said:

When we asked the good people of Greater Manchester Police to help us look at the data we also collected – I think it’s in the report – what was happening with child abuse more generally, and of course … if you look at the data on child sexual exploitation, suspects and offenders, it’s disproportionately Asian heritage. If you look at the data for child abuse, it is not disproportionate, and it is white men.

So again, just note to everybody, really outside here rather than in here. Let’s just keep calm here about how you interrogate data and what you draw from it.

Louise Casey has just started giving evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about her grooming gangs report.

She starts by saying she was surprised to be asked to re-engage in this issue, given that she published a report into abuse in Rotherham 10 years ago.

But it was right to reopen the issue, she says.

She says she even asked herself if she had done enough given what she found in Rotherham.

There is a live feed at the top of the blog.

The Conservatives are calling for the new national grooming gangs inquiry to be extended to cover Scotland. At present, it is only due to cover England and Wales.

Andrew Bowie, the shadow Scottish secretary, has proposed this in a letter to Yvette Cooper, the home secretary. He said:

Now that the Labour government has finally bowed to the huge public demand for a national inquiry into the grooming gangs scandal it is essential that it is truly national in scope.

That means extending the remit to include Scotland, where there have been well-documented cases of gangs responsible for the rape and sexual abuse of young women.

The home secretary must work with the Scottish Government to agree the scope of the inquiry because it’s imperative that the voices of Scottish victims of these vile gangs are heard and appropriate lessons learned for the future.

Steel trade unions have said it is “absolutely vital” that the UK rapidly secures a deal to protect the sector from Donald Trump’s tariffs, after the industry was excluded from an initial UK-US pact signed last night, Julia Kollewe and Jasper Jolly report.

Keir Starmer and Donald Trump signed off a UK-US trade deal at the G7 summit in Canada, with the US president saying Britain would have protection against future tariffs “because I like them”, Peter Walker reports.

Under the deal, the UK aerospace sector avoids all US tariffs, and the car industry faces tariffs of 10%, down from 25%.

But the steel industy still faces tariffs of 25%.

Speaking about the deal on BBC Breakfast this morning, Heidi Alexander, the transport secrtary, said:

We’re working through some technical detail around steel because we want to bring that 25% tariff that applies at the moment obviously down further.

But I think the fact that we’re in this unique position, we’re the only country in the world to have already got a trade agreement with the US.

We are working on getting that implemented. We’ve made some progress on car manufacturing, which is going to be really important for companies such as Jaguar Land Rover based in Solihull.

Also on aerospace, as you will have heard, really important for companies like Rolls-Royce, and we’re determined to go further and we’ll be working on those issues around steel in the coming days, weeks and months.

Good morning. After the Home Office yesterday published Louise Casey’s audit of the grooming gang scandal, none of the political parties at Westminster seriously challenged any of her conclusions, or recommendations. But, of course, that does not mean there was consensus. As reported here yesterday, an almighty blame game commenced (or resumed, to be more accurate).

In an interview on Newsnight last night, Casey said she was “disappointed” by the way her report was being politicised and criticised the Conservatives in particular.

Asked what she felt about the “politicisation” of her report, Casey replied:

I’m disappointed by it, to put it mildly.

I really hoped – and hope still – that the report is so clear, it’s so straightforward. We need to change some laws. We need to do a national criminal investigation. We need to get on with the national inquiry with local footprint in it. And ideally, wouldn’t it be great if everybody came behind that and just backed it and got on with it?

Asked what she felt about the proceedings in the Commons yesterday, Casey said:

I just felt, dare I say it, I felt the opposition could have just been a bit, ‘Yes, we will all come together behind you.’ Maybe there’s still time to do that. I think it’s just so important that they do.

It almost doesn’t matter right now, does it, what political party people are part of. We’ve identified there’s a problem, it’s been a problem there a long time, and it’s about time we drew a line in the sand.

There does not seem much chance that Kemi Badenoch will take any notice. She has scheduled a press conference today and, judging by her X feed last night, she intends to celebrate what she perceives as a victory for her campaigning. The 10 most recent posts on her feed are either tweets or retweets about the grooming gang scandal. This is the one she has pinned.

This national inquiry is a hard-won victory for the brave survivors who refused to be silenced — who gave up their anonymity to expose the institutions that failed them.

Labour fought it every step of the way. They voted against it. Mocked campaigners. Smeared them. Branded it a “far-right bandwagon” and a “dog whistle.”

Now they’re pretending they supported it all along? Disgraceful. Their hand was forced.

Our job now is to make sure this inquiry delivers justice for every survivor. No more delays.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Angela Rayner, deputy prime minister, chairs cabinet. Keir Starmer is still in Canada at the G7 summit.

10.30am: Louise Casey, the crossbench peer and former civil servant, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about her grooming gangs report published yesterday.

11am: Kemi Badenoch holds a press conference.

Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

1pm: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, gives a speech on independence at the Scotland 2050 conference in Edinburgh. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is speaking at 2.10pm.

Early afternoon (UK time): Starmer takes questions from British print journalists and broadcasters at the G7 summit.

Late afternoon: MPs debate amendments to the crime and policing bill relating to abortion. They will vote at 7pm.

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.