At the afternoon Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson refused to say if the person responsible for the Afghan data breach had been disciplined or sacked.

Asked if the person was still working for the government, the spokesperson said:

We wouldn’t, obviously, as you’d expect, comment on individuals.

Since the defence secretary came in, the government’s put a huge emphasis on fixing issues in the MoD in relation to data security, and indeed across government.

The spokersperson said he could not comment on “individual disciplinary issues”.

The spokesperson also said the government was glad this was now out in the open.

The government of course welcomes, and as a matter of principle thinks it is right, as you can see in this case, for the public and Parliament to be able to scrutinise all of government’s plans.

But, asked whether he was ruling out superinjunctions being used by the government in future, he said: “I don’t think it’s something I can comment on.”

The Tory opposition day motion saying that the two-child benefit cap should stay, because “those who receive benefits should make the same decisions about having children as those who do not”, has been voted down by 440 votes to 106. But Alison McGovern, the welfare minister who was speaking for the government, said Labour would not get rid of the cap until it could say how it would pay for that measure. She said:

Our universal credit review is considering ways that the system can improve in order to stabilise family finances and provide routes into good work.

And on the two-child limit, specifically, the consequences of the Conservative choices made over the past decade and a half are clear for all to see.

We have rightly said many times we will not commit to any policy without knowing how we are going to pay for it.

Donald Trump is going to meet Keir Starmer later this month in Aberdeen, the president has said.

It was confirmed yesterday that the two men will meet when Trump makes a private visit to Scotland, where he owns two golf courses, later this month. Trump has now said the meeting will ill be “up in Aberdeen, which is the oil capital of Europe”, PA News reports.

Trump added:

They should bring it back too. They have so much oil there. They should get rid of the windmills and bring back the oil. Cause the windmills are really detrimental to the beauty of Scotland and every other place they go up.

Trump has a particular aversion to windfarms.

More than 20 union leaders have expressed their deep concern over the apparent erosion of the right to peaceful protest, piling pressure on the Metropolitan police over its handling of pro-Palestinian marches at the start of the year, Aletha Adu reports.

A growing number of climate groups are campaigning for the introduction of a wealth tax to ensure the transition to a sustainable economy is not done “on the backs of the poor”, Matthew Taylor reports.

In his Substack account of being subject to the superinjunction that prevented reportig of the Afghan data leak, Lewis Goodall says he found himself sitting in court wondering what other information was being held back from the public

The government has spent a huge amount of money on this case. Defending its right to secrecy over our right to know, cloaked under Afghans right to life, but not to know. I worry about where this leaves our democracy, I worry about what precedent it sets, I worry about how easy it is in our system, for the executive to act without restraint. For all of its problems, this could never have happened in the United States, with its first amendment rights, and constitutionally bound freedom of expression. So many times I sat in court 27 and wondered- what else don’t we know? Might there be other courts like this, in other cases? In my view, there never ever should. This case, is about a question as old as politics itself- who guards the guardians?

In the Commons earlier Mark Pritchard (Con) asked John Healey:

How do we know there’s not another superinjunction about another leak? But of course he couldn’t tell us, could he?

In response, Healey, the defence secretary, said: “If there is another superinjunction, I’ve not been read in.”

In the Commons Lincoln Jopp, a Conservative who led the Scots Guards in 2010 in Afghanistan, asked John Healey about the Times report (see 2.18pm), saying that Larisa Brown had identified a solidier as being to blame. In his opening statement, John Healey just said it was the person was a defence official. Jopp asked Healey if he could be more explicit, and say whether it was a civil servant, or a special adviser, or a solider. He said using the term “defence official” was a practice that “might come back to bite'” Healey if he continued with it.

Healey did not address that question, but he told Jopp: “The challenge I faced, the challenge this government faced was far bigger than the actions of one official that long ago.”

In the Commons Edward Leigh (Con), who as the longest-serving MP is father of the house, commended Healey for what he said. He went on:

What an appalling mess, but part of the original sin of us intervening militarily and then scuttling out. Can I take it, on a wider point, that we’ve learned our lesson now and we’ve got over the liberal imperialist itch of the Blair era and Cameron era to intervene militarily in ungovernable countries Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya. Let’s now just move on.

Helen Maguire, the Lib Dem defence spokesperson, asked Healey about reports that it was estimated that the government might have to spend £7bn relocating Afghans affected by the leak.

Healey said the decision announced today, to close the ARR scheme, would save the MoD money.

He said the total cost of relocating people to the UK from Afghanistan, under all schemes, would be between £5.5bn and £6bn.

He said the cost of relocating people to the UK under the ARR scheme (ie, the people relocated as a direct result of the leak) was £400m. But he said that a similar amount would be spend relocating people who are due to come to the UK under that scheme, but who have not yet arrived.

That would take the total relocation costs arising from the leak to about £800m.

UPDATE: Healey said:

The estimated full costs of all Afghan schemes, that will run to their completion, from start to finish, because of the savings derived from the policy decisions we have taken today will be between £5.5bn and £6bn.

The cost of the ARR [Afghanistan Response Route] scheme to date, the cost and the sums committed to bring the 900 principals and their immediate families that are in Britain or in transit is around £400m, and I expect a similar sum to be the cost of those still to come.

In the Commons James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, responded to Healey. Cartlidge was a defence minister in the previous government and he joined Healey in offering an apology to Afghans named in the leak. He said:

The secretary of state has issued an apology on behalf of the government and I join him in that and in recognising that this data leak should never have happened and was an unacceptable breach of all relevant data protocols.

And I agree it is right that an apology is issued specifically to those whose data was compromised.

Cartlidge defended the previous government’s decision to respond to the leak by setting up a secret relocation scheme.

It is nevertheless a fact that cannot be ignored that, when this breach came to light, the immediate priority of the then-government was to avoid a very specific and terrible scenario, namely, an error by an official of the British state leading to torture or even murder of persons in the dataset at the hands of what remains a brutal Taliban regime.

As the Rimmer Review confirms that scenario, thankfully, appears to have been avoided.

Cartlidge also said the Tories backed closing the ARR scheme now.

Any threat picture is constantly evolving and, as I say, I support the secretary of state’s decision to review the MoD’s understanding of the threat.

And, given the latest situation as reported by Rimmer, we support his conclusion that the Afghanistan Response Route, the ARR, can now be closed.

In his written ruling today Mr Justice Chamberlain suggested he was suprised that the superinjunction held foras long as it did. He said:

Those involved in this long-running and unprecedented case have known throughout that there would come a time when the superinjunction could no longer be maintained.

I decided that this point had been reached over a year ago. The Court of Appeal disagreed.

For the last year, my assumption has been that the injunction might fall to be discharged when the information protected by it leaked into the public domain through the media in the UK or abroad.

The parties have updated the court on a continual basis about the extent to which knowledge of the underlying matters has spread.

It is one of the many remarkable features of the litigation, and very much to the credit of the media organisations and individual journalists involved, that there has been no mention in the media of the underlying matters while the superinjunction remained in force.

Here are the key conclusions from the Paul Rimmer review about the ongoing risks posed by the original data leak, and the

-Appalling human rights abuses occur – including extra-judicial killings – against former officials. But there is also limited evidence to suggest that [certain individuals] have been targeted with any degree of consistency.

-Given the nearly four years since the Taleban takeover, posing a current threat or resistance to Taleban rule is likely to be a far more persuasive factor in the threat faced by individuals in Afghanistan, rather than former affiliations. As such, it appears unlikely that merely being on the dataset would be grounds for targeting. It is therefore also unlikely that family members – immediate or more distant – will be targeted simply because the “Principal” appears in the dataset.

-Should the Taleban wish to target individuals the wealth of data inherited from the former government would already enable them to do so. Additional data is always of interest to develop leads for investigative or targeting purposes. Publicity about the dataset’s loss would inevitably raise interest in acquiring it. But it is highly unlikely it would be the single, or definitive, piece of information enabling or prompting the Taleban to act. It is a “piece of a puzzle” rather than a “smoking gun”.

-No evidence points clearly to Taleban possession of the dataset. It is plausible the dataset (its actual content, rather than knowledge that a dataset exists) has not spread as widely or as rapidly as was initially feared.

-Given this context, the current ARR policy appears an extremely significant intervention, with not inconsiderable risk to HMG and the UK, to address the potentially limited net additional risk the incident likely presents. Based on the conclusions of this policy review, and the level of risk inherent within the current ARR policy, HMG could consider amending the approach to reflect the value the dataset offers. The Taleban already have access to significant volumes of data which enables them to identify personnel associated with the former government. The family and community based nature of Afghan society means former roles and associations are often already well known. The dataset is unlikely to significantly shift Taleban understanding of individuals who may be of interest to them. As a result, it is unlikely to profoundly change the existing risk profile of individuals named on the dataset.

And this is what John Healey said in his original statement about what the government is doing now to alert the almost 19,000 Afghans named in the original leak. He said:

My first concern has been to notify as many as possible affected by the data incident and provide them with further advice.

The MoD [Ministry of Defence] has done this this morning, although I have to say to the house, it has not been possible to contact every individual on the dataset, due to its incomplete and out-of-date information.

However, anyone who may be concerned can head to our new dedicated gov.uk website, wherein they will find more information about the data loss, further security advice, a self-checker tool which will inform them whether their application has been affected, and contact steps for the detailed information services centre, which the MoD has established.

This serious data incident should never have happened.

It may have occurred three years ago under the previous government, but to all those whose information was compromised, I offer a sincere apology today on behalf of the British government, and I trust the shadow defence secretary, as a former defence minister, will join me.

Healey says the leak happened when an official sent an email which he thought had the names of 150 people who were applying for resettlement under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap).

But in fact the email contained the names of almost 19,000 Afghans who had applied for either the Arap scheme or the ex-gratia scheme, another programme open to Afghans who worked for the British in Afghanistan before the military drawdown.

Journalists became aware of the leak, and a court granted a superinjunction preventing reporting of this.

He says eight organisations and journalists have been told not to report what happened under this superinjunction, which has been in place for nearly two years.

He says a scheme was set up to relocate Afghans particularly at risk. It was called the Afghan Response Route (ARR).

He says about 3,000 people were covered by the ARR.

They were subject to strict security checks before admitted to the UK, and they were included in the figures released publicly for the total number of Afghans admitted to the UK.

Healey says, as shadow defence secretary, he was briefed on this. He says he was presented with the superinjunction at the start of that meeting. He says other cabinet ministers only found out about this scheme after the election.

Coming into office, he was “deeply concerned about the lack of transparency to Parliament and to the public”, he says.

Healey say he set up a review of that scheme. It was carried out by Paul Rimmer. The review concluded there was a limted risk of retaliation by the Taliban to Afghans who were named on the original leak. He says the Taliban would have already have had access to information that might have allowed them to identify these people. He says the review concluded the current ARR policy was an “extremely significant intervention to address the potentially limited net additional risk”.

He says he is closing the scheme today. And the superinjunction has been lifted.

He says about 900 have come to the UK or are in transit under the ARR scheme, with 3,600 family members. It has cost £400m, he says.

He says the MoD has tried to contact everyone affected to the data leak to alert them. It has not been possible to contact everyone, he says. But there is a website where anyone who thinks they might have been on the list can seek information.

And Healey offers an apology to those affected.

John Healey starts by saying he is making a statement on a data breach from February 2022 that led to the last government setting up a secret Afghan resettlement route.

It was covered by a superinjunction. But from noon today that court restriction has been lifted.

Healey says he is closing that resettlement route.

He says it has been “deeply uncomfortable” being unable to tell MPs about this.

John Healey, the defence secretary, is about to make a Commons statement about an astonishing story that just became public about half an hour ago.

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian correspondent.

Reform UK might have to choose between presenting itself as a new and radical political party or as a home for “disgruntled former Conservatives” who lost their seats at the election, James Cleverly has said.

Cleverly, the former home and foreign secretary, who stood to replace Rishi Sunak as Tory leader, also argued that Nigel Farage’s party could suffer if the councils it now runs struggle to properly manage key everyday services like bin collections and social care.

Speaking at an event in Westminster, Cleverly also discounted the idea that he hoped to replace Kemi Badenoch, saying his party had to “get out of this habit of cycling through leaders in the hope that ditching this one and picking a new one will make life easy for us”.

Answering questions following a speech about how mainstream rightwing parties can take on the threat from populism, Cleverly noted the way that Reform had absorbed a series of former Tory MPs, most recently Jake Berry, the former party chair, who whose defection was announced last week. He said:

If their sales pitch is, ‘We’re not like the old political parties’, but they are mainly populated with people from my political party, it’s going to be really hard for them to reconcile that sales pitch.

So what are they? Are they new? Are they different? Are they exciting? Or are they a repository for disgruntled former Conservatives? It’s hard to maintain both angles.

Asked if the defections were damaging for the Tories, Cleverly said it was “unsurprising that some people who are politically ambitious and remain politically ambitious look at the polling numbers and think their best future is to align themselves to the party that’s riding high in the polls”.

He added:

I don’t think it’s smart. I don’t think it’s right. I think people lose credibility, particularly people who were Conservative candidates very, very recently who then basically say, ‘Oh, you know the thing that made me realise I wasn’t really a Tory was being booted out of office by the electorate’.

Since the local elections in May, 10 English councils are now run by often very inexperienced Reform groups. While Cleverly said it was possible they would manage the process well, he argued that failure would be noticed by voters.

Local government is the bit of government people feel most instantly. This is the bit of government that runs adult social care, their roads, their schools, their waste collection. When governments get stuff like that wrong, people notice and people respond.

Thousands of people are being relocated to the UK as part of a secret £850m scheme set up after a personal data leak of Afghans who supported British forces, it can now be reported. PA Media says:

A dataset containing the personal information of nearly 19,000 people who applied for the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (Arap) was released “in error” in February 2022 by a defence official.

The breach resulted in the creation of a secret Afghan relocation scheme – the Afghanistan Response Route – in April 2024.

The scheme is understood to have cost around £400 million so far, with a projected cost once completed of around £850 million.

Millions more is expected to be paid in legal costs and compensation.

The Ministry of Defence (MoD) only became aware of the breach over a year after the release, when excerpts of the dataset were anonymously posted onto a Facebook group in August 2023.

John Healey, the defence secretary, is making a statement to MPs listed as an “Afghanistan update” at 12.30pm.

Data showing the immigration status of people claiming universal credit has been published for the first time, PA Media reports. PA says:

Around four in five (83.6%) of those on the benefit as of last month were British and Irish nationals and those who live or work in the UK without any immigration restrictions.

This amounted to 6.6 million of the total 7.9 million people on universal credit (UC) in June.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) said it had published the statistics “following a public commitment to investigate and develop breakdowns of the UC caseload by the immigration status of foreign nationals in receipt of UC”.

UC is a payment to help with living costs and is available for people on low incomes or those who are out of work or cannot work.

The next largest group on UC were people with EU Settlement Scheme settled status who have a right to reside in the UK, accounting for 9.7% (770,379), while 2.7% (211,090) of the total had indefinite leave to remain in the UK.

Refugees accounted for 1.5% (118,749) of people on UC, while 0.7% (54,156) were people who had come by safe and legal humanitarian routes including under the Ukraine and Afghan resettlement schemes.

A total of 75,267 people – making up 1% of the total on UC – had limited leave to remain in the UK, covering those with temporary immigration status.

The rest – some 65,346 people – were either no longer receiving UC payments or had no immigration status recorded on digital systems, the DWP said.

The total number of people on UC has risen from 6.8 million in June 2024 to 7.9 million a year later.

And here is a chart from the main DWP report. The full DWP figures are here.

Helen Miller is taking over as director of the Insitute for Fiscal Studies thinktank this week, taking over from Paul Johnson, who established himself as the nation’s leading budget commentator.

Budget commentary tends to focus on the Treasury’s fiscal rules, on how much “headroom” is available to Rachel Reeves (spare cash in the budget – based on spending plans and anticipated tax revenue, based on the OBR’s growth assumptions), and whether tax or spending plans need to change because the OBR’s forecasts have shifted.

Miller says we’re all missing the big point (the long-term problems facing the public finances, as set out by the OBR last week) and that the debate should focus on bigger issues. In a speech she is giving this morning, she is saying:

Labour came to office with the promise of a ‘mission-driven’ government – a commitment to long-term thinking and systemic reform. The ambition that we should be ‘raising our sights as a nation’ and finding ways to tackle the big challenges we face is the right one.

Despite this, we continue to limp from fiscal event to fiscal event, obsessed with whether run of the mill revisions to the economic and fiscal outlook have reduced the fiscal headroom and whether tax or spend takeaways will follow. We need to break out of this cycle.

I think it’s safe to assume that the chancellor will stick to her fiscal rules. But that alone doesn’t automatically equate to sustainable public finances. As the Office for Budget Responsibility reminded us all last week, there is a long list of adverse fiscal risks – put more bluntly, there are lots of reasons that demands for government spending could run far ahead of tax revenues …

Politicians need to level with voters about the scale of the challenges and to make the case for bold reforms …

The rest of us should ask better questions of government. In the run up to this autumn’s budget, the key questions should not be simply how much taxes might need to rise and which ones the chancellor might turn to. It should be how the government can reform taxes so that they achieve their objectives while doing less damage to growth.

Buyers of new electric cars priced at less than £37,000 will be able to get a discount of up to 10% under a new UK government scheme, Mark Sweney reports.

The Department for Transport has published details of the announcement in a news release here.

Britain’s blue-chip stock index has risen through the 9,000-point mark to touch a new record high, Graeme Wearden reports. Analysts said the London stock market had benefited from a range of factors this year, including a move by some investors to diversify away from US shares due to concerns over Donald Trump’s economic policies.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is announcing plans to cut red tape for the City, which she claims will have trickle-down benefits for households across Britain. Here is our overnight story on this from Kalyeena Makortoff and Heather Stewart.

And Graeme Wearden has the latest on the announcement, which is being made now, on his business live blog.

Donald Trump praised King Charles in his BBC interview. (See 8.36am.) Quite what the king thinks of Trump, we will probably never know for sure. But he do know that he does not seem to approve of Trump’s repeated suggestions that the US should annex Canada (where Charles is head of state). His decision to fly to Canada in May, where he became the first monarch to give a speech opening parliament since 1957, was seen seen as a show of support for Canadians in their dispute with Trump – and about as blatant a political intervention as the modern monarchy will countenance, given its determination to remain neutral on almost everything.

In the interview, after Trump said Charles was a “great gentleman” (see 8.36am), Gary O’Donoghue asked him how he regarded the king’s recent visit to Ottawa, given that it was seen as an endorsement of Canadian independence. Trump replied:

Well, I didn’t view it as anything.

Look, they’re wrapped up with Canada. So what’s he going to do? He has no choice.

But we’re we’re negotiating with Canada right now, and we’ll see how that all works out. I think it’s going to work out very well.

Donald Trump was a big supporter of Brexit, not least because the surprise vote to leave the EU in 2016 was in some respects a precursor for his victory in the presidential election later that year. But he told the BBC that he thought Brexit had been mishandled.

Asked if he thought that Britain had “made the most of Brexit”, he replied:

No, I think it’s been on the sloppy side, but I think it’s getting straight now.

It is true that Keir Starmer is proposing some modest changes to the post-Brexit trade deal agreed with the EU. But, in so far as Brexit is “getting straight now”, it is because Starmer is trying to ameliorate some of the worst aspects of the deal agreed by Boris Johnson, who was much admired by Trump when he was PM.

Donald Trump did not just praise the UK for being willing to fight with the US. (See 9.01am.) Asked how he saw Britain’s role in the world, Trump replied:

Well, I think it’s a great place. I have property there. You know, I own Turnberry [his golf course in Scotland].

Donald Trump said he “really likes” Keir Starmer in his BBC interview. He said:

I really like the prime minister a lot, even though he’s a liberal.

He did a good trade deal with us, which a lot of countries haven’t been able to do.

Although many Labour MPs and ministers have strong reservations about Trump, and many of them denounced him harshly in public during his first presidency, Starmer has decided to swallow any reservations he has and to treat the president with utmost respect. Other world leaders have adopted a similar approach, and Gary O’Donoghue asked Trump how he felt about his counterparts being “over-obvious in their flattery”. Trump replied:

Well, I think they’re just trying to be nice.

He also acknowledged that other world leaders were not treating him now as they treated him when he became president for the first time in 2017. He said:

I think they think it’s maybe not all luck. When you do it twice, it’s a big difference.

I also think that over the years have gotten to know me.

This is not an easy crowd to break into. You understand? These are smart people heading up very, very successful, generally, countries. Germany and France and Spain – big countries. I’ve gotten [to know them] and I think they’ve come to respect me and my decision making.

Donald Trump said in his BBC interview that he regards the US’s relationship with Britain as special because he thinks Britain would fight with America if it came to a war. Whether or not other countries would, he does not seem so sure.

The comments are interesting because they help to explain why he has reservations about Nato – and why, even though he has repeatedly said in public he supports Nato’s article 5 commitment to collective defence (saying that if one member is attacked, all Nato countries should come to their defence), some Nato leaders are not 100% confident he means it.

Asked if he still thought Nato was “obsolete”, Trump said:

I think Nato is now becoming, the opposite of that. I do think it was [in the] past and it was very unfair because the United States paid for almost 100% of it.

But now they’re paying their own bills. And I think that’s much better.

And asked if he believed in the doctrine of collective defence, he replied:

I do yeah, I think collective defense is fine.

But later in the interview, when the topic came up again, he adopted a slightly different tone.

Asked if he thought there really was a special relationship between the UK and the US, he replied:

I do. I think one of the problems with Nato is, we have to fight for them, but will they actually fight for us if we had a war? And I’m not sure I can say it.

But I will say this; I believe that the UK would fight with us.

There’s something about it. It’s just been so many years, and I really think the relationship is just a really great one.

I think that they would be with us. I’m not sure that a lot of the other countries would be – which is unfair because we pay far more than anybody else.

Trump went on to to say the “special relationship” was why he had made a deal on trade with Britain.

I made a deal with them, and I haven’t made … I’ve made some other deals but, for the most part, in terms of your competitors and in terms of the European Union, I haven’t made a deal.

But the UK is very special, and it’s been there for a long time.

Yeah, they have been a really true ally.

Good morning. Donald Trump has given an interview to the BBC’s chief North America correspondent, Gary O’Donoghue, and, while the most important lines are about Russia, it contains some interesting snippets about the UK. Trump is making an unprecedented second state visit in September and yesterday a mini Westminster row broke out about the timing of the trip (starting just after the Commons starts its conference season recess), and the fact this means Trump isn’t being invited to give a speech to MPs and peers.

No 10 implied yesterday that this was just a scheduling coincidence – and nothing to do with the fact that some parliamentarians are bitterly opposed to hosting Trump, who is widely reviled as a threat to American democracy.

Yesterday Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, said (to GB News, of course) that parliament should be recalled so that Trump could get the chance to speak in the Royal Gallery or Westminster Hall (the venues normally used for these events).

But, when O’Donoghue asked Trump about this, he discovered that the US president doesn’t agree with Farage, and isn’t bothered about the prospect of not getting the President Macron treatment.

Asked if he would like parliament to be recalled so he could make a speech there, Trump replied:

I think let them go and have a good time [ie, let MPs have their recess]. I don’t want that to …

Asked what he wanted to achieve from the state visit, Trump said:

I think just, I want to have a good time and respect King Charles, because he’s a great gentleman.

We have not heard Farage’s reaction yet. His X feed still has this video near the top, featuring the Reform UK leader calling for the recall of parliament.

Trump’s response suggests Farage might be less in touch with the views of the president, and the Maga movement, than he sometimes claims. And, given Trump’s unpopularity in the UK generally, it is probably not wise for Farage to appear even more sensitive to any slights to Trump’s dignity than the man himself.

I will post more from the interview soon.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Keir Starmer chairs cabinet.

9.30am: Rachel Reeves, chancellor, announces a package of reforms to financial services in Leeds.

9.30am: James Cleverly, the former Tory home secretary, gives a speech to the IPPR thinktank.

9.30am: The Department for Work and Pensions publishes universal credit claim figures, including for the first time details of foreign nationals getting UC.

10am: Sir Adrian Montague, chair of Thames Water, and Chris Weston, its chief executive, give evidence to the Commons environment committee.

10.15am: Richard Hughes, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and colleagues give evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the OBR’s fiscal risks report.

Noon: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

After 12.30pm: MPs start debates on two Tory opposition day motions. The first one calls for the two-child benefit cap to stay, and the second one calls on the government to commit to uprating tax thresholds in line with inflation and to rule out new taxes on savings, homes and pensions.

Also today, the Department for Education is publishing new guidance on sex education.

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.