Chris Osuh is a community affairs correspondent at the Guardian.

Parliament in the UK has been urged to push for a state apology for Britain’s role in enslavement and colonialism.

Bell Ribeiro-Addy, chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, was presenting a petition in parliament today to mark United Nations International Day for the Remembrance of Victims of the Transatlantic Slave Trade.

As well as calling for the Commons to get the UK government to make a formal apology, the petition calls for an “all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice” to examine the legacy of colonialism and transatlantic slavery and propose steps to address the ongoing damage.

Ribeiro-Addy said:

To this day, our country has never provided a genuine apology for the crimes of British Empire or the transatlantic slave trade.

Rather than acknowledging these historical injustices and how they have shaped the world we live in today, our institutions have sought to sweep them under the carpet.

So many of the intersecting global challenges we now face are rooted in the legacies of enslavement and empire: from geopolitical instability to racism, inequality, underdevelopment and climate breakdown.

To truly confront these issues, we must acknowledge where they come from. An apology could be a meaningful basis for action, signalling our country’s commitment not simply to righting historic wrongs but to tackling ongoing issues they have created and exacerbated.

The petition highlights how, despite their “central role” in “the horrific system of African chattel enslavement and the violence of colonialism”, parliament, the UK government and the british monarchy have never made a “full and meaningful apology.”

It says former prime minister Tony Blair’s 2007 expression of “deep sorrow and regret for our nation’s role in the slave trade”, does not amount to a genuine apology for “the enslavement, trafficking, genocide, and exploitation committed under British authority.”

The petition adds:

We believe that a formal national apology and the establishment of an all-party parliamentary commission of inquiry for truth and reparatory justice would mark an essential first step towards acknowledging this grave historical injustice.

Only through truth and accountability can our nation begin to heal and engage honestly with the countries and communities affected — including discussions of reparatory justice, which must go beyond financial compensation to include education, restoration, and reconciliation.

The Conservative party press release (see 4.37pm) lists four questions that the Tories say need to be answered. Here they are (direct quotes from the Tory press release) – with possible answers (from me).

1) Why did Morgan McSweeney not tell the Metropolitan Police that his stolen phone contained sensitive information?

Answer?: Because they did not ask that directly, because McSweeney did tell them it was a government phone, and because he had already called what he called his “office” (presumably No 10) about the theft?

2) Why did Morgan McSweeney not correct the Metropolitan Police when they repeatedly referred to Stepney when Morgan McSweeney was alleged to be in Westminster?

Answer?: It was not repeatedly; it was twice. At the first mention of Stepney, McSweeney did not confirm that. Asked if he was near Stepney Green Park, he then said “Yeah”. Perhaps he did not know the name of one of the small parks in Pimlico he might have been near, but assumed the call handler, with a map in front of them, did?

3) Why did Morgan McSweeney ask for police to update him on his personal email address when the theft related to a work device?

Answer?: Because he uses his No 10 work email for work?

4) Did Morgan McSweeney provide details on the phone and its nature to an investigating officer following the theft?

Answer?: Did the police get in touch to ask? There is nothing in the statement they issued today suggesting McSweeney was not giving them all the information they needed.

The Conservatives are now claiming that Morgan McSweeney has “serious questions” to answer about the account he has given about the loss of his mobile phone last year.

Earlier today the Metropolitan police released the entire transcript of the conversation McSweeney had with a 999 call handler at least partly in response to suggestions that, if the PM’s chief of staff had really had his phone stolen, the Met would have taken it more seriously. The transcript shows that McSweeney revealed it was a government phone that had been taken, but did not disclose his job title, or the fact he worked in Downing Street. (See 11.54am.)

This has not stopped people suggesting that McSweeney wanted to get rid of the phone to avoid having the disclose his messages to Peter Mandelson (as he is now required to do – under a Commons humble address passed more than three months after the phone theft was reported).

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has dismissed talk of a cover-up. (See 11.36am.)

But Kemi Badenoch has let it be known that she thinks the conspiracy theorists might be onto something. (See 11.36am.)

But now her party has actually issued a press release headlined: Conservatives raise serious questions about Morgan McSweeney’s ‘stolen phone’.

It quotes Alex Burghart, the shadow Cabinet Office minister (and not a politician normally associated with tinfoil hat-type thinking), saying:

This whole thing stinks to high heaven. We know the government were worried about a humble address in October, shortly before McSweeney’s phone got ‘stolen’. McSweeney didn’t back up the messages and the government didn’t chase the Met for CCTV.

From the outset of the Mandelson affair Keir Starmer has tried to cover things up. The prime minister did it in September with ‘I didn’t know the depth of the relationship’. He didn’t want to release the Mandelson files in February until we forced the humble address. Now the chief of staff’s phone goes missing and there doesn’t seem to be any intent to get it back or retrieve the messages. Starmer needs to end this cover up now.

See 4.39pm for more on what the Tory press release says.

Groups campaigning for a fairer democratic system in the UK have broadly welcomed the Rycroft review, and the government’s response to it.

But they are also saying the government should go further, and impose a cap on the maximum amount any individual is allowed to donate to a political party.

This is from Tom Brake, a former Lib Dem MP who is now chief executive of Unlock Democracy.

Cryptocurrency donations pose a real and present threat to the integrity of UK democracy. They are hard to trace and easy to move across borders, creating clear risks of dirty and foreign money entering politics. The Rycroft review is right to recommend a moratorium on crypto donations, and it should only be lifted once we can be sure it is safe to do so.

We welcome the recommendation to base company donation limits on post-tax profits rather than revenue, and that no corporate donor can give more than their post-tax profits, averaged over the previous two years, in any given year. We also note the recommended cap on donations from overseas voters. But the government could and should go further still.

Big money distorts politics regardless of its origin. A fixed cap is needed across the board to prevent large donations, whether from overseas voters or domestic sources, from buying influence.

This is from Duncan Hames, another former Lib Dem MP who is now director of policy at Transparency International UK.

Philip Rycroft’s report is clear-eyed about the scale of the threat and his recommendations to tighten the rules deserve to be adopted through the representation of the people bill.

But even Rycroft acknowledges that his remit didn’t extend to the most fundamental question — whether to cap how much any single donor can give. He recognises that unlimited donations are driving an arms race for funds and invites parliament to debate this during the Bill’s passage. Parliament should take him up on that.

A meaningful annual cap on donations is the most robust safeguard against both foreign interference and the outsized influence of big money in our politics.

And this is from Jess Garland, director of policy and research for the Electoral Reform Society.

The representation of the people bill would be greatly strengthened by taking on the recommendations of Rycroft’s report. However, the government must go further and also bring in a cap on how much all donors can give to a party, not just those based abroad. This is widely supported by the public and would help prevent our politics from being swamped with massive donations, which now frequently reach into the multiple millions.

Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.

Today was the final first minister’s questions – moved from the usual Thursday to Wednesday to fit recess timings – before the Holyrood elections on 7 May and it was very much as though the campaign has already started.

Scottish Tory leader Russell Findlay attacked “jaded” John Swinney and his “dishonest incompetent and sleazy government”. Swinney told Findlay he was “peddling a doom-loop of despair” and that his party was going to get “trashed” on election day.

Anas Sarwar likewise attacked the SNP government’s record, but Swinney hit back at the Scottish Labour leader’s very public U-turn in support for Keir Starmer showed him to be “a man of poor judgment the people of Scotland should not listen to on 7 May”.

More significant than the raucous end-of-term atmosphere in the chamber is the fact that a third of MSPs there – 42 of them - won’t be seeking re-election in May. A record number of members are stepping down – including two former first ministers, Nicola Sturgeon and Humza Yousaf, two former party leaders, Douglas Ross and Richard Leonard, a slew of former and current government ministers and the presiding officer.

After FMQs, a motion of thanks for their public service is the final debate in the chamber before the election.

But what does this turnover mean for the next parliament? As we’ve reported previously, many SNP women in particular say they’re stepping down because Holyrood is becoming a “hostile environment” for women, with bullying and online abuse rife.

A number of younger MSPs, including the ridiculously talented Kate Forbes, have said they are stepping down because they can’t make a government job work with raising a young family. There are, of course, many able candidates – with experience of local government and the Commons – who may replace them come May, but – particularly with Reform neck and neck with Labour in some polls – the new parliament is going to look and feel very different.

Kemi Badenoch is not wholly convinced by Morgan McSweeney’s account of how his phone came to be stolen, her spokesperson has suggested.

At a post-PMQs briefing, the spokesperson said that Badenoch had “definitely raised an eyebrow” over the past 24 hours after hearing McSweeney’s account of how the phone got taken.

The phone is likely to have contained messages betweeen McSweeney and Peter Mandelson (they were close, and McSweeney was instrumental in persuading Keir Starmer to appoint Mandelson ambassador to the US) and the disappearance of the phone may mean that McSweeney/Mandelson messages meant to be disclosed to the public now don’t get retrieved. (See 11.36am.)

Badenoch is among those who think there may be something fishy going on. Asked if Badenoch thought McSweeney was lying about this, the spokesperson said it was now clear that McSweeney’s phone went missing around the time people in Downing Street were starting to worry about a humble address. (They have been reading Dan Hodges on X.)

Asked again if McSweeney was lying, the spokesperson said:

I think what Kemi would say is that it is very fortunate timing.

Reform UK claims the crackdown on donations in crypto and from Britons living abroad announced today shows the government is “absolutely terrified” of the success it is having. Richard Tice, Reform’s deputy leader, has made the claim in an interview with GB News. He also said Reform would repeal the law if it won the election.

The Lib Dem MP Bobby Dean asked Reed if he accepted that the government had to do more to stop malign actors channelling money to political parties through companies. He said a recent report from CenTax (the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation) said a quarter of corporate donations were opaque.

Here is an extract from the CenTax report. (Bold type from CenTax.)

Almost one in every ten pounds donated by companies comes indirectly from individuals who are likely to be ineligible to donate directly. Their donations are on average almost twice as large as those from companies with UK-eligible owners. These are conversative figures: the true extent of foreign interference is obscured by the large proportion of opaque corporate donors.

Around a quarter of donor companies are opaque, meaning it is not possible to identify who controls them as they either report no person with significant control at all, or control runs through someone else, such as a trustee, rather than a beneficial owner. These opaque companies account for a quarter of all corporate donations by value and companies that donate are significantly less transparent than UK companies generally.

Reed said there were measures in the representation of the people bill covering corporate donations. But he implied more needed to be done.

I recognise the concerns we need to act on shell companies that can be used to funnel in dark money. We have no idea where that is coming from. There are legitimate concerns that could be coming from hostile states, who are seeking to weaken and undermine our country, by undermining our democracy.

James Cleverly, the shadow local government secretary, responded to Steve Reed in the Commons on behalf of the Tories. He said that there was much in the report with which the Conservative would “instinctively” agree, but he complained about not being given enough time to look at the recommendations before the statement. And he also criticised the government for rushing to implement its recommendations.

Reed said, if he hadn’t announced that some of these measures would take place from today, that would allow a “window of opportunity to open which would allow malign and hostile actors to evade the intent that we’re all seeking”.

Here is the full text of the report from Philip Rycroft.

This is what it says about how serious the problem of foreign financial interference in British politics is.

The public has been alerted to the techniques deployed by foreign states through the prosecution and conviction of Nathan Gill for taking bribes to act as an advocate for Russia; and the security alert issued by MI5 against Christine Lee for using donations to covertly influence politicians to further the interests of the Chinese state; as well as the 2022 cyber attack on the Electoral Commission.

Self-evidently, the security services do not reveal publicly the nature and extent of their live investigations, but the NPSA has issued guidance to all elected representatives to alert them to the risk that they may be the target of covert foreign influence campaigns.

The risk of impermissible donations of foreign money to political parties in the UK also remains high. Albeit from a low base, the number of donations that have had to be returned as impermissible is increasing15. By definition, the amount of foreign money that has actually leached into UK politics is unknowable.

The impact of foreign money and covert foreign activity is difficult to assess. My assessment from the evidence I have seen is that while there is persistent activity, the impact is still contained and felt only at the margins of UK political life.

And here is an extract from the report’s conclusions.

We as a nation also face, like all others, a radically new technology of information dissemination through social media. This is changing so much in the way that we go about our lives, much of it to our benefit, some of it not. Where those adverse effects are the consequence of hostile foreign interference, the public should expect the state to take robust action to counter the threat. There is, I believe, more that the Government should be doing in this space and I so recommend in this report.

I am not pressing the panic button in this report; that would serve the purposes of those who would undermine the trust in our democratic processes. But I am ringing the alarm bell. If Government does not act swiftly to gear up to counter these threats, there is a real risk they will run away from us. Recent allegations of attempted foreign interference in the electoral process in Moldova and Romania should serve as cautionary tales. It is a truism, but one apt for our times: the price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

And this is what Reed said about the moratorium on crypto donations to politcal parties coming into force from today.

Mr Rycroft sets out clearly the deep reservations many people have about [crypto] donations. His conclusions are clear: “There is a risk crypto assets are used as a vehicle to channel foreign money into the political system in the UK”.

I accept Mr Rycroft’s assessment that the anonymity inherent in cryptocurrency transactions transactions could make it easier to mask the origin of donations and to evade robust checks on the true source of funds.

The clear route this creates for illicit channelling of money into our politics is unacceptable and undermines public confidence in our electoral system.

In light of this, I can confirm the government will take immediate steps to implement the recommendation made in the report and we will introduce an amendment to the representation of the people bill to place a moratorium on all political donations made through cryptocurrency.

I want to be crystal clear that, as the report recommends, I mean crypto in any amount, including donations of a value that would ordinarily fall below the threshold for control on donations.

There are specific risks posed by cryptocurrency donations, such as the risk of rapid multiple small donations being made just below our current thresholds.

This moratorium will remain in place until the Electoral Commission and this parliament are satisfied there is sufficient regulation in place to ensure full confidence and transparency in donations being made in this way.

Subject to parliamentary approval, this moratorium will be applied retrospectively to any crypto donations received from today by any political parties and regulated entities.

Once the provisions are in force, if a political party or regulated entity has received a donation in the interim, they will have 30 days to return it, after which enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply.

This is a win for the joint committee on national security strategy, which has been calling for exactly this measure. (See 9.28am.)

And this is what Reed said about how the new law will work.

Once the provisions are in force, any donations by an overseas elector to any political party or regulated entity that exceed the cap for that overseas elector will be an unlawful donation.

Subject to parliamentary approval of the amendment I will table, the recipient of any unlawful donation will have 30 days to return that donation.

Once the legislation comes into force … enforcement action can be taken and criminal penalties will apply

This cap will apply to relevant donations from today in all elections in the UK.

This includes for parties at the upcoming English local elections, Scottish Parliament elections and Senate elections in Scotland and Wales. Donations to candidates rather than parties are devolved, or devolved matters.

But my intention is to seek a legislative consent motion for our amendment to ensure there are no gaps in our safeguards. And I will speak to my counterparts in the Scottish and Welsh Governments to emphasise my commitment to work together to protect our electoral system right across the United Kingdom.

This is what Reed said in his statement to MPs about imposing an immediate cap on the amount that Britons living abroad can give to political parties.

British citizens living overseas have the right to participate in UK parliamentary elections, and this gives them the right to donate to parties or candidates they support.

However, the report raises two fundamental concerns about such donations from overseas.

Firstly, the report is clear that “inevitably tracing the source of funds offered by individuals living abroad is more complex than for domestic donations”.

The report also raises concerns about the democratic fairness of allowing people who have chosen to live abroad to have their wealth taxed abroad, but who nonetheless have the opportunity to make potentially game changing donations into British politics.

I will therefore take immediate steps to implement the report’s recommendation on donations from overseas electors.

We will introduce an amendment to the representation of the people bill to place an annual cap on the total political donations an overseas elector can make. That cap will be set at £100,000 a year.

In light of the gravity of the issues raised in the report, I am not prepared to allow any window of opportunity in which malign actors based overseas can funnel dark money into our politics.

This cap will therefore apply retrospectively, so it includes all donations from overseas electors received from today and all regulated transactions entered into from today.

This is likely to have a particular impact on Reform UK, which has received about £12m in the last year from the Thai-based investor Christopher Harborne and other donations from a number of donors based in Monaco.

Steve Reed has just told MPs that the new rules imposing a cap on donations to political parties from Britons living abroad, and a moratorium on donations in crypto, will take effect from today. The legislation to implement them will be retrospective, allowing that to happen, he said.

Steve Reed, the local government secretary, is making his statement about the Rycroft review now.

Here is Rowena Mason’s story about the report.

And this is how it starts.

Political funding from British citizens living abroad should be capped at between £100,000 and £300,000 a year and donations in cryptocurrency temporarily banned, a government review has recommended.

The findings by Philip Rycroft, a former permanent secretary at the Home Office, will be a blow to Reform UK, which has received about £12m in the last year from the Thai-based investor Christopher Harborne and other donations from a number of donors based in Monaco.

Rycroft said the measures were needed to prevent the risk of foreign interference in British politics, saying donations from abroad are more difficult to trace and regulate. He also said there was a question of fairness when overseas donors were not subject to the same tax requirements as UK residents, recommending an annual cap at about £100,000 to £300,000.

He cited the threat of influence from hostile foreign states such as Russia, China and Iran, saying divisive internet commentary about Scottish independence had dropped by about a quarter when Iran’s internet blackout took place.

He also highlighted the risk of influence by actors from allies such as the US, where the billionaire Elon Musk has floated the idea of trying to put money into British politics.

As PMQs finished Edward Leigh, the Conservative father of the Commons, stood up to complain that, in his PMQs appearances, Keir Starmer always keeps talking about the opposition party’s policies. A confident opposition party should want people to talk about its policies. Leigh’s questions, although not intended this way, amounted to a confirmation that Starmer’s points today hit home.

It was one of his strongest performances for some time. Badenoch went all-in on approving more oil and gas licences in the North Sea (motivated not least by the desire to shore up the Tory vote in the north-east of Scotland, where this is a key issue). On drilling generally, there are a lot of non-Tories who support Badenoch’s position (although quoting Tony Blair to support your case isn’t really an argument-clincher any more, particularly in the light of Blair’s decision to join Donald Trump’s Board of Peace and his call for the UK to fully support the US war in Iran). But on the narrow point of the Jackdaw/Rosebank licences, Starmer won the argument quite easily. And his broader points about Badenoch’s stance on the war, although off-topic, were compelling too.

Darren Paffey (Lab) asks if there has never been a more urgent need to defend our democracy, and stop foreign interference in it.

Starmer says the government will act decisively to protect our democracy, and there will be “a moratorium on all donations made through cryptocurrency”.

Badenoch turns to the proposed energy bill support package, and she says this is another example of Starmer wanting to increase spending for people on benefits.

Starmer says Badenoch keeps getting things wrong.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

Families and businesses will suffer from the spike in energy costs because of his decisions, he could abolish the green taxes on their bills, he could stop the fuel duty rise, we could drill our own gas in the North Sea.

What is he doing? He is planning another giveaway to people on welfare. Yet again, he is taking money from those who do work to give to those who don’t.

First we had the budget for Benefit Street. Now it’s the bailout for Benefit Street. Doesn’t this just prove that they’ve given up being the Labour party and they’re now just the welfare party?

The Metropolitan police is also keen to dispel conspiracy theories about the loss of Morgan McSweeney’s phone. (See 11.36am.)

Some commentators online have said they have found it hard to believe that, if the PM’s chief of staff were to report the loss of a phone that might contain secret information, the Met police would do little or nothing about it.

In response, this morning the Met has provided journalists with a transcript of the call made by McSweeney when he called 999 to report the theft of his phone.

It shows that McSweeney told the call handler that it had been a government phone that had been stolen. And he gave the call handler his name. But that did not prompt the call hander to ask “Are you the Morgan McSweeney?’ and nothing was said in the conversationn about McSweeney being the PM’s chief of staff.

The Met said:

Unfortunately, much of it has included some assumptions about what would have been known to us at the time of the report and how that should have influenced our decision making and handling.

Of particular note, it has been assumed by many that the Met would have known details of the victim’s employment or the particular security risks associated with his device or material on it. This was not information provided to us and could not reasonably have shaped our decision making, as you will see below.

We would not typically release detailed information about an allegation of crime however given the profile of the incident, the public interest and in an effort to ensure any reporting is as accurate as possible, we have taken the decision to do so.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has urged people to reject “conspiracy” theories about the loss of Morgan McSweeney’s phone.

At the weekend the Sun on Sunday revealed that McSweeney had his mobile phone stolen last year, when he was chief of staff to the PM. It has been claimed that his means some messages between McSweeney and Peter Mandelson – which are supposed to be disclosed under the far-reaching humble address ordering the disclosure of all messages between Mandelson when he was ambassador and government ministers and officials.

Cynics have pointed out that the loss of the phone is hugely convenient. On social media some people even doubted the phone theft story, but the Metropolitan police has now confirmed that the theft of the phone was reported in October last year. The theft was not investigated and the culprit was not found.

In an interview with Times Radio this morning, Streeting urged people to accept McSweeney’s story at face value – and to reject claims that there has been some plot to destroy Mandelson messages. Streeting said:

I can totally understand the cynicism in these sorts of cases, but do bear in mind that when his phone was stolen, it was reported to the police at the time.

[McSweeney] couldn’t at that stage have known that parliament would ask for the publication of all messages in the way that they have in quite an unprecedented way.

Yes, sometimes in politics things can be explained as a result of conspiracy. In other times, more often than not, it is a result of cock-up rather than conspiracy.

But Streeting has failed to silence the sceptics. After his Times Radio interview, the Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges posted this on X.

Hundreds of UK teenagers will trial social media bans, digital curfews and time limits on apps under a government pilot, which will run alongside a consultation to decide whether the UK should ban access to social media for the under-16s, Alexandra Topping reports.

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has said that he wants to empower female patients in the NHS by allowing them to trial a system that would allow them to propose financial sanctions for provider who don’t provide a good service.

Streeting said he wanted to give “women the power to the kick medical misogyny where it hurts: the bank balance”.

He explained:

Over the next year, I’m also going to enlist patients in my drive for a better quality service.

We’re going to trial new Patient Power Payments. Patients will be able to decide whether the NHS provider deserves full payment for the service they received, based on the quality of their experience.

And where better to start, than with a group of patients who have been made to feel like second class citizens whose voices don’t matter: women.

In our Women’s Health Strategy, which we’ll publish shortly, I’ll be giving women the power to the kick medical misogyny where it hurts: the bank balance.

Streeting also said he wanted to give patients more say over follow-up appointments.

Patient choice will also help me drive further productivity gains. Over the next year, we’ll let patients decide if and when to have a follow-up appointment.”

I have lost count of the number of times I have been invited to a totally pointless follow-up that wastes my time and NHS money. It’s not just me, we could free up millions of appointments for patients who actually need and want them. So from April that’s what we’ll do.

In his speech Streeting also said “the NHS is improving, but it’s still nowhere near good enough”.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has published council tax statistics for England. It says:

The average band D council tax set by local authorities in England for 2026-27 will be £2,392, which is an increase of £111 or 4.9% on the 2025-26 figure. This includes all precepts including adult social care and parish precepts.

It also says 274 of the 384 authorities covered by the figures set their council tax increase at the maximum allowed without a referendum (normally 4.99%). It says this was 21 fewer than the number going for a maximum increase in 2025-26.

It also says there were 21 authorities that kept their council tax the same, or decreased it.

As this chart from the goverment document shows, even though most councils raised council tax by the maximum allowed without a referendum, this year’s average 4.9% increase is the lowest since 2022.

The fact that average increases were higher in the final year of the last Conservative government has not stopped the Tories attacking Labour over this. James Cleverly, the shadow local government secretary, put out a statement saying:

Keir Starmer promised to ease the cost of living and freeze council tax, yet families now face back-to-back hikes and a total council tax take rising by £2.6bn- another broken promise.

A “Doge of the left,” could save up to £30bn a year for taxpayers by rooting out waste, fraud and tax avoidance, according to the first report from a new green thinktank. Heather Stewart has the story.

Yesterday Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, indicated that, if the government has to introduce an energy support package later this year because of the ongoing impact of the Iran war, it will be targeted at low-income households.

Predictably, in the rightwing papers, this has been written up as an attack on the “middle classes”. Here is the Daily Mail splash.

And the Daily Telegraph’s take is very similar; its story is headlined “Middle classes set to miss out on Reeves energy bill support.”

Wes Streeting, the health secretary, was giving interviews this morning, and he defended the chancellor’s approach. Asked on the Today programme if it was true that the middle classes would take a hit, he replied:

Put a different way, I will be feeling, as a higher earner in this country, a difference in my living costs.

Will they be pinching me in the pockets in the same way that they might impact on my mum, who is a cleaner on the minimum wage? No.

Asked if this was fair, he stressed that the war was to blame.

Look, we know that the public finances are in a precarious situation. That’s what we inherited.

We know that the economy has had to go through a huge amount of strain over the last decade, partly as a result of things like the pandemic, partly as a result of reckless political choices like Liz Truss’s mini-budget, and the challenge the chancellor has is, she’s got to try and drive improvement in the economy, confronting the world as it is, not as we would wish it to be.

And I can’t tell you how much my heart sank when the chancellor was delivering the spring statement only weeks ago, where she was able to talk confidently about falling interest rates, falling inflation, wages finally rising faster than the cost-of-living as a result of the choices she is making, knowing full well, as she did, we all did, that what was going on in Iran would make those numbers and that improvement much harder, but she’s confronting that challenge head-on.

The UK inflation rate held steady at 3% in February, before Donald Trump’s Iran war drove up global energy costs, threatening a renewed price jump, Heather Stewart reports.

This is what parliament’s joint committee on the national security strategy said about the case for banning cryptocurrency donations to political parties in a report on political finance and foreign influence published last week.

Crypto donations pose an unnecessary and unacceptably high risk to the integrity of the political finance system and public trust in it. We accept that future regulations may institutionalise the use of alternative payment systems for use in donations. At present, however, the opportunity to evade rules is too high, the adequacy of mitigations too low, and the resource cost of attempting to implement acceptable oversight is disproportionate. We see no democratic imperative to permit the use of crypto in political finance until adequate safeguards are in place.

Crypto also poses wider upstream risks to the integrity of political finance: donors can convert ‘dirty’ foreign crypto funds into ‘clean’ UK fiat and then donate it without arousing much suspicion. A ‘last mile’ ban on crypto donations is therefore not a panacea. Specialist capabilities to address upstream risks are underpowered and require further work.

The government should introduce a binding moratorium on crypto donations as an amendment to the representation of the people bill. This moratorium should remain in place until the Electoral Commission has issued statutory guidance on crypto donations which applies to its regulated entities.

Good morning. In December the government announced that Philip Rycroft, a former permanent secretary at the Brexit department, will lead a review into foreign financial interference into UK politics. The review is being published today, and it will include recommendations that we’re told the government will implement as a priority.

The review will make recommendations relevant to all the political parties, but no one in government is trying very hard to pretend that one party in particular isn’t the main focus. Rycroft was hired for the job soon after Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, was sentenced to 10 and a half years in jail for taking bribes to spout pro-Russian propaganda. Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, dismissed Gill as a one-off bad apple, but other Brexit party MEPs gave pro-Russian speeches similar to Gill’s. Reform UK is the Brexit party under a new name.

And Reform UK is the only political party actively encouraging donations in cryptocurrency – which is widely seen as the currency of choice for people keen to avoid the attention of the regulatory authorities. Parliament’s joint committee on the national security strategy has been calling for a ban on crypto donations to political parties and, according to a story by Max Kendix in the Times, Rycroft is going to say he agrees. Kendix says: “Keir Starmer is expected to ban cryptocurrency donations in a blow to Nigel Farage as an independent review warns that they risk letting foreign powers intervene in British democracy.”

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Wes Streeting, the health secretary, will give a speech. As Denis Campbell reports, he will welcome figures showing public satisfaction with the NHS has risen for the first time since 2019.

9.30am: The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government publishes figures showing council tax figures for England for 2026/27.

Morning: The government is due to publish the report from the review by Philip Rycroft into foreign financial interference in UK politics.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

Noon: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions from MSPs. (FMQs is normally on a Thursday, but it’s Wednesday this week because of the recess coming up.)

After 12.30pm: Steve Reed, the local government secretary, is expected to make a Commons statement on the Rycroft review.

Afternoon: Peers will debate the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, and there will be a move to re-insert the clause inserting a social media ban on under-16s orginally added by the Lords (against the wishes of the government) but subsequently taken out again by peers.

4.30pm: Michael Shanks, the energy minister, gives evidence to the Commons energy committee on energy resilience.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), 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.