Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has announced that pay arrangements for NHS trust chief executives will be changed so they are linked to performance.

Commenting on the announcement, which is due to be confirmed in a speech later this week, Streeting said:

I’m prepared to pay for the best and I will defend financial incentives to attract and keep talented people in the NHS. It’s a big organisation that should be competing with global businesses for the best talent.

But there will be no more rewards for failure. We have got to get a grip on runaway spending and make sure every penny going to the NHS benefits patient – changes will not be popular but it’s a case of reform or die.

The change will affect VSMs (very senior managers), like trust chief executives.

Explaining how pay will be linked to performance, the Department of Health and Social Care said in a news release:

In his review of the NHS, Lord Ara Darzi found the only criteria by which chief executive pay was set is the turnover of the organisation. Neither the timeliness of access, quality of care or effective running of the organisation factored into pay. NHS integrated care systems had built up deficits totalling £2bn in just the first four months of this financial year, leaving the incoming government with a financial blackhole which had to be dealt with at the budget.

A new pay framework for VSMs will therefore be published before April 2025. This will clamp down on poor performance, while rewarding senior leaders who are successfully turning their services around.

Hospital waiting lists would be lower if the government had given the health service permission to expand the number of hospital beds in the middle of the Covid pandemic, Amanda Pritchard, the NHS chief executive, has suggested.

As PA Media reports, in July 2020 the NHS sought 10,000 “non-temporary” hospital beds to deal with recovery from the first wave of the crisis and the future surges in case numbers. But the request was refused by the Treasury, headed at the time by Rishi Sunak, and by Downing Street, where Boris Johnson was PM.

Giving evidence to the Covid inquiry Pritchard said that the decision was “disappointing” and that the nation “could be in a different position” when it comes to the backlog of pre-planned hospital care.

According to the latest data from NHS England, an estimated 7.64 million treatments were waiting to be carried out at the end of August, relating to 6.42 million patients.

Questioning Pritchard, counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC, said:

In July of 2020, NHS England sought 10,000 non-temporary beds to deal with recovery and the potential future surges … the funding for those beds was not approved by Her Majesty’s Treasury.

And Pritchard replied:

We had done some modelling work over that summer to looking at from a best estimate, what it would take to be able to run with a sort of constant number of patients in the service who were Covid positive, create the necessary headroom then to respond to normal winter pressures, but crucially also to have the space to do the, not just urgent, but also non-urgent, non-Covid work, so that we would be able to do that recovery work that we’d begun to start in the summer.

Carey said:

I think the prime minister’s private office was involved in the decision to refuse and said, effectively, they wanted more use to be made of Nightingales [emergency temporary hospitals], the independent sector, to go back to discharging patients if necessary, using flu vaccinations to hopefully deal with any flu upsurge there would be, and that there would be capacity looked at in the spending review … What were the consequences of that 10,000 bed requests being refused, from your perspective?

And Pritchard replied:

It was, as you say, very disappointing, because what it meant in practice is that where we could now be in, I think, a very different position on elective recovery.

If we had had that capacity, we could certainly have treated thousands more patients if we had had that additional headroom, as well as being more resilient going into the second wave and into winter more generally.

So subsequent to the pandemic, there have been some steps taken to increase core bed capacity, but clearly we could have done with that capacity at the time, and I think we’d be in a quite different position now.

James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, has criticised the government for not saying when it will get defence spending up to 2.5% of GDP.

In a Commons urgent question, Cartlidge said Labour has committed to outlining a pathway to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, but said ministers have been “unable” to say whether they would deliver on the target in the current parliament. (See 10.15am.) He went on:

2.5% is not an end in itself, the key reason in April [why] we set out a fully funded, multi-year pathway to 2.5% was to enable the MoD to procure at pace and at scale the munitions we need to urgently replenish our stocks to war-fighting levels.

With the whole world wanting to buy more munitions, we cannot afford to delay any further.

Healey said the last government’s proposal to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP was not a plan, but just a “political ploy”. He said:

It was announced four weeks before they then called the general election. It was unfunded, it was a con on the armed forces and on the British people who gave their answer emphatically by sweeping away Tory MPs in many of the proudest military communities and constituencies across the country.

During the UQ Healey also repeated the point he made in his interviews this morning about how, if Donald Trump has urged Russia to avoid escalation in Ukraine, that is a positive development. (See 8.59am.) Healey said that was a “very good first step”.

The Kremlin has since claimed that the call between Trump and Vladimir Putin, as reported in the Washington Post, never took place.

Michelle O’Neill, the Sinn Féin first minister of Northern Ireland, has said it has been “difficult to hear” fellow republicans criticise her participation in the Remembrance Sunday ceremony at Belfast City Hall.

As PA Media reports, O’Neill’s comments came after a banner with the word “Traitors” on it was erected at her constituency office in Cookstown, Co Tyrone, at the weekend.

O’Neill broke new ground for her party by attending the event commemorating fallen members of the UK armed forces at the Cenotaph in Belfast, where she laid a laurel wreath. However, she has faced criticism from some people in the republican and nationalist community. As PA reports, more than 100 relatives of IRA members and civilians killed by the security forces and loyalists during the Troubles signed a public statement, published in the Irish News, expressing “devastation” at her decision to attend.

Asked about the statement from republicans criticising her, O’Neill told a press conference this morning:

Of course, it is difficult to hear that, particularly from people who I know all of my life, but I also absolutely accept that they’re entitled to feel how they feel, particularly if they’ve lost a loved one.

So I accept and understand exactly where people are coming from.

However, I can’t be distracted from the role that I play. I want to drive our society forward. I want to build a shared future. I want to take as many people with us on that journey as we possibly can, but I’ve committed to being a first minister for all, and I will live up to that at every turn.

Asked if it was difficult to be called a traitor, O’Neill said:

Look, people are entitled to express their view, and I can accept where they’re coming from, but I also have a role to play, and I’m determined to keep driving us forward.

And here is an extract from the statement signed by republicans.

It is beyond belief that any so-called Tyrone republican would wish to lay a wreath in honour of these forces who caused mayhem and murder on hamlets, hills, villages, and towns - the killing grounds of Tyrone where the cries for truth and justice about collusion, state murder, and counterinsurgency haunt the entire county and hundreds of families.

Have you all totally lost the run of yourselves or is it really power at any cost?

Because when you get to the pinnacle of wherever it is you want to be you’ll have compromised so much, you’ll be no different from the staters and Blueshirts that executed republicans and hounded those who held dear to the words and sacrifices of Tone, Connolly, Pearse, Sands, and Hurson.

Beer asks Badenoch about this passage in her second witness statement.

Second, there is an explanation for why things are slow in government. There is a cautious, risk-averse culture within the civil service, which is systemic and baked-in. This is a rational – and probably inevitable – response to the vast array of statutory and public law demands that regulate the process by which government makes decisions, and reflects the ever-present risk of government decisions being judicially reviewed, undermined and unwound by the courts. The natural reaction to that is to do lots of preparatory work to make sure that all the bases are covered to limit the risk of something going wrong further down the line. There is also an understandable focus on providing value for money when spending taxpayer money (which obviously involves trade-offs). This emphasis on caution slows down decision-making. It’s not that civil servants are slow-going or lazy or don’t care – the risk-averse culture is a natural reaction to the legal demands placed on government. They are required to spend a lot of time considering the various impacts, seeking and assessing various representations, taking into account and weighing all relevant information, making sure all possible alternative options have been thought about, making sure that the entire process is evidenced and so on. As I say, this has become a baked-in, systemic feature of the system. If we want our government to make decisions faster, we need to reduce some of the public law burden – and if we choose not to do so, we must accept that this has consequences for the speed and efficiency of government. Every time we create more public law to hold government to account, it is slower to deliver for people. This is a real issue across government, and needs to be confronted. So whilst it is easy to imagine that government could have clicked its fingers to get compensation out the door, that fails to recognise the systemic and cultural complexity of decision-making in government.

Q: Are you saying, if we want government to make decisions faster, we have to reduce the public law burden?

Badenoch says she is saying that, every time you create law and demand accountability, you slow things down.

Q: Are you saying the rule of law stands in the way of the delivery of services by government?

Badenoch says she is not saying that. She goes on:

The burden of regulation is not the rule of law.

You can the rule of law without an excessive burden of regulation, but if you keep adding more and more rules that will slow things down.

It doesn’t mean that you don’t want the rule of law, but the rule of law has a purpose, and that is to create a fair system which everybody has treated equally, and where everyone can receive justice.

If you keep creating more regulations and people aren’t getting justice, then something has gone wrong, and we should be able to look at that without assuming that this is a criticism of the entire system of the rule of law.

It means that we should be able to look at how we can reform public law. The law is not above criticism. We should be able to say ‘Actually, this isn’t working, what can we do to improve it’, rather than what is happening now where people say, ‘Oh, it’s the rule of law. We can’t touch it. Let’s not do anything.’

Here is Mark Sweney’s story from Kemi Badenoch’s evidence to the inquiry this morning.

Downing Street has released its readout of Keir Starmer’s talks with Emmanuel Macron this morning. It says they discussed how to put Ukraine “in the strongest possible position” going into the winter.

The prime minister thanked the president for the personal invitation, noting he was the first UK leader to attend in 80 years.

The leaders started by discussing the situation in Ukraine, including how best to put Ukraine in the strongest possible position going into the winter.

Turning to the Middle East, both underscored their deep concern at the situation in Gaza and Lebanon.

They also reiterated the need for stability in the West Bank.

Reflecting on the situation in the Channel, the prime minister set out his mission to disrupt and deter smuggling gangs across Europe, and the leaders strongly agreed on the importance of bearing down on illegal migration at every stage of a migrant’s journey.

Presumably, “winter” in this context refers not just to the cold weather, but to the arrival of Donald Trump as US president.

The hearing has now adjourned for lunch.

Here is an extract from the letter Kemi Badenoch sent to Jeremy Hunt in August 2023 saying compensation payments to victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal should be accelerated.

Kevin Hollinrake [the Post Office minister] and I are both determined that postmasters affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal should get proper compensation — and that they should get it as rapidly as possible [...] Kevin and l have therefore been looking at the ways in which we could radically speed up the processes. We already make interim payments of £163k to almost all postmasters whose convictions are overturned, and we undertake only limited scrutiny of GLO [Group Litigation Order] claims for certain heads of loss under £10k and HSS ones under £8k. We are only looking to extend these measures substantially in relation to the GLO, which has started to receive claims [...] Some of the options we are considering would actually save more on the costs of lawyers or other advisors than they would cost in extra compensation. Others do have additional costs — but in my view these would be well worthwhile in light of the non-financial benefits of accelerating the schemes. In particular, I would like us to be able to offer a £100k fixed payment to every claimant who applies to the GLO scheme. I recognise that announcing this would create significant pressure to offer the same for HSS [Horizon Shortfall Scheme] claimants, which we should consider separately, but I believe this is the right route forward for the GLO scheme. Such radical action would offer great advantages in terms of the speed of the process.

This is from Badenoch’s second witness statement.

Beer is now asking about Badenoch’s revelation in her witness statement that she was willing to issue a ministerial direction to go ahead with rapid compensation payments opposed by the Treasury.

A ministerial direction is something required when a minister wants to order civil servants to do something that they do not believe can be justified on value for money grounds, or for some other reason.

Badenoch said she saw this as a way of getting results.

We need to change the way that we do things in government. There is far too much going round and round in circles and avoiding taking serious, real decisions because everybody is worried about getting into trouble later.

This is something which I tend not to worry about. Maybe I should do but I do trust my judgment.

In the end, Badenoch did not issue a ministerial direction.

Beer is now asking Badenoch about a letter she sent to Jeremy Hunt, the chancellor, in August last year saying compensation payments should be speeded up.

Badenoch wanted to be able to offer £100,000 to every person claiming through the GLO scheme.

Badenoch said she wanted to speed things up. She said: “I’m not one of life’s natural bureaucrats.”

Explaining what she was doing, she said:

I had my own personal objective of making sure that we did right by the postmasters and we showed that we were delivering on the scheme as promised after the court case, and that we were just being seen to do the right thing.

Being seen to do the right thing, in my view, is just as important as doing the right thing.

When Beer put it to Badenoch that doing the right thing was more important than being seen to do the right thing, Badenoch claimed that was not the case in politics.She said:

Both of them are important – doing the right thing when no one knows that you’re doing it often creates different problems elsewhere.

So, as a politician, it is not enough to do the right thing. It’s also important to be seen to be doing the right thing.

Beer is now asking about Badenoch’s second witness statement (which is now on the inquiry’s website, here). He quotes paragraph 39 where Badenoch says:

Right from my first briefing, I was concerned with the pace at which the compensation was being delivered. Kevin Hollinrake also told me that we should be going faster, and he needed some help from his secretary of state to accelerate things. We had briefings on the issue with officials, and it was quite clear to me that we were allowing bureaucracy to get in the way of redress too much of the time. Kevin [Hollinrake, the Post Office minister] and I wanted to get the money out there, and we were always given a reason why we couldn’t. For example, officials suggested we should wait until the end of inquiry so that we knew precisely what to do. I was adamant that we could not wait that long and that we had to get the money out. I was particularly concerned that postmasters would die waiting for compensation, and I remember saying in one meeting that I don’t want any of that happening on my watch, and that we needed to get the redress out to people before it is too late. I wanted to know what we could do to get the payments out the door, and said we needed to do whatever we could to make it happen.

Beer asks who was allowing bureaucracy to get in the way of redress.

Badenoch says it was “the government machine”.

Kemi Badenoch has submitted two witness statements to the inquiry. The first is here.

In it, she very strongly defends the decision to sack Henry Staunton as Post Office chair.

She says she received a recommendation saying he should go backed by Kevin Hollinrake, the Post Office minister, and her permanent secretary.

She says the decision to sack him was leaked to the media on Saturday 27 January. This was before Staunton had been told, and she says she was “very angry” about this. She says:

On Saturday 27 January 2024, I was informed that the media had become aware of the decision to remove Mr Staunton. Pausing there, it is right to record that I was and am very angry at the fact that my decision leaked to the media. Leaks of this type debilitate government, and lead to inaccurate reporting making it more difficult to get the truth out. And clearly this was not the right way for Mr Staunton to learn of my decision; I wanted to spare him any public embarrassment. (As Mr Staunton described it in our subsequent call, the leak was “appalling”.)

Upon being informed of the leak, I called Mr Staunton as soon as possible and he answered. We had a brief conversation.

When the news of Staunton’s sacking was leaked, Badenoch was scheduled to be interviewed on the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg the following day.

Kemi Badenoch is now about to give evidence to the Post Office inquiry. She will be asked about decisions she took in her capacity as business secretary from February 2023 until the general election.

This meant Badenoch was in post earlier this year when the ITV drama, Mr Bates vs the Post Office, ignited national anger over the scandal and turned it into a much bigger story than it had ever been before. By then some journalists had covering the story for more than a decade, and the facts were already well documented. But until then it had not been at the top of the political agenda, partly because key developments in the story coincided with big events during Brexit, the 2019 election and the Covid pandemic.

Badenoch’s most prominent intervention was to sack Henry Staunton, the Post Office chair earlier this year, soon after the ITV programme was aired. He claimed that she told him he had to go because “someone’s got to take the rap for this [the Horizon scandal]” and that her department wanted to delay compensation payments. But she said his claims were “completely false” and that he was sacked in relation to misconduct allegations. Staunton later said Badenoch was smearing him.

Sir Wyn Williams, the inquiry chair, ended the session with a question for Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary. He said he had evidence from some witnesses saying the Post Office “cannot be rescued”.

Q: So why do you think it should be rescued.

Reynolds said he thought the public “still want a Post Office”. He went on:

They still want the service it provides. When I go into the post offices in my local community, they’re actually always pretty busy.

As I say, the regret is that I don’t think postmasters are earning appropriate remuneration from that level of business taking place.

When it comes to new initiatives like banking hubs, I think the Post Office has been, and in every case actually has been, the natural partner picked to run that in a local community.

So there was “fundamentally” a need for something like the Post Office, he said. He went on:

I think the big public policy questions – like the future of cash in our society, and the closure of high street banking in many communities – the Post Office is part of the answer to those other wider public policy concerns.

And I do foresee, potentially in future, services that aren’t currently delivered by the Post Office, or the Post Office being a potential vehicle for delivering them.

But I think the future is definitely one that has, to be frank, a significantly smaller centre, and is based much more around power, authority and governance being provided to postmasters on the frontline – really, a central organisation serving those people. I don’t think that’s been the relationship leading into this scandal in particular.

Reynolds said, when post office had to close, there was “genuine regret”.

So I feel both the public demand and the policy rationale is still there, and that underpins these conversations and work that we’re doing on what the future might look like.

Reynolds also told the inquiry that going ahead he would like to see “very significant” changes to the Post Office’s business model. He said:

I think the scale of this scandal cannot be separated out from the business model and the governance structure of the Post Office.

So we need, from the work that I lead as secretary of state and what this inquiry is seeking to do, to not just respond to the obvious injustice and the need for redress to follow that, but to understand why, as an institution, the Post Office has gone so wrong and what needs to change in future.

For instance, I believe that is everything from the internal governance structure of the Post Office, right down to the level of remuneration that postmasters receive.

I think despite the scale of this scandal, the Post Office is still an incredibly important institution in national life.

I think it still has an incredible role to play in communities.

I look at the business model of the Post Office, and I think even accounting for the changes in the core services that are provided … there’s still a whole range of services that are really important.

But I don’t think postmasters make sufficient remuneration from what the public want from the Post Office, and I think that’s going to require some very significant changes to the overall business model of the Post Office.

This is what Reynolds told the Post Office inquiry when he was asked if he would agree with Sir Alan Bates’ call for next March to be set as a deadline for the payment of compensation to post office operators due redress payments under the GLO (general litigation order) scheme. This scheme, for the 555 people who were part of the legal action led by Bates, is one of four Post Office redress schemes operating.

Asked about the March deadline, Reynolds said:

I’ve thought about this a great deal and obviously anything put forward by Sir Alan in particular is something I’ll consider to a significant degree.

The position I’m in is I’m trying to make sure people get redress for a horrendous scandal … at a minimum, I don’t want to do anything that makes that injustice even worse.

And the worry about a deadline – can you imagine a situation where, for whatever reason, a claim has not come in?

I think it will be unconscionable to say that that is not going to be considered.

But Reynolds also said that, if he thought setting a March deadline was “the only way to speed [claims] up”, it is something he would consider.

Julian Blake, counsel for the inquiry, has now finished his questions to Jonathan Reynolds.

As he was winding up, he asked Reynolds what his plans were for the future of the Post Office.

Reynolds said governance of the Post Office would have to change.

But he said that first the organisation had to resolve issues like funding. He said it would need to pay for a replacement to the Horizon system. The Post Office needed to be “sustainable”, he said.

But, beyond that, he said, he did not think anything should be “off the table”.

He said mutualisation was one idea that has been discussed. This would have “some particular advantages in terms of dealing with the specific breakdown of trust between different parts of the organisation”.

David Connett wrote this option up for the Observer last month.

Today the i has splashed on a report claiming Home Office insiders do not think the government’s plan to smash the people smuggling gangs organising small boat crossings will work. In her story Lizzie Dearden says:

Home Office officials do not believe Labour’s plan to “smash the gangs” will work as a way of bringing down illegal migration to the UK, i can reveal.

They say that civil servants in the department have been “underwhelmed” by the approach that was being outlined again this week by Sir Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper.

The insiders say “nobody” understands how the much-vaunted Border Security Command – that the Government says will take the lead on combating people smugglers running small boats – will operate.

Asked about the report in an interview with LBC, John Healey, the defence secretary, insisted Labour’s policies would make a difference. Asked how they were different from what went before, he said:

It’s different because it is a force dedicated to smashing the gangs and reinforcing the borders. It’s different because it will have powers that have not been there before, powers that are more akin to anti-terror powers, because these are organised criminal international gangs.

And then the work with other countries at an international level that the prime minister is leading, is also a part of getting on top of this problem.

It won’t happen overnight. We’re in the middle of the worst year ever, for the level of small boat crossings.

But I’m confident that we will get on top of it, given time and given the determination the government’s got.

Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, has started giving evidence to the Post Office Horizon inquiry. There is a live feed here.

Reynolds’ written witness statement is here.

In it, Reynolds pays tribute to two Conservative former ministers for their work on the compensation schemes.

I would also like to mention that Paul Scully, as former Postal Minister, made a significant attempt to move the dial, and that the now shadow secretary of state, Kevin Hollinrake moved it on much further. I have every confidence that our new postal minister, Gareth Thomas, will continue to build on these foundations to deliver justice for postmasters as quickly as possible.

When I was the shadow secretary of state, I worked very closely with Kevin Hollinrake, who was the postal minister leading the work on behalf of the department – and we are able to have frank discussions in parliament with each other. This allowed us to ensure parliament could move quickly on this and enact the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act 2024 before the general election last year, which has significantly moved the dial in terms of providing redress. I am pleased to say that I played a significant role in ensuring the passing of the act through the house. I would very much like this good faith working relationship to continue – the Horizon scandal is widely recognised as an issue upon which MPs should work together on a cross-party basis, delivering justice for the subpostmasters.

And this is what John Healey, the defence secretary, said about Labour’s plans for defence spending.

• Healey said the government would set out a “pathway” to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP after the defence review concludes in the spring of next year. Asked to defend why it was taking so long, he told LBC:

It’s a question of how much you spend but how you spend it and how well you spend it. If I said today look, we’ll spend 2.5% on defence, your next and immediate question would be well, how will you spend it?

That’s the purpose of the defence review that we’ve already launched – that Keir Starmer launched within a fortnight of Labour coming [into government].

• He refused to commit the government reaching the 2.5% target before the next election. Asked on the Today programme if the target would be hit this parliament, he repeatedly sidestepped the question, just saying the pathway to 2.5% would be set out next year.

• He said Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary, was wrong to claim the government is not really raising defence spending because it is just re-allocating Ukraine spending from Treasury reserve spending to the defence budget. When this was put to him, Healey told Today:

Ben Wallace is factually incorrect. The £2.9bn extra next year comes on top of the £3bn this year for Ukraine, and those figures are set out in black and white in the budget documents, and anyone can go and check them, including Ben Wallace if he wants to do that for himself.

In his interviews this morning John Healey, the defence secretary, was generally talking down the risk that Donald Trump’s re-election poses to Ukraine rather than talking it up. But perhaps his most accurate answer came when he we will just have to “wait and see” what happens. Here is a summary of the main lines from his interviews on this topic.

• Healey said he did not expect the US to turn away from Nato under Trump. He told Sky News:

I don’t expect the US to turn away from Nato. They recognise the importance of the alliance. They recognise the importance of avoiding further conflict in Europe.

Healey said US support for Nato “goes back decades, and that has remained, including through the previous President Trump administration”. He also said Trump had “rightly” pushed for European nations to spend more on defence.

• Healey said he expected the US under Trump to stand by Ukraine for “as long as it takes to prevail”. Asked if Trump’s win made Ukraine less safe, he told Sky News:

No, I don’t. The US alongside the UK have been two of the leading countries that have been standing by Ukraine, supporting Ukraine, our determination to do so is just as strong.

As far as President Trump goes, he recognises that countries get security through strength, just as alliances like Nato do, and I expect the US to remain alongside allies like the UK, standing with Ukraine for as long as it takes to prevail over Putin’s invasion.

• But Healey also said the world would have to “wait and see” what Trump would do over Ukraine. He told BBC Breakfast:

We’ll have to wait and see what President Trump really proposes … but if the reports of his call with [Vladimir] Putin last week are right then President Trump is exactly right to warn Putin against escalation of the conflict in Ukraine.

• Healey said Keir Starmer and President Macron would be discussing this morning what “more” they can do to support Ukraine.

• Healey said it was for Ukraine to decide when it starts talking to Russia about peace. He said:

It’s Ukraine that gets to call when the talking starts. Our job is to support Ukraine, stand by them when they fight, stand by them if they decide to talk.

This could be ended today if Putin withdrew following his illegal invasion … that’s the way this conflict could be ended, and the importance for us for Europe and for the United States is that Putin in the long run does not prevail, because if he does prevail, he will not stop at Ukraine, and the cost to us all will be much greater in the future.

On Saturday the Guardian ran a story saying that officials in Kyiv are complaining in private about the UK’s refusal to supply them with more Storm Shadow missiles and saying the relationship with London has “got worse” since Labour took office.

On the Today programme John Healey, the defence secretary, claimed the report was “simply not correct”. Asked if the relationship had got worse, Healey replied:

That is simply not correct. We’ve stepped up with more military support. We’ve speeded up deliveries. We’re now spending more on military aid for Ukraine than ever before as a UK government.

I spoke at length to the defence minister in Ukraine yesterday. He certainly doesn’t see the UK support weakening, and he said the Ukrainians are confident in Britain’s continuing and steadfast support for their country.

Keir Starmer has met Michel Barnier, the French prime minister, in Paris this morning. They know each other well, from when Starmer was shadow Brexit secretary and Barnier was the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and Barner says he was “tres heureux” to meet his old interlocutor.

And here’s a translation (mostly from Google, but with my version of “vient de loin, a connu les épreuves”, because Google’s wasn’t very good.)

Very happy to see you again, @Keir_Starmer, in Paris this morning.

Franco-British friendship has come a long way, through thick and thin. It will be invaluable in facing the challenges that lie ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister, @10DowningStreet, for being with the French people on this November 11.

(The tone of Barnier’s message may upset some Brexiters. They still regard him as the devil incarnate, and seeing him being so friendly about Starmer may revive their suspicions about the PM’s Europhilia.)

Good morning. Keir Starmer is in Paris this morning for talks with the French president, Emmanuel Macron. The prime minister is visiting to attend the French Armistice Day service, but the real interest will lie in what the leaders of Europe’s two biggest military powers have to say as they discuss the implications of Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election.

Here is Jessica Elgot’s overnight preview story.

John Healey, the defence secretary, has been doing a media round this morning. Quite what Trump will do about Ukraine – in fact, about anything – remains uncertain, but in the US it is being reported that Trump has spoken to Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, and urged him not to escalate the Russian offensive in Ukraine. In her story Maya Yang reports:

Donald Trump spoke on the phone with Vladimir Putin on Thursday and discussed the war in Ukraine, the Washington Post reported on Sunday, citing people familiar with the matter.

The US president-elect advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of “Washington’s sizeable military presence in Europe”, the Post reported.

It added that Trump expressed interest in follow-up conversations on “the resolution of Ukraine’s war soon”.

During the election campaign, Trump said he would find a solution to end the war “within a day”, but did not explain how he would do so.

According to one former US official who was familiar with the call and spoke to the Washington Post, Trump likely does not want to begin his second presidential term with an escalation in the Ukraine war, “giving him incentive to want to keep the war from worsening”.

In an interview on the Today programme, Healey welcomed this report. Asked if Ukraine was losing the war, he replied:

Ukraine is certainly under pressure. Russia is certainly escalating, and President Trump has reportedly told Putin and warned him against further escalation. If he’s done that, he’s right to do so.

Russia is escalating with massing North Korean troops on their territory. It’s escalating with more than 2,000 one-way attack kamikaze drones aimed at Kyiv and the rest of the Ukrainian cities in the last month alone. And one person is responsible for that escalation, and that’s Putin.

I will post more from Healey’s interviews shortly.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Keir Starmer is meeting Emmanuel Macron, the French president, in Paris.

10am: Jonathan Reynolds, the business secretary, gives evidence to the Post Office Horizon inquiry. He will be followed by Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, giving evidence in her capacity as Reynolds’ predecessor as business secretary. Her evidence may continue into the afternoon.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

Afternoon: Starmer is expected to speak to journalists while flying from Paris to Baku, where he is attending the Cop29 summit.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line 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. I’m still using X and I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I’m also trying Bluesky (@andrewsparrowgdn) and Threads (@andrewsparrowtheguardian).

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.