A proposed law that would take failing water companies back into public ownership if they repeatedly pollute Britain’s waterways has been blocked, PA Media reports. PA says:

The government did not offer its support to Clive Lewis’s water bill, which included a series of measures to tackle water pollution, including nationalising repeat offenders.

The private member’s bill from the Norwich South Labour MP would have meant any firms that had three major sewage spills would have their licence terminated and be nationalised, without owners getting compensation.

It would also compel the government to ensure water is affordable, with the provision of free water “where appropriate”.

However environment minister Emma Hardy said it would cost more than £200bn to renationalise the water industry. But Hardy added the government was committed to improving water quality and the wider industry.

MPs debated the Bill for more than four hours today, but Lewis asked for it to be adjourned until 4 July after failing to get Government backing.

Hardy said: “[Lewis] says we can do it better, we can do it better, we absolutely can. This Labour party was elected on a manifesto for change, it was elected with a plan for change. The Labour Party was created to serve working people and the working class, and it’s our duty to do that.”

She said the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimated it would cost £99bn to buy capital assets, as well as £104bn for already-announced investment in the water system.

Lewis had introduced his bill by criticising the legacy of private ownership and said his reforms would send failing owners “into the sunset without a penny in compensation”.

He said: “Under the bill, if a water company breaches the terms of its licence with a major sewage discharge it can forget shareholder payouts and piling on more debt.

“Do it twice and you’re in the last chance saloon. Three strikes and you’re out. Licence terminated, on your bike, and those price-gouging, asset-stripping, river-killing, vulture-capitalist outfits, they’ll be rolled into the sunset without a penny in compensation.”

Eluned Morgan, the Labour Welsh first minister, has declined to back the UK government’s benefits cuts, telling members of the Senedd she will “reserve” her position.

During a scrutiny committee hearing in the Senedd, Morgan said she was still waiting to get a reply to a letter she wrote to Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, about the impact of the cuts on Wales.

Asked if she supported them, she replied:

I have yet to get a firm understanding of how [the changes] will impact on Wales, and until I’m clear about the impacts, I want to reserve my position.

Morgan wrote to Kendall on 11 March 11 and told the committee “I still haven’t received a response from her”, and that she would be “chasing that today”.

Plaid Cymru’s Llŷr Gruffydd said Morgan’s position seemed to differ from how Jo Stevens, the Welsh secretary, had characterised it. Stevens previously told the BBC the reform reforms had been “welcomed” by Morgan.

When Gruffydd pointed this out, Morgan initially said nothing. When Gruffydd asked if Stevens was wrong, Morgan replied:

My position is that I want to see absolute clarity on what the impact on Wales is.

Until I get a firm view on that, I don’t want to make a judgment.

Until I know what the impact will be and where we then, as a government, can position ourselves in relation to how far we can go to stand with and by people.

“But I want to be clear that I don’t think it’s sustainable for us to see the kind of huge increases in the numbers of people who are going on to benefits. This is not a sustainable situation.

Plaid Cymru has posted the clip on social media.

Later Gruffydd said:

Some of the first minister’s comments in committee this morning were quite frankly jaw-dropping. She said she was ‘reserving judgement’ before taking a stance on Labour’s welfare changes, but the secretary of state for Wales says that the first minister has already supported the cuts.

She went on to admit that the conversations she had with Number 10 were not with the prime minister, nor any ministers either. If her influence in Westminster only reaches a middle-ranking official, it’s obvious that it is non-existent.

It’s clear from today’s session that the first minister has no direct influence - this so called ‘partnership in power’ just isn’t delivering, and it highlighted how this Labour Welsh government is unable to move the dial on devolution.

The Green party says Reform UK is just a party for the rich, with “no track record of delivering”.

In a statement issued ahead of Reform’s campaign launch, Adrian Ramsay, the Green co-leader, said:

We know people are struggling after 14 years of Conservative austerity, now followed by the crushing disappointment of a new Labour government making more cuts to front line services. But Reform will never be the answer to the decline of the two old parties.

Reform is a party designed to benefit the very richest and has no track record of delivering for people. Green councillors up and down the country are delivering real hope and real change in their communities every day.

We are offering a hard-working and democratic alternative to the dead end, divisive choice of Reform and their impossible promises.

Reform UK has played down suggestions that it could win almost 500 seats in the local elections in May.

In an interview on the World at One, Richard Tice, the party’s deputy leader, was asked about an Electoral Calculus MRP poll published earlier this month suggesting the party is on course to win about 470 seats. Asked if he thought that was possible, Tice replied:

I think if we did [reach that figure] that would be truly remarkable, and we’d be absolutely delighted, but it’s very hard to predict.

At the end of the day, where we’re allowed elections – because there’s 5.5 million people being denied elections, let’s not forget [in areas where elections are delayed because of local government reorganisation] - but where we’re allowed elections, hopefully we will win dozens and dozens and potentially hundreds of seats.

And if we do win hundreds of seats, then we could win control of some councils. That gives us the opportunity to say, ‘Look, we can run councils well.’ Then you look forward to next year’s devolved nation elections, in for example Wales, where we would go very hard. And there are great opportunities to prove ourselves.

Asked what Reform would be offering to voters in the local elections, Tice said the party was opposed to “the waste of money at all levels, whether it’s at national public sector level or at local council level”. He went on:

The waste of money everywhere is colossal. People are paying ever more council tax for ever worse services. Something is going hideously wrong with procurement and costs within all our councils. And we’re saying, if you vote for Reform and we win councils, you will get root and branch review and reforms, line by line of all the cost items.

Asked about the party’s chances of winning the Runcorn and Helsby byelection, which is being held on 1 May, the same day as the local elections, Tice said it was Labour’s 16th safest seat, but that Reform would “run it very close”.

Tice was being interviewed ahead of Reform rally in Birmingham this evening which is serving as the party’s local elections campaign launch. The party claims it will be the “most ambitious campaign launch in British political history”.

The Sentencing Council has criticised Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, for misrepresenting the new guidelines it has issued saying the pre-sentence reports should normally be required before judges sentence people from ethnic, cultural or faith minority groups.

In his letter to the justice secretary released today, Lord Justice William Davis specifically identifies Jenrick and says comments he has made about the guidelines are wrong.

The council started consulting on the guidelines in 2022, and there were no objections – including from the then Conservative party government – until Jenrick told MPs in the the Commons earlier this month that they amounted to “two-tier sentencing”. Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, soon adopted Jenrick’s argument, and since then she has been trying to get the guidelines changed.

In a letter released on 10 March Davis said it was “completely wrong” to say the new guidelines would lead to minority ethnic offenders getting more lenient sentences, as Jenrick claimed. But Davis did not refer to Jenrick directly.

In his new letter Davis does quote Jenrick twice, from exchanges in the Commons, and argues that that in both instances what Jenrick was saying was wrong.

Referring to Jenrick’s claim that an offender is less likely to be jailed if the judge gets a pre-sentence report first, Davis says:

A pre-sentence report of itself does not make a custodial sentence less likely. It provides the sentencing court with information.

Davis even argues that in some cases a pre-sentence report can make a custodial sentence more likely.

Frequently the information provided will not assist the offender’s prospect of avoiding a custodial sentence: rather the reverse. By way of example pre-sentence reports set out the attitude of the offender to the crimes they have committed. A probation officer will provide a frank assessment of whether the offender has proper understanding of the damage caused to their victim. If the offender does not, the sentencing court may use that factor in its approach to the offender’s culpability and the risk presented by the offender.

Davis also says Jenrick was wrong to tell MPs that the new rules “will ride roughshod over the rule of law”. He says:

No part of the guideline is a set of rules which ignore the rule of law. In relation to sentencing, the rule of law requires that all offenders are treated fairly and justly by judges and magistrates who are fully informed about the offences, the effect on the victims and the offenders. The section of the guideline relating to pre-sentence reports is directed to the issue of information about offenders, no more and no less.

In her letter to the Sentencing Council sent a week ago, Mahmood said she was opposed to the guidelines on the grounds that they amounted to “differential treatment on the basis of race or ethnicity”.

In his reply, Davis says sentencing outcomes are different for ethnic minorities (they often get harsher treatment than white offenders) and he says dealing with this is a policy matter (and hence a matter for government, he implies.) “It is not for judges to introduce overarching policies to redress the imbalance,” he says.

But he argues that the new guidance does not amount to differential treatment.

Any judge or magistrate required to sentence an offender must to do all that they can to avoid a difference in outcome based on ethnicity. The judge will be better equipped to do that if they have as much information as possible about the offender. The cohort of ethnic, cultural and faith minority groups may be a cohort about which judges and magistrates are less well informed. In our view, providing the sentencing court with information about that cohort could not impinge on whatever policy might be introduced to deal with the underlying problem.

Keir Starmer has paid tribute to Matthew Doyle, who – as Pippa Crerar revealed this morning – is leaving his post as communications director at No 10. In comments released at the lobby briefing, Starmer said:

Matthew brought his considerable experience to my team in summer 2021 and has worked tirelessly by my side every day since, playing a leading role in Labour’s historic election win.

On a personal level, it has been a real privilege to work with him. On behalf of the entire team, I wish him all the best in his next role.

Keir Starmer has said that he is “disappointed” at the Sentencing Council’s refusal to agree to the government’s request to withdraw the guidelines that have led to claims it is promoting “two-tier” justice. (See 11.44am.) Asked about the Sentencing Council’s letter this morning, he said:

Look, I’m disappointed in this response, and the lord chancellor is obviously continuing to engage on this, and we’re considering our response.

All options are on the table. I’m disappointed at this outcome, and now we will have to consider what we do as a result.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing, asked what the government would do next and whether the government would rush through emergency legislation, the No 10 spokesperson said he did not want to “get ahead” of the government’s response. But he said all options were on the table, and he pointed out that Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has described the current guidelines as “unacceptable”.

The Sentencing Council has refused a request from the government to change guidance that prompted a row over “two-tier justice”. PA Media says:

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, said “all options were on the table” and threatened to change the law if necessary after a “disappointing” response from the chairman of the council over new guidelines to judges relating to pre-sentence reports for ethnic minorities.

Instead, the Sentencing Council said it will clarify language around the relevant part of the guideline “in the hope that this would correct the widespread misunderstanding” which has emerged in the last few weeks.

Earlier this month the Sentencing Council published new principles for courts to follow when imposing community and custodial sentences, including whether to suspend jail time. The updated guidance, which comes into force from April 1, says a pre-sentence report will usually be necessary before handing out punishment for someone of an ethnic, cultural or faith minority, alongside other groups such as young adults aged 18 to 25, women and pregnant women.

Mahmood met with Lord Justice William Davis, the council’s chair, and set out in a letter that government policy opposes “differential treatment” based on race or ethnicity in the courts.

But, in correspondence published today, Davis said the guideline does not need changing.

The chair said: “The council concluded that the guideline did not require revision. The council respectfully disagreed with the proposition that the list of cohorts in the guideline represented an expression of policy. In providing a list of cohorts, the council was and is only concerned with judges and magistrates being provided with as much information as possible.”

He said the council agreed any systemic issue relating to ethnic groups is a matter for policy, adding: “Any judge or magistrate required to sentence an offender must do all that they can to avoid a difference in outcome based on ethnicity.

“The judge will be better equipped to do that if they have as much information as possible about the offender. The cohort of ethnic, cultural and faith minority groups may be a cohort about which judges and magistrates are less well informed.”

Reacting to the Sentencing Council’s response on Friday, Mahmood said: “I have been clear in my view that these guidelines represent differential treatment, under which someone’s outcomes may be influenced by their race, culture or religion.

“This is unacceptable, and I formally set out my objections to this in a letter to the Sentencing Council last week.

“I am extremely disappointed by the council’s response. All options are on the table and I will legislate if necessary.”

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, also told Today that the UK should negotiate a wide-ranging trade deal with the US. This should include agriculture, he said. Farage acknowledged that in the past talks on this have been held up by Britain not wanting to allow food imports produced to America’s less rigorous standards, but he claimed the solution was just to give consumers a choice. He said:

Now there’s been some concern about chlorine-treated chicken etc, but there is an answer to that which is label things, let consumers decide …

I would allow consumers in America to buy our products and consumers here to buy their products, and provided we have the right labelling, that’s good.

The Liberal Democrats said this would amount to a betrayal of British farmers. Tim Farron, the party’s environment spokesperson, said:

It looks like Nigel Farage has had the full indoctrination at Mar-a-Lago. No one in this country wants chlorinated chicken on our supermarket shelves.

Farage wants to sell out our hard-working British farmers for a grubby trade deal that wouldn’t protect us from Trump’s damaging tariffs. He’s more interested in being a salesman for Trump than standing up for Britain and our rural communities.

In his Today interview this morning Nigel Farage also sought to address another electoral millstone for his party – his strong support for President Trump, and the perception that he is too sympathetic to Russia.

Farage normally defends Trump on almost everything. But, asked about Trump’s Ukraine policy, Farage replied:

I would say it’s quite right to aim for peace, but we can’t have a peace that turns Putin into a winner, so I would not be 100% with where his team is right now.

When it was put to Farage that in the past he, like Trump, has blamed the west for provoking Putin into invading Ukraine, Farage replied:

There’s no point looking back. We are where we are now. We want a peace deal. Surely everybody wants a peace deal, but it needs to be equitable. Right at the moment, it appears Russia is getting far too much.

Asked to confirm he was saying Trump was giving Putin too much, Farage said:

At the moment, that’s the way it looks.

Now, there may be things going on behind the scenes on the Russian side that we don’t know, but at the moment, that’s the worry.

Nigel Farage has tried to fend off claims that Reform UK would force people to pay to see a doctor.

In an interview this morning ahead of big rally the party is holding in Birmingham later, Farage claimed that he had always been committed to healthcare being “free at the point of delivery” – even though in the past he has said he would be “open to anything” in terms of reforming the NHS funding model.

Speaking to the Today programme, Farage also confirmed that he was interested introducing a French-style insurance model for health funding in the UK – something that arguably would no longer make healthcare free at the point of delivery.

The exchange came as Labour, which increasingly has decided to attack Reform UK instead of ignoring it, has launched a campaign claiming Reform’s health policies lead to patients facing huge bills for treatment.

Farage told Today:

The NHS is something we believe in, or we used to believe in, but now doesn’t work, and everyone knows that.

Asked if he would be happy for people to pay a top-up fee to use it, he replied:

Well, they’re paying already. They pay through tax.

Asked again if he would be in favour of people having to pay “a little” to see a GP, or to go to a hospital, Farage denied this.

They’re two different things. I’m not asking people to pay to go to the doctor. We’ve never said anything other than healthcare should be provided free at the point of delivery.

When it was put to him that he had repeatedly talked up the case for a system requiring people to get health insurance, he replied:

Only if they can afford it. That’s the point. Only if they can afford it.

At the moment, they pay for their healthcare through taxes. Is there a better way of doing this?

Everyone knows we are not getting bang for buck. Everyone knows we’re not getting value. Let’s re-examine the whole funding model and find the way that’s more efficient.

In the past Farage has been much more explicit about favouring a health funding model that would require people to pay. Speaking to the Telegraph at the end of last year, he said:

The French do it much better with less funding. There is a lesson there. If you can afford it, you pay; if you can’t, you don’t. It works incredibly well.

Under the French system, people do pay upfront fees to see a doctor, although normally they can recoup the money through their insurance.

Labour thinks Reform is electorally vulnerable on health policy, and today Wes Streeting, the health secretary, is launching a campaign attacking Farage on this issue.

In a statement released in advance, Streeting said:

Nigel Farage’s plan to make hard-working families pay eye-watering sums to get treatment when they’re sick is enough to send a shiver down the spine of the nation. Everyone deserves a world-class health service, not just the wealthy.

Labour is investing in the NHS, Farage would cut it and give the money to the wealthiest. Labour is bringing waiting lists down, Farage would send them soaring. Labour is giving people their NHS back, Farage would give them a bill.

In a briefing note, Labour claimed:

If Reform brought in an insurance-based system, comparable international systems show that patients could be left paying over £120 for a GP appointment, with an A&E visit potentially setting people back by upwards of £1,300. Routine operations like hip replacements could cost an eyewatering £23,000.

Keir Starmer’s director of communications, Matthew Doyle, is standing down from his role after nine months in No 10, Pippa Crerar reports.

The Conservatives have dismissed the government’s north of England transport announcement (see 9.13am) as a rehash of plans they came up with first. This is from Gareth Bacon, the shadow transport secretary.

Keir Starmer is right that Labour mayors have neglected public transport in the north, but simply re-announcing projects the previous Conservative government had planned, set aside funding for, and announced is hardly a major step forward.

While we are glad that they are going to take forward the plans we conceived, Labour’s recklessly ideological rail reforms will give the trade unions the power to hold the north to ransom, condemning passengers to chaos, confusion, and cancellations.

On top of that, Labour’s decision to scrap vital road upgrades and axe the £2 bus fare cap will only worsen connectivity across the north. Under new leadership, the Conservatives will present practical solutions to improve transport links.

Good morning. Keir Starmer is today promising to improve the north of England’s “Victorian-era” public transport system. Anyone reliant on trains and buses north of Watford will know exactly what he is talking about, and will probably welcome Starmer’s intent – while also thinking they have heard this all before from central government, and wondering quite what’s new.

Starmer is on a visit near Huddersfield this morning and he is using it to announce what No 10 is describing as “a major transport package to improve the lives of people across the north of England”. It is worth at least £1.7bn, but the projects are not new, and Starmer is promoting a collection of measures already in the pipeline. The Conservatives claim he is talking about a series of initatives first announced when they were in office.

But what is striking is the language Starmer is using; he is admitting the transport experience for many northerners is dire.

In a statement released overnight he says:

The north is home to a wealth of talent and ingenuity. But for too long, it has been held to ransom by a Victorian-era transport system which has stifled its potential. I lived in Leeds for years, I get that this has real-world impacts – missed appointments, children late to school, work meetings rescheduled – all leading to insecurity and instability for working people.

My government won’t stand by and watch. We are rolling up our sleeves, and today’s downpayment for growth is a vote of confidence in the north’s world-beating industries …

After years of false promises and under delivery, this government is delivering real change for the north. We are spending double as much on local transport in the north than the south, all done hand-in-hand with our mayors and local leaders.

And Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, says:

For too long, the north has been left behind and relied on a crumbling transport system that’s not fit to serve the great towns and cities it’s home to.

The government’s Plan for Change will end that and schemes like the TransPennine route upgrade will bolster the region’s neglected potential and make travelling between these historic northern towns and cities quicker, easier and greener.

Summing up what is being announced, Downing Street says:

The prime minister will today set out plans to make the Liverpool-Hull corridor an economic superpower – rivalling the Oxford-Cambridge arc – kickstarted with £1.7bn this year …

This comes on top of funding announced today:

-For the key rail line between Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York, which has been plagued by disruptions and delays for years without a plan to fix it. The route will now be supported with £415m in funding from government to restore its failing services.

-For local leaders to unleash their areas’ untapped potential with over £1bn for the north to improve the transport services people use every day – backing regional mayors and ensuring decisions about the north sit with those who call it home. This comes alongside £270m investment in bus services and £330m in road maintenance across the north.

Starmer is due to be taking questions on this (and many other things, hopefully) from workers and journalists at a Q&A at a factory later.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: MPs debate private members’ bills, starting with Clive Lewis’s water bill.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit near Huddersfield, where he is due to hold a Q&A.

In the evening Reform UK are holding a big rally in Birmingham, but the blog may have closed before that gets going.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (comment will be open from 10am today) 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. 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.