Liberal Democrats call for vote on motion that could force government to publish its assessment of aid cuts

Peter Walker

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent.

The Liberal Democrats are to try and push the government into revealing the projected impact of big cuts to overseas aid – but with a Commons vote not expected, it is unlikely to achieve its goal.

The party has published a so-called humble address asking that “there be deposited in the House of Commons library all impact assessments which His Majesty’s government have made regarding the impact of the reduction of official development assistance from 0.5% to 0.3%”.

Humble addresses, officially directed at the monarch, are a slightly arcane type of parliamentary procedure which can be used to force governments to produce documents against their will. When in opposition, Labour successfully did this several times over Brexit papers, with a certain Keir Starmer, then the shadow Brexit secretary, at the centre of this.

However, while a humble address is binding if voted on, the government does not have to provide parliamentary time. They thus only have force if another party uses one of its so-called opposition days. While the main opposition gets 19 of these per session, as the third party the Lib Dems receives only three.

With the party still unsure when its next one will come, a vote on the aid assessments seems unlikely.

Keir Starmer may travel to Washington to meet President Trump again with the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Reuters is reporting.

Reuters says the French government spokeswoman Sophie Primas revealed today that a three-leader trip to the US is being considerered. Primas was speaking to reporters following the weekly meeting of the French cabinet.

In response to a question about intelligence cooperation with the US, Sir David Manning, a former ambassador to Washington, said he thought this would become “more difficult” because there was a problem of trust. He explained:

If you have some of Trump’s appointees in these key jobs who have very strange track records, and have said very strange things about Nato allies, the Nato alliance and so on, and you have people in the administration who seem to be, let’s say, looking for ways of appeasing Russia, then you have a problem on the intelligence front, because these are not the values that we have.

Back in the Lords committee, Nicholas Soames, the Conservative peer and former minister, revealed that this take on the Trump administration is quite different from Andrew Griffith’s. (See 11.03am.) In a preamble to a question, he said that he thought “the Trump people despise Europe”. And he said that he was assuming “that things are going to go dreadfully wrong”.

Picking up on an earlier reference to a discussion about the interest in whether or not there is a bust of Winston Churchill in the Oval Office, Soames, a grandson of the wartime prime minister, said that he thought this obsession was “simply rubbish”. He also said that it was the British who went on about this, not the Americans.

Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith praises Trump and Elon Musk for their ‘dynamism’

Peter Walker

Peter Walker is a senior Guardian political correspondent.

Donald Trump and Elon Musk have shown a “refreshing” dynamism and sense of purpose which could be seen as a model for other governments wanting to get things done at speed, a senior Conservative has said.

Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, has previously been a strong backer of Trump and his main aide, at one point saying Musk had potentially “saved humanity”: by rescuing Twitter from a “left-leaning elite”.

More recently, many other Conservatives have been reining in their praise for the increasingly erratic US president.

But not Griffith. Asked by Sky News for his view of Trump’s record so far, Griffith said he was “envious of the dynamism, not the bombast”.

He went on:

You’ve clearly got a change government coming in with a clear set of plans to address some of the big challenges that all western economies face – high levels of public spending, and sometimes an inefficient public service that makes people feel government isn’t on their side.

You have seen a dynamism with the president, with Elon Musk, that I think is relatively refreshing. And it’s right that governments with strong democratic mandates have the ability to get on and do things.

Sir David Manning told the Lords committee that he thought the UK would have to start looking “elsewhere” because of the state of relations with the US.

Responding to the question about whether the special relationship exists, he said:

I agree that there’s obviously been a very important relationship … and a special relationship with the United States. I confess that I don’t always like the term, not because it isn’t special, but because I think it’s made us lazy … I think that means we don’t have to look elsewhere, which I think is relevant to this morning’s discussion, because I think we are going to have to look elsewhere.

Asked by the Labour peer Bruce Grocott what the disadvantages of the special relationship were, Manning replied:

A fundamental difference in our relationship with the United States from our other partners is that we depend on them for our defence.

It is very difficult to imagine what we’re going to do to defend ourselves, if, for example – this is very hypothetical – the Trump administration decides that it’s going to end our nuclear cooperation deal, or if Trump moves out of Nato, or even becomes just so equivocal about Nato that the article five guarantee is no longer plausible.

I’m not saying those things will happen, and they were inconceivable until six weeks ago. I think you now have to address them. Doesn’t mean they will happen, but I think they’re on the table, and I don’t think we have a relationship with any other country which is absolutely fundamental to our defence, and that, I think is changing, and we’ve got to start thinking about that.

What would we do if we found that this post-war, defence relationship that has been so vital to us becomes questionable? I do think that makes this relationship unique.

Four former UK ambassadors to Washington, Dame Karen Pierce, Sir Peter Westmacott, Sir Nigel Sheinwald and Sir David Manning, have just starting giving evidence to the Lords international relations and defence committee about relations with the US.

There is a live feed here:

Lord de Mauley, the committee chair, said that the committee was meant to be looking at the long-term aspects of the relationship. But he accepted that topical issues might come up.

He started by asking if there was a special relationship.

Pierce kicked off the responses. Pointing out that she remains a civil servant, she said there is a special relationship, even if there is no agreed definition of it. The relationship was unlike any other – even if the Americans were not sentimental about it, she said.

She recalled visiting West Point, the US military academy. The young recruits there were very clear that the UK was “ally number one”, she said.

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has said that despite announcing a record level of sitting days for crown court judges to tackle delays, the “sad reality” is the backlog of cases will “still go up”, PA Media reports. PA says:

Mahmood said that judges will sit collectively for 110,000 days in the next financial year, 4,000 more than allocated for the previous period, to help victims see justice done faster.

The move comes as the Victims Commissioner published a report yesterday warning that the record levels of crown court delays are deepening the trauma of victims and making many feel justice is “out of reach”.

The rising backlog in England and Wales has almost doubled in five years to 73,105 at the end of September last year.

Meanwhile, a report from the public accounts committee published today raised concerns ministers had “simply accepted” the record-high crown court backlog will continue to grow and they will wait for the results of the Leveson Review before planning changes to tackle it.

The major review led by Sir Brian Leveson is expected to report on reforms to the court system in the spring.

Announcing the extra sitting days Mahmood described it as a “critical first step” but there is more that “we must” do.

Asked about how long it will take to clear the courts backlog, she told Times Radio: “We will be making progress.

“But the sad reality is that even sitting to this unprecedented amount, the backlog will still go up.

“Because the demand of cases coming into the system is very, very large, and that’s why I announced some weeks ago that Brian Leveson will be carrying out a crown courts review for us to look at once-in-a-generation reform of the sorts of cases that go into our crown courts, so that we can actually bear down on that backlog in the longer term.”

Changes on which cases go to jury trials as crown courts buckle under the “sheer number of cases” coming in will be among the measures being considered in the Leveson Review, she told LBC.

“He will also be considering whether we should do more with our magistrates’ courts and the sorts of cases that they can hear, or whether there is a case for a court that sits between the magistrates and the crown,” she said.

In an interview last week Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, was evasive when asked if the crime and policing bill she was publishing would lead to more people going to jail. The interviewer said that the legislation created 18 new offences, and suggested that, if the Home Office was locking more people up, that would undermine the Ministry of Justice’s efforts to reduce prison overcrowding.

Cooper said there were some measures in the bill that would reduce offending. But it sounded as if she was reluctant to answer the question because she did not want to admit that the interviewer had a point about prison numbers.

But the government has now published its impact assessment for the bill. And this suggests Cooper was being coy because the government will actually have a very limited impact on prison numbers. Because rightwing papers assume that any criminal justice measure that does not lead to more people being locked up must be ineffective, Cooper may have decided silence was the best policy.

In a story for the Times, Matt Dathan says the bill will result in only a few dozen extra people going to jail every year. He says:

Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, said the bill would address an “epidemic of street theft”, including a rise in phone and bag snatching and shoplifting.

However, an impact assessment of the bill published by the government last week revealed that the new offences would lead to 5,000 additional police-recorded crimes each year. This would lead to more than 400 prosecutions and 300 convictions, resulting in an extra 13-55 additional people going to prison each year.

Dathan also quotes Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, claiming these figures show the bill won’t work. Jenrick told the Times:

Yvette Cooper’s own assessment shows her bill is a total gimmick. Labour’s attempts to con the British public they’re tough on crime have been exposed. There were 84,000 phone thefts last year. Locking up 12 more people a year isn’t going to do anything to end the theft epidemic.

Rishi Sunak has said the “stop the boats” slogan during his time as UK prime minister was “too stark”, PA Media reports.

Good morning. Three weeks today Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, will present her spring statement. Originally this was not meant to involve budget-scale changes for plans to tax or spending (Reeves says she is only going to have one proper budget a year, in the autumn, to ensure stability), but changes to the country’s economic situation mean this statement is going to be more consequential than originally intended and this morning the BBC is running a story that looks like classic Treasury pitch rolling. The markets don’t like surprises and, while exact details of budget announcements are kept secret until the chancellor speaks to MPs, the Treasury invests a lot of effort in ensuring that people have a rough idea of what’s coming.

According to a report by the BBC’s economics editor Faisal Islam, Reeves is going to announce cuts, worth several billions pounds, particularly affecting welfare. He says:

The Treasury will put the proposed cuts to the government’s official forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR), on Wednesday amid expectations the chancellor’s financial buffer has been wiped out.

Sources said “the world has changed” since Rachel Reeves’s Budget last October, when the OBR indicated she had £9.9bn available to spend against her self-imposed borrowing rules.

The OBR’s forecast is likely to see that disappear because of global factors such as trade tariffs, as well as higher inflation and borrowing costs in the UK.

The Treasury will on Wednesday inform the OBR of its “major measures” -essentially changes to tax and spending in order to meet the chancellor’s self-imposed rules on borrowing money.

Islam quotes a “government insider” saying:

Clearly the world has changed a lot since the autumn budget. People are watching that change happen before their eyes.

The Office for Budget Responsibility will reflect that changing world in its forecasts later this month and a changing world will be a core feature of the chancellor’s response later this month.

Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, has been giving interviews this morning, promoting an announcement about extra funding for courts to allow judges to hear more criminal cases, as a means of reducing the backlog. In an interview on the Today programme, she was asked about the BBC spring statement story. She could have said it was all nonsense, but didn’t. Or she could have just refused to speculate on forthcoming Treasury announcements, which would have been the usual answer. Instead she not only endorsed the broad thrust of Islam’s report, saying that welfare spending is “unsustainable”, but also argued that there is a “moral case” for getting people off welfare and back into the labour market.

Asked if it was right to target the welfare budget when looking for savings, she replied:

This is the Labour party. The clue is in the name. We believe in work. We know that there are many people who are currently receiving state support for being out of work who want to be in work. We know that we have too many of our young people currently out of work, not in education, employment or training.

It is right that a Labour government strains every sinew to make sure that the support is available to prevent people from leaving the labour market or, if they have left the labour market, to help them get back.

The welfare secretary has been very clear that this has got to be a clear focus for our government. There is a moral case here for making sure that people who can work are able to work.

And there’s a practical point here as well, because our current situation is unsustainable.

So on both of those measures, I think the welfare secretary is looking at the right area of policy.

Asked again if it was right to focus on welfare, if government spending had to be cut, she replied:

We’ve seen a huge rise in that welfare budget. We know that there are millions of people who are out of work in our country who want to be in work. It is absolutely morally the right thing to do to support people, to make sure either they don’t leave the labour market, or if they have, they’re supported to get back into it.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10.30am: Four former UK ambassadors to Washington, Dame Karen Pierce, Sir Peter Westmacott, Sir Nigel Sheinwald and Sir David Manning, give evidence to the Lords international relations and defence committee about relations with the US.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

After 12.30pm: MPs begin a debate on the “estimates” (government spending allocations), covering the Depatment of Health and Social Care, the Foreign Office and the Department for Business and Trade. MPs are likely to discuss the plan to cut aid spending, although there will be no specific vote on this.

2.30pm: Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee.

5.30pm: The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign holds a protest outside the US embassy in London.

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. 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.