The Liberal Democrats have been ordered to pay £14,000 in damages to a former parliamentary candidate who feels she was driven out of the party and barred from standing as an MP in a row over her gender-critical views, PA Media reports. PA says:

Natalie Bird, 45, of Stockport, Greater Manchester, had complained of being unfairly targeted for her beliefs after she wore a top bearing the slogan “Woman: Adult Human Female” to a party meeting.

Bird recalled “being treated like a wicked witch and felt targeted” in a campaign of discrimination and feeling that “the complaints system was weaponised against her”, the central London county court heard today.

The single mother and former prospective parliamentary candidate for Wakefield sued for discrimination, and representatives of the Lib Dem membership had previously conceded the claim.

Bird had asked for an award of £90,000 for injury to feelings for breach of her membership contract and rights under the Equality Act.

She had gone online and been critical of the party’s policies and “there is no evidence that Bird’s views ever crossed the line and became transphobic or abusive”, judge Jane Evans-Gordon said.

Bird was also “upset” by people who called her transphobic when her claims of their alleged abuse went “unaddressed”.

The court heard: “Ms Bird holds the belief that sex and gender are separate. Her views are known as gender critical. She alleges that as a result she has suffered discrimination by the Liberal Democrats which has caused her great hurt to her feelings.”

The judge said the level of compensation reflects the fact the discrimination was not “a one-off or an isolated incident and it is likely to have had a significant impact on Ms Bird”.

She noted that Bird is not prevented from returning to work, the sum makes allowances for the unfair process involved in her removal as a prospective parliamentary candidate for Wakefield but not for her lack of progress in her political career or ability to network.

The judge added: “Political parties are entitled to choose candidates who support party policies and remove those who disagree with the policies. They cannot be expected to choose those who publicly disagree and undermine party policy.”

Bird had worn the T-shirt bearing the words “Woman: Adult Human Female” in the days after she was nominated as the prospective parliamentary candidate for Wakefield in December 2018.

Soon after she received a letter suspending her membership and notifying her that there would be a formal disciplinary hearing against her for breaching the party’s code of conduct.

The court heard that Bird’s case covers a range of issues including how the complaints against her were dealt with, her prospects for appeal, her removal as a prospective parliamentary candidate and her exclusion from the 2020 party conference as a result of her suspension.

After the ruling, a Lib Dem spokesperson said: “This case relates to events that took place in 2019 under a different complaints system that has since been changed.”

The Reform UK MP Rupert Lowe has suggested that all Pakistani visas should be refused, and aid to the country suspended, until Pakistan agreed to take back any of its nationals who have been involved in child sex crimes – and their relatives.

He also suggested that British Pakistanis with dual nationality should lose their British citizenship if convicted of rape.

Lowe was speaking in the debate in the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, in a contribution that led to one Labour MPs saying she was “disgusted” by his comments.

Lowe framed his speech largely as a series of questions. He started:

Will the government commit to urgently deporting all guilty foreign nationals involved, including family members who were aware of the crimes and therefore complicit? Wives, sisters, mothers, cousins – if they knew and said nothing these individuals are just as guilty as the rapist themselves.

Will the government commit to stripping citizenship from dual nationals implicated and deport them as well? Race or religion must protect nobody.

Will the government commit to pausing all Pakistani visas and foreign aid into the country until the Pakistani government agrees to accept any of its public citizens that have perpetrated these crimes on British soil and also imprison these rapists and their accomplices?

Will the government undertake a full investigation into who had knowledge of these crimes yet failed to act? Establish a specified task to root out this wicked, evil – don’t just fire these violence, prosecute them.

How many girls estimated to have been raped? Is there a tally for the overall number of rapes? Horrifyingly, it well be in the millions, We just don’t know.

Lowe, who recently received an endorsement from Elon Musk on the same day Musk said Nigel Farage should be replaced as Reform UK leader, concluded his speech:

The mass rape of young, white working-class girls by gangs of Pakistani rapists is a rotting stain on our nation. This is not about Elon Musk. This is not a bandwagon of the far right. This is about the victims and ensuring swift and brutal justice is delivered to those demons responsible. It is about distinguishing between right and wrong.

Lowe was followed by the Labour MP Sarah Champion who started by saying she felt “disgusted” by what she has just heard. Champion went on:

Can you imagine, if you’re a victim or survivor, listening to that? I’m sure his intent is to get to the truth and get justice, but the language – please think about who hears our words.

Nigel Farage, the Reform UK, told MPs that that a new inquiry was needed specifically into the involvement of British Pakistanis in rape gangs.

Speaking in the debate on the children’s wellbeing and schools bill, he claimed that, for the past 20 years, “at every attempt to try and have a proper national debate on the scale of this problem, it has been shut down”.

He said that Keir Starmer has stressed the fact that an inquiry has already taken place. But grooming gangs were not mentioned once in the 459-page report from the independent inquiry in child sexual abuse, he said, and Rotherham was only mentioned once.

That inquiry was so wide-ranging it was like a shotgun, he said. He went on:

What we need and what they calling for is a rifle shot this inquiry – one that looks specifically at to what extent were gangs of Pakistani men raping young white girls.

Because ultimately, it seems to me, there’s a deep racist element behind what happened.

Now I might be right, I might be wrong, but doesn’t the country deserve a full, open national inquiry.

Farage also restated Reform UK’s commitment to hold its own inquiry if the government does not hold its own.

But Farage was followed by the Labour MP Nadia Whittome, who accused Tory and Reform UK MPs of “weaponising the trauma of victims” for their own advantage. And she also said all races were involved in sexual abuse. She said:

Under successive governments, vulnerable children have been systematically failed by the institutions that were supposed to protect them, the police, social services, local authorities, the CPS, their schools. They were disbelieved and their lives were devalued.

We in this house owe it to victims and survivors of the past, the present and sadly the future, to give them justice and protection where the state previously so badly failed.

And in order to do that we cannot turn child sexual abuse and exploitation into a political football.

And I want to be clear too, that it’s by no means all members opposite who are guilty of this. There have been dedicated and powerful advocates for children on both sides of this house.

But the Conservative leadership and Reform MPs, marching to the beat of Elon Musk’s drum, are plainly weaponising the pain and the trauma of victims for their own political ends ….

When you say that child sexual abuse and exploitation is the result of alien cultures or a multicultural culturalism project that has failed, you mask the reality, which is that child sexual abuse and exploitation is happening in every area of this country, perpetrated by members of every social class, every race and every religion.

At this point some Reform UK MPs objected. Whittome went on:

The Reform MPs are chuntering opposite. That is a fact, and when you deny that, you are failing victims and survivors.

The Conservative have claimed that some academy school teachers could face a pay cut under the proposals in the schools bill to force academy schools to follow national pay rates when setting salaries for their staff. (See 10.32am.)

But Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, told MPs during the debate this would not happen.

In response to a question from the Labour MP Jonathan Brash, who asked for a confirmation that “nothing at all in this bill that would result in a teacher in any school getting a pay cut”, Phillipson said:

He brings a wealth of experience to this House as a teacher and I know that teachers will want to hear what this will mean for their pay.

So I will reiterate today that the measures in this bill and the changes that we will bring forward to the schoolteachers’ pay and condition documents in the following remit will not cut teachers’ pay.

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, Downing Street said that Donald Trump’s threats to annex places including Greenland and Canada are “a matter for President Trump, refusing to offer any more comment.

In what seems set to become a repeated pattern of No 10 trying to pretend that Trump has not made his latest outrageous or inflammatory remarks, Keir Starmer’s official spokesperson said: ““We look forward to working with President Trump and the coming administration.”

Asked about Trump’s refusal at a press conference on Tuesday to rule out using military force to take Greenland from Denmark, or to push Canada into becoming part of the US via economic sanctions, the spokesperson said: “It’s a matter for President Trump. I’m not going to get into a running commentary on this.”

In the same remarks, Trump also threatened to use military force to retake the Panama canal.

Labour has accused the Conservatives of using the child sexual abuse scandal to raise funds for the party.

As PA Media reports, the Tories have launched a campaign website “demandaninquirynow.com” and sent out emails to supporters asking them to sign a petition on the site which calls for a national inquiry into child grooming. The party also includes a link for donations at the bottom of its email.

A Labour spokesperson said:

Kemi Badenoch has stooped to a new low, fundraising for the Conservative party by playing politics with the safety of vulnerable children. This shows breath-taking disrespect to brave victims who are being used as a political football by the Conservatives.

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) has also called on Kemi Badenoch to retract her claim that a proposed definition of Islamophobia included “talking about sex groomers” as an example. (See 12.16pm and 3.27pm.) Zara Mohammed, secretary-general of the MCB, said:

Let me be absolutely clear – British Muslims unequivocally support the thorough investigation and prosecution of all child abusers, regardless of background. The MCB will support yet another investigation if proponents can explain why previous inquiries costing millions have not given them the answers they are looking for.

Those who seek to weaponise this issue against Muslims have already received answers they didn’t want from previous inquiries. Yet they persist in pursuing a divisive agenda rather than focusing on protecting children through evidence-based approaches.

What we will not accept is the cynical exploitation of child protection issues to demonise British Muslims. Mrs Badenoch’s comments represent a new low in the Conservative party’s persistent refusal to tackle anti-Muslim prejudice within its ranks.

The opposition leader should retract her misleading claims and focus instead on supporting evidence-based approaches to protecting all children in our society.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, opened the second reading debate on the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. In her speech, she said it was a bill that would protect children.

A vote against this bill today is a vote against the safety of our children, a vote against their childhoods and against their futures.

Today, Conservative MPs have a choice. They can choose to back measures to protect children or they can choose to chase headlines. They can choose to transform the lives of the most vulnerable young people in this country, or they can choose to sacrifice their safety for political gain.

Referring to the provisions in the bill to limit the freedoms enjoyed by academy schools in England, Graham Stuart, a former Tory minister and former chair of the Commons education committee, asked Phillipson why the government wanted to “dismantle the work of decades by members across this house [extending academies] and bring about kind-of a gross, socialist uniformity which will destroy the progress that has been made”.

Phillipson replied:

That’s just simply a mischaracterisation and [Stuart] knows it.

Kemi Badenoch told her shadow cabinet this week that her party will not be announcing any major new policies for at least two years, Harry Cole reports in a story for the Sun. He says:

The Tory leader unveiled her “three year plan” to turn the routed party around at shadow cabinet meeting on Tuesday that leans heavily on Sir Keir Starmer’s own path to power.

2025 will be focused on “rebuilding trust” with voters with apologies for what the Conservatives got wrong in government …

Next year will focus on “establishing credibility” with efforts to contrast her team with Nigel Farage as an alternative government throughout 2026.

Then the remaining years of the parliament will finally see “plans for government” unveiled and policies set out – but not before the very end of 2027 at the earliest.

Downing Street has said that Keir Starmer is “open-minded” about the case for holding a new inquiry into grooming gangs, as demanded by the Tories.

At a post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson echoed what Keir Starmer told MPs earlier when he said that the government wanted to focus on implementing the recommendations from the national child abuse inquiry, and that a further inquiry might hold things up.

But the spokesperson also made it clear that a further inquiry has not been ruled out.

Asked if Jess Phillips, the safeguarding minister, was right to suggest in an interview yesterday that there could be a fresh inquiry, the spokesperson said:

The prime minister’s position is the same as Jess Phillips’, which is we are open of course and will always listen to what victims want in this case.

What we have heard from our engagement with victims and survivors group is they want to see action. That is why we are focused on following up the recommendations of Prof Alexis Jay and taking the actions we need to deliver justice …

As the prime minister said on Monday we will always remain open-minded. We will always listen to local authorities who want to take forward inquiries, or indeed further allegations that need to be followed up.

Asked whether a new inquiry would be off the table, the spokesperson said:

Our position is that victims groups have told us that they do not want to see a national inquiry, that we therefore share that view that that would not be the best way to deliver them justice.

We’re not taking some sort of binary approach on this … The government’s approach is rooted in what victims want in order to deliver justice.

The former Brexit negotiator Oliver Robbins is expected to be appointed as the UK Foreign Office’s most senior civil servant, Pippa Crerar reports.

As leader of the opposition, there is very little you can do to affect government policy. But you can always call for a public inquiry into something. It is easy, cheap (because governments never treat it as a spending commitment – although arguably they should) and normally it is popular with the media. According to a good Robert Hutton column on this topic yesterday, Ed Miliband called for at least 10 inquiries in his first year as Labour leader. But those standards, Kemi Badenoch has been rather restrained.

And, in terms of saying something that appeals to the rightwing media, Badenoch’s decision to leap on the grooming gangs inquiry bandwagon seems to be delivering. She has had a good press in the Tory papers on this issue. And, with the Speaker confirming her amendment will be put to a vote, she has go to the point where she can run this advertising campaign.

It is certainly more honest than the Labour advert from last year that it is clearly parodying.

Badenoch can also claim to have made progress in another respect. Talking about an inquiry, Keir Starmer was notably more equivocal at PMQs than he was on Monday, when he said Badenoch was jumping on a far-right bandwagon. Today Starmer was not trying to link Badenoch with the far right (even though he could, and arguably should, have done – see 9.35am) and he conceded there was a reasonable argument for saying an inquiry into grooming gangs should take place. (See 12.04pm.) It is just not an argument that has persuaded him, he implied.

That said, shameless opportunism is still shameless opportunism – even if it brings some short-term benefits. And, in the argument at PMQs today, Starmer beat Badenoch fairly easily. He repeatedly argued – forcefully and persuasively – that the Tories could not claim to be in favour of protecting children while at the same time voting against today’s bill. Badenoch could not really counter this argument at all.

She pushed back a bit more effectively when Starmer mocked her for raising an issue she had conspicously ignored in eight years as an MP, including as children’s minister and minister for women, but overall it was clear that Starmer was right on this point too.

Starmer was also compelling on the main problem with holding a fresh inquiry – namely, the time it will take, and the impact it will have on safeguarding policy in the meantime. Badenoch said that was “a weak excuse” because Starmer was arguing that “he’s not able to do two things at the same time”. But then she also said:

It is very possible to have shorter inquiries, especially if they are covering areas that have not been looked at yet.

This seems to be a contradiction in terms.

And there was another contradiction when she argued a fresh inquiry was needed – to stop unpleasant people stigmatising Muslims.

By refusing this inquiry he is enabling those people who wish to smear all British Muslims based on the actions of a small minority.

Perhaps she should take an interest in who ‘“those people” actually are. Did she hear Robert Jenrick on the Today programme yesterday?

Starmer was right to accuse Badenoch of jumping on a bandwagon and, in following an agenda essentially set by Tory media voices, Badenoch is acting very much as William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith did when they were doing her job. That might be enough to get you through PMQs. But it won’t take you to No 10. Leaders of the opposition only become truly effective when the papers are following their agenda, not the other way round. For Badenoch, that point is still a long way off.

Badenoch says the government can do two things at the same time. She says, by not having an inquiry, the PM is enabling people who want to smear British Muslims. This is one of the worst scandals in British history. She says Starmer is going to tell his MPs to vote against an inquiry into rape cases in their constituencies. She lists some of the towns where abuse took place.

Starmer says Badenoch did not say anything about this in eight years as an MP. But she is doing it now, after spending a lot of time on social media over Christmas. He says the Tories cannot kill the government’s bill and protect children at the same time. The government will deal with a problem highlighted by the Sara Sharif murder, he says. And he urges Tory MPs to ignore the “shortsighted, misguided bandwagon-jumping approach of the non-leadership of the leader of the opposition”.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

The prime minister has effectively told us that he’s not able to do two things at the same time.

This issue of a delay is a weak excuse and I would say to him that by refusing this inquiry he is enabling those people who wish to smear all British Muslims based on the actions of a small minority. He is talking about distraction tactics, let us have the truth.

The prime minister cannot tell the house the full scale of this scandal, he doesn’t want questions asked of Labour politicians who may be complicit, he won’t listen to the victims who are calling for a national inquiry, he is making this all about a bill this afternoon.

Later today he will tell Labour MPs, including in Telford, Rochdale, Bristol, Derby, Aylesbury, Oldham, Bradford, Peterborough, Coventry, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Ramsgate, to vote against a national inquiry into the gangs which have systematically gang-raped children in their constituencies.

This is one of the worst scandals in British history.

And Starmer replied:

She is right to say it’s one of the worst scandals, it’s terrible. That’s why I acted on it.

Her recently acquired view that it’s a scandal, having spent a lot of time on social media over Christmas, not once in eight years did she stand here and say what she’s just said.

They didn’t act on the recommendations, they want a national inquiry, we’ve had a national inquiry, the Jay inquiry, the Jay report, 20 recommendations, not a single one implemented …

I urge [Tory MPs] to think twice about following this short-sighted, misguided, bandwagon-jumping approach of the non-leadership of the leader of the opposition.

Badenoch says this is not about Starmer. It is about the victims. “Be a leader, not a lawyer.”

She says the Labour party has adopted the APPG definition of Islamophobia. That says talking about grooming gangs can be Islamophobic. So will Labour consider it support for this?

Starmer says he will call out anything stopping people coming forward.

A new inquiry will take time. All the institutions will have to give evidence. It will delay progress until 2031, he says. He says people know what the problem is.

UPDATE: Badenoch said:

It’s not about you, it’s about the victims. Be a leader, not a lawyer. We know that people were scared to tell the truth because they thought they’d be called racist. If we want to stop this from ever happening again we cannot be afraid.

The Labour party has adopted the APPG [all-party parliamentary group] definition of Islamophobia. That same APPG report said talking about sex groomers was an example of Islamophobia. This is exactly why people are scared to tell the truth and the lack of clarity means that innocent British Muslims are smeared by association.

That is not fair and only a national inquiry that can solve this. So will the Prime Minister look again at the Labour party’s adoption of the definition of Islamophobia, its chilling effect and rule out introducing it in government?

And Starmer replied:

Yes, some people will say there should be a further inquiry. I accept that.

But that means all the victims and survivors who are going to give evidence need to be in a position to do so, not all of them are, I’ve been speaking to them, there are some who do think they are, it’ll take time.

All of the institutions will have to give evidence, that will take time, this will delay things until 2031. But we already know what the major flaws and my argument is we should get on with that action.

Badenoch says Starmer was wrong to say the Tories did not act on the findings of the child abuse inquiry. The party accepted 18 of the 20 recommendations. And the grooming gangs taskforce led to many arrests. But “no one has joined the dots”, she says. She claims it is possible to act and hold an inquiry at the same time.

Starmer says the Tories did not act on the inquiry’s recommendations. Mandatory reporting was not introduced. Starmer says he called for this 11 years ago.

Badenoch was children’s minister, and women and equalities minister. He says he cannot recall her ever raising this issue in the Commons. He will withdraw if he is wrong. But he thinks she did not raise it in eight years as an MP.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

The leader of the opposition has been an MP, I think for eight years, her party have been in government for seven and a half of those eight years. She was the children’s minister. She was the women’s equalities minister. I can’t remember her, I can’t recall her once raising this issue in the house, once calling for a national inquiry.

It’s only in recent days she’s jumped on the bandwagon. In fairness, if I’m wrong about that and she has raised it, then I invite her to say that now, and I will happily withdraw the remark that she hasn’t raised it in this house in the eight years that she’s been here until today.

Neil Coyle (Lab) offers his condolences to Starmer for the loss of his brother over Christmas. And he asks about the children’s wellbeing and schools bill.

Starmer says there have been a number of inquiries already into child abuse. He says “reasonable people” can take different views on the case for another. He says he met survivors this morning. They were worried about a new inquiry delaying action.

But he says the Tories should withdraw their wrecking amendment.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

Violence against women and girls, abuse, child sexual exploitation are sickening. Many victims have been let down for a very long time by warped ideas about community relations and the protection of institutions.

[Coyle] raises the question of inquiries. There have been a number of inquiries, both national and local, including one covering Oldham, and reasonable people can agree or disagree on whether a further inquiry is necessary.

This morning, I met some of the victims and survivors of this scandal, and they were clear with me that they want action now, not the delay of a further inquiry.

The Jay inquiry, the last national inquiry was seven years which would take us with a further inquiry to 2031, I think action is what’s required.

But whatever your view, whatever anyone’s view on whether a further inquiry is needed, what I find shocking is that anyone in this House would vote down the children’s wellbeing bill this afternoon, vital protections for the most vulnerable in our society and I urge the leader of the opposition to withdraw her wrecking amendment.

PMQs is starting soon.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

Sir Andrew Dilnot, the economist who drew up a plan to cap social care costs for the coalition government in 2011 that was repeatedly delayed, and then ultimately shelved, has told MPs that Labour should speed up its latest review.

Last week the government announced that a commission led by Louise Casey will produce plans for reform, publishing a final report by 2028.

Giving evidence to the health committee this morning, Dilnot said “seems to me an inappropriate length of time and in particular gets us too close to the next election”. He told the committee:

I’d certainly like to see it [the commission] report earlier and I’d very much hope that it will. I don’t get the impression that Louise Casey is somebody who likes to hang about. I can’t think of any reason why it should take three years, I simply can’t.

The commission that I was part of took a year, a year from being commissioned to final reporting.

He said in his experience a decision on something like this “ideally is made in the first half of a parliament because otherwise events get in the way”.

Asked if he was confident reform would happen, he said:

I’m never confident in the short term, I’m terribly confident in the medium and long term.

I think it’s so blindingly – excuse my language – bleedin’ obvious that something should be done here that, in the end in an intelligent, affluent civilised society we get this done. To be absolutely blunt I think the critical thing here will be the prime minister …

I think Sir Keir’s views will be absolutely critical in this and if the prime minister gets behind this then something, I think, will happen.

So I am optimistic. I’m always vague about timescales but we will get this done and we must because how can we look ourselves in the mirror and not deal with this?

The Commons science committee has renwed its call for Elon Musk to give evidence to it as part of its inquiry into misinformation on social media.

In a statement this morning, the Labour MP Chi Onwurah, the committee’s chair, said:

The headlines over the last couple of days illustrate how potent misinformation on social media can be. Social media is a place where one post, even if false, can be amplified to reach millions of people.

Last summer, false and harmful content spread across social media caused violence on our streets. We shouldn’t accept viral misinformation – or the real-world harm it causes – as an inevitable part of social media, and we must make sure that false online content doesn’t fuel violent attacks in the UK again.

Following the riots, the science, innovation and technology committee has launched an inquiry to examine how algorithms used by social media platforms can spread false and harmful content. A crucial part of this is hearing from leading social media platforms, including X, and we have invited Mr Musk to appear before the committee.

This isn’t about picking a fight with Mr Musk. We want to understand the technology he has shaped and his views on X’s approach to misinformation and free speech. Rather than speak to UK politicians through his X account, I hope that he will take up our invitation and take the opportunity to engage with the democratic process and give us his thoughts directly.

If Mr Musk declines to come, the committee hopes that a senior representative of X can attend in his stead to give us clarity on the company’s use of algorithms.

The Conservatives are making the debate about the children’s wellbeing and schools bill into one about an inquiry into grooming gangs, but they were determined to vote against it anyway because it will restrict the freedom of academies in England.They regard the extension of academies – schools free from local authority control – as one of their main public policy achievements since 2010.

Under the new bill, academies will no longer be able to set pay rates for teachers themselves. They will have to follow the national teacher guidelines for pay and conditions.

According to the Tories, there are at least 533 academy schools that exceed the national pay scale, or offer other improved conditions. They claim more than 20,000 teachers working in these schools could lose out as a result of the bill.

Neil O’Brien, a shadow schools minister, said:

Labour’s schools bill is a piece of educational vandalism which will lead to pay cuts for good teachers, ends the vital requirement to turn failing schools over to new management, and will enable local authorities to share out pupils from good schools to prop up poor ones.

We can already see from Wales, where Labour have already implemented this agenda, that the results have been catastrophic, with Welsh school results slumping even as schools in England have climbed the international league tables.

For the record, here is the text of the reasoned amendment tabled by Conservatives to the motion saying the children’s wellbeing and schools bill should get a second reading.

That this house, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a second reading to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, was on interview duty for No 10 this morning and if anything she was even stronger than Keir Starmer (see 9.35am) in attacking the Conservatives over the reasoned amendment they have tabled that would block the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. Speaking on the Today programme, she said:

Let me just be absolutely clear about the approach that we’re seeing today from the Conservatives. What they’re setting out would kill this legislation. It would kill it stone dead. This is the single biggest piece of children safeguarding legislation in a generation that they intend to block, that they want to stop altogether, all on the altar of political opportunism …

The measures that we’re setting out today, around making sure that everyone involved in children’s lives work to keep children safe will be absolutely central to how we stop more children being exposed to abuse.

So if the Conservatives want to vote against that today, they need to explain, if they come on your programme later today, why they are stopping measures, why they are seeking to block measures that will keep children safe. They are bandwagon jumpers who have absolutely no shame.

And on Times Radio she said:

[The Conservatives] come along today as we set out legislation to protect the very children they claim to care about and they intend to block it and kill it stone dead. It is absolutely sickening.

Here is the Department for Education’s news release explaining what the bill will do for child protection.

Good morning. Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch will be in the Commons today for the first PMQs of 2025 and the Tory calls for national inquiry into grooming gangs will continue to be near the top of the news agenda. That is because Badenoch is pushing for a vote on the children’s wellbeing and schools bill that would block the legislation and call on the government to set up an inquiry instead. The inquiry element is a procedural red herring because the Conservatives would have voted against the bill anyway. But, if the Speaker does allow a vote on the Tory reasoned amendment, Badenoch will be able to launch a social media campaign accusing Labour of voting against a grooming gang inquiry.

The Conservatives are opposed to the bill primarily because it will restrict some of the freedoms enjoyed by academies. But the legislation also contains safeguarding measures that have widespread support, and Starmer has given an interview to the Daily Mirror saying that, if the Tories vote for their amendment, it will show they are more interested in retweets than children’s safety. He told the paper:

I would implore any right-thinking Tory MP to vote for the bill because [the Conservative reasoned amendment] would kill the bill, this would kill the legislation. It would kill the provisions for a unique identifying number that will stop children falling through the cracks …

No MP should be voting down children’s safeguarding measures. It’s shocking they are even thinking about this as a tactic. It’s the elevation of the desire for retweets over any real interest in the safeguarding of children.

Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary,has been echoing this message on a morning interview round. More on that soon.

The Conservatives have dismissed claims that they’re just bandwagoning, and that they are only pushing for an inquiry because Elon Musk, Reform UK and GB News have been banging on about this for some time. But Badenoch first tweeted about this on Thursday last week, at which point the bandwagon was already rolling, and last night one of the most senior figures in her team, the shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith, posted a message on X that gave a revealing insight into the party’s thinking. Without mentioning child sex abuse, Griffiths said that Musk was someone who “may have saved humanity”.

The @elonmusk purchase of X may have saved humanity.

With X becoming a true freedom of speech platform, the common ground of public opinion is no longer determined by a left-leaning elite.

Recent political earthquakes in the US, the UK and now Canada are a release of pent up democratic will as citizens regain their ability to speak freely.

Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press created the preconditions for democracies to replace bad kings or clerics.

X is now doing the same for unaccountable and failing bureaucratic states.

Badenoch hasn’t been quite this effusive, but last year she did say she was a “huge fan of Elon Musk” because of what he had done to champion free speech. Musk’s critics take a very different view; looking at what has happened to X since he took over, they would argue that the Badenoch/Griffith assessment is only accurate if you define free speech as meaning primarily extremism, misinformation, lies and racism.

Some of this may get thrashed out later in the Commons. Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Andrew Dilnot, who produced a report on social care reform 14 years ago that has never been implemented, gives evidence to the Commons health committee.

Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.

After 12.30pm: MPs begin debating the second reading of the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. They will vote at 7pm.

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.