Andrew Bailey, governor of the Bank of England, has said growth potential for the economy is lower than it has been for most of his working life (he joined the Bank in the mid 1980s). In an interview with the Chronicle in Newcastle, he said:

It does concern me that the supply side of the economy has slowed. It does concern me a lot. If you look at what I call the potential growth rates of the economy, there’s no doubt it’s lower than it has been in much of my working life.

Downing Street does not accept this analysis. At this afternoon’s lobby briefing for journalists, asked about what Bailey said, the PM’s spokesperson said the economy would continue “outperforming expectations”. He said:

I think you heard from both the prime minister and the chancellor on the UK’s economic outlook.

We do believe that we have turned a corner, particularly given the success in halving inflation. And you saw an autumn statement which was designed to boost the UK economy with new policies like full expensing, which was long called-for by businesses and we are confident that as a result we will keep outperforming expectations.

In the Commons Alex Cunningham, the Labour MP for Stockton North, is asking a point of order about James Cleverly’s heckle directed at him last week during PMQs. He says Cleverly’s explanation, that he was calling Cunningham a “shit” MP, not Stockton a “shit-hole”, was untrue.

Dame Eleanor Laing, the deputy speaker, objects to Cunningham saying that Cleverly said something that was not true.

Cunningham says finding alternative wording will be a “challenge”, but he says Cleverly may have inadvertenly misled people.

Laing says Cleverly is in the chamber, and she invites him to respond via his own point of order.

Cleverly rises, and says he did not make derogatory remarks about Stockton. He says he did not, would not and would never say something like that. He says he did make a derogatory remark about Cunningham and has apologised for that.

In response to heckling claiming that what he is saying is not true, he asks: “What are you saying, sir?” (He knows that the rules of debate do not allow MPs to call each other liars.)

Cunningham rises again. He says he does not need an apology for an insult against him “because it didn’t happen”. And he says Cleverly has not even apologised directly to him, or to the people of his constituency. He says Cleverly has just apologised for using unparliamentary language.

Laing says it is up to Cunningham whether he accepts the apology or not. But she required an apology for unparliamentary language, she says.

UPDATE: Cleverly said:

I know what I said. I rejected the accusation that I criticised his constituency.

My criticism, which I made from a sedentary position, about the honourable gentleman used inappropriate language for which I apologise.

But I will not accept that my criticism was of his constituency because it was not.

In his evidence this afternoon Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, also referred to a minute from the government’s Covid-O committee, which was responsible for Covid operational matters. Burnham summarised it as proposing a “punishment beating for Greater Manchester”. He quoted a passage from the minute saying:

Lancashire should have a lighter set of measures imposed than Greater Manchester since they had shown a greater willingness to co-operate. Tougher measures should be imposed on Greater Manchester that day.

Burnham went on:

Because we stood up for people in our city region who would otherwise have really struggled had they gone into that lockdown without the funds to help them, because we took that stand they decided to make an example of us.

It’s unbelievable for me now to look at evidence saying they knew it didn’t work, they knew tier 3 didn’t work.

They knew that, but they were still going to impose it on us without enough financial support.

As PA Media reports, the tier system was introduced in October 2020 and imposed different restrictions on English regions in an effort to contain the spread of Covid-19. The system was, however, unable to stem infections and a month-long national lockdown was introduced in November 2020, followed by a stricter tier system in December.

Burnham had argued that those unable to work because of regional restrictions should receive 80% of their salary under the furlough scheme, rather than the 67% suggested by the government, PA says.

Burnham also told the inquiry that he thought it was “disgraceful” that the same Covid-O minutes described his own behaviour during his row with Westminster over the policy as “appalling”. Burnham said:

I have seen that minute, the Covid-O minute, and frankly it’s nothing short of disgraceful, the points that were made in that minute.

It wasn’t me that was behaving appallingly, it was the people in that room that were behaving appallingly because they were about to impose a policy on Greater Manchester which they knew didn’t work.

And that’s something that I’ve only now realised looking at other people’s statements to this inquiry, and it makes me angry on behalf of the people of Greater Manchester that they sat in that room and they imposed a policy that they had been advised by Sage and others would not work.

Matt Hancock knew tier 3 restrictions would not work when he imposed them on Greater Manchester, the Covid inquiry heard this afternoon.

This came out during Andy Burnham’s evidence, when the Greater Manchester mayor quoted from the written statement to the inquiry given by Hancock, the former health secretary. Burnham said:

[Hancock] says in his evidence about tier 3: ‘I was in despair that we had announced a policy that we knew would not work.’

Sir Simon Clarke, the former levelling up secretary, told Cleverly in the Commons that it was his “profound conviction” that, to be effective, the Rwanda legislation would have to allow the disapplication of parts of the European convention on human rights.

Cleverly told Clarke he was making an “incredibly important point”, but he said he did not want to prejudge what would be in the bill. He said he wanted to do everything he could stop to break the business model used by people smugglers.

Earlier he also refused to give two other Tory MPs the firm assurance they wanted on the ECHR. (See 3.14pm.)

Turning away from the Covid inquiry for a moment, James Cleverly and his Home Office ministers are taking questions in the Commons. It is Cleverly’s first question session in his new job.

At the weekend Cleverly alarmed some Tory rightwingers when he told the Times in an interview that the Rwanda deportation policy wasn’t “the be-all and end-all” of government policy on this issue. He said:

My frustration is that we have allowed the narrative to be created that this was the be-all and end-all. The mission is to stop the boats. That’s the promise to the British people. Never lose sight of the mission. There are multiple methods. Don’t fixate on the methods. Focus on the mission.

This came only a week after Cleverly refused to deny calling the Rwanda policy “batshit” in private.

The second question on the order paper was about small boats and Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, answered, instead of Cleverly himself. James Morris, a Conservative, used to have a go at Cleverly over this and he asked Jenrick if he agreed with his boss about Rwanda not being the be-all and end-all. And if he did agree, what was the government’s policy on small boats, he asked.

Jenrick defended Cleverly, saying that, although Rwanda was “an extremely important component” of the small boats strategy, it was not the only policy being pursued.

Back at the Covid inquiry Andy Burnham says he was “astonished” in May 2020 when he heard the government was planning to ease Covid restrictions. He says the spread of the virus in Manchester was two or three weeks behind what was happening in London and the south of England, and that meant lifting restrictions for Manchester was not wise.

He says this illustrates how there was a “London-centricity in decision making”.

Manchester had a higher case rate at the time than London, he says. And he goes on:

And I think because of that Greater Manchester was left stuck with a high case rate throughout the rest of 2020.

Rishi Sunak will reject pleas to return the Parthenon marbles to Greece when he meets the country’s prime minister this week, Downing Street has indicated, saying the British Museum was the “right place” for the treasures. PA Media says:

Athens has long demanded the return of the sculptures, which were removed from Greece by Lord Elgin in the early 19th century, when he was the British ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.

Kyriakos Mitsotakis has said he will raise the issue during meetings with Sunak and Keir Starmer during his visit to London.

Downing Street on Monday pushed back against the Greek leader’s likening of the British Museum’s possession of the sculptures to the Mona Lisa painting being cut in half.

Sunak’s spokesman stressed the PM’s support for the law that prevents the marbles from being permanently returned and suggested he would not be in favour of any loan arrangement.

British Museum chairman George Osborne, the former chancellor, has previously said he is exploring ways for the marbles to be displayed in Greece, with speculation that this could involve a loan deal in which part of the sculptures would be sent to Athens.

Asked about such an agreement, Sunak’s spokesman told reporters: “We have no plans to change our approach and certainly we think that the museum is the right place for them. I haven’t asked him specifically about short-term or new ideas that have been put forward, but I think he’s been fairly robust on his position.”

Towards the end of his evidence this morning Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said the government initially had “no understanding” of the importance of gathering data on the impact of Covid on different ethnic groups, PA Media reports. PA says:

The inquiry heard Kahn wrote to then health secretary, Matt Hancock, on 7 May 2020 urging him to introduce routine ethnic data collection in death registrations, as evidence emerged of the disproportionate impact of the virus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.

When he did not receive a response from Hancock, Khan wrote to then home secretary, Priti Patel, two weeks later to raise concerns.

He added: “But it appeared to me the government didn’t really understand the issues that I was talking about.”

Khan then suggested the deficit in understanding could have been due to few members of the cabinet representing diverse communities.

He added: “I was given short shrift. There was no understanding of why it is important and also no action.”

The government introduced the monitoring of ethnicity in October 2020.

PA Media has more on the pay offer for hospital consultants in England. (See 12.51pm.) It says:

The British Medical Association said the offer constituted a 4.95% “investment in pay” on top of the 6% pay rise already awarded this year.

The majority of consultants will receive an extra rise of up to 12.8%, depending on their pay point, the BMA said, adding this was separate to any pay award recommended by the review body on doctors’ and dentists’ remuneration (DDRB) for 2024/25.

The union said if its members voted to accept the deal, the changes would be applicable from January 2024, but would be paid retrospectively in April 2024.

And this is from Dr Vishal Sharma, BMA consultants committee chair.

We are pleased that after a month of intense talks and more than six months of strike action we never wanted to take, we have now got an offer we can put to members. It is a huge shame that it has needed consultants to take industrial action to get the government to this point when we called for talks many months ago.

The 4.95% investment and much-needed changes to the pay scale system comes after we successfully persuaded the government to reform the punitive pension taxation laws earlier this year, and we also now have commitments to reforming the pay review process, which has been a key ask from the profession throughout our dispute. Only by restoring the independence of this process can we hope to restore consultant pay over the coming years.

How each consultant will benefit will depend on their individual circumstances, and we will be providing them with as much detail as we can, so they are able to look carefully through the details to help them decide whether to accept the offer.

Consultants in England have reached a deal with the government which could potentially end strikes, PA Media reports. PA says:

The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) said it reached an agreement with consultants from the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association (HCSA) after weeks of talks.

The deal will now be put to members of the unions.

If members agree to the deal, strikes by top hospital doctors would end.

DHSC officials said the new offer will “modernise the consultant contract and reform consultants’ pay structure”.

Commenting on the offer, Rishi Sunak said:

Ending damaging strike action in the NHS is vitally important if we want to continue making progress towards cutting waiting lists while making sure patients get the care they deserve.

This is a fair deal for consultants who will benefit from major reform to their contract, it is fair for taxpayers because it will not risk our ongoing work to tackle inflation, and most importantly it is a good deal for patients to see the end of consultant industrial action.

Turning away from the Covid inquiry, Rishi Sunak told the global investment summit that the appointment of David Cameron as foreign secretary did not mean the government wanted a return to the “golden era” approach to relations with China promoted by Cameron when he was PM.

Sunak said:

If David was here what he would say is the China of today is not the China he dealt with over a decade ago.

It has changed, it’s right that our strategy evolves to take account of that.

Our strategy can be summarised in three approaches: it’s to protect, align and engage.

We have got to protect the UK against the risks, where they manifest themselves.

The Covid inquiry has stopped for a short break.

Turning back to Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, in an interview with Sky News this morning she went further than some other ministers have gone in defending Israel over its conduct in the war against Hamas. She said as far as she was aware, Israel had not broken international law. She went on:

It looks like they have taken great pains to make sure we are staying within the confines of the law. We applaud them for that.

This is not the view of many experts, including António Guterres, the United Nations secretary general.

After Sadiq Khan sent his letter to Boris Johnson on 22 March 2020, the pair spoke by phone. O’Connor showed the inquiry extracts from a transcript of the call. They show that Johnson was concerned about the “great economic cost” of a lockdown.

Khan said he thought at this point Johnson had still not yet decided to go ahead with a full lockdown.

O’Connor reveals a private letter that Khan sent to Johnson on Sunday 22 March.

In the letter, Khan called for a mandatory lockdown, and said that if Johnson did not order one, he would tell Londoners himself that they should act as if one were in place. Khan said that the government’s messaging was not clear, that people were ignoring the message to stay at home, and that as a result lives were at risk.

Khan tells the inquiry he had a meeting with Boris Johnson at No 10 on Thursday 19 March. He says the discussed doing a press conference together. But this was cancelled. O’Connor says Dominic Cummings, the PM’s chief adviser, subsequently said one reasons for cancelling the press conference was the desire not to alarm the financial markets.

Khan says he attended another Cobra meeting on Friday 20 March. But that was not chaired by the PM, he says.

UPDATE: PA Media reports:

Boris Johnson was “not aware” that other countries had imposed lockdowns in March 2020, Sadiq Khan has said.

The London mayor met the then-prime minister in Downing Street on 19 March, and said it was “clear” to him that some proposals for lockdown measures “had been surfaced, but the prime minister wasn’t persuaded”.

He told the Covid-19 Inquiry: “The prime minister wasn’t aware that in other parts of the world they had lockdowns in place and fines could be issued if you breached the lockdown. I was surprised he wasn’t aware of that in relation to what was happening elsewhere.”

Khan said he felt that the UK’s “advantage” in being able to see what was happening in the rest of the world “wasn’t being used”.

Johnson ordered the full national lockdown on Monday 23 March – four days after the conversation described by Khan.

But Khan did attend a Cobra meeting on Monday 16 March, he tells the inquiry.

He says he was told for the first time at this meeting how bad the situation was. (This was the day Johnson told people to stay at home.)

He says he was told about the “really serious” problem posed by people with Covid in intensive care units in London hospitals.

And he says Johnson described this as the biggest challenge facing the country since the second world war

He says he felt he had been “kept in the dark as the elected mayor of London”.

I had been kept in the dark as the elected mayor of London and I felt almost winded in relation to what was happening in London and also realising there were things we could have done in relation to some of these issues.”

I was alarmed by what I was being told in relation to where we were and where we may go to. I will never forget that sort of feeling of lack of power, lack of influence, not knowing what was happening in our city.

There were things he could have done if he had known was the situation was, he says.

Some measures he had taken – like enhanced cleaning on the Underground.

But he was alarmed by the situation, he says – and concerned by his lack of power.

Heather Hallett, the chair, says Khan was warned by Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, that a pandemic was coming. She asks what Khan would have done differently.

Khan replies:

Some of the things that happened subsequently.

So it was me that lobbied the prime minister to go to lockdown, it was me that lobbied the prime minister in relation to the inability to keep social distance on public transport so people shouldn’t be using public transport unless they had to.

Hallett says it would still have been for government to take the actual decisions.

Khan accepts that, but he says if he had been at Cobra, he could have pushed for those earlier.

At the inquiry Sadiq Khan is being questioned by Andrew O’Connor, counsel for the inquiry.

O’Connor has presented email exchanges showing that in early March Khan was asking to be invited to the Cobra meetings where Covid was being discussed. He showed emails showing that No 10 twice refused to let him attend.

In one exchange, on Monday 9 March, Edward Lister, Boris Johnson’s chief of staff, argued that Khan should not be invited because, if he came, other metro mayors, like Greater Manchester’s, would have to be invited too.

Khan told the inquiry that he thought London was a special case, because of its large population, the number of people travelling by public transport, its role as a transport hub, and the fact that virus seemed to be spreading there faster than in other parts of the country.

But he also said he did not see why other mayors could not attend too. They could participate by Zoom, he said.

UPDATE: Khan said:

In this particular case, I can see no explanation at all why … the Greater London Authority, the mayor of London were not around the table.

I think lives could have been saved if we were there earlier.

At the Covid inquiry Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, said that he was not getting information from the government in February about Covid. He said he was “disappointed” by that.

In late February and early March he was getting information from other cities around the world instead, he said. He said this happened even though his foreign affairs team consisted of just three people.

The feed is here:

UPDATE: Khan said:

The government generally does give us information about a variety of things happening. I’m disappointed the government weren’t giving us information in February about what they knew then.

Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, will not appear to the Covid inquiry this year due to an ongoing health problem, PA Media reports. PA says:

In a ruling published this morning, inquiry chairwoman Heather Hallett formally excused Case from giving evidence in 2023 “due to ill health”.

Hallett said she would receive an update on Case’s ability to give evidence at the end of January 2024 or on his return to work from sick leave, and is expected to convene a special hearing to receive his evidence.

She said in her ruling: “It very much remains my intention that Mr Case should give oral evidence to the inquiry.”

Rishi Sunak has just delivered a speech at the opening of the global investment summit. Mostly he focused on what he described as the strengths of the UK economy, but his speech also illustrated why immigration is such a difficult topic for the government. While people worry about high immigration numbers because of the pressure on housing and services, there is also a strong economic case for more immigration, and Sunak told his audience that the UK wanted to see high-flyers move to Britain. He said:

We don’t have a monopoly on talent in this country. And we recognise that nearly half of our most innovative companies have an immigrant founder. So if you’re an innovator and entrepreneur or researcher, you should know that the most competitive visa regime for highly-skilled international talent is right here in the UK.

And let me just give you one example. Our new high potential individual visa means that, if you’re a young person who’s graduated from a global top 50 university, you can just come to the UK and stay here with your family for two years to just explore, work, study, invent. Nothing like that exists anywhere else in the world, and it tells you everything about our pro-innovation, pro-growth, pro-business philosophy.

In her interviews this morning Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, gently delivered a reprimand to Boris Johnson over his record on immigration. Asked about his column in the Daily Mail, in which he called for the minimum salary threshold for work visas to be raised to £40,000 (see 9.23am), she said she had not read what he had written. But she told LBC:

I certainly will be pushing for the strongest measures possible. The migration figures that we’ve seen [last week] were from last year. That was under Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Many of us had reservations about the policy then. So I think that you will be seeing much, much tougher measures going forward.

In 2019, when Johnson was PM and fighting the election, the Tory manifesto said that overall immigration numbers “will come down”. Instead net migration figures are now more than three times as high as they were four years ago, leading to widespread complaints – most notably from Tory MPs – that a promise has been broken.

In his Mail column Johnson refused to accept this argument, While he did not contest the facts, he claimed that it was the anti-Brexiteers who had been proved wrong. He said:

Look carefully at those immigration figures, and you can see much that reflects well on the UK. The numbers show, most obviously, that the anti-Brexit brigade were totally wrong about the attractions of post-Brexit Britain.

They said we would become a kind of global leper, reeking of xenophobia, and that the world’s talent would stay away. Well that was always rubbish — and these figures prove it.

What the numbers also show is that after Brexit we under­estimated the magnetic pull of the UK; and the numbers show that the British labour market is ­continuing to inspire large ­numbers of low-skilled people to want to come to work here — and for low incomes. That is a mistake.

Johnson said Brexit gave the UK government the power to impose tougher restrictions. And, in so far as he explained why he had not introduced the £40,000 minimum salary threshold for workers he now wants when he was actually in power himself, he suggested it was the fault of the migration advisory committee, which had recommended a threshold of £26,000.

In her interview on Today this morning Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, complained that the programme was ignoring good news from the government. She was referring to the investment in the UK worth £30bn announced to coincide with the global investment summit taking place today, and Rishi Sunak said this morning this showed there was “very positive momentum” behind the economy. He said:

My singular focus is driving growth and creating jobs across the UK. So I’m delighted that we’ve secured investments worth around £30bn, three times the amount that was secured the last time this summit was held a little while ago.

And that comes on the back of a very positive autumn statement where we cut taxes for those businesses that are investing in our future growth and also the great announcements from Nissan last week, securing the future of that plant in Sunderland, building three new lines of the next generation of electric vehicles.

So very positive momentum behind the UK economy.

But until now the government’s investment record has not been much to boast about. In a recent Financial Times column Camilla Cavendish, who was head of policy in No 10 when David Cameron was PM, said that since Brexit “Britain has begun a slow, mournful slide down the OECD rankings for foreign direct investment: from 12th place in 2015 to 20th in 2022”. And last week, without much fanfare, the government published as part of the autumn statement a review of foreign direct investment carried out by Lord Harrington, a Tory former business minister. In his report Harrington said he was asked to carry out the review “because of concerns at the highest levels of government that the UK is missing out on potentially transformational investments by multinational companies and foreign investors”. And he concluded:

The evidence we have received reflects a picture of the UK rich in advantages: our language, our open and vibrant culture, our outstanding research base, the deeply embedded rule of law, the pull of London as one of the world’s great financial centres, and many other assets. However, the barriers outlined in this review, and the uncertainty they create, act like a tax on investment. We have heard time and again about government systems that are too often disorganised, risk-averse, siloed, and inflexible when it comes to the needs of modern investors … All too slow and cumbersome to compete in the modern world.

The government has accepted Harrington’s key recommendations in principle.

Good morning. After Suella Braverman was sacked as home secretary, her allies told the Daily Express she had a “grid of shit” ready to unleash on Rishi Sunak. The latest instalment from this media planning schedule landed on the front page of the Daily Telegraph last night, and in his story for the paper Charles Hymas publishes details of what Braverman claims is the deal she agreed with Sunak when he offered her the Home Office in response for her backing in the Tory leadership contest last autumn. Hymas says:

Mr Sunak agreed to a four-point migration plan as he sought her support during his leadership bid last year, allies of Mrs Braverman say.

Chief among them was a pledge to raise the minimum salary threshold required for a foreign skilled worker visa from £26,000 to £40,000, a proposal that was publicly backed last week by Boris Johnson, the architect of the post-Brexit points-based migration system.

A copy of the agreement on migration, seen by the Telegraph, showed that they proposed to close down the graduate visa route, restrict the number of dependants that legal migrants could bring and prioritise Russell Group university applicants when evaluating student visa applications.

This is embarrassing for Sunak because it implies he has been slow and complacent. Last week, after the ONS published figures showing net migration reached a record 745,000 in 2022, Sunak said he would act to bring these numbers down – but he refused to say what he was considering.

Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, is reportedly urging Sunak to introduce a minimum salary threshold for foreigners coming to the UK on work visas of £35,000. No 10 has not embraced this idea, but Braverman’s intervention means that, even if Sunak were to accept the Jenrick plan, it would look a bit modest compared to her proposal. In his Daily Mail column on Saturday Boris Johnson, the former PM, also said the salary threshold should be set at £40,000 (something he never did during his three years in office). He said:

You will remember that after Brexit everyone was wailing about the thought of EU workers fleeing Britain, and business was worried about shortages. So the Migration Advisory Committee put the ­minimum at only £26,000 – not much more than the living wage.

The effects of this were perhaps masked by the Covid pandemic, when migration was largely ­suppressed. But it is clear from these numbers that the Migration Advisory Committee pitched it way too low.

It turns out that they had ­massively underestimated the number of EU nationals still living in Britain – by at least a million; and they underestimated the ­continuing attractions of the UK to all migrants, EU and non-EU.

The minimum income for most types of migrant worker coming to the UK should now go right up to £40,000 or more – because it is the right thing for migrant workers, and for the entire British workforce.

Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secetary, has been doing a media round this morning. Badenoch and Braverman are expected to be the lead candidates for the right in the next Tory leadership contest (Badenoch is the favourite) and, even though Badenoch said it was not for her to say what the minimum salary threshold for work visas should be, she said that she was in favour of “much, much tougher measures”. She suggested that this was what Sunak was planning anyway.

She told LBC:

I am certainly in favour of us doing whatever it takes to bring the numbers down to a sustainable level. This is not something that I’m being mealy-mouthed about. But what I don’t want to do is go into the specifics when I don’t know what the plan is, but I certainly will be pushing for the strongest measures possible.

The migration figures that we’ve seen were from last year … I think that you will be seeing much, much tougher measures going forward.

Certainly this prime minister has said that we need to do whatever it takes on the boats, to get those planes flying, deporting people who shouldn’t be here. And when it comes to the people who we do let into this country, we need to make sure that they’re not undercutting our workforce, and that they are people who are coming to the UK to contribute and actually to help make our country better.

Sunak spoke to reporters as he arrived at Hampton Court this morning for the global investment summit, but did not say any more on this topic than he said last week. But James Cleverly, the home secretary, is taking questions in the Commons this afternoon, and he may give more details of what the government might do.

And immigration is not the only “grid of shit” problem for Sunak. He probably feels much the same way about the timetable of witnesses at the Covid inquiry. Three Labour metro mayors are giving evidence this week, but things could get even more embarrassing for the government later this week when four cabinet ministers are questioned.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Rishi Sunak gives a speech at the opening of the global investment summit at Hampton Court.

10.30am: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry. Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester is due to give evidence later in the morning and in the afternoon, after Burnham has finished, Steve Rotheram, mayor of Liverpool city region, is appearing.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: James Cleverly takes questions in the Commons for the first time in his new post as home secretary. He is expected to confirm that the government is considering further controls on legal migration.

Also, the government is publishing its leasehold and freedhold reform bill today.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.