The former Labour MP Lloyd Russell-Moyle has joined the Green party, it has announced. Russell-Moyle, who represented Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven, was a leftwinger who was banned from standing as a candidate at the 2024 election on the basis that Labour had received a complaint about him. The allegation was never publicly specified, and after the election Russell-Moyle was told the investigation into him had been dropped.

With Russell-Moyle no longer a candidate, Labour selected Chris Ward, who for many years had been one of Keir Starmer’s closest advisers, as its candidate. Ward is now a Cabinet Office minister.

Explaining his defection to the Greens, Russell-Moyle said:

For almost ten years I worked alongside Caroline [Lucas] as the MP next door. My old party has left behind millions of people who want hope and want to see change in their lives, their communities and the world around them.

In the Greens I see a party that is offering that. In the Greens I see a party I have worked with for years and I am making the jump to join them today, I urge others to do so too.

And Zack Polanski, the Green party leader, said:

I am delighted to welcome Lloyd to the party today. Lloyd will bring a huge amount to the Green party. His story is one that is all too familiar; abandoned in the interest of power and profit over people and principles. Lloyd and tens of thousands like him have not left the Labour party; the Labour party has left them.

The new settlement proposals from Shabana Mahmood are not straightforward. The home secretary said that the “baseline” will rise, with people having to wait 10 years, not five years, until they can apply. But, for individuals, the point at which they can qualify for settlement will then either go up or down, depending on a range of factors.

This chart, from the document, explains how those factors apply.

Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, claimed many of Shabana Mahmood’s proposals were copied from the Conservatives.

In the Commons, he told her:

The idea of a 10-year route to [indefinite leave to remain] is something that we proposed in amendments to the government’s bill, I think, around about nine months ago.

The Labour party inexplicably voted against those measures and now they’ve adopted them.

I am delighted to see the home secretary has got out the copy-and-paste function on her laptop and started copying and pasting Conservative policies.

Philp also warned that transitional arrangements could create loopholes and reiterated calls for a cap on migration numbers.

In response, Mahmood said the Tories should apologise for “messing up the system so badly”, saying they “barely have the right to ask questions, let alone propose solutions”.

Mahmood ended her statement saying:

Today, I have set out what we propose and, perhaps more importantly, why.

I love this country, which opened its arms to my parents around 50 years ago.

But I am concerned by the division I see now, fuelled by a pace and scale of change that is placing immense pressure on local communities.

For those who believe that migration is part of modern Britain story and should always continue to be, we must prove that it can still work, that those who come here contribute, play their part and enrich our national life.

While they will always retain something of who they were and where they came from they’ve become a part of the greatest multi-ethnic, multi-faith democracy in the world.

Mahmood said, until other parties, the government would not be removing settled status from people who already have it.

We will not change the rules for those with settled status today.

These are people who have been in our country for years, even decades. They have families here, wives, husbands, children. They’ve worked in our hospitals, taught in our schools, and have been contributing to our society for years.

Fairness is the most fundamental of British values. We made a promise when we gave them settlement, and we do not break our promises.

The Reform party – I note, not present today [ie, not in the chamber] – have said they will do this most un-British of things.

The Tories have said that they will, and said that they won’t. And I am left in as much of a muddle about their policies.

But I can be clear that this side of the house we won’t change the rules for those settled status.

Mahmood said that the consultation would also consider the rights of people in the so-called Boriswave. (See 1.20pm.)

She said people who came to the UK on the health and care visa had lower qualifications, and some of them are not expected to become net economic contributors.

For that reason, we propose they should wait 15 years before they can earn settlement.

Crucially, for these and every other group mentioned here, we propose these changes apply to everyone in the country today who have not yet received indefinite leave to remain.

But the government was considering some transitional arrangements, she said.

Mahmood explained the circumstances in which people might have to wait more than 10 years for settlement.

The government proposes that those who have received benefits for less than 12 months would not qualify for settlement until 15 years after arrival.

For those who have been paid benefits for more than 12 months, that would rise to 20 years.

To encourage the use of legal routes into this country, those who arrive in Britain illegally could see settlement take up to 30 years.

As has already been set out, refugees on core protection will qualify for settlement after 20 years – although those who move to a work and study visa could earn settlement earlier, and those arriving by a safe and legal route would earn settlement at 10 years.

This consultation is open on some cohorts of special interest. This includes settlement rights for children, members of the armed forces and victims of certain crimes.

Mahmood said other criteria are being proposed today for consultation. She said these would either add or substract from the 10-year qualifying period. They would be based on the value people offer to society.

She went on:

Those who speak English to a degree level standard could qualify for a nine-year path to settlement.

Those paying the higher rate of tax could qualify at five years, while those on the top rate could qualify after three - the same as those on global talent visas.

Those who work in a public service, including doctors, teachers, nurses, would qualify after five years.

While those who volunteer, subject to this consultation, could qualify between five and seven years.

Not subject to consultation, the partners of British citizens will continue to qualify at five years, as today. This is also true of British nationals overseas from Hong Kong, who will qualify at five years in honour of our unique responsibilities to them.

All grants under the Windrush and EU settlement scheme also remain unchanged.

Mahmood also said new criteria would be added for people applying for settlement.

Firstly, the applicants must not have a criminal record.

Secondly, they must speak English to A level standard.

Thirdly, they must have made sustained national insurance contributions.

And finally they must have no debt in this country.

Mahmood said these four criteria would apply to everyone wanting settlement.

Mahmood said that settlement in the UK should be a privilege

To settle in this country forever is not a right but a privilege, and it must be earned.

That is not the case. Settlement or indefinite leave to remain comes almost automatically after five years residence in this country.

At that point, a migrant gains access to many of the rights of a British citizen, including to benefits.

As a result of the unprecedented levels of migration in recent years, 1.6 million are now for now forecost to settle between 2026 and 2030, with a peak of 450,000 in 2028 – arouund four times higher than the recent average. That will now change.

Mahmood said the starting point for settlement will change from five years to 10, as the government said in its white paper earlier this year.

Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, is making her statement to MPs now about the new earned settlement rules.

The Home Office has now published its policy document on “earned settlement”.

And it has sent out a news release (not online yet) with the main points of the plan. It says the proposals will make “Britain’s settlement system by far the most controlled and selective in Europe”.

For the record, here are the proposals.

Earlier this year, the government announced it would double the permanent settlement qualifying period for migrants to 10 years, with reductions for those making a strong contribution to British life.

The changes will apply to almost two million migrants who arrived in the UK from 2021, subject to consultation on transitional arrangements for borderline cases. It will not apply to those with existing settled status who have made their lives here.

Low-paid workers, such as the 616,000 people and their dependants who came on health and social care visas between 2022 and 2024, would be subject to a 15-year baseline. The route was closed earlier this year following widespread abuse.

For the first time, it can also be revealed there will be penalties for immigrants exploiting the system. The reforms will make Britain’s settlement system by far the most controlled and selective in Europe.

Migrants reliant on benefits face a 20-year wait for settlement – quadruple the current period and the longest in Europe.

Landmark proposals could see migrants only become eligible for benefits and social housing if they first become British citizens, rather than upon being granted settlement as is currently the case.

Illegal migrants and visa overstayers would have to wait up to 30 years to settle, removing the prospect of long-term residence and security in the UK.

In contrast, doctors and nurses working in the NHS will be able to settle after five years. To support economic growth, the brightest and best of international talent could have settlement fast-tracked – with high earners and entrepreneurs able to stay after just three years.

Due to record high levels of migration under the previous government, 1.6 million migrants are set to become eligible for settlement by 2030.

Transitional arrangements for those already in the UK will be set out following a consultation. However, the intention is that anyone yet to be granted settlement would be subject to the contribution-based model once the new rules are in force.

The reforms will build a fairer immigration system for British people, while doing the right thing by migrants who have made their life here and contributed to the UK’s economy and public services.

Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, has said the government will not be introducing “a national pay-per-mile scheme” for the drivers of electric vehicles (EVs).

Earlier this month the Daily Telegraph reported that a pay-per-mile scheme for EVs would be introduced in the budget. The paper said the scheme would come in from 2028 and that it would cost the average EV driver £250 a year.

At the time the government did not confirm the story. But it did not deny it either, and it issued a statement saying that it wanted a “fairer” scheme that would compensate for the fact that fuel duty, the main tax for drivers, is only paid by people with petrol or diesel cars.

Today Alexander ruled out a pay-per-mile scheme for EVs – at least on a national level.

During transport questions in the Commons, the Conservative MP Charlie Dewhirst asked Alexander if she agreed that “a pay-per-mile charge for motorists in next week’s budget would disproportionately impact rural constituencies”.

Alexander replied:

There are no proposals to introduce a national pay-per-mile scheme. This government is firmly on the side of drivers.

Criminals will be stopped from “gaming the system” by choosing trial by jury in order to increase the chances of proceedings collapsing, Sarah Sackman, the courts minister, had told the Guardian. Jessica Elgot has the story.

Downing Street has said that it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their own future.

A No 10 spokesperson made this point in response to reports that the US and Russia have drawn up a peace plan that would involve Ukraine having to cede territory and limit the size of its army.

Asked about the report, a spokesperson said:

We share President Trump’s desire to bring this barbaric war to an end.

Russia could do this tomorrow by withdrawing its forces and ending its illegal invasion, but instead [Vladimir] Putin continues to send a barrage of missiles and drones into Ukraine, destroying the lives of innocent Ukrainians, including children and the elderly.

We welcome all efforts that seek to secure a just and lasting peace for Ukraine.

We have been repeatedly clear that only the Ukrainian people can determine their future.

In the meantime, we will continue our support for Ukraine and help ensure that they have the military equipment and resources they need to defend themselves from such continued aggression while sustaining economic pressure on people to bear down on the revenues that are funding the war.

Jakub Krupa has more on this story on his Europe live blog.

In an interview with ITV, Keir Starmer also defended the decision to delay the publication of the government’s review of educational provision for pupils with special educational needs and disabilties (Send) in England until next year. He said the government needed to take time to get this right. He said:

We do need to attend to Send provision. I think uniformly there’s a sense that the system at the moment isn’t working and needs reform.

My strong view is we need to get that reform right and therefore we need to take the time to consult with parents and others.

Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, have been visiting a school near Reading to promote the fact that the government is inviting another 500 primary schools in England to apply for funding to open free breakfast clubs.

Speaking to the BBC, Starmer said these clubs were “a gamechanger”.

These breakfast clubs are a real gamechanger.

They’re free and you saw this morning how much the children enjoy them. They’re getting a decent meal, and they’re getting activity, and that sets them up for the day.

It gives them a much better chance in terms of learning and for parents it gives them a chance to drop their children off, get to work, if that’s what they’re doing, and saves them a few hundred pounds.

When the cost of living is the number one issue across the country, these breakfast clubs are really making a difference.

Helena Horton is a Guardian environment reporter.

Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, declared she’s “more of a country girl than a city girl” in a speech to the Country, Land and Business Association’s annual conference.

She was there to defend the government’s plans for the rural economy. Unlike her predecessors, she did not taking questions from the press and all the questions she answered on stage from the CLA were submitted to her officials in advance.

She said:

I used to be the City minister, but I’ve always been more of a country girl than a city girl. I grew up in Staffordshire. My parents live in rural Shropshire, and I live down a country lane in the Chilterns.

Reynolds announced a few new policies including making it easier for farmers to build reservoirs on their land, a new rural taskforce with 50 actions to help rural businesses being published in coming months and a rural and wildlife crime strategy coming out later this month.

She spoke after a blistering attack on Labour’s rural economic policies from Gavin Lane, the new CLA president.

Speaking about the decision to extend inheritance tax to farms, he said:

I’m not sure why these taxation changes have been pursued with such vigor, or why there’s been little time for consultation, but the Treasury has decided that private capital accumulation is the problem, without understanding, in my view, that private capital investment is the solution.

Lane said that farmers and landowners are not faceless corporations and that the people in the room “live above the shop” and care about their local communities. Lane added:

You can’t ask people to pay to plant an orchard they’ll never see grow. Then tell them their kids aren’t allowed to pick the fruit.

He told Reynolds that the rural economy was facing higher unemployment a lack of investment and a lack of certainty, and that rural people do not feel listened to by Defra.

Reynolds said she was “sorry if that’s the way you feel” and said she “appreciates the engagement” from farmers and landowners.

In her Political Thinking interview (see 10.36am), Shabana Mahmood also condemned the No 10 anonymous briefing last week that suggested Keir Starmer was getting ready to fight off a leadership challenge from Wes Streeting as “a total car crash”.

Asked about the incident, Mahmood said:

It was a total car crash from start to finish. It’s mortifying talking about it still. It was embarrassing for the prime minister because then he’s got to obviously sort it out and he shouldn’t be put in that position and it’s not how he does his politics …

I think it put the prime minister in a horribly embarrassing position.

But I do think that one of the functions of the humiliation of what happened over those few days, and the madness of it all, is … I just hope that the humiliation means that the individuals responsible - they know who they are – just never ever put in a repeat performance.

After the briefing, first reported by the Guardian but quickly followed up by other news organisations, Streeing insisted that he was not plotting against Starmer and Starmer said any hostile briefings were not authorised by him, and did not come from No 10.

Mahmood’s comments are probably the strongest on the record from a cabinet minister. Using the word “humiliation” twice was striking, although she made it clear she was not blaming Starmer.

Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, has said that she is considering a “big” increase in the amount the government pays to people refused asylum to encourage them to leave the country voluntarily.

The Home Office already gives people relatively small sums in these circumstances, as it did with Hadush Kebatu, the Epping sex offender recently returned to Ethiopia. He got £500 to help persuade him not to legally challenge his removal.

In an interview with the BBC’s Nick Robinson for his Politcal Thinking podcast, Mahmood said she wanted more voluntary returns and that higher payments might help to deliver this.

According to the BBC, she said looking after someone refused asylum cost about £30,000 per person. Currently the Home Office give people at most around £3,000 to leave.

Mahmood said:

I’ve already asked my officials to pilot a small programme where we offer more than what we currently do for a period just to see how that changes behaviour.

I haven’t alighted on the full sums involved yet, but I am willing to consider a big increase on what we currently pay.

I know it sticks in the craw of many people and they don’t like it, but it is value for money, it does work, and a voluntary return is often the very best way to get people to return to their home country as quickly as possible.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, is giving a speech in Salford this afternoon where he will set out details of his “good growth” plans, but he has already explained much of it overnight in a news release.

Explaining what his “new model of economic growth” is, the Greater Manchester Combined Authority (the body Burnham runs) says:

Over the past decade, the city region has become the fastest growing part of the UK economy, driven by a high-performing centre unrecognisable from even 15 years ago.

Our trailblazing devolution deals and unique partnership approach have fuelled annual growth of 3.1 per cent – more than double the rate of the country as a whole. A recent report from Oxford Economics praised Greater Manchester’s growth journey, calling us a “trailblazer for local devolution.”

Analysis shows that, if we can lock in the same kind of growth for the next decade, the Greater Manchester economy will be more than a third bigger than it is today – giving a further £38bn boost to the national finances.

Burnham has established a £1bn “GM good growth fund” and he is announcing today how it will be used to fund “nearly 3,000 homes, more than 22,000 jobs, and 2 million square feet of employment space”.

Explaining how this differs from other development projects, the GMCA says:

A new strategic partnership between GMCA and GMPF [Greater Manchester Pension Fund] – the first of its kind in the country – will prioritise local investment and align the GMPF’s investment to our integrated pipeline. Projects in the integrated pipeline will be able to access patient capital that aims for sustainable growth and long-term impact.

We’ll invest in a way that makes the most of every pound, delivering social as well as economic benefits.

For example, we’ll procure in a way that strengthens local supply chains, and we’ll work with development partners to create new apprenticeships and T-Level placement opportunities for our young people, while ensuring the jobs our pipeline creates meet the standards set out in our good employment charter.

We’ll recycle loans from the GM good growth fund, reinvesting the capital and interest once the monies have been repaid to kickstart other projects.

We’ll also plough back into our integrated pipeline the extra revenue generated by our investments. For example, building new homes and employment sites will generate extra council tax and business rate revenue, which we’ll invest in our communities.

The GMCA news release also highlights other Burnham policies which it says have helped.

Our Greater Manchester baccalaureate is transforming technical education, giving young people a clear line of sight to high quality jobs in our growing economy, and we’re helping residents to live healthier, happier lives and access new employment and training opportunities through our Live Well approach.

Underpinning all this is the Bee Network – our safe, green and affordable public transport system, which is seamlessly connecting people and places like never before. Next year eight rail lines will be brought into the network, which already includes bus, rail, tram, and active travel routes.

Public control over our transport system means we can make sure new housing and employment districts are connected to existing places and communities. And we can keep fares low and offer free or discounted travel to the groups that most need it, so everyone can access jobs, education and leisure opportunities.

In his Today interview Andy Burnham was also asked how he felt about Clive Lewis, the Labour MP for Norwich South, yesterday saying he would be willing to give up his parliamentary seat to allow Burnham to return to the Commons and stand for Labour leader.

Burnham replied:

I appreciate the support, but I couldn’t have brought forward a plan of the kind I brought forward today [his Manchester “good growth” plan] without being fully focused on my role as mayor of Greater Manchester.

And I’m providing leadership on growth, which is what I think the country needs, and is helpful to the government right now.

One of the skills you see in first-class politicians is the ability to deliver nuanced messaging – in effect, making different different points to different audiences at the same time. Wes Streeting gave a good example yesterday (also in an interview on the asylum plans), firmly defending what Mahmood is doing (for the benefit of blue Labour types, and floating voters), while also saying he was liberal enough to feel queasy about aspects of them (not something you hear from Mahmood herself, or Keir Starmer). And here Burnham was ostensibly sounding supportive of the government’s growth plans, while also implying his ideas are better than Rachel Reeves’s.

As Emma Barnett, the presenter, tried to end the interview to move on to the weather, Burnham ploughed on to say he had developed “a new way of doing politics” and that is what Britain needed.

And we’re doing this in advance of the budget, I hope, to really bring to life the growth story for the government.

I would just finish by saying this; I think part of the country’s problem is the political culture of Westminster, which is playing out in front of us right now. You go to Manchester, and we’ve built a new economy, and a new way of doing politics, and more of that is what the country needs.

This suggests Burnham is still very interested in becoming prime minister one day.

Good morning. On Monday Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, announced drastic changes to the asylum system. Today, in a statement to MPs, she will announce changes to the legal migration rules – in particular those affecting how long people have to wait until they are given a permanent right to stay in the UK.

Mahmood was strongly criticised by the Commons speaker over the amount of pre-briefing there was ahead of Monday’s announcement, and this morning the Home Office has been more tight-lipped. But the Times reports that Mahmood is expected to announce “that migrants would usually be allowed to apply for indefinite leave to remain only after ten years — double the five years at present — and must meet certain conditions such as speaking English to A-level standard, having a clean criminal record and not claiming benefits”.

The Monday plans outraged some Labour figures, but the various lists of MPs who had publicly spoken out (like the New Statesman’s) never got much beyond 20 and, from the government’s point of view, internal opposition (so far) remains contained.

But this morning Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor and the most popular (with the public) of the various plausible Labour candidates to replace Keir Starmer as PM, weighed in. In an interview on the Today programme, to promote a speech on Manchester’s “good growth” plans he is giving later, Burnham said he thought it was a mistake to tell asylum seekers they would have to wait 20 years until they can get a permanent right to remain in Britain.

Burnham was at pains not to sound disloyal. He said he backed the overall intention behind the asylum plans.

I agree that Shabana Mahmood is right to grasp this nettle and have root and branch reform of the system. I agree with that.

And he said he was pleased she wanted to change the way asylum seekers are housed.

However, he also said:

But I do have a concern about leaving people without the ability to settle, one of the concerns being that if there’s a need to constantly check up on the status of countries where people have come from, that might limit the ability of the Home Office to deal with the backlog. And it also may leave people in a sense of limbo and unable to integrate.

Burnham was referring to the fact that, under Mahmood’s plans, there would be regular reviews of whether it might be safe for asylum seekers to go home, potentially going on for up to 20 years, until settlement became permanent.

He also urged the government to find a “consensus” on this.

I’m not going to say that the home secretary is wrong to call for this level of change.

What I would say is it’s really important, on the back of the measures that she’s announced, that there is a considered debate, time is taken to see if consensus can be built around it. Because that would be hugely valuable to the country if that could be secured.

Mahmood is unlikely to regard this intervention as helpful.

Here is the agenda for the day.

Morning: Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson, the education secretary, are on a school visit in Berkshire to promote applications opening for another round funding for primary schools in England to open free breakfast clubs.

9am: Emma Reynolds, the environment secretary, speaks at the CLA Rural Business conference in London.

9.30am: The Ministry of Justice publishes quarterly figures on knife crime.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

Around 11.30am: Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, is expected to make a statement to MPs about legal migration, and changes to rules relating to indefinite leave to remain and citizenship.

3pm: Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, gives a speech.

4pm: The Covid inquiry publishes its report into government decision making during the pandemic. Journalists are getting several hours to read the report before it gets released at 4pm, and so detailed stories about what is in the report will drop at this point.

If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), 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.bsky.social. 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.