No 10: Hegseth ‘wrong’ to say most non-US Nato soldiers didn’t fight in Afghanistan – as it happened

Downing Street has criticised Pete Hegseth for downplaying the role of Nato allies in helping the US with combat operations in Afghanistan, saying Donald Trump’s defence secretary had been wrong to do so. Services for children in parts of England are in a “state of emergency”, according to a report that identifies what it claims to be the hardest places in the country for young people to grow up in.

Scottish Labour has become the second largest party at Holyrood after Amanda Bland, a Reform UK MSP, resigned from the party to sit as an independent. (See 12.21pm.) Wes Streeting, the defence secretary has said the armed forces need to “live within their means” as he confirmed that some training exercises have been cancelled to save money.

(See 2.54pm.) For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog. Miatta Fahnbulleh, the energy secretary, has published an article criticising the home secretary’s proposal to make immigrant workers wait much longer before they can apply for permanent residency in the UK.

In a post on the website that promotes her work as Labour MP for Peckham in south London, she said: Ultimately, I want to see a system based on control and compassion, with a much stronger focus on integration … If we continually prolong the time people have to wait for settlement, we can also prolong the process of building cohesion.

We need to raise the level of the debate, challenge divisive political rhetoric and make the case for communities like the one we have in Peckham. That means talking about immigration with care, control and compassion. According to a story by Nick Gutteridge for the Telegraph, Fahnbulleh’s team say these comments were actually written by an aide as an account of what the MP said at a meeting with consituents last month.

They describe it as poorly-phrased summary, and the post has been taken down so that it can be reworded. But they do not seem to be contesting that the public version captures the gist of what she thinks. The language is contentious because Shabana Mahmood wants to make most migrant workers wait for at least 10 years before they can apply for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK.

Under current rules, ILR is normally available after five years. Mahmood originally published her plans last year. Fahnbulleh, who came to the UK as a child refugee from Liberia, is not the only cabinet minister with concerns. Andy Burnham has signalled that he is unhappy about Mahmood’s plan to make foreign care workers wait 15 years for ILF (supposedly because their low earnings mean they are more likely to be a burden on the state), and Mahmood has signalled that some sort of climbdown is coming.

The latest edition of the Guardian’s Politics Weekly UK podcast is out. It features Kiran Stacey and Pippa Crerar talking about the Alan Milburn review of youth unemployment. Rhun ap Iorwerth, the Welsh first minister, will give a speech later inviting Andy Burnham to agree to a “new partnership'” between Wales and the UK government on growth.

The two governments should also avoid “duplicating activity”, he will say. According to a report for Nation.Cymru, ap Iorwerth will say: I will invite the prime minister to agree a new partnership for growth between our two governments – a practical agreement about how our two governments work together to unlock Wales’s economic potential … My message to the prime minister will be a simple one – let us spend less time designing new programmes and duplicating activity.

Let us spend more time unlocking opportunity and supporting investment, and more time delivering the growth we both want to see in all parts of our respective nations. Ap Iorwerth also posted this on social media. Wales is not England, nor a region of it. Our institutions are different.

Our communities are different. Our geography is different. Where power can sit as closely to the people it affects, it should. That’s the case I’ll be setting out tonight. The Green party has reacted with alarm to reports suggesting the Alan Milburn review of Neets will recommend lower sickness benefits for people under the age of 25.

Pointing out that the recent review from Prof Peter Fonagy into the prevalence of mental health conditions, autism and ADHD argued cutting benefits was bad for mental health, the Green party’s co-deputy leader Mothin Ali said: It seems that when you commission an expert like Prof Fonagy rather than a Blairite former minister, you get a far more coherent analysis of the issues affecting young people and their mental health … The Green party has a proper jobs guarantee for young people – real jobs, with real training and rights at work.

It would be funded by those who can afford to contribute, not by cutting support for those least able to cope. During defence questions, Edward Leigh, the Conservative MP and father of the Commons, asked Wes Streeting about the Diego Garcia military base on the Chagos Islands.

Given that it was “to all intents and purposes an American military base”, why didn’t the government just sell it to Donald Trump for £6bn, and invest the money in defence? Streeting said that he didn’t think that was the right solution. In an earlier answer, Streeting defended the government’s plan to transfer sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius as a response the legal doubt over the UK’s claims of ownership.

He said: Having looked at this whole issue with a fresh pair of eyes, I’ve reached the same conclusion as every prime minister since Boris Johnson, including this one, which is the capabilities provided by that base makes it extremely unwise and a risk not worth taking to have legal uncertainty.

That is why efforts to negotiate a treaty continue. Fraser Nelson, the Times columnist who is heavily involved in a project the paper is running investigating the nature of welfare spending, has written an interesting post on his Substack blog about Andy Burnham’s welfare article today.

(See 9.34am.) Nelson argues that Burnham saying “benefits will become the backstop, not the starting point” is the key line. He explains: I read this as an intention to dismantle what Whitehall officials call ‘the pipeline’ – in effect, a Neet factory. Children as young as five are categorised as disabled and a £10k package released to the parents.

This ‘disability living allowance’ typically converts to adult Pip at age 16 paying about £9,000 straight to the kid. Outcomes for such child claimants are poor: the Milburn review disclosed that the DWP holds the power to follow these kids in later life. It does not use this power lest anyone FoIs to find out the scandal (they rejected my request saying it’d cost too much to work out what happened to sickness benefit claimants, even though they could).

But [Alan] Milburn used his powers to get them to publish a cohort analysis. This graph is The Pipeline. And Nelson includes this chart showing what happens to children who have claimed DLA (disability living allowance) for children after the age of 16. James Cartlidge, the shadow defence secretary, reminded Streeting that, soon after being made defence secretary, he was asked in a TV interview if he would resign if the Treasury did not allocate enough for defence spending.

“Absolutely,” Streeting replied. Cartlidge asked if that was still the case. Streeting said that his answer remained the same. And he said he was confident saying that because “this government is already delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war”.

Back in the Commons, Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, is now taking topical questions. In response to Andrew Rosindell from Reform UK saying the UK’s “ability to protect the Falkland Islands is now in doubt”, Streeting replied: It is simply irresponsible, not to mention inaccurate, to suggest that the UK is incapable of defending the Falkland Islands.

We are perfectly capable of doing that. We had a very visible demonstration only recently. Maybe if Reform had a defence spokesperson, they might have noticed. This morning Daisy Cooper cited Andy Burnham’s support for proportional representation as evidence that the Liberal Democrats are “winning the battle of ideas”.

(See 11am.) But only up to a point. There are a couple of reports around this morning that show that, while Burnham may personally favour PR, he is yet to convincingly win the argument for it in the parliamentary Labour party. In an article for PoliticsHome, Harriet Symonds and Matilda Martin point out that some of Burnham’s most senior ministers prefer first-past-the-post.

They say: PoliticsHome understands that Louise Haigh, deputy PM and Burnham’s close ally, has concerns about shifting to PR. Other Cabinet members have previously voiced reservations about the idea. In 2022, Angela Rayner, now secretary of state for housing, communities and local government, said she was a “first-past-the-post girl” who was “yet to be convinced by PR”, telling The News Agents podcast that it could allow extremist parties such as the British National Party (BNP) to win House of Commons seats.

And David Blunkett, the former cabinet minister who has been one of Burnham’s political mentors, has written an article for the i restating his longstanding opposition to PR. He says: In my view, the argument can’t be that “every vote must count”. Each vote already does count, because in order to have winners and losers, people engage in the process which inevitably means that some voters’ preferences will be cancelled out by a greater number preferring another candidate.

Not everyone can have prizes in a democracy. Some candidates lose, some electors are frustrated and annoyed that their candidate didn’t succeed. Hence, the first set of questions about what it is we think this change is going to improve. The second question is why we would believe that electoral reform would change people’s interest or engagement with politics?

Later this month we will have a demonstration of what is the purest form of proportional representation in the world. Namely, the Israeli general election. If there were ever an example of how tiny minorities representing not only outlandish views, but providing a blockage on progress, compromise and long-term outcomes, it has to be this form of PR.

Wes Streeting told MPs that the US is still on the side of Ukraine in its war against Russia. During defence questions, the Lib Dem MP James MacCleary asked about reports that the Ukrainian military were left exposed last week after President Trump reportedly intervened to restrict access to the Starlink internet service for its weapons.

Streeting replied: It is worth pointing out, after what was unquestionably a challenging week for relations between the United States and Ukraine, that the United States has and does and will continue to provide vital support to Ukraine, whether that’s intelligence sharing or indeed the work we do on procurement with and through the United States, as well as the diplomatic track.

Referring to a meeting he had with Pete Hegseth, his US counterpart, last week, Streeting went on: This is worth reporting to the house; Pete Hegseth, my US counterpart, was keen to thank the United Kingdom for our leadership of Ukraine. That would suggest to me the United States does know which side it’s on.

Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, is taking questions in the Commons. When the Reform UK MP Danny Kruger asked him if he agreed it was “absolutely scandalous” that non-essential training had been cancelled by the army, Streeting said that training exercises were taking place for the rest of this year.

But he accepted that some future training had been cut. He told MPs: When I arrived in the Ministry of Defence, there was an in-year overspend that would have seen us overcommitted by the end of the year. And, as I did at health, I make absolutely no apology whatsoever for sending a very strong message very early on that, while this government is delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war, I also expect my department and our armed forces to live within their means.

Here is some more reaction to Amanda Bland MSP leaving Reform UK from opposition parties at Holyrood. Scottish Lib Dem MSP David Green said: After a chaotic campaign in the spring, the party has been hit by scandal after scandal, and I’m sure more and more of its MSPs will be taking a long, hard look at what they’ve signed up for.

And a Scottish Conservative spokesperson said: With Nigel Farage’s Reform being weak and ineffective at Holyrood, the Scottish Conservatives will continue standing up to the SNP and fighting for Scotland’s taxpayers. Amanda Bland has issued a statement about her decision to leave Reform UK and sit as an independent MSP in the Scottish parliament.

In it, she does not give an explanation for her move, but she says she entered politics to “champion fairness and common sense, protect women and children, improve public services, support businesses to thrive, and work towards a fairer and more effective criminal justice system” and that those principles remain “unchanged”.

She implies she has concluded that Reform UK’s priorities lie elsewhere. Back to Scotland, and here are comments from three Scottish journalists on Amanda Bland leaving Reform UK to sit as an independent MSP. (See 12.21pm.) From Andrew Learmonth from the Herald A Reform source says Amanda Bland was due to be hauled in front of Reform’s chief whip Max Bannerman and chief of staff Martyn Green on Wednesday, after her office fell apart.

They say she sacked one member of staff and another quit. From Gina Davidson from LBC Scotland Reform reduced to 16 MSPs in Holyrood with resignation of Amanda Bland (she’s now an independent), which makes Scottish Labour the largest opposition party on 17. Reform sources say she “wasn’t a team player” & had lost 2 staff members since May.

She’s yet to make a statement. From Stephen Daisley from the Scottish Daily Mail Labour becomes the largest opposition party in the Scottish Parliament for the first time since 2016. With Amanda Bland’s resignation from Reform, the party balance is now: SNP 57 Labour 17 Reform 16 Green 15 Con 12 Lib Dem 10 Ind (Bland) 1 No affiliation (Presiding Officer) 1 In a speech this afternoon, Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, is going to argue that devolution of power to local authorities could help to address some of the problems identified in her Childhood Lottery report.

(See 9.34am and 10.05am.) She is expected to say: Devolution represents an opportunity. It offers a clean break. The chance for a line in the sand moment. The problems I have identified are not just at a service level – though sometimes they are – they are utterly systemic.

The system change that devolution represents is a unique chance to remove the extreme inequality and unfairness I have found. New powers will mean new structures, and therefore new opportunities to think about, listen to, and deliver for children. Local areas must be provided with support from central government to raise standards for children across health, social care, housing and communities, with urgent action where it falls beyond a set level.

This needs to be our response to the emergency. Given that devolving power from Whitehall to mayors and local authorities is one of Andy Burnham’s top priorities, citing this as the solution to the problems facing children in England is at the very least de Souza being tactful; it might even ensure children’s issues are higher up the agenda in the discussion about what powers should be removed from Whitehall.

But it is also an unusual argument to make in this context because devolution is often seen as a policy that increases the chance of a ‘postcode lottery’ in service provision; a more conventional policy response would be to say that, if there is a “staggering” variety in outcomes, standards should centralised.

The Sun today has splashed on a story saying that the government intends to tighten rules intended to discourage supermarkets from promoting foods that are high in fat, sugar and salt. In his colourful intro, Jack Elsom says “supermarket deals on items like bran flakes, porridge and fruit juice are set to be banned as nanny-state ministers tighten barmy rules on ‘less healthy’ food”.

Elsom is referring to what could be included in ‘three-for-two’ deals. At the Downing Street lobby briefing, asked about the story, the PM’s spokesperson did not exactly knock it down. Without commenting on the detail, he said: We’re committed to giving children the best start in life, both by supporting families with the cost of living and through measures to protect kids’ health.

With one in 10 reception-age children now obese, and one in five have tooth decay by the age of five, we can’t allow this situation to continue. We’re determined to set children up for happy, healthy lives, and given obesity costs the NHS £9.3bn pounds a year, it’s clear we need to take action.

Downing Street has delivered a rare public reprimand to a member of Donald Trump’s administration, saying Pete Hegseth, the US defence secretary, was “wrong” to suggest that most non-American Nato soldiers in Afghanistan did not do any fighting. Hegseth made the comment in a speech at the University of Tennessee, where he recalled serving in Afghanistan himself.

He said: I was a captain in Afghanistan and we would go to the headquarters in Kabul and there would be 50 flags at the headquarters. It was a beautiful thing to see, 50 different countries contributing to the Nato alliance and the Isaf [International Security Assistance Force] mission there.

Except there were maybe five that contributed. It was actually closer to one or two that by the end were actually involved in kinetic operations. In fact the patch Isaf, we joked it meant ‘I Saw Americans Fighting’. Asked about Hegseth’s comment at the Downing Street lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said Hegseth was “wrong” in what he said about the Nato operation in Afghanistan.

The spokesperson explained: The facts speak for themselves when it comes to the UK’s and Nato’s contribution to Afghanistan. Thousands of British and Allied families made huge sacrifices to play their significant part in that war and uphold our values, and more than 450 British personnel never returned.

Their sacrifice and that of other Nato forces was made in the service of collective security and in response to an attack on our ally. We are incredibly proud of our armed forces and their service and sacrifice will never be forgotten, and it is wrong to diminish their role.

While the UK government disagrees with much of what Donald Trump and his team say and do, there is normally a reluctance to criticise them in public. However, this does not seem to apply when the reputation of British servicemen and women has been impugned. Keir Starmer tried hard to maintain a good personal relationship with the US president, but when Trump made a similar claim about Nato allies avoiding frontline fighting in Afghanistan, Starmer condemned what he said as “insulting and frankly appalling”.

Reform UK has lost one of its MSPs in Scotland. Amanda Bland, a former teacher and police officer who is a list MSP for Central Scotland and Lothians West, has left the Reform UK group and will sit as an independent. She has not publicly said why. At the May elections Reform UK and Scottish Labour came joint second in terms of seats, with both parties having 17 MSPs, behind the SNP’s 58.

Bland’s move means Reform UK is now the third biggest party at Holyrood. A Reform UK spokesperson said: We can confirm Amanda Bland has resigned as a Reform UK member of the Scottish parliament to sit as an independent MSP. We are proud of a talented and united team of MSPs at Holyrood who have supported each other at every step of the way.

Amanda Bland should reflect on her reasons for choosing to isolate herself from that team of capable individuals. It is incumbent on her to resign as a regional MSP for Central Scotland and Lothians West and allow her constituents to be represented by the next Reform candidate on that list.

Jackie Baillie, the deputy leader of Scottish Labour, said: No one will be surprised to see chaos at the heart of Reform. They have always been a group of chancers, grifters and Tories in disguise. Despite all the big talk and promises ahead of the election, Nigel Farage’s party has been utterly useless at holding the SNP to account or getting results for the Scottish people, it’s been a series of stunts, gimmicks, photocalls and precious little else.

Scottish Labour is now the second largest party at Holyrood, and we will work to hold the SNP to account and deliver better outcomes for the people of Scotland. Bland’s move means Malcolm Offord, Reform UK’s leader in Scotland, will lose the right to be the first opposition leader called at first minister’s questions every other week.

While Reform UK enjoyed great success at the elections in May, it has done less well retaining elected representatives. In the Welsh Senedd Sarah Cooper-Lesadd defected last month from Reform UK to Plaid Cymru, the governing party. And, according to a Best for Britain tracker, there are also 63 people elected as Reform UK councillors in May who have either resigned from office, been suspended or left the party.

Asked if she would rule out launching a leadership challenge against Ed Davey, Cooper replied: “Yes, I can. I’m not going to be launching any kind of bid at all.” She went on: I really enjoy being deputy leader to Ed. We work incredibly well as a team. And I’ve got a lot of work to do as Treasury spokesperson, not least next week when I hold the government to account on their budget.

Asked if the Lib Dems would commit to keeping the pensions triple lock in its current form in their election manifesto, Cooper said she would not write the next manifesto now. But she defended it strongly. She said: On the triple lock – and these are my views – we are incredibly proud as a party of what the triple lock has achieved.

It was our policy implemented in government during coalition. It’s been a resounding success. It’s taken loads of pensioners out of poverty. And it has almost eliminated the gender pension gap between men and women as well. I don’t believe that the work of the triple lock has been done yet.

I think there is still some way to go to make sure that the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow don’t fall into poverty. Andy Burnham plans to replace the pensions triple lock with a less generous version, coming into effect from 2030. He wants to legislate for this before the next election.

Asked why the Lib Dems were opposed to a third runway at Heathrow when they professed to be in favour of growth, Cooper said she did not accept that a third runway would produce all the benefits its supporters claimed. She explained: On Heathrow, it is clear from looking at all of the economic analysis of airport growth over the last few years that many of the promises made by all sorts of different airport companies simply haven’t come to bear.

The promise of higher wage jobs hasn’t been substantiated. Often it’s lower paid jobs, and often not as many as they’ve claimed. It’s often claimed there’s going to be huge amounts of growth when actually there isn’t. We’ve seen these inflated claims from airport companies.

That’s the same whether it’s Heathrow or Luton airport, which is closer to me. [Cooper is MP for St Albans.] So I just don’t believe that those claims stack up. Cooper also said a third runway would be “really bad for the climate” and that she had not seen evidence showing how a third runway could go ahead without carbon emission targets being breached.

Donald Trump has claimed that the riots in France were a result of immigration. At her press conference, asked if she agreed, Daisy Cooper said the reporter would not be surprised to hear that she didn’t. She said in France peaceful protests had been “hijacked by more malevolent forces”.

And they were about the cost of living, she said. Cooper also claimed the Liberal Democrats were “winning the battle of ideas”. She explained: We are winning, leading and winning the battle of ideas in parliament. We’re the party that has been talking about electoral reform.

We’re the party talking about a closer relationship with Europe. We’re the party that has been talking about fixing social care. And guess what? The prime minister has taken up all of those issues. I think even today he’s stolen one of our policies around earphone dodgers on trains.

So we are really proud of the fact that we are making a difference in the political debate and that the prime minister is taking up our ideas. When pressed again on concerns within the party about Ed Davey’s leadership, Daisy Cooper, the deputy party leader, admitted that there was “a huge degree of frustration” in the party about the amount of media coverage it gets.

But she claimed that this was because social media favours extremists. She said: What I would recognise is there is a huge degree of frustration that, at a time when we are the largest third party in our party’s history, that has happened at a time when parliament almost doesn’t matter at all in terms of changing the political weather.

It’s all about the algorithms, it’s about social media. That’s where a lot of the conversation is happening. And those algorithms are being designed, are often financed, in a way that rewards extreme positions. Are we going to play in that paddling pool of extreme politics?

No, we’re absolutely not. We’re going to stick to our values. We’re environmentalists, we’re internationalists, we are pro-business, we are pro-growth. We’re not going to adopt an extreme position just to get the online clicks. And I think people will appreciate that.

Q: Some of your MPs are losing faith in Ed Davey. Why is he failing to cut through? Cooper did not accept the premise of the question. She described Davey as the “most successful ever” leader in the history of the party, and went on: For as long as we have first past the post, the national polls do not translate into winning seats.

And we have proven that under Ed Davey’s leadership we can transfer votes into seats like no other political party. And for as long as we have first past the post that has to remain the goal. Q: Should Liberal Democrat councillors stop power sharing with Green councillors in the light of the Greens’ “Zionism is racism” motion being passed by their conference?

Cooper said she utterly condemned the “horrific, antisemitic motion” passed by the Greens at their conference. She said this was an issue for Green MPs, Green councillors and Green members to sort out. She said the Lib Dems would “absolutely not work with the Green party at the national level for as long as this remains their position”.

But she did not say what she thought Lib Dem councillors should do in areas where they are sharing power with the Greens. (The Labour party has told its councillors that they should only cooperate with Green councillors where the local Green party has condemned the Zionism motion.) Q: These policies suggest you are criticising the budget from the left.

Is that fair? Cooper suggested she did not accept that description. She explained: We believe that wealth creation and social justice are two sides of the same coin. We have a stronger, pro-growth, pro-business position than the Labour party. But when it comes to supporting the most disadvantaged, we do believe in having more targeted and deeper support for the most vulnerable in society.

So I believe that we can outstrip the Labour party by being more pro-growth and more pro-business, whilst also being more targeted with support for those who are most vulnerable. Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, is holding a press conference now.

She says the Lib Dems are urging John Healey, the chancellor, to deliver “a £14bn breathing space budget” next week, saving households £350 on average over the next year and a half. She says these plans could be “fully funded by windfall taxes on the big banks, a clawback on the energy network monopolies and using the higher tax receipts triggered by inflation”.

The plan has three elements. On energy, Cooper says: For the next year and a half, we would introduce an essential energy guarantee, cutting average annual electricity and gas bills by £100, alongside additional support for households with children and disabled people.

On hospitality, she says: For the next year and a half, we would cut hospitality VAT from 20% to 15%, giving pubs, restaurants and cafes room to keep prices down, protect jobs and stay open. It would make a meal with the kids, coffee with a friend or a pint at the local, just a little bit more affordable.

And, on travel, she says: For an initial three months, we would cut fuel duty by 10%, cut rail fares by 10%, introduce £1 bus fares and cut VAT on kerbside EV charging to 5%. Explaining how the Lib Dems would fund these measures, she says: Our essential energy guarantee would be paid for by clawing back excess support handed to monopoly energy operators, and using that money to cut household bills instead.

Our hospitality package would be funded by a one-off, time-limited windfall tax on the unexpected and unearned profits of the big banks. And our emergency travel package would be funded through additional Treasury receipts generated through higher prices at the petrol pump triggered by Trumpflation [price rises caused by Trump’s Iran war] because when motorists pay more at the pump, the Treasury shouldn’t get a windfall.

Here is the chart from Rachel de Souza’s Childhood Lottery report showing the places deemed the most challenging to be a child. (See 9.34am.) And here is the chart showing the least challenging places to be a child. Good morning. Children and young people are at the top of the agenda today, with the publication of a hard-hitting report from Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, and a Times article by Andy Burnham.

They are focusing on slightly different cohorts – Burnham is writing about young people who leave school and enter the benefits system, while the de Souza reports covers the experiences of young children in multiple aspects of their lives – but their overall message is the same: the younger generation is being let down.

De Souza has studied more than 160 datasets to examine how what happens to children as they grow up varies across England and she says the variation is “staggering”. In her report, The Childhood Lottery, she explains: In four local authorities, the total amount spent on youth services per teenager is the princely sum of £0, £421 less than in the highest spending local authority.

Some areas of the country are sending nearly 90% of their looked after children to out-of-area placements, compared to the almost 20% in the areas making least use of these – although given this means being away from family ties, and friends, that is still worryingly high.

But what stands out is not merely these differences, but how much work there is to do to deliver a happy, healthy childhood in every postcode. I have made the difficult decision to highlight the 20 places where it is hardest to grow up. I want to be clear that this is not a review of the local authority, this is an assessment based on a wide range of measures looking at the challenges faced, the full range of services available and the outcomes we see.

We cannot shy away, though, from the fact that poor education outcomes, long health waiting lists or simply feeling unsafe converge in particular places. The report identifies Middlesbrough as the most challenging place to be a child, and Cheshire East as the least challenging place.

I will publish fuller tables shortly. The overall picture is grim too. Here is an extract from the report’s summary. The data pulled together in the Childhood Lottery highlights the scale of challenges faced by children across all areas of the country and all areas of their lives.

For example that: -Over 1 million children (1,048,965) had active referrals to children and young people’s mental health services in 2024-25.1 -Most pupils (55%) do not achieve a good standard in their English and Maths GCSEs (grade 5 or better in both) at the end of key stage 4.

-There are around 1 million young people in the UK aged 16 to 24 not in employment, education or training (NEET) -Approaching half (44%) of looked after children are placed outside their local authority area. Far too many care leavers (40%, plus 6% with unknown activity) are Neets [not in education, employment or training].

-12% of children said they did not feel safe in their local area. The Burnham article is specifically about Neets. The government was expected to publish Alan Milburn’s final report with recommendations on Neets before the budget. Now it is coming next month, which means the pitch-rolling process ahead of publication is unusually protracted.

Milburn has given an interview to the Guardian and, as Anna Bawden and Kiran Stacey report, he is explicit about wanting some benefit payments to be cut to fund more employment support. In his article, Burnham accepts that many people people today feel “shut out”.

There is no shortage of people lining up to take a swing at the next generation but, if we are honest, the blame for this failure lies with politicians. At the very moment growing up became harder, the support young people relied on was stripped away. Youth services were practically abolished.

Children’s mental health services were cut. Families were left to fight for support for children with special educational needs and disabilities. The pandemic stole two years, and social media is too often taking something much deeper: their confidence and sense of belonging.

Add an education system focused on the university route and a job market offering too few opportunities, and we should not be surprised that so many are shut out. And he signals that he is going to follow Milburn’s recommendations on benefits. Today, the welfare system provides an assessment, a payment and, after that, a goodbye.

Too often there is no support, no offer of skills and no opportunity to get a job … This will be our offer: a clear guarantee of support. But it will also be matched by an expectation that young people will take up the opportunities made available to them. This will mean big changes to the way our welfare system operates.

Benefits will become the backstop, not the starting point. The system will no longer begin by establishing which benefits a young person is entitled to. It will begin with their ambitions and the help they need to achieve them. Here is the agenda for the day. 10am: Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, holds a press conference on Lib Dem budget proposals.

Morning: Andy Burnham is on a visit in South Wales linked to the 60th anniversary of the Aberfan disaster (which is on Wednesday). 11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing. 2.30pm: Wes Streeting, the defence secretary, takes questions in the Commons. 3pm: Dame Rachel de Souza, the children’s commissioner for England, gives a speech at at the launch of her Childhood Lottery report.

After 3.30pm: MPs debate amendments to the Northern Ireland Troubles bill. 5.30pm: Rhun ap Iorwerth, the Welsh first minister, gives a speech on devolution. I’m afraid we are no longer able to have comments open below the line every day on this blog. If you want to contact me, please email politics.live@theguardian.com.

You can use this email to flag up corrections, comments for publication, questions or complaints.