UK politics: Reform UK claims racism exposé has left some members ‘psychologically damaged’ as it reports ITV to police – as it happened

• Reform UK says it has reported ITV to the police over its undercover racism exposé about the party, which it claims left some members “pyschologically damaged”. (See 3.50pm.)

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.

Activists from Fossil Free London staged a protest outside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero today. They were protesting about the Jackdaw decision announced today, and also urging the government not to approve the Rosebank oil field, where the decision is pending.

Robin Wells, director of the campaign group, said:

This decision is salted with the tears of every Nepalese person who saw someone they loved swept away in a river tsunami and it’s stained with the blood of everyone in Valencia who died as cars afloat in mud, sewage and enough rainwater for a year collided into their bodies in streets that had become rivers.

Although we cannot right now hear people in Australia, LA and Portugal crying in fear as their homes and worlds burn, these are the knock-on consequences of corporations that continue to drill fossil fuels and the governments that permit it, knowing the damage caused.

Our government must not double down on madness now. They must not lap-up industry propaganda again for the next North Sea project in their in-tray. If they believe in a future that protects people’s homes and safety, not endangers them, they must stop Rosebank.

The Department for Education has announced that Simon Ridley will be its new permanent secretary. Ridley will move from the Home Office, where he has been second permanent secretary.

He will replace Susan Acland-Hood, who is taking a new job outside government. Acland-Hood became head of the DfE in 2020 after the previous permanent secretary, Jonathan Slater, was sacked during Covid after the department oversaw a botched exam grading system that infuriated parents and pupils.

Richard Adams is the Guardian’s education editor.

The review of antisemitism in England’s schools and colleges by Sir David Bell has now been published, with the Department for Education saying it will adopt its recommendations including antisemitism training for education leaders, strengthened safeguarding guidance and improved reporting and investigation of antisemitic incidents.

Bell’s full report goes into detail about the challenges that Jewish students and institutions face directly from antisemitism, as well as ways to tackle antisemitism in schools across the country.

The review also talks about the external pressures that schools face from parents and other community members, noting:

Schools and colleges should make decisions based on safeguarding, professional conduct, employment law and evidence, not on who can generate the strongest public pressure campaign or out of fear of stoking community tensions.

Presenting the review to parliament, education secretary Lucy Powell said:

We have a duty to teach this generation and the next what antisemitism is, why it’s wrong and what happens when it takes hold. That goes for every school and college, whether or not they have Jewish staff and students.

Daniel Kebede, general secretary of the National Education Union, said:

Robust action to challenge antisemitism is certainly needed because young people are exposed to antisemitic ideas and tropes, including on social media, and to influencers and figures who espouse violence. Educational experiences that empower young people to develop positive attitudes and respect for each other are critical.

But Kebede rejected the need for schools to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance working definition of antisemitism or new rules on political impartiality, saying they would make it harder for schools to discuss complex world events. He said:

This report will not tackle antisemitism. It wrongly calls into question the professionalism of teachers. The existing rules on impartiality in the classroom are very clear and teachers take that responsibility very seriously.

For three years, teachers have been responding to concerned pupils’ questions about this conflict. These classroom discussions are familiar territory, not uncharted ground.

The recommendations in the report include one saying the DfE “should strengthen guidance for schools on political impartiality” and another saying school leaders should “consider the appropriateness of political expression and identifiers in their respective settings”.

Karl Turner has had the Labour whip restored after apologising for what he describes as an “overly robust” and “unacceptable” approach towards colleagues. He has admitted that his behaviour caused offence.

He has issued this statement and says he will not be making any further comment.

Turner had the whip suspended in March.

Andy Burnham has backed mandatory suicide prevention training for social workers after the “devastating” death of Matilda Davis, a parent-carer who killed herself minutes after meeting professionals, Josh Halliday reports.

Reform UK says it has reported “multiple” ITV journalists, and the company’s board of directors, to the police on the grounds that their undercover reporters working on the exposé of racism in the party broke the law. The party says it will also be suing them for damages.

Zia Yusuf, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, posted this on social media summarising his party’s allegations.

Reform UK has reported ITV, its board, and its undercover reporters to the police.

Some of the crimes carry up to 10 years in prison.

They forged a passport.

They directly interfered in elections and almost certainly altered the results. Being paid to “canvass” for Reform in crucial wards we lost by a few dozen votes.

They lied to a veteran about their service and left him “violated”.

This is unprecedented.

The police are now involved.

Scrutiny of political parties is one thing.

But anyone breaking the law to try and ruin the lives of Reform’s staff, members or volunteers will be reported to the police and pursued relentlessly in the courts.

In a video setting out his case against ITV at greater length, Yusuf claimed ITV “psychologically damaged innocent and decent Reform staff and members who were not featured in any documentary”.

As an example of this, Yusuf said that one of the undercover reporters met a Reform UK member in Portsmouth who had served in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said:

One of the undercover reporters told him that they shared the same military background. That was a lie. The marine, believing him, took him for a drink. They spent hours talking about their service, and the marine shared deeply personal stories from the front line because he believed he was talking to a friend and a fellow soldier. He has told us he feels violated.

Yusuf also explained why he was alleging electoral interference. In Portsmouth two undercover reporters were tasked with delivering leaflets in one ward where Reform UK lost in the local elections by 24 votes, and in another ward where Reform UK lost by just 85 votes. Yusuf said these margins were smaller than the number of leaflets the undercover reporters were supposed to deliver.

But he did not assert in the video that they failed to deliver the leaflets, and he offered no evidence that they had done anything to suppress the Reform UK vote at the time.

Asked about the legal threats, an ITV spokesperson said:

ITV stands by its journalism. The programme Undercover: A Year In Reform was produced in compliance with the Ofcom Broadcasting Code, relevant laws, and its broadcast is in the public interest. All journalists were instructed to operate within this framework and did so under the supervision of the programme’s producers. Should the police get in touch we would fully cooperate.

People tend to assume that a public interest defence will protect journalists from allegations of minor law-breaking if they are investigating wrongdoing. In fact, the law is more complicated than that, a public interest defence applies in some instances and not in others, and there are probably enough allegations in the Yusuf video to keep a media lawyer busy for days assessing the evidence.

But, in practice, it is rare for the criminal law to be used successfully against legitimate journalists. When the Crown Prosecution Service prosecuted police officers who had taken bribes, and the journalists who had paid them, under Operation Elveden, the officers were largely convicted but the journalists were largely acquitted. Juries seemed to accept they were operating in the public interest.

In the ITV case, the public interest case for the programme is particularly strong. Reform UK has accepted that some of the people exposed making racist comments should not be in the party – although it has also claimed they were not representative of the membership as a whole.

Here is video from PMQs of Andy Burnham and Kemi Badenoch talking about the Jackdaw decision.

At the No 10 post-PMQs lobby briefing, Downing Street rejected suggestions that Miatta Fahnbulleh was undermining Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary, with her comments about indefinite leave to remain (ILR) this morning. (See 10.44am and 11.34am.) A spokesperson said that Mahmood was consulting on the plans announced last year and that she is engaged in “a thorough piece of work to ensure we get this right and have the right arrangements in place”. Asked about the Fahnbulleh interview, the spokesperson said:

The energy secretary made clear she backs reforms and the work that Shabana is doing. She was asked about specific elements of proposals that are subject to the results of the consultation.

The Green MP Siân Berry has welcomed Miatta Fahnbulleh’s decision not to endorse the home secretary’s plan to make migrant workers wait much longer for indefinite leave to remain. (See 10.44am.) But she urged Fahnbulleh to go further, and to also speak out about separate plans in the immigration and asylum bill. The bill, which is going through the Commons, will tighten various aspects of asylum law, including by allowing the Home Office to recover from some refugees money spent by the state housing them while their asylum claim was considered.

Berry said:

This Reform-inspired bill is a legacy of Keir Starmer’s leadership that will harm communities who want to welcome and support refugees, penalise desperate people for needing support, split up already war-torn families, and force people needing asylum here to live in a state of instability and poverty for decades.

I urge Miatta and her colleagues to do the right thing, and speak up more strongly and sooner against these plans, so we can together force our new prime minister to drop this awful bill.

In the Commons, Michael Shanks, the energy minister, is making a statement about the Jackdaw decision.

He is doing it because his boss, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is in Aberdeen.

Before he started, Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, said it was an “immense discourtesy” to the Commons that Fahnbulleh was not there herself.

And he said it was “shameful” that her department announced the news to the media first.

He said:

It is simply not good enough that it was trailed by the press last night and announced all over the media this morning by the secretary of state before it could be properly scrutinised in this house.

I’m sure there will be a leak inquiry, or is it that this department is deliberately briefing out to the media?

Hoyle said that, under the ministerial code, ministers were supposed to make important announcements to the Commons first.

Shanks told Hoyle that he respected what he had said, and that he would take these points back to the department.

Hoyle was not impressed. He said:

I’m sorry that Aberdeen is more important than the MPs they’ve elected.

Miatta Fahnbulleh is leaning towards rejecting the giant Rosebank oilfield, the Guardian understands, in what would be a blow for the North Sea energy industry and a major victory for climate campaigners. Kiran Stacey has the story.

Judging by the latest post on Truth Social, it looks as thought the Jackdaw announcement may have made Fox News in the US this morning. This is from Donald Trump.

That felt like quite a routine PMQs, but it was one that went quite well for Andy Burnham. It was not so much that he won; it was more that he emerged completely unscathed because none of Kemi Badenoch’s attack lines landed. It is always hard for an opposition leader to criticise a decision they agree with (Jackdaw), and so she tried the argument that Labour was to blame for rerunning the application process instead of fighting the legal challenge against the original decision all the way to the supreme court (where it may have lost anyway). Burnham’s response, that the Tories were to blame for mucking it up in the first place, was more convincing. After that Badenoch trotted through some very familiar lines on welfare and debt. It was hard to see what “story” she was trying to land, and it felt a bit as if she was not trying too hard. Maybe she is saving up her ammunition for her budget response next week.

Burnham also successfully seized the initiative with an announcement, about standing charges on gas bills. These are only worth about £100 a year, and presumably the money would be recouped from consumers in some other forms. Still, it’s news.

But what made Burnham’s performance quite strong today was not so much his standing charge teaser (which sounded like a hint for what might be in the budget) as his overall tone. One of the big complaints about PMQs is that MPs treat it as just a game. Badenoch herself is quite open about this, and she has said that she only started to do it well when she decided to view it like a panto. Burnham, though, can speak in the Commons with a degree of conviction and moral force that marks him out. We saw it today when he was talking about Aberfan, or social care, or Covid, or the importance of big decisions. This does not make him unique, and of course he is a professional politician, and he can equivocate as much as the rest of them. But at other moments he can convey seriousness and sincerity, rooted in lived experience, better than others. By comparison, Badenoch sounds glib.

David Davis (Con) asks if the PM would speak to the defence secretary to stop British agencies acting with “credulous complicity with our enemies trying to use lawfare against our soldiers”.

He was referring in particular to a Sunday Times report at the weekend about how SAS soldiers were hounded over “bogus allegations”.

Burnham said he would be happy to meet Davis to discuss this. He wanted to give an assurance to solidiers that the government would “always have their back” and treat them fairly.

UPDATE: Davis said:

The Sunday Times reported on its front page how Ministry of Defence police attempted to prosecute five members of the SAS over bogus allegations made by our enemies. They arrested the soldiers and subjected them to continuous—and frankly incompetent—investigation for three years while they were fighting ISIS on our behalf. That action has travelled like a shockwave through Hereford, destroying morale and undermining one of our best fighting units. Nobody wants to put soldiers above the law, but will the Prime Minister speak to the Defence Secretary and stop British agencies acting with credulous complicity with enemies that are trying to use lawfare against our soldiers?

And Burnham replied:

I am aware of the high levels of concern among those who served in the SAS, and [Davis] has spoken to that. Without going into all the details, I am happy to meet him to discuss the case and see how we can resolve some of the issues that arise from it, giving an assurance to people who served this country that we will have their back and always treat them fairly.