Wes Streeting tells Britons ‘don\u2019t pay any attention whatsoever to what Trump says about medicine’<\/p>\n
Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has urged pregnant women to ignore Donald Trump\u2019s bogus claims about a link between taking paracetamol and autism.<\/p>\n
Speaking on ITV\u2019s Lorraine, Streeting said:<\/p>\n
I trust doctors over President Trump, frankly, on this.<\/p>\n
Streeting explained:<\/p>\n
I\u2019ve just got to be really clear about this: there is no evidence to link the use of paracetamol by pregnant women to autism in their children. None.<\/p>\n
In fact, a major study was done back in 2024 in Sweden, involving 2.4 million children, and it did not uphold those claims.<\/p>\n
So I would just say to people watching, don\u2019t pay any attention whatsoever to what Donald Trump says about medicine. In fact, don\u2019t take even take my word for it, as a politician \u2013 listen to British doctors, British scientists, the NHS.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s really important that a time when you know there is scepticism \u2013 and I don\u2019t think scepticism itself, asking questions is in itself a bad thing, by all means, ask questions \u2013 but we\u2019ve got to follow medical science.<\/p>\n
Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a006.25 EDT<\/p>\n Key events<\/p>\n Show key events only<\/p>\n Please turn on JavaScript to use this feature<\/p>\n Labour thinktank suggests asylum seekers should be encouraged to find job, not banned from working as now<\/p>\n According to a story<\/a> by Patrick Maguire in the Times, a key Labour thinktank is also floating the idea \u2013 backed by the Liberal Democrats (see 11.24am<\/a>) \u2013 that asylum seekers should be allowed to work while their claims are being processed.<\/p>\n Maguire says a paper from Labour Together (the Morgan McSweeney outfit \u2013 see 9.45am<\/a>) is circulating a paper in government called The Case of Contribution. Keir Starmer has always had difficulty setting out a personal, political philosophy, and many of his critics argue that this is a problem because, they say, his non-ideological managerialism has not been very inspiring.<\/p>\n Maguire says the notion of contribution \u2013 re-establishing the link between what people get out of the state, and what they put in \u2013 could provide an answer.<\/p>\n The Labour<\/a> Together paper makes its case by giving individual examples and this is what it says about asylum seekers. Maguire reports:<\/p>\n Boldest of the lot are the proposals on migration, which, if taken up even in part, would represent the biggest paradigm shift of all. Reform UK has set the agenda with proposals to deny benefits to even legal migrants. By the standards of the centre-left, Labour Together\u2019s suggestion is just as radical.<\/p>\n Rather than leave Isak, an Eritrean with post-traumatic stress disorder, languishing in an asylum hotel<\/a>, their paper proposes he be granted time-limited refugee status for six months. He signs a contract that obliges him to learn English, find work and private accommodation; his access to any income support via universal credit is strictly conditional on him fulfilling its terms. Of all the changes suggested, this one \u2013 given that asylum seekers cannot currently work legally \u2013 would have the most profound consequences for British politics and the economy.<\/p>\n In an interview on the Today programme this morning Kevin Hollinrake, the Tory chair, said that allowing asylum seekers to work in the UK would increase the pull factor, encouraging migrants to cross the channel in small boats.<\/p>\n But experts dispute this. Here is an extract from an <\/a>Economist<\/a> article <\/a>this week saying the case for allowing asylum seekers to work is \u201ccompelling\u201d. It says:<\/p>\n Why an asylum-seeker is drawn to Britain over, say, France is not obvious. A 2016 report from Warwick University, based on findings from 29 separate studies into asylum-seeker motives, concluded that social networks and shared languages were crucial. The report could not find a single study showing a significant correlation between work rights and destination choice. If asylum-seekers in Calais were motivated by working rights those who had yet to apply would stay in France, where they could work sooner.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Lib Dems call for asylum seekers to be allowed to work after 3 months waiting for decision<\/p>\n At the Liberal Democrat conference in Bournemouth this morning members have passed two emergency motions<\/a>.<\/p>\n On digital rights, the Lib Dems are calling for an urgent parliamentary review on \u201cwhether the Online Safety Act is meeting its stated aims of keeping children and other vulnerable groups safe online, whether it is fit for purpose, and what further legislation may be required to ensure that the aims of keeping children and other vulnerable groups safe online\u201d.<\/p>\n And, on the asylum system, members voted for a motion with five proposals. They say the government should:<\/p>\n End the use of asylum hotels by speeding up application processing so thousands aren\u2019t stuck in limbo and those with valid claims can work, integrate and contribute, while those without a right to remain can be returned swiftly.<\/p>\n Lift the ban on employment for asylum seekers who\u2019ve waited over three months for a decision.<\/p>\n Immediately restore family reunification pathways for refugees.<\/p>\n Increase cross-border cooperation, including through a leadership role for the UK in Europol, to tackle criminal gangs and stop dangerous Channel crossings at their source.<\/p>\n Publicly and unequivocally reaffirm the UK\u2019s commitment to the ECHR – and reject any attempt to undermine the legal protections it provides.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>UK to suffer highest inflation in G7 this year, says OECD<\/p>\n The UK is set to suffer the highest inflation among G7 nations this year, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has warned. Heather Stewart has the story.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Minister rules out plan for 2p cut in NI, and 2p rise in income tax in thinktank report proposing tax rises worth \u00a330bn<\/p>\n Rachel Reeves has been urged to take 2p off the rate of employee national insurance and add it to income tax in her autumn budget, to raise billions of pounds while protecting workers\u2019 pay packets, Richard Partington reports.<\/p>\n The proposal is in a report <\/a>from the Resolution Foundation thinktank that suggests tax changes that could raise more than \u00a330bn in the budget. The list is here.<\/p>\n Proposed tax rises Photograph: Resolution Foundation<\/p>\n The Resolution Foundation is sometimes described as the most powerful thinktank in the UK because many of its alumni now have key roles in government. The Economist\u2019s Bagehot summed this up in a recent column<\/a>.<\/p>\n Torsten Bell, the boyish pensions minister, now has the unenviable task of helping pull together a painful budget. Before entering Parliament, Mr Bell spent nine years as the chief executive of the Resolution Foundation (RF), a centre-left think-tank. Minouche Shafik<\/a>, a former deputy governor of the Bank of England, is now Downing Street\u2019s economic adviser. She was the co-chair of rf\u2019s The Economy 2030 Inquiry. Dan Tomlinson, an even more boyish mp and a former economist at RF, is now a Treasury minister. Overseeing this reshuffle? Vidhya Alakeson, the deputy chief of staff in Downing Street and formerly rf\u2019s deputy chief executive.<\/p>\n If the fate of Labour\u2019s spending plans is now in the hands of RF veterans, its supply-side agenda always was. Matthew Pennycook, the housing minister and another former RF researcher, oversees the party\u2019s planning reforms\u2014the keystone of its growth strategy.<\/p>\n But it would be a mistake to assume that the Resolution Foundation<\/a> and the government agree on everything. Ruth Curtice, who replaced Bell as its chief executive, was on the Today programme this morning and she was asked if she was floating the ideas in today\u2019s report on behalf of Bell. Not at all, she said. \u201cThese ideas are mine, I\u2019m now in charge of the Resolution Foundation, and we\u2019re not particularly close.\u201d<\/p>\n And Pennycook himself was doing interviews this morning. Asked if the government would adopt the RF plan to cut national insurance by 2p, and add 2p to income tax instead, he replied:<\/p>\n We\u2019re going to honour our commitments not to increase the rates of income tax, national insurance or VAT on the pay packets of working people.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a005.54 EDT<\/p>\n Wes Streeting tells Britons ‘don\u2019t pay any attention whatsoever to what Trump says about medicine’<\/p>\n Wes Streeting, the health secretary, has urged pregnant women to ignore Donald Trump\u2019s bogus claims about a link between taking paracetamol and autism.<\/p>\n Speaking on ITV\u2019s Lorraine, Streeting said:<\/p>\n I trust doctors over President Trump, frankly, on this.<\/p>\n Streeting explained:<\/p>\n I\u2019ve just got to be really clear about this: there is no evidence to link the use of paracetamol by pregnant women to autism in their children. None.<\/p>\n In fact, a major study was done back in 2024 in Sweden, involving 2.4 million children, and it did not uphold those claims.<\/p>\n So I would just say to people watching, don\u2019t pay any attention whatsoever to what Donald Trump says about medicine. In fact, don\u2019t take even take my word for it, as a politician \u2013 listen to British doctors, British scientists, the NHS.<\/p>\n It\u2019s really important that a time when you know there is scepticism \u2013 and I don\u2019t think scepticism itself, asking questions is in itself a bad thing, by all means, ask questions \u2013 but we\u2019ve got to follow medical science.<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a006.25 EDT<\/p>\n Labour rejects Tory claims Starmer broke rules by not declaring Labour Together donations during leadership campaign<\/p>\n The Conservatives<\/a> have written to the parliamentary commissioner for standards calling for an investigation into allegations that Keir Starmer may have failed to declare \u201cpotentially thousands of pounds\u2019 worth\u201d of support from campaign group Labour Together when he ran for the Labour leadership in 2020.<\/p>\n This is the third investigation that the Tories have demanded within 48 hours in relation to a controversy about Labour<\/a> Together, a group originally run by Morgan McSweeney, who is now Starmer\u2019s chief of staff. Labour Together was set up to fight Corbynism in the party when Jeremy Corbyn was in charge and it eventually played a crucial, though largely behind-the-scenes, role in helping Starmer to become leader in 2020.<\/p>\n The group failed to declare donations worth \u00a3730,000 to the Electoral Commission and was investigated in 2021 and fined. These facts have been known for years. But interest in the story has been revived by publication of a new book, The Fraud: Keir Starmer<\/a>, Morgan McSweeney, and the Crisis of British Democracy, by Paul Holden.<\/p>\n On Sunday the Tories demanded a police investgation into claims that McSweeney deliberately did not disclose the donations. McSweeney has said the non-disclosure was inadvertent, the result of an administrative error.<\/p>\n Last night Kevin Hollinrake, the Tory chair, wrote to the Electoral Commission demanding an inquiry<\/a>.<\/p>\n And this morning Hollinrake has released the text of a letter<\/a> to Daniel Greenberg, the parliamentary commissioner for standards. In the letter he says:<\/p>\n Between January and April 2020, Labour held a leadership contest. Evidence from that period suggests that the prime minister accepted potentially thousands of pounds\u2019 worth of advice and polling via the members\u2019 association Labour Together. A review of his register of members\u2019 interests for that time reveals no record of these donations. The parliamentary rules are clear that \u201csupport in kind\u201d from Labour Together should have been declared, but it was not.<\/p>\n In 2021, the Electoral Commission fined Labour Together for failing to report donations covering the period 2017 to 2020. New evidence has since come to light which raises questions as to whether this failure was deliberate, in an attempt to mislead the Electoral Commission. At the time, the prime minister\u2019s now Chief of Staff, Morgan McSweeney, was a director at Labour Together and responsible for legal compliance.<\/p>\n This new information prompts a re-evaluation of Labour Together\u2019s activities between 2017 and 2020. Labour Together itself has claimed that it \u201chelped to rally the party membership behind Keir Starmer\u201d and that it \u201cunited the party behind Keir Starmer\u2019s leadership campaign\u201d.<\/p>\n Reports indicate that Labour Together, under Morgan McSweeney, spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on polling, which was then used in Starmer\u2019s leadership campaign. This support was not declared.<\/p>\n Labour Together also provided written materials and strategic support. The organisation was involved in preparing Sir Keir\u2019s first speech as Labour leader, yet this assistance does not appear in the Register. Notably, at this time the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, did register donations for the \u201cprovision of research and writing services\u201d, yet the prime minister did not.<\/p>\n Hollinrake suggests Starmer broke the rules saying MPs must declare support worth more than \u00a31,500, including \u201csupport in kind\u201d.<\/p>\n In response, a Labour source said:<\/p>\n Neither Keir, nor his leadership campaign accepted monetary or in kind donations from Labour Together during the leadership election.<\/p>\n Commenting on the Tory approach to the Electoral Commission, a commission spokesperson said the issue had been \u201cthoroughly investigated\u201d in 2021 and had been \u201csatisfied that the evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that failures by the association occurred without reasonable excuse\u201d. She added: \u201cOffences were determined and they were sanctioned accordingly.\u201d<\/p>\n Share<\/a><\/p>\n Updated at\u00a005.08 EDT<\/p>\n Business secretary Peter Kyle to visit Jaguar Land Rover as shutdown extended by a week<\/p>\n Peter Kyle, the business secretary, will visit Jaguar Land Rover<\/a> (JLR) to meet companies in the supply chain as the carmaker extended its shutdown into October after a cyber-attack, PA Media reports.<\/p>\n Share<\/a>Ed Davey to attack \u2018cruelty and stupidity\u2019 of Trump administration in speech to Lib Dem conference<\/p>\n Good morning. Ed Davey, the Liberal Democrat leader, will deliver his keynote speech to his party\u2019s conference today and he is going to use it to attack \u201cthe cruelty and stupidity\u201d of the Trump administration<\/a> in the US. He will be referring in particular to its attitude to medical research, according to extracts from the speech briefed in advance. Davey is expected to say:<\/p>\n The United States is by far the world\u2019s biggest funder of cancer research \u2013 mostly through its National Cancer Institute. But since Donald Trump returned to the White House, he has cancelled hundreds of grants for cancer research projects.<\/p>\n He\u2019s slashing billions of dollars from the National Cancer Institute\u2019s budget. He\u2019s even ordered a review of all grants for research involving supposedly \u2018woke\u2019 keywords \u2013 including the word \u2018women\u2019.<\/p>\n And last month, Trump\u2019s health secretary \u2013 Robert Kennedy Jr \u2013 cancelled half a billion dollars\u2019 worth of research into mRNA vaccines. He did it based on totally false conspiracy theories about these life-saving vaccines. The same type of vaccines that protected us from Covid just a few years ago \u2026<\/p>\n It is hard to express the cruelty and stupidity of cutting off research into medicine that has the power to save so many lives. A decision \u2013 by the way \u2013 that was enthusiastically applauded by Farage\u2019s party at their conference. I don\u2019t think we should let the Trump Administration hold back progress on tackling cancer like this.<\/p>\n Davey\u2019s embargoed comments were briefed to the media before Trump used a White House press conference to make bogus claims about the causes of autism<\/a>, and so the Davey speech could not be more topical. A day after Nigel Farage outlined plans to deport hundreds of thousands of foreigners, Davey will be speaking up for immigration. Specifically, he will say the government should set up a dedicated fellowship scheme to lure US cancer researchers, who are appalled by the Trump policies, to the UK.<\/p>\n Peter Walker has a full preview here.<\/p>\n Here is the agenda for the day.<\/p>\n 9am: Liberal Democrats<\/a> start the final day of their conference with emergency debates on digital rights and the asylum system.<\/p>\n 10am: The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development publishes its latest interim economic outlook, with its latest forecasts for the UK economy.<\/p>\n 2.20pm: Ed Davey<\/a>, the Lib Dem leader, closes his party conference with his keynote speech.<\/p>\n If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can\u2019t read all the messages BTL, but if you put \u201cAndrew\u201d in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.<\/p>\n 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<\/a>, 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n