AG°Ù¼ÒÀÖÔÚÏß¹ÙÍø

Former minister Tulip Siddiq has written to the interim leader of Bangladesh requesting a meeting during his visit to the UK to discuss accusations of corruption that have been levelled at her.

In the letter seen by Sky News, Siddiq invited Muhammad Yunus for "lunch or afternoon tea" to "clear up the misunderstanding� that I have questions to answer".

Watch: The Tulip Siddiq accusations explained

The Anti-Corruption Commission in Bangladesh has opened multiple inquiries involving the London MP over alleged links to her aunt's political party in the country.

A former prime minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina is currently standing trial in absentia in Dhaka over alleged killings during deadly protests that swept the country last summer.

Siddiq resigned as a Treasury minister in January after being named in the corruption inquiries.

Documents showed she lived in several London properties that had links back to the Awami League political party that her aunt still leads.

She referred herself to the prime minister's standards adviser Sir Laurie Magnus, who said he had "not identified evidence of improprieties", but added it was "regrettable" Siddiq had not been more alert to the "potential reputational risks" of the ties to her aunt.

Siddiq said continuing in her role would be "a distraction" for the government but insisted she had done nothing wrong.

'Fantasy investigation'

In her letter to the chief adviser of Bangladesh, Siddiq writes: "[The Anti-Corruption Commission] refuse to engage with my lawyers in London and apparently keep sending correspondence to a random address in Dhaka. 

"Every move in this fantasy investigation is briefed to the media and yet no engagement was facilitated with my legal team."

Muhammad Yunus left Bangladesh for his UK visit on Monday afternoon.

Bangladeshi media reported his spokesperson as saying they had not received the letter.

A source close to Siddiq said she had not received a reply.

There are considerable problems with the winter fuel payment U-turn, but perhaps the political argument in favour outweighs them all?

First, that Rachel Reeves has executed the plan without working out how to pay for it. This, for an iron chancellor, is a wound opponents won't let her forget. A summer of speculation about tax rises is not a summer anyone looks forward to.

Third, the question immediately becomes what next? Why not PIP and the two child benefit cap. At this stage it would feel like a climb down if they did not back down over those. But then, what will the markets - already policing this closely - make of it and could they punish government.

Fourth, this is aggravating divisions in the parliamentary Labour Party: the soft left Compass group and ministers like Torsten Bell pushing bigger spending arguments. Those MPs in Tory-facing seats who rely on arguments that Labour can be trusted with the public finances are worried.

Fifthly, this has created a firm division between Number 10 and Number 11. Number 10 is now conscious they do not have enough independent advice about the market reaction to economic policies and is seeking to correct. Others, I am told, are just critical of the chancellor's U-turn - for she wobbled first.

So given the litany of arguments against, why has it happened? 

Because the hope is this maxi U-turn lances the boil, removes a significant source of pensioner anger and brings back Labour voters, a price they calculate worth paying whatever the fiscal cost.

We wait to see who is right. 

It may seem like a while ago, but there was a fiery exchange last month at the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee as Sir Adrian Montague, the chair of Thames Water, defended the bonus scheme for the company's senior executives.

Sir Adrian told the committee that creditors had insisted on bonuses being paid - something he later confirmed was not the case.

He claimed to have "misspoken", and that it was instead part of a strategy to prevent upheaval at the top of Thames Water.

A letter Sir Alan sent to the EFRA committee has now been published, which gives more details on the bonus agreement.

The bonuses worked out to: "50% of base salary on 30 April 2025; 50% on completion of [Thames Water's] second restructuring plan or, if earlier, December 2025; and a final payment of 200% of base salary in June 2026."

Sir Alan said that he himself, as well as CEO Chris Weston, or CFO Steve Buck, did not get a payout.

The 30 April payment has been meted out already, and the board of Thames Water "does not intend to recover this money".

Any further bonuses have been paused.

EFRA Committee chair Alistair Carmichael MP said bonuses for water company CEOs and CFOs were banned last year - and wants to know if the government will take action on the latest revelation.

He said: "We are also asking whether Defra and Ofwat were aware of these payments and what undertakings they have received from Thames Water about the pausing or withdrawal of the retention plan. 

"Given that the plan includes two further retention payments, including 200% of base salary due to be paid to these 21 individuals in June 2026, it is vital that Thames Water, Defra and Ofwat are clear with us all about what exactly is going on."

Sky News understands the government is not planning to try to recoup the money. 

Everyone who's over the state pension age and earns £35,000 or less is eligible for the winter fuel allowance this year.

But everyone who's over state pension age will get it automatically, presumably to avoid too much faffing about with eligibility forms.

Once the payments have been made, anyone who has an income above £35,000 will have the money taken back from them by HMRC.

You'll be able to opt out in advance if you'd prefer, the government says.

This question was also posed in the Commons earlier, Richard.

And pensions minister Torsten Bell said those pensioners overseas will not get the winter fuel allowance.

As he put it, the payment will "continue not to be exportable […] to those "not resident in the UK".

Thanks for the question, Boyd.

People eligible for the winter fuel allowance will get £200 - or £300 if they're aged over 80.

If it's a household with two pensioners, the payments are halved.

And if one of them earns more than the £35,000 threshold, they won't receive anything and the other will get half the payment.

A reminder that this is in England and Wales - the arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland are devolved.

Rachel Reeves has performed a major U-turn on her decision to cut the winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners - and our Sophy Ridge is not convinced by the government's explanation.

The chancellor and other ministers have claimed an improving economic picture has allowed for the change - rather than the policy being deeply unpopular with voters.

Watch Sophy challenge the Treasury minister below:

Luke Sullivan is one of those very powerful people in politics you have probably never heard of.

He worked as Sir Keir Starmer's political director until the party came into government and worked for the Labour Party and Labour MPs for almost 20 years.

Speaking to Sophy Ridge tonight, he tries to explain some of the thinking behind the government's decision to U-turn on winter fuel payments.

'A really, really big moment'

He says the initial decision was taken to show markets Labour were serious - and that it was reversed when it became clear it was a problem on the doorstep during the local elections.

He describes it as clearing "barnacles on the boat" and ensuring the government can focus on "a really, really big moment" for the prime minister and chancellor: Wednesday's spending review, which sets departmental budgets for the coming years.

Sullivan says taking the U-turn now ensures the spending review is the "story of this week".

Is Reeves on the brink?

When a minister is forced to make such a big U-turn, it is not uncommon to think they might get the heave-ho from government.

Sophy asks Sullivan if Chancellor Rachel Reeves might be heading towards the exit after the disastrous saga of the winter fuel payment.

He says: "Ultimately Keir and Rachel have a really strong relationship - not just personally and professionally, also their teams. The individuals who are around them who have worked for Keir, they are a tight team."

He says while it's been "tough going", Number 10 and Number 11 are "aligned closely".

Asked if Reeves made a mistake that the PM has had to rectify, Sullivan concedes Starmer is someone who is a "delegator" - but that doesn't mean he's not across the details or doesn't get involved.

Next up with Sophy Ridge is Helen Whately, the shadow work and pensions secretary.

She welcomes today's announcement on winter fuel payments, saying Labour made a "big, big mistake" with the cuts last year.

"They penalised hundreds of thousands of pensioners - it wasn't something they had warned they would do before the election, and then Rachel Reeves made out it was the right thing to do," she says.

What about all those Tory U-turns?

Whately dismisses the chancellor's argument that the economy has improved enough to allow her to U-turn.

She says Rachel Reeves should apologise to pensioners - prompting Sophy to point out the Tories performed plenty of U-turns in their time and didn't say sorry for them.

Whately objects to this, suggesting leader Kemi Badenoch has acknowledged the party "made mistakes when we were in government".

She accuses Reeves of "trying to pull the wool over people's eyes", with many economic metrics "going in the wrong direction".

Today's U-turn has been justified by the government, with ministers saying the economy is doing better than last year, when they first limited the winter fuel payment.

Sophy Ridge puts to Treasury minister James Murray that growth forecasts are down, debt is up, and that actually it's a political decision.

He repeatedly claims the economy is in a better position, but struggles to point to much of a reason why.

The minister claims the UK had the fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first quarter of 2025, and interest rates have continued their downwards trajectory.

Sophy continues to push the minister on why the government isn't just conceding the political nature of the decision.

She says things like tariffs and Donald Trump have sunk global finances globally, and debt has risen from 94.8% of GDP to 95.5% of GDP.

Fiscal rules, fiscal rules�

Murray tries giving the answer: "If you look at the public finances, the chancellor set out her fiscal rules last year.

"Those fiscal rules are being met in terms of what happened to the budget last year, in terms of the update of the spring statement."

This� isn't the most solid evidence for economic growth that has ever been provided.

Murray then goes on to say that forecasts of growth over the course of the parliament are up - but doesn't address the fact that anything has improved in the figures for the past year.