Labour has confirmed council tax rises will be kept at the 5% cap next year, which could mean a rise of £100 for the average family’s bills.

The prime minister’s press secretary said on Wednesday that the threshold by which local authorities can increase bills would “remain the same”. Hours earlier Keir Starmer had dodged a question from Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, at prime minister’s questions about whether he would keep the cap on council tax.

Speaking in the Commons, he said MPs “will know what the arrangements are”. Later on Wednesday, his press secretary said: “The threshold remains the same.”

In the Commons, Badenoch replied: “I think the house would have heard that the prime minister could neither confirm nor deny whether the cap on council tax was being raised.”

A 5% rise would be almost three times above current levels of inflation, which in October fell to 1.7% – the first time it had been below 2% since 2021.

Government statistics show the average band D council tax set by local authorities in England for 2024-25 was £2,171, which represented an increase of £106 or 5.1% on the previous year. For those in the most expensive band H households, last year’s £4,342 bill will increase by £217.

Starmer accused the Tories of leaving local authorities in an “absolutely catastrophic state” after Badenoch pressed the prime minister about the government’s funding plans for cash-strapped councils in England.

The Conservatives cited responses to written parliamentary questions in which ministers said estimated core spending power (CSP) for local government will increase from £64.7bn in 2024-25 to £68.4 bn in 2025-26, with the party adding that the budget was not providing enough new funding to cover this.

Ministers have said the CSP is subject to data changes and final figures will be published as part of the 2025-26 local government finance settlement.

Increases have been capped at 2.99% in recent years, while an extra 2% increase is permitted for councils with social care responsibilities. Councils are able to put up tax rates by up to 5% but would require government permission or a referendum for any bigger increases.

With one in four councils saying in a Local Government Association survey that they were “likely” to need emergency support to stave off bankruptcy in the next two years, increases in council taxes seem likely.

More than half of the candidates standing in this year’s general election faced abuse, according to a report by the Electoral Commission.

The watchdog said a third of election candidates reported they were intimidated or made to feel unsafe at least once, and more than one in 10 (13%) reported serious threats, abuse or intimidation.

Safeguards were tightened following the murders of MPs Jo Cox in 2016 and Sir David Amess in 2021 and anyone convicted of intimidation offences relating to elections can be banned from holding elected office for five years.

Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle has said some of the incidents seen during the July campaign were “clearly unacceptable”.

There were reports of abuse from candidates including slashing tyres, throwing milkshakes and targeting candidates’ families.

The 2024 general election was the first where all 4,515 candidates were offered basic security and had access to a named police officer during the campaign and guidance on respectful campaigning was updated.

Despite this, a survey responded to by 717 candidates found nearly half (46%) reported harassment, intimidation or threats in person as they knocked on doors asking people to vote for them, and a quarter (23%) at a campaign event.

And there is also a growing issue with online abuse, reported by two-thirds of candidates who responded, and the watchdog is also calling for improved online protections.

The Electoral Commission is calling for tougher penalties for criminal acts, tighter political party membership rules, including potential deselection, and a review of whether to bring in secure campaigning zones.

The chief executive of the Electoral Commission, Vijay Rangarajan, said these “crucial improvements” must be put in place ahead of the 2026 Welsh and Scottish elections, and the next UK general election.

He said: “The level of harassment and intimidation faced by candidates is particularly concerning, and requires urgent and coordinated action.

“Those standing for public office should not be subjected to abuse.

“It is deterring some people from standing to be candidates, and inhibiting how some engage with voters – both of which risk weakening our robust democratic debate.”

In particular, Mr Rangarajan said he was concerned at unacceptable levels of intimidation and harassment directed at women and candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds.

Women were twice as likely to report serious abuse as men, with one in five (20%) women compared to one in 10 (11%) men.

Ethnic minorities were more than three times likely to report serious abuse as white people, with 34% reporting this compared to 11% of white people.

Abuse and intimidation can have a significant impact on candidates’ campaign activity, the report added, with 66% of female respondents saying they avoided campaigning alone due to a fear of abuse.

The commission also spoke to four women who had campaigned to become an MP during the general election about their experience, and also took written evidence from MPs and political parties.

They reported a clear feeling they were targeted because of their gender and they were also were more likely than male candidates to report being touched, hugged, or kissed against their will.

One English woman aged 45-54 years old, reported how “full-on” and “really abusive males” would swear at her, which made her stop knocking on doors to speak to people face-to-face.

Instead, she said she would only post leaflets and her husband did most of the door-knocking because “as a male he had a better rapport”.

She added: “I still think that it’s incredibly sad because they obviously don’t respond to a female wanting to put themselves forward.”

Another English woman in the same age bracket reported being touched against her will and threats of harm, amongst other abuse, and said she thought “women bear the brunt of this because we’re perceived as an easier target to convince not to [run]”.

There was also a perception that there was “no point” reporting abuse to the police, and only one in five (21%) of the cases of abuse logged with the watchdog were reported to the police.

The Electoral Commission report focused on July’s general election for the section related to abuse of candidates, but the wider report on findings on voting and online systems also took in findings from the May 2024 Police and Crime Commissioner elections in England and Wales, as well as local and mayoral elections in England.

P&O Ferries spent more than £47m on sacking hundreds of UK seafarers in 2022, according to its long overdue accounts that will be published in the coming days.

The filings, which the Guardian has seen, confirm the financial cost of the company’s actions two and a half years ago when it outraged the public and parliament by dismissing 786 mainly British ferry workers – and then largely replacing them with low-cost agency staff from countries including India, the Philippines and Malaysia.

The scandal re-emerged last month when the prime minister, Keir Starmer, rebuked his transport secretary, Louise Haigh, after she referred to the ferry operator as a “rogue operator”. DP World, P&O’s Dubai-based owner, had reportedly threatened to pull out of a £1bn investment in the UK on the back of the comments.

P&O had always argued it had been forced into the sackings in order to save the company. The long-awaited accounts, which are almost 11 months late, illustrate the dire financial condition of the business.

The document outlines how P&O has been “in breach of covenants with respect to its external debt”, and was forced to increase its overdraft facility with its parent company DP World to £365m, up from £295m. The company also sold off one of its vessels in order to raise a further £77m in financing.

A spokesperson for P&O Ferries said: “Our 2022 financial accounts show the challenges faced by the business at that time and why the business needed to transform into a competitive operator with a sustainable long-term future.

“P&O Ferries has taken steps to adjust to new market conditions, matching our capacity to demand and adopting a more flexible operating model that enables us to better serve our customers.”

However, the accounts make a nod to the damage to the brand with travellers after the 2022 layoffs, when the company’s lack of consultation before the sackings led to the ferry operator being accused of breaking employment law.

A Guardian and ITV News investigation revealed in March this year that the new staff were earning as little as £4.87 an hour, when the company had previously suggested the lowest pay rate was £5.15 an hour after the sackings. P&O later admitted to parliament that the Guardian and ITV’s figure was correct.

The ferry operator had used a loophole, exempting seafarers from minimum wage legislation, in order to pay its staff below the UK and French minimum wage rates. However, that option was closed off in March this year, when the French government implemented a law aimed at preventing the exploitation of cross-Channel workers.

The P&O accounts also said that a civil investigation by a government agency into the company’s conduct during the 2022 sackings was “ongoing”, but remained at the “information gathering stage”, although the company’s directors appear to be confident that no action will be taken.

“The Insolvency Service would need to show that any action it proposed to take was in the public interest and just and equitable,” the accounts said.

“That threshold is high, and the directors consider that the threshold would not be met in this case.”

Overall, P&O’s pre-tax losses fell to £246m during 2022, down from £375m the previous year. Despite the challenging year, revenues rose by £84m to £919m.

Civil servants are looking at the extra costs which assisted dying would put on the NHS amid a warning from Wes Streeting that some services may be cut to fund expanded end-of-life care.

The health secretary has asked officials at the Department of Health and Social Care to analyse the potential “implications” for NHS services if the right to die is legalised in England and Wales.

Their work is underway amid an increasing focus on how the NHS would cope with helping what the MP spearheading the push for assisted dying believes would be hundreds of people a year who have just six months or less to live to end their life early.

DHSC officials have already begun examining the costs of the practicalities involved, which could involve expanding the services provided by hospitals or district nurses, for example.

The disclosure comes after Streeting made clear his view that legalisation could force the health service to make difficult decisions about funding some existing services.

“There would be resource implications for doing it. And those choices would come at the expense of other choices”, he told Times Radio earlier on Wednesday.

Asked if he would have to find the money to fund an extension of palliative care from elsewhere in the NHS budget, Streeting replied: “Yep. To govern is to choose. If parliament decides to go ahead with assisted dying, it is making a choice that this is an area to prioritise for investment.

“And we’d have to work through those implications.”

Later on Wednesday, speaking to the media at the NHS Providers conference in Liverpool, Streeting again highlighted his belief that legalisation could put pressure on the NHS budget.

“I’ve asked my department to look at the cost” of providing more end-of-life care, he said.

“Now that we’ve seen the bill published, I’ve asked my department to look at the costs that would be associated with providing a new service to enable assisted dying to go forward.

“That work is now under way, so I can’t give you a precise figure today. I’ve asked the department to look at the cost of implementing the bill as it is currently laid before parliament.”

Pressed on what services might lose funding for enhanced palliative care, he declined to specify any. But, he added: “There are choices and trade-offs. Any new service comes at the expense of other competing pressures and priorities.”

Streeting – who plans to vote against assisted dying – also voiced his fear that it might see some people with a terminal diagnosis choosing to end their lives early as a way of saving the NHS money.

“You do touch on the slippery slope argument, which is the potential for cost savings if people choose to opt for assisted dying rather than stay in the care of the care providers or the NHS,” he said in answer to a question.

“I think that is a chilling slippery slope argument, and I would hate for people to opt for assisted dying because they think they’re saving someone somewhere money, whether that’s relatives or the NHS. I think that’s one of the issues MPs are wrestling with as they decide how to cast their vote.”

MPs weighing up their stance on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill should not necessarily vote against it because of that potential competition for resources within the NHS, and should consider all the arguments about assisted dying, he added.

But, referencing the tightness of public finances, he again stressed the potential dilemmas facing the NHS if legalisation happens, saying: “We do need to be in the business of making choices.”

Interviewed on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Streeting said the NHS could ramp up the palliative care system in order for it to take on the responsibilities assisted dying would entail. He has previously stated that palliative care was not “where it needs to be to give people a real choice”.

Streeting plans to vote against Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s bill when it comes before parliament on 29 November, in what will be the first House of Commons vote on the issue since 2015.

Downing Street would not be drawn into saying whether the health secretary was right to raise the spectre of assisted dying law coming at the expense of other NHS services.

Asked about Streeting’s remarks, Dave Pares said: “Ultimately, this is a matter for parliament to decide and that is why it is going to be a free vote, and parliament will debate the principles and merits of assisted dying and the issues surrounding the bill.”

Getty Images

‘Vacuum’ warning

‘Not sustainable’

Implementing a new assisted dying law would come at the expense of other NHS services, the health secretary has suggested.

Wes Streeting, who once supported assisted dying, plans to vote against the new Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill later this month, arguing the government should focus on improving end-of-life care.

The bill, published on Monday, would allow terminally ill adults expected to die within six months to seek help to end their life if two doctors and a High Court judge verify they are eligible and have made their decision voluntarily.

Streeting told Times Radio on Wednesday the policy would have “resource implications” which would “come at the expense of other choices”.

Asked whether he would have to find money from elsewhere if the bill became law, Streeting said: “Yep, to govern is to choose.

“If Parliament chooses to go ahead with assisted dying, it is making a choice that this is an area to prioritise for investment. And we’d have to work through those implications.”

Streeting said the health service would “need to work through with the medical profession what would be a very new way of working”.

“No one should be compelled, for example, to take part in assisted dying if they’ve got moral or ethical objections as clinicians. That certainly would be one of my red lines”.

Streeting has repeatedly expressed his view that the palliative care system is not “where it needs to be to give people a real choice”.

The assisted dying bill has been introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater, who argues her legislation is the “most robust” in the world. She has said she expects hundreds of dying people to apply if it is available.

Critics of her measure have raised fears of coercion and a slippery slope to wider legislation taking in more people.

Speaking on Tuesday, Leadbeater rejected these claims, saying her bill had “three layers of scrutiny,” requiring sign-offs from two doctors and a High Court judge, and made coercion punishable by up to 14 years in prison.

Only terminally-ill adults with less than six months to live who have a settled wish to end their lives would be eligible under the new law.

MPs are scheduled to debate and vote on the bill on 29 November.

The prime minister, a former director of public prosecutions, has previously supported assisted dying, but the government has pledged to remain neutral on the issue, and MPs are being allowed to vote according to their conscience rather than along party lines.

This will be the first Commons vote on assisted dying since MPs rejected allowing terminally ill adults to end their lives under medical supervision in 2015. As a backbench Labour MP, Streeting voted in favour of that measure.

If the bill passes its first vote later this month, it will receive further scrutiny from MPs and peers, who could choose to amend it.