Afternoon summary
- Boris Johnson has predicted the Russian president Vladimir Putin will glory in the World Cup this summer in the same way that Adolf Hitler did over the Olympic Games in Berlin in 1936, and suggested the UK will need to advise English soccer fans not to travel to Russia for their own safety. The Russian government has responded by describing Johnson as “poisoned with hatred and anger”. (See 5.18pm.)
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
MPs have challenged connexions between a firm linked to Cambridge Analytica, AggegateIQ, and the DUP.
The DUP paid almost £33,000 during the EU referendum campaign to AggregrateIQ, a Canadian data firm. Altogether, the company received more than £4.6m from Brexit campaign groups – more than any other company in the 2016 referendum.
Cambridge Analytica is at the centre of the global scandal over its use of FaceBook data to target voters.
During Northern Ireland questions the Lib Dem MP Layla Moran and Lady Herman, the independent backbencher, both challenged the government on the decision not to backdate the electoral transparency requirements.
The regulations do now apply in Northern Ireland, meaning the parties are required to set out all donations and loans, the requirement only applies from July 2017 – although the Electoral Commission had expressly recommended that the regulations should be backdated to 2014.
Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, rebuffed the demand. “The decision to backdate transparency was taken on the basis of broad support from all parties.”
Updated
Russia says Johnson 'poisoned with hatred' after he compares Putin's World Cup to Hitler's Olympics
The Russian foreign ministry has responded to Boris Johnson’s Hitler jibe, Sky News reports.
A spokeswoman for the Russian foreign ministry says Foreign Secretary is "poisoned with hatred and anger" after Boris Johnson suggested Russian president Vladimir Putin would use the World Cup in Russia in the same way Hitler used the 1936 Olympics to bolster his country's image
— Sky News Breaking (@SkyNewsBreak) March 21, 2018
The use of the word “poisoned” may not be coincidental ...
Back in the foreign affairs committee, Labour’s Ian Austin says Washington seems keen to rip up the Iran nuclear deal. Will the UK fight to keep it?
Johnson says the UK is committed to the deal.
Q: Is some sort of compromise possible?
Johnson says he thinks it is, “it really is.”
He says he now wants to persuade America to keep it. He is not sure he will be able to persuade President Trump, but he thinks they are all better off keeping the deal, and Iran not having nuclear weapons.
He says it could be possible to keep the joint comprehensive plan of action (JCPOA) without America participating, but that this would be hard.
Austin ends by asking why, whenever Johnson gives evidence to the committee, Downing Street sends the prime minister’s parliamentary private secretary, Seema Kennedy, along to the hearing to keep an eye on him.
Johnson says that that is a tribute to how seamlessly the Foreign Office and Number 10 work together.
And that’s it. The hearing is over.
Senior Russian diplomatic and military officials have accused the UK of hiding and possibly planning to destroy evidence in the investigation into the Salisbury nerve agent attack, my colleague Andrew Roth in Moscow writes. The comments came during a remarkable briefing at Moscow’s foreign ministry given for all foreign ambassadors in Russia, to lay out the country’s argument for why it is not responsible for the attack on former double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, on 4 March.
Here is Andrew’s story.
The Russian embassy in London has been tweeting about this.
Head of @mfa_russia Department of Nonproliferation & Arms Control Ermakov held a briefieng for foreign diplomats about the latest developments in Skripal case. Overwhelming majority believe that any conclusions should follow evidence - UK in minority. pic.twitter.com/TUrVZA77kr
— Russian Embassy, UK (@RussianEmbassy) March 21, 2018
Paul Waugh has tweeted more about the Foreign Office and SCL.
Mind you before Labour leap in, No10 added FCO contract started in 2009 and Home Off one started in 2008/9 - under Gordon Brown govt. No Govt depts have had "direct contracts with Cambridge Analytica".
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) March 21, 2018
Tom Tugendhat, the committee chair, says he has just seen a tweet saying that at the afternoon lobby briefing Downing Street admitted that the government has had two more contracts with SCL, the Cambridge Analytica parent company. One was with the Foreign Office, he says.
Tugendhat does not identify the tweet, but it may be this one from HuffPost’s Paul Waugh.
No10 reveals two more Govt contracts with SCL parent company of Cambridge Analytica: one with FCO (for training), one with Home Office (for comms). MOD have also had contract. All have ended.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) March 21, 2018
Johnson says this is news to him. He agrees to write to the committee with details.
Updated
Johnson says earlier he referred to the Salisbury attack being an attack on “agents”. He says he wants to correct the record. He meant “agent”. He does not want to be misundersood.
(In other words, he is clarifying that he was not implying Yulia Skripal, Sergei’s daughter, was an agent.)
Chris Bryant says Johnson also talked about assassins. Was he definitely saying more than one person was involved?
Johnson says he was not making a particular point. But he says it can be assumed that more than one person was involved.
- Johnson says the attack on the Skripals was not the work of one person acting alone.
Johnson on Salisbury operation. "We can take it that this was not confined to one individual" Adds this should not be taken as news.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) March 21, 2018
Updated
The SNP’s Stephen Gethins goes next.
Q: Why did we asks for an opt-out from the EU’s common foreign and security policy during the transition?
Johnson says if the UK was still in the CFSP, and the EU decided to relax sanctions on Russia over Ukraine, it would have to comply. That would be unacceptable.
He says that it why the UK asked for an opt-out.
Labour’s Ian Murray goes next. He says the Foreign Office website says membership of the single market helps promote UK growth. Does Johnson agree?
Johnson says it must be an old website page.
Murray says it isn’t. He refreshes the page on his laptop just to make the point.
The SNP’s Stephen Gethins goes next.
Q: A memo you wrote on the Irish border issue was leaked. You said you would publish it. When will you do so?
Johnson says it is not government policy to publish documents just because they have been leaked. He says reports of what the memo said were misleading.
Q: Will you publish it?
That is not government policy, he says.
Tom Tugendhat goes next.
Q: Where will the 250 new posts be going?
Johnson says the committee will be the first to know.
Q: But you must have an idea where they are going to go? Is you priority the Commonwealth, or China?
Johnson says he set out his priorities in the global Britain memo he sent to the committee.
Tugendhat says that just summarised what has been Foreign Office policy for the last 60 years.
Johnson says he is not prepared for announcements today.
Johnson says he is thrilled that the committee published a report on global Britain.
He can sum the strategy up simply. The more global Britain is, it is better for the globe and better for Britain, he says.
Andrew Rosindell, a Conservative, goes next. He says he wants to ask about the Commonwealth and global Britain. (The committee recently published a report on the Foreign Office’s global Britain strategy, concluding that it was little more than a meaningless slogan.)
Johnson says the Commonwealth is very important to him. He says it is an institution that has stood the test of time, and one that has been undervalued by Britain.
Bob Seely goes next.
Q: Is the government gathering information on people who have been responsible for war crimes in Syria, including Russians?
Yes, says Johnson. But he says at the moment there is no court in which these people could be tried. Russia would veto a referral to the international criminal court.
Q: So it is pointless?
Not necessarily, says Johnson. He says securing justice can take time.
Labour’s Ann Clwyd asks about Syria.
Johnson says what has happened in Syria is “miserable”. He says it has been an “absolutely shameful episode”.
Johnson says he can tell the committee that, thanks to new funding, he is able to fund 250 more diplomatic posts overseas. There will be 10 new sovereign posts, includig one in Chad for the first time ever.
As a result, the Foreign Office will be spending more on overseas engagement than any other European country.
- Johnson announces that he is funding 250 more diplomatic posts overseas.
Q: More than France?
Johnson says the UK will have one more overseas post than France.
Updated
Johnson says Russia World Cup will be like Hitler hosting Olympics in 1936
Labour’s Ian Austin says the idea of Putin using the World Cup as a PR opportunity fills him with horror. He says it will be like Hitler using the Olympics in 1936.
Putin is going to use it in the way Hitler used the 1936 Olympics.
He says he thinks England should boycott the tournament.
I frankly do not think England should be participating in the World Cup. I don’t think we should be supporting Putin using this as a PR exercise to gloss over the gross human rights abuses for which he’s responsible.
And he says it will not be safe for England fans. They will be at risk of violence. And the embassy will not be able to help them.
Boris Johnson says he agrees with Austin’s 1936 Olympics comparison.
I think that your characterisation of what is going to happen in Moscow, the World Cup, in all the venues - yes, I think the comparison with 1936 is certainly right. I think it’s an emetic prospect, frankly, to think of Putin glorying in this sporting event.
- Johnson says Russia World Cup will be like Hitler hosting Olympics in 1936.
Johnson says he has thought about England’s participation at the World Cup a lot. He mentioned it when he came to parliament, he says.
But he says, on balance, it would be wrong to punish English fans or the team.
He says Austin’s point about the safety of fans is well made.
The government needs an urgent discussion with the Russians about this.
Q: Have you had that yet?
Not yet, says Johnson.
He says the UK government must discuss this.
And he says the embassy official in charge of the safety of fans was lost.
- British embassy official in Moscow in charge of safety of World Cup fans has been expelled, says Johnson.
There is an issue here, he says.
Applications for tickets are well down, he says.
Tom Tugendhat says some of the matches are being held in places where there is no consular representation.
Johnsons says the government is considering what it can do to get the Russians to take this issue seriously.
Priti Patel goes next.
Q: Are there any circumstances in which you might advise British fans not to go?
Johnson says the government is not at that stage yet. But he does not rule it out.
- Johnson does not rule out government advising England fans not to travel to World Cup.
Updated
Ian Austin goes again. He says he hopes Johnson has got the message from the committee that it wants tougher action against corrupt Russian money in the UK.
Johnson says that is what he wants too. But it would be prejudicial if he were to single out individuals, he says.
Johnson says it is the duty of the Russians to protect British fans going to the World Cup.
At the moment the government is not planning to urge people not to go, he says.
But he says applications to go to the World Cup about a quarter of what they were at the same time ahead of the Brazil World Cup.
Q: Have we suspended cooperation with Russian intelligence in relation to the World Cup?
Johnson says he does not cooperate on intelligence matters.
But he says the UK is cooperating at a police level with the Russians.
There are questions as to how that cooperation will go on.
Q: You sound doubtful about whether the Russians will protect British fans.
Johnson says it is up to the Russians to protect them.
Q: Was Vladimir Putin validly elected?
Johnson says the OSCE monitors said there was an absence of genuine competition. He thinks that understates it.
Q: So was he validly elected?
The answer is no, says Johnson
Nothing you say will 'have boots quaking in Kremlin', Labour MP tells Johnson
Labour’s Ian Austin goes next.
Q: Some 12 other countries have used powers to go after money linked to people involved in the death of Sergei Magnitsky. Why hasn’t the UK done this?
Johnson says other countries have their own procedures.
Austin interrupts Johnson. He says the government is not taking this seriously enough. He goes on:
Nothing you have said this afternoon is going to have boots quaking in the Kremlin ...
It is about time our government woke up to the fact that we are not dealing with a democratic leader. Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug.
Austin asks why Russia’s deputy prime minister has been able to buy a £11m flat in Whitehall despite having a relatively modest salary.
Johnson says he does not accept the government is not taking this seriously. He says the Commons response last week showed the government’s response was serious.
As for individuals, he says if he were to comment on individual cases, that would imperil any future legal action.
Bob Seely, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: Can you assure us there is no reluctance in government to go after Kremlin supporters?
Absolutely, Johnson says.
He says government does not direct the law enforcement agencies. But if that wealth has been illicitly obtained, the law enforcement agencies have the power to go after these people.
Seely asks for an assurance that the Magnitsky-type amendments will be robust.
Johnson says the Magnitsky terminology referred to “gross human rights abuse”. The new amendments refer to any human rights abuse.
As for the issue of beneficial owernship, he says the UK is ahead of other advanced countries in having a register of beneficial ownership of companies.
He accepts there is an issue with overseas territories, who have different rules.
One issue is whether it is right to London to tell them what to do.
And some of these places have suffered from natural disasters. As a result, they want to delay. The British Virgin Islands relies on financial services; it has little tourism. If new rules were to be imposed too soon, it would lose business to other countries.
Q: What powers could be taken against Putin’s associates?
Johnson says the government can use unexplained wealth orders against people like this.
The National Crime Agency is drawing up lists of people of interest to them, he says.
But he says the government cannot tell them who to target. That is not how the country works, he says. He says it is a matter for the NCA.
He says he cannot now name “individuals that are in the crosshairs of the law enforcement agencies”. That would be “legally very unwise”, he says.
It would imply they were victims of a political mandate.
Q: Can you reassure MPs you have the will to tackle this, notwithstanding Russian donations to your party?
Absolutely, says Johnson.
He says there is also cross-party agreement now on Magnitsky-type amendments to the sanctions bill.
Johnson says, after Brexit, the UK may take a different approach from the EU. On some occasions it may impose tighter sanctions, he says.
These are from the Economist’s Anne McElvoy.
Wow much bitchiness from Boris towards Tom Tugendhat's commitee ambitions. No love lost there. "A novel idea.."
— anne mcelvoy (@annemcelvoy) March 21, 2018
Up to now this was a good committee, but a spat about roles of UK parly committees is possibly not the best response to Skripal sffair
— anne mcelvoy (@annemcelvoy) March 21, 2018
Tom Tugendhat, the Conservative chair of the committee, goes next. He asks Johnson is he will support Commons select committees holding meetings overseas to investigate issues like this.
Johnson says Tugendhat is referring to the fact that the Commons culture committee wanted to hold a hearing at the British embassy in Washington. The Foreign Office said no. He says that is because the Foreign Office did not want to look as if it was interfering in American politics.
Tugendhat says the British embassy should be able to explain to people the difference between the British parliament and the British government.
Johnson says he will think about this.
But he says he thought the culture committee wanted to summon American politicians to the embassy, which would count as “British soil”.
He says he will look at this request. But he doesn’t want to make a commitment. “I do foresee difficulties”, he says.
Tugendhat says he is interpreting that as a no.
Johnson says he was “surprised” by the strength of the language in the joint UK/US/France/Germany statement last week, and the support for the UK’s analysis of what happened in Salisbury.
Johnson says the Russians have deliberately struck at the UK in a way that avoids triggering Nato’s article 5. Assassination attempts are below that threshold, he says.
Labour’s Chris Bryant goes next.
Q: When Alexander Litvinenko was killed, the UK tried to stage a proper trial. Why did it take so long for the government to agree a full inquiry into his death?
Johnson says the British state behaved as you would expect it to behave. It thought the Russians would do the same.
Every effort was made to persuade the Russians to hand over the two suspects for trial, he says.
But the Russians responded with “denial, distortion and delay”.
That is why the government has acted differently this time.
Q: The inquiry concluded that the Kremlin were responsible. But then we did nothing.
Johnson says he raised this in his first meeting with the Russians as foreign secretary. He says it is hard to act when the Russians just deny it all.
Bryant urges Johnson to meet Marina Litvenenko, Alexander’s widow. He says she is very impressive, and has clear ideas as to what the government could do.
Q: If there can be no trial into the attack on Sergei Skripal, will there be an inquiry?
Johnson says the focus at the moment is on the police investigation.
Q: It has been put to me that the UK did nothing after the Litvinenko inquiry because the City is so dependent on Russian money that taking action against it would be an existential threat to the economy.
Johnson says he does not accept that.
- Johnson rejects claims the UK has avoided antagonising Moscow because the economy is dependent on Russian money.
Priti Patel, the former international development secretary, is asking questions now.
Q: What is your future policy to Russia?
Johnson says he went to Moscow last year to show a willingness to engage.
There will be no high-level contact soon.
But that does not mean all contact will stop. There are people in Russia who admire the UK, he says.
He says the closing of the British Council office in Russia was the thing that went down worst with the Russian public.
Johnson says there has been “mounting disgust” globally at what Russia did. He says he has been surprised by the growing support for the UK.
Q: Why do you think they did this now?
Johnson says there has been speculation that it is connected with the large number of Russian mercenaries killed in Syria.
But he thinks the Russian election was more likely to have been the factor explaining timing. As happens in politics, he says, it was convenient to conjure up an enemy.
Boris accuses Putin of mounting the #Salisbury attack to get votes: "It is often attractive to conjure up the public image of an enemy. It was an attempt to excite a Russian electorate” #FAC
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) March 21, 2018
Updated
Q: Why did they use this nerve agent, not something more easy to conceal?
Johnson says he agrees with Ken Clarke’s assessment. Clarke told MPs last week that this was a way of Russia putting its signature on this deed.
The assassins showed contempt for human life, he says. A police officer is still in hospital. Two people are seriously ill. And many members of the public were put at risk.
Johnson says the Russian state was sending a message to potential defectors.
And it picked the UK because it is a state that does believe in democratic values and the rule of law, and it is a country that has called out Russia because of its abuse of those values.
The first question is about Russia and the nerve agent attack in Salisbury.
Q: Was President Putin responsible?
Johnson says the trail does lead back inexorably to the Kremlin.
Boris sticks it on Putin: "The trail of responsibility for assassinations does lead inexorably back to the Kremlin. No matter how exactly it came to be done, the path of responsibility goes back to those at the top” #FAC
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) March 21, 2018
Q: It has been claimed it could have been carried out by people not under his control?
Johnson suggests Sergei Skribal has been identified as a target for liquidiation. He says the chain of responsibility seems to go back “to the Russian state and those at the top”.
Updated
Boris Johnson's evidence to Commons foreign affairs committee
Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is giving evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee.
It is a wide-ranging session, covering all aspects of Johnson’s portfolio.
The last time he gave evidence to the committtee was in January, when he inadvertently claimed that the British-Iranian woman Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe had been teaching people journalism before she was arrested in Iran, an error which he subsequently had to withdraw.
Asked whether the announcement on NHS pay meant that other public sector workers could expect settlements above the former 1% cap, a Downing Street source said:
The independent pay review bodies will make their recommendations in the normal way. We have said as a government that the arbitrary 1% pay cap is no longer in place. If people recommend changes to that, they will be considered.
But let’s just focus for a second on the fact that this is, we hope, a generous and important offer that recognises the incredible hard work, dedication and professionalism of NHS staff up and down the country.
The source confirmed that the NHS settlement would be funded from government reserves.
Reaction to NHS pay announcement
Here is some reaction to the NHS pay announcement.
From Sara Gorton, head of health at the Unison union
The agreement means an end at last to the government’s self-defeating and unfair 1% pay cap.
It won’t solve every problem in the NHS, but would go a long way towards making dedicated health staff feel more valued, lift flagging morale, and help turn the tide on employers’ staffing problems.
If health workers accept the offer, everyone’s wages will go further, and the lowest paid would get a significant income boost. Starting salaries for nurses, midwives and other health professionals would also become more attractive to people considering a career in the NHS.
From Royal College of Nursing associate director of employment relations Josie Irwin
Members campaigned hard to put an end to the years of poor pay rises and this deal is a significant move in the right direction from a government still committed to austerity.
When there are 40,000 unfilled nurse jobs in England alone, it should begin to make the profession more attractive to nurses of today and tomorrow alike.
From Unite national officer for health Sarah Carpenter
At long last, after years of pay austerity, there has been a significant recognition that this harsh pay regime imposed on hard working and dedicated NHS staff can no longer be sustained.
Unite welcomes many aspects of this deal, on which we will be consulting our membership over the next couple of months. However, we regard this as the start, not the end, of the journey for true pay justice for NHS staff, which we will campaign for with vigour in the coming months and years.
In my earlier post at 1.15pm I missed one of the ironies of the Hunt/Macpherson comment. I’ve posted a lengthy update. To get it to show up, you may need to refresh the page.
In response to a question in the Commons from the former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron, Hunt again signalled his support for some form of tax increase to raise more money for the NHS. He said:
We will need to find a way of getting more money into the health and social care system in the future and we will need to find a way to do that.
Here is the full quote from Jeremy Hunt when he was responding to Sir Vince Cable. (See 1.11pm.) Cable asked if Hunt was “in any way influenced” by Nick Macpherson and his call for some form of earmarked taxation to raise money for the NHS. Hunt replied:
The former permanent secretary to the Treasury is an extremely wise and experienced public servant and I always listen to what he says with a great deal of interest.
UPDATE: ITV’s Robert Peston points out that, when not arguing for a hypothecated NHS tax, Macpherson spends most of the rest of his time on Twitter commenting on how awful the government’s Brexit policy is.
This from @Jeremy_Hunt about @nickmacpherson2 is hilarious. Almost no one has been more savage in his criticism of this government than the ex Treasury head, especially over Brexit. But apparently Hunt likes Macpherson’s support for a special or hypothecated tax to fund NHS pic.twitter.com/h1iOKXyTTe
— Robert Peston (@Peston) March 21, 2018
Here are some examples.
Time for Gladstonean freetraders and one nation Tories to join forces with Labour to forge national consensus on custom's union. #progress
— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) February 23, 2018
Feel for the civil service. Sometimes you have to let ministers find out for themselves that an unnegotiable position is..er..unnegotiable.
— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) February 23, 2018
How long will HMG prioritise its obsession with mainland Europe over its historic union with Scotland,Wales & N Ireland? #ageofenlightenment
— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) February 24, 2018
In run up to Maastricht, UK was 100% focused on treaty text. Now it favours speech over substance, leaving it to EU to make all the running.
— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) March 2, 2018
Updated
Hunt hints that he backs hypothecated tax to raise more money for NHS
In the Commons Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, asks Hunt if he agrees with Nick Macpherson, the former head of the Treasury, about the need for a hypothecated tax to raise more money for the NHS.
Hunt says Macpherson is “extremely wise” and that he always takes what he says seriously.
- Hunt hints that he backs hypothecated tax to raise more money for NHS.
Macpherson has been making this argument for some time. Her is an extract from a recent article he wrote for the Financial Times (paywall) on the subject.
One solution would be to tie an NHS tax to the electoral cycle. In advance of an election, the OBR could provide an informed estimate of the funding necessary to deliver a broadly unchanged service over the next five years. Political parties could then set out their proposals for the next parliament along with the rate of tax necessary to fund it. The five-year plans would then be enacted in the first budget of the new parliament.
Because the tax would be incremental (the current level of health spending would continue to be funded out of general taxation), its rate would not need to be high. The precise form should be a matter for debate. But income-related national insurance provides a good model, subject to two small changes. To preserve intergenerational fairness, the old should pay alongside those of working age, and it should be payable on all income not just earnings. In my view a tax of 2 per cent would have closed the funding gap for this parliament.
Critics will argue that an NHS tax is at best a presentational wheeze and at worst a fiddle. The Treasury would still be standing behind the system as a whole, and could no doubt find ways of diverting funds from the intended cause. But the OBR and the link to the electoral cycle would allow voters to hold the government to account. If an NHS tax reconnected taxpayers with the services they pay for, that would be a positive step. And if it ensured more spending was financed from tax rather than borrowing, that could only improve the soundness of the public finances. In the end, the chancellor cannot afford to be too fastidious. He must tax where he can.
And here is a statement from NHS Employers on the pay deal.
Hunt is responding to Labour’s Jon Ashworth now.
He says it is not just pay that is going up. Conditions are improving too, he says, saying NHS staff will get statutory child bereavement leave.
He says Labour opposed the government’s efforts to control public spending. Those measures were essential, he says.
He says only a country with a strong economy can have a strong NHS.
Jeremy Hunt's statment on NHS pay
Jeremy Hunt is now responding to an urgent question on NHS pay.
He starts by thanking NHS staff for their work over the winter.
But today’s deal is not just a reward for that.
It is a something-for-something deal, he says. In return for productivity improvements, there will be “significant” pay rises for NHS staff, he says.
He says the deal will tackle sickness rates in the NHS, which are a third higher than in other sectors.
He says the wants to get sickness rates down to the level of the best areas in the public sector.
A 1% improvement would save the NHS £280m, he says.
- Hunt says pay rises will be worth between 6% and 29% for NHS staff over three years, with the highest rises going to those on the lowest rates of pay.
He says the NHS starting salary go up from around £15,000 to more than £18,000.
And, for nurses, the starting rate of pay will go up by 12.6% over the three-year period, he says.
He says staff will get the chance to buy and sell annual leave
He says rarely has a pay rise been so well deserved.
Updated
In his questions Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, asked about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. He started:
Does the prime minister agree that subverting the democratic political process in any country is totally unacceptable?
May said she backed free and fair elections.
Blackford went on:
Can I point out that the parent company of Cambridge Analytica, Strategic Communications Laboratory, it has been run by a chairman of Oxford Conservative Association, its founding chairman was a former Conservative MP, a director appears to have donated over £700,000 to the Tory party, a former Conservative party chairman is a shareholder. We know about the links to the Conservative party, they go on and on.
May said the government had no links to Cambridge Analytica or its parent company. She said:
[Blackford] has been talking about two companies. As far as I’m aware the government has no current contracts with CA or with the SCL group ... The allegations are clearly very concerning, it is absolutely right they should be properly investigated.
I would expect Facebook, Cambridge Analytica and all organisations involved to comply fully with the investigation taking place.
I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
Asked about vaginal meshes (the word “vaginal” was not used), and whether she will “sling the mesh”, May says she recognises the concern about this issue.
Charlie Elphicke, who is suspended from the Tories and now sits as an independent, asks about a medical school in Canterbury.
May says the government is investing in medical training.
Labour’s Albert Owen, MP for Ynys Mon, where the Red Arrow crash happened, asks May to join him in paying tribute to the Royal Air Force.
May agrees. She pays tribute to the valour of those who serve in the RAF.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a Conservative, says she is unhappy about the transition deal for fishing. Will the government prepare a financial plan to protect the fishing fleet during this period?
May says she wants the UK to take back of control of British waters. During the transition the UK’s share of quotas will not be changed.
She says Defra is looking at how the fishing industry can be boosted.
Labour’s Ellie Reeves asks about the funding of mental healths services for children and adolescents.
May says the government is improving funding in this area.
Bim Afolami, a Conservative, asks May if the EU trade deal will include a deal on financial services.
May says she is aware of how important this is. The City is important for the whole of the EU, she says. She says this is recognised.
Labour’s Mohammed Yasin asks why the government is screwing the prospects of his town, Bedford. (At least, I think he said “screwing”.)
May says Bedford is doing well under this government.
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - Snap verdict: Elections always add an edge to political debate, and with the local elections only weeks away, Corbyn devoted all his questions to the state of local government. He started very, very well, flooring May with a question about Tory-run Northamptonshire county council effectively going bust and whether the Tories nationally or locally were to blame, which led to May disingenuously claiming that he was blaming it all on central government underfunding. (He wasn’t, but her answer amounted to a tacit admission that it was the Tory performance locally that was to blame.) After that Corbyn also deployed an array of quotes from Tory council leaders about council underfunding quite effectively (partly because the rift between the Conservatives in national government and in local government on the subject of council budgets is one of the under-reported stories in British politics). But Corbyn’s PMQs second half was not as bold as his opening, and May mounted a spirited, and largely successful, fightback. The attack on putative Labour tax rises was a bit speculative, but her jibes about the centrist Labour council leaders being ousted by Momentum activists was effective (at least in the Commons, where self-interest means Labour MPs follow these stories especially closely) and her reference to the two defecting Labour councillors towards the end was a cheap but easy hit. So, overall, they both scored some runs, but no one prevailed overall.
Corbyn says Labour councils build houses; Conservative councils privatise.
John Bercow urges MPs so show “Zen-like calm”.
Corbyn (who used to call himself “Monsieur Zen”) says we all admire Zen. Business rates are going up. Why is the government tearing the heart out of local high streets?
May says the government is supporting local businesses. And it is building homes. And yesterday two local Labour councillors joined the Tories, saying Labour had been taken over by the hard left.
Corbyn says Mary Portas said the government’s high street review was ineffective. Council services are suffering. Older people are left without care. The Tory head of the LGA says it is unsustainable. Households and business pay more to get less.
May says the government is spending more on schools and the NHS than ever before. It has a balanced approach to services. Corbyn has not mentioned unemployment, she says. Employment is at a record high, he says. And economic inactivity is at a record low, she says.
Updated
Corbyn says Northamptonshire has gone bust. It was run by a Conservative council. But other councils, such as Barnet, are using this model. Was it really right to prioritise tax cuts for the super-rich and big business?
Tories jeer. Corbyn says this says something about their priorities, and calls for higher council spending for services.
May says Corbyn mentioned bin collection. In Birmingham the bins are not being collected, she says. She says the highest rate taxpayers are paying more tax than ever. As Labour MPs jeer, she goes: “Oh no, says he.” Labour backs a land value tax, and a hotel tax. We all know what would happen; ordinary people would pay the price.
Corbyn says his shadow minister colleague (who was heckling) supports councils. He quotes the Tory leader of Surrey council saying councils are in crisis. The government cannot stand by while Rome burns, he says. He quotes Gary Porter, the Tory chair of the Local Government Association, saying councils will have to cut services because they are being underfunded.
May says council tax bills are lower under the Tories. She asks if Corbyn supports councils in Haringey, in Brighton and in Cornwall where the local Labour leaders were forced out because they wanted to build more homes and tackle antisemitism.
Updated
Jeremy Corbyn starts by commemorating the Westminster attack too, and he says he will be at some of the events tomorrow. It was an attack on democracy.
And he sends his condolences to the family of the dead engineer.
And he says he met the teacher who won the global teaching award.
And he says it is the Kurdish new year today. He wishes them well, and peace.
Is the collapse of Northamptonshire council the result of Conservative incompetence at a local level or at a national level?
May says Conservative councils cost you less.
Corbyn says she did not answer the question. Northamptonshire bragged it was following a new model. It has gone bust. Is the slash and burn model a good one.
May says the report that concluded last week said Northamptonshire’s failure was not a case of underfunding. Its core spending power is set to rise. The attack Corbyn is making, that it is all about underfunding, is not correct.
(Actually, Corbyn specifically was not saying that.)
Gareth Johnson, a Conservative, says the UK will get the ability to sign its own trade deal. Is this Brexit’s greatest opportunity?
May agrees. This is an important opportunity, she says. The UK will be able to forge its own way.
Labour’s George Howarth says Merseyside police have lost more than 1,000 officers since 2010. The use of firearms is going up. What can the government do?
May says crime stats show crime falling by 9% in Howarth’s Knowsley constituency. She says the government is ensuring that overall police budgets are being protected. With precepts, an extra £450m will be available for forces.
Updated
Theresa May says tomorrow will be the first anniversary of the Westminster terrorist attacks. She remembers the bravery of the police and the emergency services who kept MPs safe.
She pays tribute to the engineer who died in the Red Arrow crash yesterday.
And she pays tribute to the teacher who has won a global prize.
Updated
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
Here is the list of MPs asking questions.
A heads-up on some of the MPs who will be called to ask the PM a #PMQs on Wednesday 21 March
— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) March 20, 2018
Watch live on #bbcdp with @afneil @bbclaurak @AnnelieseDodds @trussliz pic.twitter.com/X41CQezNKc
In a comment article for the Guardian, Griffin Carpenter argues that the Tory Brexiters who say they are standing up for fishermen have not engaged with the complex problems facing the industry. Here is an extract:
Fishing quotas, by limiting the amount of catch, have worked as intended and have brought many fish populations in EU waters back to sustainable levels. The recent certification of North Sea cod as sustainable was a particularly hard-fought journey from a near collapse of the stocks. The value of fish landings is now increasing year-on-year, and profits in the fishing industry are at the highest level recorded.
And yet it is difficult to find signs of these positive trends in many fishing communities. This is partly due to changes in technology and labour markets, resulting in fewer fishing vessels each year (as in other EU and non-EU countries). But it’s also related to how the UK distributes its quota, and not just its total size. The decision on how quota should be distributed (big vessel or small, trawler or handline) has always been up to the UK government. The reality is that most Brexiteers have never engaged with the nuts and bolts of this issue, and we’re looking at two more years without real engagement.
And here is his article in full.
In an interview with BBC Radio 5 Live Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, effectively confirmed that a new pay deal for NHS staff worth on average 6.5% over three years has been agreed. She said:
We put money aside at the budget, if a deal could be done with the unions, to improve the way the contracts work. But also to make sure that staff get the pay they need so we can recruit and retain the best people. It looks like we are about to achieve that deal, which is fantastic news. And I think it’s good news for people who love our NHS and public services, but it’s also good news for those working in them as well.
Truss said that “savings elsewhere in the public sector” would help to fund the pay deal. And she said the deal would involve changes to NHS contracts, and to the system of automatic pay increments. She said:
This is something that we announced at the autumn budget. We said that if we could find the reforms within the way that the pay scales worked - because what we had is we had some very complicated pay scales, automatic increments – we’re now changing that so it’s focussing on developing people, making sure they’ve got the right skills, improving the way the NHS works. Because we’ve been able to achieve that, we’re able to give this on average 6.5% over three years. And I think that represents a fair deal for people working in the NHS.
After PMQs there is an urgent question on NHS pay.
One UQ granted at 12:45 to @JonAshworth to ask @Jeremy_Hunt to make a statement on NHS staff pay. No Oral Ministerial Statements.
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 21, 2018
As the Guardian reports, ministers are expected to announce a deal offering health service personnel in England a 6.5% rise over the next three years.
This, from the Sun’s Steve Hawkes, is interesting.
Under the radar there is real fury among Brexit backing MPs towards No.10 and DD - feelings DD has "gone native", anger at PM for refusing to speak up publicly taking control of fishing, borders etc
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) March 21, 2018
Farage says hundreds of fishermen could go bust during Brexit transition
Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, told Sky News during the fishing protest that he thought hundreds of fishermen could go bust during the Brexit transition. He said:
[The government] told us they would take back control in 2019 - that is not happening. We are now told at the start of 2021 it may happen. I don’t think this government has got the guts or the strength to stand up and take back our territorial waters.
And let me tell you - during that 21 month transition there are already hundreds of under 10-metre, inshore fishermen in this country literally existing on the brink, because the quotas they’ve been given by the EU are not enough, frankly, to even cover their diesel. So I think what will happen is hundreds of fishermen could go bust in that 21-months period.
He also said fishing was “the acid test of Brexit”, the clearest way people would be able to measure whether the UK really was taking back control.
Jennie Formby, the new Labour general secretary, has been talking to staff at Labour HQ, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.
Labour source says Jennie Formby, Iain McNicol and Ian Lavery just addressed Labour Party staff in HQ. Formby condemned yesterday's protest outside HQ and said she would not tolerate attacks on staff.
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) March 21, 2018
Formby was referring to this protest outside Labour’s national executive committee meeting yesterday.
There's a picket outside @UKLabour HQ ahead of NEC meeting - they are chanting "McNicol's gone, now it's time for the rest of them". Sickening to see people attacking defenseless, hard working Labour staff at the place where they work. pic.twitter.com/TC8EOpTbVb
— Lewis Addlington-Lee (@Lewis_ALee) March 20, 2018
Here are some pictures from the Fishing for Leave protest.
Could Theresa May lose a vote on the withdrawal agreement?
Until now Tory Brexiters have been very reluctant to threaten publicly to vote against the final Brexit deal (the withdrawal agreement deal, due in the autumn - the trade deal will come much later). Andrew Bridgen vaguely threatened to vote against it a few months ago, because he is unhappy about the “Brexit bill”, but that was a freelance operation. The European Research Group MPs have previously refrained from issuing these sorts of threats, partly they fear that anything that destabilised Theresa May could result in Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister.
Today’s letter (see 9.50am) suggests the calculation might be changing. Why? One factor might be that the government is now explicitly saying that, if it loses the vote on the withdrawal agreement in the autumn, it will just go ahead and leave the EU without a deal anyway. This has always been implicit, but, as HuffPost reports, in the Lords on Monday the Brexit minister Lord Callanan made this explicit. Asked what would happen if the government lost the vote, he replied:
In such circumstances—first, we hope that parliament will not reject it and we will negotiate for the best possible outcome—that would be an instruction to move ahead without a deal.
For some of the Tory Brexiters in the ERG, leaving without a transition - the ultimate hard Brexit - would be an acceptable, or even an attractive, outcome.
It is also worth pointing, as the vote gets closer, that see-saw politics are in play here too. To defeat the government, the Tory 13 would have to line up with the opposition. Labour has talked about voting down the withdrawal agreement deal on the basis that such a vote could force the government to go back to Brussels to try for something better. But if it were clear that that renegotiation would never happen, and that such a vote would just lead to a hard Brexit, Labour MPs could well think twice about voting down the deal. So, as the chances of the Tories voting against increase, the chances of Labour voting against may diminish (the see-saw effect).
Unemployment falls to 4.3%, its lowest level since 1975
The employment rate has a record high at 75.3%. Unemployment rate has fallen back to 4.3%, its lowest level since 1975. And pay is catching up with inflation. My colleague Graeme Wearden has all the details on his business live blog.
Updated
Yesterday, in an op note (operational note) sent to journalists, we were told that the Conservatives MPs Craig Mackinlay and Ross Thomson would be on the boat on the Thames engaged in the fish dumping protest. Mackinlay and fellow Tory MPs Jacob Rees-Mogg and Anne-Marie Trevelyan attended the press briefing before the boat set off. But they did not get on board. According to the Guido Fawkes website, the Tory whips persuaded them not to get involved. That’s why Nigel Farage, the former Ukip leader, was roped in for fish-chucking duties instead. (See 9.32am.)
Letter to May warning she could be defeat in Commons over fishing - Summary and analysis
Here are details of the open letter to Theresa May saying she could be defeated in the Commons over fishing. I won’t post the whole thing, because it is long. It is presented as a letter from coastal MPs to May, and it seems to have been coordinated by the European Research Group (ERG) , the 60-strong group of Tory MPs pushing for a hard Brexit, although it is not officially from them.
The lead signatory is Ross Thomson, the Conservative MP for Aberdeen South. The other 12 Tories who have signed it are: Sir David Amess, Sir Henry Bellingham, Colin Clark, Steve Double, Richard Drax, Alister Jack, Bernard Jenkin, Craig Mackinlay, Sheryl Murray, Derek Thomas, Martin Vickers and Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chair of the ERG. It has also been signed by Sammy Wilson, the DUP’s Brexit spokesman.
Here are the main points they make.
- They threaten to vote against the transition deal agreed in Brussels on Monday, saying it would be “rejected” by the Commons because it effectively keeps the UK in the common fisheries policy until the end of 2020.
The commission’s draft withdrawal agreement envisages that the UK will remain in the CFP during the implementation period but with no say over EU policy or annual quotas. The effect of ending discards during this period without compensating measures will be a further disaster for the UK’s already shattered fishing fleet, particularly for the inshore fleet, further eroding prosperity in vulnerable coastal communities. These demands are completely unacceptable and would be rejected by the House of Commons.
Actually, Labour were broadly supportive of the transition deal, and so there is no reason to believe that the transition deal on its own would be rejected by the Commons. But MPs won’t get a separate vote on the transition deal. It will be packaged up with the withdrawal deal, which is due to be voted on by parliament in the autumn. Labour has not yet said how it will vote on this (which is reasonable, because no one knows what will be in the final deal), but many Tories think the opposition will find a reason to vote against. If 14 MPs (or 23, if Wilson’s nine DUP colleagues were to join him) were to vote against with all the opposition parties, May would lose.
- They say the UK should leave the CFP during the transition. They spell out some particular demands for May ahead of this EU summit starting tomorrow.
At the forthcoming EU Council, the UK should indicate:
Our intention to take back control of our 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone as permitted under Article 61 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
UK national fisheries resources are not negotiable.
Leaving the European Union means setting our own fisheries policy from 29 March 2019. The UK will not remain party to the CFP during the proposed implementation period.
- They say they are not opposed to the UK giving EU fishermen some access to UK waters after Brexit. But they say EU fishermen should be obliged to land their catch at UK ports.
Like other North Atlantic maritime states and depending on state of the marine environment and fish stocks, we should negotiate reciprocal access to non-UK vessels. But any access granted must be temporary and without future obligation. Foreign vessels granted licences to catch fish in UK waters after 29 March [2019] must comply with UKFP regulation and inspection, enforceable under UK law. They must also land their fish at UK ports for processing and onward sale.
The insistence that EU fishermen should land all their fish at UK ports would be almost certainly unacceptable to the EU. The EU wants to maintain existing reciprocal access for its fishermen to UK waters after Brexit. The UK is offering them some reciprocal access. Quite what they get will be decided in the trade negotiation.
- They say the EU has been a “calamity” for the fishing industry.
For the UK’s fishing industry, joining the EEC was a calamity. The resultant decline in the industry accelerated the economic and social decline in coastal communities and was disastrous for conservation and the marine environment. This cannot be compounded by compromise, as the UK leaves the EU.
Over the period of our membership, the UK catch declined from over 1.1 million tonnes a year to 700,000. Under the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), EU vessels now catch 650,000 tons of fish in UK waters while UK vessels catch only 90,000 tons in non-UK EU waters in return. As a result, the UK is a net importer of fish each year, with a fish deficit of 300,000 tonnes. This bleak picture however underplays the decline in the UK fishing fleet as many of the UK vessels are under foreign economic ownership and land their fish abroad – only 446,000 tones was actually landed in the UK.
This analysis is in line with the UK government’s own assessment of the impact joining the EEC had on the fishing industry. In 2000 the Foreign Office published its own official history of the process leading up to Britain joining the EEC, written by Sir Con O’Neill, the official who led the accession talks. Here is an extract from what he wrote:
Sea fisheries remain the only significant economic activity of developed countries which are a form not of harvesting or of processing, but of hunting. The feelings they arouse are ancient and deep.
As a fisherman, I understand these feelings. If I ever find someone fishing a pool which by law, convention or comity I have a better right to fish at that moment, I experience sheer rage.
I have no doubt that we made mistakes . . . The first was in not trying harder than we did to stop the adoption of a common fisheries policy. I believe we could have at least postponed such an agreement; and if we had, it is possible, though questionable, that we could have postponed it indefinitely.
Almost a year later, we made a major mistake in putting the proposals we put to them on June 1, 1971 . . . Why was our handling of the issue of fisheries far more uncertain, and more faulty, than our handling of other issues?
Updated
The Telegraph’s Christopher Hope has posted a picture on Twitter of the former Ukip leader Nigel Farage (who is on the boat on the Thames opposite parliament) throwing fish into the river as part of the protest.
Fish discarded! #fisheries pic.twitter.com/DJx4MecFti
— Christopher Hope 📝 (@christopherhope) March 21, 2018
13 Tories threaten to vote down Brexit withdrawal treaty unless May compromises over fishing
Fishermen and some Tory MPs are staging a protest on the Thames today about the fishing aspect of the Brexit transition deal on Monday. From my desk in the press gallery, I can’t see the Thames, but I can hear what is probably a news helicopter filming it all. In some ways it is reminiscent of the EU referendum Geldof/Farage battle of the Thames and reporters are enjoying the novelty.
Land-based media greet the fishing protest. pic.twitter.com/SdEF3t24B5
— Carl Dinnen (@carldinnen) March 21, 2018
Jacob Rees-Mogg speaks of fishermen’s fury as fellow MPs prepare for a symbolic ‘dumping of fish’ into the Thames. Says only a few members invited as ‘not many can fit on the boat’ pic.twitter.com/wsS7OnF6es
— Nicholas Mairs (@Nicholas_Mairs) March 21, 2018
Fish! This week's Chopper's Brexit Podcast is live from a trawler on the Thames pic.twitter.com/whhjgl0D1z
— Christopher Hope 📝 (@christopherhope) March 21, 2018
Brexit boat latest: the fish boat is being refused permission to dock at any pier. It may be that the press conference will involve shouting from boat to land. A stunt that's only really been pulled off til now by Jesus. pic.twitter.com/i5tOXJVS70
— Tom Peck (@tompeck) March 21, 2018
But amid all this nonsense there is a proper story. This morning the campaigners have released a joint letter to Theresa May signed by 13 Conservative MPs and one DUP MP (Sammy Wilson, the party’s Brexit spokesman) saying she should reject the transition deal agreed on Monday because it would keep the UK in the common fisheries policy (CFP) until the end of 2020. The MPs don’t explicitly say they would vote against the deal, which will be part of the final withdrawal agreement that ministers plan to put to a vote in the Commons at the end of the year. But they say the plans are “completely unacceptable” and “would be rejected by the House of Commons” - which is tantamount to saying they would vote against it.
This is significant. Tory Brexiters have criticised the concessions May has made in the Brexit talks before, but generally they have not threatened to vote them down (because they fear destablising May could lead to Jeremy Corbyn becoming prime minister). But now they are making that threat, and in sufficient numbers to cost May her majority.
Here is the key quote from the letter.
The commission’s draft withdrawal agreement envisages that the UK will remain in the CFP during the implementation period but with no say over EU policy or annual quotas. The effect of ending discards during this period without compensating measures will be a further disaster for the UK’s already shattered fishing fleet, particularly for the inshore fleet, further eroding prosperity in vulnerable coastal communities. These demands are completely unacceptable and would be rejected by the House of Commons.
I will post more on the letter, and the threat, shortly.
Otherwise, it’s going to be a busy day. Here is the agenda.
8.45am: Tory MPs Craig Mackinley and Ross Thompson join fishermen on a boat on the Thames opposite parliament where they will throw fish in the river as a protest against the fisheries aspect of the Brexit transition deal.
9.15am: Greg Clark, the business secretary, and Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, give evidence to a Commons joint committee on Carillion.
9.30am: Unemployment figures are published.
10am: Damian Hinds, the education secretary, gives evidence to the Commons education committee.
10am: Lady Hale, president of the supreme court, and Lord Mance, its deputy president, give evidence to the Lords constitution committee about Brexit and the judicial system.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
12pm: Sir Nick Clegg and Lord Heseltine, both former deputy prime ministers, and Lord Adonis, the Labour peer, hold a joint press conference in Dublin. The three anti-Brexit campaigners are in the city as part of a tour of European capitals.
2pm: Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee.
3pm: Sandy Parakilas, the former Facebook operations manager, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee by video link, about the Cambridge Analytica scandal. In an interview with my colleague Paul Lewis, Parakilas says hundreds of millions of Facebook users are likely to have had their private information harvested by companies that exploited the same terms as the firm that collected data and passed it on to Cambridge Analytica.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
