Afternoon summary
- The Police Federation of England and Wales has described Theresa May as “delusional” after she insisted there was no direct correlation between police numbers and the incidence of knife crime. (See 4.49pm.) The row erupted as Sajid Javid, the home secretary, told MPs that the government would shortly consult on giving public bodies a new, statutory public health duty to tackle violent crime. (See 4.02pm.)
- Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassdor to the EU, has said Britain is not ready to face Brussels in the massively complex trade negotiations that will begin if Theresa May gets her Brexit deal through parliament. Speaking at the Institute for Government, he said:
[The future trade negotiation] is a much bigger task for London - for Whitehall and Westminster - than the negotiation we have just been through. It’s going to involve every department of state in depth from the top of those departments right down through the system ...
You’ve got to have confidence as chief trade negotiator, both at an official and ministerial level, that you have got a highly competent set of people in every area from aviation to energy to phytosanitary to competition to employment. In every area, you’ve got to have vetted that team, know it’s got the capabilities, know it’s got the resources, know it’s got the legal framework and the background and be at least as good as the team on the opposite side of the table. It isn’t the case. We are not in that position.
- Downing Street has hinted that the government is watering down what it is demanding from the EU in terms of new guarantees relating to the backstop. (See 1.15pm.)
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Labour criticises Matt Hancock for his dismissive comment about public health approach to knife crime
Labour has criticised Matt Hancock, the health secretary, for criticising the idea of treating knife crime as a public health issue this morning. (See 4.18pm.) In a statement the shadow policing minister Louise Haigh said:
It is disturbing that the health secretary doesn’t seem to be aware of his own government’s strategy to tackle violent crime.
Rather than taking real action to address the national knife crime epidemic that has arisen on its watch, the government’s own strategy has been revealed to be nothing more than warm words.
How can the Tory government possibly be serious about taking a public health approach when the health secretary doesn’t even know about it?
Updated
In response to a point of order earlier, John Bercow, the Commons speaker, strongly criticised the government’s decision to postpone tonight’s votes on the financial services bill. (See 11.55am.) The voters were only announced on Thursday last week, he said. He went on:
It’s a very odd state of affairs altogether. One can speculate as to why that may be so but it is a most unusual state of affairs and it is at the very least very discourteous to the House of Commons. It probably reflects a degree of anxiety and, if I may politely say so, perhaps just a little bit of inexperience.
This is from the Sunday Times’ political editor, Tim Shipman.
A Labour source writes.
— Tim Shipman (@ShippersUnbound) March 4, 2019
CF = Charlie’s Falconer
AS = anti-semitism pic.twitter.com/zypZrocsiO
Police Federation claims May is 'delusional' in denying link between officer numbers and knife crime
As my colleagues Matthew Weaver and Helen Pidd report, Theresa May said today that there was “no direct correlation” between police numbers and knife crime.
In response, the Police Federation of England and Wales claimed that May was “delusional” on this issue. John Apter, its national chairman, said:
Our prime minister is delusional, steadfastly refusing to acknowledge what is plain for everyone else to see, and in the face of a national crisis that is deeply concerning.
Policing has been stripped to the bone and the consequences are clear, splashed across newspaper front pages and TV news bulletins - children being murdered on our streets.
What makes this all the more sickening is that it was predicted. This is the true cost of austerity that we warned of but were ridiculed for doing so.
Theresa May herself accused the Police Federation of ‘crying wolf’ when we highlighted our concerns. Those concerns have become a reality but still the prime minister fails to accept the harsh truth.
What we need now is less talk and more action, fewer policies and more police officers - boots on the ground, out there on our streets making a real difference, protecting our youngsters.
As the Guardian reported last month, under one idea being considered in Brussels the EU would not offer the UK a short extension, but instead a very long one, lasting 21 months.
It was generally assumed at the time that Tory Brexiters would be horrified by this prospect. But, in an article for ConservativeHome, Martin Howe QC, a leading Brexiter lawyer and one of the “star chamber” panel of lawyers set up by Brexiters to review the deal Geoffrey Cox negotiates with Brussels, says that a long article 50 extension would be “miles and miles better from a Leave perspective than May’s appalling deal”.
Here are some of the arguments Howe advances to make his point.
Transition period: A 21-month article 50 extension would lock the UK into having to obey EU laws across the board until 31st December 2020. But that is exactly what May’s transition period would do – the one she insists on calling an “implementation period” even though there will be no concluded trade deal to implement, just more turmoil-filled negotiations taking us up to another mythological “cliff edge” at the end of the transition period.
The big difference would be that under an article 50 extension, the UK would continue to be represented in EU institutions, and continue to exercise a vote and veto (where unanimity is required) over new EU rules. Further, we would elect a new phalanx of MEPs, large numbers of whom would be Brexit supporters who would be robust in defending Britain’s interests and in disrupting the EU’s centralising plans.
No backstop: The next huge point is that under the article 50 extension the UK would not be bound by the backstop protocol, which under May’s deal would kick in on 1st January 2021. Instead, on 1st January 2021 we would just leave unencumbered. We would be able to negotiate for a trade deal with the EU with a strong hand, and our negotiating position would not be crippled by being prospectively or actually locked into the backstop as it would be under May’s deal.
In the Commons leading Tory Brexiters have welcomed Howe’s article. This is from Steve Baker, deputy chair of the European Research Group.
Politically, a long extension of the Brexit process would be awful for the whole country
— Steve Baker MP (@SteveBakerHW) March 4, 2019
And I’m hearing a short extension would disrupt businesses ready for 29 March
But from a policy point of view, Martin Howe makes a great case:https://t.co/3OiIEfcWG6
And this is from Owen Paterson, the former cabinet minister.
Great piece by Martin Howe QC. “If the deal is bad and stays bad, there is no reason for MPs who oppose it to panic and change their position, and every reason why they should stand firm in the face of these Article 50 threats.” https://t.co/SryHX2t4jS
— Owen Paterson MP (@OwenPaterson) March 4, 2019
In response to Javid, Louise Haigh, the shadow Home Office minister, said MPs were shocked by the recent killings, which had added to the murders of hundreds of young people over recent years.
She said there had been a 93% rise in young people being stabbed since 2012. This was a “national tragedy”, she said.
She said it required national leadership from the prime minister and from the home secretary. They should convene a crisis summit, she said.
And she said Labour favoured a public health approach to knife crime. She said it was “shocking” to hear Matt Hancock criticise this approach on LBC this morning. (See 4.18pm.)
She also said police cuts had contributed to the problem. The funding settlement for police was inadequate, she said.
This is what Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said on LBC this morning when it was put to him that Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, has been arguing that knife crime should be seen as a public health issue. Hancock said:
If you try to say that it’s a public health issue that implies that it’s nobody’s fault. The criminals who are murderers, it’s their fault, and that’s got to be the starting point ...
If [Khan] uses language meaning we’ve got to take a broad approach to how we tackle it, fine. But actually I think if you try to say that knife crime is a public health issue, it implies that there aren’t individuals who are personally responsible for these terrible crimes, and you’ve got to start from the point of the perpetrator needing to be brought to justice.
Hancock clearly had no warning that Sajid Javid was going to say the opposite in the Commons only a few hours later.
In the Commons Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has just said she welcomes what Sajid Javid said about making fighting violent crime a statutory public health duty.
But Matt Hancock, the health secretary, said the opposite in an interview this morning, she said.
Javid floats plan to make fighting violent crime statutory public health duty
Sajid Javid, the home secretary, is responding to an urgent question on knife crime now.
He says after the terrible events this weekend he welcomes the chance to come to the Commons. All MPs will wish there was something simple they could do to stop this violence, he says.
But he says there are no shortcuts. There is no one, single solution. Coordinated action is required, he says.
First, there has to be a strong law enforcement response, he says. The police must have the confidence to use tools like stop and search.
Second, the authorities must intervene early to stop young people getting involved in crime, he says. He says he has introduced a bill to introduce knife crime prevention orders.
Third, the police must be given the resources to tackle serious violence, he says. He says police funding is being raised to record levels next year. The police will get up to £970m more. And on Wednesday he will listen to chief constables to listen to what they want.
Fourth, he says the authorities must be clear how changing patterns of drug use are fuelling rising crime. He says he has launched an independent drugs misuse review.
Fifth, he says all parts of the public sector should prioritise tackling serious violence. He says he will soon launch a consultation on a new statutory public health duty to combat violent crime and help protect young people.
- Javid floats plan to make fighting violent crime a new, statutory public health duty.
He says this is an issue that transcends party politics.
How the £1.6bn for poorer towns compares with other government spending decisions
This is from the Press Association, explaining how the £1.6bn stronger towns fund announced today (see 9.24am) compares to other government spending decisions.
The £1bn billion that has been allocated to specific regions of England, which will be spread over seven financial years to 2025/26, matches the amount of money the government agreed to provide over five years to the Northern Ireland executive as part of the deal it struck with the DUP in 2017. This deal saw the DUP’s 10 MPs agree to support the government on all key votes, including the Queen’s Speech and budgets.
- The combined total allocated to the South East, South West, East & West Midlands and eastern England (£417m) is just £3m below the £420 announced by chancellor Philip Hammond in the 2018 budget for local authorities to fix potholes and renew bridges and tunnels in one year (2018/19).
- Using the latest population estimates from the Office for National Statistics, the pots of money can be roughly compared in terms of spending per person.
For example, if the total amount earmarked for north-east England (£105m) was spread across five of the region’s largest towns - Darlington, Hartlepool, Gateshead, Middlesbrough and Stockton-on-Tees - the spending would be the equivalent of £142 per person.
If the total for north-west England (£281m) was spread across the five towns of Bolton, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport and Wigan, the spending works out at around £208 per person.
By contrast, if the £33m earmarked for south-west England was allocated to the five towns of Bournemouth, Cheltenham, Poole, Stroud and Swindon, the equivalent total per person would be £41.
And if the £25m for eastern England was spread just across the five towns of Basildon, Bedford, Colchester, Luton and Southend, the spending equates to £27 per head.
- The £33m allocated to south-west England matches the £33m the government has paid to Eurotunnel to settle a legal action over the award of Brexit contracts to ferry firms.
- The total package of £1.6bn funding compares with a total of £3bn in outstanding council tax owed to local authorities in England since 1993 (when the tax was introduced). The same local authorities collected a total of £27.5bn of council tax for the year to March 2018.
Updated
Speaking on Salisbury, on a visit to mark the one-year anniversay of the novichok attakc, Theresa May said:
What I have seen today here in Salisbury is the tremendous spirit and resolve of the people of Salisbury. It has been a difficult year for them and particularly difficult for the immediate victims of the reckless attack that took place on the streets of Salisbury and the use of a chemical weapon, a nerve agent, on our streets.
As the Press Association reports, May had private meetings in The Guildhall before visiting Salisbury Cathedral. She was shown around the cathedral, which dates back to 1220, by the Very Reverend Nicholas Papadopulos - the Dean of Salisbury - and Tricia Glass, deputy head guide. She was introduced to Gary Price, clerk of works, and viewed the cathedral’s copy of Magna Carta in the 13th century Chapter House.
Updated
Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassador to the EU, has been speaking at the Institute for Government today. As the Independent’s Jon Stone reports, Rogers said that no one in the EU, or in the UK government, thought a no-deal Brexit would be an acceptable long-term solution.
Good point by Ivan Rogers about how the government really sees no-deal Brexit: pic.twitter.com/E9QPOzI0F8
— Jon Stone (@joncstone) March 4, 2019
Rogers is the Cassandra of Brexit. He quit his job in Brussels after falling out with Theresa May’s team in Downing Street. They thought his predictions in late 2016 about the Brexit process were too gloomy. In fact, as far as we can tell, they were mostly spot on, and, now outside the civil service, he has become one of the most astute commentators on what is going on.
Listening to him at the IfG, the Financial Times’ Stefan Stern said a future inquiry into Brexit would want to know why Number 10 ever let him go.
Listening to Sir Ivan Rogers at @ifgevents. The idea that the government would be a more effective negotiator without him must be one of the most extraordinary misjudgments ever made. Key question for any future Chilcot-style inquiry.
— stefanstern (@stefanstern) March 4, 2019
But Rogers himself was asked if he thought there should be a public inquiry into the handling of Brexit in the future. As Business Insider’s Adam Payne reports, Rogers said he was not convinced such an inquiry would be productive.
Here's Sir Ivan's Rogers' full response to my question of whether he thinks there will/ought to be a public inquiry into the UK government's handling of Brexit pic.twitter.com/lzZs0Ya7Bg
— Adam Payne (@adampayne26) March 4, 2019
Much of what Rogers said reflected the arguments he has made in his various lectures on Brexit, one of which has been reprinted as a book. Payne has a good Twitter thread with the main points.
Here at @instituteforgov where former UK rep to the EU, Sir Ivan Rogers, is going to be speaking about Brexit and HMG’s handling of it very shortly pic.twitter.com/SR682pjWQ4
— Adam Payne (@adampayne26) March 4, 2019
Updated
My colleague Simon Jenkins thinks Theresa May has badly mishandled the decision to allocate £1.6bn for poorer towns. Here is his First thoughts column on the subject.
And this is how it starts.
Theresa May’s bung is like Donald Trump’s wall. You give me my Northern Ireland border deal, she says to Labour, and I will give your people oodles of cash. Except that May has blown it. She has promised Labour MPs in the Midlands and north £1.6bn, but they have not promised her the deal. She is apparently relying on the kindness of their hearts. How stupid is that? She is even offering them a similar deal on workers’ rights, again with no reciprocity. She showered a billion on the DUP, and now look how it treats her. Will she not learn?
There are three urgent questions in the Commons today, two of which are from Labour frontbenchers attacking decisions taken Chris Grayling, who is now transport secretary. But Grayling won’t be replying to either of them.
These are from the official Labour whips account.
3 UQs from 3.30pm:
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 4, 2019
1 @LouHaigh to ask @sajidjavid on Knife Crime
2 @RichardBurgon to ask @DavidGauke on Grayling's Probation reforms
3 @AndyMcDonaldMP to ask Grayling on the £33m payoff to Eurotunnel
Extraordinary. The Government have confirmed that @MattHancock, the HEALTH Secretary will be acting as a human shield🛡for Chris Grayling and responding to the UQ granted to @AndyMcDonaldMP to ask about the Department for Transport’s payment of £33m to Eurotunnel.
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 4, 2019
After the three UQs there will be two statements.
Followed by two statements:
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 4, 2019
1 Stronger towns fund - @JBrokenshire
2. Tax avoidance, evasion and compliance - @MelJStride
Cox claims reports he is watering down Brexit demands are misleading
Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, has tweeted his own response to today’s Daily Telegraph story. (See 10.04am.) Downing Street did not exactly knock the story down. (See 1.15pm.) But Cox is dismissing the story as misleading.
The DT reporting of the last 24 hours consists of misunderstood fag ends dressed up as facts. Some of it is accurate, much more of it isn’t and what is not is far more significant than what is. Complex and detailed negotiations cannot be conducted in public.
— Geoffrey Cox QC MP (@Geoffrey_Cox) March 4, 2019
Get Outlook for iOS
Updated
No 10 hints government watering down its backstop demands from EU
And here is a summary of the main points from the Downing Street lobby briefing.
- Downing Street hinted that the government has abandoned hopes of getting the EU to agree to either a time-limit to the backstop, or a unilateral exit mechanism. Asked about the Telegraph splash on this topic (see 10.04am), Theresa May’s spokesman told journalists:
The attorney general continues to pursue legally-binding changes to the backstop that are necessary to ensure that the EU cannot hold the UK in it indefinitely ...
We are now at a particularly critical stage in these negotiations and the AG’s work is focused on securing legally-binding changes to the backstop.
What is significant about this answer is the spokesman did not say the government was still seeking either a “legally-binding time limit to the existing backstop”, or a “legally-binding unilateral exit clause to that backstop”. But these are two possible demands May did set out when she addressed MPs in mid February about the changes to the withdrawal agreement she was seeking.
The spokesman also said that the UK was “definitely making progress” in the talks with the EU. But he added: “There definitely remains more work to be done.”
- Stephen Barclay, the Brexit secretary, and Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general, will be returning to Brussels on Tuesday for more talks about the backstop, the spokesman said. Asked if May herself had any plans to go to Brussels this week, the spokesman said there was “nothing in the diary at the moment”
- The spokesman said that May still wanted the UK to leave the EU on 29 March and that, if MPs passed a Brexit deal by 12 March, the government would be able to pass the required legislation in time.
- The spokesman defended the government’s decision to postpone a vote planned for this evening on an amendment to the financial services bill intended to introduce tax transparency in overseas territories. (See 11.55am.) The spokesman said:
Thanks to UK leadership, all crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres are committed to global tax transparency standards, including the exchange of information to help investigate tax evasion. However, crown dependencies are separate jurisdictions with their own democratically-elected governments. They are responsible for their own fiscal matters. Given the beneficial ownership amendments were tabled on Thursday, it is only right that their implications are given proper and thorough consideration.
- The spokesman said that Matt Hancock, the health secretary, not Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, will make a Commons statement later about the government’s settlement with the transport firm Eurotunnel. (See 12.14pm.)
- The spokesman said that the £1.6bn stronger towns fund money announced today (see 9.24am) would be in addition to the UK shared prosperity fund, the details of which will be announced “shortly”.
- The spokesman said Sajid Javid, the home secretary, would be speaking about knife crime when he holds a meeting with chief constables on Wednesday. Asked about the killing of two teenagers in separate knife attacks at the end of last week, the spokesman said:
These are shocking and upsetting crimes and our sympathies are with the families and friends of the victims. The crimes are a stark reminder that there is more to do to tackle the violence on our streets.
- May is visiting Salisbury today, to mark the one-year anniversary of the novichok poisoning attack, the spokesman said. He said she would be “expressing her great admiration for the resilience which the community has shown in response to the attack a year ago.” He also described the decision to illustrate a tweet from the PM’s Twitter account about Salisbury with a picture of Bath (see 10.58am) was “a human error” that was corrected as soon as it was flagged up.
Updated
Hancock to stand in for beleaguered Grayling in making statement to MPs about Eurotunnel settlement
And if the most surprising news from the lobby was about the financial services bill (see 11.55am), the announcement that caused most amusement was the news that a government statement on the Eurotunnel settlement will be made in the Commons this afternoon, not by Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, but by Matt Hancock, the health secretary.
The settlement was partly about provisions in place to ensure the UK can still import medicines smoothly in the event of a no-deal Brexit, so Hancock does have a role. But it was predominantly an issue for the Department for Transport. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Grayling is being benched this afternoon because he is considered a liability. The Eurotunnel settlement on Friday was seen as confirmation that he is a minister with a reverse Midas touch, and it led to renewed calls for his resignation.
Even the New York Times has taken to running stories about Grayling being a disaster. A correction at the end of its article published yesterday says it all.
Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated the amount that a Labour party’s report claimed Chris Grayling misadventures had cost British taxpayers. It is 2.7 billion pounds, not 2.7 million.
Updated
Ministers postpone financial services bill debate to avert defeat on tax havens
I’m just back from the Downing Street lobby briefing. The most dramatic news came, not from the prime minister’s spokesman, but from a tweet read by journalists while the meeting was going on. The spokesman effectively confirmed that the financial services (implementation of legislation) bill debate planned for tonight has been pulled. He said an amendment to the bill requiring overseas territories to introduce registers of beneficial ownership for companies within their jurisdiction needed proper consideration. But in practice ministers have postponed the vote because the government was going to lose the vote on the amendment.
- Ministers take surprise decision to delay a vote on the financial services bill because they face defeat on an amendment saying overseas territories should have to enforce new tax transparency rules by the end of 2020.
This announcement will reinforce claims that the government is so weak that it can barely get its legislation through the Commons. This bill is one that needs to be passed in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
This is from Jonathan Reynolds, a shadow Treasury minister.
BREAKING - the Govt have pulled the Financial Services Bill from the business today. There were amendments on preventing a ‘race to the bottom’ on financial deregulation and on transparency for the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies that we had hoped to pass pic.twitter.com/zOYVDuQ9C2
— Jonathan Reynolds (@jreynoldsMP) March 4, 2019
Updated
Theresa May was tweeting about Salisbury this morning. But, as my colleague Jim Waterson points out, she used the wrong picture.
That’s Bath, not Salisbury. At least the Russian poisoning suspects could recognise the correct church spire. pic.twitter.com/moXlDioDwk
— Jim Waterson (@jimwaterson) March 4, 2019
I’m off to the Number 10 lobby briefing now. I will post again after 11.30am.
The commentary about the stronger towns fund announced by the government today (see 9.24am), and its impact on the the Brexit parliamentary arithmetic, is premised on the notion that it was Labour-voting constituencies in the north that swung the vote for leave. But in a provocative new book, Brexit and the End of Empire, the academics Danny Dorling and Sally Tomlinson, strongly challenge this argument. They report:
Because of different levels of turnout and numbers of registered voters, most people who voted leave - by absolute numbers - lived in southern England. Furthermore, of all those who voted leave, 59% were middle class (often labelled as A, B or C1), and only 41% were working class (labelled C2, D or E). The proportion of leave voters who were of the lowest two social classes (D and E) was just 24%. One of us published these statistics not long after the vote, in the British Medical Journal, but that did little to quell the middle-class clamour to ‘blame the working class’ ...
In short, then, Tory England voted Britain out. These were areas that had often loyally voted Conservative for decades, but economically were not doing anything like as well as other Tory areas, which cannot have seemed right to many people living there ...
Older, less well-off, less well-educated Tory Britain was where the most votes for Brexit were. It cannot be said often enough. It was not Sunderland or Stoke that swung it.
Mujtaba Rahman, the former European commission official who writes Brexit analysis for the Eurasia Group consultancy, has sent out his latest assessment. Like the Daily Telegraph (see 10.04am), he thinks Geoffrey Cox is struggling to negotiate the backstop assurances that Brexiters want. Rahman says:
Alarmingly for Number 10, talks made slow progress last week, with both sides conceding “substantive gaps” remain between the two. They continue to work on a package of measures which they hope will allow Cox to say “on the balance of probability” the backstop is not indefinite, perhaps focusing more on an independent arbitration mechanism. But EU officials are clear that such a mechanism cannot be used to judge whether “alternative arrangements” needed to supplant the backstop are effective, since this is ultimately a matter of EU law, which is the exclusive competence of the ECJ.
The prime minister might therefore need to go further; promising to stand down this summer might persuade more Eurosceptics to back her deal, as negotiations on a long-term trade agreement would be headed by her successor.
But, in his conclusion, Rahman still argues that it is more likely than not that a deal will pass next week.
We now put the odds of May’s tweaked deal passing the Commons next week at 55% (35% with no referendum; 20% with a referendum). We assign 20% to a softer Brexit; 10% to no-deal; 10% to a general election and 5% to a referendum without a deal).
Some ministers privately think May only has a slim chance of winning through this month, but might have a stronger one in June if she can frame the choice as one between her deal and no deal (in a way she cannot now do this month). All the same, Labour MP Yvette Cooper’s bill blocking no deal would be revived. So May’s ability to play the no-deal card MPs might depend on whether EU would grant a second extension.
If May fails to win Commons backing this month, a very different deal would likely return in June—such as Common Market 2.0 or Norway Plus agreement based on membership of the Single Market and a customs union. The real prospect of that might just tip enough Eurosceptics into May’s column this month.
In today’s Daily Telegraph splash (paywall) Steven Swinford and Peter Foster says Geoffrey Cox, the attorney general who is leading government attempts to negotiated legally-binding assurances on the backstop with Brussels, has “abandoned attempts to secure a hard time-limit or unilateral exit mechanism from the Irish backstop”. Their story goes on:
Ministers briefed on Geoffrey Cox’s approach said those aims, which represent the central demands of Eurosceptics, are considered too “blunt” and have been rejected by the European Union.
Some cabinet ministers are already resigned to the Prime Minister losing a second meaningful vote on her deal amid concerns that changes to the backstop secured by Mr Cox will not be sufficient to win round Brexiteers.
The attorney general is understood to be focusing on securing an enhanced “arbitration mechanism” that allows the UK or the EU to provide formal notice that the backstop should come to an end.
The EU is, however, resisting demands by British negotiators for an “independent” arbitration panel, outside the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.
When James Brokenshire, the housing and communities secretary, was asked if this was correct in his Today programme interview, he replied:
The attorney general continues with his work to ensure that we get legally binding changes to ensure that we are not locked in the backstop.
Brokenshire also said Cox would be “back to Brussels this week to continue the discussions to make sure that we can get those legal changes”.
Ominously for the government, Steve Baker, the deputy chair of the European Research Group, which represents the 50 or more Tories pushing for a harder Brexit, told the Telegraph that if its report was accurate, the Cox concession would not satisfy MPs. Baker said:
This seems to indicate a satirical approach to fulfilling the Brady amendment which the government whipped for.
The Brady amendment required that you replace the backstop with alternative arrangements. That’s light years away from tweaking arbitration mechanisms. Nevertheless I don’t want to pre-judge the work of the star chamber.
The Daily Telegraph: Cox drops ‘hard limit’ demands on backstop #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/asfH5ymS4X
— Helena Lee (@BBCHelenaLee) March 3, 2019
A man has been charged with assault after Jeremy Corbyn was egged during a visit to a north London mosque, the Press Association reports. The Metropolitan police said John Murphy, 31, from Barnet, was charged in the early hours of Monday morning and will appear at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court on Tuesday March 19. Murphy allegedly screamed “When you vote you get what you vote for” as he came from behind and smacked Corbyn with an egg. Corbyn continued with his planned programme of constituency events at the Finsbury Park Mosque and Muslim Welfare House. He was unharmed and left with a police escort at around 6.30pm.
Here is Gloria De Piero, the Labour MP for Ashfield, making the same point about the stronger towns fund as Gareth Snell.
Any cash for our towns is welcome but this is over 4 years and is peanuts compared to what we have lost in terms of funding for our local councils. https://t.co/4ZJV5aenKr
— Gloria De Piero (@GloriaDePiero) March 4, 2019
Minister admits £1.6bn for poorer towns to be spent over next seven years
A few weeks ago it emerged that the government was planning to announce a big regional investment that would benefit in particular constituencies in the north that backed leave and vote Labour. The prospect of this money being available might help to persuade Labour MPs to back Theresa May’s Brexit deal, it was suggested. Downing Street rejected claims that this would amount to a “bribe”, but did not deny that the plan (actually, a variant of the “UK shared prosperity fund, specifically designed to reduce inequalities between communities across our four nations”, promised in the 2017 Conservative party manifesto) was under consideration.
Today the announcement has arrived. And, in a statement Theresa May has partially linked it to Brexit. She says:
For too long in our country prosperity has been unfairly spread. Our economy has worked well for some places but we want it to work for all communities.
Communities across the country voted for Brexit as an expression of their desire to see change – that must be a change for the better, with more opportunity and greater control.
These towns have a glorious heritage, huge potential and, with the right help, a bright future ahead of them.
But, as Jessica Elgot points out in our overnight story, Labour MPs were queuing up last night to say that this announcement would not change their minds over Brexit.
And this morning James Brokenshire, the housing and communities secretary, has been giving interviews about the announcement. What he has said confirms that this investment will probably end up having zero impact on the parliamentary dynamics over Brexit.
- Brokenshire confirmed that the government was committed to this spending whether or not MPs voted for May’s Brexit deal. Asked if the money was coming whether or no the deal was passed, he said: “Yes.” He went on:
This funding is there regardless of the outcome, but obviously we want to see a deal happening, we believe that is what is in the best interests of our country.
But there is no conditionality in that sense. This funding is there to see that towns grow and that we are actually looking at what we need to do, which is seeing those areas really prospering and following through on what the prime minister has really believed in, that sense of leaving no part of our UK behind, and how this will help support that.
- He said the £1.6bn was being spent over the next seven years. Asked over what period the money was being spent, he said:
It is through until 2026. So, in other words, you may have investments that will need to be put in place over a number of years.
This timescale does make £1.6bn look a lot less impressive than it does in the headlines. It is not unusual for governments to aggregate the numbers when announcing spending programmes, by giving a total spend not an annual spend. This can be misleading, but normally the truth is buried somewhere in the small print of the announcement. However the press release sent to journalists yesterday did not say over what period the £1.6bn would be spent. Reporters had to make inquiries to get an answer.
- Brokenshire rejected claims that the investment did not amount to much. When this was put to him, he replied:
I actually fundamentally disagree. If you look at the investment that could to into particular towns, the areas that need it most, this money can be transformative. It can make that difference on creating the jobs, actually putting the skills in place, and changing people’s lives in a modern, positive economy.
- And he also dismissed claims that the new money would not even begin to compensate for the amount towns in the north have lost through other government cuts, such as reductions in grants to councils. He was asked about this tweet from the Labour MP for Stoke-on-Trent Central, Gareth Snell.
The entire allocation for the West Midlands over four years is LESS than the total value of cuts faced by Stoke-on-Trent City Council alone over the same period.
— Gareth Snell MP (@gareth_snell) March 3, 2019
This is a huge disappointment. https://t.co/6JZOVQ8nPq
In response, Brokenshire said:
I think you are making a fundamental miscomparison between fundamental rates of money that councils will spend on their budgets each year, as contrasted with focused funds, transformative funds, to invest in skills, to invest in jobs, to invest in productivity, that actually then supplement the work of councils, and indeed other funds that we have in place.
I will post more on this as the day goes on.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11am: Downing Street lobby briefing.
12.30pm: Sir Ivan Rogers, the former British ambassador to the EU, speaks at the Institute for Government.
2.30pm: James Brokenshire, the housing secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
4pm: Jon Thompson, the HM Revenue and Customs chief executive, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee.
As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web, but I expect to be focusing mostly on Brexit. I plan to post a summary when I finish, at about 5.30pm.
You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s 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 it is 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 questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply ATL, although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
