Afternoon summary
- The Scottish parliament is expected to reject the UK government’s plans for sharing EU powers after Brexit, increasing pressure on Theresa May to offer further compromises. As Severin Carrell reports, a large majority of MSPs are likely to back calls by the Scottish government to reject the EU withdrawal bill on Tuesday after Holyrood’s constitution committee said the UK government’s proposals were unacceptable.
-
James Brokenshire, the communities secretary, has announced in a written ministerial statement that he is sending commissioners to take over the governance and strategic financial management of Northamptonshire County Council. As the Press Association reports, the action comes after an independent inspection report found that the Conservative-run authority had lost control of its budgets and failed in its duty to provide best value for money. The report, which recommended the abolition of the council, came after Northamptonshire imposed emergency spending controls in February, with its chief financial officer projecting a £21.1m overspend.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
The Belhaj family’s supporters confirmed that the government will pay the “substantial” costs of their six-year legal fight, which will probably run into millions of pounds. As the Press Association reports, speaking alongside Fatima Boudchar outside Parliament, Cori Crider, from the Reprieve human rights campaign, said:
The government spent a heck of a lot of money on its own legal team defending the case. We offered absolutely at the outset of the case to walk away for a full apology - which we now have - and no money at all. This could have been done immediately and pretty cheaply.
A spokesperson for the digital, culture, media, and sport committee said MPs also expected to learn on Monday whether Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg would respond to his formal summons to attend a hearing before the end of the current parliamentary session.
MPs have been consistently frustrated in their efforts to convince the social network boss to appear. One possibility is that he could give evidence via video link and officials are attempting to co-ordinate an evidence session with his speculated appearance in front of the European Parliament.
The spokesperson also confirmed that unlike in 2011, when MPs despatched the deputy Serjeant at Arms in person to hand-deliver a formal summons to Rupert Murdoch, both Alexander Nix and Dominic Cummings were informed of the requests over email. (See 4.01pm.)
Alexander Nix and Dominic Cummings receive summons to give evidence to culture committee
The Commons culture committee has announced that it has issued a formal summons to Alexander Nix, the former head of Cambridge Analytica, and to Dominic Cummings, the former Vote Leave campaign director, requiring them to give evidence to its “fake news” inquiry, on 6 June and 22 May respectively. It took the unusual step of using this procedure because Nix and Cummings are both refusing conventional invitations to appear.
Both have argued that they cannot give evidence while the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Electoral Commission are investigating their activities in the EU referendum, but Damian Collins, the committee chair, said the ICO and the commission both said sub judice was not an issue and that select committee hearings would not hinder their investigations.
In a statement Collins said:
The committee needs to get to the truth of what has happened. Mr Nix and Mr Cummings are important witnesses to the inquiry, and the committee needs to hear from them.
The committee has made entirely reasonable requests of both witnesses, issuing invitations over a period of time, with clear reasons put forward for why it would like to speak to them. Ignoring or refusing our requests adds up to resisting being held accountable by a democratically elected legislature.
Should Mr Nix or Mr Cummings fail to comply, the committee can report the matter to the House. This could result in a decision that a contempt of parliament has been committed.
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he will withdraw from a Christian conference where organisers said churches were “wavering under the onslaught of the gay lobby” and claimed Muslim immigration was causing problems for Christians.
Farron, who came under fire for his beliefs about gay sex during the election campaign, said he had not seen the promotional material when he agreed to speak at the Northern Mens’ Convention, run by Christian Conventions.
A pamphlet advertising the conference, which is billed as “hold the word of God in the worst of times” has been circulated on Twitter. “Even in biblical teaching churches, many appear to be wavering under the onslaught of the gay lobby, Add to this the scenario the increasing problems associated with immigration and Islam in particular and indeed many other things which push Christians further and further to the margins.”
Farron is billed in the same pamphlet as one of the speakers.
But wait. There's more. For those playing Bigotry Bingo at home, we've got some Islamophobia thrown in too! pic.twitter.com/3emNBwxUBi
— MarkH (@markrhewerdine) May 9, 2018
The MP said he would no longer attend.
“I agreed many months ago to attend a church-organised event but just today I’ve seen promotional material for it which contains things I’m deeply concerned and saddened by,” he tweeted. “As a result, I have withdrawn from the event.”
I agreed many months ago to attend a church-organised event but just today I’ve seen promotional material for it which contains things I’m deeply concerned and saddened by. As a result, I have withdrawn from the event.
— Tim Farron (@timfarron) May 10, 2018
Party activists expressed outrage at the billing. Jennie Rigg, the chair of LGBT Lib Dems, tweeted it was a “sexist, racist and homophobic” event. She said she had lost faith in Farron. “I’m sorry I ever defended him and I’m sorry to those of you I defended him to. I got it wrong. I apologise.”
Tim Farron is the star speaker at this sexist, racist AND homophobic event (many more details in the thread).
— Jennie Rigg (@miss_s_b) May 10, 2018
I'm sorry I ever defended him, and I'm sorry to those of you I defended him to. I got it wrong. I apologise. https://t.co/jk8DcCtLec
The party said it would not be taking any further action now Farron had pulled out.
Belhaj says May's apology 'heartfelt', but that US has not learnt lessons from rendition scandal
Abdel Hakim Belhaj has been holding a press conference in Turkey following the government’s announcement of a settlement to his rendition case.
- Belhaj welcomed the outcome, thanked Theresa May, and said the settlement brought him joy.
There is no doubt that our arrival at this end point, which I consider to be the realisation of the justice that I sought, and which required great patience. We lived through these stages, a continuation of the suffering we endured in jail, including torture and bad conditions. There is no doubt that we are filled with joy, and we value this step that is a realisation of justice that we all must seek, regardless of our identity, culture, religion or geography.
- He said he particularly appreciated the reaction from MPs.
What I saw from the responses of the MPs today, it was like a balm, and I felt that there were those who saw the need for laws and guarantees to prevent this from happening again.
- He said he was always after just an apology, not compensation.
From the very first moment, I insisted that there must be an apology. I never asked for monetary compensation because I don’t want to impose on the taxpayers, and so I can put a quick end to this suffering, but what led us to the courts is the rejection of the demand for an apology. I welcome this step, the acceptance of the apology condition, and I hope this is not repeated with someone else.
Asked if the apology he received was sufficient, he said that having to wait so long had made things worse but that what mattered was the result in the end. He said:
The wording of the apology was heartfelt. There was a feeling of concern, an admission of the shortcomings, an expression of unreserved apology, lessons learned, admission of failings and an expression of disappointment towards the international partners that I was handed over to. All of these sentiments that came through in the apology, I welcome them.
- He said President Trump’s decision to nominate Gina Haspel as director of the CIA was a “step in the wrong direction”. Asked about her nomination, he said:
I think the American administration is acting with arrogance and negativity in particular towards the Muslim world. What does it mean for someone to be elevated and honoured, someone who oversaw a secret prison in Thailand where torture was being practiced? That is a step in the wrong direction and an expression of poor intent towards the other, and it is regrettable.
Updated
QC son of Windrush-era migrants to oversee Windrush compensation scheme, Home Office announces
The Home Office has announced that the compensation scheme it is setting up for Windrush-era migrants who lost out because of government immigration policies will be overseen by a QC whose own parents belonged to that generation. The news has come in the form of a written ministerial statement although, confusingly, it is in the name of Amber Rudd. Someone has forgotten that she resigned, and was replaced as home secretary by Sajid Javid.
The statement also announces a consultation on how the compensation scheme will work. Here are the key paragraphs.
As a first step to establishing the compensation scheme the Home Office is today launching a call for evidence that is addressed to those who have been affected by this situation, and to their families. This will be the first step of the consultation process, and will be published on gov.uk. A copy of the document will also be placed in the House Library.
It is always important for government to listen, and it is especially important to do so now. To put things right we need to understand more about what happened, to understand the personal stories, which will help to inform the design of the compensation scheme. As well as receiving written contributions I have asked officials to reach out to the people and communities most closely affected, listen to their concerns directly and, in particular, understand properly how we might address them through a compensation scheme.
I believe it is also important to have some external assurance that the compensation scheme meets the needs of those affected. So I will appoint an independent person to oversee the running of the scheme when it is in place. Martin Forde QC has agreed to provide independent advice on the design of the scheme. He is himself the son of Windrush parents and brings a wealth of experience in complex public law and compensation matters. I am confident that he will ensure that the interests of those affected will be properly represented and reflected in the scheme.
The call for evidence will run until 8 June. Once we have listened and considered those contributions, I will then launch a public consultation as soon as possible to provide the technical detail on proposals for the compensation scheme. I want to put in place a compensation scheme as quickly and as carefully as possible, to help redress what has gone wrong.
Forde is a barrister with 1 Crown Office Row chambers. There is more on him here.
Updated
At first minister’s questions in the Scottish parliament at lunchtime the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie called on Nicola Sturgeon to back a second EU referendum, noting that a number of senior SNP figures had given it their support.
Sturgeon responded that it was “not the SNP that is going to be a block for a second referendum”, but that the Lib Dem’s would be better off trying to convince Labour in Westminster, though she didn’t hold out much hope given their stance on the customs union.
She added that the hope in holding a second referendum would be to produce a different result. She went on:
But the problem in Scotland is that our remain vote was entirely ignored. What guarantee can Willie Rennie give that our remain vote would not be ignored entirely again?
Fatima Boudchar emerged from parliament at 1.30pm to appear before the cameras triumphant holding up a copy of the letter of apology she received from the prime minister. Speaking through an interpreter, she said: “The British government has apologised after six years.”
Sapna Malik, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day which represented Boudchar and her husband, said:
After six years the government has accepted that there ate lines that should not be crossed.
During the statement Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, also said the rendition events took place at a time when UK and its international partners “were suddenly adapting to a completely new type and scale of threat”. He went on:
It is clear with the benefit of hindsight that the government, the agencies and their staff were in some respects not prepared for the extreme demands suddenly placed on them.
The unacceptable practices of some of our international partners should have been understood much sooner.
Wright said the government had learnt lessons from this period. He said:
The government has enacted reforms to ensure that the problems of the past will not be repeated. We’ve made it clear that ministers must be consulted whenever UK personnel involved in a planned operation believe a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by a foreign state.
We have also improved parliament’s ability to oversee the actions of the agencies through the Justice and Security Act of 2013.
Mitchell says Boudchar mistreated in centre overseen by Trump's choice for CIA director
In the Commons, during the Jeremy Wright statement, Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary, said Fatima Boudchar was mistreated in a “black site” in Thailand partly run by Gina Haspel, who has been nominated as the new director of the CIA. He said:
The lesson from all of this is, surely, that the officials who help us stay safe and who defend our country in the shadows must never play fast and loose with human rights and international humanitarian law which are the rocks upon which the safety of all of us depends.
Will [Wright] ensure that he sends to his opposite number in Washington the relevant details of this issue in respect of Gina Haspel whose hearings for the role of director of the CIA are currently taking place and who was involved in the management of the black site in Thailand where Fatima Boudchar was held and so grievously mistreated?
Wright said he did not want to get involved in who should be the next head of the CIA. But he said the UK would be giving the clearest possible signals to its allies about what its standards were and what it would and would not accept.
For more on Haspel, read this, an article by my colleague Julian Borger from earlier this week saying her confirmation hearing would be “a public reckoning of one of the darker chapters in modern US history”. And here is a live blog by my colleague Lauren Bambino of her confirmation hearing before the senate intelligence committee yesterday during which she refused to say whether torture techniques are immoral.
These are from the BBC’s Dominic Casciani.
The Belhaj rendition & torture legal battle was all about secret documents that showed MI6's actions led to the abduction of the dissident and his then-pregnant wife. The documents were found in Tripoli after Gaddafi's downfall.
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) May 10, 2018
So here are some of the documents that Belhaj's team said were so damning. Number One: In 2001, MI6's Mark Allen struck up a relationship with the Libyans to share intelligence on Islamist & jihadist groups pic.twitter.com/SEvANRnzsr
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) May 10, 2018
Number two: The Libyans began to ask the Brits for information on Mr Belhaj - referred to here in this document under one of his pseudonyms. pic.twitter.com/58aUXBV6qK
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) May 10, 2018
Number Three: By late 2003/early 2004. the agency was agreeing to help the Libyans capture Mr Belhaj in south-east Asia, in return for Libya's co-operation with the West over disarmament. This memo refers to him being in China: pic.twitter.com/sktyj6gvoT
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) May 10, 2018
Number Four: March 2004 - and MI6 tells the Libyans that Mr Belhaj (referred to here under a false name) is in custody in Malaysia - a crucial tip-off that led Tripoli and the CIA to work together to abduct him. pic.twitter.com/gzgdX9MPl7
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) May 10, 2018
Number Five: The CIA flew Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar to Tripoli where they were imprisoned. Sir Mark Allen later penned this memo to his Libyan counterpart - again referring to Mr Belhaj with a false name: pic.twitter.com/dRNxMUpSAj
— Dominic Casciani (@BBCDomC) May 10, 2018
Jack Straw says he always assumed actions he was approving as foreign secretary were lawful
Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the rendition of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Fatima Boudchar and who was being sued by them until the claim was withdrawn, has put out a statement about today’s settlement. He said:
I welcome the withdrawal of the proceedings against me that had been brought by Mr Belhaj and Ms Boudchar. I recognise that the events they describe will have been deeply distressing for them.
As foreign secretary I was responsible for approving or authorising a wide range of matters to protect our national security, including by meeting our international obligations to share information with international partners.
I took these responsibilities very seriously. As I have said on many occasions I sought to act at all times in a manner which was fully consistent with my legal duties, and with national and international law.
Straw said he had “limited” recollection of the events, but had ascertained that on March 1 2004, he gave oral approval for “some information to be shared with international partners”. He said in the statement:
The events to which this case referred took place in March 2004. I moved from the Foreign Office in May 2006. I was then first asked to recount my involvement in 2012. Over the last six years I have considered the extent of my involvement in considerable detail.
Although my recollection of what took place is limited, what is clear from what has now been ascertained is that on 1st March 2004 my approval was sought for some information to be shared with international partners. In almost every case such approvals were made by me in writing, on the basis of written submissions to me. However in rare cases of great urgency, oral submissions could be made and oral approvals given by me. This is what happened on this occasion, as is confirmed by the CPS statement of 9th June 2016 [see fourth paragraph of the conclusions].
In every case where my approval was sought I assumed, and was entitled to assume, that the actions for which my approval was sought were lawful. This included in appropriate cases obtaining assurances as to the humane treatment of those concerned.
This case clearly raises serious issues. However I remain constrained for national security reasons as to what further I can say publicly.
Straw also noted that he has already been interviewed as a witness by police investigating the case, and he said that he was ready to provide a full account of his knowledge of the circumstances of Belhaj’s case to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee if requested to do so.
Updated
Cori Crider, the lawyer who is representing the Belhaj family on behalf of the human rights organisation Reprieve, said that the extent of the government’s apology was unprecedented. She said:
It’s broader and deeper and more sincere than apology we have seen from the war on terror. We are very gratified by it.
They have said point blank that they believe the accounts given by Abdul Hakim and Fatima.
We have withdrawn the judicial review challenge [against the DPP’s decision not to prosecute anyone for the rendition] because the apology us so comprehensive.
This is the close of the matter for the UK. We said we are prepared to walk away for the apology and that is what we have done.
This is from the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald.
Both Canada and the UK have apologized and paid compensation to at least a couple of the innocent people they rendered & subjected to torture. Only the US - for 17 years and counting - refuses to acknowledge or provide justice to its rendition victims https://t.co/H6fPw208aA
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) May 10, 2018
And here is a long read from Ian on the story from November last year.
ICYMI: The Guardian's Long Read on the Belhaj kidnap and torture scandal: https://t.co/oSvPgGoPoA
— Ian Cobain (@IanCobain) May 10, 2018
This is from Alan Rusbridger, Guardian editor at the time when our colleague Ian Cobain did much of the reporting on this story.
All credit to @IanCobain, the reporter who brought this to light over many years. You would not believe the lengths the authorities went to in blocking information & trying to discredit Ian. Perhaps Jack Straw will now comment? https://t.co/kUbI5xmgAs
— alan rusbridger (@arusbridger) May 10, 2018
In the Commons the shadow solicitor general, Nick Thomas-Symonds, said it was “entirely right” for Theresa May to have apologised to Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Fatima Boudchar. Thomas-Symonds said:
What’s happened to them both is deeply disturbing and I can only hope that the settlement of the legal case allows some closure to a terrible set of events in their lives.
Here is our story about the apology.
In the Commons the Conservative backbencher Philip Hollobone says his constituents will think that the £500,000 paid to Fatima Boudchar seems a huge sum. It will be an unimaginable amount to them. How was that sum arrived at? And could the case have been settled earlier?
Wright says there were attempts to settle the case earlier. He says many of the details of the settlement are confidential. But he tells Hollobone that, in agreeing the settlement, he had to be satisfied that it was justified.
This is from Martha Spurrier, director of Liberty, commenting on the Wright statement.
The government’s unreserved apology for the unimaginable suffering Mr Belhaj and Ms Boudchar have endured is welcome. Justice was delayed, but at least it hasn’t been denied.
David Cameron promised a full judge-led inquiry into our country’s involvement in torture and rendition in 2010 – but it is still yet to materialise. Until torture survivors and the British public know the full extent of the UK’s failings, ministers cannot claim to have learned the lessons to prevent this ever happening again.
In the Commons Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, asks if there has been an apology from Tony Blair.
Wright says he and Leigh have criticised Blair in the Commons in the past. But he says his job today has been to tell MPs about the settlement reached in this case.
Here is some more reaction to the attorney general’s statement.
From Cori Crider, Reprieve counsel working with the family
This is not just Abdul-Hakim and Fatima’s victory. It is a victory for everyone who opposes injustice, secret detention, and torture.
From Sonya Sceats, chief executive of Freedom from Torture
We welcome the public apology from the attorney general but it must be the beginning not the end of a proper accounting for the sinister pattern of UK complicity in the years after the 9/11 attacks.
Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Fatima Boudchar are an inspiration to torture survivors everywhere for their courage and principled pursuit of justice but they should never have had to fight this hard for an official apology and just £1 compensation each.
There can be no defence of torture and the wider lessons from such shameful lapses must be learned to guard against a repetition. It is vital that today’s announcement is followed by a comprehensive truth-telling in line with the UK’s unbreakable legal obligations to investigate torture and hold those responsible to account.
It is even more urgent that the government goes ahead with the judge-led inquiry into UK involvement with torture as promised by David Cameron in 2010 and later passed to the Parliamentary intelligence and security committee which is yet to report.
Updated
Full text of Theresa May's letter of apology to rendition victims
Wright read out the apology that Theresa May has sent to Belhaj and Boudchar. Here is is in full as he read it out in the chamber.
The attorney general and senior UK government officials have heard directly form you both about your detention, rendition and the harrowing experiences you suffered.
Your accounts were moving and what happened to you is deeply troubling.
It is clear that you were both subjected to appalling treatment and that you suffered greatly, not least the affront to the dignity of Mrs Boudchar who was pregnant at the time.
The UK government believes your accounts. Neither of you should have been treated in this way.
The UK government’s actions contributed to your detention, rendition and suffering.
The UK government shared information about you with its international partners.
We should have done more to reduce the risk that you would be mistreated. We accept this was a failing on our part.
Later, during your detention in Libya, we sought information about and from you. We wrongly missed opportunities to alleviate your plight. This should not have happened.
On behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, I apologise unreservedly. We are profoundly sorry for the ordeal that you both suffered and our role in it.
The UK government has learned many lessons from this period. We should have understood much sooner the unacceptable practices of some of our international partners and we sincerely regret our failures.
Updated
Belhaj says 'justice has been done'
Reacting to the apology Abdel Hakim Belhaj said:
I welcome and accept the prime minister’s apology, and I extend to her and the attorney general my thanks and sincere goodwill.
For more than six years I have made clear that I had a single goal in bringing this case: justice. Now, at last, justice has been done.
Today is a historic day, not just for myself and my wife. We hope our case will serve as a marker for future generations. A great society does not torture; does not help others to torture; and, when it makes mistakes, it accepts them and apologises. Britain has made a wrong right today, and set an example for other nations to follow.
Fatima Boudchar, who is at Parliament with her son to hear the apology, said:
I thank the British government for its apology and for inviting me and my son to the UK to hear it. I accept the government’s apology.
This case has forced me to relive the lowest moments in my life for many years, and at times it has been a real struggle to keep going. But by today’s settlement I look forward to rebuilding my life with dignity and honour, and living free from the weight of these events with my husband and our five beautiful children.
Sapna Malik from law firm Leigh Day, who represented Belhaj and Boudchar, said:
Today’s historic occasion is a tribute to the resilience of our clients in their quest for justice. After six long years of litigation, HMG has rightly acknowledged that, even in the fields of counter-terrorism and international relations, there are lines which must not be crossed and which were crossed here, with devastating consequences for my clients.
Today’s candid apology from the Government helps restore the humanity and dignity so brutally denied to my clients during their ordeal and is warmly welcomed.
Updated
May has apologised unreservedly to the rendition victims, MPs told
Wright reads out extracts from the apology Theresa May sent to Belhaj and Boudchar.
May told them that their treatment was appalling, and that the government accepted their version of what happened, he says.
May said neither of them should have been treated as they were, he says.
And May said the government should have done more to reduce the risk of their being mistreated, he says. Quoting from the letter, he goes on:
We accept this was a failing on our part.
May said the government should have sought information about how the pair were being treated. Quoting from the letter, Wright goes on:
On behalf of her Majesty’s Government, I apologise unreservedly.
May said the government had learnt many lessons from this, Wright says. Quoting from the letter, he goes on:
We should have understood sooner the unacceptable practices of some of our partners.
Fatima Boudchar has received £500,000 in compensation for her rendition ordeal, MPs told
Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, is starting his statement now.
He says in 2012 Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, brought a claim against the UK government and two individuals, Jack Straw, the former foreign secretary, and Sir Mark Allen, the former head of counter-terrorism at MI6, saying they were complict in their detention.
He says on 3 May the claims against Straw and Allen were withdrawn.
Following mediation, the government has reached a full and final settlement with the couple.
Wright pays tribute to Belhaj and Boudchar.
This has been an extremely complex piece of litigation, he says.
He says the UK authorities must act to keep people safe. But they must also act within the law, and recognise when mistakes have been made. That has happened in this case.
He says no admission of liability has been accepted.
He says the claims ahve been withdrawn.
- Boudchar has received £500,000 in compensation for her ordeal, Wright says.
- Belhaj did not ask for compensation and did not receive any, Wright says.
- Wright says Theresa May has written to Belhaj and Boudchar apologising to them. He reads out the letter.
This is from the Press Association’s Harriet Line.
The wife of Libyan dissident Abdel Hakim Belhaj - Fatima Boudchar - is in the Commons public gallery ahead of a statement from the Attorney General Jeremy Wright
— Harriet Line (@HarriLine) May 10, 2018
This is from Reprieve, the human rights campaign group.
Fatima Boudchar and her son Abderrahim arrive at Parliament with Reprieve’s @cori_crider ahead of the statement from the Attorney General today #belhaj pic.twitter.com/qh11WKhtuy
— Reprieve (@Reprieve) May 10, 2018
And this is what George Osborne, the Conservative former chancellor and leading remain campaigner, is saying about calls for the Brexit transition to be extended. (See 9.21am.)
Brexiteers’ answer to every problem they’ve created is to extend the transitions:on customs union, free movement, regulatory alignment, ECJ jurisdiction etc. Have they asked EU’s permission? Will gov really confront hard choices they can’t make now in run up to next election? Hmm
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) May 10, 2018
No 10 says Brexit transition period won't be extended
Downing Street has denied there is a possibility of extending the transition period and said the agreement reached with the EU for an implementation period is fixed. (See 9.21am.) The prime minister’s spokesman told journalists at the lobby briefing:
We reached an agreement with the EU on the implementation period - that agreement is clear that it will end in December 2020. We have been clear we are leaving the customs union in December 2020.
This is from Sajid Javid, the new home secretary.
Important meeting this morning @ukhomeoffice with Caribbean High Commissioners to discuss what more we can do can help the #Windrushgeneration. This is my most urgent priority and I will do all I can pic.twitter.com/vRaVEcazln
— Sajid Javid (@sajidjavid) May 10, 2018
Attorney general's Commons statement on Abdel Hakim Belhaj rendition case
Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, will start making his Commons statement about the Abdel Hakim Belhaj rendition case within the next 10 minutes or so.
This is a story that the Guardian has covered extensively. You can find most of our stories with background about the case here.
Here is the overnight preview by my colleagues Ian Cobain and Owen Bowcott.
And here is how it starts.
The British government is understood to be about to settle a long-running compensation claim brought by a husband and wife who were the victims of a so-called rendition operation mounted with the help of MI6.
Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, have battled for compensation and an apology for more than six years, after papers that came to light during the Libyan revolution revealed the role that British intelligence officers played in their 2004 kidnap in Thailand.
The couple were hooded and shackled and flown to one of Muammar Gaddafi’s prisons, where Belhaj was tortured and sentenced to death.
The attorney general, Jeremy Wright, is expected to make a statement to MPs on Thursday, and Belhaj, now a military commander in Libya, will make a statement in Istanbul shortly afterwards.
It is unclear what the agreed terms are, although Belhaj has in the past said he would settle for just £3 – £1 from each of the defendants, as long as he and his wife also received an apology from the British government.
ITV’s political editor Robert Peston has an interesting mini-scoop on his Facebook page. He says Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has apologised to Sir Michael Fallon, the former defence secretary, for the particularly blunt way in which he dismissed a question from Fallon on Iran yesterday.
Will @BorisJohnson come to regret his extraordinary attack on Michael Fallon? https://t.co/6abdSirNWf
— Robert Peston (@Peston) May 10, 2018
This is from the Daily Mail’s Jason Groves.
RAC says Trump's decision to collapse Iran nuclear deal will put 'at least' 2p a litre on fuel prices
— Jason Groves (@JasonGroves1) May 10, 2018
Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, predicted that President Trump’s decision would have an impact of this sort in the Commons yesterday.
Leadsom refuses to deny reports key Brexit bill being delayed until autumn to avoid Commons defeat
In business questions Valerie Vaz, the shadow leader of the Commons, asked when the EU withdrawal bill would come back to the Commons. And she asked about reports that the government is planning to delay bringing back the trade bill and the customs bill until the autumn because ministers are worried about losing votes on the customs union.
She did not get much in the way of answers. Andrea Leadsom, the Commons leader, said the EU withdrawal bill would be coming back to the Commons, but she did not say when. And she claimed that there was “no hold up” with other legislation like the trade bill or the customs bill. But she would not confirm that those bills would come back to the Commons for their report stage debates before the summer recess (which is what everyone was expecting until recently). She went on:
There are very complex negotiations underway and it’s right that we bring forward these bills at the appropriate time, as indeed we will do.
Andrea Leadsom is now taking business questions in the Commons. She has just announced the business up to Monday 21 May. No mention yet of when the EU withdrawal bill will come back to the Commons after its third reading in the Lords on Wednesday next week.
The provisional business for the week commencing 21 May will include: pic.twitter.com/6IBor1w8FU
— Leader's Office (@CommonsLeader) May 10, 2018
Andrea Leadsom faces fierce Tory backlash over procedural ploy to obstruct boundaries bill
In the Commons Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is responding to an urgent question from the Labour MP Afzal Khan about money resolutions (the motions passed by the Commons allowing the government to spend money on implementing legislation). Khan has a private member’s bill on parliamentary boundaries, intended to revise them but keep the overall number of MPs at 650. It has passed its second reading. But the government has not allowed a money resolution to go with it, which effectively blocks the Khan bill.
Leadsom says the government is withholding a money resolution because it has its own plans for a boundary review. The Boundary Commission has been engaged in a review that will cut the number of MPs to 600, in line with government policy, but its final recommendations are not due until September this year.
Leadsom’s argument is that it is up to the government to decide when money should be spent implementing legislation. That’s actually a fairly straightforward description of how the executive operates, but because the Khan bill received a second reading, MPs are accusing Leadsom of defying the will of parliament. And it is not just opposition MPs who are complaining. The Tory MP Peter Bone described this as “an abuse of parliament”, and another Conservative, Sir Christopher Chope, was also very critical earlier.
The Labour Whips Twitter feed (an official account) has a good take on the row here.
. @CommonsLeader says the Government choose what Private Members Bills they want to make progress regardless of the will of the House. If the Givernment don’t like a Bill they should vote it down not use parliamentary chicanery to block democratic decisions of the HoC
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) May 10, 2018
Sir Desmond Swayne, another Tory backbencher, has backed the Labour Whips analysis. He has just told Leadsom that, if the government doesn’t like a private member’s bill, it should vote against it, not deny it a money resolution.
Other Conservatives criticising Leadsom have included Philip Hollobone, who said Leadsom was denying MPs one of their fundamental rights, and Philip Davies, who said she was “trying to defend the indefensible”.
Listening to the debate, you would get the impression that these Tories are all sticklers for parliamentary protocol. Perhaps that is the case for some of them. But many of them are speaking up for Khan because they are unhappy about the proposal to have a boundary review that cuts the size of the Commons - doing 50 MPs out of a job.
Updated
Labour has moved the writ for the Lewisham East byelection, triggered by the resignation of Heidi Alexander. It will be held on Thursday 14 June.
And, while we’re on Brexit news, five Labour MPs from the north east of England have written an article for the Independent saying that there should be a referendum on the final Brexit agreement. The five are: Phil Wilson, Paul Williams, Bridget Phillipson, Anna Turley and Catherine McKinnell.
Here’s an extract.
The British people were asked to make the original decision in June 2016 without knowing in reality what the final Brexit deal would look like. Nobody was sure what the options were. They did not appear on the ballot paper. As each day goes by new facts emerge that weren’t placed before the voters at the time of the referendum.
The outcome of the negotiations will affect the north east of England and the United Kingdom for decades to come. Because this is so important, we believe the British people should have their say on the final Brexit deal. Just as the people had their say in the referendum in 2016, we believe the final decision on this country’s destiny should lie with the British people in a people’s vote.
Tom McTague has written a piece for Politico Europe on what is going on behind the scenes in Whitehall in the Brexit negotiations. It’s a sobering read. Here’s an extract, but do read the whole thing.
The fear among the most senior officials involved in the Brexit negotiations is that the political impasse in Westminster will mean that Britain is left humiliated, either forced to accept whatever Brussels leaves on the table as the clock ticks down to exit day on March 29, 2019, or — even worse according to some in Whitehall — being bounced into a customs union by the House of Commons.
“The worst of all worlds is being ordered to enter a customs union. We would have absolutely no leverage. Brussels would know we would ultimately have to take whatever they said, because the Commons had ordered us to do so, so we’d get no meaningful opt outs or anything like that. It would be a disaster,” one UK official said.
A second senior official involved in the Brexit negotiations said: “The truth is staying in the customs union is a terrible Brexit. It’s obvious — there’s no way of dressing it up. It is clearly worse than staying in the EU. It’s just a terrible Brexit. But if we don’t get a plan, the EU will lose patience and make the decision for us, leaving us no choice but to sign up or crash out.”
On the Today programme this morning Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary, said that Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, should apologise to the rendition victims Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, when he makes his Commons statement on the case later today. Referring to his time in government, Mitchell said:
We concluded there was a prima facie case of misconduct and illegality by British authorities and that it was right, in the opinion of the Cameron government, to bring this into the public domain and sort it out ...
The lesson here is that officials who help us stay safe and who defend our country in the shadows must never play fast and loose with human rights and international humanitarian law, which are the rocks upon which the safety of all of us depend.
I imagine that the British government will want to apologise to Mr Belhaj and, indeed, to his wife.
According to a BuzzFeed report by Alex Spence and Alberto Nardelli, at the Brexit sub committee meeting last week ministers were told that the “max fac” customs option, (the one favoured by Brexiters - see 9.21am), would have a negative impact on around 145,000 companies and would make the economy worse off by 1.8% in the long run.
Here is BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on the question of whether the Brexit transition will be extended.
whole idea of extending transition so that customs decision can be fudged we discussed yday gaining some traction - but this brexiteer minister who said It wasn’t acceptable 👇wouldn’t be only one https://t.co/6WEXFQEuDd
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 10, 2018
She is referring to this interview that Steve Barclay, the leave-voting health minister, gave to the Daily Politics yesterday. He said he would not accept a longer transition.
"Positions of the two major parties are not acceptable to Brussels” @afneil
— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) May 9, 2018
“Some whispers around the place that the only way through this, may be to end up having a longer transition period” @bbclaurak@SteveBarclay is asked if he would accept extended transitional period pic.twitter.com/X0L44FD6uk
There’s an urgent question today at 10.30am.
UQ granted to @Afzal4Gorton at 1030 to ask @CommonsLeader to make a statement on the Government’s policy on introducing Money Resolutions for Private Members Bills. This is about the Government refusing to bring forward a money resolution for the Boundary review bill
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) May 10, 2018
Theresa May under pressure to extend transition to resolve customs dilemma
The cabinet is still trying to take a decision about what customs deal it wants with the EU after Brexit - the “new customs partnership” (NCP) dubbed “crazy” by Boris Johnson, or the “highly streamlined customs arrangement” (aka maximum facilitation, or max fac) favoured by Brexiters - but one problem is that there is no evidence that either option could be in place by the end of 2020, when the transition period is due to come to an end. Greg Clark, the business secretary, implicitly admitted this in his interview with Andrew Marr at the weekend (pdf), although Downing Street has refused to discuss the possibility of extending the transition and sticks to the line that the UK will be leaving the customs union when the transition ends in December 2020.
But Theresa May is coming under pressure to admit that the transition will have to be extended. In his Telegraph column today (paywall) Nick Timothy, who was her most powerful policy adviser until he left Number 10 after the general election, says May should abandon the NCP idea and opt for “max fac”. But it could take longer than planned to introduce, he says.
If there is a compromise to be made, ministers might accept that “max fac” will take longer to be introduced than the current implementation timetable suggests.
In the Sun Harry Cole has picked up on Timothy’s thinking and is running a story saying Brexiters are proposing to extend the transition to break the cabinet deadlock over customs. Cole quotes two other Tories. One is Henry Newman, director of the Open Europe thinktank and a former special adviser to the arch Brexiter Michael Gove. Newman has been tweeting about this views this morning in a thread starting here.
Some interest in @OpenEurope idea of extending an aspect of transition period as a potential compromise given Cabinet stalemate on customs policy. Here's a quick thread. 👇
— Henry Newman (@HenryNewman) May 10, 2018
The other Tory quoted by Cole is Nick Boles. Boles actually voted remain in the EU referendum, but he is also close to Gove and ran his ill-fated campaign for the Conservative leadership in 2016. Boles proposed extending the transition yesterday in a Twitter feed starting here.
We seem to be approaching another crunch point in the Brexit negotiations and although I usually try to avoid commenting on them I think I owe it to those I represent to say what I think about the vexed question of the customs union.
— Nick Boles MP (@NickBoles) May 9, 2018
The feed includes this tweet.
So the Prime Minister should announce that the government will seek to negotiate a temporary customs union that will expire 3 years after we leave the EU i.e. at the end of March 2022.
— Nick Boles MP (@NickBoles) May 9, 2018
Two former advisers and a backbench MP don’t amount to an unstoppable political movement. But May herself has hinted strongly that she accepts new customs technology will not be ready by the end of 2020 and it is likely that pressure for a longer transition, or a post-transition transition, as you might call it, will only grow.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Matt Hancock, the culture secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
10am: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, hosts his LBC phone-in.
11.15am: Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, is due to announce a digital overhaul of the rail network at the Rail Operating Centre in York.
Around 11.30am: Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, is expected to make a statement in the Commons announcing an apology to Abdel Hakim Belhaj and his wife, Fatima Boudchar, who were kidnapped and tortured Muammar Gaddafi’s Libyan regime with help from MI6.
4pm: Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, speaks at a conference on the future of healthcare.
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. I plan to post a summary in the afternoon.
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.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. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the evening.
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
