Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

May loses 15th Lords vote on Brexit bill as peers vote to keep EU environmental standards - Politics live

The House of Lords, where peers this afternoon inflicted their 15th defeat on the government over the EU withdrawal bill.
The House of Lords, where peers this afternoon inflicted their 15th defeat on the government over the EU withdrawal bill. Photograph: HO/AFP/Getty Images

Afternoon summary

  • Theresa May has suffered her 15th defeat in the House of Lords on the EU withdrawal bill after peers voted to create a body to enforce EU environmental standards after Brexit. The bill is due to complete its third reading in the Lords later, and will then return to the Commons where the government will try to overturn some or all of the defeats. For a helpful list of all 14 other defeats, read this blog on the Labour Lords website.
  • David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, has urged MPs to reject a Labour motion saying the government should have to publish its internal papers on its Brexit customs plans. Speaking in the debate he said:

It would not be in the national interest to release information that would form part of our negotiating position, and in order to ensure good governance, it is in all our interests, including the interests of those who might have the ambition at some very distant date to serve in a Labour government, to preserve the system of cabinet government that allows for good and well thought through decisions.

MPs will vote on the motion at 7pm, but there is no indication that the government faces a rebellion on this and that Labour is likely to win.

That’s all from me for day.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Greener UK, a coalition of 13 environmental organisations, has welcomed the Lords vote. Its chair, Shaun Spiers, said in a statement.

The government has promised world-leading protection of the environment after Brexit. The defeat today shows that parliamentarians of all parties believe that it is failing to live up to this ambition.

It was encouraging to see the prime minister launch a 25-year plan for the environment and promise a strong environmental watchdog. But these announcements and pledges amount to little more than words on paper without the power to hold government to account.

It is imperative that the government now gives the promised green watchdog power to initiate legal action and ensure that vital environmental principles are put into primary legislation. Until it does, it is clear that our environment will have weaker protection when we leave the EU than it does now. Far from being ‘world-leading’, we will be in the environmental third division.

Here are some extracts from the Lords debate. I’ve taken the quotes from the Press Association wires.

Lord Krebs said his amendment was necessary because existing environmental protections in the bill were too weak. He said:

We have heard many times that the purpose of the Bill is to ensure that everything is the same the day after Brexit as it was the day before.

Yet for environmental protection things will not be the same. We’re talking about the protection of our air quality, our water quality, rivers, oceans, habitats and biodiversity.

Although the rules protecting our environment will be translated into UK legislation, crucially the environmental principles underpinning those rules will not and the current mechanisms for enforcing the rules will disappear and not be replaced.

Lord Framlingham, a Conservative, said peers voting against the bill were “wreckers” who were damaging the reputation of the Lords. He said:

I believe I am speaking up for this House and for the country. To set ourselves up in such a disreputable way as guardians of wisdom and the common good when so many of the amendments we have passed have simply been an attempt to wreck the Bill and thwart the will of the people is both false and dangerous.

John Gummer (Lord Deben), the Conservative former environment secretary, backed the amendment. He said:

This is a chance for us to vote seriously for the future, to do here what we have done 10 years ago with the Climate Change Act, which this House would never dream of saying was other than a success.

If the prime minister is right and we want a world-class watchdog and we want to set standards for the whole world there is no better way than taking the lessons of the Climate Change Act and putting them here on the face of this Act as the Government actually promised it would.

And Chris Smith, a Labour former environment secretary, also spoke in favour of the amendment. He said:

The irreparable damage that may be done is damage to the environment and our health in the future if we lose the safeguards and protections that we have for our environment ...

We are only taking action on these issues because of the prospect of infraction from the EU. If we lose that lever, then we lose the ability to tackle these major environmental issues. It is essential that we insist not just as part of the consultation, but we insist now that part of the powers of a new environmental watchdog must include the ability to take that sort of legal action.

May loses 15th Lords vote on EU withdrawal bill as peers vote for body to enforce EU environmental standards after Brexit

The government has suffered its 15th defeat in the Lords on the EU withdrawal bill. Peers voted by 294 to 244 - a majority of 50 - in favour of an amendment to create a watchdog to enforce EU environmental standards after Brexit.

Meanwhile there are reports that Sajid Javid, the home secretary, had a rather chaotic encounter with the press in Brussels today after a meeting with Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit spokesman. These are from the Sun’s Nick Gutteridge.

Lord Krebs, the zoologist and crossbencher who tabled the environmental protection, has just wrapped up the Lords debate. He said he was not satisfied by Callanan’s assurances and that he would be pushing his amendment to a vote.

And peers are voting now.

Lord Callanan, the Brexit minister, is now wrapping up the Lords debate for the government.

He says the government has published its plans for a new post-Brexit environmental watchdog. And it is a consultation, he stresses. The proposals could change.

He says, for that reason, the Krebs amendment is premature.

In response to a question, Callanan says current EU environmental rules would continue to apply during the transition.

John Gummer, the Conservative peer and chair of the committee on climate change, asks if that means people will be able to take an environmental protection case to the European court of justice right up to the end of the transition.

Callanan says there will be further legislation.

Another peer intervenes. Will EU environmental legislation be enforceable in the UK right up to the end of the transition?

Callanan says the UK will be bound by EU law during the transition. But there will be further legislation enacting the transition.

In the Lords Maggie Jones, the shadow environment minister, is wrapping up the debate now for Labour. (See 4.21pm.) She says the amendment is the only way to protect the environment for future generations.

And in the Commons MPs are now debating the Labour motion saying the government should publish the cabinet papers explaining its plans for a customs partnership and “maximum facilitation”, the alternative post-Brexit customs option. If passed, this would be binding because Labour is using the “humble address” mechanism.

Here is the Labour motion.

That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be laid before the House: all papers, presentations and economic analyses from 1 January 2018 up to and including 16 May 2018 prepared for the European Union exit and trade (strategy and negotiations) cabinet sub-committee, and its sub-committees, on the government’s preferred post-Brexit customs arrangements including a customs partnership and maximum facilitation.

Last year Labour had two good hits with “humble address” motions. It used them to demand the publication of the government’s Brexit impact assessment and universal credit project assessments. Government whips thought they would lose if the motions were put to a vote and so Tory MPs abstained, with the result that the motions were passed and the documents were handed over to select committees.

But last month Labour tried to use a “humble address” to get the government to publish confidential government papers about Windrush - but failed when it lost by almost 100 votes.

And again the Tories must be confident of winning again. There are a dozen or more Conservatives willing to rebel over Europe. But most MPs accept the convention that the government should be able to keep some policy advice private, Tory MPs have been briefed in outline on what the customs plans are and a white paper has been promised for next month. This is not analogous with the Brexit impact assessment situation, where some Tory MPs felt there was a cover-up. There is no evidence we’re going to see a Tory revolt tonight.

In the House of Lords peers are now debating the third reading of the EU withdrawal bill.

Unlike in the House of Commons, peers vote on amendments to the bill at third reading. There are various amendments tabled for debate today (see here - pdf) but the main one is one that has been tabled by Lord Krebs, a crossbencher, with Labour and Lib Dem support. It says the government must set up a body to maintain EU standards of environmental protection. The government is expected to lose when it gets put to a vote.

Maggie Jones, a shadow environment minister, defends the amendment in a Labour Lords blog. Here’s an excerpt.

A cross party amendment, tabled by crossbencher Lord Krebs and with formal support from myself, Conservative Lord Deben and LibDem Baroness Bakewell, seeks to set out the environmental principles that should underpin UK law post-Brexit.

It should not be necessary. Last November, Mr Gove acknowledged the need to set out such principles and the remit for the statutory body which would hold public bodies to account. Then, late last week, we had first sight of a much delayed consultation document addressing these issues. Meanwhile, rumours abound that Gove has lost a battle with Cabinet colleagues on the proposed powers of the watchdog. It certainly seems that way.

The document out for consultation is a bitter disappointment to NGOs and individuals concerned about our environment standards post Brexit – particularly when we have relied on Europe to deliver for us in the past. For example, it makes it clear that the application of any principles would be subservient to other government priorities. The environment is portrayed as the enemy of growth rather than complementary; and there is no understanding of the advantages of an environmental net gain principle in wider government policies.

Is Grayling right to say EU law would block Labour's plans for rail nationalisation?

During his Commons statement Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, and a leading figure in the Vote Leave campaign, repeatedly said that Labour would not be able to implement its plans to nationalise the railways under EU rules. After one Labour MP challenged him to renationalise the rail network, he replied:

What they [Labour] are proposing is illegal under European law.

But is he right? Until recently the firm consensus was no, although new EU regulations would certainly make blanket nationalisation much harder to enact.

Five years ago the TSSA transport union was highlighting a thinktank report saying “European rules do not dictate that railways must be fully privatised”.

Last year an academic assessment of 26 Labour policy proposals concluded that EU would only have a “negligible” impact in terms of preventing a Corbyn government implementing its plans. The report was written up in a Guardian story at the time, and here is an extract from our report.

The EU has a policy that prevents a national railway monopoly, but this is to make sure a pan-European freight network thrives, which is something Labour supporters would probably back. Most European countries have a nationalised railway system.

French president Emmanuel Macron recently nationalised a shipyardjointly owned with an Italian rival to prevent the domestic firm losing control. He was able to press ahead with his protectionist measure under Maastricht and Lisbon Treaty rules that leave room for policy objectives for which state aid can be considered compatible.

Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former communications director, came to the same conclusions in an article he wrote last year for the New European. He said:

As a cursory glance at state-owned railways all over Europe will confirm, ownership is not a problem. Most European countries have state-owned railways. The UK is the exception, not the rule. It is true that EU law requires that infrastructure (rails, stations, etc.) be separate from the train services using them, but both can be publicly-owned or controlled, as they are in many EU countries. Railway companies from other EU countries, such as those operating services between Ireland and Northern Ireland or to and from the continent through the Channel Tunnel, are also entitled to offer services within the UK if they meet certain conditions. There is no reason why the UK could not bring private rail companies back into public ownership as their franchises expire.

Recently Sabine Weyand, who is deputy to Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, made the same point on Twitter.

According to Grayling’s aides, these assurances do not take into account that EU regulations have changed. Previous rules required separation of track and train. New rules, the fourth railway package, says franchises have to be put out to tender.

Here is a summary of the fourth railway package. Here is the key regulation, regulation (EU) 2016/2338, and here is an extract.

Public service contracts for public passenger transport services by rail should be awarded on the basis of a competitive tendering procedure, except for those cases set out in this Regulation.

In a recent article for the House magazine Andy Tarrant, an EU and competition lawyer and an adviser to the Labour party, said that even this would not stop Labour implementing its nationalisation plans. Tarrant said:

The UK’s island geography does make the merits of cross-border passenger rail services far less obvious than they can be on the continent. Nonetheless, the EU’s fourth rail package requires companies to competitively tender for rail passenger services everywhere in the EU, including in the UK. However, this does not prevent a bidder from being state owned. There are likely to be substantial economies of scale and scope which mean that a nationalised company would usually have a bidding advantage. In addition, the state can set quality, social and labour standards that state owned companies may in practice be better able to meet. Competitive tendering began in German passenger rail in 1996, twenty years earlier than required by the EU rules, but Deutsche Bahn, the state owned rail operator, still has over 75% market share (and its main competitors are regional operators owned by local German government). There is also nothing to stop a British government from nationalising any company winning a bid if it turned out not to be the already state owned company.

But Brexiters argue that, in practice, it might not be that simple, because EU state aid rules could get in the way. This is from an article by David Scullion, deputy editor at BrexitCentral.

Under the new rules, it will be technically possible to have a state monopoly on rail, if rail franchises are subject to competition and state-controlled bodies manage to win every contract.

But under this system, the government could comply with the new legislation but be caught out by EU state aid rules, which happened to the French government when it tried to maintain a state monopoly on rail.

In order to comply with the 4th Railway Package the French split up their state-owned railway SNCF into separate entities, SNCF Mobilités (operations and trains) and SNCF Réseau (infrastructure manager), both of which were wholly owned by the state railway SNCF (EPIC).

But the plan failed to comply with EU rules on state aid and a recent ECJ judgement found similar structures in France were not compliant.

Subsequently, a review commissioned by the French government recommended that both companies (Mobilités and Réseau) should be privatised.

Updated

Brokenshire tells MPs some Grenfell Tower survivors will still be in emergency accommodation one year after fire

In the Commons MPs are now debating a Labour motion on the Grenfell Tower fire which, among other things, calls upon the government to honour its promise to permanently rehouse all the survivors by 14 June, the first anniversary of the disaster.

James Brokenshire, the new housing secretary, told the Commons that not all survivors would be rehoused within 12 months. As the Press Association reports, he said of the 210 households in need of a new home, 201 have accepted offers of temporary or permanent accommodation. Of this number 138 have moved in, 64 into temporary accommodation and 74 into permanent accommodation. Brokenshire said:

While progress has been made, there is no question that this has been too slow. As a result, some households will still be in emergency accommodation in June.

It was always going to be a challenge to respond to an unprecedented tragedy on this scale, it has taken time to purchase suitable homes, adapt and refurbish them to meet people’s needs and the higher safety standards, but this is clearly not good enough.

It is understandable the community will feel disappointed and let down. I too am very concerned, especially to see people who accepted an offer of a permanent home still living in emergency accommodation.

I am therefore establishing at pace what further action can be done by the government or by the council to speed up this process. The council now has over 300 properties available to those who need them, and my department will continue to work with the council to ensure people are given whatever support they need to be rehoused as swiftly as possible.

James Brokenshire
James Brokenshire Photograph: Alastair Grant/AP

AggregateIQ gives evidence to Commons culture committee

Jeff Silvester, the chief operating officer of AggregateIQ, is giving evidence to the Commons culture committee as part of its fake news inquiry.

AggregateIQ worked for Vote Leave during the EU referendum campaign and has been implicated in the Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data and referendum spending controversy.

My colleague Carole Cadwalladr wrote about the firm here.

You can watch the hearing here.

And here is the written evidence to the committee submitted by the firm (pdf).

Lunchtime summary

  • Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, has told MPs that the government’s customs partnership proposal would make it easier to deal with the Irish border question. Giving evidence to the Northern Ireland affairs committee she said the customs partnership proposal and the alternative “maximum facilitation” (max fac) model both had “defects”. (See 11.31am.) But she went on:

Both of the customs options that are on the table could potentially be made to work. There is no doubt that a customs partnership hybrid model makes the Irish border situation easier, there is no doubt that the question of the Irish border is resolved by the customs partnership in an easier way than maximum facilitation.

  • Britain is the largest contributor to security collaboration in the EU, a former spy chief has said. As the Press Association reports, the ex-MI5 director general Lord Evans of Weardale told a Lords committee that Britain was a “net contributor” in terms of the “information flows and expertise” that it provided, adding that the country was “very good at security”. He went on:

We have been investing in terms of money, legal powers and capabilities for a long time. That means that we are able to contribute heavily to the security of our European friends. We benefit from that as well but we contribute a great deal. Probably, I would say, the biggest contribution of any of the countries in the European Union.

Conservative MPs will be whipped to vote against Labour’s Commons motion demanding the release of cabinet documents relating to the government’s two proposed options for post-Brexit customs arrangements, the Press Association reports. A Downing Street source said:

We will be opposing the motion. It is a long-held and important principle that cabinet ministers are able to receive candid advice from civil servants and it is important that the confidentiality of that advice remains.

Here is the full text of Chris Grayling’s statement.

And here is the news release from the Department for Transport.

Aslef, the train drivers’ union, has welcomed Chris Grayling’s East Coast announcement. This is from its general secretary, Mick Whelan.

We welcome the decision by the secretary of state for transport today to bring the East Coast back into public ownership – at least temporarily, using the vehicle of directly operated railways ltd – and hope that he will now bring the rest of our railways back into public ownership, too.

Because this is the third time in ten years that a private company has messed up on the east coast main line. When it was run in the public sector, it returned more than £1bn to the Treasury.

It’s important that staff, and passengers, are properly protected while, once again, the transport secretary tries to patch up a failing franchise system that everyone knows doesn’t work. Britain’s railways should be run, successfully, as a public service, not for private profit. Because they cannot do it.

It’s only sad that Tory dogma – wedded to the failed model of privatisation – means they will return this line to the private sector, doubtless to fail again, in the not too distant future.

Labour’s John Mann says when people in his constituency voted for Brexit, one of the advantages was the government would be able to renationalise the railways. Why won’t Grayling take advantage of that?

Grayling says if you take the rail service into public control, and starve it of capital, passengers will be worse off.

Labour’s Jenny Chapman challenges Grayling to stand up and say, ‘My name’s Chris Grayling and I’ve just renationalised a railway.’

Grayling says he does not think nationalisation is the long-term answer. He says if you look at the rail service in France you’ll see why.

Labour’s Hilary Benn asks why Grayling did not just say he was renationalising the East Coast mainline.

Grayling says the operator of last resort will be a publicly run service.

But he does not use the term renationalisation.

Here is my colleague Gwyn Topham’s story about Chris Grayling’s announcement.

Grayling says the rail network gets more investment under a public/private partnership than it would if it were state-owned. He says Labour does not realise that, under its plans, rail would have to compete for public money with other services.

Grayling says Labour’s rail policy would be illegal under EU law

Grayling is responding to McDonald.

He says he could have made an announcement to the stock exchange at 7am, but decided to make a statement to MPs instead.

He says McDonald’s proposals would be illegal under EU law. Yet Labour wants to keep the UK close to the EU, he says.

  • Grayling says Labour’s rail policy would be illegal under EU law.

He says there is no bailout. The rail line will still make a substantial contribution to the taxpayer.

This is the best way of taking this forward, he says.

On the millennial railcard story, he says McDonald should not believe everything he reads in the papers.

Andy McDonald, the shadow transport secretary, says he was given sight of the statement half an hour in advance. But he was not given an electronic copy. He says Grayling has done this before. He is treating the opposition and the Commons with contempt, he says.

He says today’s story about the rollout of the millennial railcard being delayed shows how the government has nothing to offer young people.

He says it is wrong not to put restrictions on what Stagecoach and Virgin can do next.

He says franchising is at the heart of the proposed partnership. But the partnership model is flawed, he says.

He says every announcement is “a smokescreen to divert attention from the failings of his policy”.

He says the it is ridiculous to talk about a ownership of last resort. This is public ownership, he says. He says Grayling is only opposed to public ownership when Labour proposes it.

He says the answer is obvious. He says Grayling should accept that an integrated railway in public ownership would be best.

Grayling is still speaking.

He says Andy Street, the Conservative mayor of the West Midlands and former John Lewis boss, will be advising the government.

He says the companies have paid a high operational price for what happened.

He says he is not minded to put further restrictions on them. But that is only a provisional decision, he says.

He says 92% of passengers on the East Coast mainline say they are happy with the service.

Today is he recreating one of the UK’s most iconic rail brands, and starting the process of creating a regional service, he says.

Updated

Chris Grayling says government taking control of East Coast service under LNER branding

Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, is making his statement now.

He says the East Coast line is not a failing rail service.

But Stagecoach and Virgin will lose £200m from the service, he says.

He says in February he said he was considering two options: letting Stagecoach continue to run the service under a not-for-profit basis, or taking the service back under government control.

His department has been looking at this. Today he will publish his assessement.

The conclusion was that it was finely balanced. Neither option was obviously best.

But he is also taking into account the desire to create a longterm East Coast partnership.

  • Virgin Trains East Coast partnership to be terminated in June.
  • A new operator of last resort will take control under the London and North Eastern Railways brand.
  • An interim chair will be appointed shortly.

The new LNER service will be a partnership between public and private sectors, he says.

He says he does not want to disrupt services for passengers.

Politics Live has just had a name check. The Conservative MP Crispin Blunt quoted from the post about the East Coast mainline at 12.46pm. He says there should be an investigation into a broken embargo.

Bercow accuses government of “abuse” of procedure by scheduling rail statement in Labour time

Nick Brown, the Labour chief whip, is rising to make a point of order. There is a convention that, when ministers make a statement, the opposition gets to see a copy in advance. Commercially sensitive matters can be redacted. But today Labour has not seen the text of the statement. And it is also the convention not to have statements on days set aside for opposition day debates. But that is happening too today. Brown says this is the third time this has happened. He says the intention is to take away time from the opposition. It is a “constitutional outrage”.

John Bercow, the speaker, says he has been told Labour got a copy of today’s statement half an hour in advance. On the timing of the statement, he says this has happened before. But it should not, he says. He says it could be seen as “an abuse”. He says he hopes the message has got through to those at the top who are responsible. If it happens again, he will speak out again.

  • Bercow accuses government of an “an abuse” of procedure by scheduling the rail statement today.

Labour’s Siobhain McDonagh asks about plans to cut pay for people working night at Sainsbury’s.

May says these are commercial decisions, but she will look at them.

Kevin Hollinrake, a Conservative, says regulators are not willing to take action against those responsible for scandals at Lloyds, RBS and HBOS.

May says the Financial Conduct Authority has reported on RBS. And events at HBOS constituted criminal activity. It is right that these matters are investigated.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem former leader, asks about the rail service in his Westmorland and Lonsdale constituency.

May says Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, is aware of these problems.

May says she wants the Northern Ireland executive to return. The government will work with all parties to get it reinstated, she says.

East Coast mainline to be brought back under public control, Stagecoach says

The Press Association has just snapped this.

Rail services on the East Coast Main Line will be brought back under public control following the termination of the franchise agreement with Virgin Trains, Stagecoach Group said today.

Andrew Jones, a Conservative, asks about broadband. Does May agree fibre is gold standard broadband.

May says access to superfast broadband is important.

Labour’s Karen Buck says time is running out to negotiate a bespoke Brexit deal. Why won’t May give MPs the earliest opportunity to vote on staying in the EEA.

May says MPs will get many opportunities to vote.

Labour’s David Drew asks about support for the mortgage interest scheme, that has now been abolished. Some parents used this to help their adult children who needed support. The withdrawal of the scheme has created problems, as Mencap has argued.

May says the government will look into this.

Updated

Antoinette Sandbach, a Conservative, asks about a constituent whose son committed suicide after failing to get the right mental health support.

May offers her condolences. The government is committed to improving mental health services, especially for children and young people. She says ministers will look into the detail of this case.

May says when the UK leaves the EU it will negotiate trade deals in its own interests. She says she spoke to a number of African leaders about this at the Commonwealth conference.

May says the government has not forgotten about Erasmus. It is one of the EU programmes the UK may want to remain part of after Brexit. But that will be part of the negotiation.

May says government will spend £400m removing dangerous cladding from tower blocks

PMQs -Snap verdict

PMQs - Snap verdict: Corbyn is starting to make it look easy. It isn’t easy, of course (winning PMQs is about the hardest task for an opposition leader), and Corbyn isn’t a natural as a parliamentary performer, but for the second week in a row, on a subject that for months he avoided at all costs, he managed to knock May all over the place. He was also more versatile than usual, combining real humour (ie, a joke that actually made people laugh, not synthetic, parliamentary humour - the laughter after his first question went on so long they will probably have to edit it out in the radio bulletins), deadly specifics (the question about HMRC staff), good attack quotes (the ones from car manufacturers), but also questions that accurately and harshly summed up the government’s failings (primarily, the absence of a Brexit negotiating position only five months before the deal is supposed to be completed). Tories who have been withering about Corbyn’s abilities should start asking themselves what it is about the government’s record that has made a Brexit PMQs such a doddle for him. May did her best to retaliate, but attacking Labour over the EU referendum sounded irrelevant and, even though she has a point about the contradictions in Labour’s Brexit policy, it is a second order issue compared to the problems with her own position. Her claim that Labour said wrongly there would never be a deal before December is a standard bit of Downing Street spin but I’m not sure it has any basis in fact (I can’t recall anyone saying on the record there would be no December deal - only a few off-the-record comments about how it looked 50/50). About the only life raft left to May was to cling to the buoyant employment figures. But, with the growth rate looking dismal (as Corbyn pointed out), that wasn’t particularly effective either.

Corbyn says there are record numbers of people on zero-hour contracts, and record numbers of people in poverty. He congratulates May on dividing her cabinet into two factions (the two customs working groups) - as if that needed doing. He says the Dutch have already started training new customs officers. How many HMRC extra staff have been recruited to deal with Brexit?

May says the government is making preparation for all contingencies. But she wants to correct him. Almost two thirds of the rise in employment has been from full time work, she says. And 70% of the rise in employment from 2010 has been from high-skilled work.

Corbyn says he asked about extra HMRC staff. The claim they are hiring more staff won’t make up for the staff lost since 2010. The Dutch government is better prepared. The government is not ready. Jobs are at risk. The government is so busy talking to itself it cannot negotiate with the EU. If it can’t negotiate a good deal, why won’t it step aside and make way for a party that will?

May says more jobs are being created. From Labour you cannot trust a word they say. They want to strike new trade deals, but they would be in a customs union that does not allow that. They have also broken their promise on student debt. Only the Tories can deliver a Brexit for all.

Corbyn says the UK has the slowest growth of all major economies. Last week Airbus said its space contract would move abroad because of Brexit. How many other businesses are considering their future in this country?

May says Corbyn’s position was to trigger article 50 after the referendum, with no work being done. Labour would have sold Britain out.

Corbyn says the PM’s own position is not supported by the cabinet. He quotes Rolls-Royce, Ford and Vauxhall all warning about the future of trade. Michael Gove said this week there were question marks over the PM’s customs model. But at least he did not call it crazy, as Boris Johnson did. If May can’t persuade her cabinet, then how can she persuade the EU?

May says Corbyn said there wouldn’t be a deal before December. But there was. British businesses are creating more jobs than ever.

Jeremy Corbyn starts by praising the two officers. The police do great work. He wishes Harry and Meghan the best, and pays tribute to what Harry has achieved in talking about mental health.

When the PM wrote at the weekend she wanted as little friction as possible, was she talking about EU trade or the next cabinet meeting?

May says Corbyn knows she has a policy of leaving the customs union, and having as frictionless trade as possible, no hard border in Ireland and an independent trade policy. She says a shadow minister in the Lords voted for a second referendum, and a shadow aid minister tweeted in favour of one. Will he rule it out?

Corbyn says there has been no progress in cabinet for five months. It is more interested in negotiating with itself than with the EU. Her latest line is in contrast to the claim would be friction free. How much friction will she accept?

May says she wants to be able to trade in as frictionless way as possible. The claim trade is entirely frictionless now is wrong. Some want the UK to forget about having an independent trade policy. And some say don’t worry about the Irish border. Neither of those positions are positions of the government. There will be a white paper, she says.

Updated

Theresa May starts by offering Prince Harry and Meghan Markle the best wishes of the Commons for their wedding.

Simon Hoare, a Conservative, asks if food security and food production will be at the heart of future faming policy.

May agrees. She says the government wants a policy that reflects the reality of life for farmers. British food has a high reputation.

Updated

John Bercow says the two police officers who apprehended the killer of Jo Cox are in the gallery to watch PMQs. He tells the officers MPs honour their service and offer them the warmest welcome.

There is a long, loud round of applause.

Bercow says the presiding officer of the Welsh assembly is here too. But she does not get a round of applause.

PMQs

PMQs is starting soon.

There will be one statement after PMQs.

This is what Grayling, the transport secretary, is expected to announce.

And here is the story we ran on this topic on Monday.

Sir Bill Cash, the committee chair, is winding up. He says the Irish government and the EU are both showing “intransigence”.

Bradley says people say things during negotiations. In the past the government has overcome obstacles, she says.

Q: Would you rule out any extension of the transition period?

Bradley says she will not be drawn on this. The implementation period will end in December 2020.

The hearing is now over.

Kate Hoey urges Bradley to rule out the backstop (using regulatory alignment as the means of resolving the border issue if other solutions don’t work). We can’t have it, she says.

Bradley says the government does not want the backstop option.

Benedict Cumberbatch to play Dominic Cummings in Brexit drama

It is always wise to be sceptical of “Benedict Cumberbatch to play X” stories about political drama. Remember the one about how he was going to play Nigel Farage? The story hasn’t survived the test of time.

So when I saw this on Twitter a few minutes ago, I assumed it was a spoof.

But it is true. My colleague Jim Waterson has the story. Here it is.

And here is how it starts.

Benedict Cumberbatch is to portray the mastermind of the Brexit campaign in a new Channel 4 drama about the EU referendum.

The star of Sherlock and Patrick Melrose will take on the role of Dominic Cummings, the former Michael Gove adviser who led Vote Leave to victory in 2016.

The film, due to air early next year shortly before Britain leaves the EU in March, will be written by James Graham, who has won awards for his political plays such as This House and Ink.

The TV production, partly based on books written by the Sunday Times political editor, Tim Shipman, and the former Downing Street director of communications Craig Oliver, is likely to examine how Cummings led Vote Leave to victory against the odds while having a sometimes tempestuous relationship with those around him.

Cumberbatch has certainly grabbed a choice part because Cummings is one of the most extraordinary characters in the referendum story - clever, abrasive, and once described by David Cameron (one of his many enemies in Whitehall) as ‘a career psychopath”. Cummings also has a good turn of phrase. One of the many revelations in Shipman’s book was that Cummings called Tory Brexiter MPs (remember, these were the ones on his side) the “flying monkeys”. Shipman wrote:

After Michael Heseltine’s attack on Boris Johnson, [Paul] Stephenson [VL’s communications director] remembered a conversation he had had with Cummings weeks before about how some of the more hotheaded Eurosceptics would have their uses at points in the campaign. Cummings, with his usual delicacy where MPs were concerned, had said, ‘We just need to kick the flying monkeys in the cage and release them at the right point.’ Now Stephenson went in search of a flying monkey to turn up the pressure on Cameron. He called Steve Baker [chair of Conservatives for Britain, now a Brexit minister] ...

Bradley says both post-Brexit customs options being considered by government have 'defects'

Kelvin Hopkins goes next.

Q: Which customs option do you prefer - the customs partnership or the “max fac” model?

Bradley says she thinks both could be made to work. But she is looking at both. She goes on:

There are defects with both.

She says there is no doubt that the customs partnership model, or the “hybrid model” as it is called, would make the border issue easier to solve.

Q: On the Andrew Marr Show Simon Coveney, the Irish deputy prime minister, said any infrastructure at the border would be unacceptable?

Bradley says she will not comment on that. The UK’s position is that there should be no new infrastructure.

Q: You are going to have to face them down. This is preposterous.

Bradley says she has stated the government’s position.

Sir Bill Cash goes next.

Q: When you say ‘no new infrastructure’, do you mean at the border, near the border, or anywhere?

Bradley says the government has been clear there will be no new physical infrastructure of checks at the border.

There are 270 crossings over the border, she says.

Some are unmarked roads.

The government has been clear it will not change anything at the border.

And it is clear why there won’t be new infrastructure at the border. There are a small number of people who would destroy that new infrastructure, she says.

She says it would not be right to speculate now on where new infrastructure might go when decisions about customs arrangements have not been taken.

Q: So the government is refusing to put up infrastructure because of blackmailing threats by dissidents?

Bradley says she does not accept that characterisation.

Q: Are you concerned about the negativity of the Irish government?

Bradley says it is important to respect the fact that politicians speak to different audiences. The Irish are speaking to their own electorate, she says.

Labour’s Kate Hoey goes next.

Q: Is a camera a hard border?

Bradley says the government has been clear that there will be no new physical infrastructure.

Q: There are cameras there already.

Bradley says the government does not want to see change.

Q: What about GPS?

Bradley says the government is looking at all options.

Andrew Lewer, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: What will happen if the EU do not agree to recognise UK regulations after Brexit?

Bradley says the government is in a negotiation.

But the Irish do not want a substantive border. There is the will to find a solution.

Q: But the commission has already said mutual recognition of regulations is not acceptable.

Bradley says this is a negotiation.

Labour’s Darren Jones goes next.

Q: How will the government maintain regulatory equivalence between Northern Ireland and the Republic after Brexit?

Bradley says this is something being looked at within government.

Q: There has been some suggestion that the border checks won’t be at the border. If they are not at the border, where would they be?

Bradley says the government is looking at this.

Q: Are there are examples in the world that give you hope for what might work in Ireland?

Bradley says there are many examples in the world. But this is a unique situation - Northern Ireland having a land border with the EU, but not with the rest of the UK. So there will have to be unique solutions.

Q: Are you not concerned about undermining the Good Friday agreement?

Bradley says she is working hard to find a solution.

Richard Drax, a Conservative, goes next. He says it is “disgraceful” that people are claiming thugs could return and pose a threat in the event of a hard border going up.

Bradley says there are a small number of people in Northern Ireland who are still committed to violence.

But she says she does not think using threats about the possibility of a return to violence is the right way to deal with this issue.

Q: Do you accept that there has been deliberate obfuscation on this? People are saying there must be no infrastructure on the border at all.

Bradley says the government’s position is that there should be no new physical infrastructure, and no new checks or controls at the border.

Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter who chairs the committee, opens by referring to a Sun column suggesting that Karen Bradley is currently the most powerful person on the government.

Bradley says Cash should not believe everything he reads in the papers.

Q: There is unrealistic thinking about what a hard border means. Some of this seems to be deliberately stoked up to preclude a solution. People are defining a hard border as including cameras. But cameras are already present on the Irish border. The location of these cameras are not disclosed. And if they are attacked, they are relocated. He says the EU’s own guidelines show flexible solutions to the border arrangement are possible. But Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has torpedoed these ideas. So would I be right in thinking you agree with this analysis, and that there are technical solutions to the border problem.

Bradley summarises the commitments given by the government.

It is committed to no hard border in Ireland, she says. That means no new physical infrastructure.

She says options have been put forward to address the issue.

Karen Bradley
Karen Bradley Photograph: Parliament TV

Karen Bradley gives evidence to European scrutiny committee

Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, is about to give evidence to the Commons European scrutiny committee.

You can watch the hearing here.

Nicky Morgan, the Conservative pro-European and chair of the Commons Treasury committee, has joined those saying that some form of post-transition transition may be necessary. In a wide-ranging interview with Prospect, she said:

Undoubtedly we are not going to be ready by the end of the transition period, I would say for quite a number of things. I mean particularly policing our customs.

I asked the PM that question at the end of a committee in March and she said, I think, to paraphrase, ‘as we know more on these things we discover that we need more time’.

Britain is at risk of missing the deadlines it should meet to ensure nuclear industry safeguards are in place after Brexit, Sky’s Faisal Islam reports. When the UK leaves the EU, it will also leave Euratom, the civil nuclear energy regulator. A replacement system is being put in place. But Islam has seen the government’s internal risk register showing that there are five high level risks - marked red on a green/amber/red scale.

Abbott says Labour would repeal all Tory 'hostile environment' immigration legislation

Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, has been giving a big speech on immigration policy this morning, prompted by the Windrush scandal. Here are the key points.

  • Abbott said Labour repeal all the immigration legislation underpinning the government’s “hostile environment” policy. When Theresa May was home secretary in 2012 she said she wanted to create “a really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants. The Home Office subsequently abandoned that phrase, and Sajid Javid, the new home secretary, has explicitly rejected that language. But he has not proposed to reverse any of May’s legislation. Abbott said:

The Windrush scandal goes to the very heart of Theresa May’s hostile environment policy – it was not accidental – it is a direct consequence of government policy.

The next Labour Government will repeal all those parts of the immigration legislation that were introduced to support it. We will rescind all Home Office instructions to carry it out, and we will remove all obligations on landlords, employers and others to enact it.

  • She said Labour would close the Yarl’s Wood and Brook House immigration detention centres.
  • She said Labour would end indefinite detention, limiting detention to 28 days.
  • She said Labour would use the £20m a year saved from the closure of the two detention centres to fund measures helping survivors of modern slavery.

Under the Tories, services for the most vulnerable women in society have been slashed again and again. So today I am announcing that Labour will take the millions that are used annually to fund Yarl’s Wood and Brook House immigration detention centres, and put this directly back into services to support the survivors of modern slavery, trafficking, and domestic violence.

Yarl’s Wood in particular has caused so much pain to vulnerable women that we should have been protecting. Diverting these resources directly to them is not only essential, but the right thing to do.

  • She said Labour would stop private firms running immigration detention centres.

This government and its predecessors have long had an obsession with enriching the private sector from the public purse. This is despite the costs, either financially, in shoddy service or in human misery.

So now we have the grotesque spectacle of G4S being rewarded for failure at Brook House. A firm which oversaw the appalling, brutal treatment of detainees, and was exposed by Panorama, continues to be rewarded for their cruelty. It beggars belief.

Labour will end this rotten system. Private firms have no business in detention.

Irish PM says UK's 'max fac' customs proposal less useful than a deodorant

In the Irish parliament yesterday Leo Vardakar, the Irish prime minister, said that the British government’s “maximum facilitation” customs proposal - the one favoured by Tory Brexiters - would be less useful than a deodorant. He made the comment after alluding to its “max fac” nickname, and it was partly a joke - although one that also reinforced how unimpressed he is by London’s thinking on customs. He told TDs (members of the Dail):

The customs partnership proposed by the United Kingdom last June would not be workable. That is very much the view of the task force and the EU27 and it has been rejected. I believe the customs partnership is closer to being made workable than the maximum facilitation proposal or max-fac which, as Deputy Joan Burton pointed out, I had thought was some form of make-up or deodorant. I have certainly not seen to date any detail that indicates that such a solution would be as functional as make-up or a deodorant. We are not drawing up any plan for a border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, full stop. There is not going to be one. I have made it very clear to my counterpart in the United Kingdom and the other EU Prime Ministers that under no circumstances will there be a border.

The full report is here, and the quote comes from Varadkar’s reply to Sean Haughey.

Here’s the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg on Vardakar’s comparison.

Leo Varadkar speaking in the Dail.
Leo Varadkar speaking in the Dail. Photograph: Dail/PA

Updated

Balls says idea US trade deal can make up for leaving customs union is 'complete fantasy'

This is what Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor, told the Today programme about the Harvard report he has co-authored (see 9.25am) saying the UK would not benefit from a post-Brexit trade deal with the US.

We’ve talked to many people on the record, but of course the senior negotiators at the USTR [US trade representative], the trade negotiator in America, in the Brexit department here, are more cautious about being on the record. But they were very clear with us that, first of all, the chances of doing a deal quickly are very low. Secondly, if we are outside the EU, our power to negotiate with the US is much lower. But also the kind of things that America would want, in terms of tariff reductions and changes in regulation, would be extremely difficult for British business and consumers to deal with. And the general view was, actually, it’s not really going to happen.

So if the idea is you leave the customs union and get the free trade agreement and that will be better, our conclusion is that is a complete fantasy.

Balls was also asked if he thought the UK should stay in the EEA after Brexit - the so-called Norway option, backed by the Lords and to be voted on by MPs in the Commons. He replied:

What David Cameron failed to deliver, and what we need, is a deal which allows Britain to trade with our main trading partner but to have control over the way in which we manage our borders and migration. That is the only way in which we can have a proper deal. And an EEA-style deal which allows that to happen would be a step forward.

Ed Balls.
Ed Balls. Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

UK won't benefit from free trade deal with US, say Harvard academics

Brexiters argue that the UK has to leave the EU customs union so that it can benefit from striking its own free trade deals with other countries and they generally argue that the biggest prize would be a juicy trade deal with the US. This led Michael Gove, in his rather sycophantic interview (paywall) with Donald Trump in January last year (when Gove was out of government) to ask for an assurance that the UK would be “at the front of the queue”. The UK was “doing great”, Trump replied elliptically, although Gove concluded that overall Trump was very positive about a deal.

But a new study, published by the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, says the UK won’t benefit from such a deal. It may well never happen, and even if it were to be signed, the UK would have to make so many concessions it could become politically unacceptable.

Six authors have contributed to the report but one of them will be very familiar to readers - Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor and now a research fellow at Harvard.

You can read the 57-page report in full here (pdf).

Here is the conclusion:

Despite the enthusiasm expressed by politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, officials directly involved, and experts with experience of such negotiations, express scepticism that a deal of any significance can be achieved ...

We can summarise the prospects and potential benefits of a US-UK FTA [free trade agreement] across five dimensions – strategic interest; timeline and capacity; tariffs; non-tariff barriers and regulations; and politics and negotiability – as in table 1 below. The conclusion is clear: a US-UK FTA is only going to happen if the UK makes concessions that are unlikely to be politically acceptable and in any case, promises relatively limited upside for UK business. However, the importance of such a deal to the overall Brexit narrative (and specifically, to the case for leaving the customs union) means that the Government is likely to continue to behave as if negotiating an attractive deal with the US remains a realistic possibility.

Here are three quotes from sources quoted in the conclusion.

Senior UK government official: “Personally, I am very doubtful about the ability of both governments to work through the domestic politics and political challenges of this deal.”

Senior US trade negotiator: “we already have a bilateral trade and investment working group with them [the UK] which means open and strong trading relations already exist, so it is unclear how much more there is realistically to gain.”

Professor Larry Summers, former US Treasury secretary: “It is delusional to think that a US-UK trade deal will happen anytime soon. It is simply not possible.”

And here is table 1, the chart from the report setting out the reasons why a good free trade deal is highly unlikely.

Issues affecting outcome of UK/US trade deal
Issues affecting outcome of UK/US trade deal Photograph: Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

Balls was on the Today programme talking about this. I will post some of his quotes soon.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, gives a speech on immigration.

10am: Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, launches the Lib Dem campaign in the Lewisham East byelection.

10.30am: Former MI5 director general Lord Evans of Weardale and former GCHQ director Robert Hannigan give evidence to a Lords committee about post-Brexit security cooperation.

10.45am: Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, gives evidence to the European scrutiny committee about Brexit.

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

2.15pm: Jeff Silvester, chief operating officers for AggregateIQ, gives evidence to the Commons culture committee as part of its fake news inquiry.

After 3.30pm: Peers have their final debate (the third reading) on the EU withdrawal bill.

Around 4pm: MPs begin a debate on a Labour motion that, if passed, would force the government to publish all its internal papers on its two proposed customs options.

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 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.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Footage Of Christopher Nolan At Universal CityWalk Hollywood Is Going Viral, And The Context Is Even Better
He wasn't there for the Voodoo Doughnuts.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Do Not Try This Egg Trend USDA and FDA Warn It Could Make You Sick
Social media platforms are filled with creative cooking hacks. Users share fast recipes and unique visual tricks to make meal prep entertaining. Sometimes these viral trends cross the line into dangerous territory. A recent breakfast trend is gaining millions of views online. Parents are freezing raw eggs in the shell…
Grocery Coupon Guide
Grocery Coupon Guide
Woman has parallel parking anxiety when she notices what all the men around her are doing: ‘My worst fear’
Ugh, we'd be mortified.
We Got This Covered
We Got This Covered
Amazon Nearly Made Eric Kripke Pull An Episode Of The Boys Last Season. So, What Happened?
This story is wild.
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
Whale watchers delighted as never seen before orcas arrive in Seattle
The visiting orcas have something that local whales don’t: circular scars left by cookie-cutter sharks, which latch on to larger animals and slice a chunk off them
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Kelly Osbourne fuels fresh romance speculation after sharing images of Kiinicki on social media
After her split from fiancé Sid Wilson, Kelly Osbourne has fuelled fresh romance speculation after sharing images of Kiinicki on social media.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play