Amber Rudd's Windrush evidence to home affairs committee - Summary
Here are the main points from Amber Rudd’s evidence to the home affairs committee about the Windrush scandal.
- Rudd, the home secretary, said she deeply regretted not spotting the problem of Windrush-generation Britons being wrongly targeted by immigration authorities. Asked when she first became aware of the issue, she said:
I became aware over the past few months, I would say, that there was a problem of individuals I was seeing.
This was covered by newspapers, and MPs bringing it forward anecdotally over the past three or four months, and I became aware that there was a potential issue.
I bitterly, deeply regret that I didn’t see it as more than individual cases gone wrong that needed addressing. I didn’t see it as a systemic issue until very recently.
There is more in our main story by Peter Walker and Pippa Crerar.
- Rudd rejected claims that the Home Office had targets for the removal of illegal immigrants. But while she was giving evidence her claim was contradicted by Lucy Moreton, general secretary of the ISU, the union for immigration service workers. At the end of the hearing MPs were left unsure as to who was telling the truth. (See 4.57pm, 5.54pm and 6.12pm.)
- Rudd rejected claims that the government’s target of getting annual net migration below 100,000 had contributed to the problem. When she was asked about the target, she replied:
I don’t think that’s got anything to do with it. It’s wrong to think the net migration target is the problem here. The problem here is that people were not properly documented.
Rudd is thought to be one of the many ministers sceptical about the target and last month, in evidence to the committee, she refused to confirm the government remained committed to the it. Asked this afternoon if she had discussed getting rid of it with Theresa May, she said she had not. Then she clarified what she meant, saying she has not discussed the issue with May in the context of Windrush, and that she did not want to comment further. (See 5.01pm.)
- Rudd said she could not waive fees for Windrush generation migrants needing citizenship documents until parliament passed new legislation. (See 5.33pm.
- She said that 7,000 cases had been checked, out of around 8,000, and that so far there was no evidence of any Windrush migrants being wrongly deported.
- She said the Home Office did not know how many Windrush migrants had been wrongly detained.
That’s all from me for tonight.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
This is from my colleague Amelia Gentelman, who broke the Windrush story and who has led the reporting on the issue.
#windrush important to remember that 10 days ago the gov thought this issue was sufficiently trivial that they thought fine to reject Caribbean diplomats' request for meeting
— amelia gentleman (@ameliagentleman) April 25, 2018
10 days on suddenly the Home Secretary keeps saying how upsetting she finds these stories. Odd.
Cooper says it sounds as if Rudd is saying that the only problem was that the Windrush people did not have the proof they needed.
Rudd does not recognise that the problem is with the system, with the way it demands a high level of information and does not allow a right of appeal, Cooper says.
Cooper says there are other similar problems coming down the track, for example with immigration detention. She says the system is not able to recognise when there is a problem. It must listen to individuals.
Rudd says she accepts the culture needs to change. She is starting that, she says.
And that’s it. The hearing is over.
I will post a summary soon.
Q: People have a lack of trust in a hotline that asks for their details before offering help. Will you fund a service providing independent advice?
Rudd says she has spoken to some people who have been dealing with the hotline. The best thing is it ensure they are treated properly. They do not need independent advice.
Q: A lot of people now do not trust the system in place.
Rudd asks if there is any evidence of that.
Cooper says the committee has heard evidence on this. And there have been articles in the Guardian.
Rudd says she will not rule it out, but she does not think it is the best way forward. She urges Cooper to visit the helpline herself to see how it is managing.
Yvette Cooper is winding up now.
She says the Home Office needs to explain what happened after some high commissioners raised this problem with the Foreign Office in 2015.
She asks which minister signed off the equality impact assessment relating to new immigration measures coming in in 2016. (This is the one that Alan Travis flagged up earlier. See 4.17pm.)
Rudd says she will look into this. But did that document mention Windrush?
Cooper says the Home Office should not be saying that, just because the hashtag #Windrush did not feature, they should not have been expected to spot the problem.
She says the Home Office should have identified this problem earlier.
Rudd accepts that.
The Labour MP Stephen Doughty asks about Lucy Moreton’s interview on Sky. (See 5.54pm.)
Rudd says she will have to come back to the committee. She did not see Moreton’s evidence.
Glynn Williams, director general responsible for border, immigration and citizenship, who is giving evidence alongside Rudd, says there are not targets.
The Home Office does keep figures that monitor performance.
He says these figures referred to could be the regional figures for the number of people who have been removed.
Doughty says there is a clear inconsistency here. He says the Home Office needs to clear this up and clarify what the situation really is.
Updated
Rudd says she wants to ensure that, while this problem is being sorted out, people do not face sanctions.
Q: Will you consider reversing the restrictions on legal aid affecting people in this group?
Rudd says she is not proposing this. Legal aid is not her responsibility anyway.
Q: Will you suspend hostile environment measures?
Rudd calls them compliant environment measures. She says they will stay in place. She says people in the UK, including people who have paid a lot of money to come to the country, are entitled to know that services go to people who have paid for them.
Rudd says she is planning to introduce a “minded to refuse” stage in the citizenship application process.
This would be a new stage. It would allow people to discuss problems with their applications. She says the intention would be to reduce the number of cases that go to appeal.
But asked if 'hostile environment' blurred lines between who should be targeted, Rudd says, "absolutely not".
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
Rudd now seems to be arguing the only reason the Windrush crisis has happened under current government is that other governments missed the problem. Rudd says she it is “disappointing no previous governments saw this coming".
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
What Rudd said a few minutes ago about callers to the Windrush helpline not facing immigration enforcement action if their application gets turned down (see 5.44pm) reflected what Theresa May said earlier at PMQs.
But the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants says on its Twitter feed that the person running the hotline has told it something different.
The claim @theresa_may made in the Commons today suggesting people would be safe from enforcement action if they call the Windrush helpline is not what the person running the hotline has told us. He said that decisions would be made on a case by case basis.
— JCWImmigrants (@JCWI_UK) April 25, 2018
Rudd says the scheme she has set up for Windrush migrants will cover all Commonwealth migrants affected by this problem, not just those from the Caribbean.
Immigration workers union says Home Office does have targets for removals - despite Rudd's denials
Lucy Moreton, general secretary of the ISU, the immigration workers union, has just told Sky News that the Home Office does have targets for the removal of illegal immigrants – contrary to what Rudd told the committee earlier. (See 4.57pm.) These are from Sky’s Faisal Islam.
It was the Immigration Services Union's Lucy Moreton who told the Committee from the same seats net removal target - "for removals targets its immigration enforcement - separated into regions"... Yes
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) April 25, 2018
NEW: "Net Removal targets certainly do exist, and I'm somewhat bemused as to why the Home Secretary would say they do not exist" says ISU's Lucy Moreton to @Skynews - indeed she tells me the number - 8,337
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) April 25, 2018
... further tells me that they were broken down by region, and the net removal targets appeared on posters all around the Home Office locations
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) April 25, 2018
Updated
Rudd says she is getting daily updates.
She says at the moment cases are being processed very quickly.
She says the Home Office is also covering people’s costs if they need to travel to an immigration centre.
Q: Can you guarantee that anyone who applies for help from the helpline who has their application turned down will not face immigration proceedings.
Rudd says she can give that assurance. This process will not be used for immigration enforcement, she says.
- Rudd says people who contact Windrush helpline will not be subject to immigration enforcement if their application fails.
Updated
Alan Travis, the Guardian’s former home affairs editor, thinks the Home Office guidance issued today (see 5.28pm) may not help.
Not sure this Home Office guidance updated today to landlords on undocumented Commonwealth citizens right to rent property is actually going to help. Seems to expect them to check if somebody has been for 30 years and raises a doubt about anyone who is a more recent migrant. pic.twitter.com/Bgiab1ZasZ
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) April 25, 2018
Shah says she has a constituent called Elizabeth Farnham who has clear documentary evidence showing she is here legally. But she is still being affected.
Q: Is an apology enough for these people?
No, says Rudd. That is why she is setting up a compensation scheme.
She says Farnham sounds like the sort of person who should be calling the hotline.
Q: Will you set up more hotlines if needed?
Rudd says she will make sure it has sufficient resources. If necessary, she will allocate more people to the hotline.
She says, so far, it has taken 1,300 calls overall.
Q: Will you waive fees for migrants who came here in the 1973 to 1988 cohort?
Rudd says she is looking at that. She says she is also considering the case for reduced fees.
- Rudd says she is considering waiving or reducing fees for migrants who arrived between 1973 and 1988 who want to get citizenship documents.
Updated
Rudd says she cannot waive fees for Windrush generation until parliament passes new legislation
Labour’s Naz Shah says she has constituents affected by this. They have been told that fees cannot be waived yet, because parliament has to legislate for this.
Rudd confirms that is the case. She says she hopes Labour will back the legislation.
- Rudd says she cannot waive fees for Windrush generation until parliament passes new legislation.
Updated
Rudd says she has met Home Office caseworkers. They do their best to be sympathetic and helpful, she says.
Home Office issues guidance to landlords and employers on rules affecting Windrush migrants
The Home Office has published guidance for landlords and employers seeking to rent property or hire people from the Windrush generation. As the Press Association reports, right to work and rent checks, which require migrants to show they have a legal right to be in the country, have come under sharp focus in the wake of the scandal. The new guidance sets out advice for landlords wishing to rent residential property in England to Commonwealth citizens who are long-term residents but do not have documents to demonstrate their status. It says that if a prospective tenant has lived in the UK permanently since before 1973 and has not been away for long periods in the last 30 years, they have the right to be here and to rent property.
Updated
Rudd says she saw there was a problem with a series of individuals. But she failed to see that this was as systemic problem, she says.
Rudd says the public expects the Home Office to make a clear distinction between migrants in the UK legally and those here illegally. What went wrong here is that Windrush migrants were treated as if they were illegal.
Updated
Rudd says she is not planning to change the legal aid rules to help Windrush migrants secure their rights. (This was another of the questions in the committee’s letter - pdf).
But she says the Windrush migrants should not need legal aid. The Home Office taskforce should be able to give them the help they need, she says.
Updated
May loses Lords vote on EU withdrawal bill as peers back tougher controls on ministerial regulatory powers
Turning away from the hearing for a moment, the government has lost the vote in the Lords. (See 4.35pm.) The Press Association has snapped these.
The government has suffered another heavy defeat in the House of Lords over its flagship Brexit legislation as peers backed stricter controls on ministerial regulation-making powers.
Voting was 349 to 221, majority 128, for a cross-party amendment to the European Union withdrawal bill.
It is the sixth defeat suffered by ministers since the bill’s report stage started just a week ago.
Rudd admits she should have realised sooner Windrush was systemic problem
Q: The Guardian’s Amelia Gentleman wrote earlier this week how she has been raising these cases with the Home Office almost weekly for the last six months. Yet you say you did not realise this a systemic problem. How come?
Rudd says the Home Office gets lots of reports from journalists. She goes on:
I look back with hindsight and I’m surprised I did not see the shape of it sooner.
- Rudd admits that she should have realised sooner that there was a systemic problem with Windrush migrants.
But she says she agrees that Gentleman has done an “extraordinary job”.
Updated
Q: Have you asked the prime minister to get rid of the net migration target?
Rudd says she has not discussed that with the PM. But she won’t comment further on her conversations with Theresa May.
She says she does not want to be drawn into discussing the immigration target.
She says Cooper is wrong to suggest the net migration target is the problem.
I don’t think that’s got anything to do with it. It’s wrong to think the net migration target is the problem here. The problem here is that people were not properly documented.
The Labour MP John Woodcock asks Rudd to clarify what she means. Is she saying she has not discussed this with May, or that she can’t comment?
Rudd says she has not discussed the net migration target with May in the context of the Windrush affair.
Updated
Rudd rejects claims the Home Office has targets for removal of illegal immigrants
Q: Some people have been locked up as a result of this. Paulette Wilson was locked up in Yarl’s Wood. Who interviewed her?
Rudd says she does not know.
Q: I heard she was not interviewed at all.
Rudd says she was “shocked” by this case. She has put in checks to make sure this does not happen again. Decisions will get referred to more senior case workers. And she wants to stop elderly people being locked up.
Q: We’ve been told that personal testimony is not taken as evidence.
Rudd says she is surprised by that. That should not happen. She is setting up a call centre so that people can speak to someone.
Q: When were targets for removals set?
Rudd says there are no targets.
Q: We have heard evidence from a previous witness that there are regional targets.
Rudd says that is not how the Home Office operates.
- Rudd rejects claims the Home Office has targets for the removal of illegal immigrants.
Glynn Williams, director general responsible for border, immigration and citizenship, who is giving evidence with Rudd, says there are no targets.
Cooper says it is very serious if there are targets and people do not know about them.
Rudd says it is not true that she has asked for more removals to take place.
The Labour MP Stephen Doughty says Lucy Moreton, general secertary of the ISU border officials union, did tell the committee in the session earlier that there were targets.
Cooper quotes a witness saying some illegal migrants were treated as “low-hanging fruit”.
Rudd says that is extraordinary. Who would refer to people as “low-hanging fruit”?
Cooper says this is what happens if people are under pressure to hit targets.
Rudd says she does not accept that characterisation. She says her staff are more sympathetic than that.
Updated
Cooper is quoting an individual case. A father had his child benefit cut, even though he was in the UK legally. He had two daughters. He had to rely on food banks.
Rudd says, if the individual lost out, she would expect him to get compensation.
Updated
Rudd says a caseworker now should be able to engage with a claimant personally.
Cooper quotes a case involving someone who arrived on someone else’s passport.
Q: What is different now in the way the rules are enforced?
Rudd says she is now putting in place a more personal service.
Q: But you are not changing the burden of proof?
Rudd says she is changing the burden of proof for the pre-1973 case. She is giving the Home Office a more proactive role; it will set out to help people. It will check records itself. It won’t just be reactive.
Updated
Rudd says she only realised there was systemic problem with Windrush migrants very recently
Q: When did you become aware of the problem?
Rudd says she became aware over the last few months.
She thought it was a matter of a few individual cases.
She says she deeply regrets that she did not realise it was a systemic problem until very recently.
I became aware that there was a potential issue. I bitterly, deeply regret that I didn’t see it as more than individual cases that had gone wrong that needed addressing. I didn’t see it as a systemic issue until very recently.
- Rudd says she only realised there was a systemic problem with Windrush migrants very recently.
Updated
Rudd says she has sent out guidance to NHS England about Windrush migrants who may have lost access to healthcare.
If people have been affected, they should make their case to the independent compensation scheme.
Rudd says Home Office does not know yet how many Windrush migrants were wrongly detained
Q: How many people were detained?
Rudd says she gave orders saying no one should be removed.
Stopping removals is her priority, she says.
Q: But how many people have been detained?
Rudd says she is not sure how far back the committee wants to go.
Cooper says the last few years, and as far back as is reasonably possible.
Rudd says she will come back with a proposal.
- Rudd says Home Office does not know yet how many Windrush migrants were wrongly detained.
Amber Rudd questioned by home affairs committee about Windrush
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is giving evidence now.
Yvette Cooper starts by saying Rudd’s letter to the committee does not answer most of the 23 questions posed by the committee. (See 4pm.)
Rudd starts by paying tribute to the individuals and journalists who brought this issue to public attention, and to David Lammy.
She says she is ready to answer most of the questions in the letter.
Rudd says the key question is - has anyone been wrongly deported.
- Rudd says 7,000 cases have been checked, but so far no evidence has been found of anyone being wrongly deported.
The process is still going on, she says.
Updated
In the House of Lords peers are voting on an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill. It is amendment 31, which would restrict the power of ministers to pass secondary legislation under the bill, saying they can only do so when “necessary” not (as it says in the bill at the moment) when “appropriate”.
More from the Treasury committee. This is from the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn.
Philip Hammond hints a few EU countries (eg Austria, Italy) are holding back the rest from following the US with sanctions on Kremlin-linked oligarchs: “One is required to build a consensus of 28, which frankly means operating at the lowest common denominator” #TSC
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) April 25, 2018
In the committee hearing Satbir Singh, the chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, has just said that, despite being born in the UK, he was recently asked if he was a legal immigrant when he went recently to lease a flat. He said that he had sent his passport away to get a visa and so could not prove his nationality. He could not let the flat, he said.
These are from Alan Travis, until recently the Guardian’s home affairs editor.
I hope Amber Rudd will be challenged at @commonshomeaffairs this afternoon over this warning from one of her own senior civil servants that older non-UK born British residents would face problems from hostile environment measures because their immigration docs had been destroyed. https://t.co/8C7N7pRGtm
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) April 25, 2018
Home Office officials knew the immigration documents of some older non-UK born British residents had been destroyed and would have problems in the face of hostile environment measures.
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) April 21, 2018
This from the 2015 official equality policy statement on 2016 'right to rent checks'. pic.twitter.com/D9FtXQeUjU
Also cites concerns that "the majority of the UK's lawful residents, including lawful and settled migrants....particularly those who may struggle to produce official documents."
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) April 21, 2018
Signed off by Philipa Rouse, who is now director of borders, immigration & citizenship systems policy. pic.twitter.com/pyck1GMqGu
Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has just started giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee. The Mirror’s Dan Bloom is watching, and fears he may be in for a trying afternoon.
Philip Hammond opens his Treasury Committee hearing by saying: "I haven’t set a date for the autumn budget yet, but I can reveal it will be in the Autumn." It's going to be a long bloody afternoon.
— Dan Bloom (@danbloom1) April 25, 2018
My colleague Peter Walker has more from the hearing.
Fascinating Home Affairs committee hearing going on now where immigration/border experts are explaining how a "decision-making culture of suspicion" has helped create the Windrush crisis.https://t.co/qdZ4E4LUcm
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
Lucy Moreton, who heads immigration workers' union, ISU, tells committee that until 2011-ish officials could decide status of Windrush-era people by getting them to talk about events like '77 jubilee and '76 drought: "That level of discretion is no longer permitted."
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
Satbir Singh, head of Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, says Windrush people were affected by both “inflexible and unrealistic evidentiary burdens" and legal aid cuts, making it harder to challenge. Those who got help often did by "luck", eg through the media.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
Singh tells committee that concerns about impact of 'hostile environment' policy were raised with Home Office & FCO, but not acted on: “I think there was a political decision taken that the costs were not sufficient that we need to be concerned.”
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
On its website the home affairs committee has published the text (pdf) of a letter it sent to Amber Rudd, the home secretary, last week with 23 questions about Windrush policy.
Today it has also posted the text of the reply from Rudd (pdf). Rudd’s reply does not address the questions in detail, but she says she will provide an update to the committee.
Updated
The hearing has just started.
Lucy Moreton, general secretary of the ISU border officials union, says the Windrush scandal has been caused by a series of decisions. Individually, they might each be defensible, but cumulatively they have created a problem, she says.
Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, highlights the net migration target as a problem. He says people’s evidence is not being listened to, even though personal testimony ought to be a primary form of evidence.
Satbir Singh, the chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, also criticises the net migration target (getting annual net migration below 100,000.) It has led to people being treated in a manner that has been universally condemned, he says.
Updated
Home affairs committee takes evidence on Windrush migrants
The Commons home affairs committee is about to start its hearing on the Windrush scandal.
The first three witnesses are: Adrian Berry, chair of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association; Lucy Moreton, general secertary of the ISU border officials union (who was interviewed about this on Today last week); and Satbir Singh, chief executive of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is due to give evidence at 4.30pm.
In a statement before the hearing Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP who chairs the committee, said:
We still have so many unanswered questions. It is appalling that so many of the Windrush children should have been treated in this way. We need to know what is going to be done on compensation for people that have lost jobs, homes, livelihoods or even been locked up as a result. And we need to know what is going to change.
Although the home secretary has said that the Windrush scandal should cause a culture change in the Home Office, we still don’t have clear answers about how things went so badly wrong or how something similar could be prevented in the future. Nor do we have enough details about how wider policies are going to be addressed, and how they are going to make sure other legal residents aren’t treated in the same way.
Updated
Len McCluskey accuses 'dismal' Labour MPs of 'smearing' Corbyn over antisemitism
Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and Jeremy Corbyn’s most powerful ally in the trade union movement, has launched a blistering attack on those Labour MPs who have criticised Corbyn for not doing enough to tackle antisemitism. In an article for the New Statesman, he says some MPs are “working overtime trying to present the Labour party as a morass of misogyny, antisemitism and bullying”. He also says their behaviour has strengthened the case for mandatory reselection.
The full McCluskey article does not appear to be online yet, but George Eaton has written up the highlights here. Here is an extract from Eaton’s article. Eaton says that McCluskey:
Condemns the “few” antisemites in Labour (“any is too many”) and argues that “combating their views is not merely legitimate, but essential”. McCluskey adds: “I have fought antisemitism and antisemites all my life, including physically on the streets on occasion, and I need no lectures from anyone else on the subject. I am not sure that some of the voluble backbench critics of Jeremy Corbyn can say as much.”
Denounces Labour MPs “such as Chris Leslie, Neil Coyle (my own MP), John Woodcock, Wes Streeting, Ian Austin and others” as “a dismal chorus whose every dirge makes winning a Labour government more difficult”. He accuses them of “working overtime trying to present the Labour party as a morass of misogyny, antisemitism and bullying”.
Writes that he “understands” why there is “a growing demand for mandatory reselection” of Labour MPs and warns that “promiscuous critics” who “wish to hold Corbyn to account can expect to be held to account themselves”.
In his article McCluskey also says:
You would have to go back a long way to find such a sustained smearing by MPs of their own leader and their own party as we are seeing now ...
Their determination to divide the party into pro- and anti-Corbyn factions, despite the huge increase in Labour’s vote secured last year ... ultimately pollutes everything it touches. That includes the work against antisemitism ...
To watch as these so-called social democrats tried to demean and attack, in front of our enemy, a decent and honourable man who has fought racism and antisemitism all his life and who has breathed life and hope back into the hearts of millions, especially the young, made my stomach churn. To see Tory MPs cheer and applaud them was shameful.
UPDATE: Here is the full McCluskey article.
Updated
Lunchtime summary
- Davis has said that MPs will be able to amend the “meaningful vote” resolution being put to a vote in the autumn asking the Commons to back the Brexit withdrawal agreement and that the government will respect the result. (See 11.55am.) Afterwards Chuka Umunna, the Labour MP and a spokesman for the People’s Vote campaign, said Davis’s comment was significant because it meant a second referendum was possible. He said:
David Davis has opened the door to parliament agreeing to the demand that we get a people’s vote on the final Brexit deal.
His admission that the government will have to respect any decision by parliament to amend any motion or legislation on the final Brexit deal makes it clear that while Brexit is a big deal, it’s not a done deal.
Now that a member of the cabinet has told parliament that MPs have the power to order a people’s vote, the government have finally recognised their previous claim that MPs only have a choice between their deal and no deal is dead and buried.
Brexit is too important to be left to 650 MPs at Westminster - the 65 million people of the UK deserve to be heard too.
- Theresa May has urged the Scottish government to reconsider its opposition to key Brexit legislation in the wake of “considerable changes” by the UK government. With Welsh ministers having now agreed a compromise deal over the EU withdrawal bill, May said it was “disappointing” that ministers at Holyrood had not also backed the plan, that will determine how powers being repatriated from Brussels relating to policy matters that are devolved are shared between London and the devolved administrations. Speaking at PMQs May said:
We have made considerable changes to the bill to reflect issues raised by members and by the devolved administrations. It is indeed disappointing that the Scottish government have not yet felt able to add their agreement to the new amendments and we sincerely hope they will reconsider their position.
- One in five charities and nearly half of businesses in the UK have been hit by a cyber security breach or attack in the last year, government figures have revealed.
Updated
Scottish government minister accuses Cambridge Analytica of lying over SNP contacts claims
Mike Russell, the Scottish Brexit minister, has accused the data firm Cambridge Analytica of lying after the company disputed Scottish National party claims their contacts were restricted to a single meeting.
In a statement issued on Tuesday afternoon, Cambridge Analytica bolstered claims by its former executive Brittany Kaiser to the Commons culture committee last week of numerous contacts between it and the SNP in February 2016 – claims the SNP has continued to deny.
It stated they spoke to two SNP representatives “on a number of occasions in early 2016. These contacts included the SNP’s initial approach to us, a conference call, a meeting in London, a number of emails and a further phone call. Our discussions were about providing the party with a platform to help manage their data.
“The SNP were keen to work with us, but they said that the timing was not right.”
Nicola Sturgeon and her husband Peter Murrell, who is the SNP’s chief executive, have faced heavy criticism for failing to disclose even to its own parliamentarians that it had met Cambridge Analytica, even though its MPs led attacks at Westminster on the Conservatives over their links to the data company and its parent SCL.
The SNP has continued to insist only one meeting took place and finally admitted it was with its former new data guru Kirk Torrance, but only after he was outed by the news website CommonSpace on Monday.
Neither Torrrance nor the SNP has said what the meeting was about and what information was shared.
Challenged on BBC Radio Scotland, Russell said the firm’s claims were a “smokescreen” to deflect attention from other controversies. He said:
The situation with the SNP is entirely clear and I repeat it. A meeting was set up in London, one person attended on the SNP’s behalf and attempts by the company to follow up the meeting weren’t reciprocated.
The SNP has never worked with Cambridge Analytica, used any of its services or paid them a penny. And why? Because they are cowboys and clearly we now know they are lying cowboys.
Neil Findlay, Scottish Labour’s campaign director, said the SNP had to respond with far more candour. “This version of events directly contradicts what the SNP has been saying for a week now – and what Nicola Sturgeon said at first minister’s questions on Thursday,” he said.
PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
This is what political commentators and journalists are saying about PMQs.
Views as to whether Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn won are pretty mixed, but there does seem to be general consensus that the best Windrush question was Yvette Cooper’s.
From the Daily Mail’s Jason Beattie
My snap verdict on #PMQs: Jeremy Corbyn fails to press home advantage as Theresa May flails on Windrushhttps://t.co/yVp1ssN2jG pic.twitter.com/HCLLAjrEqa
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror) April 25, 2018
From the Guardian’s Heather Stewart
Felt like a win for JC today: his tone of righteous anger feels entirely appropriate for the Windrush scandal; and May struggled to justify her claim that the public want her to be tough on migrants - just not *these* migrants.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) April 25, 2018
Blistering question from Yvette Cooper, whom PM quoted as supporting an immigration crackdown. “Do not hide behind me...do not hide behind ministers...do not hide behind civil servants,” when net migration target is to blame.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) April 25, 2018
From the New Statesman’s Anoosh Chakelian
PMQs review by @Anoosh_C: Corbyn put May in the uncomfortable position of both apologising for and defending her attitude towards migrantshttps://t.co/sCalTJyimk
— The Staggers (@TheStaggers) April 25, 2018
From the Sun’s Harry Cole
Corbyn seems unable to differentiate between British citizens and illegal immigrants. After last week’s belter, back to shouty, scripted and wasted PMQs. https://t.co/ndsDJxDQJJ
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) April 25, 2018
From the Guardian’s Peter Walker
I thought Theresa May seemed extraordinarily tone deaf over Windrush at #PMQs. Talked about the scandal throughout as if it was some unfortunate act of God, entirely unconnected with specific immigration policies. She really doesn't sound like she gets it.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) April 25, 2018
From LabourList’s Sienna Rodgers
PMQs: May fails again to get a grip on the Windrush crisis https://t.co/lzMPs9UjcA
— LabourList (@LabourList) April 25, 2018
From Sky’s Adam Boulton
COMMENT the Maybot was match for JC's onslaught, though JC's clips will play well.
— Adam Boulton (@adamboultonSKY) April 25, 2018
From the Times’ Patrick Kidd
PMQs unedifying as ever. Corbyn-May exchange amounted to him saying “you hate immigrants” and her saying “only illegal ones” over and over. He got a slight cheer for saying Rudd should resign but otherwise a waste of time. Cooper v Rudd at 2.15 should be better
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) April 25, 2018
A very angry Yvette Cooper gives May the proper kicking that Corbyn failed to deliver. “Do not try to hide behind others when she set the culture in home office that led to this.” It would have been even better if Labour backbenchers had been quiet as she said it
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) April 25, 2018
From HuffPost’s Owen Bennett
This #pmqs is a real low point for these two leaders. Arguing across each other. Corbyn's bowling all over the place, May just swinging her bat about. Pointless. Awful.
— Owen Bennett (@owenjbennett) April 25, 2018
I actually think May came out of that ahead of Corbyn. #pmqs
— Owen Bennett (@owenjbennett) April 25, 2018
From the i’s Nigel Morris
Classic example of May v Corbyn at #PMQs being a dialogue of the deaf
— Nigel Morris (@NigelpMorris) April 25, 2018
From the Times’ Henry Zeffman
Not sure May tactic of quoting ex-Labour ministers and shadow ministers backing immigration crackdowns really works. Corbyn consistency opposed them, and his supporters know that
— Henry Zeffman (@hzeffman) April 25, 2018
From the Sun’s Steve Hawkes
Sign of how bad PMQs has been that some appear unsure if Corbyn demanded the PM or Amber Rudd resign
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) April 25, 2018
From the Daily Mirror’s Dan Bloom
Yvette Cooper (quoted by the PM earlier) swoops in with fire and fury, telling May to stop blaming civil servants, her Cabinet, and the Labour Party. Roars in the chamber as May attempts the utmost calm to reply: "Nobody is trying to blame anybody". #PMQs
— Dan Bloom (@danbloom1) April 25, 2018
From the Spectator’s James Forsyth
Cooper’s question just put Corbyn’s performance in perspective
— James Forsyth (@JGForsyth) April 25, 2018
How Corbyn called for Rudd's resignation
Reading Twitter, it is clear that some people thought Jeremy Corbyn was calling for Theresa May’s resignation at the end of PMQs. But, as I heard it (and my Guardian colleagues), he was calling for Amber Rudd’s resignation.
This is what he actually said:
Mr Speaker, we’re talking about the environment created by her as home secretary for six years when she knew full well, she knew full well of the problems the Windrush generation were facing. At last she’s been forced to act upon it.
Last week the current home secretary admitted the Home Office sometimes loses sight of the individual. Yet we now know that when she took over from her predecessor her intent was to harden this cruel and misdirected policy pledging to do so ruthlessly.
A report last month by immigration officials stated the hostile environment measures were not even having the desired effect.”
The current home secretary inherited a failing policy and made it worse. Isn’t it time she took responsibility and resigned?
I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
Updated
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, used his questions to ask about Brexit. He said business groups and most MPs wanted the UK to stay in the customs union. The government was being led by Brexiteers, he said.
Theresa May said people voted to leave the single market and the customs union at the referendum.
Blackford said the government’s own analysis showed the economy would suffer if the UK left the customs union. He said the government was putting jobs, living standards and the Good Friday agreement second.
May said Scottish businesses wanted Scotland to stay in the UK. The SNP should listen to that, she said.
John Baron, a Conservative, asks about a cancer funding issue.
May says she will look into the matter he raises.g
And PMQs is over. That lasted 50 minutes, which must be close to a record.
Labour’s David Lammy asks what compensation will be available to a constituent of his who was unable to work for seven years because he did not have the right documentation. And he says some Windrush migrants do not trust the hotline.
May says details of the compensation scheme will be announced soon. There is no question of taking enforcement action against people who ring the hotline, she says.
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, asks May if she still thinks no deal is better than a bad deal, and if she agrees staying in the customs union would be a very bad deal.
May says she does still think no deal is better than a bad deal. And she is opposed to staying in the customs union.
Yvette Cooper, the Labour MP, says May quoted her. She says May should not try to hide behind her. She says May was warned repeatedly about the damage her policies would cause. May should not hide behind her officials or her cabinet either. What did May do when she was warned about her policies. Some time ago she said she was sick and tired of ministers who try to blame others. What has changed?
Coooper is referring to his quote.
In 2004 Theresa May said "I find it extraordinary that a Minister isn’t willing just to step up to the plate and take responsibility... I’m actually sick and tired of Government Ministers who simply blame other people when something goes wrong".
— David Lammy (@DavidLammy) April 19, 2018
I agree. pic.twitter.com/zv2Dlx6Q8B
May says people are in difficulty because they do not have documents. The government is trying to help. Governments of every colour, including Cooper, have taken action against illegal immigrants, she says.
The Lib Dem leader Sir Vince Cable says there is a concern that, if the Home Office cannot deal properly with the Windrush generation, it will not be able to process the 3m EU nationals who need to stay. Why is the Home Office trying to stop people accessing their data.
May says Cable is wrong on the data point. And she says there is a difference between the two cases. The Windrush cases relate to people without documentation. The government is ensuring the EU nationals do have the right documentation.
Will Quince, a Conservative, asks about a scheme to help bereaved parents.
May says she recognises the importance of bereavement counselling.
Dan Carden, the Labour MP, says a disabled constituent who saw his benefit cut when he transferred from DLA to PIP had to hand back his mobility scooter. He is having to wait nine months for his appeal, he says.
May says she will make sure the DWP is aware of this case.
Andrea Jenkyns, a Conservative, says an extra 1.8m children are now taught in good or outstanding schools.
May says there are in fact now 1.9m children being taught in good or outstanding schools.
Labour’s Lucy Powell asks May to praise Manchester’s Labour council for building affordable home despite the government’s funding restrictions.
May says she is pleased affordable homes are being build. The government is working with Manchester council and the combined authority, she says.
Mark Pawsey, a Conservative, asks May if she agrees children being home schooled get a proper education.
May says she agrees. The educations secretary is looking at this, she says.
May congratulates people who have signed up to be organ donors.
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - Snap verdict: For many listeners that may have been a confusing PMQs to follow, because for much of it Corbyn and May appeared to be talking at complete cross purposes, but there was no escaping the fact that May was dodging legitimate and awkward questions about the impact of her policies as home secretary and Corbyn successfully had her wriggling. He repeatedly asked why she ignored warnings about the impact her “hostile environment” strategy would have on Windrush generation migrants, and she couldn’t answer. Instead she more or less ignored the points he was making and kept trying to bring the exchanges back to the issue of illegal immigration, not legal, Windrush-era immigration. It may well be the case that there is more public support for May than Labour MPs (or Guardian readers) would care to admit when she says the public do want to see government crack down on illegal immigration. And Corbyn’s firm questioning took a slightly odd turn right at the end, when he threw in a surprise call for Amber Rudd’s resignation after an exchange that had focused on May’s own culpability. But, overall, May was very much on the defensive and her efforts to defend herself against Corbyn by quoting Liam Byrne and Yvette Cooper against him was a strategy doomed to failure. You won’t find “controls on immigration” mugs on sale at Labour HQ anymore, and there is a very good reason why Cooper is no longer shadow home secretary. Corbyn can’t be held to responsible for Labour immigration policy pre-2015; he opposed it as strongly as anyone.
Updated
Corbyn says May in 2013 said she wanted to create a really hostile environment for migrants. He says there would be no compensation if it were not for campaigning by Labour MPs. He says the withdrawal of legal aid made it harder for migrants to challenge government policy. Can May tell us the hostile environment is over and the immigration targets will be scrapped?
May says the Windrush generation are British. Dealing with those people who are here illegally is different, she suggests. She says in 2013 the then shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper, said much stronger action was needed by government to bring illegal immigration down. She repeats the point about the Windrush generation being legally. She says the public want government to deal with illegal immigration.
Corbyn says we are talking about the climate created by May when she was home secretary. She knew full well the problems she was creating. Amber Rudd said last week the Home Office sometimes loses sight of the individual. But we know know she wanted tighter rules. The current home secretary has taken a policy and made it worse. Isn’t it time she took responsibility and resigned?
May says up and down this country people want the government to take action against people here illegally. The government wants to help those here legally. We welcomed the Windrush generation. We need to ensure they remain here. But the government also needs to take action against people here illegally. If Corbyn wants to talk about fairness, let’s look at what Labour would do. It would tax people and destroy jobs. It is not a Labour government that would be kind to anybody.
Corbyn says May ignored warning from Labour MPs about the impact her policies would have on Windrush generation migrants.
May says these people have a right to be here. But they were not documented, she says. She says Corbyn is talking about policies aimed at people here illegally. The Windrush case relates to people here legally. She quotes various measures taken by Labour to crack down on illegal immigration.
Corbyn says May want to get away from the Windrush migrants issue. She says the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned about the dangers of the Immigration Act. Will May review the legislation?
May says this is a generation that came here prior to 1973. She accuses Labour of ignoring the facts. The government is not ignoring the problems facing the Windrush generation. The Home Office has set up a taskforce to help them. The government will give them citizenship recognising their citizenship. The problem is that prior to 1973 these migrants were not given documents.
Jeremy Corbyn also congratulates the Royals and comments on Stephen Lawrence. Institutional racism must be driven out wherever it occurs, he says.
Turning to the Windrush generation, he says there is a lack of trust. Can he confirm those denied work and benefits will be fully compensated?
May agrees with what Corbyn said about stamping out racism “in every form”.
On Windrush, she repeats the offer made by Amber Rudd on Monday, summarising the proposals announced. There will be a compensation scheme, she says. Everyone can see - the Labour benches are shaking their heads, she says - people know the Windrush generation are British.
Corbyn says it is not an act of generosity to give people rights that are theirs.
He says an internal Home Office memo from when Theresa May was home secretary talked about creating a hostile environment and the possible dangers. Why did May ignore them?
May quotes someone talking about the need to create a hostile environment for illegal immigrants. It was Liam Byrne when he was a shadow immigration minister. He is now on the Labour front bench, she says.
May says she is pleased to have reached an agreement with the Welsh government on the allocation of devolved powers after Brexit. It is disappointing the Scottish government does not agree, she says.
Gavin Robinson, the DUP MP, asks about economic aid for Northern Ireland.
May says this is an important issue. The government has made several commitments to city deals in Northern Ireland, she says. She says she looks forward to seeing new proposals. But, without a Northern Ireland executive, there are issues to resolve.
Theresa May starts by congratulating the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on their baby.
And she says MPs will want to make the anniversary of Stephen Lawrence’s death.
PMQs
PMQs is starting soon.
Here's the list of MPs chosen to ask questions at PMQs today. pic.twitter.com/w9EQPpJdMd
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) April 25, 2018
Davis Davis's evidence to the Commons Brexit committee - Summary
Here are the main points from David Davis’s evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.
- Davis, the Brexit secretary, said the government wants to finalise its trade treaty with the EU before Brexit happens. The government and the EU have agreed to negotiate a withdrawal agreement by the autumn, including a “political declaration” giving the outline of a future trade deal. The EU cannot sign a trade deal until after the UK has left on 29 March 2019 and EU officials have repeatedly signalled that they expect this process to take months or years. But Davis told the committee that it was not the government’s intention to allow negotiations on the trade treaty to spill over into the transition period. He said there were six months between October 2018 and March 2019 when the trade deal could get finalised.
Various important players have made it very plain that they want the substantive future partnership [declaration in October] to be very detailed, Angela Merkel has said that, even in October. So there’s no reason why we can’t turn a very detailed substantive arrangement into a treaty before the end of the article 50 period.
- He conceded that article 50 could be extended. If that were to happen, the UK would not leave the EU on 29 March 2019. This has always technically been the case, but ministers have been very reluctant to admit this in public, because they don’t want it to be seen as a policy option. Davis freely admitted article 50 could be extended, although he said all EU states would have to agree for this to happen. (See 9.50am.) This is from Business Insider’s Adam Payne.
Here's that McFadden vs Davis Brexit committee exchange in full. Davis admits extending Article 50 is an option after previously saying it was "impossible". pic.twitter.com/qbhkax8QSe
— Adam Payne (@adampayne26) April 25, 2018
- He said the EU referendum was “not primarily decided on economic matters”. He said:
The referendum was not primarily decided on economic matters. It was decided on control of our own destiny. That was what it was really about.
- He said that the government wanted a solution to the Irish border problem involving “outcome alignment” rather than regulatory alignment. He told the committee:
We do not see full alignment as harmonisation, we see it in outcome terms. What we are looking for is a recognition/stroke/outcome alignment.
The biggest area is almost certainly agriculture. We may well see changes over time, slowly in agricultural regulation but at no point are we aiming to see a reduction in our animal health standards for example … So we expect to have alignment to “as good as” and “recognisable as good as” ...
Commenting on this, my colleague Lisa O’Carroll says:
The phrase amounts to a linguistic rebranding of Britain’s disagreement with the EU over how to avoid a hard border requiring checks on live animals and food stuffs in particular.
British agricultural regulations are widely expected to change if the government succumbs to pressure from the US to do a deal that includes agriculture, raising the prospect of chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef to be sold in Northern Ireland.
The EU has already told the UK it will not agree to future regulatory divergence model in Ireland. It has also said as it cannot police farms and food processing and pharmaceutical plants in third countries, divergence is not a viable solution.
- Davis dismissed reports that the EU has set June as a deadline for a final decision on the Irish border issue. When this was put to him, he said:
In negotiations, people try to set up deadlines - sometimes artificial deadlines - to put pressure on an element of the negotiation which they think is in their favour.
He said he agreed with the Irish taioseach, Leo Varadkar, who said that a good agreement in October was better than any agreement in March.
- He said that he expected MPs to know most of the details of the withdrawal agreement long before it gets finalised in the autumn. (See 9.22am.)
- He said MPs would be able to amend the “meaningful vote” resolution being put to a vote in the autumn asking the Commons to back to withdrawal agreement. Asked if the motion would be amendable, he said:
If you can tell me how to write an unamendable motion, I will take a tutorial.
When asked if the government would respect the decision if MPs voted for an amended motion, he implied it would. He said:
The government is unlikely to put a vote to the House which it doesn’t intend to take properly seriously.
But, when asked what would happen if the Commons voted for an amendment saying the government should go back to Brussels to try to negotiate an alternative deal, he played down the prospect of this succeeding. He said:
I’m not going to give advice on how to create circumstances which may undermine the government’s negotiating position. I’m not entirely sure how much force a government sent back with its tail between its legs by parliament would have in such a negotiation.
- He said there was little chance of the UK leaving the EU with no deal. “I do not think no deal is a significant probability at all,” he said.
- He said it would be a “failure” if the government had to extend the transition, which is due to end at the end of December 2020. There has been a lot of speculation that an extension will prove necessary, not least because of the amount of time it will take to put in place new customs arrangements. But, when asked about this, Davis said:
I do not expect the solution to that to be extension of membership of the customs union. I would view that on my part as a failure.
- He said that it was his “hope” that the first trade deal negotiated during the transition would be able to come into force at the start of January 2021, straight after the end of the transition.
- He said he considered himself “almost a fifth columnist in this government in terms of promoting devolution”.
Updated
A delegation of around 40 Labour MPs and peers marched Jewish MP Ruth Smeeth to give evidence at an expulsion hearing against an activist accused of berating her at the launch of Labour’s anti-semitism inquiry.
MPs including shadow environment secretary Sue Hayman, the former shadow Northern Ireland secretary Owen Smith, and Jewish Labour movement chair Luciana Berger, formed a protective ring around Smeeth as she entered the hearing on Wednesday morning.
Labour activist Marc Wadsworth will have his case heard by Labour’s national constitutional committee, a quasi-judicial body that has the power to expel members from the party. The hearing comes 22 months after the first complaint was made against Wadsworth, after he challenged Smeeth at a the launch of Shami Chakrabati’s inquiry into anti-semitism, accusing her of working “hand in hand” with the media.
Labour Against the Witch-Hunt, a campaign group set up to protest against expulsions, turned out to support Wadsworth on Wednesday morning at the hearing in Westminster, shouting”Free Palestine” as the MPs walked past. They had invited supporters of Wadsworth to come dressed as witches.
MPs said that they had decided to support Smeeth because she had initially been told by the party she would be responsible for her own security walking to the hearing.
Berger said the MPs who had joined Smeeth were “looking for action” and Smeeth had “an incredible amount of support.”
Labour MP Wes Streeting, who organised the delegation to accompany Smeeth, said the range of MPs supporting Smeeth, including shadow ministers, would send a message. “No victim of abuse should ever have to walk through a protest against them to give evidence to a hearing. It is an appalling state of affairs.”
Other MPs accompanying Smeeth including prominent backbenchers Stella Creasy, Jess Phillips, and Margaret Hodge, alongside Smeeth’s fellow Stoke-on-Trent MP Gareth Snell, as well as the former child refugee Lord Alf Dubs and the chief executive of the Holocaust Memorial Trust Karen Pollack.
Speaking outside the hearing, Wadsworth said that he was not anti-semitic and said he had endured “almost two years of trial by media” and said much of the reporting around his case had been in correct. Asked if he thought he would get a fair hearing, he said: “I reserve my view on that.”
Smeeth is expected to give evidence for around two hours and will be cross-examined by Wadsworth legal counsel, which he has crowdfunded.
Huge delegation of MPs supporting Ruth Smeeth into Marc Wadsworth expulsion hearing pic.twitter.com/oBrhePuKgc
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) April 25, 2018
Wera Hobhouse, a Lib Dem, goes next.
Q: Will the process for EU nationals be an application process or a registration process?
Davis says it will be an application process. But there will be an appeal process for people turned down.
Hobhouse says a registration process would be better.
Davis says he will write to the committee about this.
Hilary Benn asks for an assurance that EU nationals will not get the same treatement as Windrush migrants.
Davis says he has given speeches saying the treatment of EU nationals is a moral issue.
Q: Earlier you spoke about number plate recognition in relation to Ireland. You are not proposing cameras on the border, are you?
No, says Davis. He says he was just referring to what is already there.
Benn ends by saying having Davis allocate just 90 an hour and a half for the session was not satisfactory.
And that’s it. I will post a summary soon.
Jonathan Djanogly, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: A lot of the Brexit legislation seems to be stalled. Are you “winging it”?
Davis says the government is not “winging it”, but the situation is changing as the process goes along.
He says, in the EU withdrawal bill, the government has just agreed to a “sifting committee” that will ensure important secondary legislation gets more scrutiny.
Labour’s Emma Reynolds goes next.
Q: You said earlier that there may be some disagreement between the UK and the EU over the “option C” for Northern Ireland (“regulatory alignment”). You talked about outcome alignment. What do you mean?
Davis says the UK is focused on outcomes. Agriculture is the biggest area. Agriculture regulation may well change. But the UK does not want to see a reduction in animal health standards or animal welfare standards.
Q: And are the EU pushing for the UK to keep the same regulations?
Davis says, in effect, the first proposal from the EU wanted to keep the UK in the single market. He says this is an issue to be thrashed out during the negotiations.
Hilary Benn asks when Davis actually has to leave.
Davis says he has to be at a meeting at 11. He can stay until 10.50, he says.
Jeremy Lefroy, a Conservative, goes next. He says in the City people are particularly worried about contracts and data.
Davis says a lot of work is going on in relation to contracts. And data is an even bigger issue, he says.
Davis says he is 'almost a fifth columnist in this government in terms of promoting devolution'
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry goes next.
Q: What will the government do if the Scottish government withholds legislative consent from the EU withdrawal bill?
Davis says the government is still trying to resolve this dispute.
He describes himeself as “almost a fifth columnist in this government in terms of promoting devolution”. He says he hopes there will be an agreement. Talks are still going today. He says 5pm is the deadline for amendments in the Lords.
- Davis says he is “almost a fifth columnist in this government in terms of promoting devolution”.
Q: What will the government do if legisalative consent is withheld?
Davis says he will not speculate on that.
Q: That is encouraging. Theresa May is quoted in the government as saying the Scottish government can take it or leave it, in regard to what has been offered. You are saying talks would continue.
Davis says he is not party to what is going on. He is just saying he hopes there will be an agreement.
Andrea Jenkyns, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: What was the best result from the negotiation on the transition?
Davis says it was the concession on signing trade deals he mentioned earlier. (See 10.0am.)
Davis says Commons 'meaningful vote' on Brexit withdrawal agreement will be binding on government
Here is the Press Association’s story from the opening of the hearing.
The motion put before parliament this autumn on the final Brexit agreement will be amendable by MPs and its outcome will be binding on the government, David Davis has said.
The Brexit secretary said the motion - which Prime Minister Theresa May has previously described as a “take it or leave it” choice - will relate to a political agreement expected to be reached with Brussels, rather than a full legal treaty.
But he said it remains the government’s intention to have a treaty ready for signing immediately after the formal date of Brexit on March 29 2019.
The confirmation that the government’s motion will be amendable opens the door to opponents of Brexit seeking to force a vote on a second referendum, or for Labour to demand that ministers go back and renegotiate a bad deal.
Giving evidence to the Commons Brexit committee, Davis played down suggestions that the government’s proposals for the Irish border had run into the sand.
Reports last week suggested that Brussels had dismissed as unworkable both of the options put forward by London, which would either see the UK collect customs tariffs on behalf of the EU or use technology to avoid delays at the border.
The reports sparked speculation that Brussels is trying to edge the UK into remaining in some form of customs union with the EU - something which committee Brexiteers regard as unacceptable, as it would prevent Britain from forging new trade deals elsewhere in the world.
Davis rejected committee chairman Hilary Benn’s suggestion that the UK solutions had been “emphatically” ruled out by Brussels, insisting that the EU was simply setting out an “opening position” in negotiations.
He told the committee that the technology to deliver a near frictionless border - including number-plate recognition, authorised economic operator systems and electronic pre-authorisation - already exists and the government has started talks with potential suppliers.
Davis was speaking ahead of a meeting on Wednesday afternoon of a cabinet sub-committee dubbed May’s “Brexit war cabinet”, which will bring together senior ministers to drive negotiations forward in the vital coming months.
It is understood that the customs union is not on the formal agenda, but the issue is expected to test cabinet unity to the utmost as the sub-committee meets in the coming weeks, with senior Brexiteers like Boris Johnson and Liam Fox understood to be wary of any concession.
Addressing the Brexit committee, Davis restated Government promises of a “meaningful vote” on the final deal, but confirmed that MPs and peers are likely at that stage to be presented with “a political declaration rather than a treaty draft”.
Asked by Benn whether the motion would be amendable, the Brexit Secretary replied: “If you can tell me how to write an unamendable motion, I will take a tutorial.”
And pressed on whether ministers will regard the outcome as binding, Mr Davis said: “The government is unlikely to put a vote to the House which it doesn’t intend to take properly seriously. If the House rejects the proposed negotiation, that negotiation will fall.”
Further votes could then be expected on any treaties which emerge from the process, which could include a separate pact on security and defence as well as the main agreement on economic relations, he said.
Updated
Davis says the “option C” solution to the Irish border issue (regulatory alignment) is a “reserve parachute”.
Q: Will the political declaration be detailed enough for the OBR to make an assessment of it?
Davis say the government will provide an economic assessment of the deal itself.
The OBR has to make two forecasts a year on the basis of government policy.
He repeats the point about how much of this will be in the public domain anyway before the deal gets finalised.
Q: How much detail do you expect there to be in the political declaration covering the future trade relationship that will be issued alongside the withdrawal agreement in the autumn?
“Quite a lot,” says Davis. He wants to see a large amount of substantial detail in it. It needs to include decisions. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has said that too, he says.
But he concedes that it will not be ratified until after the UK leaves.
Q: But there is a link between Northern Ireland and the political declaration. Until Northern Ireland is resolved, meaningful discussions on the political declaration cannot start.
Davis does not accept that.
He says a free trade agreement will make the Irish border issue easier to deal with.
Labour’s Stephen Kinnock goes next.
Q: If the Commons amends the “meaningful vote” motion and instructs the government to go back to Brussels, the government will accept that?
Davis says he will not comment on hypotheticals.
He says it would be a mistake to create situations that would be advantageous to the other side. That is one reason why he is against a second referendum, he says.
Q: A very meaningful amendment might be one that instructs the government to go back to Brussels to get a better deal.
Davis says he will not speculate on what the government would do in the event of an amendment that has not been laid, let alone passed.
He says, on a practical point, if the government were sent back to Brussels “with its tail between its legs”, he does not know what they would be able to achieve.
Davis says, in the negotiations, when he gets into the detail, that tends to unblock things rather than block things.
Christopher Chope, a Conservative, is asking the questions now.
Q: If we won’t know until October whether the “option A” solution to the Irish border problem is viable (a new trade deal), why is the EU pressing for a solution to this by June?
Davis says in negotiations one of the things that happens is that people impose artificial deadlines.
Davis says he hopes first post-Brexit trade deal will come into force day after transition ends
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative Brexiter, goes next.
Q: How will the UK be allowed to negotiate trade deals during the transition?
Davis says this was the biggest single ask during the negotiation.
Being part of the common commercial policy, and under the duty of sincere cooperation, the UK would not have been allowed to negotiate trade deals during the transition.
But the agreement now allows the UK to negotiate and sign trade deals during the transition, but not implement them.
He says the story of the last 30 years has been the spectacular growth of world trade. That has helped to alleviate global policy. And it has benefited the UK.
He says he wants the UK to be able to get off to a “bracing start” in negotiating these deals during the transition.
Q: Do you expect the first trade deal signed during the transition will come into force the day the transition is over?
That is my hope, says Davis.
- Davis says he hopes first post-Brexit trade deal will come into force day after transition ends.
Q: Is there a risk the UK might have to stay in the customs union because new customs arrangements will not be ready by the end of 2020 (when the transition is over)?
No, says Davis.
He says there is a bigger risk on the other side - because other countries might not have customs arrangements in place.
But he says he does not expect membership of the customs union to be extended. He would regard that as a “failure”, he says.
- Davis says having to extend transition would be a “failure”.
UPDATE: This is from PoliticoEurope’s Tom McTague.
A fairly big hostage to fortune from DD on extending membership of the customs union there: "I would view that on my part as a failure." Lots of chatter in Westminster and Brussels that extension might be the compromise. That appears to have been torpedoed.
— Tom McTague (@TomMcTague) April 25, 2018
Updated
Q: Is it possible that going ahead with a no deal Brexit without an act of parliament would be legal?
Davis says parliament passed the referendum legislation, and then the article 50 bill.
And there have been a lot of votes since, he says.
He has been very stark about what this means, he says.
Labour’s Seema Malhotra goes next.
Q: Will there be legal consequences from no deal?
Davis says he thinks the complete absence of any deal is highly unlikely. But there could be a “barebones deal” he says.
Q: But what would the legal consequences be?
What aspects are you driving at, Davis asks.
Q: Changes to trade?
Davis says, if there was no deal, there would have to be tariffs.
Davis says there could be debates on the agreement, when it is clear what will be in it, but the text has not been signed.
Then there will be the “meaningful vote” on the withdrawal agreement.
Then there will be the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill votes, he says.
Davis concedes article 50 can be extended
Labour’s Pat McFadden goes next.
Q: What will the government do if parliament votes down the resolution approving the withdrawal agreement?
Davis says the government does not normally explain what it will do if it loses a vote.
Q: You have said before, if you lose, the UK will leave the EU without a deal.
Davis says he expects that to happen.
Q: What if the resolution were amended to call for an extension of the article 50 process?
Davis says you cannot extend the article 50 process unilaterally.
It would require unanimity in the EU, he says. The other 27 would ahve to agree.
If parliament asks for something impossible, then obviously we can’t deliver on that.
He says he is not going to do McFadden’s work for him, and tell him how to draft an amendment to make life harder for the government.
He concedes that article 50 could be extended.
The rules are clear: with unanimity, it can be extended.
But it may be impossible, he suggests.
- Davis concedes that article 50 can be extended. (This has always been the case, but the government has always been reluctant to admit this publicly.)
Q: It has been said that parliament might get five days to look at the withdrawal agreement before it gets put to a vote.
Davis says this will be a matter for the usual channels (the party whips), but that sounds reasonable, he says.
Updated
Davis says economic models are based on assumptions about trade. If those assumptions are wrong, the model fails.
Q: So you are saying the government’s economic models are wrong?
Davis says the best economic models in the world are wrong.
He says the Office for Budget Responsibility is brilliant. But it gets its forecasts wrong to, he says.
Stephen Crabb, the Conservative former cabinet minister, goes next.
Q: What is motivating your view of the customs union? Do you think there are game-changing opportunities from being able to sign trade deals outside the EU? Or is it about being free symbolically?
Davis says it is the former. There are more opportunities for trade growth outside the EU, he says.
Q: If the Commons votes to stay in the customs union, the government will have to change its policy, won’t it?
Davis says he won’t comment on hypotheticals.
Q: But you would have to respect parliament?
Davis says the government always respects the views of parliament.
Asked if the Govt would change it's position if the Commons votes to stay in the customs union, David Davis says the Govt "always respects Parliament", though adds, "I expect the Govt's policy to be upheld".
— Tom Boadle (@TomBoadle) April 25, 2018
Updated
Q: You put forward two customs ideas. The first idea, a “customs partnership”, seems to have been rejected by the EU?
Davis says he does not accept that.
He says the commission changes its stance. Look at how it changed it views on the ECJ, he says.
These are negotiations positions, he says. He says the commission has set out its “opening position”.
Davis says government wants to finalise trade treaty with EU before Brexit
Q: Negotiations on a treaty for the trade deal will spill over into the transition, won’t they?
Davis says he does not accept that.
He says there are six months between the withdrawal agreement being agreed and Brexit.
He says it is not the government’s intention to allow the trade negotiations to spill over into the transition.
He says he wants the political agreement on trade in the autumn to be very detailed.
It should be possible to turn that into a treaty within six months, he says.
- Davis says government wants to conclude trade treaty with EU before March 2019.
Updated
Davis says he does not expect to have a “legal text” of a future trade agreement at the time of the withdrawal agreement. There will be a political declaration covering this, he says.
He says the EU cannot sign a trade deal until after the UK leaves the EU.
Q: So it won’t be legally binding?
Davis says it may not be legally binding, but it will be politically binding.
Davis concedes MPs will be able to table amendments to 'meaningful vote' motion approving Brexit withdrawal agreement
Q: Will the motion by amendable?
Davis says, if Benn knows how to put forward an unamendable motion, he will take a tutorial.
- Davis concedes MPs will be able to table amendments to the “meaningful vote” motion approving Brexit withdrawal agreement.
Q: And will the government take any amendment seriously if that gets passed?
Davis says the government would not have a vote if it were not going to take it seriously.
Updated
Davis says MPs will know most of details of withdrawal agreement long before deal is agreed
Hilary Benn, the committee chair, opens the session.
Q: How long will parliament have to consider the withdrawal agreement before the “meaningful vote”?
Davis starts by saying he will have to leave after an hour and a half. He has an important meeting after that.
Benn says that is not satisfactory. We all have important meetings, he says.
Davis says: “I understand that. I hear what you say.”
Davis says he has important work to do before this afternoon’s meetig of the key Brexit sub committee - the exit and trade (strategy and negotiations) sub committee, to give it its full name.
Q: Would you be willing to come back soon to finish the session?
Davis says he will see how they go today.
On the “meaningful vote”, he says there will be several votes.
The first will be the vote on the overall treaty and outcome of the negotiations.
Q: How long will parliament have to scrutinise the draft agreement before we are asked to vote on it? A week? A month?
Davis says he does not know.
But he wants to let parliament vote on it before the European parliament votes on it.
He says, unlike previous votes, all the elements of the negotiation will have been revealed to MPs “way before” the vote - all except the very last bit.
There will be a statement to MPs. And the vote will come “not too long” after that.
- Davis says MPs will know most of the details of withdrawal agreement long before deal is agreed.
Updated
There will be no shortage of news at Westminster today. Three of the most senior cabinet ministers - the chancellor, Philip Hammond, the home secretary, Amber Rudd, and the Brexit secretary, David Davis - are giving evidence to select committees. The EU withdrawal bill is back in the Lords. And, of course, there’s PMQs.
I will be focusing in particularly on the Davis and the Rudd committee hearings, and on PMQs, and trying to squeeze in the other news somewhere in between.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, gives evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.
10.30am: Lord Burnett, the lord chief justice, gives evidence to the Lords constitution committee.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
12pm: The inquiry into child sexual abuse publishes an interim report.
3.30pm: The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the ISU border officials union and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association give evidence to the Commons home affairs committee. After 4.30pm Amber Rudd, the home secretary, will give evidence.
After 3.30pm: Peers resume their debate on the EU withdrawal bill.
4pm: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee.
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 at the end of the day.
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.
