Afternoon summary
- Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, has denied “politicising” the Queen - despite refusing to deny that he was involved in getting her to speak out against Scottish independence ahead of the referendum in 2014. The Labour MP Paul Flynn accused Heywood of politicising her, and said that a recent speech by Prince William suggested ministers and civil servants were again trying involve the royals in a referendum. (See 6.05pm.) The exchange came during a hearing on Heywood’s guidance as to what government information ministers can see if they are campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. Heywood said that ministers would get all the information they needed, apart from “briefing material or speech material” which they could use to attack the government’s position on the EU. Bernard Jenkin, the Eurosceptic Conservative who chairs the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, suggested that this was reasonable and said that he was glad Heywood had cleared up the matter. Heywood’s letter to civil servants explaining his rules suggested that the restrictions for Brexit ministers would be more wide-ranging, Jenkin said. Heywood said that ministers could also see any facts they wanted, but that they could not commission “facts” to be used to attack the government’s position. This, from Sky’s Faisal Islam, sums this up nicely.
Heywood's two fact types: random facts already established -Outer Ministers can ask Civil Service. Can't ask for new Facts in support of Out
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) March 1, 2016
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
Heywood accused of 'politicising' Queen as he refuses to deny role in her pro-Union Scottish intervention
Here are the key quotes from the exchange between Paul Flynn, the Labour MP, and Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary.
- Heywood refused to deny being involved in getting the Queen to speak out against Scottish independence. Flynn put this allegation to him, quoting from Cameron at 10 by Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon. Heywood replied:
I never comment on royal matters.
- Flynn accused Heywood of “politicising” the royal family. After making the point about the Queen and the Scottish independence referendum, Flynn told Heywood:
I’m accusing you of collaborating and politicising the royal family. These matters were regarded as being so important, the break-up of the United Kingdom, that something had to be done about it.
Flynn also quoted what happened when Prince William recently appeared to use a speech at the Foreign Office to make the case for Britain staying in the EU.
(There is no doubt that Number 10 was involved in getting the Queen to speak out, in coded terms, against Scottish independence, but Number 10 says it did not know about Prince William’s speech in advance and it has not been proved this was a politically-motivated intervention.)
- Heywood denied “politicising” the royals. Although he would not comment on the claim that he was involved in getting her to speak out against Scottish independence, he objected to the suggestion that he had ever “politicised” her.
I would never dream of trying to politicise Her Majesty the Queen.
(There may be a civil service view that getting the Queen of the United Kingdom to speak out in favour of the United Kingdom does not amount to politicisation.
Flynn quoted from the Seldon/Snowdon book, but he would have had better material if he had quoted from the Guardian’s long read on this, by Severin Carrell, Nicholas Watt and Patrick Wintour, which covered it in more detail. Here’s an excerpt.
Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, and Sir Christopher Geidt, the Queen’s private secretary, embarked on discussions to work out how the Queen might register her concerns at the prospect of a yes vote while upholding her constitutional duty to remain wholly impartial. The Whitehall machinery was fully apprised of the prime minister’s concerns that the yes side was developing an ominous momentum.
The talks between the most senior civil servant in the land and the palace’s most senior official, the two key figures at the heart of what the Whitehall source described as the “deep state”, focused in the first place on the wisdom of a public intervention by the monarch, who has been scrupulously impartial during her 62 years on the throne. Once it became clear that the Queen was minded to speak out, Geidt and Heywood then needed to fashion some words that would ensure that the she remained within the bounds expected of a constitutional monarch.
Jim Lawson, a veteran freelance reporter who has dutifully covered royal visits to the Scottish Highlands for decades – he remembers covering Prince Charles at Gordonstoun boarding school in the 1960s – got the answer a week later on Sunday 14 September, outside Crathie Kirk, the small church where the Queen attends Sunday services while at Balmoral. As he has done at these events for years, Lawson wandered over to the crowd behind the barriers after the Queen had departed, to harvest quotes from her greetings to wellwishers. To his surprise, one woman disclosed that the monarch had offered a coded warning about the impending referendum, telling her: “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.”
“The Queen looked almost uneasy,” Lawson recalled. “It was strange. [She] didn’t look supremely confident.” When he asked the woman who had spoken to the Queen for her name, a friend standing with her urged her not to reveal it. When Lawson asked her why not, she replied “It’s my job.” For Lawson, this was a first. “It has never happened in my life before,” he recalled. “Normally if the Queen has talked to someone, they’re delighted to give you everything. I was baffled, to be honest.”
Updated
Bernard Jenkin is now summing up.
He says Heywood has been very helpful. He has clarified that Brexit ministers can get access to facts.
Heywood says that is correct. But he says the civil service will not be pro-actively producing facts that can be used to attack the government.
Jenkin quotes from the Heywood’s letter. He says that letter suggests Brexit ministers could be denied access to a wider range of material. But Heywood says he has clarified that ministers will only be denied access to speech and briefing material.
He says that it would have been better if Heywood’s letter, and the Q&A that went with it, had made it clear.
But he indicates that he is happy with the situation now.
And that’s it.
I will post a summary now.
Heywood says Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, has not commissioned work from his department to attack government policy, and he would not expect him to do so.
David Jones, the Conservative MP and former Welsh secretary, goes next.
Q: Where you surprised by how much anger there was about this in the Commons yesterday (when Matthew Hancock answered an urgent question on it)?
Yes, says Heywood.
Q: So will you rewrite the guidance?
Heywood says it is clear.
Q: Have any secretaries of state raised concerns with you about these guidelines?
Heywood says one secretary of state raised a point about facts. He says he thinks the matter was resolved.
Kate Hoey: “Are we making a fuss over nothing?” Jeremy Heywood: “I couldn’t possibly say that.” #HouseofCards
— Emily Ashton (@elashton) March 1, 2016
Q: How many council of ministers meetings will pro-Brexit ministers attend between now and the referendum?
Heywood says he is not sure. But there is nothing to stop pro-Brexit ministers attending a council of ministers meeting in Brussels.
The Labour MP Paul Flynn says Sir Jeremy Heywood’s answer to his questions on the royals (see 4.41pm) was “ludicrous”.
Ludicrous defence by Jeremy Heywood of using royals to influence Referendum & Brexit debates saying Royal matters cannot be discussed.
— Paul Flynn (@PaulFlynnMP) March 1, 2016
At least someone is finding this interesting - Sir Jeremy Heywood is now trending on Twitter.
Kate Hoey goes next.
Q: What will you do if a minister or civil servant breaks this guidance?
Heywood says he does not like speculating on hypotheticals. It would be up to the prime minister to decide what happened to a minister. If a civil servant broke the rules, Heywood would regard that as a serious issue.
He would look at this “in the round”, using a common sense approach, he says.
Heywood says his guidance applies to some public servants outside the civil service. But he would have to get back to the committee to explain exactly who might be covered.
Q: Won’t the public think the prime minister is hiding something?
Heywood says he thinks people will be more interested in the substantive issues.
He says the civil service works to support the government’s position. But in all other respects things will carry on as normal for ministers.
Labour’s Kate Hoey goes next.
Q: Wouldn’t it have been better to produce common sense guidance?
Heywood say his guidance is common sense.
In his experience, he says, there is always some confusion in the first few weeks of a campaign like his.
Heywood says he is happy for Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, to see the statistics his department is preparing for Number 10.
He also says officials often produce statistics that do not get shared with the secretary of state.
He says it would be “literally impossible” for ministers to see all the statistics produced by their departments.
Talk of conspiracy is well “wide of the mark”, he says.
Sir Jeremy Heywood on purdah row: "Any talk of conspiracy or by-passing is very wide of the mark."
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) March 1, 2016
He is “very comfortable” with ministers seeing facts produced by their departments.
Updated
"Civil Service would be tying itself in knots" if it provided briefing material to ministers arguing against Gov position - says Heywood
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) March 1, 2016
Heywood refuses to deny helping Queen speak out against Scottish independence
The Labour MP Paul Flynn says in Anthony Seldon and Peter Snowdon’s book Cameron at 10 it is said that Downing Street got Buckingham Palace involved in the Scottish independence campaign.
Heywood says he never comments on royal matters.
Q: But Number 10 was involved in making sure the Queen’s view were made public. You politicised the royal family.
Heywood says he will not comment on royal matters. Then he says he would never politicise the Queen.
- Heywood says he would never “politicise” the Queen - but refuses to comment on reports Number 10 was involved in getting her to intervene in the Scottish independence referendum.
Flynn quotes what Prince William said recently about the importance of uniting with other nations.
Heywood says he would not presume to tell the In campaign what to do.
Bernard Jenkin goes next.
Q: Would it be normal for the heir to the throne to give a speech in the Foreign Office without it being seen by Number 10?
Heywood says Prince William is not heir to the throne. He does not know what the scrutiny arrangements are for Prince William’s speeches.
Updated
Jeremy Heywood’s face when MP Cheryl Gillan said: “Ministers aren’t stupid." pic.twitter.com/neZ2xnwbru
— Emily Ashton (@elashton) March 1, 2016
Cheryl Gillan, the Conservative MP, goes next.
Q: You issued a Q&A alongside the guidance. But that was not meant to be published. Why not?
Heywood says the Q&A is there to help civil servants interpret the guidance. It is a living document. It will get updated.
He says the prime minister’s letter to ministers, and his guidance, are the key documents.
Bernard Jenkin, the committee chairman, starts the questioning.
Q: How did you produce this guidance?
Sir Jeremy Heywood says he looked at what happened in the 1975 referendum (when cabinet ministers were allowed to campaign on either side) and at what happened in the Scottish independence referendum. He also consulted the prime minister.
He says he did not view the rules as particularly controversial.
Q: Where is the precedent for denying ministers access to information?
Heywood says he thinks there has been a misunderstanding.
Brexit ministers will not get access to information relating to the EU referendum.
But they will get all other information. The civil service will continue to provide a “limousine” service, he says.
Q: In what respect does your guidance differ from 1975?
Heywood says it does not differ in relation to civil servants.
But he says there are minor differences affecting special advisers. In 1975 there was no code for special advisers.
Sir Jeremy Heywood questioned by MPs about the EU referendum
Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary, is about to give evidence to the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee about the EU referendum.
The hearing is expected to focus largely on the row about pro-Brexit ministers being denied access to government papers relating to the EU referendum.
Jolyon Maugham, a tax barrister and Labour supporter, has written about George Osborne’s claim that cutting the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p raised £8bn on his waitingfortax blog. He is not impressed by the announcement, and he says that Osborne’s handling of this cost the taxpayer more than £2bn.
Here’s an excerpt.
As Osborne well knows, if you tell people in March 2012 that you’re going to cut their tax bill by a tenth (from 50% to 45%) in a year’s time, people will choose to delay payment until April 2013 when their bills will be lower. And they did ...
In other words, tax receipts were artificially low in 2012-13 (because people delayed receiving income until rates fell) and were artificially high in 2013-14 (when those delayed receipts were received). Combine those two numbers and you may well explain your £7bn jump ...
But it’s not only that Osborne has been a little economical with the truth. It’s not only that, on all the available evidence, his tax cut actually cost money. The whole episode signals a terrible indictment of government policy.
Osborne could have taken measures to prevent these delaying tactics – which remember only benefited those earning over £150,000 per annum. But he didn’t.
And this cost the country £2.4bn in 2012-13: see Table A3.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance has joined those welcoming the findings of the Freedom of Information review, but saying it should have gone further. This is from its chief executive, Jonathan Isaby.
It is heartening that the government has reiterated its pledge to encourage transparency in the public sector and it is also good news that the government has rejected the self-serving call from councils and local authorities to introduce a fee for each FoI request.
However, the TaxPayers’ Alliance will continue to campaign to extend the remit of FoI to any organisation - public or private - which is in receipt of taxpayers’ money as hard-pressed families have every right to know how their money is being spent. Recent cases illustrate the urgent need for much greater transparency in these organisations as well and sadly, today’s announcement does not appear to address that issue.
DWP launches review to consider case for raising state pension age faster than planned
The Department for Work and Pensions has announced that it is appointing John Cridland, the former CBI director general, to head a longterm review of the state pension age. It will consider changes that could come into force after 2028.
Owen Smith, the shadow work and pensions secretary, says this could lead to rises in the state pension age being speeded up, “throwing into chaos the retirement plans of millions of British workers”. In a statement he said:
The Tories have a record of failing to be straight with people about the true impact of their pension policy, always keen to trumpet any potential gains from reforms, but reluctant to be honest with those set to lose out. So people are right to worry that the terms of this review may suggest that the Tory government is set to speed up rises in the state pension age, throwing into chaos the retirement plans of millions of British worker.
Smith has got a point. Current policy is to increase the state pension age in line with increases in life expectancy, but the terms of reference (pdf) suggest the government believes the state pension age needs to rise even faster. The terms of reference say the review will need to consider.
What a suitable state pension age is, in the immediate future and over the longer term?
Whether the current system of a universal state pension age rising in line with life expectancy best supports affordability, fairness, and fuller working lives objective?
And, if not, how state pension age arrangements might better support these objective?
Cameron uses Monty Python to make the case for Britain staying in the EU
David Cameron has been making the case for Britain staying in the EU at a St David’s Day reception at Number 10.
I think sometimes we forget some of the more basic arguments. When I think of the extraordinary strength of Welsh agriculture, and to think that that market of 500 million people means there are no quotas, there are no tariffs, there are no taxes, there are no restrictions - you can sell as much Welsh lamb, Welsh beef, Welsh pork into that market.
Imagine swapping that for the situation that some other countries have outside the European Union, where you have restrictions, you might have quotas, you might have tariffs, and we wouldn’t have access to that market.
He also started quoting from Monty Python.
Imagine what that might mean to Welsh business and Welsh employment.
It is rather like that scene in Monty Python’s Life of Brian - ‘What’s Europe ever done for us? Well, apart from the market of 500 million people, the regional grants, the access to the market, the support for our universities. Well other than that...’
I think it is a very strong argument and I look forward to making it in the months to come.
I have corrected an earlier post (see 12.46pm) to make it clear that universities are already covered by Freedom of Information, and that the independent commission is rejecting calls for them to be excluded, not calling for FoI to be extended to cover them.
Lunchtime summary
- Ministers have published the report from the independent commission reviewing the Freedom of Information Act. The report is broadly supportive of how FoI works, confounding fears that it was going to recommend measures that would restrict the scope of FoI. The government has accepted its recommendation not to introduce a charge for using FoI. Ministers have also rejected - at least, for now - the commission’s proposal to legislate to toughen ministerial veto powers over FoI. (See 11.56am and 12.46pm.)
- Lord Mandelson has said it would be a “fantasy” and “deeply irresponsible” to claim Britain’s trade deals would be better outside the EU. He made the claim in a major speech on what would happen to trade if Britain left the EU. In response Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, said:
Peter Mandelson told us the British economy would fall off a cliff if we didn’t join the euro and now he is indulging in the same scaremongering about the referendum. He was wrong then and he is wrong now. He is starting to resemble a man wearing a sign saying the ‘end is nigh’.
As the prime minister has said - trade will continue after we Vote Leave, Peter Mandelson should stop his scaremongering. It is safer to take back control and to start to spend our money on our priorities than it is to keep giving more power and money to the EU.
- Mandelson has said pro-Brexit ministers denied access to certain government papers should stop “whinging”. Commenting on the rule that means they will not be allowed to see papers relating to the EU referendum, he said:
We are faced in this country with the biggest choice of our generation, a choice which is going to have a huge impact on our jobs, our trade, our investment, our place in the world.
Frankly, I think, these complaining ministers are lucky. Usually when members of a government go against ministerial collective responsibility and the will of the cabinet, they receive one paper - and that’s their P45.
So I think they have got off rather lightly and they should stop whinging.
In a separate development, Sir Jonathan Stephens, permanent secretary at the Northern Ireland Office, told MPs that under these rules his boss might have to use the Freedom of Information Act, or a parliamentary question, to get departmental information. Theresa Villiers, the Northern Ireland secretary, is campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. Asked whether he would withhold from Villiers information bearing on the referendum which 10 Downing Street or the Cabinet Office had asked her department to produce, Stephens said: “Yes. That information is to be used to support the policy of the government of the day.” But ministers campaigning for the UK to leave the EU are “operating in a personal capacity and in that respect, if they put in a freedom of information request or a parliamentary question, that will be answered, but they won’t be receiving the support of the Civil Service”, he told the public administration and constitutional affairs committee.
This afternoon the committee will be taking evidence on this from Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary. I will be covering that hearing in detail.
- Andrew Tyrie, chair of the Commons Treasury committee, has said people should be “very concerned” about Cameron’s EU renegotiation because it appears to extend the powers of the European Union in relation to financial stability. (See 10am.)
- George Osborne, the chancellor, has confirmed that the Treasury will publish a comprehensive economic analysis of Britain’s membership of the EU before the referendum. At Treasury questions in the Commons he said leaving the EU would result in a “long, costly and messy divorce”.
- Osborne has said that reducing the top rate of income tax from 50p to 45p raised an additional £8bn from the highest earners in its first year. Speaking in the Commons he said the revelation “completely defies” predictions made by Labour that cutting the rate from 50p to 45p would cost £3bn and give top earners an average £10,000 tax cut. HMRC previously estimated that cutting the top rate from 50p to 45p would cost the Exchequer £100m. Osborne said:
Under this government the richest pay a higher proportion of income tax than under the last Labour government. Indeed we have just had numbers out this morning from HMRC which for the first time show the income tax data for the year 2013/14, which is when the 50p rate was reduced to 45p.
And what that shows is that actually there was an £8bn increase in revenues from additional rate taxpayers, which completely defies the predictions made by the Labour party at the time and shows that what we have are lower, competitive taxes that are paid by all.
- The Electoral Commission has announced it is extending its investigation into Conservative spending in the Newark, Clacton and Rochester byelections. Channel 4 News’s Michael Crick has broadcast an investigation apparently showing that byelection spending by the party was not properly declared. The Tories deny this. The commission only has limited powers to investigate, but it is going to look at whether the hotel bills discovered by Crick were campaign spending, and whether they should have been included in general election or European election spending returns.
- Sadiq Khan, Labour’s candidate for London mayor, has repeatedly refused to say that Jeremy Corbyn is an asset to his campaign. In an interview with LBC he had to be asked seven times if Corbyn was an asset. Eventually he responded to the question by saying that the new members who joined the party because of Corbyn saw Corbyn as an asset, and that that was helpful to his campaign.
For the tens of thousands who joined the party because of Jeremy Corbyn, they’ll not unreasonably want to vote for the Labour candidate ... For those who joined the party because of Jeremy Corbyn, of course he is [an asset].
Khan also played down the prospect of campaigning with Corbyn. Asked if they would campaign together, he said:
I’m my own man, Jeremy Corbyn, like many others in the Labour party, will be knocking on doors, delivering leaflets, fundraising, coming to phone banks, as are people who aren’t members of the party.
- Lady Bone, the businesswoman and Conservative peer, has published a review she conducted for the government into how to increase business start-ups in disadvantaged areas. It recommends improving the new enterprise allowance and better access to start-up loans.
Updated
The campaign group 38 Degrees has welcomed the proposal from the Freedom of Information commission that FoI should be extended to cover public services under contract. (See 12.46pm.) Almost 200,000 signed one of its petitions calling for this. David Babbs, executive director at 38 Degrees, said:
Now that the commission has published its recommendations, ministers need to apply them if they want to prove that they’re on the right side of public opinion. The government must extend FOI to private companies who receive public money.
Gisela Stuart, the Labour MP who is campaigning to leave the EU, told the Today programme this morning that it was a “rather curious reading of history” to claim that the EU had kept the peace in Europe. She told the programme:
France and Germany coming together within the envelope of Nato and the collective security - that is what has kept the peace. What the European Union, up to a certain point, provided for was a political stability within a defence framework.
But if you are looking at what is happening across the European Union now - and the refugee crisis is just the latest demonstration - that political stability is being seriously questioned, and the European Union as an institution is not responding to it properly.
Here’s Bob Satchwell, director of the Society of Editors, on the outcome of the Freedom of Information review.
It’s a victory for common sense in that it appears that the government has backed away from putting restrictions on this act which has created a vital public service and particularly allows the media to inform the public about information which they are entitled to know.
Here is some reaction from journalists to the FoI review.
From Newsnight’s Chris Cook
lesson for future: don't end up on the wrong side of an argument with @CampaignFoI - this is win for them: https://t.co/9hb6iVVUnC
— Chris Cook (@xtophercook) March 1, 2016
I'd want to watch the redrafting of section 35 very carefully indeed - I am a bit nervous about that. But way better than FOI users hoped.
— Chris Cook (@xtophercook) March 1, 2016
From Wired UK’s Matt Burgess
First impression of #FOI report: Overwhelmingly balanced considering formation of panel. However concerning recommendations around tribunals
— Matt Burgess (@mattburgess1) March 1, 2016
Removing FTT as #FOI Commission suggests would mean appeals above ICO could only be made on a point of law, not public interest.
— Matt Burgess (@mattburgess1) March 1, 2016
From Ian Burrell, the Independent’s media editor
Much delight in the news industry at the good news that there will be no legal changes to the FOI Act
— Ian Burrell (@iburrell) March 1, 2016
Freedom of Information commission recommendations - Further details
Matthew Hancock, the Cabinet Office minister, has already announced that the government will accept some of the Freedom of Information commission’s recommendations. (See 11.56am.)
But in the report (pdf) there are 21 full recommendations, as well as some interesting unofficial recommendations (areas where the commission expresses a view, but does not make a formal recommendation either because of lack of evidence, or because the matter is outside its terms of reference).
Here are some of the recommendations the commission is making that the government has not yet accepted or rejected.
Formal recommendations
- Introducing a 20-day limit for authorities that need to extend the time they have to consider FoI requests.
- Increasing the penalty for destroying information requested under the FoI, and making it easier for the information commission to prosecute.
- Clarifying, and in some respects widening, what can be exempted from disclosure on the grounds that it relates to policy formulation or cabinet discussion.
- Getting rid of the first-tier tribunal appeal process. (There would still be an appeal to an upper tribunal.)
Unofficial recommendations
- Extending the scope of the FoI to cover public services under contract (provided the contracts are worth more than £5m.)
- Ensuring universities remain covered by FoI. (Some university bodies have been calling for them to be excluded.)
Interestingly, the commission also recommends that the government legislates to “clarify beyond doubt” that ministers do have the right to veto FoI disclosures. Hancock has rejected this recommendation - or, at least, temporarily rejected it. (See 11.56am.)
UPDATE: I have corrected this post to make it clear that universities are already covered by FoI, and that the commission is rejecting calls for them to be excluded, not calling for FoI to be extended to cover them.
Updated
Tom Brake, the Lib Dem MP, has broadly welcomed the Freedom of Information review, but says it should have gone further. In a statement he says:
At the heart of a healthy and vibrant democracy is Freedom of Information. So the news that Jeremy Heywood and Matthew Hancock have seen sense is welcome.
But it is extremely disappointing that there are no plans to extend FoI.
The government should have seized the opportunity to make private companies, doing public work, subject to FoI. There is no logic for FoI to apply to work performed by Westminster Council, but not to companies that Westminster Council contract out the same work to. What is good for the goose must be good for the gander.
The government should also have dumped the powers that enable ministers to overrule the information commissioner and tribunal. The IC and Tribunal should be the judges of public interest, not ministers. Ministers tend to claim release is not in the public interest, when what they really mean is that it is not in government’s interest and they are seeking to avoid government embarrassment.
Wired UK’s Matt Burgess has posted a chart on Twitter summarising what he sees as the good and bad points in the Freedom of Information review.
The main points of the #FOI review's findings, in a simple list.
— Matt Burgess (@mattburgess1) March 1, 2016
11 points split into positive and negatives pic.twitter.com/4T6sHyCfgh
Updated
Government's FoI review - Summary
Here are the main points from Matthew Hancock’s statement about the Freedom of Information review.
- Ministers have ruled out legislating to tighten their powers to veto the release of information through FoI - but only “at this stage”. After the election Downing Street indicated that there was a “strong case” for changing the law because a legal challenge by the Guardian journalist Rob Evans, which led to the release of letters written by Prince Charles under FoI, showed that ministers’ veto powers were not as strong as assumed when the Act became law. Hancock said the government accepted that there should be a “narrower and more limited veto provision”. He said in future ministers would only deply the veto after an information commissioner decision. He went on:
On the basis that this approach proves effective, we will not bring forward legislation at this stage.
- Ministers will consider measures to force public bodies to publish more information about the pay and perks of senior staff. Hancock said people should not have to use FoI to get this information.
- Ministers have ruled out introducing FoI charges. It says the transparency created by FoI can save the taxpayer money. Hancock said:
We appreciate that some public authorities are concerned by the burdens imposed on them by the Act and the associated costs. However, the introduction of new fees would lead to a reduction in the ability of requesters, especially the media, to make use of the Act. We believe that transparency can help save taxpayers’ money, by driving out waste and inefficiency.
- Public authorities will face a new duty to publish information about how they respond to FoI requests. Hancock said:
We know that many other organisations already publish such data, but this does not happen consistently. The publication of such data not only provides accountability to the public, but allows the Information Commissioner to identify and target poorly performing public authorities more effectively. We will therefore issue guidance in the revised Section 45 Code of Practice to set a standard that public authorities with 100 full time equivalent employees or more should publish such information.
- New guidance will be issued clarifying when authorities can refuse “vexatious” requests. Hancock said:
The exercise by citizens of legal rights also brings with it responsibilities – and access to information rights should not be abused to cause distress or a means of harassment. Equally, the “vexatious” designation is not an excuse to save public officials’ embarrassment from poor decisions or inappropriate spending of taxpayers’ money. This will not require legislation.
- Updated guidance will be issued on how the FoI works.
- Ministers have accepted that “public interest” should determine whether risk registers are published. (The government was criticised for not publishing the risk register relating to the Health and Social Care Act.)
Updated
And here is the full report from the independent commission on Freedom of Information (pdf). It runs to 64 pages.
Government publishes outcome of Freedom of Information review
The government has published the outcome of its Freedom of Information review.
There is a summary here, in a written ministerial statement from Matthew Hancock.
Here is the preview story we wrote earlier.
Lord Mandelson's Europe speech - Summary
Lord Mandelson’s speech this morning was focused entirely on trade. Those in favour of leaving the EU argue that Britain, as the fifth largest economy in the world, would have no difficulty negotiating free trade deals with other countries if it left the EU and that, without being encumbered by the Brussels bureaucracy, British trade negotiators might even be able to act more quickly than EU trade negotiators.
Drawing on his experience as a former European trade commission, Mandelson argued that they were wrong.
His speech went into a level of detail that most other recent speeches or articles on this topic have missed. It probably is not for everyone, but if you are even half-interested in the EU trade argument, it is well worth reading.
Here are the key points.
- Mandelson said it was a “fantasy” and “deeply irresponsible” to claim Britain’s trade deals would be better outside the EU.
As things stand, if we genuinely want to continue embedding UK companies in global supply and value chains, and if we are genuinely serious about continuing to build the UK as a trading base for Europe’s single market, there is no rational or realistic way that Brexit offers a better set of global trade arrangements than those we have already.
Brexiters are trying to sell people a fantasy of what life outside of the EU would look like, without any evidence to back up their assertions.
With the fate of future generations and our country’s place in the world on the ballot paper it is deeply irresponsible to pretend otherwise.
- He said it was important to recognise that there was a difference between being in a single market and having a free trade agreement (FTA). Those in favour of leaving the EU say Britain could replace being in the single market with having a free trade agreement with the EU. But they were different things, he said.
I would describe the Single Market as Free Trade Extra Plus. The Extra are the common rules and regulations that matter as much as the absence of tariffs. The Plus is being part of the EU’s decision-making which gives us a big say in how these rules are made and the rights of redress when others do not obey them.
It is this Extra Plus that has led to a boost to the size of the economy. The Financial Times cites leading economic historian Nick Crafts as suggesting the UK economy is a tenth larger as a result, which is many tens of thousands of jobs in Britain ...
You either accept “the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital” of the Single Market or you don’t and if you don’t you are outside the Single Market.
While Brexit campaigners blur the distinction between an FTA and Single Market access, each is distinct, with profound implications, and in this debate they must be treated as such.
- He said that if Britain struck a free trade deal with the EU, exporters to the EU could still end up having tariffs imposed on their goods.
Complete tariff removal is not guaranteed in an FTA and even a low tariff can change the calculus of a supply chain in a highly cost-sensitive global economy. 3% on the cost of a supply chain input can be material. And for the large volume of trade that we hope would continue, that could be a considerable sum of money.
For every UK company that trades with the EU – and there are over 200,000 – this should be a worry, as it would be for every inward investor that sets up in the UK to manufacture for onward sale into the European market.
- He said he could not imagine the EU allowing the UK a full free trade deal in services.
It is implausible, for example, to think that we could get most of what we want on services, the biggest sector of the UK economy, where it is not tariffs but regulatory barriers that count.
I cannot see the circumstances in which the ECB, post Brexit, would allow London to continue being the centre for clearing euro-denominated trades completely outside their regulatory scope.
- He said EU countries would be reluctant to offer the UK unfettered access to their markets.
The key point is that for every European economic interest with a keen stake in the British market there would be another with a competitive advantage in rolling back that British access just a bit, especially in sectors like farming and, of course, financial services, where there will be both Member States and MEPs trying to advance the interests of Frankfurt or Paris at the expense of London.
Continental auto manufacturers, another example, would quickly see the opportunity for them of making British producers face new tariff costs. They would need to make a commercial judgement vis-a-vis the UK market. But we should not assume that France, Italy or Spain will vote to allow Vauxhall, Nissan, Honda, Toyota and other UK-based producers tariff free access to the European market when their industries suffer from over-capacity.
Yes, the German large car makers want free access to Britain but they do not call all the shots.
I know from experience that in any trade negotiation defensive interests speak loudest and they are not always overcome. It is only partly a joke to say that trade deals are launched by liberals but signed by protectionists.
- He said that if Britain left the EU, while some countries with EU trade deals might offer the UK the same terms, others would not.
The EU is a gateway for global market access. Outside it we lose the preferential trading benefits from its trade agreements with over 50 other countries.
It is possible that some will transfer the existing agreement to us without much fuss but others will not feel that what the UK is offering makes it worth their while. They will make their own calculus.
Overnight, following our departure, those literally hundreds of thousands of zeroed tariffs and improved conditions of market access previously negotiated by the EU in markets like Korea, Canada, Mexico, Colombia, Central America, Singapore, Vietnam, the Euromed basin and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and others would be withdrawn and replaced with the costlier, non-preferential, non-privileged market access provided to all ordinary WTO members.
In some cases, that could mean new tariffs of ten, twenty percent or sometimes even more on key UK exports such as cars, machine goods, whisky and textiles.
- He said if Britain left the EU it would have to impose tariffs on some imports, pushing up prices.
The UK would also potentially have to raise its own tariffs on imports from these markets [if it left the EU].
Because, having left the EU trade framework and before the UK had replaced it through negotiations of our own, we could not continue to offer the same preferential treatment to goods entering Britain under the original EU agreements.
This is because we would be breaking WTO rules which require, outside preferential agreements, treating all fellow WTO members the same, without discrimination.
So one of the first acts of a UK outside of the EU would actually be to increase border protection because we are no longer covered by EU agreements, raising the cost of imported goods and consumer prices.
- He said negotiating trade deals with countries outside the EU would be harder than some Brexit campaigners think.
Yes, we could try to negotiate duplicate agreements with Korea and others. I don’t know how many of you have had the pleasure of negotiating with the Koreans, but I have. They are charming – but utterly tough.
We would have to persuade them to offer the same terms as they offered the EU – but with less leverage.
- He said Britain had a shortage of trade negotiators, which was an added problem.
And there is a practical problem here too. After our years in the EU, the UK has no real trade negotiating capacity – it would first have to be rebuilt.
If we left, the UK would be ill equipped to re-build the status quo let alone forge new agreements which some imagine are within our grasp.
- He said Norway used to ask him, as EU’s trade commissioner, to represent its interests in trade talks.
We must not fall into the trap of confusing Britain’s genuine cultural and soft power influence with weight at the trade negotiating table.
How often do I remember the Norwegian foreign minister grabbing my arm as I went into trade negotiations asking me to represent his country’s interests because Norway did not have a seat at the negotiating table.
- He ridiculed Boris Johnson for comparing himself to James Bond in relation to his EU stance.
It would be thoroughly reckless for Britain to sacrifice the settled network of trade advantages and preferences we have built up over decades, just for the thrill of a dare devil race round the international circuit in our own Aston Martin, as Boris aspires to.
He was referring to a line Johnson used in an interview with the Times at the weekend.
Updated
Lord Mandelson has delivered his speech on Europe. According to some of the journalists who were listening, some of it sounded a bit clunky.
This is from the BBC’s James Landale.
"I would describe the single market as Free Trade Extra Plus". Peter Mandelson showing he's forgotten how to write a snappy headline..
— James Landale (@BBCJLandale) March 1, 2016
And this is from Bloomberg’s Rob Hutton.
Mandelson whipping them up: "Without the guarantee of long term regulatory convergence, market access is always living on borrowed time!"
— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) March 1, 2016
I’m just reading the speech now. I will post a summary soon.
Another foreign leader has entered the debate about Brexit. As Andrew MacDowall reports for Politico, Kosovo’s president-elect, Hashim Thaçi, has said Britain’s departure from the EU could trigger “a chain reaction” with potentially dangerous consequences for the Balkans.
Thaçi told Politico:
I very well understand internal political developments [in Britain], but the EU without Britain would lose its meaning. It can cause a chain reaction within the EU. That’s the softest way of putting it ...
For all its shortcomings, the EU is still the only alternative for Kosovo and the region. What are the other options? If there’s no EU integration, the region might withdraw to nationalism and the idea of redrawing borders. This will cause more problems, more crisis and more suffering, beyond any of our abilities to comprehend.
Tyrie says Cameron's EU deal could be a 'Trojan horse' extending powers of EU
Lord Hill, Britain’s European commissioner, is giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the costs and benefits of EU membership. Hill is responsible for “financial stability, financial services and capital markets union” and we were expecting the hearing to get bogged down in complex financial technicalities.
But the hearing opened with some drama. Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative MP who chairs the committee, ambushed Hill with a question about the EU renegotiation and then criticised him for not being on top of his brief.
Here are the key points.
- Tyrie said people should be “very concerned” about Cameron’s EU renegotiation because it appears to extend the powers of the European Union in relation to financial stability.
- He criticised Lord Hill, the financial stability commissioner, for not being able to explain a key phrase in the renegotiation document.
The problem started for Hill when Tyrie said that there was nothing in the existing EU treaties giving the EU power in relation to financial stability. Then he asked Hill about a line in the renegotiation document.
I note that in this agreement that has been agreed it says that while financial stability is “a matter for their own authorities”, that’s the authorities of member states, that responsibility that lies with member states should be “without prejudice to the existing powers of the union to take action that is necessary to respond to threats to financial stability”. That looks like competence creep to me. It looks like an extension of responsibility taking place under the guise of something that is reinforcing protection for the UK. What response to you have to give to that?
Hill said that he did not see this as an example of “competence creep”, but he was unable to explain to Tyrie what the phrase “without prejudice to the existing powers of the union” meant. He told Tyrie:
I’m afraid that without having that text I’m not able to give you a very satisfactory answer.
Tyrie then criticised him for not knowing his subject.
I think this is pretty crucial. If you don’t mind my saying so, I’m a bit concerned that you are not completely up to speed with what the scope and limits of what appears to be an extension of union powers in the field of financial stability is as a consequence of that language that is now going to be in treaty form, lodged with the UN, and subsequently embodied in the union treaties.
In this context, telling someone like Hill he is “not completely up to speed” with an issue amounts to a severe accusation of incompetence. Tyrie went on:
So we should be very concerned indeed, it seems to me. This agreement, from a British perspective, appears to have protection followed swiftly by what its detractors could easily describe as a Trojan horse of competence creep.
Tyrie asked Hill to write to the committee with a considered explanation, which Hill agreed to do.
The Telegaph’s Asa Bennett points out that Lord Mandelson may not be the most persuasive salesman for the Remain camp.
He cites this Survation research from 2013, which found that Mandelson’s approach to Europe was seen as far less popular than David Cameron’s, Margaret Thatcher’s, Ed Miliband’s, Tony Blair’s or Nick Clegg’s.
Survation found only 4 voters who liked what Peter Mandelson had to say about the EUhttps://t.co/0YVMFypNqs pic.twitter.com/Zb77htClAt
— Asa Bennett (@asabenn) March 1, 2016
And a YouGov survey for the Times before the election also found that supporters of all the main parties view an endorsement from Mandelson as more of a liability than an asset.
YouGov found Peter Mandelson had a net rating of -45 among voters as a political assethttps://t.co/3Bzvljh53H pic.twitter.com/dbk4kYgFkz
— Asa Bennett (@asabenn) March 1, 2016
Lord Mandelson, the Labour former business secretary and former European trade commissioner, is giving a speech on Europe this morning. No one will be surprised to learn that he is in favour of Britain staying in the EU - for years he has been one of the high priests of Anglo-Europhilia - but his background gives him more authority to speak on this subject than most others who have been contributing.
He was on the Today programme previewing what he will say. Here are the key points.
- Mandelson said it could take Britain up to seven years to negotiate new trade deals. Those in favour of Brexit say that it would not take long for the UK to negotiate a trade deal with the EU if it voted to leave because it would be in the EU’s interests to sort the issue out quickly. Mandelson said it was not as simple as that.
Any idiot can start a trade agreement. The question is where does it end up? You can deal with tariffs relatively easily. What is much harder to deal with are the behind-the-border regulatory barriers. And the more you want to reduce both border tariff barriers and regulatory barriers, the longer and more complex it is, and the harder the negotiation is. And that is why on average a free trade agreement takes between four and seven years, sometimes much longer, to negotiate.
- He said Lord Lawson, the chair of Vote Leave, was talking “absolute rubbish” when he said the UK would just inherit the trade deals the EU had struck up with non-EU countries if it voted to leave the EU. That was not the case, Mandelson said. He said those agreements were EU ones, not British ones. Lawson was “engaging in fantasy politics”, he said.
- Mandelson said leaving the EU would “damage British business”.
It is clear to me, I have reached the conclusion, that the political aims of those who are seeking to leave the European Union will undoubtedly damage British business, British jobs and British investment.
- He said the Out camp could not explain what Britian’s relationship with the EU would be like if it left.
The point about the Leave campaigners is they are really not giving an answer to what Out would look like, what situation would we be in if we were not in the European Union. And I think the reason they are not doing that is because they are torn between their obsession with what they call Britain’s autonomy, Britain’s independence - some would say isolation - on the one hand, and their desire to pretend that we will not lose trade and jobs as a result of leaving. Now, I don’t think you can have it both ways.
Therefore what they are doing is ducking the issue, or saying different things to different people at different times.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.45am: Lord Justice Treacy, chair of the Sentencing Council of England and Wales, gives evidence to the Commons justice committee.
10am: Lord Mandelson, the Labour former business secretary and former European trade commissioner, gives a speech on Europe.
11.30am: George Osborne, the chancellor, takes questions in the Commons.
At some point today the Home Office will publish its investigatory powers bill. My colleague Alan Travis has written a preview story.
As usual, I will be also covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
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. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
If you think there are any voices that I’m leaving out, particularly political figures or organisations giving alternative views of the stories I’m covering, do please flag them up below the line (include “Andrew” in the post). I can’t promise to include everything, but I do try to be open to as wide a range of perspectives as possible.
Updated
