Afternoon summary
- Philip Hammond, the British foreign secretary, has been accused of a lack of openness as he faces fresh calls to set out plans for troop deployments in Libya. As Patrick Wintour reports, a testy letter from the foreign affairs select committee charges Hammond with being less than candid, not straightforward, and leaking details of their correspondence to the media.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
TUSC accuses Electoral Commission of establishment stitch-up
The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition also applied for the Leave designation, and in its response it is arguing that it has been the victim of an establishment stitch-up. This is from Dave Nellist, the former Labour MP who now chairs TUSC.
All the opinion polls are showing what we have experienced on the ground - that what working class Labour voters do will be critical in deciding the outcome of the EU referendum.
For that reason the government, and the majority of the capitalist establishment in Britain who desperately want a Remain vote, are determined that the voice of Leave should be dominated by pro-market, pro-austerity politicians who will argue their case within the same economic and political framework as the equally big business-dominated ‘Britain Stronger in Europe’ Remain campaign.
TUSC, on the other hand, would have offered a completely different standpoint and in providing an anti-austerity, anti-racist and socialist alternative to the EU in the traditions of Bob Crow and Tony Benn would have been particularly attractive to Labour voters.
So it is not a surprise to us that the Electoral Commission has bowed to political pressure and chosen the opponents that the establishment want to fight and not the ones who could have given them a proper contest.
Updated
Vote Leave's campaign committee - Members
For the record, here are the members of Vote Leave’s campaign committee.
This is what Vote Leave describes as the “core group” which will coordinate between campaign committee meetings and meet on a daily basis.
Michael Gove (co-convener)
Gisela Stuart (co-convener)
Matthew Elliott (chief executive)
Dominic Cummings (campaign director)
Boris Johnson
Ian Davidson
And here are the other members of the campaign committee.
Steve Baker
Douglas Carswell
Nigel Dodds
Iain Duncan Smith
Frank Field
Lord Forsyth
Liam Fox
Chris Grayling
Dan Hannan
Paul Keetch
Lord Lawson
Andrea Leadsom
John Longworth
Lord Owen
Priti Patel
Dominic Raab
Graham Stringer
Theresa Villiers
John Whittingdale
Leave.EU to announce decision on possible legal challenge by noon tomorrow.
Leave.EU has just announced it will take a decision about whether or not to challenge the Electoral Commission’s decision in court by noon tomorrow. It has put out this statement.
Leave.EU has consulted counsel and will make a decision about whether or not to proceed with a judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s award of lead campaign designation to Vote Leave by noon tomorrow, 14 April.
So it is starting to look as if Arron Banks is backing down already. Half an hour ago he was definitely seeking judicial review. (See 4.41pm.)
Vote Leave chosen to lead the Brexit campaign - Snap analysis
The process involved in deciding which anti-EU organisation to designate as the official Leave campaign was a relatively arcane one and, at first glance, today’s decision may seem like one of interest primarily to EU referendum anoraks. But in practice this is a very important decision that will play a large part in framing the campaign as it unfolds between now and Thursday 23 June.
That’s because the designated Leave campaign, Vote Leave, will choose the main messages that go out on behalf of those who want to leave the EU. In theory the benefits of being the lead campaign are all about getting the public grant, being able to spend up to £7m (not just £700,000, the limit for registered campaign groups), free mailing and broadcasts. (See 3.06pm.) But what matters is what is written on those leaflets, and who appears on those broadcasts. Those decisions will now be taken by Vote Leave, who may also now get the final say in who appears in the TV debates.
If Vote Leave and Grassroots Out had a similar approach to campaigning this would not matter much. Vote Leave emerged out of Business for Britain and essentially it represents corporate, monied, Eurosceptic Conservatism. Its campaign director is Dominic Cummings, the brilliant but abrasive adviser who used to work for Michael Gove. Gove is one of the convenors of its campaign committee, and other prominent figures involved include Boris Johnson, Daniel Hannan, Christopher Grayling and Priti Patel. It is not exclusively Tory - Labour’s Gisela Stuart is the other convenor of the campaign committee - but to a large extent it looks like a wing of CCHQ.
And Grassroots Out is basically - Ukip plus. Although some Tory MPs like Peter Bone and David Davis have spoken on its behalf, the Ukip leader Nigel Farage and his multi-millionaire donor Arron Banks are the leading figures in the organisation. One way of reading today’s decision is as a Ukip defeat.
And why does it matter? Because Vote Leave and Grassroots Out have quite different approaches to fighting the referendum. Farage knows that Ukip’s electoral success in recent years (going from around 3% in the 2010 general election to around 13% in 2015) only happened after he started to focus on immigration, and he wants to turn the June vote principally into a referendum on whether Britain should take back control of its own borders to exclude EU migrants. For Farage, the prospect of Turkey joining the EU is a wonderful electoral scare. Yet Vote Leave are quite squeamish about immigrant bashing and - despite what Farage is saying this afternoon (see 3.55pm) - they would rather campaign on trade and sovereignty. Gove and his colleague are patriotic globalists, alarmed by Ukip’s little England isolationism.
Now that Vote Leave has won the designation (assuming any legal challenge goes nowhere, which is likely) Farage will probably play a less high profile role in the campaign than he otherwise would have done. This may help Leave because, as this Fabian Society polling shows, Farage and Ukip are less appealing to the public at large than any of the other major players in this debate.
So in that sense today’s decision is probably good for Out. But there are solid grounds for thinking immigration is actually Leave’s best argument and if you accept that, then by marginalising the quasi-xenophobes the Electoral Commission may have helped Remain. Sir Lynton Crosby, the election strategist who helped the Tories win the election, thinks immigration is Leave’s best weapon. And the Fabian research also seems to back that up. This chart shows which issues are most important to different groups of people in the referendum. Immigration comes top for all groups except for Remain voters (the white line) unless you group all economic issues together under the heading “any economy”, in which case it roughly matches immigration in terms of importance.
(By the way, do read the Fabian Society report [pdf] in full if you’re interested in this. It’s excellent.)
Updated
Arron Banks says he will seek judicial review to challenge Electoral Commission's decision
Arron Banks has announced that he will seek a judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s decision. Leave.EU, which he co-founded and which is one of the main groups behind Grassroots Out, issued this statement from him.
I am thoroughly unsatisfied with the Electoral Commission’s decision for a variety of reasons that I will be making clear in my application for judicial review.
The tweeting by Steve Bell, the Chairman of the Conservative Party Convention, that Vote Leave had been given the designation the night before of the official announcement smells of political corruption from our high-minded establishment and cannot be allowed to pass without challenge.
There are a number of judgements according to the Electoral Commission’s own criteria that do not make sense and we shall be raising those inconsistencies in our action.
It is to be regretted that this process may put the referendum back until October but if we are to avoid the most important vote of our lives being rigged then I feel duty bound to take this course of action.
Banks was referring to a tweet sent out last night by Bell saying Vote Leave had won the Leave designation. The Electoral Commission said at that point that a decision had not been taken, and Vote Leave said the tweet was sent out by mistake.
Nigel Farage congratulates Vote Leave on winning Leave designation
And here is a statement from Nigel Farage on the decision.
I congratulate Vote Leave on getting designation.
The decision of Ukip to back Grassroots Out was on the basis that they saw the importance of the immigration issue in this referendum, and that we wanted to reach out across the country at a grassroots level and work with everyone from the left, centre and right of British politics to get our country out of the EU. I believe this approach is the only way the Leave side can win this referendum.
It is clear that Vote Leave now share my view on this approach, for instance the issue of EU open borders is now a prominent part of their campaign messaging.
Regardless of whichever campaign got the designation, Ukip would always have played a big role in this campaign as the only national party committed to leaving the EU and with a substantial £4m spending limit.
I have always wanted all on the Leave side to come together and have done my best to try and make this happen. I’ll continue to do so in the run up to the referendum to ensure the Leave side wins.
We in Ukip, as I’ve said from the start, will work with anyone that wants to leave the EU. We must work together to get our country out of the European Union.
Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, has tweeted about the Electoral Commission’s decision.
I congratulate @vote_leave on getting designation.
— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) April 13, 2016
Ukip was strongly backing Grassroots Out for the lead campaign designation.
Here is the Electoral Commission’s scorecard (pdf) explaining why it decided Vote Leave was better placed to represent the Leave campaign than Grassroots Out.
Grassroots Out, the Leave group that lost the competition to be designated as the lead Leave campaign, seems to be split. Peter Bone, a spokesman, has issued a statement congratulating Vote Leave (see 3.14pm) and he has just appeared on Sky News with the same message.
But Andy Wigmore, head of communications for Leave.EU, the group set up by the Ukip donor Arron Banks which is the main group behind the Grassroots Out coalition, has said that Banks is taking legal advice on whether the decision can be challenged. Wigmore told Huffington Post:
We are going to appeal it, which could delay the referendum until October 23.
We think it’s a political stitch-up.
The Electoral Commission was set up to take decisions like this, so grounds for a legal challenge may be slight, but Banks is a multi-millionaire and not a man inclined to compromise.
Electoral Commission explains why it chose Vote Leave
Here is more from the Electoral Commission, explaining the background its decision.
The Political Parties, Election and Referendum Act 2000 (PPERA) (as amended by the European Union Referendum Act 2016) requires the Commission to consider a statutory test when assessing applications for designation. The test is:
- if there is only one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate that applicant unless it is not satisfied that it adequately represents those campaigning for that outcome, or
- if there is more than one applicant for an outcome, the Commission shall designate whichever of the applicants appears to it to represent to the greatest extent those campaigning for that outcome unless it is not satisfied that any of the applicants adequately represents those campaigning for that outcome.
There was only one applicant for designation to be lead campaigner for the ‘Remain’ outcome, ‘The In Campaign Ltd’ and the Commission decided that it adequately represented those campaigning for this outcome.
There were three applicants for designation for the ‘Leave’ outcome. The application from the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition did not demonstrate that it adequately represented other campaigners.
The two remaining applications, from ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ and ‘The Go Movement Ltd’ were considered to adequately represent other campaigners. The Commission was therefore required to determine which of the two applicants would, represent the other campaigners on the ‘Leave’ side to the greatest extent
While both applications were of a high standard, the Commission considered in particular that:
- Both campaigns demonstrate support from a wide range of groups representing different interests. However, ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ better demonstrated the depth of representation in their support from those campaigning, including at a regional and local level.
- ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ also provided well-developed plans and structures for how they would support other campaigning organisations. Their offer of support is not conditional on organisations agreeing to deliver messages or activity on their behalf and there is an established forum (the ‘Contact Group’) with the specific intended purpose of allowing an exchange of views between campaigners. By contrast, the approach from ‘Go Movement Ltd’ is based on other campaigners signing formalised agreements as ‘affiliates’ but there is no established mechanism for supporting campaigners who do not wish to sign these.
In order to become a designated lead campaigner, registered campaigners had to submit an application to the Electoral Commission to help it apply the statutory test explaining:
- the applicant ’s objectives and how it fits with the referendum outcome it supports
- the level and type of support for the application
- how the applicant plans to represent other campaigners campaigning for the same outcome including how it would engage with them
- the applicant’s organisational capacity to represent those campaigning for that outcome, and
- the applicant’s capacity to deliver their campaign
Updated
Grassroots Out has put out a statement congratulating Vote Leave on winning the designation. This is from Peter Bone, a Conservative MP and Grassroots Out spokesman.
We congratulate Vote Leave on securing designation and we thank our supporters for all the hard work they have put into the campaign so far.
We draw our support from right across the political spectrum and from tens of thousands of grassroots campaigners of no particular political affiliation.
We are motivated by a deep sense of patriotism and the unflinching belief that the UK will be safer, stronger and more independent outside the EU. We will be able to control our own borders, build our prosperity by trading freely with the whole world, and restore our historic right to self government.
We look forward to working closely and productively with all those who want to see the UK set free to determine its own destiny. We are determined to play our part in creating a united front to secure victory on June 23 for Leave – Independence Day.
There was only one organisation applying for designation on the Remain side - Britain Stronger in Europe (referred to as The In Campaign Ltd in the Electoral Commission’s statement).
But three organisations were competing for the Leave designation: Vote Leave, Grassroots Out (GO) and the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition.
What the designation means
This is what the Electoral Commission says about what the designation means.
The two lead campaigners will now have access to specific benefits set out in law during the regulated ‘referendum period’ which begins on 15 April. The benefits of being a lead campaigner are:
- A higher spending limit of £7 million
- One free distribution of information to voters
- The use of certain public rooms
- Referendum campaign broadcasts
A grant of up to £600,000 to be used for certain spending including the administration costs associated with setting up and running a referendum campaign and the costs associated with the TV broadcasts and free mailing to voters that they are entitled to as lead campaigners
In addition to these statutory benefits, lead campaign groups can have:
- A dedicated page in the Commission’s public information booklet which will be distributed to all households in the UK (in both English language and bilingual English/Welsh language versions)
- The inclusion in the booklet of a link to a page on the campaigner’s website, which should include their opinion on what will happen in the event of either referendum result
Updated
Press statement from Electoral Commission saying Vote Leave will lead Leave campaign
Here is the main press statement from the Electoral Commission.
The Electoral Commission has today designated the two lead campaigners at the EU Referendum – designating ‘The In Campaign Ltd’ to be the lead campaigner for the “Remain” outcome, and ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ for the “Leave” outcome.
Papers relating to the Electoral Commission’s decision and copies of the applications made by all applicant organisations, together with supporting information, are available on the Electoral Commission’s website here. The applicants’ campaign strategies and all personal data have been redacted from these papers.
Explaining its decision to designate ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ ahead of the two other competing applications on the ‘Leave’ side, Claire Bassett, Chief Executive of the Electoral Commission said:
“Where there are competing applicants for a particular outcome the law is clear, we must designate the applicant which appears to us to represent those campaigning for that outcome to the greatest extent.
“We received two high quality applications on the ‘Leave’ side, from ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ and ‘The Go Movement Ltd’. After careful consideration, the Commission decided that ‘Vote Leave Ltd’ better demonstrated that it has the structures in place to ensure the views of other campaigners are represented in the delivery of its campaign. It therefore represents, to a greater extent than ‘Go Movement Ltd’, those campaigning for the ‘Leave’ outcome, which is the test we must apply.
“We encourage all campaigners to now focus on engaging voters on the historic decision they will have to take on 23 June.”
Updated
Vote Leave designated as official Leave campaign
The Electoral Commission has just announced that Vote Leave, not Grassroots Out (GO), will be the official Leave campaign.
How Whittingdale used to be in favour of part two of the Leveson inquiry going ahead
The World at One pointed out earlier that in the last parliament, when he was chair of the Commons culture committee, John Whittingdale said he was in favour of the second part of the Leveson inquiry (the one supposed to be looking at the specifics of phone hacking at the News of the World) taking place. This is what Whittingdale said in a Commons debate in December 2012.
There are still big questions to be answered about how serial breaches of the law could take place in newsrooms and how the police appeared to do absolutely nothing about it, despite having the necessary evidence for a number of years. I very much hope that we will see the establishment of part 2 of the Leveson inquiry—whether it takes place under Lord Leveson or not is not the most important point—because we need answers to those questions once the criminal prosecutions have been exhausted.
As I said earlier (see 11.16am), even though the government claims it has not taken a decision, it was been reported that David Cameron has already decided to shelve it.
Here’s an extract from a recent Daily Mail story.
A senior government source told the Daily Mail that the idea had been abandoned after a string of journalists were cleared of wrongdoing by the courts.
‘What would be the point of having another inquiry?’ the source said. ‘Things have moved on since the first one, and we see no point revisiting it.’
According to the Press Association, Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, appeared to distance himself from Maria Eagle’s demand for John Whittingdale to give up his responsibilities for press regulation when he appeared on the BBC’s Daily Politics. Benn said Whittingdale “ought to get on and do his job”, including pressing ahead with the second stage of the Leveson inquiry.
No 10 hints that Cameron would like to have been told about Whittingdale's relationship earlier
Here is more from what Number 10 is saying about the John Whittingdale story.
- David Cameron has rejected Labour’s call for John Whittingdale to be stripped of responsibility for media regulation. A spokesman for Number 10 said:
The prime minister has got full confidence in John Whittingdale to perform all his duties.
- No 10 said Cameron first found out about Whittingdale’s relationship with the sex worker 10 days ago, the spokesman said. Whittingdale did not tell Cameron himself. Cameron found out after the story appeared online.
- The spokesman hinted that Cameron would like to have been told about Whittingdale’s relationship earlier. Asked if Cameron thought he should have bent told earlier the spokesman said:
John Whittingdale’s view was that this was in the past, and had been dealt with.
From that, it does rather sound as if Cameron thinks he should have been informed when he decided to appoint Whittingdale culture secretary.
- The spokesman declined to say whether Cameron thought it was right to publish the story. “That’s a decision for the BBC and others to make,” the spokesman said.
- The spokesman said the government would not decide whether or not go ahead with the second part of the Leveson inquiry until all the relevant judicial proceedings were over.
Labour says government's EU information leaflet should be 'more even-handed'
Labour is criticising the the government’s pro-EU leaflet. At the post-PMQs huddle, a spokesman for Jeremy Corbyn said it should be “more even-handed”.
STORY ALERT: Jeremy Corbyn criticises the £9.3 million pro-EU leaflet. His spokesman says the Government should be "more even handed".
— Kevin Schofield (@PolhomeEditor) April 13, 2016
PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
And this is what political commentators and journalists are saying about PMQs on Twitter. Jeremy Corbyn is getting reasonably good reviews.
From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie
My snap verdict on #PMQs Corbyn wins by a Wesker..https://t.co/eSjLCp49bk
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror) April 13, 2016
From the Sun
Onlookers were stunned by Jeremy Corbyn's attack on David Cameron at PMQshttps://t.co/eivFKF9wnp pic.twitter.com/ovm7DHiUrn
— Sun Politics (@SunPolitics) April 13, 2016
From the New Statesman’s George Eaton
This is an old-style #PMQs performance by Corbyn - and the better for it.
— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) April 13, 2016
Cameron will be glad to be immersed in wonkish exchange on tax reform that will be white noise to most voters. #PMQs
— George Eaton (@georgeeaton) April 13, 2016
From CapX’s Iain Martin
PMQs: Is Jeremy Corbyn improving a bit? (Me for @CapX) https://t.co/iATcwNh2tN via @CapX
— Iain Martin (@iainmartin1) April 13, 2016
From the Birmingham Post’s Jonathan Walker
Very important stuff but the issue of whether crown dependencies publish registers of beneficial ownership etc is a little dry #PMQs
— Jonathan Walker (@jonwalker121) April 13, 2016
From 5 News’s Andy Bell
Fact that tax discussion about policy rather than personal taxes already a win for Cameron compared to last week #PMQs
— Andy Bell (@andybell5news) April 13, 2016
From the Independent’s Liam Young
At PMQs today, Cameron came across as a brilliant comedian - and a shoddy Prime Minister https://t.co/JODhVnRe3b
— Independent Voices (@IndyVoices) April 13, 2016
From the BBC’s Sam Macrory
Given what happened last week, Cameron will be pretty pleased how that #pmqs turned out. Tax issues now sounding far more technical
— Sam Macrory (@sammacrory) April 13, 2016
From Sky’s Faisal Islam
Another first from Corbyn: zero crowdsourced questions at this #PMQs
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) April 13, 2016
From Huffington Post’s Owen Bennett
Corbyn did well this week. Some good lines, stayed on one topic but not just one line of questioning #pmqs
— Owen Bennett (@owenjbennett) April 13, 2016
From Huffington Post’s Graeme Demianyk
Fall-out from the Panama Papers has been reduced to a process story about overseas registers #PMQs
— Graeme Demianyk (@GraemeDemianyk) April 13, 2016
From BuzzFeed’s Stuart Millar
Missed opportunity for Corbyn, who started well on tax but got stuck in beneficial ownership details so easy for Cameron to bat away. #PMQs
— Stuart Millar (@stuartmillar159) April 13, 2016
Here's the open goal Corbyn missed at #PMQs https://t.co/bpD0CHVzbB
— Stuart Millar (@stuartmillar159) April 13, 2016
No 10 rejects call for Whittingdale to step aside from press regulation decisions
Number 10 has rejected Labour’s call for John Whittingdale to step aside from press regulation decisions.
No10 spokesman after PMQs: "The Prime Minister has full confidence in John Whittingdale to carry out ALL of his duties"
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) April 13, 2016
PMQs - Verdict
PMQs - Verdict: Half an hour later, it still feels as if that was something of a score draw. But, in the light of where David Cameron was towards the end of last week (“less than 24 hours away from resignation”, according to some over-excited commentary), it was probably better for Cameron than he might have been expecting at the weekend. The Independent’s Nigel Morris was spot on with this.
You wouldn't know David Cameron's just his 'worst week' #PMQs
— Nigel Morris (@NigelpMorris) April 13, 2016
Corbyn believes that the Panama Paper revelations have illustrated the injustice of a system involving one law for the rich, and another for the remaining 99%, and he would like to channel the anger people feel about this into support for Labour’s new politics and new economy agenda. But, as PMQs veered into a highly technical discussion about the precise nature of the beneficial ownership disclosure mechanisms being set up by Britain’s crown dependencies and overseas territories, it did not feel as if there was a lot of anger-channelling going on. We ended up in slightly dull policy territory, which probably suited Cameron.
But Corbyn did force Cameron effectively to admit that he had had to shelve his original plans to force all crown dependencies and overseas territories to make their beneficial ownership registers public. Corbyn scored a very effective hit with his question about the voting record of Tory MEPs (which Cameron would not answer - see 12.06pm). And it was telling that the Cameron jibes about Corbyn’s tax return did not really hit home. Corbyn responded by saying that at least he paid more tax than some companies owned by people Cameron knows quite well. In the office we’re debating whether he was referring to Blairmore Holdings, Cameron’s late father’s offshore investment firm that does not pay any UK tax, or Osborne & Little, the wallpaper firm owned by George Osborne’s family which has not paid any corporation tax for seven years.
Updated
Labour’s Catherine West asks if Cameron knows how much sadness and anger has been generated by the decision to get rid of parent governors.
Cameron say the government supports having parent governors. They have a role to play. MPs will debate a Labour motion on this today. But the motion says the government’s white paper proposes nothing of the kind, he says.
And that’s it. I’ll post a summary soon.
Cameron says NHS executives like Sir Bruce Keogh support the idea of a seven-day NHS.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says the government’s pro-EU “propaganda sheet’ says the UK has control of its own borders. Does that mean we have withdrawn from the free movement of people?
Cameron says the UK does have the right to refuse EU nations the right to enter the country. He says Rees-Mogg’s question is typical of the scaremongering coming from Leave.
Cameron says the new junior doctors’ contract is pro-women because it increases basic pay, therefore reducing the need for overtime.
Labour’s Jo Stevens asks if Cameron will adopt an opt out system for organ donations.
Cameron says he has looked at this before. The government has made opt in work better. But the Commons can vote if it wants on whether to follow Wales and adopt an opt out model.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, says she is concerned that investigators will not be able to follow up the Mossack Fonseca revelations. Even now some documents are probably being shredded, she says.
Cameron says he accepts the need for an investigation, but it is not for the government to tell the prosecuting authorities what to do.
Cheryl Gillan, a Conservative, asks if Cameron will support the National Autistic Society’s Too Much Information campaign, which is about getting people to be more understanding about the behaviour of autistic people in public.
Cameron backs the campaign, and says he recently went to see The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, which explains autism very well.
Updated
Labour’s Jenny Chapman says women’s refugees are facing crisis. Housing benefit changes will force some to change. They should be exempt from the cuts, he says.
Cameron says the government is doing what it did with rape crisis centres in the last parliament with women’s refugees now. Some £80m is available to help them stay open.
Nigel Huddleston, a Conservative, asks if Cameron will be attending the asparagus festival.
Cameron says he might.
Labour’s Stephen Timms says Sutton Trust research shows turning schools into academies does not improve them. Why are all schools having to become academies.
Cameron says 88% of schools that have become academies are either good or outstanding. All the evidence is that the results are better under academies. And, where problems happen, intervention comes more quickly.
Cameron tells Ukip’s Douglas Carswell he will stay as PM if Britain votes to leave the EU.
Snap PMQs verdict
Snap PMQs verdict: That was probably a draw, but it was a reasonably informative one which saw both Corbyn and Cameron make some solid points. Corbyn’s best question was his first one, about the voting record of Tory MEPs on multinational taxation, and Cameron did not even try to address it. But Cameron was more comfortable when Corbyn turned to HMRC funding (because he was able to quote figures about staff numbers going up between 2010 and 2015 - although tellingly he did not say what would happen by 2020) and, when Corbyn got onto tax havens and whether their registers of beneficial ownership will be public, we got into the familiar political dialogue of ‘We’ve done more than was done before’ versus ‘It’s not as much as you’ve promised’. But it is probably the first time Cameron has been as explicit as this in public about admitting that his original plans to get the Virgin Islands etc to have public registers have been shelved.
Updated
Corbyn says Cameron used to demand that the crown dependencies and overseas territories established public registers of beneficial ownership.
Cameron says he has taken an unprecedented step of having a public register in the UK.But he did not insist on the crown dependencies and overseas territories having them because some of the might have walked away.
Corbyn says Cameron is not offering a public register. The head of the Cayman Islands is today celebrating victory over the prime minister. If Cameron cannot even persuade the Cayman Islands or Jersey to open up their books, where is the tough action.
Cameron says the UK register will be published. And more information will be published about the ownership of London properties. He is not saying that he has achieved everything. But he has made progress. Labour is running to catch up because it did nothing for 13 years.
Corbyn says he paid more tax than some companies owned by people Cameron knows quite well. Cameron is not cutting down on tax abuse: he is cutting down on tax collectors. HMRC does not have the resources to tackled offshore tax evasion, he says.
Cameron says Corbyn’s figures, like his tax return, are not entirely accurate. In the summer budget the government gave HMRC an extra £800m. And, since 2010, the government has brought in £2bn from offshore tax havens.
He says previous governments said crown dependencies and offshore territories could do what they liked. Now he is insisting they crack down on tax evasion.
Corbyn says the budget red book says HMRC spending will fall from £3.3bn to £2.9bn by 2020. He asks whether Jersey and other tax havens will release beneficial ownership information.
Yes, says Cameron. He says they are not going as far as the UK, which is publishing a public register. But they will make the information available.
He says HMRC compliance staff numbers have gone up from 25,000 in 2010 to 26,798 in 2015.
Updated
Jeremy Corbyn starts by paying tribute to Arnold Wesker, a great playwright and one of the angry young men. Like other angry young men, he changed the face of the country.
He asks about the EU plans for country-by-country tax reporting. Tory MEPs voted against this, and against blacklisting. Will they back them in future.
Cameron also mourns the loss of “the famous playwright”.
He says the EU tax information plans were pushed by Lord Hill, the British commissioner. This government has gone further than any previous government.
So why did Tory MEPs vote against them, Corbyn asks. There seems to be a disconnect here. He says HMRC says the tax gap is £34bn. So why is the HMRC staff being cut.
Cameron says Corbyn’s tax return was a metaphor for Labour tax policies: late, chaotic and uncosted. He says the government has taken measures to close the tax gap. But the government believes in setting low tax rates and getting people to pay them.
Wendy Morton, a Conservative, asks David Cameron about supporting small firms.
Cameron says she is right. Small and medium-sized firms will be predominately creating the jobs of the future. Raising the basic rate allowance will save people about £1,000 each.
.@EmilyThornberry briefing @jeremycorbyn as they walk to #pmqs
— Eye Spy MP (@eyespymp) April 13, 2016
Corbyn and Angela Eagle in conversation on the front bench ahead of PMQs, suggesting that the Labour leader will go on steel
— James Forsyth (@JGForsyth) April 13, 2016
This is from the Daily Mirror’s Ben Glaze.
Hmm. Unusually, no cheers from #Tory backbenchers as David Cameron slips into #commons chamber for #PMQs
— Ben Glaze (@benglaze) April 13, 2016
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
15 MPs on the order paper for #PMQs - others who catch Speaker's eye will also be called. First up: @morton_wendy pic.twitter.com/jA9CAEaLUm
— PARLY (@ParlyApp) April 13, 2016
Guido Fawkes has put a post on his blog suggesting that Tom Watson, Labour’s deputy leader, was implicated in the Whittingdale story coming out.
Watson has not responded on Twitter, but the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire has on his behalf.
Fact: 2yrs ago @tom_watson answered no public justification in writing about who Whittingdale stepped out with when contacted by a paper
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) April 13, 2016
Here is some Twitter comment on the John Whittingdale story.
From the Daily Mirror’s Kevin Maguire
World gone mad? Wake up to hear anti-press & pro-privacy group Hacked Off furious papers didn't reveal sex life of a single man 1/3
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) April 13, 2016
V prominent Lab MP, pro-press regulation, asked for quote at time replied no public interest in revealing John Whittingdale's sex life 2/3
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) April 13, 2016
Papers reg hear about sex lives of Ministers & MPs. Now rarely run stories. Need clear hypocrisy for public interest to trump privacy 3/3
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) April 13, 2016
My final word on Whittingdale(for now): Informant selling details wanted £20k to expose him. Sure Hacked Off would condemn paying
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) April 13, 2016
From Stephen Pollard, the Jewish Chronicle editor
Labour's line is bonkers. Even if Whittingdale was compromised by former relationship, it's now been exposed, so what is the threat to him?
— Stephen Pollard (@stephenpollard) April 13, 2016
From the Times columnist Janice Turner
If Sword of Damocles has dropped - thanks to Newsnight - why should Whittingdale, as Labour wants, be excluded from press regulation now?
— Janice Turner (@VictoriaPeckham) April 13, 2016
From Peter Jukes, the journalist who won an award for his Twitter coverage of the phone hacking trial
I wrote this in March. Everything I've learned so far since then (and it's a lot) supports it #Whittingdale pic.twitter.com/h6pnMrmZAx
— Peter Jukes (@peterjukes) April 13, 2016
All real journos involved in #Whittingdale coverup for nearly 3 years know the truth. It's only their bullying bosses stopping them telling
— Peter Jukes (@peterjukes) April 13, 2016
From the blogger Guido Fawkes
As someone who has taken many sex scandals to tabloid editors, can tell you it is hard to sell stories about single people's private lives.
— Media Guido (@MediaGuido) April 13, 2016
Liam Fox accuses Labour of 'unbelievable hypocrisy' over Whittingdale
Liam Fox, the Conservative former defence secretary, has accused Labour of “unbelievable hypocrisy” over John Whittingdale.
Unbelievable hypocrisy from @labour on @JWhittingdale. The fact papers didn't run story in first place shows press regulation is working
— Dr Liam Fox MP (@LiamFoxMP) April 13, 2016
Bob Satchwell, executive director of the Society of Editors, said this morning that the idea that there was a joint decision not to run the story about John Whittingdale was a “preposterous conspiracy theory too far”.
The idea that the newspapers and broadcasters could all get together and say ‘we are not running the story’ is just silly. This story seems to be more about the dangers of using dating websites. In effect a single man embarrassingly ended a relationship with a single woman after he discovered she was not all she appeared to be.
Since the Leveson report and the establishment of a new and tougher press regulator, papers have become extremely careful about stories involving anyone in public life.
Satchwell also said Whittingdale “remains pretty tough” and was “not in any way soft on the press”.
Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, told Sky News that he was not entirely convinced that newspapers did suppress the Whittingdale story simply because they concluded it was not in the public interest.
I would raise an eyebrow that that story did not run at the time, given the press’ form on this ... Obviously a number of different news organisations took a decision not to run a story. One would have expected the Independent would not have run that kind of story, however the Sun and the Mirror Group, with their form, well that’s why I would raise quizzical eyebrows as to their decision-making process.
If it was a reflection that the new climate after Leveson and under Ipso did mean that these kinds of stories with no legitimate public interest attached to them didn’t run that would be so much the better. But I am not entirely sure myself that that is the case.
This is what John Whittingdale said about the prospects of going ahead with part two of the Leveson inquiry (the bit that is supposed to be looking at phone-hacking allegations at the News of the World in detail) in February.
Labour calling again for Leveson 2 today. Here's what John Whittingdale told @theHouse_mag about it in February pic.twitter.com/MOejj6FPc9
— Kevin Schofield (@PolhomeEditor) April 13, 2016
Officially, as this statement indicates, the government has not yet taken a decision on whether or not to go ahead with part two. But, on the basis of unattributable briefings, some papers have reported that there is no chance of part two going ahead.
(And that is not actually very surprising. Given the amount of grief David Cameron is already getting from Fleet Street, and particularly the Murdoch press, why on earth would he want to antagonise them even more if he could possibly avoid it?)
My colleague Lisa O’Carroll points out that John Whittingdale was opposed to statutory press regulation before his relationship with the sex worker, and a newspaper finding out about it.
John Whittingdale opposed Leveson style statutory reform in November 2012. This was BEFORE relationship now in news. https://t.co/gfom4b0D7j
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) April 13, 2016
Eagle says Whittingdale should have told Cameron about his sex worker relationship
Maria Eagle has been giving interviews too. Here are some of the key points from her interview with BBC News.
- Eagle said that Whittingdale should have told David Cameron about his relationship with a sex worker before he was appointed culture secretary.
I think it would have probably been expected that something of this significance should have been discussed. But that is a matter for him and a matter for the prime minister.
- She did not criticise newspapers for not covering the story. Asked why she thought the story was suppressed - whether it was because newspapers genuinely decided it was not in the public interest, or whether they were taking a calculated decision in their own commercial interests - she said she did not know the story was not printed. She went on:
I’m not interested in second guessing editors’ decisions.
- She said Whittingdale should recuse himself from press regulation decisions because people might think he was compromised.
What I’m saying is perception matters. He is responsible for press regulation. There was an agreement, cross-party, placed into legislation, before the last general election, and we need to make sure that these revelations have nothing to do, and are seen to have nothing to do, with the way in which he is now changing that position on behalf of the government. That is the important and narrow point that I am making ...
What we can’t have is a secretary of state who there’s a potential perception that he’s being influenced, overly influenced, by stories that the media may have on him and whether or not they should be printed. He needs to step back from these decisions.
- She said the government had shelved key Leveson proposals and that people might think the Whittingdale story helped to explain why. She said that Whittingdale had changed his stance on two issues relating to press regulation since the election. Before the election there was cross-party agreement that the Leveson proposals, which would make newspapers liable to punitive damages if they did not sign up to a royal charter regulator, would be implemented, she said. Now they have been shelved. There was also a commitment to go ahead with part two of the Leveson inquiry, which is supposed to investigate in detail the News of the World’s phone-hacking. (The original inquiry had to ignore much of this because there were criminal prosecutions looming.) Now the government is briefing that this will not go ahead. She said:
The position from before the election to after the election has changed. And the question will legitimately be asked, ‘Is it anything to do with these facts and is it anything to do with these revelations about his private life?’
Asked if she thought it was, she replied: “I don’t know, and nobody knows, apart from the secretary of state.”
- She said she was not interested in Whittingdale’s private life.
I’m not interested in his private life. I’m interested in the perception of the person making decisions about press regulation appearing to have the press having an embarrassing story that they can hold over him.
Maria Eagle says Whittingdale should step aside from press regulation decisions
Here is the statement from Maria Eagle, the shadow culture secretary, on the Whittingdale story. She stressed that she is not calling for his resignation, just for him to recuse himself from decisions about press regulation.
Everyone is entitled to a private life. However, these revelations raise serious questions about why the secretary of state has reneged on the government’s promise to deliver the cross-party agreement on Leveson when this is something he was previously committed to as chair of the culture, media and sport select committee.
John Whittingdale must now clarify exactly why he no longer believes that Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act should be commenced and why he has failed to get on with Part II of the Leveson inquiry.
In order for the public to have any confidence in the government’s approach to press regulation and to allay any concerns about perceptions of any undue influence, the secretary of state must now recuse himself from any decision making over this matter, just as Vince Cable was removed from deciding media policy in the last parliament.
On the Today programme Diane Abbott, the shadow international development secretary, said John Whittingdale should not be in charge of media regulation because of his relationship with Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, not because of his relationship with the sex worker. She said:
There are reasons why he should not be involved in press regulation and that goes to his long history of a relationship with the Murdochs, but I don’t choose to comment on his private life.
John Whittingdale was doorstepped by Sky News outside his home this morning. He was asked if he could successfully regulate the press in the light of the story about his relationship but all he would say was that he had made a statement about this last night and that he had nothing to add.
Chris Bryant, the shadow leader of the Commons and former shadow culture secretary, told the BBC that John Whittingdale should have withdrawn from press regulation issues because he knew papers knew about his relationship with the sex worker. He said:
It seems the press were quite deliberately holding a sword of Damocles over John Whittingdale. He has a perfect right to a private life but as soon as he knew this he should have withdrawn from all regulation of the press.
(But if Whittingdale had decided to step aside from decisions about press regulation, people would have wanted to know why. He would not have been able to answer without publicising the story that the newspapers were holding back.)
Brian Cathcart, the Hacked Off campaigner, told the Press Assocation that John Whittingdale was “compromised” as culture secretary as a result of this story.
There is absolutely no doubt about it, he is compromised. He knew the press were on to him and he didn’t tell the prime minister, and we would like to know more about how much he knew. He knew that at least one newspaper had this story - was he approached by other newspapers? Did he ever wonder why they didn’t run the story?
Cathcart said he thought the newspapers “stocked up” the story for future use and as a way to possibly put “pressure on [Whittingdale]”. And he said that, since become culture secretary, Whittingdale had taken decisions favourable to the newspaper industry, principally not implementing the Leveson legislation that would make newspapers liable to punitive damages if they haven’t signed up to a royal charter regulator, as major newspapers have not.
(It is worth pointing out, as other commentators have, that the final decision on Leveson rests with David Cameron, who has shelved further press regulation because he does not want to antagonise the media further. And Whittingdale was in favour of light-touch media regulation long before he realised that some papers were sitting on an embarrassing story about his private life.)
You can watch the Newsnight report into John Whittingdale here.
Normally the complaint about British newspapers is that they wantonly invade people’s privacy, and publish information about their sex lives, with no justification. This morning the news is dominated by a peculiar inversion of this - a story about the newspapers deciding not to publish information about a senior Tory having a relationship with a sex worker.
This has been knocking around on the blogosphere for a few days. A reader asked me about it BTL a few days ago and I said that a) I had no idea whether the story was true and that b), even if it was, the Guardian generally takes the view that what politicians gets up to in their private life is up to them unless there are good public interest grounds for thinking otherwise.
But Private Eye has published the story in this week’s edition, and last night Newsnight put it on air. Now it’s out in the public, and here’s the Guardian’s summary of what it’s about.
And here’s how the story starts.
The culture secretary, John Whittingdale, has faced calls to withdraw from the regulation of the press following the disclosure that he had a relationship with a prostitute.
Whittingdale, who is divorced, was forced to explain on Tuesday night how he had a six-month relationship with a woman whom he did not realise worked in a brothel.
But campaigners for tighter press regulation have warned his position was compromised after it was reported that a number of newspapers had investigated the claims but decided not to run the story.
And here’s the statement from John Whittingdale, who was chair of the Commons culture committee at the time when he had his relationship with a sex worker.
Between August 2013 and February 2014, I had a relationship with someone who I first met through Match.com. She was a similar age and lived close to me.
At no time did she give me any indication of her real occupation and I only discovered this when I was made aware that someone was trying to sell a story about me to tabloid newspapers. As soon as I discovered, I ended the relationship.
This is an old story which was a bit embarrassing at the time. The events occurred long before I took up my present position and it has never had any influence on the decisions I have made as culture secretary.
We’re now in the very strange position where Hacked Off, the group campaigning for stronger restrictions on newspapers, is defending the publication of this story.
Press had obligation to write about the Whittingdale story & neither ethical scruples nor legal issues stopped them https://t.co/7g8JbvCnsk
— Hacked Off (@hackinginquiry) April 12, 2016
And yet this morning on the Today programme Neil Wallis, the former editor of the People and deputy editor of the Sun and the News of the World, was saying that in the current climate the papers were right not to publish the story.
This is Alice through the Looking Glass, this is. This is truly fantastic, this is. You’ve got the BBC joining hands with Hacked Off. For years you’ve been campaigning against newspapers “breaching privacy’. Now you have Hacked Off, some nutjob conspiracy theory website and the BBC all joining together to attack the press for not revealing that a single man, who was not a minister at the time, had a relationship he didn’t know was a dominatrix.
Wallis also made it clear that, pre-Leveson, he would have been in favour of the publication of a story like this. I will post more from the interview soon.
No one is suggesting that Whittingdale was not entitled to have a relationship with the woman, but now the story is out, there are political consequences. Here are the key developments.
- Labour is saying Whittingdale should withdraw from press regulation decisions in his capacity as culture secretary. According to the BBC, Maria Eagle, the shadow culture secretary, has said it left him “vulnerable” to pressure from the press. This seems a curious argument, now that the revelation is out there. I will post Eagle’s comments in full when I see them.
- Number 10 has expressed full confidence in Whittingdale. A source said he was “a single man who is entitled to a private life” and the prime minister “has full confidence in him”. But Number 10 is also briefing that David Cameron did not know about Whittingdale’s past relationship, and the fact that some papers knew about it, when he gave Whittingdale his cabinet post in May last year. Some people may think it would have been sensible for Whittingdale to mention it before he accepted the job.
I will be covering more on this as the morning goes on.
Here is the agenda for the day.
12pm: David Cameron faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
Around 12.40pm: MPs begin a debate on a Labour motion on tax avoidance and tax evasion.
I will be focusing in particular on the Whittingdale story and on PMQs but, as usual, I will probably cover the start of the steel debate in detail and I will also be covering other 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 after PMQs 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
