Afternoon summary
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has floated the idea of the UK having associate membership of Euratom, in an interview with the BBC.
Just talked to David Davis - he suggests possibility of associate membership of Euratom + 'arbitration mechanisms' to get round ECJ prob
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 13, 2017
He also rejected claims that the repeal bill amounted to a power grab by the executive.
Davis also promises Commons will be able to hold votes if they want on any of statutory instruments in Repeal Bill-denies 'power grab' claim
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 13, 2017
And he said he was spending half his time preparing for Brexit going wrong.
Davis also says half of his job is running the contingency planning operation if Brexit goes wrong
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 13, 2017
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Echoing the point made earlier by Nicola Sturgeon on Twitter (see 3.19pm), Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, has described David Munell’s claim that the repeal bill amounts to a “power bonanza” for the Scottish parliament (see 2.26pm) as “frankly ludicrous”. In a statement, Blackford also revealed more about the SNP’s conditions for not voting against the bill in the Commons.
The single market is absolutely vital to Scotland’s economy, jobs and our living standards – and the UK government must change course from the extreme Brexit that it is pursuing.
Until the UK government meaningfully engages with the devolved administrations and publishes a detailed economic analysis of the impact that leaving the single market or a no deal scenario will have, then the SNP has no choice but to oppose a second reading of the bill in order to get answers from a government that has sought to evade scrutiny at every opportunity.
Harriet Harman, the Labour MP who led the battle for women’s rights in parliament for decades, said it wasn’t enough for the great repeal bill to retain women’s rights. Instead, she called on the government to guarantee that the rights of British women at work would continue to evolve in line with EU changes.
“Women’s rights have improved by us being part of the EU,” said Harman, in an interview for the Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast.
There has been an evolving process in the EU, and what we don’t want to do is get off that escalator of progression and be frozen in time and not have the advantages that women in the rest of Europe are going to get. We don’t want women in this country to be Europe’s poor relations when it comes to their rights at work.
Harman said the EU had repeatedly nudged forward women’s rights over the years, by building on UK legislation in the past, for example shifting from the equal pay act to “equal pay for work of equal value”.
“I think great repeal bill should not be just ‘you keep rights’ but ‘you keep up with EU’,” she added, calling it a moving process.
Global Justice Now and Another Europe is Possible have produced a joint briefing on the repeal bill (pdf). They are worried it will give ministers sweeping, unaccountable powers. Nick Dearden, the GJN director, said:
EU law incorporates some of our most cherished protections and rights, as well as rules that, for instance, prevent our government from selling products that can be used in torture overseas. Giving Theresa May the powers of a renaissance monarch to translate these rights and protections into British law is terrifying, as it enables her government to change the way these laws work in fundamental ways, without parliamentary scrutiny.
Theresa May’s spokeswoman has told the regular press briefing that there is currently no government plan for what might happen if Scotland or Wales refuse legislative consent for the repeal bill.
“That’s very pessimistic. We’re optimistic,” she said when asked about such a scenario. But pressed on whether there was a contingency plan for this, she said: “Not that I’m aware of, no.”
The government was intent on securing UK-wide agreement on the deal, the spokeswoman said, and planned to “engage more and talk more” with the devolved nations.
As part of this, May’s deputy, Damian Green, has contacted ministers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to arrange “further discussions over the coming weeks”, she said.
“We intend for there to be ongoing, intense dialogue with the devolved administrations with the aim of everybody coming together and supporting very important legislation that’s been set out today,” the spokeswoman said.
She did not rule out the idea of May seeking support from Labour or other opposition parties, saying “our approach is one of consensus”.
She said: “We are open to dialogue, we want to make sure this important piece of legislation has the support from everyone that it needs.”
Dan Roberts, the Guardian’s Brexit policy editor, has written his assessment of the repeal bill. Here is an extract.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the legislation is its “Henry VIII powers” that grant the government executive power to amend existing legislation without further recourse to parliament. Though this is partly a time-saving exercise as acres of EU law are transposed on to the UK statute book, ministers admit ambiguity is also required because so many of the key features of Brexit remain unclear.
And here is the full article.
Updated
This is from the Press Association’s Ian Jones.
Wonder if MPs realise just how little time they've got left. #RepealBill pic.twitter.com/NViA64kig7
— Ian Jones (@ian_a_jones) July 13, 2017
My colleague Peter Walker was at the No 10 afternoon lobby briefing. He says Downing Street dodged the question about what would happen if the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly refused to grant the repeal bill legislative consent.
No10 doesn't seem to have plan for Repeal Bill if Scots/Welsh refuse legislative consent: "That's very pessimistic. We're optimistic."
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 13, 2017
Updated
Welsh first minister says repeal bill 'most significant attack on devolution' in Welsh assembly's history
Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister, has issued his own statement about the repeal bill, in addition to the join one he issued with Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, earlier. (See 1.42pm.) He said it was “the most significant attack on devolution” since the Welsh assembly was created in 1999.
From the perspective of the Welsh government, the publication of the bill represents a moment of significant challenge to the devolution settlement. Indeed, in our view, it represents the most significant attack on devolution since the creation of the National Assembly in 1999.
Despite the very clear and repeated warnings that any attempt by Westminster and Whitehall to take the powers currently vested in the EU to themselves would be wholly unacceptable, this is precisely what clause 11 of the EU (withdrawal) bill seeks to do.
This part of the bill would amend the devolution legislation to put in place – with no limitations or qualifications - new constraints on the assembly’s ability to legislate effectively on matters where we currently operate within legislative frameworks developed by the EU, even after we leave the EU. Existing EU law would be frozen, and only the UK parliament would, it appears, be allowed to unfreeze it.
In practice, this would provide a window for the UK government to seek parliamentary approval to impose new UK-wide frameworks for such policies. It is an attempt to take back control over devolved policies such as the environment, agriculture and fisheries not just from Brussels, but from Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast.
George Osborne’s Evening Standard has an editorial describing the repeal bill as “the single greatest act of regulation in UK history”. It is very scathing, although a little out of date: the second paragraph is premised on the government calling it the “great repeal bill”, although the government is now referring to it as just the “repeal bill”, while its official title is the European Union (withdrawal) bill.
Corbyn says his talks with Barnier were 'very frank'
Jeremy Corbyn has held extended talks with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, as part of his bid to present himself as a prime minister-in-waiting, ready to take over the EU withdrawal process if there is a change of government, the Press Association reports. Its story goes on:
In discussions lasting more than two hours at the European Commission’s Brussels headquarters, Corbyn told Michel Barnier that Labour respected the result of last year’s referendum.
But he said the party was seeking a Brexit to protect jobs and would not cut a “sweetheart deal” with the US which would undermine the Paris climate change agreement and harm living standards in the UK.
Corbyn confirmed his unilateral offer of citizens’ rights for EU nationals living in the UK after Brexit and said Labour was ready to pay “what we are legally required” as part of the process of withdrawal.
Emerging from the talks, Corbyn characterised the discussions as “very interesting, very frank”.
He presented the sports-mad EU official with a shirt from his beloved Arsenal, with Barnier’s name on the back, along with a signed copy of Labour’s manifesto for last month’s election.
“Now he’s got two things in red - a shirt and a book,” the Labour leader quipped.
Governments publish impact assessments alongside bills and here is the one that goes with the repeal bill (pdf). It assesses the costs of the bill as “unknown: likely small” although, as the document explains, that is an assessment of the bill, “not an assessment of the decision to leave the European Union - a decision that has already been taken by the people of the United Kingdom”.
The impact assessment does try to quantify how much EU law there is in UK law.
While there is no single figure for how much EU law already forms part of domestic law (and how much will therefore be converted by the bill), according to EUR-Lex, the EU’s legal database, there are currently over 12,000 EU regulations (that is, directly-effective EU laws) and over 6,000 EU directives in force across the EU. In addition, research from the House of Commons Library indicates that there have been around 7,900 statutory instruments made in the UK which have implemented EU legislation. Further House of Commons Library research indicates that out of 1,302 UK Acts between 1980 and 2009 (excluding those later repealed), 186 Acts (or 14.3%) exhibited a degree of EU influence. These EU regulations, domestic regulations, and Acts of Parliament (where they implement EU law) represent – along with laws passed by the devolved legislatures and the EU treaties – the main sources of EU law in the UK.
The document also says that the government thinks it will need to bring forward between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments (items of secondary legislation) alongside the bill to transpose EU law into UK law.
Here is Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, responding to David Mundell’s claim that the repeal bill will lead to a “power bonanza” for the Scottish parliament. (See 2.26pm.)
I'd be interested to know what section of the #RepealBill the Sec of State is referring to when he talks of a 'bonanza' - I can't find it. https://t.co/9hOBmOLUEH
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) July 13, 2017
S.11 of #RepealBill effectively means @ScotParl can't legislate on repatriated EU laws in devolved areas without UKG permission.
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) July 13, 2017
Liberty and Amnesty International have issued a joint statement opposing the repeal bill. They say:
Today we take another huge step towards our withdrawal from the European Union – and the government has still failed entirely to address how our hard-won rights and freedoms will be affected by changes made to domestic laws during the Brexit process.
The repeal bill gives ministers vague and broad powers that could be used to erode our rights and freedoms without proper scrutiny by those elected to protect them.
The two organisations want the government to insert a commitment into the text of the bill saying it will not reduce rights and freedoms.
They also want the government to conduct an audit of EU-derived human rights law and to ensure those rights and freedoms are protected after Brexit.
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, thinks the repeal bill “could end Theresa May’s premiership”. In a statement he said:
The government are facing a parliamentary version of guerrilla warfare that resembles the days of the Maastricht treaty.
But this debate is not just a quagmire for the government, it is also a political nightmare that could end Theresa May’s premiership. This bill might keep a few restless people on the Tory backbenches from looking around for her replacement for a couple of months, but it has all the hallmarks of someone in office but not in power.
I am keen to work across party lines with opposition parties of all shades to find common ground.
These vital protections, enshrined in European law, from workers’ rights to the environment, matter and we will defend them to the hilt.
On the World at One the Conservative MP Anna Soubry, one of the party’s leading pro-European members, said the government should commission fresh legal advice to see if there is a way of staying in Euratom, the European civil nuclear power agency. She said:
Spending all this time, energy and, I have to say, your listeners’ hard-earned taxpayers’ money on trying to reinvent something that works well, which nobody even vaguely sensible has a problem with us remaining in, is not great.
And I would beg the prime minister, please, in this spirit, and in the reality of the general election, but in the spirit of trying to build bridges and creating a sensible Brexit, could we all please put the national interest first? And the national interest is to stay within Euratom.
Euratom is emerging as an area where the government is most vulnerable to a parliamentary defeat over Brexit. Soubry is one of several Tory MPs who has spoken out in favour of Britain remaining in it.
But one difficulty that she and other Euratom rebels may have is that the article 50 bill, which was given a third reading in the Commons by a majority of 372, explicitly covered leaving Euratom as well as leaving the EU, as the notes to the bill made clear at the time. Soubry was one of the MPs who voted in favour.
Updated
Repeal bill will lead to 'power bonanza' for Scottish parliament, says Scottish secretary
In a briefing to journalists, David Mundell, the Scottish secretary, said that the repeal bill was not a “power grab”, as the Scottish and Welsh governments are saying. (See 1.42pm.) Instead it would be a “power bonanza” for the Scottish parliament, he said.
This is not a power grab, it is a power bonanza for the Scottish parliament because after this bill has been implemented the Scottish parliament will have more powers and responsibilities than it has today and I’m happy to be held to account for that statement once the process has been delivered.
Needless to say there will be a process row with the Scottish government because the Scottish government does process row, that is their speciality.
We’ve seen process row in relation to the Scotland bill that followed the Calman Commission, process row on the Scotland bill, we’ve seen process row on the fiscal framework.
But all of these things delivered what the UK government said at the outset that they would do - more powers and responsibilities for the Scottish parliament and that’s what this bill will do.
Mundell said that the return of powers and responsibilities currently exercised by the EU to the UK government was a “transitional arrangement” that would allow for the further onward devolution of powers while ensuring the consistency of UK-wide frameworks. He said powers in areas such as environment, criminal justice, consumer rights and energy “could all in relatively short order come to the Scottish parliament”.
He also played down the prospect of the Scottish parliament refusing legislative consent. He said threats like this had been made before, but had not materialised.
I am optimistic that we will obtain that consent, partly because I was told in relation to the 2012 [Scotland] bill, in relation to the 2016 [Scotland] bill, in relation to the fiscal framework, that this consent would not be forthcoming and, ultimately, it was.
Updated
Scottish and Welsh governments threaten to refuse repeal bill legislative consent
The Scottish and Welsh governments have said they will try to block the government’s repeal bill - or European Union (withdrawal) bill, as it is now called. (See 11.59am.) In a joint statement, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister (SNP), and Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister (Labour) have said that their governments will not give the bill legislative consent unless there are major changes to it.
They say:
This week began with the prime minister calling for a constructive and collaborative approach from those outside Whitehall to help get Brexit right. Today’s publication of the European Union (withdrawal) bill is the first test as to whether the UK government is serious about such an approach. It is a test it has failed utterly.
We have repeatedly tried to engage with the UK government on these matters, and have put forward constructive proposals about how we can deliver an outcome that will protect the interests of all the nations in the UK, safeguard our economies and respect devolution.
Regrettably, the bill does not do this. Instead, it is a naked power grab, an attack on the founding principles of devolution and could destabilise our economies.
Our two governments – and the UK government – agree we need a functioning set of laws across the UK after withdrawal from the EU. We also recognise that common frameworks to replace EU laws across the UK may be needed in some areas. But the way to achieve these aims is through negotiation and agreement, not imposition. It must be done in a way that respects the hard-won devolution settlements.
The European Union (withdrawal) bill does not return powers from the EU to the devolved administrations, as promised. It returns them solely to the UK government and parliament, and imposes new restrictions on the Scottish parliament and national assembly for Wales.
On that basis, the Scottish and Welsh governments cannot recommend that legislative consent is given to the bill as it currently stands.
The Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly do not have the power to block Brexit.
But refusing legislative consent would be politically embarrassing. Under the devolution settlement, the UK government is supposed to get legislative consent from the devolved administrations if it wants to pass a law affecting an area normally the preserve of the Scottish parliament or the Welsh assembly. The supreme court recently described this as “a political convention that does not give rise to a legal obligation that can be enforced in the courts”, and so Theresa May could ignore votes in Scotland and Wales objecting to the repeal bill. But she would do so at some political cost, particularly as the leader of a party calling itself the Conservative and Unionist party.
Updated
Photograph: GEERT VANDEN WIJNGAERT / POOL/EPA
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, told Michel Barnier that she wanted the UK to remain in the single market when she met the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator in Brussels. After their meeting she said:
This was a useful and constructive meeting, and I welcomed the opportunity to discuss Scotland’s priorities with Mr Barnier - in particular, our view that the UK should seek to remain in the single market.
I outlined to Mr Barnier that our priority is to protect Scotland’s vital economic interests and that the Scottish government will do all it can to build a consensus against an extreme Brexit outside the single market, which would have potentially catastrophic consequences for jobs, investment and our living standards.
We have always been clear that this is not about holding separate Scottish negotiations - it is for the UK as the member state to negotiate with the EU - and as such we will continue to work hard to influence the UK position.
However, meetings like this are helpful in developing a mutual understanding between the Scottish government and the EU as these vital negotiations gather pace.
OBR report - Snap analysis
The broad message from the Office for Budget Responsibility is that Britain’s public finances are in a troubling state, vulnerable to nasty surprises, and with a shedload of troubles looming on the horizons.
And Brexit could make this whole situation worse, as slower growth over the long term could drive the debt/GDP ratio into the danger zone, over 100%.
Today’s report reaches three main conclusions:
1) The government must keep “endogenous risks under review”.That means risks created or influenceable by government policy - everything from the pension triple-lock to the cost of cleaning up Britain’s nuclear power stations.
The problem, I suspect, is that there may not be many votes in dealing with certain risks....
2) Britain must prepare for shocks. There may not be a recession this year. Or in 2018. But there will be one eventually, so future budgets need to create some fiscal space to react. According to the OBR, Britain will suffer at least one financial crisis and several recessions over the next 50 years.
And even if the government avoids a classic economic downturn, the economy could be hurt by a natural disaster, a terror attack or a war.
3) Ministers must deal with many sources of slow-building pressure.Britain has a nasty habit of putting off difficult decisions or unpleasant problems (for example, social care for the elderly). But problems don’t go away if you ignore them. They just build up.
This chart shows how the ratio between retirees and workers will rise steadily over the next few decades. More old people will need support, and the pool of taxpayers won’t grow fast enough to keep pace.
OBR tells government to expect 'nasty fiscal surprises'
In his fiscal risk report the Office for Budget Responsibility says the government should “expect nasty fiscal surprises from time to time”. It also says that having a minority government could “loosen the Treasury’s grip on public spending control” and that the long-term impact of Brexit on growth could have a much bigger impact on government finances than the one-off “divorce bill”. It says:
The new government must also manage the risks posed by Brexit. These do not supplant the possible shocks and likely pressures that we have already discussed, but they could affect the likelihood and impact of many of them.
A lot of attention focuses on the possible ‘divorce bill’, but, while some numbers mooted for it are very large, a one-off hit of this sort would not pose a big threat to fiscal sustainability. More important are the implications of whatever agreements are reached with the EU and other trading partners for the long-term growth of the UK economy, which we do not attempt to predict here.
If GDP and receipts grew just 0.1 percentage points more slowly than projected over the next 50 years, but spending growth was unchanged, the debt-to-GDP would end up around 50 percentage points higher.
My colleague Graeme Wearden has very full coverage on his business live blog.
Labour to use emergency debate on Monday to demand more time for Commons debates on Labour motions
Labour has been granted an emergency debate on Monday on the scheduling of Commons business. Valerie Vaz, the shadow leader of the Commons applied for one under the standing order 24 procedure. She said there had only been seven votes in the Commons since the Queen’s speech because the government was scheduling so little business. And she said the government has refused so far to offer the opposition any dates for an opposition day debate (the ones where the opposition chooses the motion).
She also said that the current rules - which allocate a certain number of days for opposition day debates and private members’ bills debates per session - needed to be revised to take into account the fact that this session will last two years, not one year as is usual.
The government is reluctant to schedule opposition day debates because, without a proper majority, it it worried about losing. The recent U-turns over paying for abortion for women from Northern Ireland and holding an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal, have shown how vulnerable it is to backbench pressure.
The European Court of Justice should not be allowed to rule on UK cases which were not before the court on the day the UK leaves the EU, the Brexit department has said.
The position puts the UK at odds with Brussels’ own negotiating position that the ECJ should continue to have jurisdiction over cases that originate in UK courts before the Britain’s departure date. Cases before the ECJ can take many years to be resolved.
The UK’s position paper on the ECJ (pdf) says the court should not be able to hear UK cases from the day after the UK leaves the EU, but could still rule on UK law if the cases begin before the departure date.
May has made leaving the court’s jurisdiction one of her “red lines” on the forthcoming negotiations, and the department’s second Brexit position paper lays out in broad terms how cases should proceed during the two-year negotiation period.
However, the paper also acknowledges there “will likely be a small number of cases which are pending at the CJEU on the date we leave.” Those cases may have originated in UK domestic courts, referring questions of EU law. The paper says the UK aims to give “as much certainty as possible to those who find their cases before the court at the point of withdrawal.”
However, the ECJ will not be allowed to rule on UK cases which were not before the court on the day the UK leaves the EU. “This would apply even where the facts of the case occurred before withdrawal,” the paper says.
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, said:
By ending the jurisdiction of the court of justice of the European Union UK courts will be supreme once more. Our sensible approach to pending cases means there would be a smooth and orderly transition to when the court no longer has jurisdiction in the UK.
Here is my colleague Heather Stewart’s story on the publication of the repeal bill.
Jeremy Corbyn has arrived for his meeting with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and he has brought him an Arsenal shirt as a present. This is from ITV’s Carl Dinnen.
And here it is. I'm not sure why other than it's a nice gift. I'm not sure Diane Abbott knows why either. pic.twitter.com/sug0mSagbp
— Carl Dinnen (@carldinnen) July 13, 2017
Fewer 999 calls will be regarded as life-threatening under an overhaul of ambulance response targets, the Press Association reports. Its story goes on:
Current targets across England are being scrapped in favour of a new system which officials say will save more lives.
At present, half of all 999 calls for an ambulance are considered life-threatening, and a paramedic is expected to be on the scene within eight minutes.
From this autumn, the most serious calls, such as when a person is not breathing or their heart has stopped, will be expected to have a response within seven minutes typically and a maximum of 15 minutes overall for 90% of patients. These calls are still classed as life-threatening.
This means millions of patients, such as those with suspected heart attack and some strokes, will now see the target for them relaxed.
They will move from the life-threatening category to an emergency category.
These patients will be expected to receive a response within a maximum of 40 minutes for 90% of patients and typically within 18 minutes.
NHS England bosses said the move will save lives and that, at present, many calls classed as life-threatening turn out not to be.
A quarter of patients currently classed as life-threatening are not transported to hospital.
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, has announced this in a written ministerial statement.
Repeal bill published
The repeal bill has been published.
Here it is... the repeal bill, (dont' rush at once) https://t.co/ouzM7VrfP7
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 13, 2017
Confusingly, it now seems to be called the European Union (withdrawal) bill.
Updated
Vote on Heathrow third runway postponed again, possibly until June 2018
In October last year the government formally committed itself to building a new runway at Heathrow. Originally it was thought there would be a vote around that time, but Downing Street announced it was postponing the Commons vote for about a year, amid speculation that Theresa May was worried about Tory MPs refusing to back it.
Now the vote has been delayed again. In a written ministerial statement Chris Grayling, the transport secretary, said:
This government is fully committed to realising the benefits that a new northwest runway at Heathrow would bring, in terms of economic growth, boosting jobs and skills, strengthening domestic links and – critically – increasing and developing our international connectivity as we prepare to leave the European Union.
The timing of the election, in particular the need to re-start a select committee inquiry into the draft Airports NPS [national policy statement] means we now expect to lay any final NPS in parliament in the first half of 2018, for a vote in the House of Commons.
Five things we learned from Theresa May's Radio 5 Live interview
That could be the most interesting broadcast interview Theresa May has given since becoming prime minister, although, given that she is such a reluctant and unforthcoming interviewee, Emma Barnett has merely cleared a low bar.
Still, we’ll take news where we can get it. Here are five things we learned from the interview.
1 - May has discovered housing as an issue. In the interview, she said she realised during the election campaign that the prospect of young people not being able to buy a house was a big issue. She said the same thing in her Sun interview. This insight is not particularly remarkable, but what makes it surprising is that May has just announced a Queen’s speech that contained very little on housing (there was a reference to building more homes, but the only housing-related legislation was a draft tenants’ fees bill). Her disclosure shows there is quite a gap between her analysis of what the country needs, and what her government is actually offering.
2 - May seems to think growth is the solution to her government’s financial problems. Barnett asked where the £1bn was coming from for the deal with the DUP. It could only come from three areas, she said: higher taxes, more borrowing, or spending cuts. But May, who until now has not explained how the government will fund the extra £1bn for Northern Ireland, said there was a fourth option.
Actually, there is somewhere else that money comes from. And that’s what we have already shown; just look at our record on things like the extra money we’ve put into the health service. We’ve been able to do that as the economy has grown. If the economy grows, and you are creating that wealth, more money is coming into the government’s coffers, that enables you to ensure that you have got that money to spend.
The problem with this, of course, is that growth is slowing in the UK.
3 - May seems to have reservations about calling herself a feminist. When Barnett asked her if she was a feminist, she did not reply with a straight yes. Instead she paused for a moment and replied:
I have said yes before, yes, I’ve said that I’m a feminist, in that I believe that it’s important that women genuinely have equal opportunities.
She sounded like someone trying to remember the “line to take”, not speaking from the heart.
4 - She has found something positive to say about Jeremy Corbyn. Barnett asked if her respect for him had increased since the election. She dodged the main thrust of that question, but said she admired how he responded as a constituency MP to the Finsbury Park attack.
5 - She is not 100% Maybot. My colleague John Crace had the equivalent of a sketchwriting scoop when he coined the term Maybot to describe the prime minister. It is such an apt description of her inability to engage emotionally that everyone is now using it. But today, mostly when she spoke about the election result, she did sound more human and engaging than usual. She admitted that she shed “a little tear” over the result, and she revealed that she did not listen to the exit poll on TV because she has “a little bit of superstition about things like that”. John won’t be decommissioning the Maybot quite yet, but today it sounded a little less appropriate as a descriptor. This is from the Observer’s Michael Savage:
Wow - Theresa May sounding human on @bbc5live right now. Too superstitious to watch exit poll, devastated at the result. Maybot malfunction!
— Michael Savage (@michaelsavage) July 13, 2017
And this is from the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges:
It's finally happened. Like a Victorian explorer searching for a lost city, @Emmabarnett has discovered the real Theresa May.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) July 13, 2017
Updated
The Brexit department has now published its three position papers, on nuclear materials and safeguards issues, ongoing union judicial and administrative proceedings, and privileges and immunities. You can find read them here. They look a bit dull, a colleague tells me, but I will take a proper look soon.
Updated
Q: You will have to convince Jeremy Corbyn. You were very critical of him during the campaign, saying he had “poor judgment”. Now you are asking him to contribute. So why have you changed your mind about him?
May says she wants people across the parties in the Commons to contribute.
Q: Have you increased your respect for Corbyn since the election?
May says the Finsbury Park attack happened in Corbyn’s constituency. He was there all night. She went the next day, and saw a Jeremy Corbyn who was a good constituency MP.
Q: Will you still be around at the end of the Brexit deal?
May says she is getting on with work. She has been involved in politics for a long time. She has been an MP for 20 years, and wanted to be a politician when she was 12. She believes in public service.
Q: Your husband must want to know how long you will stay.
May says he wants her to get on with the job.
Q: What would you say to your younger self?
May says she would say believe in yourself, always do the right thing, and work hard to tackle injustice when you see it.
And that’s it.
Q: Can you guarantee that you will have the numbers to get Brexit through the Commons?
May says the first thing is to get a good Brexit deal.
Q: But can you get it through?
May says the DUP deal says they will support Brexit legislation.
But she hopes MPs from all parties will back the Brexit deal.
Q: Do you have a contingency plan for what will happen if Brexit makes people poorer?
May says the government looks at these issues regularly. The national living wage helped people a lot. The personal allowance on tax is going up.
Q: You would have done those things anyway. What about contingency plans for if companies pull out of the UK?
May says since the Brexit vote, inward investment has been increasing.
Q: But we have not Brexited yet.
May says that is why we need trade deals. The government is looking at those. And it is trying to boost industry and improve skills.
Updated
Q: Did you worry, as a feminist, about doing a deal with an anti-abortion party like the DUP?
May says the deal was so that the country could have a stable government.
Q: But did it stick in your throat as a feminist?
May says one of the important things about that deal was that the government was not going to move back on equality issues.
Q: Where will that £1bn come from? Tax rises, borrowing, or spending cuts.
May says there is somewhere else the money can come from. If you have growth, you generate more income. She says that is how the extra £8bn for the NHS was found.
Brexit is not just a process. It is an opportunity, she says.
Updated
May says, when she became PM, a friend’s daughter, aged six, said she did not realise women could be PM.
Q: If she had got to 18, that girl would have voted Jeremy Corbyn.
Q: Why should people feel confident that you are any good at reading the mood music in a room when you did not realise the campaign was going badly? You will need that skill in Brussels.
May says she realised the campaign was not going perfectly.
She realised a lot of people, especially the young, were concerned about housing.
And a lot of parents were concerned about schools too.
Q: Did you feel under extra pressure not to step down because you are only the second woman PM?
No, that was not an issue, says May. She says it can seem easier to walk way. But she felt it was important, having got into this mess, to get out of it.
Q: Are you a feminist?
May says she “has said that before”.
(She does not answer with a straight yes.)
Updated
Q: How did a strong and stable leader lose control of the campaign to such an extent?
May says it was not a question of losing control. She says the message she was getting was that the result would be different.
Looking back on the campaign, “what I regret is that we did not get across more” the vision she set out from No 10 when she became PM.
Updated
Q: You say you regret not doing more on certain issues in the campaign. But you were in charge? You let your campaign get derailed.
May says it was not about the campaign being derailed. It was about the balance of messages.
She says there was not a point where she felt she had to change direction.
When it came to the result, a lot of people close to the campaign were “genuinely shocked” by the result.
She says many people in Labour did not see the result coming either. She thinks calling the election was the right thing to do. The Tories took seats they had never held before, like Mansfield.
Updated
Q: Did you think of resigning?
No, says May. She felt she had a responsibility to continue. She says it was devastating seeing good colleagues lose their seats.
But she felt she had a responsibility to the country. The Conservatives were the only party that could govern.
Q: Was there anyone you were embarrassed to face?
May says the result was a shock. But she felt she had to go on.
Q: Do you regret not acknowledging the result in your first statement from No 10?
May says at that point she felt she had to reassure people government was carrying on?
Q: But shouldn’t you have shown humility?
May says it is important for the government to show humility in how it moves forward.
For example, during the campaign she realised that people were very concerned about housing, and about the prospect of young people not being able to buy a home.
Updated
Q: It’s a year to the day since you became PM. The election started so well. When did you think it might not be going according to plan?
May says as the campaign went on she realised it was not going perfectly. But she did not expect the result she got.
When the result came through, it was a complete shock.
She says she did not watch the exit poll. Her husband watched it, and came and told her. It took a few minutes for it to sink in.
Her husband gave her a hug. Then she rang CCHQ to find out what was going on.
I felt devastated, really. I knew the campaign was not going perfectly.
Q: Did you shed a tear?
Yes, a little tear.
Updated
Radio 5 is broadcasting the interview now.
Emma Barnett says it is her most honest interview yet about the election result.
Here is the interview in full.
PM Theresa May tells #5liveDaily's @Emmabarnett she shed "a little tear" after hearing exit poll result.
— BBC Radio 5 live (@bbc5live) July 13, 2017
Live now: https://t.co/OCDyAETz0e pic.twitter.com/cbKrKs1B7a
May says she felt 'devastated' by election result and shed 'a little tear'
Radio 5 Live has broadcast its top line in its news bulletin.
Theresa May told the programme she felt “devastated” by the election result and “shed a little tear”.
Updated
Radio 5 Live’s Emma Barnett has interviewed Theresa May this morning. It will be going out shortly and I will be covering it live.
Ready to interview @theresa_may 10am @bbc5live - a year on since she became Prime Minister. Join us #5livedaily pic.twitter.com/7d4fG9srIm
— Emma Barnett (@Emmabarnett) July 13, 2017
I hope it is more interesting than her interview with the Sun. May is notoriously unforthcoming in interviews and the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn did a proper sit-down with her, spread across two pages in the paper, but ended up with relatively meagre material.
Here are the top lines.
- May suggested that she wanted to carry on as prime minister for “the next few years” but would not commit to fighting the next election.
Mrs May repeatedly side-stepped the question on whether she wanted to lead the Tories into the next general election – currently set in law for June 2022 – to instead say: “I have got a job to do.
“My view is I have always said that I would be here for the full term, but what I have also said is that over the years I have given my life to this Conservative Party and I will serve as long as they want me to serve.”
Asked by The Sun if she would personally like to fight another election as leader, Mrs May made it clear she is only now concentrating on the next two or three years ahead to see through Brexit.
- She said she did not set out her vision for Britain satisfactorily during the election.
Speaking to The Sun from her No10 study yesterday, Mrs May said: “I set out a year ago, when I stood on the steps here, the sort of vision I had. The sort of country I wanted us to be.
“I don’t think that vision came through sufficiently during the campaign.
“’Me’ was that speech on the steps of No10 a year ago.
“That is what we were working on right up to the election, and it is what we are now working on.
“But that did not come across during the election campaign.”
Labour's six demands for changes to the repeal bill - Details
This is the statement that Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, put out overnight announcing that Labour will vote against the repeal bill at second reading unless there are significant changes to it. He said:
Labour has always been clear that Brexit cannot lead to any rolling back of rights and protections. We need effective legislation that protects British workers and consumers, enshrines equality laws, enforces environmental standards and devolves powers across the country.
The government’s repeal bill falls short on all counts. It is simply not fit for purpose.
The bill proposes sweeping new powers for ministers that are fundamentally undemocratic, unaccountable and unacceptable. It fails to guarantee crucial rights will be enforced; it omits the EU charter of fundamental rights and it does nothing to ensure that British standards and rights keep pace with our EU partners.
Labour are putting the prime minister on notice that unless the bill is significantly improved in all these areas, Labour will vote it down in the House of Commons.
And here are the six concerns that Labour has with the bill. I’m quoting from a Labour briefing note.
1 - It proposes sweeping delegated powers but lacks effective oversight or accountability. In particular, the Bill could allow delegated powers to be used very late in negotiations to cover significant policy changes. This is fundamentally undemocratic and unacceptable.
2 - It lacks clear enforcement mechanisms. Without remedies, key rights such as workplace rights or environmental standards could become unenforceable.
3 - It does not include the EU charter of fundamental rights. This codifies human rights in EU law and UK law in modern form and includes important protections in evolving areas such as privacy protections, discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and rights for the elderly. Failure to include the Charter will impact the way that rights are interpreted in UK courts.
4 - It takes the wrong approach on devolution and does not ensure effective involvement of devolved administrations. There should be a clear presumption of devolution. Without this, the Bill is a significant power grab for Whitehall and fails to capitalise on the potential for further devolution of power.
5 - It does not include any provision to ensure that UK rights keep pace with EU rights after Brexit. This could lead to UK rights lagging behind the EU over time in areas such as workplace, consumer or equality protections or environmental standards.
6 - There can be no qualifications, limitations or sunset clauses attached to this Bill. If there are, Labour will not support it. In addition, Labour will block the use of delegated legislation to the same effect.
Starmer is fond of imposing Brexit tests. In December last year he set out five tests that Labour would use to determine whether it could support the government’s Brexit plan. And in March he set out six tests the party would use to judge the final Brexit deal.
Updated
Today marks one of the most important milestones in the UK’s journey towards Brexit. The government is publishing the repeal bill, its flagship Brexit legislation and the measure that will repeal the European Communities Act, which took the UK into Europe in the first place. And, to coincide with its publication, Labour is significantly hardening its opposition to the government’s stance, threatening to vote against the bill at second reading unless major changes are introduced.
Steve Baker, the hardline pro-leave campaigner who recently became a Brexit minister, has been giving interviews this morning about the bill. He told the Today programme that the government was “ready to ... listen to parliament” over the bill.
Well, yes we are ready, but really what we are ready to do is listen to parliament in an open conversation about what is quite a technical bill.
But when Nick Robinson pressed Baker for examples of areas where the government might compromise, Baker did not provide any examples.
For example, the Royal College of Radiologists has issued a fresh statement this morning expressing concern that leaving Euratom could hold up the supply of radioisotopes used for cancer diagnosis and treatment.
Latest statement on potential risk to cancer patients from leaving Euratom from @RCRadiologists pic.twitter.com/OARrQeyV8P
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) July 13, 2017
But when Baker was asked about this, he said that he thought the royal college had got it wrong. He told Robinson:
Well, we are certainly listening to those concerns, but we believe that those concerns are not correct. Medical radioisotopes are not the kind of special fissile material - plutonium, uranium - which is covered by Euratom and safeguarding.
Here are some of the other latest Brexit developments.
- Baker rejected a claim from Amyas Morse, head of the National Audit Office, that the government’s approach to Brexit could fall apart “like a chocolate orange”. Asked about this, Baker said:
That is not what I have been seeing in the course of the short time that I’ve been in the department. Sitting in the department, going from department to department, meeting other ministers, working with civil servants, what I see is a great deal of insight, vigour, application, clear political direction, serious choices being made. What I see is the whole government coming to together to ensure that we are able to leave the European Union smoothly and in a successful and orderly way, whatever circumstances we face.
- Jeremy Corbyn has said Labour is “ready to take up the responsibility for Brexit negotiations”. In a statement issued ahead of his meeting with Michel Barnier, the EU’s Brexit negotiator in Brussels today, he said:
Labour is a government in waiting and we are ready to take up the responsibility for Brexit negotiations.
Labour respects the referendum result and the decision to leave the European Union. But a Labour Brexit would look very different to the race-to-the-bottom tax haven backed by this Conservative government.
In contrast to the Conservatives’ megaphone diplomacy, we will conduct relations with our European neighbours respectfully and in the spirit of friendship. Our strong links with our European sister parties gives Labour an advantage in reaching an outcome that works for both sides.
Labour said the meeting, set to last about two hours, showed “Labour’s growing importance to the Brexit process in the wake of the UK general election”.
- The government has confirmed that it has dropped “great” from the title of the repeal bill. Originally the government referred to it as the “great repeal bill”. But parliamentary rules don’t allow words like “great” in the formal title of a bill, and that grandiose title has now been dropped. An overnight government press release said it would be “known as the repeal bill”.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Theresa May gives an interview to Radio 5 Live’s Emma Barnett, her first proper broadcast interview since the general election. (She has also given an interview to the Sun.)
10am: Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, takes questions from the London assembly.
Around 10am: The Brexit department publishes three position papers, covering “nuclear materials and safeguards issues, ongoing union judicial and administrative proceedings, and privileges and immunities”. They will be discussed in the next round of Brexit talks, starting next week.
11am: The Office for Budget Responsibility publishes its fiscal risks report.
Around 11.30am: The Brexit department publishes the repeal bill.
1.15pm: May meets the King of Spain for talks in Number 10.
1.45pm: The Social Market Foundation publishes a report from its commission on inequality in education.
And in Brussels today Jeremy Corbyn, Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, and Carwyn Jones, the Welsh first minister, all have meetings with Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to publish a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
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.
Updated
