Ukip leadership hustings - Summary
Anyone who feared that the Ukip leadership contest would get dull following the withdrawal of Raheem Kassam will be relieved after that: with John Rees-Evans, Ukip’s reputation for eccentricity is in safe hands. He fared badly this afternoon, but Paul Nuttall, the clear favourite, Suzanne Evans, the most assured media performer, and Peter Whittle all got through the debate without difficulty. There was no clear winner, but equally nothing happened to challenge the view that Nuttall will be most popular with Ukip members. (Evans was good, but she doesn’t sound much like a proper Kipper.)
Here are two of the key news lines.
- Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans, the two favourites in the contest, disagreed over Ukip’s controvesial Breaking Point anti-immigrants poster. Evans said she did not like it:
I didn’t think it was racist, but I don’t like it. I think it was insensitive and ill-judged.
But Nuttall defended it.
The point behind that poster was absolutely correct. We do need to get control of our borders and there is a deluge of people coming from the Middle East and the European Union’s idea of a common asylum policy certainly isn’t the right route to go down.
- Nuttall and Whittle both sought to downplay the significance of the rise in hate crime after the Brexit vote. Asked about the increase, Nuttall said:
If you look at the hate crime figures, they did not go up substantially ...
There has been a slight rise but - I’ve spoken to the police about this - that happens after any national event. This is nothing out of the ordinary. The rise hasn’t been that substantial.
And Whittle said that hate crime had been going up anyway. He added:
The only point I would make is that in July, after the Brexit vote, actually a huge amount of hate crime was more related to the terrorist attacks that were happening at the time.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Q: Do you support the death penalty?
Nuttall says he would for some crimes, like killing children. But it is Ukip policy to have a referendum on it if enough people call for one.
Evans says she is strongly opposed to one and always has been, and the Stefan Kiszko case clinched it for her.
Rees-Evans says he would back the death penalty for people who kill children, and paedophiles convicted for preying on children under the age of 12.
And that’s it. The LBC hustings is over.
I will post a summary soon.
- This entry was corrected on 1 November 2016 to more accurately reflect the views of the candidates.
Updated
Q: Do you favour Trump or Clinton?
Evans says she would work with whoever won.
Nuttall says if he were American, he would probably vote for the Libertarian candidate. He does not like either Trump or Clinton.
Rees-Evans says one thing in Trump’s favour is that he is not in anyone’s pocket.
Whittle says Clinton is “deeply unsavoury”. With Trump he thinks “right cause, wrong man”.
Q: Putin may have expansionist ambitions. And he may be a sociopath. Does he pose a threat?
Whittle says Putin is a “pretty unsavoury character”. There is an expansionist impluse there. But there is in the EU too.
Q: Do you admire him?
No, says Whittle.
Rees-Evans says he does not really have an opinion about him.
Evans says Putin is someone who needs careful handling.
Nuttall says he agrees with Evans. But Russia is not the biggest threat facing the country. It is Islamic extremism.
Evans says the UK security services have suggested that terrorists could be coming to Europe posing as refugees.
Q: What do you think of David Davies’s proposal for dental checks of child refugees?
Evans says she was angry when she saw child refugees coming to the UK. There are children in the UK who are not being looked after properly. She says it is reasonable to check their ages.
Q: Are migrants in Calais a threat to the UK?
Rees-Evans said he recently went to Calais. His investigation was on Bulgarian TV. He says many migrants there have sold their homes. They spend £10,000 or £11,000. There are genuine refugees, he says. He spoke to 39 refugees. But he thinks only three or four of them were genuinely fleeing for their lives.
Q: Is it true you have some bunker in Bulgaria?
Rees-Evans says he has 10 acres there. His wife likes organic food, and they can grow their own food on their land.
Q: Do you want Nigel Farage to stay involved?
Evans says she would like him to stay involved. She would like him to be an elder statesman, someone she could consult. That is how she used to work with him. It would be like Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon, she says.
Whittle says she would like Farage to stay involved.
Rees-Evans says, if you do not like Farage, you can vote for Nuttall, because Nuttall and Evans both favour shunting Farage off into the Lords.
Nuttall says he has worked with Farage for years. Farage should become the honorary president of the party. And, if he wants a peerage, he should get one.
After 2019 Farage won’t be an MEP, he points out.
Rees-Evans says he wants to introduce direct democracy into the party.
Evans says that is not the case. She wrote the party manifesto. You cannot make policy like this, he says.
Rees-Evans says that illustrates the problem. She does not trust members.
Nuttall says the last time something like this was tried was when Labour wrote its manifesto in 1983. He implies Rees-Evans’ idea won’t work.
Q: Can you persuade me Ukip is not racist?
Nuttall says Ukip is the only party that has a blanket ban on anyone who has been a member of the BNP joining. Just because you want to control immigration that does not make you a racist, he says.
Evans says she did not approve of the anti-immigrant poster released during the campaign. She tells the Spanish caller she has a beautiful voice.
Rees-Evans says the media are partly to blame. The media accuse Ukip of being racist. And so, after the vote to leave, genuine racists thought that people who voted to leave the EU were also racist. The media needs to consider its responsibility, he says.
Whittle says the London assembly has looked at this. Hate crime has been going up for some time anyway, he says. And he says that the increase over the summer was linked to terrorist attacks taking place at the same time.
Q: But why would people abuse a Spanish woman over terrorism?
Whittle says these people do not make that distinction.
Nuttall seeks to downplay significance of rise in hate crime after Brexit
Q: I am a Spanish national. How responsible to you feel for the fact that I have been verbally abused since the referendum.
Nuttall says he is very sorry for what has happened to the female caller. But he is not responsible. Brexit is a great thing, he says. He says the government should repeal the European Communities Act.
Q: But many EU nationals have experienced the same thing.
Nuttall says the hate crime figures did not go up “substantially” after the referendum. But both sides pushed the boundaries.
Q: How?
Well, the £350m a week claim, Nuttall says.
Q: What about the Ukip anti-immigrant poster issued on the day Jo Cox was killed.
Nuttall says that poster was correct. The UK does need to get control of its borders. But he says EU nationals should not feel under threat. They will not be asked to go home.
Q: Do you accept there has been an increase in hate crime?
Nuttall says there has been a slight rise in hate crime. But this kind of thing happens after every national event.
- Nuttall seeks to downplay significance of rise in hate crime after Brexit.
Q: Would Ukip benefit by having a woman as leader?
Not necessarily, says Rees-Evans. He says he employs 800 people, and he does not employ them for their gender.
Whittle says he does not think this is relevant. He did not stand for London mayor on the basis of being gay.
Evans says she does not think gender should matter.
Nuttall also says he does not think gender should be a factor.
Updated
Q: Is Douglas Carswell a force for good in Ukip?
He can be, says Nuttall. Nuttall says if he becomes elected leader, he will see all Ukip’s parliamentarians and try to get them to work together.
Whittle says a recent book (The Brexit Club, by Owen Bennett) says Carswell joined Ukip to undermine Nigel Farage. He says this needs to be addressed. Carswell has not commented on this, he says.
Evans says she has worked with Carswell. He did not join the party to undermine Farage. He says having an MP in the party is a big asset.
Rees-Evans says Carwell criticised Farage at a time when the party needed unity.
Q: So we are not allowed to criticise the leader?
Rees-Evans says people should criticise what the leader does, not who they are.
Whittle says he was Ukip’s candidate for London mayor. He is gay, he says. He was the only gay mayoral candidate.
He says they are talking about an obscure topic.
Rees-Evans says this is not an obscure matter. They are talking about liberty of conscience.
Updated
Q: Is Evans a Tory stooge?
No, says Nuttall. But the important thing is that the party comes together.
Rees-Evans says he has heard this. But he does not know. He has not heard sufficient “data” on this to know whether she has stronger affinity with the Tories or with Ukip.
Evans says he has only just met Rees-Evans.
Rees-Evans complains about something Evans said about a Ukip member with traditional Christian views, Alan Craig. He says he is a libertarian. He thinks the party should include people like this.
Evans says the party is libertarian. It includes people with a wide range of views. But there is a higher bar for candidates. And candidates with views that alienate a large section of the community should reconsider them.
She says she stands up for what she believes in. She will not tolerate racism or homophobia.
Rees-Evans says Ukip candidates should be able to hold any views.
Q: Is it acceptable for Ukip candidates to have racist views?
Yes ...
Q: You are saying yes.
Rees-Evans says he is just starting his answer.
Q: But you said yes.
Rees-Evans says it depends how you define racism.
Q: How can you govern a rabble?
Nuttall says the party has not covered itself in glory recently. It is staring over a cliff at the moment. He says he can rescue it because he has done all the important jobs in the party. He is not factional. It is important to forgive, but not forget.
Q: Who is to blame?
Nuttall says he said in his conference speech that no one was free from blame.
Q: You were deputy leader for six years. You must take some blame.
Nuttall says he accepts his share of responsibility. He said that in his conference speech.
There are open goals, if you look at Labour communities. Ukip has to kick the ball, he says.
Whittle says Ukip needs a period of stability. He is stable, he says.
Q: Are you saying Nigel Farage was unstable?
No, says Whittle. He says the party needs a period of instability. Then it needs some building, and then it needs to be inspired.
Rees-Evans says Ukip needs considerable reform. He wants much more direct democracy. If power is transferred to members, that would reduce the possibility of conflict between members and the leadership.
Ukip leadership candidates take part in LBC debate
All four Ukip leadership candidates are about to take part in their first broadcast debate. The four are: Paul Nuttall, the former deputy leader (and favourite in the contest; Suzanne Evans, the former deputy chairwoman; Peter Whittle, a member of the London assembly; and John Rees-Evans, a former parliamentary candidate.
Iain Dale is presenting.
Q: Is Ukip ungovernable?
No, says Evans. She says Ukip has a real opportunity because Labour is failing.
Q: You said Ukip was toxic.
Evans said she did not say that. She was making a different point.
Updated
Afternoon summary
- Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, has dramatically reopened the issue of press regulation by questioning whether the second part of the Leveson inquiry, meant to investigate corrupt dealings between the press and police, is still necessary. She made the announcement in a statement to the Commons. (See 2.47pm.) Later MPs voted down a Lords amendment to the investigatory powers bill that would have brought into force punitive court costs for newspapers that do not sign up to a Leveson-compliant regulator, even though this measure had cross-party support when included in a bill three years ago. Labour voted for the punitive court costs regime, but they were defeated by the government. (See 4.09pm.)
- Amber Rudd, the home secretary, sparked fresh anger over her decision to reject an inquiry into the “battle of Orgreave” when she failed to appear in the House of Commons to justify her decision. As Alan Travis and Josh Halliday report, the police minister, Brandon Lewis, was left to deny charges from Andy Burnham, the former shadow home secretary, that Rudd had “cruelly misled” campaigners at a meeting in September, which they left under the impression that some form of inquiry was going to be authorised. Burnham said Rudd’s decision to reject an inquiry into the clash between the police and miners in June 1984 at the height of the miners’ strike was “a bitter betrayal” that had been reached after an “incomplete and unsound process”.
- Will Straw, the former executive director of the Britain Stronger in Europe campaign, has explained his decision to accept a CBE in David Cameron’s resignation honours list. He said he did not know why he was offered the award. But, giving evidence to a Commons committee, he went on:
As I say, I didn’t ask for the award. But when I was offered it I wasn’t going to turn it down, not least because I’d been, as campaigners on both sides of this question and people engaged in politics are, away from my family for a lot of the campaign.
I wanted to have an occasion to take my wife to the Palace, as we’ll be doing in the near future, and to have something to remember the hard work that I and others put into the campaign.
At 5pm LBC will be hosting a Ukip leadership hustings. I will be covering it live.
MPs vote down Lords amendment introducing punitive court costs for papers
The government has won the vote. (See 3.40pm.) The Lords amendment bringing in the punitive court costs rules for newspapers that get sued has been defeated by 298 votes to 261 - a majority of 37.
The story about Lord Heseltine supposedly killing his mother’s dog (see 10.37am) has turned even more peculiar. He now says Tatler, the magazine that first reported his supposed admission, misunderstood what he was saying. He told the Press Association:
I didn’t strangle the dog. They have misunderstood ... The dog was perfectly all right after this incident.
I missed this in the investigatory powers bill debate - Tory MP and former army officer Tom Tugendhat on the Guardian.
The only reason we had The Guardian on the officers' mess was to dust it for prints. V funny from @TomTugendhat in #IPBill debate #Leveson
— David Jack (@DJack_Journo) November 1, 2016
MPs are now voting on the press regulation amendment. (See 3.40pm.)
Earlier today Philip Hammond, the chancellor, gave a speech on the national cyber security strategy. His plans were briefed overnight, but his speech also included a claim that Britain will be able “retaliate in kind” to any state-backed cyber-attack. Hammond told his audience.
We will deter those who seek to steal from us, threaten us or otherwise harm our interests in cyberspace.
We are strengthening our law enforcement capabilities to raise the cost and reduce the rewards of cyber criminality, ensuring we can track, apprehend and prosecute those who commit cyber crimes.
And we will continue to invest in our offensive cyber capabilities because the ability to detect, trace and retaliate in kind is likely to be the best deterrent.
A small number of hostile foreign actors have developed and deployed hostile cyber capabilities, including destructive ones.
These capabilities threaten the security of the UK’s critical national infrastructure and their industrial control systems.
If we do not have the ability to respond in cyberspace to an attack which takes down our power networks, leaving us in darkness, or hits our air traffic control system, grounding our planes, we would be left with the impossible choice of turning the other cheek and ignoring the devastating consequences or resorting to a military response.
That is a choice we do not want to face and a choice we do not want to leave as a legacy to our successors.
That is why we need to develop a fully functioning and operational cyber counter-attack capability.
Here is the text of Hammond’s speech.
In the Commons MPs are now debating the investigatory powers bill, and specifically the amendments to the bill tabled by peers as it went through the House of Lords. At the start of the debate John Bercow, the Speaker, said that 377 amendments were made to the bill in the upper house.
But the debate is focusing mainly on an amendment passed by the Lords that would effectively implement section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act - the Leveson recommendation (see 12.59pm) which Karen Bradley put out to a fresh consultation earlier. (See 2.47pm.) The government wants to overturn the amendment, but Labour MPs want to keep it in. We should get a vote quite soon.
In these grim times we have to take our good news when we can get it, so here’s to Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary. Giving evidence to a committee this morning, he said there probably won’t be a war with Russia next year.
The Press Association has the story.
Fears that Russia and Nato are on a collision course for war next year have been dismissed by defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon.
Fallon insisted that a hot conflict with Moscow was not likely in 2017, as he gave evidence to the Commons defence committee.
Pressed about warnings by former Nato deputy allied commander in Europe, General Sir Richard Shirreff, that the plot of his novel 2017 War With Russia was plausible, Fallon said that was an extreme view.
“Well, there are a lot of people writing books and trying to sell them, and his is a very good one. However, I don’t agree that war with Russia is likely next year. I think that is too extreme.
“We have seen much greater Russian aggression this year, and in previous years, in terms of long-range aviation, in terms of submarine activity, and the carrier task group that sailed through our waters, the role of Russia in Syria, and elsewhere. But I don’t think that presages an open conflict next year.
“And I hope that General Shirreff would - and I think he does this - recognise that Nato is now responding. So, Nato is waking up to the challenge,” Fallon said.
The defence secretary insisted the decision to send 800 British troops to Estonia next year was intended to create an “earlier tripwire” and act as a deterrent against possible aggression.
“The whole point of forward deployment to Estonia is to arrange, if you like, an earlier tripwire so the force there doesn’t have to wait for tension to escalate. The force will be there from next spring in any event, in all three of the Baltic states. It’s partly reassurance, but it’s also deterrence - to make it very clear to any potential aggressor that Nato is ready to respond.”
Astute readers will, of course, realise that the very fact that a ‘no war next year’ declaration has become newsworthy is itself a matter of some concern.
Here is Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, on Karen Bradley’s statement.
DC, NC and I signed pledge to support Section 40 on costs. Govt now tries to ditch it. Is it any wonder people think we break our promises?
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) November 1, 2016
Bradley's statement on press regulation - Summary and analysis
Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, made two announcements in her statement. Both involve unwinding significant elements of Leveson, the inquiry set up with cross-party support in the Commons after the phone-hacking scandal, and in truth neither is particularly surprising, although there is one line in the small print that is intriguing.
1 - Bradley has confirmed that the government may shelve part two of the Leveson inquiry, the bit that was intended to examine in detail allegations of phone hacking and collusion with the police at News International and other newspaper organisations. Although part one of the inquiry covered phone hacking, it did not consider allegations in details because at that stage prosecutions were pending. When David Cameron launched the inquiry, he specifically said that a second stage would investigate what happened in detail once the police investigations were over.
All the key prosecutions have now concluded. Bradley has now launched a consultation on whether to press ahead with part two of the inquiry although the chances of part two actually proceeding are probably no higher than nil. When David Cameron was prime minister it was widely reported that part two would be permanently shelved. Theresa May may seem less interested in schmoozing the media than Cameron, but she is not daft and it is very hard to see why she would want to launch an inquiry that would trigger all-out war with powerful, Conservative-supporting newspaper groups, especially News UK, the successor to News International.
2 - Bradley has announced that she will consult on whether or not to implement section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. This is also unsurprising. (See 12.59am.) But what’s interesting is that Bradley is consulting on four options: keeping section 40 under review, bringing it in, repealing it, or partially introducing it. It was never likely that Bradley would introduce it, and her comments in the chamber (see, for example, what she said about Peter Preston’s column at 1.50pm) suggest implementation is not a runner. But she has also included the option of partially introducing part 40 - introducing the “carrot” (exemption from costs for papers that lose a court case, if they are signed up to a Leveson-compliant regulator) but shelving the “stick” (forcing papers to pay their opponents’ costs even if they win, if they are not signed up to a Leveson-compliant regulator). This would benefit the small number of organised that belong to IMPRESS. Papers signed up to IPSO would probably complain if Bradley were to choose this option (and there is no particular reason to think she will) but doing this would allow her to claim she is salvaging one more vestige of Leveson.
Updated
Bradley’s statement is now over. I will post a summary soon.
Labour’s Clive Betts asks what Sir Brian Leveson thinks of the consultation.
Bradley says her conversation with Leveson was private.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says IMPRESS is funded by a “degenerate libertine” (Max Mosley). It cannot be right to bring in section 40 when it has so few subscribers, he says.
Bradley says this is why a consultation is needed. And she wants to take decisions based on the situation today, not five years ago, she says.
Sir Oliver Letwin, who has a Cabinet Office minister in the last government brought in the Leveson legislation, said it would help matters if IPSO became Leveson- compliant.
Bradley says that is the sort of comment she wants to hear in the consultation.
Bradley quotes approvingly an article written by Peter Preston, the former Guardian editor, in the Observer on Sunday saying section 40 should be mothballed.
Sir Peter Bottomley, a Conservative, says he has successfully sued newspapers four times. He says the list of papers that have signed up to IMPRESS is “pathetic”. He says the government should ensure that section 40 does not apply to papers regulated by IPSO.
Bradley says Bottomley has summed up the problem. There are 2,500 titles signed up to IPSO, she says.
John Whittingdale, the Conservative former culture secretary, asks Bradley to consider the deteriorating state of newspaper finances. And he says she should also remember that internet companies are not covered.
Bradley says these are good points.
Bradley is responding to Watson.
She says she does not agree with much of what he said.
And she says she hopes many people will respond to the consultation.
She does not address Watson’s specific questions.
Watson accuses Bradley of proposing a cover-up of a cover-up
Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader and shadow culture secretary, is responding to Bradley now. He says it is very sad that press regulation reform is being held up in this way.
He says Leveson part two would have been the investigation into how the cover-up into phone hacking was conducted.
That means Bradley is announcing a consultation on whether a cover-up should be covered up.
He says Bradley is taking power away from an independent judge, and giving it back to the executive.
He poses some questions.
Did Theresa May discuss this with Rupert Murdoch when she met him in New York?
Did Sir Brian Leveson back this?
Has Bradley spoken to the parents of Millie Dowler, whose dead daughter’s phone was hacked?
Bradley says government considering shelving follow-up Leveson inquiry into specific News International abuses
Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, says she is making a statement on matters relating to the Leveson inquiry.
It is the job of a free press to hold the government to account. But that freedom has in the past been abused, she says.
She says the Leveson inquiry was set up to look into abuses.
Sir Brian Leveson heard evidence from more than 300 people, she says, including some of those affected by atrocious conduct.
She says the report contained 92 recommendations. Most have been implemented.
Part two of the inquiry, which is supposed to investigate the specific phone-hacking allegations at News International once court cases are over, has not begun.
She says section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 has not come into force. (See 12.59am.)
She says the government has “hitherto” taken the view that the time has not been right to commence section 40.
But the PRP has now recognised a regulator.
She says it is time to consider press regulation further, in the light of the fact that IMPRESS, a small regulator, has gove PRP-approval, but IPSO has not.
She says the criminal cases relating to phone-hacking are coming to an end.
There was some overlap between part one and the proposed part two, she says.
The part one recommendations are being addressed, she says.
Given the extent of the criminal investigations, the reforms that have taken place, and the cost of part one, the government is considering whether to go ahead with part two.
- Bradley says government considering shelving follow-up Leveson inquiry into specific News International abuses.
There will be a consultation, she says.
She says the government wants a balance between press freedom and the freedom of the individual.
Karen Bradley is starting her statement now.
Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, will announce a further consultation on press regulation, my colleague Jane Martinson reports.
Karen Bradley's Commons statement on the press
Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is about to give a statement in the Commons about press regulation. It is expected that she will use the statement to unpick one of the consequences of the Leveson report into phone hacking.
The Leveson report was published in November 2012 and it recommended a tighter form of press regulation. The newspaper industry accepted the need for some reform, but it strongly opposed anything smacking of state regulation and, after much haggling, a compromise system was adopted. A royal charter was granted in 2013 and that led to the establishment of a Press Recognition Panel (PRP) which has the job of approving Leveson-compliant press regulators. Most national newspaper groups decided not to cooperate with this system and support the Independent Press Standards Organisation, an independent regulator. But a few publications signed up to IMPRESS, an alternative regulator, and last week IMPRESS became the first regulator to get PRP approval.
This is significant because, one a PRP-approved regulator is in place, section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 is supposed to come into force. This section, passed with cross-party support, is designed to provide “carrot and stick” incentives to newspapers to sign up to a PRP-approved regulator. The carrot is that papers that belong to such a regulator won’t have to pay the costs of claimants if they get sued for libel, even if the paper loses. The stick applies to papers that don’t belong to such a regulator; under section 40, they will have to pay the costs of people who sue them, even if the paper wins.
But section 40 only comes into force if the government activates it. As you can imagine, the prospect of this happening has alarmed the newspaper industry. Bradley has already said that she will take her time before deciding what to do, and in a few minutes we will learn more.
Section 40 is not the only stick in the Crime and Courts Act 20113. Section 34, which is already in force, allows the courts to impose exemplary damages (ie, extra, punitive damages, on top of normal libel damages) against newspapers that have not joined a PRP-approved regulator. But exemplary damages are relatively unusual, and so far this section has not caused any problems for newspapers outside the Leveson framework.
There is more on this topic in this House of Commons library briefing paper (pdf).
Labour’s Dennis Skinner asks why, if more than 30 years is too long to make an inquiry worthwhile, why it is not long enough to justify the release of some cabinet papers about the strike. Some papers are being withheld, he says. He says they would show that Margaret Thatcher’s government planned to close 75 pits, not 20 as they said at the time.
David Davies, a Conservative, says the death of the Welsh taxi driver was the worst thing that happened during the strike. If there is to be an inquiry, it should look at the lies and violence of the miners, he says.
Lewis says there will not be an inquiry.
Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, says Rudd’s line that there is no need for an inquiry because “lessons have been learnt” creates a new, dubious principle for justice.
Lewis says this decision was taken in accordance with what was in the wider public interest.
Gareth Johnson, a Conservative, says he remembers Arthur Scargill refusing to condemn violence and the death of a taxi driver in Wales. It is wrong to say the miners were all good and the police all bad, he says.
Labour’s Sarah Champion says it is very disappointing that MPs are rehashing old smears. Rudd said there would be no inquiry because no one died. Is this the new threshold?
Lewis says Champion is misrepresenting when Rudd said. He says the point is that there are few lessons to be learnt now.
Joanna Cherry, the SNP’s justice and home affairs spokeswoman, says there were striking similarities between practices and personalties at Orgreave and at Hillsborough. That justifies an inquiry, she suggests. And she asks whether Rudd considered whether the evidence of political interference in policing at the time of Orgreave when deciding whether to hold an inquiry.
Lewis says the inquiries into Hillsborough are still going on. There could be prosecutions, he says.
Anna Soubry, the Conservative, says she covered the miners’ strike as a TV reporter. She says Rudd’s decision is very sensible. If there were to be an inquiry, she says, it could look at how the NUM tried to stop miners working when they wanted to.
Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, says Rudd has not bothered to come to the Commons herself.
What happened at Orgreave was totemic, she says.
MPs will remember what Harold Macmillan said about the miners’ strike in his maiden speech in the Lords. He said the strike and what was happening to them was terrible. They were the best men in the world, he says.
He says they have been led up the garden path by the government.
Rudd’s line that, because there were no deaths, injustice must stand is wrong, she says. She says Labour will not let injustice stand.
Lewis says Rudd answered questions on this yesterday. He is answering today because this comes under his portfolio.
Philip Davies, a Conservative, says he lived in a mining community in South Yorkshire at the time. He saw the bullying behaviour of miners at the time. Miners were carrying out violence against the police. If this was so important to Labour, why did they not hold an inquiry when they were in power.
Lewis says that is for Burnham to explain. He says the government has not done this for political reasons.
Lewis is responding to Burnham.
He says he was at the meeting where Rudd spoke to campaigners. Rudd made it clear that she would take a decision at a later point, he says.
He says there could still be criminal proceedings in relation to Hillsborough.
There is a disagreement on this, he says. But that does not mean Rudd’s decision is wrong.
Andy Burnham says Theresa May entered Downing Street promising to fight for ordinary workers.
Campaigners are very disappointed, he says.
He asks if Rudd reviewed files held by South Yorkshire police before taking her decision. He is told they never left Sheffield, he says.
Did she review all cabinet papers? In one Leon Brittan, the then home secretary, said he wanted to increase the number of miners being prosecuted.
When will the operational order be published?
Is Rudd rejected Margaret Aspinall’s claim that the Hillsborough cover-up might never have happened if Orgreave had been proper investigated at the time.
Burnham says the Times reported earlier this year that there would be an inquiry. It was cruel to mislead them, he says.
He says campaigners will never give up their fight on this.
UPDATE: Here is the cabinet minute referring to Brittan getting involved with the Orgreave prosecution decisions that Burnham seemed to be referring to.
The minute of 1984 meeting between Margaret Thatcher and her home secretary, Leon Brittan, where she pressed him to speed up Orgrave cases pic.twitter.com/DkgFCmdFgS
— Alan Travis (@alantravis40) November 1, 2016
Updated
Labour’s Andy Burnham asks for a statement on the reasons for Amber Rudd’s decision not to hold an inquiry into Orgreave.
Brandon Lewis, the policing minister, says Rudd set out her reasons yesterday.
He says she said that, although campaigners were concerned, ultimately there were no deaths at Orgeave.
He says she also took the view that policing had changed significantly. So she thought there were few lessons to be learnt, he says.
Commons urgent question on Orgreave
Brandon Lewis, the policing minister, is about to answer an urgent question on Orgreave.
Before he starts, this is what my colleague Owen Jone has written about the Home Office’s decision not to hold an inquiry.
There is another poll out today, from BMG. Their figures are very similar to the Guardian/ICM ones. Here they are:
Conservatives: 42% (up 3 from BMG in September)
Labour: 28% (no change)
Ukip: 12% (down 1)
Lib Dems: 8% (no change)
Greens: 4% (down 1)
Conservative lead: 14 points
Brandon Lewis, the policing minister, will be responding to the Orgreave UQ, not Amber Rudd, the home secretary, according to the Home Office.
Speaker grants urgent question on Orgreave
We’ve getting an urgent question on Orgreave at 12.30pm.
1 UQ at 1230 @andyburnhammp to @AmberRudd_MP on Orgreave. Karen Bradley statement on "Press Matters" will follow
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 1, 2016
Amber Rudd, the home secretary, spoke about Orgreave during Home Office questions yesterday but presumably the Speaker has granted an urgent question because he thinks MPs are entitled to spend more than five minutes asking Rudd about this.
This is the oddest story of the day. As Sky News reports, Lord Heseltine has admitted that he strangled his mother’s dog many years ago because he thought it had suffered a mental breakdown.
Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is making a statement in the Commons on “press matters” at 12.30pm.
1 Oral ministerial statement in @HouseofCommons, wonderfully titled "Press Matters" Karen Bradley/@tom_watson at 12.30 (subject to any UQs)
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) November 1, 2016
It is expected that she will use the statement to somehow close down the rules under section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 that mean newspapers not signed up to an officially-recognised press regulator would have to pay the costs of people who sue them for libel, even if the newspapers win. Section 40 has been dormant for three years, but the decision of the Press Recognition Panel last week to recognise Impress as the first post-Leveson, royal charter-compliant regulator brought it into play.
Orgreave families may use judicial review to challenge Rudd's no inquiry decision, says QC
The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign is holding a press conference later to give its considered response to Amber Rudd’s decision yesterday not to order any form of inquiry into Orgreave. On the Today programme Michael Mansfield QC, who represented some of the 95 miners charged with rioting and related offences before the case against them collapsed, said campaigners were considering challenging Rudd’s decision through judicial review. He told the programme:
Whether or not we would be successful, I don’t know, but I think it is being actively considered at this moment by the campaign, a judicial review of this decision, given what the families have been through.
He also said he thought Rudd had made the wrong decision.
What Amber Rudd has overlooked entirely – either intentionally or by accident, either way it doesn’t matter, it’s equally bad – is there was an orchestrated campaign here of uncontrolled, unlawful violence, unlawful falsification of evidence and there has been no disciplinary proceedings and no prosecution at all over the years. Now, this does not reinforce public faith in the system and what is needed here is the restoration of confidence.
As my colleague Jessica Elgot reports, four Conservative MPs are backing an SNP MP who wants to use backbench time to call for cuts to disability benefits to be postponed. Labour and Lib Dem MPs are also supporting the move.
Guardian/ICM poll gives Tories 16-point lead over Labour
With the next general election potentially three and a half years years away, it is unwise to get too excited about opinion polls. But equally it would be a mistake to ignore them completely. They are like the backdrop to a stage: not the focus of attention, easy to overlook, but providing the context that explains what’s going on up front.
In that spirit I bring you the results from the latest regular Guardian/ICM poll. The Tories have a 16-point lead - one point down from our last poll. Here are the figures.
Conservatives: 43% (no change from mid October)
Labour: 27% (up 1)
Ukip: 12% (up 1)
Lib Dems: 8% (no change)
Greens: 5% (down 1)
The fieldwork was carried out between Friday and Sunday last week. ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative online sample of 2,040 adults and the data has been weighted to the profile of all adults.
So, nothing much has changed (although Ukip may be heartened to discovered that their leadership turmoil does not seem to be doing them much harm). And Labour continues to flounder. If you want to know why Theresa May and her ministers do not seem to be remotely worried about anything the opposition are doing or saying, the answer is in these figures.
If there is any reaction to this poll, I will post it.
Otherwise, here is the agenda for the day.
9am: The cabinet meets.
10am: The Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign holds a press conference in Barnsley.
11.30am: Sir Michael Fallon, the defence secretary, gives evidence to the Commons defence committee.
12pm: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, gives a speech on the government’s nationaly cyber security strategy. As Anushka Asthana reports, he will warn that outdated computer systems are allowing malicious hackers to target everyone from companies at board level to individuals in their living rooms.
1pm: Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, campaigns in the Richmond Park byelection.
3pm: The president of Colombia, Juan Manuel Santos Calderon, gives a speech to MPs and peers in the robing room in the House of Lords.
Around 12.45pm: MPs begin a debate on the investigatory powers bill, and the amendments to it passed in the Lords. As Jane Martinson reports, Labour is backing a proposal that would require newspapers to pay the costs of any claims made against them by victims of phone hacking.
5pm: Paul Nuttall and Suzanne Evans, the two main Ukip leadership contenders, will take part in a debate on LBC. Iain Dale, the presenter, posted this on Twitter before Raheem Kassam pulled out.
ALERT: The first UKIP Leadership Debate. @LBC Radio, 5-6pm, Tuesday 1 November with @SuzanneEvans1, @RaheemKassam & @paulnuttallukip. Pls RT pic.twitter.com/axDRug8Apz
— Iain Dale (@IainDale) October 27, 2016
As usual, I will be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on@AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
