Afternoon summary
- Labour has announced that it is organising special screening of Ken Loach’s film I, Daniel Blake ahead of the autumn statement as part of a campaign to get the government to reverse cuts to employment and support allowance, a disability benefit. John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, said:
In the run up to the autumn statement Labour will be pushing the chancellor, Philip Hammond, to scrap these cruel ESA cuts to sick and disabled people.
I, Daniel Blake was one of the most moving films I’ve ever seen so I’m very pleased we have teamed up with Ken Loach to urge people to go and watch it at these special screenings taking place before the autumn statement.
We’re living in an I, Daniel Blake society as a result of having the Tories in power for six years. The government should be caring for sick and disabled people, not making their lives worse.
- Sir Michael Wilshaw, the Ofsted chief inspector, has described England’s education system as like its football team - “better than many, but hardly top notch”. In a speech he said:
For the most part, England’s education system is a bit like its football team - better than many, but hardly top notch.
We comfort ourselves with past success, illusory as that might be, dream of future glory, then collapse into despair when we come across superior play.
This familiar tale of disappointment, however, is misleading in two important respects.
Firstly, it fails to recognise that our education system has come from a long way back. Twenty years ago, standards were truly dire across the phases, and generations of children were being let down year after year. Since the dark days of the 70s, 80s and much of the 90s, schools have got a lot better.
Secondly, it can tempt us to adopt fanciful and nostalgic solutions while our very real structural problems are ignored.
- Drivers of polluting diesel vehicles could soon be charged to enter many city centres across Britain, after the government accepted in the high court on Wednesday that its current plans to tackle the nation’s air pollution crisis were so poor they broke the law. As Damian Carrington reports, the humiliating legal defeat is the second in 18 months and ends years of inadequate action and delays to tackle the problem which causes 50,000 early deaths every year. Ministers are now bound to implement new measures to cut toxic air quickly and the prime minister, Theresa May, indicated the government would this time respond positively: “There is more to do and we will do it.” The most likely measure is using charges to deter polluting diesel vehicles from “clean air zones” in urban centres, which could be in place next year in London and in 2018 in Birmingham and other cities.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Andrew Tyrie tries to wind up. But Bernard Jenkin insists on one more question. What machinery should have been in place to address the point in paragraph 617. (See 5.23pm.)
Chilcot says civil servants did propose government machinery of that kind. A paper went in to Number 10. But it came back with a crucial element missing - ministerial oversight.
And that’s it. The hearing is over.
Chilcot says you would have to look inside Blair’s heart and mind to know what he thought at the time.
There is a question to be asked about how much a modern prime minister can be expected to absorb, given how much he or she has to take in.
He says the inquiry came close to recommending that there should have been a full-time minister working for Blair on this.
Q: Wasn’t that the foreign secretary’s job?
Chilcot says the foreign secretary had other things to do.
He says the example he has in mind is Harold Macmillan, who during the second world war was a minister based in the Mediterranean working on the war effort.
Chilcot says his inquiry team were very determined not to use hindsight when making judgments.
Andrew Tyrie says it looks like a war that was pushed through by one man. Therefore you need to apportion blame accordingly.
Tyrie quotes paragraph 617 in the executive summary, saying: “At no stage did ministers or senior officials commission the systematic evaluation of different options, incorporating detailed analysis of risk and UK capabilities, military and civilian, which should have been required before the UK committed to any course of action in Iraq.” He suggests Blair was to blame for that.
Chilcot says anyone who could have commissioned an evaluation should have done so.
Updated
Here is my colleague Luke Harding’s take on the opening of this hearing.
Q: Was the procurement of protective equipment for troops delayed because Blair did not want to admit he had decided to go to war?
Chilcot says you cannot make that connection. He says Blair was reluctant to admit Blair was going to happen. But that did not hold up the acquisition of equipment that would have protected soldiers for IEDs [improvised explosive devices].
Chilcot says Saddam’s ‘hidden’ WMD was in fact just an 'accounting problem'
Q: What do you think Saddam did with his WMD? Did he destroy them or pass them on to someone else?
Chilcot says he does not for a moment think Saddam gave them to anyone else.
He thinks undocumented destruction and despatch of weapons took place on a vast scale after the first Gulf war. People thought the gap between what was recorded as being destroyed and what he had was seen as a hidden arsenal. It was not, he says. It was an “accounting problem”.
- Chilcot says Saddam’s ‘hidden’ WMD was in fact just an ‘accounting problem’.
Updated
Q: Was Blair’s message to Bush a secret commitment to war?
Chilcot says it is worth asking what would have happened if the UK had not given that commitment.
He says if Blair had been firmer, he might have delayed the invastion until the autumn of 2003. That might have been a better time for the war, because of the weather. And it might have affected the internal dynamics in the White House. Colin Powell might have been more influential.
Q; Was Blair acting more from solidarity than strategy?
Chilcot says he agrees.
Julian Lewis: "was decision for war 'solidarity rather than strategy'?"
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) November 2, 2016
Chilcot: "That's an admirably concise statement with which I agree"
Updated
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, goes next. He says he supported the war but made a mistake.
Q: What do you blame Blair for, and what do you absolve him for?
Chilcot says he absolves Blair from the charge that he purposely set out to deceive.
But, when was making the case for war, he was engaged in advocacy, not sharing information in a reasonable way, he says.
Q: Who else do you blame?
Chilcot says Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, were key figures. Clare Short, the international development secretary, had some responsibility, he says.
He says Straw was more influential than Hoon.
Crispin Blunt goes next.
Q: MPs were given a vote just 24 hours before the war started. That was absurd, wasn’t it? MPs did not want to pull the plug then.
Chilcot says he agrees wholeheartedly.
Laurence Robertson, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: What is your single most important finding?
Chilcot says, whenever he hears that question, his response is that there is a whole range of things.
But, if pressed hard, he would say it was a failure to exercise collective responsibility for a very big decision.
Watch: "Oh good," laughs Sir John Chilcot when MPs say some of his answers are reminding them of Sir Humphrey - https://t.co/0NzBMbfnLS pic.twitter.com/R6IL4PrKVr
— Alex Hunt (@iAlexhunt) November 2, 2016
Q: You said Blair was unreasonable. Were others in Number 10 unreasonable?
Chilcot says unreasonable was Andrew Tyrie’s word. Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, was in a tough situation, he says. British policy moved from containment to coercive diplomacy. Coercive diplomacy can lead to one of two results.
Damian Collins, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: You seem to have let off the civil service.
Chilcot says, if you go through the report carefully, you will find lots of criticism of the civil service.
Sarah Wollaston, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: Cabinet members did not want to demand to see the government’s legal advice. Were they cavalier about this?
Chilcot praises Robin Cook’s stance on this. He says the intelligence would be read in various ways. Cook read it correctly, he says.
He says he would not say cabinet members were negligent. But they were passive.
Q: Surely this was the biggest decision they took that year? Isn’t it staggering that they did not look at the legal advice?
Chilcot says he will find his own words. It was not the way they should have operated.
Andrew Tyrie goes next.
Q: What about “pusillanimous in the face of an over-mighty PM”?
Chilcot says it was about the dominance that Blair had acquired.
It was not a matter of cabinet ministers being pusillanimous. It was just that they had faith in Blair being right.
Asked about Lord Goldsmith’s decision to firm up his advice that the war was legal, Chilcot says one crucial factor was Blair’s declaration that Saddam was in breach of his obligations to the UN. But Blair did not say on what basis he had come to that judgment, Chilcot says.
Chilcot says Blair should have taken advice on this, and thought it through on a factual basis, before making this declaration.
Crispin Blunt, the Conservative foreign affairs commitee chair and a member of the liaison committee, has been tweeting about Chilcot’s evidence.
1/2Taking evidence from #Chilcot on Iraq war lessons. Says Govt's post conflict Reconstruction Unit not of magnitude scale or authority reqd
— Crispin Blunt MP (@crispinbluntmp) November 2, 2016
2/2Reconstruction planning lessons also from Libya &for current ops in Mosul + #Chilcot endorsed @CommonsForeign conclusion on NSC operation
— Crispin Blunt MP (@crispinbluntmp) November 2, 2016
Andrew Tyrie tells Chilcot he has been very helpful. He says Chilcot has clarified some points in the report in a way that will help members of the public.
Chilcot says witnesses subjected to the Maxwellisation process respected the confidentiality of the process. And they also responded within a reasonable time, he says. He says one or two asked for extra time, but they had a lot of material to read.
Q: Did any of the witnesses offered the chance to respond to the draft report water it down?
Chilcot says the inquiry thought it was important that witnesses had the chance to respond to the draft. This process (Maxwellisation) was essential for fairness. But it also improved the report, he says.
He says the Maxwellisation did not hold the process up, because while witnesses were being consulted, the inquiry team carried on working on other matters.
The Chilcot hearing has resumed.
Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative, asks if Chilcot thinks the war was lawful.
Chilcot says the inquiry came up with a carefully-crafted form of words on this. They criticised the way the legal advice was taken. He says they did not conclude that the war was illegal. But they did not back the legal advice either.
He says even if there had been a judge-led inquiry, it is not clear they would have been able to form a view on this. If they had ruled on this, it would just have been an opinion.
Responding to Enda Kenny’s comments at the Dublin summit a Downing Street spokesman said that the prime minister had been clear the UK did not want to see a return to borders of the past.
The arrangement that currently exists has served both sides of that border extremely well and we have no desire, and neither does the Irish government, to change that. We want to have constructive dialogue with all member states, a mature debate about the key areas as we negotiate an exit from the EU. What’s important is that it’s as smooth a transition as possible.
The spokesman said that nothing had changed on the timing of article 50, that it would not be triggered any later than March next year, but said May’s previous statement, that it would not be triggered before the end of 2016, still stood as well.
What we've learnt from today's all-island Brexit summit in Dublin
Enda Kenny’s warning that the UK’s negotiations with the EU states over Brexit could turn out to be vicious is perhaps a portent of things to come. Clearly given the importance of Anglo-Irish relations, the border with Northern Ireland, the billions in trade across the Irish Sea, the government in Dublin is worried about the prospect of a fresh diplomatic war breaking between the EU and the UK whenever Theresa May triggers article 50.
Another significant part of the Taoiseach’s contribution today during the all-island summit on Brexit in Dublin was Kenny suggesting that his British counterpart might press the exit button before the spring. Was Kenny hinting that pressure to get to an earlier Brexit from within the Tory Party was pushing the UK out the EU door before the Spring of 2017? Or indeed was the Irish premier sending a warning signal to London about the perils of doing so without negotiations having been properly started and exit strategies properly thought out?
The main absentees from the Royal Hospital Kilmainham, a former military hospital and now the museum of modern art in Ireland, were the unionists. Neither the pro-Brexit Democratic Unionists or the pro-remain Ulster Unionists attended. Both parties have argued that today’s conference went beyond the remit of the agreements that established devolution, power sharing and north-south bodies under the island of Ireland: the 1998 Good Friday Agreement and the 2006 St Andrews Agreement. In a sense they are right because the main business between all the political traditions on the island regarding Brexit will be done at the next North-South ministerial council, which will take place on 18 November in Armagh city.
Away from the rhetoric there appears to be a willingness between unionism and nationalism to hatch a pragmatic deal that will not destabilise peace or plunge the island economy into the abyss. This cross-border body was established under the Good Friday peace deal and brings together ministers from Dublin to Belfast to discuss all island matters. Which obviously would include how do both states on the island cope with Brexit.
Another important meeting takes place next week in Downing Street when Theresa May again invites the leaders of the devolved parliaments in Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff to Number 10 to discuss Brexit negotiations and plans ahead to deal with the 26 EU states.
Today’s conference now seems to have been a means by which Dublin sent out two messages to London and the other EU capitals. It was a warning to Britain that exit-talks with Ireland’s European partners are going to be messy and perhaps even a little brutal. To their fellow Europeans, Kenny’s suggestion that the other EU states should not get obsessed over what Britain gets is also a warning that if other countries start to issue specific demands of their own as pay-off to London then the entire European project could be put in peril. In both scenarios the entire political establishment in Dublin acknowledges Ireland has a lot to lose.
The hearing has adjourned for at least 15 minutes because the MPs have to take part in a vote.
Chilcot says the cabinet should have received formal written advice from the attorney general about whether the war was legal. And there should have been a discussion about it.
It was not acceptable just to ask the attorney if war was alright, and to accept his word, Chilcot says.
Here is the start of the Press Association story about the Chilcot hearing.
Tony Blair did long-term damage to trust in politics when he put forward a case for war that went beyond the “facts of the case”, the author of the scathing official report into the Iraq War has said.
Sir John Chilcot, who has remained silent on the report since its publication in July, told a panel of senior MPs be believed it would take many years to repair the harm the former prime minister’s actions had caused.
After an inquiry lasting seven years, the Chilcot report found that former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein posed “no imminent threat” at the time of the invasion of his country in 2003, and the war was unleashed on the basis of “flawed” intelligence.
Its publication led to calls for the prosecution of Mr Blair, but the former premier insisted that, while he felt sorrow for those whose loved ones died, he stood by his decision to commit Britain to the US-led military action.
Asked if trust in politics had been corroded because MPs were told things that could not reasonably be supported by the evidence, Chilcot told the House of Commons liaison committee: “I think when a government or the leader of a government presents a case with all the powers of advocacy that he or she can command, and in doing so goes beyond what the facts of the case and the basic analysis of that can support, then it does damage politics, yes.”
He told MPs he “can only imagine” it would take a long time to repair the trust.
Chilcot said Blair’s decision to describe the threat the Hussein regime posed as imminent had been the “best possible inflection” of the evidence he had.
“A speech was made in advocate’s terms and putting the best possible inflection on the description that he used,” he said.
Chilcot says it is for parliament and parliamentarians to enforce their own rules.
Q: Who knew about the letter Tony Blair sent to George W Bush saying he would be with him, whatever.
Just people in Number 10, says Chilcot. He says the cabinet secretary did not know about it. David Manning, Blair’s foreign policy adviser, and Jonathan Powell, Blair’s chief of staff, knew about it but tried to persuade Blair not to send it, he says.
Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: Who is in charge of ensure cabinet procedures are followed?
Chilcot says there is the cabinet code. There is also the cabinet manual. But there is not an enforcement mechanism, he says.
Chilcot says during Suez Anthony Eden instructed the cabinet secretary, Norman Brook, to destroy all papers about the secret deal with France. He says Brook did this. But he also recorded the fact he had done so.
Chilcot says he would advise all permanent secretaries in Whitehall now to insist on their right to give advice, and their right to be heard. And they should also insist on having their advice recorded, even if it is not accepted, he says.
Chilcot says he remembers asking Jack Straw why the cabinet did not challenge Blair more over Iraq.
He says Straw told him that Blair had rescued his party, and that he had achieved a dominance that allowed him to override collective responsibility. Blair had been right before, so people thought he was right on this, Chilcot says.
Iain Wright, the Labour MP, goes next, asking if Blair was running a “sofa government”.
Chilcot says that is part of the problem.
But the government also operated in a way that reflected Blair’s character.
Here is Huffington Post’s Paul Waugh on the hearing.
Imagine writing 2.6m words. And then being asked about every one of them. That's Chilcot right now.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) November 2, 2016
Potentially the world's toughest viva
Blunt says Chilcot’s evidence coincides with the publication of Sir Jeremy Greenstock’s book.
Q: Greenstock says the government did not realise how little influence the UK had over US policy.
Chilcot says Blair was trying to reconcile Britain’s stance with America’s. And he was trying to avoid America acting unilaterally.
Q: Should he have demanded a higher price for Britain’s support?
Chilcot says it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that if he had stated clear conclusions for backing US action, and if those conditions had been reasonable, Britain may have had more influence, particularly over the timing.
But Blair said his conditions were conditions for success, not conditions for UK support, Chilcot says.
Chilcot says it was not the whole purpose of the report to satisfy bereaved families.
But he says that the fact that have welcomed it has been very welcome.
Q: So is there anything in the report that has not been picked up?
Chilcot says he does not know yet if all his recommendations will be followed.
Q: Lord Butler thought his report into Iraq was tougher than people realised. Are there any things in your report that you thought the media should have made more of?
Chilcot says he was on the Butler inquiry. It had to report quickly, and it did not have access to all the information.
Crispin Blunt, the Conservative chair of the foreign affairs committee, is asking the questions now.
Chilcot says that it was helpful having the inquiry conducted by people with experience of government. (Chilcot himself is a former permanent secretary.) He says he is not sure an inquiry led by a judge would have had that perspective.
A judicial inquiry would also have found it harder to get Whitehall to release material, he says.
Chilcot says Blair went 'beyond the facts' in making case for Iraq war
Tyrie says Chilcot’s evidence has been clear. He says Chilcot has given clearer arguments than he did in the executive summary of his report.
Q: A number of very important things were said to the Commons at the time that could not be reasonably supported by evidence at the time. And that has eroded trust, hasn’t it?
Chilcot says when a prime minister makes a case, and goes beyond what the facts justify, that damages trust.
I think when a government or the leader of a government presents a case with all the powers of advocacy that he or she can command, and in doing so goes beyond what the facts of the case and the basic analysis of that can support, then it does damage politics, yes.
- Chilcot says Blair went “beyond the facts” in making the case for the Iraq war.
Updated
Q: Was it wrong to fuse the terrorism with the wider nuclear threat?
Chilcot says the evidence does not suggest that Saddam would have supplied weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to terrorist organisations.
Q: Blair said those two things together were a real and present danger to the UK.
Chilcot says the fusion argument did not stand up.
Tyrie is now asking about Blair’s claim that Saddam could have obtained nuclear weapons within months.
That was not the case at the time, says Chilcot.
Q: And Blair knew it?
Chilcot says he does not know on what basis Blair said this.
In his report Chilcot effectively cleared Tony Blair of lying to MPs and to the public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. The report was very critical of Blair in other ways, but it did not accuse him of acting in bad faith.
From what we’ve seen so far, it looks as if some of the MPs on the liaison committee are using this hearing to try to get Chilcot to admit that he was wrong.
Bernard Jenkin, a Conservative, goes next.
Q: Was Blair more interested in evaluating the evidence, or in making the case for war?
Chilcot says it was the second.
Tyrie says it seems to him that it was unreasonable for Blair to conclude there was a threat to the UK.
Chilcot says he would rather not use that word.
Q: Was it reasonable for Tony Blair to say there was an imminent threat when he said there was one.
“Objectively, no,” says Chilcot.
But he says he cannot know what Blair though subjectively.
Tyrie says the test of what a reasonable man would think is a well understood one. Would a reasonable man have thought that.
Chilcot says there was not sufficient evidence to sustain that believe.
Q: So Blair misled MPs, or set aside evidence, when he was speaking to MPs?
Chilcot says Tyrie is trying to get him to make a distinction between what Blair tried to argue at the time, and what was the case.
The evidence was “more qualified” than Blair said.
Q: Was there a threat to the UK at the time it went to war?
Chilcot says there was a threat, but it was in the future. It was not imminent.
And it was not a direct threat against the UK, he says.
Andrew Tyrie, the commitee chair, opens the question.
Q: Did we need to go to war because of an imminent threat?
Not in March 2003, says Sir John Chilcot.
Q: So was it reasonable for Tony Blair to conclude that there was a threat.
Chilcot says Blair was getting a lot of evidence from the intelligence agencies saying there was a threat.
All Commons select committee chairs sit on the liaison committee but only some of them will be taking place this afternoon. Here is the list of those who will be asking questions.
Andrew Tyrie MP (Chair), Treasury Committee (Con)
Crispin Blunt MP, Foreign Affairs Committee (Con)
Bernard Jenkin MP, Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (Con)
Dr Julian Lewis MP, Defence Committee (Con)
Stephen Twigg MP, International Development Committee (Lab)
Dr Sarah Wollaston MP, Health Committee (Con)
Pete Wishart MP, Scottish Affairs Committee (SNP)
Laurence Robertson MP, Northern Ireland Affairs Committee (Con)
Andrew Bridgen MP, Regulatory Reform Committee (Con)
Iain Wright MP, Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee (Lab)
Sir John Chilcot questioned by Commons liaison committee
Inquiries may be going out of fashion - the government has shelved two, Orgreave and Leveson part two, in the past two days - but this afternoon we’re effectively getting an inquiry into an inquiry, because the Commons liaison committee is taking evidence from Sir John Chilcot. They will be asking him about his marathon Iraq inquiry which finally reported in the summer.
You can watch it here, on Parliament TV.
Lunchtime summary
- Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions, has told peers that it is “absolutely vital” that Britain remains in the European arrest warrant system after Brexit. She said pulling out of the EAW would significantly push up the costs of trying to bring suspects back to the UK. She told peers:
It’s three times faster to use an EAW and it is four times less expensive for us to be able to do that as well ...
A substantial majority of our cases have some sort of international connection. The crime which we prosecute tends to be more and more global ...
There are a package of measures we think are really important and not just the obvious ones such as the European arrest warrant, which is absolutely vital and which we make a great deal of use of.
- Members of Ucatt, the building workers’ union, have voted to merge with the country’s biggest trade union, Unite. Ucatt said the 85% in favour was a “landmark” decision, which would strengthen campaigns on behalf of construction workers. Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary, said:
This is a historic moment for the construction industry and the men and women who work in it. From January 2017, construction workers will for the first time have one united powerful union on their side at work. Bad bosses and construction firms employing sharp practices should beware.
- Liz Truss, the justice secretary, has arranged urgent talks with leaders of the Prison Officers Association as concerns grow about safety in jails. Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, said Truss had “lost the confidence of prison governors and staff”. He said:
The Conservative government must acknowledge its mistakes. They must set out how they will deal with the problems caused by staffing cuts and chronically low morale leading to the crisis in staff retention. They must set out how they will cut the endemic use of drugs in our prisons. And they must set out a coherent strategy on how to increase education in prisons to reduce reoffending. Above all we need a clear plan on how they intend creating a prison system that works.
Updated
Here’s a Guardian video about the real Daniel Blakes.
That PMQs did not seem to inspire many of the usual Twitter commentators, but here are some verdicts that have been posted.
From the New Statesman’s Anoosh Chakelian
The government that claims it “works for everyone” is still the “Nasty Party”. My review of #PMQs: https://t.co/a8ujGx2JrI
— Anoosh Chakelian (@Anoosh_C) November 2, 2016
From the Guardian’s Heather Stewart
Few fireworks at #PMQs - Corbyn has gone back to scattergun approach, raising several important issues, but failing to drive points home.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) November 2, 2016
From Left Foot Forward’s Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin
#PMQs: Theresa May’s glib ideology won’t feed those relying on food banks https://t.co/18b6S3QJoO pic.twitter.com/uYNYnmoElj
— Left Foot Forward (@LeftFootFwd) November 2, 2016
From the Daily Mirror’s Ben Glaze
Who won #PMQs? Why Theresa May can't do soft https://t.co/BeTX12Iy2T pic.twitter.com/oeLzvJxtTq
— Mirror Politics (@MirrorPolitics) November 2, 2016
PMQs - Final verdict
PMQs - Final verdict: The only story that anyone will remember from today’s PMQs will be what Theresa May had to say about Fifa. It is probably fair to say that a British politician can never go wrong whacking Fifa - with left or right, tabloid or broadsheet - and May milked this for all it was worth. It was an easy hit, but you can’t blame her for taking it.
Should Jeremy Corbyn have asked about Fifa? If Alastair Campbell was in charge of his PMQs planning, doubtless it would have been question number one. But this is not Corbyn’s style and, if he had tried to set himself up as a Fifa-bashing poppy patriot, it would probably have sounded phoney.
Instead Corbyn focused on welfare, highlighting cuts to universal credit, benefit sanctions, the research showing their link to increased demand for food banks and Ken Loach’s film, I, Daniel Blake. Some of his questions were quite effective, but others, less so. (For example, given that he was asking about universal credit, why didn’t Corbyn point out that even Iain Duncan Smith wants these cuts to be reversed?)
Corbyn’s best moment was probably when, referring to sanctions, he urged May to stop “this institutionalised barbarity against often very vulnerable people”. But May seemed comfortable with Corbyn’s questions because she was able to condemn Labour’s stance on welfare. She told the Labour leader:
You have a view that there should be no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. I have to say to you that the Labour party is drifting away from the views of Labour voters. It’s this party that understands working-class people.
The moment Corbyn’s election as Labour leader probably became inevitable in 2015 was when he was the only candidate to vote against the welfare bill. The other three candidates abstained on the bill, which included welfare cuts, in line with the Labour whip. But abstention was Labour’s official position because Harriet Harman, the acting leader, took the view that being seen as soft on welfare spending had contributed to the party’s election defeat. PMQs today confirmed that Corbyn does not accept this view, but it remains to be seen whether he has found a way of selling Labour welfarism to the electorate. May sounded like someone who thinks that he hasn’t.
Updated
May tells Fifa to 'sort their own house out' before giving orders to UK over poppies
Theresa May has launched a blistering attack on football’s governing body Fifa, which has turned down a request from England and Scotland players to wear armbands featuring poppies when the sides meet on Remembrance Day.
Speaking at Prime Minister’s Questions, May said the stance taken by Fifa was “utterly outrageous” and said the strength of feeling across the House of Commons was clear.
“Our football players want to recognise and respect those who have given their lives for our safety and security,” she said. “I think it is absolutely right they should be able to do so.”
Her response was prompted by a question from Steve McCabe, Labour’s MP for Birmingham Selly Oak who was born in Inverclyde. “Will she tell the respective associations [England and Scotland] that in this country, we decide when to wear poppies and they’ll be wearing them at Wembley?”
May said the decision should lie with the respective associations but said “a clear message is going from this House.”
Fifa, has been mired in a long-running corruption scandal, should be more concerned with its own affairs, May went on. “I should say to Fifa before they start telling us what to do they jolly well ought to sort their own house out.”
The footballing body normally bans any political, religious or commercial messages on shirts. The teams were allowed to wear black armbands embroidered with poppies in November 2011, after Prince William and David Cameron appealed to the football governing body.
Scotland and England will play in a 2018 World Cup qualifier on 11 November and MP Damian Collins, who chairs the Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport select committee has already written to Fifa president Gianni Infantino asking him to reconsider its decision.
As usual, I missed the questions from Angus Robertson, the SNP’s leader at Westminster because it comes as I’m writing the snap verdict. He criticised the government for not doing more to stop firms using Scottish limited partnerships to dodge tax and perform criminal acts. He said it is a “matter of public record” that they had been used as fronts for child abuse sites and involved in corruption cases.
According to PoliticsHome, May replied:
It is precisely in order to increase our ability to deal with this criminal activity that we created the National Crime Agency, that we’ve been ensuring we’ve been working on other issues with the City like money laundering and we’re looking at the whole question of how we take effective action to deal with criminal activity ... if he wants to talk to me about dealing with criminal activity then I will be able to tell him about the work done over the last six years of this government.
Dame Rosie Winterton, the Labour MP, asks about the shortage of GPs in her constituency.
May says thousands more GPs have come into the NHS in recent years. A programme is in place to encourage that, she says.
And that’s it.
John Howell, a Conservative, asks May to welcome neighbourhood planning.
May says this is how local people can have a real say in planning.
Nigel Dodds, the DUP MP, asks May to condemn those talking up the increased risk of violence in Northern Ireland as a result of Brexit.
May says she wants Brexit to be a good deal for the whole of the UK. Those who want to encourage violence “frankly should be ashamed of themselves”.
May says Fifa's ban on England and Scotland football players wearing poppies is 'utterly outrageous'
Labour’s Stephen McCabe asks May to condemn the Fifa decision to stop England and Scotland football playes wearing poppies.
May condemns the decision. She says Fifa should sort its own house out before it starts telling the UK what to do.
- May condemns Fifa over its ban on England and Scotland football players wearing poppies. She says it is “utterly outrageous”.
Maria Caulfied, a Conservative, asks about Southern Rail. Her constituents have a railway that works for no one, she says.
May says the transport secretary is on the case and working to improve the service.
The SNP’s Christopher Stephens asks about the charges for telephone helplines used by the disabled. May says the government is addressing this and bringing charges down.
Charles Walker, a Conservative, says when people make fun of Christianity, people turn the other cheek. But a gymnast is being hounded for mocking Islam. What are the rules, and what is going on?
May says we value freedom of speech in this country. But we also value tolerance.
The SNP’s Gavin Newlands asks May about the detention of immigrants.
May says the government has done a lot of work on this. But she says that where people are due to be removed from the country, there are times when it is right to detain people. She says Newlands probably does not approve of anyone being detained. She does, she says.
Robert Courts, the new MP for Witney, asks May to congratulate Chipping Norton for winning an award for high streets.
May says when she was a child Chipping Norton was her local town. She remembers going to spend her pocket money there.
Labour’s Jeff Smith asks what is worse: the government losing in the courts over air quality, or the 40,000 early deaths every year from air pollution.
May says there is more to do in this respect. Defra will look at today’s judgment. No one in the Commons doubts the importance of this, she says.
David Warburton, Conservative MP for Somerset and Frome, says his constituency has more cows than any other. Will the government look after the interests of farmers in the Brexit talks.
May says the needs of agriculture will be taken into account.
Labour’s Angela Smith asks about a firm in her constituency worried about the uncertainty over Tata Steel. So when May visits India, will she stress the importance of Tata being a responsible seller of its UK assets.
May says the government has been having discussions with Tata about the future of steel in the UK. Those talks will continue.
Snap PMQ verdict
Snap PMQ verdict: A satisfyingly serious and grown-up exchange which did not really amount to a clear win for either Corbyn or May, but which did credit to them both. Corbyn used all six questions to ask about welfare, but he moved from one topic to another, with varying success. May was at her weakest at the start, when Corbyn asked about cuts to universal credit which are coming down the line, which will effectively undo the tax credit cuts U-turn announced by George Osborne, but these calculations are complex, and hard to explain, and although May did not address the point at all, Corbyn did not drive his point hard home. He was more passionate, and effective, on benefit sanctions, but at this point May may had a solid response which involved accusing Labour of being opposed to any form of sanction or fiscal discipline in welfare spending. Corbyn finished with a dignified plea on behalf of parents who had difficulty affording funeral costs for children who die, and this prompted a semi-consensual response from May, who said funding was already available. So, overall, a bit of a draw.
Updated
Corbyn says the housing benefit bill is going up. He has urged the government to abandon the employment and support allowance cut. What evidence is there that imposing poverty on people helps them into work.
May says there are more disabled people in the workplace. If Corbyn thinks the housing benefit bill is too high, why did he vote against the government measures to cut it.
Corbyn says his objection is to money going to private landlords. He mentions the Labour MP who spoke about having to get a loan to bury her dead son. It would cost only £10m a year to ensure everyone who has to bury a child can afford to do so. Will the government act?
May says she recognises this issue. There are funds available to help people in these circumstances, she says. It is up to councils to decide what they do. But funding is available.
Corbyn says Oxford University found this week a link between rising use of benefit sanctions and the rising use of food banks. He asks May to review the punitive sanctions regime.
May says it is right to have a system that make sure benefits go to those who should get them. But it is also important to ensure that people who can work do. Corbyn wants unlimited welfare, she says.
Corbyn says a Sheffield Hallam University study found that one in five claimants who were sanctioned became homeless. He urges May to see I, Daniel Blake. He mentions someone who died while being sanctioned from hunger. This barbarity should stop, he says.
May says it is important to help those who need it. But the system has to be fair too, she says. She says Corbyn wants no assessments, no sanctions and unlimited welfare. Labour is drifting away from its voters, she says.
Corbyn says it is ungallant of May to blame the former chief whip. He says David Cameron abandoned cuts to working people through tax credits. But the same cuts will come in through universal credit. Why is she sticking with these cuts?
May says at least her former chief whip as a job.
On UC, she says it is important to look at why UC was introduced. Under Labour too many people were better off on benefits than in work. The government values work, she says. And it wants a system that is fair - fair to those on benefits, and to those who pay for them.
Jeremy Corbyn starts by congratulating the Labour MP Conor McGinn who helped his wife deliver a baby recently.
He says May promises to stand up for just managing families. But work allowances will be cut. Won’t the cuts to universal credit leave millions worse off.
May congratulates McGinn (or is it Corbyn?) on the birth of his granddaughter. She corrects herself. You should never trust a former chief whip, she says. On the point about universal credit, she says this was an important reform. It will make the system simpler. And it will make sure work pays, she says. She says it is right that people are not written off.
Rehman Chishti, a Conservative, asks the government to take forward the Lower Thames Crossing.
May says there were 47,000 responses to the consultation on this. The government will reply in due course.
Labour’s Stephen Doughty says there is no clarity on access to the single market. And foreign steel is being used in British projects. When will the government stand up for British steel?
Theresa May says the government does stand up for steel. And it wants the best possible Brexit deal.
Corbyn sporting a red poppy nice + early this year - not like the old days...
— Jason Groves (@JasonGroves1) November 2, 2016
This is from Labour’s Tom Blenkinsop.
Questions on steel from Labour steel group MPs should come up at today's #PMQs #SaveOurSteel
— Tom Blenkinsop (@TomBlenkinsop) November 2, 2016
These lucky MPs will join @jeremycorbyn and @AngusRobertson today in the #PMQs grillilng of @theresa_may - https://t.co/xMKKuDZgZz pic.twitter.com/RWaeGdHUkW
— PoliticsHome (@politicshome) November 2, 2016
The Independent’s Tom Peck agrees.
Five mins til #PMQs. Someone should turn the heating on. Freeeeeezing in here. No idea why.
— Tom Peck (@tompeck) November 2, 2016
PMQs
PMQs will start at 12pm.
This is from the Daily Mirror’s Ben Glaze.
Commons Chamber very cold today. Insert your own "hot air" gag here ... #PMQs
— Ben Glaze (@benglaze) November 2, 2016
Ireland’s version of the CBI - IBEC - has raised an overlooked problem for Anglo-Irish trade when Theresa May triggers article 50 and the UK leaves the EU.
Danny McCoy, IBEC’s CEO, told the Guardian that while freedom of movement may still be guaranteed under the Anglo-Irish, pre-EU common travel area, freedom of labour could be under threat.
Speaking after the first session of the all-island conference on Brexit’s impact, McCoy said the right to work in a post-Brexit UK economy for Irish workers could be problematic.
We share the labour market with the United Kingdom and we did so before joining the EU. If the break-up of the EU involves restrictions on labour market access, that could be the most significant business consequence of Brexit.
For instance with Ireland staying as a full EU state, how can you distinguish between other EU states and us? How can we be treated any different from our Polish or Estonian fellow EU citizens in Britain when it comes to the UK labour market?
He said it is going to be very difficult for Ireland to argue in the Brexit negotiations that its workers that want to work in the UK should be treated any differently from an Estonian or Polish worker.
McCoy added that Brexit could pose difficulties too for British workers seeing to work in the Irish economy once the UK is out of Europe. The IBEC CEO pointed out that common travels rights could be different from a common right to work on both sides of the Irish Sea and across the border between the Republic and Northern Ireland post Brexit.
Irish prime minister warns Brexit talks 'could turn vicious'
Irish premier Enda Kenny has predicted that negotiations between EU states over Britain’s exit from Europe “could turn vicious.”
Sounding a sombre note as he wrapped up the first session of an all-island conference on Brexit’s impact on Ireland, the taoiseach also urged fellow EU countries not to become “obsessed” over what Britain may nor may not get in the discussions.
Kenny said that otherwise “Europe itself could lose the plot” over where it wants to be through the next 50 years.
On demands that his government keep piling pressure on the British, Kenny said:
If you go to Downing Street, if you drop in there it’s fine, but sometimes when friends call they can overstay their welcome.
Updated
Arron Banks, the Ukip donor and leading leave campaigner, was on the Today programme this morning (see 9.40am) but he has been giving other interviews too. He’s got a book about the EU referendum to plug, The Bad Boys of Brexit, which was serialised in the Daily Mail.
Speaking to BBC 5 Live, Banks, who was the co-founder of Leave.EU, said the only regret he had about the campaign was that he commissioned polling into the impact of the killing of Labour MP Jo Cox a week before the vote. He told the programme:
There’s only one thing I regret [about the Brexit campaign]: that we internally polled the death of Jo Cox. We had a big polling operation going at the time and we polled whether her death had an effect on voters’ perception of leave or remain, and obviously there was massive media coverage of that.
At the Dublin Brexit conference Enda Kenny, the Irish prime minister, said that he and Theresa May had agreed that they wanted to keep the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic open after Brexit. He said:
I have agreed with the prime minister that there will be no return to the borders of the past. Therefore the retention of an open border is critical. Neither I, nor the prime minister, desire to limit the freedom of people on both sides of the Irish sea to trade, live, work and travel freely across these islands. Therefore we have agreed that the benefits of the common travel area be preserved.
Kenny also said Ireland took the view that access to the single market “requires acceptance of the freedom of movement of people”.
The government’s plan for tackling the UK’s air pollution crisis has been judged illegally poor at the high court, marking the second time in 18 months ministers have lost in court on the issue, my colleague Damian Carrington reports.
And this is from Rachael Maskell, the shadow environment secretary, on the court ruling.
This is the second time the courts have found this government guilty for their failure to protect British people from health dangers of the UKs polluted air.
40,000 people die prematurely each year because of our dirty and polluted air. It is time that the government acted and introduced measures that would save the lives of tens of thousands of people.
Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams said he would be urging the Irish government to seek out “special status” for Northern Ireland in relation to the Brexit negotiations with the UK and the other EU states.
Speaking before entering the Dublin Brexit conference, Adams said he was “very disappointed” that the unionist parties had decided not to attend. However, Northern Ireland’s deputy first minister and Adams’ party colleague Martin McGuinness stressed that Sinn Fein and the DUP were still working together on issues related to Brexit’s impact.
Sinn Fein and the other main nationalist party in Northern Ireland, the SDLP, have been arguing that such “special status” should entail the region remaining within the EU - a concept that both DUP first minister Theresa May and the prime minister have dismissed.
Moody’s, the credit rating agency, has issued a report today about the impact of Brexit on Britain’s creditworthiness. Here are the key points from its news release.
Moody’s would downgrade the UK’s rating if we were to conclude that the UK’s loss of access to the single market would materially weaken medium-term growth.
A second driver for the UK rating will be the fiscal outlook, on which we expect to obtain significantly more clarity with the upcoming autumn statement, scheduled for 23 November.
A wide-ranging free trade agreement which would limit the negative impact of Brexit on growth remains a plausible but not certain outcome.
Moody’s negative outlook for the UK banking system reflects Brexit-induced uncertainties, which are exerting pressure on the revenues, asset quality and profitability of all UK banks, although some are more resilient to such strains than others.
Brexit-related loss of “passporting” rights for UK banks that operate across jurisdictions would be credit negative but manageable. The resulting higher costs and reduced inefficiencies are not sufficient to pressure the ratings.
Ireland’s foreign minister has denied today’s all-island conference on Brexit’s impact is merely a ‘talking shop’ given the absence of unionist political leaders at today’s discussions.
Charlie Flanagan also said it had been a mistake of Northern Ireland’s first minister and Democratic Unionist leader Arlene Foster to boycott the conference. He said it was “not helpful” that Foster had claimed at the weekend that Ireland was guilty of stealing away foreign direct investment from Northern Ireland. It was a “missed opportunity” on the part of unionists not to attend the conference, he said.
On today’s forum at the Royal Hospital in Kilmainham, Flanagan said:
I am looking primarily to the views of business leaders particularly in the border area, in a border that sees in excess of 30,000 people every day cross to work, to go to college, to go to school or indeed for family relations. It is vitally important in the context of the [Brexit] negotiations next year that the matter of the invisibility of the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland is not only featured but is both preserved and maintained.
Arron Banks, the Ukip donor and leading leave campaigner, was on the Today programme this morning talking about the state of Ukip. He is not impressed by any of the leadership candidates, but thinks Nigel Farage could return as leader at some point in the future. My colleague Matthew Weaver has the story here.
The Irish government is holding an ‘all island civic dialogue’ on Brexit and its impact on the whole of Ireland in Dublin today.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny is the keynote speaker this morning and will outline the challenges for the Republic of the UK leaving the European Union. All the leaders of the nationalist political parties on the island including Sinn Fein’s Gerry Adams are attending.
However, there is no significant representation from the unionist community at the conference in the Royal Hospital Kilmainham. Both the Democratic Unionists - the largest party in Northern Ireland - and the Ulster Unionists are boycotting the event. The DUP backed a Brexit vote in the June referendum while the UUP urged its support base to back the remain side.
Northern Ireland, like Scotland, did vote to stay in the EU with 56% of the electorate in the former region opting for Remain. The cross-community Alliance Party is the only non-nationalist political force represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly to attend today’s conference.
A whole range of civic and business groups are taking part in the one day discussion ranging from the trade union movement to the churches and universities.
Politics aside, there are vital economic issues that the Republic’s government is concerned about in relation to Brexit and its impact on Ireland. Here are a few key facts about the Anglo-Irish trade relationship.
- Ireland and Britain trade over €1bn worth of goods and services every week.
- The UK is Ireland’s most important market, with the value of Irish exports to the UK at their highest level ever.
- In 2013, the UK bought 50% of Ireland’s total beef exports.
- Some 42% of Irish food and drink exports – worth €4.1bn - went to Britain last year.
- The UK exports more to Ireland than it does to China, India and Brazil combined.
- Ireland buys more British food and non-alcoholic drinks than any other country - €3.6bn worth in 2012 alone.
Updated
Three weeks today Philip Hammond, the chancellor, will deliver his autumn statement. It will be his first big financial statement as chancellor and his first proper chance to reset economic policy in the light of the Brexit vote. And, according to today’s Financial Times splash, he will announce a “modest” financial stimulus, but also a new “flexible fiscal framework”.
After the Brexit vote the government abandoned George Osborne’s target of getting the budget into surplus by 2019-20. Hammond has yet to say what his replacement target will be, but the FT story makes it clear that his new rules will be more lax than Osborne’s. Chancellors used to pride themselves on their “iron” discipline. Given the uncertainty caused by our departure from the EU, Hammond seems to see being a “rubber” chancellor as more pragmatic.
FT: Hammond seeks 'headroom' to let deficit rise if Brexit hits growth #tomorrowspaperstoday #bbcpapers pic.twitter.com/b5HPAvobqx
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) November 1, 2016
Here’s an extract from the FT story, which the Treasury is not commenting on.
Mr Hammond told cabinet colleagues on Tuesday to expect only a modest fiscal stimulus, with a programme of new infrastructure spending expected to run to the low billions of pounds a year.
But his new fiscal plan, while aimed at achieving a balanced budget in the next parliament, would allow a greater stimulus package to be unleashed if the current robust rate of economic growth starts to falter.
“The goal is to create some headroom so it can be deployed if necessary,” said one official close to the cabinet discussions. “The chancellor made it clear we face an unprecedented level of uncertainty.”
Theresa May’s spokeswoman said the cabinet discussed the “importance of continued fiscal discipline” and “the need to drive up productivity”; the new infrastructure projects will be aimed at boosting growth.
The government has already said it will not try to hit former chancellor George Osborne’s aim of running an absolute surplus by 2019-20 and Mr Hammond’s ambitions are set to be significantly more lax even if the government rejects what the chancellor calls a public spending “splurge”.
I will post any reaction that comes in.
Here is the agenda for the day. I will be doing PMQs in detail, as usual, and then covering Sir John Chilcot’s evidence to the liaison committee in detail.
9am: Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, speaks at the directors of adult social services conference.
9.30am: Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former public accounts committee chair, and Sir Vince Cable, the former Lib Dem business secretary, speak at the launch of a Resolution Foundation report on tax policy.
11am: Sir Michael Wilshaw, head of Ofsted, speaks at an education conference.
11.30am: Alison Saunders, director of public prosecutions, gives evidence to the EU home affairs sub-committee on Brexit.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
2.45pm: Sir John Chilcot gives evidence to the Commons liaison committee about his Iraq war inquiry.
2.45pm: May and the Colombian president Juan Manuel Santos give press statements after their working lunch.
And in Dublin the Irish government is holding an all-island conference on Brexit.
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 after PMQs and another in the afternoon.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
