Afternoon summary
- Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has fended off calls for government intervention to protect civilians in Syria by arguing that the House of Commons, and by implication Labour, are partly to blame for the plight of the country because of the vote to block military action against Bashar al-Assad in 2013. (See 4.59pm.)
- The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, has called for the UK to keep tariff-free access to EU trade along with “reasonable” controls on immigration, saying Labour must play a full role in shaping “the battle of our times”. As Peter Walker reports, defending the party’s decision to support the government in the article 50 vote, Starmer said mimicking the Liberal Democrats’ attempts to frustrate the exit from the EU would simply leave Labour unable to represent those who voted for Brexit. “Labour needs to be leading that battle,” Starmer said, speaking at Bloomberg’s HQ in central London. Standing back was not an option, he argued, saying: “This is real opposition in real time. By 2020, we will be living in a different world.”
- Theresa May is planning a shakeup of social care provision after Downing Street acknowledged services were under threat in some areas. As Rowena Mason and Anushka Asthana report, the prime minister’s official spokeswoman said the issue was discussed in a cabinet meeting on Tuesday, with an agreement that this week’s local government settlement would contain measures to help ease the pressure.At the meeting, May also emphasised the “importance of finding a long-term sustainable way of addressing the issue”, raising the prospect of a more comprehensive shakeup.
- The head of the National Audit Office has declared that the government promises made to Nissan to help to persuade it to make a new investment in Sunderland do not amount to a “contingent liability”. In a letter to Andrew Tyrie, chair of the Commons Treasury committee, the NAO chief Sir Amyas Morse said:
I have reviewed the contents of [the government letter to Nissan]. I have also received written assurances from the permanent secretary that there are no other letters to Nissan on this matter and that nothing was discussed in the relevant meetings that might be understood as an additional commitment by HM government. On that basis I am satisfied there is no identifiable contingent liability for the purpose of inquiry into whether there was an obligation to notify.
The government has refused to publish the letter, which was intended to reassure Nissan it would not lose out from Brexit, prompting claims that it might contain secret promises that could impose a cost on the taxpayer. Tyrie said that, in the light of Morse’s comment, he was asking the government to publish the letter.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Emergency debate on Syria and Aleppo - Summary
Here are the key points from the Syria debate.
- Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, suggested that the House of Commons itself was partly to blame for the plight of Syria. In his speech at the end of a two-hour emergency debate, in which the government came under sustained and emotional criticism, mostly from Labour, for not doing more to help civilians in Aleppo, Johnson argued that the Commons vote against military intervention against Bashar al-Assad in 2013 led to Britain losing influence and Russia getting the chance to become the dominant force in the Syrian civil war. He told MPs:
There is another inescapable reality that I’m afraid members must accept, which is on August 29 2013, this House voted by 13 votes not to use force against Assad even after he had poisoned hundreds of his people with sarin nerve gas.
We as a House of Commons, we as a country, we vacated that space into which Russia stepped, beginning its own bombing campaign on behalf of Assad.
Ever since that vote, our ability to influence events in Syria or to protect civilians or compel the delivery of aid has been severely limited.
The dictator was left to do his worst, along with his allies Russia and Iran, and the bloodiest tragedy of the 21st century has since unfolded.
Cameron lost the vote on a proposal to bomb Assad in 2013 by 285 votes to 272 after 30 Conservatives and nine Lib Dems joined up with Labour and smaller opposition parties to vote against the coalition.
- Johnson effectively ruled out using airdrops to deliver aid to civilians in Aleppo, saying it was not safe because transport aircraft would be attacked. He said that if circumstances changed he might reconsider, but he put the case against airdrops so strongly as to imply that a rethink was most unlikely. He told MPs:
For air drops to be accurate they must be conducted at low level and low speed and Russia has deployed its most advanced jet fighters and surface-to-air missiles in Syria, which makes it impossible for us to carry out air drops without Russian permission.
Even if Russia were to give its consent, our aircraft would still have to fly over areas of Syria that are hotly contested by a multitude of armed groups, including Daesh and al-Qaida.
They would make every effort to shoot down a British plane and a lumbering, low-flying transport aircraft would be a sitting duck.
We came reluctantly to the conclusion that air drops over Syria under those conditions would prove too great a risk.
And when it comes to drones and other devices, we still face the problem that it is the Syrians and the Russians who control the airspace.
Of course it is possible that circumstances may change, so I will not rule out any option for delivering aid today but nor will I give false hope.
As things stand, we’d be risking the lives of our aircrew if we were to try to drop supplies into eastern Aleppo.
- He urged the Russians to stop supporting Assad.
We are doing everything we can within the constraints that we face. I hope that Russia will see sense and join with us to secure the transition away from Assad, that is the only hope for a peaceful Syria. It’s up to them. It’s up to the Russians, it’s up to Iran. They have the future of Syria in their hands.
- He strongly condemned the use of barrel bombs by the Syrian armed forces. Giving a graphic description of how they worked, he told MPs:
Imagine a metal drum, filled with petrol and explosives, laced with nails and jagged shards of metal. These objects are loaded on board helicopters that then hover over civilian areas. The men on the helicopters simply light the fuses on the barrels before rolling them out of the door, leaving them to fall on the ground where they shred and incinerate any human being within range. There is no guidance system or targeting. Barrel bombs have no military purpose. They cannot be dropped near a frontline for fear of striking friendly forces. Their sole purpose is to murder civilians. And scores of these dreadful weapons are being used against the people of eastern Aleppo by Assad every day.
- George Osborne used his first speech as a backbencher since being sacked as chancellor to say that Western reluctance to intervene was to blame for what was happening in Syria.
I think we are deceiving ourselves in this Parliament if we believe that we have no responsibility for what has happened in Syria. The tragedy in Aleppo did not come out of a vacuum, it was created by a vacuum, a vacuum of western leadership, of American leadership, British leadership.
Osborne said that MPs had learnt from what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan the “price of intervention”. He went on:
But I think we have come to a point where it’s impossible to intervene anywhere, that we lack the political will as the west to intervene.
But I have some hope out of this terrible tragedy in Syria which is we are beginning to learn the price of not intervening.
We did not intervene in Syria. Tens of thousands of people have been killed as a result. Millions of refugees have been sent from their homes across the world.
We have allowed a terrorist state to emerge in the form of Isis which we are now trying to defeat.
Key allies like Lebanon and Jordan are destabilised. The refugee crisis has transformed the politics of Europe, allowed fascism to rise in eastern Europe, created extremist parties in western Europe and Russia, for the first time since Henry Kissinger kicked them out of the Middle East in the 1970s, is back as the decisive player in that region.
That is the price of not intervening.
- The Labour MP John Woodcock said he felt “sick” at the thought of Ed Miliband celebrating his role in defeating the government on the Syria bombing vote in 2013. He said:
I still feel sick at the idea of the then leader of the opposition going from that vote into the whips office, and congratulating himself and them on stopping a war, when look what is happening today and look what’s happened over the last three years. The slaughter shames us all.
- The Labour MP Ben Bradshaw said it was “highly probable” that Russia intervened in the EU referendum. He was making a point about how the west had to take the threat from Russia more seriously. Russia’s intervention in Syria was partly motivated by a “deliberate” desire to drive refugees into Europe to destabilise the west, he said. He went on:
And when will we admit that what Putin can’t achieve militarily, he is already achieving using cyber and propaganda warfare ... I don’t think we have even begun to wake up to what Russia is doing when it comes to cyberwar, not only their interference, now proven, in the American presidential campaign, probably in our own referendum, we don’t have the evidence for that yet, but I think it’s highly probable. Certainly the French presidential elections, they will be involved, and there are already serious concerns in the German secret service that Russia is already interfering in the elections coming up. We’ve got to wake up to this.
In a post on his Facebook page ITV’s Robert Peston says today’s Syria debate was a good illustration of the “abject powerlessness of national governments - our government - in the face of international crises”.
.@BorisJohnson: "I hope Russia will see sense" and turn against Assad. Hmmm.
— Robert Peston (@Peston) December 13, 2016
What chance that @BorisJohnson & UK can shame Russia into doing right thing in #syria and #Aleppo? https://t.co/uXevdTnA3l
— Robert Peston (@Peston) December 13, 2016
Updated
Here is Jeremy Corbyn’s letter to Theresa May.
I will post a summary of the debate shortly.
In the meantime, Jeremy Corbyn has written to Theresa May calling for a “concerted effort to achieve a UN-led ceasefire”.
A spokesman for Corbyn said:
Jeremy has repeatedly condemned the Russian military intervention and bombing campaign in Syria and called for an independent investigation of evidence of war crimes. Labour has called for urgent talks to achieve a negotiated political settlement involving the main parties to the conflict, along with the regional and international intervening powers - and he has written to the Prime Minister today calling for a concerted effort to achieve a UN-led ceasefire and UN-brokered humanitarian corridors.
This statement is intended to address complaints that Corbyn has not been particularly willing to condemn Russia for its conduct in Syria.
Labour’s Alison McGovern says she will live with her vote in 2013 for the rest of life. What will the government do to put pressure on Russia, she asks.
Johnson says he hopes Russia will see sense and put pressure on Syria for a ceasefire.
The Russians and Iranians should do the right thing, abandon their puppet and move forward, he says.
And that’s it.
The motion, which simply says the Commons has “considered international action to protect civilians Aleppo and more widely across Syria”, gets passed by acclamation.
On a point of order Andrew Mitchell asks if the government can come forward to give MPs a vote on a substantive motion.
John Bercow, the Speaker, says the government is free to do that if it wants.
Johnson says the Commons voted in 2013, by 13 votes, not to launch air strikes against Assad.
He says that created a space for Russia. Ever since then the UK’s influence has been extremely limited.
The dictator was left to do his worst.
Johnson says even if Assad regains control of Aleppo, two thirds of the country will be out of is control. The “tyrant” will still not be in control.
He says the war could go on for much longer.
He asks whether Russia and Iran want to stand behind Assad “as the tyrant reduces his country to ashes”.
Labour’s Rosena Allin-Khan says she feels guilty about being able to go home tonight and see her children. Britain should not be doing nothing.
She says MPs have called over and over again for humanitarian airdrops. They were told that was a last resort. But the time for last resorts has now gone, she says.
Johnson says many Labour MPs spoke in favour of airdrops.
The Foreign Office has looked at this case for them carefully, he says.
But he says it has come up against serious problems.
Labour’s Ben Bradshaw says Johnson sounds like the Conservative ministers who said nothing could be done in Bosnia in the 1990s.
Johnson says it was Bradshaw’s party that whipped its MPs to vote against military intervention in 2013.
He says Russia would have to give permission for airdrops. And, even if Russia did give permission, the planes would have to fly over areas where they could be attacked by extremists. Slow cargo planes would be “sitting ducks”, he says.
He says the same problem applies to drones.
But he says circumstances could change. He is not ruling out airdrops for ever.
Johnson says today Russia is blocking the evacuation of citizens from areas it is attacking.
At the EU the UK has been arguing for sanctions to be tightened, he says.
He says on Saturday he broke off a trip to the Middle East to discuss this with the American secretary of state, John Kerry. But Kerry’s efforts have failed. President Assad refuses to let the UN deliver food to Aleppo, even though there are warehouses with food within easy reach.
He says the Russians should institute an immediate ceasefire.
Johnson says the UK has tried to get a resolution passed at the UN for the ceasefire. That was vetoed by Russia, he says.
A second resolution, for a seven-day ceasefire, was vetoed by Russia and China.
Johnson recalls how Assad “tightened the noose” around Aleppo.
It was sealed off on 7 July. The last food was delivered on 10 November. And the last hospital was attacked on 19 November.
He describes what a barrel bomb is like. People light fuses before pushing them out of helicopters. They shred the people on the ground. There is no targeting. They have no military justification. They are just there to murder civilians, he says.
Boris Johnson's speech
Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is speaking now.
He says he agrees with much of what has been said in the debate.
Patrick Grady, the SNP’s international development spokesman, says the SNP have repeatedly called for aid drops. The government said that would be a matter of last resort. But what was the penultimate resort?
Updated
The SNP’s Tommy Sheppard says that when the Commons voted for air strikes against Islamic State in Syria last year, MPs were told that would help the moderate opposition. That did not happen. And MPs were told Britain would have more influence. That did not happen either, he says.
Labour’s Mary Creagh says the Commons vote against military action in 2013 has had significant consequences. It created the space for Russia to intervene, she says.
She asks what Theresa May will do when EU leaders discuss Syria at their summit on Thursday.
Plaid Cymru’s Hywel Williams says the BBC is reporting that 82 civilians were shot on sight in eastern Aleppo.
The Lib Dem Tom Brake says the attack on Aleppo is the most shocking blood-letting of the 21st century. The international community’s response has been lamentable, he says.
He says Britain should hit the Russians in their pockets, because we know that powerful Russians “love” to spend their money in the UK.
Many of the Russians involved in Syria probably have assets in the UK that could be seized, he says.
Labour’s Stephen Doughty is speaking now.
(He was called after Allin-Khan because Conservative MPs are not trying to speak in the debate.)
Doughty says in 2013 he did not think the government made the case for intervention in Syria. But he is prepared to accept that the Commons’ decision might have been wrong.
He says the west has to stand up to Russia.
What is Britain doing to ensure that civilians can leave Aleppo, he asks.
And what is being done to protect the White Helmets?
Woodcock says he feels “sick” at thought of Miliband taking pride in blocking military action against Assad
Labour’s John Woodcock says he feels a sense of “sorrow and anger” about what has happened in Syria.
James Morris, a Conservative, says one day there will be a “day of reckoning”, when the US and Britain are held to account for Syria.
Woodcock agrees.
And he pays tribute to George Osborne. He says Osborne delivered the speech Labour should have delivered from the front bench. He says that makes him wish for Osborne to return to government.
He says he feels sick at the idea of Ed Miliband congratulating himself in 2013 on “stopping a war” in Syria. We should feel shamed by what happened next, he says.
- Woodcock says he feels “sick” at the thought of Ed Miliband taking pride in blocking military action against Assad in 2013.
He says Britain needs to restore a sense of dignity and rules to the world order.
Bradshaw says it is “highly probable” Russia intervened in EU referendum
Ben Bradshaw, the Labour former culture secretary, is speaking now. He says if the west does not do anything about Aleppo, Idlib would be next.
He says the government could have come to the Commons to ask for approval for safe zones in Syria. But it did nothing, he says.
He says dictators like Assad and Putin only respect strength, and the threat of force.
He says the west has not even “begun to wake up” to what Russia is doing with cyberhacking.
The evidence is now available about Russian intervention in the American elections, he says. And he says it is “highly probable” that Russia also intervened in the EU referendum, he says.
- Labour MP Ben Bradshaw says it is “highly probable” that Russia also intervened in the EU referendum.
Bob Stewart, the Conservative former soldier, says he knows what would be involved distributing aid to Aleppo because he was engaged in something similar in Bosnia in the 1990s.
He says aid convoys are at risk of attack. But Britain would not be able to send troops in to protect them.
Britain would also have responsibility for the safety of those rescued, he says.
Labour’s Alison McGovern, who succeeded Jo Cox as co-chair of the all-party group on Syria, is speaking now.
She says Britain’s priority must be to help civilians escape Aleppo and to deliver aid to those who cannot leave.
She asks if Boris Johnson will support the call for an immediate ceasefire.
And what will the government do to get a more permanent ceasefire.
She says the support is there in the Commons for air drops of aid.
And she asks Johnson to promise that the government will not stand by if Assad moves on to attack another city.
She says the Assad regime has been dropping leaflets in Aleppo saying the international community has abandoned them. The goverment must show that that is not true.
She says, if Johnson offers a hand of help to the people of Syria, Labour MPs will support him.
George Osborne's speech
George Osborne, the former chancellor, is speaking now, from the backbenches.
(Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is responding for the government, but in a debate like this he does not have to speak at the start.)
Osborne says the concept of an emergency debate suggests this has taken the Commons by surprise.
But the Syrian civil war has been going on since 2011.
He says MPs are “deceiving” themselves if they think they have no responsibility for what happened.
What is happening came out of a vacuum - a vacuum of Western leadership.
He says he takes responsibility as a former leader. And parliament must take responsibility too.
He says in 2012 and 2013 there was no majority in the Commons for providing the opposition with lethal arms.
And in 2013 the Commons voted against military action, even though Assad had broken a 100-year taboo and used chemical weapons.
Labour’s Graham Jones asks if Osborne thinks a war in 2013 would have been winnable.
Osborne says a red line had been crossed. And the vote in the Commons had an impact. It encouraged Washington to have cold feet.
He says he last spoke from the backbenches in 2003, in favour of the war in Iraq.
His generation of politicians knows the price of intervention. Now it has become almost impossible to intervene anywhere.
But now the opposite problem has arisen.
We are beginning to learn the price of not intervening.
Islamic State has emerged. And Russia has emerged as the dominant player in the region, for the first time since the 1970s, he says.
Let us be clear now. If you don’t shape the world, you will be shaped by it.
- Osborne says Britain is now learning “the price of not intervening”.
Updated
Thornberry asks what the government’s thinking is on Syria.
She says “moderate” rebels are being defeated, or are signing pacts with the extremists.
She says what happening in Aleppo is a matter of shame for the governments of Syria, Iran and Russia.
Thornberry says in the past the government proposed dropping aid by air.
If that is too dangerous, then the government should consider the use of drones.
The Conservative MP Bob Stewart says sending in RAF planes would be very dangerous. People proposing this should be willing to fly on these planes themselves.
Thornberry says that is why she is suggesting that the option of using drones is considered.
Mary Creagh, the Labour MP, intervenes. She says the Russians are not letting these activists out because they are credible witnesses to war crimes.
Thornberry says Creagh makes a powerful point.
Emily Thornberry's speech
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, is speaking now.
She says what happened in Aleppo is every bit as terrible as what happened in Srebrenica. Recalling the words of a doctor from easter Aleppo, she says:
He wrote ‘Remember there was once a city called Aleppo that the world erased from history’.
While we have all condemned Russia and Assad for their actions in east Aleppo, and we must ensure they are one day held to account, while we equally condemn Iran and Hezbollah for the role they have played in this massacre, we must remember the words of that doctor - who did not just blame those directly responsible for destroying his city, but for the world as a whole for allowing that to happen.
It was a global collective failure, every bit as great as Srebrenica.
The issue now is what happens next, she says.
She says civilians must be given safe passage out of Aleppo, or protected if they remain.
There is a building in the city with hundreds of injured people in it. They are trapped. There have been negotiations with the Russians. But the Russians says the civilians and “activists” - they are medical staff, Thornberry says - are not allowed to leave.
Updated
Mitchell urges the government to intensify efforts to collect evidence of war crimes in Syria.
Mitchell says there will not be a defeat in Syria. So eventually there will be a negotiation.
Britain should support that process, he says.
Mitchell says the international community has been unable to help in Syria.
Russia has shredded a rules-based system. That will have a catastrophic effect, he says.
And he says the Americans have been absent. President Obama said the use of chemical weapons would constitute a red line. But when it was crossed, nothing happened.
And Mitchell says the Commons itself failed to vote for action against President Assad in 2013.
The Conservative Steve Baker says the 2013 motion was limited. It did not amount to a full plan.
Labour’s Toby Perkins intervenes, and asks Mitchell to condemn the Morning Star, which has a headline on its front page this morning saying the “liberation” of Aleppo is in sight.
Mitchell says he does not read the Morning Star. And, on the basis of what Perkins says, he will not be reading it.
After months of bombardment, people in Aleppo face slaughter tonight. Morning Star calls it "liberation". Nauseating. pic.twitter.com/UvWBuHR3aL
— Ian Austin (@IanAustinMP) December 12, 2016
MPs hold emergency debate on Syria
MPs are now holding an emergency debate on Syria, and Aleppo.
Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary, opens the debate. He says Britain should push for UN access to Aleppo.
These terrified civilians in Aleppo are of course sophisticated, educated people from what was one of the great cities of the world - with two million people, 6,000 years old, treasured Islamic civilisation and artefacts within it.
A senior Aleppo resident, terrified, said this morning the following ‘The human corridor needs to happen. If the British government is serious about fighting terror they cannot ignore state terror. Doing so creates so many more enemies and if they offer but empty words, nobody will ever believe them in the future’.
This country, along with the entire international community, 10 years ago embraced the responsibility to protect, a doctrine which said that nation states will not allow the Srebrenicas, the Rwandas and other appalling events, including in Darfur, to take place again.
This responsibility to protect was signed up to at great fanfare and embraced by all the international community, great and small.
Yet here we are today witnessing, complicit, in what is happening to tens of thousands of Syrians in Aleppo.
Updated
Starmer’s speech - Snap summary
Sir Keir Starmer’s speech was unusually thoughtful. It did not contain any rhetorical flourishes, but it sought to lift Labour’s Brexit prospectus up and put it down in a new place, and it contained enough intelligence and reason to do this pretty well.
Here are the key points.
- Starmer insisted that Labour would not try to block Brexit - and he explained why he thought it would be a mistake for the party to adopt Lib Dem-style Brexit oppositionism.
- He said Labour now accepted that free movement rules “must change”. This marks an important shift, because until now Jeremy Corbyn has been reluctant to accept this.
- He said that Labour would lead the fight against a “hard” Brexit - and he suggested that it would get enough backing in the House of Commons to win votes on this.
- He said set out what Labour wanted to achieve on trade. His conditions implied continuing membership of the single market and the customs union, but Starmer did not explicitly put it in those terms. (See 12.52pm.)
- He said Labour wanted a Brexit settlement that included the best possible trade access to the EU and some restrictions on free movement. This position is very similar to government one that has sometimes been characterised as “have cake and eat it”.
- He said he was in favour of a transitional deal.
I will switch now to the Syria debate, but will post more on Starmer’s speech later.
Updated
Q: [From a Labour member] By saying you want tariff-access to the EU, are you dismissing the need for any controls on freedom of movement?
Starmer says Labour is arguing for both.
Q: Can Jeremy Corbyn can control his MPs? Do people see Labour as a credible, united group?
Starmer says Labour has MPs representing leave areas and remain areas. That is a consequence of being a national party.
That brings problems. But it is also a huge strength, because it means Labour can represent the whole country.
Labour has a huge task ahead, he says.
But being able to reach both sides is an advantage.
Q: Are you categorically opposed to a second referendum?
Starmer says Labour is not calling for a second referendum. And any attempt to call for one implies a refusal to accept the result. That is not Labour’s position.
Q: Is the language around “hard” and “soft” Brexit unhelpful?
Starmer says companies want to trade with the EU, and they want to ensure that regulatory regimes match. He says it is more helpful to focus on what businesses actually want
Q: Should foreign students be removed from immigration figures?
Starmer says this is not his brief but he thinks including students in the figures “doesn’t make much sense”.
He says, as shadow immigration minister, he did not meet people who wanted to cut the number of foreign students in the country.
Q: At the end of last week Andy Burnham said single market access might not be right for the north. Is he right?
Starmer says Burnham is reflecting what he has heard on the doorstep in Greater Manchester. Immigration is a cause for concern. Labour has to respond to that.
He says the Brexit talks will have to address this.
Labour acknowledges that this cannot be ignored, that it will have to be part of the negotiation, and that getting good access to the single market and controlling immigration are both priorities.
Q: Why should voters believe you on immigration when people like Diane Abbott and Andy Burnham say such different things?
Starmer says Labour has to accept that freedom of movement is there to be negotiated. The rules will have to change. That is the Labour party position.
There is not as much division in the party as people think, he says.
Q: The Lib Dems’ position has helped them electorally. Isn’t there a danger of Labour being caught in the middle, between those pro-Brexit and those against.
Starmer says any party that wants to govern the party cannot just speak for one side of the country. This is a time for grown-up politics, he says. It would be wrong to take short-term advantage from this, in a way that would fan the flames.
Q: [From Christian Wolmar, Labour’s candidate in Richmond Park] Is Brexit bad for Britain? If so, how can you support it?
Starmer says he opposed it. But we are now in a different world. He thinks the government should go for a bespoke EU-UK arrangement. It will be a new arrangement.
He says if a party just tries to stop the process, it is vacating the field in the battle over what Brexit should be like.
Q: Would you accept that amending the article 50 bill would delay triggering article 50?
No, says Starmer. He says he does not accept that.
What caused a delay was the government’s decision to appeal to the supreme court.
Q: How will you get the government to accept your demands if you are not willing to block article 50?
Starmer says there is no consensus for “hard” Brexit.
So he hopes the government does not propose that.
If the government brings this forward, it will see if the bill can be amended. Labour has already discussed this with the bill clerks. It wants an amendment that is carried, he says.
Q: You said you wanted a reasonable level of migration. What would that be?
Starmer says the government’s target is completely discredited. Trying to get net migration below 100,000 is not credible.
But there are steps that could be taken to get net migration down, he says.
He says as shadow immigration minister he was constantly told businesses suffered from skills shortages. That is why they recruited from abroad.
There are things that can be done that will reduce immigration, and that is a good thing.
He says the “direction of travel” needs to be down. But he does not support setting arbitrary targets.
Starmer backs a Brexit transitional deal
Q: Would you support a transitional deal?
Starmer says Philip Hammond was right to raise this. “Most sensible observers” think it is impossible to negotiate both exit and a new trade deal within the two year available. So it is “helpful” that Hammond has said there will be a transitional deal. He is right.
Q; How long should it be?
Starmer says it should not be open-ended.
Q: Two years?
Starmer says we don’t know where we will be by March 2019. It depends on that. He hopes we have got as far as possible by then.
- Starmer backs a Brexit transitional deal.
Starmer's Q&A
Starmer is now taking questions.
Q: Would you engage in cross-party talks on Brexit?
Starmer says what has concerned him is the rush of political parties to one side or the other. Labour should speak for both sides. He says other MPs in the Commons feel the same way. So there is scope for a cross-party consensus, if that involves rejecting “hard” Brexit.
Q: Would you sit down for talks with David Davis?
Starmer says the problem is that he does not know what the government wants. That is why they must set it out.
Starmer says Labour should not just defend the status quo.
Labour must argue for a bold, progressive domestic policy post-Brexit.
It is true – as many of us argued during the referendum campaign – that EU legislation has been a driver of progressive UK policy in areas such the environment, consumer rights and employment rights.
Protecting these gains is essential.
Particularly since some Conservative MPs have already signalled an intention to use the Great Repeal Bill as an opportunity to water down or erode these vital rights and standards.
But defending the status quo should never be the summit of Labour’s ambitions.
Enshrining rights in our law is important, but we should also pursue more progressive, more ambitious policies than those enshrined in EU law.
Starmer says Labour wants the fullest possible market access and reasonable migration controls in the Brexit negotiations.
This is not to pretend that arguing for changes to freedom of movement will not make a deal on single market access harder.
It will.
But in the negotiations to come, it is incumbent on the government to fight for the fullest possible market access and reasonable management of migration.
Starmer continues:
It was striking that the referendum results showed the areas in the country with the highest levels of immigration voted most strongly to Remain.
But the areas with the highest pace of change voted most strongly to Leave.
That tells me that the British people are open and tolerant; but that they also expect change to be managed, rather than simply allowing the free market to rip through communities.
Starmer goes on:
Our new relationship with the EU will have to be one which is based on fair migration rules and the reasonable management of migration.
If Brexit forces us to confront the appalling and enduring skills gap in the UK, that is a good thing.
If Brexit forces us to confront low pay exploitation, that is also a good thing.
But the status quo is not an option.
Labour’s response must, of course, be driven by our values.
As President Obama recently said, the rapidly changing nature of: “Politics in all of our countries is going to require us to manage technology and global integration … in a way that makes people feel more control, that gives them more confidence in their future, but does not resort to simplistic answers or divisions of race or tribe, or crude nationalism”.
The Labour party and the wider Labour movement have always been at the forefront of fighting discrimination and building a fairer, more equal society.
Labour recognises that without the hard work and skill of migrants our public services, our businesses and our economy would suffer.
But we have also always been the party that values strong, cohesive communities.
Starmer says free movement rules 'must change'
Starmer turns to immigration.
When I was shadow immigration minister I spent months visiting every region of the UK to listen to views on immigration.
I know how important the issue is to many voters.
I know that any party that seeks to govern needs to listen to their concerns and come up with adequate and appropriate responses.
No comprehensive approach to Brexit or response to the referendum result can ignore the issue of freedom of movement.
As Len McCluskey recently said: “There is no doubt that concerns about the impact of the free movement played a significant part in the referendum result, particularly in working-class communities … We are well past the point where [this] issue can be ignored”.
Labour needs a bold and ambitious response.
The rules must change.
- Starmer says free movement rules “must change”.
Starmer says Labour has not given government a “blank cheque” on Brexit
Starmer says the government has now committed to publishing a plan for Brexit.
He sets out the five conditions that Labour wants this plan to meet. (He sets these out in more detail in the debate last week.)
He goes on:
A late vague plan will not do.
And I have put the government on notice that if no meaningful plan emerges, Labour will seek to amend any Article 50 Bill brought forward early next year.
Anyone who thinks that the government has been handed a blank cheque is very much mistaken.
- Starmer says Labour has not given government a “blank cheque” on Brexit.
Starmer sets out Labour's Brexit proposals for trade
Starmer says the issue now is how Brexit is delivered.
A good deal of ink has been spilt in the last few months on the finer distinctions of the single market and the customs union.
I’m not sure how much clarity that has provided.
So let me attempt to put Labour’s position succinctly by focussing on function not form.
Put simply, Labour will push for a Brexit model which maintains and protects our ability successfully to trade goods and deliver services with and to the EU.
That means
1) A model that ensures continued tariff-free trade for UK businesses with the EU
2) A model that ensures that any new regulatory frameworks do not add bureaucratic burdens or risk harmful divergence from the EU market.
3) A model that protects the competitiveness of our services and manufacturing sectors; and
4) A model that ensures that existing protections at work provided by the EU are maintained.
These tests complement the aims set out by John McDonnell earlier this year and set a blueprint against which the government’s endeavours can be measured.
Starmer turns to the third reason why simply opposing Brexit would be wrong.
That brings me to the third reason why Labour should not set its sights simply on frustrating the article 50 process.
That is because to do so would mean walking away from the bigger battle that we must fight.
As we stand on the brink of profound change, it is clear that there are two versions of our future that could be negotiated.
The first is a future that tears us apart from our EU partners.
Standing outside and shut off from the European market of 500 million people who could buy our products and services.
Reverting to World Trade Organisation rules, which as the CBI have said “would do serious and lasting damage to the UK economy and those of our trading partners”.
A global race to the bottom which would not only put our economy and jobs at risk, but which would also abandon our shared scientific, educational and cultural endeavours with the EU.
So-called ‘hard’ Brexit.
The second version of our future is a version where we exit the EU but build a new and strong relationship with our EU partners based on the principles of co-operation, collaboration and mutual benefit.
Starmer says Lib Dems have “absolutely nothing” to say to the 52% who voted for Brexit
Starmer says Labour should not make the same mistake, and ignore half of those who voted in the referendum.
Those who advocate frustrating the Article 50 process are making the same mistake.
The Liberal Democrats hold out the false promise to the 48% of being able to frustrate the process.
But what have they got to say to the 52%?
Absolutely nothing.
How can their stance unify the country?
It can’t.
And Labour should not fall into the same trap.
A party that can only speak to and for half a nation cannot heal the rift in our society.
- Starmer says Lib Dems have “absolutely nothing” to say to the 52% who voted for Brexit.
Starmer continues his attack on May.
Pursuing Brexit in the partisan interest might make Tory party management easier in the short run.
But as David Cameron could tell Theresa May: stray too far from the national interest, and you will be found out in the end.
The prime minister’s approach is also alienating the 48% of voters who voted to remain in the EU.
They feel increasingly despondent and despairing.
The government is treating them as if they voted themselves out of their own future.
They did no such thing.
And no party that proceeds against our economic interests in such a divisive way deserves to govern for long.
The government should be negotiating in the national interest, pulling the 52% and the 48% together, imagining and striving for a future that works for the 100%.
Starmer accuses May of raising unrealistic expectations on immigration
Starmer accuses Theresa May of “serving the interests of just one side of the divide”.
Extrapolating the view of a group within the 52%, who were seriously concerned about freedom of movement and immigration, the prime minister has issued a ‘loud and clear’ warning that control over immigration will be prioritised over jobs, the economy and living standards.
I’m not going to shy away from the question of immigration, or to suggest that it was not a powerful factor in the referendum debate and outcome.
But by clinging to the discredited promise to get immigration into the tens of thousands, the Prime Minister is raising Brexit expectations which cannot be fulfilled without seriously harming our economy and public services.
- Starmer accuses May of raising unrealistic expectations on immigration.
Updated
Starmer says the UK is more divided than at any time in his life.
The divide is deep and, in some instances, it is bitter.
The surge in hate crime across the country and the reaction to the High Court judges who delivered judgment in the Article 50 case are testament to this.
In some London constituencies, 75% of those voting in the referendum voted to Remain.
Yet in other areas the precise opposite is the case.
Last Friday, I was in the Midlands, where in some areas 75% of those voting voted to leave.
A new fracture in politics has emerged.
And it is real.
The role of any responsible government ought to be to repair the breach.
Bring the country back together.
- Starmer says Labour must try to unite the country.
Starmer addresses the claim that Labour should follow the Lib Dems, and try to block Brexit.
In so far as those advocating this course of action fear that in exiting the EU we risk becoming isolated, abandoning our values of tolerance and damaging our economy, I can understand the plea.
But it is the wrong response for three reasons.
First, as a matter of principle, no serious political party can claim to accept and respect the outcome of the referendum and in the next breath say that it will seek to prevent the prime minister from even starting the article 50 negotiations.
A short point; but an important one.
Second, any political party with an ambition simply to frustrate the process cannot unify or heal the country.
Updated
Starmer criticises David Cameron for not having a plan for Brexit.
[Cameron] oversaw one of the greatest derelictions of duty of a British government in modern times.
The decision not to undertake any preparations whatsoever for a vote to leave has left the country without a plan and the government without direction.
Starmer says Labour must accept the result of the referendum
Starmer says Labour campaigned to stay in the EU.
Yes, there were half-truths and untruths told in the campaign – none more egregious than the promise of £350 million a-week for our NHS that was daubed on the Vote Leave bus.
Yes, the tone of the referendum was deeply divisive, with social consequences that we all have a duty to tackle.
But we had a referendum and we have a clear result.
Had it gone the other way, those of us who passionately campaigned for Remain would have expected the result to be accepted and respected.
And that cuts both ways.
- Starmer says Labour must accept the result of the referendum.
Starmer says this location, Bloomberg’s HQ, is where David Cameron gave the speech in 2013 announcing an EU referendum.
When David Cameron spoke here in January 2013 he decided – as was so often the case – to put short-term political considerations ahead of the national interest.
My speech today will be guided by a different lodestar – our country’s interest.
Starmer says the world has changed enormously since he was selected as Labour candidate for Holborn and St Pancras two years ago today.
Keir Starmer's Brexit speech
Sir Keir Starmer is about to give his Brexit speech.
There is a live feed on his Facebook page.
On the Daily Politics John Redwood, the Conservative MP and strong leave supporter, is being interviewed. He says he thinks Philip Hammond was wrong to call for a transitional Brexit deal yesterday. Britain should be more ambitious, he says, and try to get a full deal within two years. He says the government should offer the EU a zero-tariff deal, and hope that the EU reciprocates.
Leave Means Leave has put out a statement criticising Philip Hammond, the chancellor, for proposing a transitional deal when the UK leaves the EU. Richard Tice, its co-chair, said:
A transitional deal is absolutely unnecessary and poses a huge threat to the UK economy ...
A transitional deal on top of the two years would take as long to negotiate as the final Brexit result. Meanwhile Britain would be forced to continue paying extortionate sums of money to the EU. This will create serious uncertainty at a time when the UK economy needs stability and leadership.
We must leave the EU within a maximum of two years after triggering Brexit. This means leaving the single market and the customs union so that Britain can start benefiting from Brexit at the soonest opportunity. We must not wait any longer to sign new trade deals with the many countries who want one, including the huge US market.
Updated
The Greens claim that, if Labour was serious about opposing a “hard” Brexit, it would not have voted in favour of triggering article 50 by the end of March in last week’s debate. Jonathan Bartley, the Green party’s co-leader, has issued this statement ahead of Sir Keir Starmer’s speech. (See 9.13am.) Bartley said:
Keir Starmer may claim today that Labour will oppose a hard Brexit but less than one week ago his party voted with the Conservatives to trigger article 50 before the end of march - recklessly throwing Britain off the Brexit cliff edge.
If Labour are serious about stopping the government from removing us from the EU in two years’ time, and with no proper plan, then they must stop voting for just that. Our country desperately needs a strong, coherent opposition to protect us from the dangers of a hard Brexit.
The BBC’s Andrew Marr (a Scot) has welcomed the news that the SNP is thinking of standing candidates in England (see 11.11am) - although unfortunately his iPhone doesn’t speak French.
Engine https://t.co/qBnM0CBmG9
— Andrew Marr (@AndrewMarr9) December 13, 2016
Enfin I meant. Bloody Anglophone autocorrect https://t.co/DsrbWrLNYp
— Andrew Marr (@AndrewMarr9) December 13, 2016
He was commenting on this tweet.
Nicola Sturgeon 'considering letting SNP candidates stand in England and Wales' https://t.co/Zwcb9RjeAG
— HeraldScotland (@heraldscotland) December 13, 2016
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said she is “tempted” by the idea of standing SNP candidates in England. In an interview with the Scottish actor Alan Cumming for the Big Issue, she said that she had had a lot of contact from people in England. Asked about putting up candidates in England she said:
I’m tempted ... There are a lot [of people] in England - a lot who contact me - who feel completely disenfranchised that there is nobody speaking up for them. Our London branch is booming at the moment.
The SNP is said to have about 1,000 members in England.
They’ve been handing out mince pies at shadow cabinet today, Tom Watson tells Twitter.
Mince pies appear before today's shadow cabinet. 🌲☃️🎅🏻 pic.twitter.com/1Lx4VOYytv
— Tom Watson (@tom_watson) December 13, 2016
The Ukip MEP Roger Helmer has posted this on Twitter about Sir Keir Starmer’s speech.
Keir Starmer warns against a hard Brexit. He seems to be trying to fight the Brexit referendum all over again.
— Roger Helmer (@RogerHelmerMEP) December 13, 2016
The government has sold another chunk of its stake in Lloyds Banking Group, the Treasury has announced. Now the taxpayers’ shareholding is worth less than 7%.
The latest share sales, conducted via the trading plan, mean that the government has now recovered over £17.5bn of the £20.3bn taxpayers injected into Lloyds during the financial crisis, once share sales and dividends received are accounted for.
Gerard Coyne, Unite’s regional secretary in the Midlands, has announced this morning that he is challenging Len McCluskey for the leadership of the union. My colleague Rajeev Syal has details here.
Speaking to reporters this morning Coyne said that McCluskey had spent too much time “dabbling in politics”.
Unite has become too much of a political commentator and not actually focusing on the concerns of our membership ...
The reality here is there’s been much criticism about the fact that the general secretary and the union more generally has just been dabbling in politics all the time.
I’m not going to fall into the trap of trying to determine who the leader of the Labour Party is.
I am saying that actually my focus is on the members.
It’s not a political organisation, it’s a trade union.
Coyne also said that Unite would “always support the Labour Party” but that if it “genuinely represents the world of work, then all political parties will listen to us - not just the Labour party”.
Here is the start of the Press Association story about the inflation figures.
Inflation rebounded to a two-year high last month, driven by a hike in the price of clothes and fuel.
The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the consumer price index (CPI) measure of inflation hit a higher-than-expected 1.2% in November after easing back to 0.9% in October from 1% in September.
Economists had been pencilling in growth of 1.1%.
The ONS said a stronger performance from the pound last month took the edge off import prices for manufacturers despite total input costs climbing 12.9% in the year to November, compared to a 12.4% rise in October.
Sterling’s plunge to 31-year lows since Britain voted to leave the European Union is expected to push up the cost of living as manufacturers pass on higher costs to consumers.
Mike Prestwood, ONS head of inflation, said: “November’s slight rally in the value of sterling eased the inflationary pressure on businesses importing raw materials but consumer prices continued to edge upwards, due mainly to the rising cost of clothing and fuel.”
Tories claim Labour still wants to block Brexit
The Conservatives are determined not to let Labour escape the accusation of wanting to block Brexit. A Conservative party spokesman issued this statement in response to the extracts from Sir Keir Starmer’s speech. (See 9.13am.)
Only the Conservatives can deliver the right deal for Britain as we leave the EU - where we can make our own decisions about immigration and deliver the best possible trading arrangements for British firms, both with the EU and the rest of the world.
Labour suggested they would support the government unconditionally in triggering Brexit talks. But behind closed doors they talk about second referendums and now seek to attach conditions and tie the government’s hands.
The truth is Labour just don’t believe Britain can thrive outside the EU, and keep looking for any new excuse to try to block Brexit and overturn the decision of the British people. They’re out of touch with the concerns of ordinary, working people.
Inflation rises to 1.2%
The inflation figures are just out.
- The rate of consumer price index inflation rose to 1.2% in November from 0.9%
in October.
Here is the Office for National Statistics bulletin with the full details.
There is more coverage on my colleague Graeme Wearden’s business live blog.
Labour will fight to stop a 'hard' Brexit, says Starmer
There were differing views as to how successful Labour was when it held a debate its debate on Brexit last week. On the up side it forced the government to confirm that it would publish a Brexit “plan” of some sort before article 50 is triggered. But, on the down side, Tory MPs rallied behind the government’s amendment (saying Theresa May’s article 50 timetable should be respected) and on the night it was the Labour party that split, with some MPs defying the party line, not the Conservative party.
The debate, though, may have gone some way to quash claims that Labour are recalcitrant “remoaners” who refuse to accept the result of the referendum (because most Labour MPs backed the government amendment saying article 50 should be triggered by the end of March) and in a speech today Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, will seek to reframe the debate and turn it into an argument about not whether or not to accept the referendum result, but whether or not to have a “hard” Brexit. And Labour will oppose a “hard” Brexit, he will say.
In an extract released overnight he says:
As we stand on the brink of profound change, it is clear that there are two versions of our future that could be negotiated.
The first is a future that tears us apart from our EU partners. Out of the single market. Out of the customs union.
Reverting to World Trade Organisation rules which would entail a range of harmful new barriers to trade and a desperate rush to sign new agreements with third party states to compensate.
A global race to the bottom which would not only put our economy and jobs at risk, but which would also abandon our shared scientific, educational and cultural endeavours with the EU. A so-called ‘hard’ Brexit.
The second version of our future is a version where we exit the EU but build a new and strong relationship with our EU partners based on the principles of co-operation, collaboration and mutual benefit.
A future which preserves our ability to trade in goods and services with our biggest market.
A future that values joint scientific, educational and cultural work with our EU partners.
A future which allows the UK to retain its leading position in the world, influencing and contributing to developments across Europe and beyond.
The battle between these two versions of our future is the battle of our times.
I will be covering the speech in detail.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.50am: Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, gives a briefing in Strasbourg.
10am: Simon Stevens, the NHS England chief executive, gives evidence to the Lords committee on the long-term sustainability of the NHS. Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary gives evidence to the same committee at 4pm.
12.30pm: Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, gives a speech.
Around 12.40pm: MPs begin an emergency debate on Syria and Aleppo.
2.30pm: George Hamilton, chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, gives evidence to the Commons Northern Ireland committee on the future of the land border.
We’ve also got the Southern rail strike today, but my colleague Matthew Weaver is writing about that on a separate live blog.
As usual, I will also be covering the breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to 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
