Afternoon summary
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has admitted that the EU has “pushed back” on the two proposals from the government purportedly showing how the UK could leave the customs union but still maintain near-frictionless trade with the EU after Brexit. Two weeks ago, after the Daily Telegraph reported that both proposals had been rejected by the EU, Downing Street played this down, saying it did not recognise the claims. Today Davis effectively admitted that the reports were accurate. (See 5.27pm.) Giving evidence to the Lords EU committee, he also reaffirmed his view that it was important to get a “pretty substantive” deal on a future trade relationship finalised alongside with the withdrawal agreement in the autumn. He said:
We take the view that it has got to be pretty substantive. Parliament will vote more than once on the withdrawal agreement and I would be surprised if parliamentarians are happy to vote for the expenditure of £35 to 39bn without knowing what we are getting for it. I think it would be quite difficult to get the withdrawal agreement through the House if we don’t have it substantively done.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments. And I’m sorry we had to turn them off.
Updated
Q: When parliament votes on the withdrawal agreement, there will not be a legal text on the future trade relationship. Isn’t there a danger that people will put different interpretations on it?
Davis says in a negotiation people just put forward negotiating positions.
Parliament will have a long time to consider this before it gets put to a vote.
He says Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, has stressed that she wants the political declaration on a future trade deal to include details.
He says parliament will have a very good idea of where things are heading.
Q: Does the European parliament proposal for the UK having an association agreement with the EU have any merit?
Davis says he has no objection to the concept. But he would not want to see the UK being bound by the ECJ. He says Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit spokesman, who is pushing the idea, is thoughtful and worth listening to.
The Labour peer Lord Whitty goes next.
Q: Our judgment is that the UK and the EU are still quite far apart. What is your assessment?
Davis says the EU has repeatedly complained about what the UK is offering. That is just part of the process, he says.
He says the UK and the EU need to agree to negotiate the trade relationship in parallel.
If they try to negotiate 45 issue in sequence, he will be dead and buried before the finish.
He says the fact that UK and the EU are starting from the same place makes a big difference.
He wants to reassure the EU that the UK will not diverge in such a way as to undercut them. They are worried about this, and about the UK being a regulatory “Wild West”. So there is a need for an agreement on dispute mechanism. But once that is sorted, then it will be much easier to agree other issues.
He says the government has a plan for services. It will put this in the public domain shortly.
Q: When joint report in December said option C for the Irish border would involve maintaining full regulatory alignment, was that for the whole of the UK?
No, says Davis. He says that just referred to north- south relations.
In the Lords committee the former Labour MP Hilary Armstrong says government has advertised jobs in the Border Agency in Northern Ireland saying people need a British passport. That’s worrying, she says. In Northern Ireland you can have an Irish passport.
She says when the committee visited Northern Ireland, they did not find anyone who thought the border issue could be solved without having a customs union.
Q: Would not having a hard border mean no physical infrastructure?
At the border, says Davis.
He says, whatever infrastructure there would be, it would not be wise to put it up at the actual border.
He says the existing border is done by intelligence-led policing and customs arrangements. That could include automatic number plate recognition cameras, but back in Belfast.
Updated
Davis says he cannot imagine the circumstance in which the Irish government would put up a hard border.
But he says it is for both sides to take responsibility for finding a solution to the problem.
Davis admits EU has “pushed back” on both UK proposals for future customs arrangements
Davis is summing up the government’s two proposed customs models.
The commission “pushed back on both”, he says.
They were concerned about how the “customs partnership” (the one involving the UK collecting tariffs on behalf of the EU) would be run.
And, with the highly-streamlined customs arrangement, they were concerned about the impact of exempting smaller traders.
- Davis admits EU has “pushed back” on both UK proposals for future customs arrangements.
Q: You visited the Irish border recently. What were your impressions?
Davis says there are concerns there.
He saw a sign saying that a road would be closed in the event of a hard Brexit. He thought that was wrong.
But he has briefings from the police. What they said about the potential problems was “very forthright”.
Davis says it is important to remember that the Ireland border is not a non-border. There is a border on customs and on tax, he says.
If there is a free trade agreement, there will be no tariffs.
So the border issue will be a regulatory issue, he says. But he says no one is arguing for the UK to stay in the single market.
David Davis concedes that the real issue in Ireland is the single market regulation not customs. pic.twitter.com/ss2Jf00Z4D
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 1, 2018
Updated
Davis says, if the UK had tried to extend the transition beyond December 2020, the UK would have had to contribute to a new MFF (multi-annual financial framework - a longterm EU budget.) The bill might have been quite high, he says.
Davis says the government wants the defence and security partnership in place as soon as possible, and potentially before the end of the transition.
Q: Do you agree with the head of the NAO who said that, once the withdrawal agreement comes into force, the legal payments will be legally binding?
Davis says, when you make a deal, you should read the text. So it will depend what the legal text says.
Q: Will the payments be staggered?
Yes, says Davis. It will take quite some years for them to be paid. There was a suggestion that they would last for 40 years, he says.
That was just pension liabilities, a peer says.
Davis says for the vast majority of the EU 27 states, Brexit is not the priority it is in the UK.
But he says it varies from region to region.
Q: Barnier has said formal negotiations on a trade relationship will only start after the UK has left the EU.
Davis says he does not accept that.
He wants to conclude the trade negotiation by then. Then it will have to be signed, and ratified.
This is from my colleague Lisa O’Carroll.
Here's what David Davis said on Irish border - he says Option C is inextricably linked to Option A and B and therefore can't be agreed until October when substantive deal done: lords Brexit select committee pic.twitter.com/xnE6ID0MRk
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) May 1, 2018
Davis is now talking about whether Britons living in the EU will have onward movement rights (the right to move, say, from Spain to France). He says he did not realise until recently how important this was to some retirees.
He says the commission is treating this as an ongoing relationship issue. It remains to be resolved, he says.
These are from RTE’s Tony Connolly.
Davis: dispute resolution mechanism post Brexit needs to impartial, can't be the ECJ or the Supreme Court. EU wants the ECJ to do it, we don't.
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) May 1, 2018
Davis: We'll have to a choice of forum for dispute: if it's a data issue then it would be the ECJ (eg, someone in the EU saying they don't want the Brits to have their data)
— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) May 1, 2018
The Labour peer and QC Helena Kennedy goes next.
Q: Will there be a legal text by June?
Davis says that is unlikely.
Davis is back.
Asked for an update on the negotiations, he says Michel Barnier summed it up well when he said recently that 75% of the withdrawal deal was agreed, but that the last 25% would be the hardest bits.
He says the main aim is to get the whole thing finished by October.
He says the UK has been trying to agree with the commission a timetable for talks.
He says the UK wants to talk about various aspects in parallel.
Q: So the framework for a future relationship will be an important document, with more than just aspirations.
Absolutely, says Davis. He says the UK takes the view this will have to be fairly substantive. It must contain more than “airy fairy aims”.
He says parliamentarians will have to vote for the withdrawal agreement. And they will not vote to pay the EU £39bn if they do not want to know what they are getting.
He says the implementation period has to be just that; the government has to know that it is implementing.
And businesses need to know where they are heading.
After opening remarks from the chair, Lord Boswell, the hearing gets suspended because there is a division in the Commons and Davis is off to vote.
David Davis gives evidence to Lords EU committee
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, is giving evidence to the Lords EU committee.
Here are the topics the committee intends to cover.
The text of the withdrawal agreement and the timeline for agreement
The Government’s position on a customs union with the EU
The Government’s proposals for avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland
The future relationship between the UK and the EU
The Scottish government has urged Sajid Javid to give its call for increased migration his “immediate attention”, as it issued an invitation to discuss its fears that Brexit will see Scotland’s population plunge.
Scotland’s external affairs secretary, Fiona Hyslop, wrote to the new home secretary today arguing that the country needs a far more liberal and expansive immigration policy particularly after Brexit cuts out automatic residency rights for new EU migrants.
Ministers in Edinburgh fear the impact of Scotland’s declining birth rate, its ageing population and stuttering economy will become more acute. Hyslop told Javid Scottish government modelling suggests Brexit could cut GDP north of the border by £5bn a year by 2040.
Essentially putting down markers against which the Scottish National party and Scottish ministers will test Javid’s future policy decisions, Hyslop said:
I note the commitment that you made yesterday to a fair and humane immigration policy that welcomes and celebrates people who are here legally, people who have come in the past or who are looking to come and who want to do the right thing and contribute to our country.
As part of that, I look forward to an early meeting with you to discuss the opportunities and ways in which Scotland’s unique migration needs can be recognised – as set out in Scotland’s population needs and migration policy – alongside the ways in which the immigration white paper could properly reflect Scotland’s position and provide certainty and security to EU citizens, who have made their home here that has been denied to those of the Windrush generation.
MPs told of evidence linking Legatum Institute founder with Russian intelligence
In the Commons the Conservative MP Bob Seely has just made serious allegations about Christopher Chandler, a billionaire who founded the investment company Legatum. He is best known in UK politics because he founded the Legatum Institute, a thinktank whose proposals for post-Brexit trade policy have been seen as influential in Whitehall.
Seely said that he and some others MPs had been shown documents relating to national security and money laundering. They originated from Monaco’s security department, he said. And they were based on information from that organisation and from the French equivalent of MI5.
Seely went on:
These documents are brief, terse, factual files listing activities, associations and judicial actions. They have been authenticated by senior French intelligence sources and by British and American counterparts familiar with their contents.
The documents indicated a link - a noted individual in this country - with Russian intelligence.
These files are dated from 2005. They cover the period from the mid 1990s.
The documents concern Christopher Chandler and his brother. Christopher Chandler is a public figure owing to the Legatum Institute ...
According to the French intelligence services, as recorded by their colleagues in Monaco - clearly I’m confident these documents are genuine - Mr Chandler is described as having been “an object of interest to the DST [a French intelligence agency] since 2002 on suspicion of working for Russian intelligence services” ...
Christopher Chandler’s personal file is marked file code S, a DST marker indicating, if I understand correctly, a high or higher level of threat to France. In France now the letter S is used to indicate radical Islam. In Monaco then it was used to designate counter-espionage.
Seely stressed that he was not criticising the staff at Legatum. But he said that he was making these allegations public because he thought that was in the national interest.
Last year the Mail on Sunday published a story saying that Chandler was linked to Russia, but without making the allegations that Seely was making. In response the Legatum Institute published a lengthy rebuttal. Among other things, it said that Chandler was “a much-loved friend of the institute” but that he had no role within it. It also said:
We refute in the strongest possible terms the allegation that The Legatum Institute Foundation is aligned with, influenced by, or somehow connected to Vladimir Putin or the Russian state, or has ever been. This is patently false, completely unsubstantiated, and frankly, laughable. The implication that The Legatum Institute Foundation’s interests are aligned with those of Russia (or its leadership) are demonstrably false and is suggestive of a deeper agenda.
UPDATE: The Legatum Group has sent out this response to what Seely said.
Christopher Chandler has never been associated directly or indirectly with Russian intelligence or the Russian state. Neither Christopher Chandler nor anyone at Legatum is aware of any such alleged “investigation” by French authorities, not 16 years ago or at any time since. To be clear Christopher Chandler has never been approached at any time by the French or any other authorities regarding Russia and maintains a sterling record of ethical business practices earned over many decades. These accusations are complete nonsense, and have been previously rebutted by the Legatum Group (here).
Updated
Zuckerberg threatened with parliamentary summons next time he's on UK soil unless he gives evidence to MPs
Damian Collins, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons culture committee, has issued yet another request to the Facebook boss Mark Zuckerberg asking him to give evidence to the committee’s inquiry into “fake news”. But now he is threatening to issue a formal summons to Zuckerberg when he next steps foot on British soil.
Collins has set out the demand in an open letter to Facebook’s head of policy in the UK. He says that Zuckerberg needs to appear because the evidence from Mike Schroepfer, the Facebook chief technical officer sent to address the committee in place of Zuckerberg last month, “lacked many of the important details” needed. Schroepfer failed to answer fully on almost 40 points, Collins says.
He says Zuckerberg is giving evidence to the European parliament in May and he suggests Zuckerberg visits London to give evidence to the committee on 24 May. Collins goes on:
It is worth noting that, while Mr Zuckerberg does not normally come under the jurisdiction of the UK parliament, he will do so the next time he enters the country. We hope that he will respond positively to our request, but if not the committee will resolve to issue a formal summons for him to appear when he is next in the UK.
The power of select committees to summon witnesses is limited. In extremis they can issue a formal summons and this involves the serjeant at arms, or a proxy, being despatched to deliver a legalistic letter. (It’s a bit like serving a writ.) It happened to the Murdochs seven years ago and Collins is Zuckerberg could get the same treatment when he next comes to London - or, conceivably, the moment he gets off a plane at Heathrow.
The days when parliament could use force to bring someone to the Commons are long gone. Anyone who receives a summons can ignore it. But the Commons would in those circumstances pass a resolution censuring them for contempt of parliament, and normally the reputation threat that involves is enough persuade people to turn up (as happened with the Murdochs).
The letter is here (pdf). My colleague Carole Cadwalladr has tweeted it.
BREAKING: This is pretty extraordinary. Parliament issues ultimatum to Facebook. Either Mark Zuckerberg comes voluntarily. Or, he'll face a summons next time he enters British territory. Facebook really couldn't have handled this much worse... pic.twitter.com/VFyJrHXWel
— Carole Cadwalladr (@carolecadwalla) May 1, 2018
Updated
Transparency International UK, another group campaigning against corruption, has also welcomed the government’s concession. This is from its director of policy, Duncan Hames (a former Lib Dem MP).
This is very welcome news that the UK will finally be able to open up the financial centres in the British Overseas Territories. These jurisdictions have long been the Achilles Heel of our defences against dirty money. Agreement on this represents a hugely significant moment in the fight against corruption, not just in the UK but around the world.
This afternoon, corrupt individuals everywhere will be deeply concerned that they are about to lose the secrecy afforded by the British Overseas Territories that has until now given them an easy route to launder their ill-gotten gains.
We hope that those territories will now use the opportunity they have over the next 18 months to implement these registers and shut the door to dirty money.
Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary and a co-signatory of NC6, is speaking now. He says this is the fourth time the Commons has addressed this issue and it is now time to act. Referring to the government’s decision to back down, he says that illustrates how in a hung parliament power shifts from the cabinet room to the floor of the House of Commons.
Global Witness, which campaigns against corruption globally, has put out this statement about the government’s concession. It is from the Global Witness campaigner Naomi Hirst.
Today’s announcement is a huge win in the fight against the corruption, tax dodging and money laundering.
The UK’s tax havens have featured in countless corruption and money laundering cases – ending their corporate secrecy will throw a huge spanner in the works of corrupt dictators, tax evaders and organised criminals.
This is the result of years of dogged campaigning by MPs, investigative journalists and a coalition of anti-corruption and anti-poverty campaigners from around the world.
This now raises the stakes for the remaining jurisdictions which are happy to sell secrecy – it is now only a matter of time until anonymous companies are a thing of the past.
Here is my colleague Patrick Wintour, the Guardian’s diplomatic editor, on the significance of the government’s concession.
Govt caves on requiring overseas territories to draw up public registers on beneficial ownership. Big concession by Ministers faced by certain Commons defeat.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 1, 2018
British overseas territories are going to complain imposition of public registers is improper constitutional interference by UK parliament in an economic sphere for which their own legislatures are sovereign. Could get bumpy.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 1, 2018
By introducing a Magnitsky clause & a public register of beneficial ownership in overseas territories, UK eases the hypocrisy charge as it tries this year to solidify an international coalition against Russia, & Putin's dirty money.
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 1, 2018
Whatever was put on that door handle in Salisbury has led to a secretive world being opened in a way the perpetrator could never have envisaged !
— Patrick Wintour (@patrickwintour) May 1, 2018
Dame Margaret Hodge is speaking now. She welcomes the government’s decision to accept her amendment. And she pays tribute to Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary who co-signed the amendment for all he has done to help her with her campaign.
She says her amendment does no more and no less than fulfil the commitment David Cameron made when he was prime minister five years ago.
She says that without public registers, the overseas territories are a haven for “crooks, kleptocrats and corrupt individuals who engage in financial skulduggery”.
She says it would be better if the overseas territories willingly enacted public registers. But they have had five years to do that, and have not acted yet, she says.
She says her amendment will give them a further three years.
She says the UK should be showing leadership on this.
Labour’s Chris Bryant says the amendment refers to beneficial ownership of companies. Doesn’t Hodge agree that there should be legislation for beneficial ownership of trusts too?
Hodge says she does agree. That is a subject for another campaign, she says.
John Penrose, the Conservative MP and a government anti-corruption champion, also intervenes. He agrees with the need for beneficial ownership registers to go further. They should cover property and other assets too. He says, without wider application, he is concerned that this measure might not have quite the impact some people expect.
Helen Goodman, a shadow Foreign Office minister, is speaking in the debate now. She welcomes the government’s acceptance of NC6. (See 2.22pm.) But she says if public registers of beneficial ownership are right for the overseas territories, they should be right for the crown dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man) too.
In his speech Sir Alan Duncan also said the government would offer the overseas territories “the fullest possible legal and logistical support” to help them establish public registers of beneficial ownership. He said:
Her Majesty’s government is acutely conscious of the sensitivities about this in the overseas territories and the response it may provoke. I therefore today give the overseas territories the fullest possible assurance that we will work very closely with them in shaping and implementing the order of council that this act of parliament might require.
To that end, we will offer them the fullest possible legal and logistical support that they might ask of us. We retain our fullest respect for the overseas territories and their constitutional rights and we will work with them to protect their interests.
Here is the key passage in the amendment, new clause 6 (NC6).
(1) For the purposes of the detection, investigation or prevention of money laundering, the secretary of state must provide all reasonable assistance to the governments of the British Overseas Territories to enable each of those governments to establish a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies registered in each government’s jurisdiction.
(2) The secretary of state must, no later than 31 December 2020, prepare a draft order in council requiring the government of any British Overseas Territory that has not introduced a publicly accessible register of the beneficial ownership of companies within its jurisdiction to do so.
The full text of NC6 is here (pdf).
This is how Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, announced the register of beneficial ownership U-turn. (See 2.05pm.)
We do not want to legislate directly for [the British overseas territories], nor do we wish to risk damaging our long-standing constitutional arrangements which respect their autonomy. However, we have listened to the strength of feeling in his House on this issue and accept that it is without a doubt the majority view of this House that the overseas territories should have public registers ahead of it becoming the international standard as set by the financial actions taskforce. We will accordingly respect the will of the House and will not vote against new clause 6. Unless [Margaret Hodge] seeks the leave of the House to withdraw it, we accept that this amendment will become part of the bill.
Here is some reaction to the government U-turn from Labour MPs.
BREAKING: Minister tells the Commons the Govt will NOT vote against my amendment to introduce public registers of beneficial ownership in the Overseas Territories #SanctionsBill #SAMLBill #TackleTaxHavens
— Margaret Hodge (@margarethodge) May 1, 2018
Government caves in on @margarethodge anti-money laundering amendment. Vital in fight against dirty Russian money. Progress.
— Ben Bradshaw (@BenPBradshaw) May 1, 2018
Hurrah. Gov't has just caved in on @margarethodge amendment forcing UK Overseas Territories to bring in public registers of beneficial ownership of companies. Well done!
— Chris Bryant (@RhonddaBryant) May 1, 2018
Government accepts public ownership registers for UK overseas territories in major U-turn
Sir Alan Duncan now turns to beneficial ownership in his speech.
He says he tried to address this by tabling his own amendment. This would have taken measures to get crown dependencies to establish public registers of beneficial ownership, short of legislation.
He says he thinks there would have been a majority for his amendment. But it was not selected, he says.
He says the government proposal would have avoided the prospect of there being a constitutional clash between London and the overseas territories.
Turning to the Hodge amendment, he says the concern is that it would compel the UK to legislate if the overseas territories act by the end of 2020.
He says these territories have registers that are available to the law enforcement agencies.
The arguments are finally balanced, he says. The government recognises the need to tackle fraud.
But the economic impact on the overseas territories will be signficant. They have their own legislatures. They are not represented in this parliament. Legislating on their behalf would disenfranchise them, he says.
He says the UK does not want to legislate directly for them.
But the government has listend to the views of MPs. It is the majority view in this HOuse that the overseas territories should have public registers of beneficial ownership.
So the government will not vote against the Hodge amendment, he says.
- Government backs down and agrees to legislate for public ownership registers in UK overseas territories.
The People’s Vote campaign, which is campaigning for a referendum on the final Brexit deal, has issued this statement on our poll findings (see 12.21pm) from the Labour MP Paul Williams.
Confidence in the government’s ability to deliver a good Brexit deal is collapsing, and understandably so: the Brexit that was promised to people is simply not deliverable.
The talks are bogged down in quicksand over the complex issue of the Northern Ireland border, and the government’s pledge to deliver ‘the exact same benefits’ as we have now has been revealed as a fantasy.
With the public’s confidence in a positive Brexit outcome fast disappearing, this just reinforces the need for a People’s Vote on the terms of the final Brexit deal.
Labour says May's immigration policies 'directly damaging NHS patient care' following visa revelation
Labour has criticised Theresa May following the reports that she refused to relax visa rules to allow the NHS to recruit more doctors. Commenting on the Evening Standard splash (see 12.53pm), Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said:
It makes no sense whatsoever that the government is turning away trained doctors who want to come and work here in the UK. Theresa May’s hostile environment policy is now directly damaging NHS patient care.
The NHS is facing a massive workforce crisis. More than 100,000 NHS posts are now unfilled and vacancy rates for nurses and doctors are rising year on year, yet the government is refusing visas for trained staff from overseas because of the rules drawn up during Theresa May’s time as home secretary.
The visa rules clearly aren’t working in the best interests of NHS patients. Ministers ought to be doing more to keep patients safe and their priority should be making sure hospitals can get the right numbers of staff in place.
This is from the Labour MP Margaret Hodge.
Report Stage of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill has begun! I urge colleagues from all parties to support my amendment - New Clause 6 - to introduce public registers of beneficial interest in the British Overseas Territories #SanctionsBill #SAMLBill #TackleTaxHavens
— Margaret Hodge (@margarethodge) May 1, 2018
Updated
The government tabled amendments very late which were intended to stop the Hodge amendment on beneficial ownership being put to a vote.
But at the start of the proceedings the speaker, John Bercow, said that because they were tabled so late, he would not select them for a division. That means the Hodge vote is going ahead. This is from Labour Whips.
Mr Speaker just explaining he failed to select the Government’s late tabled amendments that would have knocked out Margaret Hodge’s Amdt. Big vote at or before 430pm https://t.co/MnsT9lO0Xj
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) May 1, 2018
Updated
Sir Alan Duncan, the Foreign Office minister, is opening the debate on behalf of the government.
He says this afternoon’s report stage debate will cover three issues: sanctions for gross human rights abuses, including a Magnitsky amendment; Scottish limited partnerships; and beneficial ownership.
On Magnitsky and Scottish limited partnerships, he says the government is responding to concerns.
MPs debate crack down on tax havens
MPs will soon start debating the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill.
As my colleague Dan Sabbagh reports, the government is at risk of being defeated when MPs vote on amendment tabled by the Labour MP Margaret Hodge saying overseas territories to introduce public ownership registers.
Here is an extract from his story.
The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, said the government needed to show it was “serious about clamping down on tax avoidance and taking on the vested interests of the super rich” by supporting the backbench amendment to the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill.
Its proponents, Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell and Labour MP Margaret Hodge, argue that if the British Virgin Islands and Cayman Islands are forced to introduce public ownership registers it will stem the flow of “dirty money” around the world and into the UK.
They say that “transparency is vital in the fight against money laundering and tax avoidance by crooks, kleptocrats and terrorist gangs” in a joint article for the Evening Standard. Campaign group Global Witness estimates that £68bn flowed out of Russia via the UK overseas territories between 2007 and 2016.
David Cameron and George Osborne promised to introduce public ownership registers in the overseas territories in 2013 but the measure was dropped when May took over as prime minister. The amendment, which has the support of Ken Clarke, Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry, as well as the SNP Westminster leader, Ian Blackford, and the Lib Dem leader, Vince Cable, asks the 14 territories to comply by the end of 2020.
What No 10 said in response to Evening Standard splash about May and visa rules
This is what the prime minister’s spokesman said at the lobby briefing when asked about the claims in the Evening Standard splash. (See 12.53pm.)
It remains essential we have control of the immigration system and it works in the national interest, we are monitoring the situation in relation to visa application for doctors including the monthly limits through the Tier 2 visa route. Around a third of all tier 2 visas go to the NHS and investing in our workforce will continue to be a top priority.
Asked if the PM had personally vetoed the attempts to relax the visa rules, the spokesman said: “As for formulation of government policy, that’s not something I’d discuss.”
No 10 refuses to deny May blocked requests to relax visa rules so NHS could hire more foreign doctors
Here is the Evening Standard splash, by Joe Murphy and Nicholas Cecil, saying that Theresa May blocked appeals by at least three government departments for visa rules to be relaxed so that the NHS could recruit foreign doctors. (See 11.27am.)
And here is an extract.
The issue erupted on Friday when several NHS trusts went public about fears that patient safety was being put at risk by doctor shortages ...
Sources have disclosed that Downing Street was lobbied for several months before the NHS went public to allow a relaxation of the rules. Health secretary Jeremy Hunt and Ms Rudd were understood to be among those urging No 10 to lift the quota for special cases such as NHS doctors. At the same time business secretary Greg Clark was pressing for more exceptions to help firms cope with specialist skills shortages.
A Whitehall source said Mrs May “absolutely refused to budge” when asked to lift the cap in recent months.
“I think Jeremy and Amber were on the same page on this but No 10 were in a different place entirely,” said a separate source. “The cap had been reached for several months consecutively and the pressures on business and the health service were building up.”
At the Number 10 lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman refused to deny the story.
The Standard, of course, is edited by George Osborne, the Conservative former chancellor. Osborne is a close ally of Amber Rudd’s, which may help to explain why the story has today surfaced on the Standard front page ...
Updated
Voter confidence that Brexit talks will end successfully at new low, poll suggests
We’ve got some new Guardian/ICM polling out today. Here are the key figures.
Brexit
- Voter confidence that the Brexit negotiations will end successfully has hit a new low, the poll suggests. We first asked people in October if they thought the Brexit negotiations would end successfully or unsuccessfully. ICM polled on this again in December, a few days before Christmas, and we have now asked the question a third time. In October, when polling was conducted just after the EU summit that did not conclude with an agreement on phase one of the Brexit talks because the process was taking longer than the UK government originally expected, the net confidence score was -15 (30% said the talks would end satisfactorily, against 45% who said the opposite.) In December, after a phase one agreement was reached, the net score was -4 (35% minus 39%). But now the net score is down to -19. Only 28% think the talks will conclude satisfactorily, against 47% who think they will end unsatisfactorily.
Windrush
- Voters are four times as likely to hold Theresa May responsible for the problems facing Windrush generation migrants as Amber Rudd. The polling was concluded before Rudd resigned on Sunday night and the question asked about Rudd, as home secretary, and May, as the former home secretary and current prime minister. People were asked who was “most to blame” for the problems and given four options. They were most likely to blame “successive Labour and Conservative governments” (30%). May came next (23%), followed by Home Office and UK Border Agency staff (17%) and Rudd (6%). Don’t knows were relatively high at 22%.
Voting intention
- The Conservatives have a three-point lead over Labour, the poll suggests. That is up two from when ICM last polled for the Guardian three weeks ago. The Conservatives are on 42% (no change), Labour 39% (down 2), Lib Dems 8% (up 1), Ukip 4% (no change) and the Greens 3% (no change).
Trump’s visit to UK
Finally, we asked about President Trump’s visit to the UK in July. It turns out it is not as unpopular as some of us might have expected.
- Voters are marginally more likely to support than oppose President Trump visiting the UK in July, but broadly the public is split three ways. People were asked simply if they supported or opposed the visit. A third said they supported it (33%), 31% said they opposed it, and 33% said they neither supported it or opposed it.
I will post a link to the ICM tables here, when they go up on the ICM website.
ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative online sample of 2,026 adults aged 18+, between 27 and 29 April 2018. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.
UPDATE: The poll tables are here (pdf).
Updated
Sinn Fein accused Northern Ireland’s two unionist MEPs of “bad manners” today because they were not in Derry to meet Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator. Northern Ireland’s third MEP, Sinn Fein’s Martina Anderson, was there, and she claimed that the DUP MEP Diane Dodds and Ulster Unionist MEP Jim Nicholson were failing to represent the unionist community by “snubbing” Barnier. She said:
I think it’s unfortunate that they haven’t turned up. The parliament is not open today.
The European parliament is closed, so there’s no reason why both of the MEPs from the unionist population shouldn’t be here.
All three of us should be maximising the opportunity when Michel Barnier is in our constituency.
I think it’s political bad manners that the MEPs - and I have to say the two council leads from the DUP and UUP - were both invited here this morning, and neither of them have turned up.
I don’t think really when you have a chief negotiator coming from the EU that it’s a good signal to send out because I don’t think it’s representative of the people, the protestant, unionist, loyalist people, who would want their own representatives taking the opportunity to express their views.
Last week Dodds and Nicholson issued a joint statement welcoming Barnier’s visit but expressed disappointment that it was announced by a Sinn Fein MP.
George Osborne, the Conservative former chancellor who now edits the Evening Standard, has just tweeted this picture of his paper’s splash today. The story does not seem to be online yet, but I will post a link when I find one.
Today’s @EveningStandard exclusive: PM personally vetoed Cabinet requests for extra visas for NHS doctors pic.twitter.com/Tm1xGFRl41
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) May 1, 2018
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, has been in Derry in Northern Ireland this morning. He was asked about last night’s Lords vote, but declined to comment on the grounds that he did not want to get involved in UK domestic politics.
As Sky’s Darren McCaffrey points out, Barnier also suggested that EU “peace funding” for Northern Ireland would continue after Brexit.
Barnier also seems to suggest that Northern Ireland will continue to receive "peace funding" from the EU beyond #Brexit into the 2020s
— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) May 1, 2018
The People’s Vote campaign, which is campaigning for a referendum on the final Brexit deal, has put out this statement from the Labour MP Wes Streeting about Liam Fox’s Today interview. Streeting said:
Liam Fox’s fundamental problem appears to be that he is frightened of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty.
On the Today Programme this morning he completely mispresented the decision of the House of Lords to amend the EU withdrawal bill yesterday.
The amendment the Lords passed gives power to the House of Commons – and the Commons alone – to hold ministers to account on any withdrawal agreement. It doesn’t give the Lords any matching power.
So why is Liam Fox so afraid of a more powerful House of Commons? Is it for the same reason that he repeatedly refused to admit that parliament also has the power to give the decision about the final Brexit deal to the people?
Brexit is a big deal, but it is not a done deal and Liam Fox needs to understand why more and more people are demanding a people’s vote on the final Brexit deal: they believe, and they are right to believe, that this decision is too big to be left to comfortable and complacent politicians like Liam Fox and has to be in the hands of the people as a whole.
Streeting’s claim that “more and more people are demanding a people’s vote” is questionable. The polling expert John Curtice looked at this in a blog post for his What UK Thinks website recently and concluded that there was “no sign ... of any recent change in the balance of opinion on holding a second referendum”. But opposition to a second referendum is lower this year than it was last year, he admitted.
As Curtice explained in a different blog, the results vary hugely depending on how the question is framed.
Yesterday, after the first and most important of the three government defeats on the EU withdrawal bill in the Lords, the government said the amendment passed would “weaken the UK’s hand in our negotiations with the EU”. It will mean that, if parliament votes down the withdrawal agreement in the autumn, the government will have to obey any motions passed by parliament ordering it to reopen Brexit talks instead of the UK simply leaving with no deal at all. On the Today programme this morning Liam Fox, the international development secretary, strongly attack the vote.
But the government has not said yet it will definitely try to overturn the vote when the bill returns to the Lords. And that is because at this stage it is by no means certain that it would have the vote to win.
In December the government lost a vote on the EU withdrawal bill in the Commons when 12 Tories rebelled. This morning at least three of those 12 have taken to Twitter to express their opposition to what Fox was saying in his interview. Here they are.
May I gently say to my colleague @LiamFox let’s put the economic needs of our country first & foremost and if we do we will have a customs union/arrangement with the EU after we leave @BBCr4today And let’s also remember - the people rejected a #HardBrexit last June
— Anna Soubry MP (@Anna_Soubry) May 1, 2018
The passage of the Great Repeal Bill was always going to be turbulent, but the Lords are merely reflecting what the majority of MPs believe - that Parliament, must have a say in whether the deal is good enough and no deal never will be. https://t.co/Af5OM4J7nH
— Heidi Allen (@heidiallen75) May 1, 2018
@LiamFox voters did not vote for economic damage to the country and are happy to leave the political institutions of the EU whilst keeping economic partnership and regulatory alignment #Brexit research by https://t.co/M0YktZhvyW pic.twitter.com/dlmqj5A8hG
— Antoinette Sandbach (@Sandbach) May 1, 2018
Here is Sajid Javid, the new home secretary, arriving for cabinet this morning.
(This morning he seems to have eschewed the “Tory power stance”.)
As my colleague Jessica Elgot reports, in his Today interview Liam Fox also accused the House of Lords of trying to block Brexit.
Angela Smith, the Labour leader in the Lords, says Fox is just being silly.
This is getting very silly. Let’s be clear @UKHouseofLords has voted - cross party - to let MPs make a judgement of the Government’s withdrawal deal, rather than the Hobson’s Choice of My Deal or No Deal. MPs will now vote on that amendment. https://t.co/FxxSfrBklh
— Angela Smith (@LadyBasildon) May 1, 2018
Liam Fox tells May that compromising over customs union would be unacceptable
Brexit is back as the dominant story at Westminster. After the government suffered its most significant Lords defeat on the EU withdrawal bill last night, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, will have his chance to respond when he gives evidence to a Lords committee this afternoon. But, before that, we’ve had Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, who got the lead 8.10am slot on the Today programme.
Brexiters are increasingly worried about the prospect of Theresa May coming forward with some sort of compromise on the customs union. Number 10 has repeatedly said the UK will leave the customs union, but in leave circles they are worried that, it it becomes clear that the government’s alternative customs proposals would be unworkable or too cumbersome, May could end up adopting a plan that would keep the UK in the customs union in all but name.
In his Today interview Fox, a leading Brexiter, insisted this would be unacceptable. He told the programme:
I don’t think we can stay in the customs union for a number of reasons, the main reason being that we would be in a worse position than we are today.
If we were in a customs union with the European Union we would have to accept what the EU negotiated in terms of market access to the UK without the UK having a voice.
That’s worse than the position in which we found ourselves today in the European Union.
I don’t think there is a customs union that could ever be acceptable.
If we are in a customs union of any sort we will have less ability to shape Britain’s future than we have today. That is not what the public voted for.
Asked if he would resign if the government ended up staying in the customs union, Fox said he would not answer a hypothetical question - but in such as way as to make it perfectly obvious that the answer was “yes”.
He also notably refused to challenge John Humphrys when he asked a question about May being a “horribly weakened prime minister”, at a time when the country needed a tough, strong one. Fox just said the Conservatives did not have a majority in parliament, which made life harder.
Here is some comment on his interview.
From the Sun’s Harry Cole
Fox puts down his marker. Tells today no customs union of any sort is acceptable.
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 1, 2018
From the Telegraph’s Kate McCann
Liam Fox asked if it’s frustrating to have such a weak PM while trying to drive Brexit through. Doesn’t challenge the Q, instead says Gov can rely on some Labour MPs in the Commons...
— Kate McCann (@KateEMcCann) May 1, 2018
From Business Insider’s Adam Payne
Liam Fox asked by #r4today whether it’s frustrating having a “weak” prime minister. Doesn’t challenge the question. Also doesn’t rule out resigning over the customs union row. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of Theresa May.
— Adam Payne (@adampayne26) May 1, 2018
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.
10am: Sir Mark Sedwill, the national security adviser, gives evidence to the Commons defence committee.
After 12.45pm: MPs resume their debate on the sanctions and anti-money laundering bill. As Dan Sabbagh reports, the government faces the prospect of being defeated on an amendment that would force it tell Britain’s overseas territories to introduce public ownership registers in an attempt to prevent them from being exploited by the global super-rich.
2.30pm: Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall give evidence to the Commons health committee on childhood obesity.
3pm: Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, gives evidence to the Commons international development committee.
4.30pm: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, gives evidence to the Lords EU committee.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
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.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
