Get all your news in one place.
100's of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

Government loses two House of Lords votes on EU withdrawal bill – as it happened

An EU flag left by anti-Brexit demonstrators is reflected in a puddle in front of the Houses of Parliament.
An EU flag left by anti-Brexit demonstrators is reflected in a puddle in front of the Houses of Parliament. Photograph: Toby Melville/Reuters

Evening summary

  • Theresa May has suffered two big defeats in the House of Lords on her flagship Brexit legislation, the EU withdrawal bill, in a move that will embolden MPs who want to force her to keep the UK in the customs union. She lost by a majority of 123 on an amendment forcing ministers to explore the option of staying in the customs union and by a majority of 97 on an amendment limiting the ability of ministers to use secondary legislation to water down existing EU rights when those rights get transferred to UK law. (See 3.38pm.) The second defeat was largely technical, and the Brexit department implied the first one did not really matter because it would not stop the UK leaving the customs union anyway. (See 6.11pm.) But there are five more days of report stage debate in the House of Lords and tonight’s voting figures suggest that Brexitsceptic peers in the Lords will turn out in large numbers to inflict several more defeats on the government, not all of which will easily be overturned in the Commons given the slenderness of the Tory/DUP majority. The votes will also encourage the pro-European Tories who are trying to win a Commons majority for future customs union amendments which would be more binding on the government. (See 6.40pm.)

That’s all from me for tonight.

Thanks for the comments.

14 Tory peers rebel over retained EU law amendment

The Lords have now released the detailed voting figures for the second defeat. You can read them in detail here.

There were 14 Conservative rebels this time.

How peers voted on retained EU law amendment
How peers voted on retained EU law amendment Photograph: House of Lords

Goverment loses second Lords vote on EU withdrawal bill by majority of 97

Labour have won the vote, by 314 votes to 217 - a majority of 97.

Peers have voted for an amendment that would make it harder for ministers to weaken existing EU rights after Brexit. (See 3.38pm.)

Ukip are not happy about the Lords vote. This is from the party leader, Gerard Batten.

The vote by the House of Lords to remain in the customs union is a clear betrayal of the 17.4 million people who voted leave. Those people did not vote to be half in, half out of the EU.

The Commons must reject the Kerr amendment or put itself in opposition to the people.

Lord Kerr was the man who drafted article 50 in such a way that EU exit can be delayed, impeded and overturned. Acting true to form he is now trying to carry it through to its purpose.

Ukip will continue to fight for a complete and clean exit from the EU.

Actually, the vote wasn’t a vote to remain in the customs union (see 6.11pm), but never mind ...

Lady Hayter says the government amendments mentioned by Lord Callanan do not do what he says they will do. Some EU directives are not covered by the government’s amendments. She says she has had three lawyers look at this, and all three told her that the government amendments were not robust enough.

She says her amendment is better because it would ensure only primary legislation could be used to remove current EU rights in key areas.

You can read the full text of the amendment here (pdf). It is amendment 11.

Peers are now voting on the amendment.

In the Lords Lord Callanan is responding on behalf of the government. He says the government has already tabled amendments to the bill that would stop the EU withdrawal bill being used to water down existing EU rights.

Jeremy Corbyn is to meet New Zealand premier Jacinda Ardern - the emerging star of the international Left - for talks this weekend. The Labour leader will host Ardern after she returns from a retreat at Windsor Castle with her fellow Commonwealth heads of government.

During the New Zealand election campaign last year, the 37-year-old politician was portrayed as the saviour of the beleaguered left in the wake of the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump. At the time Corbyn declared: “Do it for all of us” in a video of support.

After an event on gender equality at City Hall today, Ardern told the Guardian that she planned to share how the New Zealand Labour party had managed a “reset” at the 2007 election after many years in opposition. She said:

We spent nine difficult years in opposition, we went through multiple leaders. We managed a reset at the last election. We spoke to the issues that I know New Zealand was concerned about: job security, decent health services, education, wages that weren’t moving relative to the cost of living.

However, asked what advice she could give Corbyn about pushing his party across the line to power, she said she would be “very wary” about telling other political parties what to do, when hers had only been in power for less than a year. “I’m always happy to share about our experience but it would always be different to another nation’s and another party’s,” she said.

Theresa May (left) welcoming New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern in Downing Street today.
Theresa May (left) welcoming New Zealand’s prime minister Jacinda Ardern in Downing Street today.
 Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

Updated

Lord Cormack, a Conservative peer seen as a loyalist, has just peers that he supports the amendment because he thinks it is consistent with Theresa May’s pledge that the EU withdrawal bill should not be used to water down existing EU rights.

Hugo Dixon, who set up the anti-Brexit InFacts, has posted a Twitter thread arguing that the Lords vote could lead to further, more significant defeats on Brexit. It starts here.

In the Lords peers have just started debating the Labour amendment to the EU withdrawal bill on retained EU law, amendment 11. (See 3.38pm.) This is the second amendment due to be put to a vote tonight and, again, the government is expected to lose.

Lady Hayter, a shadow Brexit minister, opened the debate. She said that Theresa May has promised not to dilute standards after Brexit and that this amendment would help to ensure that happened.

Here is Anna Soubry, one of the most prominent pro-European Conservatives in the Commons, on the Lords vote.

Soubry has tabled amendments to the trade bill and the taxation (cross-border trade) bill (sometimes referred to as the customs bill) which could lead to government defeats when they get debated later this spring.

The two amendments, which so far have the backing of a handful of Tories, go further than Lord Kerr’s amendment. But they do not specify that they UK will remain in the customs union under all circumstances. They say that staying in a customs union with the EU should be a negotiating “objective”.

This is from the Times’ Henry Zeffman.

Brexit department says Lords defeat won't stop UK leaving customs union

The Brexit department (or DExEU to give it its proper name - the Department for Exiting the European Union) has issued a statement about the vote. A spokesman said:

We are disappointed that parliament has voted for this amendment.

The fundamental purpose of this bill is to prepare our statute book for exit day, it is not about the terms of our exit.

This amendment does not commit the UK to remaining in a customs union with the EU, it requires us to make a statement in parliament explaining the steps we’ve taken.

Our policy on this subject is very clear. We are leaving the customs union and will establish a new and ambitious customs arrangement with the EU while forging new trade relationships with our partners around the world.

The department is right about the wording. Here is the key passage from the amendment again.

The condition in this subsection is that, by 31 October 2018, a Minister of the Crown has laid before both Houses of Parliament a statement outlining the steps taken in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union to negotiate, as part of the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union, an arrangement which enables the United Kingdom to continue participating in a customs union with the European Union.

(Technically this is amendment 4. The vote was actually on amendment 1. But the two go together, and after amendment 1 was passed, amendment 4 went through on the nod, because there was no point voting on the same thing twice. The full list of amendments is here [pdf].)

The amendment just says the government will have to give parliament a statement “outlining the steps taken in negotiations ... to negotiate ... an arrangement which enables the United Kingdom to continue participating in a customs union with the European Union.”

That statement could be very short. In fact, it might just be the last two sentences of the press release.

Updated

List of 24 rebel Tory peers

Here are the 24 Conservative peers who rebelled over the customs union.

Lady Altmann

Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom

Lord Balfe

Lord Bowness

Lord Cooper of Windrush (Andrew Cooper, David Cameron’s former strategy chief)

Lord Cormack

Lord Deben (aka John Gummer, the former party chairman)

Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint

Viscount Hailsham (aka Douglas Hogg, another former cabinet minister)

Lord Heseltine (former deputy prime minister)

Lord Horam

Lord Inglewood

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate

Lord Lansley (Andrew Lansley, the fomer health secretary)

Lady McGregor-Smith

Lady McIntosh of Pickering

Lord Northbrook

Lord Patten of Barnes (Chris Patten, former Tory chairman and former European commissioner)

Lord Prior of Brampton

Lord Tugendhat

Lady Verma

The Duke of Wellington

Lady Wheatcroft (Patience Wheatcroft, the former Sunday Telegraph editor)

Lord Willetts (David Willetts, the former universities minister)

The House of Lords has its faults, but it is much better than the Commons at publishing the results of divisions. The results of the customs union vote are now up here.

Here are the key figures.

Results of division on customs union amendment
Results of division on customs union amendment Photograph: House of Lords

And here is some reaction to the vote from journalists.

From my colleague Heather Stewart

From Sky’s Faisal Islam

From the Economist’s John Peet

Reaction to the Lords vote

Here is some reaction to the vote.

From Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary

The passing of this cross-party amendment is an important step forward.

Labour has long championed the benefits of a customs union as the only viable way to protect jobs, support manufacturing and help avoid a hard border in Northern Ireland after we leave the EU. That is why we have called on the government to negotiate a new comprehensive UK-EU customs union after Brexit as part of a close future relationship with the EU.

Theresa May must now listen to the growing chorus of voices who are urging her to drop her redline on a customs union and rethink her approach.

From Lord Newby, the Lib Dem leader in the Lords

This is a hugely significant moment, the House of Lords has come together to show the government that remaining in a customs union is key to the UK’s future prosperity.

Securing this win on a cross-party basis rams home how out of touch the government have been on this issue and that they drastically need to change tack from the destructive hard Brexit they are pursuing.

From Lord Adonis, the Labour peer and an outspoken opponent of Brexit

May suffers big loss in Lords as peers vote to order government to explore Brexit customs union option

The government has lost by a mile. Peers passed the Kerr amendment by 348 votes to 225 - a majority of 123.

A spokesperson for Alex Salmond’s TV production company, Slàinte Media, has denied ever claiming the tweets on his RT chat show which Ofcom said were wrongly described as “audience tweets” were actually from viewers. (See 2.34pm.)

Ofcom said earlier it had reached a preliminary decision in its investigation whether the Alex Salmond Show had broken “due accuracy” rules by claiming to show tweets from viewers, and had decided those tweets he broadcast last November were not from audience members. Slàinte Media said:

Ofcom are still in the process of investigating a single complaint about ‘viewers’ tweets in the very first edition of The Alex Salmond show from last November.

However, it has never been Slainte Media’s contention that the tweets, emails or messages from the first show were from viewers or audience members of that first show given, by definition, the very first edition of a pre-recorded show (unlike every single Alex Salmond Show since that time) could not possibly present any messages or reaction from those viewers. This point is not in dispute.

There have been no complaints about the content of any show since. Until Ofcom complete their procedures their rules prevent us from disclosing further details.

However, that statement directly contradicts what Salmond said in that inaugural show, screened on 17 November, when he said to viewers “your tweets and emails” would be read out.

Alex Salmond Show

Within three minutes of the programme starting, Salmond stated:

But first, to a really important part of the show, where I get to hear from you. Over the past week, and even before the show has started, we received an avalanche of tweets and emails. Can I just say to the media, thanks folks for all the publicity. Let’s just look at a few of them …

He first quoted a tweet from @ellalorenR asking “so why RT?”. One Twitter user said the day afterward they couldn’t find any account of that name. No account of that name currently appears on Twitter.

The fourth tweet he quoted from belonged to @lastjohn. That account then appeared to be from Luisa St John, listed in the show’s credits and whose LinkedIn profile said she was series director of The Alex Salmond Show. That handle now belongs to a Twitter account set up in January 2018, which has not yet tweeted.

Updated

This is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.

Peers vote on amendment saying government must explore customs union option

Peers are now voting.

Lord Kerr is now winding up.

Responding to what Lord Lawson, the former Tory chancellor and one-time Vote Leave chair, said in the debate, he says Lawson may well have said during the campaign that the UK was going to leave the customs union. But the nation was not listening.

He says Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary and another Vote Leave campaigner, said that no one was talking about leaving the single market.

Callanan says, if the government were to accept the amendment, it would send a signal to EU partners that it would not be serious about negotiating a new customs deal.

He says he does not want peers to have “false hope” that they will back down on this point.

Callanan is now summarising the government’s two proposals for customs arrangements after Brexit - the new customs partnership, and the highly-streamlined customs arrangement.

There are summarised in this DExEU paper (pdf).

Lord Callanan, the Brexit minister, is now winding up for the government.

He says the government takes amendments to the bill seriously. It wants to find consensus wherever possible.

But it cannot accept these amendments, he says.

He says a customs union has a single external order. That would mean trade policy being the authority of the EU.

Lord Callanan
Lord Callanan Photograph: Parliament TV

Hayter says this amendment is not about unscrambling Brexit. It is about how we leave the EU, she says.

Lady Hayter is now winding up for Labour.

She says the Kerr amendment gives the government the chance to reconsider its customs union red line.

She says David Davis, the Brexit secretary, effectively admitted on election night that Theresa May’s failure to win a majority meant the government did not have a mandate for taking the UK out of the customs union. She says Davis said that the election result would show whether the government had a mandate for this.

Lady Hayter
Lady Hayter Photograph: Parliament TV

In the Lords the backbench speeches are coming to an end.

As the Press Association reports, Chris Patten, the Conservative former cabinet minister used his speech to mock claims by the international trade secretary Liam Fox that a free trade deal with the EU would be “one of the easiest in human history”. He suggested the current approach being taken by the government to securing agreements was “absurd”. He also said the idea that countries such as Australia would open up their market without any demands in return was “nonsense”.

In a sideswipe at the foreign secretary Boris Jonson, Patten said:

I don’t think repeating the Road to Mandalay whenever one’s travelling, I don’t think that is going to make a spectacular difference to our trading opportunities. I don’t think we will do better than we are doing within the customs union.

Sky’s Faisal Islam has some more highlights.

These are from the BBC’s Esther Webber

Sturgeon says UK, Scotland and Wales reaching 'end game' in Brexit devolution dispute

In the Scottish parliament Nicola Sturgeon, the Scottish first minister, told MSPs that attempts to resolve the dispute between the UK, Scottish and Welsh governments over the EU withdrawal bill were “reaching the end game”. Giving evidence to Holyrood’s committee conveners (Holyrood’s equivalent of the Commons liaison committee), Sturgeon said the UK government’s decision to challenge the Scottish government’s own Brexit legislation in the Supreme Court was “deeply regrettable”. She explained:

The Westminster government had a decision to make, whether to respect the decision the Scottish Parliament arrived at or not to respect it, and unfortunately they opted not to and referred to the supreme court ...

I think it’s fair to say we are reaching the end game of this.

We know the stage the withdrawal bill is at in terms of being at the report stage in the Lords, so we will probably over the next couple of weeks need to see this come to an agreement or not. We are talking now more like days rather than weeks.

I genuinely hope we can reach agreement but inevitably when there is pretty fundamental issues of principles involved, the bar for agreement is not always easy to overcome.

The dispute between the UK, Scottish and Welsh government is about what happens to EU powers being repatriated that related to policy areas that are devolved. It is accepted that most should be devolved but that some should be retained (so that the UK government can maintain common rules for the UK single market), but there is a dispute over how much say Scotland and Wales over the UK-retained elements.

Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence to the Scottish parliament’s committee convenors
Nicola Sturgeon giving evidence to the Scottish parliament’s committee convenors Photograph: Andrew Cowan/Scottish Parliament/PA

Amber Rudd summoned to home affairs committee to give evidence on Windrush generation

Amber Rudd, the home secretary, has been summoned to the Commons home affairs committee to give evidence to it next week about the Windrush generation, the BBC reports.

The SNP has been accused of manufacturing a legal row over Brexit in order to push for a second independence referendum. As the Press Association reports, the accusation came as MPs debated the UK government’s decision to challenge emergency Brexit legislation passed by the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly in the courts.
Scottish Tory MP Kirstene Hair described the move as a “political manoeuvre” designed to instigate another referendum. Hair, speaking the Commons, said:

Myself and my colleagues have been concerned that the SNP’s continuity Bill is a political manoeuvre designed to create precedence for legislation on a second independence referendum. It’s time for the SNP to put this grievance to one side and get serious about working together as one team for the best possible Brexit.

SNP frontbencher Pete Wishart told ministers the decision to challenge the bill represented an “utter contempt” for Scottish parliament. He said:

This quite extraordinary, there’s only a question about this legislation because the Tories have chosen to question it. They’ve been democratically defeated in the Scottish parliament by an overwhelming majority and they’re now showing their utter contempt for Scottish democracy by seeking to have this democratic decision overturned in the courts.

Theresa May posing for a photo with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during bilateral talks at Downing Street today.
Theresa May posing for a photo with Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau during bilateral talks at Downing Street today. Photograph: Jack Taylor/AP

Turning back to Albert Thompson for a moment, this is from my colleague Peter Walker.

And this is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.

The government is preparing a climbdown over its key Brexit bill in the House of Lords over EU rules on clinical trials, as it braces itself for a series of defeats, my colleague Heather Stewart reports. Ministers are expected to accept the substance of an amendment tabled by crossbench peer Lord Patel, which would keep EU clinical trial regulations – which have not yet come into force – in UK law. Here is Heather’s story.

It is not unusual for ministers to offer concessions in the House of Lords but it was not until I read Legislation at Westminster, a revealing book - academic, but readable - by Meg Russell and Daniel Gover about how laws get passed, that I discovered ministers have to prepare a “concession strategy” for all bills before they are allowed to bring them to parliament. And the Lords is often where this strategy gets rolled out. Russell and Gover write:

One government official suggested that the ‘golden rule is don’t amend in committee, save it for report’. Likewise, ‘if you can wait for the Lords, then wait for the Lords’; in short ‘don’t amend until you have to amend’. Another official suggested that ‘the culture of the Commons is one in which any minor concession would be trumpeted as a major climbdown or humiliating U-turn, and I just don’t think that the rhetoric that is used is the same in the Lords’.

As Kerr pointed out a moment ago, his amendment would not guarantee that the UK would remain in the customs union. It just says the government should have to explain to parliament what it has done to negotiate “an arrangement which enables the United Kingdom to continue participating in a customs union with the European Union.” (See 3.38pm.)

On my reading of the amendment, the government could comply with it by coming back to parliament and giving the answer as - nothing.

In an Independent article today Joe Watts says that, for this reason, the government could “live with” a defeat on the Kerr amendment. Watts quotes an unnamed cabinet minister as saying:

The language of this amendment is not strictly prescriptive and if, in this instance, it passes, I think we can probably live with it.

Kerr says his amendment would require the government to negotiate for a customs union, and make a statement to parliament before the withdrawal agreement gets put to a vote.

He says he cannot require the government to secure a customs union deal. The EU may not accept this, he says. He says that is why is amendment is phrased in the way it is.

Kerr says the EU are preparing to offer the UK a “barebones” free trade deal, with little on services. That is because the UK is committed to leaving the customs union.

But the EU guidelines also say that, if the UK were to drop this condition, the EU may revise its offer. He says that is why the government should accept his amendment. His amendment would allow the government to explore what might be available if the UK were to stay in the customs union. Without that, the UK will never know what is on offer, he says.

He says the subject of the customs union did not come up in the EU referendum.

The country voted narrowly to leave the European Union, but no one can argue that it voted knowingly to leave the customs union with the European Union.

But Theresa May made it a red line in her speech to the Conservative party conference in 2016.

He says he does not know what discussions there were in government about the economic implications of this.

Other red lines have been blurred, he says.

He says he is not in favour of leaving. But if the UK must leave, it should do so in such a way as to limit the damage, he says.

If in the end we do leave it should be in a way that limits the damage to the country’s well being and the future of our children.

Updated

Lord Kerr is opening the debate.

He says his amendment (see 3.38pm) is a call to the government to “explore” a customs union.

Business wants a customs union, he says.

He says, over time, leaving the customs union could cost the country 1% of GDP.

Lord Kerr.
Lord Kerr. Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

MPs debate EU withdrawal bill

Peers are now starting a debate on the EU withdrawal bill, the flagship legislation that will transfer EU law into UK law ahead of Brexit so that there is legal continuity at the point the UK leaves the EU. (Later the laws will diverge, but not on day one.)

There is nothing in itself new about that. Peers have already spend 13 days debating it this year, at second reading and committee stage, with minimal interest from the media. But now they are onto the report stage, the bit where they start voting, and it is going to get newsy.

You can read all the amendments here (pdf). This afternoon peers will be debating the customs union and retained EU law and, with the government lacking a majority, the government is expected to be defeated on both issues.

Customs union

The key amendment has been tabled by Lord Kerr, the crossbencher and former head of the Foreign Office credited with drafting article 50, Lord Patten, the former Conservative chairman and European commissioner, Lady Hayter, a shadow Brexit minister, and Lady Ludford, a Lib Dem Brexit spokeswoman.

It would require the government, as part of the Brexit process, to make a statement to parliament “outlining the steps taken in negotiations under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union to negotiate, as part of the framework for the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union, an arrangement which enables the United Kingdom to continue participating in a customs union with the European Union.”

Retained EU law

This is a Labour amendment also signed by a Lib Dem peer, Lady Smith of Newnham, and a Conservative, Lord Kirkhope. It says that, after Brexit, ministers should not be allowed to amend retained EU law in certain areas except by primary legislation, or subordinate legislation subject to certain beefed-up scrutiny requirements.

The areas affected are: (a) employment entitlements, rights and protection, (b) equality entitlements, rights and protection, (c) health and safety entitlements, rights and protection, (d) consumer standards, or (e) environmental standards and protection,

Updated

Standards commissioner launches inquiry into claims Hunt broke MPs' code of conduct

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, is being investigated by Kathryn Stone, the parliamentary commissioner for standards, her office has confirmed. The allegation is that he failed to declare his interest in a property company. PoliticsHome broke the story. We knew that a complaint had been submitted to the commissioner, but that does not automatically trigger an investigation because some complaints get dismissed as without merit. This one, though, is serious enough to merit a proper inquiry.

This is from PoliticsHome’s Emilio Casalicchio.

Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary.
Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary. Photograph: PA

Labour hits back over Windrush landing cards and says May's policies had 'disastrous' impact

Various people (including George Eaton in his New Statesman PMQs review) have been making the point that, after being ambushed by Theresa May’s Windrush landing cards reply at PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn should have made the point that, even if the decision to destroy the cards was taken in 2009, it was policy decisions taken by May that made the loss of the cards so calamitous.

Now the Labour party is saying that too. It has just put out this statement from a spokesperson.

The government’s story is shifting by the hour.

First Downing Street claimed the decision to destroy the Windrush-era landing cards was made by the Home Office in 2010 for data protection reasons. Then the Home Office passed the buck to a 2010 decision by the UK Border Agency.

At PMQs, the prime minister tried to shift the blame onto the last Labour government but was undermined by her own spokesperson minutes later, who then stated it was an operational decision, which Labour ministers would not have been aware of. Her spokesperson couldn’t even say when the cards were destroyed.

In the confusion, one thing is already clear: The change in the law in 2014 that meant members of the Windrush generation faced deportation and the loss of their rights, including to healthcare, was made in full view of the fact that the vital information had been destroyed.

The home secretary at the time must be held to account for the disastrous impact her “hostile environment” policies have had on the lives of British citizens.

UPDATE: The Labour press statement does not point out that the Labour party did not oppose the 2014 Immigration Act that has exacerbated the problems of the Windrush-generation immigrants. But, as William Richardson at Evolve Politics reports, six Labour MPs did vote against it. One of them was Jeremy Corybn.

Updated

Ofcom says 'audience tweets' on Alex Salmond's RT show were not genuine

The broadcasting regulator Ofcom has disclosed it believes that messages broadcast as “audience tweets” during Alex Salmond’s controversial chatshow on the Kremlin-funded channel RT were fake.

In two footnotes to its statement today that it has launched seven new investigations into RT’s coverage after the Salisbury nerve agent attack, Ofcom says it had already started other inquiries into the Russian broadcaster’s output.

It said one dated to December 2017, when it announced it would look into suspicious tweets screened on Salmond’s show on 16 November, which included interviews with the ousted Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, the Tory MP Crispin Blunt and the Labour peer Helena Kennedy.

Ofcom states:

We already had one open investigation relating to ‘audience tweets’ in the Alex Salmond Show, which we have provisionally found were not from audience members.

One of the suspicious tweets appeared to be from the series director of Salmond’s programme producers, Luisa St John.

Ben Nimmo, an expert in Russian propaganda with the Atlantic Council’s digital forensic research lab and a former Nato press officer, said the number of new cases was very significant, although it remained to be seen whether all seven would be proven. He said:

Ofcom has found 10 RT programmes guilty of violating accuracy and impartiality standards over the past four years. Now, in one go, it says it’s seen seven programmes which ‘warrant investigation’ since March 4. Even by RT’s standards, that’s a major increase.

The mention of the Alex Salmond Show adds to RT’s problems. Ofcom confirmed that they’ve provisionally found that so-called ‘audience tweets’ presented by the show were not sent by audience members. That investigation was launched in December, so it’s not related to Salisbury, but it doesn’t do anything to enhance RT’s reputation.

Updated

Did Theresa May lie about who was to blame for the landing card decision?

Jacqui Smith, the Labour home secretary until June 2009, thinks she deserves an apology from Theresa May. At PMQs May implied that either Smith or Alan Johnson, home secretary for the rest of 2009, was to blame for the decision to destroy the Windrush landing cards.

Downing Street says the decision to destroy the landing cards was an operational one taken by the Border Force, not one taken by the home secretary. (See 1.12pm.) Some readers have been in touch to argue this shows May was lying.

But May did not actually say that Smith or Johnson took the decision. She implied it, but she did not say it. Her actual words were:

[Corbyn] asked me if the decision to destroy the landing cards - the decision to destroy the landing cards - had been taken in my time as home secretary. The decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009 and as I seem to recall in 2009 it was a Labour Home Secretary who was in office.

This is misleading, because MPs were left with the impression that the decision was taken by the home secretary. But, in the annals of political dishonesty, this is very much at the vanilla end of things. Ministers are ultimately responsible for what their officials do, even if they do not take the decisions themselves. And nowhere is this more true than in the Home Office. The former home secretary Jack Straw once summed it up like this.

One of my predecessors, who was in one of the Thatcher cabinets, said to me, ‘What you have to understand about being home secretary, Jack, is that at any one time there’ll be 50 sets of officials working on projects which will undermine the government and destroy your political career. And the worst is, not only do you not know who they are, they don’t know either.

CORRECTION: Earlier, in the PMQs write-up at 12.44pm, I said the Conservative MP Steve Double spoke about the Labour candidate in the Gower spreading lies about Byron Davies, the Tory MP defeated in the 2017 election. But Double actually referred to a Labour activist being responsible - not the Labour party candidate. I’ve corrected the post. I am sorry for the mistake. There are more details about the case here.

Here is a Guardian video from last month featuring Albert Thompson explaining how he had been told that he was facing a £54,000 bill for cancer treatment.

PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat

This is what political journalists and commentators are saying about PMQs.

Generally, it is seen as a decisive win for Theresa May.

From Sky’s Beth Rigby

From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie

From the Guardian’s Gaby Hinsliff

From the Financial Times’ Sebastian Payne

From the Sunday Times’ Tim Shipman

From ITV’s Daniel Hewitt

From the New Statesman’s Stephen Bush

From the Times’ Matt Chorley

From the Yorkshire Post’s Arj Singh

From the Times’ Patrick Kidd

From PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield

From the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges

From the Evening Standard editor (and former Tory chancellor) George Osborne

Updated

More on the landing cards issue.

This is from HuffPost’s Paul Waugh, who was at the post-PMQs No 10 briefing.

And this is from Sky’s Faisal Islam.

This is from the BBC’s Jason Keen.

(On a related point, I think Monday’s blog was the first I’ve written since the EU referendum that did not include the word Brexit once.)

Updated

Albert Thompson says, despite May's claim at PMQs, he has not been told he will get his cancer treatment

This is from my colleague Peter Walker.

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, asked about the “rape clause” in his questions. He asked May if she agreed with Esther McVey, the work and pensions secretary, that government plans on this topic offered women “double support”. He said the “rape clause” was a disgrace and asked: “What kind of society do we live in?”

May said the government was taking “every care” to make sure the issue was dealt with sensitively.

I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

PMQs is over. Someone attempts to raise a point of order (see 12.31pm), but John Bercow, the speaker, says points of order come later. There is an urgent question on equal pay first.

Labour’s Stella Creasy asks about a constituency case involving a suspect who is in India. The Indians are not cooperating, she says.

May says it is important to recognise the independence of the judiciaries in both countries.

Pauline Latham, a Conservative, asks May if she will discuss with the Canadian prime minister how the G7 can work to fight malaria.

May says she has not met Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, yet this week.

Steve Double, a Conservative, says a Labour activist in the Gower spread lies about Byron Davies, the Tory who was defeated.

May says Davies has received an apology. But parties should not just talk about free and fair elections. They should put that into practice.

UPDATE: Originally I said Double spoke about the Labour candidate in the Gower spreading lies about Byron Davies. But Double actually referred to a Labour activist being responsible - not the Labour party candidate. I’ve corrected the post. I am sorry for the mistake.

Updated

The DUP’s Nigel Dodds asks May for an assurance that social media companies will be forced to tackle the problem of abuse and to end the “Wild West culture” they encourage.

May says the government is working with social media companies on this. They are not publishers. But they are not just platforms either.

Bob Blackman, a Conservative, asks May to condemn the mobile billboards going round London attacking Narendra Modi, the Indian prime minister.

May says the Indian community make an enormous contribution. She spoke to Prime Minister Modi today about how to increase the links between the two countries.

Nigel Evans, a Conservative, asks what message May has for Commonwealth leaders and people in the Commonwealth about gay rights.

May says she address this when speaking to the Commonwealth forum yesterday. Many Commonwealth countries have anti-gay laws, but many of those laws were put in place by Britain. Britain will back any country that wants to repeal them, she says.

Plaid Cymru’s Ben Lake asks about the lifeboat in Ceredigion Bay. Does May agree the lifeboat service should continue in the bay?

May says a number of services provide rescue services. But the RNLI plays an important role, she says. It is independent; it decides where it allocates resources.

Anne Main, a Conservative, asks about a tech investment in her constituency.

May gives her support to the company.

Labour’s Virendra Sharma asks May if the government will continue to support the fight against TB.

May says the government wants to follow the example India is setting on this issue.

Labour’s Afzal Khan asks about Kashmir.

May says the government continues to take the view that the best solution is for India and Pakistan to come together to resolve this issue.

Iain Duncan Smith, a Conservative, asks May if she agrees that all parties should kick out antisemites and apologists for antisemites.

May says she agrees. It is very important for parties show a clear signal that antisemitism will not be tolerated.

She pays tribute to the Labour MPs who spoke out in last night’s debate about the antisemitic abuse they had suffered. That was a fine example of what parliament is for, she says.

May says there is no causal relationship between crime and the number of police officers. Those are not her words, she says. They are the words of the shadow policing minister.

PMQs - Snap verdict

PMQs - Snap verdict: May prevailed. She dodged the bullet. It would be wrong to describe anything associated with this wretched affair as a triumph, or even a victory, but it was a success of sorts because, in response to the killer question, she had an answer that exonerated her. Or at least seemed to. We need to learn more about her claim that it was the Labour home secretary in 2009 (Jacqui Smith or Alan Johnson) who took the decision to get rid of the Windrush landing cards, but for the purposes of PMQs, her answer was enough to derail Corbyn and let her off the hook. (May’s comment about Albert Thompson now getting NHS treatment also needs further scrutiny, as Corbyn suggested.) Barristers supposedly operate on the basis that you should never ask a question to which you don’t know the answer, and Corbyn did not seem to have prepared for what May told him about the landing cards. That said, he did not really let it throw him off his stride. He had another deadly question ready - the one about whether Amber Rudd, or May, was to blame for the institutional problems with the Home Office Rudd mentioned on Monday (and he should have asked it a second time, after May ignored it.) And his soundbite sound-off in question six was good. But it is hard to avoid the feeling that Labour MPs will view this as a missed opportunity.

Updated

Corbyn said May was to blame for sending ‘go home” vans around sending warnings to illegal immigrants. On Monday Rudd said she did not know if anyone had been deported. How many people have been deported.

May says some people may have wrongly been sent letters saying they should not be her. The government has apologised. But there is a difference between the Windrush generation, who are here legally, and those who are not here legally. People have a right to know that services only go to people who should get them.

Corbyn says he has been told that Thompson has not been told he will be getting treatment. He says May’s pandering to people over immigration led to May creating a hostile environment. Vital documents were shredded. The Windrush generation came here to help rebuild Britian. Under May the Home Office was heartless and hopeless. And under her the government is callous and incompetent.

May says the government is helping the Windrush generation. She says Corbyn talks about being callous. But she initiated the race disparity audit. She asks what can be done to ensure there are equal opportunities in this country. Corbyn accuses her of being callous. She will not take that in the light of what was said in last night’s debate about antisemitism, and she will not take it from a man who allows antisemitism to exist in his party.

Corbyn says it was May’s government that tried to create a hostile environment for immigrants.

May should not blame officials, he says.

May says Corbyn asked about the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009, under a Labour home secretary.

Corbyn says the decision was implemented under a Tory government.

On Monday Amber Rudd said the Home Office was too concerned with policy. Who is to blame? Rudd or her predecessor?

May says Rudd has been swift in responding to this issue. Corbyn asked about action taken to deal with illegal immigration. It is right that action is taken against people here illegally. But the Windrush generation are here legally. If Corbyn wants to question what is being done about illegal immigration, he should question Yvette Cooper, the former shadow home secretary, who said in 2013 tougher action was needed to deal with illegal immigration.

UPDATE: This is what May actually in her reply to Corbyn (in her third reply, or her first reply in this block.)

[Corbyn] asked me if the decision to destroy the landing cards - the decision to destory the landing cards - had been taken in my time as home secretary. The decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009 and as I seem to recall in 2009 it was a Labour home secretary who was in office.

In my original write-up, I said “May says Corbyn asked about the decision to destroy the landing cards was taken in 2009, by a Labour home secretary.” That was my mistake, as I was trying to summarise her point. I have corrected it, so it now reads “under” a Labour home secretary.

Updated

May claims decision to destroy Windrush landing cards taken by Labour, not her

Jeremy Corbyn says last month he raised the case of Albert Thompson, who has lived her for decades but has been denied NHS treatment. May brushed it off. Will she now say he will get the cancer treatement he needs?

May says it was not brushed off.

No urgent treatment should be withheld from people, she says.

She says Thompson is not part of the Windrush generation.

But clinicians have been looking at his case, and he will get the treatment he needs.

  • May says Albert Thompson will get the cancer treatment he needs.

Corbyn asks if May took the decision to destroy the landing cards of Windrush immigrants.

No, says May. The decision was taken in 2009 under a Labour government.

  • May claims decision to destroy Windrush landing cards taken by Labour, not her.

Updated

Neil O’Brien, a Conservative, asks for an update on the Windrush generation.

May says this has caused a great deal of concern.

She says people who came here from the Commonwealth countries have made a massive contribution.

These people are British. They are part of us.

There is no intention of making them leave, she says.

She says she wants to say sorry and apologise to those who have “mistakenly” received letters.

  • May restates her apology to those Windrush-generation migrants who, she says, have “mistakenly” received letters.

She says the government is working hard to help those who do not have the documents they need.

Theresa May says this week the UK is hosting the Commonwealth heads of government meeting. She says MPs will want to join her in welcoming leaders from 52 countries to London, who collectively represent a third of the world’s population.

The summit will focus particularly on how to revitalise the institution.

My colleague Dan Sabbagh thinks Jeremy Corbyn has an easy task today.

PMQs

PMQs is about to start.

Here is the running order.

On the Daily Politics Ian Lavery, the Labour party chair, has just told Andrew Neil that he thinks around 100 Labour party members are being investigated for antisemitism. Asked about the complaints about Ken Livingstone, who is suspended in relation to comments seen as antisemitic pending a final decision, Lavery said that the case should have been resolved more quickly and that he hoped it would be resolved soon.

Theresa May met the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi in Downing Street this morning. According to Number 10, Anglo-Indian trade deals worth £1bn have been agreed today. And they discussed Brexit. Here is an extract from the Number 10 readout.

The prime minister updated Prime Minister Modi on the progress of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, saying the implementation period agreed in March gives Indian companies and investors the confidence that market access will continue on current terms until the end of 2020.

She reiterated that the UK will remain committed to global free trade and investment and that the UK will remain a leading hub for global finance.

Prime Minister Modi said there would be no dilution in the importance of the UK to India post-Brexit. He said the City of London was of great importance to India for accessing the global markets and would remain so.

The two leaders said trade between the UK and India had grown strongly over the last year and Prime Minister Modisaid that Brexit offers opportunities to further increase trade ties.

Theresa May meeting the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi in Downing Street this morning.
Theresa May meeting the Indian prime minister Narendra Modi in Downing Street this morning. Photograph: SIMON DAWSON / POOL/EPA

Ofcom announces 7 investigations in RT, saying since Salisbury its impartiality record has deteriorated

Here is the Ofcom statement in full.

Ofcom has today opened seven new investigations into the due impartiality of news and current affairs programmes on the RT news channel.

The investigations form part of an Ofcom update, published today, into the licences held by TV Novosti, the company that broadcasts RT.

Until recently, TV Novosti’s overall compliance record has not been materially out of line with other broadcasters.

However, since the events in Salisbury, we have observed a significant increase in the number of programmes on the RT service that warrant investigation as potential breaches of the Ofcom Broadcasting Code.

We will announce the outcome of these investigations as soon as possible. In relation to our fit and proper duty, we will consider all relevant new evidence, including the outcome of these investigations and the future conduct of the licensee.

Ofcom is announcing seven investigations into RT (formally Russia Today), Sky reports.

Ann Taylor, the former Labour MP and committee chair, goes next.

Q: What would happen if the resolution was amended to require a second vote?

Baker says this would be very controversial. The public have decided, he says. He says people do not want to be asked again.

Parliament needs to respect that democratic decision, he says. It needs to show people that, when they voted in 2016, that had meaning. There must not be attempts to stay in via the back door or to reverse the decision. He says parliament backed triggering article 50 by a large majority.

Q: But what would happen if it were carried?

Baker says the government would look at it carefully.

But the government will ask parliament to approve the withdrawal agreement and the future partnership proposal as a package.

And that’s it. The hearing is over.

Q: Will the WAI bill need legislative consent from the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly?

Braverman says the government will be seeking approval from Scotland and Wales and, if it is relevant, legislative consent will be sought.

Q: What is the government’s view of the emergency legislation passed by the Scottish parliament and the Welsh assembly?

Braverman says there is a legal challenge to the Scottish legislation. She cannot comment on it, she says.

Turning away from the committee for a moment, Home Office claims that the destruction of Windrush-era landing cards in 2010 had no impact on the rights of those individuals to stay in the UK have been dramatically undermined by the evidence of two new whistleblowers, my colleague Amelia Gentleman reports.

Braverman says the government intends to bring forward the withdrawal agreement and implementation (WAI) bill very soon after the “meaningful vote”.

Q: What is the scope for substantive amendments to the withdrawal agreement and implementation (WAI) bill?

Suella Braverman (until recently Fernandes - she has just go married), another Brexit minister giving evidence alongside Baker, says it would be surprising if parliament wanted to pass amendments that went against what was agreed in the resolution.

Baker says he thinks the government can pass the legislation needed before Brexit in time. But that is subject to the will of parliament.

He says the government and parliament will need to work constructively together.

But if the resolution backing the withdrawal deal is passed, then they should work constructively together, he says.

Q: Will the resolution put to both Houses by amendable?

Baker says resolutions can be amended, but that is not what the government wants.

Q: But what happens if it is amended?

Baker says the government hopes that will not happen.

Baker says Lords on its own would not be able to block Brexit withdrawal deal

Lord Judge, a crossbencher, asks what would happen if the Commons approves the withdrawal agreement but the Lords rejects it.

Baker says the government expects the Lords to follow the will of the elected House.

Q: But what happens if it does not?

Baker says the government expects to put forward an agreement both Houses will support.

He says he would be interested to know what the Lords think should happen in those circumstances.

Q: But what would happen?

There would be a flurry of conversations, he says.

But he says, under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, the treaty would still be ratified if the Commons approved it, but the Lords does not.

  • Baker says House of Lords on its own would not be able to block Brexit withdrawal deal.

Updated

Steve Baker, the Brexit minister, opens. He says it is not possible to say when the “meaningful vote” will happen, but the government wants it to happen as soon as possible after the withdrawal agreement is agreed, which should be in October.

The Lords constitution committee hearing is starting now.

According to the committee, here are some of the questions they want to address.

Is the ‘meaningful vote’ a choice between accepting the withdrawal agreement in full or leaving the European Union without a deal?

How does the government envisage parliament’s scrutiny of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration on the framework of the future relationship?

How long do you expect parliamentarians and committees will have to examine the agreement and the political declaration before the ‘meaningful vote’ is held?

The government has indicated that the motion will cover both the withdrawal agreement and political declaration on the framework of the future relationship. Will it be possible for parliament to approve one and not the other? What consequences would that have?

Will the government publish a full analysis of the impact of the withdrawal agreement as part of the explanatory materials accompanying the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill?

Will the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill need legislative consent from the devolved legislatures?

nal Brexit ministers face questioning by peers over 'meaningful vote'

Good morning. And sorry for the the late start. I was held up for various domestic reasons.

As my colleague Jessica Elgot reports, Amber Rudd, the home secretary, is facing further pressure over the treatment of Windrush-era migrants, with Labour now effectively calling for her resignation. (That’s what “consider her position” means - Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, is not saying Rudd should consider her position and decide to stay.)

This is bound to come up at PMQs. Otherwise it is almost wall-to-wall Brexit, with peers voting on the EU withdrawal bill this afternoon and this evening, and a potentially interesting committee hearing about to start.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, and the Microsoft founder Bill Gates speak at a malaria summit in London.

10.30am: The Brexit ministers Steve Baker and Suella Braverman (née Fernandes - she got married last month) give evidence to the Lords constitution committee about the promise of a “meaningful vote” on the Brexit withdrawal treaty.

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

2pm: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Commons environmental audit committee about his 25-year environment plan.

2.30pm: Prof Alan Manning, chair of the migration advisory committee, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about the impact of EU nationals on the labour market.

After 3.30pm: Peers begin the report stage debate for the EU withdrawal bill. It is at this point that peers start voting and the government is expected to be defeated on a customs union amendment.

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 will post a summary at the end of the day.

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

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100's of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
‘Top Gun 3’ Officially Confirmed for the Third Time at CinemaCon
This was known?
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
I Saw The First 18 Minutes Of Mandalorian & Grogu, And It Answered One Popular Question Star Wars Fans Have Had
It's back!
Cinemablend
Cinemablend
“I was already a fan, but after that I just had so much empathy for her and her humanity and of course her talent”: Anne Hathaway on what changed her opinion of Taylor Swift – and how she inspired her while playing a “dominant pop presence” in Mother Mary
The movie's soundtrack includes songs written by regular Swift collaborator Jack Antonoff and Charli XCX
MusicRadar
MusicRadar
Did Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco Break Up? Truth Behind Viral Instagram Story Fueling Divorce Speculation
A viral Instagram post has sparked speculation about Selena Gomez and Benny Blanco's relationship, but no verifiable evidence supports claims of a breakup or divorce.
International Business Times UK
International Business Times UK
ER visits for tick bites hit the highest level in nearly a decade. Here’s what to do if you find one
Some 31 million Americans are bitten by ticks each year
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Utah man goes to Lowe’s parking lot. Then he sees a truck selling 20 ribeyes for $39.99. Are they a ‘scam?’
A Utah man saw a strange deal in the Lowe’s parking lot. Curious, he ended up buying in, only to realize later that “Primehouse Direct steaks” may not have been worth the price. 
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play