Afternoon summary
Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, has said new measures aiming to deal with crimes committed during the Troubles will address the “unfinished business” of the peace agreement struck 27 years ago. The two main parties in Northern Ireland, Sinn Féin and the DUP, have both said they want to look at the plans closely before giving a full response. Gavin Robinson, the DUP leader, said:
For 25 years the Irish government have wilfully failed to provide answers for innocent victims of terrorism and their families. In today’s statement, there is no acknowledgement of the pain or hurt this has caused.
For many victims and survivors, it will be a case of ‘too little, too late’ and any clamour to embrace new legislative or financial commitments pledged by Dublin should be tempered by this reality.
But Robinson was less negative than he was in comments before the plans were published, when he he said it was “outrageous” that the UK government was “allowing dual control of our legacy policy to the Irish government”. Benn and Simon Harris, the Irish deputy PM, both rejected this claim at their press conference. (See 2.23pm and 2.24pm.) BBC Northern Ireland has more reaction in a live blog here.
Peers have given the assisted dying bill a second reading – while also voting to set up a select committee to review it. (See 2.17pm and 3.57pm.)
Jamie Hepburn, a Scottish government minister, has quit his job after being accused of assaulting the former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross outside the Holyrood chamber. (See 4.13pm.)
For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.
Updated
Sinn Féin says it needs to study 'fine detail' of Troubles legacy plan
Sinn Féin has issued a relatively non-committal response to the government’s new Troubles legacy plans, saying it needs to look at the details. Mary Lou McDonald, the party’s president, said:
Since the Tories imposed the callous Legacy Act, Sinn Féin has been clear that it must be repealed by this Labour government. We have always been of the firm view that progress on dealing with the legacy of the past can only be made when it commands the confidence of victims and survivors impacted by the conflict and be fully compliant with international human rights standards.
Sinn Féin will now take time to carefully consider the proposed agreement announced by the governments today. We will scrutinise the fine detail provided and urge that the underpinning legislation is published without delay. We will engage with victims’ families, those advocacy groups, legal and human rights practitioners who work with them.
Any legislation yet to be published which will underpin these proposals will be indicative of whether the British ggovernment is in fact serious about delivering in good faith on its commitments to ‘repeal and replace’ the Legacy Act, and deal with the British state’s role during the conflict.
Scottish government minister Jamie Hepburn resigns over altercation with Tory leader during row about seagulls
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.
Jamie Hepburn, a Scottish government minister, has quit his job after being accused of assaulting the former Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross outside the Holyrood chamber.
Hepburn denied manhandling Ross, who said the government’s business affairs manager had grabbed him by the shoulder and then verbally abused him in an altercation about the government’s stance on aggressive seagulls, but admitted using swear words.
In his resignation letter to John Swinney, Hepburn, who was parliamentary business manager, acknowledged his behaviour was inappropriate. He said:
Irrespective of whether or not the ministerial code has been breached, even if there had been no complaint made, I believe I have not acted in accordance with my own personal code of practice. This decision is one that I feel is for the best in these circumstances and the one that for my own part feel is the appropriate course of action.
I hope it would be felt by most, and not least you, that in my personal and professional undertakings I have always tried to act courteously in interacting with colleagues, either of our own party or others. There is no denying that my interaction with Douglas Ross fell well short of that standard.
Despite whatever annoyance I felt at that particular moment, there is a manner in which that might have been conveyed, or indeed shouldn’t have been conveyed. That is not in utilising the language that I did. I hope it is recognised on your part and others that this behaviour was quite out of character on my part.
Updated
Assisted dying bill gets second reading in Lords, but with peers also setting up select committee to review it
In the Lords peers have given the assisted dying bill a second reading. As is usual in the Lords at second reading, there was no division.
Luciana Berger, the Labour peer, has just proposed an amendment that she has tabled that says a select committee should be set up to consider the details of the bill. She said that was necessary because the text of the bill had changed since it was in committee in the Commons, where it was also subject to expert scrutiny.
She said the committee would conclude its work by 7 November.
Berger’s proposal was agreed without division.
Berger, who is opposed to assisted dying, agreed the terms under which the select committee would be set up in a deal with Charlie Falconer, the Labour former lord chancellor who is the sponsor of the bill in the Lords. That is why there was no need for a vote.
In its briefing on this, the Hansard Society says Berger made two significant concessions to Falconer.
A shorter deadline: Her original proposal required the select committee to report by 31 December, delaying the Committee Stage, scheduled to begin on 24 October, by more than two months. The revised motion sets a much tighter deadline of 7 November.
A limited reporting remit: Normally, when a bill is sent to a select committee, the committee gathers evidence and recommends whether the bill should proceed, and if so what amendments it might need. If the committee advises against the bill it cannot proceed any further unless the house votes specifically to allow the committee stage to go ahead. If the committee does not recommend against the bill, then it will proceed to committee of the whole house. The revised motion breaks with this normal practice of the house. The select committee is not required to recommend changes or pronounce on the assisted dying bill’s future. It may simply publish the evidence it gathers – from professional bodies, those with professional experience of coronial services, and ministers – without drawing conclusions.
US ambassadors welcome London/Dublin cooperation on Troubles legacy issues
The American ambassadors to the UK and to Ireland, Warren Stephens and Edward Walsh respectively, have issued a joint statement saying they welcome the way London and Dublic have cooperated on legacy issues.
MoD tells veterans they are being offered '6 new protections, rights and safeguards' under new Troubles legacy plan
The last government passed the Legacy Act because Conservative MPs were furious about the fact that dozens of veterans were at risk of criminal prosecution in relation things they did when they were serving in Northern Ireland, particularly in the 1970s and 198os. A trial is taking place at the moment in relation to Bloody Sunday. Some Tories felt all prosecutions of this kind were wrong, because they involved events that took place many decades ago and because the army was fighting terrorists at the time.
The Tory legislation in effect gave veterans immunity from prosecution. But it was opposed by all the parties in Northern Ireland, for two main reasons; because former terrorists were also offered immunity on the same terms (they had to cooperate with the commission set up to find the truth about Troubles killings), and because closing down potential investigations into unsolved murders was deemed a breach of human rights.
In an effort to persuade veterans that these new plans are reasonable, the Ministry of Defence has issued a statement saying they are being offered six key protections. It says:
You will now have 6 key protections:
1) Right to stay at home. You cannot be forced to travel to or around Northern Ireland to give evidence as a witness to the Commission or to an inquest.
2) Protection from repeated investigations. The Legacy Commission won’t needlessly duplicate previous investigative work you may have already participated in, unless there are compelling reasons to do so, and you won’t need to explain historical context that’s already known.
3) Protection in old age. Your health and wellbeing will be taken into account by Commissioners and Coroners. You may not need to give evidence at all.
4) Right to seek anonymity. You can request anonymity when giving evidence.
5) Protection from cold calling or unexpected letters. You’ll only be contacted through official channels, with Ministry of Defence support.
6) Right for your voice to be heard. Veterans’ representatives will be part of the statutory Victims and Survivors Advisory Group to ensure your perspectives are considered.
The MoD also says:
The government recognises the difference between those who served to keep the peace and protect life, as opposed to terrorists who set out to kill people. This new approach ensures:
-veterans who properly carried out their duties are protected from endless legal challenges
-terrorist acts are not granted immunity
Here is Lisa O’Carroll’s explainer on what the new Troubles “legacy framework”.
Benn says this legislation will be dealth with “in the normal way”.
And that is the end of the news conference.
Q: Can you be more specific about when this will happen, beyond as soon as possible?
Harris says the Irish government will be moving “very efficiently”.
Benn says he cannot give a date, but the government is drafing the legislation now. And it will legislate “as soon as we can”.
Q: You say veterans will be protected from cold calling what does that mean?
Benn says this means, if the commission wants to speak to veterans, it will contact the MoD first. They will be able to provide pasteral care. There won’t be cold calling.
Here is a statment on the new legacy plan from Micheál Martin, the taoiseach (Irish PM).
Q: How long will it take before the commission is operational? And will you change the people running the commission?
Benn says the current commission is working on more than 200 cases, and it will carry on with that work.
But there will be a new oversight board for the new commission. That means the current commisisoner posts will come to an end.
He says he hopes the new body will command more trust than the current one.
Benn says these plans will be human rights compliant. The Tory Legacy Act wasn’t, he says.
And he says, since these plans are human rights compliant, the Irish government’s legal case, which is based on plans not being human rights complaint, automatically falls.
Back at the press conference Harris says the Irish government never wanted to launch legal action against the UK over the Legacy Act.
He says if this agreement is put into legislation, the Irish government will “revisit” the legal case (implying it will be dropped).
Here is the news release from the government about the new “legacy framework” for dealing with the Troubles. It will replace the Legacy Act passed by the Tories, that gave immunity to prosecution for former soldiers, and former terrorists, if they cooperated with a commission investigating killings during the Troubles.
Hilary Benn rejects suggestion new legacy plans will give veterans de facto immunity from prosecution
Q: Does the Irish government need a reset when it come to trust with the unionist community? And is your commitment to legislate cast iron?
Harris says the Irish government’s commitment to legislate is cast iron.
And some of what it is proposing will not require legislation.
He says he spoke to the DUP and UUP leaders yesterday. He values those conversations.
But he would make the point “politely” that it was not the Irish government that put in unilateral arrangements on legacy that caused so much upset.
Q: This includes protections for the military. Is this about making prosecutions of veterans difficult, if not impossible? Is this a de facto immunity?
Benn says the immunity provisions in the Legacy Act were widely opposed.
On veterans, he says this is about treating people “fairly”. If asked to give evidence, they will be able to do so remotely.
And if the commission wants to take to veterans, it will approach the MoD first. Veterans will not get letters summoning them to a hearing arriving on their doormat out of the blue, he says.
Q: But the references to age sound like immunity?
Benn says courts already take into account whether people are too old or immune to be tried.
Updated
Benn says criticism is easy. Trying to fix problems is hard.
There is nothing in the document that justifies some of what the unionists have said about it, he says.
Hilary Benn and Simon Harris hold press conference on new Troubles 'legacy framework'
Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, and Simon Harris, the Irish deputy PM, are now holding a press conference about their plans for a replacement for the Tory Legacy Act.
There is a live feed here.
Q: Is this the last roll of the dice for dealing with this problem. And unionists have said it is outrageous that the Irish government is involved. How do you respond?
Harris says the unionists should have waited until the plans were published.
This is not about dual control, he says.
It is about recognising that the Irish government cannot impose ideas on the British government, and vice versa.
If the unionists want the Irish government to do more on legacy, they should welcome this.
On the other part of the question, he says he does not see this as the last roll of the dice.
But he thinks it is the best option available.
Assisted dying bill 'legislative embodiment of suicide influencer', peers told
Here are quotes from some of the speeeches in the House of Lords debate today on the assisted dying bill. I am using the reports from PA Media.
From peers opposed to the bill, or at least critical
From Luciana Berger, the former Labour MP
Assisted dying, if introduced, would not only exist as a choice for us and other comparatively fortunate people, it would also enter the lives of those most at risk – people already overlooked, unprotected and vulnerable at the end of life.
It was a privilege to be a member of parliament for almost a decade, and I have so many fond memories of my former constituents, but some of the most searing moments that I experienced as a member of the other place came at my weekly surgeries.
The first time I heard someone speak openly in the most unsavory terms about wanting a family member dead, I shook, I was appalled, and I could not believe what I was hearing. I was naive to think that this would be an isolated case.
From Thérèse Coffey, the Tory former deputy PM
[The] clinician-patient relationship can be frighteningly coercive … This indirect coercion is real, the feeling of being a burden, knowing you could save money for the NHS if you went that bit earlier, knowing you might be able to leave more money to your children rather than paying care home fees.
From Lord Deben (John Gummer), a former Tory cabinet minister and former chair of the Climate Change Committee
I was an MP for 40 years, and I met wonderful people in both my urban constituency and my rural constituency, but I also met people who felt that their old relations were a terrible burden and were spending money which would be much better left to them …
Many families who have never seen any real money now see an aged relative who has a house, which is now worth £200,000 and more, the temptation for those people that I know and have met to say to that person ‘you really have a duty to save this money for your family’.
From Claire Fox, the former Brexit party MEP
[The bill] rebrands assisting someone to die as a medical treatment, upending its understood meaning. The bill rewrites the role of doctors, they will no longer be guided by the ‘do no harm ethos’.
When we debated the censorious Online Safety Act, those of us who raised its negative impact on free speech were metaphorically slapped down – hectored that one indisputable reason for that law was to close down suicide sites, and we had to protect the young from malign online suicide influences.
But I worry this bill that we are debating today is the legislative embodiment of a suicide influencer.
From Lord Frost, the former Tory Brexit minister
For the first time ever, this bill seeks to give a person of sound will and mind the right to act contrary to a fundamental element of the ethical tradition that’s been fundamental to this country …
In such a society, none of us are really safe. The only protection for any of us then is the collective wishes of society, whatever they are at any given moment. In such a society, the rights of those who are ‘inconvenient’, the disabled, the ill, the elderly or maybe those who are just unpopular, have no robust defence and are potentially vulnerable.
From Martin Warner, bishop of Chichester
This bill takes from them the law’s protection of their right to life; it’s a fundamental assault upon their dignity.
From Lord Curry of Kirkharle, a crosbencher
There’s absolutely no question that this Bill if passed will devalue the importance of human life and economics will become part of the decision-making process – the NHS will save money and families will protect their inheritance.
From peers in favour of the bill, or at least supportive
From Labour’s Lady Thornton
I think it’s important that we remember that this Bill came to us from the Commons, has undergone significant amounts of scrutiny and change, and our job is to scrutinise it further and improve it, if we need to do so. It is not our job to kill this bill.
I was saddened last week by [Theresa] May speaking about this being a ‘suicide bill’.
People have written to me in the last week, very distressed, and they say, ‘we are not suicidal, we want to live, but we are dying, and we do not have the choice or ability to change that’. Assisted dying is not suicide.
From George Carey, a former archbishop of Canterbury
It is right that the [Church of England] bishops have spoken so powerfully and well in this debate but the irony is that they are not representing their own Church in this matter …
My Lords, may I add, with temerity, a rhetorical question addressed to the bishops’ benches – but I think to us all. Do we really want to stand in the way of this bill? It will pass, whether in this session or the next. It has commanding support from the British public and passed the elected House after an unprecedented period of scrutiny.
Both this house and the church are in the midst of renewed public debate as to our role in society.
And I pray, indeed pray, that both these institutions, which I hold so dearly for the importance of our role in public life, do not risk our legitimacy by claiming that we know better than both the public and the other place [the Commons].
From Jan Royall, a former Labour leader in the Lords
I was dismayed at the conflation made by some of suicide and assisted dying.
This isn’t just about careless language. It is actively damaging to people who are already suffering.
Let’s be clear, people who choose assisted dying are not suicidal, they are dying and they want to regain some control.
From Jo Johnson, the former Tory universities minister
People who suffer from an incurable condition should not be forced against their will to endure intolerable suffering.
I think it’s worth us debating carefully whether there isn’t a case instead to have a test based on clinical progression, so that assisted dying is available to adults with a progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unlikely to recover and which can be reasonably expected to cause their death.
Johnson was arguing of the bill to make assisted dying to people with an incurable condition, not just for people with a terminal illness and judged to have less than six months to live.
New legacy plans for Northern Ireland 'night and day improvement' on Tory law, Irish deputy PM says
Lisa O’Carroll is a senior Guardian correspondent.
Plans to repeal to the controversial Legacy Act brought in by the Conservatives in 2023 have been described as a “a “night and day improvement” by Ireland’s deputy prime minister.
The package of measures, to be unveiled in a joint British-Irish press conference with Northern Ireland secretary Hilary Benn in Hillsborough this afternoon (see 9.52am), involves five new measures, with an additional package south of the border on witness and investigations.
The package is being described by diplomats as “a return to partnership” after years of disagreement and an interstate law suit launched by Ireland.
Simon Harris, Ireland’s tánaiste (deputy PM) said:
Once faithfully legislated for and implemented, it will fundamentally reform legacy processes, bodies, and outcomes. It is a night and day improvement on the 2023 act.
That act closed the pathway towards truth and accountability.
The Irish government launched legal action against the UK goverment over the original legislation. That case was paused when Labour were elected pledging to repeal the act, but it is likely to remain pending until these measures are fully implemented, Irish sources have said.
The main elements of the new deal are
the current Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) will be replaced with two new bodies - one dealing with investigations and then another dealing with information recovery.
public hearings, akin to public inquiries, involving families and witness will be facilitated and overseen by independent judges.
conditional immunity for soldiers or agents of the state will be reversed, the ban on civil proceedings taken by victims lifted and inquests halted after the Legacy Act restored.
South of the border, a legacy unit will also be established by the Gardai, and a €25m (£21m) fund set up to help witnesses deal with the legal process.
Updated
David Lammy, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, has echoed Peter Kyle in brushing aside Donald Trump’s suggestion that the government should deploy the military to stop the small boats. (See 9.50am.) Asked if the government would consider this, he told broadcasters:
We’ve got amazing border control … I’m also very pleased Ministry of Defence colleagues are working closely with the Home Office as we look harder at a new group of accommodation on some of those sites where we can accommodate those who are waiting for their asylum applications.
(Using the military to provide accommodation for asylum seekers was not quite what Donald Trump had it mind.)
Updated
Keir Starmer has welcomed the release of an elderly British couple who have been held in detention for seven months by the Taliban.
Starmer said:
I welcome the release of Peter and Barbara Reynolds from detention in Afghanistan, and I know this long-awaited news will come as a huge relief to them and their family.
I want to pay tribute to the vital role played by Qatar, including the Amir, His Highness Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al Thani, in securing their freedom.
Green party says its membership has reached 75,000
The Green party of England and Wales says its membership has passed 75,000. It was 68,000 at the start of the month, when Zack Polanski was elected leader. Commenting on the increase, he said:
Hitting 75,000 members is more than just a milestone; it’s proof that people are hungry for bold politics. While the old parties tinker around the edges, the Green party is growing fast because we are unapologetic about demanding real change: taxing the super-rich, funding our NHS, and tackling the climate crisis head-on.
Mandelson not likely to retain Labour whip if he returns to Lords, senior peer suggests
Peter Mandelson is not likely to remain a Labour peer if he returns to the House of Lords, a senior member of the party has predicted.
Lord Foulkes, a former MP and minister who has been a member of the House of Lords for 20 years, made the prediction this morning in an interview with Sky News, where he was responding to a suggestion from Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, that Mandelson should be banned from the Lords.
Harman, who is also a peer, is a presenter on Sky’s Electoral Dysfunction podcast and in a recent episode she said she thought Mandelson should be banned from returning to the Lords. Mandelson took leave of absence from the upper house when he was appointed ambassador to the US, but last week he was sacked from that post for not having disclosed to No 10 the full extent of his friendship with the paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.
Harman told her podcast that she thought there should be some means of excluding Mandelson from returning following his leave of absence. She said:
I think there should be a process, but actually I don’t think he enhances the reputation of the House of Lords.
I think he would damage it. I think he’s got a talent of reinventing himself and reappearing after scandals. But I think this time, that’s got to be it.
Asked to comment on his colleague’s proposal, Foulkes said he did not think it was realistic to remove Mandelson entirely from the Lords. He said a peerage could only be taken away by an act of parliament, and that had not been done since 1917.
But Foulkes said it would be possible to remove the Labour whip from Mandelson. He said that would be a decision for Roy Kennedy, the government chief whip in the Lords. “I think he knows exactly how to deal with it,” Foulkes said.
Asked if he personally favoured Mandelson keeping the Labour whip, Foulkes replied:
If he returns, that’s a matter for Roy Kennedy, who is a very experienced member of the Labour party … He will know how to deal with it and I’m sure he will make the right decision.
Asked again what his personal view was, Foulkes replied:
I would doubt if [Mandelson] would remain a member of the Labour group in the House of Lords.
UK poised to recognise Palestinian statehood, as poll suggest Britons in favour by 44% to 18%
The UK is preparing to recognise the state of Palestine imminently, after Israel failed to meet conditions that would have postponed the historic step, including a ceasefire in Gaza, Patrick Wintour reports.
YouGov has relased polling today suggesting that Britons are in favour of this by more than two to one, although a large minority of people do not have a view.
Health unions tell Streeting they won't take part in pay review body process for 2026/27
Health unions have announced they will not take part in the next pay review body process for 2026/27, PA Media reports. PA says:
The unions are calling on the government to press on with promised direct talks instead to deliver pay awards on time.
The 14 unions representing staff on “agenda for change” contracts within the NHS have written to health secretary Wes Streeting urging him to honour a commitment made last year to tackle the problems in the pay system they say are harming staffing and morale.
Unions say these talks should now be widened to include the headline pay award for 2026, which would need to be decided early next year if it is to be paid on time in April, as ministers have committed to do.
Unions say staff trust and confidence in the current pay process, involving a “time-consuming” pay review body (PRB), has hit rock bottom and a more efficient approach is needed for the coming year.
That means setting aside the PRB process and focusing on talks backed by sufficient investment from ministers to allow a deal to be reached, the unions say.
US and UK to resume talks on possible reductions in tariffs on Scotch whisky
Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor.
The US and UK governments are to resume talks on removing or reducing Donald Trump’s 10% tariff on Scottish whisky next week, after the two sides failed to reach agreement during the US president’s state visit.
A source said the industry has been reassured progress had been made in the discussions, with officials due to focus specifically on the issue, after months of intense lobbying and diplomacy aimed at carving out a specific deal on the £970m trade.
Despite the looming battle between Labour and the Scottish National party over who will win next year’s Holyrood elections, the UK and Scottish governments have been closely coordinating their efforts.
John Swinney, the Scottish first minister and SNP leader, was amongst the guests at the state banquet for Trump at Windsor castle – an appearance which was attacked by critics from within the SNP, and one of Nicola Sturgeon’s former aides.
The SNP MP Chris Law posted and then deleted a post on X claiming that the first minister’s attendance was effectively “conceding that it’s acceptable to support” an Israeli genocide in Gaza – a charge Israel denies, and which Swinney rebuffed.
Swinney confirmed during first minister’s questions on Thursday he had again lobbied Trump at Windsor castle, building on a 50-minute meeting he had with the president at the White House earlier this month, along with then British ambassador Peter Mandelson, where the closely-linked US and UK liquor trade was uppermost.
Swinney told MSPs:
I was making representations on behalf of the industry - I was not negotiating a trade deal; that is the proper responsibility of the United Kingdom government.
[I] will continue to engage in order to ensure that I deliver the type of zero-for-zero arrangement that the United States whiskey industry and the Scotch whisky industry are seeking, because I think that that makes economic sense on both sides of the Atlantic.
“Zero for zero” refers to the fact the UK does not have any tariffs on imports of US whiskey and bourbon and also allows tariff-free entry to the $300m worth of whiskey barrels imported each year from Republican states such as Kentucky and Louisiana to mature Scottish whisky.
Scottish producers have already laid off staff, and halted distilling, because of the impact the 10% tariffs have had on US exports, which has a knock-on effect with US barrel sales and production.
Updated
Trump remains non-committal on UK getting steel trade concessions, saying US 'making lot of money' from tariffs
With Donald Trump now out of the country, there is a debate in the UK about whether all the sucking up and red carpet treatment was actually worth it. Keir Starmer seems to think so. But there were two things that happened after he left UK soil that implied the UK charm offensive might have had less impact that people hoped.
At his press conference at Chequers yesterday Trump did not accept the idea that the US comedian Jimmy Kimmel was having his show cancelled just because he had said something that offended the White House. It was “bad ratings” that explained his sacking, Trump claimed. But, speaking to reporters on Air Force One on his way home, Trump abandoned all qualms about sounding like a dictator and openly declared that networks that cover him negatively should be punished for it.
And, as Trump was flying home, Fox News broadcast an interview with him that was recorded when it was at Chequers. The interviewer, Martha Maccallum, put it to Trump that the trade deal with the UK was “still not finalised”. She was referrring to the fact that the UK is still pushing for concessions on steel and aluminium tariffs.
But Trump pushed back. He said the deal was “a done deal”, although he acccepted that the UK would like to make “adjustments”.
Asked if he was open to that, he replied:
I like ‘em. But we’re making a lot of money [from tariffs].
Trump then implied that he wanted to help. The UK was having “a lot of difficulty”, he said. But he remained non-committal.
Presumably this came as no surprise to Sarah Smith, the BBC’s north America editor. At Chequers, she says she asked Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, if the state visit would have any impact on the UK’s ability to influence US policy on matters like trade. Wiles replied: “None at all. President Trump will always do what is right for America.”
Reform UK receives £100,000 donation from design firm that faced winding-up petition
Nigel Farage’s Reform UK has received a £100,000 donation from a design and architecture firm that faced a winding-up petition from the tax authorities earlier this year, Rowena Mason reports.
Peers resume second reading debate on assisted dying bill
Peers have just their debate on the second reading of the assisted dying bill. There are 75 of them down to speak (the speaking list is here), and there is a live feed here.
The bill has passed the Commons and, while peers take the view that they are entitled to amend Commons legislation, they generally operate on the basis that it is not their job to block passed by elected MPs.
But this is a private member’s bill, not a government bill enacting a manifesto commitment, and some peers think they they have a lot of latitude in terms of how far they can “amend” the legislation that emerged from the Commons.
The Hansard Society has produced an excellent briefing on the current state of play, and what we can expect from the debate today.
I won’t be covering the debate in detail, but I will cover any highlights, and the result of any votes, which should come at about 4pm.
Share your views on the Corbyn/Sultana 'Your Party' split
As Aletha Adu reports, a split has opened between Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana in the formation of their new leftwing party, with the former Labour leader confirming a referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office over an unauthorised membership portal promoted by his co-leader.
Here is Peter Walker’s analysis.
And here is an extract.
It is something of a political cliche that leftwing politicians are prone to splits, and not entirely without truth, even if this does ignore the Conservatives’ recent fondness for toppling leaders and forming themselves into increasingly atomised “tribes”.
But the seemingly irreconcilable split demonstrates that, much like a political right in which Conservatives MPs are defecting to Reform and some Reform MPs are quitting to go solo, the British left is less a coherent force than a semi-allied collection of micro-groups, often with competing interests.
On top of what might be called traditional Corbynism, with its left-tilted economics and populist tendencies, we now have the more explicitly Gaza-focused independents, an increasing threat to Labour fuelled by public disquiet about Israel’s actions.
We would like to hear from Guardian readers about what they think about all this.
British and Irish governments to present new Troubles legacy proposals
The British and Irish governments are to announce a new framework to deal with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s Troubles, in an effort to resolve an issue that has bedevilled politics in the region and relations between London and Dublin, Rory Carroll and Lisa O’Carroll report.
Kyle brushes off Trump’s advice to use military to control UK borders
In an interview with BBC Breakfast, Peter Kyle, the business secretary, was also asked if the government agreed with Donald Trump about involving the military to tackle illegal migration.
Kyle said there was already an option for military involvement (which is true – although not in the way Trump was suggesting). Kyle said:
Well, what he suggested was the military are used, but we have the UK Border Force that is now established and has been reinforced and bolstered and have new powers under this government.
The Navy actually does have a working relationship with the UK Border Force, and the Navy can be called upon if needed.
So we do have the functional relationship that we need between our military and keeping our borders safe and secure but what we really need at the moment is our military focused on all of those really key issues around the world, directly relating to our national defence.
UPDATE: Here is Kiran Stacey’s story on Kyle’s comments.
Updated
Business secretary Peter Kyle dismisses Trump’s claim illegal migration ‘destroys countries from within’
Good morning. Donald Trump has gone, but his voice and his impact haven’t. Although Keir Starmer got through their joint press conference without mishap, the president’s comments at Chequers about illegal migration are being reported this morning very prominently – in part because they resonate with the big chunk of political opinion in the UK inclined to agree.
For Trump, who he seems to judge success almost entirely by how much media attention he can command, this is a triumph.
Peter Kyle, the business secretary, was on the media round for the government this morning and inevitably he was asked about this. No 10 has a minor sliver of good news on small boats this morning – a second person has been returned to France under the “one in, one out” deal.
But interviewers wanted to know what Kyle thought about Trump’s comments. At Chequers the president claimed illegal migration “destroys countries”. Trump said:
I think your situation is very similar. You have people coming in and I told the prime minister I would stop it, and it doesn’t matter if you call out the military, it doesn’t matter what means you use
It destroys countries from within and we’re actually now removing a lot of the people that came into our country.
Asked on ITV’s Good Morning Britain if he agreed with Trump about this, Kyle replied:
No. What I do believe is that illegal migration is something that is impacting our politics here in the UK. It is something that the British public expect this government to get a grip on.
That is why today, when we have the second flight taking off with a migrant who doesn’t have the right to stay here being returned as part of the new returns agreement with France, this is a pilot. This is something we’re trialling.
You can see that we’re pushing the boundaries of the law, but we are straining at the bit to do it. If we have to change the law, we will change the law, as you’ve seen with this government as well.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Peter Kyle, the business secretary, and Liz Kendall, the science secretary, attend an event in London to discuss the “tech prosperity deal” with the US.
Morning: David Lammy, the justice secretary and deputy PM, visits a prison in London.
10am: Peer start the second day of the second reading debate on the assisted dying bill.
2pm: Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, and Simon Harris, the Irish deputy PM, unveil plans for unveil a new framework to deal with the legacy of the NI Troubles in Belfast.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
