This live blog is now closing. Thanks for reading along.
Boris Johnson is facing anger from both sides of the Commons today over the government’s new rail plan and local mayors and council leaders have been stinging in their criticism.
Not so long ago, the Tories were briefing that Boris Johnson was going to be their “delivery man” - the PM who was going to get done the things he promised (Brexit, jabs in arms).
My colleague Jessica Elgot has looked at whether since then the wheels have been coming off the delivery van?
Updated
Afternoon summary
- No 10 has said its downgraded rail plan will bring faster connections a decade earlier, amid fury in northern England and the Midlands over the scrapping of both the eastern leg of the high-speed HS2 and a promised new fast line from Manchester to Leeds. The scaled-back plan has been strongly criticised by Labour mayors and council leaders in the north of England. Andy Burnham, mayor of Greater Manchester, said that this was yet another example of the north being treated as “second best” and that these plans could hold it back for another 100 or 200 years. (See 4.41pm.) He and 29 other northern mayors and council leaders challenged Boris Johnson to allow MPs a free vote on the plans, so that northern Tories who feel their constituents are being betrayed can express their views. But there was relatively little sign of the anticipated “red wall” backlash from these MPs - at least in public. Only a relatively small number of Tories spoke out in the Commons chamber as the plans were announced, and one of the strongest pieces of ‘blue-on-blue’ criticism came from Huw Merriman, who represents Bexhill and Battle in east Sussex. In a reference to Boris Johnson’s excessive boosterism, Merriman, chair of the Commons transport committee, said the fact that the plans did not live up to earlier promises showed “the danger in selling perpetual sunlight”. (See 11.30am.) Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, said the announcement showed Johnson had failed “the first test of levelling up”. (See 1.10pm.) Here is my colleague Gwyn Topham’s account of what is in the plans, and how it compares with to what was promised.
Updated
Here is an analysis of the integrated rail plan by my colleague Helen Pidd, the Guardian’s north of England editor.
And here is an extract explaining why Bradford, where Keir Starmer was visiting today (see 5.30pm), may feel particularly let down.
And what about poor old Bradford, a city of missed opportunity? The fifth largest metropolitan authority in England, it has a growing population of 542,100. A total of 26.3% of the population are aged under 18, compared with 21.4% nationally, making it the youngest city in the UK. Yet no trains run through Bradford. They all stop and turn around again, at one of the two tiny stations.
It is a cul-de-sac of more than half a million people. Currently, the 10-mile journey from Bradford to Leeds takes 20 minutes on the fastest service. But you can travel 38 miles to London from Reading (population: 220,000) in 24 minutes.
Updated
Updated
Here is part of the opening statement at the northern mayors’ press conference earlier from Tracy Brabin, the Labour mayor for West Yorkshire. It is also the start of a thread with extracts from the other opening statements.
Tracy's opening statement on the Integrated Rail Plan 🗣 pic.twitter.com/XVe5CMbrzh
— Tracy Brabin, Mayor of West Yorkshire (@MayorOfWY) November 18, 2021
30 mayors and council leaders from north of England sign joint letter criticising rail plan
As my colleague Helen Pidd reports, 30 mayors and council leaders from the north, including one Conservative, have put their name to a joint letter saying that the rail plan is inadequate, that it could hold back the north, and that MPs should be given a free vote on it.
Letter to Boris Johnson from 30 northern leaders (incl. one Tory, Bolton's Martyn Cox): "Your decision, contrary to your ambition to “level-up” the North, runs the risk of holding back our regional economies & compromising our plans to cut carbon emissions, just days after COP26" pic.twitter.com/9zI9LUrsWC
— Helen Pidd (@helenpidd) November 18, 2021
Updated
Earlier today Boris Johnson said (slightly misleadingly) that he always declared everything in the register “in the normal way”. (See 12.55pm.) But, as Insider’s Henry Dyer points out, he has recently made a new declaration - the use of a suite at Heathrow airport, for three people, worth £1,800, before his recently holiday in Spain. Heathrow airport gave him the freebie.
🚨 Boris Johnson has declared part of the cost of his Marbella trip - an £1,800 stay in Heathrow's VIP Windsor suite before he set off. But still nothing on his use of the Goldsmiths' reportedly £25k-a-week villa.
— Henry Dyer (@Direthoughts) November 18, 2021
Full story: https://t.co/RQpN19i8YJ pic.twitter.com/4RZiTNvJw5
Updated
Burnham says northerners could lose out for next 100 years from PM treating them again as 'second best'
In his opening statement at the news conference Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, condemned the rail plan as a “second best” option. He said:
It is a second-class option, a Championship option when we needed a Premier League option, because you cannot level up the North of England on second best and I’m afraid this is distinctly second best. The truth of the matter is the north of England is fed up with second best.
But in response to a question during the Q&A, he elaborated on this idea in a riff that - almost brilliantly - linked today’s announcement to much deeper and more historic grievances and injustices, presented it as a once-in-a-century turning point (going wrong), and redefined levelling up, against the PM. This is why they call Burnham the king of the north.
Here is the key passage.
We’ve been given a second class plan here. And that’s been the story of our lives. We’ve always had put up with second best as northern people, ourselves and our residents.
And I guess what we’re saying is we’re not having it. Because we were told that we were going to be levelled up, and we were told it was going to be different. And different to me means coming to the front of the queue, and not always being told that the money’s run out and has been spent somewhere else. But that, I’m afraid, is implicit in what’s been announced today.
And this is not politics. This is about the future of the north of England for the next 100 or 200 years. That is the significance of the decisions that are being announced today. And we are not prepared to consign our grandchildren, great grandchildren and beyond to being second class citizens still when it comes to transport in this country.
We have got to fight for better for them and we have to do it together. We have to stand together as one north. If Bradford loses, Leeds loses out, Liverpool loses out and then we lose out as well.
Updated
Burnham says rail plan shows levelling up failing, because north still treated as 'second best'
Burnham says all parts of the north needs better connectivity. He wants better connectivity on Tyneside, so that people living in Manchester can get to Newcastle more quickly to watch United hammer Newcastle.
He says people in the north are used to being treated “second best”. He says they were told levelling up would change that, and that for once they would be at the front of the queue. But it hasn’t happenend
He says people in the north don’t want to see their grandchildren consigned to being second best citizens too.
Burnham and follow Labour mayors challenge PM to give Tory MPs free vote on rail plan
Andy Burnham, the Labour mayor of Greater Manchester, said Manchester benefits more than the other areas represented at this press conference.
He said there were significant benefits in the plan for Greater Manchester.
But he said he wanted the whole of the north to flourish, and he said overall these were “second class” proposals.
He said for just £4bn more the government could have built the entire new line from Manchester to Leeds via Bradford.
And he said Greater Manchester was the only part of the country being asked to contribute to the cost of HS2.
He said he and his fellow Labour mayors were calling for a free vote in parliament on these plans.
He said there were Tory MPs elected in 2019 people people “loaned” the party their vote, and they should have a chance to say whether this plan is good enough for their constituents.
Jamie Driscoll, the Labour mayor of the North of Tyne, said there were only two rail tracks open into the north-east. The priority should have been to re-open an old route. But that did not happen, he said.
He said the argument that this plan would bring benefits sooner was like promising someone a three-course meal, and then giving them a quick bag of crisps instead.
Steve Rotheram, the Labour mayor of Liverpool city region, says today’s plans could have been produced by Gladstone. They do not look to the future, he says.
He says the plans could have been transformation. People were promised Grand Designs, but they got a 60-minute Makeover.
He says, if the north had received the same per capita funding as London, the investment would have been worth £86bn more. He says he is not having a go at London. Londoners deserve decent infrastructure, he says. But he says the north needs proper infrastructure too.
Updated
Metro mayors from the north are holding a press conference now giving their response to the integrated rail plan. There is a live feed here.
📺 LIVE NOW | @MetroMayorSteve is joining Mayors from across the North to respond to today's Integrated Rail Plan.
— Mayor Steve Rotheram (@LCRMayor) November 18, 2021
Watch along here:https://t.co/9jEg8Su3GG
Frost says EU should not mistake his 'reasonable tone' for softening in UK's stance over NI protocol
Lord Frost, the Brexit minister, told peers earlier that Brussels should not interpret his “reasonable tone” in talks on the Northern Ireland protocol with a softening of the UK’s position.
There has been some comment recently on the apparent softening of the UK’s tone. Last week Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commission vice president who represents the EU in Brexit talks with the UK, said the change in tone from Lord Frost had been welcome. EU member states have also noticed a shift, although at least one, Ireland, has questioned whether it is sincere.
During questions in the Lords, asked if he was softening his negotiating stance, Frost replied:
No. We are trying to reach agreement. That has always been our position. I would suggest our friends in the EU don’t interpret the reasonable tone that I usually use in my discussions with them as implying any softening in the substantive position.
Jenny Chapman, his Labour shadow, asked Frost to give his “percentage assessment of success” by Christmas. Frost said:
I think it’s somewhere between zero and a hundred to be honest. I don’t think it helps to put specific numbers on these sort of things.
Updated
At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesman would not comment on a report in the Times (paywall) saying the government was seeking to fly migrants crossing the Channel to Albania for their asylum claims to be processed there. Tom Newton Dunn in the Times says:
Under the plan, arrivals on Britain’s beaches in small boats would be taken to the country within seven days for off-shore processing.
The prospect of a long wait there while claims for asylum in Britain were evaluated will act as a deterrent against making the crossing, it is thought.
The spokesman said he would not comment about speculation about talks with specific countries. But he said that the government was looking at “all options” to stop these crossings and that it was engaged in talks “with both France and other international partners to help reduce illegal migration”.
Olta Xhaçka, the Albanian Europe minister, dismissed the report as “fake news”.
Same old fake news this time in the front page of a respected paper as The Times!
— Olta Xhaçka🇦🇱 (@xhacka_olta) November 18, 2021
And btw I am not a "he" but a "she" who has always admired the quality of British media. Sad. pic.twitter.com/UVcaiGt3N3
Updated
The Labour MP Zarah Sultana refused to withdraw the word “dodgy” three times in the Commons earlier, as she claimed she did not think “another word suffices the level of corruption and what we have seen from the government”, PA Media reports. PA says:
During business questions in the Commons, Sultana, accused transport secretary Grant Shapps and Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg of being “dodgy”.
Sultana said: “It has been reported that the transport secretary used public money to create a departmental team that lobbied against plans to build on airfield sites, including a giga-factory at Coventry airport. Disgracefully, that would mean he used public funds to lobby against green investment and jobs coming to Coventry.
“And why? We know he is an aviation enthusiast. From a dodgy transport secretary to a dodgy leader of the house who last week tried to rewrite the rules to let his mate off the hook. This Conservative government is rotten to the core. Is the leader of the house proud of this shameful record?”
Interjecting, Commons deputy speaker Dame Eleanor Laing told her to think of a different form of words, as she did not like the word “dodgy”.
She said: “She can make clear she disagrees with what has happened. Perhaps she could put it in different words.”
Sultana said she could not think of another word that implied the same level of corruption.
Laing insisted that while “it is absolutely in order to have disagreement here”, we must “moderate our language and be careful of the adjectives that are used about a member by another”.
Sultana again said she could not think of a suitable alternative, but after a further exchange she eventually withdrew her remarks.
Updated
Updated
Here is the graph Sir Andrew Dilnot showed to the Commons Treasury committee this morning to illustrate what share of your assets you might have to spend on care costs under the current system (the red line), what share you might lose under the law that was passed, but never activated, based on the original Dilnot report plan (the blue line), and what share you might lose as a result of the change announced yesterday (the orange line).
It illustrates his point that those with assets worth £106,000 are now at risk of losing the largest share of their wealth. (See 10.30am.)
During this morning's session, Sir Andrew Dilnot shares a graph with the Committee showing the maximum percentage of assets a person would consume, dependent on their individual assets (y-axis - 1=100%).
— Treasury Committee (@CommonsTreasury) November 18, 2021
The graph has been submitted as written evidence and can be viewed here: pic.twitter.com/xiv19bulfp
An earlier post (see 12.20pm) quoted the Conservative MP Craig Tracey as saying he was disappointed HS2 was not being extended in full. In fact he said he was disappointed it was not be scrapped in full. I’m sorry for the error.
'Total rubbish' - Johnson dismisses claim his rail plan is broken promise
In his interview during his Network Rail visit Boris Johnson claimed it was “total rubbish” to say he was breaking promises, and undermining levelling up, with his rail announcement.
Channel 4’s Krishnan Guru-Murthy asked him:
You’ve broken your promises to people here, pledges on Leeds to Manchester. You promised Northern Powerhouse Rail between Leeds and Manchester, and you are talking about speed, not capacity. Do you think the people in the north are stupid?
Johnson told Guru-Murthy he was talking “total rubbish”. He went on: “We’re doubling capacity between Manchester and Leeds.” When Guru-Murthy said capacity was cut compared with the original plans, Johnson ignored this and went on:
We’re trebling capacity between Liverpool and Manchester.
And, of course, there are going to be people who, you know, always want everything at once. And there are lots of people who’ll say, ‘look, what we should do is carve huge new railways through virgin territory, smashing through unspoilt countryside and villages, and do it all at once’.
The problem with that is those extra high-speed lines take decades and they don’t deliver the commuter benefits that I’m talking about. We will eventually do them.
Guru-Murthy then put it the PM that he was “derailing levelling up by cutting your promises”. Again Johnson told him (three times, in this answer) he was talking “total rubbish”. He went on:
This is the biggest investment in rail, at least for 100 years, and it’s a fantastic thing. What it does is it delivers the types of commuter service that people have been expecting, people have got entitled to, in the south-east of the country. And it will deliver that.
And it will deliver better services for places that weren’t on the original plan. Huddersfield, Wakefield, Leicester - all sorts of places will benefit from what we’re doing in ways that hadn’t been foreseen.
In virtually every case you will find that journey times are shorter and capacity is going up. This is a much, much better plan.
Updated
Johnson defends social care cap plan after Dilnot says it's unfair
In his interview during his Network Rail visit Boris Johnson also defended his social care plans in response to criticism from Sir Andrew Dilnot, the economist who first developed plans for a cap on care costs in a report for the coalition government 10 years ago. (See 10.23am and 10.34am.) When it was put to him that people in the north of England would lose out, Johnson replied:
No. This is a massive improvement for everybody in the whole country because what we’re saying is for the first time in history we’re stopping people having to pay unlimited quantities for their care.
We’re restricting the amount you can possibly pay to a fixed limit and the state comes in and helps you, the state comes in and helps you as soon as you have assets of £100,000 or less. And that’s never been done before.
In fact, Dilnot’s point was not that people in the north might lose out but that they would lose out proportionally to richer people, who will benefit most. Dilnot told the Commons Treasury committee this morning:
On the whole, this [the operation of the price cap] will tend to hit less well-off people obviously harder. It will tend to hit people in regions of the country with lower house prices harder than it does those in regions with higher house prices, so there is a sort of north-south axis to this that people living in northern and other less high house price areas are likely to be hit harder by this on average.
Updated
Starmer says rail plan shows government has failed 'first test of levelling up'
Keir Starmer has said the north of England has been betrayed by the prime minister’s plans for rail. In an interview for broadcasters, he said Boris Johnson had broken his promise to extend HS2 all the way to Leeds, and to build a new line between Manchester and Leeds. He went on:
This was the first test of levelling up and the government has completely failed and let down everybody in the north. You can’t believe a word the prime minister says.
When it was put to him that the government says this is the biggest investment ever in rail, and that it will benefit passengers more quickly than the original HS2 plan, Starmer replied:
You don’t have to drill down very long into that £96bn to realise that most of that, or a good deal of that, is money already spent or the bit of the line that comes up to the Midlands. So that argument doesn’t hold water.
And as for the improved speed of [journey times], of course that’s a good thing. But if you don’t have a new line, you don’t sort out capacity. And that is the biggest problem that we’ve got across the north.
So, that is, I’m afraid just the tactics of trying to ensure that the focus isn’t on what’s really happened here, which is the breaking of two very, very important pledges. If you can’t level up in Bradford, then the whole levelling up agenda is seen for what it really is, which is just a slogan.
Updated
Johnson claims he always declares everything 'in the normal way'
In an interview during his Network Rail visit, Boris Johnson was also asked if he would give up free holidays and declare his interests in the proper way in the light of the new Commons focus on standards. He replied:
I always declare everything in the normal way. I was very glad to see the House of Commons approving yesterday a cross-party approach and I think that’s what we need to do.
Actually, that is not true. Johnson has been repeatedly criticised by the Commons standards committee over the way he declares interests. In 2019 a report said that making late declarations had become “a pattern of behaviour” for Johnson and that displayed “an over-casual attitude towards obeying the rules of the house”. And a report this year said it was “unsatisfactory” that Johnson took so long to respond to questions about his holiday in Mustique, and how it was declared in the register.
Updated
Johnson refuses to comment on groping claims about his father
Boris Johnson has declined to say whether his father, Stanley Johnson, will be investigated by the Conservative party after two women made allegations of inappropriate touching. Interviewed during a visit to a Network Rail logistics hub near Selby, North Yorkshire, Johnson said:
First of all, it’s absolutely right that everybody, women in particular, should be able, have the confidence, to come forward and make complaints.
I’m obviously not going to comment on individual cases.
Johnson also declined to say whether he had spoken to his father about the allegations.
Updated
Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, is not holding back. She is calling Boris Johnson “a liar, a fraud and a con artist”.
Time and time again @BorisJohnson has promised us Northern Powerhouse Rail. It has been announced more than 60 times in government press releases.
— Angela Rayner (@AngelaRayner) November 18, 2021
So when I call him a liar, a fraud and a con artist all I’m doing is telling the truth. Ask him why he breaks his promises so much?
Bob Seely, the Conservative MP for the Isle of Wight, says the HS2 debacle is “more of a turkey mixed with a white elephant”. He says it should provide as lesson as to why a “vanity project”, albeit one that started under Labour, should never be allowed to gather a head of steam.
The statement is now over.
Although Grant Shapps faced some criticism from some northern Tory MPs, the backlash was more muted than it might have been.
Craig Tracey, the Conservative MP for North Warwickshire, says it is “very disappointing” to hear that HS2 is not scrapped in full. He says his constituency is one of those most affected by phase one of HS2, but it is not seeing any benefits.
UPDATE: Earlier this post reported Tracey as saying he was disappointed that HS2 was not being extended in full. In fact, he said he was disappointed it was not being scrapped in full. I’m sorry for the mistake, which is now corrected in the paragraph above.
Updated
Labour’s Chi Onwurah says levelling up depends on rail. But this is a “watered down, broken promise plan”. She says that, at the next election, every Tory candidate will be saying to voters: “We did you over last time. Please let us do you over again.”
Shapps does not agree. He says with reduced journey times, more capacity and increased reliability, Tory candidates will have plenty of positive things to tell voters.
Ian Mearns, Labour MP for Gateshead, says Boris Johnson previously told him nine months ago that HS2 would be built to Leeds. He says it now looks as though HS2 was affordable for the south, but not for the north.
Updated
Back in the Commons Kevin Hollinrake, the Conservative MP for Thirsk and Malton, says under the original plans the Bradford to Manchester journey would have taken 20 minutes. Now it is more like 45. He says there will be “an economic price paid for generations” as a result of the decision announced today.
Shapps does not accept that. People in Bradford will benefit from shorter journey times, he says.
Updated
Johnson defends HS2 U-turn, saying 'levelling up cannot wait that long'
In his introduction to the integrated rail plan document (pdf), Boris Johnson credits Lee Anderson, the Tory MP for Ashfield, with helping to alter his thinking on the rail project. He says:
In my discussions on HS2 last year, I was struck by what one of my parliamentary colleagues, Lee Anderson MP, told me: that his constituents in Ashfield would have to watch the high speed trains go through at 200mph without stopping when what they really wanted was a decent bus service to the next town.
Johnson explains why he thinks the original HS2 plans were flawed.
As Doug Oakervee, the reviewer of HS2, found, the previous plans were designed largely in isolation from the rest of the transport network. They would have spent billions of pounds on a new rail link to the East Midlands that didn’t directly serve any of the region’s three main cities. [Transport for the North’s] preferred option for Northern Powerhouse Rail would also have seen us spend billions upgrading the conventional line between Leeds and Manchester – and then tens of billions more, straight afterwards, building a second line between the same two places.
Under those plans, many places on the existing main lines, such as Doncaster, Huddersfield, Wakefield and Leicester, would have seen little improvement or a worsening in their services. The fastest services to the East Midlands would have been concentrated on a parkway stop. Losing the convenience of city-centre stations, good connections to existing local public transport networks, and proximity to thousands of shops and businesses. There was nothing directly for wider improvements to local transport.
He says Covid has been a factor too. “Covid-19 has altered some of the assumptions on which these schemes were designed,” he says.
And he defends his decision to go back on his original promises.
Some have demanded that we rigidly stick to the old plans, however long they take, however much they cost and whoever they leave behind. Some have pre-emptively denounced any departure from those plans as a betrayal of levelling-up. But those who say these things are, in effect, condemning the North and the East Midlands to get nothing for ten years or more. Levelling up cannot wait that long.
Government publishes Integrated Rail Plan for North and Midlands
Here is the Department for Transport’s news release about the plans.
And here is the full text (pdf) of the Integrated Rail Plan for North and the Midlands.
Updated
HS2 rail leg to Leeds scrapped, Grant Shapps confirms
Here is the story from my colleague Gwyn Topham, the Guardian’s transport correspondent, on the Shapps announcement.
Robbie Moore, the Tory MP for Keighly, says he is “deeply disappointed” by today’s announcement. He says the Bradford district has been “completely shortchanged”.
The Bradford district has been, in my view, completely short-changed. We are one of the most socially-deprived parts of the UK and we must get better transport connectivity, and I still want to see Northern Powerhouse Rail delivered with a main stop in Bradford, so that we can unlock our economic opportunities.
Shapps says these plans will cut 12 minutes from the journey time between Bradford and Leeds. And they will cut 30 minutes from the journey time between Bradford and London. He says, under the original plan, Bradford would have had to wait until 2043 to benefit. He says Moore might not be an MP by then.
Updated
Tory transport committee chair says scaled-back rail plan shows 'danger in selling perpetual sunlight'
Huw Merriman (Con), the chair of the transport committee, says there are some “fantastic projects” in this plan. But he says the way the fact that it does not match what was originally promised highlights “the danger in selling perpetual sunlight and then leaving it for others to explain the arrival of moonlight”.
This sounds like a clear reference to Boris Johnson’s perennial boosterism.
UPDATE: Here is the full quote from Merriman.
The prime minister promised that HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail was not an either/or option and those in Leeds and Bradford may be forgiven for viewing it today as neither.
This is the danger in selling perpetual sunlight and leaving the others to explain the arrival of moonlight.
Because on a standalone basis, this plan compromises some fantastic projects that will slash journey times and better connect our great northern cities, and for that the transport team deserves much credit.
Updated
Shapps is responding to McMahon.
He says Labour is ignoring the fact that the government is spending £96bn. It is the single biggest investement ever.
And he says that Labour’s leader, Keir Starmer, used to say he was opposed to HS2. Yet now Labour is complaining about it being scaled back.
(Starmer is MP for Holborn and St Pancras, where HS2 is unpopular with many residents.)
Labour brands rail plan as 'betrayal of promises' to the north and a 'great train robbery'
Jim McMahon, the shadow transport secretary, is responding to Shapps. He says he is amazed that Shapps says he is proud of this announcement. He says it is a “betrayal of trust ... betrayal of promises [and] betrayal of investment”.
He says the government has abandoned plans to build HS2 to Leeds, and abandoned plans to build Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR). He goes on:
He hasn’t just forgotten us; he has completely sold us out.
McMahon says people in Manchester will not accept the government’s claim that NPR is being implemented. He says in the north they “know what it means”.
These plans amount to a “great train robbery”.
Shapps says today’s plan is not just about infrastructure.
He says the government is spending £360m on reforming fares. This will include plans for contactless ticketing at 700 urban stations, including 400 in the north.
Grant Shapps' statement to MPs on integrated rail plan
Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, is making his Commons statement about the integrated rail plan.
Confirming that the eastern leg of HS2 will not be built to Leeds, he says a rethink was necessary because the original plans would take decades to deliver.
He says the government is today announcing plans for three new high-speed rail routes: from Crewe to Manchester; from Birmingham to the east Midlands; and fromWarrington to Manchester to western border of Yorkshire.
No 10’s plan for tackling MPs’ second jobs has been dismissed as “for the birds” and “not very well thought through” by Chris Bryant, the chair of the cross-party standards committee looking into the issue. My colleague Aubrey Allegretti has the story here.
Dilnot says he is confident Treasury will need to spend more on social care every year than planned
Back at the Treasury committee, Dilnot says he does not think the settlement for social care in the spending review is “robust”. He says he is “absolutely confident” that the Treasury will have to allocate more for social care in every year of the spending review period.
Dorries denies rebuking BBC's Kuenssberg over reporting anti-PM comment
In culture questions in the Commons this morning Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, denied that a tweet she sent last night amounted to a rebuke to Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC’s political editor.
Dorries said that a tweet from Kuenssberg reporting an unnamed Tory MP saying Boris Johnson looked “weak” when he addressed the Conservative 1922 Committee last night was “ridiculous”. The tweet has since been deleted, but the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire has a screengrab.
Bullying the BNC and @bbclaurak for fair reporting?
— Kevin Maguire (@Kevin_Maguire) November 17, 2021
Culture Secretary @NadineDorries deleted this Tweet but must be held accountable for it. pic.twitter.com/AsOHiHg2Fc
The Labour MP Rosie Duffield said:
We have spent much of the past two weeks talking about standards in public office and on this side of the House we care deeply about the independence and the impartiality of the BBC.
I know the secretary of state also cares to the extent that she actually has the time to police the BBC’s political editor’s tweets and publicly rebuke her.
In response Dorries said:
I did not rebuke Laura Kuenssberg, somebody who is maybe ... the best in the business actually, very professional, very polite tweet.
The tweet was completely misinterpreted. I was not rebuking Laura Kuenssberg and never would.
Dorries was a vocal critic of the BBC before she became a minister, and her surprise appointment as culture secretary in the autumn has caused some alarm at the corporation. It was reported last night that she has told people in private that a Today programme interview, in which Nick Robinson bluntly told Boris Johnson to “stop talking” because he was not addressing Robinson’s question, would “cost the BBC a lot of money”.
Dilnot says move to 'national risk pool' very welcome - even though scheme not as progressive as he wanted
Dilnot says, overall, there are still aspects of the government’s plans he welcomes.
In general they take us to a “much better place”, he says. Under the current system people are exposed to “catastrophic costs”. That is no longer the case, he suggests.
He says he has a “very strong positive feeling” about the fac that the government is moving to a “national risk pool” for social care.
But he regrets the announcement yesterday, because it removes “a central element of progressivity” that was in his original plan, he says.
Dilnot says up to 40% of people needing social care will gain little from government's plans
Dilnot says that 60% of people needing social care have assets worth less than £186,000.
And 30 to 40% of people needing social care have assets worth less than £106,000.
He says there is a north-south axis to this.
On the whole, this will tend to hit less well-off people obviously harder. It will tend to hit people in regions of the country with lower house prices harder than it does those in regions with higher house prices, so there is a sort of north-south axis to this that people living in northern and other less high house price areas are likely to be hit harder by this on average.
Updated
Q: What is the optimal benefit you need to have to get most from this system?
Dilnot says for people with assets worth more than £186,000, the rule announced yesterday makes no difference.
He says people with assets worth £106,000 would lose most.
He holds up a graph to illustrate the distributional impact.
For people with assets of £106,000 or less, the government’s system will be much the same as the current system. The only difference is that you might have to run down your asssets to the last £20,000, not to the last £14,000.
Updated
Less well-off 'will not gain any benefit' from government's cap on social care costs, Dilnot tells MPs
Dilnot is now turning to the measure announced yesterday, saying that the £86,000 cap on the amount people will have to contribute themselves will not include means-tested support given.
He says he is “very disappointed” by this measure.
It means “the less well-off will not gain any benefit from the cap”, he says.
The people who are most harshly affected by this change will be people with asssets of exactly £106,000.
Dilnot says the £100,000 limit in the government’s plans - the threshold beyond which people do not get help with care costs - is less generous in real terms than what he was proposing 10 years ago.
Andrew Dilnot gives evidence to Commons Treasury committee on social care cap
Sir Andrew Dilnot is giving evidence now to the Commons Treasury committee about the government’s plans for a social care cap.
Q: How do the plans match up with what you proposed in 2011? And what do you make of the announcement yesterday?
Dilnot says there are five or six areas where what the government is doing is different from what he proposed.
First, he says, in 2011 he recommended that people who entered working age with a social care need should have not to make a contribution to care.
He says they recommended that the cap should be zero until someone reached 45, and that it should then go up.
That was because it is reasonable to expect someone with normal needs to save during their working life for care. But it is not reasonable to expect someone with care needs all their life to do that.
The government’s proposals do not do this, and so they are less generous, he says.
He says roughly half of social care spending goes on people of working age - ie, not pensioners.
The Commons authorities have issued their revised timetable for this morning. At 10.30am there will be an urgent question on the Northern Ireland protocol. Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, will announce the integrated rail plan at around 11.15pm. And Jacob Rees-Mogg, the leader of the Commons, will deliver the statement on next week’s Commons business after that is over, after 12pm.
Lord Frost, the Brexit minister, is also taking questions in the Lords today, from about 11.30am.
Updated
In an article for the Yorkshire Post Boris Johnson has defended his decision to scrap the plan to build the eastern leg of HS2. He says it would have taken too long, and that under his alternative plan Yorkshire will benefit much more quickly. He says:
High-speed rail is grindingly slow to build. Under the original blueprint, first drawn up more than a decade ago, Yorkshire would have not have seen the benefits of our investment until at least the 2040s. Levelling up can’t wait that long. And towns like Wakefield, Doncaster, Dewsbury and Huddersfield would have suffered as trains were taken off the existing main lines.
So rather than just waiting for another two decades for a scheme that snubs much of Yorkshire, we will do more, and sooner.
The travel time between Leeds and Manchester will be almost identical to what was promised under the old plans, but you’ll see trains leaving platforms far sooner.
By the early 2030s, the journey from Leeds to Bradford will be cut almost in half, with trains hurtling between the two cities in as little as 12 minutes. London will be 20 minutes closer to Leeds, Wakefield and Doncaster on an upgraded East Coast Main Line. The Trans-Pennine Main Line will be electrified and expanded. So will the Midland Main Line.
Lord O’Neill, the former Goldman Sachs economist who was a Treasury minister in the David Cameron government, primarily dealing with the Northern Powerhouse, and who is now vice chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership, told Times Radio this morning that the government’s decision not go ahead with the eastern leg of HS2 in full, all the way to Leeds, did not make sense. He said:
It seems like a strange political and economic risk-reward calculation here because from what the team at the Powerhouse Partnership have figured out, all of this on that part of it would only save less than £4bn out of what was previously £39bn.
So, 10% saving to disappoint millions of people around the north and, crucially, people in redwall seats and their MPs.
These are from Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons standards committee.
Just to be very clear: the House did not vote to change the rules on second jobs last night. The code of conduct has not changed. The Committee on Standards will produce a report on every aspect of the code of conduct, including second jobs, very soon.
— Chris Bryant (@RhonddaBryant) November 18, 2021
We will consult on our proposals before bringing out firm recommendations for a revised code of conduct which can be debated and voted on, as a whole, by the House when the government allows time.
— Chris Bryant (@RhonddaBryant) November 18, 2021
Raab suggests 'reasonable limits' rule for MPs' second jobs could include cap on earnings
Under the government plan to reform the code of conduct for MPs, MPs would only be allowed to do second jobs “within reasonable limits”. In an interview with the Today programme, Dominic Raab, the deputy PM and justice secretary, was asked how this would be defined. He replied:
You could do it in one of two ways . You could do it by the amount earned. Or you could do it by the number of hours. We’ve asked the committee on standards to work up with the detail by January.
The BBC’s Adam Fleming points out that this is a shift from the line earlier in the week, when the government argued that the “reasonable limits” rule (which was originally proposed by the Committee on Standards in Public Life) was just about time spent on a second job, not the amount earned. Some MPs earn very large sums of money for jobs that take up only a small amount of their time.
Interesting that Dominic Raab is saying that the amount MP's earn from outside interests could be a measure of whether its appropriate or not. Yesterday it was all about hours....
— Adam Fleming (@adamfleming) November 18, 2021
Updated
Raab claims ‘late-ish’ debate explains why dozens of Tories failed to back Johnson in vote on standards reform
Good morning. Last night, as expected, MPs voted down the Labour motion setting a timetable for reform of the Commons standards rules and instead voted for the government amendment, which is weaker in the sense that it is non-binding. Only four Conservative MPs voted for the Labour version (Peter Bone, Philip Hollobone, Nigel Mills and Dan Poulter). But another 74 of them did not vote at all. We don’t know how many of them were authorised not to vote. But only 24 Labour MPs did not vote, suggesting that most of the Tories were not paired and that most of them were deliberately abstaining.
It is not the first time a large chunk of the Conservative parliamentary party has refused to back the government in a sleaze vote. In the original vote on the Owen Paterson report, 97 Tories did not vote, and another 13 voted with the opposition.
Dominic Raab, the deputy prime minister and justice secretary, was on microphone duty for the government this morning. Asked to explain why so many Conservative MPs refused to back the government, Raab claimed it was a “late-ish vote”. He told Sky News:
It was a late-ish vote, I think around seven o’clock, a bit later than that. But I can’t account for every member of parliament on either side.
In fact, 7pm is normally when votes are held on a Wednesday.
I will post more from Raab’s interviews soon. And then later today we’ve got two quite different issues coming up. The government will face accusations of betrayal when it publishes its scaled-back plans for Northern Powerhouse Rail. My colleague Gwyn Topham has the latest here.
And the Treasury committee will be taking evidence on claims that the government’s plans for a social care cap are unfair on poorer families. My colleague Robert Booth has the story here.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: Sir Andrew Dilnot, the economist who 10 years ago drew up the original plans for a cap on who much people should have to pay for social care costs, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the government’s latest version of this plan.
Around 11.30am: Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, makes a statement to MPs about the integrated rail plan.
11.30am: Downing Street holds its lobby briefing.
12pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions in the Scottish parliament.
Also, Boris Johnson is doing rail-related visits today, and will be speaking to the media.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is 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 questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com
Updated
