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

May wins first 5 votes on EU withdrawal bill in committee despite Tory backlash over fixing Brexit date – as it happened

The Houses of Parliament.
The Houses of Parliament. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo

Evening summary

  • Several Tory MPs have expressed strong opposition to a government plan to insert an amendment into the EU withdrawal bill saying Brexit will definitely happen at 11pm on 29 March 2019. Anna Soubry said this morning some backbenchers were so angry about this that they were considering voting against the government for the first time. (See 10.18am.) In the debate Ken Clarke, the former chancellor, described the amendment as “utterly foolish” and “silly” on the grounds that it would stop the UK from extending talks with the EU if that was agreed by other European governments. He said:

It is quite unnecessary to actually close down our options as severely as we are with this amendment when we don’t know yet [what will happen in the Brexit talks], when it is perfectly possible that there is a mutually beneficial, European and British, need to keep the negotiations going for a time longer to get them settled.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, made the same point. (See 5.48pm.) He said:

I have to say I find this amendment by the government so very strange, because it seems to me to fetter the government, to add nothing to the strength of the government’s negotiating position, and in fact potentially to create a very great problem that could be brought back to visit on us at a later stage.

Geoffrey Cox, Tory MP for Torridge and West Devon, said of setting a fixed Brexit day:

Let us suppose our own negotiators wish an extension, it is curtailing the flexibility and room for manoeuvre of our own negotiators.

And the former minister Jonathan Djanogly said he was unsure about why an exit date should be fixed, noting this would also fix the date of the transition agreement. He said:

I can only see downsides in terms of the government losing control of one of the levers it could use to control the negotiations.

  • Ministers have won the first five committee stage votes on the bill quite comfortably. Even with all the main the opposition parties joining forces to vote against it, the government won with majorities of around 20.
  • Dominic Raab, the justice minister, has announced the government will amend the bill so that it forces ministers introducing new Brexit-related laws to show that they are compatible with the Equalities Act. (See 9.15pm.)
  • Sir Oliver Letwin, the former Conservative Cabinet Office minister, has described the part of the bill dealing with retained EU law as a “frightful mess”. If it were not changed, it would be “massacred” in the House of Lords, he said. (See 10.27pm.)
  • Leave and remain supporting Conservative MPs have criticised the Daily Telegraph for describing Tories critical of the bill as “Brexit mutineers”. (See 10.57pm.) Even Steve Baker, a strongly pro-Brexit minister in the department for exiting the EU, said he did not approve of the Telegraph’s attempt to divide his party. (See 11.29pm.)

That’s all from me.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

The final vote was that clause 6 stand part. That went through by acclamation, meaning there was no need for a division.

And that’s it. Day one of the committee stage is over. Only seven more to go.

I’ll post a summary soon.

MPs vote down Labour amendment covering transition by majority of 21

The Labour amendment has been defeated by 316 votes to 295 votes - a majority of 21.

Brexit minister Steve Baker criticises Telegraph for denouncing Tories fighting EU withdrawal bill

Steve Baker, a Brexit minister and, until he joined the government, chair of the European Research Group, the Tory caucus for MPs pushing for a hard (or, as they prefer to call it, “clean”) Brexit, has also criticised the Telegraph splash. He posted this on Twitter.

Updated

MPs are now voting on a Labour amendment, amendment 278. It would prevent Brexit happening before a transition period was over.

MPs vote down SNP amendment on ECJ law by majority of 20

MPs have voted down the SNP amendment saying courts should take account of relevant European court of justice decisions after Brexit (see 11.07pm) by 316 votes to 296 - a majority of 20. The voting figures are exactly the same as they were in the vote 15 minutes ago.

Here is Labour’s Ben Bradshaw on the Tory “mutineers”.

MPs are now voting on an SNP amendment, amendment 137. It says that “when interpreting retained EU law after exit day a court or tribunal shall pay due regard to any relevant decision of the European court.”

MPs vote down amendment from Labour's Chris Leslie covering transition by majority of 20

MPs have voted down Chris Leslie’s amendment by 316 votes to 296 - a majority of 20.

I’m not sure Anna Soubry has got her line straight. A few minutes ago she accused the Telegraph of a “blatant piece of bullying”. (See 10.42pm.) Now she is joking about their reporting. She has posted this on Twitter.

Updated

The Conservative MP Anna Soubry has now tweeted about the Telegraph splash.

And Nicky Morgan, another “Brexit mutineer” in Telegraph eyes, has posted this response.

MPs are now voting on Chris Leslie’s amendment. (See 7.28pm.)

The Labour MP Chris Leslie is now winding up. He says it was revealing that government ministers could not answer Wes Streeting’s question (see 10.35pm), or confirm that that ECJ rulings will continue to apply during the transition.

Dominic Raab, the justice minister, intervenes. He reads out what he said earlier. As the prime minister said, the government does want early agreement on an implementation period, he says. He says that may mean the UK starting off with the ECJ governing some rules.

He puts his amendment, NC14, to a vote.

My colleague Anushka Asthana points out that, if the Telegraph really wanted to depict the pro-European Tories as sinister mutineers, the picture editors didn’t do a very good job. Commenting on the Allie Hodgkins-Brown tweet (see 10.32pm), she says:

Anna Soubry accuses Telegraph of 'blatant piece of bullying' with Tory 'mutineers' splash

Streeting refers to the Telegraph splash. (See 10.32pm.) He says the MPs identified by the Telegraph want to implement what Theresa May proposed in her Florence speech, which was that the UK should continue to comply with ECJ rulings during the transition. It is government ministers who are unable to say that who are the true mutineers, he says.

The Conservative MP Anna Soubry intervenes. Referring to the Telegraph headline, she says it is a “blatant piece of bullying”. But she says she is not personally bothered. She takes being named by the Telegraph as a mutineer as “a badge of honour”, she says.

In the debate the Labour MP Wes Streeting is asking if the UK will still be under the jurisdiction of the European court of justice during the EU transition.

Dominic Raab, the justice minister, says he dealt with that in his speech and will not repeat what he said. Streeting can read it in Hansard, he says.

The pro-European Conservative Ken Clarke says he heard Raab’s speech. Clarke says he did not hear Raab answer this point directly.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, intervenes. He says if the UK is under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, the UK won’t be out of the EU.

Tomorrow’s Daily Telegraph is splashing on the Conservative party EU withdrawal bill revolt.

Letwin says part of bill dealing with retained EU law is 'frightful mess'

Sir Oliver Letwin, the Conservative former Cabinet Office minister, says clause 6 of the bill is a “frightful mess”. He says he will vote with the government tonight. But the government needs to fix this, he says, otherwise the bill will get massacred in the House of Lords, particularly by the lawyers there.

It pains me to say this, but I think what several of us have been trying to say, put in very brief, is that clause six as it stands is a frightful mess.

Of course I shall be voting with the government tonight, but I very much hope after this debate - as did not happen after second reading - that the government will go away and think about clause six.

If it doesn’t what will happen is it will get massacred in the House of Lords - quite rightly - not least by former law lords, and once it has been it’ll be very difficult for those of us who know it’s a mess at the moment to support and attempt to overrule the House of Lords.

I do beg the frontbench to take seriously the problem we’re trying to expose here.

This Commons library briefing note (pdf) explains clause 6 in detail. Here is an extract.

This section examines clause 6 of the EUW bill, which provides instructions to domestic courts on the relevance of judgments of the CJEU when interpreting retained EU law after exit day. Clause 6 expressly provides that domestic courts must refer to CJEU judgments given pre-exit, which form part of retained EU case law, and that the courts can refer to post-exit CJEU judgments when they consider it appropriate to do so.

Letwin argues that different aspects of the clause are contradictory. Clause 6 (3) (a) says after Brexit courts will have to act in accordance with “any retained general principles of EU law”. But clause 6 (4) (a) says the supreme court is “not bound by any retained EU case law”.

Oliver Letwin.
Oliver Letwin. Photograph: BBC

Updated

The Conservative MP Maria Miller is speaking now. She welcomes the concession made by Dominic Raab earlier about getting ministers to show that new Brexit laws are compatible with the Equalities Act. (See 9.15am.) She thanks Raab for looking at this in detail.

The Brexit Central website has posted a list of the 70 MPs who opposed repealing the European Communities Act this evening. See 7.23pm. There were 68 voting against and two tellers. Jonathan Isaby, the Brexit Central editor, say they are “arguably the most anti-Brexit MPs”.

The Conservative MP Bob Neill is speaking now. He says he approaches the bill in the same spirit as Dominic Grieve. (See 5.48pm.) But, however much we might be harming ourselves through Brexit, it is important to implement it in a way that provides clarity. And that applies to legal clarity too, he says.

In the comments TheSaint1884 asked for a link to the Commons site where you can read the voting lists from tonight’s divisions.

It’s here.

Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary and career-long Eurosceptic, is speaking now. He says he wants to know at what point after Brexit UK law will start to diverge from European court of justice law.

He says the single most important thing for voters was voting to take back control of laws. That is what this aspect of the bill matters so much, he says.

Raab says new amendment will force ministers to show Brexit laws compatible with Equalities Act

This is what Dominic Raab, the justice minister, said earlier about the new amendment the government intends to introduce to ensure that people in the UK do not lose rights when EU law is incorporated into UK law. (See 8.10pm.) He was responding to an intervention from Maria Miller, the Conservative MP who chairs the women and equalities committee.

Raab said he accepted this was an important issue. He said he had looked carefully at a report on this from Miller’s committee. He went on:

Today I can give her reassurance and tell the House we have now commissioned work to be done on an amendment that the government will table before report stage. It will require ministers to make a statement before the House in the presentation of any Brexit-related primary or secondary legislation on whether and how it is consistent with the Equalities Act. I hope that gives [Miller] the reassurance she needs that the government is serious about addressing the very legitimate point that she has raised.

Later Miller welcomed this on Twitter.

Here is the committee report Miller is referring to, and here is the recommendation that Raab has just accepted. It says:

The government should give strong consideration to bringing forward an amendment to the Equality Act 2010 to mirror provisions in the Human Rights Act 1998. The purpose of that amendment would be to set out that public authorities must not act in a way that contravenes the Equality Act unless required to do so by another Act of Parliament; that ministers, when presenting any bill, must make a declaration of compatibility with the Act; that interpretation of legislation by the courts must take account of the Act and be read as far as possible to comply with its provisions; and that, if any legislation is incompatible with the Act, a declaration of incompatibility should be made by the court.

Raab is now addressing the Gillan amendment directly. (See 7.56am.) He says it would introduce more uncertainty, because by saying anything that happened before Brexit day could be legislated for under European court of justice principles, it would mean the courts would not know for how long ECJ principles would apply. But he accepts that Gillan is raising this because of a case affecting a constituent. He says he hopes she will accept that ministers are taking her concerns seriously and withdraw her amendment.

Raab’s speech long ago departed the mainstream and wandered into heavy-duty legalese. This is from the BBC’s Vicki Young, who probably speaks for many of us.

Raab is still speaking in the debate. Cheryl Gillan intervenes to ask if he accepts that people with enforceable rights (she is making the Francovich point - see 7.56pm) are entitled to have certainty about them being honoured. Raab replies by saying people are also entitled to certainty about Brexit being enacted.

This is from the journalist Steve Richards.

19 Labour MPs who voted against repealing European Communities Act

Labour MPs were expected to abstain in the second vote, on whether or not to keep clause 1, repealing the European Communities Act 1972. But 19 Labour MPs chose to vote against. Here they are.

Rushanara Ali (Labour - Bethnal Green and Bow)

Ben Bradshaw (Labour - Exeter)

Ruth Cadbury (Labour - Brentford and Isleworth)

Ann Clwyd (Labour - Cynon Valley)

Ann Coffey (Labour - Stockport)

Neil Coyle (Labour - Bermondsey and Old Southwark)

Mary Creagh (Labour - Wakefield)

Geraint Davies (Labour (Co-op) - Swansea West)

Louise Ellman (Labour (Co-op) - Liverpool, Riverside)

Mike Gapes (Labour (Co-op) - Ilford South)

Helen Hayes (Labour - Dulwich and West Norwood)

Rupa Huq (Labour - Ealing Central and Acton)

Darren Jones (Labour - Bristol North West)

David Lammy (Labour - Tottenham)

Chris Leslie (Labour (Co-op) - Nottingham East)

Pat McFadden (Labour - Wolverhampton South East)

Catherine McKinnell (Labour - Newcastle upon Tyne North)

Albert Owen (Labour - Ynys Môn)

Tulip Siddiq (Labour - Hampstead and Kilburn)

How MPs voted in first two votes

The Commons authorities have published the division lists for the first two votes.

The first vote saw the government defeat an attempt to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland a veto over Brexit (see 7.07pm). Here is the breakdown of MPs voting with the government.

Conservative: 304

DUP: 10

Labour: 3 (Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Graham Stringer)

Independent: Charlie Elphicke and Anne Marie Morris (Tories MPs who have had the whip suspended.

And here is the breakdown of MPs voting against the government.

SNP: 33

Lib Dems: 12

Plaid Cymru: 4

Labour: 1 (Albert Owen)

Green: 1 (Caroline Lucas)

Independent: 1 (Lady Hermon)

And the second vote saw MPs vote to confirm the repeal of the European Communities Act. (See 7.23pm.) Here is the breakdown of MPs voting with the government in favour.

Conservative: 303

DUP: 10

Labour: 3 (Frank Field, Kate Hoey and Graham Stringer)

Independent: Charlie Elphicke and Anne Marie Morris (Tories MPs who have had the whip suspended.

And here is the breakdown of MPs voting against.

SNP: 34

Labour: 19

Lib Dems: 9

Plaid Cymru: 4

Green: 1 (Caroline Lucas)

Independent: 1 (Lady Hermon)

Dominic Raab, a justice minister, is speaking now.

Responding to an intervention from the Conservative MP Maria Miller, he says the government is working on an amendment that it will table before report stage. It will require ministers implementing legislation, primary or secondary, relating to Brexit to make a statement saying how it is consistent with the Equalities Act. He hopes that will satisfy her concerns.

UPDATE: Earlier this post wrongly said Raab was making this point in response to Cheryl Gillan, not to Maria Millar. I’ve amended the paragraph above. See 9.15pm for details.

Updated

Paul Blomfield, the shadow Brexit minister, is speaking now. He is defending the official Labour party amendments that have been grouped in this set of amendments.

One amendment, 306, would encourage British courts to match European court of justice standards in terms of employment, equality and health and safety rights after Brexit.

Another, amendment 278, would require the government to agree a transition period.

The Conservative MP Cheryl Gillan is speaking now. She is talking about the way the EU withdrawal bill stops the charter of fundamental rights applying in the UK after Brexit. She is referring Francovich damages. According to the House of Commons library’s 120-page briefing paper on the bill (pdf), the bill says there will “no right in domestic law on or after exit day to damages in accordance with the rule in Francovich.”

The briefing note helpfully explains what Francovich damages are.

The court of justice of the EU (CJEU) allows individuals, under certain conditions, the possibility of obtaining compensation for directives whose transposition is poor, delayed or non-existent.

In the Francovich case in 1991104 the CJEU (then the ECJ) held that the Italian government had breached its EU obligations by not implementing the insolvency directive on time, and was liable to compensate the workers’ loss resulting from the breach.

Gillan says she has tabled an amendment that would ensure that, if someone were launching a legal case in connection with something that happened before Brexit day, European court of justice principles, including Francovich, would continue to apply. It is amendment 303.

Home Secretary Amber Rudd has suggested Britons could only book a holiday abroad if they went through the Foreign Office before Margaret Thatcher came to power, in a speech at a centre-right thinktank.

Rudd’s speech called on a new generation of Conservatives to make the case against nationalised industry during an event at the Centre for Policy Studies, hosted by Thatcher’s key fundraiser and Tory chair Lord Saatchi.

The home secretary suggested few young people remembered the downsides of nationalised industry, before appearing to suggest that foreign holidays could only be booked through the FCO.

“I remember my father, who set up a business, saying to me that if you wanted to get a telephone line in your business it could take months, it could take years,” she told the guests at the launch, in previously unreported remarks.

Those were extraordinary days then, if you wanted a sandwich on British Rail you had to be pretty hungry. If you were going on holiday, you booked it through the FCO rather than through Thomas Cook or Booking.com. Those were such different days and most of us, until very recently, thought that those days had gone for good.

Travel agent Thomas Cook did become state-owned under the British Transport Holding Company in 1948 and was privatised again in 1972. Rudd’s speech was attended by some of the most prominent faces of the 2015 and 2017 intake of Conservative MPs, including Kemi Badenoch and Ben Bradley, as well as ministers including Matt Handcock and 1922 committee chair Graham Brady.

Introduced by Lord Saatchi, the peer named four home secretaries, including Theresa May, who had become prime ministers, before bringing Rudd onstage.

MPs are now into the second part of today’s debate. This is the bit dealing with amendments relating to the interpretation of retained EU law.

The Labour MP Chris Leslie, who was briefly shadow chancellor after the 2015 election, opens the debate because his amendment, new clause 14 (NC14), is the lead one. It says:

Within one month of royal assent of this Act the secretary of state shall lay a report before parliament setting out how the interpretation of retained EU law provisions in section 6 shall operate in the event of a transitional period being agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union ahead of the implementation of a withdrawal agreement.

Explaining this, the notes say: “This new clause would ensure that ministers must set out in detail how the provisions in clause 6 would apply during a transitional period before the United Kingdom fully implements a withdrawal agreement.”

MPs vote specifically to repeal European Communities Act by majority of 250

Clause 1 does stand part. MPs have voted in favour by 318 votes to 68, a majority of 250.

According to the Sun’s Steve Hawkes, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary Iain Duncan Smith has criticised his colleague George Freeman for his comments about the UK’s future and Brexit.

George Freeman has responded by saying the Guardian has reported his comments out of context.

You can read his comments here, at 12.28pm, and decide for yourself if it is fair to link them with Brexit.

MPs vote on repealing European Communities Act

MPs are now voting on clause 1 of the bill (that clause 1 “stand part”, in the jargon.)

Clause 1 is the one that says “the European Communities Act 1972 is repealed on exit day.”

MPs vote down Plaid bid to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland veto over Brexit by majority of 266

The Plaid Cymru amendment has been defeated by 318 votes to 52 - a majority of 266.

Here is the text of the Plaid Cymru amendment being put to the vote now.

It has the backing of MPs from Plaid, the SNP, and the Lib Dems, as well as from the Green MP Caroline Lucas and from at least one Labour MP, Ann Coffey.

Amendment 79
Amendment 79 Photograph: House of Commons

MPs start voting on amendment to give Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland veto over Brexit

Frank Field is wrapping up now. (He went first, and winds up, because his is the lead amendment in this section and gets put to the vote first. See 2.52pm.)

But Field now says he is withdrawing his amendment. It duplicated the government’s new one, 381, which will be put to the vote on day eight of the committee stage.

That means they move on to the next amendment on the list, Plaid Cymru’s amendment 79. It says the government cannot repeal the European Communities Act 1972 without the consent of the Scottish parliament, the Welsh assembly and the Northern Ireland executive.

MPs are voting on that now.

Robin Walker, a Brexit minister, is winding up the debate now.

The SNP’s Angus MacNeil asks if the government will go ahead with the bill even if the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly vote against it.

Walker says the government acknowledges the Scottish and Welsh governments’s positions. But their legislatures have not voted against the bill yet, he says.

The Conservative MP Bernard Jenkin, a Brexiter, is speaking now. He says some MPs are complaining about the Henry VIII powers in the EU withdrawal bill. But the European Communities Act handed over power to Brussels, he says. It was the biggest Henry VIII power ever.

Earlier in the debate the independent MP for North Down, Lady Hermon, said leaving the EU without a deal would be “absolutely disastrous” for Northern Ireland and endanger UK border officials and Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI) officers. She said:

It would mean, inevitably, a hard border. For those of us who have grown up in Northern Ireland, who grew up through 32 years of violence, killing and mayhem, I am not prepared to sit in this House and allow this House to go down the route of ‘no deal’ - which endangers people, UK border officials and PSNI officials along the border. It is imperative we have a deal.

Turning back to Hope not Hate and its legal action against Nigel Farage (see 3.30pm), the former Ukip leader has put out a statement dispute Hope not Hate’s account of what happened. In a statement Farage said:

I am very surprised at Hope not Hate’s announcement today that they have won their legal case against me. Some victory! Their statement today is thoroughly disingenuous.

It is the case that we’ve now resolved our dispute and I am perfectly happy to accept that the organisation doesn’t pursue violent or undemocratic means. But the fact is that a number of individuals claiming to support them have in the past behaved violently and sought to intimidate and disrupt lawful political meetings.

This is a case Hope not Hate should never have brought and which has been a complete waste of their donors’ money. Despite them demanding up to £100,000 in damages I have not paid them a penny; they demanded an apology that I have not given; and they demanded an undertaking to the court which they did not get. In addition, they have been forced to pay me thousands in costs, on top of the tens of thousands they will have had to pay for their own legal fees.

Hope not Hate responded by saying Farage was “picking at straws”. A spokesperson said that, because the two sides reached a settlement before the case went to court for a full hearing, each side paid their own costs. The spokesperson said Farage was referring to a half-day hearing on a technicality, the costs for which were split 50/50.

Sturgeon tells May Scottish government cannot back EU withdrawal bill in current form

Turning away from the debate for a moment, Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has told Theresa May that the EU withdrawal bill is unacceptable to the Scottish government in its present form. She met May in Downing Street this afternoon and afterwards she told reporters that their talks were “constructive and cordial”. She went on:

I made very clear, as the Scottish government has done consistently, that the withdrawal bill as it stands would not be acceptable and we would not be able to recommend approval of that. That remains the position, but hopefully having had the opportunity to air the concerns that we have in more detail, we will be able to see progress in the weeks to come.

While we didn’t reach agreement, I think we developed a better understanding of each others’ positions. I made clear that the Scottish government wants to find agreement on the Withdrawal Bill. We oppose Brexit but we understand withdrawal legislation is necessary, so we want to find agreement.

But I also made clear what our bottom lines are on that Bill. Discussions will continue and hopefully we can reach some points of agreement in the weeks to come.

The Scottish government is particularly concerned about the clauses in the bill saying that powers repatriated from Brussels will go to Westminster in the first instance, even if they relate to policy areas, like agriculture, devolved to Edinburgh. An attempt by Damian Green, the first secretary of state, to broker an acceptable compromise on this issue last month has not quite resolved the stand-off.

Nicola Sturgeon speaks to the media outside 10 Downing Street.
Nicola Sturgeon speaks to the media outside 10 Downing Street. Photograph: Stefan Rousseau/PA

Grieve says some Tories are 'delusional' about Brexit and May's Brexit date amendment 'quite simply unacceptable'

Grieve says some of his Tory colleagues are “delusional” about how easy they think it will be to replicate trade agreements when the UK leaves the EU.

I think some of my friends on this side of the House are frankly delusional in the belief that the speed with which these wonderful new trade agreements are going to be concluded with third countries once we leave the EU.

He says there are 759 external treaties that apply through the UK’s membership of the EU. Those are all put at risk by amendment 381, the government one saying the UK has to leave on 29 March 2019 come what may, he says.

He says the Brexit debate has been disappointing.

Everyone has got more and more brittle, more and more unwilling to listen, more and more persuaded that every suggestion that’s been made is in some way a form of treason finally culminating, I have to say with the deepest regret, last Friday with a mad amendment.

Tabled I believe without any collective decision-making within government at all and accompanied by I think blood curdling threats that anybody that might stand in its way was in some way betraying the country’s destiny and mission, and I am afraid I am just not prepared to go along with that.

He says the new amendment landed on the party like a diktat. He goes on:

It is quite simply unacceptable because what it does is fetter the government’s own ability to carry out the negotiation.

The amendment calls into question the government’s competence, he says.

He says it also plays into the hands of those who want no deal.

He will not vote for it. Even if he is the only person voting against it, he will do so, he says.

I am really pleased amendment 381 cannot be put to the vote this afternoon because I have to say I will vote against it, no ifs, no buts, no maybes about this, no arm twisting. Nothing that can be done to me in the intervening period. It is unacceptable and I will not vote for it.

He says he wants ministers to go away and think again. He will see if he can table something

But if the government focuses on how to carry out this “dangerous” task sensibly, he will back it, he says.

Dominic Grieve.
Dominic Grieve. Photograph: BBC

Updated

Grieve suggest government engaged in a 'double deceit' over Brexit day amendment

Grieve is now speaking about the government amendments introduced last week.

Referring to amendment 383 (see 4.13pm), he says when he first saw it he thought the government might be involved in a “double deceit” because amendment gives ministers the power to change the Brexit date, even though amendment 381 apparently fixes it for good.

He says one theory he came up with is that the parliamentary draughtsmen were so appalled by amendment 381 that they included 383 to effectively neutralise it.

Grieve describes Brexit as 'painful process of national self-mutilation'

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is speaking now.

He says he views Brexit as a “great and historic error”.

He says he understands the need for parliament to implement the referendum result. But he cannot suspend his judgment, he says, when he considers the “extraordinary painful process of national self-mutilation I’m required to facilitate”.

He says the government’s amendment is “mad”, as he will explain in a moment.

The Labour MP Yvette Cooper has just given a powerful speech supporting her amendment. (See 10.36am.) In his speech the Brexit minister Steve Baker said that Cooper’s amendment would bring chaos. Cooper opened by saying the government was doing perfectly well itself introducing chaos.

I think the government is doing quite well on the chaos front without any help from me.

UPDATE: Here is an extract from Cooper’s speech, where she explains her amendment intended to ensure that the UK does not leave the EU until parliament has passed another bill implementing the Brexit deal and the leaving date.

Let’s suppose the government comes forward with withdrawal terms which don’t include a security deal. The home secretary has said it is “unthinkable”. Like her I expect a security deal to be done as it is in all of our interests. But as the EU security commissioner has said, “just because everybody agrees that something is the right thing to do doesn’t mean it’s easy.”

What if we get some kind of deal but it doesn’t include a security deal? Is Parliament really going to bind its hands now and let the UK crash out on March 29th without any kind of arrangements for security cooperation so people literally have to be released from police custody because you can’t use the arrest warrant, or without an aviation deal so planes are stuck on the ground?

I do not expect this to happen. But I also know it’s not impossible. And if it does happen, I want the chance to argue as, home affairs select committee chair, for urgent action to make sure we don’t, or for an urgent contingency plan to protect our country and our security if that’s where we end up. Parliament itself has a responsibility to contingency plan

Right now with the governments amendments and without my amendment it would theoretically be possible for us to just drift towards exit day without any substantive opportunity for parliament to step in – to amend the bill on the withdrawal terms, to require the government to change its plan, to go back and negotiate some more. That will be up to us in parliament to decide – but that won’t happen if this amendment does not pass.

Updated

EU withdrawal bill debate - Summary of the opening

Here are the main points from the opening of this afternoon’s debate on the EU withdrawal bill.

  • At least two senior Conservative MPs have strongly criticised the government’s decision to table an amendment to the bill fixing 11pm on 29 March 2019 as the moment when the UK will leave the EU. Earlier today the Tory former minister Anna Soubry said some backbenchers were so angry about this that they were considering voting against the government for the first time. (See 10.18am.) In the Commons Ken Clarke, the former chancellor, described the amendment as “utterly foolish” and “silly” on the grounds that it would stop the UK from extending talks with the EU if that was agreed by other European governments. He said:

It is quite unnecessary to actually close down our options as severely as we are with this amendment when we don’t know yet [what will happen in the Brexit talks], when it is perfectly possible that there is a mutually beneficial, European and British, need to keep the negotiations going for a time longer to get them settled.

Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, made the same point in the debate. He said:

I have to say I find this amendment by the government so very strange, because it seems to me to fetter the government, to add nothing to the strength of the Government’s negotiating position, and in fact potentially to create a very great problem that could be brought back to visit on us at a later stage.

Although MPs are debating the government amendment (number 381) now, they will not vote on it until day eight of the committee stage - probably some time just before Christmas.

Amendment 381
Amendment 381 Photograph: HoC/House of Commons

ITV’s Robert Peston thinks this could end up being one of the key votes of the bill.

  • Steve Baker, the Brexit minister, has told MPs that the government has introduced amendment 381 to “put this issue to rest”. Explaining why the amendment was only tabled at the end of last week, he said:

We would like to put this issue to rest. We recognise the importance of being crystal clear on the setting of exit day, and the government is keen to provide the certainty that [Frank Field] and others are seeking.

In his speech Ken Clarke suggested the government only tabled amendment 381 as a “sop” to hardline Eurosceptics likely to be upset by the government’s decision to announce that the final Brexit deal will take the form of an act of parliament. (See 4.27pm.)

  • The Labour MP Frank Field has urged the government to set up a cross-party equivalent of a war cabinet to oversee Brexit. He told MPs:

Anyone serious about comparing this historic event to us fighting for survival in World War Two would have followed the move that Churchill made once he took over from Chamberlain. He would have moved from the ramshackle way of existing institutions and he established a war cabinet.

I believe we need a Brexit cabinet - small, with the offer to the opposition to be on it, as in war time which Mr Attlee, Mr Greenwood accepted - that we actually try and have a national interest.

One of the highlights of the debate so far was this exchange between two Labour MPs, the pro-leave Frank Field and the pro-remain Hilary Benn. Proposing his amendment, NC49, Field said he had never bought a house “without having in the contract the date when it’s mine”.

Benn, son of the late Labour cabinet minister and sometime hereditary peer Tony Benn, intervened, saying:

I think his analogy about buying a house falls down at the first hurdle, because nobody commits to a date to buy a house before they know what it is that they’re buying.

Field replied:

As my right honourable friend was kind to me about the house analogy, I’ve always bought my houses, never inherited them.

Benn then said that he bought his too, prompting Field to withdraw his comment.

Turning away from the debate for a moment, my colleague Dan Roberts has been covering the business select committee hearing with the motor industry. He has posted these on Twitter.

Clarke describes May’s amendment putting Brexit date in the bill as 'silly'

Clarke ends by urging the government to reject its own “silly amendments thrown out because they got a good article in the Daily Telegraph”.

Unusually, he gets a round of applause for his speech.

(MPs aren’t supposed to clap in the chamber, because of an ancient rule introduced to stop MPs using prolonged clapping as a means of disrupting proceedings. The theory was that there is only so long an MP can keep cheering, but that someone with strong arms can clap indefinitely.)

  • Clarke describes May’s amendment putting Brexit date in the bill as “silly”.

Clarke mocks the idea that MPs now think they have been instructed by the voters as to what they should do.

And he claims that, because no one on the leave side expected to win the referendum, they did not put any thought into what would happen if the UK did leave the EU.

Now even the foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, is going to have read his brief and discover how international trade is conducted, he says.

Clarke says the government only introduced its amendment 381 to see off Frank Field’s amendment. (See 2.52pm.)

The government did not need to, he says. They could have defeated Field’s amendment.

But he says the government had also decided to announce the withdrawal deal would take the form of a bill. That was a concession to Dominic Grieve, he says. So the government decided to announce this as a compensatory “sop” to Brexiters like Michael Gove, he says.

He says would be a mistake for the government to pass amendment 381 because that could “close off its options” if it needs to extend the Brexit negotiation.

Ken Clarke’s speech is going down well with opposition MPs.

This is from Labour’s Chuka Ummunna.

And this is from the Lib Dem Layla Moran.

Ken Clarke, the Conservative pro-European and former chancellor, is speaking now. He describes Nigel Farage as the most successful politician of his generation. Farage was able to turn people against the EU. People now think that, because we are leaving the EU, they will be able to buy bent bananas again and double-decker buses will not be banned.

The idea which is very popularly put forward by Ukip and others, that it led faceless, grey Eurocrats to produce vast quantities of awful legislation and red tape, is one of the biggest myths of our time.

And I pay tribute to Nigel Farage’s campaigning abilities - there’s absolutely no doubt he’s the most successful politician of my generation, because he has persuaded a high proportion of the population that that is exactly how it runs.

And they’re all looking forward to having bent bananas again once we actually repeal this piece of legislation.

I fought an election once where several of my constituents - quite a lot of them - had been persuaded that the Eurocrats were about to abolish double decker buses, and it took some considerable time to try to refute that rather worrying belief.

Owen Paterson, the Conservative former environment secretary, asks Clarke to admit that the common fisheries policy has been bad for the UK.

Clarke says fishermen are wrong if they think there will be no fishing quotas after Brexit.

The British like high regulation and high standards.

No British government has ever taken up the cause of deregulation in Britain. He says the Barosso commission tried to champion deregulation but it gave up because there were no governments, including the British, who wanted to deregulate.

He says when the coalition was in power it also tried to deregulate. But ministers could not find any EU regulations they wanted to get rid of, he says.

Ken Clarke.
Ken Clarke. Photograph: BBC

Updated

Blomfield says Labour will not support the government amendments about Brexit day.

The main one is amendment 381, but there is also amendment 383, which amends clause 17 and which seems to give ministers the powers to change Brexit day. The Times’ Sam Coates has more here.

If you want to read the amendments yourself, you can find them all here (pdf).

Updated

Turning away from the EU withdrawal bill for a moment, here is the official Russian foreign ministry’s Twitter account trolling Theresa May.

In the Commons Paul Blomfield, the shadow Brexit minister, is speaking now for Labour. He says Labour is not trying to block Brexit.

He asks why the government decided at the end of last week to introduce amendment 381, the one inserting into the bill a line saying the UK will leave the EU at 11pm on 29 March 2019.

He says the government’s amendments would close down the possibility of a smooth transition.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, intervenes. Referring to the government’s amendment putting Brexit day on the face of the bill, he says article 50 does not say the UK has to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. It allows for the possibility of an extension. He says by putting this amendment in the bill, it could cause a problem if the government subsequently needs to extend the negotiation.

In response, Baker says the government felt it had to put the leaving debate in the bill because there were concerns about the “degree of elasticity” in the provisions in the bill giving MPs Henry VIII law-making powers if there were no leaving date.

Baker also refers to Yvette Cooper’s amendment on this. (See 10.36am.) He says this would bring legal chaos if it were included.

In the Commons Steve Baker, the Brexit minister, is speaking now. Baker is an enthusiast for Brexit, and he is defending the government’s decision to insert the leaving date into the bill.

Ken Clarke, the leader Tory pro-European, says most Eurosceptics who complain about EU legislation are unable to identify EU laws they want to get rid of. Can Baker name one, he asks?

Baker names the EU ports regulations.

Nigel Farage drops claim about Hope not Hate being 'violent' in face of libel threat

Turning away from the debate for a moment, Hope not Hate, the anti-fascist organisation, has announced that the former Ukip leader Nigel Farage has backed down after it threatened to sue him for libel.

In December last year Farage told LBC that Hope not Hate were people who were “who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.” Farage was responding to a question about a Twitter exchange he had with Brendan Cox, whose wife Jo was the Labour MP murdered during the EU referendum campaign by a far-right terrorist. Referring to Cox, Farage said:

Yes, well of course he would know more about extremists than me, Mr Cox. He backs organisations like Hope not Hate, who masquerade as being lovely and peaceful, but actually pursue violent and undemocratic means.

Hope not Hate filed a libel claim for up to £100,000 in damages.

Today, in a press statement, Hope not Hate said Farage has backed down. Farage has issued a statement saying:

Having now considered the position further I am happy to acknowledge that Hope not Hate does not tolerate or pursue violent or undemocratic behaviour.

Farage has also agreed not to repeat his claim.

Hope not Hate was able to sue because supporters contributed to its legal fund. More than 16,000 people donated.

Nick Lowles, the organisation’s chief executive, said:

I am delighted with this victory and that we’ve held Nigel Farage to account.

The case was about the truth and about Hope not Hate saying no to Nigel Farage’s attempts to smear us. For too long right-wing politicians have got away with smearing and abusing their opponents. We drew a line in the sand and ‘no more’.

We are an avowedly peaceful organisation and Farage’s false claims were deeply damaging to the vital work we do bringing communities together across cultural and religious divides.

Anyone else repeating these smears our pursuing a false news agenda against our organisation should be put on note that we won’t hesitate to take further action to protect our reputation. We also hope this case sends a wider signal to right-wing politicians that smearing people will no longer be accepted.

Nigel Farage sporting a moustache on Russia Today.
Nigel Farage sporting a moustache on Russia Today. Photograph: Russia Today/PA

Field says, if the Lords try to wreck this bill, MPs will want to press the “nuclear button”, he says. “They will sound their own death knell,” he says. Many Labour MPs want to abolish the Lords, he says.

  • Field says peers will sound their “death knell” if they wreck EU withdrawal bill.

Field urges May to set up cross-party equivalent of war cabinet to handle Brexit

Field says he threw away the pamphlet sent out by the government during the EU referendum campaign without reading it. There were “false truths” told on both sides. The campaign did not enhance the reputation of the political class, he says.

He says the government is not handling Brexit with the” importance or drive or coherence that this issue merits”.

He urges Theresa May to set up the equivalent of a war cabinet to deal with it, with members of the opposition represented too.

  • Field urges May to set up cross-party equivalent of war cabinet to handle Brexit.

He also accuses the government of mishandling the Brexit talks.

A British assumption is always “give and take”, he says. But these talks are different, he says:

What we have now is the Barnier rule of all take and now give.

He also says the bill is too big. In it current form it will not get through the Lords. That is why is he proposing a four-clause alternative.

Frank Field.
Frank Field. Photograph: BBC

Labour is urging the government to drop the new amendment announced on Friday making it explicit in the bill that the UK will leave the EU on 29 March 2019. Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, claims it would “stand in the way of an orderly transition”.

The Labour MP Frank Field is opening the debate now, moving NC49. (See 2.52pm.)

He says he is a “reluctant Brexiteer”. During the referendum he backed leave because he felt “on balance” Britain would be better if the UK were out of the EU.

He says his amendment, with others, effectively gives the government a slimmed-down Brexit bill. (He explains that here.)

And he stresses that his amendment uses British time to determine the UK’s exit from the EU. The government’s new amendment, saying the UK will leave the EU at 11pm on 29 March 2019, effectively uses continental time, because 11pm UK time is midnight Brussels time.

Updated

MPs start their line-by-line scrutiny of EU withdrawal bill

MPs are about to start the first of eight committee stage debates for the EU withdrawal bill. This is the part of the process where they can make changes and, given the small size of the Tory/DUP majority, there is a real chance of the government being defeated at some point between now and the end of the committee stage, probably just before Christmas. There is an even bigger probability of the government having to announce new concessions to avert defeat.

You can find the full text of the bill, and all the papers relevant to it, here. The bill is 62-pages long, but the bundle of amendments so far tabled runs to 191 pages.

If you are looking for a detailed explanation of what is in the bill, here is the Commons library’s 112-page briefing paper on it (pdf).

Today’s debate will come in two parts. MPs will spend four hours debating amendments related to the repeal of the European Communities Act. The first vote will be on an amendment tabled by the Labour MP Frank Field (NC49), a simple amendment inserting a clause saying “the United Kingdom ceases to belong to the European Union on 30 March 2019” but there may be other votes too.

Confusingly, MPs will also debate the new government amendment saying the UK must leave the EU at 11pm on 29 March 2019 during this section, but they will not vote on this until much later in the committee stage.

Then, after the votes, MPs will move on to a four-hour debate on amendments relating to the interpretation of retained EU law. The first vote will be on an amendment tabled by the Labour MP Chris Leslie (NC14). It says:

Within one month of royal assent of this Act the secretary of state shall lay a report before parliament setting out how the interpretation of retained EU law provisions in section 6 shall operate in the event of a transitional period being agreed between the United Kingdom and the European Union ahead of the implementation of a withdrawal agreement.

Explaining this, the notes say: “This new clause would ensure that ministers must set out in detail how the provisions in clause 6 would apply during a transitional period before the United Kingdom fully implements a withdrawal agreement.”

Updated

Leading Merkel ally says Brexit talks unlikely to progress to trade in December

Theresa May will meet Manfred Weber, the German MEP who is a close ally of chancellor Angela Merkel, in Downing Street on Wednesday, Number 10 has said. Weber is head of the European People’s party (EPP), the main centre-right group in the European parliament. Earlier today Weber said he believed it was unlikely Brexit talks would move beyond the divorce deal and onto the future relationship before 2018.

Weber said it was unlikely that enough progress will be made on the financial settlement and citizens’ right by the time leaders meet in December and “it doesn’t look like negotiations are going to move onto the second phase to talk about the future.”

Downing Street said it was a meeting of “broad engagement that we’ve been looking to have for a little while”. May’s spokesman said it would be “a opportunity to update on the Brexit process and to discuss other broader European issues.” He went on:

The prime minister as you know likes to engage with members of the European Parliament, it’s part of that process.

Asked if the prime minister would try to convince Weber of the necessity of beginning talks on the future relationship, the spokesman said there had been “progress made in important areas”

Downing Street said Tuesday’s cabinet meeting heard a presentation from the foreign secretary and defence secretary on the fight agains Isis, who said the terror group was “nearing defeat.” The UK has been the second largest contributor to the coalition’s military campaign, including helping to Train 60,000 members of the Iraqi security forces.

“The prime minister thanked the armed forced for their excellent work and said our priority is to ensure we minimise threats to the UK... that includes taking steps to deal with foreign fighters returning to the UK,” the prime minister’s spokesman said.

Manfred Weber.
Manfred Weber. Photograph: Thomas Trutschel/Photothek via Getty Images

Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former chief whip and former international development secretary, is speaking now. He says this is not really a party political issue, because all parties want to tackle tax avoidance. He says the only criticism of the current government might be that it is not moving fast enough.

Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary, to the Treasury, is speaking now. He says it is clear what the government should do. It should adopt Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme (pdf).

Mel Stride, the financial secretary to the Treasury, is speaking in the debate now.

He says the government has been taking steps to tackle tax avoidance, including in the finance bill that Labour voted against.

Hodge also said the government should implement legislation already on the statute book requiring multinational companies to report their activity and profits on a country by country basis.

She also said HM Revenue and Customs should get more resources.

Every £1 invested in HMRC enforcement yields £97 in additional tax revenues. It’s a complete no brainer that we should be strengthening HMRC and reversing some of the 40% cuts they have suffered under the austerity programme.

Hodge said transparency was key to addressing the problem.

We need public registers of beneficial ownership, showing who owns what and where.

That at a stroke would undermine so much.

Would Bono have invested in tax havens if he thought we would all know?

Would Lewis Hamilton have created a complex structure of companies to avoid VAT?

Would the actors in Mrs Brown’s Boys have hidden their earnings in artificial financial structures if they thought we would find out?

The answer is, no.

She said the government should “compel our overseas territories and crown dependencies to publish public registers showing us who owns what and where.”

Hodge said that estimates of the amount held in tax havens vary from $7.6 trillion to $32 trillion. It is impossible to know how much tax is lost, but it runs to hundreds of millions of pounds a year, she said.

Updated

Hodge also said it was necessary to cut the influence of tax professionals on policy.

She said measures in the finance bill to tackle tax avoidance were a “small step” in the right direction. But they did not go far enough, she said.

Hodge also complained about the influence of tax lobbyists.

Appleby helped to co-ordinate a well-financed and comprehensive lobby by the International Financial Centres Forum, that took place before a G8 summit that David Cameron was chairing in June 2013.

The then prime minister had intended to insist that the UK’s tax havens should publish public registers of beneficial ownership in their jurisdictions.

Had David Cameron had his way, we might not have been here today.

But the IFCF group lobbied fiercely to maintain secrecy.

Updated

Tax regulation so weak 'law firms can break law with impunity', says Hodge

Hodge said she wanted to focus on structural problems with the international tax system. And she criticised Appleby, the international law firm at the heart of the Paradise Papers.

Appleby, the lawyers at the heart of the Paradise papers are one of the few offshore law practices that belong to the “offshore magic circle” of service providers. Indeed Appleby was named offshore firm of the year by Legal 500 in 2015.

Yet the Paradise papers reveal that the firm was criticised no less than 12 times over a ten year period in reports issued by regulators in our UK tax havens - the British Virgin Islands, the Isle of Man, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

Appleby was criticised for its failure to comply with regulations designed to stop the funding of terrorism and prevent money laundering.

The reports talked of “persistent failures and deficiencies,” “severe shortcomings” and “a highly significant weakness in the adequacy of the organisation’s systems and controls and a deficiency in meeting its regulatory requirements.”

Further documents reveal that Appleby simply ignored these critical reports and failed to change their procedures despite strong words from the regulatory bodies.

Hodge said regulatory frameworks were “so weak that law firms can ignore or break the law with complete impunity”.

Hodge praised news organisations, including the Guardian, for their work on the Paradise Papers.

I salute all the professional investigative journalists who have been involved in making sense of the millions of documents that have been passed to them, especially those at the Guardian and on Panorama who have been working on the papers for a year. And I salute the public spirited courage of the whistle blower who first passed the papers to the German newspaper, the Suddeutsche Zeitung.

Hodge said that the current government’s record on tax avoidance was “inadequate”.

The record and actions of this government are also inadequate and somewhat hypocritical. Their rhetoric is mostly fine but the reality is badly wanting.

In her speech Hodge said that tax avoidance was not the same as tax planning. She quoted the HMRC definition of tax avoidance, saying it involved “bending the rules of the tax system to gain a tax advantage that parliament never intended.” She said HMRC says tax avoidance “involves operating within the letter, but not the spirit of the law.”

MPs debate Paradise Papers

Margaret Hodge, the Labour MP and former chair of the Commons public accounts committee, has just started opening the two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers and what they reveal.

She said that what the Paradise Papers showed was “a national and international disgrace”.

What we have learnt is that tax avoidance is not just a trivial irritant practised by a small number of greedy individuals and global corporations.

It is the widely accepted behaviour of too many of those who are rich and influential.

It is clearly taking place on an industrial scale and it has become a scourge on our society.

Margaret Hodge speaking in the Paradise Papers debate.
Margaret Hodge speaking in the Paradise Papers debate. Photograph: BBC

Updated

George Freeman was speaking at the IPPR conference this morning. (See 12.28pm.) The IPPR is seen as a left-leaning thinktank, but it has just put out a statement endorsing what Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former co chief of staff, said about Philip Hammond, the chancellor, in his Sun column today. (See 9.26am.)

Tom Kibasi, IPPR director and chair of the IPPR commission on economic justice said:

The IPPR commission on economic justice was welcomed to No10 in January this year to discuss the fundamental reforms that are necessary to improve the British economy for ordinary people.

Nick Timothy is right that there has been too little progress in promoting economic justice. Next week the chancellor has the opportunity to take the policy initiative and put economic justice at the heart of his budget.

At today’s IPPR commission on economic justice conference there is a striking degree of consensus from business and trade unions that fundamental change to economic policy is now required, with both the heads of CBI business group and the GMB trade union calling for more investment to promote economic growth.

Tory policy chief warns of 'very real prospect' of national decline after Brexit

George Freeman, Tory MP and chair of the Conservative policy forum, has issued a warning that the UK could become “an old people’s home that can’t pay for itself” with excessive debts and young people fleeing the country, unless it embarks on serious economic renewal.

At an economics conference, the MP set out two scenarios for life in the UK after Brexit, arguing there is a real risk that Britain could take the path of decline.

In the good scenario, he said the UK would tackle its deficit, and “unleash a entrepreneurship revolution”.

He told the IPPR think tank event that he would like to see the UK become an “innovation crucible for technologies the world needs to develop”, such as clean green sustainable models of growth. He said he would like to imagine a world where the UK exported those technologies, paid off its debt and because “a happy prosperous purposeful nation again”.

But in the bad scenario, he said, this could be “the moment we finally failed as a great nation and became a second or third tier nation”. Imagining what this might look like from the future, he said:

People got up and left. We pulled out of Europe and became and isolated, small, insular, old, ageing economy. We became an old people’s home that couldn’t pay for itself.

That I see as a very real prospect and it chills me to the bone. It is an extreme choice but I think that is the choice we face as a country and the question whether we as a generation rise to it and grip it.

Freeman said the UK needed more entrepreneurship and localism - such as giving localities control over their NHS budgets - to avoid such a fate.

George Freeman.
George Freeman. Photograph: BBC

Updated

Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, is resolutely upbeat about Britain’s economic prospects after Brexit. In his press office they obviously share his outlook because this morning the department’s official Twitter account retweeted a link to a Daily Mail article criticising the Treasury’s economic forecasts. Sky’s Faisal Islam spotted the post.

International trade department tweet
International trade department tweet Photograph: Twitter

The Mail story is about the speech the Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg is giving this morning. It includes this paragraph.

At the report’s launch on Tuesday, the pro-Brexit Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg will say official forecasts are based on “false assumptions” of the Treasury and that the outlook for the public finances is “much better” than the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is predicting.

The international trade department, @tradegoveuk, has now deleted its retweet.

Duncan Smith urges May not to increase her financial 'Brexit bill' offer to EU

Another former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, has just been on Sky News saying that William Hague is wrong. Asked about Hague’s argument in his Telegraph column about the need for the government to increase its Brexit bill offer (see 11.21am), and ignoring the fact that as a former foreign secretary Hague is not completely clueless about international negotiations, Duncan Smith said:

I couldn’t disagree with William Hague more on this one, I’m afraid. I don’t know if he’s every really been in a serious negotiation ... Let me just say why that’s not feasible.

Duncan Smith did not say it would be wrong for the UK to offer more in any circumstances. He made it clear that his disagreement with Hague was over timing. He said that Theresa May made a financial offer in her Florence speech in the hope that this would persuade the EU to let the Brexit talks move on to discussing trade, but that the EU had refused to budge and were just asking for more. He went on:

I think it would be right for the government not at this point to make any further offer to them. We simply say, as was agreed at the outset, we will get as far as we can on money, and on the other issues, but none of them can be sorted and settled until we decide what we are doing about trade ...

We’ve said we’ll to stand by our budgetary commitments, but we are not prepared to spell that out in any great detail until you start talking about trade. And I wouldn’t move on the money at all, because the reality is if Europe wants to get money, they have to get a trade arrangement. Otherwise, if we were to leave without a trade arrangement, they wouldn’t get a penny. That’s the important feature. It is give on both sides. And so far they have not moved .... In negotiations you stay put sometimes and wait for the other side to move.

William Hague.
William Hague. Photograph: Sky News

William Hague says UK should offer EU more money as part of Brexit deal

In his Daily Telegraph column (paywall) William Hague, the Conservative former party leader and former foreign secretary, says Theresa May should increase her financial offer to the EU. May has already said that the UK will carry on paying into the EU budget until the current budget period runs out, at a cost of roughly €20bn. But she has not made any specific commitment to pay the UK’s share of other, long-term EU budget spending commitments (the “reste a liquider, or RAL, in the jargon), which would be worth the same again, or even more.

Hague does not give a figure for how much the UK should pay in his column. But he says now is the time for May to say the UK will pay a share of the RAL. He says:

If Theresa May and David Davis declare at some point before the next European summit on December 14 that we will indeed pay some share of these liabilities, there is no point people responding with outrage and denouncing them for giving in to Brussels. Anyone who thinks there has ever been a chance of a free trade deal with the EU without doing this has been kidding themselves.

Of course, any such payment should be dependent on a final deal being signed, sealed and ratified – without that the UK should not pay a single penny. That way, the UK retains some leverage right to the end. And agreeing to pay a share need not mean being committed now to a specific amount. A “share” could be calculated as the British population in the EU (12.5 per cent) or the proportion of the budget we pay in any one year (about 8 per cent after deducting our receipts) and since the RAL varies unpredictably, the choice of the year on which to base this calculation will be important. British taxpayers will also expect to get back their share of the capital invested in the European Investment Bank – if we’re paying debts we have to receive our slice of the assets ....

Only those closest to the negotiations can judge the right moment to acknowledge that we will pay a fairly calculated amount towards these huge liabilities. They will want to know that the transition talks will quickly be on the table in return. But it will be the right thing to do, to break through to a more hopeful outlook, in a government that needs simultaneously to do the right thing and pull itself firmly together.

William Hague.
William Hague. Photograph: Amer Ghazzal/REX

Updated

A Labour MP has apologised for referring to a Tory London assembly member as a “token ghetto boy” in a blog posted before she was elected.

As the Press Association reports, Kensington MP Emma Dent Coad provoked controversy after the 2010 comments about Shaun Bailey resurfaced. Dent Coad claimed in the piece that the then Hammersmith Conservative parliamentary candidate had “stigmatised” the area he was born in by referring to it as a “ghetto”. She went on to write:

Who can say where this man will ever fit in, however hard he tries? One day he is the ‘token ghetto boy’ standing behind D Cameron, the next ‘looking interested’ beside G Osborne. Ever felt used?

Now the MP has said she was repeating what other people had said and her comments were taken “the wrong way”. She told BBC Radio London:

If he was offended by me repeating what other people have said then I do apologise. Clearly, I shouldn’t have repeated it. People have taken it the wrong way.

Bailey said that he had never been referred to in those terms before and he would not use language like ‘ghetto’ in a way that was disparaging to where he grew up, PA reports.

Emma Dent Coad.
Emma Dent Coad. Photograph: STRINGER/Reuters

The Labour MP Yvette Cooper has tabled a new amendment to the EU withdrawal bill removing the government amendment setting 11pm on 29 March 2019 as the time when the UK will leave the EU. This is the one some Tory MPs are so angry about. (See 10.18am.) Cooper’s alternative would let MPs determine Brexit hour when they pass the bill implementing the withdrawal deal (or “the withdrawal agreement and implementation bill”, as the government are calling it.)

Here is Laura Kuenssberg’s take on why this matters.

Some Tories so angry over EU withdrawal bill they could rebel for first time, Soubry claims

Yesterday it emerged that the new Conservative chief whip, Julian Smith, had a rather tricky MPs with backbenchers unhappy about the EU withdrawal bill.

Anna Soubry, the former business minister and one of the leading Tory rebels on Brexit, told the BBC this morning that the meeting was “stormy” and that some of her colleagues were thinking of voting against the government for the first time because they were so angry about the bill. She said:

It was stormy because you have got people at that meeting who have never spoken out. The date going into the bill has really upset a lot of really top-quality backbench Conservative MPs.

These are people, a lot of them ex-ministers, highly respected, and they are genuinely cross about this. There were some people there who have never rebelled and they are now talking, for the first time ever, of rebelling.

Tory pro-Europeans are unhappy about the fact that the government’s offer to put the final Brexit deal in an act of parliament won’t in practice give MPs much leverage, because even if the bill does get amended, David Davis, the Brexit secretary, says it will probably be too late to negotiate the deal.

But Soubry said that what MPs were really angry about yesterday was the proposal, announced by Theresa May in a Telegraph article on Friday, to insert a clause into the bill saying the UK has to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. That would prevent the UK and the EU from being able to extend the article 50 process if the talks over-ran and extra time were needed.

Anna Soubry.
Anna Soubry. Photograph: Johnny Armstead/REX/Shutterstock

Inflation remains at 3%

Inflation remained at 3.0% in October, matching September’s five-year high. As my colleague Graeme Wearden reports, that means there’s no let-up in the cost of living squeeze hitting UK households. On the upside, City economists had feared the consumer prices index would have risen even higher, to 3.1%.

Graeme has more on his business live blog.

MPs say failing to get new customs system in place by Brexit would be 'catastrophic'

The Commons public accounts committee published a report at 9am today saying that HM Revenue and Customs does not have proper funding yet to upgrade its customs systems in time for Brexit. It says that if the UK leaves the EU without proper customs infrastracture, the results will be “catastrophic”.

Here is an extract from its summary.

Under current plans, the UK is set to leave the European single market and the customs union in March 2019. It would be catastrophic if HM Revenue & Customs’ new customs system, the customs declaration service [CDS], is not ready in time and if there is no viable fall-back option.

In 2015, around 55 million customs declarations were made by 141,000 traders. The UK’s exit from the EU could see the number of customs declarations which HMRC must process each year increase five-fold to 255m. A failed customs system could therefore lead to huge disruption for businesses, with delays potentially causing massive queues at Dover and resulting in food being left to rot in trucks at the border.

This is a programme of national importance that could have a huge reputational impact for the UK if it is not delivered successfully.

The uncertainty regarding the outcome of UK-EU negotiations is a complicating factor but it should not be used by HMRC to avoid taking action now in areas including: scaling up the CDS service to handle 255m declarations; ensuring a viable contingency option is in place well before January 2019; and communicating with traders.

And this is from the committee’s chair, Meg Hillier.

Failure to have a viable customs system in place before the UK’s planned exit from the EU would wreak havoc for UK business, trade and our international reputation. Confidence would collapse amid the potentially catastrophic effects.

HMRC is under considerable pressure to deliver the new Customs Declaration Service in time, but it does not yet have funding to increase the capacity of CDS to deal with the consequences of Brexit—nor to develop contingency options.

This is deeply worrying. HMRC requires a relatively small sum to upgrade the current CHIEF system—a move which would provide some peace of mind to traders, many of whom are still operating with limited information and in great uncertainty.

HMRC tells us it is merely ‘in conversation’ over CHIEF upgrade costs when, on behalf of business and the British public, it should be banging on the doors of the Treasury.

HMRC must press the case to secure this funding now and ensure that, if other plans fail, customs will be fit for purpose.

Theresa May ally accuses Hammond of vetoing policies promoting 'economic justice'

Today will be dominated by Brexit. The EU withdrawal bill enters its committee stage in the Commons, the government’s attempt to appease Tory pro-Europeans by agreeing to implement the final Brexit deal in the form of an act of parliament has not impressed potential rebels, and MPs will spend eight hours debating and voting on amendments to the bill. But more of that later ....

First, with the budget only eight days away, one of Theresa May’s closest allies has launched a withering attack on Philip Hammond, the chancellor, in a column in the Sun. Nick Timothy is not in government, and technically he is just an outside observer. But Timothy spent more than seven years working as an adviser to May and, more than anyone else, he is credited with shaping her political thinking. He was May’s co chief of staff inDowning Street until he left in June after the election.

When he was in government it was known that he had clashed repeatedly with Hammond, and he is understood to have been one of the May advisers urging her to sack him after the election. But he has never criticised Hammond in public as strongly as he does today. It is as if Alastair Campbell has written a newspaper article denouncing Gordon Brown as a disaster less than six months after resigning as Tony Blair’s communications chief in 2003, which he didn’t. New Labour had their internal feuds, but infighting in May’s government is starting to look worse.

In his article Timothy suggests he was provoked by a James Forsyth column in the Sun on Saturday which said that May and Hammond were “nowhere near agreement” and which quoted a “senior Treasury source” saying Hammond had “explained the economic reality to [May] and she just doesn’t want to listen”. Timothy hits back by questioning Hammond’s own economic literacy.

We should assess the chancellor’s own economic literacy — because, after more than a year at the Treasury, his economic policy remains unclear.

He likes to think of himself as “Fiscal Phil”, the guy who balances the country’s books. But the public finances are only one part of the chancellor’s job.

The chief secretary to the Treasury is there to keep spending under control. The chancellor is supposed to have a wider vision for the country’s economy. With Hammond do we have a chancellor or two chief secretaries?

Even on the budget deficit, it is not clear that Hammond is correct. As many economists and Conservative thinkers have said, there is no need to make a fetish of running a surplus every year or even most years.

More significantly, Timothy claims it is Hammond who is stopping the government introducing policies that would “improve economic justice” and “change people’s lives for the better”.

[Hammond] says he wants to prevent the return of socialism, as proposed by Jeremy Corbyn, but he stops any proposals that would improve economic justice.

He blocks any serious measures that curb excessive corporate pay. He opposes policies to improve the way companies are run. And he is against any kind of worker representation in corporate decision-making.

He will not support significant protections for people working in the precarious “gig economy”, and he lacks the ambition to create a comprehensive national retraining programme as technology eliminates many existing jobs ...

Instead of being bold in seeking solutions to these challenges, I fear Philip Hammond’s instinct is to maintain existing policy, regardless of its quality.

This must not be mistaken for conservatism. Nor is it down to a careful analysis that concludes the status quo is best.

I worry it is because the chancellor lacks a burning desire to change people’s lives for the better, and the imagination to see possibilities beyond how the world works today.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Inflation figures are published.

10am: Theresa May chairs cabinet.

11.30am: The Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg gives a speech about the benefits of Brexit to Economists for Free Trade.

Around 12.45pm: MPs begin a two-hour emergency debate on the Paradise Papers.

1.30pm: John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, speaks at the IPPR conference on the economy after Brexit. As Jessica Elgot reports, he will say that the risk posed by climate change would be factored into projections from the government’s independent economic forecaster if Labour took office.

2pm: Motor trade representatives give evidence to the Commons Brexit committee about Brexit.

Around 2.45pm: MPs begin the first committee stage debate for the EU referendum bill. It will run for eight hours.

4.30pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, meets May in Downing Street.

Also at some point today Jeremy Corbyn is also giving a speech to theAssociation of Colleges in Birmingham.

I will be focusing on the Brexit debate this afternoon but, until then, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web.

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’s Playbook. 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