Afternoon summary
- Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has said that the TV sector is failing to reflect the diversity of its audiences and should do more to address the issue. Speaking at Speaking at Channel 4’s Diverse Festival in Glasgow, she said:
The TV sector is failing to reflect the diversity of its audiences. Women continue to be under-represented and that is particularly true for women over the age of 50, and there is a real disparity in the proportion of women in senior positions.
Ethnic minority employees are significantly under-represented and there is a huge gap in the number of disabled people in the industry across the primary broadcasters, both on screen and off screen, and we know there is a huge gap in the numbers of disabled people in the industry compared to the wider UK population.
If the industry is to better represent diverse communities and become more diverse itself it really has to change and it has to start changing immediately.
As a simple matter of fairness, no-one in our society should feel television or broadcasting is closed off to them just because of who they are and where they come from.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Earlier I wrote a post about today’s Policy Exchange report claiming that the UK could leave the customs union and still avoid a hard border in Ireland. (See 11.49am.) Peter Foster, the Daily Telegraph’s Europe editor, isn’t convinced. In a very interesting Twitter thread he explains why. It starts here.
Can 'technology' or 'maxfac' solve the Irish border question problem?
— Peter Foster (@pmdfoster) May 9, 2018
Boris and Davis say it can.
David Trimble, who signed the Good Friday Agreement says so too.
So does a paper today by @Policy_Exchange
I think that's wrong. Here's why.
1/Thread.https://t.co/GMLO5eFBeU
Labour accuse Tories of 'shameless capitulation to press barons' after vote against Leveson 2 inquiry
Tom Watson, the shadow culture secretary and deputy Labour leader, has put out a statement following the vote against a Leveson two inquiry accusing the government a “shameless capitulation to press barons”. He said:
The Tories’ shameless capitulation to press barons leaves the victims of phone hacking ever further from reaching the truth.
No criminal investigation or trial has ever looked at the core questions that Leveson 2 posed: how the relationship between the press, police and politicians allowed the hacking scandal to happen and attempt to cover it up.
Today was a chance for MPs to finally deliver on promises made to victims of hacking and press intrusion. That chance has been squandered and victims have been betrayed once again.
And one Labour MP voted with the government against a Leveson part 2 inquiry, my colleague Jessica Elgot reports.
Five Tory rebels vote in favour of Leveson 2 - Cristina Blunt, Peter Bone, Ken Clarke, Dominic Grieve and Philip Hollobone. One Labour rebel voted against - John Grogan pic.twitter.com/YYKKAd4VRF
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) May 9, 2018
The 5 Tories who voted with Labour for a Leveson part 2 inquiry
According to the division list, there were five Conservatives who voted with Labour in favour of a Leveson part two inquiry. It is an odd mixture of outspoken Brexiters and pro-Europeans - although perhaps what they have in common is that they are all of the “independent minded” variety.
They are:
Crispin Blunt
Peter Bone
Ken Clarke
Dominic Grieve
Philip Hollobone
Matt Hancock, the culture secretary, has tweeted this about the result of the vote.
A great day for a free and fair press. We will work with closely IPSO to make sure their important work continues. https://t.co/V6eXBTjDUl
— Matt Hancock (@MattHancock) May 9, 2018
Kevin Schofield was right. (See 4.14pm.) The Labour amendments NC20 and NC21, the ones that would force newspapers not signed up to a Leveson regulator to pay libel costs even when they win, were not put to a vote. The debate has now moved on.
My colleague Jessica Elgot says Labout withdrew the amendments partly because some Labour MPs had concerns about the move.
Seems like Labour now won't even push Tom Watson's Section 40 amendment to a vote - some Labour MPs were apparently concerned themselves...
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) May 9, 2018
MPs vote down plan for Leveson part two inquiry into press misconduct by majority of 9
MPs have voted down the Miliband amendment - but by just nine votes. There were 295 votes in favour, and 304 against.
This is from PoliticsHome’s Kevin Schofield.
I understand Labour will not be pushing the section 40 amendment to the Data Protection Bill to a vote, meaning newspapers will not be liable for legal costs in libel actions they win. Big victory for investigative journalism.
— Kevin Schofield (@PolhomeEditor) May 9, 2018
Some news from the lobby, while we wait for the result.
Theresa May will be hosting Turkey's President Erdogan next week, No 10 has said. You could argue that if people are planning to protest at President Trump's visit, why wouldn't they do the same for Erdogan? He's more repressive, if less headline-hogging.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) May 9, 2018
MPs vote on NC18, calling for a Leveson two inquiry
MPs are now voting on Ed Miliband’s NC18, calling for what would effectively be phase two of the Leveson inquiry to go ahead.
Here is an extract from the wording.
1) The Secretary of State must, within the period of three months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, establish an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 into allegations of data protection breaches committed by or on behalf of national news publishers and other media organisations ...
(3) The terms of reference for the inquiry must include requirements—
(a) to inquire into the extent of unlawful or improper conduct by or on behalf of national news publishers and other organisations within the media in respect of personal data;
(b) to inquire into the extent of corporate governance and management failures and the role, if any, of politicians, public servants and others in relation to failures to investigate wrongdoing at media organisations within the scope of the inquiry;
(c) to review the protections and provisions around media coverage of individuals subject to police inquiries, including the policy and practice of naming suspects of crime prior to any relevant charge or conviction;
(d) to investigate the dissemination of information and news, including false news stories, by social media organisations using personal data;
(e) to consider the adequacy of the current regulatory arrangements and the resources, powers and approach of the Information Commissioner and any other relevant authorities in relation to—
(i) the news publishing industry (except in relation to entities regulated by Ofcom) across all platforms and in the light of experience since 2012;
(ii) social media companies;
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory Brexiter, also gave a stirring speech in the debate. He opposed the Labour amendments, saying a free press was one of the glories of the constitution. This is from the Daily Mirror’s Andrew Gregory.
Jacob Rees-Mogg: "The freedom of the Press is so overwhelmingly precious, that we should preserve it, even if sometimes the Press upsets us. It is amazing how many people who have had run-ins with the Press have suddenly found that they think it should be more tightly regulated."
— andrew gregory (@andrewgregory) May 9, 2018
Updated
Miliband says last Labour government did not act against press 'because they feared consequences'
Here are some more excerpts from Ed Miliband’s speech. It was the most passionate of the debate so far.
Miliband said that when David Cameron was prime minister, he promised victims that part two of the Leveson inquiry would go ahead. Miliband went on:
No ifs, no buts, no maybes. A clear promise. And a promise to victims of the press. And here we are today, and we have the government saying, ‘Let’s dump this promise, it’s too expensive, it’s a distraction.’ How dare they! How dare they, to the McCanns, the Dowlers, all those other victims ... I say to members across the House, whatever party they are in, this is about our honour. This is a matter of honour about the promise we made.
And this is what he said about Leveson two being shelved because politicians were afraid of the press. Miliband was in cabinet at the end of the last Labour government, but he said that government did not take action against the press “because they were feared the consequences”.
But let’s be absolutely honest. There is one overriding reason that the government has decided to abandon this inquiry. And that needs to be discussed. It’s quite simple; it’s fear. Fear. Fear about the wrath of the press. That’s why they’ve made this decision, because the press doesn’t want it to go ahead and they fear the attacks on them by the press. That’s why the last Labour government did not take action against the press, because they feared the consequences of it.
And we also said after 2011, ‘Never again are we going to succumb to fear and make the wrong decisions that are not in the public interest.’ Fear of the powerful is not a good reason to allow them to trample on the powerless when we have it in our hands to do something about it. It goes against everything we promised in 2011, everything we said to the victims, everything we told the public. And remember the words of the current prime minister [on the steps of Downing Street], ‘When we take the big calls, we will think not of the powerful, but you.’ I say think of the public not the powerful today.
HuffPost Paul Waugh says the SNP will not support Labour on NC20 and NC21, which means Labour seems certain to lose.
Just been told by Commons snout that the SNP will DEFINITELY abstain on Section 40. So it is bound to fall, and Govt will win.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 9, 2018
Bill Wiggin, a Conservative backbencher, is speaking now. He is supporting the Watson amendments, NC20 and NC21, which would introduce the punitive costs provisions for newspapers that do not sign up to an approved regulator.
Parliament legislated for this, in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, but the government never implemented that section - and then subsequently decided to to get rid of it.
Wiggin says that it is wrong to describe this as amounting to state regulation.
Ken Clarke, the Conservative backbencher, is speaking now. He says he signed Ed Miliband’s amendment calling for part two of the Leveson inquiry to go ahead because he was justice secretary at the time of the first inquiry. It was always the intention then to hold a phase two, he says.
He says politicians are afraid of newspaper proprietors. That may explain why the government does not want phase two to go ahead, he says.
He says at the time of Leveson part one, people did not know that the Sun was involved in hacking. And people did not know that the Mirror group was as “mired in criminality” as it is now clear it was. He says the Mirror was settling every claim to help stop the truth getting out.
He says people are saying there is no need to go back that far. Yet the historic child abuse inquiry is going back much further, he says. It is inquiring into people who are now dead.
He says everyone in the Commons favours a free press. He says it is “a joke” to suggest that holding a Leveson two inquiry will undermine that.
There are probably policemen still serving who are hoping that their corrupt relationship with the media will not be investigated because they have go away with it so far.
And there are probably editors still in post who knew that, when they hired private investigators, they were acting illegally, he says.
He says we need to have a look at the ethical standards observed by journalists.
Miliband says government has shelved Leveson two because it is afraid of press
Miliband says, if abuses like this were happening in any other area of public life, the press would not be saying the search for the truth should be time limited.
He admits that a new inquiry would cost some money. But the first one cost £5m, he says. He says paying that sort of amount is worth it.
And he says there is another factor: fear. He says the government is refusing to order another inquiry because it is afraid of the press.
Yet that contradicts what Theresa May said when she became prime minister, he says. He says that she said, when she took decisions, she would always put the interests of ordinary people first. She should do that in this case, he says.
- Miliband says government has shelved Leveson two because it is afraid of the press.
Miliband says anyone who doubts the need for Leveson phase two should look at the Kerslake report (pfd) into what happened after the Manchester bombing.
He quotes some excerpts, comments from the families of victims. (See page 56.)
“By far the worst thing was the press.”
“They … are a disgrace, they don’t take no for an answer, they have a lack of standards and ethics.”
“The press were not respectful of grief.”
Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader, is speaking now. He has tabled NC18, the new Leveson inquiry amendment, and he says he has done so because he was party leader when he, David Cameron and Nick Clegg all agreed a cross-party response to phone-hacking.
He says they all met phone-hacking victims, and promised them that this time would be different; parliament would learn lessons from what went wrong, and act, he says.
Saying “how dare they”, he says shelving the phase two inquiry that was promised would be unacceptable.
He is sounding angry.
Absolutely furious intervention from @Ed_Miliband on government's decision to abandon Leveson 2. "This is about honour. This is about a promise we made".
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) May 9, 2018
John Whittingdale, the Conservative MP, is speaking now. He was chair of the Commons culture committee when the phone-hacking scandal emerged. And subsequently he became culture secretary.
He says the newspaper industry has changed a great deal since the time of the scandal, and the Leveson inquiry.
The Leveson report said papers that refused to sign up to a press regulator approved by the government should have to pay libel cost even if they won. But Whittingdale says none of the major newspapers was willing to sign up to IMPRESS, the one regulator approved by royal charter.
He says the alternative regulator, Ipso (the Independent Press Standards Organisation), which is backed by many newspaper groups, is in all major respects compliant with Leveson standards. He says it only refused to apply for accreditation because it was opposed to state regulation in principle.
The reason that Ipso has not applied for recognition under the royal charter is not because it doesn’t comply, but because there is an objection in principle on the part of every single newspaper to a government-imposed system which this represents.
Whittingdale says the other major development is that the press landscape has changed enormously in recent years.
Addressing the Labour MPs backing these amendments, he says they should listen to those opposed: not just the newspapers but groups like Index on Censorship, Reporters without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists.
They say that for this House to bring in this kind of measure sends a terrible signal to those who believe in a free press and, therefore, I hope that these amendments will be rejected.
Updated
Byrne ends his speech by saying, after so many previous scandals, MPs should now know that it is always wrong to say that it is too expensive or that they are too busy to investigate things that go wrong.
And this is from Tom Watson, the Labour deputy leader and shadow culture secretary. He has tabled NC20 and NC21 - the amendments relating to punitive legal costs.
‘I, personally, am determined to see Lord Justice Leveson’s principles implemented.’ Not my words – the words of the Tory Chief Whip @JulianSmithUK who is today ordering Tory MPs to vote against those principles. pic.twitter.com/38GXrq7Hhh
— Tom Watson (@tom_watson) May 9, 2018
This is from Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader who has tabled NC18 - the amendment calling for a new inquiry.
Matt Hancock appears to have granted “Leveson for Northern Ireland” according to Ian Paisley. I wonder why and I wonder why the rest of the UK can’t have Leveson 2?
— Ed Miliband (@Ed_Miliband) May 9, 2018
Byrne says Lord Justice Leveson was not happy about the government’s decision to shelve phase two of his inquiry.
It is true to say that Leveson wanted the terms revised. But that is because he wanted them widened, Byrne says.
Liam Byrne, the shadow digital economy minister, is now speaking in the debate on behalf of Labour.
He says the first Leveson inquiry could not go into detail about what went wrong and who did what. He says wrongdoing was not exposed, particularly in relation to collusion between the press and the police. He says MPs should be in favour of these things being brought into the open.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Conservative former work and pensions secretary, asks what Byrne expects to learn from a phase two inquiry that he has not already learnt from the court cases.
Byrne says he wants to learn what happened.
Hancock referred to a review of media compliance with data protection standards to be carried out by the information commissioner.
The government is legislating for this in NC22. This is what the official note says about what NC22 would achieve.
It requires the information commissioner to carry out a review of, and report on, the extent to which the processing of personal data for the purposes of journalism complied with the data protection legislation during the first 4 years of its operation.
Labour’s Tom Watson asks if the Northern Ireland review will look at the activities of UK newspapers in Northern Ireland. He says a newpaper group has admitted hacking the computers of someone in Northern Ireland.
Hancock says, if the group has admitted criminality, there is no need for an inquiry because the facts are already out.
Hancock announces a review of press standards in Northern Ireland
Ian Paisley, the DUP MP, says the Leveson inquiry did not cover Northern Ireland. Without a Leveson phase two, Northern Ireland will lose out, he suggests.
Hancock has another mini announcement up his sleeve.
- Hancock says there will be a review of media standards in Northern Ireland. He says the information commissioner is going to conduct a general review of media compliance with data protection standards and that, as part of this, a named person will conduct the Northern Ireland review.
Paisley suggests this could be seen as a Leveson inquiry for Northern Ireland.
Hancock has a mini announcement to make.
- Hancock says HM Inspectorate of Constabulary has been asked to review how police forces are implementing the guidelines on relations with the media introduced after the Leveson inquiry. He says the government “will not hesitate to strengthen the rules further” if that is needed.
New Leveson measures would threaten future of press, Hancock tells MPs
Hancock says liberal democracies cannot survive without the fourth estate (the press). And it is under threat as never before, he says. He says these amendments would undermine it.
Updated
Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Conservative, says these matters have been decided before “the jewel of our legal system”, a jury. He says some people were found acquitted and some were convicted. It would be wrong to effectively put them on trial again by holding a new inquiry, he says.
Hasn’t this been decided in the jewel of our legal system, that is to say in front of a jury. Some people accused of things that would have been part of Leveson two have been acquitted and some, very few, have been convicted.
Once somebody has been tried in front of a jury it is fundamentally unfair and unjust, it is a question of double jeopardy, if they are then brought before another tribunal, put once more on oath to repeat evidence that they have given before and then been acquitted, so it would be against British justice to proceed in this way.
Updated
Ken Clarke, a Conservative, intervenes. He has signed Ed Miliband’s NC18 amendment. (See 2.09am.) He says he and Hancock were both members of the government that said part two of the Leveson inquiry would go ahead. (Part two was intended to be the one looking into the specifics of phone hacking allegations - matters that could not be considered by the first one because criminal investigations were ongoing.) Clarke says the government must explain why an inquiry that was promised is not going ahead.
Hancock says inquiries cost money. And you hold inquiries to find out what happened. In this case, we know what happened, he says.
He says NC18 would produce a “backward-looking inquiry”. It would be better to look forward, and to establish what help the media needs now, he says.
Hancock is now talking about the new Leveson inquiry amendment - NC18, tabled by Ed Miliband, the former Labour leader.
Hancock says this amendment would not produce the Leveson phase two inquiry that was originally envisaged when the Leveson inquiry was set up. He says it would only establish an inquiry into data protection breaches.
MPs debate data protection bill
MPs have now started debating the data protection bill. As Jim Waterson and Pippa Crerar report in our preview story, the government is facing tricky votes on two amendments. One would establish a “Leveson two” inquiry into the misuse of personal data by the media, and the other that would impose punitive legal costs on English media organisations that refuse to sign-up to an officially recognised press regulator.
The votes are due at 4pm.
Matt Hancock, the culture secretary, is opening the debate. He says the government is opposed to the two amendments.
Referring to the punitive legal costs amendments (new clause 20 and new clause 21 - NC20 and NC21), he says NC21 was framed to exempt the Guardian.
But even the Guardian has said it does not support this measure, he says.
That’s a reference to this statement (pdf) from the Guardian. Here is an excerpt.
The inclusion of Condition A has been widely interpreted as ensuring that news organisations structured along the lines of the Guardian and the Observer should be excluded from the scope of the broader clause. This clause was not discussed with Guardian News & Media and we want to make clear that we disagree with attempts to impose a selective sanction on the media.
While the model used by the Scott Trust is recognised in the amendment as maintaining high standards of journalism, it is a structure that is unique among UK publishers and rare globally as a model for news organisations. We do not believe that singling out one model of ownership for news organisations in this way is a constructive approach. We live in an age of diverse ownership, constitutions and business models underpinning news organisations in this country and around the world. This amendment implies that just one ownership model can result in the production of high quality journalism, which is simply not correct.
The full list of all the amendments being debated this afternoon is here (pdf).
The Labour MP Gareth Thomas has just delivered his speech making the case for his European Union withdrawal agreement (public vote) 10-minute rule bill. No MPs objected, and so the motion was carried. That’s the last the Commons will hear of this legislation - 10-minute rule bills never go any further - but technically you could argue that Commons has backed in principle the call for a second referendum bill (although only because, in this case, it does not count for anything.)
Julian Knight, a Conservative, asks Johnson if he agrees that the US is the UK’s most important ally and that anti-American rhetoric is to be deplored.
Johnson agrees. He says he wishes more MPs thought the same.
Johnson says in Congress there is “a great deal of support” for the JCPOA and “a great deal of confusion” as to why President Trump wants to get rid of it.
Johnson says, anyone with an alternative solution to the problem of how to constrain, or ideas for a military solution, should come forward now and say what those solutions are.
Johnson says, after closely interrogating people in the White House, he can tell MPs that there is no enthusiasm in the US for a military strike against Iran.
The SNP’s Peter Grant asks if the intelligence and security committee will be briefed on how Trump’s actions have increased the risk to UK citizens.
Johnson says Iran has decided, for the time being at least, to remain in compliance with the JCPOA. The UK wants to ensure it continues, he says.
Michael Fabricant, a Conservative, says the UK government should be working with Trump on this. He says the Iranians would not be investing so much in their missile programme if they were only interested in using them for conventional weapons.
Trump's decision could trigger an 'oil shock' for British consumers, Vince Cable claims
This is what Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader (and a former oil industry economist) said earlier about the possibility of Trump’s decision causing an oil shock.
Cables asked:
If the government has any contingency plans to protect British industry and motorists if the withdrawal of 4m barrels of Iranian oil results in an inevitable oil shock.
Johnson said the government would do its utmost to protect UK commercial interests.
Updated
Robert Halfon, a Conservative, says the government should support the US. It has taken this decision because Iranian missiles pose a threat, he says.
Johnson disagrees. He says the Iranians are complying with the JCPOA.
Labour’s Kevin Brennan asks if the US will be imposing sanctions on British companies trading with Iran.
Johnson says:
We will do our utmost to protect UK commercial interests.
Sir Michael Fallon, the Conservative former defence secretary, says the JCPOA was “flimsy”. It never covered ballistic missiles, he says.
Johnson says Fallon never expressed that view when he was in government.
Johnson rejects claims his “crazy” comment defied agreed government policy on customs partnership
Ken Clarke, the Tory veteran and former chancellor, congratulates Johnson on his “unswerving loyalty to collective government policy” on this occasion.
Johnson says, when he was a journalist, he used to get very good copy from Clarke’s own unswerving loyalty to government policy. And he was being loyal to government policy on the customs partnership issue, he says, because in this areas government policy has not been settled.
- Johnson rejects claims his “crazy” comment defied agreed government policy on the customs partnership.
Boris Johnson blasts critics saying he has broken ranks to speak out against CP. Tells Ken Clarke: “I am completely in conformity with Government policy on the matter, since that policy has yet to be decided."
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 9, 2018
Updated
UK could suffer from higher oil prices as a result of Trump’s action, MPs told
Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem leader, says the government has now realised the limits of “sycophancy” towards the US. What contingency plans does the government have for possible oil price increases if Iran stops selling oil to the west.
- UK could suffer from higher oil prices as a result of Trump’s action, MPs told.
Johnson says the government will protect the interests of business.
Labour’s Hilary Benn asks Johnson if he agrees that Trump’s decision will encourage Iran to think that the US will never keep its word.
Johnson says MPs should not get unduly pessimistic. He says the US now needs to come up with alternative solutions.
Johnson says US now has to come up with 'concrete proposals' showing how it will contain Iranian threat
Johnson is responding to Thornberry.
He says, to be fair to the US administration, “they have decided that there is another way forward”.
The UK is taking a different view, he says.
He says it is now up to Washington to come up with concrete proposals as to how it wants to address the problems posed by Iran.
- Johnson says US now has to come up with “concrete proposals” showing how it will contain the Iranian threat.
On North Korea, he says MPs will want to congratulate Trump for what he is achieving.
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, is responding now.
She says there will be a time to debate the wisdom of the government’s approach to President Trump. But that time is not now, she says.
She says Trump is guilty of “diplomatic sabotage”. And she accuses him of “recklessness and idiocy”.
And he is sending a message to North Korea that any deal it strikes with the US will be worthless.
She asks what will happen to British companies that want to carry on trading with Iran.
And how will the world stop a descent into conflict. Iran is nine times as large as Syria, she says, and has a population the size of Germany’s.
She quotes an article saying the Trump administration is deploying the same strategy used by Washington before 2003 to pave the way for war with Iraq.
She says the announcement also confirmed that, as long as Trump remains present, “we must get used to a world without American leadership”.
If we did not know it before, what yesterday’s announcement confirmed is that as long as Donald Trump remains president we must get used to a world without American leadership. A world where efforts to secure peace and progress on the greatest challenges facing the planet must be made not just without American co-operation, but often in the face of this administration’s active opposition.
Updated
Boris Johnson's statement on Iran nuclear deal
Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, is making a Commons statement about the Iran nuclear deal.
He says the UK still sees this deal as essential for the UK’s security, despite what President Trump has decided.
He says Iran is now subject, under the deal, to the most intrusive nuclear checks.
He says Britain has no intention of walking away from the JCPOA (the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action).
- Johnson says UK has “no intention of walking away” from the Iran nuclear deal.
He says he cannot yet say what the UK will do about taking this forward.
It is now up to the US to say how they see the way ahead.
He urges Iran to exercise restraint, and to comply with its obligations under the JCPOA.
He says the UK has been at one with the US over its concerns about Iran. A nuclear-armed Iran would never be acceptable to the UK, he says.
He says he has no difficulty with President Trump’s goal about containing Iran. But the question is how you go about this, he says.
He says the UK will “strive to preserve the gains made by the JCPOA”.
Updated
Labour’s Melanie Onn asks about police cuts in Grimsby. Residents don’t have the fully-funded police service they deserve.
May says since 2015 police funding has been protected, she says. She says there is no direct link between the number of crimes and police funding, she says.
And that’s it. Under Lyndsay Hoyle PMQs has finished earlier than under John Bercow (although still eight minutes after 12.30pm, which is when it used to end and when it is still officially supposed to wrap up.)
Alex Chalk, a Conservative, asks May to confirm that Afghan interpreters who helped the armed forces will be allowed to stay in the UK, and fees will be waived.
May says the home secretary has been looking at this. It is important to recognise the debt we owe them, she says.
The Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael asks about plastics. Will the government work with manufacturers to see what they can do to reduce the 50 different types of plastic in use, so sorting and recycling becomes easier.
May says that is a good point. The government is doing exactly that, she says.
May says the government is committed to building more homes.
Labour’s Chris Ruane asks about a constituent and says the government has created a “hostile environment” for PIP claimants.
May says the government keeps PIP under review. But Ruane asked about health. As a Welsh MP, he should ask the Welsh Labour government about the state of the NHS in Wales.
Julian Lewis, a Conservative, asks May if she agrees having a statute of limitation in the process for investigating historic offences from the Troubles is an option that should be considered.
May says this is an important topic. At the moment there is an unfair situation; the only people being investigated over the past are former soldiers and members of the security services. That is not right, she says. She says terrorists should be investigated too.
Labour’s Chi Onwurah asks about a company forces into bankruptcy because the government did not pay out EU development funds on time. Does May accept Tory infighting is costing jobs?
May says the government has been clear about how it will maintain funding for organisations dependent on EU money. It is Labour policies that will cost jobs, she says.
Andrea Jenkyns, a Conservative, asks about an initiative to promote respect in schools.
May pays tribute to those working to promote cohesion. Schools now have to promote democracy and the rule of law, she says.
Labour’s Holly Lynch says the Yorkshire Post has called on Chris Grayling to resign because the rail service in the north is so bad, and promises have not been kept.
May says the government is making a record investment in transport in the north.
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - Snap verdict: Even supporters of the Conservative government would be hard pressed to argue that Theresa May is making a success of Brexit, and today Jeremy Corbyn hammered home the argument that she is mucking things up with admirable efficiency. May seemed particularly uncomfortable and discombobulated by the experience, and her replies were more evasive than usual. She got in an irrelevant but telling jibe about Corbyn’s stance on TTIP, and a neat and half-fair soundbite about his stance on the customs union, but overall she was very much on the defensive and shorn of authority. For Corbyn, it was a clear win - and probably his best on the topic of Brexit (which is not always an easy one for him.) Two factors seemed to help. Corbyn often starts with a good, pithy questions, but then gets bogged down in prolixity. Today all his questions were relatively short and precise (or, at least, they seemed so), and they were more effective as a result. And Corbyn also toned down some of the emotive, partisan rhetoric he tends to favour. Whether this was intentional or whether it was because the EU simply doesn’t stir his emotions much wasn’t clear. But the almost understated tone made his questions all the more compelling. When the facts on their own are so damning, stirring adjectives become superfluous.
Corbyn says the negotiations are a shambles. And the Commons is being denied the chance to debate Brexit. When will May debate the trade bill and the customs bill?
May says Corbyn talks about the negotations. He said they were going nowhere. But she got a joint report in December. She will get the best deal for the UK, she says.
Corbyn asks how the government can negotiate for a good deal when cabinet members are interested in putting their own careers first. How can the government get a good deal when it is still negotiating amongst itself.
May praises her own record on the economy. This is a government putting jobs first. Last week we saw the British people voting to reject the back to the future economic policy of Labour.
Corbyn says Sir Ivan Rogers, the former ambassador to the EU, says May’s customs plans is a “fantasy island unicorn” plan. Will Mays stand up to what Ken Clarke calls “these wild people”.
May says the UK is leaving the EU and the customs union. Labour’s plan would have the EU negotiating on behalf of the UK, in the EU’s interest.
Corbyn says May presides over a divided cabinet. He says the CBI backs a customs union. Ruling one out risks jobs. The government rejects a customs union. But Greg Clark at the weekend said neither customs option would be ready by the end of the transition.
May says it is only now that the UK can have discussions with the EU about customs arrangements. She says Corbyn has spent his entire career opposing a customs union. Now, when the British people want to come out, Corbyn wants to come in.
Jeremy Corbyn asks if May agrees with Boris Johnson that the plan for a customs partnership is “crazy”.
May says the UK is leaving the customs union and the EU, but that it will need new customs arrangements. She says what’s crazy is a leader of the opposition who opposed TTIP but would now sign up to it with no say whatsoever.
Corbyn asks why May and her cabinet spent weeks working up customs planned said by the EU to be unworkable. He says Greg Clark, the business secretary, said jobs would be at risk without a proper customs deal.
May says Clark was talking about jobs. She is happy to talk about jobs - half a million were lost under Labour.
Maria Caulfield, a Conservative, asks what it was about Labour that convinced voters to back the Tories in the local elections.
Lyndsay Hoyle says the PM is not responsible for the Labour party.
May says last Thursday the real winners were ordinary people who got Conservative councils.
The SNP’s Drew Hendry says many Highland businesses rely on EU national. Will May rule out any charge for skilled EU migrants coming to the UK after Brexit.
May says the government will bring forward proposals in due course.
Theresa May offers her condolences to the family and friends of Michael Martin, the former speaker.
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
Lyndsay Hoyle, the deputy speaker, is in the chair because John Bercow is at Michael Martin’s funeral.
Most experts argue that, if the UK leaves the customs union and single market as it intends, some sort of checks will have to be imposed at the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. And this was the conclusion of an inquiry by the Commons Northern Ireland affairs committee, which has a clear Conservative/DUP majority and which is chaired by the leave-voting Tory Andrew Murrison. Its report published in March said: “We have, however, had no visibility of any technical solutions, anywhere in the world, beyond the aspirational, that would remove the need for physical infrastructure at the border.”
But today the centre-right thinktank Policy Exchange has published a report (pdf) claiming there is a solution to the Irish border quandary. It includes a foreward from David Trimble, the former first minister of Northern Ireland who is now a Conservative peer.
Here’s an extract.
Modern technology means that physical customs posts, or even cameras, are no longer essential at borders. This has been pointed out [here - pdf] by Lars Karlsson, a customs expert commissioned by the EU to look into this subject, who envisages the use of mobile phone and GPS technology to track HGVs, together with the computer-based customs clearing (the norm across much of the world). Computerised customs clearing consists of declarations of tariff duties payable, including on import content, and also the necessary certification of regulatory approval. Inspection of animal health and food standards can occur at producers’ premises, is common in current practice. Customs clearance occurs at the exporter’s premises and the sealed consignments can then cross the Irish border while being tracked electronically by customs authorities. Few additional incentives for smuggling will be in place if there is an FTA, but smuggling can be further deterred if legislation mandates that all HGVs operating in Ireland carry tracking technology.
Supporters of UK membership of the EU customs union assert that no border exists anywhere in the world without some physical infrastructure. This is true in principle but not relevant to the case in hand. Mr Karlsson says that arrangements without physical infrastructure have been successfully trialled on the Norway-Sweden border. The only reason that they have not been adopted for general use on this border is that the existing border arrangements are satisfactory and hence the cost of new electronic systems is not justified.
Our conclusion is that the UK can deliver the promise of “no hard border” in Ireland without remaining in the EU customs union, or inventing new and complex schemes involving the tracking of individual consignments to their final destination. Since very few consignments are actually checked at existing EU borders, and those checks are usually based on intelligence received, such checks can easily be made away from borders.
My colleague Simon Tisdall has written a blistering column about President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal. He says Theresa May should retaliate by withdrawing Trump’s invitation to visit the UK. Here is how it starts.
Donald Trump’s torpedoing of the Iran nuclear deal on highly specious and misleading grounds is an act of wanton diplomatic vandalism fraught with dangers. While the 2015 agreement may not yet be wholly sunk, it is holed below the waterline. Many in Tehran will see the sweeping reimposition of US sanctions as a declaration of war. As for Trump, he has once again proved himself the master of chaos.
This aggressive bid to further isolate Iran appears designed to ultimately enforce regime change. In the short-term it will destroy remaining mutual goodwill, undermine pro-western Iranian opinion, empower hardliners, trigger an oil price crisis, and increase the risk of conflict centred on Syria and Israel. It raises the spectre of a regional nuclear arms race, and damages the western alliance to the advantage, among others, of Russia. It is a Crimea-sized blow to the primacy of international law.
And here is the full article.
When the Conservatives were in opposition after 1997 party strategists discovered that many of their policies were popular with voters. But when people were told that the policies were actually Tory ones, public support for them shrank.
Today the Financial Times (paywall) has published a report based on some polling and focus group research carried out by Britain Thinks looking at attitudes to Labour and its stance on business. And Britain Thinks have discovered that the same problem now applies to Jeremy Corbyn; people seem to like what he is proposing, but less so when they find out he’s involved.
Here is an excerpt from the FT report.
The majority surveyed [in a poll] supported Mr Corbyn’s manifesto pledges, including plans to increase taxes, strengthen workers’ rights, crack down on executive pay and nationalise utilities. For example, 55 per cent of respondents “strongly” agreed that taxes should be higher for people earning over £70,000 a year. Just 9 per cent of respondents “strongly” disagreed.
Thirty-nine per cent of respondents “strongly” backed a 20:1 cap on the ratio between an employer’s highest and lowest-paid workers, while just 8 per cent “strongly” opposed one.
In the focus group in Southampton, the men were also keen on a cap on the difference between the pay of executives and their employees, and the nationalisation of the water, energy and rail industries. But when asked whether the policies belonged to the Conservative or Labour party, three quickly replied in succession: “Conservative”.
When the men were told that the policies belonged to Mr Corbyn’s Labour party, not Theresa May’s Conservatives, they went cold, with one calling them “rubbish”. “Their sums don’t add up,” said another participant, adding: “Although we haven’t seen the sums. We’re assuming they’re not going to add up.”
And here are two charts from the Britain Thinks presentation (pdf).
Updated
The Labour MP Gareth Thomas will use the 10-minute rule today to introduce a bill calling for a referendum on the final Brexit deal. Ten-minute rule bills never become law, but they do allow MPs to raise issues which occasionally get adopted as legislation at some point in the future in an alternative format. Thomas will get the chance to make a speech after the Boris Johnson Iran statement. Normally 10-minute rule motions don’t get opposed, but there is a good chance a Brexiter will object, and so we may even get a vote.
To coincide with Thomas’s 10-minute rule bill, Left Foot Forward has published some new polling suggesting that, if the UK were heading for a no deal Brexit, 53% of people would favour a second Brexit referendum, while 47% would oppose the idea.
According to reports in the Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, the Northern Ireland Office has drawn up plans on how to handle investigations into historic killings committed during the Troubles that don’t include a time limit on prosecutions involving members of the armed forces. At cabinet yesterday Gavin Williamson, the defence secretary, is said to have led opposition to the plan. But Karen Bradley, the Northern Ireland secretary, told him Sinn Fein and the DUP were both opposed to a statute of limitations.
Sir Jeffery Donaldson, the DUP MP, said his party was opposed to a statute of limitations because it thought that, if this was agreed for members of the armed forces, Sinn Fein would demand the same protection for terrorists. He said:
If you introduce a statute of limitations which relates only to Northern Ireland and our troubled past, organisations like the IRA would then press for an amnesty for their members and we believe it would be completely unacceptable to equate members of the armed forces with members of an illegal terrorist organisation.
We don’t believe it would be appropriate to try and equate terrorists with members of the armed forces.
That is why we don’t believe that the statute should be linked to the legacy proposals, which should focus on investigation into the 90% of violence carried out by terrorists.
But Donaldson said the DUP was in favour of a UK-wide statute of limitation to protect members of the armed forces. “The issues related to a statute of limitations for the armed forces should be dealt with on a national basis UK-wide and should cover conflicts such as Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
Trump ignored our warnings over Iran nuclear deal, Foreign Office minister admits
Last night President Trump announced that the US is abandoning the Iran nuclear deal. Downing Street responded by releasing a joint statement from Theresa May, Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and Emmanuel Macron the French president, criticising Trump’s decision.
This morning on the Today programme the Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt gave a fuller account of the government’s response. Here are the key points he made.
- Burt said the other countries signed up to the nuclear deal (officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action or JCPOA) wanted to ensure it survived.
It is all our job to try and de-escalate these tensions and I think it will take a little bit of time to work these things though. The president of Iran’s remarks last night were measured in response to the president of the United States and it is the determination of all the other parties to the agreement to try and keep it in place and make sure it works and seek to de-escalate tensions now.
- He admitted that Washington ignored Britain’s concerns about pulling out of the deal. When it was put to him that Trump was not listening to the UK, he replied:
That’s clear, yes, it would be silly of me to say anything else. We’ve made strong representations, President Macron, Chancellor Merkel, Boris Johnson, the prime minister spoke to the president last weekend as well. No, on this, being very straightforward, the president’s view of the deal, before he became president, he’s now brought into position ... He’s not listened, that’s absolutely correct.
- He said Britain and its allies now had to persuade Trump there were other ways to address the concerns he has about Iran, such as about its ballistic missile programme and its destabilising activity in the region. He said:
Now we have got to seek to persuade [Trump] and others there other ways of tackling the challenges he has set out. We won’t be seeking to make him go back on something. He won’t do that. But there are other ways forward and it is our job to make sure those other ways work, and work in a non-confrontational fashion, no matter how difficult that is in a tricky region.
Here is our overnight story about the announcement.
And here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, and Alistair Burt, the Foreign Office minister, host a breakfast meeting with the Syrian Negotiation Committee, which represents what’s seen as the moderate Syrian opposition.
9.40am: Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, gives a speech at the UK export finance conference.
10am: David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, gives evidence to the public administration and constitutional affairs committee about the collapse of Carillion.
10am: The funeral of Michael Martin, the former Commons speaker, takes place in Glasgow.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
Around 1pm: Boris Johnson is expected to give a statement to MPs about the future of the Iran nuclear deal.
After 2pm: MPs debate the data protection bill. As Jim Waterson and Pippa Crerar report, the government is facing two difficult votes, and potential defeats, over amendments to the bill.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the evening.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
