Rebecca Long-Bailey's interview - Summary
And here are the main points from the Rebecca Long-Bailey interview.
- Rebecca Long-Bailey accused Keir Starmer of not having clear policies. Asked about the policy differences between her and him, she replied:
I don’t know what Keir’s policy ideas are, if I’m honest. I know he says he wants to adopt the same values that the Labour party currently has, but what does that mean in practice?
Asked if she trusted him to stick to Jermey Corbyn’s legacy, she replied:
I think we need to see more detail, we need to see more meat on the bone in terms of what Keir believes in.
- She said that in principle she thought it would be a good idea for the Labour membership to have the chance to reconfirm her as leader in another ballot before the general election. But it might not be practical, she said. Asked if she supported mandatory reselection for party leaders, she said:
I don’t think that’s a bad idea. I think it would be quite disruptive potentially to do that in the months before a general election. But I certainly like your way of thinking.
- She accepted that, if she lost the next general election as leader, there would be another leadership contest. She said:
When we have the general election, after that if we don’t win the general election, then we’ll have another leadership election.
There was no leadership election after Corbyn lost the 2017 general election (although he had been challenged the year before.)
- She said it was wrong to describe her as continuity Corbynism, because there was no such thing as Corbynism. She said:
There’s no such thing as Corbynism and this is one of the things that always irks me. There is socialism and there are principles in the Labour party. And if I continue them, then I’m proud to do that. But I’m certainly not a continuation of Jeremy Corbyn or indeed any other member of the shadow cabinet or previous leader.
- She said, when she gave Corbyn 10 out of 10 in an interview, she was passing judgment on him as a person, not as a leader. She refused to give him marks out of 10 as a leader.
- She insisted she did have what it took to be prime minister. When this was put to her, she said:
I think there’s two elements to a leader. The first is being electable and resonating with communities and speaking the language of aspiration. The second is actually having the policies to improve their lives. And you need to have those two things, one doesn’t come without the other.
- She rejected claims that at a meeting of Labour’s national executive committee in July 2018 she sided with those opposed to the party adopting in full the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance definition of antisemitism. She was in favour of that, and assumed it would be adopted, she said. When Andrew Neil told her that “people who were in the room have told us that you stayed silent and you went along with those who opposed it”, she said that there was no vote taken at the meeting and that she could not remember if she spoke on the subject. But she said she fully supported adoption of the definition.
That’s all from me for tonight.
Here is my colleague Heather Stewart’s story about the two interviews.
Thanks for the comments.
Keir Starmer's interview - Summary
Here are the main points from the Keir Starmer interview.
- Starmer said that the £100,000 donation to his campaign from the lawyer Robert Latham, that was declared yesterday, was the largest single donation he has received. His opponents have been suggesting that he has been concealing his wealthy backers because he has not yet disclosed all the people who have given money. Asked why he was not willing to name all his donors now, Starmer said he was following the procedure proposed by the party, and that donations had to be vetted before they were disclosed to the parliamentary authorities and published.
- Starmer implicitly accepted that he was not an extrovert, charismatic leader, but he claimed he could be effective and inspiring. When Andrew Neil put it to him that Labour needed someone “with fire in their belly” as leader, Starmer replied:
It needs someone who can unite our party and bring it together, it needs someone who can effectively take on Boris Johnson at the despatch box, and it needs someone unrelentingly focused on winning that general election.
And there are different ways to inspire people. You can inspire people so they want to sit at your feet, listening to your next word; that’s not me. Or you can inspire people by building a team of people who want to come with you on a journey and change their party and their country ... That’s the way I want to inspire people.
- Starmer did not deny a claim that he privately thought Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership was awful. A recent BuzzFeed profile quoted the Labour peer Charlie Falconer as saying:
I think [Starmer’s] been appalled by the awfulness of the current leadership — not so much on policy but on the nastiness and the way they did things.
Starmer accepted that he knew Falconer well. He said he challenged Corbyn in shadow cabinet. When he was asked directly if he was appalled by the awfulness of Corbyn, he replied:
We obviously got it very wrong in that general election.
- He defended his decision not to criticise Corbyn in the leadership campaign, saying he wanted to unite the party and be positive. When it was put to him that he was frightened of saying anything negative about Corbyn, he denied it. He went on:
I’ve been running a very positive campaign, actually not just not criticising Jeremy, but not criticising the other candidates, because I profoundly believe that if our party can’t pull together and unify, then we’re going to carry on losing.
- He accepted that he had not said anything in the campaign unacceptable to the Corbynite left. When this was put to him, he said:
Well, I’m not particularly interested in finding things that they find palatable or unpalatable. I’m setting out my positive case, I’m saying, we need to unite the party, we need to be a very effective opposition against Boris Johnson, and we need to unrelentingly focus on winning that next general election.
- He confirmed that his pledges to renationalise water, energy, rail and the Royal Mail would be in Labour’s next manifesto - but he also described them as indicating the “direction of travel”, implying a degree of flexibility. They were “baseline indicators of where we’re going”, he said. He went on:
Lots of things are going to change between now and 2024. It’s not unlikely that we’ll be leaving the EU without a deal. We don’t know what the state of the economy will be. Manufacturing could well may take a hit, so we’re going to have to craft that 2024 manifesto looking forward. My pledges are an indication to our members as to what I think is important, the direction of travel and what we will build on.
- He suggested voters in the “red wall” northern seats that Labour lost were not as opposed to EU free movement as people assumed. Describing conversations with voters in those seats, he said:
We got to the nitty-gritty of it, which is, should people in this country be able to go and work in Europe, should those in Europe be able to come to work here; most people thought that was a good idea. When we got to, should families be able to live together, broadly speaking, most people agreed with that.
People in those communities were more interested in infrastructure, jobs and decentralisation, he said.
- He defended his decision to give more credibility to people making sexual abuse allegations when he was director of public prosecutions. He said:
Let me then explain how those guidelines came about. We were actually dealing with some of the grooming gangs up in the North West, and it came to my attention that some of those that we were now going to charge with very serious offences had previously been arrested but not charged. So I asked to see the file, because the question was, well if there’s offences this serious, why weren’t they charged.
When I looked into the file I saw that we were dealing there with girls, 13, 14, 15, who had been passed around between men in the most appalling circumstances. I looked into the file and what I saw was good faith decisions made by the police and prosecutors, using assumptions about credibility. So they were asking themselves, did this person go straight to the police and tell them what had happened; and the reality was, none of these victims had ...
So the assumptions that were being made in the criminal justice system were assumptions that were there for the model victim that doesn’t [exist] … So it absolutely needed to be changing.
When it was put to him that Paul Gambaccini had accused him of ruining lives, by approving sexual abuse prosecutions that resulted in acquittals, Starmer said the Gambaccini case never crossed his desk.
I will post a summary of the Long-Bailey interview next.
Q: You believe in open selections. Do you support that for the party leader?
Long-Bailey says she does not know how practical it would be for the party to have a leadership election just before a general election. But she says in principle she can see advantages to the idea.
Q: What would be different about you?
Long-Bailey says they need to understand why Labour lost. The first was Brexit. The manifesto should have been fine-tuned. Antisemitism was a problem. Disunity was a problem. And Labour did not have a message that could compete with “get Brexit done”.
And that’s it. The interviews are over.
I’ll post reaction and a summary soon.
Q: For Labour to meet its carbon targets, it would need to replace every gas biler in six years. How much would that cost?
Long-Bailey says the party would be starting now.
Q: Do you know how much that would cost?
Long-Bailey says the manifesto commitment was to cut most carbon emissions by 2030. She says gas is more complicated.
Q: You have not costed it.
We have, says Long-Bailey. She says Neil can read the costings tonight if he wants.
Q: It is a menu without prices.
It is not, she says. But she says it is hard to know what the situation would be for 2024.
Q: You did not call out antisemitism when someone made an antisemitic comment at a recent meeting.
Neil is referring to this.
WATCH: Rebecca Long-Bailey fails to challenge member who blames Corbyn's defeat on "members of the Israeli lobby" at Liverpool rally tonight. pic.twitter.com/HzQFEL2rUX
— The Red Roar (@TheRedRoar) February 24, 2020
Long-Bailey says she thought she had addressed this in her answer.
Q: You did not call it out.
Long-Bailey accepts that she should have done.
Q: Should someone like that be allowed in the party?
Long-Bailey says someone like that needs to go through education.
Q: Starmer and Emily Thornberry have said you did not speak up against the party’s handling of antisemitism at shadow cabinet.
Long-Bailey says that is not correct. She did speak up.
Q: We have been told that you did not call for the party to adopt the International Holocaust Memorial Alliance definition of antisemitism when the national executive committee discussed it.
Long-Bailey says she did support that, and that it was assumed it would go through.
Updated
Long-Bailey says she does not know what Starmer's policy ideas are
Q: What policy differences are there between you and Keir Starmer?
Long-Bailey says she is not sure. She says:
I don’t know what Keir’s policy ideas are, if I’m honest. I know he says he wants to adopt the same values that the Labour party currently has, but what does that mean in practice?
She says she knows about his principles, but not about his policies. She says people need to see “more meat on the bone” from Starmer.
- Long-Bailey says Starmer needs to show more ‘meat on the bone’ on policy because she does not know what he stands for.
Updated
Q: You said when you were a candidate that you worked for the NHS as a lawyer. But you didn’t.
Long-Bailey says she was working for a firm that was working for the NHS.
Q: Did you work on PFI contracts?
Long-Bailey says her firm worked on those. She says such was the nature of the NHS, that could not be avoided. The firm worked on property.
She says what she learnt about PFI made her realise how wrong it was.
Q: But you said that your work at the time was defending the NHS?
She says as an MP she has been trying to stop PFI contracts.
Q: Michael Ashcroft is a Tory peer, but he is a respected pollster. He has been polling on what people think of Labour. He found 55% of people would be more likely to vote for it if it were centrist, but only 8% of people wanted it to be more leftwing.
Long-Bailey repeats the point about Labour’s policies being popular.
Q: What is the evidence that if Labour moved to the centre, it would never win again?
Long-Bailey says the Tories are trying to set a trap for Labour.
Q: But you won elections from the centre.
And the vote share declines, says Long-Bailey.
Q: That always happens after a government has been in power.
Long-Bailey says Labour lost touch with its voters.
Q: You are continuity Corbynism.
Long-Bailey says there is no such thing as Corbynism. There is socialism.
Q: You want the same policies.
Long-Bailey says many of the policies were popular.
Too many were put through at once.
There were days when the election when there were three or four a day.
Q: So you are talking about just having a better wrapper, and not changing policy.
Long-Bailey says the principles don’t change.
Neil says he is talking about policy, not principles.
Q: You gave Jeremy Corbyn 10 out of 10 for his leadership. What would you have given him if he won?
Long-Bailey says that was a cheeky interview. She was commenting on Corbyn as a person.
Q: What would you give him for leadership?
Long-Bailey says she won’t give him marks It’s “not Top Trumps”, she says.
Neil says she did give him marks in the 10 out of 10 interview.
Rebecca Long-Bailey interview
Rebecca Long-Bailey is being interviewed now.
Q: The UK is facing a crisis. What is the biggest crisis you have handled?
Long-Bailey says she drew up Labour’s policies to address climate change.
Neil says that was making policy, not handling a crisis. He tries the question again. But Long-Bailey sticks to the same answer.
The programme is now showing an extract from the Lisa Nandy interview in January (written up by the Guardian here).
Summary
Q: Labour has never recovered from a defeat this big. Doesn’t Labour need a leader with charisma, with fire in their belly, who can inspire people. That is not you, is it?
Starmer says there are different ways of inspiring people. He is not a leader who will say ‘sit at my feet’. But he will unite people behind a vision that can lead to victory.
And that’s it. The interview is over.
Neil is now asking about the child abuse allegations from the past pursued by the CPS when Starmer was DPP. He says Paul Gambaccini (who was unfairly accused) has said Starmer ruined lives.
Starmer says that case never crossed his desk. He says it came up after he left the CPS.
He says the situation beforehand was wrong. Cases were not being properly, he says. He says the rules about prosecutions needed to be revised.
Updated
This is what the Press Association has filed on the Starmer interview.
Sir Keir Starmer has declined to identify all of his donors, after coming under pressure to disclose who is funding his Labour leadership campaign.
The frontrunner in the race to succeed Jeremy Corbyn insisted on Wednesday that he was sticking by party rules on finances, but his rivals say they have gone further.
Rebecca Long-Bailey and her allies have called for greater transparency from Sir Keir, with shadow minister Jon Trickett suggesting the delays were “anti-democratic”.
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir criticised “this line of attack” when repeatedly pressed to reveal all of his donors during an interview for The Andrew Neil Show on the BBC.
“How can you say I’m hiding behind process when it’s the Labour party process,” Sir Keir said, when pressed on who his five biggest donors are.
“I’ve got a compliance team in place who are checking every donation is in accordance with the rules,” he said.
“Once they’ve done that they pass it to the Parliamentary authorities for them to publish it. So two lots have gone up, another lot is with the Parliamentary authorities as of today, I’m following the rules.”
While not saying who his biggest donors are, he did, however, say that the biggest donation he has received was £100,000 from fellow lawyer Robert Latham, which was published on parliament’s register of interests on Tuesday.
Q: You are a bigger remainer. Doesn’t that make you the wrong person to rebuild the red wall.
Starmer says he voted for article 50. And he then spent two years trying to find a deal that would be acceptable.
He says Labour has been losing in many of these places for years. He says he does not accept the view that, if it had not been for the Brexit policy, Labour would have won them.
Q: Gareth Snell, who lost in Stoke, says he begged you not to adopt the referendum policy. He says that lost him the seat.
Starmer says he knows that. But other candidates from similar constituencies, like Jenny Chapman who was MP for Darlington, are backing him.
He says he has visited many of these seats. He asks people what they want him to focus on, what he should be reading on the train. They mention three things, he says: infrastructure; jobs with dignity; and decisions being taken closer to the people affected.
Starmer reaffirms his pledge to keep Labour’s manifesto commitments to take rail, water, energy and mail in to public ownership.
Starmer says £100,000 lawyer donation declared yesterday is biggest he has received
Q: Why have you not set out details of all your donors?
Starmer says he is following Labour rules. Candidates have to check donations are in order. Then they give details to the parliamentary authorities, who will publish them.
Q: You seem to be hiding behind the process. Other candidates have published this information. Why don’t you publish the figures now? People want to know who is funding you.
Starmer says he has said that. It is individuals, unions and crowd funders.
Q: Why not say who the five biggest donors are? Is that lawyer one of them.
Yes, says Starmer,
He is referring to a donation disclosed yesterday from the lawyer Robert Latham, who gave £100,000.
Starmer says that is his biggest donation.
- Starmer says he has not received any donation bigger than the £100,000 one from lawyer Robert Latham declared yesterday.
Q: People say once you win, you will move to the left. Is that right?
Starmer says he wants to develop policies for the future.
Q: 80% of members think you will move to the right.
Starmer says he has seen that.
Q: Can you identify any position you are taking in this campaign that the Corbynite left cannot accept?
Starmer says he has been stressing the need to unite.
Q: That is not unacceptable to them.
Starmer says he does not want to pick fights with anybody. He is being positive.
Q: You tried to undermine Corbyn on Brexit.
Starmer denies that.
Q: You said you would campaign for in and vote for in.
That was when Labour was committed to a second referendum.
Q: That’s wrong. It was before. You said it in January 2019.
Starmer says at that point the shadow cabinet was debating this.
He says Corbyn was happy for there to be a debate.
Keir Starmer interview
The Keir Starmer interview is being shown first.
Q: Jeremy Corbyn led Labour to a devastating defeat. So why won’t you criticise him?
Starmer says Labour lost the last four elections, not just this one. He says there were four factors behind the defeat. (He explains them using the same terms he did in the Guardian hustings last week.)
Q: Charlie Falconer says you were appalled by the awfulness of Corbyn. [That is a quote from this profile.] Were you?
Starmer says he was in shadow cabinet. Corbyn is standing down.
Q: The truth is you are frightened of criticising him.
Starmer says that is not the truth. He served Corbyn. Sometimes he disagreed with him. When he did, he had it out with him, either in the shadow cabinet or in Corbyn’s constituency office.
He says he has deliberately been running a positive campaign. He has not been criticising other candidates either.
The two interviews were recorded earlier today.
Here is the BBC’s story about what was said.
And this is how it starts.
Sir Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey have been challenged about their electability and leadership skills in BBC interviews with Andrew Neil.
Asked whether he had the charisma to transform Labour’s fortunes, Sir Keir said there were “different ways to inspire people” and his “unrelenting” mission was to return Labour to power.
Mrs Long-Bailey said she had the “big ideas” needed to win the next election.
The pair also were also quizzed on donations and action on anti-Semitism.
In separate interviews to be broadcast on the Andrew Neil show at 19:00 GMT, both the Labour leadership contenders committed to retain key policies from the party’s 2019 manifesto despite its overwhelming defeat.
Lisa Nandy, the third candidate still in the race, was interviewed by Andrew Neil in January. Most commentators thought (like this one) that she handled the encounter very well.
Andrew Neil interviews Labour leadership candidates
The BBC is about to show the Andrew Neil interviews with Sir Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey. They are on BBC 2.
Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer face questions from @afneil in an extended #AndrewNeilShow@BBCTwo Wednesday 1900-2000
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020
📽️ Previous Lisa Nandy interview https://t.co/E4hlsPTeXi pic.twitter.com/dLVGBBKAUb
Afternoon summary
- The number of coronavirus cases in the UK has jumped by 60% to 85 cases, in the biggest daily increase recorded to date. For full coverage of the coronavirus outbreak, do read our separate live blog about all the latest developments worldwide.
- Boris Johnson has promised sick pay from day one for all those with suspected coronavirus and hinted at further measures to stop gig economy workers losing pay if they need to self-isolate. Opposition parties and trade unions have said this does not go far enough. (See 4.30pm.)
- George Eustice, the environment secretary, has said the EU will abandon its attempt to make a trade deal conditional on the UK granting fishing rights to EU boats because many EU member states do not care about the issue. (See 12pm.)
- Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, has argued that using Huawei for 5G would be like using a Nazi firm to develop Britain’s radar system in 1939. (See 3.50pm.) He spoke in a debate where a ministerial promise that Huawei would eventually be phased out of future UK network failed to quell a brewing Conservative revolt over the issue.
That’s all for the moment.
But I will be reactivating the blog later, at about 6.45pm, to cover the Andrew Neil interviews with Labour leadership contenders Sir Keir Starmer and Rebecca Long-Bailey that are being broadcast between 7pm and 8pm.
Rebecca Long-Bailey and Keir Starmer face questions from @afneil in an extended #AndrewNeilShow@BBCTwo Wednesday 1900-2000
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) March 4, 2020
📽️ Previous Lisa Nandy interview https://t.co/E4hlsPTeXi pic.twitter.com/dLVGBBKAUb
The Guardian’s latest Politics Weekly podcast is up. Heather Stewart is joined by Polly Toynbee, Matt Forde and Andrew Gimson to discuss the various crises embroiling the Tory government, from coronavirus to bullying claims. Plus, Paul Owen breaks down the results from Super Tuesday.
Opposition parties and union says PM's sick pay announcement doesn't go far enough
At PMQs Boris Johnson announced that, in the light of coronavirus, the government is changing the rules to make sure statutory sick pay is temporarily available from the first day off sick instead of the fourth day. But opposition parties, union and thinktanks have said this does not go far enough. Here is some reaction.
From Jeremy Corbyn
There are two million workers on low pay, many of them women in the care sector, who are not eligible for statutory sick pay. The Prime Minister has not been clear whether or not they are covered.
The government’s emergency legislation must guarantee that the right to sick pay from day one will include those people who are not currently eligible for statutory sick pay, and that no one on social security will be sanctioned if they miss appointments. We will also be pressing the government to bring in further support for low-paid and self-employed workers, and those on universal credit.
No one should have to choose between health and hardship. This is a matter of public health concern for everybody.
From Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary
This is an important step forward for working people. But it’s not enough.
Two million workers still don’t earn enough to qualify for statutory sick pay. They can’t afford not to work. And statutory sick pay still isn’t enough to live on.
Government must go further to ensure that no one is penalised for doing the right thing.
From the SNP MP Marion Fellows
I am pleased that statutory sick pay (SSP) will now begin from the first day of a worker’s absence instead of after four but the UK government must extend the policy further to ensure that sick pay is set at an hourly rate and available for everyone for 52 weeks instead of 28.
Current rules around SSP are not flexible enough to meet real life needs, and fall far short of meeting a dignified standard of living – even with this new change. We must have a sick pay system fit for the 21st century which does not force people to choose between working while ill and hardship.
From Laura Gardiner, a research director at the Resolution Foundation thinktank
This is a welcome announcement that will go some way towards reassuring workers who need to self-isolate from the coronavirus that they will not lose all of their income by doing so.
However, this extra support will not help the UK’s five million self-employed workers who aren’t entitled to SSP, along with around two million low-paid employees who don’t earn enough (£118 a week) to qualify.
The government should now extend coverage of SSP further to ensure that no worker loses all of their income from doing the right thing if they’re affected by the coronavirus, and start a broader review to ensure we have an adequate sick pay system. It shouldn’t take a pandemic to prompt this.
From Mike Clancy, general secretary of the Prospect union
While welcome this move will do little to help freelancers and the self-employed, who will be some of the hardest hit by self-isolation.
Most cannot access statutory sick pay, so will still be faced with the dilemma of no pay or going to work when it may be putting their colleagues at risk.
From Susan Harris, legal director at the GMB union
The government can and must now move fast to use existing powers under the 1996 Employment Rights Act to ensure all employees are entitled to full pay from day one during medical suspension due to coronavirus.
Ministers should be supporting employers to do the right thing and help keep the British public safe during this unfolding crisis.
This Covid-19 outbreak has exposed the woeful limitations of statutory sick pay – which is just £94.25 a week.
The current arrangements give people a perverse incentive to come into work even if they may be infected - as it doesn’t cover the cost of housing or food.
Asked about Lord Reed’s comments (see 3.20pm), the prime minister’s spokesman told journalists at the afternoon lobby briefing:
We have said repeatedly we respect the independence of the judiciary and have no plans for the political appointment of judges.
Using Huawei for 5G like letting Nazis build British radar in 1939, claims Duncan Smith
It has been clear for some time that Boris Johnson faces a sizeable revolt from Tory MPs over his decision to allow the Chinese company Huawei a role in building the UK’s 5G infrastructure. The government has said that the involvement of Huawei (or the involvement of “high risk vendors”, to use the government’s terminology) should be capped at 35%. The critics are demanding that the 35% limit should over time be reduced to 0%.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, held a debate on this in Westminster Hall this morning and he said Huawei should be excluded from the 5G network within three years. He said:
We’re in a mess and the only way to get out of that mess is ... to ensure that Huawei reduces from its present position not to 35% that the government wants but simply down to 0%. I recognise that may take a little bit of time but I say in the next two to three years that should be the purpose of the government.
Duncan Smith also claimed that using Huawei, which is ultimately answerable to the Chinese government, was like using a Nazi firm to develop radar in 1939. He said:
Can I just simply say, imagine in 1939 had we been we developing our radar systems, we decided actually to have one of the Nazi companies in Germany involved directly in doing it. This is the level. ‘Oh, but we reduced to the 35% of the involvement, so only 35% was controlled by them.’ I wonder how ridiculous that is.
Westminster Hall debates do not involve debates on substantive motions. But they do involve government ministers having to reply, and the culture minister Matt Warman told MPs that the government did want to reduce its reliance on Huawei. Without saying when this would happen, he said:
I want to reassure members that we share the ambition that our long-term goal is that our reliance on high-risk vendors should reduce.
A timetable must be contingent on diversification in the market. Successive western governments have failed to ensure that there is effective competition in the market.
Huawei has repeatedly denied that its technology poses a security threat to the UK.
Updated
US-style confirmation hearings for judges would be 'intolerable', says supreme court president
Giving evidence to the Lords constitution committee this morning, Lord Reed, the president of the supreme court, said he would resign if the government tried introduce US-style confirmation hearings for judges. He refused to rule out quitting if the government introduced plans for a “politicised” judiciary. Pressed on what would force him to go, he replied:
The sort of system they have in the United States would be unacceptable. I know some of the justices there who have gone through that process. It is really intolerable.
Last year, after the supreme court declared that Boris Johnson’s decision to prorogue parliament was illegal, Johnson told the Sunday Telegraph that “if judges are to pronounce on political questions in this way, then there is at least an argument that there should be some form of accountability”. In what was seen as a hint that he favours US-style confirmation hearings for supreme court judges, Johnson said: “The lessons of America are relevant.”
Since then the government has backed away from this idea, although the Conservative election manifesto did commit the government to setting up a commission to consider “the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts”. Last month, in an interview the day before he was sacked as attorney general, Geoffrey Cox said that one option might be to allow a parliamentary committee to interview candidates for the supreme court. He claimed a system like this worked well in Canada.
In the Lords this morning Reed said he was not against greater political involvement in the appointment of judges, as long as the principles of appointment on merit and judicial political neutrality were preserved.
But he said that confirmation hearings by MPs risked drawing judges into discussion of political issues. He explained:
It is in the nature of the beast. They are not going to ask me: ‘Do I like cats?’ or, ‘How do I like to spend the weekend?’ What politicians are interested in is politics.
Updated
The Press Association has filed more on what Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman told reporters at his post-PMQs briefing about Priti Patel. (See 1.09pm.) The spokesman said:
We’ve had government staff contact our office directly with information and allegations about bullying in the Home Office by Priti Patel.
The spokesman would not be drawn on how many people had contacted Labour, but said staff from the Home Office and other departments had contacted the party in the last 24 hours. The allegations related to Patel and another former minister, the spokesman said.
They are bullying and harassment allegations of government staff and they simply build up the picture that has already accumulated in recent days. It is quite clear this is not an isolated allegation by one individual about one incident or one set of incidents.
Patel has repeatedly denied bullying officials.
Updated
SNP to reinstate MP suspended over antisemitic social media posts
The Scottish National party is reinstating an election candidate, Neale Hanvey, who was suspended for antisemitism before polling day, after he agreed to undergo training on antisemitism.
Hanvey was dumped as the SNP’s candidate for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath 14 days before December’s snap election after he admitted circulating two antisemitic posts, including one from the Kremlin-sponsored outlet Sputnik.
The Sputnik article about the Hungarian financier George Soros was illustrated with a cartoon of him holding puppets of German chancellor Angela Merkel and then US president Barack Obama. The second post was on Israeli policies with Palestine. He offered an “absolutely unequivocal” apology once they came to light.
Despite the controversy and the loss of the SNP’s campaigning resources, Hanvey refused to stand down as a candidate and won the seat by 1,243 votes, toppling the incumbent Labour MP Leslie Laird, then Labour’s shadow Scottish secretary. The seat, and a previous constituency it was partly created from, had been held by Gordon Brown, the former Labour prime minister, for 22 years until 2005.
Hanvey has technically been sitting in the Commons as an independent but was being reintegrated by the SNP group at Westminster before the party’s disciplinary committee had reached a decision. He has been told his suspension will end in May, six months after he was first dropped as the party’s candidate, after he agreed to do an education course with the Antisemitism Policy Trust.
“I am tortured by it”
— Glenn Campbell (@GlennBBC) March 4, 2020
MP Neale Hanvey @JNHanvey tells of his “internal moral panic” after suspension from SNP for sharing anti-semitic material
Mr Hanvey says he’s on an education programme with @antisempolicy “earnestly trying to make amends” pic.twitter.com/TySmWCkGeg
He told BBC Scotland he had been “tortured” by the accusations of antisemitism:
I never intended to cause offence and it was a deeply upsetting experience for me. I can describe it as a moral panic, an internal moral panic. ‘How can this be me?’ Do you know what I mean, because it didn’t reflect my values and I think the only thing that has kept me going is that I absolutely know – in a way that nobody else can understand – that I don’t have antisemitic views at all.
Asked whether his thinking had changed now he had studied this issue more deeply, Hanvey replied:
My views haven’t changed because I don’t consider myself to be antisemitic anyway but my understanding of the sensitivities absolutely sharply developed.
Updated
'I'm sticking by her' - Johnson strongly defends Patel despite bullying inquiry
Boris Johnson repeatedly defended Priti Patel, the home secretary, during PMQs, despite the fact that only two days ago he ordered a Cabinet Office inquiry into allegations that she has bullied civil servants.
When Jeremy Corbyn asked about the allegations, Johnson said:
The home secretary is doing an outstanding job, I have every confidence in her. If there are allegations, of course it’s right they should be properly investigated by the Cabinet Office and that is what is happening.
Later, when the Labour MP Matthew Pennycook asked if Patel would be expected to resign if the inquiry found her conduct had in any way fallen below that expected of a cabinet minister, Johnson went further. He replied:
The home secretary is doing an outstanding job delivering change, putting police out on the streets, cutting crime and delivering a new immigration system, and I’m sticking by her.
In his question, Corbyn said that it was wrong for the government to be “judge and jury” in this case. And he made a joking reference to a phrase once popularised by Johnson himself when he said:
Overnight, further allegations have emerged that the home secretary repeatedly harassed and humiliated her private secretary while she ran the Department for International Development.
If this is true, this suggests a shocking and unacceptable pattern of behaviour across three government departments - on each occasion, tens of thousands of pounds of hard-earned taxpayers’ money has been spaffed up the wall to buy their silence.
Was the prime minister aware of these allegations? And if he was, why did he appoint her?”
Johnson refused to say whether he knew about the DfID allegations against Patel when he made her home secretary. And he refused to agree to any of the three things Corbyn called for: an independent inquiry, led by an external lawyer; a deadline for the report’s conclusion, and a commitment that its findings will be published. (In the past the Cabinet Office has sometimes just published a summary of its conclusion, not its full report.)
But Johnson did confirm that Alex Allan, his independent adviser on ministerial conduct, would be working on the inquiry. On Monday, when Michael Gove announced the inquiry, he just said that Allan would be “available” to provide advice.
Updated
Earlier, when Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP leader at Westminster, asked a question at the end of PMQs, I wrongly referred to him as Nigel Dodds, who was DUP leader at Westminster before he lost his seat at the election. I’m sorry for the error, which I’ve now corrected.
Updated
PMQs - Snap verdict
That was one of the less memorable PMQs, but it very much felt like unfinished business on the two issues that dominated.
On coronavirus, Boris Johnson had a mini-announcement to make about statutory sick pay (SSP). (See 12.06pm.) But it did not really address the main concern about people losing out financially because they have to self-isolate – what will happen to the self-employed, and those in the gig economy? – and Corbyn sounded much better versed on the detail of SSP than the PM. But Johnson’s statement is almost certainly not the last word, as he implied in his answer to Ian Blackford. (See 12.18pm.) And it will be interesting to find out what the government’s distancing strategy means for parliament. (See 12.31pm.)
Corbyn was probably less effective on Priti Patel. That was party because his attack lines, though perfectly coherent, were less effective than the crisp and forensic question on the same topic from Matthew Pennycook (see 12.26pm), and partly because it invited the predictable and not entirely unreasonable pushback about double standards. But Corbyn did get Johnson to give Patel his backing, and the PM went even further in his response to Pennycook, coming close to prejudging the Cabinet Office inquiry with his line: “I’m sticking by her.”
In the light of what the Labour party is briefing as I write, this is all starting to look like a well-primed trap. This is from the BBC’s Iain Watson.
Breaking: @UKLabour says staff in the home office and 'other depts' have contacted @jeremycorbyn 's office with further complaints re @patel4witham and an unnamed 'former minister'
— iain watson (@iainjwatson) March 4, 2020
I will post more on these new Labour allegations when I get more details.
Updated
Leadsom says the last election showed that, when people said they wanted to leave the EU, they meant it.
She says as a backbencher she will now focus on boosting early years education.
She says when Johnson asked her to step aside, he gave his word he would back her on this agenda.
It has been an incredible 10 years, she says. But it “ain’t over yet”, she says.
And that’s it. Her career may not be over, but the speech is.
Updated
Leadsom says, after being defeated in the first round of the Tory leadership contest last year, she gave her wholehearted support to Boris Johnson.
She was pleased to become business secretary, she says.
She says the UK’s climate change ambitions are not just about doing the right thing; there is also a huge early mover advantage, she says.
Leadsom says it was tough resigning as Commons leader last year. But she could not support a bill that might end up endorsing a second referendum, she says.
She says she was sorry to see Theresa May resign. She thinks history will judge her kindly.
Leadsom is now talking about babies, and her longstanding belief in the importance of early years education.
Leadsom is now talking about the parliamentary bullying scandal. She was proud to pull together a commission on this, she says.
As leader of the Commons, she had a beautiful office, she says. But a rat lived in the bin, so she was happy to back the restoration and renewal bill.
Leadsom is now defending her decision to pull out of the Tory leadership contest in 2016.
It was amazing being environment secretary, she says. She recalls some of her ministerial achievements.
And she says she backed Theresa May in her determination that “Brexit means Brexit”.
Leadsom is now reminiscing about her career.
(This is more of an after-dinner speech than a resignation statement. Resignation statements normally have a political edge. This one doesn’t - at least, so far.)
Updated
Leadsom says there were reports that she once told George Osborne to “F off”. There is only one person she might say that to, and the list would not include any former or current chancellor, or any current Speaker.
That is a dig at John Bercow, the former Speaker, who had a terrible relationship with Leadsom and who once called her “stupid” in the chamber.
Andrea Leadsom's resignation statement
Andrea Leadsom, the former business secretary, is making a resignation statement.
She says she wants to make a statement about the importance of having women in politics.
She says she has learnt a lot, including how, if you are asked to vote for something called a Fixed-term Parliaments Act, you should say no.
She says she arrived in the Commons with three priorities, the three Bs: Brussels, business and babies.
Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP leader at Westminster, asks for a commitment that British business will continue to have unfettered access to the Northern Ireland market.
Johnson says he wants unfettered access for Northern Ireland to continue.
UPDATE: This post has been corrected, because originally it named Nigel Dodds as the DUP leader at Westminster who asked the question. Dodds did have that role, but lost his seat at the election.
Updated
Sir John Hayes, a Conservative, says “malign, bourgeois, liberal judicial activists” are putting at risk the government’s law and order policies.
Johnson says the government has already legislated on sentencing.
Labour’s Liz Kendall asks how the country will be able to find new care workers when EU workers are excluded?
Johnson says there are record numbers of EU workers in the country already. More can come before the end of the year.
He has “every confidence” the country can solve the issue of social care, he says.
Johnson says that, if it is true that empty planes are flying just to retain landing slots, that would be “crazy”.
Johnson hints at new procedures for MPs to stop them spreading coronavirus
The SNP’s Carol Monaghan says MPs operate in close proximity and meet people from around the world. They could be spreading coronavirus. What will the PM do to ensure MPs do not become part of the problem?
Johnson says the chief medical officer will be making a statement soon about what might be done to delay the spread of coronavirus, in parliament and in other large places.
- Johnson hints that new procedures could be introduced for MPs to stop them spreading coronavirus to each other and to their constituents.
Labour’s Thangam Debbonaire says Johnson’s government defends bullies.
Johnson says he loathes bullies. But he says he will not accept any criticism from this from a party that has tolerate antisemitism.
Labour’s Matthew Pennycook asks if Priti Patel will be expected to resign if the Cabinet Office inquiry finds that she has in any way fallen below the standard expected of a cabinet minister.
Johnson says Patel is doing an excellent job, and he goes on: “I’m sticking by her.”
Labour’s Ian Mearns says the five-week delay in universal credit leads to many social housing tenants being left in rent arrears. When will the PM stop this deliberate policy of inflicting poverty and destitution on tenants?
Johnson claims universal credit is available from day one.
(That is only partially true; claimants can get advance payments from day one, but those are effectively loans that have to be repaid.)
Labour’s Charlotte Nichols calls for a wider sentencing review, particularly looking at sentences for sex offenders.
Johnson says Nichols is “entirely right”, even though what she said was probably a “bombshell” for some of her Labour colleagues.
Shaun Bailey, a Conservative, calls for investment in the police and tougher sentences.
Johnson says this is what Priti Patel, the home secretary, is doing.
Steve Double, a Conservative MP, asks if the government will back lithium extraction in Cornwall.
Johnson says Cornwall has extensive supplies of lithium and he is glad it is being extracted.
The SNP’s Ian Blackford says up to 80% of the population could get coronavirus. He says the Bank of England governor yesterday proposed a financial bridge for markets to help them out. Will there be one for workers too, so they don’t lose out financially?
Johnson thanks the SNP government for its cooperation. He says he wants to ensure that “no one, whatever the status of their employment, is penalised for doing the right thing”.
Blackford says workers need specific guarantees. He says workers should be told that they will be fully protected. And SSP should be paid at the rate of the national living wage.
Johnson thanks Blackford for the tone of his question. He says the SSP will now be paid on the first day, not the fourth day. “No one should be penalised for doing the right thing,” he says. He says the chancellor would be happy to discuss this further.
Claire Coutinho, a Conservative, says UK carbon emissions have been reduced by a third.
Johnson welcomes this. He says later today he will chair the first cabinet committee on climate change.
Corbyn asks Johnson to commit to publishing the results of that investigation. He says there are now allegations about Patel in three departments. In each case tens of thousands has been “spaffed up the wall”. Why did he appoint Patel?
Johnson says Patel is doing an excellent job. There is an investigation. But he will take no lessons on bullying from Corbyn, who saw female MPs leave the party over bullying.
Corbyn says we have a part-time PM who covers up for bullies. Patel has been accused of bullying and harassment, leading to hard-working staff attempting suicide. He says Johnson has no shame.
Johnson says Corbyn is a full-time neo-Marxist. He says he is proud of his record. He lists some of the actions taken by the government. That is just in the last 82 days, he says. He is getting on with the people’s priorities.
Updated
Corbyn asks if the right to SSP from day one, just announced by the PM, will apply to all claimants, and to people who currently do not get it.
(This is an issue raised by the TUC - see 9.13am.)
Johnson says some people will benefit. Some people will get help through universal credit.
Corbyn says the PM is not being clear. If you go on universal credit, there is a five-week wait. He says public health should be a concern for everyone.
He says the part-time PM failed to turn up on Monday to answer a question about Priti Patel. Will he commit to an independent inquiry into her, and give a date for when it will conclude?
Johnson says there should be an inquiry. That is what Alex Allan, the PMN’s independent adviser on ministerial conduct, would do. He says Patel is keeping the public safe; Corbyn opposes stop and search, he says.
Corbyn asks if it is true that the police may have to give up some investigations because of coronavirus.
Johnson says the government is not at that point. They are prepared for these sorts of emergencies.
Johnson announces plan to increase payment of statutory sick pay in light of coronavirus
Jeremy Corbyn starts by congratulating Johnson and his partner on her pregnancy.
He pays tribute to Salisbury, and to the medical staff working on coronavirus.
Yesterday the “part-time prime minister” published a plan. He says it “broadly” has Labour’s support. But the NHS is struggling. What extra funding will it get?
Johnson says the government has put in record funding to the NHS. He says the government has promised to give it what it needs.
He says he has an update for MPs. The government is not asking people to self-isolate yet, but that may come. If they stay at home, they may lose out financially. So today he is announcing measures to allow the payment of statutory sick pay from the first day someone is sick.
- Johnson announces plan to increase payment of statutory sick pay in light of coronavirus.
Updated
Richard Graham, a Conservative, asks if there will be a plan to cover any cash flow losses from businesses caused by the coronavirus outbreak.
Johnson says Graham is right. The government is monitoring the situation, he says. The action plan, the battle plan, already points to schemes covering this, like “time to pay”.
Updated
PMQs
Boris Johnson is taking PMQs.
He starts by saying it is two years since the Russian chemical weapons attack in Salisbury.
George Eustice's evidence to peers about fisheries negotiation with EU - Summary
Here are the main points from the evidence given by George Eustice, the environment secretary, to the Lords EU energy and environment subcommittee about fisheries this morning.
- Eustice was told to “get real” as he told peers the UK was determined not to use access to British fishing waters as a bargaining chip in the trade talks with the EU. The EU insists that the two issues - trade and fishing - must be linked, but the UK is resisting this. In its document setting out its negotiating terms, it even says the fisheries agreement should be separate from the fisheries agreement. Lord Teverson, the Lib Dem peer who chairs the committee, told Eustice this was unrealistic. He said:
Don’t we potentially need to get real here. There is no snowball’s hell in chance that the other side won’t tie up the access to fisheries EEZ [exclusive economic zone] with the trade negotiation. They are bound to do it, they are going to do it, they have said they are going to do it.
Responding to Eustice’s point about Johnson being adamant that he will not use fishing as a bargaining chip, Teverson also said that Johnson was just “half the equation” in the talks.
- Eustice claimed that the EU would give up its attempts to link fishing with trade under pressure from countries that do not fish in British waters. Responding to Teverson’s argument (see above), Eustice said:
I think the European commission ... understand what an independent coastal state is. I think they will be realistic about what a sensible settlement looks like.
When it was put to him that “divide and rule” did not work well in the first stage of the negotiations, Eustice said:
There are many, many other member states who don’t have any access to our waters or our stocks. It would be quite a big ask for countries like Italy or Germany, who don’t really benefit from access to UK waters, to say we’re going to reject a trade deal on all those important industrial goods that they do seek access to the UK market for. So I’m not sure it’s sustainable for the EU to hold to the position that some member states have been articulating.
- Eustice said it was reasonable for the UK to refuse to link fishing to trade. Asked about the possibility of fishing rights being used as a bargaining chip, he said:
We don’t see that as a possibility, because they are very separate things. There will be a trade negotiation where we will be seeking access to the UK market in particular for shellfish, where we export quite a lot, but also other sectors such as lamb and barley in the food sector. And the EU correspondingly will be seeking access for Irish beef and Danish bacon and Dutch poultry and fresh produce from Spain and France and so on. So there will be a mutual exchange of opportunities in any free trade agreement ...
How we manage a fisheries resource in a shared way, on some stocks ... is a matter for a fisheries agreement. And there really isn’t a precedent for linking a trade deal in the round with sacrificing, forfeiting, your rights as an independent coastal state.
- Eustice was unable to explain what the UK government would do if French fishermen blocked the port of Boulogne in retaliation for losing access to British waters.
- He confirmed that the UK government did want the EU to have reduced access to British waters. Asked if the EU would lose access, he replied:
Of course, there will be areas where we will also reduce their access. So we gave notice to leave the London fisheries convention for a reason, which is because we want to reduce fishing pressure from foreign vessels definitely in the six to 12-mile zone. We want that to be reserved predominantly for our own fishing vessels. So, yes, there will be some change to access arrangements.
- He said that the UK had increased by five-fold its capacity to enforce its fishing borders (ie, its ability to keep out foreign boats). Giving details, he said:
We have significantly increased our enforcement capabilities. The Royal Navy introduced three new offshore patrol vessels, but a decision was taken not to decommission the old ones, so that there was additional capacity there. We’ve also taken on some extra capacity from the private sector, to give us extra vessels. We’ve launched a new joint maritime control centre, together with both Border Force and Coast Guard, so that we can make better coordinated use of the various assets that we have ... We’ve trained a significant number, I think around 50, new fisheries protection officers to support us in this work. And we’ve also taken out an aerial surveillance contract as well.
- He said the UK had a “very strong hand” in the talks. He said:
We have, as an independent coastal state, given the resources that are in our waters, we do have a very strong hand. And controlling access to our waters is a very powerful card. But in a very British way we will play that strong hand in a gracious and diplomatic fashion, as we always do.
Updated
Supreme court president says he would like to enable MPs to better understand way judges work
Lord Reed, the new president of the supreme court, has been giving evidence to the Lords constitution committee. John Hyde from the Law Society Gazette has some lines from the hearing.
Lord Reed, president of the Supreme Court, is giving evidence to a House of Lords committee. Says relationship between the court and parliament 'needs to be addressed'.
— John Hyde (@JohnHyde1982) March 4, 2020
Lord Reed: 'Our ties with the House of Commons are extremely limited. I want to find ways MPs and justices can have appropriate contacts to answer their questions so they can better understand the way we operate.'
— John Hyde (@JohnHyde1982) March 4, 2020
The Lords committee hearing with George Eustice is over. I will post a summary soon.
Q: Will the devolved authorities be in the room for the negotiation with the EU, and for the annual fisheries negotiations with the EU?
Eustice says the former is a reserved matter. The devolved administrations will not be in the room, and they will not have a veto. But they will be consulted.
But, in the annual negotiations, representatives from the devolved administrations will be included as part of the negotiating delegation. That has been a tradition in the past, he says.
Q: What will be the process for involving the devolved administrations in getting a deal with the EU? And will they be in the room?
Eustice says there will be a lot of “close engagement” with the devolved administrations on the trade agreement, and on the fisheries agreement. But it is a reserved matter for the UK government, he says.
Eustice says he is reasonably confident that the EU will agree to “zonal attachment” as a basis for deciding how fishing stocks are shared.
Lord Kerr goes next. He points out that, if French fishermen were to block Boulogne, it would not just be fishing that would suffer.
Q: Is there a back-up plan if you need more resources to police UK waters?
Eustice says enforcement capacity has been increased by five-fold. It was based around the possibility of a no-deal Brexit.
That is not a danger now, he says. He says the UK has a deal, the withdrawal agreement. And there will now have to be annual negotiations with the EU.
Q: But what happens if this five-fold increase is not enough?
Neil Hornby, director of marine and fisheries at Defra, who is giving evidence alongside Eustice, says if necessary the government could bring in other boats, such as Border Force vessels or naval vessels.
Eustice says the government has significantly increased its enforcement capabilities. It has obtained three new offshore patrol vessels - and decided not to decommission old ones. And it has commissioned enforcement capability from the private sector.
Updated
Eustice told to 'get real' as he tells peers UK will not use fisheries as bargaining chip in trade talks
Lord Teverson tells Eustice he needs to “get real”. There is “not a snowball’s chance in hell” that the EU won’t tie fisheries access to trade.
Eustice says this is what some EU countries want. But he says he expects the EU to be realistic.
Q: Divide and rule? That did not work in the earlier negotiation, did it?
Eustice says it would be quite a big ask for the EU to expect countries like Italy, which do not access UK waters, to be happy to see a trade deal lost on this point.
Teverson says France is quite a big player in the EU.
Updated
Eustice repeats the point about the UK having a strong hand to play. But he says that it will play this hand “in a graceful way”.
Lord Kerr, the crossbencher and former diplomat, goes next.
Q: The EU is clearly saying in its negotiating mandate that it does see a link between trade and fisheries. Do you intend to reduce EU access to UK waters?
Eustice says the UK wants to ensure that access is determined by a more scientific way of assessing fishing stocks.
But he also says there will be areas where the UK will want to reduce access.
Q: Is it your intention to reduce the EU fleet’s access to UK waters?
Eustice says there will be some reduction of access, particularly to inshore waters. But he says it is too early to give an overall answer.
- Eustice says EU will lose some access to UK fishing waters from next year.
Q: If the UK does reduce EU access to our waters, will it be as easy for the UK to restrict their access to our waters as it will be for French fishermen to block UK access to a port like Boulogne.
Eustice says the UK already does some enforcement around its waters. The EU does not have any enforcement capability. The UK takes enforcement action against boats from the Faroe Islands.
He says the lesson from the cod wars with Iceland is that it is easier to police access to your waters than to retaliate through trade measures.
Updated
Eustice says UK will not using access to fisheries as bargaining chip in trade talks
Q: There have been suggestions that some fishing rights could be traded away in the trade bill?
Eustice says he does not see that as a possibility. There is a trade negotiation with the EU, and there will be “a mutual exchange of opportunities” in that deal.
But how the UK manages a fisheries resource is a matter for a fisheries agreement, he says.
He says the two issues are separate.
He says the PM has ruled out using fishing as a bargaining chip.
Eustice says the legal position is set out very clearly in Unclos - the UN convention for the law of the sea.
He says Unclos says, when fisheries rights are considered, some regard should be paid for historic fishing rights. But he says this does not amount to a legal right for EU countries to maintain the access they currently have.
Eustice says the EU knows what it means for a country to be an independent coastal state. The EU conducts annual negotiations on fisheries with Norway.
But he says the EU’s demand for long-term access to UK waters is a political ask, not a legal ask.
Eustice says there will always have to be annual negotiations with the EU, because fish stocks are assessed annually.
But he says it remains to be seen whether there will be a long-term agreement too.
UPDATE: This is from Politico’s Emilio Casalicchio.
At Lords Committee: Defra Sec George Eustice says elements of fisheries COULD be negotiated on a multi-annual basis with the EU. Says stocks will have to be looked at annually but access could be longer-term. Looks like a possible landing ground for talks.
— Emilio Casalicchio (@e_casalicchio) March 4, 2020
Updated
Peers question George Eustice on fisheries negotiation with EU
George Eustice, the environment secretary, has just started giving evidence to the Lords energy and environment subcommittee on the fisheries negotiation with the EU.
Lord Teverson, the Lib Dem peer who chairs the committee, asks Eustice what the UK wants from the negotiation.
Eustice says the UK wants an arrangement like Norway’s on fisheries.
Q: Are you optimistic about getting an agreement by 1 July?
Eustice says he is optimistic.
He says the legal baseline provides for the UK becoming an independent coastal state. It would take back control of its waters, and there would be an obligation on both sides to work towards having an annual negotiation.
Q: So we have all the cards in our hand?
Eustice says “access is a powerful card”. At the moment the UK is only entitled to catch around half the fish in its waters. That will change from next year, he says.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, says the Treasury should not be waiting until the budget, which is scheduled for a week today (11 March), to produce plans for coronavirus. In a statement he said:
There is no sense of urgency from the chancellor in his response to the potential economic impacts of coronavirus. We cannot wait another week until the budget to have a plan published. People, businesses and the markets need clarity now that the government has a comprehensive economic plan in place.
We awaited a detailed economic plan but the sum total of economic thinking in the government’s coronavirus action plan is a restatement of existing HMRC policy.
The chancellor has failed to outline how he will respond to potential consequences for production, consumption, and GDP, or provide support for vulnerable workers.
The public will be disappointed that the chancellor does not seem to appreciate the seriousness of the situation facing the economy, and he must urgently issue a plan from a Treasury perspective of the kind that Labour published on Monday.
According to Sky’s Beth Rigby, Andrea Leadsom, the former business secretary, is planning to make a resignation statement in the Commons after PMQs today.
Hear @andrealeadsom to make a personal statement today after PMQs (remember @sajidjavid a couple to weeks back?). Expect long-serving cab min to set record straight on couple of things, make dig at Bercow and set out her renewed focus from backbenches on early years policy #PMQs
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) March 4, 2020
Last week Sajid Javid delivered a resignation statement in the post-PMQs slot.
TUC urges ministers to extend statutory sick pay rights to 2m people in light of coronavirus
Boris Johnson was mostly applauded by the punditocracy yesterday for the way he presented the government’s coronavirus action plan but he, and other ministers, have been unable to answer a series of questions about what they will do to help workers who lose pay because they have to self-isolate at home - beyond saying that these issues are being kept under review. Matt Hancock, the health secretary, hinted in the Commons yesterday afternoon that rules on sick leave might be relaxed. But now the TUC is stepping up the pressure on this issue, calling for emergency legislation to extend statutory sick pay (SSP) entitlement to the 2m people who currently don’t qualify.
In an open letter to Hancock and Thérèse Coffey, the work and pensions secretary, Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, says:
More cases of Covid-19 – widely referred to as coronavirus – are being confirmed in the UK, as the Department of Health warns that it is highly likely that the spread could significantly increase. The government’s own plans indicate that up to a fifth of the workforce may be off work during the peak of the epidemic.
The government has confirmed that any worker who is required to go into self-isolation, quarantine or who falls ill with symptoms will be entitled to SSP.
Because nearly two million workers in the UK don’t currently earn enough to qualify for sick pay, many may find themselves struggling to make ends meet. Even for those who are eligible, the payment is still too low at just £94.25 a week. And workers at present must be off sick for four days or more in a row to receive any SSP.
These arrangements, if not improved, may lead to workers not taking the appropriate time off work, either in self-isolation to prevent infection, or when genuinely ill in order to avoid a financial loss. This is an impossible choice that has serious implications for us all.
SSP is hardly generous. The TUC is also urging the government to increase it to the equivalent of the national living wage, and to require employers to ensure that anyone who has to self-isolate at home on health grounds continues to receive full pay.
We are likely to hear more on this topic at PMQs. Of course, the ramifications of coronavirus go much wider than this, and our main coverage is on our coronavirus outbreak live blog, which is here.
As usual, I will be focusing on Westminster politics. Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Resolution Foundation thinktank publishes a report on infrastructure.
10am: George Eustice, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Lords EU energy and environment subcommittee about the negotiation on fisheries with the EU.
10.30am: Lord Reed, the new president of the supreme court, and Lord Hodge, the deputy president, give evidence to the Lords constitution committee.
12pm: Boris Johnson faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
2.15pm: Andrew Bailey, the incoming governor of the Bank of England, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee.
2.30pm: Bernadette Kelly, permanent secretary at the Department for Transport and Mark Thurston, chief executive officer at HS2, give evidence to the Commons public accounts committee.
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 when I wrap up.
You can read all the latest Guardian politics articles here. Here is the Politico Europe roundup of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s 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 below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
