David Davis's evidence to the Lords EU committee on Brexit - Summary
That was one of the less revelatory committee hearings we’ve had on Brexit. That may be because the committee was pressed for time, and with the chair trying to let a large number of peers have a say, there was not much time for proper follow-up questions.
Still, some news seeped out. Here are the key points.
- David Davis, the Brexit secretary, rejected claims that the government had softened its stance on Brexit since the election. He said he had read some stories on this “with amusement”.
There’s been a degree of misinterpretation, I think ... I think the press has over-played any softening, as you put it.
Davis suggested that, because ministers are now talking about accepting some aspects of EU membership during a post-Brexit transitional phase, that was being seen as a watering down of the government’s position. But it wasn’t, because this was always an option, he implied. He may have been thinking about stories like this one, on the front of today’s Financial Times.
Tuesday's FT: "Drugs groups seek court block on NHS price limits" (via @hendopolis) #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/xtl0nERD7n
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) July 10, 2017
- Davis said there probably would have to be a transition period - but he claimed it would be for the sake of countries like France, not for the sake of the UK. And it was the transitional period that was leading to mistaken claims that the UK was watering down its stance, he claimed.
What has been conflated, I think, a little bit, has been the approach to the implementation stage, or the transition phase - use the phrase you like. Yes, I believe we can get a free trade negotiation concluded, and a customs agreement negotiation concluded, in the period. What will be much more difficult, however, is to get all the practical implementations that go with it. Not so much for us; it will be quite tough to get our customs in the right place in two years, but it’s doable. But to get the French customs in the same place in two years, or the Belgian or the Dutch customs, I think is a different issue. That’s why a transitional period [may be necessary.]
So it’s a whole series of practicalities. And what people are doing, I think, is misinterpreting a statement saying ‘We might have to do something in [the] transition period’ as being an abandonment of the original aim.
- He said that his position on a transitional period and Philip Hammond’s were almost identical. You could hardly get a cigarette paper between them, he said. He said the same was true of their views on immigration; neither of them wanted to close the door to immigration, he said.
- He brushed aside Boris Johnson’s claim that the EU could “go whistle” over its Brexit bill demand. (See 1pm.) Asked about this, he said:
Bluntly, I wouldn’t worry. I mean you will have to get the foreign secretary here to explain his views if you really wanted to. I’m not going to comment on other ministers.
He also said that people in Brussels took what they saw in British papers “if anything, too seriously”.
- He said a final deal on the rights of EU nationals would not be agreed soon, because it would end up being part of the final deal. But he said he hoped to reach an interim agreement soon.
I don’t expect we are going to get to a treaty in the immediate future, but what I would hope we would get to is a very substantive heads of agreement which we can initial and say that’s what we want at the end game. That I think will give people a degree of confidence in their own lives.
- He said the final deal on the Irish border would not be settled until near the end of the process.
- He said British policy on the “divorce bill” for leaving the EU was “not to pay more than we need to”. He also said the government would not accept the EU’s “first claim” without going through it line by line.
- He said the government might publish its own proposal for what the UK should have to pay for leaving the EU, possibly later this week.
- He admitted he did not know how many women were on the UK’s Brexit negotiating team.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
Q: How many women are on the Brexit negotiating team?
Davis says he does not know. He will write to the committee.
A peer says the photo in the Times “was a disgrace”.
They are referring to this one, I think. My colleague Tania Branigan wrote about it here.
The hearing is now over. I will post a summary soon.
Updated
Davis says it is perfectly possible to enforce rulings from one court jurisdiction in another. He says when he worked in business, it happened all the time.
Labour’s Helena Kennedy goes next.
She says earlier Davis talks about the British talks referring to law from another country. That’s not right, she says. It happens with common law, and European law, but not other branches of law.
Davis says the referendum was a vote for people to bring back control of their own law.
Davis is now speaking about the British offer to EU nationals.
In most respects EU nationals would have the same right as now, he says. But they would not have the same automatic right to bring in family members who are nationals from other countries. That is because Britons currently don’t have the same rights as EU nationals, he says.
Davis says the government has “bent over backwards” to pay attention to the interests of Scotland.
Q: If we have not made progress on a transitional deal by the end of this year, would you be willing to extend the deadline?
Davis says he met representatives from the financial services industry on Friday.
They want the UK and the EU to make a decision, leaving enough time for them to make any necessary changes.
He says he understands the value of transition.
But it is a negotiation.
Davis says you can hardly get a cigarette paper between his position on a transitional deal and Philip Hammond’s.
The same is true of immigration, he says. He says neither he nor Hammond want to shut the door to immigrants.
Labour’s Hilary Armstrong goes next. She asks Davis about Boris Johnson’s “go whistle” comment in the Commons earlier. (See 1pm.) She says comments like this are read in Europe.
Davis says he will not comment on what Johnson said.
He says you will see two levels on knowledge in Europe.
He says leaders in Europe do read the British papers. Sometimes they take what is in the papers too seriously, he says.
But he says people generally in Europe do not follow what is going on in the UK. He says the Austrian foreign minister told him recently that the UK needed to explain its policy for EU nationals to the Austrian public.
He says his job is to explain how good the offer is.
Davis says government has always accepted that some aspects of EU membership might apply during transitional period
Q: How has the election result changed government policy on Brexit? And do you really think we can get a comprehensive trade deal by March 2019?
Davis says he has read the papers, and there has been “a degree of misinterpretation”.
The referendum was judged as being about bringing back control of borders, law and money.
He says Michel Barnier says you cannot have single market membership without free movement. The UK accepts that.
It also accepts that it cannot be in the customs union. To get the benefits from new trade deals, it needs to negotiate new trade deals.
But what happens in the transitional deal would be different, he says. He says some commentators have implied that the government was never going to agree to certain things during the transitional deal. That was not the case, he says.
He also says he thinks the UK could agree a final deal by March 2019. But it might take longer because countries like France will need time to bring in new customs arrangements.
- Davis says government has always accepted that some aspects of EU membership might apply during the transitional period.
- He says trade deal with EU might not be ready by March 2019 because some EU countries, not the UK, may need more time.
Back at the Lords committee, Davis says some EU figures were determined that the UK should not benefit from Brexit, because they do not want other countries to follow Britain’s example and leave.
But Davis says he thinks that is not a realistic option anyway.
He says he wants to find a solution that works for the UK and the EU.
Vince Cable at the press gallery lunch - Highlights
Sir Vince Cable, the only candidate applying (so far) to replace Tim Farron as Lib Dem leader, spoke at a press gallery lunch today. He argued that Theresa May’s offer to other parties to bring forward policy ideas was creating a “very British version of a German grand coalition” with Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour over Brexit:
Of course it is ludicrously implausible to imagine Mr Corbyn going to the Rose Garden and signing up as a deputy prime minister but nonetheless there is a coalition of interest on the big issue of the day and if they are determined to discipline their own parties and force through this hard Brexit option -that is the thing that will make him happen.
As far as my party is concerned that leaves us in the right and potentially in a strong position.
Cable reiterated his belief that Brexit may not happen arguing that issues like Euratom that people hadn’t thought of would cause problems.
We’ve got Euratom x100 out there.
He said there were 20-25% of people who shared his party’s values as “outward looking, liberal, instinctively supportive of a mixed economy ... pro business but support public services”.
Cable argued that his party got almost all those votes in 2010 but since fell well short, saying his priority was to target those voters again by differentiating the Lib Dems from the Tories and Labour.
Ten years’ work by David Cameron to detoxify the brand has been trashed by what they are now doing, clinging to power, the DUP. And on the other side - we all have to admire what Jeremy Corbyn did, he massively outperformed everyone’s expectation. There is something inherently implausible about a modern party competing for promise on a programme of Venezuelan socialism - simply unreal.
Cable also said low interest rates were like a “life support system”.
The way I characterise the underlying economic problems it is a medical metaphor - back in 2008/09 the country had an economic heart attack. And sure, we have recovered, we are walking around, the economy has many elements to the norm - but almost 10 years later we are still attached to a life support system - which is ultra cheap money - without historical precedent.
On a second Brexit vote, Cable said:
It may well be at the end of the day if there were a second referendum a majority of people would say ok to Brexit and that would kill the issue forever.
On the voters who backed Brexit, Cable said:
I spent most of the referendum campaign in the south - church halls in Hampshire and Dorset and they were overwhelmingly elderly people who were obsessed with the worry of 80m turks coming to live in their village. Immigration was a massive issue for them, though they never actually encountered any.
That age group, mainly Conservative voting - there was a sense of nostalgia - the Britain they had been brought up in and loved and felt comfortable with - was no longer there.
There were in addition undoubtedly the left behind. Not the first tier cities in the north of England - Newcastle and Sheffield and others that were on the edge or pro remain but smaller towns - Blackpools, and Blackburns and Hartlepools that is a deep rooted problem we need to address.
Cable pointed out that the Lib Dems favoured a second referendum on one topic, but not another.
We make a distinction - we are in favour of a second referendum on the European question and not on Scottish.
This is what Cable said about George Osborne, the former Conservative chancellor who served with him in the coalition cabinet.
It was one of the high points of the campaign. I got this text, ‘My son would like to canvas for you. G.’ And I struggled to work out who G might be ... I thought that was great. I’m a fan of George - I think he is a civilised guy. He [Osborne’s son] came and went out canvassing with my grandson - same school and as far as I know it he is still one of our supporters.
If the Evening Standard starts developing yellow tinges you know where it started.
And this is what Cable said about his age (74).
I’ve been lucky with my health and I’m very painfully conscious of the effect of age on some and not others. I keep very fit, I cycle, I go to one of Richard Branson’s gyms a few times a week.
Updated
Q: Will you be sending the position papers you get from the European commission to parliament? And how will you be reporting back on the talks?
Davis says his aim is to report back to the Commons after each stage of the talks.
There are talks next week. If they finish on Wednesday, he will report back to MPs on Thursday. If they end on Thursday, he won’t report back to MPs until September, because of the summer recess.
Davis says the objective, in relation to the demand for a Brexit bill, will be to pay as little as possible.
I’m hearing rumours of a bit of tension within the Department for Exiting the EU over the possible appointment of a special adviser to replace James Chapman.
David Davis is considering appointing his former parliamentary private secretary, Stewart Jackson, an arch-Brexiteer who lost his seat of Peterborough unexpectedly in the snap election as chief of staff.
But one source has told me that civil servants are unhappy about the idea- with some claiming there were tensions over Jackson’s role when he was PPS.
At least one senior journalist from the lobby has been in to speak to Davis about a media role as well, with the vacancy causing some concern given that Brexit negotiations are underway and the secretary or state is in the spotlight.
An ally of the minister insisted that there was no controversy and that he would make up his mind in his own time.
UPDATE: Here is the Tory MP Nadine Dorries on Jackson.
If true, it can only be that civil servants must be nervous that someone as knowledgeable and well informed as @Stewart4Pboro may join dept https://t.co/rNrAobc6jc
— Nadine Dorries (@NadineDorries) July 11, 2017
Updated
Q: How will you ensure parliament is kept up to date?
Davis says he has given seven statements to the Commons so far.
He has appeared in about half a dozen Brexit debates.
He says he may publish some papers on the British position later this week. But he is not sure yet whether he will get them cleared for release.
Davis says he has known Michel Barnier for more than 20 years.
He says Barnier is very principled, very French, very logical.
He wants this to be a success as much as Davis does, he says.
Davis says that, although the deal on the rights of EU nationals in the UK and the rights of Britons on the continent, might not be agreed until everything is agreed at the end, he hopes to be able to agree a “very substantive heads of agreement” on this issue much sooner.
He says he sees this as a moral issue.
David Davis says UK doesn't want to use EU citizens as "bargaining chips": "It's an issue of civilisation as much as anything else."
— Jim Pickard (@PickardJE) July 11, 2017
Updated
Davis says that he and Michel Barnier, his EU opposite number, do not expect to settle the Irish border issue until near to the end of the process.
David Davis gives evidence to Lords committee about Brexit
David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has just started giving evidence to a Lords committee about Brexit.
You can watch the hearing here.
On Sky the Conservative MP Sir Bill Cash has just had an excruciating time trying to explain to Kay Burley why he did not say anything when his Tory colleague Ann Marie Morris use the N-word at an event they were both attending yesterday. When Burley raised the matter, Cash said that what Morris said was “highly regrettable” and that she was right to apologise. Burley then pointed out that Cash was in the room when Morris used the word. He replied:
I sort of half-heard it. She was talking very quickly. I thought I heard what she said. But I was not absolutely certain. And in fact some of the other people who were there - she must have been talking quite quickly - because they did not hear it either.
Burley repeatedly asked him why he did not challenge Morris over her language at the time. Cash said he “wasn’t quite sure” that she had used the word. Burley pointed out that he could have asked if that was what she had actually said, and registered his objection. Cash did not really have an answer to that, and just fell back on the point about not being sure what Morris had said.
In a blog for HuffPost, Tim Roache, the GMB general secretary, has described the Taylor review as “a missed opportunity”. He said:
I won’t sit here and say there’s nothing in it that would help workers. I’m not into opposition for the sake of it - some action on the gig economy is better than none.
Taylor recommends scrapping the Swedish derogation - something GMB has long called for - this piece of legislation means two people can work side by side doing exactly the same job, with one paid less than the other on an agency contract. It creates a ‘do as I say or someone who’ll work for less will’ culture. Government must accept this recommendation; it will help thousands of workers.
But it’s not enough.
The review is incredibly frustrating to read.
I will happily talk about quality work all day long. But talk is just that. The review accurately diagnoses some of the problems, but fails to recommend the tough action needed to treat the patient. Who could disagree that workers should have decent work and not be stuck in low paid, precarious work?
Contaminated blood inquiry could lead to people facing criminal charges, minister tells MPs
Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s story about the government’s decision to order an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.
And here is some more on this from the emergency debate on the topic in the Commons which is currently underway.
- Philip Dunne, the health minister, told MPs that the government has not yet decided whether to hold a judge-led inquiry into the scandal, or whether to let a Hillsborough-style panel lead the investigation. He said Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, would meet relatives to discuss which approach was best. Dunne said:
There have been calls for an inquiry based on the model that was used to investigate the Hillsborough tragedy, a so-called Hillsborough-style panel. This would allow for a sensitive investigation of the issues, allowing those affected and their families close personal engagement with an independent and trusted panel.
There have also been suggestions that only a formal, statutory inquiry led by a senior judge under the Inquiries Act 2005 will provide the answers that those affected want. Such an inquiry would have the power to compel witnesses and written evidence, one of the apparent shortcomings from the previous reports.
The government can see that there are merits in both approaches, and to ensure that whatever is established is in the interests of those affected, we will engage with the affected groups and interested parties, including the all party parliamentary group, before taking a final decision on the type of inquiry.
The secretary of state and ministers at the Department of Health will be meeting with those affected and their families so that we can discuss the issues and understand their preferences directly for the style, scope and duration of the inquiry.
- Dunne said ministers expected to return to the Commons in the autumn with firms plans as to how the inquiry would proceed. He said ministers wanted to “take the time that is necessary” to get it right.
- He said the inquiry could lead to criminal charges being brought against those involved. Asked about this, he said:
You will recollect from the recent Hillsborough inquiry that it gave rise to certain information, which was made available to the police which led to certain charges being made. We would envisage that the inquiry which is established will have the ability to do the same thing, if that is appropriate.
And the economist blogger Chris Dillow is good on the Taylor report too. Here’s an excerpt from his post on it.
There’s a massive gap between diagnosis and remedy. This (p26) is bang right: “The key factor is an imbalance of power between individuals and employers. Where employers hold more power than employees, this can lead to poorer working conditions and lower wage levels.”
How then can Taylor say this?: “The best way to achieve better work is not national regulation but responsible corporate governance, good management and strong employment relations within the organisation” ...
Rather than consider ways to empower workers to make their own choices, however, Taylor focuses upon top-down managerialist policies such as (quite mild) changes to law and taxation and ways to “incentivise employers… to use fairer and more responsible models.” Workers it seems, are not so much active subjects as passive objects of policy onto whom working practices for good or ill are imposed.
In fact, two obvious ways through which workers might become more active subjects are not mentioned: trades unions and co-ops.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, the thinktank focusing on issues affecting low-income families, has written a good blog about the Taylor report. He says the key recommendation may turn out to be the one about a higher minimum wage for “non-guaranteed” hours.
Here’s an excerpt.
The big new proposal is something that we hardly ever talk about in the UK but which is very important to the living standards of many workers: overtime. The availability of extra hours, and in some cases the ability to be paid slightly more for doing those hours, can make a big difference to low paid workers. The Review proposes a new, higher, minimum wage for ‘non-guaranteed’ hours. This matters for at least three reasons.
First, and the main reason Matthew Taylor seems to be calling for it, is as a form of nudge to encourage employers to rebalance away from the use of zero hour or very short hour contracts by raising the cost of that flexibility. If they want to keep a low-paid worker on a zero hour contract but in practice have them working 16 hours a week the firm will end up paying a higher minimum wage for the privilege.
Second, it’s a big deal because we’re talking about a lot of people and a lot of overtime hours. Almost one in seven workers (4.3 million in total) were down to work overtime last year and there was an average of around 22.5 million hours’ worth of overtime a week worked in Britain. Lots of these workers are low paid, and very few are in the gig economy with a third of all of the paid overtime hours worked over the past year being in retail and health & social care alone. Crucially for a proposal for a minimum overtime wage, employees who work paid overtime are around 30 per cent more likely to be earning at or near the minimum wage than average.
Third, the proposal opens up a whole debate on the nature and reward for overtime that has been largely absent in the UK. This is in contrast to many other countries, where overtime policies are a tool at the disposal of law makers wanting to boost worker’s pay.
For example, in the US overtime rules stipulate that (with exemptions) all employees earning less than $23,660 a year should be paid at least 1.5 times their usual wage whenever they work more than 40 hours in one week. In the face of deadlock on the federal minimum wage the Obama administration proposed a doubling of the threshold to over $45,000, affecting over 13m workers. While courts have subsequently overturned Obama’s move, it demonstrates the role that overtime can play in debates on low pay.
Corbyn says May heads 'a zombie government'
Jeremy Corbyn has accused Theresa May of heading a “zombie government”. In a statement about May’s speech, and her call for cross-party cooperation (see 11.50am), he said:
Theresa May says she wants parties to contribute ideas. But when we asked her government to give its support to Labour’s Queen’s Speech amendment to give millions of public sector workers a much needed pay-rise, the Conservatives voted against it.
Only yesterday Theresa May delivered a slap in the face to hard working teachers by giving them another real term cut by maintaining the 1 per cent pay cap.
The prime minister now heads a zombie government that has no ideas, no answers and no leadership. Her premiership has run out of steam and she will soon have to deal with her own insecure employment.
Only a Labour government can deliver for the many not the few.
Lunchtime summary
- Jeremy Corbyn has accused Boris Johnson of using “silly, arrogant language” after the foreign secretary told MPs that that European leaders could “go whistle” if they expected Britain to pay an “extortionate” divorce bill for withdrawing from the European Union. The Labour leader said:
I think it is ridiculous for the foreign secretary to approach important and serious negotiations with that silly, arrogant language that he so often employs.
Treat people with respect and there’s a fair chance you will be treated with respect in return.
If you start on the basis of those silly remarks, what kind of response does he expect to get?
But Ukip praised Johnson’s stance. (See 1.47pm.)
- Theresa May has said she will aim to improve rights for those working in the gig economy but fell short of promising legislation to tackle the problem, as she gave a speech aimed at relaunching her faltering leadership. The full text of May’s speech is here, on the Number 10 website. She was speaking at the launch of a report from Matthew Taylor, Tony Blair’s former policy chief, about employment in the modern economy. Commenting on the report, Jeremy Corbyn said it did not go far enough because it did not recommending banning zero-hours contracts. He said:
Obviously, we’ve got to get rid of zero-hours contracts, obviously we’ve got to get rid of the gig economy and bogus self-employment, which actually is a wonderful way for a minority of employers to evade paying employers’ national insurance contributions.
We want self-employed workers to have rights and self-employed workers to be able to live decently. That means access to benefits if and when they need them, but it also means that bogus self-employment has to be dealt with.
Yes, [the gig economy] does suit some people, because of their family arrangements or whatever, to work part-time. But we do think that zero-hours contracts are not the way to do it.
- Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, has said that using Uber is not “morally acceptable”. (See 9.02am.)
- Donald Trump’s controversial state visit to the UK will now take place next year, leading to claims he has been “scared off” by the threat of protests. As Matthew Weaver reports, after months of doubt about the state visit, amid speculation the US president could have made a surprise stopover after last week’s G20 summit, the government has conceded that the official visit will not take place until 2018, the Guardian understands. But the decision leaves open the possibility of a low-key visit to London before the end of this year if Trump is in Europe on other business.
Updated
Ukip praises Boris Johnson for defiant comments on UK paying 'extortionate' Brexit bill
Ukip has put out a press notice about Boris Johnson’s Brexit bill comments (see 1pm) headlined: “Boris Johnson is starting to whistle the Ukip tune on Brexit.” It features this comment from Gerard Batten, Ukip’s Brexit spokesman.
Boris’s comments in the Commons regarding the EU’s ‘excessive’ demands for a ‘leaving bill’, and his agreement that they could ‘go whistle for it’ show that reality is starting to sink in.
The EU will make excessive demands all areas. They don’t want us to leave and they will do all they can to delay, impede and discourage, in the hope we will change our minds.
Ukip has always said that Britain does not owe the EU a penny – indeed we could argue that they owe us for 44 years of waste, fraud, unnecessary costs, and missed economic opportunities.
However, this is a sterile argument that will go nowhere.
The government should tell the EU to get lost. It should seize the initiative in the Brexit ‘negotiations’ and tell the EU how we are leaving – not ask it how.
Here is some comment from political journalists on Theresa May’s speech.
From Sky’s Beth Rigby
May acknowledges she's now doesn't have a maj govt but presses on regardless. So I come back to this, she can govern, but to legislate...
— Beth Rigby (@BethRigby) July 11, 2017
From Bloomberg’s Robert Hutton
A month after the election, Theresa May notes that she used to have a majority and now doesn't. But she's still hazy on how that happened.
— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) July 11, 2017
From the Times’ Patrick Kidd
Theresa May's relaunch speech today was pretty same-old: full of platitudes, little detail, only two questions from the press. Sigh.
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) July 11, 2017
From HuffPost’s Paul Waugh
Nothing bold so far in May response to Taylor report. Tone of speech long way from her attacks on business last yr. Sounds Osborneite-lite.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) July 11, 2017
From the Independent’s Rob Merrick
Problem for PM admitting she may not be able to implement Taylor gig economy stuff..
— Rob Merrick (@Rob_Merrick) July 11, 2017
Literally nothing else left of her pre-election plans!
Here is the Labour MP Diana Johnson on the announcement of an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal - which she triggered by staging an emergency debate on this topic. (See 12.43pm.)
My initial reaction to the good news of a public inquiry into the NHS #ContaminatedBlood scandal. pic.twitter.com/vbSThdZLhH
— Diana Johnson (@DianaJohnsonMP) July 11, 2017
Boris Johnson says EU can 'go whistle' over its 'extortionate' Brexit bill demand
Here is the Press Association story about Boris Johnson telling MPs that the EU can “go whistle” over its “extortionate” Brexit bill demands.
The EU has yet to put a sum on the amount it expects the UK to pay to leave the EU, but reports have suggested it could be as high as €100bn (£84.5bn).
How No 10 announced contaminated blood inquiry to avert likely Commons defeat
Downing Street’s decision to announce an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal is the second example we’ve had in less than two weeks of how much power backbenchers - plus John Bercow, the Commons speaker - now exercise over the executive because Theresa May does not have a majority.
On the final day of the Queen’s speech Bercow announced that he would call Stella Creasy’s amendment saying the government should pay for women from Northern Ireland to get an abortion in England if they need one. Bercow did not have to call the amendment, and previous speakers would probably have chosen not to. But Bercow used his discretion to decide that the matter should be put to a vote and, because Creasy had drummed up wide support in the Commons, about three hours later the government announced that it would pay for these abortions. That way ministers averted a debate they knew they would lose.
Last night Bercow allowed the Labour MP Diana Johnson to make an application for an emergency debate on the contaminated blood scandal. After hearing her short speech he granted the application (he did not have to - he would have been within his rights to say no), and a debate has been scheduled for this afternoon. If it were not for a statement on the Taylor review, it would have started at 12.30pm, with MPs debating the motion: “That this House has considered the need for an independent public inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.” At 12pm the government announced there would be an inquiry.
Updated
No 10 announces inquiry into contaminated blood scandal
Number 10 has announced there will be an inquiry into the contaminated blood scandal.
NEW: govt announces inquiry into contaminated blood scandal.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 11, 2017
Decision given to cabinet today by May and Jeremy Hunt. Hunt said 2,400 people had died in "appalling injustice", No 10 spokesman says
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 11, 2017
Govt will consult relatives on scope of inquiry. Could be judge-led or Hillsborough-style panel.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 11, 2017
More details being given to Commons by health minister Philip Dunne later.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 11, 2017
While Theresa May was giving her speech, Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, has been taking questions in the Commons.
He said the EU could “go whistle” if it expected the UK to pay a large bill to leave the EU.
NEW: @BorisJohnson #BrexitBill: "I have seen they've proposed to demand from this country seem to be extortionate."
— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) July 11, 2017
He goes on... "I think go whistle is an entirely appropriate expression."
— Darren McCaffrey (@DMcCaffreySKY) July 11, 2017
Johnson also claimed that the government was not making plans for having to leave the EU without a deal.
"There is no plan for no deal, because we are going to get a great deal!" Boris Johnson tells @EmilyThornberry at #FCO questions
— Asa Bennett (@asabenn) July 11, 2017
This contradicts David Davis, the Brexit secretary, who has said the government has been making contingency plans for having to leave the EU with no deal.
Updated
Taylor says, as an old public policy hand, he knows policy works best when it has public support. He says people may disagree with some of the recommendations, but there is strong support for the idea that people should have good jobs.
And that’s it. The Q&A is over.
I’ll post a summary and reaction soon.
Q: [From ITV’s Robert Peston] Have recent events in your life made you understand job insecurity more? And do you see the risks of maintaining the public sector pay cap?
May says the government needs to balance the interests of public sector workers and taxpayers.
Q: [To Taylor] Why haven’t you made recommendations on trade unions?
Taylor says he is a great fan of trade unions - “not something that seems to be reciprocated” judging by what what are saying this morning.
He says unions are strongly represented on the low pay commission, and he wants to beef up its role.
The BBC verdict on the May speech is not encouraging. If you’re PM and even the BBC are saying your speech is duff, you’ve got problems. (BBC journalists are more constrained when it comes to comment of this kind than most of the rest of us.)
Here’s another tweet from Laura Kuenssberg. (See 11.44am for the others.)
Difficult to acknowledge her own failings + not add to sense of weakness, but some colleagues think she has to change, or she'll have to go
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 11, 2017
And this is from the BBC’s Norman Smith.
Hmm. Think Team May need to switch the rocket boosters on if they want a relaunch/fightback moment
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) July 11, 2017
Updated
Q: [From Neil Carberry at the CBI] What can we do collectively to improve employee relations?
May says it is important to find out why some companies have good employee relations.
Taylor says he wants to significantly lower the threshold for employees requesting better rights and representation.
May's Q&A
May is now taking questions.
Q: You have spoken about helping the “just about managing”. How will you take that forward?
May says the Taylor report contains ideas that would give people more job security.
She wants to equip people for the world of work of the future.
May says she led a majority government when she commissioned this report. Now the situation is different.
When I commissioned this report I led a majority government in the House of Commons. The reality I now face as prime minister is rather different.
In this new context, it will be even more important to make the case for our policies and our values, and to win the battle of ideas both in parliament as well as in the country.
So I say to the other parties in the House of Commons … come forward with your own views and ideas about how we can tackle these challenges as a country.
We may not agree on everything, but through debate and discussion – the hallmarks of our parliamentary democracy – ideas can be clarified and improved and a better way forward found.
It is in that spirit that we will take this agenda forward in the months ahead.And this new context presents us as a government with a wider choice. At this critical time in our history, we can either be timid or we can be bold.
We can play it safe or we can strike out with renewed courage and vigour, making the case for our ideas and values and challenging our opponents to contribute, not just criticise.
I think this country needs a government that is prepared to take the bold action necessary to secure a better future for Britain and we are determined to be that government.
In everything we do, we will act with an unshakeable sense of purpose to build the better, fairer Britain which we all want to see.
Updated
May says banning zero-hours contract would do more harm than good.
But she says that these contracts must not be used to exploit people.
May says we should care about how people are treated at work.
The government will study the report carefully over the summer, and respond in detail later this year, she says.
The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg has identified what seems to be a key problem with the speech.
1. Problem smack bang in middle of PM's speech + approach today -she says she is still 'convinced' path she set out last year is best
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 11, 2017
Gives no acknowledgement that her approach sent Tories backwards in country and her own party desperate for her to do more to listen to them
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 11, 2017
May is still speaking, though. Perhaps there will be some contrition towards the end ...
May says good work is in the interests of good business. That is why employment practices must be updated.
She says a Conservative government will always be on the side of hard workers and good employers.
May speaks about how important it can be for children to grow up in a home where a parent is working.
And she praises those who start businesses.
As aspiration becomes reality, as an idea becomes an invoice, we will back those who dare to dream and who dare to think big.
May says the nature of employment is central, not just to national success, but to personal fulfilment.
At its best, a job can be a genuine vocation, providing the means to intellectual and personal fulfilment, as well as economic security.‘With a good job can come dignity and a sense of self-worth. Work can promote good mental and physical health, and emotional well-being.
It is how we provide for ourselves and our families.
It’s how we pay the mortgage or the rent to keep a roof over our heads, how we put food on the table and provide for our old age.
Theresa May's speech
Theresa May is speaking now.
May says a year ago she stood outside Number 10 and set out the characteristics of the government she wanted to lead.
A year ago, I stood outside Downing Street for the first time asPrimeMinister, and I set out the defining characteristics of the Government I was determined to lead.
A clear understanding that the EU referendum result was not just a vote to leave the European Union, but a deeper and more profound call for change across our country.
A belief that at the heart of that change must lie a commitment to greater fairness in our country as we tackle the injustice and vested interests that threaten to hold us back, and make Britain a country that works for everyone, not just a privileged few.
And a determination to address difficult issues and take big decisions in the long-term interests of Britain, so that we emerge from this period of great national change stronger and better able to seize the opportunities ahead as we fulfil the promise of Brexit together.
And though the result of last month’s general election was not what I wanted, those defining beliefs remain, my commitment to change in Britain is undimmed; my belief in the potential of the British people and what we can achieve together as a nation remains steadfast; and the determination I have to get to grips with the challenges posed by a changing world never more sure.
I am convinced that the path that I set out in that first speech outside Number 10 and upon which we have set ourselves as a government remains the right one. It will lead to the stronger, fairer Britain that we need. It will deliver the change people want. It will ensure we make the most of this opportunity to ask ourselves what kind of country we want to be and to answer that question with confidence, optimism and hope.
Taylor is now summarising some of his recommendations.
- A new role for the low pay commission.
- An emphasis on transferable skills
- Getting mayors to take the lead in promoting health and wellbeing at work.
- Making it easier for employees to get information about their rights.
- Legislation to change the status of gig workers.
Taylor says a key issue that came out from the review’s consultation was “one-sided flexibility” - flexibility that suits the employer, but not the employee.
As a result, the review is recommending that the low pay commission consider introducing a new minimum wage level for workers on zero-hours contracts.
People should also have the right to request a fixed number of hours, he says.
He also says HMRC should extend its enforcement activity in relation to workers’ rights.
Taylor says increasing the quality of work will increase productivity.
As automation takes hold, we should aim to make working life better, he says.
If we want citizens who are engaged and who, to coin a phrase, “take back control”, then those values need to apply in the workplace.
Matthew Taylor's speech
Matthew Taylor, the former head of policy at Number 10 under Tony Blair who now heads the RSA thinktank, is speaking now about his report.
He says in many respects the employment market is very positive.
The review team thinks flexibility is a good thing, he says. “In fact, we need more of it.”
He says getting a job is still the best route out of poverty.
Good employers should have nothing to fear from the review, he says. He says it does not want to increase the “employment wedge” (ie, non-wage labour costs). See 9.27am.
Greg Clark, the business secretary, is the first speaker at the Taylor report launch.
He says work is how most people develop and achieve their potential.
So the question of how we can be a country that offers good work is very important, he says.
Theresa May is about to speak at the launch of the Taylor report.
As the Telegraph’s Jack Maidment, the launch venue has a stunning backdrop. It seems to show people being taken into slavery - but not to work as Uber drivers, one assumes.
Theresa May relaunch/launch of the #TaylorReview set to start in central London. How about that for a backdrop. pic.twitter.com/DODXSGrVJC
— Jack Maidment (@jrmaidment) July 11, 2017
And here is the statement Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, put out overnight about the Taylor review.
Put simply, today’s Taylor report shows that Theresa May is failing working people across the country. If they were serious about workers’ rights they are welcome to borrow from Labour’s manifesto. Our 20 point plan would truly transform the world of work, providing security, rights and protection for millions of working people.
There are now 4.5m people in insecure work, hundreds of thousands not being paid the money owed to them, and hundreds of complaints of employment agency malpractice going un-investigated.
Nor will working people be under any illusions that the Tories have their interests at heart. This is the party that introduced fees for employment tribunals, making it much harder for workers’ to enforce their rights, and, through the Trade Union Act 2016, has undertaken the most savage attack on workers’ rights in a generation.
Lib Dems say Taylor proposals are 'broadly sensible'
And here is Sir Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Treasury spokesman, on the Taylor review.
These proposals are broadly sensible, they would both improve workers’ rights in the gig economy and maintain flexibility for those who want it.
We now need to stamp out abuse of zero hours contracts by giving people the right to request fixed hours, a proposal the Conservatives opposed during the coalition.
Workers rights underpinned by EU law must be protected from an extreme Conservative Brexit.
Ultimately, the drive to create more high-quality jobs depends on economic growth and attracting investment. Unless Theresa May rows back on her reckless Brexit plans, we will continue to see falling real wages, slowing economic growth and fewer jobs.
Here is the Green party’s co-leader Jonathan Bartley on the Taylor review.
Awaiting full #TaylorReview report but things that should be in there are...
— Jonathan Bartley (@jon_bartley) July 11, 2017
Introducing legal presumption that worker is not self-employed, so burden to show that s/he is self-employed falls on employer #TaylorReview
— Jonathan Bartley (@jon_bartley) July 11, 2017
Restoring access to employment tribunal system by abolishing or substantially reducing ET fees #TaylorReview
— Jonathan Bartley (@jon_bartley) July 11, 2017
Enhancing enforcement by building on newly-created Director of Labour Market Enforcement, to create genuine Fair Work Agency. #TaylorReview
— Jonathan Bartley (@jon_bartley) July 11, 2017
Reforming tax/NI to equalise employment/self-employment. Means extending workplace rights eg maternity pay, to self-employed. #TaylorReview
— Jonathan Bartley (@jon_bartley) July 11, 2017
Here is more from Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, on the Taylor review. She has set out her views in a Touchstone blog.
There’s nothing on concrete plans to ban the zero hours contract abuse that is growing so quickly in UK workplaces.
A ‘right to request’ guaranteed hours from an exploitative boss is no right at all for many workers. Especially when they’d still have to fork out £1,200 up front before they could take a case to tribunal.
And we’re particularly concerned these proposals might even weaken gig workers’ rights. Introducing a new category of “dependent contractor” looks like caving in to special pleading from app-based companies, who are claiming that they cannot pay the minimum wage like any other employer.
The responsibility now lies with Theresa May to do more to listen to those at the sharp end of the labour market. Vulnerable workers need root and branch change, not just the warm words they had during the election campaign.
Crucially, unions need to be given the right to go into any workplace to check that workers are treated fairly. That’s how we make sure every job is a good job.
The Taylor review will also recommend closing the “Swedish derogation” in labour law, the Financial Times’s Sarah O’Connor and George Parker report (paywall).
Matthew Taylor, who was Tony Blair’s former policy chief, will anger companies by calling for the government to close a legal loophole that allows temporary staff from agencies to be paid less than direct employees doing the same jobs.
The shutting of this loophole, known as the “Swedish derogation”, is one of dozens of tweaks to laws and regulations that seek to build on the UK’s existing regulations, rather than sweeping them away in favour of a French or German approach. The review calls this “the British way”.
Full Fact, the fact checking blog, has written a good post about the gig economy.
'Gig workers' most likely to work in professional and IT services - rather than taxis and deliveries #TaylorReview https://t.co/96rf3YPX1a pic.twitter.com/dpoWigfkoP
— Full Fact (@FullFact) July 11, 2017
TUC says Taylor report 'not the game-changer needed to end insecurity and exploitation at work'
On the basis of what has been released so far about its contents (see 10.07am), the TUC does not seem very happy with the Taylor review. This is from the TUC general secretary, Frances O’Grady.
I worry that many gig economy employers will be breathing a sigh of relief this morning.
From what we’ve seen, this review is not the game-changer needed to end insecurity and exploitation at work.
We’d welcome any nuggets of good news, but it doesn’t look like the report will shift the balance of power in the modern workplace.
Uber has responded to Rebecca Long-Bailey’s claim that its employment practices are morally unacceptable. (See 9.02am.) A spokesman said:
Millions of people rely on Uber to get around and tens of thousands of drivers use our app to make money on their own terms.
Almost all taxi and private hire drivers have been self-employed for decades before our app existed and with Uber they have more control. Drivers are totally free to choose if, when and where they drive with no shifts or minimum hours. In fact the main reason people say they sign up to drive with Uber is so they can be their own boss.
Drivers using Uber made average fares of £15 per hour last year after our service fee and, even after costs, the average driver took home well over the national living wage. We’re also proud to have moved things on from this industry’s cash-in-hand past since every fare is electronically recorded, traceable and transparent.
What the Taylor review will propose
The Taylor review has not been published yet, but Matthew Taylor has been giving interviews about it this morning, and some of the recommendations have been briefed out to journalists. Here is a summary of what we know so far about what it will recommend.
On the gig economy
- People working for a firm that has a “controlling and supervisory” relationship with them should have to treat them as “workers”. This is already a recognised status in employment law, but Taylor says this group should be known as “dependent contractors”, not “workers”. This would mean people getting holiday pay and sickness pay for the first time. The report will not single out firms like Uber, but the implication is that Uber and platforms like it would have to treat their drivers as “dependent contractors” instead of “self employed”.
- Categorising these gig economy workers as “dependent contractors” instead of “self employed” would mean that the firms employing them would have to pay national insurance contributions.
- Gig economy firms would not have to pay the minimum wage for every hour worked. Instead, Taylor told the Today programme, he is recommending that they have to show that the average worker gets 1.2 times the minimum wage, that workers can choose when to work and that they get real-time information about how much they are likely to earn on a shift. If those conditions applied, a worker would not be able to make a claim because they were not getting the minimum wage if they chose to sign to work at a time when they were unlikely to make the hourly minimum wage rate. Taylor said he was recommending this to enable people to retain the option of working flexibly.
On zero-hours contracts
- The report does not recommend banning zero-hours contracts, as Labour did in its election manifesto.
- But it does say people on ZHCs should be able to request fixed hours. And companies should have to publish information about how many of these requests are received, and granted.
- A higher minimum wage should apply to people on ZHCS. Taylor said this was to incentivise firms to guarantee more hours.
On tribunals
- People should be able to got to a tribunal to find out, without charge, what their employment status is. Taylor said this would address the fact that some people are paying to take a case to tribunal before it is even clear what their employment status is.
- Taylor told the Today programme it would be better if fees were not so high and that the report would encourage the government to look at this issue.
On the cash economy
- The report will propose moving away from the “cash-in-hand economy”. A move towards digital payments would ensure more people pay tax, the report will suggest.
Employment tax
- The report will call for a debate about how labour is taxed. It will point out that the employed are taxed more than the self-employed (an anomaly the government tried to address by putting up national insurance contributions for the self-employed, until a backlash forced it to drop the idea.)
Updated
Taylor's 7 principles for fair and decent work
The Taylor report has not been published yet, but overnight the department for business has released the “seven principles for fair and decent work” being proposed by Matthew Taylor. Here they are in full. (Bold type from the business department press release, not from me.)
1 - Our national strategy for work – the British way – should be explicitly directed toward the goal of good work for all, recognising that good work and plentiful work can and should go together. Good work is something for which government needs to be held accountable but for which we all need to take responsibility.
2 - Platform-based working (a business model which facilitates exchanges between 2 or more groups, usually consumers and producers), offers welcome opportunities for genuine two way flexibility and can provide opportunities for those who may not be able to work in more conventional ways. These should be protected while ensuring fairness for those who work through these platforms and those who compete with them. Worker (or ‘dependent contractor’ as we suggest renaming it) status should be maintained but we should be clearer about how to distinguish workers from those who are legitimately self-employed.
3 - The law and the way it is promulgated and enforced should help firms make the right choices and individuals to know and exercise their rights. Although there are some things that can be done to improve working practices for employees, the ‘employment wedge’ (the additional, largely non-wage, costs associated with taking someone on as an employee) is already high and we should avoid increasing it further. ‘Dependent contractors’ are the group most likely to suffer from unfair one-sided flexibility and therefore we need to provide additional protections for this group and stronger incentives for firms to treat them fairly.
4 - The best way to achieve better work is not national regulation but responsible corporate governance, good management and strong employment relations within the organisation, which is why it is important that companies are seen to take good work seriously and are open about their practices and that all workers are able to be engaged and heard.
5 - It is vital to individuals and the health of our economy that everyone feels they have realistically attainable ways to strengthen their future work prospects and that they can, from the beginning to the end of their working life, record and enhance the capabilities developed in formal and informal learning and in on-the-job and off-the-job activities.
6 - The shape and content of work and individual health and well-being are strongly related. For the benefit of firms, workers and the public interest we need to develop a more proactive approach to workplace health.
7 - The National Living Wage is a powerful tool to raise the financial base line of low paid workers. It needs to be accompanied by sectoral strategies engaging employers, employees and stakeholders to ensure that people – particularly in low paid sectors – are not stuck at the living wage minimum or facing insecurity but can progress in their current and future work.
May says she wants 'right balance of rights and responsibilities, flexibilities and protections'
Overnight Number 10 released some more extracts from the speech Theresa May will give at the launch of the Taylor report. They are not particularly enlightening, but, for the record, here is the key passage.
We will build on the strengths of our labour market. While avoiding overbearing regulation, we will make sure people have the rights and protections they need.
That means building on our high employment rate and low unemployment rate – and continuing to strive for full employment.
It means retaining the flexibility that people value, and recognising that most employers treat their staff not just fairly but well.
It means remaining a home to innovation, new ideas and new business models, and recognising the risks and difficulties which those striving to build their own business face – not just on day one, but every day.
But it also means finding the right balance of rights and responsibilities, flexibilities and protections.
Using Uber is not 'morally acceptable', says Labour's business spokeswoman Rebecca Long-Bailey
Theresa May is going to give her first big speech since her election non-victory this morning. We’ve already had the extract where she appeals for more cross-party cooperation on policy, but the rest of it should be significant too. And she is speaking at the launch of the report of the Matthew Taylor review of employment practices in the modern economy. Apart from Brexit, the Taylor review may be the most important policy initiative May has launched in her year as prime minister, although, judging by some of the negative reaction the report is getting this morning, it may turn out to be less seminal than May originally assumed.
Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, kicked off a debate of her own about modern working practices on the Today programme this morning when she revealed that she does not use Uber because she thinks its treatment of workers is not “morally acceptable. She explained:
Well, I don’t personally use Uber because I don’t feel that it’s morally acceptable, but that’s not to say that they can’t reform their practices ...
I don’t like the way that they are exploiting their workers, and I think the recent case proved that in the courts, that suggested that the workers that were there were in fact workers, and they weren’t flexible workers, and they needed to be given the adequate amount of protection and rights that workers enjoy.
I will be posting a lot more on the Taylor review soon, as well as covering Theresa May’s speech in detail. Later I will be focusing in detail on David Davis, the Brexit secretary, giving evidence to a Lords committee.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Theresa May chairs cabinet. Earlier, at 8am, there was a political cabinet.
10.30am: May speaks at the launch of the report of the Taylor review of employment in the modern economy.
11.30am: Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
4pm: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, gives evidence to a Lords committee about Brexit.
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 publish a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
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. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
Updated
