Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

Boris Johnson ‘uncomfortable’ that Mail on Sunday editor was summoned by Speaker over Rayner article – as it happened

Angela Rayner Lindsay Hoyle Mail on Sunday David Dillon Mail United Kingdom Dominic Raab Andrew Marr Glen Owen House of Commons

MPs vote to reinsert provisions into elections bill seen by critics as threat to independence of Electoral Commission

In the latest instalment of the end-of-session parliamentary ping pong, MPs have voted down changes to the elections bill favoured by the House of Lords.

In two divisions, MPs have rejected an attempt by the Lords to remove a section of the bill giving ministers the power to issue directions to the Electoral Commission, the body that regulates elections, in the form of a “strategy and policy statement”. In a third division, MPs also rejected a Lords amendment that would have expanded the list of documentation accepted under the new rule in the bill requiring voters to have photo ID.

The “strategy and policy statement” proposal has been strongly criticised by the Electoral Commission itself, the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee and the committee on standards in public life, which said it was “deeply troubled by the long-term risk to our democratic system that is inherent” in the plan.

In the debate this afternoon Kemi Badenoch, the levelling-up minister, said these criticisms were misplaced. She said:

It has been claimed by some parliamentarians that this duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement will weaken the operational independence of the commission. That is not correct. This duty will not allow the government to direct the commission’s decision-making nor will it undermine the commission’s other statutory duties or displace the commission’s need to carry out those other duties.

Updated

Geidt clears Sunak of breaking ministerial code - and says ministerial duties not compromised by holding US green card

Lord Geidt, the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, has declared that Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, did not break the ministerial code in connection with his declarations of interest, his wife’s non-dom status, his US green card and government links with Infosys, the firm set up by his father-in-law. This is not particularly surprising. Sunak called for an investigation by Geidt himself, and at the time seemed confident he had followed the rules.

Geidt also implies that there is no inherent conflict of interest in a government minister holding a US green card, which is likely to be a more controversial ruling because of the conditions attached to having a green card. Green cards give their holders the permanent right to work in the US, and are seen as one step away from citizenship.

Geidt has set out his findings in a six-page letter. Here are the key points.

  • Geidt says Sunak has been “assiduous” in fulfilling his obligations under the ministerial code and that he has not broken its rules. Interestingly, however, Geidt stresses that he has only looked at the narrow issue of whether Sunak followed the rules. “My role does not touch on any wider question of the merits of such interests or arrangements,” he says. The main problem with the non-dom story for Sunak has always been the political implications of the revelations about his green card and his wife’s non-dom status, rather than the issue of whether or not be broke the rules.
  • Geidt says Sunak’s duties as a minister, including as chancellor, were not compromised by his having a US green card. He says:

A US permanent resident card allows the holder to live and work permanently in the United States. It imposes a number of obligations on the holder, including a requirement to comply with US law and to file tax returns in the United States. The obligation to pay tax in other jurisdictions does not provide an inherent conflict with the duties of a minister of the Crown …

Considering the card against the specific responsibilities of the chancellor’s ministerial offices subsequent to his first role, I do not consider that its possession would constitute an inherent conflict of interest. Being subject to the obligations imposed by the card in his personal life could not reasonably be said to be in tension with the faithful discharge of his duties as chief secretary to the Treasury or as chancellor of the exchequer.

But Geidt says it is not for him to rule on whether Sunak was complying with his obligations to the US as a holder of the card. That is not relevant to the ministerial interests process he was looking at, he says.

  • He says that the non-dom status of Akshata Murty, Sunak’s wife, did not create an “inherent conflict” of interest with Sunak’s role as chancellor. He says he looked at two cases where the Treasury considered non-dom status under Sunak. In the first, when it was looking at policy for incentivising inward investment, Sunak reminded the permanent secretary of his wife’s situation, offered to step aside from the decision-making process, but the proposal was dropped anyway. And in the second case, the Treasury minister John Glen decided a change to non-dom policy for a narrow group of people, and Murty was not affected.
  • Geidt says that, although Sunak declared his wife’s non-dom status, it was not necessary to declare this publicly in the register of ministers’ interests “taking into account Ms Murty’s rights to privacy”.
  • Geidt says although Infosys, the company set up by Murty’s father, in which she holds shares, has had meetings with the government, it has not contracted with the Treasury while Sunak has been a minister there, and so no conflict of interest has arisen.

Updated

A reader has been in touch in the comments to say that, if you use the OECD definition of “paid employment”, Boris Johnson was right to say paid employment is up by 500,000 since before the pandemic. The OECD definition equates to payroll employment, and does not include the self-employed.

However Johnson did not mention the OECD at PMQs (see 3.19pm) and, when he talked about more people being in paid employment now, people will have assumed that he was talking about the self-employed too.

Updated

Hacked Off, the group set up representing the victims of phone hacking, which campaigns for higher press standards, says the Independent Press Standards Organisations has never upheld a complaint about sexism in its eight years of existence. Ipso was set up with the support of many national newspapers when the coalition government was in power, as an alternative to the more powerful regulator proposed by the Leveson inquiry. Hacked Off has consistently argued that Ipso is too weak.

Commenting on the Mail on Sunday’s refusal to attend a meeting with the Speaker to discuss the Angela Rayner article, Emma Jones, a Hacked Off board member, said:

Thousands of complaints have been made about the Mail on Sunday’s misogynistic article about Angela Rayner MP, but on the basis of Ipso’s track record, the likelihood of any of them being upheld is vanishingly small.

The Mail on Sunday editor’s subsequent refusal to meet with the Speaker of the House of Commons illustrates the contempt in which editors hold any person or organisation who would seek to hold them to account.

They think they are above accountability and, so long as Ipso remains in place, they are.

Until the government act to complete the Leveson reforms, and compel all national newspapers to be members of an independent regulator, misogyny, racism and other forms of discrimination in the press will persist.

Updated

Campaigners at Westminster today protesting about reports that the goverment is dropping its planned animals abroad bill, which would have banned the import of hunting trophies.
Campaigners at Westminster today protesting about reports that the goverment is dropping its planned animals abroad bill, which would have banned the import of hunting trophies. Photograph: Vuk Valcic/ZUMA Press Wire/REX/Shutterstock

According to ITV’s Anushka Asthana, the female Conservative MP who said at a meeting on Monday night that a member of the government had once been seen watching pornography on his phone in the Commons chamber declined to say who the person was when asked by Chris Heaton-Harris, the chief whip.

Pippa Crerar from the Daily Mirror has more from the meeting.

Johnson accused of lying to parliament for 10th time about employment being higher now than pre-pandemic

At PMQs Boris Johnson said that there were “500,000 more people in paid employment now than when the pandemic began”. Not only is this untrue, according to Full Fact, the fact checking website, Johnson has now stated this falsehold 10 times in parliament.

According to ONS figures, there were 33,073,000 people in work between December 2019 and February 2020 - before the pandemic. The most recent figures, covering Decmber 2021 to February 2022, show 32,485,000 people in paid employment - almost 600,000 people than before the pandemic.

Here is the last Full Fact article on this.

At the liaison committee last month, when Johnson was asked about this error, he said that he accepted that it was only payroll employment that was up (the big fall has been in the number of self-employed workers) and he claimed he had corrected the record. That was also untrue; he hasn’t - at least not formally, to parliament.

Commenting on the latest falsehood, Will Moy, the Full Fact CEO, said:

The prime minister has made the same false claim in parliament 10 times now. And nothing has happened. We’ve fact checked this employment claim and written to Number 10 on multiple occasions. Boris Johnson has acknowledged his mistake and said he’ll correct the record, but we’ve seen no such thing. This is inexcusable and we deserve better.

MPs must stop putting up with their peers misleading the House of Commons and in turn the public. The system is broken and in order to rebuild trust in our political system, change is needed.

Moy does not accuse Johnson of lying in his statement (perhaps he is charitably assuming that Johnson keep forgetting what the truth actually is?), but Peter Stefanovic, the campaigner whose video about Johnson’s lies to parliament has been viewed 40m times, is more direct.

UPDATE: A reader has been in touch in the comments to say that, if you use the OECD definition of “paid employment”, Boris Johnson was right to say paid employment is up by 500,000 since before the pandemic. The OECD definition equates to payroll employment, and does not include the self-employed.

However Johnson did not mention the OECD at PMQs (see 3.19pm) and, when he talked about more people being in paid employment now than before Covid, people will have assumed that he was talking about the self-employed too.

Updated

And here is a full summary of the lines from the post-PMQs lobby briefing.

  • The PM’s spokesperson said Boris Johnson was “uncomfortable” with the idea of the Mail on Sunday editor being summoned to see the Commons Speaker over the Angela Rayner article. (See 2.34pm.)
  • The PM’s press secretary rejected claims that the Conservative party had a problem with sexism. She said:

You will have heard the PM address this explicitly in parliament today and over the last few days, saying there is absolutely no place for such behaviour and this cannot be tolerated in any workplace.

Asked about the reports about a Tory frontbencher watching pornography on his phone in the Commons chamber, she replied: “Obviously, it is wholly unacceptable behaviour and it is being looked into.” Asked about the Sunday Times report that three cabinet ministers are among the 56 MPs who have been referred to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) over alleged sexual misconduct, the press secretary said she could not comment because an independent process was underway.

  • The spokesperson did not rule out today’s high court judgement about the government’s hospital discharge policy at the start of the pandemic leading to compensation being paid to relatives of care home residents who died. Asked if this could happen, the spokesperson said:

I’m not going to get into speculating on what further action people may or may not take.

The Department of Health is considering the judgment carefully ... The court itself recognised the difficult and unique circumstances the government faced in the early part of the pandemic. The prime minister talked about the lack of evidence on asymptomatic transmission at the time, or certainly the uncertainty around it during that period, balanced against the need to act quickly.

Updated

No 10 says Johnson was 'uncomfortable' about idea of Mail on Sunday editor being summoned to see Speaker

At the post-PMQs lobby briefing, the prime minister’s spokesperson effectively said that Boris Johnson was siding with the Mail on Sunday, not the Speaker, on the issue of the summons to discuss the Angela Rayner article. (See 9.27am.) Asked for a reaction to the decision by David Dillon, the paper’s editor, not to attend a meeting requested by the Speaker, the PM’s spokesperson said:

The prime minister is uncomfortable at the idea of our free press being summoned by politicians. We have a free press in this country and reporters must be free to report what they are told as they see fit.

The spokesman said Johnson would not want “any perception of politicians seeking to in any way curb or control what a free press seeks to report”.

As a journalist, Johnson was himself often criticised for writing sexist or inaccurate material. It is not hard to see why he might not approve of such reporting being challenged by an authority figure.

Updated

Starmer accuses 'ostrich' Johnson of having his 'head in sand' over cost of living crisis

And here is the PA Media write-up of PMQs.

Boris Johnson was branded an “ostrich” with his head in the sand as Keir Starmer raised cost-of-living concerns at prime minister’s questions.

A tax rise in people’s latest payslips has the prime minister’s “fingerprints all over it”, Labour leader Starmer said before he labelled the Conservatives the “party of excess oil and gas profits” due to their rejection of a windfall tax to cut energy bills.

But Johnson repeatedly claimed Labour has “no plan” and defended his government’s economic record, saying of Sir Keir: “This guy is doomed to be a permanent spectator.”

At one stage during PMQs the Labour Party press office shared on Twitter a mocked-up image of Mr Johnson as the former Iraqi propaganda chief known as Comical Ali.

In response to Johnson arguing global inflation was behind slower growth for the UK, Starmer told the Commons: “He sounds like the Comical Ali of the cost-of-living crisis. He pretends the economy is booming ... but in the real world our growth is set to be slower than every G20 country except one – Russia. And our inflation is going to be double the rest of the G7. Does he think that denying the facts staring him in the face makes things better or worse for working people?”

Johnson replied: “The facts are, as the IMF has said, that the UK came out of Covid faster than anybody else, that’s why we had the fastest growth in the G7 last year. That would not have happened if we’d listened to captain hindsight. And if he studies their forecasts we will return to being the fastest by 2024 and the fastest in 2025. That’s what the IMF’s forecasts say ... this is the government, this is the party that supports working people.”

But Starmer countered: “He’s an ostrich – perfectly happy keeping his head in the sand. Working people are worried about paying their bills, they’re spending less and cutting back – that’s bad for business and bad for growth. Working people are looking for help but this week millions will look at their payslip and see a tax rise with his fingerprints all over it. Does he think his 15th tax rise has made things better or worse for working people?”

Johnson replied: “What we’re doing for working people is not only lifting the living wage by a record amount, helping people on universal credit with a £1,000 tax cut, but also cutting national insurance contributions, lifting the threshold so that on average people pay £330 less.”

Updated

PMQs - snap verdict

Last week Keir Starmer was reportedly criticised by a shadow cabinet colleague for focusing too much on Partygate, instead of on the cost of living. The charge was probably unfair, but the fact that it was said may have struck a chord. Today Starmer did not mention Partygate at all, and another story of particular interest to the Westminster (Raynergate) only got a cursory mention. Instead Starmer devoted all his questions to the economy and the cost of living.

A week tomorrow people will be voting in the local elections, and as a result PMQs sounded, even more than usual, like shouty party political broadcasts being broadcast in tandem. Boris Johnson seemed reliant on a random and dog-eared list of CCHQ talking points, regurgitated without much reference to what he was being asked, and one of Starmer’s best moments came when he mocked his technique, referencing a line in the Mail on Sunday story about Angela Rayner.

This must be the Oxford Union debating skills we’ve been hearing so much about. Failing to answer the question. Rambling incoherently. Throwing in garbled metaphors. Powerful stuff, Prime Minister.

Starmer has always been good at detail and argument at PMQs, but more recently he has learned to do scorn and insult as well, and that was on display today as he delivered a solid drubbing. Johnson was the “Comical Ali of the cost-of-living crisis”, he said. The PM was like an ostrich, with his “head in the sand”, Starmer said. The cabinet’s MOT cost of living wheeze was like John Major’s cones hotline.

This is how Starmer wound up, with his peroration.

So they’re the party of excess oil and gas profits and we’re the party of working people.

This government’s had its head in the sand throughout the cost of living crisis. First they let prices got out of control. Then they denied it was happening. They failed to do anything about it. And then they made it worse with higher taxes.

Because of his choices, we are set to have the slowest growth and the highest inflation in the G7.

A vote for Labour next week is a vote for a very different set of choices. We would ask oil and gas companies to pay their fair share of reduced energy costs. We would not hammer working people with the worst possible tax at the worst possible time. We would insulate homes to get bills down. And we’d close the tax avoidance schemes that have helped his chancellor - where is he? - reduce his family’s tax bill while putting everyone else’s up. That’s proper plan for the economy. So why doesn’t he get on with it and finally make choices that make things better not worse for working people.

Johnson was prepared for the final question too. On the cost of living specifics, he was unpersuasive, but he resorted to last-ditch defence, the gist of which was that at least his government was doing something, unlike the “permanent spectator” Starmer who did not offer a proper alternative. Opposition leaders can always been accused of not actually doing much (a feature of not being in office), but in many areas Labour’s plans are vague or insubstantial, and Tory-inclined voters will probably feel that on this Johnson had a point. Johnson said:

I can tell [Starmer], I’ve been listening to him for many weeks, for many years, this guy is doomed to be a permanent spectator.

We have a plan to fix the NHS and fix social care. They have no plan. We have a plan to fix our borders with our deal with Rwanda. They have no plan. We have a plan to take our economy forward. They have no plan.

Johnson ended up by summoning up the age-old Tory scare about Labour administrations ruining the economy. It is mostly nonsense (Johnson included a reference to a Labour council spending £27,000 on EU flags, suggesting the CCHQ list of Labour financial misfeasance is rather a short one), but the notion that “everywhere you look, a Labour administration is a bankrupt shambles” (as Johnson put it) is a smear that has has a powerful impact in British politics for most of the last century. And the fact that Labour has only just pulled level with the Tories in polling on managing the economy suggests it may still have some life in it yet.

Updated

Chief whip investigates reports Tory MP watched porn in House of Commons

Chris Heaton-Harris, the Conservative chief whip, is investigating reports that a Tory frontbencher watched pornography on his phone in the Commons chamber, a statement from his office has said. My colleague Rowena Mason has the story here.

This is from my colleague Patrick Wintour on the list of MPs being sanctioned by Russia.

Mike Amesbury (Lab) says the PM was wrong to say that council taxes are higher under Labour than under Conservative councils. He reads out figures showing Tory councils have higher average council tax rates.

(These figures are notoriously susceptible to interpretation on a party political basis. Because council tax is based on property values, and homes tend to be worth more in Tory council areas than in Labour ones, in general overall council tax rates tend to be higher in Tory areas, but average band D rates tend to be higher in Labour areas. For a more detailed analysis, see this blog from Full Fact.)

Chris Bryant (Lab) says he is surprised he is not on the list. (He has been one of the most vocal critics of the Putin regime.)

On a point of order Michael Fabricant (Con) asks about the Russian sanctions imposed on MPs. He says he and the Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, are both on the list.

Hoyle says he has asked the government to keep him and the house informed on this issue.

Daisy Cooper (Lib Dem) asks if the PM will apologise to the families of people who died in care homes, and to care worker staff, in the light of today’s court ruling.

Johnson says he wants to renew his apologies, and sympathy, to people who lost relatives in care homes in the pandemic.

He says the government did not know much about the disease at that point. It did not know how easy it was for the disease to spread asymptomatically.

On the court judgment, he says the government will study it carefully.

Ben Everitt (Con) says 287 MPs have been sanctioned by Russia. Will the government maintain its support for Ukraine.

Johnson says those MPs sanctioned should regard it as “a badge of honour”.

Jeff Smith (Lab) asks if the PM will apologise for how the Tories refused to take seriously a complaint from one of the victims of the Imran Ahmad Khan, the MP found guilty of assualt, and for having him on a panel advising the government on grooming.

Johnson says the Home Office has put out a statement about this.

Mel Stride (Con) asks if the PM wil meet with him to discuss proposals from the Ukraine parliament’s treasury committee (Stride chairs the UK version) as to how sanctions on Russia could be tightened.

Johnson says the government will look at these ideas.

Florence Eshalomi (Lab) says supermarkets are lowering prices to help consumers. What is the government doing?

Johnson says he wants to thank businesses that are trying to protect consumers from price rises.

Johnson critices the record of Lib Dem-run Eastleigh council.

Jim Shannon (DUP) says the Northern Ireland protocol is affecting the availability of Covid tests in Northern Ireland.

Johnson says there is an economic cost to the protocol, which is turning into a political problem. He says the government must rectify that before it undermines the Good Friday agreement.

Vicky Foxcroft (Lab) asks about a drug that could help people shielding from Covid, Evusheld.

Johnson says he will agree to set up a meeting for Foxcroft about this.

Anthony Browne (Con) asks if the PM agrees that online platforms that profit from promoting fraud should pay the cost of that.

Johnson says he would like to see that kind of proposal work. He will ensure Browne has a meeting with ministers about it.

Caroline Lucas (Green) says 56 MPs are being investigated for sexual misconduct, incuding three ministers. Is sexual misconduct grounds for removal under the ministerial code?

Johnson says of course sexual harrasment is grounds for dismissal.

Ben Bradley (Con) asks how investment in areas like Mansfield can be speeded up.

Johnson says the next round of levelling up funding will be announced in the autumn.

Sir Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP leader, says the cost of moving goods from Britain to Northern Ireland has gone up by 27% under the Northern Ireland protocol. Will it be removed?

Johnson says the government wants to support the Good Friday agreement.

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader, asks about the number of children dependent on food parcels. If the PM wants ideas to tackle the problem, he should look beyond his cabinet colleagues, who think he will not be there for long. Instead the PM should match the child payment administered by the Scottish government.

Johnson says the government is taking steps to help families.

Blackford says other measures that might help with the cost of living would be abandoning the national insurance hike, and increasing benefits.

Johnson says the universal credit taper has been reduced, helping poorer families. And he says he would not bet on Blackford staying in his post longer than he stays in his.

Starmer says a vote for Labour next week will be a vote to make things better not worse for working people.

Johnson says Starmer is “doomed to be a permanent specator”. He says he has a plan for the NHS and social care, for immigration, for the economy. He says Labour does not have any of these things. He says Labour administrations lead to bankruptcy. He says the Labour council at Hammersmith spent £27,000 on EU flags. He criticises other Labour councils which he claims went bankrupt. And he claims the Labour party left the UK bankrupt in 2010.

Starmer says Johnson’s plan for the cost of living crisis involves cutting MOT tests. “It makes the cones hotline [a much-mocked John Major initiative] sound visionary and inspirational,” he says.

Johnson says the government is supporting people. He says he will build a nuclear power plant every year. Under Labour it was one a decade.

Updated

Starmer says Johnson is like an ostrich, with his head in the sand.

Johnson says he believes in jobs, unlike Labour. There are 500,000 more than at the start of the pandemic, he says.

Starmer says this must be the Oxford University debating skills we have heard about (in the Mail on Sunday article) - ignoring the question, responding “incoherently”. He says the UK is the only country putting up taxes in the G7.

Johnson talks about the increase in the national insurance threshold. And he says “the party of Bevan” should support more money for the NHS (ie, the national insurance rise.)

Starmer says Johnson sounds like the “Comical Ali of the cost of living crisis”. Does denying the facts make things worse or better?

Johnson says the UK had the fastest growth in the G7 last year. That would not have happened under Labour, he says.

He says there are 500,000 more people in paid employment now than before the pandemic began. Under Labour youth unemployment rose.

Keir Starmer says the PM will have told his backbenchers to scream and shout. But does he agree that there is no place for misogyny, or for looking down on people on the basis of where they come from.

The UK is set for the slowest growth in the G7. Why is Johnson mismanaging the economy?

On Angela Rayner, Johnson says MPs should treat each other with respect. He says he texted Rayner about the Mail on Sunday article.

On the economy, he says all countries are having problems. Under Labour we would still be in lockdown, he claims.

Updated

Sally-Ann Hart (Con) asks about coastal communities. Will the government have a targeted strategy to help them?

Johnson says the levelling up white paper addresses this issue. Coastal communities wll get resources and attention, he says.

Boris Johnson starts saying this will be the final PMQs of this session. More than 20 acts of parliament have been passed, he says, including the national insurance threshold increase - which is the largest single tax cut for a decade, he says.

He forgets to mention that overall taxes are also rising to their highest level for decades.

He is focusing on delivering the people’s priorities, he says. “And there is plenty more to come in the Queen’s speech on 10 May.”

Boris Johnson leaving No 10 earlier ahead of PMQs.
Boris Johnson leaving No 10 earlier ahead of PMQs. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

PMQs

PMQs is about to start. It will almost certainly be the last of this session of parliament.

Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.

PMQs
PMQs Photograph: HoC

Shapps tells MPs change to vetting rules for aviation staff could ease disruption at airports

Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, has been giving evidence to the Commons transport committee this morning. Here are the highlights.

  • Shapps said that he would change the rules to allow new recruits in the aviation industry to start training before they have completed security checks. This would ease disruption at airports, he claimed. Currently flights are being cancelled, and passengers are facing delays, because of a shortage of staff at airports. Shapps told the committee:

I have looked at the rules and found an area where we can assist with the bureaucracy, particularly with regard to new people coming into the industry, and their need to be security checked.

We can begin the training, without exposing them to the parts of the training which are security-related, without having the security check complete, as long as it’s complete before they start the security-related stuff.

I have a statutory instrument - I think it comes to the house today - to do exactly that.

  • He hinted that he would consider merging the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) with the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA). Asked about processing delays at the DVLA, he said he would look at whether privatisation might help. And he went on:

I’ll look at the different motoring organisations. We have DVLA and DVSA. It’s very confusing for most people. One does the licensing, the other one does the testing. People ask why there are two organisations. I’ll look at all of these things. No stone will be left unturned.

Shapps said the backlog of driving licence applications has been cut from a peak of 1.2 million to 400,000 due to a series of measures. He also said that the delays “wouldn’t be there at all if it hadn’t been for an entirely unnecessary strike at DVLA”.

  • He said ports would not be expected to physically enforce the requirement for ferry companies to pay the UK national minimum wage. This is from the BBC’s Simon Jones.

Scottish government should publish legal advice about second independence referendum, information commissioner says

The Scottish government should publish legal advice it received about a second independence referendum, the information commissioner has ruled. PA Media says:

Daren Fitzhenry, the Scottish information commissioner, said disclosing some of the advice would “significantly enhance public debate on this issue”.

He said ministers’ decision to release legal advice they received around the Alex Salmond case had already affected the convention that such advice to ministers remained private.

It follows a freedom of information request from the Scotsman newspaper, which asked for any legal advice provided to ministers on the topic of a second independence referendum in 2020.

The government refused, saying doing so would breach legal professional privilege.

The case was appealed to the information commissioner in April 2021, who has now released his ruling.

Fitzhenry’s decision states: “The ministers also argued that a claim to confidentiality in legal proceedings could be maintained because the withheld information was only shared between the Scottish government and its legal advisers. Therefore, the information remained confidential at the time they responded to the applicant’s request and requirement for review and this remained the case.”

The newspaper argued, in recent months, the government had dispensed with the tradition of keeping legal advice private, releasing several pages of advice around the Alex Salmond harassment complaints scandal.

Fitzhenry continued: “While the ministers have expressed concern that disclosure of legal advice in this case would have the effect of future legal advice being more circumspect or less effective, the commissioner acknowledges the point made by the applicant that the ministers’ own decision to disclose legal advice relating to the Alex Salmond case has already created such an environment.”

Responding to the information commissioner’s decision, a spokesman for the government said:

We have received the decision from the Scottish information commissioner and are considering its terms. However, we are clear the Scottish government has acted lawfully in its application of freedom of information legislation.

There is a long-standing convention, observed by UK governments and Scottish governments, that government does not disclose legal advice, including whether law officers have, or have not, advised on any matter, except in exceptional circumstances.

The Scottish government can appeal against the decision to the court of session.

Updated

Here is my colleague Robert Booth’s story about the high court ruling on the government’s hospital discharge policy at the start of the pandemic.

This is from Rachel Harrison, national officer for care at the GMB union, on today’s high court ruling on the government’s hospital discharge policy at the start of the pandemic. She said:

Today’s judgment is a terrible reminder of callous disregard this government has shown for care home residents and workers.

Transferring untested hospital outpatients into enclosed facilities where carers were denied access to proper PPE and even sick pay was always going to have tragic consequences.

GMB members nursed much-loved residents as they died from this awful virus, while all the while worrying about their own safety and how they were going to pay the bills.

If any good is to come out of this pandemic then it must include urgent reform of the sector.

Why high court concluded government's hospital discharge policy at start of pandemic was unlawful

PA Media has filed more on the reasons given by the high court for ruling that the government’s hospital discharge policy at the start of the Covid pandemic was unlawful. (See 10.50am.) PA says:

In a ruling on Wednesday, Lord Justice Bean and Mr Justice Garnham concluded that policies contained in documents released in March and early April 2020 were unlawful because they failed to take into account the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from non-symptomatic transmission of the virus.

They said that, despite there being “growing awareness” of the risk of asymptomatic transmission throughout March 2020, there was no evidence that then health secretary, Matt Hancock, addressed the issue of the risk to care home residents of such transmission.

And in their ruling the judges said:

In our judgment, this was not a binary question, a choice between on the one hand doing nothing at all, and on the other hand requiring all newly admitted residents to be quarantined.

The document could, for example, have said that where an asymptomatic patient, other than one who has tested negative, is admitted to a care home, he or she should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for up to 14 days.

Since there is no evidence that this question was considered by the secretary of state, or that he was asked to consider it, it is not an example of a political judgment on a finely balanced issue. Nor is it a point on which any of the expert committees had advised that no guidance was required.

The drafters of the documents of March 17 and April 2 simply failed to take into account the highly relevant consideration of the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from asymptomatic transmission.

The judges said these issues were not addressed until a further document in mid-April 2020. They concluded:

The common law claim succeeds against the secretary of state and Public Health England in respect of both the March 17 and April 2 2020 documents to this extent: the policy set out in each document was irrational in failing to advise that where an asymptomatic patient, other than one who had tested negative, was admitted to a care home, he or she should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for 14 days.

Updated

In an interview with Sky News this morning Dominic Raab, the justice secretary and deputy PM, claimed that Labour’s proposed windfall tax on energy companies (its key proposal to address the cost of living crisis) would be “disastrous”. He said:

If you look at Labour’s policy, you asked about it - of a windfall tax - that would damage investment in energy supplies we need and hike bills. It’s disastrous. It’s not serious.

What this shows is they’re coming up with frankly ill-thought through policies, but we have got a plan, a concerted plan, and I think that’s what voters want to see.

There will be two urgent questions in the Commons later after PMQs. First Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, will ask about backlogs at the Passport Office, and after that Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, will ask about the plans to privatise Channel 4.

Hospital discharge policy at start of pandemic unlawful because of risk to care home residents, court rules

The government’s policy of discharging patients from hospitals into care homes at the start of the Covid pandemic in 2020 was unlawful because it failed to take into account the risk to residents from coronavirus infection, the high court has ruled. Sky’s Tom Gillespie has more on the story here.

Raab says government 'neutral' on whether or not to privatise Passport Office

In interviews this morning Dominic Raab, the justice secretary and deputy PM, said that the government had not ruled out privatisting the Passport Office as a means of ensuring it delivers a better service. Asked if that was an option, he said:

I think the point the prime minister made, and he made it again last night, is that we’re neutral on the question of who does the provision; what we’re not neutral on - and what we want to see - is the service to the taxpayer and to the public being the very best value for money.

Therefore, if we need to consider changing the controller of a particular service, that’s something that we’re willing to do. But I don’t think a decision has been taken either way on it.

Yesterday it emerged that Johnson told cabinet he was prepared to “privatise the arse” off the Passport Office if necessary. When asked about this in an interview last night with Tom Newton Dunn on Talk TV, Johnson said:

I don’t care whether an institution is in the private or the public sector, I just want it to deliver value. I want it to deliver value and a good service. I’m not, on your august show, going to rule anything out. What I want is for it to deliver value for money and help keep people’s cost down.

Raab under pressure over lack of action on cost of living crisis

As my colleague Rowena Mason reports, in his morning interview round Dominic Raab, the justice secretary and deputy PM, came under pressure when forced to explain why yesterday’s cabinet meeting on the cost of living crisis did not generate any firm policy initiatives.

This is from the i’s Paul Waugh on Angela Rayner.

And this is from my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Rayner says she wants Johnson to say at PMQs what he will do about 'vile sexism' in Tory party

Angela Rayner has been tweeting this morning about the revelations in today’s Mail (see 9.27am) about her previous remarks about a meme comparing her at PMQs to Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct. She says the Mail has ignored her objections to this presentation.

She also says she wants Boris Johnson to explain at PMQs what he will be doing about “vile sexism” in his party.

Peers concede to Commons on police and health bills, but fight on on nationality and borders bill

MPs and peers are engaged in parliamentary “ping pong” this week on a clutch of bills that are very close to getting royal assent, but that cannot clear parliament until the two chambers resolve any outstanding differences. The process is called “ping pong” because at this point bills shuttle back and forth between the two houses - sometimes on the same day - until one side backs down. Last night peers were sitting until almost midnight dealing with outstanding bills.

Normally the Lords eventually gives in to the elected house, and last night peers gave up their struggle to ditch a provision in the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill giving the police new powers to limit protests on the grounds of noise. This is from PA Media.

Powers allowing a clampdown on noisy protests are set to become law after peers ended their stand-off at Westminster.

The House of Lords voted by 180 to 113, majority 67, against a Labour move to again strip from legislation the controversial curbs relating to marches.

The upper chamber also rejected an opposition bid to remove the noise trigger for demonstrations by 169 to 113, majority 56.

It comes after the Commons supported restoring the restrictions to the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill for a third time.

The legislation contains a wide-ranging raft of measures aimed at overhauling the criminal justice system.

Peers also backed down on a remaining sticking point in the health and social care bill. PA reports:

A planned £86,000 cap on care costs is set to be introduced after peers backed down over their demand for a government rethink, amid concerns it is unfair to poorer people.

The House of Lords voted by 196 to 160, majority 36, against a renewed Labour move to amend the proposed reform aimed at sending it back to the Commons again for further consideration.

A fresh bid in the upper chamber to improve workforce planning in health and social care in England also failed.

Peers rejected by 204 votes to 169, majority 35, a move to force ministers to publish a report every three years on staffing needs, aimed at tackling shortages.

Both issues had been key areas of contention during the passage of the health and care bill through the Lords.

But the peers are still fighting over key aspects of the nationality and borders bill. PA says:

Defiant peers have dug in their heels by inflicting further defeats against the government’s controversial asylum and immigration reforms.

The House of Lords is maintaining its stand-off despite the Tory-dominated Commons rejecting previous changes made by the unelected chamber to the flagship nationality and borders bill.

Peers again backed steps aimed at preventing asylum seekers being treated differently based on how they reached the UK, and renewed their demand that applicants be allowed to work if no decision had been taken on their claim after six months.

The Lords also supported measures to ensure provisions on asylum in the bill comply with the UK’s international commitments to refugees.

The latest government setbacks mean a continuation of the legislative tussle between the two houses over the bill, known as parliamentary ping pong, as the end of the parliamentary session looms.

However, the Conservative frontbench did see off attempts to secure further significant changes to the bill, including a fresh bid to strip out a broad provision making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission and a move to impose strict conditions on offshoring asylum.

Updated

Speaker says he wanted to meet editor not to threaten press freedom, but to just ask 'that we are all a little kinder'

Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, has insisted his decision to invite the Mail on Sunday editor to a meeting to discuss the Angela Rayner article was not a threat to press freedom. In a statement last night, after David Dillon, the editor, said he would not be attending, Hoyle said:

I am a staunch believer and protector of press freedom, which is why when an MP asked me to remove the pass of a sketch writer last week for something he had written, I said ‘no’.

I firmly believe in the duty of reporters to cover parliament, but I would also make a plea - nothing more - for the feelings of all MPs and their families to be considered, and the impact on their safety, when articles are written. I would just ask that we are all a little kinder.

Updated

Raab refuses to criticise Mail on Sunday editor for refusing to meet Commons Speaker over Angela Rayner story

Good morning. In his classic book about journalism, My Trade, Andrew Marr says of journalism that “outside organised crime, it is the most powerful and enjoyable of the anti-professions”. One characteristic of anti-professions is that they don’t like being bossed around by officialdom, and we have seen a good example of that this morning in the declaration from the Mail on Sunday editor, David Dillon, that he will not attend a meeting with the Commons Speaker, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, to discuss its article about Angela Rayner widely denounced as sexist.

My colleague Tom Ambrose has written our story about the Mail on Sunday’s snub to the Speaker. The Daily Mail has reported it as its splash.

It was not entirely clear what Hoyle was planning to say to Dillon at the meeting, which had originally been scheduled for today. At least one MP has called for Glen Owen, the Mail on Sunday political editor, to have his parliamentary pass removed, but Hoyle gave no indication that he planned to impose this sanction (which would have triggered widespread protests from other journalists). However, Hoyle’s statement on Monday implied that what he had in mind was not a cosy chat about journalistic standards, but something more akin to what is sometimes called in Whitehall an interview without coffee.

In his statement in today’s Mail explaining his decision to refuse Hoyle’s invitation, Dillon presents this as a matter of press freedom. He says:

Britain rightly prides itself on its free Press. That freedom will not last if journalists have to take instruction from officials of the House of Commons, however august they may be, on what they can report and not report. I am afraid I and Glen Owen must now decline your invitation.

Dillon also offers two other reasons for staying away. He says Hoyle’s comment to MPs on Monday implied he had already taken a decision on the merits of the article, without having heard the paper’s side of the story. And he says new evidence has come to light to show that Rayner herself was the original source of the story, because she had been joking about the notion of using Basic Instinct tactics at PMQs in a conversation with Tory MPs on the Commons terrace. Dillon says:

Following investigations by the Conservative party, three other MPs who were part of the group on the House of Commons terrace, one of them a woman, have come forward to corroborate the account of Angela Rayner’s remarks given to us by the MP who was the source of last Sunday’s story.

The original story implied that Rayner herself had discussed the comparison with Tories (it quoted an unnamed Tory saying “[Rayner] admitted as much when enjoying drinks with us on the [Commons] terrace”) but it was not explicit about this. Today’s Mail also says that, when she was recording an interview in January with the comedian Matt Forde for his Political Party podcast, Rayner discussed a meme suggesting she used Basic Instinct tactics at PMQs. Rayner said in the interview she was “mortified” by the comparison - but she could clearly see the funny side too.

(Quite what Rayner may have said to MPs on the Commons terrace remains unclear, but it seems probable that the story is a good example of how journalism goes wrong when a comment made in jest ends up being reported seriously.)

While it was easy for MPs from all parties to condemn the sexism of the original article, today’s framing of the debate means they are now being invited to take sides, and choose between the Mail on Sunday or the Speaker, press freedom or responsible, respectful journalism. This issue is very likely to come up at PMQs.

Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, was doing the morning interview round this morning, and he tried to avoid taking sides. But he would not criticise the Mail on Sunday for boycotting the meeting with the Speaker.

Speaking about the original article, he said it was “terrible”. He said he had faced Rayner in the Commons in his capacity as deputy PM and she was “a formidable opponent”. Speaking about the story published on Sunday, he said: “I can’t stand this kind of thing.”

Asked about the paper’s refusal to meet the Speaker, Raab said:

Whether it’s the Speaker or the newspaper editors, we all believe in two things: one, the power and the importance of free speech, but, secondly, the importance of not allowing that to be abused and used to spread sexism in any shape or form ...

I’m not going to second guess the decisions of editors ...

I think it was a legitimate thing for Lindsay Hoyle do to invite to him [Dillon] and of course it’s the prerogative of any editor to decide how they treat that invitation.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Lord Blunkett, the former Labour education secretary, and Lord Willetts, the former Conservative universities minister, give evidence to the Commons education committee about post-16 qualifications.

9.30am: Grant Shapps, the transport secretary, gives evidence to the Commons transport committee.

9.45am: The supreme court rules on a claim that pilot voter ID schemes used in the May 2019 local elections were unlawful.

10am: Anne-Marie Trevelyan, the international trade secretary, gives evidence to the Commons international trade committee.

10.15am: Lord Keen of Elie, who resigned as advocate general of Scotland over the internal market bill in 2020, gives evidence to the Lords constitution committee about the role of government law officers.

12pm: Boris Johnson faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.

12.30pm: Lord Frost, the former Brexit minister, gives a speech on the Northern Ireland protocol.

After 12.45pm: MPs debate Lords amendments to the elections bill.

2.15pm: Sir Tom Scholar, permanent secretary at the Treasury, and other officials give evidence to the Commons Treasury committee on combating fraud.

Afternoon: Peers consider Commons amendments to the judicial review and courts bill, to the nationality and borders bill and to the elections bill.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Quincy Jones’s music was the soundtrack to so many Black lives – and something we could be proud of
There will be countless tributes to the revered producer, but for me he evokes happy days growing up and the chaos of family parties, says music industry employee Michelle Kambasha
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Dick Van Dyke makes rare social media appearance to endorse US Presidential candidate
'Mary Poppins' star Dick Van Dyke, 98, has made a rare social media appearance to pledge his support to Kamala Harris in the US Presidential race, and he did so by reciting a speech he delivered alongside Martin Luther King Jr. at a 1964 civil rights event.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Rihanna Showed Off Her Glossy Waves With The Blunt Bob of My Dreams
Fall hair inspiration at its finest.
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
Keanu Reeves confesses to throwing up during John Wick stunts
Keanu Reeves has revealed that he relished the challenge of filming the 'John Wick' movies.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Quincy Jones changed my life, says Oprah Winfrey
Oprah Winfrey has explained how Quincy Jones changed the course of her life.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Coca-Cola brings back nostalgic Mexican soft drink
Coca-Cola makes a major announcement about bringing back a beloved Mexican soft drink to U.S. stores.
The Street
The Street
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play