Evening summary
-
The government suffered a 10th defeat over its flagship EU withdrawal bill when the House of Lords voted for an amendment that would prevent the government implementing Brexit in a way that undermined the Good Friday agreement or led to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Chris Patten, the Conservative former chairman, told peers that Brexiters in his party are “playing with fire” and pursuing a policy in Northern Ireland “that is sometimes clueless, and sometimes delinquent”. (See 4.59am.)
-
The Brexit war cabinet delayed a decision on the UK’s customs arrangements after failing to reach agreement in a crunch meeting. The prime minister asked officials to draw up “revised proposals” for minister to consider again.
-
MPs voted down a Labour attempt to gain access to documents detailing the Windrush crisis after Theresa May promised the government would review the decisions leading to it. Labour’s shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said it was “nothing short of a betrayal of the Windrush generation”.
-
Women’s lives may have been cut short by a major IT error which meant 450,000 patients in England missed crucial breast cancer screenings, the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said.
-
Theresa May believes the latest bullying allegations against the Speaker of the House of Commons are concerning, and should be properly investigated, her spokesman has said.
-
The Cayman Islands government said it was considering legal action in an attempt to stop the UK making the overseas territory open up its company ownership registers to public scrutiny, a day after MPs agreed they should do so by the end of 2020.
This live blog is now closing down.
In the Lords vote (see: 7.02pm), an analysis of the division list showed 19 Tory rebels backed the amendment, voting against the government. They included the former deputy prime minister, Michael Heseltine, and the former ministers, David Willetts, Douglas Hogg and Ros Altmann.
The division list for the Commons vote on the Windrush scandal (see: 7.20pm) showed 180 of Labour’s 258 MPs voting in favour, with a further two of its MPs acting as tellers for the ayes.
The remainder of those who voted in favour included 28 SNP MPs, five Liberal Democrats, four Plaid Cymru, the Green Party’s MP Caroline Lucas, and the independent MPs Kelvin Hopkins, Ivan Lewis and Jared O’Mara.
The list also showed 306 of the Conservative Party’s 316 MPs voted against the motion, with a further two of its MPs acting as tellers for the noes. Nine DUP MPs and the independent, Charlie Elphicke, also opposed the motion.
Reacting to the government’s defeat over the EU withdrawal bill in the Lords (see: 7.02pm), the Liberal Democrat leader in the upper house, Lord Newby, said:
This vote has recognised what Theresa May hasn’t: that the issue of the Northern Ireland border is of paramount importance.
We cannot risk Conservative incompetence and Brexit dogma creating a hard border, and we will not allow years of strong relations within these islands to be jeopardised by Brexit.
Updated
MPs reject Labour's Windrush disclosure motion
The government has survived the motion – MPs have voted down Labour’s motion to force ministers to disclose eight years of internal documents and correspondence about the Windrush scandal.
The government imposed a three-line whip on Tory MPs to vote against and won by 316 votes to 221 – a majority of 95. Responding to the defeat, Labour’s shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said:
This was an opportunity for the Tories to start to right the wrongs they have done to the Windrush generation.
After losing her human shield with the resignation of Amber Rudd, the architect of this scandal, Theresa May, ordered her MPs to vote to cover up the truth of her involvement.
This is nothing short of a betrayal of the Windrush generation and others who have been affected by the government’s heartless ‘hostile environment’, and flies in the face of the new home secretary’s promise to make things right.
Tory MPs will now have to explain to the people whose lives have been turned upside down why they think they don’t deserve the facts to be known and don’t deserve proper justice.
In the Commons, MPs are voting on Labour’s opposition day motion demanding the government release documents related to the treatment of the Windrush generation, with a result expected in a few minutes.
Ministers have imposed a three-line whip on Conservative MPs to try to defeat the measure, which represents a change from recent Tory policy of not taking part in votes on opposition day motions.
Responding to the government’s defeat in the Lords (see: 7.02pm), Labour’s shadow Brexit minister, Jenny Chapman, said:
This vote sends a clear signal to the government that they must urgently find a solution to the Northern Ireland border.
Ill-conceived compromises and unrealistic technological solutions are simply not good enough. The government’s failure to act is holding back the Brexit negotiations and creating deep uncertainty for communities in Northern Ireland.
Ministers should back this amendment and accept Labour’s call for a new comprehensive customs union with the EU.
Updated
Government defeated on EU withdrawal bill
The House of Lords has backed a move to prevent a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, delivering a 10th defeat to the government on its flagship Brexit legislation.
Voting was 309 to 242, a majority of 67, for a cross-party amendment to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill also enshrining support for the Good Friday peace agreement and continued “North-South” cooperation.
Ministers delay customs plan decision after failing to reach agreement
While peers vote, it has been announced that a decision on the UK’s customs arrangements after Brexit has been put off after a crunch meeting of senior ministers failed to reach agreement.
The prime minister, Theresa May, asked officials to draw up “revised proposals” after the government was unable to unite behind one of the two options on the table – both of which have already been dismissed as “unworkable” by EU officials.
Downing Street sources said ministers in May’s “Brexit war cabinet” recognised there were “challenges” with both of the proposed solutions, which were first put forward last summer.
The Brexit negotiator Olly Robbins and his team are expected to come forward with amended proposals swiftly so that ministers can arrive at a preferred option possibly as early as next week.
The new cabinet members, Sajid Javid and Gavin Williamson, both came out in the meeting against the “customs partnership” model, under which the UK would collect tariffs on behalf of the EU.
Their opposition came after eurosceptic Tory backbenchers signalled that they regarded the partnership plan – branded “cretinous” by Jacob Rees-Mogg – unacceptable because he believed it would deliver Brexit in name only.
Updated
Chris Patten is now concluding the Lords debate.
He says invites Lord Duncan, the minister, to join him later on in voting for the government’s policy (a joke about how his amendment, which the government is opposing, is nominally just a statement of government policy).
Referring to Lord Bridges’s speech (see 5.46pm), he says he would not have signed an agreement in December that could lead to the creation of a border in the North Sea. As a former Hong Kong governor, he knows enough about one country, two systems.
He calls for a vote.
And now peers are voting on the amendment.
At this point I’m handing over to my colleague Kevin Rawlinson.
Updated
Sturgeon says government Brexit policy 'an utter shambles'
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has been reading Laura Kuenssberg’s tweets. (See 6.28pm.) On the basis of what she’s read, Sturgeon says government Brexit policy is “an utter shambles”.
This is an utter shambles. https://t.co/ZehP61uZwr
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) May 2, 2018
Updated
Back in the Lords Duncan is coming to the end of his speech.
He says the government is firmly committed to the Good Friday agreement. It is entrenched in nine pieces of primary legislation, he says.
But he says the political language in the second half of the amendment is not acceptable to the government.
That does not mean the government is not committed to the Good Friday agreement, he says.
Turning away from the House of Lords debate for a moment, here is some more on the cabinet sub committee meeting on customs.
From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg
1. What did the meeting achieve this afternoon? Hear PM has asked for 'revised proposals' further work on both options, No 10 sources suggest both still on the table but...
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 2, 2018
2. Also being told customs partnership model was rejected and won't go back full cabinet, suggested Williamson and Javid both spoke against it outlining 'significant' and 'grave concerns'
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 2, 2018
3. So already different versions out there of what happened at the meeting - but certainly the proposals as they currently exist are not viable with Number 10 agreeing they need more work
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 2, 2018
4. So nearly 2 years on, govt accepts it doesn’t have viable customs plan yet - v interesting that Javid seems to have been on Brexiteers side - new Home Sec at his first meeting of that committee
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 2, 2018
From ITV’s Robert Peston
So chief whip has been co-opted on to Brexit war cabinet - which is why there is total deadlock on way forward for customs. Dead heat in PM sounding of opinion!
— Robert Peston (@Peston) May 2, 2018
From the Sun’s Harry Cole
Appears the new Home Secretary has torpedoed May three days into the job and Sajid Javid said he was "new guy on the block" and had "significant concerns" about her Customs Partnership. PM "visibly shocked" to have lost the room - as per source.
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 2, 2018
Duncan admits that much of what is in the Patten amendment reflects government policy.
But the language is political, he says, particularly towards the end of the amendment.
He says it is not the language of legislation. It will be for the government to write legislation when the withdrawal agreement is finalised.
The text of the amendment, amendment 88, is in this document (pdf).
In the Lords Lord Duncan of Springbank, a minister in the Northern Ireland Office and the Scotland Office, is now winding up for the government.
He says the government is clear; it will not allow a border to be put in place in the North Sea.
He says Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said some red lines might have to be adjusted. But that is not the case in Ireland, he says. He says Barnier should listen to both communities in Northern Ireland.
In the Lords debate Paul Murphy, the former Labour Northern Ireland secretary, is winding up for the opposition. He says all sides in Ireland want to avoid the return of a hard border. All the amendment is doing is providing for what everyone wants, he says.
Early evening summary
- Chris Patten, the Conservative former chairman, has told the House of Lords that Brexiters in his party are “playing with fire” and pursuing a policy in Northern Ireland “that is sometimes clueless, and sometimes delinquent”. (See 4.59am.) He was speaking at the start of a debate on an amendment to the EU withdrawal bill he has tabled that would prevent the government implementing Brexit in a way that undermined the Good Friday agreement or led to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The government is expected to lose when the amendment gets put to a vote, probably within the next half an hour. We will be covering the result.
- The government will review the decisions leading to the Windrush crisis, Theresa May has said, in an announcement intended to head off a Labour attempt to seek access to documents detailing the process. MPs are still debating the Labour motion, which will be put to a vote at 7pm. We will be covering that result too.
Updated
Former Brexit minister Lord Bridges says he fears withdrawal agreement will be 'fudge'
In the Lords debate Lord Bridges, the remain voter who served as a Brexit minister until the general election, said he would be supporting the government and voting against the Patten amendment. He said parliament had to give the government space to negotiate, and to allow it to make compromises. But he did not sound positive about the Brexit talks process. He told peers:
My fear is that, come the autumn, the agreement on the future arrangements will be fudge. But it cannot be fudge containing the poison pill of that backstop. People voted to leave the European Union. They did not vote to break up the union that underpins our nation.
So the double think of the December agreement, in which paragraph 49 says one thing and paragraph 50 another, cannot be allowed to seep into the final agreement.
Bridges said, if peers wanted to take a stand about the Brexit withdrawal agreement because of its provisions for Ireland, the time to do that would be at the end of the process.
Lammy says demanding 'compliance' of Windrush migrants reminiscent of slavery
Back in the House of Commons the Labour MP David Lammy was applauded as he likened the Home Office’s “compliant environment” to slavery. Lammy, whose father came to Britain from Guyana in 1956 and who has been a leading campaigner on behalf of the Windrush migrants, compliance was “written deep into our souls and passed down from our ancestors”.
Referring to the way the new home secretary Sajid Javid prefers the term “compliant” to “hostile” to describe that way the government wants to create an environment that discourages illegal immigration, he said:
On behalf of the Windrush generation, keep in mind that spiritual, let freedom reign: it will only reign when this country turns back from the path it’s on, ends the compliant environment in which I know my place, and starts along a humane path that at its heart has human rights ...
The Windrush generation are here because of slavery. The Windrush story is a story of British empire and the Windrush community and its ancestors know what hostile and compliance means.
We know what compliance means: it’s written deep into our souls and passed down from our ancestors.
Slaves having to nod and smile when they were being whipped in a cotton field or a sugarcane field were compliant.
Watching your partner being tied to a tree, beaten or raped on a plantation, is compliance.
Twelve million people being transported as slaves from Africa to the colonies is a compliant environment.
Peter Temple-Morris, the Conservative MP who defected to Labour after the 1997 election and who subsequently sat in the House of Lords as a Labour peers, has died, the BBC reports.
Leadsom suggests Commons bullying inquiry could expanded to cover Bercow allegations
Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, has backed Downing Street (see 4.08pm) in talking up the case for an inquiry into the bullying allegations against John Bercow (which he denies). In a statement she said:
It is for Dame Laura Cox QC to consider whether the terms of reference of her independent inquiry need to be expanded, to allow for individual investigations to take place.
I’m sure she will be looking very carefully at how best to respond to these latest developments.
We must call out unacceptable behaviour and stand by the House staff who do so much for us.
The independent complaints procedure that I am establishing for all who work in or visit parliament will, I believe, make parliament one of the best places in the world to work, and to be treated with dignity.
I am determined to stamp out all forms of bullying and harassment in parliament, and separate to these allegations, I encourage any member of House staff who has experienced mistreatment to provide their confidential testimony to Dame Laura Cox.
Everyone in Westminster has a responsibility to play their part in changing the culture in parliament.
Chris Patten warns peers about impact of 'clueless, delinquent' Brexit policy on Northern Ireland
In the House of Lords peers are debating the EU withdrawal bill again. We are expecting another vote, and another government defeat, on an amendment tabled by Chris Patten, the Conservative former cabinet minister and former European commissioner (and head of an inquiry into policing in Northern Ireland in the 1990s).
Patten’s amendment, amendment 88, would prevent the government implementing Brexit in a way that undermined the Good Friday agreement or led to a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
Opening the debate, Patten said that what he was asking for was in line with stated government policy. But he explained why he thought his amendment needed to be written into law.
There are a number of members of the Conservative party in another place [the Commons] who are very keen for the over the cliff, onto the rocks Brexit and I think are making life rather more difficult for the prime minister to square circles than should be the case.
Most of his speeech was about the importance of the Good Friday agreement. Here are some extracts.
As the government say in their position paper, the issue of identity goes to the heart of the Good Friday agreement. And anybody who doubts that that’s the case should look at curbstones, should consider flags. In 2012 the city council in Belfast decided it wanted to reduce the number of times during the year that the union flag was flown. Result: a year of demonstrations and civil disorder, 130 police officers injured, a political office firebombed.
Ask yourself this question. Why is the Northern Ireland not working at the moment? Because of an article about identity, because of an argument about parity of esteem for different cultures and different loyalties. That is why it is not working.
The genius of the Good Friday agreement was to extract from nationalists the commitment that they would only ask for change constitutionally in Northern Ireland if it was the process of democracy. And on the other hand they were told they didn’t have to sign up to being loyal to all the usual symbols of what they regarded as the unionist state. It hasn’t meant that everyone is loving one another to bits. But it has ended the violence. Violence which saw the deaths of a thousand police officers and soldiers during the Troubles, twice as many as died in Iraq or Afghanistan ...
There was a suggestion in the debate on the customs union that this House, by talking about that, by talking about the border and so on, was playing with fire. [Patten is referring to a speech by his Tory colleague Michael Forsyth.] I’ll tell you what I think playing with fire is. I think playing with fire is blundering into the politics of Northern Ireland with a policy that is sometimes clueless, and sometimes delinquent, with a can of petrol and a box of matches in the other hand. I think that’s playing with fire. I think that’s what we’re really in danger of doing ...
I don’t want to go back to the old triumphs, the old humiliations, the old animosities, the old feuds. I think it would be shameful, shameful and dishonourable, if this House was do to anything that made this more likely. I think it would be a stain on our history.
Shona Robison, the Scottish government’s health secretary, has issued this statement about the breast screening bungle in England. She said:
I want to reassure members of the public that this issue does not affect the NHS in Scotland and patients should be reassured that there are no problems with our breast screening programme records or IT systems.
As usual, all women should continue to be aware of changes to their breasts and if they have any concerns they should see their GP. Scottish government officials will be working with Public Health England to identify any women affected in England who have subsequently moved to Scotland.
Sir Jeremy Heywood, the cabinet secretary and head of the civil service, has tweeted a picture today of the most important whiteboard in Whitehall. It belongs to Sue Gray, who is leaving her post as director general of the propriety and ethics team at the Cabinet Office, and it is the one that reportedly gets wheeled out ever time there is a government reshuffle. Gray used to help decide who could go where, and this is the surface where the moves used to get mapped out.
Proud & sad to mark Sue Gray’s final weeks in @cabinetofficeuk today with my perm sec colleagues and her famous “whiteboard”. The @UKCivilService will miss her immensely. Best of luck in @dptfinance! pic.twitter.com/Xbl1iVt2Ss
— Sir Jeremy Heywood (@HeadUKCivServ) May 2, 2018
This is from HuffPost’s Paul Waugh.
Signif development. No10 just outlined 3 ways Parliament could 'properly investigate' Bercow bullying allegations:
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 2, 2018
1 indep inquiry cd expand terms of reference;
2 "House authorities" cd investigate; 3 Parliamentary Cssnr cd investigate.
Looking bad for Bercow.
According to ITV’s Robert Peston, the cabinet’s Brexit sub committee has wrapped up without coming to a conclusion on the customs union - as expected. (See 9.54am.)
I hear, as expected, the decisive Brexit war sub-committee has deferred a decision on what customs proposal to put to Brussels. Quelle surprise!
— Robert Peston (@Peston) May 2, 2018
In the Commons Yvette Cooper, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee is speaking now.
The Conservative MP Jeremy Quin asks her, as a former government minister, what she thinks of the Labour motion. (See 10.51am.) He says it is very, very broad. It could lead to the disclosure of cabinet minutes, or information about communications with foreign governments, he says.
Cooper says, although the motion says the Windrush papers should go to her committee, her committee has not discussed the matter.
If the motion does get passed and her committee gets the papers, they will handle them “in a very responsible way”, she says.
She says Windrush migrants ended by being treated as illegal immigrants by mistake.
It is reasonable for the government to have targets, she says. But if there are targets, there must be safeguards.
She also singles out the net migration target for criticism, saying that has encouraged the Home Office to deport people whether they are here legally or illegally.
Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants says proposed Windrush review does not go far enough
This is what Theresa May said at PMQs earlier when she announced an inquiry into the Windrush scandal. She told MPs:
We all share the ambition to make sure we do right by members of the Windrush generation, which is why [Sajid Javid] will be announcing a package of measures to bring transparency on the issue, to make sure that the House is informed, and to reassure members of this House but, more importantly, to reassure those people who have been directly affected. Speed is of the essence and [Javid] will be commissioning a full review of lessons learned, independent oversight and external challenge, with the intention of reporting back to this House before we rise for the summer. The review will have full access to all relevant information in the Home Office, including policy papers and casework decisions.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has condemned this as inadequate. Satbir Singh, its chief executive, issued this response.
Nothing that the government has announced today in parliament will address the root causes of the Windrush scandal – namely the “hostile environment” policy. Hostility is still very much in play, the government still plans to roll Right to Rent out further to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which independent evidence by JCWI has proven discriminates and harms.
The hostile environment continues unabated denying people health care, stopping doctors and nurses and other workers we so desperately need, working in our beloved NHS.
If the government was truly committed to learning any lessons it would stop this hostility in its tracks, treat people as people, not numbers and carry out a fully independent review of the Home Office’s policies and practices.
Joanna Cherry, the SNP’s justice and home affair spokeswoman, is speaking in the debate now. She says it is “astonishing” that civil servants could be receiving bonuses for deporting illegal immigrants. That’s “disgusting”, she says.
The Times’ Sam Coates says Tory whips seem to be nervous about the vote tonight.
Tory whips starting to look nervous about tonight’s vote. All Tory MPs on the estate told to declare themselves to their whip
— Sam Coates Times (@SamCoatesTimes) May 2, 2018
Tic Toc tic toc pic.twitter.com/4Cg5dTGSwA
Javid says safeguards are being put in place to ensure that ongoing enforcement measures against illegal immigrants do not impact on Windrush migrants.
He is winding up now.
He says he is not alone in feeling that what happened to the Windrush generation made him angry.
Something like this must never happen again, he says.
Javid says he will be bringing forward legislation for the fee exemptions, fee reductions and changes to the citizenship process for the Windrush migrants.
He will also be consulting on the compensation scheme that has been promised.
Javid says complying with Labour’s motion would take up too much government time. He describes it as a “massive and open-ended fishing expedition” which would require 100 officials to fulfil.
The Conservative MP Simon Hoare intervenes. He says, since his appointment, Javid has been called “a coconut” and an “uncle Tom”.
Javid says, under Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, the hard left has been more prominent. They are associated with the rise of antisemitism. He challenges Corbyn, who is on the Labour front bench, to condemn the racist insults directed at him.
Corbyn does not intervene. But Diane Abbott does. She says she knows what it is like to suffer racist abuse. She says she has condemned the abuse directed at Javid. Everyone on the Labour side condemns it, she says.
Javid refuses to deny civil servants paid bonuses for removal of illegal immigrants
Sajid Javid, the new home secretary, is speaking now.
He says there are men and women who have been let down. As he told MPs on Monday, he will do whatever is necessary to put that right.
Labour’s Catherine West intervenes. Is it true that bonuses are paid for the removal of illegal immigrants?
Javid says bonuses are paid in the civil service. They are not a matter for ministers.
- Javid refuses to deny civil servants paid bonuses relating to the removal of illegal immigrants.
Labour’s Stephen Doughty intervenes. He points out that Javid refused to deny that bonuses were paid. He asks West’s question again.
Javid repeats the point about how ministers are not involved in bonuses. He says he has not looked at this.
Back in the Commons, Abbott is still speaking. She says Theresa May has not resiled from the “hostile environment” policy. In 2012 she told the Daily Telegraph she wanted to create “a really hostile environment” for illegal immigrants, Abbott says.
She says Sajid Javid, the new home secretary, will find he is not in charge of Home Office policy. May still wants to decide it, she says.
Abbottt says May’s policies created the problems for the Windrush generation.
This issue will not go away. Labour will not stop until they get justice for the Windrush generation, she says.
No 10 suggests May looking at a third post-Brexit customs option
With Theresa May confronting her Brexit inner cabinet this afternoon, there was an intriguing little nugget in the post-PMQs briefing by her official spokesman.
Brexiters have been briefing that they hope to use the meeting to force May to dump her preferred option of a “customs partnership”; while she and others including Philip Hammond are deeply sceptical about the alternative of “max fac”, or maximum facilitation.
Asked about the PM’s remarks in the House that there were “a number of options” for post-Brexit customs arrangements under consideration, May’s spokesman said:
Work has been ongoing on two options; that work has been proceeding. Ideas are obviously evolving as we go along; the prime minister said there’s a number of options of ways to proceed.
Pressed about whether there were still two options on the table - or more - he repeatedly insisted there were, “a number of ways of taking this forward”.
That will spark speculation that Downing Street is preparing to propose a third option, as a way through what has become an increasingly ugly public standoff.
Abbott says there are still Windrush migrants who are afraid of coming forward.
She turns to the compensation issue. People are anxious. They want assurances that the compensation scheme will be adequate, she says.
Abbott says MPs want to have the figures for how many people have been deported.
The Conservative MP James Cartlidge rises to make a point of order. Is is it order to table a motion asking the Queen to break the Data Protection Act, he asks. He says what the motion proposes in relation to text messages would contravene the new GDPR (general data protection regulation) rules.
Lindsay Hoyle, the deputy speaker, says that is not a point of order.
Abbott says she has met Windrush migrants in detention centres.
Updated
Abbott asks if Tory MPs will understand how voting against this motion will be seen in the Commonwealth, and by the Windrush generation. And will they understand how the Tory laughter comes across.
Anna Soubry, a Conservative, rises on a point of order. There has been no laughing from the Conservative benches, she says.
Abbott says people will have heard laughter.
She says the Conservatives are not taking this seriously.
Abbott says this story has been front page news across the Commonwealth, and not just in the Caribbean.
What has been revealed about UK policy has been extremely damaging.
That is one reason to clear up this mess, she says.
Abbott says Labour does not support illegal immigration.
She says Labour would prevent illegal immigrants coming into the country. But the government is not doing this because it has cut the number of border guards, she says.
Abbott says she wants to address the role of the prime minister in this.
A Conservative MP intervenes, and asks if Abbott is in favour of stopping illegal immigration. It is the second time a Tory has asked this. (Simon Hoare made a similar intervention a few minutes ago.)
Some Labour MPs shout: “Wrong debate.”
Abbott says nobody on the Labour benches supports illegal immigration.
But it is distressing for Windrush generation migrants to hear the Conservatives keep dragging this back to illegal immigration.
(The Conservatives are going for Abbott on this issue because she repeatedly refused to say what Labour would do about illegal immigrants in a TV interview earlier this week.)
Abbott says May was to blame for the worst aspects of the “hostile environment” policy.
She says May introduced a deport first, appeal later policy.
She set deportation targets.
And, given she set targets, May should have know that what Amber Rudd told the home affairs committee last week about the Home Office not having targets for removals was wrong, Abbott says.
MPs debate Labour call for confidential government Windrush papers to released
Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, is now opening the debate on the Labour Windrush motion. (See 10.51am.) She says the Windrush arrived in Britain on 22 June 1948. They were a patriotic generation who contributed a great deal to this country. This debate is about them, she says.
Labour’s Chuka Umunna intervenes. He says many of the Windrush arrivals settled in Brixton, in his constituency. That was because there was a deep air raid shelter which housed them when they arrived. But it was also because that was near the job centre, he says. They wanted to work.
The Hunt statement is over. Maria Miller, the Conservative MP and chair of the women and equalities committee, raises a point of order and asks about the new allegations about bullying by John Bercow.
Miller says a member of the Commons staff has signed a non-disclosure agreement. Does John Bercow agree that Commons staff should not sign agreements like this? And will Bercow make a statement.
Bercow says current and former staff are not constrained by any agreements from speaking to the inquiry into the bullying of Commons staff.
He says the clerk of the Commons has sent Miller a note about these agreements, known as compromise agreements.
He says he is not involved in decisions about getting staff to sign these agreements.
On the subject of the allegations against him, Bercow says he has nothing to add to the statement he has already put out.
Julian Lewis, a Conservative MP and a friend of Bercow’s, also rises. He asks Bercow to confirm that most of Bercow’s staff have been happy working for him. Bercow confirms that.
Updated
May thinks bullying allegations against Bercow should be 'properly investigated', No 10 says
Theresa May believes that the latest bullying allegations against Commons Speaker John Bercow should be “properly investigated”, Downing Street has said. Asked about the latest allegations of bullying by Bercow, which he denies, the prime minister’s spokesman said:
The prime minister has been very clear from the start that there is no place for bullying or harassment of any kind in the workplace, including parliament.
It is a matter for parliament to decide how to proceed, but the latest allegations are concerning and should be properly investigated.
It’s important to note that the speaker denies the claims which have been made against him.
Updated
Here is the apology Hunt delivered in his opening statement. He said:
Irrespective of when the incident started, the fact is that for many years oversight of our screening programme has not been good enough.
Many families will be deeply disturbed by these revelations, not least because there will be some people who receive a letter having had a recent diagnosis of breast cancer.
We must also recognise that there may be some who receive a letter having had a recent terminal diagnosis.
For them and others it is incredibly upsetting to know that you did not receive an invitation for screening at the correct time and totally devastating to hear you may have lost or be about to lose a loved one because of administrative incompetence.
So on behalf of the government, Public Health England and the NHS, I apologise wholeheartedly and unreservedly for the suffering caused.
Hunt says all GPs will be briefed on what the appropriate response to this failure should be.
Hunt says his understanding is that, for every 1,000 women in their 70s, 12 have a breast cancer and three of those are life threatening.
In his response to Hunt, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said the “thoughts of the whole House will be with those whose screening was missed and who sadly lost their lives from breast cancer or who have subsequently developed cancer”.
Ashworth welcomed Hunt’s “candour” in questioning why the problem was not picked up. He went on:
Eight years is a long time for an error of this magnitude to go undetected. Did the department receive any warnings in that time, is there any record of how many women raised concerns that they had not received appropriate screening, were there any opportunities to change this mistake which were missed?
Hunt said:
The existence of a potential issue was brought to the attention of the Department of Health and Social Care by Public Health England in January, although at that stage their advice was that the risk to patients was limited.
An urgent clinical evaluation took place and the matter was “escalated to ministers” in March this year by PHE “with clear clinical advice that the matter should not be made public”. That was so a plan could be put in place first to ensure “any remedies did not overwhelm the existing screening programme”.
This is from Vaughan Gething, the Welsh government’s health secretary.
We have been made aware of the issues affecting the breast screening programme in England. We would like to reassure women in Wales that we believe this issue to be one that predominantly affects England.
— Vaughan Gething (@wgcs_health) May 2, 2018
Labour’s Diana Johnson asks why letters are not going out today to all 309,000 women affected.
Hunt says the letters are being sent out as quickly as possible. They cannot all be sent out today, he says. He accepts people will have to wait a few weeks to find out if they are getting a letter, and he says he appreciates that this will cause a lot of concern to those involved.
Commenting on Hunt’s announcement, Emma Greenwood, Cancer Research UK’s director of policy and public affairs, said:
It’s very concerning to learn that so many women have not received an invitation to screening over a prolonged period of time.
We know this may leave many women with questions about breast screening. If you suspect you have been directly affected by this or if you are over 50 and haven’t had a mammogram in the last three years and would like one, the NHS Choices website provides further information and the option to contact your local unit to book an appointment.
It’s worth remembering that many breast cancers are still found by women themselves, outside of the screening programme, so if you notice any unusual changes in your breast, see your GP straight away.
Labour’s Lisa Nandy says this announcement is “utterly heart-breaking”. Unless further resources are put into the system, other people will go to the back of the queue. For too many women where they live determines whether they live or die, she says.
Hunt says he recognises what Nandy is saying. He says additional resources will have to be found to ensure people are not disadvantaged.
Hunt says anyone is free to call the helpline number. It will be published today.
Letters should be sent out to women affected over the next four weeks.
Women who do not get letters should be pretty confident they have not been affected, he says.
Caroline Johnson, a Conservative and a doctor, asks what women who are worried about this news should do.
Hunt says all women who should be scanned, or who might want to get a scan, will be offered on. He says this will happen before October. But in most cases people should get scans much earlier, he says.
What Hunt told MPs - Extract
Here is an extract from Jeremy Hunt’s statement to MPs.
Earlier this year PHE [Public Health England] analysis of trial data from the service found that there was a computer algorithm failure dating back to 2009.
The latest estimates I have received from PHE is that as a result of this, between 2009 and the start of 2018, an estimated 450,000 women aged between 68 and 71 were not invited to their final breast screening.
At this stage it is not clear whether any delay in diagnosis resulted in any avoidable harm or death and that is one of the reasons I am ordering an independent review to establish the clinical impact.
Our current best estimate which comes with caveats as it’s based on statistical modelling rather than patient reviews, and because there is currently no clinical consensus about the benefits of screening for this age group, is that there may be between 135 and 270 women who had their lives shortened as a result.
I am advised that it is unlikely to be more than this range and may be considerably less.
However, tragically there are likely to be some people in this group who would have been alive today if the failure had not happened.
Labour Paul Williams, a GP, asks if the update of screening of 68 to 71-year-olds during this period was less than expected. And, if so, why was that not investigated?
Hunt says he will look into this. He does not know if there was a lower uptake. Normally the screening uptake rate is 80%, he says.
Philippa Whitford, the SN’s health spokeswoman and a breast surgeon, says she is concerned about Hunt’s suggestion that, with older women, early diagnosis does not matter so much. She says early diagnosis is always important.
She asks what efforts have been made to track down women affected.
Hunt says he does not think he did say that you do not need to diagnose early. What he was saying was that, in many cases, early diagnosis will not make a difference. But diagnosis is always important, he says.
Sarah Wollaston, the Conservative MP and GP who chairs the Commons health committee, says the woman affected need consistent, evidence-based guidance as to what they should do next.
Hunt says the government has to be clear with patients that there is no medical consensus about the efficacy of screening for patients in the 70s. But anyone who wants a scan will get a scan, he says.
Hunt says there is no consensus about the efficacy of breast cancer screening for older women. That is because older women are more likely to develop cancers, but those cancers are less likely to be life threatening, he says.
Up to 270 women may have died because of major breast screening programme failure, MPs told
Hunt says he wasnts to inform MPs of “a serious failure that has come to light” in the breast cancer screening programme.
Some 2m women get screened every year, he says.
Earlier this year it was found that a computer algorithm problem meant that between 2009 and the start of 2018 some 450,000 women aged between 68 and 71 were not invited to their final screening.
- Some 450,000 women missed a breast cancer screening, Hunt says.
He says at this stage it is unclear whether any delay in diagnosis will have resulted in any avoidable or delay or death.
He says the best estimate, based on modelling, is that there will be between 135 and 270 women who had their lives shortened as a result of this. There are unlikely to be more fatalities than that, and the number could be less, he says.
There are likely to be some people in this group who would have been alive today if this failure had not happened.
- Up to 270 women may have died because they missed a screening, Hunt says.
He says ministers were told about this in March. Public Health England advised that the public should not be told then, to allow time for remedial measures to be put in
He says 309,000 of the 450,000 women who missed out are still alive.
People will get clinical advise as to whether more screening is helpful. In some cases screening will be counter-productive. But he says patients will get a choice.
Hunt says this covers England. Patients in Scotland and Wales are not thought to be affected.
He says the government will contact thte next of kin of those who missed a scan and died of breast cancer.
The government will try to establish if the missed scan was a factor. He says if it was, compensation will be paid.
- Compensation to be paid to families of women who died from cancer after missing a screening, Hunt says.
He accepts these findings will be very disturbing for people.
Some people will get a letter saying they missed out knowing they now have a terminal illness. He says he apologise wholeheartedly to those people for the suffering caused.
He says there will be an independent review of the breast screening programme.
- Hunt announces independent inquiry into breast screening programme.
He says he wants to be transparent about what went wrong.
Updated
Jeremy Hunt's breast cancer screening statement
Jeremy Hunt is now making his statement about breast cancer screening. (See 11.56am.)
Labour’s Gloria de Piero says an 83-year-old woman who had a fall at home in her constituency had to wait three hours for an ambulance. Will May apologise to her?
May says she is sorry to hear about that. She will look into it.
Nicky Morgan, a Conservative, says the Treasury committee, which she chairs, will take evidence from TSB later about its IT failure. Does May agree that robust IT is vital for banking?
May says banks should have robust and stable IT systems.
Marcus Jones, a Conservative, says council tax rates doubled under Labour. Doesn’t this show the government was right to cap council tax increases?
May agrees. She says Conservative councils have been freezing or cutting council tax. Conservative councils on average cost families £100 less in council tax, she says.
The SNP’s Chris Stephens asks about the pay rise for civil servants. Doesn’t it amount to a real-terms pay cut?
May says the 1% cap on public sector pay rises has been abandoned.
Simon Hoare, a Conservative, asks about the 464 survivors of thalidomide. Will May ask the Foreign Office to intervene with Germany, which has gone back on a compensation promise. (The drug was developed in Germany.)
May says the Foreign Office is pursuing this.
Labour’s Paula Sherriff asks why the government has not appointed an equalities champion to ensure BAME people get access to better mental health provision.
May says it was precisely to address issues like this that she launched the racial disparities audit.
Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter, says the European scrutiny committee that he chairs has repeatedly asked her chief Brexit adviser, Olly Robbins, to appear. But he won’t. Will May ensure that he does give evidence?
May says she will look into this.
Labour’s Karen Buck asks why the government is still considering two EU customs options that are seen as unworkable.
May says if Buck is so interested in this, she should asks the Labour front bench to decide its own policy on it.
Labour’s Jo Stevens asks May if she agrees with Sajid Javid about the “hostile environment” not representing British values.
May says she agrees with what Javid said about the importance of differentiating between legal immigration and illegal immigration. She says he was referring to a phrase. But it was a phrase first used by Labour.
Amber Rudd, who resigned as home secretary on Sunday night, starts by congratulating Sajid Javid on his appointment. She says the UK threat level remains at severe. Last year five terrorist attacks got through. Will May share with her her admiration for the work of the security services?
May says she is pleased to be able to pay tribute to Rudd for the work she did as home secretary. She says Rudd’s work with internet companies was ground breaking. And she says she agrees with what Rudd said about the work of the intelligence agencies and emergency services.
(That exchange is a fairly clear sign that Rudd will not be joining the pro-European Tory rebels.)
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - Snap verdict: That wasn’t really a PMQs at all; we just had two PPBs (party political broadcasts) blaring away in tandem, doing little to enlighten anyone. Corbyn’s PPB was better on passion, and it covered wider ground - in fact, there was little area of public policy where he failed to castigate the government - but May probably did better on specific, memorable detail (her Hazelbourne Road anecdote). The local elections take place tomorrow, and so perhaps this wasn’t surprising. Corbyn did start with a neat, sassy question about Windrush. But May’s announcement about an inquiry into what went wrong disarmed him, and also helped to explain why the Tory whips feel comfortable about ordering their MPs to vote against the Labour motion calling for all confidential government paperwork on Windrush to be disclosed later this afternoon. The government clearly feels that this will be enough to contain demands for the full disclosure of documents, although the inquiry she announced sounded very minimalist. She described it as a “full review of lessons learned” rather than a proper inquiry, and it does not sound as if it will be especially independent. (She talked about “independent oversight and external challenge”, which is not quite the same as having an independent person in charge.) It will also concluded before the end of July, which means it may be one of the shortest inquiries on record.
Corbyn says the education secretary has been corrected by the UK Statistics Authority. It says budgets are being cut. Yet May is in denial. And police budgets are an issue too. Home Office civil servants says there is a link between budget cuts and increased crime.
May says she has protected police budgets. That is not what Andy Burnham proposed when he was shadow home secretary. She says the shadow home affairs minister has said there is no relationship between police numbers and crime figures.
Corbyn says the shadow police minister was pointing to a cut in police budgets. Some 21,000 police officers have lost their jobs since 2010. Violent crime is rising. Deaths from knife crime are going up, especially in London. The government is making a complete shambles of Brexit, damaging the NHS, damaging schools, and yet they claim to be strong and stable. With council tax rising by more than 5% all over the country, isn’t the truth that with the Tories you pay more and get less.
May says there is more funding going into the NHS, schools and social care. If Corbyn wants to talk about council tax, he should go to Hazelbourne Road in Clapham. On one side houses in Labour Lambeth people pay very high council tax. On the other side, in Conservative Wandworth, people pay much less. That shows people pay less under the Conservatives.
Corbyn offers facts about the inquiry. There are more people in debt, more people using food banks, more people in debt and more people in poverty. The NHS is suffering the longest funding squeeze in history. Will May apologise for this?
May says there are more people in work, and fewer people in absolute poverty. She says the chancellor has announced £10bn extra for the NHS. She is conducting a review to find a long-term plan. That is the sensible approach to take. It is about funding and reform.
Corbyn says March was the worst month on record for A&E. It was also the worst month for cancelled operation. There are thousands of vacancies for NHS staff. But May intervened personally to stop the NHS hiring from abroad. He says the education secretary used to say there would be no cut in schools funding. Last week he refused to repeat that pledge. Will May admit schools budgets are being cut?
May says there is more money for schools. It is not just a question of how much money you put in. She says 1.9m children are in outstanding schools under this government.
May announces inquiry into Windrush scandal
Jeremy Corbyn also pays tribute to Michael Martin. They first met when they were both organisers for the NUPE union in the 1970s.
Did the PM feel the slightest pang of guilt when Amber Rudd was forced to resign due to the actions of her predecessor?
May says she will start by updating MPs on Windrush issues. Sajid Javid will address MPs on this later today. He will announce a package of measures to bring transparency on this issue. She says speed of of the essence. She says there will be a review of lessons learnt. It will report before the summer and will have full access to all papers.
- May announces review into what went wrong with Windrush scandal, to report before summer.
May says the government needs to build more homes. The housing infrastructure fund helps.
Theresa May starts by offering condolences to the family and friends of Michael Martin, the former speaker who has died. She pays tribute to his courtesy in particular.
Wera Hobhouse, the Lib Dem MP, asks about upskirting. It is not a specific offence. She has worked on a bill to make it a specific crime. Will May back changing the law on this.
May says she agrees. She shares the outrage at this intrusive behaviour. The government wants to ensure victims’ complaints are taken seriously. The justice secretary will consider Hobhouse’s proposed law change.
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
A heads-up on some of the MPs due to ask the PM a question on Wednesday from noon.
— BBC Daily Politics and Sunday Politics (@daily_politics) May 1, 2018
Watch #PMQs live on #bbcdp 1130-1300 with @afneil @bbclaurak on @BBCTwo pic.twitter.com/uBOFptAKcz
This is from Chris Smyth, health editor at the Times.
Almost half a million women were not invited for breast screening over a decade because of IT failures, Jeremy Hunt expected to say later today. Huge failure for NHS and big questions about why it wasn't picked up
— Chris Smyth (@Smyth_Chris) May 2, 2018
This is from the Telegraph’s Kate McCann.
NEW: Hearing Jeremy Hunt will announce independent inquiry into NHS breast cancer screening after PMQs. Sources tell me hundreds of thousands of women weren't invited for screening because of a mistake and hundreds have since developed cancer.
— Kate McCann (@KateEMcCann) May 2, 2018
Jeremy Hunt is making a statement to MPs after PMQs.
This is from the BBC’s diplomatic editor, James Landale.
So, is this right? 23 months after referendum, 14 months after A50 triggered & 9 months after options first proposed in HMG position paper, the Cabinet is still discussing its negotiating position on the UK’s post-Brexit customs relationship with the EU? #tempusfugit
— James Landale (@BBCJLandale) May 2, 2018
And here is a reply from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg.
Um, yes - and row in govt is over 2 options that EU has dismissed - neither of which are thought to be immediately practical - good reasons why May has only inched forward, but as one source says ‘if you ride the bike too slowly, eventually you fall over’ https://t.co/BiryTE8dZc
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 2, 2018
Whispers now of a third ‘evolved’ option .... https://t.co/BiryTE8dZc
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) May 2, 2018
What the ERG memo says about the supposed flaws with customs partnership
The 30-page memo circulated by the European Research Group criticising the customs partnership proposal (see 9.33am) lists nine objects to the proposal. Here they are:
1 - The administrative burden of this system would mean low real uptake of UK tariff rates.
1 - The administrative burden of this system would mean low real uptake of UK tariff rates, because firms would be under a range of requirements to prove they are entitled to receive the relevant tariff rebates.
2 - Exporters to the UK would need their customers in the UK to pay EU tariffs, then try to claim them back by proving that the goods had gone to a UK end-consumer.
3 - Our trade partners would be deterred from agreeing mutual tariff reductions by their having to pay EU tariff rates up front.
4 - The UK would have less negotiating leverage over a potential trade partner’s trade barriers and behind the border regulatory barriers.
5 - EU quotas make the problem yet more complex.
6 - Only large corporates would be able to carry the significant administrative burdens of this system.
7 - Crucially, this option also frustrates UK regulatory independence.
8 - If the above factors mean that uptake of the rebate scheme is low, this would mean that the tariffs levied in practice on goods entering the UK market could be higher than the UK’s bound rate, which would be a violation of the GATT.
9 - The UK would continue to be a substantial tax collector for the EU, continuing to make a substantial net contribution to the EU budget.
And here is an extract from the conclusion.
The NCP proposed is undeliverable in operational terms and would require a degree of regulatory alignment that would make the execution of an independent trade policy a practical impossibility. This covers not only our external trade agenda but our own control over UK regulation and whether we can improve it.
Economists have recently described a “new normal” of limited global growth, potentially secular global stagnation. This can be avoided by a group of countries committing to reduce the distortions found in anticompetitive regulation. For example, a 20% reduction in distortions in the TPP 11, plus the UK and US, over 15 years could yield approximately an added 0.5% into global GDP year-on-year (c.$2 trillion over the period), according to some estimates. Set against this, customs clearance costs are small. (It should be noted that the estimates of the impact of behind the border barrier reduction are conservative, ignoring distortion reductions elsewhere, for example in China, that this approach may yield, nor do they assume any interaction effects.)
Any form of the customs arrangements above would mean continuing curtailment of UK capacity for independent trade and self-government, plus ECJ jurisdiction, applying harmonised rules and regulations across the domestic UK economy; they also mean external tariffs and abiding by future changes, but without a vote.
Housing minister Dominic Raab says 'max fac' customs plans 'winning the argument'
Turning back to the customs partnership, these are from the BBC’s Norman Smith.
Official Boris camp deny "friends" claim he cd quit over customs partnership.
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) May 2, 2018
Official Boris camp say he is opposed to hybrid model; backs 'max fac'; but "overstating" to say will walk
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) May 2, 2018
The “hybrid model” is the customs partnership, the proposal that Tory Brexiters are opposing. See 9.54am. “Max fac” is the other one.
"Max Fac" supporters are winning the argument over Brexit alternative to customs union says @DominicRaab @bbc5live
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) May 2, 2018
Dominic Raab is the Brexiter housing minister.
UPDATE: Here is the Raab quote. He was speaking to Radio 5 Live.
I always keep an open mind on this, because I do think when it comes to Brexit, we’re going to be forging a distinct path for the UK, not taking some off-the-shelf model.
But I suspect, actually in terms of delivering the two things that we need, which is to stay out of the customs union, but also avoid the hard border, as a matter of principle but also workability, at the moment, the way I read it, is that those in favour of ‘max fac’ are winning the argument. But I don’t want to prejudice the debate cabinet should have and must have in order to hammer this out.
If you look at the roll-on, roll-off ports, the pre-arrival notification of goods and customs declarations, if you look at the option of having authorised economic operators, and all of the stuff that has already been tried and tested on the US/Canada border, or on the Australia/New Zealand border, I think it [maximum facilitation] is actually the one that’s been tried and tested the most.
Updated
Labour accuses May of orchestrating 'cover up' over Windrush scandal
Labour has accused the government of a cover up and of shedding “crocodile tears” over Windrush in the light of its decision to whip its MPs to vote against the opposition day motion. A Labour spokesperson said:
If the architect of this cruel farce, the prime minister, is ordering her MPs to vote to keep her role in this mess hidden from the public, it exposes the Tories’ crocodile tears on the Windrush scandal as a sham.
We need answers, not further cover ups to save Theresa May from facing up to her involvement in the removal of rights, detentions and possible deportations of British citizens.
After letting Rudd take the fall for her decisions, how can the public have any trust in the prime minister?
We are likely to hear much more of this at PMQs in an hour’s time.
Tory MPs ordered to vote against Labour motion calling for release of confidential government Windrush papers
Conservative MPs are being whipped to vote against the Labour opposition day motion saying the government should publish papers, correspondence and advice on Windrush between ministers, senior officials and advisors from May 2010 until now, we’ve been told. That means there will be a vote at 7pm.
Until now the government has tended not to vote against opposition day motions. Generally they are not binding on the government, and ministers found it easier to ignore motions they did not like than to run the risk of staging a vote and losing.
That led to the Labour party using their opposition days to table “humble address” motions demanding the release of particular government papers to select committees. These motions, which used to be used very rarely, are binding on the government. Last year there were motions ordering the release of the government’s Brexit impact assessments and of universal credit project assessments. Both were passed without opposition because the government did not order its MPs to vote against.
Today the whips are taking a different approach and are instructing their MPs to vote against the Labour motion. Why? Presumably because they are reasonably confident of winning. The Labour motion is very wide-ranging, because it requires all internal government documents, including emails and text messages, relating to Windrush-related policy decisions to be handed over to the Commons home affairs committee (which would then be free to publish the material). Many MPs might argue that that is unreasonable, because even under the Freedom of Information Act there is an acceptance that government decision making is protected by some degree of confidentiality.
But the key point is that the motion seems to have been drafted with the express intent of uncovering material likely to embarrass Theresa May and establish her culpability in the Windrush affair. Many Tory MPs are embarrassed about Windrush, but at some point tribal loyalty kicks in and they would have to feel very strongly about this to vote for something so nakedly hostile to their party leader.
So the Tories may well win. But it won’t look good, because it will look like a cover-up.
For reference, here is the wording of the motion in full.
That an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to give directions that the following papers be provided to the home affairs committee: all papers, correspondence and advice including emails and text messages, from 11 May 2010 up to and including 1 May 2018, to and between ministers, senior officials and special advisers relating to policy decisions including on the Immigration Acts 2014 and 2016 with regard the Windrush generation cases, including deportations, detentions and refusal of re-entry, the setting of deportation and removal targets and their effect on the Windrush generation, and action taken within government following the concerns raised by Caribbean governments with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office including the original decision by the prime minister not to meet Caribbean heads of government and officials, and all copies of minutes and papers relating to the cabinet’s immigration implementation taskforce.
Lidington says cabinet expected to take customs decision not today but 'over next few weeks'
In his interview on the Today programme David Lidington, the Cabinet Office minister, confirmed what the Guardian reported overnight - that today’s meeting of the key Brexit cabinet sub committee is not expected to take a decision today as to whether the “customs partnership” or the alternative “highly streamlined customs arrangement” (which is now being referred to as “maximum facilitation”, or “max fac”, in Whitehall). He said the committee’s discussions would “start this afternoon and will probably continue in other meetings”. He went on:
This will be the first time today for cabinet colleagues to sit down and have a constructive discussion about the way forward. I expect we will come to a decision on this, as well as on other important elements of our negotiating position, over the next few weeks.
For reference, this is what the government’s future partnership paper (pdf) on customs published last summer said about the two options.
The government believes that there are two broad approaches the UK could adopt to meet these objectives. These approaches represent different choices about the nature of our relationship with the EU and countries around the world, but in either option the UK would seek to pursue its independent trade policy objectives.
- A highly streamlined customs arrangement between the UK and the EU, streamlining and simplifying requirements, leaving as few additional requirements on EU trade as possible. This would aim to: continue some of the existing arrangements between the UK and the EU; put in place new negotiated and potentially unilateral facilitations to reduce and remove barriers to trade; and implement technology-based solutions to make it easier to comply with customs procedures. This approach involves utilising the UK’s existing tried and trusted third country processes for UK-EU trade, building on EU and international precedents, and developing new innovative facilitations to deliver as frictionless a customs border as possible.
- A new customs partnership with the EU, aligning our approach to the customs border in a way that removes the need for a UK-EU customs border. One potential approach would involve the UK mirroring the EU’s requirements for imports from the rest of the world where their final destination is the EU. This is of course unprecedented as an approach and could be challenging to implement and we will look to explore the principles of this with business and the EU.
Rees-Mogg claims Tory Brexiter customs partnership warning will help May
Theresa May has opened talks with Brussels on the UK’s future relationship with the EU after Brexit. But any negotiation with Michel Barnier can’t really match, in terms of the strength of passion engaged, or the risk it poses to her own premiership, the negotiation she is having to conduct simultaneously with her own backbenchers.
And today that negotiation has hit a crisis point. The European Research Group (ERG), which is led by Jacob Rees-Mogg and represents around 50 Tory backbenchers committed to a harder form of Brexit, has sent her a long report arguing that the “customs partnership” proposals - one of the government’s two post-Brexit customs options for when the UK leaves the EU, and one that May is reluctant to drop - is unacceptable. The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail are both leading with the story.
Wednesday’s Daily TELEGRAPH: “May warned Brexit deal will sink her” #bbcpapers #tomorrowspaperstoday (via @AllieHBNews) pic.twitter.com/xjam3z5dj6
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) May 1, 2018
Wednesday’s Daily MAIL: “Show Us Your Steel, Mrs May” #bbcpapers #tomorrowspaperstoday (via @AllieHBNews) pic.twitter.com/XKyWvjmdEI
— BBC News (UK) (@BBCNews) May 1, 2018
One of the peculiarities of this is that, when the government first floated the customs partnership idea in a policy paper last summer (pdf), the Brexiters did not complain about it at all. But now, in leave circles, it is being vilified as being almost equivalent to remaining in the EU. Here is an extract from the Telegraph splash (paywall).
One ERG source said: “We have swallowed everything so far – but this is it. If they don’t have confidence in Brexit we don’t have confidence in them. The prime minister will not have a majority if she does not kill off the NCP [New Customs Partnership].”
Mr Rees-Mogg added: “The customs partnership is incompatible with the Conservative party manifesto.”
A copy of the report, obtained by The Daily Telegraph, dismantles the argument for a customs partnership which Brexiteers fear will keep Britain effectively in a customs union with the European Union after the UK leaves in March next year.
Rees-Mogg got the 8.10am slot on the Today programme to discuss this further (a sign of the influence he exerts on the government - David Lidington, who is supposedly May’s effective deputy prime minister, was relegated to the less prestigious 8.40 slot). And Rees-Mogg insisted that the the ERG were not threatening to bring down the prime minister over this.
There is no question of there being an ultimatum. This is a paper that has been produced on a specific aspect of policy that would not work, that would not effectively take us out of the European Union. It would leave us de facto in both the customs union and the single market.
At this point he sounded not entirely unlike someone running a protection racket. “Very nice majority you’ve got here, prime minister. Great shame if anything were to happen to it.”
Later he claimed that the ERG was actually doing May a favour. When it was put to him that his stance was damaging her negotiating position, he replied:
I don’t think it does, actually, because there is no point in negotiating with something that the other side think is magical thinking. The sooner the government gets away from this customs partnership, the easier it will be to get onto a negotiating that might actually happen.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: George Osborne, the former Conservative chancellor, gives evidence to the Commons education committee as chair of the Northern Powerhouse Partnership.
11.50am: Rebecca Long-Bailey, the shadow business secretary, gives a speech to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation industrial strategy conference.
10.45am: The Metropolitan Police and the National Crime Agency give evidence to the Lords EU home affairs sub committee on the proposed UK-EU security treaty.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
Around 1pm: MPs begin a debate on a Labour motion intended to force the government to publish all papers, correspondence and advice on Windrush between ministers, senior officials and advisors from May 2010 until now.
After 3.30pm: Peers resume their debate on the EU withdrawal bill. They are expected to vote on an amendment tabled by the Conservative peer Chris Patten that would stop the government agreeing a Brexit deal that created a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic.
As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at the end of the day.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.
If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.
Updated
