Closing summary
The time in Westminster is 10.35pm. Here is a round-up of the day’s news:
Labour’s amendment seeking to block the Illegal Migration Bill was defeated by 249 votes to 312, a majority of 63. It will now pass to its second reading. The vote followed a debate in the House of Commons which lasted just over four hours. Earlier in the debate, home secretary Suella Braverman said: “Despite our reasonable concerns that we have raised on several occasions, like [Tory former home secretary Priti Patel] before me, I am subject to the most grotesque slurs for saying such simple truths about the impact of unlimited and illegal migration.”
The home secretary also said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”. She told MPs: “Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.”
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told the Commons there needs to be urgent action to “stop the dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk” and undermining border security. But she said: “This bill is a con that makes the chaos worse. It won’t do the things the prime minister and the home secretary have promised, it won’t stop the criminal gangs or dangerous crossings and, in fact, it makes it easier for those gangs as well.”
Suella Braverman should consider her position for putting forward “cruel and heartless” immigration policies that discriminate against war refugees of colour, a former Home Office adviser has said. Nimco Ali, a one-time Conservative campaigner who in December left her job as an adviser on violence against women, said the home secretary was “the wrong person not just for the Conservative party but for the country”. A child refugee from Somaliland, Ali said the government’s failure to widen routes open to Ukrainians to other refugees appeared to be “racist” and “painful”.
Hundreds of people have gathered in Parliament Square to protest against the government’s controversial new asylum and migration law as MPs debated the measures in the Commons. The crowd, which first congregated around the Winston Churchill statue, chanted “What do we want? Safe passage. When do we want it? Now”, and “Who built the NHS? Migrants built the NHS.” Many held placards, which read “migrants and refugees welcome here: blame austerity, not migrants”.
US president Joe Biden said it’s “my intention to go to Northern Ireland and the Republic”, after an invitation from Rishi Sunak to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement next month. The move was widely expected following the deal with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol. The issue had been seen as a stumbling block to the president’s visit as the White House urged the row to be settled.
The UK’s nuclear-powered submarine fleet could double in size as plans were revealed for the new “Aukus” vessels to be based on a British design. In a bid to counter the growing threat from China, the UK’s prime minister, Rishi Sunak, vowed alongside his US and Australian counterparts to stand “shoulder to shoulder” to protect peace in the Indo-Pacific given its implications for security across the world.
Sunak quoted former US president John F Kennedy, saying the leaders gathered in San Diego were “United by that same purpose” of freedom, peace and security. He warned China, Russia, Iran and North Korea threatened to create “a world defined by danger, disorder, and division”. Praising Biden’s leadership and Albanese’s vision, Sunak said the UK would offer “over sixty years’ experience of running our own fleet” and the “world-leading design” for the Aukus class of submarines.
Sunak also said the government will not try to influence the outcome of the privileges committee inquiry into claims Boris Johnson misled MPs about Partygate. Asked if he would try to persuade Tory members of the committee not to impose too tough a punishment on Johnson if they found him in the wrong, Sunak replied: “That wouldn’t be right. This is a matter for parliament and the house. It’s not a matter for the government.”
Sunak rejected suggestions he is detached from the everyday concerns of the public after it emerged his new heated swimming pool uses so much energy that the local electricity network had to be upgraded to meet its power demands. The Guardian revealed that, while many Britons are trying to limit their energy use in the face of increased electricity bills, extra equipment had been installed in North Yorkshire to provide more capacity from the National Grid to Sunak’s constituency home.
The BBC’s leadership was facing renewed pressure on Monday after the corporation U-turned to bring Gary Lineker back to Match of the Day, cancelling the presenter’s suspension without requiring him to make any significant concessions. Three days after Lineker was taken off air for criticising the language used by ministers when discussing the government’s asylum policy, Tim Davie, the director general of the BBC, announced an independent review of the corporation’s social media guidelines.
Humza Yousaf said he would shift the campaign for independence into “fifth gear” if he wins the SNP leadership, following a suggestion from a colleague that it should “go down a gear”, PA Media reports. Ben Macpherson, the minister for social security in the Scottish government, said it would take longer than the short or medium term for Scotland to become a successful independent country.
Hospitals have cancelled tens of thousands of outpatient appointments and operations this week as they prepare for a junior doctors’ strike that will severely disrupt NHS care. NHS trusts in England have postponed many more procedures than for any of the recent walkouts by nurses and ambulance staff.
Theresa May is to release a book about a series of political scandals, titled The Abuse of Power, which promises to reveal the way institutions close ranks in order to avoid dishonour. The former prime minister has never released a memoir but the book – due to be published in autumn 2023 – promises to reveal the story behind famous scandals including the Hillsborough and Grenfell tragedies, the Daniel Morgan police corruption case and parliamentary dramas.
That’s all from me, Tom Ambrose, and indeed the UK politics live blog this evening. Thanks for following along. Goodbye for now.
Updated
Labour attempt to block Illegal Migration Bill defeated in Commons
Labour’s amendment seeking to block the Illegal Migration Bill was defeated by 249 votes to 312, a majority of 63.
The vote followed a debate in the House of Commons which lasted just over four hours.
Earlier in the debate, home secretary Suella Braverman said:
Despite our reasonable concerns that we have raised on several occasions, like [Tory former home secretary Priti Patel] before me, I am subject to the most grotesque slurs for saying such simple truths about the impact of unlimited and illegal migration.
The worst among them, poisoned by the extreme ideology of identity politics, suggest that a person’s skin colour should dictate their political views.
I will not be hectored by out-of-touch lefties, or anyone for that matter. I won’t be patronised on what appropriate views for someone of my background can hold. I will not back down when faced with spurious accusations of bigotry.
In contrast, Labour said the Illegal Migration Bill is a “con that makes the chaos worse” and “will lock up children”.
Shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper told the Commons:
We need urgent action to stop the dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk and undermining our border security. But this Bill is a con that makes the chaos worse.
It won’t do the things the prime minister and the home secretary have promised, it won’t stop the criminal gangs or dangerous crossings and, in fact, it makes it easier for those gangs as well.
It won’t return everyone, in fact it makes it harder to get return agreements. It won’t clear the asylum backlog, in fact it will mean tens of 1000s more people in asylum accommodation and hotels.
MPs divide to vote on opposition amendment to Illegal Migration Bill
MPs have divided to vote on the Labour amendment to the second reading of the government’s illegal migration bill.
It seeks to decline to approve the bill at its second reading.
The result is due at 10.15pm.
Biden to visit Northern Ireland and Irish Republic next month
US president Joe Biden said it’s “my intention to go to Northern Ireland and the Republic”, following an invitation from Rishi Sunak to mark the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement next month.
The move was widely expected following the deal with the EU over the Northern Ireland protocol. The issue had been seen as a stumbling block to the president’s visit as the White House urged the row to be settled.
Updated
Suella Braverman should step down for putting forward “cruel and heartless” immigration policies that discriminate against war refugees of colour, a former Home Office adviser has said.
Nimco Ali, a one-time Conservative campaigner who in December left her job as an adviser on violence against women, said the home secretary was “the wrong person not just for the Conservative party but for the country”.
A child refugee from Somaliland, Ali said the government’s failure to widen routes open to Ukrainians to other refugees appeared to be “racist” and “painful”.
Her words came as the government faced opposition from MPs across the House of Commons as it attempted to push the illegal migration bill through parliament on Monday.
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas criticised the “immoral, deeply cruel and divisive” proposed law, and ripped up a copy of the bill at the end of her speech.
The MP for Brighton Pavilion said: “The home secretary on the face of this bill invites Parliament to rip up international law. The only act of a Parliament that has some kind of moral integrity is to rip up her illegal and immoral bill, which has no place on our statute book.”
Independent MP Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) said “many would argue that this is racist legislation” and criticised the powers to detain people for 28 days, claiming: “This is state-sanctioned fascism.”
Meanwhile back in London the debate over the illegal migration bill goes on, with a Tory MP warning that “hundreds of millions” of people want to come to the UK.
Scott Benton, MP for Blackpool South, told the Commons: “Our public services are already creaking under enormous pressure and we simply can’t accept hundreds of millions of people who would no doubt look to come here for a better life. I’m afraid this country is nearly full.”
He said the Aukus vessel would be “one of the most advanced nuclear-powered subs the world has ever known”.
He said the plans could “not happen without cutting-edge American technology and expertise” while also heralding the “world-leading” British design.
Sunak said the deal would “create thousands of good, well-paid jobs in places like Barrow and Derby”.
Sunak quoted former US president John F Kennedy, saying the leaders gathered in San Diego were “United by that same purpose” of freedom, peace and security.
He warned China, Russia, Iran and North Korea threatened to create “a world defined by danger, disorder, and division”.
Praising Biden’s leadership and Albanese’s vision, Sunak said the UK would offer “over sixty years’ experience of running our own fleet” and the “world-leading design” for the Aukus class of submarines.
“For the first time ever, it will mean three fleets of submarines working together across both the Atlantic and Pacific, keeping our oceans free, open, and prosperous for decades to come,” he said.
Updated
Meanwhile as MPs in London debate the illegal migration bill Rishi Sunak is 8,000 miles away in San Diego unveiling details of the Aukus nuclear submarine pact.
The press conference where Sunak would appear beside the US and Australian leaders, Joe Biden and Anthony Albanese, was supposed to be an hour ago but is just getting started now. You can read my colleague Aubrey Allegretti’s curtain raiser here
Some Tory MPs are only able to support the illegal migration bill “because of the safeguards that are written into it”, the Conservative chairman of the justice select committee has said.
Sir Bob Neill told the Commons:
It is not unlawful or illegitimate, faced with new and novel developments in the means of entry into the United Kingdom unlawfully, to test the legal position. That’s what the bill does no more at this stage. It’s legitimate to do that.
He went on:
That said, some of us are only able to support this bill tonight because of the safeguards that are in written into it, for example habeas corpus, and others.
Sir Bob noted that as the bill makes its way through the Commons and the Lords “some of us will be looking to improve the protections in relation to children, in relation to families, in relation to some of the tests”.
He also insisted that “left on its own this bill, or any other bill, will not achieve anything”, adding:
The real need is to operationalise the situation and to improve the lamentable performance our asylum system and immigration system has had for a number of years.
The situation for asylum seekers in Knowsley has “deteriorated” since a protest outside their hotel – and some have been assaulted, the Labour MP for the area says.
A protest last month outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Knowsley, Merseyside, saw a police van vandalised and fireworks thrown.
The MP for the area, Labour former minister Sir George Howarth, says “we should all be ashamed” of the situation, while hitting out at the government’s illegal migration bill in the Commons.
He says:
I want to agree with the home secretary on one thing. And that is when she said we should choose our words carefully. It’s just a pity she didn’t do so herself.
He adds:
There is a hotel in Knowsley with 180-plus asylum seekers. I won’t talk about that in detail because I had an urgent question on it a few weeks ago.
But what I will say is since then the situation has deteriorated to the extent that some of the refugees have been verbally abused in the street, and others have been assaulted.
And they have fled because the countries they come from were unsafe, only to find themselves in an unsafe position in this country. And I think we should all be ashamed.
It’s not just happening in Knowsley, it’s happening all over the country.
The home secretary has said children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under the illegal migration bill.
Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She said:
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called the government’s migration policy “a disgraceful piece of legislation” at a protest in Parliament Square this evening.
The former Labour leader, who now sits as an independent MP, spoke at the ‘stop the bill’ protest, saying he believed the Illegal Migration Bill would lead to the UK’s removal from the European convention on human rights (ECHR).
He said:
I just heard the home secretary say they were going to shut down the people traffickers.
The people traffickers exist because this policy creates a market for them and creates an opportunity for them to exploit people.
Corbyn added that the bill contained “vile language” used to “dehumanise desperate groups of people”.
Claudia Webbe, the independent MP for Leicester East, says it is “frankly frightening” to be at the second stage of a bill that begins with an admission from the home secretary “that the proposed legislation is not compatible with international law and our human rights obligations”.
The former Labour MP tells the House of Commons that the European court of human rights was drafted by the UK and protects the rights of “every one of us”, despite “misrepresentation”.
She adds:
Not even children are safe under this bill. Whilst the bill does not instruct the deportation of unaccompanied children, it does give permission for their deportation if the government or home secretary so wishes.
This is monstrous legislation and no assurances from the party opposite can make it less so.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrat Alistair Carmichael has said the bill would deprive entitled people to the right of asylum.
He says:
And what will be the consequence of that? They will be sent away and many of them will die.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader, adds that he wants to see the government succeed in stopping the boats due to the “danger that dies for all those that try to make that route”.
Updated
Labour MP Khalid Mahmood accuses home secretary Suella Braverman’s politics of being “xenophobic” and “racist”.
He tells MPs in the Commons:
The home secretary, in her opening statement, said that she can’t be xenophobic or racist just because of her colour and her origins.
Well, I say to her, of the same colour and same origin, that that is exactly what her politics are about.
Her politics are about dividing our society, our community, based on that. That is what she is doing and that is what she continues to do.
The people of the United Kingdom are not so naive as to take this huge nonsense of xenophobia and racism from this party to be put forward.
Elsewhere in the debate, Conservative former minister Sir John Hayes says:
The plain fact is that our kingdom’s borders are being breached day after day with impunity.
Of course Britain should provide a safe haven for people in need, in genuine need. But it is a deceit to pretend the asylum system is not being gamed and the British people taken for a ride.
He adds that “economic migrants with no legal right to be here” are being “enabled by fat cat law firms, aided and abetted by militant interest groups who are determined to subvert the will of the people, and cheered on by vacuous self-indulgent celebrities leading millionaire lifestyles”.
Updated
Aspana Begum, the Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse, describes the bill as “abhorrent and unlawful”.
She continues:
Human rights and legal organisations are calling this one of the most damaging bills pushed forward by a British government in living memory.
This is because the illegal migration bill amounts to a refugee ban. It breaches fundamental and internationally recognised human rights, it attacks our way of life and it attacks our communities all over the UK.
Let us be clear; persecuting refugees and anti-migrant scaremongering does not benefit the majority of people.
The cynical and dangerous use of scapegoating to divide people by an unpopular government, which has overseen a horrifying death toll during the pandemic and continues to inflict hardship and suffering across the UK, does damage our communities.
Dame Diana Johnson, chair of the home affairs committee, has said the illegal migration bill “potentially leaves the Home Office in a legal quagmire”.
She repeats the assertions from Labour and the SNP that it will result in a situation whereby tens of thousands of people are detained and “bailed into a permanent state of limbo”.
She says:
There is nothing specifically in this bill about tackling criminal gangs, people smugglers and traffickers.
She concludes:
We all want action on small boats. But what we want is effective action that will deal with the problem.
The Conservative former justice secretary Sir Robert Buckland says suggestions his party “is cruel, callous and that we don’t care about people” is “utterly, utterly wrong”.
He highlights that he fought hard for the nationality and borders bill to make its way through the House of Commons, as justice secretary.
He tells MPs:
What our constituents are fed with is the seeming inability of the system to enforce the laws that we pass in this place, to get on with the jobs of lawful deportation, to make sure that people don’t overstay their visas.
He adds that the small boats crisis “is actually the product of a successful approach we took when it came to the control of lorries”.
He says:
We succeeded in plugging that loophole and I’m pretty sure if we succeeded in plugging this loophole, another one would emerge.
From all the evidence I know from asylum seekers I speak to in my constituency, and I do so regularly, this is a price-driven market. It is simply cheaper to come here on small boats than it is by other means at the moment.
Buckland says the government is looking to use law, where operations – such as working with France and other countries – would have a better chance of working.
He adds that “we have got to do more on safe and legal routes” in tandem with this legislation.
Returning to Alison Thewliss’s (SNP) speech, she says there is no deal in existence with the EU and that Brexit has made the issue “much more difficult”.
She adds:
What this bill does do is create an underclass of people stuck in immigration limbo indefinitely.
The bill will detain everybody arriving on a small boat for 28 days. The UK’s current detention capacity is 2,286 beds. The number of people crossing in small boats last year was 45,755 and, for context here, the prison population in England and Wales in 2022 was just over 81,000 people.
So, where on earth does the home secretary suggest that the number of people she wishes to detain are kept, as well as those deemed inadmissible but unreturnable?
Theresa May tells the shadow home secretary that under the Labour government the backlog of asylum cases rose to between 400,000 and 450,000.
Intervening during Yvette Cooper’s speech, the Tory former prime minister says:
If she thinks the current figure means the system is in chaos, then what was her description of the system under the Labour government of which she was a member, which had a backlog in asylum cases of between 400 and 450,000?
Cooper replies:
The former prime minister and former home secretary is experienced enough to know that is not an accurate characterisation.
By the time the Labour government left office, the backlog of initial decisions was just a few thousand. Now it is 160,000 and in fact has trebled in the last few years as a result of the complete failure by the Conservative benches.
Conservative former prime minister Theresa May has expressed concerns over the government’s immigration reforms.
She tells the Commons:
Anybody who thinks that this bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong.
Opening her speech, May says:
Having been home secretary for six years, I understand the pressures to deal with illegal migration. In my day, people were getting into backs of lorries and backs of cars of British tourists returning across the border at Calais.
I did a deal with the French, the numbers went down. I have to say, I suspect it’s partly because of the success of that policy that we now see people coming in small boats.
I welcome the new deal that’s been done with France because it will have an impact. But what should be clear from this is whenever you close a route, the migrants and the people smugglers find another way, and anybody who thinks that this bill will deal with the issue of illegal migration once and for all is wrong.
Not least because a significant number, if not the majority, of people who are here illegally don’t come on small boats, they come legally and overstay their visas.
Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s home office spokesperson, says “this refugee ban bill is nothing but an abhorrent dog whistle”.
She says her SNP colleagues do not support it but do support a “functioning and fair immigration system, which is a million miles away from what we have now”.
She adds:
This bill has been rushed through with no proper impact assessment, on the back of legislation barely even in place.
Yvette Cooper goes on to question what has happened to the Conservative party that “once voted to introduce the modern slavery bill”, adding that they were “right to do so”.
She says:
How low have they fallen and how far down are they trying to drag our proud country? Because that is what this is. It is an attempt to drag our whole country down.
They know this bill won’t work to stop boat crossings or to stop the gangs, they know it won’t clear the backlog, they know it will make the chaos worse.
She adds that it will “undermine our reputation in the eyes of the world as a country that believes in the rule of law”. She says the Tories don’t care and it is all about political gain.
Sunak just wants to pick a fight, Cooper says. “All he wants is someone else to blame,” she says.
Suella Braverman says Rwanda “has the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people if necessary”.
She tells MPs about detention in the UK:
We are expanding detention capacity with two new immigration removal centres, but clearly we are not building capacity to detain 40,000 people, nor do we need to. The aim of this bill is not to detain people, but to swiftly remove them.
She adds:
Arguments that our approach cannot work because Rwanda lacks capacity are wrong. Let me be clear, our partnership with Rwanda is uncapped. We stand ready to operationalise it at scale as soon as is legally practicable.
It is understandable that Rwanda has not procured thousands of beds to accommodate arrivals while legal challenges are ongoing.
Intervening, Labour shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper says:
The home secretary has just admitted that Rwanda doesn’t have thousands of places.
She will know that the Rwandan government has talked about taking a few hundred people … where is she expecting to send the tens of thousands of people expected to arrive in the UK this year?
Braverman responds:
[The agreement with Rwanda] is uncapped and potentially Rwanda could accommodate high numbers of people that we seek to relocate. Rwanda has the capacity to resettle tens of thousands of people if necessary.
Braverman says children will be exempt from detention and removal from UK under bill
Home secretary Suella Braverman said the duty to remove “will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children”.
She told MPs:
Given the mischaracterisation of the bill from members opposite, I would like to make a few things clear. The home secretary’s duty to remove will not be applied to detain and remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Consistent with current policy, only in limited circumstances, such as for the purposes of family reunion, we will remove unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from the UK.
Otherwise, they will be provided with the necessary support in the UK until they reach 18. With respect to the removal of families and pregnant women, it bears repeating that the overwhelming majority of illegal arrivals are adult men under the age of 40.
Removing them will be our primary focus. But we must not create incentives for the smugglers to focus on people with particular characteristics by signposting exemptions for removal.
It is right that we retain powers to adapt our policy so that we can respond to any change in tactics by the smuggling gangs.
Updated
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative MP, says “everybody knows you are caught on average once by French police on the beaches”. Those hoping to cross the Channel come back the next day, he says.
He insists the only way to stop the boats is to support the government’s legislation.
Yvette Cooper, however, says he is “kidding himself” if he thinks the bill will change anything. She repeats the claim that tens of thousands of asylum seekers will be added to the backlog, costing “billions”.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, describes the bill as a “con” and says the reality is Braverman is creating misinformation and that her plan will “unravel”.
She says the home secretary has already got power to fast-track returns to Albania, with 99% of cases remaining in limbo.
She says:
The real problem is Conservative Home Office ministers don’t have any grip on the system they are supposed to be in charge of.
Meanwhile, hundreds of protesters have gathered in Parliament Square to protest against the government’s Illegal Migration Bill.
Zrinka Bralo, CEO of Migrants Organise, said:
We are here to stand up for dignity and justice and speak out against this new bill, which is further dehumanising and demonising refugees and is damaging our democracy.
Protesters chanted “money for health and education not for war and deportation” as many held placards reading “refugees always welcome”, PA Media reported.
Other chants included “say it loud, say it clear, refugees are welcome here”, and “who built the NHS, migrants built the NHS”.
Yvette Cooper says Suella Braverman’s plan will mean tens of thousands more people in asylum accommodation and hotels and will not clear the backlog.
She says it won’t deliver safe and managed alternatives, resulting in children being locked up. It will deny citizenship for people like Mo Farah, she adds.
Theresa May, the former home secretary and former PM, said the government bill will allow people to be removed from the UK quickly. But the memorandum with Rwanda about the Rwanda deal said the UK would screen asylum seekers first, she said. How would that be possible if people were being removed quickly.
Braverman claimed the UK screening process was robust.
My colleague Tom Ambrose is taking over now.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said the last home secretary passed a law to make people crossing the Channel in small boats ineligible for asylum. But just 21 people have been removed as result, she said.
This graphic in an IfG report illustrates this.
Braverman said those figures did not include other people who had been removed, such as those removed to Albania.
Braverman accuses opposition of 'fake humanitarianism'
Braverman accuses oppositon MPs of not having any proposals to stop small boat crossings. She says that in practice they favour open borders.
They are trying to deceive the public, she argues, because they are “dressing what is an extreme political argument in the fake garb of humanitarianism”.
She tells MPs:
The way to stop these deaths is to stop the boats. Secondly, the critics ignore that our policy does, in fact, guarantee humanitarian protection for those who genuinely need it.
Our policy is profoundly and at heart a humane attempt to break the incentive that sustains the business model of the smuggling gangs.
She adds:
Crucially, if people are truly in need of protection, they will receive protection in Rwanda.
Updated
Joanna Cherry (SNP) said gay and trans people were not protected by anti-discrimination laws in Rwanda. She asked Braverman if she thought it was a safe country.
Braverman said the Rwanda deal had been approved by the courts.
John Redwood (Con) asked Braverman if she was concerned that people crossing the Channel on small boats were linked to criminality.
Braverman said she had spoken to police chiefs, and they told her that criminality, and the drug trade, were linked to people who had come to the UK on small boats.
Braverman says she has been subject to 'grotesque slurs' for expressing 'simple truths' about migration
Braverman says she has been the subject of “grotesque slurs” just for saying “simple truths about the impact of unlimited and illegal migration”. She says the same thing happened to Priti Patel when she was home secretary.
But she won’t be put off by “out of touch lefties”, she says.
Claims that government policies backed by the majority of British people are bigoted are “irresponsible”, she says.
Suella Braverman claims UK has had 'too much' immigration in recent years, as MPs debate illegal migration bill
Braverman says there is nothing inconsistent in someone like her, the child of immigrants, saying that immigration has been been overwhelmingly good for the country, but that that there has been “too much of it in recent years”.
And she says uncontrolled and illegal immigration is “simply bad”.
Updated
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, is speaking now. She says stopping the boats is her top priority.
She says polls suggest the public support the bill by a margin of two to one.
MPs debate illegal migration bill
The debate on the illegal migration bill is about to start.
As Nigel Evans, the deputy speaker, was about to call Suella Braverman, the home secretary, the Labour MP Clive Lewis rose to make a point of order, pointing out that the bill includes a statement saying it might not be compatible with the European convention on human rights. He claimed that on that basis the debate should not even go ahead.
Sunak rules out telling Tory MPs how to vote on any possible privileges committee proposal to sanction Boris Johnson
Rishi Sunak has been giving interviews in California. Speaking to ITV’s Robert Peston, he said the government will not try to influence the outcome of the privileges committee inquiry into claims Boris Johnson misled MPs about Partygate.
Asked if he would try to persuade Tory members of the committee not to impose too tough a punishment on Johnson if they found him in the wrong, Sunak replied:
That wouldn’t be right. This is a matter for parliament and the house. It’s not a matter for the government.
And asked if the government might intervene to try to stop Johnson being suspended from the Commons for 10 days or more, a move that could trigger a recall byelection, Sunak replied:
No, again, this is a matter for parliament, for the house. It’s not right for the government to get involved.
The normal practice with inquiries of this kind is for the privileges committee to make a recommendation at the end of its inquiry and, if that involves an MP facing a sanction, for the Commons to vote to approve it. Normally there is not even a vote, because MPs accept the committee’s recommendations, and if there is a division, it is not normally seen as a party political matter.
But when Boris Johnson was PM, he did order Tory MPs to vote down a standards committee recommendation for Owen Paterson to be suspended. That was seen as a massive mistake, and within days the government backed down.
If the privileges committee does propose suspending Johnson, some of his most loyal supporters (and pro-Johnson papers like the Daily Mail) might expect Sunak to tell Tory MPs to vote against the punishment. Sunak is making it clear this will not happen.
Updated
Theresa May writing book to reveal how she saw 'public institutions abusing power' repeatedly when in government
Politicians, in all parties, often start of quite radical but, if they go into government, end up mellowing, tamed by pragmatism and first-hand exposure to the establishment.
But not Theresa May. On the basis of the publicity for a book she is publishing later this year, she is going the other way. According to the blurb from Waterstones, the former PM will be “railing against the corruption and self-enrichment she sees as endemic in modern Parliamentary politics”. Perhaps Jeremy Corbyn is going to help her write it.
In a quote describing the book published by the Bookseller, May says that what she was in government she saw “public institutions abusing their power” over and over again. She says:
When I stood on the steps of No 10 as prime minister for the first time I set out my determination to fight burning injustices and govern not for the powerful but for the people. Time and time again, during my period in government, I saw public institutions abusing their power by seeking to defend themselves in the face of challenge rather than seek the truth. These were the very bodies whose job was to protect the public, but they sought to protect themselves.
From Hillsborough to Primodos to child sexual exploitation this increased the suffering of victims and delayed justice. Our democracy depends on people having trust in their public institutions and politicians. I am delighted to be working with Headline as the accounts I give in this book show how that trust has been eroded over time and why we need to act.
The synopsis of the book says:
As prime minister for three years and home secretary for six years, Theresa May confronted a series of issues in which the abuse of power led to devastating results for individuals and significantly damaged the reputation of, and trust in, public institutions and politicians.
From the Hillsborough and Grenfell tragedies, to the Daniel Morgan case and parliamentary scandals, the powerful repeatedly chose to use their power not in the interests of the powerless but to serve themselves or to protect the organisation to which they belonged. The Abuse of Power is a searing exposé of injustice and an impassioned call to exercise power for the greater good.
Drawing on examples from domestic and international affairs she was personally involved in at the highest level, including Stop and Search and the Salisbury Poisonings, the former prime minister argues for a radical rethink in how we approach our politics and public life.
Updated
Iain Duncan Smith criticises Sunak for backing away from calling China a threat
Iain Duncan Smith, the former Conservative leader and one of the most prominent China hawks in the party, used his question to James Cleverly in the statement on the integrated review to mock the government’s new approach.
He said that, when Rishi Sunak was standing for the leadership last summer, he described China as a “systemic threat”. That was later watered down to “systemic challenge”, and treating China with “robust pragmatism”. He went on:
That robust pragmatism meant that we have sanctioned nobody in Hong Kong, when America has sanctioned 10; that we have sanctioned three low officials in Xinjiang, when America has sanctioned 11, including Chen Quanguo, the architect of that terrible atrocity; and we did not kick out the Chinese officials who beat people up on the streets of the UK.
But now I understand that [China is seen as] an epoch-defining challenge.
I just want to ask, in the document that the prime minister has produced today, in the same paragraph he does refer to that epoch-defining challenge. But then he goes on to say that this is in the face of that “threat”.
Does this now mean that China is a threat? Or an epoch-defining challenge? Or a challenging government epoch? Or even none of that?
In reply, James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, said he could understand the desire to sum up the policy towards China with a single phrase. But he said with a country as big and as significant as China, it was not possible to make it that simple.
Updated
How UK government has toughened up its language on China in integrated review since 2021
Here is a key passage in the integrated review refresh explaining government policy to China. It says:
The UK’s China policy is being updated to respond to two overarching factors that have continued to evolve since IR2021:
i. First, China’s size and significance on almost every global issue, which will continue to increase in the years ahead in ways that will be felt in the UK and around the world. China is a long-standing permanent member of the UN Security Council. It now accounts for nearly a fifth of the world economy and is a major investor in the developing world. It is highly advanced in several industrial, scientific and technological fields, and plays a vital role in many global supply chains of importance to the UK. As the world’s largest investor in sustainable energy and the largest emitter of carbon, the choices that China makes are critical to our collective ability to tackle climate change. In other areas such as global health and pandemic preparedness, decisions taken by China have the potential to have profound impact on our lives at home.
ii. Second, the UK’s growing concerns about the actions and stated intent of the CCP. Since IR2021, it has chosen to strengthen its partnership with Russia just as Russia pursued its invasion of Ukraine, and continued to disregard universal human rights and its international commitments, from Tibet and Xinjiang to Hong Kong. Its ‘new multilateralism’ is challenging the centrality of human rights and freedoms in the UN system. It has pursued rapid and opaque military modernisation with huge new investments, militarised disputed islands in the South China Sea, and refused to renounce the use of force to achieve its objectives with regard to Taiwan. It has used economic power to coerce countries with which it disagrees, such as Lithuania. The CCP has sanctioned British parliamentarians and acted in other ways to undermine free speech. And as the Director General of MI5 identified publicly last year, it has engaged in both espionage and interference in the UK.
The UK does not accept that China’s relationship with the UK or its impact on the international system are set on a predetermined course. Our preference is for better cooperation and understanding, and predictability and stability for global public good. But we believe that this will depend on the choices China makes, and will be made harder if trends towards greater authoritarianism and assertiveness overseas continue. The UK’s policy towards China will therefore be anchored in our core national interests and our higher interest in an open and stable international order, based on the UN Charter and international law. Where it is consistent with these interests, we will engage constructively with the Chinese government, business and people and cooperate on shared priorities. But wherever the CCP’s actions and stated intent threaten the UK’s interests, we will take swift and robust action to protect them. This is the template for mature diplomacy between two P5 nations and is aligned with the approaches adopted by our closest allies and partners, including those in Europe, the US, Australia, Canada and Japan.
By comparision, this is what the original integrated review, published in March 2021, said about China. Since then, the language has been toughened – although not as much as some Conservatives want.
China as a systemic competitor. China’s increasing power and international assertiveness is likely to be the most significant geopolitical factor of the 2020s. The scale and reach of China’s economy, size of its population, technological advancement and increasing ambition to project its influence on the global stage, for example through the Belt and Road Initiative, will have profound implications worldwide. Open, trading economies like the UK will need to engage with China and remain open to Chinese trade and investment, but they must also protect themselves against practices that have an adverse effect on prosperity and security. Cooperation with China will also be vital in tackling transnational challenges, particularly climate change and biodiversity loss …
China’s growing international stature is by far the most significant geopolitical factor in the world today, with major implications for British values and interests and for the structure and shape of the international order. The fact that China is an authoritarian state, with different values to ours, presents challenges for the UK and our allies. China will contribute more to global growth than any other country in the next decade with benefits to the global economy. China and the UK both benefit from bilateral trade and investment, but China also presents the biggest state-based threat to the UK’s economic security.
Updated
Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chair of the Commons defence committee, says many MPs hoped that previous cuts to the defence budget would be cut today. The world is sliding towards a new cold war, but the government is maintaining a peacetime budget. He says the government should move to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence now.
Cleverly says the government has committed to 2.5% as a sustainable baseline. He says the government will continue to assess threats, and make sure policy is aligned to deal with them.
Alicia Kearns, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, says she welcomes much of what is in the revised integrated review. But she says China should not just be seen as an economic threat. She urges the government to show greater resolve in dealing with Chinese oppression, for example, by shutting down their illegal police stations abroad.
Cleverly says the government considers that the threat from China is not just economic.
Updated
Sunak says China is 'epoch-defining challenge to type of international order we want'
The updated integrated review includes a foreword from Rishi Sunak. This is what he says in it about China.
China poses an epoch-defining challenge to the type of international order we want to see, both in terms of security and values – and so our approach must evolve. We will work with our partners to engage with Beijing on issues such as climate change. But where there are attempts by the Chinese Communist party to coerce or create dependencies, we will work closely with others to push back against them. And we are taking new action to protect ourselves, our democracy and our economy at home.
Updated
David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, says the original integrated review had some serious shortcomings. He says it did not see the risk of the Taliban taking over Kabul, and it did not anticipate the invasion of Ukraine. He says it did not even mention Taiwan.
He says it said almost nothing about the EU.
And he says the rhetoric in the document, on topics such as the fight against kleptocracy and the importance of international law, contrasted poorly with what the government was doing.
Updated
Cleverly is now setting out highlights from the review that were briefed overnight.
Cleverly says the updated review sets out how the government will respond to China. He says the government “cannot be blind to the increasingly aggressive military and economic behaviour of the Chinese Communist party, including stoking tensions across the Taiwan Strait and attempts to strong-arm partners”.
Cleverly claims UK now 'walks taller' in world than it has done for many years
Cleverly starts by saying the integrated review published two years ago set out how the UK would thrive in a more complicated age.
It showed how the government would use “the combined might of every part of government to ensure that our country remains safe, prosperous and influential into the 2030s”, he says.
He says the approach was right. He goes on:
On every continent of the world, the United Kingdom walks taller today than it has done for many years.
This provokes some laughter.
James Cleverly's statement to MPs about updated integrated defence and security review
James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is now making his statement to MPs about the updated integrated defence and security review.
Deltapoll has polling out today giving Labour a 23-point lead over the Conservatives – up seven points on the previous week.
🚨🚨New Voting Intention🚨🚨
— Deltapoll (@DeltapollUK) March 13, 2023
Labour lead is twenty-three points in latest results from Deltapoll.
Con 27% (-4)
Lab 50% (+3)
Lib Dem 9% (+1)
Other 15% (+1)
Fieldwork: 10th - 13th March 2023
Sample: 1,561 GB adults
(Changes from 2nd - 6th March 2023) pic.twitter.com/3RgtjJ6tIc
James Johnson, a pollster who used to work for Theresa May, has highlighted these figures showing Rishi Sunak’s approval ratings going up in recent weeks, particularly among people who voted Tory in 2019.
The @DeltapollUK tracker is one of the best out there.
— James Johnson (@jamesjohnson252) March 13, 2023
Rishi Sunak net approval over the last month, all voters:
Feb 20th: -19
Feb 27th: -16
Mar 6th: -5
Mar 13th: -11
Amongst Con 2019 voters:
Feb 20th: +19
Feb 27th: +23
Mar 6th: +23
Mar 13th: +32https://t.co/slysv6Zes4
Updated
Humza Yousaf and Kate Forbes say they don't agree with MSP's call to move 'down a gear' on independence
Humza Yousaf has said he would shift the campaign for independence into “fifth gear” if he wins the SNP leadership, following a suggestion from a colleague that it should “go down a gear”, PA Media reports.
Ben Macpherson, the minister for social security in the Scottish government, said it would take longer than the short or medium term for Scotland to become a successful independent country. Writing in Scotland on Sunday yesterday, Macpherson said:
Any reckless, overly disruptive path to statehood would quickly make our quality of life in Scotland poorer. Better to go down a gear and take the journey at a reasonably safe speed than crash trying to rush things.
Today, on a visit to Stirling, Yousaf, the health secretary in the Scottish government and one of the three SNP leadership candidates, said he disagreed. Asked about Macpherson’s comment, he replied:
I have the opposite view, I think we should be ramping up, not ramping down activity.
If I was the first minister I’d put us into fifth gear – let alone take it down a gear.
There’s a number of prospectus papers I would commit to publishing around the case for independence as soon as I become first minister.
But also, on day one, we’ve got to kick start the Yes movement.
Kate Forbes, the finance secretary and Yousaf’s main rival, also said she disagreed with Macpherson suggestion that independence should be made less of an immediate goal, and more of a long term one. She said:
I would fundamentally disagree [with Macpherson]. I think we have learned lessons of how not to do it from Brexit, but I think you can be far more effective in laying the groundwork from the very beginning.
I think the nature of the transition is that it’s gradual, but I would distance myself from the assumption that it would take decades, or indeed many, many years.
Yousaf and Forbes, who are the two frontrunners in the contest, have both been accused of favouring a more gradual approach to independence than Nicola Sturgeon. Ash Regan, the former community safety minister who is the third candidate in the contest, appears to prioritise independence more than her rivals. She has said she thinks Scotland could get independence without a referendum if enough voters back pro-independence parties.
Updated
Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative chair of the Commons defence committee, has expressed concern about the illegal migration bill. In an interview with BBC News he said that, if called to speak in the debate this afternoon, he would ask how someone, from Somalia, for example, could legitimately claim asylum in the UK without having to cross the Channel in a small boat. “When we have [the answer to] that, then we do have a solution,” he said, implying that in its current state the bill was flawed.
Updated
Former Tory minister Chris Skidmore says he won't vote for illegal migration bill out of respect for international law
Chris Skidmore, the Conservative former minister who did a net zero review for the government and who is standing down at the next election, has said he will not vote for the illegal migration bill tonight.
I am not prepared to break international law or the human rights conventions that the UK has had a proud history of playing a leading role in establishing.
— Chris Skidmore (@CSkidmoreUK) March 13, 2023
I will not be voting for the bill tonight.
Caroline Nokes, another former Tory minister, has also said she will not vote for the bill. She said the proposals filled her with “absolute horror”.
Two MPs abstaining does not constitute a significant rebellion. But what Nokes and Skidmore have shown is that the bill does not have universal support on the government backbenches. As Michael Savage and Toby Helm reported in the Observer yesterday, “a potential Tory rebellion [is] already brewing over the proposals”. There are even reports that Priti Patel, the former home secretary, may speak out against parts of the bill.
Updated
Raising defence spending makes cuts in other areas of spending, or tax rises, more likely, says IFS thinktank
These are from Ben Zaranko, an economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, has posted a thread on Twitter about the significance of Rishi Sunak saying he wants to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “in the longer term”. It starts here.
The PM has announced an extra £5 billion for the defence budget over the next two years and, in the longer term, "an ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP".
— Ben Zaranko (@BenZaranko) March 13, 2023
The second of these is quite a big deal, with some major fiscal consequences 🧵https://t.co/ZKtFGXj7D4
And here are some of the points he is making.
For decades, the ‘peace dividend’ from lower defence spending has allowed us to spend more on the NHS without having to increase the size of the state.
— Ben Zaranko (@BenZaranko) March 13, 2023
This chart shows that heath and defence budgets have, in effect, traded places. pic.twitter.com/EgXsw2sHPx
Why is today's announcement a big deal?
— Ben Zaranko (@BenZaranko) March 13, 2023
Because this decade, for the first time in a long time, we might be in a world where the government feels the need to sharply increase health and defence budgets *at the same time*.
To sum up, a world in which we're increasing health and defence spending at the same time is a world where we have to either:
— Ben Zaranko (@BenZaranko) March 13, 2023
1) make some big cuts to other public services and/or the scope of the state
2) raise taxes
A big fiscal challenge for whoever wins the next election.
And this is from Paul Johnson, the director of the IFS (and Zaranko’s boss).
This really is a big deal. Increasing spending on defence as % of national income would reverse 70 years of decline which has helped fund the growth of the welfare state.
— Paul Johnson (@PJTheEconomist) March 13, 2023
Increasing defence spending as population ages and while pressure on health spending is so high will be hard https://t.co/MtxiwpE4tL
Updated
Rees-Mogg says he's 'not fussed' what Lineker said, but claims row strengthens case for abolition of licence fee
Many Tories were furious with Gary Lineker for comparing the language used by the government to discuss migrants with what was said in Nazi Germany. More than 30 MPs and peers reportedly signed a letter saying Lineker should apologise “at the very least”. It was organised by the Common Sense group, a rightwing Tory caucus particularly hostile to liberalism.
But not all rightwingers think the same way. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former business secretary, is more libertarian than his Common Sense colleagues and he told GB News this morning that he was “not fussed” about Lineker criticising the govenrment. Rees-Mogg, who also presents a show on the station, said:
I think those of us broadly on the right have to be very, very careful about attacking people for freedom of speech, so I’m not fussed about what he says.
But Rees-Mogg did argue that the row strengthened the case for the abolition of the BBC licence fee. He said:
[Lineker] can say what he likes. The issue is that the BBC is the state broadcaster and that it’s funded by a tax on televisions. If it weren’t, then we wouldn’t need to worry about its impartiality.
Actually, if we change the funding mechanism of the BBC, we could have a much freer media, as they do in the United States, where people are allowed to say what they think.
I think that would be much better rather than this pretence that the BBC is impartial, which it isn’t, and then having rows about particular presenters.
Asked about the licence fee at the morning lobby briefing, the No 10 spokesperson said:
We remain committed to the licence fee for the rest of the current charter. But we’ve been clear that the BBC’s funding model faces major challenges due to changes in the way people consume media.
And it’s necessary to look at ways to ensure long-term sustainability.
The BBC’s current charter runs out in 2027.
Updated
No 10 says it is 'pleased' BBC's dispute with Gary Lineker has been resolved
At the No 10 lobby briefing the spokesperson said the government was glad that the BBC’s dispute with Gary Lineker had been resolved. He said:
We’re pleased that this situation has been resolved and that fans will be able to watch Match of the Day as normal this weekend.
The spokesperson repeated the line used previously about Rishi Sunak being “disappointed” by the language used by Lineker in relation to the government’s small boats policy, and the rhetoric used by ministers, but the spokesperson declined to say Lineker should apologise.
The spokesperson also declined to offer full backing to Richard Sharp, the BBC chair (and Sunak’s former boss at Goldman Sachs). No 10 is still waiting for the outcome of the review into the appointment process being carried out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the spokesperson said.
Updated
Russia and China will be 'breathing sigh of relief' because £5bn extra for MoD not enough, says Tory defence committee chair
Tobias Ellwood, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons defence committee, told Sky News this morning that the extra £5bn for defence announced by Rishi Sunak was not enough. Pointing out that Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, was lobbying for twice that sum, Ellwood said that extra £5bn, although welcome, would not reverse the cuts to defence spending in the last defence review.
He also claimed that countries like Russia and China would be “breathing a sigh of relief”. He said:
The next couple of years are going to get very, very dangerous indeed. This year particularly, 2023, will be critical for Ukraine.
Britain has done brilliantly in stepping forward, pushing the envelope, because we have become rather risk averse, too timid, in dealing with aggressive nations such as Russia and China.
But we can only do that with the hard power. And I think Russia and China will be breathing a sigh of relief that we have not invested further in our armed forces at this time.
We are at the foothills of another cold war. Globalisation in its current form is actually dying. And it’s countries like Britain that usually step forward and other nations follow. We can only do that if we invest further in our defence.
"Russia and China will be breathing a sigh of relief that we have not invested further in our armed forces at this time"
— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 13, 2023
Chair of the Defence Select Committee @Tobias_Ellwood tells Sky News why the UK must increase defence spendinghttps://t.co/PAiZ4D1jU3
📺 Sky 501 pic.twitter.com/h4Iq90M4TQ
Updated
There are no urgent questions in the Commons today, which means James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, will deliver his statement on “IR23”, the update to the integrated defence and security review, at 3.30pm. After that is over, Andrew Griffith, a Treasury minister, will give a statment on the sale of the UK arm of the Silicon Valley Bank.
James Cleverly confirms BBC World Service to get extra £20m for its 42 language services
The Foreign Office has confirmed that, as part of the integrated defence and security review update being published today, BBC World Service will get an extra £20m. It says this will protected its 42 language services for the next two years.
James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, said:
As the world’s most trusted international broadcaster, the BBC World Service is a vital tool in providing accurate and impartial news, analysis and discussion in 42 languages to 365 million people around the world each week.
This one-off funding will allow the BBC World Service to maintain its unrivalled status as the world’s largest international broadcaster, and to continue playing its crucial role in tackling harmful disinformation through providing trusted, impartial news and analysis globally.
Last year the Foreign Office said it was spending £94m a year on the World Service.
Updated
MPs will vote on the illegal migration bill at 10pm tonight after the second reading debate. In a clear and hard-hitting report on the legislation, the Institute for Government thinktank says there are seven questions ministers need to answer to explain how it might work. The IfG says:
Without increased capacity to remove people, classifying ever more arrivals as inadmissible will not help the government reduce the backlog or the money spent on accommodation – or improve public trust in the immigration system. And at a human level, it has the potential to cause serious harm to vulnerable people.
Keir Starmer has urged the government to negotiate an end to the strike by junior doctors taking place in England today. He said:
The way to resolve strikes is to get around the table and to negotiate and compromise and come to a settlement. That’s what the government needs to do.
Many people will be really anxious today. They know there isn’t full emergency cover, they know that operations are now going to be cancelled, including in serious areas like cancer.
So the anxiety this will put upon people who rely on the NHS is huge.
Updated
Photograph: Jonathan Brady/PA
Updated
Sturgeon hits back at Rachel Reeves after shadow chancellor criticises SNP's income tax policies
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has rejected a claim by Labour that taxes are higher in Scotland for higher earners because the SNP has mismanaged the economy.
Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, made that claim on a visit to Scotland. As the Times reports, Reeves said:
The way I see it is the last Labour government was able to keep taxes low and invest in public services and we were able to do it because we grew the economy.
When Labour was last in power — and we were in for 13 years —the average growth rate per year was 2.1%. The average growth rate the last 13 years under the Tories has been 1.4%. And taxes are at the highest level of being in the UK for 70 years.
The Conservatives have become a high-tax party and the SNP too because they become low-growth parties … We’ve got to grow the economy.
In response, Sturgeon said taxes were higher for higher earners in Scotland because the Scottish government was more committed to redistribution than the UK government. She said the fact that Labour did not support the SNP on this showed it was “Tory-lite”.
In reality, it is because @theSNP believes in a fair element of redistribution - asking those who earn most to pay a bit extra to support, eg, record NHS investment & the unique Scottish Child Payment lifting families out of poverty. Labour, now Tory-lite, once backed that too https://t.co/fLxLlxg1Td
— Nicola Sturgeon (@NicolaSturgeon) March 13, 2023
Increasingly the Scottish government has been using its powers under devolution to set income tax rates that are different from those applying in the rest of the UK. In a recent report, the Institute for Fiscal Studies explained the difference. It said:
The Scottish income tax system has more bands and different rates compared with the rest of the UK. The effect is that income tax liabilities are a very small amount lower in Scotland for those on less than £28,000 per year, but greater for those on higher incomes – sometimes by quite large margins. For example, someone on £50,000 will pay £1,550 more tax in Scotland than in the rest of the UK, and someone on £150,000 will pay £3,900 more, in the coming tax year.
The IFS report also backed up Sturgeon’s analysis. It said the Scottish government had used its powers “to make the system more progressive, as well as to raise more revenue to fund public services”.
Updated
Starmer says Richard Sharp's position as BBC chair 'increasingly untenable'
Keir Starmer has said Richard Sharp should resign as chair of the BBC. As ITV reports, this morning Starmer said:
I think Richard Sharp’s position is increasingly untenable.
I think most people watching the complete mess of the last few days would say how on earth is he still in position and Gary Lineker has been taken off air?
This is a mess of the BBC’s own making, they need to sort it out and sort it out fast.
As Jessica Elgot reports, Starmer is echoing what Lucy Powell, the shadow culture secretary, said yesterday. Powell also described Sharp’s position at “increasingly untenable”.
Even before the Gary Lineker row erupted, Sharp was already facing calls for his resignation because, when applying for the job of BBC chair, he did not disclose his role in helping Boris Johnson get access to a loan facility, reportedly worth around £800,000.
Labour leader @Keir_Starmer says Richard Sharp's position as BBC chairman is 'increasingly untenable' https://t.co/pmYdFHcew2
— ITV News Politics (@ITVNewsPolitics) March 13, 2023
Updated
Here is the No 10 readout of the meeting between Rishi Sunak and Anthony Albanese, his Australian counterpart, in San Diego last night. They agreed Aukus was “an unprecedented endeavour which will protect our people and support our defence industrial bases for generations to come”, No 10 says.
Richard Dannatt, a peer and a former head of the army, has told the Sun he does not think the extra £5bn for defence announced today (see 9.24am) goes far enough. He told the paper:
This government is beginning to look like an ostrich over defence spending.
The parallels to the 1930s grow stronger – a threat from a dictator in Europe and a refusal to reinvest or rearm.
Updated
Hospitals could be 'even safer than normal' during junior doctors' strike because consultants covering, BMA leader says
Junior hospital doctors in England started a 72-hour strike this morning. My colleagues Denis Campbell and Aubrey Allegretti have the story.
This morning Prof Philip Banfield, the chair of the BMA’s council, claimed that, paradoxically, hospitals could be safer than normal, because elective operations won’t be taking place and because more senior doctors, consultants, would be covering for the doctors on strike. He told the Today programme:
What is going to happen over this next three days is that we are going to see senior doctors – I don’t like the words junior and senior, this is just a level of experience and training – so we’re seeing consultants and specialist doctors cover.
They will stop, or should stop, their elective work and actually the NHS is maintaining a great deal of elective work. So we should see that the service is safe. In fact, actually, we should see it is even safer than normal.
Asked to explain that, he said:
Because the care is going to be given by consultants, consultants seeing patients, doing things that they normally wouldn’t do.
Updated
The SNP leadership debate on Sky News this evening will start at 7pm, not 8pm, as the agenda originally stated. I’ve corrected that now. Some sources were wrongly saying 8pm.
This is from Jonathan Beale, the BBC’s defence correspondent, on today’s defence spending announcement. (See 9.24am.)
Worth noting breakdown of the extra £5bn for #Defence - over 2 years: £3 bn will go to defence nuclear enterprise industry. £1.9 bn for replenishing munitions stockpiles/weapons. So service chiefs can put away those shopping lists - for now
— Jonathan Beale (@bealejonathan) March 13, 2023
Lineker says public response to Twitter row has shown people mainly 'welcoming and generous' towards refugees
My colleague Caroline Davies will be covering all the details of the Gary Lineker story, and the BBC’s climbdown, on a separate live blog.
Lineker has responded to the BBC announcement in a Twitter thread starting here.
After a surreal few days, I’m delighted that we have navigated a way through this. I want to thank you all for the incredible support, particularly my colleagues at BBC Sport, for the remarkable show of solidarity. Football is a team game but their backing was overwhelming. 1/4
— Gary Lineker 💙💛 (@GaryLineker) March 13, 2023
And he is still speaking out in defence of refugees.
A final thought: however difficult the last few days have been, it simply doesn’t compare to having to flee your home from persecution or war to seek refuge in a land far away. It’s heartwarming to have seen the empathy towards their plight from so many of you. 3/4
— Gary Lineker 💙💛 (@GaryLineker) March 13, 2023
We remain a country of predominantly tolerant, welcoming and generous people. Thank you. ❤️ 4/4
— Gary Lineker 💙💛 (@GaryLineker) March 13, 2023
BBC apologises for 'potential confusion' caused by social media rules that led to Lineker's suspension and announces review
Tim Davie, the BBC director general, has issued a statement announcing that Gary Lineker is going back on air. In it he says that there are “grey areas” in the corporation’s guidance on the use of social media, that this has caused “potential confusion”, and he adds: “I apologise for this”.
He says the guidelines will be reviewed by an independent expert, with a particular focus on how they should apply to freelance broadcasters operating outside news and current affairs (such as Lineker). The guidelines should be “clear, proportionate and appropriate”, he says.
Sky’s Rob Harris has tweeted the full statement.
BBC director general Tim Davie on Lineker returning to the BBC: “I apologise ... the potential confusion caused by the grey areas of the BBC’s social media guidance that was introduced in 2020 is recognised. I want to get matters resolved and our sport content back on air" pic.twitter.com/CWRoQTdH3Z
— Rob Harris (@RobHarris) March 13, 2023
Updated
Updated
Dan Sabbagh, the Guardian’s defence editor, has written an analysis of the defence spending announcement (see 9.24am) and the integrated review update. Here is an extract.
China, previously “a systemic competitor” – a phrase generally useful, if unmemorable – has upgraded to presenting an “epoch-defining challenge” – as a nod to the Conservative backbenchers who had wanted Beijing to be designated as a threat, similar to that used to describe Russia.
This, in fact, was Truss’s reason for reopening the integrated review, to make such an aggressive re-designation that would only have further inflamed already fraught relations with Beijing. Epoch-defining is a large notion, not least because epochs tend to be very long, while integrated reviews emerge every two years, and if Labour wins, the party is likely to want to refocus on Russia, if, that is, the US allows them.
Nevertheless “epoch-defining” also suggests the world is becoming a different kind of unsafe place. Islamist fundamentalism is in retreat, fallen sharply after the territorial defeat of Islamic State and the killing of its leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. In its place is a rapprochement between Russia and China, state actors with larger budgets, more weaponry and sophisticated tools at their disposal.
This thinking underlies Sunak’s announcement to recommit to a target of lifting defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “in the longer term”, similar to what was announced by Johnson at the last Nato summit in June, one of his last acts before his premiership collapsed. Johnson, however, put a target date – 2030 – on when the pledge would be met, and Sunak has not.
And here is the full article.
Updated
HSBC to buy Silicon Valley Bank UK for £1 in government rescue deal
The government has struck a last-minute deal for HSBC to buy Silicon Valley Bank’s UK operations, saving thousands of British tech startups and investors from big losses after the biggest bank failure since 2008, my colleague Kalyeena Makortoff reports.
My colleague Graeme Wearden has more coverage on his business live blog.
Gary Lineker to return to TV, with BBC expected to issue some form of apology to him, Sky claims
According to Rob Harris from Sky News, Gary Lineker will return to his Match of the Day presenting job on the BBC. Harris also claims that Lineker will get some sort of apology from the BBC.
Breaking: Gary Lineker to return to presenting on the BBC, @SkyNews understands.
— Rob Harris (@RobHarris) March 13, 2023
Some form of apology expected from the BBC.
Lineker was taken off air at the weekend, prompting many of his football presenter colleagues to stage what was in effect a mini-strike in solidarity, after a tweet criticising the language used by ministers about the government’s illegal migration bill prompted both Tory fury and claims he had breached BBC impartiality guidelines.
Updated
Rishi Sunak unveils £5bn extra defence spending ahead of Aukus summit in US
Good morning. Rishi Sunak is in San Diego, California, where today he will meet Joe Biden, the US president, and Anthony Albanese, the Australian prime minister, for an Aukus meeting. Aukus is the Australia/US/UK security pact, primarily focused on providing Australia with nuclear-powered submarine capacity. It was set up when Boris Johnson was prime minister, and now provides him with the material for one of his most over-used jokes.
The meeting will coincide with the publication of the government’s update (or “refresh”, as it is officially called) to the integrated review of security, defence, development and foreign policy first published in 2021. Liz Truss ordered the update during her short-lived premiership, because she wanted it to take a tougher line on China. IR23, as the “refresh” is also called by No 10, will be published this afternoon.
Overnight, Sunak announced that the Ministry of Defence will get an extra £5bn over the next two years as part of the review, and that the government is committing to raising defence spending to 2.5% of GDP “in the longer term”. In a news release No 10 says:
The 2023 integrated review refresh [IR23] confirms that an additional £5bn will be provided to the Ministry of Defence over the next two years, to help replenish and bolster vital ammunition stocks, modernise the UK’s nuclear enterprise and fund the next phase of the Aukus submarine programme. It follows a £24bn four-year uplift in defence spending in 2020, the largest sustained increase since the cold war.
The prime minister will also set out an ambition to increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP in the longer term, and the UK will lead a conversation with Allies on future posture and burden sharing at the Nato summit in Lithuania this summer. We will review defence spending after 2025 in light of this ambition.
As my colleague Aubrey Allegretti reports, Conservative MPs are particularly interested in what IR23 will say about China and, speaking to reporters on his flight to California, Rishi Sunak said it was too simplistic just to categorise China as a “threat” (which is what China hawks in his party want). Sunak said:
I don’t think it’s kind of smart or sophisticated foreign policy to reduce our relationship with China – which, after all, is a country with 1.5bn people, the second biggest economy, and member of the UN security council – to just two words.
That’s why in the integrated review you will see a very thoughtful and detailed approach to China …
I think [China] presents an epoch-defining challenge to us and to the global order.
Aubrey’s full story is here.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Keir Starmer is doing a visit ahead of the budget on Wednesday.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, is due to make a Commons statement about the integrated review refresh.
Around 3.30pm UK time: Rishi Sunak records a series of broadcast interviews in San Diego.
After 5.30pm: MPs start the second reading debate for the illegal migration bill.
7pm: Sky News hosts a debate for the SNP leadership candidates.
7.30pm: Sunak meets Joe Biden, the US president, and Anthony Albanese, the Australian PM, at the Aukus meeting. Sunak will also have a bilateral meeting with Biden.
I’ll 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
