Early evening summary
Keir Starmer has averted a row with union leaders about Labour’s plans to strengthen employment rights after they were satisfied by assurances they were given at a meeting that the party is not going back on pledges set out in its new deal for working people policy document last summer.
Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, has said the Belfast high court ruling yesterday saying the Rwanda deportation policy cannot apply in Northern Ireland because of the Good Friday agreement shows that Rishi Sunak’s Windsor framework deal has “failed upon its first contact with reality”. (See 1.08pm.) During a Commons urgent question, Tom Pursglove, the minister for legal migration, claimed the court ruling would not stop the government deporting people to Rwanda and he claimed asylum seekers could not avoid removal by going to Northern Ireland. But many MPs did not accept this, and some said that, rather than just appeal against the judgment, the government should instead legislate to exempt Northern Ireland from EU law. (See 1.34pm.)
Andrew Stephenson, a health minister, has urged MPs to dismiss “myths” being spread about a World Health Organisation pandemic preparedness treaty that the UK is considering supporting. (See 2pm.)
Updated
Updated
Matt Wrack, general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, is on Radio 4’s PM programme talking about the Labour/union talks, which he attended. It was “a very positive meeting'”, he says.
Q: What is the position on zero hours contracts? Will there be a clear ban?
Wrack says a lot of work has yet to be done on exactly who the policy will be implemented.
Evan Davis, the presenter, puts it to Wrack that a leaked document implied the party was watering down what had been agreed in July last year. Wrack says he will not comment on leaked documents, but he does not contest the gist of what Davis is saying.
Q: Labour know that they have you over a barrel, because you will always prefer a Labour government?
Wrack does not accept that. He says some unions are part of the Labour party, so they have a role in policymaking. And Labour won’t win without the support of unions.
And he says these policies go down “very well” with voters.
Q: But the Tories will try and scare people, by claiming it is a return to the 1970s?
Wrack says those scare stories don’t work any more, as people saw during the recent pay disputes. People can see through these tactics, he says.
And this is from LabourList on the Labour/union talks on employment rights.
One union source says: "The unions were very united at today's talks and are happy with the outcome of the meeting.
— LabourList (@LabourList) May 14, 2024
"They will work with the Labour Party to deliver the New Deal for Working People."
One union source says: “The unions were very united at today’s talks and are happy with the outcome of the meeting.
“They will work with the Labour Party to deliver the New Deal for Working People.”
Jessica Elgot has more on the Labour meeting.
🧵
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) May 14, 2024
The key part of this is "AS AGREED IN JULY" - the bone of contention ahead of this meeting for the majority of trade unions was they felt the party's language and commitments on things like fire and rehire and zero hours had changed SINCE it was signed off by them last year. https://t.co/5D8aIYfHIR
The key part of this is “AS AGREED IN JULY” - the bone of contention ahead of this meeting for the majority of trade unions was they felt the party’s language and commitments on things like fire and rehire and zero hours had changed SINCE it was signed off by them last year.
Unite and the FBU have been vocal on this - but privately the majority of affiliated trade unions thought this. Sources say it was pretty much a united front to demand the party return to the NPF’s language.
The language used in the draft given to unions had changed since it was voted on at conference - on fire and rehire it wasn’t clear if the party was still committing to legislate. On zero hours, it wasn’t clear if employers had to proactively offer a set contract.
Crucially Unite has agreed this joint statement.
That’s a big move because they did not endorse the version of the New Deal which was agreed at conference, and wanted to return to the original green paper from 2021 which was much more radical.
And Dave Ward, general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, told LBC he was happy of the outcome of the meeting about the new deal for working people, LBC’s Natasha Clark reports.
Dave Ward, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, says the meeting was a "positive" and "good" one
— Natasha Clark (@NatashaC) May 14, 2024
"We have reached an agreement... in terms of the full new deal, will be implemented as we agreed previously. Keir's made it very clear how transformational that will…
Dave Ward, General Secretary of the Communication Workers Union, says the meeting was a “positive” and “good” one
“We have reached an agreement... in terms of the full new deal, will be implemented as we agreed previously. Keir’s made it very clear how transformational that will be for working people.
“We’ve got the position we all want, Labour, working people, this will be the biggest difference in rights the country has ever seen in decades, it will be a flagship policy for the general election.
“We need to shift the balance of forces in the world of work, back towards working people, that’s the only way you’re going to grow the economy.”
And Ward posted this on X.
Good meeting with the Labour leadership. Get the Tories out and implement the new deal for workers in full. https://t.co/wmQ3R03nec
— Dave Ward (@DaveWardGS) May 14, 2024
Good meeting with the Labour leadership. Get the Tories out and implement the new deal for workers in full.
Unite leader Sharon Graham says Labour has 'listened to' unions and workers' rights plan protected
Here is more on the outcome of today’s meeting involving union leaders and the Labour party leadership to discuss the new deal for working people. (See 4.45pm.) Sharon Graham, the Unite general secretary, told LBC that the unions had been “listened to” and that the new deal for working people plan had been protected.
From my colleague Jessica Elgot
Union source said all unions presented united front in meeting and said Starmer should agree to return to language used in NPF document with no further watering down. They believe statement commits to that.
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) May 14, 2024
Union source said all unions presented united front in meeting and said Starmer should agree to return to language used in NPF document with no further watering down. They believe statement commits to that.
The NPF is the national policy forum.
From LBC’s Natasha Clark
After five hours of meetings about workers' rights package, Sharon Graham of Unite says that she feels Labour have recommitted to the 'new deal' and it's no longer a watered down "unrecognisable" deal
— Natasha Clark (@NatashaC) May 14, 2024
"I think that has changed... We've had a really good meeting, we've got to a…
After five hours of meetings about workers’ rights package, Sharon Graham of Unite says that she feels Labour have recommitted to the ‘new deal’ and it’s no longer a watered down “unrecognisable” deal
“I think that has changed... We’ve had a really good meeting, we’ve got to a good position where that was recommitted to. It was a red line meeting, but I think we’ve got there.”
Meeting will take place in another three weeks about “the implementation” of that in “a new document”
“I think we’ve been listened to and the workers’ voice heard.
“Today he’s [Keir Starmer] definitely in Labour movement direction.”
Sharon Graham tells @Fraser_Knight Labour “did listen” but she will “keep pushing” until the “words are on the page”
“We had the full team in there, they did listen. The words on the page matter, I never say we’re there until the words are on the page.... it’s still a process.”
Have they recommitted to *implementing* within the first 100 days?
“That’s a discussion that we’re having but the aim is to bring that legislation forward in the first 100 days, that’s what we expect. It’s going to be a good deal for working people.
“They have agreed to go back to the New Deal for Working People... document, use that as the principle guide and move towards legislation.”
No 10 says Esther McVey's rainbow lanyard crackdown won't ban officials wearing them
Downing Street has said the civil service rainbow lanyard crackdown, announced by the so-called “common sense minister” Esther McVey yesterday, won’t actually involve a ban.
In a speech yesterday, McVey, a minister in the Cabinet Office, declared:
I want a very simple but visible change to occur too – the lanyards worn to carry security passes shouldn’t be a random pick and mix, they should be a standard design reflecting that we are all members of the government delivering for the citizens of the UK. Working in the civil service is all about leaving your political views at the building entrance.
Yesterday officials said more details would be set out in guidance coming today. But at the Downing Street lobby briefing this afternoon the PM’s spokesperson said the guidance (which is still not out) was “not going to be proscriptive”. It is not going to include to ban civil servants from wearing certain types of lanyard.
The spokesperson said that, when McVey talked about rainbow lanyards being unacceptable, she was giving an “illustrative example” to make a point about impartiality, and not setting out specific policy.
Asked if the minister went too far in her speech, the spokesperson said: “No, I think the speech was bringing to life the issues she has been working on.”
This morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, told broadcasters he did not care whether or not his officials were wearing rainbow lanyards. (See 9.34am.)
Starmer averts row with union leaders as Labour reiterates its full commitment to new deal for working people
Keir Starmer appears to have averted a row with union leaders over claims that Labour new deal for working people, its plan to beef up employment rights, was being watered down.
Some unions were set to raise concerns at a meeting this afternoon billed as a showdown.
But, as Jessica Elgot reports on X, both sides have agreed a statement expressing full commitment “to the new deal for working people as agreed in July”.
🚨Labour and the trade unions have agreed a joint statement on the workers rights proposals - coming shortly
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) May 14, 2024
🚨Labour and the trade unions have agreed a joint statement on the workers rights proposals - coming shortly
Statement from Labour and all unions
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) May 14, 2024
"Together we have reiterated Labour's full commitment to the New Deal for Working People as agreed in July.
"We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour Government would implement it in legislation.”
Statement from Labour and all unions
“Together we have reiterated Labour’s full commitment to the New Deal for Working People as agreed in July.
“We will continue to work together at pace on how a Labour Government would implement it in legislation.”
Updated
New drone-carrying ships for the Royal Marines will draw on lessons learned from the Ukraine war and the Houthi attacks on vessels in the Red Sea, Grant Shapps said.
As PA Media reports, the defence secretary confirmed that up to six multi-role support ships (MRSS) – designed to deliver commandos onto coastlines around the world to conduct special operations – would be built.
Shapps said “we will definitely build the first three” vessels for the Royal Marines and will plan to construct the next three. “What we’re trying to do is create a multi-role ship which they can use in all different circumstances,” he told the BBC.
Actually, interestingly, we’re learning from what’s happened in the Black Sea in Ukraine and learning what’s happening in the Red Sea currently to make much more flexible ships capable of carrying out a lot of different types of tasks.
Shapps gave more details of the MoD’s shipbuilding programme in a speech this morning. He said up to 28 ships and submarines were in the pipeline.
Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar says he would not accept Natalie Elphicke as candidate for his party
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, has said Natalie Elphicke would not be welcome in the Scottish Labour party.
Elphicke, a rightwing Conservative until her surprise defection last week, is now a member of the Labour party and sits on the Labour benches at Westminster.
But, as the National reports, Sarwar told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme today that he regarded some of the things she has said in the past as unacceptable. Asked about her defection, he said:
Look, I don’t know Natalie Elphicke, I’ve never met Natalie Elphicke. Looking at some of the comments that have been attributed to her or that she has said, I find them completely unacceptable, I don’t agree with them.
Asked if she would have been allowed to join Scottish Labour, he replied:
Well, look, she certainly wouldn’t be a Scottish Labour candidate, I can be really clear about that.
Asked if he thought it was right for her to be a Labour MP, Sarwar said that she would only be a Labour MP for “a matter of weeks” because the election was coming soon.
Michelle O'Neill rejects suggestion she was 'hypocritcal' when she criticised Boris Johnson over Partygate rule breaking
Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s first minister, was accused of being “hypocritcal” at the Covid inquiry hearing today because she criticised Boris Johnson for breaking lockdown rules while she seemed to ignore them herself when she attended an IRA funeral.
Near the start today’s hearing O’Neill said she was “truly sorry” for attending the outdoors event in June 2020, where an estimated 1,800 people gathered at a time when funerals were only supposed to be attended by 30 people. (See 10.52pm.)
Heather Hallett, the inquiry chair, put it to O’Neill that it was hypocritical for her to criticise Boris Johnson for breaking lockdown rules when she had done the same herself.
O’Neill replied:
I don’t think so because they are two very different things in terms of the Boris Johnson approach of partying the whole way through the pandemic and drinking their way through it, to be quite blunt.
Hallett tried again.
We didn’t find out about the partying until after the pandemic, what you did was to do something the normal bereaved couldn’t do because you wanted to go to a friend’s funeral. Isn’t saying that what Boris Johnson’s government did was wrong sort of hypocritical?
O’Neill replied:
No, I don’t think so because what I did I did under the understanding of the regulations at that time. But I do accept wholeheartedly that I in some way damaged our executive relations with colleagues who had been working very hard with me the whole way through.
I also accept wholeheartedly that I damaged the public health messaging, and I had work to do to regain that. But I did that, I worked hard to regain that trust and confidence and to lead us for the next year and a half through the pandemic.
Hallett said she was pressing the point because “the point of principle is that those who set the rules should obey the rules, both in spirit and in the letter”.
O’Neill said she should have “anticipated the outworking of what I did”. But she said the attended the funeral with a personal invitation, as part of a cortege of 30 people.
That’s the basis on which I attended but I am sorry, I am sorry. I should have anticipated what would happen in the aftermath and that is why I worked hard to try to regain that confidence and trust.
Equally and more importantly, I think it’s about all the families of bereaved and people who went through horrific circumstance and the experience that they’ve had. It’s just horrendous and I would never set out to try to compound that or in any way make it more difficult for them to deal with their grief.
Updated
And Suella Braverman, the former home secretary, told MPs during the UQ on the WHO treaty that she did not trust the WHO to manage a global pandemic. She said:
I am profoundly sceptical of the World Health Organisation’s ability to manage a global pandemic in light of serious errors of judgment, poor leadership and, I’m afraid, well-chronicled conflicts of interests which have subsequently emerged.
Of course, we can help poorer countries. Of course, we can collaborate with other nations, but under no circumstances must we surrender our sovereignty or sign up to a lockdown charter.
Will the minster agree that fundamentally, and to coin a phrase, no pandemic treaty is better than a bad pandemic treaty?
Andrew Stephenson, the health minister, said that he agreed “100%” that no treaty was better than a bad treaty. But he said it was Boris Johnson who originally led calls for a new WHO treaty covering pandemics when he was PM. Stephenson went on:
And the reason behind that is we believe that commitment on stronger international collaboration and cooperation on global health are crucial to secure the UK’s health and economic security, but domestic decisions still have to be left to sovereign nation states to take the right decisions for their country.
During the urgent question on the WHO pandemic preparedness treaty, the shadow health minister Andrew Gwynne said Labour would not support anything that would “leave our population unprotected in the face of a novel disease”. He asked for an assurance that the government “will not sign up to anything that would compromise the UK’s ability to take domestic decisions on national public health measures”.
Andrew Stephenson, the health minister, said the WHO would have to “fully respect national sovereignty” for a treaty to be acceptable.
Current draft of WHO pandemic treaty not acceptable to UK, Stephenson tells MPs
The Conservative MP Danny Kruger, co-chair of the New Conservatives, a group representing rightwing Tories, welcomed what Andrew Stephenson said in his opening statement about the WHO treaty. (See 2pm.) But, in a follow-up to his urgent question, he asked Stephenson to set out what the government’s red lines were. He said that the latest draft of the treaty was concerning, and that it would still give the WHO considerable powers to direct how national governments should respond to a pandemic.
In response, Stephenson, a health minister, said that the current draft of the treaty was not acceptable to the government.
UPDATE: Kruger said:
We know from the drafts that have been submitted in recent months what the real agenda of the WHO is. They want to have binding powers over national governments to introduce all sorts of restrictive measures on our citizens …
Will the government oppose any texts that abides this or a future government in how it responds to health threats? And finally, crucially, will the government comply with CRaG [Constitutional Reform and Governance Act], the requirements to put the treaty to a ratification vote in parliament?
And Stephenson replied:
The current text is not acceptable to us, therefore unless the current text is changed and refined we will not be signing up.
The UK treaty-making process means the accord is, of course, negotiated and agreed by the government. Parliament plays an important part in scrutinising treaties under the CRaG process and determining how international obligations should be reflected domestically.
It’s important to remember that because the exact form of the board has not yet been agreed, the parliamentary and the adoption process will depend on which article of the WHO constitution the accord is adopted under.
Updated
Health minister Andrew Stephenson urges MPs to ignore 'myths' spread by Nigel Farage about WHO pandemic treaty
Andrew Stephenson, a health minister, has urged MPs to dismiss “myths” being spread about a World Health Organisation pandemic preparedness treaty that the UK is considering supporting.
He was responding to an urgent question tabled by the Tory MP Danny Kruger. But the issue is one that has been highlighted aggressively by Nigel Farage, the Reform UK honorary president, on rightwing broadcasting channels. Yesterday Farage told Talk TV:
In two weeks’ time in Geneva, the World Health Organisation are meeting and they plan a pandemic treaty, and that’ll be binding on us, under international law.
It would give the World Health Organisation the ability, number one, to take away 20% of our PPE and vaccines to give to other parts of the world.
Number two, give them the power to dictate behaviour, such as mask mandates, such as not being able to travel without being jabbed goodness knows how many times and, the really big one, they would be able to say to us, this is now a global pandemic, you must lock down. Which of course, would take away from us the ability to do what Florida did, or to do what Sweden did, which we now learn a few years on, has led to far less long term harm in that country and that state.
In his opening statement, withour referring to Farage, Stephenson said he wanted to dispel “myths” about the proposed WHO treaty.
He said member states were negotiating the treaty, not the WHO. And he said that it was “simply not true” to claim it would require countries to give away 20% of their vaccines. Instead, there was talk about a voluntary mechanism that would involve firms agreeing to give away vaccines in return for information that would help them develop their products, he said.
He said the government would only sign up to a deal that respected UK national sovereignty and that there was no prospect of the UK allowing the WHO to mandate lockdowns.
Under no circumstances will we allow the WHO to have the power to mandate lockdowns, this would be unthinkable and has never been proposed. Protecting our sovereignty is a British red line.
Stephenson also stressed that, as yet, there is no treaty to sign up to.
The government will only accept the accord and targeted amendments to the international health regulations if they are firmly in the United Kingdom’s national interest, and no text has yet been agreed.
Jim Shannon (DUP) asked for an assurance that the court ruling would not stop asylum seekers being removed from Northern Ireland to Britain.
Pursglove said he would write to Shannon about this. But he said the Rwanda policy was being implemented on a UK-wide basis.
MPs urge government to legislate to exempt Northern Ireland from EU law in response to Belfast court ruling
Christopher Chope (Con) told Pursglove his position was “manifestly absurd”. Echoing what the DUP’s Carla Lockhart said, he urged the government to legislate to exempt Northern Ireland from EU law.
Pursglove said the government was still taking legal advice.
The DUP’s Carla Lockhart said, instead of appealing, the government should legislate to ensure that EU law now longer has supremacy in Northern Ireland. She said appealing against the decision just amounted to stringing the people of Northern Ireland along.
Pursglove said the government would take all steps to resolve this, including appealing.
Joanna Cherry (SNP), chair of the joint committee on human rights, said yesterday’s judgment confirmed her committee’s assessment that the Rwanda policy does not comply with human rights law.
Pursglove said the government was operationalising the Rwanda policy on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act. He claimed the yesterday’s judgment was not relevant because it applied to the Illegal Migration Act.
Gregory Campbell (DUP) asked Pursglove to explain why the government did not accept the DUP amendment to the Illegal Migraton Act that might have closed this loophole.
Pursglove said he was not minister at the time. But the record of the debate would speak for itself, he said.
Mark Francois, the Tory chair of the European Research Group, said with regard to the Windsor framework, “we told you so”. And he said the Tories should now commit to renegotiate the European convention on human rights, with a view to leaving if other countries did not agree.
Theresa Villiers, a former Northern Ireland secrtary, asked what the government was doing to stop asylum seekers going to Northern Ireland to avoid deportation to Rwanda.
In reponse, Pursglove repeated the point about the Rwanda scheme being operationalised on a UK-wide basis. He claimed there would be no benefit for asylum seekers in going to Nothern Ireland.
Tim Farron, the former Lib Dem leader, asks Pursglove what would happen to the 90,000 asylum seekers in the UK who theoretically are no longer eligible for asylum in the UK under the legislation passed by the government.
Pursglove said that he did not want to discuss what “appropriate operational decisions” it might have to take.
Suella Braverman tells MPs Belfast court ruling shows Sunak's Windsor framework has 'failed upon first contact with reality'
Suella Braverman was home secretary when the Illegal Migration Act (the legislation covered by yesterday’s court judgment) was passed.
She told MPs that the court ruling yesterday showed that government claims that the Windsor framework (the updated version of the Northern Ireland protocol, negotiated by Rishi Sunak, meaning EU law in effect still applies in Northern Ireland) would not interfer with the Rwanda policy were wrong. She said:
In the decision the judge found that section 7A of the Withdrawal Agreement Act, as amended by the Windsor framework, must be read to mean that Northern Ireland is effectively to be treated as part of the European Union.
I believed the assurances made to me at the time.
But isn’t it now patently clear that the Windsor framework has operated in a way to undermine our sovereignty, to undermine Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, and I’m afraid it has fundamentally failed upon its first contact with reality.
Updated
Pursglove claims asylum seekers will not be able to avoid deportation to Rwanda by going to Northern Ireland
Pursglove says there will be “no benefit” to asylum seekers who go to Northern Ireland in the hope of avoiding deportation. The policy is being operationalised on a UK basis, he says.
Updated
Alison Thewliss, the SNP’s home affairs spokesperson, says her party welcomes this judgment.
And she points out that it is a UK court that as found against the government, not one of the international courts that the government routinely attacks.
Bill Cash (Con) asks if the government’s recent migration laws could have contained wording making it clear that the Good Friday agreement would not stop asylum seekers being deported to Rwanda.
Pursglove says the will of parliament has been expressed, and the government will defend it.
Stephen Kinnock, the shadow immigration minister, says Pursglove did not explain why the government ignored the warnings about the Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland loophole.
He says the Illegal Migration Act is one of three Acts passed by the government to make the Rwanda policy work. But the government is “clueless”, he says, and addicted to gimmicks. He urges the minister to drop this “dead horse” of a policy and adopt Labour’s approach instead.
Pursglove says Labour has no plan to stop the boats.
He says the government is operating the Rwanda policy on the basis of the Nationality and Borders Act.
Gavin Robinson, the DUP leader, told Pursglove that his party warned the government that the Good Friday agreement could lead to asylum seekers in Northern Ireland being exempt from deportation to Rwanda. He said his party tried to amend the Rwanda bill to address this.
Pursglove told Robinson the government would be appealing against the judgment.
UPDATE: Robinson said:
The issues that were elucidated yesterday by the high court and Belfast were fairly and thoroughly explored in this House, and in the other place, during both the passage of the Illegal Migration Act and the Safety of Rwanda act as well.
When I and my colleagues raised these concerns here in parliament, we were told by the government we were wrong. And, yet, the high court yesterday in Belfast said we were right.
Updated
Minister tells MPs Good Friday agreement should not be interpreted 'creatively' to stop Rwanda deportations
Tom Pursglove, the minister for legal migration, is responding to an urgent question in the Commons on the Belfast high court ruling yesterday saying parts of the Illegal Migration Act should not apply in Northern Ireland.
He says the government does not agree with the court’s interpretation of the Good Friday agreement. He claims the court is expanding the way rights under the GFA are interpreted beyond what was originally intended.
He says the government wants to impose the Rwanda deportation policy on a UK-wide basis.
And he says the ruling applies to the Illegal Migration Act, not the Safety of Rwanda Act. It will not stop the deportation policy being implemented, he says.
UPDATE: Pursglove said:
We’ve consistently made clear that the rights commitments in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement should be interpreted as they were always intended and not expanded to cover reserved issues like illegal migration.
We are also equally clear that immigration is a reserved matter, which has always been applied uniformly across the UK. We do not accept that the Good Friday agreement should be read so creatively as to extend to matters such as tackling illegal migration, which is a UK-wide issue and not in any way related to the original intention of the Good Friday agreement.
Updated
Public trust in government and parliament has fallen by more than quarter since 2021, survey shows
The proportion of people saying they trust the government has fallen by a quarter since the time of the last election, according to figures released today.
The report, published by the UK Statisics Authority, suggests that public trust in parliament has fallen even more sharply during the same period, which covers the Boris Johnson and Liz Truss premierships.
None of the other institutions covered by the survey have forfeited public trust so much.
The UK Statistics Authority commissioned the research to monitor how much trust people have in the Office for National Statistics. Some 87% of people said they trusted the ONS in 2023, down from 89% in 2021.
But trust in government fell from 42% to 31% during that time, the survey shows. And trust in parliament fell from 49% to 36%.
The research was carried out for the UK Statistics Authority by National Centre for Social Research. In its analysis it said:
Compared to 2021, there was a noticeable decrease in the level of trust respondents reported in a number of state-led institutions such as the UK parliament, the government, the civil service, the police, and the Bank of England. However, trust reported in ONS, the media, the courts and high street banks and financial institutions remained consistent with the answers from the previous survey year.
The analysis did not explain why trust in government and parliament fell so sharply between 2021 and 2023. But that period covers the Partygate scandal, which led to Boris Johnson resigning as PM and subsequently being found by the privileges committee to have repeatedly lied to MPs about the lockdown-busting No 10 drinks events.
And it also covers Truss’s premiership, which only lasted 49 days because her mini-budget triggered an economic crisis.
Kezia Dugdale, the former Scottish Labour leader, told Times Radio this morning that she was strongly opposed to Esther McVey’s decision to ban civil servants from wearing rainbow lanyards. (See 9.34am.) She said the same thing had happened in the Scottish parliament, and she thought it was “a retrograde step”. She explained:
To wear a lanyard like this, it’s not a political sign, it’s not like the big cancel culture debates and issues that we’re having elsewhere in the country. It’s a welcome sign, it’s about saying to people there are other people like you here and you’re welcome …
If you see it, sometimes it just lets your shoulders go back and your head go up and you feel just that bit stronger …. A simple symbol that says to people ‘you’re OK’ can go a tremendous way …
Asking people to take their lanyard off is like taking a welcome sign out of a window and you’re asking people to leave who they are at home, and that’s not cool …
Would you ask a Christian to take off a cross of a necklace? It’s just a sign. It’s a symbol of who I am. It’s part of my identity.
Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, is taking questions in the Commons this morning. After he finishes there are two urgent questions (UQs). At 12.30pm a Home Office minister will respond to one from Gavin Robinson, the DUP leader, about yesterday’s court judgment saying asylum seekers in Northern Ireland are protected under the Good Friday agreement from the risk of deportation to Rwanda.
And at around 1.15pm a health minister will respond to a UQ from the Tory Danny Kruger about the proposed World Health Organisation pandemic agreement.
GCHQ chief says China poses 'genuine and increasing cyber risk to UK'
Anne Keast-Butler, head of GCHQ, the UK’s electronic surveillance centre, has said that responding to the “coercive and destabilising actions” of China is her “top priority”.
In a speech at the Cyber UK conference in Birmingham, she said the scale of the challenge from Beijing meant GCHQ devotes “more resource to China than any other single mission”. She explained:
Through their coercive and destabilising actions, the PRC [People’s Republic of China] poses a significant risk to international norms and values.
In cyberspace, we believe that the PRC’s irresponsible actions weaken the security of the internet for all.
China has built an advanced set of cyber capabilities, and is taking advantage of a growing commercial ecosystem of hacking outfits and data brokers at its disposal.
China poses a genuine and increasing cyber risk to the UK.
Keast-Butler said China wanted to shape global technology standards and assert its dominance in the field within the next 10 to 15 years, she said.
We have repeatedly called out Chinese cyber adversaries for activities that threaten the security of the UK or target the institutions important to our society, such as the compromise of the UK Electoral Commission.
As PA Media reports, Keast-Butler also said that there were growing links between Russia’s intelligence services and proxy groups conducting “cyber-attacks, as well as suspected physical surveillance and sabotage operations”.
Previously, Russia “simply created the right environment” for these groups, but it was now “nurturing and inspiring these non-state cyber actors, in some cases seemingly coordinating physical attacks against the west”, she said.
Welsh government delays introduction of controversial farm payment scheme
A controversial farming payment scheme which sparked mass protests has been delayed as Welsh government ministers accept “changes will be needed”, PA Media reports. PA says:
The Welsh rural affairs secretary Huw Irranca-Davies has announced changes to the sustainable farming scheme (SFS) – a Welsh government subsidy plan which is set to require farmers to set aside more land for environmental schemes.
Concerns about its impact, alongside measures to control TB and regulations aimed at preventing nitrates from seeping into rivers, have led farmers to mobilise in protest, with around 3,000 people demonstrating outside the Senedd in February.
Speaking at a press conference at Sealands Farm in Bridgend this morning, the cabinet secretary said that a change of timings was part of his “commitment to meaningful engagement with the farming sector”.
The SFS had been due to come in from January 2025 but a transition period will now start in 2026.
He confirmed that the basic payment scheme – the existing payment structure – would continue to be available next year.
Under the current SFS proposal, Welsh farmers are meant to set aside 10% of their land for trees and a further 10% for wildlife habitat. Farming leaders said that could lead to 5,500 job losses.
Irranca-Davies said: “My commitment to meaningful engagement with the farming sector and other stakeholders on the changes needed will necessitate a change in the implementation timetable. We have always said the scheme would not be introduced until it is ready and I stand by that.”
Chinese ambassador summoned to Foreign Office for reprimand about interference in UK affairs
The Foreign Office has delivered a reprimand to the Chinese ambassador in the UK, Zheng Zeguang, over China’s interference in affairs in Britain.
In a statement, the Foreign Office said Zheng was summoned to a meeting on the orders of David Cameron, the foreign secretary. A Foreign Office spokesperson said:
Today, on instruction from the foreign secretary, the Chinese ambassador was summoned to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
The FCDO was unequivocal in setting out that the recent pattern of behaviour directed by China against the UK including cyber-attacks, reports of espionage links and the issuing of bounties is not acceptable.
The summons followed Monday’s announcement that three people have been charged with offences under the National Security Act as part of an investigation led by officers from the Met Police’s counter-terrorism command.
The foreign intelligence service to which the charges relate is that of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
NI first minister Michelle O'Neill tells Covid inquiry she's 'truly sorry' for attending mass Bobby Storey funeral during lockdown
Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s first minister, is giving evidence to the UK Covid inquiry in Belfast today. And she has said she is “truly sorry” for the harm caused by her decision to attend the funeral of Bobby Storey, a leading IRA figure. Around 1,800 mourners lined the streets to mark the event, even though at the time Covid rules said the maximum number of people allowed at a funeral was 30.
Asked about the event, O’Neill said:
I know that my actions also angered the families and for that I’m truly sorry. I am sorry for going and I’m sorry for the harm that’s been caused after [it].
Asked if she realised the anger that going to the funeral would cause, she said:
I didn’t but I ought to have.
I’ve said it publicly on a number of occasions about how sorry I am and I am absolutely, from the bottom of my heart, sorry.
I do accept wholeheartedly that I in some way damaged our executive relations with colleagues who had been working very hard with me the whole way through, and I also accept wholeheartedly that I damaged the public health messaging and I had work to do to regain that.
No evidence foreign students are abusing UK graduate visas, review finds
There is no evidence of widespread abuse of the UK’s graduate visa route, the government’s immigration advisers have concluded, despite repeated claims from senior Conservatives that it is being exploited to enter the jobs market. The Migration Advisory Committee has said this in a report out today. Rajeev Syal and Richard Adams have the story here.
Shapps said UK would not put pressure on Ukraine to accept compromise peace deal with Russia
In interviews this morning Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, also insisted that the government was fully behind Ukraine and that it would not put pressure on it at any point to accept a compromise peace deal with Russia.
Ministers have been under pressure to clarify this since a report in the Sunday Times said that David Cameron, the foreign secretary, persuaded Donald Trump to back the release of more US military aid to Ukraine by putting it to him that this would prolong the stalemate until the end of the year, allowing Trump to negotiate the peace settlement he claims he will be able to arrange if he becomes president in January.
According to the Sunday Times, Trump was intrigued by this argument. Less than two weeks later, the US Congress approved the military aid package after the speaker, Trump ally Mike Johnson, scheduled a vote that he had been resisting.
Yesterday Downing Street did not deny the Sunday Times account of the Cameron/Trump conversation, but it insisted that the UK would continue to support Ukraine for as long as necessary.
The Sunday Times did not describe Cameron as being in favour of a peace deal with Russia, but it implied the government might be open to this scenario in the event of Trump winning the US presidency.
This morning Shapps said the UK would not put pressure on Ukraine to accept a deal with Russia. He told Times Radio:
There is no sense at all in which Britain would try to persuade, strong-arm or otherwise, Ukraine into accepting giving up some of their territory – that’s a decision entirely for Ukraine.
I don’t think it’s plausible at all for Putin to win this war.
If you give a bully like Putin an inch they’ll take a mile, and in this case they will take, probably would take quite a lot of not just Ukraine, but I’m not sure he would stop there either.
What Ukraine does and how it decides to bring this to an end is their business. What I can confirm is that the UK will back Ukraine all the way.
Asked about the Sunday Times report, Shapps said:
Obviously I wasn’t in the room. I know what the foreign secretary did say, which is that it’s very very important that the United States follows the UK’s lead and we just increased our money to Ukraine this year.
[Cameron] certainly would have said to Trump that it’s very important that the United States Senate sees that package go through Congress and that package did go through Congress, and thank goodness because it’s armaments and defensive weapons very much needed by our Ukrainian friends.
Lammy says Labour's commitment to Ukraine 'ironclad' and it will stand with Kyiv 'until it wins'
In his speech yesterday Rishi Sunak claimed that Labour would not be able to continue supplying Ukraine with the military aid it needs in the way that the Conservative government is doing. But as he was speaking David Lammy, the shadow foreign secretary, and John Healey, the shadow defence secretary, were in Kyiv for a meeting with Rustem Umerov, the Ukrainian defence minister. Labour released details of the visit last night.
Lammy said he and Healey told their hosts that Labour’s commitment to Ukraine was “ironclad”. He said:
As Putin seeks to divide the West, we visited Kyiv together to send a clear message that a change in government in the UK would mean no change in our military, diplomatic, financial and political support to Ukraine.
Moscow’s deepened cooperation with Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang requires us to deepen our cooperation with Britain’s allies to demonstrate that our commitment to Ukraine will outlast Vladmir Putin’s imperial invasion.
The next Labour government’s commitment to Ukraine will be ironclad and European security will be our first foreign and defence priority. Labour’s action plan lays out a wide-ranging approach to stand with Ukraine, confront Russian aggression and pursue Putin for his war crimes. We will stand with Ukraine until it wins.
Grant Shapps says he doesn't mind officials wearing rainbow lanyards, after Esther McVey announces ban
Good morning. Normally foreign policy is not a central issue in an election year but yesterday Rishi Sunak embraced it; after months and years of trying to find a compelling reason why he thinks people should not trust Keir Starmer to form the next government, he focused on the argument that with Labour in power Britain would be less safe. Grant Shapps, the defence secretary, has been giving interviews this morning and he has been doubling down on the message.
In truth, the gap between Labour and the Conservatives on defence spending is not enormous. Sunak has given a firm commitment to raise defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, which he plans to fund through civil service jobs cuts and efficiency savings, but he does not plan to reach the 2.5% target until 2030. Labour has said that it aims to increase defence spending to 2.5%, but only when resources allow (which means that it does have a costed plan to get there).
However, Shapps told Sky News this morning that he thought Starmer’s failure to have a plan to increase the defence budget was a significant problem.
You can’t wish your way to more defence spending. You have to set out the plans and do it and that is why our plans now are fundamentally different to Labour.
And I have to say as defence Secretary, with everything that I know in this role, that I think that the Labour position presents a danger to this country because it will send a signal to our adversaries that we are not serious about our defence if we won’t set out that timetable.
For a host of other reasons, the Conservative party is also vulnerable to the charge that it is not serious about governing and Sunak’s speech yesterday, which opened with a passage about how the UK was about to confront some of the most dangerous threats in its history, coincided with Esther McVey, the so-called “minister for common sense”, announcing that she is going to stop civil servants wearing rainbow lanyards. To her credit, she did not try to argue that this would minimise the risk of attack from Russia, but it did raise questions about whether the government has got its priorities right.
In an interview with Times Radio, Shapps came close to saying he thought McVey was wasting her time. Asked about his colleague’s rainbow lanyard crackdown, he replied:
Personally, I don’t mind people expressing their views on these things. It doesn’t, you know, what lanyard somebody wears, doesn’t particularly concern me.
But I do think – and this is where I think Esther McVey has a point – that what we want is our civil servants to be getting on with the main job. And the main job is to serve the department they work for, in my case, defence, but across Whitehall.
I think she was getting at the idea that that should be the focus for civil servants.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
10am: Michelle O’Neill, Northern Ireland’s first minister, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry in Belfast.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
11.30am: Grant Shapps gives a speech at a sea power conference at Lancaster House.
Afternoon: Keir Starmer has a meeting with union leaders where they are expected to raise concerns that the new deal for working people plans are being watered down.
Also, Sunak is hosting a Farm to Fork summit at Downing Street.
And Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, Lucy Frazer, the culture secretary, and Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, are in Saudi Arabia for an investment summit.
For technical reasons we are not using the ‘send us a message’ feature any more, and if you want to contact me, please post a message below the line (BTL) or message me on X (Twitter). I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use X; I’ll see something addressed to @AndrewSparrow very quickly. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos (no error is too small to correct). And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
