Closing summary
Here is a round-up of the main events from a busy evening in Westminster:
The House of Commons has voted to accept the privileges committee report on the conduct of former prime minister Boris Johnson during Partygate. It was a resounding result, with 354 MPs voting to approve, while just seven voted against.
Johnson’s allies boycotted a vote on the privileges committee’s report, in a move that was widely seen as a tactic to avoid showing how weak support for him in the Conservative parliamentary party has become. An overwhelming majority backed the privileges committee’s conclusion that Johnson committed five contempts of parliament, including misleading both the Commons and the cross-party group investigating him.
Boris Johnson faces being blocked from getting a pass allowing him unlimited access to the House of Commons, after MPs backed the punishment for his five contempts of parliament. The former prime minister was censured in his absence, given that he formally quit as an MP last week, for misleading parliament over Partygate and his conduct towards the privileges committee.
Chris Bryant, the Labour chair of the Commons standards committee (and chair of the privileges committee until he stood aside for this inquiry, because of his previous comments about Boris Johnson), said people made sacrifices during the pandemic because they felt we were all in this together. That is why they feel so strongly about this, he said. He defended the committee’s conclusion that Johnson would have deserved a 90-day suspension if he were still an MP.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was recently knighted in Boris Johnson’s controversial resignation honours list, said the fixed-penalty notice Boris Johnson received for attending the birthday gathering was not a “conviction” or “admission of guilt”. The report “decides to impute a stain on his character”, Rees-Mogg continued. He added that the report “decides as if it were an Elon Musk particle to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought in a particular moment”.
Labour’s Karl Turner commended the privileges committee for compiling the report. He said that anybody who reads the report “would have to conclude the reality that Boris Johnson was a liar”. Turner said: “Very often you would be surprised that he could get away with the things he was saying but it’s proven now that he was dishonest.”
Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has given a strong hint that the Met will take action against Tories involved in the lockdown party organised by Shaun Bailey’s mayoral campaign team. In an interview with the News Agents podcast, asked about the video of the event leaked to the Mirror at the weekend, Rowley said: “We’re not routinely opening every minor historic allegation. So, if you phoned up about your neighbour from three years ago, we’re not going to reopen that. But clearly cases that are particularly serious, particularly concerning, we will do.”
Suella Braverman has called on police to increase the use of stop and search powers “to prevent violence and save more lives”. In a statement aimed at all 43 forces in England and Wales, the home secretary said officers who used the powers had her “full support”. Her comments are likely to alarm critics of stop and search who point out that the technique disproportionately targets black and minority ethnic communities.
David Cameron has admitted failures in his government’s preparations for a pandemic but defended the austerity drive that he and his chancellor, George Osborne, imposed, saying “your health system is only as strong as your economy”. The former prime minister repeatedly told the Covid inquiry it was a mistake that “more time and more questions” were not focused on tackling what turned out to be a “highly infectious, asymptomatic” pandemic.
Liz Truss has described the newspaper stunt in which her tenure as prime minister was measured against the shelf life of a lettuce as “puerile”. Speaking at a broadcasting conference in Dublin, Truss also complained that the media did not properly understand her economic ideas. She said too much political coverage was “froth”, while at the same time praising the overall irreverence of the UK.
Downing Street has defended Rishi Sunak after a video emerged of the prime minister seemingly making a joke that mocked transgender people, saying the comments were simply aimed at a political opponent. The footage of Sunak addressing fellow Conservative MPs, leaked to PinkNews, shows him making fun of Ed Davey after the Liberal Democrat leader said it was possible for a woman to have a penis, which can happen under the government’s own gender recognition laws.
Clean energy companies would be offered up to £500m a year to set up manufacturing in the UK, to build the wind turbines, solar panels and other infrastructure needed to reach net zero, under plans set out by Labour. But Keir Starmer, the Labour leader, on Monday also gave assurances to the oil and gas industry that production would continue in the North Sea “for decades to come”, to the consternation of green campaigners. Under plans for a “British jobs bonus”, Labour would allocate £500m a year for each of the first five years of government, to provide capital grants to companies in low-carbon industries, including wind and solar energy, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage.
That’s it from me, Tom Ambrose, and indeed the UK politics live blog for tonight. Thanks for following along.
Updated
The division list showed 118 Conservative MPs voted in favour of the report, while 225 MPs abstained.
The Conservative MPs who opposed the privileges committee report were: Sir Bill Cash; Nick Fletcher; Adam Holloway; Karl McCartney; Joy Morrissey; and Heather Wheeler.
The division list released immediately after the vote contained six names in the noes rather than seven announced in the chamber. There have been ongoing issues with names being recorded on the division lists, with other votes seeing the Commons authorities issuing updates later on. The ayes list released immediately after the vote contained 352 names rather than the 354 announced in the chamber, but again this could be updated later by the Commons authorities.
Updated
Andrew Dudfield, the interim chief executive at Full Fact, has responded to tonight’s vote, saying MPs “agree that there should be consequences for misleading parliament”.
“Being able to trust you’re being told the truth, as the committee noted, ‘goes to the very heart of our democracy’,” he added. But so far this year, only five of the 30 MPs Full Fact has asked to correct themselves have actually done so.
“Parliament’s corrections process is broken. The public deserves better than a system that acts as if accuracy and honesty are optional.”
“MPs must agree new rules to make it easy to correct mistakes officially on the record, and ensure there are consequences for those who do not.”
Updated
Boris Johnson faces loss of Westminster pass as MPs back Partygate report
Boris Johnson faces being blocked from getting a pass allowing him unlimited access to the House of Commons, after MPs backed the punishment for his five contempt of parliament offences.
The former prime minister was censured in his absence, given that he formally quit as an MP last week, for misleading parliament over Partygate and his conduct towards the privileges committee.
Though decisions about blocking ex-MPs from receiving a pass granting special access to the parliamentary estate are for the Commons authorities, the move was recommended by the Commons’ privileges committee and endorsed by MPs on Monday.
Johnson’s allies boycotted a vote on the privileges committee’s report, in a move that was widely seen as a tactic to avoid showing how weak support for him in the Conservative party has become.
Updated
MPs vote to approve Partygate report
The House of Commons has voted to accept the privileges committee report on the conduct of former prime minister Boris Johnson during Partygate.
It was a resounding result, with 354 MPs voting to approve, while just seven voted against.
MPs to vote on Johnson Partygate report
The debate has come to an end and MPs are now voting on whether or not to approve the privileges committee report.
It wasn’t certain to have gone to a vote but the results will be due shortly. Stay tuned.
Updated
Labour MP Jess Phillips says Boris Johnson is either lying or thick when it comes to claiming not to understand the rules.
She says:
The idea that Boris Johnson didn’t understand the regulations … I mean, it is a cracking defence on his part I have to say, because it basically means he is too stupid. He is either lying or he is thick.
The Birmingham Yardley MP added that the committee report reassured her there was “a lock on the system”, also describing it as “a valve to release the pressure”.
She told MPs:
What I have seen for the past five years of people lying and deceiving, specifically Boris Johnson lying and deceiving, I felt like oh gosh, it is OK, the system is bigger than this demagogue, it is bigger than this man who thinks he is bigger than the world.
Updated
A Conservative MP claimed he was “so over Boris” as MPs debated the report setting out how the ex-PM misled parliament.
Isle of Wight MP Bob Seely told the Commons he would vote for the report, but also said: “I am so over Boris, and I am pretty over lockdown as well. I think sometimes, and really the point I want to make tonight is that we are in danger of making Westminster look small and petty.”
While he described politicians telling the truth as “a keystone to this place”, he added:
The scandal of lockdown, or Covid and how we dealt with it, is not only whether there were ‘wine Fridays’ and cake in Downing Street, and people in protest carrying about pints of milk, but actually whether lockdown worked, the cost of lockdown in terms of lives, in terms of learning, in terms of sanity, in terms of money, and in terms of truth.
The Conservative MP Nick Fletcher has told MPs he will vote against the motion, urging members to remember Johnson is “human” and that during Covid, he “nearly died”.
The MP for Don Valley told the Commons: “We must also remember he is a human, too. In addition to running the country, he dealt with the highs and lows that this life brings. During Covid, he nearly died. He got married. He lost his mum and had a child.”
Meanwhile, Conservative MP for Guildford Angela Richardson said: “I deplore the attacks on members of the privileges committee. Whether they come from external commentators or within this House.
“The work of the committee is thankless, there is no need to make it potentially dangerous, too. The additional security that was needed is deeply shameful.”
She told MPs that Harriet Harman, the Labour chair of the committee, is “an exceptional parliamentarian”.
An ally of Boris Johnson said he would abstain from a potential vote on the privileges committee report because the high number of MPs staying away has “made a bit of a farce of it”.
Brendan Clarke-Smith, the Bassetlaw MP who had previously said he would vote against it, told Channel 4 News: “I’m not going to be voting one way or the other. I’m against the report and its recommendations.
“It’s not really right. The number of people that are in here, it’s kind of made a bit of a farce of it, I think to be honest.
“If we had a full house here and everybody was here to vote, I think you’d get a more realistic picture, but you’re not going to get that today. So really, I think I wouldn’t want to legitimise that vote today.”
He denied that support for Mr Johnson was so low that the former prime minister’s allies were abstaining to spare him embarrassment.
“I think if you actually did have a vote and I think if people were actually on the estate, I think the numbers would actually be quite decent and quite split.”
Updated
MPs should “back a properly constituted committee” by voting in favour of the report, the former Tory cabinet minister Andrea Leadsom has said.
She told Channel 4 News: “In my view, as a former leader of the Commons but also a real believer in the importance of parliamentary sovereignty, we have to back a properly constituted committee.
“And it’s not right to simply say: ‘Well, I don’t like its findings so I’m just going to bring into question its legitimacy’.”
She also said she hoped enough MPs would support it so it would not need to come to a vote.
“I’m hopeful that this will go through on the nod rather than having a division. I want all members to accept the validity of that committee’s findings.”
Updated
Tory MP Sir Bill Cash accuses the privileges committee of lowering the bar for reprimanding ministers.
He says Johnson had to be proven to have been “knowingly misleading” the parliament, not just misleading it.
Cash also says lawyers ought to be allowed to represent MPs accused of wrongdoing by fellow MPs.
Actor Sir Ian McKellen was present in the Commons for the debate on the Privileges Committee report.
McKellen watched the proceedings from the MPs’ guests gallery, occasionally using a pair of opera glasses.
However, he declined to comment on leaving the house.
Updated
Liberal Democrat Christine Jardine says that it is a time to “recognise the significance of supporting this report”.
She says Johnson showed contempt for the public and undermined trust.
“Our constituents will be looking to us as to how we have stood up for them and protested the way they were let down by the incumbent of No 10,” she says.
The honour of this house and this democracy is at stake and we cannot risk it.
Updated
Labour’s Karl Turner commends the privileges committee for the job done compiling the report.
He says that anybody who reads the report “would have to conclude the reality that Boris Johnson was a liar”.
Turner says:
Very often you would be surprised that he could get away with the things he was saying but it’s proven now that he was dishonest.
He goes on to question why Johnson received taxpayers’ money to fund his legal aid. The former prime minister should “pay up himself”, he says.
Turner also raises the issue of honours being handed to “people who were boozing it up in central Tory office”. He adds that Rishi Sunak should be “ashamed of himself” for not attending the debate.
Rees-Mogg: Fixed-penalty notice was not an 'admission of guilt'
Here comes Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg (Con), who was recently knighted in Boris Johnson’s controversial resignation honours list.
He says the fixed-penalty notice Boris Johnson received for attending the birthday gathering was not a “conviction” or “admission of guilt”.
The report “decides to impute a stain on his character”, Rees-Mogg continues. He adds that the report “decides as if it were an Elon Musk particle to insert itself in the brain of Mr Johnson to work out what he must have thought in a particular moment”.
He infers that the committee “wanted to come to a particular conclusion” about the former prime minister.
He says:
They go from the vindictive to the ridiculous in not allowing him a parliamentary pass.
Rees-Mogg goes on to question the 90-day sanction that Johnson would have received had he not resigned his seat last week. He compares the privileges committee to “communist China”…
Dame Margaret Hodge (Lab) is now speaking. She says trust in Westminster “can only exist if we tell the truth”.
She goes on to say that the committee’s conclusions are based entirely on incontrovertible evidence and says it is “shameful” to try to de-legitimatise the report’s findings.
Hodge says that reported attempts to “bully or blackmail” are shocking and that the integrity of parliament must come before all else.
She says:
Boris Johnson allowed this creeping culture of corruption and unchecked executive power to infect our democracy.
John Baron (Con) says he will vote to approve the privileges committee’s report if there is a vote. But he hopes there won’t be one, he says.
He says the Commons normally approves these reports without a vote.
Ministers can only be held to account if they tell the truth at the dispatch box, he says.
He says if MPs are saying the Commons cannot regulate itself, they are in effect calling for an outsider to do that job. That should be worrying, he says.
Today parliament is putting right a wrong, he says. That is why this is a good day for parliament.
That is all from me for today. My colleague Tom Ambrose is taking over now.
Bryant is now defending the privileges committee.
He says the standards committee (whose MP members are mostly the same as the privileges committee’s) concluded Boris Johnson had not broken rules about the registration of a holiday, even though the parliamentary commissioner for standards claimed he had.
And he says Sir Ernest Ryder, the legal adviser to the privileges committee, would not have allowed it to operate an unfair system. Ryder used to run the tribunals service, he says.
Updated
Chris Bryant, the Labour chair of the Commons standards committee (and chair of the privileges committee until he stood aside for this inquiry, because of his previous comments about Boris Johnson), says people made sacrifices during the pandemic because they felt we were all in this together. That is why they feel so strongly about this, he says.
He defends the committee’s conclusion that Johnson would have deserved a 90-day suspension if he were still an MP.
He says the closest precedent he could find was Sir Michael Grylls, a Tory involved in the cash for questions scandal in the 1990s. He says Grylls had stood down by the time the parliamentary inquiry into him was over. But the committee said that, if he were still an MP, he should be suspended for a substantial period, “augmented to take account of his deceit”.
Updated
Boris Johnson-defending Tory Lia Nici rejects suggestion that he lied to her too
Sir Jake Berry, a former Tory chair and another supporter, intervenes on Lia Nici. He says Boris Johnson is being criticised for how people interpreted the assurances he gave to MPs, not for what he actually said.
Nici agrees.
She says the report was not written in an impartial way.
She says there is no evidence in the report saying people told Johnson about parties taking place in the building.
Johnson is not the caretaker of the building, she says. It was not his job to go around the building seeing what people were doing.
She says No 10 is full of police officers. If rules were being broken, that would have been reported to him, she says.
Jess Phillips (Lab) asks Nici if she has considered that Johnson might have lied to her.
MPs laugh at that.
Nici says she does not think that is the case. She is a good judge of character, she claims.
She says the opposition to Johnson is being led by people who want “a formidable opponent out of their way”.
In the Commons Lia Nici (Con) is speaking now. She is the first MP to defend Boris Johnson.
She says she has read the whole report, and cannot see any evidence that Johnson misled MPs, recklessly or deliberately.
She also says she used to be Johnson’s parliamentary private secretary.
An SNP MP intervenes to gell Nici “there is none so blind as those who will not see”.
Nici says, when Johnson told MPs the rules were followed, he was repeating the advice he had been given.
She says many of the people who gave that advice are still working in Westminster, but that we do not know how those people are because they are not well known.
Dame Angela Eagle (Lab) is speaking now. She says the privileges committee discharged its duties with honour. MPs should support them. But “the Boris Johnson-worshipping print and TV media” has traduced them, egged on by Johnson himself, she says.
She says MPs who have condemned the committee as a “kangaroo court” have committed a contempt of parliament.
Updated
A reader asks:
Can you give us an estimate of how full the chamber is?
A colleague who has been watching from the press gallery (I’m watching on TV) says the Labour benches are fairly full. There are fewer Tory MPs in the chamber (several dozen?), but still more than you might expect for business on a one-line whip.
Dame Andrea Leadsom, the Tory former leader of the Commons, says she will be supporting the motion tonight.
She urges all MPs to approve the motion without a division.
Harman ended her speech by playing to tribute to the role of the media in this affair, and particulary to the work done by Pippa Crerar, the former Daily Mirror political editor who is now political editor at the Guardian, and ITV’s Paul Brand. They were responsible for the most important Partygate revelations.
Harman says she would have stood aside as privileges chair if No 10 thought her tweets meant she could not be fair
Harriet Harman, the former Labour leader who chaired the privilges committee as it carried out the Boris Johnson inquiry, is speaking now.
She says an inquiry by the privileges committee is the only means available to the Commons to protect itself against a minister who is not being honest.
Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, a Johnson supporter, asks Harman about the perception that the tweets she posted relating to Partygate undermined her inquiry.
Harman says she will address that.
She says she was appointed by the house as a whole, with the support of the government.
After the reports came out (in the Daily Telegraph) highlighting tweets which suggested that Harman was sympathetic to the view that Johnson had lied over Partygate, she says she took action.
After the tweets were brought to light, they were highlighted, because I am concerned about the perception of fairness of the committee and I agree that perception matters, I made it my business to find out whether or not it would mean that the government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the committee.
I actually said I am more than happy to step aside because perception matters and I don’t want to do this if the government doesn’t have confidence in me, because I need the whole house of have confidence in the work that the committee has mandated.
I was assured that I should continue the work that the house had mandated with the appointment that the house had put me into and so I did just that.
This is the first time Harman has said that. In the chamber it served as a solid put-down.
Updated
Theresa May says voters want to see MPs 'coming to conclusion" on Johnson
May says the public want to see MPs “coming to a conclusion”.
That seems to be a dig at Rishi Sunak, and all those other Tory MPs are are avoiding taking a position on the committee’s report
If they see MPs trying to defend the careers of friends clearly guilty of wrongdoing, their respect for politicians is damaged.
MPs are leaders in their communities, she says. With that comes responsibility, she says.
She says they all know that in political debate there is “exaggeration, careful use of facts and sometimes misrepresentation”.
But when something is said that is wrong, MPs are under a duty not to repeat it, she says.
May also says it is important for parliament to punish MPs who break the rules. In a reference to Boris Johnson’s Vote Leave slogan, she says you could call that showing “the sovereignty of parliament”.
Updated
Back in the Commons, Theresa May, the former PM, is speaking.
She says the report is a rigorous one and she accepts it. She wants to make a wider point, she says.
It is not easy to judge colleagues. As PM, she had to take decisions based on the conduct of friends and colleagues.
Friendship, working together, should not get in the way of doing what is right.
She commends the privileges committee for their work, and for their dignity in the face of slurs.
She particularly thanks Harriet Harman for chairing the committee.
She says the committee’s work matters because it strikes at the heart of the bond of trust that needs to exist between politicians and the public.
Met chief Mark Rowley suggests action will be taken over Tory lockdown party organised by Shaun Bailey's campaign team
Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan police commissioner, has given a strong hint that the Met will take action against Tories involved in the lockdown party organised by Shaun Bailey’s mayoral campaign team. In an interview with the News Agents podcast, asked about the video of the event leaked to the Mirror at the weekend, Rowley said:
We’re not routinely opening every minor historic allegation. So, if you phoned up about your neighbour from three years ago, we’re not going to reopen that.
But clearly cases that are particularly serious, particularly concerning, we will do.
As people know, that case has been previously looked at based on a photo. It’s very obvious a video tells a much richer, clearer story than a photo.
And so, the team are looking at that with a view to whether that provides a basis for further investigation …
I think we can all see the colourful nature of the video and how much it tells a story way beyond the original photo. I need to let a team work through that but I think we can all guess which way it will go.
The Met did not take action about this event when it originally investigated Partygate.
Penny Mordaunt is alone on the front bench, the Critic’s Robert Hutton points out.
Penny Mordaunt sits alone on the government front bench, having explained why she will be supporting the verdict on Boris Johnson. None of her ministerial colleagues have turned out to support her.
— Robert Hutton (@RobDotHutton) June 19, 2023
Brock says paragraph 210 of the report is scathing.
This is what it says.
We have concluded above that in deliberately misleading the House Mr Johnson committed a serious contempt. The contempt was all the more serious because it was committed by the Prime Minister, the most senior member of the government. There is no precedent for a Prime Minister having been found to have deliberately misled the House. He misled the House on an issue of the greatest importance to the House and to the public, and did so repeatedly. He declined our invitation to reconsider his assertions that what he said to the House was truthful. His defence to the allegation that he misled was an ex post facto justification and no more than an artifice. He misled the Committee in the presentation of his evidence
Deidre Brock, the SNP spokesperson on Commons matters, says Ian Blackford, the former SNP leader at Westminster, once got thrown out of the Commons for calling Boris Johnson a liar. But at the same time “the liar himself was protected by procedure”.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Con), father of the house, is speaking now.
He says Boris Johnson did many good things. He says he personally once got the words “I made a mistake, I apologise” into Hansard after something he did in the 1980s. He suggests Johnson should have done the same.
Debbonaire accuses Rishi Sunak of refusing to defend the privileges committee system.
Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, intervenes, and disputes this. She says Sunak is on the record as defending the committee.
(That is sort of true. See 8.47am.)
Mordaunt also says Sunak has called out those MPs who have overstepped the mark by attacking the committee.
Updated
Back in the Commons Bob Seely, the Conservative MP, intervenes on Debbonaire. He says he will vote for the motion. He says his party “got rid of Boris Johnson a year ago because we lost faith in him because he was probably not telling the truth”.
But, Seely says, he is also an Iraq veteran. Addressing Labour, he says Tony Blair “lied and lied and lied and you lot covered up for him”.
In reply, Debbonaire says only last week Rishi Sunak was too weak to stand up to Johnson over his honours list.
Updated
Several readers have asked about MPs using the word “lie” in the Commons today. This is from one of them.
Why can they say “lied” in the HOC today? I thought it was a taboo word.
The main answer is because Boris Johnson is no longer an MP.
It is also the case that, in certain circumstances, when MPs are debating a motion specifically about an MP or minister lying, the speaker will allow the word “liar” to be used. If Johnson were still an MP today, the speaker may have allowed the term on those grounds.
Updated
Debbonaire says Johnson claimed the rules in No 10 were followed at all time.
But the committee compared this against what happened, and what Johnson knew about what had happened.
Johnson lied, she says.
Updated
Debbonaire says there has been a “sustained, seemingly coordinated, attempt” to undermine the work of the committee. She goes on:
At no point that I can see did Johnson denounce this campaign.
Updated
Debbonaire says Johnson claims the public don’t care about this. But the public do care, she says.
She says a Constitution Unit report found that being honest was the quality people want most from politicians.
The privileges committee’s inquiry was fair, she says.
Updated
Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, is speaking now.
She says MPs who continue to defend Boris Johnson should think of the people who lost lives during the pandemic.
By continuing to insist that birthdays and “morale-boosting parties” were essential work events, those MPs are hurting relatives, she says.
She says birthdays happen every year – it is Johnson’s today, she points out – but funerals cannot. She says any MP defending Johnson should consider what they would say to relatives who lost loved ones.
Updated
Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, says the privileges committee found Boris Johnson “lied”. She asks if Mordaunt agrees that there should be a law obliging politicians to respect the truth.
Mordaunt says the committee report has wider implications. It has asserted the right of MPs not to be misled.
She thanks the committee for its work.
This matters “because the integrity of our institution matters”, she says.
She urges MPs to “do what they think is right”, and says others should leave them alone to do so.
Updated
Commons leader Penny Mordaunt says she will vote to approve privileges committee report into Johnson
Toby Perkins (Lab) intervenes to say, given the amount of work done by the committee, examining the evidence, people who have not done that work should not criticise it.
Mordaunt says MPs should be grateful for the work of the committee.
Thangam Debbonaire, the shadow leader of the Commons, asks if Mordaunt will vote for her own motion, approving the report.
Mordaunt confirms that, as the member for Portsmouth North (ie, as an individual, not in a government capacity), she will vote for it.
Updated
Debate on privileges committee report begins
Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, is opening the debate.
She says MPs have an obligation to defend the rights of parliament.
She says the motion being debated today is amendable. But no amendments have been tabled.
The committee found that Boris Johnson misled the Commons, and the committee, and that this amounted to contempt of parliament.
It also found that “breached confidence, undermined the democratic process of this house and was complicit in a campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the committee”, she says.
Updated
David Davis says threats against Tories proposing to vote against Johnson amount to contempt of parliament
MPs are now about to debate the privileges committee report on Boris Johnson.
But before they start David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, raises a point of order. He mentions last week’s Telegraph story saying Johnson’s allies are threatening to try to deselect MPs who vote in favour of the report criticising Johnson. Davis says this threat is a contempt of parliament.
Daily Telegraph: Johnson allies vow to oust MPs who vote for his censure #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/vzUSli6exQ
— George Mann (@sgfmann) June 15, 2023
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, acknowledges the point, and says the privileges committee is doing a further report addressing this.
Braverman claims extending police use of stop and search will save lives of young black men
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has called on police to increase the use of stop and search powers “to prevent violence and save more lives”. Matthew Weaver has the story here.
In a statement on this in the Commons, Braverman said a few minutes ago:
It would be a tragic mistake to conclude that stop and search is too controversial to use extensively or that it cannot be used effectively with sensible safeguards. Suggestions that it is a means of victimising young black men have it precisely the wrong way around.
The facts are that young black men are disproportionately more likely to be victims of violent crimes. They are the ones most in need of protection. This is about saving the lives of young black men …
It’s always bad policy to place unsubstantiated theories ahead of demonstrable fact. In this case, it would be lethal …
I’m struck by how often mothers of murdered young black men say that stop and search could have saved their sons’ lives. We owe it to them to heed their call. The facts are on their side. Stop and search works and is a vital tool in the fight against serious violent crime.
It’s quite a day for former PMs. We have already heard from Liz Truss and David Cameron, Boris Johnson is about to be the first PM in history subject to a Commons debate in effect confirming he is a liar, and now my colleague Aubrey Allegretti says we may be hearing from Theresa May might be speaking in the debate.
Some Tory MPs want to make sure it doesn't look like the party is turning a blind eye to Boris Johnson misleading parliament.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) June 19, 2023
Several former cabinet ministers are planning to speak in support of the report in upcoming debate. Rumour has it that includes ex-PM Theresa May.
May reportedly thought Johnson was morally unfit to be PM when he replaced her in 2019. If she does speak, it may be along the lines of “I told you so”.
No 10 confirms that forfeiture committee can recommend someone has honour removed
A reader points out that there is a page on the government’s website with details of the forfeiture process that allows honours to be taken away. It includes details of the kinds of behaviour that can lead to an honour being revoked (serious criminal offences predominantly) and information about how members of the public can propose the forfeiture of an honour.
At the Downing Street lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson told journalists that it was up to the forfeiture committee to decide if people should lose an honour, when asked about the Tories who attended the party held by Shaun Bailey’s mayoral campaign team. (See 1.19pm.) The spokesperson said:
It is for the forfeiture committee to consider cases when put to it if there are claims about bringing the honour system into disrepute.
It’s not an investigatory body and it does not decide on whether people have committed specific acts, but it reflects on the findings of investigations or makes recommendations about whether the system has been brought into disrepute.
It is for their committee to look at, if they wish to.
Updated
Labour's energy policy would be 'catastrophic' for north-east of Scotland, Scottish Tories say
Here is the text of Keir Starmer’s speech in Edinburgh on Labour’s clean energy policy. And here is the 18-page clean energy superpower mission document.
The Scottish Conservatives claim the Labour proposal to stop issuing further oil and gas licences would be “catastrophic” for the north-east of Scotland. Liam Kerr MSP, the party’s spokesperson for net zero, energy and transport, said:
There was a reason Keir Starmer delivered this speech in Edinburgh, rather than Aberdeen – because this is an economically and environmentally illiterate policy that betrays north-east Scotland.
Despite his desperate attempts at re-spinning it in recent days, the Labour leader is sticking stubbornly to his disastrously received and catastrophic position of banning all new oil and gas projects.
That would cost tens of thousands of skilled jobs and destroy communities across the north-east. That’s madness when we know that renewable sources don’t yet cover our energy needs – because it would lead to costly foreign imports of fossil fuels, increasing our carbon footprint.
Kerr also claimed the policy would “give Russia even more influence over UK and European energy markets”.
Updated
Cameron's Covid inquiry evidence shows he is 'in denial about huge damage caused by his austerity policies', says TUC
The TUC has said that David Cameron’s evidence to the Covid inquiry (see 2.29pm) shows he is “in denial about the huge damage caused by his austerity policies”. In a statement, Paul Nowak, the TUC general secretary, said:
David Cameron is in denial about the huge damage caused by his austerity policies – both to public services and the UK economy.
The evidence is clear that the cuts he imposed massively damaged the readiness and resilience of our public services. And they shredded our social security safety net – leaving millions vulnerable.
We must learn the lesson that cuts have costs. And we must strengthen our public services and safety net so that we are never left exposed in the same way again.
Updated
Summary of Cameron's evidence to Covid inquiry
Here is a summary of the main points from David Cameron’s evidence to the Covid inquiry this morning.
Cameron defended his government’s austerity policies, saying resilience required economic strength. He explained:
Our whole economic strategy was about safeguarding and strengthening the economy and the nation’s finances so we could cope with whatever crisis hit us next.
And I think that’s incredibly important because there’s no resilience without economic resilience, without financial resilience, without fiscal resilience.
He rejected claims austerity left the NHS unable to provide an adequate service. (See 12.09am.)
He would not accept the conclusions of an expert report given to the committee saying health inequalities got worse while he was in power. Asked about the report by Prof Clare Bambra and Prof Sir Michael Marmot, he replied:
[Marmot and Bambra’s] conclusion is to look a lot at austerity, and what have you. I’m not sure the figures back that out.
We had some very difficult winters with very bad flu pandemics; I think that had an effect. We had the effect that the improvements in cardiovascular disease, the big benefits that already come through before that period, and that was tailing off.
And then you’ve got the evidence from other countries. I mean, Greece and Spain had far more austerity, brutal cuts, and yet their life expectancy went up. So I don’t think it follows …
They have got lots of important evidence and I have looked at it very carefully and will think about it very carefully, but I did find that they had leaped to a certain set of conclusions quite quickly, not all of which was backed up by the evidence.
Cameron said that, when he was PM, the government did not plan enough for the risk of a non-flu pandemic. (See 11.43am.)
He said more time should have been spent assessing the risk of a pandemic with asymptomatic transmission. “When you think what would be different if more time had been spent on a highly infectious, asymptomatic pandemic, different recommendations would have been made about what was necessary to prepare for that,” he said.
Oliver Letwin, who as Cabinet Office minister in Cameron’s government was responsible for resilience, now thinks he should have spent more time on pandemic planning, the inquiry heard. During his evidence, Cameron was asked about the witness statement from Letwin, who said that he had been told by officials that he did not need to look at pandemic influenza planning because the UK was already well prepared for it. In the statement Lewtwin went on:
I now believe, however, that it might have been helpful if I had delved into the pandemic influenza risks myself … This is not because I believe such a review would have been likely to lead to any significant improvements in our preparedness for a pandemic flu itself, but rather because it might have led me to question whether we were adequately prepared to deal with the risks of forms of respiratory disease other than pandemic influenza.
Cameron said there was a failure to learn from Exercise Alice, a “tabletop exercise” was conducted in 2016 to identify any potential threats from Mers [Middle East respiratory syndrome] coronavirus. He said:
Having read through Alice – because ministers weren’t involved – there’s a sentence in Alice which is ‘access to sufficient levels of PPE was also considered and pandemic stockpiles were suggested’.
That’s a sentence in Alice, but it doesn’t make it into the recommendations.
So if you’re asking: ‘Does it look like there were failures to follow through from this?’ I think the answer to that is yes.
But he said he did not think his government had declined a request to surge PPE stockpiles. He said:
I’ve thought a lot about this because, having been back through all the paperwork and everything, I haven’t found any moment when I was asked or the Treasury was asked to approve sort of surge capacity for PPE supplies or anything like that.
He said that, if asked, his government would have bought three months’ worth of PPE supplies for hospitals. He said:
In Jeremy Hunt’s evidence hospitals in Hong Kong had to have three months of PPE supplies.
I was never asked: ‘Can we have funding for three months of PPE supplies for every hospital?’ But had I been asked we would’ve granted it, that’s not expensive, that’s not a huge commitment.
Updated
Met says it is 'assessing' case for full investigation into latest alleged lockdown breaches involving Tories
The Metropolitan police have confirmed that they are looking at three new sets of complaints about alleged lockdown rule-breaking by politicians – but it has stressed that full investigations will only be launched if that is deemed “proportionate”.
In a statement, it says it is “in the process of assessing” material about three sets of events: gatherings at No 10 and Chequers uncovered by the Cabinet Office when it was looking at Boris Johnson’s diaries as part of its Covid inquiry work; the alleged birthday drinks party attended by Sir Bernard Jenkin in Dame Eleanor Laing’s office; and the party staged by Shaun Bailey’s Tory London mayoral campaign team.
The statement says:
It would not be appropriate to prejudge the outcome of these assessments or to provide a running commentary on their progress.
We will provide further updates at the appropriate time.
But it also says, when considering retrospective breaches of Covid rules, the Met will only launch a full investigation “when there is evidence of a serious and flagrant breach” and where an investigation would be proportionate, where not investigating would “significantly undermine the legitimacy of the law” and where there is “little ambiguity around the absence of a reasonable defence”.
Updated
No 10 suggests Sunak will miss Commons debate on Johnson and any vote, saying he has 'commitments he can't move'
No 10 has also said that Rishi Sunak currently is not planning to attend the Commons debate on Boris Johnson – but that attendance has not been ruled out.
Speaking at the lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said Sunak had other engagements this afternoon and evening. He said:
I don’t think we know yet whether there will be a vote on this issue.
The prime minister is hosting the prime minister of Sweden. He has a series of meetings [and] an evening commitment.
Asked whether Sunak planned to attend the Commons if there was a vote, the spokesperson said:
It depends on the timings of the day.
He has commitments that he can’t move, but obviously it will depend on how the timings in parliament play out.
Asked if it was possible Sunak might attend, the spokesperson replied:
Currently you’ve got his schedule for today which doesn’t include attending parliament, but obviously we will see how the timings play out.
Downing Street has refused to back calls for two of the people who attended the Tory Partygate event featured in a video leaked to the Mirror to lose their honours. (See 9.32am.) At the morning lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said it was for “individuals to make their own decision” if they wanted to relinquish their honour.
Scottish Tory MPs will be 'betraying' voters if they don't back report condemning Johnson, says Yousaf
Scottish Conservative MPs who fail to vote in favour of the privileges committee report condemning Boris Johnson will be betraying their voters, Humza Yousaf, the Scottish first minister, said. Speaking at his news conference this morning (see 10.32am), Yousaf said:
I think those that choose to turn up to the vote and abstain, or indeed vote against the sanctions, any Scottish Tory MP who does that is betraying the people they represent.
Boris Johnson, and indeed the Conservative party more generally, have shown flagrant disregard for rules that many of us, most of us, adhered.
At the extreme end of that we saw people literally missing the funerals of loved ones, not being able to say goodbye, while they partied in Conservative headquarters. That is a betrayal of people’s trust.
Any Scottish Tory MP that is going to abstain or not vote to sanction Boris Johnson, they rightly will face the wrath of the Scottish people at the ballot box, I don’t doubt that for a minute.
Liz Truss says she never deliberately dressed to look like Margaret Thatcher
Liz Truss was often accused of deliberately dressing like Margaret Thatcher as her career in government progressed on the way to becoming prime minister.
But it was never intentional, she told a media conference in Dublin this morning.
Truss, who was PM for just a few weeks last year, said that female politicians were often compared with one another because “there aren’t that many of us”.
Speaking about the Thatcher comparison, she said:
I just think, frankly, it’s lazy thinking on people’s part. It’s not something I have ever consciously sought to do at all.
Truss also complained about some media outlets treating politics as “a branch of the entertainment industry” and she described the Daily Star’s decision last year to set up a livestream to see if her premiership would last longer than a lettuce (it didn’t) was “puerile”.
Sunak urged to rethink visit by Chinese official linked to forcible removal of dissidents
A cross-party group of British MPs and peers has written to Rishi Sunak him to reconsider a decision to allow a visit this week by a senior Chinese government official accused of overseeing the forcible repatriation of hundreds of dissidents back to China, including some from the UK. Patrick Wintour has the story here.
Updated
My colleague Aubrey Allegretti says the Boris Johnson debate could run for about four hours, judging by the number of MPs who have indicated they want to speak. That suggests a vote at about 8.30pm.
Sounds like the debate on Boris Johnson's five contempts of parliament will drag on this evening.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) June 19, 2023
It's expected to kick off at 4:30pm and I'm told the number of MPs indicating they want to speak suggests it'll go on for around 4 hours.
(Order paper says they've got til 10pm)
Updated
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, will make a Commons statement on stop and search. There are no urgent questions, and this means that the Braverman statement will start at 3.30pm, and that the debate on Boris Johnson and the privileges committee report will start at about 4.30pm.
Updated
Cameron challenges expert advice given to Covid inquiry saying health inequalities increased when he was PM
Cameron says there are always pressures on the NHS.
But he says that by the time he left office public satisfaction with the NHS was extremely high. The King’s Fund described it as one of the most successful health systems in the world. He goes on:
We’d virtually abolished mixed-sex wards, we’d got hospital infections down, we were carrying out 40% more diagnostic tests every week. There were successes in the NHS as well as pressures.
Asked about expert reports criticising the state of the NHS, he said they tended to measure outputs (performance) by inputs (money spent on health). He says these experts did not recognise the role reform could play.
Q: Do you accept health inequalities increased during your time in office?
Cameron says after 2011, in many countries around the world life expectancy improved, but at a lower rate than before.
Countries such as Greece and Spain had far more austerity, “brutal cuts”. But life expectancy went up in those countries, he says.
He says he has read the report by Prof Clare Bambra and Prof Sir Michael Marmot on health inequalities that was submitted to the inquiry.
As an example, he says the report said child poverty increased during his term in office. He goes on:
Well, actually, the number of children living in absolute poverty went down. The number of people living in absolute poverty went down. The number of pensioners living in absolute poverty went down very considerably.
(Absolute poverty is a measure of poverty benchmarked to the relatively poverty figure in a particular year, normally when a government takes office. Over time it almost always goes down, because inflation means household incomes go up in cash terms for the poorest families, even if they do not go up in relative terms.)
He says he thinks Bambra and Marmot in their report came to “a certain set of conclusions quite quickly, not all of which was backed up by the evidence”.
In their report Bambra and Marmot say:
The UK entered the pandemic with increasing health inequalities and health among the poorest people in a state of decline. We knew from previous pandemics and research into lower respiratory tract infections that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, people living in areas or regions with higher rates of deprivation, and people from minority ethnic groups and people with disabilities, are much more likely to be severely impacted by a respiratory pandemic.
Updated
Cameron rejects claim his government's austerity policies left NHS unable to provide adequate service
Kate Blackwell KC is now asking David Cameron about his government’s austerity policies. She says she does not want to examine whether they were right in principle; she just wants to ask about their impact on health, inequality and societal resilience.
Q: Do you accept that the health budgets passed by your government were inadequate, and let to a depletion in its ability to provide an adequate service?
Cameron says he does not accept that.
He says, if the government had lost control of the public finances, it would not have been able to protect the NHS.
He says health spending went up. The number of doctors increased.
But it was “essential” to get the public finances back to health.
Q: In a witness statement, Jeremy Hunt, the former health secretary, has talked about his concerns about capacity in the NHS.
Cameron says he knows of Hunt’s concerns. He was a very capable health secretary. He was always battling for the NHS. But financial decisions had to be taken collectively.
Q: Hunt sets out in his statement matters that should have been addressed.
Cameron says, without his government’s action, government debt might have been £1tn higher. There would have been a financial and fiscal crisis, as well as the pandemic.
He says government needs to have a strong economy, and also to prepare for pandemics. It did not end up spending enough time on the sort of pandemic the UK experienced.
Updated
Q: Do you accept you failed in putting in place “whole-system resilience”?
Cameron says he does not accept that. He says he put in place the national risk register, and the national security council.
Q: Evidence heard by the inquiry last week included the question from witnesses: “Who is in charge of keeping the country safe?”
Cameron says, as PM, he was in charge of keeping the country safe. He says he set up the national security council to help him to that.
He says all his experience of dealing with matters such as Ebola showed that the system worked well, but that it worked best “when the prime minister is in the chair, asking questions, driving changes, and making sure decisions are made”.
This may be a dig at Boris Johnson.
Updated
Cameron is now being asked if he accepts that, by the time he left office, there had been no planning for the impact of a pandemic. For example, was there any school planning?
In reply, Cameron says he thinks the possibility of school planning came up in the Operation Cygnet exercise.
Kate Blackwell KC, who is questioning Cameron on behalf of the inquiry, says the Cygnet report said that work should be looked at. That does not mean it was done.
Q: Was there any planning for restrictions?
Cameron says his government was focused on safeguarding the country’s finances. There is no resilience without economic resilience, he says.
He says the national risk registers talked about how government might respond to various catastrophic events.
But a plan is “only as good as the economic and financial capacity of a country to deliver it”, he says.
Updated
David Cameron tells Covid inquiry pandemic planning under his government did not focus enough on non-flu threats
David Cameron is giving evidence to the Covid inquiry since 11am. He was prime minister from 2010 until 2016, and he said that although pandemics were seen as a “tier 1 risk”, there was too much focus on the risk of a flu pandemic, and not enough on the risk of another type.
He said he had been asking himself why that happened, and it was “very hard” to give an answer. He said:
This is the thing I keep coming back to, which is that pandemic was a ‘tier 1 risk’ – pandemics were looked at, but … much more time was spent on pandemic flu and the dangers of pandemic flu rather than on potential pandemics of other more respiratory diseases like Covid turned out to be. And, you know, I think this is so important because so many consequences follow from that.
And I’ve been sort of wrestling with … I think the architecture [to deal with large-scale emergencies] was good – the national security council, the national security adviser, the risk register, and also this new security risk assessment, which was perhaps a bit more dynamic.
But that’s where I keep coming back to … is, so much time was spent on a pandemic influenza and that was seen as the greatest danger – and we had very bad years for flu so it is a big danger.
But why wasn’t more time and more questions asked about what turned out to be the pandemic that we faced? It’s very hard to answer why that’s the case. And I’m sure this public inquiry is going to spend a lot of time on that.
These are from ITV’s Anushka Asthana on Cameron’s evidence.
Cameron starts at the Covid Inquiry by talking about decision to create National Security Council when he became PM - to look at risks including terrorism, climate change but also pandemics - because PM's get sucked into short term decisions. #CovidInquiry
— Anushka Asthana (@AnushkaAsthana) June 19, 2023
Cameron says he asks himself why so much of the time focused on pandemic flu and not a more respiratory disease like Covid. He admits "so many consequences follow from that". #covidinquiry
— Anushka Asthana (@AnushkaAsthana) June 19, 2023
Cameron says he can't remember the Chief Medical Officer specifically warning about coronavirus pandemics. He says they had a good relationship and met regularly and were focused on pandemics - mentions Ebola outbreak. #covidinquiry
— Anushka Asthana (@AnushkaAsthana) June 19, 2023
But Cameron keeps saying - he doesn't understand why more Qs were not asked about a pandemic like MERS but less deadly and more transmissible with asymptomatic transmission. Not clear if he's saying fault of scientists or an admission he didn't ask right Qs. #covidinquiry
— Anushka Asthana (@AnushkaAsthana) June 19, 2023
Updated
Q: Will the HQ of GB Energy be based in Aberdeen? [In his speech, Starmer announced it would be in Scotland.]
Sarwar says it has not been decided where the HQ will go. But he says the energy plan will be good for Aberdeen.
And that was the final question. The Q&A is over.
Q: At the weekend Panelbase said Labour is on course to win 26 seats in Scotland. Is that realistic?
Starmer says he is very, very conscious of the fact that Scotland matters to Labour.
Of course the party needs seats in Scotland to win.
But he wants to be the prime minister “not just of the UK, but for the UK”, he says. That is why having seats in Scotland matters to him.
He says he wants his party to be able to say it has representation across the UK. His missions will be succeed unless they have support across the whole of the UK.
Sarwar says he is not complacent “for a second”. They have made significant progress, he says. They had had to demonstrate Labour is changing, build campaigning infrastructure, show they can be a credible opposition – but also show why they deserve to win. He says the announcement today is crucial in that respect.
He says Labour has to win for the sake of the NHS. There are 750,000 Scots on a waiting list, he says.
Updated
Q: How long can someone working in the oil and gas industry expect to have their job?
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, says that sector will pay a significant role for decades to come. The jobs will be protected, he says.
Updated
Q: If you do not commit to rescinding the Rosebank licence, aren’t you just letting the Tories do your dirty work?
Starmer does not answer the question directly. Instead he says the trade unions support Labour’s desire to promote jobs in the green energy sector.
He says in Scotland there is resentment that they have offshore wind, but they have not got the jobs that went with it. He recalls visiting a windfarm where all the turbines were built outside the UK.
The Tories let coalmining die and had no plan for the future. Labour won’t allow the same thing to happen as the oil and gas industry winds down.
Q: Would you back higher windfall taxes?
Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, says energy companies are making record profits. He says it is right to have a windfall tax that puts that money back in people’s pockets.
Updated
Q: If you were PM today, would you give the go-ahead to the Rosebank oilfield?
Starmer says his policy is to say no to new licences. But it would not rescind existing licences.
He says it is important for investors to have certainty (ie for them to know that licences awarded under this government would be withdrawn).
But he says the Rosebank licence is expected to be approved very soon. So that would count as an existing licence by the time Labour came into office, he says.
Updated
Q: Can you confirm that you would no longer issue oil and gas exploration licences for the North Sea, but would allow existing drilling to continue?
Starmer says Labour has been clear about wanting to stop further exploration. But he says oil and gas will continue to be part of the energy mix for decades.
Updated
Starmer rejects claims he is watering down £28bn green energy pledge
Back in Edinburgh Keir Starmer has just finished his speech, and is now taking questions.
Q: Hasn’t the shift on your £28bn green energy pledge shown that you cannot be trusted?
Starmer says Labour has not abandoned this plan; it is doubling down on it.
But he says the context for borrowing has changed since the party announced it.
Q: Everything is going well for you. It is impossible for you to lose now?
Starmer says there is a reason why the Tories at Westminster, and the SNP in Scotland, are failing. The question is, are people better off? And under both these governments, they are not.
But he says Labour has to earn every vote.
Updated
Sunak tells Zelenskiy US and UK 'in lockstep in unwavering support for Ukraine' in call updating him on Biden talks
When Boris Johnson was prime minister, and facing a fresh blast of Partygate negative headlines, they often seemed to coincided with No 10 announcing that Johnson had just had a call with Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the Ukrainian president.
We have a new prime minister, but some traditions (or coincidences – No 10 always denied that the calls were part of a distraction strategy) endure. Downing Street has just announced that Rishi Sunak spoke to Zelenskiy this morning. In a readout, No 10 said:
The prime minister paid tribute to the bravery of the Ukrainian soldiers on the frontline of the counteroffensive and said it was clear they were making good progress.
He told President Zelenskiy that the UK was firmly behind Ukraine as it continued to push back invading Russian forces. Small steps forward would bring success, the prime minister added.
The prime minister updated on his recent visit to the US and his meeting with President Biden, and said it was clear the US and UK were in lockstep in their unwavering support for Ukraine.
Both the prime minister and President Zelenskiy looked forward to speaking at the Ukraine Recovery Conference, which is being hosted in London this week.
Starmer develops the attack on the Conservative’s approach to green energy, accusing them of just adopting a “sticking plaster” approach. He says:
I’ll give an example: “Green crap.” That’s what they said – “cut the green crap”.
And so they scrapped investment in home insulation, stalled nuclear energy, banned onshore wind.
The result? When the crisis hit last year and when Russia invaded Ukraine, not only did the bills of businesses and working people go through the roof, we had to borrow £40bn with no new infrastructure to show for it. That’s not green crap, that’s Tory crap!
“Green crap’” was the phrase attributed to David Cameron, who reportedly used it to dismiss green policies.
Updated
Starmer says that the UK can be a world leader on green energy, but the government has to be proactively supporting the industry.
We have tremendous advantages here: our coast, our shallow waters, our universities, our creativity, the depth of our skills, the graft of our people, the superpower sciences, the technological edge, and yes – if you can believe it, even our weather.
Financial strength here in Edinburgh and yes, in the City of London too, but nonetheless the world leader for green finance which is a massive advantage for all of us.
Seriously – there are no grounds for the defeatism which says we can’t lead the world on this. That our prospects will always be squeezed out by the US and the EU is declinist nonsense.
But at the same time, we’ve got to get moving. At the moment we’re standing on the side-lines, wringing our hands and falling behind because our government talks about economic stability yet understands nothing of what this requires in times like ours.
When the winds of change are blowing this fiercely, you need a government that gets involved and intervenes, on behalf of working people, to secure stability and growth.
Drift equals chaos. This is about Tory ideology, of course it is. Their impulses are totally out of step with the challenges of the modern world. They still cleave to the set of ideas that came out of the 1980s: the dismissal of industrial strategy, the contempt for active government, and a complacency that says only the market decides which industries matter for working people and national security.
Starmer says it would be 'historic mistake' to delay transition to green energy
Starmer says he understands the concern felt by people working in the oil and gas industry about the transition to a green energy future. But he says it would be a “historic mistake” to delay. He says:
I know the ghosts industrial change unearths. As a young lawyer, I worked with mining communities to challenge the Tories’ pit closure programme but deep down, we all know this has to happen eventually and that the only question is when.
So in all candour, the reality is this, the moment for decisive action is now.
If we wait until North Sea oil and gas runs out, the opportunities this change can bring for Scotland and your community will pass us by, and that would be a historic mistake. An error, for the future of Scotland, as big as the Thatcher government closing the coal mines, while frittering away the opportunity of the North Sea.
My offer, the Labour offer, is this; a credible plan to manage the change, protect good jobs and create good jobs. No cliff edges.
Updated
Starmer says Labour's offer at next election will be about showing Britain 'can still be great'
At the Labour event Keir Starmer is now speaking. He starts with a jibe at the SNP, saying the tide is turning in Scotland.
Turning to energy policy, he says Labour wants to promote security.
People want to know if the UK is still a great nation, he says.
Can we still achieve great things? Can we unite and move forward? Can we still change, can we grow, can we get things done, can we build things? New industries, new technologies, new jobs; will they come to our shores, or will the future pass us by?
You can put it even more starkly. Around the world people want to know, are we still a great nation? If the question is about the British people, the answer is emphatically: yes.
But if it’s about British politics – I don’t even need to answer that, do I?
This is what we’re taking on, the Labour offer at the next election: a new government and a new way of governing, a plan for change, a plan to use clean power to build a new Britain, a plan to get our future back and say, to those who doubt we can still be great: we are, we can, and we will.
Updated
Humza Yousaf publishes SNP plans for written constitution for independent Scotland
As the BBC’s David Wallace Lockhart reports, Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, has been holding a news conference marking the publication of a paper on the SNP’s plans for a written constitution for an independent Scotland.
Humza Yousaf announcing proposals for a written constitution for an independent scotland - including protections for the NHS, the right to strike, and the removal of nuclear weapons. pic.twitter.com/BrjFlSB2L2
— David Wallace Lockhart (@BBCDavidWL) June 19, 2023
There is a summary on the SNP’s website. And here is the full 62-page paper.
Yousaf said:
Independence would give Scotland the ability to continue its progressive approach to human rights and equality, without the current restrictions of the devolution settlement and without the threat of Westminster overruling our decisions or unwinding our advances.
This would ensure that our human rights and equality protections could cover all policy areas, including those currently reserved to the Westminster parliament.
Updated
In Edinburgh there is a high-powered turnout for the Keir Starmer energy speech. Two members of the shadow cabinet, Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, and Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change and net zero, have already delivered warm-up speeches, and Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is now doing his bit too. Starmer will be up soon.
Updated
David Warburton formally resigns as MP, triggering crunch Lib Dem/Tory byelection contest
David Warburton has formally quit as an MP after an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment and cocaine use, PA Media reports. PA says:
The decision means Rishi Sunak faces another potentially difficult byelection in the Somerton and Frome seat vacated by the former Tory MP.
Warburton’s exit from the Commons was confirmed by the Treasury following his appointment as steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead – one of the procedural routes for an MP to quit.
In an interview with the Mail on Sunday, Warburton admitted to taking cocaine after drinking “tons of incredibly potent” Japanese whiskey, but denied claims he harassed a female political aide in his Westminster flat.
When he announced his resignation on Saturday, Warburton hit out at the investigation conducted by parliament’s independent complaints and grievance scheme (ICGS), claiming he had been denied a fair hearing.
The BBC’s Iain Watson posted Warburton’s resignation letter on Twitter at the weekend.
The unexpurgated version of David Warburton's resignation letter in which he criticises the parliamentary investigation into his conduct. It's not as long as the Privileges committee report, but it's up there. He rails against its process and said it moved at a 'glacial' pace pic.twitter.com/mS1r2PR5Ew
— iain watson (@iainjwatson) June 18, 2023
As the Financial Times’s Stephen Bush has argued, the Liberal Democrats are in a very good position to win the seat, which Warburton won for the Tories in 2019 with a majority of 19,213.
In this parliament, the Liberal Democrats have won North Shropshire, a Leave constituency where no non-Tory party had ever really placed, and a Devon constituency where they had come close but never won it. I don’t think they have anything to prove in this by-election. https://t.co/odmwDRauDi
— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 17, 2023
They will absolutely smash it and it won’t be close. a) it’s a by-election b) it’s a seat with a Lib Dem history c) uh, have you seen the i) the circumstances Warburton is standing down in and ii) the state of the country lately?
— Stephen Bush (@stephenkb) June 17, 2023
Updated
Keir Starmer is about to deliver his speech on Labour’s green energy mission in Edinburgh. There is a live feed at the top of the blog.
The contents of the speech have been trailed by the party in some detail overnight. Fiona Harvey and Severin Carrell have a summary here.
Readers have been asking about the vote in the Commons later on the privileges committee reporter. Several people have raised this question, or versions of it.
If the Conservatives are trying to push through the report with a nod, could of the opposition parties interject to cause a division and force reluctant MPs to vote? Is there any precedent for an opposition to a motion you support, just to force a vote to embarrass another party?
Yes, they could, and yes, it happens quite often. There is more about this issue here.
Another person asked:
I wonder if you could write a few words on what is/are (if any) the downside(s) of the Partygate motion going through on the nod? I’m sure I heard there are some, but can’t recall what!
The motion, “That this house approves the fifth report from the committee of privileges”, can pass either on the nod, or as the result of a division. There would be no impact on the practical effects of the vote, which are very limited anyway (amounting to no more than Boris Johnson losing his ex-MP’s pass to the Commons).
A motion passed on the nod is arguable more authoritative. You cannot say it has been passed unanimously, because most MPs won’t be in the chamber, and won’t express a view when the speaker asks MPs to approve the motion by acclamation (“all those in favour say aye” etc). But if no MP shouts no, you can say it has been passed without opposition.
But if there is a division, people will be able to find out who voted in favour and who voted against.
They won’t, however, be able to find out who has deliberately chosen to abstain. The list of MPs who do not vote gets published when there is a division, but no distinction is made between people deliberately abstaining, and people who have another reason for missing the vote.
Starmer says he would not have resignation honours himself and he would block Sunak's if they were questionable
Keir Starmer also told the Today programme that, as PM, he would be willing to block Rishi Sunak’s resignation honours list if he thought it included questionable names.
After Starmer told the programme that Sunak should have blocked Boris Johnson’s resignation honours (see 9.32am), the presenter, Mishal Husain, put it to Starmer that, in rubber-stamping the list, Sunak was just following precedent. She asked Starmer if he would be willing to intervene if he had an issue with names on Sunak’s resignation honours list. Starmer replied:
Yes. I think that what Rishi Sunak did was wrong.
Starmer also said, if he were PM, he would not have a resignation honours list himself. Asked about the prospect, he replied:
There are other opportunities [to reward people] but Tony Blair didn’t have a resignation list. It is very hard to justify.
If it was reserved for people who had given incredible service – perhaps picking out people who had been involved in the development of the vaccine or some other real element of public service – but it is very hard to see how it is justified.
There are other avenues for that and I think it is easier to be clean about this and say no, I wouldn’t do it. Tony Blair didn’t do it and I wouldn’t do it.
Updated
Starmer suggests Tory Partygate video shows why Sunak should have blocked Johnson's honours list
Keir Starmer argued this morning the release of a video showing Tory activists, including one given an OBE in Boris Johnson’s resignation honours list, partying during lockdown was an example of why Rishi Sunak was wrong to approve it.
Sunak has defended waving through the resignation honours, saying in not seeking to remove any names he was just following precedent.
But Starmer told the Today programme this morning that Johnson’s reputation was so tainted that Sunak would have been justified in blocking his list. He said:
Everybody knew that the privileges committee was about to report on the behaviour of the former prime minister.
Why on earth didn’t Rishi Sunak, the prime minister, take the provisional list from Boris Johnson and say ‘Thank you very much, I will put that on one side and I’ll come to it and look at it when I know the findings of the privileges committee’?
Because whatever the previous conventions, we’ve never had a situation like this where a previous prime minister has been found to have lied to parliament, not once but repeatedly. He has now pretty well been stripped of any involvement in parliament. That is unprecedented.
Why on earth didn’t Rishi Sunak say ‘I’ll put your list on one side, former prime minister. I will get to it but I am determined to see the findings of the privileges committee before I do so. Because if, for example, the privileges committee says you lied to parliament, then I’m not going to put your list through’.
Ben Mallet, who got an OBE in the honours list, is featured in the video obtained by the Mirror. He was at a party also attended by Shaun Bailey, the Tory candidate for London mayor in 2020. Bailey was made a peer in Johnson’s resignation honours, but he left the party before the video was recorded.
Starmer made his point about why Sunak should have blocked the list after being asked if it was possible Mallet and Bailey could have their honours withdrawn. Starmer told Today that he was not sure that was possible.
But Josiah Mortimer from Byline Times says that in fact it could be done.
Starmer says “I don’t think there is” a process for rescinding honours. This is incorrect according to the Commons Library. An honour can be removed after it has been awarded, on the advice of Ministers. This process is called forfeiture
— Josiah Mortimer (@josiahmortimer) June 19, 2023
If the Met Police find that CCHQ party attendees who were honoured committed a crime, there would be very a strong case for the Forfeiture Committee to rescind their honours
— Josiah Mortimer (@josiahmortimer) June 19, 2023
Updated
Sunak says no extra help with mortgages as fixed rates climb to 6%
Rishi Sunak has ruled out extra help for homeowners struggling to pay soaring mortgage costs, as the average two-year fixed-rate loan rose above 6%, Alex Lawson reports.
Starmer urges Sunak to ‘show leadership’ after PM refuses to say if he backs privileges committee report on Boris Johnson
Good morning. This afternoon MPs will be debating a report saying that Boris Johnson lied to parliament about Partygate (“deliberately misled” is the way the report puts it, but it means the same thing), and that by doing so, and by attacking the subsequent inquiry, he committed serious and multiple contempts of parliament. There is no precedent for a parliamentary inquiry saying this as about former prime minister, and so you might expect the current prime minister to have a view on a conclusion this momentous. But Rishi Sunak is not taking sides.
In an interview with ITV’s Good Morning Britain broadcast this morning, he said that he respected the work done by the committee.
This committee was established under the former prime minister. It commanded the confidence of the house at the time and I’m sure that they have done their work thoroughly and I respect them for that.
But he said he would not be saying whether he backed the privileges committee’s report, and its recommendations, because this was a Commons matter, not a government matter, and he did not want to “influence” MPs. He said:
This is a matter for the house rather than the government, that’s an important distinction and that is why I wouldn’t want to influence anyone in advance of that vote.
It will be up to each and every individual MP to make a decision of what they want to do when the time comes, it’s important the government doesn’t get involved in that because it is a matter for parliament and members as individuals, not as members as government.
Given that the whole point of becoming PM is to “influence” how MPs vote, this may be another constitutional first. But Sunak is clearly worried about antagonising Johnson’s small but vocal and toxic band of supporters in the party, and their more powerful allies in the Tory media.
Downing Street has not said whether Sunak will be in the Commons for the debate later. The Swedish government is reporting that Sunak is meeting Ulf Kristersson, the Swedish PM, in London later today, and so he may have a good excuse not to be there. MPs are expected to approve a motion saying they approve the privileges committee’s report but, with Johnson urging his supporters not to vote against, it could well go through on the nod.
This morning Keir Starmer said Sunak should “show leadership” and back the report. Asked if he thought Sunak should vote in favour of it, Starmer told Good Morning Britain:
Yes, I do. We need to know where Rishi Sunak stands on this.
He should show leadership, come along, get in the lobby and show us where he stands on this.
Starmer has been doing a series of interviews this morning, ahead of a speech later. I will post more from them shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: Liz Truss, the former PM, speaks at the Xchange conference in Dublin.
10am: Keir Starmer gives a speech in Edinburgh on Labour’s green energy mission.
10am: Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s first minister, holds a press conference. He is publishing a paper on the SNP’s plans for an independent Scotland to have a written constitution.
11am: David Cameron, the former PM, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
After 3.30pm: MPs debate the privileges committee report saying Boris Johnson deliberately misled the Commons about Partygate. They are expected to approve a motion tabled by Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, saying “this house approves the fifth report from the committee of privileges”. In theory the debate could run until 10pm, but it is expected to wrap early evening.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest
Updated
