Early evening summary
Rees-Mogg accuses Sunak of breaking his promise on retained EU law, saying 'blob has triumphed' over PM
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory former business secretary, has accused Rishi Sunak of breaking a promise he made during the Tory leadership contest, and of “administrative failure”, after the government abandoned the target Rees-Mogg set for the repeal of retained EU law. (See 4.15pm.) Rees-Mogg said:
The written ministerial statement breaks the prime minister‘s clear promise to review or repeal all EU laws in his first hundred days.
Instead, he has decided to keep nearly 90% of retained EU law.
This is an admission of administrative failure, an inability of Whitehall to do the necessary work and an incapability of ministers to push this through their own departments.
Regrettably, ‘the blob’ has triumphed and the prime minister has abandoned his promise.
In fact, Sunak did not promise to review or repeal all EU law within the 100 days (although, in the summer leadership campaign, when he made this pledge, he may not have been upset if Brexiter Tory members thought that was what his promising). The actual promise was: “The first set of recommendations as to whether these [retained EU] laws should be scrapped or changed would be made within the first 100 days.”
But Sunak also said he would “scrap or reform all the EU law and bureaucracy still holding back Britain’s economy by the next election”, which is still not a deadline he is likely to meet.
Updated
Extracts from Lords debate on illegal migration bill
Here are some more extracts from speeches in the debate this afternoon in the Lords on the illegal migration bill.
From Norman Lamont, the former Tory chancellor
Politics is sometimes described as the art of the possible. Perhaps more accurately it should be described as the art of choosing between the incredibly difficult and the unbelievably difficult. But we have to make hard choices. To govern is to choose.
One problem with ever-expanding human rights is one person’s rights may clash with those of another.
The rights of the individual matter deeply, but the ability of the government to act as the trustees of the rights of the individuals who make up this country also matter.
We need an acute problem that needs solving. Let’s do it in a humane, legal way but not duck the difficult choices.
I hope this house will not fill this bill with so many loopholes, exemptions, exceptions, get-out-clauses that it actually makes the bill unworkable.
From Michael Cashman, the actor and Labour peer
I believe this Bill to be a thoroughly reprehensible piece of legislation which would be more suited to a party of extremists than the party that saw one of its greatest leaders, Winston Churchill, amongst the architects of the Council of Europe, the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
How utterly ashamed I believe Churchill would be today at this bill.
From Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, a former head of the Foreign Office
We’re being asked to agree to a blatant repudiation of our commitments under the [UNHCR 1951 refugee convention] …
In almost 20 years here, I don’t think I can recall a more disreputable bill than this one. It victimises the vulnerable, and if we enact it, the country breaks its commitments and trashes its traditions.
He also joked that one of the things he liked about the bill was the honest of its title (the illegal migration bill).
From Lord Lilley, a Tory former cabinet minister
This debate has focused largely on legal issues.
I don’t doubt the importance of these issues… but I would take the lawyers more seriously if they would recognise that there is a problem and suggest solutions rather than argue as if neither laws nor treaties nor their application need to change.
Ultimately the government and parliament of this country must be able to decide how many people and for what reasons are granted refuge in this country.
Extracts from earlier speeches in the debate were posted at 3.13pm.
Updated
Modern slavery exclusions in illegal migration bill disproportionately affect women, says equality assessment
Disqualification from modern slavery support under the illegal migration bill could have a disproportionate impact on female potential victims, a government impact assessment has concluded.
As PA Media reports, under the illegal immigration bill, which will see people who come to the UK by irregular means face detention and the prospect of being returned to their home country or nations such as Rwanda, the vast majority of people will be disqualified from the modern slavery system. PA says:
The government has previously said there will be “very limited exceptions relating to investigations into exploitation, or where an individual can provide credible evidence that there is a real and imminent risk they would be at risk of serious and irreversible harm in the removal country”.
An equality impact assessment was published by the Home Office today as the bill was debated in the House of Lords.
The impact assessment acknowledged that patterns of modern slavery “are strongly gendered” and that women are “far more likely to be victims of gender-based violence and sexual exploitation”.
But the document also appeared to suggest that not disqualifying women from this support could potentially lead to traffickers targeting them to a greater extent.
It stated: “The disqualification provision could have a disproportionate impact on potential victims of modern slavery who are female. However, were provision to be made that excluded female victims it is not unreasonable to assume that this may result in a change of methodology from people traffickers, targeting vulnerable women to a greater extent.”
The Home Office said it will “continually monitor the impact of the modern slavery measures on people with this protected characteristic to ensure our approach is appropriate for that cohort”.
The document stated that the “net effect” of its measures will be “a reduction in risks of sexual exploitation in the UK, since the individuals will no longer be brought into the UK”.
The assessment also stated that any “differential impact” on children, the disabled, people of different races, religions or sexuality as a result of bill was “justified and proportionate” to control migration and reduce crime”.
Updated
Tories ruled out deals with other parties
The Conservative party has now ruled out doing deals with other parties, the Sun’s Harry Cole reports.
Conservative Party spokesman: "We will not be doing a deal with any other party."
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) May 10, 2023
The party clarified its position after a post-PMQs briefing, which implied Rishi Sunak was refusing to rule out doing a deal with other parties in the event of a hung parliament. Labour claimed this meant the Tories could end up in a pact with the SNP. (See 3.34pm.)
SNP says it would 'never prop up Tory administration', and criticises Labour/Tory cooperation in some Scottish councils
The SNP says it would never support a minority Tory government. Responding to Labour urging Rishi Sunak to rule out a pact with the SNP (see 3.34pm), Mhairi Black, the SNP’s deputy leader at Westminster, said:
By talking up the prospect of Tory coalitions, bungling Ian Murray has unwittingly admitted the UK is on course for a hung parliament, contradicting Keir Starmer, and making a spectacular boomerang attack on his own Tory-backing party.
Unlike the pro-Brexit Labour party, the SNP would never prop up a Tory administration. Under Keir Starmer, the Labour party has lurched so far to the right that they’ve got into bed with the Tories in councils across Scotland. These sleazy Tory-Labour pacts must end now.
Updated
During PMQs the Labour MP Julie Elliott asked a very short, and specific, question about Teesworks, an industrial zoone that is part of the Teesside freeport. She asked:
Has the prime minister or any of his ministers given commitments to BP, Equinor or any other company about contracts at the Teesworks site?
Rishi Sunak gave a very short answer. He told Elliott:
Contracts at the site will be a commercial matter for the companies involved.
It was not clear what Elliott was suggested, but Ben Houchen, the Conservative Tees Valley mayor and a huge supporter of the Teesside free port, has been tweeting this afternoon defending the project.
Recently there were also lies propagated by Private Eye who suggested we had sold a ‘valuable’ piece of land for £100. This is untrue. The truth is that a deal with SeAH Wind, that will create 2000+ jobs,will return £40m+ to the public purse and £7m pa for 40yrs in business rates https://t.co/cF96221LNp
— Ben Houchen (@BenHouchen) May 10, 2023
For example, please see the link on investment secured for the site and how had Teesworks not been created the taxpayer would be on the hook for hundreds of millions of pounds. Teesworks has saved the taxpayer £1 a second since 2015 & into the future 👇 https://t.co/g7Rh0w5oKw
— Ben Houchen (@BenHouchen) May 10, 2023
Union leaders claim Badenoch's plan to cut red tape amounts to attack on workers' rights
Union leaders claim that workers’ rights will be undermined by the package of deregulatory measures announced this afternoon, which the Department for Business and Trade claims will save employers around £1bn a year.
Paul Nowak, the general secretary of the TUC, said:
People are already working all hours to make ends meet.
Paid holiday and safety measures like rest breaks and limits on excessive hours are all fundamental protections – not a nice-to-have.
This is a recipe for low-paid, burnt-out Britain. Yet this Conservative government was elected on a promise to make this country the best place in the world to work.
Ross Holden, GMB research and policy officer, said:
This is the latest attack on working people by the Tories, who have long wanted to turn the clock back on our hard-fought rights.
This isn’t about removing ‘red-tape’ – it’s about removing our rights to come home from work safe, to go to work rested and to have proper time off to spend with our families.
And Christina McAnea, the Unison general secretary, said:
Ditching measures that keep workplaces safe and ensure staff are treated fairly is not a recipe to grow the economy, nor level up disadvantaged communities.
Workers were promised a better deal following Brexit. This is anything but. It’s nothing less than an open invitation to underhand employers to exploit and mistreat as they see fit.
Updated
Labour has described the announcement about the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill (see 4.15pm) as a “humiliating U-turn”. This is from Jenny Chapman, a shadow Cabinet Office minister in the Lords.
This is a humiliating u-turn from a weak and divided government with no clue how to grow our economy, protect workers, support business or build a better Britain outside the EU.
After wasting months of parliamentary time, the Tories have conceded that this universally unpopular bill will damage the economy, at a time when businesses and families are already struggling with the Tory cost of living crisis. They are now trying to adopt some of Labour’s amendments to try and rescue this sinking ship of a bill.
Badenoch confirms she is dropping Rees-Mogg's deadline for all retained EU law to lapse by end of 2023
The government has confirmed that it has abandoned the plan in the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill for all EU law still on the statute book to lapse at the end of 2023.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, who was business secretary when the bill was introduced, included the deadline even though most experts thought it was totally unrealistic to expect officials to review around 4,000 laws by the end of this year. The bill said EU regulations would no longer apply unless ministers took a deliberate decision to retain or revise them.
Last month it emerged that Kemi Badenoch, who is now business and trade secretary, was abandoning the Rees-Mogg deadline. This afternoon that has been been confirmed. In a news release the Department for Trade and Business says:
Our retained EU law bill, which is currently passing through parliament, will end the special status of retained EU law (REUL) by the end of 2023 ensuring that, for the first time in a generation, the UK’s statute book will not include reference to the supremacy of EU law or EU legal principles.
We have the unique opportunity to look again at these regulations and decide if they’re right for our economy, if we can scrap them, or if we can reform and improve them and help spur economic growth.
To ensure that government can focus on delivering more reform of REUL, to a faster timetable, we are amending the REUL bill to be clear which laws we intend to revoke at the end of this year. This will also provide certainty to business by making clear which regulations will be removed from our statute book.
The department confirmed the climbdown as part of an announcement about a series of deregulatory measures that it says could save employers around £1bn a year.
Plaid Cymru leader Adam Price’s future in doubt after damning report
Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, is understood to be considering his future after a damning review found his party had failed to “detoxify” its culture, Aletha Adu reports.
In the Lords the debate on the illegal migration bill has just resumed. Norman Lamont, the Conservative former chancellor, is speaking now. He is supporting the legislation.
Labour taunts Sunak by criticising him for refusing to rule out 'grubby deal with SNP'
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing Rishi Sunak’s press secretary refused to rule out a post-election pact with with DUP, or any other party. (See 2.45pm.) In a press release drafted as an audacious parody, Labour is now attacking Sunak for refusing to rule out a deal with the SNP.
Ian Murray, the shadow Scottish secretary, said:
Rishi Sunak’s refusal to rule out a grubby deal with the SNP is a sign of his desperation to cling to power. A repeat of the Tory-Nat coalition previously seen in Scotland would wreck the UK, putting the very foundations of our country at risk.
Under Keir Starmer and Anas Sarwar’s leadership, Labour has said repeatedly we wouldn’t do any deal with those who want to break up our country. The Tories must now urgently follow Labour’s example.
In one respect, this is pure tosh. As Alex Salmond might have put it, rocks will probably melt in the sun before the SNP forms a coalition with the Tories.
(That said, the SNP did vote against Labour in the 1979 no confidence vote that led to the election that put Margaret Thatcher in to power, and there might the odd English nationalist in the Conservative party who would be happy to see Scotland go independent, so that Tories can dominate what remains of the UK. But the idea of Sunak pushing that is so improbable as to be fantasy.)
And yet this line of attack is also clever, because it turns what in 2015 was an effective argument against Ed Miliband (that he would be reliant on the support of SNP MPs, creating a “coalition of chaos”) into something that is now material for a Westminster joke.
And it highlights the fact that Starmer actually has, repeatedly, ruled out a deal with the SNP.
Updated
In the House of Lords peers have just resumed proceedings after a break for lunch. They are taking questions, and then the debate on the illegal migration bill will resume.
Here are extracts from some of the speeches in the debate before the lunch break.
From Labour’s Lord Dubs, who was brought to the UK as a child refugee on the Kindertransport in 1939:
It is fundamental to the reputation of this country that indeed we take a clear stand on human rights, we set standards – and for a long time, the world has followed us …
[If the UK does not uphold refugee law] notorious abusers of human rights will simply say: ‘Well, if the United Kingdom doesn’t do it, why should we?’
From the Right Rev Paul Butler, the bishop of Durham:
The state will view a child or a pregnant woman first and foremost as individuals subject to immigration control, not as an innocent child or a vulnerable mother due to give birth.
We need to ask: what about the government’s duty to protect?
I am reminded of Jesus’s words: it would be better to have a millstone around the neck and be cast into the sea than to cause a little one to stumble. This responsibility needs to bear upon us heavily.
Michael Howard, the former Conservative party leader, backed the bill, saying the European coourt of human rights (ECHR) ruling that grounded flights to Rwanda was “contrary to all the rules of natural justice”, adding that the bill was a “commendably moderate” response to it.
From Michael Dobbs, the writer and Tory peer:
It is our moral obligation to stop them, to bring an end to the unimaginable pain of mothers and fathers watching their children drowning off our shores in the Channel. No amount of hand-wringing or bell-ringing is going to do that …
I can’t quite get my mind around the ethical nature of this bizarre proposition that unelected parliamentarians should without any real discussion destroy a bill that has been passed by our elected House of Commons.
Updated
Archbishop of Canterbury 'wrong on both counts' in speech condemning illegal migration bill, says Jenrick
Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, has said that Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, was “wrong on both counts” in what he said about the illegal immigration bill in his speech in the Lords. (See 12pm and 1.18pm.)
Welby made many critcisms of the bill, but Jenrick was referring to the claim it was “morally unacceptable and politically impractical”. Asked to respond, he told the World at One:
Well, he’s wrong on both counts.
Firstly there’s nothing moral about allowing the pernicious trade of people smugglers to continue … I disagree with him respectfully.
By bringing forward this proposal we make it clear that if you come across illegally on a small boat you will not find a route to life in the UK. That will have a serious deterrent effect.
The full text of Welby’s speech to the Lords is now available on his website.
Updated
No 10 refuses to rule out Tory pact with DUP or another party after election
The Tories have been trying to attack Keir Starmer on the basis that, if he does not win an outright majority at the next election, he might have to form a pact with the Liberal Democrats. But at the post-PMQs lobby briefing Rishi Sunak’s press secretary refused to rule out a coalition with the DUP, or other parties, after the election. She said:
I don’t think anyone at this stage is going to speculate on the results of the next election. The prime minister is fully committed to and focused on delivering his five priorities and that’s what we’re going to do to get a Conservative majority.
Asked if Sunak accepted responsibility for the Tory losses in the local elections, she replied:
What the prime minister does accept responsibility for is delivering his five priorities.
No 10 confirms Sunak does not agree with Tory deputy chair Lee Anderson's call for republicans to leave UK
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing Downing Street refused to endorse a tweet from Lee Anderson, the Conservative party deputy chair, at the weekend suggesting people opposed to the monarchy should leave the country.
Not My King?
— Lee Anderson MP (@LeeAndersonMP_) May 6, 2023
If you do not wish to live in a country that has a monarchy the solution is not to turn up with your silly boards.
The solution is to emigrate.https://t.co/G7CIU55YO6
It was hardly a slap-down, or even a proper rebuke, but at least No 10 said Rishi Sunak did not think the same way. Asked if Sunak agreed with Anderson, the PM’s press secretary said:
It’s not something that the prime minister has expressed.
I think all members of the Conservative party believe in the right to protest.
UPDATE: Adam Bienkov from Byline Times has the transcript of the full exchange.
How Rishi Sunak's spokesperson responded today when asked whether the Prime Minister agrees with his Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson that republican protestors should leave the country. pic.twitter.com/asde5fwmJu
— Adam Bienkov (@AdamBienkov) May 10, 2023
Updated
At PMQs Rishi Sunak claimed at one point that there was a £90bn black hole in Labour’s financial plans. Full Fact, the factchecking organisation, has looked at this Tory claim in the past, and it says it is not reliable.
At #PMQs, Rishi Sunak claimed Labour has a “£90 billion black hole” in its plans.
— Full Fact (@FullFact) May 10, 2023
We looked into this claim back in March, and found it’s not a reliable estimate for what a Labour government would actually mean for public finances. (1/2) https://t.co/eX0hx6xq5Y
The Conservatives calculated the £90 billion figure using a mix of annual and one-off costs, and some of the individual policy costings appeared to be out of date.
— Full Fact (@FullFact) May 10, 2023
It’s also unclear if Labour still plans to implement all the policies included in the calculation. (2/2)
Indian students in the UK are increasingly facing labour exploitation in the care sector, MPs have been warned.
Elysia McCaffrey, chief executive of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority which has a remit to protect vulnerable and exploited workers, has told MPs on the Commons home affairs committee today that her organisation is seeing an increase in reports of abuse and exploitation of migrant care home workers, particularly female students from India. She said:
Workers come from India, women are coming on student visas. They’re recruited by care agencies who are forcing them to work longer hours and to stay in really squalid conditions. It’s becoming a growing issue.
People who are in the UK on student visas are allowed to work for a maximum of 20 hours but if they work for longer than that they are in breach of their visa conditions and could be deported so are reluctant to report this exploitation. GLAA is conducting a joint operation with the Care Quality Commission to bring prosecutions in this area.
DfE should be clear teachers' pay offer fully funded nationally, not necessarily school by school, statistics chief says
The Department for Education has been told by the Office for Statistics Regulation to avoid misinterpretation over statements by the department and the education secretary, Gillian Keegan, that its recent pay offer to teachers was “fully funded” from school budgets.
Ed Humpherson, the director general for statistics regulation, said while the DfE was accurate in saying the pay offer was fully funded at a national level, it was not making clear in public statements that the pay increase would leave individual schools in financial difficulties.
In a letter to the DfE Humpherson said:
We acknowledge that some users may interpret fully funded to refer to the individual school level. In the light of this difference of interpretation, it is important that the Department for Education continues to support understanding by being clear about its use of the term fully funded.
Recent comments by the DfE have included claims such as: “Was the pay offer fully funded? Yes – schools would have been fully funded to meet the costs of the offer.”
The regulator’s statement followed complaints by the National Education Union. Kevin Courtney, the NEU’s joint general secretary, said:
It is now very important that Gillian Keegan begins to understand and articulate the reality of school funding. Schools are not funded on a national average. The majority of schools will not be able to afford even a 4.5% pay rise without making cuts to provision.
UPDATE: A Department for Education spokesperson said:
We made a pay offer to unions that was fair, reasonable, and recognised teachers’ hard work. As per our published calculations, the pay offer would also have been fully funded, and we welcome the Office for Statistics’ recognition that we have communicated this transparently.
Updated
Former Tory MP Andrew Bridgen has been condemned over comments he made at a press conference announcing that he was joining the fringe Reclaim party. Bridgen said: “It’s almost as if our parliament is working for another master, because it certainly is not serving the people of this country.”
The charity Hope Not Hate said:
These words are conspiracy-laden, fuelling ideas of shadowy elites controlling politics from afar.
Bridgen also resisted calls for a byelection. Amanda Hack, a Leicestershire councillor and Labour’s candidate in North West Leicestershire, said: “If he wants to try his luck as Britain’s first-ever Reclaim MP that’s fine, but the choice should not be down to him.”
The Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper has also called for a byelection, saying:
Andrew Bridgen and his misinformation have absolutely no place in the House of Commons and now his defection to a failed fringe political party cements it.
Updated
PMQs – snap verdict
That wasn’t a debate, or even proper political exchange; it was just a victory lap. Buoyed up by a performance near the top end of Labour’s expectations, Keir Starmer used all his six questions to taunt Sunak and ridicule the weakness of the Conservatives. It was effective, and sometimes very funny.
One of Sunak’s main achievements as prime minister has been try an approach never managed by his predecessor; not being useless. But, using rhetoric that in some respects is similar to what the late John Smith used to say about John Major after Black Wednesday, Starmer is trying hard to plaster Sunak with the label of uselessness. Here was his opening question:
This time last week the prime minister had to correct the record on misleading claims he made about employment numbers. Can he provide a further update now he’s cost a thousand Tory councillors their jobs?
Here is question two.
The prime minister said he was going to lose a thousand seats and then he managed it. After 13 years, a Tory promise they actually haven’t broken. And this is the prime minister who has only had to fight for two things in his life.
Last year he lost a Tory beauty contest to [Liz Truss] who then lost to a lettuce. Last week, when he finally came into contact with voters, he lost everywhere.
No matter who the electorate is, the prime minister keeps entering a two-horse race and somehow finishing third.
And he ended with this.
How does he think the Tories can possibly provide the answers Britain needs when the whole country has already told him: they are the problem, not the solution.
For pithy soundbites that depict your opponent as hapless, these are hard to fault. Perhaps it was just too easy. There is an argument that, after you have routed your enemy, instead of holding a victory parade, that should be the moment to march on their capital. Starmer could have spent the afternoon duffing Sunak up over, say, his latest broken promise on hospital waiting lists. But no one in the Labour party is likely to complain much that he didn’t.
Sunak was left having to suck it up. He deployed the full set of Tory attack lines – or almost the full set; we had U-turns, “no policies”, black hole in the accounts, Labour’s record in government, backing strikes, but nothing on knowing what a woman is – but none of them had much traction, and they bounced off Starmer without causing damage.
On the plus side, Sunak has a remarkable ability to sound positive and cheery even when he is arguing the weakest possible case. In some respects this is an endearing trait. But does he really think it’s all not that bad? And is he actually like this in private?
One of his problems is that the attack material he is using against Starmer is tired and threadbare. It is surprising that someone in CCHQ hasn’t dredged up something more novel and nasty. Perhaps it is only a matter of time before they do.
Updated
Extracts from Justin Welby's speech to peers condemnding illegal migration bill
International protections for refugees are “not inconvenient obstructions to get round by any legislative means necessary”, the archbishop of Canterbury said as he lambasted the government’s plans to tackle the small boats crisis.
As PA Media reports, in a withering attack on the illegal migration bill, Justin Welby argued it risked “great damage” to the UK’s reputation at home and abroad and said it was “morally unacceptable” to leave the poorest countries to deal with the migration crisis. Welby said:
We need a bill to reform migration.
We need a bill to stop the boats.
We need a bill to destroy the evil tribe of traffickers.
The tragedy is that without much change this is not that bill.
This bill fails to take a long-term and strategic view of the challenges of migration and undermines international co-operation rather than taking an opportunity for the UK to show leadership.
Highlighting the existing global agreements on refugees, Welby said:
While now inadequate, what those conventions offer is a baseline from which to build a globally shared understanding of what protection must be given to refugees.
They are not inconvenient obstructions to get round by any legislative means necessary.
Even if this bill succeeded in temporarily stopping the boats, and I don’t think it will, it won’t stop conflict or climate migration.
Of course we cannot take everyone and nor should we, but this bill has no sense at all of the long-term and the global nature of the challenge that the world faces.
It ignores the reality that migration must be engaged with at source as well as in the channel.
As if we as a country were unrelated to the rest of the world.
It is isolationist, it is morally unacceptable and politically impractical to let the poorest countries deal with the crisis alone and cut our international aid.
This bill is an attempt at a short-term fix.
It risks great damage to the UK’s interests and reputation at home and abroad, let alone the interests of those in need of protection or the nations who together face this challenge.
Our interests as a nation are closely linked to our reputation for justice and the rule of law and to our measured language, calm decision and careful legislation.
None of those are seen here.
This nation should lead internationally, not stand apart.
While he agreed with the “sentiment” of a Liberal Democrat attempt to block the legislation, Welby said: “It is our duty to change, not to throw out the bill.”
Welby added:
I urge the government to reconsider much of the bill, which fails to live up to our history, our moral responsibility and our political and international interests.
Updated
This is from my colleague Pippa Crerar, with the report of a Rachel Reeves heckle during PMQs. (She was heckling her own leader, but the point was directed at Rishi Sunak.)
Keir Starmer says Rishi Sunak must "finally have met some working people in recent weeks..."
— Pippa Crerar (@PippaCrerar) May 10, 2023
Rachel Reeves shouts out: "I doubt it! On the helicopter?"
A proper old-school #PMQs ding-dong today.
Updated
Stella Creasy (Lab) says on Friday a young man was murdered in her constituency. Yesterday a 16-year-old was charged with the attack. Children are frightened to go to school, parents don’t want to let them, and teachers are at their wits’ end. They asked her to ask Sunak to make tackling youth crime a priority.
Sunak says we should do everything possible to tackle this. He says knife crime has fallen, because the police have been given more powers. But there is always more that can be done, he says.
Updated
John Spellar (Lab) says dozens of Sudanese doctors working in the NHS were stranded in Sudan. MPs were told it was up to Sunak to take a decision about bringing them back. Is that because Sunak is a micromanager, or were his ministers not up to the job?
Sunak says organising that evactuation was not at all straightforward. It was important to move carefully, to ensure people were kept safe.
Alison Thewliss (SNP) asks what the government will do to ensure that energy support for people with pre-payment meters is actually paid out.
Sunak says the government has made efforts to ensure people are aware of these schemes. He will ensure that effort continues.
Updated
Sir John Hayes (Con) asks if the government will review the local government and police funding formula so Lincolnshire gets more.
Sunak accepts rural areas can have higher costs. He says he will ensure Hayes gets a ministerial meeting on this.
Stephen Morgan (Lab) asks why losing 1,000 councillors is the only promise he has kept.
Sunak asks if Morgan is happy about all Starmer’s U-turns.
Alberto Costa (Con) asks if the PM will support his 10-minute-rule bill to address plastic pollution.
Sunak says filters on washing machines, of the kind proposed by the Costa bill, can be costly to install.
Sunak claims Starmer says Labour in Wales is his blueprint for how he would govern. But all it does is provide higher bills, he says.
Carolyn Harris (Lab) says prolonged poverty is causing shame and mental health problems for young people. What is the PM doing about this?
Sunak says there are more than a million fewer people living in poverty now than in 2010. The government does provide support for vulnerable families, he says.
Updated
Rehman Chishti (Con) asks if the UK will consider sending observers to the trial of Imran Khan in Pakistan.
Sunak says this is a matter for Pakistan, but the UK is monitoring the situation.
Updated
Sunak urges government to rethink its highly protected marine areas plan
Jamie Stone (Lib Dem) asks if Sunak saw a former Scottish govenrment minister ripping up the Scottish government’s highly protected marine areas plan. It is very damaging, he says. He asks the UK government to intervene to produce an acceptable plan.
Sunak says this is a concern. Since the Scottish government has U-turned on other controversial plans, he says he hopes it will do so on this one too.
UPDATE: Stone said:
This proposal is deeply controversial all over Scotland, and has even led to it being compared with a second Highland Clearances.
Is it not time the UK government step in, work with the devolved administrations to come up with… a conservation scheme that is acceptable in our fishing communities all round the UK?
Sunak replied:
[Stone is] right to highlight the concerns that have been raised not just by them but by members of the SNP’s own party about the potentially damaging impact of their plans to introduce the highly protected marine areas in the way that they are.
I would encourage the SNP government to continue working with the Scottish fishing industry and coastal communities to understand their concerns.
And as we’ve seen them recently U-turn on other poor-thought-out decisions, hopefully they can relook at this one too.
Updated
John McNally (SNP) asks if Sunak has considered some equivalent of the ‘Eat out to help out’ scheme to help shops hit by online competition.
Sunak says the government has programmes in place to help the high street.
Matt Warman (Con) asks if Sunak agrees that AI carries risk, and that it would be best to work with allies to contain them.
Sunak agrees. He says AI presents opportunities. But the UK and other countries must work on “appropriate guardrails”.
Alan Smyth (SNP) asks about plans for a decontamination project in Stirling.
Sunak says he will ensure Smyth gets a ministerial meeting on this.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, says Sunak has said his daughter is the climate change champion in his house. What does she think of the proposed Rosebank development? Will he approve it?
Sunak says, while the UK is transitioning, it makes no sense not to exploit oil and gas in the UK, and to import supplies instead. That is economically illiterate, he says.
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says last week many Tory voters turned to the Lib Dems to be their champions. They want clean water. He says water bosses have been given bonuses. But three of them have turned down those bonuses. Will the PM stop all water industry bonuses?
Sunak says he could not hear the whole question, but he says it does not matter. The Lib Dems say one thing in one place, and another in another. No wonder he likes Starmer.
Political opportunism and a broken promise on tuition fees – it must be like looking in the mirror.
Updated
Simon Fell (Con) asks about the Aukus submarine programme, and the contribution from Barrow.
Sunak says the programme will create thousands of new jobs.
Updated
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader, says, if Sunak were to go to his Land Rover and pull out placards saying “Save our non-doms”, would he expect to be arrested?
Sunak says he supports the police having these powers. Flynn is opposed. But what does Starmer think?
Flynn says workers who go on strike hold protests. They do so because it is a fundamental right. Is the PM really saying people can only have these rights on his terms?
Sunak says people should have the right to go about their ordinary lives without being disrupted.
Updated
Starmer says Sunak is pretending the country is doing fine, while he has given it 24 tax rises. He says the Tories are not the solution, but the problem.
Sunak says we all say silly things when we are young. (He is referring to his quote, as a student, about not having working class friends.) But Starmer favoured abolishing the monarchy in his 40s. He says, while Starmer is plotting coalitions, the Tories are getting on with delivering for the people.
Starmer says Sunak must have met some working people recently. Did any of them back protecting non-dom status?
Sunak says Alistair Darling, the former Labour chancellor, recently said Labour’s plans would discourage people from coming to the UK.
Starmer says Labour would give every council the grant it needs to freeze council tax, funded by a windfall tax.
Sunak says the “coffers were totally empty” when Labour left office. They wanted a longer lockdown. And now they back unions on strike. Even in opposition they are damaging the economy, he says.
Starmer urges Sunak to freeze council tax bills.
Sunak says we will see if new Labour councils do that. The shadow chancellor recently said she had to explain “where the money is going to come from”. With a £90bn black hole in their plans, she has a lot of work to do, he says.
Starmer says Sunak has only lost two things in his life – a beauty contest with Liz Truss last year, before Truss lost to a lettuce, and then the locals.
Sunak says Starmer keeps performing U-turns. He is not just Sir Softy, he is flaky too.
Keir Starmer says last week Sunak had to correct the record on employment numbers. Can he provide an update now 1,000 Tory councillors have lost their jobs?
Sunak quotes Tony Blair, saying Starmer can be as cocky as he likes about the local elections, but at general elections policy counts. Starmer does not have any, he says.
Updated
Gagan Mohindra (Con) asks Sunak to condemn the plans to extend the Ulez zone in London.
Sunak says he opposes this. But Keir Starmer backs what the Labour mayor of London is doing, he says.
Updated
Clive Lewis (Lab) asks about a constituent who had to pull out 18 of his own teeth. Does the PM agree the situation will only approve when this rotten government is replaced.
Sunak says he is sorry to hear about the case. He says there are 500 more NHS dentists.
Back in the Commons, Rishi Sunak starts with the usual spiel about having ministerial meetings today.
Welby tells peers that he agrees with the sentiment of the Paddick amendment. But he says he agrees with Labour’s Vernon Coaker that it is the duty of peers to change, not throw out, the bill.
Archbishop of Canterbury condemns illegal migration bill as 'morally unacceptable and politically impractical'
Back in the House of Lords Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, is now speaking.
He says international rules on the protection of refugees are not inconvenient obstructions to be got round by governments.
Even if this bill were to stop the boats, which Welby says he does not think likely, it will not stop climate change, or international conflict.
The UNHCR has warned this could lead to the collapse of the international system for protecting refugees. “Is that we want?”
Welby says the UK cannot take all refugees. But it ignores the need to address the problem of refugees. He goes on:
It is isolationalist, it morally unacceptable, and politically impractical, to let the poorest countries deal with [the refugee crisis] alone.
Updated
PMQs is starting shortly.
Here is the lists of MPs down to ask a question.
Updated
Labour says it will not block migration bill tonight because No 10 would pass it, without amendments, using Parliament Act
Vernon Coaker, a shadow home affairs minister, is now speaking for Labour.
He starts by confirming that Labour will not vote for the Paddick amendment, that would vote down the bill tonight. He explains:
We understand why the amendment has been put and we know it sounds attractive. But if we did [vote down the bill], all that would happen is the government would use the Parliament Act [which would allow it to pass the bill despite the Lords voting it down].
Coaker said, if that happened, the Lords would lose the option of being able to amend the bill. He said Labour would be proposing amendments, and urging the government to “think again”.
He also insisted opposition peers would not be “intimidated” by constitutional arguments from Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Alex Chalk, the justice secretary “into giving the bill an easy ride”. Peers would not rush the bill through the Lords, he said.
Updated
Illegal migration bill 'a low point in history of this government', says Lord Paddick
Paddick says the bill will undermine the Human Rights Act.
And yet at the same time the UK is asking Russia and other states to obey international law.
Paddick says, when he studied moral philosophy at university, a key moral test for an action was, what would happen if everyone did it. He asks what what would happen if all countries adopted this approach to asylum seekers.
He ends by saying: “This bill is a low point in the history of this government.”
Updated
Paddick asks what evidence there is that the bill will deter people from coming to the UK to claim asylum.
He says that, in her Times article this morning, Suella Braverman, the home secretary, says the public want to see immigration controlled.
But he says a recent Telegraph article said that over the past year 1.37 million people have been given visas to come to the UK. Over the same period, 45,000 people crossed the Channel. That is just 3% of the total, he says.
If the government really thinks people want immigration controlled, why is it passing legislation that would affect just three in every 100 long-term arrivals, he asks.
Updated
Lord Paddick, the former police officer and Lib Dem peer, is now speaking to propose his amendment. It sets out five reasons why the bill should be shelved.
In the Lords Murray is now winding up. He was mostly heard in silence – in the Lords they don’t go in for Commons-style hooligan shouting – but, when he insisted that Britain was a “welcoming, compassionate and generous nation”, there was some jeering from peers who feel the bill shows the opposite.
UPDATE: Murray said:
Ours is a welcoming, compassionate and generous nation. We have offered our homes and communities to nearly half a million people seeking protection since 2015. We have safe and legal routes available to people from any country in the world.
We simply cannot continue with a situation whereby year-on-year tens of thousands of people make the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journey across the channel in circumvention of our immigration controls.
Illegal migration is not fair and it is not right. And it is not fair on the British communities whose public services and housing are under pressure. It is not fair on those who work hard and obey the law to come to the UK through established routes. And it is not fair on the people travelling in the small boats themselves who are placed in peril at the hands of the people smugglers.
We must stop the boats. This bill in conjunction with the other steps the government is taking is a necessary, urgent and indeed compassionate response to the daily challenge posed to the intergrity of our immigration system. We must act now.
Updated
Peers start debate on illegal migration bill
In the House of Lords peers are just starting to debate the second reading of the illegal migration bill.
Simon Murray, aka Lord Murray of Blidworth, is opening the debate. He is a lawyer who was made a Home Office minister, and a peer, when Liz Truss was PM.
You can watch the debate here.
Murray is just setting out what the bill would do in relatively neutral terms. He has not said anything new or unusual yet.
The next speaker, according to the speakers’s list, is Lord Paddick, the Lib Dem peer who has tabled an amendment that would kill the bill.
Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, is fifth on the list. That means he may be up before PMQs.
Updated
Number of families in England living in temporary accommodation passes 100,000 for first time in 18 years
The number of families living in temporary homes in England has broken the 100,000 mark for the first time in 18 years, government figures have revealed.
It means some 127,000 children are living in uncertain housing such as bed and breakfasts and hostels, often a long way from their original home.
The number of families in temporary housing is now more than double the amount in 2010 and 2011.
In the last year nearly 20,000 families went to councils after being served a no-fault eviction notice by their landlord and were judged to be owed a homelessness duty.
John Glenton, executive director of Riverside Care and Support, a provider of accommodation for people affected by homelessness, said the figures were “very worrying”. He said:
We now face a perfect storm of factors driving more people into homelessness while giving us fewer good options to help them when they do. These factors include soaring private rents (above the benefit cap), private landlords leaving the sector, a national shortage of affordable housing, and a backlog of court cases after Covid-relating housing support was removed. At the same time, we have a cost-of-living crisis which is reducing real-term incomes and putting further strain on relationships.
The figures come as there has been a fresh delay to plans by Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, to ban no-fault evictions. The renters reform bill, which is expected to deliver the change, is now due to be tabled in parliament in the next couple of weeks.
Updated
Andrew Bridgen joins Laurence Fox's Reclaim party
Andrew Bridgen, the MP expelled from the Conservative party after comparing the results of the Covid vaccination programme to the impact of the Holocaust, has jointed the rightwing Reclaim party.
At a news conference announcing his move, the North West Leicestershire MP said:
There is a huge chasm now between our parliament and what goes on in Westminster and the people.
He also said he was joining the party set up by the actor Laurence Fox because “they respect free speech as the basis for every aspect of our democracy and our society”.
Fox told the same event that his party would not put up 650 candidates at the next election, but that it would target “problematic” MPs.
Updated
DfT claims new law allowing lorries to be 2 metres longer will boost economy by £1.4bn
The government is introducing legislation to allow longer lorries on the roads. In its news release, the Department for Transport says this will help to grow the economy because it will “boost productivity, slash road emissions and support supply chains”. The DfT says:
These new lorries will move the same volume of goods, but will use 8% fewer journeys than current trailers. This will generate an expected £1.4bn in economic benefits and take one standard-size trailer off the road for every 12 trips.
As part of efforts to grow the economy and cut emissions, government is changing regulations to allow longer trailers on GB roads, which it estimates will save 70,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide from being released into the atmosphere.
These longer trailers, known as longer semi-trailers (LST) measure up to 2.05 metres longer than a standard semi-trailer and can be towed by a lorry.
The move follows an 11-year trial to ensure LSTs are used safely on roads, and operators will be encouraged to put extra safety checks and training in place. The trial demonstrated that LSTs were involved in around 61% fewer personal injury collisions than conventional lorries.
Updated
174 human rights groups and charities urge Sunak to shelve illegal migration bill, saying it's 'effectively ban on asylum'
An open letter has been published this morning, signed by representatives from 174 human rights organisations, civil society groups and charities, calling for the illegal migration bill to be shelved. Organised by Liberty, it says the bill is “effectively a ban on asylum”.
The full text of the letter, and the names of all 174 signatories, are here. And here is an extract.
The bill is effectively a ban on asylum, extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom. It will put people seeking safety and a better life at risk of irreversible harm, with life and death consequences.
This bill attacks the very core of human rights, which is the fundamental belief that we all have human rights regardless of who we are or where we are from. Instead, it separates people into categories of ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’ of human rights. In stripping the most basic rights from people seeking safety and a better life, the bill dismantles human rights protections for all of us.
The bill deliberately and unacceptably excludes an entire category of people from the protections guaranteed under our domestic laws and international obligations.
It will almost certainly breach multiple international conventions and agreements, including the UN refugee convention, the European convention on human rights (ECHR), and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings (ECAT).
The government has acknowledged that it cannot guarantee the bill will be compatible with the ECHR, a legally binding instrument. The convention represents the rights and values that we hold dear, including the right to life, protection from slavery and torture, and the right to liberty, which are all threatened by this bill.
BREAKING
— Liberty (@libertyhq) May 10, 2023
174 organisations representing human rights, migrants and refugees, anti-slavery, women, LGBTQI+ folk and disabled people call for MPs and House of Lords to demand the Government ditch its shockingly cruel and shameful Migration Bill#StopTheBill pic.twitter.com/TRyZE3UbD9
Sunak defends campaigning on 'woke' themes, saying these are not 'niche issues that should be avoided'
In recent PMQs Rishi Sunak has been using “culture war” issues against Keir Starmer, for example saying two weeks ago that Starmer’s record on women is “questionable at best”. Labour used to act paralysed in the face of these attacks (it was as if they were not entirely sure what to say), but now they are a bit more confident responding, in part because they have concluded this line of attack is a sign of weakness.
Starmer made this point to his shadow cabinet yesterday. In a briefing issued in advance, Labour said he thinks “the Tories have made a big strategic blunder in believing that ‘woke’ issues are more salient to voters than the cost of living and the NHS”. Starmer told his team:
The NHS trumps ‘woke’ every day of the week.
Yesterday Sunak responded in an interview with Jason Groves from the Daily Mail that has been published this morning. Sunak “vowed to stand up for the quiet majority against ‘woke’ attempts to downgrade women’s rights and British history”, Groves reported in his intro. And he quoted Sunak saying:
I don’t think these are niche issues that should be avoided. I think they are issues that people would expect their prime minister and their politicians to have a view on and to address and that’s what I’m doing …
When it comes to the issue of women’s rights, I do think that it’s important... making sure that we protect women’s safety and women’s rights is important, whilst also of course, having compassion and tolerance and understanding for those who are questioning their gender.
The problem with Sunak’s response, though, is that Starmer was not saying that ‘woke’ issues don’t matter; he was just saying that issues like the cost of living, and the NHS, matter to voters a lot more. This is what polling shows too, and in his interview Sunak did not really challenge that.
Updated
Labour chooses candidate for expected byelection in Rutherglen and Hamilton West
A Labour activist who quit the party over its stance on Brexit four years ago but then rejoined has been selected as Scottish Labour’s candidate for the expected byelection in Margaret Ferrier’s seat of Rutherglen and Hamilton West.
Michael Shanks, 35, a modern studies teacher who lives in the constituency, was chosen by branch members last night from a shortlist of candidates chosen by a Scottish Labour selection panel.
Shanks previously stood for Westminster in Glasgow North West in the 2017 general election, and worked at the Scottish parliament as a party aide.
The selection process sparked complaints from the local party after several well-liked local candidates were not chosen. The Scottish executive has exercised very tight control over Westminster selections, leading to sporadic complaints from the pro-Corbyn left.
Buoyed by last week’s English council results, Scottish Labour is optimistic it can capitalise on the Scottish National party’s multiple crises and Nicola Sturgeon’s resignation. Recent polls show Labour only a few points behind the SNP on both Westminster and Holyrood elections.
Shanks said:
The people of this area have been failed by an out of touch SNP MP and have been left without a voice at Westminster. My campaign will champion the people here - so that together we can deliver the change this community badly needs.
MPs are waiting for the Commons standards committee to hear Ferrier’s appeal against its decision to suspend her for 30 days after she was convicted of unlawfully travelling with Covid in 2020. An MP’s suspension for 10 days or more triggers a recall petition.
Labour has already been campaigning hard in Rutherglen, to build up momentum behind the recall petition.
Updated
These are from Jenny Jones, the Green party peer, on the Lords debate on the illegal migration bill.
More about today in the Lords ... We will debate the #IllegalMigration Bill. There's 87 peers signed up to speak for 6 mins each - that shows the depth of concern - the Govt has chosen to cram it into one day instead of a sensible 2 days. And we have to attend most of the debate.
— Jenny Jones (@GreenJennyJones) May 10, 2023
We start at 11am, lunch break 2-3pm, then on to (at least) 10pm. At the end, @brianpaddick will propose a Fatal Motion, which in essence says, Let's Throw This Out Now. If the vote is won, the Bill is stopped. However it's unlikely to be won as Labour is abstaining on the vote.
— Jenny Jones (@GreenJennyJones) May 10, 2023
Labour will argue (I think) that the Bill must be gutted rather than thrown out. I don't quite understand the value of that, with such a nasty Bill, but I will listen to their arguments. However, I will vote for the Fatal Motion as *improving* the Bill = tidying a pile of sick.
— Jenny Jones (@GreenJennyJones) May 10, 2023
Anti-monarchy arrests at coronation to be scrutinised by MPs
The arrest of anti-monarchy protesters at the coronation and intimidatory Home Office warnings to campaigners before the event are to be scrutinised by the Commons home affairs committee, its chair, Diana Johnson, has said. Matthew Weaver has the story here.
Ministers prepare for House of Lords to debate illegal migration bill as PMQs takes place
Good morning. Rishi Sunak will take prime minister’s questions for the first time today since his party suffered huge losses in the local elections. Normally, when a governing party faces defeat on a scale like this, there is some form of public backlash from MPs against the leadership. But this time backbenchers have been largely keeping quiet, and the most outspoken Tory critical of Sunak has been David Campbell Bannerman, a former Conservative MEP who used to be in Ukip. (If Sunak were in real trouble, no one would even know what Campbell Bannerman thought, because journalists would be quoting much more prominent figures instead.) At PMQs we will see whether support for Sunak is holding, or whether some of his MPs are starting to speak out.
As PMQs is taking place, peers will be debating the second reading of the illegal migration bill. Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, is among those expected to condemn it. Lord Paddick, the Lib Dem peer, has tabled an amendment saying the bill should not get a second reading because, among other reasons, it “undermines the rule of law by failing to meet the United Kingdom’s international law commitments”. But in the Lords peers almost never vote against a bill at second reading, Labour is not backing the Paddick amendment, and the legislation will go through to its next stages.
But ministers are still nervous about what happens when peers debate amendments. In an article in the Times Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and Alex Chalk, the justice secretary, remind peers that the bill has already passed the elected house. They say it is the “clear desire” of the public for immigration to be brought under control. And in an admission that does not reflect well on the party that has been in government for 13 years, they say illegal immigration is “out of control”. They write
It is entirely right that the Lords should scrutinise this important piece of legislation – that is the purpose of parliament’s second chamber. At the same time, it must be balanced against the clear desire of the British people to control immigration. This was a government manifesto commitment in 2019, with a pledge to take back control of our borders.
And yet illegal migration is out of control. It is also intolerably unfair: on taxpayers, on would-be immigrants who do the right thing and play by the rules, on people who see accommodation and public services put under unbearable pressure, and on those sold a dangerous lie by wicked people smugglers.
Here is the agenda for the day.
11am: Peers begin debating the second reading of the illegal migration bill. Here is the list of the 87 peers who are down to speak. The list showing the order in which they’re speaking will be available here later this morning.
12pm: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.
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. (It is not available on the app yet.) 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
