Afternoon summary
The government has announced amendments to the planning bill that it says could cut the time needed to build major infrastructure projects by at least year. In a news release explaining the moves, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government says:
Burdensome statutory consultation requirements unique to major infrastructure projects will be scrapped, through amendments to the pro-growth planning and infrastructure bill, cutting down the average two-year statutory pre-consultation period by half and paving the way for new roads, railways, and windfarms that will bolster the country’s connectivity and energy security.
Socialist party announces death of former Militant Tendency leader Peter Taaffe
Peter Taaffe, a leader of Militant Tendency and for many years general secretary of the Socialist party, has died. He was 83.
Militant were accused of plotting a hard-left takeover of the Labour party in the 1980s, and Taaffe was one of the Militant figures who was expelled from the party, at the start of a long and bitter process that saw Neil Kinnock marginalise the left and commence Labour modernsation.
In a tribute, the Socialist party said:
[Taaffe] will be remembered by many socialists and trade unionists as a determined defender of the exploited and oppressed, a Marxist and Trotskyist leader and theoretician of the working-class movement in Britain and internationally, who made an indispensable contribution.
He will also be remembered by his opponents - not least for his role in the magnificent battle of Liverpool city council in the 1980s whose defeat of Margaret Thatcher left a legacy in thousands of council homes and a programme and strategy to defend working-class communities facing austerity.
His and Militant’s leading role in the 18 million-strong movement which beat the poll tax and brought down the ‘Iron Lady’ will also be carved into the memories of establishment politicians and the big business interests they defend.
The party has published an obituary here.
MPs warn proposed changes to copyright law would allow 'theft' of creative work
Dan Milmo is the Guardian’s global technology editor.
MPs have warned the government against allowing the ‘theft” of creative work under proposed changes to copyright law.
In a debate at Westminster Hall in the Commons, representatives across the political spectrum criticised proposals to let artificial intelligence (AI) companies use copyright-protected work to build their models without permission (unless artists and creative companies opt out of the process).
Anneliese Midgley, the Labour MP for Knowsley, said: “Noone should be allowed to use someone’s work without permission or payment. That’s called theft.” Pete Wishart, an SNP MP for Perth and Kinross-shire, said “our creative heritage ... is not there to be plundered and taken for nothing” while Max Wilkinson, the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham, said “creators own the rights to their own work and that right must be protected”.
James Frith, the Labour MP for Bury North who secured the debate. said Labour’s AI policy will not work if it damages the creative industries. He said:
The [AI] opportunity plan will not work if our creative industries are the opportunity cost. As Labour we back the working people that make our creative industries so powerful.
John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said the UK was seen as a “goldmine” of creativity that was suddenly being subjected to an AI-related “gold rush”. He said:
It’s like the wild west out there at the moment and the people who are benefitting are US big tech companies.
Speaking for the government, Chris Bryant, the minister for data protection and telecoms, said he agreed that creatives should be paid for use of their work and that the creative industries were not “luddites” - but the law had to change. He said:
I am determined to get us to a place where people are properly renumerated, where they are able to enforce their rights and where AI can flourish in this country and be used by the creative industries.
Reeves says any UK-US trade deal will go beyond just 'damage limitation' in wake of Trump tariffs
Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has said that any UK-US trade deal won’t just be about “damage limitation” in the wake of the global tariffs announced by Donald Trump.
Speaking at at Semafor’s World Economic Summit in Washington, she said the UK government was looking at going beyond a deal on tariffs, including a “technology partnership” and “building on the close relationship we have on security and national defence”. She said:
This isn’t just about damage limitation, it’s also about what the next step is.
She also said:
What we hear from the US administration is that they are keen to do a deal with the UK, reflecting the closeness of that relationship.
The UK and the US are said to be close to finalising a trade deal. But Washington is also engaged in trade talks with many other countries hoping to get Trump to lift the threat of tariffs.
Tories boycott summit of Holyrood political parties hosted by John Swinney to discuss safeguarding democracy
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
Scotland’s political parties have committed at a summit organised by first minister John Swinney to take “concrete action” to “safeguard Scotland’s democracy and tackle people’s feeling of being unheard and disempowered”.
All Holyrood parties except the Conservatives participated in today’s event in Glasgow, which also heard from around 50 other faith and civic leaders.
Speaking after the event, party leaders said the day’s discussions had focused on the reasons why so many of the public felt disenfranchised and disengaged with mainstream politics, making them vulnerable to far-right messaging. But Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar also acknowledged that politicians for too long had spoken to voters as if they were “too stupid or too bigoted”.
The leaders’ panel was also asked about last week’s supreme court judgement in terms of issues that cause political and public division, but Scottish Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie, whose party were some of the loudest advocates for the SNP’s controversial gender recognition reforms, insisted that “the threat to our democracy goes far beyond any one political disagreement”.
Those attending were met by a small protest of Reform supporters and leader Nigel Farage denied that his party was far-right, saying that the fact he was not invited to the summit showed other parties were “running scared” of Reform’s growing popularity in Scotland.
But head of the Scottish TUC Ros Foyer said that Reform could not be treated as “just another party” because of its objectionable views not least on women’s participation in the workforce.
Russell Findlay, the Scottish Conservative leader, said last week he would not be attending because the summit was unnecessary, anti-rightwing and just a “talking shop”.
Starmer denies intervening to prevent arrest of Israeli foreign minister over alleged war crimes during London visit
During PMQs Keir Starmer denied intervening to protect the Israeli foreign minister, Gideon Sa’ar, from arrest for alleged complicity in war crimes when he visited London recently.
Starmer was responding to a question from Zarah Sultana, who was elected as a Labour MP but who currently sits as an independent. She asked:
Last week, humanitarian law organisations applied for an arrest warrant for Israeli foreign minister Gideon Sa’ar over alleged war crimes in Gaza, including the siege of Kamal Adwan hospital and the torture of its director, Dr Hussam Abu Safiya, yet the red carpet was rolled out.
Sa’ar has justified blocking vital humanitarian aid into Gaza, backed the illegal annexation of Palestinian land and rejected a Palestinian state.
The prime minister is a human rights lawyer, so surely he knows that the UK has a legal duty to uphold international law. Why, then, did he block the arrest of an unindicted war criminal?
Starmer replied simply: “I didn’t.”
The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and two other human rights organisations applied for a warrant for Sa’ar’s arrest. But the attorney general has to approve arrest warrants for international crimes of this nature, and GLAN says it was told that Lord Hermer, the attorney general, refused on the grounds that Sa’ar had diplomatic immunity. In a statement, GLAN said it rejected this argument because Sa’ar should not have immunity because he is not a head of state.
What does polling say about public's attitude to trans rights?
A reader asks:
I’d love to know why Andrew Sparrow thinks the Labour party “pushed ahead of public opinion” on trans rights. Hasn’t basically every opinion poll said people in general either support trans rights or don’t care? There’s just a fringe group of extremely vocal people backed by the right wing press and wealthy people pushing it as an issue at all.
Er, no.
While I agree that for most people this is not a salient issue, and while it’s true that a lot depends on how questions are framed, there is evidence that that the public don’t support some aspects of government policy on trans rights. Trans policy is also a rare example of a social policy issue where the public at large seems to have got less liberal over recent years, not more liberal. Presumably that is partly a reaction to the way the debate evolved in Scotland as the gender recognition reform bill was going through Holyrood, but mostly a reaction to very negative coverage of trans people in the rightwing media.
The most comprehensive poll I’ve seen is this one, from YouGov in January. It is useful because respondents were questioned on at least 25 different issues, and the report shows how attitudes have changed over time.
While the public in general is in favour of people being allowed to change gender, people do not think trans people should be able to change their legal gender – even though the law has allowed this for more than 20 years.
The polling also suggests that, by more than three to one, people do not think the process of obtaining a gender recognition certificate should be made easier. But until 2023 Labour was in favour of self-ID for trans people (as Theresa May was at one point). It scaled back its plans before the general election, but its manifesto still contained a commitmen “to modernise, simplify, and reform the intrusive and outdated gender recognition law”. That is why you can argue that Labour got ahead of public opinion.
(You could also argue that it is the job of politicians to shape public opinion, not follow it. It is. But on this issue Keir Starmer has not taken a lead.)
No 10 says any youth mobility scheme with EU could not undermine government's commitment to reduce net migration
The Times today is running a story suggesting the government is moving closer to backing a youth mobility scheme with the EU. Keir Starmer is meeting the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in London, ahead of a EU-UK summit next month where aspects of the post-Brexit trade deal may be revised.
In their story, George Grylls, Lara Spirit and Bruno Waterfield say Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is in favour of a youth mobility scheme because she thinks it would be good for the economy. They report:
The chancellor is understood to be supportive of a generous Australia-style scheme allowing 18 to 30-year-olds to live and work in the UK temporarily.
The EU has made a youth mobility scheme one of its key demands during negotiations ahead of a major EU-UK summit in London on May 19. Brussels would like the scheme to be as broad as possible, allowing young Europeans to live, work and study in the UK for up to four years.
However, Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, has argued internally against a scheme allowing Europeans to stay for more than 12 months because of fears the arrivals would inflate migration figures. She is lobbying to impose a cap on the number of visas issued to young Europeans. “Our priority is reducing net migration,” a Home Office source said.
At the No 10 post-PMQs briefing Downing Street said the cabinet was united on this issue – which perhaps did not convince all the journalists who were there.
But the PM’s spokesperson did not rule out the UK agreeing a youth mobility scheme of some sort. He said:
We’ve spoken previously about our position on our red lines of those conversations, no return to freedom, customs union or the single market, and you obviously know about our commitments to reducing net migration. The prime minister spoke at length about the open border policy that this government inherited from the previous government, and actually it’s critical that we get net migration down.
When it was pointed out that a fixed-term youth mobility scheme would not breach any of these red lines, the spokesperson did not comment.
Asked about Starmer’s talks with von der Leyen tomorrow, the spokesperson said:
They’ll be talking on a range of issues, including Ukraine, the global economy, and the work underway to ensure the future relationship between the UK and the EU is delivering for working people here in Britain. The government’s pursuit of this partnership with the EU is about securing Britain’s future and delivering for the British people.
Green co-leader Adrian Ramsay challenges Farage to TV debate on climate crisis
Adrian Ramsay, the Green party co-leader, has challenged Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, to a debate on the climate crisis. Responding to Farage’s Today programme interview (see 10.39am), in which Farage made several false or questionable claims (see 11.14am), Ramsay said:
Nigel Farage is a performer, a con artist. He will say or do anything. He will happily dance to a populist tune regardless of its impact. Let’s not forget he’s bankrolled by fossil fuel interests, climate deniers, and major polluters – taking in £2.3m since the 2019 election.
This morning’s performance suggested he hasn’t got the slightest grasp of even the most basic climate science. But I think it’s worse than that. He understands all too well human-made climate change, but he is willing to pretend he doesn’t and stand in the way of climate action for his party’s populist agenda.
If he really does believe what he says, let’s see if his ridiculous rhetoric stands up to actual scrutiny – let’s see if he is prepared to take part in an hour-long TV debate about climate change and the challenge of reaching net zero?
Badenoch declines to criticise Jenrick over his comment about possible need for Tory/Reform UK 'coalition'
Kemi Badenoch has not criticised Robert Jenrick, or disciplined him, over his comments about the possible need for a Conservative/Reform UK “coalition” by the time of the next election. (See 9.04am.)
Speaking at a post-PMQs briefing, Badenoch’s spokesperson said the Tory leader “agrees” with Jenrick that that “we need to bring centre-right voters together”.
Asked about Badenoch’s reaction to the Sky News report about what Jenrick said, Badenoch’s spokesperson said:
She took his words at face value ... If you read the text he is saying that he wants to bring centre-right voters together in a coalition to defeat Labour.
The spokesperson also said that Jenrick was “working to defeat Reform” and that Badenoch has “made it perfectly clear there will be absolutely no electoral pact with Reform”.
Badenoch and Jenrick “have a very good relationship”, the spokesperson added, saying Jenrick was regarded as a team player.
Updated
After PMQs the Conservative party said that Keir Starmer had refused to answer three questions. A Tory spokesperson said:
The prime minister refused to answer three clear questions put to him by the leader of the opposition: when did he change his mind that a trans woman is a woman; will he apologise to Rosie Duffield MP; and will he reappoint Baroness Falkner as chair of the EHRC.
Keir Starmer needs to answer these critical questions as soon as possible, or women and girls will fear that they are going to be betrayed by the Labour party once again.
Here is Peter Walker’s story on PMQs.
PMQs - snap verdict
That went better for Keir Starmer than probably he was expecting, or perhaps even deserved. Politicians never like admitting mistakes, and you don’t have to spend long on social media to find quotes from Starmer and other Labour politicians on trans issues that now they are unwilling to defend. So he will have known that today Kemi Badenoch was likely to start by asking him to admit that he was wrong.
Perhaps Starmer could have insulated himself by giving a speech or interview, at some point between the release of the supreme court judgement last Wednesday and noon today, saying that in some respects he, and the party, did go too far. ‘We got the language wrong, we pushed ahead of public opinion, we did not take concerns as seriously as we should have done because they were being amplified by our opponents in the media.’ The danger with an approach like this is that it amounts to an admission of failure, and it makes you sound like a dud. But the public like it when politicians admit they have got things wrong, and if Starmer had said something like this to the BBC yesterday, Badenoch would have been stumped. Instead, she was able to clobber him quite effectively on his record. In the Mail and the Telegraph at least, she will get a terrific write-up.
Yet, in the chamber, it did not feel like a victory for Badenoch. It was more of a score-draw (which, admittedly, is a good result for Badenoch, who normally loses).
Why? Partly because Starmer starts with a huge advantage, because he conveys a lot more authority than his Tory opposite number. Partly because, while Badenoch was right in much of what she said about Starmer’s U-turn on trans, she also sounds obsessive on this (which she is). Partly because Starmer’s call for MPs to “lower the temperature” on the trans debate was welcome (even if it won’t happen), and made him sound the more reasonable of the two people in the debate (which is almost always where you want to be). Partly because, while Badenoch can claim credit for kiboshing the Scottish government’s gender recognition reform bill, she has little else to boast about from her time as minister for equalities and women. And partly because Badenoch gave Starmer an opening to start talking about the Robert Jenrick/Reform UK story, where he was on much stronger ground.
Starmer probably went a bit too far when, in his final answer, he said that no one expects Badenoch to last until the next election anyway. It’s true, but it sounded hubristic, and a good rule in politics is to never underestimate your opponent, even if they appear to be useless. But it was interesting to hear him say that he expects Nigel Farage to eat the Tories for breakfast. Starmer reportedly thinks that, come the next election, his main opponent will not be the Conservative party, but some hard right, Tory/Reform UK coalition, probably with Farage as the dominant voice. Today he more or less said that explicitly.
I have beefed up all the earlier posts with the exchanges between Keir Starmer and Kemi Badenoch. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to appear.
Alison Hume (Lab) asks for an assurance the people with learning disabilities will be among the disabled people who, under the government’s welfare reforms, will not have to go through repeat benefit reassessments.
Starmer says the government is clear that “those with the most severe disabilities” won’t be subject to repeat reassessments.
Katrina Murray (Lab) asks about a constituent how spent months trying to get a cancer diagnosis.
Starmer says that the government has put more investment into the NHS in England, and given the Scottish government more money for public services.
David Davis (Con) says British governments of all parties have all tied to reduce carbon emissions. But they have driven production abroad to countries that produce more carbon. Does the PM have a policy to protect British industry from this “long-term, disastrous trend”.
Starmer says he recently announced moves to protect British car building.
Neil Shastri-Hunt (Con) asks why the government is treating China as a business partner, not “as the hostile state that it truly is”.
Starmer says his government’s approach to China is “not materially different” from the last government’s.
Updated
Starmer refuses to promise MPs will see new OBR analysis of welfare cuts before they vote on them
Andy McDonald (Lab) says too many of his constituents live on low incomes, or in poverty. He asks for an assurance that MPs will get to see a fresh OBR analysis, covering the impact of the pro-employment measures, before they have to vote on the welfare cuts. And he asks for an assurance that the measures will not lead to an increase in poverty.
Starmer says the system needs to be reformed, and the government will help people into work.
UPDATE: McDonald said:
I very much welcome the employment support proposals in the welfare green paper, but the government has to be clear about the real opportunities it is offering more than 3 million families who it says will lose out financially as a result of this package.
So before asking MPs to vote, can he confirm we will see, fresh OBR analysis, evidence on who will be affected by the PIP changes, and the government’s own assessment of the employment impact of its measures?
And will he confirm that this policy will not result in increased experience of poverty?
And Starmer replied:
Well we are reforming a broken system. The system that we inherited, and I think most people accept that it needs reform, because it traps people in unemployment and inactivity and we need to reform it for that reason.
The principles will be that we will provide support where support is needed. Where people do want to get into work we will help them into work.
The current system operates against people getting into work who want to make that transition. And that if you can work, you should work. Moving into work is what halves your risk of being in poverty. And that’s why we’ve invested £1bn in tailored employment support.
And of course, we’re introducing a new premium for those with the most severe lifelong disabilities who will never be able to work.
Updated
Robin Swann (UUP) asks Starmer to explain his understanding of the principle of consent in Northern Ireland. And he asks if Starmer is a unionist.
Starmer says he stands behind the principles in the Good Friday agreement.
Starmer declines to commit to giving MPs vote on any potential trade deal with US
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks about the hospital building programme.
Starmer says the plans left by the last government were not realistic. He says the Lib Dems need to get more realistic about how hospital rebuilding programmes are funded.
Davey says, unlike Labour, the Lib Dems had a funded plan for hospitals at the last election.
He turns to farming, and asks Starmer to guarantee that MPs will get a vote on any future trade deal with the US.
Starmer says, if there is a deal, there will be a “process” by which it becomes law.
He is referring to the procedure by which treaties are ratified – which does not always lead to MPs getting a vote.
Starmer says Tories think Badenoch will be replaced as leader, and says Farage will eat them 'for breakfast'
Badenoch says this is about political courage, about doing the right thing, even when it is difficult. And Starmer “doesn’t have the balls”.
Starmer says that probably sounded better when Badenoch practised that. He says it does not matter what Badenoch thinks, because none of the Tories think she will lead them into the next election. Robert Jenrick is away plotting. And Nigel Farage will do what he always does, and “eat the Tories for breakfast”, he says.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
He’s clearly so uncomfortable talking about this subject. This is a choice between a Conservative party that stood up for common sense and a Labour Party that bent the knee to every passing fad.
This is a question about moral courage, about doing the right thing even when it is difficult, and the truth is he doesn’t have the balls. The prime minister only tells people what they want to hear, he is a weather vane who twists in the wind.
He cheered an ideology that denied safe spaces to women and girls because he thought it was cool to do so. He hounded a brave female MP out of his party for telling the truth he accepts now. And now he is hiding behind the supreme court judgment and isn’t that because he doesn’t know what he actually believes?
And Starmer replied:
I can only assume that sounded better when she did it in the mirror earlier on. The truth is it doesn’t really matter what the leader of the opposition says because nobody believes, none of them thinks she’s going to lead them into the next election anyway.
It’s going to be the shadow justice secretary [Robert Jenrick] – he’s away of plotting. That’s why he’s not here today – and the member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] fighting over the bones of the Tory party. And they think Reform will give them their votes withoutchanging their policy? Absolutely no way. The member for Clacton is going to do what he always does, eat the Tory party for breakfast.
Updated
Badenoch accuses Starmer of playing political football with this issue.
Starmer returns to the Jenrick story, and says the country knows what will happen when the Tories work with Reform UK.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
He should be more worried about his backbenchers than my frontbenchers.
His Labour ministers called the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission appalling. Baroness Falkner’s role is critical to enforcing the court’s judgment. She has had to put up with relentless abuse not just from his front bench but from activists and ideologues.
Reappointing her would be a clear sign that he is taking this issue seriously. So will he commit to reappointing Baroness Falkner when her term expires this year?
And Starmer replied:
A coalition between Reform and the Tories being formed behind her back, we know what that means when the shadow justice secretary [Robert Jenrick] and the member for Clacton [Nigel Farage] cook up their joint manifesto.
NHS charging, a pro-Russia foreign policy, an end to workers’ rights. Just as the last government lost control of the economy, the borders and health, in six short months she’s lost control of her party.
Updated
Badenoch says Labour MPs are plotting on a WhatsApp group to overturn the supreme court judgment.
Starmer says the WhatsApp group that Badenoch should be worried about is the one being run by Robert Jenrick, who is not here, he says.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
When his Labour leader in Scotland was whipping his MSPs to get male rapists into women’s prisons, I stopped that gender recognition bill.
I helped commission the Cass Review, I replaced the guidance on single-sex toilets, I made sure that the puberty blockers issue was resolved while he was sitting there cheering on the ideology that was taking away safe spaces. And when the prime minister stayed silent last week waiting presumably for what Morgan McSweeney thinks, on his WhatsApp groups, some of his closest ministers were plotting to overturn the supreme court’s decision.
Labour MP after Labour MP stood up yesterday and challenged the ruling. How can we take his government seriously on this?
And Starmer replied:
Well I think the WhatsApp groups she should be worried about is the one of her shadow justice secretary [Robert Jenrick]. The mask has slipped just one week before the election because the shadow justice secretary is not here, a man who’s doing everything he can to replace her.
The man that most of them want as leader of their party has admitted that Reform and the Tories are working together. He said, ‘I want this fight to be united’.
He said he’s determined to bring this coalition, he calls it, together one way or another. Well, I think we know what that means.
Updated
Badenoch says Duffield was practically forced out of the party. She might have a case for constructive dismissal, she says. Badenoch says she personally was abused for her stance on this. And Starmer hid from the issue, she says.
Starmer says Badenoch did nothing for women as equalities minister, just as she did nothing for business when she was business secretary.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
There was no apology for the member for Canterbury [Independent MP Rosie Duffield]. There is no taking of responsibility. He talks about political football, he practically kicked her out of his party – constructive dismissal.
He talks about my predecessor [Rishi Sunak]. What about the abuse I faced from his MPs calling me a transphobe for supporting what the supreme court has now clarified in his words?
And where was he? He hid for six days without commenting on the supreme court judgment. Why did it take him so long to respond? Isn’t it because he was scared?
And Starmer replied:
The only fiction here is the idea she delivered anything in office.
She held the post of minister for women and equalities for two years and she did precisely nothing. She provided no clarity on the law, did nothing to improve women’s lives which got materially worse under her watch.
And they talk for example about hospitals and mixed-sex wards. Up hill and down dale, what happened in the last decade? The use of mixed-sex wards in our NHS rose by 2,000% and there’s a pattern of behaviour here. Women and equalities minister failed to do anything for women, the trade minister who failed to get a trade deal with the US, the business minister who failed to get a deal with British Steel.
She’s a spectator, not a leader.
Updated
Badenoch asks Starmer if he will apologise to Rosie Duffield for forcing her out of the party.
Starmer repeats his call for people to treat this issue with respect.
He says we should not have a repeat of what happened when Rishi Sunak, “a decent man”, diminished himself by making a joke about trans people at PMQs.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
He can’t bring himself to admit that he was wrong – that was the question.
But he spoke about respect and dignity and compassion and lowering the temperature, so will he now apologise to the member for Canterbury [Rosie Duffield], the very brave member for Canterbury, for hounding her out of the Labour party, simply for telling the truth?
And Starmer replied:
I always approach this on the basis that we should treat everyone with dignity and respect, whatever their different views. And I will continue to do so.
And I tell you for why, because when we lose sight of that approach and make this a political football, as happened in the past, then we end up with the spectacle of a decent man – and he was a decent man – the previous prime minister [Rishi Sunak], diminishing himself at this despatch box by making trans jokes whilst the mother of a murdered trans teenager watched from the public gallery just up there.
That will never be my approach. My approach will be to support the ruling, to protect single-sex spaces and treat everybody with dignity and respect, and I believe there’s a consensus in this house and the country for that approach.
Updated
PM urges MPs to 'lower temperature', as Badenoch challenges him to admit he was wrong about trans women being women
Kemi Badenoch also wishes people a happy St George’s Day. And she says, being married to a Catholic, she knows how much the Pope meant to people.
Does the PM accept that, when he said a trans woman was a woman, he was wrong/
Starmer says the supreme court ruling has brought clarity.
He sets out the principles he is applying. And he says it is time to “lower the temperature” on this issue.
UPDATE: Badenoch said:
Does the prime minister now accept that when he said that it was the law that trans women were women, he was wrong?
And Starmer replied:
Let me be clear, I welcome the Supreme Court ruling on this issue. It brings clarity and it will give confidence to women and, of course, to service providers.
The Equality and Human Rights Commission will now issue updated guidance, and it is important that that happens and that all service providers then act accordingly.
This government’s approach, and my approach, has been as follows: to support and implement the supreme court ruling, and we will, to continue to protect single-sex spaces based on biological sex, and we will, but also to ensure that trans people are treated with respect, and we will, and to ensure that everybody is given dignity in their everyday lives.
I do think this is the time now to lower the temperature, to move forward, and to conduct this debate with the care and compassion that it deserves. And I think that should unite the whole house.
Updated
Charlotte Nichols (Lab) asks about the criminal injuries compensation scheme, and says payment rates have not been uprated for years.
Starmer says he is committed to delivering justice to vicitims. Access to compensation is being improved through better online access. He will arrange a meeting with a minister for Nichols.
Steve Darling (Lib Dem) says the chaotic Tory government causesd a cost of living crisis. People in tourism in Torbay thought they had weathered the storm. But they fear Labour’s job tax will be the last nail in the coffin. Will Starmer visits Paignton zoo in Torbay to view the impact?
Starmer starts by wishing Darling’s guide dog a happy birthday. He has been to Torbay many times, and worked there, he says. He says he recognises the importance of tourism.
Keir Starmer starts by saying all MPs will want to pay tribute to Pope Francis, particularly because of his lifelong work on fairness. People were inspired by his compassion and humility, he says. “May his Holiness rest in peace.”
And he wishes everyone a happy St George’s Day.
As a former journalist, the Labour MP Paul Waugh has a good turn of phrase. Here is his take on the Robert Jenrick Reform UK story. (See 9.04am.)
The only thing that is two-tier in British politics is the two-tier Tory leadership.
Badenoch is nominally in charge, but Jenrick thinks he’s leader.
And if he is the boss, the voters should know he wants a backroom Tory-Reform deal
Starmer says patriots should 'fight for our flag' in St George's Day speech
Keir Starmer normally starts PMQs with a reference to events in the week that are important, and today he is likely to acknowledge that it is St George’s Day. He hosted a St George’s Day reception in No 10 last night and, in a speech to his guests, he said it was time for patriots to reclaim the flag of St George. He said:
While this is a day for celebration, we cannot be under any illusions that there is a never-ending fight for our flag and what it represents. I’ll put it this way, when I was standing in the old Wembley in 1996 – not many people sat down that day, it felt like that whole tournament embodied the best of our country.
Yet now – there are people trying to sow division in our communities, people taking the red and white of our flag, like the bunting downstairs, with them, as they throw bricks at businesses.
The day after the terrible Southport incident last year, I went up to take the opportunity to shake the hands of the first respondents of police and ambulance workers, you’ll now have seen what they all faced …
By the time I got back to London that very day, we had people throwing bricks at the very same police officers I was shaking hands with.
And that’s why the battle for our flag is really important because that is what happened and that was only last year. So, we have to fight for our flag and for our values.
Because it was the aftermath of the riots that showed what it means to be English. It marked the coming together of a country.
People who got together the morning after, all across Britain with shovels, brooms, and brushes, to clean up their communities. Rebuilding walls, repairing damage and it’s in that spirit that we reclaim our flag and that was incredibly uplifting to go from rioting to people coming out to do what they could for our country.
So that’s what we must do for our country, for English decency, honour and fairness. Wrench it out of the hands of those who want to divide this nation and reclaim it for good.
Because that flag doesn’t belong to me as prime minister or any group or political party and that is the point.
It belongs to all of us to England, in all its wonder and diversity. And we should be proud of that flag, we must never concede it, because it is an expression of our values and our patriotism.
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is almost here.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Rosie Duffield, the independent MP who left Labour after the election in part because she felt her gender critical views made her unwelcome in the party (although her resignation letter focused on welfare issues), has claimed that Keir Starmer no longer arguing a trans woman is a woman shows he is a “manager rather than a leader”.
Speaking on LBC, Duffield said:
It’s just another sign of the prime minister’s lack of leadership skills. I’m bound to say that, he’s a manager rather than a leader. He responds and reacts rather than leads from the front, and this is what we’re seeing again from him.
Farage accused of peddling 'dangerous fantasy' about UK's gas supplies
Helena Horton is a Guardian environment reporter.
Nigel Farage made a series of untrue claims which came close to denying climate science in his Today programme interview this morning. (See 10.39am.)
First, he suggested it was unclear whether human action is contributing to climate breakdown. There is almost total consensus in the scientific community that human activity is by far the main driver of climate change. We have seen the spike in global temperature since the industrial revolution, when we started the widespread burning of fossil fuels for energy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, an expert group of hundreds of scientists, has said the human impact on the world’s climate is “unequivocal”.
He then claimed that the UK does not make a difference to global emissions and that China should be asked about its contributions instead. The UK has managed to decarbonise quickly so far this century, but is still among the top emitting countries (No 21 in 2022). On top of this, we are historically a big emitter. A Carbon Brief analysis in 2021 found that the UK was the eighth largest country in terms of cumulative emissions. Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit analysis has found that every country totalling between 0% and 1% of global carbon emissions – which includes many of the world’s richest countries – adds up to 29%. That’s more than China, which totals 27%.
Farage also suggested it is possible for the UK to be entirely self sufficient on gas. This is false. Official projections by the North Sea Transition Authority show a steep decline in North Sea production, regardless of government policy and intervention, thanks to the ageing nature of the basin. The regulator’s forecasts show that the UK will be 94% reliant on gas imports by 2050, even if new fields are developed, only a fraction lower than if no new fields are developed (97% dependency). Most of what is left in the North Sea is oil, around 80% of which is exported.
Tessa Khan, executive director of Uplift, an organisation supporting the transition away from oil and gas, said:
Nigel Farage is peddling a dangerous fantasy by claiming the UK can be self-sufficient in gas.
After sixty years of drilling, the truth is the UK has already burned most of its gas. That’s down to geology, not politics, and no amount of hot air from Farage will change that.
What we do have in this country is an abundance of renewable resources, particularly wind. By trying to slow the shift to renewable energy, Farage is endangering the creation of tens of thousands of new jobs, whether that’s in wind manufacturing or grid infrastructure in the UK’s industrial heartlands, or decommissioning services in coastal towns like Great Yarmouth.
Ed Miliband expected to legislate to stop GB Energy using solar panel parts linked to Chinese slave labour
Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, will reportedly introduce an amendment to the Great British Energy bill to force the new publicly-owned company to stop using parts for solar panels linked to Chinese slave labour, PA Media reports. PA says:
The change, as reported by the Times, will ensure solar panels, wind turbines, and batteries must not contain materials suspected of being produced through slave labour.
Luke de Pulford, the executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac), warned the use of slave labour extends throughout the renewable energy sector.
He told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Unfortunately, there’s a problem right the way throughout the renewables sector with state-imposed forced labour in China. They have labour transfer schemes where the government conscripts, very often ethnic minorities, and forces them to work against their will, and sadly, many such workers are placed within renewable industry in China.”
A large part of the world supply of polysilicon, a critical material in the industry, comes from Xinjiang, the Chinese region where Beijing is suspected of human rights abuses against the Uighur Muslim minority.
De Pulford was asked how difficult it will be for the government to increase its use of renewables without using Chinese slave labour.
He told the BBC: “It’s going to require a transition because China has such a dominance of the production of polysilicon and nearly 40% of that comes from Xinjiang and is connected in some way to these labour transfer schemes, so we’re going to have to diversify. But it’s not impossible and companies are, I think, slowly inching towards a better place – we have to find a better way of doing it, that doesn’t mean that we have a green transition reliant upon Uighur slavery.”
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesperson said: “No industry in the UK should rely on forced labour, and through Great British Energy we have a clear plan to build the supply chains needed to support a new era of clean homegrown power, bringing jobs and investment.
“We are working across government to tackle the issue of forced labour in solar supply chains, and the relaunched solar taskforce is focusing on developing supply chains that are resilient, sustainable and free from forced labour.
“Having listened carefully to the views of MPs and peers, we are considering how we can go further to help ensure Great British Energy is a sector leader in this area and will provide an update shortly.”
UK annual borrowing exceeds forecasts by almost £15bn
Britain entered the economic shock from Donald Trump’s trade wars with government borrowing having overshot official forecasts by almost £15bn in the most recent financial year, Richard Partington reports.
Nigel Farage says Britain does not need any policies to tackle climate crisis
Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, has said Britain should not have any policies at all intended to tackle the climate crisis by reducing carbon emissions.
In an interview with the Today programme, Farage would not even confirm that he accepts that carbon emissions are leading to climate change.
Reform UK has frequently criticised the way the UK government is tackling climate change. At the last election it campaigned on a commitment to “scrap net zero” – referring to the government’s target to reduce UK carbon emissions to net zero by 2050, and the policies being implemented to achieve this.
But, in an interview with the Today programme this morning, Farage went further, saying he thought all carbon reduction policies were pointless.
Asked by the presenter, Nick Robinson, if he thought there was no need for any UK government climate policy, Farage replied:
I think we should scrap the net zero targets, yes, absolutely. I think they’re going to make zero difference in the world.
Asked what policy he would adopt for dealing with climate change, he replied:
Nick, you better go and talk to the Chinese about that …
We make no difference whatsoever. I think we should be mining our own coal that we need for our steel works. I think we should be self-sufficient, in fact even an exporter, of gas. We make no difference.
When it was put to him that the UK had a leadership role on climate change, Farage said that “hasn’t worked” because other countries just ignored what the UK was doing. He also argued that the drive to renewable energy was pushing up energy prices in the UK – a common rightwing argument dismissed by experts as untrue.
Farage also refused to confirm that he accepts that climate change is man-made – even though this is now accepted as fact by the global scientific community, and by almost every government in the world (apart from the US administration led by Farage’s friend, Donald Trump).
Asked if he accepted climate change was at least partly man-made, Farage replied:
It may well be. It may well be.
Farage went on to argue that, even if climate change is man-made, what the UK did alone would make little or no difference. He said:
Let’s go with the scientists. Let’s say that the 3% to 5% of CO2 emissions in the world every year that are man-made, as opposed to natural, are having a detrimental, or at least a warming effect on the world. Let’s start from that position.
When Robinson asked if Farage was accepting that position, Farage ignored the question and just replied:
But what I don’t accept is that we should commit economic hara-kiri in the name that somehow we are going to save the world. We’re not.
We are less than 1% of global CO2 production and frankly, what we’ve really done in the last 20 years is to delude ourselves by allowing all of our heavy industries to close, to relocate to China and India, for the goods that we used to make here to be manufactured there under lower environmental standards.
Richard Tice, the Reform UK deputy leader, has openly claimed that the argument that climate change is man-made is “garbage”.
Like Reform UK, the Conservative party has also recently said it rejects the 2050 net zero target. But the Tories do believe climate change is man-made, and that policies are needed to reduce carbon emissions.
Updated
Alexander says more driving test slots being offered, but average waiting times not likely to be cut to 7 weeks until 2026
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, has said the government target to clear the record high backlog of driving tests will be missed by up to eight months, PA Media reports. PA says:
Alexander told MPs her department is aiming to end the backlog by summer 2026.
This is despite the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) having a target of reducing average waiting times for tests across Britain to no more than seven weeks by the end of this year.
Giving evidence to the Commons transport committee, Alexander said: “The waiting times that people are experiencing are totally unacceptable.”
She announced that at least 10,000 extra tests per month will be offered to learners as part of new measures to tackle the issue.
The DVSA has been instructed to make “additional overtime incentive payments to everyone delivering extra driving tests”, she said.
DVSA staff qualified to conduct tests are being asked to voluntarily return to the front line, while the number of permanent trainers for new examiners will be doubled.
Alexander also said the Government will consult on changes to the driving test booking system, in an attempt to stop bots mass-booking new slots and reselling them on the black market for inflated prices.
Recent analysis by the AA Driving School showed the average waiting time to book a practical test in Britain was 20 weeks in February, up from 14 weeks a year earlier.
The number of test centres with a 24-week waiting time – the maximum possible – nearly doubled over the period, from 94 to 183.
Questioned about when average waiting times will be reduced to seven weeks, Alexander said: “We think that this package of measures I’m announcing today could result in us meeting that target again in the summer of next year.”
The DVSA has previously attributed the backlog to “an increase in demand and a change in customers’ booking behaviour”.
Updated
Police officers who fail background checks to be automatically sacked
Police officers in England and Wales who fail background checks will be automatically sacked under rules coming into force to improve confidence in policing, Rajeev Syal reports.
Foreign Office postpones Ukraine peace talks after Marco Rubio pulls out
Dan Sabbagh is the Guardian’s defence editor.
The UK Foreign Office has confirmed that ministerial Ukraine peace talks with US and European counterparts due to be held today have been postponed, amid speculation that Russia has abandoned its claims to Ukrainian territory it does not occupy, and after US secretary of state Marco Rubio said he could not attend.
A short statement from the Foreign Office announced that ministerial meetings that had been scheduled to start this morning would not now take place and would be replaced by behind the scenes discussions held by officials, clarifying a carefully worded statement made late last night by foreign secretary David Lammy after he had spoken to Rubio.
Posting on social media just before midnight, Lammy said his discussions with Rubio were productive but hinted that they would take place at a slightly lower level. “Talks continue at pace and officials will meet in London tomorrow. This is a critical moment for Ukraine, Britain and Euro-Atlantic security,” he had said.
Britain had placed an important emphasis on the talks, with delegations from France and Germany also due to participate, but the downgrade to the discussions comes as leaks suggest that Russia is willing to abandon its territorial claims to three Ukrainian regions it only partially occupies in return for the US recognising the annexation of Crimea.
Martin Belam has more on this on our Ukraine war live blog.
Green party members should not be expelled for saying trans women aren't women, co-leader Adrian Ramsay says
At the Downing Street lobby briefing yesterday, the PM’s spokesperson said that Keir Starmer no longer argues that a trans woman is a woman. In his interview on the Today programme this morning, Adrian Ramsay, co-leader of the Green party, which has always been a strong advocate for trans rights, was not prepared to say that. But he did say that Green party members who do say that trans women aren’t women should not be expelled.
When the presenter, Nick Robinson, asked Ramsay if trans women were women, Ramsay replied:
What the decision from the supreme court last week has done is to provide some clarity in terms of the Equality Act.
At that point Robinson interrupted, and said he was seeking clarity from Ramsay. He asked the question again. Ramsay replied:
I think the important thing here, Nick, is not to get hung up in divisions.
Robinson tried a third time. Ramsay said what was important was to ensure “everybody, regardless of how they define their identity, has access to the services that they need”. He went on:
Last week’s ruling has highlighted the potential for some services to be provided based on sex. The question is, how do we ensure that both women and trans people have access to the services that they need in a way that meets their needs and preserves their dignity.
Robinson then asked why Ramsay was relucant to answer the question directly. Ramsay said: “People know what the definition of a woman is.” But, Robinson said, in the past members of the Green party had been expelled for gender critical beliefs. He asked if it was possible to be a member of the Green party, and to believe that trans women are not women. Ramsay said party members could take that view. He went on:
I do defend the right of people to express that view, and in our party and in the wider society, we need to be able to have an open and respectful conversation about how we ensure services are delivered in a way that meets everybody’s needs.
The Gender Critical Greens group has a list on its website of members it says were suspended or expelled for their gender critical views.
Updated
Badenoch challenged to sack Jenrick after he suggests Tories and Reform UK need to form 'coalition' before election
Good morning. Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs today and, given her enthusiasm for talking about trans issues – her Commons performance on this yesterday got rave reviews in rightwing circles – it is hard to imagine that she won’t want to revist this at noon today. As the Today programme’s interview with Green co-leader Adrian Ramsay showed this morning, UK politics is still stuck with the ‘can a woman have a penis?’ question. (More on that later.) But there is another question on the table this morning about whether two binary opposites are compatible. Can you be a Conservative if you’ve got a Nigel Farage?
This has revived as an issue as a result of a good scoop by Sam Coates at Sky News. He has obtained a recording of Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary and runner-up in the last Tory leadership contest, saying that, if the Conservative party has not seen off the threat from Reform UK by the time of the next election, “one way or another” the two parties will have to form some sort of electoral coalition.
Jenrick made the remarks when speaking to a UCL Conservative association dinner in late March. According to Coates’ report, Jenrick said:
[Reform UK] continues to do well in the polls. And my worry is that they become a kind of permanent or semi-permanent fixture on the British political scene. And if that is the case – and I say, I am trying to do everything I can to stop that being the case – then life becomes a lot harder for us, because the right is not united.
And then you head towards the general election, where the nightmare scenario is that Keir Starmer sails in through the middle as a result of the two parties being disunited. I don’t know about you, but I’m not prepared for that to happen.
I want the right to be united. And so, one way or another, I’m determined to do that and to bring this coalition together and make sure we unite as a nation as well.
No other member of the shadow cabinet has been quite this explicit about the need for a Tory/Reform UK coalition. Jenrick qualified this by saying that he did not want Reform UK to become a permanent fixture of British politics, but there is almost no one in Westminster politics who thinks Farage’s party is going to fizzle out before the next election, and so when Jenrick talks circumstances where a coalition would be needed, he is not floating some outlandish hypothetical; he is talking about what he expects to happen.
And Jenrick is not just any member of the shadow cabinet. According to the latest ConservativeHome survey, he is by far the most popular shadow cabinet minister with party members, and colleagues believe is is actively preparing for another bid for the leadership.
Kemi Badenoch has ruled out doing an electoral deal with Reform UK. But there are many people in the party who think that her position is unrealistic and who would agree with Jenrick, or with Greg Smith, the shadow business minister, who said last month that at the next election the Tories and Reform UK might have “play nicely” together.
In his story, Coates quotes a “source close to Jenrick” saying: “Rob’s comments are about voters and not parties. He’s clear we have to put Reform out of business and make the Conservatives the natural home for all those on the right.” But this is just an attempt to deny that Jenrick said what he did; the meaning of his on-the-record comments is clear.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats are both saying that, if Badenoch does not sack Jenrick, she will be implying that she agrees with him. Ellie Reeves, the Labour party chair, said:
Kemi Badenoch needs to urgently come clean as to whether she backs her shadow justice secretary in doing grubby deals with Reform behind the electorate’s back or if she will rule it out.
If she disagrees with Robert Jenrick, how can her leadership have any credibility whilst he remains in her shadow cabinet?
We know Kemi Badenoch has opened the door to deals with Reform at a local level, which Labour has categorically ruled out and now Robert Jenrick has let the cat out the bag. Between the Tories who decimated the NHS and Reform who want to make people pay for routine treatments, it’s a recipe for chaos and would be a disaster for Britain.
And Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader, said:
The cat is out of the bag, senior Conservatives are plotting a grubby election deal with Nigel Farage.
Kemi Badenoch should sack Robert Jenrick now if she’s serious about ruling out a pact with Reform. Anything less would show she’s either too weak to sack him or that she agrees.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, gives evidence to the Commons transport committee.
9.45am: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, chairs a meeting in Glasgow on democratic values.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
Also, Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, is in Washington for the IMF spring meetings. And David Lammy, the foreign secretary, is hosting talks on Ukrain in London. Martin Belam is covering this on our Ukraine live blog.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
