Afternoon summary
- Government whips are trying to decide what Tory MPs should do when the Commons votes tomorrow on a motion calling for a privileges committee inquiry into claims Boris Johnson misled parliament about Partygate. (See 1.07pm.) The government had been expected to order its MPs to vote it down, but Labour - and the six other opposition parties supporting the amendment (see 1.14pm) - have drafted it in such a way as to make it hard for Conservatives to vote against. First, the motion does not explicity accuse Johnson of intentionally misleading MPs. And, second, the motion says the inquiry should not start until the police inquiry into Partygate is over. In another move that should make the motion more acceptable to Tories, Chris Bryant, the Labour chair of the committee, and an outspoken critic of Johnson, has agreed to recuse himself from any inquiry. (See 4.14pm.) Tory MPs are wary of voting down the motion because that would lead to them to being accused by Labour of covering up Johnson’s lying. Government whips also know that, if they order MPs to vote against, many backbenchers might ignore them and abstain - which could see the opposition winning. No 10 is thought to be considering a ploy that would involve Tories voting for an amendment that might water down the potential threat posed by any inquiry, but details are not expected to be announced until later tonight.
-
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the minister for Brexit opportunities has told the EU scrutiny committee the UK will “reform” the NI protocol unilaterally if the EU does not. As my colleague Lisa O’Carroll reports, this raises the spectre of some dramatic move after the Northern Ireland assembly elections on 5 May. He said:
We signed it on the basis that it would be reformed and there comes a point at which you say, well, you haven’t reformed it and therefore we are reforming it ourselves. And the United Kingdom is much more important than any agreement that we have with any foreign power.
UK signed NI protocol on the basis "it would be reformed". If EU doesn't reform it, we will, Rees Mogg warns.
— Lisa O'Carroll (@lisaocarroll) April 20, 2022
"That is really imp to understand..A lot of commentary says, we signed it and therefore surely we should accept it lock stock and barrel. That's absolute nonsense" 1/2
We signed it on the basis that it would be reformed. And there comes a point at which you say, well, you haven't reformed it and therefore we are reforming it ourselves. And the United Kingdom is much more important than any agreement that we have with any foreign power"
— Lisa O'Carroll (@lisaocarroll) April 20, 2022
Updated
Fire safety works on low rise buildings must be proportionate, government says
Stuart Andrew, housing minister, told parliament the government does not believe extensive safety works are needed for buildings below 11m, but said the government will examine buildings on a case-by case basis where they have been commissioned. The move follows pressure from MPs and campaigners concerned that potentially hazardous homes, including care homes and some residential schools, had not been not covered by existing funding.
The government is keen not to add more to post-Grenfell costs to be shared by developers, taxpayers and leaseholders that MPs have estimated at £15bn.
UK Cladding Action Group said it already knew of at least 10 buildings below 11m where residents have been landed with bills as high as £20,000 each which would not have been covered by the government’s previous plan.
Last week Michael Gove, secretary of state for levelling up, housing and communities, announced he had secured £2bn in pledges from 36 developers towards fixing “life critical safety works” in high-rise buildings above 11m in England developed in the last 30 years.
Andrew stressed officials believe there was “no systematic risk of fire with buildings below 11m”, but “we will deal with those as a department on a case by case basis”. He pledged: “If the building safety regulator assesses … further work needs to be done we will make sure we do that.”
The move to tackle the potential rising cost of the building safety crisis almost five years after the Grenfell Tower fire claimed 72 lives, came as residents of high rise buildings warned they face years of uncertainty despite progress by Gove in persuading developers to pay for some fixes.
Leaseholders rallied in Westminster as MPs finalised new building safety laws which look likely to pass within weeks without guaranteeing universal immunity.
Campaigners fear the stress on “life critical” works could cause disputes.
“Unless there is an independent body to arbitrate we see these issues dragging on for years,” said Rituparna Saha, co-founder of the UK Cladding Action Group. “Even where developers have [already] said they will pay works have not yet started.”
This entry has been edited after the government clarified its intentions about buildings under 11m.
Updated
Aspects of elections bill pose 'unacceptable risk to functioning of our democracy', say MPs
Aspects of the elections bill represent “an unacceptable risk to the functioning of our democracy”, a Commons committee has said.
William Wragg, the Conservative MP who chairs the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, made the point in an open letter to Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, about the bill, which is close to finishing its passage through parliament.
Writing on behalf of the committee, Wragg said it was particularly worried about powers in the bill allowing ministers to draft a “strategy and policy statement” to be followed by the Electoral Commission, the body that regulates elections. He told Gove:
The Electoral Commission has now written to you also stating its “firm view” that the strategy and policy statement “is inconsistent with the role that an independent Electoral Commission plays in a healthy democracy”. It would, they argue “provide a mechanism driven by the then governing party enabling that parties ministers to shape how the electoral law is applied to them and their political competitors”. The risk inherent in these provisions is evident for all to see. This is an unacceptable risk to the functioning of our democracy, regardless of the government’s statements regarding their particular approach to the strategy and policy statement.
In a report published in December the committee, which has a Conservative majority, said the “strategy and policy statement” proposals in the bill should be dropped. The government has not accepted this recommendation, and in his letter Wragg says, as an alternative, the government should amend the bill to make it clear that the Electoral Commission can ignore the “strategy and policy statement” in certain circumstances.
Bryant accepts his past comments about PM lying mean he should not chair possible privileges committee probe into matter
Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons privileges committee, has said that if MPs vote for it to carry out an inquiry into whether Boris Johnson misled MPs about Partygate, he will recuse himself as chair for that inquiry. This is because previous statements has had made about Johnson being a liar (like this one) would mean that he would be seen a biased.
In an open letter to colleagues, he says that he thinks he would have been able to chair the inquiry fairly, but that it is important it is important for the committee to be seen to proceed “without any imputation of unfairness”.
I understand that some honourable and right honourable members have questioned whether I should chair such an inquiry into the prime minister, given that I have made several statements in the media on this matter.
I am certain that if the house were to refer this matter to the committee, all of us would be entirely diligent in setting aside our personal feelings and allegiances, and discharging our duty to protect the reputation of the house without fear or favour.
However, it is also important that the house be seen to proceed fairly without any imputation of unfairness and that the whole house have confidence in the committee of privileges’ proceedings. I have therefore decided that if the motion to refer is carried tomorrow, I will recuse myself from any consideration of the matter.
On 1 December @BorisJohnson told the Commons ‘all the guidelines were observed.’ Sue Gray’s ‘update’ may be short on details but she’s already proved he lied. That is and always has been an automatic resignation issue.
— Chris Bryant (@RhonddaBryant) January 31, 2022
Bryant also chairs the Commons standards committee (which has the same MPs sitting on it as the privileges committee, but with added lay members). Last year it published a report into allegations that Boris Johnson failed to properly declare who paid for his holiday in Mustique in December 2019. The parliamentary commissioner for standards, Kathryn Stone, said Johnson had broken the MPs’ code of conduct, but the committee came up with a more favourable verdict, clearing the PM of breaking the rules.
There are four Conservative MPs on the committee, and three opposition ones (including Bryant). With Bryant recusing himself, Sir Bernard Jenkin (Con) is expected to chair the inquiry if it goes ahead. Bryant says he will continue to chair the committee for other business.
Updated
Nicola Sturgeon has said she could step aside as Scotland’s first minister if her party loses another independence referendum. In an appearance on ITV’s Loose Women, Sturgeon said that another Scottish independence referendum was inevitable. “When Scotland next votes on independence, we will vote yes,” she said.
Asked what would happen if Scotland voted against independence, she said:
I suspect I would make way for somebody else. I’m in the fortunate position of having been in politics for a long time, I’m not about to give it up, but when I do I will hopefully still be relatively young.
Alex Salmond, Sturgeon’s predecessor as first minister, resigned after losing the 2014 independence referendum. The Brexit referendum also led to David Cameron resigning as prime minister after his side lost.
Updated
Corbyn says ultimately he would like to see military alliances like Nato disbanded
Talking of Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader has given an interview to John Pienaar for Times Radio in which he has effectively called for Nato to be disbanded. Asked if he favoured disbanding Nato, or the UK withdrawing from it, Corbyn replied:
I would want to see a world where we start to ultimately disband all military alliances. The issue has to be what’s the best way of bringing about peace in the future? Is it by more alliances? Is it by more military build up?
Or is it by stopping the war in Ukraine and the other wars ...
And ask yourself the question, do military alliances bring peace? Or do they actually encourage each other and build up to a greater danger? I don’t blame Nato for the fact that Russia has invaded Ukraine. What I say is look at the thing historically, and look at the process that could happen at the end of the Ukraine war.
Pressed again on whether he favoured disbanding Nato now, Corbyn said: “Look, it’s not going to be disbanded now.” But he repeated his point about military alliances, saying they “tend to build up a mirror image of each other”.
Corbyn has had the Labour whip withdrawn, and originally he was told that he would not have it restored, enabling him to stand as a Labour candidate at the next election, until he apologised for suggesting, when the Equality and Human Rights Commission published its report on antisemitism in the Labour party, that the problem had been exaggerated.
But in a recent interview with the Guardian Keir Starmer hinted Corbyn’s views on Nato could also prevent him from being readmitted to the parliamentary party. “There is no place in the Labour party for this false equivalence between Russian aggression and Nato,” Starmer said.
As Patrick Maguire from the Times reports, in his interview Corbyn also sidestepped a question about whether he admired the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
More from Jeremy Corbyn's Times Radio interview with @JPonpolitics...
— Patrick Maguire (@patrickkmaguire) April 20, 2022
On Zelensky pic.twitter.com/M3Gm17RyNk
At PMQs Boris Johnson described Keir Starmer as “a Corbynista in a smart Islington suit”. This will come as a surprise to Oliver Eagleton, a New Left Review editor who this month is publishing The Starmer Project: A Journey to the Right. It is not just that Starmer does not even live in Islington. He is from Camden, but Johnson often claims Starmer lives in Islington, assuming that it is a better-known metonym for leftwing privilege. (Johnson should know; he lived in Islington himself for many years.) It is that Starmer is not by any stretch a Corbynista. Eagleton’s book, which includes a particular thorough account of Starmer’s time as director of public prosecutions, argues that the Labour leader’s record “shows his evolution into an unabashed authoritarian”. He concludes:
Regardless of whether Labour succeeds at the next election, the overhaul that Starmer instigated in April 2020 looks set to outlast his leadership. Based on the above analysis, it is possible to list the fundamental features of this project: 1) a ‘values-led’, non-antagonistic electoral strategy; 2) an unsparing crackdown on the Labour left, seen as more dangerous than the Conservatives; 3) an Atlanticist authoritarian disposition, combining intervention abroad with repression at home; and 4) a return to neoliberal economic precepts, overseen by Blairite leftovers. These pillars of Starmerism have brought together previously distinct factions of the Labour Right, from social conservatives to liberal globalists.
The Starmer Project is the most original and insightful of the (very limited, so far) book-length studies of Starmer. It is also the harshest - although, with Starmer anxious to persuade the public that he has abandoned Corbynism - the broad thrust is not one the Labour leader would query.
Updated
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing the prime minister’s press secretary said it was “completely incorrect” to say Boris Johnson had criticised the BBC’s coverage of the Ukraine conflict at his meeting with Tory MPs last night. She said:
Broadly, you wouldn’t expect me to comment on reported remarks from a private meeting. But, as the PM just made clear, he did not attack the BBC for their coverage of Ukraine - this is deeply misleading. He has the highest admiration for what journalists are doing - in fact you will have seen him publicly praise their bravery out in Ukraine.
I think the more general point is there have been examples of coverage that don’t properly differentiate between those [migrants] who are arriving in the UK via safe legal routes and those who are arriving via illegal, dangerous and unnecessary routes.
Sir Charles Walker, vice-chair of the backbench Conservative 1922 Committee, told the World at One that he planned to abstain in tomorrow’s vote on setting up an inquiry into claims Boris Johnson misled parliament. He explained:
As much as I am deeply annoyed at what went on in No 10, I am also not in a position where I have much goodwill towards a Labour party who, in my view, failed to advance any form of arguments or raise any of its own concerns about the consequences of a 20-month lockdown.
Walker said he did not think there were enough Conservative MPs calling for a confidence vote in Johnson for one to go ahead. But that could change, he said:
If the fines keep racking up, there is only so long that the prime minister will be able to lean on his party for supports. Ultimately it rests on the Sue Gray report and whether or not any more fines are issued.
Updated
Sturgeon says her face mask error very different to 'serial culture of law breaking' at No 10
Nicola Sturgeon has insisted there is a “very, very clear difference” between her face mask “error” and the apparent “serial culture of lawbreaking” at Downing Street lockdown parties, PA Media reports.
In an interview with STV, Sturgeon said:
I have recognised I made an error in not having a mask on for literally a few seconds.
I was campaigning in the street, my mask was in my pocket, I got shouted into a barbers, I was talking to people, and for a few seconds I forgot to put my mask back on.
I do think it is important for me to recognise that was wrong, and I shouldn’t, even for those few seconds, have lapsed in that.
People will make up their own minds about that. My view, and what I would say to people, is that I don’t think it is equivalent to what Boris Johnson is accused of, the what appears to be serial culture of law breaking in No 10, but then the misleading of parliament.
I do think there is a very, very clear difference there and I think it is reasonable for me to point that out.
Updated
Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s story from PMQs.
And this is how it starts.
Boris Johnson has vehemently denied criticising the BBC over its coverage of Ukraine, while pointedly failing to deny that he accused the Church of England of being more critical of his Rwanda deportation scheme than towards Russia.
PMQs - snap verdict
It must be confusing being a Conservative MP at times. Are you supposed to hate the BBC or not? Earlier this year, on day one of what was dubbed “Operation Red Meat”, the No 10 operation to shore up Boris Johnson’s position with a rightwing policy offer for Tory MPs, Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, said the BBC licence fee was definitely going. A day later she had to soften her position somewhat, after the Treasury insisted the future of the licence fee was just being reviewed. This morning Tory MPs will have read in the Daily Telegraph that Johnson believes the BBC has been soft on Vladimir Putin. At PMQs Johnson insisted that was wrong, and at the end of the session a loyalist backbencher used a point of order to insist that Conservative MPs are in fact great fans of the corporation. (See 12.43pm.)
In part, this might be an indication of how the cerebral cortex of the Conservative party has enough nous to realise that the attack lines that play well with the headline writers for rightwing newspapers are not always popular with the public. The BBC has been widely praised for its coverage of the Ukraine war, and there are no votes to be gained in slagging it off on this. But it also seems that Johnson’s views have been misrepresented by his old paper. While Johnson evidently did criticise both the BBC and the Church of England for their negative coverage of the Rwanda policy at this meeting with Tory MPs last night, the more nuanced reporting stressed that his pro-Putin jibe was aimed specifically at the clergy - and in particular the archbishop of Canterbury. (See 9.2oam.)
This explains why Johnson was so indignant - and why he came out with a clear denial. Starmer said to him:
The prime minister also accused the BBC of not being critical enough of Putin. Would the prime minister have the guts to say that to the face of [BBC reporters] Clive Myrie, Lyse Doucet and Steve Rosenberg, who have all risked their lives day in, day out on the frontline in Russia and Ukraine uncovering Putin’s barbarism?
Johnson replied:
I said nothing of the kind and I have the highest admiration as a former journalist for what journalists do. I think they do an outstanding job. I think he should withdraw what he just said - it has absolutely no basis or foundation in truth.
Some people will have watched and concluded that Johnson was slandered. But - as has sadly been explained here before - the effectiveness of an attack line is not always related to its accuracy, and Starmer probably won this particular exchange on points. (Johnson’s problem is that, even if he did not criticise the BBC in the way it was alleged, it is easy to imagine how he might have done.) Starmer was even more effective with this early Partygate questions, and he did help to establish that, although Johnson may deny accusing the BBC of being pro-Putin, he is not ashamed of saying that about the Church of England. (See 12.09pm.)
Johnson seemed to enjoy today’s PMQs more than yesterday’s 100-minute apologising session. His jibe about Starmer being “a Corbynista in a smart Islington suit”, which he repeated, did not really work (because it is obviously not true), but the joke about Starmer being stuck in a “Dr Who timewarp” was good. And there will be viewers who will have agreed with his overall argument, that it is time to move on from Partygate. But it is a Tory argument with minority, partisan appeal. If polling is a reliable guide, there are more people for whom this won’t wash.
Updated
Starmer urges Tory MPs to vote for inquiry into PM misleading Commons 'to restore decency, honesty and integrity' in politics
And this is what Keir Starmer said in a statement about the Labour motion.
We are urging Conservative MPs to do the right thing. To respect the sacrifice that their constituents made during the pandemic. To say that the public were right to follow the rules. And to vote in the national interest not under pressure from the party whips.
The British public know that the rules were broken in Downing Street. Voting to say otherwise won’t persuade the public that everything was fine but will further damage the reputation of any Conservative MP who is happy to say it was one rule for the public and another for this government.
Tomorrow’s vote is an important step to restoring decency, honesty and integrity into our politics.
Updated
Six other opposition parties back Labour's motion calling for inquiry into claims PM misled Commons
Although Keir Starmer has tabled the motion for debate in the Commons, it is backed by a total of seven opposition parties. Here are the other people who have signed it
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westmister
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader
Liz Saville-Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster
Colum Eastwood, the SDLP leader
Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP
Stephen Farry, the Alliance party MP
Labour seeks to maximise support for vote on inquiry into PM misleading MPs by proposing police probe should conclude first
Labour has published the text of the motion that MPs will debate tomorrow proposing an inquiry into claims Boris Johnson lied to MPs about Partygate. Here it is.
That, this House
(1) notes that, given the issue of fixed penalty notices by the police in relation to events in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, assertions the Rt hon Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has made on the floor of the House about the legality of activities in 10 Downing Street and the Cabinet Office under Covid regulations, including but not limited to the following answers given at Prime Minister’s Questions: 1 December 2021, that all guidance was followed in No. 10., Official Report vol. 704, col. 909; 8 December 2021 that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no Covid rules were broken, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372; 8 December 2021 that I am sickened myself and furious about that, but I repeat what I have said to him: I have been repeatedly assured that the rules were not broken, Official Report vol. 705, col. 372 and 8 December 2021 the guidance was followed and the rules were followed at all times, Official Report vol. 705, col. 379, appear to amount to misleading the House; and
(2) orders that this matter be referred to the Committee of Privileges to consider whether the hon Member’s conduct amounted to a contempt of the House, but that the Committee shall not begin substantive consideration of the matter until the inquiries currently being conducted by the Metropolitan Police have been concluded.
There are two features of the motion intended to make it less objectionable to Tory MPs.
As my colleague Aubrey Allegretti explained earlier (see 11.33am), the Tories were planning to water down the proposal by tabling an amendment calling for the inquiry to be delayed until the police investigation is over. Labour has has headed this off by incorporating a delay into its own motion.
Significantly, the motion also says the inquiry should cover claims that Johnson misled the Commons. It does not explicitly accuse Johnson of deliberately misleading the Commons - a much more serious offence that amounts to an resignation offence under the ministerial code. Since Johnson himself has effectively conceded that the house was misled, it will be hard for the government to explain to Tory MPs why they should vote against
Updated
Sir David Evennett (Con) rises to make a point of order. He says Tory MPs strongly believe in the BBC, and think it does a great job, especially reporting from Ukraine. He says what Starmer said about the PM’s comments at the meeting last night were wrong. Evennett says he was there. He asks if Starmer will be withdrawing his comment, because he misled the house.
On these benches we strongly believe in the BBC and believe that it does a great job, especially on reporting from the Ukraine; the suggestion from the leader of the opposition that the prime minister suggested somewhat differently in last night’s meeting, which I attended, is absolutely inaccurate and the leader of the ppposition [should] retract that because he’s misled the house.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, says he was not at the meeting.
Updated
Rupa Huq (Lab) asks Johnson if he agrees with what he said in a Telegraph article in 2011 about how leaders who have been in power too long are only interested in self-preservation.
Johnson says he is glad Huq is a Telegraph reader, and suggests she reads to the end of the article.
And that’s it. PMQs is over.
David Evennett (Con) says the Tories were elected to make the most of Brexit freedoms, including cracking down on people smuggling. Does the PM agree that the Rwanda plan will do just that?
Johnson says the plan was originally suggested by David Blunkett. He repeats the point about Labour being “Corbynistas in suits”.
Richard Thomson (SNP) calls Johnson Pinoccio. Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, asks him to withdraw. Thomson says he will withdraw when Johnson packs his bags and go. MPs object to that not being a proper withdrawal, but Hoyle says he is taking that a full withdrawal, which Thomson seems to accept.
Johnson says 'a lot of people' made money by improperly profiteering during Covid pandemic
Nick Smith (Lab) asks if he still believes there was no profiteering during Covid.
Johnson says “a lot of people” made money during the pandemic “in a way that perhaps they shouldn’t have done”. He says the government deplores that, and is trying to recoup the money.
Sir Robert Buckland (Con) reads out a message from a Ukrainian about the impact of the invasion. What will the government do to ensure Vladimir Putin is brought to justice?
Johnson says the savagery unleashed by the Russians “knows no limits” and “is clearly authorised from the very top”.
Liz Twist (Lab) asks Johnson when he will resign.
Johnson apologises for the fine. But he is focusing on delivering for the British people.
Updated
Sir John Hayes (Con) asks if Johnson agrees that the surviving servicemen who witnesses nuclear weapons tests will get a medal.
Johnson says he wants to ensure they get the recognition they deserve.
Updated
Ruth Jones (Lab) asks if the PM will publish photos of Partygate events taken by his official photographer. And will he pubish the Sue Gray report as soon as possible?
Johnson says the Sue Gray report will be published when the police investigation is over.
James Murray (Lab) asks if the PM agrees that it would be wrong for the chancellor, or other ministers, to benefit from investments in tax havens.
Johnson says the government is cutting taxes for everybody.
(Actually, overall, taxes are going up - and quite significantly.)
Robert Jenrick (Con) asks about a constituent of his who has served in the Ukrainian armed forces for four years. Yesterday a video emerged of him in handcuffs, captured by the Russians. He asks the PM to agree that this is in breach of the Geneva convention. And platforms such as YouTube should take these videos down, he says.
Johnson says the Russian state should treat prisoners humanely. He says the government is not encouraging people to go to Ukraine to fight. But Jenrick’s constituent had been in the Ukrainian army for some time, he says.
Updated
Sarah Atherton (Con) says Wrexham racecourse is the oldest international stadium in the world. She asks the PM to back more investment in it.
Johnson says he is sure Wrexham will get money from the levelling up fund.
Justin Madders (Lab) asks how many members of the government have been involved in a tax avoidance scheme.
Johnson says the government believes in reducing taxes.
Nicholas Fletcher (Con) asks if the PM will appoint a minister for men.
Johnson says the government is determined to tackle the health problems that particularly affect men.
Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, says her party has been calling for a bill to ban politicians from lying for 15 years. Will the PM support such a bill?
Johnson says the Commons rules demand ministers tell the truth in the Commons.
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, says 82% of people in Scotland think the PM lied to parliament about Partygate. Are they right?
Johnson says they debated this yesterday.
Blackford says the PM should offer the Queen his resignation before her birthday. We have a PM who cannot be trusted with the truth and a chancellor who cannot be trusted with his taxes, he says.
Johnson says if he were a liability to his party, as Blackford claims, Blackford would not be calling for his resignation.
Johnson denies criticising BBC's coverage of Ukraine at private meeting with Tory MPs
Starmer says this is typical of Johnson. He apologises in public, and then launches a “vicious attack” on people who tell the truth in private. He says Johnson claims to be a patriot, but “deliberately attacks and degrades the institutions of our great country”.
Johnson says Starmer is wrong. He says he did not attack the BBC for its coverage of Ukraine. Starmer “must be out of his tiny mind” if he thinks Johnson would do so.
He says, because of the tough calls he made, the economy is recover. Labour is flounding around.
Starmer says Corbyn does not even have the Labour whip. He asks if Johnson will apologise to BBC journalists who have been risking their lives.
Johnson says he admires journalists. He says the claims about his BBC comments are without foundation.
Johnson refuses to apologise to archbishop of Canterbury for criticising his stance on Rwanda policy
Starmer says the party of Peel and Churchill is reducing to screaming and shouting. He says the PM’s apology did not last long. The PM attacked the archbishop of Canterbury. Yet the archbishop said the invasion of Ukraine was a great evil. Will the PM apologise?
Johnson says he was surprised the government was attacked over its Rwanda policy. But David Blunkett first proposed this idea in 2004. He says Starmer is “a Corbynista in a smart Islington suit”.
Updated
Starmer says these are strange answers from someone who issued a humble apology yesterday. Does the PM accept he broke the law?
Johnson says he does. But he says Starmer’s line of questioning illustrates Labour’s “intellectual bankruptcy”.
Starmer says Neil Ferguson also resigned. The PM said that was the right thing to do. And Matt Hancock resigned. The PM tried to take credit. Why does the PM think everyone else’s actions have consequence, except his own.
Johnson accuses Starmer of being in a “Dr Who time wharp”. They deal with this yesterday, he says. He says Starmer should be asking about energy prices, or Ukraine.
Keir Starmer also wishes the Queen a happy birthday.
Why did Allegra Stratton have to resign?
Johnson says Stratton’s resignation was very sad. She did an oustanding job. She coined the expression “coals, cars, cash and trees” to sum up the Cop26 aims.
Neil Hudson (Con) says Cumbria has been allocated no funding in the lastest tranche of bus funding.
Johnson says the government wants to put more into buses.
Boris Johnson starts by telling MPs that they will all want to wish the Queen a very happy birthday tomorrow.
Later today he will be travelling to India, he says, strengthening the ties between the two counties, meeting Narendra Modi, the PM, and visting British investments.
PMQs
PMQs is starting shortly.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Senior Tories are hoping for a get-out clause in tomorrow’s vote on Boris Johnson partygate denials, but Labour is aiming to force every MP to show their hand.
With the local elections just weeks away and many Conservative backbenchers uncomfortably waiting for the result of the Metropolitan police inquiry, Labour want the privileges committee to investigate if the prime minister misled parliament.
But the motion will be tightly worded to try to block off those on the government benches tabling a “neutralising” amendment that would not directly block the move but defer it until after Scotland Yard’s probe concludes.
The motion is likely to say the committee’s work should not begin until Operation Hillman has come to an end, and will be published in the name of Keir Starmer after PMQs.
Updated
Acting Met police commissioner says problems in force go beyond 'few bad apples'
The acting Metropolitan police commissioner Sir Stephen House has admitted that cultural problems in the force are “not a few bad apples”, PA Media report. PA says:
Giving evidence to the home affairs select committee, House, who is temporarily leading Britain’s largest police force, said there are efforts to root out unacceptable behaviour “as fast as possible”.
The Met has faced a series of damaging scandals including the murder of Sarah Everard by serving officer Wayne Couzens, offensive messages exchanged by a team at Charing Cross and the strip-search of a teenage girl at school while she was menstruating.
He said: “There is a significant campaign within the organisation to deal with this completely unacceptable behaviour, to root it out and to exit those people who are exhibiting that behaviour from the organisation as fast as possible and in the right way.”
Asked if it was “just a few people”, he replied: “People have talked about a few bad apples, quite clearly that’s not the situation at all, it’s not a few bad apples.
“You can’t simply say that Wayne Couzens and a couple of other people have done something wrong - that’s been the spearhead of the problem, I would suggest, but there is a wider issue within the organisation which we acknowledge and we are dealing with.”
Sir Roger Gale, who was one of the first Conservative MPs to publicly call for Boris Johnson to resign over Partygate earlier this year but who is not in favour of a leadership contest now, because of the war in Ukraine, told Sky News this morning that if Johnson receives further fines, the mood in the party could turn against him. He said:
If, and I suspect this may happen, there are more revelations and more Metropolitan police fines and if Sue Gray’s report is damning, as it may well be, then whatever I think that ground will shift. There is no doubt about that.
Lords appointments panel did 'pause' peerage for Lebedev on basis of advice, its chair tells MPs
Q: Did the commission originally block, pause or question Evgeny Lebedev’s appointment to the Lords?
Bew says he wants to respect the confidentiality of the process. He says Lebedev has said he does not mind transparency about the process. But a government minister has said the confidentiality should be respected, he says.
He says “block” sounds like “warning”, and the answer to that is no.
He says it is fair to say the commission received advice, and required “further elucidation”. He accepts that that amounts to a pause.
He says it was “more a matter of being told something which made us say we need to know more”.
He says he had no direct conversation himself with the intelligence agencies about this.
Updated
Lords appointment panel chair says PM did not 'pressure' it to approve Lebedev peerage
Bew is now being asked directly about the claims that, after the intelligence services raised concerns about the appointment of Evgeny Lebedev to the Lords, No 10 intervened and requested a rethink, which led to a reassessment, and the House of Lords Appointments Commission lifting his objection to the appointment.
He says he has seen it reported that “the prime minister asked ...”
He says the PM nominated Lebedev. But, other than that, at no point did the PM “ask”. He goes on:
There was no pressure about this candidate.
He says people reading these stories will conclude that the commission was “asked” to change its views. That did not happen, he says.
He also says he is uncomfortable with the idea that the orginal advice from the agencies constituted a “warning” about appointing Lebedev. He says the commission just expects to receive facts from the agencies. The commission then interprets those fact.
Q: So why has a reputable newspaper reported this differently?
Bew says he can only speak about the commission, about what he knows about. But he says there are a number of other issues involved in appointments.
He says the commission does sometimes tell the PM that the appointment of a certain candidate which may attract “negative public comment”. He says this happens quite a lot.
Q: And did it happen in this case?
Bew replies: “Well, maybe.”
Asked if the House of Lords Appointments Commission ever approves people for a peerage, only for a peerage not to be awarded, Bew says this has happened, but that it is very rare.
He also says that, under his chairmanship, the commission for the first time rejected a nominee who was subsequently appointed by Downing Street.
Bew does not name the peer, but he was referring to the peerage for Peter Cruddas, a former Conservative party treasurer.
Updated
Increasingly peers are being appointed to Lords but not turning up to work, MPs told
Bew tells the committee that he thinks the political parties have a duty “to clarify the issue of turning up”.
He says being a member of the House of Lords has “moved essentially from being an honour to becoming a job”.
When he was appointed to the Lords in 2007, he had to give an assurance that he would turn up, he says.
But he says the Lords is “slipping back” to a situation where peers get appointed but do not show up.
Q: What form does an intelligence assessment take? Do the agencies say this person should not be appointed?
Bew says that, even though Evgeny Lebedev has said he is happy for details of his appointment process to be published, the committee is still bound by a duty of confidentiality.
But he says that within the next few days details of the Lebedev appointment may be published. That is a reference to the Commons vote last month ordering the government to publish this paperwork.
And he says he can say that “warning” is “not a word that we recognise”, as a description of how the intelligence agencies frame their advice.
At the Commons public administration and constitional affairs committee Lord Bew, the chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, is giving evidence about how candidates for the Lords are vetted. The hearing was scheduled after the controversy about Boris Johnson’s involvement in the award of a peerage to Evgeny Lebedev, the oligarch and owner of the Evening Standard.
Bew told the committee it was normal for candidates for the House of Lords to undergo an assessment from the intelligence services. But he said there was a limit to what he could say about the Lebedev case because of privacy issues.
This is from the SNP MP Joanna Cherry on Boris Johnson’s comments about the BBC and the Church of England when he spoke in private to Tory MPs last night. (See 9.20am.)
What a contemptible man @BorisJohnson is attacking the Church & the BBC saying they have been more critical of him than they have of Putin. It’s a filthy lie. The BBC’s coverage of #Ukraine has been outstanding & it’s the church’s job to call out immorality.
— Joanna Cherry QC (@joannaccherry) April 20, 2022
Angela Rayner, the deputy Labour leader, restated Labour’s call for Boris Johnson’s resignation this morning. She told Sky News:
We need a prime minister people have trust and confidence in. It is a red line if the prime minister of this country believes they can break the ministerial code, lie to the British public and get away with it. Then, frankly, all bets are off for our rules and democratic process.
In another interview this morning Paul Scully, the business minister, accepted that Boris Johnson had to “rebuild trust” after Partygate. He told BBC Breakfast.
Clearly we didn’t deal with the ongoing situation [at] Christmas when ‘Partygate’ did start to become a thing, we didn’t handle it particularly well at that point communication-wise.
Nonetheless, the prime minister has gripped it, he has apologised, he’s accepted the fine, he has accepted the finding of the police and he does want to move on.
Now that’s difficult because he has got to rebuild trust with people who are angry, who are frustrated, but that is the challenge that we have.
Updated
In defence of Boris Johnson, sources said he accused “senior members of the clergy” of having “misconstrued the [Rwanda] policy”, PA Media reports. PA says:
The prime minister was said to have then added that the clergymen were “less vociferous” in their condemnation on Easter Sunday of Vladimir Putin than they were on the migration policy.
Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, did not mention Putin by name in his Easter sermon, but he did call for a “Russian ceasefire, withdrawal and a commitment to talks”.
And he repeatedly criticised the invasion and discussed the plight of the Ukrainian people living through and fleeing the war.
Church of England accuses Boris Johnson of ‘disgraceful slur’ against senior clergy
Good morning. Boris Johnson managed to maintain a tone of contrition during his long statement to the Commons yesterday on Partygate. But speaking to Tory MPs in private later, he was back to his usual self, courting popularity by smearing traditional hate figures for the Tory right.
He attacked the BBC and the Church of England. He seemed particularly angry about their response to the government’s plan to effectively deport some asylum seekers to Rwanda and, as the Daily Mirror reports, he said it was a “good policy” despite some “criticism on the BBC and from senior members of the clergy”.
The Mirror quotes a source saying Johnson also implied the archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, was soft on Russia. Johnson reportedly said clergymen had “coincidentally had been less vociferous in their condemnation on Easter Sunday of Putin than they were of our policy on illegal immigrants”, the paper reports. In its report of the same comments, the Telegraph says the soft on Russia accusation was levelled at the BBC too.
🗞️The front page of today's Daily Telegraph:
— The Telegraph (@Telegraph) April 19, 2022
'BBC more critical of No 10 than Putin – PM'
Sign up for the Front Page newsletterhttps://t.co/x8AV4Oomry pic.twitter.com/tZz5cgfvrj
Last night the archbishop’s chief spin doctor (he has one) hit back, describing Johnson’s claim as a “disgraceful slur”. This is from John Bingham, head of news at the Church of England.
If true, a disgraceful slur. Here’s what the archbishops said on the morning of the invasion https://t.co/uYAI0vYvyR https://t.co/snAvnnXAjw
— John Bingham (@John_Bingham) April 19, 2022
Paul Scully, the business minister, was doing the broadcast round for the government this morning, and he did not deny the reports that Johnson attacked both the BBC and the Church of England at last night’s meeting. He says Johnson was concerned about Welby’s criticism of the Rwanda policy in his Easter sermon.
Scully was less confident defending the claim that the BBC was soft on Russia. When the Today presenter, Justin Webb, asked him if Johnson had ever “put his life on the line for the truth, as Jeremy Bowen has, as Lyse Doucet has, as Clive Myrie has”, Scully just said this was not something he could particularly comment on.
The phrase “dead cat” is one of the most excessively and wrongly used cliches in political commentary, but today it is probably appropriate.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: Welfare ministers David Rutley and Mims Davies give evidence to the Commons work and pensions committee about universal credit and childcare costs.
9.30am: Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, gives evidence to the Commons education committee.
9.45am: Sir Stephen House, acting commissioner of the Metropolitan police, gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.
10am: Lord Bew, chair of the House of Lords Appointments Commission, gives evidence to the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee about the vetting of potential peers, such as in the case of Evgeny Lebedev.
12pm: Boris Johnson faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.
1.30pm: Chris Wormald, permanent secretary at the Department of Health and Social Care, and other DHSC officials give evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about PPE contracts.
3pm: Damian Hinds, the security minister, gives evidence to the Commons justice committee about fraud in the justice system.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com.
Updated
