Afternoon summary
Ylva Johansson, the EU’s commissioner for home affairs, has told Suella Braverman that her illegal migration bill is unlawful, Politco’s Suzanne Lynch reports. Johansson said:
I spoke to the British minister yesterday on this and I told her that I think that this is violating international law.
New — EU Commissioner Ylva Johansson weighs in on UK #migration #StopTheBoats policy.
— Suzanne Lynch (@suzannelynch1) March 8, 2023
The EU Commissioner told POLITICO she spoke with #SuellaBraverman yesterday: https://t.co/J1Z9AC6wLa
Updated
A third union representing civil servants, the Public and Commercial Services union, has criticised Suella Braverman over the email that went out in her name. (See 1.56pm.) Mark Serwotka, the PCS general secretary, said in a statement:
The home secretary’s disgraceful and disrespectful comments come as no surprise to us.
Her government has, for years, treated hard-working civil servants with disdain and contempt, taking them for granted.
Rather than insulting our members and questioning their integrity, Suella Braverman should be encouraging the prime minister to give civil servants a fair pay rise to help them through the cost-of-living crisis and beyond.
Clive Lewis calls for UK to negotiate Caribbean slavery reparations
The Labour MP Clive Lewis has called on Rishi Sunak to enter negotiations with Caribbean leaders on paying reparations for Britain’s role in slavery, following the historic announcements by the Trevelyan family, my colleague Aamna Mohdin reports.
Humza Yousaf urges fellow SNP leadership candidates not to 'trash' party's record after acrimonious debate
SNP leadership hopeful Humza Yousaf says his opponents should think carefully before “trashing” the Scottish government’s record after Kate Forbes and Ash Regan’s spiky interventions at the contest’s first televised debate last night. (See 11.44am.)
Yousaf was campaigning in sunny seaside Irvine this afternoon, insisting he was keeping the campaign “positive” and warning that his opponents’ attacks on his record and that of the Scottish government at last night’s STV debate may well have backfired. He said:
I’m very proud of the track record of our government, that’s delivered us election victory after election victory, and anybody that trashes that record – especially those that belong in government – does a disservice to our activist members.
Yousaf said he’d spoken to activists after the debate and that “there’s a lot of hurt” following the debate, in which Forbes implied the government’s record was “mediocre” and Regan said the party had “lost its way”.
Forbes also listed what she said were Yousaf’s failures in government. He said there was nothing wrong with opening up candidates to challenge “but let’s not make it personal”.
Updated
Earlier I posted a link to an article by the academic Rob Ford arguing that Rishi Sunak is unlikely to gain significantly, in electoral terms, from his “stop the boats” policy. (See 11.06am.) For a counter view, Ford recommends a twitter thread by Ben Ansell, another politics professor. He argues that there is a potential gain to Sunak because voters who have deserted the Tories since 2019, or who did not vote in that election, are more socially authoritarian (ie, likely to favour locking up and deporting asylum seekers) than average voters.
This thread starts here.
Why are the Conservatives doubling down on small boats? Because that's what the voters they want to win back care about. And I'd expect continued 'greatest hits of social authoritarianism' policies. Quick thread with some data on attitudes among different types of voters. 1/n
— Ben Ansell (@benwansell) March 7, 2023
And here is Ansell’s concluson.
So I think the electoral logic of 'small boats' is clear. Keep hammering the 'socially authoritarian' button because that's what rouses people who used to vote Conservative but have flipped or dropped out. And we should expect a whole host of Lee Anderson friendly followups. 13/n
— Ben Ansell (@benwansell) March 7, 2023
Ansell posted this yesterday, but Rishi Sunak announcing a review of sex education in schools at PMQs today fits the thesis.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has sent an email to Home Office staff insisting that she does value their work, my colleague Aubrey Allegretti reports.
Suella Braverman has sent round an email lavishing praise on Home Office staff - after she came under fire for laying into civil servants.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) March 8, 2023
She says she's had "outstanding support from the whole department" and officials' work is a "credit to the department and the civil service"
Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the Conservative 1922 Committee who announced yesterday he is standing down as an MP at the next election, has been keeping diaries that he intends to publish, the Times’ Patrick Maguire reports.
In these dark days, at least some good news, via @patrickkmaguire in today's @timesredbox.
— Philip Cowley (@philipjcowley) March 8, 2023
Three magic words: Graham Brady's diaries. pic.twitter.com/5ndBBjEoxd
A Home Office minister has been criticised for saying there was no need for extensive engagement with refugee organisations about the government’s illegal migration bill before its publication yesterday.
In evidence to the home affairs committee this morning, Lord Murray was asked what consultation there had been with organisations outside the government before the bill was finalised. Murray replied:
Well, clearly, it was a matter for policy development within the department and engagement across government. But it wasn’t a situation which required extensive engagement with third party [organisations].
In response, the SNP MP Stewart McDonald said there should have been full consultation because the bill was “rewriting refugee laws”.
Updated
A second union representing civil servants has written to Rishi Sunak demanding an apology for what was said about them in an email to Tory supporters purportedly written by Suella Braverman, the home secretary. (See 1.56pm.)
Mike Clancy, the general secretary of Prospect, urged Sunak to “take decisive action regarding this matter, to ensure there is a retraction and an apology given and put in place arrangements to ensure there is no repetition”. He said:
Blaming civil servants in this way, without foundation and without following due process, is we believe a breach of the ministerial code and playing politics with those dedicated to serving the government of the day and is completely unacceptable.
Updated
Conservative Campaign HQ (CCHQ) has said it is “reviewing” its internal clearance processes after it sent out an email in the name of Suella Braverman attacking civil servants (see 1.56pm) that she had not approved. A party spokesperson said:
This was a CCHQ email and the wording wasn’t seen by the home secretary. We are now reviewing our internal clearance processes.
Downing Street has said it does not accept the criticism of its illegal migration bill from the UN refugee agency, UNHCR. Yesterday UNHCR said the bill was “a clear breach of the refugee convention”. Asked about the comment, the PM’s spokesperson said:
Obviously we disagree. We recognise these are new approaches but we think they meet our international obligations. We stand ready to defend them in court.
RMT members to vote on new Network Rail pay offer
The RMT union has said members will vote in a referendum over the next 12 days on a revised pay offer from Network Rail, in a move that could spell the end to the most damaging rail strikes, my colleague Gwyn Topham reports.
Lib Dems call for inquiry into claims Braverman broke ministerial code with email attacking civil servants
The Liberal Democrats have called for an investigation into the claim that Suella Braverman broke the ministerial code because an email went out in her name attacking civil servants. (See 1.56pm.) In a press notice sent out around the time that No 10 was briefing journalists that Braverman did not sign off the email, the party said that Christine Jardine has written to Sir Laurie Magnus, the No 10 ethics adviser, calling for an inquiry. She said:
Suella Braverman’s rhetoric is not only disrespectful and wrong, it is a potentially serious breach of the ministerial code.
Ministers are expected to respect the impartiality of the civil servants, and be professional and respectful towards them. Braverman’s comments have fallen way short of those standards by attacking civil servants and dragging them into deluded Conservative party conspiracy theories.
We need an urgent inquiry to get to the bottom of this. If Suella Braverman is found to have breached the ministerial code again, Rishi Sunak will surely have no choice but to sack her. Anything less would leave his promise to govern with integrity in tatters.
Updated
At Labour’s post-PMQs briefing, a spokesperson for Keir Starmer said that Starmer did not think Gary Lineker was right to compare Suella Braverman’s language about asylum seekers to Nazi rhetoric. (See 9.42am.) The spokesperson said:
I think there is a general observation that I’d make, which is I think comparisons with Germany in the 1930s aren’t always the best way to make one’s argument.
On the specifics of Gary Lineker speaking out, everybody will know that he has been a passionate advocate on behalf of refugees and refugee rights, including taking refugees into his own home.
So, I don’t think it will come as a surprise that he has strong views on this subject.
Kate Forbes defends pummeling Humza Yousaf in SNP debate, saying party needs leader with 'guts'
Kate Forbes, one of the two leading contenders to succeed Nicola Sturgeon’s as first minister, has insisted SNP members want a new leader with “guts” as she defended her all-out attack on her closest rival, Humza Yousaf. (See 11.44am.)
Forbes, Sturgeon’s finance secretary, claimed SNP members and voters wanted a new leader who had “the metal” to fight the Conservatives in London and the courage to attack the party’s failings if the SNP “wanted to be in office for the next 15 years”.
Many party activists were furious Forbes used the first live televised debate of the contest last night to mount an all-out attack on Yousaf’s track record in transport, justice and on health, implying he was not competent enough to be first minister.
She accused Yousaf of having “tired ambitions” and represented an “acceptance of mediocrity”.
Mhairi Hunter, Sturgeon’s constituency agent and a former SNP councillor in Glasgow, was the most vocal, accusing Forbes of disloyalty to a cabinet colleague by using “opposition attack lines”.
What the actual fuck is a serving Cabinet Secretary doing using opposition hit lines against a colleague? I did not have this on my bingo card I must say.
— Mhairi Hunter 🇺🇦 🏴 (@MhairiHunter) March 7, 2023
Forbes said today the SNP was “big enough and brave enough” to have a vigorous debate. She said:
The public and SNP members want to see somebody who has got the guts to recognise what needs to change. [And] last night was all about having the candour and the honesty to say that more of the same isn’t what Scotland needs, we actually do need change.
Secondly, it is about competence. And if any SNP leader and first minister is going to be taking on the Tories in Westminster, for example, then they need to have the metal and they need to have the courage to do that.
Questioned on whether the fact the vast majority of endorsements from SNP MSPs and MPs were for Yousaf would make it very hard to unify the party at Holyrood if she won, she said elected members were required to back her. She said:
Well, that’s how the democratic process works. We are accountable in part to our members, so [if] members make a choice I think it’s incumbent on elected representatives, who answer to their branches, to respect that choice.
Updated
No 10 says Braverman did not approve Tory email sent out in her name including 'cowardly' attack on civil servants
Yesterday CCHQ sent out an email to Conservative party supporters about the illegal migration bill. It was purportedly written by Suella Braverman, the home secretary, and it started:
We tried to stop the small boat crossings without changing our laws.
But an activist blob of left-wing lawyers, civil servants and the Labour Party blocked us.
So today we’re changing our laws — and bringing the small boat crossings to an end.
The claim that civil servants are obstructing government policy has prompted Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA, the union representing senior civil servants, to write a furious letter to Rishi Sunak saying that Braverman has broken her obligation under the ministerial code to defend the impartiality of the civil service. In it, he said:
This is an extraordinary statement from a serving home secretary.
Not only is this statement factually incorrect, but the tone of that paragraph and the brigading of civil servants with the Labour party and ‘left-wing lawyers’ is a direct attack on the integrity and impartiality of the thousands of civil servants who loyally serve the home secretary.
I am sure I do not need to remind you that paragraph 5.1 of the ministerial code states that ‘ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the civil service’.
I cannot see how the home secretary’s statement to Conservative party members can be reconciled with her obligations under the code.
Penman also suggested the comment could put civil servants at risk. He said officials working in the Home Office have already been told to take precautions to protect their security.
Not only is the Home Secretary’s cowardly attack on the impartiality and integrity of the civil service a transparent attempt to deflect from her govt’s own policy failings, but it is also a clear breach of the Ministerial Code. My letter to the Prime Minister. pic.twitter.com/y2tjY9I6Pq
— Dave Penman (@FDAGenSec) March 8, 2023
At the post-PMQs lobby briefing Rishi Sunak’s press secretary said Braverman had not approved the email sent out in her name. The press secretary said:
The home secretary did not see that email before it went out. She did not see, sign off or sanction that email being sent out …
There would have to be ministerial sign-off usually on things where their name is included on it or it goes out in their name, but I think on this occasion there was obviously operationally the process was not followed.
Although the email may not have been written or approved by Braverman, when she was attorney general she did reportedly criticise government lawyers for being overly cautious about approving policies likely to face legal challenge.
Updated
PMQs - snap verdict
Keir Starmer went on asylum, and small boats. That in itself should tell you the key point about today’s PMQs. Historically, immigration, and anything related to it, has been a losing issue for Labour (just as the NHS has been a losing issue for the Tories). But the day after Rishi Sunak published an illegal migration bill clearly weaponised for political purposes, Starmer marched towards the gunfire.
It was a sign of confidence. And that confidence was merited because, at the very least, Labour can easily hold its own against the Tories on this issue.
Ed Miliband or Jeremy Corbyn would have avoided the topic because draconian asylum policies that tend to poll well with floating voters, and are hugely popular with the papers they read, tend to make Labour party members and MPs recoil with horror. When Miliband was leader, there was a row just because he put the slogan “controls on immigration” on a party mug. This explains the thrust of the Sunak attack today, as he claimed that Labour just favours “unlimited asylum” (see 12.05pm) and is opposed to all controls. Here is a flavour of it. Sunak said:
The reality is on this issue, [Starmer] has been on the wrong side … of this issue his entire career. He described all immigration law as racist. He said it was a mistake to control immigration. And he has never, ever voted for tougher asylum laws. It is clear while he is hock to the open border activists, we’re on the side of the British people …
He wanted to, in his words, scrap the Rwanda deal. He voted against measures to deport foreign criminals and he even argued against deportation flights. We know why, because on this matter he talked about his legal background. He’s just another lefty lawyer standing in our way.
As a line of attack, there is probably some mileage in it. There are people who don’t like “lefty lawyers”. But this sort of rhetoric only appeals to the core vote. More importantly, it is just not true to say that Labour is proposing unlimited asylum. It is a sign of how desperate this all sounded that the point about Starmer calling all immigration law racist came from a Guido Fawkes blog, quoting something Starmer wrote 35 years ago.
(Incidentally, Starmer was right on this. The Home Office itself actually said in an internal report that “during the period 1950-1981, every single piece of immigration or citizenship legislation was designed at least in part to reduce the number of people with black or brown skin who were permitted to live and work in the UK”. But you can see why Starmer won’t make that argument during an election campaign.)
The conventional Tory attack lines about Labour and asylum don’t work partly because policy has firmed up over Labour. More importantly, the fact that Starmer led the Crown Prosecution Service gives him considerable credibility on this. “When I was in charge of prosecutions I extradited countless rapists and the conviction rate for people-smuggling was twice what it is today,” he told Sunak.
But mainly it is because the government’s record is so dire. Starmer illustrated this effectively, highlighting the fact that only 21 people have been removed from the UK as a direct result of the Nationality and Borders Act provisions making them ineligible to declare asylum, and that processing rates are now below 1%.
Another problem, as Rob Ford writes in his Substack analysis (see 11.06am), is that asylum is not a priority issue for most voters. Oral sex lessons in schools are probably an even more marginal concern. But these are the culture war battles that Sunak is fighting this week, perhaps because he has nowhere else to go.
Updated
Tahir Ali (Lab) asks about women in Indian-occupied Kashmir being subject to rape, forced marriage and other abuse. Does he agree the BJP government in India has supported this.
Sunak says the government has a proud record of taking action on sexual violence. He does not address the point about the BJP government at all.
And that’s it. PMQs is over.
Imran Hussain (Lab) says the migration bill is “far-right” and “appeasing”. Would Mo Farah have been removed under it?
Sunak says the government has to stop the system being overwhelmed if it wants to help the most vulnerable. There is nothing compassionate about allowing the current system to continue.
Updated
Natalie Elphicke (Con) asks if Sunak will see what more can be done to address push factors for small boats when he meets the French president – who is pushing those boats into the sea in France.
Sunak says he has already announced the biggest deal with France, including a 40% increase in patrols.
Gerald Jones (Lab) says the last Labour government lifted 800,000 children out of poverty. But the Tories have put 500,000 children into poverty. Will the PM apologise?
Sunak says since 2010 there are 1.2 million fewer people in poverty, through measures such as the national living wage.
Updated
Matt Rodda (Lab) asks why the government has removed measures to tackle the posting of content promoting knives in the online safety bill. He refers to a constituent killed by people looking at this material.
Sunak says he is happy to look at this issue. The government has taken other measurs on knife crime, he says.
Steve McCabe (Lab) says Sunak talks about working in his mother’s pharmacy. How will he feel if 600 close this year because of the “vicious” NHS contract.
Sunak says community pharmacies do fantastic work. The government is looking at what more it can do to support them.
Richard Thomson (SNP) asks what Sunak will do to close the gender pensions gap.
Sunak says auto-enrollment has helped millions of women. The government remains committed to the measures in the 2017 review.
Updated
Christopher Clarkson (Con) asks Sunak to pay tribute to the role played by remarkable women, including his mum, who is in the gallery.
Sunak does pay tribute to them.
Rosie Duffield (Lab) asks if the PM agrees voters have every right to ask candidates questions about women’s rights, and that candidates should reply.
Sunak says he agrees. He says Duffield has his full support on this.
Updated
Kenny MacAskill (Alba) asks about people off-grid for power, which he says is more common in poorer areas. Will the PM ensure these people can get their extra fuel payment.
Sunak says, as someone representing a rural constituency, he is aware of the off-grid issue. The government is trying to ensure people do not lose out.
David Davis (Con) asks about the extradition treaty with the US that came into force in 2003. He says the UK has sent 225 people to the US, but only 83 people have come the other way. The system is unfair, partly because the Americans coerce people. Will the PM review the treaty?
Sunak says it is in the national interest to have effective extradition relationships. He will meet Davis to discuss this further. The US has only refused one request, while the UK has refused 27, he says.
Updated
Kevin Brennan (Lab) asks about ticket touts reselling Eurovision tickets at extravagant prices, which he says is the latest example of Tory rip-off Britain.
Sunak says he will look at this issue.
Jo Gideon (Con) asks about the Bank of Dave story, and asks if the PM will meet her and Dave Fishwick to discuss community banking.
Sunak says he will organise a meeting with a Treasury minister.
Updated
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, asks about Jean, who was told she would have to wait eight hours for an ambulance. She had to drive to hospital herself. When she got to hospital, she collapsed and died. Will Sunak apologise?
Sunak says his thoughts are with Jean’s family. Performance is improving for ambulance times. There has been a marked improvement, he says.
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, asks Sunak to confirm that someone sex-trafficked to the UK could be denied asylum under the bill.
Sunak says the government’s plans are based on compassion. He does not answer the questions.
Flynn says he will take that as a yes. And he says today the government has said 100 million people could come here. That is nonsense, he says. Who is inspiring the government, Nigel Farage or Enoch Powell?
Sunak says the figure is a UN one. If the government cannot control the asylum system, it cannot protect those in need, he says.
Updated
Sunak says DfE has been asked to review if sex education material being used in schools is age-appropriate
Miriam Cates (Con) says sex education at school can include graphic descriptions of oral sex. Sex education is not age-appropriate. Will the government carry out a review?
Sunak says he has asked the Department for Education to ensure that children are not getting information that is not age-appropriate.
Updated
Asylum system now 'utterly broken', says Starmer
Starmer says less than 1% of people arriving on small boats have had their claims processed. That is the official figure. The government is just offering the same old gimmicks. When the home secretary says the Tories are all talk and no action, she is spot on.
He adds that the system has become “utterly broken on [Sunak’s] watch”.
Sunak says enforcement, people processing claims and returns agreements are all up. It will be only the Conservatives who stop the boats.
Updated
Starmer says Sunak said all this last year. Labour said it would not work. The government passed the bill, and small boat numbers went up.
A few months ago Sunak said it was unacceptable that only 4% of applications had been processed. What is the figure now?
Sunak says the number of people waiting for their application to be processed has gone down. There are return agreements with countries such as Nigeria and Albania. He says the Tories are the party of fairness, and Labour is the party of free movement.
Updated
Starmer says Sunak came out with “all that nonsense” because he did not want to answer the question. Only 21 people deemed ineligible under the act were returned. As for the new arrivals, where will they be detained?
Sunak claims Labour has no plan on this issue because it does not want to tackle the problem. Starmer “opposed every single step” of what the government has done.
And Starmer promised to defend free movement.
Updated
Starmer says when he was DPP he extradited countless rapists, and the conviction rate for people-smuggling was twice what it is today.
He asks how many people deemed ineligible for asylum under the Nationality and Borders Act last year have actually been returned.
Sunak says returns have doubled. He says when he was in Dover yesterday officials told him that they could arrest more than double the number they arrested before because of the legislation passed by the government.
He says Starmer wanted to scrap the Rwanda law. He even argued against deportation flights.
He is just another lefty lawyer standing in our way.
Updated
Starmer asks when Sunak will achieve his target of stopping all small boat crossings.
Sunak says the government will pass its bill as soon as it can.
He says Starmer “has been on the wrong side of this issue his entire career”. He described all immigration law as racist, and has never voted for tougher immigration law.
Sunak claims Labour favours 'open-door immigration and unlimited asylum'
Keir Starmer says he wants to celebrate the success of women.
But it is a shame this is happening when legislation has been published that will drive a coach and horses through antislavery legislation.
The home secretary says the public are sick of tough talk and inadequate action. Does the PM agree with this assessment of this government’s record?
Sunak says this is a global problem. That is why he has produced new plans. The new legislation says, if you come here illegally, you will be detained and removed.
Labour wants “open-door immigration and unlimited asylum”, he claims.
Updated
Anthony Magnall (Con) asks about the 200,000 people living on park home sites, who he says are disadvantaged in many ways.
Sunak says park homers rights are now codified. If they are not met, they can take owners to a tribunal.
Richard Burgon (Lab) asks why Rishi Sunak, “the richest prime minister in history”, has not yet published his tax returns. And will he include his US ones?
Sunak says he will publish them “very shortly”.
Updated
Rishi Sunak starts by saying it is International Women’s Day. The government is taking huge strides to deliver equal opportunities, he says.
Updated
PMQs is about to start.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Updated
The Conservative party has put out a press release headed: “Conservative Response to Yvette Cooper refusing to say Labour would stop small boats.”
But there is a flaw in the argument. In her interview on the Today programme this morning (actually quoted in the notes accompanying the press release), Cooper, the shadow home secretary, made it clear that Labour is in favour of stopping the boats.
Asked if a Labour government would stop the boats, Cooper replied:
We do believe we need to stop the boats. This is dangerous, it puts lives at risk and it also undermines our border security. So we need strong action.
What commentators are saying about last night's SNP leadership TV debate
Last night the three SNP leadership candidates had their first TV debate. As my colleague Severin Carrell reports in his story about it, the exchanges were “bitter and personal”.
And in her analysis, my colleague Libby Brooks says:
At Tuesday’s first televised debate, after five fairly bland party hustings, the message the three prospective first ministers screamed loud and clear at Scotland was: “We are a party at war with ourselves.”
Those viewers more familiar with the disciplined, “family hold back” approach to public disagreement within the SNP would have been forgiven for adjusting their television sets as the often ferocious STV debate progressed.
Here are some other summaries of the debate from journalists and commentators in Scotland.
(They are all quite harsh, but that has been because I have not been able to find more positive ones. If there are positive write-ups available, do let me know.)
Chris McCall in the Daily Record says SNP members are furious with what happened. He says:
Some Nationalists were left furious after Kate Forbes launched a scathing attack on Humza Yousaf’s record in government on live TV.
Ash Regan also used the debate to declare the SNP had “lost its way” and flatly rejected the party’s long standing policy of achieving independence through a referendum.
But the STV debate will most likely be remembered for Forbes attacking her Cabinet colleague Yousaf.
She said: “When you were transport minister the trains were never on time. When you were justice minister, the police were strained to breaking point.
“And now as health minister, we’ve got record high waiting times. What makes you think you can do a better job as First Minister?”
Alistair Grant in the Scotsman says it was a “brutal fight” and that Labour and the Tories must be rubbing their hands with glee.
Iain Macwhirter, the commentator and writer, says in a Substack post that Kate Forbes was implicitly attacking Nicola Sturgeon’s record. He says:
I’m not sure the SNP are ready for this level of candour about the record of one of the most experienced figures in the Scottish Government. Forbes wasn’t just trashing Humza Yousaf, she was attacking the competence of Saint Nicola herself in placing him in these leading role.
And Blair McDougall, lead strategist in the No campaign in 2014, says in his Notes on Nationalism substack that the SNP’s opponents will benefit from what Forbes said. He says:
The reaction by many on nationalist social media to Forbes trashing not just her opponent but her own government was furious. It’s hardly surprising that the SNP members who accuse other parties of hating their country, when they hear us speaking out about failures by the SNP, like hearing it even less from their own side. This clip will be played again and again by the SNP’s opponents as they attempt to make Yousaf’s incompetence the dominant frame in people’s minds when they make judgements about whether to support his party. Every new promise he makes of change in the future should be devalued by his failure to keep old pledges.
As Yousaf attempted to use Nicola Sturgeon’s old lines to defend his record running the NHS (it could be worse, we could be England!) Forbes turned that complacency on its head: “Shouldn’t a First Minister have higher ambitions than being slightly better than the rest of the UK?”
If she doesn’t get the job she wants, maybe Forbes can work in the press office of an opposition party because she has a flare for writing crushing anti-SNP rhetoric.
Updated
Rob Ford, a politics professor and co-author of Brexitland, a book about the electoral forces behind Brexit, has written a compelling article on Substack on whether Rishi Sunak is likely to gain electorally from his “stop the boats” policy. He concludes he won’t. He says:
One of the greatest advantages governments have is agenda-setting power. They can put the spotlight on popular ideas and vote-winning issues simply by talking about them. “Stop the boats” focuses public and media attention on a pledge that can’t be delivered, on an issue where 80% of voters disapprove of the government’s track record, and which 80% of voters don’t see as a priority. If the government sees this as the best possible use of its agenda-setting power, it is truly in deep trouble.
Do read the whole article, which is here.
Updated
In an interview on the Today programme Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said Labour did want to stop small boat crossings. But she said the goverment was being “irresponsible” because it was trying to address the problem with policies that would not work. She said:
I think that they are being irresponsible in the way they’re doing this.
Time and again they go for the gimmicks, they go for the rhetoric, they ramp up the debate on this, but they don’t actually solve the problem.
The Mail on Sunday columnist Dan Hodges says there are Tory MPs who think that even Suella Braverman does not believe the government’s “stop the boats” plan will work.
On small-boats. I've yet to find a Tory MP who thinks it will actually work. Or who believes even Braverman thinks it will work. One senior Tory said "she knows it won't work. Her plan is to eventually resign, and claim No.10/officials undermined her strategy".
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) March 8, 2023
What Braverman said on the Today programme this morning about voters knowing by the time of the next election whether the plan has worked or not (see 9.24am) does not prove this theory is right, but it is the sort of thing she would say if it were correct.
Braverman admits as many as 80,000 people could cross Channel on small boats this year
Here are more lines from Suella Braverman’s interviews this morning.
Braverman admitted that as many as 80,000 people could cross the Channel in small boats this year. The figure is an upper-limit forecast from the Home Office, reported earlier this year. On the Today programme Braverman said that, on the basis of previous years, “we may see in the region of 40,000 people or more” crossing the Channel in 2023. But when it was put to her that the Home Office thought it could be as high as 80,000, she replied:
It may well be. That is a possibility. That is why this action is necessary.
She rejected suggestions that, under her bill, the government would need to build detention centres able to house around 40,000 asylum seekers. That figure would be a central estimate for the number who might arrive this year. But Braverman said places would not be needed for that many, because the law would have a deterrent effect.
She rejected claims that Rwanda can only take 200 asylum seekers. That figure, which was used by opposition MPs in the Commons yesterday, is based on Rwanda’s current capacity. She said Rwanda could take thousands of people. She said:
Our scheme with Rwanda is not capped at 200. That is a misunderstanding of our world-leading agreement with our friends in Rwanda. It is an uncapped scheme and therefore there is considerable capacity if we need it in Rwanda for people to be relocated there to lead safe and secure lives.
Asked if Rwanda could take “many thousands” of people, Braverman replied:
Potentially. It is an uncapped scheme and we will decide on the numbers who are relocated there on a case-by-case basis as it evolves.
She defended her claim to MPs yesterday that up to 100 million might try to come to the UK under current asylum laws. In her opening statement to the Commons yesterday she said:
By some counts there are 100 million people around the world who could qualify for protection under our current laws. And let’s be clear: they are coming here.
Asked about the comment, she told the BBC:
I see my role as being honest … I’m not going to shy away from displaying the enormity of the problem that we are facing.
The UN itself has confirmed there are over 100 million people who are displaced globally, because of all sorts of factors like conflict or persecution … and these are many people who would like to come to the United Kingdom.
She told Sky News she could not say when new detention centres would be built for asylum seekers. “We’ve got logistical challenges that we’re always overcoming.” This is from Sky’s Sam Coates.
Key section of @kayburley Home Sec iv worth listening to
— Sam Coates Sky (@SamCoatesSky) March 8, 2023
Suella Braverman reveals “logistical” issues over detention, can’t give dates for when removals starts, won’t detail per removal cost
Practical obstacles to gvt asylum plan much more 👀🔥😱 than hypothetical legal issues pic.twitter.com/fGEwkBGdiK
She said she had issued a statement saying the bill might not be compatible with the Human Rights Act out of “an abundance of caution”. But she claimed she was confident it was legal. She said:
We are confident that we are complying with the law, domestic and international. But we are also pushing the boundaries and we are testing innovative and novel legal arguments.
Braverman would be entitled to say she was hopeful the bill was legal. But, as a senior lawyer pointed out yesterday, on the basis of the legal assessment that she has had, saying the chances of the government losing in the courts are higher than 50%, she is not entitled to say she is confident she is complying with the law.
She did not deny that she personally favours leaving the European convention on human rights. She has called for this before and, asked if that was still her opionion, she said her views had been “well chronicled”.
Updated
Braverman says it was 'irresponsible' for Gary Lineker to say her language about refugees like that used in Nazi Germany
In her interviews this morning Suella Braverman, the home secretary, joined the row about Gary Lineker’s attack on her small boats legislation.
In a tweet yesterday, the Match of the Day presenter described a video by Braverman describing her plans as “beyond awful” and then later said she was using language “not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s”.
There is no huge influx. We take far fewer refugees than other major European countries. This is just an immeasurably cruel policy directed at the most vulnerable people in language that is not dissimilar to that used by Germany in the 30s, and I’m out of order?
— Gary Lineker 💙💛 (@GaryLineker) March 7, 2023
Asked about the comments on ITV’s Good Morning Britain, Braverman said Lineker was being “irresponsible”. She said:
I’m very disappointed by Gary Lineker’s comments. Equating our measures – which are lawful, necessary and fundamentally compassionate – to 1930s Germany is irresponsible and I disagree with that characterisation.
Asked if he should resign or be sacked, she replied: “That’s a matter for the BBC and they will resolve that.”
She also said Lineker should do a visit to “see what the communities in Kent and Dover and actually all around the UK are feeling about this issue”.
Here is my colleague Caroline Davies’ story about the row.
Updated
Suella Braverman has denied the government is breaking the law with its illegal migration bill in interviews this morning. But, as my colleague Aletha Adu reports, Braverman struggled to clarify if the Olympian Sir Mo Farah would have been deported as soon as he turned 18 years old under the proposed regulations.
Braverman says it will be ‘very clear’ to voters at next election if ‘stop the boats’ plan has worked
Good morning. When Rishi Sunak made five pledges in January, four of them looked relatively easy to meet, and one of them looked impossible. He promised to “pass new laws to stop small boats, making sure that if you come to this country illegally, you are detained and swiftly removed”.
Yesterday that new law was published, and, as Rajeev Syal and Kiran Stacey report, there was nothing in the text to persuade critics that they were wrong to assume that legal and other difficulties mean the policy won’t work.
The conventional political response, when challenged about a promise that won’t or can’t be met, is to rely upon some smallprint opt-out. Sunak could say he is only promising to “pass laws”, not to “stop small boats”.
But this government has gone all in on making “stop the boats” the commitment, which raises two questions: when will it happen, and what does success mean? No more small boats at all? A dramatic reduction? Or just a modest reduction?
At his press conference last night Rishi Sunak did not define the target in precise terms, but he said “people will judge us on our results” and that “successes are stopping the boats”. Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has been giving interviews this morning and she was a bit more explicit. Asked if she would admit that she had failed if people were still crossing the Channel at the time of the next election (expected by next autumn), she told the Today programme:
It’s vital that we fix this problem. I think it’ll be very clear by the time of the next election whether we’ve succeeded or not.
Asked again if she was saying there would be no boats by the time of the next election, she again said:
It will be very clear whether we have succeeded or not.
The wording was interesting. Ministers want the plan to succeed, but there does seem to be a split between those who are very confident/hopeful that it will (like Sunak), and those who are less confident, but who think that if it does not work, the Tories can fight an election promising to withdraw Britain from the European convention on human rights. Braverman seems to be in the latter camp, and her answer to this question on the Today programme was consistent with this.
I will post more from her interviews shortly.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Chris Heaton-Harris, the Northern Ireland secretary, gives evidence to the Commons Northern Ireland affairs committee about paramilitary activity.
9.45am: The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee about Windrush. Other witnesses include David Neal, independent chief inspector of borders and immigration at 10.15am, and Lord Murray, a Home Office minister, at 11.15am.
12pm: Rishi Sunak faces Keir Starmer at PMQs.
I’ll 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
