Early evening summary
Peers have inflicted six defeats on the government over the illegal migration bill. In the most recent, they voted by 216 votes to 163 – a majority of 53 – in favour of an amendment that would ensure that, under the bill, the lawfulness of immigration detention is still covered by the common law. Other amendments have strenghthened protections for LGBT people (see 3.49pm), for children (see 4.01pm and 4.19pm) and for pregnant women (see 4.48pm). The debate is still going on and move votes are expected. Last week, on the first day of the bill’s report stage debate in the Lords, there were four government defeats.
MPs have begun debating the economic activity of public bodies (overseas matters) bill, which is intended to stop councils operating anti-Israel boycott policies. But some Tories criticised the bill on the grounds that it would prevent councils expressing their disapproval of China. Opening the debate, Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, said:
The bill before the house today does four things: it honours a manifesto promise that this government recommitted to in the last Queen’s Speech.
It affirms the important principle that UK foreign policy is a matter for the UK government. It ensures that local authorities concentrate on serving their residents, not directing resources inefficiently. And critically, it provides protection for minority communities, especially the Jewish community, against campaigns that harm community cohesion and fuel antisemitism.
In the 2019 manifesto, this government committed to, quotes, ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries. This legislation does just that. No more and no less.
Updated
Updated
Small boat crossings last month were highest June figures since records started five years ago, figures show
Crossings have set a new record for the month of June, pushing the total for the year so far to more than 11,000, PA Media reports. PA says:
In the first six months of 2023, 11,434 people were detected making the journey from France, according to provisional government figures.
This includes 155 migrants arriving in three boats on Friday, taking the total for June alone to 3,824. This is the highest total for the month of June since records began five years ago, PA news agency analysis of the Home Office data shows.
The figures come almost six months after Rishi Sunak vowed to “stop the boats” and made this one of his five flagship pledges as prime minister.
In June last year, 3,140 migrants arrived in the UK after crossing the Channel.
In 2021 it was 2,177; 727 in 2020, 163 in 2019 and just four people in June 2018.
Despite a flurry of crossings last month – including the highest daily total to date for the year on June 11 when 549 people were recorded making the journey – the total for the first half of 2023 is still 10% lower than this time last year (12,747).
Commenting on the figures, Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said:
Last month Rishi Sunak claimed crossings were down 20% because his plan was ‘starting to work’, while the home secretary claimed boats would stop from March. However, today’s figures show that crossings last month were the highest since records began.
Time and again the prime minister chases short-term headlines instead of doing the hard work needed to tackle the problem. The numbers of dangerous crossings are rising again, hotel costs are spiralling, all while the government’s flagship Rwanda policy unravels in front of their eyes.
Updated
Downing Street urges Israel to 'exercise restraint' in Jenin
Rishi Sunak, has called on the Israeli military to “exercise restraint” as a major aerial and ground offensive into the West Bank city of Jenin continues. At the afternoon lobby briefing, a No 10 spokesperson said:
While we support Israel’s right to self-defence, the protection of civilians must be prioritised.
In any military operation, we would urge the IDF [Israeli Defence Forces] to demonstrate restraint in its operations and for all parties to avoid further escalation in the West Bank and Gaza.
Updated
Government loses fifth vote of day on illegal migration bill as peers vote to limit detention powers over pregnant women
There has been a fifth division in the Lords on the illegal migration bill, and the fifth defeat this afternoon. By 226 votes to 152, a majority of 74, peers voted for an amendment to keep the current rules saying that pregnant women can normally only be kept for 72 hours in immigration detention. The bill as drafted would have relaxed this condition.
This time six Tories voted against the government: Lord Cormack, Lady Fall, Lady Helic, Lady Mobarik, Lady Sugg and Lady Wyld.
Updated
Although the government has been losing votes on the illegal migration bill by hefty margins in the Lords this afternoon, there are not many Conservative peers rebelling. In the first two divisions (see 3.49pm), there were no Tories voting against the government. In the third, just two Conservatives (Lady Sugg, a former aide to David Cameron, and Lady Helic, a former adviser to William Hague), voted with Lady Mobarik for her amendment on unaccompanied children. (See 4.01pm.) In the vote on her next amendment, on children generally, Lord Cormack was the only Tory backing her. (See 4.19pm.)
Peers are now voting on an amendment that would stop the bill weakening the rules that limit the detention of pregnant women.
Updated
Ministers suffer further defeat as peers vote by majority of 79 for amendment to protect rights of children facing detention
A few minutes later there was a marginally bigger defeat in the Lords on a second amendment relating to children. Like the previous one (see 4.01pm), it was tabled by Lady Mobarik, a Tory peer. This one would retain the existing rules that stop children being detained for more than 72 hours, or for more than a week with ministerial approval. The bill as drafted by the government would remove that limit. The amendment was passed by 230 votes to 151 – a majority of 79.
Updated
Government defeated by 78 votes as peers amend illegal migration bill to limit detention of unaccompanied children
In a third defeat, peers voted by 230 votes to 152 – a majority of 78 – in favour of an amendment to the illegal migration bill that retains the current rules that prevent unaccompanied children being detained for more than 24 hours. The bill as drafted by the government would remove that limit.
Of the seven government defeats on this bill so far, this is the biggest.
Updated
Peers inflict two defeats on government over illegal migration bill, including to insert protections for LGBT people in it
On Wednesday last week the government was defeated in four votes in the House of Lords on the illegal migration bill. The fifth vote was delayed because of a problem with the machines that read cards as peers vote, and instead it took place at the start of today’s debate (the second day of the bill’s report stage).
The government was defeated again. By 204 votes to 168 – a majority of 36 – they voted for an amendment from the Liberal Democrats saying that, if someone is not removed within six months of their application being deemed inadmissable, the home secretary must consider their claim.
A few minutes later ministers lost a second time when peers voted by 216 votes to 147 – a majority of 69 – in favour of a crossbench amendment that would prevent LGBT people being deported to a country where they would have a well-founded fear of persecution, or that would be otherwise inappropriate.
Updated
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, signalled her support for the aims of the new Tory anti-immigration group, the New Conservatives, during Home Office questions in the Commons.
The government has rejected some of the group’s specific policy recommendations. (See 1.46pm.) But when James Daly, a supporter of the New Conservatives, asked Braverman if she would raise the minimum salary threshold for skilled worker visas, Braverman said getting net migration down was the right priority. She told Daly:
We always keep the salary threshold under review.
But, as I said, net migration is too high and we need to get overall numbers down.
How do we do that? Employers need to recruit more people already here rather than advertise abroad so much. We also need to get more people off welfare and back into economic activity and our welfare reforms will help that objective. And we cannot ignore the pressures that record levels of people coming to the UK put on housing supply, public services and on community relations. That’s why we need to focus on lowering net migration.
We expect net migration to return to sustainable levels over time and immigration policy is under constant review.
Updated
Ofcom to investigate GB News and TalkTV over impartiality rules
Ofcom has launched investigations into GB News and TalkTV as the media regulator struggles to handle how rightwing television channels are employing serving politicians as presenters, Jim Waterson reports.
Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger named as co-chairs of New Conservatives, new group for anti-immigration Tories
The New Conservatives’ website has now gone live. It says that the co-chairs are Miriam Cates and Danny Kruger, and that its president is Sir John Hayes, the Suella Braverman ally who also chairs the Common Sense Group.
Cates, Kruger and Hayes all spoke at the National Conservatism conference that took place in London in May. Organised by a US thinktank, it showcased a brand of “faith, flag and family” conservatism that until recently was relatively rare in mainstream Conservative party politics.
The three MPs have all been at the forefront of “culture war” campaigning and this may turn out to be a priority for the group.
As the Sun’s Jack Elsom reports, Lee Anderson is not included in the list of MPs backing the new organisation. Elsom says Anderson is a supporter, but that he cannot officially endorse the group because of his role as the Conservative party deputy chair.
Danny Kruger clears up what’s happening with Lee Anderson.
— Jack Elsom (@JackElsom) July 3, 2023
Says he is part of the New Conservatives group but as Tory deputy can’t officially endorse outside policy proposals. https://t.co/MvkpUyEi7k
Most of the Tories supporting the group are from “red wall” constituencies, seats won from Labour in the 2019 near-landslide election. Cates is in this category because she won Penistone and Stocksbridge in South Yorkshire. But Kruger represents Devizes, a safe Tory seat in Wiltshire, and Hayes has been the MP for South Holland and the Deepings in Lincolnshire since 1997.
Updated
Downing Street rejects call from 'red wall' Tories for ban on foreign carers getting work visas
At the Downing Street lobby briefing No 10 confirmed that it is not in favour of the proposal from the New Conservatives group for a ban on foreign carers getting work visas. (See 10.10am and 10.34am.) Asked about the proposal, the PM’s spokesperson said:
That’s not an approach we’re considering currently … We know there is significant demand in the care sector for staff. We are boosting domestic staff and backing that with hundreds of millions of pounds in support … right now we think we’re striking the right balance.
The spokesperson also said he was not aware of any government plans to change the rules that let foreign graduates stay in the UK for up to two years without a job offer, which is another proposal from the New Conservatives. In implied criticism of the idea, he said: “I think people would recognise that highly trained students with the skills the UK wants and needs are people we should welcome.”
But the spokesperson did not rule out the governmment imposing an annual cap of 20,000 on the number of refugees admitted to the UK. The government has said there should be an annual cap, and the New Conservatives propose it should be set at 20,000. (See 10.10am.) The spokesperson said the government wanted the Commons to be consulted on this. He said:
It’s for parliament to make a judgment based on the current circumstances, which will, of course, vary.
Updated
No 10 says it will create body to monitor petrol and diesel prices following CMA report
Downing Street has said the government supports the recommendations from the Competition and Markets Authority report calling for a body to monitor petrol and diesel prices. The CMA says consumers are paying more because of weakened competition.
Asked about the report, the PM’s spokesperson told journalists at the No 10 lobby briefing:
We support all of the findings from the CMA report.
It isn’t right that at a time when people are struggling with rising living costs, drivers aren’t receiving a fair deal for fuel and instead being overcharged by retailers.
That’s why we will be setting up a new scheme to enable motorists to conveniently find the best fuel prices in real time and easily identify who is charging fair prices and passing on savings and who is not. We will change the law to force retailers to provide up-to-date price information, increasing transparency and competition, and in turn driving down prices and easing people’s cost of living.
New powers will also be handed to a public organisation, yet to be decided, to closely monitor the UK road fuel market, scrutinise prices and alert government if further intervention is needed in the market.
We will consult on this in the autumn and while that takes place the CMA will create a voluntary scheme encouraging fuel retailers to share accurate up-to-date road fuel prices for August and continue to monitor fuel prices using its existing powers.
Sunak joins criticism of Australian cricket team over stumping of Jonny Bairstow in Ashes
Rishi Sunak has accused Australia of breaking the spirit of cricket over the controversial dismissal of Jonny Bairstow at Lord’s, PA Media reports. PA says:
England’s Bairstow was stumped in bizarre circumstances on a tense final day in the second Test, with Australia wicketkeeper Alex Carey throwing down the stumps after the batter ducked the final ball of the over and set off to talk to partner Ben Stokes in the apparent belief the over had ended.
At the morning lobby briefing, the prime minister’s spokesperson said Sunak, a keen cricket fan, agreed with the views of England captain Stokes about the incident.
The spokesperson told reporters: “The prime minister agrees with Ben Stokes. He said he simply wouldn’t want to win a game in the manner Australia did.
“The game did provide an opportunity to see Ben Stokes at his best and it was an incredible test match and he has confidence England will bounce back at Headingley.”
Asked whether Sunak believed Australia’s actions were not in keeping with the spirit of cricket, his spokesperson said: “Yes.”
Updated
Lee Anderson, the Conservative party deputy chairman, is never normally shy when it comes to telling the world what he thinks. He was meant to be fronting the press conference for New Conservatives, the “red wall” Tory group publishing a plan to slash net migration numbers before the general election. (See 10.10am.)
The Sun’s Harry Cole says Anderson is said to be unwell. But he says Anderson’s illness is also convenient for those at party HQ who think the deputy chairman shouldn’t taking pot shots at the government’s immigration record.
NEW: Lee Anderson will no longer be appearing in person at the launch of the New Conservatives alternative migration manifesto.
— Harry Cole (@MrHarryCole) July 3, 2023
Said to be unwell.. though eyebrows had been raised at the Deputy Chairman of the actual Conservatives fronting a fringe group's attack on the Govt.
Updated
Cabinet Office attack on Sue Gray over Labour job 'very silly', says former top civil servant
Ciaran Martin, a professor at Oxford University’s Blavatnick School of Government, and before that a very senior civil servant (he ran the National Cyber Security Centre), has also criticised the Cabinet Office’s decision to release a statement this morning accusing Sue Gray of a “prima facie” breach of the civil service code. (See 10.59am.)
Martin says that the statement is “very silly” and that the case against Gray hasn’t been proved.
V silly statement from HMG on the Sue Gray issue.
— Ciaran Martin (@ciaranmartinoxf) July 3, 2023
4 problems with it:
1. The properly constituted Acoba process said that Gov’t hadn’t provided any evidence of a breach of impartiality, even when asked
2. By contrast, HMG ‘investigation’ finds only a ‘prima facie’ case… 1/3 https://t.co/aVPUQgJvbR
…in other words, nothing is proved;
— Ciaran Martin (@ciaranmartinoxf) July 3, 2023
3. There is no publicly available account of the standing of this ‘investigation’, of what its processes were, or how the conclusions were reached (in marked contrast to ACOBA). No evidence of any kind is adduced to support its findings
2/3
Martin also says this sets an undesirable precedent for the future.
4. Successive Govts have a long-standing convention of not commenting on personnel matters.
— Ciaran Martin (@ciaranmartinoxf) July 3, 2023
That now becomes harder to sustain in future cases thanks to this precedent.
And for what benefit to either the Gov’t or the wider public interest?
3/3
Treasury minister to respond to Commons urgent question after CMA proposes petrol price monitor
The Competition and Markets Authority has proposed the launch of a fuel price monitor after it found that drivers were paying more for petrol and diesel than before the Covid pandemic because of “weakened” competition between retailers. Alex Lawson has the story here.
At 3.30pm the Lib Dem MP Tim Farron is asking an urgent question about petrol prices. A Treasury minister will respond.
Updated
Sir Jonathan Jones, the former head of the government legal service, says the use of the term “prima facie” in the Cabinet Office statement about Sue Gray (see 10.59am) shows that it has not been proved that she broke the civil service code.
Posting on Twitter (he is one of the people not yet deterred, despite Elon Musk’s attempts to make the site less useable), Jones also says the Cabinet Office statement seems to have been motivated by “personal animus”.
I’m not surprised officials are said to have advised against this statement. What’s the point of it if not personal animus? https://t.co/7mhvGYNDfs
— Jonathan Jones (@SirJJKC) July 3, 2023
The statement says the rules are “clear” & “the facts speak for themselves”. But nothing is proved (a “prima facie” case only). Is it really clear that the rules apply to informal/personal contacts, not about government business, but about a possible future job?
— Jonathan Jones (@SirJJKC) July 3, 2023
Updated
Labour dismisses Cabinet Office report saying Sue Gray may have breached civil service code as 'Mickey Mouse nonsense'
Labour has described the Cabinet Office statement saying Sue Gray committed a “prima facie” breach of the civil service code when she took a job with the party (see 10.59am) as “a political stunt”. As Rowena Mason reports, a Labour spokesperson said:
All rules were complied with. The Acoba process makes that clear. This statement is a political stunt by a Tory government out of ideas and out of road.
It says everything you need to know about the Tories that they have spent weeks wasting time on this Mickey Mouse nonsense, while refusing to investigate the serious allegations against their London mayoral hopeful, Daniel Korski.
We’re looking forward to Sue Gray joining us this September as we continue to show the country that only Labour can build a better Britain.
Cabinet Office says Sue Gray's job talks with Labour involved 'prima facie' breach of civil service code
The Cabinet Office has published a statement today saying there was a “prima facie” breach of the civil service code when Sue Gray started talking to Keir Starmer about the possibility of a job as his chief of staff.
At the end of last week Gray was cleared by the advisory committee on business appointments (Acoba) to start work with Labour in September, six months after she left her post as a second permanent secretary in the civil service.
In a written ministerial statement published this morning, Jeremy Quin, the Cabinet Office minister, implies that Gray broke civil service rules because she did not tell her bosses about the job offer from Labour. Quin said:
Ms Gray first spoke to the leader of the opposition in late October. This was approximately four months before she resigned from the Civil Service. The letter from Acoba also states that “... she had subsequent brief informal conversations … where she was updated on their developing plans …”. She did not inform ministers or the civil service of these interactions at any point prior to her resignation.
It is right that we maintain the principle of confidentiality with respect to individual personnel matters. However, I am sure the house will agree with me that the facts in this case, when compared to the rules and guidance in place for civil servants, speak for themselves, and that there is a public interest in ensuring that the civil service code is adhered to.
Given the exceptional nature of this case and the previous commitment by ministers to update the house, I can now confirm that the Cabinet Office process looking into the circumstances leading up to Ms Gray’s resignation has been concluded. As part of the process, Ms Gray was given the opportunity to make representations but chose not to do so. This process, led by the civil service, found that the civil service code was prima facie broken as a result of the undeclared contact between Ms Gray and the leader of the opposition.
Quin said it was “deeply unfortunate” that this happened, but that he retained confidence in the impartiality of the civil service.
“Prima facie” means at first sight and Quin’s use of the term in his statement is ambiguous, perhaps intentionally. In vernacular English it is often used to mean “clear cut”, and so it sounds as if this is particularly serious. But lawyers take it to mean “superficial”, as opposed to “on the basis of the actual evidence”, and Quin may have been acknowledging that, with Gray having not given the Cabinet Office her side of the story, the matter was never fully resolved.
In most workplaces an informal job offer from a rival organisation is not something people are routinely expected to disclose.
Updated
Tory MP Miriam Cates calls for wages to rise for care workers so employers don't rely on hiring foreigners
The Conservative MP Miriam Cates is a member of the New Conservatives group and she was on the Today programme this morning defending its plans for immigration, and in particular the proposal to stop foreign care workers getting work visas. When it was put to her that the care industry could not function without foreign workers, Cates said there were 5 million “economically inactive” people in the country and that, instead of hiring cheap labour from abroad, employers should be paying more so that Britons took the jobs instead.
When it was put to her that Britons aren’t applying for these jobs, Cates replied:
Well they’re not going to work in care until we make the pay and conditions good enough, and the only way we’re going to do that is to cut off the supply of cheap labour from abroad …
Let me use the analogy of during the pandemic when we had an HGV driver shortage and lots of people called then to say we must issue more visas to abroad to get more drivers.
But we didn’t, we made supply side reform and guess what? Haulage firms put up their wages, they attracted more workers and solved the problem without issuing visas to abroad. That’s exactly the same economic and market principle that we need to apply.
When asked how much firms should be paying their care workers, Cates said she did not have an answer to that. Kevin Schofield, at Huffington Post, has a full write-up of the interview.
The government has repeatedly said it wants to reduce the dependence of employers on foreign workers, but even after Brexit there has been relatively little progress on this front. Keir Starmer has also said that he wants to “help the British economy off its immigration dependency”, although, unlike the New Conservatives, Labour is not calling for big cuts in net migration numbers in the short term.
Updated
'Red wall' Tories call for proposed annual cap on number of refugees admitted to UK to be set at 20,000
The New Conservatives, the group of “red wall” Tories calling for tighter controls on immigration, have published policy document giving details of their plan. Unusually, it’s a 12-point one, not a 10-point one.
It does not seem to be available online yet, so here it is.
1) Close the temporary schemes that grant eligibility for worker visas to ‘care workers’ and ‘senior care workers’. This policy will reduce visas granted by 117,000 between those workers and their dependents, leading to a reduction in ‘long-term inward migration’ of 82,000.
2) Raise the main skilled work visa salary threshold to £38,000 per annum. This could reduce LTIM [long-term immigration] by 54,000 migrants per year.
3) Extend the closure of the student dependent route, which allows full access to the job market and is not subject to skill or salary thresholds, to students enrolled on one-year research master’s degrees. Combined with the government’s existing proposal, this could lead to a reduction in LTIM of around 75,000.
4) Close the graduate route to students, so as to stop students staying in the UK after graduating for up to two years without a job offer. This should lead to a reduction of around 50,000 in LTIM per year.
5) Reserve university study visas for the brightest international students by excluding the poorest-performing universities from eligibility criteria. This could lead to a reduction of 49,000 from LTIM.
6) Continue to monitor the reduction in visa applications under the humanitarian schemes and introduce caps on future humanitarian schemes should the predicted 168,000 reductions not be realised.
7) Rapidly pass and implement the provisions of the illegal migration bill, leading to a reduction of at least 35,000 from LTIM.
8) Cap the number of refugees legally accepted for resettlement in the UK at 20,000.
9) Raise the minimum combined income threshold to £26,200 for sponsoring a spouse and raise the minimum language requirement to B1 (intermediate level). This should lead to an estimated 20,000 reduction in LTIM.
10) Make the migration advisory committee report on the effect of migration on housing and public services, not just the jobs market, by treating future demand on a par with labour requirements in all studies.
11) Cap the amount of social housing that councils can give to non-UK nationals at five percent until the number of British families waiting for housing clears.
12) Raise the immigration health surcharge to £2,700 per person, per year.
Some of these ideas are similar to ideas that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has been arguing for within government. And some would just build on initiatives the government is already taking. For example, the illegal migration bill says there should be a cap on the number of refugees admitted to the UK every year. The New Conservatives say the cap should be set at 20,000.
According to the Home Office, the UK offered protection to 23,841 people coming to the country in 2022.
Updated
Sunak under fresh pressure on immigration as poll suggests two thirds of Tory members want to leave ECHR
Good morning. According to the main political write-through in the Sunday Times yesterday, Rishi Sunak feels life isn’t treating him fairly. Tim Shipman and Tom Calver wrote:
At Winchester, Oxford, Stanford, Goldman Sachs and McKinsey, Sunak was told that if he worked hard and solved problems, he would succeed in life. But political reward is more hard won. One cabinet minister put it this way: “In his mind the deal he struck with the universe is not working out. He’s very clever, but he knows that with cleverness comes responsibility to graft ... But if you work hard and do the right thing, the universe will reward you — and in his mind at the moment the universe is not keeping its side of the bargain.”
Shipman and Calver aren’t saying that Sunak himself has been moaning about cosmic forces conspiring against him; they are just quoting someone trying to sum up his state of mind. But if Sunak does privately believe that the universe has lined up with Boris Johnson in a conspiracy to do him in, then he will find two pieces of fresh evidence for that in the news this morning, both relating to immigration.
First, a group called the New Conservatives, around 25 “red wall” Tory MPs, are publishing plans designed to get net migration down to below 226,000 by the time of the next election. As Rajeev Syal reports, their ideas go beyond what the government is already doing. And their headline goal, which revives the promise in the Conservatives’s 2019 manifesto, serves as a rebuke to Sunak, because it highlights his recent decision to in effect abandon that target (or redefine it, to be more precise, but in practice that amounts to the same thing).
Second, the ConservativeHome website this morning has published a survey of Tory members suggesting that more than two thirds of them want the UK to leave the European convention on human rights. ConHome surveys are seen as a reliable guide to opinion in the party, and this creates another headache for Sunak. He has not ruled out leaving the convention. But unlike Suella Braverman, the home secretary, he has no enthusiasm for the proposition which, were it to be tried, might well split his party, and torpedo the UK’s reputation internationally.
In his write-up of the survey, Paul Goodman, the ConservativeHome editor, said he thinks Sunak may be forced into promising a “changed relationship” with the European court of human rights in the next Tory manifesto. He says:
I’ve suspected for some time that Rishi Sunak may be propelled into promising a changed relationship with the court during the run-up to the next election.
But even if he doesn’t, the scale of refugee movement in a globalised world, let alone that of illegal immigration, is likely to move European centre-right parties in that direction during the years and decades ahead.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10.30am: The high court resumes hearing the government’s legal challenge against the Covid inquiry’s demand to see unredacted WhatsApp messages from ministers.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
12.30pm: Bridget Phillipson, the shadow education secretary, holds a phone-in on LBC.
1pm: Lee Anderson, the Conservative party deputy chairman and a member of the New Conservatives, speaks at a press conference about the group’s call for tighter immigration controls.
After 1pm (UK time): James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, addresses a meeting of the EU-UK parliamentary partnership assembly in Brussels.
2.30pm: Suella Braverman, the home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3pm: Peers resume their report stage debate on the illegal migration bill.
After 3.30pm: MPs debate the economic activity of public bodies (overseas matters) bill, which is intended to stop councils implementing boycotts of Israel.
4pm: Amanda Pritchard, the NHS England chief executive, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee.
And at some point today the Cabinet Office will publish a written ministerial statement about Sue Gray with the title “Prima facie breach of the civil service code by the former second permanent secretary for the union and the constitution”.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
