Afternoon summary
Updated
Here is John Crace’s sketch on Kemi Badenoch’s appearance in the Commons earlier.
How Rishi Sunak is presenting as new quotes from more than decade ago to use against Starmer at PMQs
At PMQs it is always useful for a prime minister to have an embarrassing quote to use against the leader of the opposition. All prime ministers do this, and yesterday there were two moments where Rishi Sunak caught MPs by surprise because he quoted something that seemed to reflect badly on Labour which people could not remember having heard before.
But it was the PM saying it, so it must be true, many MPs may have thought.
Up to a point. On both occasions Sunak presented quotes from 16 years ago as if they were new. And, on both occasions, once you research the context, it is clear that they favour Labour, not the Tories.
The Tony Blair quote:
In response to the first question from Starmer, taunting Sunak about his local election losses, Sunak said:
Perhaps I can offer the right hon. and learned gentleman a tiny bit of advice from one of his predecessors, Tony Blair. I was reading what he said the other day. He said: ‘The right hon. gentleman can be as cocky as he likes about the local elections; come a general election, policy counts.’
At the time I thought Sunak was referring to Blair’s interview with Bloomberg on Tuesday, in which he said Labour should not be complacent, although I did not recall Blair using the word “cocky” in it. But in fact Sunak was quoting something Blair said in the Commons to David Cameron in 2007. As Rob Hutton (who pointed this out in his Critic sketch) says, Cameron went on to win the subsequent election, so the analogy favours Starmer.
The Alistair Darling quote:
A few minutes later, after Starmer said Sunak should end non-dom status and use the money to train more doctors and nurses, Sunak had another quote from a New Labour figure up his sleeve. He replied:
The right hon. and learned gentleman said that this money would fund the NHS workforce, but that plan was looked at by one of his colleagues recently, who said that it would “discourage … doctors and nurses … from coming” here, and that there was a “£2bn” shortfall in his sums. Who said that? It was Alistair Darling.
This has Labour thoroughly bemused because Darling has not said anything about non-dom status recently. But he did comment on this in a speech when he was chancellor – in 2007 – from which Sunak was quoting. His definition of recent is elastic, to put it mildly.
Again, the context undermines the point Sunak was trying to make. Darling was criticising non-dom charges because at the time the Tories, under George Osborne, were proposing them. And even though he was not keen in 2007, by 2008 Darling was implementing a version of the plan he had been criticising.
Updated
A reader asks:
Can’t find any report about yesterday’s votes in the Lords regarding the illegal migration bill …
The vote did not attract much attention because it came late, at 10.10pm, and the result was a foregone conclusion. The government won, and the illegal migration bill got a second reading.
Peers do not normally vote on bills at second reading. Last night they did vote because the Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to block the bill. It was defeated by 179 votes to 76.
Labour abstained. The Tories voted to give the bill a second reading. The Lib Dem amendment was backed by 65 Lib Dem peers, eight Labour peers, two Green peers, and one crossbencher.
The division list is here.
Updated
Vote Leave's £350m a week to EU claim 'not a lie at all', says BBC politics chief at time of referendum
Rob Burley, who has done most of the top editing jobs in political TV in Britain, has just published a memoir, and it includes at least one terrific scoop; Burley has found the only person in Britain who does not think Vote Leave’s £350m bus claim was a lie.
What makes this even more extraordinary is the person involved is Sir Robbie Gibb, who was head of live political programmes at the BBC at the time of the referendum. Gibb told Burley that the infamous claim on the Vote Leave bus – “We send the EU £350m a week, let’s fund our NHS instead” – was “not a lie at all”.
This has probably been fact checked more than any other claim in British history, and every analysis has concluded that this is not true. What is true is that, if you take the theoretical total sum owed to the EU by the UK at the time, it would come to the equivalent of £350m a week. But the UK had had a hefty rebate since it was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, and this meant the actual sum paid to the EU was nearer £250m a week.
If the bus had said the UK “owes” the EU £350m, the claim might just have made it into the “misleading, but arguable” category. But “sends” was just factually wrong.
Journalists are reluctant to accuse people of lying, because that involves being sure that someone is deliberately saying something untrue, and the Vote Leave campaigners always maintained the claim was justified. But none of them have ever been able to explain why they said the money was “sent” when it wasn’t, and their protestations of good faith have not been convincing.
When Laura Kuenssberg interviewed Dominic Cummings, the former head of Vote Leave, in 2001 and asked about the “misleading” £350m claim, he was almost laughing as he defended the slogan. He admitted that part of his motive was to “drive the Remain campaign and the people running it crazy”.
But Gibb has defended the claim. This is what he told Burley, who was working for him at the time, in an interview for the book.
It’s just not true that politicians lie all the time. £350 million was not a lie at all. It’s just campaigning. Nobody ever says, ‘What about Labour saying, “You’ve got 24 up, hours to save the NHS.” Nobody ever picks that but when it’s about Boris Johnson they do. So I just have no truck with it. The reason why the £350 million was taken apart was because the methodology was transparent because it was based on something. Osborne’s £4,300 figure was based on some bizarre Treasury econometric modelling that was built on the premise that leaving the EU would be a disaster. Shock horror - it said it would be terrible!
It is hard to know where to start with this, because there is so much to say, but here goes:
1) Yes, it was a lie, unless you think Cummings and his colleagues are neurally programmed with some definition of the word “send” not available to the rest of us.
2) “Just campaigning” – isn’t that even more reason to be rigorous about this?
3) People should, and do, challenge spurious claims made by all sides.
4) Perhaps there is a reason why Boris Johnson gets accused of lying more than anyone else?
5) No, the £350m claim was taken apart because it was untrue.
6) And Osborne’s £4,300 was, rightly, criticised too (eg here, by Larry Elliott), although it is less inaccurate than the Vote Leave claim.
7) “It would be terrible” – and, according to the OBR, it has been, if not terrible, at least fairly bad. The Osborne figure was based on an assumption that Brexit would reduce GDP by 6% over the long term. The OBR says it is on course to cut GDP by 4%.
In his book Burley says that, after the referendum result, he suggested to Gibb that the BBC should investigate the £350m claim again. He says Gibb was “horrified” by the idea, and said it was time to move on.
After the referendum, Gibb left the BBC to work as communications chief for Theresa May, where he was known as a keen Brexiter. He is now a member of the BBC board.
Burley’s book is called Why Is This Lying Bastard Lying To Me? Burley’s speciality is the long-form political interview, and he has worked with almost all the great interviewers over the last 20 years or so. It is an inspiring book about public service broadcasting, as well as full of gossip, and a riveting read.
I’m very excited to share the cover of my book, WHY IS THIS LYING BASTARD LYING TO ME? It's about truth & lies on political TV from Thatcher to Sunak and everything in between.
— Rob Burley (@RobBurl) March 2, 2023
Warning: may contain jokes.
It's out 11 May & you can pre-order it here: https://t.co/RqWhmbLXz9 pic.twitter.com/CI9VKFOdYS
Updated
Recovering money lost to fraud and error in Covid grants will be 'very difficult', MPs told
It will be “very difficult” to recoup money lost to fraud and error in the allocation of Covid-19 business support grants, MPs have been told.
Gareth Davies, the permanent secretary at the Department for Business and Trade, said the way that initial grants were distributed in March 2020 has made it harder to recover a large proportion of the estimated £1.1bn in outstanding losses.
As PA Media reports, Davies told the public accounts committee today that the amount clawed back so far had increased from £11.4m in February to £20.9m.
But Davies said the speed with which the grants were distributed to protect businesses in crisis led to “ambiguities” that have made responding to fraud and errors problematic. He told the committee:
We are doing all we can but I just caution – my early judgment on this is I think it is going to be very difficult [to recoup money] given that scheme design at the start.
Updated
Mark Harper tells MPs taking TPE into state control does not mean nationalisation long-term solution for rail
Mark Harper, the transport secretary, has dismissed the prospect of long-term nationalisation of rail services despite TransPennine Express (TPE) being brought under government control, PA Media reports
In a statement to MPs, Harper said the government intends to put all contracts out for competitive tendering once the market allows.
The proportion of journeys on Britain’s railways which are on nationalised services will be around a quarter once TPE services are brought under the Department for Transport’s Operator of Last Resort (OLR) from 28 May, PA says.
The OLR already controls London North Eastern Railway, Northern and Southeastern services.
In a statement to MPs, Harper said:
The OLR is just the next stop on the line, it’s not the terminus station, and once market conditions allow we intend to subject this and indeed all contracts – both private sector and those under the OLR – to competitive tendering.
There will be some, unfortunately, who use today’s decision to further their ideological ends, to argue that this somehow justifies all rail contracts being brought under public control. That would be a mistake.
The majority of taxpayers do not use the railways regularly, but they could be saddled with the huge cost of nationalisation only to inherit the industry’s problems with no plan to fix them.
Nationalisation is a soundbite, not a solution and this government will always be guided by the evidence to help make the best decisions for passengers, which is why earlier this year having seen the noticeable improvements on Avanti West Coast I resisted calls to bring the franchise into public ownership, I extended Avanti’s contract by six months.
In response, Louise Haigh, the shadow transport secretary, said:
For the Conservatives to have nationalised one railway may be regarded as misfortune, to have nationalised four demonstrates something much more fundamental.
The privatised model they have rigidly lauded in the face of all evidence is collapsing.
Updated
Ministers need to stop trying to look tough by being confrontational and trying to establish dominance in meetings with officials, the former Tory cabinet minister David Gauke has said. Rowena Mason has the story.
Government still considering alternative to rejoining Horizon, science minister tells peers
The government has come under attack in the House of Lords over the length of time it is taking to negotiate participation in Horizon Europe, the €95bn flagship science research programme.
British scientists been locked out of the funding cycle in a tit-for-tat row over the UK’s failure to apply the Northern Ireland protocol but the door was thrown open to the UK’s membership in February when Rishi Sunak and European commission chief Ursula von der Leyen agreed the Windsor framework.
Lord Kinnoull, the crossbench chair of the Lords EU affairs committee, said the delay was causing “mutual harm to the UK and the EU, damage to both our science bases”.
He urged science minister Lord Camrose to treat the matter with “extreme urgency”.
Camrose told the house the government’s “preference” was still the EU programme but if it could not agree a “good deal” and discount for the two years it was locked out it would go ahead with plan B. He said:
If we are not able to secure association on fair and appropriate terms we will implement Pioneer, a bold and ambitious alternative.
Updated
No 10 accepts Jenrick wrong to claim UN refugee convention says people must apply for asylum in first safe country
Downing Street has effectively conceded that Robert Jenrick, the immigration minister, was wrong to say that under the UN refugee convention asylum seekers should apply in the first safe country they reach, saying instead it is merely “an important principle” for the government.
In a bullish performance on Channel 4 News on Wednesday evening, Jenrick said refugees arriving across the Channel in small boats were “essentially asylum shoppers or economic migrants” who were “choosing to come to the UK for whatever reason”. Jenrick went on:
The refugee convention also says that people should seek sanctuary, should seek asylum in the first safe country.
On being told by the interviewer, Krishnan Guru-Murthy, that this was incorrect, Jenrick said the convention “does encourage people to do that”.
"They're not asylum shoppers they're asylum seekers... That's not true."@krishgm challenges immigration minister Robert Jenrick after he claims "asylum shoppers" should seek sanctuary in the first safe country they reach under the "Refugee Convention". pic.twitter.com/NsDz9DqiO1
— Channel 4 News (@Channel4News) May 10, 2023
Asked about Jenrick’s comments, Rishi Sunak’s official spokesman said he had not asked the PM about it, but did not disagree with the fact the UN convention does not say people should apply for asylum in the first safe country they reach.
“The first safe country principle is recognised internationally as a feature of the common European asylum system,” he said, referring to the Dublin convention on how refugees are dealt with across the EU – which the UK is no longer party to after Brexit.
Asked why he was citing this when it no longer included the UK, the spokesman said:
It is an important principle that people seeking refugee status do so in their first safe country.
Updated
No 10 rejects claim retained EU law U-turn shows Sunak does not keep his promises
Downing Street has rejected the claim from Jacob Rees-Mogg (see 9.34am) and others that the retained EU law U-turn shows that Rishi Sunak does not keep his promises.
Asked if Sunak was a man of his word, the PM’s spokesperson said: “Yes.”
He also said there was still a “clear deadline” for revocation for some laws by the end of the year and that “of course we will continue with further removal beyond that”.
When Sunak was running for the Tory leadership in the summer he issued a press notice headlined:
Rishi Sunk to overhaul EU law in first 100 days to unleash growth.
But he did not commit to getting rid of all retained EU law within 100 days. He promised a review of all remaing EU regulations and his team said: “The first set of recommendations as to whether these laws should be scrapped or changed would be made within the first 100 days.”
Sunak himself also said:
I have a plan, if elected prime minister, to have scrapped or reformed, by the time of the next election, all the EU law, red tape, and bureaucracy still on our statute book that is holding back our economy.
The government says it has already revoked or reformed around 1,000 EU laws since Brexit and an amendment to the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill identifies around 600 more that will be revoked by the end of the year.
But Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, has admitted that the process of reviewing all retained EU laws will take longer – implying it won’t necessarily be over by the time of the election.
UK giving long-range Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine, Ben Wallace tells MPs
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, has told MPs that the UK is donating long-range Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine. In a statement, he said:
The donation of these weapons systems gives Ukraine the best chance to defend themselves.
These are from my colleague Dan Sabbagh.
Ben Wallace to MPs: "Today, I can confirm that the UK is donating Storm Shadow missiles to Ukraine"
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 11, 2023
"Russia must recognise that their actions alone have led to such systems being provided to Ukraine..." Wallace says, adding it is "my judgement" as defence secretary "that this is a calibrated and proportionate response to Russia's escalations"
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 11, 2023
No immediate detail on number supplied of the £2m a time munitions however. Or whether they will comply with existing MTCR arms control agreements signed up to by the UK
— Dan Sabbagh (@dansabbagh) May 11, 2023
Biden says his Irish trip was partly about ensuring 'the Brits didn't screw around' with Good Friday agreement
Joe Biden, the US president, has claimed that his recent visit to Ireland was partly motivated by his desire to ensure that “the Brits didn’t screw around” with the Good Friday agreement.
As the BBC reports, speaking at a Democratic party event, Biden said:
I got to go back to Ireland for the Irish accords, to make sure they weren’t – the Brits didn’t screw around and Northern Ireland didn’t walk away from their commitments.
This is embarrassing because it implies an assumption that the UK government was operating on the basis of bad faith. Rishi Sunak, and his predecessors as prime minister, always argued that they wanted to reform the Northern Ireland protocol set up under Brexit, not because they wanted to undermine the Good Friday agreement and the institutions it set up, but because, without change to the NI protocol, the GFA and its institutions would not survive.
Asked about the comment, the PM’s spokesperson told journalists:
The Windsor framework was a culmination of substantive work between the UK and the EU, and at its heart the UK priority was always protecting the GFA.
Updated
Kemi Badenoch's UQ on retained EU law U-turn - snap verdict
Here is some Twitter comment on Kemi Badenoch’s response to the urgent question on the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill.
Badenoch is regularly seen as one of the favourites to be next Conservative party leader, not least because for some time now she has been second in the ConservativeHome survey of Tory members about how well cabinet ministers are performing. Only Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, is ahead of her, and he has twice declined to stand for the leadership himself. But, given the hardline Brexiter leanings of the party membership, this U-turn is likely to set her back.
Instead, today, Badenoch was branding herself as a pragmatist on Brexit.
This is from my colleague Ben Quinn.
Recalibration of future leadership plans?
— Ben Quinn (@BenQuinn75) May 11, 2023
Kemi Badenoch in Parliament expressing 'pride' to show "that those of us who are brexiteers can be pragmatic"
Reckons she's doing the right thing if Labour & the ERG are upset at her new approach to retained EU laws
These are from the i’s Paul Waugh.
.@KemiBadenoch goads Brexiteers + Labour alike.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 11, 2023
"It is delightful to see the Labour frontbench and the ERG to be on same side. It makes me realise that if I am upsetting people on both sides I'm probably taking the pragmatic middle ground and I'm very pleased to be doing so."
That kind of 'middle ground' stuff may cost her some MPs in a future leadership bid but it may win her others. Will be interesting to see how it plays out within the party.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 11, 2023
And this is from Jill Rutter, a Brexit policy specialist at the Institute for Government thinktank.
had not realised that @KemiBadenoch would embrace the pragmatist label quite so enthusiastically (watching the UQ)
— Jill Rutter (@jillongovt) May 11, 2023
What this repositioning might mean in a future Tory leadership contest is not immediately clear, although it is not obvious that it will repair the damage caused by a breach with the European Research Group. Badenoch may have to take up sword carrying.
As well as Badenoch’s new-found Brexit pragmatism, the other stand-out feature of her performance during her urgent question today was her astonishing rudeness. Badenoch has always been abrasive, and in the past her blunt, scornful, no-nonsense response to criticism from opposition MPs has probably gone down well with members of her party.
But today she was just crass and offensive, repeatedly accussing the opposition of not understanding what she was doing (they do understand), and blithely claiming to be happy about facing scrutiny in parliament, when she clearly isn’t. And she wasn’t just patronsing the opposition; Tory MPs got some of this too. A minister can get away with being arrogant when they are in a strong position, but that’s not where Badenoch was today, and much of it just sounded tin-eared and unpleasant.
Waugh thinks this is just the way she is.
One intriguing factor: the way Badenoch repeatedly suggests her critics are too dumb to understand what she's doing.
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) May 11, 2023
Some admirers see that as a Thatcherite refusal to suffer fools.
Critics see it as her Achilles Heel.
But it feels authentically *her,* + she aint gonna to change
Updated
Bob Blackman (Con) said he was worried that, without a sunset clause deadline, the pressure for the reform of EU law might ease off.
Badenoch claimed that her new approach would involve a mechanism that would maintain this pressure.
Luke Evans (Con) asked if Badenoch had a message for constituents who were worried that the government was going back on its Brexit promises.
Badenoch said she and Rishi Sunak were both committed Brexiters. She said they would deliver on what they promised. “This is an outcome-focused government,” she said.
Greg Smith (Con) asked for an assurance that this change was not a concession granted to the EU during the negotiations on the Windsor framework.
Badenoch said she was not involved in those talks. But she stressed this was her decision.
Pete Wishart (SNP) said Badenoch was doing herself no favours today with her “patronising and arrogant manner”, not just towards the opposition, but towards Tory MPs now.
He said the Brexit coalition was now splitting apart.
Badenoch said she disagreed. That was just what Wishart wanted, she said.
Martin Vickers (Con) told Badenoch that, as a firm Brexiter, he supported her move. He said it was what business wanted.
Badenoch told Michael Fabricant (Con) said she thought the new approach would lead to the same number of retained EU laws being abolished.
She thought her change was just a technical one, she said. It was her decision.
And she said she did not think any MP could claim she was not a Brexiter. She cited negotiating the UK’s entry to the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) trade deal as proof of her Brexiter credentials.
Updated
David Jones (Con) asked if Badenoch would give evidence to the European scrutiny committee on this next week.
Badenoch said she could not appear next week because she is in Switzerland. But she was willing to appear, she claimed.
Sir Desmond Swayne (Con) said a sunset clause provided a sense of urgency. “Now there isn’t one, is there?” he asked.
Badenoch said she did not agree.
Updated
Dominic Raab, the former justice secretary, said the Ministry of Justice identified 60% of retained EU laws that could go, even though it had a particularly large number to consider. He implied other departments could have done more, and he urged Badenoch to publish department-by-department figures on the percentage of retained EU laws identified for repeal.
Badenoch said she had already published data on this on a dashboard.
Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Tory former business secretary, who orginally introduced the bill, asked if this decision was caused by “civil service idleness”.
Badenoch rejected this suggestion. If anything, the opposite, she implied, but she said the civil servants were too focused on what laws they wanted to keep.
Badenoch said she did not think anyone can accuse of her shying away from select committees, or scrutiny in the Commons.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, pointed out that she is only here because he granted an urgent question.
And earlier the chair of the European scrutiny committee said Badenoch had repeatedly refused requests to attend. (See 10.45am.)
'What on earth are you playing at?' - ERG chair Mark Francois criticises Badenoch over 'massive climbdown' over EU law bill
Mark Francois, the chair of the Tory European Research Group, said not a single Tory MP voted against this bill at second or third reading. He asked why the government has now performed “a massive climbdown on its own bill despite having such strong support from its backbenchers”. He asked Badenoch: “What on earth are you playing at?”
Badenoch said this was her decision. She said this was the best way to achieve what he wanted.
Updated
Badenoch rejects claim Sunak has committed 'gross betrayal' of promise he made during Tory leadership contest
Alyn Smith from the SNP said he was glad the government has adopted a more realistic approach. But he said the SNP was still opposed to the retained EU law bill.
And he said MPs should not overlook the fact that this was “a gross betrayal of promises that were made to secure the prime minister’s election”.
In response, Badenoch said she thought the opposition did not understand what the government was trying to do. And she rejected the claim that this was a betrayal.
Justin Madders, the shadow minister for employment rights, said the U-turn was “an absolute shambles”. He also said Labour had warned the government it would need to do this.
Badenoch claims retained EU law policy has not changed, because U-turn is just 'change of approach'
In response to Cash, Badenoch said he had heard her answers before. She said she had discussed this with him in private.
On not appearing before the committee, she said she did not want to attend before the policy was settled. But she claimed she was happy in principle to appear before it.
She also claimed the policy had not changed. She told MPs:
[Cash] claims that it is a change of policy. It is a change of approach. The policy is the same.
She said the UK left the EU not just to delete EU law from the statute book, but to make UK law work better. So, she said, it was best to decide what the new laws should be before just getting rid of the old ones.
Updated
Sir William Cash, chair of the European scrutiny committee, used his follow-up to his urgent question to say that Kemi Badenoch has declined three times to appear before this committee to discuss this issue.
He said the new amendments to the bill announced yesterday have not been scrutinised by the Commons.
It was unacceptable for the government to break a promise like this, he said.
UPDATE: Cash said:
The amendments published today, apart from her very short written ministerial statement yesterday and her article in the press today, are not accompanied by any explanation to this house despite the utter reversal in vital respects to the bill as passed by this elected house, why not?
The amendments have not been subjected to any analysis or questioning by this house, which is now essential given the fundamental change in government policy. This house is being treated in a manner which is clearly inconsistent with clear promises already made.
Updated
Badenoch told MPs that the change announced yesterday was a technical change.
She said the government still plans to get rid of around 600 pieces of retained EU legislation by the end of this year.
That is not the limit of the government’s ambition, she said.
She said, if she had known the “intense excitement” MPs would feel about this issue, she would have offered a statement yesterday.
She says more than 1,000 pieces of retained EU law have already been repealed.
Speaker rebukes Badenoch for making light of her failure to announce change to EU retained law policy to MPs first
Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, is responding to the urgent question.
She refers to the speaker’s rebuke about not issuing a statement yesterday (see 10.32am) and says she is sorry that the sequencing was not to his satisfaction.
This infuriates Sir Lindsay Hoyle. He tells Badenoch:
Who do you think you are speaking to, secretary of state?
He criticises her for “absolutely not accepting my ruling”, and he says she should accept what he said with good grace.
Updated
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the speaker, has just told MPs that it is “highly regrettable” that the government did not give an oral statement to MPs on the retained EU law bill yesterday. MPs should hear announcements first, he says, not read about them in the Daily Telegraph.
At 10.30am there will be an urgent question in the Commons on the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill. Sir Bill Cash, the Tory Brexiter, has tabled the question.
After that, there are business questions, followed by a statement on Ukraine by Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, and then a statement on rail services by Mark Harper, the transport secretary.
Updated
Plaid Cymru MP defends efforts to keep leader Adam Price after damning review
Liz Saville Roberts, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster, has defended attempts by some in the party’s hierarchy to keep Adam Price in place as leader despite a damning review into the culture of the party, arguing that they did so because they believed stability was needed to bring about change. Steven Morris has the story.
Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, which represents senior civil servants, told the Today programme this morning that the original sunset clause in the retained EU law (revocation and reform bill), saying EU laws would automatically cease to apply by the end of this year unless an active decision was taken to keep them, was always unrealistic. He said:
It was a bizarre way of doing business in government; to say that unless we get to a certain point in time, any piece of legislation will simply fall away.
Given the scale of legislation that was involved in this, everybody who was looking at this thought [a U-turn] was an inevitability.
But he also said he did not read Kemi Badenoch’s article in the Daily Telegraph saying “Whitehall” was to blame for the rethink (see 9.58am) as an attack on civil servants. He explained:
It is not an attack. What she’s saying is that if you’re in government, you have the responsibility to ensure that things can actually happen, that people are protected. The flaw in all of this was an artificial deadline.
I think it’s a criticism of the deadline and the approach, rather than a criticism of Whitehall and how it dealt with this artificial deadline.
Updated
Badenoch says retained EU laws cannot be abolished by end of 2023 because 'Whitehall' uncooperative
Kemi Badenoch, the business and trade secretary, was the minister who announced the decision to remove the deadline for EU regulations to lapse at the end of 2023 from the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill yesterday. It is embarrassing for her because it has angered Tory Brexiters who until now saw her as one of their strongest supporters in cabinet.
Opponents of the bill, and business/legal experts, are not surprised the deadline has been abandoned because they believe it was never realistic in the first place.
But, in an article for the Daily Telegraph, Badenoch has an alternative explanation for why she has had to back down. She accuses civil servants (“Whitehall”) of undermining the policy by focusing on what laws they wanted to keep. She also argues that getting rid of the 2023 deadline will allow the government to proceed “faster”. She explains:
When I was handed responsibility for this bill I saw that, confronted with the default position of retained EU law sunsetting at the end of this year, Whitehall departments had focused on which laws should be preserved ahead of the deadline, rather than pursuing the meaningful reform government and businesses want to see. I decided a new approach was needed; one that will ensure ministers and officials are freed up to focus on more reform of REUL [retained EU law], and to do it faster.
This week, we are publishing a list of the retained EU laws that will be scrapped by the end of 2023. This provides certainty for business in making it clear which regulations will disappear, instead of only what REUL would be saved. We will retain the powers that allow us to continue to amend EU laws, so more complex regulation can still be revoked or reformed after proper assessment and consultation. I will make it a priority to inject new impetus into the project to identify and scrap even more unnecessary regulations. Critically, by the end of 2023 we will end the supremacy of EU law and provide our courts with the ability to depart from the European court of justice case law. With this we fully take back control of our laws – as promised in the Conservative party manifesto.
TELEGRAPH: Whitehall ‘blob’ halts repeal of Brexit laws #TomorrowsPapersToday pic.twitter.com/JG3ztOeuv6
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) May 10, 2023
Updated
State to take control of TransPennine Express after ongoing poor service
TransPennine Express is to be run by the state after ministers announced that the failing rail company would not have its contract renewed, Gwyn Topham reports.
Sunak accused of ‘behaving like a Borgia’ as Rees-Mogg says PM has broken promise to shred retained EU law
Good morning. Every Conservative prime minister since John Major has been criticised by Eurosceptics/Brexiters in the party who are angry about feeling let down (except Liz Truss, who was not there long enough to initiate the betrayal narrative), and today it is happening to Rishi Sunak over the retained EU law (revocation and reform) bill, which is being gutted of the provisions that would have abolished around 4,000 retained EU laws by the end of this year, unless ministers took an active decision to retain or reform them.
Here is Ben Quinn’s overnight story.
On the Today programme, Jacob Rees-Mogg, who drafted the original law as Brexit opportunities minister, and who then introduced it to parliament as business secretary, said this amounted to a broken promise by Sunak, who posted a video on Twitter last summer, when he was running for the Tory leadership, highlighting his pledge to “shred” EU regulations.
When campaigning to become Prime Minister, Sunak promised to review or repeal thousands of pieces of EU law... "in his first 100 days".
— Tom Harwood (@tomhfh) May 10, 2023
Instead of shredding EU law as in his campaign video, it is in fact this promise that has now been shredded.pic.twitter.com/Fb814PTxea
Rees-Mogg said this was a serious breach of faith. He said:
Politicians have not delivered. And this comes back to the prime minister’s promise in his video during his leadership campaign when he said he would do this.
Bear in mind, at that time, he had already given write-round consent to the retained EU law bill. I had briefed him on it. He knew that it wasn’t easy. He knew that it was going to be an effort to get it done, but a slightly longer deadline at that point. He accepted the deadline of 2023. And then he has broken his word. And this is very serious in my view.
Asked why this was so serious, Rees-Mogg said:
Politicians need to stick to what they say they will do …
I think it is an important issue for the party that when Rishi Sunak resigned [as chancellor] he said in his resignation letter to Boris Johnson that he believed the public are ready to hear the truth: ‘Our people know that if something is too good to be true, then it is not true.’
He then said something that people like me wanted to hear and has failed to deliver it. And I’m afraid it is no good being holier than thou if you then end up behaving like a Borgia.
The Borgias were the Spanish/Italian dynasty notorious for their corruption and immorality. Like the Borgias, the Sunak family are wealthy, but in other respects the skinny, teetotal and fastidious Sunak makes an unlikely Borgia.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Oliver Dowden, the Cabinet Office minister and deputy PM, takes questions in the Commons.
After 10.30am: Penny Mordaunt, leader of the Commons, makes a statement to MPs on next week’s business.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
12pm: The Bank of England announces its latest interest rate decision. Graeme Wearden is covering this on his business live blog.
12pm: Humza Yousaf takes first minister’s questions at Holyrood.
If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a PC or a laptop. (It is not available on the app yet.) This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either in the comments below the line, privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate), or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.
Updated
