Early evening summary
- Boris Johnson has comfortably won a series of votes overturning Lords defeats on the nationality and borders bill. As of now, the divisions list show that only four Conservative MPs have voted against the government in one or more of the divisions. On the most contentious issue, the government plan to allow asylum seekers to be sent offshore while their applications are processed, David Davis, Simon Hoare and Andrew Mitchell were the only Tories voting against. The government had a majority of 70, and 57 Tories did not vote. (In the first division of the day, only 50 Tories did not vote.) In the division where the government rejected the Lords proposal to make it easier for asylum seekers to work while their claims are being processed, only Hoare and Tim Loughton voted with the opposition, with 69 Tories not voting. Davis was the sole Conservative voting against government plans to make it easier for the home secretary to deprive someone of their citizenship. As the debate wound up, Tom Pursglove, the minister for illegal migration, clarified comments made earlier about how the bill would allow Ukrainian refugees entering the UK illegally to be jailed. Pursglove said the bill did allow people entering the country illegally to be prosecuted, but he said this power was only intended to be used in “egregious cases”. See 4.20pm. After the votes Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said:
Today, Tory MPs voted to make it a criminal offence for Ukrainian families to arrive in the UK without the right papers, with a penalty of up to four years in prison. At a time when the British people have made clear that we need to help Ukrainian refugees, this is deeply shameful.
The Conservatives also voted against the international Refugee Convention, which Britain helped to draft in the wake of the second world war, calling on all countries to do their bit to help those fleeing the horrors of war. This should be a source of pride and for the British government to reject it when war is raging in Europe once more is inexcusable.
More than 3 million people have left Ukraine since the Russian invasion, many of them children and elderly people. They need support and solidarity from all countries. The Home Office has already been far too slow to help. Today’s votes make that much worse. Britain is better than this.
- In the Lords, however, peers have defeated the government in four votes on the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill. They voted to reject plans to give the police new powers to tackle noisy protests (in two divisions on this topic); they voted to make “intimidatory offences aggravated by sex or gender” a crime and they voted to give new powers to food crime investigators. MPs have already rejected these proposals, and the bill is now undergoing “ping pong” – the process where it goes back and forwards between the Lords and the Commons until one side backs down.
- An inquiry into why the British government took more than 30 years to pay a £400m debt to the Iranian government that was deemed fundamental to the release of British-Iranian dual nationals held in Iranian jails is to be mounted by the foreign affairs select committee.
- Transparency campaigners have accused ministers of conducting “government by WhatsApp” in the UK’s third-highest court, arguing that the use of self-destructing messages on insecure platforms is unlawful and undemocratic.
- The UK is on the brink of agreeing a deal with the US to remove tariffs on British steel exports, ending months of tensions that had stood in the way of a broader bilateral trade agreement.
Updated
MPs vote to reinstate provisions allowing asylum claims to be processed offshore – but government majority cut
MPs also voted to remove Lords amendment 9. This was a particularly contentious one, because amendment 9 took out the part of the bill allowing asylum claimaints to be removed from the UK for their claims to be processed in another country. The goverment won by 302 votes to 232 – a majority of 70.
Again, this is lower than the majorities in the first three divisions.
Updated
Johnson sees majority cut as MPs reject Lords amendment making it easier for asylum seekers to work
The government has won the next division, on removing Lords amendment 7. This was the amendment that would have allowed people claiming asylum to get a job if their application has not been processed within six months (instead of 12 months, as it is now).
But this time the majority was smaller. The government won by 291 votes to 232 – a majority of 59.
Officially the government has a working majority of 77.
The previous majorities were 95, 82 and 98. That suggests there could be about 30 or so Tories who have been voting in earlier divisions but who did not vote in this one.
Updated
The government won the division on Lords amendment 6 (see 4.55pm) by 318 votes to 220 - a majority of 98.
MPs are now voting on Lords amendment 6. This removed clause 11 from the bill, allowing differential treatment of refugees depending on how they arrive in the UK. The government wants to reinstate it.
Updated
The government won the second division on the nationality and borders bill, on Lords amendment 5 (see 4.40pm) by 313 votes to 231 - a majority of 82.
According to new polling by Ipsos Mori, Boris Johnson has a higher approval rating than Keir Starmer for his handling of the war in Ukraine.
Overall, 44% approve of the PM's handling of war in Ukraine. Not as positive as initial public approval for Blair’s response to 9/11 – though opinion can change, one year on this had turned negative and Blair’s ratings for Iraq were worse than Johnson’s now for Ukraine. (2/3) pic.twitter.com/8JZO723Pvm
— Gideon Skinner (@GideonSkinner) March 22, 2022
Some of this might just be an incumbency bias; Johnson actually is handling the war in Ukraine, in the sense that he is in charge of the UK’s response. Starmer isn’t.
But the polling also suggests that 56% of people do not think the government is doing enough to help Ukrainian refugees.
Looking at other politicians, approval of Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is higher than that for Liz Truss and particularly Priti Patel, amidst public concern that Britain is not doing enough to help Ukrainian refugees. Details here: https://t.co/7vDUld32zx (3/3) pic.twitter.com/RW8eRLncSl
— Gideon Skinner (@GideonSkinner) March 22, 2022
Updated
Peter has also tweeted this, a lengthy extract from Tim Farron’s speech against the bill earlier.
Here's some of the absolutely furious speech by Tim Farron against the government's plans on asylum, as set out in the borders bill. Worth a read. pic.twitter.com/IrmmJY7lZo
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
MPs are now voting on Lords amendment 5, which inserts a clause in the bill saying the bill does not allow the government to ignore the 1951 Refugee Convention. The government wants to remove it – even though it claims the bill does not breach the convention. My colleague Peter Walker posted this on Twitter about this issue earlier.
It is the job of junior minister Tom Pursglove to argue in the Commons that the govt is rejecting an amendment to the borders bill which would guarantee no breaches of the 1951 refugee convention because the bill does not breach the convention, even though the UNHCR says it does.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
Updated
The government has won the first vote, on reinstating clause 9 (see 4.23pm), by 318 votes to 223 – a majority of 95.
Updated
In his wind-up speech, Tom Pursglove, the minister for illegal migration, said he would be holding a meeting with Tory MPs who want to change the rules to make it easier for people claiming asylum to work. (See 12.28pm.) He also said that Ukrainians and Afghans coming to the UK through safe and legal routes - the bespoke ones set up by the government - were in a different position to other people who might be claiming asylum.
My colleague Aubrey Allegretti says some of them are taking this as a concession.
Home Office minister Tom Pursglove has offered to meet with Tory supporters of the Lords amendment on extending right to work for asylum seekers.
— Aubrey Allegretti (@breeallegretti) March 22, 2022
They’re taking this as a “win” and Pursglove’s answer in the chamber as a signal Govt may be warming to the idea.
MPs are now voting in the first of what will be multiple divisions on the Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill.
The first vote is on Lords amendment 4. This was an amendment to remove clause 9 of the bill, which gave the home secretary powers to deprive people of their citizenship. Priti Patel wants to put it back.
There is a briefing on clause 9 from Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association here (pdf).
Updated
Minister says not all illegal entrants would be prosecuted under borders bill, just 'egregious cases'
In the Commons, Tom Pursglove, the minister for illegal migration, is now winding up the debate.
In response, perhaps, to the impression given by earlier comments (see 3.38pm), he says it is not the intention under the bill “to prosecute every illegal entrant”. Instead, prosecution (and, by implication, the threat of jail) would only be for “egregious cases”, he says. As an example, he says that might be if someone entered the country in breach of a deportation order, or where they had been previously removed for illegal entry.
He also says the bill would not criminalise genuine humanitarian rescue attempts.
Updated
80,000 single-parent families face loss of almost £2,000 per year from benefits cap, campaigners say
About 80,000 single parent families, almost all of whom are already experiencing deep poverty, face even more misery in the form of a real-terms loss of benefits income of up to £1,840 a year from April, campaigners have calculated.
Single parents make up the bulk of the 105,000 families with children in the UK whose benefits are capped by the government – meaning they already lose an average of £235 a month. They will fall even further into hardship next week as the cost of living crisis moves up a gear.
Child Poverty Action Group said 28,000 families with children in London and 77,000 outside the capital will see zero increase in benefits on 1 April, when non-capped claimants will see a 3.1% increase (under current plans) and inflation is expected to reach 8%.
Alison Garnham, the chief executive of Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), said:
The benefit cap is a cruel policy at the best of times, forcing families the most in need to get by on the least. But as costs increase dramatically it is a gut punch, abandoning thousands to financial misery.
CPAG wants ministers to scrap the policy. The benefit cap was introduced in 2013, ostensibly to “incentivise” jobless claimants to move into work, and save money. But there is little evidence it does either. The former Tory welfare minister David Freud last month called the cap an “excrescence”.
Updated
Updated
None of Boris Johnson’s mobile phone messages before April 2021 are available to be searched, the Cabinet Office has told the Good Law Project, the organisation that uses litigation to challenge what it sees as abuses of power by the government.
🚨🚨🚨 NEW: Government admits none of Boris Johnson's phone messages prior to April 2021 are available to be searched.https://t.co/3Qj4CfgTR9
— Good Law Project (@GoodLawProject) March 22, 2022
Commenting on this disclosure, in a witness statement from Sarah Harrison, the chief operating officer for the Cabinet Office, the Good Law Project said:
While instances of the prime minister refusing to make some of his WhatsApp communications available have previously been disclosed, such as during the investigation into the redecoration of his Downing Street apartment, this is the first time that the government has admitted none of his messages prior to April 2021 are available to be searched ...
Given the current “Partygate” investigation, as well as the future inquiry into the government’s response to the pandemic, this has serious implications for transparency and holding the prime minister and his government to account.
Updated
Covid-19 may have indirectly accelerated mortality in certain causes of death including dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, with more deaths than usual in the early stage of the pandemic but fewer in more recent months, PA Media reports. PA says:
Most leading causes of mortality, including liver disease, diabetes and old age, saw a similar proportion of deaths that were above the pre-pandemic average – known as “excess deaths” – in both 2020 and 2021.
But deaths due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease showed a “notably different trend”, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
From March to December 2020, deaths in England and Wales due to these causes were 9.7% higher than usual, with a total of 4,990 excess deaths.
By contrast, in 2021, deaths due to dementia and Alzheimer’s disease were 4,417 below average, representing a 6.7% decrease.
There was a “similar trend” in deaths due to prostate cancer, with 352 extra deaths from March to December 2020 (a 4.0% increase) followed by 312 deaths below average in 2021 (a 2.9% decrease).
The figures offer “cautious evidence that the indirect effects of the coronavirus pandemic may have accelerated mortality in certain causes of death, thereby causing deaths to be below average later in the pandemic”, the ONS said.
This could be an example of “mortality displacement”, which occurs when vulnerable people, such as the elderly or those with pre-existing medical conditions, die sooner than expected.
Because they are not dying in the following days, weeks or months when they would probably have died, this can lead to a lower-than-average period of mortality.
“Further investigation is required to understand this,” the ONS added.
The trend is not evident in other figures, with most causes of death seeing similar proportions of excess deaths in both periods.
For example, excess deaths due to “symptoms, signs and ill-defined conditions” – often linked to old age and frailty – remained high in both March-December 2020 and in 2021.
Updated
Minister admits Ukrainian refugees arriving in UK illegally would risk jail under nationality bill
MPs have been debating the Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill (see 12.28pm) for more than two hours now. The first round of votes will start at about 4.15pm. Here are the highlights from the debate so far.
- Tom Pursglove, the Home Office minister, denied reports claiming asylum seekers hoping to reach the UK could be sent to Ascension Island under new immigration changes. The government wants the bill to include provisions allowing people seeking asylum to have their applications processed offshore, but Pursglove said reports that people were meant to be sent to the Ascension Island for this purpose were untrue. He was responding to Stephen Kinnock, the shadow Home Office minister, who said: “The latest ludicrous suggestion is to use the Ascension Island, 4,500 miles away in the south Atlantic sea. This is utter nonsense.” The Lords amended the bill to remove the clause allowing offshore processing, but Pursglove said the government would reinstate it. He said:
We have said repeatedly that while people are dying making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK, we must consider every option to discourage people from funding criminal gangs and putting their lives at risk crossing the Channel. That includes the option of processing asylum claims overseas. We must ensure we have the flexibility to do everything we can to disincentivise people from putting themselves and others at risk and lining the pockets of the people smugglers. That is the clear rationale for this policy.
- Pursglove conceded that, under the government’s plans, Ukrainian refugees arriving in the UK illegally could face jail. This is from my colleague Peter Walker.
Tom Pursglove confirms in the Commons that if a Ukrainian national arrived in the UK via an unofficial route they could face jail/being sent to a distant processing camp. He says there is "absolutely no reason" why Ukrainians should try to reach the UK by such methods.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
Kinnock said this was a particularly worrying feature of the bill. He said:
A particularly disturbing aspect of this legislation is that it seeks to criminalise a person seeking asylum if they arrive into the UK without clearance.
This means that if a Ukrainian person had brought their elderly parents to our country in the early days of the war, then under this legislation they would have been criminalised. Does the government not comprehend the horrors that refugees are fleeing from?
- Pursglove refused to say how much it would cost to process asylum claims offshore. The Tory former chief whip Andrew Mitchell, who is one of the government MPs opposed to this aspect of the bill, said it would be cheaper to put asylum seekers up in the Ritz than send them abroad for offshore processing.
- David Davis, the Tory former Brexit secretary, said offshore processing of people seeking asylum would mark a moral failure. He said in Australia this policy had led to people suffering abuse in offshore processing centres.
Strong argument against offshore asylum processing by David Davis, who says Australian example was a "moral, economic and practical failure". Davis notes rife assaults, and incidents like repeated suicide attempts by children: "That's what we appear to be trying to copy here.”
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
- Pursglove claimed that allowing the Lords amendment to the bill saying asylum workers could work after waiting six months for their claim to be processed (not 12 months, as now) would “undermine our economic migration scheme”.
- Tim Farron, the former Lib Dem leader, described the bill as the worst piece of legislation he had seen in his 17 years as an MP.
Updated
Post Office IT scandal: compensation scheme launched for victims
Post Office operators who helped uncover the Horizon IT scandal will be able to apply to a new compensation scheme, Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, has announced. My colleague Jamie Grierson has the story here.
Updated
Starmer says Tories are wrong to dismiss Partygate revelations as trivial 'fluff'
And here are some more lines from Keir Starmer’s interview on the World at One.
- Starmer rejected Tory claims that Parygate was a trivial matter, or just “fluff” as Jacob Rees-Mogg put it last week. He said that he was now primarily focused on the war in Ukraine, but he said he had not changed his mind about Boris Johnson, whose resignation he called for earlier this year as the Partygate revelations mounted. Starmer explained:
I don’t think you will ever take away the hurt that so many families felt when they learnt what the prime minister had been up to ... Every family, including my own, had elderly relatives who were shielding, where we all complied with the rules. And that meant we didn’t do things which we felt we should have done.
And that’s why it went so deep. That’s why that moral authority has been lost. I know the Conservatives want to wash it all away and pretend it’s all fluff. It’s not fluff. It’s about the emotion of people up and down the country.
- He said the UK should “ramp up” sanctions against Russia, provide more military support and offer a stronger humanitarian response. He said:
Everybody understands why every step has to be taken to prevent this escalating into a direct Nato-on-Russia conflict. That is why we need to provide more military support; that’s why sanctions have to be ramped up again further and faster, and that’s why we need to have a stronger, more compassionate humanitarian response.
- He refused to say whether as PM he would be prepared to use the nuclear deterrent, saying “that isn’t a question that anybody who wants to be prime minister should answer”. That is the answer that Starmer has given to this question many times before, but it is misleading because in the past prime ministers who have supported the nuclear deterrent have regularly said they would be willing to use it. They just haven’t discussed in detail the circumstances in which they would deploy it. But Starmer did say he believed in the nuclear deterrent, and had voted for it. When it was put to him that the nuclear deterrent would be pointless if a country was not willing to use it, Starmer did not demur.
Updated
Welsh government may delay getting rid of final Covid restrictions as cases rise, minister says
The Welsh government is mulling extending certain coronavirus restrictions following a surge in cases, Eluned Morgan, the health minister, has said. As PA Media reports, she said that there had been a “marked increase” in Covid-19 numbers driven by the new BA.2 variant of Omicron. PA says:
Speaking on the eve of the second anniversary of the start of the 2020 lockdown, Morgan said the virus was spreading quickly “in all parts of Wales and in all age groups”.
Numbers had been declining steadily since the end of January, and Wales was on the brink of shedding its last remaining Covid-19 restrictions.
Currently, face coverings must be worn in shops, on public transport and in health and care settings, while those who test positive must continue to self-isolate.
Licensed premises must also continue to do coronavirus risk assessments, but all of these conditions are due to be dropped next Monday (28 March).
Morgan said it would be a “finely balanced judgment” as to whether measures continue, but added: “There are no foregone conclusions.”
She said the primary concern was pressure on the NHS, warning that hospitals are already full and increased cases would create knock-on problems for services such as accident and emergency units.
“It may be that we look at keeping some restrictions and forging ahead with ones that we had planned [to drop] already, but there are no decisions that have been made so far,” the minister said.
There are about 1,400 people in Welsh hospitals with Covid-19, although only 19% were admitted because of the disease, and there are very low numbers in intensive care.
Morgan acknowledged people in Wales are experiencing pandemic fatigue, as well as stress from the rise in living costs and anxiety over the war in Ukraine.
But she said people needed to have “perspective” on what they are being asked to do and why certain coronavirus measures might have to continue.
“The measures that are left are actually fairly limited, so I don’t think it’s a huge big deal to ask people to wear a face covering in certain circumstances,” Ms Morgan said.
“I just think we need to get some perspective on this relative to where we have been in the past, where we simply weren’t even allowed to leave our homes.”
Updated
Starmer claims Sunak only raising national insurance now so he can cut taxes before general election
Keir Starmer has claimed that the government is raising taxes just so that it can cut them again before the general election. In an interview with Radio 4’s World at One, he argued that the £12bn rise in national insurance contributions (NICs) due to take effect from next month was unnecesary, and that it was being implemented to pave the way for tax cuts later this parliament. Describing the increase as “the wrong tax at the wrong time”, he said:
If ever there was a time not to introduce a new tax, it’s now, when the squeeze is absolutely on ...
I’m afraid that is cynical from the chancellor and cynical from the prime minister, because what the chancellor, I think, is doing here is introducing a tax that doesn’t need to be introduced, which is going to really hurt people.
And he’s not doing that for good economic reasons. He’s doing that, he hopes, so that just before the election he can try to cut taxes and claim to be a tax-cutting government. That is cynical. It is not the right economic answer. It is cynicism.
Labour has opposed the national insurance increase since it was announced last year. The Tories claim this stance amounts to opposing extra money for the NHS, but Labour has said that there are fairer ways to raise the money, and that, although the NICs rise is supposed to fix problems with adult social care, the PM’s plan will fail to do this.
I’ll post more from the interview shortly.
Updated
These are from my colleague Peter Walker, who has been listening to Tom Pursglove, the minister for tackling illegal immigration, open the debate on the Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill.
It is the job of junior minister Tom Pursglove to argue in the Commons that the govt is rejecting an amendment to the borders bill which would guarantee no breaches of the 1951 refugee convention because the bill does not breach the convention, even though the UNHCR says it does.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
Explaining the plans for offshore bases for processing asylum seekers to the UK, Tom Pursglove confirms that children could also be sent to such camps, but only as part of family groups. He refuses to discuss how much the scheme could cost.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
Today marks the fifth anniversary of the Westminster terror attack that saw four civilians, and one police officer, killed by a terrorist who was subsequently shot. The police officer, PC Keith Palmer, was killed within the gates of the Palace of Westminster as he confronted the attacker and sought to stop him getting any further.
Boris Johnson and other MPs commemorated the anniversary at a service at St Margaret’s Church in Westminster. In an address, he paid tribute to the “extraordinary heroism” of Palmer, and said the diversity of the victims – the dead included an American and a Romanian – showed “the truth that an attack on London, like an attack on Manchester, is an attack on the world”.
Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Commons Speaker, has also laid a wreath to mark the memorial.
This morning, together with the @LordSpeaker, I laid a wreath to mark the fifth anniversary of the death of PC Keith Palmer, who was murdered during a terrorist attack in Westminster on 22 March 2017. pic.twitter.com/ZEEGLBezyY
— Sir Lindsay Hoyle (@CommonsSpeaker) March 22, 2022
Updated
MPs have just started debating the Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill. (See 12.28pm.)
As my colleague Peter Walker reports, Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, responding to a point of order before the debate started, criticised the government for not publishing estimates for how much it would cost to process asylum seekers offshore (as the bill would allow).
Slight rebuke to the Home Office by Speaker Lindsay Hoyle at the start of Commons reconsideration of the borders and nationalities bill for not, as promised, providing estimates to MPs about how much it would cost to process UK asylum seekers offshore.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
My guess is this information was not given because the cost estimates would presumably show it would be cheaper to requisition every single 5* hotel room in London, with room service, to host asylum seekers, rather than shipping them to a camp on Ascension Island etc.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) March 22, 2022
Updated
Number of pupils off school in England for Covid-related reasons has more than tripled in fortnight, DfE figures show
School attendance in England has fallen sharply, according to the government’s latest official data, which shows the number of pupils absent for Covid-related reasons has more than tripled in the space of a fortnight.
Figures published by the Department for Education (DfE) on Tuesday reveal that 202,000 pupils in state schools in England were off school on 17 March because of the virus – a dramatic jump from 58,000 on 3 March.
Two weeks ago, official DfE figures appeared to show attendance in England returning to “something approaching normal”, with Covid cases down, but the latest figures confirm headteachers’ warnings of mounting disruption in schools as the latest wave of the virus sweeps across the country.
Government data shows 159,000 pupils were off with a confirmed case of the virus, up from 45,000 on 3 March, with 16,000 pupils absent with a suspected case of coronavirus, up from 6,000 suspected cases on 3 March.
Overall attendance in state schools in England has dropped to 89.7%, down from 92.2% two weeks ago. There has also been a huge jump in absence among teachers and school leaders, up from 5.8% to 9.1%.
Responding to the latest figures, Paul Whiteman, the general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers, said staff absence was once again causing widespread disruption, with many schools finding it near impossible to find supply cover, and fears growing about the impact on exam preparations. He said:
These figures are absolutely in line with what we have been hearing from our members. Covid cases have been spiking again in many schools over the past week or so – in line with the rising numbers nationally.
This data shows nearly one in 10 teachers and school leaders absent, which is as bad as the very start of term. Right now, many school leaders are facing a huge challenge when it comes to maintaining educational provision.
Whiteman also described plans to remove free access to lateral flow tests from the start of next month as cases rise as “irresponsible”.
Updated
No 10 plays down prospect of Johnson visiting Ukraine after Tory chair says he's 'desperate' to go
And here are some more lines from the Downing Street lobby briefing.
- No 10 played down the prospect of Boris Johnson going to Ukraine. Last night Oliver Dowden, the Conservative party co-chair, said the PM was “desperate” to go. (See 9.10am.) But, when asked about a possible visit, the PM’s spokesperson said:
We’d obviously consider any invite should it be made. There are no plans to travel there currently. The prime minister speaks to President Zelenskiy on an almost daily basis, as you know, and we are doing everything we can, any requests that are made, and to continue playing that co-ordinating function, which we believe is vital to supporting Ukraine.
The spokesperson also confirmed that Zelenskiy has not invited Johnson to visit.
- The spokesperson said the government would not be surprised if the contents of the hoax call with Priti Patel, the home secretary, were released. No 10 says Russia was behind the hoax calls to Patel and Ben Wallace, the defence secretary. Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, was also unsuccessfully targeted. The spokesperson said:
It is standard practice for Russian information operations to try and use these tactics. It seeks to be a distraction from their illegal activities in Ukraine, their human rights abuses, and so we will not be distracted from our purpose in ensuring Putin must fail in Ukraine.
- The spokesperson refused to confirm reports that ministers are worried that France and Germany might offer Russia “an easy off-ramp [exit strategy]” from the war. In the Times (paywall) today Steven Swinford suggests Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, is particularly worried about this. He writes:
A government source said: “Any negotiations with Russia should come from a position of utmost strength. The G7 needs to stay united. There should be no easy off-ramp for Putin. We shouldn’t be in the business of making early concessions. We need to be tough to get peace.”
The spokesperson said he did not “recognise” the account in the report. He said France and Germany were on the “Quint” call yesterday (for the leaders of the US, the UK, France, Germany and Italy) and “all leaders were united in their resolve to increase the pressure on Russia to halt its unprovoked invasion”.
- The spokesperson did not dispute a claim by Kwasi Kwarteng, the business secretary, that public opposition to onshore wind farms has reduced. In an interview with the i, Kwarteng said:
There were quite understandable political reasons that people didn’t want to see large-scale onshore [windfarms] in their vicinity. I think that’s changed. I think people are much more open to renewable energy.
Kwarteng also hinted in the interview that planning rules for onshore windfarms might be eased. Asked if that was the PM’s view, the spokesperson said he did not want to speculate on what might be in the energy strategy. But he went on: “The prime minister thinks the public recognises the need to diversify our energy supply.”
- The spokesperson condemned the social media abuse directed at Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. (See 8.43am.) He said:
She has been through an unimaginable ordeal and we are extremely pleased that she’s now reunited with her family. And as a UK citizen, someone in a free and democratic country, she is rightly able to voice her opinion on any topic she wishes.
Updated
No 10 says it plans to overturn Lords borders bill defeats, including on asylum seekers' right to work
In the Commons this afternoon, ministers will be seeking to overturn a string of defeats they suffered in the House of Lords when peers were debating the nationality and borders bill. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has a very useful guide to what all those defeats meant here.
One of the defeats would allow people claiming asylum to work in the UK if after six months they were still waiting for their claim to be assessed. Some Conservative MPs have indicated that they are willing to rebel on this, and vote in favour of keeping the Lords amendment.
But at the No 10 lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson indicated that the government would not accept the amendment. He said:
Asylum seekers are already allowed to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more through no fault of their own. That remains the case.
Obviously, we want to avoid incentivising unfounded asylum claims, and it’s important to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to work here who can apply for a work visa.
Asked if the government would try to overturn all the Lords defeats, the spokesperson said that he would not comment on whipping matters, but that the votes in the Lords were “disappointing” and that the government would not be deterred from “delivering our plans to fix the system”.
Updated
Grant Shapps, the transport secetary, has welcomed the seizure of a yacht belonging to a Russian oligarch in Gibraltar – saying that Gibraltar was using similar sanctions to the ones he introduced in the UK.
It’s not only here in the UK Putin’s cronies aren’t welcome, but in all of our overseas territories too.
— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) March 22, 2022
Gibraltar has mirrored the sanctions I introduced on Russian-owned vessels - leading to the seizure of, oligarch, Dmitry Pumpyansky’s super yacht.
https://t.co/grmFKTcbf8
According to PA, the yacht is owned by the billionaire oligarch Dmitry Pumpyansky. PA says:
The 72-metre long vessel, Axioma, was impounded by authorities in the British overseas territory on Monday.
Pumpyansky is the owner and chairman of steel pipe manufacturer OAO TMK, which has supplied Russia’s state-owned energy company Gazprom since 1998, according to Forbes.
His net worth is estimated at £1.84bn.
He was subjected to sanctions by the UK last week in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on 24 February.
Updated
Tomorrow Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, will deliver his spring statement. It is normally described as a mini budget, because the official budget is now delivered in the autumn. A few weeks ago “mini budget” sounded like an accurate description, because relatively few new announcements were expected, but with the war in Ukraine pushing up energy prices, and making the cost of living crisis more extreme, Sunak is now expected to announce some hefty, budget-scale tax or spending measures to help people out.
Here are some of the preview stories around this morning.
- Christopher Hope at the Telegraph says Tory MPs have been told they will be on a three-line whip on Thursday, heightening speculation that the government will change the national insurance contributions hike coming into force next month.
NEW Government whips have made Thursday a three line whip.
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) March 21, 2022
This is unusual (Thursdays are usually a one line whip). MPs must turn up to vote.
Major speculation that NIC thresholds will be tweaked in the Spring statement to help the poorest.
More in tomorrow's Daily Telegraph.
One Conservative MP tells me:"They want to tweak the NICs legislation. The increase looked idiotic in September and now looks like lunacy.” #SpringStatement
— Christopher Hope📝 (@christopherhope) March 21, 2022
Some Conservatives wants Sunak to abandon the £12bn national insurance increase altogether, but Sunak has made it clear that this will not happen. More recently, some have been arguing that he should instead increase the threshold at which people start paying national insurance. This would protect some low earners from the increase. In an interview on the Today programme yesterday Robert Jenrick, the former communities secretary, said this would be a “targeted measure”, that would help the poorest and would also have the advantage of aligning the national insurance threshold with the income tax threshold, thereby simplifying the system. In an analysis, the Resolution Foundation thinktank says “raising the NICs threshold would deliver the biggest cash gains to households in the middle part of the income distribution – but still see twice as much support go to the top as the bottom half of the income distribution, who would gain £250 on average”.
- George Parker in the FT says Sunak has been told the spring statement must show the government “is on the side of people struggling with the crisis in the cost of living”. Parker says:
One ally of Johnson said: “The prime minister is acutely aware of the pressure on people’s household budgets. He has made it clear to the chancellor we should be on their side.”
- Lucy White at the Daily Mail said IFS figures suggest the government’s debt interest payments may rise to £84bn in this financial year. She says:
The cost of servicing Britain’s ballooning national debt will hit more than £1,200 per person over the next year, experts have warned.
As the war in Ukraine pushes inflation ever higher, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said yesterday that debt interest payments could surpass £84bn in 2022-23.
That would be £31bn more than the government’s Budget watchdog predicted last October.
Updated
Zaghari-Ratcliffe: MPs to hold inquiry into delay over Iran debt payment
The Commons foreign affairs committee will hold an inquiry into why the UK took more than 30 years to repay the £400m debt it owed Iran, my colleagues Patrick Wintour and Jessica Elgot report. But the inquiry will not start until Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and any other former prisoners felt ready to provide evidence, they report.
Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ general secretary, has welcomed the Chris Mullin ruling. In a statement she said:
This judgment is a hopeful beacon at a time when we rely more than ever on dependable news, despite journalists facing mounting legal challenges. Few reporters have been more courageous and dogged than Chris Mullin, nor have they been so spectacularly vindicated.
This case threatened press freedom and amounted to another attempt to criminalise the legitimate actions of journalists. In refusing this production order, the judge has recognised the principle that the NUJ will always defend – that protecting sources underpins every journalist’s ability to report.
I hope that West Midlands police now chooses to devote its many powers to amassing sufficient credible evidence to secure a conviction for those terrible bombings.
Updated
Threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorism reduced for first time since 2010
Brandon Lewis, the Northern Ireland secretary, has announced that the threat level in Northern Ireland from Northern Ireland-related terrorism has been reduced for the first time for 12 years. It has gone from severe (“an attack is highly likely”) to substantial (“an attack is likely”).
Today I have announced that the Northern Ireland-related Terrorism threat level has been lowered from SEVERE to SUBSTANTIAL. This is the first time the threat level has changed since 2010. (1/2) pic.twitter.com/TWIdVlqF06
— Brandon Lewis (@BrandonLewis) March 22, 2022
It is a testament to the tremendous efforts of the PSNI and MI5 and their hard won gains over the last decade. The Government remains committed to securing these gains and continuing to make NI a safer, more prosperous society for all. (2/2)
— Brandon Lewis (@BrandonLewis) March 22, 2022
Given that one argument against the Northern Ireland protocol was that it was heightening the risk of loyalist terrorism, this decision won’t help those arguing that the protocol is having a destablising impact (although the main arguments about it relate to economics, not security).
Minister defends government's decision not to back bill last year intended to stop 'fire and rehire'
In an interview on ITV’s Good Morning Britain earlier Paul Scully, the small business minister, defended the government’s decision not to back a Labour private member’s bill last year intended to stop firms sacking their staff, and then hiring them back on worse conditions – so-called “fire and rehire”. Labour says the sacking of 800 P&O Ferries staff last week with no notice shows why legislation like this is needed.
Scully said the bill would not have completely banned fire and rehire, as Barry Gardiner, the Labour MP who tabled it, admitted at the time. Scully also claimed the bill could have led to more workers losing their jobs. He told GMB:
What the bill would have done, it would have actually meant that a lot of businesses that needed to restructure in a fair way, because of the financial situation they were in, would not have been able to do so as flexibly. So likely it would have led to more job losses at the end of the day.
He also denied that he was personally to blame for the bill failing – even though, as the Guardian reported at the time, he was the minister who talked out the bill, meaning it ran out of time.
After small business minister Paul Scully said there was no vote on the bill that would ban fire and rehire, @susannareid100 reads out an article that claims Mr Scully spoke for so long that the legislation ran out of time to be considered further. pic.twitter.com/5BIiY6iqpi
— Good Morning Britain (@GMB) March 22, 2022
Scully said the bill would have run out of time anyway. This is sort of true – but only because government whips could have easily found someone else to talk it out, because No 10 had decided it did not want the legislation to proceed. Labour’s Jess Phillips said Scully was talking rubbish.
Utter rubbish. He makes out that it doesn't matter that he talked a lot, he will have been literally ordered to do it to kill the bill it wasn't an accident. Also new guidance he mentions puts onus on sacked worker to undertake years of expensive work against rich companies https://t.co/LIhkrqqiho
— Jess Phillips MP (@jessphillips) March 22, 2022
Also to make out that Labour and TUC "would say that" as if it's for lols. Yeah dude we say it because our job is to protect workers and ordinary citizens from grotesque action that sees them pulled off boats and sacked on zoom. What monsters we are.
— Jess Phillips MP (@jessphillips) March 22, 2022
Updated
There is an urgent question in the Commons at 12.30pm today on compensation for the subpostmasters and mistresses affected by the Horizon scandal.
ONE URGENT QUESTION TODAY FROM 12:30@KevanJonesMP To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy if he will make a statement what steps he has taken to ensure ‘the 555’ subpostmasters are fairly compensated
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 22, 2022
That means the debate on the Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill will start at around 1.15pm.
West Midlands police have defended their decision to take Chris Mullin to court to try to get him to disclose the identity of a confidential source who confessed to the Birmingham pub bombings when he was writing his book explaining why those convicted of the killings were innocent. In a statement Assistant Chief Constable Matt Ward said:
This was a complex issue balancing the need to pursue all significant lines of inquiry related to the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings against the rights of journalists to keep the sources of their information confidential.
The court has given its independent judgment which we will now consider carefully.
West Midlands police remains committed to bringing to justice those responsible for the murder of 21 innocent victims.
Updated
Some 12,400 visas have been issued under the Ukraine family scheme as of 5pm on Monday, the Home Office has said. A total of 32,500 applications have been submitted so far, according to provisional data published on the department’s website.
Mullin court victory 'landmark freedom of expression' case, says laywer
And this is from Chris Mullin’s solicitor, Louis Charalambous of Simons Muirhead Burton.
This is a landmark freedom of expression decision which properly recognises the public interest in Chris Mullin’s journalism which led to the release of the Birmingham Six. If a confidential source cannot rely on a journalist’s promise of lifelong protection then these investigations will never see the light of day.
Updated
Chris Mullin, the former Labour minister and author of Error of Judgment: The Truth About the Birmingham Bombings, has issued this statement about his court victory today. (See 10.11am.)
I am grateful to Judge Lucraft for his decision. The right of a journalist to protect his or her sources is fundamental to a free press in a democracy.
My actions in this case were overwhelmingly in the public interest. They led to the release of six innocent men after 17 years in prison, the winding up of the notorious West Midlands Serious Crimes Squad and the quashing of a further 30 or so wrongful convictions.
This case also resulted in the setting up a royal commission which, among other reforms, led to the setting up of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the quashing of another 500 or more wrongful convictions.
My investigation is also the main reason why the identity of three of the four bombers is known.
Finally, I am grateful to the National Union of Journalists for their unswerving support and also to my legal representatives, Louis Charalambous and Gavin Millar QC.
Updated
Police fail in legal bid to force journalist and ex-MP Chris Mullin to reveal source for his Birmingham Six exposé
PA has just snapped this.
Journalist Chris Mullin will not have to disclose source material dating back to his investigation in 1985 and 1986 into the Birmingham pub bombings after a legal bid from West Midlands police, a judge at the Old Bailey has ruled.
This is an important victory for freedom of the press (although many would argue that West Midlands police should never have tried to bring the case in the first place.)
Here is a news story with background to the case.
And here is an opinion piece from Duncan Campbell, the Guardian’s former crime correspondent, explaining why he thought it was wrong for West Midlands police to try to force Mullin to disclose a source who contributed to his book about the wrongful conviction of the Birmingham Six for the Birmingham pub bombings.
Updated
Jeremy Hunt, the former foreign secretary, was on the Today programme this morning explaining and elaborating on his Twitter thread about why he thinks Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe was let down by the government. (See 8.43am.)
He said that when he was foreign secretary, the decision was taken in principle to repay the £400m debt owed to Iran (which was set by the Iranians as a condition for the release of Zaghari-Ratcliffe).
I think there was a lot of reluctance when I arrived as foreign secretary because of a sense that it might be seen as a ransom. We don’t pay ransoms because it encourages more hostage-taking. But this is not a ransom, it is a debt.
That decision that we should pay it in principle was taken when I was foreign secretary. But then the practicalities of paying it when Iran is a sanctioned regime meant that it still took a long time to sort out.
Hunt also paid tribute to the role played by Liz Truss, the current foreign secretary, and Boris Johnson, in finally getting Zaghari-Ratcliffe released.
Whilst it was an extraordinary achievement by Liz Truss and the Foreign Office to negotiate Nazanin and Anoosheh Ashoori’s release - and indeed Boris Johnson deserves some credit for the fact that he authorised the payment of the debt, which hadn’t happened previously and that kind of decision has to come right from the top – but it took six years and that is too long. We have to ask ourselves whether we could have done it more quickly.
Updated
Johnson 'desperate' to visit Ukraine, says Tory chair Oliver Dowden
There have been reports in recent days saying that Boris Johnson wants to visit Ukraine and last night, in an interview with Andrew Marr for his new LBC show, Oliver Dowden, the Conservative party co-chair, confirmed them, saying the PM was “desperate” to visit the war zone. Dowden said:
I think the prime minister is desperate to go to Ukraine and has throughout this conflict felt a real – as the British people have done – a real emotional connection with the suffering of the Ukrainian people and a need for the west to unite in standing up to this threat from Russia.
Asked what such a visit might achieve, Dowden replied:
I think it’s both to see what’s going on the ground, because it’s very different talking to somebody on the phone versus actually seeing it in practice – and, by the way, I should say that no decisions have been taken in relation to this – but then secondly, it’s actually to experience what is happening there, to see what is happening. To the people on the ground. I think that is very different to just speaking remotely.
Last week the prime ministers of Poland, Slovenia and the Czech Republic travelled by train to Kyiv to meet President Zelenskiy and show their support for Ukraine.
Johnson has upset his minders in the past with requests for a visit to a war zone. In 2015, when he was mayor of London, he tried unsuccessfully to get the Foreign Office to allow him to visit the frontline while he was on a visit to Iraq. In wanting to get close to the action, Johnson is following in the footsteps of his hero, Winston Churchill, who was often keen to witness fighting. Famously, he even wanted to attend D-Day, and had to be talked out of the idea by the King, who said that if Churchill went, he would have to go too. (Perhaps the Queen might use the same tactic to scupper the PM’s proposed Kyiv jaunt.)
Updated
Rishi Sunak handed borrowing boost before spring statement
Rishi Sunak has been handed a boost from figures showing lower government borrowing than official estimates on the eve of the spring statement, my colleage Richard Partington reports.
We failed Nazanin, admits former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt as he backs calls for inquiry
Good morning. Most media commentators found Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe commendably impressive when she held a press conference yesterday, but on social media she received some criticism from people who thought she was wrong to criticise the government when it had secured her release by paying £400m to Iran. (It was money that the UK has owed Iran for decades, not a ransom payment, but that distinction got overlooked in the shouty corridors of Twitter, where nuance never survives.)
This morning one of the former foreign secretaries whom Zaghari-Ratcliffe accused of not doing enough to help her came to her defence. She was right, said Jeremy Hunt. In an unusually candid admission from a former minister, Hunt used a thread on Twitter to say that Zaghari-Ratcliffe was failed by government.
Hunt also joins Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family, their MP Tulip Siddiq, and the former Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt in backing calls for an inquiry into what went wrong.
And he also points to a structural problem within government that may have made the situation worse. In the UK secretaries of state on average stay in post for less than two years (compared to nearer three years in Germany). And, as Zaghari-Ratcliffe pointed out yesterday, there were five foreign secretaries over the six years she was detained in Iran. If any of them had stayed in post longer, they might have made more progress.
(Part of the problem, though, was that there were also three prime ministers, and a new PM normally wants a new foreign secretary.)
Here is Hunt’s Twitter thread in full.
Those criticizing Nazanin have got it so wrong. She doesn’t owe us gratitude: we owe her an explanation…
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) March 22, 2022
She’s absolutely right that it took too long to bring her home. I tried my best - as did other foreign secretaries - but if trying our best took six years then we must be honest and say the problem should have been solved earlier.
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) March 22, 2022
Ministerial turnover may have been a factor. So might initial reluctance to pay the debt because people worried it would look like a ransom. So undoubtedly were the complications over how to pay a country that is sanctioned.
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) March 22, 2022
But it is right that an independent investigation now takes place as to what those reasons were, something I would be glad to assist with. Such a review also needs to assess whether our current policy is sufficient to stop hostage taking in the future.
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) March 22, 2022
If democracies can show such impressive unity on Russian sanctions, surely we can do the same to stamp out the 19th century practice of hostage taking?
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) March 22, 2022
PS this kind of open scrutiny as to whether we could do things better is what happens in democratic, open societies. It may be something they don't welcome in places like Iran and Russia but it is why, ultimately, we are wiser and stronger.
— Jeremy Hunt (@Jeremy_Hunt) March 22, 2022
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Judgment is delivered in the case brought by West Midlands police against the former Labour minister Chris Mullin, who is refusing to reveal source material for his acclaimed 1980s book revealing the conviction of the Birmingham Six over the pub bombings in the city to be a miscarriage of justice.
9.30am: The ONS publishes new figures on excess deaths in England and Wales from March 2020 to December 2021.
10.15am: Sir Parick Vallance, the government’s chief scientific adviser, gives evidence to the Lords science committee on a UK science and technology strategy.
11am: Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Brexit minister, and Neil O’Brien, the levelling up minister, give evidence to the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee about procurement strategy.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
After 12.30pm: MPs debate the Lords amendments to the nationality and borders bill.
I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com.
Updated
