Andrew Sparrow 

Hammond says he wants EU transition that looks ‘a lot like the status quo’ – as it happened

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including Jeremy Corbyn’s speech to the TUC and Philip Hammond’s evidence to a Lords committee
  
  

Philip Hammond giving evidence to Lords committee.
Philip Hammond giving evidence to Lords committee. Photograph: Parliament TV

Afternoon summary

  • Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has said the government wants a Brexit transition deal that would looks “a lot like the status quo”. (See 5.59pm.)
  • The next round of Brexit talks are to take place in the week of September 25, seven days later than expected, in order to give negotiators “flexibility to make progress”, the government has said. As the Press Association reports, the new date for the talks was jointly agreed by officials from the UK and European Union sides to allow “more time for consultation” before they return to the negotiating table. Reports from Brussels quoted EU sources as saying that the delay was agreed to fit in with the UK’s political calendar, with a major speech on the subject expected by Theresa May on September 21.
  • Jeremy Corbyn has given a very strong defence of trade unions. Speaking to the TUC conference in Brighton, he said:

Trade unions are far and away the biggest voluntary and democratic organisations in the country. They are the roots and the lifeblood of our party. You are abused by the powerful and your rights are attacked -including by this government - but the trade union movement represents the best of Britain and is a vital engine of progress in our democracy.

He also urged everyone to join a union.

If you want a job that pays a decent wage, gives you the chance to get on in life, live independently and enjoy your work, then join a trade union. Do it today.

  • Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, and one of Theresa May’s strongest backbench critics over the EU withdrawal bill, has defended a government plan to change Commons rules to give the government a majority on key legislative committees. He said the minority Labour government in the 1970s did the same thing. (See 11.42am.) A Commons library briefing note shows that the 1974 minority Labour government eventually accepted it should not have a majority on those committees. (See 12.01pm.) MPs will vote on the plans later. Originally the debate on the measure had been expected to start soon after 7pm, but that has been pushed back because Tory MPs are dragging out the finance bill debate in what appears to be an attempt to ensure the committee selection changes are debated in a low-profile, late night “graveyard slot”.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Open Britain, the group campaigning for a “soft” Brexit, has put out this statement from the Labour MP Wes Streeting in response to what Philip Hammond said about how leaving the EU in 2019 without a customs deal in place could clog up ports like Dover. (See 5.59pm.) Streeting said

The chancellor has today blown apart one of the biggest delusions of the hard Brexiteers by admitting there is a real chance Brexit will create a worse trading environment between the UK and the EU.

And he has made clear that leaving the customs union could cause significant disruption to our customs system, meaning chaos for our ports, exporters and businesses, if a good transitional deal is not agreed.

Businesses and international investors are beginning to lose confidence in the government’s attitude to Brexit. Jobs and growth are on the line. It is vital that the ideological Brexiteers in the cabinet wake up to reality and put membership of the single market and customs union back on the table.

Bloomberg’s Rob Hutton points out that the transition plan set out by Philip Hammond in his evidence to the Lords committee sounded very like Labour’s proposals - which the Tories described as “a weak attempt to kick the can down the road”.

Hammond's evidence to the Lords committee - Summary

Here are the main points from Philip Hammond’s evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee.

  • Hammond, the chancellor, said the government wanted a Brexit transition deal that would look “a lot like the status quo”. He said:

There is general agreement that it would not make sense to ask business to face two sets of changes and that implies that a transition or interim period would need to look a lot like the status quo, otherwise businesses will be making one set of changes at the beginning of the interim period and another set towards the end of it.

  • He said Dover would not be able to cope if it had to start imposing customs checks from March 2019. Explaining why it was preferable to have a transition deal that involved no new customs checks at the EU border (ie, something akin to be being in the customs union), he said Dover would struggle even if it only had to carry out relatively quick checks. He said:

Anyone who’s visited Dover will know that Dover operates as a flow-through port and volumes of trade at Dover could not accommodated if goods had to be held for inspection even, I suspect, if they were held for minutes, it would still impede the operation of the port.

Roll-on, roll-off traffic at Dover is predicated on trucks rolling off a ferry immediately, out of the port and the ferry reloading and departing pretty rapidly – Ryanair style turnaround times.

Anything that caused delay in vehicles exiting the port, delay in vehicles offloading, would cause significant disruption to patterns of movement.

  • He said, although Britain wanted to be able to negotiate new trade deals during the transition period, it accepted it would not be able to implement them if it retained a customs arrangement with the EU similar to the status quo. He said:

When we leave the European Union, we will leave the single market and the customs union as a matter of fact. What we would hope to be able to do is negotiate an arrangement with the European Union that would allow us to operate across borders between the UK and the EU, our trade in goods and services, in much the way we do today.

The obvious impediment to such an arrangement is the desire to conclude third party trade agreements with other countries. We have been clear during such a period we would want to be able negotiate with third countries but we would not expect to be able to implement them. That clears the way to have a harmonised customs agreement.

He also said he thought agreeing not to implement new trade deals during a transition deal would not be a great sacrifice, because it would take quite a lot of time to negotiate these deals anyway.

  • He said that negotiation with fellow EU customs authorities about post-Brexit arrangements were being held up because the EU was refusing to open talks on a future trade deal. He said:

In terms of level of engagement with our nearest neighbours at the customs service level, that has been limited and it has been limited because the view of many of our neighbours is that, until such time as the commission, or the council of ministers, has declared sufficient progress, they are not authorised to engage with us on post-exit planning and post-exit arrangements.

We have had less engagement than we would like with our customs counterparts with our immediate neighbours both at a technical level and to discuss possible deal scenario technical challenges and no deal scenario technical challenges.

  • He said the Home Office document leaked to the Guardian about the government’s post-Brexit immigration plans did not reflect current government thinking. When it was put to him that, if those plans were implemented, they would prevent the UK negotiating a transition deal that involved accepting free movement, he denied it. He said the government’s offer to EU nationals was set out by Amber Rudd, the home secretary, in July. That involved EU nationals being free to continue to come to the UK for a period after Brexit provided they registered - a requirement that was allowed under EU law, he said. Referring to the proposals in the Guardian document, which were incompatible with the principle of free movement, he said:

I would advise the committee to listen to what the home secretary said, rather than what some document that somebody has dug out from somewhere, which I certainly don’t recognise as our current state of thinking, purports to say.

  • He said the budget would be held on Wednesday 22 November.
  • He said the government wanted to make a “value-for-money” offer to students. He confirmed that the government was looking at how the tuition fee system works, although he refused to confirm reports it will cut the interest rate students pay. He implied there would be an announcement in the budget. But he stressed that it would not just cover fees. He said:

I don’t think it would be helpful to look only at the financing side of the equation. I think we need to look more broadly at the range of products offered to students, the way in which we offer them, the information that we provide to students to enable them to make value for money assessments about what they are buying and what it is going to cost them. And I think our focus should be satisfying ourselves that as government, as a responsible body, what we are offering, the package in the round that we are offering to would-be students, represents a value-for-money offer.

  • He suggested there should be more variation in tution fees. He said:

I do think there’s a significant difference between a graduate who leaves university with a, perhaps, quite significant level of debt and a well-recognised degree in an area which is known to provide strong employment opportunities, and a graduate on the other hand who perhaps has a very similar level of debt but who may not have a degree that is going to enhance his or her employment opportunities in the same way.

I think we have a responsibility to look at the way the system is working in practice because I think it is probably fair to say the original expectation was that there would be a bigger range of outcomes in terms of fees charged than has actually turned out to be the case.

  • He said he was concerned that the current tuition fees system could incentive universities to priorities teaching arts course not science courses. (See 3.53pm.)
  • He said artificial intelligence would quite soon be able to generate some real productivity improvements in the delivery of government services. He said:

There are very significant areas of government activity which involve relatively low level decision making which will be highly susceptible to the application of artificial intelligence, probably over a relatively short period of time, which does present the tantalising possibility of being able to drive some real productivity enhancement in the delivery of government processes.

Updated

The Scottish Tories have offered to help end the deadlock between the Scottish and UK governments over Brexit after ministers in Edinburgh again refused to authorise crucial Brexit legislation.

In an unexpected change of tone at Holyrood, the Tories said they wanted to act as an honest broker between the two governments after weeks of verbal sparring over the types of new powers would come to Scotland after Brexit.

That conciliatory tone was matched by Mike Russell, the Scottish Brexit minister, who did not repeat his previous claims that the UK government were plotting a “power grab” by withholding those powers from devolved governments.

Jackson Carlaw, the Scottish Tories deputy leader, said he and Adam Tomkin, the Scottish Tories constitution spokesman, would welcome bilateral talks to ensure both governments could strike a deal which Nicola Sturgeon’s government would accept.

Time is running out for the UK government, which needs the Scottish government to table a legislative consent motion accepting the EU withdrawal bill before it reaches its final stages at Westminster early next year. Carlaw said:

Brexit isn’t politics as normal. If there’s a genuine concern [in the Scottish government] matched by equally genuine resolve to address and overcome this, then the Scottish Conservatives here at Holyrood will play our part.

Russell published a draft memorandum on Tuesday that confirmed the Scottish government would not agree to the EU withdrawal bill until it was substantially rewritten to guarantee Scotland would automatically get former EU powers after Brexit.

Along with her Welsh counterpart Carwyn Jones, Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has repeatedly accused the UK government of planning that “power grab” because the EU withdrawal bill says all existing EU powers will first return to Westminster.

The Welsh and Scottish governments are due to jointly publish amendments to the Brexit bill next week. Several hours before Russell spoke, Damian Green, the UK government’s deputy prime minister, wrote to the Scottish government offering a date for a long delayed joint ministerial committee meeting between the UK government and the devolved administrations in mid-October.

Hammond’s session has now wrapped up. I will post a summary shortly.

Q: What is the rationale for keeping students in the immigration target?

Hammond says that including students is consistent with the UN definition of immigrants. He says the prime minister’s view is that, if the UK were to exclude students from the immigration figures, members of the public would think the government was trying to minimise the figures.

Q: But 95% of foreign students return?

Hammond says if all foreign students return, their overall impact on the migration figures will be zero.

Q: When you were foreign secretary, you said having foreign students at British universities enhanced Britain’s soft power. You were in favour of removing them from the immigration target?

Hammond says a myth has grown up in India that there is a cap on the number of foreign students allowed into the UK. The government is trying to dispel that notion, he says.

Turning away from the Hammond hearing for a moment, this is from the Times’ Bruno Waterfield.

This would confirm a prediction originally made by Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit spokesman.

Hammond is now being asked about energy.

He says it remains the government’s view that the price being paid for energy from the new Hinkley Point nuclear power station will be good value for money.

Q: So the government wants a transitional agreement during which we can negotiate trade deals that will come into effect when the new relationship with the EU comes into effect. But presumably there will be new immigration rules in place. So if we agree a deal with a country like India, or Australia, and they demand greater access for their citizens as part of a trade agreement, won’t there be a clash between our trade policy requirements and our immigration policy requirements?

Hammond says he does not think that is the case.

There is no reason why we should not have one regime for Australia, and another for the EU, he says.

Q: But the EU will be our main partner. What will happen if we want to offer India immigration rules that are more favourable?

Hammond says it is normal in bilateral agreements to accept terms, and let the other party make agreements with other countries on different terms.

He says it is “unlikely” that the UK will agree more liberal immigration agreements with third party countries than with the EU.

He says he thinks agreeing not to bring into force new trade deals during a transition won’t be onerous, because in practice it will take some time to finalise these agreements anyway.

Hammond says the Swedish/Norwegian border is of great interest to the UK, as an example of a border between an EU and non-EU country.

But engagement with customs agencies from other EU countries has so far been limited, he says.

Hammond says, if there is no transition, government agencies in Europe (like customs agencies) will end up spending quite significant sums.

Q: How can something be as frictionless as it is now on trade?

Hammond says he is talking about goods. No one is looking for a better arrangement than now. And it may be that the outcome is not as good as the status quo.

But “the design challenge is to minimise the friction to a level that is acceptable to business”.

Hammond says David Davis, the Brexit secretary, inspected customs arrangements on the US/Canada border recently.

For traders leaving the US, the normal border delay was a minute. For those using the trusted trader system, it was about 30 seconds, he says.

Hammond says the government wants a transition period similar to being in the customs union.

The obvious problem is that, if the UK were in the customs union, it would not be able to negotiate trade deals.

He says its proposal is that it should be able to negotiate trade deals and sign them, but not implement them.

When we leave the European Union, we will leave the single market and the customs union as a matter of fact. What we would hope to be able to do is negotiate an arrangement with the European Union that would allow us to operate across borders between the UK and the EU, our trade in goods and services, in much the way we do today.

The obvious impediment to such an arrangement is the desire to conclude third party trade agreements with other countries. We have been clear during such a period we would want to be able negotiate with third countries but we would not expect to be able to implement them. That clears the way to have a harmonised customs agreement.

Q: So you hope, while you are negotiating with other countries, people would be able to import and export to and from the EU with no restriction?

Yes, for the interim period, says Hammond.

Q: And do you think the EU will accept that?

Hammond says the EU is clearly contemplating such an arrangement being possible.

Updated

Hammond says he wants EU transition that looks 'a lot like the status quo'

Alistair Darling is now asking the questions. He turns to Brexit.

Q: During the summer you said there would have to be a transition period of up to three years. But last week’s Home Office leak in the Guardian suggested everything would end on March 2019. What is the government’s policy in relation to the movement of people, and the transition period?

Hammond says he can say three things.

The home secretary said in late July that EU nationals would be able to continue to come to the UK as they do now, but with the requirement that they would have to register. That is compatible with EU law.

Q: So the new system would not start in March 2019.

Hammond says the government’s aspiration is to have a transition.

And it expects the EU to agree that.

He also says he does not comment on leaks.

Q: We know that. But what is the policy?

Hammond says a transition would have to be negotiated. But listen to what the home secretary says, not some document, which he says he does not recognise as current thinking.

  • Hammond says Home Office immigration plans leaked to Guardian do not represent current government policy.

He says there is general agreement that it would not make sense to ask business to make two sets of changes. So the transition period should look much like the status quo, he says.

There is general agreement that it would not make sense to ask business to face two sets of changes and that implies that a transition or interim period would need to look a lot like the status quo, otherwise businesses will be making one set of changes at the beginning of the interim period and another set towards the end of it.

  • Hammond says he wants EU transition to be similar to status quo.

Updated

The questioning turns to the state of the economy.

Hammond says in 2015 the economy was in good shape.

But it has “inevitably” been overshadowed by the uncertainty generated by Brexit, he says.

Hammond is talking about artificial intelligence. There is the “tantalising possibility” that it might be able to push through significant productivity gains in the public sector, he says.

This is from the BBC’s Norman Smith.

Updated

Hammond says government wants to ensure students get a “value for money” offer on tuition fees

Q: Would not it be better to call tuition fees a tax?

Hammond says it is not a tax. He says it is well understood that there is an element of redistribution in the system. Lower earners are forgiven some of their loan after a number of years. It does not work in the same way as a loan from a bank. That is well understood.

Q: It has been reported the government is reviewing how student loans work?

Hammond says he can confirm this is under review.

In the run-up to the budget, this is being considered.

But there are large sums involved.

As Jeremy Corbyn has shown, it is easy to talk about getting rid of student debt - but much harder to deliver.

It is right to look at the range of products offered to students, and at what information they get.

He says it is important to be clear that what is offered to students is a “value for money” offer. That takes into account how much extra they might earn, and how much they have to pay.

  • Hammond says government wants to ensure students get a “value for money” offer on tuition fees.

Hammond says he thought there would be a wider range of outcomes in the tuition fees universities charge.

Q: Why is the rate at which students have to start paying back tuition fees lower if they are abroad, for example studing in Antarctica?

Hammond says people should only have to start paying back when they have a reasonable standard of living. If they are living in a country where living standards are cheaper, that might be equivalent to a lower wage.

Hammond says he is concerned the student funding system could incentive universities to priorities teaching arts not sciences

Q: Do you think funding changes are encouraging universities to offer low cost subjects, not high cost ones like Stem (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects?

Hammond says it is a matter of concern that universities incur significantly higher costs teaching some subjects, but not others, but that the funding system does not reflect that.

Some have argued that there is a perverse incentive in the system to allow them to generate surpluses by teaching humanities subjects, which are cheaper, he says.

  • Hammond says he is concerned the student funding system could incentive universities to priorities teaching arts not sciences.

Philip Hammond says the government is looking carefully at the student loan system.

The budget will be on Wednesday 22 November

Hammond has arrived at the committee.

  • The budget will be on Wednesday 22 November, Hammond says.

Hammond is going to announce the date of the budget.

Hammond gives evidence to Lords committee

Philip Hammond, the chancellor, is about to give evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee. It is his first appearance before a parliamentary committee since the general election.

The committee is conducting an inquiry into post-school education funding and wants to ask about the following topics in connection with that.

Expansion of higher education

Underemployment of graduates

Sustainability of the student loan system

Proposed sale of the pre-2012 student loan book

Funding of further and technical education

But the committee says it wants to ask about these topics too.

Current state of the economy

Brexit and transitional arrangements

Post-Brexit immigration policy

International students and the net migration target

Hinkley Point C

As Corbyn finishes, some delegates chant “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.”

Corbyn says rightwing papers don’t like trade unions. But the power of billionaires who control great chunks of the media is not what it was, he says. They tried to sway the election. But millions of people ignored them, he says.

He says he is not in control of when the next election will be. But people are in control of their lives, and they can organise, and join a trade union.

He says he does not know when the election will be. But this government will be prised out of power, he says.

And that’s it.

Corbyn says winning a Labour government is not enough.

The most important thing any worker can do is join a union, he says.

And he says he wants young people to get this message. More young people are getting involved in politics, and they are voting in higher numbers than they have for a generation.

If you want a job that gives you a decent wage, and allows you to get on, “join a trade union”. And he urges those watching to do the same today. “You’ll never regret it,” he says.

Corbyn says we must not allow ourselves to be duped. It is not migrants who drive down wages, but unscrupulous employers, supported by the government.

Corbyn says technological innovation is crucial.

But it does not represent real progress if it takes people back to 19th century employment practices, or if it leads to deregulation leaving workers without dignity or security.

We need policies that are not stuck in some “1980s timewarp of neoliberal dogma”, he says.

He says the Bank of England says 15m jobs could be at risk from automation over the next decade.

The low paid are most at risk, he says.

He says the Tory way of running the economy has widened inequalities. And the Tory approach to Brexit will accelerate that further, he says. They want a race-to-the-bottom with Donald Trump.

The Tory Brexit would drive down standards, he says. Labour would pursue a jobs-first Brexit, he says.

Corbyn says rights have to be defended. That is why Labour is opposing the EU withdrawal bill. It would give the Tories the power to rip up workers’ rights without MPs having a say, he says.

Corbyn says TUC research found that workers asking for flexible working often get penalised for it.

Corbyn says Labour would get rid of pay cap for all public sector workers

Corbyn says privatisation is about transferring wealth and power from the many to the elite few.

When public sector workers are having to use food banks, you know something is deeply wrong.

He says the government’s pay policy changes by the day.

At the weekend the government said the pay cap would go.

Yesterday, at the lobby briefing, Downing Street said it was staying.

Today the government is getting rid of it for some.

But a below-inflation pay rise is not a pay rise, he says.

And he accuses the Tories of “divide and rule”. Labour would get rid of the pay cap for everyone, he says.

  • Corbyn says Labour would get rid of pay cap for all public sector workers.

Corbyn starts with a tribute to the union movement.

Then he moves to pay, and criticises McDonald’s for their low pay.

He raised this at PMQs last week, he says. The Conservatives claim to be the workers’ party, he says. But Theresa May was unable to condemn McDonald’s pay policy.

Jeremy Corbyn's speech to the TUC

Jeremy Corbyn is about to speak to the TUC.

Jeremy Corbyn speaks at TUC conference in Brighton - watch live

Updated

5 of the EU withdrawal bill amendments where revolts, defeats or concessions most likely

If you are so minded, you can read the full 59-page Commons document setting out all the amendments to the EU withdrawal bill tabled so far here (pdf).

But, to make life a little simpler, here are five key amendments worth focusing on. These could be five of the most awkward for the government, the ones where defeat, or wholesale concessions, are most likely.

Four of them are Tory backbench amendments and one has been tabled by a Labour backbencher. That is not because the official Labour amendments (see 9.39am) are without merit. It is because the government will only be defeated if Tory MPs vote against and they are more likely to vote for their own amendments, or backbench ones, than for Jeremy Corbyn’s.

1 - Amendment 7, tabled by Dominic Grieve, saying MPs would have to pass a law approving the EU withdrawal deal.

This is one of several amendments signed by a cabal of nine Tory pro-Europeans. Apart from Grieve, the others are: Kenneth Clarke, Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry, Antoinette Sandbach, Stephen Hammond, Dr Sarah Wollaston, Jeremy Lefroy and Bob Neill. The government has promised parliament a vote on the final Brexit deal, but it will simply be a yes/no vote - or a take-it-or-leave it vote. Forcing the government to enact EU withdrawal by statute would almost allow MPs and peers to demand changes; in other words, they would get the “meaningful” vote that Labour has been demanding. Ministers are likely to resist this ferociously, on the grounds that giving parliament a vote of this kind would result in the final Brexit deal being re-written in London, at a time when further renegotiation could be impossible.

With the DUP MPs supporting her, Theresa May has a working majority of 13. That means just seven Tory MPs can trigger a defeat if they line up with the entire opposition. Grieve has got nine (including himself) already. But in practice May probably has a slightly larger majority on Brexit because a handful of strongly pro-Brexit Labour MPs (seven last night) have been voting with the government on Brexit legislation.

2 - Amendment 3, also tabled by Grieve, proposing a “triage and scrutiny system under the control of parliament” for deciding how the new laws passed by ministerial order (the “Henry VIII” powers) under the bill will be scrutinised.

This amendment has been tabled by the “Grieve nine” (see 1 above), plus fellow Tories John Penrose (who is firmly pro-Brexit), Vicky Ford and Tom Tugendhat. Labour and the Lib Dems have both tabled amendments that are broadly similar, and some version of this proposal will almost inevitably be added to the bill.

3 - New Clause 9, tabled by Labour’s Chris Leslie, saying the government should not leave the European Economic Area (EEA) until ministers have published a white paper on the costs and benefits.

Various amendments have been tabled intended to keep the UK in the EEA, but they don’t seem to have attracted signatures from Tory pro-Europeans. Leslie’s amendment makes a relatively modest demand - it is hard to argue against publishing a white paper - which could make MPs more likely to support it.

4 - Amendment 8, tabled by Grieve, saying the charter of fundamental rights should continue to apply domestically in the interpretation of retained EU law.

Another amendment from the “Grieve nine”, this addresses an issue raised in the debate yesterday by Tory MPs like Maria Miller, who is not one of the Tory pro-European “usual suspect” troublemakers. In the debate on Thursday, in response to a question from the SNP’s Joanna Cherry, the Brexit secretary David Davis said he would find a way of accommodating this point, so some form of concession on this is highly likely.

5 - Amendment 2, tabled by Grieve, limiting the conditions in which ministers can use the “Henry VIII” powers given to them by the bill.

This is just one of many amendments addressing this issue, and some form of concession seems inevitable. Like amendment 3, this also has the support of John Penrose, a significant figure in this context because, unlike Grieve’s other allies, he is a member of the European Research Group, the Tory caucus pushing for a hard Brexit.

If that has not satiated your appetite for key EU withdrawal bill amendments, HuffPost’s Owen Bennett has his own list of 11 important ones here (some of which overlap with mine).

This is from my colleague Graeme Wearden.

Here is my colleague Graham Ruddick’s story on the Bradley announcement.

Back in the Commons Watson says Bradley has “shot her fox” with the Murdochs. They don’t like her, he says. He says he knows what it is like.

He says she has nothing to lose, and he urges her to go ahead and order phase two of the Leveson inquiry, the one intended to investigate in detail phone-hacking at the News of the World. (David Cameron promised this during the coalition government, but the Conservatives proposed dropping this in their election manifesto.)

Bradley laughs.

In response, Bradley says she has taken her decision purely on the evidence.

But Bradley complains about how leftwing campaigner harassed her and her family over the summer over the Murdoch issue.

On a point of order, Watson intervenes to say, if Labour members were involved in that, he will make sure action is taken against them. MPs should not be harassed for doing their jobs, he says.

This is from my colleague Mark Sweney.

And this is from the FT’s David Bond.

Tom Watson, the deputy Labour leader and shadow culture secretary, says Bradley is the first minister in the government to stand in the way of what Rupert Murdoch wants. “Well done,” he says. She is, as they say in the Black Country, “a good ‘un”, he says.

Bradley says if she does decided to refer the bid to the CMA on the grounds of media plurality and standards, as she is currently minded to do, that would lead to a full investigation.

Karen Bradley's Commons statement on Murdoch's bid for Sky

Karen Bradley, the culture secretary, is now making a Commons statement on the bid by Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox for Sky.

She says she is still minded to refer the deal to the Competition and Markets Authority on media plurality grounds. That has been her position for some time.

But she announces that she is now also minded to refer the deal to the CMA on the issue of Fox’s “genuine commitment to broadcasting standards”.

  • Bradley says Murdoch’s bid for Sky could be referred to CMA on standards grounds as well as plurality grounds.

Q: If you want to hold on to staff, you could give public sector workers a pay rise now.

Truss says pay awards for 2017 have been settled.

There are different issues for different professions, she says.

And that’s it. The Truss interview is over.

Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, is being interviewed about the pay announcement on the World at One now.

She says the government decision on prison service officers reflects the recommendation from the pay review body.

Now the government is looking at a new approach for 2018-19.

Q: But that’s too late. The public sector is finding it hard to recruit.

Truss says the government is giving pay review bodies more flexibility.

She says the government is making sure its policy is targeted to where there are specific issues.

Here is my colleague Peter Walker’s story on the public sector pay announcement

No 10 says 1% cap on public sector pay rises being abandoned

The cabinet has agreed to end the public sector pay cap, Downing Street announced this morning.

HuffPost’s Paul Waugh says Tory MPs are planning to delay the vote on giving the government a majority on key committees until the early hours.

Theresa May should be phoning the head of plane maker giant Boeing rather than Donald Trump if she wants to save more than 5,000 aerospace jobs in Northern Ireland, the Unite union said today.

Responding to a Times splash (paywall) saying that the prime minister telephoned the US president seeking help to save a key Bombardier contract with Delta Airlines, Unite pointed out that Trump has no input into Boeing’s decision to take the Canadian owned aircraft manufacturer to court.

The jobs at Bombardier’s plant in East Belfast are under threat if Boeing can convince a US court that a subsidy from the Quebec regional government enabling them to build 125 C-Series passenger jets for Delta was unfair state support.

Unite’s regional co-ordinator Davy Thompson had this advice for the Prime Minister in her bid to save the Bombardier Belfast jobs:

Bombardier benefited from state investment from the UK, Canada and from Invest NI all of which was entirely lawful and legitimate – a fact that the UK government should clarify. Boeing’s attempts to link this public investment to the allegation of unfair competition are unsustainable; indeed, in the case of the sale of planes to Delta airlines which has been raised, Boeing did not even make a bid.

Prime Minister Theresa May is reported to have had a phone conversation with President Trump on the matter but it is our understanding that the president can have no input into this decision. What is needed is for the prime minister to phone the head of Boeing and direct them to end their corporate bullying. The UK government is the second largest purchaser of Boeing products. These present ample leverage to end this damaging course of action.

Updated

The biggest rail workers union has pledged to continue campaigning to keep guards on trains as it received support from the trade union movement, the Press Association reports. The RMT union is embroiled in bitter disputes over the role of guards and driver-only trains at Southern Railway, Merseyrail and Arriva Rail North, which have led to a series of strikes. The dispute is set to spread to other train operators. The union won backing from the TUC Congress in Brighton, which criticised government transport ministers for backing the train operators.

Dominic Grieve argued on Sky earlier (see 11.42am) that there was precedent for the government giving itself a majority on key committees dealing with bills.

The House of Commons library has this morning published a briefing (pdf) on the new selection committee ahead of tonight’s vote. It explains what happened in the 1970s in some detail, and it suggests that Grieve’s account of what happened in the past is rather partial. Here is an excerpt.

There have been three occasions in relatively recent history when the government had no majority.

After the February 1974 election, the government did not have a majority. Even number of government and opposition members were appointed to committees.

In October 1974, the Labour government secured a narrow majority at the election. Having lost its majority by April 1976, in May 1976 it accepted that it was no longer entitled to a majority on committees.

In January 1995, following the suspension of a number of members, the Conservative party technically lost its majority but argued that as it had not lost seats at by-elections or as a result of defections, it should continue to have a majority on committees.

The full story is complicated - do read the whole paper if you are interested; it’s only five pages - but the briefing does show that it is not true to say that minority governments in the recent past have always given themselves a majority on standing committees.

Grieve defends government plan to give itself majority on key committees

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, is one of the government backbenchers most critical of the EU withdrawal bill. (He politely accused the justice secretary David Lidington of talking nonsense in the final minutes of the debate last night.)

But, in an interview on Sky’s All Out Politics this morning, he told Adam Boulton that he supported the government’s motion saying it should have a majority on key Commons committees that is being put to a vote tonight. He said:

I think it’s inevitable that the government should seek to take this power. It has happened before. When there was a minority Labour government in the 70s, exactly the same thing [happened] ... There came a point where [the Labour government elected in 1974 with a tiny majority] started to to lose their majority and they were still able to maintain majorities in committee.

Ultimately the majority is the majority you have on the floor of the House, and where you have effectively the government enjoying [a majority] - you saw it last night, the government was able to enjoy a reasonable majority with the help of the DUP - then I don’t think it is wrong for the government to try to ensure that there isn’t a complete logjam.

Otherwise what is going to happen is that the bill committees will constantly be amending bills which will then have to be re-amended on the floor of the House. And I just don’t think that’s a very productive place to be.

May's former policy chief suggests bartering security cooperation for good Brexit deal

Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former co chief of staff and her most influential policy adviser until he resigned after the general election, has used his new column in the Sun to propose some potential Brexit compromises. He argues that the government should realise the key decisions are taken in Berlin, not Brussels.

We must respect the process and negotiate with Michel Barnier, the French commissioner designated to deal with Brexit.

But we must also remember where the big decisions in Europe are actually taken, and that is in Berlin.

(This seems to be a re-run of the “Angela Merkel will help us out” fallacy that stymied David Cameron’s renegotiation, although Timothy insists otherwise.)

Timothy suggests that the UK should barter security cooperation for a good Brexit deal.

Berlin does, though, remain Europe’s most important decision maker.

In order, its priorities are to safeguard the euro, keep the remaining 27 members together, protect Europe from security threats and improve the EU’s trading links.

Brexit must do nothing to jeopardise those aims, and Britain should help Germany to achieve them.

We could, for example, make a generous offer to a select few member states on intelligence-sharing and counter-terrorism co-operation.

And he suggests Britain should offer EU citizens preferential post-Brexit access to the UK.

We should continue to insist on restoring our ability to control European immigration, but we could still establish a preferential system for Europeans who want to work in Britain.

This proposal would disappoint the British Asians who voted leave in the referendum after being told by Vote Leave that it would stop Commonwealth migrants being treated as less welcome than EU migrants.

There are two Commons statements today.

Tories and Labour tied on 42%, poll suggests

The latest Guardian/ICM polling figures are out. The state of the parties figures are almost identical to what they were two weeks ago, showing the two main parties tied on 42%.

Labour: 42% (no change from Guardian/ICM two weeks ago)

Conservatives: 42% (no change)

Lib Dems: 7% (no change)

Ukip: 4% (up 1)

Greens: 3% (no change)

With Brexit putting strain on the union with Scotland, and also emboldening those calling for a referendum on a united Ireland, we also asked people what they would feel if they saw parts of the UK breaking away. The question said that some people think Brexit could lead to the break-up of the UK over the next 10 to 20 years and asked people if they would be pleased or disappointed if these outcomes occurred within the next 20 years. Here are the results.

Scotland voting for independence

Pleased: 24%

Disappointed: 51%

No view: 25%

Ireland voting to join the Republic

Pleased: 22%

Disappointed: 42%

No view: 36%

Wales voting for independence

Pleased: 15%

Disappointed: 56%

No view: 30%

Wales voting for independence in that time scale is not seen as at all probable, but we included it for the sake of fairness.

These figures represent the views of British voters, and obviously the overwhelming majority of those are English. The figures show that there is no desire to see the UK break up, but equally that support for the union is perhaps weaker than people might expect.

  • Only 42% of British voters would be disappointed to see Northern Ireland vote to join the Irish Republic after Brexit at some point in the next 20 years, a poll suggests. There would be more concern about Scotland voting for independence, but only a slim majority of Britons (51%) would be disappointed by that outcome, the poll suggests.

ICM also asked its regular tracker questions about Brexit. We asked exactly the same questions in February and in July.

People were asked if Brexit would have a positive or negative impact on the British economy, on their personal finances and on life in Britain generally. Here are the results.

Impact on the British economy

Positive: 32%

Negative: 42%

No difference: 14%

Net: -10 (up 3 from ICM in July)

Impact on your personal finances

Positive: 13%

Negative: 30%

No difference: 41%

Net: -17 (up 3)

Impact on life in Britain generally

Positive: 35%

Negative: 34%

No difference: 18%

Net: +1 (up 2)

  • Voters are more likely to think Brexit will a negative effect than a positive effect on the economy and on their personal finances. But they are slightly less negative in their assessment they were two months ago, and, by a very narrow margin, they think Brexit will have a positive impact on life in Britain generally.

I will post a link to the ICM tables here when they are available on the ICM website.

UPDATE: Here are the ICM tables (pdf).

ICM Unlimited interviewed a representative sample of 2,052 GB adults aged 18+ online, on 8 to 10 September 2017. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

Updated

Inflation jumps to 2.9%

This is from my colleague Graeme Wearden.

BREAKING: Britain’s inflation rate has jumped to 2.9% in August, from 2.6% in July.

That equals the four-year high struck in May this year.

It means British households are still facing a cost of living squeeze, as wages are currently rising by around 2.1%.

Graeme has more on his business live blog.

The Evening Standard’s Joe Murphy says the Labour amendments (see 9.39am) are among 136 that have already been tabled to the bill.

Labour publishes amendments to the EU withdrawal bill - Details

The Labour party has published details of the first amendments it has tabled to the EU withdrawal bill, which passed its second reading at about 12.30am this morning.

Here are details of what the party is proposing from the Labour news release. The party describes this as its first tranche of amendments. More will follow, it says.

The amendments include action on:

Delegated Powers. Labour’s amendments would remove the most extensive and unaccountable ‘Henry VIII’ powers. For example, one Labour amendment deletes the bulk of clause 17, which as drafted would enable government ministers to amend any primary legislation affected by our exit from the EU. This is the clause the Hansard Society described as “in effect hand[ing] the government a legislative blank cheque”.

A further Labour amendment would ensure that any withdrawal agreement that comes out of the article 50 process has to be implemented in separate primary legislation. At present the bill would enable government ministers to implement a withdrawal agreement through delegated powers.

Labour’s amendments would also establish a new independent and cross-party parliamentary committee to decide which level of scrutiny each government proposal is subjected to.

Devolved powers. Labour has tabled an amendment to clause 11 of the bill that would ensure devolved powers returning from Brussels go directly to the devolved legislatures in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast. At present the bill would hoard these powers in Westminster. Labour’s proposals would ensure there is a clear presumption of devolution in this bill.

Safeguarding rights and protections. Labour’s amendments would ensure there can be no watering down or drop in EU-derived rights as a result of this Bill. This protects a wide range of rights, including workplace rights, environmental standards, consumers’ protections and equalities laws.

A further Labour amendment would ensure that important EU-derived rights can only be changed by primary legislation and not through the use of other delegated powers.

EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Labour’s amendment would ensure that the charter is incorporated into UK law. Without this amendment this bill could lead to a weakening of human rights and weaker protections for UK citizens.

Transitional Arrangements. Labour’s amendments would put the timing and basic terms of any transitional arrangements in the hands of parliament, not ministers. This would mean the government had to consult and get the agreement of parliament on one of the central issues in our exit from the EU.

In a statement Sir Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, said:

Labour amendments would give greater control to parliament and take power back from the hands of ministers. They would protect key rights and environmental safeguards and ensure that the government does not have a legislative blank cheque.

They will go some way to improve what is a deeply flawed bill.

Many Conservative MPs expressed reservations about the bill during the second reading debate, and, in theory, there is probably a majority in the Commons for quite a few of these proposals.

But MPs are also tribal creatures, and even pro-European Tories will think twice before voting for amendments tabled by Jeremy Corbyn. In reality the amendments most likely to be passed may turn out to be the backbench ones that overlap with what Labour and the other opposition parties support.

Updated

Unite leader Len McCluskey says he would back illegal strikes over public sector pay

Jeremy Corbyn is addressing the TUC later, and this morning the BBC has been leading with the news that Len McCluskey, the Unite general secretary and Corbyn’s most powerful union ally, has been floating the prospect of trade unions holding illegal strikes against the public sector pay cap.

Last year the government passed the Trade Union Act, banning strikes in some areas of the public sector unless 40% of members have voted in favour.

Speaking to the BBC, McCluskey said his members were willing to defy this new law. He said:

We will always stand shoulder to shoulder with our members. If the government have pushed us outside the law then they will have to stand the consequences.

Asked if he would back a strike that did not meet the threshold requirements in the Act, he replied:

If they haven’t managed to hit an artificial threshold that this government have foolishly put onto the statute books, then I will stand by our members and we will all live, including the government, we will all live with the consequences of that.

He also said that the prospect of “co-ordinated public service workers action” was “very much on the cards”.

Asked about his comments on the Today programme, Richard Burgon, the shadow justice secretary, said McCluskey’s comments were “hypothetical”.

Here is the agenda for the day.

8.20am: Theresa May chairs a political cabinet (ie, one devoted to party political matters). It will be followed by a normal cabinet at 10am.

9.30am: Inflation figures are published.

9.50am: Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit spokesman, holds a press conference.

12.30pm: The department for exiting the European Union (DExEU) publishes its paper on defence. As Rowena Mason reports, it will say that Britain will offer to agree positions on foreign policy with Brussels and contribute to joint military operations after leaving the EU.

2.30pm: Jeremy Corbyn gives a speech to the TUC conference.

3.35pm: Philip Hammond, the chancellor, gives evidence to the Lords economic affairs committee.

Later tonight MPs will vote on the government motion giving the government a majority on key committees. The two-hour debate will come after the vote on the finance bill, but there is no time-limit for that debate. Yesterday one MP speculated that the key vote may be delayed until 3am.

I will be focusing in particular on the Corbyn speech and on Hammond’s evidence to the Lords committee, but, as usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news from Jack Blanchard’s Playbook. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’ top 10 must reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it 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 direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Updated

 

Leave a Comment

Required fields are marked *

*

CAPTCHA

*