Key events
Angus Robertson, the Scottish government’s constitution secretary and, before he ruled himself out, the favourite in the contest to be next SNP leader, has backed Humza Yousaf to replace Nicola Sturgeon.
Yousaf is the only one of the three candidates who has said he would challenge the Westminster government’s decision to block Scotland’s gender recognition reform bill, and Robertson cited this as a factor. He said:
As a party, we simply cannot stand aside and let the Westminster establishment trample over the democratic will of Scotland’s parliament.
And, referring to how the gender recognition reforms are a crucial part of the SNP’s power-sharing deal with the Scottish Greens, Robertson said it was “absolutely vital that we leave no chinks in the armour and maintain our pro-independence majority in Holyrood now, and into the future”. He added:
We cannot allow our relationship with our colleagues in the Green Party to break down ahead of the fight of our lives in a fresh referendum on independence.
He also said:
In times like these we need a strong leader who will unite, not divide, our Yes movement as we get ready for the campaign that lies ahead. Humza is that leader.
As first minister I know Humza will stand up and celebrate those who we serve and build on the progressive agenda of the SNP that has won our party so much support over the years.
The small boats bill is expected to contain an admission that it may not be compatible with the European convention on human rights. That would take the form of a section 19 (1) (b) statement. The FT’s George Parker has more details on Twitter.
You’ll hear a lot today about the use of a Section 19 (1) (b) statement, under which the govt admits its Illegal Migration bill could potentially breach the ECHR. This 2002 paper explains what it meanshttps://t.co/nt3Vc7uw8v
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 7, 2023
It means the govt does not have “the requisite level of confidence” that the bill complies with the ECHR, but can later argue in any litigation that it does. It’s what Suella Braverman means when talking about pushing “the boundaries of int law”
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 7, 2023
In other words: expect this to end up in court
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 7, 2023
Rishi Sunak has been chairing cabinet, where Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has almost certainly been briefing colleagues on her small boats bill. Here are pictures of some ministers arriving for the meeting about an hour ago.
Hancock accused of floating ‘despicable’ plan to threaten to block disability funding to secure MP’s lockdown vote
The Daily Telegraph’s ongoing lockdown files revelations may not have fundamentally changed our understanding of what happened during Covid, and they don’t prove the main lockdown policies were wrong, but they provide a compelling and exceptionally revealing insight into how some of the work of government was conducted during this period. And today’s story is very powerful. It says:
Matt Hancock discussed a plan to block funding for a new centre for disabled children and adults as a way of pressuring a rebel Tory MP to back new lockdown restrictions, The Lockdown Files show.
WhatsApp messages between Mr Hancock, the then health secretary, and his political aide show they discussed taking a plan for a learning disability hub in Bury, Greater Manchester, “off the table” if James Daly, the Bury North MP, sided against the Government in a key vote.
It came ahead of the vote on Dec 1, 2020 on the introduction of a toughened new local tiers system of restrictions for England.
Here is the key exchange.
It was only a proposal. Daly says he was never threatened with the loss of funding for the learning disability hub in his constituency. But he said he was “appalled” and “disgusted” to learn the idea had been discussed.
An even stronger response has come from Sir Jake Berry, a former Conservative party chairman whose son has disabilities. On Twitter last night he said that Hancock should be dragged to the bar of the House of Commons to be reprimanded (an ancient punishment for contempt of parliament, which in theory covers using a threat to influence how an MP votes).
This is an absolute disgrace.
Hancock should be dragged to the bar of the House of Commons first thing tomorrow morning to be questioned on this. #Hancock https://t.co/WhZnB5doNA
— Jake Berry MP (@JakeBerry) March 6, 2023
And Berry told Times Radio:
What [Hancock] has effectively said is that he wants to weaponise provision of care to disabled children to try and force MPs to vote in a certain way.
Politics … is full of sort of arm-twisting and leverage and cajoling. But I actually think once you get to the point that you are weaponising the provision of care to disabled children, I think you have crossed the line and as a local MP and … a father with a son with additional needs, I know how desperately provision of this sort of care is required in the local area.
And I just think it’s an absolutely despicable and appalling way for Matt Hancock and his advisers to have behaved.
A spokesperson for Hancock told the Telegraph:
As we’ve repeatedly seen this last week, it is completely wrong to take this entirely partial account and write it up as fact.
What’s being accused here never happened, demonstrating the story is wrong, and showing why such a biased, partial approach to the evidence is a bad mistake, driven by those with a vested interest and an axe to grind.
The right place to consider everything about the pandemic objectively is in the public inquiry.
Jack Straw, the former Labour home secretary, has said that Rishi Sunak’s small boats bill would turn the UK into a “pariah amongst western European states”. As the Telegraph reports, told Sky News:
This latest measure which is to try and override all the international obligations and turn ourselves into a kind of pariah amongst western European states is not going to work anyway, I promise you.
We will in a year, 18 months’ time, when there is a general election, Mr Sunak will be very, very embarrassed about the fact that the numbers may have come down a bit but they have not stopped and there are all sorts of reasons for that.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has issued a video statement about her “stop the boats” bill. She says:
This bill will mean that if you come here illegally, you will not be able to stay. You will be detained and removed to your home country if safe, or a safe third country, like Rwanda. Enough is enough. We must stop the boats.
Cabinet and MPs to hear details of small boats bill that has ‘pushed boundaries of international law’
Good morning. In December last year Rishi Sunak told MPs that the government would “introduce new legislation to make unambiguously clear that if you enter the UK illegally you should not be able to remain here” and today we are getting the detail. Sunak seems to think that this could drastically reduce the number of people who cross the Channel in small boats hoping to claim asylum in the UK. But experts in the asylum field are sceptical, because international law makes it hard to remove asylum seekers once they have arrived and a previous attempt to do this failed.
Here is our story by my colleague Rajeev Syal.
And this is from my colleague Archie Bland, who in his First Edition briefing (you can sign up here) says that in recent years the Conservatives have tried at least 43 initiatives to stop small boat crossings.
Overnight some papers have been briefed on what the new legislation will say, and the Times reports that the bill will say the home secretary has a duty to remove people who arrive in the UK illegally wanting to claim asylum that generally overrides human rights laws protecting their right to stay. The paper says:
The home secretary will be under a legal duty to remove nearly all asylum seekers who arrive on small boats and there will be a cap on refugee numbers, under new plans.
The duty will take precedence over human rights and modern slavery claims and there will be new powers to enable the mass detention of tens of thousands of people every year before their removal. There will be constraints on the rights of migrants to use a judicial review to challenge decisions.
The illegal migration bill will make exceptions only for unaccompanied children and those suffering “grave” illnesses.
In the Daily Telegraph Charles Hymas says ministers admit this may be legally problematic. He reports:
It can also be revealed that it will be stated in the Bill that the new laws may not be compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), although ministers believe that they are.
It is thought to be the first time an immigration Bill has carried such a conditional qualification.
Furthermore, the legislation will give the Home Secretary powers to counter European court injunctions, like the one which last summer blocked the first deportation flight of Channel migrants to Rwanda.
Suella Braverman, the home secretary, told the Telegraph that the government has “pushed the boundaries of international law” to tackle the problem. She said:
We must stop the boats and that’s what our bill will do. No more sticking plasters or shying away from the difficult decisions.
Myself and the prime minister have been working tirelessly to ensure we have a bill that works – we’ve pushed the boundaries of international law to solve this crisis … If you come here illegally it must be that you cannot stay.
But there is an obvious risk; the boundaries of international law may push back. Some lawyers argue that the only strategy that would allow Sunak to implement this policy without being defeated in the court would be for the UK to withdraw from international obligations like the European convention on human rights. And this is what some Tories want him to do. But the ECHR is integral to the Good Friday agreement, as well as being part of the post-Brexit trade agreement with with EU, and withdrawing would create a whole new Brexit/Northern Ireland crisis.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Morning: Rishi Sunak chairs cabinet.
10am: Dame Rachel de Souza, children’s commissioner for England, gives evidence to the Commons education committee about persistent absence at schools.
11am: Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, gives a speech on business taxation.
11.30am: Steve Barclay, the health secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 12.30pm: Suella Braverman, the home secretary, gives a statement to MPs about the government legislation to stop small boat crossings.
Late afternoon/early evening: Sunak holds a press conference about his asylum plans.
I’ll try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.
If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.
Alternatively, you can email me at [email protected].
