Ministers back down over human rights to avoid Tory rebellion - as it happened
This article is more than 6 years old
Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including David Davis’s speech at a Brexit conference, Boris Johnson taking questions in the Commons and the EU withdrawal bill debate
We’re wrapping up the politics live blog for today.
To sum up: ministers have sought to see off a potential rebellion by Conservative MPs that could have brought a first defeat over the EU withdrawal bill by partially backing down on the future status of EU human rights measures in UK law.
A separate Labour amendment, number 336, to retain the existing principles of EU law within domestic law on or after exit day has been defeated by 315 votes to 296 - a majority of 19.
MPs are now voting on the new clause 70 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill at committee stage.
This new clause would ensure that parliament is informed of changes in EU and European Economic Area provisions that might have amended UK laws around family-friendly employment rights and gender equality, and their potential impact.
Grieve withdrew his amendment 10, to allow challenges to be brought to retained EU law, after solicitor general Robert Buckland said the government would bring forward its own amendment at report stage.
Buckland described the human rights landscape as “complex” and said the government did not want to remove any substantive rights enjoyed by UK citizens.
Grieve responded: “He has made at the despatch box a really important concession, which I much appreciate and clearly reflects the disquiet that has been shown across the House. And I can tell him now that in the light of that, I will not be pressing my amendment to a vote.”
Ministers have offered a concession in an attempt to quell a potential rebellion by Tory MPs that could have resulted in the first defeat on the EU withdrawal bill.
They are promising to review the way in which human rights would be affected by changes to the charter of fundamental rights caused by Brexit.
The promise comes after Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, laid down an amendment with significant Tory support calling for the charter to be taken into UK law after the EU exit.
He has told the Guardian that he will not be pushing for a vote on the issue - which was winnable - following the assurance.
A former US diplomat who chaired previous political negotiations in Northern Ireland says the current crisis could bring a push for Irish unity.
Richard Haass said a combination of poor leadership, Brexit and failure to deal with the legacy of the past had created the problems facing Stormont.
The president of the New York-based Council on Foreign Relations tweeted:
In 2013 Haass was drafted in to chair crunch talks aimed at averting the collapse of powersharing. Despite weeks of cross party negotiations in Belfast, the diplomat failed to find a breakthrough on the thorny issues of flags, parading and the legacy of the Troubles.
He had previously served as special envoy to the region under president George W Bush.
Back to the fall of Mugabe for a moment. Foreign secretary Boris Johnson said the end of the Zimbabwe leader’s 37-year reign appeared to be a “moment of hope” for the country’s people.
With Emmerson Mnangagwa - a former Mugabe ally nicknamed the Crocodile - expected to be sworn in as president by Thursday, Johnson said: “I think it’s very important at the moment that we don’t focus too much on the personalities; let’s concentrate on the potential, the hope for Zimbabwe.
“What we need to see now is free, fair democratic elections and above all not a transition from one despotic rule to another. Working with our South African friends, with everybody in the region, that is what we are going to be encouraging, that is the choice we are going to encourage the Zimbabweans to make.”
Johnson added that Mugabe played an creating an independent nation, but allowed his legacy to be squandered: “His country went to rack and ruin and in some cases his people were driven to the brink of starvation. It’s time now for a new future.”
Dominic Raab, a justice minister, has told MPs that people’s rights won’t be affected by the government’s decision not to incorporate the EU charter of fundamental rights into UK law. He was speaking during day three of the committee stage debate on the EU withdrawal bill, which transfers almost all EU law into UK law apart from the charter. Opposition MPs and some Tories have complained about this aspect of the bill and when the debate finishes at 8.45pm a range of amendments covering this and other issues will be put to a vote. (See 12.58pm for a guide to the main ones.) Explaining why the charter was not needed, Raab told MPs:
All of those substantive laws, principles and rights of which the charter is a reflection of the source will already be converted into domestic law by this bill - so it is not necessary to retain the charter in order to retain such substantive rights.
He also promised to allay concerns on this issue by publishing a memo within a fortnight showing how rights will be protected even though the charter of fundamental rights is not being included in UK law. (See 3.19pm.)
Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, has criticised the Irish government for issuing an ultimatum to London over Brexit. (See 4.21pm.)
Downing Street has insisted European Court of Justice jurisdiction over EU nationals in the UK will end after a two-year transition period following Brexit. (See 12.19pm.)
Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, has written an open letter to Jeremy Corbyn criticising Labour for not supporting an amendment to finance legislation intended to stop the UK leaving the customs union. The Scottish Labour MP Ian Murray tabled the amendment, which would have exempted EU goods from customs duties after Brexit. Labour MPs were ordered to abstain, and the amendment was defeated by 311 votes to 76. Murray was one of 28 Labour MPs who voted in favour.
Your shadow Treasury minister stated that Labour’s position is to leave all options on the table. Last night’s vote was a chance to take a no-deal scenario off the table, something which would give businesses clarity and would send a positive message to our partners in Europe.
Passing the amendments would have paved the way to stay in the EEA [European Economic Area], as that would have been the only practical way to achieve what was proposed. From there, the UK government could have negotiated from a position of strength and removed the uncertainty of a no-deal scenario. If it then wished to exit the EEA and create new trade and customs arrangements with the world largest single market, it could still propose a new bill to parliament for these purposes.
Blackford used stronger language in a press release, saying:
It was shocking and unbelievable to witness Labour MPs voting against or abstaining on a perfectly sensible amendment tabled by a Scottish Labour MP to try and stop the worst excesses of a cliff edge Hard Brexit.
Barry Gardiner, the shadow international trade minister, explained Labour’s reasons for not supporting the amendment on Twitter.
In the EU withdrawal bill debate the Tory Brexiter Sir Edward Leigh said in some respects the EU charter of fundamental rights actually undermined rights. He said:
There’s been a cosy consensus so far in this debate that everything about European human rights is wonderful and we want to transfer it into our own law.
Actually, many of us think that the advancement of European so-called human rights has been at the detriment of the rights of other people, particularly religious people, to find their own space.
When we retain or regain Parliamentary sovereignty in this House and through our democracy we can start asserting the right to real human rights.
He was backed by his fellow Tory Brexiter Sir Bill Cash who said:
I would also add, as I have said before in this debate, that it is up to us to make our own laws and we can make them, we can listen to the arguments, we can make the amendments, we can recognise rights of human rights and all the other things as and when.
Labour criticised it for giving extensive delegated powers to ministers. In a statement Peter Dowd, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:
The publication of the government’s bill on the establishment of the UK’s future customs and tariff regime is yet another example of government legislation that gives large swathes of delegated powers to ministers with no reference to any meaningful parliamentary oversight. It is shocking the level of contempt this Conservative government has for parliament.
Labour is committed to ensuring that any future changes to the UK’s customs and tariff regime face full parliamentary scrutiny and be considered on a similar footing to changes to the UK tax system. We therefore intend to amend the taxation (cross-border trade) bill to reflect that commitment.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion