MPs vote down Farage’s proposal for UK to leave ECHR – UK politics live

3.58pm GMT Why Labour changed its stance on letting its MPs vote against Farage's bill for UK to leave ECHR Peter Walker is the Guardian’s senior political correspondent. The vote by 63 Labour MPs against Nigel Farage’s ten-minute rule bill on the UK leaving the European convention on human rights – without which the Commons would have backed the bill – happened because a few Labour backbenchers warned whips and the party hierarchy that they had to act. While 10-minute rule bills have no chance of becoming law without subsequent government backing, MPs including Stella Creasy warned that allowing Farage’s bill to be passed would send a terrible signal to European neighbours, who would not necessarily understand the purely symbolic impact of the vote. The initial instruction to Labour MPs was to not vote. After a pushback, this was amended to say that while frontbenchers should do this, those on the backbenches could vote if they wanted. “To let such a bill pass at a time of sensitivity in negotiations over our European deal would be taken badly,” Creasy said. 3.53pm GMT Epping sex offender given £500 after threatening to challenge deportation A convicted child sex offender mistakenly released from prison after arriving in the UK in a small boat was given £500 of public money as he was deported back to Ethiopia, Rajeev Syal and Pippa Crerar report. Related: Epping sex offender given £500 after threatening to challenge deportation 3.37pm GMT How MPs voted on Farage's 10-minute rule bill to withdraw from ECHR The division lists are out. The 95 MPs voting for Farage’s proposal to leave the ECHR came from: The Conservatives: 87 Reform UK: 3 DUP: 2 Independents: 2 (Rupert Lowe and Patrick Spencer) TUV: 1 And the 155 MPs voting against came from: Lib Dems: 64 Labour: 63 Independents: 10 SNP: 7 Plaid Cymru: 4 Green party: 4 Alliance: 1 SDLP: 1 UUP: 1 3.31pm GMT MPs vote down Farage's proposal for UK to leave ECHR The result is in. Nigel Farage was defeated by 154 votes to 96, a majority of 58. The vote is not particularly meaningful. The main parties were not whipping their MPs, and so the numbers do not say anything significant about opinion in the Commons on leaving the ECHR. The only parties in the Commons that clearly favour ECHR withdrawal are the Conservatives (119 MPs), Reform UK (5 MPs), and TUV (1 MP). Within the DUP (5 MPs), there is some support for withdrawal, but views are mixed. 3.24pm GMT Davey says Farage has 'made his career by damaging our country' Here is another extract from Ed Davey’s speech in defence of the ECHR. The European Convention and its British twin, the Human Rights Act, have brought justice for our people, protected them from gross misconduct and unfair treatment. These laws help individuals hold the powerful to account, to hold governments to account. These laws can get justice when the elite and powerful cover up and abuse their power. So it’s clear, isn’t it? [Farage] isn’t about standing up for the individual, for the ordinary person, for the people with no voice. [Farage] is the friend of the elite and the powerful. And if we do not defend our human rights here at home, how can we possibly persuade other countries of the importance of human rights for their own people? If we do what Reform wants, the biggest cheers will come from the Kremlin and from Beijing, from Tehran, from Pyongyang, and from dictators and authoritarian regimes the world over. That would be a betrayal of everything our country stands for. Davey also attacked Farage over Brexit. [Farage] has made his career by damaging our country. I remember how he led the campaign for Brexit with his Conservative friends. And we know what a total mess that’s turned out to be. He and his friends argued Brexit would cut immigration, but immigration has gone up because of this. Just look at how badly he’s betrayed the people he claims to speak for. Brexit made the small boats crisis possible. 3.16pm GMT The two MPs acting as tellers for the ayes are Danny Kruger (Reform UK) and John Whittingdale (Conservative). The two tellers for the noes are both Liberal Democrats: Wendy Chamberlain, the chief whip, and Claire Young. 3.14pm GMT Davey has finished his speech, and MPs are now voting. Labour MPs have now been told they can vote against the Farage bill, Peter Walker reports. I’m now told that govt whips have told Labour MPs they *can* vote against the Farage 10-minute rule bill if they want. (Maybe our earlier reporting prompted a rethink?) 3.12pm GMT Ed Davey defends ECHR, saying it 'protects very people who need it most' Davey says the ECHR “protects the very people who need it most”. He goes on: Our elderly and most vulnerable. So they may live and grow old with dignity. Our children. So those facing horrific abuse have better protection. It also upholds our freedom of speech so that the press and public can criticise those in power without fear. And it protects our peaceful right of protest. Seventy years ago, Britain became the first country to ratify the convention as a leading voice on the global stage for human rights and the rule of law. That is our history. That is who we are. That is Britain at our best. 3.07pm GMT Davey says leaving ECHR would align UK with Russia Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, is responding to Farage. He says Farage’s speech “totally misrepresents the European convention”. Farage did not mention the benefits of the ECHR, he says. He goes on: Let me give them one strong reason to think again. Russia under Vladimir Putin is the only country to have withdrawn from the European convention on human rights. Now, maybe that’s what attracts [Farage] to it. After all, he said, the world leader he most admires Russia, a country where those who oppose the regime are mysteriously pushed off balconies, where, if it isn’t enough to murder a political opponent like Alexei Navalny. 3.04pm GMT Farage is now enduring sustained heckling from the Liberal Democrats. He says he has never seen so many Lib Dems in the chamber. He concludes: You don’t believe this country is good enough to make its own laws. Do you not believe a country that has Magna Carta and developed the principle of common law … you don’t believe we’re good enough to make these rules? 3.01pm GMT Farage says ECHR is 'unfinished business', and that it gives political power to judges Farage says ECHR withdrawal is “unfinished business”. He says the vote for Brexit was “the biggest democratic exercise in the history of these islands”. We know that we voted clearly by a massive margin for the British people to bring back the sovereignty … It’s the sovereignty of this very chamber and the people within it to bring power back to this very place. And that is what we voted for. The vote was also prompted by “deep alarm at the huge numbers of people coming into our country”, he says. Open borders have made the UK poorer, he says. He says Tony Blair enshrined the European convention on human rights (ECHR) into UK law. Now, I believe that Brexit cannot be complete while we’re subject to a foreign court. And he says the ECHR is law where “judges can choose their own political interpretation”. He goes on: I do not believe that it is right that we should, when it comes to controlling our borders, when it comes to who should be able legally to live, work and settle in this country, or indeed who should not be allowed to stay in our country, for this to be under the remit, firstly of judges in Strasbourg, who, by the way, are jurists, most of them not even legally qualified, and secondly, under the political control of judges in this country who now can make their own interpretation of what we’ve understood for many, many years to be British common law. 2.54pm GMT Farage proposes 10-minute rule bill that would take UK out of ECHR In the Commons Nigel Farage is now proposing his bill. The Labour benches are almost empty. The Conserative benches are fairly empty too. But the Liberal Democrats, and other opposition MPs from smaller parties, are out in force. As Farage gets going, there is a lot of heckling. “Children, be quiet,” he says, which prompts an intervention from the deputy Speaker. 2.50pm GMT In the Commons Seamus Logan (SNP) is using a point of order to complain about Steve Reed, the housing secretary, and former environment secretary, making misleading statements about the quality of Scottish water. (See 11.28am.) Judith Cummins, the deputy Speaker, said that she was sure the government would have registered Logan’s point. 2.44pm GMT MSPs debate new early release plan as Scottish prison population reaches record high Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent. MSPs are debating whether to approve the further early release of prisoners as Scotland’s prison population reaches the highest level ever recorded and frontline prison officers warn that the day-to-day challenges of managing overcrowding have brought them to crisis point. Earlier this week, the Scottish Prison Service said the prison population was at a record high, with 8,430 people behind bars. In a bid to ease overcrowding, the early release of prisoners regulations were debated by Holyrood’s criminal justice committee this morning, with MSPs set to vote on their recommendations at a later date. If approved this will be the third early release over the past two years. Scottish Prison Service chief executive Teresa Medhurst warned that the population had now reached a level “that raises very serious concerns around our ability to keep people safe and secure”. This was echoed by a new report from the Prison Officers’ Association, describing fears for their own safety and that of inmates. Phil Fairlie, the assistant general secretary of the POA, said: The biggest worry for us just now is staff, I think, feel unsafe inside the prisons, I don’t think they feel they’ve got proper control. I don’t mean that the prisons are out of control, but they are working their socks off every single day to try and keep that control. The building of a £1bn jail to replace Glasgow’s HMP Barlinnie has faced multiple delays, with the current opening date of 2028 now in doubt. The Prison Service has also described how successful prosecution of serious organised crime groups has left prison officers facing “a daily game of chess” in order to keep violent rivals apart. 2.38pm GMT Tories confirm Chris Philp's bill proposing mass deportation of people with indefinite leave to remain no longer party policy The Conservative party has confirmed that the private member’s bill published by Chris Philp, the shadow home secretary, is no longer party policy. The bill attracted little attention when it was first published in May, but it hit the headlines after Katie Lam, a shadow Home Office minister, gave an interview saying the party favoured deporting many people who have already been giving indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in the UK. The Financial Times said the plans could lead to 5% of the UK’s legal population being deported. At a post-PMQs briefing, a Tory spokesperson said the Philp bill no longer represents party policy. New details of the party’s immigration policy, including its plans for indefinite leave to remain, will be published “in the coming weeks”, the party said. But the Tories are not saying whether the revised plans will include ILR being removed retrospectively. 2.19pm GMT Tightening Pip benefit eligibility could save £9bn a year, say Reform Reform UK have set out plans for changes to personal independence payments (Pip) that the party says could save up to £9bn a year, with Lee Anderson, one of its MPs, saying he used to “game the system” to help people become eligible for the benefit, Peter Walker reports. Related: Tightening Pip benefit eligibility could save £9bn a year, say Reform 2.14pm GMT Reform UK government in London would pose 'existential threat' to Scottish devolution, John Swinney says Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent. John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, has set out what will be his key messaging for the Scottish parliament elections that are now only six months away. In a speech to an IPPR Scotland conference, he argued that the looming prospect of a Reform government at Westminster presents “an existential threat” to devolution, thus independence offers the only route forwards. Previous UK governments have “consciously and deliberately” undermined the devolution settlement, he told the audience in Edinburgh, while Nigel Farage “has made it clear he holds the Scottish parliament in contempt”. I say with absolute confidence that our parliament is not strong enough to protect us from a government led by the likes of Nigel Farage. Asked by chair Sally Magnusson what responsibility he took for IPPR polling that finds the public are sick of the “over-promising and under-delivery” of the Scottish government he inevitably dodged, citing the impact of Brexit and Westminster decision-making, meaning people’s standard of living was “not within our control”. A recurring theme of questions from the floor was how desperate the public mood is, and the prevailing lack of confidence in governments at both Holyrood and Westminster to deliver change. Earlier this morning, Swinney was at another conference – it’s a busy day in Scotland’s capital city – hosted by the Just Transition Commission, where he announced that workers made redundant by the controversial closure of Grangemouth oil refinery would be given “priority consideration” for a green jobs scheme. Describing this as “just transition in action”, Swinney also warned of the need to improve “public confidence” in the move to clean energy. 2.08pm GMT Labour MPs unhappy about being told to abstain on Farage's 10-minute rule bill proposing ECHR withdrawal Labour MPs have been told to abstain if there is a vote on Nigel Farage’s 10-minute rule bill to take the UK out of the European convention on human rights, Peter Walker reports. I’m told Labour MPs have been told by whips to *abstain* in the vote on Nigel Farage’s ten-min rule bill on leaving the ECHR, which has left some furious. Whips’ arguments seems to be to just ignore it. Labour MPs worry it leaves Lib Dems/Greens looking like only they care on this. Farage has got the 10-minute rule bill slot and at some point, probably around 3pm, he will present his bill. He gets to make a speech lasting up to 10 minutes. Another MP can then make a speech opposing the bill. MPs will then be asked to vote on whether Farage should be “given leave to bring forward his bill”. Normally this goes through on the nod, the MP is told he can bring in the bill – and the bill is never heard of again, because no further time is set aside for it. If the proposition is contentious, there normally is a vote – as there will be today. It would not be a vote on legislation (only a vote on the principle of leave to bring in a bill – not the same thing) and the government does normally ignore these votes. But, given that Keir Starmer has categorically said he does not favour ECHR withdrawal, it is hard to see why Labour MPs should not vote against – other than that it would give Farage a bit of credibility, and establish the precedent that 10-minute rule bills matter, which is not what Labour whips want. Updated at 2.13pm GMT 1.49pm GMT Judicial review of Palestine Action ban to go ahead next month, after Home Office gives up trying to stop case being heard Haroon Siddique is the Guardian’s legal affairs correspondent. Lawyers for the Home Office have said they will not seek to appeal to the supreme court against the decision to grant permission for a judicial review of the ban on Palestine Action, meaning the hearing will go ahead next month. Defend Our Juries, which has been organising demonstrations opposing the ban, said the home secretary’s legal team wrote in a letter that it would not request permission to appeal to the UK’s highest court, which, if allowed, could have significantly delayed the judicial review. Three court of appeal judges, led by the lady chief justice, last month upheld high court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain’s decision to grant the Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori a legal challenge to the group’s proscription under the Terrorism Act. They also granted two further grounds on which to challenge the legality of the ban, in addition to the two already granted by Chamberlain. Palestine Action, which predominantly targeted the UK sites of the Israeli arms manufacturer Elbit Systems and companies that do business with it, was proscribed in July, after the then home secretary Yvette Cooper said it had “a long history of unacceptable criminal damage”. It was the first direct action protest group to be banned under UK anti-terror laws, placing it in the same category as the likes of Islamic State and Boko Haram. More than 2,000 people have been arrested for alleged support of Palestine Action, mainly at mass events where people held placards saying “I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.” Yesterday Defend Our Juries announced that 18 towns and cities will engage in an 11 day long succession of further protests ahead of – and during – the judicial review. The grounds which have been deemed to be reasonably arguable at judicial review are: The proscription order amounted to a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of speech and protest. Cooper breached a duty to consult by not consulting Palestine Action before proscribing it. The home secretary failed to have regard to domestic public law principles. Cooper did not apply her own policy. Updated at 1.50pm GMT 1.23pm GMT PMQs - snap verdict That was a job done PMQs for Kemi Badenoch. She arrived determined to get Keir Starmer to say something that will stand up headlines saying that in the budget Labour may break its manifesto promises not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT, and she did not have to try very hard. Starmer made no serious effort to pretend this wasn’t an option. Readers sometimes question the value of reporting as significant evasive ‘refused to rule out’ answers by politicians. They can get written up, sometimes misleadingly, as confirmation that something is going to happen. But, until the politicians (compulsory truth drugs) bill becomes law, evasive answers are often all we have to go on and what they do tell you, very clearly, is when politicians are keeping their options open. It is possible that Rachel Reeves won’t raise income tax (or national insurance, or VAT – but an income tax rise is the most likely out of these three) in the budget. But it seems that the final decision has not yet been taken, and that abandoning the manifesto is an option. Badenoch won’t be winning scoop of the year for this. It has been clear from about 9.30am on the Sunday of Labour conference, when Starmer responded to a question about the manifesto commitments with a weird line about how the manifesto “stands”, that something was up. Ministers used his confusing line all week, but Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, gave the game way when he explained the wording by saying: “The manifesto stands today because decisions haven’t been taken yet.” There was fresh confirmation of the Treasury’s thinking last week when the Guardian published a story saying Reeves is considering raising income tax. Related: Reeves considers breaking manifesto pledge with income tax rise to fill £30bn gap But Badenoch did manage to put the government’s equivocation on this up in lights at PMQs, and that counts as a success. (PMQs would have been more interesting if, instead of focusing on whether Starmer will break the manifesto commitments, there had been a debate instead about whether he should. Are these the best taxes to raise? Is there an alternative? Would the economic gain offset the harm done to faith in the political process when a party breaks a manifesto pledge? These are all good questions but, while PMQs is ideal for gotcha political ambushes, it is not the place for enlightment.) Later Starmer also refused to rule out extending the freeze in income tax thresholds. This non-answer did not really register, because almost all budget commentators have been assuming for weeks that an extension of the current freeze is already a certainty. After the tax question, the Starmer/Badenoch exchanges descended into the usual ding-dong on the economy. It was predictable, and inconclusive. Starmer’s withering verdict on the Tory economic legacy is still convincing, but the further we get from the 2024 election, the more these arguments start to lose a little of their bite. PMQs was also interesting for Stamer’s gratuitious (and inaccurate) drive-by aimed at the Green party, and its policy on Nato in his first answer. That is best explained by yesterday’s YouGov polling. 12.46pm GMT I have beefed up the earlier posts with the Starmer/Badenoch exchanges about tax. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to appear. 12.39pm GMT Caroline Voaden (Lib Dem) asks the PM to arrange for Totnes to get a banking hub. Starmer says he will ensure Voaden gets a meeting with the relevant minister. 12.36pm GMT Janet Daby (Lab), who represents Lewisham East, says she is wearing black to commemorate a victim of knife crime in her constituency. She asks what the government is doing about this problem. Starmer says the police and crime bill gives the police more powers to deal with this. 12.34pm GMT Alison Griffiths (Con) says the government is piling pressure on business that makes it harder for them to grow. Starmer says the small business plan was widely praised by the small business sector. The Tories won’t say if they would reverse the budget tax rise for business last year, he says. 12.33pm GMT Daniel Zeichner (Lab) says in the US there are many scientists who want to leave. What is the government doing to get them to come to the UK. Starmer says the immigration white paper includes plans to get more of the world’s brightest graduates to come to this country. 12.32pm GMT Graham Stringer (Lab) asks Starmer if he will give Shabana Mahmood the resources she needs to make the Home Office work properly. Starmer says Mahmood is bearing down on the challenges the Home Office faces, most of the inherited from the Tories. 12.30pm GMT Starmer declines to rule out extending freeze on tax allowances Mike Wood (Con) asks for a guarantee that there will be no extension of the freeze in tax personal allowances. He says it means pensioners are increasingly affected. Starmer says the freeze was introduced by the Tories. Updated at 12.37pm GMT 12.29pm GMT Ian Lavery (Lab) says the big banks have been allowed to abandon high streets. Yet they made more than £40bn in profits last year. They are “drowning in cash”, he says. Will the government set up a review of face to face banking. Starmer says he knows how important face to face banking is. The government is going to roll out 350 banking hubs. He says 180 have opened already. And 350 is not the limit. 12.26pm GMT Starmer says the Turkey jets deal will safeguard 20,000 jobs. Reform UK would be “a nightmare on defence” because they would not be trusted by Nato because they are Putin-friendly, he says. 12.25pm GMT James McMurdock (independent) says he has seen the best and worst of the NHS this week – swift care for his daughter, but a long wait for a customer at a restaurant who needed an ambulance. He asks for help for Basildon hospital. Starmer says McMurdock was elected as an MP for Reform UK, who would dismantle the NHS and charge people to see GPs. 12.22pm GMT Davey asks if Starmer is willing to change the UK’s Brexit deal with the EU, as well as just complaining about it. Starmer says, at the summit with the EU earlier this year, there was an agreement for closer relations in 10 areas. And that is “an iterative process that we will continue into next year”, he says. 12.20pm GMT Starmer condemns Reform UK as 'Putin-friendly', as Ed Davey calls for probe into Russian interference in UK politics Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, echoes what Starmer said about Jamaica. And he pays tribute to Prunella Scales, saying he is probably not the only MP with a Faulty Tower boxset. He asks about Nathan Gill, the former Reform UK leader in Wales, who pleaded guilty to taking bribes to make pro-Russian statements in the European parliament. Gill was a trusted confidante of Nigel Farage, he says. He calls for an inquiry into Russian interference in UK politics. Starmer says Russian interference is a serious problem. He says Reform UK would be “an absolute disaster for our defence”. He goes on: We are trusted member of Nato. We wouldn’t be a trusted member member if we’re Putin-friendly. 12.15pm GMT Starmer urges all sides in the Middle East to back President Trump’s peace plan. 12.15pm GMT Badenoch says Starmer is just making things up. She says he is blaming the last government, Brexit, the OBR. With Starmer, it is always someone else’s fault. Starmer says the Tories were kicked out of office because they broke the economy. 12.13pm GMT Badenoch welcomes the Turkey deal. But borrowing hit £20bn last month. The government will need to sell a lot more jets to cover that, she says. She says the employment rights bill will put more burdens on employers. Starmer says the growth figures have been upgraded. The Tories have a golden economy rule, he says, with £47bn of unspecified spending cuts. Let me put that in context. That would be 85,000 fewer nurses. 234,000 fewer teachers of cutting every police officer in the country twice over. No wonder the Institute for Government said she is on shaky foundations. 12.11pm GMT Badenoch asks if Starmer will work with the Tories to cut welfare spending. Starmer says the Tories crashed the economy, inflation went up to 11% and mortgages went through the roof. Now countries want to do deals with the UK; he cites the Turkish deal on Typhoons and the Norwegian one on frigates. 12.10pm GMT Starmer says productivity figures show damage done to economy by Tories Badenoch urges the government to scrap stamp duty, as the Tories are proposing. Starmer asks why the Tories did not do that during their 14 years in power. He goes on: The productivity review figures are now coming in, and they show the true extent of the damage that they [the Conservatives] did. The Tories will never be trusted on the economy for years, he says. 12.08pm GMT Badenoch says when she asked exactly the same question on 9 July, Starmer said he was committed to those pledges. Starmer says no PM would discuss tax policy like this ahead of a budget. UPDATE: Badenoch said: Well, well, well, what a fascinating answer. It is not the same answer that I received when I asked exactly the same question word for word on July 9? Then, the prime minister replied with just one word, ‘yes’, and then he sat down with a smug grin on his face. What’s changed in the past four months? Starmer said: As she well knows, no prime minister or chancellor will ever set out their plans in advance. I can say this, because the figures on the productivity review that’s being undertaken, this is a judgment on their record in office. Those figures are now coming through, and they confirm that the Tories did even more damage to the economy than we previously thought. Now, we will turn that around. We’ve already delivered the fastest growth in the G7 in the first half of this year, five interest rate cuts in a row, trade deals with the US, EU and India. They broke the economy, we’re fixing it. Updated at 12.44pm GMT 12.07pm GMT Starmer refuses to say he remains committed to manifesto pledges not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT Kemi Badenoch asks if Starmer is still committed to his manifesto pledges not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT. Starmer ducks the question, but talks about positive news form the economy. UPDATE: Badenoch said: Last year, in its manifesto, Labour promised not to increase income tax, not to increase national insurance and not to increase VAT. Does the prime minister still stand by his promises? And Starmer replied: I’m glad that the leader of the opposition is now finally talking about the economy. I can update the house: retail sales are higher than expected, inflation is lower than expected, growth has been upgraded this year, and the UK stock market is at an all time high. The budget is on the November 26, and we will lay out our plans, but I can tell the house now that we will build a stronger economy, we will cut NHS waiting lists and deliver a better future for our country. Updated at 12.42pm GMT 12.06pm GMT Starmer claims Green party wants to take UK out of Nato Keir Starmer starts by saying the scenes of destruction from Jamaica are “truly shocking”. HMS Trent is pre-positioned in the region. The UK is ready to provide support. He welcomes the fact that Awaab’s law is now in place. And he tells MPs about the Typhoon deal with Turkey, saying that happened because the UK is a leading member of Nato. The Green party wants to take the UK out of Nato, he alleges. (That is not accurate, although the new Green leader is sceptical of Nato.) 11.57am GMT There will be two urgent questions after PMQs, and a ministerial statement. After 12.30pm: A Foreign Office minister responds to a UQ from Priti Patel, the shadow home secretary, on Gaza and Hamas. Around 1.15pm: A Home Office minister responds to a UQ from Angus MacDonald, a Lib Dem, about the planned use off MoD bases for asylum seekers. Around 2pm: Luke Pollard, a defence minister, makes a statement about the deal to sell Typhoon jets to Turkey. After those are over, Nigel Farage will present his 10-minute rule bill on leaving the ECHR. 11.54am GMT Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs PMQs is starting very soon. Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question. 11.51am GMT Jones rejects claim from Labour committee chair that government seems to be 'kowtowing to China' Matt Western, the Labour chair of the JCNSS, used his final question to point out that, even though Australia is much more dependent on trade with China than the UK is, it is “much more muscular” in its approach to Beijing. He went on: Yet we appear, and this is the public perception, that we are kowtowing to China in our approach. Hermer said this prosecution did not fail because anyone in government was kowtowing to China. It failed because the test for a prosecution was not met. He went on: This process [the committee’s inquiry] has exposed the both baseless and dangerous allegations that somehow politicians intervened in a prosecution to stop it because of fears about a foreign power.These are baseless. And those allegations, I suggest, are the ones that caused the most long-lasting damage to both our national security reputation and our criminal justice reputation. Jones said he did not accept the premise of Western’s question. He said the government was “robust” with China, but did have a relationship with it. The previous government’s policy of not talking to China was not wise, he said. 11.37am GMT Hermer rejects claim from former Labour defence secretary Lord Hutton that government complacent about China threat Lord Hutton, a Labour peer and former defence secretary, says the joint committee has not heard any evidence that politicians interferred with the CPS decisions in this case. But he says he is worried about “complacency” in government. He says he is worried that the “inherent reticence on the part of government to really call out the dangerous nature of Chinese espionage activity” could lead to other alleged spies not being prosecuted in future. Hermer disputes this. He says the new legislation will make it possible to prosecute allege spies. He goes on: We now have legislation that is fit for purpose, and we will use that legislation whenever there’s credible evidence that people are seeking to damage the national interest of this country. 11.30am GMT Back at the joint committee on the national security strategy hearing, Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, says the Tory claim that ministers interferred in this case was a “grave” one. It was not true, he says. He says the Tories than alleged that ministers should have got involved. But “that’s not how we do things in this country”, he says. He says the CPS is independent, as it should be. 11.28am GMT Statistics watchdog reprimands Steve Reed for saying water pollution worse in Scotland than in Wales Helena Horton is a Guardian environment reporter. Steve Reed, the housing secretary, has been slapped down by the UK Statistics Authority for falsely claiming that Scottish rivers and lakes are more polluted than those in England. Reed made these comments this summer when he was environment secretary in order to demonstrate that a nationalised water sector would not necessarily deliver cleaner waterways. Scotland’s water is nationalised; England’s isn’t. These claims were obviously false; Scotland has a much lower population density than England and many remote lakes and rivers which are not near town centres. Prof Dame Carol Propper, chair of the UKSA’s regulation committee, said in a letter to the SNP Seamus Logan: The authority expects that ministers take care to avoid using data that is overly selective or missing appropriate context. Based on the statements made without discussion of their context, sources, and limitations, there is the potential for people to be misled about English and Scottish water quality and infrastructure. She added that the evidence Reed used to back up his claims such as that Scottish households have a lower take up of smart water meters (which is about water use rather than pollution) were not relevant and that he did not share any information which proved his comments to be true. His comments were derided as false by many commentators at the time. If you look at the metrics of pollution levels, Scotland’s rivers and lakes are doing better than England’s. Well over half of Scotland’s are in high or good condition vs 16% in England (with none of those being high). Reed at the time said “pollution levels in Scotland are worse than they are in England” and the civil servants at Defra said that claims to the contrary were “absolute rubbish”. 11.25am GMT Cabinet Office minister Darren Jones ducks question about whether China should be in enhanced tier for Firs rules Edward Morello, a Lib Dem MP, is asking the questions now. Q: Shouldn’t China be in the enhanced tier for the Firs scheme? Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, is replying. He says Hermer said earlier that China would not have to be in the enhanced tier for a spy prosecution to be considered. Q: But shouldn’t China be in that tier anyway? Jones says the Firs legislation has only recently come into force. What to do about China is being considered, he says. He says the government is dealing with this in the proper way. 11.15am GMT Hermer accuses Gavin Williamson of making bogus allegations against Jonathan Powell, underming faith in justice system Gavin Williamson, the former Tory defence secretary, is asking the questions now. He asks how common it is for officials to hold a meeting to discuss a CPS prosecution, as happened in this case. Hermer says he has never been in a meeting of that kind where details of a prosecution were discussed, and he would never expect to be in a meeting of that kind. Willamson asks the question again. He is referring to the meeting that took place on 1 September, convened by Jonathan Powell, the national security adviser. Hermer says No 10 would never hold a meeting to discuss evidence in a forthcoming prosecution. He says the meeting Williamson is referring to was to discuss the fallout from a trial that, at that point, everyone expected would go ahead. He goes on: Trying to insinuate bad faith into our national security [decision making] does nothing, nothing, to increase public confidence in it. He says trying to undermine faith in the national security process, and in the criminal justice system, in this manner is “dangerous”. And he suggests Williamson should know better, particularly as a privy counsellor. 11.00am GMT Counting in 2026 Scottish parliamentary elections will start on Friday morning, not overnight, officials announce Severin Carrell is the Guardian’s Scotland editor. Holyrood candidates, election agents, politics junkies and party activists will be spared the sleep-deprived tension and drama of an overnight count after next May’s Scottish parliament elections. The electoral management board for Scotland, which sets the rules for carrying out elections, has announced the count for next year’s vote will be conducted during the day on Friday 8 May, starting at 9am sharp. Malcolm Burr, the board’s convenor and the chief executive of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles council), said that would reduce costs, improve the process and allow more voters to follow the results. He said: Counting during the day allows the use of well-rested staff with quick access to more resources, people and support facilities. Our counts are always accurate but working in the day removes some risks, reduces costs and lets us declare the results when more people are engaged. He noted that for logistical reasons due to the remoteness and distances involved covering Scotland’s islands and rural wards, some counts (particularly involving the Western Isles) only took place the day after an election. Delaying the count until Friday also prolongs the agony for political leaders too, particularly Keir Starmer. The prime minister faces a fateful week: the Welsh, Scottish and English local government elections on 7 May all threaten to produce deeply damaging defeats for Labour. The EMB’s bulletin also said they learnt lessons from last year’s snap general election, which coincided with Scotland’s school holidays, causing chaos for some people who had postal votes or needed quickly to get one. The experience of the administration of the UK parliamentary general election in 2024, particularly the challenges around print and postal vote administration, has informed the development of these directions. They are further intended to anticipate risks and challenges that may arise. 10.56am GMT Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, is sitting alongside Hermer. But, whenever he has been asked a question, he has essentially said that he has nothing to add to evidence given by others. 10.47am GMT Hermer says claims that ministers intervened in China spy case 'disgraceful', in attack on senior Tories Paul Boateng, the Labour peer and a former cabinet minister, goes next. Q: Did you ever put it to the CPS that dropping the case would undermine public confidence in the justice system? Hermer says it was not his job to overrule the CPS. But he says no one would have left the meeting where was told that the case was being dropped without being aware of how disappointed he was about this. He says he is concerned about the impact this case has had on faith in the justice system. But he says those who have made “baseless accusations” are to blame. It’s also why I deprecate some of the baseless accusations that were levelled against the prime minister and against our national security adviser, [Jonathan] Powell, when this information, the decision of the prosecution was announced, that seeks to suggest that politicians had somehow improperly interfered in this case to stop the prosecution. Effectively, allegations that they were perverting the course of justice against the national security interests of this country – now, those were disgraceful allegations to make without evidence. They were baseless, as the evidence of the DPP and the cabinet secretary have made plain. Hermer does not name the people responsible for these “baseless accusations”, but he is referring to the Conservative party. Kemi Badenoch have repeatedly suggested that ministers and officials intervened to stop this prosecution going ahead, implying they leant on the CPS and withheld key evidence. Updated at 11.05am GMT 10.36am GMT Hermer says prosecution could have gone ahead under NSA, even though China not in enhanced tier under Firs rules Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the foreign affairs committee (and a barrister), goes next. Q: The CPS has revealed that the word enemy was in the original draft of the first witness statement from the DNSA, but not the final version. Shouldn’t that have flagged up a problem? Hermer says the real problem was the gap between the statutory test of enemy in the Official Secrets Act, and government policy at the time. Thornberry suggests that, given the extent of the evidence showing China does pose a threat, it would have been better to have put this to a jury. Hermer says this discussion shows the Official Secrets Act “was not fit for purpose”. He says if the National Security Act the prosecution would have gone ahead, “I’ve absolutely no doubt about it”. Someone (it is not clear who) puts it Hermer that, because China is not in the enhanced tier under Firs (the foreign influence registration scheme – a system requiring agents for foreign powers to register, with tighter requirments for hostile countries in the enhanced tier), even under the National Security Act it would have been hard to show that spying for China was illegal. Hermer says he does not think that would have been an issue. China would have counted under the foreign powers provision, he says. Updated at 10.38am GMT 10.18am GMT Sarah Champion, the Labour chair of the international development committee, asks if the CPS could have brought other charges. Hermer says those are really questions for the CPS. Prosecutors normally bring the strongest charges. Q: Is it unusual not to have a backup plan for charges that could be brought? It depends on the case, Hermer says. 10.16am GMT Mike Martin (Lib Dem) goes next. He asks if it would have been better to get, say, a former head of MI5 or MI6 to give evidence about China being a national security threat, not the deputy national security adviser. Hermer says he thinks Matthew Collins, the deputy national security adviser (DNSA), was an appropriate witness. 10.11am GMT Hermer says, if spy case had gone to trial, Badenoch's quote saying China not a foe would have helped accused get off Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary and former national security adviser, goes next. He is now a peer, and a member of the committee. He says the deputy national security adviser, Matthew Collins, thought there was enough evidence for the case to go ahead. But the CPS did not agree. Who was right? Hermer says the jury would have to have been convinced that China was an enemy. And the problem in this case was that the government was not neutral on whether China was an enemy. “The government’s position was that it was not,” he says. He says, if the case had gone to court, the defence would have quoted ministers in office at the time saying China was not an enemy. He quotes examples of James Cleverly, the former foreign secretary, and Kemi Badenoch, the former business secretary who is now Tory leader, as saying that. Badenoch said, when she was in cabinet, that China should not be called a foe. 10.03am GMT Hermer says China spy prosecutions would have gone ahead if National Security Act had been passed ealier Hermer says the Official Secrets Act was a “very significant” with this prosecution. It was passed in 1911, and at the time there were concerns that it did not get enough parliamentary scrutiny. He goes on: In 2017, the Law Commission flagged that the term enemy [in the legislation] was deeply problematic and it would give rise to difficulties in future prosecutions. And I think what has played out, during this prosecution exemplifies and highlights the difficulties with that. That is why Parliament was right to pass the National Security Act for 2023. It takes away the problems that were faced by the CPS in this case. If the NSA had been in case when the offences were committed, this prosecution would have gone ahead, he says. 9.56am GMT Lord Hermer says, once China prosecution originally approved, attorney general had no further role in CPS decisions Matt Western, the committee chair, opens the questioning. Q: How should this prosecution have been handled differently? Lord Hermer says he will explain the context. Prosecutors are governed by a code, and if they want to prosecute, the decision must pass the evidential test (there must be a reasonable chance of success) and it must pass a public interest test too. He says those tests are for prosecutors. With some offences, the attorney general (AG) must apply those tests too. That happened in this case, he says. A previous AG approved this prosecution. And that was the end of the law officers’ involvment, he says. He says politicians do not get involved in prosecutions. He says a framework agreement betweent he AG’s office and the CPS confirmed that. The framework says the AG must be notified if a prosecution approved by the AG is going to be dropped. If it is being dropped on public interest grounds, the AG must be consulted. But if it is being dropped on evidential grounds, the AG is just informed, after the decision has been taken. Updated at 9.57am GMT 9.51am GMT The government has published three witness statements submitted by the DNSA: the first from December 2023, the second from February 2025 (but dated 2024 by mistake) and the third from August 2025. Parkinson and Wormald have both sent letters to the committee responding to their questions. Those letters, and others submitted as part of this inquiry, are here. 9.50am GMT There is a live feed of the committee hearing here. 9.49am GMT Lord Hermer, attorney general, gives evidence to committee on China spy case Lord Hermer, the attorney general, is about to start giving evidence to the joint committee on the national security strategy about the China spy case. Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, is also appearing. 9.40am GMT Government suffers 5 defeats in Lords as 'ping pong' starts over employment rights bill Peers have maintained their stand-off with the government over proposed workers’ rights reforms, including again rejecting giving new workers’ “day one” protection against unfair dismissal, PA Media reports. This was one of five defeats the government suffered on the bill in the Lords last night. PA says: The House of Lords inflicted a further heavy defeat on the government in backing by 301 votes to 153, majority 148, a Tory measure which would instead reduce the existing qualifying period for the workplace safeguard from two years to six months. The insistence by the unelected chamber on overturning a Labour election pledge in defiance of the Commons means a continuation of the parliamentary tussle over the employment rights bill known as “ping-pong”, when legislation is batted between the two Houses until agreement is reached. Conservative shadow business minister Lord Sharpe of Epsom said: “Making unfair dismissal a day one right will inhibit hiring.” Independent crossbencher Lord Vaux of Harrowden said: “The introduction of day one unfair dismissal rights is the most damaging element in this bill, in my opinion.” He added: “Uniquely among the employment rights changes in the bill, there is little or no evidence that there is really a problem to solve or harm to be prevented here, but very real harms will arise as a result of this policy. “The ability to claim unfair dismissal from day one will make it more difficult for employers to take a risk on new employees.” However, former head of the Trades Union Congress and Labour peer Frances O’Grady said: “Under the employment rights bill, employers can still dismiss workers fairly – for example, as they can now if they are incompetent or there is misconduct or a redundancy situation. “But without the day one protection proposed by the government, when workers move to a new job, they would continue to bear the risk that they can be sacked at whim.” She added: “I am very conscious of the employer lobby that has mobilised in support of this amendment. “But when I look back on employers’ opposition to the national minimum wage, to equal pay for women and to stronger health and safety rights, it is clear that business lobbies do not always know what is best for Britain. “Labour’s manifesto commitment is clear – to deliver day-one rights in full.” Deputy leader of the Lords and government minister Lord Collins of Highbury said: “We will consult fully with business groups, trade unions, employers, employees and civil society on how to put our plans into practice before legislation comes into effect, adopting a very sensible approach of proper consultation.” The Labour front bench went on to suffer a further setback as the Lords pressed their demand to retain the 50% turnout threshold for an industrial action ballot of trade union members to be valid, backing the move by 240 votes to 143, majority 97. Peers also again backed removing a provision in the bill to automatically sign up new trade union members to pay a political levy, voting by 249 to 142, majority 107, against the change. The measure would overturn a cross-party compromise reached during the passage of previous legislation, requiring active opt-in to making contributions. Trade unions can assist political parties and candidates through their political funds, with some of the largest organisations including Unite, Unison and GMB making donations to Labour campaigns. As originally drafted, it would mean new members would routinely become contributors to the union’s political fund unless they give notice of their wish to opt out. A planned crackdown on zero-hour contracts in the workplace was also delivered a further blow as the upper chamber supported by 302 votes to 159, majority 143, a Liberal Democrat provision to allow flexibility in the legal requirement for an employer to offer guaranteed hours, with employees able to refuse the arrangement. Measures aimed at safeguarding seasonal work under the legislation, were again backed in the Lords by 267 votes to 153, majority 114. The changes made by peers will now be sent back for further consideration by the elected chamber. The bill has gone through the Commons and the Lords, and MPs have already one removed amendments to the bill passed by peers. Last night was the first chance peers had to put them back in. This process is called “ping pong”, and it will continue until the two sides agree. Almost always it ends with the Lords backing down. 9.28am GMT The migrant who re-entered the UK after being deported under the returns deal with France is still in the country, Alex Norris, the border security minister, said this morning. Norris was doing an interview round this morning. Asked about the migrant who returned from France, he said: He’s wasting a lot of his own time. He’s come through, he was detected immediately at the front door, he was detained, and he will be removed from this country. He hasn’t gone yet but he will be removed. Asked whether the case suggested the returns deal was not fit for purpose, Norris replied: No, not at all. The reality is people are always going to test your front door, test your boundaries. This person’s done that, and totally wasted their time in doing so. 9.22am GMT Boris Johnson approved China’s London super-embassy proposal in 2018 Will Kemi Badenoch raise the China spy case again at PMQs? This story by Eleni Courea may make her think twice. Related: Boris Johnson approved China’s London super-embassy proposal in 2018 In the Times Geraldine Scott also has a story, based on Freedom of Information disclosures, saying Badenoch “sent a delegation of senior officials to China during her tenure as business secretary, documents have revealed, despite claims she kept the country at arm’s length over security fears”. 9.07am GMT Shabana Mahmood says Home Office not ready for all challenges, as it says illegal working arrests at record level Good morning. The Home Office is under fire from government critics almost constantly at the moment, but this morning it is publicising what, by the department’s standards, counts as rare good news; it says arrests for illegal working have reached their highest level since records began. Here is the PA Media write-up. Immigration enforcement visits have reached their highest level since comparable data began in 2011, data shows. Some 21,858 visits were recorded in the 12 months to September this year, according to Home Office figures. This is up 38% from 15,894 in the previous 12-month period, and an increase of 56% on 13,990 visits that were carried out in the same period up to September 2012. A previous peak of 20,989 was hit in the year to September 2015. Enforcement visits from officers can be to businesses or home addresses to check on someone’s status, or on illegal working or other immigration crimes. It comes as further figures show visits for illegal working totalled 11,052 up to September, a rise of 51% on the previous 12 months when 7,343 were carried out. The drive comes as ministers are seeking to crack down on illegal working in the UK, as part of efforts to deter those coming to the country illegally. Immigration enforcement was handed £5m to arrest, detain and remove migrants working illegally at sites such as takeaways, beauty salons and car washes. Elsewhere, data shows there were 8,232 arrests of illegal workers in the year to September, up 63% on 5,043 in the previous 12 months. But, in rather confusing messaging, Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary has also given an interview to the BBC where she confirmed that her department is still not functioning properly. In 2006 John Reid, another Labour cabinet minister appointed home secretary on the assumption that he would be more hardline than his predecessor, famously said the department was “not fit for purpose”. Almost 20 years on, the description still applies, Mahmood said. She told the BBC: I’ve already said the Home Office is not yet fit for purpose … The most recent report [written by Tory MP Nick Timothy] was very familiar to me in the sense of what I’ve seen just in the few weeks I’ve been in this job. It’s obviously a department that has a range of problems, whether that’s procuring contracts, whether that is holding on to senior staff, it obviously deals with emergency and crises issues on a regular basis, and I think over a long period of time has been found not to be able to rise to the scale of the challenge of those crises. Mahmood was referring to this report by Timothy, an adviser to Theresa May when she was home secretary, and her response to it. Here is the agenda for the day. 9.45am: Lord Hermer, the attorney general, and Darren Jones, the Cabinet Office minister, give evidene to the joint committee on national security strategy on the China spy prosecution that collapsed. 10am: The Reform UK Lee Anderson and Zia Yusuf, the party’s head of policy, speak at a press conference. It is the third press conference the party has held this week. 10.45am: John Swinney, Scotland’s first minister, speaks at the IPPR Scotland conference. Anas Sarwar, the Scottish Labour leader, is speaking at 12.30pm. Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs. After 12.30pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, is using the 10-minute rule procedure to propose a bill to take the UK out of the European convention on human rights. Another MP is likely to give a speech opposing the bill, and there is likely to be a vote. If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (normally between 10am and 3pm BST at the moment), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word. If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary. I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog. Updated at 9.23am GMT