Andrew Sparrow 

David Davis accuses EU of discourtesy and bad faith over proposed Brexit transition conditions – Politics live

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen
  
  

David Davis, the Brexit secretary.
David Davis, the Brexit secretary. Photograph: Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Afternoon summary

  • David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has accused the EU of discourtesy and bad faith because it published a proposal for the UK to be excluded from some access to the single market during the transition in the event of a dispute. (See 5.24pm.)
  • The Japanese ambassador to the UK, Koji Tsuruoka, has hinted that Japanese firms will leave the UK if they do not like the final Brexit settlement. (See 4.13pm.)
  • Facebook has told MPs that it is going to make political advertising transparent on its platform. Giving evidence to the Commons culture committee at a hearing in Washington DC, Simon Milner, Facebook’s policy director for UK, Middle East and Africa, said:

We agree with you that there is an issue around the transparency of political advertising. Can you see what your opponent in your constituency is saying to voters and can you respond to that if the advertising takes place on Facebook? And that is one of the reasons why we are now rolling out a system of transparency around political advertising, such that in due course, at the next general election for instance in the UK, you will be able to see every ad that’s being run by both the main campaign pages and by all candidates. You want to see what ads they’re running on Facebook, you can see the ads.

That’s all from me for today.

And for the next week or so. I’m off for half term, and won’t be back until Tuesday 20 February (when the Commons returns after its mini-recess). While I’m away colleagues will be blogging instead.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Davis claims 'lot of things resolved' in cabinet Brexit sub committee

David Davis made his comment about the EU not acting in good faith (see 5.24pm) in a pooled clip for broadcasters. Here are some of the other points he made.

  • David claimed that “a lot of things” had been “resolved” in the meetings of the cabinet’s key Brexit sub committee. Asked about the committee’s meetings this week, he replied:

The atmosphere is very constructive - I’m not going to give you a detailed blow-by-blow of a cabinet committee - that obviously never happens. Very constructive, a lot of things resolved. Bear in mind we’ve already got a very, very strong framework of what we want to achieve. That is an overarching free trade agreement and large numbers of components of what we want to achieve within that, a customs agreement and so on, and we were fleshing that out. But you’ll hear more about that from the prime minister in due course, I’m sure.

  • He said every economic forecast about Brexit so far has been “massively wrong”. He made the point as he set out three reasons why the impact assessment released to MPs should not be taken seriously. He said:

Number one - every single financial forecast and economic forecast has been proven wrong so far - massively wrong. All on the same side, all underestimated the progress of the economy.

The second point is that this is a work in progress - this is not an approved policy document. I’ve actually said we will publish before parliament makes a decision on the final deal, we’ll publish the economic estimate, but there will be complete - properly completed economic estimates. You wouldn’t drive a car that’s half finished, you wouldn’t use a forecast that’s half completed.

Thirdly, that work in progress didn’t use, didn’t assess what our actual aim is, our policy aim. It assessed other things that might look a bit like it but are not like it, and we intend to publish something at the end of this exercise which shows precisely what we want to achieve, which is progress for Britain.

As the Sun’s Nick Gutteridge points out, the EU has also raised the stakes in the Brexit talks today, publishing a series of documents warning about the impact of Britain’s withdrawal from the EU for particular sectors.

Davis accuses EU of 'discourteous language' and acting in bad faith over proposed transition conditions

On Wednesday the European commission published a short position paper on the Brexit transition (pdf). As the Guardian reported in a story before the document was formally published, it said that the EU should have the power to penalise the UK during the transition by closing off parts of the single market to British companies if resolving disputes by going to the European court of justice would take too long.

The story referred to footnote 4, which said:

In addition, the governance and dispute settlement part of the withdrawal agreement should provide for a mechanism allowing the Union to suspend certain benefits deriving for the United Kingdom from participation in the internal market where it considers that referring the matter to the court of justice of the European Union would not bring in appropriate time the necessary remedies.

At the time some commentators downplayed the significance of this, arguing that clauses like this are routine in trade agreements.

Bu David Davis, the Brexit secretary, has given an interview today strongly criticising the commission for publishing that document. He said:

That document was hardly a legal document, it was a political document. What we’re about, is building an implementation period, which is to build a bridge to a future where we work well together. And I do not think it was in good faith to publish a document with frankly discourteous language, and actually implying that they could arbitrarily terminate, in effect, the implementation period. That’s not what the aim of this exercise is, it’s not in good faith, and we think it’s unwise to publish that.

Bad faith is quite a charge. Davis is not just saying the commission made a mistake; he is coming close to saying Michel Barnier, his opposite number, cannot be trusted. It is hard to think of anything that UK government has said about provocative about the EU in public since Theresa May’s Downing Street broadside about interfering Eurocrats during the general election.

The prime minister’s spokesman said today’s meeting of the key Brexit cabinet sub committee lasted a little more than two hours, but declined to give further details of what was discussed.

The Press Association has filed more quotes from Koji Tsuruoka, the Japanese ambassador to the UK. Speaking after he and Japanese business figures met the prime minister, he said said manufacturing firms in particular “expected” free access to the European market to continue. He said:

It’s not just to the UK that we are presenting those positions.

Japan has also approached the EU secretariat in Brussels to make the point that the continuation of healthy, sound trade relations between UK and EU is benefitting not just UK but also EU, and hence the global economy as a whole because this is a very important economy that has very important weight in the health of the global economy, and Japan is playing a major role on both sides as a major investor.

Therefore we have a high stake on this and I think it’s the recognition of the Japanese importance on this trade area that the prime minister has allocated a considerable amount of time to meet and discuss all aspects of the negotiation with Japanese industry.

Tsuruoka said Japanese firms wanted to stay in the UK.

Japanese companies are enjoying their operations in the UK and they have also today said they would very much like to continue this successful operation in the UK, which of course is comprised with access to the European market. Therefore the question is whether the arrangements that will be reached between the two sides will allow the Japanese companies, who are willing and in some ways determined to continue to operate in the UK, to allow them to make that happen.

This is contingent on a number of factors and there is not just one single factor that will be determining the decision.

As Sky’s Faisal Islam reports, while the Japanese business leaders were in Number 10 talking to Theresa May, the Tory Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg turned up to deliver a petition calling for lower aid spending. With a jibe at Peugeot cars, he claimed that Brexit would be good for Japanese business.

Brexit department infuriates MSPs with rules restricting how they can read impact report

Senior figures at Holyrood have lambasted the UK government for giving MSPs heavily-controlled access to its preliminary reports on Brexit at very short notice in Edinburgh, a day before Holyrood breaks up for a week’s recess.

Ken McIntosh, the Scottish parliament’s presiding officer, told MSPs on Thursday they would be allowed access, after booking time in advance, but without any mobile phones or electronic devices. They could take notes, under the scrutiny of civil servants, but not allowed to take any copies of the documents away.

Joan McAlpine, the Scottish National party chair of Holyrood’s Europe committee, tweeted she was “incredulous and angry to receive this” invitation from DexEU on Thursday.

Neil Findlay, Scottish Labour’s Brexit spokesperson, said:

This is an absolute nonsense, and takes no consideration of MSPs who have constituencies far from Edinburgh - or indeed the fact that Holyrood is sitting at those times on a Thursday. This is the shambolic Tory approach to Brexit summed up.

That was followed by Ross Greer, the Scottish Green party’s external affairs spokesperson for the Scottish Greens, said:

They’ve chosen to make this information available to MSPs for just twelve hours over two days with no prior notice – two days in which we have committees, debates and constituency business.

It’s like the planning application from the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy - in the cellar, with no lights or stairs and at the bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused toilet behind a sign saying Beware Of The Leopard. Except this isn’t fiction.

Here is a picture of the roundtable with Japanese business leaders in Number 10. This is from Sky’s Tom Boadle.

The Japanese government first set out its concerns about the impact of Brexit on its manufacturing companies based in the UK in a long and very detailed memo (pdf) it issued in September 2016. My colleague Patrick Wintour wrote about it here.

This tweet makes the point that the Japanese were worrying about Brexit even in the 1980s - long before the term was even coined.

Japanese firms will leave UK if Brexit goes wrong, ambassador hints after meeting with May

Theresa May’s meeting with Japanese business leaders based in the UK has finished. They were there to talk about Brexit, and afterwards Koji Tsuruoka, the Japanese ambassador to the UK, implied that Japanese companies would leave the UK if Brexit went wrong. He said:

If there is no profitability of continuing operation in [the] UK, not Japanese only, no private company can continue operations. So it is as simple as that. And this is all high stakes that I think all of us need to keep in mind.

Rebecca Pow, a Conservative, goes next.

Q: You are harvesting data about people every time they use Facebook, aren’t you?

Bickert says she does not accept that. She says Facebook has a system that allows users to see all the information Facebook has on them.

Q: Isn’t this a massive surveillance operation?

No, says Bickert. It is a means that allows people to keep in touch with each other.

Q: The Times today has an article headed: “The truth about Facebook: how to win 2bn friends and destroy civilisation.” It is by a well-known journalist (John Lanchester.)

Bickert says she does not accept that view.

Facebook says it will introduce new system to allow people to see all Facebook election advertising

Simon Hart, a Conservative, is asking the questions.

Q: You allow very targeted advertising. Are you happy that your procedures operate within the rules on election spending?

Milner says Facebook has a good relationship with the Electoral Commission. It is up to the parties to determine that they spend the right amount. But he says Facebook accepts the case for transparency. He says it is going to introduce a new system allowing people to see what ads are being placed by parties and candidates.

  • Facebook says it will introduce new system to allow people to see all Facebook adverts being bought by parties and candidates.

Updated

Milner says, when the Electoral Commission asked Facebook to look into whether Russia used Facebook to intervene in the EU referendum, it asked if anyone had seen anything that looked “fishy”. The commission did not give any examples, he says.

Labour’s Julie Elliott goes next.

Q: Do you think misinformation on Facebook contributed to the EU referendum result?

Milner says the company is still looking into this. It wrote to the committee at the end of last year, but the chair was not satisfied. So it is doing more work. That should be ready by the end of February.

But, unlike in the American elections, there is no evidence at the moment of Russian involvement in the EU referendum.

Q: The fake accounts you took down - where did they come from?

Bickert says Facebook can provide more information in private.

Q: What can you do to ensure that people on Facebook are engaged with real people. My son signed up when he was nine.

Bickert says Facebook has systems that try to detect when people are putting in false birthdays.

And it is constantly working on how to improve identifying fake accounts.

There are technical tools that can help Facebook determine if an account is fake.

Sometimes it is very simple. But sometimes it is not. Then an account may be referred to a reviewer. The user might be asked to give more information.

The Russian embassy in London has posted a tweet having a go at the committee’s inquiry.

Labour’s Paul Farrelly goes next.

Bickert says Facebook removed thousands of fake accounts ahead of the French, British and German elections.

Q: Do you do these sweeps just before specific elections?

Bickert says they are doing them all the time.

Updated

Q: How much of your revenue do you put into dealing with fake content?

Monika Bickert, Facebook’s head of global policy management, says she does not have a figure for that. But more than 14,000 people are working on this.

She says the revenue for the last quarter was around $14bn.

The committee is now taking evidence from Facebook executives.

Damian Collins asks the questions. He says, in response to questions about Russian involvement in the EU referendum, Facebook has just looked at rouble payments for advertising. That does not go far enough, he says.

Simon Milner, Facebook’s policy director for the UK, Middle East and Africa, says Facebook is currently doing a further investigation. It will share the results with the committee, although possibly in private.

Downs says YouTube has started to give users information about news outlets, saying, for example, whether they receive government funding.

Q: This puts RT, the Kremlin-backed broadcaster, in the same basket as the BBC. Is that helpful?

Downs says YouTube did reach out to the BBC and, in response to the BBC’s feedback, it created two categories: government-funded (RT), and public broadcaster (BBC).

Damian Collins says this creates confusion.

Downs says the term “fake news” is used to cover a lot of things.

At one end of the spectrum you have “fake news” farms. YouTube has mechanism to spot this and remove it.

Then you have clickbait content. She says YouTube identifies this and demotes it in its ratings.

Then, somewhere in the middle, you have opinions that people express. YouTube does not consider that to be news, she says. But if it violates policy on, for example, hate speech, it will get taken down.

The SNP’s Brendan O’Hara goes next. He says the “fairytale idea” of a space where everyone can share has been overtaken by the reality.

Q: Do you think the current legislative framework is sufficiently robust?

Downs says YouTube welcomes engaging with legislators. But it does not need legislation to get this right. It is working on it already.

Q: Google is sucking advertising revenue away from newspapers. What is Google going to do to ensure proper journalism survives?

Gingras says that is a very good question. Google’s success depends on there being a rich ecosystem of information out there.

He says Google shares 70% of its ad revenues with other publishers. Its revenues are worth $12.5bn a year.

He says he started out in newspapers.

Q: What happens when the journalistic landscape is so decimated. Do you have a strong sense of responsibility?

Gingras says Google has a strong sense of responsibility. It is helping firms make the transition to the new media world. In the past, if you wanted to buy a car, you would go to the paper. Now you go to the internet.

The market place has changed, he says.

He says Google is trying to help news organisations think about what products it can sell to people.

He says it helps with tools for digital storytelling. It trains thousands of journalists in the UK. It is helping people like Trinity Mirror deliver services like InYourArea.

Julian Knight, a Conservative, asks about an article in today’s Wall Street Journal. It says you promote misleading material.

Downs says the company is continuing investing to give a good experience for users. She says YouTube is not proud of what is exposed by the WSJ investigation.

Labour’s Chris Matheson goes next. She returns to the Guardian investigation, and asks why YouTube was recommending Trump videos more than Clinton videos before the US elections.

Downs says the algorithms reflect what people are interested in.

People watch what they want to watch, she says.

Q: If a video is getting hundreds of thousands of hits, but then gets taken down, wouldn’t that be odd for your business model?

Downs says the content guidelines apply to all creators, no matter who they are.

Downs says YouTube recognises there is a problem of misinformation on its platform.

This is a matter of social responsibility. But it is also a business priority, she says. She says people come to YouTube looking f

Downs says the veracity of content provided to users is very important to YouTube.

Damian Collins says, if YouTube has revenues of $10bn, and is spending $10m on tackling extremism, that is 0.1% of revenue. That is a tiny proportion.

Downs says she is not able to say what the revenues are.

Collins says the committee would like YouTube to say what proportion of revenue is spent on tackling extremism.

Downs says the openness of YouTube has brought tremendous benefits to society, in terms of the arts and science. But it also brings challenges, she says.

Rebecca Pow, a Conservative, asks about Guardian research showing how YouTube recommend system promotes false and far-right videos.

Downs says she does not want to comment on the Guardian research. But YouTube wants to promote accurate videos, she says.

She says the company has made progress since the US election. Now it is doing better at promoting accurate comment.

Q: In promoting videos, you are acting as an editor. But you do not call what you do editing. Shouldn’t you accept that you are editing?

Downs says YouTube has 400 hours of video uploaded every minute.

As for whether they are a publisher, the issue is whether they take responsibility for what they are putting on their site. They do, she says.

Damian Collins goes next.

Q: Why is it so hard identifying false data?

Downs says this is the number one priority for the company. It is mission critical. It want to ensure policy on YouTube is followed, and videos not following it are quickly identified.

Q: What percentage of your revenue do you spend on this?

Downs says the company is spending tens of millions of dollars on this.

She says YouTube has taken down 100,000 videos because they promote violent extremism.

And it is getting faster at removing stuff. Some 70% is removed within eight hours of being uploaded, and 15% within two hours of being uploaded.

Q: If someone is uploading these videos, do you share that information with law enforcement?

Downs says YouTube operates within the law.

If there is a threat to life, it discloses information voluntarily.

Q: Haven’t you got a duty to notify the law enforcement authorities pro-actively?

Downs says, if it thinks someone is going to launch an attack, it will notify the authorities as part of its emergency protocol.

Labour’s Ian Lucas goes next.

Q: Do your customers know what information you have about them?

Gingras says he hopes so. People can change their settings, to change what information is retained. But he says the information allows Google to provide them with better information.

He says Google search does not personalise search results, unless it is by geography (for instance, if someone is looking for a restaurant in London.)

Q: Do you have a team that markets advertising to politicians?

Gingras says that is not an area of expertise for him. He expects their marketing teams do focus on certain areas.

Labour’s Jo Stevens goes next.

Q: What safeguards are you putting in place to stop hate terms coming up in auto-suggest when people search for something?

Richard Gingras, vice president of news at Google, says Google constantly evaluates how is results are assessed. Those hundreds of thousands of bits of data are used to train the system, he says. But the algorithms will never be perfect.

Q: Do you have an ethics policy that your developers follower? Or do inherent biases shape their algorithm?

Gingras says Google has guidelines for its “raiders”, who work on this.

He says Google has a policy called “honest results” intended to stop people at the company algorithms.

Damian Collins, the committee chair, is asking the questions.

Q: Would you be happy to investigate whether there was any Russian interference on your platform in the EU referendum?

Juniper Downs, global head of policy at YouTube, says there is no evidence of Russian interference in that. But she says YouTube would be happy to cooperate with the committee’s investigation.

Updated

The committee has already published correspondence it has received from Twitter and Facebook in response to its inquiries. The letters are all on its website here.

Here are the questions the committee said it wanted to address when it launched its inquiry.

What is ‘fake news’? Where does biased but legitimate commentary shade into propaganda and lies?

What impact has fake news on public understanding of the world, and also on the public response to traditional journalism? If all views are equally valid, does objectivity and balance lose all value?

Is there any difference in the way people of different ages, social backgrounds, genders etc use and respond to fake news?

Have changes in the selling and placing of advertising encouraged the growth of fake news, for example by making it profitable to use fake news to attract more hits to websites, and thus more income from advertisers?

MPs take evidence from Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter on 'fake news'

The Commons culture committee is about to take evidence from Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter as part of its inquiry into “fake news”. The hearing is taking place at George Washington University in Washington DC and you will be able to watch it here. It is the first live broadcast of a Commons select committee hearing taking place outside the UK.

Lunchtime summary

  • Nicky Morgan, the chair of the Commons Treasury committee, has accused the government of leaving the City in a “chronic state of uncertainty” after the Treasury said it was holding back publication of its paper on the future of financial services because it did not want to undermine its Brexit negotiating position. “Nothing undermines a negotiating position more than not having one,” Morgan said. (See 9.24am.)
  • Labour has accused the government of “complacency” over violent crime following the publication of four new reports showing significant increases in some areas. (See 10.44am.) Commenting on the figures, Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, said:

The rise in homicides is deeply troubling. With the police now dealing with over a million violent offences a year, there can be no room for complacency about rising violent crime.

And yet the Tories have attempted to dismiss rising crime data as all due to better police recording. This cannot be the case with homicides.

As we have seen in so many instances, what was deemed correct in the 1970s isn’t necessarily correct by today’s standards.

With the current focus on corporate governance issues and the use of public money, I have today asked the National Audit Office to give consideration to undertake an investigation into this matter.

I would be keen for the NAO to look at how taxpayers’ money is being used by Motability.

McVey also said the charity has done “much good” since being established 40 years ago but it must “listen to the criticisms it has faced” and be “receptive to change”.

Jeremy Corbyn has called on the Russian Football Union and Fifa to take immediate action against anyone caught committing racist acts at this summer’s World Cup. Speaking to primary school children at a Show Racism the Red Card event at Arsenal’s Emirates Stadium (he’s a fan of the club), he said he hoped the tournament is remembered for events on the pitch rather than in the stands. He said:

Anyone that commits acts of racist abuse in this club, or any other, are asked to leave the stadium straight away, and that’s how it should be.

I hope that in the World Cup this summer in Russia the authorities, Fifa, make sure that is the case in every stadium all through the World Cup.

We want the World Cup to be brilliant as an exhibition of football, not of blind prejudice to each other.

Here is my colleague Denis Campbell and Pamela Duncan’s story about the A&E waiting time figures.

Delays at major A&E units hit record level in January, NHS England figures show

NHS England has released its A&E performance data for January (pdf). The figures show that 85.3% of A&E patients were seen within four hours. That is well below the 95% target, but marginally higher than the figure for December (85.1%), or for January 2017 (also 85.1%).

For major A&E departments the figure was 77.1% - the lowest figure since these statistics started to be collected in this way in 2010. In December the figure was 77.3% and in January 2017 it was 77.6%.

The figures also show that 1,043 A&E patients had to wait more than 12 hours to be seen in January - again, the worst figures since the records began.

Commenting on the figures, Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow health secretary, said:

Today’s statistics expose the hollow nature of the prime minister’s claim that her government has sufficiently prepared for winter. Almost eight years of severe austerity has left our health service woefully underfunded, understaffed and unprepared for the rise in demand during the coldest period of the year.

This January was the worst month on record for major A&Es, with over 1,000 patients being stuck on trolleys for over 12 hours and a staggering 515% increase in those waiting over 4 hours compared with January 2011.

Theresa May is chairing another meeting of the cabinet’s key Brexit sub committee - the EU exit and trade (strategy and negotiations) sub committee, to give it its full name - this morning. Yesterday’s meeting did not seem to produce any firm decisions.

Here is our overnight story.

And here is some of the coverage of yesterday’s meeting in other papers and websites.

One source said: “There is mounting concern that nothing has been agreed yet. No-one seems to know when this is going to be sorted out.

“There has been talk of the cabinet being taken away to Chequers to thrash out an agreement on what kind of trade deal we want and how we solve the Northern Ireland issue, but nothing has been arranged.

“At the moment it feels like the cabinet is a million miles away from agreeing a position.”

Another source said: “The cabinet is closer to agreeing a position on transition than it is to agreeing on the end state.

“There are some pretty substantial divisions between different members of the Cabinet on the sort of Brexit we are pursuing, and it doesn’t seem as though any of them are going to undergo a Damascene conversion any time soon.”

EU citizens would have no more right to come and work in Britain than those of any other country under plans presented to Theresa May’s Brexit war cabinet yesterday.

In a proposal that risks further inflaming tensions with Brussels, several ministers backed the plan for a “level playing field” immigration system to be introduced after Brexit.

The idea was one of two options for a reformed immigration system presented to the meeting by Olly Robbins, Mrs May’s chief Brexit negotiator.

While no vote was taken and Mrs May herself did not express a view, one source suggested it was now the most likely option for the government to pursue. “Level playing field is certainly in the ascendancy,” the source said.

The Times also says yesterday’s sub committee meeting did not come to a conclusion.

One source said that Mrs May asked members of the Brexit sub-committee to respond to Mr Robbins’s presentation but did not express a view herself.

“The discussions never got into the weeds,” they said. “There weren’t any rows but that was because there was no attempt to come to any conclusion.”

One person briefed on Wednesday’s meeting said: “There was no breakthrough on Northern Ireland, more that they needed to think about it some more.

They also say ministers are split over what to do about Ireland.

Before the meeting, one pro-Brexit minister said the Treasury had been “scaremongering” about a possible return of strife to Northern Ireland, to push Mrs May towards a “soft” Brexit and possible extension of a customs union.

“There are people saying that because the Northern Ireland question is insuperable, you have to have common standards and full alignment,” said the minister. “It’s absolute rubbish.”

The outlines of the long-awaited plan, which will be discussed by a Brexit sub-committee of May’s Cabinet Thursday and are expected to be signed off by the full Cabinet over the coming weeks, envisages the U.K. diverging from a series of key EU rules and regulations “immediately” after the end of any Brexit transition period while retaining the power to go further in other areas at a later stage, according to senior British officials.

One official named three areas where the government wants to diverge after Brexit: agricultural subsidies currently administered under the Common Agricultural Policy, financial services regulation and trade policy.

Another official agreed these three policy areas were being discussed and said imposing restrictions on freedom of movement was also an imperative for the government, as was the desire to spend money recouped from the EU budget on public services such as the NHS.

A senior Tory MP told The Sun: “Theresa can’t’ trust Gavin [Williamson, the defence secretary, another member of the sub committee] any more as he’s out for himself, so she needs someone she can rely on. Hence, Karen.

“She is her mistress’s voice, which looks like she might be ready to take on Boris and Gove.”

Labour MPs are in Belfast today to support calls from Amnesty International and the Family Planning Association for the reform of the near total ban on abortion in Northern Ireland.

The MPs said they will attempt to introduce legislation to legalise abortion in Northern Irish hospitals if local politicians fail to reach an agreement at the talks aimed at restoring devolved power sharing government.

Northern Ireland is the only part of the UK where the 1967 Abortion Act does not apply. Thousands of women from the region have over the years been forced to travel to Britain to terminate their pregnancies. A number of local women are currently facing prosecution for obtaining abortion pills on the Internet.

Successive British governments have refused to impose abortion reform on the region arguing that any decision to liberalise the law on terminations should be a devolved matter.

Attempts in the Northern Ireland assembly over the last decade to relax the strict anti-abortion laws in the province have been voted down by a cross party alliance of the Democratic Unionists and even by some representatives from the Labour party-aligned SDLP.

Ahead of a meeting with assembly members as well as Amnesty International and health care professionals in Belfast, Labour’s Northern Ireland spokesman Owen Smith said:

We believe that this is a decision that should be made in Stormont by a returned Stormont assembly and executive and we will continue to do all we can to see the return of devolution.

However, if power returns to Westminster, we will push the government to make progress on ensuring people in Northern Ireland have the same rights as those elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

The Office for National Statistics has published four reports today covering different types of violent crime. In a statement the ONS’s John Flatley said measuring crime was complex. He said:

The data we’ve published today show the complexity of measuring crime in all its different forms. Even offences under the heading of ‘violence’ vary enormously, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving to homicide. We need to be careful that our perceptions and understanding of crime levels are shaped by appropriate data, and not over-generalised.

Here is the report on violent crime.

Here is the report on homicide.

Here is the report on sexual offences.

And here is the report on domestic abuse offences.

Northern Ireland talks on hold as Bradley attends cabinet committee meeting in London

Roundtable talks between the five parties represented in the currently deadlocked Northern Ireland Assembly have been postponed, it was announced today.

A planned plenary session of the negotiations has been put back until Friday while Northern Ireland secretary Karen Bradley is allowed to attend the crucial Bexit cabinet sub committee meeting on Brexit in London.

There are reports in Belfast today that there has been some progress made between the two main parties locked in the discussions - the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Fein. Sources close to the talks claim that a deal to restore power sharing devolved government could happen within days. They claim there has been some movement on the divisive issue of Sinn Fein’s demand for an Irish Language Act, which would put Gaelic on the same legal parity as English across the region.

Under this fledgling deal Arlene Foster, the DUP leader, would return as first minister of Northern Ireland. This would mark a shift in Sinn Fein’s position from 13 months ago.

The talks broke down at the start of 2017 after the late Martin McGuinness resigned in protest as deputy first minister. He stood down from the post and effectively crashed the power sharing system because first minister Foster refused to temporarily step aside from her post. Foster had been under pressure to do so as criticism mounted over her promotion of a renewable green energy scheme that has cost the tax payer tens of millions of pounds.

Both the British and Irish governments - both on and off the record - continue to paint a positive picture of the crucial discussions between Sinn Fein and the DUP. Irish foreign minister Simon Coveney said today that he “remained convinced” that an agreement can and will be reached.

One key factor in Sinn Fein seeking a compromise with the DUP is the appointment of a new leader this weekend. Dublin politician Mary Lou McDonald will replace Gerry Adams as Sinn Fein President this Saturday marking a generational shift within the high command of the party.

A power-sharing deal, which would be welcomed among all political classes on both these islands, would be seen as giving a boost to the credentials of the McDonald-led Sinn Fein, particularly among southern Irish voters who until now have been repelled by the party’s historic links to the IRA’s armed campaign during the Northern Ireland Troubles.

Jo Swinson gets John Humphrys to admit he has apologised to Carrie Gracie over pay comment

Last month my colleague Anushka Asthana revealed that the Tracey Crouch, the sports minister, refused to be interviewed by the Today presenter John Humphrys
because he was recorded seeming to joke about Carrie Gracie’s fight for equal pay in a private conversation with his fellow BBC broadcaster Jon Sopel. Anushka said other female MPs were angry about Humphrys’s comment and also mulling over a boycott.

This morning Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem deputy leader, got the chance to challenge Humphrys about his remark herself. At the end of an interview about the new Commons procedures for dealing with harassment, she asked her own question.

While I have got you here John, can I just ask have you apologised to Carrie Gracey for the remarks that you made about her courageous stance on equal pay?

In response Humphrys said he had apologised. He replied:

I wrote an email to Carrie Gracie immediately after that exchange, yes I did as a matter of fact, and she replied. Quite what this has to do with what we are discussing here I fail to see, but there we are.

Humphrys did not sound particularly flustered as he replied, but he did not seem very happy about the matter being raised either. Later he described Swinson’s question as “entirely irrelevant”.

Ministers condemned for leaving City in 'chronic state of uncertainty' over Brexit

Last month it was reported that the government had shelved a position paper it was expected to publish about financial services after Brexit. At the time Downing Street played down the report, suggesting that something might emerge eventually, but this morning the Commons Treasury committee has released a letter it has had on this topic from John Glen, a Treasury minister, confirming that the government is reluctant to publish its thinking. You can read the whole letter here (pdf), but here is the key paragraph:

It is important to be cognisant of the fact that the UK’s intentions for our future relationship with the EU form an integral part of our negotiating strategy. Negotiations are highly sensitive and we want to secure the best possible outcome, including for our financial services industry. In the first phase of negotiations, it was a pragmatic approach that secured us the announcement of sufficient progress. We must carefully consider the timing of any publications that could be used to undermine the UK’s negotiating position.

In his letter Glen also says the government has been representing the views of the City in Brexit talks with the EU in private “in the strongest terms” and that in some areas it has been able to set out what it wants in public. But, overall, on financial services, Glen is coming close to saying that the government cannot say what it wants - because that might stop it getting what it wants.

Nicky Morgan, the pro-European Conservative who chairs the committee, is not impressed. In a statement issued in her capacity as committee chair she said:

The clock is ticking for the financial services industry. As the British Chambers of Commerce said yesterday, businesses need answers urgently on the government’s vision for Brexit so they can prepare for the future with confidence.

Many firms will begin to activate their Brexit contingency plans at the end of March, but they’re still none the wiser about the Government’s desired end-state for the sector.

By publishing a position paper on financial services, the government could articulate a clear sense of direction and provide some much-needed clarity. Yet, as the economic secretary confirms, the government is refusing to publish such a paper for fear of undermining the UK’s negotiating position.

Nothing undermines a negotiating position more than not having one.

Clarity has been provided for numerous other sectors, so the more than one million people employed in financial services will take no comfort in the government’s inaction.

Financial services firms will be seriously concerned at the chronic state of uncertainty. The government should publish its position paper on the future of financial services immediately.

Today is the last day the Commons is sitting before a mini, half-term recess. We have got various written statements coming.

And one is already out, covering the report on new procedures to tackle sexual harassment at Westminster. Here is our story about it.

Here is the agenda for the day.

11am: Theresa May chairs another meeting of the cabinet’s key Brexit sub committee where ministers will discuss what relationship they want with the EU after Brexit.

1pm: John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, speaks at a Labour conference in Preston.

2pm: The Commons culture committee takes evidence from tech and internet companies at a hearing in Washington DC.

4.30pm: Andrea Leadsom, leader of the Commons, takes part in an LBC phone-in.

At some point today May is also holding a meeting at Number 10 with Japanese investors in the UK to discuss Brexit.

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. 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

*