Chris Pincher says he will ‘reflect’ on standards committee report but does not say whether he will resign as MP – UK politics live

Here is the text of the judgment in the case of the government’s appeal against the Covid inquiry’s demand to see unredacted WhatsApp messages from Boris Johnson and others which the Cabinet Office said were wholly irrelevant to the inquiry.

The Cabinet Office has lost its legal challenge over the UK Covid-19 inquiry chair’s request for Boris Johnson’s unredacted WhatsApp messages, notebooks and diaries, PA Media reports.

Penny Mordaunt, the leader of the Commons, has called for a review of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS), the parliamentary watchdog responsible for investigating complaints of sexual misconduct and bullying by MPs.

Speaking in the Commons, and responding to concerns about the predatory culture at Westminster featured in a Newsnight report on Tuesday night, she said:

The only way we will improve the situation here is to recognise that we are not just one organisation but a community of many, and that processes and volume of standards bodies, 13 separate entities and counting, does not improve behaviour.

Only cultural change will do that. And the key to that is to deepen our understanding of the duty of care we have towards each other.

We are custodians of the trust and authority of this place and I have set out my intention, with external advice, to conclude my own assessment of where we need to focus in this place.

These findings I will make available to the [House of Commons Commission] and to [Labour] and the standards committee.

I held a private session with the standards committee this week to tell them of my concerns and suggested solutions and I have also told them and the speaker that I think that the ICGS review needs to be brought forward.

Earlier this week the independent expert panel, which considers complaints submitted via the ICGS, said a complaint about David Warburton submitted more than a year ago would have to be reinvestigated because the original inquiry was flawed.

The full text of Keir Starmer‘s speech this morning is online here. It was well written, bold on ambition, at times moving, but thin on implementation. Here are the key points.

Starmer said he wanted to get rid of the “class ceiling” that holds working class people back. He explained it like this:

There’s also something more pernicious here, a pervasive idea, a barrier in our collective mind that narrows our ambitions for working class children and says – sometimes with subtlety, sometimes to your face – this isn’t for you.

Some people call it the “class ceiling” – and that’s a good name for it. Yes, economic insecurity, structural and racial injustice are part of it, of course they are, but it’s also about a fundamental lack of respect, a snobbery that too often extends into adulthood, raising its ugly head when it comes to inequalities at work. In pay, promotions, and opportunities.

Starmer made this argument as part of a wider argument about wanting to extend opportunity. He cited his own story – coming from a working-class family, and going on to run the Crown Prosecution Service – as an example of what should be possible, and he implied that there was more equality of opportunity in the 1970s. As a broad objective, this is something to which every prime minister, Tory and Labour, has been committed, at least since the 1950s. But Starmer sounded more committed to the idea than some of them have been, and he personalised it with the story (which he has told before) about how his father felt he was the victim of class prejudice.

Take my dad. He was a tool-maker – and a good one – highly skilled, proud of his work. But back in the 1980s, the Tories made it quite clear people like him were not valued and that actually, they didn’t see the point of our country making things, that his skills were not part of their future. This hurt him.

Whenever anyone asked that old question “what do you do for a living” – I could see him visibly pull away. He felt looked down upon, disrespected. It chipped away at his esteem.

He criticised the last Labour government for failing to raise the esteem of vocational education, and said he wanted to do better. He said:

[The last Labour government] expanded higher education, fundamentally raised school standards, gave millions of working-class children – children of all backgrounds – the tools to thrive in a new knowledge economy.

But honestly? We didn’t tackle this, didn’t eradicate the snobbery that looks down on vocational education, didn’t drain the well of disrespect that this creates, and that cost us.

Again, this sounds familiar. Politicians from all parties have been promising to raise the status of vocational education for years. One of the many who failed was Gavin Williamson, who in his period as education secretary set the ambitious goal of overtaking Germany “in the opportunities we offer to those studying technical routes by 2029”.

Starmer cited three policies that might increase the status of vocational training. They were: Labour’s commitment to a national skills plan, its goal to have “the best quality post-19 training”, and its plan for a new growth and skills levy, improving on the apprenticeship levy.

But Starmer argued that the education system was failing more academic pupils too. He said:

Honestly – we’ve just got to get this into our heads. It isn’t the case that the status quo only fails children outside the academic route. Without modernising education, we’re also failing the children who do go down that route, preparing them all for a world that is receding into the past.

He said that he wanted schools to teach a “curriculum fit for the digital age”. In his Q&A he made it clear that Labour would take time developing this. (See 12.40pm.) But he said that he wanted this to include more emphasis on speaking skills (“oracy” – see 8.49am), and digital skills taught through the entire curriculum, not as a stand-alone subject.

He implied that he needed to learn to open up more. When he was arguing for more emphasis on “oracy”, mostly he sounded like a barrister defending the importance of the thing he’s best at. But he also made a more personal argument for talking more. He said:

[Talking is] not just a skill for learning, it’s also a skill for life. Not just for the workplace, also for working out who you are – for overcoming shyness or disaffection, anxiety or doubt – or even just for opening up more to our friends and family.

We don’t do enough of that as a society, and I’m as guilty as anyone, but wouldn’t that be something precious for our children to aim for? I think so.

He said Labour would get rid of single-word Ofsted assessments, as part of its plan to reform the body. Instead of a “one word judgment”, Ofsted should produce “a whole dashboard”, he said.

James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, has been urged to drop any plans to visit China in response to threats against UK-based Hong Kong pro-democracy activists, PA Media reports. PA says:

A senior Conservative backbencher called on ministers to demonstrate that “frankly tough words need to be followed by tough actions” as MPs across the house raised concerns during a Commons urgent question about the UK government’s reaction.

Authorities in the former British territory have issued arrest warrants for Finn Lau and Christopher Mung, as well as six other activists who have fled to Britain, the US, Canada and Australia for alleged breaches of the national security law imposed by Beijing.

Hong Kong’s leader, John Lee, has said they will be pursued for life, with one million Hong Kong dollars (?100,500) being offered for information leading to any of their arrests.

Foreign Office minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan reiterated the UK will “not tolerate any attempts by the Chinese authorities to intimidate” people, adding: “We call on Beijing to remove the national security law and for China and the Hong Kong authorities to end the targeting of those who stand up for freedom and democracy.”

Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran, asking the UQ, said the government’s words “ring rather hollow” as she said: “We need more than just condemnation, we need action and most urgently this means ensuring that these individuals are safe.”

Moran stressed it is “illegal to bounty hunt in the UK” and called on the government to prosecute those who do it, before adding: “Will the government reconsider the foreign secretary’s planned visit to Beijing in light of this blatant escalation by China of transnational repression?”

Trevelyan said she could not comment on operational and security matters related to the pro-democracy activists, noting “discussions are ongoing”.

Here are the main points from Keir Starmer’s Q&A after his speech.

Starmer rejected claims that he had performed a U-turn on Labour’s green prosperity plan. The accusation was made after Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, recently said that Labour would not start the ?28bn-a-year investment programme immediately, but ramp up spending to that level over the course of a parliament. When it was put to him this was a U-turn, Starmer replied:

There’s no U-turn at all. We haven’t backed down, we’ve doubled down.

When I set out as my fourth mission clean power by 2030, that’s that’s doubling down on it, particularly on the ?28bn, which is a huge amount to invest for the future.

Most people look at that mission and say ‘if we could achieve that ambition, that is the route to lower bills, to energy security …, to the next generation of skills and jobs that are so vital, and of course, what we need to do in order to meet our net zero obligations.

He said that his government would be “laser focused” on reducing poverty, just as the last Labour government was. He was responding to a question from my colleague Peter Walker who pointed out that reducing poverty is not one of his headline five missions. (See 11.12am.)

He said that getting rid of the two-child benefit cap is not curently Labour policy. (See 11.31am.)

He suggested making free school meals universal for primary school pupils might not be the best use of resources. Asked why he was not in favour, when the Labour government in Wales is implementing the policy, he replied:

We are constrained by the economics and we are constrained also by this question of whether that is the best targeting of the resources that we’ve got.

We’ve gone down the route of breakfast clubs, but other councils and Wales have gone down a different route.

It’s a debate we should welcome as an ongoing debate about what’s the best way here to move forward.

He said under Labour the government would negotiate with the teaching unions “every day” until strikes were resolved. Asked what he would do differently on the strikes from the government, he replied:

If I had the privilege to be prime minister, if Bridget Phillipson was the education secretary of state, I would ask her and tell her and require her to get in and negotiate every day of the week until it was resolved.

The government is sitting it out. Children not being able to school is damaging, everybody knows that. Teachers know it.

Nobody wants this industrial action, we have to resolve it, the government’s got a report, a recommendation. It is sitting on it, doing nothing.

And in the meantime it is not having the negotiations.

So get in the room, negotiate and sort this out and get our schools back working.

He said he wanted to establish a national consensus on curriculum reform, implying that he would not be producing firm plans before the election. Asked why he did not publish plans now, for implementation after an election victory, he replied:

We are determined to do this review and change our curriculum.

We need to do that in a thoughtful way, in a way that brings the country with us.

This isn’t the sort of thing that you should do for two or three years and then change back.

It has got to be part of a national debate and consensus about where we go next.

I think the case for change is compelling, I’ve set out the principles that we would want to underpin the review, but I do think it is best that that review is done in government when we’ve got the ability to bring everybody together behind what will be a really important change in our education system.

He said the Labour candidate in Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Danny Beales, was right to raise concerns about the extension of the Ulez low emissions zone to outer London. The Labour mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is implementing the policy, which is deeply unpopular with some drivers living in outer London, and which has become an issue in the Uxbridge byelection. Asked if he supported what Beales was saying, Starmer replied:

Danny Beales is … rightly raising concern on behalf of what he hopes will be his constiuents in relation to Ulez because we all understand the impact it has financially.

I think it is important when we have this discussion to properly recognise the context. There is a legal requirement to deal with air pollution. So it is not just a political choice that is made in the abstract. That is why the first Ulez was introduced by a Tory mayor … Danny Beales is right to say what he has said in sticking up for what he hopes will be his constituents.

Here is the clip (for readers how can access video material on Twitter).

Starmer suggested the government was using the debate about guidance for schools on trans issues for “political point scoring”. (See 11.17am.)

After yesterday’s debate, the government has now suffered 20 defeats in the House of Lords over the illegal migration bill. Collectively, the votes (some of them are described in detail here, and here) have gutted the bill, and reduced it to a pale shadow of the authoritarian legislation drafted by the Home Office and passed by MPs.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing this morning the PM’s spokesperson indicated that the government would seek to reverse most or all of those defeats when the bill returns to the Commons. He said precise details of what Lords amendments the government would seek to overturn would not be announced until Tuesday, when the bill is back in the Commons. (On some issues, the government could decide to compromise.) But he indicated that the overall approach would be to face down the Lords.

The spokesperson said:

We recognise that the Lords will scrutinise this bill, as they do all of them.

But for our part, we continue to believe that this bill is the right and appropriate way to stop the boats.

What we are seeking to do is deter vulnerable people from being induced to make dangerous crossings which is costing lives. This evil exploitation by criminal gangs must stop and we think the measures in this bill are appropriate.

When it was put to him that the Lords had not just revised the bill, but rewritten it entirely, he replied:

We have recognised that we would face a challenge from all sides, and I think that has been borne out. But we are not deterred by this.

The government continues to believe that this is a problem that the public want us to urgently fix and we continue to use all the tools at our disposal to do so.

Chris Pincher has issued a fresh apology in light of the report out today saying he should be suspended for eight weeks for groping two men in the Carlton Club. (See 9.15am.)

There are calls for him to resign from parliament. (See 9.19am.) In the statement he says he wants to “reflect” on the report, but he does not indicate whether or not he will try to stay on until the next election. He says:

I apologise sincerely again for my behaviour at the Carlton Club last year, as I did the day I resigned from the government.

I resigned as deputy chief whip and have already said that I will not seek re-election.

I have sought professional medical help, which is ongoing and has been beneficial to me, for which I am grateful. I am truly grateful for the kindness that I have received from my constituents, family and friends.

I only saw the report at 8am this morning so I want to read it carefully and reflect on it properly. I do not intend to comment further at this time.

Labour has now published the 22-page document giving details of its opportunity “mission”, the subject of Keir Starmer’s speech. It’s here.

During the Q&A Keir Starmer was asked if Labour would scrap the two-child benefit cap, which restricts some benefit payments to the first two children. Jonathan Ashworth, the shadow work and pensions secretary, recently described it as “heinous”.

Starmer said getting rid of the cap was not party policy, “and if it changes, I’ll let you know”.

Starmer says, if Labour takes power, it will inherit an economy that is badly damaged. It won’t be like 1997, he says.

That means Labour will not be able to do everything it wants, he says.

And that’s it. The Q&A is over.

Q: You have said that you will use the revenue from cutting tax breaks for private schools for various policies. Does it add up?

Starmer says the policy would raise more than ?1bn. He says the policy proposals have been properly costed.

Q: How can people trust you given your U-turn on the green investment pledge?

Starmer does not accept there has been a U-turn on that. The party is doubling down on it, he says.

Starmer says he wants Just Stop Oil to stop their protest. He repeats the language he used in his Times Radio article earlier about their arrogance. (See 10.34am.)