Rishi Sunak appears at infected blood inquiry amid criticism over government compensation delays – UK politics live

Read More

Richards says victims of the scandal still do not have any idea of the shape, the form or the timescale of any compensation scheme.

Sunak replies:

Of course, people have been waiting for too long to get the recognition that they deserve for what’s happened.

He says he has only been PM for eight months.

Days after he became PM, interim compensation payments were made, he says.

Then, in December, the government accepted for the first time there was a moral case for compensation, he says.

Q: Given what you now know, is it acceptable that people are still waiting for a compensation framework. Is that good enough?

Some members of the public in the room seem to shout: “No”.

Sunak says it is reasonable to allow the inquiry to finish its work.

He says he can entirely sympathise with people wanting a government response as soon as possible.

But he says, having set up the inquiry, it would be wrong for the government to pre-empt its findings by setting its own policy on compensation.

The process “is not an unreasonable one”, he says.

He says that of course this has been going on for too long.

But he thinks it is right for the government to wait until the inquiry makes recommendation, and to respond then.

Sir Brian Langstaff asks Sunak if is he saying he wished this had all been sorted out more quickly.

Of course, says Sunak.

Richards says Mordaunt, as paymaster general at the time, was the minister most involved in this issue. She thought dealing with the compensation issue was long overdue, Richards says.

Richards is now showing Sunak extracts from Penny Mordaunt’s follow-up letter.

Mordaunt said in it that she “firmly” believed the government should start preparing to pay compensation before the inquiry reported. And she said:

I cannot stress enough the urgency of taking long-overdue action on financial support and compensation.

Sunak says the letter was dealt with by officials. He says the subsequent spending review allocated ?175m to resolve disparities between compensation payments to victims in different parts of the country.

Q: Penny Mordaunt told us she was making a point in that letter about what was morally right.

Sunak says it is best for Mordaunt to say what she had in mind.

But he says the points raised by Mordaunt in her letter was addressed.

He says more than ?500m has already been paid in compensation.

Q: Do you remember someone raising with you, at the time of the letter, the ongoing deaths?

Sunak says he does not remember that being raised with him.

Q: Do you understand the point about justice delayed being justice denied?

Sunak says this scandal has gone on for decades. He says that is not right.

That is why is is pleased the inquiry was set up. He hopes it finishes soon, and he says he is committed to acting in response “as swiftly as possible”.

Jenni Richards KC, counsel for the inquiry, starts by asking Rishi Sunak to confirm when he was chief secretary to the Treasury and chancellor.

She shows two letters sent in 2020, when Sunak was chancellor. On 30 July Penny Mordaunt wrote to him about funding the inquiry.

Mordaunt said funding the inquiry was “urgent for many victims” and “justice delayed is justice denied”.

Mordaunt knew that victims were continuing to die when she wrote that, Richards says.

Q: Were you aware at the time people were dying?

Sunak starts with an opening statement.

I believe what has happened has been an appalling scandal.

I think thousands of people, obviously many in the room today and others that the chair referred to who are watching, have suffered for decades.

It hasn’t just affected those people that have been directly impacted and affected, it’s affected their families and friends and carers as well. So it goes far beyond those who are directly impacted.

And as you just said, this is not just about historic wrongs. People are suffering and being impacted today.

With regard to the letter, he says it was dealt with by officials.

Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the infected blood inquiry, is opening this afternoon’s hearing.

He thanks Rishi Sunak, as someone who is one of the busiest, “if not the busiest”, people in the country, for giving evidence.

He says the number of people listening will probably be “in four figures”, including online.

(That does not seem much. The “audience” for the Guardian’s Politics Live blog is much bigger than that.)

Sunak is now swearing on oath to tell the truth.

Rishi Sunak is giving evidence to the infected blood inquiry at 2pm.

The inquiry covers a scandal that happened between 1970 and 1991 (when Sunak was 11), and so he is not likely to face questions about what went wrong.

But Sir Brian Langstaff, the inquiry chair, has complained about the government’s approach to compensating victims. In a report published in April, he said that the interim compensation scheme should be extended and that the government should start work on the final compensation arrangements, instead of waiting for the inquiry’s final report.

Sunak will face questions about his approach to these issues, both as PM and previously when he was chancellor.

The deadline of a public consultation on plans to close nearly all railway station ticket offices in England has been extended until September, the Rail Delivery Group has confirmed. PA Media reports:

Train operators unveiled proposals earlier this month for mass closures of station ticket offices after the transport secretary, Mark Harper, urged them to cut costs.

A three-week consultation on the plans was announced on 5 July by the Rail Delivery Group, which said staff would move out of ticket offices, adopting new “customer help” roles already in place on many parts of the rail network.

In a statement issued today, Jacqueline Starr, chief executive of the Rail Delivery Group, said: “Train companies have listened to feedback and are extending the time available to respond to the consultation on changes to how tickets are sold at stations to 1 September.

“Operators are keen to give more people a chance to give their views on the proposals, so they can bring the railway up to date with dramatic shifts in customer buying habits while supporting all its customers as the railway evolves and adapts.”

But Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, who with other Labour metro mayors has threatened to challenge the ticket office closure plans in court, said the extension of the consultation was not enough. In a message on Twitter he said:

This shows we were right to challenge this flawed process.

But it’s not good enough.

The law requires a 12-week consultation.

We will continue to pursue our legal action.

#SaveTicketOffices

And Tracy Brabin, the Labour West Yorkshire mayor, said:

We said from the start that the chaotic and rushed consultation to shut down most of our ticket offices was completely inadequate and unlawful.

Despite this time extension, we still have significant concerns about the way the consultation has been set up and the impact these proposals would have on the most vulnerable.

Station staff are essential if we want our railways to be accessible, safe and inclusive for everyone.

And while we’re on the topic of electoral rules, Josiah Mortimer has a good story at Byline Times. He says Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, quietly announced last week that the government would implement what could, in effect, amount to a 50% increase in the amount political parties can spend at a general election.

Gove announced the move in a written ministerial statement that was listed on the order paper as a “Cabinet Office departmental update”. The first item on the update was about Croydon council, but anyone who kept reading beyond that would have eventually found an item on “election finance regulation” saying spending limits are going to be updated in line with inflation.

Mortimer reports:

Michael Gove said the government would be increasing party spending limits at elections in line with inflation since 2009. Since 2009, prices have risen by 52% – suggesting a multi-million pound hike in what parties are able to spend during elections.

The government is also set to provide a similar increase in the amounts that people can donate to parties without having to identify themselves on the Electoral Commission website – with the minimum threshold for being published set to rise from ?7,500 to over ?11,000 …

However, the government is refusing to increase the amount that so-called “third parties” can spend during elections in line with inflation – instead keeping the current limit frozen.

This effectively penalises groups like trade unions and charities who sometimes campaign on policy issues during elections. It could amount to a 34% real-terms cut since 2009.

The Electoral Commission said this morning it has not been told yet exactly what the new spending limits will be. It has repeatedly called for some of the rules about political donations to be tightened, and it sounds sceptical about the need for a 50% increase in the amount parties can spend. One source said they were particularly interested in seeing what evidence the government can produce to show “that increasing spending limits for parties is necessary for voters and parties”.

However, the commission has welcomed the announcement from Gove – also in the written statement – that the rules will be clarified so they explicitly declare money spent on candidate security does not count as an election expense.

Under the current rules, parties can spend ?30,000 for every seat they are contesting in Great Britain. That would mean a party fighting every seat would be able to spend just under ?19m.

At the last general election the Conservatives spent ?16.5m and, for the first time, Labour (spending ?12m) was outspent by the Liberal Democrats (who spent ?14.4m). There are further details in this report.

And this chart shows spending by the political parties since limits on how much can be spent were introduced by the last Labour government.

The Labour’s party’s national policy forum report agreed at the weekend was not just significant for what it said about trans policy. (See 10.40am.) The document contained wording on electoral reform that campaigners who favour proportional representation is significant.

This issue is problematic for Labour. At the party conference last year there was an overwhelming vote in favour of PR. But Keir Starmer is not keen, and PR has not been adopted as policy.

However, the NPF document does criticise first past the post. It says:

The flaws in the current voting system are contributing to the distrust and alienation we see in politics, but there is no consensus for a new system. Any proposed change to our voting system must be carefully thought-through – it cannot be dictated by political leaders or forced upon the country from the top down.

In a news release, Compass, the leftwing group campaigning for more pluralism in politics, says that this is the first formal recognition in a Labour party document that first past the post is flawed. “While Labour’s statement doesn’t explicitly endorse any alternative voting system, this move does represent a step on the road towards PR,” Compass says.

Frances Foley, Compass’s deputy director, said:

Our outdated political system is incapable of delivering solutions to the huge problems we face, whether on climate, inequality or our crumbling public services …

With this recognition, the Labour party shows that it understands the problem; we now hope it can reach for the solution that its membership and the UK public already want.

Greg Hands, the Conservative party chair, has posted a message on Twitter describing Keir Starmer’s comments about Labour’s new trans policy as the latest “daily flip flop” from the Labour leader. Labelling Starmer as inconsistent has become one of the Conservative party’s key attack messages.

But Hands is wrong, in at least one respect. This U-turn was first disclosed by Labour in an article by Anneliese Dodds, the party chair, published by the Guardian on Monday.

Ministers are under fresh pressure to resolve the NHS pay row after junior doctors announced they will stage a four-day walkout next month that is likely to lead to thousands more cancelled operations, Andrew Gregory reports.

Dame Alison Rose has not just lost her job as chief executive of NatWest. This morning Downing Street has announced that, following her resignation, she is no longer a member of the PM’s business council. And Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has put out a statement saying that Grant Shapps, the energy secretary, has asked her to step down from her roles as co-chair of the energy efficiency taskforce and as a member of the net zero council.

Given that these jobs were linked to her being NatWest chair, these moves are not surprising.

But it is unusual for the government to proactively brief that someone is being “un-quangoed” in this way. Normally the news would only come out a few days later, when an FT journalist or someone finally remembered that she had these roles in the first place, and put in a call to see if she was still there.

The decision to boot Rose off these advisory bodies this quickly, and this publicly, is another sign that ministers are determined to line with the Nigel Farage camp on this issue. (See 9.40am.)

Nicky Campbell ended by asking if there was going to be a shadow cabinet reshuffle.

Keir Starmer sounded evasive, and said he would not be announcing anything about reshuffles live on air.

And that was the end of the Q&A.

Q: Did you really tell the shadow cabinet you don’t like tree huggers?

Starmer said he was talking to the shadow cabinet about a visit to Scunthorpe steel works. He was making the point about the workers there not being tree huggers, but being very committed to the shift to green energy.

Q: Do you think it is acceptable to roll back on your environment policies to win the election?

Starmer said he was not in favour of rolling back on any green policies. He had not done that, he said. He said he was committed to having green energy by 2030.

He said the government was “all over the place” on these issues.

He said he was committed to green policies because they would mean lower bills. And he said so many future jobs depended on these policies.

Campbell quotes from this tweet from Jeremy Corbyn yesterday.

Without bold action, the fires in southern Europe will become the new norm.

So will the fires, floods, droughts, smog and crop failures in the Global South that our media largely ignores.

Those who sneer at radical change are letting our planet die.

It’s time to fight back

Q: Is Corbyn right?

Starmer said he was not there to debate with Jeremy Corbyn. But he insisted his policies were radical.

Campbell reads out some questions on trans issues. What is a woman? What is your policy on trans rights? Why do we ask what is a woman, but not what is a man?

Q: Why did you announce the new policy in an article in the Guardian?

Starmer says a woman is an adult female?

He says there was a byelection last week. Then there was a national policy forum meeting. They agreed a range of policy. On trans, they had a chance to reflect on what happened in Scotland.

(Labour announced a new policy; it no longer favours self-recognition for trans people wanting to transition.)

Q: Scottish Labour does not agree with the new policy. It still supports self-ID.

Starmer says he does not agree with that. He wants to modernise the process of applying for a gender recognition certificate. But he wants to keep it a medical process.

And he believes in the importance of safe spaces for women.

Q: Are you saying trans women are a threat?

Starmer says it is more about having a space where biological women can feel safe.

Q: Why wouldn’t they be safe with trans women there?

Starmer says the Scottish prisoner case, Isla Bryson, illustrates why.

Q: Are you saying there are a lot of cases like that?

No, says Starmer, but he is saying safe spaces are important.

UPDATE: Starmer said:

Firstly, a woman is an adult female, so let’s clear that one up …

We don’t think that self-identification is the right way forward. We’ve reflected on what happened in Scotland …

We’ve set out that we want to modernise the process, get rid of some of the indignities in the process, keep it a medical process.

We’ve always said, I’ve continued to say, and Sunday, when we completed our policy forum, allowed us to be clear that there should be safe places, safe spaces, for women, particularly in relation to violence against women and girls.