No 10 defends giving above-inflation rise to pensioners but not to public sector workers At the Downing Street lobby briefing the prime minister’s spokesperson was asked to explain why the government was opposing above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers, on the grounds they would be inflationary, while approving an above-inflation increase in the value of the state pension for next year. (See 12.35pm.) The spokesperson said the government thought the pension increase would no be inflationary. Referring to public sector pay, he said: The view is that if we were to chase inflation in this way, by matching all demands on public sector pay, some of which would involve matching inflation and adding additional on top of that, that would be inflationary, and that’s what in the long term would actually make people feel like they had less money going forward. Asked why raising the value of the state pension for 2023-24 by more than the likely rate of inflation for that year was not inflationary, he replied: The chancellor needs to consider it all in the round and the view is that we can meet that commitment without stoking those inflationary pressures. But we did take difficult decisions with regards to the triple lock, a temporary one-year suspension. Ben Riley-Smith from the Telegraph says the Downing Street arguments about pay and inflation now make little sense. Afternoon summary The RMT has said it will resume talks with rail management tomorrow. But commuters face certain disruption again on Thursday, when the next national strike is scheduled, because of the extent to which services and timetables have already been upended. There is full coverage of today’s strike - the biggest for more than 30 years - and its impact in our rail strikes live blog. Boris Johnson has signalled that the government is not minded to give in to the RMT’s demands, telling cabinet that the country must be ready to “stay the course” because reforms to the rail network are essential. (See 10.14am.) Downing Street has defended its decision to oppose above-inflation pay rises for public sector workers while approving what is likely to be an above-inflation increase in the value of the state pension for next year. (See 12.51pm.) Keir Starmer is on a collision course with the left wing of his party over strike action, after at least three junior frontbenchers defied his instructions and joined RMT union picket lines on Tuesday morning. Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, has tolds MPs that Boris Johnson “intends to appoint a new ethics adviser”. But the evasive tone he adopted, when questioned in a Commons debate, left MPs sceptical about the value of his assurance. (See 5.21pm.) Later tonight MPs will vote on a Labour proposal for a Commons committee to appoint its own adviser to do this job if Johnson does not within two months choose someone to replace Lord Geidt, who resigned as ethics adviser because of Johnson’s lack of respect for the ministerial code. Annual pay growth stalled at 4% in May, leaving most workers with a rise in earnings worth less than half the 9% increase in prices. New rules that will allow Ukrainian children to come to Britain alone are expected to be announced this week. More than half of Britons think rail strikes wholly or partly justified, poll suggests And the Labour frontbenchers who are have been on an RMT picket line (in defiance of an order from Keir Starmer) may well be lined up with public opinion. According to new polling from Savanta ComRes, more than half of voters think the rail strikes are absolutely justified (20%) or somewhat justified (38%). Commenting on the poll, Chris Hopkins, head of political research at the polling firm, said: Much has been made of whether or not the public support these strikes, and our polling, that included an explanation of the dispute rather than an uninformed test of perceptions, shows a majority finding justification in the decision of rail workers to strike, along with general support for the principle of workers striking. Tom Larkin, the spreadsheet supremo at Sky News, has started a tally of Labour frontbenchers expressing explicit backing for the rail strikes. He counts five shadow ministers or PPSs who have been on an RMT picket line. Cabinet Office minister"s repeated evasions cast doubt on PM"s commitment to appointing new ethics adviser At the end of his speech Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, eventually said Boris Johnson would appoint an ethics adviser to replace Lord Geidt. But he spent so long dodging the question that, when a quasi-commitment finally did come, it sounded pretty worthless. Sir Robert Buckland, the Conservative former justice secretary, asked for an assurance that Boris Johnson would appoint a replacement for Lord Geidt as the No 10 ethics adviser (or independent adviser on ministers’ interests, to give him his formal title) “as soon as practical”. Ellis said the matter was being given “very careful consideration”. This prompted a worried intervention from John Penrose, who resigned over Partygate from his post as the government’s anti-corruption champion. He said Tory MPs had been given, before the debate started, an assurance that the minister would make a “strong commitment” to replacing Geidt. But Ellis had not done that, he said. He asked Ellis to give that assurance. Ellis said he thought he had been clear. It was the government’s intention to “act quickly”, he said. Joanna Cherry (SNP) said Ellis was still not being clear. Did he mean the government was going to act quickly to review how the system work, or act quickly to appoint a replacement adviser? Ellis said “the position will be dealt with in good time”. But the how and when were still being worked on. This reply seemed to make Ellis’s position even worse and Simon Hoare, the Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland affairs committee, told him: “This issue of ethics is proving to be a bit of an Achilles heel with the government.” It was in the government’s interests to replace Lord Geidt. Saying that he still was not clear what Ellis meant, he asked again for an assurance that a replacement would be appointed quickly. In reply, Ellis gave an answer that turned evasion into an art form. He said: Whether it be the phrase ‘as soon as reasonably practicable’, ‘as soon as possible’, I think is immaterial. I think I’ve made clear. I’m trying to emphasise - the how and when are to be worked out. The government will act with every possible expedition. It was Karin Smyth, a Labour member of the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, who finally got an answer of sorts. She asked if the PM would be appointing a new adviser. Ellis replied: The PM intends to appoint a new ethics adviser. We will announce how that is to be done, and who it is and how it works, in due course. That sounded like a proper answer - although an intention to do something is not the same as a commitment to doing it. The SNP’s spokesperson on Commons matters, Pete Wishart, opened his speech by saying he thought it was obvious from Ellis’s evasions that Johnson had “no intention” of moving quickly to replace Geidt. If Tory MPs were “taken in by this rubbish, God help them”, he said. Ellis indicated that Tory MPs would be voting against the Labour motion. On the basis of these exchanges, it feels like some Conservatives may decide to abstain. Ellis says Boris Johnson wants to have time to consider how the independent adviser system operates before deciding whether to replace Lord Geidt. He also claims the Labour proposal is muddled. It confuses the legislature and the executive, because it wants to allow the legislature (a select committee) to appoint an adviser who would be serving the PM. Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Lab) says Ellis has misunderstood the motion. The motion says the new adviser would be advising the public administration and constitutional affairs committee, not the PM, he says. Ellis says it is clear what the intention of the motion is. Sarah Owen (Lab) intervened to say that the first role of a new ethics adviser should be to “get the prime minister to find some ethics in the first place”. Referring to the recent story about Boris Johnson considering making his wife Carrie his chief of staff at the Foreign Office when he was still married and they were having an affair, Peacock said this wasn’t the first time he had wanted to spend public money on a girlfriend. It happened when he was mayor of London, she said. Ellis said he would not dignify that with a response. UPDATE: Originally this post said Stephanie Peacock asked the question, but I’ve corrected it because it was Sarah Owen. Minister says Labour"s plan to ensure new ministerial ethics adviser appointed "entirely impractical" Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, is responding to Rayner. He says the government wants to uphold standards in public life. But it cannot support the Labour motion because it would be unconstitutional, he says. If it were passed, it could lead to a Labour chair of the Commons public administration and constitutional affairs committee choosing the ministerial code adviser for a Conservative PM – or vice versa. He said that would be “entirely impractical” and could lead to “gridlock”. Rayner said that, when Lord Geidt resigned, Michael Ellis, the Cabinet Office minister, made a point of saying how much his work had been valued. But she suggested that the government’s true view of Geidt was revealed when Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, had taken to the airwaves to “mock and belittle him”. She was referring to Dorries telling LBC yesterday: You call him Lord Geidt. I think the rest of the country had never even heard his name before and used to call him Lord Geddit. I don’t think they give a fig who replaces him or even who he was, or what he did. Rayner ended her opening speech saying: If the prime minister won’t appoint an ethics adviser, we must do so. Rayner launches Commons bid to ensure PM cannot abolish post of ministerial ethics adviser In the Commons Angela Rayner, the Labour deputy leader, has just opened the debate on the opposition motion intended to bounce Boris Johnson into appointing a new ethics adviser for No 10 to replace Lord Geidt. My colleague Aubrey Allegretti wrote about the strategy here. The Labour motion is not just declaratory; it proposes a change to the Commons standing orders, with an inclusion saying: Following any two month period in which the role of independent adviser to the prime minister on ministers’ interests remains unfilled, the public administration and constitutional affairs committee shall appoint a specialist adviser, entitled the adviser on ministers’ interests, whose role shall be to advise the committee on the effectiveness of the ministerial code and on any potential breaches of that code. Rayner said that Boris Johnson had now driven two independent advisers on ministerial interests to resign. Under Johnson, more rule breaking was inevitable, she said. To this prime minister, ethics is a country east of London. Rayner said she was concerned that Geidt would not be replaced. No 10 has already said that this might happen. Jeremy Wright (Con) said that in the past he had backed Rayner when she called for the implementation of recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, on which he sits. The committee said the independent adviser should have the power to initiate their own investigations. But Wright said the proposal from Rayner today was not in line with what the committee wanted, because the committee thought the ministerial code should be the property of the PM, not a select committee. Rayner said she would like to see the committee’s recommendations implemented in full. But she said that had not happened, which was why she favoured this approach. In Wales Mark Drakeford, the Labour first minister, has not told his frontbenchers they must avoid RMT picket lines, the BBC reports. At first minister’s questions Drakeford said: No inhibition exists on members of my group demonstrating their support for the trade union movement. But Drakeford acknowledged the Keir Starmer, the UK party leader, was in a different position because the Conservatives wanted to depict him as likely to return the country “to days which have been left far behind”. The Scottish Greens have been fined £2,300 for missing a deadline for filing their annual accounts for 2020, and blamed a third party for the delay. Louise Edwards, the Electoral Commission’s director of regulation, said: It is important for transparency that voters have timely and accurate information about political parties’ finances. The requirements are clear, so it is always disappointing when they are not met. A Scottish Green party spokesperson admitted the breach. “We regret that due to documentation from a third party being received late, our statement of accounts for 2020 was not submitted on time. Our accounts received a clean audit and we are confident the problem will not reoccur.” The commission also fined Kingston Independent Residents Group, a registered political party based in New Malden, Kingston on Thames, £200 for the late delivery of its annual accounts. Levelling up bill "substantially erodes public participation in planning system", say MPs The Commons levelling up committee has written to Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, to express concerns that his levelling up and regeneration bill “radically centralises planning decision-making and substantially erodes public participation in the planning system”. Writing on behalf of the committee, which has a Conservative majoriy, Clive Betts (Lab), the chair, said in his letter: The bill represents a significant change to the existing planning system. It undermines an important planning principle, the primacy of the development plan, by elevating national development management policies to the top of the planning hierarchy. Unlike development plans, which are produced locally via a statutory process that involves considerable public participation, the bill contains no obligation to allow the public to participate in the development of national development management policies ... The bill introduces a new mechanism to allow the secretary of state to grant planning permission for controversial developments, bypassing the planning system entirely. There is no right for the public to be consulted as part of this process. Overall, in our view the bill radically centralises planning decision-making and substantially erodes public participation in the planning system.