Cabinet minister refuses to back Suella Braverman’s claim homelessness is ‘lifestyle choice’ – UK politics live | Politics

Treasury officials strongly advised Rishi Sunak to resist calls for a short, “circuit breaker” lockdown in the autumn of 2020, the Covid inquiry was told.

Clare Lombardelli, chief economic adviser at the Treasury, is giving evidence to the inquiry this morning and she has just been asked about this memo to Sunak urging him to “push back strongly on the circuit breaker proposal” on the grounds that its economic impact might be severe, and that it might last longer than the two or three weeks envisaged.

Lombardelli said it was the job of the Treasury to consider the economic aspects of this proposal. She said other departments would have been looking at issues like the health case for the policy, or the impact on schools.

In his Today programme interview Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was also asked about calls for the pro-Palestinian march planned for London on Saturday to be banned on the grounds that it will coincide with Armistice Day.

Hall said it would be for the police to decide if the march posed a risk. If they thought the risk was unacceptable, they should ask the Home Office office to agree to a banning order, he said.

He went on:

I think this is a difficult issue. I see no evidence that the organisers of the march are trying to target Remembrance Day, or the weekend, and my instinct, I think, must be that you should always err in favour of freedom of expression.

Hall said he also accepted there might be concerns about a terrorist threat. He went on:

So, if the march is going to go ahead, one would hope it’s going to be fairly well controlled, whether that’s by making a really strong break in terms of time (between events at the Cenotaph at 11am and the march) and starting it much later, perhaps, than was intended, and making sure that it’s perhaps better policed than earlier ones. So by all means, go ahead. But I can see the possibilities of disorder from a terrorist perspective.

In the Observer yesterday Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Mark Townsend reported that the government is drawing up plans “to broaden the definition of extremism to include anyone who ‘undermines’ the country’s institutions and its values”.

On the Today programme this morning Jonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was asked if he thought the government would be able to legislate for such a broad definition of extremism. He replied:

Assuming what is reported in the Observer is correct, I think the answer is no.

I don’t want to sneer, by the way, because there it’s legitimate to try and work out what might try and lead to terrorism conversation in the future.

But … from what’s reported, it’s insanely broad, it couldn’t possibly lead to an offence.

Asked about a proposal, backed in the past by Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, for a new offence of “hateful extremism” to be created, Hall said:

I think is impossible to craft an offence. You end up just capturing far too much behaviour that you don’t want to make a crime.

Claire Coutinho has admitted that the government’s plan to require annual oil and gas licensing in the North Sea would not necessarily keep bills down for British consumers.

The energy security and net zero secretary told BBC Breakfast:

It wouldn’t necessarily bring energy bills down, that’s not what we’re saying, but it would raise a significant amount of money that would help us, for example, fund public services, also fund transition into different forms of energy, for example, things like offshore wind and solar energy which more broadly and indirectly could help bring bills down.

In its news release announcing the proposed legislation the government does not claim that annual licensing on its own would bring down energy prices. But it does imply that, combined with other policies, it would. It says:

We are reducing our vulnerability to imports from hostile states, leaving us less exposed to unpredictable international forces. This will ensure we have a more secure and diverse energy system and as we make progress on renewables and new nuclear, our more robust energy mix will help to lower household bills in the long term.

Good morning. Legislating is at the heart of what government is all about, and tomorrow, in the king’s speech, Rishi Sunak and his team will set out their programme for what is almost certainly the final full session of parliament before the general election. But already there are signs that some of what’s in it is motivated not so much by governing priorities, but party politics. Sunak is looking for “wedge issues” where he can force Keir Starmer to oppose measures that might be popular with potential Labour voters. All governments do this a bit, although getting the monarch to participate might be considered bad form.

The best example is the announcement overnight that the king’s speech will require the North Sea Transition Authority to issue licences for oil and gas exploration every year. The NSTA can and does already hold regular licensing rounds anyway, but Sunak wants to set a trap for Labour, which says it will not issue new licences if it wins the election. Pippa Crerar has the story here. And these are from Ed Miliband, the shadow secretary for climate change and net zero.

This proposed Bill does nothing to lower energy bills, does nothing to deliver energy security and is a sign of a government that is bankrupt of any ideas.

We already have regular North Sea oil and gas licensing in Britain and it is precisely our dependence on fossil fuels that has led to the worst cost of living crisis in generations.

All this embarrassing stunt tells you is that Rishi Sunak is continuing with his retreat from net zero.

No wonder we see consternation from so many leading businesses, and even figures in his own party, who know he is undermining our energy security and damaging our economy.

At the weekend the Financial Times reported on another king’s speech proposal that would be overtly partisan when it said that Suella Braverman, the home secretary, wanted to include a proposal to stop charities distributing tents to homeless people in cities. Braverman then confirmed the story on X, and added to the provocation by describing homelessness as a “lifestyle choice”.

This time she may taken “wedge politics” a bit too far. Wedge issues work by opening up a split (‘driving a wedge’) between your opponents’ leadership and their supporter base. But Braverman may have put the wedge in the wrong place, because she has horrified some Tories.

At the weekend Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP who heads the all-party parliamentary group for ending homelessness, said Braverman should use “wiser words”. Last night Steve Brine, the Conservative MP who chairs the Commons health committee, went further, telling Radio 4’s Westminster Hour:

I utterly resist the line that sleeping rough is a lifestyle choice. I just think it was clumsy and it was crass.

And this morning Claire Coutinho, the energy security and net zero secretary, who was doing a media round to talk about oil and gas licensing, refused to back Braverman’s language. Asked if she agreed homelessness was a lifestyle choice, Coutinho replied:

I wouldn’t have used necessarily those words, but in my experience what you have is people often with very complex needs and sometimes they might refuse accommodation, and that’s often because they’ve got complicated problems in their lives – like I said, it might be addiction, it might be mental health issues.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10.30am: Clare Lombardelli, the former chief economic adviser to the Treasury, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry. Later in the morning Stuart Glassborow, deputy principal private secretary to Boris Johnson when he was PM, gives evidence.

Morning: Rishi Sunak is on a visit in Norfolk. He is due to record a clip for the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2pm: Ben Warner, a data specialist who worked closely with Dominic Cummings and who worked as a No 10 adviser during the pandemic, gives evidence to the Covid inquiry.

If you want to contact me, do try the “send us a message” feature. You’ll see it just below the byline – on the left of the screen, if you are reading on a laptop or a desktop. This is for people who want to message me directly. I find it very useful when people message to point out errors (even typos – no mistake is too small to correct). Often 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 in the comments below the line; privately (if you leave an email address and that seems more appropriate); or in the main blog, if I think it is a topic of wide interest.