Rishi Sunak says pro-Palestine march on Saturday is ‘proof of UK’s commitment to freedom’ – as it happened

• Rishi Sunak has conceded that a major pro-Palestine march will go ahead on Armistice Day, after he held an emergency meeting with the head of the Metropolitan police.

• Mark Sedwill, the UK’s most senior civil servant at the start of Covid, viewed Boris Johnson’s government as “brutal and useless” and did not trust Matt Hancock, then health secretary, to be truthful, the inquiry into the pandemic has been told.

• The RMT union has reached a possible deal with train operators to resolve their long-running national rail dispute, allaying fears of a repeat of last year’s Christmas strikes.

View image in fullscreen

The prime minister’s wife Akshata Murty has met a group of Chelsea Pensioners in Downing Street where she hosted a reception ahead of Armistice Day, PA Media reports. PA says the group, which also included minister for veterans’ affairs Johnny Mercer, posed outside No 10 wearing Royal British Legion (RBL) poppies.

View image in fullscreen

8 Nov 202312.44 EST

Ben Quinn

Conservative MPs who had been lobbying for this Saturday’s pro-Palestinian march not to go ahead would have preferred if the police had taken a different view but they accept Scotland Yard’s decision and its operational independence, according to one of the MPs behind the desecration of war memorials bill.

James Sunderland, the MP for Bracknell and a former colonel in the army who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, said:

The important thing is that we must not create a situation that could lead to further instability on the streets.

I would have wanted to see the protest march not authorised on Saturday and I also believe that it would have benefited the organisers’ cause if they had taken a decision not go ahead at the weekend.

It was a matter of the timing – I have no problem with lawful protest marches in London – but there have been questions about the unintended consequences of this and the combination of factors. We’ve had the Just Stop Oil nonsense during the week and there is also the talk of far right groups coming out this weekend.

The desecretion of war memorials bill started as a backbench measure, but was incorporated within government legislation. It increases the penalty for the vandalism of war memorials.

Rishi Sunak has issued a statement following his meeting today with Sir Mark Rowley, commissioner of the Metropolitan police to discuss the pro-Palestinian march scheduled for Saturday

This morning Sunak said he wanted to “hold [Rowley] accountable” for his decision to rule that he has no legal grounds for initiating the process that would lead to the march being blocked. The Met would not have the final say, because under the law it would have had to ask the Home Office for permission to issue a banning order. But Suella Braverman, the home secretary, has been strongly hinting for days that she wants the march banned.

Sunak also said this morning that he found the prospect of the march going ahead on Saturday, Armistice Day, “disrespectful” because of the events going on at the Cenotaph to commemorate the anniversary of the moment the first world war ended.

But in his statement this afternoon Sunak adopts a different tone. He seems to have abandoned any hope of getting Rowley to rethink his decision (if that was his intention).

More significantly, Sunak is now saying that allowing the march to go ahead is a sign of the nation’s commitment to freedom – the value celebrated on Armistice Day, as people remember why people gave their lives fighting for their country. This is not an argument that Braverman, or anyone else in government, has been making in recent days.

In his statement Sunak says:

This weekend people around the UK will come together in quiet reflection to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice for this country. It is not hyperbole to say that we are the beneficiaries of an inheritance born of their sacrifice.

It is because that sacrifice is so immense, that Saturday’s planned protest is not just disrespectful but offends our heartfelt gratitude to the memory of those who gave so much so that we may live in freedom and peace today.

But part of that freedom is the right to peacefully protest. And the test of that freedom is whether our commitment to it can survive the discomfort and frustration of those who seek to use it, even if we disagree with them. We will meet that test and remain true to our principles.

Sunak also says he was reassured to hear the pro-Palestinian march would not clash with the events at the Cenotaph. He says:

This afternoon I asked the Metropolitan police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, to come to Downing Street and provide reassurances that the police are taking every step necessary to safeguard Remembrance services, provide reassurance to those who wish to pay their respects across the country and keep the public safe from disorder this weekend.

It’s welcome that the police have confirmed that the march will be away from the Cenotaph and they will ensure that the timings do not conflict with any Remembrance events. There remains the risk of those who seek to divide society using this weekend as a platform to do so. That is what I discussed with the Metropolitan police commissioner in our meeting. The commissioner has committed to keep the Met police’s posture under constant review based on the latest intelligence about the nature of the protests.

And finally, to our veterans and their families, I assure you that we will do everything it takes to protect this special weekend for you and our country, as we come together to reflect on those who protected our freedom.

In fact, the Palestine Solidary Campaign was making it clear last week that it had no intention of taking its march anywhere near the Cenotaph, and that it would not be starting until almost two hours after the silence at 11am.

My colleague John Crace has been reading Nadine Dorries’ new book about the downfall of Boris Johnson, entitled The Plot – or [Lost] The Plot, as they’re calling it in Westminster – so the rest of us don’t have to. Here is his digested read.

The RMT union has reached a possible deal with train operators to resolve their long-running national rail dispute, allaying fears of a repeat of last year’s Christmas strikes, Gwyn Topham reports.

During the Covid inquiry session with Mark Sedwill, counsel for the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC, seemed more reluctant than usual to have some of the documents he was referring to presented on the screen. They seemed to be particularly coy about this one, which was only shown very briefly. It shows Sedwill, in an exchange with Simon Case, his successor as cabinet secretary, describing Matt Hancock on 19 June 2020 as “so far up BJ’s [Boris Johnson’s] arse his ankles are brown”.

The BBC’s Peter Saull got a screenshot.

Nickie Aiken has become the latest Conservative MP to criticise Suella Braverman, the home secretary, for calling homelessness a “lifestyle choice” at the weekend and proposing a ban on charities distributing tents to rough sleepers. Aiken told Radio 5 Live:

Having been responsible for rough sleeping policy in Westminster when I was a city councillor, I have met scores of rough sleepers over the years and I can’t recall one of them telling me it was a lifestyle choice.

I would say that her language is wrong and I would say it’s not about tents. It’s not about the tents – let’s move away from the tents and think about the people inside those tents.

The UK has imposed new sanctions on 29 individuals and entities operating in and supporting Russia’s gold and oil sectors, the Foreign Office has announced. James Cleverly, the foreign secretary, said the UK was determined to keep “tightening the screws on Moscow” following its illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Keir Starmer has criticised Rishi Sunak for saying this morning that he wanted to hold the Metropolitan police “accountable” for its decision to allow the pro-Palestinian march in London to go ahead on Saturday, Armistice Day. In a message on X, Starmer said Sunak should be holding Suella Braverman, the home secretary, to account instead for “picking a fight with the police”.

Remembrance events must be respected. Full stop.

But the person the PM needs to hold accountable is his Home Secretary. Picking a fight with the police instead of working with them is cowardice.

The Tories put party before country. Labour will deliver the change Britain needs.

Keith referred to an extract from Boris Johnson’s witness statement to the inquiry in which Johnson said he never had any concerns about any cabinet minister, including Matt Hancock. Johnson said:

I did not have any concerns regarding the performance of any cabinet minister including Matt Hancock. I do not think that I received any advice from Sir Mark Sedwill that Matt should be removed.

Sedwill said he did not provide any formal advice to Johnson to sack Hancock. But he said Johnson “would have been under no illusions as to my view about what was best”.

Keith asks about the conversation Sedwill had with Boris Johnson in May 2020 where Sedwill agreed to move on later that year.

Q: Did that conversation affect the stability of the civil service?

Sedwill says there was a discussion at that meeting, but Sedwill says he did not decide to leave until early June.

He says the departure of a cabinet secretary would inevitably be destabilising.

Some colleagues urged him to stay on, he says.

But he says the “constant, destabilising attacks” on him and the position of cabinet secretary were damaging. He says this pre-dated Johnson, but got worse when Johnson was PM.

For example, there was a false claim that Sedwill wanted to delay Brexit.

Sedwill says: “There is only so much lightning a lightning conductor can take.”

He says he thought it would be better to have a new cabinet secretary, because someone appointed by them would not be subject to those attacks.

Keith is asking now about Hancock, and he cites comments from Sedwill in his private messages disparaging the health secretary.

Sedwill says there was a problem with Hancock. He says he urged Boris Johnson to consider moving him.

Q: You said Johnson should sack him?

Sedwill said he used that phrase in a message to Simon Case, but not when talking to Johnson directly.

Keith says the message said they should sack Hancock “to save lives and protect the NHS”.

Sedwill says this was “gallows humour”. (It is a joke about the the government’s Covid slogan, ‘Stay home, protect the NHS, save lives.’)

Keith asks about Boris Johnson. Lee Cain, his communications director, said this was the wrong crisis for his skill set. Dominic Cummings also criticised Johnson’s decision-making abilities.

Sedwill says he recognises these opinions, but would not put it like that.

He says his job was to build around any PM a set of mechanisms to allow them to make decisions.

Part of my job was to build around any prime minister a mechanism or a set of mechanisms that enabled them to make decisions, and then those decisions to be enacted effectively.

It would not have been responsible to stop trying to find a way of working with the PM, he says.

Keith says he is not saying Sedwill should have done that.

Sedwill says at some points Johnson would be gung-ho, and at other points he would be reasonable and take decisions. It was a “dialectic” approach. He says this was exhausting, but Sedwill says he sought to make allowance for this.

Q: These complaints continued. Doesn’t that show that your attempts to build a system to manage this failed?

Sedwill says he does not accept that. He says the complaints relate to how Johnson took decisions. He could not change that. But he wanted to create a system that allowed decisions taken this way to be implemented. He tried to ensure that, whatever was happening in the inner circle, cabinet ministers were involved in them.

Keith quotes an extract from Sir Patrick Vallance’s diary, from August 2020, where Vallance quoted Sedwill as saying: “This administration is brutal and useless.”

Sedwill says he does not remember making the comment, but says he does not doubt the accuracy of what Vallance said.

I can’t actually recall what might have prompted it but … I don’t doubt Sir Patrick’s memory. It must have been a moment of acute frustration with something.

Keith quotes from another exchange, where Simon Case, Sedwill’s successor, described the PM and his associates as “feral”. Case said:

It is like taming wild animals. Nothing in my past experience has prepared me for this madness. The PM and the people he chooses to surround himself with are basically feral.

Sedwill agreed, saying: “I have the bite marks.”

This is from the FT’s Laura Hughes.

Q: Who were you talking about?

Sedwill says there was sometimes “gallows humour” in these circumstances.

Q: This culture was having an impact on how decisions were taken.

Sedwill says it was a very stressful period. But, on the really big decisions, he suggests the right decisions were taken at the right time. Other administrations came to similar decisions within the same timescale.

Keith is now asking about Dominic Cummings’ criticisms of the Cabinet Office. He describe it as a “dumpster fire”.

Sedwill says some of what Cummings said was fair, but most of it wasn’t.

The Covid inquiry is back from lunch and Hugo Keith KC is still questioning Mark Sedwill, the former cabinet secretary.

Keith asks about an exchange that Sedwill had with Simon Case, who succeeded him as cabinet secretary, where Case said the legitimacy of the government had been eroded.

Sedwill says he thinks that is a reference to Dominic Cummings going to Barnard Castle.

He says he was particularly concerned about the response of Matt Hancock, the health secretary, and Suella Braverman, the attorney general. (Hancock and Braverman both issued statements supporting Cummings, which implied they were prejudging any decision about whether he broke lockdown rules.)

Keith points out that in the same exchange, Sedwill questions whether Matt Hancock, the health secretary, can be trusted.

Sedwill accepts this was an issue. He says his deputy, Helen MacNamara, covered this in her evidence to the inquiry this last week.

Sedwill also says the CW in this exchange probably refers to Chris Wormald, the permanent secretary at the Department of Health, and not Chris Whitty.

UPDATE: Keith said:

The process by which Mr Hancock’s truthfulness, or candour, or lack of candour or general approach, however one describes it … was not an issue that was confined to perhaps one or two individuals, notably Mr Cummings … There was a general issue surrounding Mr Hancock. Is that a fair summary?

And Sedwill replied:

Yes and you heard from Helen MacNamara on that last week.

This is from the Times’ Chris Smyth.

View image in fullscreen

Yesterday, in a video released on social media, Rishi Sunak claimed “debt is falling”.

But it’s not. As Ben Zaranko, an economist from the Institute for Fiscal Studies thinktank, told Bloomberg:

Public sector debt is currently rising in cash terms, real terms, and, most importantly, as a percent of national income.

Sunak may have been referring to a forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility saying public sector debt should be falling towards the end of the decade.

Labour said the error showed Sunak had “no grip on reality”. In a statement Darren Jones, the shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, said:

The prime minister appears to have no grip on the reality of 13 years of Tory economic failure.

Rishi Sunak promised to cut debt, but the national debt has hit record levels, surpassing £2tn for the first time ever.

Labour will introduce tough new fiscal rules to build a rock of economic stability, never playing fast and loose with the economy.

8 Nov 202308.23 EST

Tory peer Nicholas Soames backs Met's decision to allow pro-Palestinian march and urges PM not to play politics with issue

Rajeev Syal

Nicholas Soames, the Tory peer and grandson of Winston Churchill, has said that Rishi Sunak’s government should be “very careful” about “playing politics” with fundamental British freedoms.

Referring to government moves to stop the pro-Palestinian march going ahead in London on Saturday, Soames told the Guardian:

The government needs to proceed extremely carefully in this matter. Tens of millions of people died in two world wars so that British people have the right and freedom to express their beliefs. You cannot just decide that this is not the case and put the head of the Met under this kind of pressure.

If the Met chief, who I have a great deal of time for, says there is no good reason to ban the march, there is no good reason for banning the march. Most of the people who plan to attend the march have a point to make and plan to do so peacefully. If a small number of people cause trouble, the police can deal with it,

The government needs to be very careful to make sure they do not look as if they are playing politics. They need to be very careful that this is not some sort of gimmick. Operational matters are for the commissioner. It is his judgment that should count and I would caution the government to be very cautious about eroding freedoms.

View image in fullscreen