Labour’s Rachel Reeves says Kwarteng in ‘dangerous state of denial’ over impact of mini-budget – UK politics live

Back in the Commons, Chris Philp, chief secretary to the Treasury, says reversing the national insurance rise will make working more attractive.

Steve Brine (Con), a former health minister, intervenes. He says one reason why people are not working is because they are ill. He says the national insurance increase was meant initially to enable the NHS to deal with the backlog build up during Covid. He asks Philp to assure him that, if he votes for this bill, funding for tackling that backlog won’t be affected.

Philp does give that assurance. He says:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Not a single penny less will go to social care, to the NHS, or to the elective programme [Brine] referred to [as as result of the bill].

Pressed on this point a second time, Philp says the entire health service budget will remain unchanged as a result of this bill.

Another MP says the government will be losing £17bn in revenue as a result. He asks how the health budget won’t be affected. Philp replies by saying this will addressed in the medium-term fiscal plan being published at the end of October.

That’s all from me for today. My colleague Harry Taylor is taking over now.

Alex Salmond, the former Scottish first minister, has criticised the Scottish government’s decision to go to the supreme court today to seek permission to hold an independence referendum. Salmond, who left the SNP over sexual misconduct claims and who now leads the nationalist Alba party, said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}They seem to be risking a great deal to gain comparatively little.

Let’s say that they win this case. They’re going to win it on a very narrow argument, that it’s within the competence of the Scottish parliament to have a referendum because it doesn’t matter, it’s not going to have any legal effect.

That would be the argument it was won on, in which case the opponent of independents would say, ‘it doesn’t matter, that’s what you said in court’.

Whereas if they lose it, in the words of the lord advocate, the matter is finally resolved. If we’re going to resolve the issue of Scottish independence, then the people who resolve it are the Scottish people, not the supreme court of the United Kingdom.

Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond’s successor as first minister, has said that if a referendum is not allowed, she will treat the next election as a de facto independence referendum. Salmond sounded sceptical about this too. He said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}If you’re going for the general election de facto referendum strategy then you have to make it special.

You can’t just roll up and fight as political parties because people will say it’s a normal election. You’d have to fight it on (a) Scotland United [ticket] or something like that.

You could fight an election with Scotland United SNP, Scotland United Greens and Scotland United Alba and then say: ‘This is clearly above political parties. This is just about the cause and case of Scottish independence.’

That might work. It would be difficult, but it might work.

In the Commons Chris Philp, the chief secretary to the Treasury, is opening the second reading debate on the health and social care levy (repeal) bill.

He says the government is focused on growth, and its growth plan is designed to achieve growth of 2.5% per year, he says.

He says this would benefit everyone – and not just in a supposed “trickle-down” way.

Labour is recording huge poll leads over the Conservatives on voting intention, but often the indicators that provide the best guide to electoral success are which party is best on the economy, and which party has the best leader.

On some measures, Labour is now well ahead on the economy. And new polling from YouGov suggests Keir Starmer is much better regarded than Liz Truss.

The government has not ruled out scrapping long-awaited reforms to protect private renters from so-called ‘no fault’ evictions, a manifesto pledge, PA Media reports. PA says:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Downing Street said that no decisions had been made on whether to pause a promised ban on section 21 notices, which allow landlords to evict a tenant without having to give a reason.

It comes amid reports the government could move to shelve the 2019 manifesto commitment.

The prime minister’s spokesperson said today that the government would ensure that renters’ rights were protected.

The spokesperson said “no decisions have been taken on any further policies” but the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) was looking at the issue.

Asked specifically whether Liz Truss thought it was right to scrap no-fault evictions, he added: “No decisions have been made. This is something the secretary of state is considering in terms of how to improve the rental market. Clearly, ensuring a fair deal for renters will always remain a priority for this government.”

Downing Street has confirmed that the government decision about whether or not to uprate benefits for 2023-24 in line with the inflation rate in September will be announced on 31 October, as part of the medium-term fiscal plan, as Kwasi Kwarteng implied in the Commons earlier. (See 3.20pm.)

Greg Clark has been elected unopposed as chair of the Commons science committee. He held the post until July, when he got a surprise reappointment to cabinet, as levelling up secretary, after Boris Johnson sacked Michael Gove in a fit of pique.

But tomorrow there will be an election to fill the vacant post of chair of the foreign affairs committee. Tom Tugendhat was chair, but is now security minister. Six Tories are standing: Liam Fox, Iain Duncan Smith, Alicia Kearns, Henry Smith, John Baron and Richard Graham.

Back to the Labour party internal reorganisation, and Gabriel Pogrund from the Sunday Times has revealed a new appointment.

And these are from my colleague Jessica Elgot on who’s winning the internal Labour power struggle.

Conservative and Labour peers have called for a “pause” of the passage of the Northern Ireland protocol bill through the House of Lords while negotiations are under way to find a political settlement to the Brexit row.

But Lord Cormack (Con), a parliamentarian for more than 50 years, told the house neither he nor Lady Chapman (Labour) would be seeking a vote tonight but would working on further arguments to pause the bill before it returns to committee stage on 25 October.

Cormack and Chapman both tabled amendments to the second reading motion calling for the bill to be paused. But the amendments will not be pushed to a vote, and the second reading is expected to go through on the nod – which is normal practice in the Lords.

Cormack said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}I do not think it is helpful to have a bill which is indeed an implied threat on the statute books while we continue those negotiations. I believe there should be a pause.

Chapman said the bill was an “abomination” but she did not seek to stop the bill as it had the support of MPs. However she added:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Ministers should at least report to the house on whether a pause on the passage of this bill would be beneficial to these new negotiations.

Back in the supreme court Dorothy Bain KC, the lord advocate, finished presenting her case on behalf of the Scottish government about half an hour ago. She was arguing 1) that the court should hear the case, even though the Scottish parliament has not passed its referendum bill; and 2) that a referendum would be lawful, even though the Scotland Act says constitutional matters like independence are reserved to Westminster, because the referendum would only be advisory, and would not by itself alter the constitution.

Here are some of the main points she made in a bit more detail.

• Bain rejected claims that the reference to the supreme court was premature. PA Media says:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Bain explained that it was necessary for a member of the Scottish government when introducing a bill to make a statement over whether it is within legislative competence, and that it was “natural and obvious” that law officers such as herself to provide advice on that issue.

• She said that through the Scotland Act the UK parliament had intended the supreme court to be “capable of determining issues of law”, arguing that the lord advocate “should not be put in the position of ultimate arbiter”.

• She said that holding a referendum was “not a reserved matter”. Nobody disputed that the Referendums (Scotland) Act 2020, which set out provisions for the conduct and regulation of referendums, was within Holyrood’s legislative competence, she said.

• She said the referendum would not by itself have any constutional effect because it would be ‘entirely advisory’. She said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}No provision is made for the effect of any result of the referendum. That is, the referendum is not self-executing. It simply produces a result. So, no legal consequences automatically or necessarily flow from any result.

And she also said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}A non self-executing referendum invariably has political consequences, but in law, it has no effect. They are entirely advisory.

• She said that the “political” effect of a referendum was irrelevant to the matter in hand. She said:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}Ultimately, when it comes to determining the purpose of the provision [of legislation], and its legal effect, the political fallout of that is irrelevant for this court. Yes, we could say that it will have a political effect.

But Bain said the court was “deciding a question of law” in respect of which it did not “take account of the political effect of any vote that would arise from Scotland”.

• She said the Scottish parliament has debated and passed motions on matters reserved to Westminster before.

Commenting on the responses of the supreme court judges to Bain’s speech, Adam Tomkins, a constitutional law professor and a former Tory MSP, said they seemed more interested in the debate about whether they should be hearing the case in the first place than in the argument about whether the bill was lawful under the Scotland Act.

Boris Johnson has established a private company to support him as a former prime minister, PA Media reports. PA says:

.css-knbk2a{height:1em;width:1.5em;margin-right:3px;vertical-align:baseline;fill:#C70000;}The Office of Boris Johnson Limited was incorporated on Companies House on Monday, with the ex-Tory leader listed under his full name of Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson.

A spokesperson for Johnson said: ‘The Office of Boris Johnson Limited will support Boris Johnson’s private office in line with similar structures established by former prime ministers.’

The private limited company will not undertake commercial activities and will solely support him as a private office in his function as a former prime minister, a source told PA.

Kwarteng says the levelling up secretary, Simon Clarke, will give a statement to MPs about how the investment zones plan will work.

And that’s it. Treasury questions is over.

The contributions from Tory MPs were a lot more sceptical than they normally are on these occasions, but none of them really monstered the chancellor. Given the circumstances, he may feel he got off relatively lightly.

Steve Brine (Con) asks for an assurance that the fiscal plan will contribute to market confidence.

“It will be relentlessly upbeat,” says Kwarteng. “There will be an absolutely iron commitment to fiscal responsibility.”

Sarah Olney (Lib Dem) says Kwarteng was warned that unfunded tax cuts would push up mortgage rates. What is he going to do about this? “It is not acceptable that his incompetence is risking people’s livelihoods,” she says.

Kwarteng says it was right to help people with energy costs.

Mark Harper, the former Tory chief whip, asks about the IFS report out this morning says the mini-budget plans would require cuts of £60bn. (See 9.10am.) He asks Kwarteng to say why he disagrees with this, assuming he does.

Kwarteng declines, saying it would be wrong to “pre-judge” what will be in the fiscal plan at the end of the month.