Liz Truss rejects claims from Tories that privileges committee inquiry into Johnson won’t be fair – UK politics live

Downing Street has refused to endorse Tory claims that the privileges committee investigating claims Boris Johnson lied to parliament about Partygate will function as a “kangaroo court”. (See 9.35am.)

Asked if Boris Johnson saw the committee like that, a No 10 spokeperson said Johnson would not use that language. The spokesperson also endorsed what Liz Truss said this morning about trusting the committee to conduct the investigation fairly. He said:

I think the foreign secretary was asked about this this morning and she was clear that we trust the committee to take its responsibilities seriously.

Asked if Johnson had any concerns about the committee appointing Harriet Harman, the former Labour deputy leader, as its chair, the spokeperson said that was “entirely a matter for the committee”.

Some Tories, including the Cabinet Office minister Michael Ellis, have questioned whether Harman can be an impartial chair because of past comments on Twitter about the case.

Three tweets were highlighted in a report by the Daily Telegraph last month. The most awkward was one posted in April where she reposted a tweet from Alastair Campbell, the former Tony Blair communications chief, saying: “They broke their own emergency laws. They lied.” Harman appeared to endorse this with a comment saying these were “laws to save lives that they broke”.

In a second tweet Harman posted polling figures on the proportion of people who think Johnson lied about Partygate, and queried why more people thought he lied about Partygate than thought he should resign over Partygate. Arguably this just shows Harman’s adherence to the ministerial code, which says ministers who lie to parliament should resign.

And in a third tweet, posted in response to the news that Johnson and Rishi Sunak were fined over Partygate, Harman said this amounted to an admission they misled parliament. But it is accepted that Johnson did mislead MPs when he said the rules were followed at all times. What the privileges committe has to establish is whether Johnson misled MPs intentionally.

The government’s bill of rights bill, which would repeal the Human Rights Act (HRA) and replace it with similar human rights legislation giving British judges more scope to diverge from European court of human rights rulings, could weaken human rights across Europe, MPs and peers claim.

The joint committee on human rights, which includes members from the Commons and the Lords, made the point in a long letter to Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, raising numerous concerns with the bill.

The bill was only published last week. But most of the proposals it contained featured in a government consultation document published at the end of 2021, and they were reviewed in detail by the committee in a report published earlier this year.

In her letter, Joanna Cherry (SNP), the acting chair, said the main concern of the committee was that the bill would “weaken the protection of human rights in the UK”. She went on:

The serious implications of the government’s proposals on the international plane were recently highlighted to the committee during a visit to the institutions of the Council of Europe, including the ECHR [European court of human rights], in Strasbourg. It was emphasised to us that the HRA is viewed internationally as a gold standard and a model example of how human rights can be effectively embedded into domestic law and practice. Any weakening of the mechanisms in the HRA could damage the UK’s reputation internationally and weaken the government’s position when seeking to ensure other states uphold their human rights obligations.

Moreover, we were left in no doubt that the UK’s status as a leading member of the Council of Europe and one of the founders of the ECHR [European convention on human rights] means that any reforms to the HRA that suggest we are wavering in our commitment to the convention’s protections could be a green light for other, less committed nations to weaken their own human rights protections. This would be seriously damaging to the protection of human rights across Europe at a time when Russia has already shown contempt for the principles of the Council of Europe by invading Ukraine, resulting in its expulsion from the organisation. The committee urge the government to think carefully before proceeding with a Bill that could have such undesirable international ramifications.

53% of Scots do not favour holding independence referendum next year, poll suggests

Libby Brooks

New polling has found that a majority of Scots (53%) do not think there should be an independence referendum in October next year, with just 40% backing the idea.

The polling for the Scotsman was carried out by Savanta ComRes between 23 and 28 June – Sturgeon announced the proposed referendum date of 19 October 2023 on 28 June.

It also found that 41% opposed holding a referendum without the relevant powers being granted by the UK government through a section 30 order, with 37% in favour – which is the route proposed by Sturgeon on Tuesday when she announced that the supreme court has been asked to rule on the legality of such a vote.

The polling suggests that Sturgeon and the SNP will face a significant challenge in the coming months not only in persuading voters to accept their timetable, but also in shifting support for the question being asked: should Scotland be an independent country?

The Scotsman polling put support for no at 51% and yes at 49%, once undecideds are removed.

Meanwhile, a YouGov survey for the pro-union group Scotland in Union this morning found around one-third of people in Scotland support the plan for a second referendum next year, and only one-fifth chose a referendum as one of the most important issues that the Scottish government should prioritise over the next two years.

Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, has said western countries should provide more support to Taiwan so that it can defend itself against a possible attack by China.

In interviews this morning, she said the west must “learn the lessons from Ukraine” and ensure sovereign nations “have the capabilities that they need”.

She told Times Radio:

The fact is Ukraine wasn’t in a good enough position to defend itself, that made it a target for Russia. That’s what we, as a free world, need to do is make sure that Taiwan has the ability to defend itself, that we continue to maintain peace in the Taiwan Strait.

These are things that we’re discussing with our allies and working on with our allies.

Asked if this meant providing arms, Truss said:

There are different ways of doing that, and Finland and Sweden have joined Nato as a way of making sure that they are defended. Ultimately, it is making sure that those countries have the capabilities that they need.

Figures out today show that UK household incomes have now fallen on average in real terms for the fourth quarter in a row. Incomes have gone up, but inflation has risen even more, which is why in real terms they have been cut.

This is the longest sustained fall in household disposable income since the 1950s, when this sort of data first became available, Bloomberg says.

My colleague Graeme Wearden has more details on his business live blog.

Boris Johnson has floated the prospect of food tariffs being reduced to help people with the cost of living.

Speaking to reporters accompanying him on his trip to the Nato summit, he said there was a “new impetus” around the world to cut food tariffs.

Asked if the cost-of-living crisis is going to get worse before it gets better, Johnson said:

I wouldn’t want to put it in exactly that way. But what I would say is that it is going to continue to be an issue for a while. But I do think that we will find solutions.

He went on to say cutting tariffs had been discussed at the G7 summit.

Look at the things we’re doing already to get food supplies going. Very interestingly at the G7, there’s a new impetus to cut food tariffs – [there is] $750bn [$617bn] worth of food tariffs around the world.

Biden is now going to cut $178bn dollars [£146bn] worth. That would be a good thing – including on pet food, by the way. We’ve got food tariffs we don’t need.

Asked for examples, Johnson said: “Do we in the UK need to have tariffs on oranges? We don’t grow many bananas in the UK, I don’t think.”

This is not the first time Johnson has publicly floated the case for cutting food tariffs. In his recent speech on housing, he said he could not see the case for the UK having tariffs on olive oil imports, for example, because there is no domestic olive oil industry that needs protecting.

Good morning. Boris Johnson will be holding a press conference later at the end of the Nato conference and although he has been preoccupied in recent days with a war in Europe and the threat posed by Russia to UK security – this morning he has announced £1bn in extra military aid for Ukraine – there is no escaping Partygate. Yesterday the Commons privileges committee held its first meeting to plan its inquiry into claims that Johnson lied to MPs and – in what could be a highly significant move – it decided to effectively invite No 10 staff to give evidence anonymously.

If, as reports suggest, some junior Downing Street officials are aggrieved about the way they were treated during Partygate, and if they can provide evidence that Johnson knew much more about parties taking place or rules being broken than he told the Commons, then this whistleblower provision could prove fatal to the prime minister.

The prospect has certainly alarmed Johnson’s allies. In their splash for the Daily Telegraph, Christopher Hope and Tony Diver say Johnson’s allies fear he is being stitched up and that the committee will a “kangaroo court”. They report:

Allies of the prime minister accused the House of Commons’ privileges committee of relying on “hearsay evidence”, after MPs ruled that witnesses will be granted anonymity …

By questioning the integrity of the investigation, it is likely that Downing Street is preparing to challenge any negative findings made by the committee. It also raises the prospect that the prime minister would refuse to resign if he is found to have misled parliament …

Even though a report by Sue Gray, the senior civil servant, on Downing Street parties kept identities of witnesses secret, one No 10 source said it would be difficult for Mr Johnson to challenge anonymous evidence which effectively could be hearsay.

The insider said: “How can a ‘defendant’ question/cross-examine anonymous evidence?”

An MP friend of Mr Johnson added: “It is bonkers. Going on hearsay evidence of it is not in the spirit of it. How can you interrogate someone who has not turned up? If you don’t trust the process, how can you trust the result? It is a disservice to the House of Commons.”

The Telegraph’s sources do not seem to understand the difference between hearsay evidence and anonymised evidence. Hearsay evidence is second hand evidence (“I did not hear the PM say ‘How was the party in the press office last night?’ at the meeting hours before telling MPs there were no parties, but I’ve heard from a friend he did say that.”) Anonymised evidence is just normal evidence, but where the identity of the person providing it is not widely disclosed. Yesterday the committee said it would accept anonymised evidence, but only subject “to the chair [Harriet Harman] being able to identify the individual’s identity in conjunction with committee staff, as well as the relevance and probity of their evidence”.

Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, was giving interviews this morning and on the Today programme she was asked if she backed the Telegraph’s campaign for justice for the Downing Street One. She knocked the question away, and would not endorse the “kangaroo court” objections published by the paper. Asked if she was satisfied the committee would give Johnson a fair hearing, she replied:

I trust the privileges committee to look at the evidence properly and make the make the judgement appropriately and we need to allow that process to continue.

Asked again if Johnson would get a fair hearing, she replied:

I trust implicitly my parliamentary colleagues to listen properly to the evidence and make the right decision.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.20am: Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, speaks at a British Chambers of Commerce conference.

10.50am: Maroš Šefčovič, the EU’s Brexit negotiator and European Commissioner vice president, speaks at the EU/UK forum conference.

11.45am (UK time): Boris Johnson is due to hold a press conference at the end of the Nato summit.

12pm: Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, takes questions in the Scottish parliament.

4.15pm: Tony Blair, the former Labour prime minister, speaks at the end of a day-long conference on the future of Britain organised by his thinktank.

I try to monitor the comments below the line (BTL) but it is impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer questions, and if they are of general interest, I will post the question and reply above the line (ATL), although I can’t promise to do this for everyone.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter. I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

Alternatively, you can email me at andrew.sparrow@theguardian.com