Rayner says Labour still wants to spend £28bn on green investment but won’t be bound by ‘arbitrary’ number – as it happened | Politics

• Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, has said that, while the party would like to spent £28bn a year on green investment, it will not be bound by an “arbitrary” number. (See 2.58pm.) She spoke as it became increasingly clear that, while the party has not entirely stopped talking about the £28bn figure, it no longer regards this as a binding target for the amount of money it aims to spend every year on its green prosperity plan. Environmental experts have criticised this. Dr Anupama Sen, the head of policy engagement at Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, which specialises in research into achieving net zero, said:

It is disappointing to see the Labour party water down this flagship policy due to short-term political pressures, at such a crucial time for climate action and leadership, especially with other countries racing to prepare their economies for the imminent green energy transition.

It would be better to stand firm and make the case for this level of investment, which is that it would reduce our emissions and shield against increasingly volatile energy prices to give us genuine energy security. With the right mix of policies this could be achieved in a way that is fair for workers and for households.

And Mike Childs, Friends of the Earth’s head of policy, said:

We urgently need decisive leadership on green growth, not more of the same kind of flip-flopping and rollbacks we’ve seen from the current government, which has squandered the UK’s gains on climate and left us far behind in the global race to a zero-carbon economy.

A collective political failure to see the huge economic opportunities of a fair transition would be both short-sighted and deeply damaging.

Sir Elton John, Tony Blair and Piers Morgan were among the guests at the funeral of former political lobbyist-turned-psychotherapist Derek Draper, PA Media reports.

Asylum seekers on the Bibby Stockholm barge are facing “claustrophobic” conditions that could amount to a breach of human rights, the Commons home affairs committee has said.

The committee recently visited the barge and, in a six-page letter to the Home Office posing questions raised by the visit, Diana Johnson, the Labour chair of the committee, said she and her colleagues were concerned by conditions on the barge.

On living conditions, she said:

We were disheartened to see some of the living conditions on the Bibby Stockholm, with many individuals having to share small, cramped cabins (originally designed for one person), often with people (up to 6) they do not know (some of whom spoke a different language to them). These crowded conditions were clearly contributing to a decline in mental health for some of the residents, and they could amount to violations of the human rights of asylum seekers.

On mental health support, she said:

Given the recent and tragic suicide of an individual residing on the barge, we would hope that the Home Office is taking all suitable steps to ensure mental health support is available to all those residing there, including access to mental health services that can act immediately when a report is made.

It is concerning that, in our short visit, many asylum seekers expressed mental health concerns. It was alarming that one asylum seeker told a member of the delegation that they had had thoughts of suicide as a result of having to reside on the barge. Although we were assured that the relevant safeguarding team would work with this particular individual, we are extremely concerned about the apparent lack of mental health support for those on the barge.

And on whether the Bibby Stockholm was like a prison, she said:

Although asylum seekers are not formally detained on the barge, there are strict rules requiring residents to regularly inform staff about their whereabouts. Organisations that work with asylum seekers have said that “for those on board, the Bibby Stockholm feels like a prison”. We heard similar stories from asylum seekers who shared their experiences with us during the visit.

In a statement issued alongside the letter, Johnson said:

We are concerned that housing asylum claimants on Bibby Stockholm is leaving them in a claustrophobic environment, isolated from external support including legal advice and without important links to community, faith or family potentially for months on end.

The government must not forget that those seeking asylum could have experienced severe trauma. They are vulnerable young men who will be in need of critical help. There needs to be readily accessible assistance available to deal with the medical and mental health consequences of what they have been through. Support services on the barge must be adequate to meet the needs of those housed there, and if not that there are practical steps in place to allow them to be accessed in the wider community.

Angela Rayner, Labour’s deputy leader, has said that, while the party would like to spent £28bn a year on green investment, it would not be bound by an “arbitrary” number. She said a lot would depend on the state of the public finances.

Speaking on a trip to Scotland, where she was visiting the Glenkinchie distillery in East Lothian alongside the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, she denied there was confusion around the Labour policy. She said:

It’s not about just throwing a figure out there willy-nilly, and saying we’ll just put that in. It’s got to be part of applying to our fiscal rules.

This is about identifying where that money will be spent, and when, how quickly we can get that off the ground in a sustainable way to secure the public money and secure that three times the amount of private investment.

They’re the rules that we’re applying to that money.

Therefore it’s arbitrary to say, well every year it will be £28bn by immediately the first day. We don’t even know what the public finances are going to be like.

Asked again whether the party was abandoning the £28bn target, she replied:

No, we’re saying that we want to ramp up to £28bn. But we’re not just going to throw money out there.

The fiscal rules that Rachel (Reeves, the shadow chancellor) has applied to that money is that it has to be about investment in jobs of the future as part of our industrial strategy.

Labour has begun access talks with the civil service about its programme for government, Pippa Crerar reports.

EXCL: Labour has begun access talks with civil service in preparation for government if party wins the election.

Shadow cabinet teams will begin to meet with departments, Labour spox confirms.

Shad cab off min Jonathan Ashworth is, I’m told, in charge of facilitating talks. Part of his remit is to work with Sue Gray to prepare party for govt. Along with shad Commons leader Lucy Powell he’s also involved in “red line” process of kicking tyres on manifesto submissions.

The Green party is calling for a wealth tax to fund the transition to a green economy. (See 9.34am.) The Labour leadership has ruled out the idea, but one Labour MP has just published a book making the case for a wealth tax and the Greens might be surprised by who it is.

Liam Byrne has never been seen as one of the party’s leftwingers. A former management consultant, who was chief secretary to the Treasury when Gordon Brown was prime minister (where, as a joke, he wrote that note), and now chair of the Commons business committee, he has just published The Inequality of Wealth: Why It Matters and How To Fix It. Most of the fixes he recommends don’t involve higher taxes, but he does call for “a tax code that actually reflects a moral code” and this is what he says about a wealth tax. He describes approvingly proposals from the Wealth Tax Commission. And he goes on:

(The commission) proposed that tax be levied on an individual on a one-off basis, each year, for five years, and the basis for taxing included all property. Assets would be valued based on their open-market value. However, householders would have the right to challenge the valuation. For those without cash to hand, payments could be deferred by those who are ‘asset-rich-cash-poor’, and some measures would be needed to reduce unnecessary hardship.

(The big conclusion from Arun Advani, one of the commission leaders) was that there is virtue in setting a high threshold for those who are levied. Why? Because this gives tax authorities a small number of people to survey, who can therefore be surveyed in a great deal of detail and precision. As Arun explained to me, ‘They already have accountants and whoever else, so their stuff is fairly well managed already.’ And the fruits could be extraordinary. A 1% tax on everyone with assets of more than £10m could bring in between £10-£11bn a year. And what is even more intriguing is the level of political support for the idea. In a poll conducted in late 2022, Prof Ben Ansell found that a wealth tax ‘was significantly more popular than other ways of raising revenue across all taxpayer groups’. Well over half (56.3%) of people agreed with the statement that we should have a net wealth tax on the wealthiest, and the idea was three times more popular than raising the top rates of income tax.

Reforming wealth taxes, or taxes on the wealthy, will be hard. For Conservatives, tax in general, and low tax in particular, has become almost sacred, a defining part of the creed. However, down the ages from the Plantagenets to the Victorians – tax strategy has proved critical to national strategy. There is no ‘grand strategy’ for any country without a strategy for collecting and sharing the harvest. And if we want to build a wealth-owning democracy in the twenty-first century, we cannot avoid the argument on tax – but we should no underestimate the political battle.

But Byrne argues that the argument for a wealth tax can be won. He says:

As Brooke Harrington (a sociology professor) told me, in a world where norms change faster than laws, it may be perfectly possible to harness our basic psychology to build support for paying taxes, much as the campaign group of high net-worth Americans called the ‘Patriotic Millionaires’ have shown. Their line, ‘patriots pay their taxes’, is frankly one of the best lines I have seen in politics anywhere. Brooke argues that we cannot beat tax avoidance by simply changing laws. ‘I don’t think you can fight them on that terrain,’ she told me. ‘Any new law you might throw at them will be unsuccessful because they have more money than you do. They have more time than you do. They can do this all day. And you can’t. So does that mean you can’t win? No. You just have to fight on a different terrain.’

We have to appeal to their thirst for respect and dignity – and their fear of shame in being exposed as avoiding their dues.

The Inequality of Wealth is an excellent book. I was expecting it to be packed with analysis and policy, but a bit dry, but in fact it’s got plenty of colour, narrative and history too; think of a Resolution Foundation report rewritten as a Guardian long read. It is also a welcome antidote for anyone despairing about the absence of radical thinking in Labour’s mainstream.

Ben Quinn

No 10 has, in effect, dismissed claims by Sir Jeffrey Donaldson that there will be “joint” Sinn Féin and DUP first ministers after Stormont returns. (See 11am.)

Michelle O’Neill, the Sinn Féin leader in Northern Ireland, will become first minister as leader of the biggest party after the power-sharing assembly returns. It will be an historic moment for Irish republicans and nationalists but one that will horrify some unionists and loyalists.

Asked about Donaldson’s claims, a spokesperson for Rishi Sunak said he was aware of the reports but added:

I think that’s a matter for Jeffrey Donaldson and Michelle O’Neill. The roles of the executive have been set out very clearly in the Good Friday agreement.

Earlier, the spokesperson said the prime minister believed there will be “relief and hope” in Northern Ireland. He said:

It’s over to the first and deputy first minister elect to show leadership and tackle the immediate challenge that people in Northern Ireland face.

Asked about Donaldson’s other comment that he believed Northern Ireland will end up receiving more than the £3.3bn provided for by the UK government in December as part of moves to re-establish power sharing (see 10.46am), the spokesperson said:

We’ve set out a very generous and significant package as part of this deal and it has all been published in the command paper that was published at the beginning of the week.

The SNP says Labour’s decision to drop £28bn as the annual target for its green investment plans will be “deeply damaging” for Scotland. In a statement, Drew Hendry, the party’s economy spokesperson in Westminster, said:

This latest U-turn by Sir Keir Starmer, which mirrors the economic negligence of the Tories, is a deeply damaging move that threatens jobs, investment and economic growth in Scotland – at a time when it’s needed more than ever …

When the EU and US are ploughing ahead with investment, it makes no sense for broken Brexit Britain to pull the rug from under Scotland’s energy industry.

£28bn is the bare minimum – we should be investing more, not less, to drive growth and reap the rewards.

Downing Street has played down claims that it has given up hope of securing a returns agreement with Turkey. (See 11.18am.)

Asked about the report, the PM’s spokesperson said:

We do, and can, return people to Turkey. There’s been no changes to the arrangements we have between the UK and Turkey.

We announced a strengthened migration partnership with Turkey last summer.

Asked whether there are plans for a more formal returns deal, the spokesperson said:

Formal return agreements are just one of the many levers we’ve got at our disposal. And we do, and can, return people to Turkey.

He argued that Turkey was a safe country.