No 10 signals Rishi Sunak no longer committed to blocking all new onshore windfarm developments – UK politics live | Politics

Alister Jack told the Scottish affairs that two things undermined democracy: losers’ consent, and adherence to the rule of law.

He said the “rule of law” had just been expressed, by the supreme court judgment. And he went on:

And we should have had losers’ consent from 2014.

I would just say it is important to the Scottish government that they respect the principles that [underpin] democracy.

Alister Jack, the Scottish secretary, is giving evidence to the Commons Scottish affairs committee. He began with a lengthy opening statement about public spending in Scotland, at the end of which he made a brief comment about the supreme court judgment last week saying the Scottish government could not hold an independence referendum without Westminster’s permission. He said that the ruling was “unanimous and unequivocal”, and that this meant they did not have to talk about indepedence. They could focus on public services instead.

But Pete Wishart, the SNP MP who chairs the committee, wasn’t put off that easily. Pointing out that in the Commons last week Jack repeatedly refused to say what the Scottish government could do to deliver on its mandate to hold an independence referendum, he asked if he accepted there could be another referendum.

“Of course,” said Jack. He said that the union was voluntary, and that there was a referendum in 2014. But on that occasion there was consensus to hold one, involving the governments (the UK’s and Scotland’s), almost all the political parties and civil society.

Wishart then asked if Jack would accept that Scotland had voted for independence if people voted for one in an electoral contest.

Jack said Wishart was referring to Nicola Sturgeon’s plan to turn the next election into a de facto referendum on independence. But he said he did not accept that this was possible.

He said that was not how people voted in elections, saying:

I don’t believe that people vote on one specific issue.

And he also said it would not be a reasonable proposition anyway.

You can’t have a mandate for something we now know you legally don’t have any power over.

As an example, Jack cited Trident. He said it was not reasonable for the SNP to go into an election promising to get rid of Trident from Scotland when it did not have the power to deliver that.

Election administrators are extremely worried about the impact of new legislation that will require people to provide photographic ID when they vote.

The Constitution Society has carried out a survey of local government staff in England who oversee elections and it found that 57% of them are very or extremely worried that the law will create problems on polling day.

Under the Elections Act, people voting in parliamentary elections will have to provide photo ID at the polling station. The same rule will also apply to people voting in local elections in England, and it will be in force for the first time for the local elections next year.

In a news release summarising the findings of the survey, the Constitution Society said:

When asked whether the new measures would lead to problems on polling day, not a single respondent said they were not at all worried at the prospect. Over 57% said they were very or extremely worried.

45% of respondents said they were either ‘not at all confident’ or ‘not so confident’ that they could train staff on the new voter ID requirements. The respondents also estimated on average that 16% of voters would apply for the new ‘voter card’ announced by the government earlier this month. This would result in millions of applications for these documents.

Beyond this, when asked about the changes to elections brought about by the Election Act 2022, 100% of respondents suggested it would make their jobs either ‘more’ or ‘much more’ difficult. Not a single respondent suggested its effects would be neutral or make their job easier.

As my colleague Polly Toynbee argued in a recent column, the new law is seen as likely to reduce the proportion of young people who vote – a move that would benefit the Tories.

Downing Street has condemned the arrest of the BBC journalist Ed Lawrence while he was covering the protests in Shanghai. Speaking at the morning lobby briefing, the PM’s spokesperson said:

The arrest of this journalist who was simply going about their work is shocking and unacceptable. Journalists must be able to do their jobs without fear of intimidation.

But the spokesperson also said the government would not “conflate” its stance on human rights issues such as this with its desire to have a constructive relationship with China on other issues. The spokesperson said:

We will not seek to conflate the two issues.

Our position on the importance of the right to protest will not change … and arresting journalists is unacceptable and we will not change that position.

But that does not mean we will not seek to have constructive relationships with China on other issues and attempt to solve some of these global [problems].

In a speech to the Lord Mayor’s Banquet this evening, Rishi Sunak will say that the UK should adopt a policy of “robust pragmatism” in its dealing with countries like China. He will say:

We will make an evolutionary leap in our approach. This means being stronger in defending our values and the openness on which our prosperity depends.

It means delivering a stronger economy at home – because it is the foundation of our strength abroad.

And it means standing up to our competitors, not with grand rhetoric but with robust pragmatism.

This will be Sunak’s first major foreign policy speech as PM. My colleague Pippa Crerar has a preview here.

At the Downing Street lobby briefing the PM’s spokesperson signalled that Rishi Sunak is no longer trying to block new onshore windfarm developments.

The spokesperson did not accept that Grant Shapps’ comments in interviews this morning showed that the government had already implemented a U-turn. He claimed that Shapps’ references to community consent were a description of rules that are in force now.

And the spokesperson would not commit the government to accepting the Simon Clarke amendment that would lift what in practice amounts to a current ban on new onshore wind developments.

But the spokesperson did not commit the government to opposing it either, and he hinted that the government was open to some expansion of onshore wind. He said:

You’ll know there are quite detailed rules around onshore wind and what is allowed – it requires developers to consult with communities in advance [of making] a planning application. So I’m not going to predict what might happen in the future …

The prime minister has talked at great length about his views on where the focus should be on renewables, where he is talking about building more wind turbines offshore in order to boost energy security and also the importance of ensuring communities support any action the government takes on renewables.

So we will continue to have discussions [on the bill, and amendments] as we would do normally.

The spokesperson also said the government had not yet set a date for the next debate on the levelling up bill, when Clarke’s windfarm amendment is set to be considered by MPs.

Amnesty International UK has criticised David Davis and fellow Tory for saying the UK is only obliged to offer asylum to people fleeing persecution from a state. (See 9.29am.) Commenting on the arguments used by Davis, Steve Valdez-Symonds, Amnesty’s refugee and migrant rights programme director in the UK, said the MP was wrong on several counts. He said:

There does seem to be quite a lot of nonsense here. The starting point is whether your government is unwilling or unable to provide protection from persecution. It doesn’t set out who your persecutors have to be.

Valdez-Symonds also said it was wrong to claim that all victims of trafficking could be sent home safely. He said:

Not every survivor of human trafficking is necessarily unsafe to be returned. But returning someone to where they were trafficked from is likely to deliver them into cruel exploitation all over again, unless there is some significant improvement to their circumstances in that place.

My colleague Peter Walker has more in his story here.