No 10 refuses to deny Sunak was warned about Raab’s behaviour before he made him deputy PM – live | Politics

The Labour MP Kim Johnson has made a Commons apology after she described the Israeli government as “fascist” during PMQs. (See 1.50pm.)

Raising a point of order this afternoon, she said:

I would like to apologise unreservedly for the intemperate language I used during PMQs.

I was wrong to use the term ‘fascist’ in relation to the Israeli government and understand why this was particularly insensitive given the history of the state of Israel.

While there are far-right elements in the government, I recognise the use of the term in this context was wrong.

I would also like to apologise for the use of the term ‘apartheid state’.

While I was quoting accurately Amnesty’s description, I recognise this is insensitive and I would like to withdraw it.

Last year Amnesty International published a 280-page report headlined “Israel’s Apartheid Against Palestinians”. It said:

Amnesty International has analysed Israel’s intent to create and maintain a system of oppression and domination over Palestinians and examined its key components: territorial fragmentation; segregation and control; dispossession of land and property; and denial of economic and social rights. It has concluded that this system amounts to apartheid.

According to a report by Arj Singh in the i, Tories in the European Research Group – the hardline, pro-Brexit caucus who were instrumental in bringing down Theresa May because they thought her proposed deal with Brussels involved too much compromise – would not back a deal on the Northern Ireland protocol as described in the briefing to the Times. (See 10.09am.) Singh writes:

i understands there is a belief in the UK that the briefing was designed to test the reaction of dozens of Tory Brexiteers in the European Research Group (ERG) and the DUP, which is boycotting power-sharing over the Protocol.

An ERG source agreed that the report appeared to be “kite flying” and said that “obviously” the DUP “won’t accept” the deal and “neither would we”.

They said the mooted deal means that none of the major problems for the two groups would be solved because “EU law stays, the Irish Sea Border stays, and the ECJ still stays in a fudge”.

The mooted deal also does not meet the DUP’s seven tests for any new arrangements governing post-Brexit trade in Northern Ireland, the source claimed.

In a statement issued by his party about the Times story, the DUP MP Ian Paisley said something similar. He said:

Kite flying, wishful thinking by commentators and background briefing will not make the substantive changes needed to satisfy our seven tests and restore devolution.

Over eighteen months ago we outlined the parameters for the way forward. We set our tests and those continue to be our yardstick for measuring any deal between the EU and UK.

The message has landed in Brussels and London that there will be no restoration of the NI Executive until the protocol is replaced with arrangements that unionists can support.

European commission president plays down reports UK and EU have reached deal on NI protocol

Jennifer Rankin

EU sources have pushed back strongly against reports of a deal on customs in talks on the Northern Ireland protocol (see 10.09am), but at a press conference today the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, played down suggestions of an agreement in a milder way.

She said:

As always in negotiations, you know, the principle that everything is only negotiated at the very end, when you know what the result is and you give a final signature.

She could not reveal “partial elements” of the discussions, she added, “because you never know in the very end how the package looks like”.

Von der Leyen also described the talks with the UK as “very constructive” and said she had an “excellent” relationship with Rishi Sunak.

The Labour MP Kim Johnson has been summoned to see the party’s chief whip after referring to Israel as “fascist” and an “apartheid state” during prime minister’s questions.

Labour officials were quick to condemn Johnson’s words afterwards, with a spokesperson for Keir Starmer calling them “unacceptable”.

Johnson said:

Since the election of the fascist Israeli government last December there has been an increase in human rights violations against Palestinians including children.

Can the prime minister tell us how he is challenging what Amnesty and other human rights organisations refer to as an apartheid state?

Starmer’s spokesperson said afterwards:

We think the words that she used were completely unacceptable. The chief whip will be speaking to her later today.

As a first step, we would obviously want her to withdraw the remarks that she used.

Johnson won the seat in 2019 after her predecessor Dame Louise Ellman resigned as a Labour MP over what she saw as the party’s failure to tackle antisemitism.

Downing Street has refused to deny that Rishi Sunak was informally warned about Dominic Raab’s treatment of officials before he appointed him as justice secretary and deputy prime minister. Asked about this at the post-PMQs lobby briefing, the PM’s press secretary said:

The PM was not aware of any formal complaints at the time of appointing Dominic Raab.

Pressed further, she said:

I don’t know what your definition of informal complaints is. The PET [propriety and ethics team] processes are very clear.

The appointments and usual processes were followed and we were not aware of any formal complaints.

Today the Times reports that Sunak was warned about Raab’s behaviour before he appointed him. (See 10.31am.)

The most interesting thing about today’s PMQs was what did not come up. For millions of Britons, today’s strikes will be the political story of the day but parliament, which is supposed to be where important issues get thrashed out, gives disproportionate airtime to topics where there is a clear partisan advantage for one party, or both, in having a debate.

The mass strikes were not entirely ignored. But Starmer is vulnerable on the topic because Labour has not got a compelling answer to how it would solve them, and Sunak was doubtless happy to avoid the subject too, because the strikers have more popular support than he does. (See 9.45am.)

So instead, for the second week on a row, Starmer focused on sleaze. Normally, after a minister has resigned, a scandal loses most of its news traction because the world moves on and only Westminster procedurologists take much interest in the ‘who knew what when?’ questions that are left over. But today Starmer didn’t sound like someone heading down an irrelevant cul-de-sac. He made it work, and delivered a powerful hit job. How?

Partly, Starmer made sure the ‘who knew what when’ questions (see 12.06pm and 12.08pm) were pithy and precise. His opening interventions were much shorter than usual. More importantly, Starmer linked the Nadhim Zahawi scandal (largely over) with the Dominic Raab one (ongoing) by drawing a parallel between them.

So in relation to his former chair, his defence is: nobody told me, I didn’t know, I didn’t ask any questions. Is the prime minister now also going to claim that he’s the only person completely unaware of serious allegations of bullying against the deputy prime minister before he appointed him?

Starmer is an ex-prosecutor, and prosecutors like establishing patterns of behaviour.

Perhaps most significantly of all, Starmer linked this to Boris Johnson, with a particularly good line in his fourth question.

He’s just like one of his predecessors who treated questions about conduct as something to brush off, who thought ducking responsibility was a perfectly reasonable response for a prime minister. At least, in fairness, his predecessor didn’t go around pretending he was a paragon of integrity and accountability.

On that subject, was it a coincidence that the two people who arranged an £800,000 line of credit for the former prime minister were both shortlisted for plum jobs at the BBC and the British Council?

Sunak wants to be seen as quite different from Johnson. But his response to Starmer at this point sounded like a defence of Johnson (see 12.11pm), and that is a huge problem. Voters are not going view him as a total contrast unless he openly denounces his successor in much stronger terms than he has done before, and if he does that he will provoke a furious backlash from Johnsonites in his party, and in the Tory press.

As the Tory MP Steve Brine said at the weekend, his party is suffering from “long Boris” and Starmer exploited that skilfully.

That said, it wasn’t one-sided victory. Starmer easily won the first two exchanges, but Sunak had quite an effective comeback to the third question, attacking Starmer for his failure to support Rosie Duffield.

If [Starmer] is so concerned about what people are saying and so concerned about behaviour in public life, then recently one of his own MPs was forced to speak out because being in his party had reminded her of being in an abusive relationship.

And then his own office was caught undermining her. He ought to be supporting her and her colleagues, but if he can’t be trusted to stand up for the women in his party, he can’t be trusted to stand up for Britain.

Many people will not have followed the Duffield story. But this works as a line of attack because, among those who have, it is not just Tories who think Duffield has been badly treated by her party.

And in the next reply Sunak made a similar attack, depicting Starmer as unprincipled.

When I was made aware of formal complaints I instructed a leading independent KC to conduct an investigation because I take action when these things happen.

But what did he say at the weekend, he said at the weekend that hate had been allowed to spread unchallenged in the Labour party under his predecessor. He was speaking as if he wasn’t even there.

But he was sitting right next to him, supporting him for four long years, not challenging. And it’s typical of him, declining to lead, sitting on the fence, carping from the sidelines and never standing up for a principle that matters.

It was not enough to clinch the contest, because the Jeremy Corbyn era is too much like ancient history. But this line of attack works up to a point, because (again) it is not just Tories who view Starmer as unprincipled.

Overall, Sunak was still in trouble. But it was more even-handed than some of the recent PMQs where he has lost badly.