Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

OBR casts doubt on Hammond's claim UK could get 'deal dividend' from Brexit - Politics live

Robert Chote, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee.
Robert Chote, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee. Photograph: Parliament TV

Afternoon summary

  • Robert Chote, chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has cast doubt on Philip Hammond’s claim that there will be a “deal dividend” if the UK gets a Brexit deal. As the Press Association reports, in the budget the chancellor said a Brexit agreement would deliver a double boost to the economy, as businesses and households were freed from uncertainty and the Treasury was able to spend some of the £15.4bn buffer it is holding in reserve to cope with a possible no-deal outcome. But Chote told the Treasury committee that a deal was “unlikely” to deliver a huge improvement to the public finances. Asked whether the OBR had encouraged the chancellor to use the term “deal dividend”, he replied:

No, that’s not us.

We could be in a world where that removal of the immediate concern about something very nasty could release some pent-up investment that people have been hanging back on and you could have a result in terms of asset and equity prices rising.

But it’s not clear to me that that plausibly delivers you a huge fiscal upside.

Stronger business investment doesn’t help the public finances in the near term. Because of capital allowances, it actually weakens them. But you get stronger growth in the long term.

Near-term, [if you have] the idea that you have dodged a particularly disorderly outcome, but you are still uncertain where you are going to be at the end point, it would seem unlikely to me that that would deliver a positive surprise that would recover 2% of GDP relative to the path you would otherwise expect.

Chote said Hammond could decide to spend some or all of his £15.4bn “headroom” either to deal with the consequences of a no deal Brexit, or because it is no longer needed for this purpose. But he warned that this would take the chancellor “further away” from his fiscal objective of eliminating the deficit by the mid-2020s.

  • Broadcast regulator Ofcom believes online platforms should take responsibility for the material that appears on their networks, especially when it relates to children and advertising. As the Press Association reports, giving evidence to MPs, the organisation’s leaders outlined possible gaps in guidelines for online and social media but stressed decisions should be made by Parliament. Ofcom chairman Lord Burns told the Commons culture committee:

This must be a case where the platforms do have a lot of responsibility. After all, they are the people who are carrying the adverts, the people benefiting from the adverts and surely it is their responsibility to make it absolutely clear what are adverts and what are not, where they are coming from and who’s responsible for them.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

No 10 was been quick to downplay the significance of the date cited by Dominic Raab in his letter. (See 3.25pm.) “We hope to reach an agreement as soon as possible,” the prime minister’s official spokesman said in a briefing to journalists.

Downing Street sources also indicated that they were still expecting a deal to be concluded by the end of November. Any acceptance that the UK could live with a December agreement would guarantee that the talks would drift into the last month of the year; although it is perfectly possible this could still happen.

Hunt says Trump 'not trying to tear down the international order'

At the end of the foreign affairs committee hearing Tom Tugendhat, the chair, asked Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, some questions that had been submitted by members of the public. The first was about President Trump, and what Hunt is doing to counter his challenger to international norms.

Hunt said that the UK has a close strategic partnership with the US and that this means that it is one of the few countries that can discuss things with the White House in a frank way. Then he went on:

My view about President Trump is he is not trying to tear down the international order. He wants to fight for it in a more robust way than his predecessors. So, when it comes to things like reform of the WTO [World Trade Organisation], reform of Nato, we would always stand with him in his desire to reform these institutions. If he ever wanted to tear them down, and I don’t believe he does, we would be in a different place. But we have always shown, in our policy when it comes to the Iran nuclear deal, where we have a different view to the Americans, we are not afraid to say so.

Donald Trump
Donald Trump Photograph: Evan Vucci/AP

And while we’re on the subject of Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister (see 4.54pm), he has been speaking at a press conference in Paris, RTE’s Tony Connelly reports.

The Jeremy Hunt committee hearing has now finished. It was Hunt’s first appearance at the foreign affairs committee and, according to the Labour MP Ian Austin, a committee member, he made a good impression.

Hunt suggests Foreign Office working on contingency plans in case no deal Brexit leads to flights being grounded

Here is the full answer that Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, gave when asked what the Foreign Office was doing to prepare for the possibility that Britons could get stranded in Europe if flights get grounded in the event of a no deal Brexit. (See 4.46pm.) He did not dismiss the prospect outright. Instead he said:

We are very engaged in that process. It is one of the no deal work streams that we are responsible for at the FCO. And our posts are absolutely ready for what might happen. We have to be honest with the around 1m Brits who are resident in the EU. We can’t give them answers to every single question because in the no deal situation - which obviously we’re working very hard to avoid, and we don’t think will happen - in that situation, were it to happen, what would happen would be different in different countries. And so there’s no one-size-fits-all answer. We understand that people are worried. We very much hope between now and Christmas we can resolve all of this and get a deal that is good for business and consistent with the referendum result.

I think the best way to answer your question is that everything we can do, we are doing.

Tugendhat says Hunt met Simon Coveney, the Irish foreign minister, for breakfast this morning. How did it go?

Hunt says he introduced Coveney to his children. That is because he views the Irish as family, he says. He says the meeting went very well.

Back in the foreign affairs committee Labour’s Chris Bryant asks what planning the Foreign Office has done for the possibility it might have to rescue people from the EU after Brexit if flights get grounded.

Hunt says the Foreign Office is looking at this. There would be different options in different countries. “Everything we can do we are doing.”

Q: Which passport queues will people use after Brexit on the continent?

That is a matter for those countries, he says.

The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says the decision as to whether to schedule an EU summit in November to finalise Brexit (Saturday 17 and Sunday 18 have been provisionally pencilled in as dates) will be taken next week.

Dominic Raab’s letter saying that there should be a Brexit deal within the next three weeks (see 3.25pm) does not mean that there has been a breakthrough and that there definitely will be an agreement by then, government sources are saying. These are from the BBC’s Norman Smith and the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn.

Tugendhat says Prince Charles has relationships with people in Saudi Arabia. Could the royal family make representations to Saudi Arabia about the conduct of Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman?

Hunt says they could. But he also says it is important to recognise the limits to how much outsiders can influence what happens in Saudi Arabia.

Hunt says the Khashoggi affair shows that we cannot take media freedom for granted.

Labour’s Ian Austin asks about reports that Boris Johnson declared hospitality worth £14,000 from Saudi Arabia shortly after he stood down as foreign secretary.

Hunt says he was not aware of that. Tom Tugendhat, the committee chair, prompts Austin to move on, saying this is not a matter for Hunt.

Back in the foreign affairs committee Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, has just been asked about the latest developments in the Jamal Khashoggi affair.

Hunt says what happened was “incredibly shocking”. He says he thinks he has spoken out more than any other Western foreign minister. He says if the press reports about what happened to Khashoggi are true, and “it appears increasingly likely that they are true, then what happened was completely contrary to our values”.

But he says he has been straight with people, and told them that any UK response must be considered, because there are other issues to be considered (ie, the trade relationship). He also says Saudi Arabia is engaged in a proxy war with Iran in the Middle East. He says there is a risk that any response could trigger “unintended consequences”.

Turning back to the Brexit committee for a moment, in his response to Dominic Raab (here - pdf), Hilary Benn, the chair of the committee, complains that the Brexit department is not consulting enough with his committee. Benn says David Davis, Raab’s predecessor, said the government would consult parliament during the negotiations at least as much, or more, than the European commission would be consulting the European parliament. Benn goes on:

However, with Michel Barnier [the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator] meeting “almost daily” with the European parliament’s Brexit coordinator, that commitment is not being met. In fact, having taken evidence from Michel Barnier in September, my committee has heard more recently from the EU negotiator than from those leading the negotiations for the UK.

As the Times’ Esther Webber reports, in the House of Lords, Lord Boswell, the chair of the EU committee, made a similar point when he asked a private notice question.

Hunt says he hopes that, after Brexit, the UK will be invited to take part in EU foreign affairs council meetings “in a different capacity”.

He says the UK will gain, in the sense that it will have “freedom of manoeuvre” after Brexit.

But it will have to expand its diplomatic relations with Europe, he says. He says the UK now has full senior diplomatic representation in all EU countries, which it has not had before.

Back in the foreign affairs committee Jeremy Hunt, the foriegn secretary, says, from the discussions he has had in his new job, he has never got the sense that the government is protecting business interests in the City at the expense of human rights in Russia.

Tom Tugendhat, the committee chair, says his committee has been surprised by how easy it has been for corrupt foreigns to abuse British institutions, for example by setting up companies using bogus credentials.

Raab says he expects Brexit deal to be finalised within three weeks

Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, has told MPs that he expects the Brexit deal to be finalised within three weeks. He did so in a letter to Hilary Benn, chair of the Commons Brexit committee, in response to a letter about when he might give evidence to the committee. Raab’s letter (here - pdf) is dated 24 October, but it was only published on the committee’s website this morning.

Here is the key sentence. Raab says:

I would be happy to give evidence to the committee when a deal is finalised, and currently expect 21 November to be suitable.

That’s three weeks today.

Raab also says:

The end is now firmly in sight and, while obstacles remain, it cannot be beyond us to navigate them. We have resolved most of the issues and we are building up together what the future relationship should look like and making real progress.

The letter does not give new details of the negotiation, but Raab confirms that the UK and the EU now “agree on the principle of a UK-wide customs backstop”. Until relatively recently the EU was resisting this.

Dominic Raab
Dominic Raab Photograph: Wiktor Szymanowicz/Barcroft Images

Tom Tugendhat, the committee chair, asks Hunt what his single key priority is as foreigj secretary.

Hunt pauses for a moment. He says we cannot overstate how important this moment is, because of two developments: Brexit, and the rise of China, which means the world is moving from an era of one superpower to two.

Britain must assert its influence.

By 2030 the largest economy in the world will not be a democracy, he says. Britain must be ready to assert its values more forcefully.

Hunt says the UK is the third biggest aid donor in the world, but gets relatively little influence for that. He says he gets frustrated when he hears from African leaders how much more influence the Chinese are getting from their aid spending.

Hunt says Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, works on his floor in the Foreign Office. And he has weekly meetings with Penny Mordaunt, the international development secretary, he says.

Hunt says he will be asking the Treasury for more money in the spending review.

He says the Foreign Office cannot afford to pay competitive rates of pay to its staff in its embassies.

Jeremy Hunt questioned by Commons foreign affairs committee

Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, is giving evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee. It is his first appearance since getting the job in July.

Hunt starts by striking a relatively humble tone. There will be some issues where the MPs on the committee know a lot more than he does, he tells them.

(Sucking up to select committees like this always goes down well ...)

OBR boss says UK may be 'not much the wiser' about future trade relationship with EU by next spring

Robert Chote, chairman of the Office for Budget Responsibility, has started giving evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget. The chair, Nicky Morgan, asked if the OBR would find it easier to assess the impact of Brexit on the economy next spring, when it is due to produce a report accompanying the chancellor’s spring statement. Probably not, Chote replied.

How much additional information do you expect to know about the end state trade relationship? Exactly what the new migration regime is going to look like? What are the set of consequential expenditure decisions that would accompany whatever agreements are reached on what we would like to contribute to or not? Seeing only what I read in the newspapers, my guess is that we may not be much the wiser after a withdrawal agreement and associated political declaration.

Chote stressed that he was not speaking on the basis of inside knowledge; he was just reflecting what has been reported about the withdrawal agreement, he said. It has been reported that that political declaration covering the future trade deal due to be published alongside the withdrawal agreement may just run to 20 pages or so.

Chote also said that a lot would depend on how much detail MPs demanded before they vote on the withdrawal agreement.

Robert Chote
Robert Chote Photograph: Parliament TV

Jeremy Corbyn’s spokesman has said that it was the “wrong choice” to give tax cuts to high earners in the budget but that the party could not reverse them, suggesting its hands were tied by a manifesto commitment it had made not to increase tax on 95% on earners. The spokesman told journalists:

We will be voting against the budget but in relation to the specific proposals on tax allowances, as John McDonnell has made clear, we support putting more money into the pockets of lower and middle income earners. We are not going to oppose that. In the budget resolutions it is impossible to separate out the top 5%. But giving tax cuts to the highest earners is obviously wrong as the government is refusing to halt the benefit freeze.

The Labour spokesman insisted the party had already committed to ending the benefits freeze - a measure not spelt out in the party’s 2017 manifesto - saying its spending commitments had made those clear. “It was not in the manifesto in those terms, but we said repeatedly we would end the benefits freeze and we would do that costing £13bn over five years with an additional £2bn into universal credit, while reforming the system,” the spokesman said.

No firm commitment has yet been made that benefits would be uprated each year along with inflation.

“At the next election obviously there will be a new manifesto and particular spending commitments will be developed and fleshed out,” the spokesman said. “We talked about a need for a wider review. But the commitment to end the freeze is there.”

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has said Labour would vote for a Brexit deal if it “protects jobs and the economy” as he tried to argue that his party’s position was in line with what British business wanted, Dan Sabbagh reports.

Updated

PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat

This is what political commentators and journalists are saying about PMQs on Twitter.

The consensus is that it was a win for May.

Colleagues who were watching in the chamber say it was striking how upbeat the Tory MPs were. The budget seems to have cheered them up enormously. Labour MPs were much more subdued, and the opposition benches were not even full.

From the Times’ Matt Chorley

From Sky’s Adam Boulton

From the Spectator’s James Forsyth

From the Daily Mirror’s Kevin Maguire

From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie

From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg

From CityAM’s Owen Bennett

From the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn

From the Financial Times’ Sebastian Payne

From the Financial Times’ George Parker

From the Yorkshire Post’s Arj Singh

From the Guardian’s Peter Walker

From the Birmingham Mail’s Jonathan Walker

From the Daily Record’s Torcuil Crichton

Updated

Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, devoted his two questions at PMQs to Brexit. Here is a write-up from the PoliticsHome live blog.

SNP Westminster leader Ian Blackford wants to know if the government can guarantee the supply of medicines after a no-deal Brexit.

The PM says the government has released technical notices to plan for a no-deal Brexit.

Blackford says that was no answer. He says the government started quietly spending stacks of cash last week on creating a stockpile of medicines. And he argues the government is in a “blind panic trying to cover up for a blind Brexit”.

The PM bluntly says: “No.” She says cash for no-deal planning has long been allocated.

Philip Davies, a Conservative, asks why spending on overseas aid is being increased at a faster rate than on public services. He says outside Westminster people think this is “crazy crackers”.

May says she supports the 0.7% aid target.

Louise Haigh, the Labour MP, says May last week inadvertently misled MPs over police pensions. Now police chiefs are taking the government to court over this issue. The government is putting safety at risk.

May denies misleading MPs. She said she said this issue had been known about for years. She says there is £4.5bn available to help public services next year manage pension costs.

Labour’s Chuka Umunna asks why the Black Cultural Archives in Brixton, the only archive of its kind, do not get national funding.

May says national funding goes to bodies seen as being of national importance. But she recognises the importance of the case Umunna is making. She will ask a culture minister to look into this.

Updated

Gillian Keegan, a Conservative, asks about protecting teachers from attack.

May says the government will look at this. Protecting teachers from abuse on social media is important too, she says.

Labour’s Mary Glindon asks about a demand to move national grid cables from over the Tyne.

May says she will get a business minister to look at this issue.

May says the government is protecting the rights of EU citizens after Brexit. And in Norway yesterday she discused the protection that will be available to Efta citizens too.

Julian Lewis, a Conservative, asks for an assurance that May will not change the Brexit exit date - ie, that she won’t allow article 50 to be extended.

May says she can give that assurance.

Sir David Crausby, the Labour MP, asks why the government is backtracking on the delivery of the pensions dashboard.

May says it is important that people understand pensions. The DWP is working with the pensions industry on this one.

Amber Rudd, a Conservative, asks about a constituent concerned about access to the single market after Brexit. Will May bear this in mind in the Brexit talks?

May says her plan recognises the importance of protecting jobs.

Labour’s Albert Owen puts the case for the UK staying in a customs union after Brexit.

May says the government wants a deal that will provide frictionless trade.

Dame Caroline Spelman, a Conservative, says a choir from the German Bundestag is in parliament today to give a concert with the parliamentary choir to mark the 100th anniversary of the armistice.

May welcomes them to the UK.

The SNP’s Stewart Hosie asks about a constituent who has been trying to years to renew a passport.

May says she will make sure this case is looked into.

PMQs - Snap verdict

PMQs - Snap verdict: That sounded like a high-score draw; May and Corbyn were both on form, and they will probably both head off for lunch chalking that up as a success. May’s line taunting Corbyn for saying in the past that the extra money for the NHS would require tax increases when it didn’t in this budget (but only because the OBR’s better-than-expected forecasts magicked up some extra money - which may well disappear as forecasts get revised in the years ahead) was effective, and she milked Labour’s confusion about whether or not it backs tax cuts for higher-rate payers for all it was worth. Tory MPs liked her performance, and their cheers at the end were the loudest May has heard for some time. But if she was hoping to properly up-end Corbyn over the tax issue, she failed. He brushed aside her attack relatively easily (largely by ignoring it), and his own questions were pertinent and powerful. May did not even try to answer his question about welfare cuts, and his point about community policing was particularly effective. It is a sign of how much Corbyn has evolved as a leader that he can now stand at the despatch box championing more spending for the police, and no one thinks he sounds inauthentic (because he doesn’t). Today he never quite managed to deliver a knock-out blow, but the very fact that he held May to a draw only two days after the government unveiled the highest spending budget for a decade or more probably counts as a win of sorts.

Corbyn says the benefit freeze takes £1.5bn from 10m law and middle income households. A low income family will be £200 worse off. Labour policy is to raise taxes for the top 5% and for corporations. That would be a fair way of proceeding. Will May confirm there are more benefit cuts to come?

May says 2.4m people will benefit by £630 a year from the changes to universal credit. She says the government is helping people on low incomes, for example from the fuel duty cut. She says if Corbyn wants to help working people, he should vote for the Conservative budget.

Corbyn says he does not know whether that was a yes or a no to his question. May used to be concerned about burning injustices. That has fizzled out, he says. He says those on low incomes will be worse off as a result of this budget. Only Labour can be trusted to end austerity. Councils, schools, police, prisons, public sector workers and those reliant on social security will face years more of austerity. May promised to end austerity. Will she apologise for failing to do that.

May says Corbyn questioned her commitment to tackling burning injustices. What about the Modern Slavery Act? Stopping people with mental health conditions being held in jail? The race equality audit? Unemployment is down. Labour want to know what’s gone up. She will tell them. Support for public services? Up. Growth? Up.

Corbyn says this shows the contempt the government has for police. It was the Police Federation that said that. Will the “little extras” be enough to help schools?

May says more money will go into schools next year. Per pupil funding will be protected. She is taking the country forward. Labour would take the country back.

Corbyn says many schools are asking pupils for funds. That was a quote from Sasha, a parent. Why did the government bring forward a tax cut for higher earners instead of ending the benefit freeze for claimaints.

May says the government has put more money into universal credit.

On Monday Corbyn said the government was frittering money away on tax cuts, May says. Yesterday John McDonnell said Labour would support those tax cuts. On Monday Corbyn talked about tax cuts for the rich. Yesterday McDonnell said they would affect middle-earners, like head teachers. Will Corbyn support the budget?

That generates a lot of jeering.

Corbyn says the IFS head said those words. He says unprotected departments will lose more than £4bn. Why did the government not find a single penny for community policing in the budget?

May says there was extra money for counter-terrorism in the budget. In 2010 Labour proposed 10% cuts in police budgets.

Jeremy Corbyn also sends his condolences to the families of those killed in Pittsburgh. He says the attack was disgusting.

He says if he was a prison governor, a head teacher or a council leader, he would not be celebrating the budget. Is that analysis wrong?

(It is quote from Paul Johnson, the head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.)

May says austerity is ending. She says that means bringing debt down and putting more into public services. She says the budget shows the NHS spending rise is fully funded, without taxes having to go up.

Mark Harper, the former Tory chief whip, says the tax burden is approaching a 50-year high. So he is pleased the budget cut taxes, he says.

May says the rise in the allowance will leave a basic rate taxpayer more than £1,000 better than they would have been under the 2010 allowance.

The SNP’s Alan Brown asks about a constituent who has been refused benefits because she cannot prove she has the right to be here, even though she has been here many years. She is an EU national. Is this the attitude all EU nationals will face after Brexit?

May says EU nationals do have a right to be here.

Theresa May starts by sending condolences to those killed in the “horrific” attack in Pittsburgh.

She also says this is the last PMQs before armistice day. This year’s will mark 100 years from the end of the first world war.

PMQs

PMQs is about to start.

Here is the batting order.

Order paper
Order paper Photograph: Parliament/HoC

John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has said Labour will abstain on votes on the income tax cuts in the budget, because the cut for basic rate taxpayers and the cut for higher rate taxpayers are rolled up together, the BBC’s Iain Watson reports.

An effigy of Boris Johnson will be burned at an annual bonfire celebration, the Press Association reports. Edenbridge Bonfire Society revealed the identity of its celebrity Guy today, saying the “blundering” ex-foreign secretary was the top choice owing to his “continuing habit” of hitting the headlines with “never-ending gaffes”. Every year the Kent society picks an infamous public figure to poke fun at during its celebrations, this year being held on Saturday. The 36ft effigy will go up in flames alongside a traditional figure of Guy Fawkes.

This is from KMTV’s Robin Britton.

George Eustice, the farming minister, told the environment committee that he hoped the agriculture bill would get royal assent before Brexit and get to the House of Lords before the end of the year or “early next”. This will fuel NFU concerns that the bill is being whizzed through because of Brexit, leaving little time for proper scrutiny and debate.

Zuckerberg asked to give evidence to 'international grand committee' on fake news

British and Canadian politicians have joined forces in calling on Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to explain “failures of process” regarding the spread of propaganda on the social network, the Press Association reports. Leading MPs from both parliaments co-signed a letter to Zuckerberg announcing an “international grand committee” on “disinformation and fake news” to be held at the end of November. Parliamentarians from other countries have been invited to attend the “unprecedented joint hearing” and Zuckerberg has been given until Wednesday November 7 to respond.

In a letter to him Damian Collins, chair of the Commons culture committee, and Bob Zimmer, chair of the Canadian parliament’s committee on access to information, privacy and ethics, said:

Over the past year, our committees have both sought evidence from a Facebook executive with sufficient authority to give an accurate account of recent failures of process, including the recent Cambridge Analytica scandal and subsequent data breaches.

You have chosen instead to send less senior representatives, and have not yourself appeared, despite having taken up invitations from the US congress and senate, and the European parliament.

David Davis clarifies his view on no deal Brexit, saying any plan based on Chequers won't pass Commons

David Davis, the former Brexit secretary, has posted a tweet “clarifying” what he thinks about Theresa May’s chances of getting a Brexit deal. As reported earlier (see 9.24am), he told a meeting last night that a deal would pass. Either he did not express himself clearly, or else his views have developed. (Has Steve Baker had a word?) Now he says he does not think it will get through the Commons if it it is based on her Chequers plan.

Updated

Environment secretary Michael Gove has come under fire after he said there was no “scope” for guarantees in his new agriculture bill over chlorinated chicken imported after Brexit.

Tory MP Neil Parish, chair of the environment select committee told Gove that such a guarantee would merely be putting his previous declarations about food safety into law. At a committee hearing this morning he asked:

What harm would it do to put [guarantees]in the bill? I don’t see why you are so adamant it can’t go there when your whole raison d’etre of British agriculture in the future is to have higher welfare standards.

Concerns about the bill, which represents the biggest reform to agriculture since the 1940s, have already been raised by the National Farmers Union for its lack of emphasis on food post Brexit.

Gove, who was giving evidence before the committee on Tuesday, said he shared the “sentiments” of Parish, but that the place for guarantees was the trade bill, not the agriculture bill. Guarantees were “outside the scope” of this bill, Gove told him.

Parish said this was to duck the issue as there would no time to debate agriculture standards in the trade debate. He went on:

I see no protection, because we couldn’t get it in the trade bill, and now you say we can’t get it in the agriculture bill.

Parish said there was no suggestion that American chicken was unsafe to eat, but that their animal welfare approach was completely different with higher antibiotics in poultry, for example. He explained:

They take many more risks through their production, they are more intensive and then they whack it with chlorine.

Commons clerk says it's not clear whether referendum amendment would invalidate Brexit agreement vote

Later in the Brexit committee Sir David Natzler, the clerk of the Commons, was by the Labour MP Pat McFadden about amendments demanding a second referendum.

Natzler said that a non-statutory vote demanding a referendum would not be legally binding on the government. (An extension of the point he made earlier - see 10.10am.) But he also said that, if a majority of MPs were to vote for a second referendum, that would have considerable political force. He said:

If the House were to agree that there should be a referendum before X or after X, that would have no statutory effect. No referendum follows as a result. But if there is a majority of members of the House of Commons that voted for it, I think you would be very unwise to say that has no effect. It would have, I assume, a considerable political effect.

(One obvious point is that, if a majority of MPs vote for X, even if they are not voting on legislation, ministers know there is always the good chance they will be able to vote for the same thing attached as an amendment to the bill at some point in the future.)

McFadden then asked Natzler what would happen if the motion approving the Brexit deal were approved by MPs, with an amendment demanding a second referendum.

At this point it is important to go back to the EU Withdrawal Act, passed earlier this year. In section 13(1)(b) it says:

the negotiated withdrawal agreement and the framework for the future relationship have been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons on a motion moved by a minister of the crown.

But, as the Commons library briefing (pdf) points out, the Act does not say what would happen if that motion gets amended. Will it still be valid, and sufficient to allow the withdrawal agreement to be ratified? Or will it contaminate it? The government view is that this would contaminate the motion, and stop the treaty being ratified. In a recent memo to the Commons procedure committee (pdf), the Brexit department said:

There is no express provision in [section 13] for the agreement to be partially or conditionally approved; amendments could therefore have the effect - whether deliberately or accidentally - of inhibiting the government’s legal ability to ratify the agreement.

For example, if amendments were passed which purported to offer approval, but only subject to changes being made to the text of either the withdrawal agreement or the future framework, this would, in effect, amount to parliament not approving the documents that were put to it. In this circumstance, the government would therefore not have the authority to ratify the withdrawal agreement.

Likewise, if amendments made approval conditional, such as on an event occuring [Note: the memo here is referring to a second referendum although it does not say so explicitly], this could prevent ratification if the condition introduced any doubt that the government had the required approval to proceed with ratification. At the very least this would invite litigation, bringing with it consequent uncertainty.

So McFadden wanted to whether Natzler agreed. What would happen if the motion went through with a second referendum amendment attached? Unfortunately Natzler said that was one for the lawyers. He replied:

That is the expensive question, meaning I am not a lawyer. That is the big statutory question. The government’s memorandum, that you will have read, to the procedure committee expresses their concern that if the resolution is spoilt, which is my shorthand, by anything other than the pure milk of what it says in 13(1)(b) it casts doubt as to whether or not that gate has opened for them to be able eventually to ratify it. So they think it casts doubt on it.

It obviously casts doubt on it if you have a future conditional amendment which they are not able to meet.

But that is a question for their lawyers. If such an amendment were passed, and then incidentally the motion as amended were agreed, it would then be for lawyers to determine whether 13(1)(b)’s condition had been met. It’s not a procedural question.

May can ignore any non-statutory vote demanding alternative Brexit plan, Commons clerk says

In his evidence to the Brexit committee Sir David Natzler, the clerk of the Commons, said that, even if MPs passed a motion or motions backing an alternative approach to Brexit, the government would be able to ignore them. He was talking in the context of MPs voting on various motions about Brexit alongside the government’s one just asking the Commons to back Theresa May’s deal. When MPs are voting on legislation, the government does, of course, have to comply. But in votes of this kind, the government would be able to ignore them, he said.

In response to a question from the Tory Brexiter John Whittingdale, who said the government would not have to pay any attention to these votes, Natzler said:

That is correct. There’s not statutory obligation. So let us say there’s a majority in favour of a different sort of future trading arrangement to that envisaged in the future framework. Let us say indeed there was a majority for a number of different trading arrangements in different resolutions, because the only precedents close to this are the House of Lords votes in 2003 and 2007, when the business of the House motion explicitly allowed for mutually contradictory resolutions to be passed ...

The House may come out in favour of, I don’t know, of Canada plus plus, or Norway minus, and all sorts of things. Does the government then have to go and renegotiate? No. It then tries to get its principal motion through, with whatever it is proposing to the House.

A few minutes later Whittingdale asked for confirmation that none of these votes would be binding on the government, unless they were amendments to statute. Natzler confirmed that was correct.

Sir David Natzler
Sir David Natzler Photograph: Parliament TV

Updated

The Commons Brexit committee has just started taking evidence from Sir David Natzler, clerk of the Commons, about how the Brexit “meaningful vote” could proceed. You can watch the session here.

The government agreed early last year that MPs should have a vote on the final Brexit deal. The opposition has demanded a “meaningful vote”, implying a vote that could actually change the terms of the deal (for example, by making it conditional on a second referendum), but ministers want it to be a straightforward yes/no, take-it-or-leave-it vote. Dominic Raab, the Brexit secretary, made this clear recently in a letter to the procedure committee.

Quite what will happen is still, at this stage, anyone’s guess. It depends on the Commons standing orders (not always simple), how they are interpreted by the speaker (not always predictable), and what procedural wheezes the government may deploy (because the Commons can always vote to change its own rules). Natzler is not a figure who normally speaks in public, but as Commons clerk he is effectively the chief umpire who decides what is and is not allowed under the rules and so his evidence could prove interesting.

As my colleague Dan Sabbagh reports, in written evidence submitted in advance of today’s hearing Natzler suggested a rare procedure could be used to allow MPs to vote on multiple options.

Here is Natzler’s written evidence (pdf). And here is a Commons library briefing (pdf) entitled “A User’s Guide to the Meaningful Vote” which explains the issues in some detail.

Updated

May will get a deal through parliament, leading Brexiter David Davis predicts

Theresa May will turn up for PMQs today in a rather less precarious position than people might have expected a week or so again. The budget has been very well received in Tory circles and it has not unravelled, in the sense that no one has discovered any enormous problem with it that was not apparent when Philip Hammond sat down at around 4.30pm on Monday afternoon. What people are saying about its strengths and weaknesses hasn’t changed much in the last 36 hours. That doesn’t always happen with these events. On the day of PMQs after Hammond’s first budget, he had to announce a massive U-turn that effectively ripped up one of his main fiscal proposals.

There was also another development last night that will cheer the PM. As Sky News reports, David Davis, who resigned as Brexit secretary because he is opposed to May’s Chequers plan, told a meeting that he thought May would get a deal through parliament. Fear of what would happen in the event of a no deal Brexit (fear that Davis thinks is somewhat unfounded) would be enough to persuade MPs opposed to what she’s offering, he argued. He said:

Terror will win.

The fear of no deal, I think - we haven’t had a chance to talk about it much - but I think that’s an irrational fear of no deal or [a] WTO [World Trade Organisation] deal.

That will win and there will be a deal.

It may take [a] few passes, there maybe a deal passes in Brussels and fails in Westminster.

The Sun’s Harry Cole also quotes Davis saying:

According to Sky, as Davis was saying these words, Steve Baker, who also resigned as a Brexit minister over Chequers, muttered: “Don’t say that.”

The biggest question in Westminster politics at the moment is, is Davis right? Although Davis is a prominent Brexiter, unlike Baker he is not one of the MPs orchestrating the anti-Chequers campaign through the European Research Group, the Tory caucus pushing for a harder Brexit. He was expressing an opinion, not signalling a climbdown on behalf of a faction he leads. Indeed he is still one of the 51 MPs listed on the #StandUp4Brexit website who have said they will oppose Chequers.

If those 51 Tory MPs hold firm, and assuming Labour votes against any proposed May deal, then it is very, very hard to see how she gets her plan through parliament. But MPs change their minds. And, as Davis said, the no deal “terror” could be persuasive.

UDPATE: Davis subsequently posted a tweet “clarifying” what he thinks on this. See 11.20am. UPDATE ENDS.

More of this, no doubt, at PMQs. There is a lot else around today too.

Here is the agenda.

9.15am: Sir David Natzler, clerk of the Commons, gives evidence to the Commons Brexit committee about how the Brexit “meaningful vote” could proceed.

9.30am: Michael Gove, the environment secretary, gives evidence to the Commons environment committee about the agriculture bill.

9.45am: Sajid Javid, the home secretary, speaks at a National Police Chiefs’ Council and Association of Police and Crime Commissioners joint summit

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

2.15pm: Robert Chote, head of the Office for Budget Responsibility, gives evidence to the Commons Treasury committee about the budget.

2.30pm: Simon Stevens, chief executive of NHS England, gives evidence to the Commons public accounts committee about mental health services for children and young people.

2.30pm: Sharon White, Ofcom’s chief executive, and Lord Burns, its chair, give evidence to the Commons culture committee about fake news.

2.45pm: Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, gives evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary when I wrap up, probably around 5.30pm.

Here is the Politico Europe round-up of this morning’s political news. And here is the PoliticsHome list of today’s top 10 must-reads.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it 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 direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time.

If you want to attract my attention quickly, it is probably better to use Twitter.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
Meet Kit Wilson, the WWE star posing an unexpected challenge to the manosphere
INTERVIEW: The British wrestler is a unique character whose callouts of his ‘toxic’ colleagues have proven timely, writes Alex Pattle, amid conversations around the manosphere
The Independent UK
The Independent UK
Don’t mention the m-word: are mutant X-Men about to show up en masse in Spider-Man: Brand New Day?
An intriguing chat about warped DNA in the record-breaking trailer for the new Spider-Man movie could mean a host of long-awaited arrivals in the MCU
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Man asks wife to buy him a 6-pack of Coke Zero at Walmart. Then she tells him it cost $25: ‘This isn’t funny … it’s concerning’
Beverages are getting more and more expensive these days—but six Coke Zeros for $25? That’s something else entirely.
The Mary Sue
The Mary Sue
Live Possum found hiding among stuffed toys at Airport shop, viral video stuns internet
A video going viral on social media after being shared by Brut America has garnered a lot of attention after a live possum was spotted hiding among the stuffed toys inside a shop located in Hobart Airport. This unusual sight has left all the passengers there in a state of…
Times Pets
Times Pets
Dave Grohl says he had to ‘turn everything off’ after admitting to affair
The Foo Fighters singer admitted in September 2024 that he had fathered a child outside of his marriage.
Evening Standard
Evening Standard
From trackers to gummies and CCTV, society has been gripped by sleep hysteria
We’re obsessing about sleep like never before. But much of the messaging is exaggerated, distorted and unhelpful, asks Royal Holloway Sleep Laboratory co-director Alice Gregory
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play