Afternoon summary
- Philip Hammond has defended ditching the national insurance contributions (NICs) rise for the self-employed that was the centrepiece of his first budget, just a week after delivering it. In a statement to MPs, he also effectively confirmed that the Treasury did not think the NICs increase would be seen as a broken manifesto promise, telling the Commons that the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg was the first person who flagged up that this would cause trouble. (See 4.18pm.)
-
The Crown Prosecution Service has received files from 11 police forces relating
to general election expenses in 2015, a spokesman said. And a second Conservative MP, Will Quince, has revealed he was interviewed under caution over allegations about overspending in that election.
-
Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, has suggested he agrees with cabinet colleagues who want Theresa May to exclude foreign students from the government’s target to get net migration down to the tens of thousands. Giving evidence to a Lords committee, when asked about this point he said:
It’s an ongoing argument inside government and I’ve made my own views on that clear in private to the home secretary. I think there is a value for those who come and study in the United Kingdom. I 100% accept the point that they will be in many cases imbued by the values that they experience while they are here, many of them will go on to establish long-term relationships with the United Kingdom, understanding our institutions.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Philip Hammond may have received a sympathetic hearing from Conservative MPs this afternoon, but the pro-Conservative Spectator magazine is not so forgiving. In the leader in this week’s magazine, which is now online, it delivers an excoriating verdict on the U-turn. The government’s credibility “seems to be in tatters”, it says.
Here’s an excerpt.
To govern in such a haphazard way is nothing short of shocking. Mr Hammond has already raised doubts about whether the Conservatives can be trusted to keep firm promises. Now it is no means sure that he – or the Prime Minister – can be trusted to implement policies they lay out in the House of Commons. Mrs May may well be about to face a new Scottish referendum, fighting that campaign while carrying out most complex negotiations this country has faced in its postwar history.
This fiasco will be watched with amazement in European capitals. If Theresa May’s government caves under pressure, then her opponents in Brexit talks will apply pressure. If her red lines can be rubbed out after a few more days’ reflection, how seriously can anyone take anything that she says in such negotiations?
Mr Hammond has endangered wider credibility. What, now, are the financial markets to make of his Budgets or his promises? What more will he revoke after a few days, admitting that he had not given it enough thought? At a time when the UK government needs to borrow £140 million a day to meet its bills, credibility is a precious commodity. It now seems to be in tatters.
The Labour peer Stewart Wood thinks the NICs U-turn means an early election may be on the way.
You know what this handbrake turn on NICs indicates, don't you? That the Government is getting ready for an early election. #May2017
— Stewart Wood (@StewartWood) March 15, 2017
Two new opinion polls offer contradictory evidence about the support for Scottish independence, with a YouGov survey for the Times claiming the no vote is at its highest for two and a half years.
YouGov reports that 57% of Scottish voters wanted to stay in the UK against 43% who favoured independence, excluding don’t knows, while only 35% of voters supported a formal Scottish government independence campaign before Brexit.
A rival poll by Survation for the Daily Mail suggests that result is an outlier. It puts the yes vote at 47%, excluding don’t knows – a figure far more consistent with the latest polls from Ipsos Mori and BMG putting support for independence at 49% and 48% respectively.
The latest annual Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, seen as the most authoritative study of voter sentiment, found support for independence at 46% late last year – the highest level it had recorded since 1999.
However, the new Survation poll also confirms widespread voter scepticism about the case for staging a referendum before Brexit, with 18% of Scottish National party voters saying they would vote no to independence if the referendum were held tomorrow.
It said 31% of all voters agreed that Theresa May, the prime minister, should give Holyrood the power to stage it before Brexit, but 36% said that power should be refused and 18% said it should only be held after the UK leaves the EU.
Amongst yes voters, 22% opposed a referendum before Brexit and 25% said the power to hold the referendum should be granted only if it happened after Brexit.
Hammond's statement to MPs - Summary
It was not a particularly comfortable hour or so for Philip Hammond at the despatch box, but it could have been a lot worse. The chancellor was jeered at various points by opposition MPs, and many of them (like John Woodcock, Yvette Cooper, Mike Gapes, and Alex Salmond) asked questions that were funny and withering. Hammond did not seem to enjoy any of this, but he let it wash over him and for once dull unflappability was something of a bonus.
Crucially, though, his own MPs were on his side. Ministers are only really in trouble when their backbenchers will not support them at the despatch box. Hammond had Tory MPs lining up to welcome his move and it was telling that when Sir Desmond Swayne even complained about having to disown a newspaper article currently at the printer’s defending last week’s NICs increase, he did so light-heartedly, and not as a grievance. (See 3.23pm.)
Here are the main points.
- Hammond suggested it was the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg who first warned the Treasury it was in trouble over breaking a manifesto promise. The issue was first raised by the SNP’s Alex Salmond who asked if it was Hammond or Theresa May who first spotted that raising NICs was breaking an election pledge. Hammond replied:
Since you asked me the question who first raised the issue of the manifesto, I think, credit where credit is due, I think it was actually Laura Kuenssberg on the BBC, shortly after I said it in the budget speech.
When Labour’s Yvette Cooper asked Hammond if he was saying that no one in Number 10 or 11 was aware that the NICs rise broke a manifesto promise, Hammond said he was not saying that. He said that Kuenssberg was the first person to raise this as an issue in public after the budget.
But, in answer to a later question from John Woodcock, he effectively confirmed that the Treasury did not think the manifesto pledge was any longer an issue, because the “tax lock” legislation it mentioned had already been put into law. He said:
We [in the Treasury] understand the commitment that we made to have been discharged by the passage through this House of the National Insurance (Rate Ceilings) Act 2015 and that set out very clearly the scope that the then chancellor decided to apply to the national insurance contributions lock. That is how the Treasury has worked since 2015 around the locks and ringfences that were put in place. They are part of the everyday workings of the Treasury and that is what we worked to in this case.
But I have accepted today that there is a broader interpretation, not the legislation that implemented it. That is why I have come to the House and made the statement that I have.
The tax lock act only covered class 1 NICs. Hammond’s problems arose because the manifesto ruled out all NICs increases.
- Hammond said that the decision to abandon the NICs increase was taken by Theresa May and him at about 8am this morning.
- John McDonnnell, the shadow chancellor, said the government was in “chaos”. He said:
This is chaos. It’s shocking and humiliating that the chancellor has been forced to come here to reverse a key Budget decision announced less than a week ago.
If the chancellor had spent less time writing stale jokes for his speech and the prime minister less time guffawing like a feeding seal on those benches, we would not have been landed with this mess.
- Hammond suggested he did not want the employed and the self-employed to pay the same rate of national insurance. Although his NICs rise would have closed the gap between the two rates, it would not have equalised them, he said.
We were not seeking to equalise the contributions treatment of employed and self-employed. There are actually very good reasons why there may well need to be a gap.
Updated
The statement is over.
Alex Salmond, the SNP former Scottish first minister, uses a point of order to call for an emergency cabinet meeting and for Laura Kuenssberg to be given a cabinet post so she can warn them of any future mistakes.
And the Tory MP Sir Desmond Swayne also raises a point of order. He says his article defending the chancellor’s NICs increase for the New Forest Journal (his local paper) is currently at the printer’s. Can he retract.
John Bercow, the speaker, says he has made his point.
I will post a summary shortly.
Updated
Tracy Brabin, the Labour MP, says the cut in the dividend tax allowance from £5,000 to £2,000 will affect people more. Will Hammond reverse that tax increase?
Hammond says this will only affect a relatively small number of people, typically with share portfolios worth more than £50,000. He says the Treasury has to raise money somewhere to fund services.
This is from the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg (who has emerged as the surprise star of this statement.)
Sources suggest May was told by executive cttee of 1922 on Monday that NICs policy was not going to fly
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) March 15, 2017
Labour’s Geraint Davies says the government has become a consultation exercise. Can Hammond confirm that, when the Tories made their “tax lock” promise, the government did not carry out an assessment of the impact of Brexit. Brexit means that the cost of Brexit will have to be paid for from public service cuts.
Hammond says he has discussed the thinking behind the manifesto.
Andrew Murrison, the Conservative, asks Hammond to consider hypothecating NICs.
Hammond says there is already “soft hypothecation” around NICs. He says 20% goes to the NHS. And it funds the state pension. He says giving the self-employed access to a state pension will give them an extra £1,800 a year on retirement. He says that extra cover is worth £50,000, because that is what it would cost to buy.
The Labour MP Mike Gapes says Hammond made what was at the time a funny joke about a chancellor (Norman Lamont) being sacked 10 weeks after the budget. Does Hammond agree that his NICs increase was a rookie mistake?
Hammond says he was trying to make the system fairer. But he has listened to MPs and cancelled his plan. He says there will be a review.
The SNP’s Roger Mullin says the last chancellor who had to make a U-turn like this only lasted a few weeks. So, before Hammond leaves office, can he confirm that cabinet has not agree his U-turn.
May says this decision was taken by him and the prime minister this morning.
Labour’s Andrew Slaughter says he can understand why Hammond did not want to read the Tory manifesto. But is his position now, he was right to raise NICs, and so he is not doing it?
Hammond says there are two issues: the policy was right in principle, but breaking a manifesto promise was not acceptable.
Owen Smith, the Labour MP, asks Hammond to pass on MPs thanks to Laura Kuenssberg, for pointing out that this was a duff decision, and to Theresa May, for forcing him to do a U-turn before breakfast.
Hammond says Smith is entitled to his opinion.
This is from the Evening Standard’s Joe Murphy.
A senior Tory tells me Hammond is not out of the woods: "The 1922 Committee has yet to meet - some of whom defended the NICs rise."
— Joe Murphy (@JoeMurphyLondon) March 15, 2017
Peter Bone, the Conservative, says Hammond could reduce the gap between NICs for the employed and the self-employed but cutting NICs for the employed.
Hammond says 85% of workers are employed. Cutting NICs for the employed would involve a “huge cost”, he says.
Labour’s John Woodcock asks Hammond if he is saying that he was not aware that he was breaking the Tory manifesto commitment, or that he was aware, and was just hoping on on would notice.
Neither, says Hammond. He says the Treasury worked on the basis that the tax lock legislation implemented the manifesto commitment.
Hammond says extra measures in the autumn budget will raise money to fill the gap created by the cancellation of the NICs increase.
Labour’s Yvette Cooper asks Hammond to confirm that the first person to raise with him whether the budget met the manifesto was the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg. (See 2.34pm.) Did no one in Number 10 check?
Hammond says he was talking about the first person to raise this after the statement.
He says he took the view that he was bound by the tax lock.
But now he accepts that he should be bound by the “more expansive” interpretation in the manifesto should apply.
The Conservative MP Anna Soubry says, as someone who was self-employed for a long time, she welcomes the announcement.
Alex Salmond, the SNP former Scottish first minister, points out that May was on the bench earlier to support Hammond. Who first noticed that this amounted to a breach of the manifesto. And will the NICs increase be in the next manifesto?
Hammond says he is not announcing the next manifesto.
As for who first raised the point about the NICs increase being a breach of the manifesto, he says credit where credit is due, it was the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg, on TV soon after he announced it.
(Hammond seems to be talking about who first raised this point after the announcement. It does not seem likely that he is saying no one in government considered the issue of whether this would breach the manifesto before the announcement was made.)
Anne Main, a Conservative, tells Hammond he is “an honourable man”.
Labour’s Rachel Reeves says this was the prime minister’s decision, not Hammond’s.
Hammond says that is not true. He has had many discussions with May on this. He says the final decision was made this morning, just after 8am.
Labour’s Angela Eagle asks what Hammond will do to safeguard the tax base.
Hammond says the government will have to address the difference between NICs rates for the employed and the self-employed. But, given how the manifesto is being interpreted, it is right to cancel the increase.
Nicky Morgan, the Conservative former education secretary, welcomes the announcement.
Hammond says there is a structural problem here to be addressed. That includes looking at how the self-employed can be given a right to benefits.
Labour’s Chris Leslie, a former shadow chancellor, says this has been embarrassing for those Tory MPs who defended the plan. Will he apologise to them?
Hammond says he has had extensive conversations with MPs, and with the prime minister too, over the last few days. He will not reveal the contents.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan, a Conservative, says the genuinely self-employed take risks. Will Hammond create a system that reflects that?
Hammond says the government will always be on the side of those who take risks.
He says John McDonnell mentioned bogus self-employment. He was right to do so; there is a problem, Hammond says.
Stewart Hosie, the SNP’s economy spokesman, asks if Hammond will be finding an alternative way of raising money from the self-employed? And will he consult on future changes?
Hammond says the government will be consulting over the summer on new plans.
He says he had wanted the spring budet to be broadly fiscally neutral.
But, as a result of today’s announcement, it is not.
Andrew Tyrie, the Conservative chair of the Treasury committee, says this announcement bolsters trust in the government to keep its promise. And it removes a cigarette paper between Number 10 and Number 11. But does Hammond accept that the self-employed should pay lower NICs.
Hammond says his announcement removed the gap between the rates, but it did not abolish them. He says there may be a case for the self-employed paying less. He says the government’s review will look at these issues in the round.
Hammond is responding to McDonnell.
He says he will not take lessons from Labour, apart from in chaos theory.
He says the government has listened to MPs and the public and responded. That is how politics should work.
He dismissed Jeremy Corbyn’s performance at PMQs today and he says Corbyn scarely mentioned NICs in his budget response last week.
He says Labour has a commission on the self-employed. And he says the Labour commission has acknowledged the need to address the different tax treatment of the employed and the self-employed.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, says this is chaos.
It is shocking and humiliating that the chancellor has had to come her to reverse a key decision.
If Hammond had spent less time on his budget jokes, and the prime minister has spent less time guffawing like a feeding seal, then they might have avoided this.
He says Hammond has come out with not a word of apology. No one should be afraid of saying sorry.
He wants to to thank those who forced Hammond to see sense. He says Jeremy Corbyn was first to raise this in the Commons.
(True, but that was because Corbyn was the first MP to speak after the budget. In his response he did mention the NICs increase, but he did not say much about it. More details here.)
He asks if any ministers raised concerns about the increase with Hammond.
He says the government sets great store in the opinion of the British people.
By this move, the government is showing it is listening.
Hammond says he will set out further measures in the autumn budget to address the shortfall created by his decision.
Philip Hammond's statement
Philip Hammond is delivering his Commons statement now.
He is making the arguments set out in his letter to the Commons Treasury committee. (See 11.45am.)
Hammond's NICs U-turn: Snap analysis
So we know what Philip Hammond has done. But what is the long-term significance? Here are some snap thoughts.
1 - Economic competence matters, and Theresa May and Philip Hammond have knocked a serious dent in theirs. Only last week an ICM poll for the Guardian showed May and Hammond 31 points ahead of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell on the issue of economic competence. It is almost certain that, the next time the question is asked (this weekend for us, probably) May and Hammond’s ratings will have gone down.
This is a very big U-turn. But it is also worth pointing out that most chancellor in recent years have had to do something similar. When Ken Clarke was chancellor in 1994, he had have an mini emergency budget after MPs voted down an increase on VAT in fuel that he had announced the previous year but that was just about to come into effect. When Alistair Darling was chancellor, he had to spend £2.7bn a few weeks after his 2008 budget reversing the impact of the abolition of the 10p rate of income tax that Gordon Brown had announced when he was chancellor the year before. And George Osborne had to abandon benefit cuts worth more than £4bn less than a week after announcing them in his budget last year. Not all of these chancellors suffered a terminal hit to their reputation because ...
2 - U-turns, while never welcome, can cauterise a political problem. May and Hammond have at least closed down the risk of going into the next election being accused of having broken a key manifesto promise on tax.
3 - Hammond has left himself with a £2bn shortfall. (See 11.57am.) That is not welcome, but it is smaller than some of the other blackholes left in government finances by Treasury U-turns. (See 1 above.)
4 - Major reform of the tax treatment of the self-employed has been delayed, but not cancelled. It was telling that at PMQs May only spoke about not increasing NICs during this parliament. She has left the door open to reforming NICs in this area, as experts suggest she should (see 12.59pm), after the election.
5 - The U-turn illustrates the power of Tory backbenchers. May and Hammond are explaining the U-turn as a matter of keeping an electoral promise, but it was also a reflection of simple maths. More than a dozen Tory MPs had spoken out in public against the increase, meaning it had very little chance of being passed by the Commons. Pro-European Tories were unable to exercise any leverage when the article 50 bill was going through parliament, but May could not see off this rebellion. That says something about how powerless the Tory pro-European lobby is compared to the Tory low-tax lobby.
6 - And it illustrates the power of the Tory press too. As prime minister May has done nothing to upset the Daily Mail, and today’s announcement suggests that she is not about to abandon a strategy that has served her well.
7 - Cameron’s tax-lock promise at the last election is looking increasingly reckless. At the time many commentators said it was irresponsible for a party to rule out potentially desirable tax increases over the next five years as David Cameron and George Osborne did. Winning an outright majority in 2015 was seen as a great triumph. But, in the light of today’s announcement (and the police investigation into party spending in South Thanet and other constituencies), perhaps they weren’t so clever in how they went about winning.
8 - Parliament is infinitely better at speaking up for middle earners and the rich than it is at speaking up for the poor. The impact of the NICs increase was relatively mild in budgetary terms (£645m a year, at most) and it mostly affected middle and high earners. It did not survive a week. Yet tax credit cuts worth billions, which will impact the poor much more, both in cash terms and in proportional terms, are going to be implemented without Tory MPs blocking them.
Updated
The Conservative MP Ed Vaizey does not seem very happy about the NICs U-turn.
Blimey. I've been vigorously defending it... https://t.co/WQKXZYWgaK
— Ed Vaizey (@edvaizey) March 15, 2017
I thought I was defending a very sensible change https://t.co/m9VF0bHpID
— Ed Vaizey (@edvaizey) March 15, 2017
Cos it was a very sensible tax change. See, I'm still vigorously defending it. I wasn't being sarcastic https://t.co/pzCOGRrcz2
— Ed Vaizey (@edvaizey) March 15, 2017
This is what Jeremy Corbyn’s team have been saying about his performance at PMQs, according to the Mirror’s Jack Blanchard.
Senior Labour source on Corbyn's #PMQs showing: "He asked the questions he wanted to ask, and they covered the crucial issues of the day."
— Jack Blanchard (@Jack_Blanchard_) March 15, 2017
Senior Labour source: "Of course #PMQs matters. Jeremy has tried to do it in a different way to other political leaders."
— Jack Blanchard (@Jack_Blanchard_) March 15, 2017
And here is Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former spin doctor, on Corbyn’s performance.
Unless the Corbyn team actually planned for that to be a car crash the inquest should be long, hard and honest. He just can't do it.
— Alastair Campbell (@campbellclaret) March 15, 2017
Here is the Evening Standard splash. It is quite impressive how they have managed to get both “U-turn” and “fiasco” into a headline.
Fiasco for Hammond and May. Our splash in late edition of @EveningStandard pic.twitter.com/r7nfA2SNFc
— Joe Murphy (@JoeMurphyLondon) March 15, 2017
This is from my colleague Heather Stewart.
PM's spox says abandoning NICs rise was a "government decision"; May and Hammond have listened to concerns, and "moved quickly".
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) March 15, 2017
Here is Caroline Lucas, the Green party’s co-leader, on the Treasury’s U-turn.
This spectacular U-turn from a government in chaos is hugely welcome. If they are serious about creating a fair economy then the government will now reverse other damaging policies like their deep cuts to local government and tax cuts for the richest.
The Institute of Directors says the government’s handling of the NICs episode has been “chaotic”. Stephen Herring, the IoD’s head of taxation, said:
The whole national insurance saga can only be described as chaotic. The irony is that there are good reasons to look at levelling the playing field for employees and the self-employed, as the tax on direct employment is disproportionally higher. However, it would have been much better if, as the IoD had suggested, the government had waited for the conclusions of its own review of modern employment, and reformed wholesale how different forms of work are taxed. Instead they announced they would raise one tax in isolation, only to cancel it a week later. Successive governments have acknowledged that the growth in self-employment has implications for tax revenues, but not one has wanted to take the political risk of undertaking real long-lasting reform.
The business community needs to feel that the government has confidence in its plans for the tax system, and policy isn’t going to chop and change from week to week. Credibility takes a long time to build, but can be lost in a moment. It is now even more important that the November budget is more far-sighted than the one we have just seen.
John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, has put out a statement saying the U-turn shows the government is “in disarray”. In a statement he said:
This is a humiliating reversal for the chancellor forced upon him by Labour’s opposition. His authority is now shredded after just one Budget, and he tore up a manifesto commitment to do it.
We welcome the government’s decision to finally listen to Labour’s calls made in Jeremy Corbyn’s budget response along with those of business groups like the Federation of Small Businesses to not go ahead with an unfair £2bn tax rise on low and middle earners. But they should never have been placed in this position to start with, and now we face yet another Tory Budget only a year on with a blackhole in the billions. In 2015, we had the tax credit shambles. In 2016, we had personal independence payments reversal. Now in 2017 we have the U-turn on national insurance contributions.
There will be millions of working people who are now breathing a sigh of relief, but it is the chancellor who should be holding his breath as this episode throws up urgent questions that he and the Cabinet must now answer.
Did the prime minister or the rest of the cabinet, who must have seen the budget in advance and known this measure was to be implemented, raise their concerns with the chancellor before he announced it, worrying millions of families? It was in the weekend papers before the Budget so they can’t say they were unaware it was to happen.
This is also the second year we have had a Tory budget with a black hole in it worth billions. This is not acceptable. What will he do to fill the shortfall in a budget he delivered less than a week ago without pursuing unfair tax increases or further cuts to public services? As the budget will still see working people £1,400 worse off under the government.
On the day the Brexit secretary has admitted that he hasn’t looked into the costs of the prime minister’s negotiating strategy, this is yet more proof that there is disarray at the top of a government clearly making things up as they go along.
Torsten Bell, director of the Resolution Foundation, the living standards thinktank, has expressed disappointment about the U-turn.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of Conservative manifesto commitments, today’s U-turn on national insurance means the government has missed an opportunity to correct a big structural flaw in our tax system which allows better-off self-employed workers to pay far less tax than employees.
This matters both for fairness and for the public finances. The U-turn means the cost of lower national insurance for the self-employed will now grow from £5.1bn this year to an estimated £6.2bn in 2019-20.
It is welcome that the government clearly intends to revisit this issue, albeit not this side of a general election. But it is deeply regrettable that a U-turn on a small and sensible piece of tax reform that affects higher income households coincides with the decision to press ahead with benefit cuts that leave low and middle income households facing a far greater hit in the coming weeks.
Addressing these policies should be the real issue for those concerned about the living standards of ordinary working families.
The Resolution Foundation was one of at least two respected thinktanks that backed the NICs increase. The Institute for Fiscal Studies was another. And the Guardian was in favour too.
But the Daily Mail, the Sun and the Daily Telegraph all hated it. No prizes for guessing which carry more clout with Theresa May.
Here is Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, on the NICs U-turn.
The Conservatives have bodged every budget since the election and have lost the right to call themselves the party of business.
They are simply not thinking about the ‘just about managing’ who are struggling with the Brexit squeeze. They are lumbering from one U-turn to another and are clearly panicking.
Here is the Guardian’s story about the NICs U-turn.
And here is an extract.
The issue dominated exchanges at PMQs, with Theresa May insisting the U-turn did not mean she accepted the NICs rise went against the 2015 manifesto.
Answering a question from the Conservative backbencher Huw Merriman, May said: “We made a commitment not to raise tax and we put our commitment into the tax lock, and the measures we put forward in the budget were consistent with those locks.
“But as a number of my parliamentary colleagues have been pointing out in recent days, the trend towards greater self-employment does create a structural issue in the tax base, on which we will have to act.”
The government would await the Taylor report on the future of employment, May said, but would not raise NICs in the parliament.
Jeremy Corbyn responded by saying May was presiding over “a government in a bit of chaos here”, which had produced “a budget that unravels within seven days”.
Here is Frances O’Grady, the TUC general secretary, on the NICs U-turn.
This is a real opportunity for the chancellor to look at how self-employed workers can be treated more fairly.
The government should start by looking at the tax advantages which encourage bad employers to push people into bogus self-employment.
People who are self-employed should be able to access basic protections like any other worker. That means paid parental leave and pay when you fall sick.
PMQs is over.
Philip Hammond will be making his statement to the Commons about the NICs U-turn in about an hour. There are two UQs up first.
After PMQs today: pic.twitter.com/agi5jSY4wv
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 15, 2017
Labour’s Stephen Twigg asks if May is concerned about President Trump cutting his aid budget. Will the government encourage the US to remain part of the international aid effort.
May says the government is committed to remaining part of the international aid project. She says the government will be matching some of the money paid to the East Africa crisis appeal pound for pound.
Labour’s Yvette Cooper says May has done a £2bn budget U-turn. Last week the government did a £4bn one in five days. Is that why the government wants to abolish spring budgets - because they just keep ripping them up?
May says she welcomes the measures in the budget.
The SNP’s Hannah Bardell asks May to change plans to remove HMRC jobs from Livingston.
May says the relocation will allow HMRC to build a better workforce. Customers will benefit too, she says.
The SNP’s Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh says Nicola Sturgeon was elected on a manifesto that said the SNP would call an independence referendum in the event of a material change in circumstances.
May says she recognises the vote for the SNP. But she would refere Ahmed-Sheikh to two other votes: the 2014 vote against independence, described by Alex Salmond as a once-in-a-generation one; and the vote to leave the EU.
Tim Loughton, the Conservative MP, says today is the Ides of March. He says Brutus opposite missed badly. He asks May to comment on the European court ruling about the wearing of the veil.
May says it is not for government to tell women what they can wear, although there are occasions when it is right to ask for the veil to be removed.
PMQs - Snap verdict
PMQs - Snap verdict: The good news for Corbyn is that PMQs, while entertaining theatre which has a lot of influence on the standing of leaders with their MPs, and some impact on the way parties and leaders are perceived by the public, it is not ultimately decisive. Just ask William Hague. This ought to be a consolation because, on a day when May has just had to execute the biggest U-turn of her prime ministerial career, at considerable cost to the government’s reputation for economic competence, Corbyn failed dismally to exploit this at the despatch box. He had clearly prepared a set of questions about education and was not quick-witted enough to abandon them and instead devote all six questions to the NICs U-turn, as he should have done. A better leader would have taunted her with a series of questions about why she defended the policy last week. Or at least produce an effective soundbite, as Angus Robertson did. Instead, even when Corbyn was commenting on NICs, he got diverted into the issue of the abuse of self-employment by employers - an important topic, but one where May has a case, because of the Taylor review. So, overall, it was an epic miss.
Updated
Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, says we once had a PM who said she is not for turning. This one is, with a screeching U-turn. She said she would get an agreement on article 50 with Scotland. When will that happen?
May say Robertson is comparing EU membership, which has lasted 40 years, with a union that has been together for centuries. She accuses the SNP of game playing.
Corbyn says May should listen to teachers. School budgets are being cut. According to the IFS families will be £1,000 worse off as a result of this budget. What is May doing to help them.
May says fuel duty has been frozen and 3m people have been taken out of paying tax altogether. She says there are more children in good or outstanding schools.
Corbyn says Labour wants a good place for every school in every community. Grammar schools do not achieve that. May has not addressed the unfairness of the budget. We need a government dedicated to reducing the widening gap, he says.
May says the top 1% of earner will contribute 27% of income tax. On every education policy the government has introduced to deliver better schools, Labour has opposed the policy. It wants parents to take what they get. Labour would bankrupt Britain. The government is addressing the government’s concerns. Corbyn just goes on protest marches.
Corbyn says this government is borrowing more than all Labour government altogether. He says he hopes the chancellor will address the way employers abuse the status of self-employment.
May says Corbyn has not noticed that she commissioned Matthew Taylor to review this issue. The employment market is changing, she says. She says the government is improving conditions for the self-employed. Labour’s policy will bankrupt Britain.
Corbyn says we have a budget U-turn, no apology and a budget that falls most on the poorest. That is her agenda.
May says Corbyn has not got the hang of it. Corbyn is meant to ask a question. She says the government has protected the core schools premium. The budget delivers more money for education and social care. That funding would not be available under Labour.
Jeremy Corbyn says the government is dropping something announced only a week ago. This seems like chaos. A budget that unravels within a week. He says this increase was unfair. He says the government should address the issue of how business avoids tax through bogus self-employment.
May says she usually does not take lectures from Corbyn. But he can lecture her on chaos.
Corbyn says May should apologise for the stress causes. The Welsh minister, Guto Bebb, called for one. What will May do to fill the black hole?
May says, if Corbyn is some concerned with balancing the books, why does he want to borrow £500bn.
PMQs
Theresa May starts by wishing MPs a happy St Patrick’s day.
The Tory MP Huw Merriman says he welcomes the Treasury’s decision to abide by the spirit of its manifesto, as well as the letter of it.
May says the budget measures were consistent with the tax lock legislation.
She says MPs have pointed out that the trend towards self-employment creates structural problems which the govenrment will have to address.
But there will be no NICs rises this parliament.
Here is Matthew Taylor, the former Labour adviser who is reviewing modern employment practices for the government and whose preliminary conclusions encouraged Hammond to increase NICs for the self-employed, on the U-turn.
Let's hope big political learning from the NICs episode is the danger of making blanket manifesto tax pledges to try to embarrass opponents
— Matthew Taylor (@RSAMatthew) March 15, 2017
Here is the key quote from Philip Hammond’s letter.
It is very important both to me and to the prime minister that we are compliant not just with the letter, but also the spirit of the commitments that were made [not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT].
In the light of what has emerged as a clear view among colleagues and a significant section of the public, I have decided not to proceed with the Class 4 NIC measure set out in the budget.
The NICs increase was due to raise £325m in 2018-19, then £645m, then £595m, and then £495m in 2021-22. Over four years that amounts to about £2bn. That is the size of the hole now in Philip Hammond’s budget.
This is from the Spectator’s James Forsyth.
At ’22 last week, Hammond reassured Tory MPs that they could defend the NICs increase confident in the knowledge government wouldn’t u-turn
— James Forsyth (@JGForsyth) March 15, 2017
PMQs
PMQs is staring in five minutes.
Obviously, it will be dominated by the Hammond U-turn.
Hammond's letter announcing NICs u-turn
Philip Hammond, the chancellor, has announced his U-turn in a letter to the Treasury committee.
The Treasury drops NICs increase for self-employed in major U-turn
The Treasury is dropping the NICs increase for the self-employed.
Treasury to make surprise statement to MPs about NICs
After PMQs we are getting a statement from the Treasury about national insurance contributions (NICs).
Government just announced statement on NICs after UQs Potential for a huge u-turn?
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) March 15, 2017
It sounds as if Philip Hammond may be rewriting his budget.
Updated
Q: How will you keep parliament, and this committee, informed during the Brexit talks?
Davis says the Commons will be told at least as much as the European parliament.
To some extent this will depend on what information becomes available, he says.
And that’s it. The hearing is over.
Benn says he expects Davis to give evidence again in June.
Davis says white paper on great repeal bill to be published soon
Q: When will we get the white paper on the great repeal bill?
Davis says the government wants to wait until the Northern Ireland executive is up and running. But it will be soon after that. He says he knows the committee needs to see that quickly.
- Davis says white paper on great repeal bill to be published soon.
Hilary Benn, the committee chairs, goes next.
Q: Are you confident that we will still have access to EU data-sharing programmes used for criminal justice?
Davis says that is the intention.
Q: Could the government accept the Efta court as an arbitration mechanism? It is allergic to the ECJ.
Davis says it is not a case of being allergic to the ECJ. If we did a trade deal with the US, the US supreme court would not be the court where disputes would be resolved.
Plaid Cymru’s Jonathan Edwards goes next.
Q: Could other trade deals be signed before the EU one?
Davis says he is aiming to sign the EU one within two years. It will not be able to sign other ones until after it leaves.
Labour’s Stephen Timms goes next.
Q: We visited the German parliament. All the MPs said that trying to get access to the single market while not allowing free movement was cherry picking and unacceptable.
Davis says Germany may be one of the countries where MPs are more difficult. But their leadership is different. And they have a trade surplus with us, he says.
He says he would say to them the EU was set up to establish stability through trade.
Davis says Brexit will lead to changes to the underlying economy.
The government wants to make the most of those changes, for example the opportunities for free trade.
He says he thinks the net impact will be positive.
Labour’s Seema Malhotra goes next.
Davis says he does not worry himself about mathematical models that are very rarely accurate in the long run.
He says the OBR is required by law to do forecasts.
Q: Do you disagree with their forecasts?
He says he is not going to say whether he agrees or disagrees. His point is that forecasts have their limits.
Updated
Michael Gove, the Conservative former justice secretary and leading Vote Leave campaigner, goes next.
Q: What are the most exciting ideas for things that we could do outside the EU that we can’t do within?
Davis says he does not do exciting.
Q: Alluring things? Provocative things?
Davis says he does no do provocative things either.
He says the UK has been part of the UK for more than 40 years. When we are out, we can change laws. For example, in the digital area, we can free things up. But he does not want to give a list, and he suggests change will not be immediate.
Much will depend on what the new regulatory regimes are. For example, on clinical trials. We will be freer than we are now. But there will still be some constraints.
I have beefed up some of the earlier posts with direct quotes from David Davis, taken from the Press Association wire. To get them to show up, you may need to refresh the pages (not just the most recent pages, but others as you go back.)
The Conservative MP Karl McCartney goes next. He has questions for Olly Robbins.
Robbins says the department is still recruiting.
Around 80 are being recruited from outside the civil service.
Q: How many of those are former civil servants who left?
Robbins says he does not know.
He says the department currently has 322 people working for it. And it is in charge of UKRep (the UK’s office in Brussels), where another 120 people work.
Labour says government should rule out threat to leave EU with no deal
Sir Keir Starmer the shadow Brexit secretary, has put out this statement in response to David Davis’s admission that there has been no assessment of the economic impact of leaving the EU without a deal. Starmer said:
The government is recklessly talking up the idea of crashing out of the EU with no deal. They have repeated the mantra that ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’.
But we now know they have made no assessment of the economic impact of the prime minister failing to secure a deal.
What’s clear, from the CBI and others, is that there is no result that would be worse for the British economy than leaving with no deal; no deal would be the worst possible deal. The government should rule out this dangerous and counter-productive threat before article 50 is triggered.
- Labour says government should rule out threat to leave EU with no deal.
Q: Will you publish a response to the white papers produced by the Scottish and Welsh governments?
Davis says he has already discussed it with them.
He says he does not want to give the SNP an opportunity for political point-scoring.
Q: But will you give them the courtesy of a written response?
Davis says the Scottish government has already had a detailed response in the JMC meeting. Technical work is still being carried out, and he will not pre-empt that.
Davis says it is possible the JMC will not meet again before article 50 is triggered.
Q: Will the devolved administrations be given notice of the triggering of article 50?
Davis pauses quite a long time before answering. He says there will be conversations.
Q: Have you tried to reach agreement with Scotland?
Davis says you can only reach an agreement with someone if they want an agreement. He says the SNP have not always wanted an agreement. They have exploited this for political purposes, he says.
- Davis accuses SNP government of refusing to cooperate with the UK government over Brexit.
Q: In July last year Theresa May said she would not trigger article 50 until she had a UK-wide approach backed by Scotland. Has she got that?
Davis says the government wants a deal that works for the Scottish people. They are not the same as the SNP, he says.
Some areas are currently under debate, such as where powers get repatriated. That will be discussed at the next JMC (joint ministerial committee).
Some areas are more difficult, such as the SNP’s demand for a carve-out that would keep Scotland in the single market. That is difficult, he says. He says work is underway on that. But he is not confident of getting a positive outcome.
- Davis signals the government will reject the SNP’s plan for a carve-out that would keep Scotland in the single market.
Q: Was the Telegraph correct when it reported May as saying in July as saying she would not trigger article 50 until she had a UK-wide approach backed by Scotland?
Davis says he is not here to comment on the journalistic qualities of the Telegraph.
The SNP’s Joanna Cherry goes next.
Q: Michel Barnier said the talks would have be conclued by next autumn, to allow time for ratification. Do you still think you can meet that timetable?
Davis says he thinks the whole process can still be wrapped up in two years. If the will is there, it can be done.
Maria Caulfield, a Conservative, is asking questions now.
Q: Will other member states allow the UK and Ireland to keep the common travel area?
Davis says he does not see any problem. The Amsterdam treaty includes a specific reference to the common travel area, he says.
It is the governnment’t intention, and the Irish government’s intention, to keep it.
Q: So it is a work in progress?
Davis objects. He accuses Caulfield of putting words in his mouth. You could call the whole of this hearing a work in progress, he says.
Davis says work on finding solutions to the border issue are underway.
Asked about Northern Ireland, Davis says there is border, and excise duties are collected, but in a subtle way.
It will not be easy to maintain border controls on goods without having border posts, he says. But he says it will be possible.
You can use trusted trader electronic systems, he says.
The government will not do anything that will jeopardise the peace process, he says.
He says the Irish Republic is also committed to this.
And the European commission has a strong emotional commitment to the Northern Ireland peace process, he says.
He says when he first met Michel Barnier, Barnier said they could not start talks now. But, as soon as Northern Ireland came up, Barnier was keen to engage.
David Davis on why government has not yet assessed impact of leaving EU with no deal
This is what David Davis said when he confirmed that the government had not carried out assessment of the economic impact of leaving the EU with no deal.
Any forecast you make depends on the mitigation you make, and therefore it would be rather otiose to do that forecast before we have concluded what mitigation is possible.
You haven’t asked me about the upsides - for roughly 60% of our trade we could relax things the other way.
And this is what he said about Theresa May’s claim that no deal would be better than a bad deal.
She said that because in the emotional aftermath of the referendum, there were lots of threats of punishment deals and all the rest of it.
We had to be clear that we could actually manage this in such a way as to be better than a bad deal, and that is true.
I can’t quantify it for you yet. I may well be able to do so in a year’s time. It’s not as frightening as some people think, but it’s not as simple as some people think.
Davis says, when the government come up with a new immigration policy, the issue will be control, not numbers.
He says the aim of the government is to bring down net migration numbers.
But it won’t be done in a way that damages the economy, he says.
Alistair Burt, the Conservative, goes next.
Q: There is a chance of rhetoric getting out of hand. The papers want a confrontation with the EU. Will you do everything you can to keep the tone down?
Davis says he personally has not responded to any provocations.
Burt is right, he says. He says it is very important that the mood and temperature of exchanges is controlled and positive.
At times the talks will get tough. But tough does not means spiteful and angry.
He says he is not one of those who does not like the European project. For EU countries, like those in Eastern Europe, it has been very important, he says. He understands why they are upset about the UK leaving.
Q: Is it the government’s policy to have the option of defaulting to WTO terms without parliament getting a vote?
Davis says we are talking about “tiny probabilities”.
Q: But if there is no deal?
Davis says no doubt the government would make a statement to the Commons. The Commons could then decide what it wanted to do (ie, whether it wanted to orchestrate a vote.)
Q: Sir John Major said in his speech recently that the WTO option was “the worst possible outcome”. He’s right, isn’t he?
No, says Davis.
He says after the referendum it was clear some people were arguing for a “punishment” deal for the UK. So no deal would be, by no means, the worst option.
Q: Sir Ivan Rogers, the former UK ambassador to Brussels, said that no major economy trades with the EU just on WTO terms.
Davis says, even if there was not a trade deal, he would expect some sort of deals of the kind mentioned by Rogers. (Rogers said countries without a trade deal with the EU nevertheless had side deals affecting trade.)
Updated
Labour’s Pat McFadden goes next. He asks why the government can say that leaving the EU with no deal is better than leaving with a bad deal if it has not carried out an economic assessment. He accuses the government of “mortgaging the country’s future to a soundbite”.
Davis says you do not have to have a piece of paper with numbers on it to have an assessment.
He says he has an idea of how things would turn out.
And he says the government has made contingency plans for this option.
This is from the Financial Times’ George Parker on David Davis’s admission that the government has not carried out an economic impact assessment of leaving the EU with no deal. (See 9.21am.)
DD admits no full govt econ impact assessment of leaving EU with no deal. So how does TM know that "no deal better than bad deal"?
— George Parker (@GeorgeWParker) March 15, 2017
Jeremy Lefroy, a Conservative, is asking the questions now.
Q: Scientists are often not paid very much. How will we ensure that the new visa rules don’t exclude people?
Davis says Lefroy is right to say most visa scheme used a salary hurdle. But good systems allow for exemptions.
Davis says government will not allow Brexit to stop UK being a 'science superpower'
Davis says the UK is a science superpower. It is second only to the US.
The government intends to keep that “contest for talent”. It will not allow Brexit to stop that, he says.
- Davis says government will not allow Brexit to stop UK being a “science superpower.”
Davis says UK will meet its “obligations” to EU budget
Q: How will the government deal with this, especially if the negotiations get bogged down on this?
Davis says he will not say what the UK will do if the talks get bogged down on this. He does not want to discuss tactics.
He says EU countries are “sympathetic” to the UK’s position. But there is also a desire to maintain solidarity. He says he has not tried to break that.
Let’s look at what the European council negotiating guidelines says, he says.
He says the UK will push for parallel negotiations.
He he says Britain will “meet [its] obligations”, when it knows what they are.
- Davis says UK will meet its “obligations” to the EU budget.
The DUP MP Sammy Wilson goes next.
Q: The white paper did not say anything about paying money to the EU. Will we?
Davis says, although he has read the €60bn euro figure in the Financial Times, the commission has not officially come out with a figure.
But he also says the UK is a law-abiding nation.
Our stance is pretty straightforward - we are a law-abiding nation, we believe in international systems of rules and we obey them.
We have rights and obligations and we will insist on one and meet the other.
And he says he notes what the Lords committee said on this. (It said the UK could not be obliged to pay into the EU budget after it left.)
Updated
Davis says other EU countries are increasingly determined to get a good Brexit outcome
Dominic Raab, the Conservative, goes next.
Q: Are you detecting a shift in a positive direction from other EU leaders? Does the national blood pressure need to be braced for difficult negotiations? Or will it start more easily than people think?
Davis says that is a difficult question. The dynamics of the negotiation “will go hot and cold”.
But he says, from his talks with EU leaders, he thinks there is a growing desire to get a positive outcome.
From talking to member states’ foreign secretaries, finance ministers and prime ministers, there is a growing determination to get a constructive outcome.
The issue is whether the member states’ voices make it through to the commission.
- Davis says other EU countries are increasingly determined to get a good Brexit outcome.
But there is an issue as to whether this gets through to the commission, he says.
He says, even this morning, when Donald Tusk said difficult thinks, Tusk also stressed the desire for a good outcome.
My general view is that this is eminently achievable because the attitude of the European states is one which will want a good long-term relationship.
Even this morning when Mr Tusk was saying sharp things, he said we want to be friends and we want to have an amicable long-term relationship.
That desire, that wish, that commonality of culture and commonality of interest, is what I think will drive this in the long run, rather than any negotiating gambits we use.
Updated
Davis plays down the need for transitional deal in many areas
Peter Lilley, the Conservative MP, is asking the questions now.
Davis says, in most cases, he thinks it would be best if the UK could move to new arrangements without a transitional deal.
- Davis plays down the need for transitional deal in many areas.
Q: What sort of agreement would it be?
Davis says this is an issue he will have to discuss with Barnier: whether to have one big agreement, or a separate agreements.
If it is just one big agreement, then it will be a “mixed” agreement, he says, meaning that it will have to be agreed by national parliaments as well as by EU leaders.
Davis says the UK-EU trade deal could be concluded more quickly than other trade deals. He says both sides want to get a deal. And the UK starts from the point of having an identical regulatory framework to the EUs.
Q: We want a more ambitious deal than Ceta (the EU-Canada deal)?
That’s right, says Davis.
Q: Is it right that the commission has not agreed to negotiate the Brexit deal, and the future trade deal, in parallel?
That is right, says Davis.
Q: So it is possible that the trade deal will not be completed before the end of the two-year process?
Davis says the government wants to agree the terms of the free trade deal within two years.
He says his first conversation with Michel Barnier, the European commission’s negotiator, will cover this.
Article 50 bill to get royal assent on Thursday, Davis tells MPs
Labour’s Emma Reynolds goes next.
Q: The article 50 letter must have been written. Is it long or short?
Davis says he will not talk about it. It is for the PM to say.
Q: Why was the triggering of article 50 delayed?
Davis says his department never said it was coming today.
He says he expects the article 50 bill to get royal assent tomorrow.
- Article 50 bill to get royal assent on Thursday, Davis tells MPs.
Davis implicitly criticises Boris Johnson and Liam Fox for using 'throwaway lines' in interviews.
Q: Do you think leaving with no deal would be bad for the UK?
Davis says it is not possible to say at this point.
Benn presses him on this.
Davis says it would be not as good as a trade deal for frictionless trade.
Benn says Boris Johnson said leaving without a deal would be okay, Liam Fox said it would be bad, and Davis is now saying it would be not as good as a deal.
Davis says he gives answers based on facts.
I do my job on the basis of facts and data and research and analysis and operational planning, and off the back of that I will give answers that are accurate and factual - not throwaway lines in interviews, factual answers.
- Davis implicitly criticises Boris Johnson and Liam Fox for using “throwaway lines” in interviews.
Benn jokes that perhaps Davis should give all the government’s interviews on this.
Updated
Davis says Benn’s questions did not address the fact that the government might take steps to mitigate the impact of leaving the EU with no deal.
Any assessment of the impact would have to take into account what the government might to do remedy these problems.
For example, he turns to tariffs. The problem is not so much the level of tariffs but the potential delays.
He says “authorised economic operators” (AEOs) can come to special arrangements with customs. For those operators, for 92% of their cross-border traffic clearance takes five seconds.
The rest of their traffic requires an inspections.
So the question is, can you extend AEOs to much smaller operators?
- Davis suggests that government wants to extend electronic, light-touch customs checks after Brexit.
Davis says until he knows if that is possible, he cannot make an assessment of the economic impact.
The same applies to other sectors, like agriculture and banking.
When we have finished making the lego blocks, we will build the house. And then we will have the forecast you are talking about.
Davis says he did brief the cabinet recently about the prospect of leaving the EU with no deal.
Davis says government has not carried out assessment of economic impact of leaving EU with no deal since June
Q: Has the government made an assessment of the economic impact of leaving with no deal?
Davis says not since he has been secretary of state.
- Davis says government has not carried out assessment of economic impact of leaving EU with no deal since June.
There was an assessment before the referendum, but that assessment has not turned out to be robust.
Updated
David Davis gives evidence to Commons Brexit committee
Hilary Benn, the Labour MP who chairs the Brexit committee, opens the proceedings.
David Davis is giving evidence with Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Brexit department.
Q: If we left with no deal, would the UK face tariffs?
Davis says it is not simple, because the WTO most-favoured nation rules say little about non-tariff barriers, but Benn is probably right.
Q: Would there be customs checks between Northern Ireland and Ireland?
Davis says there are checks already. But they are done in a light way.
Q: Would the UK no longer be part of the US/EU open skies agreement?
Davis says we would be out of that. But there might be a successor agreement.
Q: Would passporting rights go?
Davis says he thinks so, but the situation on non-tariff barriers is uncertain.
Q: Would we be out of the European medical card?
Davis says he has not looked at this, but thinks so.
Since we’re on the subject of David Davis, Newsnight’s political editor (and my former Guardian colleague) Nicholas Watt has compiled an excellent 10-minute profile of him which was broadcast on Monday night. It is well worth watching, not least for revealing Davis’s past as a Kevin Keegan lookalike.
In normal circumstances the chancellor is the most important cabinet minister after the prime minister but, given the extent to which Brexit is consuming all the government’s time and energy, there’s a good case for saying that in this administration the real number 2 is David Davis, the Brexit secretary. And this morning he is getting a full interrogation from the Commons Brexit committee. I will be covering it in detail.
According to the committee, these are the issues they will be focusing on:
Readiness for triggering article 50 and negotiations for the UK to leave the EU
The priorities for the government as set out in the white paper
The great repeal bill and how the government is preparing to ensure a smooth and orderly exit from the EU
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.15am: David Davis, the Brexit secretary, and Olly Robins, the permanent secretary at the Brexit department, give evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.
9.30am: Unemployment figures are published.
10.30am: Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, gives evidence to the Lords international relations committee on the Middle East.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.
12.15pm: Jeremy Hunt, the health secretary, gives a speech to the chief nursing officer summit.
2pm: Amber Rudd, the home secretary, gives a speech to a human trafficking conference.
As usual, I will 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 after PMQs and another in the afternoon.
You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.
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. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.
.png?w=600)
