Afternoon summary
- May has refused to rule out the UK remaining in the single market during a transitional period after Brexit. At PMQs Labour’s Pat McFadden asked her if her insistence on leaving the single market cover the transitional period. May replied:
We said we would no longer be members of the single market because we will no longer be members of the European Union and there are the four pillars, as the European Union consistently says.
The four pillars are indivisible, and therefore the other issues that we wish also not to be subject to like the European court of justice and free movement requirements mean that we will no longer be members of the single market.
At the end point, when we have at the end of the two years negotiated the end state deal, there will then be an implementation period for that deal.
But we’re very clear that at the point at which we reach the end of those negotiations we will be out of the European Union.
- The Brexit department has revealed that it spent £1.2m on the article 50 case that went to the supreme court. The government lost the case, and as a result had to pass legislation giving the prime minister the authority to trigger article 50, thereby starting the process taking the UK out of the EU. These are from Sky’s Faisal Islam.
Government's legal bill for its lost Article 50 Supreme Court case appears to have popped up on DEXEU website -£1.2 million on 5/6 Feb 2017: pic.twitter.com/vJ2UvwOfMg
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) July 19, 2017
.. so the lost Article 50 case Dexeu costs from having to pay "other parties" costs ie the winners, Miller, McCord etc is £493k pic.twitter.com/6KGsbqfpMp
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) July 19, 2017
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
Updated
The SNP has said the government’s decision to announce the proposed increase in the state pension age today amounts to “Tory trickery at its very worst”. Kirsty Blackman, its economy spokesperson, said:
It’s clear why the UK government held back until after the election and did not publish this on the legal date it was supposed to on the 7th of May, as this would have undoubtedly lost the Tory party even more seats than they did. What we have witnessed today is an example of Tory trickery at its very worst.
The SNP has long called for the establishment of an independent Savings and Pensions Commission to responsibly consider pensions policies to ensure they are fit for purpose and take into account demographic needs.
It is utterly shameful that the Tory government could sneak an announcement that will hit people across the UK during the last week of parliament before recess. It is yet another chapter in the Tory government’s hit on people already struggling due to this government’s austerity-driven agenda.
The last minute announcement raises serious concerns over the detrimental impact this change to the state pension age will have on people in different parts of the UK. The UK government must make clear whether there will be measures brought forward that will address the potentially severe impact this will have on people in Scotland.
On state pensions, Nick Macpherson, the former Treasury permanent secretary, seems to be siding more with Labour than with the Tories. (See 2.46pm.)
Raising state pension age discriminates against poor & manual workers. Better to address uprating formula & extend national insurance base.
— Nick Macpherson (@nickmacpherson2) July 19, 2017
May warns cabinet 'there is no such thing as an unsackable minister'
Here is the key quote from Theresa May’s interview with LBC. Iain Dale, the presenter, asked if she would do what the Conservative backbench 1922 committee was suggesting, and sack ministers who are disloyal. She replied:
There is no such thing as an unsackable minister, but at the moment the team is together and we are getting on with the job of delivering what we need to do. Brexit is a key part of that, but there’s a lot else that we need to deal with too.
When Dale asked if any minister was unsackable, she replied: “No.”
Dale also asked what May actually said to the cabinet on Tuesday, when she reportedly told them to stop leaking. May replied:
Given that the issue I was talking about was not leaking from cabinet, you would not expect me to say exactly what I said in cabinet. The flavour of it was very simple. The flavour of it was is that, actually, all of us in government, it’s a huge privilege, but it also brings a responsibility. And part of that responsibility is about delivering ... The message was that we need to ensure that we can get on with that work that we need to do to deliver for people, and to do that that means the government being together.
May sidestepped a question about whether or not she knew who was responsible for the leaks from last week’s cabinet that appeared in various papers over the weekend.
And she rejected suggestions that this degree of leaking was almost unprecedented. It had happened in the past, she said.
Updated
Theresa May has given an interview to LBC. The best line was her saying there is no such thing as an unsackable minister.
May says "no such thing as an unsackable minister" on LBC - a warning to the plotters and briefers, seemingly emboldened by 1922 support
— Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) July 19, 2017
I will post the full quote, and more from the interview, shortly.
Updated
DWP says it does not have to legislate to increase state pension age until 2023
It might not actually matter very much whether or not the DUP supporting increasing the state pension age. The DWP’s report on this (pdf) says there is no need for the government to legislate until July 2023, which would be after the next election. But it says there is a case for notifying people now so that they can plan for the future.
Here is the key extract.
Providing certainty and transparency to allow planning by both individuals and future governments is important. There is no legislative requirement for the government to provide notice of changes to state pension age within a specified period. However, in practical terms individuals need time to prepare for a new change in state pension age ...
The legislation provides for the next state pension age review to be conducted by July 2023, which will confirm when state pension age will increase to 68, and will allow for consideration of more recent life expectancy projections whilst ensuring adequate notice. In the interim period the government will analyse the impact of changes to state pension age already in train – i.e. the equalisation of men’s and women’s state pension ages to 65 and the rise from age 65 to age 66 – which will provide additional evidence to help the government to assess the best course of action.
The DUP has not commented yet on David Gauke’s state pension age announcement. But it may be reluctant to support the plans. This is what its manifesto said about pensions.
The DUP has always advocated for the interests of our older people. In the Northern Ireland executive, we have introduced initiatives like free bus passes and have defended their retention against those who would take them away. We will continue our staunch support for pensioners in the new Parliament.
The manifesto also commits the DUP to keeping the “triple lock” on pensions and calls for “an end to the unfair treatment of women pensioners”.
Sky’s Faisal Islam sums the story up well.
BAsically David Gauke has just announced that people born in the 1970s will now have to work a year longer to get state pension at 68
— Faisal Islam (@faisalislam) July 19, 2017
Gauke says Labour's state pension age policy is 'reckless, short-sighted and irresponsible'
This is what David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, said in response to the criticism from Debbie Abrahams, his Labour opposite number. (See 2.46pm.)
Even by the standards of the party opposite, their approach to the state pension age is reckless, short-sighted and irresponsible.
When the evidence in front of us shows that life expectancy will continue to increase a little over one year every eight years that pass, fixing the state pension age at 66, as advocated by the party opposite, demonstrates a complete failure to appreciate the situation in front of us.
Compared to the timetable set out by this government, it will add £250bn to national debt. Let’s put that in context. That’s almost twice as much as was dispersed into the financial sector during the financial crisis.
Or, let’s put it another way, spending in 2040 under their plans on the state pension would be £20bn a year higher than under the plans we are setting out. That is almost twice the Home Office budget. Where on earth is this money coming from?
Even under the last Labour government, not known for its fiscal rectitude, they legislated to increase the state pension age to 68. And, on top of a long list of unaffordable spending pledges, the Labour party happily makes pledges on the state pension that they must know will cause unsustainable damage to the public finances.
This chart, from the DWP’s policy paper (pdf), shows the difference between the state pension age increases laid down by law now, and what the government is proposing, and how much the changes would save the exchequer.
Labour says state pension age increase is 'anything but fair'
Here is an extract from Debbie Abrahams’ response to David Gauke. The shadow shadow work and pensions secretary said:
Most pensioners will now spend their retirement battling a toxic cocktail of ill health, with men expecting to drift into ill health at 63, five years earlier than the proposed Cridland pension age at 68, while women expect to see signs of ill health at 64. This national picture masks even worse regional inequalities. If you live in Nottingham, for example, men are likely to suffer ill health from the age of 57 - a full 11 years earlier than this government’s plan for a 68 pension age.
The government talks about making Britain fairer but their pensions policy - whether it is about the injustice 1950s-born women are facing, or today’s proposal to increase SP age to 68 - is anything but fair.
Abrahams also asked how the policy was consistent with the Conservative party’s manifesto commitment to “ensure that the state pension age reflects increases in life expectancy”, in the light of the recent research about the rise in life expectancy stalling.
She also said that Labour was committed to keeping the state pension age at 66, pending a review. Here is the key passage from Labour manifesto.
The pension age is due to rise to 66 by the end of 2020. Labour rejects the Conservatives’ proposal to increase the state pension age even further. We will commission a new review of the pension age, specifically tasked with developing a flexible retirement policy to reȵect both the contributions made by people, the wide variations in life expectancy, and the arduous conditions of some work.
Updated
Gauke's statement on state pension age rising - Summary
Here are some more details from David Gauke’s statement, and from the documents issued by the DWP.
- People born on or before 5 April 1970, or after 6 April 1978, will not be affected by the change, Gauke said. But the change will affect those born in between. This chart explains how.
- The number of people claiming the state pension is due to increase significantly, the DWP says.
Latest projections from the Office for National Statistics show that the number of people over State Pension age in the UK is expected to grow by a third between 2017 and 2042, from 12.4 million in 2017 to 16.9 million in 2042.
- People can now expect to spend a third of their life on the state pension, the DWP says.
When the modern State Pension was introduced in 1948, a 65-year-old could expect to spend 13.5 years in receipt of it – 23% of their adult life. This has been increasing ever since. In 2017, a 65-year-old can now expect to live for another 22.8 years, or 33.6% of their adult life.
- Gauke said that keeping the state pension age at 66, which is Labour’s current policy, would cost £250bn by the middle of this century. He quoted the figure when responding to Debbie Abrahams. The DWP says:
Failing to act now in light of compelling evidence of demographic pressures would be irresponsible and place an unfair burden on younger generations. Keeping the State Pension age at 66 would cost over £250 billion more than the government’s preferred timetable by 2045/46.
- Gauke also said that under Labour’s plans spending on the state pension would be £20bn a year higher by 2040.
-
The DWP said the proposed increase would have to be approved by parliament.
Here is the department for work and pensions’ (DWP) news release about the increase in the state pension age.
Here is the DWP’s new timetable for state pensions.
And here is a DWP policy paper on the proposal with more details (pdf).
Debbie Abrahams, the shadow work and pensions secretary, says it is “astonishing” that the government is bringing forward the increase in the state pension age in the light of the research that came out yesterday showing that the rise in life expectancy is stalling.
Updated
David Gauke's statement on increasing the state pension age
David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, is making his statement now.
- State pension age to be increased from 67 to 68 from 2037, seven years earlier than planned, Gauke tells MPs.
John Bercow, the speaker, has just ripped up another ancient Commons rule. Having recently announced that he does not mind MPs asking questions without wearing a tie, he has just told MPs that from now on it is fine for MPs to refer to people in the public gallery. MPs have been doing this for some time - Theresa May did at PMQs - but, as Labour’s Chris Bryant pointed out in a point of order, in theory Commons rules disallow this. Not any more ...
Pension age statement
We think that David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, will announce the government’s response to the review of the state pension age published by John Cridland in March.
Here is Cridland’s report in full (pdf).
Here is the Guardian story about its recommendations.
And here is how it starts.
Millions of people in their late 30s and early 40s look set to have to work for an extra year after an official review recommended pushing up the state pension age (SPA) more quickly than previously planned.
The independent report said the SPA should rise to 68 by 2039 instead of 2046. It also recommended that the state pension “triple lock” is withdrawn in the next parliament ...
Ministers said the findings would help the government make their decision during the coming months on what will happen to the SPA.
SPA is the earliest age that someone can start receiving their state pension, and is due to rise to 66 between 2018 and 2020, to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and then to 68 between 2044 and 2046.
John Cridland, former director-general of the Confederation of British Industry and the author of the independent report, said the aim was to “smooth the transition for tomorrow’s pensioners, and to try and make the future both fair and sustainable”. He called for the SPA to rise to 68 over a two-year period starting in 2037 and ending in 2039.
Cridland’s report said an increase to 68 had already been legislated for in the Pensions Act 2007, but since then life expectancy projections had changed. It added: “Forward projections for the public finances suggest that they are, and will continue to be, under pressure. On the balance of likelihood, the 2046 date will need to be pulled somewhat forward … We believe there is merit in giving future pensioners as much forward notice of this change as is possible.”
According to the Sun’s Steve Hawkes and the Times’ Sam Coates, David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, will announce plans to bring forward an increase in the state pension age when he makes a statement to MPs at about 2pm.
I’ll be covering the statement in detail.
Rumours David Gauke may be about to signal that he wants to bring forward an increase in state retirement age. Would be a good day to do it
— steve hawkes (@steve_hawkes) July 19, 2017
Yes gvt to announce this later today. Osborne once called it one of the easiest reforms he ever did. Wonder if that will be true today https://t.co/UjrdFc8Grw
— Sam Coates Times (@SamCoatesTimes) July 19, 2017
Disability campaigners stage protest in parliament's central lobby
This is what the Press Association has filed about the protest in central lobby.
Protesters in wheelchairs have blocked the MPs’ entrance to the House of Commons chamber to demonstrate over cuts to benefits.
The group, Disabled People Against Cuts, chanted “no justice, no peace” as they gathered in the central lobby.
Police formed a line at the entrance to the members’ lobby as some of the demonstrators demanded to talk to MPs.
The group said they wanted to stop cuts to social care and demanded the reintroduction of the independent living fund.
“This is a message to Theresa May - while we have no justice, you will have no peace,” they chanted.
“No more deaths from benefit cuts,” they added.
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn greeted some of the group and was met with a chorus of “Oh, Jeremy Corbyn”.
Claire Glasman, 56, from London, who is part of women’s disability group WinVisible, said: “People are suffering as a result of cuts to social care. People are dying as a result of neglect.”
PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
This is what political journalists and commentators are saying about PMQs.
There are mixed views as to who did best, but agreement that it wasn’t exactly a classic.
From the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn
Chief whip Gavin Williamson stifled two yawns during May v Corbyn exchange. He yawns for all. Disappointingly dreary summer send off #PMQs
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) July 19, 2017
From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie
Snap verdict on #PMQs. Malfunctioning May is given reality check by Corbynhttps://t.co/io2R3WggWq pic.twitter.com/c4Zyxpgedj
— Mirror Politics (@MirrorPolitics) July 19, 2017
From the Times’ Patrick Kidd
Feels like May's best PMQs since her first one (not been a particularly high bar, to be fair). Sends troops off on holiday in good spirits
— Patrick Kidd (@patrick_kidd) July 19, 2017
From the Spectator’s Isabel Hardman
May really sounds like she's just regurgitating slogans from the 2017 and 2015 elections as she answers Corbyn's questions #pmqs
— Isabel Hardman (@IsabelHardman) July 19, 2017
From the Mail’s Tim Sculthorpe
Ouch. Corbyn hits May again with the DUP deal as he demands an end to public sector pay cap. Smashes every sound money answer she can give.
— Tim Sculthorpe (@timsculthorpe) July 19, 2017
From the Guardian’s Peter Walker
Pretty dispiriting final #PMQs before recess. May & Corbyn not engaging at all, just swapping same slogans as ever. Not a classic.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 19, 2017
From HuffPost’s Paul Waugh
Am I allowed to say I'm missing Green v Thornberry? #PMQs
— Paul Waugh (@paulwaugh) July 19, 2017
From ITV’s Daniel Hewitt
Corbyn cool & collected, hammers home 1 subject. Didn't land a blow though, May defiant, rattling out greatest hits. Not a #PMQs to remember
— Daniel Hewitt (@DanielHewittITV) July 19, 2017
From the Mail on Sunday’s Dan Hodges
Corbyn had the opportunity to hammer May over cabinet divisions today. Just can't do it. Not his forum.
— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) July 19, 2017
From ITV Border’s Peter MacMahon
Strong performance from @theresa_may at #PMQs which Tory MPs like, though @jeremycorbyn raising concerns of 'real people' - pay, poverty
— Peter MacMahon (@petermacmahon) July 19, 2017
My colleague Jessica Elgot has more on the protest in central lobby.
Protesters for disability rights in central lobby in House of Commons - @jeremycorbyn just came out to wave at them. Police blocking exit.
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) July 19, 2017
Brief chants of "ooh Jeremy Corbyn" in the lobby from the protesters. One shouts to Corbyn "you are with us, we are with you."
— Jessica Elgot (@jessicaelgot) July 19, 2017
I did not cover the questions from Ian Blackford, the SNP’s leader at Westminster, earlier because I was writing the snap verdict. Blackford asked why the government could not find money to help women affected by the sharp increase in the state pension age (the so-called “Waspi women”) when it could find money for so many other things, like the deal with the DUP and Hinkley Point. He said:
She seems to be able to shake the magic money Tree when she wants to - can the prime minister now end the injustice for those women missing out on their pensions before she herself thinks about retiring?
May replied:
Hinkley Point is privately funded, this is not money coming from the government, so I find that a little strange. We have put £1bn extra into this question of the change of the state pension age ... I have to also say to the honourable gentleman that the Scottish government does now have extra powers in the area of welfare. Perhaps it’s time the Scottish government got on with the day job and stopped talking endlessly about independence.
I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
According to the BBC’s Norman Smith, there has been a demonstration in central lobby in parliament (which is not far from the Commons chamber) over poverty.
Demo by anti poverty demonstrators in Central lobby outside #PMQs
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) July 19, 2017
Labour’s Jack Dromey asks about a children’s centre in his constituency. It is one of 26 children’s centres in Birmingham facing closure. These closures will affect the life chances of a generation of children.
May says these are decisions for the council. But it ill behoves any Labour MP to complain about the government’s cuts, because they are the direct result of decisions taken by Labour, she says.
And that’s it.
Labour’s Siobhain McDonagh says Epsom and St Hellier trust are consulting on closing their hospital. They have had five previous ones, wasting money. Won’t May stop this.
May says there is a consultation. Discussions are at an early stage. Any proposals for major service changes would be subject to a full public consultation, she says.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, asks why the government did not publish the report about the foreign funding of extremism. Was it to avoid embarrassing Saudi Arabia?
No, says May. She says it was not published because it contained confidential information. But it has been made available to opposition parties on a privy council basis, she says.
(That won’t help Lucas, who isn’t a privy counsellor.)
Sir Edward Leigh, a Conservative, asks if the government will honour the pledge in the manifesto to lift the cap on faith places for faith schools. Some Catholic schools have already bought sites to expand on the back of this promise.
May says Justine Greening, the education secretary, will soon make a statement on this.
Labour’s Sarah Jones, who represents Croydon Central, asks about knife crime in her constituency.
May welcomes Jones, and points out that her victory meant that Gavin Barwell (the former Croydon Central MP) was available to take the job as her chief of staff. She lists measures the government has already taken to address knife crime.
Nusrat Ghani, a Conservative, asks May if she backs prosecutions against Islamic State fighters and people who support them.
May backs this. She says she wants to do this work through the United Nations. And she spoke to the Iraqi prime minister about this just yesterday.
Labour’s Louise Haigh asks about a damning report into mental health services at a hospital in her Sheffield constituency.
May says the health secretary will look into this case.
Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative, says the IFS figures out today show inequality has fallen every year since 2010.
May agrees. She says the top 1% of tax payers are bearing 27% of the tax burden.
Labour’s Pat McFadden asks if May insistence on leaving the single market covers the transitional period for Brexit.
May says the government has been clear that, at the end of the negotiations, it will be out of the EU.
Antoinette Sandbach, a Conservative, asks what is being done to tackle consumers having to pay surcharges for using credit cards.
May says the government is going to ban this. In 2010 it was estimated that these charges cost consumers £410m. That money will now be going back to consumers.
Labour’s Gordon Marsden asks if May backs having a free phone number for people with complaints about their universal credit.
May say the DWP is constantly looking at how problems with the scheme can be addressed.
Kenneth Clarke, the Conservative former chancellor, says a responsible government can only improve public sector pay by being responsible. If that fails, the government faces a hard left government, he says.
May says Clarke is right to say Labour’s policies would not lead to higher pay for nurses. Through higher taxes, jobs would go.
Labour’s Ian Murray says the “interim prime minister” refused to answer Jeremy Corbyn’s question about the chancellor and public sector workers. Which ones does she think are overpaid and which ones underpaid?
May says she knows many people are struggling. But, as the BBC figures released today show, some people in the public sector are very well paid.
PMQs - Snap verdict
A year ago May was clearly in the ascendant. (See 11.23am.) Today the best that can be said is that she is managing to hold her own against Corbyn, whose stature in the Commons has soared since his surprise election defeat-that-felt-like-victory. Today’s PMQs was relatively dull and predictable. Mostly it felt like a stalemate, although Corbyn probably had the edge on soundbites - his ‘You found the money for the DUP’ comeback was good, as was his ‘take a check with reality’ line - and so he may come over better on the TV news. As I said earlier, there has been a remarkable transformation in the standing in the political marketplace of the country’s two main party leaders. (See 9.25am.) But what has not been transformed at all is the argument. The key talking points and dividing lines - boosting living standards v tackling the deficit - are essentially much the same as they were in the early days of Cameron and Miliband.
Updated
Corbyn says Labour introduced the minimum wage, with opposition from the Tories. Under May, disposable incomes have fallen by 2%. The IFS predicts that inequality will rise. Doesn’t May realise that her talk of a strong economy doesn’t remotely match people’s experience.
May says Corbyn is wrong on his facts. Inequality is down. Labour’s plans won’t produce a strong economy. What Corbyn wants is a country living beyond its means.
Corbyn says what he wants is a country without 4m people in poverty. He looks at the front bench and sees a government bickering, while people are falling further into debt. Wages are falling, the economy is stalling, the trade deficit is widening, and we face crucial Brexit negotiations. We don’t have the government we need.
May says the reality is that Corbyn is always talking Britain down. She rattles of statistics and claims. That’s a record to be proud of, and you only get it with the Conservatives.
Corbyn says May had no problem finding money for the DUP. The Tories have been in power for 84 months. Pay has fallen during 52 of them. May promised a strong economy. But you cannot have that when 6m people are earning less than the living wage.
May says Labour crashed the economy. Under the Tories there are more people in jobs, and more investment.
Corbyn invites May to take “a check with reality”. He says half of people in poverty are in working households. Low pay is holding people back. It threatens living standards, and falling savings threatens our economic stability. Why doesn’t May understand that low pay is a threat to economic stability.
May says work is the best route out of poverty. That is why it is so important that 3m more jobs have been created. There are more children being brought up in households with work. Government has to provide support to people. The national living wage was the biggest pay increase for people in work. When did Labour introduce that? Never.
Corbyn says he was asking about the chancellor’s comments. A nurse starts on £23,000, job centre clerks on £15,000. He had a letter from someone writing about her sister-in-law, a nurse, who has had a pay freeze for five years. Why is this happening? What can May say to this nurse?
May says she recognises the sacrifice that has been made. That had to be made because the government was dealing with the biggest deficit in history left by Labour. Corbyn seems to think that it is possible to go round promising more money. He thinks no one has to pay for it. She and Corbyn both value public sector workers, but she knows you have to pay for it, she says.
Jeremy Corbyn also thanks the staff of the Commons (as May did) for all their work this year. And he thanks the emergency services for what they have done in the terrible emergencies we have had.
This week the chancellor said some public servants are overpaid. Given May has delivered a slapdown to her cabinet, was he talking about her ministers?
May joins Corbyn in praising the way communities have come together after the recent tragedies, as in Finsbury Park. She praises Corbyn for the role he played there.
On pay, she says, as she said when she became PM last year, that there are some people just about managing. That covers the private and public sector. The government is helping with the national living wage. Basic rate taxpayers are getting a tax cut. But you only get that with a strong economy.
Helen Whateley, a Conservative, says a survey last week found the NHS was the best in the world. Too often Labour try to weaponise it, she says. She thanks NHS staff.
May says she is happy to congratulate NHS staff. This is not the first time it has been found to be the number one health system in the world, she says.
Labour’s Geoffrey Robinson asks if Theresa May can find time to visit Coventry. The three Labour MPs there doubled their majorities, she says. And he says Coventry is a centre for driverless vehicles. Wouldn’t that make it a good place for her to relocate her government.
May says she likes visiting the West Midlands, which now has a Tory mayor.
Labour's Sarah Champion says writing off student debt impossible
At the election Labour promised to get rid of tuition fees. But in an interview with the NME Jeremy Corbyn also floated the prospect of Labour writing off some tuition fee debts. He did not make a firm promise, but he said he would look at this issue and that he wanted to “deal with it”. He said:
Yes, there is a block of those that currently have a massive debt, and I’m looking at ways we could reduce that, ameliorate that, lengthen the period of paying it off, or some other means of reducing the debt burden.
I don’t have the simple answer for it at this stage. I don’t think anybody would expect me to, because this election was called unexpectedly.
We had two weeks to prepare all of this – but I’m very well aware of that problem.
And I don’t see why those that had the historical misfortune to be at university during the £9,000 period should be burdened excessively compared to those that went before or those that come after. I will deal with it.
Over the last week or so the Tories have been treating that as a firm promise, and attacking it as implausible or unaffordable.
On the Daily Politics a moment ago Sarah Champion, the shadow minister for women and equalities, said writing off student debt would not happen. She said:
I don’t think it is going to be possible, to be quite honest. How do you square it with people who have already paid off their debt, for example.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question at PMQs.
Theresa May took her first PMQs as prime minister on 20 July 2016 (a year ago tomorrow). As well as being her first PMQs, it was also the last before the summer recess, like today’s.
At the time May was flush with authority. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, was fighting to save his job and fending off a leadership challenge from Owen Smith (remember him?).
Here are some extracts.
Here is the snap verdict on the May/Corbyn exchanges from my blog, and here is a fuller verdict. And this is what the Twitter commentariat were saying about it.
And if you want to read what was said in full, here is the Hansard.
There is a Common statement at 12.45pm from David Gauke, the work and pensions secretary, on pensions.
One statement at 12.45 from @DavidGauke of @DWP on Pensions
— Labour Whips (@labourwhips) July 19, 2017
(Officially ministerial statements start at 12.30pm, and that is what the order paper says, but John Bercow, the speaker, is now routinely letting PMQs run for an extra quarter of an hour, so the Labour Whips timing is more accurate.)
I’ve already flagged up Jennifer Rankin’s Guardian story about the Brexit talks. Here are some of the other stories on this around this morning.
David Davis has led a charm offensive that included a meeting at Chevening, his grace-and-favour country house-share in Kent, this month. The Brexit secretary had admitted that better communication was needed because Theresa May’s government was widely seen as being anti-business.
One business leader who was at the Chevening meeting told The Times: “We do not have any problem with access now . . . The problem is there are a lot of questions that aren’t being answered by ministers or their officials. Take the great repeal bill and the issue of regulatory equivalence: the questions aren’t being answered because, we are told, they can’t be answered.”
Officials last week feared a breakdown in talks after Boris Johnson, the foreign secretary, said the EU could “go whistle” over the exit charge. While the British concessions averted a collapse this week, both sides were frustrated by the stilted discussion since Monday.
When the topic turned to setting a percentage share of common liabilities, EU negotiators argued that Britain’s rebate was contingent on London’s continuing to cover EU farm payments after Brexit.
Behind the scenes, France is pressing hard to tie the rebate to agriculture payments, arguing that Thatcher justified the discount only because of Britain’s disproportionate net contribution to farm spending.
However, these payments are by far the most legally contentious element of the Brexit bill, a weakness British negotiators repeatedly sought to exploit in talks. The commission’s original Brexit bill estimates excluded farm payments and its methodology changed only at the behest of France and Poland.
The second day of the monthly negotiations in Brussels saw officials delve into the details of the main issues they want to make headway on before an October summit of leaders. Several hours were devoted to how to keep a soft Irish border after Brexit, as well as the rights of European nationals in the U.K.
The past two days show that Britain’s divorce payment to the EU remains one of the biggest sticking points, people familiar with the talks said. Both sides are barely going further than trying to understand each others’ positions, quizzing each other as they seek to tease out common ground, according to people familiar with the discussions speaking on condition of anonymity.
In his Times article (paywall) the German MEP Hans-Olaf Henkel also said it would be a “disaster” for the UK to leave Euratom, the European civil nuclear agency. He said:
It is obvious that it would be a disaster for the UK to leave Euratom but I don’t know who it would be worse for: us in the EU or you.
My position is that the EU must accommodate the British. It will require give and take on both sides. For you, it will mean paying in and abiding by the rules, as Britain does now, and accepting the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice when it comes to overseeing Euratom, though there has never been a case involving the UK. I don’t think the British had this part of the ECJ’s work in mind when they voted to leave: they were concerned, with some justification, about the reach of the court in social and immigration issues.
If the UK government comes back and says it would like the UK to stay in Euratom, I would say great — and so would most of my colleagues.
It’s the last PMQs before the summer recess and it will mark the end of an extraordinary 12-month period that has seen the reputations of Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn perform what is close to a 180-degree flip. It is hard to think of a precedent in recent political history, and PMQs will be a good moment for taking stock.
But the most important piece of political theatre this week will come tomorrow, when Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, and David Davis, the Brexit secretary, hold a press conference after the first week of full-on Brexit negotiations. As my colleague Jennifer Rankin reports, the two sides have been bogged down in a debate about how much the UK might have to pay when it leaves.
Davis may be heartened by an article in the Times (paywall) by a German MEP claiming that Barnier is out to punish Britain. Hans-Olaf Henkel, who is a member of the small Liberal Conservative Reformers (LKR) party (which sits with Conservative MEPs in the European parliament as part of the ECR group) and who is a former president of the Federation of German Industries, used his article to crticise Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit negotiator. Henkel wrote:
As they consider this matter, I would urge [MEPs] not to listen to Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s Brexit co-ordinator, or even Michel Barnier, Europe’s chief negotiator, who I am afraid want to make a mess out of this whole unhappy situation.
Mr Verhofstadt is an ambitious politician who wants to achieve a United States of Europe. In my view, he is responsible in no small part for the disaster of Brexit. It was his attitude, not typical of most of us in Brussels, that allowed Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson to whip up anti-EU sentiment in the UK.
Mr Verhofstadt now wants to punish the British, full stop. He says he doesn’t want to, but I’m afraid he does. My impression is that Mr Barnier wants to do the same. The reason is simple. They would seek to make sure that Brexit is such a catastrophe that no country dares to take the step of leaving the EU again.
I will post more on the Brexit talks later in the day.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: The Institute for Fiscal Studies publishes its annual report findings on living standards, poverty and inequality in the UK. As Larry Elliott reports, it will show that incomes in the Midlands, Wales and the north of England are no higher than they were in the south-east two decades ago.
11am: The BBC publishes its annual report, including the names of 96 stars earning more than £150,000 a year. My colleague Matthew Weaver is covering this in detail on a separate live blog.
12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at the last PMQs before the summer recess.
12.30pm: MPs begin an emergency debate requested by Labour on the tuition fee increase.
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 publish 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.
