Afternoon summary
- Theresa May has asked the committee on standards in public life to carry out an inquiry into the abuse of parliamentary candidates. (See 5.13pm.) The announcement coincided with a debate in Westminster Hall which saw MPs from all the main parties describe the extent to which they have been subject to extreme abuse.
- The King of Spain has said any Brexit deal must give the thousands of his compatriots in Britain, and UK expats in his country, “sufficient assurance and certainty” over their futures. In a speech to MPs and peers, he said:
Given these circumstances, we must particularly bear in mind the thousands of Britons and Spaniards who live in each of our nations, who form a sound foundation for our relations. Those citizens have a legitimate expectation of decent and stable living conditions, for themselves and their families. I therefore urge our two governments to continue working to ensure that the agreement on the UK’s withdrawal from the EU provides sufficient assurance and certainty.
In a brief reference to Gibraltar, he also said he was “confident that through the necessary dialogue and effort, our two governments will be able to work towards arrangements that are acceptable to all involved.”
- Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who came top in the ballot for private member’s bill, has said he will introduce a bill to increase penalties for people who attack emergency service workers. He chose a crime (emergency services) bill after polling members of the public to see what voters preferred. He said:
The way our emergency workers are treated is a national disgrace. They are spat at, punched, attacked or even stabbed whilst they are trying to save other people’s lives. We have all seen the horrific images on TV. But the shocking fact is that such appalling acts of violence attract no harsher penalty than an attack on an ordinary member of the public - and often no prosecution is brought.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
In the debate in Westminster Hall on the abuse of parliamentary candidates, Diane Abbott, the Labour MP and shadow home secretary, said she had repeatedly endured racist and sexist abuse. She said one of her members of staff said the “most surprising thing” about working for her was how often she had to read the N-word in emails, on Twitter and Facebook. Abbott said:
We are talking about mindless abuse and in my case the mindless abuse has been characteristically racist and sexist.
And just to outline I’ve had death threats, I’ve had people tweeting that I should be hung if ‘they could find a tree big enough to take the fat bitch’s weight’.
There was an EDL affiliated Twitter account BurnDianeAbbott, I’ve had rape threats, described as a pathetic, useless fat black, piece of shit ...
She also said she had repeatedly been called the N-word.
The abuse had got worse in recent years, she said.
I think the rise in the use of online has turbocharged abuse because 30 years ago, when I first became an MP, if you wanted to attack an MP you had to write a letter, usually in green ink, you had to put it in an envelope, you had to put a stamp on it and you had to walk to the post box.
Now they press a button and you read vile abuse which 30 years ago people would have been frightened to even write down.
Here are some excerpts from the debate on the abuse and intimidation of parliamentary candidates that has been taking place in Westminster Hall.
From the Conservative MP Simon Hart
Since the election the Conservatives’ whips office has been dealing with at least three credible threats to colleagues every week, including death threats, criminal damage, sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and general thuggishness around and after the election.
From the Labour MP Paula Sherriff
I’ve been an MP for just over two years and I can’t remember a single day that has gone by without having received some sort of abuse, whether that be death threats or a picture of me mocked up as a used sanitary towel and various other things. This last election was the most brutal I can certainly imagine ..
For some to suggest it’s only one party doing it is wrong.
From the Conservative MP Andrew Percy
I’ve had death threats for a number of years, I have panic buttons, a restraining order against somebody. What is different about what is happening at this election, in which I was subjected to anti-Semitic abuse, my staff were spat at, my boards and property attacked, is it has been politically-motivated.
The elephant in the room here is it is being motivated by the language of some of our political leaders when they accuse people of one political side of murder, when they dehumanise them in the way that is happening at the moment.
May asks standards committee to investigate abuse of parliamentary candidates
An investigation into the abuse of parliamentary candidates is being launched after a wave of intimidation during the general election campaign, the Press Association reports. The PA goes on:
Labour and the Conservatives have both accused the other of failing to act to stamp out abuse by their members and activists after reports of racism, anti-Semitism and sexism.
Theresa May asked the committee on standards in public life to conduct a review into the problem as MPs gathered in Westminster Hall to discuss the apparent rise in personal attacks.
The probe will assess the current protections in place and report back to the prime minister with recommendations on ways to tackle abuse in the future.
Commenting on the inquiry, May said:
I have been horrified by stories from colleagues about the scale and nature of the intimidation, bullying and harassment they suffered during the general election campaign.
Robust debate is a vital part of our democracy, but there can be no place for the shocking threats and abuse we have seen in recent months.
We must all work together to banish this behaviour, and I would urge MPs and candidates from all parties to report their experiences to this review so we get the fullest possible picture - and can take the action required to stamp it out.
Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s chief Brexit negotiator, has said that he agrees with what Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, said at his news conference this morning about the need for the UK to face up the fact that it will have to pay a price for leaving the EU.
Boris Johnson said we can "go whistle for our money". I agree with Michel Barnier. We need to settle the accounts and the clock is ticking.
— Guy Verhofstadt (@GuyVerhofstadt) July 12, 2017
King Felipe has mentioned Gibraltar. He said he hoped Spain and the UK would be able to make arrangements that are acceptable to all.
King Felipe of Spain is now addressing MPs and peers at Westminster.
So far his speech has been relatively routine. Parliamentarians are wondering waiting to see if he has anything to say about Brexit, or Gibraltar.
In the Grenfell Tower inquiry debate a Labour MP said a government review into building safety regulations may have been delayed because civil servants are tied up with Brexit.
Labour’s Ruth Cadbury pressed ministers on reports the review had been “paused” due to the sheer scale of delivering Brexit, as she called for answers on how the EU divorce proceedings could be impacting on other vital work. In an intervention as John Healey, the shadow housing minister, was speaking, Cadbury said:
Have you picked up the same rumour that I’ve picked up on the review of the building regulations that went on in DCLG [department for communities and local government]? I’ve heard that it was paused because there weren’t the civil servants able to lead on that work because they were taken off that work because of Brexit and work that needed to be done to look at Brexit.
If that’s true, how many other pieces of work that are essential and urgent and safety-related are on pause in government right now?
Healey replied:
Well I hadn’t heard that rumour - I prefer to deal with the facts in front of us - but I have to say you are dead right there is a serious question of capacity in the communities and local government department and there is an even greater question over leadership as well.
Sinn Fein’s core demand for an Irish Language Act is part of moves to hollow out the British identity from Northern Ireland, a senior Orangeman has told a 12th of July commemoration today.
Harold Henning, the deputy Grand Master of the Orange Order, speaking at demonstration in Co Down, accused republicans of turning off the unionist population from Irish because they had politicised it.
Gerry Adams’ party wants an act that will only deal with the rights of Irish language speakers in the region. It would effectively make Irish equal to English in law and possibly require compulsory translations in government department documents, the NHS and legal services.
The Orange Order’s stated opposition today at the climax of the Ulster marching season also underlines the problems the Democratic Unionists will face if they agree to Sinn Fein’s demands for such an act. It shows the unionist grassroots opposition the DUP could encounter over the act when negotiations to restore power sharing restart in the early autumn.
Henning told Orangemen:
Republicans have driven more people away from ever cultivating a genuine interest in Irish language than they will ever attract to it through their current radical proposals.
The current demand for an Irish Language Act is simply the next chapter in the republican campaign to rid Northern Ireland of any semblance of British cultural identity.
Here is the exchange from the Grenfell Tower debate earlier where Damian Green, the first secretary of state, suggested central government would only pay for post-Grenfell fire safety measures if councils could not afford them. (See 1.40pm.)
Labour’s Jack Dromey asked Green:
Birmingham has 231 tower blocks. The city council has rightly decided it will retrofit sprinklers in all of those blocks. That will cost £31m in a council that has suffered £700m of cuts to their budget. Will the government unequivocally commit to funding all necessary safety measures, pending the outcome of the inquiry?
Green replied:
The safety measures that are recommended by the fire service, [communities secretary Sajid Javid] has said will be met by the government, so those are the necessary measures that the fire service recommends.
Dromey asked for clarification.
For clarity, I believe you’ve just made a very important statement. Are you saying the necessary safety measures to protect what are 10,000 households in 231 blocks will be funded by the government?
Then Green appeared to qualify the government’s office. He replied:
For clarity, if the fire service recommends something needs to be done for safety reasons, obviously they will go to the local authority and the local authority would be the first port of call to pay for that. I’m sure all local authorities will want to follow the fire service’s recommendations on this.
If the local authority can show it can’t afford it, then obviously central government will step in. But that’s a matter for local authorities and the fire service.
Earlier I quoted the Conservative Simon Hart commenting in the Daily Mail on a report about the abuse of parliamentary candidates. (See 9.15am.) Hart criticised Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum, the group for Corbyn supporters.
In response, a Momentum spokesperson said:
Momentum doesn’t only condemn abuse, but has a strict code of ethics and a process in place to deal with complaints against members. This report was a cross party report which doesn’t name Momentum, and we’d recommend that if Simon wants to stamp out abuse in politics he’d do well to look at the nasty and divisive Conservative general election campaign which made a series of personalised attacks on leading Labour politicians.
Cameron government considered scrapping fire regulations for nightdresses and furniture, former minister reveals
Just as John Healey was winding up his speech, the Lib Dem MP Sir Ed Davey stood up with a surprising intervention. Davey said:
[Healey] is making a very important point. He and the House might like to know, when I was a junior business minister, I was asked by people from Number 10 and the Cabinet Office whether we should get rid of the fire safety regulations in respect to girls’ and ladies’ nightdresses, whether we should get rid of the fire regulations relating to furniture. I said no. We did not get rid of them, and nor should we. He’s absolutely right. We have to change the culture.
Healey agreed. Just before Davey intervened, Healey said the government must accept the need for regulation. He told MPs:
All markets, all consumers, all organisations, require regulation, require regulation to guarantee quality or safety, to ensure fair practices and to stop abuse. Yet this is not the mindset of the current government. Never again can we have a government minister, challenged on fire safety measures, as one was after the Camberwell fire, saying it is not the government’s responsibility, and justifying this with the government’s approach to regulation, one-in, two-out rule. And if the prime minister and first secretary are serious about change, then they should start by confirming that this approach has ended with the Cameron/Osborne era of Conservative government.
Updated
On Twitter Healey has said that an ITV interview with Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, shows demonstrates why the government’s response to the Grenfell Tower fire has been “totally inadequate”.
4 weeks from the Grenfell Tower fire this interview with @sajidjavid underlines the totally inadequate govt response https://t.co/avy4JMoIRd
— John Healey MP (@JohnHealey_MP) July 12, 2017
Here is an extract from Robert Peston’s blog about his interview with Javid.
First [Javid] confirmed 224 examples of cladding tested so far were “non-compliant” and are illegal to use on high-rise buildings.
Unfortunately he is unable to say yet how and why this cladding with an inflammable core was used so regularly - or indeed whether anyone will be prosecuted or held accountable in any way for its use ...
Javid, with advice from a committee of experts he created, has now commissioned more comprehensive tests of the cladding core and shell, and associated insulation - to ascertain whether there are other materials around the combustible core that are so fire resistant as to significantly reduce the fire risk.
Unfortunately not a single one of these tests has yet been completed.
So a month after Grenfell we are none the wiser about how many social-housing buildings are vulnerable to conflagration.
Surely this is profoundly troubling.
John Healey, the shadow housing minister, is now speaking in the Grenfell Tower debate for Labour. He has been echoing what he said in this statement issued earlier.
It is totally unacceptable that four weeks on from the Grenfell Tower fire ministers still don’t know and can’t say how many other tower blocks are unsafe.
The government have been off the pace at every stage in response to this terrible fire. Too slow to grasp the complexity of the help survivors need and too slow to reassure residents in 4,000 other tower blocks across the country.
Ministers have failed to take responsibility for getting blocks fully tested, or for funding the remedial work needed when buildings fail these tests.
The result is a government testing programme which is too slow, too narrow and too unclear. The fire testing process is in chaos as councils and housing associations don’t know what’s going on and residents are still fearful their homes are unsafe.
Four weeks on, ministers must now act to widen the testing programme and reassure all high-rise residents that their homes are either safe, or that the government will fund the urgent work to make them so.
Rudd releases summary of report into funding of Islamist extremism in UK, but not full document
Turning away from the debate for a moment, Amber Rudd, the home secretary, has published a written ministerial statement about the report into the foreign funding of Islamist extremism in the UK, which the government has been sitting on for some time. The Home Office’s refusal to publish the report became an election issue, with critics claiming that it was being suppressed to avoid embarrassing Saudi Arabia.
Rudd says she will not publish the report “because of the volume of personal information it contains and for national security reasons.”
In her written statement, she does reveal the main finding. She says:
The most common source of support for Islamist extremist organisations in the UK is from small, anonymous public donations, with the majority of these donations most likely coming from UK-based individuals. In some cases these organisations receive hundreds of thousands of pounds a year. This is the main source of their income. Those giving may not know or support the organisations’ full agenda.
Rudd’s statement does not mention Saudi Arabia, or any other foreign country.
But it does say that the Charity Commission will introduce a requirement on charities to declare overseas funding sources.
Updated
Labour’s Mike Kane says he grew up in a council flat. Traditionally, the advice to people was to stay put in the event of a fire and wait to be rescued. Will that advice change?
Green says that will be a matter for the inquiry.
Green says Sir Martin Moore-Bick is consulting widely about his terms of reference. He will then make a recommendation to the government.
Green suggests councils may be expected to pay for some post-Grenfell fire safety measures, not central government
Labour’s Jack Dromey asks if the government will commit to funding all necessary safety measures taken by councils to make tower blocks safe after the Grenfell Tower fire.
Green says the government will fund all necessary fire measures recommended by the fire service.
Dromey asks for confirmation: So will the government fund safety measures on 231 tower blocks in Birmingham.
Green says if the fire service recommends measures, they will go to the council. If the council cannot afford those measures, they will be able to go to the government.
- Green suggests councils may be expected to pay for some post-Grenfell fire safety measures, not central government.
UPDATE: This is from the BBC’s Susana Mendonca.
Sounds like a row back on govt paying 4block safety measures @DamianGreen "if local authority can show it can't afford it" govt will step in
— Susana Mendonça (@susana_mendonca) July 12, 2017
Updated
Labour’s Lucy Powell asks if the inquiry will cover privately-owned tower blocks, as well as council ones.
Green says he cannot determine what the terms of reference will be for Sir Martin Moore-Bick, the inquiry chair, to decide. But one point of today’s debate is to allow MPs to express views like this, he says.
MPs debate Grenfell Tower inquiry
MPs are now starting a debate on the Grenfell Tower inquiry. It will last all afternoon, but there is not substantive motion, and there will not be a vote.
Damian Green, the first secretary of state, is opening on behalf of the government.
Leading Democratic Unionist party figures marching towards their 12th of July celebrations of William of Orange’s victory at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 have been issued a challenge.
Sinn Fein assembly member Gerry Kelly has called on the party to condemn the loyalist bonfire builders in East Belfast who placed a mock-up coffin with the late Martin McGuinness’ face on it onto a gigantic pyre ahead of today’s Orange Order marches.
“Will even one DUP member raise their voice to say that putting the image of Martin McGuinness on a bonfire is wrong!” Kelly tweeted this morning.
Will even one DUP member raise their voice to say that putting the image of Martin Mc Guinness on a bonfire is wrong!
— Gerry Kelly (@GerryKellyMLA) July 11, 2017
He might get a response later as senior DUP members including its leader in Westminster Nigel Dodds MP are due to deliver keynote speeches at Twelfth demonstrations across Northern Ireland.
Aside from the acrimony over the McGuinness effigy, the atmosphere, so far, on the climactic day of the Ulster loyalist marching season has been peaceful.
Even the most contentious feeder parade, which passes by the republican Ardoyne district in North Belfast, went off without incident or protest. Some 25,000 Orangemen and their supporters are now filing through Belfast city centre - the biggest parade of the day.
The Office for Budget Responsibility says the report it is publishing tomorrow will not comment on the risks of leaving the EU without a deal, or other possible Brexit negotiation outcomes.
The report will cover fiscal risks generally. From these two OBR tweets, to what extent Brexit will or will not feature is not clear.
Just to be clear, we are NOT assessing 'no deal' and other possible Brexit negotiation outcomes in our Fiscal Risks Report tomorrow
— OBR (@OBR_UK) July 12, 2017
We will assess risks from the economy and financial system, to tax revenues, public spending and the balance sheet, and a fiscal stress test
— OBR (@OBR_UK) July 12, 2017
PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat
This is what political journalists and commentators are saying about PMQs on Twitter.
Generally, they seem to think both understudies did a better job than their principals.
From the Daily Mirror’s Jason Beattie
My snap verdict on #PMQs Green was genial but Thornberry the real dealhttps://t.co/HECPokPKAr pic.twitter.com/15hEQZtEnU
— Jason Beattie (@JBeattieMirror) July 12, 2017
From the BBC’s Norman Smith
Labour folk might hope T.May away more often so @EmilyThornberry gets to do more #pmqs
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) July 12, 2017
Methinks ...Lot of Tory MPs will be quietly nodding in agreement with @EmilyThornberry over No deal no plan #PMQs
— norman smith (@BBCNormanS) July 12, 2017
From the Guardian’s Peter Walker
Damian Green is an affable #PMQs stand-in, but he really didn't have any substantive answers to the series of Brexit questions.
— Peter Walker (@peterwalker99) July 12, 2017
From Politico Europe’s Annabelle Dickson
Shadow foreign sec Emily Thornberry much more dynamic and quick-witted than her leader at #Pmqs. Apart from a line fluff, she did well.
— Annabelle Dickson (@NewsAnnabelle) July 12, 2017
From the Guardian’s Heather Stewart
Damian Green doing a good, solid job - performs with more wit and flexibility than his boss.
— Heather Stewart (@GuardianHeather) July 12, 2017
From Sky’s Adam Boulton
COMMENT The frivolity and competent #PMQs stand ins don't make up for the dire challenges facing UK
— Adam Boulton (@adamboultonSKY) July 12, 2017
From the Sun’s Tom Newton Dunn
Damian Green will never be PM. But that was an impressive stand-in performance, with wit and style. He is steadying May's ship well #PMQs
— Tom Newton Dunn (@tnewtondunn) July 12, 2017
From the Independent’s John Rentoul
What a pleasure to have 2 front benchers who are good at this. Reminds me of the old days. #PMQs
— John Rentoul (@JohnRentoul) July 12, 2017
From the i’s Nigel Morris
Perhaps May and Corbyn should examine their understudies' performances at #PMQs for a lesson on thinking on their feet
— Nigel Morris (@NigelpMorris) July 12, 2017
From the Guardian’s Gaby Hinsliff
Thornberry vs Green an excellent reminder that there's a point to #pmqs when both sides are actually good at it
— Gaby Hinsliff (@gabyhinsliff) July 12, 2017
From the Telegraph’s Laura Hughes
This is a very entertaining PMQs from #EmilyThornberry (very quick on her feet) and #DamianGreen
— Laura Hughes (@Laura_K_Hughes) July 12, 2017
From Total Politics’ David Singleton
Emily Thornberry in her element at #PMQs. A bit of swagger always works well and she has bucketloads of it
— David Singleton (@singersz) July 12, 2017
Updated
I missed the question from Ian Blackford, the SNP leader at Westminster, earlier because I was writing the snap verdict. Blackford asked about Brexit, and whether it would reduce the powers of the devolved administrations. He said:
Will the first secretary of state confirm that the devolved nations will not face a diminution of powers as a result of the repeal bill?
Green replied:
I’m happy to reconfirm that, yes, under the terms of the Brexit deal we will negotiations there will be no diminution of the devolved administrations powers and indeed that we look to devolve more powers as a result of this process.
Blackford then went back to the same question.
Can he confirm there will be a cast-iron guarantee that all powers that come back into the UK on devolved matters will be returned?
And Green replied:
I’m slightly surprised at the Scottish Nationalists’ approach, in that my understanding of their position is they want the powers taken from London to Edinburgh so they can give them back to Brussels ... but perhaps their inability to explain the logic of that position might explain the recent general election result they had.
I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
The Labour MP Pat McFadden asks if the supply of radioactive isotopes will be affected by Brexit and leaving Euratom. Will cancer patients by affected?
Green says he is glad to have the chance to address this. There has been “scaremongering”, he says. He says the supply of isotopes won’t be affected.
The main culprit is his former Conservative colleague George Osborne, who as editor of the Evening Standard splashed on this earlier this week.
.@EveningStandard:exclusive warning by Royal College fuels Tory revolt over Euratom plan + Patrick Cockburn on Mosul &latest @ChelseaFC news pic.twitter.com/nxMsas1FWG
— George Osborne (@George_Osborne) July 10, 2017
The Conservative Andrew Rosindell asks Green if May will tell the King of Spain that the UK remains committed to Gibraltar.
Green says the government is committed to upholding the wishes of the people of Gibraltar.
Labour’s Judith Cummins says the government has shelved Trans-Pennine electrification. Has the money given to Northern Ireland come at the expense of the north of England?
No, says Green. He says the government remains committed to the Northern Powerhouse.
Updated
PMQs - Snap verdict
Emily Thornberry put in remarkably polished and confidence performance as Jeremy Corbyn’s stand-in, and comfortably beat Damian Green (in so far they were actually engaged in a contest), although I’m not entirely sure that this was a PMQs that brought great credit to parliament as a whole.
What was particularly good about Thornberry’s line of questioning is that she opened up two issues that have received little or no attention in the Brexit debate so far. Theresa May is placing less emphasis now than before the election on her claim that “no deal is better than a bad deal”, but she has not abandoned it entirely and Thornberry exposed two of the problems with this. No deal would mean border controls in Ireland, she said. And no deal would mean no transitional period. Green, who main response consisted of saying that the talks were going well (he clearly hadn’t listened to Michel Barnier this morning), did not challenge either point. They are good arguments, and Thornberry provided a service by publicising them.
She also did so with humour, and the soundbite in her final question was excellent. But she may have been just a little too good-natured. These sounded like exchanges at business questions, not PMQs. There was no real anger or hard-edged seriousness there, which was why it did not feel like a proper skirmish with a winner.
And normally I like the jokes at PMQs. But, having spent the hour before PMQs listening to Michel Barnier give his press conference about Brexit in a tone that was sombre, rational and deeply serious, it was hard to avoid the conclusion that the House of Commons as a whole is failing to acknowledge quite how perilous this whole Brexit enterprise is. It doesn’t inspire confidence.
Updated
Thornberry says the government says it wants to avoid a cliff-edge Brexit. But Theresa May cannot leave without no deal, but then ask for a transitional deal. Can Green confirm that no deal means no transitional arrangements either.
Green says he is hopeful that there will be a deal. The UK has made a fair offer on EU citizens. It is in the interests of all EU countries to get a deal.
Thornberry says she is happy to swap places with Green. His answers have illustrated what a mess this is. Isn’t the truth that we have a no deal option on the table, but they won’t say what they mean? And they have contingency plans, but they won’t say what they are? And we have a Brexit secretary so used to over-ruling colleagues he has taken to over-ruling himself. The prime minister has taken to putting suggestion boxes around parliament. The government has not got a grip.
Green says the government has already started negotiations. The UK wants to make sure EU citizens have as much certainty about their rights as possible. He says Labour has had nine different plans on Europe. He says the Tories got more votes and seats than Labour at the election.
Green says OBR will publish a report covering the risks of Brexit tomorrow
Thornberry says Green did not get the memo about cross-party consensus. What no deal looks like in practice?
Green says he is happy to be consensual. In that spirit, he wants to mention the unemployment figures. It is at the lowest level for a generation.
He says the UK wants to get a deal with the EU. Negotiations are going well. Thornberry’s fear of no deal is “probably overstated”.
Thornberry says, if Green wants to talk about unemployment, he should publish the Treasury assessment of leaving the EU with no deal. If he won’t, he should clear up the question of whether there is a plan for leaving with no deal. Boris Johnson said yesterday there wasn’t. Then Number 10 said there was. David Davis has given both versions, he says.
Green claims Thornberry can’t welcome the unemployment figures. Green says the OBR is publishing its fiscal risk report tomorrow.
- Green says OBR will publish a report covering the risks of Brexit tomorrow.
Emily Thornberry says Green is the 16th person to represent his part at PMQs since he became an MP 20 years ago.
She asks what will happen to the Irish land border if there is no deal with the EU by March 2019.
Green says he may take up Thornberry’s offer to name all 16 in the tea room earlier. Some are women, because the Tories sometimes elect women leaders.
He joins Thornberry in congratulating the British lions, and saying celebrating a draw is a very British thing to do.
He says the Irish border issue is extremely important to the government.
Thornberry says only three of those 16 were women. Labour have had three women standing in at PMQs in the last two years alone.
The question was, what happens if there is no deal. It was the PM who first floated the idea of no deal. The Brexit secretary has said the UK is prepared to walk away. Are ministers just making it up as they go along, or is it still the government’s policy that no deal is an option.
Green says Thornberry should read the Lancaster House speech. It is conceivable that the UK could be offered a punishment deal. It would be a mistake to accept that. He congratulates Labour on consistency. They approve of unilateral disarmament, not just in nuclear matters, but in negotiations.
Jeremy Lefroy, a Conservative, asks if the government will bring MPs from across the House together to put the NHS and social care on a firm foundation.
Green says the government has committed an extra £8bn to the NHS. And it wants a debate about social care. This is one of the big issues facing the country.
Labour’s Caroline Flint asks if the government will commit to an energy price cap.
Green says there was a proposal on this in the Queen’s speech. He is sure this is an issue on which MPs can work together.
Damian Green says he is replying because the prime minister is in attendance with the Queen, welcoming the King of Spain.
PMQs
PMQs is about to start.
With Theresa May attending the ceremonial arrival of the King of Spain for his state visit, Damian Green, the first secretary of state, is standing in for her.
Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, is standing in for Jeremy Corbyn.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
Here is the line up of MPs quizzing Damian Green at #pmqs https://t.co/VnLZFrrv0q pic.twitter.com/IL4SsB2WZR
— PoliticsHome (@politicshome) July 12, 2017
Here is my colleague Jennifer Rankin on the Barnier press conference.
Upshot of Michel Barnier's press conference: growing impatience with lack of UK position papers, exasperation with 'go whistle' tone
— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) July 12, 2017
And this is from Politico Europe’s David Herszenhorn.
Very strong language by #EU chief #Brexit negotiator @MichelBarnier: no future relationship w/o trust & #UK recognizing financial obligation
— David M. Herszenhorn (@herszenhorn) July 12, 2017
The BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg says the UK government is publishing three Brexit positions papers tomorrow.
On which point, am told three of UK position papers, including on Euratom, are being published tomorrow
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) July 12, 2017
David Davis spoke about this in his evidence to the Lords committee yesterday.
Q: You have talked about your love of hill walking. How far along this trip are we?
Barnier says it is a difficult path. But it is wide enough for two people to advance along together.
And that’s it. The press conference is over.
Barnier says he has listened to David Davis. Davis says he has noted certain financial obligations. He says he has published his list of obligations, and the legal basis behind them (pdf).
He says the UK is a country for which he has great respect.
He cannot imagine that that great country, “a very great country”, is not also a responsible country, that will respect its commitment.
Barnier says the EU will not ask UK to pay ‘a single euro” more than it has already committed to paying
Q: What do you need to see from the British in relation to their financial obligations?
Barnier says this issue is of major importance.
How do you build a relationship covering trade, and security and defence, which is going to last, without trust?
He says he wants to build a new relationship.
But that needs trust to work.
Trust means giving security to the 4m British and EU citizens.
It means settling accounts.
It is difficult for the UK, he says. But it is difficult for the EU too.
When they were together, the 28 EU states entered into commitments.
He says he managed the structural funds. He knows how this is done. There are thousands of programmes and commitments.
What happens to those programmes if the share that the UK has committed to providing is no longer there?
That is matter of trust, he says.
People like Nigel Farage have called this a ransom.
It is not a ransom, or an exit bill.
It is simply settling accounts, he says.
We are not asking the UK for a single euro or a single pound more than they have committed to providing.
Barnier says the EU is setting out its reasons for asking for particular sums.
- Barnier says the EU will not ask the UK to pay ‘a single euro” more than it has already committed to paying.
Q: Are you saying that as long as the UK does not accept it has financial obligations, you won’t talk about anything else?
Barnier answers with a single word, in English: Yes.
(Mostly he is speaking in French. I’m listening to the translation.)
Barnier said it took the EU 35 years to create a rule for single patents. He says he is not sure what will happen to the UK and the European patent court.
Barnier says the best option for the UK would be to remain a member of the EU.
The second best would be for it to remain in the European Economic Area (the EEA). But that involves strict conditions.
Q: Do you think the UK will accept the European court of justice having a continuing role, in relation to the rights of EU nationals?
Barnier says he does not want to push the other side to the edge.
They need a deal on EU nationals, and British nationals, that will suit 4.5m people.
We need clear, sustainable solutions, he says.
He says he is not talking about the ECJ having a role for people coming to the UK after Brexit. He is talking about it being able to guarantee the rights of EU nationals who were in the UK before Brexit.
Q: Is the absence of a Northern Ireland executive having an impact? And when will you publish plans for Northern Ireland?
Barnier says in a previous role he played a part in helping to boost the Northern Ireland peace process. He is very committed to this.
Q: When will you address plans for fishing?
Barnier says he is very familiar with this. He used to be a minister for fisheries.
He saw the UK announcement about withdrawing from the London convention on fish. But it does not change very much, he says. He says the convention has been replaced by the common fisheries policy.
After Brexit the UK will still have to fulfil its international obligations on fish, he says.
There are 130 fish stocks that need to be managed, he says.
The other issue is market access.
We need to move smartly on this, he says.
Q: Will you whistle us a tune? (This is a reference to Boris Johnson.)
Barnier says he does not want to make any comment. He is not hearing any whistling, just the clock ticking.
Q: Is it a problem that the UK has not revealed more of its position, or sent you more paperwork?
Barnier says the sooner he gets clarification on the British positions on the topics he has not heard from them on, the better.
He says his team is ready.
As soon as he gets these clarifications, he will work on them.
He is prepared to work on them, even over the weekend and on 14 July, a national holiday in France.
He says he expects the British government to set out its position.
There will be “many points of agreement”, he says.
And they can then identify the points of disagreement.
He says he hopes the UK government will set out its position soon, before the second round of talks which are due to start later this month.
Michel Barnier's press conference
Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, is giving a press conference in Brussels now.
You can watch it here.
Here are some of the key points from his opening statement.
Barnier: Our first day of negotiations on 19 June was useful to start off on the right foot, but the hard work starts now.
— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) July 12, 2017
Barnier says EU has published 9 EU position papers so far. Now needs to know UK position on each issue.
— Jennifer Rankin (@JenniferMerode) July 12, 2017
Barnier: "We cannot remain idle as the clock is ticking." "We have issued 9 position papers...we now need to the UK's position on each"
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) July 12, 2017
Barnier: "We need to know on which points we agree and which points we disagree so that we can negotiate in earnest"
— lisa o'carroll (@lisaocarroll) July 12, 2017
The British position on citizen's rights does not allow people to live their lives as they do today, warns @MichelBarnier. #Brexit
— James Kanter (@jameskanter) July 12, 2017
UK must first recognize its financial obligations and only then can we start on how to calculate € figure, says @MichelBarnier on #Brexit.
— James Kanter (@jameskanter) July 12, 2017
Progress needed on Irish border, exit bill, and citizens rights; two out of three not good enough, warns @MichelBarnier on #Brexit.
— James Kanter (@jameskanter) July 12, 2017
German Europe minister says it is 'completely unclear' what UK wants from Brexit
The German Europe minister, Michael Roth, has said that it is “completely unclear” what Britain wants from Brexit. He made the comment in an interview with Politico Europe (kindly flagged up by ScottishPanda BTL). Roth said the UK had failed to provide the European commission with a consistent negotiating position. He went on:
You’re expecting to get forward-looking answers from me, which are very difficult for me to give because so far, it’s remained completely unclear where this is supposed to be going for the Brits.
This makes it damned difficult for us. We are excellently prepared. Our negotiating mandate is very detailed, transparent and verifiable. However, what’s still missing is a corresponding answer, and this is something only London can give.
Roth said that maintaining the standing of the European court of justice would be important to the EU in the Brexit talks. “This will be a particularly critical aspect of the negotiations with the United Kingdom — and I doubt that we, as the European Union, will have much leeway,” he said.
And he rejected the claim - repeated ad nauseam by leave supporters - that German car manufacturers will ensure that the UK gets tariff-free access to the single market, because that is in their interests. Roth said:
I consider this quite erroneous. My unsolicited advice to the British side would be to engage less in reading the coffee grounds and instead do its homework and tell us with which concrete goals and what negotiating mandate they would like to go into the next talks.
And, while we’re on about the UK’s financial outlook, Moody’s, the credit ratings agency, has released its annual credit analysis of the UK. It says “political and fiscal risks have increased” since the election. Here’s an extract.
In Moody’s view, political and fiscal risks have increased following the government’s loss of its parliamentary majority in early elections in June. In order to secure a working majority in parliament, the UK government dropped several campaign pledges that would have reduced spending pressures in important areas and it is under significant pressure now to raise spending. Weaker public finances will likely lead to a further delay in reversing the rising public debt trend. In addition, the UK’s institutional capacity will be tested, given the complexity and quantity of economic policy decisions in the coming years.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has published a briefing this morning looking at the government’s options for taxation and spending. As the Press Association reports, it says Philip Hammond, the chancellor, will have to continue tax rises and spending cuts beyond 2021/22 if he is to meet his target of balancing the nation’s books by the middle of the next decade. But it says Hammond could meet growing public demand for an end to austerity by ditching the target and leaving the deficit at its 2016/17 level of 2.4% of GDP.
Here is an extract from the IFS briefing.
The new government could therefore choose to pursue a looser fiscal policy than currently planned in the short term while claiming still to be heading for budget balance at some point in the 2020s. But given the scale of the takeaway planned for the next few years an “end to austerity” – as defined by no further net tax rises, benefit cuts or cuts to spending on public services – would require a very sharp change of direction. It would imply a £17bn boost to planned spending on public services alongside a £5bn net tax cut and an £11bn increase in planned benefit spending – i.e. a giveaway of £33bn a year. What that would do would, on current forecasts, leave us with a deficit at its current level – 2.4% of GDP – in 2021–22.
That is an option in a way that it was not an option back in 2010. We could choose to continue to run deficits of around the current level over the longer-term. If the economy were to grow as expected this would be sufficient to see debt fall as a share of national income over the longer term. It would mean that over the next few years household incomes could be better supported and a greater quality and quantity of public services could be enjoyed. But it would also involve planning to live with elevated public sector debt for longer. It could give the chancellor less room for manoeuvre if the economy were to suffer badly, for Brexit related or other reasons over the next few years; and it would almost certainly require the abandonment of the pledge to eliminate the deficit in the mid-2020s.
If instead the concern was with public spending cuts – rather than overall austerity – then an alternative option would be to raise taxes in order to reduce the planned cuts to spending on public services as a share of national income or to reduce the scale of the benefit cuts currently in the pipeline. To give one example the government could choose not to implement the planned cut to the corporation tax rate from 19% to 17%. That would raise an additional £5 billion which could be spent on public services or reducing benefit cuts, without affecting the deficit. Other tax increases are of course available.
If you are interested in the elections for select committee chairs today, there is a list here, on the House of Commons website, of the 11 posts being contested. If you click on the relevant links, you can find the candidates for each position, and their election statements.
Asked for a response to the Labour letter accusing Tory HQ of sanctioning personal attacks (see 9.15am), a Conservative party spokesman said:
As the prime minister has already said, there is no place in our democracy for intimidation, harassment or bullying. The prime minister is determined to stamp this issue out, which requires all party leaders to stand up and condemn such action.
Unemployment falls to lowest rate since 1975
The unemployment figures are out.
Unemployment fell to 4.5% in the three months to May, a new 42-year low.
But earnings figures released as part of the same set of data show that wages are still not keeping up with inflation.
My colleague Graeme Wearden has all the details on his business live blog.
New Kensington and Chelsea council leader says she had never visited high-rise tower block before Grenfell Tower fire
Elizabeth Campbell, the new leader of Kensington and Chelsea council, made an awkward admission on the Today programme this morning. She revealed that had never visited a high-rise tower block in the borough before the Grenfell Tower fire. She told the programme:
I haven’t been into the high-rise council blocks before, but I am certainly doing that now.
Campbell took over as council leader after Nicholas Paget-Brown resigned following intense criticism of the way the council responded to Grenfell Tower. A councillor since 2001, she represents Royal Hospital ward, which includes Sloane Square in the wealthy south of the borough, and she has been a cabinet member for family and children’s services, and for education and libraries.
She told the programme that, just because she represented the prosperous bit of the borough, that did not mean that she did not care about what happened in places like Grenfell Tower in the poorer areas. She said:
I totally reject the fact that just because I live in the south of the borough that I have no understanding of what’s going on in the north of the borough. And I also totally reject the whole notion that because we have people in the borough who are wealthy and people who are not wealthy that the wealthy don’t care, they do care.
She also said that if residents were not happy with the way the Conservative-led council responded to the disaster, they could vote them out next year.
As for whether people on the ground think that they need a new council, and new council leaders, we have elections next May and they will be able to vote with their feet. And they will either think by next May that we have made a good start and that we are delivering things on the ground, or they can vote us out.
Updated
Labour accuses Tory HQ of 'personal attacks, smears and untruths' as MPs debate candidate abuse
Yesterday Theresa May gave a speech calling for more cross-party cooperation. You might have thought that one topic on which the Conservatives and Labour - indeed, everyone - can agree is that political parties and candidates should treat their opponents with respect.
There will be a debate on this in Westminster Hall later. It has been scheduled by the Conservative MP Simon Hart. But, as today’s Daily Mail splash reveals, Hart did not get the memo about cross-party harmony. He intends to accuse the left of sanctioning intimidation. He told the Mail:
Rather than just putting out feeble messages online saying you condemn all this [the intimidation of candidates], Jeremy Corbyn needs to actually do something about it.
Mr Corbyn and the leaders of Momentum need when there is even the faintest whiff of this stuff to say “You are not welcome in our party or to campaign on our behalf and wear the Labour badge if this is how you’re going to behave”.
DAILY MAIL: Exposed: Shocking scale of hard-left bullying #tomorrowspaperstoday pic.twitter.com/MKyBlSZy16
— Neil Henderson (@hendopolis) July 11, 2017
And Labour is not letting this go unchallenged. In a letter to Patrick McLoughlin, the Conservative party chairman, Ian Lavery, the Labour party chair, and Cat Smith, the shadow minister for voter engagement and women, accuse Conservative HQ of “propagating personal attacks, smears and untruths”, particularly aimed at Diane Abbott. Here’s an extract.
The Conservatives’ ran a negative, nasty campaign, propagating personal attacks, smears and untruths, particularly aimed at one of the most prominent women MPs, and indeed the first black woman MP, Diane Abbott.
Such attacks on politicians, the consequent intimidating and abusive language and threats of violence towards them online, deter many people from entering politics.
Parties and politicians have a responsibility to set an example, by treating others with dignity and respect, including those with whom we strongly disagree. The Conservative Party has instead promoted personal attacks as a core component of its national campaign.
Abuse against candidates on social media is completely unacceptable. The Conservative Party perpetrated this on an industrial scale by spending millions of pounds to post highly personalised and nasty attack adverts on voters’ Facebook timelines without their permission.
This is not an isolated incident. Last year Zac Goldsmith MP ran an extremely negative, divisive and racially discriminatory campaign against Sadiq Khan. It was described by Sayeeda Warsi, the former Conservative Party Co-Chairperson, as “appalling”.
I’ll be keeping an eye on the debate later, but it looks as though consensus is unlikely to break out.
Here is the agenda for the day.
9.30am: Justine Greening, the education secretary, gives a speech to the Sutton Trust.
9.30am: The Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Institute for Government hold a joint briefing on taxation and spending.
9.30am: Unemployment figures are published.
10am: MPs begin voting in the election for select committee chairs. Voting closes at 4pm, and the results will be announced later by the speaker.
Around 11am: Michel Barnier, the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, holds a press conference in Brussels.
12pm: Damian Green, the first secretary of state, takes prime minister’s questions. He is standing in for Theresa May, who is attending the ceremonial welcome for King Felipe VI of Spain at the start of his state visit. Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign secretary, is standing in for Jeremy Corbyn.
12.30pm: MPs begin a debate on the Grenfell Tower fire inquiry.
4.15pm: The King of Spain gives an address to both Houses of Parliament.
4.30pm: MPs hold a debate in Westminster Hall on the abuse and intimidation of candidates during elections.
Also, the Lords EU committee is in Brussels today where it is meeting Barnier and Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s lead Brexit negotiator.
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.
Updated
