Downing Street has rejected a claim from the Office for Budget Responsibility that cutting benefits for EU migrants would have little impact on immigration. (See 12.17pm.) Asked about Sir Stephen Nickell’s comment, the prime minister’s spokeswoman said:
The prime minister has been clear that the proposals we have been seeking are about addressing some of the pull factors that there are for EU migrants to come to work in Britain. If you look at the amount of in-work benefits they can access from day one, we think this is a pull factor that we can seek to address.
Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, also claimed there was wide support in Europe for the government’s call to be allowed to stop EU migrants claiming benefits for four years. He said:
When I talk to ministers in Germany and France etc, I have yet to come across one person who doesn’t agree that there is something fundamentally wrong with this system which means that people can arrive in a different country and be eligible for benefits that they have never contributed towards or been involved in. If you talk to the Dutch ministers or the Danish ministers I have talked to, they are all in agreement ... It’s an issue in Bavaria as much as it is in Birmingham.
Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, has said that David Cameron’s EU renegotiation is “not all that impressive” so far. Speaking at a press gallery lunch, he said:
I wish the prime minister well. I wish he will achieve those kinds of reforms, reforms that would be sufficient to persuade even eurosceptics to vote - even campaign enthusiastically - to remain part of the European Union.
I am not so naive as to hold my breath. I have seen where the negotiations are going at the moment and they are not all that impressive.
He indicated that he was minded to vote for Britain to leave the EU, but he said it was still possible for Cameron to persuade him that his reforms would make it worthwhile for Britain to stay in.
Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader and MP for Westmorland and Lonsdale, has urged people with second homes in the Lake District to make them available for people made homeless by the floods. People should contact South Lakeland District Council, or email him directly at tim@timfarron.co.uk if they could help, he said.
It’s awful to see the destruction which the flooding has caused, particularly for those who have lost their homes.
This is now an opportunity for those who own second homes in South Lakeland to show solidarity with local people, and offer refuge to those whose homes have been destroyed by the floods.
Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP, has accused George Osborne of “giving out sweeties” and “buying votes” from Tory MPs in a bid to become party leader. Speaking on the BBC’s Daily Politics, she suggested it would be wrong if he succeeded winning the party leadership this way. She said:
If that happens [Osborne becoming leader] then I think what we need to do, really in all parties, is look at how our political system works. Because I don’t think it’s right that anybody of privilege should be able to come into parliament and use their privilege and their education - their background - in order to secure their career progression into the role of Prime Minister in the future.
If George Osborne becomes prime Minister that is how he has done it.
In his speech to the Commons press gallery Zac Goldsmith, the Conservative candidate for mayor of London, condemned Donald Trump as “one of the most malignant figures in modern politics”. He said:
Donald Trump began as a bit of a joke. People probably quite liked the idea of him ruffling feathers and knocking people around a bit during the campaign for selection. But he has gone way beyond being a joke now and he had become - as he clearly always was but has become overtly - an utterly repellent figure in modern politics.
I just pray that when America gets off this funfair ride they are on at the moment, they realise that Donald Trump is one of the most malignant figures in modern politics and I hope his campaign ends in absolute disaster.
Earlier I quoted from an email that Lewis Bassett, one of the founders of Lambeth Momentum, sent me about the group. (See 12pm.) He did not say much in that about the claim that Momentum wants to deselect rightwing Labour MPs, but someone raised this BTL and so I asked him about this. He replied:
Momentum is not campaigning to deselect MPs. This talk is originating from minor sources - individuals on Twitter, a few Socialist party cadres, who obviously have no legitimate say in the party nor any influence in the Momentum meetings I have been to, and Tories, like the author of the post you quoted earlier. Let’s not amplify these voices any further.
In his earlier post Bassett dismissed a report of a Lambeth Momentum meeting from ConservativeHome’s Mark Wallace. Wallace has been in touch too.
@AndrewSparrow I note Bassett doesn't mention either the Momentum speaker on the Lambeth panel attacking all Progress Councillors or the
The Home Office has finally got back to me about the call for Donald Trump to be banned. Essentially, it won’t comment. A spokesman said:
We do not routinely comment on individual cases.
If Trump does want to visit the UK, it is possible he may choose to go to Scotland, where he owns a golf course. In the light of that, it is significant that Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s Europe minister, has said the Home Office should consider banning Trump unless he retracts his call for Muslims to be banned from the US.
@sundersays Just commented on STV to say Home Sect should give consideration to petition on grounds of hate speech
Earlier I said that when the EU Referendum bill returned to the Lords peers would not be able to just re-insert the original amendment allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. They would have to draft a slightly separate one, I said. (See 2.21pm.)
That is what is supposed to happen. But a Labour source (quoting from a copy of Erskine May in his hand - honestly) has just told me that that it not the case. In theory, the Lords could send the exactly same amendment straight back (“double insistence”, in the jargon - the Lords would be insisting on its amendment twice). In those circumstances the Commons would either have to accept the amendment, or the bill would be lost.
The source said that Labour was currently trying to find out how many peers would support this approach (effectively, the nuclear option). If peers do not want to go that far, they will revert to trying to pass an alternative amendment introducing votes at 16.
Back to the EU referendum debate, and this is what Pat McFadden, the shadow Europe minister, said earlier about why Labour was supporting votes at 16 in the EU referendum.
Our contention is very simple, it is that the young people of this country deserve a say in the decision which will chart our country’s future. This is very much about the UK’s future and we believe that young people including young people aged 16 and 17 at the time of voting should have a say in that future.
He also said that he did not accept cost was an issue.
In the end, this is not an issue of the proposal being unaffordable, it is an issue of the government not wanting to do it.
Pat McFadden Photograph: BBC Parliament/BBC
The government is saying that allowing votes at 16 in the EU referendum would cost an extra £6m.
Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, has confirmed that she has stood down from the Stop the War Coalition’s committee of patrons. She said that was partly because of “some recent StWC positions that she didn’t support”. My colleague Frances Perraudin has more here.
Caroline Lucas indicated a month ago that she wished to step back from involvement in Stop the War.
However, we are delighted that both Caroline and Green party leader Natalie Bennett have spoken on Stop the War platforms since to condemn the bombing of Syria. We very much welcome their continued support and that of many Green Party activists.
In the Commons John Penrose, a Cabinet Office minister, explained why the government was opposed to letting 16 and 17-year-old vote in the EU referendum. Even if the government was in favour of lowering the voting age, this would be the wrong way to do it, he argued.
Even if we were convinced lowering the voting age was the right thing to do, this bill would not be the place to do it. Changing the voting age is not something which should be applied to a single vote, or even perhaps a special one, if it is as important as this referendum. It is something which should be considered for all elections, collectively and in the round.
Equally, given the understandable sensitivities surrounding the EU referendum making such a fundamental change to the franchise for this vote alone but not for others would inevitably and perhaps justifiably lead to accusations of trying to fix the franchise in favour of either the remain or the leave campaign.
He also said that 18 was generally considered the age at which people became adult.
We currently have a patchwork of restrictions which apply to young people from the age of 16 all the way up to 21 - there is no clear point at which a person becomes an adult but it is 18 that society usually draws the line. Even at 18, there are things young people cannot do - they must wait until they are 21 to adopt a child, supervise a learner driver or to drive a bus.
In general, though I accept this is not perfect, things require parental consent for people under 18 than over - joining the Army, getting married or having a drink in a pub when you are 16 need parental consent and approval.
He also said there was not popular demand for votes at 16
This is not some great progressive cause where an oppressed minority is waiting to be liberated by enlightened public support, quite the opposite in fact. The risk is that for those watching our debate outside this chamber, it will seem like a Westminster bubble issue. A trendy obsession for an out of touch political class rather than a burning social crusade with widespread democratic support.
MPs vote to reject giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote in the EU referendum
MPs have voted to reject giving 16 and 17-year-olds a vote in the EU referendum by 303 votes to 253 - a majority of 50.
The amendment passed by the House of Lords saying there should be votes at 16 in that referendum has now been designed by the Commons Speaker as a matter engaging financial privilege (because of its additional cost) and that means that the Lords cannot just vote to put the amendment back in when the bill returns to their end of the building.
But peers can table a fresh amendment to the bill, designed to achieve the same goal in a different ways. Labour peers are considering this option, and so the conflict between the two Houses is not over yet.
Given what has happened, it is likely that a fresh amendment would also be designated as financially privileged. Theoretically peers could keep tabling new amendments over and over again, but in practice the Lords may well soon decide that it has to has to bow to convention on this one.
(On tax credits the Lords did ignore the convention that they should not over-rule the Commons on a financial matter. But that was on an item of secondary legislation, and it was a matter of debate whether or not that counted as a proper financial measure. Votes at 16 is different because this is primary legislation and, in relation to this amendment, financial privilege has been formally engaged.)
UPDATE: Earlier I said that when the EU Referendum bill returned to the Lords peers would not be able to just re-insert the original amendment allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to vote. They would have to draft a slightly separate one, I said.
That is what is supposed to happen. But a Labour source (quoting from a copy of Ersking May in his hand - honestly) has just told me that that it not the case. In theory, the Lords could send the exactly same amendment straight back (“double insistence”, in the jargon - the Lords would be insisting on its amendment twice). In those circumstances the Commons would either have to accept the amendment, or the bill would be lost.
The source said that Labour was currently trying to find out how many peers would support this approach (effectively, the nuclear option). If peers do not want to go that far, they will revert to trying to pass an alternative amendment introducing votes at 16.
MPs are now voting on the EU referendum bill, and an amendment to take out the clause inserted by the House of Lords giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote.
Here is more from what was said by the prime minister’s spokeswoman about Donald Trump at the Number 10 lobby briefing. She said:
The prime minister completely disagrees with the comments made by Donald Trump, which are divisive, unhelpful and quite simply wrong ...
The prime minister has been very clear that, as we look at how we tackle extremism and this poisonous ideology, what politicians need to do is look at ways they can bring communities together and make clear that these terrorists are not representative of Islam and indeed what they are doing is a perversion of Islam.
Asked whether David Cameron would be willing to meet Donald Trump, or whether the government would ban Trump from entering the country, the spokeswoman described the questions as “hypothetical”.
Governments of all parties are normally reluctant to intervene in domestic elections in other countries, which is why the Number 10 statement (see 12.39am) about Donald Trump is quite remarkable.
But if you think the Downing Street statement is strong, you should see what Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Scottish Conservative party, said about the person who is currently leading in the polls to win the presidential nomination for the Conservatives’ sister party, the Republican party.
So, twitter, we're all agreed? Trump's a clay-brained guts, knotty-pated fool, whoreson obscene greasy tallow-catch, right?
The Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston has joined British Future (see 10.10am) in saying the Home Office should consider banning Donald Trump from Britain because of his latest comments about Muslims. She told BuzzFeed:
What are the chances of a potential presidential candidate being banned from the UK? But I think there should certainly be a discussion about it. It was a very offensive comment.
I called the Home Office for a comment about this earlier, but they still haven’t got back to me.
OBR says cutting benefits for EU migrant will have little impact on immigration
Here is more on what the Office for Budget Responsibility said about David Cameron’s plans to curb EU migration by stopping workers from the EU claiming benefits for their first four years in the UK.
Sir Stephen Nickell, one of the three members of the OBR’s budget responsibility committee, was asked about this, and this is what he said:
Changing the benefit rules for EU migration so that they become more difficult to obtain - you are asking me what impact that is likely to have. In my opinion: not much.
I am prepared to say that any changes to benefit rules are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows. But to go further and start trying to analyse the actual consequences is not within our remit.
Nickell said that jobs and pay were factors in attracting migrants to the UK, not benefits. He said there was “quite a lot of evidence that the differential in job opportunities, the differential in pay, is a significant factor in migration flows around the world.”
Stephen Parkinson, director of the Vote Leave campaign, said this represented a “damning verdict” on a key plank of David Cameron’s EU renegotiation. He said:
The chancellor’s own independent experts have delivered a damning verdict on the government’s plans to try to negotiate a deal which will limit EU migration.
People want to see the UK taking back control of our borders, but experts from the Office of Budget Responsibility have today confirmed that “any changes to benefits are unlikely to have a huge impact on migration flows.”
The government is trying to manufacture a row with the EU to make its demands look more significant than they are – but the only way to get real change and to take back control is to Vote Leave.
Comments (…)
Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion