Theresa May questioned by home affairs committee: Politics live blog

Here is the key exchange between Keith Vaz and Theresa May over whether or not she had seen "evidence" that the Guardian revelations were damaging to national security.

KV: We want to see the evidence [that enemies of Britain are rubbing their hands with glee because of what the Guardian has published]. Have you seen the evidence?

TM: I believe ...

KV: Have you seen any evidence?

TM: Chairman, by definition the sort of information you are looking for is information which is normally held secret. That is information which it is possible for the [intelligence and security committee] to challenge the agency heads on, in terms of the appearances that those individuals have in front of the ISC. That is the point of being able to give evidence to the ISC. What you are saying is, "Will I sit here and talk about things which otherwise might be the sort of information which is normally held secret?" I'm afraid I'm not going to talk to you about that sort of thing. It is my firm view that what has happened in relation to the Guardian, I am concerned, I'm appalled at the fact that we have a situation where leaked information is published which could put at risk the lives of men and women who themselves put themselves into dangerous situations on behalf of this country.

KV: I'm not asking you to go through every bit of technique that is operated by every single spy all over the country, or all over the world. We're not interested in that. We're talking about parliamentary accountability here. You have not seen any evidence. We don't want you to discuss that evidence. And we're happy to accept your assurance if you come before us as a minister of the crown and tell us you have seen evidence that supports what Mr Parker and Sir John Sawers have said. They have handed you evidence which means that they know our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee. Have you seen such evidence or not? We're all appalled by it, if we're on one side or the other, depending on which side we're on. We're either appalled it has been release or appalled it hasn't been released. Being appalled is not evidence. Have you seen evidence?

TM: I have been obviously in discussions with the agency for which I'm responsible and I have been talking to them about the impact that the information that has been published has on the operations of national security, those agencies responsible for national security, and on the basis of that I'm clear in my own mind that it is the case that what has been published, as the director general of MI5 said, that information that talks about the techniques that are used, is indeed damaging.

KV: So you've had discussions, but you haven't had evidence?

TM: Chairman, I think we're about to dance on the head of a pin on this particular issue.

KV: No we're not. You may be dancing by I'm not. You've had discussions.

TM: I look forward to seeing you on Strictly at any occasion, Chairman. I have obviously been talking to the agency that comes under the remit of the Home Office, namely MI5, about the impact of the publication of information which has been obtained as the result of leaked information which has been obtained by Mr Snowden, and the impact that has had. And I'm saying to you, on the basis of what I have seen and heard, I am firmly of the view that it is the case that this is damaging to national security.

KV: And that our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee?

TM: Well, I don't tend to use phrases like that, I have to say, Chairman, but what I say [is] I believe [it's] damaging to national security. 

Immediately afterwards Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP on the committee, said he was struck that May had not just said "yes" to Vaz's questions.

Vaz ends asking if May has any exciting plans for Christmas. Bucharest? Sofia? London?

None of those, says May. (Does that mean she will be at home in Maidenhead?)

With that, Vaz ends the session (which did not drag on for too long after all).

I'll post a summary shortly. 

Julian Huppert goes next.

Q: The Home Office's drug policy evaluation framework is a bit thin. Is the Home Office aware of the work done by the Czech Republic on this in 1998?

May says different countries have taken a different approach. 

Labour's David Winnick goes next.

Q: Do you accept that any former of gender discrimination would be wrong in the UK?

May says in public places men and women should be able to sit together.

The government should make it clear that it does not expect to see such segregation, particularly in universities, she says.

Q: You have published your modern slavery bill. Do you have an idea of the extent of slavery in the UK. In Europe it is said to be 880,000.

May says Frank Field's inquiry produced a figure of 10,000. But no one knows if the true figure is higher or lower.

Q: And are you concerned that there have not been any prosecutions for female genital mutilation?

May says she is concerned about this.

Vaz says he wants to cover a few other topics before they finish.

Q: Is it time to turn the page on the Andrew Mitchell plebgate affair? Or is there a wider issue that this throws up?

May says this matter, and other cases like Hillsborough and Jimmy Savile, have raised concerns about the police.

She says she has announced measures on police integrity.

Keith Vaz goes next.

Q: So at the moment there are no proposals for a cap. But this is work in progress for the future?

May says it is right to look ahead to issues that might be part of EU reform.

Michael Ellis goes next.

Q: Is it legitimate to look at the abuse of free movement?

May says this is a matter of concern within the EU. Even the European Commission has accepted this, although May says she thinks the commission underestimates the seriousness of this problem.

Q: So it would not be unreasonable for you do discuss this with other EU interior ministers.

No, says May. It is right to have these discussions.

May says before 2010 the government assumed immigration was always good. She does not accept this.

Q: Do you have an estimate for the financial impact of immigration?

May says she is happy to write to the committee with the assessment from the Migration Advisory Committee.

Huppert says the MAC does not look at the financial impact of migration.

Julian Huppert goes next.

Q: So you don't comment on leaks, unless they are in the Guardian. Can you confirm you did not leak the Home Office document?

May says she is not in a position to know where it came from.

Q: So it could have been one of your staff?

May says she would not have expected it to be.

Q: What did you feel about Nick Clegg's proposal for a bond for migrants?

May says both parties looked at the bond idea. May was in favour of one as a back up, for circumstances were immigration officers were minded to refuse entry. Others favoured a more "permissive" bond scheme. But the government did not go ahead with any idea.

Q: Do you regret the fact the Home Office document containing the immigration cap idea was leaked?

May says she does regret leaks. Some of the assumptions made about this (this seems to be a reference to what Nick Clegg said) are not correct.

Q: If the government does not get the EU reforms it wants, would you vote in favour of Britain remaining in the EU or in favour of remaining?

May says she would make up a decision at the time. She hopes the renegotiation is successful.

Mark Reckless goes next.

Q: Shouldn't parliament have a chance to vote on extending transitional controls before the controls on Bulgarians and Romanians coming to the UK are lifted in January?

Reckless is referring to an amendment to the immigration bill tabled by Tory MPs. May says it does not matter when the vote takes place, because the Act would not become law until after January anyway.

Reckless says the committee went to Romania to take evidence. People there were unhappy about an article on this subject in the Guardian. The article may have been tongue-in-cheek, but that may have been lost in translation.

Q: What practical arrangements are in place for 1 January. One police officer has gone to Romania.

May says there will be some rules changes. But it will be business as usual.

Q: The Home Office permanent secretary, Mark Sedwill, told us Olympic-style preparations would be in place.

May says it will be business as usual.

Q: So why did Sedwill think there would be Olympic-style preparations?

May says she has discussed this with him. It will be business as usual.

Q: Are you expecting a surge of people arriving from Romania and Bulgaria after 1 January?

May says she has not made a prediction about this. That stance has been backed up by the Migration Advisory Committee, which said it would be difficult to predict numbers.

Q: That's wrong. The head of the MAC told us last week he would have been happy to have produced a prediction. But he said he was not asked to come up with one.

May says the MAC was not in favour of this idea. Vaz says that is not right, unless the head of the MAC has changed his mind in a week.

Keith Vaz goes next.

Q: You are worried about leaks to the Guardian. Do you know who leaked your EU migration proposals? (See 9.26am.)

May says she does not comment on leaked documents.

Q: The deputy prime minister has launched a "damning" indictment of you. [Vaz quotes from what Clegg said.] He thinks you leaked the document.

Vaz says she and the prime minster want to change the EU free movement rules. 

Q: Do you accept what Nick Clegg says about imposing a cap now on EU migration being illegal.

May says she is not proposing to impose a cap now.

Q: So you accept that would be unlawful?

May says Clegg was talking as if she was proposing to do this now. She is not proposing to do this now. 

She says the Home Office is working on exit checks.

Mark Reckless goes next.

Q: Under control orders, all the people covered were foreign nationals. What proportion of people covered by Tpims are foreign nationals?

May says nine out of 10 people covered by Tpims are British.

Labour's Ian Austin is asking the questions now.

He has been asking about Tpims, and he's a hardliner. He would be happy to see people on Tpims locked up, he said at one point.

And this is from the Guardian's Paul Johnson.

And this is from the Guardian's James Ball. 

This one has also been retweeted by the Lib Dem member of the committee, Julian Huppert.

Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian editor, has summed up one conclusion to be drawn from the earlier exchanges. 

He has also corrected Theresa May on one point.

Keith Vaz has said today Afghanistan is "mission accomplished". Does that mean that it is less of a security threat?

May says Afghanistan will remain one of several countries posing a security threat.

Paul Flynn goes next.

Q: Do you anticipate an increase in threats from the Afghan Taliban next year.

May says she does not normally anticipate where threats come from.

Q: We've been told our troops are in Afghanistan to protect us from Taliban terrorist threats. So wouldn't it be prudent to anticipate more threats when British troops leave.

May says British troops have been working to build up security in Afghanistan.

Q: This committee would like to see the letter from the government of Somaliland asking for Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed to be returned to the UK. Did they ask for him to come back? We will treat that letter in confidence.

May says she does not reveal government to government relations.

Vaz says Charles Farr, the head of counter-terrorism in the Home Office, told the committee that Mohamed came to the UK voluntarily. But Mohamed's lawyers told the committee that was not the case, Vaz says. He says he wants to find out who's right. There is a possibility Farr mislead the committee.

That's the end (for now, at least) of questions about the Guardian and the NSA files.

Keith Vaz turns to another counter terrorism matter.

Q: Why does Britain bring jihadists back to the UK if they are happy to live outside the UK?

May says sometimes it is not possible to deport people to the appropriate country.

Q: This does seem to happen a lot. In the case of Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed, he wanted to stay in Somalia.

May says she will look into this. 

Q: Do we have to bring jihadists back just because they are British citizens?

May says different options can be taken in different circumstances.

Labour's Ian Austin goes next.

Q: What was your reaction when you heard Alan Rusbridger said information containing the names of agents had been sent around the world?

May says she was very concerned.

Q: And to what extent has this placed British security personnel at risk?

May says she remains of the view that this is potentially damaging to national security. She is particulalry worried about that impact on individuals.

Q: The Guardian doesn't need to print the detail of surveillance, does it?

May says it is perfectly possible to have a debate about privacy and security without revealing details.

Q: Some people think it extraordinary that someone could be appointed a Home Office minster, with some responsibility for the security services, who believes that the security services could be involved in a something like the death of David Kelly.

May says she works well with Norman Baker.

Q: But he's a fantasist?

May says she has a good working relationship with Baker.

Q: People not on that committee have no way of challenging the heads of the security agency. Shouldn't the security chiefs being scrutinised in the proper way?

May says she has not changed her view.

Labour's Paul Flynn goes next.

Q: When did the ISC help parliament. On Iraq and Afghanistan, the ISC was acting as a cheerleader for government?

May says that just because Flynn disagrees with what it said, that does not mean it was acting as a cheerleader.

Q: Wasn't it demeaning to have ISC members submit questions to the security chiefs in advance? Wasn't it a stunt to embarrass the Guardian?

May says she does not accept this.

Q: Shouldn't they give evidence to this committee?

May repeats her point about the ISC being the appropriate body.

Q: But the scrutiny the ISC has provided has not been adequate and has not helped parliament.

May repeats her defence of the ISC. There is an annual debate on the work of the ISC, she says.

Vaz says his committee is not doubting the ISC. They accept they may be doing a good job.

But the committee's complaint is that, on matters like counter terrorism, it is relying on what their fellow committee tells them. In other words, the home affairs committee members are getting their information second hand.

Vaz says this amounts to Westminster talking to each other.

Mark Reckless, another Conservative, goes next.

Q: You said the security of the information was a matter for the NSA. Isn't also a matter for us?

May says she expects Britain's intelligence agencies have been consulted about this.

She says she expects there have been "conversations and discussions" about the impact of the revelations.

Q: Doesn't the ISC amount to scrutiny by the executive, given they are appointed by the executive?

May says she does not accept this. She gives evidence to that committee. Members take their responsibilities seriously.

Q: Wouldn't it be better for ISC members to be elected?

May says the arrangements for the appointment of ISC members are "perfectly satisfactory".

Q: With members submitting their questions in advance, doesn't it give the appearance of scrutiny, but not the reality?

May says there have been changes to its powers.

Q: The Guardian say they approached the D Notice committee before publishing all but one of their stories. They were not blocked. Doesn't that suggest they were being responsible?

May says on the basis of concern about the material held, and the lack of security, the Guardian agreed to have the material destroyed.

Michael Ellis, the Conservative, goes next.

Q: Alan Rusbridger is not a public servant. But Andrew Parker is. He is probably very well paid, paid more than the prime minister. He also gives speeches, and makes melodramatic soundbites. Should he not follow up those comments with evidence to this committee.

May repeats the point about the ISC being the committee that should scrutinise the intelligence agencies.

Q: I told Rusbridger he had been irresponsible. But isn't it the case that the intelligence agencies have also been irresponsible. They put all this data in one place, and let one relatively junior figure access it all.

May says that is a matter for the NSA. She would expect those arrangements have been reviewed.

Q: Rusbridger said some people have said he has performed a public service. He said only 1% of the information had been released, and that this showed he was being responsible. Do you share that view?

No, says May. She says she has already made her views on this clear. It is possible to have a debate on privacy without publishing leaked documents. 

May says it is right to have an ongoing debate on these matters in a democracy.

Q: Would you accept that there is concern that an editor is being threatened with prosecution for publishing matters in the public interest?

May says that is an argument put by some. Others cite national security concerns. That is why it is so important that these matters are properly considered by the authorities.

Q: The Guardian is reporting today that the National Security Agency would favour an amnesty for Edward Snowden, so that they could get their files back. Would you be in favour of that?

May says that would be a matter for the Americans.

Q: Would you expect to be consulted?

May says it is a matter for the NSA.

Q: So you would not mind not being consulted?

May repeats her point about it being a matter for the NSA.

Labour's David Winnick goes next.

Q: Are you aware of the police investigation into whether the Guardian broke the law.

May says that is an operational matter for the police. She is not aware of what they are doing.

Q: And is the attorney general involved?

May says she does not know.

Q: The Home Office minister Norman Baker said he was not aware of the Guardian breaking the law. Do you agree with him.

May says this is a matter for the police.

Q: But do you agree with Baker?

May repeats the point about it being a matter for the police.

Q: Do you accept that what the Guardian has done has triggered a wide-ranging debate?

There has been a debate, she says. But it was running before the Guardian started publishing its stories. May says she has been questioned on privacy matters herself, by this committee. 

Julian Huppert, the Lib Dem MP, goes next.

He says he is struck that May did not just say yes to Vaz.

Q: Is your decision not to allow the intelligence chiefs to give evidence to the committee based on a principle? It looks as if you are just worried about them being questioned by MPs who will not give them the questions in advance.

May repeats the point about the ISC being the appropriate body. The ISC is best placed to challenge the agencies, she says.

Q: Would you say, then, that no other committee can question them. We deal with counter terrorism.

May says she is responsible for counter terrorism. She is here.

Vaz says May may have to give evidence more often.

Q: But do you have any evidence?

May says it is her firm view that leaked information could put people at risk.

Q: So you have seen evidence that supports what Parker and Sawyers say or not? Being "appalled" by what happened is not evidence.

May says she has been in discussion with MI5 and she has been talking to them about the impact of the revelations on their work, and she is "clear in my own mind" that information that talks about the reach of techniques used is damaging.

Q: So you have not seen evidence?

May says they are in danger of dancing on the head of a pin. On the basis of what she has seen and heard, she is firmly of the view that this is damaging to national security.

Q: And that our enemies are rubbing their hands with glee?

May says she does not use phrases like that. 

Q: Why did you say Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, should not give evidence to this committee?

May says it was because the intelligence and security committee has been set up to scrutinise the work of the intelligence services.

Q: But we took evidence from Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian, who made some important points about the intelligence services. The Act setting up the ISC does not seem to preclude other committees interviewing the intelligence chiefs. The members of the ISC are appointed by the prime minister. They are not elected, like other committee members. The prime minister also appoints the heads of the intelligence services. Isn't there an issue of transparency here?

May says the intelligence chiefs did not give evidence in public before the ISC was set up. The ISC is the appropriate framework.

Q: When they spoke to the ISC they made assertions. For example, Andrew Parker said the Snowden revelations were a "gift" to terrorists. But no evidence was put to the ISC to justify that, or the claim from Sir John Sawers, head of MI6, that Britain's enemies were "rubbing their hands with glee". Do you have any evidence to back this up?

May quotes from the speech Andrew Parker gave on this. She would have thought it was "obvious" - although perhaps that is the wrong word to use, she says - that giving away secret information would help terrorists. 

Keith Vaz opens the session.

He says they will focus on counter terrorism, but other matters will come up too.

Earlier Ed Miliband had a go at Conservative-led North Hertfordshire council, accusing it of being a "home blocking council" because it was objecting to plans to build new homes outside Stevenage. (See 9.58am.)

The council has now responded. Essentially it is saying Stevenage can build all the homes it needs on its own land. This is from councillor Tom Brindley, who holds the planning portfolio on the council.

North Hertfordshire District Council opposed the proposed development on green belt land as, at the time of the planning applications, it looked like the county’s target of building 65,000 dwellings would be exceeded mainly by the re-use of brown-field sites, meaning it wouldn’t be necessary to encroach onto this area of green belt.

We were pleased when regionally imposed targets for housing numbers were abolished by the current government as this has allowed us to consider the needs of the local population. North Herts District Council is currently progressing its new Local Plan to 2031 and we are actively pursuing co-operation with adjoining authorities to establish how cross boundary issues can be progressed. Recent consultations have identified potential development sites to the west and north of Stevenage which we will need to consider as the plan progresses.

We have been advised that the Stevenage housing need for the next plan period to 2031 (5,300 dwellings) can be met within the administrative area of Stevenage without building on green belt land in our district which surrounds the town.

Here's the Guardian video of Theresa May announcing her modern slavery bill.

That's it. The press conference is over.

I'll post a summary shortly.

Q: Where are you on state funding of political parties?

Clegg says he did not read the Sunday Times story about this.

In the cross-party talks, "we" came up with a plan to re-allocated existing funding, such as the funding for election addresses, and use that to fund parties. It would not increase the overall cost to the taxpayer.

It was "frustrating" that this did not get agreed, he says.

Clegg says he does not say this "piously". The Lib Dems have had their fair share of problems, he says.

Q: You hold press conferences every month? What do you feel about the fact that David Cameron does not hold them?

That's for Number 10, says Clegg.

Q: Should families at risk of debt when interest rates rise this year spend less at Christmas?

Clegg says it is not for politicians to tell people how much to spend at Christmas.

Thankfully interest rates have been low for a long time. Politicians should not try predicting when they will rise.

If Labour's plan were to come into effect, interest rates would rise by about 1% almost instantly. That would add £1,000 to the cost of an average mortgage.

Q: Will you rule out cutting child benefit for a third child?

Clegg says cutting child benefit is not his priority for further welfare reform.But he is not going to start "drawing circles" around particular ideas. The Lib Dems will look at welfare policy in the round.

But setting a limit on the number of children to be funded by the state would be arbitrary.

Q: How would you cut benefits for wealthy pensioners?

Clegg says he has pushed for this in coalition. But he has given up now. The Conservatives have made it clear that they will not accept this.

Steve Webb is looking at what the Lib Dems will propose as a party.

Clegg acknowledges that the savings from these measures might be limited. But symbolically targeting the wealthy would be important.

Q: If you were in coalition with the Tories after 2015, would you allow David Cameron to negotiate curbs on EU migration?

Clegg says he totally understands public concern about what will happen when the restrictions on immgration from Bulgaria and Romania are lifted.

But he is not going to make predictions about how many people may or may not come.

And the government is not simply going to "pull up the drawbridge".

Clegg says he supports the case for EU reform.

But you reform from leading, he says. You do not reform by whingeing on the sidelines.

Britain has won on budgetary reform, and on reform of the common fisheries policy, by leading the debate.

But what you cannot do is expect to win arguments when you are "basically half way out of the door".

The Conservative party, or part of it, is "flirting with exit", he says.

Q: Going back to the Tory proposal to restrict child benefit to just two children, do you instinctively feel that's wrong? Or could there be a case of limits of this kind?

Clegg says it would be wholly unacceptable to introduce curbs of this kind retrospectively. To say to people used to the system as it is would be wrong.

More generally, there is always something a bit arbitrary about the state saying how many children it will or will not support. That is why he is saying his priority lies elsewhere.

Q: Laszlo Andor, the European commissioner, suggested those in favour of curbing benefits for EU migrants were "nasty". Do you agree?

Clegg says Andor is wrong. You cannot protect the right to free travel unless you also address concerns that the benefits system is being exploited. 

Q: Two peers have been suspended from the Lords for taking paid work for companies, it has just been announced [Lord Mackenzie and Lord Laird]. What do you feel about this? And will there be another list of working peers?

Clegg says this goes back to the previous question. Lords reform was blocked by the other parties. Even "wafer-thin" reform. 

Labour and the Conservatives also blocked progress on party funding.

These changes are desperately needed.

Having an unelected second chamber cannot be right, he says. 

But we are stuck with the situation as it is, he says. He will continue to make appointments to the Lords.

Q; Are the Lib Dems still opposed to a third runway at Heathrow?

Clegg says the Davies commission report will come out tomorrow. The Lib Dems have always been concerned about the environmental impact of aviation. It will look at the proposals.

Q: Do you have a black book of Lib Dem plans blocked by the Tories.

Yes, says Clegg. He has a fairly thick book of ideas. For example, on housing, he would favour land auctions to encourage housing. He would like more garden cities to be built. He wants exit checks at the borders. And the Lib Dems would have acted faster on banking.

Q: George Osborne said last week he would consider cutting the £26,000 benefits cap. Would you support that?

Clegg says he is not advocating that at the moment. It has only been introduced. 

It is a national cap, he says. That means it will have more of an effect in some places than others. 

The government should look at what works. But it should not rush to change the policy before it has had a chance to bed down.

Q: If Scotland were to vote yes, and Scotland demanded a currency union, should that be put to a referendum in the UK?

Clegg says he is not going to spend much time speculating on what might happen if Scotland votes yes.

Q: Are you concerned about the problems with some free schools?

Clegg says the government should intervene if schools fail.

There are 24,000 schools across the school system. He wants all schools to have the freedoms granted to academies.

Q: Why has there been an increase in child protection cases?

Clegg says the government is trying to elevate the status of social workers. Heightened awareness of child protection may explain the increase in cases. But there may be other explanations too.

Q: What do you make of Theresa May's plan to cut immigration from the EU?

Clegg says the Home Office should spend less time leaking policies that are "illegal and undeliverable" and more time imposing proper checks on immigrations. He says he is disappointed that the Home Office has still not introduced exit checks at borders, something that he personally ensured was in the coalition agreement.

Stopping German lawyers, for example, coming to the UK would be disastrous.

We should protect the freedom to look for work across the EU. But the freedom to look for work is not the same as the freedom to claim. The right to claim does need to be tightened, he says.

• Clegg condemns reported Tory plan to restrict EU migration as "illegal and undeliverable".

Q: What did you think of the Tory plan to cut child benefit to two children?

Clegg says he has been no slouch on welfare. The coalition has agreed on welfare savings worth £18bn.

There will need to be further welfare reform, he says.

But he starts from the premise that you should start from the top and work down. He cannot understand why the Tories support the right of wealthy pensioners like Alan Sugar to receive universal benefits. 

Welfare reform should be fair, he says.

Clegg says you do not hear calls for an economic Plan B anymore.

The mix of being tough on spending, and being innovative on monetary policy, is something the coalition has stuck to.

The coalition's macroeconomic policy has been vindicated.

And now, when a disagreement in the coalition spills out into the public, people do not say the coalition is over. They have accepted that a coalition is "exactly what it says on the tin".

And the choices available in 2015 are becoming increasingly obvious. The question in 2015 will be: Who can finish the job of economic recovery, and finish it fairly?

Labour simply haven't used the luxury of opposition to show they can deliver an economic recovery at all. They are proposing "populist, gimmicky pronouncements".

We've seen it today, on housing. When they were in power, social housing problems got worse.

But the Conservative party have made it increasingly clear that they are going to do so without asking those with the broadest shoulders to make an additional contribution. They will only save money by cutting spending. And some of them favour an ever-shrinking state.

In the liberal centre, the Lib Dems believe in an opportunity society, helped by an enabling state. 

These are new and interesting tramlines in British politics, he says.

Nick Clegg starts with a quick overview.

From his vantage point as leader of the Lib Dems, it has been an important year. They have counfounded the critics at Eastleigh and developed important politicies, like shared parental leave, free school meals, the energy bill, a 5p tax on plastic bags and - most important in all - a further cut in the tax allowance.

Clegg says he hopes that the government will be able to go even further in the next budget in terms of lifting the allowance.

Here he is. 

I'm at Dover House waiting for the press conference to start. There are about 20 journalists here.

You can read all today's Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today's papers, are here.

As for the rest of the papers, here's the PoliticsHome list of top 10 must reads, here's the ConservativeHome round-up of today's political stories and here's the New Statesman's list of top 10 comment articles.

And here are three articles I found particularly interesting.

• Philip Stephens in the Financial Times (subscription) says that George Osborne's obsession with running a budget surplus is the latest example of the Treasury pursuing a futile quest for an economic holy grail.

When the attempt to restrain the money supply failed, it was deemed blindingly obvious that fixing the pound against the D-Mark would do the trick. When that policy blew up, the Treasury alighted upon the inflation target. Let no one say the mandarins lack chutzpah.

The same misguided conviction is apparent in Mr Osborne’s much-trumpeted goal of balancing the budget. Of course the 10 per cent-plus deficit left behind by the financial crash was unsustainable, though there was a legitimate argument to be had about striking the right balance between austerity and growth. The chancellor’s error lies in the propagation of a doctrine that says permanent elimination of deficits will guarantee future prosperity.

There is as about as much celestial magic in a balanced budget as there was in the monetary aggregates. Policy makers need to keep an eye on both, but an economy with strong productive investment and a deficit of, say, 3 per cent of national income will generate more wealth than one that eliminates borrowing at the cost of crumbling infrastructure.

• Nigel Morris in the Independent says polling evidence shows that young people are significantly more pro-European than older people.

Young Britons are significantly more pro-European than older generations and fear that leaving the EU would jeopardise their job prospects at home and on the Continent, research suggests.

A “generation gap” has opened up in British attitudes to Europe, with young people who have grown up with the freedom of movement reluctant to give up the right to pursue career opportunities in other EU countries.

Younger voters are also more worried that politicians’ aggressive language towards eastern European migrants could stoke up community tensions, according to the poll for the British Future think-tank. Sunder Katwala, its director, said the survey showed younger voters viewed free movement within the EU as a “two-way street”. 

• Sarah Neville in the Financial Times (subscription) says the Treasury will announce that it is creating a new post for an official to take charge of public spending and finance across government.

The Treasury is poised to scour the nation’s boardrooms as it searches for a new finance chief able to inject corporate-style rigour into Whitehall’s management of public finances.

Danny Alexander, chief Treasury secretary, will on Monday announce the creation of a senior post, akin to a company chief financial officer, with a brief to look beyond departmental fiefdoms and make strategic judgments about spending priorities across the whole of government.

Government insiders said there was “a strong possibility” that the appointment would go to a senior executive at a FTSE 100 company, rather than a career civil servant, signalling a radical new approach to reaping more value from public spending in an era of austerity.

Whitehall’s non-executive directors (NEDs) – senior business figures who sit on departmental boards – have expressed consternation at the parlous state of financial management within ministries.

I'm off the the Clegg press conference now. I'll post again once I've got my laptop fired up at Dover House, where it's taking place.

Tomorrow the airports commission will publish its interim report. Although it will not propose a single solution to the problem caused by lack of airport capacity in the south east of England, it is thought that most of its proposed options will involve the expansion of Heathrow.

This morning Louise Ellman, the chair of the Commons transport committee, has issued a statement pointing out that her committee recommended Heathrow expansion when it published a report on this in June.

The inquiry found very clearly that Heathrow – the UK’s only hub airport – has been short of capacity for a decade, is currently operating at full capacity and needs a third runway. We also suggested that a four-runway proposal for Heathrow might have merit, especially if locating these westwards from the current site could curb the noise experienced by communities under the flight path.

And here's what Eric Pickles, the Conservative communities secretary, is saying about the Labour house building proposal. (See 9.58am.)

Under Labour, housebuilding fell to its lowest peacetime rate since the 1920s. Their top-down regional strategies and eco-towns failed hardworking families who aspired to own their own home, building nothing but resentment.

That’s why we have worked with local communities to help build more homes, scrapping regional strategies and rewarding construction via the new homes bonus. We are helping hardworking people up the housing ladder through Help to Buy and the reinvigorated Right to Buy. Both first time buyers and housing construction have risen to their highest level since 2007, whilst repossessions have plummeted thanks to the lower interest rates from our long term economic plan.

Labour’s policy shows this is the same old Labour party. They would allow Labour councils to forcibly rip up Green Belt protection in neighbouring councils. While their new tax on planning permission would reduce housebuilding and discourage regeneration schemes. We know there is more to do to help build homes. But this must be done by working with hardworking families in communities across Britain, allowing councils to shape where development should and shouldn’t go via local plans, and safeguarding important environmental protections.

My colleague Patrick Wintour has already written up in detail what Ed Miliband will be saying about his plans to increase house building. But Labour has now put out more quotes from the speech that Miliband will be giving in Stevenage. Here are two key extracts.

On the coalition's record on house building

David Cameron is presiding over the lowest levels of homes built in peacetime since the 1920s - and already families are suffering from some of the worst housing shortages for a generation. This is now part of a cost-of-living crisis for millions of people for whom the dream of home ownership is fading into the distance. 

The government has focused almost solely on increasing demand for housing and, while tinkering with planning rules, has done next-to-nothing to increase supply. The result is a broken market where it now takes ordinary families over 20 years to save enough for a deposit and those renting privately are paying as much as half their income on rent.

At this time of year, when family is so important, there are parents who fear their children will never get a place of their own. And there are millions of young people who fear they may never be able to get on the housing ladder; never invite their parents round for Christmas dinner.

At current rates we will be 2 million homes short of what Britain needs by 2020. If families are to prosper and our country is to succeed, Britain needs new homes. And the next Labour government will lead a non-stop drive to build them.

On Conservative-controlled North Hertfordshire Council as an example of a "home blocking council" 

Stevenage is a great community - an example of how successful new towns can be. But for decades now it has been waiting to be completed and for decades it has been thwarted by home blocking councils on its borders.

But plans to build almost 10,000 desperately-needed homes on the edge of this town have been blocked every single step of the way by North Hertfordshire Council, even though that would take the pressure off other areas in the county.

There have been consultations galore, planning permission granted and lengthy appeals. The only winners have been lawyers, on whom Stevenage has had to spend more than £500,000 since 2001 on this issue alone.

North Herts Council is a home blocking council. It is bad for its neighbours, bad for its own residents where the housing waiting list has got ever longer, and bad for those who wish to protect their market towns from over-development

This is a stick-in-the-mud council. But a Labour government will not let desperately needed housing be stuck in the mud of North Hertfordshire ...

Of course it is right that local communities have a say about where housing goes. But councils cannot be allowed to frustrate continually the efforts of others councils to get homes built. So the next Labour government will unblock this planning process and unlock the potential to build tens of thousands of new homes where they are needed.

Theresa May, the home secretary, has been giving interviews this morning. She has been promoting the modern slavery bill, but she has also been talking about immigration. Here are the main points she's been making.

• May refused to comment on claims based on a leaked Home Office report that she wants to put a 75,000 cap on annual migration from the EU. The report formed the basis of yesterday's Sunday Times splash (paywall). Here's how it started.

The government has raised the prospect of a 75,000 cap on annual EU immigration as part of a radical change in Britain’s relationship with Europe.

A leaked government report on the effect on Britain of the EU’s “open borders” policy suggests net migration from EU countries could be slashed by 30,000 from the current 106,000 a year by means of a cap.

The Home Office paper on free movement of people, which has been seen by The Sunday Times, highlights proposals suggesting professionals and high-skilled migrants from countries such as Germany, Holland or Austria could move here only if they had a job offer.

Lower-skilled workers would be allowed into Britain only if they had jobs on an approved national shortage job list.

May told Radio 4 that she would not comment on leaked reports.

• But she confirmed that she and David Cameron wanted to tighten EU rules guaranteeing free movement of labour. The government has already taken steps to curb migrants access to benefits, she said. But it wanted to go further, in particular by making it easier for EU member states to impose transitional controls on migrants from new countries that join. Other countries shared Britain's concern about this, she said. 

There is a growing concern not just here in the UK, but elsewhere too, about the abuse of free movement, about the way in which people can move freely across Europe, sometimes for access to benefits ...

What the prime minister has said and what I have said is that in looking at reform of the EU we need to look at this whole question of the arrangements for new countries that come in - the so-called accession countries.

At the moment, you can restrict free movement rights for seven years. What both the PM and I have said is we need to look at this and think about whether that should be longer, whether it should be more flexible, whether we should look at restricting free movement rights until a country's national income, GDP, is at a certain level, so we are not looking at the great disparities we sometimes see across the EU. 

What I'm saying is that as we look ahead to the whole issue of reform of the European Union, I think we do need to look at this question of free movement ...

The whole issue of free movement has changed over the years. At the original start of the EU, it was about free movement of workers. It's now been expanded by treaties and by the courts in terms of their interpretation of it. 

• May said said did not know exactly how many victims of modern slavery there were in the UK. But she said she was grateful to the Frank Field review with coming up with an estimated figure of 10,000.

Nick Clegg is holding his monthly press conference this morning. Is there anything you would like me to ask? And this afternoon Theresa May, the home secretary, is giving evidence to the Commons home affairs committee. It could go on for a while. Last week, after it emerged that the government had refused permission for Kim Darroch, the national security adviser, and Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, to give evidence to the committee about counter terrorism, Keith Vaz, the committee chairman issued a statement saying he would be taking it out on May.

As a result of this correspondence [saying Darroch and Parker would not give evidence to the committee] our session with the home secretary next Monday will be longer and more detailed than we originally anticipated, and she needs to prepare to come before the committee more often. 

It's a wide-ranging session. May will face questions on counter terrorism, but the MPs are also expected to ask her about, among other things, immigration from Romania and Bulgaria, the EU's free movement of labour rules and unaccompanied children in asylum. And the modern slavery bill being published today is likely to come up.

Here's the agenda for the day.

11am: Frank Field, the Labour MP, publishes a report on the extent of modern slavery in the UK. He was commissioned to produce the report by May.

11.30am: Nick Clegg holds his monthly press conference.

2.30pm: Theresa May gives evidence to the Commons home affairs committee.

At some point today Ed Miliband will give a speech on Labour's plans to promote house building, which Patrick Wintour has previewed in the Guardian today. 

As usual, I’ll also be covering all the breaking political news as well as looking at the papers and bringing you the best politics from the web. I’ll post a summary at about 1pm and another in the afternoon.

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