19/10/2016 Daily Politics

Morning folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.

Britain has committed to taking in unaccompanied minors,

around 300 of them, from the jungle camp in Calais -

but how many of those applying are actually under 18?

We've waited almost 50 years for a new runway

in the South East of England - next week the government

will finally tell us where THEY want it to be built -

but how many more years could it be until the bulldozers move in?

Theresa May will face Jeremy Corbyn in their weekly clash at PMQs today.

We'll bring it live and uninterrupted at midday.

And why you'll have to consider Brexit if you're playing the hit

computer game Football Manager 2017.

All that in the next 90 minutes and with us for the duration today

two of the most sought after players in SW1 - brought to

you at great expense on the Westminster transfer market -

Shadow Environment Secretary Rachael Maskell and Foreign Office

The jungle camp and Calais is due to be demolished over the next few

weeks by the French government and Britain has agreed to take some

unaccompanied child migrants in the camp.

But as photographs appeared of some of those who have already arrived

in Britain, questions are being asked about

18 and what checks are being made to verify their ages.

The charity Safe Passage UK has identified 387 unaccompanied

children in Calais with a legal right to come to Britain.

French authorities agreed to verify the list

and Home Secretary Amber Rudd said all of those with a legitimate claim

result" if the UK ended up taking 300 children from the camps.

On Monday Fourteen refugees arrived in the UK under a fast-track

system launched to transfer vulnerable youngsters

about the age of those arriving, with Conservative MP David Davies

saying 'these don't look like children to me'

If a refugee doesn't have a birth certificate,

the Home Office has no way of independently verifying their age

- judgements are based on their "physical appearance"

in the year to September 2015, 65% of child refugees

who had their age disputed were found to be over 18.

David Davies has called for tougher tests -

such as x-rays or dental investigations - to be used

to establish the age of refugees coming here.

And we are hoping to speak to David Davies later in the programme.

Andrew. Thank you, JoCo. Tobias Ellwood, the government thought we

were bringing in vulnerable child refugees, what happened? We are, we

have not only programmes in place to support those who are orphaned or

needing medical attention in Syria, bringing them to the UK... I'm

talking about the ones in the Jungle camp in Calais. What evidence do we

have that the once we have seen this week are unaccompanied minors? As

you report suggests, this is difficult to check and we must make

sure we get it right. When you think of the problems of people fleeing

Syria it is a target that is difficult to get to. I must say that

I'm not in support of this idea of dental processing. Dental

organisations say this is not ethical. So how do you establish

their age because many people think that the pictures we have seen of

the people coming in, it's quite hard to categorise them child

refugees. It is, it is a challenge we are facing. Our efforts are

linking up those people caught in the camps who have a genuine reason

to come to the UK because they have families and so forth... But you're

getting it wrong, in the year to September 2015 there were 574

refugees checked for age and 371 were adults! Not an isolated

problem. The British people think that we are doing a bit, maybe not

enough but we are doing something to help unaccompanied minors and it

turns out that we are letting in a number of adults. Muggy it will be

very difficult. Why have you made a mess of it? I don't agree that it is

a mess. There is an humanitarian requirement to support the French

when dealing with people who need help but they are keen to get out of

the camp and into the UK and we need checks and balances in place and

clearly they are not working as they should. It is irrelevant now, isn't

it, because if they are in this country and they have got in on the

basis of being unaccompanied minors and they are aged 32, there is

nothing we can do, they will claim asylum and you can't send them back.

That is not true... They originally come from Syria and this is why we

are leaning into the problem in Syria itself. To prevent those

people making that very tough decision either to stay in places

like Alaba and be bombed or make the treacherous journey across Europe...

If it turns out that somebody has come in on the pretence of being an

unaccompanied minor and you find that they are anything but, I put it

to you that you cannot return them to Syria. We cannot at the moment

because of the humanitarian requirement to look after them. But

the long-term objective is to turn Syria into a place where you can

make sure that these people can safely returned. Let's not forget

that those who have made it to Calais and the able and the

committed. It's important to stress this. If they are coming here for a

safe haven we should expect at some point in the feature that they were

returned. These are talking points which do not address the issue this

morning. It is this. Your government told the British people, we will

bring in unaccompanied minors because these are the most

vulnerable people, the most at risk if we don't do this, ending up in

the sex trafficking trade, child abuse and all the rest of it. And it

turns out that there is now? Over what you are doing. Just another

example of why the British people do not have confidence in the British

elite, isn't it? You are using extreme language to cover your

argument. I am saying that we are doing the right thing but it is

indeed difficult, as you report suggested, there will be some

people, perhaps teenagers who came into the camp aged 17, they are now

19, with a connection in the UK. It's it extremely difficult to get

checks in place. But we must open our doors to those with a connection

to the UK. It's an agreement we have with France and it's the right thing

to do. Whether they are unaccompanied minors or not? There

are those that are challenging the system but at the end of the date

nobody gaining asylum for very long we'll be here forever because

eventually we hope Syria will be in a place where they can return when

they want to. If they get asylum they can stay here. They can't stay

here in perpetuity. After a certain time they can. They can apply for

it, absolutely. Lets talk to David Davies, the Tory MP who has called

for tougher tests for unaccompanied minors. What firm evidence do you

have that the refugees are not minors? Obviously at the moment we

going mainly on their appearance. The government advice is that they

must be given the benefit of the doubt, if they claim to be under the

age of 18. I would suggest that we need to update that. There's one in

my constituency where an Afghan national claimed to be younger than

he was and carried out an assault. The worrying thing is that if

someone is claiming to be a child in their 20s, they will be in a foster

home with other children and possibly in a school with the

children and there are child protection issues. We are on the

same page. We all believe that there are children who need our help. I'm

very proud of what the government is doing to try to help children... You

are not on the same page, Tobias Ellwood is not in favour of having

dental tests taken, dental records examined, and when you say you are

worried about child health or child safety issues you don't have any

evidence. You are just going on appearance. Appearance is not

scientific, is it? You would admit that. So you think that these child

refugees are not minors and are older than they seem. They may be.

Some are questioning whether the pictures featured in the papers

today are those we have accepted as unaccompanied minors. Do you accept

that? We are all going on appearances at the moment and no one

can be certain when it comes to appearance. If someone is clearly

under 18 they should be given the benefit of the doubt. If there is

uncertainty they should still be given the benefit of the doubt. A

piece of advice needs to be changed. If we are to help genuine children

we need to be certain that the rules are not being

abused. I am sure Tobias would agree. It is not unreasonable to ask

someone to take simple medical test, especially if by failing to do that

we may put at risk children in the UK by placing them in a home with

someone who might be much older than they appear. Leak could be in danger

from an 18-year-old, the difference between 18 and 22 is not that fast.

There are some people who think this is very unreasonable. The leader of

the Green party says we should apologise and retract your comments

because for many of these unaccompanied minors, as we are

describing them, they have had months of gruelling journey to

Calais, they are fleeing persecution, they have been waiting

in grim conditions in the camp and many of them have perhaps gone over

the age of 18 by the time the bureaucratic process has been

exhausted and know you want them to have dental checks and x-rays.

Nobody in Calais has to be there, they could have claimed asylum in

France or any other country they have gone through, they are there

because they want to be in the UK and they have decided they would

rather be there and anywhere else. I'm not suggesting blanket dental

checks, we already do them. I tabled written questions about it in

February after the incident in Monmouthshire and found that between

half and two thirds of people who have undergone those tests were

found to have given incorrect information about their age. It is,

and policy and was suggested by Liam Byrne ten years ago. A test that is

used all over the world, America, Australia, what I am suggesting is

not that controversial, merely an extension of something we already

do. Will you please stay with us, David Davies, for this discussion.

Diane Abbott the Shadow Home Secretary says that any age tests

violation of human rights. A line in the sand, that is what we're talking

about, you could be a 19 year woman, vulnerable, possibly trafficked...

We know that young men can also be trafficked and exploited. And so

many children have already gone missing. Why is an age test a

violation of human rights? What I would say is, especially x-rays and

invasive violations of young adults who have been through so much

torment to be put through another humiliating process... Why is it

humiliating to have an x-ray? We are looking at things like dental tests.

These people want to be reunited with their family members after the

trauma they have gone through and if we are talking about somebody who is

17 or 18, we have to bring these vulnerable adults and young people

into a place of safety... Do you agree to do and age test would be a

violation of human rights? Standards are already in place. We have heard

from Tobias what those tests are. Do you agree it would be a violation of

human rights? The individual's human rights is to live in a safe place

seat - Place of safety, it has not only been violated in their home

where they live... The French government survey suggests that only

5% of people in the Jungle camp come from Syria. It is more complicated

than that. The reason why I am asking, if you think an age test is

a violation of human rights and it isn't clear that you do, the Shadow

Home Secretary says it is, if the British government announces to the

British people, we are going to bring in people on the basis that

they are unaccompanied minors, how do you establish that without an age

test? Even the processes which David Davies lucked out not 100% accurate.

These people have no documents to prove their date of birth. They've

been through incredible trauma. What we should be looking at is

vulnerability... Does that mean you don't try? I am not indicating that

we don't try. We should though be looking at the vulnerability of

these individuals and whether they can be reunited family members at

what has been a chaotic time for these young people. As a country we

have said we will bring in 20,000 people, and the government are far

off Matt Targett at the moment. Ringing in five or six people over

age, we don't know how many, it doesn't even compare with the 20,000

people that the government has promised.

Isn't it a matter of trust with the British people, that the political

elite says to the British people, we are going to bring in some

unaccompanied minors, the British people have in their mind a

traumatised little boy of the Syrian bombing, with blood coming down his

face, what a baby washed ashore on a Greek island, dead. That is what the

British people think of with child refugees. Then they see the pictures

of the ones who are coming and they feel cheated. They feel that you,

the elite, haven't told the true story. Those individuals feel judged

because they have come from a place which has torn their life, perhaps

their family apart, their existence, and they feel judged by individuals

because they are vulnerable, and what's important is that we provide

the safeguarding necessary to protect those young people. I need

to go to David Davies. You get the final word. Surely the issue is

whether, as Rachael Maskell is saying, is whether they are

vulnerable are not and, if they are, we are bringing people in, they are

entitled to asylum, whatever their age. If they are vulnerable and

under 18, is government policy to bring them in, and I support that.

What I think is important is that the rules aren't abused. The rule is

clear that they have to be under 18. If that is abused, it is wrong. It's

no good arguing that, if they are 20 25, is OK. The rules are the rules.

I want more of those young children to be brought in. There is a lack of

women and children, the most vulnerable people coming in, and we

all agree we need to help those people. We will see what more

information we get as this story develops and whether these pictures

in the paper are accurate. We haven't had them verified.

It was in 1968 that the then Prime Minister Harold Wilson set up

a commission to examine extra airport capacity in

I laughed because it is 50 years ago.

Now, nearly 50 years later, we're being told the Government

will inform us where they would like a new runway to be

Although don't expect to see a bulldozer in action any time soon.

There will then be what's been called a "full and fair" public

consultation before MPs vote in the winter of 2017/18 -

and we know how good they are at making decisions.

Yesterday, we learnt that Theresa May will pilot a special

Cabinet sub-committee on the question of airport

On board are eight members of her Cabinet, including the Chancellor,

Initially other Cabinet Ministers would not be forced to support

the Government's position, so Education Secretary Justine

Greening and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson,

who have long been opposed to another runway at Heathrow,

would be "able to express their views for a limited time"

though they won't be able to speak out in parliament or openly protest.

50 years on, and government are still bottling it. I don't think

that's correct. You are right to put it in context. We do need extra

airport capacity. Where is it going to be? People have to circle before

landing at Heathrow and Gatwick. I think Patrick McLoughlin made it

clear as Transport Secretary what the timetable was. What we see in

the media today saying that things have been delayed further is

incorrect. An announcement will be made next week but then there is the

national planning framework, a legal concentration that has to last a

year. Proposal is put forward and people get an opportunity to respond

to it. That was laid out by Patrick McLoughlin. That is what process

starts next week. In response to the Davies commission. We are on the

timetable. If there has been any delay, turning to labour twice under

Labour it was kicked down the road when there was an opportunity. David

Cameron took six years to make a decision. I really think that the

viewers, throwing mud at each other on this issue when you are both

culpable... Who set in 2008, the government is clearly give the ring

on Heathrow expansion. You said that. The plan we have put into

place now, with this announcement next week in Parliament, is

according to the plan. It was Theresa May who said it and she is

dithering again. We are on track. It must be taken into consideration

with the nation's needs. That was the Davies commission. Which has

just reported. Former Tory party chairman Grant Shapps says Theresa

May, she is failing to show guts with a quick decision. We have a

decision next week and spent a year's consultation. We have to do

it. We can't just send the bulldozers in next week. It would be

illegal. The plan we are following is the timetable that was announced

in the past. You can't send the bulldozers in until you get planning

permission, which could take more than a year. There has to be a legal

response. That process takes a year and that is the timetable we are

following. What is Labour's policy? We set out four play-test and we

stuck to them and we will be applying them through the process.

-- Ball clear tests. The issue around capacity is to be at the

forefront. What is your policy? That is what I am explaining. We are

running through the four tests to insure that we address climate

change and the admissions process, and that will depend on the option

chosen, the impact on noise and also collectivity. Where do you want the

runway? -- collectivity. That is what we are waiting to see. But

since 1968 and you don't have a policy? With respect, the world has

changed. If we look at aerospace capacity, things can move on

considerably in terms of how we stack planes, how they are waiting

at 7000 beat when they should be at 30,000 feet and not polluting the

atmosphere. A whole infrastructure has been built around this. Are you

going to stack up claims to 30,000 feet? That is more fuel efficient.

They have to come all the way back down again. They are coming from

that height anyway. They could stay over BC and be at a more fuel

efficient height. -- over the sea. That would make London really

attractive, all of those people wanting to invest, stack at 30,000

feet, going round in circles when they could lead right away at

Frankfurt, Paris. They are stacked at 7000 feet. The argument is that

we need another runway. That is the Davies commission argument. We need

to use airspace more efficiently than we do. You are shadow -- your

Shadow Transport Secretary supports Heathrow. Sadiq Khan supports

Gatwick. I ask again, what is Labour policy? We have got people with

constituency issues. They are building it in John McDonnell's

constituency. He is against it. It is right that MPs scrutinise

government proposals. I've presumed that Heathrow was the policy. It is

right that we look at capacity issues and scrutinise what the

government comes forward with. The government had promised us the

environmental impact assessment it is carrying out. We haven't seen

that. It is vital that we do. 50,000 people are dying prematurely in our

as a result of poor air quality. That is a national scandal. So maybe

you should oppose a new runway. We are going to see a different

transport system by the time the first bulldozer goes in. So why not

oppose a new runway? You have to look at it strategically. So you

could oppose a new runway. You have to look at the tests. If the

government fails a new test and brings more pollutant Crewe to the

environment, we will send them back to do their work. So when Andy

McDonnell says the need for more capacity is imperative and

overwhelming, but you could still oppose a new runway. How can it be

imperative and overwhelming to have more capacity but you say we might

oppose it? We don't want to pollute the lungs of the people of London.

Clearly the plans would not be affected. So it isn't imperative and

overwhelming. Labour need to come to terms with the fact that we need a

new runway. We have agreed we need more capacity. Not having a runway

wouldn't satisfy the needs. We will leave it there. It only been going

on for 50 years still as clear as mud.

Now, do you know Boris Johnson speaks five foreign languages?

Yes, he's not too rusty in Latin, French, Spanish, Italian

and German though English is still a bit of a struggle.

Anyway, languages are a useful skill in a Foreign

It will certainly help him on trips abroad.

Rather than just shouting slowly at foreigners in England and thinking

they will understand. -- in English. But, yesterday, Boris Johnson,

the Foreign Secretary in Her Majesty's Government, spoke

at the despatch box of the Mother of all Parliaments,

not in the Queen's Va bene, tutti l'Italia,

solo bella... Ah, allora... Well, in onore del Signor

Boris Johnson, oggi di Il mio preferito La Tazza

Daily Politics. Per vincere questa tazza per il

vostro cappuccino, latte o te, Just tell us

in which year this happened. And, to warn you, this film does

contain flashing images. # I never can say goodbye,

boy Ooh, no, no # I never can say goodbye, oh no no

Oh no no, oh no no... # There could be nobody else left

alive in the freezing, # Though we're apart

We'll always be together... # Firemen were met by a blast of hot

air, smoke and gases. # What do you say when words are not

enough? # # Well, look about, look about, look

about, look about, ooo-eee! # Look about, look about, look

about, ooo-eee! To be in with a chance of winning

a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to our special quiz

e-mail address - that's Entries must arrive by 12.30 today,

and you can see the full terms and conditions for Guess The Year

on our website, that's It's coming up to midday here -

just take a look at Big Ben - and that can mean only one thing:

Yes, Prime Minister's And that's not all -

Laura Kuenssberg is here. Welcome, Laura. On the Heathrow

issue, we are proceeding on the assumption there is going to be a

third runway at Heathrow at the minimum, but we also thought there

would be a vote on that, and the whole business of this year means

there won't be. This is what has got people in a tangle. Technically, it

isn't a delay because there was always going to be a legalistic

planning process, a piece of paper to the House of Commons, it was

always going to take a year. However, there was a very clear

expectation across Westminster, even among some people who know this area

very well, that there would be a vote very swiftly after the Cabinet

committee's crunch decision. That will now not take place, so

therefore, crucially, the political sign of as absolutely been delayed,

and that is what has got some people upset and feeling that Theresa May

is fudged it. That it could change. There is also conspiracy theories,

that this could be more evidence that Theresa May would like the

option of going for a spring election, because you wouldn't want

to have Heathrow and issue that could be awkward for the Tory party

lingering at a time where you want... That is always denied by

anybody close to Theresa May, but it has the air of something that is a

bit shaky. What about these stories last week that the government may,

in its Britain open for business guys, say that Gatwick should have a

second runway as well, largely a private sector investment forced why

not expand the big regional airports like Birmingham? And there were

suggestions around the fringes of the Tory conference that that would

have been something that would have been a green flag to investors, come

here, we need to be flying around the. Those suggestions, I think, are

still in the play in the longer term but they won't be attached to this

particular decision. I'm not sure that they ever were. Perhaps some

over exuberance around the fringes where people want to see that kind

of strong statement from the government. But not necessarily

going to happen. What is Mr Corbyn going to go on? Who knows? There is

so much around. Not easy to see a direct hit subject. Indeed. We saw

Jeremy Corbyn do something last week, taking the August issue of the

day and asking all six questions on Brexit. -- the biggest issue. This

week it is hard to see a direct it. It's looking -- were looking for

questions from the backbenches, Lisa Nandy, asking Theresa May about the

God of enquiry. This is a potential big political enquiry in terms of

what is happening with the child abuse enquiry, not just because it

has been so messy but because it was Theresa May who instituted this

enquiry when she was Home Secretary. Lisa Nandy's question might be worth

looking out for, and some other Labour as well, Lucy Powell poor

example. With Jeremy Corbyn, it isn't clear what he will go on.

Possibly health spending. There was a story yesterday, the cost of the

health service. Despite increases in funding, which the government likes

to trumpet, for the first time in recent history, the amount spent per

patient will be going down. And that is politically charged. That was

interesting, that statistic. An interesting situation. Labour has a

new Shadow Health Secretary, John Ashworth. Jeremy Corbyn might want

to pick it up. It is clear when you take Heathrow, the health service,

the Lowell Goddard enquiry farce, if that isn't too strong a word, that

Mrs May's honeymoon is over. In the last few days, lots of politicians

have said you can pick up a general shakiness about the place, not a

time of doom and disaster, not the government having a terrible mess

all over the place, but Theresa May's brand of competence,

diligence, getting on with the job, the phrase she likes to use, it

seems a bit shaky. We will see how shaky it is.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I know everyone will want to join me in

remembering those affected by Aberfan in which 116 children lost

their lives. It caused devastation to the community, it is like that

would reflect on this important anniversary and recognise the

solidarity and resilience of the people of Aberfan to overcome this

tragedy. Mr Speaker this morning I had meetings with ministerial

colleagues and others and I will have further such meetings today in

addition to my duties in this House. Mr Speaker, may I associate myself

with the sentiments of the Prime Minister, I am of an age to remember

those black and white photographs, it affected everyone and we in this

House Basson our thoughts today. Mr Speaker, as you might know it is my

birthday today! The Prime Minister has already given me a huge birthday

present by letting everyone know that we will be at the European

union no later than March 31 2019. So could I press her for another

present? Her excellent policy of closing Victorian prisons and

opening modern ones is a spot on policy. Would she support the

reopening of Wellingborough prison, as part of this excellent programme,

or would she rather just think Happy Birthday? I'm very happy to wish my

honourable friend happy birthday, I hope that Mrs Bone is going to treat

the occasion in an appropriate manner!

LAUGHTER Can I... Come out...

LAUGHTER Order! I want to hear what is coming

next! Prime Minister. Calm down, Mr Speaker! On the issue that he

raises, the very serious issue he raises about prisons, I welcome the

fact that he applauds the policy that we are following of closing out

of date prisons and building new prisons. I hear the lobbying he's

made in relation to Wellingborough, I assure him that it is one of those

sites being considered but the Secretary of State will look at this

very carefully and make an announcement in due course. Jeremy

Corbyn. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I join with the Prime Minister in

commemorating the disaster of Aberfan all those years ago when 118

children died, along with many adults at that time. Many in that

community are still living with that tragedy and they will live with that

tragedy for the rest of their days. I remember it well as a young person

growing up at that time and watching collections for the disaster fund. I

think the BBC documentary presented by Hugh Edwards last night was

brilliant and poignant and serves to remind us all of what the disaster

was about. Mr Speaker, one in four of us will suffer mental health

problem, analysis by the Kings fund suggests that 40% of mental health

trusts had their budgets cut last year and six have seen their budgets

cut for three years in a row. As the Prime Minister really confident that

we are delivering parity for mental health? May I first say to the right

honourable gentleman that I am also of an age where I remember those

terrible scenes on television of what happened in Aberfan. I did not

see the whole of the documentary by Huw Edwards but the bits I saw I

thought were very poignant as the right honourable gentleman said. And

it is interesting that it showed again the issue of those in power

not being willing to step up to the plate initially, and accept what had

happened. Obviously the result of the enquiry was very clear about

where responsibility lay. In relation to the mental health

services it is right that we are introducing parity of esteem for

mental health in the National Health Service. We have been waiting to

come at long for this. It is important that it is being done. But

we are investing more in mental health services, an estimated record

?11.7 billion. Particularly increasing the number of children's

beds overall to the highest number in relation to mental health

problems. I think this is important. There is of course more for us to do

in looking at mental health but we have made an important start and

that funding will be there, as I say. Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker, I

have a letter from Colin, a family member office has a chronic mental

health condition and he like many others with relatives going through

this kind of crisis says this, the NHS is so dramatically underfunded

that so often it is left to the underfunded police forces to deal

with the consequence of this crisis. Indeed achieve Constable of Devon

and Cornwall as this month threatened legal action against the

NHS because he is forced to hold people with mental conditions in

police cells because there are not enough and beds. I simply ask the

Prime Minister this. If the government is committed to parity of

esteem why is this trust and so many others facing an acute financial

crisis at present? Prime Minister. Can I say to Colin and that we all

in this House recognise the difficulty that people have when

they are coping with mental health problems and, I commend those in

this house who have been prepared to stand up and referred to their own

mental health problems. That has been an important signal to people

with mental health issues across the country. He raises the question of

the interaction between the NHS and police forces. I'm very proud of the

fact that when I was secretary I worked with the Department of Health

to bring a change to the way in which police forces were dealing

with people in mental health prices so that we see those triage pilots

out on the street, we see better NHS support being given to police forces

so the number of people who are having to be taken to a police cell

is a place of safety in some areas, overall it has more than halved, in

some areas it has come down by even more than that. This is a result of

the action that this government has taken. Jeremy Corbyn. Mr Speaker the

reality is that no one with a mental health condition should ever be

taken to a police cell. They should be supported in the proper way. I do

commend those Police and Crime Commissioner 's that have ended that

practice in the areas but the reality is that it isn't just Devon

and Cornwall suffering cuts, Norfolk and Suffolk mental health trust has

had a cut for every one of its last three years and I agree with the

Prime Minister that members of this House openly discussing mental

health issues they have had is a great thing because we do need to

end the stigma surrounding these conditions across the whole country.

But NHS trusts are in a financial crisis. According to NHS providers

it seems to be the worst financial crisis in NHS history, 80% of

hospitals no endeavours that. There was a time in 2010 when the NHS was

in surplus. What has happened? The Prime Minister. I would like to

remind him that what has happened with NHS funding is this. We asked

the NHS themselves to come up with a five-year plan and say what extra

funding was needed to deliver on it. They came up with a five-year plan

led by Simon Stevens as chief executive of the NHS. He said it was

?8 billion that was needed and we are giving ?10 billion of extra

funding to the and adjust. And I might remind the right honourable

gentleman that, at the last election, it wasn't the Conservative

Party that was refusing to guarantee funding for the NHS, it was the

Labour Party! Mr Speaker come in six years, the NHS has gone from surplus

to its worst crisis. ?3 billion was wasted on top-down reorganisation

and no one wanted and yesterday at the select committee Simon Stevens

made it clear that he does not believe that NHS England has enough

money to get through the crisis it is facing. Can I offer an analysis

from the Care Quality Commission which seemed to have quite a good

grasp of what's happening. They save at cuts to adult social care, and I

quote, translating to increased A E attendances, emergency missions

and delays to people leaving hospital which in turn is affecting

the ability of a growing number of trusts to meet their performances

and their natural targets, will the Prime Minister also addressed the

reckless, counter-productive cuts made. You could Simon Stevens. The

time of the Autumn Statement last November he said that their case for

the NHS had been hurt actively supported. The right honourable

gentleman raises the question of social care and the interaction

between health and social care. Over ?5 billion extra was put into the

better care of and precisely to deal with these issues. Local authorities

are able to raise about 2% of council tax to deal with social care

costs that they face. But what is important is the health service and

local authorities working together to ensure that they are delivering

the best possible service for people who require that social care. I saw

a good example of that at Salford Royal on Monday. I want to see more

such examples across the NHS, delivering for patients. We have put

the funding in. His party would not have done that. We have seen better

care for patient Mikes. We all want the government and the local NHS to

work well together but the problem is that local government funding has

been cut, 400,000 fewer people are receiving publicly funded social

care as a consequence, the NHS is having trouble coping with the

crisis, therefore, unfortunately there is bed blocking, where acute

patients cannot leave because there is no social care available for them

down the line. The issue is the funding crisis in the NHS and in

local government. The published figures by the NHS Trust show that

the total deficit is 2.45 billion but the chief executive says this

figure may even be bigger. The government disguises the extent of

the crisis through temporary bailouts. They are bailing out, and

trust in a crisis, that is not a bad thing but why are they in a crisis

in the first place? -- bailing out of trust in a crisis. Next month, Mr

Speaker, sustainability and transformation plans are going be

published. Many, all over the country, are alarmed by this,

because of the threat to accident and emergency departments. Can the

Prime Minister deal with this issue now by simply saying there will be

no downgrades and no closures of A E departments in the statement next

month? Over the course of this Parliament,

the government will be spending over half ?1 trillion on the NHS. That is

a record level of investment in our National Health Service. But there

is a key difference between the way he approaches this and the way that

I do. We believe on this side of the house that, at local level, people

should be able to make decisions about the NHS, that decisions should

be led by clinicians, that it shouldn't be top-down, which is a

prep -- which is typical of the Labour Party. Well, Mr Speaker,

top-down is what we got. And it cost ?3 billion for a reorganisation that

nobody wanted at all. Mr Speaker, I started by asking the Prime Minister

about parity of esteem. All this government has produced is parity of

failure. Failing mental health patients, failing elderly people who

need social care, failing the 4 million on the NHS waiting list,

wailing five times as many people waiting more than four hours at A

departments, and another winter crisis is looming. The society of

acute medicines is it right, I think, when it says, this funding

crisis and the local government funding crisis is leaving the NHS on

its knees. What has happened in the NHS over the last six years? More

patients being treated, more calls to the Ambulance Service, more

operations, more doctors, more nurses. That is what has been

happening in the NHS. But let's just look at what his party's approach to

the NHS is. A former Shadow Health Secretary said, it would be

irresponsible to put more money into the NHS. A former leader of the

Labour Party wanted to recognise the NHS. -- weapon ise. At every

election, the Labour Party claims that the Tories will cut NHS

spending. After every election, we increase NHS spending. At every

election, Labour claim that the Tories will privatise the NHS. At

every election, indictment, we have protected the NHS. -- in government.

There is only one party that has cut funding for the NHS, the Labour

Party in Wales. Thank you, Mr Speaker. If the Prime

Minister aware that research shows that infrastructure investment most

benefits area is prepared to capitalise on it, with new

associated possibilities in housing, skills and jobs? Will she ensure

that current opportunities are taken for inward investment to preserve

and we energise essential national industries, like one in the Yeovil

area, as we seek to capitalise on the dualling of the A303? My

honourable friend is right. We are investing in infrastructure like the

A303. It is important that local communities embrace those

opportunities. I know that my honourable friend has been putting

together ideas for Yeovil and I'm sure he will share those with Mike

right honourable friend, the Communities Secretary. I joined the

Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour Party in remembering the

Aberfan disaster at my thoughts are with everybody affected. Thousands

of innocent civilians have now been killed by Saudi air strikes in

Yemen. Can the Prime Minister give the house assurance that those

civilians have not been killed by pave way missiles, partially

manufactured in Scotland, under licence from her government in Saudi

Arabia? I congratulate the right honourable gentleman on his election

as deputy leader of the SNP. I say to him, as he knows, we have one of

the toughest regimes in the world in relation to arms exports. When these

allegations arise, we have been pressing, I have pressed in the past

and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has pressed the

Foreign Secretary, and the Saudi government investigate and learn

lessons. It is beyond doubt that the Saudi air force is bombing Yemen,

flying planes made in Britain, by pilots trained by Britain and

dropping missiles made in Britain. I asked her a direct question and she

couldn't answer it. Can she give this house and the assurance that

civilians have not been killed by Paveway 4 bombs being dropped on

Yemen which are partially manufactured in Scotland under

licence by the government? If she doesn't know the answer to that

question, how can she possibly in good conscience continue selling

them to Saudi Arabia? In response to the right honourable gentleman, the

point I made was simple. We press for proper investigations into what

has happened on those incidents before we reach a decision or

conclusion on what has happened in relation to those incidents. We have

a very strong elation chip with Saudi Arabia. It is for this country

in terms of dealing with counterterrorism and a number of

other issues. What matters when incidents happen which caused

concern is that they are properly investigated. A few weeks ago, I

thought I'd successfully bought four tickets online for one of my

favourite bands, Green Day, only to be told the tickets were unavailable

and the gig sold out. Within minutes, I could buy the tickets on

another site for twice the price. It turned out the ticket site had been

the victim of an attack by organised cats who resold the ticket inflated

prices. We'll the Prime Minister asked her ministers to give close

consideration to my amendment to be Digital economy act which would make

the computerised harvesting of tickets for resale in offence?

Similar legislation exists elsewhere and it would go a long way to

protecting consumers and genuine music fans. I think my honourable

friends for raising this issue. I'm sure he isn't the only member of the

spouse who has had that experience and certainly not the only person,

as people will know from their constituency mailbags, to have had

this experience. As part of the consumer rights act, a review of

online ticket sales was introduced. Professor Michael Waterson

introduced a report on that. It has produced a number of

recommendations, some for the industry to be able to better

protect itself, but the government will be looking at the

recommendations of that very carefully to see what can be done to

address the issue he talks about. The child abuse enquiry needs to

regain the trust of survivors. In September, the Home Secretary said

she had no information about Syria's leadership failings but on Monday

she told the house she had known about serious problems since July.

Yesterday it emerged that senior home of this -- Home Office

officials were briefed in April this year. She set up the enquiry and

pointed the chair. She was the individual responsible for the

enquiry's success. She was the Home Secretary in April and she was the

only person who had the power to act. Can she now finally tell us

when she personally learned of the serious problems developing in this

enquiry and why it was that she took no action at all? Can I say, I

recognise that the honourable lady has taken a particular interest in

this issue and I'm sure she will recognise, as I hope other members

of this house do, why it is I set up the enquiry. For too long, people

who had been to child... For too long, people who had been subjected

to child sexual abuse had their voices going unheard and they felt

they were not getting justice. That is why it is very important that the

enquiry is able to continue and find that justice for them. I have to say

to the honourable lady that one of the important aspects of this is

that, over the years, too many people have had concerns that people

in positions of power have intervened to stop them from getting

justice. There were stories around about the enquiry and about

individuals related to the enquiry, but the Home Secretary cannot

intervene on the basis of suspicion, rumour or hearsay. She refers to the

statement made yesterday in this house. She refers to the statement

made yesterday in this house about information being discussed with the

director-general in the Home Office. She will also have noted that that

conversation was asked to be confidential, and as far as I'm

aware it was treated as such. I think it is important for us to

recognise that, when the Home Office was officially informed of issues,

the Home Office acted. It's now for the enquiry to get on and deliver

for victims and survivors. Having been born and growing up in south

Wales and as a former Secretary of State for Wales, can I associate

myself with the heartfelt tributes that have been paid by the front

bench to the community of Aberfan and throughout this house. It was a

tragedy that was unparalleled and it stunned the world. Can the Prime

Minister in her own words step up to the plate and reconfirm her

commitment to Wales and to ensuring that her government works with the

Welsh government, particularly after leaving the EU, to maintain the

levels of investment that so vital to the long-term social and economic

development of the valleys communities and rest of Wales? I say

to my right honourable friend that, as a former Secretary of State for

Wales, she is well aware of the impact the Aberfan disaster at an

south Wales and those local communities and, as I said in my

opening remarks, these events were tragic and the thoughts of the whole

house with those who were affected by them. I can give that commitment

she is asking for, of this government to Wales and working with

the Welsh government. I am clear this government is going to deliver

a country that works for every part of the UK. The Wales Bill will

transfer a historic transfer of powers to be Welsh Assembly. It will

allow the Welsh government to focus on the job of transforming the Welsh

economy, and we are talking to them about how we are going to go forward

in relation to negotiations for leaving the EU. Progress today has

been very slow. Can I appeal to colleagues to speed up. Much

obliged. Can there be a single member of this house who does not

have reason to be grateful to those heroes of our high street, the

community pharmacist. And can there be any member of the public who is

not as bemused as I am by the fact that the government is proposing a

12% cut in the community pharmacy budgets, potentially leading to 3000

closures? Will be Prime Minister today express her support for

community pharmacy and have another look at this divisive, corrosive and

destructive proposal? I think everybody in this house recognises

the role and contribution of community pharmacies up and down the

country, but it's also right that we look at how we are spending NHS

money. That is why the government is looking at this issue. If the

honourable gentleman supports community pharmacies, perhaps he

ought to have a word with his right honourable friend, the Leader of the

Opposition, because his policy is to completely nationalised the health

system, lock, stock and barrel, GP surgeries, Macmillan nurses and GP

pharmacies. Next week, this government will finally make a

decision on airport capacity in the south-east, something that eluded

three of her predecessors and will help boost trade. Does the Prime

Minister agree that on this issue substance matters more? Will she

outlined her timetable for indentation? He is right, this month

this government will take a decision on the appropriate site for expanded

airport capacity in the south-east. This is a subject that's been

debated, discussed, speculated on for 40 years. This government will

take a decision. But there is a formal process that has to be

undertaken, so the government will identify its proposed option

off-site -- of sight. That will go to a statutory consultation. The

government will consider the results of that and bring forward an

airports national planning statement on which this house will vote. Does

the Prime Minister agree that any move to close the historic barracks

at Fort George would not only be a poor military decision after 250

years of service but a betrayal of the Black Watch and a slap in the

face to the Highlands? I say to the honourable gentleman that I

recognised the strength of the view he has put forward. No decisions on

Fort George or other locations have been taken and the Ministry of

Defence will engage with all parties impacted by any decisions that it

takes of this sort, including in Scotland. My right honourable friend

has been expressing some reluctance to submit even the broad plans for

future negotiations with the EU to this house because of worries it

might weaken her government's negotiating position. As she noticed

that this week one or more Brexiteer members of her Cabinet have been

briefing the newspapers copiously on every proposal being put forward in

papers to be relevant Cabinet committee by their colleagues, and

launching political attacks on their Cabinet colleagues, who seemed to

disagree with them? Will she take firm action to stop this process,

and will she also agree that the proper approach is Parliamentary

scrutiny of the broad strategy once the government has reached agreement

on what it should be? I say to my right honourable friend that the

government is very clear that the vote on June the 23rd was a vote to

ensure that we had control of movement of people from the EU into

the UK, but also we want to see the best possible access for businesses

for trading in goods and services with an operating within that

European market. That is what the government will be aiming for and we

will be ambitious in that. Parliament will have its say. These

are going to be lengthy negotiations over the course of two years or

more. Parliament will have its say in a variety of ways, not least in

relation to the great repeal bill. Some of my constituents have had

their tax credits suddenly stopped by concentric and have been accused

of being in a relationship with previous tenants of their homes, who

they have never even met. In some cases, they have been accused of

being in a relationship with members of their own families and told to

prove they are not. This Kafka-esque situation is causing deep distress

and hardship among working mothers in my constituency. This is what the

Prime Minister means by being on the side of working people? What is she

going to do to put it right? The right honourable lady raises an

issue which is of concern to members across this house. Making sure that

those who are being assessed are being assessed properly and the

decisions and right decisions are taken. The Department for Work and

Pensions is looking at the process of what should be done and how both

assessment should be taken. I say to her that I hoped she would welcome

the fact that this government has said that, for those with long-term

conditions that are not going to improve, we will not be putting them

through the regular assessments they had under her government

apprenticeships from EDF has just been launched at the Bridgewater and

Taunton college. And we do want to see every

generation of nuclear expertise in the industry. The Prime Minister is

celebrated her 65th birthday but will not retire. It is her choice.

Yet she is denying that same choice to many of my constituents, women

like Christina, who has worked every bit as hard as the Prime Minister

but will have to now work an extra six years. When will she do the

right thing and give these women there transitional... So that they

can also make the choices that she has enjoys? The honourable lady

knows that we have transition arrangements in place, that action

was taken by the government to ensure that the period of time that

the pension aged changed would be no more than 18 months compared to the

previous timetable and for 81% of women affected by the 2011 change it

will be no more than 12 months. Heidi Allen. Thank you, Mr Speaker,

the unemployment figures results today are fantastic news yet I worry

about the economic volatility that could come as a consequence of

Brexit potentially inflation rising and the cost of living going up for

people on modest wages, does the Prime Minister agree we need to keep

as many people in a plummet as possible and need to make the right

decision of tax credits, could I urge you to look at those cuts

embedded in universal credit and make sure we know what it will do to

people trying to get work in this Autumn Statement. My right

honourable friend is right say this, I'm very proud of the record that

the government has over the last six years of getting more people into

work so that there are now hundreds of thousands fewer households with

no work income coming into the household. That is extremely

important and the point of universal credit is to be able to ensure that

the transition from benefits into work as a transition that means that

people do have benefit if they are out of work rows this system means

that for some people there were better off on benefits, we want to

see people in work and that is a system is there to encourage. Mr

Speaker been asking questions for 15 months and this government is

appalling to child policy and rape close, from one feminist to another

how can the Prime Minister justify putting vulnerable women to the

trauma of proving that the third child has been born as a result of

rape? We have been very clear that women with a third child as a result

of rape would not be subject to the limit being considered in relation

to benefits. I absolutely recognise that the honourable lady is making a

point on how this would affect individuals who have been through

the trauma of rape. That is why the government is taking its time, is

considering this, consulting on this at the moment and looking at how we

can make sure we do this in the right way. Sir who goes quiet. Thank

you, Mr Speaker, given the increasing relevance of the

Commonwealth in terms of trade were the Prime Minister give her support

to the first ever meeting of Commonwealth trade ministers in the

UK next year and will she commit when she goes to India next month to

persuade the Indian Prime Minister to attend in the UK in 2018? I am

happy to encourage all leaders to attend the event when it takes place

in the UK. I can assure my right honourable friend that we are

looking at the possibility of trade deals in relation to the

Commonwealth and I to applaud that first ever meeting of Commonwealth

trade metres which is an important step as we look to forging a new

global role in the world, ensuring we are making a success of trading

around the world. Local authorities are clear that the removal of 24

hour maternity services in my area will cost lives and this is a

decision the government will have to make. Will the Prime Minister please

commit to visiting my constituency to see the effect of the decision

upon West Cumbrian families and children. I say to the honourable

gentleman, this is not the first time he's raised his concerns in

relation to this hospital. Can I say that the point of the way in which

we are approaching this is that decisions are taken and generated

from the local level. It is at the local level that they will look for

services necessary to people to ensure they can provide the services

needed and safe services for people of his constituency and other parts

of Cumbria. Sir Robert Neill. The tragic murder of one prisoner and

the critical winding of two others in Pentonville prison last might

bring some start to the declining safety and presence. Will the Prime

Minister give the Secretary of State for Justice full support in

commissioning a thorough and complete review of the operational,

managerial capacity of leadership of the service which has signally

failed to arrest this declining situation? This is a matter which is

one of the very first issue is that my right honourable friend the

Justice Secretary raised with me which was the question of violence

in prisons and safety in prisons. That is why my right honourable

friend is looking across-the-board and the action needed to be taken

and has announced extra money to the staff in prisons because she

recognises the importance of this issue. Lucy Powell. Thank you Mr

Speaker, one in every 1000 pupils has three meals in grammar schools.

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that this tiny number is flimsy

evidence base on which to create a new national schools policy.

Watching the better looking at the real evidence of how we reduce

inequality in education? -- would she not be better looking about? I

want to see every child getting the education right for them, every

child able to get on as far as their talents and hard work will them.

That is why we need to increase the number of good schools in this

country. If you look at the gap in attainment between those who are

from disadvantaged backgrounds and those not in grammar schools it is

virtually zero. That's not the same in other schools. I say to the

honourable lady that I think it is wrong that we have a system in this

country where we have a law that prevents the opening or expansion of

good schools, that is what we will get rid of. Pauline Latham. Will the

premise to work with her secretaries of state to try to reduce the amount

of ivory trade and trade of endangered species throughout the

world, to try to lead by example from this country? My honourable

friend raises an important issue, this is something the government has

been taken up and I can assure her not only has my right honourable

friend the Foreign Secretary heard them that has promoted that this is

an issue the government will take up. The pottery industry is

witnessing a modest Renaissance partly through EU exports and action

on Chinese ceramic dumping. The previous prime ministers said he

would make sure that the ceramic industry's voice is heard and we

would get a good negotiation. What is this Prime Minister doing to make

sure that Stoke-on-Trent ceramic manufacturers maintain tariff free

access to the EU and a level playing field in the face of protectionist

dumping? I say to the honourable gentleman that I am pleased to

welcome the Renaissance in the ceramics industry that he refers to.

His constituency has a long-standing history and tradition in ceramics.

What are we doing as we go through the negotiations were leaving the

European Union we will ensure that this country has the best possible

access to trade with and operate within that European market. That is

what people want. Many constituents have expressed concern to me of

anti-Semitism. I'm sure that every member of this House will agree that

we should show its zero tolerance. Does the Prime Minister also agree

that all parties should not allow a situation to arise where it appears

that an environment is created when anti-Semitism is tolerated?

Liverpool Prime Minister? I absolutely agree with my honourable

friend that this House should send a clear message that we won't tolerate

anti-Semitism. I have been concerned about the rise we have seen in the

number of anti-Semitic incidents in this country. We should ensure that

those incidents are properly investigated and dealt with and give

that clear message that we want tolerated. But that has to be every

political party in this chamber. And I ask the right honourable

gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition, given the report of the

select committee of this House about anti-Semitism and the approach to

anti-Semitism in the Labour Party, he needs to think very carefully

about the environment being created in the Labour Party in relation to

anti-Semitism. Andy Burnham. We are one such man and -- we one month

from the inquest into the Birmingham pub bombings, the west midlands fund

has a fund of ?1 million yet the bereaved families have no legal

funding. This is a shameful state of affairs. Please intervene and show

the Birmingham families the same compassion that was shown to the

Hillsborough families. The right honourable gentleman may be aware

that the Birmingham families have been encouraged to apply and I

believe they have applied to the legal aid fund for the exceptional

funds. That was as I understand what happened after the 7/7 bombings. The

Home Secretary has made clear her expectation that funding will be

provided. We await the decision from the legal aid fund. We hope that

decision be for certificate. -- will be positive. Why build a new runway

at Heathrow when we could deliver one at Gatwick for a fraction of the

time and the cost. May I assure my right honourable friend that no

decision has been taken on the site of airport expansion on the

south-east. As she will know from her previous background that Davis

commission said that airport capacity should be expected, the

Davis commission identified three sites all of which they said would

be credible and deliverable. I feel it is fitting that we finish with a

question from Mr Gerard Jones. Could I first thank the Prime Minister and

the Leader of the Opposition and other members for their comments on

the Aberfan disaster and the resilience and quiet dignity shown

by the people of Aberfan. On Friday morning at 915, on the anniversary

of the disaster the people of that community along with communities of

Wales will mark that disaster with one minute's silence. Could I ask

the Prime Minister if she would support that moment of silence being

marked as the disaster affected communities across the country, if

not the world, that that moment of silence be marked across the UK. I

say to the honourable gentleman, I know the Secretary of State for

Wales will attend the memorial in his constituency on Friday. I think

it is appropriate that we all mark and show our respect for those who

lost their lives and the families who suffered as a result of the

tragedy that took place 50 years ago in Aberfan. It was, as we said

earlier, terrible tragedy not just for families but for community and I

think it is right that we recognise Prime Minister's Questions comes to

an end. I think that maybe a record for us. It started a bit late, but

it is only quarter to one now. Jeremy Corbyn began with a specific

question about spending on mental health, about budgets being cut, but

he then moved on and, as a consequence, he gave an example of

people being held in police cells because there was no room in

hospitals, but he then moved onto the more general issue of health

funding and whether, despite the rise is the government says its

making, it was enough to cope with the demand. There were a number of

exchanges between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on

that. There were also two other developments. Angus Robertson for

the SNP asked the Prime Minister if she could be sure that the civilians

who'd been killed in bombing in Yemen why Saudi Arabian air force

had not been done so by British missiles. It isn't clear what the

Prime Minister's answer was. It was clear she didn't really know. Quite

a hard question but she couldn't answer it. Lisa Nandy, a backbench

Labour MP, asked about the Goddard enquiry into child abuse, which has

been surrounded by controversy, with the New Zealand judge resigning, yet

another, and we are on to the fourth judge now. The Prime Minister said

she had heard rumours that all was not well but that it was not her job

to act on rumours when she was Home Secretary. I think that will not be

the end of it. We may see where that goes from here. We will hear from

our panel in a minute. For that, let's get some e-mails. Viewers

picked up on the debate at the dispatch box about health spending.

Jeffery says, while both the Prime Minister and Mr Corbyn are right to

be concerned in regard to the issue of mental health, I wish they'd stop

using the best health system in the world as a political football. Alan

said, isn't it time there was a review into what services the NHS

should and shouldn't provide instead of continuously throwing money at

it. John from Leeds said, surprised to hear the Prime Minister during

the word top-down justifying her own government's action, but whatever is

spent on the NHS will never be enough and the sooner the government

-- the sooner Labour start admitting this the better. Mrs May on rocky

ground, says Ian from Altrincham. They have funded the NHS but they

have cut social care meaning the NHS is having to deal with things that

social -- local authorities should Peter says, Corbyn had a good PMQs.

The gloss is falling of the Prime Minister at a rate of knots. We've

only got about five minutes. Lots of tricky issues, Theresa May with lots

of things saying, a decision will be taken later or I can't give you

those details. Two Pandora's box -- boxes. Theresa May implied that she

had been told something of the problems with the Goddard enquiry

into historical child abuse. She said she couldn't act on hearsay,

rumour or suspicion, but that was a tacit admission and it will be

interesting to see how that is clarified during the day that she

knew something of what was going wrong. It was her enquiry. Second,

this may have been a Mr big, as it is sometimes known but, when was

asked about Brexit, she said there would be lengthy negotiations over

the course of two years, talking about Article 50, and more. That has

set a hare running. Did the prime ministers sit -- give away her view

that it will take more than two years, or was it just said in the

heat of the moment? I think that is something that we will be trying to

get the bottom of whether she was implying that the whole process,

congregated, tricky, tortuous, is going to take longer than two years.

It can take longer unless all other 27 members agree. Yes, it's up to

the other member states to vote. It's a complicated issue. Comment on

PMQs as a whole, is often theatre, but this was a good PMQs with lots

of important questions. On the Brexit aspect, the Prime Minister

made it very clear that we will work hard for the best possible access

for our businesses, but also the vote was clear to say that Britain

wants to control its borders and that's what we want to work towards.

You have just come back from Saudi Arabia. RB Saudis using British

defence equipment to bomb civilians in Yemen? -- are the Saudis. That an

operational question. We do sell arms to Saudi Arabia. This is a

legitimate war taking place, endorsed by the United Nations

resolution supporting the president. It's important to recognise that

Saudi Arabians have made mistakes but they have also put their hand up

to it. We had the Foreign Minister in Parliament, the best place to

answer questions, to be held to account, and he made it very clear

that we are having difficulties in getting it wrong and we need to get

it right but we need British help to make sure that we can correct the

errors that have been happening. It an operational matter if it's an

error and the Allies in Syria and Iraq made mistakes as well. It's not

an operational matter if it's part of the Saudi strategy in the Yemen

to bomb civilians. You are right, which is why I went to Riyadh last

week to tell them that they need to come out with a report immediately.

They did that, it was released at the weekend, and they put their hand

up saying it was a breach of standard operating procedures and

somebody will fall on their sword. There are now disciplinary actions,

support and compensation is coming in to the victims. So they did

intentionally bombed... We have made errors as well. Was it an error, was

it a mistake? Was it collateral damage? Was it a deliberate attack

on civilians? It was a deliberate error made by an individual who

needs to be disciplined. So this individual deliberately attacked

civilians. There was a choice to breach decisions. Riyadh said the

attack shouldn't take place but it did. That is why this report will

clarify exactly what's going to happen. It's important that Saudi

Arabia, which hasn't been good at communicating these things, is able

to come forward not just on this but their outstanding investigations we

are all waiting to hear more details on. What was your take on PMQs? I

thought it was a good day for Jeremy Corbyn, picking up the NHS, which is

clearly in meltdown at the moment. Not only the financial loss, but I

was a commissioner for 20 years in the NHS and I know that waiting

times have escalated, 44 ambulances, any services, really in crisis. We

are about further rationing, further planned cuts to services under these

sustainable transformation plans. The reality is that it is the system

that broken. The health and social care act put the wrong financial

drivers in the system and it drove everybody into A rather than

commitment to the community to stop the machine will keep gobbling

money. It's about making sure the money goes to the right place. Under

this reorganisation, it's going to the most expensive part of the

health service, so that is why we have got the crisis. Which is the

hospitals. Absolutely, the acute care. I had a mental health hospital

shut in my constituency in three working days, so people were spread

throughout the region in a mental health crisis. The system has been

broken for far too long and we don't see parity. It is there enough

standing at the dispatch box saying parity of esteem. We need to see

resourcing and care put in an investment into mental health. Sorry

to rush in. We need to move on. We are short of time. Laura, to see

you. Now, of all the big Brexit issues

none has more gravity than its possible impact

on Premiership football. Players and managers

could not avoid being asked for their thoughts in the wake

of the referendum result. Of course, it's hard not to know

that it's gone on but it's something that I've not really thought too

much about yet. Obviously I'm focusing

on the Euros and what's ahead. Nobody I don't think knows

what's going to happen. From my point of view,

I'm just going to wait and see And then it was around again,

around the Brexit decision, things, OK, England,

what will happen, and I really, I like giving a sign

we are still Europe. Whatever happens, we are still

Europe. We are quite different in a lot

of things, especially what we eat and so on,

but we are really similar. And Brexit is not an issue that has

escaped the interest of the creators of the hit computer

game Football Manager. Players of the 2017 edition

will have to grapple with different Brexit scenarios as part

of the game. And its director, Miles

Jacobson, joins me now. Why? Because it's important. It's

something that will be happening. There's nothing we can do to stop

it. The vote has happened, people have spoken, and it will affect

football. I don't think people thought about these kind of things

before the vote. They didn't have this information. If we can't bring

in players from the EU any more and we stick to the current work permit

system that we have, it would mean players like N'Golo Kante and

Dimitri Payet, two of the best players in the Premier League last

season... And most of the high-profile managers. They would

not be able to get work permits. We sat and looked at every possible

scenario, including soft Brexit scenarios where you can still bring

in players through freedom of movement for workers, through too

hard Brexit options, where you will be limited to a quota of the number

of foreign players you could have in the squad. Is that true? Is that a

possible scenario, that we won't be able to get amazing football

managers and players on work our midst? It's not my department, but I

would be astonished. We can be proud of one of the best leagues in the

world. People want to come to the UK because of what happens here. Play

this game, but don't use it as a guidance to what EU legislation is

all about. We need good players to be able to come here and make sure

we retain that position of having the best Premier League in the

world. Do you think your players will be interested? By the reaction

we have had since we announced it, I think so. Sometimes people don't

realise how engage the public are. I think we got an indication from the

referendum result. Absolutely. The scenario is in the game. The

scenario is in the game of being able to get them. Thank you. Maybe

if we had to have more home-grown talent we might have a national team

worth its salt. I don't care about football, but I thought I'd throw

that out. I thought you were an expert.

There's just time to put you out of your misery and give

I forget what the giveaway was. It was Maggie Thatcher at the window.

With Norman Tebbit. Got you. Rachel, press that red button. You've no

idea what will happen. It's not true. You do know. Well done,

George. You have won that. I didn't realise it was 1987. Thank you,

Miles, for coming in. We will see how your game goes down and which

scenario is the most popular. Very educational. Manager of AFC

Bournemouth. Some have been doing scenario planning for years.

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

Jo and I will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political