01/03/2017 Daily Politics

Morning, folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.

Just one week to go until the Budget.

So can the Chancellor keep the ship steady before

There's plenty in the in-tray for the man known as Spreadsheet Phil.

But with rows brewing over social care, business rates,

and disability benefits, will he be able to make the numbers add up?

The RMT announces a fresh round of strikes across the rail network.

We speak to the RMT General Secretary and the Rail Minister.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will square up at noon

It's been a bruising few days for the Labour leader

after the Copeland by-election, so can he get on the front foot?

And will the Lords inflict defeat on the Government later today

over the issue of status of EU citizens living in the UK?

I think they might. Maybe. Welcomer you told me they were. Must be true,

then. Watch this space! And with us for the duration, two

legends in their own living rooms - Rail Minister, Paul Maynard,

and the Shadow Health First this morning, the RMT union

has said its members from Southern Rail, Merseyrail

and Arriva Rail North will go on strike for

24 hours on March 13th. It's over the ongoing row

about driver-only operated trains, These are the first strikes by RMT

members on Merseyrail But Southern Rail said this would be

the 30th day of RMT strike action Well, Ellie Price has been speaking

to Southern commuters , No. No trains again? Yeah, you

really want to know what I think? I'm not impressed, I've got no

sympathy. Who is to blame? I think it's train drivers and the guards. I

think there is no reason why we can't have godless trains. Someone

should agree that there should be guards and trains. Quite simple.

People get pulled under trains. Drivers can't see what's happening.

Southern should absolutely agree that this is a safety issue, and

they should back down. As a country, we are massively subsidising these

railway companies that are not doing their job. I do for their workforces

all the passengers. We should take them back into national ownership. I

think the government needs to take control and deal with the issues.

And unequivocally give them an answer one way or another. Their

striking for their rights. But the government say they're putting the

safety of the people first. Let's just come to a decision.

Joining me now is the General Secretary of the RMT, Mick Cash.

Welcome to the programme. That start with Southern Rail because this is

going to be the RMT's 30th day of strike action. Yet more pain for the

300,000 people who depend on the network every day. How do you

justify it? Thanks for the invite. It is the 30th day of action, and it

is the 30th day I've met Paul, who is the real minister. We are in a

situation where our members, and it's not just guards, its drivers,

who have got deep-rooted concerns around the introduction of

driver-only operated trains, which means getting rid of the guaranteed

second safety person on every train. At something passengers have got

now, and have elsewhere. But the government and GDR have decided to

take it away. I'm happy to have the debate with Paul, and perhaps we can

have it outside. Pulled doesn't represent the company. Let's talk

about the dispute going on outside the company. You're not just sobbing

at Southern, you are spreading the misery to the north of England with

new strikes on Northern Rail and Merseyrail. How do you justify

broadening it? Southern are contracted to the DFT. Paul is the

piper who plays the tune. The reality here is that both on

Northern and Merseyrail, the passengers, as we stand today, have

got the guarantee of a second safety person on the train, a guarantee of

a guard. They're planning to take that away and our members are very

angry about that. They're fighting to keep our trains safe and

accessible. You say they're planning to take it away - what evidence is

there that Northern Rail are planning to do that? It's in the

franchising. They say they haven't got any driver-only operated trains

at the moment, they haven't ordered any, and your strike action is

extremely premature. Where was the evidence? They have ordered the

trains stop what they have? Yeah. So they're wrong? We've had meetings

with them, and we've been trying to get the issue is resolved. They have

in their franchising group, mandated by Paul's department, at least 50%

of their trains will have to operate without a safety critical guard. We

have spoken to Northern Rail and they have said that they don't have

any driver operated trains. And they haven't ordered any. They do say

that they're in the early stages of a modernisation plan, but we will

leave it there. It's up to people to decide who to believe as far as that

is concerned. The damaging strike action that we've seen in the past

has been your union, the RMT, and Atlas, which represents more train

drivers. Aslef are saying that they don't want more strikes, so your run

your own. That will be easier for Southern to handle, won't it? Wing

Tyrone because passengers, particularly disabled passengers, of

great concern of getting rid of the guard on the train. -- we are not on

our own because passengers. Will you be able to have the same level of

impact? The last time you had a strike without Aslef joining you was

last week, the 22nd of February. According to Southern, around half

of their conduct turned up for work and they ran 87% of their timetable.

To some extent, the strike that you will be running well have lost its

edge? I don't necessarily agree with Southern. They don't have a great

credibility about how they spend their story. But the reality is our

members are determined to keep fighting to keep a guard on the

train and keep the second safety critical person guarantee. That's

what we will continue to do. But if you're not able to affect the train

service in the way you have been able to, how much longer will you be

able to keep your striking members on board? We will keep fighting to

keep a guard on the train. As long as our members are prepared to

fight, and they are prepared to fight. Why aren't you going down the

same sort of line as Aslef? The assistant general secretary said on

the 17th of February that they could put strike dates on if they wish,

but is not where they want to be. They see no reason why they can't

agree a negotiated settlement. They did have an agreement with Southern

which was rejected by members. But they are obviously trying with that

sort of language and tone to reach a deal. Why aren't you? We are trying

to reach a deal. You have put out a statement like that, have you? The

last time I met the company on the 14th of February they grossly

misrepresented that deal. They told us information that was incorrect.

We are in a situation where we want to get round a table, but we also

need the people who help facilitate that deal, the TUC in particular, to

assist us. There is misrepresentation by this company

about what is actually being delivered and what train drivers

were going to get in that deal. Finally, in the case of Merseyrail,

it's actually devolved to local councils in Liverpool. You talking

to politicians that? We're talking to the company. But you said that he

wanted to talk to the Minister, too. Are you going to torture Labour

politicians that? We will talk to anybody to get the matter resolved.

-- you going to talk to Labour politicians there?

Let's talk Minister now. How much is the taxpayer forking out for this

situation? Let's be very clear on what Mr Cashel said. There is no

loss of jobs on Southern Rail. There is no going back on having second

people on-board train. We want to reassure all passengers that they

will get an improved level of service on the train by ensuring

that on-board supervisors can spend more time helping customers land

their journeys, the then disabled or otherwise. -- plan their journeys.

The union have always maintained that you will take away what they

call a safety critical role for the second person on trains, never mind

if they become driver-only operated. Can you guarantee that they won't

lose that safety critical vault? There is an important point to make

which is that all on-board supervisors will be safety trained.

We will make sure that those second people who are on trains have the

quality training they need to deliver an improved level of

customer service on these trains. The talent on the Southern at the

moment is -- the problem on Southern at the moment is a desperately

crowded network. We have to find new ways of working to properly

accommodate all the extra passengers growing year-on-year. We need to

work with the unions to find ways of doing that. But that has been the

criticism, that the government hasn't done enough. The reason the

government has to do more is because of the country that has been set up

with Southern or go the Thames Link. -- because of the contract that has

been set up. Can you answer the question about how much the

taxpayers forking out, because the taxpayer will want to know why it is

that they are having to fund compensation because so many people

are not able to get to work on time? Way in which we operate Southern,

they're paid to deliver a service on behalf of the department. That means

we are finding things like delay we pay for passengers and compensation

for those who are season-ticket holders. That's an understandable

thing for the department to do. I think a lot of people will think,

why on earth is the taxpayer funding it when they already have a ?9

billion contract until 2021? As we saw yesterday, with the announcement

and results for Go Ahead,, this is a train company not making a profit at

the moment. They're taking a hit because they were goblins on the

train. They haven't been driven to sort it out. I think there's a

strong incentive for them to deliver an adequate service on behalf of the

passengers, which is timely, punctual, reliable and which offers

a decent chance of getting a seat. The problems on Southern go beyond

industrial relations. But we can't tackle those problems while we have

both hands tied behind our back as a consequence of industrial action. If

you look at their punctuality record, it is deemed the poorest in

a four-week period just before Christmas. This is across all its

services. They have failed to meet any of the targets that have been

set. They're worse than almost any other rail line? That is precisely

why we are infecting 300 million in upgrading the network on Southern.

That's what we need to do to bring the level of performance back. --

why we are injecting 300 million. We can't do that while we have both

hands tied behind our back by the RMT who was determined and having

industrial action week in, week out. Luckily, we are starting to overcome

that. The strikes are having a diminishing impact week on week.

Does that mean you're not going to put the company under pressure? Do

you accept that the buck stops with you? What I accepted passengers are

deeply frustrated by the quality of service on Southern. What I want to

see is a resolution. That means Southern and Aslef in particular

reaching an agreement. They came very close. I hope this week we can

start to resolve it. Jon Ashworth, do you support the RMT's Basic

principle that all trains should keep a deck and safety critical

person on board? Of course. You support the strikes? Of course.

Union members have the right to go on strike and we will always support

them to take strike action with the Labour Party. I'm sat in the middle

and the minister won't even talk to the general secretary for trade

union. For goodness sake, get around a table and sort it out. Mick Cash

said they haven't spoken yet. I'm sure if Mick Cash and the Labour

politicians want to speak, they will happily do so. This is going to put

passengers at a huge inconvenience. Just get round a table with them and

sort it out. Why is it Aslef has managed to do this, and the RMT

can't, and yet you are still supporting them? Aslef are obviously

come to a different judgment. The key thing to me is our ministers

doing all they can to sort things out in the interest of passengers?

Paul is a good bloke but he won't even address make directly. You're

both here, why don't you have a cup of tea after the show and try and

sort it? We are very clear that if unions call strikes, we are more

than happy to have discussions. I don't want passengers held to ransom

by the RMT. And you would obviously take up that offer to meet, but not

if you have to call off the strike action? I'm happy to take that

offer. There is my diary, Paul. We can sort something else. Are you

calling off the strike? I will take that matter back to my executive. If

you give me a guarantee that we can get to the table, I will take that

back this afternoon. Is that an agreement, the strikes will be

called off, if you agree? We will leave it there, Mick Cash, thank you

very much for coming in. Francois Fillon the centre-right,

the Republican candidate and France's Presidential election, at

one stage she was favourite to win, he has been summoned to a French

judge, a prosecutor magistrate, he has been accused of paying his wife

in the French Parliament to do a job but she didn't actually do the job.

That is the accusation, other members of his family have faced

similar accusation, normally when you are summoned to see a French

prosecutor it means you are going to be charged. That is the expectation

that he will be charged, with these accusation, he has said before that

if charged, he would stand down from his Presidential bid, but a press

conference this morning he said I will not give up, will not be draw,

so we have the prospect that the mainstream centre-right candidate

will continue to fight the election, with this prosecution hanging over

him. We will see what that does to him in the poll, it has been

damaging to him, we will bring you more news out of Paris as it

In case you hadn't noticed, it's the first day of March -

and a happy St David's Day to you all.

If all goes to plan, by the end of this month Theresa May

will have triggered Article 50 and begun the formal process

But before we get to that, there's the small matter of a Budget,

There's plenty in the in-tray for the Chancellor Philip Hammond,

so can he avoid any potential hiccups before we begin

One major issue is funding for social care.

Directors of adult social services in England say

they have had to cut ?4.6bn from their budgets since 2010.

It's reported that the Chancellor will make extra cash available

to plug the short-term gap in funding.

But could there be more controversial reforms

In 2010 the Tories accused Labour of planning a so-called "death tax'

But yesterday's Times reported that Philip Hammond is looking at how

the assets of older people can be claimed by the state

Another contentious issue has been the business rates revaluation.

?3.4 billion has already been promised for transitional relief.

There has also been cross-party criticism for the government's plans

Critics say the majority of the schools that will lose money

are in urban and poorer areas and that the redistribution

The government claim no school will face a reduction

And there's been anger over plans to change who qualifies

for Personal Independence Payments, or PIPs - it's a weekly payment that

goes to people with a disability or a long-term health condition.

PIPs will cost an extra ?3.7 billion by 2022,

due to a tribunal ruling that allows more people to claim.

So instead, the Government is legislating to change the rules

Paul Maynard, there is huge pressure to spend more on social care, after

these massive cuts that Jo told us about. It has implications for our

hospital, because the lack of social care means that older people often

to to stay in hospital. Is the Government up for putting more money

into social care? We will have to wait and see what happens next week.

We have made sure that we have given the NHS what it has asked for, in

addition we put more money in for social care but it isn't... Forgive

me, first of all, the NHS is a different matter from social care,

they are both interlinked but where is the extra money you have put into

social care? We are allowing councils... You are asking councils

to tax their people to put more money in. You are not doing it The

key point I am making it isn't just the overall amount of money you

spend that matter, I cover a constituency that has two social

care providing authorities, both Lancashire and Blackpool. That is a

different outcomes in the two of them as to how people who are

waiting to be discharged from hospital are dealt with, once they

are being put into care homes and so on. The amount of money is one

thing, it is how you imagine that -- manage that care... Clearly some

authorities will be doing it better than others and you can learn from

what the management jargon is best practise, are you seriously

maintaining this morning you can take five billion out of social

care, as you have since you have come to power, and it makes no

difference? Roughly half of delayed discharges as they are called are

concentrated on ten local authorities. That isn't what I was

asking, can you maintain to viewers it makes no difference? We will have

to wait and see what the Chancellor announces next week. You have taken

the 5 billion out. What we are waiting to see is if he is going to

put more back in Wait and see next week. Well, the last thing... The

last thing I expect you to do is tell me what is in the budget next

week buzz because I am sure you don't know. I am asking about the

principle. For example, the idea that before you transfer your

estate, if it is a substantial estate to your children that you

would have to pay something towards social care in the community, is

that a runner now? I don't know whether it is is a runner or not. I

can only read what you read in The Papers. Does it appeal to you. I

want to see a system that ensures we have if right amount of money and

those who are spending it are doing so in the most efficient way

possible, to make sure that the people who really matter, those who

are waiting in hospital to get a place in the a care home, get their

discharges when they need them and the quality of care they most need.

Do you think it is fair people can transfer their wealth to their

children, and then depend on the state for their social care in There

are all sorts of balances and issues you have to consider. Is that fair?

The correct system going forward for funding long-term care, a lot of

work is going on within the Treasury and with the Cabinet Office, I am

not privy to it but I recognise there will be questions that need to

be asked. There is a shortage of money in social care, but given that

there is a shortage of money, often it is the poorest who are suffering

from a lack of social care, would it not make sense to look again at the

changing to inheritance tax, that you will be able to own a property

up to ?1 million you could leave free of tax to children or

grandchildren, given the squeeze on resources which every party would

face in power, would it not be worth looking at that again when people

are suffering? I am sure the Treasury are carefully considering

all the options they have. I don't know what they are looking at or

what they are not. What they have ruled out or not. What would it say

in general, the principle of a government which is preparing this

substantial improvement in inheritance tax for what is clearly

the better off end of our society, and yet only recently the DWP cut

the disability benefits of a man many Hackney who is a double leg

amputee because he could climb the Zaires with his arms? What does that

say? I don't know the details of it. Doesn't that upset you? No, because

I welcome the fact that we have moved to personal independence

payment from disability living allowance, it is more modern, it

fulfils a fundamental concern of mine which the people most in need

weren't getting the most amount of help. PIP targets that help to

people who need it most. That is crucial. More importantly, it brings

in mental health, which is forgot un. Now it gets its true weights

under PIP. We need to make sure... The head of policy in Downing Street

said it is only the really disabled who need it not those taking pills

at home suffering from anxiety. I should point out... I need to move

on. I should they the man in Hackney appealed and the disability was

restored. To follow the court ruling on

disability benefits would cot 3.7 billion, would Labour pay that? We

said we support the court ruling. We urged the Government to support it.

Where would you find the money? We're have not outlined that yet. By

2023 we have a general election, it is more likely, as we go into that

election... You want to spend more on social care. Certainly do. You

want to spend more on the NHS, you want to spend more on these

disabilities, you are complaining about the school funning round, it

all adds up. Where would the money come from? It is a fair question.

What is the answer? At this stage we don't have a detailed budget because

we have three or four budgets and Autumn Statements and maybe one or

two Spending Reviews to come. You don't know, do you. You are in the

position, because it is popular to say we will spend on these thing,

the case for people, want to help people with disabilities but to say

you will spend it but give us no idea where the money would come from

is irspoonsable and means your promise is worthless. No shadow

ministers have outlined details spending plans three years out from

general election. Where would you get the money from? When the Shadow

Chancellors coming on your programme he will be able to outline it to

you. You don't know. At this stage of a Parliament in opposition, not

knowing what the books will look like it will inherit will not

outline detailed plans. So back to the same old Labour, we will spend

all these things but we have no idea how we will pay for it. It is not

same old Labour. Every opposition party outlines plans closer to

elections. Tory spokespeople would come on and say wait until the

elections. People want some kind of credibility on this. I don't think

they trust the days when politicians just say yes we would spend on that,

that and that that but we can't tell you how we will get the money? We

outline our plans closer to a general election. Could Labour

afford this? We will have to come forward with a set of policies to

fund it. So like for example on social care the Chancellor has to

find, if he wants to stabilise social care next week, something

like ?2 billion. Now, as you say he doesn't need to go ahead with that

inheritance tax cut which is due in this April. He could find 1 billion

there. Some of decisions on corporation tax he could change.

Your spokesman has said that. You have spent that corporation tax ten

times from. You have spent it ten times over. We will have to come

forward with our spending plans won't we. You will indeed.

Now, today is Ash Wednesday, so put down the chocolate and get

rid of those glasses of wine, the time for abstinence is upon us.

Even the Prime Minister is getting in on the action -

with Downing Street confirming yesterday that Mrs May will be

forgoing her favourite salt and vinegar crisps

But if six weeks of self-denial seems bleak, never fear.

We are here to brighten your day with a chance to win

one of our much-coveted Daily Politics mugs.

But to be in with a chance to win, all you need to do is tell

MUSIC: "My Sweet Lord" by George Harrison.

# Wake up Maggie, I think I got something to say to you

# It's late September and I really should be back at school. #

Most parents can afford to provide their own children with milk.

# So we waved our hands as we marched along

# And the people smiled as we sang our song

# And the world was saved as they listened to the band

# And the banner man held the banner high

# He was ten feet tall and he touched the sky

# I wish that I could be a banner man. #

To be in with a chance of winning a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special quiz email address -

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 Questions

And that's not all - Laura Kuenssberg is here.

We've got a week to go till the budget, and as he illustrated there

are some difficult choices in front of the Chancellor. I think where

Jeremy Corbyn may press today is the question of Pips, personal

independence benefits to people with disabilities. Not least because this

is a matter of concern to many people, but also because this time

last year the government suffered a bruising humiliation over all of

this which ended with Iain Duncan Smith storming out of the Cabinet

full of rage. But also because this is something where some Tory

backbenchers have concerns, too. It's not just a concern for the

Labour Party, but it is an area of political vulnerability for the

government. It doesn't seem right now that this is the kind of round

that will... It's a tribunal ruling that will extend the accessibility,

of certain disability payments, the Pips. But it adds substantially to a

bill that is already out. So the government is changing... I will

have to stop you because we are going to start on time today.

I'm sure the people here would like to join me in wishing the people

across the world a happy St David's Day. I'm sure the whole house will

also want to join me in paying tribute to our former colleague, Sir

Gerald Kaufman, who died over the weekend. He was an outstanding MP

who dedicated his life to the service of his constituents. As

father of the House, his wisdom and experience will be missed right

across the House. I'm sure our thoughts are with his friends and

family. I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others,

in addition to my duties with the House I will have further such

meetings today. I would like to associate myself with the Prime

Minister's remarks and assure the many relatives and friends of our

former colleague that they are very much in our thoughts and prayers at

this difficult time. Mr Speaker, following last week's historic

by-election victory in Copeland... CHEERING

Does my right honourable friend believe this is an endorsement of

her government's plans to maintain a strong economy, bring our society

together, and ensure that we make a huge success of leaving the European

Union? I thank my honourable friend. First of all, I would like to

congratulate my honourable friend, the new member for Copeland, and I

look forward to welcoming her to this house very shortly. But my

honourable friend is absolutely right that last week's historic

result in Copeland was an endorsement of our plans to keep the

economy strong. And our plans to ensure places like Copeland to share

in the economic success after years of Labour neglect. It was also an

endorsement of our plans to unite communities where Labour seeks to

sow division. And I think it was an endorsement of offering strong,

competent leadership in the face of Labour's chaos. Jeremy Kerley bin.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. -- Jeremy Corbyn. Could I join the Prime

Minister in wishing everyone in Wales and all Welsh people all

around the world a very happy St David's Day. And could I also

expressed the hope that the workers at the Ford plant in Bridgend gets

today daily assurances they need about their job security and job

futures. Mr Speaker, I also want to echo the Prime Minister's tribute to

Gerald Kaufman who served in this house since 1970 - the longest

serving member. He started in political life as an adviser to

Harold Wilson. He was an iconic figure in the Labour Party and

British politics. He was a champion for peace and justice in the Middle

East, and around the world. Yesterday at his funeral, the rabbi

who conducted the service, radio message on behalf of the House to

his family, which was so much appreciated. -- conveyed your

message on behalf of the House. Yesterday I spoke to his family and

I asked how would they describe Gerald. They said he was an awesome

uncle. I think we should remember Gerald as that. We convey our

condolences to all of his family. Mr Speaker, just after the last budget,

we then Work and Pensions Secretary resigned, accusing the Government of

balancing the books on the backs of the poor and vulnerable. Last week,

the Government sneaked out a decision to overrule a court

decision to extend personal independence payments to people with

severe mental health conditions. A government that found ?1 billion in

inheritance tax cuts to benefit 26,000 families seems unable to find

the money to support 160,000 people with debilitating mental health

conditions. Will the Prime Minister change her mind? Let me be very

clear about what is being proposed in relation to personal independence

payments. This is not a policy change. This is not a cut in the

amount that is going to be spent on disability benefits. And no one is

going to see a reduction in their benefit from that previously awarded

by the DWP. What we are doing is restoring this particular payment to

the original intention that was agreed by the coalition government,

agreed by this parliament after extensive consultation.

Extensive consultation is an interesting idea because the court

made its decision last year. The Government did not consult the

Social Security advisory committee and instead at the last minute

snaked out its decision. The court ruled that the payment should be

made because the people who are going to benefit from it were

suffering overwhelming psychological distress. Just a year ago, the new

Work and Pensions Secretary said you can tell the House were not going

ahead with the changes to Pip that were put forward. Her friend, the

member for South Cambridgeshire, said that in her view, the courts

were there for a reason. If both, with a warning that raise the

criteria should be extended, she believed there should be a duty to

honour that. Isn't she right? First of all, on the issue of these

payments and those with mental health conditions, actually,

Personal Independence Payment is better for people with mental health

conditions. Two thirds of people with mental health conditions who

are in receipt of Personal Independence Payment, two thirds of

them get awarded the higher daily living rate allowance. That

compares, that two thirds compared to less than a quarter under the

previous DLA arrangements. But it second time that the right

honourable gentleman has suggested that somehow this change was sneaked

out. It was in a written ministerial statement to Parliament. And I...

Can I remind him, week after week he talks to me about the importance of

Parliament. We accepted the importance of Parliament and maybe

statement to Parliament. But also she referred to the Social Security

advisory and they can look at this. My right honourable friend the Work

and Pensions Secretary called the chairman of the Social Security

advisory committee and spoke to him about the regulations on the day

they were being introduced. He called the chairman of the work and

pensions select committee and spoke to him about the regulations being

introduced. He called both officers of the Shadow Work and Pensions

Secretary, but there was no answer and they didn't come back to him for

four days. Mr Speaker... Mr Speaker, calling the... Mr Speaker, calling

the chairs of two committees and making a written statement to the

House does not add up to scrutiny. And as I understand it, there was no

call made to the office of my friend, the shadow Secretary of

State. Mr Speaker, the reality is this is a shameful decision that

will affect people with dementia, those suffering cognitive disorders

due to a stroke, military veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder,

and those with schizophrenia. Can she looked at the effects of her

decision to override what an independent court has decided and

think again? The issues that he raised, the conditions that he

raised, is these are taken into account when decisions are made

about Personal Independence Payments. What the court said was

the regulations were unclear. That is why we are clarifying the

regulations and ensuring that they respect and inflect the original

intention agreed by this Parliament. If the right honourable gentleman

wants to talk about support being given to people with disabilities,

this government is spending more than ever on support for people with

disability and health conditions. We are spending more than ever on

people with mental health conditions. As I say to him, what we

are doing with the Personal Independence Payments is ensuring

that those who are most in need get most support. The Government has

overridden an independent court decision on this, and they should

think very long and hard about that. Her friend, the member for North

East Bedfordshire, said this week the Government had to make it very

clear that physical and mental health of the same priority. In

2002, the Prime Minister made a speech at the Conservative Party

conference. I was watching on television. She described her party

as we Nasty Party. She said some Tories have tried to make political

capital by demonising minority. This week, her policy chair suggested

people with debilitating conditions were those who, and I quote, take a

at home, who suffer from an anxiety, and were not really disabled. Isn't

that prove the Nasty Party is still around? My honourable friend has

rightly apologised for the comment that he made, and I hope that the

whole house will accept his apology. He asks me about the parity between

mental health and physical conditions. It is this Conservative

government that has introduced parity of esteem in relation to

dealing with mental health in the National Health Service. How many

years where labour in government and did nothing about that? 13 years! It

was a Labour amendment to the health and social care bill that resulted

in parity of esteem being put on the face of the bill. I'm surprised

she's forgotten that, because she could take this opportunity to thank

the Labour Party for putting that forward. Earlier this... The Prime

Minister made a speech earlier this year supporting parity of esteem for

mental health, and I'm glad she did. 40% of NHS mental health trusts are

having their budgets cut. There are 6600 fewer mental health nurses, and

160,000 people with severe mental health conditions about to lose out

on support. Can she not recognised parity of esteem means finding it

properly, and not overriding court decisions that would benefit people

suffering from very difficult conditions? We should reach out to

them, not deny them support they need. As I say, we are spending more

than ever on mental health. That's ?11.4 billion a year. More people

each week are now receiving treatment in relation to mental

health than have done previously. Is there more for us to do mental

health? Yes, there is. I've said that in this chamber on answer two

questions I have seen previously. "We Will -- "Well, do it!" Shouts

the Shadow Health Secretary from her normal sedentary position. We are

doing it, that's why we are putting more money into mental health in

seeing more people being provided with mental health treatment every

week and this government. But there is one thing that I know. If you're

going to be able to provide that extra support for people with these

conditions, if you're going to be able to provide treatment, you need

to have the strong economy that enables us to pay for it. And the

one thing we know about labour is that they would bankrupt Britain.

Coming from a government that by 2020 will have borrowed more and

increased the national debt by the total borrowing of all Labour

governments, that comes rich! Mr Speaker, the mental health charity

Rethink says the Government has spoken forcefully about the

importance of parity of esteem between physical and mental health.

Yet when presented with a chance to make this a reality, has passed the

opportunity by. Mr Speaker, as a society where judged by how we treat

the most vulnerable. The respected mental health charity Mind has said

this misguided legislation must be reversed. Can the Prime Minister

look again? Look again at the decision of the court. Look again at

the consequences of it. And withdraw this deep decision, this nasty

decision. I accept the court's judgment and support those going

through a difficult time in their life. -- accept the court's

judgment. That is how we will all be judged. The way we are dealing with

disability benefits is to ensure payments are going to those who are

most vulnerable. What we are doing in relation to Personal Independence

Payments is ensuring that the agreement of this Parliament is

being put into practice. But he talks about funding and he talks

about boring. I understand that today. Siam have a constant debate

-- have a constant debate while the high minister is answering a

question. The question was heard and the answer was heard.

I understand that the Labour Shadow Health Secretary today when asked

how Labour would pay for the increase if it was put in place,

said we've not outlined that yet. That just sums up the Labour Party

and the Labour Party leadership, you know, after the result in Copeland

last week, after the result in Copeland, the honourable member for

Lancaster and Fleetwood summed up the result by saying it was an

incredible result for the Labour Party. You know, I think that word

describes the right honourable gentleman's leadership. Incredible.

Thank you Mr Speaker. On Monday... Thank you. On Monday I chaired a

seminar at the rote society looking at the priority for the science

committee. A report of the meeting will be launched here on 21st March.

I understand the Prime Minister might be too busy to attend that

herself will she agree to meet me so I present the collective concerns to

her in person, round collaboration and people in particular. I thank

him for raising this, this it is San important issue, he is right to

raise it. We want the UK to be the go to place for innovators, we want

to secure the best possible outcomes for the UK research base as we leave

the European Union, indeed it is one of the objectives I have set out in

our negotiation, are lates to science and research, we are already

a leading destination for sign and innovation and we welcome agreement

to continue to collaborate with our European partners I am interested in

what he has said and I am sure that report will be looked at carefully.

We on these benches join the Prime Minister and the Leader of the

Labour Party in entending our condolences to the family and friend

of Gerald Kaufman. Prior to PMQ today in Scottish questions minute

stirs were unable to answer basic questions about Government plans for

agriculture and fisheries. They are devolved areas to the Scottish

Government and Parliament. With Brexit ending the role of Brussels,

will all decision about agriculture and fisheries be made at Holyrood,

yes or no? Well, the right honourable gentleman knows very well

we are discussing with the devolved administration the question of the

UK framework and devolution of issues as they come back from

Brussels. The overriding aim I think for everything we do, when we make

those decisions is making sure we don't damage the very important

single market of the United Kingdom. A market which I might remind him is

more important to Scotland and that the European Union is.

There is a very interesting answer because during the Brexit

referendum, people in Scotland, including those working in the

agriculture and fisheries sectors were told the powers would be

exercised fully by the Scottish Government and the Scottish

Parliament. Now it seems judging by the PM's answer that that is not

going to be true. Will the Prime Minister confirm today, she has the

opportunity, will she confirm today, that it is her intention to ensure

that it is UK ministers that will negotiate and regulate over large

areas that impact on Scottish fisheries and agriculture

post-Brexit. I repeat to the right honourable gentleman he seems no to

have quite understood this point, we are in the process of discussing

with the devolved administration the question of which of those powers

that currently reside in Brussels, will be returned and remain at a UK

level for decision and which would be further devolved into the

devolved administrations, that is taking place at the moment. When he

asks about the negotiations for Brexit with the European Union, it

will be the UK Government that will negotiating with the European Union,

taking full account of the interests and concerns of the devolved area of

the devolved administration and the other regions of England.

Does the Prime Minister aglee when tickets to a teenage cancer charity

gig by Ed Sheeran are being resold on a ticket website for over ?1,000

with none of that money going to the charity, and tickets to the hit

musical Hamilton, are touted for up washed of ?5,000 when via go go know

the tickets are invalid, what will the Government do ensure genuine

fans are not fleeced by ticket touts and rogues?

I thank hill for raising this important issue. I know he has been

working on it for some time. He is right to identify those

circumstances as he does where there are websites that are causing, that

are acting in the way he talks about and causing the problems for people

who believe they are able to buy tickets for what they wish to

attend. I understand he has met by right honourable gentleman the

Minister of State for digital and cultural matters to discuss this

issue, as he will by a wear the consumer rights act introduced new

rules on ticketing and that will be responded to. But we are as a

government looking at the general issue of where markets are not

working in the interest of consumers. Can I add my condolences

to those expressed about the former father of the house and welcome to

his place the new member for Stoke on Trent. Mr Speaker, young black

men using mental Health Services are more likely to be subject to

detention extreme forms of medication and severe physical

restraint and others and this has led to death in extreme case, too

many black people with mental ill health are afraid to seek treatment

from a service they fear will not treat them fairly. Will the Prime

Minister meet with me and some of the of effected families to discuss

the need for an inquiry into institutional racism in their mental

Health Services? I thank the honourable gentleman, I am happy to

member the new member for Stoke-on-Trent to this house. It is

because of concern about how many various people were being treated

within our public services, that this Government has introduced, I

introduced an audit of disparity of treatment within public service, I

saw this as Home Secretary when I looked at the way that particularly

people with, black people with mental health issues were being

dealt with in terms of police and detention in various ways and that

is the sort of issue we are looking at. I am happy for him to write to

me with the details of the issue he has set out.

Le Thank you. Would the Prime Minister join me in congratulating

my West Suffolk college, all the staff and the principal who last

week in the times education alfurther education award won the

teaching and learning initiative for the whole country. By combining

maths, art, religion and science, this initiative drives forward

inquisitive minds and grows future generations we will need for the

skills they need succeed. I am very happy to join my right honourable

friend for the award they have been given in this category for best

teaching and learning initiative. It is a really interesting initiative

they have put in place. Congratulate all the staff and this is a sign, I

think, this award of the dedication of the staff and the students at

West Suffolk college. All colleges across the country should be

aspiring to reach #24ez standards, she is is right, we need to ensure

that young people have not just a skill set, but also the entiring

mind that enables them as they look forward to what might be different

career, to emgreats new skills and change throughout their careers.

My constituent Joanne Good's 16-year-old daughter Megan

tragically died after drinking half a three litre bottle of Frosty Jack

cider which is 7.5% proof and at under ?4 a bottle contains 22 vodka

shot equivalents. Does the Prime Minister accept that cheap

super-strength white cider is a health hazard and should be banned

or at the very least carry a much higher duty per unit. First of all.

I am sure that members across the whole house will want to join me in

offering our deepest similar thinks to the family of this former

constituent of the honourable lady. She does raise a very important

issue. That is why we do as a government recognise the harm that

is associated with problem consumption of alcohol. These high

strength cider and beer are taxed more, we have taken action on the

very cheap alcohol by banning sales below duty plus vat. Young people

must be made assure of the danger and hashes of alcohol abuse.

Campaign have had been run offering advice and support and they work

with charities and in schools to help raise awareness which I think

is San important part. We are rightly proud that young

people regardless of race, creed or colour with study at our colleges

and university, yet this week Jewish students are being subjected to

intimidation, fear, and to anti-Semitism as a result of

so-called Israel apartheid group, what action willry of make that

Chancellorings and principles ensure that anti-Semitism is not allow to

prosper on campuses. Well, first of all I want to assure my right

honourable friend hiring education institution have a responsibility to

ensure they provide a safe and inclusive environment for all

students and we expect them to have robust policies in place to comply

with the law, to ingaes gate and address hate crime including

anti-Semitic incidents reported. I know the universities minister has

written to remind institutions of these expectations and urged them to

follow the Government's lead. There is a flaw in the legislative

reform order with which the Government is seeking to create

private fund limited partnerships which allows criminal owned cosh

limited partnerships to easily convert to to these new types of

partnerships. Will the Prime Minister delay that until such times

as the current review into SLPs is completed? Completed? Well we have

taken important steps to tackle money launders and other crimes. On

the question think raises of Scottish limited partnerships, I

understand that the Department for Business consulted last year on

further transparency requirements and they will be publishing

proposals soon. The Business Secretary is gathering evidence

which may lead to further reform. My right honourable friend will be

aware of the concern overs the new business rates and why there is a

welcome for many of the businesses who have been taken out of business

rate there's is a concern among those who have Ian an increase. Can

she give me an assurance that we will do all we can for these people

who work very hard to be the engine room of our economy and a rise of

this size threaten their livelihood itself. Business rates are based on

property value. It has opinion seven years since those, this property

values were last looked at. It is right that we update them. Of

course, as I recognised last week it is important we have put already put

-- so that we help the companies who are facing increased bills but as I

said in this House, have asked my right honourable friends the

Chancellor and the Communities Secretary to make sure that support

that is provided is appropriate and is in place for the hardest cases

and I would expect my right honourable friend the Chancellor to

say more about this next week in the budget.

A recent national awe deaf report showed massive overspend on free

school sites with the department ex mating it will need to respond more.

Schools in my constituency are reporting chronic levels of

underfunding. Will the Prime Minister provide our existing

schools with the ininvestment they need. #4s...

Does the Prime Minister agree with me that Welsh interests must remain

at the heart of the United Kingdom? As we leave the European Union, the

future of the UK union has never been more important.

I'd like to thank my honourable friend. He's absolutely right to

raise the importance and I would like -- and minding the world -- we

are committed to getting a deal that works all parts of the UK, including

Wales. The best way to do that is for the administration to continue

to work together. I'm pleased to say that I will be hosting a St David's

Day reception in Downing Street to celebrate everything that Wales has

to offer. Can I once again wish all members of the house...

SHE SPEAKS WELSH congestion journey times and Bradford Leeds are amongst

the worst in the country. Will the Prime Minister committee

delivering the investment that we desperately need far West Yorkshire

Powerhouse? I apologise to the honourable lady because I missed the

first part of her question. I think she was talking about investment in

infrastructure. HS three, right. I'm very clear that we have set out

commitments we have made of the government in relation to

infrastructure. As she will know, we do believe that infrastructure plays

an important part in encouraging the growth of the economy, and in

ensuring that we do increase productivity around the rest of the

country. economy and ensuring that we do see

that we increase productivity around the rest of the country and we'll be

looking at further projects that can do just that. Canvassing in Cortland

recently, people wanted to talk about the future of their local

maternity unit -- Copeland. It was like being at home in Banbury.

Rather than politicise the NHS, with the Prime Minister agree to a review

of maternity services, encouraging not just care that is safe but also

clear that is kind and close to home. My honourable friend raises an

important point in relation to local maternity services. I am looking

forward to welcoming the new member for Copeland in this House but

during the campaign, she made it very clear that she did not want to

see any downgrading of the west Cumberland Hospital services but she

also put forward a very powerful case for what my honourable friend

has just suggested, which is a review to tackle the recruitment

issues that affect these maternity services out there and the

professionally led review does seem very sensible and then know the

health minister is looking at it. A 90-year-old constituent of mine

faces being discharged by the mental health trust for a second time

because they have neither the skills nor the cash to provide the support

he needs. What's the Prime Minister's message to him? I don't

not the individual details of the case the honourable gentleman has

raised. I know we are ensuring all money is being put into mental

health conditions over the year and will continue to be, but if you wish

to write to me at the Secretary of State for Health, I'm sure we can

look into it. As a leader who wants to spread wealth and opportunity as

widely as possible, will the Prime Minister insurer that we end the

practice of developers buying freehold land on which they sell new

house is on a leasehold basis? Many first-time buyers on help to buy

feel they're being ripped off by this practice and look to the

Government for help. I thank my honourable friend for raising this

point, an issue he has raised previously. I know he is working on

it. Our house on the White Paper -- housing White Paper says there

should be house developed for people to live in for fairness for

leaseholders but we will be consulting on a range of measures to

tackle unfair unreasonable abuses of leasehold as my friend has said.

Other than exceptional circumstances, I don't see why new

homes can't be built and sold at the point. I add my condolences to the

family of Gerald Kaufmann. Yesterday I received a new mill from your

local pharmacist who since the Government announcement in October

has cemented cost-cutting measures including staff and services. --

implemented. He has had a reduction of nearly ?9,000 which represents

18.8%, well beyond the 4% the pharmacy ministers spoke about in

October. Will the Government commit to revisiting community pharmacy

funding as a matter of urgency? We all recognise the important service

that pharmacists provide that is by spending them has risen in recent

years and also we have seen an increase of over 80% in the past

decade. The system does need to reform so that the NHS resources are

spent efficiently and effectively and just look at some of the

figures, two thirds of pharmacies are within ten minutes

walk of two others. Many receive a subsidy regardless of size or

quality. What we did do is to look at this concern when it was raised

last summer and make changes to ensure there was greater support

available to pharmacies in particular areas. One of David

Cameron's greatest legacies were his efforts to fight human trafficking

and modern-day slavery under the act. Last year this country looked

after 800,000 children in Syria or the surrounding countries for the

same investment of looking after 3000 in this country. By doing that,

we helped defeat human trafficking. Could the Prime Minister confirm

that we will continue with that policy? I'm very happy to join my

honourable friend in paying tribute to David Cameron. I was very pleased

he supported the modern slavery act when I propose we should introduce

it and we had indeed committed to continuing our policy in relation to

this area. I have setup a modern slavery task force at number ten,

which I chair, bringing together various parties to ensure that

across Government, we are doing what is necessary both to break the

criminal gangs, deal with the perpetrators and provide necessary

support for the victims. May I on behalf of my honourable friend join

with the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition in expressing

condolences to the family of the late father of the House, he will be

greatly missed. The Prime Minister I'm sure cannot have failed to

notice the intervention by two former Prime Ministers recently with

the Brexit debate and as helpful as they were, I'm sure, I'm sure the

Prime Minister will know, of course, what they and everyone else means by

hard Brexit, soft Brexit, but we all wondering what is meant by a soft

coup! LAUGHTER

When indeed it may be triggered and when we bother it has been triggered

or not! Perhaps the Prime Minister can elucidate on that since she has

been so helpful in so many other ways. Which eg the opportunity today

however to make it clear that whatever former Prime Ministers for

the unelected upper house might say, the reality is that her plan to

trigger Article 50 by the end of March is now clearly on track?

CHEERING I thank the honourable gentleman for

the question that he has asked. It is my plan to trigger Article 50 by

the end of March, rather than triggering any kind of coup. It is

still our intention to do that. It is important the Article 50 builders

respond to the judgment of the Supreme Court but also responds to

the voice of the United Kingdom when people voted to ensure we do leave

the European Union and that is what we will do. Mr Speaker, perhaps you

like many here today took a shower this morning.

LAUGHTER I am sure, Mr Speaker, you are very

careful to check whether the shower gel contained micro beads. Products

containing them can result... The thrust of this fascinating question!

Let's hear it. Shower gel products containing them can result in

100,000 micro beads or plastics being washed down the drain every

time you use them. This damage is precious habitats. With the Prime

Minister join with me in welcoming the steps this Government is taking

to introduce a ban on micro beads used in cosmetics and care products.

The consultation ended just a few days ago. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

think I should say for clarity to members of this House that I am not

in a position to know whether or not you took a shower this morning.

LAUGHTER My honourable friend has raised a

very important point and it is completely unnecessary to add

plastics to products like face washes and body scrub were harmless

alternatives can be used. As she referred to at the end of her

question, our consultation to ban micro beads in products closed

recently. We were aiming to change legislation by October 20 17th and

we also ask for what more can be done in future to prevent other

sources of plastic from entering the marine environment because we are

committed to being the first generation ever to leave the

environment in a better state than it was inherited and I'm sure we can

work together to bring an end to these harmful plastics clogging up

our oceans. I think people are assured by what the Prime Minister

just said! Along the corridor in South Wales, families woke up this

morning worried about potential job losses at Ford in Bridgend. Families

are particularly frightened that Ford is not going to be able to

bring new contracts into the factory with the uncertainty of Brexit ahead

of them. Can I have an assurance from the Prime Minister that she

will ensure our ministers meet with Ford and the union to see what can

be done to support Ford to ensure continuity of engine production in

the Bridgend Ford plant? Can I reassure the honourable lady that

one of our automotive sectors is one of the most productive in the world

and be what is she going from strength to strength? That's why

ministers in this Government have been engaging with various companies

within the sector including Ford and other companies. Ford is an

important investor here. It has been established for over 100 years. We

now account for around a third of its global engine production and

Bridgend continue to be an important part of that. We have had dialogue

with Ford and will continue to have regular dialogue with Ford about the

ways Government can help to make sure the success continues.

into extra time yet again Prime Minister's Questions. It's almost a

quarter to one. We will come back to that in a minute. Some big news out

of Paris, Francois Fillon, the centre-right presidential candidate,

has been summoned to meet magistrates on March the 15th

because of their investigation into the employment of his wife and a

total sum over the years of 900,000 euros. There is some doubt over

whether any work was done for that tax payers' money. To be summoned

before magistrates is almost a certain precursor to Mr Fillon being

charged with misuse of public funds. March the 15th is just over five

weeks away from friends going to the polls in the first round of the

presidential election on April 23. Mr Fillon was a one-time favourite.

He was knocked back because of this scandal. Now that it looks like he

is being prosecuted, he could take a further hit in the polls which could

mean that the play-off on March the 7th could be between Mr Macron, and

the national front's Madame Le Pen. This is important not just for

friends, but the United Kingdom because Macron or Le Pen will have

serious implications for Brexit negotiations. Mr Macron is not keen

to give written much at all, as he made clear last week. Madame Le Pen

wants to come out of the euro and EU, which would probably ten Brexit

into something as a sideshow as far as the EU was concerned. So

important news that out of Paris. We were talking about disability

allowances before PMQ. The Prime Minister tried to answer as best she

could. It's a difficult issue for the Government. Michael Murray,

excellent forensic performance by Jeremy Corbyn, Theresa May's

response proves the Tory party is till the nasty party. Theresa May

very strong today. Well prepared meaning she could answer

questionings. John said cheap shots from May on the Copeland vote. It

was not a vote of confidence in the Tory, I live there. Andy says going

by Jeremy Corbyn's question it is clear Labour have relinquished by

the party of the worker they are the party of the disability. The court

ruled to extend the paymentstor, people suffering psychological

distress, was that the main widening? There are two separate

rule what the two tribunals did was extend the criteria from the

existing rules and regulations, so technically speaking it is not a

cut, but there are people who do not currently receive the benefits who

appealed to the court to say they ought to be entitled to them, the

court decide they should. The Government said they disagree

because of the cost. The cost would be 3.7 billion. So not insignificant

when the Chancellor made it clear there is not much money to go round,

my sense at the moment is while there are Tory backbenchers who are

concerned it doesn't right now have the heat in this to force the

Government to back down, but I think ministers are working hard to stave

off a rebellion. And the Prime Minister was saying that this

wouldn't make a difference to people who already get benefits, is that

true? That is my understanding, is this is about the history natural

said PIP payments should be extended to people in some groups, for

example people who have such, mental health problems who find it in the

one case that went the tribunal extremely distressing to go out and

about. Therefore they should be entitled to some form of help to go

about living dale life more easily. As I understand it the ruling would

extend the benefits to people who do not receive them, rather than what

Jeremy Corbyn was suggesting, these are what we would see as traditional

cuts and the implication is taking away from people something they

have. It is harder to fight something if it is a benefit that

people get into their bank account and you are going to take away. The

3.7 billion is a build up, 2022,/23. It is not like 3.7 #3w8 tomorrow.

No, over the course of time. Who would have thought John Ashworth

that the Prime Minister was watching you on television? Assuming she has

rushed back to the TV set again... I hardly think it was a zing tore say

the Labour Party can't write a budget for 2022/23. It is reasonable

not to expect them. That is point we are making, as we go into the next

election will put forward detail plans for spending commitments. We

won't do that in 2017, that is not what opposition parties do at this

stage. She knows that. She used to make arguments like this when we

were in Government. I remember during the election campaign in this

very studio, asking Conservatives again and again, if they plan to cut

welfare by 12 billion, and how would they do it? And answer came there

none to either question, that is how oppositions behave, because they

then do it. We have seen today a very full and Frank discussion on

what we are planning to do on #3i7, making sure the assessment is right

and accurate. Getting the assessment right, this is what matters and

taking this tribunal ruling into account, to make sure we ensure that

everybody is assessed properly, but people will always have differing

needs, and differing costs flowing from those needs. The assessment has

to capture that. Events across then champion, very significant, because

Mr Fillip's campaign was already in trouble before the news it is almost

certain he is going to be prosecuted which makes his campaign more of the

walking wounded and suggests, polls will suggest Mr Macron or Madame Le

Pen will be the two candidates to go through to the second round. France

doing a clearing out to the top two, unless someone gets 50% in the first

round. Speaking to some people in the Foreign Office, just as the

British government had no plan for Brexit, I was astounded to be told

they had no contingency plan for a Le Pen President S When you talk to

minister, it is something interesting since the Lancaster

House speech, in the last month or so ministers are becoming more

optimistic, of doing a Brexit deal. They say this European counterparts

have got over the original fury and are starting to feel we can go down

and do a deal. So the first stages of a divorce you tell someone you

are leaving then the other person says I hate you, then they say I

hate you so we have to talk about access to the children. That process

has happened. When you ask the question what about Le Pen, that is

the unexploited bomb. That is uncontrollable, an event they are

not planning for because knob would note what she would do. She said she

would try to take people out of the euro in a slight parallel to Trump

perhaps, there are parallels that are too simplistic to draw, but new

a parallel to Trump there is a question about her, would she do the

things she said she wants to do? Would she say I am going to try and

immediately take France out... She count have a majority in the

assembly to do so. 23 we think how they have been some of them the

strongest federalists in the European Union, how France has been

the driving force in terms opt no just keeping the European Union

together, but in terms of expanding its reach, it is not clear to the

Foreign Office here or anyone else she would want to do the things she

said she would be able to do. Be able to do them. You are right. One

of the huge events that would upset the ale card. Where the uncertainty

would come in, is that neither Mr Macron Norma dam he pep would have

the votes in the French Parliament, there are few National Front MPs and

although there will be more, there will still be a small number. Mr

Macron doesn't have a party, he is trying to turn one into a party. It

would be a time of great uncertainty in either result. Huge uncertainty

and instability, which means the whole approach to Europe and the

Brexit negotiations become more precarious, and Brexit has happened

now, we have to respect the wisheses of the country, I accept that as

much as I'm campaigned for the other side, but I am worried about what

means over the coming weeks and months. A quick thought today

Jean-Claude Juncker is put foger ward a white paper for the future of

the European Union, so without the Marine Le Pen potential victory,

there are serious conversations happening in the European Union

about what it should look like in ten years' time. I wonder if to

tease the UK Government one of the options they have put forward is

about only having the single market. What an economic relationship? Which

is what many Tories who campaigned said, if it just a trading

agreement, fine. Happy days. He obviously has had a good breakfast.

Later the Government could be dealt the first defeat for its Brexit

bill. Later this afternoon,

peers are expected to agree an amendment to the bill -

demanding that the rights of EU citizens living

in the UK are protected. Despite the Home Secretary writing

a letter to peers and reassuring them that this will be

a priority once divorce talks begin, the amendment has attracted support

from across the House. To discuss the politics of it all,

I'm joined now from the Lords by Labour's Dianne Hayter,

who tabled the amendment. Do you not think the Home Secretary

has a point. However well intentioned this is about

guaranteeing the right of EU foreign nationals it risks leaving hundreds

of thousands of British citizens on the Continent in limbo if we do

something unilaterally. ? Remember, we started this process, we decided

we want to come out of the European Union, and I think therefore, we

have an obligation to those people who moved to Britain in good faith,

thinking we were going to stay in the European Union, to safeguard the

rights they thought they had when they came here, a number are married

to Brit, they have been here 20, 30 years, they may have British

children, they have been in jobs for years, and the different between

these, and the nationals who live abroad, is it for us to decide what

happens to those people in on our own shore, that is what we are

asking to Government to do. Do you expect the Government to be defeated

in the Lords on this? My amendment has the support after a Liberal

Democrat, a kith, and of an independent peer. And I think that

is always a very strong signal. You think, yes. We always in the Lords

still have to argue our case, we don't whip them in in the same way,

we still have to make the argument. If fact we are hoping the Home

Secretary might listen in to the arguments. A bit like Theresa May

did. It was a shame she said we should not pass an amendment without

having listened to the arguments. If you get it through how situation

significant is it really? Unless there is a big backbench rebellion

in the Commons or ministers make a concession, it won't come back,

would you try and am end maniment for a second time. First let us win

end see what they do. My judgment is if we get a big vote today and it's

a very clear direction to the elected Government, that it should

do something, it needs to think, listen, maybe we got this wrong,

maybe we should do this unilateral thing now of simply saying to

people, the rights you already had and expected we will look after

those and which ought not to be part of the negotiation in any way. Put

that to one side. I hope that the Government will listen. Just stay

there for a moment. If there is a big groundswell of support for this

and it is passed in the Lord. It does put the government in an

awkward position. We asked the EU to deal with it before we triggered

Article 50. They declined that opportunity. They want to say it

should only start by discussed after we triggered Article 50. We hope we

can resolved it shortly thereafter. Should the Government think again?

This is about a unilateral move. I no the Government tried it says it

in negotiations but should they think again? It isn't just about it

being unilateral, it has to be with the agreement of the EU. We can't

have that discussion. It will be a case of pinging it back to the Lords

and then if they have said to its us they are going to stick to

timetable? Your earlier thing about what is happening in France and

election in Germany, means it would be at least a year before the EU is

in a position to say anything about EU nationals. I don't think it is

right for three many people to have to wait a year to know their future.

We are not clear whether hay would have to wait that long. Thank you

for joining us. My understanding is the British Government expects to

deal quickly that the Spanish and east Europeans have been squared on

that, it could be resolved quickly. Let us give you the answer to guess

the year. 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 The very embodiment of the England

that must emerge.