15/03/2017 Daily Politics

pushing into Scotland and Northern Ireland.

A Conservative MP has been interviewed under caution by police

as part of the ongoing investigation into allegations of overspending

Nicola Sturgeon says Brexit has put Scotland at a crossroads.

But does the UK's departure from the EU make Scottish

Plenty of issues as we approach the weekly bout of Prime

And do you fancy taking a tour of the Palace of Westminster

Parliament launches its 360 degree virtual view

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

the International Development Minister, Rory Stewart,

and the Shadow Business Minister, Bill Esterson.

Now it was once rumoured that Hollywood was interested in making

a film based on the life of Rory Stewart and that

Orlando Bloom was being lined up for the lead role.

The film is yet to be made and we'll let the viewers decide

It's as yet unclear who Hollywood executives have in mind for the film

version of the life of Bill Esterson.

If Mr Spielberg is watching, Bill is waiting for your call.

We are just hearing reports, in fact from David Davis, the minister for

the UK leaving the EU, in a royal assent, which means that the Brexit

Bill will be passed into law, it'll get its royal assent tomorrow. That

was being commented on by David Davis yesterday. We were expecting

it yesterday when in fact Theresa May stood up in the House of Commons

to give her report back fre. U summit last week, that she might

then say - royal assent has been given and I'll trigger Article 50

but it didn't happen. And the talk now is that the

triggering of Article 50 may not happen until the final week of this

month, which is up to the wire. It may not happen until the very end

of March. That was her deadline, of course, but it was felt because it

had passed through both Houses of Parliament in plenty of time she

might have gone ahead and triggered it anyway and started the two years

of negotiations and the firing gun on our departure from the EU, but

no, not yet. Royal assent. It'll pass into law tomorrow, if David

Davis is correct and then we'll have to wait and see when number ten

decide to trigger Article 50. Snr very well. Why the delay? The Prime

Minister always said the end of March. I think the Prime Minister is

going to take her time and I don't think that's very long to wait. But

there was a lot of speculation at the weekend, which wasn't

discouraged by Downing Street, that it could be happening yesterday, or

this week. And yet it was only in the last 24 hours that we were

talked down from the top of the hill. Something has gone on? Andrew,

essentially she said the end of March. I think it will be done by

the end of March. I don't think it is a big issue. Why do you think

there is a delay? I think she was spiking Sturgeon's guns for the

announcement yesterday. You may be right. We don't know. So that's the

end of it. So the Brexit Bill is set to receive

Royal Assent tomorrow - It's by far and away the biggest

item in the Government in-tray. But, if you thought

Brexit was the only game Ministers have plenty of other

issues to deal with. Indeed, for both the Conservatives

and Labour, there has been something of a hangover from last week's

Budget. Let's go into it. Are you

comfortable about fighting the next election on a clear breach of the

last election manifesto? As you have pointed out there is clearly an

issue here which is we had in our manifesto commitment not to raise

National Insurance and some people feel, as you do, that the change to

the class 4 National Insurance is a breach of that manifesto. Well, I

don't feel anything. I'm just asking questions. But there were no caveats

in the manifesto. You mentioned it four times that there would be no

increase in national insurance contributions, the class of

contributions wasn't mentioned, and in the Queen's Speech, you repeated

the manifesto commitment. O so five times we had it, no increase in

national insurance. And you've increased national insurance. If

that's not a clear breach of a manifesto promise, I don't know what

is. Absolutely. I think it is also important putting the other side of

the argument which is that it is important eventually to simplify

this. It is important to deal with the fact that self-employed people

have got a very different treatment from employed people and that's also

their pension benefits have gone up over time. So the reason for the

discrepancy is gone. But you are right. You didn't promise that. That

may be the case. You have a Commission reporting into national

insurance at the moment as well, with all these anomalies. Indeed the

whole status of self-employment and so on, you could have waited for

that and started a debate on that and headed into the 2020 election

saying - we have now thought about all this, we are keeping to the

promise we made you but starting in the next decade there will have to

be changes, you did not do that. You simply went against a promise you

had made. If you were self-employed and you voted Conservative in the

last election on the basis of that promise, you voted on a false

prospect us. Let me go back to self-employed. The majority of

self-employed people will not be worse off as a result of this

measure. If you are on, for example, ?17,000 a year like the majority of

my constituents, you would be ?309 better off in terms of your tax tend

of this. You were going to be better off anyway because the class 2

contributions were going for these people, so they already had that

banked Absolutely. But if you compare 2015-16 to 2019-20, ?309

better off at ?17,000 and if you are on ?25,000, you would be about ?158

better off. Right and the people on ?17,000 to ?it 25,000, I would

suggest are what the Prime Minister calls the "just about managing"

classes. The people who are not the poorest of the poor but they are not

even middling of a fluent, they are just about managing and you have

just increased their tax. If you look at their overall tax burden,

compare how much they pay in ?2015-16, with how much they pay in

2019-20, they would be better off. You have to be earning over ?32,900

to be worse off. But you nevertheless increased their tax, if

you hadn't done this they would be a bit better off. These people don't

have much money in the first place. Why are you taking it from them, yet

if you inherit a lot of money you are now given a massive tannings

benefit. Why would you do this at this time? One of the reasons is you

used to as a self-employed person get a lower rate of basic pension.

Your basic pension will now go up, you will get about ?1,800 more than

you would have got in real terms and we feel it is fair that people who

are self-employed should contribute as much as people who are employed

by employers. Except you never told us that to get elected. What you may

be saying may be sensible. It may have been stupid that your manifesto

promise not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance, in other

words, you basically counted out most of the tax base, that may all

be true but a promise is a promise, at a time when trust in politicians

is pretty low to begin with, have you not just undermined that even

more? So, Andrew, I agree with you, we need to explain very, very

clearly what we are doing. This isicallicated, class 1, 2, 3, class

4 national insurance. And we need to make sure we absolutely sure we go

into the next with people comfortable with the manifesto and

election proimss. You don't seem comfortable. You have said you agree

and I see your point. You don't seem comfortable? The honest answer is

the Government is thinking about this very hard. The Government is

considering this and we are looking at exactly these issues you raised,

we take our manifesto commitments very seriously. We understand the

Chancellor is going to be making a statement about national insurance

this afternoon. I probably hear the grinding sound of some kind of

u-turn. And he has written a letter... Not

to me. So how am I meant to know. To Conservative MPs, to also explain

the national insurance changes. Let's come on to Labour and its

spending plans. A lot of the way you say you will finance the increased

spending is from corporation tax. What will - at the moment the

corporation tax is 20%. And it's due to fall to 17 under this Government.

What would it be under a Labour Government? Well, to start with,

people who are self-employed, who are trying to start or grow a

business, which is what the Prime Minister said she wanted Britain to

be the best place in the world to do, are not feeling the love from

the Conservative Government. I understand that. I have done that

with the minister. I think you can agree the minister was pretty

robustly interviewed. I'm now coming on to Labour's plans. What would the

corporation tax be under Labour. That's a the question I'm answering.

I don't think targeting those people who are trying to start or grow a

business is the right way to support our economy, to help intren airs. I

understand that. -- entrepreneurs. That's why we wouldn't be making the

cuts to corporation tax. The reason is we already have some of the most

competitive corporation tax rates in the developed world. So we wouldn't

go to 20%. Would you raise it from 20%? ? Well 2017, there are

three-years plus to a general election, according to the six-term

Parliament Act. I think you will have to wait a little bit longer to

find out what Labour's plans are for that election. We don't. We need to

know how. You have promised ?12 billion a year extra for the health

service and social care. ?5 billion a year extra by 2020 on changes to

Universal Credit and employment support. ?7 billion a year by taking

away the public sector pay freeze. ?1 billion on maintenance grast

grants, ?1 billion on waspy women, their pensions giving them justice.

?7 billion getting rid of tuition fees. On a yearly basis by 2020 that

comes to ?33. A 5 billion of spending. I ask you again - how

would you raise corporation too, and how much would it contribute towards

that? Well, as I was saying, you wouldn't be starting from here, we

wouldn't have made the cuts since 2010, that have seen living

standards fall. But that's where we are. We have seen living standards

fall whilst the economy has become... This is all just nonsense.

It is the truth. Is there anything untrue in what I said? It may well

be true, nothing to do with the question I'm asking, which is given

you have commitments of over ?33 billion spending per year, how much

would you raise corporation tax by to pay for that? And at the moment

we are developing the ideas towards our manifesto in 2020. We wouldn't

make the 73.6 billion worth of tax cuts that were in the manifesto from

corporation tax and from other tax... But you have committed to ?33

billion and you have, in your private calculations, most of the

extra money comes from corporation tax, but you cannot tell me today

what that rate would be and how much it would raise? Well if you tell me

what the economy is going to be like in three years' time I'll tell you

what our manifesto might look like. I can tell you now corporation tax

brings in just shy of ?50 billion a year on the basis of 20%. How much

would you raise it by to bring in ?33? And ?7 o 0 billion by 2022,

would be the money for social care. Right, are you telling me the

corporation tax would bring in ?70 billion. No I said it is ?73.6

billion by 2022 when you add in inheritance tax. But it is nearly

all corporation tax. Yes, it is. And you add in the ?70 billion a dubious

figure, ?63 billion of that comes from corporation tax. The figure

from the Office for Budget Responsibility, the independent body

set up by the Conservative Government is a daubous figure. It

is dubious in the sense that it goes back in time to work out what losses

might have been. What I'm trying to find out from you is that

corporation tax at the moment it 20% it brings in by about ?50 billion by

how much would you increase it to get your ?33 billion you need? I can

tell you we will be voting against the cut in corporation tax in the

Finance Bill when the Government brings it forward and we would start

with the ?73 billion by 2022 in not cutting those taxes. Let me

interrupt you, we have heard as we have been on air and as I was

interviewing the two politicians, the Chancellor has announced that

there will be no increases in national insurance in this

Parliament. So, the Budget was - what JoCo

today. A weak ago? Well you said you could hear the grinding of a U-Turn.

He has said in a letter to Tory MPs "I've delighted not to proceed with

the class 4 national insurance contributions." They were the ones

talked about by the Chancellor a week ago. He is not going to

increase them as he had set out. There will be no increases NIC rates

in the Parliament. "We will continue with the abolition of class 2."

Which had already been announced. "The cost of the changes will be

funded by measures to be announced in the autumn Budget." What is it

about this Government and their chancellors, why are they so uses?

Under George Osborne they announced a massive cut in tax credits for the

work poor in the end I think Mr Osborne, in his final Budget had to

get rid of it all, Mr Hammond announces increases in national

insurance contributions, a week later, oh, it is not going to

happen. Why are your chancellors so useless? Firstly, we have some very

serious chancellors. But to go back to the bigger issue, you put your

finger on it. This was a difficult decision. On the one hand, these

were sensible changes that a lot of economists have been asking for many

years. On the other hand, there was a manifesto issue. It sounds to me

as though the government has made a difficult decision, which is the

right decision, which is that we have to keep to the spirit of the

manifesto. So you're happy with this? I think this is the right

decision. It sounds from the way you answering like this is the way you

want it to go. This is a dilemma here. This is a good policy that the

Treasury came up with. It would have been a sensible reform. Within the

letter of the manifesto, you could argue with what we did in 2015, plus

one applied. But the spirit of the manifesto means this is the right

way to go back. This is exactly what the Chancellor says, complied with

the spirit. Does that mean he finally got round

to reading the manifesto? Duke and that when you speak to him.

Support for Scottish independence is at its highest level. Scottish

social attitudes survey has recorded the highest level of support for

independence since it began in 1999. The research also suggest that the

popularity of the European Union has fallen among voters.

We're joined now by one of the authors of the report,

Does that mean that Nicola Sturgeon can win a second referendum? I think

if you are going to use the verb can only answer for that must be yes.

Our survey has shown 46% support for independence, given at an average of

the moment the opinion poll -- it certainly means that any second

independence referendum held either before spring 2019 or sometime

thereafter is going to be launched against a very different backdrop

for the first referendum in 2014. It will be against a backdrop where

nearly half of Scotland is already apparently convinced of the case for

independence. To that extent, at least, we have therefore to bear in

mind that the Scotland we are talking about now is very different

politically than the Scotland we were talking about four years ago.

How does that compare to the YouGov poll in the Times today suggesting

57% of Scots would reject independence? As always, you need to

be very careful about quoting individual polls that happen to be

the exception. If you take the average of one of the opinion polls

done so far this year, including another that came out this morning

that had it at 53%, on average it is 53% for no and 47% for yes. But

remember that Scotland is a different animal from most of the

opinion polls. This was done over six months in the second half of

last year. We're not trying to measure the short-term weather.

We're trying to measure the long-term climate. The crucial thing

about our reporters that we show how the climate of public opinion in

Scotland has changed dramatically in the wake of the first referendum. It

particularly happened most strongly amongst younger voters. I think this

raises questions about whether the UK Government will necessarily be

wise and wanting to play a long game, rather than a short game.

Simple demography could mean that a majority for independence may well

emerge in Scotland in the future, even if frankly nothing else

happened. What about Brexit? Against Abe backdrop Brexit negotiations,

and the timing is being argued over, Nicola Sturgeon has picked a time

when there is a lot of uncertainty around. Howard Brexit play out when

you look at those who voted yes to independence last time? The

difficulty that emerges for the SNP is that it's not obvious that they

should want to fight the second independence referendum, focused on

the issue of whether or not Scotland should remain inside the European

Union. The first reason is one third of those people who voted yes on

September 2014 voted to leave in June 20 16. The second is that over

half of those people who voted to remain are and nearly two thirds of

those who voted to remain having voted to stay in the union in 2014

go on to say that perhaps we should remain inside the European Union,

but the powers of the EU should be reduced. In other words, they are

relatively unenthusiastic, lukewarm supporters of the EU. There may be a

lot of them. 62% of Scotland may have voted in favour. But it's not

clear that they are so committed to the EU that they will change their

minds as a result of the Brexit secretary. Indeed, that's been the

message of the opinion polls. Having an average of 53% for no and 43% for

yes are exactly where they were before the Brexit referendum. John

Curtice, thank you. We're joined now by the SNP

MP, Kirsty Blackman. Nicola Sturgeon called the second

referendum on the basis that Scotland is being taken out of the

EU... K. I were! Thank you. What is the SNP's position on EU membership?

The people of Scotland voted to stay in the EU. In terms of our manifesto

commitment, we said that we would hold another referendum in these

circumstances and would reserve the right holiday referendum. Do you

want to be full members of the EU? In terms of the proposition that

would be put to the Scottish people, in the fullness of time you'll see

what that is, and. ... So you're not sure? That'll be made absolutely

clear, we're committed to the EU. We supportive of Scotland being

members. In terms of the proposition, will become trustingly

two. We'll look at the cliff edge Brexit and the opportunities. That's

just not clear to me. And probably not too many of our viewers. Are you

going to be campaigning on the basis of an independent Scotland applying

to either remain, if you can do that, ought certainly applying to be

a full member of the European Union? Certainly, that's the intention. So

you want to serve as part of the single market, hence the full

membership. Would you take the euro as your currency? What we've done is

happy growth commission look at this and the opportunities for an

independent Scotland, and what currency would be best for Scotland.

That proposition will come out later. In due course we will publish

that of butter to the Scottish people. How confident are you that

countries like Spain, worried about their own separatist movement, would

be to your membership to be full members of the EU? We've had pretty

good comments made by members of the ruling party, saying recently that

they would veto Scotland's application for membership. So we're

pretty confident that. They said you couldn't seamlessly apply? We have

been told we would have two join the queue. That has been made very

clear. There have been people who talked about AQ, that everybody

knows that the queue in terms of the EU membership is pretty fluid. You

have to fulfil the criteria. You would have to apply a gain? That's

what some people in Spain have been saying. Including the Government?

Some have been saying that. Just be Prime Minister, the Foreign

Secretary and the Secretary of State for Europe. Spain doesn't

necessarily have... Than 27 member states. It does have the to veto.

Has the SNP accepted that they couldn't just have an independence

referendum if you were to win it, and then remain in the EU? You would

have to come out and reapply as a new member? I don't think that's

clear. Given what Jean-Claude Juncker said, he said Scotland has

the right to be heard and listened to in terms of the Brexit

settlement. I don't think it's clear that is the case. You've made it

clear that your independence campaign is going to be about

reapplying to become full members of the EU. How will you keep on board

the 27% of US voters, those who voted for independence last time

round? But also voted to leave the EU? -- 27% of yes voters. They

thought I was going to be extra money for the NHS. They voted

without full information. When faced with the realities of a hard Brexit

cliff edge, quite a number of people will look at this and say small

businesses will be hit with customs charges, individuals will see

inflation in their shopping. Except the figures, from recent polls, have

shown that 43% of people in Scotland to voted yes to independence and

voted leave have now abandoned their pro-independence position. 28% now

say they will -- 28% now say they will vote to stay in the union.

People who have voted the other way, and who was staunchly no, really

value the freedoms that they get as members of the European Union and

wanting to protect those freedoms thank you.

Tomorrow it's expected the Brexit Bill will finally

receive Royal Assent, passing into law and formally giving

Theresa May the authority to trigger Article 50.

We know a little bit about royal approval here

In fact, it might be just about now the Queen is settling down

with a gin-and-dubonnet to watch the best and the brightest

But with a second independence referendum in Scotland

in the offing, Northern Ireland's power-sharing arrangements in chaos

and, perhaps worst of all, the prospect of another

40-minute-long PMQs, all we'll say is, Your Majesty,

You've got time! She is our favourite viewer, you know. She

watches us every day. Spoke to Princess and last night, she's

another fan of the show. -- Princess Anne.

Indeed, grab yourself one of these beauties and fill it to the brim.

And if you're keen for a Daily Politics mug to help keep

you steady in the months ahead, just tell us when this happened.

# All I want for Christmas is my two front teeth

REPORTER: 4,000 London dockers went on strike.

# D, you're a darling and E, you're exciting

# G, you look good to me, H, you're so heavenly

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

send your answer to our special quiz e-mail address -

Entries must arrive by 12:30 today, and you can see the full terms

and conditions for Guess The Year on our website -

It's coming up to midday here - just take a look at Big Ben.

Yes, Prime Minister's Questions is on its way.

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

This Tory expenses investigation. It is getting serious. Craig Mackinlay,

the MP for Thanet South, now questioned under the caution. Tory

MP, Carol McCartney, he's turning on Conservative Central office. This

has been rumbling on for months, partly due to the investigative

efforts of Channel 4 News and the Mirror. As you suggested, in the

last few days it has taken what appears to be a new turn with one MP

being questioned under caution. At the core of this is whether or not

in election battles around the country, the activities of national

activists who were on a big battle driving around in a properly

declared on local campaign expenses. That is what the Routier. It's all a

bit technical, but it goes to something really important. Because

it goes to who pays to get somebody to be elected, which is an important

question. Every political party makes a step up now and again. But

it could become extremely important because there are 17 forces

investigating this now. It could be a pretty small micro, what CC HQ

have described as an administrative error, to something that suddenly

could theoretically end up questioning the results of many MPs'

elections around the country. We need to keep an eye on this, it's

getting serious. Absolutely. It could get very serious. Senior

sources were suggesting to colleagues that BBC Newsnight that

it would be more likely to end up as some sort of fine. For this to be a

criminal situation is something that is just absolutely not... It could

happen in one or two places. The background to this is that Theresa

May's majority is wafer thin. So a seat here or there really matters.

If you remember the Thanet election... I was there. Happy

memories for you! It's a state where Ukip felt that they really had a

good chance. The majority was very narrow. Craig Mackinlay the Nigel

Farage. The national campaign, they spent ?18,000 on accommodation at

the Royal Harbour Hotel. For the constituency, ?16,000. Questions the

Tories will have to answer here. Another day, another Tory Chancellor

U-turn. What a week this has been. Seven days ago we were sitting in

this studio waiting for the Chancellor to do his first budget.

And a screeching U-turn has been performed just in time for Prime

Minister's Questions, so that the Prime Minister does not have to

defend the most controversial policy that came out of the budget. It's

important to say in the last half-hour, just as this has broken,

I've spoken to people on both sides of the argument and one senior

Conservative told me it was madness, they had to drop it. Somebody asked

me they were absolutely livid. Think of would be difficult thing is that

this government has to do over the next five years, and at the first

hint of trouble over an issue of the ?145 million, the net gain of the

Treasury, they've backed away. It's an interesting thing and does not

sentiment on one side of the argument. Some were very upset

coming out of the argument, only to find within days it's been dropped.

You think it might have dawned on them before the budget. This is a

question. Some people turned on Philip Hammond. The idea that Philip

Hammond should have specifically flagged it in the cabin... You kind

of wonder if shouldn't every cabinet minister have been aware of what was

in the Tory manifesto? Lets go and see what happens now as these

stories break. I am sure minsters will want to join

me in wishing people around the world a happy St Patrick's Day on

Friday. This morning I had ministerial meetings with my

colleagues and will have further today With my Irish blood can I also

wish a happy St Patrick's Day. Mr Speaker, I welcome the announcement

from this Government that we will abide by the letter of our manifesto

and also the spirit. CHEERS AND JEERS. MR THE Prime Minister AGREE

WITH ME, THAT IN BALANCING THE BOOKS WE MUST SURE THAT WE HAVE A

sustainable tax system in place. I would like to thank my honourable

friend for this question. We made a commitment not to raise tax and we

put our commitment into the tax lock. The measures we put forward in

the Budget last week were consistent with those locks.

But, as a number of my parliamentary colleagues have been pointing out in

recent days, there is... THE SPEAKER: Order. This is intolerable,

the answers from the Prime Minister...

SHOUTS AND JEERS I do take a view on the importance

of hearing the questions and the answers from the Prime Minister As a

number of my Parliamently colleagues have been pointing out the trend

towards greater self-employment creates a structural issue on the

tax base on which we will have to act and we want to ensure that we

maintain, as they have said, fairness in the tax system. So we

are going to awhich the the report from Matthew Taylor on the future of

employment, we will consider the Government's overall approach to

employment status and rights to tax and entitledment. We will bring

forward further proposals but we will not bring forward increases to

ni. -- NICs later this this Parliament Can I wish everyone a

very be happy St Patrick's Day for the 17th in my constituency, in

Ireland and around the world. We have just heard the Prime Minister

is about to drop the national insurance hike announced only a week

ago. It seems to me like a Government in a the bit of chaos

here. SHOUTS AND JEERS A Budget that unravels in seven

days, a Conservative manifesto with a very pensive Prime Minister on the

front page saying there would be no increase, a week ago an increase was

announced. If they are to drop this increase, as they are indicating,

then this is a time that she should thank the Federation of Small

Businesses and all those that have pointed out just how unfair this

increase would be. But, also, how big business evades an awful lot of

national insurance through bogus self-employment. I have to say to

the right honourable gentleman, I don't think he actually listened to

the answer I gave to my honourable friend, the member from Bexhill and

Battle. I normally stand at this despatch box and say I don't take

any lectures from the honourable gentleman, when it comes to lectures

on chaos, he'd be the first person I would turn to. Mr Speaker, I think

the Prime Minister should offer an apology for the chaos that her

Government has caused during the past week and the stresses caused to

the 4.8 million self-employed people in this country. Will she offer that

apology? Her friend, the member for Conway said so a week ago. It's time

she joined in and said that as well. This measure, if carried through,

will create a black hole in the Budget, what is she going to do to

fill that black hole? If the right honourable gentleman is so concern

about balancing the books, why is it Labour Party policy to borrow half a

trillion pound and bankrupt Britain? ? Mr Speaker, Mr Speaker, coming

from a Government that proposes to borrow more between now and 2020,

than the entire borrowing of all Labour governments put together, we

don't need lectures from them on this. I hope that in his statement

later today, the Chancellor will address the question of injustice of

many people forced into bogus self-employment by unscrupulous

companies. Because many of them force their workers to become

self-employed, thus avoiding employers' national insurance

contributions. It is a grossly unfair system, where those in

self-employment pay some national insurance, employers do not benefit

from it. That is a gross injustice that has to be addressed. The right

honourable gentleman obviously hadn't noticed that one of the first

things I did when I became Prime Minister was to commission Matthew

Taylor from the RSA to conduct a review to look at the employment

market, to look at employment rights and status, precisely because we

recognise that the employment market is changing. He talks about the

self-employed. Let's look at what we have done for the self-employed. Our

increase in personal allowance means they now keep more of their

earnings. They will have access to both tax-free childcare and 30 hours

of free childcare, just like employees and now they have access

to the new state pension worth over ?1,800 more a year. But what we know

from the Labour Party's policies is that their policies would bankrupt

Britain, they put firms out of business and people out of jobs. We

have a Government U-turn, no apolicy and we have a Budget that -- apology

and we have a Budget that falls most heavily on those with the least

broad shoulders. Cuts to schools, cuts to social care and cuts to

people with disbabilities. That is the agenda of her Government and

everybody knows it. I'm not sure - I don't think the right honourable

gentleman has quite got the hang of this. He is supposed to ask

questions to me when he stands up. Let's talk... THE SPEAKER: Order.

Order. Let's hear the answer, Prime Minister. He talks about schools.

What have we done? We've protected the core schools budget. We

introduced the pupil premium. This budget delivers money for over 100

new schools, delivering on good school places for every child this.

Budget delivers on skills for young people. We want them to be equipped

for the jobs of the future. The Budget delivers ?500 million for

technical education and on social care, we recognise the pressure on

social care. This Budget delivers ?2 billion more funding for social

care. Funding that wouldn't be available with Labour's economic

policies. Mr Speaker, it would be a very good idea if the Prime Minister

listened to headteachers all over the country, desperately trying to

work out how to balance the books in their schools, losing teachers,

losing teaching assistants, losing support for their children because

the schools' budgets are being cut. She knows that, we all know that,

everybody out there knows that. They also know that according to IFS

figures, average working families will be 1,400 pounds worse as a

result of her Budget that was produced last week. Can she say what

she is doing to help the worst-off and poorest in our society, rather

than continuing cutting local government expenditure, schools

expenditure and underfunding social care? I'll tell the right honourable

gentleman what we have delivered for the low paid. We have frozen VAT and

fuel duty and every basic rate taxpayer have had a tax cut of at

worst ?1,000 and we have taken 3 million people out of paying income

tax altogether. That's what we have done for the low paid. On schools we

now see 1.8 million children in good or outstanding schools. I want a

good school place for every child. We have done it with free schools

and academies and the changes we have brought forward in edge

education, all opposed to the Labour Party. Now they want to oppose us

giving a good school place for every child. What do we know about the

Labour's policies? Let's see what the former Shadow Chancellor, the

member for Nottingham East said, "Labour's policies would mean

doubling national insurance, doubling VAT and doubling council

tax as well." That wouldn't help the low paid or ordinary working

families. Mr Speaker, the difference is, we

want a good school and a good place for every child in every school in

every community. Selective education, reintroduction of grammar

schools does not achieve that. We want a staircase for all. Not a

ladder for the few which is what the Conservatives policies actually are.

What she hasn't addressed, also, is the unfairness of a Budget that cuts

tax at the top end, continues to introduce corporation tax,

encourages bogus self-employment. What she has to do is address the

issues of injustice and inequality in our society and a Government that

is dedicated towards widening the gap, not helping the hard-up or

those that are working self-employed to try to make ends meet and not

getting access to any benefits at the same time. Inequality has gone

down under this Government. This Budget shows that the top 1% of

earners will actually be contributing 27% in terms of the

income they are providing. But let me address the issue, also, of

schools. You see the problem with what the right honourable gentleman

says is that on every single education policy that this

Government has brought forward, that has been delivering more good school

places for children, the Labour Party has opposed it and they

continue to oppose it. Because the Labour Party's approach is that

parents will take what they are given, good or bad. We believe in

listening to parents. If he looks ahead to what his policies would

produce for this country, half a trillion pounds of borrowing, 500

billion more borrowing under the Labour Party. More taxes, more

spending, more borrowing, a bankrupt Britain that wouldn't give money for

public services or help ordinary working families. It's the

Conservative Party that is helping ordinary working families. It is the

Labour Party that is failing to address the needs of the people of

this country. Inhe is just sitting there and going on protest marches.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the tax changed, I changed my question. May

I congratulate my right honourable friend on proposing the most radical

reform of technical education in a generation and also delivering fair

funding for all our schools but may I also her, as part of that

consultation, to ensure a minimum level of appropriate funding for all

schools? I thank my honourable friend,

because he's raised an important point. One of the issues with

addressed in the budget is to put more money into skills training,

further education and technical education for young people. I think

one of the most important things we can do is equip young people for the

jobs of the future so they can get on in life. We are investing an

extra half ?1 billion a year in England's technical education system

to do this. My honourable friend has referred to the issue of a minimum

funding levels. The Education Secretary confirmed last month that

the DFE have heard representations on this issue and are considering

the issues. But in relation to the funding formula, it is complex and

has needed addressing for some time. We will look at it carefully.

We once had a Prime Minister who said that the lady's not for

turning. My, goodness. Isn't it welcome that the Prime Minister

today has announced that she is returning with her screeching,

embarrassing U-turn? Only days remain until the Prime Minister is

going to invoke Article 50 on leading the European Union. And last

July, she promised to secure a UK wide approach - an agreement between

the devolved administrations between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

and the UK Government before triggering Article 50. So when will

be Prime Minister announced the details of the agreement?

As I said to the Right Honourable gentleman yesterday, and to others

asking the questions on the timetable, we will trigger Article

50 by the end of March. There will be an opportunity for further

discussions with the devolved administrations over that period.

When the right honourable gentleman looks at the issue of membership of

the European Union, and his view of Scotland not being a member of the

United Kingdom, I say this to him. He is comparing membership of an

organisation that we've been a member of four 40 years with our

country. We have been one country for over 300 years. We have fought

together, we've worked together, we've achieved together. And

constitutional gameplaying must not be allowed to break the deep bonds

of our shared history, and our future together.

The Prime Minister can wag her finger as much as she likes. Last

year, she made a promise. She promised an agreement. I asked her

about it yesterday. She didn't answer. I asked her about it now.

She hasn't answered. When will she reach an agreement? Not discussions,

an agreement with the Scottish Government before triggering Article

50. HECKLING I recognise the passions.

Calm yourself, I'm perfectly capable of doing that without your

assistance. The right honourable gentleman will be heard, however

long it takes. Carry on, Mr Robertson.

The Prime Minister promised an agreement. There is not an

agreement. When will there be an agreement? Because does she not

understand that if she does not secure an agreement before

triggering Article 50, if she is not prepared to negotiate on behalf of

the Scottish Government and secure membership of the single European

market, people in Scotland will have a referendum, and we will have

our... We have been in discussions with the

Scottish Government and other devolved administrations about the

interest that they have. As we prepare as the United Kingdom

government to negotiate a deal on behalf on the whole United Kingdom.

A deal which will be a good deal, not just for England, Wales and

Northern Ireland, but for the people of Scotland as well. And as we go

forward in negotiating that deal, I think the right honourable gentleman

should remember this - Scotland will be leaving the European Union. It

will leave the European Union either as a member of the United Kingdom,

or were independent, it's very clear with the document that it would not

be member of the European Union. What we need now is to unite, to

come together as a country and to ensure that we can get the best deal

for the whole of the United Kingdom. This government is working with

councils and other partners to grow the economy. But despite being in

the prosperous south-east, the Isle of Wight is 339th out of 379 in the

UK competitive index. Will my right honourable friend ensure that more

growth funding is targeted at rural areas, like the islands, with many

small and micro businesses, to deliver a country that works for

all? My honourable friend speaks well on

behalf of his constituents, and he's right to do that. I know that he has

consistently put forward the unique characteristics of the Isle of

Wight. We've already been able to support the island's economy through

the local growth deal for the Solent, and supporting the Isle of

Wight rural SME programme. I want to make sure that we make the best of

the diverse strength of Britain's cities, regions and Islands. I'm

sure that on the island, the business community will work

together to create the best possible conditions.

It is our two single market that are the backbone for our economy. And

yet the Prime Minister wants to rip us away from one, and they want to

break up the other. Can she tell me, is it really a price worth paying,

the risky and reckless approach she is taking to Brexit, to foster the

break-up of Britain? The honourable gentleman is wrong

when he uses the term that I want to rip the United Kingdom away from the

single markets. What we wanted you... No, this is... I'm sorry to

say to honourable members on the Labour benches, this is the same

answer that I have given consistently in this house. We want

to ensure that we get a good free trade agreement which gives us the

maximum possible access to the single market to enable us to trade

with the single market and operate within the single market.

Can I welcome the support of business rates, which is being given

by the budget to local high streets, which also crucially valued in

places like my constituency in Barnet. With the Prime Minister

agree that we can give more help to small businesses if we can secure

the international agreement that we need to ensure that all big

businesses pay their taxes? This is a very important issue. It's

one on which I think this government has a record of which we can be

proud. Of course, there's more to do. We have, since 2010, in the work

we've done on tackling tax evasion, avoidance and noncompliance, we have

secured an additional 140 billion in compliance yields since 2010.

Internationally we've driven the global agenda and we now have

several companies signed up to the global exchange. -- global exchange

information. We have pushed for the G7 nanograms eight. -- G7 and G8.

There is more to be done and I want to see an economy that works for

everyone. That means that the company should be paying their tax

as well as everybody. An answer to my honourable friend

from Murray, the Prime Minister called for respect. But that is a

two-way street. The Scottish Government's compromise proposal has

been ignored in these negotiations. Where is your respect?

The proposal has not been ignored. It has been discussed by ministers.

There are many areas within that proposal on which we agree. As I've

said before, such as on ensuring our securities and maintaining and

protecting workers' rights. Colchester Hospital's A department

has excellent staff but suffers from poor layout and patient flow. Does

the Prime Minister agree with me that the ?100 million set aside for

triage in the budget last week will allow hospitals like mine to address

this issue and improve patient outcomes?

My honourable friend is right to recognise, and we should all

recognise, the hard work and dedication of our excellent staff

throughout the NHS. What we're seeing in the NHS is that A are

treating more people than ever before. We are spending half ?1

trillion on the NHS in England during this Parliament. The NHS will

see that increase in its funding of ?10 billion in real terms. But there

is an issue about the consideration of A, and enabling changes to take

place to help the flow, and to help in dealing with patients as they

come in. That's why my right honourable friend the Chancellor

announced last week 425 million in new capital investment in the NHS,

which includes 100 million to help manage the demand on A services,

enabling hospitals to make changes to ensure that people are treated in

the most appropriate way possible. Over 200 staff at the pension fund

in my constituency face an uncertain future as they have been told they

have to relocate to other areas over the next few years. Does the Prime

Minister realise the impact this has on staff and the local economy? Will

she meet me and representatives of the workforce to see what can be

done to save the pension centre? I recognise the concern raised for

staff at that particular pension office. I recognise this is an

issue. I'm sure it is an issue which the Secretary of State for Work and

Pensions will look at very closely. But of course the Government is

looking to ensure that we both use our resources effectively, but also

provide the proper and appropriate service for the recipients of those

particular benefits. Last weekend, thousands of people

across Lincolnshire came to the races in my constituency to enjoy

the racing and the delicious local food - including award-winning

Lincolnshire sausages. As the Government prepares to strike new

trade deals, international trade deals, will my right honourable

friend ensure that the high standards we expect of our food

producers and farmers will be met and maintained in these deals, and

will this government continued to back British farming?

I can assure my honourable friend that we will certainly do that. I

remember when I visited her prior to the general election in 2015,

sampling some of the excellent Lincolnshire sausages that has come

from her constituency. But we do have an opportunity to build a new

future for our food and farming industry when we leave the European

Union. We will maintain high standards of food safety and animal

welfare, that will be a priority. Any trade deals we enter into will

need to be right for consumers, businesses, farmers. They will need

to ensure our food safety, environmental protection and the

animal welfare standards I've just referred to. We recognise the need

for certainty for businesses and have provided guarantees for support

for farmers up to 2020. We will continue to back British farmers.

The UK has one of the worst performing currencies in the world.

It has a trade deficit of ?133 billion, and a national debt

approaching ?1.7 trillion. Does the Prime Minister really believe that

the UK can afford to be an independent country?

If he wants... Honourable members on those benchers

are very overexcited individuals. I want to hear the Prime Minister's

reply. If he wants to talk about figures in

relation to the UK economy, the UK economy is the world's sixth-largest

economy. The Government has reduced the deficit by two thirds. If he

cares to look at the employment figures we see today, employment at

a record high, and unemployment which hasn't been lower since 1975.

Today is the Ides of March. Yet again, Brutus opposite missed badly.

So can the Prime Minister take the opportunity to stick the knife into

the ridiculous European Court that ruled yesterday that employers can

ban their staff from wearing signs of religious or political belief,

and reiterate that reasonable freedom and expression should never

be snuffed out politically. We have a strong tradition in this country

of freedom of expression. It's the right of all women to choose how

they dress, and we don't intend to legislate on this issue. He's raised

to be broader issue of symbols, but this case came up in relation to the

wearing of the Vale. There will be times when it's right for Israel to

be asked to be removed, perhaps in border security law courts.

Institutions can make their own policies, but it is not for

government to tell women what they can and cannot wear. We want to

continue the tradition of freedom of expression.

Our First Minister was voted with the largest vote in Scottish

parliamentary history on a manifesto which stated that the Scottish

Parliament... THE SPEAKER: The question will be heard. Thank you,

Mr Speaker, I will start again. Our First Minister was elected with the

largest vote in Scottish parliamentary history, on a

manifesto pledge which stated that the Scottish Parliament should have

the right to hold an independence referendum if there was a

significant and material change of circumstances like Scotland being

taken out of the EU guest our will. My question to the Prime Minister is

simple - does she agree that Government's should stick to their

manifesto promises and if so, she cannot object to the First Minister

sticking to hers? I, of course, recognise that there

was a vote that took place in the Scottish Parliament and the First

Minister was returned as the First Minister of a minority Government.

But I would refer the honourable lady to two other votes that took

place. The Scottish people were given the opportunity to vote to

whether or not they wished to remain in the United Kingdom. They choose

that Scotland should remain part of the United Kingdom. That was

described by the right honourable member for Gordon, as a once in a

generation vote. And the other vote to take note of is that on June 23rd

last year, the people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European

Union, and that is what we are going to do. Mr Speaker, with 80% of SMEs

reluctant to export, does my right honourable friend agree that the

prospect of Brexit gives those firms a golden opportunity to use the

great British entrepreneurial spirit to go out into the world,

particularly those firms in Scotland, to go out into the world

and to sing? My honourable friend is absolutely right about this. Small

businesses and the intren airs are essential for an economy that is

working for everyone. -- entrepreneurs. But the opportunity

that comes from Brexit is to see those firms going out across the

world, exporting across the world and doing the trade deals that will

be of benefit to them and their communities and of benefit to our

economy. We divoont to encourage more businesses to go out there.

That's exactly what my right honourable friend the Secretary of

State for International trade is doing. This is anp important part of

building a stronger, fairer Britain for the future. -- an important

part. Thank you, Mr Speaker. HRMC employed over 1,000 staff in my

Livingston constituency. Despite widespread criticism from the NEO or

Public Accounts Committee and the staff at Livingston being most

engaged and productive this Prime Minister's Government is determined

to move jobs from Livingston toad inborough whose staff don't want to

move and rental costs would be higher. And to compound this,

another 400 jobs are to go at another Livingston site. Will the

Prime Minister change her mind on the is jobs in Livingston and meet

with me to make sure that vital public sector jobs to Livingston

will stay there. The HRMC are relocating 170 outdated offices to

13 large and modern regional centres. These new centres will be

equipped with the digital infrastructure and facilities needed

to build a more highly-skilled and flexible workforce to enable

modernisation of ways of working, to make tax collection more efficient

and effective and it'll bring significant improvements to HMRC's

customer services. -- HRMC's.

People moo my can constituent voted in favour of Brexit and I was proud

to be here in the House on Monday to vote no sport withdrawal of the EU

bill. Can my honourable friend, the Prime Minister confirm that she

shares my commitment that Brexit should work in the best interests of

everyone in our country? THE SPEAKER: Prime Minister?

I think, I have to say be... THE SPEAKER: Order. I say to the

honourable gentleman for pert and North pertshire. Order, order, the

for Perth ander North Perthshire. The honourable gentleman was

shouting from beyond the bar, which is very disorderly, on top of the

fact that a few moments ago he was gesticulating in a most eccentric

manner. I'm becoming concerned about the honourable gentleman, he must

now calm himself. The Prime Minister.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My honourable friend is absolutely right. She had,

as she said a condition constituencicy that voted

overwhelmingly to leave the European Union. The point is that the people

of the United Kingdom voted by a majority to leave the European

Union. As we do, that we will be ensuring that the deal we achieve in

our negotiations, will be the right deal for the United Kingdom, the

whole of the United Kingdom and for people across the UK, England,

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister's just done a ?2 billion Budget U-Turn

in the space of a week. Last year the Government did a ?4 billion

U-Turn in the space of five days. Is that why they want to abolish Spring

Budgets? Because they just keep ripping them up?

I welcome the measure that is were in this Spring Budget, to improve

school places for children in this country, to ensure that we put

money... THE SPEAKER: Mr Fabricant you are another eccentric fellow

shouting loudly but you mustn't shout down your own Prime Minister.

Let's hear the Prime Minister. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I welcome the

measures in the Spring Budget to ensure that we are putting money...

LAUGHTER Money into schools, into skills and

into social care and I would've thought The Right Honourable lady

would accept that money into schools, skills and social care is

good for this country. Thank you Mr Speaker, would the

Prime Minister join with me in welcoming the news today that

Sergeant Blackman's murder conviction has been downgraded to

manslaughter, in part, thanks to the release of previously unheard

evidence. This is fantastic news for his wife Claire, who lives in my

constituency and who has complained so unstintingly on this and my

honourable friend the member for South Dorset who I believe is

turning to the chambers provided a very worthy advocate for this case

and I commend his hard work. And would the Prime Minister agree with

me that within the correct legal framework, those who defend our

peace, protect our world from evil, be treated with fairness and

understanding and given the adequate resources, including for mental

health support they deserve. THE SPEAKER: I'm extremely grateful.

Prime Minister. We respect the court's decision, the Ministry of

Defence will be looking closely at the judgment but I can assure the

House that the Ministry of Defence has cooperated fully at each stage

of Sergeant Blackman's case and will continue to provide support to the

family as they have done since the charges were first brought. What I

would just say on a generalp point is that our Royal Marines have a

worldwide reputation as one of the world's elite fighting forces. They

make an incredible contribution to our country and we should pay

tribute to them all for that. The Disasters Emergency Committee have

launched its East Africa crisis appeal. In the context of that

crisis, does the Prime Minister share my concern that President

Trump is considering major cuts to spending by the United States on

aid? Will this Government take every opportunity to press the Americans

to remain fully part of the global humanitarian system? I can assure

the right honourable gentleman we recognise the severity and urgency

of the crisis that is taking place in the East Africa. More than 20

million people face the risk of dying from starvation because of war

and drought and again it is this country that is leading the way in

delivering life-saving support. We've announced we'll match pound

for pound the first ?5 million donated by the public to the

Disasters Emergency Committee's new appeal and I can assure him we take

every opportunity to ensure that countries around the world recognise

the importance of international aid, the importance of supporting

countries when we see terrible, terrible disasters like this famine

coming to place and it is the UK's record on what we do on this, that

enables us to say to others that they should do more.

Henry Smith? It is my honour to chair the all parliamentary group on

blood cancer and today we launched an inquiry into greater awareness of

the condition can I take assurance from my honourable friend that the

additional ?10 billion going into the NHS in this Parliament will in

some way be spent on ensuring we tackle this third biggest cancer

killer? High honourable friend is right to raise a subject like that,

which is a cancer of which many people have not heard much and

probably are not awhich are of that as a particular issue. I can assure

him that -- aware of that particular issue. I I can assure him what the

NHS is doing. Over recent years we have seen a significant improvement

in cancer survival rates. We have seen significant improvement in the

increase of the number of people who are being referred on because of

potential cases of cancer and the number of people being treated for

cancer and Now, here is what happened. Jeremy

Corbyn came to the House with questions about the increase in

national insurance contributions. The problem was, just before PMQs

began, the Chancellor announced he wasn't proceeding with the increase

in national insurance contributions and this has happened before. It

caught the Leader of the Opposition on the hop and he was unable to

adjust his questions very much to take account of the new

circumstances. So, in a way, we didn't get very far on that. The

cost to the Government, or to the Treasury, looks to be, by not

proceeding with the higher national insurance for the self-employed, to

be about ?2 billion, but over four years. It starts at under ?400

million and gets to ?600 million at one stage and comes down. Now ?2

billion, obviously a lot of money, but it is over four years, half a

billion a year. I guess the Chancellor will wait for his

November Budget, which is meant to be the big one, to see whether he

needs to do anything about that or whether the Office for Budget

Responsibility has been too pessimistic on the size of the

deficit. So it is a problem for the Chancellor but hardly a huge one.

Other news was happening while we were on air, a second Conservative

MP has been interviewed by police over his general election expenses.

Will Quince MP for Colchester but he has been told by Essex Police no

further action will be required after voluntary saying that he did

that. For me, the billing story is that actually that a leftist dating

site has split due to different positions on the 1936 Spanish Civil

War. So glad you raised that. How do you

know? A popular dating site for socialists Communists and anarchists

are splitting into four factions due to adealing onical disagreements

over the Spanish Civil War in 1936. So it looks like I'll have to resign

from this particular dating site. From the board.

What did viewers say? They didn't say much about that leftist dating

site. They will now They might. But I took the comments before you made

that announcement. They were concentrating on the U-Turn and

actually I pulled out some political tweets in response, in terms of

politicians giving their views. So this was from John McDonnell, the

Shadow Chancellor who says that the Chancellor Philip Hammond's

authority is "she redded only a week after his first Budget after being

forced to U-Turn under Labour pressure." This from Tim Farron, the

Liberal Democrat leader "So the Chancellor has U-Turned after

breaking a promise in the Conservative manifesto, perhaps he

will now U-Turn on another broken election commitment, to keep us in

the single market." This from Ed Vaizey a Tory MP, a backbencher who

said "Blimey I have been vigorously defending it." He wasn't alone,

there were quite a view, one who also said he hoped they weren't

going to change their minds so he didn't look stupid. I think this

comes from Matthew Taylor who carried out the view. Is carrying

out the review. It is still going on. And it will he be discussed

later on in the summer, he said "Let's hope big political learning,

is there a danger of trying to make big tax promises to try to embarrass

opponents." Here is the headline on the Evening Standard - Hammond

U-Turn on Budget fees a quo. More bad headlines for the

Chancellor, as if he didn't have enough last week. But I would guess

if it caughterises the issue now, he will probably take that on the chin?

I was struck watching PMQs with you, although that was a very difficult

moment, in the end I think the House accepted it and I think they made

the right decision and they were vindicated by the response they got,

actually from the Labour benches as well as Conservative.

It leaves them with a 2 billion hole, but they don't necessarily

have to fill it. It would only take the OBR to have slightly

underestimated the growth rate. One Conservative MP described it to me

as a rounding error and questioned why they got themselves into such a

mess in the bigger context of a government budget of 700 billion or

so. But what people may take away from this is that normal people, in

normal political times, for a screeching U-turn just before Prime

Minister's Questions would have been disaster for the Prime Minister.

They would normally have had a terrible, relentless grilling. It

would have been a real punishment greeting at the dispatch box.

Instead, one shot of the House of Commons was extremely striking.

After her questions from Corbyn, Theresa May was seen sitting back on

the bench, head back, huge grin. I think there will be big concern on

the Labour benches that despite an enormous government U-turn, which is

normally seen as humiliating, as John McDonnell suggested, it is

Philip Hammond's credibility in tatters, today Jeremy Corbyn

couldn't land those blows. He was asking long questions. He couldn't

wield the knife. It didn't seem that he was able to think on his feet and

respond to what had already happened. I'll come to you win a

second. It does leave the Chancellor a diminished figure. Wannabe

challenges a financial challenge. As you say, there's probably 0.0% --

0.07% of the national budget. The difficult decision was weighing the

fact that this is a fair, good reform. It will be concluded that

there is a lot of sense and sorting of discrepancies between employed

and self-employed people. I agree with Laura that in the death was the

right decision. It's also possible, apart from the question about Jeremy

Corbyn, that public use of these things was changing. -- I with Laura

that this was the right decision. Rather than ploughing on regardless,

when you get a clear message that people feel the manifesto has been

broken, that politicians respond. Therefore there is some forgiveness.

Angus Robertson, who leads the Scottish Nationalists in

Westminster, in Parliament, said it was a screeching embarrassing

U-turn. It was an effect of intervention by Mr Robertson. Why

didn't Jeremy Corbyn say that? To hear a Conservative MP described the

self-employed as a rounding error is frankly insulting. Don't you think

-- I don't think that's what they did, they said. Last week, Philip

Hammond was cracking jokes. He had a whale of a time announcing the

increase in National Insurance will stop one of those strokes was that

the last Chancellor to make similar comments was sacked a few weeks

later. So perhaps he should have been a little more careful in what

he said last week, both in cracking jokes and also in bringing forward

something he would have two reverse. He's not cracking jokes now, is he?

He and the Prime Minister were, as Laura pointed out. His arrogance and

complacency is really not what is needed when we have the country in a

position where since 2010 we have faced falling living standards,

whilst the overall economy has grown. We are the only country in

the developed world where that is the case. I think a little more

thought the head of the budget wouldn't have gone amiss. I'm

pleased he's maybe U-turn. But it does put a huge question over his

future. Can I come in on this? I think it's tempting to focus

everything on Jeremy Corbyn. But the bigger question of why Parliament

responded quite positively to that decision must be about bigger

things. And one of those things is, I believe, obviously, I would

believe, is that if they vote a basic confidence in Theresa May's

government. It is basically felt but Theresa May and the Chancellor are

competent and the economy is going in the right direction. That's the

context in which people can be forgiving about these kinds of

things. Laura, Mr Hammond has his enemies in ten Downing St. No names.

And of course they would dispute that! He's not even -- I've not even

named them. But I don't get the impression that the Prime Minister,

although she has had some ups and downs, with the Chancellor, I don't

get the impression that she has any interest in getting rid of him. I

don't think that's a potential at this stage at all. I think Theresa

May, her political style, frankly, people say she doesn't trust very

many people. One of the people that she does broadly trust, it said, is

Philip Hammond. They're not necessarily best of friends but they

have dinner every week, they talk a lot, they have a businesslike,

professional relationship. While they're not bosom buddies, it is a

relationship that despite tensions, particularly with the wider teams,

always the case between the Treasury and Downing Street, I think at this

stage in the game, we're not in a place where there are suggestions

that somehow he may be moved out. This, however, of course may have a

longer-term impact. Whatever the politics of today, it is a very big

deal for a Chancellor seven days later to back down. To drop a! To

drop a huge part of his budget. That is a really significant thing.

Normally it takes months. More on that thought, Rory Stewart? Lets get

more reaction. You may remember last Thursday, the day after the

announcement, we spoke to Stephen McPartland who joins us again. He's

in central lobby. He is smiling, presumably because of the screaming,

screeching U-turn, to use Angus Robertson's words. Is that what you

would call it? I'd certainly call it a U-turn. I said last week he needed

one and needed to do it quickly. I believe it shows he's a strong

Chancellor in the sense that he's admitted he's made a mistake and now

can move forward. Does he look like a strong Chancellor, or does he look

like someone forced into it by backbenchers like yourself, and

Number 10, who didn't want to have to explain all allowed the Prime

Minister to take a beating over this policy in the House? I think it

demonstrates that he is strong having stood up and said that he

holds his hands up. That's good news for me. It also demonstrates the

power of the back channels, and how backbenchers can actually go in

there and make a difference. He has listened and changed his mind. I'm

delighted about that. This was going to be punitive. I thought this was

going to be an attack on those families who had taken a risk to

setup their own business, and you are the backbone of our economy. So

I'm absolutely delighted he's done the. Did you speak to the Chancellor

yourself? I spoke to the Chancellor and a number of people. We certainly

made our views clear. There was lots of communication, blogs are back

channels and we got the message across. It was something I wasn't

going to be voting for and we will had been campaigning against. We had

decided this was a mistake and would move forward. Seven days after

standing up in the same place where Theresa May is today, and then

completely dismissing and you turning on a fairly key part of your

budget statement, it does smack of not strength, but we can. From my

point of view, I'm very pleased about the results. He's admitted

he's made a mistake. Instead of trying to create a fudge which would

have let everybody disappointed, he's listened and moved forward. I

called for a quick U-turn and we got a quick U-turn. To some extent,

Theresa May has ruled it out. How saw were people about the fact that

it did breach the manifesto commitment or no tax rises? Quite

strong. We all stand a manifesto. One of the things that you're going

to do a new rebel against the Government is actually not rebel on

anything stated in the manifesto, because you stood on that manifesto.

Effectively something being in a manifesto was taken very, very

seriously inside the Parliamentary party. Thank you for joining us

again almost a week later. Laura, before you go? Fascinating hearing

that. Polls suggest Theresa May is strong in the country, but we've

just seen she is not necessarily very strong in Parliament. Steve

McPartlin, rebel MP, saying very clearly there that backbenchers won

the day. Thank you very much. It's been a very eventful PMQs. I need to

lie down. Today a virtual tour of Parliament

was launched so people can experience the famous building

in all its glorious 360 degrees. We sent our reporter,

Emma Vardy, to take a look. You don't need to come

in all the way to London Now you can do it with your

mobile phone - and one of these. Now I'm standing exactly where

the PM would be stood for PMQs. Parliament has run guided tours

in real life for a number of years. The hope is this will encourage

people from all over the world to take a walk through the corridors

of power in virtual reality. You can go inside some

of the most famous rooms, The tour goes live online today,

and the 360 images will also be available to explore

on Google Street View, alongside Well, it has been said

that some MPs are living So now there's one for

the rest of us to enjoy. Joining me now is Penny Young, who's

Director of Information Services Why have you done this? Is part of

the way we're reaching out to the public, and that the public and find

out more about Parliament. You do need a virtual reality headset. This

is mobile and tablet friendly. With the best will in the world, not

everybody is going to be able to get to the Houses of Parliament to see

those fabulous sites. This is one way they can do it. Is it about

trying to attract more people, if they can make it to parliament, to

come and have a look around? It's partly if you can't get there, so

you can see it for yourself. It's also if you're coming, you may want

to be preview. Or if you've been, you may want to learn more. It is of

course only one way of engaging Parliament. You can contact your MP,

you can go on a members' tour, you can pay to go on a richer

experience, if you like. Schoolkids can come on education visit. You can

go in the gallery yourself and see what's going on. So there is a whole

range of ways, and this opens it up. Picon with the same as the real-life

experience of going round with you? -- it can't be the same as the

real-life experience. You can now get into very dangerous countries

and the beautiful buildings, and it also preserves things for the

future. In years' time, it will be able to see what the houses of

Commons looked like. Will you buy one? I've got my glasses at home.

It's an amazing place to work and it's a privilege for us to be there.

It's important to remember it. But for Rory and I come our constituents

are hours away from London and sometimes it's difficult to get it.

Why has it taken so long to do it? We've had a version, but it is now

mobile friendly and tablet friendly. You can look at it on Google maps,

and so on. That point about your constituents living hours away,

that's an important one. That's why things like the petitions committee

and digital debate on important so people can tweet at you and you can

comment on that in the chamber. There are many ways now of engaging

and it's important that you know the relationship -- it is important

because we know the relationship with the public is not as strong as

we would like. They don't necessarily think Parliament is

working for them, so it's one of the many ways to reach out and

strengthening relationship. Just before they move out! We may not see

it in everyone will be kicked out. There's just time to put you out

of your misery and give 1949, a very important year.

Desperate to press that buzzer. And it's Peter Thomson in Warrington.

Well done, you got 1949 as the correct answer.

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