20/12/2016 Select Committees

of Commons. We are about to go over to the liaison committee with Prime

Minister Theresa May. Thank you for coming to give

evidence to us this afternoon. We are very grateful and Parliament is

very grateful that you are agreeing to do these sessions. Could I have

confirmation that you are going to continue the practice of your

predecessor of three a year? Yes, indeed, I'm happy to do three. Beer

in mind they are very big events likely to take place at the end of

March, it might be sensible to push scrutiny of the triggering of

Article 50 and any accompanying government documents after the

spring recess and then we will have two meetings, one at the beginning

and one at the end of the summer session. That may very well be

sensible. I suggest that the clerk in my office will be able to talk

about possible dates. It is going to be quite busy in the run-up to the

end of March. I don't think it is going to be realistic or practical

for either of us. I think we will go ahead on that basis. You indicated

you had one or two introductory remarks you wanted to make. Why

don't you make them now? Thank you very much. I just wanted to make a

few remarks, but before I do that, I would like to take a moment to

reflect on the appalling news that came in from Berlin and Ankara

yesterday, we've seen very vivid images on the newspapers and

television and I think they've shocked us all. I want to express my

condolences, we hold them in our thoughts, all those who have been

affected. I thought it would be helpful to set out a little bit of

what we've been doing in the months since the referendum, preparing for

the negotiations on Brexit, putting the machinery of government in

place. One of my first acts was to established two new departments.

This put in place the mechanisms necessary, making sure the departure

was as smooth and orderly as possible. There are experts in all

departments working on policies that will be affected by withdrawal. The

machinery is working well and I would like to thank everybody

involved. We've been engaged in other interested parties with

businesses and members of devolved administrations. We've met more than

130 companies. They've hosted ten round tables from different sectors

and 12 more around the country. Met all the major business

organisations, visited all parts of the UK to hear about concerns. I've

a broad range of sectors and been a broad range of sectors and been

reading on negotiations with devolved administrations. As we

approach the negotiations, we want to have a truly joined up approach.

I've been able to speak to the I've been able to speak to the

majority of European leaders on a bilateral basis and those

discussions have been constructive. I have been clear that I will not

give a running commentary on our approach to the negotiations. Except

before the liaison committee? We before the liaison committee? We

negotiations are negotiations and if negotiations are negotiations and if

one wants to get the right deal one cannot give a running commentary to

everybody. But I expect some searching questions from the liaison

committee. The negotiations will be committee. The negotiations will be

challenging and with any negotiation challenging and with any negotiation

they will require some give and take they will require some give and take

but where possible I have sought to give reassurance to those who have

legitimate concerns about the process ahead. We will get the best

deal for those who want to trade in the single market whilst

guaranteeing we make our own decisions over how we control

immigration, over legislation and the way we spend taxpayer's money.

Even though we are leaving the EU we are not leaving Europe and I want us

to have the kind of mature, cooperative relationship that close

expect us to work alongside each expect us to work alongside each

other on crime and security, where cooperation helps to keep us safe.

As you alluded to, the government will trigger article 50 before the

end of March, we do not intend to extend the article 50 process. We

said we will publish more information about the approach

before it is triggered. I will be making a speech earlier in the New

Year setting out more about our approach and how we must use this to

forge a global Britain that embraces and trade with countries across the

world. It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the

referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote

to leave the EU but to change the way that country works and the

people for whom it works forever. That is why the government has

embarked on an ambitious programme of economic and social reform to

ensure welfare opportunities spread across the country and everyone is

able to share in the success we will make of leaving the EU. These

reforms are an essential part of our plans for most Brexit Britain. --

looking for but let's begin on one looking for but let's begin on one

point you made. You said you don't intend to extend the article 50

process. Is it the government's firm intention to have left the EU by

April 2019 and by that we should April 2019 and by that we should

take that to mean the great repeal act will have come into effect and

by 2019 in April, the direct applicability of law and ECJ rulings

will no longer pertain in UK courts? Chairman, obviously, as you know,

the timetable I've set out is we will trigger Article 50 aye the end

a two-year process for that a two-year process for that

discussion about withdrawal and the framework of the future relationship

to be undertaken. That will take us through, as you've indicated, to

March 20 19. I fully expect us to be able to operate on the timetable

that has been set out in the treaty. As we go into negotiations that the

matter for the negotiations but I fully expect us to be able to

operate and in fact the commission has indicated a shorter period. In

all that I heard it may be the case that EU law continues to apply in

the UK or have I misunderstood? If I may answer that specific point, the

intention is to introduce the great repeal bill to parliament next year

so that it will be in place at the point at which we leave the EU. It

will come into operation at the will come into operation at the

point at which we leave the EU. It will definitely do so? That is the

legislation is a matter for legislation is a matter for

Parliamentary debate. But the intention will be a repeal bill that

will come into effect that the point at which we leave the European

Union, but at that point, EU law will be brought into domestic law in

the UK. That is important because it gives people a certainty at that

point at which we are leaving the EU as to how EU law is operating so

workers' rights remain protected. I'm trying to clarify one

straightforward point. I leaving, do you mean, what is commonly

understood to mean leaving, that is that EU law will no longer apply

directly in UK courts? When we are outside the European Union, we will

be determining our laws and will be British courts. Will that be

completed by 2019? April 2019? I fully expect to be able to meet the

timetable that is being set out in terms of the termination. One

further point of clarification. Article 50 provides for a country to

leave more than two years after it is triggered as part of the

withdrawal agreement. Do I take it from the answers I've just heard

that you are not seeking a withdrawal agreement? One that will

lead you beyond this period. We are not seeking to extend it beyond two

years. The European Commission have indicated that the negotiations may

be completed before two years but we're not seeking to say this should

be extended, that we wanted to be extended. I fully expect to be able

to undertake the deal within that time. And that will not contain

anything that could leave EU law directly applicable in the UK? When

people voted they wanted us to be able to take control of our laws.

When we are no longer a member of the European Union, laws will be

determined in the United Kingdom and subject to British courts. I'm

trying to get clarity that the part of article 50 which provides scope

for negotiation of flexibility on the operative part of leaving is not

going to be exercised, it is not the intention of the government to make

use of that flexibility? What Article 50 allows for is if

there is an agreement that the period for negotiation of the

withdrawal in relationship with the European Union is extended, with the

UK, that treaty allows for the period to be extended. We are not

setting out to extend that period, usually are setting out to negotiate

this within the two years. -- we are setting out. Hilary Benn. This week

marks six months since the referendum, just over three months

to go to the triggering of Article 50, can you tell us when the

Government's plan is going to be published? The publication of the

plan, when will we see that? As I have indicated, I will make a speech

early in the New Year which will set out more of our approach. We will

before we trigger Article 50 be setting out, as I have indicated,

more details of our approach. I have not set a date when the plan is

going to be published. But you will hear more about our approach when I

speak in the New Year. Can you give the committee an assurance that the

plan, when it appears, will be published in time for Parliament to

scrutinise it before article 50 is triggered? And that there will be

sufficient time for us to do our job looking at it? I have said on many

occasions, Parliament need have no concerns about its ability to have

an opportunity to comment on these matters. I would fully expect that

Parliament will have proper opportunity to be able to look at

these matters before we trigger Article 50. What would be your view

of a reasonable period of time for Parliament to see the plan in

advance of the triggering of Article 50? It is another way of asking when

you are going to publish the plan! I do not have a date and it is not for

me to set out a period of time when it is appropriate for Parliament

areas. -- Parliament. We have to factor in the question of the

yet know the judgment. If they find yet know the judgment. If they find

in favour of the Government, it leads us to one course of action. If

they find against the Government, there will be a need to respond. Is

your intention to ensure Parliament has a vote on the final deal?

Parliament will have every agility to vote through the great repeal

bill on the various aspects of the relationship that we will be having

with the European Union. That was not quite the question. The question

is, when the final deal is negotiated with the 27, is your

intention to ensure Parliament has a chance to vote on that deal? Yes or

no? It is my intention for Parliament to comment on and discuss

the arrangements that we are putting in place. We will be going through

the negotiations, it is not clear at this point in time what... I have

indicated my expectation of the timetable for negotiating the deal.

It is not clear. This will take two parties, the European Union and the

UK, to go through that process of negotiation. We will be ensuring

that as we go through that, as I have said, when we are able to give

clarity, we will do so. I am not quite sure, I understand why it is

so difficult to answer a question as to whether Parliament will have a

vote given that we know the European Parliament will have a vote on the

deal, why can't you say that the British Parliament will also have a

vote? What I'm saying is there will be an opportunity for Parliament of

course to consider as we are going through, when more details become

available, how this is going to operate. There is a question about

the timetable in relation to the agreement of the deal and the

necessity... How the timetable will operate in relationship to the

European Parliament as well. What I am also clear about is ensuring that

when we come to the point of delivering on the vote of the

British people, we will be leaving the European Union. Talking about

the timetable, as you know, they expect the negotiations to be

completed by October, 2018, indeed, providing scrutiny of what has been

agreed. Do you expect that complex initiation is about the divorce

arrangement and the negotiation of a new agreement about market access

and trade, do you expect those to be done sequentially or in parallel? I

am working on the basis that we will look to negotiate those in parallel.

I think that is what makes sense. It is also what is implied by Article

50 and the treaty itself which makes clear you have to know what the

framework of the future relationship is before you can finalise the deal

forward drawl. The point at which we exit the European Union, we will

need to know what the new relationship is -- for withdrawal.

Are you wholly confident that it will be possible to negotiate both

parts within the time available, as little as 18 months? It could be

little as 18 months. You referred to little as 18 months. You referred to

process of ratification. There is it in relation

also a concern that European leaders have in relation to the European

parliamentary elections taking place in 2019. A concern from their point

of view to ensure that the arrangements about the UK's

relationship are clear before a decision has to be taken about UK

candidates in the European Parliamentary elections. You

confident the 27 member states think it is possible to negotiate a new

trade and market access deal in 18 months, given that Simon Rogers is

reported to have advised ministers of his view that the view he picks

up from the discussions he has had with the 27 that it could take up to

ten years to agree a new trade deal? When I have been talking to

individual leaders, I have noted the willingness from everybody to ensure

that we can undertake this as smoothly and in as orderly a fashion

as possible and a recognition from everybody that we do want to make

this arrangement and get the arrangement in place so that people

can move on to the new relationship they will have with the UK and I

think there is a willingness there to undertake this on that basis. Can

you confirm it is the Government's intention to seek transitional

arrangements of some sort to cover the period from the negotiation of

the final deal to its full implementation in order to give

certainty to business and avoid the cliff edge you were asked about at

the CBI? If I may answer in this way? I think when people talk about

transition, often from people mean different things by transition. Some

people will talk about transition as a deliberate way of putting off

actually leaving the European Union. For others, transition is an

expectation you cannot get the deal in two years and therefore you have

to have a further period to do it. If you think about the process we

are going to go through, once we have got the deal, the new

arrangements, there will be a necessity for adjustment of the new

arrangements for implementation of some practical changes that may need

to take place in relation to that. That is what business has been

commenting on and arguing for. As you say, they use the phrase about

not having a cliff edge, they do not want to wake up one morning having a

deal agreed the night before and suddenly discover they have to do

everything differently. There is a practical aspect of how you ensure

people are able to adjust to the new relationship which is not about

trying to delay the point at which we leave and is not about trying to

extend the period of negotiation. Can you confirm a decision has not

yet been taken by the Government about whether we are going to remain

in or leaves the customs union in or leaves the customs union

customer if that is the case, don't we have to stay in the customs union

to honour the commitments given to Nissan about seeking a situation in

without tariffs in Europe and without tariffs in

impediments -- stay in the customs union? As I have said, this is not a

binary decision. There are a number of different aspects and a number of

different relationships that already exist in relation to the customs

union. This is more complex than simply saying, are you in or out of

the customs union? The way I approach this and the way the

Government is approaching this and other issues is to say, what are the

outcomes we want to achieve? And therefore, how do you reach those

outcomes? Rather than assuming only one means to an end or one process

to an end. As regards the issue of the investment, the very welcome

investment in Sunderland made by Nissan, we have been very clear we

want to get the best possible deal for trading with and operating

within the single European market, that is what I have said publicly

and to companies and also that we want to ensure competitiveness of

the British economy. I think Nissan's decision to invest and to

bring the new models to be manufactured in Sunderland is

actually a huge vote of confidence in the Sunderland workforce. This is

the most productive car plant in Europe. Can I take you back to one

answer you gave which sounded quite favourable to the proposals being

put forward by business, particularly by the financial

community, for some kind of standstill to the full application

of departure in April, 2019, on the grounds that they do not want to be

faced with, as you put it yourself, a cliff edge? Do I take it that the

Government is going to try to negotiate a standstill or transition

or arrangement of that type to give time for business and the financial

committee to adjust? I would not use the word standstill. That is the

word they have used. The point at which we leave the European Union,

the point at which the relationship that is going to exist is clear,

there may well be practical issues that have to be addressed... That

was your last answer. I am asking something slightly different

witches, are you going to try to negotiate it? I was about to come

onto that, if you allow me to explain. I want to make there is a

full understanding of what I was saying in terms of the

practicalities of this issue of people who may need to adjust, IT

systems and other simple practical matters like that. Of course, it

UK. It will also be for businesses UK. It will also be for businesses

part of the negotiations that we part of the negotiations that

will be entering, there will need to will be entering, there will need

practicalities can be dealt with. Is practicalities can be dealt with. Is

to try to seek an adjustment period to try to seek an adjustment period

after the date of application of Brexit-macro? It is a matter of

practicality that we need to discuss with the European Union. Is it a

pretty for you? I have set out one priority area which I think we

should be making early decisions on in relation to EU systems living

here and UK citizens living in the rest of the EU. We will have to

address this question of the practicalities of adjustment to the

new relationship once the new relationship has been agreed. When

that takes place, of course, it will depend on when the deal is agreed,

partly. You cannot say immediately that there will be a period of...

Yes the rarity or no to priority question that you have to sit down

and start negotiating. -- yes to priority. We have to consider it and

this will be one of the issues on the table. I am well aware,

Chairman, of the views and concerns that business has to make sure that

they have the ability to have a period of practical adjustment. Bill

Cash. When you opened you referred to a joined up approach. My European

scrutiny committee has called on our ambassador to the EU to see us

shortly. He made some pretty controversial remarks the other day.

Com entry to these activities across the board -- complimentary to these

activities across the board, there is also this question of the

coordination with The Cabinet Office which also has to deal with my

committee as well. Do you have in Number 10 itself a fully specialised

unit with specialists dealing equally with the negotiating

instruments regarding political as well as economic and trade policies

estimate do they meet you personally, Number 10? -- and trade

policies? Do they do so on a regular footing. If they don't, do you think

it ought to happen? I have set up a unit in Number 10 of people with

expertise in European matters who are both working with departments on

issues relating to Brexit and also issues looking at particular

decisions as a member of the EU going forward. They see me and I

meet with them readily. What assessment have you made with regard

to the trade-off between your red lines, no EU law, no ECJ

adjudication and control of borders, and those aspects of our

relationship with the European Union that you want to maintain? I do not

look at these things in terms of trade-offs in quite the way that is

sometimes portrayed. I think what is important is that when we look at

this negotiation, we take the view not that we are currently members of

the EU, we are going to leave, how can we keep its membership, what we

need to say is we are currently members of the EU, we are going to

leave the European Union and we need to negotiate a new relationship with

the European Union. The question is, what do we wish that relationship

with the EU to be? This is very bottom in terms of how we approach

this. It is not about trying to replicate bits of membership, it is

about saying, what is our new relationship? I am ambitious for

what that relationship can be. You are entirely satisfied that at the

end of this process, not only will we have repealed the European Union

legislation, in addition to that, it will be absolutely clear that all

legislation from that moment forwards will be within the

jurisdiction of Westminster and not the EU?

This is part of what the great repeal bill will be about and the

point at which we have left the EU, it will be the British Parliament

that the sides and British courts that have decided our legislation.

There are many people who want us to move quickly in relation to all

these matters. I appreciate there is a timing issue but do you not want

to get on with this as quickly as possible because it is the certainty

that comes from that that is what a great deal of the business community

and other people in our civil society want, to reflect the outcome

of the referendum as soon as possible. It is right that people

want to reflect the outcome as soon as possible but also wrote that the

government prepares for negotiations. That's why I said at

an early stage we should not trigger article 50 until the end of this

year. I looked at the timetable and we've looked at the timetable and

the triggering was a balance between giving us sufficient time to make

those preparations and give them time but also recognising that the

British public want us to get on with it. I'm sure you have paid

attention to the Scottish Government's paper on Europe. You

said you would listen carefully to any different arrangement with

Scotland. Do you believe Scotland as a nation that voted overwhelmingly

to remain should have its views respected? I had the opportunity,

the First Minister called me to tell me about the paper that was coming

out. Obviously I've not had an opportunity to look at it in detail

but I welcome this contribution to the debate. We've been encouraging

devolved administrations to identify their concerns and priorities so we

can take that forward as part of the discussions we are having to ensure

we have a fool UK view as we go into the negotiations. I would expect the

Welsh government and the Northern Ireland assembly to come forward

with the particular concerns they with the particular concerns they

have and we can discuss these within the structures that we have. Do you

probably going to be necessary, we probably going to be necessary, we

talk about the deal with Nissan and arrangements for Northern Ireland,

suggesting that, do you think that suggesting that, do you think that

is going to be a feature of the total UK Brexit? Will there be

different arrangements across the UK? We are negotiating a United

Kingdom approach and the United Kingdom relationship within the

European Union. I think you've assumed an acceptance of

differential relationships which I don't think it is right to accept. I

said when I first became Prime Minister and first met the First

Minister we will look seriously at any proposals but come forward but

there may be proposals that are impractical. In terms of Northern

Ireland, one of the key issues is the question of border. A lot of

work is being done as to how we can ensure that the arrangements for the

movement of goods and people is not a return to the hard borders of the

past. There has been much discussion about demolition of powers. Does

this require a look at the devilish and settlement for Scotland? We will

have discussions on this within the GMC environment about how the

arrangements will work but we have to take a framework set out in

Brussels into the United Kingdom and recognise the interests of the

devolved administrations in place. Do you think Scotland would be

entitled to hold another independence referendum if the

government refused to accommodate this arrangement? I don't think

Government to hold another Government to hold another

independence referendum. I think the Scottish people gave their view. I

would go further than that and make this point. If Scotland, and I

understand this is one of the points, made in the paper, if

Scotland became independent, they not only would not be a member of

the EU, they would no longer be a member of the single market of the

EU and the United Kingdom. The single market of the United Kingdom

is worth four times as much. It is immigration that is at the

heart of this. Does immigration take precedence over all other

approaches, for example the single market and the Customs unit, if not,

where does it fit in to the hierarchy of the things the

government consider to be important about leaving the EU? I don't think

these things are trade-offs. There was a very clear message in the vote

that people wanted us to take control of borders and control of

immigration from the EU as well as countries outside the EU. But we

also want to make sure we get the also want to make sure we get the

best possible trading deal operating within the single market and make

sure that we are able to continue operating on matters that are

relevant to our security and on crime issues. All these issues will

be part of the negotiations that will take place. We very briefly

is obviously a special relationship is obviously a special relationship

between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Is it the position that

that relationship should continue? We don't want to see a return to the

borders of the past. The Common borders of the past. The Common

travel area has been in place since 1923 and continues to be in place.

We are working very hard with the government of the Republic of

Ireland to ensure that we can find a solution moving forward that doesn't

involve a return to the borders of the past. It seems the Irish

government takes that view as well. In Northern Ireland, every

politician takes that view. The problem is there is another

negotiating factor, have you any indication of what attitude they

will take towards that aspiration? The indication has been that other

member states are very well aware of the sensitivity of the issue in

relation to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of

Ireland and want to see a solution that works for both sides of the

border. They will probably be prepared to vary the rules they set

about had border at the edge of the European Union in the same way as

they vary the rules towards Schengen? There is a degree of

flexibility there. Do you expect that to continue? There is a

question as to the extent to which needs be deferential arrangements or

whether it is possible to reflect the wider relationship the UK has.

Obviously there are a number of discussions taking place about the

border and what arrangements they border and what arrangements they

will have on that. It will involve countries in various formations

depending on whether they are in Schengen or not. With regard to the

rights of Irish citizens within the UK, that has obviously changed over

the years. Do you envisage the citizens of the Republic of Ireland,

if they want to come to the UK, they have the same opportunities as

members of the Commonwealth. Do you think that arrangement will

continue? The issue of the rights of citizens from the Republic of

Ireland, this is on a different basis and a long-standing historical

I've been clear that I want to look I've been clear that I want to look

at how we deal with these issues of people from other countries living

in the UK and want to be able to give reassurance. It should be up to

us how we treat the Irish Republic, surely? I've been clear in relation

to EU citizens as a whole that we want to see UK citizens living

elsewhere being treated on a reciprocal basis. You've indicated

it is a deal for the UK. Presumably you would not accept any sort of

customs or passport checks between customs or passport checks between

Northern Ireland and Great Britain as some have suggested would be

necessary? We want to make sure we've got the right arrangement

between the border. How do you see the relationship between the UK and

Ireland developing after Brexit? Do you think the Republic of Ireland

might gravitate more towards the UK than the EU? That is not for me to

say, it is for the government of Ireland to say. I would hope

everybody would accept and agree that it has been very welcome to see

the growing relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is in

continuing. Could I ask about the continuing. Could I ask about the

devolved administrations. How would the great reform bill affect them in

that respect? With the be required to adopt any legislation or would it

be done on a UK basis? These matters be done on a UK basis? These matters

of detail will need to be looked into. There are aspects of EU law

which will be brought into domestic law in the UK. Whether that is

government will be a matter of government will be a matter of

detail to the legislation. Presumably when we passed this act

it will take into UK law regulations but not treaty commitments? It will

confidence and the clarity of confidence and the clarity of

knowing where they stand in relation to EU legislation. It will then be

an opportunity for Parliament to determine which of those pieces of

law they need to content with. Whether they need to change any. It

will be coming out of the treaties. Yvette Cooper. Can I ask the Prime

Minister, will you publish proposals Minister, will you publish proposals

on immigration control as part of your plan in February or and

whenever it is? We are working on our proposals for immigration. There

are a number of ways we can address the issue. When we feel it is

appropriate to give details we will do so. So they might not be part of

the February plan? When we feel it is appropriate we will do so. Is

this part of the Brexit negotiations, meeting the net

migration target? It is therefore a very good reason. It is because of

the effect that migration has on people in this country. The

objective of Brexit will be to get the best deal for the UK in our

future negotiation with the European Union. Which you have said many

times. If there is a tension between what you conclude is in the best

interests of Britain as part of looking at immigration controls

makes it impossible to meet the net migration target, will you ditch the

net migration target? You're making an assumption you can automatically

extrapolate from any discussions that take place in relation to

Brexit. As you will know from your time as Shadow Home Secretary and

now chairman of the home select committee. And looking at

immigration numbers is not an exact science. There are a number of

factors that can come into play, not under control of the government. You

cannot look at it in the way that you suggest we look at it. But we

will be very clear about getting the best possible deal in terms of

trading within the single market. We want to make sure it will be the

richest government making decisions about the immigration arrangement.

Clearly there is a link between the controls and numbers because you

hope said that the reason you are not able to meet the net migration

target was because of free movement. You currently have net migration

from the EU as 189,000, if you are to stand any chance of meeting your

net migration target, you would have to get EU net migration downturn,

what, 50,000? -- down to. We will put into place immigration

arrangements for people coming within the EU that we believe are in

the interests of the UK. Does that mean that if you conclude that it is

not in the interests of the United Kingdom to get net migration from

the EU down to 50,000, you will pitch the net migration target? --

you will pitch. Or will you give it priority over what are in Britain's

best interests? This government will keep its aim of net migration

target. Sustainable levels are in the tens of thousands. We do that

for good reasons because of the impact we believe immigration does

have and research has shown does have on people, particularly those

at the lower end of the income scale, on keeping... That may be the

case, and I understand the reasons case, and I understand the reasons

behind it, the question is, what is your objective going forward? You

have a net migration target to get the low tens of thousands, I am

simply asking you whether you are planning to meet the net migration

target through the Brexit negotiations? If so, what are you

aiming for an net EU migration question that if you have to get it

down from 189,000 to below at least 100,000, who do you want not to

come? -- EU migration? I have been clearer about Brexit negotiations.

The vote on the 23rd of June was that people wanted us to have

control of immigration, to put in place controls for people coming

from the EU. We also want to insure we get the best possible deal for

trading with and operating within the European Union. That is what we

will be looking for in relation to the Brexit negotiations. Government

does have its target, its ambition, it's intention of bringing net

migration down. It is absolutely right that one part of migration we

have not been able to put controls on so far is migration from the

European Union. We will be doing that in future. But I am not setting

a figure in the way that you suggest. Precisely because, as I

have said, there are many factors that come into the whole question of

immigration, many factors that determine the movement of people

across the world, and people coming to the UK, I have been clear with my

European colleagues and they are now also clear that one of the things we

collectively need to do is to work in countries like those in Africa

where people are coming from to try to ensure there is greatest bluetit,

economic and -- there are greater opportunities there so that people

do not want come to the UK. You are trying to focus what we do on

immigration on one area of activity, namely Brexit negotiations. How we

deal with immigration is a much wider issue. Indeed, you are

refusing to answer my questions and you seem to have a certain tone of

contempt to having a figure as a target. However, you have chosen to

have a figure, a net migration target for the whole of immigration

and you have chosen to stick with it rather than to change it when you

became Prime Minister. Let me ask you again, in terms of meeting the

net migration target, given that non-EU net migration is currently

196,000, at the same level as when you became Home Secretary in 2010,

that has not changed after six years, how are you expecting to meet

your net migration target if you have no way to reduce the non-EU net

migration and you are refusing to say what your plans are for EU

migration? What I have said is that we will of course in due course set

out and make decisions about the arrangements we wish to have in

place for the immigration controls of people coming in from the

European Union. But it is not possible to say that only one aspect

of looking at the issue of migration is the only one you need to focus on

and think about in order to look at the broader aspect of the net

migration figures. That is the whole point. It is a very wide issue that

cannot being captivated simply in terms of what the Brexit

negotiations are. -- cannot be encapsulated. The previous

Chancellor and others have all said that they have refused to endorse

your target, they refer to it as your target on net migration, they

have refused to endorse having the net migration target with students

in it. Do you think it is now time to remove students from the net

migration target? Students are in then migration figures because...

The figures are different from the target. With due respect, the target

figures cultivated from the overall migration figures and students are

in the overall migration figures because it is an international

definition of migration used by countries around the world. Having

students in that overall migration figure actually showed us when we

first came into government that what we had seen in the previous 13 years

of Labour government was significant abuse of the student visa system

into the UK. That is why something like over 900 colleges are no longer

able to bring in students because they were not offering an education

individuals coming to this country, what they were doing was effectively

a back door route into working the UK. We have been able to reduce

abuse of the student visa system by looking at those figures are

focusing on them and we retain an international definition. You do not

have a way to meet the target question of it is a bit of a mess.

To be clear, Prime Minister, that abuse is largely sorted out. Most

people agree that students are a huge success story for the UK, they

are a major British export. Quite unlike the concerns expressed during

the debate, during the referendum about migration generally. Don't you

think it might be a good idea to reconsider that decision? We use,

Chairman, the international definition of migration. It is

perfect is simple. It is used by countries around the world when they

are looking at immigration systems and we use it, as the US does, as

other countries do. Was that a no? We use the international definition,

students are in the international definition. You can choose what to

target. What contingency planning has your government done in case the

UK and EU failed to agree a deal at the end of the two-year negotiating

period? We are looking at all of the scenarios that might pertain in

relation to this. As we get into the negotiations, we will be able to

have a much better understanding of where that you -- where the EU was

coming out. They say they will be able to do this within the 18 month

period. I take that as a yes, there is contingency planning going on.

Who is responsible for it and on what expertise are you relying? Are

the Cabinet Office in the lead? Are you seeking advice of outside

experts, law and trade locations? As I said, we are looking at a variety

of scenarios that could pertain... You accept one of the scenarios...

There are a variety of scenarios. The department that has lead

responsibility for this is the department bringing expertise as

necessary. They have within the department experts from other

government departments but they also work within other departments so

there is no duplication. Where it is necessary to bring in legal

expertise, they will do that. Will you publish this analysis and will

it be published alongside the statement that is going to be made

in February, March, before the notification? You will see what we

publish when we publish it, if I may put it like that. You would expect

government to think around what the various scenarios are that could

pertain in the future. You accept one of the scenarios is that it gets

vetoed by the European Parliament, end of the process, there is no

agreement? It seems a statement of the obvious to me. You asking me to

accept that we are going to fail which I do not accept. What I

believe is that we should go into this, what I have seen from

everybody else, sitting around the table, is a real intention to ensure

that we do this in a smooth and orderly as possible and that we meet

the timetable set, that is what the commission has indicated. I had a

very good meeting with the man asked to take the negotiation role for the

European Parliament, when I was in Brussels last week. The European

Parliament is also keen to ensure that this is a process that is

smooth and orderly. But he has been reported as actually complaining to

the European Commission and council about the inadequacy of the

arrangements involving European Parliament in the process and

pointing out that Parliament has to approve this. It is simply a

statement of logic that it is entirely possible that the European

Parliament Beto is the agreement at the end of this two-year process. --

vetoes. I am assuming you're contingency planning takes into

course you are not aiming for it course you are not aiming for it

that is clear. We are working to make sure that we get that agreement

will stop as I understand it, the 27 members of the European council have

agreed a different arrangement immolation to the European

Parliament. -- that agreement. They did that at a meeting last week.

There will be some involvement of the European Parliament in the

process. I really want your Shawlands that we're not going down

the route of the last government which my committee found was

actually grossly negligent in instructing Whitehall to do no

planning at all about the possible to that the country might have the

temerity to vote to leave the European Union -- your Shawlands.

There is presumably the possible to that the European Parliament would

veto any agreement is a macro even despite your best efforts, no

agreement is reached between yourself and the commission and that

this planning is taking place -- any agreement or even despite your best

efforts. We are looking at a variety of scenarios with relation to the

deal, the timing and what opportunities will be there. I am

hoping that is a yes. We are looking at a variety of scenarios. All of

the scenarios? Thank you. That is fine. All of the options is fine.

Crucially, what we are doing is ensuring we are working with others

to set up the relationships so that I have every expectation that if we

get that process rights, then it will be possible to see positive

outcome that I am ambitious for. Have you determined what will fall

under the remit of Article 50? When you say what issues? Well, it is

perfidy possible our partners could find themselves in the same trap the

Government has found itself in with in action being taken, the ability

to conclude an agreement under Article 50 terms, by a qualified

majority, is actually an agreement which would require domestic

gratification and unanimity in the council, the extent of the Article

50 agreement could be so extensive that it would be out with the scope

of Article 50 within domestic law in other countries and we could then

find ourselves with the 27th and the council in the same position the

Government is in now. Has there been any examination of that possible at

you? If I understand the question correctly, you are saying that at

the end of this process there may be some matters that need to be

ratified by individual national parliaments as well as by the rest

of the process? Yes. That is something we are well aware of and

those we are negotiating with are well aware of. Are you confident you

know what the issues are? Have you got a date by when you expect to

have completed that analysis? Work is still ongoing in terms of the

great detail on this. But I think one of the questions that is a

matter of legal discussion is the question of any trade arrangement

that is negotiated with the European Union and the extent to which that

is a matter for the European Union or national parliament. There is an

example of an issue. Would your analysis be published as part of the

formal negotiation notification letter to the European council as to

what might be seen as mixed competence? I do not think that is

appropriate for the triggering of Article 50, this is a matter that

will be... I hesitate to say this, but by the very fact I have

suggested there will be legal discussions on this, it will be a

matter on which the lawyers will be discussing at that point. I do not

think it will be for us to assert. The lawyers have already had a

disagreeable habit along with the judges of upsetting the timetable of

your own government in the move to notification with the action of the

Supreme Court. What judgments will you be making about what is

achievable under the Article 50 negotiations and will you be

reviewing those as you go through the process? First of all, I would

point out the timetable I set out triggering Article 50 is by the end

of March. The Supreme Court has to come forward with its judgment on

the case taken before it on the Government's appeal, but I expect to

be able to trigger Article 50 by the end of March of next year. It has

not in any sense blown the timetable of course. -- off course.

Within the negotiations we will be having with the EU it will be my

intention to cover not just the process of withdrawal but the future

major consequences of failing to major consequences of failing to

agree a deal in your view? Failure to agree a deal and the EU not

having agreed? If we find ourselves with the European Parliament vetoing

any deal agreed between you and the other countries. The process that

would kick in would be the 27 would determine whether they wish to

continue negotiations. We would have to agree to that but that would be

afternoon. My committee is looking afternoon. My committee is looking

at the machinery of government and capacity issues across Whitehall.

You say in answer to Sir Bill Cash that the machinery of government is

working well and you have your own specialists in number ten advising

you personally. You set up separate departments alongside the Treasury

and DEFRA with their own concerns and DEFRA with their own concerns

and priorities. How will the government synthesise these

different approaches into a single negotiating policy? I've set up a

subcommittee responsible for looking at the issues. I've set up a number

of subcommittees to reintroduce the approach to government and debate is

taking place regularly within that committee on the issues we are

talking about, the future trade relationship, aspects of the legal

processes, Article 50 and so forth. What kind of capacity does the

relevant subcommittee have in the Cabinet Office to synthesise these

approaches coming in from other departments so there is a coherent

brief put in front of the committee? The papers submitted, the majority

of those will come from the Secretary of State for exiting the

European Union. Where it is relevant for other departments to put forward

papers the Secretary of State will do so. Inevitably this will be seen

as something of a rival to other departments. Who is holding the rain

between these departments and what capacity of the Cabinet Office have

to make sure these approaches are drawn into one approach? I challenge

the concept that it is seen as a rival, it is the focus of the work

being done in relation to Brexit but it calls on the expertise of other

departments. We don't get that rivalry and duplication. So this is

the Cabinet Office department coordinating the other departments

on your behalf. Is that correct? It is the department responsible for

working with the other departments. In your authority? Yes. Who will

The negotiation will be conducted at The negotiation will be conducted at

role to play, the Secretary of State role to play, the Secretary of State

will have a role to play, there will be a lot of technical negotiations.

Who will actually negotiate the trade relationship with the EU? So

far as it is part of the negotiations, it will be those who

are negotiating who will be part of that. Will Lord price actually have

a special role in that? As we unfold away in which that trade negotiation

takes place, we will bring in expertise, and ministers. Many

governments have negotiator. The UK Government has a single trade

negotiator that deals cross parliamentary. Do you envisage that

we should have someone playing such a role? We are currently building up

the specific trade negotiation expertise. Will that be applied to

the EU? We are appropriate. We are also looking at department by

department issues. Starting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The

Institute for government has produced a paper that suggests

departments are having to choose between meeting the pre-existing

commitments and demands placed on them before Brexit and the Brexit

priorities. How confident are you that there is sufficient detail to

tempted to say that I'm not at all tempted to say that I'm not at all

surprised when former civil servants suggest we need to employ more civil

servants. Right, OK. Chancellor The suggested when he was Foreign

Secretary -- the Chancellor suggested when he was Foreign

Secretary, in terms of foreign affairs, he would need to change the

layout and capacity of the Foreign Office. How will the government

reinforce its diplomatic network after Brexit? Let us see what the

with the EU is. There will be a with the EU is. There will be a

number of areas where the European union has been negotiating,

undertaking activity on behalf of the member states, notably in trade.

That is where we need to build up trade negotiating expertise because

we've not done this for a significant period of time. It has

been done under the European Union. We've been contributing to that

debate and discussion on foreign affairs but has been taking place

within the European Union. But as we look to what is going to be the UK's

brawl outside the EU, it is not just about that. It is about building up

that presence globally. It is not about that but about the whole of

the world. Let me come back to one or two points. David Davis made a

firm commitment on a number of occasions that Parliament would be

at least as well informed. In the course of the negotiations, are is

committed -- argue as committed as your Brexit Minister? We are

committed to understanding that Parliament is putting its views

forward. Both David Davis and I are very clear, as I indicated earlier,

we're not going to give a running commentary on every aspect of the

negotiations but we will make sure that Parliament has the opportunity

to be informed. When we are able to make information available, we will.

You're supporting David Davis in that objective. We are very clear

that we want Parliament to have the opportunity to debate and discuss

these issues. The European Parliament has a specific role

within the negotiations which is different to the rule that the UK

parties have. -- UK Parliament has. There seems to be this idea that we

are not letting Parliament do anything. We've made statements to

Parliament, we are having debates in Parliament. There are a variety of

commitments we have given to Parliament. We will make sure

Parliament has the opportunity to Parliament has the opportunity to

discuss these matters as we go through the negotiations but what we

will not be doing is setting out, as I've said in detail, a running

commentary of which aspects of the negotiations we are discussing or

what the particular discussions are that are taking place. We need to

have the flexibility to enter negotiations on that basis. People

have to draw their own conclusions from the response but I did not hear

a yes to the question. I want clarity on a couple of other points.

Is it your intention that Parliament should vote on a final deal once it

has been negotiated? It was put to you earlier. It is my intention that

Parliament should have every opportunity to consider these

matters. What I'm clear about is to ensure that we deliver on the vote

of the British people, which was a vote to leave the European Union.

Was that I guess Orono? I gave the answer I gave. You give a very clear

answer to one question. You ruled out seeking an extension of the

negotiating period beyond two years. I said as we go into the

negotiations it is not our intention to extend that period of

negotiation. You did not completely rule out completing the negotiations

within the negotiating period but applying an implementation date at

some point after 2019. That is specifically provided for in the

treaty. That is what I'm seeking clarity on. Article 50, sub clause

three. That is not about an implementation phase. It is about

the period of negotiation. That is a matter of interpretation. It shall

cease to apply from the date of the withdrawal agreement. That date of

entry can be after 2019 and indeed, is generally understood to be that.

That is why I've been asking you that question. I want clarity about

that question. Sorry, chairman, in which case I misunderstood the

question you asked me earlier question you asked me earlier

because I thought it was about the reference at the end for the

European Council to agree that the period be extended. That is the

negotiating period. You give a very clear answer to that question. I'm

asking you a different question. I would expect, I hope I tried to

answer in the first place, I would expect us to negotiate a deal within

the two-year period. We are all agreed on that. But there may be

practical aspects which require a period of implementation after. That

is what we will need, not just for us but business is on the continent.

I quite understand. Just to clarify. You seek to use the discretion

provided by Article 50 two negotiate an implementation date after the end

of the completion of negotiations even if the negotiating period is

within the two-year framework? We will discuss whether we need an

implementation phase, whether the point at which the treaty ceases to

apply may be a different issue from whether you've got an implementation

phase. The reason I keep raising this question is because what I get

privately from major financial magicians and businesses is we are

at risk of walking towards this at risk of walking towards this

cliff edge and what they want is some kind of assurance or they will

take measures now. One financial institution has given me this, they

did not want to be named, but give me permission to read out. I've

posted this to the Chancellor as well on the basis of this, and he

replied that all politicians would want a transition arrangements. He

said, two years is unlikely to be sufficient to complete the changes

needed. This document says, severe needed. This document says, severe

disruption to client services might occur, causing financial instability

and significant cost to the wider economy in Europe as well as

globally. Firms may need to activate contingency plans at this point,

that is now, rather than waiting until the terms of the agreement are

known, leading to the instability discussed earlier in this document.

That is what is being put to me and the Treasury committee and I think

to a wide number of MPs and I think that is leading us in various ways

to press for a commitment from you to press for a commitment from you

for an early negotiation of some kind of transitional arrangement.

That is what I'm hoping to get a commitment on.

It is precisely because we understand that businesses may need

that implementation phase that we are talking about that. It may be

that government needs a period of time to ensure its systems adjust to

whatever the new arrangements will be. Actually, the difficulty here

and the uncertainty here, and I accept it is an uncertainty, that to

-- the extent to which that is required depends on the deal that is

achieved. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. We've had just over an

hour on Brexit, I'm sure you'll come back to work on many more occasions.

We will move on now to health and health care for half an hour. Prime

Minister, do you believe the NHS can do everything it has promised with

the money it has got? We asked the NHS to come forward with their

five-year forward plan, they did so, we have provided the money they

requested for that plan. We won't get into too much detail on the

figures but there has been some discussion about whether that 10

billion that has been quoted so often is accurate. I don't want to

get bogged down in numbers today however. What I do want to know is

the difference between the range the NHS asked for, what difference in

NHS services would you see being delivered between 8,000,000,000 and

21 billion? It's quite a different NHS they were asking. They put

forward a proposal, the Government looked at it and then Fonda did. In

2014/15 NHS budget was 19.1 billion -- there has been a 21 billion pound

increase in real terms. NHS England is now looking at how and they are

in the process of putting forward the changes we agreed. That plan

also had for percentage efficiency savings which the NHS began to

acknowledge but people were frightened to say in the early

stages was just too great. The auditor general issued very strong

words about how it was measured so how bad does it have to get before

you acknowledge there is a sustainability problem with the

long-term future of the NHS? What we have also seen in the past year is

actually a number of hospitals who previously were in deficit coming

out of deficit, managing their finances in a different way so the

number of hospitals in that position has now significantly reduced. I

think that what government did was the right thing, which was to say to

the NHS, you determine what your five-year forward plan is and we

have given backing to that five-year forward plan. Now the NHS is putting

that into place. You must be aware that the productivity, spending on

health is one of the most highest on positive returns on investment.

According to the Lancet, it yields up to ?3 for each ?1 invested. Given

the productivity gap in the UK, has this been a consideration by the

Government more widely on health funding? I'm sorry, I'm not quite

sure I have fully got your question. If you're saying the productivity in

the NHS is extremely good... Know, if you invest ?1 and the NHS come

you get ?3 back in the economy so there is a big benefit there. When

people are sick, they are not working and that has a big impact.

Has the Government looked at the wider benefits of investing in the

NHS? You raised the issue of the service of the NHS and the impact

that has on the wider economy by people being able to be in work,

healthy, self-supporting and so forth, but looking at an aspects

like that, of course one of the benefits of the seven-day NHS is

precisely that it will have that sort of benefit. People will be able

to access the NHS and a confident basis of the service they are

getting across the week. For many people when they are able to do so.

On the issue of the seven-day NHS, in a hearing on the Public Accounts

Committee we heard from a senior person in the department that the

additional ?10 billion which you mentioned, which we have heard of so

often from the Government, we asked if it would cover the seven-day NHS

but he said it had not been costed because it is "Difficult right now

to get a precise figure or to get a mechanical approach to how you would

deliver the seven-day NHS in different areas" and it hasn't been

properly costed, would you agree? No, the seven-day NHS is being

delivered in parts of the country on existing budgets. Very often it is

about our delivery is taking place in different parts of the country.

We have a very big reservation about how it will work but I don't want to

get drawn down the alley because the bigger picture here is that there is

currently an exercise to stabilise NHS budgets, extraordinary measures

were taken to balance the accounts of the last financial year. You say

it is getting better but we know there are problems ahead and a

potential winter crisis taking money from other parts. All this makes

assumption it is possible to match demand to the funding available and

that's a big gamble, isn't it, Prime Minister? If that doesn't work, and

the head of the NHS and Department of Health says it is challenging, if

it doesn't work, what will you do? First of all, to NHS England but

working with government, to ensure we do see the plans put forward,

that we maintain the service in the NHS we all want to see, yes there

are changes being proposed by the Government. You dismiss the

seven-day NHS, I think it is an important... I didn't dismiss it, I

said it wasn't costed. You passed on from it but it has some good

examples of innovative approaches by hospitals in various parts of the

country. I am asking what you will do if demand outstrips... Of this

exercise to get the budgets to balance doesn't work, what will you

do if demand does not match the money available? The focus we should

have as a government at the moment is looking at how the plans for NHS

England have for the next five years are being put into place, making

sure the NHS is able to make the efficiencies that the NHS itself

said they would be able to make. There is a question, an issue in a

lot of areas for the demand that been put on the NHS and the

expectations that people have of the NHS. We want to make sure that the

service that people are getting is the right one, and that covers

issues such as sometimes people put demands on hospitals when that could

be dealt with at their local GP so there are issues that need to be

addressed. I won't go through every example but let's take diabetes...

Its increasing by an average of 4.8% per year and by 2030, 8.8% of the

population are expected to have it. You take specialist services, all of

these, the demand is going up but the funding won't be available to

meet that demand. We are putting in a strategy in relation to diabetes,

the aim of which is to reduce the number of people that develop type

two diabetes. Diabetes takes 10% of the NHS budget, 18% of that goes on

complications, partly about individuals but also partly about

how the NHS managers that condition and how it helps those people...

There was a truth in what you say but it is not going to overnight

solve the issue of the increase is just on diabetes, let alone the

other areas... Will you accept that on diabetes, actually there is an

issue that's not just about preventing people getting type two,

it's about the complications. I can refer you to our report on diabetes

which said just that so I don't need to reply that here. Of course we

will, as the Public Accounts Committee, it is not just about

funding but funding we have acknowledged this year alone is an

issue, and it will be apparent by the end of this financial year

whether these plans to stabilise the NHS are working. I put to you that

it's not good enough to say wait and see, it is more serious than that.

What will you do personally and what focus have you got personally as

Prime Minister if the NHS budget is in the same state it was at the end

of the last financial year in March? The point I have made is a simple

one, which is what we have been doing is working with parts of the

NHS to ensure the financial management is in place so we see...

86% of trusts are now hitting their financial plans compared to a year

ago. That is careful work being done with the trusts to ensure they are

able to meet those financial arrangements and the financial

management that is necessary. That's where the focus should be because we

all want to see the NHS providing the right level of service for

everyone but we also want to make sure the management of the finances

within the NHS is such that they are able to deliver that. Prime

Minister, the number of elderly people in our society is growing,

particularly those over 75, which is for celebration at one level but

also a challenge to the public services at another. Will people

receiving... The number of people receiving social care to 6000 less

and is now around 1 million people who should be entitled to social

care but not receiving it, putting great pressure on their families.

The reason, real terms spending on social care fell by 9% over the last

parliament. Do you agree that for social care, crisis means crisis? As

I have said previously, I accept there are pressures on social care,

that's why the Government has made available the opportunity for local

authorities as has been set out in the local government finance

settlement last week, the opportunity for extra money to be

available to be spent on social care but there's also a question not just

about those short-term pressures, but in the medium ensuring that we

seeing delivery and best practice being introduced in terms of

delivery of social care across the country. We talk about fewer people

being able to access it, there are some areas around the country where

we are seeing more people being able to access it as a result of the

decisions local government has made, how they are operating their

services. It would be interesting to see those figures, Prime Minister.

Just coming onto the money from the statement last week, there wasn't

any new money for local councils, is there? Because we will now have two

3%s. The money for the extra grant comes from the new homes bonus which

is money recycled in councils and we have the particular problem of the

authorities with the lowest tax base in the poorest areas often with the

greatest need, where the increase in the preset will not fund the cut

they face next year. Isn't it true many authorities will have less to

spend on social care than this? I'm happy to give examples of

authorities where access in social care have gone up - commentary,

Doncaster, Dudley and Derby, so there are areas where they are

managing this -- Coventry. The decision was taken and announced in

the local government finance settlement was to bring forward the

opportunity for local authorities to increase the social care presets so

that instead of having a 2% increase, they will have two years

at 3%. Over three years it is the same money. What is then happening

is what we are seeing us would go towards the end of this parliament

is money from the better care fund going in, but I repeat the point

that I think it is wrong to assume that the only solution in social

care is the solution about funding. If you look at the different

delivery, the levels of delivery that we see across the country,

there are short-term pressures we have acknowledged, there is a

medium-term job to be done in terms of delivery of social care and

ensuring we see good practice, some very good examples of integration

for example between social care and NHS trusts, good examples where you

see virtually no delayed discharges from hospital beds because of the

way this integration is being operated. We need to make sure there

is reform in the provision of social care, then longer term we need to

make sure we have sustainable arrangements so people can have the

reassurance and comfort that social care will be available in their old

age. All the evidence is showing a

funding gap of ?2.5 billion to ?3 billion. It has been said it is

nowhere near enough to address the funding gap. When I put the point

she raised to Simon Stephens last week, whether we could sort this out

by getting local authorities to get their performance up to the level of

the best, he said you need to do something about that but you need

more funding. I asked him about the point of integration. He said, the

answer is no. If we integrate health and social care better, it is not

simply true. I've set out what I simply true. I've set out what I

believe we need to do in the issues of social care. We accept short-term

measures. That is why funding has been changed to enable them to bring

forward that increase in the social care precept and to obtain money

from the new homes bonus. There is a from the new homes bonus. There is a

delivery, about seeing what is delivery, about seeing what is

working well open and how we can ensure the best practice. The

reform, which is about integration of social care, in some parts of the

country that is being done very well. There is a longer-term issue.

A longer-term issue has not been addressed by governments for too

long. They've dubbed this issue, which is ensuring a sustainable

Germany last week and our thoughts Germany last week and our thoughts

Berlin, we were in Berlin and we saw Berlin, we were in Berlin and we saw

the Christmas markets. It is very poignant. The select committee was

there and we saw a country which recognised a problem 20 years ago

and came to that. They are building on that and adapting to that and

taking it forward. It was said that we needed a deal for retirement.

That has been asked for. They've called for a major review of social

care and funding. As Prime Minister, are you prepared to commission that

review and will you invite the opposition parties to join you in

that so we can get cross-party consensus to get a long-term

sustainable agreement on this issue? Any decisions taken on social care

must last into the long-term. We want people to have that reassurance

and that comfort. The government is already starting looking at this

issue in relation to long-term social care. Any proposals brought

forward, we want to discuss in Parliament. We want to make sure

that we've got a solution that is going to be sustainable but this is

not going to be an immediate sort of, let's have a quick review over a

will need to look at it. Attempts will need to look at it. Attempts

have been made already to come up with this. All parties were involved

at the beginning. Some parties did not support it when it came to it.

You spoke compellingly in your first speech in Downing Street about

tackling the burning injustice of the gap in life expectancy between

rich and poor. The gap is even greater for the years lived in good

health, estimated to be around 19 years. Could you set out how would

you will make progress on that pledge and monitor that progress?

There is obviously not just one thing you can do that is the single

thing that changes that. It has to thing that changes that. It has to

be across a range of activities. To give an example and respond to the

people, diabetes is an increasing people, diabetes is an increasing

issue which affect them. That is something having a programme in

place to adopt a healthier lifestyle. It could lead to

complications that I am talking about. We know there are more than

100 amputations every week because of it. That is one aspect and

adopting a healthy lifestyle would have other impacts. A lot of this is

the wider determinants of health. One thing that is lacking is clear

leadership. Would you be prepared to think again about having this led at

ministerial level so that we get clear drive and implementation

across all government departments? The Cabinet Office has a

responsibility to look at it more generally. The important thing, what

I started to see already, I shall one of the Cabinet subcommittees and

there is the social reform subcommittee and that brings

together a variety of these things, looking at issues. We are seeing

Department of Health, seeing that Department of Health, seeing that

work can be a health outcome, that linkage of someone being able to get

into the workplace, it can be parked of the process that part -- part of

the process. We are seeing the linking of departments for that

cross government approach. Are you going to set out how you measure

that progress? The final point, life expectancy, we won't see that for

several decades. Yes, and it is difficult to set out measures that

explain what is happening because if you're looking at something like

life expectancy it is not going to be an immediate thing. It is likely

you were inputs rather than outcomes. One of the points you

referred to as the issue of diabetes and the fact you want to reduce the

cost of complications but really we should be looking way before that

and reducing the number of people who contract it in the first place

and we know that there was a clear call for radical upgrade in public

health to look at these measures. The scale of the rise is

extraordinary as we've just referred to. There was some disappointment in

the childhood obesity strategy that we're missing important

going to be more robust going going to be more robust going

forward in how we use every opportunity, because some of these

decisions are politically challenging? On the issue of

diabetes, the NHS is introducing a diabetes prevention programme which

is going to be working to ensure there is a behavioural change, to

reduce the number of people who develop type two diabetes. There are

some very specific ways in which we can deal with this. There are also

things where the government has missed opportunities, people feel,

because they are politically challenging and decisions around,

for example, calling on the way manufacturers and retailers and

market consumers, the area about discounting was missing from the

final strategy. There is a sense where the government needs to do its

part and take these difficult decisions. And government does. We

will introduce the soft drink levy which will have a significant impact

and mean we can put money into primary sport. Other projects as

well, there is an important thing about helping young people

understand about healthy eating and understand about healthy eating and

a healthy lifestyle. There are a healthy lifestyle. There are

decisions the government takes. There are certain areas and we've

discussed these in the past where we feel it is about working with

industry voluntarily rather than assuming legislation is the right

way forward. Ultimately it is about encouraging people to be making

decisions in terms of behaviour and what they are eating.

The other thing is the call for public health to be supported and

yet public grants are being cut at a yet public grants are being cut at a

prevention if we are to keep the NHS prevention if we are to keep the NHS

sustainable in future. You referred earlier, we don't want to get into

an argument about numbers but not only are we seeing cuts to public

health but also health education in England, huge challenges in terms of

to the capital the NHS is receiving, working together at the same time as

this extraordinary increase in demand, a 30% increase in the number

of people living to 85 or over, happening at a time when the NHS has

a historic low rate of growth. Can I join my fellow committee Cheers in

calling absolutely for you to work with other political parties for a

long-term sustainable solution. You say that you're working on the

possibilities but do you feel we would have greater consent if, at an

early stage, you were having cross-party approach. Past

the case. It is important that when the case. It is important that when

there is a decision taken, and by way of sustaining that, there will

be a way to make sure everybody is part of that decision. Local

authorities will be receiving more than ?16 billion for public health.

The NHS is obviously spending money on prevention in a variety of ways

and I think... You would accept there has been a cut in the public

health grant? There have been waved to the way that -- changes to the

way that public health is dealt with at local authority level. There are

a number of areas where we need, it is absolutely right to look at how

we can encourage them to display an show to people how changes in

lifestyle and behaviour will be of long-term benefits in a variety of

ways. People focus on things like tobacco but there are a variety of

other areas where this is important as well. When you consider this

long-term sustainable development can you assure us? These are

budget, you need a combined budget budget, you need a combined budget

but do you see in the future that we will have a combined health and

social care system with a combined budget. Will you look at that in

totality? I think it is important to look at

health alongside social care. As I've indicated in answers I gave

earlier, I think one of the things we need to ensure is happening is

that reform at local level in the way in which health and social care

work together. You're asking me a wider issue about the future of the

departmental budget, but we certainly need to recognise the

interaction between social care and health, the integration of working

and how it can be done in a way that delivers for people but there are

other aspects of looking at sustainable social care in long-term

care. What I mean is looking at mechanisms to increase funding for

social care, what I'm saying is will it also include how you fund health

long-term because they are so closely connected? If you are saying

are going to look at the whole net NHS budget is part of that, at the

moment it is focused on social care but insofar as it interacts with

health we will be looking out the health aspects of it. Thank you for

that, Prime Minister. We've heard three committee members in a row

saying I take the point you have replied to Sarah Wollaston on it,

the greater sense of national awareness, the greater widespread

this pressure that will remain in this pressure that will remain in

the healthcare system the better, and I'm sure you have that point on

board. I've also been passed a letter from the chairman of the PAC

which you haven't yet had a chance to reply to, dated the 3rd of

November. I'm sure you will take a look at that along with a number of

other pieces of correspondence which the select committee chairmen have

sent in over the last month for two to various parts of your

governments, and anything you can do from your position in Number Ten to

accelerate replies to our letters will be gratefully received. I just

want to end by saying thank you very much for an extremely interesting

session. We have been going for just over an hour and a half and it has

been valuable with a wide range of questions and robust exchange of

views. Thank you for coming and we will see you after... In this forum

after the Easter recess, by which time we will have a much clearer

idea what is happening on Brexit. Thank you.