19/10/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/10/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Morning folks, welcome to the Daily Politics.


Britain has committed to taking in unaccompanied minors,


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


but how many of those applying are actually under 18?


We've waited almost 50 years for a new runway


in the South East of England - next week the government


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


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


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


We'll bring it live and uninterrupted at midday.


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


computer game Football Manager 2017.


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


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


you at great expense on the Westminster transfer market -


Shadow Environment Secretary Rachael Maskell and Foreign Office


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


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


unaccompanied child migrants in the camp.


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


in Britain, questions are being asked about


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


The charity Safe Passage UK has identified 387 unaccompanied


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


French authorities agreed to verify the list


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


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


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


system launched to transfer vulnerable youngsters


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


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


If a refugee doesn't have a birth certificate,


the Home Office has no way of independently verifying their age


- judgements are based on their "physical appearance"


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


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


David Davies has called for tougher tests -


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


to establish the age of refugees coming here.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


people making that very tough decision either to stay in places


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


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


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


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


because of the humanitarian requirement to look after them. But


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


bring in unaccompanied minors because these are the most


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


my constituency where an Afghan national claimed to be younger than


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


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


home with other children and possibly in a school with the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Some are questioning whether the pictures featured in the papers


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


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


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


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


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


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


we need to be certain that the rules are not being


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


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


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


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


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


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


the Green party says we should apologise and retract your comments


because for many of these unaccompanied minors, as we are


describing them, they have had months of gruelling journey to


Calais, they are fleeing persecution, they have been waiting


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


February after the incident in Monmouthshire and found that between


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


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


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


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


not that controversial, merely an extension of something we already


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


Diane Abbott the Shadow Home Secretary says that any age tests


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


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


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


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


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


invasive violations of young adults who have been through so much


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


these individuals and whether they can be reunited family members at


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


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


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


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


people that the government has promised.


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


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


unaccompanied minors, the British people have in their mind a


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the safeguarding necessary to protect those young people. I need


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


information we get as this story develops and whether these pictures


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


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


a commission to examine extra airport capacity in


I laughed because it is 50 years ago.


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


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


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


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


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


and we know how good they are at making decisions.


Yesterday, we learnt that Theresa May will pilot a special


Cabinet sub-committee on the question of airport


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


Initially other Cabinet Ministers would not be forced to support


the Government's position, so Education Secretary Justine


Greening and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson,


who have long been opposed to another runway at Heathrow,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the media today saying that things have been delayed further is


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


just reported. Former Tory party chairman Grant Shapps says Theresa


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


running through the four tests to insure that we address climate


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Shadow Transport Secretary supports Heathrow. Sadiq Khan supports


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


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


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


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


right that we look at capacity issues and scrutinise what the


government comes forward with. The government had promised us the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


McDonnell says the need for more capacity is imperative and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


on for 50 years still as clear as mud.


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


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


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


Anyway, languages are a useful skill in a Foreign


It will certainly help him on trips abroad.


Rather than just shouting slowly at foreigners in England and thinking


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


the Foreign Secretary in Her Majesty's Government, spoke


at the despatch box of the Mother of all Parliaments,


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


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


Boris Johnson, oggi di Il mio preferito La Tazza


Daily Politics. Per vincere questa tazza per il


vostro cappuccino, latte o te, Just tell us


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


contain flashing images. # I never can say goodbye,


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


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


alive in the freezing, # Though we're apart


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


suggestions around the fringes of the Tory conference that that would


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


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


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


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


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


of strong statement from the government. But not necessarily


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


remembering those affected by Aberfan in which 116 children lost


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


would reflect on this important anniversary and recognise the


solidarity and resilience of the people of Aberfan to overcome this


tragedy. Mr Speaker this morning I had meetings with ministerial


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


present? Her excellent policy of closing Victorian prisons and


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


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


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


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


the occasion in an appropriate manner!


LAUGHTER Can I... Come out...


LAUGHTER Order! I want to hear what is coming


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


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


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


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


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


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


very carefully and make an announcement in due course. Jeremy


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


commemorating the disaster of Aberfan all those years ago when 118


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


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


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


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


think the BBC documentary presented by Hugh Edwards last night was


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


where responsibility lay. In relation to the mental health


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


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


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


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


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


beds overall to the highest number in relation to mental health


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


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


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


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


health condition and he like many others with relatives going through


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


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


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


and Cornwall as this month threatened legal action against the


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


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


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


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


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


in this House recognise the difficulty that people have when


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Prime Minister that members of this House openly discussing mental


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


end the stigma surrounding these conditions across the whole country.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


quote, translating to increased A E attendances, emergency missions


and delays to people leaving hospital which in turn is affecting


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


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


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


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


the NHS had been hurt actively supported. The right honourable


gentleman raises the question of social care and the interaction


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


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


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


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


local authorities working together to ensure that they are delivering


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Speaker, sustainability and transformation plans are going be


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


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


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


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


month? Over the course of this Parliament,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


failure. Failing mental health patients, failing elderly people who


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Minister aware that research shows that infrastructure investment most


benefits area is prepared to capitalise on it, with new


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


that current opportunities are taken for inward investment to preserve


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


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


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


A303. It is important that local communities embrace those


opportunities. I know that my honourable friend has been putting


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


right honourable friend, the Communities Secretary. I joined the


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


Aberfan disaster at my thoughts are with everybody affected. Thousands


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


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


civilians have not been killed by pave way missiles, partially


manufactured in Scotland, under licence from her government in Saudi


Arabia? I congratulate the right honourable gentleman on his election


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


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


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


and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has pressed the


Foreign Secretary, and the Saudi government investigate and learn


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


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


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


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


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


Yemen which are partially manufactured in Scotland under


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


question, how can she possibly in good conscience continue selling


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


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


has happened on those incidents before we reach a decision or


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


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


in terms of dealing with counterterrorism and a number of


other issues. What matters when incidents happen which caused


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the computerised harvesting of tickets for resale in offence?


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


protecting consumers and genuine music fans. I think my honourable


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


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


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


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


online ticket sales was introduced. Professor Michael Waterson


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


recommendations, some for the industry to be able to better


protect itself, but the government will be looking at the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


pointed the chair. She was the individual responsible for the


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


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


when she personally learned of the serious problems developing in this


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


recognise that the honourable lady has taken a particular interest in


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


in positions of power have intervened to stop them from getting


justice. There were stories around about the enquiry and about


individuals related to the enquiry, but the Home Secretary cannot


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


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


made yesterday in this house about information being discussed with the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


closures? Will be Prime Minister today express her support for


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


destructive proposal? I think everybody in this house recognises


the role and contribution of community pharmacies up and down the


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


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


honourable gentleman supports community pharmacies, perhaps he


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


Opposition, because his policy is to completely nationalised the health


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


pharmacies. Next week, this government will finally make a


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


undertaken, so the government will identify its proposed option


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


government will consider the results of that and bring forward an


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


briefing the newspapers copiously on every proposal being put forward in


papers to be relevant Cabinet committee by their colleagues, and


launching political attacks on their Cabinet colleagues, who seemed to


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


and will she also agree that the proper approach is Parliamentary


scrutiny of the broad strategy once the government has reached agreement


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


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


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


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


for trading in goods and services with an operating within that


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


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


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


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


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


their tax credits suddenly stopped by concentric and have been accused


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


those who are being assessed are being assessed properly and the


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


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


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


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


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


through the regular assessments they had under her government


apprenticeships from EDF has just been launched at the Bridgewater and


Taunton college. And we do want to see every


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


knows that we have transition arrangements in place, that action


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


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


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


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


the unemployment figures results today are fantastic news yet I worry


about the economic volatility that could come as a consequence of


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


no work income coming into the household. That is extremely


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


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


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


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


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


Speaker been asking questions for 15 months and this government is


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


how can the Prime Minister justify putting vulnerable women to the


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


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


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


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


point on how this would affect individuals who have been through


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


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


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


you, Mr Speaker, given the increasing relevance of the


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


to the first ever meeting of Commonwealth trade ministers in the


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


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


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


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


looking at the possibility of trade deals in relation to the


Commonwealth and I to applaud that first ever meeting of Commonwealth


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


we are approaching this is that decisions are taken and generated


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


services necessary to people to ensure they can provide the services


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


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


the critical winding of two others in Pentonville prison last might


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


Minister give the Secretary of State for Justice full support in


commissioning a thorough and complete review of the operational,


managerial capacity of leadership of the service which has signally


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


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


Justice Secretary raised with me which was the question of violence


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


from disadvantaged backgrounds and those not in grammar schools it is


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


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


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


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


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


of ivory trade and trade of endangered species throughout the


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


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


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


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


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


witnessing a modest Renaissance partly through EU exports and action


on Chinese ceramic dumping. The previous prime ministers said he


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Liverpool Prime Minister? I absolutely agree with my honourable


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


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


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


those incidents are properly investigated and dealt with and give


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


the Birmingham families the same compassion that was shown to the


Hillsborough families. The right honourable gentleman may be aware


that the Birmingham families have been encouraged to apply and I


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


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


Home Secretary has made clear her expectation that funding will be


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


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


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


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


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


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


commission said that airport capacity should be expected, the


Davis commission identified three sites all of which they said would


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


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


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


the Aberfan disaster and the resilience and quiet dignity shown


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


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


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


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


marked as the disaster affected communities across the country, if


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


exchanges between the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


had been told something of the problems with the Goddard enquiry


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


defence equipment to bomb civilians in Yemen? -- are the Saudis. That an


operational question. We do sell arms to Saudi Arabia. This is a


legitimate war taking place, endorsed by the United Nations


resolution supporting the president. It's important to recognise that


Saudi Arabians have made mistakes but they have also put their hand up


to it. We had the Foreign Minister in Parliament, the best place to


answer questions, to be held to account, and he made it very clear


that we are having difficulties in getting it wrong and we need to get


it right but we need British help to make sure that we can correct the


errors that have been happening. It an operational matter if it's an


error and the Allies in Syria and Iraq made mistakes as well. It's not


an operational matter if it's part of the Saudi strategy in the Yemen


to bomb civilians. You are right, which is why I went to Riyadh last


week to tell them that they need to come out with a report immediately.


They did that, it was released at the weekend, and they put their hand


up saying it was a breach of standard operating procedures and


somebody will fall on their sword. There are now disciplinary actions,


support and compensation is coming in to the victims. So they did


intentionally bombed... We have made errors as well. Was it an error, was


it a mistake? Was it collateral damage? Was it a deliberate attack


on civilians? It was a deliberate error made by an individual who


needs to be disciplined. So this individual deliberately attacked


civilians. There was a choice to breach decisions. Riyadh said the


attack shouldn't take place but it did. That is why this report will


clarify exactly what's going to happen. It's important that Saudi


Arabia, which hasn't been good at communicating these things, is able


to come forward not just on this but their outstanding investigations we


are all waiting to hear more details on. What was your take on PMQs? I


thought it was a good day for Jeremy Corbyn, picking up the NHS, which is


clearly in meltdown at the moment. Not only the financial loss, but I


was a commissioner for 20 years in the NHS and I know that waiting


times have escalated, 44 ambulances, any services, really in crisis. We


are about further rationing, further planned cuts to services under these


sustainable transformation plans. The reality is that it is the system


that broken. The health and social care act put the wrong financial


drivers in the system and it drove everybody into A rather than


commitment to the community to stop the machine will keep gobbling


money. It's about making sure the money goes to the right place. Under


this reorganisation, it's going to the most expensive part of the


health service, so that is why we have got the crisis. Which is the


hospitals. Absolutely, the acute care. I had a mental health hospital


shut in my constituency in three working days, so people were spread


throughout the region in a mental health crisis. The system has been


broken for far too long and we don't see parity. It is there enough


standing at the dispatch box saying parity of esteem. We need to see


resourcing and care put in an investment into mental health. Sorry


to rush in. We need to move on. We are short of time. Laura, to see


you. Now, of all the big Brexit issues


none has more gravity than its possible impact


on Premiership football. Players and managers


could not avoid being asked for their thoughts in the wake


of the referendum result. Of course, it's hard not to know


that it's gone on but it's something that I've not really thought too


much about yet. Obviously I'm focusing


on the Euros and what's ahead. Nobody I don't think knows


what's going to happen. From my point of view,


I'm just going to wait and see And then it was around again,


around the Brexit decision, things, OK, England,


what will happen, and I really, I like giving a sign


we are still Europe. Whatever happens, we are still


Europe. We are quite different in a lot


of things, especially what we eat and so on,


but we are really similar. And Brexit is not an issue that has


escaped the interest of the creators of the hit computer


game Football Manager. Players of the 2017 edition


will have to grapple with different Brexit scenarios as part


of the game. And its director, Miles


Jacobson, joins me now. Why? Because it's important. It's


something that will be happening. There's nothing we can do to stop


it. The vote has happened, people have spoken, and it will affect


football. I don't think people thought about these kind of things


before the vote. They didn't have this information. If we can't bring


in players from the EU any more and we stick to the current work permit


system that we have, it would mean players like N'Golo Kante and


Dimitri Payet, two of the best players in the Premier League last


season... And most of the high-profile managers. They would


not be able to get work permits. We sat and looked at every possible


scenario, including soft Brexit scenarios where you can still bring


in players through freedom of movement for workers, through too


hard Brexit options, where you will be limited to a quota of the number


of foreign players you could have in the squad. Is that true? Is that a


possible scenario, that we won't be able to get amazing football


managers and players on work our midst? It's not my department, but I


would be astonished. We can be proud of one of the best leagues in the


world. People want to come to the UK because of what happens here. Play


this game, but don't use it as a guidance to what EU legislation is


all about. We need good players to be able to come here and make sure


we retain that position of having the best Premier League in the


world. Do you think your players will be interested? By the reaction


we have had since we announced it, I think so. Sometimes people don't


realise how engage the public are. I think we got an indication from the


referendum result. Absolutely. The scenario is in the game. The


scenario is in the game of being able to get them. Thank you. Maybe


if we had to have more home-grown talent we might have a national team


worth its salt. I don't care about football, but I thought I'd throw


that out. I thought you were an expert.


There's just time to put you out of your misery and give


I forget what the giveaway was. It was Maggie Thatcher at the window.


With Norman Tebbit. Got you. Rachel, press that red button. You've no


idea what will happen. It's not true. You do know. Well done,


George. You have won that. I didn't realise it was 1987. Thank you,


Miles, for coming in. We will see how your game goes down and which


scenario is the most popular. Very educational. Manager of AFC


Bournemouth. Some have been doing scenario planning for years.


The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.


Jo and I will be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political


Download Subtitles