08/02/2017 Daily Politics

Morning folks - welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Commons gets its final say today on the Bill authorising

Have the Government offered MPs a concession with a vote

The Speaker is no stranger to controversy, but has

he overstepped the mark by condemning the leader of the free

world and banning him from Parliament during his state visit?

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn are still allowed in

They will face each other at PMQs at midday.

We'll bring you that live and uninterrupted.

MPs take aim at the sea birds that have become a seaside pest.

All that in the next 90 minutes of the very finest public service

broadcasting and with us for the duration today and looking

about as relaxed as two anxious holidaymakers protecting their fish

and chips from aerial bombardment, the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb

and the Shadow Transport Secretary, Andy Macdonald.

First this morning - was it or wasn't it a concession?

Yesterday the Brexit Minister, David Jones, told MPs

that they would get a vote on the deal that Theresa May

brings back at the end of Brexit negotiations.

It would be a vote on the divorce settlement and Britain's

new relationship with the EU and would happen before a vote

in the European Parliament to ratify the deal.

Labour's Brexit Secretary, Kier Starmer, welcomed it

as a meaningful concession - others said that MPs

Let's have a listen to some of those exchanges in the Commons.

I can confirm that the Government will bring forward a motion

on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses

We expect and intend that this will happen before

the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

Minister, I am very grateful for that intervention.

That is a huge and very important concession about the process

The argument I have made about a vote...

The argument I have made about a vote over the last three

months is that the vote must cover both the article 50 deal and any

I know that for my colleagues, that is very important,

and that that vote must take place before the deal is concluded.

is a debate right at the end of the process

and a point, we don't know where exactly,

but seemingly right at the dog days of the process,

and a choice at that point between the deal that is on offer,

which in my view is likely to be a bad deal

because it is predicated itself

on our leaving the single market, leaving the customs union,

the rock-hard Brexit that we all feared, and no deal.

then as the minister has confirmed here today,

what the country will face

is exiting the European Union on WTO terms.

Nick Gibb, is it a concession? It is a clarification. What is new

yesterday is the date. It'll happen before a vote in the European

Parliament. The Prime Minister has always been clear the Parliament

would have a vote in terms of the deal on the process and she is

confident, the Government is confident we will get a good deal

with the European Union. It is in both our interests to secure that

deal and I think we will. Why is it different are from what the Prime

Minister said in her now famous Lancaster House speech only three

weeks ago, "The Government will put the final deal that is agreed

between the UK and the EU to both Houses of Parliament before it comes

into force." That's what I said. That has been the position for

sometime since that speech. What is new yesterday is the timing. That's

it? A clarification? Yes, clarification of when it'll take

place. So why, Andy Macdonald Macdonald did Kier Starmer say "It

was a huge and important concession." We heard the minister

say that the draft agreement would come before Parliament, not the

final agreement, to be debated and voted upon. This was a huge shift.

What we were offered in the past at latch caster House, the final

agreement will come before Parliament, yes or not. This will

not be the final agreement, a draft agreement. What is the difference?

Because it can be amendedes and period ex-stoneded for transitional

arrangements. Can it be amended? I don't think it K it is about

bringing the final draft agreement to Parliament and the Prime Minister

will only bring an agreement to Parliament that she thinks is a good

deal and that will take place after a considerable period of

negotiation. It is in all our interests. The interests of the

European countries and Britain to have a good deal that ensure that is

we can continue trading on favourable terms, with industry in

Germany and France and throughout the European Union. If you vote

against it, this final draft agreement. You don't send the

Government back to renegotiate, my understanding of the Government's

line is - then we crash out shall as some people put it, on World Trade

Organisation rules. That's at final option, I suppose. But at the end of

the day, it is up to the Government to come back and persuade the House.

They have the majority. They have to persuade their own side this

represents a good deal. Of course, I don'tunder stand where the

concession comes from. This is what the Government has been saying it'll

doo for some time. It'll have a vote. Do it'll do. But it is not a

vote to go back and think again, it is a vote to either accept the draft

deal or we leave on non-negotiated terms. There is a huge chunk missing

here. Because there are two sides to this. It is the divorce settlement

itselfp and the new terms of dealing, both elements are to be

brought before the House. That's been clarified by the Government and

that is to be welcomed. Except you just can't change them. Well they

have to persuade the House that it is acceptable and if we have a

system scrutiny and examination, and we are examining between the

pro-Serbs the Government have to come up to something acceptable. --

between the process. Well you are between a rock and hard place, you

may not think it is good enough, you vote against t you end up in a hard

place, you fall off the rovenlingted That is he at pressure on the

Government to make sure they come back with a deal that's acceptable

and persuades Parliament. That's where the pressure will apply. Am I

right this thinking you will have this vote five months before we are

due to leave? Well, we'll have the vote when the agreement has been

reached. All this Bill is about, a simple Bill we have been debating

this week and last week, it has two clauses. One clause is the title and

the other clause is about Article 50. You will forgive me. I'm asking

about the time. Is it your understanding, I think it is what

from what ministers were saying, it'll come about five months before

we are due to leave? If that's what the minister said then that's the

timing but the key thing is that the Parliament is being given a vote on

the terms of the agreement and MPs have to take the same level of

responsibility that ministers are taking as they negotiate... However

they vote, we leave. Yes. So, it is a Hobson's choice? Well, the same

choice ministers V the British people have said they want us to

leave the European yuvenlt -- ministers have. And leave the

European Union and the Prime Minister has said we will be leaving

the European Union. Between now and then we'll negotiate the best-deal

possible and I'm confident she will and we will bring that to

Parliament. The decision of whether we stay or not in the European Union

has been taken and Parliament has to deliver on the decision of the

British people. What makes you think, what makes any of you think,

whether you are Brexit or Remain, what makes you think a deal would be

ready five months before we are due to come out? As someone who has

covered Brussels negotiations, I have never seen Brussels operate

like that. I have been covering events where they were so late they

had to stop the clock in order to meet the timetable? Well there are

huge anxieties about trying to get through this under that tight time

scale because it is tight, you are absolutely right but what it means

is, if we don't get a deal that's acceptable. It is effectively a bad

deal and that's what we have to recognise. It has to persuade people

in that time scale. All I would say is - we must be sensible about this.

If it isn't done, there must be a transitional arrangement or

extension of the period. Those are the options available but that must

come from the EU as well. The practiceticalities of Parliament

voting against this would leave the Government in an impossible

position, would it not? The Government would have done a deal,

it says, "This is the best we can get." Then presents this final draft

to the British Parliament. The British Parliament says no. What are

the Europeans going to think? The British Government would've had its

legs cut beneath its knees, they are not going to of give us a Bert deal?

These are the decisions Members of Parliament will be taking. -- a

better deenchts they'll have to take that into account when they have to

vote on the agreement. This is an important decision all of us will be

taking. So far on the vote in the Bill. So far on the debates on the

issue, there has been overwhelming support to deliver the verdict of

the British people. I have absolute confidence that the deal that will

be brought will be a favourable deal that we will support. Sure and time

will tell. And we'll want to vote for that deal. We are still unclear

how some Labour people are going to vote tonight. Clive Lewis, the

Shadow Business Secretary, he was doorstepped this morning. He let's

listen to what he said. REPORTER: Is this going to be your last day in

the Shadow Cabinet? I have to make a decision on how I vote, haven't I?

How long have you been there for? It is so cold. If I start running, you

are not going to run after us. I don't think we have it in us. Can

you tell us which way you are going to vote? I don't know. I'm going to

make my mind up. A lot on my plate. A lot on everyone's plate. We will

see what happens in the lobbies. You guys will be the first to know. Is

it your intention to back your leader? It is my decision to back my

constituents and I have to think about the Labour Party. It is a

tough kau. I think lots of MPs are having a tough time on this. One

final thought, if you defy the whip will you resign your position in the

Shadow Cabinet? I think if you defy the whip you do resign, that's the

protocould. I have been having aer long, hard think, like lots of MPs,

and I'll make a decision later today and you'll all get to hear about it.

If Clive Lewis does defy the whip and votes against the Labour

position and he resigns, which he has clearly independenticated that's

what he would do, how big a crisis is that for the Labour Party? Well,

it's not to be welcomed. We don't want Clive to go nowhere other than

stay in the Shadow Cabinet. He is a fantastic member of that Shadow

Cabinet. It'll not be a crisis for the Labour Party or Shadow Cabinet

Really? I don't think so. I think we have to remember if we have a three

line whip we're recognising the country did vote to leave the

European Union and we accept that entirely. We are a national party.

Oi know people are in all manner of difficulties because we come from

constituencies that voted to remain but we have to make that decision

and stick to it. Can you reassure a worried nation a concerned nation,

that Diane Abbott will be fit enough to vote tonight? Andrew, I think you

probably spend more time speaking to Diane Abbott than I do. Not since

she joined the Shadow Cabinet, no. #1450e did make her apologies and

said she was poorly. It is not my choice to go behind that. I don't

know what she will do. Is it true a colleague suggested to have a three

line whip to force you all to abstain in this vote? No, I don't

know who? Barry gardener? Within which context? Within the Shadow

Cabinet. It wasn't discussed? No. Because,

Emily Thornbury, who we now also call, Lady Nugee, has said that that

would be absurd, that Labour would not have a position on the most

important issue currently facing Britain. That is right. It would be

ludicrous. Just one final thing, Nick Gibb - does this, now after the

February recess, this now goes to the Lords. Does the Lords have any

concerns for you? No, I'm confident that the House of Lords will also

ratify this Bill. It is a simple Bill and the people have spoken

clearly and given that it went - well hopefully will go through the

Commons without aamendments, I'm sure the same will happen in the

House of Lords. We shall see, all that after the recess which starts

on Thursday night. Now, The Speaker John Bercow's

decision to announce that President Trump would not be

permitted to address Parliament in Westminster Hall has raised

questions of whether the Speaker is upholding the traditional

neutrality of the role. Whilst his words were praised

by many in the Labour Party and the SNP, some Conservative MPs

have said that The Speaker should It's not the first time that

Mr Bercow has courted controversy. He was once an admirer

of Enoch Powell and a member of the right-wing

Conservative Monday Club. It was an involvement

he would later describe as and as an MP, John Bercow

started adopting He resigned from the frontbench

after supporting gay adoption He fell out with David Cameron just

before he became leader in 2015 - Abandoning hopes of a ministerial

career, he became Speaker in 2009 with the help of support

from Labour MPs. But David Cameron's government

became increasingly frustrated at his perceived bias and ministers

launched a plot to get rid of him just before

the 2015 General Election. As Speaker, he has been lauded

by some for championing the power of the Parliament

over the Government. But he's also upset traditionalists

by ditching the wig traditionally worn by Speakers -

yesterday he announced that Commons His chosen coat of arms incorporates

the motto "All are Equal". He's come a long way from the young

admirer of Enoch Powell. Now, yesterday, Lord Fowler,

the Speaker of the House of Lords, criticised John Bercow for failing

to consult him before making his He also suggested the power

to veto visiting leaders from addressing Parliament,

which is currently held by the two speakers

and the Lord Great Chamberlain, should be taken away and a "better

way in which such decisions can be Back in the House of Commons, Bercow

was also under fire from MPs. The Prime Minister,

in the view of many of us, managed to secure a very favourable

outcome of what was And whilst I was keen yesterday not

to accuse you of an executive order in respect of another matter,

I do hope, Mr Speaker, that you will help us to ensure

that we can have full confidence in your impartiality,

because that is the way that this I was honestly and honourably

seeking to discharge I think in the interests

of the House, we should move on to other matters, but I thank him

for what he has said. We are joined now from Central Lobby

by the former Culture Secretary John Whittingdale.

You told Sky News yesterday that you got what he had done was damaging to

the national interest. Why? There are two problems. The first is

obviously that it was a personal attack on President Trump. I have my

differences with President Trump, but we have to recognise that he is

the elected leader of our closest ally and to attack him in those

terms will not help our relations at a time when we are trying to build a

stronger relationship with the United States. The second problem is

that it put the Speaker firmly on one side in a controversial matter,

when the chair needs to remain impartial. Do you think this raises

the issue of who, in the end, should decide who gets to speak to

Parliament, whether in Westminster Hall, which is the ultimate honour,

or the world gallery or other places? Should be taken away from

what are known as the three current key-holders of the speakers and the

Lord on the Lord Great Chamberlain? Lord Fowler's statement yesterday

was good. He suggested that there should be some mechanism which will

allow proper consideration, rather than just having the common Speaker

fire off without consulting anybody. But in this instance, had it been

decided that it was not appropriate for an invitation to come to

Parliament to be issued, I would have preferred the Speaker to have

said privately to the Prime Minister, please don't ask, because

the answer may be no and I don't want to damage our relationship.

Therefore, it's better that this matter wasn't raised. There was no

need to make the statement yesterday, because the matter had

not even arisen yet. Why do you think you did it? I think John

Bercow likes playing to the gallery and I am afraid this was a bit of

grandstanding. And it was popular on the Labour and SNP benches. Does he

pay any consequence for this? A number of your colleagues are

unhappy about it. Is there a price to be paid, or does he still command

a majority in the House for this sort of thing? The Speaker's

position is one which is rarely ever challenged. I respect the chair,

just as my colleagues were saying in Parliament yesterday. But John

Bercow, when he was elected in 2009, said that he would serve nine years.

So he is coming to the end of his term if he keeps to that in any

case. I suspect you will start to see people speculating about what

happens next. And do you think that what he has done reinforces the case

for him sticking to his original timetable on the part? Well, he was

very clear that he would serve just the nine years and then step down. I

would expect him to fulfil that pledge. John Whittingdale, thank you

for joining us. I get the feeling the clock is ticking. Let's get

reaction from our guests. Nick Gibb, John Bercow said yesterday he was

acting honestly and honourably in vowing to block Donald Trump

speaking in parliament. Do you believe him? Well, I am one of the

few conservative members of Parliament who voted for John to be

Speaker back in 2009, and he has been a very good Speaker. He has

improved the rights of backbenchers. He is pacey in terms of his chairing

of Question Time. We get through the order paper more. That is why MPs

like him. They do. He has also modernised the House of Commons. But

he can overstate the significance of what he said. We have a good

relationship with the United States which goes back a long way. The

Prime Minister was the first head of government to visit the president

after he was inaugurated, and I think that relationship will be

unaffected by statements by the Speaker. But do you believe he acted

honourably and within his remit? I wish he hadn't said what he said. He

doesn't speak for the government on this issue. But I think you can

overstate whether this matter is, what the Speaker of the House of

Commons says. You don't think it is important, in his role as Speaker,

making the comments he did about a president of the United States? It

is insignificant? Well, I wouldn't have said that, but you can

overstate the importance. Except that it is about the Parliamentary

side of the state visit. So in a way, it does come in his remit and

he would have a say with the other two key-holders, as Andrew called

them. So in a sense, it is crucial if he speaks out against it. Why

should Trump be invited to speak in parliament, which comes under John

Bercow's remit? He can decide these things, but the state visit will go

ahead whether or not there is a speech to the joint Houses of

Parliament. The relationship between the United Kingdom and the United

States will not be affected by the decision. The relationship is good.

The relationship between the Prime Minister and President Trump is

good. She secured his backing for Nato. And you don't think that will

be damaged by what John Bercow has said? No. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn

should have commented on it? He's supportive of John Bercow in terms

of speaking out against Donald Trump and his visit. Was it the right

thing for him to do? I do think it was right for him. As the father of

two disabled children, I remember very well the scenes of that

would-be candidate mocking somebody with cerebral palsy. I don't want to

be in the same room as a person who would behave in that way, and his

comments and attitude towards women and the other offences that are

well-known, I find deeply uncomfortable. John Bercow was right

to lay out how we want to conduct ourselves in our country. There are

many who will agree with you in personal terms when it comes to what

President Trump has said, but do you think he's just virtue signalling

here, John Bercow? Isn't it the case that there have been otherworldly

donors who are known for oppression and rights abuses who have had on,

if not of addressing both Houses of Parliament, but certainly of

addressing MPs in the world gallery? Yes. We have also had Nelson Mandela

and Barack Obama address us. It is an honour to be earned. And so

quickly into somebody's President Xi... Had President Xi Jinping of

China earned it? I understand the point you are making, and it is

difficult when you have that obvious conflict. But I am saying that this

candidate and now the president of the United States has made his

attitudes towards women and disabled people abundantly clear and it is

right that we draw a line and say that is not acceptable. Do you think

the Emperor of Kuwait, in terms of their views towards women, is that

acceptable? The red carpet was rolled out by John Bercow when he

came to visit. That is for John Bercow to judge on each occasion. He

has made his point with this particular invitation, and I think

he made the right comments. He speaks for a lot of people modelled

in this country, but the United States as well. Do you think has

gone beyond what should be a neutral position in terms of his

impartiality? We have already stated that there was a controversy and a

2-faced approach when it came to some world leaders and different

with Donald Trump. I don't think he has overstated. He asked a question,

a point of order was raised and he responded to it in a frank way. John

has been a superb Speaker, standing up for the backbenchers, and I would

not want to see his position affected. There are reports of a

no-confidence motion that might be tabled against John Bercow. Would

you support that? I will take a position on that issue at the time,

but I think he has been a very good Speaker. He has improved the rights

of backbenchers. He has a certain style that doesn't appeal to

everybody, but you can overgrow this issue. As he said himself in the

House, we should move on. And on that, we will!

Now, it's with great dismay that some of my colleagues have learned

of the difficulties someone called David Beckham -

I'm told he is an association footballer -

has had in securing himself a knighthood.

Despite charity work, warm words about the Queen and even

expressing his undying love for the union between England

and Scotland, he remains just plain old Mr Beckham.

I know how he feels, I've been trying to ingratiate myself

to the establishment for years and haven't got so much

Actually, I do have a Blue Peter badge! The script writer didn't know

that. But don't worry, David,

we've got something you can Yes, just tell us

when this happened - and here's a clue, David,

it was before you were born. # There'll never be anyone else

but you for me # Never ever be, just couldn't be

anyone else but you... # What do you want if

you don't want money... ..render easier finding a solution

to trade problems throughout Europe. NEWSREEL: The designer has given

them an attractive look. Not even the heaviest

passenger can daunt it. # I've waited so long,

a lifetime, it seems # For someone to step right

out of my dreams To be in with a chance of winning

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

email address - Entries must arrive by 12.30 today,

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

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

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

yes, Prime Minister's And that's not all,

Laura Kuenssberg is here. You will have seen the doorstepping

this morning of Clive Lewis. Sounds like he's going to defy the three

line whip. It is clear that that that is a likely outcome, and I also

think, from my understanding, that it will also be crystal clear, if he

decides to vote that way, he will therefore resign. Although there has

been confusion with what happened last week, there were Labour shadow

ministers and frontbenchers who abstained but still seemed to be in

their jobs, in his case it is clear that if you goes that way, he is

going to go. Diane Abbott, in contrast, is thought to be solid.

She is thought to be on the side of Jeremy Corbyn's decision to have a

three line whip, but never say never. Have we had an updated

medical bulletin about her? Some body suggested that she had been

given Migraleve, but that was a naughty suggestion. It is a

fascinating thing about the Brexit machinations as they proceed that

this is just as if not more painful for the Labour Party than for the

Tory party, and that is such a reversal. For decades, it was all

about Tory splits on this. That is totally now on its head. I am just

wait for that Mike Candlelight vigil has worked for Diane. You were

tweeting # Prather Diane. Absolutely. The power of prayer has

been vindicated. Let's go straight to the chamber.

In addition to my duties I shall have further such meetings today Mr

Speaker, the Government chose to launch the pupil premium at a school

in Chesterfield where 70% of people receive free school meals. The

headteacher, Dave Shaw was running the Great North Run for a cancer

charity. However, her new schools' funding formula means that the

junior school now face the biggest cuts in all of Derbyshire. Running

for cash is now the only alternative to sacking staff. Will she go to the

finish line and tell Dave Shaw how this is a fairer funding formula?

Well, I'm pleased to say that in the local authority that covers the

honourable gentleman's constituency, we have seen an increase of over

17,000 children at good or outstanding schools since 2010.

That's down to Government changes and the hard work of teaches and

other staff in the schools. For a very long time, it has been the

general view - and I have campaigned on this for a long time - that

actually we need to see a fair funding formula for schools. What

Government has brought forward is a consultation on a fairer funding

formula. We look at the results of that fairer funding formula and will

bring forward our firm proposals in due course.

Over the course of the last 12 months, as part of the Defence

Select Committee, I have' had the opportunity to look into the

historic Iraq team and how we as a country deal with more historical

allegations for our servicemen and women, not only for us who serve but

for many members across this House it has been a deeply disturbing

experience. I know the Prime Minister gets it but will she double

her and her Government's commitments to get a grip on this historical

process, so that never again, will our servicemen and women be

exposed... I'm sure the whole House will want to join me in praising the

bravery and commitment of all those who Seb in our Armed Forces. I would

like to thank my honourable friend for the work he is doing on the

Defence Committee because of course he brings personal expertise to that

work. Those who serve on the front line deserve our support when they

get home. I can assure my honourable friend of the Government's

commitment to that. All troops facing allegations receive Legal Aid

from the Government, with the guarantee that this will not be

claimed back. In relation to the issue he has referred to, we are

committed to reducing its case load to a small number of credible cases

as quickly as possible and I recognise the action that has been

taken in relation to the individuals he has referred to, I think it is

absolutely appalling when people try to make a business out of chasing

after our brave troops. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker, nine out of ten NHS Trusts say their hospitals have been

at unsafe levels of overcrowding. One in six Accident Emergency

units in England are set to be closed or downgraded. Could the

Prime Minister please explain how closing A departments will tackle

overcrowding and ever-growing waiting lists? First of all, can I

extend my thanks and I'm sure that of the whole House to the

hard-working staff in the NHS who do a great job, day-in and day-out,

treating patients. Yes we recognise there are heavy priors on the NHS.

That's -- pressures on the NHS. That's why, this year we are funding

the NHS at 1.3 billion pounds more than the Labour Party promised at

the last election. He refers specifically to Accident

Emergency. What is your response in Accident Emergency? We see 600

more A consultants. 1,500 more A doctors and 2,000 more paramedics.

It's not about standing up and making a sound bite and asking a

question, it is about delivering results and that's what this

Conservative Government is doing. Mr Speaker, congratulating A staff is

one thing, paying them properly is another. I hope she managed to see

the BBC reports on the royal Blackburn A department which

showed that pep had to wait up to 13 hours and 52 minutes to be seen.

Shocking. A major cause of the pressure on A is the 4.6 billion

cut in the social care budget since 2010. Shocking. Earlier this week,

Liverpool's very esteemed adult social care director resigned

saying, "Frankly, I can't see social services surviving after two years".

"That's the maximum." People are suffering and we are really only

seeing the tip of the iceberg. Mr Speaker, what advice does the

Government have to the people of Liverpool in this situation?

SHOUTING THE SPEAKER: Order, order. It is bad

enough that when members who are within the curt ledge of the chamber

shout. Those who are not, absolutely should not do so. It is a

discourtesy to the House of Commons. Nothing more, nothing less. Please

don't do it. The Prime Minister. Well, he refers

at an early stage in his question to Blackburn oo. Imehappy to say

compared to 2010 there are more hospital doctors and more nurses in

the Blackburn East Lang kashire Hospital's NHS Trust. He went on to

talk about waiting times and waiting times can be an issue. Where is it

that you wait a week longer for pneumonia treatment? That you wait a

week longer for heart disease treatment? That you wait seven weeks

longer for cataract treatment? 11 weeks longer for hernia treatment

and 21 weeks longer for a hip operation? It's not in England, it's

in Wales. Who is in power in Wales? Labour. Mr Speaker, my question was

about the comments from the director of social care in Liverpool and why

the people of Liverpool are having to suffer these great cuts.

Liverpool has asked to meet the Government on four occasions. The

crisis is so bad that until yesterday, Mr Speaker, David Hodge,

the Conservative leader of Surrey County Council, planned to hold a

referendum for a 15% increase in council tax. And at the last minute

it was called off. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or

not a special deal was done for Surrey? The decision as to whether

or not to hold a referendum in Surrey is entirely a matter for the

local authority in Surrey. In Surrey County Council. The right honourable

gentleman has raised the issue of social care, which we've exchanged

on across this Despatch Box before and as I've said before, we do need

to find a long-term sustainable solution for social care in this

country. So I recognise the short-term pressures. That's why we

have enabled local authorities to put more money into social care. We

have provided more money over the next two years, ?900 million more

will be available for social care. But we also need to look at ensuring

that good practice is spread across the whole of the country. We can

look at places like Barnsley, North Tyneside, St Helen's, Rutland,

towards the end of last year, no delayed discharges attributed to

social care in those councils. We need to look long-term and that's

why the Cabinet is driving a review w the relevant department, to find a

sustainable solution, which the Labour Party ducked for far too

long. My question was, whether there had been a special deal done for

Surrey. The #4r50eder said they had many conversations with the

Government. We know they have because I've been leaked copies of

text be send by by the Tory leader intended to somebody called Nick who

works for ministers in the Department for Communities and Local

Government and this text reads "I'm advised that DCLG officials have

been working on a solution and that you will be contacted me to agree a

memorandum of understanding." Ah. Will the Government now publish this

memorandum of understanding and while they are about it, will all

councils be offered the same deal? What we have given all councils is

the opportunity to raise a 3% precept on the council tax for that

go to go into social care. He talks about understanding. What the Labour

Party fails to understand... THE SPEAKER: Order. There is far too

much noise. Mr Pound calm yourself, you are supposed to be a senior

statesman. Order. And Mr Rotherham, you should

reserve your shouting for the stands at Anfield. Prime Minister.

As I say, all councils have the opportunity to raise the 3% precept

to put that funding into the provision of social care. What the

Labour Party fails to understand is that this is not just a question of

looking at money, it is a question of looking at spreading best

practice and finding a sustainable solution. And I have to say to him,

that if we look at social care provision across the entire country,

the last thing social care providers need is another one of Labour's

bouncing cheques. Mrnchts speaker, I wonder if it is

anything to do with the fact that the Chancellor and Health Secretary

both represent Surrey constituencies? Mr Speakerers there

was a second text from Surrey County Council leader to Nick and in the

second text it says "The numbers you indicated are the numbers that I

understand are acceptable for me to accept and call off the R." Now I've

been reading a bit of John Le Carre, and apparently R means, referendum.

It's very subtle, all this. He goes on to say in his text to

Nick "If it is possible for that info to be sent to myself, I can

then revert back soonest. Really want to kill this off." So, how much

did the Government offer Surrey to kill this off? And is the same

sweetheart deal on offer to every council facing the social care

crisis, created by her Government? I've made clear to the right

honourable gentleman what has been made available to every council,

which is the ability to raise the precept. And I have to say to him...

THE SPEAKER: Order. As colleagues know, I never mind how long Prime

Minister's Questions takes. The questions must be heard and the

answers must be heard. The Prime Minister. I have to say to

him, he comes to the despatch broks making all sorts of claims. Yet

again what we get from Labour are alternative facts. -- Despatch Box.

What they really need is an alternative leader.

Mr Speaker, my question was - what deal has been offered to Surrey that

got them to call off a referendum and will the same deal be offered to

every other council going through a social care crisis? Mr Speaker,

hospital wards are overcrowded. 1 million people aren't getting the

care they need. And family members, mostly women, are having to give up

work to care for loved ones. Every day that the Prime Minister fails to

act, this crisis gets worse. So will she, finally, come clean and provide

local authorities with the funding they need to fund social care

properly, so that our often elderly and vulnerable people can be treated

with the support and dignity that they deserve in a civilised society?

The deal that is on offer to all councils is the one I have already

set out. Let me just be very clear with the right honourable gentleman,

because as ever, he stands up and consistently asks for more spending.

More money, more funding. What he always fails to recognise, what he

fails to recognise is that you can only spend money on social care and

on the National Health Service if off strong economy to deliver the

wealth that you need. There is a fundamental difference between us.

When I... THE SPEAKER: Order. I'm sorry there is still too much noise

in the chamber. People observing our proceedings here and on the outside

what the questions heard and the answers heard and they will be.

Prime Minister. There is a difference between us,

when I talk about half a trillion pounds, that's the money we will be

spending on the NHS this Parliament. When Labour talk about half a

trillion pounds, tss the money they want to borrow. Conservatives

investing in the NHS, Labour bankrupting Britain.

Thank you, Mr Speaker, there are significant challenges facing this

great nafgs ours, Prime Minister, one of which is tackling mental

health, particularly for young people. The pressures of juggling

school life, family life and staying safe and feeling valued online are

more difficult than ever, would the Prime Minister agree to meet with me

and my team to discuss the Mental Health Act that we have been working

on and developing, an app to give young people a tool box to help them

in the times of crisis? I am interested to hear of this.

Mental health is an area where we do need to put more of a focus and make

progress. I am pleased to say that something like 1400 more people are

accessing mental health services every day. But more needs to be

done. We are putting ?68 million into improving mental health care

through digital innovation, which sounds as if it fits right into what

my honourable friend is looking at. There will be a particular focus on

that with children and young people's mental health in mind. He

might want to look out for the Department of Health and the

Department for Education joint green paper that they will publish in

October. Angus Robertson. Last night, parliamentarians from across

the chamber and across the parties voted overwhelmingly against the UK

Government's Brexit plans in the Scottish Parliament. If the United

Kingdom is a partnership of equals, will the Prime Minister compromise

like the Scottish Government and reach a negotiated agreement before

invoking Article 50, or will she just carry on regardless? As the

right honourable gentleman knows, when the UK Government negotiates,

it will be negotiating as the government for the whole of the

United Kingdom. We have put in place the JNC arrangements through various

committees which enable us to work closely with the devolved

administrations identify the particular issues that they want to

see represented as we put our views together. We have said we will

intensify the discussions within that arrangement and that is what

we'll do. Angus Robertson. When the Prime Minister was in Edinburgh on

the 15th of July last year, she pledged that she would "Not trigger

article 50 until she had an agreed UK-wide approach. So given that the

Scottish Parliament has voted overwhelmingly against her approach,

and all bar one MP representing a Scottish constituency in this House

of Commons has voted against her approach, she does not have an

agreed UK-wide approach. As the Prime Minister knows, a lot of

people in Scotland watch Prime Minister's Questions. So will she

tell those viewers in Scotland when she intends to keep her word to

Scotland or not? We are ensuring that we are working with the

Scottish Government and the other devolved administrations as we take

this matter forward. I would just remind the right honourable

gentleman of two things. First of all, the Supreme Court was clear

that the Scottish parliament does not have a veto on the triggering of

article 50. The bill that is going through the House is obviously

giving the power to the government to trigger article 50. I would also

remind him of this point, because he constantly refers to the interests

of Scotland inside the European Union. An independent Scotland would

not be in the European Union. Mr Speaker, the people of Rossendale

and Darwen warmly welcome Government's housing White Paper.

Will my right honourable friend confirm that when it comes to

providing more security for renters, building more affordable homes and

helping people buy their own home, it is this party, the Conservative

Party, that is fixing our broken housing market? Am happy to agree

with my honourable friend. Our broken housing market is one of the

greatest barriers to progress in Britain today and the housing White

Paper brought out by my right honourable friend II for communities

and local government sets out the steps we will take to fix it and my

honourable friend is right. It is the Conservatives who are going to

support local authorities to deliver more of the right homes in the right

places to encourage faster build-up of developments. I'm sure everybody

recognised the problem of planning permission that are given and then

not built out, and create the conditions for a more competitive

and diverse housing market. We are setting out the response abilities

of all parties in building the homes that Britain needs. Does the Prime

Minister agree that in a 21st century parliament, the rules should

not able any member to speak for longer than 58 minutes in a

three-hour debate? Does she agree that the rules of the House should

be changed to prevent filibustering and French other members from all

sides of the House get that our share of the time available? I have

to say, I find that a rather curious question from the honourable

gentleman. Last night, as it happens, I was out of the House

between the two votes. I switched on the BBC Parliament channel and I saw

the honourable gentleman speaking. I turned over to something else. I

switched back. I saw the honourable gentleman still speaking! I switched

over to something else. I switched back and the honourable gentleman

was still speaking. He is the last person to complain about

filibustering in this House. Mrs Theresa Villiers. Mr Speaker,...

Order! Mr Hughes, you seem to be in a state of permanent overexcitement.

Calm yourself, man, take some sort of medication and it will soothe

you. We must hear Mrs Williams. As we prepare in this House to take

back control over our laws on agriculture, was she agree to use

Brexit as an opportunity to strengthen, not weaken the rules

which safeguard the welfare of animals? My right honourable friend

raises an important point which is of concern are many people in this

house and outside. We should be proud in the UK that we have some of

the highest animal welfare standards in the world. Indeed, one of the

highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will

not change this. I can assure my right honourable friend that we are

committed to maintaining and where possible, improving standards of

welfare in the UK while ensuring that our industry is not put at a

competitive disadvantage. Last week, the Russian Duma decriminalised

violence against women and children. I trust the government will

encourage Russia to rethink this aggressive approach which could

realise a domestic violence. Does she agree that ratify the Convention

would send a message to Russia and the world of the priority that

should be placed on ending gender-based violence? I am proud

that in this country, we have strengthened the law on domestic

violence and violence against women and girls. We see this as a

retrograde step by the Russian government, repealing existing

legislation sends out absolutely the wrong message on what is a global

problem. We have joined others in both the Council of Europe and the

OSCE in criticising this decision. Each year, the NHS reportedly spends

?80 million more than it needs to on prescriptions for basic painkillers

that can be sourced much more cheaply. Yet at the same time,

secondary breast cancer patients face being denied life extending

drugs. May I ask my right honourable friend to review this poor

allocation of resources and give breast cancer sufferers the hope

that they deserve? This is obviously an important issue that my

honourable friend has raised. I understand that on the point of

basic medication, it is in the fact that the NHS pays more for basic

painkillers than on the high street. In fact, their prices are lower. In

the case of the drug, it is right that difficult decisions are made on

the basis of clinical evidence. I understand that Nice is undertaking

a comprehensive assessment before making a final recommendation and in

the meantime, the drug is still available to patients. Last month, a

report was published on historical institutional abuse in Northern

Ireland. Given the uncertain political institutions in Northern

Ireland, if the executive is not up and running within a month, will the

Prime Minister commit to implementing a report on historical

institutional abuse in full? This was obviously an important review

and of course we have our inquiry into historic child abuse taking

place in England and Wales. I recognise the point the honourable

gentleman makes about looking ahead to the future. We obviously have the

elections on the 2nd of March. There were then be a period of time for an

executive to be put together. I would encourage all parties to work

to ensure that an executive can be put together in Northern Ireland to

maintain the devolved institutions. I don't want to see the benefits

that have come of progress being undone at this stage. I am sure that

looking ahead, whatever is necessary will be done to ensure that the

findings of that report are taken into account and acted on. The Prime

Minister has been clear in her negotiating objectives as we prepare

to leave the European Union. But with the Prime Minister agree with

me that regions like the West Midlands, part of which I represent,

needs a voice in those negotiations to ensure that we take the

opportunities presented by Brexit to raise investment in education,

skills and infrastructure in the region to ensure that her vision of

a global Britain represents the interests of all the regions of

England as well as the broader United Kingdom? I agree with my

honourable friend. When we negotiate as a United Kingdom, we will be

negotiating for the whole of the United Kingdom and taking account of

all parts of the United Kingdom. We have ambition in terms of making the

Midlands and engine for growth. It is about growing the region's

economy and more jobs. That is why money has been put into funding the

Birmingham rail hub, for example. Of course, the West Midlands will be

getting a strong voice nationally with a directed irate elected mayor

in May. I believe Andy Street will be a very good mayor for the West

Midlands. In welcoming the honourable gentleman back again to

the chamber, I call Mr Ronnie Campbell. Looking pretty slim as

well, Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker, I had five months under the health service

in Newcastle, under the auspices of Professor Griffiths, a marvellous

surgeon. He just about saved my life. But there was a flip side.

That is the best side of the national health and it has been

wonderful, the service I got. But there is a flip side, which is what

we are seeing today. We now have dedicated nurses who are called

corridor nurses. They are in the corridor, looking after patients on

trolleys. That is not the way we want our health service to run. Get

your purse open and give them the money they want. As the Speaker

said, I welcome the honourable gentleman to his place again in this

chamber. And I commend the surgeon and all those who have treated him

in the National Health Service that has enabled him to be here today and

to continue his duties. As we know, there are surgeons, doctors, nurses

and other staff up and down the NHS day in and day out, saving lives. We

should commend them for all that they do. The north-east is a good

example of some of the really good practice that we see in the National

Health Service. I want to see that good practice being spread across

the NHS across the whole country. Dr Sarah Wollaston. I am not alone in

hearing from family 's long settled here in Britain who are deeply

worried that they could be separated after we leave the European Union. I

know that the Prime Minister will not want that to happen, and I

wonder if today, she could reassure all our constituents that those who

were born elsewhere in the European Union but settled here in the UK are

married or in partnerships with British citizens, will have the

right to remain? My honourable friend raises an issue that is of

concern to members across this House. As she says, it is of concern

to many individuals outside of this House who will want reassurance

about their future. I want to be able to give that reassurance, but I

do want to see the same reassurance for UK citizens living in the EU.

But when I trigger article 50, I intend to make it clear that I want

this to be a priority for an early stage of the negotiations so that we

can address this issue and reassure the people concerned. Just two weeks

ago, a 15-year-old left school and was stabbed four times and died.

Three days earlier, a 19-year-old was stabbed to death in Wembley. And

just a few months earlier, two of my young constituents were killed and

the police said it was a case of mistaken identity. They were

22-year-old and a 27-year-old. Next week, I am eating the deputy Mayor

of London to discuss this issue and other issues. The Prime Minister

meet with me, fellow MPs and my borough commander to talk about this

issue and the sycamore project which we would like to see rolled out in

London and beyond? Can I express obviously the

condolences of the whole House to the familiar lanes friends to all of

those she referred to in her question who of been so brutally

stabbed and attacked and suffered from knife attacks she refers to.

Obviously this is an important issue. It is a particularly

important issue for London but it is one that we want to see addressed. A

lot of good work that has been done. I'm in the aware of the sycamore

project she has referred to but would be happy to hear more details

of it. From medics at Kingston Hospital to

researchers at Kingston university, and staff at growing electronics

businesses, Kingston's workforce is enriched by highly-skilled workers

from abroad so. Can my honourable friend refirm after we leave the EU

we'll continue to welcome highly-skilled worksers from the EU

and beyond. I thank my honourable friend for his question. We are very

clear that we dop want to bring the numbers of net migration down but we

also want to ensure that the brightest and best are still welcome

here in the United Kingdom. And that's why I think people want to

see the UK Government making decisions about people who are

coming here from the European Union, but we are very clear about the

importance, as I said in my speech in Lancaster House, there will still

be immigration from the European Union into the UK and we want to

ensure that the brightest and best are able to come here.

Yesterday the Brexit minister claimed that Parliament will have a

meaningful vote on the final EU deal. But account Prime Minister

confirm that under her plans Parliament will either have to

accept what the Government offers or fall back on WTO rules? And in the

event there's no deal, there'll be no vote at all? Isn't the reality

this is just take it or leave it and it is not a meaningful concession,

it's a con? We have been very clear. I said in my Lancaster House speech

that there would be a vote on the final deal. There were a number of

questions on what exactly that meant. We will bring forward o

motion on the final agreement for approval by both Houses of

Parliament and before the final agreement is concluded. We do

expect. I know this has been an issue for a number of honourable and

right honourable members. We do expect and intend that will happen

before the European Parliament debate before it votes and debates

on the final agreement. As the Prime Minister knows,

Trafford Schools are the best in the country. But they are also in one of

the F40 worst-funded areas but perversely the draft funding formula

would actually cut funding to are Trafford Schools not increase T when

she reviews the draft proposals l she look, please for a new formula

that guarantees that all of the worst-funded areas are increased in

funding, not cut? My honourable friend raises, again, an important

point that I know is a matter which is on the minds of a number of

honourable and right honourable friends. As I said earlier, I think

the current system of funding is unfair, it is not transparent. I

think it is out of date. I want to see a session at the that does

support our aspiration to ensure that every child has a good school

place. But, in looking at these reforms I can assure my honourable

friend that we want to get this right. It is why we are consulting

and why we will look very closely at the responses to that consultation.

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Npower have announced a 9.8%

increase on dual fuel bills which even the former boss, the former

tsar has described as shocking. EDS announced a 8.4% electricity hike

and it is reported that British Gas is preparing its 11 million customs

tomorrow Merse for a 9% increase. Ofgem has moved to protect those on

prepayment ministers with a cap on energy bills. I ask the Prime

Minister why doesn't she demand similar protection for the majority

of customs Merse who are being ripped off as the CMA has said to

the sum of ?1.4 billion. The Right Honourable lady might have missed

the fact that where we have said that markets aren't working we will

look at the measures needed and the energy market is one we are looking

at at the moment. In the spirit of neutrality. The Prime Minister's

Lancaster House was a call to put the divisions behind us. Does my

right honourable friend agree that this is a vision that everyone in

the House should support, that the more united we are, the stronger our

negotiating position will be. THE SPEAKER: The honourable gentleman

must be concerned. Does she share my surprise that certain members

opposite that disagreeing with their current party leader, can cause

headaches, that some may not have learned.

Can I say to my honourable friend, he is absolutely right that I think

the country wants us, in this House, and everybody in the country, wants

to unite behind the Government's work to ensure that we get the

best-possible deal for the UK, as we leave the European Union, and I

believe that we can get a deal that actually is going to be in the

interests both of the UK and of the European Union. I had hoped that I

was going to be able to welcome the Shadow Home Secretary to the front

bench in time for the vote that's going to take place later tonight.

Perhaps members of the Labour Party are starting to realise the only

real headache is their leader. Thank you, very much, Mr Speaker.

Does the Prime Minister agree with the Director-General of the World

Trade Organisation that if Britain were to leave the EU on WTO terms,

it would cost ?9 billion in lost trade each year? What we want to do

is to ensure that we negotiate a deal with the European Union that

enables us to have the best-possible deal in trading with and operating

within the European Union single market in goods and services. I

believe that's possible, precisely because, as I have just said n

response to my honourable friend the member for Lincoln, I believe that

is a deal that is good, not just for but for the EU as well.

The Prime Minister rightly argues for true parity of esteem between

mental and physical health but parent in York have been sold that

their children must wait up to a year for an assessment by the child,

now adolescent mentalhealth services. As the Department of

Health actually does not currently record these figures, would the

Prime Minister consider making the monitoring fted waiting times a

requirement? My honourable friend has raised an important point. As I

set out a few weeks ago, the Government will be reviewing the

separation of CAMs services across the country because I recognise some

of the concerns that honourable members have made. We want to ensure

that children and young people have easy access at the right time to

mental health because of the evidence that a significant

proportion of mental health problems that arise later in life actually

sta of children and adolescents. We have made more money available to

support transformation in children and young peep's mental health but

the Shadow Health Secretary - sorry, the Health Secretary... -- young

people's mental health. He is in his place as well.

I haute Shadow Health Secretary will agree with me we need to review CAM

services and are giving the right support to children and young

people, adolescents with mental health problems and we'll look at

the issue my honourable friend has raised.

Many honourable members in this House have recently made the long

journey up to West Cumbria for the by-election and we've all

experienced the states of our roads and local railways. It's taken a

by-election for transport ministers to look seriously and show any real

interest in this. Can I is ask, is the Prime Minister planning a trip

herself, so she too can experience why we need proper investment from

this Government into our transport infrastructure in West Cumbria? We

are putting more money, the Government is putting more money

into infrastructure investment across the country but you have to

say to her, the Labour Party had 13 years to improve transport in West

Cumbria and didn't do anything about it. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I

recently visited a world class coach-building manufacture based in

my constituent and heard about their exciting plans for the future. With

my right honourable friend join me in emphasising the importance of

skills and manufacturing for our economy, especially as we look to

leave the European Union? Can I thank my honourable friend for

drawing our attention to the example of Woodall Nicholson and say how

pleased we are to hear they have good plans for the future. Can I say

he is right, as we leave the EU we will be doing that from a position

of strength. He is right that skills and manufacturing are an important

of our economy for the future that's why in the industrial strategy we

are looking at how we can develop the excellence we already have in

the UK, for the prosperous, growing economy for the future.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister's right honourable friend,

the member for Rushcliffe last week pointed out that her aspiration to

achieve barrier-free tariff-free trade with the single market,

getting all the benefits but paying none of the cost, was actually akin

to disappearing down the rabbit hole to wonderland. Mr Speaker, I think

she makes a very interesting choice for Alice. But, if she doesn't

manage to achieve that Higham Biggs, would she produce an analysis of

what trading on WTO rules would actually mean for our economy, so we

can make a proper choice? Can I say I commend my right honourable friend

the member for Rushcliffe for the significant service he has given to

this House and his constituents over the years. He and I have have worked

well over a number of years although I have to say when I was Home

Secretary and he was Justice Secretary, I used to say that I

locked him up and he let them out. Can I say to the Right Honourable

lady, as far as this Government is concerned, we believe it is possible

within the two-year time frame to get the agreement, not just for our

withdrawal from the European Union, but also the trade arrangements that

will ensure that we have a strong, strategic partnership with the

European Union in the future. In my right honourable friend's

meeting with Binyamin Netanyahu this week, did she press the only way to

get a lasting peace settlement is for young Palestinians and Israelis

to look Ford to a job, a sharing prosperity and a life without fear,

does she agree the only way to achieve this is face-to-face

negotiations? And will she join the Israeli Prime Minister in pressing

the Prime Minister of the Palestinian authorities for

face-to-face negotiations? My right honourable friend does make a very

important point about this. We continue as a Government a

Conservative Government in the UK to believe that the two-state solution

is a right one. That means a viable Palestinian state but also a safe

and secure Israel. And, of course, it is for the parties to negotiate.

Obviously there are others on the international arena who are doing

their work to facilitate an agreement in the Middle East. But,

ultimately it is for the two parties to agree a way forward. THE SPEAKER:

Order. There was a good old-fashioned PMQs

ambush today. Jeremy Corbyn managed to get hold of some specks r text

and put the Prime Minister in a spot. Surrey council faced with

social cuts in other areas, decided to hold a referendum allowing it to

increase council tax by 15%. If you try to go by more than 5, you have

to call a referendum. Thiefs an embarrassment for the Conservative

Government in doing it and the text seemed to involve the head of Surrey

council, David Hodge, doing some -- this was an embarrassment for the

Conservative Government. It was somebody called Nick. We

think it may have gone to the wrong Nick, Nick Forbes a Labour

politician who works at the local association. And this is courtesy of

Guiedo Fox who got the "I understand you could chat this afternoon,

grateful if we could speak about the way forward." The rely is", hi,

David I haven't asked to speak to you, it is always a pleasure s this

something the Local Government Association is trying to set up?"

And Surrey then replies "I'm advised that the departmental officials and

my director of finance have been working on a solution and have a

memo of understanding." This Nick then says, "Do you know what it is b

sorry I'm going clueless here." This suggests to us, rather than going to

Nick King, Sajid Javid's SPAD, it went to Nick Ford at the "Local

Government Association." The key text here would seem to be again,

David Hodge, leader of Surrey council saying to Nick, "I have

received clarification from my Chief Executive (and I have just spoken to

various people) that the numbers you independenticated are the numbers

that I understand are acceptable for me to accept and call off the

referendum." So the clear implication here is that the leader

of Surrey council, assumes he is doing a deal, some kind of deal that

allows him not to proceed with this referendum to increase council tax

by 15%. We are trying to piece this together as we go along but it is

undoubtedly putting the Government on the back foot at the moment.

Exactly what the deal is we don't know but as Mr Corbyn said if this

deal was available to Surrey, an area which includes the

constituencies of the Chancellor and the Health Secretary, for example, a

staunch Tory area s this available to councils throughout? We will come

back to this in a minute Laura has been pouring over what she knows but

let's hear because you picked up on this too, and reflected in the

e-mails. And as a result, people for Jeremy

Corbyn had a good primer on Asos questions in contrast to last week.

A viewer indeed says, I am sure overwhelmed A doctors and nurses

will be reassured by the Prime Minister's kind words. They might

have preferred greater investment government interference. PS, I agree

with Nick, the memorandum of understanding one as opposed to Nick

Clegg. Another says Jeremy Corbyn is more effective when he hammers

through on health care. It was a good ploy to avoid mentioning

Brexit. Talk of sweetheart deals is effective mudslinging rhetoric. It

will make the news and united Labour for a day or two. Ian in Altrincham

says after a terrible few weeks at PMQs, Jeremy Corbyn stormed back to

be, admittedly on safe ground of the NHS and social care, but Mrs May was

flawed, not answering Coggan's questions, reduced to insulting NHS

Wales. Laura, we are now forced to call this Nickileaks! You stole my

line! This could be extremely embarrassing for the government with

a clear suggestion from Jeremy Corbyn and from these texts that

Surrey Council, of course an area around with Tory MPs, some of them

very senior, Jeremy Hunt, the Health Secretary, being one of them, which

has somehow been given a special favour in terms of the numbers that

are talked about in this text. The key phrase is that the numbers are

acceptable for me to call off the referendum. That is clear evidence,

not a slam dunk, because we have not seen the origin of these texts, that

somehow a solid Tory area has been given a special deal to avoid their

being an embarrassing referendum to put up council tax, which would be

very unpopular. Theresa May didn't have answers at PMQs. They will be

scrabbling to come up with some kind of response to this. This could be

extremely embarrassing. Big question of how this came to light. Could it

be Nick Forbes, the leader of Newcastle City Council and a senior

figure at the Local Government Association? This could be extremely

awkward in an area we have discussed so many times in the last few weeks.

It is really difficult for the government. They don't have an

answer right now on social care. Nick Gibb, can we confirm that you

are not the Nick involved in this? Definitely not. There are a lot of

Nicks around. Can we also establish that it is now impossible for the

government to avoid explaining to us what deal has been done between

central government and Surrey County Council? These are routine

discussions that take place between the DC Oti and councils in the

country as part of the local government financial settlement.

They take place every year as they did under Labour. The final

settlement will be published later this month. The House of Commons

votes on it, so this is routine. But it cannot be routine if Surrey

Council were planning a referendum to increase council tax by 50%. They

have seen a cut in their central government grant since 2010 of ?170

million at a time when a man for the services that that 170 million was

meant to cover has been rising. So in real terms, it is a lot more.

They wanted a 15% rise. They have to put that to a referendum. Something

has been done, as we know from the texts. Let me get the reply -

something was done to stop a referendum. It is a crony deal

between Tories and Tories. That is clearly the implication. Well, the

budget settlement in Surrey is a matter for Surrey County Council. I

understand they voted it through last night. But these discussions

between different councils of all political colours up and down the

country take place every year as local authorities settle their

financial agreements with the government. No secret memorandum.

David Hodge thinks he was doing a deal. It is now clear that he

thought he was sending it to Nick King, special adviser to Sajid

Javid, but in fact sent it to a different Nick, Nick Forbes at the

local government authority. And he of course is a Labour politician. I

need to get reaction from you. I am gobsmacked. A good attempt, Nick,

but to say this is routine, are you saying this happens on a routine

basis that dodgy deals are done if you are in a Tory council and uterus

may referendum, you get what you want? Somebody has to resign over

this. This is a disgrace. There are people up and down the country

suffering these cuts and if you press the button with your Tory

mates, you get a good deal? It is an outrage and this is going to run and

run. People had better lance this boil quick, or we will see all these

documents published. We want to see it all fully disclosed, because this

will haunt you if you don't get it right. There will be a demand for

total transparency on this. It is not as if there are any security

implications. Indeed, and we understand John Ashworth will call

for an inquiry. He will suggest that all the correspondence around this

should be published. The classic question, if there is nothing to

hide and it is all routine, why should it not be out in the public

domain? We will see what happens. The whole financial settlement is

voted on by the House of Commons. We will see the numbers as they come

out. The local government finance settlement was announced after the

Autumn Statement. As we discussed at the time, it was delayed for a bit

longer because local government leaders were fighting for an

expected there to be something extra for them about social care. But

there was not. So this row is pushing at a bruise that is already

extremely painful. Won't it be the number that is the key? It is worth

referring back to the text. "The Numbers you indicated", says David

Hodge, "Other numbers I've understand are acceptable for me to

call off the referendum". If this text is genuine - we haven't got

hold of David Hodge yet or broken to whoever the Nick was - but this

seems... What makes this politically difficult is that this is a Tory

government, dealing with the Tory heartlands. You don't get more Tory

than sorry. Ian McLeod used to refer to it as the deep South. And we know

what he meant by that. It is interesting that they were so

anxious to do some kind of deal. I would suggest that there was never

any chance that Surrey, Tory heartland, was going to vote for a

15% increase in council tax. My understanding is that they had voted

for increases in the past. Not 15%. Probably not. But these issues do

take place because you have to make sure that the figures are correct.

We get this in school funding as well. The local authority sometimes

comes to us and says, we put the wrong figures in the wrong box, can

we have a mission to get extra money from the department? We look at

those things every year. I am glad you mentioned school funding,

because you will be glad to know that that is what we are going to

move on to. We can talk to Toby Perkins, the Labour MP who asked the

first question at PMQs, which was about the proposed changes to the

government's funding formula for schools. What are your concerns?

Well, the school that the government launched the pupil premium in in my

constituency is facing the biggest cuts in Derbyshire. It is a very

deprived school. 70% of the children are on free school meals. My sense

is not only that there is not enough money generally for schools, but

that the schools that need that support are facing the biggest cuts.

Now we have the headteacher of that school running the Great North Run

not for charity, but to try and prop up his core funding so he doesn't

have to sack staff. We have the schools minister here. Why are the

schools in that constituency, which is in a fairly deprived area, going

to lose money and funding from this new formula which the Prime Minister

said would be fairer? We are spending record amounts of money on

school funding, ?40 billion. But there is increased demand. Yes, so

it will rise to deal with that over the rest of the parliament to 42

billion by 2019. We had to address the historic unfairness of the way

the money was distributed. It is based on 2005 data which is out of

date. It is based on an amalgamation of all kinds of grants which went to

different parts of the country over a period of time. People have

complained for years that this is unfair, so we have grasped the

nettle. It is undoubtedly controversial, but we have set a

series of principles like deprivation, low prior attainment of

pupils and English as a second language. We have consulted on that

and got agreement and have applied that two schools based on current

data. You will find that some schools lose, because they have been

funded more generously in the past. Toby Perkins, have your school is

being funded more generously in the past? Derbyshire is one of the 40

councils that are underfunded generally. But specifically, we are

seeing the school that has the third greatest level of deprivation in all

of Derbyshire being the one that gets the biggest cuts. The

government are cutting the schools that have the kids with the biggest

level of deprivation. It is not just people on the opposition like Toby

Perkins. Graham Brady, a Conservative MP, has that

historically, funding in his constituency has been extremely low.

So it has led the Conservative leader of Kent County Council to say

we welcome the new funding formula, but are we getting the right spots?

We are. We are putting a great deal of money into deprivation. Then why

is the school losing out? The anomaly is not the new funding

formula. The anomaly is what happened before. We are having to

address historic anomalies. For example, in London ten years ago,

27% of pupils were eligible for free school meals. That figure is now 18%

because of the increased prosperity of inner London. They are still the

best funded part of the country. And now you are going to cut funding.

But it is fairer now. 50% of schools will gain and 46% will see a small

fall. But 1000 rural schools will have their budgets cut and the

proposed formula. The whole idea was to help some of these rural schools

in the government claim have lost out to areas like London. But

schools will gain which never had it in the past. The point is, when you

are creating a fairer national funding formula based on current

data and you apply those numbers to the current year, you will see some

schools rise and some schools fall. But overall, we are spending more on

schools that we have ever done. We have to leave it there. In the

interest of fairness, the Surrey County Council leader David Hodge

has said that Surrey's decision not to proceed with a 15% council tax

increase was ours alone. There has been no deal between Surrey County

Council and the government. But these texts have to be expensive but

we need to tell you what the year was. Whack that red button. It was

1959. That is it for today. The one

O'Clock News is starting on BBC One. We will be back tomorrow with

another edition of the Daily Politics here on BBC Two. Bye-bye.