12/07/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Is the level of abuse in our politics on the rise?


As MPs prepare to debate the issue, Labour and Conservatives engage


in an increasingly bitter row about the causes of abuse.


An EU naval mission, backed by the Royal Navy,


is failing to curb the flow of migrants and may even be leading


to an increase in deaths at sea - so says a damning report


So should the Government rethink its support?


It's the penultimate PMQs before the summer break,


but it's the battle of the deputies today as Damian Green


faces Emily Thornberry - we'll have all the action


And Labour MP Chris Bryant will join us to reveal what piece


of legislation he will put forward after winning the ballot


So the most important story left to last. Absolutely.


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


the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, David Gauke,


and the Shadow Business Minister, Jack Dromey.


Now, we know that George Osborne used to say "uncork the Gauke"


when he wanted to send David here to the TV studios.


Unfortuately history doesn't relate what Jeremy Corbyn


says when he wants Jack to appear on television!


An EU naval mission designed to curb the flow of migrants


in the Mediterranean has failed to achieve its main objective -


that's according to a new report from a House of Lords committee.


The peers say that Operation Sophia, in which the UK plays a leading


role, appears to have done little to deter migration and its mandate


Indeed, the report says the operation may even have had


the unintended consequence of leading to more deaths at sea.


In the report, the peers say the operation has "failed


to achieve its objective" of disrupting smuggling


and human trafficking in the central Mediterranean.


The peers also say that the operation has unintentionally


This is because they've been destroying the smugglers boats


This is because they've been destroying the smugglers' boats


which has led to them attempting the crossing in less


But the chair of the committee, Baroness Verma, said


that the operation, which has rescued over 30,000 people, has also


In 2015, there were 3175 recorded deaths at sea in the central


That number increased significantly last year,


And the figure for this year is currently at 2150 recorded deaths.


David Gauke, do you accept these findings? No. We will want to look


very carefully, but I think the objective of operation, which is to


disrupt the business model of the people smugglers, these traffickers,


is absolutely right, and that does mean that... If you like there are


twin objectives, one is humanitarian, which the report


accepts has been a success, but also to make it difficult, so that the


business model does not work so there is not money to be made and


that. And that has not worked. What the report says, that objective of


disrupting the trafficking route has failed? I think that is one thing


you have to give it plenty of time. It will not be an overnight success.


And it has caused more deaths? I would not put it that way. As I say,


in terms of the humanitarian effort, it is working, but this is going to


be a long haul, you know. It is not going to be an easy overnight


solution, but we have to disrupt that model, and of course we might


have to adapt, we might have to look at the way the business is working


and do what we can to stop it, but nonetheless the intentions behind it


I think are sensible. The intentions are fine, but the findings are that


it is not working. The objective was to disrupt the roots, and what has


actually happened as a result is less seaworthy dinghies and vessels


are being used which is having the unintended consequences of more


people dying at sea, so instead of disrupting the business model, to


use your phrase, the smugglers are just adapting to the new model. I


think the challenge with all of these, however you look at it, is


trying to work out what is if you like the counterfactual, what would


have happened had we not done this? And, you know, had EU nations not


been cooperating and trying to disrupt this, the risk that this


business, which is what it is for these smugglers... Which has not


been disrupted. Well, would we have seen more journeys? Would we have


seen bigger vessels being used, more people being smuggled? And I


think... The numbers are up this year on last year. My point is you


have to work out the counterfactual, had we not done this. All we know


the numbers are up every year. A somewhat important point, that if,


you know, what would have happened had we not taken this action, it


could it be even more? Simply looking at what the numbers were


compared to the previous year and does not give you the whole answer.


No, but it gives you an indication. It is going in the wrong direction,


isn't it? You said look at the long term, you said about disrupting the


business model, and they have just adapted that, and now they are


sending people over a fairly flimsy vessels, and those people are dying


at sea, because they can't make the crossing from Libya. Just to be


clear, is the Government going to stick to this model, if you like, of


trying to disrupt migrants' groups, or though you've rethink it? I think


we do disagree with what the committee has said, but of course


these things have to be constantly under review. How much longer would


you give it? I will not put a date on it today. As I say, the real


challenge here is if those larger vessels had been allowed to operate


unimpeded, would we have seen more and more and more making use of it?


That is the real risk. So the Government is going to stick with


its support for this particular mission. What does Labour the?


Humanity given is that you can't allow people to drown at sea. Do you


remember the outcry there was when that two-year-old boy was washed up


on the beach. I sure? What we have to do is to more effectively tackle


the causes as to why we are seeing the biggest movement of humanity


since the Second World War. How long could that takes? To be frank, it


could take years. In the meantime are you saying that nothing should


be done? When you think about economic migration, because so many


of these coming now are economic migrants, and crucially it is about


the development of their countries, the role we play in helping to


develop their countries, so they have a strong economy and jobs to


stay in the country. People would agree but it is a long-term plan,


isn't it? Yellow in the here and now, again, you can't resolve this


overnight. -- yes, and in the here and now, again. We need greater


security services, cooperation, to stop the boats leaving the first


place. Up until now it has been a country of chaos, very difficult to


have any decent communication, so that has not been possible. To


pretend these are easily solvable issue is overnight is to pretend


unreal. We have to dig down to the causes, that cause people to leave


in the first place, then what you do in terms of Libya itself. Do you


support one of the recommendations which is some sort of land operation


in Libya then? I think we have to look at all options at the next


stages, but it can only be by way of cooperation, and under the UN


banner. You would look at that? I think in terms of a more stable


Libya and preventing the boat sleeping in the first place, I think


what we need to do is to have a serious debate around all options


contributing towards that -- prevents the boats leaving in the


first place. Am I committing to that tomorrow? Norma, but we should have


an on the Shore presents working with the Libyan authorities,


stabilising the regimes and stopping the flow of boats. That sounds a


slightly longer term plan. What is your view of the land operation


recommended in this report? That actually you could disrupt people


smuggling more effectively from their rather than at the? We ought


to consider that. I will not rush into making a policy statement on


that. It comes back to the fundamentals. I do not disagree with


what Jack is saying about the fundamental problem, and, you know,


what we do have to do is find a way to effectively disrupt the


smugglers, as it were, and that has to be the key objective. It might


just finally, the report says the UK Government and other EU countries


have not been sufficiently engaged on Libya at the highest level. You


have been close to cabinet for a long time. How often does Libya, in


cabinet meetings? I have been attending Cabinet for a year. We


have raised issues of the wider region, including Libya, on a number


of occasions, but it is not there every week, and I accept that.


Clearly, as a wider region it is hugely important. Do you think it


should go up the priority list? Clearly there is, as Jack said, this


huge movement of people, which is an issue for all of Europe, including


the UK, so it is important we get to grips with it. Thank you.


MPs will today debate why it is they receive so much


But the issue is itself causing bitter divisions


Today, Labour has accused the Conservatives of promoting


personal attacks as a core part of its election campaign.


But some Conservatives have suggested that left-wing activists


who back Jeremy Corbyn are behind a rise in abuse.


Conservative MP Simon Hart is leading today's Commons debate


He was on this programme yesterday and criticised Momentum -


the grassroots campaign supportive of Jeremy Corbyn -


There's quite a lot of anti-Semitism about, homophobia, sexism -


you know, it's not just the left versus the right, although in my


experience, and I can only speak for myself,


By people feeling they've been given permission by the silence


from political leaders, to engage in this with no


Meanwhile, Labour's Chairman Ian Lavery has written to Conservative


Party Chairman Patrick McLoughlin accusing the Tories of "vitriolic


personal attacks" on Labour candidates during the election,


The letter singles out treatment received by


Labour's Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott.


A report by the A report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group


Against Anti-Semitism is demanding new laws and tougher


The report details numerous examples of abuse, including:


Conservative MP Sheryll Murray whose posters were covered with swastikas


during the election, Conservative MP Maria


Caulfied who had her tyres slashed outside her home,


and Labour MP Iain Wright whose family were threatened


Thanks. Jack Dromey, the Tory MP Simon Hart said of this programme


yesterday that abuse has been worse since Momentum was founded. What


easy to that? I think it has been getting worse for some years. The


abuse I get comes overwhelmingly from the right, but it does not


matter where it comes from. It is unacceptable. Anyone who practice


that is completely wrong. I think when we are talking about abuse it


is best if we did not use abusive language... I feel very strongly


about this. In relation to what Simon said, he talked about


leadership. If I can ask David this question, does Theresa May regret


the leadership she gave during the general election campaign, in what


was a vitriolic campaign of personal abuse against Jeremy Corbyn,


including calling him a threat to security, a terrorist sympathiser? I


think that was outrageous, and if the leadership sets at home, it must


not be surprised if you then get people who behave badly. David


Gauke. I think there is a very big difference in terms of, for example,


describing Jeremy Corbyn as an IRA sympathiser, which was done, which


happens to be true, and the question is whether you think that is


important or not, but I think it is a fair description, between the type


of abuse that was received, and let's be clear, there are idiots of


all political views, and there is no monopoly here in terms of stupidity,


but what we have seen in recent years coming from the hard left is


something which is much more aggressive, much more abusive, that


we have seen in the past. In the general election it was by and large


conservatives who bore the brunt of that, but it is not exclusively


conservatives. Angela Eagle has had her office... Shameful. That was


absolutely shameful. Yes, and that is coming, Jack, not from


conservatives or Conservative supporters, but that is coming from


the hard left. Absolutely shameful, and I think the treatment of both of


them has been completely wrong, and anyone in Labour's ranks who


practices such intimidatory behaviour, to be frank, they have no


place in our ranks. Why is it coming from the left? I don't believe that


is the case. You think these attacks, on Luciana Berger. Mugello


Mike Luciana Berger, yes. Angela Eagle? It is absolutely wrong. But


why? I think those who practice it should not do it and at their worst,


they should not have any place within our party, but it does come


back to this point. What Simon said about the importance of leadership.


If you get Theresa May on the one hand, when you remember her


launching the campaign on the 18th of April, all of us, we were a


saboteur of the country, then you get Donald Trump on the other hand.


What you have is public discourse being poisoned by a vitriol and it


has no place in politics, and it has to start, David, with leadership.


But you'll remember a leading Labour person in Clement Attlee's time,


calling the Tories lower than vermin. That is a kind of... That is


very different from the racist, misogynist, unrepeatable... The fact


that you can repeat some of that view suggests it is political


discourse at the outer edges. Most of what we're talking about is


unrepeatable abuse. That is a different form of abuse. It is


totally outrageous, I am not tried to make any excuse whatsoever for


anyone in our ranks who practices that. It is absolutely unacceptable.


What is being done about it? A number of initiatives have been


taken, both in terms of tone setting, and Jeremy has been good at


this, no place in politics for that kind of vitriol, but action taken


against individuals guilty of it. These sad boys in their bedrooms who


hide behind anonymity to send terrible messages about people like


Luciana Berger, but forgive me if I come back once again to this crucial


issue of leadership. If you have public discourse poisoned by the


kind of vitriol that we are seeing of late, both here and in America,


things like this are encouraged, rather than being curbed. There is


nothing that Theresa May or indeed any other Conservative said about


Jeremy Corbyn that I have not heard said by Labour MPs. Let's not


confuse this issue. In this election campaign, the graffiti on posters,


the posters pulled down, the messages being sent. I am not going


to pretend this was exclusively on one side versus the other, but I am


not aware of many cases where there will Labour posters being pulled


down. The aggressiveness, not coming from people like Jack, from the


decent wing of the Labour Party, it is coming from the hard left, a hard


left that is pretty closely associated with the leadership of


the Labour Party. Maybe you should all rapture down the hyperbole,


because most of the attacks on each of the parties are way over the top.


They wouldn't stand a moment's scrutiny. Well, look, I think there


may well be something in that, but it is a perfectly legitimate


election issue when a party is putting forward, as candidate for


Prime Minister, someone who has got a long record of being pretty close


to a terrorist organisation, has described Hamas and Hezbollah as


friends, I mean, you rightly ask questions in your interviews... Can


I ask you this question? You have repeated some of the things that


have been repeatedly said about Jeremy Corbyn, can you give me one


example of similar vitriol from Jeremy Corbyn about Theresa May? The


difference is that Theresa May has never sympathised with terrorist


organisations. To its credit, he never engaged in that kind of


personal political abuse, the leader of your party did. But plenty of his


supporters did. And I have been clear on that. We were just


describing his record, that is all. It is one thing for there to be


robust political exchanges, I am all in favour of that in a democracy,


but when that then becomes personal vitriol, grotesque overstatements,


not least because, let's remember this, at its most obscene, we cannot


go down the path of where we have a culture where you then get people


like Jo Cox ending up being murdered. Now, that was a nasty


right-winger, nobody quite knows some of the backgrounds towards


that, but setting the tone in politics is really important. So I


stress again, robust exchange, differences of opinion, but personal


vitriol is absolutely wrong. You know that the problem, look, my


colleagues faced it in the election campaign, a lot of your colleagues


will face its probably in the years ahead, and it is coming from the


hard left, a hard left who feel that they have got, in Jeremy Corbyn, a


leader that they agree with. Let me get you to address this, the Labour


chairman, Ian Lavery, accused the Conservatives of propagating


personal attacks, Conservatives on Diane Abbott, do you agree with


that? The vitriol directed water was disgraceful. There can be no


argument of that, but your chairman is accusing the Conservatives of


propagating personal attacks. Well, the scale of the attacks launched on


Diane Abbott from your own party work... Well, give me an example.


She was variously described... She was described as someone who had


sympathy with terrorist organisations... She wanted the IRA


to win at one stage, she is on the record as saying victory for the IRA


is a victory against the British state, that is not abuse, that is a


factual quote. Ultimately, what we saw was a level of personalised


abuse. I understand that, but do you have evidence it was from the


Conservatives? Do you have evidence it was from the Conservatives? You


have to look at what was said in the public arena. I have just given an


example of it. No, you haven't. The idea that she is some sort of crypto


terrorist sympathiser is completely wrong. So we shouldn't bring up what


she said in the past? Ultimately, what happened was that partly the


tone set by your own party, but also some of those on social media, we


saw it degenerate into racist, sexist abuse. But where the


Conservatives behind it? That is the question. Yvette Cooper was right


when she said, whether it is Diane Abbott, Luciana Berger, Yvette


herself, the time has come to draw a line in politics against what has


happened to the degradation of politics. We understand that, but


where is the evidence to back up your chairman's statement that the


Conservatives were behind personal attacks on Diane Abbott? I will ask


for a third and final time. I have just given you an example. You


haven't, it is not abused to point out a record of supporting the IRA


in the early 80s. She was systematically described, like


Jeremy Corbyn... Why is that abuse? Because that is not where they


stand. It was in 1984! If you say things about people that are not


true, as they go to the country, is simply not true... Well, you are not


addressing this, I think we will move on, I ask you about apples, you


apply about pears, it doesn't get us anywhere.


Now, regular viewers will know that this is the moment in the show


as I introduce our Guess The Year competition.


I usually say that politics is a mug's game or some such.


But, frankly, I'm running out of ideas,


The former First Minister of Scotland, no less!


Alex Salmond, no mug he, is swapping politics


for comedy this summer, when he will host his own show


Tough, tell us about that! It is going to be a lot of fun, a bit of


politics, sport, show business, some storytelling, a bit of interviewing.


Nothing out of the ordinary! You're going to tell us stories about


things you don't know? It is going to be a challenge for me to think of


something you don't know! So a bit of humour as well? There will be a


different celebrity guest every show, but the one consistent thing


is that it will be light-hearted. You will have guests as well? Mr


Trump flying in? Unfortunately, it was in the balance, he has turned it


down, very foolishly, in my view. Donald Trump junior may have more


time on his hands! Let's put it this way, I think the President of the


United States may well feature in some of the stories. Surprise,


surprise! Well, over to you! Now, it's time for the most


famous mug in politics. It is, of course,


the Daily Politics mug. A glorious prize that has long


eluded me in my career, a cup so magnificent it eclipses


even the Scottish quaich Theresa May presented to


Donald Trump. In fact, I might keep


this one for myself. To reclaim it from me,


all you have to do is tell us which year


this happened. A warning that is clip does contain


flash photography. # Maybe we should


take it slow...# # I saw your face


in a crowded place. # She's looking in my eyes,


now I see no other guys. # Don't think about it,


boy, leave her alone...# To be in with a chance of winning


a Daily Politics mug, send your answer to the 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 the website. Oh, I am out of a job!


There we go, we kept in with Compliance as well, job done! You


have got the job! See you next Wednesday.


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


It is a pretty humid, cloudy day in London. Prime Minister's Questions


does not feature either the Prime Minister or the Leader of the


Opposition today, but Laura Kuenssberg is here, what will be on


the agenda? One of the strange things about today is that it will


add to the rather weird atmosphere at the moment, a sense of Nottingham


is going on in Parliament, I have to say, very little going through the


House before the end of the session. Normally the Government would be


trying to ram through, wash up, tomorrow the Repeal Bill, a really


big important piece of legislation will be put forward, but people are


trying to dampen expectations of what will be in it, very much


process. So this is going to be a bit strange today, frankly, not


least because of the characters who part of our audience are not that


necessarily familiar with. Damian Green, although hugely important, de


facto deputy to Theresa May, will be put through his paces by Emily


Thornberry. Crucial economic data, David Gauke, and other pretty


healthy fall in unemployment. Employment is up on last year, the


largest rise on record, but average earnings are only rising by 1.8%, at


a time when inflation is rising at 3%. Now, what is the thought in


government that at a time of essentially full employment with


these employment figures, wages are rising so slowly? Why? I think it is


a complex issue, and it is difficult to put your finger precisely what it


is, some of it is due to the fact that inflation has Piketon that has


followed the fall in the pound last year, and certainly the Bank of


England... But average earnings are down 0.5% in real terms on the? Why?


At a time when employment continues to rise, the labour market tightens,


why is the rate of increase in average earnings slowing down? I


think it is difficult to say, certainly in terms of... Have you


done work on this? Because it is crucial to your economic strategy.


What we know is what drives up wages and salaries is improved


productivity, and clearly we need, as a country, we don't perform as


well on productivity as we should do, so policies like having business


friendly tax environment to attract investment, improving


infrastructure, improving skills... You have been in power for seven


years. A lot of these things, the product -- productivity challenge


has existed for decades. If you want to keep the economy growing, and


consumer spending accounts for 68% of GDP, you need to find ways of


pumping up wages, why are you not doing that? We have got a national


living wage... That is taken into account. It means those who have


seen their wages rise the most part low paid, and that is where... But


there is a real squeeze on endings at the moment, and it is and the


mining growth, you see that in the GDP figures. In the long term, as


you well know, what lives up wages and salaries is improved


productivity. In the long term, we are all dead - including those whose


wages are only rising by 1.8%, no sense of urgency in the Government


about this? Of course, but... It doesn't seem like it. That is why,


you know, coming back to skills, infrastructure, it comes back to


attracting investment to the UK which... None of that is going to


happen overnight. There is a lot of work we have already done, and we


need to continue down that path. Jack Dromey, not just a British


phenomenon, America and Germany have pretty much full employment, and


wages there, for unaccountable reasons, are growing very slowly.


Something is happening to the normal economic equation that when labour


markets get tight, wages get stronger. You make a very good


point. First of all, the Government has got to stop talking about


quantity, Matthew Taylor said this yesterday, we need to talk about


quality. It is more about what you do in practical terms. There are


deep-seated, long-term problems in relation to productivity, but two


things that could happen right now to give Britain a pay rise, if you


remove the 1% cap on public sector pay, but secondly, were you to go


down the path of what we propose, I was a founder member of the drive


for the living wage, significantly to increase the living wage - good


for the worker, good for their family, good for the employer,


because the evidence is that the individuals are more productive,


less turnover of labour, good for local economies, because low paid


workers don't stick money away in Swiss bank accounts, and good for


the taxpayer, because working are claiming less and paying more taxes.


There are some things that you could do very quickly indeed that would


make a real difference. Laura, will this come up today, do you think?


Oblige us to reflect a bit on it, this is what some Conservatives


admit they now missed during the election campaign, so these figures


deal with what happened in the last quarter or the last couple of


months, and the Tories are very proud of the record numbers of jobs


created during their time, but one thing that surprised them on the


doorstep, and they have not factored in during the election campaign, the


fact that lots of people are starting to feel a bit hard up. That


misery gap, as you call it, the difference between the rate of pay


increase and the rate of inflation, as inflation spiked earlier this


year, is something we have not seen for a while in this country, and for


any government of the day, if people are feeling that they are worse off,


they are going to punish the people in charge. The other thing that we


mentioned, one of my sources... We will have to leave that, straight to


the House of Commons. My right honourable friend is


welcoming the king and queen of Spain on their state visit to the


United Kingdom and I am sure the whole House wishes them well. Isn't


today's report that the National Grid made ?3 billion profit in 2016


at the expense of households further evidence the Government is not


delivering their energy prices? Will the Government agreed to an


immediate rebate for overcharging, and will the Government now commit


and energy price cap for the households on the most expensive


tariffs? The right honourable lady is right to identify the issue and I


am sure she will welcome the announcement in the Queen's Speech


that the Government will ensure there are markets for consumers and


this will include bringing forward measures to help tackle unfair


practices in the energy market to help produce energy bills. I am sure


this is an issue on which we can work across the House together. Mr


Speaker, yesterday you kindly hosted discussions on the future of health


and social care and their funding, including one by Mike honourable


friend. My right honourable friend knows that NHS in Staffordshire and


Stoke is delivering fine carer but under great financial pressure along


with other parts of the country. Can I encourage the Government to bring


together people from across this House to make this Parliament one


that puts the NHS and social care on a firm foundation. I am grateful to


my honourable friend and I know he has been campaigning vigorously on


behalf of the health service in his constituency, including his local


hospital, and he is absolutely right to do so. He and I I am sure both


welcomed the fact that the Government has committed an extra ?8


billion over this Parliament to the NHS, and are also committed to


having a full debate across the House and indeed much wider with


people about how to improve our social care system because this is


indeed one of the big issues facing this country. Emily Thornberry.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me welcome the first secretary to his


new role. By my reckoning in the 20 years since he first joined this


House ease the 16th member of the party opposite to be represented at


prime ministers questions, so how about I give him until the end of


this session to be able to name all the others?


LAUGHTER In the meantime I am sure he and a


whole House will join me in congratulating the British and Irish


Lions on their historic achievement in recent days. Mr Speaker, on the


subject of British and Irish cooperation, the secretary has huge


expertise on the practicalities of the Common travel area. On that


basis can he tell the House what will happen to the Irish land border


if no deal is reached between Britain and Europe by the end of


March 2019? I am grateful to the Saffie for her kind remarks -- I am


grateful to the right honourable lady for her kind remarks. I might


pick up the offer in the tearoom later rather than disturb the House


no. Many distinguished people, of both sexes, who have dealt with this


in this party, because we of course elect women leaders. I am also... I


also absolutely share her view about the British and Irish Lions, though


it strikes me as a particularly British thing to do to celebrate and


drawn series quite as hard as we have, but nevertheless that is the


way we do sport, and I know you, Mr Speaker, will be very keen in


following Joe contact's progress through Wimbledon, as well as Andy


Murray. -- Johanna Konta through Wimbledon. Let's hope we have two


finalists over the weekend. On the question of the Irish border, she


will know it is the aim of this Government to make sure we get the


best deal for Britain, and as the prime ministers set out in her


Lancaster house speech, one of the key issues we want to bring forward


and have brought forward at the start of the negotiations is


precisely the issue of the Irish border, because it is extremely


important, not just for our own citizens in Northern Ireland, but


for the Irish Republic, that we get that right, and indeed I have


already had meetings with my opposite number on this and other


matters. I mentioned at the outset he is the 16th member to represent


his party in jaw-mac since beginning and seven. Only three of those have


been women and the last before the current Prime Minister was 16 years


ago -- his party in the House since 1997. If I might turn to the


question, it was not what deal do we hope to get, but what happens if we


get no deal at all? This isn't some sinister nightmare drugged by


Remains. It was the Prime Minister who first floated the idea of no


deal -- this is not some sinister nightmare


dreamt up. Well the first Secretary clear this up? Are ministers just


making it up as they are going along? Or is it still the


Government's clear policy that no deal is an option? I recommend the


right honourable lady read the Prime Minister's Lancaster house speech,


the principle on which we are negotiating. Also seeing it is


conceivable we would be offered a kind of punishment deal that would


be worse than no deal. That is not our intention because we want a good


deal. It is for a leader and her party's position that whatever is on


offer they will accept it, can I point out? That is a terrible way to


go into a negotiation, and all I can congratulate them on is their


consistency. They have been consistently in favour of unilateral


disarmament, but they don't only apply that in military matters, they


clearly applied in matters of negotiation on Britain's future


prosperity as well. The first secretary apparently did not get the


Prime Minister's mammal. You are supposed to be building consensus,


mam. -- man. And if we ignore the political bluster, I think what we


heard was that no deal is indeed still an option, and if that is the


case, can we turn to what I might call the East India club question?


Before the member for Newton Abbot suddenly turned herself into Nick


Griffin, this was the question she was trying to ask. What does no deal


mean for our people, our businesses, and for issues such as the Irish


land border? Can the first secretary addressed this question now? What


does no deal look like in practice? I am very happy to address her first


point of it consensus. Am always, as she knows, a moderate person keen on


consensus, so I very much look forward to sharing the Labour


Party's view this morning on the unemployment figures. Unemployment


is now down to its lowest level since the early 70s. There are many


members of this House who were not born when unemployment was as low as


this Government has made it. I would hope that she can bring herself in


the course of her questions actually to welcome lower unemployment. On


the substance of her question, as she knows, we are seeking a good


deal for Britain that will enable us to trade as freely as possible with


the European Union to protect our prosperity, at the same time as


getting trade deals with other important markets around the world.


In the last week alone, both the United States and Australia have


said they would like to sign trade deals with Britain as fast as


possible. So I am happy to report to her and that negotiations are going


well and that her fear of no deal is probably overstated. If he wants to


talk about unemployment, let me ask him, specifically, will he publish


the Treasury's assessment of the impact of what they're no deal


outcome would have on jobs and growth in Britain? -- the impact of


what they know deal outcome would have. I didn't think so. Let's


continue. If the first secretary will not tell the House... Order.


Honourable lady must be heard, and she will be, as well first secretary


Green. Members must calm themselves. Emily Thornberry... Thank you, Mr


Speaker. If the first secretary will not tell the House what no deal


means can he is least clear up the confusion over whether a plan for no


deal actually exists? Yesterday the Foreign Secretary told me that


indeed there was no plan for no deal. Two hours later, Number ten


for it back and said there was a plan. That Brexit secretary might be


laughing, but I am turning to him next.


LAUGHTER The Brexit secretary was so busy


fighting with himself, that on March the 12, he said that there was a


plan, and on March 17th he said there was not. On May 19th he said


he spent half his time thinking about it, and yesterday he said he


was not prepared to comment. So can the first secretary clear up the


confusion today? Is there a contingency plan for no deal, or is


there not? If there is, will you undertake to publish it?


The honourable ladies says she is happy to talk about an employment,


but you cannot bring herself to welcome the figures. --


unemployment. We will have to work harder to establish consensus on


something that I would hope genuinely unites all sides of this


House. On the report, the OBR is publishing its fiscal risks report


tomorrow, so if she can be patient, she will see the report she wants.


Emily Thornberry! So let's be clear, the First Secretary seems to be


saying that no deal is still on the table, but he won't say what it


means, and there is a no deal contingency plan that he will not


publish. This is two steps forward and two steps back. After all, if


the Government seriously once open, cross-party debate about the best


way forward for Brexit, surely they have to spell out what all the


options look like. So can the First Secretary at least provide some


clarity on one issue, and let's try to make some progress today. He has


said repeatedly that we want to avoid a cliff edge Brexit. But and a


no deal scenario, he knows that must be impossible, because the Prime


Minister can hardly storm out of the negotiating room saying she will not


accept the deal, then pop her head around the door and say, can she


have two more years to prepare, because that is not how it works.


Does he accept that no deal means no transitional arrangements? That me


try harder to establish consensus with the right honourable lady. We


both want a deal, I hope we will agree to that, a deal at the end of


this, and the reason why I am optimistic because of our negotiated


stands and the position set out by the Prime Minister we will get a


deal, is that we have, for example, paid a fair and realistic offer


about citizenship to try to remove that problem from the equations.


That is a first indication of how we will approach these negotiations, we


approached them in a positive state, and we believe that it is not just


in the interests of Great Britain but also in the interests of the


other member states of the European Union to reach a deal with what is


one of their biggest trading partners. Though it is in everyone's


interest to reach this deal, and frankly she said nothing


constructive to contribute to a deal so far, but I will give her another


chance. Emily Thornberry! I know the right honourable gentleman is new to


this, but the way the rules work... Order! I do not know whether it is


spontaneous or orchestrated, and I don't really care which, but


whichever it is, the idea that it is going to stop the honourable lady


asking her questions is for the birds. Members are wasting their


vocal chords, we will carry on as long as necessary to accommodate the


backbench members who I wish to accommodate. Emily Thornberry. I


know that the honourable and is new to this, but I ask the questions and




And I quite happy to swap places with them! Frankly, if he doesn't


want to continue under these rules, plenty of other people on the front


bench would love the opportunity to audition as Prime Minister. But I do


appreciate, I do appreciate the first Secretary's answers, but they


just serve to illustrate what a mess the Government has got itself into


by threatening to walk away even before talks began. Isn't the truth


now that we have a no deal option on the table but they will not tell us


what it means, contingency plans that they will not let the public


see, a Chancellor demanding transitional arrangements, which a


no deal option makes impossible, a Foreign Secretary making it up as he


is going along, we have got a Brexit Secretary so used to overruling his


colleagues that he has started overruling himself! And we have got


a Prime Minister who is so be reft of ideas that she started putting


suggestion boxes around Parliament! But as a country, as a country, we


have got 20 months until Brexit. We absolutely have got to get a grip,


and if the party opposite hasn't got the strength or the task, then we


have absolutely got to get rid of them.


I think there may have been a question somewhere in that! Can I


issue at the right honourable lady of two things? First of all, that is


Government is already in the negotiations, she will have seen


that, we have started negotiations, they are going well. We said the


first thing we wanted to do was negotiate citizens' writes, that was


the first item on the agenda of the first meeting. We want to make sure


that European citizens in this country and, British citizens living


in other European countries have as much certainty about their rights as


soon as possible, and that is what we are negotiating, that is the sign


of a practical, pragmatic government getting on with work in the


interests of the British people. What we would have, as we have seen


from the Labour Party, they have so far had nine different plans on


Europe. They want to be both in and out of the single market, in and out


of the customs union, they said they wanted to remain, they voted for


Article 50, they split their party on that, and she made a point about


whether she would prefer to be at this despatch box rather than as


that despatch box. I would also remind her of the other event that


has happened recently, where the Conservative Party got more votes


and more seats than the Labour Party, and won the election. David


Morris! Thank you, Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker, I welcome the jobs that


have been announced today. Furthermore, Mr Speaker, at the 65


years in my constituency of talking about a link road, one actually


occurred on my watch, and furthermore there is an enterprise


zone stroke business park that we are trying to retain, and we have


had a very productive meeting with the minister, and the First Minister


of the Isle of Man, who I believe is here today. Would my right


honourable friends help to ensure that this business park does become


a reality to create more jobs in Morecambe and Lunesdale?! I agree


with my honourable friend, he will be interested to know that, in the


north-west of England, employment has increased by 2.5% over the past


year, and the Labour benches may wish to welcome that. He is


absolutely right to highlight the importance of having business parks


and enterprise zones as tribe is for economic growth. I wish him well,


and I'm sure my right honourable friends the Business Secretary would


be happy to look into the matter. Thank you, Mr Speaker, I am sure the


whole House would want to join with me and my colleagues in marking the


anniversary of the sad events in Srebrenica and thank those who held


the memorial in London to make sure we never forget. Mr Speaker, will


the First Secretary of State confirmed that the devolved


administrations will not face a day munition of powers as a result of


the Repeal Bill? I joined the honourable gentleman in


commemorating the dreadful events at Srebrenica, and I am happy to


reconfirm what my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and others


have said, that yes, under the terms of the Brexit deal that we will


negotiate, there will be no diminution of the devolved


administrations' powers, and indeed that we look to devolve more powers


during the process. I thank the Secretary of State for that answer.


Order! Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for


that answer. Would he confirm that there will be a cast-iron guarantee


that all powers that come back to the United Kingdom on devolved


matters will be returned? Furthermore the, does the UK


Government intends to meet schedule five of the Scotland Act to change


any aspect of the devolved compensations with the approval of


the Scottish referendum in 1997? Answer that! I can only keep


repeating the assurances we have already given. I am slightly


surprised at the Scottish nationalist approach in that my


understanding of their position is that they want power is taken from


London to Edinburgh so that it can give them back to Brussels! As I


understand it, that is their position. But perhaps their


inability to explain the logic of that position might explain the


recent general election results they had. Thank you very much, Mr


Speaker. Earlier this year, a brilliant new hospital opened in my


constituency. The old cottage Hospital which it replaces contains


an important and unique warble Morrill. Will the First Secretary


agree with me that however the NHS we developed the site, it is vital


that that war memorial is preserved in a fitting way so that future


generations can remember the sacrifices of those who came before


us? I think perhaps particularly at the moment, when we are about to


commemorate the centenary of the terrible battle of Passchendaele, it


is very important that we consider the issue of war memorials like the


one he mentions, they call on us to remember the horrors of war and


honour the memories of those who died. In this case, I understand the


war memorial is protected by an historic England great two listing


so specific planning consent would be required to move it. I hope that


will provide the protection that he and his constituents need. My


constituent has had over 50 admissions to psychiatric care, she


requires regular monitoring to prevent her condition worsening, and


she could access a board and at the labour stands to lose ?110 under the


new regime. Will he look urgently at this case and change this to ensure


that people have the support they need to remain safe? The House will


be concerned to hear about the case of a constituent, as I am, and she


will know that one of the effects of the transition from DLA to PIP is


that more people are eligible for support, particularly those with


mental health problems, but the Secretary of State for Work and


Pensions will have heard her point, and I have no doubt, if she contacts


in, he will look into the case personally. Mr Speaker, some of the


most distressing cases that I and other members see in my constituency


surgery are those involving domestic violence. The Queen's Speech has


promised a bill to help strengthen our confrontation of this problem,


so I wonder if the First Secretary could tell us when we can expect the


legislation, urgently needed as it is, and what the Government is doing


about this problem while we await it? I agree, this is a hugely


important issue, and he is right that we have committed in the


Queen's Speech to introduce a domestic abuse bill in this session,


which I hope will be a landmark in this very important area. What we


want to do in the bill is set in motion a transformation not just to


protect and support victims, but to recognise the lifelong impact


domestic abuse can have on children, and to make sure that the agencies


respond effectively to domestic abuse. We will of course be


consulting with the relevant professions and voluntary groups on


this, but we are absolutely determined to press ahead with this


very, very important legislation. Max Johnson is nine, he is in


hospital and urgently waiting for a heart transplant. His mum Emma and


brother Harry join us today to support Max, but also 10,000 people


around the country who need an organ transplant. We can do more to help


them. In Wales, they have already moved to an opt out system, as


Scotland plan to do the same. Can the First Secretary say whether he


agrees with me that, in England, we should change the law to one of


presumed consent for organ donation to give Max and people like him the


best chance of light? I am sure that the thought of numbers across the


House are with Max and his family at this incredibly difficult time, and


I agree with him that organ donation is clearly a hugely important part


of our system, and I am pleased that there are now more than 23 million


organ donors on the register, and over the past year we saw the


highest ever donor and transplant rates in the UK. But of course there


is more that can be done, and as he says, the law is different in other


territories inside the UK. And absolutely I can commit the


Department of Health is looking at the impact of those changes to see


whether that can give rise to further improvements in the number


of available organs we have. Is my friend aware that the Greater


Manchester Chambers, in the course of their economic survey, predicts


economic growth that 3.25% annually, as it has been broadly since 2013?


Is he further aware that Manchester Airport is planning a ?1 billion


investment in the coming years? Doesn't this indicate a welcome


rebalancing of the economy, underpinned by sound economic


management? And will he undertake to continue that sound economic


management that is so necessary to our country? My honourable friend


makes a number of important points, particularly about Manchester


Airport, which I know has been a significant driver of the excellent


growth figures of the increasingly excellent economy of Manchester, and


the surrounding areas. Everything he says is true, and I think it is a


tribute to the work that is being done on the Northern Powerhouse that


we are now spreading that prosperity across the North of England. Thank


you, Mr Speaker. The First Secretary said the other day that we need to


have a national debate on tuition fees, and he admitted that student


debt is a huge issue. With the PM touting for ideas, can I recommend


page 43 of our manifesto? Can I ask that they adopt Labour's pledge to


abolish tuition fees? I don't remember the contents page 43, so I


would quite like to hear this! Mr Speaker, can I recommend that they


consult page 43 of our manifesto and commit to Labour's policy of the


abolition of tuition fees? People often stand at this despatch box and


say I am pleased she raised that question, I am genuinely pleased,


because it allows me to point out the very slight problem with their


arguments which is that her own education spokesman has admitted


that the tuition fees policy has a ?100 billion... She has admitted


that there is a ?100 billion hole, black hole in Labour's student fees


policy. That is as much money nearly as we spend on the NHS in a year,


two years worth of disability benefits. Labour, in this area, were


particularly incredible at the general election, I am astonished


they want to bring it up at Prime Minister's Questions, and I would


remind them that misleading students and young people is a very dangerous


thing to do. If they don't believe me, they can ask the Liberal


Democrats. Just one in five of our public arts sculptures is of a


woman, to mark the anniversary of Jane Austen... Will my right


honourable friend join me in calling for more people to do what business


to has done and celebrate their famous daughters?


I welcome this call for the statue in Basingstoke. I am genuinely


astonished there is not a statue of Jane Austen anywhere else around the


country, one of our greatest authors, and still popular 200 years


since her birth, and I would be very happy also to echo her desire for


more statues for great women spread around the country. Mr Speaker,


politicians are said to be here today and gone tomorrow, but


whatever tomorrow may bring the Prime Minister is not even here


today to mark the first -- end of her first year in power. Listen, you


might like to hear this. For the first time since she has become


Prime Minister image has now been removed from the page of the


Conservative Party website. Can the first secretary tell us why she has


gone from being the next Iron Lady to the Lady vanishes? The honourable


gentleman is ingenious in asking personal questions and I commend him


for it. Unfortunately he has his own record on the subject. As recently


as June last year the members said the leader of the Labour Party is


not destined to become Prime Minister and he called on him to


resign. I suggest he makes peace with his own front bench before


turning to ours. Today's jobs figures show we have the highest


employment rate since compatible records began. We have more people


in full-time employment and we are touching on the lowest youth


unemployment since records began. In light of the Matthew Taylor review


and the modern working practices, what more can be done to ensure this


record continues and that low youth unemployment continues and that we


read this country of that scourge? -- and that we rid this country of


that scourge. Yes, one of the particularly welcome figures of the


consistently low and falling unemployment figures over which this


Government has provided, youth unemployment figures. It is now at


historically low levels and lower than many other comparable


economies. We will continue this not just with our moves on more


apprenticeships in this parliament but also with the introduction of


new and better technical and vocational education, which is key


to providing long-term prosperity, not just for the economy as a whole,


but for everyone in this country. Thank you, Mr Speaker. How can the


Government continue to justify not providing fair and equitable funding


arrangements for West Lancashire to support drainage boards, to help


protect homes and agriculture and horticulture industries, critical to


the local economy, instead of causing threats to turn off the


pumping station? V Saffie raises a reasonable point -- the Saffie


raises a reasonable point about the Environment Agency and it is the


Environment Agency's duty to ensure water supplies are good and safe and


I am sure if she wishes to bring this up with my right honourable


friend, he will be happy to talk to her about it. Zero energy Bill


Holmes at market prices are being built with the support of the


building research Establishment. Given that the potential to help


people find affordable housing, what more can the Government do to help


expand this type of housing, as part of our commitment to both enterprise


and social justice? I know my honourable friend is an energetic


campaigner for social justice and this is a very good example of how


having a dynamic and flexible economy is not just good for the


economy but is actually good for the whole of society, and I am happy to


join him in welcoming this type of innovation. This firm is a good


example of such innovation, and I know it has been supported by the


Government's enterprise investment scheme, so the Government is doing


its best to support this type of measure, and with stimulating the


growth of the off-site construction sector which enables homes to be


built through our accelerating construction programme and the whole


building fund, another very important issue to make sure that we


spread the benefits of prosperity around this country. Mr Speaker, I


wonder if the first secretary might imagine what it feels like to be a


parent forced to up their children from their settled home to flee war


and persecution, as millions of refugees around the world have done.


And then would he imagine further how it might feel for those who had


become separated from their family members, with one family member


making it, for instance, to the United Kingdom, needlessly kept


apart from their families due to cruel and unnecessary barriers to


family reunification? Will the Government today endorse the


Baroness's bill in the other place to bring those desperate families


back together? The right honourable gentleman raises an important issue


and he will be aware that this Government, this country, has done a


huge amount, particularly in the region, but also here at home to


help refugees from countries such as Syria. We have expanded the


vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, so we make sure our doors


continue to remain open to people who most need our help, and in


particular we work very closely with the UNHCR to identify and refer the


most vulnerable refugees. That is the most sensible humanitarian way


we can help these very desperate people. Can also say, since I should


visitors last question, I suspect, as leader office party, can I wish


him a fond farewell from that job? And say I am delighted the Liberal


Democrats have taken so seriously the Government's full working life


strategy which is about providing more jobs for older workers, and


they are about to skip a generation...


LAUGHTER -- since I assumed that this is his


last question, I suspect. At the recent T20 meeting the Prime


Minister had excellent and constructive trade discussions with


the leaders of India, China, Japan and America -- at the recent G20


meetings. These represent 43% of the world population, these countries,


and six times the population of the European Union. Would my right


honourable friend agree with me that this demonstrates the potential for


a positive future for Britain post-Brexit, and it really is time


for the pessimists to look at the cup being half full rather than half


empty? I am happy to endorse my honourable friend's approach and


just to emphasise to him in the house it is important to do both. We


need a good trade deal with the European Union, still a hugely


important trading partner for us, but also we need to take the


opportunity to strike trade deals with economies round the world, not


just currently advanced economies, but those that are growing very fast


as well. That is the route to future global prosperity to this country.


Thank you, Mr Speaker. We have had to make general elections where the


Government has promised investment to the northern powerhouse, and yet


again within weeks they have made a U-turn on the electrification of the


trans-Pennine. Is the ?1 billion deal to keep the Prime Minister in


power with the DUP being funded at the expense of the North? No, not at


all. The money that has gone for infrastructure in Northern Ireland


is richly needed there. We have signed for example city deals in


England, Scotland and Wales, but none yet in Northern Ireland. I


would hope... I mean, she is right about the importance of the northern


powerhouse, and we will continue with that programme which is hugely


important, and as she has already heard in this session, what we see


is unemployment falling consistently in the north of England, as a sign


of how the economy in that part of England is going as well as anywhere


else in the country, and we are determined to continue that. Mr


Speaker, I know the title might first secretary will be delighted to


see Parliament Square now displays every flight of every British


Overseas Territory to welcome the king of Spain this week, including


the flag of Gibraltar. Would he as my right honourable friend the Prime


Minister to remind the King of Spain that Gibraltar is British and their


sovereignty will remain paramount? I am happy to assure my honourable


friend that the Government's position on Gibraltar and the


privacy of the wishes of its inhabitants which are overwhelmingly


to stay British will be respected by the Government. What assessment has


the Government made of the effect on radiotherapy for cancer patients of


its decision to withdraw from the deal given the Royal College of


radiologistss said this week that half a million scans per year are


done using imported radioisotopes, and that thousands of patients could


be affected by this decision? I am genuinely again happy to answer this


question because it is a very important issue, and there has been


some unnecessary worry caused to cancer patients by speculative on


this. Let me set out the position. The import or export of medical


radioisotopes is not subject to any particular licensing requirements.


Euratom places no restrictions on the export of medical isotopes to


countries outside the EU, so after leaving Euratom our ability to


access military isotopes produced in Europe will not be affected. So I


hope that clears it and I hope that reassures cancer patients around the


country that the scaremongering going on is unnecessary.


Emily Thornberry went over the negotiations for Brexit, on what


happened with the Irish border, and then asking whether no deal was


still an option. . Damian Green standing in for the Prime Minister


did his best to talk about the recent unemployment figures,


although he was not asked about it, because they are down, so it is what


he wanted to talk about it. Then he was asked whether there was a


Treasury assessment over the cost of no deal on Brexit, if that was to


happen. And coming out tomorrow from the Office for Budget Responsibility


on fiscal risks, there is something coming out there, so that was the


exchange, quite lively. Probably more lively than usual, with Emily


Thornberry seeming to be enjoying herself. And in the end Mr Green


also seem to be enjoying is. What are the viewers make of it? The


broadly agreed with that assessment, you will be delighted to know. One


here, Emily Thornberry more charisma than Jeremy Corbyn, tackling


defensive Green who could not answer a single one of her questions, which


is a pity because on issues like the Irish border and the no deal


possibility, we need answers. Another one, extremely impressed


with Damian Green, passionate and on the ball, he showed up the Labour


lot. Another one, why are Labour fixated on failure and why would we


share our contingency plans at the start of EU negotiations? Ian Lenny,


he says anything is better than being in the EU, because being in


the EU means we are no longer an independent country. Simples. Philip


says, this is so much more fun than the usual PMQs. Please, Theresa and


Jeremy, take more time off! LAUGHTER


Well, he enjoyed it! I saw that e-mail, anything better


than Jeremy Corbyn and team-mate, for either of them, it is not their


natural habitat, and I think we did see both of them, very experienced


at the despatch box, enjoying themselves on the big day. I don't


think Gestede Scot us anywhere in terms of news, apart from Damian


Green talking about the OBR publishing a not very interesting


sounding paper on fiscal risk. Potentially we will get a whole


independent assessment of the various different outcomes of what


happens with Brexit. What is this paper about? You will have to wait


and see! I have been around long enough not to ask you what is in it,


I might as well put my head against a brick wall! But what is it about?


What ground is it going to cover? When the OBR has published these


reports in the past, they look at, you know, for example, the impact of


an ageing population, pressures on health care, you know, the various


long-term factors that may impact tax receipts. What will this one


look at? It will look at the long-term factors that will have an


impact on tax receipts and spending measures. Including Brexit? I have


not seen the report, but the last report was very striking about some


of the demographic pressures that we face as a country, a reminder that


we have to think about public finances. And while Emily Thornberry


asked for an assessment of what a no deal scenario would cost, the


Treasury already did that during the referendum campaign. Now, that


suggestion and... Highly political Treasury report. From memory, it


puts that report and 60 billion, were we to crash out, over a


five-year period, that is from memory. But as you say, any set of


statistics put forward in this current context are highly political


in terms of how they are interpreted, but if the OBR comes


out with number, they are an independent organisation, and they


could have an effect in this debate. Where Emily Thornberry is onto


something if you look at all the remarks of Cabinet ministers in the


last couple of weeks about the path the negotiations are going to


follow, there is obviously, publicly, a range of opinions of how


they should do, and that is a huge and estimate of the differences


behind closed doors. Let me come back to you, they would go, Jack


Dromey, I know you want to do a deal, get the best possible deal for


the country, but is it still government policy that no deal would


be better than a bad deal? Yes, as Damian Green set out in PMQs, it


would be clearly no deal is bad news, but if we were faced with


essentially a punishment deal, then we need to be in a position to walk


away, and it doesn't make any sense to go into a negotiation and say,


whatever happens in the end, we will sign up. That immediately weakens


our position, and we're genuinely have to prepare for this, we have to


be willing to walk away, but I'm not go to pretend that that is a good


outcome for the country, but it might not be the very worst outcome.


In these negotiations, what a Labour's redlines? Crucially, if I


can give a practical example from my own constituency, we have a jaguar


planned, we have heard about unemployment figures today, we have


the sixth highest in Britain, and the plant has doubled in size to


3000, world-class success story. The chief executive has said, crucially,


we need access to the single market, yeah? And if we are denied that, if


there are tariff barriers erected, we sell fewer cars, made fewer cars,


and that will mean fewer jobs in an area of high and employment. So to


contemplate for one moment walking away without a deal is at the


irresponsible. -- is utterly responsible. But what I mean by


redlines is not what you hope to achieve, everybody understands that


we won't tariff free car sales, but what would be unacceptable? What


would you regard as unacceptable, a red line that you could not accept?


One thing we made clear, for example, on another issue, what we


would never accept is a diminishing of rights in Britain, and that


raises difficult questions about access to mechanisms to enforce


rights. That is not a red line. With respect, rights for workers


post-Brexit will be a matter for the parliament across the road, that


will be determined there, you will argue your case. What would you...


Let me try and help you. If the demand remained as 100 billion euros


divorce settlement, would that be a red line? Would you refuse? It will


be a tough negotiation, the idea of paying 100 billion would not be


acceptable to the British people. Converse Lee, let's recognise this -


if you take the transitional period between now and the two year period


ending, we have obligations that we have to meet under treaty as they


stand. In answer to your question, might there be continuing payments


into the European Union as part of a deal around, for example, access to


the single market? Yes, ?100 billion? No. The reason I am asking


is that there could be an election in the autumn, Labour once and


election in the autumn,, and the Brexit negotiations are now under


way, so we do have a right now to know what you're negotiating


position will be - not just the Government's, we have a right to


know that, but yours, and so we have a right to know what you would


regard as lines that he would not cross if Europe was demanding


certain things. It is quite difficult to work out what they are.


It has been difficult to decipher what the Government are saying, not


least because it changes from one day to the next... But I am asking


about you. We have set out clearly what we need to be able to do, and I


have given a practical example which is vital to the economic


prosperity... But that is the Government's position as well, there


is no difference. What we are not going to do is contemplate for one


moment that somehow there is a council of despair, and somehow we


might walk away from the table with no agreement whatsoever, isolated


with all the economic and other consequences... So no matter how


bad, there is no deal you would walk away from? If we form a government,


we will negotiate hard for a good deal. That is what they are doing.


But he would never walk away? What we will not do... By the way,


Andrew, I was a negotiator for 30 years, the idea that you go into a


negotiation of this kind, incidentally, led by a weak and


divided,... I'm trying to find out your position. The idea that you go


in and say, oh, you might walk away. That is what trade unions do all the


time, we will go on strike! Negotiations that I conducted with


employers, what you do, you seek to establish a common interest, and


there is a common interest between ourselves and the European Union.


What we have had is confused mixed messages. I ask you about Labour and


you attack the Tories. Jack Dromey introduced an interesting idea, that


we would pay for continuing access to the single market. Is that the


Government's policy or not? In terms of payments, the days of vast


contributions to the EU budget would be over. But would we pay for


continued access to the single market? Well, in terms of the


negotiations, what we're going to do, we have set it out in the


Lancaster House macros beach, we are not going to do but contributions...


You have said that twice. I do not make paying for special things like


Erasmus and all the rest, but as a principle, are we prepared to pay a


sum of money to have continued access to the single market for


goods and services? What we want to do is have access... I know that.


That is not an answer, I am going to move on. Andrew, I am not going to


negotiate here. Jack Dromey said that Labour would be prepared to pay


for continued access, I have asked you three times, I have not got an


answer. Ministers have never ruled it out, they have been asked lots of


times, it will one of the first questions that we as the Prime


Minister on her first foreign trip, on the plane to China, she did not


rule it out in September last year, and therefore it is reasonable to


surmise from that that it is something that might be an option.


The Norwegians Andy Swiss Beggan. And there is increasing chatter


during a transition period about whether you have to reach for what


other countries have. That could involve paying a fee. Which have


another 18 months, I can hardly wait! Just going around in circles!


Laura, we will let you go, thank you very much. No more Prime Minister


before the summer? I no, what shall we do?!


Now, almost two weeks ago the Labour MP Chris Bryant


won the ballot to put forward a private member's bill,


the opportunity for backbench MPs to get an idea


At the time, he didn't know what legislation he would proposes,


and he joins us from Central Lobby with the news.


So what have you decided? It is not a question of what I have decided, I


decided to put it out to an online poll, I put up six different


proposals, which were active terrorism bill, food advertising,


marriage equality, exclusion of hereditary peers, and two others,


and 33,900 people around the country voted online, and 500 of them in my


own constituency, and here are the results, the top two are the


refugees families built, 8006 under than 79 votes, and top of the list


is the assault on emergency service staff, the same in my constituency,


so I will breed the Mike Leigh presenting a bill to introduce a new


offence of attacking an emergency worker while they are doing their


work. -- so I will be presenting a bill. Some on the anvil and villains


workers, doctors and NHS workers have been attacked in recent years


and the law is not strong enough. -- so many ambulance workers. Will this


get cross-party support, do you think? Many Tory MPs have said they


want to help this get on the statute books. We need a proper way of


telling people in this country that it is simply not on to attack a fire


worker when they are trying to put out a fire, not on to attack a


paramedic when they are trying to resist a date somebody, whether in a


hospital or out of a hospital, and when people spit at NHS workers,


there is no requirement in law that they should have to provide a blood


test, and that means that it is very painful and difficult for the health


worker, knowing whether they have been infected with something. That


is another offence we will introduce. There are currently laws


in place that should protect staff in the emergency services, so you


are trying to add an extra layer. There are not, there is a summary


offence related to police offices, so the biggest sentence is six


months, otherwise you are treated as if you are an ordinary member of the


public. -- police officers. Everybody goes on about how


wonderful hour emergency service workers are, this is an opportunity


to put something on the statute books to protect our protectors.


Campaign with me, Jo! Can I sign you up? No, she is a TV presenter! You


can't take sides! There's just time to put you


out of your misery and give you the answer to Guess


The Year. It was 2005, Prestat red button.


There we go. We might need a new red button! Well done, John Dobson, you


got the answer right. 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


stories of the day.


Download Subtitles