12/07/2017 Daily Politics

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

he... LAUGHTER

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.