17/01/2018 Daily Politics

Morning, folks.

Welcome to the Daily Politics.

As the full scale of construction

firm Carillion's financial woes

become clear, pressure piles

on the Government to explain exactly

what they knew about the troubles

before awarding the company millions

of pounds of public contracts.

Will Jeremy Corbyn ask

about Carillion's collapse

at Prime Minister's Questions?

We'll have the exchanges

between Theresa May and the Labour

leader live from the House

of Commons at 12pm.

And, as the pro-Corbyn wing

takes over key committees

within the Labour Party,

we'll ask what this means

for the future of Labour politics.

All that in the next hour.

And joining us today, new

Cabinet Office Minister Oliver

Dowden, and Shadow Business

Minister Chi Onwurah.

Good morning.

Good morning.

First, the UK's second-biggest

contractor, Carillion, had just

£29 million in cash and owed

£1.29 billion to its banks when it

collapsed this week.

It is a name we now all know,

although not many did before.

although not many did before. It had

a unfunded pension liabilities of

£600 million as well.

As the full scale of the crisis

in the company's dying

days becomes clear, do

the Government have questions

to answer over millions of pounds

of public contracts awarded

to the company after

repeated profit warnings?

One of the Goverment's ministers

under fire is the Transport

Secretary, Chris Grayling, who

signed a contract for HS2 after

Carillion's Jim White profit

warning. The BBC tried to track him

down this morning, and this is what

he had to say -- as Carillion's Jim

White profit warning.

I'll very happily talk

to you guys later.

I'm doing interviews

this morning but I'm

going to get a train now,

I'm afraid.

Speak to my office and book

a slot later but I've

got to get a train now.

Well, that wasn't very informative!

Let's see if we can do better here

in the studio this morning. Oliver

Dowden, in July of last year, the

Chief Executive of Carillion was

fired, there was an £840 million

write-off on the balance sheet, and

the shares fell 60% in two days.

Yet, one week later, denied the

17th, the Government made it part of

the £6 billion HS2 contract, and

£158 million MOD property contract.

Why?

Well, the Government keeps

these situations under control. And

we look at the situation of all of

our contractors. In of Carillion, a

profit warning had been issued.

Dozens of profit warnings are issued

every year, you wouldn't expect the

Government or any other private

company to cease contracting with

somebody just on the basis of a

profit warning. But you would expect

in Team Janzen, that is a crack in

what we did, we made contingency

plans -- -- you would expect

contingency and that is exactly what

they did. We have plans that of one

company fell away the others would

step up and service delivery would

continue, that has been the priority

of the Government, we are delivering

those servers.

July was one bit of

bad news, but not enough to make you

stop giving contracts. On September

the 20 I have last year, the

half-year results of the company

came out. It showed £1.15 billion of

losses. £1.15 billion! And another

£200 million write-down. And yet

five weeks later, on November the

6th, you gave them a £320 million

Network Rail contract for the

Midland Mainline. Why?

Look, our

duty as a Government is to ensure

the continuing delivery of public

services. These were contracts with

a private company to deliver those

public services. Our concern...

As a

construction contract, not a public

service...

Our concern is a

Government is to ensure the

continued delivery of public

services in respect of all of those

contracts...

But you could have

given it to somebody else!

Yes, we

go through a proper process of

procurement, they would decided as

the correct bidder. There was a risk

associated because of the profit

warnings. As with any other private

company contracted with a third

party, you need to take contingency

measures, but it is not a basis for

not contracting. We took contingency

measures, and delivery of public

services continued, that is the

concern of Government.

We have one

of the warnings in July, we had

another even bigger warning in

September, they then got the

contract in November. On November

the 17th, only two weeks after you

gave them the Midland Mainline

contract, came the third profit

warning. The third in one year.

Which is unusual for one company.

And, the company admitted it was on

course to breach its banking

covenants, which is a complicated

way of saying it couldn't repay the

debt, of which was massive. Yet,

three days later, you made it one of

nine contractors in a £2.6 billion

school building programme. Why?

As I

said, there is an independent

recruitment process. The concern

that your viewers will have and

everybody else will have --

independent procurement process. We

are asking a company to do something

for the Government. Will it continue

to do that? Subsequent to Carillion

going into liquidation, we are

continuing to deliver...

By November

of this year, it was clearly in

trouble and everybody knew, except,

apparently, the Government.

Our

concern is to continue to deliver.

But why did you give contracts to

this company when it was clearly in

trouble? You would be aware, or

maybe you word, that it was, this is

a little technical, but the most

shortage to stock on the stock

exchange, 25% of its shares were

being held by people that bought the

shares were going to dive. But you

carried on giving it contracts.

Yes,

there were clearly risks associated

with that company and the Government

took measures to mitigate that. And

the success of those mitigation

measures is shown by the fact that

that company continues to deliver.

It is interesting to note...

The

company doesn't continue to deliver!

You say it's just the Government,

actually the last public sector

organisation to award preferred to

get status to Carillion with Leeds

City Council -- preferred bidder.

But you are the Government, and just

because some Labour council proved

to be as cosy with Carillion as you,

doesn't let you off the hook. You

had contingency plans, you are

keeping an eye on this company, but

you had enough contracts with

Carillion for it to be designated a

strategic of Government. An official

designation, and an official

designation like that means that the

Government appoint a crown

representative, a representative of

the state, to keep and I the company

could -- because there are concerns.

And yet at the height of this

financial problems, there was no

crown representative appointed, why?

There was a crown representative by

the end, there was a change.

But

there wasn't that the crucial time.

Remember, they have a whole team

working to them. Those people were

in place. There was no adverse

impact in terms of the delivery of

the services.

Is there any sense at

which we see this? Because I think

even the Government must have known

Carillion was in some trouble, and

you kept on giving it contracts. Was

there any sense in which you were

doing this as a hidden subsidy,

simply to try and keep the company

going in the hope that it would get

out of its troubles?

No, there are

strict procurement roles. These

companies, if they are to be awarded

a Government contract, they have to

demonstrate they will deliver value

for money. Carillion won those

processes. Once they have won them,

the Government had to be sure that

they would continue to deliver.

But

why didn't you have a crown

representative?

In respect of the

crown representative, they have a

team working who continues to carry

out those functions. There was a

crown representative in

crown representative in place by the

end.

One quick question, can you now

tell us this morning what the likely

cost to the taxpayer will be?

Well,

what we have done is to ensure that

the official receiver is funded. The

official receiver will continue to

pay out on those...

I do know all

that! They put a bill on it. Do we

know how much?

That will depend upon

the amount that the official

receiver can recover. The key

priority is a continuing delivery of

public services, achieved by funding

the official reserve who pays out

those contracts. It will depend upon

how much the official receiver is

able to recover, that is perfectly

standard in any liquidation

situation, as you know.

Why is the

Carillion crisis a crisis of

outsourcing? Why is that? This is

what your party has claimed.

Carillion crisis and the failure

work from the gang tragic force of

many people who work for Carillion

and -- were tragic force of many

people who work for Carillion. What

Oliver won't say is that they

continue to give contracts to

Carillion because they believe

ideological eat in giving public

sector contracts... -- ideological

eat in giving.

ALL TALK AT ONCE. Why

is there a crisis of outsourcing was

below because,

by giving these

massive contracts to a small number

of private sector companies whose

business models are predicated, if

you like, and bidding as low as

possible for these contracts...

It

is public services.

It is a good

thing if it is sustainable, but it

clearly wasn't. There were profit

warnings, they were being

slaughtered. Their dividend payments

were going up while that that was

dreading --. Yet this was a

strategic supplier.

Is the jewel

argument that the Government's

mistake was giving too many

contracts to Carillion, or that it

should not have been giving them to

the private sector at all?

The fact

that the Government was obliged, if

you like, to give so many contracts

to one supplier demonstrates that it

should not have been outsourcing so

much of our public services.

Should

these contracts have gone to the

private sector or not?

So much of

our public services, schools,

reasons, hospitals, should not be

delivered by the private sector.

Because the profit motive does not

lead to the best outcomes for our

students, our prisoners...

Carillion

wasn't brought down by outsourcing

services, it was brought down by

construction contracts that went

wrong. Now, one of the construction

contract which we bounded on it with

the Aberdeen bypass. £750 million.

But there were delays. The

receivables went as high as they

thought, that was one of the reasons

for a write-down. Should the

Aberdeen bypass be built by a

private construction company or what

not?

Each individual case depends on

the nature of the tender.

I'm asking

you to principal... Should it be

built by a private company or should

it be built by a publicly owned

construction company?

Public

services should be delivered, I

believe...

This isn't public

services, this is construction.

I

wouldn't argue necessarily that it

should be built by... Sorry, Andrew,

you made an important point. You

said it wasn't brought down by

public services, it was brought down

by construction. And yet it was the

ongoing need to service those public

services, our hospitals, our

schools, etc, which is what...

The

other - British contracts which

brought it down...

And the bidding,

and the bidding for key services...

You keep on saying services, and it

wasn't services, that's what I'm

trying to get to. It was brought

down clearly, we notice from the

evidence in the High Court, by

construction contracts. Two of the

other construction contracts were

because Buttle in Liverpool and they

-- a because Buttle in Manchester.

Is it Labour's position that it was

wrong to give this to Carillion what

wrong to give it to the private

sector at all, and it should be done

by the public sector?

Where

possible... So, Carillion is a shell

company, and the supply chain for

the support for delivering

construction services to the public

sector needs to be examined and

investigated. This is a really

important point...

Should we build

our hospitals using private

companies, or should they be built

by the public sector? Is this

Labour's position?

Suppliers and

contractors to the public sector,

which can include the building of a

black sector construction and

hospitals, they should have

sustainable business models -- for

the construction sector. The supply

chains should not be so long. Our

argument is that we need the

capacity within the public sector to

manage these...

To manage, but not

to build?

Not necessarily to build.

The public sector doesn't have to do

everything. When it comes to the

delivery of public services and the

management of public assets there

needs to be the capacity within the

public sector to do that directly.

We need to move on.

Now, internal Labour Party democracy

may not seem like blockbuster stuff,

but it has been a key battleground

between opposing factions

of the Labour Party since

Jeremy Corbyn became leader,

and determines the future

direction of the party.

The Corbynite camp has been

celebrating big wins this week.

Here's Emma with all the details.

Last September, two Momentum-backed

candidates won posts

on the Conference Arrangements

Committee - giving them control

of selecting and prioritising

motions for the annual conference.

And earlier this week,

three other candidates supported

by Momentum won seats on the party's

National Executive Committe -

the supreme decision-making body -

swinging it into the Left's control.

The three new members included

Momentum founder Jon Lansman,

who has in the past talked

about introducing mandatory

reselection for sitting MPs.

Yesterday, Corbyn supporters used

that new NEC majority to take

control of the party's

disciplinary committee,

ousting longstanding

Chair of the Disputes

Sub-Committee, Ann Black,

and replacing her with

Momentum Director - and NEC member -

Christine Shawcroft.

It means the Left of the party now

have control of the panel that

decides whether to investigate

anti-Semitic, racist,

homophobic and sexist abuse,

as well as other disciplinary cases.

Internal clashes broke

out within the party,

with Young Labour NEC rep

Jasmin Beckett saying

she was "disgusted" by the removal

of Ann Black, and accusing Momentum

of treating the committee

as a "factional playground".

But Christine Shawcroft told

the Mirror, "I really don't know

what all the fuss is about",

denying there was a

"left-wing takeover".

Thank you for that. Tony Robinson,

one of your better-known Labour

Party members, famous as Blackadder,

long a Labour Party activist, says,

"Labour's now been taken over by

leftist clique". Is he right?

What

happened is that we had a democratic

election.

We know that. But as the

result of the election...

As a

consequence of members of the

largest political party by

membership in Europe voting. About

that as a takeover, I believe that

is absolutely not the case. We have

a democracy and people voted and not

everybody is happy with every result

of the Democratic party.

Ann Black,

the well-respected chair of the

NEC's disputes panel, was it right

to get rid of her?

The NEC has 39

people on it. When you have new

members, there is often a

reassignment of its possibilities.

I'm not on the NEC. I don't know

what her qualifications were but it

is right that there should be the

ability...

Was right to get rid of

her?

I am not on the NEC.

You still

have a view. You have no view on

this?

The level of interest in our

National Executive Committee

subpanel... If that had been the

same level of interest in

Carillion's board, for example, and

the same level of bureaucracy...

Your failure to answer these

questions will ensure that the

interest in the NEC is going to

write it have no view on whether it

is right that an black should have

been removed?

I think it is right to

follow our procedures to elect...

The disputes process will still

remain exactly the same.

Are you

comfortable but it is now being

chaired by a woman who thought we

should invite Islamic State to tea

rather than bomb them in Iraq, and

that that Lutfur Rahman in Tower

Hamlets, who had been banned for

five years from office and guilty of

electoral fraud? Are you comfortable

that that is the person now running

your disputes panel? Chisnall it is

absolutely right that the person

running our disputes panel should be

accountable for what she has said in

the past, and it follows our

processes. Two things... Are you

comfortable that the person in

charge of your disputes panel has

this background? Either you are or

you aren't.

It is really important

that we have robust processes. We

need robust processes to make sure

hate speech and anti-Semitism and

racism in have no part in the Labour

Party and that is how it is now. I

want my constituents to know that

when I get up in the morning, I am

not working on looking at what the

exact composition of our NEC... I'm

trying to make sure there are jobs

in Newcastle, that there are...

You

do that every day but the NEC is the

story yesterday and today. The woman

who headed

who headed the NEC, last year, she

spoke at a rally to celebrate the

30th anniversary of the domain is

revolution in Iran. Does Labour

celebrate that revolution?

We don't

celebrate a revolution. If you are

asking, was she doing that as the

representative and speaking for the

Labour Party, no, she wasn't.

She

said, "We are here for a

celebration, it is a happy time, the

third year I have been, it is always

in my diary". Are you happy that the

person that got the most votes in

the NEC election seems to regard the

Iranian Islamic revolution as a good

thing? Is it a good thing?

I don't

share the same views as everybody in

every position in the Labour Party

and that is right, because we have

broad representative

cross-section...

What is your view

of the Islamist revolution?

My view

of the Islamist revolution is that

because it is not directly relevant

to my constituency in Newcastle

right now, I certainly feel that our

position on Iran and supporting the

democracy in Iran and elsewhere is

as set out by our shadow secretary.

What evidence has Labour ever given

in recent weeks that it supports the

democratic process in Iran?

We are a

party of democracy. You're talking

about our NEC elections.

Did Jeremy

Corbyn, did John McDonnell, did

Emily Thornberry, your foreign

affairs spokesman... Did any of them

but words of support to the

democratic protesters?

We are a

democratic party.

You said that. Any

public support Labour has given for

the democratic protesters in Iran?

We support democracy. We are a

democratic party.

Who do you

support, then? Compared to the

Iranian government and the

democratic protesters, brave people

taking to the street, whose side are

you on?

I'm always on the side of

democracy and representation.

Yasmine Dar so you are on the side

of the protesters? By on the side of

democracy. I am not going to speak

for the predators because I don't

know them personally.

I am not

asking you to speak for every

protester, I am asking for a simple

view. The women who top the NEC poll

supported the revolution and

celebrate it on its 30th

anniversary. I'm asking you, since

this is the regime that has shot an

unarmed protesters, I am asking

whose side you are on.

I have said

very clearly I am always on the

side...

Why can't you bring yourself

to say you on the side of the

protesters?

I support those

supporting democracy. I don't want

you to be holding the accountable

for the actions of every single

protester.

I am asking for your

view.

My view is to support

democracy and support those who

support democracy.

Your new

vice-chair for youth, Ben Bradley,

advocated vasectomies for the vast

sea of unemployed wasters, quote. Is

this going to inform the next

roll-out of Universal Credit?

Of

course not, and he has apologised to

those comments. You made them five

years ago when he was 22 and I think

it was right for him to apologise.

It is bound to be what he thinks.

Now he has been called to account,

likely Labour people have done the

same, you run a mile.

He was 22 at

the time, five years ago. I think

his views have developed quite a

lot, as you might imagine anyone in

their early 20s changes their views,

and I think he has apologised and

that is clearly not the position of

the Conservative Party.

And it is

not the next age of Universal Credit

roller?

Of course it isn't.

Fair

enough.

Now, we've all been there -

after a big lunch and maybe a glass

or two of a good Shiraz,

the eyes start to feel heavy,

the eyelids droop and you just

can't keep them open.

It happens to most Daily Politics

viewers.

So, spare a thought for Conservative

MP Desmond Swayne -

seen here behind Ken Clarke

in the Commons - who looked

like he was stealing 40 winks

on the green benches rather

than listening to the Father

of the House's ruminations

on the EU Withdrawal Bill.

He did finally perk up,

just as Ken was offering

up his thoughts on the Charter

of Fundamental Rights.

Mr Swayne must be relieved

he didn't miss out on that.

Well, we know the Daily Politics

is the sort of high-octane,

action-packed, barnstormer

of a show that you could

never nod off watching.

But just in case you need

a pick-me-up for the dross that's

on after us, what better way to stay

alert with a caffeinated

drink of your choice

than to drink from the exclusive

Daily Politics mug?

To win one, just tell

us when this happened.

MUSIC: Blueberry Hill by Fats Domino

# Around the world I looked for you

# I travelled on when hope was gone

# To keep a rendezvous #.

# You've got to have heart #.

Well, here goes.

I'm now going to test the switch.

# When the odds are

saying you'll never win

# That's when the grin

should start #.

# Since you have left me in tears

# My scars have all turned to grey

now

# And I just walk the

soles off my shoes #.

We shall need the sympathy and

the goodwill and understanding of

everyone in the country,

whatever their party.

# Oh, let me be

# Oh, let him be

# Your teddy bear

# Oh, let me be

# Oh, let him be

# Your teddy bear

# I just want to be

your teddy bear #.

To be in with a chance of winning

a Daily Politics mug,

send your answer to our special

quiz e-mail address.

That's [email protected].

Entries must arrive

by 12:30pm today.

And you can see the full terms

and conditions for Guess

The Year on our website,

bbc.co.uk/dailypolitics.

It is 11:56am. It is a sunny

winter's morning and even to the

scaffolding, the clock faces shining

through. Prime Minister's Questions

coming up in a couple of minutes and

we are joined by John Pienaar. I

assume, given it involves public

sector contracts, outsourcing, all

that sort of thing, that Mr Corbyn

has no choice but to go on

Carillion.

I think he sees this as

an opportunity. It was described in

a social media video as a watershed.

That is how they see it. Potentially

in their hopes around Jeremy Corbyn,

a turning point where they turn the

tide of the argument against the

involvement of the private sector in

present form in these services of

the state, and it could be

interesting, although I'm always

hesitant to say that Prime

Minister's Questions is going to be

interesting.

These days that is

quite a bold statement.

But we will

see some sort of version of the

game, where does the buck stop? In

this case it is not just in case a

war the answers but what other

questions? Government ministers are

saying they will learn the lessons

of the Carillion affair but what

will these lessons be?

will these lessons be? Safeguards, a

better and clearer system of warning

lights were a company like

Carillion? But other in-built

problems system which can't be

ironed out? Is this an inevitable

consequence of the system that leads

winners and losers or should be

changed? Are these two questions

compatible? IPod is the government

have a clear line on this yet? The

government is in a different

position. They have substantial use

of private firms in the construction

of the structure and the root

servers for many years, going past

Labour governments and Gordon Brown

and Tony Blair. That is all by the

way because we have now got a new

leader. We can forget about BC,

before Corbyn, as far as this

argument goes. We have an

ideological split as white, may be

wider, than anything we have seen

since Margaret Thatcher, so that is

about the role of private sector in

the state in the 1980s. A lot of

enquiries are on the way, a couple

going to be taking place in

Parliament, in committee rooms,

probably the same time, and they

will lead to changes, but have

fundamental?

Government must feel on

the defensive on this.

I think they

must because when you see such a

high-profile failure, thousands of

public sector workers in doubt about

their future, private sector workers

with some certainty that their

futures are indeed question, lots of

Government money on the line, but we

don't how much, there are questions

that are difficult and a lot of

questions they can't answer so it is

going to test Theresa May.

Meanwhile

Brazil continues to trundle along in

terms of negotiations. Carillion, in

a way, we should all be grateful to

it because it is given something

else. About, even if there are bad

consequences to it, which is a

reason for not being grateful, but

is the EU on a kind of charm

offensive?

It is possible to over do

what Donald Tusk said the other day.

Which we do because that is what we

do. On one level of our brain, we

and the other part understand that

is to serious that. But when it

comes to Donald Tusk saying, we hope

to see you vote as if you will come

back. In saying that does not

necessarily make it any more likely,

beyond getting up the noses of the

Brexiteers. Which he succeeded in

doing. That was a surprise. Am I

right in thinking that the next

stage of the talks is not about our

actual future relationship with the

EU but we are going. First about the

transition period following March

2019.

Through the spring we are

supposed to be talking about the

divorce and the transition period.

This is crucial, the transition

particular, moving from being a

member to not being a member. The

government is committed to a time

period of maybe a couple of years.

There was an argument that says it

is going to lead a great deal more

than that and we're just at the

beginning of tying up a lot of those

details.

For governments, it usually

never rains but pours. There was a

BBC story this morning about the

number of nurses now just leaving

the NHS, including, I understand,

younger nurses, who probably haven't

completed their training all that

long ago. They have just decided to

go through all that training that

they don't want to be in the NHS.

That is so but it is layered on top

of a winter crisis. They have been

worried about it for many a month

and it has been argued the Brexiters

contributed, the number of nurses

from EU countries that have been

part of the workforce, is beginning

to dry up. The effects are being

felt.

It puts pressure... I hear

rumblings even on the Tory

backbenches, indeed even Jacob

Rees-Mogg, who you might not think

would be on the progressive wing of

the Tories, saying the Government is

going to have to come up with a new

model.

Sure. We're hearing this

interestingly from various quarters,

senior Conservative forces,

including the chairman of the 1922,

the tribal elders that the Tory

party at Westminster, talking about,

let's look at hi gated taxation,

earmarked taxes. Either way, there

is a recognition that crosses party

lines now but a long-term look at

NHS funding is a place we have not

been politically willing to go

before.

But if you were to announce

a long-term plan, if that was to

happen,, I think the key is in the

phrase long-term. Doesn't get us

through the funding problems we have

at the moment. It may have to do

both.

You can argue there is never

going to be enough money for the NHS

and you can sustain that argument.

You can also argue that the NHS will

need accelerating because that is

also true. In terms of how the

health system, preventative

medicine, all of this sort of thing,

there was a role for that, which

involve substantial transformation

in NHS pinking, to. On every level,

that is the sort of change that is

needed. The buck stops here and it

stops now.

And despite what critics

might say is death by a thousand

cuts, but that is the government

being assailed on all sides? Mrs May

is still there. She survives. She

keeps on going, Cabinet ministers

come and go, crises come and go. Her

resilience... I'm beginning to think

that even her critics are now

beginning to roll Appiah her for her

resilience is nothing else.

You can

safely say that is the case, certain

survival. Someone said somewhere,

maybe in a movie, about the World

War II Wellington bomb, whose chief

characteristic was the ability to

soak up black falling out of the

sky. Theresa May, among many other

things, seems to be our version of

that bomb.

I will have to get my old

air kicked out! On the Tory

backbenches, although there is no

enthusiasm for her, there is also no

move now to get rid of her?

That has

been so and still is. For reasons we

discussed more than once, which is

the sheer absence of a clear

successor and the absence of any

appetite on the backbenches to go

into a leadership contest, which is

in the most flattering reason to

carry on as Prime Minister but it is

a significant influence.

Do you

agree with that?

I've had the

privilege of working quite closely

with the Prime Minister, as I did

with the last one, and what I see

with is somebody who is very tough

and determined, has a real sense of

public service, and I think that is

what is driving her. She is not

somebody who is going to walk away

after a bad result, which we had

with the 27th election, she wants to

deliver for the country, and I think

that is what gets her up every

morning.

If, against all

conventional opinion, Mrs May does

survive, or this government does

survive, through to 2022, which is

when there has to be an election, I

will come back to that because, five

minutes late, we are going to PMQs.

This morning I had meetings in

addition to my duties in this House,

I shall have further such meetings

later today.

The Government must

take responsibility for its role in

the mess now left by Carillion.

Thousands of staff face

unemployment. SME suppliers face

going bust. But I'm concerned for

the 1400 Carillion apprentices, some

of whom I've met locally. It's not

good enough to pass the buck. Wilbur

Prime Minister guarantee today that

everyone of those apprentices will

be able to complete their training

and will be paid?

Well, can I say to

the honourable lady that I recognise

that of course this has been a

difficult time for a number of

people, concerned about their jobs

and public services and about their

pensions. I want first of all, if I

may, Mr Speaker, to provide

reassurance to all employees who are

working on public services for

Carillion that they shall continue

to turn up the works confident in

the knowledge that they will be paid

for the work that they are

providing. Of course, the Government

is not running Carillion. The

Government is actually a customer of

Carillion. Our focus has been on

ensuring that we are providing the

public services that they are

continuing to be provided and

interrupted -- and interrupted, to

reassure workers on those public

services that they will get paid. To

reassure pensioners, the support is

there for them. Yes, I'm coming onto

the apprentices. But it is important

that the Government is undertaking

its role to ensure that the services

it provides are continuing to be

provided. And I can assure the

honourable lady that we are aware of

the issues around apprentices, and

that's why the Minister with

responsibility for that will be

looking very carefully at what

action he takes.

Simon Hoare.

action he takes.

Simon Hoare.

What

better way to start the year of

engineering than to see

Manufacturing output at its highest

level in a decade? And productivity

on the up. Can I invite my right

honourable friend to commit and

confirm her Government to secure and

support UK manufacturing and the

important export it delivers?

Well,

I'm very happy, I'm very happy to

give my honourable friend that

commitment from the Government. And

he's absolutely right. It's very,

very pleasing to see the figures

that the ONS produced last week,

which show that production has now

grown for eight months, the longest

streak since 1994. Manufacturing

output is at its highest since

February 2008. And earlier this

month we saw the productivity growth

has had its best quarter since 2011.

That shows that our economy remains

strong, that we are continuing to

deliver secure, better paid jobs,

and we will continue to do that in

supporting our manufacturing sector.

Jeremy Corbyn.

Thank you, Mr

Speaker. In the last six months, the

Government has awarded more than £2

billion worth of contracts to

Carillion. It did so even after the

share price was in freefall, and the

company had issued profit warnings.

Why did the Government do that?

Why did the Government do that?

It

might be helpful if I just set out

for the right honourable gentleman

that a company's profit warning

means that it believes it will not

make as much profit as it had

expected to make.

LAUGHTER

If... If... The Government did... If

it was the case, if it was the case

that the Government pulled out of

contracts, or indeed private sector

companies pulled out of contracts

whenever a profit warning was

issued, that would be the best way

to ensure that companies failed and

the jobs were lost. It would also,

for the Government, raise real

issues about providing continued,

and interrupted public services.

Yes, we did, we did recognise that

it was a severe profit warning. And

that's why we took action in

relation to the contracts that we

issued. And we ensure that all but

one of those contracts was a joint

venture. What does that mean? It

means that there was another company

available to step in and take over

the contract. But I say the right

honourable gentleman, this wasn't

just an issue of the Government

issuing contracts. Actually we see

that the Labour run Welsh Government

issued a contract after a profit

warning last July. And only last

week, in the public sector, a public

sector body announced that Carillion

was their preferred bidder. Only

last week. Was that the Government?

No, that was Labour run Leeds City

Council.

Council.

Mr Speaker, for the record,

Leeds have not signed a contract

with Carillion. It's the Government

here's been handing out contracts.

It's the Goverment's responsibility

to ensure Carillion is properly

managed. Between July, Mr Speaker,

between July and the end of last

year, the share price of Carillion

fell by 90%. Three profit warnings

were issued. Unbelievably, some

contracts were awarded by the

Government even after the third

profit warning. Mr Speaker, it looks

like the Government was handing

Carillion public contracts either to

keep the company afloat, which

clearly hasn't worked, or it was

just deeply negligent of the crisis

that was coming down the line.

that was coming down the line.

Mr

Speaker, I'm very happy to once

questions when the right honourable

the woman asks one, but he didn't!

-- when the right honourable

gentleman.

Mr Speaker, I ask the Government if

they have been negligent or not, and

they clearly have been very

negligent. Tory MPs might shout, Mr

Speaker, but the reality is, as of

today, over 20,000 Carillion workers

are very worried about their future.

For many of them, the only recourse

tonight is the phone a DWP hotline.

The frailties were well-known. Hedge

fund is well betting against

Carillion since 2015. RBS banks,

state owned, making provision

against Carillion last year. The

Government is supposed to protect

public money through Crown

representatives, who was supposed to

monitor these powerful corporations

who get huge public contracts. So,

white, and this is a question, that

the Prime Minister needs to answer,

and the question is this... Why did

the position of Crown representative

to Carillion remained vacant during

the crucial period of August to

November, when the profit warnings

were being issued, the share price

was in freefall, and many people

were very worried?

I'm afraid I have

to say to the right honourable

gentleman, of course... And can I

say to the shadow front secretary, I

will indeed answer the question, but

I know that she herself has praised

Carillion in the past for the work

that they have done -- the Shadow

Foreign Secretary.

Can I say to the right honourable

gentleman, yes, there is obviously

now a Crown representative who's

been fully involved in the

Goverment's response. Before the

appointment of the Crown

representative, to replace the one

that had previously been in place,

the Government chief commercial

officer and the Cabinet Office

director of markets and suppliers

took over those responsibilities. It

was not the case that there was

nobody from the Government who was

looking at these issues, that's a

standard procedure, to ensure that

there was oversight of Carillion's

contracts with the Government during

the appointment of the Grand Rapids

and if.

Well, they clearly weren't

looking very well! Carillion went

into liquidation with debts we now

understand to be £1.29 billion. A

pension deficit of £600 million.

And, at the same time, this company

was paying out ever-increasing

shareholder dividends, whilst the

excessive bonuses to directors, and,

today, 8000 Carillion workers on

private sector contracts will no

longer be paid. The chief executive

is going to be paid, however, for

another ten months. One rule for the

super rich, another for everybody

else. Can the Prime Minister assure

the House today that not a single

penny more will go to the chief

executive or the directors of this

company?

Can I first stage of a

right honourable gentleman that

obviously this is a situation that

is changing as decisions are being

taken, but my understanding is that

there are a number of private sector

contracts who have now come to an

agreement, and facilities management

contractors who have come to an

agreement with the official receiver

that means that their work is --

their workers will indeed continue

to be paid. The official receiver is

doing their job of working with

those companies. He has raised the

issue of bonuses. Of course, people

are concerned about this issue and

want, and are rightly asking

questions about it. That's why we

are making sure that the official

receiver's investigation into the

business dealings of the company is

fast tracked, that it looks into the

conduct not just of current

directors, but also of previous

directors and their actions. And the

official receiver does have the

powers to ensure that, in reviewing

payments to executives, where those

payments are lawful are justified he

can take action to recover those

payments. -- are unlawful or

unjustified. It is important that

the official receiver is able to do

their job. It is also important, the

Goverment's job is to continue the

bright public services, and that is

what we are doing. The right

honourable gentleman said earlier,

it was the Goverment's job to ensure

that Carillion was properly managed.

We are because the of Carillion, not

the manager of Carillion, that is

the important difference but we are

the customer of Carillion. And it is

also important that we have

protected taxpayers from an

unacceptable bailout of a private

company.

Mr Speaker, when Carillion

went into liquidation, many

contractors were still unpaid. This

company, Carillion, were notorious

late payers, taking 120 days to pay,

placing a huge burden on small

companies. Four times longer than

the 30 days in the prompt payment

code that Carillion had indeed

themselves signed up to. So, why did

the Government allow a major

Government contractor to get away

with this? Will she commit to

label's policy that abiding by the

prompt payment code should be a

basic requirement for all future

Government contracts?

Of course, we

look at the behaviour of companies

that we contract with in relation to

payments. This question of prompt

payment has been one that has been

brought up in this House, I have to

say, for as long as I have been in

this House. And work is always being

done on it. But the right honourable

gentleman has raised an important

point about the impact of

Carillion's liquidation on small

companies. That's why this morning

the Business Secretary and the city

Minister held a Round Table with the

banks to discuss credit lines to

small and medium-sized enterprises,

and to make clear that SMEs are not

responsible for the collapse of

Carillion. The Business Secretary

has also held further round tables

today with representatives of small

businesses. Construction trade

associations, and trade unions,

workers unions, to make sure that we

are on top of the potential effects

on the wider supply train. It is

right that we look at those very

carefully and take this action. And

it is also right that we do put in

place through the DWP support for

any workers who do find themselves

no longer employed as a result of

this.

Jeremy Corbyn.

It's a bit late

for one subcontractor, floor attack

of £800,000 by Carillion have

already had to make some of their

staff redundant by the collapse. --

Florette Tech. This is not an

isolated case of Government

negligence and corporate failure. It

is a broken system. Under

is a broken system. Under this

Government, this Government, virgin

and Stagecoach, can spectacularly

mismanaged the east Coast Main line

and be let off a £2 billion payment.

Capita and a toss can continue to

wreck the lives through damaging

disability assessment of many people

with disabilities, and win more

Government funded contracts. G4S

promised to provide security at the

Olympics, and fail to so, do and the

army had to step in and save the

day. These corporations, Mr Speaker,

need to be shown the door. We need

our public services provided by

public employees with a public

service ethos, and a strong public

oversight. As the ruins of Carillion

lie around her, will the Prime

Minister act to end this costly

racket of the relationship between

Government and some of these

companies?

I might first to mind the right

honourable gentleman that a third of

the Carillion contracts with that

Government were led by the Labour

government. What we want is to

provide good quality public

services, delivered at best value to

the taxpayer. We're making sure in

this case that public services

continue to be provided, that the

workers in those public services are

supported and taxpayers are

protected. But what Labour oppose

isn't just a role for private

companies and public services but

the private sector as a whole. The

vast majority of people in this

country in employment are employed

by the private sector, but the

Shadow Chancellor calls businesses

are the real enemy. Labour won the

highest taxes in our peacetime

history, Labour policies would cause

a run on the pound. This is a Labour

Party that has turned its back on

investment, on growth, on jobs, a

Labour Party that will always but

politics before people.

Mr Speaker, can I thank the Prime

Minister for visiting Cheam on

Saturday, where she heard from local

residents about the poor services

provided by the complacent Lib Dem

council. People should not have to

settle for second best so would she

agree with me back to unlock Sutton

and London's potential on May the

3rd, by giving residents the

opportunity to get great services

and value for money by voting

Conservative?

I was very happy to

join my honourable friend on the

doorsteps in Cheam and hear from

people about the issues, about

Liberal Democrat services in Sutton

and Cheam, particularly around the

rubbish bins. I believe they are now

up to 6p per household. I think they

are trying to get to one Bendtner

every Liberal Democrat member of

Parliament. But he is absolutely

right, the evidence is that

Conservatives deliver better

services at less cost the council

taxpayer. And well we are talking

about customer council taxpayer,

only last week Labour's Ben Fryer

minister announced that Labour

policy was to put council tax up on

every average typical home by £320.

People should know that a vote for

Labour is a vote to pay more.

Labour is a vote to pay more.

Thank

you, Mr Speaker. Can the Prime

Minister tell the House what

official advice she has had on the

impact on the UK economy from

leaving the EU single market and

when she requested any such advice?

I have to say to be honourable

gentleman that of course as we go

through the Brexit negotiations, we

are constantly looking at the impact

that decisions that are taken will

have on our economy. What we want to

ensure is that we maintain good

access, a good conference of free

trade agreement with the EU, while

also, as leaving the EU, we will be

able to ensure that we get good free

trade agreements with other parts of

the world.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. 19

months after the EU referendum and

the Prime Minister has not a shred

of economic analysis on the impact

of leaving the single market. On

Monday, Scottish Government

published its second analysis paper,

revealing some horrifying facts.

Leaving the single market will cost

each Scottish citizen up to £2300 a

year. How many jobs have to be lost

and how much of a hit will families

take before this Prime Minister

recognises the folly of leaving the

single market?

He asks me for

economic analysis. I will give him

some economic analysis. We saw the

figures this morning for GDP growth

in Scotland. In the third quarter,

GDP in Scotland group by 0.2%. In

the rest of the UK it grew by 0.4%.

Over the last year, GDP in Scotland,

under an SNP government in Scotland,

grew by 0.6%. In the United Kingdom

as a whole, it grew by 1.7%. My

economic analysis, 1.7% is better

than 0.6 percentage you are better

off with a Conservative government

than an SNP won.

Will the Prime

Minister look at the case of my late

constituent and barnyard, who was

badly injured by a shoplifter. She

recently died, partly because of

these injuries at the young age of

70. -- Anne Banyard. Her claim has

been delayed and her family worries

that it will collapse completely.

Will she support me and the local

paper in supporting this case and

will to make clear that the rights

of victims should be a part of our

criminal policy?

My honourable

friend is right to put the case for

the rights of victims that he is

absolutely right that we should

always remember victims. I'm very

sorry to hear the case of his late

constituent Anne Banyard and I know

that the whole house will want to

join me in offering condolences to

her family in this tragic case. Of

course, as my honourable friend

knows, the criminal compensation

authority administers the scheme and

applies the rules dependably of

government but I'm sure the Justice

Secretary will be happy to meet with

my right honourable friend to

discuss this case.

At the

internationally embarrassing news of

the Tory council leader from my

neighbour in Maidenhead and Windsor

and his disregard for the homeless

around the royal wedding and the

recent put-downs to the Prime

Minister and our government by

President Trump, can the Prime

Minister confirm whether she

actually wants an invite to be

extended for the royal wedding and a

state visit to the very stable

genius from the US who, by the way,

seems to be copying all the

buzzwords from his not so strong and

stable -- from this not so strong

and stable government?

He knows that

we have a special during

relationship with the United States.

An invitation to President Trump for

a state visit has been extended. I

have to say to the honourable

gentleman, I'm not responsible for

invitations to the royal wedding to

take place but he did reference the

Royal Borough of Windsor and

Maidenhead council. I just think he

should be aware that the Royal

Borough has taken a number of

actions to support vulnerable

residents, including those who are

homeless. The establishment of an

emergency night shelter, open 365

days a year, a day service attached

to that, providing support services

to vulnerable residents, a

comprehensive seven day a week

service for the homeless or those at

risk of homelessness, and they

applied the severe weather emergency

protocol. They offered accommodation

to, I think, 32 homeless people on

the streets, of whom 21 took about

accommodation and 11 did not.

accommodation and 11 did not.

Thank

you, Mr Speaker. Cancer can strike

anyone no matter where they live in

the UK. The sunrise appeal in

Cornwall raised £300 million since

2000 to fund equipment and buildings

for cancer care. Brussels by the NHS

could see radiotherapy services

moved from Cornwall to Devon. This

would see many constituents having

to travel hundreds of miles to

access treatment many times a week.

These proposals are unacceptable to

my constituents and the vast

majority of people in Cornwall. Does

the Prime Minister agree with me

that travel time should be taken

into account when making these

decisions, and will she join me in

encouraging the people of Cornwall

to respond to the NHS consultation?

My honourable friend raises an

important point and we do want to be

sure that patients get the best

cancer services. We want to see them

getting access to treatment and

ensuring that they get that on a

timely fashion, of course. The

length of time it takes them to

travel to that treatment is an

important issue. That's why we are

establishing radiotherapy networks

that will review any access issues

and service provision on a regular

basis and address any shortcomings

in the area, and that is backed up

by £130 million on new and upgraded

radiotherapy machines. But he is

absolutely right that these

decisions should be taken primarily

at a local level and I would join

him in encouraging the people of

Cornwall to respond to the

consultation.

Mr Speaker, last week

my constituent Carol's son had a

mental health crisis. He was

admitted to the nearest available

psychiatric adult bed in West

Sussex, a 450 mile round trip from

his home and family in Manchester.

The lack of mental health beds is a

national crisis and scandal so when

will the Prime Minister turn her

warm words on mental health into

action to solve the crisis?

I can

say to the honourable gentleman,

obviously I am sorry to hear of the

experience of his constituent. We

are turning the words that we have

put on in terms of a priority for

mental health into action. Is them

over a slew? Yes, that is why we are

continuing to put an emphasis on

this. We do see more people being

able to access mental health

services everyday. We've increased

the number of people having access

to therapies, we've increased the

funding available for mental health.

There is more for us to do but we

are putting more money in and taking

more action on mental health than

any previous government.

any previous government.

Sir Desmond

Swayne.

CHEERING

Order! Order! The right honourable

gentleman is extremely alert! Order!

And I want to hear what he is going

to say.

A question keeps me awake at

night...

LAUGHTER

How will companies be encouraged to

follow her lead in the way that

Iceland has done?

I am very pleased

to say that we have seen Iceland

this week making a commitment to be

plastic free. We have seen other

companies making commitments to

ensure that any plastics they use

are recyclable in a number of years

and I'm very happy to join my

honourable friend in saying that we

will be encouraging companies to

follow Iceland's lead. We will also

be consulting on how the tax system

or the introduction of charges could

further reduce the amount of waste

we create and we are launching a new

plastics innovation fund, backed up

by additional funding that the

Government is investing in research

and develop and, to ensure that we

do really reduce the amount of

plastic that is used and leave this

land and environment in a better

state than we found it.

We can all

learn about brevity, myself

included, from the right honourable

gentleman. David Linden...

gentleman. David Linden...

A

constituent of buying has profound

mental health difficulties and was

put on Universal Credit in 2016 and

received a 276 day sanction. A judge

ruled that that sanction was wrong

and it has been overturned. Will the

Prime Minister agree to look into

that case but above all, will she

apologised to my constituent?

Obviously, I am sorry to hear the

case that the honourable gentleman

has set out. I am very happy to

ensure that that cases properly

looked into.

looked into.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Following transport for the North's

announcement on northern Powerhouse

rail, will the Prime Minister

confirm that given its commitment to

invest in northern transport

infrastructure and ensuring that the

northern Powerhouse materialises?

I

am happy to give a commitment to the

northern Powerhouse and given the

great cities across the North --

giving very great cities of the

North begins a search of a need to

create that Northern Powerhouse. We

are spending a record £13 billion to

transform transport across unaltered

top we have made transport for the

north of a need to create that

Northern Powerhouse. We are spending

a record £13 billion to transform

transport across unaltered top we

have made transport for the North

the first-ever subnational transport

authority. They have published their

strategic plan for consultation and

I would hope that all members with

an interest in this issue would

engage in that consultation and make

sure their views and their

constituents' views are heard.

His

Holiness Pope Francis has this week

condemned hostility to migrants in

communities across Europe. They must

open themselves without prejudice to

the rich diversity of immigrants. As

a committed Christian, would Prime

Minister agree with Francis that

hostility to migrants is a sin?

What

I say to her is that this country

has a fine record over not just

decades but centuries, of welcoming

refugees and ensuring that people

can come to this country and make

their home in this country, and that

is what we will continue to do.

is what we will continue to do.

John

Worboys is likely to be one of the

worst sex attack is our country has

ever known and when he was in court

he denied his guilt and was

continuing to deny it until 200

years ago. He dismissed his crimes

as banter and only last year was

deemed too dangerous to be put into

open release conditions. The short

sentence he has served is an insult

to his victims and shows a contempt

for Justice. Does the Prime Minister

agree with me that the decision must

now be judiciary the -- judicially

reviewed and that those cases should

be broader when tried in court?

I

thank him for raising this and this

is a case that is rightly raising

deep concern among the public but

also all members across this House.

As my honourable friend will know,

the Parole Board is rightly

independent of government and even

insensitive cases such as this, we

must ensure that independence is

maintained and we don't prejudice

decisions. But although they have

decided to approve his release with

stringent licensing decisions --

conditions, the Justice Secretary

has made clear she is taking legal

advice on the possibility of a

judicially -- judicially review on

Mr Dock it is right that we would

conduct a review to look at options

for change and this... Public

protection is our priority and I

think often people are concerned

when they see decisions of the

Parole Board being taken and they

are not aware of the decisions

behind that. There may be limits to

what can be done but I figured it's

right that we look into this case

and question the issue of

transparency.

Many thanks. By

constituent informed me that she had

been raped and beaten by her

ex-partner, requiring an injunction.

Much to her horror, the bank would

not close a joint account unless she

attended with the perpetrator. When

banks were left to their discretion,

women's lies are being put at risk.

Will the Prime Minister ensure

policy to protect survivors is

included in a pending domestic

violence spills?

The honourable lady clearly raises a

very distressing case. We want to

ensure that we give problems of bot

to all of those -- we give proper

support to those who have been

subjected to be abuse of the kind

that the honourable lady has been

referred to. The Home Secretary will

be issuing consultation on the

proposed legislation which is an

opportunity for issues such as this

to be raised.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

A brutal attack occurred in my

constituency over the weekend, a

young woman tragically died. Will

the Prime Minister ex then to her

sympathies to the family and pay

tributes to the hard work of the

emergency services who attended the

scene?

Can I say to my honourable

friend Comey he told me about this

very distressing case last night,

and this is a horrific case. And I

do extend my sympathies, and I'm

sure the whole House extends their

sympathies and condolences to her

family and friends at this tragic

death that has occurred. I will also

congratulate the emergency services

on the action that they have taken.

But also, I think, from the

description my honourable friend

gave to me last night, I think we

should have some thought and care to

all of those who were witnesses to

this particular incident, through

their fault of their own other than

happening to be at a particular

premises at liberty to The Times or

through no fault of their own.

The

Prime Minister will be aware that

Northern Ireland has not have the

government now for over a year.

Decisions need to be taken to

protect our health service,

education and local communities.

Does the Prime Minister agree that

in the absence of a Government being

formed, it is imperative that her

Government takes the decision to

appoint direct rule ministers as

soon as possible so that a budget

can be put forward to deal with this

urgent problem?

We are committed to

re-establishing fully functioning,

inclusive devolved administration

that works for everyone in Northern

Ireland. I don't underestimate the

challenges that remain involved

here, but we still believe that a

way forward can be found under the

agreement can be reached. I would

say it is imperative that the

parties re-engage in intensive

discussions aimed at resolving the

outstanding issues so that the

assembly can meet and an executive

can be formed. We do recognise,

however, that we have a

responsibility to ensure political

stability and good governance in

Northern Ireland. As I say, our

priority was on ensuring that we can

work with bodies to re-establish the

devolved government in Northern

Ireland. But we recognise the need

to ensure that Northern Ireland can

continue to operate and that public

services can continue to be

provided.

I thank her for her

earlier response to my colleague

from North Cornwall. NHS England are

investing £130 million in the

radiotherapy treatment for air and

less common cancers. Can she confirm

and reassure my constituents that

there is no need for existing good

radiotherapy services in Somerset to

be moved in order to deliver this

cancer treatment for our cancers?

Well, as I said in relation to the

earlier question from my honourable

friend -- for rare cancers. We

recognise the importance of ensuring

that people have access to these

treatments, and we do recognise the

issues that people sometimes face in

relation to travelling to the

centres where these services are

available. This is primarily a

decision to be taken at local level.

As I did earlier, I would encourage

people to take part in the

consultation, to respond to the

consultation, so that local views

can truly be heard and taken into

account.

My constituent, Chris

Robinson, has the weight 52 weeks

for her pain relief treatment,

instead of the 18 weeks that a

properly funded NHS would deliver.

How much longer will it take for the

Prime Minister to sort things out?

Can I say to the honourable

gentleman, that we are putting more

money, as he knows, into the

National Health Service, in the

autumn budget the Chancellor of the

Exchequer but a further £2.8 billion

into the National Health Service.

But if we are looking at the issues

of treatment across the National

Health Service, we have to be very

clear that while Labour's answer is

always does, more money, this is

about ensuring that all hospitals

across the NHS are operating and

acting in accordance with best

practice. We have world-class

hospitals in our NHS, we want to

ensure they are all world-class.

I

understand London has been mentioned

as a potential host to the Bayeux

Tapestry. Given that visitors to

London wish to see two site chucking

at each other or already very well

catered for by the gallery in this

chamber, can I ask the Prime

Minister to put in a good word for

Battle Abbey in East Sussex, where

viewers cannot just see the tapestry

-- can not just see the tapestry but

can also see the views of the Sussex

countryside.

I think it is very

significant that the Bayeux Tapestry

is going to be coming to the United

Kingdom and that people are going to

be able to see this. I hear the bid

that he has put in. I have to say to

him that from a set of true position

on the front bench my right

honourable friend the Home Secretary

and member for Hastings also put in

a bid for this particular issue and

I'm sure we will be looking at very

carefully to ensure that the maximum

number of people can take benefit

from seeing this tapestry.

Thank

you, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister

pledged to consign slavery to the

history books. On... The National

Audit Office said that the Home

Office has not set out how a

reduction will be measured. The Home

Office does not set clear

anti-slavery activity, the Home

Office does not knowing what

activity will be going on across

Government and does not monitor

business compliance with the Modern

Slavery Act. Is the Prime Minister

satisfied with that analysis of her

flagship policy, and what action

will be Government by taking?

It is

this government that introduced the

Modern Slavery Act. It is this

Government that... It is this

Government that has improved the

response to victims, the response

from police in catching

perpetrators. We see more cases

being brought the prosecution than

we have done before, we see more

victim is willing and able to come

forward and having the confidence to

come forward. Have we dealt with the

problem? Of course there are still

problems out there. But we want to

ensure, as my right honourable

friend the International Development

Secretary said earlier in

international element questions, not

just that we take action here in the

United Kingdom, that we work with

countries where

countries where the women are doing.

Members across this House have sung

for Syrians. Last week in Idlib, a

clinic and a kindergarten that we

support were bombed by Syrian

government destroyers. Will the

Prime Minister join me in paying

tribute to the bravery of the staff

at the hands up foundation, who

continued to work there, and also in

reassuring ordinary Syrians that in

the seventh year of this terrible

war that we haven't forgotten them

by.

Well, can I say to my honourable

friend, she has been a great

champion for charities working in

Syria, and particularly for the

singing for Syrians. And I am very

happy to join her in praising the

bravery of all of those working for

the hands up foundation. And also

others working for other charities

in the region, doing valuable and

important work. We continue to make

every effort to achieve our goals in

Syria. That is of course defeating

the scourge of Daesh. But also

ensuring that we achieve a political

settlement that end the suffering

and provides the ability for all

Syrians and the wider region. And we

continue to provide significant

humanitarian assistance, £2.46

billion to date.

Can the Prime

Minister tell me why the failed

Wakefield Academy was allowed to

take over schools in Bradford, even