Jo Coburn is joined by director of the IPPR thinktank Tom Kibasi and others to discuss Brexit, NHS reforms and schools funding.
Browse content similar to 30/01/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Hello and welcome to
The Daily Politics.
Leaked government documents suggest
the economy will be worse off
once we leave the EU.
The papers have enraged Eurosceptic
MPs, who are already concerned
at the direction the Brexit
negotiations are going -
we'll look at the details.
Meanwhile, the Lords have just
begun their scrutiny
of the EU Withdrawal Bill -
just how far will they go in trying
to amend the legislation,
and what could the consequences be?
We'll speak to two leading peers.
Leading surgeon Lord Darzi tells us
the NHS must reform to survive -
we'll look at the options.
And Environment Secretary Michael
Gove enrages animal rights groups
by suggesting the grey squirrel
could be culled -
we'll ask if he's right.
All that in the next hour,
and with us for the whole
of the programme today
is the director of the Institute for
Public Policy Research, Tom Kibasi -
welcome to the show.
First this morning, a cross party
group of MPs has set out
new proposals for dealing
with sexual harassment
and bullying in Parliament.
Under the plans, there would be
a behaviour code covering
parliamentary and constituency
staff, as well as an independent
What's more, the parliamentary
commissioner would get new powers
to suspend MPs from the House,
which could in turn lead
to them to be recalled
and possibly lose their seat.
Do you welcome these changes?
think it is a good package of
changes, actually. They're sensible
and proportionate and I think the
committee has done a good job.
you think they go far enough,
bearing in mind the number of
complaints and the scale of the
It is certainly a big step
forward. It raises the broader point
about whether these are staff
members should really be employed by
MPs themselves, or whether they
should be employed by parliament
itself like a regular employer. But
as a package I
as a package I think it is a
significant step forward.
the professionalisation of the way
Parliament is run? In your mind do
you think it should end, the fact
that MPs are self-employed and
should there be a centralised human
resources team so that any
complaints go through that system
and staff don't have to worry about
I think it would be a
rather good idea to have
Parliamentary staff employed by
Parliament itself and to modernise
Parliament and bring it into the
21st century and treat it like any
other employer with the same rights
and protections, I think that would
be a big step forward. This is
certainly progress, but I think the
destination that you describe is
absolutely where we should be
What about the issue of
recall? At the moment it is
something which can be used by
constituents if their MP is found
guilty of a criminal offence, or if
they are sent to jail - do you agree
with broadening it out to cover
sexual harassment or bullying as
At the moment it says it can
be either if you are committed for a
criminal offence, or suspended for
21 days. So this is the
Parliamentary commissioner at the
power to suspend members of
Parliament, and I think that is
sensible. Members of Parliament
should only be able to dismissed by
the people who elect them and I
think the recall mechanism is a
sensible thing. Ultimately the power
has to rest with the people who put
them there, they should be able to
boot them out if necessary.
Now it's time for our daily quiz.
The question for today is? What has
the Defence Secretary,
Gavin Williamson, reportedly
demanded be removed
from the Ministry of Defence?
A) Pictures of Theresa May?
B) A bust of Winston Churchill?
C) EU flags?
Or D) Copies of The Guardian?
At the end of the show,
Tom will give us the correct answer.
Theresa May chaired cabinet this
morning, and I would imagine
there was quite a bit to talk about.
She is due to embark
on a business trip to China.
But troubles over the
Prime Minister's Brexit
policy persist at home.
But troubles over the
Prime Minister's Brexit
policy persist at home.
Leaked Whitehall analysis published
by Buzzfeed News says that the UK
economy will grow more slowly
outside the EU, no matter what deal
is struck with Brussels.
Some Brexit-supporting MPs swiftly
rejected the findings,
with the likes of Iain Duncan-Smith
calling it "incomplete"
and "deliberately leaked
because it gives a bad view".
Government sources say
that its preferred bespoke trade
deal option wasn't included,
and that the UK will NOT be worse
off outside the EU.
Meanwhile, the Sun
newspaper reports comments
from the International Trade
Secretary, Liam Fox,
that Eurosceptic colleagues need
to "live with disappointment"
and accept that the Tories don't
have a working majority.
Dr Fox has since issued
a clarification, saying
that his comments were instead
directed against those
plotting against Mrs May.
It comes as the government
prepares for a legislative
showdown in the Lords,
where the EU Withdrawal Bill is set
to be debated for the first time.
Almost 200 peers are expected
to speak in the debate,
although no votes are expected
to take place until
later next month.
In Brussels, meanwhile, the EU
agreed its negotiating guidelines
for the transition period.
The EU's chief negotiator,
Michel Barnier, said the UK
would continue to accept all EU
rules - including rule changes
adopted after March 2019 -
but that it would not be
involved in decision-making.
Downing Street, however,
insists there will be a negotiation
on the transition period.
With me now is the Conservative MP
Stephen Hammond, who lost his job
as vice-chairman of the party
after he rebelled against
the government and voted
for an amendment to the EU
Withdrawal Bill, calling
for a meaningful vote.
Welcome to The Daily Politics. Let's
talk about the analysis that's been
leaked. Before the referendum, then
Chancellor George Osborne told us
the vote to leave would spark a
year-long recession and it would
cost 820,000 jobs within two years,
and David Cameron said Brexit would
put a bomb under the British economy
- of those fears were wrong then,
why shouldn't they be wrong now?
Well, they were wrong then and I'm
pleased that so many people have
stayed in their jobs. But the last
set of economic news showed slightly
better growth but it also showed
that we have gone from the
fastest-growing to the slowest
growing economy around, and it also
showed that we have the slowest rate
for five years. The reason why I
think this is embarrassing for the
government today is that first of
all, this was a confidential, cross
Whitehall paper that was shown to
ministers confidentially, so someone
has leaked it, so that is
embarrassing. And secondly it does
show a consensus that whatever
option you look at, unfortunately
our economy will grow less fast when
we leave the EU.
And you have talked
about how embarrassing the leaked is
- isn't the timing of it suspect?
Nigel Evans, one of your colleagues,
says it is part of a dirty tricks
campaign, licked by somebody who
wants a soft Brexit?
I am not going
to comment on what Nigel said. It is
a piece of paper which has started
around Whitehall, I don't know why
it was leaked. But we should be
looking at what it actually says,
which is that whatever option you
choose, which ever one they have
modelled, the UK economy will grow
less strongly than otherwise it
would have done.
But you yourself
have said that the initial fears
which had been warned about by
politicians in the immediate
aftermath of the referendum, I
haven't been realised. So, how
strongly can you believe that
predictions made for 15 years' time
are highly speculative?
you cannot be absolutely precise
about any forecast.
So should we
take any notice of it?
there is an important point here.
This is economists looking at all
departments, so it is a much wider
range than last time.
option, the trend is clear.
whatever you say about the details,
the trend is clear, and that's what
should be worrying everybody, but
also the policymakers in government,
to make sure that we get a Brexit
that works for Britain.
is important here, when we're
talking about whether the economy
will grow more slowly than
predicted, we are supposed to
believe that the Treasury can
accurately Vidic something 15 years
in advance, and yet this report has
already changed, so they have
already revised down the warnings?
Well, this is a new report as I
understand it and the whole thing we
should be saying now is that the
government must now publish this so
that we can actually see the detail,
but this is a new report looking at
the latest information, compiled by
economists from as many departments
as I understand that exist across
Whitehall, and the trend is very
clear, and it is a worrying trend.
Therefore we need the government to
look at an option which keeps
Britain in a customs union.
not important, though, to realise,
you say there is a clear trend, but
not one of the models includes the
one where Britain negotiates a
bespoke, tailor-made deal, that
hasn't been included, so...
true but what HAS been modelled is a
you of free trade deal with the EU,
which presumably is what that model
will be. And also the benefits of
doing outside deals. It says that
the economy will grow less slowly
under a country hence if free trade
deal, by 2% and the benefits of
though trade deals will be 0.6%. So
even if you take that, it doesn't
look great at the moment. However,
the government can resolve this by
publishing the analysis and also
telling people what it actually
wants in its bespoke Ardal.
what do you want the government to
do now on the basis of this
information, what do you think
I want the government
to negotiate a bespoke deal, but I
want to make sure that we have
closely aligned regulator EE
equivalence for the financial
services, our biggest earner, and I
want to see us in a customs union
which allows us to trade freely with
our European colleagues but also
allows us to look at some of those
relatively small but worthwhile
benefits from outside trade deals.
Do you think we are getting closer
to a position where the public
should be consulted again?
I think a
lot of the public want the
government to set out its direction
and are willing the government to
get on with it and do it well.
do you think we're moving closer to
a position where...?
Lots of people
have called for that since we have
had the first referendum. I am
certainly not calling for that. I
would like the government to look at
a comprehensive deal which keeps a
Britain in a customs union and
allows us to make sure that we're
closely aligned with the EU
regulator is system so that our
services industry can continue to
People out there heard the
doom and gloom which was given them
in the run-up to the referendum and
they still voted to leave in
defiance of all those warnings and
the forecasts - do you think this
will change their minds?
there were told there was going to
be £330 million for the NHS in week
and that clearly wasn't right,
either. And so I think a lot of
people voted on that basis.
agree with Anna Soubry that Theresa
May needs to get a grip of the arch
Eurosceptics in your party?
think where she is right is that it
would be helpful for the government
to set out its position so that
everybody can be clear what its
position is, and I hope that
position will be that the government
rejects a hard You're watching
Breakfast from the BBC. And opt for
one which is in the economic
posterity of this country.
have faith in Theresa May to
negotiate the best deal?
I am clear
that Mrs May has the option to do so
and will do so. And I and clear that
that should the a customs union
closely regulated, with close
regulatory equivalents so that we
can get the best economic outcome
for the people. We want people to
have secure jobs post-Brexit, an
opportunity of a good future and a
You don't sound
convinced that Theresa May is the
best equipped to negotiate what will
be a very difficult trade deal with
I think that was a
prescriptive question, I think I was
pretty unequivocal, frankly.
she's got your full support?
the Prime Minister Sir succeed.
should she named her departure date
to unify the party?
Only if she
judges that unify the party.
what do you think?
Well, I think
there has been a lot of speculation
about that, I think the Prime
Minister may wish to make her
Conservative MP and leading
Jenkin is with me now.
It looks like the government has
been sitting on this report, and you
can see why, it is fairly damning in
every respect as far as the economy
is concerned, for Brexit?
I mean, we
have been here before. To some
extent, I don't entirely blame the
BBC for this, but government
economists think Brexit is bad for
Britain... It is not exactly a very
big story, is it and they were
wrong, as you pointed out in your
interview with Stephen, completely
wrong. We didn't lose 800,000 jobs,
we more or less created 800,000 jobs
since the voter! The trend has been
in completely the opposite
direction. Yes, the economy has
slowed a bit but that was after a
long and sustained period of
economic growth, when the IMF, for
example, was saying that George
Osborne's policies were going to
damage a chronic growth. These
economists are very often wrong. The
government factor in changes in
their economic model but they do not
factor in policy responses and
things the government might do to
mitigate against those things. And
finally I would point out that the
government's policy is not reflected
in any of these forecasts.
Just because they forecast were
wrong in your mind in the referendum
campaign does not mean that these
ones are. It doesn't automatically
follow, does it?
I can't absolutely
prove that but on the basis of the
364 legendary economists who
attacked Margaret Thatcher's
economic policy in the 1980s, they
proved to be wrong and the Treasury
at that time was very, very scared
of Margaret Thatcher's policy. All
the advice the government got about
what would happen to the economy if
we didn't join the euro, they were
proved wrong. The British
establishment has always had a
pro-EU policy. They always tried to
prove the point by producing
What do you say
The message this will be
bad for the economy has been very
consistent so prior to the
referendum in April 2016, there was
forecasts that were the same as
these forecasts now so I'm not
convinced this is hugely newsworthy
in that sense. Also if you look at
what the leader vote said, 12,000
leave voters on the day of the
referendum, and just 6% thought
there would be better economic
prospects outside the EU. Where I
think Bernard is one is to somehow
claim that putting up barriers
between us and our largest trading
partner but not only doing that but
also the EU has 50 trade deals
around the world and that's how we
access those markets, that somehow
that will be good for the economy
and what the consensus is amongst
all economists pretty much with the
exception of a small number is this
isn't going to be good for the
British economy. It's a perfectly
respectable position to say it's not
going to be good for the economy but
there are other reasons to vote
Leave, but you can't sustain the
position that somehow leaving the EU
is in our economic interests. Other
arguments are more important in
that, but it's hard to sustain that.
On the economic argument, Brexit
does not present a convincing case?
People who are against leaving the
EU constantly a tribute to us things
we haven't set. We don't want to put
up a unnecessary barriers to trade
with the EU. That is not what the
government wants, what anyone who
supported leave once, and if there
are barriers between trade it's
because they will be erected by the
EU. That could be a consequence of
us leaving but, yes, you are right,
in the end, people voted because
they wanted to take back control.
Can I pick you up on that?
perfectly capable of taking back
control of our own destiny and make
the most of our economic
opportunities and, personally, I
have complete confidence in the
Even when Liam Fox, your
colleague, who was broadly on the
same side as you, and a scoping out
free trade deals once we leave, the
European Union, has said you have to
prepare for disappointment because
you're not going to get...
he was talking about something else.
I don't know what he really means by
that. He hasn't made a speech or a
Do you think he
would be wrong? Are you worried
about this idea of accepting a
I have no idea what
you meant by that. I think he was
misinterpreted. Let him come on the
television and say leaving the EU
will be bad for the economy. I don't
think he will say that.
I have not
said that. What he did say
reportedly is you need to prepare
yourselves for a disappointment and
have to accept a softer Brexit.
he may have been talking about is we
have to accept there will be a
protracted rather unpleasant
transition period. When we will have
to accept quite a lot of unpalatable
restrictions on what we can do.
you accept it?
As long as we get out
at the end of it, full regulatory
autonomy, the ability to do trade
deals with other countries, I think
at the end we'll be in the possible
position because we don't want to
poke two fingers in the eyes of the
European Union. We want to leave on
amicable terms and on terms where
there is cooperation.
So you will
accept their negotiating position of
Britain having to abide by new rules
during the transition period and no
input in the decision?
I support the
Prime Minister unambiguously than
Stephen Hammond. He wants to be in a
customs union will become at the EU
and to be in a customs union is
frankly dissension without a
different and I agree with the Prime
Minister who has rejected the
government's EU guidelines produced
yesterday and does not want to be
unambiguously unqualified will take
during that British transition
period and does not want to have
free movement of people during the
transition period. She has rejected
what the EU offered yesterday and
that much bigger story than this
nonstory about what the economists
Do you think it should all be
published if you think it's a
Of course because then we
can see what methodology they used.
This is what the government did not
due during the referendum with
George Cameron. They did not produce
the referendum methodology and we
had to dig them out and we found out
they used a gravity economic model
which led to a jaundiced forecast
because there seemed no policy
response. It's a matter of economic
debate that we can have as to
whether this is going to be negative
for the British people.
the government published it? Do you
think this has been leaked in terms
of a dirty tricks campaign?
think the government had any
intention of publishing it. I
believe official, Minister, leaked
it to try to carry on the fear
campaign. Much of the government
seems to be still promoting the fear
campaign which of course didn't win
the referendum for the very reasons
just described, because people were
thinking about democratic and
constitutional factors as well as
Is there a drift
towards a softer Brexit? Not from
the Prime Minister. Generally?
think there are people in the
government of the exchequer as we
said last week, who are trying to
blow government policy in a
different direction. It's a terrible
difficulty the Prime Minister is
having. Coming back to where the
Conservative Party sits on this, the
vast majority of Conservative MPs
like the vast majority of people in
business in this country, want us to
get on with us, want to reduce the
period of uncertainty as possible
and get on with availing ourselves
of the opportunities. They don't
want this dragged out year after
year after year.
There is no
majority in parliament for a Brexit
at any cost, a ultra hard Brexit.
That is the problem Bernard has.
There's no position like that. The
Conservative Party does not have a
majority that is strong enough to
push through any particular single
position. You can see the imparting
of people and say we must compromise
and those people who say no
compromise and there's not much of a
compromise between no comp demise
What will keep the
Conservative Party in office is
broader unity in the Conservative
Party. There are far more people
more broadly sympathetic to my view
in the Conservative Party.
have been attacking Philip Hammond
and that does not help you either.
The problem the Prime Minister made
for herself somewhat as a majority
of people in the Cabinet she doesn't
have a majority for her policy in
her Cabinet. And I think that is
making life difficult.
point that the divisions in the
Conservative Party. It slightly
The balance in the Cabinet
does not reflect the party.
Philip Hammond say he did not want
to leave the customs union?
not get over this game but he
praised the speech of the CBI which
was arguing we should remain in a
customs union. Stephen Hammond just
said he is promoting that policy.
That is not the policy of the
government, not the policy of the
prime and as a. The Prime Minister
has never hinted we will be in a
customs union after we have finally
gone through it.
Do you think that
could be the end result though?
Before Christmas, we should be in
the regular to presume to the single
market was published, and that has
been adopted by the CBI, and...
I think that is where we
will land if you want to honour the
referendum result whilst also secure
and economic picture.
What will you
do if that happens?
when Jeremy Hunt wrote an article
just after the referendum, he made
it clear if we finish up in
something like this Norway model,
then there would have to be another
Do you agree?
government is going to reverse the
substantive decision taken by the
British people that we would leave
the European Union, leave the single
market, the customs union, all the
policies the government set out in
the Lancaster house speech, the
policies, the manifesto, if we have
to reverse all that, it will cause
some ructions, some serious
disturbance and just bear this in
mind. One thing we have seen is
basically Ukip is destroyed. The
referendum has decided this matter.
If the government, the establishment
starts dragging this back to some
half in, half out watched Brexit,
there will be a very unhappy
political situation in this country.
The end of the Conservative Party?
The vast majority of them are
aligned with the British people and
I believe the majority of the real
business people, not these sort
Are you saying it will end the
Conservative Party in government?
This is existential stuff. For
political parties. It's certainly
the divisions in the Labour Party
just as serious as the Conservative
Party. When you say there's no
majority in the House of Commons for
what you call a hard Brexit,
honouring the result of the
referendum, actually there was no
majority in parliament before the
referendum for leaving the EU at
all. Is that the opinion reflected
in what the outcome is? I think the
Conservative Party reflects public
opinion and the vast majority is
united about that and I think we
will produce a majority in
parliament and increment it.
Jenkin, thank you.
Whilst all this is going on,
the European Withdrawal Bill
has its second reading in the Lords
today and tomorrow.
It's going to be a busy couple
of days, with around 200
Lords scheduled to speak.
Many Brexit supporters have
expressed concerns that the Lords,
which is packed full of pro-EU
peers, could try
to scupper the bill.
The session started
just over an hour ago.
Here's a flavour of
what's been said so far.
My Lords, this bill
is not about revisiting
the arguments of the referendum.
It is not about our future
relationship with the EU.
Nor is it a vehicle
for policy change.
It is only part of the programme
of legislation required to honour
the referendum result.
Just as the first say on Brexit
was given to the people,
so the final say should rest
with the people once
they see the terms proposed
by the government.
Our constitutional role,
my Lords, is to ensure,
with the House of Commons,
that the people have the final say.
At a time when the country really
needs strong and stable government
we have instead consistent
and persistent reports of a weak
Prime Minister buffeted from one
position to another as she tries
to bring order to warring
factions in her Cabinet.
I'm joined from Central Lobby
by Baroness Smith, who's the Labour
leader in the Lords,
and by the Conservative
Peer Lord Forsyth.
Welcome to both of you. Michael, is
the bill as it currently stands
constitutionally unacceptable as a
committee of your colleagues has
If you read the rest of the
sentence in that excellent report
from the constitutional committee,
it says it is capable of, necessary
of being amended, to be effective
and I'm sure that's what the House
of Lords will do and we got off to a
very good start this morning with
both speeches from both
frontbenchers indicating we are
determined not to delay or defeat
Brexit, but actually to make sure
the bill, which is about bringing
European legislation into our
domestic law, was consistent with
our constitutional requirements and
able to be done effectively. I have
to say, there's a lot to be done.
Angela Smith, what changes do you
want to see made in the Lords?
significant changes from all sides,
basically this transitional
arrangement that it sorted out, this
issue of devolution of the
government taking powers which
should rightly be going back to
Scotland, Northern Ireland and
Wales. Won the theme which runs
through this legislation across the
house, it's what known as Henry VIII
powers, and that means if we are
taking these laws back into the UK,
they should be under parliament not
lost at the whim of a ministerial
pen. It's the constitutional issues.
For most people, this bill is will
he boring, it's not about Brexit and
whether it happens but how we bring
those laws we have contributed to in
the last 40 years, back into UK law
for the it's quite technical to get
There is a principal at
the heart of this about how much
power the executive should have and
Michael Forsyth, your colleagues say
tackling the controversial Henry
VIII powers clause, this is not a
country with the executive is
allowed to take decisions and
overwrite Parliamentary scrutiny, at
the moment, is that the case?
have to laugh at the irony that
position because of the moment these
powers exercised by unelected
commissioners in Europe. What we are
doing is moving from a situation
where the regulation which covers
this country over which parliament
does not have a view, to one where
parliament will be able to decide
these matters and that is quite a
tricky thing to do because we are
having to take regulations which
perhaps are not in statute or made
at a European level and translate
them into domestic legislation and
after this bill is being passed, it
will be possible once again for
Parliament to decide every matter
which affects our people.
the point, Angela Smith?
is we have contributed to these
laws. It's not just done by Europe
but there's been British involvement
and we've welcomed it. Quite often
we been the driver of environmental
legislation and the likes of people
at work, but Michael is absolutely
right that if you bring it back into
UK law, is as we intend to do, what
you can't do then is set up to
ministers at a whim to change them.
It has to be a matter of Parliament
and if things are to improve as
Michael has said, it has to be
parliament who decide not just
individuals. I think this agreement
across the house about that about
why you will see significant changes
in the Bill in the laws that were
resisted in the Commons but across
all parties and then in the House of
Lords, recognised that our
constitutional principles are at
Angela Smith said this was not
really about Brexit but actually,
the Labour Lord Andrew Adonis has
said that he intends to sabotage
exit - what do you say to that,
I think he should
look to his position. We are not
elected, the House of Commons has
got to have the final say. He moved
an amendment which provided for a
second referendum. The House of
Lords considered that a year ago and
it was defeated by a majority of
200. We recognise that the House of
Lords is there to tidy up the mess
which is left often by the House of
Commons in legislation, and in this
case there are serious matters
regarding the Henry VIII powers and
I hope the government will listen
and I hope that the bill will be
amended and we'll go back to the
House of Commons and the House of
Commons will take cognizance of
quite good advice, but there is no
appetite on the House of Lords on
either side to challenge Brexit or
to challenge the authority of the
House of Commons, which is the
How far is Labour
prepared to go on the basis of what
Andrew Adonis has said?
this bill belay you voted against it
all it would harm is the protections
that we have gained through Europe
over a number of years. What we want
to see is a bill which is fit for
purpose and which puts those
sections which we have fought for
properly into UK law, but in the
future Parliament must decide, not
just a minister. I predict we will
see significant amendments and also
support from all parties in the
House of Lords and significant
The report today,
busting the Brexit myth, which calls
for the Labour leadership to get off
the fence on Brexit - do you think
that's what they should do?
think they're on the fence on
Brexit. We are not in charge of the
negotiations, Theresa May is. But
one of the great games is that
Theresa May has ruled out the single
market and Customs union before she
even starts negotiations. We have to
recognise that if the position is
taken to come out of the EU, and
coming out of the customs union and
single market, but we then will have
to negotiate, and these are issues
which have served us very well in
this country, so I would like to
renegotiate a position, certainly as
close as we can. But in the
transition period we're saying that
we must have the same basic terms as
now, remaining in the customs union
and single market.
you do not agree with that and you
said to the Prime Minister that she
needs to get a grip on her Cabinet -
is the party falling apart on
I don't think, so the on the
issue of the customs union and the
single market, the House of Commons
voted on Mary SNP amendment by a
majority of more than 200 against
the proposal that we should remain
in both, so the House of Commons has
given a clear view, as has the
people in the referendum. And it is
for both Houses of Parliament to
reflect that and for the Cabinet to
get behind the Prime Minister to
deliver what the people voted for.
But these are still negotiations we
are having about the future
relationship with the EU 27. What I
find astounding is the thing which
has not been mentioned is the
honesty of the debate. Today we have
heard about the impact analysis
which has been done by the
government which they're keeping
from the public and from Parliament.
Decisions have to be made on our
future relationship and they should
be made on the basis of the facts.
Should they be published, Michael
I have got the Governor of
the Bank of England coming to my
committee this afternoon and I am
going to ask him about these
projections as to what is going to
happen to the economy, which have
proved to be completely wrong. I
think we need to look at our
forecasting models in this country,
because I think they're destroying
the credibility of the Treasury and
also of the Bank of England.
you to both of you.
Hardly a day goes by without calls
for more money to go
into the NHS, but is just extra
funding the answer?
Lord Darzi, one of the country's top
surgeons who also served as a health
minister under the last Labour
government, argues that much more
reform is needed to ensure
the NHS stays relevent.
He's started a review
into what needs to be done
for Tom's think tank,
the IPPR, and before that,
Professor Darzi has spoken to us
about why there's such an urgent
All political parties
declare their affection for the NHS
and promise to protect it.
There is a strong cross-party
consensus in favour of retaining
a health service that is based
on need and not the ability to pay.
Yet enormous questions remain
about how we deliver
this in years to come.
How do we make sure every
patient gets high quality
care when they need it?
How do we join up care around
the patient and keep them out
of hospitals like this one
for as long as possible?
How will we keep up
with advances in technologies,
in therapies and in treatments?
And how will we fund
a health and care system
in a sustainable way in the future?
Philip Hammond, the Chancellor,
rightly put more money
into the NHS in his budget.
But the service has still endured
the most austere decade
in its history while funding
for social care has declined
almost every year since
the start of the decade.
As a result, we are seeing
signs of a system under
strain all around us.
Patients left in corridors.
and a deficit on the rise.
Simply demanding more for less
or promising more money
without a plan for better care,
isn't good enough.
The real reasons why change
in the NHS is so necessary
is poorly understood.
The health service doesn't
need to change just
because politicians say so.
It needs to change because
the nature of disease burden has
changed because scientific
breakthroughs and new technologies
allow us to deliver more
efficient and effective care.
In short, high-quality care
is a constantly moving target.
To stand still is to fall back.
This year, the NHS turns 70.
It is a vital friend to millions.
It's there for us at our greatest
moment of need but I want to see it
not just survive but thrive.
After all, the NHS deserves a secure
future that gives us confidence it
will celebrate its centenary in 30
years from now.
Listening to that was
the Conservative MP Helen Whately,
who used to sit on the Health Select
committee and has previously worked
in the health sector,
and Unite's Assistant General
Art any of the parties in your mind
ambitious enough with their plans to
reform and fund the NHS?
need to have a combination of both
more money put into the NHS but then
a plan of what to do with it. And at
the moment none of the parties have
put both of those pieces together.
What are you suggesting in terms of
major and radical reform affect the
First off, we think
we need a long-term funding
settlement for the Health Service.
Like Jeremy Hunt suggested?
he's raised the question, there
hasn't been a commit them to,
actually. First of all, what is the
long-term settlement hammered but
then a plan to spend the money in
the right way. One thing which is
clear is that spending the money on
the NHS without properly investing
in social care isn't going to solve
the problems of the Health Service
by itself. And we also need to
understand how to make sense of a
system which has becoming credibly
fragmented. The reforms of recent
years since 2012 have broken up the
NHS into such a small pieces that
it's very, very, very hard for
patients to navigate it, for doctors
to get to know which other
professionals they should be talking
to, and we need to make sense of a
system which has become really quite
But that is quite a long-term
review and it has gone through a
top-down reorganisation, the NHS,
does it really need another one?
think it needs some of the problems
in the current system to be fixed.
The idea that you can simply say, we
had a bad set of reforms, but they
now need to endure for ever, doesn't
make any sense. I think everybody in
the Health Service agrees that this
is something which needs to be done
as pass it has become far too
complicated for both patients
Helen, last week,
Theresa May declined to act on a
cross-party letter signed by 90 MPs,
many of them Conservatives, calling
for more collaboration on the future
of the NHS and social care - does
she lacked ambition?
I think she has
ambition for the NHS, I think the
Conservative government as a whole
does, the problem with these cause
for something like a royal
commission is that it risks kicking
it into the long grass, when
actually this is a problem we have
to address here and now, to make
sure we have a sustainable health
care system and particularly the
social care challenge, which I think
is really, really important, to work
out as a country the way that we
fund social care and we achieve the
coming together of health and social
care so that it operates more like
one system and so you don't have
that awful situation which I have
had with relatives where you end up
with them spending weeks if not
months in hospital when they would
be much better off it at home in a
care home, wherever they were living
before, instead of in hospital for
Right now the only plan there
is is to, through without a plan,
and that isn't good enough. What
wasn't mentioned in your package is
that Lord Darzi is working with
David prior, recently Minister of
State for health under the current
government, and Norman Lamb from the
Liberal Democrats, and the report
which is guide to be done by June.
So actually an interim report on
funding in March to come up with a
plan on long-term funding and a
reform than in time for the 70th
anniversary, I don't think that is
kicking it into the long grass.
it just about money?
I don't think
so, I think there is a lack of
confidence in the NHS workforce,
that really anybody has a plan. They
have had a real terms pay cut of 20%
since 2010, the NHS has the least
funding that it has ever had since
2010, 1% per year, compared with 4%
average. And morale is absolutely
rock bottom. So, we need some
building blocks. One building block
needs to be good funding, adequate
funding, but another building block
should be bringing social care into
health, not more health into social
care. Councils across the country
have suffered 40% cuts and at the
same time public health has been put
into their domain, meaning that
health visitors, much-needed health
visitors, are being cut. District
nurses in some areas are being cut.
So, we need strong foundations, good
building blocks, adequate funding,
but importantly, consultation.
Consultation with the staff, the
clinicians, the people who keep our
hospitals and community services
running, and consultation with the
community, because at the moment,
43% of all clinical contracts last
year went into the private sector,
and commercial confidentiality cuts
out staff consultation about whether
that's the right thing for patients
Let's go back to your
first point about councils being
stripped of so much of the cash
which would have gone into social
care - was this a mistake?
into this with Kent County Council
and actually since 2010 they have
been putting more money into social
care. So, overall the budgets for
local authorities have been squeezed
suddenly individual authorities have
prioritised social care and actually
increased the funding. They have
also increased the number of health
visitors. So, some of this is the
priorities councils are making.
figures nationally are a 27% cut in
social care at a time of rising
demand. If Kent has bucked that
trend I would love to hear more
about it. But suddenly the national
trend is a 27% cut in social care. I
don't think you can sustain that
position, Helen, much as I wish you
could. But we have had really brutal
cuts to social care and you can't
fix the problems of the NHS without
fixing social care. The reason for
that is that at any moment now in
the NHS, 30% of patients in hospital
right now are medically fit to go
home but they don't have the social
care packages to enable them to do
so. Not fixing that problem is...
agree. In my own local hospital we
are having this conversation about
the 30%, bass were we able to get
this right, we would have around 300
beds available for the people...
when Theresa May raised the issue of
social care and how it should be
funded in the manifesto, she lost
So, the proposal in
the manifesto did not go down well
and I am sorry about that but...
supported that idea?
I supported as
putting more money into social care.
But the way it would be funded with
the floor that was suggested?
think we have to look at making sure
that the whole cost of rising health
care and social care doesn't all
come from the income tax of working
age population, who we know are
struggling compared with people of
Is that a radical way of
thinking about it?
There is nothing
wrong with a system where everybody
pays in and everybody gets out. The
problem with social care is that
councils are so strapped, they're
paying into the care of vulnerable
people £2 an hour. That is not
sustainable. In your constituency,
Helen, you've got care homes closing
down. There is a broken model in
adult social care. It is a business
model, it is broken and we've got to
fix it, so we need a national care
One way of doing it is to
ration what the NHS does - would you
support some drastic rationing?
I think the priority list of fun
social care. What about paying for
The NHS has already been
rationed, let's be clear, so waiting
times are a method of rationing,
they are rising in the NHS, for
planned operations, AMD, GP
appointments, and all of that is a
form of rationing, so how do you
restrict the amount you spend? You
make people wait so that's a form of
rationing which is underway. There
are other forms of rationing about
access to advanced treatments,
therapies which also happening at
the same time so rationing is
already here. And mental health
On that basis, we
have to end up thank you both very
It's not just the NHS that's under
pressure for more money.
You may remember the government set
out a new National Funding formula
for schools in England last year
to try to address discrepancies
in the amount of money schools
received across the country.
So all fine now?
A group called Worth Less,
which represents thousands
of schools across England is claming
that there is a still a vast unfair
difference between the highest
and lowest funded schools.
We can speak to head
teacher and the campaign's
organiser Jules White.
The government insists more money is
going into schools year-on-year. And
that they are going to have a fairer
formula with winners and losers. Do
you accept that?
I think there's
some differences there. Over the
past five years, the government was
planning to take 3 billion out of
schools and decided to put 1.3
billion back which have helped some
of our budgets but it is simply, we
are facing cuts right across the
board and in terms of the National
funding formula, unfortunately it
has been put forward for April but
it is full of caps and arbitrary
increases, so it's not really being
implemented in the way it should be.
As a consequence, thousands of
schools up and down the country are
still facing a financial crisis and
there are simply huge differences
between those who have and those who
In terms of your school,
will it be getting more money?
we do get some money. We were raised
from the very bottom threshold so
every student in my school will rise
to £4600 per pupil per that compares
to London authorities where pupils
are funded at over £7,000, so if you
take my school, 1500 pupils, my
budget is £6.5 million for April
2018. School of exactly the same in
Hackney is funded at £11.2 million.
£4.5 million more, and to give you
some idea, £1 million would buy me
approximately 30 teachers, 60
teaching assisted Chilterns,
countless text books and equipment,
and my school is now struggling to
survive. We want a much better deal
for our families.
In order to set a
new formula, do you accept it's
based on the need and
characteristics of each individual
school and there may be very good
reasons that those London schools
you mentioned are getting more money
than your school?
have to be funded differently
according to needs and deprivation
but as I've said, the new national
funding formula is not being
promoted like that for top London
schools got a 0.5% but most schools
across the country, even though they
were lagging behind, where capita 3%
because the government is taking
money out of our system during the
lifetime of this Parliament and the
figures we are quoting all come from
the Department for Education. I'm
not making them up. Schools in an
area like very, they are funded at
£4800 per pupil. In nearby
Manchester, it's well over £6,000 so
that equates to 1200 pupils, one
school funded a £1.5 million less.
Those differences are absolutely
huge. OK, thank you for joining us.
With me now is shadow
schools minister Mike Kane
and Conservative MP Chris Philp.
Listening to that, if you look at
the figures, there's no real terms
increase when you take into account
rising costs of these schools and
increased pupil numbers.
2015, it was rising and there was a
two-year period from 2015 - 17, when
it went down a bit. However, from
this April onwards, extra money is
being put into... The budget is 41
million. Next year it is 42.4 and
the after 43.5, so with being
protected and going up.
ignoring the fact it's not enough
when compared with the parallel
rising costs of running the schools
and teachers wages and salaries and
increased pupil numbers.
If you take
those increases I laid out and think
about increase in inflation, pupils
numbers, schools will see slight
increases all be protected so that's
being addressed going forward. It's
looking at international comparisons
because of the 32 countries, we come
sixth, for education funding ahead
of France, Germany, Japan and
Australia. Those international
comparisons are quite illuminating
Why are their schools
having to make the sort of cuts that
actually led to many people making
this the issue that they voted on it
in the election and it wasn't for
there was an issue here because of
that 2015-17 period.
It was a
mistake, wasn't it?
It will hit
classrooms in April. What's
important is not just the amount of
money put in but the results
achieved and over the last seven
years, 1.9 million more children are
in good and outstanding schools than
seven years ago so the money is
important but outcomes are important
or so and they are very good indeed.
What do you say to that? Chris
hasn't taken into factor there's
more children in the school system,
inflation is running ahead of
ordinary inflation, pension
contributions, the apprentice ship
levy, and the fact is the National
Audit Office are telling us that
this government is taking £2.7
billion out of the system from 2015
until the end...
Chris Gold has
admitted there was a lag in funding
for those two years. What do so are
the numbers of children in better
schools according to the government?
1.9 is a sadistic. Those schools
were identified as coasting schools
so they are dining out on our
record. If you look at the Key stage
two stats, the differentiation
between those on free school meals
doing well with huge inequality is
going up. Phonics has gone back.
Justine Greening and Michael Gove
made these international targets
that we compare our standards
with... In 2010, let me just
finished, we are going down in these
Is that the case in
maths, English and science?
schools are better now than they
were seven years ago.
In what way?
You need to give evidence.
to Ofsted, 1.9 million children has
gone from 57% up to 89%. I'm proud
to say in the last seven years the
attainment gap between children from
deprived backgrounds and average
background has narrowed by 10% said
those children from deprived
backgrounds are doing better now
than they were seven years ago. That
is the measure of a compassionate
effective education system.
depends which measures you use but
why is it some schools in England
receive 50% less money than an
identically sized school?
historic reasons. These four minutes
go back decades.
They should have
That will come into
force from April. It's going to
migrate over a period of three years
full it won't be like flicking a
switch where everything changes in
one year. As he said, for schools
underfunded which includes secondary
schools in Croydon, they will have
their funding increased by 3% over
three or four years until they have
caught up so they deserve about a
10-12% increase which will come in
over a four year period.
they supposed to do in the meantime?
If you hear about that Twickenham
slims down, parents being asked to
give money to the local primary and
secondary schools because of these
budget cuts, on those two years and
going forward until the new funding
formulae is bedded down, what are
these skills are supposed to do?
That money will hit schools in two
months so Croydon which I represent
will get an above inflation
per-pupil increase in about two
months. And accelerate after that.
What the numbers suggest is a real
terms cut in education spending
between now and 2020, the first time
the schools budget has...
How is that expressing
itself, its expressing itself in
terms of the workforce and we have
the lowest teacher tenure in the
OECD and the international evidence
shows you the best way to get the
best results in schools is great
teachers. If teachers are leaving
the profession in droves come and be
at the lowest teacher attendance in
the OECD, we are storing up now
problems for now and the future.
Because they have a good numbers of
children, since 2011, a third of
teachers who are trained already
left. UCAS have said they are 29%
down on their recruitment figures
for next September. This recruitment
and retention disaster has only been
exacerbated by this schools cuts
We have to lead it there.
Thank you very much for coming in.
He's seen off the education blob,
the Remain campaign
Five animal rights charities
have criticised the move
arguing that the squirrels
are being scapegoated.
Whilst both red and grey
squirrels cause the damage,
grey ones are more destructive
because there are more
of them and they're larger
so they have a greater impact.
Well, to discuss the proposed cull
we're joined by Craig Shuttleworth
from Bangor University.
And by Natalia Doran from the group
Urban Squirrels, which campaigns
against what she calls
the persecution of grey squirrels.
What's wrong with culling grey
squirrels? There's too many of them.
What the animal protection
organisations would like to bring to
the discussion table is the ethical
aspect of this. We're not talking
about cutting some grass and
removing benches, but scented
beings, who feel things. Pain,
pleasure, hopes, expectations, fears
and those characteristics do not
change just because an animal is not
native. They don't change
neurologically just because they
come into conflict with the human
agenda. They should be given moral
Ie taking those
things into account?
Of course, the
grey squirrels are protected under
various animal welfare act. When
they're in the wild and caught
inside a live capture trap, so the
ethics or a big part of the
eradication process. But let's get
this straight. These are highly
invasive and very damaging economic
to damaging animal, £40 million a
year to the UK economy, we can't
grow hardwoods because they strip
the bark and of course they have
decimated the Reds were a population
in the UK.
What do you say to that?
There's not much going for the grey
squirrel in that regard.
They have a
strange Ally, they're not known for
their friendship of squirrels but
they did conduct research into grey
squirrel damage and found the damage
to be just 5% whereas the threshold
for destruction is 30% and the
Is your proposal
to extend to cull them even more?
I'm afraid our posers based in law,
based on the new European directive
which lists the great spirals --
squirrels as a threat.
control established populations. You
have killed thousands of these great
schools in your times are hard
No, I have
worked on this for 25 years
restoring the red squirrel back into
North Wales and also working with
wood landers to try to get around
this problem of bark stripping full
hugely complicated and at the moment
were working on a non-lethal method
of control, a contraceptive, and
that would come in and be integrated
with the other management we have
but would not stop animals being
cold, but would give us a non-lethal
method of control we could use in
Do you accept
As a combo might it's great
news but the whole culling process
is predicated on the native nurse
narrative which is a rational
because it's an academic fashion.
Thank you both very much.
There's just time before we go
to find out the answer to our quiz.
The question was what has
the Defence Secretary Gavin
Williamson reportedly demanded be
removed from the
Ministry of Defence?
The answer is EU flags.
That's all for today.
Thanks to our guests.
The One O'Clock News is starting
over on BBC One now.
Andrew will be here for live
coverage of Prime Minister's
Questions tomorrow at 11.30.