30/01/2018 Daily Politics

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

grievance procedure.

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?

I

think it is a good package of

changes, actually. They're sensible

and proportionate and I think the

committee has done a good job.

Do

you think they go far enough,

bearing in mind the number of

complaints and the scale of the

problem?

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.

What about

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

retribution?

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

heading to.

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

well?

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?

Was it...

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?

Of course

you cannot be absolutely precise

about any forecast.

So should we

take any notice of it?

Hold on,

there is an important point here.

This is economists looking at all

departments, so it is a much wider

range than last time.

Whichever

option, the trend is clear.

So,

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.

The detail

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.

Is it

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...

That is

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.

Well,

what do you want the government to

do now on the basis of this

information, what do you think

should happen?

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.

But

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

prosper.

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?

People out

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.

Do you

agree with Anna Soubry that Theresa

May needs to get a grip of the arch

Eurosceptics in your party?

Well, I

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.

Do you

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

better Britain.

You don't sound

convinced that Theresa May is the

best equipped to negotiate what will

be a very difficult trade deal with

the EU?

I think that was a

prescriptive question, I think I was

pretty unequivocal, frankly.

So

she's got your full support?

I want

the Prime Minister Sir succeed.

And

should she named her departure date

to unify the party?

Only if she

judges that unify the party.

And

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

intentions clear.

Conservative MP and leading

Eurosceptic Bernard

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

economic forecasts.

What do you say

about that?

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?

We are

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

future.

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 said

he was talking about something else.

I don't know what he really means by

that. He hasn't made a speech or a

big pronouncement.

Do you think he

would be wrong? Are you worried

about this idea of accepting a

softer Brexit?

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.

What

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.

Will

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

think.

Do you think it should all be

published if you think it's a

nonstory?

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.

Why hasn't

the government published it? Do you

think this has been leaked in terms

of a dirty tricks campaign?

I don't

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

economic factors.

Is there a drift

towards a softer Brexit? Not from

the Prime Minister. Generally?

I

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

and economise.

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.

But you

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.

You just

point that the divisions in the

Conservative Party. It slightly

surreal.

The balance in the Cabinet

does not reflect the party.

Wended

Philip Hammond say he did not want

to leave the customs union?

Let's

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...

They

are split.

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?

It's interesting

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

referendum.

Do you agree?

If the

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

of...

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.

Bernard

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

warned?

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?

Quite

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

this right.

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?

You

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.

Isn't that

the point, Angela Smith?

The point

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

stake here.

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,

Michael Forsyth?

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

elected house.

How far is Labour

prepared to go on the basis of what

Andrew Adonis has said?

Actually

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

majorities.

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?

I don't

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.

Michael Forsyth,

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

Europe?

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

Forsyth?

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.

Thank

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.

Operations cancelled

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

Secretary

Gail Cartmail.

Art any of the parties in your mind

ambitious enough with their plans to

reform and fund the NHS?

Well, we

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

extra funding?

First off, we think

we need a long-term funding

settlement for the Health Service.

Like Jeremy Hunt suggested?

Well,

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

out.

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?

I

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

professionals.

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

weeks.

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.

Is

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

and clients.

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?

I looked

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.

The

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...

I

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...

But

when Theresa May raised the issue of

social care and how it should be

funded in the manifesto, she lost

her majority?

So, the proposal in

the manifesto did not go down well

and I am sorry about that but...

You

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?

I

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

older age.

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

service.

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

services?

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

services hugely.

On that basis, we

have to end up thank you both very

much.

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?

Well, no.

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

have not.

In terms of your school,

will it be getting more money?

Yes,

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?

Absolutely, skills

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.

Up until

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.

You're still

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

as well.

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

the Conservatives?

We recognise

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

indicators.

Is that the case in

maths, English and science?

Our

schools are better now than they

were seven years ago.

In what way?

You need to give evidence.

According

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.

It

depends which measures you use but

why is it some schools in England

receive 50% less money than an

identically sized school?

For

historic reasons. These four minutes

go back decades.

They should have

addressed this.

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.

What are

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...

That's not

right.

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

programme.

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

consideration.

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

squirrel don't...

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.

We must

control established populations. You

have killed thousands of these great

schools in your times are hard

become desensitised?

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

some circumstances.

Do you accept

that?

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.

Bye bye.