20/12/2016

:00:00. > :00:00.of Commons. We are about to go over to the liaison committee with Prime

:00:00. > :01:24.Minister Theresa May. Thank you for coming to give

:01:25. > :01:30.evidence to us this afternoon. We are very grateful and Parliament is

:01:31. > :01:34.very grateful that you are agreeing to do these sessions. Could I have

:01:35. > :01:39.confirmation that you are going to continue the practice of your

:01:40. > :01:44.predecessor of three a year? Yes, indeed, I'm happy to do three. Beer

:01:45. > :01:49.in mind they are very big events likely to take place at the end of

:01:50. > :01:56.March, it might be sensible to push scrutiny of the triggering of

:01:57. > :02:01.Article 50 and any accompanying government documents after the

:02:02. > :02:05.spring recess and then we will have two meetings, one at the beginning

:02:06. > :02:11.and one at the end of the summer session. That may very well be

:02:12. > :02:16.sensible. I suggest that the clerk in my office will be able to talk

:02:17. > :02:23.about possible dates. It is going to be quite busy in the run-up to the

:02:24. > :02:27.end of March. I don't think it is going to be realistic or practical

:02:28. > :02:34.for either of us. I think we will go ahead on that basis. You indicated

:02:35. > :02:38.you had one or two introductory remarks you wanted to make. Why

:02:39. > :02:44.don't you make them now? Thank you very much. I just wanted to make a

:02:45. > :02:47.few remarks, but before I do that, I would like to take a moment to

:02:48. > :02:53.reflect on the appalling news that came in from Berlin and Ankara

:02:54. > :02:56.yesterday, we've seen very vivid images on the newspapers and

:02:57. > :03:04.television and I think they've shocked us all. I want to express my

:03:05. > :03:09.condolences, we hold them in our thoughts, all those who have been

:03:10. > :03:14.affected. I thought it would be helpful to set out a little bit of

:03:15. > :03:17.what we've been doing in the months since the referendum, preparing for

:03:18. > :03:22.the negotiations on Brexit, putting the machinery of government in

:03:23. > :03:30.place. One of my first acts was to established two new departments.

:03:31. > :03:34.This put in place the mechanisms necessary, making sure the departure

:03:35. > :03:40.was as smooth and orderly as possible. There are experts in all

:03:41. > :03:43.departments working on policies that will be affected by withdrawal. The

:03:44. > :03:51.machinery is working well and I would like to thank everybody

:03:52. > :03:57.involved. We've been engaged in other interested parties with

:03:58. > :04:03.businesses and members of devolved administrations. We've met more than

:04:04. > :04:08.130 companies. They've hosted ten round tables from different sectors

:04:09. > :04:11.and 12 more around the country. Met all the major business

:04:12. > :04:16.organisations, visited all parts of the UK to hear about concerns. I've

:04:17. > :04:21.a broad range of sectors and been a broad range of sectors and been

:04:22. > :04:25.reading on negotiations with devolved administrations. As we

:04:26. > :04:27.approach the negotiations, we want to have a truly joined up approach.

:04:28. > :04:32.I've been able to speak to the I've been able to speak to the

:04:33. > :04:36.majority of European leaders on a bilateral basis and those

:04:37. > :04:39.discussions have been constructive. I have been clear that I will not

:04:40. > :04:43.give a running commentary on our approach to the negotiations. Except

:04:44. > :04:51.before the liaison committee? We before the liaison committee? We

:04:52. > :04:54.negotiations are negotiations and if negotiations are negotiations and if

:04:55. > :05:00.one wants to get the right deal one cannot give a running commentary to

:05:01. > :05:01.everybody. But I expect some searching questions from the liaison

:05:02. > :05:04.committee. The negotiations will be committee. The negotiations will be

:05:05. > :05:07.challenging and with any negotiation challenging and with any negotiation

:05:08. > :05:11.they will require some give and take they will require some give and take

:05:12. > :05:15.but where possible I have sought to give reassurance to those who have

:05:16. > :05:20.legitimate concerns about the process ahead. We will get the best

:05:21. > :05:22.deal for those who want to trade in the single market whilst

:05:23. > :05:26.guaranteeing we make our own decisions over how we control

:05:27. > :05:31.immigration, over legislation and the way we spend taxpayer's money.

:05:32. > :05:36.Even though we are leaving the EU we are not leaving Europe and I want us

:05:37. > :05:41.to have the kind of mature, cooperative relationship that close

:05:42. > :05:45.expect us to work alongside each expect us to work alongside each

:05:46. > :05:51.other on crime and security, where cooperation helps to keep us safe.

:05:52. > :05:55.As you alluded to, the government will trigger article 50 before the

:05:56. > :05:59.end of March, we do not intend to extend the article 50 process. We

:06:00. > :06:02.said we will publish more information about the approach

:06:03. > :06:08.before it is triggered. I will be making a speech earlier in the New

:06:09. > :06:12.Year setting out more about our approach and how we must use this to

:06:13. > :06:19.forge a global Britain that embraces and trade with countries across the

:06:20. > :06:22.world. It's important that we understand the wider meaning of the

:06:23. > :06:25.referendum result and respond accordingly. It wasn't just a vote

:06:26. > :06:30.to leave the EU but to change the way that country works and the

:06:31. > :06:34.people for whom it works forever. That is why the government has

:06:35. > :06:37.embarked on an ambitious programme of economic and social reform to

:06:38. > :06:41.ensure welfare opportunities spread across the country and everyone is

:06:42. > :06:46.able to share in the success we will make of leaving the EU. These

:06:47. > :06:55.reforms are an essential part of our plans for most Brexit Britain. --

:06:56. > :07:02.looking for but let's begin on one looking for but let's begin on one

:07:03. > :07:06.point you made. You said you don't intend to extend the article 50

:07:07. > :07:09.process. Is it the government's firm intention to have left the EU by

:07:10. > :07:17.April 2019 and by that we should April 2019 and by that we should

:07:18. > :07:27.take that to mean the great repeal act will have come into effect and

:07:28. > :07:37.by 2019 in April, the direct applicability of law and ECJ rulings

:07:38. > :07:40.will no longer pertain in UK courts? Chairman, obviously, as you know,

:07:41. > :07:46.the timetable I've set out is we will trigger Article 50 aye the end

:07:47. > :07:53.a two-year process for that a two-year process for that

:07:54. > :08:00.discussion about withdrawal and the framework of the future relationship

:08:01. > :08:05.to be undertaken. That will take us through, as you've indicated, to

:08:06. > :08:09.March 20 19. I fully expect us to be able to operate on the timetable

:08:10. > :08:14.that has been set out in the treaty. As we go into negotiations that the

:08:15. > :08:18.matter for the negotiations but I fully expect us to be able to

:08:19. > :08:23.operate and in fact the commission has indicated a shorter period. In

:08:24. > :08:30.all that I heard it may be the case that EU law continues to apply in

:08:31. > :08:34.the UK or have I misunderstood? If I may answer that specific point, the

:08:35. > :08:40.intention is to introduce the great repeal bill to parliament next year

:08:41. > :08:42.so that it will be in place at the point at which we leave the EU. It

:08:43. > :08:47.will come into operation at the will come into operation at the

:08:48. > :08:51.point at which we leave the EU. It will definitely do so? That is the

:08:52. > :08:55.legislation is a matter for legislation is a matter for

:08:56. > :08:58.Parliamentary debate. But the intention will be a repeal bill that

:08:59. > :09:04.will come into effect that the point at which we leave the European

:09:05. > :09:10.Union, but at that point, EU law will be brought into domestic law in

:09:11. > :09:13.the UK. That is important because it gives people a certainty at that

:09:14. > :09:22.point at which we are leaving the EU as to how EU law is operating so

:09:23. > :09:26.workers' rights remain protected. I'm trying to clarify one

:09:27. > :09:32.straightforward point. I leaving, do you mean, what is commonly

:09:33. > :09:40.understood to mean leaving, that is that EU law will no longer apply

:09:41. > :09:44.directly in UK courts? When we are outside the European Union, we will

:09:45. > :09:55.be determining our laws and will be British courts. Will that be

:09:56. > :09:59.completed by 2019? April 2019? I fully expect to be able to meet the

:10:00. > :10:05.timetable that is being set out in terms of the termination. One

:10:06. > :10:09.further point of clarification. Article 50 provides for a country to

:10:10. > :10:17.leave more than two years after it is triggered as part of the

:10:18. > :10:20.withdrawal agreement. Do I take it from the answers I've just heard

:10:21. > :10:29.that you are not seeking a withdrawal agreement? One that will

:10:30. > :10:39.lead you beyond this period. We are not seeking to extend it beyond two

:10:40. > :10:42.years. The European Commission have indicated that the negotiations may

:10:43. > :10:49.be completed before two years but we're not seeking to say this should

:10:50. > :10:53.be extended, that we wanted to be extended. I fully expect to be able

:10:54. > :10:59.to undertake the deal within that time. And that will not contain

:11:00. > :11:07.anything that could leave EU law directly applicable in the UK? When

:11:08. > :11:10.people voted they wanted us to be able to take control of our laws.

:11:11. > :11:15.When we are no longer a member of the European Union, laws will be

:11:16. > :11:25.determined in the United Kingdom and subject to British courts. I'm

:11:26. > :11:29.trying to get clarity that the part of article 50 which provides scope

:11:30. > :11:39.for negotiation of flexibility on the operative part of leaving is not

:11:40. > :11:41.going to be exercised, it is not the intention of the government to make

:11:42. > :11:53.use of that flexibility? What Article 50 allows for is if

:11:54. > :12:00.there is an agreement that the period for negotiation of the

:12:01. > :12:09.withdrawal in relationship with the European Union is extended, with the

:12:10. > :12:13.UK, that treaty allows for the period to be extended. We are not

:12:14. > :12:17.setting out to extend that period, usually are setting out to negotiate

:12:18. > :12:24.this within the two years. -- we are setting out. Hilary Benn. This week

:12:25. > :12:29.marks six months since the referendum, just over three months

:12:30. > :12:32.to go to the triggering of Article 50, can you tell us when the

:12:33. > :12:38.Government's plan is going to be published? The publication of the

:12:39. > :12:41.plan, when will we see that? As I have indicated, I will make a speech

:12:42. > :12:47.early in the New Year which will set out more of our approach. We will

:12:48. > :12:52.before we trigger Article 50 be setting out, as I have indicated,

:12:53. > :12:56.more details of our approach. I have not set a date when the plan is

:12:57. > :13:00.going to be published. But you will hear more about our approach when I

:13:01. > :13:04.speak in the New Year. Can you give the committee an assurance that the

:13:05. > :13:08.plan, when it appears, will be published in time for Parliament to

:13:09. > :13:12.scrutinise it before article 50 is triggered? And that there will be

:13:13. > :13:19.sufficient time for us to do our job looking at it? I have said on many

:13:20. > :13:22.occasions, Parliament need have no concerns about its ability to have

:13:23. > :13:28.an opportunity to comment on these matters. I would fully expect that

:13:29. > :13:31.Parliament will have proper opportunity to be able to look at

:13:32. > :13:37.these matters before we trigger Article 50. What would be your view

:13:38. > :13:41.of a reasonable period of time for Parliament to see the plan in

:13:42. > :13:47.advance of the triggering of Article 50? It is another way of asking when

:13:48. > :13:51.you are going to publish the plan! I do not have a date and it is not for

:13:52. > :14:02.me to set out a period of time when it is appropriate for Parliament

:14:03. > :14:05.areas. -- Parliament. We have to factor in the question of the

:14:06. > :14:08.yet know the judgment. If they find yet know the judgment. If they find

:14:09. > :14:13.in favour of the Government, it leads us to one course of action. If

:14:14. > :14:19.they find against the Government, there will be a need to respond. Is

:14:20. > :14:23.your intention to ensure Parliament has a vote on the final deal?

:14:24. > :14:27.Parliament will have every agility to vote through the great repeal

:14:28. > :14:30.bill on the various aspects of the relationship that we will be having

:14:31. > :14:35.with the European Union. That was not quite the question. The question

:14:36. > :14:39.is, when the final deal is negotiated with the 27, is your

:14:40. > :14:46.intention to ensure Parliament has a chance to vote on that deal? Yes or

:14:47. > :14:48.no? It is my intention for Parliament to comment on and discuss

:14:49. > :14:53.the arrangements that we are putting in place. We will be going through

:14:54. > :14:57.the negotiations, it is not clear at this point in time what... I have

:14:58. > :15:03.indicated my expectation of the timetable for negotiating the deal.

:15:04. > :15:06.It is not clear. This will take two parties, the European Union and the

:15:07. > :15:13.UK, to go through that process of negotiation. We will be ensuring

:15:14. > :15:17.that as we go through that, as I have said, when we are able to give

:15:18. > :15:21.clarity, we will do so. I am not quite sure, I understand why it is

:15:22. > :15:24.so difficult to answer a question as to whether Parliament will have a

:15:25. > :15:27.vote given that we know the European Parliament will have a vote on the

:15:28. > :15:31.deal, why can't you say that the British Parliament will also have a

:15:32. > :15:35.vote? What I'm saying is there will be an opportunity for Parliament of

:15:36. > :15:39.course to consider as we are going through, when more details become

:15:40. > :15:43.available, how this is going to operate. There is a question about

:15:44. > :15:49.the timetable in relation to the agreement of the deal and the

:15:50. > :15:52.necessity... How the timetable will operate in relationship to the

:15:53. > :15:58.European Parliament as well. What I am also clear about is ensuring that

:15:59. > :16:02.when we come to the point of delivering on the vote of the

:16:03. > :16:07.British people, we will be leaving the European Union. Talking about

:16:08. > :16:12.the timetable, as you know, they expect the negotiations to be

:16:13. > :16:19.completed by October, 2018, indeed, providing scrutiny of what has been

:16:20. > :16:25.agreed. Do you expect that complex initiation is about the divorce

:16:26. > :16:29.arrangement and the negotiation of a new agreement about market access

:16:30. > :16:36.and trade, do you expect those to be done sequentially or in parallel? I

:16:37. > :16:40.am working on the basis that we will look to negotiate those in parallel.

:16:41. > :16:46.I think that is what makes sense. It is also what is implied by Article

:16:47. > :16:49.50 and the treaty itself which makes clear you have to know what the

:16:50. > :16:54.framework of the future relationship is before you can finalise the deal

:16:55. > :16:59.forward drawl. The point at which we exit the European Union, we will

:17:00. > :17:04.need to know what the new relationship is -- for withdrawal.

:17:05. > :17:09.Are you wholly confident that it will be possible to negotiate both

:17:10. > :17:13.parts within the time available, as little as 18 months? It could be

:17:14. > :17:20.little as 18 months. You referred to little as 18 months. You referred to

:17:21. > :17:23.process of ratification. There is it in relation

:17:24. > :17:26.also a concern that European leaders have in relation to the European

:17:27. > :17:30.parliamentary elections taking place in 2019. A concern from their point

:17:31. > :17:33.of view to ensure that the arrangements about the UK's

:17:34. > :17:37.relationship are clear before a decision has to be taken about UK

:17:38. > :17:40.candidates in the European Parliamentary elections. You

:17:41. > :17:44.confident the 27 member states think it is possible to negotiate a new

:17:45. > :17:47.trade and market access deal in 18 months, given that Simon Rogers is

:17:48. > :17:52.reported to have advised ministers of his view that the view he picks

:17:53. > :17:58.up from the discussions he has had with the 27 that it could take up to

:17:59. > :18:02.ten years to agree a new trade deal? When I have been talking to

:18:03. > :18:08.individual leaders, I have noted the willingness from everybody to ensure

:18:09. > :18:11.that we can undertake this as smoothly and in as orderly a fashion

:18:12. > :18:15.as possible and a recognition from everybody that we do want to make

:18:16. > :18:18.this arrangement and get the arrangement in place so that people

:18:19. > :18:24.can move on to the new relationship they will have with the UK and I

:18:25. > :18:29.think there is a willingness there to undertake this on that basis. Can

:18:30. > :18:33.you confirm it is the Government's intention to seek transitional

:18:34. > :18:39.arrangements of some sort to cover the period from the negotiation of

:18:40. > :18:42.the final deal to its full implementation in order to give

:18:43. > :18:47.certainty to business and avoid the cliff edge you were asked about at

:18:48. > :18:51.the CBI? If I may answer in this way? I think when people talk about

:18:52. > :18:55.transition, often from people mean different things by transition. Some

:18:56. > :19:00.people will talk about transition as a deliberate way of putting off

:19:01. > :19:04.actually leaving the European Union. For others, transition is an

:19:05. > :19:07.expectation you cannot get the deal in two years and therefore you have

:19:08. > :19:12.to have a further period to do it. If you think about the process we

:19:13. > :19:16.are going to go through, once we have got the deal, the new

:19:17. > :19:19.arrangements, there will be a necessity for adjustment of the new

:19:20. > :19:23.arrangements for implementation of some practical changes that may need

:19:24. > :19:28.to take place in relation to that. That is what business has been

:19:29. > :19:32.commenting on and arguing for. As you say, they use the phrase about

:19:33. > :19:35.not having a cliff edge, they do not want to wake up one morning having a

:19:36. > :19:39.deal agreed the night before and suddenly discover they have to do

:19:40. > :19:43.everything differently. There is a practical aspect of how you ensure

:19:44. > :19:46.people are able to adjust to the new relationship which is not about

:19:47. > :19:52.trying to delay the point at which we leave and is not about trying to

:19:53. > :19:55.extend the period of negotiation. Can you confirm a decision has not

:19:56. > :20:01.yet been taken by the Government about whether we are going to remain

:20:02. > :20:09.in or leaves the customs union in or leaves the customs union

:20:10. > :20:13.customer if that is the case, don't we have to stay in the customs union

:20:14. > :20:18.to honour the commitments given to Nissan about seeking a situation in

:20:19. > :20:18.without tariffs in Europe and without tariffs in

:20:19. > :20:24.impediments -- stay in the customs union? As I have said, this is not a

:20:25. > :20:27.binary decision. There are a number of different aspects and a number of

:20:28. > :20:33.different relationships that already exist in relation to the customs

:20:34. > :20:38.union. This is more complex than simply saying, are you in or out of

:20:39. > :20:40.the customs union? The way I approach this and the way the

:20:41. > :20:46.Government is approaching this and other issues is to say, what are the

:20:47. > :20:50.outcomes we want to achieve? And therefore, how do you reach those

:20:51. > :20:56.outcomes? Rather than assuming only one means to an end or one process

:20:57. > :21:01.to an end. As regards the issue of the investment, the very welcome

:21:02. > :21:05.investment in Sunderland made by Nissan, we have been very clear we

:21:06. > :21:08.want to get the best possible deal for trading with and operating

:21:09. > :21:11.within the single European market, that is what I have said publicly

:21:12. > :21:18.and to companies and also that we want to ensure competitiveness of

:21:19. > :21:23.the British economy. I think Nissan's decision to invest and to

:21:24. > :21:25.bring the new models to be manufactured in Sunderland is

:21:26. > :21:30.actually a huge vote of confidence in the Sunderland workforce. This is

:21:31. > :21:37.the most productive car plant in Europe. Can I take you back to one

:21:38. > :21:40.answer you gave which sounded quite favourable to the proposals being

:21:41. > :21:45.put forward by business, particularly by the financial

:21:46. > :21:53.community, for some kind of standstill to the full application

:21:54. > :21:56.of departure in April, 2019, on the grounds that they do not want to be

:21:57. > :22:04.faced with, as you put it yourself, a cliff edge? Do I take it that the

:22:05. > :22:08.Government is going to try to negotiate a standstill or transition

:22:09. > :22:13.or arrangement of that type to give time for business and the financial

:22:14. > :22:22.committee to adjust? I would not use the word standstill. That is the

:22:23. > :22:26.word they have used. The point at which we leave the European Union,

:22:27. > :22:31.the point at which the relationship that is going to exist is clear,

:22:32. > :22:36.there may well be practical issues that have to be addressed... That

:22:37. > :22:39.was your last answer. I am asking something slightly different

:22:40. > :22:43.witches, are you going to try to negotiate it? I was about to come

:22:44. > :22:47.onto that, if you allow me to explain. I want to make there is a

:22:48. > :22:50.full understanding of what I was saying in terms of the

:22:51. > :22:56.practicalities of this issue of people who may need to adjust, IT

:22:57. > :23:11.systems and other simple practical matters like that. Of course, it

:23:12. > :23:21.UK. It will also be for businesses UK. It will also be for businesses

:23:22. > :23:22.part of the negotiations that we part of the negotiations that

:23:23. > :23:23.will be entering, there will need to will be entering, there will need

:23:24. > :23:25.practicalities can be dealt with. Is practicalities can be dealt with. Is

:23:26. > :23:25.to try to seek an adjustment period to try to seek an adjustment period

:23:26. > :23:30.after the date of application of Brexit-macro? It is a matter of

:23:31. > :23:39.practicality that we need to discuss with the European Union. Is it a

:23:40. > :23:45.pretty for you? I have set out one priority area which I think we

:23:46. > :23:49.should be making early decisions on in relation to EU systems living

:23:50. > :23:54.here and UK citizens living in the rest of the EU. We will have to

:23:55. > :23:57.address this question of the practicalities of adjustment to the

:23:58. > :24:01.new relationship once the new relationship has been agreed. When

:24:02. > :24:06.that takes place, of course, it will depend on when the deal is agreed,

:24:07. > :24:15.partly. You cannot say immediately that there will be a period of...

:24:16. > :24:22.Yes the rarity or no to priority question that you have to sit down

:24:23. > :24:30.and start negotiating. -- yes to priority. We have to consider it and

:24:31. > :24:33.this will be one of the issues on the table. I am well aware,

:24:34. > :24:38.Chairman, of the views and concerns that business has to make sure that

:24:39. > :24:46.they have the ability to have a period of practical adjustment. Bill

:24:47. > :24:51.Cash. When you opened you referred to a joined up approach. My European

:24:52. > :24:58.scrutiny committee has called on our ambassador to the EU to see us

:24:59. > :25:03.shortly. He made some pretty controversial remarks the other day.

:25:04. > :25:13.Com entry to these activities across the board -- complimentary to these

:25:14. > :25:18.activities across the board, there is also this question of the

:25:19. > :25:22.coordination with The Cabinet Office which also has to deal with my

:25:23. > :25:30.committee as well. Do you have in Number 10 itself a fully specialised

:25:31. > :25:35.unit with specialists dealing equally with the negotiating

:25:36. > :25:38.instruments regarding political as well as economic and trade policies

:25:39. > :25:45.estimate do they meet you personally, Number 10? -- and trade

:25:46. > :25:54.policies? Do they do so on a regular footing. If they don't, do you think

:25:55. > :25:58.it ought to happen? I have set up a unit in Number 10 of people with

:25:59. > :26:07.expertise in European matters who are both working with departments on

:26:08. > :26:13.issues relating to Brexit and also issues looking at particular

:26:14. > :26:17.decisions as a member of the EU going forward. They see me and I

:26:18. > :26:21.meet with them readily. What assessment have you made with regard

:26:22. > :26:30.to the trade-off between your red lines, no EU law, no ECJ

:26:31. > :26:34.adjudication and control of borders, and those aspects of our

:26:35. > :26:40.relationship with the European Union that you want to maintain? I do not

:26:41. > :26:49.look at these things in terms of trade-offs in quite the way that is

:26:50. > :26:52.sometimes portrayed. I think what is important is that when we look at

:26:53. > :26:57.this negotiation, we take the view not that we are currently members of

:26:58. > :27:02.the EU, we are going to leave, how can we keep its membership, what we

:27:03. > :27:06.need to say is we are currently members of the EU, we are going to

:27:07. > :27:10.leave the European Union and we need to negotiate a new relationship with

:27:11. > :27:17.the European Union. The question is, what do we wish that relationship

:27:18. > :27:21.with the EU to be? This is very bottom in terms of how we approach

:27:22. > :27:25.this. It is not about trying to replicate bits of membership, it is

:27:26. > :27:30.about saying, what is our new relationship? I am ambitious for

:27:31. > :27:33.what that relationship can be. You are entirely satisfied that at the

:27:34. > :27:38.end of this process, not only will we have repealed the European Union

:27:39. > :27:44.legislation, in addition to that, it will be absolutely clear that all

:27:45. > :27:47.legislation from that moment forwards will be within the

:27:48. > :27:57.jurisdiction of Westminster and not the EU?

:27:58. > :28:03.This is part of what the great repeal bill will be about and the

:28:04. > :28:06.point at which we have left the EU, it will be the British Parliament

:28:07. > :28:13.that the sides and British courts that have decided our legislation.

:28:14. > :28:18.There are many people who want us to move quickly in relation to all

:28:19. > :28:23.these matters. I appreciate there is a timing issue but do you not want

:28:24. > :28:28.to get on with this as quickly as possible because it is the certainty

:28:29. > :28:32.that comes from that that is what a great deal of the business community

:28:33. > :28:37.and other people in our civil society want, to reflect the outcome

:28:38. > :28:42.of the referendum as soon as possible. It is right that people

:28:43. > :28:46.want to reflect the outcome as soon as possible but also wrote that the

:28:47. > :28:55.government prepares for negotiations. That's why I said at

:28:56. > :28:59.an early stage we should not trigger article 50 until the end of this

:29:00. > :29:06.year. I looked at the timetable and we've looked at the timetable and

:29:07. > :29:13.the triggering was a balance between giving us sufficient time to make

:29:14. > :29:18.those preparations and give them time but also recognising that the

:29:19. > :29:29.British public want us to get on with it. I'm sure you have paid

:29:30. > :29:32.attention to the Scottish Government's paper on Europe. You

:29:33. > :29:40.said you would listen carefully to any different arrangement with

:29:41. > :29:46.Scotland. Do you believe Scotland as a nation that voted overwhelmingly

:29:47. > :29:51.to remain should have its views respected? I had the opportunity,

:29:52. > :29:58.the First Minister called me to tell me about the paper that was coming

:29:59. > :30:03.out. Obviously I've not had an opportunity to look at it in detail

:30:04. > :30:08.but I welcome this contribution to the debate. We've been encouraging

:30:09. > :30:11.devolved administrations to identify their concerns and priorities so we

:30:12. > :30:16.can take that forward as part of the discussions we are having to ensure

:30:17. > :30:21.we have a fool UK view as we go into the negotiations. I would expect the

:30:22. > :30:23.Welsh government and the Northern Ireland assembly to come forward

:30:24. > :30:27.with the particular concerns they with the particular concerns they

:30:28. > :30:36.have and we can discuss these within the structures that we have. Do you

:30:37. > :30:41.probably going to be necessary, we probably going to be necessary, we

:30:42. > :30:44.talk about the deal with Nissan and arrangements for Northern Ireland,

:30:45. > :30:47.suggesting that, do you think that suggesting that, do you think that

:30:48. > :30:53.is going to be a feature of the total UK Brexit? Will there be

:30:54. > :31:02.different arrangements across the UK? We are negotiating a United

:31:03. > :31:07.Kingdom approach and the United Kingdom relationship within the

:31:08. > :31:09.European Union. I think you've assumed an acceptance of

:31:10. > :31:15.differential relationships which I don't think it is right to accept. I

:31:16. > :31:18.said when I first became Prime Minister and first met the First

:31:19. > :31:23.Minister we will look seriously at any proposals but come forward but

:31:24. > :31:29.there may be proposals that are impractical. In terms of Northern

:31:30. > :31:37.Ireland, one of the key issues is the question of border. A lot of

:31:38. > :31:41.work is being done as to how we can ensure that the arrangements for the

:31:42. > :31:50.movement of goods and people is not a return to the hard borders of the

:31:51. > :32:00.past. There has been much discussion about demolition of powers. Does

:32:01. > :32:06.this require a look at the devilish and settlement for Scotland? We will

:32:07. > :32:11.have discussions on this within the GMC environment about how the

:32:12. > :32:19.arrangements will work but we have to take a framework set out in

:32:20. > :32:27.Brussels into the United Kingdom and recognise the interests of the

:32:28. > :32:31.devolved administrations in place. Do you think Scotland would be

:32:32. > :32:33.entitled to hold another independence referendum if the

:32:34. > :32:44.government refused to accommodate this arrangement? I don't think

:32:45. > :32:48.Government to hold another Government to hold another

:32:49. > :32:51.independence referendum. I think the Scottish people gave their view. I

:32:52. > :32:55.would go further than that and make this point. If Scotland, and I

:32:56. > :33:02.understand this is one of the points, made in the paper, if

:33:03. > :33:05.Scotland became independent, they not only would not be a member of

:33:06. > :33:10.the EU, they would no longer be a member of the single market of the

:33:11. > :33:14.EU and the United Kingdom. The single market of the United Kingdom

:33:15. > :33:31.is worth four times as much. It is immigration that is at the

:33:32. > :33:35.heart of this. Does immigration take precedence over all other

:33:36. > :33:41.approaches, for example the single market and the Customs unit, if not,

:33:42. > :33:44.where does it fit in to the hierarchy of the things the

:33:45. > :33:52.government consider to be important about leaving the EU? I don't think

:33:53. > :33:57.these things are trade-offs. There was a very clear message in the vote

:33:58. > :34:03.that people wanted us to take control of borders and control of

:34:04. > :34:06.immigration from the EU as well as countries outside the EU. But we

:34:07. > :34:13.also want to make sure we get the also want to make sure we get the

:34:14. > :34:17.best possible trading deal operating within the single market and make

:34:18. > :34:20.sure that we are able to continue operating on matters that are

:34:21. > :34:25.relevant to our security and on crime issues. All these issues will

:34:26. > :34:39.be part of the negotiations that will take place. We very briefly

:34:40. > :34:43.is obviously a special relationship is obviously a special relationship

:34:44. > :34:53.between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Is it the position that

:34:54. > :34:55.that relationship should continue? We don't want to see a return to the

:34:56. > :34:59.borders of the past. The Common borders of the past. The Common

:35:00. > :35:03.travel area has been in place since 1923 and continues to be in place.

:35:04. > :35:09.We are working very hard with the government of the Republic of

:35:10. > :35:12.Ireland to ensure that we can find a solution moving forward that doesn't

:35:13. > :35:21.involve a return to the borders of the past. It seems the Irish

:35:22. > :35:28.government takes that view as well. In Northern Ireland, every

:35:29. > :35:35.politician takes that view. The problem is there is another

:35:36. > :35:40.negotiating factor, have you any indication of what attitude they

:35:41. > :35:44.will take towards that aspiration? The indication has been that other

:35:45. > :35:47.member states are very well aware of the sensitivity of the issue in

:35:48. > :35:50.relation to the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of

:35:51. > :35:55.Ireland and want to see a solution that works for both sides of the

:35:56. > :35:59.border. They will probably be prepared to vary the rules they set

:36:00. > :36:02.about had border at the edge of the European Union in the same way as

:36:03. > :36:09.they vary the rules towards Schengen? There is a degree of

:36:10. > :36:16.flexibility there. Do you expect that to continue? There is a

:36:17. > :36:26.question as to the extent to which needs be deferential arrangements or

:36:27. > :36:31.whether it is possible to reflect the wider relationship the UK has.

:36:32. > :36:34.Obviously there are a number of discussions taking place about the

:36:35. > :36:40.border and what arrangements they border and what arrangements they

:36:41. > :36:43.will have on that. It will involve countries in various formations

:36:44. > :36:50.depending on whether they are in Schengen or not. With regard to the

:36:51. > :36:59.rights of Irish citizens within the UK, that has obviously changed over

:37:00. > :37:06.the years. Do you envisage the citizens of the Republic of Ireland,

:37:07. > :37:11.if they want to come to the UK, they have the same opportunities as

:37:12. > :37:17.members of the Commonwealth. Do you think that arrangement will

:37:18. > :37:24.continue? The issue of the rights of citizens from the Republic of

:37:25. > :37:27.Ireland, this is on a different basis and a long-standing historical

:37:28. > :37:35.I've been clear that I want to look I've been clear that I want to look

:37:36. > :37:41.at how we deal with these issues of people from other countries living

:37:42. > :37:45.in the UK and want to be able to give reassurance. It should be up to

:37:46. > :37:54.us how we treat the Irish Republic, surely? I've been clear in relation

:37:55. > :37:59.to EU citizens as a whole that we want to see UK citizens living

:38:00. > :38:09.elsewhere being treated on a reciprocal basis. You've indicated

:38:10. > :38:13.it is a deal for the UK. Presumably you would not accept any sort of

:38:14. > :38:16.customs or passport checks between customs or passport checks between

:38:17. > :38:20.Northern Ireland and Great Britain as some have suggested would be

:38:21. > :38:24.necessary? We want to make sure we've got the right arrangement

:38:25. > :38:33.between the border. How do you see the relationship between the UK and

:38:34. > :38:40.Ireland developing after Brexit? Do you think the Republic of Ireland

:38:41. > :38:44.might gravitate more towards the UK than the EU? That is not for me to

:38:45. > :38:49.say, it is for the government of Ireland to say. I would hope

:38:50. > :38:52.everybody would accept and agree that it has been very welcome to see

:38:53. > :38:59.the growing relationship between the UK and the Republic of Ireland is in

:39:00. > :39:08.continuing. Could I ask about the continuing. Could I ask about the

:39:09. > :39:13.devolved administrations. How would the great reform bill affect them in

:39:14. > :39:16.that respect? With the be required to adopt any legislation or would it

:39:17. > :39:25.be done on a UK basis? These matters be done on a UK basis? These matters

:39:26. > :39:33.of detail will need to be looked into. There are aspects of EU law

:39:34. > :39:40.which will be brought into domestic law in the UK. Whether that is

:39:41. > :39:45.government will be a matter of government will be a matter of

:39:46. > :39:51.detail to the legislation. Presumably when we passed this act

:39:52. > :40:04.it will take into UK law regulations but not treaty commitments? It will

:40:05. > :40:07.confidence and the clarity of confidence and the clarity of

:40:08. > :40:14.knowing where they stand in relation to EU legislation. It will then be

:40:15. > :40:18.an opportunity for Parliament to determine which of those pieces of

:40:19. > :40:23.law they need to content with. Whether they need to change any. It

:40:24. > :40:29.will be coming out of the treaties. Yvette Cooper. Can I ask the Prime

:40:30. > :40:32.Minister, will you publish proposals Minister, will you publish proposals

:40:33. > :40:38.on immigration control as part of your plan in February or and

:40:39. > :40:42.whenever it is? We are working on our proposals for immigration. There

:40:43. > :40:49.are a number of ways we can address the issue. When we feel it is

:40:50. > :40:58.appropriate to give details we will do so. So they might not be part of

:40:59. > :41:05.the February plan? When we feel it is appropriate we will do so. Is

:41:06. > :41:11.this part of the Brexit negotiations, meeting the net

:41:12. > :41:16.migration target? It is therefore a very good reason. It is because of

:41:17. > :41:20.the effect that migration has on people in this country. The

:41:21. > :41:26.objective of Brexit will be to get the best deal for the UK in our

:41:27. > :41:30.future negotiation with the European Union. Which you have said many

:41:31. > :41:33.times. If there is a tension between what you conclude is in the best

:41:34. > :41:40.interests of Britain as part of looking at immigration controls

:41:41. > :41:45.makes it impossible to meet the net migration target, will you ditch the

:41:46. > :41:48.net migration target? You're making an assumption you can automatically

:41:49. > :41:57.extrapolate from any discussions that take place in relation to

:41:58. > :42:01.Brexit. As you will know from your time as Shadow Home Secretary and

:42:02. > :42:08.now chairman of the home select committee. And looking at

:42:09. > :42:13.immigration numbers is not an exact science. There are a number of

:42:14. > :42:18.factors that can come into play, not under control of the government. You

:42:19. > :42:22.cannot look at it in the way that you suggest we look at it. But we

:42:23. > :42:30.will be very clear about getting the best possible deal in terms of

:42:31. > :42:35.trading within the single market. We want to make sure it will be the

:42:36. > :42:41.richest government making decisions about the immigration arrangement.

:42:42. > :42:45.Clearly there is a link between the controls and numbers because you

:42:46. > :42:50.hope said that the reason you are not able to meet the net migration

:42:51. > :42:55.target was because of free movement. You currently have net migration

:42:56. > :42:59.from the EU as 189,000, if you are to stand any chance of meeting your

:43:00. > :43:07.net migration target, you would have to get EU net migration downturn,

:43:08. > :43:10.what, 50,000? -- down to. We will put into place immigration

:43:11. > :43:14.arrangements for people coming within the EU that we believe are in

:43:15. > :43:18.the interests of the UK. Does that mean that if you conclude that it is

:43:19. > :43:25.not in the interests of the United Kingdom to get net migration from

:43:26. > :43:31.the EU down to 50,000, you will pitch the net migration target? --

:43:32. > :43:39.you will pitch. Or will you give it priority over what are in Britain's

:43:40. > :43:47.best interests? This government will keep its aim of net migration

:43:48. > :43:51.target. Sustainable levels are in the tens of thousands. We do that

:43:52. > :43:55.for good reasons because of the impact we believe immigration does

:43:56. > :43:57.have and research has shown does have on people, particularly those

:43:58. > :44:01.at the lower end of the income scale, on keeping... That may be the

:44:02. > :44:05.case, and I understand the reasons case, and I understand the reasons

:44:06. > :44:10.behind it, the question is, what is your objective going forward? You

:44:11. > :44:13.have a net migration target to get the low tens of thousands, I am

:44:14. > :44:17.simply asking you whether you are planning to meet the net migration

:44:18. > :44:21.target through the Brexit negotiations? If so, what are you

:44:22. > :44:26.aiming for an net EU migration question that if you have to get it

:44:27. > :44:34.down from 189,000 to below at least 100,000, who do you want not to

:44:35. > :44:38.come? -- EU migration? I have been clearer about Brexit negotiations.

:44:39. > :44:41.The vote on the 23rd of June was that people wanted us to have

:44:42. > :44:45.control of immigration, to put in place controls for people coming

:44:46. > :44:50.from the EU. We also want to insure we get the best possible deal for

:44:51. > :44:55.trading with and operating within the European Union. That is what we

:44:56. > :44:59.will be looking for in relation to the Brexit negotiations. Government

:45:00. > :45:03.does have its target, its ambition, it's intention of bringing net

:45:04. > :45:07.migration down. It is absolutely right that one part of migration we

:45:08. > :45:11.have not been able to put controls on so far is migration from the

:45:12. > :45:15.European Union. We will be doing that in future. But I am not setting

:45:16. > :45:20.a figure in the way that you suggest. Precisely because, as I

:45:21. > :45:27.have said, there are many factors that come into the whole question of

:45:28. > :45:32.immigration, many factors that determine the movement of people

:45:33. > :45:36.across the world, and people coming to the UK, I have been clear with my

:45:37. > :45:41.European colleagues and they are now also clear that one of the things we

:45:42. > :45:45.collectively need to do is to work in countries like those in Africa

:45:46. > :45:54.where people are coming from to try to ensure there is greatest bluetit,

:45:55. > :45:59.economic and -- there are greater opportunities there so that people

:46:00. > :46:04.do not want come to the UK. You are trying to focus what we do on

:46:05. > :46:07.immigration on one area of activity, namely Brexit negotiations. How we

:46:08. > :46:11.deal with immigration is a much wider issue. Indeed, you are

:46:12. > :46:16.refusing to answer my questions and you seem to have a certain tone of

:46:17. > :46:21.contempt to having a figure as a target. However, you have chosen to

:46:22. > :46:24.have a figure, a net migration target for the whole of immigration

:46:25. > :46:29.and you have chosen to stick with it rather than to change it when you

:46:30. > :46:33.became Prime Minister. Let me ask you again, in terms of meeting the

:46:34. > :46:40.net migration target, given that non-EU net migration is currently

:46:41. > :46:45.196,000, at the same level as when you became Home Secretary in 2010,

:46:46. > :46:48.that has not changed after six years, how are you expecting to meet

:46:49. > :46:53.your net migration target if you have no way to reduce the non-EU net

:46:54. > :46:58.migration and you are refusing to say what your plans are for EU

:46:59. > :47:04.migration? What I have said is that we will of course in due course set

:47:05. > :47:08.out and make decisions about the arrangements we wish to have in

:47:09. > :47:11.place for the immigration controls of people coming in from the

:47:12. > :47:17.European Union. But it is not possible to say that only one aspect

:47:18. > :47:24.of looking at the issue of migration is the only one you need to focus on

:47:25. > :47:28.and think about in order to look at the broader aspect of the net

:47:29. > :47:33.migration figures. That is the whole point. It is a very wide issue that

:47:34. > :47:38.cannot being captivated simply in terms of what the Brexit

:47:39. > :47:44.negotiations are. -- cannot be encapsulated. The previous

:47:45. > :47:49.Chancellor and others have all said that they have refused to endorse

:47:50. > :47:53.your target, they refer to it as your target on net migration, they

:47:54. > :47:59.have refused to endorse having the net migration target with students

:48:00. > :48:02.in it. Do you think it is now time to remove students from the net

:48:03. > :48:10.migration target? Students are in then migration figures because...

:48:11. > :48:15.The figures are different from the target. With due respect, the target

:48:16. > :48:18.figures cultivated from the overall migration figures and students are

:48:19. > :48:21.in the overall migration figures because it is an international

:48:22. > :48:27.definition of migration used by countries around the world. Having

:48:28. > :48:32.students in that overall migration figure actually showed us when we

:48:33. > :48:37.first came into government that what we had seen in the previous 13 years

:48:38. > :48:41.of Labour government was significant abuse of the student visa system

:48:42. > :48:44.into the UK. That is why something like over 900 colleges are no longer

:48:45. > :48:48.able to bring in students because they were not offering an education

:48:49. > :48:53.individuals coming to this country, what they were doing was effectively

:48:54. > :48:57.a back door route into working the UK. We have been able to reduce

:48:58. > :49:01.abuse of the student visa system by looking at those figures are

:49:02. > :49:04.focusing on them and we retain an international definition. You do not

:49:05. > :49:08.have a way to meet the target question of it is a bit of a mess.

:49:09. > :49:14.To be clear, Prime Minister, that abuse is largely sorted out. Most

:49:15. > :49:20.people agree that students are a huge success story for the UK, they

:49:21. > :49:25.are a major British export. Quite unlike the concerns expressed during

:49:26. > :49:30.the debate, during the referendum about migration generally. Don't you

:49:31. > :49:35.think it might be a good idea to reconsider that decision? We use,

:49:36. > :49:39.Chairman, the international definition of migration. It is

:49:40. > :49:42.perfect is simple. It is used by countries around the world when they

:49:43. > :49:50.are looking at immigration systems and we use it, as the US does, as

:49:51. > :49:54.other countries do. Was that a no? We use the international definition,

:49:55. > :49:56.students are in the international definition. You can choose what to

:49:57. > :50:04.target. What contingency planning has your government done in case the

:50:05. > :50:08.UK and EU failed to agree a deal at the end of the two-year negotiating

:50:09. > :50:13.period? We are looking at all of the scenarios that might pertain in

:50:14. > :50:18.relation to this. As we get into the negotiations, we will be able to

:50:19. > :50:26.have a much better understanding of where that you -- where the EU was

:50:27. > :50:31.coming out. They say they will be able to do this within the 18 month

:50:32. > :50:36.period. I take that as a yes, there is contingency planning going on.

:50:37. > :50:41.Who is responsible for it and on what expertise are you relying? Are

:50:42. > :50:47.the Cabinet Office in the lead? Are you seeking advice of outside

:50:48. > :50:51.experts, law and trade locations? As I said, we are looking at a variety

:50:52. > :50:58.of scenarios that could pertain... You accept one of the scenarios...

:50:59. > :51:04.There are a variety of scenarios. The department that has lead

:51:05. > :51:07.responsibility for this is the department bringing expertise as

:51:08. > :51:11.necessary. They have within the department experts from other

:51:12. > :51:17.government departments but they also work within other departments so

:51:18. > :51:20.there is no duplication. Where it is necessary to bring in legal

:51:21. > :51:23.expertise, they will do that. Will you publish this analysis and will

:51:24. > :51:27.it be published alongside the statement that is going to be made

:51:28. > :51:36.in February, March, before the notification? You will see what we

:51:37. > :51:40.publish when we publish it, if I may put it like that. You would expect

:51:41. > :51:44.government to think around what the various scenarios are that could

:51:45. > :51:48.pertain in the future. You accept one of the scenarios is that it gets

:51:49. > :51:53.vetoed by the European Parliament, end of the process, there is no

:51:54. > :51:59.agreement? It seems a statement of the obvious to me. You asking me to

:52:00. > :52:03.accept that we are going to fail which I do not accept. What I

:52:04. > :52:06.believe is that we should go into this, what I have seen from

:52:07. > :52:10.everybody else, sitting around the table, is a real intention to ensure

:52:11. > :52:16.that we do this in a smooth and orderly as possible and that we meet

:52:17. > :52:26.the timetable set, that is what the commission has indicated. I had a

:52:27. > :52:31.very good meeting with the man asked to take the negotiation role for the

:52:32. > :52:35.European Parliament, when I was in Brussels last week. The European

:52:36. > :52:41.Parliament is also keen to ensure that this is a process that is

:52:42. > :52:44.smooth and orderly. But he has been reported as actually complaining to

:52:45. > :52:48.the European Commission and council about the inadequacy of the

:52:49. > :52:51.arrangements involving European Parliament in the process and

:52:52. > :52:54.pointing out that Parliament has to approve this. It is simply a

:52:55. > :52:58.statement of logic that it is entirely possible that the European

:52:59. > :53:03.Parliament Beto is the agreement at the end of this two-year process. --

:53:04. > :53:07.vetoes. I am assuming you're contingency planning takes into

:53:08. > :53:11.course you are not aiming for it course you are not aiming for it

:53:12. > :53:15.that is clear. We are working to make sure that we get that agreement

:53:16. > :53:21.will stop as I understand it, the 27 members of the European council have

:53:22. > :53:25.agreed a different arrangement immolation to the European

:53:26. > :53:29.Parliament. -- that agreement. They did that at a meeting last week.

:53:30. > :53:34.There will be some involvement of the European Parliament in the

:53:35. > :53:37.process. I really want your Shawlands that we're not going down

:53:38. > :53:41.the route of the last government which my committee found was

:53:42. > :53:45.actually grossly negligent in instructing Whitehall to do no

:53:46. > :53:49.planning at all about the possible to that the country might have the

:53:50. > :53:53.temerity to vote to leave the European Union -- your Shawlands.

:53:54. > :53:58.There is presumably the possible to that the European Parliament would

:53:59. > :54:00.veto any agreement is a macro even despite your best efforts, no

:54:01. > :54:07.agreement is reached between yourself and the commission and that

:54:08. > :54:12.this planning is taking place -- any agreement or even despite your best

:54:13. > :54:19.efforts. We are looking at a variety of scenarios with relation to the

:54:20. > :54:24.deal, the timing and what opportunities will be there. I am

:54:25. > :54:30.hoping that is a yes. We are looking at a variety of scenarios. All of

:54:31. > :54:36.the scenarios? Thank you. That is fine. All of the options is fine.

:54:37. > :54:42.Crucially, what we are doing is ensuring we are working with others

:54:43. > :54:45.to set up the relationships so that I have every expectation that if we

:54:46. > :54:50.get that process rights, then it will be possible to see positive

:54:51. > :55:01.outcome that I am ambitious for. Have you determined what will fall

:55:02. > :55:04.under the remit of Article 50? When you say what issues? Well, it is

:55:05. > :55:08.perfidy possible our partners could find themselves in the same trap the

:55:09. > :55:16.Government has found itself in with in action being taken, the ability

:55:17. > :55:23.to conclude an agreement under Article 50 terms, by a qualified

:55:24. > :55:26.majority, is actually an agreement which would require domestic

:55:27. > :55:30.gratification and unanimity in the council, the extent of the Article

:55:31. > :55:37.50 agreement could be so extensive that it would be out with the scope

:55:38. > :55:41.of Article 50 within domestic law in other countries and we could then

:55:42. > :55:46.find ourselves with the 27th and the council in the same position the

:55:47. > :55:50.Government is in now. Has there been any examination of that possible at

:55:51. > :55:53.you? If I understand the question correctly, you are saying that at

:55:54. > :55:58.the end of this process there may be some matters that need to be

:55:59. > :56:04.ratified by individual national parliaments as well as by the rest

:56:05. > :56:08.of the process? Yes. That is something we are well aware of and

:56:09. > :56:12.those we are negotiating with are well aware of. Are you confident you

:56:13. > :56:17.know what the issues are? Have you got a date by when you expect to

:56:18. > :56:23.have completed that analysis? Work is still ongoing in terms of the

:56:24. > :56:31.great detail on this. But I think one of the questions that is a

:56:32. > :56:35.matter of legal discussion is the question of any trade arrangement

:56:36. > :56:39.that is negotiated with the European Union and the extent to which that

:56:40. > :56:44.is a matter for the European Union or national parliament. There is an

:56:45. > :56:47.example of an issue. Would your analysis be published as part of the

:56:48. > :56:53.formal negotiation notification letter to the European council as to

:56:54. > :56:56.what might be seen as mixed competence? I do not think that is

:56:57. > :57:00.appropriate for the triggering of Article 50, this is a matter that

:57:01. > :57:04.will be... I hesitate to say this, but by the very fact I have

:57:05. > :57:08.suggested there will be legal discussions on this, it will be a

:57:09. > :57:14.matter on which the lawyers will be discussing at that point. I do not

:57:15. > :57:18.think it will be for us to assert. The lawyers have already had a

:57:19. > :57:23.disagreeable habit along with the judges of upsetting the timetable of

:57:24. > :57:27.your own government in the move to notification with the action of the

:57:28. > :57:33.Supreme Court. What judgments will you be making about what is

:57:34. > :57:36.achievable under the Article 50 negotiations and will you be

:57:37. > :57:42.reviewing those as you go through the process? First of all, I would

:57:43. > :57:45.point out the timetable I set out triggering Article 50 is by the end

:57:46. > :57:50.of March. The Supreme Court has to come forward with its judgment on

:57:51. > :57:54.the case taken before it on the Government's appeal, but I expect to

:57:55. > :57:57.be able to trigger Article 50 by the end of March of next year. It has

:57:58. > :58:11.not in any sense blown the timetable of course. -- off course.

:58:12. > :58:20.Within the negotiations we will be having with the EU it will be my

:58:21. > :58:29.intention to cover not just the process of withdrawal but the future

:58:30. > :58:35.major consequences of failing to major consequences of failing to

:58:36. > :58:43.agree a deal in your view? Failure to agree a deal and the EU not

:58:44. > :58:48.having agreed? If we find ourselves with the European Parliament vetoing

:58:49. > :58:54.any deal agreed between you and the other countries. The process that

:58:55. > :58:58.would kick in would be the 27 would determine whether they wish to

:58:59. > :59:05.continue negotiations. We would have to agree to that but that would be

:59:06. > :59:14.afternoon. My committee is looking afternoon. My committee is looking

:59:15. > :59:20.at the machinery of government and capacity issues across Whitehall.

:59:21. > :59:26.You say in answer to Sir Bill Cash that the machinery of government is

:59:27. > :59:34.working well and you have your own specialists in number ten advising

:59:35. > :59:36.you personally. You set up separate departments alongside the Treasury

:59:37. > :59:41.and DEFRA with their own concerns and DEFRA with their own concerns

:59:42. > :59:45.and priorities. How will the government synthesise these

:59:46. > :59:56.different approaches into a single negotiating policy? I've set up a

:59:57. > :00:02.subcommittee responsible for looking at the issues. I've set up a number

:00:03. > :00:06.of subcommittees to reintroduce the approach to government and debate is

:00:07. > :00:14.taking place regularly within that committee on the issues we are

:00:15. > :00:21.talking about, the future trade relationship, aspects of the legal

:00:22. > :00:28.processes, Article 50 and so forth. What kind of capacity does the

:00:29. > :00:32.relevant subcommittee have in the Cabinet Office to synthesise these

:00:33. > :00:35.approaches coming in from other departments so there is a coherent

:00:36. > :00:43.brief put in front of the committee? The papers submitted, the majority

:00:44. > :00:50.of those will come from the Secretary of State for exiting the

:00:51. > :00:55.European Union. Where it is relevant for other departments to put forward

:00:56. > :01:03.papers the Secretary of State will do so. Inevitably this will be seen

:01:04. > :01:10.as something of a rival to other departments. Who is holding the rain

:01:11. > :01:15.between these departments and what capacity of the Cabinet Office have

:01:16. > :01:25.to make sure these approaches are drawn into one approach? I challenge

:01:26. > :01:30.the concept that it is seen as a rival, it is the focus of the work

:01:31. > :01:38.being done in relation to Brexit but it calls on the expertise of other

:01:39. > :01:44.departments. We don't get that rivalry and duplication. So this is

:01:45. > :01:50.the Cabinet Office department coordinating the other departments

:01:51. > :01:54.on your behalf. Is that correct? It is the department responsible for

:01:55. > :02:03.working with the other departments. In your authority? Yes. Who will

:02:04. > :02:06.The negotiation will be conducted at The negotiation will be conducted at

:02:07. > :02:16.role to play, the Secretary of State role to play, the Secretary of State

:02:17. > :02:25.will have a role to play, there will be a lot of technical negotiations.

:02:26. > :02:33.Who will actually negotiate the trade relationship with the EU? So

:02:34. > :02:42.far as it is part of the negotiations, it will be those who

:02:43. > :02:57.are negotiating who will be part of that. Will Lord price actually have

:02:58. > :03:04.a special role in that? As we unfold away in which that trade negotiation

:03:05. > :03:15.takes place, we will bring in expertise, and ministers. Many

:03:16. > :03:20.governments have negotiator. The UK Government has a single trade

:03:21. > :03:24.negotiator that deals cross parliamentary. Do you envisage that

:03:25. > :03:27.we should have someone playing such a role? We are currently building up

:03:28. > :03:50.the specific trade negotiation expertise. Will that be applied to

:03:51. > :03:56.the EU? We are appropriate. We are also looking at department by

:03:57. > :04:03.department issues. Starting with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The

:04:04. > :04:08.Institute for government has produced a paper that suggests

:04:09. > :04:10.departments are having to choose between meeting the pre-existing

:04:11. > :04:16.commitments and demands placed on them before Brexit and the Brexit

:04:17. > :04:24.priorities. How confident are you that there is sufficient detail to

:04:25. > :04:27.tempted to say that I'm not at all tempted to say that I'm not at all

:04:28. > :04:36.surprised when former civil servants suggest we need to employ more civil

:04:37. > :04:43.servants. Right, OK. Chancellor The suggested when he was Foreign

:04:44. > :04:48.Secretary -- the Chancellor suggested when he was Foreign

:04:49. > :04:52.Secretary, in terms of foreign affairs, he would need to change the

:04:53. > :04:57.layout and capacity of the Foreign Office. How will the government

:04:58. > :05:08.reinforce its diplomatic network after Brexit? Let us see what the

:05:09. > :05:15.with the EU is. There will be a with the EU is. There will be a

:05:16. > :05:18.number of areas where the European union has been negotiating,

:05:19. > :05:24.undertaking activity on behalf of the member states, notably in trade.

:05:25. > :05:27.That is where we need to build up trade negotiating expertise because

:05:28. > :05:31.we've not done this for a significant period of time. It has

:05:32. > :05:35.been done under the European Union. We've been contributing to that

:05:36. > :05:39.debate and discussion on foreign affairs but has been taking place

:05:40. > :05:44.within the European Union. But as we look to what is going to be the UK's

:05:45. > :05:55.brawl outside the EU, it is not just about that. It is about building up

:05:56. > :06:01.that presence globally. It is not about that but about the whole of

:06:02. > :06:07.the world. Let me come back to one or two points. David Davis made a

:06:08. > :06:16.firm commitment on a number of occasions that Parliament would be

:06:17. > :06:25.at least as well informed. In the course of the negotiations, are is

:06:26. > :06:34.committed -- argue as committed as your Brexit Minister? We are

:06:35. > :06:37.committed to understanding that Parliament is putting its views

:06:38. > :06:42.forward. Both David Davis and I are very clear, as I indicated earlier,

:06:43. > :06:46.we're not going to give a running commentary on every aspect of the

:06:47. > :06:55.negotiations but we will make sure that Parliament has the opportunity

:06:56. > :07:01.to be informed. When we are able to make information available, we will.

:07:02. > :07:05.You're supporting David Davis in that objective. We are very clear

:07:06. > :07:10.that we want Parliament to have the opportunity to debate and discuss

:07:11. > :07:14.these issues. The European Parliament has a specific role

:07:15. > :07:21.within the negotiations which is different to the rule that the UK

:07:22. > :07:25.parties have. -- UK Parliament has. There seems to be this idea that we

:07:26. > :07:30.are not letting Parliament do anything. We've made statements to

:07:31. > :07:34.Parliament, we are having debates in Parliament. There are a variety of

:07:35. > :07:36.commitments we have given to Parliament. We will make sure

:07:37. > :07:41.Parliament has the opportunity to Parliament has the opportunity to

:07:42. > :07:46.discuss these matters as we go through the negotiations but what we

:07:47. > :07:51.will not be doing is setting out, as I've said in detail, a running

:07:52. > :07:57.commentary of which aspects of the negotiations we are discussing or

:07:58. > :08:00.what the particular discussions are that are taking place. We need to

:08:01. > :08:04.have the flexibility to enter negotiations on that basis. People

:08:05. > :08:14.have to draw their own conclusions from the response but I did not hear

:08:15. > :08:19.a yes to the question. I want clarity on a couple of other points.

:08:20. > :08:25.Is it your intention that Parliament should vote on a final deal once it

:08:26. > :08:30.has been negotiated? It was put to you earlier. It is my intention that

:08:31. > :08:35.Parliament should have every opportunity to consider these

:08:36. > :08:39.matters. What I'm clear about is to ensure that we deliver on the vote

:08:40. > :08:45.of the British people, which was a vote to leave the European Union.

:08:46. > :09:00.Was that I guess Orono? I gave the answer I gave. You give a very clear

:09:01. > :09:07.answer to one question. You ruled out seeking an extension of the

:09:08. > :09:11.negotiating period beyond two years. I said as we go into the

:09:12. > :09:16.negotiations it is not our intention to extend that period of

:09:17. > :09:21.negotiation. You did not completely rule out completing the negotiations

:09:22. > :09:30.within the negotiating period but applying an implementation date at

:09:31. > :09:35.some point after 2019. That is specifically provided for in the

:09:36. > :09:47.treaty. That is what I'm seeking clarity on. Article 50, sub clause

:09:48. > :09:53.three. That is not about an implementation phase. It is about

:09:54. > :10:00.the period of negotiation. That is a matter of interpretation. It shall

:10:01. > :10:07.cease to apply from the date of the withdrawal agreement. That date of

:10:08. > :10:15.entry can be after 2019 and indeed, is generally understood to be that.

:10:16. > :10:21.That is why I've been asking you that question. I want clarity about

:10:22. > :10:25.that question. Sorry, chairman, in which case I misunderstood the

:10:26. > :10:27.question you asked me earlier question you asked me earlier

:10:28. > :10:31.because I thought it was about the reference at the end for the

:10:32. > :10:35.European Council to agree that the period be extended. That is the

:10:36. > :10:42.negotiating period. You give a very clear answer to that question. I'm

:10:43. > :10:48.asking you a different question. I would expect, I hope I tried to

:10:49. > :10:51.answer in the first place, I would expect us to negotiate a deal within

:10:52. > :11:01.the two-year period. We are all agreed on that. But there may be

:11:02. > :11:07.practical aspects which require a period of implementation after. That

:11:08. > :11:18.is what we will need, not just for us but business is on the continent.

:11:19. > :11:26.I quite understand. Just to clarify. You seek to use the discretion

:11:27. > :11:32.provided by Article 50 two negotiate an implementation date after the end

:11:33. > :11:40.of the completion of negotiations even if the negotiating period is

:11:41. > :11:46.within the two-year framework? We will discuss whether we need an

:11:47. > :11:50.implementation phase, whether the point at which the treaty ceases to

:11:51. > :11:54.apply may be a different issue from whether you've got an implementation

:11:55. > :11:59.phase. The reason I keep raising this question is because what I get

:12:00. > :12:01.privately from major financial magicians and businesses is we are

:12:02. > :12:05.at risk of walking towards this at risk of walking towards this

:12:06. > :12:12.cliff edge and what they want is some kind of assurance or they will

:12:13. > :12:16.take measures now. One financial institution has given me this, they

:12:17. > :12:20.did not want to be named, but give me permission to read out. I've

:12:21. > :12:28.posted this to the Chancellor as well on the basis of this, and he

:12:29. > :12:34.replied that all politicians would want a transition arrangements. He

:12:35. > :12:39.said, two years is unlikely to be sufficient to complete the changes

:12:40. > :12:43.needed. This document says, severe needed. This document says, severe

:12:44. > :12:51.disruption to client services might occur, causing financial instability

:12:52. > :12:55.and significant cost to the wider economy in Europe as well as

:12:56. > :12:59.globally. Firms may need to activate contingency plans at this point,

:13:00. > :13:05.that is now, rather than waiting until the terms of the agreement are

:13:06. > :13:10.known, leading to the instability discussed earlier in this document.

:13:11. > :13:14.That is what is being put to me and the Treasury committee and I think

:13:15. > :13:19.to a wide number of MPs and I think that is leading us in various ways

:13:20. > :13:24.to press for a commitment from you to press for a commitment from you

:13:25. > :13:33.for an early negotiation of some kind of transitional arrangement.

:13:34. > :13:39.That is what I'm hoping to get a commitment on.

:13:40. > :13:47.It is precisely because we understand that businesses may need

:13:48. > :13:51.that implementation phase that we are talking about that. It may be

:13:52. > :13:56.that government needs a period of time to ensure its systems adjust to

:13:57. > :14:02.whatever the new arrangements will be. Actually, the difficulty here

:14:03. > :14:10.and the uncertainty here, and I accept it is an uncertainty, that to

:14:11. > :14:17.-- the extent to which that is required depends on the deal that is

:14:18. > :14:21.achieved. Thank you very much, Prime Minister. We've had just over an

:14:22. > :14:25.hour on Brexit, I'm sure you'll come back to work on many more occasions.

:14:26. > :14:32.We will move on now to health and health care for half an hour. Prime

:14:33. > :14:38.Minister, do you believe the NHS can do everything it has promised with

:14:39. > :14:41.the money it has got? We asked the NHS to come forward with their

:14:42. > :14:47.five-year forward plan, they did so, we have provided the money they

:14:48. > :14:50.requested for that plan. We won't get into too much detail on the

:14:51. > :14:54.figures but there has been some discussion about whether that 10

:14:55. > :15:01.billion that has been quoted so often is accurate. I don't want to

:15:02. > :15:08.get bogged down in numbers today however. What I do want to know is

:15:09. > :15:14.the difference between the range the NHS asked for, what difference in

:15:15. > :15:19.NHS services would you see being delivered between 8,000,000,000 and

:15:20. > :15:25.21 billion? It's quite a different NHS they were asking. They put

:15:26. > :15:40.forward a proposal, the Government looked at it and then Fonda did. In

:15:41. > :15:47.2014/15 NHS budget was 19.1 billion -- there has been a 21 billion pound

:15:48. > :15:54.increase in real terms. NHS England is now looking at how and they are

:15:55. > :16:01.in the process of putting forward the changes we agreed. That plan

:16:02. > :16:04.also had for percentage efficiency savings which the NHS began to

:16:05. > :16:14.acknowledge but people were frightened to say in the early

:16:15. > :16:16.stages was just too great. The auditor general issued very strong

:16:17. > :16:20.words about how it was measured so how bad does it have to get before

:16:21. > :16:26.you acknowledge there is a sustainability problem with the

:16:27. > :16:30.long-term future of the NHS? What we have also seen in the past year is

:16:31. > :16:36.actually a number of hospitals who previously were in deficit coming

:16:37. > :16:39.out of deficit, managing their finances in a different way so the

:16:40. > :16:46.number of hospitals in that position has now significantly reduced. I

:16:47. > :16:51.think that what government did was the right thing, which was to say to

:16:52. > :16:57.the NHS, you determine what your five-year forward plan is and we

:16:58. > :17:03.have given backing to that five-year forward plan. Now the NHS is putting

:17:04. > :17:10.that into place. You must be aware that the productivity, spending on

:17:11. > :17:17.health is one of the most highest on positive returns on investment.

:17:18. > :17:23.According to the Lancet, it yields up to ?3 for each ?1 invested. Given

:17:24. > :17:27.the productivity gap in the UK, has this been a consideration by the

:17:28. > :17:32.Government more widely on health funding? I'm sorry, I'm not quite

:17:33. > :17:38.sure I have fully got your question. If you're saying the productivity in

:17:39. > :17:44.the NHS is extremely good... Know, if you invest ?1 and the NHS come

:17:45. > :17:49.you get ?3 back in the economy so there is a big benefit there. When

:17:50. > :17:54.people are sick, they are not working and that has a big impact.

:17:55. > :17:59.Has the Government looked at the wider benefits of investing in the

:18:00. > :18:02.NHS? You raised the issue of the service of the NHS and the impact

:18:03. > :18:09.that has on the wider economy by people being able to be in work,

:18:10. > :18:12.healthy, self-supporting and so forth, but looking at an aspects

:18:13. > :18:16.like that, of course one of the benefits of the seven-day NHS is

:18:17. > :18:21.precisely that it will have that sort of benefit. People will be able

:18:22. > :18:25.to access the NHS and a confident basis of the service they are

:18:26. > :18:32.getting across the week. For many people when they are able to do so.

:18:33. > :18:35.On the issue of the seven-day NHS, in a hearing on the Public Accounts

:18:36. > :18:40.Committee we heard from a senior person in the department that the

:18:41. > :18:43.additional ?10 billion which you mentioned, which we have heard of so

:18:44. > :18:48.often from the Government, we asked if it would cover the seven-day NHS

:18:49. > :18:52.but he said it had not been costed because it is "Difficult right now

:18:53. > :18:59.to get a precise figure or to get a mechanical approach to how you would

:19:00. > :19:03.deliver the seven-day NHS in different areas" and it hasn't been

:19:04. > :19:08.properly costed, would you agree? No, the seven-day NHS is being

:19:09. > :19:12.delivered in parts of the country on existing budgets. Very often it is

:19:13. > :19:18.about our delivery is taking place in different parts of the country.

:19:19. > :19:21.We have a very big reservation about how it will work but I don't want to

:19:22. > :19:28.get drawn down the alley because the bigger picture here is that there is

:19:29. > :19:31.currently an exercise to stabilise NHS budgets, extraordinary measures

:19:32. > :19:35.were taken to balance the accounts of the last financial year. You say

:19:36. > :19:40.it is getting better but we know there are problems ahead and a

:19:41. > :19:46.potential winter crisis taking money from other parts. All this makes

:19:47. > :19:51.assumption it is possible to match demand to the funding available and

:19:52. > :19:55.that's a big gamble, isn't it, Prime Minister? If that doesn't work, and

:19:56. > :20:00.the head of the NHS and Department of Health says it is challenging, if

:20:01. > :20:07.it doesn't work, what will you do? First of all, to NHS England but

:20:08. > :20:11.working with government, to ensure we do see the plans put forward,

:20:12. > :20:16.that we maintain the service in the NHS we all want to see, yes there

:20:17. > :20:21.are changes being proposed by the Government. You dismiss the

:20:22. > :20:26.seven-day NHS, I think it is an important... I didn't dismiss it, I

:20:27. > :20:33.said it wasn't costed. You passed on from it but it has some good

:20:34. > :20:39.examples of innovative approaches by hospitals in various parts of the

:20:40. > :20:43.country. I am asking what you will do if demand outstrips... Of this

:20:44. > :20:48.exercise to get the budgets to balance doesn't work, what will you

:20:49. > :20:52.do if demand does not match the money available? The focus we should

:20:53. > :20:57.have as a government at the moment is looking at how the plans for NHS

:20:58. > :21:01.England have for the next five years are being put into place, making

:21:02. > :21:07.sure the NHS is able to make the efficiencies that the NHS itself

:21:08. > :21:12.said they would be able to make. There is a question, an issue in a

:21:13. > :21:16.lot of areas for the demand that been put on the NHS and the

:21:17. > :21:20.expectations that people have of the NHS. We want to make sure that the

:21:21. > :21:26.service that people are getting is the right one, and that covers

:21:27. > :21:30.issues such as sometimes people put demands on hospitals when that could

:21:31. > :21:36.be dealt with at their local GP so there are issues that need to be

:21:37. > :21:40.addressed. I won't go through every example but let's take diabetes...

:21:41. > :21:52.Its increasing by an average of 4.8% per year and by 2030, 8.8% of the

:21:53. > :21:56.population are expected to have it. You take specialist services, all of

:21:57. > :22:01.these, the demand is going up but the funding won't be available to

:22:02. > :22:06.meet that demand. We are putting in a strategy in relation to diabetes,

:22:07. > :22:11.the aim of which is to reduce the number of people that develop type

:22:12. > :22:21.two diabetes. Diabetes takes 10% of the NHS budget, 18% of that goes on

:22:22. > :22:25.complications, partly about individuals but also partly about

:22:26. > :22:31.how the NHS managers that condition and how it helps those people...

:22:32. > :22:35.There was a truth in what you say but it is not going to overnight

:22:36. > :22:47.solve the issue of the increase is just on diabetes, let alone the

:22:48. > :22:51.other areas... Will you accept that on diabetes, actually there is an

:22:52. > :22:56.issue that's not just about preventing people getting type two,

:22:57. > :23:00.it's about the complications. I can refer you to our report on diabetes

:23:01. > :23:05.which said just that so I don't need to reply that here. Of course we

:23:06. > :23:09.will, as the Public Accounts Committee, it is not just about

:23:10. > :23:12.funding but funding we have acknowledged this year alone is an

:23:13. > :23:17.issue, and it will be apparent by the end of this financial year

:23:18. > :23:22.whether these plans to stabilise the NHS are working. I put to you that

:23:23. > :23:26.it's not good enough to say wait and see, it is more serious than that.

:23:27. > :23:30.What will you do personally and what focus have you got personally as

:23:31. > :23:38.Prime Minister if the NHS budget is in the same state it was at the end

:23:39. > :23:42.of the last financial year in March? The point I have made is a simple

:23:43. > :23:45.one, which is what we have been doing is working with parts of the

:23:46. > :23:51.NHS to ensure the financial management is in place so we see...

:23:52. > :23:59.86% of trusts are now hitting their financial plans compared to a year

:24:00. > :24:03.ago. That is careful work being done with the trusts to ensure they are

:24:04. > :24:06.able to meet those financial arrangements and the financial

:24:07. > :24:10.management that is necessary. That's where the focus should be because we

:24:11. > :24:13.all want to see the NHS providing the right level of service for

:24:14. > :24:17.everyone but we also want to make sure the management of the finances

:24:18. > :24:25.within the NHS is such that they are able to deliver that. Prime

:24:26. > :24:30.Minister, the number of elderly people in our society is growing,

:24:31. > :24:34.particularly those over 75, which is for celebration at one level but

:24:35. > :24:44.also a challenge to the public services at another. Will people

:24:45. > :24:48.receiving... The number of people receiving social care to 6000 less

:24:49. > :24:52.and is now around 1 million people who should be entitled to social

:24:53. > :24:59.care but not receiving it, putting great pressure on their families.

:25:00. > :25:05.The reason, real terms spending on social care fell by 9% over the last

:25:06. > :25:13.parliament. Do you agree that for social care, crisis means crisis? As

:25:14. > :25:18.I have said previously, I accept there are pressures on social care,

:25:19. > :25:23.that's why the Government has made available the opportunity for local

:25:24. > :25:25.authorities as has been set out in the local government finance

:25:26. > :25:29.settlement last week, the opportunity for extra money to be

:25:30. > :25:33.available to be spent on social care but there's also a question not just

:25:34. > :25:40.about those short-term pressures, but in the medium ensuring that we

:25:41. > :25:43.seeing delivery and best practice being introduced in terms of

:25:44. > :25:52.delivery of social care across the country. We talk about fewer people

:25:53. > :25:55.being able to access it, there are some areas around the country where

:25:56. > :26:00.we are seeing more people being able to access it as a result of the

:26:01. > :26:04.decisions local government has made, how they are operating their

:26:05. > :26:14.services. It would be interesting to see those figures, Prime Minister.

:26:15. > :26:19.Just coming onto the money from the statement last week, there wasn't

:26:20. > :26:32.any new money for local councils, is there? Because we will now have two

:26:33. > :26:38.3%s. The money for the extra grant comes from the new homes bonus which

:26:39. > :26:41.is money recycled in councils and we have the particular problem of the

:26:42. > :26:47.authorities with the lowest tax base in the poorest areas often with the

:26:48. > :26:56.greatest need, where the increase in the preset will not fund the cut

:26:57. > :27:02.they face next year. Isn't it true many authorities will have less to

:27:03. > :27:04.spend on social care than this? I'm happy to give examples of

:27:05. > :27:11.authorities where access in social care have gone up - commentary,

:27:12. > :27:20.Doncaster, Dudley and Derby, so there are areas where they are

:27:21. > :27:26.managing this -- Coventry. The decision was taken and announced in

:27:27. > :27:29.the local government finance settlement was to bring forward the

:27:30. > :27:35.opportunity for local authorities to increase the social care presets so

:27:36. > :27:41.that instead of having a 2% increase, they will have two years

:27:42. > :27:46.at 3%. Over three years it is the same money. What is then happening

:27:47. > :27:49.is what we are seeing us would go towards the end of this parliament

:27:50. > :27:55.is money from the better care fund going in, but I repeat the point

:27:56. > :28:00.that I think it is wrong to assume that the only solution in social

:28:01. > :28:04.care is the solution about funding. If you look at the different

:28:05. > :28:09.delivery, the levels of delivery that we see across the country,

:28:10. > :28:12.there are short-term pressures we have acknowledged, there is a

:28:13. > :28:16.medium-term job to be done in terms of delivery of social care and

:28:17. > :28:21.ensuring we see good practice, some very good examples of integration

:28:22. > :28:25.for example between social care and NHS trusts, good examples where you

:28:26. > :28:29.see virtually no delayed discharges from hospital beds because of the

:28:30. > :28:33.way this integration is being operated. We need to make sure there

:28:34. > :28:37.is reform in the provision of social care, then longer term we need to

:28:38. > :28:41.make sure we have sustainable arrangements so people can have the

:28:42. > :28:42.reassurance and comfort that social care will be available in their old

:28:43. > :28:55.age. All the evidence is showing a

:28:56. > :28:59.funding gap of ?2.5 billion to ?3 billion. It has been said it is

:29:00. > :29:04.nowhere near enough to address the funding gap. When I put the point

:29:05. > :29:10.she raised to Simon Stephens last week, whether we could sort this out

:29:11. > :29:14.by getting local authorities to get their performance up to the level of

:29:15. > :29:21.the best, he said you need to do something about that but you need

:29:22. > :29:34.more funding. I asked him about the point of integration. He said, the

:29:35. > :29:36.answer is no. If we integrate health and social care better, it is not

:29:37. > :29:43.simply true. I've set out what I simply true. I've set out what I

:29:44. > :29:49.believe we need to do in the issues of social care. We accept short-term

:29:50. > :29:53.measures. That is why funding has been changed to enable them to bring

:29:54. > :29:56.forward that increase in the social care precept and to obtain money

:29:57. > :30:02.from the new homes bonus. There is a from the new homes bonus. There is a

:30:03. > :30:04.delivery, about seeing what is delivery, about seeing what is

:30:05. > :30:12.working well open and how we can ensure the best practice. The

:30:13. > :30:15.reform, which is about integration of social care, in some parts of the

:30:16. > :30:23.country that is being done very well. There is a longer-term issue.

:30:24. > :30:29.A longer-term issue has not been addressed by governments for too

:30:30. > :30:36.long. They've dubbed this issue, which is ensuring a sustainable

:30:37. > :30:40.Germany last week and our thoughts Germany last week and our thoughts

:30:41. > :30:44.Berlin, we were in Berlin and we saw Berlin, we were in Berlin and we saw

:30:45. > :30:48.the Christmas markets. It is very poignant. The select committee was

:30:49. > :30:55.there and we saw a country which recognised a problem 20 years ago

:30:56. > :31:04.and came to that. They are building on that and adapting to that and

:31:05. > :31:09.taking it forward. It was said that we needed a deal for retirement.

:31:10. > :31:16.That has been asked for. They've called for a major review of social

:31:17. > :31:20.care and funding. As Prime Minister, are you prepared to commission that

:31:21. > :31:25.review and will you invite the opposition parties to join you in

:31:26. > :31:31.that so we can get cross-party consensus to get a long-term

:31:32. > :31:36.sustainable agreement on this issue? Any decisions taken on social care

:31:37. > :31:41.must last into the long-term. We want people to have that reassurance

:31:42. > :31:45.and that comfort. The government is already starting looking at this

:31:46. > :31:51.issue in relation to long-term social care. Any proposals brought

:31:52. > :31:55.forward, we want to discuss in Parliament. We want to make sure

:31:56. > :31:59.that we've got a solution that is going to be sustainable but this is

:32:00. > :32:04.not going to be an immediate sort of, let's have a quick review over a

:32:05. > :32:08.will need to look at it. Attempts will need to look at it. Attempts

:32:09. > :32:16.have been made already to come up with this. All parties were involved

:32:17. > :32:25.at the beginning. Some parties did not support it when it came to it.

:32:26. > :32:29.You spoke compellingly in your first speech in Downing Street about

:32:30. > :32:34.tackling the burning injustice of the gap in life expectancy between

:32:35. > :32:39.rich and poor. The gap is even greater for the years lived in good

:32:40. > :32:42.health, estimated to be around 19 years. Could you set out how would

:32:43. > :32:50.you will make progress on that pledge and monitor that progress?

:32:51. > :32:53.There is obviously not just one thing you can do that is the single

:32:54. > :33:00.thing that changes that. It has to thing that changes that. It has to

:33:01. > :33:12.be across a range of activities. To give an example and respond to the

:33:13. > :33:23.people, diabetes is an increasing people, diabetes is an increasing

:33:24. > :33:27.issue which affect them. That is something having a programme in

:33:28. > :33:38.place to adopt a healthier lifestyle. It could lead to

:33:39. > :33:41.complications that I am talking about. We know there are more than

:33:42. > :33:49.100 amputations every week because of it. That is one aspect and

:33:50. > :33:58.adopting a healthy lifestyle would have other impacts. A lot of this is

:33:59. > :34:02.the wider determinants of health. One thing that is lacking is clear

:34:03. > :34:12.leadership. Would you be prepared to think again about having this led at

:34:13. > :34:19.ministerial level so that we get clear drive and implementation

:34:20. > :34:21.across all government departments? The Cabinet Office has a

:34:22. > :34:29.responsibility to look at it more generally. The important thing, what

:34:30. > :34:34.I started to see already, I shall one of the Cabinet subcommittees and

:34:35. > :34:40.there is the social reform subcommittee and that brings

:34:41. > :34:47.together a variety of these things, looking at issues. We are seeing

:34:48. > :34:57.Department of Health, seeing that Department of Health, seeing that

:34:58. > :35:01.work can be a health outcome, that linkage of someone being able to get

:35:02. > :35:10.into the workplace, it can be parked of the process that part -- part of

:35:11. > :35:15.the process. We are seeing the linking of departments for that

:35:16. > :35:24.cross government approach. Are you going to set out how you measure

:35:25. > :35:31.that progress? The final point, life expectancy, we won't see that for

:35:32. > :35:35.several decades. Yes, and it is difficult to set out measures that

:35:36. > :35:38.explain what is happening because if you're looking at something like

:35:39. > :35:48.life expectancy it is not going to be an immediate thing. It is likely

:35:49. > :35:55.you were inputs rather than outcomes. One of the points you

:35:56. > :36:01.referred to as the issue of diabetes and the fact you want to reduce the

:36:02. > :36:06.cost of complications but really we should be looking way before that

:36:07. > :36:13.and reducing the number of people who contract it in the first place

:36:14. > :36:16.and we know that there was a clear call for radical upgrade in public

:36:17. > :36:19.health to look at these measures. The scale of the rise is

:36:20. > :36:24.extraordinary as we've just referred to. There was some disappointment in

:36:25. > :36:31.the childhood obesity strategy that we're missing important

:36:32. > :36:36.going to be more robust going going to be more robust going

:36:37. > :36:39.forward in how we use every opportunity, because some of these

:36:40. > :36:46.decisions are politically challenging? On the issue of

:36:47. > :36:52.diabetes, the NHS is introducing a diabetes prevention programme which

:36:53. > :37:00.is going to be working to ensure there is a behavioural change, to

:37:01. > :37:05.reduce the number of people who develop type two diabetes. There are

:37:06. > :37:13.some very specific ways in which we can deal with this. There are also

:37:14. > :37:17.things where the government has missed opportunities, people feel,

:37:18. > :37:20.because they are politically challenging and decisions around,

:37:21. > :37:27.for example, calling on the way manufacturers and retailers and

:37:28. > :37:33.market consumers, the area about discounting was missing from the

:37:34. > :37:36.final strategy. There is a sense where the government needs to do its

:37:37. > :37:46.part and take these difficult decisions. And government does. We

:37:47. > :37:49.will introduce the soft drink levy which will have a significant impact

:37:50. > :38:01.and mean we can put money into primary sport. Other projects as

:38:02. > :38:05.well, there is an important thing about helping young people

:38:06. > :38:06.understand about healthy eating and understand about healthy eating and

:38:07. > :38:13.a healthy lifestyle. There are a healthy lifestyle. There are

:38:14. > :38:18.decisions the government takes. There are certain areas and we've

:38:19. > :38:27.discussed these in the past where we feel it is about working with

:38:28. > :38:32.industry voluntarily rather than assuming legislation is the right

:38:33. > :38:40.way forward. Ultimately it is about encouraging people to be making

:38:41. > :38:53.decisions in terms of behaviour and what they are eating.

:38:54. > :38:58.The other thing is the call for public health to be supported and

:38:59. > :39:01.yet public grants are being cut at a yet public grants are being cut at a

:39:02. > :39:07.prevention if we are to keep the NHS prevention if we are to keep the NHS

:39:08. > :39:10.sustainable in future. You referred earlier, we don't want to get into

:39:11. > :39:16.an argument about numbers but not only are we seeing cuts to public

:39:17. > :39:22.health but also health education in England, huge challenges in terms of

:39:23. > :39:28.to the capital the NHS is receiving, working together at the same time as

:39:29. > :39:34.this extraordinary increase in demand, a 30% increase in the number

:39:35. > :39:43.of people living to 85 or over, happening at a time when the NHS has

:39:44. > :39:49.a historic low rate of growth. Can I join my fellow committee Cheers in

:39:50. > :39:57.calling absolutely for you to work with other political parties for a

:39:58. > :40:01.long-term sustainable solution. You say that you're working on the

:40:02. > :40:08.possibilities but do you feel we would have greater consent if, at an

:40:09. > :40:16.early stage, you were having cross-party approach. Past

:40:17. > :40:34.the case. It is important that when the case. It is important that when

:40:35. > :40:37.there is a decision taken, and by way of sustaining that, there will

:40:38. > :40:46.be a way to make sure everybody is part of that decision. Local

:40:47. > :40:51.authorities will be receiving more than ?16 billion for public health.

:40:52. > :40:58.The NHS is obviously spending money on prevention in a variety of ways

:40:59. > :41:02.and I think... You would accept there has been a cut in the public

:41:03. > :41:09.health grant? There have been waved to the way that -- changes to the

:41:10. > :41:15.way that public health is dealt with at local authority level. There are

:41:16. > :41:22.a number of areas where we need, it is absolutely right to look at how

:41:23. > :41:27.we can encourage them to display an show to people how changes in

:41:28. > :41:35.lifestyle and behaviour will be of long-term benefits in a variety of

:41:36. > :41:38.ways. People focus on things like tobacco but there are a variety of

:41:39. > :41:49.other areas where this is important as well. When you consider this

:41:50. > :41:58.long-term sustainable development can you assure us? These are

:41:59. > :42:03.budget, you need a combined budget budget, you need a combined budget

:42:04. > :42:07.but do you see in the future that we will have a combined health and

:42:08. > :42:11.social care system with a combined budget. Will you look at that in

:42:12. > :42:23.totality? I think it is important to look at

:42:24. > :42:29.health alongside social care. As I've indicated in answers I gave

:42:30. > :42:33.earlier, I think one of the things we need to ensure is happening is

:42:34. > :42:39.that reform at local level in the way in which health and social care

:42:40. > :42:47.work together. You're asking me a wider issue about the future of the

:42:48. > :42:52.departmental budget, but we certainly need to recognise the

:42:53. > :42:56.interaction between social care and health, the integration of working

:42:57. > :42:59.and how it can be done in a way that delivers for people but there are

:43:00. > :43:08.other aspects of looking at sustainable social care in long-term

:43:09. > :43:10.care. What I mean is looking at mechanisms to increase funding for

:43:11. > :43:20.social care, what I'm saying is will it also include how you fund health

:43:21. > :43:29.long-term because they are so closely connected? If you are saying

:43:30. > :43:33.are going to look at the whole net NHS budget is part of that, at the

:43:34. > :43:36.moment it is focused on social care but insofar as it interacts with

:43:37. > :43:44.health we will be looking out the health aspects of it. Thank you for

:43:45. > :43:47.that, Prime Minister. We've heard three committee members in a row

:43:48. > :43:56.saying I take the point you have replied to Sarah Wollaston on it,

:43:57. > :44:05.the greater sense of national awareness, the greater widespread

:44:06. > :44:08.this pressure that will remain in this pressure that will remain in

:44:09. > :44:10.the healthcare system the better, and I'm sure you have that point on

:44:11. > :44:18.board. I've also been passed a letter from the chairman of the PAC

:44:19. > :44:23.which you haven't yet had a chance to reply to, dated the 3rd of

:44:24. > :44:29.November. I'm sure you will take a look at that along with a number of

:44:30. > :44:33.other pieces of correspondence which the select committee chairmen have

:44:34. > :44:37.sent in over the last month for two to various parts of your

:44:38. > :44:41.governments, and anything you can do from your position in Number Ten to

:44:42. > :44:48.accelerate replies to our letters will be gratefully received. I just

:44:49. > :44:52.want to end by saying thank you very much for an extremely interesting

:44:53. > :44:56.session. We have been going for just over an hour and a half and it has

:44:57. > :45:01.been valuable with a wide range of questions and robust exchange of

:45:02. > :45:06.views. Thank you for coming and we will see you after... In this forum

:45:07. > :45:11.after the Easter recess, by which time we will have a much clearer

:45:12. > :45:14.idea what is happening on Brexit. Thank you.