you're watching bbc news at nine with me annita mcveigh — the headlines. the prime ministerfaces questions from senior mps on the details of her brexit deal. new video shows the sister of a syrian boy attacked at school and threatened with drowning — also being bullied and thrown to the ground. their family says they no longer feel safe. in the beginning i thought we are coming first century and safety but funi coming first century and safety but fun i solve what happened to my children, i didn't know what to say stop the hot summer is blamed as tour operator thomas cook reveals losses of more than 150 million pounds. branded unsafe — the hospital trust being investigated over alleged failings in maternity care, is rated inadequate by inspectors. good morning and welcome to the bbc news at 9.

it's a big brexit day for us this morning. theresa may is about to get a grilling from senior mps as she tries to gain support for her deal. thatis that is just getting under way. we'll bring you that live injust a moment. we're also taking an in—depth look today at how brexit will affect the nhs including the supply of vital medicines — so do get in touch if you have any questions about this — we'll be answering them at 11.30 — you can text 61124, email askthis@bbc.co.uk or tweet #bbcaskthis. all the usual ways. now let's look at the main developments this morning: we now know the timetable for the debate leading up to the vote on the prime minister's brexit deal — that debate will begin on december 4th, next tuesday, and take place over five—days. mps will be able to vote

on changes to the agreement. on the final day of the debate, december 11th, they will vote on whether to accept or wholly reject the deal. good news for the prime minister today has come in the form of a letter from commons leader andrea leadsom, part of a group of leave supporting ministers who had concerns over mrs may's deal. she has written to her constituents confirming that she will vote for the prime minister's plan. let's go to westminster now where the prime minister has started giving evidence to the liaison committee... come to pass will be through another vote of the people. there are ways in which some members of the house want to delay the exit, brexit as far as i am concerned ta kes pla ce brexit as far as i am concerned takes place on the 29th of march

2019, you will have heard from individuals within the house who ask about extending article 50, there are people who think the way to avoid brexit on the 29th of march is to extend article 50. what i'm saying is actually what people need to focus on and what i hope people will want to focus on is the choice before us of ensuring we deliver on the vote of the british people but do it in the vote of the british people but do itina the vote of the british people but do it in a way that protects jobs, security and this extending article 50 could result in no brexit at all, if that what you are saying? what i am saying is that if you'll is on to members of the house of commons, you will hear a variety of views as to what should happen on this issue. there are those, who will be happy to leave without a deal, there are those who wish to leave with a:d., there are those who don't want to leave at all and within that, there are people who think perhaps the route is a second referendum. i

think that is an attempt to frustrate brexit. there are those who talk about extending article 50, i think that is an attempt to frustrate the exit, and focused on frustrate the exit. and focused_o11 g the frustrate the exit. and focused_o11 % the british people delivering for the british people voted for. 0k, delivering for the british people voted for. ok, i delivering for the british people voted for. 0k, iyou looking delivering for the british people voted for. ok, i you looking at staying in the european economic area as a potential alternative if you're deal is defeated, is there any internal planning going on in number ten? as i have made clear, my opusis number ten? as i have made clear, my opus is on the boat that will take place in december here in this house. i think we understand that prime minister. i'm sorry,, what i am focused on, for the government is focused on is the book that will ta ke focused on is the book that will take place on december the 11th. you wa nt to take place on december the 11th. you want to look at all sorts of options and ideas and so on and so forth, i think it's important that members of parliament focus on the nature of this vote. this is an important

point in our history, it is a boat on which we will be deciding whether to deliver on the will of the british people and a good deal but i'd put forward doors that in a way... i understand that but in the responsible government will be planning in case the deal doesn't go through, the question i am asking you is if they're planning going on for a different approach it the deal is defeated? for a different approach it the deal is defeated ? because for a different approach it the deal is defeated? because it will be very strange if you said to us there is no planning going on. what has been made clearfrom no planning going on. what has been made clear from the european no planning going on. what has been made clearfrom the european union and was made clear at the weekend is that this is the deal that is being negotiated, this is the deal that people need to focus on when they are looking at the boat. 0k. the chancellor also said yesterday there will be a cost to leading the european union because there will be an impediment to trade, he he he is right, isn't he? the question, when this is often put in a brightly of ways, what will happen then we leave

the european union, analysis that has been provided by the bank of england, short—term analysis, of what would happen in a new deal scenario, the government and analysis that was provided to parliament sets out a number of potential, it looks at different comparisons, no deal, the government's white paper, eea, average freight free trade agreement, thought that looks at is the impact of trade... agreement, thought that looks at is the impact of trade. .. we've all read that, one thing surely that is clear from that is no deal is no longer better than a badly, that will be the worst outcome of all. that depends what a bad deal looks at, i suggest, that depends what a bad deal looks at, isuggest, but that depends what a bad deal looks at, i suggest, but obviously the impact of no date has been broadcast at the request of the treasury select committee by the bank of england. if you look at the issues that have been raised by this analysis, ford they show is that the deal that we have negotiated is the

best forjobs in the economy which honours the referendum and enables us... honours the referendum and enables us... is there a worse deal than no deal? the deal we've negotiated is certainly not bad, it's a good deal... you've just said no deal might not be the worst outcome because there could be an even worse one, what could that be? there isn't a deal on the table that is in that category. 0k, thank you. thank you chairman and thank you prime minister for coming to give evidence to us this morning. following on from what hilary benn said and given the analysis of by the bank and by the analysis of by the bank and by the government yesterday on how catastrophic a no deal will be, i know the prime minister takes her responsibilities to our country very seriously, will therefore that the prime minister rue out that whatever happens in the boat on the 11th of december that her government would consider leaving the european union without a d? we will be leading the

european union on the 29th of march 2019. -- european union on the 29th of march 2019. —— without a deal. when we come to the vote on the 11th of december it will be for parliamentarians and members of parliament to decide if they want to deliver on the vote the british people took, whether they do that with a good deal of which protects jobs into the future, we are promoting a good deal. but prime minister, that wasn't my question, i am asking whether you will rely the possibility that on the 29th of march we could leave the european union without a d, given what we know now from the bank of england, from your government's analysis, wood to prove that out as a possibility, it will be so catastrophic. the decision that the house of commons will take on the 11th of december, will be whether to support, ratify the deal that the united kingdom government has negotiated with the european union... if the house votes down that deal at that point, then there

will be some steps that will be necessary because obviously we have been doing no deal planning as a government, we have made certain information available to businesses, ata information available to businesses, at a point at which, if the house we re at a point at which, if the house were to vote down the deal that has been agreed, given that the european union has been clear this is the deal that has been agreed and this is the deal that is on the table, then obviously decisions would have to be taken, and there is action that would need to be taken.“ parliament votes down the deal on the 11th of december would you really, prime minister, given what we know from the analysis, contemplate taking britain out of the european union on the 29th of march without a d, without your d, any deal? if parliament votes down the deal on the 11th of december, there is then a process as you know thatis there is then a process as you know that is in the legislation for the length of time given for government to come back and make a statement about next steps but the timetable is such that actually some people would need to take some practical

steps in relation to no deal if the government, if the parliament were to vote down the deal on the 11th of december. 0k, to vote down the deal on the 11th of december. ok, let's turn out to your d, it's disappointing prime minister that your d, the withdrawal agreement and political declaration we re agreement and political declaration were not modelled on the government's of analysis and instead the analysis is on the july white paper rather than your deal. why was that, was because frankly there is insufficient detail in the political declaration to model it at all? as you know, the political declaration sets a spectrum in relation to balance of rights and obligations, access to the market versus a cce pta nce access to the market versus acceptance of rules. which obviously has an impact on checks at the border. what we have done, the detail of that is being negotiated, is still open for frictionless trade, what i have said in the house of commons and i have been honest with people, we haven't persuaded eve ryo ne

with people, we haven't persuaded everyone in europe about absolute frictionless trade, the ambition is there to be as near frictionless as possible, what we did do, we thought it was right to do, was to set out the sensitivity analysis of that spectrum and we took a midpoint on the spectrum, 50% sensitivity analysis which has been identified andi analysis which has been identified and i think if you look at some of the comments given about the analysis of the government has put forward , analysis of the government has put forward, for example the chief economist of the ift set tests to make sure mps could scrutinise appropriately and the report passes those tests and that something should be taken seriously. given that injuly of should be taken seriously. given that in july of white paper had should be taken seriously. given that injuly of white paper had in it frictionless trade and astute said prime minister, the political declaration wasn't even —— able to achieve that, could we assume the outcome of the political declaration without frictionless trade will be a worse economic outcome than what was

in the july white paper? what the analysis has shown is 50% sensitivity point, there is a spectrum in relation to that analysis which of course goes alongside the spectrum of checks versus a ccess to alongside the spectrum of checks versus access to the market. but it is not the case, it is still the government position that we will be negotiating to achieve frictionless trade. what you see in the political declaration and you'll see it in language around the ambition for the ambitious customs arrangements in the future is a clear recognition of the future is a clear recognition of the need to reduce that friction is what is possible. i think it's still better to reduce it to have frictionless trade, but as i say, there are those in the european union who have yet to be persuaded of that argument. the european union are very much in favour of frictionless trade, that's why they are in the single market and customs union, prime minister, said yesterday in pmqs that the analysis

is not show that we will be worse off in the future but the government analysis published yesterday showed we will be £100 billion a year as a country or soft, £1100 per person, per year, country or soft, £1100 per person, peryear, can country or soft, £1100 per person, per year, can you confirm under all scenarios analysed by the government analysis we will be worse off in the future compared with our current position in the european union, that's what the government analysis shows, isn't it, prime minister? can i clarify what i said in pmqs and why and made that point, i think if you went out to a member of the public and said we'll will be worse off outside the eu than we are today, they assume you mean worse off than today, that's not what we are saying, we off than today, that's not what we are saying, we are off than today, that's not what we are saying, we are saying the economy will continue to grow, we will be better off in the future, the question is about the relative rates of growth in the different models that are identified. the point is, being inside the european union is not an option... but you

can confirm though... what we have to look at us what is the best option outside the european union because people have voted to leave the eu and the best, for the analysis shows is that the best option outside the european union which obviously delivers on the vote by being outside the eu but is also the best for jobs and by being outside the eu but is also the best forjobs and the economy as the best forjobs and the economy as the government approach. the best forjobs and the economy as the government approachlj understand all that but can you confirm under all scenarios modelled by the government we will be worse off in the future compared with darker relationship with the european union? yes or no. what the analysis shows is that there will be analysis shows is that there will be an impact on the rate of growth in the united kingdom looking ahead, other things being equal, but of course. . . other things being equal, but of course... but other things will not necessarily be equal. this is why i made a slightly, but some might regard as a slightly flip comment about forecasts and economic forecasts in response to a question

in the state and on monday or last week, but the point is there are many variables that can change, that will impact in relation to what happens to our economy outside the european union. some of those are in our hands, decisions that we will be taking as a government, obviously there are other aspects in terms of there are other aspects in terms of the international trade, in fact, in 2020, 90% of growth is due to be outside the european union. with respect, that is all modelled in... no, it is not all modelled. the trade assumptions about growth and the rest of the world is modelled on the rest of the world is modelled on the trade assumptions are in the government's analysis, the government's analysis, the government's analysis, the government's analysis show under all scenarios we will be worse off compared with our current relationship, that is what the government and analysis shows. the government and analysis shows. the government analysis doesn't not identify, was not do with all the issues i spoke about, it doesn't deal with decisions government by take. it cannot stop it assumes we

come to trade deals with the united states, australia, new zealand and other contexts am a bad trade assumptions are in the government analysis. prime minister, you said that austerity is coming to an end but economic analysis shows that will be less government income when we leave, how are you going to end austerity? we are already showing how we end austerity, we end austerity in the budget, in... that's now, but when we leave, there will be less money and yet you said sturdy is coming to an end, 20 billion going into the nhs for example, in lot of other demands as my committee had routinely, how will we end austerity of the financial talent is we have? what we are going to do in terms of bending austerity is ensure we are able to continue to deal with our debt and c are dead falling, but i put more money into public services, we will be doing that as the economy grows into the

future, as the economy will continue to grow into the future... but prime minister, sorry, you said in response to rachel reeves the economy will grow at a lower rate in your view on the basis of the economic analysis, there's less money coming in so will you be raising taxes or increasing debt? the economic analysis shows trade impactand the economic analysis shows trade impact and that trade impact shows the impact on the rate of growth in the impact on the rate of growth in the future, other things being equal, that things will not necessarily be equal in terms of government decisions and so forth. that's why i say you have to be very careful when you cold the analysis in looking at exactly what it is. but if you look, but in the spending review we will be setting out the spending path and plans for the government over the next three—year survey and we are outside the european union. there are many aspects that will go into that, there are many issues, i could point out to you, not in answer to your question but i could point out to a

separate point of the bank of england analysis shows are deal has the deep dividend. the bank of england analysis, mark carney has set we will see the worst recession since the 30s. there will be less money coming in. the spending review... the bank of england analysis is a no deal situation. that's one of the options out there as the chair highlighted, we have a rocky vote coming up in the next 13 days, given for we are at the moment and the spending review could be the first post brexit spending session for the government, there will be less money available under any analysis, how are you going to end austerity, well that's spending review be a cut round? austerity, well that's spending review be a cut round ?|j austerity, well that's spending review be a cut round? i am not going to city and tell what the spending review will have in it... but prime minister, you have two options, increased debt or raise taxes, obviously there is a lot more to it but in simple terms. there is

a lot more to it with respect, and those are not, let's look, let's look at some of the circumstances, backin look at some of the circumstances, back in the summer when we announced the money into the national health service, there is money we will no longer pay into the european union but we also spoke about the fact at that stage we thought we might need to ask people to contribute more through taxes in money we put into the national health service. what we saw in the budget, we have been able to show how we fund that nhs increase without raising taxes, this is why i am saying, these aren't absolutes, that either you do or you don't... there are many variables. we get a lot of smoke and moors about —— from your ministers about how finances going but today we hear, the met police, are not investigating a third of all crimes. we purred through my committee and receive routinely real challenges in

the public services, if austerity is over you will have to fund that somehow, we will have less money coming in after brexit, what is the plan? and you will see how we will fund public services over the next three years when we announced the spending review. on the withdrawal agreement as my colleague highlighted, that hasn't been properly modelled yet, either other plans to have modelling of that before parliament, before the board? the withdrawal agreement? yes, the political declaration. the political declaration sets out, i been clear about what the government will be aiming to achieve. but the government analysis look at different options but not the option thatis different options but not the option that is before us. will you be doing that? there is a spectrum identified in the political declaration, we will be negotiating in relation to the rights and obligations, access to market versus checks necessary,

what we have done in the analysis andi what we have done in the analysis and i think it's entirely right and proper, accepted by external bodies, we have put the sensitivity analysis so people can see, have some idea of the impact of the variation of for we appear on the spectrum. the aim of the political declaration, the clear intent of the political declaration is to be a slowdown in the spectrum as possible, i will continue to argue for it to be frictionless. is there any more information coming to parliament about the vote about the economic impact of brexit on the basis of the deal that has been struck western market can i move onto the preparedness of government, my committee has produced 19 islands reports on the last year looking at government preparedness and there is a real concern the very best outcome is suboptimal, especially if we crash up without a deal, what are you going to be doing to make sure there is robert support for business and taxpayers generally to deal with the apple of brexit given that we

have shown, demonstrably shown government departments will not be ready on time. as you know the treasury has put money available and has made money available to government departments to prepare for a deal and no deal, that is entirely right and proper, all those arrangements... we know the money is there they acknowledge, many your civil servants, that it suboptimal, able not be able to deal with everything perfectly on the 29th of march, do you agree? on the 29th of march, do you agree? on the 29th of march if we agree the withdrawal agreement, we will leave the eu but the limitation period will give us a period of time, we will continue to operate much as today, therefore the issue i think you are questioning is no deal preparation, if we come out on the 29th of march without a deal, what with the reparations be? as i've made clear there will be key decisions to be taken depending on the outcome of the vote on the 11th of december. thank you, chair, you

we re of december. thank you, chair, you were in scotland yesterday for a flying visit, what seemed almost like a valiant attempt to drum up support for your deal, scotland will be worse off, the scottish government reckons it could be £1600 per person for every scot. we did not vote to leave the eu, apparently 70% of people want to stay, why should scots even start to think about getting behind you do? this is about getting behind you do? this is a good dealfor the whole about getting behind you do? this is a good deal for the whole of the united kingdom. if you look at what we have seen in scotland, is being supported by the scottish fishermen federation, by the national farmers union of scotland, by employers like the ig over i was yesterday at the bridge of weir, we discussed supply chains across europe, the importance of note tariffs, the political declaration is clear, no quantity restrictions, rules of origin requirements, these are good for

employers across scotland. and we went into the eec as all of the united kingdom and we leave it in that way —— diaggeo. united kingdom and we leave it in that way -- diaggeo. according to the latest opinion polls every local authority in scotland voted to remain in the uk, there is a message from scotland to you, now is not the time to leave the eu to make us worse off. we have negotiated a deal that will be good forjobs and good for the scottish economy and that is reflected in the remarks that have been made, as i say by employers and organisations in scotland. scotland is part of united kingdom and what is part of united kingdom and what is most important that the scottish economy is its continuation inside the internal market of united kingdom. how can you reject so utterly every representation that was made to you by the democratically elected scottish government to try and soft in the

political impact scotland, you looked at issues were due, across the family of nations, much as their own specific economic profile, why was it all right for every other pa rt of was it all right for every other part of the uk family but it was not right for scotland ? part of the uk family but it was not right for scotland? first of all, i'm afraid i don't accept the premise of the question that you've given to me. what we have is particular arrangements for northern ireland because northern ireland is ina ireland because northern ireland is in a different situation from any other part of the united kingdom because of a happy land border with a country that is a member of the european union. we have also, the other protocols which are specific to the wider united kingdom family, the protocol in relation to gibraltar and the protocol in relation to gibraltarand in the protocol in relation to gibraltar and in relation to the sovereign base areas on cyprus. it is not the case that every single pa rt is not the case that every single part of united kingdom or the united kingdom family has a specific arrangement made for it. it almost seems like a loss,. turning to

immigration, the one achievement about this deal you have crowed about this deal you have crowed about is the ending of freedom of movement, scotland's population growth is almost totally predicated on inward immigration, absolutely vital to our population tomography and to our economy. can ijust get this absolutely, abundantly clear? what you will be doing is stopping people below a threshold of £30,000 from coming to the united kingdom and that will mainly be logical people with lower skills, young people with lower skills, young people at the beginning of their careers, is that roughly the understanding, what you are trying to achieve by ending freedom of movement? what we are doing is delivering on the boat that took place, ending free movement, i believe, was a key issue for many people in the united kingdom. and we will be ending free movement. what this will enable us to do is to put into place and immigration system

which applies to the whole of the world outside the uk. up until now we have been able to have immigration rules for countries outside the eu but not inside. we will be able to have a single immigration system covering all of those, we asked the independent aggression by surrey committee to look into this issue to consider the shape and form such an immigration system could and should take, taking into account the requirements of the uk economy. they did that and their proposal was that rather than having it here to cap, a number etc which we have had up until now for outside the european union we should move to the european union we should move to the skills —based system with a proposed salary threshold that would determine those rules. that's really helpful but this reciprocal agreement, what we do to european union nationals, they will do to us. that means people with low skills from the united kingdom, young people at the beginning of their careers will equally not be allowed

the same rights of access to the european union. no, first of all youth jumped to an assumption there, thought i was talking about was the immigration system that will be independently put into place by the united kingdom government... europe will do to us what we do to them. you are making an assumption and i have to say i do not think that this you are expecting young brits to go abroad as they have just now... we have been looking at a variety of issues in relation to young people particularly. 0ne issues in relation to young people particularly. one of the areas we have lived that is the sort of programmes which have enabled stu d e nts to programmes which have enabled students to take advantage of membership of the european union but if you look at the section within the political declaration, you will see of course, we will be looking at the mobility arrangements that are in any trade... isn't it the case the rights that you and i had to

live, work and love across a continent of 28 nations is going to be deprived to our young people because of your obsession with immigration? nope. and i refer you to article 53, the parties agree to consider conditions for entry and steeper purposes such as research, study, training and youth exchanges. so you're not ending freedom of movement? we are ending freedom of movement, we are, what freedom of movement, we are, what freedom of movement that gives automatic rights to people living in the european union that are not available to people outside the eu. in future, we will end that automatic right that comes with free movement, what we will put in place is our system of immigration rules which will apply across all countries and it will be across all countries and it will be a skills —based rather than based on the country that someone comes from. when we applied to the european union... we are going to move on to

security, defence and borders. prime minister, good morning. can i start i seen huge respect for the energy you've applied to this and trying to get the best deal possible for our country. nobody could have worked harder than you. can i ask you first over plans you have to govern in the event that you win the vote on the zist event that you win the vote on the 21st of december, given that you be doing so without the dup? again, a lot of questions based on assumptions. we are talking to the dup as we talk to other members of parliament about the vote that will ta ke parliament about the vote that will take place on the 11th of december. but none the less you have to plan for the worst—case scenario and it's highly likely given the remarks made by arlene foster that she will be facing the future without your confidence and supply partner. the dup themselves have said the confidence and supply agreement

remains in place. i saw arlene foster and other representatives, as idid foster and other representatives, as i did that sinn fein, sdlp and others when i was in northern ireland on tuesday and we discussed yesterday concerns the dup have raised with some of the arrangements in the withdrawal agreement, and obviously there are some issues with which they are concerned which fault to the uk government as a sovereign decision to consider our response. so if you win on the 11th of december you expect the dup to continue as they are at the moment? asi continue as they are at the moment? as i say, they have set themselves the confidence and supply agreement remains in place. can you name a single trade agreement outside the eurasian customs union which does not allow a party to the agreement to withdraw or notice other than the one phil proposed in the withdrawal agreement. anywhere in the world which does not allow one party to

withdraw on giving sufficient notice? what we have in the withdrawal agreement is an agreement that sets out the arrangements for us that sets out the arrangements for us leaving the european union and within that the backstop, the protocol for northern ireland, which ensures that at all stages if it is the case for future relationship is not in place we are able to continue to meet are guaranteed to the people of northern ireland that there will be no hard border. within the withdrawal agreement it's set out that there are ways in which it's possible to end that backstop, obviously the best way is not to use it in the first place, the second is to get into the future relationship, there are all alternative, it does not have to be used, but there are, we can ensure there are arrangements in place, the key here is always ensuring through the arrangements we see in the withdrawal agreement

prior to the future relationship coming into place which deals with this, that we deal with the commitment ? we cannot unilaterally withdraw from this arrangement.“ you think about the nature of the insurance policy that the backstop is, this is about ensuring and committing to the people of northern ireland that there will be no hard border between northern ireland and ireland and that means in the circumstances where the future relationship which would deal with that, the future relationship is not in place. the question is, what then comes in? what has come to be known as the backstop, the possibility of alternative arrangements, all of those clearly from the withdrawal agreement would only be temporary. that is understood and well laid do you share my worry that the backstop is sold as a prefab? i do not for a

number of reasons, first of all there are many, as you will see, a number of references throughout the withdrawal agreement that indicate this is only temporary. 0ne withdrawal agreement that indicate this is only temporary. one of those of course is the issue about article 50 which cannot in itself as a legal base lead to a permanent relationship but it is also, its not just what is relationship but it is also, its notjust what is in the withdrawal agreement but actually if you look at the backstop neither side thinks the backstop is a good place to be, the backstop is a good place to be, the united kingdom is worried about the united kingdom is worried about the implications of the backstop but the implications of the backstop but the european union is worried about the european union is worried about the implications of the backstop as well, for example if we haven't agreed an agreement for access to fishing waters which by definition almost certainly would not have been because the future relationship, if you're in the backstop you don't

have the future relationship then the european union would have no access to uk waters. you have anticipated my question because i was going to ask what you felt about the comments from president macron because he does not agree about the temporary nature of the backstop or its ability to secure more advantages from the united kingdom if we got to the point where we wish to re m ove if we got to the point where we wish to remove ourselves from the agreement. i think it would be good for president macron and others to perhaps recall the position that would apply in the backstop which is the one i havejust would apply in the backstop which is the one i have just set out which if there is no agreement on access to waters and that agreement is part of the future relationship, the agreement of how we negotiate access to water is, if that's not in place which by definition if you are in the backstop it would not be because if it's in the future relationship it would not be in the backstop if the future relationship was in place

then there would be no access to european waters. if you lose on the 11th of december would you consider going back to the european union and suggesting that the time limit to the backstop that was being negotiated and is still being talked about in dublin for example might be inserted which is likely to get it over the line for a number of collea g u es over the line for a number of colleagues and might just over the line for a number of colleagues and mightjust about to get this through the house of commons, do you think that's a possibility if you lose on the 11th of december? the temporary nature of the backstop is within the withdrawal agreement, at no stage was there any indication that a set time limit for the backstop could be in the withdrawal agreement, what stops the backstop is the future relationship or alternative arrangements being put in place that enable us to continue to give our guarantee to the people of northern

ireland for the future for the no ha rd ireland for the future for the no hard border. and indeed, the european union has made clear there is no deal without a backstop and, the taoiseach just a couple of days ago made the point a couple of days ago, he was knocked speculating on no deal, you cannot avoid a hard border through goodwill, political state m e nts border through goodwill, political statements and wishful thinking, you need to have agreements in place that enable that take place. everybody knows the prospect of a so—called hard border between northern ireland and the irish republic has been a crucial factor in forcing us to stay in a customs union, so please tell us, under what circumstances could a hard border be erected between northern ireland and the irish republic? first of all, if

i may, the statement being forced to stay in a customs union might imply to some listening that that could be the long—term permanent relationship of the united kingdom and the european union and it is not. this isa european union and it is not. this is a temporary arrangement until the future relationship is in place, it need never happen. can we stick to my question, under what circumstances could be hard border be erected? we have said we would do everything in our power not to exercise, not to have a hard border but we are not the only party to this arrangement. 0bviously but we are not the only party to this arrangement. obviously there is the irish government, i havejust said, as the taoiseach has made clear, sometimes it is said to me everybody says they won't have a ha rd everybody says they won't have a hard border but as, the point he has made is, you cannotjust rely and put a little statements for no hard

border, you have to have the arrangements in place which enable no hard border to be erected. you have still not answered the question, under what circumstances could be hard border be erected or are there no circumstances under which a hard border would be erected, for example if we leave on the 29th of march without a deal and i know you don't want us to and you are doing everything to avoid that, but if we do with their have to be a ha rd but if we do with their have to be a hard border, would that be an example of when a hard border would have to be erected. that would not bea have to be erected. that would not be a decision entirely for us. the point is potentially in the no deal scenario we would do everything we could not to erect a hard border but it would be a decision for the european union and the irish government and the concern that they would have would be about the fact we would then be in a different set of circumstances and how do you check those? do you accept there are

some circumstances under which a ha rd some circumstances under which a hard border might have to be erected? because hard border might have to be erected ? because otherwise hard border might have to be erected? because otherwise what are we worried about? that is the point, the point is that because you cannot guarantee there will be no hard border in all circumstances unless we have put in the arrangements to ensure there is no hard border. lets assume that we are in some scenario whereby a hard border will need to be erected, who under those circumstances, whatever they may be, who would insist on a hard border actually being built if for example we leave with no deal in place, who would insist on a hard border being built if people felt it had to be built, with the uk under any circumstances insist on putting a ha rd circumstances insist on putting a hard border with the irish republic

underany hard border with the irish republic under any circumstances insist on putting a hard border, or with the eu itself in any circumstances insist on putting in a hard border? ican insist on putting in a hard border? i can only speak for the insist on putting in a hard border? i can only speakfor the uk government and i've made it clear if we leave the european union in a no deal scenario we will do everything in our power to avoid a hard border. so, let's assume that then, that in circumstances unspecified somebody is insisting there must be a hard border, who would actually build it? with the uk build it? with the irish republic build it? or would the eu build it? iasked republic build it? or would the eu build it? i asked you this question on the 17th of october but she did not answer it, you just stated that we are all working to ensure there will be no hard border so please answer it now. who would physically put this hard border in place? we

certainly wouldn't, the irish certainly wouldn't, the irish certainly wouldn't, the irish certainly wouldn't and how could you possibly do it if neither of us were going to do so? again i can only speakfor the going to do so? again i can only speak for the united kingdom government in these matters and we have said we will do everything to avoid their being a hard border on, between northern ireland and ireland. others, decisions forthe other parties in this our decisions for them, not for me. but if they took those decisions they would find it impossible to implement because we would not build it for them and the irish would not build it for them so unless they are anticipating sending in the eu army to build it for them it would never be built so the whole amounts does it not to an excuse to keep us entangled with the european union for fear of building a border that is never going to happen underany a border that is never going to happen under any scenario whatsoever, that's the truth isn't

it? i disagree with that. i think it's important and if i mayjust address this point. this assumption, this point that is made that somehow the question of the hard border in northern ireland is a matter that has been pushed on the united kingdom government by the european union and the government of the republic of ireland, it's not, we have a commitment to the people of northern ireland and they are part of the united kingdom, i want them to be able to continue to lead their lives as they do today when we leave the european union. not having a ha rd the european union. not having a hard border, and enabling businesses to operate as they do today is an important part of that commitment that we have made. if i may refer again to the remarks the taoiseach made, what i will say is you cannot avoid a hard just too good well, political statements and wishful thinking. so it's important, it is important for us to recognise that we have a commitment to the people

of northern ireland. i believe that commitment is best mate, as does the taoiseach and the european union, through the future relationship we are going to have with the european union, that is why it's important that we have within the withdrawal agreement the commitments for both sides using their best endeavours to ensure that relationship is in place by the end of december 2020 so there's no question of a backstop, no question of an extension to an implementation period, because the, it's dealt with in the future relationship. i have to stop now but ican relationship. i have to stop now but i can only say that you have not said he would physically erect it and the answer is no one. prime minister i know you rightly care about the risks to the security of northern ireland and uk are immensely and know about the security risks to the country and the economic risks to the country if there is no deal, so knowing you for

20 years i just there is no deal, so knowing you for 20 years ijust don't believe that if your deal goes down you are the kind of person who would contemplate taking this country into a no deal situation, am i wrong? it will be a decision for parliament as to whether they accept the deal we have negotiated on behalf of the united kingdom. i believe it's a good deal. my kingdom. i believe it's a good deal. my issue is i don't believe you are the kind of person who can contemplate no deal even if you don't get this deal i don't think you will do it i think you will take action to avert it, am i wrong in my judgment? i have had a number of questions about what happens if. what i am saying is very simple, my focus is on the vote that takes place in december because i have negotiated what i believe to truly bea negotiated what i believe to truly be a good dealfor the uk.

negotiated what i believe to truly be a good deal for the uk.” understand all of that, i am asking about the kind of person i think you are but let me go into the specifics, can you confirm we don't have access agreed to the cis two database. and have access agreed to the cis two data base. and the have access agreed to the cis two database. and the express database. we don't have them specifically identified in the political declaration. what we do have is reference to an exchange of information on wanted a missing persons or objects and records but of course that is what they cover. you try to get the specific reference, you have got references to others so you have achieved some access to some specific things but you've not got access to those, but your security assessment assumes you have. that is not being straight with people about the risks to security of what you've currently got in your political declaration and in your agreement. as part of

the future negotiation is the nature of the access to those on that data exchange will be part of the future negotiations but it's with a view to delivering capabilities that insofar is technically and legally possible and considered necessary and in both parties interests ? this is about whether or not we have the capability or whether or not we are in the specific. you don't have an agreement and that is a risk. borders and customs, paragraph 23, we are going to build and improve on the single customs territory, does that mean alignment to common external tariff? no, it that mean alignment to common externaltariff? no, it goes that mean alignment to common external tariff? no, it goes on, that mean alignment to common externaltariff? no, it goes on, it makes clear it is in line with the parties objectives and principles above which includes us being able

to have an independent trading policy. why did you tell parliament on monday we've got an agreement to ano on monday we've got an agreement to a no rules of origins checks? that is within, if you look within the text of the political declaration you will see, i am just finding it ? its paragraph 23 and it says build and improve on the single customs territory provided for in the withdrawal agreement which includes alignment to the common external tariff, which obviates the need for checks on rules of origin. so your reference to the checks and rolls of origins is only in the context of the single customs territory which includes alignment to the common external tariff. it's wrong to assume that the only way to obviate the need is for rules of origin checks is for the united kingdom to be only able to apply the common

external tariff, that's not the case. the government published a white paper in july case. the government published a white paper injuly showing another way of doing this. so you have gone back to chequers? this is the customs partnership and stuff that we know the eu has rejected. no, one of the key elements of the political declaration is that the european union started off in the position of seeing their with no arrangements which would be available to the united kingdom other than what come to me at shorthand the norway and canada model, canada only for gb. in fa ct canada model, canada only for gb. in fact what they have now accepted is that there is the united kingdom having a different relationship with the european union, an unprecedented relationship with the european union because we will notjust be any third country and that means we are looking for an ambition in our customs arrangement which is set out

within the political declaration, is made very clear. the problem is you are trying to say to some people that you are going to get a frictionless trade and you will be pretty close to norway and trying to say to other people you will be close to canada, but you don't have agreement to any of those and in your head you are just resting on chequers and your facts which are already being rejected so once again that you are just not being straight with people. is your real problem here not that because you have not got agreement to any of this, because it's still a spectrum as your own documents say, actually you are releasing to people, trust me, i will sort it out in the second phase but because you are not being straight with people on any of these things, and whether or not we will have rules of origins checks, that you are not able to build up that

trust. first of all you said none of what i had said had been agreed and was in the political declaration including the fact we will have an independent trade policy, it specifically referenced, it was important for the united kingdom that we got that reference into the political declaration, that the european union accepts we will have an independent trade policy outside of the european union. that's a major, the assumptions around, there have been a lot of talk about whether it would be better to stay in the customs union which of course would not enable us to have that independent trade policy, and the model as you say, at one end of the, one of the two models that the european union originally started off thinking we would need to have would have required that, it would also have not ended free movement. but what we have, what we have in this political declaration is agreements on, i was clean about the

fa ct agreements on, i was clean about the fact in relation to frictionless, absolutely frictionless as opposed to as near frictionless as possible but we've got agreement in relation to know tariffs, fees, charges or tariff restrictions. what is clearing this is the next stage gives effect to this relationship. we are going to move on. prime minister, thank you for your points so farandl minister, thank you for your points so far and i recognise your unwillingness to predict an unquestionable future but could be least look at a certain past and ask what have you learned from these negotiations given we are now only about half through anyway? i'm not sure it's something i've learnt specifically from these negotiations because obviously i was involved in negotiations with the eu and i was home secretary. what has been reinforced by these negotiations is that if we are rigorous and robust

in our defence of our position we can change the view in the european union. i think one of the best exa m ples union. i think one of the best examples is what i've been talking about, seeing it can only be norway or canada but now they have accepted that a customs relationship and trade relationship beyond anything. it's noticeable they have moved on some areas, surely there are some things that she would now having conducted some of the most complex negotiations that there are some things you would do differently wear you to be in 2016 today? looking at the negotiations, the lessons we have taken from it is that it's, it's not just, sometimes have taken from it is that it's, it's notjust, sometimes people look at negotiations as sort of great theatre pieces, i think what we have seen from the work it's been done,

the way you get through and the way you get to change is through patient and painstaking argument on the issues and the details. and painstaking argument on the issues and the detailslj and painstaking argument on the issues and the details. i would agree with that. but surely some of this is to do with the structure as well. there must be some elements of the structure you feel you would wish to do differently, for example the fact that david davis appears to have only been in brussels for a few days does question whether a brexit department was the right way to go or whether it would have been better to bring the levers of foreign influence under the foreign office are indeed under you through the cabinet office? of course, i think, i think it was absolutely right to set up the department for exiting the european union. because there area number of the european union. because there are a number of functions the department is undertaking and one of the things the department has been

doing is looking at the preparedness for the deal and for no deal and that's something which has been led by that department. of course negotiations were always going to be across government, there have been other departments involved where it's been an issue specific to those but it was never specific to those negotiations and it will not be in those negotiations that it's just one person against one person, it ta kes a one person against one person, it takes a lot of work streams and people across departments being involved in it. there were a few moments which left me surprised, seeing you walk out of the meeting in salzburg we are to see the prime minister surprised by the outcome of one of the most important talks that's been conducted on behalf of this nation raised certain questions as to whether or not the foreign office had prepared its advice properly, whether the advice had been fed through properly or whether it had been taken on board and what

the permanent undersecretary of state said the other day to our committee was that the advice had been prepared properly so fly where you apparently surprised by the reaction of european leaders and does this suggest there is a better way of coordinating for the next stage of talks? certainly i have no complaints with the advice that was given by the foreign office or indeed by all the others involved in this. i think all i would say as there are sometimes moments in these negotiations where a particular position is taken and is in any negotiation on either side, when the other side takes a position as a decision to take as to how to react to that and i felt it was right to act the way i did. the brexit department now has a very different role to what was envisioned when it was set up, does this mean you will look to change from some of the civil servants from diplomats

involved in foreign relations to those more involved in domestic policy to focus on preparing the united kingdom for no deal rather than preparing us for negotiations? thejob than preparing us for negotiations? the job they than preparing us for negotiations? thejob they are than preparing us for negotiations? the job they are doing is preparing for, it has a role in preparing for no deal but it also has a role ? studio: the details of the prime minister's deal and the prime minister's deal and the prime minister herself under intense scrutiny on areas including the economy, business, trade, security, some interesting segments on the possibility of no deal, rachel reeves mp asking the prime minister if she would rule out the possibility of the uk leaving the eu without a deal next march given the bank of england and the government's on analysis and she did not rule that out, yvette cooper says no new for 20 years i don't believe you would be the type of person who would be the type of person who would contemplate taking the uk into no deal even if you did not get this deal. you can keep watching that on

bbc parliament, here is the weather. a wild morning it's been so far, deep area of low pressure spreading north bringing gales and severe gales, heavy rain particularly england, wales and southern scotland throughout this morning, are likely to be further disruption also minor damage. gusts of 60, 70 mph perhaps higher across coastal areas will clear out into the north sea as we head into this afternoon, it remains windy throughout the afternoon, not quite as what we can expect in the next few hours, sunshine and blustery showers are moving in another mile bay particularly england and wales. tomorrow looking better, good spells of sunshine, across the northern half of the country certainly scotland gales are severe gales again with showers, longer spells of rain across the west and a cooler feeling day generally. heading to the weekend it remains unsettled, wet and windy,

but miles across england and wales. hello, it's thursday, it's 10 o'clock, i'm victoria derbyshire. good morning. theresa may refuses to rule out that the uk could leave the eu without a deal, as she's grilled by some of the most senior mps in parliament this morning. we will be better off in the future, the question is about the relative rates of growth in the different models identified. being inside the european union is not an option. what we have to look at is the best option outside the european union because people have voted to leave the eu. we'll bring you the highlights of that session. our exclusive story today: we expose the letting agent demanding £300 upfront to simply view a property and sometimes not