philip hammond will be outlining his spring statement and we can joinjoe cockburn in westminster. it's wednesday and after last night's devastating defeat for theresa may we are live in westminster for a specially extended programme until 2:30pm this afternoon. we will bring you prime ministers questions at noon and then the chancellor's spring statement as mps prepare to vote again tonight on whether to rule out a no—deal brexit. joining me today, brexiteers can preservative steve baker, liz

kendall from labour who to put another referendum, laura hughes of the financial times and henry newman from the eurosceptic think tank open europe. i'm very disappointed parliament are in turmoil as just 16 disappointed parliament are in turmoil asjust 16 days disappointed parliament are in turmoil as just 16 days away from brexit there is still no clear way forward. the eu says its our problem not theirs. the house of commons again says what it doesn't want. now this impasse can only be solved in the uk. but that is not what boris johnson thinks. it's always in the final furlong but horses change places in the eu when they make a concession it will be at the end. so can theresa may keep control of her party and brexit with the promise of a free vote tonight on rolling out no deal? has there been a monumental

failure by the whole political class, the government, the opposition, parliament, that no one seems to be able to sort this thing out? there has been a monumental failure. i don't think it's the fault of the eurosceptics. we have been clear about what we want to do. we have published it in documents. there has been a catalogue of negotiating errors. i think it is a monumentalfailure because negotiating errors. i think it is a monumental failure because the political class is trying to deliver a soft brexit as possible. they made a soft brexit as possible. they made a mistake after a referendum. the prime minister wasn't honest and straight with the public about the choices brexit inevitably brings. either you are going to try and stay as close as possible to protect jobs, stop a hard bona in northern

ireland but you lose your say of the rules, or you do what steve once which is to cut all ties and end up with a lot of risk and possibly chaos. because we have not been honest about these choices that's why we are in this mess and i think theresa may has done that because she is desperately trying to keep her party together rather than being straight and honest with the public about the inevitable choices. the challenge for mps now is to absolutely make those choices and options clear. we have to show the leadership that the prime stand government has failed to do. the public is in despair. business is in despair. steve, you say you have been clear, your wing of the party, but what you want. but isn't it time to ta ke but what you want. but isn't it time to take some responsibility and for every member of parliament to say we

have contributed to the situation and we are —— in order to change that we are going to have to do something quite radical. that we are going to have to do something quite radicallj that we are going to have to do something quite radical. i am happy to ta ke something quite radical. i am happy to take responsibility. since i have resigned have done everything to avoid coming to this day. after the last vote when we voted last —— down the deal we publish a better deal which we were offered about a year ago. but you represent a small part of parliament. but we are clear about what should be done. that is what the conservatives stood to do. last night we defeated the agreement again and set out a compromise led by damian greene. we keep bringing forward constructive solutions. we know what we want. we don't want to cut all ties. we want to have a relationship with the eu. it is very

frustrating to keep being constructive and find that instead we have a government determined to try and deliver brexit in name only. isn't this full still continuing the issue? you want a second referendum and stave on something on the other side of the political spectrum and there is still no meeting of minds. isn't it time for politicians to hang their heads in shame? no we need to show leadership because blaming everybody else and not taking responsibility in providing a way forward would be a huge mistake. what i think is that the public has to be involved with this because what is on offer now is so very different from what was on offer during the referendum when people we re during the referendum when people were promised we'd hold all the cards we have the same benefits and have the easiest trade deal in human history. we need to involve the public and having the final say about how and where we go forward. that will be difficult. i am not

underany that will be difficult. i am not under any illusions about how difficult that will be but mps now. involve the public in where we go next. brexit was on offer last night. it may not have been a brexit that you wanted, steve baker, but by voting against that a deal, you and your colleagues have risked, for all those millions of people who voted to leave, brexit altogether. my two responses very briefly. the first is as late as 10am, when we received geoffrey cox's legal advice, we were yearning to find a vote for the deal. i have heard you say that all morning. is that true? were you sitting there saying we want to vote for this deal? i am not in the habit of lying, we were sat in the room and having a deep, searching discussion about what we were doing and geoffrey cox's advice came in and geoffrey cox's advice came in and the last paragraph ended the conversation. the second point that i want to make is we are tabling the

malthouse compromise to try and get forward to a point where we are united and we can get out with a deal. you mean the conservative party are united. a labour mp has signed up to it and it is based on fa ct, signed up to it and it is based on fact, documents which are available. with respect, it is time to end the fudge and it is time to end the delusion. the country deserves better than this and i want to see parliament rule at no deal, get some extra time, being pragmatic here... you are making a mistake. the extra time has to be for a purpose and that purpose is to set out the different choices and options, see if parliament can vote in favour of any of those and say to the public, is this what you want or do you want to stick with the deal we currently have? i to stick with the deal we currently have ? i know to stick with the deal we currently have? i know it will be difficult but it is the right way through this crisis. of all of the campaign groups i am in touch with regularly, several times a day, all of those campaign groups were furiously imploring us to vote against this

deal. this is one of the things being forgotten. this deal, even if it was carried through to its fullest extent, would leave us in a single customs territory which the eu would understand to me the single market, to avoid the regulatory alignment that turkey have and it would be a disaster. if you have your convictions on that, give it to the public. the idea that there is massive support for a second referendum is misleading. massive support for a second referendum is misleadinglj massive support for a second referendum is misleading. i have never said that but people are changing their minds. the public don't want a general election and they don't want a second referendum. people have different opinions. don't talk over each other. henry, finish your point. john curtis, the top polling expert in the country, the idea that there is a big majority in favour of a second referendum is misleading. 80% of parliamentarians voted to trigger article 50 to start the process to

leave the european union. i don't think parliament wants no deal. i can understand steve's faith with no deal, i disagree with him, but there are in the conservative party some who have pronounced misgivings about the deal. david davis resigned over brexit and brexit policy but decided la st brexit and brexit policy but decided last night that this opens offers enough for him so there are divisions opening up. but there were catastrophic defeats. 230 and 150. there were some switches, as we call them. we are sitting here today with another vote coming this evening and another vote coming this evening and a series of amendments. laura, what will mps be voting on? they will be voting on taking off no deal on the 29th of march and we can see some amendments, one by caroline spelman and yvette cooper, labour politicians who want to take no deal off the table entirely. last night was a huge defeat but fell to the public as if nothing had changed but

i think what has happened is that theresa may has lost control over the direction of what happens next, thatis the direction of what happens next, that is clear. mps do have something they can do here and it depends a lot onjohn bercow and the amendments he selects. there is also the malthouse amendment that steve was talking about. there is a huge divide now because there will be a free vote on the government's motion on stopping no deal and they will whip against all amendments and there is an argument over that because some eurosceptics in the cabinet want a free vote on the malthouse amendment and others will wa nt malthouse amendment and others will want a free vote on the spelman amendment. let's have a look on the government motion, because theresa may promised last week that in the event her deal was rejected, she would then give the commons the chance to take no deal off the table. this is the motion.

presumably, the agreement ratified is hers. if that motion is put to the house, you, i presume, will vote to keep no deal on the table.|j think to take no deal off the table isa think to take no deal off the table is a catastrophic negotiating error. the reason we are getting a bad deal here, the reason that geoffrey cox was not able to achieve very much, is because parliamentarians, i think recklessly, have acted against the national interest to take no deal off the table. if they would only stand firm, we would have a deal worth having. and you will be voting to ta ke worth having. and you will be voting to take it off the table? yes, i will, i think the risk and uncertainty of no deal would be really bad for businesses, jobs, public services, eu citizens, and i think you can see from the tariff schedule that was published by the government today, it would have real

knock—on consequences. government today, it would have real knock-on consequences. you can solve that one by voting for the deal.|j don't think the deal solves the fundamental questions we face about the future relationship, that is why i voted against it. you too are clear on the way you will vote on that but as i understand it from that but as i understand it from that motion, that would effectively ta ke that motion, that would effectively take no deal, if that is what happens, off the table but only until the 29th of march and it is not legally binding, is it? what will happen if that motion passes is i suspect the prime minister will go to the european council and beg for an extension. she will have to get that agreed by the 27. i agree with steve that there are very big problem say about the negotiations are now closed. the reason geoffrey cox wasn't able to achieve much was because ultimately the negotiations we re because ultimately the negotiations were locked down in december and we we re were locked down in december and we were seeking tweaks. so if it is not legally binding in that sense, the amendment that i will now show you and the viewers, the one you were talking about from caroline spelman

and jack dromey, . .. talking about from caroline spelman and jack dromey,... now, that is a simplified version of the government motion to say that no deal should be taken off the table come what may, evenin taken off the table come what may, even in the event of an extension, it should never be the default option. i think the government's motion, you know, the prime minister is still trying to keep no deal on the table. and her agreement. as i said, ithink the table. and her agreement. as i said, i think the time for fudge is over. we have to go back to the fundamentals, the reason we have had this problem over the backstop is because we haven't taken a decision about whether we are going to stay as close as possible to the eu, so we stop a hard border in northern ireland, or whether we cut all ties and until we face up to that question and are honest with the public about it, we are going to keep going round and round. you said earlier you had a problem with the withdrawal agreement, so your

concern is about the future and that isa concern is about the future and that is a non—binding part of the declaration. that is where we will head beyond brexit. all we are discussing with the eu is our divorce but you didn't want to talk to us about the future. the reasons we have the problems with the backstop is it because we haven't taken the fundamental decisions about the future. because you fundamentally disagree about what it will look like. let's talk to another conservative mp. what are you going to do this evening?” another conservative mp. what are you going to do this evening? i was very unhappy that the government lost on the deal last night and i think it is imperative now that we have not got an ideal brexit for security of jobs have not got an ideal brexit for security ofjobs and investment. have not got an ideal brexit for security of jobs and investment. but it would not legally bind the government, it would not still —— michael did not still be the default that if there is no agreement reached with the eu, we leave without a deal. you are absolutely right, tonight is only part of the process , right, tonight is only part of the process, an important part because it enables us to then move on to

looking at the extension, but even thatis looking at the extension, but even that is only part of the process because, as you are implying, that doesn't provide an alternative so what i would like to see is next week to move on to a series of indicative votes so we can test the mood of the house to look for a consensus on the best way forward for a deal. are you happy with the wording of the government motion or would you vote for the amendment to simplify it, and in a way, if not legally binding, make sure no deal is taken off the table in perpetuity? given how absolutely key this vote is tonight, i would go with either the government motion or the spelman motion and the decision to which one igo motion and the decision to which one i go with will be based on which one i think has the best chance of winning. let's have a look at this picture, steve, you are in it, but this is to demonstrate wings of the conservative party which you think are coalescing around what you call the malthouse compromise. the

problem with the malthouse compromises that the eu will never sign up to it. why is it that you and your colleagues keep pursuing proposals that the eu has already rejected, and in this case, they will not allow you to buy a transition period unless you agree to the divorce bill quest but i think you underestimate the credibility of damian green. he is the lead name on the amendment and you would not expect him to put it to something that was some sort of impossible negotiating tactic with the eu. the malthouse compromise consists of three things. first the continued for a plan a, which was to replace the backstop with alternative arrangements and there was the alternative that on the brady amendment. i understand that, andi brady amendment. i understand that, and i must interrupt you, because michel barnier tweeted, said listening to debate on house of commons there seems to be an illusion that the uk can benefit from a transition in the absence of the withdrawal agreement. let me be clear, the only legal basis for a

transition is the withdrawal agreement and no withdrawal agreement and no withdrawal agreement means no transition. there isa agreement means no transition. there is a slight complexity. plan a means of rescuing the withdrawal agreement thatis of rescuing the withdrawal agreement that is there and that is what the brady amendment was about. the second part of the plan b is to offer them a financial settlement, about 10 billion a year, in exchange foran about 10 billion a year, in exchange for an implemented negotiation period. that has been rejected. remember that negotiation is a movable feast. it didn't work with geoffrey cox when he asked to reopen the withdrawal agreement, and they may be wrong, the eu, they may be totally wrong on this and you may be com pletely totally wrong on this and you may be completely right, but if we look at what has happened thus far, there is no evidence they will reopen it. they might look at the political declaration which is the separate document on the future relationship. but what happened in the course of this round with geoffrey cox is that he was dropped off at the knees who we re he was dropped off at the knees who were trying to take no deal off the table that broke the ministerial code and they did something they ought not to have done against

government policy. the third part of the malthouse compromises to take advantage of the areas that will call standstill is which would give us call standstill is which would give usa call standstill is which would give us a basic transition even in no deal. we've had multiple embassies tell multiple of my colleagues there is no such thing as no deal. the reality is that the eu will not renegotiate the backstop. they will not throw ireland under the bus and we should not want to put at risk a hardboard we should not want to put at risk a ha rdboa rd and what we should not want to put at risk a hardboard and what has happened over the good friday agreement and i think if you keep doing the same thing over and over again... maybe tell the prime minister that. there is an issue that the prime minister is an issue that the prime minister is not capable of changing course, and that is catastrophic for the country. and isn't that true? she should stand down. so someone can come in and show the leadership the country needs. you cannot change. do you agree that you cannot change course? that does seem to be the

evidence of recent history. should seek stand down? —— she stand out?|j would be well advised to say no more about it given past events and we have to make the best of the circumstances we are in and i don't wa nt to circumstances we are in and i don't want to give further comment on the prime minister continuing leadership. jonathan, in terms of leadership, and with what liz kendall has said, do you have faith the prime minister can change course and actually sort this out?” the prime minister can change course and actually sort this out? i hope she can and i think she can. she has been slowly moving on the votes, like today's vote, and that indicates she is moving in what i would say is the right direction but she now needs to sound out the house and realise that getting a deal through her own party alone is not going to work and that's consistently been proved. she needs to reach out and look for a compromise deal. so this is about going across the house. will that happen? she has resolutely refused to do it because she doesn't want to split the conservative party and its

failed twice. she should take a cross— party failed twice. she should take a cross—party approach and it should have happened at the beginning but there is a big danger of putting parliament in charge because we are seeing different groups of parliamentarians pursuing fantasy versions of brexit, none of which will happen and there is a danger that if you allow a majority to coalesce in an old direction you get something not negotiable with the eu. what is an odd direction? if there were indicative votes would you accept the outcome of a majority. if in the end we underline the parliamentary process by saying a majority is going to be carried on let's say a customs union, and i know you are against it and there will be many in the house that agree with you, but if that work to command a majority, would you accept that? if it were put to the public, yes. so liz, you are not prepared to accept it to be put in front of parliament? you can't blame me for arguing what i believe is the right thing, not that we just make a choice about the future relationship with the eu but that we get the

consent of the people. i said before to david lidington, if the prime minister had agreed to put her deal to the public, i would have let it go through the house of commons. jeremy corbyn didn't even mention a second referendum in his statements to the house. this is supposed to be the labour brexit policy, the deal rejected a second time, so where is the labour policy on this? it's unbelievable. the prime minister did say that quite clearly, notjust because it's labour party policy and it's what labour members and voters want, but i think it is the only way. but do you think it would command a majority?” way. but do you think it would command a majority? i don't know because we haven't tried. who can be confident of a majority on anything? you can be absolutely confident that there is a majority for the withdrawal agreement if the brady amendment had been fulfilled. but the eu won't agree to that. we must explain to viewers that this is a process that has to be done with the eu, rightly or wrongly, process that has to be done with the eu, rightly orwrongly, oryou

process that has to be done with the eu, rightly or wrongly, or you leave without a deal. it is the case in legislation in the uk which members of parliament voted for in the usual way that in our legislation and in international law we leave with a without a deal on the 29th of march andi without a deal on the 29th of march and i would prefer to agree to a relationship that donald tusk offered us that was for the whole uk, that is what i would like to achieve that but the only way we will achieve it with the withdrawal agreement is change the backstop and that requires mps to stand firm and table the legal text. what you say to this instagram post from donald tusk? i think you can all see it. this is from sophie, aged six and she has drawn a unicorn at the bottom and i will leave you to work out why. dear mr tusk, bottom and i will leave you to work out why. dear mrtusk, i bottom and i will leave you to work out why. dear mr tusk, i live in britain andi out why. dear mr tusk, i live in britain and i know we are leaving the eu but i think we should be friends. please make i have a signed photo of you for my europe book. donald tusk says, we will always be friend, sophie. this is embarrassing. what is the president

of the european council doing? serious negotiations and he's playing on instagram? in general, tweeting a word... god bless her, i wa nt tweeting a word... god bless her, i want us to be friends with the european union as well as i've said on french and german television. but you are chasing unicorns, steve. children's drawings are wonderful and that is marvellous but on the point about the alternative arrangements for the irish border, we've tested proposals with officials as everyone has seen in the media and thejoint officials as everyone has seen in the media and the joint work stream has been established. that is an a cce pta nce has been established. that is an acceptance that it is not magical thinking or pursuing unicorns and the facilitated customs arrangement is probably pursuing magical technology and unicorns. i am sure we are being practical, pragmatic, based on current technology and current administrations are ready to table a solution and move on. there

is an issue for the prime minister andl is an issue for the prime minister and i understand the reluctance for indicative voting, because it means she is relying onjeremy corbyn to get the deal through and would split the conservative party. unless something changes. we will be back here again and again and i think the public does want a solution to this. i don't believe that this prime ministercan i don't believe that this prime minister can deliver because she's incapable of changing course. on that i will say goodbye to both of you, liz and steve and we will welcome in the other guests in a moment, but in the meantime, let's go to belfast and talk tojohn campbell, our business correspondence about the new tariff regime announced by the government in the event that the uk leaves the eu without a deal. can you tell us about it? there is a very special provision in the new tariff schedule and in effect the government has said that here are the tariffs with the goods coming into the markets from countries around the world and

there are tariffs cut to zero on things like clothing and shoes and there are high tariffs on things like meat and dairy products. but when it comes to products entering the uk in terms of northern ireland and those coming from the republic of ireland, no tariffs at all. zero ta riffs of ireland, no tariffs at all. zero tariffs on any goods coming from the republic of ireland into northern ireland and the government said they had to do that in order that they can honour the pledge there will be no hardening of the irish border. but having done this it raises all sorts of questions about how it will actually operate. what has been the reaction? from some in the business community they are frankly furious about the way it will work. someone we spoke to from the northern ireland food and drink association said this was effectively a reverse backstop that favours the republic of ireland because if you remember, in the backstop northern ireland

would have had privileged access to the wider uk market and to the eu and in this arrangement, the republic of ireland, a company there could ship their goods into northern ireland tariff free and if they are dishonest they could ship them across the irish sea into the great british market without a tariff and at the same time that the republic of ireland are still in the eu, they would have access to them so that would have access to them so that would benefit republic of ireland producers and you have situations where businesses in northern ireland would face tariffs if they ship into the republic of ireland or the wider eu so businesses in northern ireland have taken an extremely sceptical view of these proposals. the bottom line is that you could end up with a situation where goods coming from the south to the north have no tariffs, goods going from the north to the south do have tariffs and the government have said that this would have caused put northern ireland producers at a disadvantage but we are in the situation and the only thing they can do unilaterally to one of the promise is that, to not

harden the border. john, thank you for explaining. anneliese dodds is here, and the prisons minister, rory stewart. rory, you can understand the fury and scepticism in northern ireland because you are creating a 2—tier system in the event of no deal. in the event of no deal, yes, we have to make a difficult choice which is why we have to avoid no deal. it's one example of many of why no deal would be deeply and unnecessarily disruptive and damaging and we need a pragmatic moderate brexit. how much consultation have you done on the note tariff deal? i was talking to a civil servant last week who had been in ireland as part of the team talking to businesses in northern ireland but there's no doubt it is difficult. we are having to weigh up the security of the good friday agreement against the interests of northern irish businesses which we don't want to do and that is why

amongst many other reasons we should be going for a deal and we need a pragmatic exit. the head of the cbi has said that the removal of tariffs would be a sledgehammer to the economy and it is frightening for business. it is, and there is a bigger, more frightening thing is that the problem with the no deal is that the problem with the no deal is that it that the problem with the no deal is thatitis that the problem with the no deal is that it is a sort of zombie deal. there still wouldn't be in the consensus in parliament for what the future deal with europe or anywhere —— anywhere else would be. that is why we need to lock everybody in a room and force them to compromise. are you going to lock everyone in a room and force them? the government has failed to get its deal through, so it is on you that this no deal 2—tier system is going to come in. you've come to the right man, i'm the prisons minister. and a comedian, it would seem. just a response generally to the tariff regime published, is this project via by the government to persuade

recalcitrant mps to get behind a third go at the meaningful vote or this is a practical step that needs to be done? i am disturbed by it because it reveals the chaos at the heart of government. i looked at what came out from that regime and it's very different from what the government said it would do in the customs bill and i sat in the committee where we were told we would have a different trade regime ina very would have a different trade regime in a very different approach and what we heard from governmentjust now, we we re what we heard from governmentjust now, we were told we would have a variety of different approaches towards trade as part of that bill and the trade bill which is still going through parliament, and again a different approach here. the government must realise there is a huge amount of concern, particularly around things like food pricing and they are responding to that with some measures and amber rudd said there might have to be a hardship scheme for people because of food pricing and they should be saying that we will not have a no—deal brexit and be forced into that position later today and then we can

deal with the problem. position later today and then we can dealwith the problem. does it position later today and then we can deal with the problem. does it prove the point that you can keep the border open and you can work out a trading relationship and actually if you plan properly, no deal needn't be as frightening as it seems? that is not right because it isn't about the irish border itself, it is about the irish border itself, it is about the irish border itself, it is about the weather european union will respond so we can let irish goodsin will respond so we can let irish goods in but it is how... let me defer to henry. we still don't know what the european union's policy would be in the event of no deal and the european land border, they may say they want a hard border between northern ireland and ireland and other countries are discussing de fa cto other countries are discussing de facto kicking ireland out of the customs union. this is serious and at least the uk government has put forward proposals, very belatedly. anneliese, you can call it chaos but we don't know what labour's policy is. jeremy corbyn yesterday didn't

even mention a second referendum. you can explain labour's policy. before i come over, you can repeat labour's policy but in terms of the response from the european commission, the eu would apply normal wto tariffs on trade with the uk if no deal, their spokeswoman said we take note of the uk plans for temporary tariffs in the case of no deal, we will carefully analyse the compliance of the uk plan with world trade organisation law and the eu's right there under. the differential treatment of trade on the island of ireland, because, as you say, that would be the external border of the eu and they would want to protect the single market, and other trade between the eu and uk raises concerns. in the event of no deal, the eu has already made clear it would apply its normal third country regime to all trade, including the uk, and apply tariffs on all trade from the uk into the eu. can i clarify what that would

mean? if you are selling sheep from britain, from northern ireland into ireland, you would pay a 40% tariff. importing the other way would be zero. which is why we need a deal in place. so are you prepared to change the deal to get the votes of labour to get it through? yes, a small change could be possible but fundamentally, this is a 500 page document. the unrealistic thing here, we heard keir starmer stand up in the house of commons yesterday and say that he absolutely believes the withdrawal agreement was essential on citizens' rights, essential on citizens' rights, essential in the northern island border, essential in the money and his disagreement seems to be on a non—literally binding text but in the end, we need a deal. we haven't mentioned the dup. the outcome of what the government is suggesting what the government is suggesting what they will do will put northern irish farms at a disadvantage. that is huge, northern irish businesses

are putting the dup behind—the—scenes, because it is all behind—the—scenes, because it is all behind—the—scenes, under a huge amount of pressure and i think this morning was designed to remind the dup of the consequences of their not voting for the deal if it came back again. will it work? i don't know, but they are under a lot of pressure. the eu are looking for a way to climb down and the attorney general's advice wasn't enough —— the people are looking. they could be ina the people are looking. they could be in a position where there is legislation applying to northern ireland that is imposed over their heads and creates regulatory diversions from the rest of the uk, thatis diversions from the rest of the uk, that is a legitimate concern but within the gift of this government to resolve. it absolutely is within the gift of this government and what we have seen, sadly, is a conservative party, with the leader theresa may, which is not willing to be what rory rightly called for, to be what rory rightly called for, to be pragmatic. it is not willing to look at the views of the rest of parliament or business outside. in what way has labour demonstrated it is going to do that? particularly by

saying we need to wake up and smell the coffee and recognise we have to have a customs union with the rest of the eu. but in what way has labour compromised to come to a consensus? what hasjeremy corbyn donein consensus? what hasjeremy corbyn done ina consensus? what hasjeremy corbyn done in a leadership frame to do that? a number of times, he has asked theresa may to talk to him, genuinely, to negotiate. he refused the first time. that wasn't the first time, we have discussed this before, jeremy had offered many, many times but we just heard from rory again, who i hugely respect, that there may be very, very minor changes to this we could look at. actually, we need to have an open mind from theresa may, we need to have a genuine negotiation. 0ur position has been clear and it is very upsetting that we are not getting anywhere with time running out. the big word here is compromise and the unfortunate reality is there are still eight different positions in the house of commons and it is terrifying with 13 days to go and, in the end, we got to compromise and

you have put yourfinger on it. the problem is that everyone is very good at reciting their position again and again and no one is prepared to budge a quarter of an inch andi prepared to budge a quarter of an inch and i would like to get one example from labour of any compromise you are prepared to make. if we were able to have the discussion properly with theresa may and for example talk about moves towards some version of a customs union, that would be wonderful but she has said she is not willing to talk about that. we are so close, the withdrawal agreement gives you everything that you need to get your customs union. you have no logical reason not to vote for the withdrawal agreement. your question is around the political declaration, which is not legally binding. if you will just move which is not legally binding. if you willjust move a quarter of an inch. what would anneliese have to do? what would anneliese have to do? what is the quarter inch on the customs union because the accusation is it is a customs union within the withdrawal agreement anyway. temporary one and businesses i talk to, ithink temporary one and businesses i talk to, i think a lot of people watching this will be saying what a farce,

all of these politicians arguing with each other and not thinking about what is going on outside. business are really worried about the medium to long—term impact of all of this, notjust implementation period. what bureaucracy will be there? what additional charges and tariffs will be there and if we are not ina tariffs will be there and if we are not in a customs union it will remain. all very good questions but the point is compromise on keir starmer yesterday said that as far as he was concerned, the backstop kept us in a customs union. he said there were no legal measures were getting out of it. then within that period. the long term, we have no end of delete —— no indication that the prime minister... when i talk to business, they think this is important. that is not on offer from the eu, you won't get that, you don't want to homogenise state aid rules in a customs union. do you accept as it is, it may be part of a

negotiation, but the labour policy is on the assumption that the eu will give something it is not yet prepared to give, and that is allowing you to be part of a customs union and a free trade policy as well? we haven't had a serious negotiation over this at all. we haven't because the government hasn't been willing to give us that. colleagues in europe are willing to give as that. tonight, which way are you going to vote? are you going to vote for the government motion or the amendment, which would reduce the amendment, which would reduce the framework, if you like for taking no deal off the table.” the framework, if you like for taking no deal off the table. i will vote for the government measure and the reason is i feel very, very strongly that no deal is completely unnecessary, absurd, and it is very easy to get these two sides together. that only takes you to the 29th of march. no, it takes us beyond because we are saying we are not prepared to leave on the 29th. that is not my understanding from reading the government motion, which is why there is an amendment to clarify. 0ur political editor is here and luckily, she will clarify

for me. does the government motion, to make it easy for all of us to understand, does it mean no deal is taken off the table beyond the 29th of march, the date for departure? not on its own, no, it doesn't and it is not a government bill that changes the law, so, no. so what the motion says is that we do not accept leaving with no deal on the 29th of march. it then goes on to say that in the end, the only real solution to this is a deal and as someone who believes we should deliver a brexit deal, i still believe that. for clarity for our viewers, minister, the motion today, if it goes through the motion today, if it goes through the house and it probably will, does not legally stop anything happening and it is important to be honest about people —— back to people about what that is. much it may do is indicate that parliament may never, ever allow us to leave without a deal but that is still the default position. and it is the default if we getan position. and it is the default if we get an extension, an extension

for two or three months. that would still be the default, that we leave without a deal if nothing is agreed. well, in the end, we have to have brexit and a deal. they require two things. some people who want to take no deal off the table want to remain in the european union. i am in a different position, people voted for brexit and we should have a moderate, pragmatic, measured approach which requires compromise. let's have a look at this motion again because when i saw it first of all last night, it seemed convoluted to me because why can't you just say, if that is what you want to put forward as the government, that you ta ke forward as the government, that you take no deal off the table? the second part that says leaving without a deal remains the default in uk and eu law unless the house and the eu ratify an agreement, is that an attempt to say i am going to come back with my agreement for a third time and try and narrow the options further to bring down the number of people that voted against? it is certainly that, no question about it and plenty of ministers have said to me, over many months

but also in the last 24 hours, we will have another go. theresa may is not going to tear a pair deal partly because of the political impossibilities but also because she genuinely believes it is the only kind of zone where there might be compromised. we just heard how difficult that could be but that is still her belief. and if she does technically have another 16 days and if you are trying to run a business plan your life, it is no time at all. if you are a politician, 16 days is theoretically a very, very long time. understandably, to lots of viewers, that might sound insane. it sounds insane to a lot of people in westminster that suddenly this could alljust come good. the dominoes nearly fell yesterday. even the most enthusiastic supporter of the prime minister passed my policy might say calling it close by 149 votes is not bad zone. she is useless at reaching out but ultimately, it was possible

to see you could have seen some more members of the dup order erg moving. if the dup had moved, i think we could have seen more of the eurosceptics backing, could have seen more of the eurosce ptics backing, but could have seen more of the eurosceptics backing, but it didn't happen. the other point about this motion from a political point of view, there is a tactic, can you keep this alive as long as possibly can? the second point is about a tactic, that motion is crafted in that very tense, kind of confusing way because it allows members of the government who have completely different views over what they should do next boat to vote for it, because it is still the case that you have cabinet ministers who think this should be the moment to start moving towards a softer brexit, and they would use the extension period, if it happens, to argue that. but on the other side, you have five or six cabinet ministers who believe this is the moment to move towards a series of mini deals and giving up on the idea of an overarching framework. and in the middle,

another tribe in the cabinet who say let's keep trying until the last possible moment and then and only then we have to ship. so there will bea then we have to ship. so there will be a meaningful vote three?” then we have to ship. so there will be a meaningfulvote three? i think so and the reason for that is we keep concentrating on the prime minister and saying it is only her idea. listen to brussels, listen to europe. they keep saying it and some of my colleagues are disappointed with the labour party that they are not prepared to listen to what brussels are saying. brussels are saying this is the deal, this is the one we have negotiated and it is a good deal and many people are a bit surprised that pro—europea ns good deal and many people are a bit surprised that pro—europeans in britain are not prepared to give... so do you think the prime minister cannot communicate her deal properly? the problem is twofold. firstly, it is unbelievably difficult to unravel 40 years of a relationship with europe. the second is unfortunately party politics. people are being rewarded for intransigence which is why, at some point, people need to say we are going to compromise. the other point i think worth making about this,

while there are conservatives and people in the cabinet and many in the labour party and many people who left both parties because of the ructions over brexit, who would say why can't she just compromise, why can't you move to a consensus? that may well be the right thing to do and you can imagine in an abstract sense a softer brexit getting through parliament. the eu being ready to accept that. and we know labour has had a lot of contact with the commission about what might possibly be acceptable if this deal doesn't work in the long term. but the political reality for that is that if the prime minister moves to something much softer, it is very likely she would not be able to govern the day after that they got through the house of commons and keirstarmer through the house of commons and keir starmer interestingly basically accepted that when he talked to us la st accepted that when he talked to us last night and he suggested that, ultimately, that is the sacrifice that she might have to make, say goodbye to her premiership, may be say goodbye to 40 or 50 on her own mps because it is likely there would bea mps because it is likely there would be a rump of the tory party that

would throw their hands up say —— i can say i won't put up with this. so would that get through parliament? no. that is why it is abstract. the problem for the prime minister is that these other parties are never fully to be trusted on this. they will not say, if you will move this... i am not sure you can talk about trust in the conservative party. the reason is that in the end, we are assuming that if we took literally what keir starmer seem to be saying yesterday, that if we changed the political declaration, he would basically accept the withdrawal agreement and i'm pretty sure if everyone said that, the goalposts would move again. it is very difficult to believe people wa nt to very difficult to believe people want to compromise. can we just have a reality check on this? it depends who is reality it is. we have a government that is saying to its own mps we will give you a free vote on whether you have a chaotic, unstructured jump off a cliff brexit or whether we don't and that is the

situation we have currently within the conservative party i think for most people out there in the country, they are absolutely astonished at the recklessness of this position. i thought she was responded to what parliament wanted, no deal off the table? she is but not within her mps to make sure they vote against no deal and what she has been doing right through this has been doing right through this has been doing right through this has been focused on the internal dynamics within her party let's look at the dynamics in your party. at what point should the labour party say it is time for a second referendum and everything else has gone and it is a second referendum and we will pursue it relentlessly? we have a conference policy that says we will seek to change the deal and we are keeping on doing that but we said consistently that if we don't get anywhere and currently we don't seem to be getting anywhere, then we need to be getting anywhere, then we need to put it to the people. emily thornberry, shadow foreign secretary, has told bbc radio five

live that it is going to happen imminently, as early as next week. is that something you would support? i think the public are looking to us to try and get that discussion in that debate with government and we've not been able to have it. if we've not been able to have it. if we don't get it, emily is right, we need to put that back to the people. we are going into the house. it is prime ministers questions. iam sure i am sure the whole house will want tojoin me in expressing our deepest shock and sadness at the news of the air crash shock and sadness at the news of the aircrash in shock and sadness at the news of the air crash in ethiopian on sunday. 0ur air crash in ethiopian on sunday. our thoughts and prayers are with all 157 families —— hundred and 57 on board. i have sent a personal message or simply to the prime minister and extend an offer of uk assistance. this morning, i had meetings with ministerial colleagues including the international

development secretary who helpfully offered to teach me sign language. in addition to my duties in this house, i will have further such meetings later today. i'm sure all of us concur with the remarks about the disaster in ethiopian and many of us recognise the efforts of the prime minister to secure a deal, but given that we profitably trade with the majority of the world gdp outside of the eu are largely wto no deal terms, has the time not come to look beyond this remain dominated westminster bubble and for all of us to recognise that the default position of our votes to trigger article 50 is that no deal is better than a bad deal, so that we can honour the referendum and leave the eu on the 29th of march? mr speaker, it may be to the benefit of the house, and i'm

sure people will recognise if i keep my answer is shorter than usual today, may i say to my honourable friend that i want to leave the european union with a good deal, i believe we have a good deal and no deal is better than a bad deal, but i have been working for us to leave on the 29th of march and with a good deal. i absolutely concur with the prime minister's remarks about the disaster of the air crash in ethiopian and indeed the earlier crash in asia that affected the same aircraft and good eye at this point commend the civil aviation authority on the european union for taking prompt action about the safety of the aircraft concerned. we need to ensure that all air passengers are as safe as they possibly can be. mr speaker, the prime minister has been stubbornly declaring that the only choice is between her deal and no deal. last night's vote finished off her deal. tonight she is not even

showing the leadership to whip on no deal. just a few weeks ago the prime minister whipped her mps against ruling out no deal. so how will she be voting tonight? i will be voting for the motion standing in my name. well, mr speaker, there may well be other votes and her brexit strategy is clearly in tatters will stop her deal has been twice rejected and is now dead. and she's not even asking her mps to support her on it tonight. a couple of months ago the chancellor, who is here today and we will hear from chancellor, who is here today and we will hearfrom him later chancellor, who is here today and we will hear from him later reassured business leaders that the threat of a no—deal brexit would be taken off the table, while the business secretary said no—deal brexit would be ruinous to the uk economy and indeed the government's own forecast said no deal will be knocked off

10%. why is the prime minister still ambivalent about the outcome?” 10%. why is the prime minister still ambivalent about the outcome? i can say to the right honourable gentleman i have been working for leaving the eu with a deal and business organisations across the uk are business organisations across the uk a re clear business organisations across the uk are clear that they want mps to back the deal. yes, businesses worry about the uncertainty of brexit, but there is one thing they worry about more, and that is a jeremy corbyn government. the prime minister doesn't seem to understand. her deal has been flatly rejected twice by this house by unprecedented majorities and even this morning, the cbi has said that no deal would be, andi the cbi has said that no deal would be, and i quote, a sledgehammer to the economy and went on to say there has been no consultation with business adding that this is in no way the way to run a country. the

reason her deal is now dead is because at every step of the way, the prime minister has refused to listen, refused to listen to manufacturers, to trade unions about the best way to protect jobs manufacturers, to trade unions about the best way to protectjobs in this country which is to agree a customs union, and manufacturing is now in recession. many companies have laid off many workers. her own deal has been decisively rejected. when will she listen to those workers who are concerned about their jobs, she listen to those workers who are concerned about theirjobs, those businesses that are concerned about their future and accept the case that there has to be a negotiated customs union with the eu? when it comes to the cbi, they said that the labour government policies would lead to a drop in living standards. that's not very good for the people he claims to stand up and represent. but he talks about a customs union, which of course, was part of the proposals he put forward but it is

yet another position he has taken, moving to being in favour of a second referendum but i know that last night he did not refer to a second referendum. he hasjust spoken about a deal, a customs union, that has already been rejected, and in the past, very often, rejected by him. it would be rather reckless to rule out any option at the present time for the prime minister, i would have thought. i don't think her answer will help workers at honda in swindon, nissan in sunderland, or others very concerned about their future because of the danger to manufacturing. britain's food producers are also in despair. a coalition of uk food producers asked the prime minister to call for tariff free access to the single market. with her red lines now in tatters ? market. with her red lines now in tatters? will she backed the view of uk food producers and back close alignment to the single market to

secure their industry? after all, she promised at chequers there would be frictionless trade? can i say to the right honourable gentleman that the right honourable gentleman that the deal we have negotiated includes access to the european union on the basis of no tariffs. it might help if he'd actually read it. it was a former death row secretary who was capped —— defra secretary who is campaigning to leaving the campaign, saying that only a madman would leave the single market. the prime minister has previously said that you cannot just reject minister has previously said that you cannotjust reject no deal, you need to be for something. so, with her own deal so decisively rejected, can we be informed by the prime minister what is she now for? does she recognise the labour alternative, the five pillars we

look forward is the credible show in town available and ready to be negotiated? isn't town available and ready to be negotiated ? isn't it town available and ready to be negotiated? isn't it time she moved on from her red lines and faced the reality of the situation she has got herself, her party, this parliament and this country into? the right honourable gentleman talks about not wanting no deal yet repeatedly boats ina way wanting no deal yet repeatedly boats in a way that brings no deal closer. —— repeatedly votes. i must say the deal he has proposed has been rejected several times by this house. i may not have my own voice, but i do understand the voice of the country. order. the house must calm itself. i will deal with what the prime minister has to say and everybody

has to say, and it should not be necessary for voices to have to be raised for them to be heard. and thatis raised for them to be heard. and that is that people want to leave the eu, end free movement, have our own trade policy, ensure laws are made in this country and judged in our courts. that is what the deal delivers, that is what i continue to work to deliver. he used to believe that too, so why is he trying to frustrate it? i do have sympathy with the prime minister's voice and i hope it soon recovers. i understand how painful this is. the prime minister's deal has failed. she no longer has the ability to lead. this is a rudderless government in the face of a huge national crisis. the honourable memberfor broxbourne national crisis. the honourable member for broxbourne recognises national crisis. the honourable memberfor broxbourne recognises it, saying, and i quote, the government is not fit for purpose, we are not doing what we need to do, which is governed the country properly and effectively. where the prime

minister has so obviously failed, this house needs to listen to the country. listen to unions, listen to people in work fearful for their future, manufacturers and businesses. workers and european union citizens who have made such a fantastic contribution to our society, and british citizens across europe, all facing uncertainty. jobs and industry are at risk in the country is in crisis. she needs, now, to show leadership, so can the prime minister tell us exactly what her plan is now? can i say to the right honourable gentleman that i continue to believe that the house today will have an opportunity to vote on no deal, then an opportunity tomorrow, depending on how they voted tonight, to vote on the question of the extension of article 50. asi question of the extension of article 50. as i said last night it will be ha rd 50. as i said last night it will be hard for this house to determine what its view is on the way forward.

as far as the government is concerned, we want to continue to work to leave the european union. that is what we must deliver for people on the vote of the referendum, and we will continue to work to deliver leaving the european union, but with a good deal. as regards the right honourable gentleman, he doesn't agree with government policy. he does not even agree with labour party policy. he has nothing to offer this country. mr speaker, the whole house will wa nt to mr speaker, the whole house will want to send its condolences to the families of the recent victims of knife crime, including the 17—year—old jodie szczesny who was tragically murdered in my borough of favouring —— but when two thirds of those carrying a knife escape custodial sentence and one of those offenders avoids prison, what

assurances the government giving that we are serious about getting tough on knife crime, and does she understand why so many people are fed up with soft sentencing? can i say to my honourable friend, and i'm sure members across the whole house will want to send my deepest sympathies to the family and friends ofjodie, and i know there's nothing we can do or say that will ease the pain that the family are going through at her loss. can i say to my honourable friend that we are very clear that judges honourable friend that we are very clear thatjudges must have the powers they need to impose tough sentences on those involved in serious violence and knife crime. it already provides a mandatory prison sentence for the offence of carrying a knife and an offensive weapon or knife offences mile likely to result ina knife offences mile likely to result in a custodial sentence and for longer than at any point in the last ten years. individual sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts but we are catching and prosecuting more people who carry a

knife. those convicted are now more likely to go to prison and for longer, but as i set out in pmqs last week, both i and the home secretary are working to see what more we can do to deal with the serious violence and knife crime that has beset so many communities. cani that has beset so many communities. can i associate myself with remarks of the prime minister about the tragedy in ethiopian and the tragic loss of life, and on this day we commemorate the sad loss of the 16 young children and their school teacher in dunblane who were cruelly cut down by thomas hamilton, and that sanctity of young life is something we hear about when we hear that there has been the birth of a young son and i'm sure the whole house want to congratulate the member. mr speaker, no dealwill result in unprecedented harm. does the prime minister really want to be the prime minister really want to be the first prime minister in history to deliberately plunge the united

kingdom economy into recession? first of all can i say to the right honourable gentleman i am pleased to add my congratulations to my friend the honourable member for murray add my congratulations to my friend the honourable memberfor murray and his wife on the birth of their son andi his wife on the birth of their son and i am sure the thoughts of the whole house are with him in remembering the terrible, terrible events that took place in dunblane and the terrible loss of a young life that we saw when that happened. and then can i finally say to the right honourable gentleman, he will of course he had a spring statement from my right honourable friend the chancellor of the exchequer in a short time, and i am pleased to say that'll show the strength of the united kingdom economy, the strength of the united kingdom economy, of which scotland is able to participate as a member of the uk. mr speaker, in 16 days, the united kingdom runs a risk of crashing out

of the european union with a no deal and we know from the government's own analysis but that will crash the economy. why doesn't the prime minister show some leadership today, do the right thing and with all her mps to take no deal off the table on the 29th of march and for ever? you can only take no deal off the table by doing one of two things. revoke article 50, which means betraying the vote of the referendum, or agree a deal. if the right honourable gentleman wants to take no deal off the table, he should have voted for the table, he should have voted for the deal. thank you, mr speaker. as our range of the honourable member for ron fred said, nearly a fifth of people convicted for a second or subsequent time of possession of a

knife are spared a prison sentence. we would not accept this for firearms. will the prime minister look again at the sentencing guidelines and practices to ensure that anyone carrying an offensive weapon gets the sentence they deserve? again, i say to my honourable friend i fully appreciate the concern that he and the honourable member for romford and across the house have shown on this issue. recent statistics show that 82% of offenders received a custodial sentence for repeat offences. as i said, sentencing decisions are a matter for the courts but we do as a government regularly look at ensuring that the powers are there to ensure tough sentences can be imposed on knife crime. thank you, mr speaker. on friday, some of the excellent head teachers in my constituency let delete sent letters home with their pupils detailing to parents how their budgets had been slashed by 8% and they are struggling to make ends

meet. they have asked on three separate occasions since december 2018 with a meeting —— like for a meeting with the secretary of state for education to discuss shortages in kentand for education to discuss shortages in kent and have been refused so the prime minister please ask him to meet with the head teachers as a matter of urgency? well, i'm sure i will ensure that ministers and the department of education have heard the request that the honourable lady has put forward butjust to remind her and members of this house, the schools budget this year is £42 billion. that is the highest school budget ever. order. order. the honourable member for yardley is usually advocating good and respectful behaviour which she must know herself exemplified, notwithstanding her passion or insistence on her point of view, in which she is not exceptional. thank

you, mr speaker. the schools budget is the highest ever this year and we have given every local authority more money for every pupil in every school this year. thank you, mr speaker, i think the whole house could unite in agreeing that at the prime minister has put an enormous amount of hard work and energy in trying to resolve the european union issue and we certainly wish her well and get better soon. has the prime minister had the opportunity to look at amendment f on the order paper today, proposed by my right honourable friend from ashford, the former deputy prime minister, signed by many conservative remainer mps and conservative lever mps, the leader of the dup and members of the labour party —— leaver. i believe that would unite the conservative benches and attract support from the opposition benches. prime minister,

have you had an opportunity to consider whether you will be able to that amendment? i say to my honourable friend, and i'm grateful to my right honourable and honourable friends for the spirit in which they have sought to broker a compromise in this house, the amendment has four propositions. the first is we should publish our day one tariff schedules, we have done so this morning. the second is that we should seek to extend article 50 can we remain committed to giving the has the opportunity to debate and vote this tomorrow. that we should unilaterally guarantee the rights of eu citizens in the uk and iam rights of eu citizens in the uk and i am pleased to confirm we have done this and the fourth is to negotiate an implementation period in return for a financial payment but without the withdrawal agreement we have agreed. the eu have made it clear there will be no agreement without a withdrawal agreement, and that includes what we have already negotiated on citizens' rights, a financial settlement and a northern ireland protocol. the plan that exists and has been agreed is

obviously the deal that was put to the house and rejected by the house last night, but as i say, the eu have made clear that they would not accept elements of what is in the current withdrawal agreement without them being in a withdrawal agreement. thank you, mr speaker. on monday, it will mark 40 years since the mining disaster in the constituency of lea —— leigh that saw the deaths of ten miners and still affects the families involved. will the prime minister sent her support for the commemoration service on sunday and recommit in their honour to safeguard the working safety standards and guarantee support for all of the x mining communities.” guarantee support for all of the x mining communities. i thank the honourable lady for raising this issue and i'm sure the whole house will want tojoin issue and i'm sure the whole house will want to join me issue and i'm sure the whole house will want tojoin me in issue and i'm sure the whole house will want to join me in sending issue and i'm sure the whole house will want tojoin me in sending our deepest sympathies and condolences to the families and friends affected

by this terrible tragedy. i am pleased to say that our health and safety record for mines has improved greatly since 1979. this improvement has resulted from learning from previous incidents, such as the tragedy in leigh and to prevent as fara tragedy in leigh and to prevent as far a fossil ball disaster like this and in 2015, following an extensive review, all previous legislation related to underground mines was replaced and has a simple goal setting framework to make sure protections are there for mine workers and others for what we all accept our inherent hazards for mines but i can ensure that we will continue to review regulations to make sure a tragedy like this never happens again. given that no-deal brexit is the government because my default position, will the prime minister kindly inform the house

that she will instruct the chancellor of the exchequer to make available whatever funds are required to ensure that the country is as best prepared as possible in the event that we do leave on an ideal basis. i say to my right honourable friend that obviously we continue to be working to leave in an orderly fashion, with the deal and we have made funding available and we have made funding available and that is being used to make sure we have preparations for a no deal. the prime minister routinely deflects questions on child poverty, insisting on absolute rather than relative measures. can she assure the house that if the figures published later this month on her own preferred measure of absolute poverty show that child poverty is rising, that she will at lastjoin those of us calling for a pause to universal credit? i say to the honourable lady i continue to believe, as i have said in this house before, that of the best route out of poverty is through work and

also she refers to figures that i quote, i also do quote the figures which i have to say are very important for those house of a number of —— the reduction of the number of —— the reduction of the number of —— the reduction of the number of children living in workless households and all of the evidence is... and there is very clear evidence about the advantages of children being brought up in a house in which there is work. universal credit is encouraging work, it is delivering on ensuring that we see more people in work and able to provide for their families. thank you, mr speaker. as a former technology entrepreneur, i have seen for myself the barriers that face aspiring women seeking to start up new businesses and yet we know that £250 billion could be added to the uk economy if women can start and scale up businesses at the same rate as men. so therefore does the prime

minister welcome alison rose ‘s review into female entrepreneurship and will she call today for the banks to adopt those without delay? cani banks to adopt those without delay? can i thank my honourable friend for raising this important issue and for bringing her own successful experience as an entrepreneur into this house. i am very happy tojoin her in welcoming alison rose's review. we are setting out our ambition to increase the number of female entrepreneurs by half by 2030, in various ways, including my honourable friend the business minister sponsoring an industry led task force alongside treasury ministers that will drive forward work to encourage greater investment ina work to encourage greater investment in a female entrepreneurs by all types of finance providers. including banks. last year, 690 children were attacked or threatened with a knife in the west midlands. pa rents a re with a knife in the west midlands. parents are terrified. police officers across the country agree that there is a link between the

knife crime epidemic and the prime minister passed my decision as home secretary to cut 20,000 police officers from the streets. is she the last person standing to deny that link? i made clear last week some steps that the government is taking to increase the work we are doing in relation to knife crime. i understand my right honourable friend the home secretary met with the chief constable of the west midlands police at the end of last week to discuss policing in the west midlands and she refers to decisions taken by the government in 2010. those decisions, yes, they lead to difficult decisions in terms of public sector funding but they were taken because public sector funding but they were ta ken because of public sector funding but they were taken because of the appalling set of circumstances in the economy left by labour. order, order. i understand the honourable gentleman for bexhill and battle is about to name check his mother. an admirable woman, a former teacher and, name check his mother. an admirable woman, a formerteacherand, in name check his mother. an admirable woman, a former teacher and, in my view, very importantly, my constituent. mr hugh merriman. thank

you, mr speaker, ithink constituent. mr hugh merriman. thank you, mr speaker, i think she loves you, mr speaker, i think she loves you more than me these days. she is also a labour supporter. mr speaker, on behalf of me and my lovely mum, there are parts of the country, from sheffield to staffordshire to sussex, where pupils are receiving less money per head than other parts of the country. i know the prime minister values a good education because she went to the same school as my mother, who became a teacher so for me and my lovely mum, three things. more funding for our schools. secondly, special educational needs, more focused priorities on not excluding pupils for their targets and thirdly, the lowest funded areas funded first when we get this right. could i thank my honourable friend for his question. i was tempted to start off by saying that i suspect i and his

mother were at the school at a different time,... isle, it is true, good. in relation, i recognise that we have been asking schools to do more and we have responded with £1.3 billion of extra investment going to the schools across this year and next, so the schools budget will be rising by around £2.6 billion in total and overall pupil funding rising by around £2.6 billion in total and overall pupilfunding is being protected in real terms by this government. every school is attracting at least 1% more per pupil by next year and thousands of schools will attract significantly larger gains of up to 3% per pupil per year. this investment will mean more children having the chance of a better future but, of more children having the chance of a betterfuture but, of course, what matters also is the quality of education that is provided and i would commend my honourable friend's mother, who was a teacher, for the work she did and has done in education and say thanks from this

whole house to all of our teachers up whole house to all of our teachers up and down the country for the work they do. thank you, mr speaker. as i told the prime minister a month ago, my constituent marion was diagnosed last year when she was four months old. she is only likely to live a few months without spin raza. lastly, it was met to discuss it but they haven't announced a decision. last time, i was told to see a minister and nothing has happened. all i am asking is for the baby to have the same chance as if she lived in scotland, germany, italy, romania or 20 other european countries. let me be clear, i am asking the prime minister to intervene. will she? you everybody across the whole house and are sending sympathies and concerns

to the family of marion and we recognise this could be an incredibly difficult time and decisions of this matter will be rightly ta ken by decisions of this matter will be rightly taken by politicians and clinicians and i understand the honourable lady met my friend the health secretary and did look at the committee meeting on the 6th of march when it was considering recommendations in relation to this but it is right that the benefits in relation to new measures are measured by the experts in the field and the department of health and social care is working with nice on this issue. my my constituent is a wife and mother and was just 36 when she was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer, the most virulent form. sadly, at 38, nicola has a terminal diagnosis. she has asked me to ask three things today. first of all, will you look at publicising the fact that women should never

miss a mammogram and how important it is that they attend. will she consider lowering —— lowering the age at which women are able to seek age at which women are able to seek a mammogram so more women are not missed out? and thirdly, there are some immunotherapy trials taking place across the country which could offer a lifeline to nicola. will she consider expanding those trials so that nicola can get the help that would save her life? may i say to my right honourable friend that i am sure the whole house shares his concern for his constituent, nicola, and our sympathies are with her and herfamily and our sympathies are with her and her family and friends. he asked three things, and in relation to the age at which a screening becomes available or is required, that is a matter that has been looked at previously and i'm sure it is something that as we look forward with a long—term plan will be considered again, but i understand that the decision is based on the

evidence of the benefits of these screenings at certain times. he referenced the immunothera py screenings at certain times. he referenced the immunotherapy and we have delivered 64 studies of immunotherapy for have delivered 64 studies of immunothera py for breast have delivered 64 studies of immunotherapy for breast cancer today and 28 studies for recruitment and 18 are being set up but i will have to ask the minister to respond to the specific case of his constituent and finally, the third point he raises, absolutely right, i would urge women to attend their mammogram appointments. they are vitally important and could save your life. does the prime minister not feel guilty that parents and teachers are forced to buy books and pens for schools and head teachers are cleaning classrooms? the honourable gentleman heard the response i gave earlier. we are putting more money into our schools and ensuring that overall per—pupil funding is being protected. yes, we

have been asking schools and recognise those pressures but the government is responding with more funding. the honourable gentleman had previously signalled an interest andl had previously signalled an interest and i try to accommodate him. yes, never mind. if my right honourable friend had been elected as the leader of the labour party, would she be allowing a free vote this evening? can i say to my honourable friend, i think there are passionately held views on the issue and differences of opinion and i think it would be of benefit to the houseif think it would be of benefit to the house if there was a free vote across the house. on sunday, the community of fair isle and shetland suffered a devastating blow when they are world renowned bird observatory was destroyed in a fire. the impact of something like that on

a community of 60 people is absolutely devastating and they are still coming to terms with it. will the prime ministerjoin me in thanking those who have already supported fair isle, including the firefighters who tackled the blaze on those who transported them and will she commit her government to supporting the community as they look towards rebuilding what is a globally important research resource so that it can get back into action as soon as possible? can i say to the honourable gentleman, i would like to send my deepest sympathies to all of those who work in and visit the observatory and this will be devastating for the local community and i would like to offer my praise for the local fire and coastguard services in bringing the blaze under control and i understand the investigations are ongoing as to the investigations are ongoing as to the course of fire. the right honourable gentleman might allow me the opportunity to thank the firefighters who dealt with the fire

in maidenhead yesterday, in the town centre. i understand the building he refers to was comprehensively insured and the owners are not seeking additional funding at this time, buti seeking additional funding at this time, but i will ask a ministerfrom the scotland office to meet with a right honourable gentleman to see if any further support can be provided. we will leave pmqs, but we will go back into the house for the spring statement from philip hammond which will start in a few minutes' time. i would like to introduce our guests, and our economics correspondent will be there, and pauljohnson, we will be there, and pauljohnson, we will be chewing over any announcements over he makes in what is not really a major fiscal event, but over he makes in what is not really a majorfiscal event, but what over he makes in what is not really a major fiscal event, but what did we learn from pmqs and theresa may's voice is very croaky. we did not learn a huge amount is the blunt truth. we learnt the prime minister is clearly physically struggling with her voice and there was a whisper this morning that she might not open an important debate later

on the vote on whether or not to disallow the idea of leaving the eu at the end of march. yet again jeremy corbyn and theresa may jousting over the same issues and neither in the mood for compromise and not moving the debate further forward. quite a strange mood in the place. you think last night theresa may crashed to a second appalling defeat on her main reason for being that it did not feel like a historic pmqs, and maybe, the viewers might feel this, but people are getting used to things being chaotic and uncertain. and in that vein, throwing ahead to this evening, is it expected that no deal will be taken off the table in some way? it's extremely likely that mps will vote in enough number to show that they do not want us to leave the european union at the end of this month in 16 days' time without a

deal ratified, going through parliament and agreed by the eu, but that said and it's important to be clear, the votes tonight do not legally make that the status quo. there is a different question, which most people would assume is the a nswer most people would assume is the answer is that they would never allow it, parliament would not allow this to happen, but that is an absolutely not the same as changing the law to say it will not happen, and even if the vote goes through tonight, the law will say it is the default option. hence we have got that over the spring statement, because the chancellor will have to refer to that in some way because all of this overshadows any announcement he will make. we have had the tariff regime published in the event of no deal and the eu says we are closer to a no deal outcome than at any other point. let's take those things in turn. first, politically, all of the brexit chaos overs ha d ows politically, all of the brexit chaos overshadows what philip hammond will try to do today. it also obviously

overs ha d ows try to do today. it also obviously overshadows it financially, because the chancellor simply does not know what the country's balance sheet will look like in april, may, june, july, because it's so dependent on not just whether we leave, july, because it's so dependent on notjust whether we leave, but july, because it's so dependent on not just whether we leave, but also the kind of deal or no deal we leave with. so he is using his calculator with. so he is using his calculator with a blindfold on. but it would be interesting to hear if he does use, as he has before, the idea of vote for this and there will be all sorts of goodies coming your way, and we might be able to find that bit of money for the police, for schools, for everything else that mps stand up for everything else that mps stand up every week at pmqs and ask for. but the second reason why this is not a big fiscal event, to use the terrible jargon, is that there is, at some point, and i don't think it will properly get going until the autumn, but there is a spending review coming and that is the moment at which the government sits down and says, 0k, at which the government sits down and says, ok, let's figure out what

we are and says, ok, let's figure out what we a re really and says, ok, let's figure out what we are really four, but as we were discussing last week, sources have told me there is not much faith in the process because people think it's very likely there might be a different chancellor and prime minister by the time that gets going, so if you were a senior official, or a minister, going, so if you were a senior official, ora minister, why going, so if you were a senior official, or a minister, why would you sit down and try to work out what you want to do with the cash? we expect the chancellor to get to his feet once pmqs are finished and i don't think there will be a massive gap between the two events. with that in mind, why isn't this more major or significant as a fiscal statement? partly because thatis fiscal statement? partly because that is what the chancellor decided to stop a couple of years ago he said he would move to a single budget in the autumn, not in the spring as it used to be and that this spring statement will literally be fulfilling his legal options —— obligations to prove present the office for budget responsibility report both the public and public finances, and for one reason it's just what he wanted to do. he did that last year as well, so whatever

was going on, i don't and we expect a great deal but as laura was saying, there is now so much uncertainty about where the economy will be over the next three months, let alone the next year or two given we don't know what will happen with respect to brexit, that even if he wanted to do a lot at the moment, he would be in such a fog of uncertainty he would be struggling. and we don't expect any big announcements, certainly not around tax and spend. that was always the intention but frankly i can't remembera intention but frankly i can't remember a fiscal event being this overshadowed since 2003 when the statue of saddam hussein came down in baghdad, but even with all that going on. that was a long time ago. even with all this going on, what would philip hammond be saying today? well, public finances are in better shape than you expected after the budget and the economy is not doing quite so well partly because of brexit uncertainty, but also because of a weaker global backdrop and it's easier to forget that, that

europe is underperforming so he's likely to say and couch it very much on political language that now is not the time to alleviate austerity further. on that political question, we keep being told that austerity is coming to an end but is it coming to an end? is that what we are going to hear or have a hint of from philip hammond? i think we can expect and if this house manages to make its mind up, then at some point, may be quite soon, i might find myself in the mood for writing some big checks, but unless and until that happens, i want to have my airbags at the ready. that will be the kind of message, but you are right, it's difficult for tory mps at the moment, not only will they get no simply from the opposition benches because they have been screaming this for ages, that things are really biting, we had a long period of individual budgets may be going up, but demands have been going up

as well and tory, labour, lib dems, snp mps will tell you in their own communities they are seeing the results come through of the long term squeeze on public budgets. it is today the day it will suddenly be inflated? no way. i don't think we will have to wait much longer as i saw will have to wait much longer as i sanohn mcdonnell swapping seeds and some mps leaving. others are coming in to take their places —— swapping seeds. john mcdonnell will be answering for labour once philip hammond delivers his statement. we think it will be between 20 or 30 minutes. i'm a speaker is announcing it. the chancellor, philip hammond. iam i am acutely conscious of the fact the house as other pressing matters on its mind and to avoid making the statement any longer than necessary, iam statement any longer than necessary, i am laying a wms that has additional announcements and provides further details of those that i will make. last night's boat

leaves a cloud of uncertainty hanging over our economy —— last night's vote. the most urgent task in the house is to lift that uncertainty. but the economy itself is remarkably robust. it has grown for nine consecutive years with the longest unbroken quarterly growth run ofany longest unbroken quarterly growth run of any g7 economy. and it is forecast to continue growing in each of the next five years. an economy that has created over 3.5 million new net jobs under a that has created over 3.5 million new netjobs under a conservative government and has almost halved labour's shocking legacy of youth unemployment. that has seen female participation in the workforce increase to record levels. and is now delivering the fastest rate of wage growth in over a decade. an economy that has defied expectations and will provide a solid foundation that britain needs to seize the

opportunities that the future offers. a far cry, i have to say from the eight recessions and mass unemployment predicted by the house's very own nostradamus over there, the shadow chancellor. perhaps, mr speaker, not so much as an astronomer, as a man living in a parallel universe. and thanks to the difficult decisions we have taken in the last nine years and the hard work of the british people, i can also report today on public finances that continue to improve. so that provided we do reach a deal to leave the european union with an orderly transition and provided we avoid the disaster of a government led by the front bench opposite, this country, for the first time in a decade, will have genuine and sustainable choices about its future. today's 0b r report marks another step on

britain's road out of austerity and i'd like to thank robert choke and his team for their work. despite the slowing world economy, the 0b r expect britain to continue to grow in every year of the forecast. both the imf and the oecd are forecasting the uk to grow faster than germany and 1.4% in 2020 as forecast in the budget and 1.6% in each of the final three years. cumulative growth over the five yea rs now cumulative growth over the five years now slightly higher than the budget forecast. meanwhile, britain's remarkable jobs story is set to continue. by 2023, the 0br expect to see 600,000 more newjobs in our economy. and despite the co nsta nt attem pts by in our economy. and despite the constant attempts by the opposition front bench to talk down our remarkable achievement on jobs, the

fa ct, remarkable achievement on jobs, the fact, mr speaker, is this... last year, 96% of newjobs were full—time. and there is positive news on pay, too, with the 0br revising up a wage growth to 3% or higher in every year and with inflation now the target around the forecast period, that means real wage growth in every year of the forecast. a growing economy, a thriving labour market, inflation on target, mr speaker, a solid foundation on which to build britain's in future. and there is good news on the public finances, too. borrowing this year will be just 1.1% of too. borrowing this year will be just1.1% of gdp, too. borrowing this year will be just 1.1% of gdp, £3 billion lower than forecast at the autumn budget and a staggering £130 billion lower than in the last year of the labour

government. but what is really staggering, mr speaker, is that the shadow chancellor's a critique of that government is that it didn't spend enough. looking forward, borrowing will fall from 29.3 billion in 2019—20, then 21 million, 17.6 billion, 14.4 billion and finally, 1320 £5 billion in 23—24, its lowest level in 22 years —— matt 13.25 billion. we meet on track to meet both of our fiscal targets early, with the adjusted level falling to just no .5% by 2023—24 and with headroom against our fiscal mandate in 2021 increasing from 15 billion at the autumn budget to

£26.6 billion today. less borrowing means £26.6 billion today. less borrowing m ea ns less £26.6 billion today. less borrowing means less debt, now lower in every year than forecast at the budget, falling to 82.2% of gdp next year, then 79%, 74. 9%, falling to 82.2% of gdp next year, then 79%, 74.9%, 74% and finally 73% in 23-24. then 79%, 74.9%, 74% and finally 73% in 23—24. our national debt falling sustainably for the first time in a generation. mr speaker, a major milestone on the road out of the crisis we inherited from labour and a key dividing line today between a shadow chancellor whose plans would send debt soaring above 100% of gdp and a conservative government committed to delivering world—class public services and keeping our national debt falling. since 2010, we have been steering

the country on a journey of recovery from labour's recession. back then, the most important task was to get borrowing down to manageable levels. but when i became chancellor in 2016, i recognised that with the progress we'd already made, as well as getting britain's debt down, our continued success as a nation would depend on investing in ourfuture, supporting our vital public services and keeping taxes low to attract talent and investment. i called it "a balanced approach" and it is delivering, with the highest sustained levels of public capital investment in 40 years, cuts in income tax for more than 30 million people in three weeks' time, cuts that they voted against, mr speaker, and debt on a sustained downward path for the first time in a generation. i have made over £150

billion of new spending commitments since 2016 and, at the budget, i announced that the long but a necessary squeeze on public spending would come to an end at the upcoming spending review, spelling out and indicative five year path of 1.2% per annum real terms increases in day—to—day spending on public services, compared to real terms cards of 3% per annum in 2010, and 1.3% at sr 15. we have made our biggest choice on public spending, putting the nhs first in line, as the british public would expect, with my right honourable friend the prime minister's announcement of £34 billion of additional funding per year by the end of the period. the single largest cash commitment ever made by a peacetime british government to support our long—term plan for the nhs, delivering, mr

speaker, improved cancer and mental health care, a transformation of gp services, more doctors, more nurses and better outcomes for patients. now we need to address wider departmental spending for the next review period. so i can confirm today that, assuming a brexit deal is agreed over the next few weeks and the uncertainty that is hanging over our economy is lifted, i intend to launch a full three—year spending review before the summer recess, to be concluded alongside an autumn budget. it will set departmental budgets beyond the nhs to reflect the public‘s priorities between areas like social care, local government, schools, police, defence and the environment and it will maximise value for taxpayers money through a renewed focus on delivering high quality outcomes. and if we leave the eu with a deal and an orderly transition to a

future economic partnership, we will see a deal dividend, an economic boost from recovery in business confidence and investment and a fiscal boost from a reduction in the minimum necessary level of fiscal headroom once the risk of a no deal exit is removed, giving us as a nation real choices as we use the spending review to decide how much of this deal dividend we can prudently release and how we would share it between increased spending on public services, capital investment in britain's future prosperity and keeping taxes low while always continuing to keep our debt falling. real terms increases in public spending, record investment in britain's future, more jobs than ever before, higher wages and lower taxes, meaning increased take—home pay and, for the first time ina take—home pay and, for the first time in a generation, our debt going down. that, mr speaker, is whati

mean by an end to austerity, delivered by a conservative government. but, mr speaker, the progress we have made will be at risk if we cannot secure a smooth and orderly exit from the eu. and a transition to a new partnership that protects the complex trading relationships businesses have built up relationships businesses have built up over 45 years and on which so many britishjobs up over 45 years and on which so many british jobs depend. up over 45 years and on which so many britishjobs depend. i hoped we would do that last night, but i am confident that we, as a house, we'll do it over the coming weeks. leaving with no deal would mean significant disruption in the short and medium term and a smaller, less prosperous economy in the long term than if we leave with a deal. higher unemployment, lower wages, higher prices in the shops. that is not what the british people voted for in june 2016. which is why all of us

have a solemn duty in the days and weeks ahead to put aside our differences and seek a compromise on which this house can agree in the national interest. but government also has a duty to plan for every reasonably foreseeable contingency and we have done so. first, we have plans in place to minimise disruption to our financial system and the bank of england judges that it is resilient to any likely no deal shock. second, we have worked across whitehall to put in place mitigations at our border, although we cannot regulate how the eu would operate its border in a no deal exit. third, we have published today our temporary uk no deal tariff schedule, carefully balancing the needs of producers and consumers in the context of the pressures but no deal economy would face. and

fourthly, the treasury and the bank of england together have all the tools of fiscal and monetary policy available to us, including the fiscal headroom i have held in reserve , fiscal headroom i have held in reserve, but i need to be straight with the house. a no—deal brexit would deliver a significant short to medium term reduction in the productive capacity of the british economy and because our economy is operating at or near full capacity, any fiscal or monetary response would have to be carefully calibrated not to simply cause inflation, compounding the effect of any movement in the exchange rate on the price of goods in our shops. and while fiscal and monetary intervention might help to smooth our path to a post brexit economy, both could only be temporary and neither would allow us to avoid the effects of a relatively smaller economy, nor the pain of restructuring. so the idea that

there is some simple, readily available fix that can be deployed to avoid the consequences of a no—deal brexit is, i'm afraid, just wrong. but, mr speaker, i'm confident that we are going to do a deal and when we do, the british people will fully expect us to fire up people will fully expect us to fire up our economic plan, to seize the opportunities as confidence in our economy returns. but it isn'tjust the spectre of uncertainty that we need to overcome if we are to restore confidence and unlock a brighterfuture. because restore confidence and unlock a brighter future. because while we on the side of the house will always be the side of the house will always be the party of business, and small business especially... jeering mr speaker, we will always be the party of business... jeering

but the shadow chancellor identifies business as the enemy. a government led by the leader of the opposition would chill the very marrow of our economy, destroying jobs and stifling innovation and those are not my words, mr speaker, they are the words of the former labour memberfor penistone the words of the former labour member for penistone and stockbridge, and she is right. so our task is to demonstrate to the british people that working with business, through the mechanism of a well regulated market economy, our plan will deliver a brighter future for them, so that they are never, ever tempted by the empty promises and dangerous rhetoric of the front bench opposite. a plan that makes the most of the opportunities ahead as we make our own way, independent from but in continuing partnership with, the european union. a plan to embrace the technologies of the future and equip british workers to

use them. to back the enterprise and ambition of british business, to support our world leading entrepreneurs, creators and innovators, inventors and discoverers. to build on the uk's fundamental strengths and competitive advantages, so that we can slay once and for all the twin demons of low productivity and low wages and build an economy that works for everyone. mr speaker, the only sustainable path to higher wages and rising living standards is to boost productivity and to do that, we are investing in infrastructure, skills, technology and housing under our plan for britain's future. with £37 billion in the national productivity investment fund, the largest ever investment fund, the largest ever investment in england's strategic roads, the biggest rail investment programme since victorian times and a strategy for delivering a nationwide full fibre network by

2023. at sr 19, we will set multi—year capital budgets following a zero—based review, protecting our record levels of capital spending while ensuring that investment is focused to deliver the greatest impact on productivity. and our investment strategy is benefiting the whole of the uk. i can announce today up to £260 million for the innovative borderlands growth deal, covering the border regions of england and scotland on top of the £100 million funding already announced for ca rlisle. negotiations are progressing on future deals or mid wales and derry—londonderry and i reiterate today this government is my commitment to the northern powerhouse rail project and look forward to considering tfn's business case ahead of the spending review. we will publish the updated national infrastructure strategy alongside the spending review and i

am publishing today a consultation on our approach to supporting private infrastructure investment once we leave the european investment bank and now that we have retired labour's but raising our productivity is not just about investing in physical capital, it's also about investing in people. the review will be published shortly and represent an important contribution to our overall education. the government will respond later in the year. we are committed to returning technical and vocational skills to the heart of the educational system. with the new t level system on track to deliver the first three routes in 2020 and the first three routes in 2020 and the first three routes in 2020 and the first phase of the retraining scheme starting this summer and the reprint a ship programme rolling out 3 million —— apprenticeship programme rolling out 3 million high

quality apprenticeships. to help businesses take on more apprenticeships, i am businesses take on more apprenticeships, iam ringing businesses take on more apprenticeships, i am ringing for the £700 million package of reforms that i announced in the budget at the start of the new financial year in april. the productivity agenda is above all about increasing the wages of the lowest paid, and the pay of a full time on national minimum wage has risen by £2750 per year since 2016. we have confirmed that the low pay commission's remit for the national living wage to reach 60% of median earnings by 2020 but we need to set a new remit beyond 2020. we wa nt to to set a new remit beyond 2020. we want to be ambitious, driving productivity across the income distribution with the ultimate objective of ending low pay in the uk. but we also want to take care to protect employment opportunities for lower paid workers. so we have asked a world leading expert in the field

to undertake a review of the international evidence on the employment and productivity effects of minimum wage rates. this study will support the extensive discussions that we will be having with employer organisations, trade unions and the lpc itself over the coming months, starting with a round table that i will share next month. so, mr speaker, while the opposition front bench grandstands, this conservative government is delivering sustainable pay rises for millions of british workers. alongside our commitment to give british workers the skills they need isa british workers the skills they need is a commitment to maintaining the openness of our economy to talent from around the world. as we leave the eu, free movement of people will end and we will take back control of our borders. my right honourable friend the home secretary has set out a framework for a future immigration system in the

immigration system in the immigration white paper focused immigration system in the immigration white paperfocused on attracting those of the skills we needin attracting those of the skills we need in the uk economy, no matter where they come from. we have committed to consulting with business to make sure that the new system supports the needs of our economy and as we do so i can announce that from june we will begin to abolish the need for paper landing cards at uk points of entry and we will allow citizens of the usa, australia, new zealand, canada, japan, singapore and south korea to start using electronic gates at our airports and euro star terminals alongside eea nationals who can use them. our ambition is to be able to go further in due course, a signal to the world of our commitment to global britain. another key pillar of the plan is backing britain to remain at the forefront of the technology revolution that is transforming our economy and to

support that ambition, from this autumn, we will exempt phd level rolls from the visa caps. since 2016 we have launched our modern industrial strategy and committed an additional £7 billion to science and innovation, clear progress towards the total r and d spending reaching 496 the total r and d spending reaching 4% of the economy. but technology does not stand still, and neither can we. so to maintain the uk technological edge we will invest 79 million in a new supercomputer to be hosted at edinburgh university. i am told it is up to five times faster than the current generation of supercomputers and capable of a staggering 10,000 trillion calculations per second. and i'm told, mr speaker, that with the bright algorithms it might even come

up bright algorithms it might even come up to bright algorithms it might even come uptoa bright algorithms it might even come up to a solution to the backstop. —— with the right algorithms. i am allocating £45 million of funding to the european bio institute ensuring britain's continuing lead in genomics research and i will guarantee commitment to the new fusion reactor, whatever happens with brexit and £81 million to a new flow tonics situation —— group in oxford, for laser technology, literally the cutting edge. sorry about that. the digital economy presents enormous opportunities but enormous challenges as well. i've already responded to concerns about unfairness in the tax system with a new digital services tax so digital

companies pay their fair share. new digital services tax so digital companies pay theirfair share. we also need to adapt to the regulatory environment to make sure that it works in the real market and digital marketplace similarly. i asked barack obama's former chief economist to review competition in the digital marketplace and i welcome his report published today. he sets out far—reaching recommendations including new powers for consumers and an overall overhaul of competition regulation, updating the regulatory model for the digital age. and as a first stage towards implement in reforms, iam asking stage towards implement in reforms, i am asking the competition and marketing authority to undertake a marketing authority to undertake a market study of the digital advertising market as soon as possible. mr speaker, the uk will remaina possible. mr speaker, the uk will remain a great place to do digital business, but it will be a place

where global tech giants pay their fairshare and where global tech giants pay their fair share and where competition policy works in the interest of consumers and where the public are protected from online harm. in this, the uk will lead the world in a digital economy will —— that will work for everyone. many of us in the house understand a well regulated market economy is the best and indeed only way to deliver a brighter future indeed only way to deliver a brighterfuture for our indeed only way to deliver a brighter future for our country. our challenge is to demonstrate to the next generation that our market economy can fulfil their aspirations and speak to their values, so before i finish, and speak to their values, so before ifinish, iwant and speak to their values, so before i finish, i want to talk about two subjects near to them, housing and the environment. last year, housing delivery exceeded 220,000 additional homes, the highest level in all but one of the last 31 years. our

ambitious plan to restore the dream of homeownership to younger people is delivering. a five year £44 billion housing programmes to raise annual housing supplies, up to the mid 20 20s and help to buy equity loa n mid 20 20s and help to buy equity loan scheme, abolition of stamp duty for first—time buyers, loan scheme, abolition of stamp duty forfirst—time buyers, which has so far helped 240,000 people onto the property ladder and restored the proportion of first—time buyers to above 50% for the first time in a generation. and today, i can announce a new £3 billion affordable homes guarantee scheme to support delivery of around 30,000 affordable homes and the launch next month of the £1 billion guarantee fund i announced that the budget and £717

million from the housing infrastructure fund to unlock 37,000 hotels on sites in west london, didcot, and cambridge, the latter being at opposite events of the oxford and cambridge arc for which i publish a new vision statement today. as with the challenge of adapting to the digital age, so is the challenge of shape —— shaping the challenge of shape —— shaping the carbon neutral economy of the future, we must play the creativity of the marketplace to deliver market solutions to one of the most complex salute —— problems of our time, climate change, and build sustainability into the heart of the economic model. the uk is already leading the world, reducing the carbon intensity of our economy faster than any other g20 country, with ambitious and legally binding targets for the future. today i can announce our next steps. first we

will publish a call for evidence on whether all passenger carriers should be required to offer genuinely additional carbon offsets so that people who want zero carbon travel can have that option and be confident about additionality. we will also help small businesses got their energy emissions and energy bills calling today for the business efficiency scheme that i announced at the budget and we will also require an increased proportion of green gas in the grid advancing the decarbonisation of the mains gas supply. and finally, i will introduce a future homes standard mandating the end of fossil fuelled heating systems in all new houses from 2025. mr speaker, delivering lower carbon and lower fuel bills as

well. but mr speaker, climate change is not the only environmental challenge. we are already consulting our new tax and regulatory measures to tackle the scourge of plastic waste defacing our countryside and choking our oceans. now, for the first time in 60 million years, the number of species worldwide is in sustained mass decline. the uk's 1500 species of pollinators deliver an estimated £680 million of annual value to our economy, so there is an economic as well as environmental case for protecting the diversity of the natural world. so, following consultation, the government will use the forthcoming environment bill to mandate biodiversity net gain for england, ensuring the delivery of much—needed infrastructure and housing is not at the expense of

vital biodiversity. but this is a global problem, so later this year, the uk government will launch a comprehensive global review of the link between biodiversity and economic growth, to be led by the emeritus professor of economics at cambridge. we in this house, mr speaker, should be proud that the uk with its overseas territories has already declared more than 3 million square kilometres of marine protected area. and today i can announce the designation of a further 4500 square kilometres of ocean around ascension island as a marine protected area. this conservative government, taking action today on our pledge to be the first in history to leave our environment in better condition than we found it. before i conclude, i

have three further short announcements to make. first, in response to rising concern by head teachers that some girls are missing school attendance due to an inability to afford sanitary products, i have decided to fund the provision of free sanitary products in secondary schools for free in secondary colleges for the next two yea rs. secondary colleges for the next two years. i congratulate the members who campaigned on this issue on all sides of the house and my right honourable friend the education secretary will announce further details in due course. second, i announced one year ago that we would ta ke announced one year ago that we would take definitive action to tackle the scourge of late payments for our small businesses. a full response to last years call for evidence will be published shortly, but i can announce today that as a first step, we will require company audit committees to review payment

practices and report on them in their annual accounts. my right honourable friend of the business secretary will announce further details in due course and i can and out —— congratulate the fsb in particular in its tireless campaigning on this issue. and third, mr speaker, the recent surge in knife crime represents a personal tragedy for the scores of families of victims, and i know i can speak for the whole house when i offer my deepest sympathies to them. we must and will stamp out this menace. police funding is due to rise by up to £970 million from april. many police and crime commissioners have already committed to using this extra funding to recruit and train additional police officers. but that ta kes additional police officers. but that takes time. action is needed now. the prime minister and i have decided, exceptionally, to make available immediately to police

forces in england and additional £100 million over the course of the next year, ring fenced to pay for additional overtime, targeted specifically on knife crime and for new violent crime reduction units to deliver a wider cross agency response to this epidemic. ahead of the spending review, my right honourable friend the home secretary will work with the police how to best prioritise resources going forward , best prioritise resources going forward, including newly funded manpower to ensure a lasting solution to the problem. to be frank, last night's events mean we are not where i hoped we would be today. our economy is fundamentally robust but the uncertainty i hoped we would lift last night still hangs over it. we cannot allow that to continue. it

is damaging our economy and it is damaging ourstanding is damaging our economy and it is damaging our standing and reputation in the world. tonight, we have a choice. we can remove the threat of an imminent no deal exit hanging over our economy. tomorrow, we will have the opportunity to start to map out a way forward towards building a consensus across this house for a deal we can collectively support to exit the eu in an orderly way, to a future relationship that will allow britain to flourish, protecting jobs and businesses. we have huge opportunities ahead of us. our capital is the world's financial centre. our universities are global powerhouses of discovery and innovation. our businesses are at the cutting edge of the tech revolution. and we have shown that we are not shy as a nation of the tasks that last a head —— stand ahead. we are addressing the environmental challenges that

threaten our planet, we are building the homes that the next generation desperately need, we are investing in ourfuture, desperately need, we are investing in our future, tackling the productivity gap and embracing technological change, rising to its challenges and seizing its opportunities. our potential is clear, our advantages are manifest. we are the fifth largest economy in the world, a proud, successful, outward —looking nation with no limit to our ambition and no boundaries to what we can achieve. a brighter future is within our grasp. tonight, let's take a decisive step towards seizing it and building a britain fit for the future, a briton the next generation will be proud to call their home. i commend this statement to the house. john mcdonnell. we are now going to have a response from the shadow chancellorjohn mcdonnell. cani mcdonnell. can i thank the chancellor for providing me with an early sight of

his statement, no matter how heavily redacted. we have just witnessed a display by the chancellor of this government's toxic mix of callous complacency over austerity and its grotesque incompetence over the handling of brexit. whilst teachers are having to pay for the materials their pupils need, working parents are struggling to manage as schools close early and their children are sent home, 5,000 of ourfellow citizens will be sleeping in the cold and wet of the streets tonight, young people are being stabbed to death in rising numbers and the chancellor turns up today with no real end or reversal of austerity

and to threaten us because this is what he means, that austerity can only end if we accept this government's a bad deal over brexit. let's look at some of the claims this chancellor has made. the chancellor has boasted about the 0br forecast of 1.2% growth this year. what he hasn't mentioned is that this has been downgraded from 1.6% and downgrading forecasts is a pattern under this chancellor. in november 2016, forecasts for the following year were downgraded from 2.296 following year were downgraded from 2.2% toi.4%. following year were downgraded from 2.2% to 1.4%. in the autumn 2017, forecasts for the following year we re forecasts for the following year were downgraded from 1.6% to 1.4%. economists are warning that what little growth varies in this economy is largely being sustained by

consumption based upon high levels of household debt. and on the public finances, the chancellor is boasting about bringing down debt. let's remind him that when labour left office, having had to bail out his friends in the city, many of them are tory donors, the nation's debt stood at 1 trillion. are tory donors, the nation's debt stood at1 trillion. they have borrowed for failure and have borrowed for failure and have borrowed another three quarters of trillion to the debt —— added. more than any labour government ever. on the deficit, he is boasting about the deficit, he is boasting about the deficit. he has not eliminated the deficit. he has not eliminated the deficit, as we were promised, by 2015. he has simply shifted it onto the shoulders of head teachers, nhs managers, local councillors and police commissioners. and, worst of all, worst of all, onto the backs of many of the poorest in our society.

and the consequences are stark. infa nt and the consequences are stark. infant mortality has increased. life expectancy has reduced. and our communities, yes, are less safe. police budgets have faced a cut of 2.7 billion since 2010 and nothing the chancellor has said today will make upfor the chancellor has said today will make up for the human and economic consequences of those cuts. the chancellor talks about a balanced approach. there is nothing balanced about a government giving over £110 billion of tax cuts to the rich and corporations whilst 87 people a day die before they receive the care they need. the number of children coming into care has increased every yearfor nine years. coming into care has increased every year for nine years. and coming into care has increased every yearfor nine years. and benefit freezes and the roll—out of

universal credit are forcing people into food banks to survive. i will give him a quote. sending a message to the poorest and most vulnerable in our society that we do not care. the honourable member i quoted was referring to tax credits in 2015. the honourable member for south cambridgeshire. the number of pensioners now officially living in severe poverty, in the fifth largest economy in the world, has reached 1 million. and we have a government condemned by the un... by the un. for inflicting destitution on its own citizens. and, do you know, there is nothing balanced about the investment of this government across the country. nothing balanced about a government investing over 4,000 per head in london on transport and

in the north, only 1600. there is nothing balanced about a male child born in kensington liverpool that can expect to live 18 years less then a child born in kensington and chelsea. and on employment and wages, this is the government that has broken the historic link between securing a job and lifting yourself out of poverty. the referral to a remarkablejob is out of poverty. the referral to a remarkable job is a story. what is remarkable job is a story. what is remarkable is that this government has created a large scale jobs market of low pay, long hours and precarious work. there are over 2.5 million people out there working below 15 hours a week. 3.8 million are insecure —— in insecure work. average raises, the honourable gentleman talks about pay, the average wages are still below the level of ten years ago, so it is

hardly surprising that there are 4.5 million children living in poverty, two thirds of them nearly in households where someone is at work. and the chancellor has bragged about his record on youth unemployment. let's be clear, youth unemployment is 7% higher than the national average, higher than the oecd average, higher than the oecd average and is at an appalling level for some communities. 26% of young black people are unemployed. 23% of young people from bangladesh or pakistani background are unemployed. and the chancellor has claimed the advance with regard to women's unemployment. what does he say? what he doesn't say is women make up 73% of those in part—time employment, and they are disproportionately affected by the precarious work. i will just give

affected by the precarious work. i willjust give one example. the income of single mothers by 2020 will have fallen by 18% since 2010 and, according to the much respected women's budget group, women are facing the highest pay gap for full—time employees since 1999, all on his watch. the chancellor has been claiming on levels of infrastructure and housing investment, that he is on the way to delivering record of sustained levels. let's be clear, he is talking about wish lists. he's not talking about wish lists. he's not talking about wish lists. he's not talking about what the conservatives have actually done. the uk ranks close to the bottom of oecd countries for public investment. 24th out of 32 countries according to analysis done by the tuc. and the chancellor describes the biggest rail investment programme since victorian times. well, tell that to the people who face the chaos last year, the rail passengers who have

to deal with the incompetence of the transport secretary. the chancellor has been hailing the national infrastructure statute. the government announced a national infrastructure delivery plan from 2016-21. then it infrastructure delivery plan from 2016—21. then it announced a national infrastructure construction plan pipelines. plans, strategies, pipelines and today another review of the financing mechanisms but no real action for delivery in businesses and communities. these decisions were described, and i quote, as "inconsistent and subject to co nsta nt quote, as "inconsistent and subject to constant change". and he has announced on housing again. let's hope the chancellor has learned the lessons of their recent housing initiatives which have driven up profits of companies like persimmon to over £1 billion and posses multi—macro bonuses over £100

million. —— the bonuses are bosses. the chancellor has some cheek to talk on vocational and tech skills as well. almost a quarter of all funding to adult education has been cut since 2010. the number of people starting apprenticeships has fallen by 26% and on research and development, this government has slashed capital funding for science across all departments by 50%. unlike at the budget, the chancellor has at last actually referred to climate change. the review of biodiversity mentioned might hopefully show that the budget of natural england, the body responsible for biodiversity in england, has more than halved over a decade. a review of carbon offsets might reveal that they do not reduce emissions and offsetting schemes like the clean development mechanism have been beset by gaming and fraud.

and this from a government that removed the climate change levy exemption for renewables, that scrapped the feeding tariffs for new small—scale renewable generation and cancelled the zero carbon homes policy. gordon brown pledged a zero carbon homes policy standard, we endorsed it, we celebrated it. the tory scrapped it in 2015, one year before it was fully coming into force. and, of course, brexit looms large on everything we discussed. but even today, the chancellor has tried to use the bribe of a double deal dividend, or threat of postponing the spending review to control mps into voting for the government's deal. what we are seeing is not a double dividend, we are seeing brexit bankruptcies as a result of the delay in the

negotiations. and publication of the ta riffs negotiations. and publication of the tariffs this morning is clearly part of this threatening strategy. this isa of this threatening strategy. this is a calamitous strategy. it is forcing people into intransigent corners rather than bringing them together. what we need now is the chance today to stand with us to vote to take no deal off the table and to stand in cabinet against those that are trying to force us into an ideal situation. and then, yes, come and join us in discussing the options available, including labour's deal proposal and, yes, if it requires taking back any deal to the public. for outside this westminster bubble, may be outside the narrow, wealthy circles in which the narrow, wealthy circles in which the chancellor moves, nine years, nine years of hard austerity have created nine years of hardship for our constituents. and today and in

recent times, the chancellor has had the nerve to try and argue that those who have suffered most at the hands of this government that their suffering was necessary. if austerity wasn't ideological, why has maddy been found for tax cuts for big corporations —— been found for tax cuts for big corporations while public services have been starved of funding? austerity was never a necessity, it was always a political choice, so when the chancellor stands there and talks about the end of austerity, talks about the end of austerity, talks about the end of austerity, talks about a plan for a brighter future, how can anyone who has lived through the last nine years believe him at all? this is a government that has demonstrated a chilling ability to disregard completely the suffering they have caused. to talk of changing direction after nine years in office is not only impossible to believe, it is also much too late.

too late for the thousands who have died while waiting for a decision on their personal independence payments. too late for the families who have lost their homes due to cuts in housing benefit. too late for the young people who have lost their lives as a result of criminal attack. and too late also for those youngsters whose clubs and youth services have been savaged. this is the legacy of this chancellor and it is this that he will be remembered for. he was the shadow chief secretary to george osborne and designed the austerity programme. history will hold him responsible for that. there are no alibis and he has implicated every cut and closure and every preventable death of someone waiting for hospital treatment or social care. it is time for a change. people have had

enough. but people know also increasingly that they won't get the change they so desperately need from this tainted chancellor or his government. it is time for change and it is time for a labour government. well, mr speaker... john mcdonnell sitting down after giving his response to philip hammond. the chancellor is back on his feet. john mcdonnell unsurprisingly painting a com pletely mcdonnell unsurprisingly painting a completely different vision of the uk and the economy, saying that the deliberate plan of austerity has caused widespread suffering. but before we get into the detail of the statement from an economic and business point of view, let's go back to the politics and i want to welcome polly toynbee from the guardian, but starting with you, laura and that extraordinary summary by philip hammond and his warning about the threat of no deal about

which mps will vote for this evening and he seemed to be saying that it was time for a consensus beyond theresa may's deal and the conservative party. from a purely political point of view, people have thought, blimey, philip hammond who has enraged people in the tory party by his approach to brexit, pretty openly, not just saying by his approach to brexit, pretty openly, notjust saying get with the programme, but also, ifelt, obliquely saying to the prime minister that it is now time for you to budge and move and to open this up, to think about brexit that has a better chance, in his view of getting through parliament and something that could mean a closer relationship with the european union. philip hammond has backed the deal all the way along and has said what a shame it didn't get through last night but what we widely suppose for a long time is that philip hammond, because it's politically realistic in his view, and also a better course to take, a

closer relationship with the european union than the prime minister has currently argued for, and that, even in these crazy times, is something politically significant and watching her face sitting is something politically significant and watching herface sitting behind him, she did not look best pleased. this is a departure and the first time we have seen a senior member of the government seeming to offer something beyond what the prime minister has said up to now. certainly from him. amber rudd, david gauke, who in the wake of the last meaningful vote, sat in that chairand last meaningful vote, sat in that chair and told us it was maybe time to start thinking about the customs union. that time round it was swiftly closed down. the hatches went back down, off we go, let's have another go at getting it through at some point in the future, but philip hammond are doing that there is significant and from a purely political point of view, i think that is the most significant thing. is this his last chance? you

won't be here this time next year, so he might as well do what is right for the country at this stage because he has nothing to lose. theresa may is very unlikely to be prime minister this time next year and whoever takes over from whatever party, he is unlikely to be chancellor. so he's quite right to say, we have to start all over again. but what is extraordinary as well is that this is not a comprehensive view of the government, because this will be a free vote. he is standing there, philip hammond, saying one thing, and you have the prime minister sitting behind him on one side and his colleague liz truss who might well be voting to keep no deal on the table, the very thing live hammond says will bring the problem. you say it's extraordinary but it isn't because collective responsibility has broken down in the cabinet and the interesting thing is, that is exactly what philip hammond told the prime minister in cabinet to her face this

morning. i've been saying for a few days now that in the end theresa may's future is probably likely to be determined by the cabinet if they have the courage to do what is necessary. i think polly is right, philip hammond has nothing to lose because i think you are right, he won't be chancellor this time next year and she won't be prime minister this time next year. that gives a cabinet minister a sense of liberation. but watch for the others, because they will do the same thing now. in what sense? i think they will all feel free to speak their minds. we have the free vote today and people now, whipping this parliamentary party for the government, that will be almost impossible. it started a few weeks ago with amber rudd, david gauke, and everybody thought if they can do it, so can 12 quick things, they think they can say what they like, but they don't agree. it's not that suddenly philip hammond will be followed by everybody else saying,

come on theresa may, we agree with philip and we have to soften up. there are voices saying different things. the second point is worth making, in my view, this began when david cameron said that cabinet ministers could campaign on either side in the referendum. that might have been the only politically realistic thing for him to do but since then the bottle stopper has never gone back in the top and that is why so many people in the tory party feel that they have had carte blanche to say whatever they like. as ian has said, it has degraded dramatically in the last few months. there is a kind of structural problem that has been there a long time. so we have come full circle, if you like, in terms of exposing those divides that have never gone away, those divisions, i should say, that have never gone away over europe in both parties but particularly the conservative party. the tragedy and the disgrace is that david cameron and the whole of

theresa may's premiership has been devoted to holding the tory party together at the cost of everything else in the country, at the cost of an absolutely lousy deal, are failing to reach out across the commons, failing to find out what people are naturally meant when they voted to leave, instead of which he has been determined to try and put a kind of metal bond around the tory party and it's a hopeless cause. all prime ministers do that and ted heath did it to an extent, and tony blairdid it when heath did it to an extent, and tony blair did it when he had a massive majority because he needed to keep his party together. but this was a lost cause. is that going to change? do you think it will change now, the idea of keeping the party together question mark of course it won't. all prime ministers, one of their aims, and they have put the country first, but if they don't keep their parties together they will go and i think there will go a lot sooner than you think. when? by rights it should be today. she has two of the

three biggest parliamentary defeat ofa three biggest parliamentary defeat of a government in history, the first and third, the second was back in 1923. this is the main plank of government policy and in any normal political circumstances she would have quit. here is why she shouldn't. this is owing to be interesting. anybody selected by the current conservative party and its extreme brexit grass root would be a ha rd extreme brexit grass root would be a hard brexiteers and they are even less likely to get a new deal. hard brexiteers and they are even less likely to get a new deatm need somebody who believes in it and the problem is theresa may has never believed in it. so you go and bash the eu harder? that part of it has gone. so what you need is somebody to lead us through whatever period we have, somebody new with a bit of vision who can see what they want. but only somebody who goes either for a soft brexit or another

referendum. i will have to let laura go in referendum. i will have to let laura goina referendum. i will have to let laura go in a moment, but on that issue, coming onto the leadership question there are members of the cabinet who will put their names forward in the event of a leadership contest who will be mindful of the grass roots support and will present a more brexit, harder brexit if you want to use that term, a more brexit feel to the campaign. that will be the problem with as and when it happens, but in that potential leadership candidates, of which there are many, many, candidates, of which there are many, any. candidates, of which there are many, many, many. 38. many who viewers might not be familiar with.” many, many. 38. many who viewers might not be familiar with. i think they are all at it. they will be mindful of which way they vote tonight because of course it will be pa rt tonight because of course it will be part of their record, no question but i would say that we have come before —— full circle on the programme because before premises questions remembering the point on all sides, expert distinguish

commentators, it's very easy to say she had to compromise and herfault was failing to compromise and now she must, which is what the chancellor said. the point has a lwa ys chancellor said. the point has always been, if she does that, she would not be able to govern afterwards and if she moves in that way, that might be the thing to do for the country but it would also basically mean sacrificing her leadership and then she believes the risk will be of a labour government, which for her is the worst thing of all, and that is the psychology around this and to ignore any of this ignores the situation. it is the full horror of the situation. all philip hammond did today was acknowledge there is a majority in the house of commons for a softer brexit, and that is a fact. the norway style brexit would probably get through the commons. we don't know. we don't know that and then what happens the day after, that is the point. i will welcome liz truss ina

the point. i will welcome liz truss in a moment, she was sitting next to philip hammond, her boss, during his statement. but let's go back to the economics of what was said today and some of the content of his statement. what was your impression we we re statement. what was your impression we were expecting it to be weaker growth, better public finances and thatis growth, better public finances and that is what we got and in that senseit that is what we got and in that sense it was a nonevent in terms of surprises as well. what we do know is that he is saying that the economy will be a bit softer, not just because of brexit uncertainty but business investment and also the global backdrop put this in the middle of the pack and according to the 0b r there is a one in five chance that the economy will shrink next year and that is even with a deal, so even with the no deal warning and no holding back on public finances, there is the wider economy as well. there is some resonance there. he did paint a rosy picture, as you would expect any chancellor to do, but was there any substance to that optimism in regard

to the state of public finances? the public finances are looking frankly pretty good and better than we expected. the government has borrowing down to pretty historically low levels, and having been ata historically low levels, and having been at a post—war high, public borrowing is well below the average over the last 70 years or so and well below where it was three the crisis, despite the low growth over the last few years and in a sense of shame as it were all the problem for the chancellor is that now he has got the borrowing down solo, with the economy growing by the week and am certainly he is not doing what he wants to do, which is to use some of those resources or at least say now he will use some of those resources and of course we have had since 2016 and of course we have had since 2016 a couple of years of growth well

below international standards and where below the forecast from two years ago. 0br and the treasury still forecast growth but never getting near 2% in then —— any of the next five years. this is unprecedented. until the last couple of years we never had a period in history when growth forecasts had been so poor. so the public finances look good. were we to be in a world in which growth was a bit better and the uncertainty had dissipated, i think we would be in a world in which you could say with some confidence that austerity is coming to an end, but it's hedging that because of the uncertainty we face. and it wasn'tjust because of the uncertainty we face. and it wasn't just about austerity. you almost doing plain statement bingo, you heard reviews, market studies, consultations and a lot of it focused on making the economy more efficient and increasing productivity and there was a warning that ina productivity and there was a warning that in a no deal this would hurt productivity capacity and if you

look at the forecast over the next few years, the worry is the economy is becoming let efficient and that would impact on prosperity, so the warning was notjust would impact on prosperity, so the warning was not just about would impact on prosperity, so the warning was notjust about not getting a deal that we don't end austerity, it's also about this. changes that are coming up next month, what are those? it is not... although the chancellor announced that now, things are happening in april, some smaller increases in the point at which you start to pay higher rate income tax, although worth remembering that is still well below where it was back in 2010 and some things that aren't happening which really matter, so benefits aren't rising, most working age benefits aren't rising in line with inflation. that is the fourth year of a freeze which means that for most working age people who have got some benefits, the income from those are about 7% lower had they been had they just those are about 7% lower had they been had theyjust gone up in line with inflation and the last thing

not to forget is if you are lucky enough to be a higher earner, you have now had a decade of tax increases, actually, because the point at which the top rate of tax comes in, 150,000, has been stuck there for a decade, the top point at which allowance is, 100,000, has been stuck there and child benefit, £50,000, has been stuck for five years since that was first introduced, so we have no bits of the tax and benefit system that don't change year by year, so this is changing the structure and inflation eats away at the value. thank you very much forjoining us today on the chancellor's statement. we are going to speak to liz truss, chief secretary to the treasury in a moment, but first, let's join chief secretary to the treasury in a moment, but first, let'sjoin simon mccoy outside parliament on college green. thank you, let's get the views of an snp and a clyde —— plaid mp.

thank you, let's get the views of an snp and a clyde -- plaid mp. drew henry, you will be voting... we will vote against a no—deal brexit, not just now but in perpetuity, there is no good version of brexit, everything causes harm, right through to a deal and a catastrophic no—deal brexit, so it is important it is ruled off the table now and in the future and we put this back to the future and we put this back to the people in a people's vote. very little wiggle room between you two on this, is there? anybody who votes for no deal tonight is unfit for public office, knowing what we know, because the result of no deal would because the result of no deal would bea because the result of no deal would be a shortage of medicines, people will die from an economic dislocation point of view we know that the welsh economy were deal a ra nt that the welsh economy were deal a rant —— i close around £5 billion and public services would collapse, because they are dependent on european money. you use phrases like people will die, the public are getting very tired of the project fearin getting very tired of the project fear in whatever guise over the yea rs, fear in whatever guise over the years, these statements really need

to be properly backed up.” years, these statements really need to be properly backed up. i don't think that is project fear. we know the government have been buying fridges to stockpile medicines and how much have they stockpiled? the proponents of voting to keep no deal is going to be part of the negotiations with the european union? they finished in november and since then, or we union? they finished in november and since then, orwe have had is playacting, as evidenced by the attorney general last night on the la st attorney general last night on the last point where he said there is no legislative or legal changes to the treaties. the negotiations with europe ina treaties. the negotiations with europe in a meaningful sense are over. it is now a matter for the british state to get its act together. you both have amendments you are backing tonight. what is in yours? ours is to take no deal off the table, as i said, notjust now but off the table altogether because what we don't want to do is come back later on to say that the no deal scenario has reappeared. all of the uk government's own economic analysis show that any version of brexit is going to be harmful,

harmful to jobs, brexit is going to be harmful, harmful tojobs, two people. this is about food on the table, real—life issues and it is really important that we don't allow the government to ta ke that we don't allow the government to take a stand that catastrophic path. they have lost control of the brexit process completely. theresa may and her government have gone feral, as has the rest of the conservative party and the labour party aren't better and it is important to take that out of the mix. looking at what was announced this morning, possible tariffs in the event of no deal, special mention of something close to your heart and that is sheep, lamb, meat and tariffs that won't be altered. what does that mean to you? the big issue when you talk about tariffs is notjust issue when you talk about tariffs is not just about imports, issue when you talk about tariffs is notjust about imports, it is also the exports and if we place heavy tariffs on imports over sheep meat into the uk and into wales, the exporter countries will reciprocate and we will have a 50% on welsh lambs —— like we have 50% of welsh

lambs —— like we have 50% of welsh lambs that go to the european union. and the key thing is an open border between the northern ireland and ireland. the british government are throwing the welsh ports under abbas. we have to leave it there, jonathan edwards and drew hendry, thank you very much. back to you. welcome to liz truss to the studio, the first thing i want to ask is which way are you going to vote this morning? will you vote to keep no deal to keep —— i keep no deal on the table? i am although we don't know exactly which amendments will be passed. as usual, there are a smorgasbord of amendments but it is important we keep no deal on the table, we hold our nerve and keep pressure up, because if we extend, if we allow the pressure to dissipate, ultimately i fear that we won't end up delivering brexit at all and that will be a massive problem with public trust. so what do you make of what your boss said, philip hammond? he stood there and said we are not where i hope to be. brexit uncertainty is damaging our

economy and our reputation in the world. we must take the opportunity to re m ove world. we must take the opportunity to remove the imminent threat of no deal this evening. and you are not going to do that. well, what i want us to do is to carry on working to secure the prime minister's deal. we have had two votes on it and what i observed yesterday is a number of our colleagues are supportive of it in principle. they had concerns about the backstop mechanism. there was only a short space of time for them to consider bad. but i think all of the other alternatives are appalling. i don't want no deal, i don't want a customs union and i don't want a customs union and i don't want a customs union and i don't want to brexit. so why aren't you removing it and taking it off the table? your boss, the chancellor, has just stood the table? your boss, the chancellor, hasjust stood in the table? your boss, the chancellor, has just stood in the commons and told our viewers about how desperate it will be if no deal remains. you are in the same government. he is saying one thing and you are saying something com pletely and you are saying something

completely different. let me be clear, both of us voted for the prime minister's deal and that is our preferred option. i think we need to hold our nerve on that. what iam need to hold our nerve on that. what i am saying is i think of all the other choices, no deal would be better than not brexit. i think no brexit would be a disaster and you talked about the economy and limbo, the economy would be in huge limbo. philip hammond is talking about the economy right now, he is now talking about the future, not talking about about the future, not talking about a month's time. he is saying you have a choice tonight to remove the threat of no deal that is damaging the economy right now by taking it off the table. is he wrong? as the prime minister says, the only way to ta ke prime minister says, the only way to take no deal of the table is to support a deal. we do not unilaterally control whether or not we don't... unilaterally control whether or not we don't. .. unless unilaterally control whether or not we don't... unless we would decide to revoke article 50, which i think would be a complete disaster. in

terms of an extension, it is up to the eu whether they accept that, what the terms and conditions would be, we don't know what those are. i think that is a huge risk and i would much rather that we spend our effo rts would much rather that we spend our efforts getting our colleagues to support the brexit deal that is negotiated. who showed our viewers and voters believe? should they believe you or should they believe the chancellor? do you accept you are now disagreeing and diverging on the defining issue of this government? all of the cabinet were in the lobby yesterday with the prime minister supporting her deal. but we are talking about no deal.” appreciate that but what i am saying is everybody‘s first choice is getting that deal through. is everybody‘s first choice is getting that deal throughm is everybody‘s first choice is getting that deal through. is philip hammond helping the situation?” work very closely with philip hammond, i got huge respect for him andi hammond, i got huge respect for him and i am here on the programme to talk about the spring statement and we have had some excellent figures

on public finances and his stewardship of the economy has been excellent. what we are talking about now, though, is how do we make progress in these vital last—minutes before we leave the european union and in my view and i have to be frank about this, we need to hold our nerve and keep no deal on the table in order to secure what i think is a good deal.” table in order to secure what i think is a good deal. i hear you. what were you thinking, sitting there next to him, we were looking at you and him, you are in the department, in the treasury and he stood there and said no deal would mean insecurity, higher unemployment, lower wages, higher prices in the shops. that is not what the british people voted for in june 2016. i agree that no deal is not an ideal option. i support a deal, i believe we can get to a deal. but he says take it off the table. he also said in his statement that we have been preparing for no

deal, we have spent £4 billion making sure we are prepared for all eventualities. this is what people voted for and all of the parties, all of the mps who are voting against this deal, many of them are people who stood on a manifesto of delivering brexit and i think there isa delivering brexit and i think there is a massive issue here of public trust. of course, i recognise that there would be issues with no deal, thatis there would be issues with no deal, that is why i don't want no deal. but you could remove it. you are going to vote in a way this evening that the chancellor says will damage the economy. well, i agree that no deal is not the optimal scenario. do you need... i think we need to leave it on the table in order to secure a deal that can get the support of the house of commons. let's talk about the deal that you think will get the support of the house of commons. you don't agree on what is going to happen this evening, you are going to do something completely different to do something completely different to philip hammond, your boss. do you

agree with him that it is time for a consensus across the commons for a brexit deal, a consensus that goes beyond the conservative party? well, we had a consensus that went beyond the conservative party, which was represented by the brady amendment, which was represented by most conservative mps, the dup, many labour mps who are in leave facing seats and i think that is the basis ofa seats and i think that is the basis of a consensus to secure a deal. i am concerned about a consensus across their house that would involve a customs union. i think one of the reasons people voted for brexit and one of the things on our ma nifesto brexit and one of the things on our manifesto in 2017 was that we were going to have an independent trade policy. so being part of a customs union to me does not strike the right note, it doesn't deliver what we have promised. and the eu has rejected what you are proposing

again. they have moved, though. i think some of the interpretation of the attorney general's advice, you know, they have moved, there was additional legal assurances provided. and how big was the defeat? 149. which bit, people might be asking, of a defeat of 230 and a defeat of 149 does the government not get? we fully appreciate how disappointing last night's defeat was. believe me, iam not disappointing last night's defeat was. believe me, i am not trying to soft soap this. but you want to re—presented again for third time. what i am saying is the alternatives we are staring in the face of, either no brexit or ending up in a customs union, are worse than that. soi customs union, are worse than that. so i encourage my colleagues in the conservative party to really think about how can we get through to the next phase of these negotiations,

because we do have a really positive economic future. that is what paul johnson admitted. on the public finances but not on growth. you are the chief secretary to the treasury, that means you can count. 149. if you are going to continually resubmit this without any changes and the eu have made very clear now that they are not going to make any changes and we could argue in the past about whether they would stick to that, but they will now, if you submit the same thing three times without any changes, you are going to get the same answer. you are not going to be able to buy off another 75 mp5 going to be able to buy off another 75 mps to get to where you need to be. there are only 17 days to go until brexit. i agree we are in a very difficult position, but what i am looking at is the alternatives. no, what you are trying to do is spend the next 18 days scaring that the budgies are said try to try to get them to support your deal, that is what is going to happen —— like

scaring the bejeezus. last night, we had people like billy davies and nadine dories who had not been in favour of the deal but recognised it was a genuine threat to brexit in not supporting that and i think over time. you are 16 days away!” time. you are 16 days away! i appreciate that but i have always said it would go to the wire, european negotiations are never easy, dealing with a house of commons where you have a minority government is not easy and i think that is the best way of proceeding from where we are now. am i saying it is perfect, ideal? no, but let's recognise the good things, which is that we have record employment in this country, that we have had nine years of consecutive growth and public finances are now under control. we are ina finances are now under control. we are in a strong basis to move forward and if we can secure the deal with may be potential changes that need to happen, if we can secure that then we can move on to a much more positive second phase of negotiating the trade deals. and do you agree that philip hammond says that moving on as a consensus across

the house with the labour party that probably does indicate a softer brexit? philip hammond voted for the prime minister's deal yesterday, thatis prime minister's deal yesterday, that is his first choice and my first choice. he is voting tonight to ta ke first choice. he is voting tonight to take no deal off the table and then he has said, and i quote, a consensus across the commons, that means with the labour party for the brexit deal. he has given up on trying to get enough of your own collea g u es trying to get enough of your own colleagues to vote in favour of a deal that clearly i think it's important we secure the support of conservative mps, the dup and also reach across the commons for those labour mps and leave seats who would be very concerned about being seen to stop brexit. what about the support of the people out there? there is an overwhelming

opinion amongst the polls against this deal. people think it's a very bad deal, just like the house of commons, so why don't you go back and ask people what they want. do they want this deal or do they think there is a battle deal where we are now. it's only because you are frightened that you dare not ask the people. at this stage, what else can be done? i would like to invite you to swaffham and see what the people say there and they support that she, theresa may is doing a hard job in the circumstances and they want us to get on with and support the deal. let's move on to some of the content but we do need to talk about the tariff regime announced today because this is, in effect, because if no deal does become the default option in one way or another there needs to be some sort of tariff regime. can you explain exactly how it will work? we are going to have ta riffs it will work? we are going to have tariffs in place on a very small proportion of goods, but the vast

majority of goods will be zero ta riffs majority of goods will be zero tariffs and that will benefit uk consumers and make sure we do not see a hike in prices. goods will not be checked across the irish border for the majority of goods, as you say. how big is the risk of smuggling through that border in order to get goods from the eu into what would be a third country, the uk? there will be checks taking place on the uk border to make sure that doesn't happen. so is that a border down the irish sea?” that doesn't happen. so is that a border down the irish sea? i believe it will be a border in the uk. for businesses in northern ireland worried that they would be undercut, what do you say to them?” worried that they would be undercut, what do you say to them? i would say this is not an ideal scenario or one we wa nt this is not an ideal scenario or one we want but it's important to make sure that businesses are prepared for that eventuality. in terms of the money you spoke about, better tax receipts and philip hammond has got a certain amount of headroom, as he calls it. how much should be given to schools, which was a big

issue at the last general election and to tackle knife crime beyond the money announced today? i'm not going to announce the results of the spending review now that we're kicking off the process before the summer recess where we will go to all departments and look at where the pressures are and where we can make changes and where there are potential reforms, how can we get best value for public money. so not giving a substantial increase then to an area like schools where there has been a cut of 8% over the last five or six years per pupil? we are looking at all of those areas and seeing where there needs to be additionalfunding. and seeing where there needs to be additional funding. and where we can get better value for money and what we have said and we could use it to

increase public spending and increase public spending and increase it in infrastructure and we could use it for tax cuts or to pay down the debt but the point is we have options and that is because of the stewardship of the economy. what is your priority? our public services the priority? the number one priority is the nhs. we've already allocated 84 billion to increase funding and the prime minister is clear that the number one priority and we need to look at public services like schools and the police and make sure they are publicly funded and they are vital for making sure people are safe and they are vital for the future of our children. so how do you justify, since you came to power in 2010 in the coalition then the majority government that there has been a cut in police officer numbers on 22,000? £100 million was announced by the chancellor to deal with knife crime, but it won't touch the edges. when we first came into office we faced a terrible economic situation. we faced the financial crash and labour had overspent. so you made a

decision to cut 22,000 officers? we made a decision to keep control of public spending and get the deficit under control and we had a difficult period after the crash of recovering and everybody in britain had to tighten their belts so it was a difficult time. we are now saying we have got to a position where we seem continuous economic growth in nine yea rs continuous economic growth in nine years and increased tax receipts. so why aren't you giving more than £100 million extra to deal with the scourge of knife crime? that is a significant amount this year to be spent on knife crime but what we will be doing in the spending review is looking right across government and saying, where do we need to invest additional funds? that amount of money extra that he said would be available doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of what has been lost. i know you have always been a small stakes person, and i have seen what you've written and heard your speeches, and you want the state reduced. but you are not proposing to put back even a fraction of what

has been taken out of everything and in particular out of benefits, which was cruel beyond anything else. when you said you spread it evenly, no, you said you spread it evenly, no, you didn't, it was targeted on benefits at the very poorest. don't you think at least stopping the freeze, stopping it getting worse, should be your number—1 priority?” to focus money on core public services where the public want to see the money spent so areas like police, schools, other important priorities and we already put the extra money into the nhs but are you really saying to me that there is no where across government we can save money and there are no places of waste ? money and there are no places of waste? i didn't know you wanted more cards. that's news. it is my job to identify government waste. —— more cuts. let's return to the issue of no deal, because as we discussed earlier, you differ to philip hammond and the uncertainty he says

will be created has pushed him, in his mind, to publish these details about what will happen with the tariff regime. how likely do you think that that is going to happen? that we will see a new tariff regime coming into play to see the border openin coming into play to see the border open in ireland? the reason we publish the tariffs is because everybody needs to be informed in advance of the 29th of march where i don't want us to leave with no deal. but you've given them literally weeks to deal with a regime and are you confident you could explain that regime to all of those businesses that would be affected, bearing in mind you are voting for no deal to stay on the table? hmrc have been working closely with businesses and had a good pack of businesses information going out across country. this work has been going on for two years in terms of making sure businesses are prepared for no

deal. it's not a scenario we want, but the fact is, if we are not prepared to walk away from negotiations and if we are prepared to a cce pt negotiations and if we are prepared to accept any deal, we would not have secured the concessions we've already secured from the eu. fundamentally no deal is an important part of any negotiation strategy. so on those checks, you wa nt to strategy. so on those checks, you want to keep the border open between northern ireland and ireland? we don't want a hard border. but there will be a two tier system for tariffs, so where would the checks ta ke tariffs, so where would the checks take place? my understanding is that they take place on the uk border. how? how would it happen for businesses there? the eu has already says it has concerns about the ta riffs says it has concerns about the tariffs regime published today and it would be about those checks. they say they have to protect the integrity of the single market. we need to work closely with the eu market over the longer term. these are arrangements that would need to be in place from day one to deal

with the immediate no deal issue but i think we would work with the eu to get agreements, and that is what collea g u es get agreements, and that is what colleagues across government are doing. to be clear, if there's no checks down the irish sea there would have to be checks between ireland and northern ireland? there are checks going into the uk from northern ireland, is my understanding. under these proposals. we don't want these proposals. we don't want these proposals to happen. but you have published these proposals, so presumably as somebody who is going to keep no deal on the table, there has to be a certain depth of understanding as to how it would work? absolutely. if there were checks between the republic and ireland and northern ireland a lot of the cheques come be conducted using technology, and in the factories and places of destination, just as not everything that goes into the port of rotterdam is checked in the port, it's checked at the destination. doesn't that prove the destination. doesn't that prove the point that brexiteers have made

consistently, that it's perfectly possible to keep the northern ireland border open in the event of no deal? there is no border in the world and every time they are looked at it turns out to be nonsense. the eu has looked at it and these are unicorns and whether you like the proposal alternative arrangements, that has been the trouble with the votes. anybody can dream up alternatives. we are where we are because we have to make hard decisions, right now and you are sliding off them again. where you are wrong is that the european shop —— parliament did a study into this and their report concluded there was the technology available, liles karsten, he has done the same. but it hasn't been proven is what the critics will say. we have a -- as a government have studied this and there is a workable alternative arrangement and these meetings have been held by my colleagues at there

are workable arrangements. would they have a —— be available from day one? no, they wouldn't but bear in mind theresa may secured concessions from the eu and for alternative arrangements, there is a part of negotiation. at the port of dublin in the republic of ireland, 1% of goods are checked. are we suggesting every single consignment that goes from the republic of ireland to northern ireland will be checked?” don't think so. but as it stands people say there is not a border that works that way at the moment, and on indicative votes and this is where you can sound out where there is consensus, should that happen tomorrow in parliament?” is consensus, should that happen tomorrow in parliament? i would favour looking at how we can potentially modify the prime minister's deal or persuade more collea g u es minister's deal or persuade more colleagues to support that deal. i think that is the basis of the way forward but i worry about the various ambitions of people across the house of commons including having a second referendum including

joining a customs union and i don't think those are workable alternatives. do you think indicative votes will happen? you are asking me to predict the future and if you'd asked me a few months ago i wouldn't have done it successfully and i don't think any of us can really know what will happen. but what i'm saying is i think the best way forward that on the basis of the existing deal may be getting further clarifications to see if we can bring more colleagues on board. liz truss, thank you very much forjoining us today. i think ita much forjoining us today. i think it a few moments we will speak to the shadow chancellor, john mcdonnell, who was responding to philip hammond but while we wait for liz to leave and john to come in, listening to liz truss and in terms of what will happen this evening we now have collective responsibility that has been taken away and stripped away and we are going to have a party that is split on this key issue. do you think we will see parliament tomorrow taking control, those votes are being laid with

amendments asking members of parliament to state clearly what they would support?” parliament to state clearly what they would support? i do and i think it's something that should have happened when it was first mooted in early january and then we happened when it was first mooted in earlyjanuary and then we might not be in this position today. the fact that this boat is not being whipped says it all about the state of colla pse says it all about the state of collapse of collective responsibility and the fact that liz can come on the programme and openly disagree with the chancellor also says it all, i'm afraid. i've been looking at twitter and her comments are now going round social media like wildfire and this will continue because there isn't a unified cabinet position and it's impossible that there is but none of the cabinet ministers now really give a damn about whether they should speak out in public. but even in the labour party, poly, you must be disappointed that they have not come out all throttle for a second referendum. we have heard repeatedly phased process, that they would back it eventually, but not today, not tomorrow, it seems, and the split

there is evident as well, which is why they cannot do it. it's a great mistake, i think, why they cannot do it. it's a great mistake, ithink, and i think why they cannot do it. it's a great mistake, i think, and i think the splits are fairly minimal it is that the leadership that has always sworn that he was 100% behind the members of the labour party making policy decisions seems to be backing what people wanted, which is a referendum to agree or not agree to. the labour party needs to come out as the pro—european party, saying look, we've tried everything, look at the disaster it has brought us to and look how even the chief secretary to the treasury is willing to vote for no deal. the world has gone mad. let's restore sanity, for heaven's sake. i've got a suggestion for restoring sanity, we are going to go to simon mccoy who is out on college green, i say with a wry smile.

thatis that is the first time that has been used. ed davey from the lib dems in chris leslie from the independent group. we have a clear idea what the vote is going to do tonight and then what is going to happen? we have to get that no deal off the table, a massive vote against it and the liberal democrats believe we need to vote for an extension of article 50. it is clear the government is in chaos, we need time to resolve this, i think we need a people's vote with the option of remaining and that will take a little bit of time to organise. but at the moment there is no majority evident for another referendum, for a brexit deal, for anything. i think opinion is changing fast and i think when no deal is taken off the table and we have the space for an extension of article 50, i think people would reflect a nd article 50, i think people would reflect and say there is now time to consult the people. i also think may bea consult the people. i also think may be a different deal could be put to

the people than the prime minister's deal, which is disastrous, so maybe something like norway plus with the option of remaining. that would be for parliament to decide but liberal democrats are clear, extend article 50, do this properly but give the people the last say. chris leslie, is parliament about to take over this whole process anyway? yes, i think the fact that you have a prime minister putting down a motion which is still sort of game playing today, you have cross— party is still sort of game playing today, you have cross—party group of quite sensible people on the back benches who aren't sort of captured by the ideological extremes of the frontbenchers trying to find a way through, in this case today, let's reject the idea of leaving without a deal and crashing out and i would agree with what he was saying, move on more patiently to say what sort of brexit terms could be put to the public ina of brexit terms could be put to the public in a people's vote and i do think opinion is shifting in that way, certainly on tomorrow afternoon, i think there will be a

chance to vote on that very issue. we are running out of time and it has taken this long to get nowhere, so how do you see that playing out? what sort of extension will be required and will the eu necessarily give it? i think the eu will give it if it is for a purpose, for a democratic, constitutional exercise like a people's vote. i personally think it needs to be done no later than the end of september. if there we re than the end of september. if there were a than the end of september. if there we re a way than the end of september. if there were a way of delivering the public vote soon, i think everybody would wa nt vote soon, i think everybody would want to see that but ultimately, i think mps and a lot of other countries, the legislators sometimes has more control and we are used to in his country the executive steering everything and the tables have turned and it is time for elected representatives to use judgment and get us out of this mess. i can hear the collective groan around the country of this going on two september. you nodded at that. it may be quicker, but the reality is that even if the prime

minister's deal is voted for, brexit will go on for another few years because you will have two or three yea rs, because you will have two or three years, may be four years, of negotiating the agreement. the great thing about what the liberal democrats are proposing with a people's vote, if people voted to remain, that is the quickest thing to make this go away. if people want to make this go away. if people want to make this stop, and i think they are fed up with it, give them a referendum and give them the chance to remain. isn't there the risk of another referendum is going to make things worse? it may resolve absolutely nothing and bring people out on the streets and saying parliament is out of step with the people. i think we need clarity because when people voted last time, they were not told it was going to be so complex, costly, confusing. i say they were sold the heinz baked been brexit, there are 57 varieties and now we actually know and it is disastrous —— baked beans. and now we actually know and it is disastrous -- baked beans. look at the chancellor's numbers today,

business investment collapsing, tax revenue collapsing, a decade of austerity if we continue with this logy austerity if we continue with this mythology that brexit is somehow going to help us. it is not, it is bad in all its forms. thank you both very much. well, that is the view here from the voice of sanity, back to you. iam glad to you. i am glad someone is on top of it. i am going to introducejohn pienaar, who has joined us am going to introducejohn pienaar, who hasjoined us here, our deputy political editor. before we joined simon mccoy, we talked about labour's position and a second referendum. polly, why still so relu cta nt ? referendum. polly, why still so reluctant? emily thornberry, pushed because she has been so many times, the shadow foreign secretary, when will labour fulfil that promise and a full throated way. she said next week, do you think so? they have to do. peter kyle, who was putting together with bill wilson the amendment that was very carefully crafted and has the best chance of getting through, saying let is not —— let us nod through her deal but on the condition it is put to the

people whether they want it or not. they were expecting it to come back next week. it is possible it might come back this week, tomorrow, even. so everything is so up in the air, you don't know. labour is definitely bringing it back, we were definitely support it. the vast majority, someone, but the vast majority well. these are nuanced positions. what is i'm afraid clear is there has been a lot of foot dragging up until now, mostly from the leader, from jeremy corbyn, who is not keen on it.” think people have gathered that. i should say at this point, we were expecting john mcdonnell, the shadow chancellor to join expecting john mcdonnell, the shadow chancellor tojoin us, expecting john mcdonnell, the shadow chancellor to join us, but he is still in the chamber and we can't extra ct still in the chamber and we can't extract him at the moment. we hope to speak to somebody from the labour front bench before the end of the programme in the next ten minutes. on that second referendum, it still doesn't mean, even if labour next week with labour mps to back a second referendum and it is the case

that some of them rebel, it doesn't mean it is going to happen.“ that some of them rebel, it doesn't mean it is going to happen. if i was playing the part ofjohn mcdonnell in this conversation, i would say the labour party is moving steadily towards the position of embracing a fresh referendum on europe but, of course, as polly says, while this looks like an irresistible force there is still what is at the moment a potentially immovable object. it doesn't describe itself that way, it describes itself as the leader of the labour party, jeremy corbyn, and those around him who are sceptical, to put it extraordinarily mildly, about the entire project for reasons we have discussed many times before. so while the dynamics are moving towards the labour party coalescing around peter kyle's idea, which is in some way to stand back and sit on their hands while a theresa may deal goes through when there is a deal and if there is a deal, i don't think it will be that simple. will there ever be case where theresa may will say i will put my deal to the people or remain? i can't see that and the reason no one has put down

and the reason no one has put down an amendment on the second referendum, and they have had ample opportunity, is because they know there is no majority in the house of commons for a second referendum. there is no majority in the house of commons for a second referendumm isa commons for a second referendumm is a lot of people's second choice. that is why they are waiting, when their first choice falls, as theresa may's has fallen, a lot of people would say i would rather that than the other options. you said a few moments ago that labour should adopt this position because the overwhelming majority of labour members wanted. clearly you wanted, you agree with labour members and yet you disparage conservative members who agree with brexit and call them extremists. if you agree with the membership of one party when they won something, why can't you respect the wishes of members of the other party? indeed and that is for the conservatives to worry about. labour has a membership that is now mostly momentum dominated. the conservatives have a membership... but you are happy to agree with those extremists but not what you call conservative extremists? it is not what i agree with, it is a question of whether

parties are and what they can deliver. the tories cannot deliver a moderate labour because they have an immoderate membership. you would regard michael gove then as an extremist? it would depend on what policies you're looking at and what day of the you asked him. the other issueis day of the you asked him. the other issue is a vote of no confidence from labour. is that likely, another one, in the government over the next week? i asked one, in the government over the next week? iasked emily one, in the government over the next week? i asked emily thornberry yesterday after another catastrophic defeat for the prime minister but she said not at the moment. not at the moment means it is not on the agenda. they tried it, they knew they wouldn't succeed but were committed to going through the process. why rush and again just to lose again and even superficially, for the purposes of presentation, it will not back and the story becomes failure to win a vote of confidence rather than government on the back foot and prime minister in the corner. i don't think they would wish to rush to do that when they have the prime minister pretty much already... there is a scenario where that could happen because the government majority has been reduced

by three now with the independent group. if they were handful of kamikaze tory backbenchers that weren't going to stand at the next election anyway but was so outraged theresa may is still there and let it be known tojeremy theresa may is still there and let it be known to jeremy corbyn that they were willing to effectively be kamikaze, that is one scenario. are there people like that? there are 23i there people like that? there are 23! can think of. that explosion, that mushroom cloud, is potentially something that could happen. you would imagine that could only become a realistic possibility at the point that the government is literally driving britain over over the cliff foran driving britain over over the cliff for an ideal brexit. no, we are only a few days from that. in terms of what philip hammond said today, the consensus, he is reaching out to labour and telling theresa may you have got to go across the house. he is raising a flag that we know has a lwa ys is raising a flag that we know has always been in his back pocket. the prime minister, the government and the prime minister's position, is in

a pincer movement involving the soft brexiteers and it ties up with what is happening here at westminster within the next couple of hours. they have been talking about what are they going to be voting on, will they be ordered by the conservative whips to vote notjust on theresa may's vote to take no deal off the table but all together but the plan at the moment, as we hear, is to order ministers and mps to vote against that plan and ministers, as we speak, on the soft brexit side are getting their heads together and telling the whips we are going to vote for this so you better change the whipping position. what is interesting as we are going to get a lot of indicative votes, john bercow has said so, on all of the possibilities and theresa may has said you will get a chance to vote ona said you will get a chance to vote on a soft brexit, referendum, all of the possible options and there will bea the possible options and there will be a lot of combinations. will she be a lot of combinations. will she be willing to act as the servant of the house of commons and whatever they vote on, to put it through even

if it is not her own chosen option? because in the end, it has to be actioned. indicative votes are only indicative. what you think happens then? do you think she will say i honour the will of the house and it will be, say, a referendum or a soft brexit? we are speculating and reading theresa may's mine, which is a pretty difficult business quite a lot of the time, frankly and looking into the future. in some ways, teresa mine like a delete may‘s —— theresa may's mind is not that hard to read and we could end up there but only if theresa may is physically dragged into their position and that could happen.” physically dragged into their position and that could happen. i am going to break in here because we can go to central lobby and talk to johnny reynolds, the shadow economic secretary to the treasury. welcome to the programme, what did you make of the chancellor's statement? good afternoon. distinctly underwhelming, nothing there for the people of this country who have had such a difficult time over the knee a long

decade of austerity, nothing to make them know there are better times ahead and a whole range of claims relating to the strength of the economy which, i'm afraid, the data doesn't back up. this is the worst set of growth figures this country has ever had, the worst set of growth figures for wage growth. people want an alternative. do you agree with a chance that removing the threat of no deal as he sees it this evening is paramount to securing some certainty for the economy question mark it is paramount for some prosperity in the short term. the shock of no deal would clearly be substantial. you are on the same page? there is a complacency that underpins the rest of the statement. the suggestion being that if we get rid of no deal, there are better times ahead. are you saying there aren't? you just said if you take no deal away, there will be more certainty for the economy. there will be more certainty but it won't solve the problems unless you see a wider

change of government policy, so for people still this year experiencing another year of the benefits freeze, there is no news for them. if your children's school is going to be closing because it cannot afford to be open for a full five days a week, there is nothing for you. social ca re there is nothing for you. social care and the funding of your local council, no good news there. so removing no deal is the minimal level of sensible activities government should be doing but let's not pretend there is good news for eve ryo ne not pretend there is good news for everyone simply by doing that. and on that, philip hammond called for a consensus across the commons, he is thinking of you, of labour, for a brexit deal. how do you respond? well, that was an intriguing bit of the speech, it appeared he was reaching out to some degree. i understand they are already sort of stepping back from that and saying don't read anything into that. number ten? i have seen it on social media but they could have been a different message in the studio, thatis different message in the studio, that is the territory we were in. he

made it clear, your ears must have picked up as he looked across the dispatch box to say we need to build consensus across the house, that is not government policy but an offer to you. will you embrace it? it did entreat me and my ears did prick up and if they can't get their own mps to back the deal, they have to come to back the deal, they have to come to us or they have to change those mps through a general election somehow. so if there was a willingness from the chancellor to talk about a long—term future arrangement, that is what labour mps want, not vote for a deal that gives them no certainty. if you want to talk about the customs union, protecting jobs, address some of those problems, he can talk to us any time. thank

the chancellor said the office for budget responsibility had slashed its growth forecast for 2019 to 1.2%, rather than its growth forecast for 2019 to 1.2%, ratherthan1.6%, its growth forecast for 2019 to 1.2%, rather than 1.6%, predicted its growth forecast for 2019 to 1.2%, ratherthan1.6%, predicted in last yea r‘s 1.2%, ratherthan1.6%, predicted in last year's budget. let's give you a flavour now. police forces in england will receive an immediate £100 million to help tackle a rise in knife crime. the chancellor also announced a £3 billion affordable homes guarantee scheme, which will be aimed at building 30,000 affordable homes for first—time buyers. and all secondary schools and colleges in england will receive free sanitary products from september. the chancellor announced £100 million of extra funding for police forces in england to deal with knife crime. police funding is due to from