facilitate parental leave in the space but we also obviously have to ensure that there's proper consultation and were looking at the interest of individuals in the whole house. >> order. [inaudible conversations] also this morning, british prime minister theresa may appeared before parliamentary committee to answer questions

about the current state of brexit negotiations. her recent round of negotiations came under fire with two cabinet officials resigned due to disagreements over the handling of the deal. this portion is 40 minutes. >> thank you for coming. we are going to be covering brexit for the first hour and then will be moving on to the subject of air quality, defense expenditure, restoration and renewal and if we have time, health and social care. let's start with the committee chair. >> good afternoon by

minister. given the events of the past two weeks, wouldn't it strengthen your hand in the negotiations if you put the white paper to a vote in the house of commons? >> if i think what is important is that we have set out with the government's position is, that we have got through particularly important legislation in the house of commons than what's really important in withdrawing from the union, we put the white paper, we publish the white paper, we have begun discussing that at the eu level and we continue these negotiations. you can't constantly be selling out where we are in those negotiations. as i've said, were not going to do a running commentary on the negotiations. what is important is that this is the government's position as being put forward and as we've seen in some of the

other pieces of legislation we put through in planning for our future in relation to being outside the european union, they needed to see the strength of our determination. >> we know it's the government's position. the question is whether it's parliament's position. the problem is everyone else is watching what's going on here, including those who are negotiating. there wondering whether in fact the proposal have the support of parliament. doesn't that make your job more difficult? we have been very clear this is what they are bringing forward. these are the uk proposals that we are taking forward, and that is being engaged by the commission. >> can you remind us how much the government is spending on preparing for a no deal outcome? >> the treasury set aside over a period of two years, to prepare for work was allocated at the statement, my right now

girlfriend explained the allocation of the 2018 and 19 among the department. for example, as you might imagine, it has 310 million allocated to it for that year, customs 260 million, 395 million, we have other big amounts, hundred 85 million and then obviously other departments have some as well. there is work they are doing to prepare for the outcome and of course those outcomes. [inaudible] >> can you confirm no deal would mean. [inaudible] if there's no deal there will be a hard border in northern ireland. >> there isn't a simple answer for that which is what you are looking for. obviously are w if we were

looking at the question of a no deal it would be for the united kingdom, we would need to consider what action we would take in those conditions. >> you put a huge amount of work to avoid a hard border. as you said and july, you said it's the only way to avoid a hard border between northern i learned and ireland and therefore if there's no deal there can be friction free movement of goods. >> if there is no deal there would be decisions for the government to take about the actions it was taking at its borders. the european commission is very clear that if there is no agreement in relation to customs and arrangements than there has to be checks at the border, but as i say, when you come to a circumstance, whatever the circumstance is

or were, we would need to look at the situation in which that deal was being put into place, the arrangement, and so forth. >> you just acknowledge that the commission has said the checks would have to be put into place on the european side therefore there would be a hard border. the question is why would that be worth it. as you've often said were prepared to contemplate no deal although you don't want that outcome, why would that be a price worth.paying. >> if i could just re- explain what i just said, if we were in a no deal situation we would obviously have to consider what action we would take and the european commission would have to consider what action it was taking with its responsibility, and indeed individual governments would have to consider the action they were taking in those circumstances. as i've said, as you know the

proposals that have been put forward so far have been based on the assumption that if you don't have that in trade, what i'm saying is if we were in a circumstance of no deal than all the parties would have to determine what action they would take. i remain by that. i think that is) i think a bad deal some said we would be prepared to take any price but i think that would not be a good deal. >> you been very clear about that prime minister but there's nothing new in the white paper on the backstop for northern ireland and as you know the absence for a backstop is currently holding up the agreement. will you be proposing that the common rulebook with the eu, which you have now embraced would also apply to the backstop thus filling in the

gap that you identified when you published your proposals? he said will need something on regulations. >> as you correctly say we have not yet finalized the discussions we are hiring. i will make the point that we have put forward a proposal for trade with deals with the northern ireland were and plan a is the preferable route to take in terms of dealing with the northern island border. that's what we have published in our white paper. as come to discuss with european union and the european commission, the withdrawal agreement, we obviously committed to having that in the withdrawal

agreement. those discussions are still taking place. >> when will you complete the backstop proposal? >> the discussions and negotiations on the backstop proposal in the withdrawal agreement and the negotiations will continue and people will see what the final details are when the final withdrawal agreement is ready. >> on the question of regulator regulatory, when will that be addressed. you recognize that it needed to be addressed. will that be in the next month or two? it will be addressed in negotiations. all right. now if parliament were to choose to diverge from the common rule and the common rulebook with applied to the backstop, then wouldn't that

in effect mean a return to checks on the border in northern ireland and if that's the case, doesn't mean that in practice parliament can't diverge from a common rulebook. >> parliament will be able to make a decision as to whether to divert from the common rulebook. there's a whole set of processes. it is the case that if the european union were to put forward a change as part of those rules then there would be a process of determination as to whether or not that affected the agreement that's being entered into or if it was not material to the agreement and secondly there would be a consideration from the uk side and we set out in the white paper a number of proposals by parliamentary about how that would be addressed, the question would initially be discussed in the

joint committee and we would then look to see the degree of change that was relevant in relation to the new rule, parliament would look at that and in considering this. >> we understand how the system would work. >> in that case, what i'm going to is what you understand, but when parliament came to its decision they would take into account a number of aspects of the future relationship and they would also include commitments to northern ireland. >> and finally, can you confirm that your proposed customer arrangement, assuming it's agreed by the eu, will be ready to go by december 2020? >> the majority of what is required for this arrangement will definitely be in place by december 2020. there is a question to the speed to which the repayment mechanism would be in place

and that could take longer. that is yet to be determined. >> the majority of it would be in place by 2020. >> thank you. we now have questions from the trade committee. >> thank you very much. [inaudible] [inaudible] the irish independent is inevitable and it's implication implications.

[inaudible] >> what we have set out in the agreement and detailed in more detail in the white paper our proposal to facilitate agreement over regulatory arrangements would make sure we don't have a hard border between ireland and northern ireland. as you know we waited and we them been working on all of these elements in this complex set of negotiations and we put forward a proposal. >> it's much talked about in this has been applied to every other border that the uk would share, what's going to be happening? >> the proposals we have put forward, we've always said.

[inaudible] are they preparing for difficulty? >> everybody is because were preparing for all contingencies. but the proposal that we have put forward in the checkers agreement as a detailed in the white paper set out for plan on customs and certain areas of regulation between the uk and other member states in the european union and, if i may make this point, the point of the irish economy that affects trade between ireland and great britain is a more significant element of the economy than the trade between ireland and northern ireland.

>> if you looked at the white paper and the agreements we came to an checkers, you would see the proposal were putting forward, we have put forward a proposal for the common rulebook in a specific area of industrial goods and the customs arrangement that can go alongside that, those which would deliver. >> where does this exist. >> it doesn't. it was a novel idea but i would sincerely hope you would not suggest to me that the only approach the government can take to this is simply to say what else exists and what can we take out of that rather than saying actually, what is the arrangement we think will be best for the uk, let's put that forward and let's argue for that in those

negotiations. >> some say pie-in-the-sky, perhaps we can see which one it is. you then went for 24 months, do you have enough time for your novel ideas. >> yes, we are all working both sides of this negotiation on the same timetable. we will be leaving as you've indicated on your question, the implementation. which is a. which enables businesses and government for future relationships will end in december 2020. we are still working on the time table of ensuring that we have withdrawn agreements and details agreed by october such that that can then become for parliament. i think the same will be true for the european parliament that their job will be a slightly different one.

they will want to know what the arrangements are for the future relationship and that's what were working too. >> okay. are the u.s., uk trade deals still on the couch? that's worth about 2% of gdp. what does the government estimate that the rest of the gdp. >> very often people look at this equation and one is substituted for the other. what i'm looking at is that we can both maintain a good trading relationship with european union and also build on that with improved trading

relationship around the world. that's one of the initial things will be doing. will be looking at continuity of those agreements with the european union already has in certain parts of the world. and that will look to improve. >> it's about two and half times the cost. to replicate you will need about 25 to 50 of those types of agreements to make up the difference. it really is. [inaudible] it's not to make up for the damage you chosen for the economic damage you are doing. >> first of all, what we are doing is delivering on a vote that was taken by the british people. parliament voted 691 the

alternative to what you are suggesting is actually saying. >> no, i'm not accepting that you are talking about the position were in in terms of the negotiations of leaving the european union for the reason we are doing that is because we asked people what they wanted to do, they have said they want to leave the eu and that's what the government will deliver. in delivering on it were delivering what people voted for to an end to free movement and were also ensuring that we do it in a way that protects jobs. that's what the chequers agreement delivers and that's what's in the white papers. >> thank you. >> may we returned to the issue, under the proposal for the facilitated agreement, are you still proposing that

countries will not have to collect any additional or different tariffs for the uk? >> no, if you look at the concept of reciprocity is in the white paper. what we are proposing is that it would be the formula arrangement so there would be a formula agreement for the sums of money for the goods that were coming not just to the uk, but into the european union through the uk and some of the money that would we related to those goods in the european union and the united kingdom. >> it sounds really collocated. what's happening at the border? >> at our border we will collect eu tariffs for goods that are heading to the eu.

will we or won't we expect eu countries to collect our tariffs on goods that are destined for the uk? >> what we have put in the white paper, what we expect is that eu countries, i say eu countries but in fact the way the eu does it is not necessarily to the individual countries in terms of the way the payments are made, but the sums of money that will be relevant for goods that are entering the european union or destined for the united kingdom would be a page to the uk. >> if we have different levels of tariffs, and said very clearly or at least i thought it was clear and page 17, however the uk is not proposing that the eu apply the uk tariffs and trade policy at its border for good intended for the uk. is that still the case? >> what we are proposing that

you see in that paragraph earlier, the uk proposes a tear revenue formula for goods entering via the eu and those entering via the united kingdom. the important thing is there's reciprocity in the sums of money that would be paid. what were saying is a good would not enter the european union the stupid uk without the european union being expected. [inaudible] but suppose we have lower tariffs than the u.s. and europe has lower tariffs, for example. we would then collect the higher eu tariffs on the goods coming from the u.s. when they

came in through liverpool or wherever. would we expect goods coming into the eu from new zealand, would we expect the eu to collect higher tariffs for us or would we expect them to apply their own eu tariffs. >> at the border. >> what i'm saying what the paragraph says is that this is not a question of someone physically handing cash over at the border. the way we would deal with it is a formula revenue agreement between the european union and the united kingdom which would reflect what was required for the goods entering the european union destined for the uk just as the money would reflect goods coming into the united kingdom and destined for. [inaudible] >> but the payments to be made

somewhere. if these goods are coming in from new zealand and their arriving in spain or somewhere and we have a higher tariffs, where is that higher tariffs paid? is it paid when they arrived in spain or in italy or is it not paid when the goods arrive in spain or italy? there will be an agreement with the european union. >> the importers will be under a requirement to ensure they have paid the correct tariff. >> to spain or to italy? >> what matters is what money comes to the united kingdom. the two elements of having a formula, a tear revenue formula, an agreement with the european union which relates the sums of money that are due

from one side to the other in the movement of goods. >> what happens, who is going to pay the extra money when the goods arrive in spain or italy or are we going to have to charge them when they get transferred across from spain across to the uk? how are we going to make sure they pay their tariffs? first of all the land to be requirement on businesses to ensure they are paying the correct tariffs. i think what i'm saying is the overall concern for united kingdom is to ensure the arrangement we have with european union is relevant to and reflects the flow of goods and the nature of tariffs that are relevant in relation to goods coming from different

places and that money is therefore able to be exchanged. >> but you can exchange money that's not been paid so i still don't understand, the importer, when are they paying the extra tariff? if we put different tariffs in the uk, because that as i understand it is what we want to happen. we want to be outside and you won't have different tariffs for the rest of the eu. if we have those different tariffs where is the money going to be paid? >> what matters to us, first of all, one of the reasons have different care is no is to lower your tariffs so you can have trade around the world. there are going to be certain circumstances where the uk will say were going to charge higher taxes than the uk is charging. what matters is that we have an agreement for goods crossing the border and the

money paid between the european union and the united kingdom reflects those goods. it's obviously part of the proposal were putting forward and there will be elements we will be discussing in terms of how that would be entered into. >> but here's the problem but i'm really baffled as to what will happen and how these differential tariffs will work. i'm even more baffled because we still have the statements in the white paper which says were not going to have the eu applying the uk tariffs and trade at the border, but you have crafted this reciprocity for those duties and taxes collected on those products in a country on a reciprocal

basis. the reason were going round and round on this is that it's not straight about the language and what it is you're actually proposing. everyone is confused and the result is that no one trusts what the government is doing. >> have been very straight about the language, not just straight in saying it but it's published in the white paper. what we are proposing is a reciprocal agreement with the european union in relation to the exchange of tariffs that are paid on external borders for goods entering the united kingdom destined to the eu and entering the european union destined for the united kingdom. >> and this will be in place and working by 2021? >> i've answered the question from our point of view. the arrangement will indeed be

able to negotiate. >> it's quite baffling. >> what is baffling about it. were exchanging money that's relevant to both party. there we are. now we're going to move on to the science and technology committee. >> let's discuss something we should be able to agree on. you understand there are a lot of people in the community were deeply anxious about the uncertainty that we currently have. you talked about a far-reaching science and innovation pack. but we haven't heard anything about the progress you've made on that. where is it and what is the timescale for getting this completed so we can have certainty. >> first of all, we have been trying to give some certainty

to the science community in terms of what is already in existence. >> they are worried about the future and planning research projects. >> i recognize that. i recognize that as being part of your question but i just wanted to get that on the table so to speak. we have some exchanges with the commission. we've had some positive changes and obviously what we are proposing in the records is part of the overall future negotiation. the timetable for that, as i've said in answer to an earlier question that we are working to have that agreed by october which is the date that was originally set. >> and we could have your far-reaching accord in place. >> what we will have working for the autumn is the overall agreement on the relationship and the science and innovation will be part of that and what

i'm working for is to have sufficient detail so people have the confidence of knowing whether going to stand for the future. they will, just to be clear, it will be a future relationship. >> you said that should include or that you wanted to include your ambition to remain a participator and what would be arriving europe and the science committee sees that is vitally important. on the radio this morning they say keeping company with the science collaboration is a key aide that we must keep right. is it still your ambition to be part of horizon europe. >> we do want too. it is still the ambition that we want to make sure we have the hot and we want too.

[inaudible] we have to look at what horizon europe is going to entail. >> we know the details of the program which we participated in negotiating. >> will also be discussing the basis of the uk outside the eu involvement in horizon europe could be. there are countries outside the european union who are able to participate. >> and you talked about them need for the appropriate level of influence. what does that mean? the eu appears to be clear that they won't have about. if that's the case, does that mean we won't be part of horizon europe. >> we will be part of the

negotiations. exactly what the package of involvement will look like, we have that ambition, we think that makes sense to the european union and much of the research that is done here in the uk. : : : >> it is not just and i can in academia. when you have an immigration system in place that enables us in a seamless way to get the

best people to work in this country for the good of our country. >> but we have always been limited in the u.k. >> but what will we will be doing is to set out the immigration rules that would apply for people coming from the european union in the future once we have control. otherwise we would have as you know set of rules. the policy has been doing the work and the be reporting this year the impact being worked on the u.k. economy. >> have you made any --

[inaudible question] >> there will continue to be difficulties. we continue to talk about them. but alongside that will see if we can't be the way that we should be. it's important for participati participation. >> i recognize that with this commission. >> tonight, remarks on doctor anthony on the past year's flu season which the government says killed more children than any other non- pandemic you're on

record. he spoke at the national press club. will say that at 9:00 p.m. eastern at c-span2. then testimony from jerome powell on monetary policy and the u.s. economy. he spoke before the house financial services committee. that airs tonight at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal", live every day with me some policy issues that impact two. coming up on thursday morning, utah republican congressman chris stewart will discuss the fallout from president trumps meeting from the meeting with vladimir putin. then we'll talk about the meddling in the election and to the impact on the 2018 midterm elections. watch thursday morning. join the discussion.

>> thursday the senate banking committee holds a hearing for president trumps nominees to lead the consumer financial bureau and the export bank. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span three. friday, the national governors association holds a summer meeting in santa fe new mexico. they'll discuss future technology with women in leadership and economic opportunities in the outdoors. >> join us this weekend for alaska weekend, with featured programming on c-span, book to be an american history tv. we'll explore the natural beauty, history, culture and public policy issues that face the state. saturday morning on c-span, "washington journal" reporter on the effect of climate change in alaska. sunday morning, jacqueline, executive director of the national congress of american

indians discusses american native and american alaskan issues. tina pigeon, general counsel for cable provider, gci talks about how the company makes broadband possible for small villages across tundras, glaciers and mountains. the incoming president for telehealth will talk about providing healthcare and telemedicine. then, book tv saturday noon eastern the c-span cities tour except the literary historical theme. the author of amazing pipeline stories, the president of the alaska heritage institute with her book on alaskan natives. stan jones will talk on the 1989 exxon valdez oil spill. sunday on afterwards, author mark adams talks about his book, tip of the iceberg. he retraces and 1899 -- the

c-span cities tour visits the alaska state capitol, the alaskan heritage center and we will take a look at preparing seafood for market. at 430 on real america, watch for documentaries on alaska. the film alaska silver millions, 1949 film, eskimo hunters in northwestern alaska. watch alaska weekend, saturday and sunday july 21 and 22nd on the c-span networks. where you can listen with the free c-span radio app. >> sunday for the q&a, the daughter of american diplomat

discusses her memoir, daughter of a cold war. >> i met putin and 91 in st. petersburg. >> was he deputy mayor then? >> yes. i was running my business consulting firm. i have a client that wanting something to do with the port of st. petersburg. i was meeting with the real mayor and they substituted the deputy mayor, putin. i knew putin had been kgb. i was negative about it, he came in and was equally negative. he did not want to meet with an american women. i think he was very suspicious of woman. he had no guarantee. he was the cold this, he had the coldest ice i have ever seen.