I posted a summary of Sir Ivan Rogers’ evidence to the Brexit committee earlier, but I have now beefed it up with a few extra quotes. You can read it here, at 12pm. You may need to refresh the page to get the updates to appear.

Gareth Thomas, the shadow local government minister, is replying for Labour.

He says after PMQs the prime minister’s spokesperson said there would be no new money to help firms affected by the business rates revaluation. He says Javid should confirm that the new money being announced is not just the result of money that would have helped other businesses being re-allocated.

In the Commons Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, is opening a debate on local government financial reports.

We are expecting him to say something about the controversy about the business rates revaluation at some point.

My colleague Anushka Asthana is doing a Guardian Facebook live video now, talking to the Labour MP Jess Phillips about the abuse MPs face online.

Tony Blair’s statement about Fiddler/al-Harith case and the Daily Mail includes a sentence accusing the paper of running a story titled: “Still Think He Wasn’t A Danger, Mr Blair? Fury at Labour government’s £1m compensation for innocent Brit.” (See 12.52pm.)

Blair was wrong about that. That headline is from the Sun.

My younger colleagues tell me that the deputy Labour leader Tom Watson seemed to be doing a dab at PMQs.

Neville-Jones says it is clear that the authorities got the threat level posed by Fiddler wrong.

But the fact that Fiddler was first detained in Kandahar in Afghanistan does not necessarily prove he was a seriously bad person, because many people were swept up there, she says.

Pauline Neville-Jones, a security minister under the coalition government, is being interviewed on the World at One now.

She says the possibility that Fiddler would continue to be a threat does not seem to have been taken as seriously as it should have been.

She says that Guantanamo Bay was probably not a place where people’s hostility to the west was lessened.

Jack Straw, the Labour former home secretary and justice secretary, is on the World at One now speaking about the Ronald Fiddler/Jamal al-Harith case.

Straw says that he and Tony Blair never argued that people being released from Guantanamo Bay did not pose a risk.

He says compensation to Fiddler was paid out under the coalition government, not under the Labour government.

He says the government faced the problem that it could not contest claims for compensation without revealing secret material in court. But he says the coalition government sought to address this by changing the law to allow some proceedings to be held in camera.

And he criticises Theresa May for relaxing the control order regime introduced by Labour.

UPDATE: I’ve corrected the penultimate paragraph because Straw was talking about the coalition government changing the law to allow some proceedings to be held in camera, not something he did as a minister.

During PMQs I missed the questions from Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, because I was writing the snap verdict. So here they are.

Robertson asked if the government would ratify the Istanbul convention on domestic violence. He said:

The prime minister has said it is a key personal commitment to transform the way domestic violence is tackled. It’s hugely welcome that she has called for ideas about how the treatment of victims can be improved and convictions secured against abusers.

Theresa May replied:

There were still an estimated 1.3m female victims of domestic abuse over the last year. We are fully committed to ratifying it and that’s why we supported [SNP MP Eilidh Whiteford’s] private member’ bill. We need to maintain this momentum, that’s why I’m setting up a ministerial working group to look at the legislation, at how we provide support for victims and the possibility of a Domestic Violence Act.

Robertson then urged May to ensure that Tory MPs do not block Whiteford’s private member’s bill.

Will she join me in encouraging members to support the bill and discourage any attempts to use parliamentary wrecking tactics to stop it?

May said the government was backing the bill.

The government has tabled some mutually agreed amendments, which the government will be voting for on Friday and I hope all [Conservative MPs] here on Friday will be supporting those measures.

I’ve taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.

Here is the Guardian’s story from earlier today about Ronald Fiddler, who changed his name to Jamal al-Harith, the Manchester-born jihadi who blew himself up in Iraq.

Here is the full text of the statement Tony Blair has issued about the Daily Mail and Ronald Fiddler.

And here are further extracts.

I would not normally respond to daily stories about events which happened during my time in office but on this occasion I will do so, given the utter hypocrisy with which this story is being covered. The Daily Mail is running a story entitled “Still Think He Wasn’t A Danger, Mr Blair? Fury at Labour government’s £1m compensation for innocent Brit”, regarding news a former Guantanamo Bay detainee launched a suicide attack on behalf of ISIS this week ...

[Fiddler] was not paid compensation by my government. The compensation was agreed in 2010 by the Conservative government.

When his release was announced in very measured terms in 2004, pointing out the risks which remained with Guantanamo detainees, the Conservative MPs reacted by strongly criticising not the release but why it had taken so long.

The fact is that this was always a very difficult situation where any government would have to balance proper concern for civil liberties with desire to protect our security, and we were likely to be attacked whatever course we took. The reason it did take a long time for their release was precisely the anxiety over their true affiliations.

Pressed again in 2004 on the remaining British detainees at Guantanamo I told the liaison committee: “The difficulty for us is this: we all know that we are faced with a significant terrorist threat. Let us be clear, all of these people…were picked up in circumstances where we believe, at the very least, there are issues that need to be resolved, let us say, in respect of those individuals. Certainly from what I have seen about those individual cases, I would need to be very, very clear that there was in place in this country a sufficient infrastructure and machinery to be able to protect our own security”.

But those who demanded their release should not be allowed to get away with now telling us that it is a scandal that it happened.

UPDATE: Tony Blair’s statement about Fiddler/al-Harith case and the Daily Mail includes a sentence accusing the paper of running entitled: “Still Think He Wasn’t A Danger, Mr Blair? Fury at Labour government’s £1m compensation for innocent Brit.”

Blair was wrong about that. That headline is from the Sun.

Andy Burnham, the Labour MP, says May said when she became prime minister that she wanted to end the injustice of so few working class boys going to university. How is that consistent with all the schools in Leigh, his constituency, losing money.

May says the government is looking at a new funding formula. But the government wants an education policy that allows all pupils to fulfil their potential.

Caroline Lucas, the Green MP, says the business rates hike could have a devastating impact in Brighton. Will she set up a discretionary fund and review the whole system?

May says business rates are based on property values, which go up and down. The government wants to support businesses. Transitional relief will be in place. But she recognises that some firms will have problems, and that is why she has asked ministers to ensure that those particularly badly affected get “appropriate relief”.

Neil Parish, a Conservative, asks about the killing of Barry Pring in Ukraine. It is not being properly investigated. Will May take it up with the Ukrainian authorities?

May says the police have liaised with the Ukrainian authorities, and information from the inquest is being passed on to Ukraine.

Labour’s Nic Dakin asks if May supports giving more support for research into pancreatic cancer.

May says this is a very difficult cancer to treat. She agrees that more attention should be given to cancers like pancreatic cancer.

Crispin Blunt, a Conservative, asks if the government will allow humanists to conduct marriages in England, as they can do in Scotland.

May says this is a difficult area of law, and that the government is looking at it carefully.

Labour’s Phil Wilson says May has said no deal with the EU is better than a bad deal. Does the same apply to any proposed trade deal with the US.

May says any trade deal the UK concludes will be good for the UK.

Chris Davies, a Conservative, asks about constituents whose daughter was killed in Thailand. The killer has not been found. Will the government intervene to help ensure her effects are returned.

May says this is a terrible case. She says the Foreign Office has been providing support.

Labour’s Kerry McCarthy asks May if she will meet the mayor of Bristol to discuss the budget cuts he faces.

May says Sajid Javid, the communities secretary, has already had a meeting with the mayor.

May says the government needs to be able to increase vaccine production in the event of a pandemic. There are contingency plans for this, she says. She says the government also has a £10m competition to promote vaccine productions.

Corbyn says in reality 10,000 fewer nursing training places are being filled, because fewer people are applying now that bursaries have gone. Will May reinstate those bursaries.

May says she answered the question about nurse training places. Let’s look at what is happening in the NHS, she says. More people are being seen, and more operations are taking place. NHS staff are working hard. What they do not need is a Labour policy that would bankrupt the economy.

Corbyn says we should recognise the pressure nurses are under. A survey today says nurses are overstretched. There is a nursing shortage. Something should be done about it, such as reinstating the nursing bursary. Some 18,000 patients a week are waiting on trolleys. As Tories jeer, he says some people are not bothered 1.2m elderly people are not getting the care they need. We need a government that puts the NHS first.

May say Corbyn should consider correcting the record. Most NHS trusts are good or outstanding, contrary to what Corbyn said. She will not take any lessons from the party that presided over Mid Staffs. He says Labour should learn lesson. They still fail to recognise that you need a strong economy to fund the NHS. Labour used to talk about boom and bust. Now it is now longer boom and bust, it is borrow and bankrupt.

Corbyn says May did not answer the question about why units are closing. One problem is social care. Lord Porter, the Conservative LGA leader, says the council tax precept increase will not give councils what they need. When will other councils get what Surrey is getting.

May says Corbyn asked about Surrey two weeks ago. His claims were demolished. Corbyn should apologise.

Corbyn says May should answer the letter from other council leaders asking if they will get the same deal as Surrey. Has the government met it target of creating 10,000 more training places for nurses.

May says that target has been met. The Conservatives are putting more money into the NHS, and is spending more than Labour planned to do at the time of the last election.

Corbyn says waiting times are getting worse. Why are one in six A&E units set for closure or downgrading.

May says there are more emergency care doctors, and more people being seen in A&E. Corbyn asks what the NHS needs. More doctors? It is getting more doctors. More funding? It is getting that. But it does not need a bankrupt economy.

Jeremy Corbyn says when hospitals are struggling to provide essential care, why is the NHS cutting the number of hospital beds?

May says thanks to new technology, the average amount of time spent in a hospital bed has halved. And under Labour 25,000 hospital beds were cut. She says before the 2010 election Andy Burnham, the then Labour health secretary, said he would cut the number of hospital beds.

UPDATE: I’ve corrected the post above because May said Burnham made this comment before the 2015 election, not before the 2010 election as I originally reported.

May says the current school funding system does not work properly. Labour did not address it properly, she says. There is a consultation underway.

Labour’s Yasmin Qureshi asks about the campaign fighting the cuts at West Cumbria hospital. They were due to deliver a petition at Number 10 yesterday. But they were told to come back after the byelection.

Theresa May says the petition was delivered yesterday. She says the very good Conservative candidate in the Copeland byelection has told May herself how opposed people are to the cuts.

The committee hearing has just finished. This exchange came towards the end.

Dominic Raab is a pro-Brexit Conservative.

I will post a summary soon.

Rogers says the UK cannot know at this stage whether countries like South Korea will offer the UK the same trade terms as it has had as part of the EU after Brexit, or whether they will insist on changes because the UK is smaller.

The SNP MP Joanna Cherry goes next. She asks about the article 50 process.

Rogers says he does not want to say this is a “rigged process”. But the article 50 process is determined by the other 27 countries in their interests. It is something that is “done to you”.

If you want to extend the process beyond the allocated two-years, you need the permission of all 27 states.

So it works more in their interests than in the UK’s, he says.

The Conservative Craig Mackinlay goes next.

Q: Shouldn’t these liabilities have been included in EU accounts? Or have the EU accounts been deficient for years?

Rogers says the EU has always had this arcane way of looking at its accounts. The 2013 budget agreement included a 5% gap between EU payments and EU commitments.

He says this is an “absurd” situation.

It is not a great accounting system.

You have seen that from all the complaints about EU accounting raised over the years, he says.

Rogers says other EU countries are in principle in favour of a free trade deal with the UK.

But whether it can be concluded on terms that suit the UK, and whether it can be concluded by next October, is another matter.

Q: This €60bn figure from the EU: does this mean the UK has been understating its contribution to the EU. Was £350m a week an understatement?

Rogers says, following that logic, Lilley would be right.

Rogers says we have a surplus with services and “we risk being screwed” if we do no get the new trade terms right.

He says the UK needs a bespoke financial deal that really works for us.

The EU has not done this for any other country, he says.

Peter Lilley, the pro-leave Conservative and a former trade secretary, goes next. He says he is one of those people who thinks that it is quite likely that the UK will leave without a trade deal.

Q: If you start from zero tariffs, and want a trade deal with no tariffs, why should it take more than 10 minutes to negotiate a trade deal?

Rogers says that is correct. The problem relates to non-tariff barriers.

The issue is divergence, he says. EU countries think the UK is leaving the EU so it can change its regulations.

Q: Isn’t the key thing just negotiating a dispute-resolution mechanism for when regulations diverge? Isn’t that all we have to negotiate?

Rogers says he agrees that agreeing a dispute resolution mechanism will be crucial. This is not insoluble, he says.

But most free trade agreements are about countries that are converging. This will be between countries that are diversing.

That is why the describe it as a “de-accession” process.

He says the UK is not leaving the EU to “keep in aspic the acquis [the body of EU law]”.

That is what EU countries worry about, he says. They want to know what happens when the UK diverges.

Rogers says that trying to stop the UK trading with the EU after Brexit, or to stop British planes landing in EU airports, would be “nuts” or “insanity”.

But that does not mean these things could not happen, he says.

Q: Michel Barnier has said that, until the money issue is settled, there cannot be any agremeent on anything else. Do you accept that?

Rogers says he does not think the UK will accept that. That was not the position when he was working for the government.

He says his “gut instinct” is that EU leaders will not put a number on the table. They might. But they might just lay down a set of principles that would determine who much the UK should pay.

Rogers says the UK has always done its accounts on the basis of what it pays, not on the basis of what commitments it has made.

(The argument that the UK owes the EU €60bn is based on looking at EU commitments, not at how much the EU has actually spent.)

The DUP’s Sammy Wilson goes next.

Q: How seriously can we take the various figures given for how much the UK might have to pay to leave the EU?

Rogers says you should take it seriously in the sense that this will be part of the negotiation.

But he says he would not take the science behind the number the EU comes up with too seriously. They will argue for a high number. UK government solicitors will make the case for a low number, or no number at all.

He recommends the report on this by Alex Barker for the Centre for European Reform.

There is also an issue about that happens to the EU’s assets, he says. That might be even more complicated.

With regard to Britain’s share of liabilities, he says the commission will “try it on.

Q: How committed are the other 27 member states to the number produced by the commission?

Rogers says it is too early to say.

But he says this is one issue over which EU countries might unite, because they all lose out financially from the UK leaving.

Q: What is your assessment now of how the department for exiting the EU (or the Brexit department as we call it) is operating now?

Rogers says it is growing. There is always a tension between what the centre and the departments, he says.

He says he was trying to make the point that the British are up against a “class act” in the European commission for negotiating. He says there are lots of things the commission is not good at, but it is good at negotiating.

He says he argued that Britain needed to boost its capacity so it could match the commission.

Bloomberg’s Robert Hutton thinks Michael Gove has not been listening to Rogers’ evidence.

Michael Gove, the Conservative former justice secretary and leading Vote Leave campaigner, goes next. He asks about Rogers’ resignation email. What “muddled thinking” was he talking about?

Rogers says he was making the point to his staff that they need to challenge people who are wrong. He included himself in this, he said, because there were times when he might be talking rubbish, and he wanted to be told that.

Q: Why would no deal be worse than a what Theresa May describes as a bad deal?

Rogers says EU countries think that not having a trade deal would be so bad for the UK that the UK would not accept it.

They see the EU as a legalistic enterprise. And without a trade deal, the UK would be disadvantaged.

He says he agrees that the talks could get “bitter and twisted on money”.

He says EU countries think the consequences of lurching to WTO-only trade are “really rather grim”.

The UK is saying, our trading terms were fine the day before we left, why can’t you accept them after we leave, he says.

He says EU leaders say that may be the case but, without a legal agreement, we do not recognise your standards.

We will say, ‘What has changed?’. They will say, ‘The law has changed’.

The Labour MP Pat McFadden, who campaigned for remain, goes next.

Rogers says he thinks EU countries will shy away from doing sectoral deals either on free trade or in relation to the customs union.

Rogers says the UK could in principle get a free trade agreement covering goods and services. But the danger is that the EU would just offer a goods-only one, because the UK has a surplus in services.

John Whittingdale, the pro-leave Conservative former culture secretary, is asking the questions now.

Rogers says a free trade agreement is a “perfectly viable” destination for the UK. It is not like single market membership. It does involve control of borders, and gets Britain out of the jurisdiction of the European court of justice.

The problem with the WTO is that it has not got very far with liberalising services, he says.

He says he hopes the UK and the EU will both want the biggest free trade deal ever struck, covering services as well as trade, and going further on services than any other free trade agreement.

But what is the difference between that and being in the single market, he asks.

With regard to planes, access to the single market would mean planes being allowed to land at EU airports. Membership means having guaranteed landing slots, and not having to land one mile away from the terminal.

Rogers says the issue with regulatory compliance between the UK and the EU will not be what it is like on day one. The problem arises after day one, when the UK starts to change its regulations.

He says no other major country trades with the EU just on WTO terms. They strike preferential agreements where they can. And they strike mutual conformity agreements.

It is not true to say EU-US trade is governed just by the WTO, he says.

Q: Is there any chance that Brexit could lead to the EU making reforms it has resisted until now?

Rogers says it is probably too early to tell.

Brexit has introduced a new dynamic into the EU on multiple fronts.

After the referendum people started thinking about what the EU would be like after Brexit. The Northern Lights group (Northern European countries) is not exactly defunct without Britain, but it is different, and is meeting without the UK.

Rogers says the British will have to understand what are the “neuralgic points” in every capital that might stop them signing up to a final Brexit deal.

Alistair Burt, the Conservative MP who campaigned for remain, goes next.

Q: What is the balance of power between the commission and the member states?

Rogers says the commission specialises in negotiation. It has a lot of knowledge, he says. There is an asymmetry there. They know much more about the views of the other 27 than the UK will know, he says.

But he says EU leaders will not allow the commission to “freelance”. They will keep “close tabs” on it.

This is “leader level stuff”, he says. The key issues will all to to leaders. They will not be settled at the Michel Barnier/David Davis level.

But the European parliament will be involved. And other countries’ MEPs coordinate more closely with their national governments than British MEPs do, he says.

He says you can think you have got a 2-0 win at the European council. But it’s a half-time score, because the parliament then gets involved. He says he spent a lot of time in recent years trying to improve Britain’s negotiating clout within the European parliament.

Q: And was Cameron too reliant on Germany?

Rogers says Cameron always thought, correctly, that the most powerful player in Europe was Berlin.

He says Cameron did not “over-rely on the reliability of Berlin”. He says Cameron was more realistic on this than some media accounts suggest.

Q: Would David Cameron have got further if he had spent longer on the EU renegotiation? And what do you say to the claim that he was too dependent on Germany to help him out?

Rogers says we will never know what would have happened if Cameron has walked away from the table in February last year.

There would have been several months of recriminations, he says. The parties would only be coming back to the table now, or at the end of last year. Would they have been more amenable to a deal? Or less amenable, because of the proximity to the French and German elections?

Rogers says his “honest view” is that Cameron would not have got any further in terms of getting “quantitive” restrictions on immigration.

These are article of faith for some EU countries, especially Eastern European ones and Germany.

He says the Brexit negotiation will not be similar to the Cameron one.

The Cameron one was the “last throw” at an attempt to get a multi-tier Europe. That is not the same as a multi-speed Europe, where all countries are heading in the same direction. He wanted a Europe were countries were not heading in the same direction.

But that game is over, he says. There is no appetite to return to that, he says.

He says, when Cameron gave the Bloomberg speech in 2013, he thought his changes could be embodied in treaty change in 2015 or 2016.

But the appetite for treaty change amongst other EU leaders vanished, he says.

The Labour MP Stephen Timms is asking questions now.

Rogers says the phrase single market does not appear in the EU treaties. Instead it is referred to as the internal market.

He says it is best to think of a single market as a regulatory union. It is not the same as a free trade area.

A single market is a group of nations that agrees to be bound by a single regulatory code. It requires its members to be bound by the four freedoms of movement (labour, capital, goods, services).

Rogers says that, in his letter to Number 10 that was reported by the BBC in December, he did not say it would take 10 years to get a trade deal. But he did say getting a full trade deal, and getting it ratified, would take “several years”.

The conventional wisdom in the EU is that, even if the UK and the EU moved very quickly, it would take until summer 2020 to negotiate a trade deal. And then another two years to ratify it.

He says it depends whether you are talking about a framework trade agreement, or a full one.

A framework trade agreement does not give you “legal facts on the ground”, he says.

Rogers says the UK will want a trade deal, and a transitional deal.

He says he expects this to come together with the money issue at an EU summit in the autumn of 2018.

Rogers says he thinks there are substantial differences between the other 27 member states.

That is why they are so keen not to open negotiations until article 50 is triggered, he thinks. They don’t want the British to pick them apart.

He says, without the British, there will be a gap in the EU budget in 2020.

Britain’s normal allies in the EU were the net contributors to the EU budget.

But those countries are now as agitated as the net beneficiaries about the prospect of the UK leaving.

Net beneficiaries worry about getting less money. They might get 88, not 100. (He doesn’t specify units.)

But net contributors are worried too, he says, because they think they might be asked to pay more.

He says the UK has “lobbed a grenade” into this process.

He says his Dutch opposite number said the Netherlands may have to pay 500m more euros into the EU budget because of the absence of Britain.

Which Briton on the planet knows the most about the possible problems the government will face as it negotiates Brexit? Obviously anyone who has read the whole of the Guardian’s three-day series on “the Brexit gamble” will be doing well, but the ultimate Brexit expert is probably Sir Ivan Rogers, who resigned as Britain’s ambassador to the EU in January.

Rogers caused a row when he quit, and infuriated pro-leave supporters with his resignation email. Three weeks ago he gave evidence to the Commons European scrutiny committee. It was a fascinating hearing (summarised on my blog here, and written up by Patrick Wintour here), but today Rogers is back for an encore with the Commons Brexit committee, a more high-powered body that also includes Michael Gove, scourge of all experts, not just Brexit ones. It should be a revealing hearing, and I will be covering it in full.

Here is the agenda for the day.

9.15am: Sir Ivan Rogers, the former British ambassador to the EU, gives evidence to the Commons Brexit committee.

9.45am: Nick Gibb, the schools minister, gives evidence to the Commons education committee.

9.45am: The supreme court gives its judgment on the “minimum income” immigration rule case.

10.45am: Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, gives a speech on the case for a green industrial revolution.

12pm: Theresa May faces Jeremy Corbyn at PMQs.

As usual, I will be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I plan to post a summary after PMQs and another in the afternoon.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.

I try to monitor the comments BTL but normally I find it impossible to read them all. If you have a direct question, do include “Andrew” in it somewhere and I’m more likely to find it. I do try to answer direct questions, although sometimes I miss them or don’t have time. Alternatively you could post a question to me on Twitter.