14/03/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many of that of the

opinion site content. Not content? The bill that gives Theresa May

the power to trigger Brexit passed its final Parliamentary

hurdles last night. How will the Prime Minister

wield that power and how Scotland's First Minister Nicola

Sturgeon has called for a fresh referendum on Scottish Independence

- but will Theresa May stop it happening before

Brexit is completed? Last week's budget confirmed plans

for a sharp increase in probate fees Some Tory MPs are calling

it a "stealth tax". Is another rebellion

brewing for the Chancellor? Well, at least I don't have to worry

about her running off All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole of the programme today

the comedy impresario, founder of "The Stand" comedy clubs,

turned SNP MP, Tommy Sheppard. So we're expecting

the "European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill"

to pass into law today. Last night parliament had,

what turned out to be, its final opportunity to debate and vote

on the bill. Here are some of the contributions

from MPs in the Commons. Over the last five weeks,

we have seen Parliament at its best. Honourable and Right Honourable

members and peers have spoken with passion,

sincerity and conviction. However, I was disappointed

that the House of Lords This bill is just the next step

in a long, democratic process surrounding our exit

from the European Union. Are we prepared to use one set

of people, those that are here, as a bargaining chip to get

the right set of... Parliament will find

a way to have a say, whether a deal is reached

or whether no deal is reached. If he recognised that,

would he agree with me that it would be better if the Government

officially recognise that position As I said last week,

because it is unnecessary. When a minister gives an undertaking

at this dispatch box in this House, If we pass this today,

we are passing this Government a blank cheque, a blank cheque

on one of the most crucial issues that this parliament has ever

discussed and one that will have an impact on each

and every one of us and each The simple truth is this,

deal or no deal, vote or no vote, positive vote or negative vote,

this process is irreversible, we are leaving the EU and that's

what the people want. Stubbornness can be

a sign of suspicion Rejecting the rightful conventional

role of the House of Commons and the Other Place to apply

democratic accountability to the actions and decisions

of the Executive can be a sign I shall vote against all

of the amendments... ..on the simple basis that this bill

has one purpose and one purpose only and it's to give legal effect

to the decision of the people Any amendments which go beyond that

are inappropriate for that bill. However, I would like to say

to the Secretary of State that I look to him to give the firm

assurances that he stop and that the first priority will be

the rights of EU citizens. Some of the debate in the commons

last night ending with MPs rejecting the two Lords' amendments

passed by peers last week. So the Bill then went back to

the Lords who had their final say. This evening is really not the time

nor the place to return to the fray and insert terms and conditions

to our negotiating condition, still less to force the Government

to make a unilateral move as regards the status of EU

nationals in the UK. We will also campaign for an early

resolution to the plight of those caught up in a legal Neverland not

of their making, and we will continue to press the Government

to move on this and to provide Albeit maybe by other,

perhaps I should say imaginative, It is a very dangerous step

towards the doctrine that the people's will

must always prevail. My Lords, this is the doctrine

which has always been favoured by Hitler, by Mussolini,

by Stalin, by Erdogan It is denial of the

essence of democracy. I hope the noble Lords

of all parties and none will, on this occasion, pay attention

to their conscience rather than their party whip and join us

in the division lobby. For the Liberal Democrats

to press this matter is, in Parliamentary terms,

I say nothing about any other consideration,

but in Parliamentary terms, it is a completely

pointless gesture. They have voted, content

is 135, not contents 274. They have voted, contents

135, not contents 274. Peers rejecting an attempt

to re-introduce an amendment which would have protected

the rights of EU Nationals Now Theresa May is due to trigger

Article 50 by the END of the month. END "In capitals", as the Number Ten

spokesman said yesterday. European Council president

Donald Tusk has said he would need just 48 hours to respond to the UK

with "draft guidelines Tusk has also said an extraordinary

meeting of the EU27, that's all the EU countries

minus Britain, will take place in April, or possibly May,

where European leaders will decide a guideline for the

negotiating mandate. Only once the mandate is agreed will

the official negotiations begin, probably sometime in June or July,

with citizen's rights and the Brexit divorce bill likely

to be top priorities. Meanwhile in the UK the government

must jump some domestic hurdles A 'great repeal bill' to revoke

the European Communities Act 1972 and incorporate EU law into domestic

law wherever possible, is expected Reports this morning suggests

government departments have reportedly requested a further 13

bills to cover areas that they believe some changes

cannot be wrapped in under the great repeal bill, including

on immigration, agriculture, Back in Brussels both sides need

to reach an agreement by October 2018, leaving enough time for the UK

and European Parliaments to sign off If parliaments don't agree

on the deal, or if the negotiating teams reach a stalemate

on the continent there is a chance that the UK

could crash out of the EU. We're joined now by the Conservative

MP, Theresa Villiers. Welcome pack to the Daily Politics.

What price do you think the British public should accept for the

so-called divorce settlement Bill? The commission is saying 60 billion

pounds. What price would be acceptable? I don't think we will be

legally obliged to pay anything. There may be a case to make some

payments in relation to programmes we might want to take part in like

some of the scientific programmes and the Justice. But this is the

divorce settlement in terms of pensions and deficit payments, what

price do you think will be acceptable. There is no doubt the

chief negotiator is going to accept nothing? Arguably, they probably owe

us about 9 billion in relation to the European investment bank. We

need to be pragmatic and open to compromise. I don't believe paying

significant sums into the EU budget on an ongoing basis is defensible.

We need to see those big payments come to a halt. You are talking

about an ongoing basis looking to the future. The commission have a

stronger bargaining hand, the UK will need a divorce settlement in

order for the negotiation on trade to go ahead of the future

relationship between the UK and the EU can be decided. Let's park on

going payments, but look at what you would be happy to pay just to

extract the UK from the EU before negotiating trade relationship?

Normally when you leave the club, you don't pay a charge in relation

to its assets or liabilities. We could have an argument with them

that there are significant asset we are owed apart. I wouldn't be

comfortable with paying any significant sum on departure from

the EU. Do you agree, we shouldn't have to pay anything at all, in fact

they owe us some money? On the 23rd of June, there was nothing in the

ballot paper to say what the vote meant and nine months later we still

haven't got the first clue as to what Brexit means. The government

has refused every attempt to define what the post Brexit arrangements

should be and it is going into this, I don't know what. If it thinks it

is going to get a better trading relationship with the European Union

for less money than it costs at the minute, it is kidding itself. It is

pie in the sky and it will not happen. Do you agree we are no

clearer now than we were on the 23rd of June that what Brexit would look

like? I think we are much clearer now, it is clear we will be leaving

the single market because that is only how we regain control of making

our own laws and controlling our borders. We want an independent

sovereign working with its European partners. It is not clear that

leaving the single market is a disaster for the European kingdom.

But we do now know the government would like to leave the single

market and probably the same for the customs union, perhaps with some

exemptions? That is a clear position, you may not agree with it.

Even though that wasn't put before the people on the 23rd of June last

year. Many people campaigning to leave the EU said explicitly it did

not mean leaving the single market. But now there is a hard, right wing

extreme interpretation of what Brexit means. The only body that

stands between the government and that interpretation is Parliament.

Parliament has been dismissed at every attempt it has made to qualify

it, it has been voted down. I agreed with Nick Clegg, it is a sign of

government weakness and not strength. I don't think the

government knows where it is going and what the outcome will be. It is

true to say Parliament is being sidelined in so far as having any

meaningful vote. The voter will be on the deal put before them if there

is one, or no Deal at all. Between the period of now, that being put to

Parliament, there will be no role for Parliament in changing the

course of Brexit? There will be a huge role for Parliament with the

repeal bill. They different votes on different things? What Parliament

will have the opportunity to do is make our own decisions on huge areas

of policy because they were out of bounds before. These are the issues

our constituents care about. For the first time, we will regain control

over animal welfare rules, we may want to pass tougher rules than the

EU would permit it. Is that why you wanted to leave the EU so you cook

pasta for rules on animal welfare? It was part of why I wanted to leave

because I think it is in our interest to take decisions in our

own laws and our own Parliament on issues like animal welfare, where we

in this country care very greatly about these things. What other areas

are you interested in changing and, once EU law is changed to UK law,

there will be a process of deciding which one you want to keep, which

one will you get rid of? We need to reform the way agriculture is

regulated and the way we support farmers. We need to continue those

financial payments. In the EU, they have come with absolutely huge

amounts of regulation, some of which hasn't been helpful at all. I think

we need to reform the way we look at farming in this country.

How would you feel about the UK crashing out, to use the term, of

the EU without a deal? It would be a disaster, which is why, and I know

we are discussing it later, we have come to the view in Scotland we need

to go back to the Scottish people and ask their view. To take

agriculture and fishery, some people in Scotland voted to leave the

European Union, a big majority didn't, but some did because they

believe somehow it would return control of Scottish agriculture and

Scottish fisheries to Scotland. Despite many attempts to press the

British government for a commitment, none has been given and there is now

a suspicion that what it means is repatriation of powers from Brussels

will mean they go to Westminster, rather than

Scotland. This is an opportunity for decentralisation, I accept. Brexit

could be that. You would think by now they would have published a raft

of proposals of what new powers will be going to the Scottish Parliament

as a result of Brexit. So, yesterday, Nicola Sturgeon told

a press conference that, with the UK on the verge of Brexit,

she wants a second referendum on Scottish independence to take

place before the spring of 2019 - and she'll ask the

Scottish Parliament A new poll would need the approval

of MPs in Westminster too and therefore the support

of the Government. Let's talk to our political

correspondent, John Pienaar. What is the Prime Minister going to

do next, John? At the moment, it feels a bit like one of those tens

showdowns in a spaghetti western, you know there was a gunfight coming

but no one seems in any hurry to draw. Nicola Sturgeon once a

referendum, but not yet, she wants to have a clearer view of Britain's

future outside European Union. Theresa May will look at this

referendum but in her own good time. It was very clear from the

statements put out yesterday by Number Ten that they see a

referendum, if there has to be one, as best coming after Britain leaves

the European Union and in that way, presenting the Scottish voter with

the more, as they see it, an attractive choice of leaving the

United Kingdom at the same time as going away from the European Union.

Will Theresa May make our plans plainer? You would imagine but when,

after the Scottish Parliament take their decision to push that the

referendum. Because the SNP will argue that if they are blocked in

any way, or if Westminster is seen to be blocking a second independence

referendum, if the Scottish Parliament passes it through, that

will pile up votes for independence. That will be the calculation.

Theresa May, as the Prime Minister here at the Westminster Parliament,

clearly know she has the constitutional, the legal by hand,

you need Parliament here to agree to the referendum but the politics is

more complicated than that and if Theresa May doesn't know that, she

only has to ask David Cameron. He didn't want a referendum but the

political reality was there had to be one. It is difficult to stand

against the will of the Scottish parliament and politically

impossible to stand against the will of the Scottish people in the weight

of opinion is for a referendum. That is not the case yet so we are still

in the position of tugging and pulling Scottish opinion, along tug

of war starting now, to shift the balance in favour of a referendum

and subsequently, if you are Nicola Sturgeon, to tilt those opinion

polls are you have a better chance of winning the referendum itself.

by the Scottish Labour Leader, Kezia Dugdale.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday that

one of the reasons she is calling this referendum is the collapse of

the Labour Party and the prospect of the Conservatives rule in Scotland

from Westminster until 2030. So do the current Labour leaders like you

and Jeremy Corbyn have to take some responsibility for the fact that

Scotland their faces the possibility of another referendum? It is

laughable that the idea of Nicola Sturgeon was scrambling around for

reasons for another referendum. This is all she wanted, it is what her

political life has been about. I understand there are people who are

angry at the Tories, angry at Brexit and think there is justification for

another independence referendum but what I would us people to focus on

is the sheer harsh economic realities of the case for

independence. There is no doubt that the case for independence, the

economic case, is weaker now than it was two and a half years ago. And it

was just two and a half years ago that we revisited this question, we

talked about it for two and a half years, 85% of the population voted

and they voted no largely because of those economic arguments around

currency. That hasn't changed and if anything, it has got worse. You only

have to look at the oil price for evidence. If the situation has got

but much worse in the way you describe, economically, why did

Jeremy Corbyn describe a second referendum on independence as

absolutely fine? He says he has been misreported but we can listen to

exactly what he did say. Well, a referendum is held and it's

absolutely fine, it should be held. I don't think it's the job

of Westminster or the Labour Party to prevent people holding

a referendum. I do think we should set it

in the context of the economic relationship with the rest

of the UK, and the question of evolution of EU powers to English

regions and to Scotland. What did you think when you have

bad? I thought it was quite clumsy with his language, he would accept

that insult but the reality is that later that day, he issued a very

clear and strong statement to say not only was he opposed a second

independence referendum but he was opposed to independence itself. When

it comes to vote in the Scottish Parliament next Tuesday, Scottish

Labour MSP is will do what the manifesto said we will do and oppose

that referendum. But the reality is, the SNP and green votes mean that

that is going to go through. When we look at the UK wide vote and the

process around the section 30 order, it is Ruth Davison, leader of the

Scottish Tories, who has been advising Theresa May for months that

she shouldn't do anything to frustrate or block a second

referendum. That is exactly what Jeremy was saying at the weekend and

what I said several months ago. It is clumsy to say absolutely fine but

let's be clear, Jeremy Corbyn is firmly against independence and the

reason is he recognises it would mean terrible austerities in

Scotland. We have Tory austerities at the moment but the gap between

what Scotland races in its taxes and spend some public services will be a

deficit of ?15 billion, that is less money for schools and hospitals and

you will never see Jeremy Corbyn advocate that. Do you agree with

Nicola Sturgeon that it would be wrong for the UK Parliament to block

this referendum from happening altogether? I said several months

ago that I don't think it is right for Westminster to frustrate the

process. That doesn't mean that I can't be angry that we are being

dragged back to a debate that many Scots want to leave behind. We are

so divided as a nation, it was an incredibly divisive experience to

add a half years ago and we are about to go through it all over

again. It is not what the vast majority want, that is the evidence

in the opinion polls. You can look at voting intentions and say it is

quite close between the leave and remain sides but if you ask Scott if

they want to go through this again, time and again you see a majority

opposed to that. So you will be joining hands with Ruth Davison, the

leader of the Conservative Party, and also Theresa May, because you

all agree you shouldn't block this referendum from happening

altogether, you can't change the vote in the Scottish parliament,

there will be a boat and at Westminster again that you won't

want to block going ahead, C must be joining forces with the

Conservatives to put for the prounion case. I will put forward a

very strong Labour case as to why we should remain part of the United

Kingdom and if I can offer you an example, I just mentioned that

deficit, that 15 billion pounds less that Scotland would have less for

its services. You have Tommy Sheppard in the studio, a friend of

mine and we represent a similar area, he represents Craigmillar, the

back of the late one of the poorest areas of Scotland and it is the

false people like Tommy the constituents that we will have a

better welfare system and more money for schools and hospitals when they

completely failed to address the reality that the case for

independence economically has fallen apart. It is a blatant lie to the

poorest in Scotland and it is time Tommy started to stop pushing it.

Are you lying to your constituents? Of course not. She is trying to

infer that Nicola Sturgeon will call a referendum every day of the week,

issue gets the chance. It is only two and a half years...

Once-in-a-lifetime, once in a generation! Let me just make this

point. We are not in a situation of our own making. The reason why this

is on the table is not because the people who lost the referendum in

2014 don't accept the result, we did, the reason it is on the table

is because the people who won the referendum had changed the deal.

People voted for something in 2014 which is not going to exist any

more. But there was UK wide referendum on EU membership. Not me,

not Kezia Dugdale, Nicola Sturgeon, but the Scottish people themselves

get a change in these -- wrote in the changed circumstances... Can you

answer Kezia Dugdale's question on the economics, do you accept they

are worse than they were this matter the late last time around? No, I

don't. The oil price has gone down but Shazier wants to depend that the

-- pretended that it was predicated last time on oil and gas. What was

the SNP case? The SNP case was that there was a compelling argument for

an independent Scotland to be a successful economic country and I

think Kezia should look at the figures and understand them. Oil and

gas would be a bonus. We are currently working, by the way, and

we will come later in the year and present to people a compelling

narrative as to how the economic case of Scotland stacks up. Kezia

Dugdale, what do you say? I find that totally incredulous. What Tommy

wasn't able to say was the white Paper was very clearly predicated on

oil and for this financial year, it predicted ?11.8 billion worth of

revenue coming from North Sea oil and gas. The reality is it is less

than 1 billion. That is the gap in one year between what the SNP said

we would get and the reality of what we would have. Tommy and I knocked

the same streets and Dawson Craigmillar and he cannot possibly

suggest that when he is knocking on those doors, the people behind them

are asking first and foremost how we stay in the European Union, how we

make sure we don't have the Euro or part of the Schengen Agreement.

People want to know how they will have a better start in life, how we

will eradicate the Child poverty that so many in the community he

represents suffer from and he is selling alive. We will be faced with

a ?15 billion deficit and he cannot escape that fact -- selling a lie.

Just briefly before you go, you say the Westminster Parliament shouldn't

block a second independence referendum going ahead. Should

Theresa May block the timing, being before the Brexit negotiations are

complete? That is very difficult to answer at this stage because I

listen to the First Minister very closely yesterday talk about the

need for clarity. That applies as much to her as it does to the Prime

Minister, so at the moment, Nicola Sturgeon is asserting that if we

were to have a referendum before we leave the European Union, Scotland

would be able to stay and somehow inherit the UK's membership of the

European Union. I have yet to see a single scrap of evidence that that

is possible. Should Theresa May stop the referendum happening before

Brexit negotiations are complete? I have said clearly on this programme

already I don't think it is for any Westminster politician to

frustrate... So the timing should be frustrated by Theresa May. Kezia

Dugdale, thank you very much. Also in Edinburgh now for us is the

Conservative MSP Adam Tomkins, who is the party's Constitution

Spokesman. Welcome to the Daily Politics. Good

to be here, thank you. Nicola Sturgeon said yesterday the Scottish

Government's mandate for another referendum is beyond doubt, that is

true, isn't it? I don't think it is remotely true. Our view is there is

no justification for a second independence referendum, there is no

need for a second referendum and there is no mandate for it either.

The SNP put some lines in their manifesto about a second

independence referendum for the last Holyrood elections in May and they

promptly lost their majority. They did say very clearly in their

manifesto that Scotland would hold another referendum in the event of

Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will. They won that

election so they have a mandate. You say they won the election, they lost

their majority. In 2011, Alex Salmond won an overall majority of

seats in Holyrood Parliament and in 2016, Nicola Sturgeon lost that. If

you are a Government that is not a majority, you have no cast-iron

mandate for anything, least of all a second secession referendum.

Once-in-a-lifetime, once in a generation was going to be the last

independence referendum. You lost the overall majority, there are not

clear polls indicating the majority of Scottish people consistently

would like a second referendum. Where is the mandate? Adam is wrong

on the question of mandate, the SNP was elected on a manifesto is that

said in circumstances such as these, we would have a second referendum or

put opposition to the Scottish parliament. The SNP was elected with

47% of the constituency vote, and increased vote share, and an

increased number of votes and we know form a minority Government,

just. There is clearly a majority position inside the Scottish

parliament to have a second independence referendum unless the

British Government refuses to respect the wishes of the Scottish

people, differential Brexit arrangements in Scotland. This is

something you and your Government has created and I think also,

viewers outside Scotland ought to be aware that Adam's party the

Conservatives and Kezia's party Labour combined represent about one

third of the Scottish electorate. Let me put to Adam Tomkins the idea

that there hasn't been any respect for the Scottish Government. On that

idea of respecting the wishes of the Scottish Government and the timing

of a second independence referendum, should Theresa May decide the timing

of that poll? First of all on the question of respect, what has

happened is the Scottish Government published a pretty complex paper in

December in which it set out a variety of views about how it

thought the Scottish Government thought Brexit should unfold going

forward and what has happened to that paper is it has been discussed

by the Prime Minister, discussed by the Cabinet, discussed by the joint

ministerial committee, and, you know, the idea that Brexit is

something which is being taken forward by the UK Government without

involving the devolved administrations, not only in

Scotland but also Wales and Northern Ireland, is simply untrue. Should

Theresa May decide the timing? Should it be when the Prime Minister

decides it should be, which would be after the negotiations are complete,

possibly late 2019? Or should Nicola Sturgeon be allowed to choose it in

the autumn of The starting point on this, there is

no justification or mandate for a second independence referendum.

Unless this reckless plan is endorsed, that is where things lie.

What happened in the making of the 2014 referendum was there was a

bilateral agreement, a formal agreement between the Scottish

Government and the UK Government that agreed a number of the

parameters for the independence referendum in 2014, including the

question of timing. So the lesson to draw from that, the lesson of timing

should not be in the unilateral demand in either the First Minister

of Scotland or the Scottish Parliament, it needs to be agreed

between both governments and both parliaments if we are to have a

second independence referendum. Theresa May has gone into the

chamber of the House of Commons. We are expecting her to give a

statement which is about last week's European Council meeting. It is also

her first appearance in the Commons since the Brexit bill passed its

Parliamentary stages last night. We will go over there as soon as she

stands up. But Tommy Sheppard, you are trying to win this referendum on

the issue of Brexit and he wanted to happen before the UK leaves the EU.

But if Scotland leaves the UK, it also leaves the EU, doesn't it? It

is a choice of leaving one union or leaving Jo unions? We are trying to

win this referendum on the question of respect. Adam is wrong in his

description. You are holding a referendum on the issue of respect?

We were told if we voted to stay with the European Union, we were

told we would be part of the EU. A document was published called

Scotland's place in Europe. It was produced by a government that

believes in an independent Scotland and believes it should be part of

the European Union, which argued for neither. A respected the Brexit

decision. My question is, do you accept, if the referendum... Can I

just be clear, in your mind if you hold a referendum before the Brexit

negotiations are complete, you would be taking Scotland out of the UK,

out of the union, but you would also be, in effect, leaving the EU.

Nobody in the EU has said Scotland could remain part of the EU wants

she leaves the UK? If Scotland were independent, we would want to

negotiate membership of the European Union and that would involve looking

at all of the arrangements. But it is crystal clear that if we wanted

to do that, then we should signal our intention to do that before the

Brexit negotiations are complete. Has anybody said Scotland could

leave the UK and definitely stay in the EU? If you look at the range of

political opinion in other European countries, you will find a different

attitude than what we had in 2014. Which EU leader has said, yes, we

would leave Scotland within the EU even if she leaves the UK? Quite a

number. Who? A lot of politicians... Watt say does he have? I have tried

to indicate the range of political opinion in Europe is changing

towards this proposition. If you look at the European press this

morning you will find a different description of what has just

happened than you will get in the London press. Attitudes are changing

and people realise in a post-Brexit scenario, the idea of an independent

Scotland being part of the EU, is an attractive one. He has a point, why

wouldn't the EU in the end, of course they will say no at the

moment, particularly Spain because they have issues themselves are part

of the country who would like to go independent, but EU leaders were

also opposed the Brexit. The Scotland minus the UK would be a

good thing? Yesterday the First Minister couldn't confirm an

independent Scotland could seek full membership of the EU. She knows the

people who voted to leave the European Union, including 400,000

SNP supporters. The idea of an independent Scotland is necessary in

order to preserve Scotland's current place in the European Union, which

seems to be what Tommy Sheppard was just saying, is legally incorrect,

it is constitutionally incoherent and is different to what his own

leader and bass was saying yesterday. Would Scotland then apply

to be a full member of the EU? If Scotland were independently would

commence negotiations on that basis. Adopting the euro? It is important

to signal we would want to do that and moving towards independence

before Article 50 negotiations are complete. The longer we wait, the

harder the process would be. Can I just make it clear to Adam, a lot of

people in Scotland voted to leave the European Union. The vast

majority voted to stay, but some voted to leave because they were

concerned about the European Union and concerned over agricultural

stuff and fisheries. The Reges ship an independent Scotland have with...

Let's go straight over to the House of Commons today,

where Theresa May is making statement - it's ostensibly

The summit began by re-electing Donald Tusk as president of the

European Council. I welcomed this because we have a close working

relationship with him and recognise the strong contribution he has made

in office. In the main business of the Council we discuss the challenge

of managing mass migration, the threat from organised crime and

instability in the Western Balkans, and the measures needed to boost

your's growth and competitiveness which remain important to us as we

build a new relationship between the EU and the self-governing global

Britain. In each case, we were able to show how Britain will continue to

play a leading role in Europe, long after we have left the European

Union. First, on migration, I welcomed the progress in

implementing the action plan we agreed at the informal EU summit

last month. This included Italy strengthening asylum processes and

increasing returns and Greece are working to implement the EU Turkey

deal where the UK is providing additional staff to start

interviewing Iraqi, Afghan and Eritrea nationals. We argued we must

do more to dismantle the people smuggling rings who profit from the

migrant's misery. Mr Speaker, with coordinated and committed action, we

can make a distance. Last month, an operation between our national crime

agency and the Hellenic Coastguard led to the arrest of 19 members of

an organised immigration crime group in Greece. As I have argued, we need

a managed, controlled and global approach and that is exactly what

this council agreed. We need to help ensure refugees claim asylum in the

first safe country they reach and help those countries support the

refugees so they don't have to make the perilous journey to Europe. We

need a better approach to managing economic migration, one which

recognises all countries have the right to control their borders.

Engaging our African partners in this global approach will be crucial

and this will be an important part of the discussions at the Somalia

conference, which the UK will be hosting in London in May. Turning to

the deteriorating situation in the Western Balkans, I made clear, my

concerns about the risks this presents to the region and our wider

collective security. Organised criminals and criminals are ready to

exploit these vulnerabilities and we are seeing brazen interference by

Russia and others. In light of the Montenegrin coup plot, I called on

the council to do more to counter destabilising Russian campaigns and

raise the visibility of the Western commitment to this region. The UK

will lead the way. The Foreign Secretary will be visiting Russia in

the coming weeks, where I expect him to set out our concerns about

reports of Russian interference in the affairs of the government of

Montenegro. We will provide strategic communications expertise

to the EU institutions to counter this information campaigns in the

region, and we will host the 2018 Western Balkans summit and in the

run-up to that summit, we will enhance our security cooperation

with Western Balkan partners on serious and organised crime,

anti-corruption and cyber security. More broadly, I re-emphasised the

importance the UK places are Nato as the bedrock of our collective

defence. And I urged other member states to start investing more in

line with Nato's target, so every country plays its part in sharing

the burden. It is only by investing properly in our defence, we can

ensure we are properly equipped to keep our people say. Turning to

growth and competitiveness, I want to build a new relationship with the

EU that will give our company is the maximum freedom to trade with and

operate in the European market and allow European businesses to do the

same here. So successful and competitive European market in the

future will remain in our national interest. At this council I call for

further steps to complete the single market and the digital single

market. I also welcomed... I also welcomed the completion of the free

trade agreement between the EU and Canada and pressed for an agreement

with Japan in the coming months. For these agreements... Yes, these

agreements will lay the foundation for our continued trading

relationships with these countries as we leave the EU. At the same

time, we will also seize the opportunity to forge our own trade

deals and reach out beyond the borders of Europe to build

relationships with old friends and new allies alike. This weekend

renounced a two-day conference with the largest delegation to visit the

UK, building on the ?5 billion of trade we already do with Qatar every

year. We will also strengthen the unique and proud global

relationships we have forged with the diverse and vibrant alliance of

the Commonwealth, which is celebrated on Commonwealth Day

yesterday. Finally, last night the bill on Article 50 successfully

completed its passage through both houses are unchanged. It will now

proceed to Royal assent in the coming days, so we remain on track

with the timetable I set out six months ago. I will return to this

House before the end of this month to notify when I have formally

triggered Article 50 and begun the process through which the United

Kingdom will leave the European Union. This will be a defining

moment for our country, as we begin to forge a new relationship with

Europe and a new role for ourselves in the world. We will be a strong,

self-governing, global Britain with control once again over our borders

and our laws. We will use this moment of opportunity to build a

stronger economy and a fairer society, so we secure both the right

deal for Britain and abroad and a better deal for ordinary working

people at home. And, Mr Speaker, the new relationship with the EU that we

negotiate, will work for the whole of the United Kingdom. That is why

we have been working closely with the devolved administrations...

Including the Scottish Government, listening to their proposals and

recognising the many areas of common ground we have, such as protecting

workers' rights and our security from crime and terrorism. So this is

not a moment to play politics or create uncertainty... It is a moment

to bring our country together, to honour the will of the British

people and to shape for them, are better, brighter future and a better

Britain and I commend this statement to the House. Jeremy Corbyn. I would

like to thank the Prime Minister for an advanced copy of this statement.

The passing into law of the EU notification of withdrawal act marks

an historic step. Later this month, the triggering of Article 50, a

process that will ship this country's future. There is no doubt,

that if the wrong decisions are made, we will pay the price for

decades to come. So, now more than ever, Britain needs an inclusive

government that listens and acts accordingly. However, all the signs

are we have a complacent government, complacent with our economy,

complacent with people's writes and complacent about the future of this

country. I urged the Prime Minister to listen to the collective wisdom

of this Parliament and to give this House the full opportunity to

scrutinise the Article 50 deal with meaningful vote. The people's

representative... and if we are to protect jobs and living standards

and the future prosperity of this country... The Government needs to

secure tariff free access to the European single market. The Prime

Minister has already made the threat to our negotiating partners to turn

Britain into a deregulated tax haven. Is that what she means by

global Britain? When the Foreign Secretary says no deal with the EU

would be perfectly OK, it simply isn't good enough. And far from

taking back control, leaving Britain to World Trade Organisation rules

would mean losing control, jobs and, frankly, losing out. So when the

Prime Minister says a bad deal is better than no deal, led the be

clear, no deal is a bad deal. -- let me be clear. Such a complacent

strategy would punish business, hit jobs and devastate public services

on which people rely. The Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn they're

responding to Theresa May, the Prime Minister, who has reported back to

the House of Commons on her EU summit last week. She also

underlined the fact that the EU notification of withdrawal bill,

which passed through both houses of Parliament last night, will get the

royal assent, in other words passed into law in the coming days and at

that point, she will then fired the starting gun on starting two years

of negotiations. In other words, she will trigger Article 50, certainly

before the end of the month, which was the deadline she set herself.

Tucked into the Budget documents last week was confirmation

that the Government is pushing ahead with planned rises to the cost

of applying for probate - the legal process of giving

authority to distribute someone's estate after their death.

But the sizable increases have caused an outcry amongst

Conservative backbenchers, who labelled the changes

a "stealth tax" during last week's Budget debates.

Probate fees are currently capped at ?215 for estates worth over

?5,000, unless there is no property involved.

That is paid to the Probate Registry.

But from May, a sliding scale of fees is being introduced,

starting at ?300 for estates worth between ?50,000-?300,000.

And rising to ?20,000 for estates worth over ?2million.

And rising to ?20,000 for estates worth over ?2 million.

Budget documents estimate that the changes will raise

I'm joined now by the former Minister of State for Pensions,

Is this a stealth tax, in your mind? It is a stealth tax and a death tax,

they have rolled the two into one. The death tax was originally put

forward, suggested under Gordon Brown's Government but criticised by

the Conservatives at the time. We have had a number of death tax is

being proposed, particularly to raise money for example the social

care. Suddenly we are finding that this one has been snuck in by the

back door and there is no question that this is a tax revenue raising

measure, because the Ministry of Justice has said that the probate

registry is self funding, so the current fees cover the costs of

finding probate. What they are trying to do is raise an extra ?300

million to subsidise other parts of the court system. The Government

argues that this sliding scale makes payments fairer and no state will

pay more than 1% of its value. Why isn't that better? -- no estate. We

only fixed the costs of probate in 2015 and suddenly we are coming

along with this massive increase in taxes. Who gets the massive increase

in taxes? 58% of all estates in England and Wales will pay nothing.

Yes, that those who do pay and particularly people in the

south-east, who have any kind of property, if you have any property

there you will have do face this potential tax, but in terms of the

way it works, with probate, you have to pay the money upfront. So if you

have an executor of your well, maybe a friend or someone who isn't a

beneficiary of the will, they will have to find money in their own

pocket to pay perhaps ?20,000 before they can release the assets. So if

you haven't got cash, if you have got property and shares in your

estate, and a lot of people do, where is the money going to come

from? Choosing those sort of increases are there? They are very

high, admittedly, on the better of Estates, do you think it is fair?

They don't apply in Scotland but personally I don't have a problem

with it. I think the people really clobbered by it will be people with

estates more than ?1 million and those are the very people who will

benefit from George Osborne's changes to inheritance tax, which

made the 26,000 richest households in the country even richer. So I am

guessing the Government is doing this as a way to compensate the

difficult as it will have by not getting inheritance tax it had

planned for. I think if we are going to do something like this, it should

be done fairly and properly. The sudden Draconian increases in the

level of tax, and from a practical perspective, expecting executors to

find the money when there is no money to use, they may have to take

out a personal loan or they can't get the probate. Jee think there

will be a backlash? I suspect so, to maybe phase it in. I think it makes

sense to have some kind of tax on estates but it has to be done

fairly, with proper consultation. 97% of people who responded to this

consultation were against it. We did ask the Ministry of Justice for an

interview that no minister was available.

Now, our guest of the day Tommy Sheppard is almost as famous

for being a politician as he is for founding The Stand

comedy clubs in Edinburgh, Glasgow and Newcastle.

But has the impresario recognised any comic talent on the benches

Let's have a look at some of his political colleagues

attempting to make us laugh, starting with Tony Blair making

light of his wife Cherie's spat with Gordon Brown.

And - just by way of warning - there's some flash photography.

Well, at least I don't have to worry

about her running off with the bloke next door.

The Shadow Chancellor literally stood at the dispatch box and read

Oh, look, it's his personal signed copy.

The problem is, half the Shadow Cabinet have been

If you are a passionate Yes Campaigner, by definition

therefore you are also very intelligent, in my view...

I am the Minister of State for Children and Families

Now that's a bit of a mouthful, but I want to assure you that

however much he begs, neither Lynne Featherstone

or myself will let George Osborne call us Louise.

Do you know, you guys are really slow.

His Shadow Chancellor was asked on the television,

could he think of one single business leader?

Do you know what he said, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker, Bill somebody is not a person, "bill

We are producing more varieties of cheese than the French.

"My Government will make it easier for people

It must be the first instance of something being put

in the Queen's Speech entirely as a joke.

But if he's finding it so difficult,

Why doesn't he split the job of Mayor of London?

The former Health Secretary can run as his day mayor

and the Honourable Member for Brent East

I'm joined now in the studio by Gyles Brandreth,

who has spent time on the green benches as a Conservative MP,

but is now more likely to be found in the green room of a TV studio.

Or indeed at the stand in Edinburgh, where I go quite regularly. To

perform, or to watch? To perform. You allow him to perform? Of course,

we have Eddie is next week. William Hague is there one of the

highest-paid speakers on the circuit because Hezbollah. David Cameron two

is still very amusing. I came across the other day and asked him the all

that has been happening whether he sleeps at night out and he replied,

immediately, "Yes, I sleep like a baby. Every hour, I wake up crying

mummy, mummy!" Maybe shouldn't have shared that. You should definitely

share everything. It works when it is well timed and when it rings a

bell. Vince Cable's wonderful line to Gordon Brown, within three days

he has gone from Stalin to Mr Bean was a joy to listen to. Why did that

work? Because it was of the moment and it rang true. When it feels

real, it works. But you have to realise why these guys do it in

Parliament. It is on to appeal to us viewers. It is to boost the morale

within the House, to show you are confident and competent. What

happens when it falls flat and the jokes don't work? It is awful, that

moment, the Tumbleweed moment. I had one, almost the first question I

asked, I was set up for it by the whips. The whips give what they

think of funny questions to obliging backbench MPs and the present Brexit

secretary, David Davis, who was a very frightening person in those

days in the whips office, I nicknamed him DD of the SS, he gave

me this question which I duly performed and it died on its feet, I

died on my feet. It is terrifying. Better not to do it than to get it

wrong. Theresa May this morning could have, there was a moment when

she should have done a put down to the opposition and she chose not to

because she isn't very good at them. She couldn't think of them. She's

not... How do you find the chamber parliament, is it a funny place? I

don't been funny strange. I have never once tried to make a joke. Why

not? You are the comedian. No, I hire comedians to entertain other

people. One reason I do that is because I have never been any good

jokes. I think when it works it can be brilliant but when it is forced

and scripted, quite often it falls flat. If people are doing it

off-the-cuff and in an improvised way, it can work and be of the

moment. It is risky and I think Mrs May is wise to pull back. She has

made jokes, one unfortunate one at the expense of an MP named Mr bone

that didn't quite come off. I think people are trying to be funny and

usually they end up not being. What about the Tony Blair joke about not

running off with the bloke next door. It was forced. Did you not

think it was funny? Speaking I thought it was funny. It rang true.

And it is a matter of confidence of doing it, as sometimes Theresa May

get away with somewhat lame lines, because the people behind wanted to

work. Is it about timing? You saw that in the clips. It is also about

perspective. I have been rereading the speeches of George W. Bush, who

I thought was appalling. Why are you reading them? While I was very

interested in a man who said, the French don't have a word for

entrepreneur. In retrospect, Bush was Cicero combined with Martin

Luther King and a touch of Jack Benny. What a concoction. But a

great time for satire. Indeed, and thankfully, satire is coming back in

a big way, which is good entertainment. Is Nicola Sturgeon

good jokes? I don't think she's a natural comedian, she takes itself

seriously. Ruth Davidson is stronger on the jokes. I am not good on the

jokes but will say goodbye at this point, thank you to the guests. The

one o'clock News is starting on BBC One and I will be back tomorrow for

Prime Minister's Questions. Goodbye. It took us once to get through

the novel Anna Karenina. It was used to help my friend

with depression,