12/03/2017 Sunday Politics London

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,

ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process

We'll talk to a Tory rebel and Ukip's Nigel Farage.

Phillip Hammond's first budget hit the rocks thanks to a tax rise

But how should we tax those who work for themselves?

And remember Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had ordered

We'll talk to the former Tory MP who set the whole story rolling.

In London this week, a rise in anti-Semitic

Universities urged to take a tougher approach.

And joining me for all of that, three self-employed journalists

who definitely don't deserve a tax break.

It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme with all the carefree

abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.

BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!

So first today, the government is gearing up to trigger Article 50,

perhaps in the next 48 hours, and start negotiating Britain's

Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons

getting a "meaningful vote" on the deal Britain negotiates.

Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme

earlier this morning and he was asked what happens

Well, that is what is called the most favoured nation status deal

There we go out, as it were, on WTO rules.

That is why of course we do the contingency planning, to make

The British people decided on June the 23rd last year

My job, and the job of the government, is to make

the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.

There we have it, clearly, either Parliament votes for the deal when

it is done or it out on World Trade Organisation rules. That's what the

government means by a meaningful vote.

I think we get over obsessed about whether there will be a legal right

for Parliament to have a vote. If there is no deal or a bad deal, I

think it would be politically impossible for the government to

reject Parliament's desire for a vote because the atmosphere of

politics will be completely different by then. I take David

Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as

being the most conscientious and details sadly... And well briefed.

Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the

three Brexit ministers. It is quite telling he said what he did and it

is quite telling that within cabinet, two weeks ago he was

floating the idea of no deal at all. Being if not the central estimate

than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I

would suggest the prospect of no deal is moving up the agenda. It is

still less likely than more likely to happen. But it's no longer a kind

of long tail way out there in the distance. Planning for no deal is

the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan

for the worse case scenarios are prepared it happens. Even the worst

case scenario, it's not that bad. Think of the Jeep 20, apart from the

EU, four members of the G20 economies are successful members of

the EU. The rest aren't and don't have trade deals but somehow these

countries are prospering. They are growing at a higher rate. You are

not frightened? Not remotely. We are obsessed with what we get from the

EU and the key thing we get from leaving the EU is not the deal but

the other deals we can finally make with other trading partners. They

have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from

Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the

government to say if there is no deal, we will accept there is no

deal. We're not frightened of no deal. It was clear from what David

Davies was saying that there will be a vote in parliament at the end of

the process but there won't be a third option to send the government

back to try to get a better deal. It is either the deal or we leave

without a deal. In reality, that third option will be there. We don't

know yet whether there will be a majority for the deal if they get

one. What we do know now is that there isn't a majority in the

Commons for no deal. Labour MPs are absolutely clear that no deal is

worth then a bad deal. I've heard enough Tory MPs say the same thing.

But they wouldn't get no deal through. When it comes to this vote,

if whatever deal is rejected, there will then be, one way or another,

the third option raised of go back again. But who gets to decide what

is a bad deal? The British people will have a different idea than the

two thirds of the Remain supporting MPs in the Commons. In terms of the

vote, the Commons. Surely, if the Commons, which is what matters here,

if the Commons were to vote against the deal as negotiated by the

government, surely that would trigger a general election? If the

government had recommended the deal, surely the government would then, if

it still felt strongly about the deal, if the other 27 had said,

we're not negotiating, extending it, it would in effect become a second

referendum on the deal. In effect it would be a no-confidence vote in the

government. You've got to assume that unless something massively

changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel

fairly confident about a general election on those terms. Unless the

deal is hideously bad and obviously basso every vote in the country...

The prior minister said if it is that bad she would have rather no

deal. So that eventuality arrives. -- the Prime Minister has said. Not

a second referendum general election in two years' time. Don't put any

holidays for! LAUGHTER -- don't look any.

So the Brexit bill looks likely to clear Parliament this week.

That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared

to vote against their government on two key issues.

Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European

partners within days, but there may be some

wheeler-dealings she has to do with her own MPs, too.

Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.

The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably

But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure

the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.

Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament

a say on the deal struck with the EU before it's finalised.

But remember those numbers, they're important.

On the issue of a meaningful vote on a deal, I'm told there might have

been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from

I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion

on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses

And we expect, and intend, that this will happen before

the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.

When the government was criticised for reeling back

from when and what it would offer a vote on.

The bill then moved into the Lords, where peers passed it

And the second, that Parliament be given a meaningful vote on the terms

of the deal or indeed a vote in the event of there

The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons

Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken

the government's negotiating hand and are seeking to overturn them.

But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.

Theresa May has a working majority of 17.

On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.

At least six Labour MPs generally vote with

Plus, eight DUP MPs, two from the Ulster Unionist party

If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,

Therefore, 26 Conservative rebels are needed for the government to be

So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?

What numbers are we looking at, in terms of a potential rebellion?

I think we're looking at a large number of people who are interested

This building is a really important building.

It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.

And for it not to be involved in this momentous time would,

But he says a clear verbal statement from the government on a meaningful

vote on any deal would be enough to get most Tory MPs onside.

It was already said about David Jones.

It's slightly unravelled a little bit during

I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity

through so that we can all vote for Article 50 and get

We've have spoken to several Tory MPs who say they are minded to vote

One said the situation was sad and depressing.

The other said that the whips must be worried because they don't

A minister told me Downing Street was looking again at the possibility

of offering a vote in the event of no deal being reached.

But that its position was unlikely to change.

And, anyway, government sources have told the Sunday Politics they're not

That those Tory MPs who didn't back either amendment the first time

round would look silly if they did, this time.

It would have to be a pretty hefty lot of people changing their minds

about things that have already been discussed in quite a lot of detail,

last time it was in the Commons, for things to be reversed this time.

There's no doubt that a number of Tory MPs are very concerned.

Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory

rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.

The important thing, I think, is to focus on the fact

that this is the last chance to have a say on this.

If they're going to vote with us, Monday is the time to do it.

Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,

it will go back to the Lord's on Monday night where Labour peers

have already indicated they won't block it again.

It means that the Brexit bill would become law and Theresa May

would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.

Her own deadline was the end of this month.

But one minister told me there were advantages to doing it early.

We're joined now from Nottingham by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

She's previously voted against the government on the question

of whether Parliament should have a final say over the EU deal.

Anna Soubry, I think it was clear this morning from David Davies that

what he means by meaningful vote is not what you mean by a meaningful

vote. He thinks the choice for Parliament would be to either vote

for the deal and if Parliament doesn't, we leave on World Trade

Organisation rules, on a bare-bones structure. In the end, will he

accept that in the Commons tomorrow? No, because my problem and I don't

think it is a problem, but my problem, the government's problem is

that what I want is then to answer this question. What happens in the

event of their not being any deal? David Davies made it very clear that

in the event of there being no deal, Parliament would have no say. It

means through your elected representatives, the people of this

country would have no say on what happens if the government doesn't

get a deal. I think the request that Parliament should have a say on

Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I

want David to say. If he says that, I won't be rebelling. If he does...

They have refused to say that. Sorry. If he continues to say what

he said the BBC this morning, which means that the vote will be either

to accept the as negotiated or to leave on WTO rules, will you rebel

on that question but no, no, sorry, if there's a deal, Parliament will

have a say. So that's fine. And we will see what the deal is and we

will look at the options two years down the road. When who knows

what'll happen in our economy and world economy. That is one matter

which I am content on. The Prime Minister, a woman of her word has

said that in the event of a deal, Parliament will vote on any deal. I

don't difficulty. To clarify, I will come onto that. These are important

matters. I want to clarify, not argue with you. You are content that

if there is a deal, we will come under no deal in a second, but if

there is a deal, you are content with the choice of being able to

vote for that deal or leaving on WTO terms? No, you're speculating as to

what might happen in two years' time. What the options might be.

Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back

with a rubbish deal. They will either come back with a good deal,

which I won't have a problem with or they will come back with no deal. To

speculate about coming back with a deal, there is a variety of options.

I understand that that is what the Lord amendments are about. They are

about a vote at the end of the process. Do forgive me, the Lords

amendment is not the same that I've voted for in Parliament. What we

call the Chris Leslie amendment, which was talking about whatever the

agreement is, whatever happens at the end of the negotiations,

Parliament will have a vote. Parliament will have a say. The

Lords amendment is a bit more technical. It is the principle of no

deal that is agitating us. Let's clarify on this. They are

complicated matters. What do you want the government to say? What do

you want David Davis to say tomorrow on what should the Parliamentary

process should be if there is no deal? Quite. I want a commitment

from him that in the event of no deal, it will come into Parliament

and Parliament will determine what happens next. It could be that in

the event of no deal, the best thing is for us to jump off the cliff into

WTO tariff is. I find it unlikely but that might be the reality. There

might be other alternatives. Most importantly, including saying to the

government, go back, carry on. The question that everybody has to ask

is, why won't the government give My fear is what this is about is

asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately

ensuring we have no deal and no deal pretty soon and in that event, we

jumped off the cliff onto WTO tariffs and nobody in this country

and the people of this country do not have a say. My constituents did

not vote for hard Brexit. You do not want the government to

have the ability if there is no deal to automatically fall back on the

WTO rules? Quite. It is as simple as that. We are now speculating about

what will happen in two years. I want to find out what happens

tomorrow. What will you do if you don't get that assurance? I will

either abstain, or I will vote to keep this amendment within the Bill.

I will either vote against my government, which I do not do

likely, I have never voted against my government until the Chris Leslie

clause when the Bill was going through, or I will abstain, which

has pretty much the same effect because it comes into the Commons

with both amendments so you have positively to vote to take the map.

Can you give us an idea of how many like-minded conservative colleagues

there are. I genuinely do not know. You must talk to each other. I do

not talk to every member of my party. You know people who are

like-minded. I do. I am not doing numbers games. I know you want that

but I genuinely do not know the figure. I think this is an

uncomfortable truth. People have to understand what has happened in our

country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting

an agenda and I think many people are rather concerned, some

frightened, to put their head over the parapet. There are many millions

of people who feel totally excluded from this process. Many of them

voted to remain. And they have lost their voice. We have covered the

ground I wanted to. We're joined now by the Ukip MEP

and former leader Nigel Farage. Article 50 triggered, we are leaving

the EU, the single market and the customs union. What is left you to

complain about? All of that will happen and hopefully we will get the

triggered this week which is good news. What worries me a little I'm

not sure the government recognises how strong their handers. At the

summit in Brussels, the word in the corridors is that we are prepared to

give away fishing waters as a bargaining chip and the worry is

what deal we get. Are we leaving, yes I am pleased about that. You are

under relevant voice in the deal because the deal will be voted on in

Parliament and you have one MP. You are missing the point, the real vote

in parliament is not in London but Strasbourg. This is perhaps the

biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens

in the Commons that the end of the two years, the European Parliament

could veto the deal. What that means is people need to adopt a different

approach. We do not need to be lobbying in the corridors of

Brussels to get a good deal, we need is a country to be out there talking

to the German car workers and Belgian chocolate makers, putting as

much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to

come to a sensible arrangement. It is in their interests more than

ours. In what way is the vision of Brexit set out by David Davis any

different from your own? I am delighted there are people now

adopting the position I argued for many years. Good. But now... Like

Douglas Carswell, he said he found David Davis' performers this morning

reassuring. It is. And just as when Theresa May was Home Secretary every

performance she gave was hugely reassuring. She was seen to be a

heroine after her conference speeches and then did not deliver. I

am concerned that even before we start we are making concessions. You

described in the EU's divorce bill demands, 60 billion euros is floated

around. You said it is laughable and I understand that. Do you maintain

that we will not have to pay a penny to leave? It is nine months since we

voted exit and assuming the trigger of Article 50, we would have paid 30

billion in since we had a vote. We are still members. But honestly, I

do not think there is an appetite for us to pay a massive divorce

Bill. There are assets also. Not a penny? There will be some ongoing

commitments, but the numbers talked about our 50, ?60 billion, they are

frankly laughable. I am trying to find out if you are prepared to

accept some kind of exit cost, it may be nowhere near 60 billion. We

have to do a net agreement, the government briefed about our share

of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a

transitional arrangement, deal, five, ten billion, as part of the

divorce settlement? We are painted net ?30 million every single day at

the moment, ?10 billion plus every year. That is just our contribution.

We are going to make a massive saving on this. What do you make of

what Anna Soubry said, that if there is no deal, and it is being talked

about more. Maybe the government managing expectations. There is an

expectation we will have a deal, but if there is no deal, that the

government cannot just go to WTO rules, but it has to have a vote in

parliament? By the time we get to that there will be a general

election coming down the tracks and I suspect that if at the end of the

two-year process there is no deal and by the way, no deal is a lot

better for the nation than where we currently are, because we freed of

regulations and able to make our own deals in the world. I think what

would happen, and if Parliament said it did not back, at the end of the

negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports

this morning, one of your most senior aides has passed a dossier to

police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the

seat contested in the election. What evidence to you have? I read that in

the newspapers as you have. I am not going to comment on it. Will you not

aware of the contents of the dossier? I am not aware of the

dossier. He was your election strategists. I am dubious as to

whether this dossier exists at all. Perhaps the newspapers have got this

wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place

in that constituency, there are. Allegedly, he has refuted it, was it

done by your MP to give information to the Tories, do you have evidence

about? We have evidence Mr Carswell downloaded information, we have no

evidence what he did with it. It is not just your aide who has been

making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and

other seats, if the evidence was to be substantial, and if it was to

result in another by-election being called an Thanet South had to be

fought again, would you be the Ukip candidate? I probably would. You

probably would? Yes. Just probably? Just probably. It would be your

eighth attempt. Winning seats in parliament under first past the post

is not the only way to change politics in Britain and I would like

to think I proved that. Let's go back to Anna Soubry. The implication

of what we were saying on the panel at the start of the show and what

Nigel Farage was saying there would be that if at the end of the process

whatever the vote, if the government were to lose it, it would provoke a

general election properly. I think that would be right. Let's get real.

The government is not going to come to Parliament with anything other

than something it believes is a good deal and if it rejected it, would be

unlikely, there would be a de facto vote of no confidence and it would

be within the fixed term Parliaments act and that be it. The problem is,

more likely, because of the story put up about the 50 billion, 60

billion and you look at the way things are flagged up that both the

Prime Minister and Boris Johnson saying, we should be asking them for

money back, I think the big fear and the fear I have is we will be

crashing out in six months. You think we could leave as quickly as

six months. Explain that. I think they will stoke up the demand from

the EU for 50, 60 billion back and my real concern is that within six

months, where we're not making much progress, maybe nine months, and

people are getting increasingly fed up with the EU because they are told

it wants unreasonable demands, and then the crash. I think what is

happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the

bottom of the cliff to break our fall when we come to fall off that

cliff and I think many in government are preparing not for a two-year

process, but six, to nine months, off the cliff, out we go. That is my

fear. That is interesting. I have not heard that express before by

someone in your position. I suspect you have made Nigel Farage's date.

It is a lovely thought. I would say to Anna Soubry she is out of date

with this. 40 years ago there was a good argument for joining the common

market because tariffs around the world was so high. That has changed

with the World Trade Organisation. We are leaving the EU and rejoining

a great big world and it is exciting. She was giving an

interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather

than two years. I thank you both. It was Philip Hammond's first

budget on Wednesday - billed as a steady-as-she-goes

affair, but turned out to cause uproar after the Chancellor appeared

to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase

in national insurance contributions. The aim was to address what some see

as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay

more National Insurance The controversy centres

on increasing the so-called class 4 rate for the self-employed who make

a profit of more than ?8,060 a year. It will go up in stages

from 9% to 11% in 2019. The changes mean that over one

and a half million will pay on average ?240 a year

more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,

with even the Wales Minister saying: "I will apologise to every

voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto

in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip

Hammond "spite van man". The Daily Mail called the budget

"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May

said the government One of the first things I did

as Prime Minister was to commission Matthew Taylor to review the rights

and protections that were available to self-employed workers

and whether they should be enhanced. People will be able to look

at the government paper when we produce it, showing

all our changes, and take And, of course, the Chancellor will

be speaking, as will his ministers, to MPs, businesspeople and others

to listen to the concerns. Well, the man you heard mentioned

there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing

a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided

the self-employed should pay almost the same in National Insurance, not

the same but almost, as the employed will stop what is left of your

commission? The commission has a broader frame of reference and we

are interested in the quality of work in the economy at the heart of

what I hope will be proposing is a set of shifts that will improve the

quality of that work so we have an economy where all work is fair and

decent and all jobs give people scope for development and

fulfilment. The issue of taxes a small part. You will cover that? We

will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive

particular behaviours in our labour market. You approve I think of the

general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the

self-employed. Taxing them in return perhaps for more state benefits. Why

are so many others on the left against it from Tim Farron to John

McDonnell? Tax rises are unpopular and it is the role of the opposition

parties to make capital from unpopular tax rises. I think as tax

rises go this is broadly progressive. There are self-employed

people on low incomes and they will be better off. It is economic league

rational because the reason for the difference in National Insurance --

economically. It was to do with state entitlements. The government

is consulting about paid parental leave. A series of governments have

not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax

base. Self-employment is growing. But it is eroding the tax base. It

is important to address those issues. A number of think tanks have

said this is a progressive move. Yet, a number of left-wing

politicians have been against it. And a number of Tories have said

this is a progressive move and not a Tory government move, the balance of

you will pay more tax, but you will get more state benefits is not a

Tory approach to things. That a Tory approach will be you will pay less

tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.

I preferred in and policies to politics -- I prefer policies. When

people look at the policy and when they look the fact that there is no

real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,

they see it is a sensible policy. I don't have to deal with the

politics. There has been a huge growth in self-employment from the

turn of the millennium. It's been strongest amongst older workers,

women part-timers. Do you have any idea, do you have

the data in your commission that could tell us how many are taking

self-employment because they like the flexibility and they like the

tax advantages that come with it, too, or they are being forced into

it by employers who don't want the extra costs of employment? Do we

know the difference? We do, broadly. Most surveys on self-employment and

flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters

enjoy it, they like the flexibility, they like the autonomy and about a

third to one quarter are less happy. That tends to be because they would

like to have a full-time permanent job. It is not necessary that they

don't enjoy what they are doing, they would like to do other things.

And some of the protections that come with it? Yes. There are some

people who are forced into southern employees by high-risk but also some

people feel like they can't get a proper job as it were. --

self-employment by people who hire them. It is on the narrow matter of

tax revenues but if you are employed on ?32,000 the state will take over

?6,000 in national insurance contributions, that is quite chunky.

If you are self-employed it is ?2300. But the big difference

between those figures isn't what the employee is paying, it's the

employer's contributions up to almost 14%, and cupped for as much

as you are paid. What do you do about employers' contributions for

the self employed? -- it is uncapped for as much. What I recommend is

that we should probably move from taxing employment to taxing labour.

We should probably have a more level playing field so it doesn't really

matter... Explained that I thought it was the same thing. If you are a

self-employed gardener, you are a different tax regime to a gardener

who works for a gardening firm. On the individual side and on the firm

side. As we see new business models, so-called gig working, partly with

technology, we need a more level playing field saying that we're

taxing people's work, not the form in which they deliver that. That is

part of the reason we have seen the growth of particular business

models. They are innovative and creative and partly driven by the

fact that if you can describe yourself as self-employed there are

tax advantages. Coming out in June? Will you come back and talk to us?

Yes. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,

we'll be talking to the former Tory MP who was the root

of Donald Trump's allegation that he had been put

under surveillance by First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. Is anti-Semitism on the rise among

students and academics? We're looking at what's

happening on campus and asking whether universities

are taking a tough enough approach. Here with me throughout:

Mark Field, Conservative MP for the Cities of

London and Westminster. And Meg Hillier, Labour MP

for Hackney South and Shoreditch, and the chair of the Public Accounts

Committee. Which we always say is very

influential, so we are very pleased A quick word to kick

off on the Budget. Your view on the row

over the self-employed. There was a row and clearly

we will look at this again. I personally felt that

the benefits of this, step towards a signification

of the tax process. One of the things I hope

Philip Hammond will put into place in the November budget

and indeed in budgets in future years is to try and get

a far simpler tax system. As Meg will confirm,

at this point at least, a more complicated tax system opens

the door to tax avoidance and we need to try to make sure we get

as much tax as possible. Lots of people in London

in this position. You will appreciate

that in your position. What's not to like,

in the long-term? To break a manifesto promise and not

realise it was coming was I represent a lot of

self-employed people To come out of the blue like

that is not really the way to do it. No, you can't just say

we will do one thing and say It's much more

complicated than that. If you're going to talk about

simplification of tax, that's a In fairness, it's

a slight grey area. To say it was a manifesto

promise breach, there was a grey area about it

but I accept it wasn't handled quite as skilfully

as it might have been. I think we will get it

right in a month's time. The promise was to make this a very

brief talking point and we've Let's look in more detail

at what was on offer for the capital Across Britain, local

areas will take control of their own economic destiny

and we will support them to do so. I can inform the House that I have

reached a deal with the Mayor At last, the announcement in this

week's budget of the much anticipated devolution

deal for London. That includes plans to pilot

a new model to fund the capital's infrastructure, to co-commission

criminal justice services with the government,

health care powers to be announced later this month and the retention

of all business rates by London. There's a commitment to piloting,

to trying out further steps towards what will be a full move

to London holding all its business And at that time, one would hope

London's local government would have greater freedom

in the use of resources and be less dependent on government grants

from that point onwards. According to research

by the Institution of Siscal Studies, that's not

necessarily what we'll be The valuation rate of London

businesses paying about ?800 million But London councils don't

get to keep that money. It is being redistributed

to the rest of the country to those councils and other parts

of the country where business rates Those business rates

have been particularly The Chancellor have announced

a ?72.5 million for London businesses that will

be hit the hardest. The Chancellor appeared to listen

a bit, but his announcement My worry is small businesses

in London who work their socks Nowadays, London contributes 30%

of the country's tax revenue. Up from 25%, ten years

ago, according to the With the rest of the country

more and more dependent on money from the capital,

how do you square that with greater Follow where the money goes,

is the important thing. I must confess, probably like Meg,

I listened two or three times, to exactly what was

said, when I looked... There was only one line

in the actual speech. When you look at this

memorandum of understanding, But it's not been billed

as the final answer or the And presumably it is

new business rates beyond 2019, it's not necessarily

just the existing pile. That is happening nationally

and everywhere anyway. It is although London is a very

successful commercial capital. There are two slight

points I would make. One, I have a slight concern

on things like transport structure, One, I have a slight

concern on things like there isn't a great relationship

between the secretary of state and They will have to bang their heads

together to make it work for London. We can't have too much

of the positioning that's been On both sides.

Fault on both sides? There's been positioning

going on on both sides but I won't put the blame one way or the other,

but they need to have a positive This isn't going to work,

I won't be caught down that But that is an obstacle, anyway?

I think it is an obstacle. The fact that nothing was said

about Crossrail 2 makes me think that this is the first area

where I think we're going to have But probably, I think central

government are going to say to London, right,

you had Crossrail 1, you've had the Olympics, there is a demand for much

of the rest of the UK that if you're going to have Crossrail 2, it's

going to have to be brought out of going to have Crossrail 2, it's

going to have to be bought out of Almost completely self-financed

probably, isn't it? To be fair, that is doable

given the potentially very large increase in rateable

value that will take place But that probably is the sign,

having had a bit of seedcorn money for Crossrail 2,

ultimately it will be a London Again, very little detail

but the suggestion in that memo potentially developers buying land

or having land quite near a potential route of Crossrail

2 would be paying on the increase To be honest, that is a model that

we've talked about with the Jubilee line extension, everything else,

saying you have this windfall And I think probably we now need

to look for the 2020s at 2030s to try and capture some of that

value to make sure that these Like Mark, I'm concerned

about whether the money We look at devolution

on my committee quite a lot and we are concerned about how

we will be able to follow whether the tax pound from central

government going down to London Trying to establish,

what did you think was the promise, A couple of key things,

like taking some control of some of the issues around

criminal justice, which could be a really good win and

further education. It's only really good if the money

actually follows it. One thing we haven't

already bottomed out, but I don't think

is likely to happen, but I'm hopeful, I'm still pushing

for, is some of the central government-owned assets

that belong to London. Mike NHS PropCo, the property

company that owns a lot of NHS assets like St Leonards in my

constituency, they got taken into Whitehall rather than

being local resources. And I've said to the mayor,

we need to try to get these Hopefully, in negotiations

he will be pushing for that, because that's a real value asset

for housing and basically on London's books, perhaps

you can borrow against. But you know some of the arguments

about wanting to make some progress in retaining,

having the right to raise taxes Whether its stamp duty,

looking at council tax again No, and the business rates

is a very hot potato. In my constituency and across

London, we are seeing huge hikes, But it's very difficult for local

government and the mayor, you can't just stop that now,

because that's built And that's one of the challenges.

How we will face that. I think we might see some innovative

solutions from London and other devolved areas on business rates

as time goes on, but not enough Isn't the key thing,

and it is your patch, Mark Field, isn't the key area,

areas like Westminster and Camden generate a huge

amount of business rates. Of course, they redistribute under

a formula, a model, now. On the understanding

of what the mayor and the borrowers On the understanding

of what the mayor and the boroughs are looking for is when all business

rates are devolved and councils raise their own and keep them

and City Hall does as well, that City Hall are going to be able

to insist that the money raised by Camden and Westminster doesn't go

out of London. That it stays within London, is that

doable and would you support that? I do accept there are benefits of

central London. It is a fantastic global

tourist attraction as well. The idea that the Borough

of Westminster or the City of London should retain all of its money,

that's never been But just to distribute to other

parts of London but not subsidise Although, again, I think

we're looking at pretty Listen, I can see it

from the Treasury's point of view. They look upon London

as being an exceptional place. As I say, this is going to be

a work in progress. Clearly, I think it's welcome

that we had a devolutionary I think the detail will

be have to be worked And we will have to have you both

back to resume this conversation. Reports of anti-Semitic incidents

at universities have doubled over the last year according

to the Community Security Trust, A number of concerns were raised

just recently after a week of anti-Israeli student

activism on campuses. It's proving a difficult area

for universities to manage. When does a healthy campus debate

turn into something more serious? At University College London,

they're wrestling with this issue as the contentious

Israel Apartheid Week draws to a close here and at dozens

of other academic institutions. We expect them to have robust

policies and procedures in place to comply with the law,

to investigate and swiftly address hate crime, including any

anti-Semitic incidents Back in October, things got

really out of hand, here. The university's Friends of Israel

group organised a talk from a former Israeli soldier but didn't follow

the correct procedures. The university rejected their

application, but changed their mind at the last minute on appeal causing

Palestinian supporters to accuse the university of double standards

and to organise a protest. But there were no arrests and no

reports of serious violence. However, UCL's official report

into the event found that: I can make it very clear that in my

society and the pro-Palestinian activism that I'm involved in,

I've never, not even once, seen anything that is anti-Semitic

or anything that is, However, if there was anything said,

many of us would immediately It is not something that we tolerate

in our movement because it Yahya believes that he and his

society on the right Fiercely critical of Israel,

but crucially not anti-Semitic. But these are some of the things

he's tweeted in the past, admittedly, some of the them

he was only 16. Calls on Israel to give

up its Nazism and Zionists He didn't want to talk about them

on camera, but insists And it really must be stopped,

otherwise we will be releasing into the future a generation

of students who have been infected by this,

who will carry on believing that hate speech is

acceptable in society. It is really urgent

that something be done. Anti-Semitism has been

in the spotlight amid a reported 30% year-on-year increase in incidents

nationally and a doubling of incidents involving

students or academics. This woman says she and her

friend were targeted Two guys came to us and they tried

to do something to my friend's phone so I stepped in,

in the middle between them. The same guy, he went around me,

he took my Israel flag from my bag. And he, just, like, took it

out and my friend said, "How dare you take

something from her bag?" They started to walk

against each other and then Both SOAS and the Metropolitan

Police say they're What's clear is that the problem

with anti-Semitism What's less clear is

what the authorities can Joining us now is Baroness Amos,

director of the School of Oriental and African Studies,

and Professor Geraint Rees, Dean of Life Sciences

at University College London. Professor Rees, you wrote

the report we saw a copy I think it makes recommendations

potentially for disciplinary action It makes a number of recommendations

and I am delighted the University has accepted all of those

and is moving forward You mentioned that my investigation

found there was evidence to suggest that students may have committed

an offence against the code of conduct and so disciplinary

processes are under way to determine whether or not that's correct

and what action will be taken. But I think importantly

there are other areas we also looked at, where we looked

at strengthening our code of practice on freedom of speech,

at reviewing our security protocols, and also, importantly,

thinking about how proactively we can bring communities together

through the appointment of an interfaith champion

in the senior management and an interfaith forum

to address these issues. Complex circumstances, obviously,

because there are issues about whether the meeting should

have taken place to begin with and how there had been

an appeal and it finally happened, When you say what might have

breached the code of conduct. Over anti-Semitism explicitly,

or issues of disorder, Our students code of conduct talks

about how to for example protect freedom of speech,

which we are committed to, but in an atmosphere of tolerance

and trust and mutual respect it, and so there are some areas

in which behaviours of some of the students appeared

to have breached those. Are you saying that they may

have been anti-Semitic Our students code of conduct talks

about how to for example but in an atmosphere of tolerance

and trust and mutual respect it, and so there are some areas

in which behaviours of some of the students appeared

to have breached those. Are you saying that they may

have been anti-Semitic Well, the anti-Semitism comments

in the report referred to chance and in fact,

as the report makes clear, or the investigation makes

clear, some of the issues I was about to talk about that led

to the students being referred for this are to do

with the interfering A specific example is some

of the students tried to, or succeeded, in entering the room

where the Speaker was and trying That would clearly be a breach

of our code of practice on freedom of speech and merits consideration

for disciplinary action. We can see the difficulties

from the incident again. What happens in terms of the mood

on campus after something like this? Is it very limited, do many

people know about it? Is the pressure on you and

the University to take action? The mood on campus clearly response

to an incident like that. Police were called and attended

and a large number of individuals on and off campus

made representations afterwards. That does not of course directly

influence our need to take action, because we always need

to be vigilant. You must never be

complacent in these areas. And so the investigation took place

in a very structured way that saw evidence and input from a large

number of people, both The female student we saw

towards the end of that piece What's happening there?

We are investigating that incident. Of course, for me, the first

priority always is the duty of care We have students from over 130

countries across the world, and protecting that diversity

and ensuring inclusivity and building a culture of respect

and tolerance is absolutely at the heart of who we are

and what we're about. At the same time,

we are a university. We promote dialogue,

there is robust discussion. We are a university that

specialises in Asia, So there are lots of political

dimensions that frame some And how difficult is it

to police that boundary? We don't want to get

into definitions too much about anti-Semitism,

but that is an issue that is very difficult for you, is it?

Well, we have a very clear policy. It is called Respect at Soas,

which takes as its starting point the Equality Act,

which, within that Equality Act, sets out a number of what are called

protected characteristics, And our Respect at Soas policy

talks about the fact that harassment is something

that we take very seriously. You know that some people

are concerned that you are not adopting whatever this international

definition... You know, that the government,

Joe Johnson, the universities minister, is saying -

rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism

are directed towards individuals and or their

property or towards Jewish Is that where you have a problem,

that some people will say No, no, we don't think

that our responsibility as a university is to define

anti-Semitism or indeed to define Islamophobia,

or any other of the issues that are so widely discussed

in our society. We see our responsibility

as ensuring that we are remote We see our responsibility

as ensuring that we promote I consulted with our centre

for Jewish studies on this, who basically said that

this definition is a And thus you don't want

to particularly get involved... There are some who lecture

in anti-Semitism who think Some of those students who may have

said to our reporter, maybe felt that Soas wasn't doing

quite enough yet, or perhaps... I know you cannot talk

about that specific incident, but it is one of two

or three you've had. It is important for me

and it is important that the whole Soas community that everyone feels

comfortable at Soas. One of the things I have

agreed with the Union of Jewish Students but also

with our Soas Jewish Society is that we will review our procedures,

but also do a lot more signposting, so that people who feel

that there is a concern, that they know where to go.

Thank you. Observations briefly from both

of you, what do you think? It is important to have

robust discussion. If we can't do that on our campuses,

there is a real problem. But it is difficult,

where there is hate speech or intimidation, there needs

to be some action. I don't envy the academics

who are having to make the decision about exactly where that

line is drawn. But I think we need to have a place

for discussion and I think the worst thing is when you go into a meeting

and you feel uncomfortable, and you That really is, I think,

one of the main... Do you accept, do you think more

is happening, or is it just There is and should be

an absolute right to free speech and I'm afraid,

I think, too many of our universities, there is a little bit

too much political correctness and essentially they have a very

partisan, a left-wing partisan view, particularly on the right

of Israel to exist. Therefore they are a little

bit more easy-going about anti-Semitism than they would

be about anti-homophobic... I will allow you two

a very brief response. Soas is a university

that has had the first We have robust debate on these

issues all the time and it's very Of course it makes people

feel uncomfortable. But we are not going

to allow racism, What we have to do is make sure

we have the policies in place that Professor Rees, a final thought

from your point of view. You were at the front

line and looked at that Our commitment to freedom of speech

applies to all of our We have the Jewish neighbourhood

watch, they tell me that incidents are on the increase

and they are quite distressing. An 11-year-old boy with his skull

cap removed in the street. And we have got to

stand up against that. We can't see what happened post,

for example, the referendum. In that period, immediately

after the referendum, a lot of my students,

not just my Jewish students, my Muslim students and others,

were all extremely concerned about what was happening,

not on the Soas campus, Rather than interrupt this,

we are not going to do our normal Carry this on, though,

she has rejected your accusation. My biggest concern is that

I think if rent a mob turns up in big numbers,

there is a great fear, understandably, I am not saying

it is an easy situation universities They will say better

that we cancel this speaker, I think that again shows a level

in which there is intimidation that can go on and I feel

there are certain groups, some on the left of British politics,

who are able to utilise the muscle and ensure there isn't

an absolute commitment from too many of our universities to free

speech at all costs. It would be really helpful

if you made that case to government. Because one of the constraints that

universities are under in relation to the Prevent legislation is a huge

pressure to cancel events. Because they might

become problematic. I'm afraid we are

running out of time. Apologies to those of you who loved

that feature, 60 Seconds. To all of you, thanks

very much indeed. Now the government plans for new

grammar schools. The Education Secretary

Justine Greening was speaking to a conference

of headteachers on Friday. They're normally a pretty polite

bunch, but they didn't Broadcasters weren't

allowed into the speech, but this was captured

on a camera phone. And we have to recognise actually

for grammars, in terms of disadvantaged children,

that they have, they really do help them close

the attainment gap. And at the same time

we should recognise that ..That parents also want choice

for their children and that those schools are often

very oversubscribed. I suppose it is a rite of passage

for and education secretaries to have this at a head teachers

conference book the head are usually more polite. Isn't part of the

problem, whether one is for or against the expansion of grammar

schools, the government plans are complicated, you cannot sum them up

in a sentence. The proof of that is they can still get away with denying

they are expanding grammar schools. They will find an alternative

formulation because it is not as simple as a brute creation of what

we used to know is grammar schools with the absolute cut-off of the 11

plus. I am surprised how easy they found it politically. We saw the

clip of Justine Greening being jeered a little bit but in the grand

scheme, compared to another government trying this idea a decade

ago they have got away with it easily and I think what is happening

is a perverse consequence of Brexit and the media attention on Brexit,

the government of the day can just about get away with slightly more

contentious domestic policies on the correct assumption we will be too

busy investing our attention in Article 50 and two years of

negotiations, WTO terms at everything we have been discussing.

I wonder if after grammar schools there will be examples of

contentious domestic policies Theresa May can slide in stock

because Brexit sucks the life out, takes the attention away. You are a

supporter. Broadly. Are you happy with the government approach? They

need to have more gumption and stop being apologetic. It is a bazaar

area of public policy where we judge the policy on grammar schools based

on what it does for children whose parents are unemployed, living on

sink estates in Liverpool. It is absurd, we don't judge any other

policy like that. It is simple, not contentious, people who are not

sure, ask them if they would apply to send their child there, six out

of ten said they would. Parents want good schools for their children, we

should have appropriate education and they should be straightforward,

this is about the future of the economy and we need bright children

to get education at the highest level, education for academically

bright children. It is supposed to be a signature policy of the Theresa

May administration that marks a government different from David

Cameron's government who did not go down this road. The signature is

pretty blurred, it is hard to read. It is. She is trying to address

concerns about those who fail to get into these selective schools and

tried to targeted in poorer areas and the rest of it. She will

probably come across so many obstacles. It is not clear what form

it will take in the end. It is really an example of a signature

policy not fully thought through. I think it was one of her first

announcements. It was. It surprised everybody. Surprised at the speed

and pace at which they were planning to go. Ever since, there have been

qualifications and hesitations en route with good cause, in my view. I

disagree with Juliet that this is... We all want good schools but if you

don't get in there and you end up in a less good school. They already do

that. We have selection based on the income of parents getting into a

good catchment area, based on the faith of the parents. That becomes

very attainable! I might been too shot run christenings for these. --

I have been. Now, you may remember this time last

week we were talking about the extraordinary claims by US

President Donald Trump, on Twitter of course,

that Barack Obama had ordered And there was me thinking

that wiretaps went out Is it legal for a sitting

President to do so, he asked, concluding it was a "new low",

and later comparing it to Watergate. Since then, the White House has been

pressed to provide evidence for this It hasn't, but it seems it may have

initially come from a report on a US website by the former Conservative

MP Louise Mensch. She wrote that the FBI had been

granted a warrant to intercept communications between Trump's

campaign and Russia. Well, Louise Mensch joins

us now from New York. Louise, you claimed in early

November that the FBI had secured a court warrants to monitor

communications between trump Tower in New York at two Russian banks.

It's now four months later. Isn't it the case that nobody has proved the

existence of this warrant? First of all, forgive me Andrew, one

takes 1's life in one's hand when it is you but I have to correct your

characterisation of my reporting. It is very important. I did not report

that the FBI had a warrant to intercept anything or that Trump

tower was any part of it. What I reported was that the FBI obtained a

warrant is targeted on all communications between two Russian

banks and were, therefore, allowed to examine US persons in the context

of their investigation. What the Americans call legally incidental

collection. I certainly didn't report that the warrant was able to

intercept or that it had location basis, for example Trump tower. I

just didn't report that. The reason that matters so much is that I now

believe based on the President's reaction, there may well be a

wiretap act Trump Tower. If so, Donald Trump has just tweeted out

evidence in an ongoing criminal case that neither I nor anybody else

reported. He is right about Watergate because he will have

committed obstruction of justice directly from his Twitter account.

Let me come back as thank you for clarifying. Let me come back to the

question. -- and thank you. We have not yet got proof that this warrant

exists, do we? No and we are most unlikely to get it because it would

be a heinous crime for Donald Trump to reveal its existence. In America

they call it a Glomar response. I can neither confirm nor deny. That

is what all American officials will have to say legally. If you are

looking for proof, you won't get it until and unless a court cases

brought. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The BBC validated

this two months after me in their reporting by the journalist Paul

Wood. The Guardian, they also separately from their own sources

validated the existence of the warrant. If you are in America, you

would know that CNN and others are reporting that the investigation in

ongoing. Let me come onto the wider point. You believe the Trump

campaign including the president were complicit with the Russians

during the 2016 election campaign to such an extent that Mr Trump should

be impeached. What evidence did you have?

That is an enormous amount of evidence. You could start with him

saying, hey, Russia, if you are listening, please release all the

Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's not evidence. I think it rather is,

actually. Especially if you look at some of the evidence that exists on

Twitter and elsewhere of people talking directly to his social media

manager, Dan should be no and telling him to do that before it

happened. There is a bit out there. The BBC itself reported that in

April of last year, a six agency task force, not just the FBI, but

the Treasury Department, was looking at this. I believe there is an

enormous amount of evidence. And then there is the steel dossier

which was included in an official report of the US intelligence

committee. You've also ... Just to be clear, we don't have hard

evidence yet whether this warrant exists. It may or may not. There is

doubt about... There are claims about whether there is evidence

about Mr Trump and the Russians. That is another matter. You claimed

that President Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered to pave the way

for Steve Bannon to play a key role in the Trump administration. I

haven't. You said that Steve Bannon is behind bomb threats to Jewish

community centres. Aren't you in danger of just peddling wild

conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I haven't. No matter how many times

people say this, it's not going to be true -- first of all. I said in

twitter I believe that to be the case about the murder of Andrew

Breitbart. You believe President Putin murdered him. I didn't! You

said I reported it, but I believed it. You put it on twitter that you

believed it but you don't have a shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I

know made assertions. What is the evidence that Mr Putin murdered

Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe it. You may believe there are

fairies at the bottom of your garden, it doesn't make it true. I

may indeed. And if I say so, that's my belief. If I say I am reporting,

as I did with the Fisa warrant exists, I have a basis in fact. They

believe is just a belief. I know you are relatively new to journalism.

Let me get the rules right. Andrew, jealousy is not your colour... If it

is twitter, we don't believe it but if it is on your website, we should

believe it? If I report something and I say this happened, then I am

making an assertion. If I describe a belief, I am describing a belief.

Subtlety may be a little difficult for you... No, no. If you want to be

a journalist, beliefs have to be backed up with evidence. Really? Do

you have a faith? It's not a matter of faith, maybe in your case, that

President Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart. A belief and a report at

two different things and no matter how often you say that they are the

same, they will never be the same. You've said in today's Sunday Times

here in London that you've turned into" a temporary superpower" where

you "See things really clearly". Have you become delusional? No. I am

describing a biological basis for ADHD, which I have. As any of your

viewers who are doctors will know. It provides people with

unfortunately a lot of scattered focus, they are very messy and

absent-minded but when they are interested in things and they have

ADHD they can have a condition which is hyper focus. You concentrate very

hard on a given subject and you can see patterns and connections. That

is biological. Thank you for explaining that. And for getting up

early in New York. The first time ever I have interviewed a temporary

superpower. Thank you. You are so lucky! You are so lucky! I don't

think it's going to happen again. Please don't ask us to comment on

that interview! I will not ask you, viewers will make up their own

minds. Let's come back to be more mundane world of Article 50. Stop

the killing! Will it get through at the

government wanted it? Without the Lords amendment falling by the way

that? I am sure the Lord will not try to ping-pong this back and

forth. So we are at the end of this particular legislative phase. The

fact that all three Brexit Cabinet ministers, number ten often don't

like one of them going out on a broadcast interview on a Sunday,

they've all been out and about. That suggests to me they are working on

the assumption it will be triggered this week. This week. The

negotiations will begin or at least the process begins. The negotiation

process may be difficult, given all of the European elections. The Dutch

this week. And then the French and maybe the Italians and certainly the

Germans by the end of September, which is less predictable than it

was. Given all that, what did you make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom

on her part, that we may just end up crashing out in six months question

-- fear on her part. It was not just that that we made that deliberately

organising. I want us to get on with the deals.

Everyone knows a good deal is the best option. Who knows what is going

to be on the table when we finally go out? Fascinatingly, the demand

for some money back, given the amount of money... Net gains and net

costs in terms of us leaving for the EU. It is all to play for. That will

be a possible early grounds for a confrontation between the UK and the

EU. My understanding is that they expect to do a deal on reciprocal

rights of EU nationals, EU nationals here, UK citizens there, quite

quickly. They want to clear that up and that will be done. Then they

will hit this problem that the EU will be saying you've got to agree

the divorce Bill first before we talk about the free trade bill.

David Davis saying quite clearly, no, they go together because of the

size of the bill. It will be determined, in our part, by how good

the access will be. The mutual recognition of EU residents' rights

is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss is attracted to that subject but it

is the easiest thing to deal with, as is free movement for tourists.

Money is what will make it incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly

quickly. I imagine the dominant story in the summer will be all

about that. This was Anna Soubry's implication, members of the

governors could strongly argue, things are so poisonous and so

unpleasant at the moment, the dealers are advancing -- members of

the government. Why not call it a day and go out on WTO terms while

public opinion is still in that direction in that Eurosceptic

direction? No buyers' remorse about last year's referendum. The longer

they leave it, view more opportunity there is for some kind of public

resistance and change of mind to take place. The longer believe it,

the more people who voted for Brexit and people who voted Remain and

think we didn't get world War three will start being quite angry with

the EU for not agreeing a deal. In terms of the rights of EU nationals

he and Brits abroad, by all accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed

individually. Angela Merkel is the only person who has held that up.

That will be dealt with in a matter of days. The chances of a deal being

done is likely but in ten seconds... It would not be a bad bet to protect

your on something not happening, you might get pretty good odds? The odds

are going up that a deal doesn't happen. But, as I said earlier, the

House of Commons will not endorse no deal. We are either in an early

election or she has to go back again. Either way, you will need us!

We will be back at noon tomorrow on BBC Two ahead of what looks like

being a big week in politics. We will be back here same time, same

place. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. They're calling it an

entertainment extravaganza audience fun and frolics

and outrageous shenanigans. And I don't even know what

those HONK words mean.