05/03/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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

The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree

in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".

But will there be more money for social care and to ease

The UK terror threat is currently severe,

but where is that threat coming from?

We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every

Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.

What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?

The government was defeated in the Lords on its

The baby boomers who of Commons what he'll do if peers

All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.

Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed

to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.

Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,

so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial

statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget

for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn

There's been pressure on him to find more money

for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,

But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be

using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark

What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed

quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on

Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I

do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it

He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his

statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement

rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November

he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect

that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will

be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my

view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care

policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has

got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the

politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but

it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry

on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.

But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has

been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump

priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to

make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of

concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of

this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what

message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some

senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil

Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is

instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively

slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not

want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it

sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may

see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room

to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we

now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half

months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may

take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to

do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory

backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.

He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just

social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old

people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words

this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra

30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth

was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might

go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think

Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its

wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might

have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up

Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you

like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in

the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural

deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better

than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest

of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He

clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is

interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary

for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original

George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the

limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is

beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he

plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot

of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will

end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the

budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated

last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that

will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove

the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from

the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make

a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU

nationals living here. If the worst happened,

are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,

who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,

giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,

"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not

going to say that. So, why not end the

uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate

which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's

what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously

agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral

decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think

that is the right and fair thing to do.

And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader

of the House of Commons, David Lidington.

Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the

Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU

nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was

my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have

always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it

does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that

the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating

with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens

here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December

European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.

That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the

view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has

been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and

national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the

start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now

got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make

the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the

UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are

you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that

goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of

access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...

But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got

to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1

million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,

it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the

short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British

citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the

hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will

be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely

extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British

citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies

getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to

something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries

might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you

frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the

past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up

that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue

that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be

a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of

this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the

British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not

come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in

London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that

we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the

British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a

reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not

possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if

there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU

nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and

face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.

We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have

been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for

permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about

whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health

care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is

the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home

Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a

vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament

voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British

Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and

others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working

hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They

were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,

more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the

issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the

Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this

month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely

hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable

constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of

commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an

unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at

the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that

sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It

is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the

end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments

will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at

the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you

understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is

going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean

by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on

the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to

consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given

a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have

negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what

you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to

vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem

with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the

PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27

were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take

fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of

the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be

much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial

deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament

is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,

that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is

straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the

recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is

irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying

very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I

think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I

hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to

insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and

negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate

on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you

said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal

with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your

mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as

you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms

of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term

trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,

what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago

you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big

difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the

other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort

this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship

between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and

those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive

challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that

was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,

David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had

sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,

which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,

analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences

committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,

thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn

from those offences? For the police and the intelligence

agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think

tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge

new report which analyses every Islamism related attack

and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases

involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive

as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really

important to have an evidence base from which you draw

policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,

this the facts. This chart shows the number

of cases each year combined with a small number

of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle

of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings

in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,

before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted

for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers

started counting. What we are seeing is a combination

of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,

we know that from the security services and police statements,

but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms

of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have

facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,

documents, money. About 18% of people

were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related

to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted

of planning attacks, although the methods have

changed over time. Five or six years ago,

we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most

of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,

that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online

magazine that had specific More recently we have seen

Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife

beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have

seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her

husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received

an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing

number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence

although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out

by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,

a report says the vast Most have their home in London,

around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,

particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another

hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth

and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were

60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were

16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,

he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting

is how different each story is in many ways,

but then within those differences So your angry young men,

in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience

abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,

the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within

this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds

and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those

convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities

because they had a previous criminal record, they had

made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them

under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this

report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,

Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen

from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated

Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist

terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated

communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the

wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I

think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very

recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was

that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their

neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many

participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad

thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population

is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would

prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason

they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but

often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you

would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more

diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to

that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the

challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this

pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young

Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is

the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB

attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say

to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to

counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent

strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The

report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people

being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those

convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing

to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of

work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the

earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course

subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the

Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but

there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were

once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough

to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.

We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The

Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on

is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community

must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share

ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim

communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it

all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?

Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has

moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with

that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't

bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the

brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other

organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of

Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous

unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these

numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our

intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over

80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police

have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on

the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also

changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,

get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big

spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised

people, two or three people get together, do something together,

very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where

intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police

say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that

kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried

about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist

route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been

consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone

has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they

should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called

caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about

fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into

three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic

State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the

dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great

reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there

should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all

those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them

alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is

difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a

watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?

This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and

our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the

government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is

our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at

the border has improved. An important question. Given your

experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a

medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.

It started when I was security minister and it has been taken

seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the

Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to

take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it

Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,

but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still

Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have

been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.

Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility

said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current

It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.

On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce

that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.

Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level

of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,

coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest

So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day

government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over

But capital spending, investment on infrastructure

like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,

producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.

The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets

while finding some more money for areas under serious

pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.

We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR

predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn

Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It

is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England

has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a

growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a

year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next

year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or

four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the

OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement

three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other

forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as

everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its

growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.

It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial

year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like

that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared

to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic

policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.

That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so

close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere

between the budget and the Autumn Statement numbers. There was a nice

surprise for the Chancellor last month which looked like tax revenues

were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real

question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is

this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If

growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good

news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in

the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It

probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible

outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things

look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will

still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase

his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a

couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion

more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite

constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.

That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and

is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as

you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic

reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some

headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending

cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things

have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in

the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the

Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is

hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of

income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for

ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has

reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for

him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax

burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its

highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through

straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of

insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and

that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,

but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole

and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase

fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really

keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the

next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has

had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being

with us. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in twenty

minutes, the Week Ahead. You are watching the Sunday

Politics for Yorkshire These baby boomers say government

pension policy is sending them Will next week's budget

offer any relief? To get a letter two years before

I am 60, at 58 - you have to work six more years

and you are going to lose ?40,000 on average

in Are new guidelines restricting

some operations for obese patients and smokers the way

forward for the NHS? Is it about saving money

or stigmatising those Conservative MP for

Elmet and Rothwell. In our Hull studio is

Diana Johnson, Labour MP for The baby boomer generation was meant

to have it all, post-war Government benefits such

as subsidised housing, education, abundant food and clothes,

all part of the peace dividend. When the Government decided

to change pension rules so men and women claim state

pension at the same age, many said that pension claims

for many women went Only just 62, Helen worries she

could lose her home she has worked Not far away Susan, who is 64,

is angry she now has to rely The seething discontent

is widespread. In Hull, Mary and Rosie

say their retirement And they have now joined thousands

of other women, many of whom have never taken part in any

protest movement in their lives At rallies like this one, outside

the Conservative conference last September, they say they are victims

of a broken promise made when national insurance

funded pensions were Insured from the cradle

to the grave, that is the purpose of this national

insurance bill. This next autumn, old age pensioners

will get 42 shillings for Those widows and single women

collected 26 shillings These days it is paid electronically

and worth a lot more. The pension age was 60

and men have to wait It was only last year

it started rising. Next year it will be 66

for both, that affects 2.6 million women in that age group

who will lose up to 40,000 in pension, many, until very

recently, relied on that. I was never informed

officially about anything. The first time I heard

anything about it was when I was watching

George Osborne stand up in Parliament and give a speech

about the new retirement age. In a couple of weeks'

time he will make If you paid into a private pension,

they could not turn round and say, They would have informed

you of the changes. The pension Minister

declined an invitation to be His department gave

us an uncompromised The woman's action group say

notification has been almost To get a letter two years before

I am 60 at 58, all plans The plans that you have made

all your working life, you have to work six more years

and you are going to lose ?40,000 Ironically, 1940's

Government put every effort into explaining the introduction

of national insurance and how it would pay for future

Social Security and pensions. A word or two I would

like to mention. The country's most famous comedian

sent this message to every cinema Please, everyone, try

by the 5th of July to have read the booklet right

through and put it safely away. They do not make them

like that any more, These people have worked

hard all their lives. They have paid their stamp

and now they are told we Can you understand

why they are angry's Absolutely, I can understand the

anger when pension benefits change. We have seen in the

private sector issues. A lot of the problem is with

the state pension system is the The Government is

running out of money. Julie, who works for the NHS tweeted

us, she says she paid in for 45 years and now she is told she has

to work until she is 66. The Government have put in over

?1 billion in arrangement to cushion Nobody should be more

than 18 months out of the Originally, it was longer than that

and we have listened to what people were saying

and they have spent ?1 billion. It is a highly emotive issue

and people, when they started, decades ago, they thought

that was the age they were retiring That is something

we have seen in the private sector and

state sector as well. I want to bring in Diana Johnson

because I know she has strong issues The Government says this

is all down to equalisation on There are going to be

winners and losers. I think we all accept

that there should be the The problem with this

group of women is that they were not given

adequate notice 2011 when this whole process was speeded up

and they have now found themselves having to wait many more

months than 18 months. Many of my constituents are seeing

them having to wait years now to get the pension they thought

they would get much sooner. It is about the notice

and the fairness of That is why these

women are so angry. They feel there could have been

a public campaign to get information A lot of them never received

a letter saying there I think there is that

feeling of injustice that they have been

caught in this way. The transitional changes

the Government has introduced up That is why I will bring in

the budget they will be something to say to this group of women, who have

contributed all their lives, are have done the right thing,

that they get their pension when they were expecting it

or at a reduced rate. a I heard ministers talk

about saying some of the ministers involved

can claim benefits. Women in their 60s do not want to be

claiming that may have worked hard all their

lives, do they could? There is a lot of

argument that women were We are talking about 18 months

from the 2011 point. The actual point of it

being a later time. Lots of Government have

gone in that time. It comes down to the fundamental

issue that this was never going to be an easy transition and somehow

the system has got to become Diana Johnson, there

are going to be protests on Many women from your area

will be down there. What do you want the Government

to do given the state of the public I think there are various measures

they could introduce. One would be to pay

these women their in a committee have made suggestions

as well. I think it is really bad that the minister would not give an

interview. They will not meet with women. I think the Government to

think if they close their ears to the protest, these women are going

to go away. These women are going to keep going until they get this

matter sorted out to their satisfaction. Do you accept that the

Government is on the back foot? We have a female Prime Minister who is

now in their 60s. I agree it is a difficult situation for the

Government. I worked at DWP for a this Parliament. I had constituents

come and see me about this. The pension Minister... I sat around

these tables and I made these points. I was giving a clear message

that they were not going to change it. I do not know what will happen

in the budget. You have statements coming out saying things are being

looked at in terms of rates and in terms of social care. Maybe

something will be in that. We will talk about the budget later. We are

asking should smokers or people who are obese have access to medical

help on condition of losing weight or stopping smoking? This is

happening in some areas. North Yorkshire clinical groups, the

organisations to plan and by health care on our behalf, they are not

alone in introducing these measures. Controversial and Rachel. The MP is

not happy and as this in the Commons. This is wrong and

contravenes the professional duty of care. I am blowing the whistle on

this today because this policy is directly discriminatory and

financially perverse. I would be the first to advocate programmes

supporting smoking cessation and supporting positive lifestyles. It

brings our NHS into this repute. One of the motive is to save money, for

patients obesity is a problem in many areas. The Government report

out this month put Rotherham at the top of this list. 76% in this area

behind. The figure there is 75% in behind. The figure there is 75% in

Boston in Lincolnshire, the obesity rate is 74%. That compares with the

national average of 63%. We asked people in Hull whether they agreed

with the idea. They should do operations if you are overweight. I

think if people are obese, it is difficult because there are a lot of

side effects as well. That costs a lot of money. They should try to

lose weight first. If they want to ban smoking them banned smoking. Do

not say they cannot have health care because you are allowing smoking

anyway. I have a very good diet. Unfortunately, my metabolism, that

is what it is that makes me fat. It seems unreasonable, do you not

think? Obese people should not be forced but asked to slim down a bit

before the operation takes place. It reduces the risk. Joining us is the

manager of a rather Institute of obesity. He is a national adviser on

weight management. Hello. If people live and healthy lifestyles, can

expect treatment on the NHS no questions asked? Yes, that is the

type of NHS that we want. If you have smoked all your life through

choice and you end up with lung disease or lung cancer, we do not

say we are not going to treat those conditions because it is

self-inflicted. If you went on a skiing holiday abroad are alike, we

would not say you're not getting help on the NHS, even though it is

self-inflicted. The type of NHS we want is irrespective of because. We

should not discriminate against patients just because of their

weight. What do you think of this, Diana? Do you think there is an

argument to ration treatment if people are living unhealthy

lifestyle? I think we all want to encourage people to be a healthy

weight and not to smoke. What concerns me when I was listening to

Rachel's speech was that they were cutting back on the preventative

work around obesity and getting people to stop smoking. It seemed

odd that they were then say to people we are not going to treat

shoot unless you stop smoking and lose weight. Also clinically, there

is no evidence and the Royal College of surgeons say it could exacerbate

people's conditions if they are made to wait before they can access

surgery. I think this is not about clinical decision-making, which is

what the NHS should be about, it is about cutting costs and saving

money. I think that is wrong. This is the heart of the matter. Clinical

commissioning groups having to make tough decisions. Is it all about

money? Ultimately, the NHS is all about money. You can pour money into

it. The Government is reacting to it. It is not enough. There are lots

of issues within the NHS and how needs to approached. I agree with

what has been said. The need to have a health service that is free at

point of delivery and gives people the health care you need. I have

always been one who wants to see education. I am someone who smokes.

I am of the cigarettes and have been for a while now but it is hard. I

thought my weight all the time and try and keep it down. It goes up and

down. My political opponents on Twitter like to point out my weight.

It is tough but I do those things because I know what the effects

have. That is through education. I'll be right that in some cases to

play God and decide to get treatment and who does not based on lifestyle

choices? I do not agree with that policy. It is a far bigger

situation. How do you trying to have a healthier population? Ultimately,

we have a health service that is free at the point of delivery. It

does need more resources. We are to be get them from? I can probably

television saying, why should people television saying, why should people

who are unhealthy and deeply wrong things, the drink and smoke, why

should they be in the same place in the queue as someone who lives a

healthier lifestyle and is waiting for a hip replacement or a knee

replacement? Why should the not? There are some good points here.

Obesity is a complicated disease. We now know it is not just about people

eating too much or being too lazy. We know there are genetic factors

which means that the behaviour and diet of your mother whilst you were

in the womb can influence things. We know that the state and gut bacteria

influences your weight. There are so many different factors. It is not

just the fact that somebody is lazy and does not exercise. The examples

that I gave before, we have an NHS that will treat any condition,

irrespective of the cause. Why should be penalised people just

because of weight? There has to be a cut of point much does that not? If

you look at any GNC department, there are people who are drunk,

self-inflicted injuries. -- A department. I think we do need to

have conversation of how we fund the NHS. The NHS is under enormous

pressure. The area that the local sustainability and transformation

plan covers in my patch, the looking at a deficit of over ?4 million.

There are questions to ask about proper funding of the NHS. The

reforms that were brought in under the previous Government were

disastrous for the NHS. We have treated all of these silos now

within the NHS. I just think that was a mess. I think the NHS needs to

have a conversation about taxation have a conversation about taxation

for that, whether it is an increase in national insurance. That is a big

conversation. We will save it for another day. The last word to you.

Childhood obesity rates are still rising. What is the solution? We

have known for many years that there are over 100 different factors

involved. We, as a society, getting bigger. There is no one quick and

easy solution. Yes, we can all take individual responsibility for trying

to control how much we eat and becoming more physically active but

it is so complicated. We have to accept the fact that is not magic

one that will make somebody lose weight. You have to be motivated to

make that change and have services available to help those patients a

longer journey. By restricting services with funding cuts, we

cannot allow this to happen if you want a healthier population. Thank

you for your thoughts today. Let's get more of the week's political

views. The round-up in 60 seconds... The former mayor has been told she

has to apologise after admitting she lied... Heather appeared in front of

a dozen plenary hearing after complaints. -- disciplinary hearing.

The closure of the Brighouse rips. London's Ritz has threatened action

over the name. The Chancellor Philip Hammond has apologised to Mary Gray

after telling her to not get hysterical. Philip Hammond made the

comment and she said his comment was sexist and would not be made if she

was a man. Liam Fox films of Lincolnshire. He was at a company in

Boston who have exported confectionery to America recently.

Deanna Johnston, would you have been offended if Philip had called you

hysterical? Yes, I wind. It is a gendered insult that is used against

women. -- I'm weird. It was a reasonable question. I was listening

to her. -- I would. She was asking in general question and asking about

Brexit. People are put down in the House of Commons. Maybe you could

moderate your language. He is not a rude man and would not want to

offend anybody. Political debate in the chamber has a lot of put downs.

Not all sexist. A busy week for Mr Hammond. You both have a magic wand.

Give me one measure that would change the lives of people in your

area. I would like him to provide proper funding for social care,

particularly in areas like Hull, the announcement will not create the

money we need. I would like him to do some two something specific about

the poor areas that are having a social care crisis because of the

funding from Government. It is really about how we can try that at

the most efficient way to collect the money that we need. We can all

have wishes that we want this or that funded but we need to find the

money somewhere. How come a move this forward? Weatherby more money

for social care? There probably will be. -- will there be? We need reform

as well as money. Thank you for your thoughts. We are now off to the

Ritz. That is the Ritz in Brighouse. need Crossrail as well. We will be

poring over the entrails of the budget next week. Thank you very

much indeed. So the Brexit Bill is back in

the Lords next week and the Lib Dems They've ordered pizza and camp beds

to encourage their peers to keep talking all night,

only to be told by the Lord's authorities that their plans fall

foul of health and safety laws. Laws that they probably voted for.

What did you make of David Liddington's remarks on the Lords

amendments, particularly not just the one on EU nationals, but on what

is regarded as a meaningful vote at the end of the process? Let's be

clear, as ministers like to say, the meaningful vote vote is by far the

biggest thing that will happen in Parliament. It puts EU citizens into

a tiny corner. It will decide not just who is going to have the final

say on this, but who the EU is negotiating with. Is it directly

with Theresa May or is it with Parliament? Who will decide the

shape of Brexit, Parliament or Theresa May? The Lords amendment is

just the first chapter. They have voiced Theresa May to give them a

veto on everything she does, and there is a possible chance in the

Commons could uphold this amendment. The meaningful vote amendment? The

meaningful vote amendment. But is it a meaningful vote if the choice is

to either back the deal or crash out of the deal? That is what the remain

supporting MPs or hardline people who want to remain fear. What they

want is the power to be able to send Theresa May back to the negotiating

table. Why is that anathema to many Brexit supporters? They believed it

would crucially and critically undermine Theresa May's negotiating

hand and also create a long period of uncertainty for business. There

is already great uncertainty and this could extend it. The

government's position is in there was a proper, meaningful vote which

Parliament could reject what was on offer, that would be an incentive to

the EU to give us a bad deal? I think that is the fear. If you are

saying to the people you are negotiating with that that is

another authority and Theresa May will have to go back and have all of

this approved, I think it would have a very significant undermining

effect on her negotiating hand. Things change from day to day. We

are talking about 2019 and 2018 at the earliest, but if the government

lost a vote on the Brexit deal, would he not have to call in someone

else? That is why the vote will be meaningful even if the amendment on

this meaningful vote will be lost. You cannot do a deal on something as

historic as Brexit and have Parliament against you. So, whatever

form this vote takes, whenever it happens, it will be hugely

meaningful. Whatever label that is given and if she lost it she would

call a general election. She could not impose it. To call a general

election now you need a majority of MPs which she will not have, so

maybe she will not get her election after all. It would be very unlike

Labour not to vote for an election. It would be very unlike Labour not

to vote for an election. The elections to Stormont have given

a boost to the republicans and put the long term status

of Northern Ireland in some doubt. Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams

spoke to reporters Yesterday was in many,

many ways a watershed election, and we have just started a process

of reflecting what it all means, but clearly the union's majority

in the Assembly has been ended, and the notion of a permanent

or a perpetual unionist majority Is he right? Is this a watershed?

The nationalist vote in the assembly will now come to 39 and the

Unionists 38. It is only one member, but it is significant. This is a

very serious moment and because of everything else going on with Donald

Trump and Brexit it is taking a while for people here to realise

just how significant this is. Talking to someone who only recently

left a significant role in Northern Ireland politics last night, they

said they were very worried about what this means. It is likely there

will be a call for some kind of international figure to chair the

talks to try and see if there is a way of everybody working together.

All sides will probably try to extract more money from the

Treasury, but it is a very dangerous moment. Should we regard Michelle

O'Neill, who has replaced Mr McGuinness as the leader, it is she

the First Minister death probably not quite. An interesting thought.

Indeed, the daughter of an IRA man, a fascinating concept in itself. But

there are are still a large amount of MLAs who will not give Sinn Fein

what they need. But what effect does this have on the legacy of the

prosecutions and the great witchhunts which the British

Government has vowed to end. There is a majority left on the Stormont

assembly to end those. But some would keep them going for time

continuing, which is a headache for Theresa May. You have now got 27

Sinn Fein members, 28 DUP, then the SDLP bumps up the numbers a little

bit. You have got the British Government transfixed with Brexit

which has huge implications for the border between North and South in

Ireland, and the Irish government is pretty wavering as well and if there

is an election there, Sinn Fein could do well in the Dublin

parliament as well. There are a lot of moving pieces. There are and

there is a danger that we look at everything through the prism of

Brexit, but I found Friday and this weekend fascinating. Theresa May and

Scotland were Nicola Sturgeon is framing Brexit entirely through an

argument to have a second referendum on independence which she wants to

hold it she possibly can. And the Irish situation with the prospect of

a hard border with Northern Ireland voting majority to remain, quite a

substantial majority, again a few of the instability at the moment. That

We will be keeping an eye on it for sure.

Yesterday, US President Donald Trump tweeted allegations

that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered

his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.

"Terrible!", Trump wrote, "Just found out that Obama

had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.

I'm not quite sure what McCarthyism that is.

He followed up with a series of tweets comparing it to Watergate.

"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very

The sacred election process, I think at one stage he said it was a dodgy

election process, but now it is sacred.

You are frightened to go to bed at night, you do not know what you are

going to wake up to. Completely uncharted territory here. Little

more than a month ago at the inauguration they were making the

veneer of small talk and politely shaking hands. He saw Barack Obama

and Michelle off on the helicopter. You do not know what is coming next.

Is there a scintilla of evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims? Yes,

there is, although he is very muddled about it all. I will

explain. Remember what happened to Mike Flynn, talking to the Russian

and Ambassador will stop they were listening. Barack Obama does not

sign of warrants, but somebody else did. So why on earth would you not

want to listen to the president elect himself in case he might also

be breaking the law. Does that sound to you like convincing evidence or

just a supposition? I think Tom should go and work for him, that is

the most credible interpretation I have heard for a long time. Start

tweeting the case for the tweet. What is interesting about this is my

theory is he does not really like the idea of being a president. That

wild press conference he gave a couple of weeks ago there was one ad

lib that did not get repeated which was, I suppose I am a politician

now, as if he was humiliated at the idea of being a president. He likes

being the businessman with a swagger tweeting around the clock. And

campaigning again. He keeps going to what looked like campaign rallies. I

disagree with you about him not liking being president. I think he

loves the idea of being the president, but the reality is so

frustrating on every level, finding he does not have unlimited room for

manoeuvre and so many things have been put in place to stop them doing

things he would do in the business environment. We have had two more

tweets from him this morning, I guess when he woke up. Who was it

who secretly said to the Russian president, tell Vladimir that after

the election I will have more flexibility? Who was that? Possibly

Hillary Clinton. Is it true the Democratic National committee would

not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after

learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? This was all an issue in

the campaign. He is now a president. Shall I point out the flaw in Tom's

theory. They were not bugging Michael Flynn's phone, it was the

Russian Ambassador's telephone they were barking. Mr Neil, I would never

contradict you on this programme. But if you suspect there was

criminal activity going on, as there was by Michael Flynn, why would you

not want to put on a tap? I don't know. That is it for today.

I'll be back next week here on BBC One at 11am as usual.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.

But remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.