12/03/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire

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.

Later on the Sunday Politics in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire,

we ask whether enough volunteers are coming forward to run

the services which have fallen victim to council cuts.

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 You're watching the Sunday Politics

for Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. Coming up today: Is the Big

Society filling a big Why a growing army of volunteers

are running services which have And following those stinging budget

headlines, we hear from white van man on that controversial rise

in national insurance. Yes, plenty to talk about today

with the fallout from the budget Our guests are Philip Davies,

Conservative MP for Shipley, Angela Smith, Labour MP

for Penistone and Stocksbridge, Greg Mulholland, Liberal Democrat MP

for Leeds North West. Well, look, the question I'm

going to ask you is, or the people you represent

going to feel better Well, Tim, I have seen

many of my voters, and there are a high proportion of my voters

who are self-employed and they are going to feel

very badly let down. Conservative Government promised

there would be no increases in national insurance,

and here we are. And on top of that we've got only

?2 billion in additional funding for social care,

when we know that it's been cut There is a real crisis

in social care. And I'm afraid this budget provides

no answers to the problems faced by the country,

and the voters in my constituency. Do you accept this has

not been the best week I don't think we should have

increased national insurance contributions on the self-employed -

as Angela said, we promised If we were going to scrap our

manifesto commitment, we would have been far better off

scrapping of promised to spend And cut that budget and use that

to fund social care. That would have been far better

and for more popular And I certainly don't support

what the Chancellor is doing with Greg Mulholland, whenever

you are on the programme, we always bill you as Parliament's

voice of the pub. Well, I think there were many

serious issues that people There were some pieces of positive

news to reverse some of the dangerous increases

in business rates that affect pubs and also affect other

businesses like sports shops, but I think Angela is right -

it was a very disappointing But now it's chaotic because already

we've had something of a U-turn. Theresa May has said, we won't

actually do this until autumn. And actually frankly,

and I think you see signs of working together across the parties

and the backbenches, we want to get rid of this very

unfair attack on the self-employed, who don't get paid holidays

and don't get sick pay. It's outrageous,

as well as a broken promise. And it's self-defeating

for what the Government A number of Yorkshire

and Lincolnshire Conservatives have criticised the controversial

proposal to increase national insurance contributions for many

self-employed workers. Although Theresa May has said this

won't now be debated by MPs until the autumn,

it hasn't stopped a fierce backlash against the

Chancellor's announcement. It's been described

as a tax on white van man. Millions of self-employed workers

will pay an average of ?240 more And it's a move that

will affect people like Darren, We are a very, very easy target,

because we pay our taxes and because we, you know,

we live how we are supposed So I just feel that we are

a bit of an easy target. The Chancellor says he wants

to create a level playing field when it comes to the national

insurance paid by employees and those who are self-employed,

but that's not how many business Some of the people they are

competing with our large businesses who, perhaps,

will be enjoying business rates cuts and certainly corporation tax cuts,

so the playing field We feel that this is an unfair

development and it should be looked at very carefully and perhaps

reversed and changed. We have to have a tax

system that is fair, and it's right that we ask people

to contribute appropriately for the benefits that they are

receiving from the state. So, no U-turn, but,

with negative budget headlines, many MPs hope the Chancellor

will look again at this So, just to be clear on this,

Philip Davies, if this came to a vote in the autumn amongst MPs,

you would vote against it? I mean, I don't know what proposals

that the Prime Minister or the Chancellor might bring

forward to mitigate against it, But, as things stand,

if it came to a vote Do you think this will now be

quietly ditched by the Treasury? You know, seeing as there is so much

opposition from your party. Well, I think they're

going to have do something, just because of the parliamentary

arithmetic. If all of the opposition

parties are against it, which they appear to be,

it only takes about ten or so Conservative MPs to vote

against it and it is sunk, so, given the scale of opposition

received to it, it seems they are going to have

to do something. Angela Smith, this was, by all

accounts, a badly received budget. The Conservatives are still almost

20 points ahead in the polls. You must be banging your head

about the lack of opposition. The point I would make

here is that we have do, as a party, I think,

but the focus squarely on how the Government is performing here,

and maybe that is where some Because, you know, when you look

at it properly, what you see and what we see in front of us

is a Government whose borrowing The borrowing is

as high as it ever was. They have boxed themselves

into a corner with a promise of no tax increases,

a promise they are now breaking. And public spending

is at rock-bottom levels, and is now cutting

deeply into essential services So, why isn't your

party making traction? I think we need to start making

traction on these key issues, so, for instance, on the self-employed,

the fact that self-employed workers will start paying this extra

national insurance on only 16,500 a year and above, is utterly unfair

and it's something that I hope our front bench will fight

very, very hard indeed. And I think, in addition

to that, there is no promise from the Government

that they will reciprocate, in terms of these insurance increases,

with an improved benefit entitlement, which we need

to see before we can even think about accepting any

of these proposals. As they stand at the moment,

they are totally unacceptable. Greg Mulholland, do you accept

now that unless something catastrophic happens Theresa May

is cruising to another The elephant in the room

that was completely omitted by the Chancellor, extraordinarily,

who... It begins with B, and it's

the incredible political, but actually economic and financial,

turmoil caused by Brexit. So, frankly, who knows

where we will be at the time Or if Theresa May will have been

able to deliver any of the things That, of course, is why

the Liberal Democrats have said that the people should get their say

on the terms of our exit. People have had their say,

though, haven't they? Absolutely, and if we trusted them

to make that decision, we should trust them again

on the terms of exit. But this Government

have a lot of things At the moment they are not

and they are being very glib So I don't think any of us will know

where we are at the moment, but I do know that more and more

people are saying that they will And I think, you know,

to support what Greg was saying to some extent,

that there is evidence already that inflation is beginning

to increase quite significantly The fall in the value of the pound

since the decision on Brexit. But, by and large, do you accept

the economic meltdown you predicted on programmes like this

has not happened? I never predicted an economic

meltdown, but what I will say The value of the pound has fallen

because of the decision. That is now showing itself

in the shape of increased prices in the shops,

and retail spending is beginning The indicators are beginning to show

that there is trouble ahead for us, which is one of the reasons,

I think, when the Chancellor has taken some of the decisions

that he has taken. 60 billion into this part,

when we don't have enough money for our schools,

hospitals, and for social care. Trouble potentially ahead

for the Government tomorrow, because the House of Lords'

amendments go back to Are you predicting a significant

rebellion tomorrow, Philip Davies? These are issues that have

already been decided The Commons passed them quite

comfortably last time. I think the House of Commons

will reject the Lords' amendments tomorrow,

and I hope and believe that, at that point,

the House of Lords will say, we have done our bit,

and we will cave in and... Theresa May's final Brexit deals,

as Greg Mulholland suggests, should No, that has already been rejected

by the House of Commons We don't know what the

deal looks like yet. A second referendum has been

rejected by both the House of Commons and House of Lords,

so that is not going And there is no reason why these

amendments will through. And yet, Philip, now,

is very keen on that, when he wanted to let the people

have their say, and now suddenly They have had to say

in or out, Philip. People like the Lib Dems,

they want to find any way to overturn the result by the back

door, and it isn't going to happen. We have decided we

are going to leave. No, but we need to trust the people

do have a say on what happens We can't keep people voting

and voting until you get the result you like,

Greg. The anti-Europeans have been

doing that for years. I am not saying a second

in-out referendum. But if we trusted the people

in the first place, when they actually see what it means

and what the impact will be in all sorts of areas,

then I think it's perfectly say, would they like to have

a comment on what the Government You've lost the vote

in the Lords and the Commons. I suspect you two are not

going to agree with him on this Well, we have one by about two

to one in this process a list. Now, do you remember that

phrase the "Big Society" which was championed by last

occupant of Ten Downing Street? Well, some would say the Big Society

is alive and well thanks to an army of volunteers running services such

as libraries and leisure facilities which have been

cut back by councils. So, with more public

spending cuts to come, is it time to resurrect the idea

of people power The Big Society demands

a big social response. It means millions of people

answering that noble question asked by JFK,

ask can not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do

for your country. A bold statement from David Cameron

back in 2010, but seven years on, Welcome to Lower Wharfedale

in North Yorkshire, where volunteers I think it's very important

that people put back. It sounds like a cliche,

doesn't it, that he put back? The public footpath right-of-way

network is very important, And we know that, you know, councils

are suffering at the moment, but even when there were good times,

we volunteered to help, because we believe that

the right-of-way network is vitally Richard is just one of more

than 20,000 people across Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, giving

up their time and volunteering Our authorities have

had their budgets cut by ?2 billion since 2010,

and some may ask, is There is a lot of talk

about volunteers taking over and running libraries and so on,

and in some part of some cities, like Sheffield, if a library

is closed that is a real problem for some of the poorest and most

vulnerable people, so it is quite... There is a balance

to be struck, I guess. Council cuts meant the closure

of Stocksbridge leisure Centre near Sheffield,

but it was saved by a group of very dedicated people,

and now runs as a community leisure centre with a mix of paid staff

and at least 40 volunteers. If I didn't come here,

I don't know what I'd be doing. We all volunteer because we are

passionate about it. The people that come here,

they are providing a friendly atmosphere, where everybody

appreciates everything that It gets me out of bed in the morning

and keeps me fit and healthy. Many giving up their time

are retired, and, as the working age increases, there are concerns

about future volunteer levels. Traditionally, volunteers tended

to be people that have retired. They have got lots of skills,

lots of time on their hands, and they want to feel part

of the community and give something back, which is great,

but how long can we, And so it's a concern,

so we try always to think of how we can, sort of,

bring younger people in and get Three days of paid volunteering

leave was pledged by I think one of the challenges

is how they make it work. I don't think the Government is ever

going to say to an employer, you must free people up for three

days to make this work, so I think it's always going to be

something which was around encouragement and carrots

rather than sticks. The concern is that

unless the Government backs up its pledge,

community groups will be left to pick up the pieces with

a diminishing pool of volunteers. That was Sarah Urwen

reporting there. So, Greg Mulholland,

is this really a vindication of what David Cameron

always wanted - communities coming together,

not relying on the state? Well, the first thing to say,

and I am sure we would all absolutely agree,

is to pay tribute to all of the wonderful

volunteers that we saw there, and the many that we know personally

who are in our own constituencies. But let's face it, the Big Society

was a fairly vacuous idea. It was one that David Cameron hoped

to be remembered by. Instead he is being remembered

as the person who foolishly gambled on trying to placate his

backbenchers and lost over Brexit. But we need to have a serious

debate about many things, because the fact is we have a social

care system in crisis, which has been something that has

been an elephant in the room I'm pleased to say the coalition

came forward with something of a plan, which the Conservatives

dropped as soon as But we will not be able to have

volunteers if we keep seeing the state pension age rise,

as people are busy, but I can certainly tell you that having

volunteers will not deal with the social care crisis

or the state of the NHS, and that needs, frankly,

a proper review. And that's why I back having

a cross-party convention to discuss the future of the NHS

and social care. Do you accept in some areas

volunteers actually have been probably more successful in running

services than the council? I mean, I think the point made

in the package by Neil Cleeveley I want to pay tribute

to the volunteers as well. One of those sets of volunteers

is at Stocksbridge leisure Centre in my constituency,

and they have done a great job I don't think it really ever should

have been closed, but it was, And equally, in Penistone,

the same thing has happened I have, however, a community-run

library as well in Ecclesfield, and they equally have done

a great job. But libraries provide

a statutory service, and I have a real worry

that we will lose professional skills in the very long-term,

librarianship in the context When it comes to social care,

as Greg has pointed out, and health care, we have got to find

the right balance between the role of the state and the statutory role,

and the very important role that nurses and doctors play

in delivering the service. And the role of volunteers

in supporting the professionals There is a balance, but,

at the moment, there is a real All right, let me ask

Philip Davies, just how far can OK, you can get volunteers to run

libraries and to paint bus shelters, but, actually, when it comes

to the really, really big things, like social care, there is no

substitute for Government No, there are certain

things that have to be run by the state, obviously,

the NHS being a prime example. I don't think anybody

is suggesting otherwise. We have got to remember,

back in 2010, the Government were spending ?600 billion a year,

roughly, and it was borrowing ?165 billion a year to spend

?600 billion a year. We can't carry on like that,

so we had to find a way of scaling There is no painless way out

of that kind of debt. And so we had to find

a way where we actually scaled back what the state

were spending its money on, and we need to focus on the things

that only the state can do, So, what more would you personally

cut that hasn't been cut already? Well, overseas aid is a thing that

I would particularly like to cut. It was ?8 billion in 2010

and it is now ?12 billion. It will be ?16 billion in 2020

and that is a luxury Well...

Like free schools? I think free schools,

there is a one in a million school in Bradford, free school,

helping lots of deprived kids, But a 9 billion overspend?

A 9 billion overspend? The money we should be

saving is on overseas aid. The free schools in my constituency,

I have got one, and it enjoys a much better funding deal than the other

schools in my area. It has already been calculated that

just to avoid emergency situations and to deal with emergency

situations in terms of maintenance, And yet, the budget gives ?1 billion

in capital for the building If we haven't got the money now,

to maintain our current school buildings, then how on earth

is the Government going to find the money to build ?1 billion worth

of grammar schools and free schools? Let's get some more of the week's

political news now. Our 60-second round-up is voiced

by the legend that is Len Tingle. This week's Prime Minister's

Question Time, and Batley's Tracy Brabin asked why it's so difficult

to get compensation for an 11-year-old damaged

by inoculation against swine flu. Will the Prime Minister today

promise that no more of these disabled children will be hounded

through the courts? Later, a conservative celebration of

what was International Women's Day from Louth and Horncastle's

Victoria Atkins. International Women's Day

is a chance to reflect on how governments and democracies

across the world serve women. Will my right honourable friend

confirm that when it comes to female Prime Ministers,

it's two-nil to the Conservatives? But outside the chamber,

not much joy for these women - as flagged up in last week's

Sunday Politics, a protest against seeing state

pension age raised to 66, but not a word about

it in the budget. And William - now Lord -

Hague hit the headlines. He wants the Minister to call

an early general election. OK, so we heard about

International Women's Day. Let them speak to a member

of Parliament's Women How did you mark

International Women's Day? The Prime Minister,

who was doing a fantastic job. In fact, I think two of our finest

Prime ministers have both been female prime ministers,

so Victoria was absolutely right. It goes to show that rather

than just talking about it, we get on with it, and I think,

as Mrs Thatcher once said, if you want something said,

ask a man, and if you want What do you make of him

being on this committee? Well, Phil is entitled to be

a member of that committee, and I will leave it at that,

but what I will say about women in Parliament is that, actually,

we may not have had a woman leader in the Labour Party,

but we have produced more women MPs then all of the other parties put

together and more. So we have got the best record by

far on this. We do need to have, I think, a woman leader sometime soon

and that is essential. Or would that be?

I would not put money on anybody, but my point is, an important point,

it is Labour who have provided the backbone of women's representation

in parliament. We have the best record and I am proud of my party

record on that. A serious point, because Philip

Davies pushed for Parliament to discuss International Men's Day, was

that a right decision for him to do? Philip will make his own decisions.

We must discuss issues of importance for women and issues of importance

for men, that must be the case. There are issues serious unserious

campaigns, that were highlighted with International Women's Day, and

I am delighted to support them. I agree with Andrew, I don't know

about Philip... But a lot more needs to be done about certain equality.

Equality issues in the workplace, and in terms of pay. I went to come

on Thursday night, a town hall in my constituency, to see a performance

of made in Dagenham. It shows that although progress has been made,

there is still work to be done... People turning into Elaine Paige on

Sunday. An important political issue as well

Briefly, William Hague wants a snap Briefly, William Hague wants a snap

election, should it and will it happen?

No and no. Angela Smith?

Remain open minded as to whether or not they will be another election,

because everything is volatile, but who knows what will happen next? I

am ready for an election at any time.

Are you ready? I am always ready for an election,

Tim. The idea that a prim minister on a whim or for cynical political

reason could cause all the turbulence of election, is nonsense.

-- a Prime Minister. Turbulent times for the country at the moment, so

that must be the priority rather than cynically wondering about

whether it might be the right moment whether it might be the right moment

for a Conservative Prime Minister to go to the polls. We have serious

issues to deal with for the country. And the price of a pint of beer

going up by 2p tomorrow. You have the rest of today to fill your

boots. Not that we encourage binge drinking. They give all of your

thoughts. 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.