20/05/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/05/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



With one month to go until the EU referendum, immigration is,


alongside the economy, one of the key issues likely


It's a subject that's got one Labour MP into trouble after she was caught


on microphone branding a voter as a "horrible racist" for calling


We'll be talking about that and the numbers behind


the immigration debate, and asking what if anything either


side of this referendum debate thinks should be done.


Protestors against the US-EU trade deal have a new ally,


as Conservative rebels join with Labour to force the government


And plans for Britain's first sub-orbital spaceport have grabbed


a lot of attention this week but is space tourism really


And with us for the whole of the programme today two


journalists who have just this moment docked at our sub-orbital


You could call them a pair of space cadets.


It's Harry Cole from the Sun and Zoe Williams from the Guardian.


First today, being caught by the microphones making


an unguarded comment is an occupational hazard


for the modern politician, particularly during


Labour's shadow Europe Minister Pat Glass is the latest


She's on several front pages this morning after she branded a voter


in Derbyshire a "horrible racist" for criticising a local Polish


She had to apologise for the remarks at the end of a BBC radio interview


in which she declared she was "never coming back to wherever this is".


Not every region in the UK gains out of the European Union,


It gets more money out than it puts in and I think that money well spent


The very first person I come to is a horrible racist.


I'm never coming back to wherever this is.


That was the shadow Europe Minister Pat Glass.


Last time I looked, she still is the shadow Europe minister.


She said afterwards that her comments had been inappropriate


She apologised for any offence caused and said concerns about


Who thought it? This suggests that Labour shadow ministers are not just


out of touch, with traditional Labour voters, they held them in


contempt. No, there's useful journalism to be done here if


anybody wanted to do it. Go to the Polish family and ask them if they


had ever met the guy who called them scroungers because if he doesn't


know what their financial situation is, he doesn't know that they are


scroungers and he is racist. Why does it make him racist? Because if


you assume some of claiming benefits because their Polish. That is what


racism is. No, it's not. The Polish are not a race. It is xenophobia. It


splitting hairs. No, it's not at all. You say it's a bigoted comment,


unfounded. It may be xenophobic. But I cannot see how it can be racist.


Frankly, the Labour Minister Pat Glass should've had some backbone


and said, I didn't mean racist, I meant xenophobic and bigoted. We


don't know what the guy said because he won't go on the record. He said


they were scroungers. Apparently. I think the most damning thing Pat


Glass said was I'm never coming back to this place. This was a Labour


seat in 2010, the sort of marginal Labour have to be winning if they


are ever to hold office again and for the shadow Europe minister to


call it, saying I never coming here again is disgusting. The mask slips.


Labour haven't issue with immigration. People don't think they


are treating the issue seriously. Give me a second. When you have an


unguarded comment like this, meant to be a private comment, it confirms


People's worst fears the party on taking it seriously. I think the


most damning thing she said was wherever I am, I'm not coming back


here. Whatever area it is. You ought to know where you are. You would


take more care if it's your area. Maybe if you were in Chipping


Salisbury. Morningside. Islington, Guardian and, wherever it is. I


don't disagree you should know where you are. And you shouldn't hold an


entire area like this. You shouldn't sneer at it like that. I wish


ministers would have some courage of their convictions. If you think


someone is xenophobic, bigoted, just say so, stop being so pathetic. It


might be that the man who made the remarks and the Labour politician,


neither of know the truth. About the Polish family. Exactly, no one knows


the truth but when you extrapolate someone's financial affairs from


their nationality, you don't know if it's your business. We don't know


that. OK, let's imagine nothing happened. It's good for Pat Glass


did not have this on film. You wouldn't have pictures of a


sneering. She realised how toxic figure was and shut it down in an


hour. That's the disaster of it, it's constant, "I'm so sorry" and I


don't think she should have apologised. She should've said he


was xenophobic. Emma Thornbury was different. Do you think Gordon Brown


should apologise? Some are making a decent complaint public services in


their area was under pressure. That was fine but make an apology because


you are genuinely sorry. Not because it got a gotcha moment. People who


say these things, whether they are generally informed or not, I'm not


complaining about the race or even the foreign nationality of the


people, it's usually the numbers. They are worried about the numbers.


Because they get a lot of nonsense ramps down their throat. When where


you last in that place. That is sneering in itself. Why? They had


that rammed down their face, A waiting times. Let her finish. Thank


you. The guy said there was a particular problem with a particular


family. To say his real problem is the numbers, you are extrapolating


something else. No, I said people like him, there main problem is the


numbers. When will you last in an area like that?


numbers. When will you last in an and down the country all the time.


If you speak to people, and down the country all the time.


numbers. I do. I do lots and lots of box pops. It's not the colourful


than in the early days of box pops. It's not the colourful


immigration in this country, there was clear racist antagonism, they


didn't like black people, Afro-Caribbean, they didn't like the


fact that they were Asian. This is a different nature. It may still be


wrong but it's different. There were loads of concerns which are fine but


to say that family are scroungers when you don't know whether they are


or not, is bigoted. Now, if he had said this is putting pressure on


public services, putting pressure on wages, I can't get a house, then


that would have been a completely different position. If all that was


true. OK. We have got off to a lively start. We thank Pat Glass.


Normally we discuss something a lot more boring.


The question for today is about shadow Home Secretary Andy Burnham,


who yesterday announced he is running to be Mayor


But what did he say people take the mickey out of him for?


B) Losing the labour leadership contest?


C) Because he said his favourite biscuit was beer, chips and gravy?


At the end of the show Harry and Zoe will give us the correct answer.


And you are allowed to collude. I bulleted forgotten it. So have I.


So we've talked about one politician getting into trouble over


immigration but let's talk now about the real substance


of what the polls say is, alongside the economy,


one of the biggest issues for voters trying to make their mind up ahead


of the EU referendum in a month's time.


And it's a debate which is defined by some big numbers.


The number of people migrating to the UK has been greater


than the number emigrating since 1994.


At the beginning of the 2000s EU net migration was below 10,000,


a small fraction of the overall annual net migration


After the accession of 10 countries to the EU,


including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 2004, this


figure increased dramatically, rising to 87,000 in 2004.


The upward trend has continued ever since,


with EU net migration reaching 172,000 in the year


That's more than half of overall net migration, which was 323,000


That's net migration, but the total number of EU nationals


coming into the UK only - so not accounting for those


who returned to the continent - was 257,000 in the year


Those are the official statistics, but others have proposed alternative


methods for calculating the number of EU nationals coming to Britain.


In the same period, for example, 655,000 applied


And separate figures on the UK workforce published earlier this


week show number of non-UK nationals from the EU working here in the past


year has risen by 224,000 to reached a record 2.15 million.


And I'm joined now by the Labour MP and Leave campaigner Frank Field.


And the deputy director of Britain Stronger In Europe, Lucy Thomas.


Welcome to both of you. Lucy Thomas, let me come to you first. Almost 2.2


million non-EU UK nationals working in Britain and the speed at which


it's going up every year, is this a problem for your side of the


argument? I think the fact they are here and working in contributing


into the system and the fact that they paid over ?20 billion in taxes,


since coming here, I think that is a huge benefit to our economy,


actually, and I think being in the EU with access to the single market,


the world's largest, half of our exports go there, having that free


movement of people which comes alongside that, is a huge benefit.


Overall, the free movement of people and almost 2.2 million EU nationals


working here is not a problem, a plus. It's an absolute plus and it


also means British people can work and travel and study and retire


across the rest of the EU, as well and there are roughly similar


numbers of British National is in the rest of the EU as there are EU


migrants. I'm not sure that's true because that was based... Just


checking the figures now. MOBILE PHONE RINGS


Phone it turned out that figure is not accurate. OK, they are broadly


in line. No, they're not, actually. That's the latest research I've


seen. BBC relative check on this is good. Frank, it's not a problem,


it's an asset getting these people, highly motivated, many of them


skilled. The don't have to pay for their education in a lot of cases.


The Spanish and the Italians are paid immediately benefit. Develop


them for two reasons. Despite the fun you had early on, one emerged.


All three of you thought the numbers were a problem. I think they are a


problem for two reasons. One is that we've never decided in this country


what we, as locals, should actually sign up to as citizens. We have had


no idea to ask newcomers what we expect of them, so huge numbers of


people have come and, instead of strengthening our culture, in some


key instances, have actually divided it and that's bad for a nation.


People coming from the EU? Where has that happened? Yes, you have a whole


range of religious, different histories, and... A lot of the


Polish Catholics. We are used to that in this country. Most of this


country aren't. The point I'm trying to make is there something about


common history and common memories which are important. Didn't we fight


the Second World War together? Polish pilots were a key factor in


winning the Battle of Britain. As well as the cricket test, we need


the Battle of Britain test when making these decisions. The second


issue is, the sheer weight of numbers which maybe I was wrong. You


all agreed on it. I didn't. I just ask the question. If you are like


the person in this imaginary country where the Labour spokesman didn't


know where she was, clearly there is real problems about competition for


jobs, housing, schools, health. It is that factor which actually has to


register. Let me go back to you, does it not


matter that there is any cap on the numbers? It is generally accepted


that the changes the Prime Minister made on in-work benefits would be


marginal to the pull factor. If that. But the huge rise, by British


standards, in the new national minimum wage will be a major pull


factor, and so more could come from Europe. Does that matter in your


mind, or is it Europe. Does that matter in your


continue to welcome? Well, I think we have got to look at what the


referendum we have got to look at what the


options are of leaving and remaining, and the fact that


leaving, all remaining, and the fact that


England, the Treasury, if you do what Frank's campaign wants us to


do, leave the single market, that leads to recession, they agree with


that. leads to recession, they agree with


ask you a simple question, which is, given the pull factors, and if the


eurozone continues to stagnate, the push factors, because a lot of the


new ones coming now are coming not from the Eastern European countries,


they are coming from Spain, Italy, France, Portugal, does that matter


that it could rise and that there is France, Portugal, does that matter


no cap on that? Well, limiting free movement means limiting your access


to the single market, so the two are intrinsically linked. That is your


choice. It is the price of being in the club. Eddies its billion pounds


a year our public finances the club. Eddies its billion pounds


hit. -- 30 ?6 billion. You don't believe that, do you? Tell me an


expert on their side of the argument!


expert on their side of the because there is no set of facts,


when we turn up because there is no set of facts,


we will make a decision from our guts about what we think is right


we will make a decision from our for Britain. The one thing we have


to be honest about is the outcome in, the real danger is what does it


figure in the rest of Europe? It is in our interests that we so approach


the renegotiations in a way that nobody feels that the whole place is


going to be turned over. We want successful negotiations, we want the


EU to be successful. Rather than say we are coming out, this is the


timetable, all of it. That is the danger on our side. Sticking with


immigration, if you came out, which I guess would give Britain control


over who would be coming from the EU or not - at the moment we


over who would be coming from the EU is one of the basic rules of


membership of the club - how strict would we be? I think we would


limited to the skills which we require. Otherwise they could not


come to work? Absolutely. That means limiting access to the single market


might your exports, your free trade, hitting jobs and prices. Because


everyone who has access, whether aren't they are members, has to have


pretty much free movement. Norway, Switzerland. Are you happy to access


that? I do not accept it. That is the rules of the club. Let him and


is a macro. The key fact is that nobody of our size as actually


thought about renegotiating. It will be a totally different dynamic. Why?


What is the incentive for those remaining countries to give us a


better deal? Can I just clarify... It is very difficult to have an


interview! I will ask you a question, you will be able to answer


it. Would it matter to you if the price of controlling the numbers who


can come from the EU was that we did not have our current access to the


single market? It would, but because they have a balance with us, we


trade less, there is a self interest aspect which would change the


dynamism. I'm not pretending it is going to be simple, I'm not saying


that any team we send out will be successful, we would want to send


the best team out to do the renegotiations. But we are not like


Switzerland, we are not like Norway, we are a different league. You know,


I just want to make this point again, Andrew, these are important


but secondary issues. When we negotiate, we have got to make sure


that the European Union does not actually unravel as a result of


this. Do you fear that it might? Wouldn't that be a reason for not


leaving? It could be, and that is why the negotiations are so


important, that what they want to arrange is up to them. As you know,


the Prime Minister only conceded a vote to us to keep his party


together. Many other countries, both as there would like a vote like we


have got. You think it could trigger it? I do, we need to be careful on


that. Let me bring back Lucy Tomlinson, many economists would


agree with you that the EU influx is overall good for the economy, it has


brought skills, people have done jobs that British people are not


prepared to do and so on. But it has undoubtedly put extra pressure on


housing, on schools, on hospitals, on social security, and the


politicians who have walked the walk on opening the doors have not talked


the talk when it has come to increasing public spending on this.


Isn't that a fair criticism? We can have all these people coming in, it


may be good for us, but we still struggle to build 120,000 houses a


year, we have been cutting education budgets, the NHS is now in a massive


budget deficit. We have not spent the money to accommodate the extra


people. Is that fair? I don't think it is, and what is the key point


about having strong public services, whether schools and hospitals that


you talk about, you need a strong economy. A ?36 billion hole in the


public finances will mean weaker hospitals, weaker schools, we get


public services as a whole. People already regard them as we go. They


would be worse outside. So let me get this right, you do not criticise


politicians for opening the door to these people, the number has gone up


by 1 million from the EU since 2010, but you do not criticise the


politicians for opening that door but not then spending the money to


increase public services to appreciate extra people? That is a


decision for governments to decide how they spend money, I am talking


about the benefits of being in versus the very big risks to the


economy of leaving. The fact that public services are stronger in,


whether it is the 100,000 EU migrants working in the NHS, across


health and social services, and that extra tax receipts from EU migrants,


?20 billion. It is up to the Government House disband that, but


the idea that a ?36 billion hole in your government is going to... Where


is this whole coming from? The Treasury report. The one that told


us what the economy would be like in 2030, although last November it


could not tell us about this year. Let's see who has backed up this


analysis, the IMF, the Bank of England... That is not true, the


Bank of England only did short-term forecasts, because that is the


monetary remit of the bank on this. If we were prepared to spend more


money on public services, given that there seems to be a general view


that people are a benefit coming to this country, wouldn't that be job


done? There is a dispute on the size of the benefit, because quite


properly people draw out. They are net contributors. Lucy, I did not


ignore you when you were ranting on. It wasn't a rant, it was an


interruption, but please continue. The House of Lords has made the most


serious study of this, they think it is a net gain but in pennies. People


come here and draw services. The key issue we were talking about, Andrew,


almost in the last session, was that if you don't have control of the


borders, you have got a government which has got a deficit, as Lucy


says, but we do not know whether it is going to be 3 million more people


we are budgeting for, or should be budgeting for, for housing,


education and health. I do not think you can run a country like this on


that basis. You and I have lived through a time when this economy,


this country was so on its knees that people were rushing for the


door, and people just wanted to leave and get out. Is it not much


better to be an economy where people are queueing up to camp in?! Even


better if you are queueing up to come in and you are choosing who


comes in. Quick response from you? I think this is radically unrealistic,


the truth is they are net contributors. I do not believe in


weighing people by how much they bring in take-out, it is not the way


to talk about people, whatever country they are a citizen of, but


if we are going to talk like that, they are net contributors. It will


not leave a big hole in the finances, it will plunge us into


recession, the pound will go through the fall, interest rates will soar,


a recession in no time. That is true. Under no study could you say


that Britain has control over immigration, and that is due to EU


membership. The elephant in the room is the control on other countries


around the world because of EU membership. This is not going to be


settled in six months' time, the referendum will not make these


problems go away. Even if we stay in, they are going to get worse. The


referendum is not the sticking plaster we think it is. Before we


move on, Frank, what is your reaction to Pat Glass's comments? If


I was mean minded, I would say brilliant, it will help the no vote.


The awful fact, though, is that this is not a crisis, a big question of


destiny for the country involving the future of the Labour Party, and


at the last election, because almost 1 million Labour voters felt that we


no longer talk on their behalf, went and devoted Ukip. My worry is that


this sort of campaign that is being run will mean another 1 million will


think, I am no longer a Labour voter, and I want people to go as


Labour voters, heads high into the ballot box, vote for Britain, bowled


for coming out, and not feel they are being disloyal. -- vote for


coming out. Now to the High Court where judges


have been hearing the latest stage in the legal battle for ex-pat


British citizens to have the right Around 800,000 expats


who are thought to live in Europe have not been granted the right


to vote on June 23rd because they've We can speak to to our correspondent


Sophie Long. She's outside the Royal Courts


of Justice in London. Sophie tell us, what is the judgment


we are waiting on today? It has already happened, Andrew, this case


was brought by two people who have lived outside the UK for more than


15 years. Now, one is now 95, he has been living in Italy since he


retired in the 1980s, the other lives in Belgium, a lawyer who has


lived there since 1987. They said they should have the right to vote


in the referendum because it directly impacts upon their lives,


and so last month they went to the High Court and applied for a


judicial review. That was rejected by judges at the High Court, they


appealed, and today their appeal against that was dismissed. Lord


appealed, and today their appeal Dyson, sitting in


appealed, and today their appeal Royal Courts of Justice here, said


the EU referendum act of 2015 does sit within EU law


the EU referendum act of 2015 does could not be seen as a restriction


on their rights to freedom of movement, which is what they argued.


Bielsa said that the 15 year rule was seen by judges as legitimate and


proportionate way of testing as it is an's strength of links to the UK.


-- he also said. Their application for a judicial review bailed, they


appealed, and now that has been dismissed. Will they have time to


take it further, to the Supreme Court in time for June 23? Yes, that


is exactly what they are going to do, neither were in court today, but


I spoke to their lawyer immediately afterwards, he said the fight is not


over, time is of the essence, of course, as you point out, the


referendum is on the 23rd of June, but he said they have secured a


hearing at the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, on


Tuesday of next week, where the lord justices will be asked to consider


whether, under the EU referendum act of 2015, up to two million people


are being unlawfully denied the right to vote on continued


membership of the EU. He says they will be asked to consider whether


the 15 year rule act as a penalty against British citizens for having


exercised their rights of freedom of movement. So I am also told that


Harry Schindler has been in personal contact with the Prime Minister, he


said today in a statement that he's still waiting for the Government to


tell us why British citizens in Europe cannot vote in the


referendum, that the Government had agreed to scrap the rule before the


Referendum Bill was passed, agreeing it was arbitrary and under Macrider.


So the appeal today was dismissed, but their continues. --


undemocratic. Let's hope we're all active at the


age of 95. Now let's talk about


the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership,


or TTIP as it's known. It's the big trade deal that's meant


to cut trade barriers between the EU and the United States in industries


including cars, energy, It's long been unpopular on parts


of the left here and around the EU, but yesterday 25 Tory Eurosceptics


joined forces with Labour and the SNP and threatened to force


a symbolic government defeat over They said the trade deal could lead


to parts of the NHS being broken up and privatised by American firms


in the courts. Here's the Tory backbencher


William Wragg outlining his concerns The Transatlantic Trade


and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, which the EU is determined to pass,


may potentially put the UK government and the NHS facing


a legal challenge from foreign corporations if we refuse to put


some of our public services, including the NHS, out


to tender for privatisation. TTIP could, in effect,


force a partial privatisation of the NHS and there could be


nothing for the UK government or, worse, the British people to do


about it if we were to stay a member We on these benches must not be


blind to this issue and leave it Well, perhaps in a sign of how keen


the Government is to avoid trouble in the run-up to the referendum,


Number 10 was quick to respond yesterday by saying they would


accept the amendment and in doing so avoid the first defeat


on a Queen's Speech vote Well, Frank Field is


still with us and he's And we're joined by Conservative MP


Robert Jenrick, who is chair Welcome to you. Frank, it's a


strange world when Peter Lilley the Tory MP is lauded into today's


morning Star editorial. He is the last cabinet member who's had to do


a trade deal so he may know a bit about it for that. This is when


Britain did its own trade deals. Yes, but the importance of it is, to


fold, really, we should welcome the Prime Minister's retreat because


this is the new politics. He can't get things to the House of Commons


as in the old days when there was safe majorities. It is easier when


the Lib Dems were onside, wasn't it? A lot easier. We know what happened


to them. What it will mean come at the end of the parliament, we won't


be able to say, you gave me this programme to implement but also gave


me the powers to stop implementing it so there are swings and


roundabouts but for democracy is good. It raises big question is not


just for the NHS but industry as a whole is what America wants to


construct in this dealer and I think it's somewhat sinister. What the


government right to back down on this? It's worth re-emphasising what


this deal means to the UK. There are 63% of imports and exports are done


either to the EU or the USA. The opportunity here if we could get


this deal over the line in the years to come is immense. For consumers,


British businesses, creating jobs. The official forecast is it would


add a 0.5% to the EU's GDP. That's a statistical error. The history of


bilateral treaties is a very good one. They've enabled us to do


business all over the world and it's important to say here the UK has


over 90 treaty is not dissimilar to those with other countries. I didn't


ask for a lecture on free trade but was the government right to back


down? It was a mistake to accept what is essentially scaremongering


and paranoia by a small group on the left and some conservative


colleagues. Is the NHS under no threat in your view as this trade


deal is currently construed? Insofar as we can tell since most of it is


taking place behind closed doors and was only thanks to a Greenpeace leak


of 245 pages, we began to get a flavour of what was involved. If


your position the NHS is under no threat at all? That's the methods


we've had so far. From? The cross-party group has looked into


this and concluded there is no threat to the NHS. They wrote to the


Commissioners and got a clear response back. The key point is the


UK has 97 similar treaties with countries all over the world, many,


if not most of them, have the same provisions as this one and we've


never had a problem. The UK Government has only been challenged


twice on this issue. It would involve, this one, a number of


things becoming justifiable. Meeting behind closed doors. That is not


correct. The EU commission has been very clear, they've written to both


Parliament through the health select committee and the government, to say


state funded health care services are excluded. I wasn't talking about


that. I was saying in general, where there will be, if this TTIP goes


through, and we there will be, if this TTIP goes


reasons why it probably won't, if it was, any trade disputes, the


resolution mechanism involves specially set up courts which will


meet essentially privately. That's correct but this is nothing new.


International arbitration has existed for 40 years. This will be


one of the larger courts. We had a similar deal with other developed


countries around the world, Hong Kong, Singapore, Israel, in the


health care world, very successful. The Israeli pharmaceutical industry


is one of the most successful in the world and we have never been


is one of the most successful in the successfully challenged. That is the


public health system. It's an industry. The public


public health system. It's an is excluded. The EU commission said


that. Let me put that to Frank. Celia Armstrong, the EU commissioner


that. Let me put that to Frank. looking into this, she has said the


effect of EU's approach to public health services will make no


difference whether a member state has already allowed some services to


be private providers or they can bring them back


be private providers or they can difference. Do you not accept that?


No. One issue is the business about there will be a tribunal system and


free trade is marvellous if you are the top dog.


free trade is marvellous if you are which you describe, which will be in


secret, binding, from which there will be no appeals, will determine


the outcome. The second issue is, clearly the NHS is in real problems,


it needs money, and a commitment of the electorate to fund that, but it


also needs reform. That reform programme shouldn't actually come as


a result of an arbitrary trade deal, but be something


a result of an arbitrary trade deal, NHS. Shouldn't we be a bit sceptical


here on these Tories who are now the big critics of TTIP? The traditional


criticism has come from the Green party, from the left, as well. And


from some others in Europe. But not from the Tories. This is playing a


Eurosceptic card, isn't it? It may well be that it is welcomed. If you


think the move is wrong, do you think other politicians should put


their sticky fingers into people's souls and say I think your motives


are not as pure as mine? The Prime Minister is on the run. I would


suggest it's almost entirely irrelevant, the TTIP deal will not


be done in time for the presidential election or the inauguration of the


new president. Donald Trump has already come out against it and


Hillary Clinton is against it because she had to see off Bernie


Sanders and in France, Germany, and Holland there is a massive head of


steam against it, so it's a kind of almost irrelevant argument. In the


coming months and years, this might be done and it's been going on for


years. The free-trade agreements the EU provides us with, is one of the


key reasons we have to say. We don't even have a trade deal. Barack Obama


says you have to go back to the queue. We don't have a trade deal


now is that point is silly. This shows how weak the Prime Minister


is. That he had to give in. Three weeks ago I was speaking to MP, a


moderate Eurosceptic, saying he was urging colleagues not to disrupt the


Queen's Speech because at the end of the day they got to put the party


back together after the referendum. He was on the list so that shows the


level of anger the Prime Minister has conducted himself in the last


three weeks. The reason a lot of governments are doing this is


because it's gone through, the trade agreement which comes through Canada


and that has many of the same provisions, namely covert courts


where courts can sue government in a way none of us will ever know


anything about. 80% of American companies have Canadian wings that


can do their trade through that anyway. The reason the Americans are


insisting on this is that they don't accept, they are worried about the


impartiality of a number of European court systems. They wouldn't have


that concern if this was purely an Anglo American trade deal. I don't


know. When you get any situation in which there is corporate


confidentiality on one side and public facing information on the


other... The Americans would allow the English common law to be in


these cases in a way they don't trust the course of... I would be


amazed about is true. Be amazed. It is true. Are you worried now the


error free trade which has dominated the global economy as an aim since


1944, around them, is now in retreat and it's partly in retreat, even on


the conservative wing of politics because there is quite a clear


correlation between the rise of globalisation and the blue-collar


classes? It's certainly a cause of concern to conservatives to see a


growing number of colleagues being willing to put them into an


amendment like the one we're going to happen next in Parliament. So you


are worried? These are people who are usually pro-free trade, if we


vote to leave the EU, would like is to go out into the world as a global


trading nation to find deals. Isn't it because the losers of free trade


are now having their say? There's also a lot of misinformation and


that is why it's important for politicians to communicate the


benefits and drawbacks of doing this. It is surprising that, in


Parliament, very few people seem to appreciate that exactly the


provisions we been talking about today have existed in 90 plus


investment treaties for almost 40 years. All right, you've made that


point. We have got a lot to cover today. We need to move on but I


thank you both. Now it's time for the


latest in our both. I know Zoe and Harry will


be taking notes in case they one day reach


high office. Today it's one of the newest big


jobs in government - Could you make sure that the lights


stay on, that we all stay warm, and at the same time


cut carbon emissions? So, you want to be Secretary of


State for Energy and Climate Change. It's the department that


I particularly wanted to go to and the department that


I stayed in, even when, after David Laws' resignation


from the Treasury, I was offered the Chief Secretary job and a place


in the quad inevitably, and I said no to that,


I wanted to stay with Decc. There was a discussion


about carbon reporting, and I did point out to somebody that


James Murdoch had a more aggressive regulatory position on this issue


than the Government did. I said, "Look, come on,


James Murdoch is hardly I had a lot of arguments with


the Tories, particularly on my area. In many ways, it was the area


where we saw the most clashes. Jill Rutter is a former senior


civil servant and now She says the department is important


but it's the baby of Whitehall. Decc is the newest


government department - it was created to resolve a debate


that used to go on between So if you're going to be


a successful Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change,


you need to be able to maintain credibility with the Treasury,


who are very interested in energy policies, it's so key


to economic performance. You need to be able to deal with big


business, because we rely on the private sector to provide


all that energy infrastructure. That the same time, you need to keep


on board a bunch of very vociferous green stakeholders who are


determined to keep the Government to the climate change commitments


that were set out in Of course, in the early '80s


there was no Decc, and for both Environment Secretaries


and Energy Secretaries, Climate change, in my days


as the Secretary of State for the Environment,


was never the acute issue today, demanding huge subsidies of one


sort or another. Nobody ever mentioned climate


change, it wasn't an issue, and it has now moved from not


being an issue at all to becoming a mania, so that the climate change


tail is wagging the energy dog. But Chris Huhne, a coalition


Liberal Democrat Secretary of State, If I was to say there was one


enormous threat to humanity, not just do this country,


it is the fact that we are undergoing a period


of enormous climate change, and that is going to have tremendous


consequences for future generations unless we get a grip


on it very quickly. It fell to Ed Miliband as the first


Secretary of State for Decc to wed these competing ideas together


in a single department, and he knew the scale


of the challenge. I did slightly feel


that the people who worked in Energy felt that the people who were


from the Environment Department were a bunch of muesli-eating


sandal-wearers, and the people who'd come from the Environment part


of the forest thought the Energy people were a bunch of


petrol-headed sort of technocrats. And so there was definitely


a challenge of integration It's not that people


weren't committed, but they had their own fiefdoms,


they had their own way of doing things,


and there was a sort of sense... a sense of mutual suspicion


in a way. I was clashing with Eric Pickles,


I was clashing with Owen Paterson, I was clashing with


George Osborne, of course. because he did actually


believe in a lot of green stuff. My problem was he didn't stand up


to the Chancellor enough. For Ed Miliband, the problem


wasn't so much Chancellor of the time, Alistair Darling,


as the Treasury itself. The Treasury likes


to control things. You know, that is their


institutional role in Whitehall. And so at an institutional level,


there was a sense that, hang on a minute,


there's this new kid on the block, the department, they seem


to have a lot of control over some And it was


the cross-Whitehall battles that I used


to find most frustrating. But by the time Chris Huhne


arrived three years later, the department had begun


to find its feet. The curious thing about


the Department of Energy and Climate Change is that


it is very much rather like the Department


for International Development. It has a very, very clear remit,


a very clear aim, and a lot of the people who go and work for it


at civil service level, and one would hope also political level,


do so precisely because they do share those aims and they really


want to make them happen. if you have the support


of key people. I think the current Prime Minister,


actually, as Leader of the Opposition,


did help change the debate, The fact that he took a lead


on the climate change and green issues definitely


held us more to account. But I'm afraid the opposite is true,


which is the scepticism of George Osborne, the apparent


scepticism of George Osborne about this issue, him saying


we should not be a leader, "Why should we be


ahead of the pack?" You might say, as a Labour


politician, Ed Miliband would say that, but George Osborne's


coalition partners Cameron won't get rid of Decc,


because he still likes to think he is a green person, famed


for being the first Tory leader I think Decc will go overnight,


if I'm honest with you. So it would seem that the long view


of being Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change


is not that clear. Either it will become


THE department of government, or it's possible that in the future


there won't even be one. Now, when it comes to


the referendum on EU membership, are you for Remain or for Leave?


Or are you perhaps still undecided? Well, according to the polls,


many of you aren't sure. But, more surprisingly, that's also


a view reflected among some MPs, who haven't yet come


out one way or another. As a public service,


we here at the Daily Politics have come up


with the very latest list of how many MPs are still


thinking about it. The Conservative Party is,


as you'll have worked out by now, having the biggest struggle


with this decision. And that's reflected


in the fact that there are still 26 undecided MPs, that's


8% of the parliamentary party. We've tried to get in touch


with them all, and ten have told us they will declare before the vote,


often saying they're waiting until they've finished holding


debates in their constituencies. The rest, 16 of them,


either said they won't be declaring their intention at all,


or they didn't return our calls. You know where we are


if you'd like to ring in. where the overwhelming majority


of MPs are for remain, there are just eight MPs


still to tell us how they'll vote. Of those, two have told us they'll


declare before the referendum, aren't playing their cards


close to their chest. The SNP, the Lib Dems, Plaid


and the other smaller parties have all declared


one way or another. Well, to discuss this,


we're joined by one Conservative MP He's James Heappey,


and he joins us from Bristol. Welcome to the programme. Now, I


understand you've made up your mind by Joe not going to tell us. I made


my mind of a couple of weeks ago. I was genuinely undecided, but the


great literary of being in Parliament as I get to walk through


the voting lobbies most evening with the entire cabinet, and the leading


campaigners on both sides of the debate, and it meant I was able to


answer some of the questions I had and come to my own conclusion. But


the reality is that, for my constituents, they don't have that


sort of access to those people, so I set myself to deliver the best


quality debate that I can within my constituency, and once those are


done, I will come clean on what I'm thinking. So you will tell us,


because the world is waiting for this, before the vote? Absolutely. I


think that people have a right to know how their MPs go to vote, it is


a referendum, my vote is no Leave with no more than any constituent,


but they may want to know how I will vote. -- my vote is worth no more.


Nobody likes the person who claims to have been supporting Leicester


City all season, so it is important to get my mark out before the vote.


Are you telling us that you support Leicester City in Bristol?! No, no,


nobody likes the supporters who say they have been supporting them all


along after they have won. Maybe people think you are suspicious,


waiting to see which way the wind blows. I am pretty clear on that, I


think my constituency and the south-west is a region is probably


leaning out, and one of the things that bothers me about the referendum


is that it is likely that there will be regions of the country that vote


one way when the country as a whole votes be another. It is likely there


will be a younger generation that bodes one way, and older that bodes


the other, and that creates a challenge, bringing everyone back


together afterwards. -- votes. How I vote is immaterial, this is about my


constituents. If I were to put ?1 a new voting to come out, I would


probably get it back, right? I'm not sure... It is a nice try! Have you


got a date when you will make your declaration? I can hardly wait(!) My


mum is very excited as well. She has been on the phone to me trying to


find out! The last of the debate I am doing is on the 16th of June, and


I intend to make it known locally, to the local papers at that point. I


am not sure that I will be having you and the BBC on my doorstep,


because as much as you flatter me, I am not sure it matters that much do


you! We were not going to spend as much to go to your doorstep, but if


you were passing the studio, we would have had you on. Don't go


away, that we find out what our guests think, is he doing the right


thing? It is absolutely bizarre, almost Reformation view of the lobby


that you get access to these amazing arguments by walking through


Westminster, where normal people could not possibly find out or read


internet! If it is used as a way of generating interest in the


constituency by engaging people in this way, we are all waiting to see


how the vote goes. The important thing is that the Prime Minister had


a number, he wanted to make sure that hard his party at least would


come out and stay in with him. I think he would have been baffled,


but the party is genuinely split, but he has got to the number now,


where are the party, more than half the party is with him. You think he


has halved the Parliamentary party now? I think he has, I do not know


what the bishop publicly declared number is. Only just, I think. James


who have been listening, regardless of what you want to happen, how do


you think the referendum is going to go on the 23rd? I suspect the


country will vote to remain. We will wait to hear from you, thank you for


joining us from Bristol. Now, one of the most


eye-catching announcements in Wednesday's Queen's Speech


was the news that the UK could get its first spaceport,


apparently as soon as 2018. That is a lot sooner than a third


runway! There are six sites


battling to get selected, with Newquay in Cornwall


said to be the frontrunner. Prestwick in Scotland is also in the


running. Well, as ever, the Daily Politics


is ahead of the curve on these things, and we covered the news


on Monday's programme. Let's have a listen


to Dr Robert Massey he didn't sound too impressed


by the idea. Is there a solid business case


for it? I think that's an open question,


actually. I mean, we put evidence


into the select committee's space and satellites policy


a couple of months ago, and we were a bit ambivalent


about going to operate on a solely


commercial basis, If you need, for example,


a booming space tourism industry to deliver that,


there isn't actually much of a space tourism industry


at all at the moment, except wealthy Americans


paying the Russians So that was the view


of the Royal Astronomical Society. we were contacted by


the Royal Aeronautical Society, that's the Royal


Aeronautical Society, who said the Royal


Astronmical Society had no idea what they were talking about,


and were "regrettably misleading" Well, to find out more about


this clash of the space experts, we're joined by Dr Malcolm Macdonald


from the Royal Aeronautical Society, So


Astronomical Society said? Well, I don't want to get into any sort of


slanging match... Too late for that! I think it is worth pointing out


there were a few technical errors, they said that being close to the


equator they said that being close to the


is not the case. They'll also said that there isn't a business case, or


the business case was not clear. There have been studies done to look


at the business case for a UK spaceport,, and it suggests 400


would be a settled number, ?45 million per year for that spaceport.


It is not that there is a business case, not that it is not known,


studies have been done, numbers are available. At our society we have


been running a conference in February where we examined the


issues, we brought together regulators and legislators, we


looked that differ in size from across the UK, we brought together


spaceport operators from the USA, and a vehicle operators as well, to


explore the technologies, the legislative issues, and ultimately


the business case to see how we can learn from worldwide experience to


make the UK spaceport as good as it can possibly be. If it is to work in


this country, will it need government money? I don't think we


should expect any government money. I think you would expect the


Government to be doing more of a licensing approach, and indeed that


is what has been reported in the press, moving away from that to a


licensing process. I understand there were about eight possible


sites in the UK for this, is Newquay now the front runner, was Prestwick


in with a shout? There were eight sites, down selected to six. Of


those, perhaps four are the more serious. From that, it is really


difficult to make any comment. The conference we ran in February, it


was clear that some of the sites have an advantage over others, but


all of them have downsides and positives. Ultimately, if we are


moving towards licensing, we will probably see more than one in the


UK. There are ten within the USA. Would you like to send a fraternal


message to the Royal Ascot uncle society? No, I mean, I would


encourage all of the societies and professional bodies, everybody to


share the expertise that they have, but to make sure that it is backed


based. We will leave at there, thank you very much. That huge crane


behind you was the spaceport of its day, that used to load 30,000 cars a


year, sorry, steam engines. Before we go, the quiz, what was the


answer? And you're a member? What do people take the Micky Adams Andy


Burnham for? I think a lot of reasons, not least as eyelashes! And


his ability to stick to anything he says! But I think it was about being


from the North. All right, I have no idea what the answer is! That was


the right one! I will be back with the Sunday Politics on Sunday


morning, to join me then, please! Bye-bye.


Download Subtitles