02/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 02/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The ayes to the right 329, the noes to the left 112.


MPs vote overwhelming in favour of taking Britain out


to go, but can anything now stand in the way of Brexit?


David Davis is due to publish a White Paper


What more will we learn about its approach to negotiations


Earlier on today a woman rang the BBC to say there


That's what the Bank of England's chief economist called the failure


to predict the 2008 financial crisis.


As the bank publishes its latest economic forecasts, will it admit


to having had another one over Brexit?


Well, that's one way to get our message across.


We'll ask Labour MEP Seb Dance why he resorted to video-bombing.


And with us for the duration today is man who used to respond


to letters on behalf of Margaret Thatcher.


So he should be able to cope with the questioning he'll get today.


Former Conservative MP and Times Columnist Matthew Parris,


Now, in the next 30 minutes or so, the Government will take another


step towards leaving the EU. They have just published their Brexit


White Paper the proposed strategy. The


Government had resisted pressure only for Mrs made to announce it at


Prime Minister's Questions last week.


The White Paper is Theresa May's roadmap to leaving the EU and it's


based on the speech Mrs May gave a couple of weeks ago,


Crucially, she said Britain will take back control of all its laws


and we will no longer be under the jurisdiction


The UK will leave the European single market.


This will mean immigration from the EU can be controlled.


The Brexit Bill passed its first vote last night with 498 MPs voting


Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn had ordered his MPs


There was also a rebellion within the Lib Dems.


Despite opposing the bill, two Liberal Democrat MPs


The next obstacle in the road is when the bill goes to committee


stage next week where MPs can make plenty of mischief,


And then once it's through the Commons it goes to the Lords,


where there are lots of pro-EU peers who can hold the bill


Let's get more on the White Paper with Norman Smith,


Is it going to tell us a lot more? I suspect not. I asked a cabinet


minister this moniker is there anything newsworthy in the White


Paper? He gave me a rueful shake off the head. I think we can take it


will be a restatement of many of the arguments that Theresa May set out


in her speech to EU ambassadors, padded out with background thinking


and analysis. Basically, it will be a restatement full in terms of its


political usefulness, the only thing I think it contributes is it gives


some of Mrs made's Tory rebels the chance to say, we have got this


concession out of her. She has given this white paper we have been


pressing hard for. Conventionally, a white paper you often get a vote on


as well. I doubt there will even be a vote on this. David Davis will set


out but by and large it would be a rehash of what we know. Is anything


standing in the way of this all going ahead? For now, here, no. Down


the line and in Europe, yes. Given the vote last night where Mrs May


had a majority of 384, a colossal majority got you have to say you are


scratching your head why she was getting in such a state about


allowing MPs vote in the first place. It had to be clawed out of


her. Actually, the boat has significantly strengthened her hand.


Now she can say, I have not only got the mandate of the British people


through a referendum, low and behold I have the mandate of the Commons as


well. Actually she is in a much stronger position than before when


she was resisting a vote. Particularly because there are


divisions and splits in the Labour Party despite Jeremy Corbyn setting


out what the party line would be. There were 47 also MPs who rebelled,


including those who are supposed to enforce party discipline. What can


you say? It was a dog 's dinner. It is not just, it seems to me, the


divisions which go right from the bottom to the top of the party. It


is not even very clear about how the party will approach the final Brexit


vote, once all the members have been considered. They have not ruled out


the possibility of abstaining, that remains unclear. One other key issue


bubbling around at Westminster is the position of Diane Abbott. Diane


Abbott, one of Jeremy Corbyn's says political allies, did not take part


in the vote last night. This morning her office said, she had a migraine,


she was feeling unwell. That is why she did not take part. It transpires


just down the road at 3:30pm, Diane Abbott was taking part in a debate


and seemed pretty OK. It is absolutely true that migraines can


come on very quickly. Obviously there is speculation that she


bluntly through a sticky because she could not stomach voting for Brexit.


Not such an outlandish idea because she had always been bitterly opposed


to Mr Cobbing giving any ground on issues like immigration or freedom


of movement and it is quite possible she did Inc, I cannot do this. --


Jeremy Corbyn. Apologies if she is unwell but there is a suspicion that


she did decide to liberally to not go ahead with it. If that were the


case, that would suggest the divisions within Labour go through


not just the Parliamentary party and the Shadow Cabinet but right into


Jeremy Corbyn's inner sanctum. Let's hope the Mrs May does not give you a


headache later on. The Bank of England has just announced it is


upgrading its growth forecast next year to 2%.


They downgraded forecasts for this year. It has now reversed that and


is back to almost where it started. We'll be looking at that in a bit


more detail when we have the details ourselves.


With me now is Shadow Brexit Minister Paul Blomfield and John


Now to the question the whole nation is desperate to get an answer to.


How is Diane Abbott? It is interesting to know the nation's


enthusiasm in answer to that. Not enthusiasm, concern. She will have


to explain her own position. It is a common thing. You say it is beyond


my pay grade on these things. Frankly, it is not for me to explain


her actions. Sometimes she won't explain them herself to me. Is she


unwell? Do we know? I have no idea. You will have to ask her. The nation


will continue on tenterhooks. A fifth of your MPs defied the three


line whip in the vote last night full stop there were a whole host of


other boats coming up on these amendments and so on. Then there


will be votes on the great repeal Bill. Ministers will come back and


you will want to question them on how the negotiations are going. This


has potential to be an enormous running sore foot labour. It is an


enormous issue in terms of its importance to the country. That will


be reflected in all of the debates in Parliament. These differences


were very manifest yesterday. There are deep divisions within the


Conservative Party as well. They had Ken Clarke. He was their rabble. Did


you ever think you would see the day when you entered up more divided


than the Tories used to be divided in Europe. There have been divisions


over many years. Hence the referendum in 1975. I never hoped I


would see the day when we would be voting to lead the European Union. I


campaigned relentlessly to stay within it. Why would anyone with a


strong view for or against Brexit vote Labour? Because this issue is


about, who do you trust to take the country forward? If you want to stay


in and defy the referendum, you want to vote Lib Dem, or the SNP. If you


are desperate to come out, you vote Tory. What do you have to feel to do


this? The Lib Dems are trying to occupy the moral high ground. Nick


Clegg was the first person to call for an in/ out referendum. Let me


answer your question. The real concern is that the tail will John


Redwood represents, wagging the dog of the Conservative Party and


leading the country towards Brexit. He is now the dog. He used to be the


tail but he is now the dog. As a dog lover, I do not regard that as


derogatory at all! What is the point of this white paper? It is a


response to the request was that it was a very serious view of the SNP,


quite a lot of Labour people and a few conservatives that needed a


formal White Paper. The Government felt the very long and detailed


analysis in the Prime Minister's beach that the argument but


Parliament did not agree in some areas. We hear what you say. They


are trying to bring the whole country together. If some people


want more information, they will now have the White Paper. Will it tell


us any more than what we learned in the Lancaster house speech? It will


have a bit more in it but the fundamentals were set out in the


Prime Minister's speech. I thought it was a great speech, extremely


detailed. You have won every argument. This is not about me. I


meant your side. It is about a Brexit that will work. The Leave


campaign have been very careful to explain you could not be in the


single market if you were leaving the EU. That is something the two


campaigns agreed about. The remaining campaign went around the


country pointing out this fact. -- Remain campaign. There was still


some doubts amongst clever people that we might be able to stay in the


single market. It is simply not in offer. I am trying to avoid


litigating the referendum again, so I won't go down that alleyway you


have opened for me. What is the most important amendment you would like


to see to Article 50? We have tabled a number. We need to get a


meaningful vote at the end of the process. Can you explain to our


viewers, a meaningful vote at the end of the process, what are we


talking about? We do not want to vote at a point where it is take it


or leave it. We want to be able to vote at the point at which we can


say to the Government, we need to go back and do better. I think this


whole Mrs May, High Court, Supreme Court, should MPs decide not issue


is a red herring. There is nothing to be decided at the moment.


Everybody has agreed the result of the referendum means we should


negotiate terms for leaving. The real issue and what Mrs May wants to


avoid is exactly the one you suggest. MPs might get involved at


the end of the process. So far, all the Government can do is issue a


wish list. This White Paper will be another item on the wish list was


that were MPs to get involved then, that would be a serious problem for


the Government. Would it? Would it have fears for you? I do not think


it is a problem to keep the House properly informed. I agree with the


implication. If you are in intense negotiations and some of it is


probably secret, a lot of them will be leaked in ways that suit people


leaking them rather than giving an accurate view of what is going on,


it is necessary to trust your negotiators and see what is the best


deal they can do and then able bring that back and tell us. I would urge


everybody that it is in the national interest whether you remain or leave


that you get the best possible relationship with the EU when you


leave. In order to do that, you have to trust your government to some


extent. If you are highlighting what could go wrong, what are the alleged


weaknesses in the British position, that undermines our negotiators. You


are saying, as we come to the end of the process, we have the main


outlines of the deal that has been done but not yet signed, I think, is


what you're saying is that what it is? The Government says, this is


what we have negotiated. This is it. We come to you to get of Parliament


to sign this deal. That is right and that is the right


way to do it. The government has said when it finally has a political


agreement with its former partners in the commission then we will get a


vote on the house and whether we would like to accept that or whether


it would be better not to. A lot of us thinking that leaving as we are


is fine, we don't think there is any great problem with that. We think it


gives you good access to the single market but you can get even better


access and that is what the negotiation will be about. Access is


key and John was wrong when he said that no Leave campaigners said we


should be in the single market, one of his campaigners was a very clear.


Boris Johnson and Michael Gove as well as David Cameron and George


Osborne made it clear that leaving the EU meant ceasing to be a member


of the single market. Many of those seeking to seal the votes said very


differently but the question is what other benefits and that is why this


is important, in the house the other week David Davis said he wanted the


exact same benefits as being in the single market. The benchmark for the


deal. If he does not achieve it we need the right to reject it. To


answer John's points directly, if we have a vote right at the end of the


process when the Prime Minister has the pain in her hand, shall I sign


it or not, and Parliament Parliament says no, we are in an entirely new


situation. We might be thrown out, the European Union might come back


and say as your Parliament does not want to leave can recall the whole


thing off? We don't know what situation it would bring and that is


what Theresa May is afraid of. There is no way they can turn around and


deny our Article 50 letter announcing withdrawal and there is


no way that Parliament can suddenly reversed the enormous majorities we


have had on two separate occasions when we debated this matter to the


wishes of the British people. The issues going on from here are about


what kind of new relationship do we want. We want the best possible,


close as possible... What happens Parliament doesn't like the deal?


They can see no. It will of course lead on to negotiating all sorts of


things. But you will be out of the European Union. You are not saying


that if you vote to reject this you leave on WTO rules, you are saying


if you vote to reject this either we don't leave for we try to get a


better deal if the Europeans agree? That is exactly right because it's


not acceptable for the Prime Minister to hold a gun to the head


of parliament and there will be two votes, the vote on the divorce


settlement in relation to Article 50 but there should be a vote on the


future terms, the terms of our future relationship and that is


critical and it has to be meaningful. Well, I'm sorry, we need


to move on, you'll probably want to hear the report of the Bank of


England so I'm going to have to cut you all off. Every dog has its day


we move on. Now in the last few minutes


the Bank of England have published their quarterly inflation


report with their predictions Let's talk to our Economics Editor,


Kamal Ahmed, who is at the bank. Is this another Michael Fish moment


when the Bank of England got it wrong about its proposed Brexit


slump? We could use a bed of Michael Fish with the weather here this


afternoon. It is a very substantial upgrade. Let's go through the last


three inflation reports produced since the referendum, in August it


was sort of peak gloom from the bank. It slashed its growth forecast


for 2017 down to zero point 8%, down by 1.2%. Its next quarterly


inflation report in November increased that forecast to 1.4%, one


of the fastest increases the bank had ever given to a forecast. And


then today it's done the same again. 1.4% up to 2% growth this year. It


is now looking, many critics will say that August inflation report was


simply far too gloomy about the effects of Brexit on consumers, on


businesses, and of course seemed to believe that the simple vote for


Brexit would affect the economy rather than the actual exit from the


European Union. There are a couple of mitigating factors of course,


there has been stimulus pumped into the economy since the referendum,


the bank itself cutting interest rates and the Autumn Statement also


said that deficit reduction targets would be loosened and there would be


more stimulus for infrastructure. So the


bank will say that has happened so the economy is now performing better


but Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England will be braced for


another day of pretty hefty criticism. But we should of course


remember that we have not yet left the European Union and the bank is


warning that the inflation risk is coming through because of the


decline in the value of sterling and that could eat into real incomes and


also a slightly more hawkish feel on interest rates as inflation rises,


as the economy strengthens, will the bank start looking at raising those


historically low rates which have been kept today at 0.25%. Thank you


Kamal had Why has the set of


the Daily Politics, complete with figures of Andrew


and me, been built in Lego? Was it a) a BBC cost


cutting measure... b) the programme features


in the sequel to The Lego Movie... c) to promote Paisley's bid


to become City of Culture in 2021... At the end of the show Matthew


will give us the correct answer. he is looking puzzled.


Deeply. We've been waiting almost 50 years


for a decision on where to build a third airport runway in the south


east of England, and today the Government finally published


more detail on its plans to expand It marks the start of a 16 week


consultation period when critics of the plan will no doubt


make their views heard. After that, MPs will have the chance


to scrutinise the proposals - before a final vote either


later this year or next. Earlier this morning,


the Transport Secretary Chris Grayling set out the Government's


case for backing Heathrow. Unless we take action every London


airport is forecast to be full by 2040 and almost entirely


full by 2030. Doing nothing is no longer a choice


we can afford to make. Without expansion constraints


on the aviation sector would impose increasing costs on the rest


of the economy over time, lowering economic output by making


aviation more expensive and less With knock-on effects


in lost trade, tourism Mr Speaker this government believes


that a new Northwest runway at Heathrow best delivers the need


for additional airports capacity and the draft airports national


policy statement sets out this And we're joined now


by the Conservative MP, Kwasi Kwarteng, who's in favour


of Heathrow's expansion, and Labour's Andy Slaughter,


who has campaigned against it. We asked to speak to a minister


but were told no-one was available. Kwasi Kwarteng, is there any chance


now that there won't be a runway, a third runway at Heathrow? We have


two C, as your piece described we have had this debate for 50 years so


you cannot say this will never happen but this is the clearest


indication we have had in years. A 16 week consultation period, at that


period goes the way of the government, it is a statutory


requirement, why does not then move, why doesn't it start? We have to get


a vote through Parliament and I think that will go through without


any controversy. I also feel that people feel that it's long overdue,


this action. But the vote might not be until next year? I think it might


be this autumn because there are other things which will take


Parliament 's time. I think it will be this year. Is it your aim still


to stop it or try to make it more acceptable? We aim to stop it. It's


a 30 year campaign in west London against Heathrow expansion, it is an


important major driver of the economy but an extra quarter of a


million flights over one of the most densely populated areas anywhere and


all the problems which have not been resolved. They don't have any


answers on the key issues of noise, air quality, congestion, on the


roads and public transport in the area. Those are unresolvable


problems. The government says there will be a legally binding noise


limit, a ban of six and a half hours on night flights and it has to


ensure current levels of atmospheric pollution are not exceeded. We have


heard are of this before. Every promises always broken. Chris


Grayling himself says he is a gut instinct politician, it's why the


justice system is in a terrible position because he made lots of


decisions which had to be reversed. Are these legitimate? They are, it


would be wrong to say there are no problems and we can just go and


bulldoze our way to a solution. But clearly the endless debate, the


almost theological nature of this discussion without conclusion has to


end. The government has to be commended for taking a robust


stance. I think you're right about environmental safeguards and I think


they can be resolved. A lot of the noise pollution we saw in the 80s


and early 90s in terms of the aircraft can be mitigated. With the


development of technology we can go some way to addressing a lot of


these concerns. Noise pollution has been going down for a long time from


aircraft and green transport to and from airports is going up and can go


up. But I think there is a reason why it may not happen, I am in


favour of it but I think a reason it might not happen which has not been


much discussed is it has to be financed and has not been much of


that. The airport is paying for most of it and the taxpayer I assume pay


for a chunk of the necessary infrastructure? We need to look at


the figures before we can be sure. I think that's a good point about the


infrastructure, the roads on the trains and services to the airport.


In terms of the third runway itself, my understanding was that would be


privately financed and the company could issue a bond to pay for


reconstruction and development. Is it not the case, your concerns


notwithstanding, there is a clear majority in the Commons for this? It


depends what you mean by for this? With reservations, but those are the


problems which need to be resolved. Labour policy is to say certain


tests have to be met including the environmental tests and those are


not being met. Matthew is right about the financing, up to ?20


billion of public money needed to do this. The decision was made last


time and it emerged the benefits of Heathrow had been grossly


exaggerated. Had they built at Gatwick it would've been simple,


straightforward and cheaper and it would have happened. Heathrow is so


complex and expensive. Can I ask, you said earlier it is unacceptable


that large number of aircraft should be flying across densely populated


areas, I take it you are in favour of Heathrow completely? It's a deal,


you would not have put Heathrow there but it is there now. The first


thing I said is that the solution of Boris Johnson is mad. It provides a


lot of jobs and drives the economy but there are many new communities


who will be an flight paths for the first time and its 250,000


additional flights. No other city in the Western world would put up with


this. I think that position is inherently flawed because the


economy is expanding so either Heathrow contracts physically or


stays the same. He thinks it should stay the same and I think that's


nonsense for the hub airport to stay the same whilst the rest of the


world grows at 3% per year. If this is about as making our way in the


world, you would either close down Heathrow and build a new hub or he


would expand it, you would not just keep it frozen until kingdom come. I


don't think anybody thinks hub airports are applicable, it might


work to Dubai but in London you have a massive area of London and the


south-east which need more than one major airport. Which European


economy doesn't have one? You have more than one major airport in New


York. I said European. You can have lots in America because it's huge.


Paris. I follow this very carefully. Charles de Gaulle is a hub airport,


it has also trebled the number of runways it has. Ship all is the


same, as is Madrid. You are not comparing like with like. Yes


Heathrow will remain a major airport as it is, but I don't think you need


a super hub. You need an number of airports, you already have five


serving London and some of those... There is a huge growth in


point-to-point traffic. Lets cut to the chase, Andrew is a good


constituency MP and in his constituency... Do not patronise


me... Your constituency is? Hammersmith. There are a lot of


constituency MPs making capable arguments against it. In the


national interest, even the SNP are onside, this is one area of


government policy the SMP support the government. Because they want


more flights into Heathrow. I am not saying it's not a valid reason,


because a lot of the domestic flights over the years have been


squeezed out of Heathrow because there is no room and they are not as


profitable on the landing charges as the long haul flights. Absolutely


right and I think the house as a whole, forgive me almost certainly


vote for Heathrow with a big majority. Birmingham will be 30


minutes from here when each is too is built, we are looking at a narrow


issue, it's about more than Heathrow. Kiwi we better leave it


there. The date continues for another 50 years!


Now, is the Government preparing to use international


As we prepare for a post-Brexit world, the department


for international development has unveiled a new economic strategy.


But with tight restrictions on how aid can be dispensed,


what can the Government expect in return?


Part of David Cameron's legacy was a fixed international aid budget


that guaranteed independence of its department and promised to


When Priti Patel was appointed to run the department


by his successor Theresa May it raised eyebrows as she once called


Visiting Kenya last year, Priti Patel said aid could be used


British soft power is exactly where our aid and other


relationships around the world can come together to deliver


in our national interest and deliver for Britain when it comes to free


trade arrangements, free trade agreements


This week she launched a new economic strategy


to boost the economies for the world's poorest countries.


She wants better trading partners for the UK and to boost


the City of London's role in the developing world.


Owen Barder was once in charge of Development and Effectiveness


at the Department for International Development.


The good news is this is a shift to fixing jobs and growth


in the developing world and that's what they need and we


The risk is that this is seen as a way of using aid money to help


British business rather than to help developing countries industrialise.


That isn't just a theoretical risk, we've seen that


One famous example was over 20 years ago and the eye wateringly


British aid money was siphoned off as part of an arms deal


Anti-poverty campaigners warn of the dangers of big


British businesses going into developing countries.


That could be a good thing but it could certainly be a very bad thing


if the regulatory framework is not in place in those countries to use


that money, that wealth that's brought in to the benefit


of its citizens, particularly its poorest citizens.


The Department for International Development has been a department


Before that it was a part of the Foreign Office


for most of the 70s, 80s and 90s.


That change was made to stop short term political and economic


objectives influencing it aims of poverty reduction


Grant Shapps was at one time a minister at both


the Foreign Office and Department for International


He was surprised by what his access to confidential papers


in both departments at the same time revealed.


On one hand we would be trying to get consular access to half


a dozen Brits illegally locked up in a country and then on the other


side, literally in my other ministerial box from the other


department, we would be signing off half ?1 billion


Ministers should either be routinely joint and serve in both departments


to get a proper view of what is really going on, or we go


The former minister said four current Cabinet


The department simply said intensifying development efforts


was the key to an outward looking Britain.


And I'm joined now by the Conservative MP,


Peter Bone, and the former International Development Minister


Welcome to both of you. Where you disappointed that one of Mrs May's


first acts was to renew your party bus back to spending .7% of GDP on


aid? I am never disappointed with our excellent Prime Minister. It was


an act of Parliament and she was bound to support it. Does it solve


the problem? I do not think aid is the solution, I think trade is the


solution. Coming out of the EU gives a great chance to allow developing


countries to trade with this country. You do not support it. You


would not have a target or commitment at all? I think it is


ridiculous. I think whatever government spending needs to be


focused on the need for it. We are the biggest donor of aid in the


world. Anyone to topic is America with President Trump. So, you would


increase it? Talking about trade rather than aid... When we took over


in 1997, we changed it from a Foreign Aid Department to the


Foreign Office. It deals with trade and investment. When I was a


minister, I was on a number of boards of developments to look at


ways to invest in developing countries. Incidentally, I want the


Department for International to and to be abolished. I want it to be


abolished. What would you like in its place? I want it successful. We


aim to get poverty out of every country in the world. Now we have


done it in Latin America. It is happening in Asia. Most of the


countries in Asia are no longer poor. We still need to do in Africa.


We need to get money and education into Africa. Money into the health


service in Africa, so we can trade with them. They would become richer


countries and we do not need international development. There are


risks associated to linking aid, or international aid money, to securing


trade deals, aren't there? Yes. I do not think that is what we should be


doing. I am saying we should be opening our markets. With that of


having a 600% Harrop on an agricultural product, allow the


developing countries to sell in. -- tariff. Coffee goes into Germany as


a raw product. It is the Germans who process it. If they were to process


it in Africa, they are hit with a huge tariff. Get rid of the tariffs


and those countries will prosper and we will not have to give so much in


aid. You are old enough to remember the per gal damn scandal. It had no


development value at all. Money was put into it because of pressure from


the construction company. That is completely wrong. They certainly do


not want to do that again. That is an interesting rewriting of that


history. This did highlight the dangers of linking aid to trade


deals. It was deemed to be unlawful. Is it not one of the risks? It can


be taken too far. This is a muddy issue. Pergau Dam and a kind of


thing is an example of how if you link to narrowly to commercial


interests, things can go wrong. In a country like our own, if you are


shelling out large sums of money to foreign countries, we do want to


help our own industry, our own exporters. I agree in the


abolition of Dfid. It has drifted into terrible Chacon. It has had


ministers in charge who do not believe what it is doing and what it


should not be doing that when Clare Short and I were there, it did what


we wanted. We really created a development department. Is there not


a contradiction that has been raised by Andrew Mitchell and Grant Shapps,


who said if you have an international aid department doing


something in a country like Yemen and the Foreign Office doing


something completely different, then, again, you have a problem with


your policy? That does not happen very often. I have been in a lot of


the countries when I was minister. I met the ambassador. They help to


coordinate work. Very often the development people are situated in


the embassy and work very closely with the Foreign Office. I think


they are isolated examples. I agree they should not happen. Do you think


the .7 commitment will last? No, it will not. Hang on a minute. If you


are right and all that wonderful work had been done, we would not


have an international to the agency giving 12 billion, 13 billion, ?14


billion? It is going to go up and up and is 50% more than it was a few


years ago. If you were right, it would have worked and we would not


have all of these countries. It has not worked because you are doling


money out. Open your markets up so they can trade. I want to ask you.


You said something earlier, it worked in Asia and you would do the


same in Africa. Which Asian country has escaped poverty thanks to


international aid. I do not think any of them have escape poverty.


Which one is wealthier thanks to international aid? I think both


India and China... China? In some of the poorest parts in China, work has


been done in some of the poorest provinces which has helped. George's


former colleague in the House of Commons, Frank Field used to say the


problem of the poor is that they do not have enough money. The problem


of the poor in the developing world as they do not have enough -- enough


money. I am in favour of schemes giving money directly to the poor.


We are doing that. Education and the health service in Africa are the


priorities. Money is going to lead to the Government to educate


children. No, not to the Government. Particularly girls. We need to move


on. We leave it there. Another country that also need aid, but


probably in a different way. Now, is the man who was thought


to be the front runner in this year's French Presidential elections


about to be forced out of the race? Francois Fillon is embroiled


in scandal after accusations that he paid hundreds of thousands


of euros to his wife So it's shaping up to be a pretty


unpredictable contest. Benoit Hamon has been compared


to Jeremy Corbyn and US Democrat candidate Bernie Sanders owing


to his rebel status. He beat the favourite, Manuel Valls,


to become the candidate for France's Socialist Party,


which has been weakened by the unpopularity of the current


Socialist president, He is not standing again for


re-election. His policies include plans


to introduce a 32-hour working week Francois Fillon is a former Prime


Minister once called "Mr Nobody", who became the surprise winner


of the centre-right Republican Among others he beat Nicolas


Sarkozy, who had been president before.


But he's been engulfed by scandal over large


payments to his Welsh wife, Penelope, who Mr Fillon


claims worked as his parliamentary assistant.


People are still finding it hard to work out what she actually did. His


children were also in different ways on the payroll as well.


He's put forward a radical programme to roll back the state by raising


the pension age to 65 and slashing public sector employment


He does not talk so much about that now.


Benefitting from Francois Fillon's woes is the far-right


She's pledged a referendum on France's membership of the EU.


But she's also targeted voters disillusioned


by the traditional left, with plans to lower


the retirement age to 60 and bolster public services.


Emmanuel Macron was unknown in French politics until he became


Francois Hollande's Economy Minister in 2014.


He has fashioned his own cross-party organisation, En Marche!,


taking policies from both the left and right.


He is a former Rothschild investment banker.


He would scrap France's 35-hour working week for younger workers


but make older workers work fewer hours.


These are the main runners and riders, there are many more but


these are the top format. -- the top four.


We're joined now by the French journalist and commentator


Let me ask you about Francois Fillon, is he below the water line


now? There is a sense of panic. The first to do primary is where the


socialist at the last election, and it was the first time the


centre-right did them and they were very successful, 4 million voters.


It was a democratic success but a huge surprise since four months, he


was thought to be the frontrunner and the next French president.


However the person who actually beaten comfortably was Francois


Fillon, the former Mr nobody with the Welsh wife. I am trying to move


forward is to find out, more revelations coming out this week,


Torquay may to stand down, he said prosecutors moved against him, he


said he would stand down but he is fighting it at the moment, will he


survive? The answer to that is nobody knows. He believes he will,


he has asked for 15 days grace from his party who as recently as last


night in Parliament were seeing the absolutely back him. He is saying it


is a plot from the media. And the Socialist party he said. Yes, but


not only. He says it's almost a coup d'etat against him. I have a couple


of other things, if he does stand down, will the Republicans have to


have another primary? There are many scenarios, that one would take too


long, there is no alternative plan and that is the crucial question.


But I understand as of right now he cannot last another 15 days, it is


thought, and the man who ruled himself out two days ago and as


recently as last night is now being approached by senior members of the


party to say he should think again. We don't have much time, let me come


to the Socialists, they have chosen, against all expectations, by far the


most left wing of the primary candidates. A kind of Jeremy Corbyn.


And more I would suggest, even Jeremy Corbyn has not suggested


taxing robots. But it did not matter who they chose, the social list does


not get through to the second round? You have to put that now in a


different tense. Didn't. Because of the situation which is unfolding,


huge programme tonight, French media have found an extract of Penelope


saying she never worked for her husband Francois Fillon. Then he's


toast. It sounds like it. In that game on. Benoit Hamon has just spent


an hour with the French president, OK the president did not come out


and greet him which means it's not a straight ballet. He recently had a


4% approval rating, the president, so I don't understand how that


helps? Because there will be a really of information and next week


we could see, all bets are off to stop that is great because it makes


it unpredictable but even if it is unpredictable all the polling would


suggest that you get into the second round for the play-off is going to


be between the Republican candidate, Marine Le Pen and Emmanuel Macron.


That is right, the extraordinary situation, you cannot underline it


enough, and elected, people thought it was a bubble and would not last,


so could this and elected former banker become the next French


president? It is possible. There is a French phenomenon you are aware of


which is what is called the Republican pact, in brands unlike in


the naked states there are two rounds so people bought protest --


in France, unlike in the United States, there are two rounds so


people vote in protest in the first round. It is interesting in this


year that many of us thought could be the year of European insurgency,


the phenomenon of Brexit and Donald Trump coming to European elections,


it is possible France will elect a centrist, mainstream president. Last


week I placed a substantial bet on Emmanuel Macron. It seems not only


could he capture the centre but he will be attractive to the left given


that the left have elected a fairly mad candidate of their own. So from


his position... I would say radical. Is he not considered independent? He


is saying he is not right for left and right now it is possible he


would be. I know the Anglo-Saxon press, not this programme, love to


believe France will have a Marine Le Pen president. I have not seen that.


I am sure you have not. Name one. I am talking about the press, in


general terms. I keep talking about Marine Le Pen, I keep being asked


about her which is the point. If it is Emmanuel Macron which is still


unpredictable, he will not have any MP's in Parliament. This is where he


is trying to already, and he desperately needs to do that, in


terms of his support. He needs to get people on board. He does not


have a party, he has a movement. We are in uncharted territory. The


parliamentary elections are? Weeks later. The second round is on May


the 7th to determine the president and a couple of weeks after that and


new parliament is elected, he will not be able to run MPs, deputies for


that assembly. Well, you know, that is reasoning how things have been in


the past. What we are witnessing, I think what we saw with Brexit and


have just seen with Donald Trump, and what we are seeing in France,


French voters did not want former presidents, they did not want a


rerun of the previous election. They did not want Francois Hollande who


is somewhat regretting not running now apparently but I don't know why.


Too late! Yes, and the fact is that by the 9th of March which is another


important point, by the 9th of March who ever is going to stand for the


French centre-right has to have not only said an approved candidate but


have 500 signatures of Mayor or MPs and the question is open. We have


two stop it the cause we are out of time, but we will come back to it


because it is just as interesting as the American election. Briefly the


White Paper has been published. Is it right?


Now - yesterday the European Parliament debated Donald Trump.


The European Council President has already identified


President Trump's Administration as one of the threats


facing the EU - alongside so-called Islamic State,


Nigel Farage made the most of his opportunity to speak in the debate


A Labour MEP - Seb Dance - who was sitting behind the former


Ukip leader found another way of getting his message across.


You see, what has happened here is somebody has stood


on a manifesto for election, got into office, and within one week


said that he will hold face with his own electorate.


Unlike the system we have in the European Union,


where the unelected commissioners have the sole right to propose


legislation so I'm sure it's a great shock to you to see that a genuinely


elected Democrat is doing what he was put in to do.


And out of institutional respect, President, to the truth,


perhaps you will understand and agree with me that


within the European form of lawmaking, it's the unelected


commission that have the sole right to propose legislation.


If I'm wrong in saying that you can throw me out of this


parliament right here, right now, this afternoon.


And the Labour MP Seb Dance, who you saw holding that piece


of paper there and the Ukip MEP, Bill Etheridge, who has made


a complaint about Seb's behaviour, join me now from Brussels.


Seb Dance first of all, was that a mature and reasonable way to make


your point? Well, I think you can question whether it was


sophisticated but it was an effective way of making a point.


It's a time-limited debate and it's frustrating when you know that Nigel


Farage will have three minutes uninterrupted so I am afraid in my


frustration I did the only thing I could think of and raised a little


sign making a poignant point. Yes but he is the leader of the grouping


he represents, presumably why he had those minutes to speak, that is


legitimate, you said he was lying, about what? Well I was making the


general point that he has of course scapegoated immigrants and said


immigrants are the cause of all the problems we have, whether its


pressure on public services, the economy, when nothing could be


further from the truth. But in the comments he made he said a number of


things which are not true, he said president Obama had enacted extreme


vetting when he had not, he had not banned people coming from Iraq as he


claimed. He introduced a restriction on a particular type of Visa. The


commission is not the sole arbiter of legislation. We only have a few


minutes, you have selected a formal complaint bill Etheridge, you said


the behaviour was disgusting, pathetic and cowardly, is that not


going that far? No, what was going on, the Labour Party for so many


years has been winning elections, in control of situations and now their


movement has gone, they have lost the referendum, they have lost the


president and are about to lose two by-elections and all they have left,


I am disappointed because I know Seb is not this kind of guy. If you're


feeling triumphant why have you made a complaint? For a simple reason


that if we had done that the rules would have come into play. This is


what has to be done, sitting there with a little sign is not on. This


is what the Labour Party is reduced to. They have no argument left, or


they can do is call us names. We have run out of time, I will leave


you to do sort out that dispute by yourselves.


There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.


The question was why has the set of the Daily Politics,


complete with figures of Andrew and me, been built in Lego?


b) the programme features in the sequel to The Lego Movie?


c) to promote Paisley's bid to become City of Culture in 2021?


So Matthew what's the correct answer?


I think it was a new Legoland experience. You were wrong about


that but you might be right about he's always right if you are


pointing at Andrew. It's c) to promote Paisley's bid


to become City of Culture in 2021. Andrew, of course,


hails from Paisley. Morning folks, welcome to the daily


politics. I think it's the future.


The White Paper is 77 pages wrong. -- along.


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


And I'll be back tonight on BBC One at 11.45pm for This Week


with Harriet Harman, Michael Portillo, Derek Hatton,


And of course, the Daily Politics at noon tomorrow.


To be in the Lords, you have to be punctual...


Download Subtitles