06/02/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Pay upfront or you won't be treated - the NHS in England is told to get

But how much money will it raise for the hard-up health service?

Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, will meet

Theresa May for the first time since she became Prime Minister.

Shut the trip be about trade or tackling him on illegal settlements?

They were the cuckoos in Labour's nest during

the referendum campaign - but did Labour Leave overstep

the mark by making a donation to their political foes in Ukip?

And diplomacy is dead as politicians show us how to make enemies

All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole

of the programme today, that rare breed -

And the Conservative MP, Remainer and star

The issue of patients from overseas using the NHS has been

in the headlines over the last couple of weeks, and now

the Government wants hospitals in England to get tough.

From April this year, foreign patients could be refused

non-emergency operations unless they pay up front.

At the moment patients who live outside the European Economic Area

are usually invoiced after the treatment takes place.

Patients from inside the EEA have their details forwarded

to the Department of Health so the costs can be recouped

The total cost of people who use the NHS but aren't UK residents

This can include holiday-makers who get injured or some who get sick

while temporarily employed in the UK.

Last year the NHS charged overseas patients ?289 million,

and Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt says he hopes to recoup up to half

a billion pounds a year by the middle of this parliament

Some, however, have argued the money is small beer when the whole NHS

budget in England last year was over ?116 billion.

What's more, the BMA has warned that the new scheme could lead

to "chaos and confusion", and argues that there is no detail

about how the upfront charging will be introduced.

Last week the BBC showed a documentary called Hospital

which highlighted the problem of charging for overseas visitors.

In this clip a hospital administrator, Terry,

has to invoice a Filipino patient who's had open heart surgery.

The bill runs into tens of thousands of pounds,

and he has to speak to the patient's sister about payment.

This is an invoice, OK, which, as you know, we have to present.

OK, now, clearly Sonia's been in ITU for a while now.

So I need to ask you, are you able to make

a small payment, a deposit, today, do you think?

At the moment, my son is unemployed as well.

I'm not going to pressure you for that.

What I will say is there will be further invoices.

You know, I think you need to look at the possibility of making a small

payment on a monthly basis, rather than paying the whole amount.

But this won't disrupt your sister's treatment, OK?

We're joined now by the doctor and broadcaster Dr Phil Hammond.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. It costs the NHS ?1.8 billion per year,

isn't it a good thing that Jeremy Hunt wants to get tough? Yes, but it

is interesting that the health tourism story is always wheeled out

when there are big stories in the media about the crisis in social

care, the long wait in hospital, people dying in corridors and on

waiting lists, let's throw this old chestnut! Yes, it is good to be good

money if you can do it safely and fairly. The problem is denying

routine care is it can turn up as an emergency situation. I have no issue

about it, if I go to France I have to pay by credit card and we keep

the money, but it is a tiny fraction of the NHS budget and a

smoke screen for bigger problems of funding in the NHS, so let's talk

about it but we have precious airtime to talk about the problems

in the NHS and we should talk about the lack of doctors, nurses, GPs,

rather than this issue. Isn't that the point, that it is small beer

compared to what the NHS needs? Call me old-fashioned but ?1.8 billion is

not old beer. I understand the point he's making but this isn't an old

chestnut that is wheeled out, it has been going on for about ten years.

Kate and I have both been involved on talents migration and one of the

issues we looked at is the question that keeps coming up here and the

large costs accumulating to the NHS. I agree in terms of the overall

spend it is not great but it is money that should be recouped and

there is a simple way of doing it, that people on visitors visas when

they come to the country should come with a health-insurance certificate.

You want them to prove that when they enter the country? I want them

to prove it when they enter the country. You are nodding agreement?

I think the public will see that this is about public and rights,

that people should have to pay, when other people in this country

contribute through their national insurance to the NHS, which needs

more money, and I understand what Doctor Hammond is saying, more money

is needed, there are real problems, but let's not throw this away

because there are big, important issues, let's get it sorted. I see

it all the time even at my own hospital. Let's talk about the

detail about how it would work, but, Nicholas Soames, did you take the

point made by Doctor Phil Hammond that it is a distraction from the

bigger issues both financially and in terms of scale that are at the

moment affecting the NHS? No, I don't think that is a sensible point

to make. The NHS struggles for Adam, there is never a moment it is not on

television because of the situation! This is an important point and

touches on a whole different area of issues, it is not a very complicated

matter, actually, and if you choose to make it so, hospitals are full of

administrators, if you choose to make it a reasonably simple process,

let it be known we will recoup the money. Is it complicated, Doctor

Hammond, or as simple as having the staff within hospitals to recoup the

money? We don't know, the point about the NHS is it should be based

on proper evidence, so you would do a trial, see if you can recoup the

money. The problem with political innovations is people come up with

things that the Cancer Drugs Fund and dementia screening that are not

based on evidence. If you want to see if it is safe and it

works, do a proper trial and evaluated, they have tried in one or

two hospitals but it needs to be rolled out carefully and evaluated

so I cannot give you that answer. I can tell you the growth in demand

for health and social care rises every year, there is a ?50 billion

black hole in health and social gaffe finances and if we don't

address that the NHS will collapse like a souffle and there will be

little point in discussing this tiny Boyd alongside the big issue. It

already happens in the maternity unit at Saint Thomas, everybody

coming to the maternity unit gives some identity of where they are

living. If they are within the EEE eight they would show their card...

Public should not think that anyone who comes to this country as a

tourist and has a terrible accident, that we would leave them lying on

the ground, this is not about emergency treatment. Should it be

about emergency treatment, as well? No, but the idea that someone that

comes as a tourist and does not take out insurance to cover the cost of

medical care where if I would have to do that if I went outside the

EEA... Doctor Hammond, you made the case of saying it is small beer

compared to the problems of social care funding in the NHS, but what

about English taxpayers, they may feel aggrieved that they are, to

some extent, funding the nonemergency care of people who live

outside the EU or European economic area, like the Filipino lady in the

film that we showed, and it is running into tens of thousands of

pounds? I absolutely take that point but the

other point is there are lots of people the NHS is therefore, like

people who are homeless who don't carry around two forms of ID and

there will be an issue if we deny care to people who don't have the

right identification because the NHS is therefore the people who need it

most. We have staggering levels of health inequality, poor people died

ten years earlier than rich people and have 20 years more of disease

living than rich people. The idea of denying treatment because we cannot

prove people are UK residents, there will be side effects, so let's do it

and piloted properly rather than using it as a smoke screen to cover

the other problems in the NHS. Do you recognise the problems you could

run into? It is imperative that we recover such money as we need to put

back in. But what about the bureaucratic problems are people who

are homeless... You have to find a way around it and hard cases make

bad law. I agree that we certainly should do a trial but we will find a

way to do it. But it is not true to say this is some recycled old

chestnut to draw attention from other things, it is an important

problem, people do mind about it and they need to be reassured. Kate, you

gave the example of a hospital in your area and their right examples

where there are people, like Terry in the film, officers there to

recoup the money no doubt within the EU and outside, but the whole

principle of the NHS is that it should be free at the point of use

so most hospitals will not be geared up for that because they will think

there are not that many people they have to deal with? There will be

hospitals where it does not happen very often and it will be easier for

them because they won't have to deal with hundreds and hundreds of

people. But up until about ten years ago this was really, really, and

suddenly at my hospital there were clearly people coming into Heathrow

and going straight to Saint Thomas' all guys, or the London hospitals,

and we have to accept that people are contributing, the NHS is

ultimately first and foremost for those contributing through national

insurance in this country and there is nothing wrong with that. The

average person watching this programme would think this is common

sense. Phil Hammond, if we take the example Kate Hoey has said, people

coming directly from the airport to the hospital, there is the example

of a woman patient from Nigeria who had quads on the NHS, she had tried

I think to have those quads in the US first of all but they didn't let

her in because she didn't have health insurance and couldn't prove

that she could pay for it. Was it right the NHS should pick up the

pieces? Know it is not necessarily write the NHS should and think

should be judged on individual cases, but my point is to have a

wider debate about the overall funding of health and social. I go

around the country and every audience says they would be prepared

to put more money into the NHS if it was guaranteed to be spent on

treatment is proven to work, not wasted on political reorganisation,

outsourcing, etc, so let's have this wider mature debate about how much

money we are putting in and what to spend it on, and this would be part

of that debate. We take up this time when there are other important...

You could arguably deal with this separately and also have a debate

about whether taxpayers are prepared to fund the NHS further in some way,

but why not deal with what seems a fairly open and shut case, certainly

to our deaths here and others, recoup the money then have the

broader debate as well? I agree, let's try a little and see if it is

feasible without being unfair and discriminating against homeless

people who cannot provide identification and does not take

people into becoming emergency care, let's have an evaluation. How easy

would it be to change the law, because you would have to change the

law for people to come into this country proving that they had the

means to pay for any health accidents that might befall them

when they are here, you would have to change legislation? If you want

to do something, you get on and do it, there will be a way to do it. I

am not disagreeing with Doctor Hammond about the overall context,

I'm really not, but this is important and it is absurd that 1.8

billion is not seen as a lot of money. If it is so important, why

hasn't it happened? Innocence, it is an old chestnut because I have been

discussions about this over a period of at least ten years, so why not do

it? I think it has got better, the way hospitals now actually pursue

the money and also check with people, which did not happen ten

years ago... But you don't need insurance? No, and I think people

should have to do that when they show their passport, we don't want

to be like America but people are expected to show they have the

insurance when they go there. But it has not happened? It is inconsistent

and some hospitals do it seriously and get on with it, other hospitals

don't do it at all, and all it is about is returning consistency and

good order to the financial management of the NHS and I don't

disagree with what Doctor Hammond said about carrying that try

allowed. We need the debate, but let's get this sorted. Well, Doctor

Hammond, they agree with you! Thank you very much.

The question for today is, what is Marine Le Pen ditching?

At the end of the show Nicholas and Kate will give us

Now, in the past few minutes the Israeli Prime Minster has

arrived in Downing Street for his first meeting

with Theresa May since she became Prime Minister.

Number 10 has said that Mrs May wants to talk trade

with Benjamin Netanyahu, as Britain is Israel's second

biggest trading partner, but it's also reported

than she will restate the UK's opposition to settlement

building in the occupied Palestinian territories.

We're joined now by James Sorene of the pro-Israel think tank, Bicom.

Welcome to you. I'll come to you in just a moment. Nicholas, Katusha

Theresa May be with Mr Netanyahu over continued settlement building

in the West Bank? I think she should be firm. I don't think it's a

question being tough, I think she should firm and its breast the

long-held views of this government that settlement building is

extremely unhelpful and at the pace that is going on at the moment there

will be no way for a two state solution, which I think is key to

moving forward. So I think she should be firm, respectful. They are

allies and friends. But I think it's important that she will make that

point, and I know she will. How will that be received by Benjamin

Netanyahu, being told firmly if respectfully to stop building Jewish

settlements in occupied territories? I think there's an interesting

domestic political game that goes on in Israel where particularly people

are Netanyahu's right flank want to hear announcements about expanding

settlements. That's something Netanyahu does a lots. Just last

week he dismantled and a legal settlement on the West Bank. It was

clear that the pictures that would send out of them dismantling a

settlement would cause him domestic political damage. It's not

surprising that they have then announced very quickly the building

of new settlements. Settlements are very much Israel's problems. Israel

has shown in the past that it has made generous offers to the

Palestinians and it has said that it will dismantle many settlements in

the outer edges of the West Bank in any deal with the Palestinians. As

much as they might announce new building, they will have to

dismantle and evacuate if Palestinians ever do accept any of

the Israeli offers. Does it also point to the fact that actually

belief in a two state solution with a viable Palestinian state has

pretty well disappeared in Israeli circles? I think that has been going

on for a long time. The pro-peace wing, particularly in the Labour

Party in Israel, was destroyed not by settlements but by Hamas

terrorist attacks. It has undermined this idea that Israel gave up land,

it would get peace. That has been trajectory. Israel left Gaza in 2005

and ever since then they've had Israel attacks into mainland Israel.

The Israeli domestic political arena, giving up land has led team

very, very difficult results. Kate ,, what leveraged as Mr Netanyahu

have? We are a friend of Israel, and they are an ally of hours. We have

the kind of way that Theresa May will deal with the Prime Minister, I

hope, will be to be very firm, as Nicholas has said. But also to make

it clear that we respect international law. Whether they like

it or not, the United Nations did pass that legal judgment, or legal

vote, just before Christmas on the illegal settlements. It's very

interesting, it's 100 years this year since the bill for declaration.

So we do have a special kind of involvement. It's never had any

impact. Settlements have continued to be built by successive Israeli

governments. The government of Israel is in breach of endless UN

resolutions, and we have put that to one side. Israel doesn't pay much

attention to anyone. Though what difference will it make? I think it

is important that we acknowledge the great injustice that has been done,

and it is important that the settlements do not go on being

built. When the gentleman said that Prime Minister Netanyahu dismantled

a tiny settlement, he then announced the building of another 2000 houses.

I think it is an important point for Netanyahu to acknowledge that there

are many people in many countries who feel very strongly that there

are great injustice is being done. James, the other thing is that the

steady growth of settlement has long been considered in violation of

international law. But is there a step change because even the

Americans, at the last UN vote, abstained. They have always voted

against any resolution that condemns Israeli settlement building. Is that

a step change that Benjamin Netanyahu is worried about? I think

that resolution that was intended as a rebuke to Israel to try and change

its policy. I think there is a debate that continues about whether

settlement of the obstacle or one obstacle. I think Prime Minister

Theresa May was very clear when she criticised John Kerry's speech. She

said she didn't think the place of settlement at the heart of the

conflict was constructive. Britain voted against as well. They did, but

John Kerry's speech was corrected and invent diplomacy has been going

in an interesting direction. They believe that direct talks are the

only way to resolve the conflict. Britain did not participate in the

Paris peace conference. And Boris Johnson pretty much blocked a

communique at the EU foreign affairs meeting. Is that because Nicholas

Soames, in the end, trade is going to be very important? Theresa May

won't risk anything that will imperil a free trade relationship. I

don't believe that Britain's relationship with Israel is going to

be impaled on the trade front by Brexit. I think it's very important

to make this point. People are obsessed about everything being

about trade. They will look at the Tron meeting, when they? This

country plays a big role in international affairs. -- they will

look at the Trump meeting. It's important that we deal with the

major issues. Between Britain and Israel, there is a major

disagreement over settlements. Do you agree with that on trade, Kate,

that this is as important or more important than a future free-trade

deal with Israel? I think trade is important. But there has been an

injustice to the Palestinians that has gone way down to the bottom of

the list of all the other injustices going on around the world. I really

do feel that we have to continue. And the more unity that we can have

across political parties on this in the United Kingdom, and the more

strength it gives to the United Kingdom -- gives to the Prime

Minister, I hope she will be saying to the Israeli Prime Minister that

it isn't good enough for them to continue with what they are doing.

The Israelis and Brits together will want a free-trade deal, whatever

happens. It's also important to emphasise that they we have our

profound disagreements, we are very intense collaborators with the

Israelis on intelligence, on Sciver and an all sorts of other issues.

Which is what the Prime Minister will be talking to Mr Netanyahu

about today. It isn't just one thing, it's a whole range of

interest. Just briefly, what did you think about the Americans idea of

moving their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Catastrophic. Stupid,

foolish and idiotic. James, do you agree with that? If they did me the

embassy, would it be an enormous provocation to the Palestinians? On

one hand, Israel's capital is Jerusalem and west Jerusalem, where

the gunmen is position, is not really an area of dispute. DDB

Palestinians would like to have Jerusalem or East Jerusalem as their

capital? It's perfectly possible to have an American embassy in West

Jerusalem and in East Jerusalem. I hope this will be one of the many

things that Trump said he will do that he won't do. Thank you very

much for joining us. How do you guarantee

success as Prime Minister? Well, it's early days

for Theresa May, but luckily for her the academic and biographer

Anthony Seldon has put I am Anthony Seldon,

and I have written biographies of most Prime Ministers

since Winston Churchill came The popular image of most

of these Prime Ministers is that they were failures -

even the two genuine successes post-war, Clement Attlee

and Margaret Thatcher, had careers that fizzled

out at Number 10. So what is it that Prime Ministers

could be doing to make a success Here are ten points gleaned

from a lifetime of study, which I think that if those

Prime Ministers were to follow, they would have happy days leaving

Number 10 not in tears, Get them doing the jobs, policy,

politics, presentation, Parliament. Don't fall out of with

Cabinet Secretary. Find it early on and propagate it,

or the media will do it for you. Get your two or three big themes out

there early on and stick to them relentlessly all the way

through to the end Make your Cabinet ministers, your

officials, your team do the work. Carve out your own time greedily

for thinking, resting, relaxing, Set your expectations of them very

early on and stick to them. Find a Cabinet fixer

to be chief prefect, to yap at their heels and keep

them in order. Have a fight with them

early on and win it. You're not just Head of Government,

your half Head of State, You're going to be in charge

of relations with the US, Eight - seize the big

moments and command them. The major financial events,

the crises, the cock-ups. Weave everything

into your own themes. Minimise reshuffles,

initiatives, relaunches. You might be First Lord

of the Treasury, but you are not Find someone who you trust totally,

neither tiger ignore poodle. This relationship will

make you or break you. And Anthony Seldon joins us

now from Northampton. Welcome to the Daily Politics. We've

heard your advice in detail to a Prime Minister. How do you think

Theresa May is doing against those ten points? I think she's doing

pretty well at the moment. Seven months in, she had no time to think

and prepare for what she was going to do, unlike President Trump who

had two months after the election. She's got a big scene in Europe.

She's got themes, two, around social mobility. She's got a strong team in

Number 10. I think she's doing pretty well. To your rules apply. As

you say, she's got this normal task to achieve, which is taking Britain

out of the EU. Do your rules apply to their Prime Minister with that

sort of role? Absolutely. I think that coming to office without that

time to prepare for it, having your one biggest bean picks for you I

think is a great help. -- one biggest theme. For Gordon Brown, his

biggest theme was the crisis in the world economy. That was thrust on

him. When he lost that even, when it slipped out of primary view, he lost

focus and it became utterly apparent that it was unclear why he was there

in Number 10, why he had ousted Tony Blair out of office. So I think it's

going to help her. But she's been quite clever in getting her other

themes percolating under the surface. But even with that,

Nicholas Soames, other things percolating the there is a risk that

Brexit overshadows every other bit of government policy. I think it's

important that it doesn't. I believe entirely with what Anthony has said.

If anyone should know what a Prime Minister should do, it is him, from

very careful study. But I think it's very important that all the other

things that need to be dealt with by government dealt with at the same

time. And that it doesn't dominate the agenda. But it will, when it? It

on how much time. The negotiations will go on well into two years of

negotiating, and there's an enormous amount to do in this country.

Do you think Theresa May is taking Anthony's advice in terms of how to

run prime ministerial office? At the risk of being trolled on Twitter, I

think she's done a very, very good job and must be feeling quite

pleased at how things have gone. Given that she came in there,

really, after losing the referendum, in the sense that she was on the

other side, and then have had to pick up and get a party that was

divided on it seeming, I'm afraid, a lot more united than my party at the

moment. But you would say that because you are a Leaver and she is

putting in place what you have long supported... I think she has come in

and I just, when I watch Prime Minister's Questions now or see her

particularly abroad at international events, I have to say I feel quite

proud that she is the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. You sound

like you wanted joined the Conservatives! I just think the

public is fed up with every time a politician say something, the other

side has to oppose it. We have to recognise sometimes that the country

comes first and what she's doing at the moment, under difficult

circumstances, I think are reasonable in terms of Brexit and

the way she has handled... That is not what your leader Jeremy Corbyn

says every week at Prime Minister's Questions. To pick up on what Kate

says, it is a much easier job for her because she voted for Remain. I

think if it was a Brexit Prime Minister it would be much harder.

But there is another point there which is she has that kind of common

sense leadership and a sense of wisdom that Jim Callaghan had, who

was also a Prime Minister at difficult times, let's remember the

IMF crisis, when he had one big theme and developed other things

also, probably too late in his case but has that sense of the common

person, the man on the street who feels, yes, this is somebody who

understands my life, and that's quite a rare and quite important at

the present time... Her PR operation will be very pleased with these

interviews, but your recent biography of David Cameron, which

will did he fail to follow that lead to his resignation? I think he was

in a very difficult position on the referendum, and I think that he

would have been much wiser to have listened more widely, the mistake I

think he made on the referendum was to imagine that the other side were

full of people who were foolish, he should have given much more credit

to the many, many sensible people, I was eight Remainer but I respect

people on the Brexit side, they had many good arguments, and I think you

lost touch and became over obsessed with giving a negative view, so I

think losing touch with people, with his Cabinet, becoming too much of a

bunker. It is very hard in that building, Nicholas and Kate will

know that you tend to get in a bunker after a few years, look

inwards rather than outwards. Let's look at what happens to Theresa May

and whether Brexit does dominate everything over the next few years.

Thank you. Now, the majority of Labour MPs

who believe Britain should stay in the EU have been agonising

about how to vote on the bill that will allow Theresa May to begin

the process of our withdrawal. She one of a handful

who campaigned for Brexit Let's just remind ourselves

of the contribution that MUSIC: "Leave Right

Now" by Will Young. # Think I'd better leave right now

before I fall any deeper. # I think I'd better

leave right now. # Somebody better show me how

before I fall any deeper. # I think I'd better

leave right now... Free movement is not

about being benign, it's about bidding down wages,

it's making sure wages are kept down If you cannot get rid of the people

that are in an institution, # Somebody better show me out

before I fall any deeper. # I think I'd better

leave right now #. Kate Hoey and her Brexit-supporting

Labour colleagues there. But there's been controversy

about the relationship between Labour Leave and the party's

political foes in Ukip. Electoral Commission records show

that Ukip accepted a donation The Labour MEP Seb Dance has

complained to the Labour Party about that donation,

and joins us now. Welcome to the Daily Politics, why

does it matter if Labour Leave gave money to Ukip? It is not officially

affiliated to the party so surely it is not bound by the same rules? It

is not affiliated but members of Labour Leave are members of the

Labour Party and there is a clear role in the Labour Party's rule book

that if you give money and support another political party then you are

effectively excluded from the Labour Party. Kate Hoey, what did you say

to that? It was not a donation, it is down as a donation but that is

what the electoral commission told us, Labour Leave organised with

various groups in rallies all over the country and this was our share

of the money that we had to pay towards the organisation, the

security and all of that. Very simple, there is nothing to be

hidden about this, and I'm just surprised that somebody who is an

MEP and has such a big important job for another year or so, to actually

not just push something like this, but, fine. I understand the need to

share platforms... Know, to share costs for the platforms. The ?15,000

was the cost... ?18,500 went to Ukip Central party. Because that is who

paid out the cost and that is how the electoral commission told us to

do it. But there are two questions, the political question, why share

your platform with Ukip rather than the umbrella Vote Leave group, Ukip

are on the far right of politics and support an agenda that vilifies

people who have come to live and contribute to this country, why make

that political decision? And the second question is why the donation

was made specifically to Ukip and not through an umbrella group, to an

organisation that facilitates the sharing. Labour Leave organised with

Ukip and leave. EU and some of the Lib Dems who were in favour of

leaving rallies all over the country. The reason we did it was

because at those rallies there were thousands of Labour supporters,

ex-Labour supporters, and they wanted to see Labour MPs there

because it was important to them to know there were some people in the

Labour Party who wanted to leave. You are trying to make out as if

there is some kind of absolute support for Ukip, we opposed Ukip on

all sorts of things but the reality was Ukip or one of those many

organisations campaigning to leave... It is a different party, of

course, but were you comfortable with that, sharing a platform with a

political party that says it wants to replace Labour? I said right at

the beginning, so did the Conservatives, I did platforms with

David Davis and all sorts of people, this was a referendum, not on a

party political bases, and I said at the beginning I would step platforms

with anyone within reason who was wanting to leave the European Union.

And the Remain side held cross-party event as well

across the what was the difference? The difference here is having a

mainstream newsgroup, Vote Leave, and this Leave.EU funded by Aaron

Banks, supported by Ukip, and you have campaigning with the leader of

the United Kingdom Independence party, Nigel Barrage, on a yacht

during the so-called Battle of the Thames, the visuals are clear. You

have a political choice whether or not to align yourself with a

mainstream leave organisation. We did, we work with both, I did

meetings of Boris Johnson, is that acceptable? That would certainly fit

into the mainstream campaign... We also had grassroots... You embraced

the alternative as well, that is the issue. There is a difference between

official campaigns or unofficial campaigns and rival political

parties... No, that was not the way the referendum rules were let out.

Jo, I think this is absolutely not, all of it. I have shared platforms

with some absolute sewers in my time. Anyone who knows Kate Hoey

knows that she is a woman of absolute iron integrity. I don't

believe a word of this, I think it is just stuff and nonsense which

gets jumped on by the media as if it was some great... It is just not

true. Should Kate Hoey be sanctioned for this? I'm not questioning

people's integrity, unquestioning people's judgment. Same thing. No,

there is a key question about the account into which the money was

paid and all I have done is ask the general secretary of the Labour

Party to investigate whether this is a breach of the rules. That is fine,

he will talk to the electoral commission and the that was the

advice given. He may do but it is incumbent on these questions to be

raised, why was the money paid directly to Ukip's account? Is this

the difficulty with referendum campaigns, they are different? Isn't

this the problem. It is not a problem. I don't think it is a

problem, what we are talking about now, but sometimes after the

referendum the electoral commission needs to look generally at how it

has worked and whether there are changes to be made if we should ever

have another referendum. I was going to say what Kate has just said, it

may well be that they need to create a new framework for this. We have

not had one for a very long time, but the suggestion that something

wrong has been maliciously done is just rot. John Mills, our greatest

donor, you still want him to donate to the Labour Party, I hope? I want

everybody to donate to the Labour Party! As I said, there is a

political question as to why sharing a platform with Ukip is preferred

over Vote Leave... It wasn't preferred! And why it went to the

specific account, and other questions about involvement, pulling

in Stoke seems to favour Ukip, there are serious questions... Lets leave

it there, we have run out of time. Thank keep coming in, Seb Dance.

It's recess week next week, as both Houses of Parliament rise

But before they head off for a break, what's in store

The European Union Bill begins its three-day committee stage today.

We'll learn what amendments, if any, will be able to be debated

Communities Secretary Sajid Javid is expected to publish

the Government's long-awaited Housing White Paper tomorrow.

The big question is, will the Government switch focus

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will lock horns at midday

on Wednesday for Prime Minister's Questions.

Later that day we're expecting MPs to vote again

on the Brexit Bill which, if passed, will then move

And Thursday is the last day of business in the Commons and Lords

before both Houses rise for the February half-term recess.

We're joined now by Pippa Crerar, from the London Evening Standard,

and Chris Hope, from the Daily Telegraph.

Welcome to both of you. Chris, how many amendments if any do you think

will be selected? I'm not sure that many, their rather lots of

amendments gone down, only about 136 pages, 147 amendments, so not that

many, maybe 15 or so but the big question is how many get through.

They have got a majority around 30 with the DUP support, the

Government, so it is unlikely many will get through at all but it will

be tight. At issue of a meaningful vote rather than a take it or leave

it out. Pippa, what is, in your mind, and meaningful vote towards

the end of the two years? That is what everyone wants to know, there

have been several different amendments proposed by parties and

individuals in parties trying to get to the crux of that, whether it is

before UK Parliament, whether the final deal is on the table and

crucially a point about whether, if parliamentarians reject the final

deal, whether with then end up with the case as Theresa May suggested

where we go for Brexit it irrespective of a deal or not. It

will be thrashed out in the next few days, obviously a few amendments the

Government might find it difficult to make concessions on, for example

the suggestion that David Davis might be more relaxed about having

MPs kept updated on the process as we went along, there is a big

support coming around, an amendment proposed by Harriet Harman for the

rights of citizens already legally in the country at the time of the

Brexit boat and what happens to them. There may be ground given as

paper outlines on those areas, but how many Conservative Remainers do

you think could join forces with Labour and the SNP on that the

amendment of this meaningful vote? You have got Ken Clarke, others like

Dominic Grieve, Anna Sugrue, not more than half a dozen, there are

rumours of 27 by the weekend that could wreck the whole thing and

others saying it could trigger a general election, that is a doomsday

scenario. It will be an interesting few days but nothing more than that.

I had to smile at the remarked that David Davis would be happy to come

back and update Parliament! What about Labour, what do you think will

happen to those who voted against Labour's line in terms of

Last week 47 Labour MPs rebelled, including ten frontbenchers. It was

assumed they would have to stand down from the front bench, and did

so. But Diane Abbott managed to miss the vote fighting illness. There was

a lot of concern and upset the Labour backbenches that if she

managed to get away with it, unfortunately many people didn't

believe that she was genuinely ill, then what was the point of having a

three line whip? There was going to be a meeting of the Shadow Cabinet

tomorrow, and the Brexit subcommittee, which includes Diane

Abbott and the Brexit shadow secretary, and they will decide

whether to propose another three line whip. My understanding that

they will. Overall, Labour are good to back this, come what may. Whether

the individual amendments voted down or not, they still have said that

they're going to vote. So what is the point? If they're going to vote

for it anyway whether the amendment passed, Theresa May has nothing to

worry about? Not really, no. Although on some elements, I'm

wondering whether Diane Abbott might die arise and illness for Wednesday

evening. It might be sensible to avoid having to vote in favour of

Brexit, which should avoid doing at the moment! Right, well I will leave

that thought hanging in the air at the moment. Nicholas, were you one

of the 27 Tory MPs planning to support wrecking amendments,

according to Steve Baker, which will weaken the Prime Minister's hand? I

am a staunch remain. I campaigned for it, I'm very disappointed with

the results. My view now is that the best interest of my constituents and

my country are served by coming to a quick conclusion on this bill and

enabling the government and the Prime Minister, David Davis, Liam

Fox, or the other people involved to get on with the negotiations. Some

of the amendments will, I'm sure, be perfectly sensible. Yes. There are

people who, like Anna Soubry and Nikki Morgan, who feel so strongly

that they want to get this done. And to some extent, I support that. But

I'm not going to do anything to slow this bill up in the House of

Commons. You say some of the amendments are probably quite

sensible and you would support them. What would be wrecking about them in

that sense? Is it a case that's one of your colleagues would see any

amendment? As is so often the case, anything that contravenes people who

disagree with you is wrecking amendments. That's rubbish and

hyperbole. But it's important that we press on. The quicker we do it

with a bigger majority and they get unanimity of the House of Commons,

the quicker it will be. You would be happy to support a non-wrecking

amendment. The rights of EU nationals to be guaranteed, would

that be one you would support? I believe that's a very important

matter. Nobody's seen the amendments. There is 136 pages of

them. Plenty to get through. We know there will be won on this meaningful

vote. Would you support that amendment for a meaningful vote for

you and your colleagues at the end of this process, or towards the end

of this process, so you could hand it back? It's entirely depends on

what the government says during the debate. I think the government will

come up with words that will be reassuring to the House of Commons,

and I will wait and see them. But I do think it's important the house is

involved fully all the way through. What would be wrong with a

meaningful vote just to say to be Prime Minister, could you go back

and improve it? I think Nicholas speaks for a lot of people who voted

to remain, who now I accept it, and willingly, but accept it, and want

to get on with things. Going into these negotiations, it's really

important that the other EU countries see our country as united

as possible on this. That's why I can't see any, you know, this is a

very narrow bill, to simply allow the negotiations to stop. I do think

the amendment on the EU citizens is one that I hope the government will

find a way of responding to that amendments to make us feel even more

willing to support it. But the reality and that is their one

countries in the the European Union holding out. You do still support,

as you said... Of course. It's so obvious, it's common sense. I want

to make sure that our citizens in other European countries are equally

protected. I think that will happen. But I'm not sure that just passing

an amendment because it makes us feel better will change the

situation in terms of the reality. That's why we have to wait to hear

the debate. But at the end of it all, I think on Wednesday night

there will be a majority, a big majority, to pass the bill through

to the House of Lords. Particularly since Labour has said that they're

not going to reject triggering article 50. Finally, before I talk

to Kate Hoey about Labour's position, on this result in the end,

should MPs have a result on a deal, if it is presented, be given enough

time for that to be improved and scrutinised, rather than at the very

end of the process when if they reject it the country would fall on

to WTO rules? I'm not trying to pick my words. I think it's important

that we get the best deal possible. Sure. And that it is quite clear to

Parliament what the government intends to do. I want full

Parliamentary scrutiny throughout the process. How that will work out,

it's impossible to say today. But we will let you know Wednesday. Anna

Soubry said if there is no deal she was a meaningful vote. What, in your

mind, do you think she means? I don't know what she means. You don't

know what she means? Right. I think the government are very well seeing

the need to involve Parliament. This is not a great point of contention.

Right. On the subject of Diana, she holds an important subject on the

front bench. If she fails to vote to trigger Article 50 in line with what

Jeremy Corbyn has said, should she be sacked? That would be up to our

leader. In your mind, should she be? I think Jeremy had to put a three

line whip because that delivers position to be Labour supporters who

voted to leave and don't want to see Labour wrecking this. Jeremy, being

someone who was a rebel or his life, it's much more difficult for him to

turn around and sack people. But should you, if they don't follow

what the party line is particularly when there is a three line Whip?

Whether Diana sacked or not, she still going to be one of those

leading Labour people in the current administration. She will be someone

who Jeremy will rely on a lot for advice will. Even if she loses her

position as Shadow Home Secretary? Yes, I do think that. Diane has done

herself a bit of disservice by having said clearly that she was a

remain, and that she would be voting for Article 50. Then as not to turn

up was a bit pointless, because it didn't achieve anything. I haven't

spoken to Diane. Maybe she was so ill that she couldn't come. Although

many people were seriously ill and made it. I think that's why she has

done herself a disservice and it's up to her to get out of it. She

should apologise for behaving rather stupidly. Diane, if you're

listening! Now, it's official -

diplomacy is dead. Nowadays 140 characters fired off

in haste from a Twitter account Such behaviour used to be

confined to backbench MPs. But now, of course, it's the modus

operandi of the President Here's Jenny Kumah with the top five

most undiplomatic tweets. At five, its Ukip's only MP,

Douglas Carswell, with his smiley Tweeted after his party's

leader, Nigel Farage, announced his resignation

following the Brexit votr. A tweet of no words,

but it said so much. In at number four, former Shadow

Culture Secretary Michael Dugher uses his Twitter biography to hit

back at the Labour leader. He tells followers that he was

sacked by Jeremy Corbyn for "too much straight

talking, honest politics." In and number three,

it's former Labour MP Jamie Reed. He's leaving Parliament to take

a big job in the nuclear industry. But back in October,

he smugly tweeted... In at number two, Conservative MP

Nicholas Soames has a go at ITV's At number one, it has

to to be Donald Trump. There are so many to choose from,

but here's just one example. Well, should we congratulate

Nicholas Soames for making the top five? I don't find myself in very

good company! Not us, obviously. Should President Trump give up

Twitter? I think we will find retweets less, and yes, I think you

should. You've got to get himself into even more trouble. -- he's

going to get himself. The problem with Twitter is that you do think

you will be sensible and do nothing in impulse, but you do. And I think

that's the danger. It's a terrific way of communicating, although I

think it does lead to some very nasty people around, who actually

pick up you and have a real go. So, yes, he should stop using it. But he

won't. Do you agree? I don't think the President of the United States

should operate by Twitter, but that is the way he's going to operate. We

all have to get used to the fact that we've never had to deal with a

man like this before in our lives, any of us. He's entirely

transactional. This is how he ran his businesses and this is how he

will run the presidency. It is what it is. It's going to be very tough

to keep a handle on it, but he is going to it to communicate over the

top with the Washington establishment to his huge number of

supporters in the country. Do you think that will catch on and that's

what will happen, not Theresa May necessarily? With part of the

problem of politicians. We talked earlier about getting into the

bunker. The media don't get out of London enough. They don't actually

talk to people who in the end of the people who, for example, on the

referendum came out and voted who had never voted before. Those are

the same people that Donald Trump got out to vote. Harry make one

point? I think that's a very good point. Anthony Seldon made a report

about how thoughtful Theresa May was and one of the things people like

very much about the Prime Minister is that she does think it through.

She obviously listens and thinks it through. This chap doesn't think it

through. But it's a way of reaching his supporters. Do you self-centred?

As Kate said, when you're in the zone of tweeting, have you lost

sight? I have some important walls. I don't do it at night or when I've

had a cocktail. And I'm reasonably careful about what I say. Reasonably

careful? I like the idea! Trump has tweeted, I call my own shots largely

based on an accumulation of data. Fake news media in order to

marginalise - lies. So he's at it this morning and probably only just

got up. He's not going to give up. He mind so much about any form of

criticism. The crowds. Yeah. It's telling about Trump's character.

What does it help? That he is a narcissist. He was upset. On that we

will just There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was, what is

Marine Le Pen ditching? Any ideas? I know. You go first?

It's her family name because they don't want to be associated with her

father. She is known as just Marine. She fell out with her father. I

would add the lot of them, except for the whole! That's it for today.

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

I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big political

stories of the day - do join me then.

Gentlemen, do you have any prior motoring convictions?