06/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 06/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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?


Download Subtitles