:00:38. > :00:41.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics
:00:42. > :00:44.Commons speaker John Bercow has sharply divided opinion, again,
:00:45. > :00:46.by banning Donald Trump from Parliament over
:00:47. > :00:56.The government's publishing plans to fix what ministers say
:00:57. > :01:06.is a broken housing market in England,
:01:07. > :01:08.with "failures at every point in the system",
:01:09. > :01:13.MPs are gearing up for another day debating the bill that will steer
:01:14. > :01:18.So far the government has seen off all challenges,
:01:19. > :01:21.but will it survive crucial challenges
:01:22. > :01:37.And we'll take you inside Theresa May's
:01:38. > :01:40.Ten Downing Street, well sort of, with our guide
:01:41. > :01:42.to the people who work behind the most famous front door
:01:43. > :01:50.All that in the next hour and I'm joined for all of it
:01:51. > :01:52.by Camilla Cavendish, she's a journalist who went
:01:53. > :01:55.on to work for David Cameron at Number ten, and she now sits
:01:56. > :01:59.Last year she was, according to the Telegraph, the 31st most
:02:00. > :02:02.My nomination papers must have got lost in the post again.
:02:03. > :02:06.First today, let's talk about the statement by House
:02:07. > :02:09.of Commons speaker John Bercow that's causing a bit of a stir.
:02:10. > :02:12.Mr Bercow was asked about a parliamentary motion
:02:13. > :02:15.which has so far been signed by 189 opposition Mps deploring, it says,
:02:16. > :02:18.the actions of US president Donald Trump and asking that he be
:02:19. > :02:20.barred from addressing Parliament when he makes his state visit
:02:21. > :02:25.Government sources quoted in this morning's papers say the White House
:02:26. > :02:28.has given no indication that Mr Trump wants to address
:02:29. > :02:31.Parliament, but Mr Bercow has made it clear that isn't going to happen.
:02:32. > :02:38.We value our relationship with the United States, if a state visit
:02:39. > :02:44.takes place, that is way beyond and above the pay grade of the speaker.
:02:45. > :02:54.However, as far as this place is concerned, I feel very strongly that
:02:55. > :03:01.our opposition to racism and to sexism and our support for equality
:03:02. > :03:05.before the law and an independent judiciary are hugely important
:03:06. > :03:12.considerations in the House of Commons. John Bercow finishing with
:03:13. > :03:27.a hard stare at the Tory benches, where he once sat.
:03:28. > :03:30.the Conservative MP Alec Shelbrooke, and by the co-leader
:03:31. > :03:46.You the idea that Parliament is there to be able to pimp out buy the
:03:47. > :03:51.Prime Minister to whomever they would like. This is premature. The
:03:52. > :03:54.opportunity to speak in the hall has not been clarified by potentially, I
:03:55. > :04:00.think absolutely sends out all the wrong signs. Theresa May primping
:04:01. > :04:03.out Parliament in terms of the state visit and the offer of Donald Trump
:04:04. > :04:08.addressing parliament, is that how you see it? Not at all, let me say
:04:09. > :04:14.at the start, I don't support some of the policies of Donald Trump and
:04:15. > :04:18.I personally feel that his attitude to women is unacceptable, there is
:04:19. > :04:22.many world leaders whose politics I find to be unacceptable, as I
:04:23. > :04:28.understand it, an invitation has not even been requested, it is a
:04:29. > :04:33.hypothetical argument and at this stage slightly unnecessary. What I
:04:34. > :04:36.find... What I don't quite understand is that the speaker said
:04:37. > :04:40.it was an honour to introduce the mayor of Kuwait, a country that
:04:41. > :04:45.jails people for seven years for being gay, a country that represses
:04:46. > :04:49.women, a country that bans is rabies from entering. I would have thought
:04:50. > :04:58.that the comments against racism and sexism would fit that as well, where
:04:59. > :05:11.is the consistency? -- a country that bands due is -- bans Jewish
:05:12. > :05:15.people from entering. We will have a listen in a moment, not exactly
:05:16. > :05:20.known for not being oppressive offer their human rights freedoms.
:05:21. > :05:23.Certainly not, I am not here as an apologist for John Bercow's previous
:05:24. > :05:28.decisions but I'm talking about the decision made yesterday, with the
:05:29. > :05:30.president of China he did raise human rights concerns, I don't know
:05:31. > :05:34.if that is true, but we are talking about a particular honour of
:05:35. > :05:37.Westminster Hall, which has with it all the trappings of a state visit
:05:38. > :05:40.and it is envy not appropriate, not just Parliament saying that, due to
:05:41. > :05:45.numbers out of the country say that well. John Bercow did that, he
:05:46. > :05:51.bestowed the honour on the two leaders I have mentioned, let's have
:05:52. > :05:54.a look. You'll visit here today, Mr president, reinforces the links
:05:55. > :06:01.between the United Kingdom and China. -- your visit. Those links
:06:02. > :06:07.are social. As well as economic and political. And they are all the
:06:08. > :06:12.stronger for that. This trip should provide the means for both sides to
:06:13. > :06:23.come to understand one another better. You are in many ways the
:06:24. > :06:28.personification and the very welcome personification at that of a
:06:29. > :06:37.changing country in changing times. We are very pleased indeed that you
:06:38. > :06:41.are with us here today. A fact I hope the nature and enthusiasm of
:06:42. > :06:45.your gathering make very clear. How is it justifiable to deny the
:06:46. > :06:50.democratically elected leader of our closest ally the same sort of
:06:51. > :06:53.honour? First of all, it is a detail, but that is not the same
:06:54. > :07:00.location we are talking about, second of all, I don't want to
:07:01. > :07:02.apologise for what John Bercow is doing, I don't think the language
:07:03. > :07:08.used was particularly inappropriate... If you were trying
:07:09. > :07:13.to make an argument you would say that with the Chinese, what he is
:07:14. > :07:18.trying to do is make stronger links with a country that for many decades
:07:19. > :07:22.has been very repressive. With the US, what we are trying to do is send
:07:23. > :07:25.a signal to our closest ally, whom we have worked with on so many
:07:26. > :07:29.issues from climate change through to trying to tackle the war on
:07:30. > :07:33.terror and so on, what we are trying to do is try to send a different
:07:34. > :07:39.signal. The reason we invite these people from very important nations
:07:40. > :07:46.and give them chances to address the house is that we want to have
:07:47. > :07:51.influence. We can all find things to criticise about Donald Trump but the
:07:52. > :07:54.fact is we have a very good relationship with the US and need to
:07:55. > :07:58.maintain it and need to have the influence on the things that matter.
:07:59. > :08:02.I think there is a lot of areas where we would all want our country
:08:03. > :08:09.to be able to influence him and his country. To be quite honest, given
:08:10. > :08:13.that is the position we have taken with China, John Bercow is
:08:14. > :08:17.grandstanding. Is he overstepping the mark? It says that he should act
:08:18. > :08:24.with authority and with impartiality, is this impartial? No
:08:25. > :08:27.it is not, this is the crux of the matter, what people's opinions of
:08:28. > :08:31.Donald Trump are, they are a side issue, I think at that time, when
:08:32. > :08:36.Donald Trump is building walls, it is better to build bridges, we are
:08:37. > :08:39.putting balls up around Westminster. He has not acted in partially.
:08:40. > :08:43.Therefore, it is difficult to command the respect, because the
:08:44. > :08:47.speaker should not have got involved in this. I want to remove the issue
:08:48. > :08:52.of Donald Trump and take this as well, I don't understand why he did
:08:53. > :08:56.what he did, along with many other colleagues, very angry that he has
:08:57. > :09:01.undermined the chair. He was asked a question by a Labour MP, he replied,
:09:02. > :09:05.he stood up in a way that many of us wish our Prime Minister had done to
:09:06. > :09:13.somebody that is essentially a racist bigot. He said those words.
:09:14. > :09:17.The Tories have been trying to get rid of John Bercow for years and
:09:18. > :09:20.years, you cannot believe your luck. He has not acted impartially, he has
:09:21. > :09:25.brought the chair into disrepute, and the issues you mention, I don't
:09:26. > :09:28.disagree with you, there are real problems, he is a man who openly
:09:29. > :09:32.says that his advantage is that he has never been in politics and is
:09:33. > :09:36.not a politician and at this stage it is more important than ever that
:09:37. > :09:39.countries like Britain, proud record in talking to people around the
:09:40. > :09:49.world, actually bring them along... Build bridges, don't build walls...
:09:50. > :09:52.Hold hands...? Isn't he supposed to be a referee, somebody who oversees
:09:53. > :09:58.and is above the sort of statement that he made yesterday...? In
:09:59. > :10:01.domestic politics, absolutely right, when there is such controversy,
:10:02. > :10:05.personally right for entries eked out for parliament. He could have
:10:06. > :10:09.chosen to argue that it is much too early, Barack Obama did not have a
:10:10. > :10:13.state visit to the first six months, he did not choose to argue that, he
:10:14. > :10:16.went on racism and sexism to get headlines, that is unfortunate. Much
:10:17. > :10:21.more legitimate argument that he could have made. Is it important he
:10:22. > :10:27.makes a stand, he feels passionately about it, MPs like Caroline Lucas
:10:28. > :10:32.are applauded him for it, isn't it brave of him to stand up and say
:10:33. > :10:36.things that many MPs feel? That is not his role, I think his role is to
:10:37. > :10:38.chair independently and he has not represented the views of those of us
:10:39. > :10:43.who do not agree with the policies of Donald Trump and you'll love the
:10:44. > :10:47.way to tackle those is to act by persuasion, to be an honest friend
:10:48. > :10:50.and... Let's take an example, ten days before the Prime Minister met
:10:51. > :10:56.him, he said he felt later was obsolete, after the meeting with the
:10:57. > :10:59.Prime Minister, he said he had 100% support for Nato, discussions took
:11:00. > :11:02.place, merits put forward. There are many issues from a man who says he
:11:03. > :11:11.has never been in politics, that we have to work with... That is about
:11:12. > :11:15.mature, responsible politics. Isn't it true, you say the Tories have
:11:16. > :11:19.wanted to get rid of John Bercow and you want to put pressure on Theresa
:11:20. > :11:23.May as the Prime Minister, to try to embarrass, following the with Donald
:11:24. > :11:28.Trump and this plays into it? This is about Parliament flexing its
:11:29. > :11:31.muscles, what we have seen over the last few days and weeks is a Prime
:11:32. > :11:35.Minister refusing Parliament any right to have a say over the
:11:36. > :11:40."Brexit" process. The amendment going through at the moment being
:11:41. > :11:43.rolled over, so... You are using this as a stick to beat the
:11:44. > :11:48.government. I think it is right that Parliament stands up. My greatest
:11:49. > :11:51.concern is that this is against the democratically elected leader of the
:11:52. > :11:56.United States, a democratic process in the house, and when a Democratic
:11:57. > :12:00.process doesn't give you the results you want, you want to ignore it. We
:12:01. > :12:05.have talked about the tiny 's premier, and also the leader in
:12:06. > :12:09.Indonesia, but people who have addressed Parliament have been
:12:10. > :12:17.Nelson Mandela, Ang sank Su Chi, does... The Pope... Does President
:12:18. > :12:23.Trump really merit the same as some people? They have addressed
:12:24. > :12:27.Westminster Hall, and an invitation has not been suggested. John Bercow
:12:28. > :12:37.was acting on a hypothetical situation. -- Aung San Suu Kyi. I do
:12:38. > :12:44.not agree with the premise of the question, he has been invited on a
:12:45. > :12:48.state visit, as I understand it, the address to parliamentarians... The
:12:49. > :12:52.palace... This is about the office of the President of the United
:12:53. > :12:55.States. The Prime Minister rushing to the United States to try to make
:12:56. > :13:01.a wick fix, because she is without friends after "Brexit". Should
:13:02. > :13:07.reconsider his position? Absolutely, news not acting independently, the
:13:08. > :13:10.very fact we are having this conversation today on a political
:13:11. > :13:14.issue brought about by the speaker shows that he is no longer able to
:13:15. > :13:17.independently chaired and have support and respect across the whole
:13:18. > :13:20.of the House of Commons, it is important but -- unfortunate but his
:13:21. > :13:27.position is untenable. The question for today is also
:13:28. > :13:31.about Commons speaker John Bercow. As well as barring Donald Trump,
:13:32. > :13:37.yesterday he also announced the end of what he called a "stuffy"
:13:38. > :13:40.parliamentary tradition. a) The ceremonial mace
:13:41. > :13:43.b) bowing to the Speaker c) The snuff box for MPs,
:13:44. > :13:46.or d) the wigs worn by clerks? At the end of the show Camilla
:13:47. > :13:52.will give us the correct answer. Now let's turn to yesterday's
:13:53. > :13:55.Commons debate on the Article 50 bill, the legislation
:13:56. > :13:56.which will allow Theresa May to begin the process of taking
:13:57. > :14:00.the UK out of the European Union. It was the first day of the bill's
:14:01. > :14:02.committee stage and opposition politicians tabled a series
:14:03. > :14:04.of amendments, defeated with a fairly robust
:14:05. > :14:07.government majority. Here's Theresa May addressing Mps
:14:08. > :14:21.at the start of the day. message is clear to all, this house
:14:22. > :14:25.has spoken, and now is not the time to obstruct the democratically
:14:26. > :14:28.expressed wishes of the British people.
:14:29. > :14:38.Well so far the Prime Minister is getting her way,
:14:39. > :14:40.because the Commons has, so far, rejected all
:14:41. > :14:42.of the proposed amendments to the Article 50 bill.
:14:43. > :14:44.There were four votes last night: New Clause three
:14:45. > :14:47.was a Labour amendement, backed by Lib Dems nationalists
:14:48. > :14:50.and the Green MP, which would have forced the PM to make regular
:14:51. > :14:54.It was opposed by the vast majority of Tories, Ulster unionists and four
:14:55. > :15:00.New Clause four was another proposal by Labour that that ministers seek
:15:01. > :15:02.to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations
:15:03. > :15:09.to reach a consensus with the devolved administrations
:15:10. > :15:16.New Clause 26 was an SNP amendment requiring ministers
:15:17. > :15:19.from the devolved administrations to agree a joint approach to Brexit
:15:20. > :15:21.negotiations before Article 50 could be triggered.
:15:22. > :15:27.Only 62 MPs supported this with 332 against.
:15:28. > :15:32.New Clause 158 was the Plaid Cymru amendment calling for a report
:15:33. > :15:37.on the financial effect on Wales of Brexit.
:15:38. > :15:45.and today MPs will turn to the all-important issue
:15:46. > :15:53.of when parliament will get to vote on the Brexit deal.
:15:54. > :15:57.We're joined now by one MP who's tabled an amendment on the subject,
:15:58. > :16:08.and the Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.
:16:09. > :16:13.Chris Leslie, what is your amendment? I have quite a few but
:16:14. > :16:19.one in particular that may have some interest from what you may call not
:16:20. > :16:22.just Labour or SNP and the Lib Dems but more moderate conservatives who
:16:23. > :16:29.are concerned about saving some of our access to the single market and
:16:30. > :16:34.so one, 110, new clause, I hope that people are keeping track...
:16:35. > :16:38.Basically making sure that Parliament has a meaningful vote on
:16:39. > :16:42.the final deal, before the end of the negotiations. Not just in
:16:43. > :16:49.advance of the European Parliament or the European Commission but also
:16:50. > :16:52.on the new relationship. Not just a new treaty, but whatever the
:16:53. > :16:56.relationship may be. If there is no deal, Parliament should still get a
:16:57. > :17:01.say, and it is important to make sure that we can have a role and a
:17:02. > :17:08.say, in the negotiations as they proceed. It does not look good so
:17:09. > :17:12.far, if you look at last night, four votes for, and four votes for the
:17:13. > :17:16.opposition. What do you think will get through? It is up to the
:17:17. > :17:20.Conservative MPs, predominantly to make up the numbers. We do not have
:17:21. > :17:24.enough on opposition benches alone. But there are signs that there are
:17:25. > :17:29.concerns about Parliament's role here. I think that it would be quite
:17:30. > :17:33.strange for the Supreme Court to have said, yes, Parliament holds the
:17:34. > :17:40.key and has sovereignty here to have it snapped back to the Prime
:17:41. > :17:43.Minister's hands alone without a Parliamentary oversight properly
:17:44. > :17:46.over the negotiation process. You are a great believer in
:17:47. > :17:49.Parliamentary sovereignty, why shouldn't Parliament, you and your
:17:50. > :17:55.colleagues in the House of Commons, have a say on the deal before the
:17:56. > :17:58.end? New clause 110 is constitutionally flawed. The
:17:59. > :18:01.judgment from the Supreme Court made it clear that the courts can only
:18:02. > :18:07.understand from Parliament legislation that votes in parliament
:18:08. > :18:12.on motions have no legal standing, because proceedings in parliament
:18:13. > :18:17.cannot be presented in any court. New clause 110 only asks for a vote
:18:18. > :18:20.in parliament, that has no legal effect or standing. It is
:18:21. > :18:27.constitutionally a failed amendment and what it needs to do to achieve
:18:28. > :18:31.its objective is require agriculture choir primary legislation or a
:18:32. > :18:36.statutory instrument to be passed to get that objective. It would be
:18:37. > :18:40.foolish to vote for it. In terms of scrutiny we have a simple system
:18:41. > :18:43.where the executive needs to maintain the confidence of the
:18:44. > :18:47.legislator, the House of Commons primarily, if it is to remain in
:18:48. > :18:49.office. The executive needs to report back to Parliament and the
:18:50. > :18:54.Prime Minister answers questions every week. That will go on
:18:55. > :18:57.throughout the process. It's not the same as the scrutiny that Chris
:18:58. > :19:01.Leslie is talking about, and your colleagues would like to see given
:19:02. > :19:05.to Parliament, like Anna Soubry, they would like to have the chance
:19:06. > :19:10.to affect the deal put in front of them. If they spent any time looking
:19:11. > :19:15.at Parliamentary scrutiny in recent years, they would be aware the
:19:16. > :19:18.European scrutiny committee sends documents to be scrutinised, in the
:19:19. > :19:22.floor of the house or in the committee, it will continue with all
:19:23. > :19:27.documents launched with the EU. You have already had ample opportunity
:19:28. > :19:33.to debate the Brexit bill and what will happen. Again, isn't this an
:19:34. > :19:40.attempt to frustrate the passage of Article 50? In the end, for someone
:19:41. > :19:43.like you, Chris Leslie, unashamedly voting for Remain committee want to
:19:44. > :19:52.do things like keep the UK in the single market Russia yes, we have to
:19:53. > :19:55.accept a referendum -- in the single market? This is about not just
:19:56. > :20:04.accepting a sheepish consultative pat on the head, but distinguishing
:20:05. > :20:08.between consultation and consent of Parliament. We need agreement from
:20:09. > :20:12.Parliament to make sure that if there is a draft deal, we are not
:20:13. > :20:18.just watching it on the screens where MEPs get a vote on it. British
:20:19. > :20:22.MPs need to go back to constituents and see what the final arrangement
:20:23. > :20:27.should be, Deal or no Deal. But it is quite telling that people talking
:20:28. > :20:33.about Parliamentary scrutiny cannot even draft an amendment that meets
:20:34. > :20:37.basic constitutional norms... Let Chris answer on that technical
:20:38. > :20:42.basis. If Parliament chooses to put in an act of Parliament that it
:20:43. > :20:46.wants to have the express approval of Parliament through a motion in
:20:47. > :20:52.both houses, as it has done on other occasions, it is perfectly lawful to
:20:53. > :20:57.do so. It contradicts the bill of rights which is a fundamental act of
:20:58. > :21:01.hours. Will it have the chance of getting through? Let me ask, I
:21:02. > :21:06.wonder if people watching would wonder, what happens if the
:21:07. > :21:10.amendment is passed? Joe suggested that a lot of people remaining would
:21:11. > :21:14.like to derail the process, that is not what you want but you want to
:21:15. > :21:17.say on the final deal. Can you talk us through what it would mean
:21:18. > :21:25.practically? Let's say that Theresa May gets a bad deal and decides that
:21:26. > :21:28.she would rather go with the World Trade Organisation, and Parliament
:21:29. > :21:33.has a vote on it, are using that you would go back to your constituents
:21:34. > :21:38.and say the WTO is not that great, what happens? Would we be in a
:21:39. > :21:44.Brexit Purgatory from that point? I think this is an amendment that is
:21:45. > :21:46.helpful to the government. In her 12 points, Theresa May set 12
:21:47. > :21:50.objectives in the White Paper, she said that there would be no cliff
:21:51. > :21:53.edge, we would not fall out, that is the policy of the government. If
:21:54. > :21:58.Parliament do not have a final say there would be no way of holding her
:21:59. > :22:04.properly to account and negotiate that good deal, go and do that. So
:22:05. > :22:07.we get to the end of 18 months, sorry to interrupt... Parliament
:22:08. > :22:14.should be able to say, please, Theresa May, go back and... That and
:22:15. > :22:20.you trying to rerun the referendum? Absolutely not, we are trying to get
:22:21. > :22:24.the best deal for Britain, we cannot redo it. We are trying to leave but
:22:25. > :22:28.we have to bring Parliament with us because they are sovereign in the
:22:29. > :22:33.Constitution, we are accountable to constituents and this was not on the
:22:34. > :22:38.ballot paper. It was yes or no, leave the EU. I am very sympathetic
:22:39. > :22:42.to that, but we also need to be smart about how negotiations happen.
:22:43. > :22:48.Sure. And the other 27 over there who do not want to give us anything,
:22:49. > :22:51.they may see it as a get out clause? What will they offer us if they know
:22:52. > :22:56.perfectly well the majority of Parliament for rerunning it? It's
:22:57. > :23:00.quite useful for the lead negotiator, the Prime Minister, to
:23:01. > :23:03.say, look over my shoulder, Parliament is there, they want a
:23:04. > :23:06.better deal! A lot of businesses do that.
:23:07. > :23:14.Let's move on to the fate of EU nationals. That is something that a
:23:15. > :23:18.lot of your Brexiteer colleagues working that they would be
:23:19. > :23:24.guaranteed, and they have not been. Do you still think it is right to
:23:25. > :23:28.use the fate of EU nationals here as bargaining chips? I've always been
:23:29. > :23:33.in favour of EU nationals being told that they can stay, that is
:23:34. > :23:37.important in the position. The Great Repeal Bill will maintain all of the
:23:38. > :23:41.current rights of EU nationals, and it would require a new act of
:23:42. > :23:44.Parliament to take any of those away, and I do not think it is
:23:45. > :23:48.possible to get through an act of Parliament that would take it away.
:23:49. > :23:51.But it is not the same as guaranteeing it, is it, Jacob
:23:52. > :23:56.Rees-Mogg? If you are an EU national you are worried about your future...
:23:57. > :24:00.New governments can always change what previous government have done,
:24:01. > :24:05.that is the basic principle of our democratic system. So there can be
:24:06. > :24:08.deported? That is inconceivable but the law proposed by the current
:24:09. > :24:12.government is that the Great Repeal Bill will maintain all of the rights
:24:13. > :24:16.they currently have, and there will be further legislation on
:24:17. > :24:21.immigration from the EU. There is no threat to EU nationals at this
:24:22. > :24:25.point. Isn't that true? That is the reality, even if, as Jacob Rees-Mogg
:24:26. > :24:28.says, that technically you could have a position where they roll back
:24:29. > :24:33.on rights of EU nationals and they could be deported but it would
:24:34. > :24:37.happen, will it? Let's hope not, you are probably right, it's difficult
:24:38. > :24:40.to see those circumstances but the uncertainty hanging over the heads
:24:41. > :24:44.of not just tens of thousands but hundreds of thousands of people
:24:45. > :24:47.here, it is stressful and debilitating, and unnecessary. We
:24:48. > :24:51.should not have to wait for the Great Repeal Bill which could be six
:24:52. > :24:55.months, one year away. We have a bill before Parliament now, possibly
:24:56. > :25:00.going through in a matter of weeks. A simple amendment, a simple clause,
:25:01. > :25:04.making it clear. What is the harm in doing that now? And what is the
:25:05. > :25:10.harm? It would play into Theresa May's claim of being a unifying
:25:11. > :25:14.Prime Minister. It is a shame that Angela Merkel is refusing and
:25:15. > :25:18.immediate deal. And what about Theresa May standing up and doing
:25:19. > :25:23.it? I am in favour, everybody should stay and not worry, the Home Office
:25:24. > :25:27.can barely deport five criminals at the end of their sentences, the idea
:25:28. > :25:31.that they can deport 3 million people is bonkers and people should
:25:32. > :25:36.know that will not happen. In terms of unifying the issue that she wants
:25:37. > :25:39.to bring two sides together, if she wants to steam-roll Parliament over
:25:40. > :25:44.an issue like giving a meaningful vote, to use the phrase that Chris
:25:45. > :25:47.Leslie used, in the end, it is going to play against exactly what she is
:25:48. > :25:53.trying to achieve, to bring a country together? The meaningful
:25:54. > :25:54.vote was on the 23rd of June last year, Saint adult birds day, that
:25:55. > :26:09.will go down in history. -- Saint . A lot of people who voted for
:26:10. > :26:12.remain want the ability implemented. Your character formers would be
:26:13. > :26:16.charming if it was not such a serious issue. What we do have to do
:26:17. > :26:22.is to make sure that Parliament has an ability to express its view and
:26:23. > :26:27.yes, if it is inconvenient, sent the Prime Minister back and say, get a
:26:28. > :26:37.better deal, if possible. And not be worried about sparing her blushes! I
:26:38. > :26:42.shall let you to continue this discussion outside! -- I shall let
:26:43. > :26:44.you two. Communities Secretary Sajid Javid
:26:45. > :26:46.is about to publish the government's white paper on housing in England,
:26:47. > :26:49.with plans to get developers building and tackle the historic
:26:50. > :26:54.shortage of new housing. Andy Slaughter of labour is in the
:26:55. > :26:59.Central lobby now. What is your response to the White Paper in
:27:00. > :27:02.general? It is an extraordinarily feeble document, it lets down people
:27:03. > :27:09.who want to own their own homes, private sector tenants, and people
:27:10. > :27:13.in the council housing association, the government has a terrible record
:27:14. > :27:18.on housing, where a number of homeowners has fallen by 200,000 and
:27:19. > :27:21.council tenants has fallen by 150,000 which will make the
:27:22. > :27:26.situation worse for those groups of people. Really, this has been
:27:27. > :27:31.delayed by months, we have waited a long time and had so much promise.
:27:32. > :27:34.It is such a let down and it's a big issue for people around the country,
:27:35. > :27:39.the biggest issue in my constituency. I've come from a
:27:40. > :27:43.meeting with BA cabin crew staff in my constituency who start on ?12,000
:27:44. > :27:49.per year. The average house price last year was ?944,000, nothing in
:27:50. > :27:51.the White Paper will help those people at all the young couple who
:27:52. > :27:59.came to see me in surgery yesterday, with steady jobs and they can access
:28:00. > :28:03.no forms of housing. Grant Shapps, the former Housing Minister, joined
:28:04. > :28:08.us here in the studio. You may have heard what Andy Slaughter was
:28:09. > :28:10.saying, it is feeble and has been delayed for months, the number of
:28:11. > :28:16.homeowners has fallen and people feel let down, what do you say?
:28:17. > :28:19.There is not a simple solution, I'm interested to hear what Andy thinks
:28:20. > :28:22.it would be, I was housing minister and over the years, Housing
:28:23. > :28:26.ministers have come up with documents and bills and the truth
:28:27. > :28:29.is, none of them will make much difference. I do not suppose this
:28:30. > :28:33.will make much difference either. Is it possible to be radical? The
:28:34. > :28:38.reason is, unless you literally build two or 3 million more homes.
:28:39. > :28:44.About why can it not be done? You won't solve the problem. Take Andy's
:28:45. > :28:47.constituency, a great example. Its urban, in Hammersmith and pretty
:28:48. > :28:52.urban, there is no space to build hundreds of thousands of new homes,
:28:53. > :28:55.what you have to do, if we are genuinely to solve the problem, is
:28:56. > :29:00.building parts of the country that much, much less dense in terms of
:29:01. > :29:08.housing at the moment, you probably need to build ten or 15 brand-new
:29:09. > :29:14.towns of 100,000, unless we do that, we won't solve it. Do you agree,
:29:15. > :29:17.that in the end, because of successive governments, because they
:29:18. > :29:21.have not built enough homes, and that has been Labour and
:29:22. > :29:26.Conservative, we are in a position where it is impossible to do what is
:29:27. > :29:32.necessary to radically change the outcome is for the housing market? I
:29:33. > :29:38.agree that this might help, I agree with Grant on that! But take my
:29:39. > :29:44.constituency, there are plans to build 50,000 new homes over the next
:29:45. > :29:48.20-30 years, 24,000 are on the HS2 site, and in West Kensington. The
:29:49. > :29:52.problem is, they are things like starter homes which need an income
:29:53. > :29:58.of ?90,000, or there is no affordable housing at all.
:29:59. > :30:01.It is not just numbers, we can actually build in London and
:30:02. > :30:06.elsewhere. I agree it is not only a London issue but we need to build
:30:07. > :30:10.houses that people can afford. That is terrible to say it is not
:30:11. > :30:13.possible. We will come onto the issue of affordable housing but
:30:14. > :30:17.let's follow with Grant Shapps's theme that you cannot build a number
:30:18. > :30:22.of homes quickly enough to radically altered the situation for thousands
:30:23. > :30:26.of people. As a result of that, do you think it is then true that the
:30:27. > :30:29.Tory government is abandoning, if not completely in practice, but
:30:30. > :30:32.certainly from a rhetorical point of view, the home not cover -- home
:30:33. > :30:42.owning democracy? I do think actually we have been
:30:43. > :30:47.slipping the wrong way with this one, I was housing minister,
:30:48. > :30:51.possibly my fault, the truth is, over many years, over decades, we
:30:52. > :30:55.have not had the foresight to do what's required and what's required
:30:56. > :30:59.is, I represent a new town but also a garden City, whirlwind garden
:31:00. > :31:04.city, if you want to solve the housing crisis, you have got to go
:31:05. > :31:10.out and build new garden cities, not... We had an announcement of
:31:11. > :31:15.2000 3000 homes, not that scale, a proper, hundreds out and people. --
:31:16. > :31:20.2000, 3000 homes. We need hundreds of thousands, places that are not
:31:21. > :31:24.housing at all. -- Welwyn Garden City. Unless we get serious, we will
:31:25. > :31:30.not solve it by sourcing a few extra homes in converted former industrial
:31:31. > :31:34.estates. It would make a start. We need something far more radical.
:31:35. > :31:37.House prices are eight times the average earnings in the UK, even if
:31:38. > :31:43.you built a large number of houses, 50,000, articulate inexpensive areas
:31:44. > :31:49.like London and the south-east, Andy is right, what is needed is social
:31:50. > :31:52.housing, or affordable housing, that really is affordable. We need our
:31:53. > :31:57.whole lot of different things, one thing we need to do, which we have
:31:58. > :32:00.failed to do in London, is stop foreign buyers who do not live in
:32:01. > :32:04.these houses buying up swathes of London, getting worse with the
:32:05. > :32:07.exchange rate, that seems to me to be ridiculous, we have empty
:32:08. > :32:10.building sitting there. That is something the Treasury should be
:32:11. > :32:15.doing tomorrow. We can also speed up. I am more confident about being
:32:16. > :32:18.able to speed up the process, we have developers sitting on large
:32:19. > :32:21.swathes of land, as I and down it, the White Paper will say that
:32:22. > :32:27.planning permission will lapse after two years if they don't get on with
:32:28. > :32:30.it. You will be support for smaller builders to come in and do something
:32:31. > :32:34.more innovative. Perhaps they will be filling in the sights. Enormous
:32:35. > :32:39.amounts of public sector land that we are not using properly which for
:32:40. > :32:43.various reasons within... I can see this being nodded at, within
:32:44. > :32:49.government departments, for various reasons, we can release them, basic
:32:50. > :32:52.things in the system. Both these things can help but let me put
:32:53. > :32:55.numbers on them, if we dealt with every single empty home in the
:32:56. > :33:01.country, 200,000, every bit of government land, that is reasonably
:33:02. > :33:07.available, 100,000, another 200,000 maybe. What we need do is to solve
:33:08. > :33:11.and ring down house prices, we need to 3 million homes built, and all
:33:12. > :33:17.these measures are welcome, and in Andy's consistency, more building on
:33:18. > :33:20.Brown field sites. -- constituency. There is a fundamental problem, not
:33:21. > :33:23.the extent to which you subsidise and help one group and the rest pay
:33:24. > :33:28.more because then you have to pay more. That is what has happened, the
:33:29. > :33:32.government... What you have to do instead of that is solve the supply
:33:33. > :33:39.and demand issue and you don't do that with little measures...
:33:40. > :33:42.Inevitably... We have smaller measures... Grant Shapps has
:33:43. > :33:47.admitted it will have a smaller impact, what would you do, would you
:33:48. > :33:50.intervene, if you were in government, would you intervene
:33:51. > :33:55.dramatically to bring down house prices, to boost supplies, so that
:33:56. > :33:59.builders and developers don't get quite the profits they get at the
:34:00. > :34:02.moment? This is a huge missed opportunity, this is what should be
:34:03. > :34:05.in the White Paper: council should be able to spend some of the
:34:06. > :34:09.receipts they get from right to buy, they should be able to borrow so
:34:10. > :34:14.they can build genuinely affordable houses within housing associations.
:34:15. > :34:17.In private renting we should have three year tenancies, so that people
:34:18. > :34:22.have security, and can cut down on homelessness and profiteering. What
:34:23. > :34:27.we should do, which is what the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, is
:34:28. > :34:33.doing, access to home ownership by having what he calls London living
:34:34. > :34:38.rent, so that rent is only a third of incomes, so they have some
:34:39. > :34:42.ability to save towards deposits. You were housing minister, why
:34:43. > :34:45.didn't you do some of this, why have you only come to this conclusion
:34:46. > :34:49.now, do you have to be in the job to realise you cannot do anything about
:34:50. > :34:52.it, or, as Andy Slaughter says, you don't want to do? Hundreds of people
:34:53. > :34:57.on the airwaves over the last two days talking about how insecurities
:34:58. > :35:02.in the private renting sector, they cannot get secure tenancy, moving
:35:03. > :35:05.dozens of times over a period of years, landlords making huge
:35:06. > :35:09.profits, with developers are the ones making money, small
:35:10. > :35:13.landlords... Why didn't you tackle these things? There is an advantage
:35:14. > :35:17.into perspective, looking back, you see some of the same ideas coming
:35:18. > :35:21.back. The ideas in the White Paper and the ideas presented by Andy
:35:22. > :35:25.there, some of them may help, there is no reason why you cannot have
:35:26. > :35:27.three year tenancies at the moment but what I have come to realise is
:35:28. > :35:33.none of these things individually are actually going to relieve the
:35:34. > :35:41.real pressure. Do nothing? No, do much more, that is my argument. An
:35:42. > :35:44.argument that we need, as will the Garden City has produced. Take a new
:35:45. > :35:51.area, decide to build a new community. -- Welwyn Garden City.
:35:52. > :35:55.Get to the kind of numbers that will create a big difference. The ideas
:35:56. > :35:58.in the paper are fine, Andy's ideas are fine, but in five years we will
:35:59. > :36:04.be sat here having the same argument again, it will not bring down prices
:36:05. > :36:07.to a point at which this incredible commodity, so important, your house,
:36:08. > :36:10.is actually affordable. We will have to leave it there, come back in five
:36:11. > :36:17.years, if not before(!) Our guest of the day,
:36:18. > :36:19.Camilla Cavendish, was head of the Number 10 Policy Unit
:36:20. > :36:21.under David Cameron. Well since Theresa May's team moved
:36:22. > :36:24.into Downing Street last July, pretty much all her predecessor's
:36:25. > :36:26.advisors were given Renewing our award-seeking series
:36:27. > :36:30.Westminster Village, here's Mark Lobel with a look
:36:31. > :36:43.inside that famous door. VOICEOVER: Last year, British
:36:44. > :36:47.politics was shaken up by a lot of things, as a result, new residents
:36:48. > :36:51.right here in Downing Street, barely a day has gone by without Theresa
:36:52. > :36:56.May in the news, we in Westminster are just as fascinated by the people
:36:57. > :37:00.who write her speeches, brief her, and craft her image. Who are they,
:37:01. > :37:06.what do they look like, how influential have they been? Two
:37:07. > :37:12.people dominate Theresa May's world, her two joint chiefs of staff, Nick
:37:13. > :37:16.Timothy and Fiona Hill, Fiona Hill worked vociferously on anti-slavery
:37:17. > :37:19.anti-trafficking laws while Theresa May's aid at the Home Office, she
:37:20. > :37:24.once told the Sunday politics are boss's view of focus groups. I think
:37:25. > :37:32.she would have a scepticism about them. And how her party needed to
:37:33. > :37:34.sell itself better. Talking about compassion and communities, values,
:37:35. > :37:38.the Conservatives have all of those, but they need to tell people that
:37:39. > :37:43.they do. Hugely influential Nick Timothy has but the just about
:37:44. > :37:46.managing centre stage as a pro leave voice, he has helped to shape the
:37:47. > :37:50.type of "Brexit" that the prime and estate is advocating and put grammar
:37:51. > :37:54.schools on the number ten timetable, after one is getting a similar
:37:55. > :37:58.message across on BBC London. We think there will be enough free
:37:59. > :38:03.schools opening in the next few years to meet the demand. Joanna
:38:04. > :38:08.Penn, affectionately known as JoJo is said to be a trusted link between
:38:09. > :38:12.the PM's office and the rest of the building. Adding the number ten
:38:13. > :38:17.policy unit, John Godfrey, formerly of investment bankers Niemann
:38:18. > :38:21.brothers and insurers legal and general, he is examining how people
:38:22. > :38:26.on low incomes can use insurers to guard against problems. His deputy,
:38:27. > :38:30.will Tanner, focuses on improving mental health support and public
:38:31. > :38:34.services. He hit the airwaves including prisons were better run
:38:35. > :38:38.privately after the government has signalled a move away from
:38:39. > :38:41.privatisation. -- Will Tanner. Fundamentally what we found is that
:38:42. > :38:46.the government's own figures show that that is not right. Time for the
:38:47. > :38:50.odd one out round now, is it the big speech on "Brexit" at Lancaster
:38:51. > :38:54.house? Foreign relations, Philadelphia? Nasty party speech?
:38:55. > :38:59.Juanfran speech? That's right, despite reports to the contrary, the
:39:00. > :39:03.nasty party speech is the only one from the PM that her director of
:39:04. > :39:07.strategy, Chris Wilkins, did not right, he was by the way Nick
:39:08. > :39:12.Timothy's boss once, he had a hand in some of those speeches. Who is in
:39:13. > :39:20.charge of keeping this lot fed? Theresa May's director of the mean
:39:21. > :39:23.occasions was Boris Johnson's top spin doctor during the first run for
:39:24. > :39:28.Mayor of London of setting up our own PR agency, and she has been on
:39:29. > :39:32.the box with an Robinson after campaigning for Waitrose, also a
:39:33. > :39:41.favourite of Theresa May's to be built in Sidcup. -- Katie Perrior.
:39:42. > :39:48.We didn't want another pound shop, we wanted something that would raise
:39:49. > :39:53.the tone. The PM's press secretary, on an ideological cross-country
:39:54. > :39:58.journey since working for the Lib Dems, then Iain Duncan Smith, then
:39:59. > :40:02.the Leave campaign, she is now by the PM's site for all of the press
:40:03. > :40:06.appearances and interviews, and coming soon, as the Daily Mail might
:40:07. > :40:13.put it, poacher turned gamekeeper currently on a FastTrack civil
:40:14. > :40:17.service course, he once had the home affairs brief when you got to know
:40:18. > :40:21.the PM, and should be ASBOs person within weeks. Those that can't wait,
:40:22. > :40:26.there is a sneak preview from the old edition of the week in
:40:27. > :40:31.Westminster on how good he think she is. If there were to be a crisis, a
:40:32. > :40:35.terrorist attack or something else, she would be the one, the Prime
:40:36. > :40:41.Minister, who the country would look to. -- and should be her
:40:42. > :40:45.spokesperson within weeks. It is not going to be Theresa May. Political
:40:46. > :40:50.director Alex Dawson, preps Theresa May ahead of PMQs, the half brother
:40:51. > :40:55.of Gabby Vert, you may remember her from a previous edition, David
:40:56. > :40:59.Cameron's press secretary. Don't forget political secretary Stephen
:41:00. > :41:04.Parkinson, who keeps Conservative HQ in check, and all selections and did
:41:05. > :41:07.rather well as head of ground operations for vote to leave, as he
:41:08. > :41:11.told Newsnight. In some of our best areas, we have leafleted every
:41:12. > :41:16.household in that Parliamentary constituency more than once, and we
:41:17. > :41:21.didn't even happen in the new election. A pattern emerges, Theresa
:41:22. > :41:28.May has swept up much of the top team, from the former residence, the
:41:29. > :41:33.Home Office. And from here, the Conservative Party headquarters, and
:41:34. > :41:36.in particular, the Conservative research Department. And one more
:41:37. > :41:41.activist scene working here made his way into number ten, and investment
:41:42. > :41:45.guru, pictured phone banking during a recent by-election campaign.
:41:46. > :41:49.Otherwise known as Philip Wamae, Theresa May's husband. -- otherwise
:41:50. > :42:18.known as Philip May. STUDIO: We're joined now by a man
:42:19. > :42:21.who often goes behind usually when the PM is holding
:42:22. > :42:40.a drinks party(!), you get other skills from the
:42:41. > :42:51.Whitehall full timers. You are a part of David Cameron's team in
:42:52. > :43:00.everybody needs to have a body close circle of advisers. David Cameron
:43:01. > :43:08.did the same. Another breadth in the team that you are getting different
:43:09. > :43:12.points of view being put forward. You have to trust them that they
:43:13. > :43:16.will not go to Kevin and leaked the information that they need to leak.
:43:17. > :43:22.Sometimes people let slip things, other times, they are telling you
:43:23. > :43:27.deliberately, it is a game, poacher and gamekeeper. Most cabinet
:43:28. > :43:33.ministers have only two special advisers, they have many more, there
:43:34. > :43:40.is an argument for more. In a public sector, 800 billion, 2 trillion
:43:41. > :43:43.plus. The fact we spent just 8 million on special advisers, a
:43:44. > :43:48.million more than under Labour, I remember David Cameron talking
:43:49. > :43:53.about... There were many more. Cheap political point, more effective
:43:54. > :43:58.government, if ministers had more advisers around them who they trust.
:43:59. > :44:03.You mentioned breadth of advice and advisers, do you think there is a
:44:04. > :44:07.problem, if Theresa May has sourced many of their advisers, taken from
:44:08. > :44:12.the Home Office, Office, that that is still the prism through which she
:44:13. > :44:15.is looking at running the country? Not necessarily, this is clearly a
:44:16. > :44:19.theme at the moment, just because you worked in the Home Office does
:44:20. > :44:23.not mean you see it through the prism, there is excellent civil
:44:24. > :44:26.servants, one of them running the "Brexit" unit. Civil servants are
:44:27. > :44:31.very versatile. The fact they have been in the Home Office for some of
:44:32. > :44:35.their career does not make it impossible. It is important that you
:44:36. > :44:38.source, actively seek, to be told the truth from a number of different
:44:39. > :44:41.sources, the danger of being Prime Minister is that people tell you
:44:42. > :44:47.what you want to hear. Gordon Brown it was said that the advice from the
:44:48. > :44:52.last person that he spoke to, can you get too much advice, and in the
:44:53. > :44:55.end, you are not making decisions, because Theresa May has been
:44:56. > :44:59.compared, rightly or wrongly, to Gordon Brown, by being cautious and
:45:00. > :45:03.slow about decisions? That was Gordon Brown in Downing Street as
:45:04. > :45:09.Prime Minister, spoke because of the election that never was and collapse
:45:10. > :45:13.economy, in the Treasury, he was much more effective as a Chancellor,
:45:14. > :45:17.this means you Ed Balls, Damien McBride, Charlie Wi and, you have to
:45:18. > :45:25.listen to your advisers, you have to be bred there to take advice that
:45:26. > :45:29.you do not like. -- Charlie Whelan. -- you have to be prepared to take
:45:30. > :45:44.advice. You figure out quickly who is good
:45:45. > :45:48.and who is not, you delegate to them when possible, but for your own
:45:49. > :45:52.political survival, you need to keep an eye on everything and know where
:45:53. > :45:56.all of the bodies are buried and you are taking ten or 20 decisions a
:45:57. > :46:00.day. Sometimes, you do not have time to get all of the advice. That comes
:46:01. > :46:03.down to instinct and judgment which is one of the characteristics a good
:46:04. > :46:08.Prime Minister has. Does she take too much advice from Nick Timothy
:46:09. > :46:13.and Fiona Hill, the two year prize is that we saw at the beginning from
:46:14. > :46:22.grammar schools, to the speech on the steps of Downing Street. I don't
:46:23. > :46:25.know, I'm not inside, I only know what I read in the papers and some
:46:26. > :46:29.nuggets of information but there is a danger on relying too much on a
:46:30. > :46:34.few people but she has had them a long time. They are very loyal to
:46:35. > :46:38.her and know her mind, I do not think it is brand-new, I don't think
:46:39. > :46:41.she invented ideas overnight but they've taken a long time to come
:46:42. > :46:46.into fruition and she is delivering -- they are delivering them for her.
:46:47. > :46:51.Advisers can come famous in their own right, like Alistair Campbell,
:46:52. > :46:55.is it a danger to avoid at all costs? It can happen in a crisis,
:46:56. > :47:02.when everything is going OK, it's fine, Alistair Campbell then having
:47:03. > :47:05.a profile. Around Iraq and before that, it became a problem. When it
:47:06. > :47:10.becomes a negative story, that is when you need to move them on. It is
:47:11. > :47:14.very hard, you build up an emotional relationship. They have been through
:47:15. > :47:18.so much together. The Prime Minister does not like to lose a special
:47:19. > :47:22.adviser, but they would rather that than lose their own jobs. When is
:47:23. > :47:27.the next Tring 's party at Downing Street? -- drinking party. Thank
:47:28. > :47:31.you. Kevin Maguire. Let's turn to Labour now,
:47:32. > :47:33.because the Shadow Cabinet has been meeting this morning to decide how
:47:34. > :47:36.the party should vote on the Article 50 bill when it
:47:37. > :47:39.has its third reading tomorrow. Here's what Shadow Foreign Secretary
:47:40. > :47:49.Emily Thornberry had to say For the Labour Party, this is a very
:47:50. > :47:53.hard choice. We campaigned to remain in the EU and fierce
:47:54. > :47:58.internationalists, and we believe in the EU. However, more important than
:47:59. > :48:01.anything else, we are Democrats and campaigned to remain in the EU but
:48:02. > :48:03.the British public said that they wanted to leave. We have our
:48:04. > :48:04.instructions. We're joined now by our deputy
:48:05. > :48:12.political editor John Pienaar. So, and pick exactly what Labour
:48:13. > :48:17.will do with the Brexit vote? What has been decided by the Shadow
:48:18. > :48:21.Cabinet is that Labour MPs and Shadow ministers will be under
:48:22. > :48:26.strict orders to vote in favour of the Brexit bill, to send this piece
:48:27. > :48:30.of law, which gets Brexit started on its way with their votes behind it.
:48:31. > :48:33.That means, you could say with certainty, that the rebellion that
:48:34. > :48:38.we saw when this piece of law first appeared only a few days ago, next
:48:39. > :48:43.time will get even bigger. Do you think it will be bigger than the 47
:48:44. > :48:49.MPs? 60 Labour MPs either voted against or abstained. I think that
:48:50. > :48:52.it will grow. You see more big figures leaving Jeremy Corbyn's
:48:53. > :48:56.front bench team, I'm thinking of Clive Lewis, Shadow Business
:48:57. > :49:00.Secretary, he has had doubts about it for a while. Jeremy Corbyn said
:49:01. > :49:05.that he was "A lenient man", I think those were the words he used, are
:49:06. > :49:08.you surprised that they've gone with a three line whip, an instruction to
:49:09. > :49:12.vote the way that the leadership says? I do not think there was a
:49:13. > :49:16.happy option available, he is something of a Eurosceptic himself,
:49:17. > :49:21.he campaigned to remain without a great show with enthusiasm. They
:49:22. > :49:27.cannot be seen to stand in the way of the Brexit Bill, but for some it
:49:28. > :49:31.is a step too far and they will rebel. Jeremy Corbyn may have to see
:49:32. > :49:36.some of those ministers off the front bench, there is no avoiding
:49:37. > :49:42.it. And Diane Abbott, a close ally, Shadow Home Secretary. She was ill
:49:43. > :49:46.for the key vote before, and some of her colleagues felt that she was
:49:47. > :49:50.crying off because she could not bring herself to vote for triggering
:49:51. > :49:55.Article 50. As far as we can see, she seems to have recovered over
:49:56. > :50:01.whatever it was that failed her and kept it away... Brexit flu? I think
:50:02. > :50:07.it is a harsh and in charitable way of describing her that way. You
:50:08. > :50:11.would never do that. Absolutely not. I think that you will see her voting
:50:12. > :50:18.for the bill, however unhappily, because in her constituency they
:50:19. > :50:24.voted overwhelmingly to remain. As it up to Jeremy Corbyn to fill the
:50:25. > :50:27.gaps in his team, who are vacated in their positions? It was tough enough
:50:28. > :50:33.last time, we saw a wave of vacancies, and filling them was
:50:34. > :50:39.difficult. We may have the same problem again but he may hope that
:50:40. > :50:47.in getting rid of these people, he can do as soon as is. They are left
:50:48. > :50:51.with a divided party, bit by elections coming up in Stoke and
:50:52. > :50:56.Copeland, they could become near impossible. It is ironic that the
:50:57. > :51:01.Conservative Party is virtually united! You always thought of the
:51:02. > :51:08.Tory party as the party with the walking split, the San Andreas sized
:51:09. > :51:11.rift in it over Europe but now it is Labour. And the little Democrats!
:51:12. > :51:15.They know where they are and they are united, they will stick to it at
:51:16. > :51:20.least. If they can appeal to their core vote, they will think that it
:51:21. > :51:23.is a job well done. John Pienaar, thank you.
:51:24. > :51:26.Time now to find out the answer to our quiz.
:51:27. > :51:28.The question was, what parliamentary tradition did Speaker Bercow
:51:29. > :51:31.yesterday announce would be abolished? Was it...
:51:32. > :51:42.The ceremonial mace, bowing to the Speaker, the snuff box for MPs, or
:51:43. > :51:46.the Woakes warn by the clerks? -- the wigs. I wish that it was the
:51:47. > :51:49.snuffbox but it is wigs. Yes, the speaker made more than one
:51:50. > :51:52.controversial statement yesterday, because he irked some MPs -
:51:53. > :51:54.yes, more of them - with his announcement
:51:55. > :51:56.that the Commons clerks, who advise him on conduct
:51:57. > :52:06.and constitutional issues, Colleagues will be pleased to learn
:52:07. > :52:10.that this change will, in the longer term, save money. It will, I
:52:11. > :52:15.believe, be welcomed by those clerks who serve all of forward to serving
:52:16. > :52:20.at the table, and it will, moreover in my view, which I recognise may
:52:21. > :52:28.not be universally shared, conveyed to the public a marginally less
:52:29. > :52:34.stuffy and forbidding image of this chamber at work. The new regime
:52:35. > :52:35.colleagues will start soon after we return from the short February
:52:36. > :52:38.recess. So that was John Bercow
:52:39. > :52:40.announcing the end of wigs Well we're joined now by one man
:52:41. > :52:44.who's likes as much speaker-related controversy as possible -
:52:45. > :52:46.because it gives him plenty to write about -
:52:47. > :52:56.it's the Times sketchwriter Welcome to the Daily Politics, what
:52:57. > :53:01.is wrong with him banning their wigs? The clerks apparently asked
:53:02. > :53:04.him for this, they find them itchy and scratchy, but it is the
:53:05. > :53:09.definition of Parliament, they see the wigs and realise that there is
:53:10. > :53:12.authority and 200 odd years of tradition. Jacob Rees-Mogg quite
:53:13. > :53:16.rightly spoke up for horsehair and said without it, it looks like the
:53:17. > :53:20.office. Isn't it stuffy and out of place, isn't it part of John
:53:21. > :53:28.Bercow's modernisation which has been popular with MPs? I look
:53:29. > :53:31.forward to a lot of things from him, like the speaker having his
:53:32. > :53:34.procession through central lobby and people being told to take off our
:53:35. > :53:40.hats when he walks past I'm looking forward to getting rid of all of
:53:41. > :53:46.those! Are you wedded to the wig? I think that the speaker should have
:53:47. > :53:50.won, John Bercow said it is not him, but it makes you anonymous. And
:53:51. > :53:55.Parliament and changing. Does it add a level of authority and gravitas?
:53:56. > :53:59.That it is hundreds of years of tradition? You are doing a brilliant
:54:00. > :54:03.job in defending it but it is hopeless, the clerks want to get rid
:54:04. > :54:06.of the wigs, it is a bit of a throwback and looks ridiculous. They
:54:07. > :54:10.will keep their gowns, but we are spending a lot of money on horsehair
:54:11. > :54:13.and I honestly think that sometimes we need to make small changes to
:54:14. > :54:20.move forward. What austerity has brought us to! John Bercow has been
:54:21. > :54:26.a busy bee, dealing with various points of order. And also one from
:54:27. > :54:30.Emily Thornbury, Shadow Foreign Secretary, who protested to the
:54:31. > :54:34.speaker John Bercow after the Prime Minister's mocking of her married
:54:35. > :54:41.name and title. The Shadow Foreign Secretary is
:54:42. > :54:52.shouting at you Balmy, yes, Lady Nucci, by me. Is it in order for the
:54:53. > :54:56.Prime Minister to refer to a member of this house not by her name but
:54:57. > :55:01.the name of her husband. I have never been a lady, and it will take
:55:02. > :55:04.a great deal more than being married to a night of the realm in order for
:55:05. > :55:10.me to become one. I did not in any way attempt to be
:55:11. > :55:16.disorderly in this house, and I have to say... If the honourable lady is
:55:17. > :55:20.concerned about the reference I made to her, then of course I will
:55:21. > :55:24.apologise for that. I have to say that for the last 36 years, I've
:55:25. > :55:27.been referred to by my husband's name.
:55:28. > :55:42.That was an interesting and polite -ish spat, was she right to make it
:55:43. > :55:51.a point of order with Theresa May? She trades as Emily Thornbury, I
:55:52. > :55:54.don't know if she has booked a restaurant and her different name,
:55:55. > :55:59.but she is right to complain, but what is interesting is it festered
:56:00. > :56:04.for 20 minutes, it was not an immediate point of order. Emily
:56:05. > :56:14.Thornbury went to see John Bercow, she clearly sat stewing and decided
:56:15. > :56:22.to make it an issue. You do not address anyone by name, but Theresa
:56:23. > :56:30.May made her point and apologised, she got a mild slap. Isn't it
:56:31. > :56:34.embarrassing that she was forced to apologise Britton you saw Ben
:56:35. > :56:39.Bradshaw's reaction there. But was it mocking for her to refer to her
:56:40. > :56:44.in that way? Slightly, but that is the nature of the chamber. When you
:56:45. > :56:48.see two highly able women able to have a bit of a go at each other
:56:49. > :56:57.with a reasonable sense of humour, that is a good thing. Good-humoured?
:56:58. > :57:02.And I'm sure that lady Nugee will let it. She felt that she wanted to
:57:03. > :57:05.make a point of it. It gets to her, in a certain way, but everyone
:57:06. > :57:10.should have a sense of humour about it. I think that they were all
:57:11. > :57:14.laughing in the end. What about John Bercow, and his fate? At the
:57:15. > :57:18.beginning of the programme we talked about whether he overstepped the
:57:19. > :57:22.mark. Alec Shelbrooke said that he should consider his position, how do
:57:23. > :57:25.you consider it? There are people saying it, there has been an
:57:26. > :57:32.anti-John Bercow faction for a while, before the general election,
:57:33. > :57:35.they tried to force him out. He may try to get a few things off his
:57:36. > :57:41.chest, but I understand in the housing bill statement before we
:57:42. > :57:47.came on, Sajid Javid said he hoped he would be the big news today, to
:57:48. > :57:50.which John Bercow said, he was glad that he made his announcement first.
:57:51. > :57:55.There may be complaints, if there is a complaint from the palace about
:57:56. > :57:58.it, it becomes serious. When you miss him if he were to go? What
:57:59. > :58:03.would the sketch writers had to write about all the time? Possibly
:58:04. > :58:10.Lindsay Hoyle with his voice as rich as black pudding, or crisp Bryant,
:58:11. > :58:14.or Jacob Rees-Mogg, a win-win. Donald Trump is making a fall of
:58:15. > :58:19.himself, I do not think John Bercow needs to do the same! I think that
:58:20. > :58:22.John Bercow keeps doing it, making a fool of himself, we are debating
:58:23. > :58:27.whether clerks should get rid of them accurately because of the
:58:28. > :58:30.sanctity of Parliament, and this guy who is great for the sketch writers,
:58:31. > :58:34.but he keeps making a fool of himself. He will lose support from
:58:35. > :58:40.even those who have been fans? He has support from the Labour Party
:58:41. > :58:44.because they love having that with Donald Trump. There was cross-party
:58:45. > :58:50.support for getting rid of him in 2009, but now it is just the Tories.
:58:51. > :58:52.Thank you, Camilla, for being our guest of the day.
:58:53. > :58:55.The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.
:58:56. > :58:58.I'll be back at 11:30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage
:58:59. > :59:02.of Prime Minister's Questions, do join us then.
:59:03. > :59:04.Oh, my goodness me, I don't like the look of that.
:59:05. > :59:07.The Robshaws are going back in time again...