20/02/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Members of the House of Lords debate the legislation that paves the way

We'll assess whether peers have the numbers, and the stomach,

The Chancellor is under pressure to soften changes to business rates

in England as companies complain they're facing huge

Ukip leader Paul Nuttall is under pressure after two Ukip officials

in Merseyside resign from the party saying he showed "crass

insensitivity" about the Hillsborough disaster.

And should the National Trust be celebrating the gay

Aren't there already enough right on charities out there,

treating us like primary school children, telling us what to think

about the politically correct matters of the moment?

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

of the programme today is the Labour MP and former Home Secretary,

Alan Johnson, and the Conservative MP for Wealden, Nusrat Ghani.

First to the Brexit Bill which allows the government

to trigger Article 50, the formal process for

This week the House of Lords get their turn to debate

the process, after MPs passed it without amendment

But the bill is not expected to get an easy ride in the second chamber.

The EU Notification of Withdrawal Bill will start its passage

through the House of Lords today, with around 190 peers registered

to speak on the two-day debate on the general principles

It will then be sent for detailed scrutiny

If the bill is not amended, then it could theoretically be

approved by the Lords at Third Reading on 7th March,

But two amendments seem to be gathering support

amongst the Lords - one on the status of EU nationals

currently living in the UK, and a second insisting Parliament

gets a "meaningful" vote on any exit deal before it is agreed.

If either of these amendments pass, then the bill is sent

back to the Commons, which can vote to remove any

amendments, before the whole process starts again.

If that leads to an extended period when the bill ping-pongs

between the two houses, that could delay the triggering

of Article 50, something Prime Minister Theresa May has

In the event of deadlock, the only way to force the bill

through is by evoking the Parliament Act, but that can

only be done after the whole process has been held up for a year.

Yesterday, former Labour Business Secretary Lord Mandelson

took to the airwaves to encourage his fellow members

of the House of Lords to not give in too quickly.

What we're saying is that what Parliament must agree

is to say, look at the final deal, look at the outcome

of the negotiations, and if it's not good for Britain,

if it's potentially going to be a disaster for our economy,

send the government back to the negotiating table.

Do we then get a long period of ping-pong or does

the House of Lords say, well, hold on a second,

the referendum was clear, the Commons is clear,

we are the unelected house, it's time to give up?

At the end of the day the House of Commons must prevail

But I hope the House of Lords will not throw in the towel early.

We are joined now from the Lords lobby in Parliament

by the Shadow Leader of the Lords, Baroness Angela Smith,

and by the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Lords,

Welcome to both of you. Peter Mandelson said yesterday that the

Lord should not throw in the towel too quickly, do you agree? We

haven't even started the process yet and something you said at the

beginning it we would delay the process, this is not a delayed. Us

debating the issue, looking at amendment and possibly passing them

is part of the process. While there were not any amendment in the House

of Commons, there were changes made and the government gave guarantees

on certain issues and I think those guarantees should be part of the

bill and not just from a government say-so. We have seen with the child

with issue, you can't always trust the government to say, we are going

to do something, putting Parliamentary engagement and a

meaningful vote on the face of the bill would be a sensible way forward

and I'm hopeful, I would like the government to say, we have agreed to

do that, let's put it on the bill and we proved we need to keep our

word on it. If the amendments put forward on the meaningful

Parliamentary vote to dump some time before a final deadline, and also on

guarantees for EU nationals, if they were to fail in the Lords, would you

vote against the bill? -- to come. No, we would do our best to get

amendments, but it has been made very clear across the house from all

sides that we're going to sabotage, block this bill but we do think it

would be completely wrong, and constitutionally irresponsible for

us just today to Theresa May, here it is, go of four two years and come

back with a deal. They should be publicly engagement throughout the

process. I am optimistic that the government should, because they have

said they will put it on the face of the bill. Would you vote against the

Brexit bill if those two amendment I mentioned failed? I don't do it will

come of that, I think we will be successful in getting them through

also and that is the role of the House of Lords, to ask the

government and the Commons to think again if we think they have got it

wrong. We clearly do think they have on these issues and I'm sure that

the majority view in the House of Lords. So you think the numbers are

there and the amendments will pass, on a meaningful Parliamentary vote

at the end of the negotiations which would give Parliament the chance to

say to the government, you have to go back and renegotiate because we

don't think it's a good enough deal, and also on the guaranteed rights of

EU citizens. If the Lord part of those amendments and the Commons

rejects them, would you beat your heels in when it came back to the

Lords? As Angela has said, the view of the Commons prevails and

ping-pong, even when we have had it repeatedly which we did under the

house arrest proposals under the Blair government, is a relatively

quick procedure. How far the Lord will resist it, I'm not sure, but

whatever they do, the government is under no threat whatsoever that this

bill will not get through in plenty of time before the 31st of March. So

even if you were to dig your heels in, you still think the timetable

would be kept but you anticipate some form of ping-pong? I do

anticipate some form, absolutely. Do you agree that it could go back

several times? It is difficult to know or judge that yet but just

sending something to the comment is part ping-pong. I have to say, the

fact that the government had said this deadline for the of March and

to rush the bill through, it was this government who spent three

months in the court allowing judges to debate the issue at great expense

when we could have spent that time in Parliament. I don't see any

difficulty with the deadline having been set by the end of March but it

has been a truncated process. We are likely to be here beyond midnight

tonight and tomorrow night, possibly next week as well so we will do our

job, we will not be forced into not properly debating this because of

the government truncated timetable. You said you'd think those

amendments will pass, otherwise you are happy to trigger Article 50?

They are not the only amendments we will be pushing hard, there is an

amendment to give the people of final say in a referendum when we

know what the Brexit deal is and we will work very hard across the House

of Lords to do that. There are other amendments around reporting and

various other issues which we support as well. Those two that you

mentioned are ones where the government is clearly vulnerable but

I would not are the are the only ones. Do you agree they would be

vulnerable on a second referendum at the end of the process? I don't

think it is likely to pass, we will wait and see. Who knows what will

happen in the next two years? The important thing at the moment is to

get a process going by which there is Parliamentary engagement. If

there is to be a meaningful vote... What does that mean for you? That we

vote before the European Parliament votes and we have the information

throughout the process but if the deal is not a good one or it is

looking and unsatisfactory position for the UK, that will be something

that becomes evident over some period of time and that is why the

parliament engagement is so important. What do you want for the

government to write on the face of the bill? So you could keep going

back to the drawing board? You can't keep going back, you would have to

ask the other European countries to extend the time all 27 of them. The

key to this throughout the process the government should be engaging

with Parliament and using the expertise from Parliament to try to

get the best deal possible. It would be pretty drastic if, at the end of

two years, the government and parliament was saying this is too

awful. The key is to have engagement to get the best deal. Do you

understand those who say that the Lords should not have any role in

terms of holding up what they see as the will of the people? I understand

that view but as we both said, we are not hold it up, there is a big

distinction between amending bill under normal timetable and holding

it up. We are going to be amending the bill. If the House of Lords

cannot ask the to think again it might as well pack up its bags go

home. Without being rude, you can do that for the moment! Not until

midnight! Do you have sympathy on their dues, White shouldn't the

Lords and ladies scrutinise this bill and amend it? -- why shouldn't.

It is their right to sue but the amendments they spoke about, about

EU citizens, assurances have been given by the Prime Minister and the

Minister, these will be prioritised in negotiating the best possible

deal. It could take two years. But you also heard from the Liberal

leader that they would like to negotiate for as long as it takes to

get the best deal possible and then have a number of referendum until

the Lib Dems are happy with whatever outcome they think best suits the

country. The country has decided and we have an extensive debate in the

House of Commons and it has passed with an overall majority to enable

us to trigger Article 50 and begin these negotiations and to see what

kind of deal we can get. In a way, they are at least trying to

scrutinise and amend the bill in the way the opposition failed to do in

the Commons, there was a blank cheque given to the government. We

did try. Of course we tried. It is interesting that they picked out

these two issues because I think these were the issues, I said it on

the date the bill was published, I expected a coalition across party

lines. People have been living and working here and made their homes

here and they should not be used as a bargaining chip in this. I hope

the government thinks again about that and the other issue, can EU

countries say, yes of course British National in our country will be

entitled to stay? We will be a non-EU country and the policy of all

EU countries is that non-EU countries are decided by each

country so how can they collectively make that decision? The best thing

to do is to take the moral high ground and say, that is what we are

doing with your citizens, and to start the negotiations on I think

that fruitful and positive line. What do you make of the intervention

from Peter Mandelson, encouraging his colleagues in the House of Lords

not to throw the towel into early? He is right, it is common sense.

These two amendments are the important ones. There are views on

all sides of a house about them and of course it is the job of the

Lords. I think they should be elected but I agree there should be

a second chamber and its job is to scrutinise. That is what they are

doing. Do you think there will be a backlash against the Lords? How

would you feel if they hold it up? We will have to see what happened in

the debate but fundamentally we have to reflect the will of the people

and the democratically elected parliamentarians have had a huge

amount of debate, beyond the two weeks we have debated the issue, and

the House of Lords needs to reflect on how it should scrutinise. I have

confidence they will do the right thing. Otherwise? They have to

evaluate what they are there to do. There will be ping-pong but this is

the term for sending it back and forth, but it will be once or twice.

And you heard it from the two leaders, there is a large tranche of

crossbenchers but the mood in the House of Lords is that they will not

hold it up. Also because the mood in the country if they do not want this

held up. Over 62% of people want us to crack on and for article 50 to be

triggered. And will be MPs continue to vote for this if there is

ping-pong? Labour and others. I was disappointed that the Conservatives,

a few rebels but they kept their heads down. This is a good way to

start and I hope they think again. If the Lords makes this decision.

But in the end, I confidently predict that on March the 7th this

will go through. And in terms of the amendments, should the government

just accept those two? They have already said that they will

prioritise ensuring the security of EU citizens in this country but we

need the same for British citizens overseas as well, we have to make

sure they are also feeling secure. What about a unilateral... This is

the negotiations that will begin. Why not have that stance before the

negotiations start? We also need to ensure that our British citizens in

Europe have the same security. So they are a bargaining chip? These

are negotiations, they will begin when the trigger article 50. That

talk about Tony Blair because not everybody welcomed his intervention.

Was it a case of the right message and the wrong messenger?

The message Tony Blair was putting forward was it is right to trigger

Article 50, the will of the people must prevail was his opening remark.

It is very much my view as well. As this moves on, you'll see, there'll

come a time when the British people will have a choice between leaving

the European Union and on the terms of the negotiation if that's

presented, we've been assured in Parliament by David Davis, Theresa

May, Liam Fox that they can negotiate terms that will not be

detrimental at all to Britain. We'll have the same, there's numerous

quotes about this. And you believe that? They've said it to Parliament.

Tony Blair also said and implied and hinted heavily, Labour didn't oppose

a process that he felt shouldn't have gone ahead at all. That

provoked him making the speech he Z That's a misreading of his speech.

His opening remarks were the will of the people must prevail. He did go

on about the Labour Party? Jeremy Corbyn and Tony Blair's views are

particular. Jeremy Corbyn said his intervention wasn't helpful? It was.

Not least of all because Tony mentioned the fact it must be up to

Europe to reform as well. If, at the end of this package, Europe's still

the same rules on free movement, people will choose whatever the

alternative is to staying in the EU. There's been a rethink in Europe

about these things. Do you think, is that what you're relying on? They'll

have a rethink on benefits? That campaign changed from the day the

Office of National Statistics recorded net migration at its

biggest ever level. Much enbiger than after 2004 when the accession

countries came in. A record of 333,000. You could feel the

arguments. But Labour have to take response ebb I will for not having

transitional arrangements from the start? 333,000 is high are than

after 2004. You're saying the number's all right? After six years

of Government, Theresa May said we'd get it down to the tens of

thousands. And you'll be able to watch

all of the Lords debate on Article The question for today is:

which group does Microsoft founder Bill Gates think should be

taxed in future? a) Schoolchildren, b) Robots,

c) Pets or d) Graffiti artists? Alan and Nusrat will

give us the correct answer. And you you can't confer! Of course

you can! Business rates are taxes paid

on non-residential property, So far, so uncontroversial,

except in England the government has decided to change the way the tax

is calculated and the resulting revaluation - the first since 2010 -

has resulted in quite substantial increases - and decreases -

in the amounts companies Among the organisations which have

been expressing concerns is the Federation of Small

Businesses. Their spokesman is Alan Soady

and he's here to speak to us. Welcome, according to the Treasury

minister responsible for this, you're scaremongering? We need to

look at the reality of the Government's figures on this. About

one in four businesses under the Government's figures will be seeing

an increase in their business rate as a result of this re-evaluation.

That's about in excess of half a million firms around the country. It

is true to say that there are going to be winners as well as losers in

this re-evaluation. Three in four firms either will see their rates

not really changing very much or will see them going down. There are

more winners than losers? On the Government's figures, it's true. The

problem is within the significant minority that are seeing their rates

going up, as the bills are now landing on doormats, we are seeing

some real anomalies of this business rate systems. Some smaller business

in the areas where property values have disproportionately gone up in

recent years, they're seeing astronomical increases. But this is

a re-evaluation. That is what happens. There are winners and

losers. Up for some, down for most, it seems. So, it's just what

happens? The problem is just that it is so, so disproportionate. We've

talked to the Government for a long time about this. Going back to last

year's budget when George Osborne was Chancellor, there was a

concession which took hundreds of thousands of the smallest firms out

of the system. That's how there are so many not affected by all of this.

For those that are, this is all based on a system that decides how

much someone has to pay in their business taxes based upon an art

trinotional value of the rentable value of their property. We've

examples of even where someone's rent may have gone up about 25%, yet

the rantable value, according to the officials for business rates say

perhaps it is in the region of 60% or 70%. The bottom line is it does

mean there is a danger, I know this from some members of the Federation

of Small Businesses who I've spoken to personally, there are some who

genuinely are thinking they may have to close their business inmaterial

or go online and close down their shop. Not just shops. There's been a

focus on high treats about B, pub, manufacturing firms affected by

this too. If you're hear that can anecdotally, do you get any sense

Philip ham and will soften the blow? In the longer term, there is a need

for radical reform around business rates. The whole system is quite

out-Taited. Doesn't take into account online businesses. For the

here and now, we've the budget coming up next month. Philip Hammond

has the opportunity to do something. One, welt' do some survey work this

week with our members, now they're getting their bills through the

door, we can try to build up a more accurate picture of the affect, how

many people are affected by what proportion. We'll pass those results

to the Governments. Where there are pockets of the country, London is

particularly badly affected but not just a London thing. We hope there

could be relief put in place for people seeing astronomical

increases. Should that relief be put forward? Depending on the outcome.

There will be winners and losers. I have a number of small businesses in

my constituency who are alarmed by what they're reading in the press.

We have a reduction of 2.5%. We're lucky. If there is a business within

my constituency, they'll see a sharper rise than expected that

support is available. If there are business rate rises of 11 or 12%, in

Philip Philip own constituency, and Theresa May's, how can businesses

afford that? We don't know that. The rates are coming through in two or

three weeks. That's what has been reported. Three quarters of the

businesses won't see a raise. 6,000 businesses will see complete rate

relief. There are winners and losers across the whole spectrum. If there

are tweets which need to be made, I hope we can have that conversation

with the right department and Chancellor. Some of these areas are

seeing a starker increase than expected. That's the point, winners

and losers. Areas like yours will probably be fine? City of Culture

will see rates go down. It is London and some of the wealthier areas that

will be hit? I've sympathy with the Government on this. Re-evaluation of

rates is never a happy event. I was in Government when we did it. The

mistake this Government made, they put it off ahead of the 2015...

We're having a root and branch look at how this works. They haven't had

it. What you're getting now is the result of that, both delaying it to

the extent you've County Council elections this year. Many people are

worried about the effect there. No, we need to have that root and branch

effect. How long would that take? The issue is, local authorities

don't set the business rates. Government does. Look at

authorities, at the moment, can draw down 50% of it. A recent

development, to fund local services. From 2020, they will be able to keep

100%. In places like Hull, we want to make sure the system has been

reformed before we take 100%. Obviously. Exactly. Which is why

that root and branch reform has to take place. When should that happen

or not at all? Let's see what happens in the next couple of weeks

when these bills come through and conversations will happen between

appropriate ministers and the Chancellor. In Wealdon we're lucky,

we'll have generally, a minus 2.5%. There will always be winners and

losers. There's still a fund available. But if the losers were in

your constituency, would you be as happy as you seem to be? It is not

about being happy. I have to make sure all of my kiss are doing well.

If it's a company which employs a lot of people in the centre of town,

they get a higher business rate than someone like Amazon or something who

does all their businesses online. Online businesses are not being hit?

This is an issue. How to keep high streets thriving. We need to keep

people shopping out and about. Less online. That's not going to be

comfort for those businesses which go bust. Some will just shut up shop

now. We don't know yet. There is another issue when you're trying to

represent the concerns of your businesses and constituents, where

they come across media which occasionally overextends what is

going to happen. You agree with ministerial colleagues that fake

news is in existence? Not at all. We have to wait to see what happens to

these businesses. There is a fund available for those struggling. And

you can still appeal. These changes happen every seventh year. Are you

worried it might cost you seats in London and the south-east if people

are badly hit? We'll have to wait and see and communicate any issues

to the Chancellor. Two Ukip officials have

resigned from the party over the row about the 1989

Hillsborough disaster. Last week, the Ukip leader and Stoke

by-election candidate Paul Nuttall had to apologise after his website

falsely stated that he had lost Mr Nuttall pinned the blame

on a member of his staff saying The Ukip donor Arron Banks

decided to get involved - tweeting that he was "sick to death"

of hearing about Hillsborough. Our political correspondent

Tom Bateman has the latest. Give us the latest details? What

happened after this controversy which happened while Mr Knuttal was

a candidate in the stoke by-election and a raft of criticism for Mr Banks

over the comments he made on Twitter was two regional officials for Ukip

in Liverpool and Merseyside said they were going to resign because of

all this. They are Stuart Monkham and Adam heath rings ton, the chair

in Merseyside. They cited the unprofessional and crass

insensitivity of the comment and handling of those figures and of Mr

Knuttal in particular, the handling of the events about what had

happened on his website. Having to apologise for that false claim on

it. Potentially why this is so damaging is Mr Knuttal had said all

of this was a smear by Ukip's political opponents, people wishing

to do them ill. Particularly with by-elections upcoming. Yet, here we

have two people from Mr Knuttal's home turf resigning. Ukip, this

afternoon, are trying to play this down at a national level saying

think understand the pressures put locally on those two officials. They

say they don't blame them for resigning. There will be more

resignations following this? Certainly one Ukip source on

Merseyside suggested to us that there could be more resignations

that follow. Certainly you might expect if the chairman of a branch

had gone that others may follow in their wake. Of course, we'll have to

wait and see. The wider question here is about Ukip's leadership,

particularly after the summer where they appeared to lunch from one

crisis to the next but appeared to get on to a stead year footing with

the election of Paul Nuttall. A lot will depend what happens locally.

We'll have by-elections later this week. Many people will read much

into the fortunes of all split cat parties as we see the results of

those. An interesting few days. It will no doubt have an impact on Mr

Nuttall's campaign in Stoke? That's the big question. That campaign

continues. We're a few days away from Stoke-on-Trent. But also, there

is a by-election in Copeland where Ukip are standing as well. This is

not just a particular issue about his cand Si there but Ukip's

fortunes elsewhere in the country. Not just in a by-election. Thank you

very much. Paul Nuttall is, of course, standing

in this week's by-election in Stoke, where Labour are defending

a 5,000 majority over Ukip. Adam Fleming reports now

from the campaign trail. I caught up with the Ukip lead and

that ended in Stoke-on-Trent Central before he found himself on the ropes

with his party over claims he made about the Hillsborough disaster.

Unfortunately I think many feel that they've been left behind

I think what they need is a national voice,

someone who can stand up in the House of Commons and be

listened to, and I believe I'm that man to put Stoke-on-Trent

To make Ukip look opportunistic, the Labour candidate says

I live just outside the city in a pit village called Silverdale.

I've been here for 13 years, it's where my family are,

it's where my daughter was born, and I consider myself

Although he's had problems too, apologising for tweets deemed to be

rude, sexist and insulting to supporters of Brexit.

Sarah Olney of the Lib Dems won the last by-election in this

Parliament and she spoke to us while their candidate was at work,

Well, his major issue is just standing up for the NHS.

We're not hearing that from the Tories, they want

We know that the NHS has been in crisis,

particularly over the winter, and we just feel Labour are not

providing the opposition they need to be providing to this

While the Tories and the Greens are focusing on the economy.

One of my key priorities is to create more opportunities

for Stoke, more jobs, and not just more jobs, better jobs,

better skilled jobs, better paid jobs for local people.

The Green Party's campaign is about insecure employment,

we want to get people better jobs in the area, and also

The city, which is really more like a handful of villages joined

together, has been rock-solid safe for Labour for much of the last

century but has become increasingly less so over recent decades.

A big majority voted to leave the EU which is why Ukip

This is also the home to the inventor of posh pots,

Josiah Wedgwood and, much more my style, Robbie Williams.

I don't know the answer to that, I know the tune in my head

but I don't know the words, I'm afraid.

And then I go and spoil it all by saying something stupid...

If there's somebody calling me on, she's the one.

I almost feel sorry for the candidates!

And a full list of all the candidates standing

in the Stoke Central by-election is on your screens now,

and can be found on our website at bbc.co.uk/politics.

The Stoke Central by-election is not the only big event

As we have just discussed, the Article 50 debate kicks off

in the Lords today and will continue over the next two weeks.

Later today, the Commons will discuss two online petitions

One opposing it with nearly 1.9 million names.

And another supporting it with around a third

On Tuesday, the Women and Equalities Committee

publishes its latest report on the Gender Pay Gap.

On Wednesday, of course, it's Prime Minister's Questions,

which you can watch live here on the Daily Politics.

Thursday sees Jeremy Corbyn defending two Labour seats

in by-elections in Stoke Central and Copeland in Cumbria.

Friday sees the start of the Scottish Labour Conference

in the 'Fair City' of Perth, the party's first since its drubbing

And, to discuss the political week ahead, we've been joined

by Lucy Fisher from the Times, and Torcuil Crichton

Welcome to both of you. Have the lordships got the nerve for a fight

or will they just see this through? I think there is the nerve for a

fight. It is so tempting for the Lords to do that because the

Conservatives don't have a majority in the upper chamber as they do in

the Commons so my understanding that the two big amendments to watch out

for are about assuring the right of EU nationals to stay in the UK and

secondly about Parliament getting a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal

that is finally negotiated. It looks likely that if about a dozen Tory

peers abstain and other opposition peers join forces, they could pass

bows and send them back to the Commons. We have heard from two

peers, both of whom have pledged to push this through even if they get

those amendments within the timetable set by Theresa May. Do you

believe them? I do, it is getting a bit like the Star Wars saga, we are

on episode two and it might have a slightly different ending in that

the Lords might well ping the amendments that Lucy outlined, that

might go back to the Commons but then it will go right back up to the

Lords again. And I think the Lords, while they might make eloquent

speeches and keep us up late tonight and tomorrow, I think they have a

sense of self-preservation and I don't think they will defy the

government or indeed the result of the referendum. 190 apparently have

signed up to speak and it will be a long process. Is that what will stop

them holding it up, the threat of abolition? I think that's right. We

have heard government sources warning them not to play God. David

Davis seem too tried to dial the rhetoric down and called on peers to

do their patriotic duty and let the bill passed before the deadline that

Theresa May has pledged. It is clear that if they do try to hold it up

and block the democratic will of the people, as many MPs are saying and

Brexiteers are saying, I think they will fall down on their own heads a

huge debate about their future. Let's talk about the by-elections in

Cumbria and Stoke. How big is the threat to Jeremy Corbyn if Labour

loses them? We have a range of possibilities, he could win both, he

could lose both or lose one or the other. I think in Copeland they will

find it difficult to hold on because of Corbyn being seen as being

antinuclear and anti-Trident and they are built just up the road in

Barrow-in-Furness. If identity politics is coming to the fore, then

this feeling of Patrick is and wanting your readers to be with you

is what you want -- patridge is -- patriotism. And in Stoke, where Ukip

appear to be imploding, the Tories have sent the Prime Minister up so

they are obviously sensing something is changing but I think Theresa May

being that might split the vote and allow Jeremy Corbyn and Labour to

come through the middle. Plenty to chew over. If their talk about

left-wing replacements being lined up to come in behind Jeremy Corbyn

if there is one or two losses? There are those conversations going on

behind closed doors in Westminster but we have to be aware of the fact

that Jeremy Corbyn has shown himself throughout his time as leader, he

does not bow to political pressure, he did not bow to over 170

colleagues voting for much of no confidence in him. I think there

could be interest from some quarters for a handover, a key technicality

is that they will not make that move until it is assured that a left-wing

candidate will get into the contest and at the moment, such a candidate

would need 15%, around 35 Labour MPs, to nominate them and I think we

will hear more about the rule change on that in the coming year but until

then Jeremy Corbyn will sit tight. Let's talk about Scottish Labour and

the conference in Perth. Will the atmosphere be somewhere between Wake

and a rare breed's convention? It depends on the result! The theme

ironically, will be a second referendum, not a second EU

referendum but a second Scottish referendum. It is such a Tabuk in

the UK on running the second referendum on the EU. -- taboo. It

is boiling up in Scotland and the SNP conference, but the theme of

labour will be together we are stronger, putting the tin lid on the

idea that Labour might want a second referendum and career don't go --

Kezia Dugdale will be talking about federalism in the UK. This is the

Scottish Labour Party having federalised itself and broken away

and is almost now a stand-alone party within the UK and it is now

advocating federalism for the whole of the UK and they see that as their

solution to nationalism. For a party that has gone from total dominance

to a 19% share of the vote, is there any way back? You would say the only

way is up and the only way back is policy and leadership. They feel

incumbent with Corbyn at the UK leader that he is a track that in

the polls, nationally and in Scotland. Interesting that he is

speaking on Sunday at the tail end of the conference Werros you have

Sadiq Khan, a popular, winning Labour politician, speaking on the

Saturday -- whereas you have. And Tom Watson on the Saturday as well,

they are the main act and Corbyn brings down the curtain on a late

Sunday afternoon. Thank you for being the main act here, enjoy

listening to the Lords. If you have a debate on Wednesday on social care

funding. It is related to the business rate argument in the sense

that government is evolving business rates and it is also deciding to pay

for this crisis in adult social care, and it is crisis, by giving

councils the right to judge precept. All of them will do that, but you

only get the money for adult social care in places where they have low

levels of need and high-value housing. Kingston-upon-Hull will get

just over ?8 per person on that and Kingston upon Thames will get just

over ?15. It will be handy in both areas but it nowhere plugs the need

in areas with a high level of demand of people who need someone coming

round to assist them. As the government underestimated the

current crisis in social care and in fact demand in A in the NHS?

Social care is a huge issue, in East Sussex we have the most 85-year-old

in the country and I also chair the all-party group for ageing and all

the people and how we do not just finance social care, that is a

conversation that needs to be had... Should more money be put in? It is

not just about more money, all the servers would be better but it is

not just about that. Buick you accept it would be easier? It is

also about making sure it is available in the right places. A lot

of my councils are struggling to deliver the care and there are other

issues around just financing, you are looking at model of social care

and having a conversation on how to do it better. More people are living

by themselves and longer and with multiple health issues and how we

manage that. That is right but of course the King 's fund, Oxford

University, aged UK, everybody who has looked at this says it is

funding which is the major problem. Of course those other things are

important but if you don't get the funding right, this will be a

growing problem. How much would you put in? There is a gap of around ?6

billion at the moment is what is needed and what is there. In terms

of how you... What the government are doing, they are saying it is

responsibility of local government and I think that is passing the

buck. There needs to be a national solution, not a postcode lottery,

but the debate on Wednesday is about the short-term and how councils get

through without collapsing on social care. That is the end of our week

ahead. MPs are due to debate US

President Donald Trump's state visit to the UK later today after two

petitions - one in favour, one against - got more than enough

signatures to meet the threshold But at 4.30pm this afternoon,

while MPs are having their say, a series of protests will be held

across the country to And it's sure to be as vocal

in the house as outside if these earlier exchanges are

anything to go by... THE SPEAKER: An address by a foreign

leader to both Houses of Parliament is not an automatic right,

it is an earned honour. This certainly shouldn't

be extended, any invitation to this House,

to such a person as Donald Trump. The Queen has issued

an invitation to Mr Trump He's the President

of the free world. If we can entertain the President

of China, we can entertain him. And we're joined from outside

Parliament by the anti-Trump campaigner Dorothy Guerrero,

and by Kate Andrews from Why shouldn't the democratically

elected president of the United States visit the UK? I think that

the group, stop coalition, or call for him not to be invited is

supported by post to 2 million people who disagree with his

politics and it is important to consider that although there is a

strategic and historical relationship between the US and the

UK, the current president of the most powerful country on the planet

is showing a strong tendency for right-wing politics, right-wing

conservatism, and promoting values that we are not promoting here or we

don't agree with here. Even Theresa May has said she opposes the travel

ban, one of his key policies, we have heard from Dorothy that he

doesn't uphold the values that we hold dear in the UK so why should he

come? I have sympathy for the petition you

put forward. Trump's attempt at the travel ban... This is an issue dealt

with the in the United States, judges have taken down this travel

ban and Trump has met that opposition there. When the UK does

host the President of the chop, that the President of Russia, it seems

strange it would draw a red line an Donald Trump. I do not believe the

US is a bigger human rights offender than China or Russia. Immigration

policy and issues are not contained to Trump's America. Look at the dub

scheme rolled back here in the UK. Only 300 child migrants are going to

be allowed into the UK rather than 3,000. Look at programmes here. Why

is there so much outrage by Donald Trump when we've welcomed other

authoritarian leaders in the past. The Queen's entertained them and

they've terrible human rights track records? I want to agree with what

she mentioned the the protest is not just against Trump. We have take in

consideration as well that the UK has already done what he's doing, we

have that role in Calais, we've... So why stop him coming? It is

important to express our disagreement and our worry that

Trump, as the leader of the US, as the newly-elected president, poses a

grave danger that he is encore anning right-wing toll ticks of hate

and especially against migrants. Do you think he's a danger, Kate

Andrews? Being right-wing is not a crime. You can't be stopped for

coming because of that. Is he insighting hatred? If he is, he

needs to be tried in the US for that. I don't think it's gone that

far. That intense lively of the hatred yet. We need to see what

plays out. In this post Brexit environment it would be problematic

for Theresa May and the people to reject a huge trading partner and a

country, forget the President, a country whose people share so many

values with the UK. That special relationship cannot be destroyed

simply because Donald Trump has been elected. I support the fact people

want to protest. But controversial leaders have come to the UK before

and will continue to come. It is important to have that debate. Thank

you very much: Is this a good use of MPs time? It will be an interesting

and passionate debate in Westminster Hall later today. O'Relationship

with America has gone on for generations and will continue to go

on. Was it a mistake to offer a state visit rather than a normal

visit? It has been offered. It is what happens to the person who holds

office of the president of the United States. Not as quickly as in

this case? Our diplomatic relations are very person for our security and

economy. We've been already delivered, the Prime Minister got

assurances on conditions to NATO. That can only come about if you have

good diplomatic relations. Is this just a waste of time? No, it is too

early in his presidency. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go to the

ram parts on that. I don't think he should address both Houses of

Parliament. Nelson Mandela was afford that had privilege. Other

people. It is an earned privilege. The Speaker was right in saying

that. We've had the President in China, not necessarily addressing

the Houses of Parliament but in terms of state visits. Hirahito...

In terms of addressing both Houses of Parliament. Nelson Mandela do not

fall into that bracket. One day, maybe Trump will have earned that

privilege. But not yet. It is very early to have a state visit. No

preview president has come this easterly in their career. I tend to

agree with the lady who said the opposition to Trump and what he's

done in America should be done there. Perhaps he should go to Swede

and and find out what's happening there.

And the BBC Parliament channel will be broadcasting the entire debate

about President Trump's State Visit from 4.30pm.

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

Now, this year is the 50th anniversary of the part

decriminalisation of homosexuality in the UK, and various events have

been planned to mark the occasion, including a festival

by the National Trust to highlight their properties that

But is that something the National Trust should be doing?

The writer James Delingpole doesn't think so.

It was always my ambition to live in a nice old gaffe like this.

Problem is, like most people, I can't afford it.

That's where the National Trust comes in.

Founded in 1895, it buys up architectural gems like this place,

Sissinghurst Castle, and now they belong to all of us.

I loved the architecture, the teas, the gentle folk volunteers dying

When my kids were younger, I used to bring them

to our great houses pretty much every other weekend.

I gave up on the National Trust when it gave up on its day job.

Instead of preserving our heritage, it started dabbling in politics.

it started campaigning against global warming.

It jumped on the political correctness bandwagon.

Now, it's celebrating all things gay.

This year, as I'm sure you'll know, marks the 50th anniversary

of the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality.

So, the National Trust is staging a prejudice and pride season.

Any National Trust property with a vaguely LGBT

was the home of those legendary gardeners, writers and gay icons

Harold Nicholson and Vita Sackville-West.

has a fine and glorious tradition of stately homos.

The trusts greatest director James Lees-Milne

What exactly does sexuality have to do with heritage?

Aren't there already enough right-on charities out there treating us

like primary school children, telling us what to think

about the politically correct matters of the moment?

because the National Trust is meant to be stuffy and old fashioned.

Not some trendy social justice warrior.

Maybe if enough of us resign our memberships,

We did ask the National Trust but they didn't want to put anyone up on

this occasion. Isn't it with a hum bug. Their day job is to preserve

and promote the history of these buildings, those what were lived in

and enjoyed by gay people. I think I am ABBA hum bug kind of person. Can

I apollingise for the awful tying of my scarf! We'll get loads of

complaints I'm sure! There are loads of charities out there telling us

how to live our lives. The National Trust is for us fuddy-duddies. White

straight, middle class. That doesn't mean to say other people are not

welcome but it needs to stick to its core addens rather than reaching out

pointlessly to these fashionable causes. Is that what you think? I'm

here to disappoint. I veries the a National Trust house this weekend,

I'm not fuddy-duddy or old. I'm worried for you. You need to cheer

up, man. It is important these properties show of the history of

who lived there whether lesbian, gay or transgender. It is important the

National Trust shows stories of the people who lived there who were

oppressed and the heroes. It is important people of all backgrounds

visit these properties. I'm worried that will upset you. I thought that

from a member of the Tory Party. It is something all politicians come up

with. They want to show they're with the modern age. That's fine. The

National Trust is meant to the old fashioned. It is about heritage It

is its duty to share history of people living in those homes

regardless of backgrounds. I'm not oaring youing. I'm not say it is

should hide the fact Vita was gay. To have a whole season of gayness,

it shows me National Trust is going down an alley of the ghastly

directors was who poor civil servant. Why not someone like Roy

Strong rather than a pasted over civil servant. Alan? I wouldn't join

an organisation that James hadn't managed to resign from! There you

go. That's my approach. The way is open for you. The whole point is as

Nusrat said being gay is considered normal. It is not about being trendy

or politically direct. Maybe the -- politically correct. Some of the

greatest house owners were gay. My friends. James Lees-Milne didn't

make a big deal about it. But the history of sex withouty within these

buildings, especially when you're talking about artists and writers,

is part of it? I like seeing Harold and Vita's cottage. It was

interesting. It is a detail rather than the he is sense of these ports.

Isn't it National Trust just acured a novel from Vita Sackville-West's

brother. Having acquired that for the nation, that's great, part of

our literary heritage, they decided to do this. It doesn't go on

forever. James made a wonderful pointed that he wished he hasn't

resigned ten years ago about fox-hunting, he would resign now. I

could resign at least once a week. Will you rejoin after the season?

Really, this gay thing is only a peg. I'm more afound about climate

change and nonsense like that. Do you think it's become too political

in terms of getting involved in campaigns that are beyond one might

say the remit? It might please James to know I'm not a paid-up member. It

is my parent in laws. It is not anningation I would become a member

of. It is an issue with the National Trust. How do they reach out to

deefrn families up and down the countries so people can access their

site and understand the fill breadth of their history. They need to get

as many members as possible. Why not do this? Don't disyour core market.

There are lots of people out there who haves are Iained their

memberships in protest at this political stance it's taking. It

doesn't need to be political. It alienate half its audience. We Helen

talks about political... It is run by a woman who's ex-Seville servant.

A Blairite civil servant. They are gettings rid of people like me! I'm

getting rid of you now, James. Thank you for doing a soapbox. When we

talked earlier about the trump visit. Ping did address both Houses

of Parliament. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which group does

Microsoft founder Bill Gates think A) Schoolchildren, B) Robots,

D) Pets or D) Graffiti artists? So, Alan and Nusrat,

what's the correct answer? Thanks to Alan, Nusrat

and all my guests. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. with all the big political stories

of the day. To be in the Lords,

you have to be punctual... literally have to slam

the door in somebody's face. What right do they have

to tell ME about my fashion sense.