20/02/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 20/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles