:00:35. > :00:37.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:38. > :00:41.The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell says a "soft coup" is under way
:00:42. > :00:44.against Jeremy Corbyn by "elements in the Labour Party".
:00:45. > :00:46.We'll ask former leadership contender Liz Kendall
:00:47. > :00:52.The Government faces criticism for changes to disability benefits
:00:53. > :00:56.after the head of Theresa May's policy unit said the payments should
:00:57. > :00:59.only go to "really disabled people", not those "taking pills at home,
:01:00. > :01:07.The Home Secretary Amber Rudd all but confirms the Government
:01:08. > :01:09.will introduce curbs to freedom of movement from the EU
:01:10. > :01:12.once the Prime Minister triggers Article 50.
:01:13. > :01:15.And while the world of showbiz was glued to the Oscars last night,
:01:16. > :01:18.MPs in Westminster celebrated the British Kebab Awards -
:01:19. > :01:21.we'll hear from the MP who had the mouth-watering job
:01:22. > :01:35.And with us for the whole of the programme today the former
:01:36. > :01:36.Labour leadership contender Liz Kendall, and the
:01:37. > :01:43.Let's start with the government's plans for controlling
:01:44. > :01:48.The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, was asked on ITV's Peston On Sunday
:01:49. > :01:52.programme about speculation she's looking at introducing
:01:53. > :01:57.A lot of different options that the Home Office is working on.
:01:58. > :02:01.It would be a mistake for me to go any further than that at the moment.
:02:02. > :02:04.There's going to be two years of negotiations and preparation.
:02:05. > :02:06.We can't give comments every week, but we're looking at all
:02:07. > :02:10.One thing I can confirm is we will be ending freedom
:02:11. > :02:36.Otherwise, we're looking at all sorts of different alternatives.
:02:37. > :02:40.John Redwood, is freedom of movement is going to end as we know it once
:02:41. > :02:43.Article 50 is triggered, how would that work in practise? What we'll be
:02:44. > :02:46.looking at Is a scheme. We discriminate with the rest of the
:02:47. > :02:49.world in a way we can't with the EU. We are not trying to block talent.
:02:50. > :02:53.That is not going to be a problem. The problem is, too many people
:02:54. > :02:57.coming in to pick up very low-paid jobs, keeping our wages down and
:02:58. > :03:02.making it more difficult for us to get people settled here into jobs.
:03:03. > :03:09.I'm sure there'll be a work permit system there. It won't be ready by
:03:10. > :03:14.March 16th, let's take that as the day after Article 50 is triggered.
:03:15. > :03:18.How will that work as a process being able to tell who arrived after
:03:19. > :03:22.that date? I think it would be a good idea to say to anyone thinking
:03:23. > :03:26.of coming to Britain from the EU after we've sent the Article 50
:03:27. > :03:30.letter that once we have left, there will be new rules applying and you
:03:31. > :03:33.could keep a list of the people if you wish to do so. We'll have to see
:03:34. > :03:38.how the Home Secretary wants to proceed. It will be difficult for
:03:39. > :03:42.police and Immigration Services how to know who to deport if people have
:03:43. > :03:46.arrived afterwards and are still able to get the jobs and in-work
:03:47. > :03:50.benefits perhaps at that point, if they don't know who has come in and
:03:51. > :03:55.when? They'll need to know who has come in obviously and there would
:03:56. > :04:01.have to be a system where you say to people, we have left the EU so apply
:04:02. > :04:05.for a work permit for the future. As we have heard, the Government is
:04:06. > :04:09.still working on this and in due course they'll announce policy.
:04:10. > :04:12.They've got a bit of time to put it in but it would be good to have it
:04:13. > :04:17.up and running for a time when we have left the EU. Are Labour in
:04:18. > :04:21.favour of a move that stops British workers being undercut? I don't want
:04:22. > :04:27.to see British workers undercut. What I think is interesting is some
:04:28. > :04:33.of the proposals being put forward by backbench Labour MPs like Liam
:04:34. > :04:37.Byrne. He's looked at how you might extend the points-based system for
:04:38. > :04:44.people outside the EU to people inside the EU. He published a paper
:04:45. > :04:47.last week and that called for the independent migration advisory
:04:48. > :04:51.committee to set quotas for low-skilled jobs sector by sector,
:04:52. > :04:54.backed up by a transformation of skills and training for British
:04:55. > :04:57.workers, for example through the apprenticeship levy to make sure
:04:58. > :05:02.they can get jobs. But crucially, it also called for freedom of movement
:05:03. > :05:05.to remain for scientists and students because that's vital if we
:05:06. > :05:10.want to build the knowledge economy of the future and for the Government
:05:11. > :05:14.to do far, far more on helping refugees, particularly child
:05:15. > :05:19.refugees. So there are a number of proposals around at the moment and I
:05:20. > :05:27.think Liam's proseles are ones that are worth looking at -- proposals.
:05:28. > :05:32.Do you back John Redwood's view? I don't think John is clear what the
:05:33. > :05:38.Government is going to propose, neither is Amber Rudd. She implied
:05:39. > :05:44.the kerbs would start immediately. Are you broadly in favour of that?
:05:45. > :05:50.Freedom of movement is going to change when we... End she said? A
:05:51. > :05:54.system which keeps the high skills we need to Go grow the economy in
:05:55. > :06:01.the future which is also fair and enforceable. There are proposals out
:06:02. > :06:05.there at the moment which, building on Labour's points-based system, is
:06:06. > :06:08.one option that should be looked at. Do you think John Redwood there
:06:09. > :06:13.needs to be a database of some kind so that we know where all the
:06:14. > :06:17.foreign nationals from the EU are coming in from and when they
:06:18. > :06:22.arrived? Well, you may need to do that or it may be that you just say
:06:23. > :06:25.after the date that we have left the EU, people who're not British
:06:26. > :06:31.citizens will need a work permit whether they come from the EU or not
:06:32. > :06:35.and you could ask the employers to check whether they have one.
:06:36. > :06:38.Ministers have been clear on the record, we have made clear we want
:06:39. > :06:42.to keep ourselves open to tall enand people coming in with well-paid jobs
:06:43. > :06:47.and big businesses. That is not the issue. The issue is the sheer
:06:48. > :06:51.numbers and weight of the numbers coming in to take low-paid jobs. How
:06:52. > :06:56.do you think immigration will fall after we trigger Article 50 from the
:06:57. > :07:00.EU? No idea. It's fallen a little bit in the run-up to it. They said
:07:01. > :07:04.it was a statistically unimportant... Unrelated to Brexit
:07:05. > :07:08.and Article 50, no evidence that it's anything to do with that. I've
:07:09. > :07:12.no idea and I'm reluctant to forecast a firm number. I can
:07:13. > :07:17.understand that on the basis of the tens of thousands... If it's fallen
:07:18. > :07:22.before we leave the EU, that is welcome. But if we have a workberg
:07:23. > :07:26.mitt style system, the numbers will fall. If there are limits to in-work
:07:27. > :07:29.benefits which of course the Government would be able to do once
:07:30. > :07:33.we leave Brexit, what impact do you think that will have on the numbers
:07:34. > :07:40.of EU nationals coming here, will it deter people? I think a lot of
:07:41. > :07:43.people will still want to come and live and work in this country
:07:44. > :07:46.because we are an amazing country with great opportunities. I think
:07:47. > :07:56.the Government's promises of reducing immigration to the tens of
:07:57. > :08:01.thousands, people just don't believe It because it hasn't worked. We need
:08:02. > :08:05.to get a fair balance between the economy and what is happening in the
:08:06. > :08:08.country. David Davis said he thought it would be years. Didn't think
:08:09. > :08:13.levels of immigration would go down in the short-term. He said it
:08:14. > :08:17.wouldn't happen for a long while. People will rightly feel that the
:08:18. > :08:22.promises aren't being delivered as quickly as hoped. Many people will
:08:23. > :08:26.want to see levels of net migration or immigration come down. If it does
:08:27. > :08:30.deter tens of thousands of EU nationals coming here when we look
:08:31. > :08:34.at the numbers in the NHS in the care industry and retail, that will
:08:35. > :08:42.have a detrimental effect on the sectors, won't it? We have just
:08:43. > :08:49.agreed that we don't want to put people off who have qualifications.
:08:50. > :08:55.So you are going to make allowances for those? We'd make special
:08:56. > :09:03.arrangements for people with qualifications and who're coming in
:09:04. > :09:08.for high value-added jobs. Seasonal workers for agriculture may be a
:09:09. > :09:11.case for that. It's construction though, there's services,
:09:12. > :09:15.hospitality, and I think this is the problem here, is that many companies
:09:16. > :09:18.fear they are going to face this cliff edge, they are not going to
:09:19. > :09:22.have the workers they need. Their businesses will suffer. At the same
:09:23. > :09:26.time, we are seeing the Government cut things like the NHS bursary
:09:27. > :09:29.scheme which is so important to training British young people to get
:09:30. > :09:33.the jobs they need in the future. The devil really is in the detail
:09:34. > :09:37.here. And will British workers do the jobs that are left vacant? Yes,
:09:38. > :09:42.I think they will and there has to be a reduction after we left the EU
:09:43. > :09:46.and there'll be a work permit or similar system to make sure there is
:09:47. > :09:50.a reduction. But of course it needs to be flexible, where there is real
:09:51. > :09:54.need, and we can not supply the labour internally. We need to put
:09:55. > :09:56.the wages up in some cases though because people aren't doing it
:09:57. > :10:00.because the wages aren't very good and we need to train and educate
:10:01. > :10:06.people to a better stand so they can do the jobs. So you would call for
:10:07. > :10:10.higher wages for those sectors? That is the way to get staff if you are
:10:11. > :10:15.short of staff isn't it. Yes. But they have to be earned, so you need
:10:16. > :10:19.a more productive workforce and may need more technology and investment
:10:20. > :10:22.behind that workforce. A lot of big companies are generating huge
:10:23. > :10:25.amounts of cash at the moment, maybe they ought to think about investment
:10:26. > :10:29.in training and standards for their staff where they are not doing
:10:30. > :10:33.enough and putting enough machine and computer behind them. All right.
:10:34. > :10:37.Ukip donor Aaron Banks has told the party's leader Paul Nuttall
:10:38. > :10:40.he wants to be party chairman to "sort out" the party
:10:41. > :10:42.Today's question is, in his interview with
:10:43. > :10:45.the Sunday Express what did Mr Banks say the party cannot
:10:46. > :10:58.Or D - a poorly organised party in a brewery?
:10:59. > :11:00.At the end of the show, Liz or John will give
:11:01. > :11:04.The Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell has claimed that a soft coup has
:11:05. > :11:07.been launched against Jeremy Corbyn by elements in the Labour Party.
:11:08. > :11:09.In an article he wrote for the Labour Briefing website
:11:10. > :11:12.before the Copeland by-election, but only published on-line last
:11:13. > :11:15.night, Mr McDonnell says the plotters are distorting
:11:16. > :11:19.the media coverage and using an exceptionally well-resourced dark
:11:20. > :11:23.arts operation to destroy Jeremy Corbyn and all
:11:24. > :11:28.His comments come after a weekend of public argument at the top
:11:29. > :11:32.of Labour over how to respond to the by-election
:11:33. > :11:39.Deputy Leader Tom Watson told the Scottish Labour Party conference
:11:40. > :11:41.now is not the time for a leadership election, that issue
:11:42. > :11:46.But he added that those at the top of the Labour Party "need
:11:47. > :11:49.to have a long hard look at ourselves at what's not working.
:11:50. > :11:54.The former acting Labour leader Harriet Harman told last night's
:11:55. > :11:57.Westminster Hour that the thing about being leader is,
:11:58. > :12:03.the buck stops with you Shadow Attorney-General Shami Chakrabati
:12:04. > :12:06.Shadow Attorney-General Shami Chakrabati
:12:07. > :12:11.I think sometimes we haven't had the fairest or most balanced
:12:12. > :12:14.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has asked for more time
:12:15. > :12:18.to develop his policies, telling the Guardian newspaper that
:12:19. > :12:21.policymaking is longer and slightly more cumbersome than calling
:12:22. > :12:24.in a few experts into my office to tell me what the policies should be.
:12:25. > :12:28.And speaking at Scottish Labour's spring conference in Perth
:12:29. > :12:31.yesterday, Mr Corbyn said it's not the time throw in the towel.
:12:32. > :12:34.We haven't done enough yet to rebuild trust with the people
:12:35. > :12:38.who have been ripped off and sold out for decades and don't always
:12:39. > :12:47.But now is not the time to retreat, to run away or to give up.
:12:48. > :12:49.We've been joined by the shadow international trade
:12:50. > :12:59.Welcome to the Daily Politics. Is there a soft coup under way against
:13:00. > :13:05.Jeremy Corbyn, as John McDonnell alleges? Not as far as I'm aware,
:13:06. > :13:09.Jo. So why has he said it? I think this was frustration. You will
:13:10. > :13:13.recall that there were the interventions by, you know, the
:13:14. > :13:16.Labour grandees just before the by-elections. I think he... Talking
:13:17. > :13:22.about Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson? John obviously got on the
:13:23. > :13:27.late-night typewriter, as it used to be, and out of frustration penned
:13:28. > :13:31.this. It came out at that stage, I think everybody in the Parliamentary
:13:32. > :13:37.Labour Party that I know from Liz right the way through to Jeremy is
:13:38. > :13:42.saying, look, let's get together, let's show unity, but more
:13:43. > :13:47.important, let's go out and talk to the public. Right. Let's listen to
:13:48. > :13:51.them and talk to them. But you say he didn't really mean it and that
:13:52. > :13:56.might have been credible if he'd written a tweet in frustration, as
:13:57. > :14:00.you say. He has penned a fairly lengthy and extremely detailed
:14:01. > :14:04.article which he would have had to have thought long and hard about, so
:14:05. > :14:08.I ask you again, why does he say there is a soft coup under way
:14:09. > :14:13.against Jeremy Corbyn? Look, I think he was very frustrated, I think he
:14:14. > :14:16.has retracted it since then, saying this was something that was borne
:14:17. > :14:20.out of frustration, that it was because... . So it's not true that
:14:21. > :14:23.he believes there is a soft coup, he isn't saying it's been perpetrated
:14:24. > :14:27.by an alliance between elements in the Labour Party and the Murdoch
:14:28. > :14:30.media empire, both intent on destroying Jeremy Corbyn and all
:14:31. > :14:35.that he stands for. He retracts that, does he? Well, look, I haven't
:14:36. > :14:40.had the distinct pleasure of reading the Labour Briefing, I'm not a
:14:41. > :14:45.normal reader of it and I haven't read the article, but I think this
:14:46. > :14:48.was written for a section within the Labour Party and clearly it was
:14:49. > :14:53.written out of frustration that John felt. He has retracted it, he's said
:14:54. > :14:58.look, it was wrong to put that out and he wants now to focus on what I
:14:59. > :15:03.think all of us in the PLP ought to be focussing on, and that is uniting
:15:04. > :15:07.the Parliamentary Labour Party and listening to the country so we can
:15:08. > :15:11.better do our job of opposing the Government. Do you think it was
:15:12. > :15:16.responsible for John McDone to pen this article when he did and talk
:15:17. > :15:19.about elements in the Labour Party? Coup perpetrators at this time round
:15:20. > :15:27.pursuing a covert strategy? This is the first I've heard of it
:15:28. > :15:36.and I've no idea what he's talking about. Nobody should be fighting
:15:37. > :15:40.phantoms. I think that there is a desperate yearning in the country
:15:41. > :15:46.for a strong and effective opposition. Absolutely. People are
:15:47. > :15:52.crying out for a Labour Party that they can trust on the economy and
:15:53. > :15:55.who has got a clear plan and alternative on jobs, wages and
:15:56. > :16:01.public services. Are Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonell providing that?
:16:02. > :16:05.That's what they need to do now. We all know the difficult situation
:16:06. > :16:10.we're in. We need a clear strategy to change where we are going forward
:16:11. > :16:14.because people do want to see a Labour Party that they can trust,
:16:15. > :16:18.who shares their values and who they believe can set out a positive and
:16:19. > :16:23.unpatriotic vision for Britain's future. How helpful is it, then, to
:16:24. > :16:28.have these words printed by the Shadow Chancellor post the Copeland
:16:29. > :16:33.and Stoke by-election, Copland which Labour lost after 80 years, where he
:16:34. > :16:38.says the coup is not being waged upfront in public but strictly
:16:39. > :16:43.behind-the-scenes? Having learnt the lesson of the last coup attempt at a
:16:44. > :16:51.direct attack on Jeremy Goggin and his policy will ensue a backlash...
:16:52. > :16:54.How helpful is that? He was the it is helpful but Casey has retracted
:16:55. > :16:59.it. Is it helpful as Shadow Chancellor to make these sort of
:17:00. > :17:04.accusations against people in his own party? What I really want to see
:17:05. > :17:08.our Shadow Chancellor doing with a budget coming up next week is
:17:09. > :17:11.showing our alternative, how we are going to spread jobs and growth at
:17:12. > :17:14.every part of the country, how we are going to make sure the half of
:17:15. > :17:18.households who face a decade of stagnating wages will be able to get
:17:19. > :17:23.on in life, how we are going to transform our NHS and fight the Tory
:17:24. > :17:26.cuts to school funding. That is what John, the shadow economy team and
:17:27. > :17:31.every member of the PLP should be laser focused on over the coming
:17:32. > :17:38.days. You are not part of a soft coup? S no. Do you know anyone who
:17:39. > :17:44.is? Identity top is he making this up? I don't note it up is he deluded
:17:45. > :17:50.to make up his accusations in such detail? You are trying to get me to
:17:51. > :17:55.say something and I'm not going to. We have got to meet people's
:17:56. > :17:58.desperate desire. What effect will this have on the Parliamentary
:17:59. > :18:01.Labour Party when he talks about elements within Labour? Was he
:18:02. > :18:06.talking about Clive Lewis, who has had to deny that there were websites
:18:07. > :18:10.put up talking about his leadership bid very shortly after he joined the
:18:11. > :18:14.Shadow Cabinet? I don't think so. I think is talking about people who
:18:15. > :18:16.are no longer part of the Parliamentary Labour Party. I think
:18:17. > :18:22.he was frustrated that the Labour grandees from yesteryear had come
:18:23. > :18:26.out publicly before the by-election in a way which, actually, not only
:18:27. > :18:29.to John but too many members of the PLP thought was unhelpful to have
:18:30. > :18:34.done that immediately before Stoke and Copeland and I think what you've
:18:35. > :18:40.got to understand is that John McDonell is somebody who has history
:18:41. > :18:43.with those people and he probably conceived of it and perceived it as
:18:44. > :18:52.an aggressive act to which he wanted to respond. More importantly, he now
:18:53. > :18:55.thinks it is a mistake. Chitty come out in praise of the PLP to my? He
:18:56. > :19:01.has already publicly said he retracted. I think Liz is absolutely
:19:02. > :19:05.right. We as the Parliamentary Labour Party need to focus not on
:19:06. > :19:09.ourselves any more. We are double talking about ourselves. We want to
:19:10. > :19:12.focus on the things that mattered to the public. Let's talk about those
:19:13. > :19:17.because is Copeland a freak result as far as you're concerned? Many of
:19:18. > :19:23.the Labour leadership team seem to imply that. Or has the party under
:19:24. > :19:28.Jeremy Corbyn become more repugnant than a Tory government closing a
:19:29. > :19:32.local maternity centre, as the head of Progress? I don't think it is a
:19:33. > :19:38.freak. I hope it is a freak result but I don't think it is in anyway
:19:39. > :19:47.something that has simply just happened by chance. This a long-term
:19:48. > :19:49.process of those seats, that part of England, where we've seen more
:19:50. > :19:56.automation of jobs, more insecurity in jobs, more zero hours contracts.
:19:57. > :20:00.But this is a Labour heartland, as you know. Is this a failure of the
:20:01. > :20:04.party, just not taking responsibility of its own failures?
:20:05. > :20:07.There have been seven years of a Conservative and Coalition
:20:08. > :20:13.government and austerity measures throughout, yet how do you explain
:20:14. > :20:16.that Labour is still trailing 14 to 18 points in the polls? Gob of you
:20:17. > :20:21.quite rightly say this is seven years of Conservative
:20:22. > :20:25.administration. The Conservative administration has seen those wages
:20:26. > :20:31.for those people stagnate. And they are angry. But in areas like
:20:32. > :20:34.Copeland and the North, Labour is often seen as the party of
:20:35. > :20:37.administration, the party of government, because it has been an
:20:38. > :20:42.local government for so long and they have had a Labour MP for so
:20:43. > :20:45.long. Many seats like that are associating the pain that they are
:20:46. > :20:52.feeling, the insecurity that they are feeling, with the party. They
:20:53. > :20:56.blame Labour and not the Government? Exactly. What we need to be doing is
:20:57. > :21:00.coming up with not just saying it is all the government's fault, we need
:21:01. > :21:04.to be coming up with the answer is that they believe are credible.
:21:05. > :21:07.Clearly they don't believe you will come up with the answers or they
:21:08. > :21:10.would be voting for you. Jeremy Corbyn says you need more time to
:21:11. > :21:15.develop policies. Is he developing the right sort of policies? Are they
:21:16. > :21:19.going the right direction? Sometimes I think we in the Labour Party love
:21:20. > :21:23.lots of policy detailed. Don't get me wrong, unless you've got
:21:24. > :21:26.something clear, simple and credible, people won't back you but
:21:27. > :21:31.I think it is more about whether people believe we stand for them,
:21:32. > :21:37.whether we share their values about work, responsibility, about
:21:38. > :21:40.fairness, about paying in before you get out, about decent support, great
:21:41. > :21:44.schools and how we are going to run the economy in a way that is fair
:21:45. > :21:51.and makes sure everybody sees their benefits of growth. And Labour is
:21:52. > :21:53.not doing that? From my conversations with people, they
:21:54. > :21:56.don't believe we are a strong and effective opposition and they are
:21:57. > :22:00.not convinced they can trust us on the economy and on security. Do you
:22:01. > :22:04.think Jeremy Corbyn should be given more time to do that? Do you think
:22:05. > :22:08.it will come to a state of play where people will trust Labour on
:22:09. > :22:11.those issues? I think he will be given more time and the
:22:12. > :22:16.responsibility on all of us is... What's happening at the moment isn't
:22:17. > :22:19.working. We are not doing anywhere near well enough in the polls on the
:22:20. > :22:23.by-election results were catastrophic. Something has to
:22:24. > :22:28.change and I think that is showing people, what is Labour for? How will
:22:29. > :22:32.we back people's aspirations for themselves and their families and
:22:33. > :22:35.deliver great jobs and decent public services? Unless they trust us on
:22:36. > :22:40.that and believe we are a proud unpatriotic party that stands up for
:22:41. > :22:45.Britain at home and abroad, they would support us. -- proud and
:22:46. > :22:49.patriotically atop do you agree with Harriet Harman, who said the buck
:22:50. > :22:54.stops with Jeremy Corbyn was I think the buck stops with all of us who
:22:55. > :22:57.are in leadership positions in the PLP. No Labour MP should think, it
:22:58. > :23:03.is the leadership of the Shadow Cabinet. We are, all of us, the
:23:04. > :23:07.leaders of the Labour movement, in particular the leaders in our own
:23:08. > :23:11.constituencies and areas. We have to show the leadership and unless we
:23:12. > :23:17.all do that, I don't think there is any point in blaming one or two
:23:18. > :23:22.individuals at the top. It is our responsibility. Unity is strength is
:23:23. > :23:24.a mantra which has to cut both ways. Thank you.
:23:25. > :23:27.The Government is facing criticism today from all quarters over plans
:23:28. > :23:30.announced last week to make changes to who qualifies for a benefit
:23:31. > :23:33.Personal Independence Payments, or PIPs, are weekly payments that go
:23:34. > :23:38.to people with a disability or a long-term health condition.
:23:39. > :23:41.The Government is rolling out PIPs to replace a former payment known
:23:42. > :23:48.The Government was required to widen the eligibility
:23:49. > :23:49.criteria around PIPs, to include more people
:23:50. > :23:54.with psychological problems, after two tribunal rulings.
:23:55. > :23:56.But ministers say that doing so would cost the taxpayer
:23:57. > :24:04.So instead they're legislating to change the rules around PIPs.
:24:05. > :24:07.Ministers say that there will still be a strong safety
:24:08. > :24:11.net for disabled people after the changes.
:24:12. > :24:13.George Freeman, the Conservative MP and head of Theresa May's policy
:24:14. > :24:17.unit, got into hot water on this issue yesterday.
:24:18. > :24:19.In a BBC interview he said that money should go
:24:20. > :24:22.to "really disabled people", not those "taking pills at home,
:24:23. > :24:29.Those comments were condemned by the Labour Party.
:24:30. > :24:32.John McDonnell said they were "an insult
:24:33. > :24:37.And the shadow minister Louise Haigh accused the Conservatives
:24:38. > :24:43.of being "in the gutter trying to shame those in desperate need".
:24:44. > :24:46.But George Freeman hit back at those critics.
:24:47. > :24:49.He said he had suffered from mental health problems in the past
:24:50. > :24:54.and didn't "need any lectures on the damage anxiety does".
:24:55. > :24:57.And he's also said this morning that he "regrets" it if his comments
:24:58. > :25:03.Let's get the latest on this now from our assistant political
:25:04. > :25:07.editor Norman Smith, who joins us from Central Lobby.
:25:08. > :25:13.So, an apology of sorts from George Freeman because of all the flak that
:25:14. > :25:19.he and the Government have received over his comments. Yeah, he says he
:25:20. > :25:23.hugely regrets any offence caused. In a way, Mr Freeman, it seems to
:25:24. > :25:27.me, almost by the by, and the government are in an almighty mess
:25:28. > :25:31.regardless of his comments in part because disability benefits is one
:25:32. > :25:35.of those issues where the Government has repeatedly come a cropper. You
:25:36. > :25:39.think most recently of George Osborne's budget when he had to
:25:40. > :25:42.backtrack on his plans for cutting PIPs and I think that began the
:25:43. > :25:47.unravelling of the Cameron - Osborne government. They are in trouble
:25:48. > :25:51.because of the way they have done this. They announced this on the day
:25:52. > :25:53.of the Copeland and Stoke by-election. Whether by design or
:25:54. > :25:58.default, that looks like they were trying to sneak it out when all of
:25:59. > :26:03.us were looking elsewhere. And they're in trouble, out, because of
:26:04. > :26:07.the way they've tried to do this, by amending regulations. What that
:26:08. > :26:11.means is they are acutely vulnerable to the House of Lords putting down a
:26:12. > :26:15.fatal motion and what that means is if the House of Lords voted against
:26:16. > :26:17.these changes, they're dead, it is over, which would mean the
:26:18. > :26:22.Government would have to introduce primary legislation to carry through
:26:23. > :26:26.these changes and I was speaking to one former Cabinet minister who said
:26:27. > :26:30.to me, there is no way of this parliament approving any legislation
:26:31. > :26:35.on benefits. So the stakes really are hugely high for the Government.
:26:36. > :26:39.There has been criticism from all quarters, including Tory MPs. Will
:26:40. > :26:41.that put enough pressure on perhaps them deciding to widen the
:26:42. > :26:46.eligibility in the way that they've been told to do by the tribunal? I
:26:47. > :26:50.think this is a moving picture in the sense that as of now, they're
:26:51. > :26:57.saying this costs far too much money, ?3.7 billion, which is an
:26:58. > :27:01.upward ratchet, if you are going to give PIPs to people suffering from
:27:02. > :27:06.dementia and other mental illnesses, it has gone to go up and up, and
:27:07. > :27:11.disability has been going up and up for decades so they don't want to do
:27:12. > :27:14.that. Then again, if you're going to lose anyway, and I think there is a
:27:15. > :27:17.real chance they will lose in the Lords, in part because peers, if
:27:18. > :27:20.they have to cave in over Brexit, will want to show they're still
:27:21. > :27:25.tough and independent and willing to stand up to the Government, they
:27:26. > :27:32.choose to put down a marker on this. If you are going to lose anyway,
:27:33. > :27:37.better to concede in the budget and lose in the Lords and have to pay up
:27:38. > :27:39.the cash anyway. Should the Government widely eligibility, as
:27:40. > :27:43.they've been instructed to, by the tribunal rulings that they should,
:27:44. > :27:48.in the future, include people with mental illnesses? I'd want to see
:27:49. > :27:51.the detail and I think the Government accepts people with
:27:52. > :27:55.mental illnesses often have a very serious condition and we need to
:27:56. > :28:00.help them. They haven't accepted it in terms of letting them have money
:28:01. > :28:02.through PIPs. I think they have. The issue is which group of
:28:03. > :28:07.circumstances qualified. I don't think they're saying that we don't
:28:08. > :28:10.want anybody with mental health illnesses qualifying. One of the
:28:11. > :28:14.reforms announced was to have people with mental conditions equally
:28:15. > :28:17.eligible to those with physical conditions. I've got an assurance
:28:18. > :28:25.from ministers that nobody who has received a PIPs payment from the DWP
:28:26. > :28:29.so far will lose it or have it cut. These are about future payments. It
:28:30. > :28:32.is important to tell your audience out there that nobody who has
:28:33. > :28:36.approved payment is going to get it cut and I certainly wouldn't be
:28:37. > :28:40.voting for cutting existing payments. The issue is whether we
:28:41. > :28:43.widen the criteria, compared with those which the government thought
:28:44. > :28:47.it had put in. I would like to see the details and I'm sure my
:28:48. > :28:50.colleagues were. But they are spending 50 billion a year and we
:28:51. > :28:52.need to be generous to those with serious disability, weather and
:28:53. > :28:56.mental or physical condition, and let's see what they come up with by
:28:57. > :29:01.way of a specific proposition. They just feel it is going to wide.
:29:02. > :29:04.Wasn't acceptable for George Freeman to say it shouldn't go to people
:29:05. > :29:08.taking pills that time who suffer from anxiety? As I understand it,
:29:09. > :29:12.George has said he didn't mean any harm by that. He didn't mean any
:29:13. > :29:18.harm but he didn't retract what he said. You must ask him. They were
:29:19. > :29:21.not my words. But I'm asking you for your reaction to those words. Do you
:29:22. > :29:26.think that is acceptable by someone who was the head of policy unit at
:29:27. > :29:29.Number Ten to say money should go to really disabled people, not those
:29:30. > :29:33.taking pills that I'm? They are not my words and I don't wish to repeat
:29:34. > :29:38.it and he must explain that. Liz Campbell, you are shaking your head.
:29:39. > :29:43.I mean, the polite way to put it is that George Freeman's comments were
:29:44. > :29:49.ill-advised and ill informed. I have looked at the detail of this and the
:29:50. > :29:53.people who the tribunal are saying should get a PIP are people with
:29:54. > :30:00.dementia, schizophrenia, epilepsy, learning disabilities. And instead
:30:01. > :30:04.of ignoring the very serious criticisms of PIP that the tribunal
:30:05. > :30:08.is have made, the Government should be listening. But the whole PIP
:30:09. > :30:12.system is a mess. I have had a constituent who was diagnosed with
:30:13. > :30:16.terminal cancer. He had to wait eight months before he got anything.
:30:17. > :30:23.He was told at that stage he would not get extra help for daily living,
:30:24. > :30:25.then he had a stroke. As circumstances change, they
:30:26. > :30:29.reassessed and got rid of his enhanced mobility component. I have
:30:30. > :30:37.been fighting this for a year. That was presumably an error. This
:30:38. > :30:40.happens time and time again. But this is about eligibility. There are
:30:41. > :30:45.mistakes that me but let's be clear, this is about the criteria that will
:30:46. > :30:50.be used for future claimants. At the moment, nobody will lose PIP money,
:30:51. > :30:53.as it stands. This is about the Government being asked to widen the
:30:54. > :30:58.eligibility rules to include people with the sorts of conditions you're
:30:59. > :31:01.talking about, rightly or wrongly. Do you think they should widen it?
:31:02. > :31:05.Nell to pen this article when he did and talk about elements in the
:31:06. > :31:07.Labour Party? Coup perpetrators at this time round pursuing a covert
:31:08. > :31:10.strategy? Yes, I do. But my point is wider, the PIP system isn't working,
:31:11. > :31:12.the Government needs to have a fundamental review of that as well
:31:13. > :31:16.as accept the tribunal courts rulings about extending eligibility.
:31:17. > :31:20.You would extend the money then by ?3.7? Yes. Where would you find the
:31:21. > :31:23.money? The Government has a huge budget that it can look at. There
:31:24. > :31:28.are all sorts of different decisions they could make, I think this is
:31:29. > :31:33.just and fair and right and they should do it. The Tory MP has said
:31:34. > :31:38.she'd find the money come what may. Isn't there a level of hypocrisy
:31:39. > :31:43.John Redwood when the Government and Theresa May herself say there should
:31:44. > :31:48.be parity of esteem between physical and mental illnesses and then the
:31:49. > :31:51.Government sneaks out, which is how it will appear, to the public and to
:31:52. > :31:54.the Houses of Parliament on the day after the by-election, the fact that
:31:55. > :31:57.they are going to change the rules so they don't have to widen the
:31:58. > :32:01.eligibility? I think the Government will say that they are trying to
:32:02. > :32:05.keep the rules as they intended them to be and as they thought they were
:32:06. > :32:10.being applied. There is now the issue posed by the court - should we
:32:11. > :32:14.be more generous and I'm open-minded, I would want to see how
:32:15. > :32:16.generous, what it would cost and what cases it would cover.
:32:17. > :32:20.Individual cases may have been wrongly judged and we all feel very
:32:21. > :32:23.sad about that and that's about competence, it's not about the
:32:24. > :32:26.rules, and then there's this separate issue about the rules. I
:32:27. > :32:30.didn't come into politics to be unkind to the disabled and I'll want
:32:31. > :32:34.to be persuaded by the Government that this change... Does the
:32:35. > :32:37.Government look like it's being unkind with the changes? That's
:32:38. > :32:42.where I would want the see the detail but having listened to them
:32:43. > :32:46.today before doing this programme, that is not their intention. Their
:32:47. > :32:51.intention is to have more generous benefits for those who're disabled
:32:52. > :32:57.and the PIP system now is better than the previous system was. Liz
:32:58. > :33:07.Kendal, you have said you would want to find the extra money. Who would
:33:08. > :33:10.do that? Government could make huge numbers of different decisions...
:33:11. > :33:16.Sure but there would be a choice here? May I say the Government's
:33:17. > :33:21.taken a choice to cut inheritance tax for the very wealthy. What is at
:33:22. > :33:28.the heart of the tribunal's decision which the Government hasn't grasped
:33:29. > :33:32.is that physical and mental disabilities are not two separate
:33:33. > :33:38.things, you need to look at the two together. Unless the Government
:33:39. > :33:43.grasps that, it's not going to get the support that people rightly
:33:44. > :33:48.need. As you understand it, John Redwood, what is PIP for, what is
:33:49. > :33:52.the allowance actually supposed to do for people who're disabled? Well,
:33:53. > :33:55.it's to pay for the extra costs that the disability creates that they can
:33:56. > :34:00.have a more normal life like the rest of us but they need extra
:34:01. > :34:04.support. Daily living and mobility and the tribunal made decisions
:34:05. > :34:10.about both the issues. For people with schizophrenia and severe
:34:11. > :34:14.depression. What will the money do? Give them the enhanced mobility
:34:15. > :34:19.component which may include support for somebody to help them go out and
:34:20. > :34:26.standard daily living, people need to medicate at home or monitor their
:34:27. > :34:28.health at home say for instance with diabetes, people need support with
:34:29. > :34:32.that. It's simple if you understand the reality of what it's like having
:34:33. > :34:35.a physical, mental or learning disability. You need extra support
:34:36. > :34:40.to live with that condition at home and to get out and about. That's
:34:41. > :34:44.what the court's said. Do you think this is going to be difficult to
:34:45. > :34:48.actually introduce because of what Norman Smith said, that if they are
:34:49. > :34:50.going to introduce change rather than primary legislation, it could
:34:51. > :34:54.be guillotined in the Lord's? I think they've got to have a package
:34:55. > :34:58.which enough people think is fair and reasonable and these are
:34:59. > :35:02.difficult judgments. It isn't you've got one party that doesn't want to
:35:03. > :35:08.pay money to the disabled and others do. Liz Kendall would clearly pay
:35:09. > :35:12.that money? That's my view. We all agree we want to be sensibly
:35:13. > :35:16.generous to disabled people who have serious problems and compensate them
:35:17. > :35:20.to the extent that money can. But there Haas to be a limit, you have
:35:21. > :35:24.to be able to say, you qualify for the lower rate, so we are arguing
:35:25. > :35:28.about the marginal cases at the edges of the current PIP
:35:29. > :35:31.allocations. I'm sure a lot of fair minded people in the Lords and
:35:32. > :35:35.Commons will want to look at what the Government has to say and say
:35:36. > :35:38.yes, that's a sensible view or it's too tough and should be looser.
:35:39. > :35:40.The imposition of a sugar tax on some soft drinks will move
:35:41. > :35:43.a little closer in next week's budget, when the Treasury
:35:44. > :35:45.announces how much the rate of the levy will be.
:35:46. > :35:47.Celebrities like Jamie Oliver will be happy -
:35:48. > :35:49.they've been campaigning for action against childhood obesity such
:35:50. > :35:55.But for Dia Chakravarti of the TaxPayers' Alliance,
:35:56. > :35:57.the proposals are regressive and don't actually make any sense.
:35:58. > :36:14.In just over a week's time, the Chancellor,
:36:15. > :36:17.in his budget statement, will tell us exactly how much
:36:18. > :36:21.tax he will be slapping onto some sugary drinks.
:36:22. > :36:24.A great win for the nanny state champions but the rest of us?
:36:25. > :36:30.For a start, this tax will hit the poorest families hardest.
:36:31. > :36:34.The so-called consumption taxes, like this one and ones on,
:36:35. > :36:37.say, tobacco or alcohol, hit poorer families harder
:36:38. > :36:42.because they pay a greater portion of their income in these taxes.
:36:43. > :36:50.Hardly a recipe to help hard-pressed families.
:36:51. > :36:53.What makes the plans even worse is that evidence suggests
:36:54. > :37:00.So, while the consumption of drinks like these might go down,
:37:01. > :37:03.these drinks are exempt from the scheme even though
:37:04. > :37:10.People will just get their sugar fix from somewhere else.
:37:11. > :37:14.There's plenty of evidence from abroad that it doesn't work.
:37:15. > :37:18.They introduced a tax on sugary drinks in Mexico
:37:19. > :37:22.not that long ago and, yes, the consumption of these drinks
:37:23. > :37:25.did go down and the number of calories also went down -
:37:26. > :37:30.People simply got their calories another way.
:37:31. > :37:34.You can potentially tax people away from cigarettes
:37:35. > :37:36.because the alternatives to them, like e-cigarettes or nicotine
:37:37. > :37:39.patches, are actually healthier than tobacco,
:37:40. > :37:42.but that's not necessarily the case for the alternatives
:37:43. > :37:49.A study in America found that a similar tax resulted in a rise
:37:50. > :37:52.in the sales of beer - hardly the alternative we're after.
:37:53. > :37:55.And even if it did work, is it really necessary?
:37:56. > :38:01.There is plenty of evidence to suggest that obesity has actually
:38:02. > :38:05.peaked and it is public information campaigns that actually are more
:38:06. > :38:09.effective in bringing about a real change in people's lifestyles.
:38:10. > :38:13.This is just an ill-considered way for the Treasury
:38:14. > :38:15.to raise some money, but hurting the poorest
:38:16. > :38:21.So, while our politicians, in their smugness, can pick up one
:38:22. > :38:24.of these sugary drinks on their way to more nannying, tax-free,
:38:25. > :38:28.anyone buying these sugary drinks will be penalised.
:38:29. > :38:43.A lot of drinks manufacturers have already lowered the amount of sugar
:38:44. > :38:46.in their drinks to avoid higher taxes so in effect the levy has
:38:47. > :38:52.worked. This has been happening for a long time so by DEFRA's own
:38:53. > :38:59.figures, sugar consumption peaked around the 70s and since then we
:39:00. > :39:02.consume about 20% less sugar, since 1992, we consume 22% less sugar so
:39:03. > :39:08.that's been happening for quite some time. We can't say it's happening
:39:09. > :39:15.because of this. Is it necessary to have a sugar tax? Yes, I would like
:39:16. > :39:17.to see stronger restrictions to advertising, a public health
:39:18. > :39:21.advertising campaign and more investment in things like child
:39:22. > :39:27.support. Look, the reason we have to do this is obesity related illnesses
:39:28. > :39:31.are costing the NHS ?6 billion a year and obesity is a huge problem.
:39:32. > :39:36.This isn't a silver bullet but I think as part of a measure of things
:39:37. > :39:40.it could make a real difference in bringing obesity levels down. As the
:39:41. > :39:45.Taxpayers' Alliance, surely you would be happy at any move reducing
:39:46. > :39:50.costs for the NHS and obesity Kay cording to public health England
:39:51. > :39:53.costs the Government billions? If it worked there would be a good
:39:54. > :39:57.argument for it. What is your evidence that it doesn't work?
:39:58. > :40:02.People who are bringing this in think it wouldn't work. In the words
:40:03. > :40:07.of one of the most vocal advocates of it, it's just a symbolic slap on
:40:08. > :40:13.people's lifestyle. We know it's not going to work because the
:40:14. > :40:16.Government's already spent the ?520 million it wishes to raise from it
:40:17. > :40:19.because we know that people's lifestyle doesn't change that way.
:40:20. > :40:23.The alternatives here are not necessarily healthier, as is the
:40:24. > :40:26.case with say alcohol for example and tobacco. The alternatives may
:40:27. > :40:30.well be healthier, that's not necessarily the kiss here. Although
:40:31. > :40:34.we have seen a massive drop in the number of people who smoke. If you
:40:35. > :40:40.look at the figures in Mexico which you cited, there is a 5.5% drop in
:40:41. > :40:44.the first year, 9.7% drop in the second year and actually, from what
:40:45. > :40:49.I've read, the health impact is not yet known but that severe drop in
:40:50. > :40:53.consumption must be a good thing? It would, but again it doesn't work to
:40:54. > :40:58.the extent that we wish it to work. Another example would be the fat tax
:40:59. > :41:03.in Denmark which they spent about 200 million Kroner in bringing it
:41:04. > :41:08.in, it simply didn't work. 15 months later, they completely scrapped it.
:41:09. > :41:11.They found that people had gone into neighbouring countries. I don't
:41:12. > :41:16.think it's a silver bullet but it's part of what we have to do. People
:41:17. > :41:20.like your good severals are always against any good intervention by the
:41:21. > :41:26.state. My preference is always to limit sugar, fat and salt in food.
:41:27. > :41:32.If you want to sprinkle more shuck a ah on your Frosties, fine but what
:41:33. > :41:35.is the alternative? Public health campaigns which have worked. The
:41:36. > :41:41.money's been cut from quite a few public health campaign budgets. This
:41:42. > :41:49.is the point, if sugar consumption peaked in the 70s, we have been
:41:50. > :41:52.doing something right. Our sugar intakes are rampant. This is an
:41:53. > :41:56.important point here Jo, the politicians with the greatest
:41:57. > :42:01.respect to the both of you, get seduced by the idea of being seen to
:42:02. > :42:05.do something. Let's... John Redwood...
:42:06. > :42:10.ALL SPEAK AT ONCE. The evidence is though that the
:42:11. > :42:15.poorest families are going to get hit the hardest. Reseduced by the
:42:16. > :42:20.pressure lobby campaigns on this issue of putting a tax on sugary
:42:21. > :42:23.items like fizzy drinks? We have heard two very powerful advocates
:42:24. > :42:26.today and there's good in both and I think it's absolutely right, we have
:42:27. > :42:30.got a major obesity problem and diabetes problem and anything to
:42:31. > :42:34.highlight that will help to deal with it. Will it work? It's quite
:42:35. > :42:37.right that before the Government takes action, it's got to make sure
:42:38. > :42:42.there is evidence to say this will have the desired impact. What it's
:42:43. > :42:46.clearly doing is creating the public conversation. I think you agree with
:42:47. > :42:49.me that that's probably even more important to have the public
:42:50. > :42:53.conversation so people understand they're damaging their own health if
:42:54. > :43:06.they go to extremes. The evidence is stark, you got it from health
:43:07. > :43:11.professionals and also celebrities and Cancer Research saying what the
:43:12. > :43:18.numbers are of those who could avoid getting diabetes. Would you support
:43:19. > :43:23.this being broadened further to include other items with high levels
:43:24. > :43:27.of sugar? There is some impact. I respect expertise but there are an
:43:28. > :43:31.awful lot of the spot forecasts as we have seen with Treasury and Bank
:43:32. > :43:34.of England and IMF forecasts that are wrong and you have to be
:43:35. > :43:39.critical about what they do when trying to apply knowledge. This may
:43:40. > :43:46.be another case where it might be unlikely that they have the exact
:43:47. > :43:52.number right. Milk shakes, high sugar coffees and other drinks are
:43:53. > :43:57.exempt? That is a proob. One other big issue is how much sugar is in
:43:58. > :44:03.anything, a lot of it is hidden -- that is a problem. Unless you obsess
:44:04. > :44:10.about the nutritional information. I would like to see a simpler way of
:44:11. > :44:13.labelling food. You are talking about fruit juices as well. How many
:44:14. > :44:17.things are going to tax. Jamie Oliver said it was a symbolic slap.
:44:18. > :44:21.To people like Jamie Oliver, that bit of extra money paid in tax
:44:22. > :44:24.doesn't really count but it does to many poor families and that's the
:44:25. > :44:27.issue here, I can't believe the politicians aren't hearing this. Are
:44:28. > :44:33.you proud that it's a Conservative Government bringing this in? I'm
:44:34. > :44:36.proud that they are looking at the problem but I find in the
:44:37. > :44:40.supermarket I value the extra information but it makes it a
:44:41. > :44:46.long-winded task trying to buy things because it's not presented in
:44:47. > :44:50.a similar way on each packet and there are so many things that
:44:51. > :44:56.experts say are damaging to us, it's tempting to say I'm in a hurry, I'm
:44:57. > :44:59.going to just buy this. If the extra tax goes on something that's really
:45:00. > :45:03.important, I think that would make a massive difference. Sports for
:45:04. > :45:06.example. We have make sure the extra tax, the revenue is tied with
:45:07. > :45:11.getting kids active and moving again. It can't possibly do both,
:45:12. > :45:17.can't raise the revenue and have an impact. It could. Greater proportion
:45:18. > :45:21.of the poorest families money in tax, that's all it's going to do.
:45:22. > :45:24.Let's take a look at the main political events expected this week.
:45:25. > :45:26.This afternoon, members of the House of Lords
:45:27. > :45:28.continue their consideration of the Article 50 Bill,
:45:29. > :45:31.which paves the way for Theresa May to kick off Brexit negotiations.
:45:32. > :45:32.Votes on amendments are expected on Wednesday.
:45:33. > :45:34.This evening, former Conservative prime minister John Major
:45:35. > :45:37.makes his first public statement since the referendum
:45:38. > :45:40.last summer in a speech billed as being about "the realities that
:45:41. > :45:43.Britain and Europe face in the future".
:45:44. > :45:45.On Tuesday, the British Chambers of Commerce
:45:46. > :45:51.John McDonnell and George Osborne will be there.
:45:52. > :45:53.Wednesday, as ever, brings Prime Minister's Questions.
:45:54. > :45:57.Watch it live here on the Daily Politics.
:45:58. > :45:59.Thursday is polling day in Northern Ireland
:46:00. > :46:02.after a scandal brought down the last government there.
:46:03. > :46:06.And on Friday, we turn to Scotland, where the Scottish Conservatives
:46:07. > :46:10.And to talk about all that, we're joined
:46:11. > :46:16.by Kate Devlin from the Herald and Harry Cole from the Sun.
:46:17. > :46:24.Welcome to both of you. Sorry about your umbrellas and being outside.
:46:25. > :46:28.Hope it's not freezing! Harry Cole, what about the Lords and the
:46:29. > :46:31.amendments that they are going to be looking at? Do you think those are
:46:32. > :46:38.going to pass in terms of Article 50 changes? I expect they probably
:46:39. > :46:41.will. The Labour and Lib Dem peers, with the help of people like Lord
:46:42. > :46:46.Heseltine, are increasingly confident that they have the numbers
:46:47. > :46:51.to attach a fuel amendments back and send the bill back to the Commons
:46:52. > :46:54.but the Home Secretary let the cat out of the bag and confirmed
:46:55. > :46:57.yesterday live on TV, it is not going to make the slightest bit of
:46:58. > :47:01.difference and it is very unlikely the Prime Minister will accept these
:47:02. > :47:04.amendments. I don't think there's a huge appetite for an extended ping
:47:05. > :47:09.pong, as they call it, so I think we will see the Lords their point, add
:47:10. > :47:12.an amendment, whether the government accepted or not is up to the
:47:13. > :47:17.government, but I don't think it will drag on in quite the epic
:47:18. > :47:27.battle song would like to see to it there is more Brexit news. Are we
:47:28. > :47:30.likely to see a Tony Blair style intervention from John Major or
:47:31. > :47:35.something less controversial? I think probably a bit more supported
:47:36. > :47:39.it up they are speaking to different audiences. Tony Blair was speaking
:47:40. > :47:44.to primarily Labour and Lib Dem voters who did want Brexit and voted
:47:45. > :47:46.against it it up John Major argued very, very strongly against Brexit
:47:47. > :47:51.but he knows as a former Conservative Prime Minister, he will
:47:52. > :47:54.be speaking mainly to Tory voters who overwhelmingly backed leaving
:47:55. > :47:59.the European Union. It will be a slightly more subtle argument trying
:48:00. > :48:06.to set a bit of a pass for the kind of Brexit that the pro-European
:48:07. > :48:10.Conservatives want to see. Do you think, or how much, do you think it
:48:11. > :48:14.is going to anger Brexiteers in the Conservative Party? Brexiteers in
:48:15. > :48:18.the Conservative Party ten to get angry at the drop of a hat. We've
:48:19. > :48:21.had one Tory MP declare that Heseltine should be fired from his
:48:22. > :48:26.minor role advising the government on business strategy. Brexiteers are
:48:27. > :48:30.going to get angry regardless of how sensible their case is and that's
:48:31. > :48:34.been the case for many years and one person who knows how angry the Tory
:48:35. > :48:39.party get on Europe is John Major. Yes, he has a bit of experience in
:48:40. > :48:43.that regard! When a former Prime Minister speak... John Major really
:48:44. > :48:50.pixies moments and he will be heard with a dignity. -- picks his
:48:51. > :48:54.moments. Is he howling at the moon? I think he probably is. He said the
:48:55. > :48:58.case for a second referendum is very credible. I don't think that will
:48:59. > :49:01.happen. What do you think the atmosphere will be like at the
:49:02. > :49:05.Parliamentary Labour Party meeting tonight? The first after the
:49:06. > :49:08.by-elections? We are not expecting Jeremy Corbyn to be there and even
:49:09. > :49:13.if he was, it wouldn't be the kind of bloodbath I think you would
:49:14. > :49:19.expect. Lots of Labour MPs really now believe that what they have to
:49:20. > :49:24.do is kind of quietly oppose the leadership and not cause these big,
:49:25. > :49:28.massive rows between the PLP and Jeremy Corbyn that you've seen in
:49:29. > :49:32.recent months. One of them said to me today, when somebody is failing
:49:33. > :49:35.this badly you just let him get on with it. I can hear the rain coming
:49:36. > :49:40.down and you are probably drowning out their! Sorry about this. Harry
:49:41. > :49:43.Cole, what do you think it is going to be like tonight? Cake is right
:49:44. > :49:48.that everyone has been told not to mention leadership elections.
:49:49. > :49:53.Absolutely. They call it the Gareth strategy because one of Jeremy
:49:54. > :49:58.Corbyn's aids in a candid moment in a documentary, called Gareth, said
:49:59. > :50:02.that if any of his enemies want to fail, they should just keep quiet
:50:03. > :50:05.and let him do it himself. There are some die-hard Corbyn critics like
:50:06. > :50:08.John Woodcock who is in a neighbouring seat to Copeland, who
:50:09. > :50:13.is very angry and worried about his own future prospects but we have
:50:14. > :50:19.seen a concerted efforts to keep a lid on it. It is so the core
:50:20. > :50:24.blisters can't turn around and say, it is just the evil, right wing PLP
:50:25. > :50:28.unsettling Jeremy. It will show it is the incompetence of their own
:50:29. > :50:31.leadership. Today in another example, we've had Shadow Chancellor
:50:32. > :50:35.John McDonell who yesterday called for unity, saying everybody should
:50:36. > :50:39.get behind the leader, and then last night and article was published
:50:40. > :50:43.accusing Labour of being in cahoots with the media for a soft coup. I
:50:44. > :50:47.think the Parliamentary Labour Party should sit back and watch the chaos.
:50:48. > :50:55.We've heard from Barry Gardiner that he has retracted that article. That
:50:56. > :51:00.makes everything all right! Just to inform you. Many people including
:51:01. > :51:04.myself will have woken up to the sad news that Gerald Kaufmann has died
:51:05. > :51:09.aged 86. Have you managed to speak to MPs at all today? They will be
:51:10. > :51:12.coming back to their constituencies -- from their constituencies, and
:51:13. > :51:16.Ken Clarke will take his place of the longest serving father of the
:51:17. > :51:23.House. One of the things MPs are paying tribute to is the wit of
:51:24. > :51:27.Gerald Kaufmann. Something that in more modern times in the House of
:51:28. > :51:34.Commons has appeared to be lacking. He really was one of those MPs who
:51:35. > :51:42.showed how much you can achieve in politics by a sense of humour. Thank
:51:43. > :51:49.you very much. To rush inside! Gerald Kaufman, because obviously
:51:50. > :51:56.you knew him. Yes. It was very sad news. He was very waspish and witty
:51:57. > :52:01.but he was also, in person, very kind and always very willing to give
:52:02. > :52:06.advice and you learn a lot from him over his years of experience. It was
:52:07. > :52:11.always very measured and balanced but as that reporter said, he was
:52:12. > :52:15.very waspish and witty and always a joy to listen to. I felt very sad
:52:16. > :52:19.about that this morning. Quite a colourful character in the House,
:52:20. > :52:24.not just in the way he dressed. Will you be listening with bated breath
:52:25. > :52:28.to John Major's speech? I doubt it's. We spent the whole referendum
:52:29. > :52:32.campaign with most of the big names, all the experts and institutions on
:52:33. > :52:34.the wrong side, as far as I was concerned, and the fact that a few
:52:35. > :52:38.of them haven't switched back doesn't surprise me and I doubt if
:52:39. > :52:41.there will be new arguments. I think the Government is doing a very good
:52:42. > :52:44.job on Brexit, we need to get across our message that we want to be
:52:45. > :52:47.friends with everyone on the continent and trade with them and
:52:48. > :52:52.have all sorts of collaborations with them but Leave does mean no
:52:53. > :52:55.European court, no budget contributions, no open borders that
:52:56. > :53:00.we don't control. I think what will be interesting is that there are
:53:01. > :53:04.many people who supported Remain who now want to get onto, what does a
:53:05. > :53:09.good Brexit look like for jobs growth, workers' rights and
:53:10. > :53:14.environmental standards? My hunch, although I don't know, is that that
:53:15. > :53:18.is what he will focus on - how do we get the best? Because there are very
:53:19. > :53:23.different views and options for what kind of Brexit there is. Not
:53:24. > :53:26.stopping Brexit? There isn't just one option. I know you've got an
:53:27. > :53:31.option you want but there isn't just one option. I think what John Major
:53:32. > :53:35.and others who love the EU and these kinds of institutions could do for
:53:36. > :53:38.us as a country is to direct their comments to the European Union
:53:39. > :53:43.because, in practice, whether we have to impose minimum tariffs or we
:53:44. > :53:49.go tariff free will be a call that they make. We would like to be
:53:50. > :53:54.tariff free. But there might be some momentum with Tony Blair... Can you
:53:55. > :53:58.just listen to me for a minute? An issue where the Vote Leave and pain
:53:59. > :54:01.felt very strongly. We want to assure everyone in Britain who has
:54:02. > :54:06.come here illegally that they can stay to talk we have no wish to try
:54:07. > :54:09.and get rid of them and I think it is probably illegal in international
:54:10. > :54:13.law. Why can't be EU say the same thing? We must stand up for EU
:54:14. > :54:19.citizens living on the continent. Mrs May is quite right about that.
:54:20. > :54:24.John Major should address his remarks to the EU. You are meant to
:54:25. > :54:28.be a Bastia decent values and you can't even say that you will secure
:54:29. > :54:35.the rights of Britain's settled on the continent. Why couldn't she have
:54:36. > :54:38.done it unilaterally? She has to represent Britain's interested top
:54:39. > :54:48.the tone of both sides is important to adopt we are in a negotiation.
:54:49. > :54:51.Why is it... Let Liz speak. Some of the things she has said have really
:54:52. > :54:54.riled up Europe and vice versa and if we're going to get through this
:54:55. > :54:59.and have a deal that works for Britain and the rest of the EU, the
:55:00. > :55:09.is very important and I think that maybe what John Major tries to set.
:55:10. > :55:12.And you can watch the entire Lords debate on Article 50 from 2.30 this
:55:13. > :55:15.afternoon by pressing the Red Button on your TV remote.
:55:16. > :55:17.While the showbiz world was glued to the Oscars last night,
:55:18. > :55:19.in Central London, MPs flocked to another glitzy awards ceremony.
:55:20. > :55:23.The annual British Kebab Awards took place in Westminster with dozens
:55:24. > :55:26.of politicians in the audience and two on the judging panel.
:55:27. > :55:28.Hopefully they didn't make any mistakes in this one.
:55:29. > :55:31.MPs were keen to say they weren't supporting the event just
:55:32. > :55:33.Really importantly, a lot of employment,
:55:34. > :55:36.a lot of opportunity, and it's wonderful to actually
:55:37. > :55:39.But, also, this helps fund a really important think tank,
:55:40. > :55:41.the Centre For Turkish Studies, as well.
:55:42. > :55:44.I think they're an amazingly important awards ceremony,
:55:45. > :55:47.celebrating what is very good about Britain and that is
:55:48. > :55:51.eating takeaway food and supporting the local economy.
:55:52. > :55:55.This is the second time I've come to the awards and I'm
:55:56. > :55:57.delighted that I was able to nominate my
:55:58. > :56:11.I can't hear anything because everyone is looking at the food! Who
:56:12. > :56:14.says MPs are not attracted by the offer of free food?
:56:15. > :56:17.The Conservative MP Nadhim Zahawi, one of the judges at the awards
:56:18. > :56:19.last night, is with us, as is Ibrahim Dogus
:56:20. > :56:27.At least you didn't make any dreadful, jaw-dropping mistakes, I
:56:28. > :56:33.assume! It ran like clockwork! Maybe you could give some advice to the
:56:34. > :56:37.people who run the Oscars. Ibrahim Mihlib make that sort of the six.
:56:38. > :56:41.Five years ago, he approached me with an idea. He is a brilliant
:56:42. > :56:47.entrepreneur, restaurateur, sadly a member of the Labour Party but we
:56:48. > :56:53.won't hold that against him! We are talking about the kebabs at this
:56:54. > :56:57.point! He, five years ago, said, I've got this idea, the industry
:56:58. > :57:01.employs about 20,000 people, ?2.8 billion. Lots of entrepreneurs,
:57:02. > :57:05.manufacturers of products. We have the first one in Parliament,
:57:06. > :57:12.standing room only, in a committee room. Now it is many people in the
:57:13. > :57:17.Plaza hotel. Is going to continue? It will. This is just the fifth
:57:18. > :57:24.year. Why are they so successful? Wires the British kebabs... This
:57:25. > :57:29.poor man can't speak! Why are kebabs are so important? It has been
:57:30. > :57:32.important UK for many years. The first kebab restaurant in Soho was
:57:33. > :57:37.established in the 1940s so it is about 70 years now so it continues
:57:38. > :57:41.to become a national dish in the UK and those enrolled in the business
:57:42. > :57:46.are mainly small and medium enterprises. You are a fan of
:57:47. > :57:50.kebabs, aren't you? I made it about last night and it is not winning any
:57:51. > :57:57.awards but it did the job. John, any of these take your fancy? I'm sure
:57:58. > :58:00.they will. No, I'm not sure they will. You might have to fight with
:58:01. > :58:06.everybody else! What is it that pomegranate? It is a mixed salad,
:58:07. > :58:12.which goes well with the mixed grill, Donner kebab. Oh, look,
:58:13. > :58:15.fingers! Good for you! You are supposed to eat it with your
:58:16. > :58:21.fingers. Are you feeling a bit peckish?
:58:22. > :58:24.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:25. > :58:26.The question was, in his interview with
:58:27. > :58:29.the Sunday Express what did Ukip donor Arron Banks compare
:58:30. > :58:37.Or D - a poorly organised party in a brewery?
:58:38. > :58:49.I have no idea. Whelk stall. You think it is the whelk stall? I think
:58:50. > :58:51.it is deep. It is the jumble sale! At least you are concentrating!
:58:52. > :58:55.Thanks to Liz, John and all my guests.
:58:56. > :59:02.And to you for bringing in the kebabs. Well done for a fifth
:59:03. > :59:03.successful event. At