09/03/2017 Daily Politics

It was all smiles yesterday, but it turned out that the Chancellor's

Budget Box contained a broken manifesto promise.

Conservative backbenchers aren't happy about his increases

to national insurance for the self employed.

Will he be forced into a U-turn on his first Budget?

There was ?2 billion for social care over three years

but is it too little, too late and do we really

need yet another review of social care funding?

A Referendum on Independence in the autumn of 2018

would be "common sense", according to Nicola Sturgeon.

Has Brexit made another poll in Scotland inevitable?

And at the Daily Politics we realise that politics

And with us for the duration, fund manager, gender equality

campaigner and all-round super-woman, Helena Morrissey.

You just have to live up to that build-up now.

First this morning, it was a smaller budget than normal

- just 28 measures - but it's just one of

them that's dominating the headlines this morning.

That's the increases in National Insurance

Here's the crucial annoucement from yesterday's Budget.

To improve the fairness of the tax system, I will act to reduce the gap

to better reflect current differences in state benefits.

I have considered, Mr Deputy Speaker,

the possibility of simply reversing the decision to abolish Class 2

But the Class 2 Nic is regressive and outdated.

Instead, from April 2018, when the Class 2 Nic is abolished,

the main rate of class 4 Nics for the self-employed

will increase by 1% to 10%, with a further 1%

It is all very complicated. The key political point is

that increase in national insurance has broken a pledge that appeared

This is page 7 of the Conservative manifesto, as you can see

This is what the papers thought of that.

The Sun has the headline "spite van man" and says the Chancellor

"sparked a national wave of fury by unleashing a ?240-a-year

tax raid on Britain's self-employed strivers".

The Daily Mirror pictures Theresa May howling with laughter

at one of Philip Hammond's quips, and asks: "What's

The paper dubs it "the betrayal Budget".

"No laughing matter," declares the Daily Mail and says

the Chancellor littered his Budget with jokes but broke an election

pledge by "hammering" the self-employed and savers.

The Times headline says the Chancellor launched

a "?2 billion tax raid" on self-employed workers to provide

"Tories break tax vow" is how the Daily Telegraph puts it,

accusing Philip Hammond of breaking a key Conservative manifesto pledge.

And "Hammond falls into tax trap" is the Guardian's headline,

saying the Chancellor's attempt at a low-key package of measures

threatens to be overshadowed by the National Insurance row.

The Government's said it's sticking to its commitment not to increase

the main rate of national insurance for employed people and it's

There are actually four types of National Insurance

Class 1 is for people who are employed - that's

They pay 12% on earnings above ?155 a week and 2%

After the 2015 general election, the Government passed a law banning

increases in this particular type of National

Class 2 Nics are for self-employed with low earnings

but they're being abolished in April 2018.

Class 3 NICs are voluntary contributions that some employed

and self-employed people can choose to pay, in order to boost

Class 4 Nics are paid by people who are self-employed

The rate is currently 9% on earnings above ?8,060 and then 2%

In the Budget yesterday, Philip Hammond announced

that the core 9% rate of Class 4 National Insurance Contributions

will go up to 10% in April 2018 and then 11% in April 2019.

Because of those changes to both Class 2 and Class 4 Nics,

1.6 million people will pay ?240 more every year on average.

And that will eventually mean ?145 million going into

But that figure could go up in the future if more people become

Well, this morning the Chancellor toured the TV and radio stations,

defending his national insurance policy.

There was a broad commitment to lock taxes so that there will be no tax

increases, and that's what we have done, because the Chancellor now,

I'm working within an extremely constrained environment where we

face some new challenges in this country.

But that's the argument you could make, couldn't you?

You could basically say, yes, we've changed our policy because

We face some new challenges which we have to rise to.

I'm doing that within a very constrained environment where

most taxes cannot be raised and much of our spending is also ringfenced

And we're joined now from Central Lobby by

the Conservative MP, Anne Marie Trevelyan.

-- Dominik Rab and the shadow Treasury minister. The Conservative

manifesto said four times he would not raise national insurance

contributions. You have raised them and broken your promise will stop

this was a solid and responsible budget. With any budget committee

want to pay for things you want to do like social care and take the

edge of business rates, you must pay for them somehow. And that is by

breaking your promise? Budgets are a package it is easy to run for the

hills when there is one bit you do not like. I do not like this bit

much. The truth is, both on the substance of the policy and to make

sure we square with what we have said, and you can read out as many

bits of the manifesto as you like. There are different types of Nics.

We will have a separate piece of national insurance legislation. The

need to make sure we are not hurting the entrepreneurial classes, to make

sure we live by, not just the letter but the spirit of our commitments.

It would mean this promise is not worth the paper it is written on. If

you are self-employed, and you have voted Conservative on the basis of

your four promises in the 2015 manifesto, you were sold a false

prospectus. You have picked out selective bits of the manifesto. We

were asked about this at length. I agree with you that we need to

square what we are doing with not just the letter but also the spirit

of the commitments. I do not agree with that. Just address this. David

Cameron tweeted during the 20 15th election campaign when people were

making up their minds, you said, Labour needs to raise national

insurance to make their sums add up. Hard-working people will end up

paying for is that you have had to raise them and hard-working people

will pay. That was said in the context of Ed Miliband talking about

the National Insurance employer 's contribution, which we said would be

a jobs tax. I'm not going to argue that this will be the one thorny

issue in the Budget. It is fine for journalist pick a hole in something.

It is a package. You made the promise four times. There was no

mention, when you put the legislation through. The Government

has said it concentrated on class one. It did not cover the ones you

put up yesterday. The minister in the House of Lords at the time,

cheated the registration through the Lords will she did not even know

this is what was being planned. She said she would never have expected

us to do this or that we said in good faith we would not raise

national insurance rates. That is the woman that took your legislation

through. We have all types of national insurance contributions and

rates. There is a query about whether we are living up to both the

spirit, as opposed to just the letter, of the commitment. We do

have national insurance legislation which is separate from the Budget

which is an opportunity to look at this from the round. We do not want

to penalised the entrepreneurial classes. We must deal with the

nuances which was said around the time of the election. The advantage

with that being stand-alone legislation is we must look at this

properly and keep our promises. The truth about this Budget, you can

pick a hole in it. I understand that is your job. If you compare the

package we put forward, both to cut taxes for basic rate taxpayers, will

be saving the average taxpayer ?1000 year to the income tax allowance, to

the extra money will put into social care, if you want to do that

responsibly you must come up with a package. Jeremy Corbyn was talking

about windmills yesterday. One of the choices is not to break your

words to the British people. I am looking at whether we can trust a

Tory manifesto and the paper it is written on. That is what journalists

should do. If you want to pay for the things that Tory MPs say, we

have to put into business rates and schools you can only do if you face

up to the difficult decisions. The Labour Party is totally incapable of

that. Jonathan, when the Government turn this manifesto promise into

legislation, why didn't Labour check what national insurance

contributions it was going to cover? This is a straightforward commitment

in the manifesto and parliament from the Conservatives. Of course they

have broken their commitment. We allow them to legislate. Why didn't

you track? Everyone believed they were generally ruling out a raise.

Isn't it your job, as the official opposition, to check the Government

is living up to its promises and make sure that a promise which

seemed to come up or national insurance contributions, all classes

of them, was actually the case rather than being selective? The

Government has clearly broken its manifesto pledge. There is no

Conservative MP who believed their promise or national insurance

related to social national insurance plans. Everyone believed they were

promising to freeze this. It focused on one type of Nics. You failed to

hold the Government to account on the other classes of Nics. They made

a clear commitment that the issue here is not just about the manifesto

commitment. It is about the fact the premise of Chancellor gave for this

change is not correct. Self-employed people to not have the same rights

as the employed. They do not have access to sick pay or maternity pay.

What is really extraordinary, when you look at the one thing,

Conservative MPs will rightly praise their record. A huge part of that

has been self-employed people and now they are turning round and

hammering them. I understand that. Given the immensity of the situation

and what has happened, why did Jeremy Corbyn not raise it in

response to the Budget yesterday? Responding to a budget is the

hardest thing. This is a broken manifesto pledge. Where you in the

chamber yesterday questioned that you will know it was buzzing around

the House, particularly on the Tory side when they realised what was

being done. Yet, the Leader of the Opposition in a pledge given four

times could not even manage to raise it in his response. He did mention

the impact on self-employed people. He did not mention that it was a

broken promise. The chamber was buzzing when the enormity of what

they had done came through and people realised. Again, the

opposition missing an edge. We made a decision to oppose this. Even as

Jeremy had just about done, just about as quick as you could do so

does you do not get the documents in opposition until the transfer has

sat down. Everybody knew what happened. The press knew what

happened. We needed the Redbook. When you look at the cuts in tax,

you can clearly see this is not a large amount of money being raised.

It was a wrong decision. Stick with us for the moment. We're going to

talk to one Conservative MP who is very happy about it. While I was

reading all those figures and the different types of national

insurance contributions. When I talked about class 4 Nics, it is

people earning that a year and not a week. Where you surprised by the

announcements from Philip Hammond on Nics?

I think on this issue, we need a U-turn quickly. How is that going to

happen? I believe as the others have said, the National instruments

contribution changes will be brought forward in a separate bill and we

need to change that. We need to keep the pressure up so people understand

this change is not acceptable. This change affects ordinary working

families who have taken the risk of setting up small business and many a

ploy apprentices, the backbone of our economy, and it makes us feel we

have broken our promise, it is not acceptable and cannot proceed. What

impact will it have on people thinking about starting their

business or setting up self-employed? It will not have much

impact in terms of people thinking of setting up their business because

they are entrepreneurs and there has been a huge rise in the

self-employed who want to take that risk, it shows the wrong message and

says we are not providing you with every possible opportunity to make

it easy. The Government has a great record of employment over seven

years and making it easier for people to set up business and take

risks. This type of change is very complicated and people do not like

complicated issues and it sends the wrong message. In terms of revenue,

it raises money and my local public organisations waste more than that

over the next 12 months. It does not race a lot of money and the

Chancellor in his defence said it is a matter of fairness that this had

to be seen in terms of trying to equalise the tax paid by an employee

to nurse and an agency nurse. What you say to that? I do understand the

element about fairness and I campaign for fairness, but there are

two microwaves, one is to raise a tax level which I do not think is

fair and the other is to reduce tax levels. As a Conservative MP, I

prefer lower taxes with reformed public services and more money

delivering services people want to help ordinary working families. I am

using the phrase fairness to get round this, what is fair is giving

people everybody opportunity to get on in life. Are you embarrassed by

this when you have to face your constituents, some of them unhappy

about this? I am not embarrassed in the sense of this is politics and

people's lives. You said it is a broken promise. We have got to go

out and fix it, it is not a broken promise yet and we have to ensure

this does not go through and I will be working with people to deliver

that. These changes go into a separate bill is not part of the

main finance bill and that happens in May and June. When you talk about

pressure in the next couple of days, apart from appearing on programmes

like this, how will you pressurise the Chancellor? There is no

indication of change. We have back channels and we are talking in the

party about the issue. No doubt people are dead if I do love all of

opposition and I am sure Philip Hammond is a great Chancellor and he

will look at the issue in more detail and come up with a better

solution that does create change. Thank you very much.

Dominick, was the indication of what you said that because there is

legislation for this, do you want changes on this? The point Philip

Hammond was made was the treatment of self-employed and employed needs

to be equitable and I made the argument about National Insurance

being consolidated with income tax. We have freestanding legislation and

we can look at it in the round and be consistent with our promises and

we do not penalise the entrepreneurial classes. The problem

with this is that we are putting 10 million into the NHS by 2020 and an

extra ?2 billion in social care. It is all very well Labour saying what

they do not like, but if you ask for a credible alternative, you would

not get one. You have had a good say, I want to hear from Labour.

Look at the detail of the Budget and the big expenditure. It is that huge

cut the corporation tax and inheritance tax. If you did not tax

entrepreneurs, that might generate revenue. You can make that argument

about any tax rate, it is the balance between what you are asking

people to pay with this tax on self-employed people compared to

your big giveaways to big organisations. Hold on. How much has

corporate, corporation tax receipts fallen since it was cut? If you look

at the red book. I am asking you a question, how much? The net cost is

about 18 billion. Corporation tax has come down from 28, the 20%,

since 2010. How much have receipts fallen? I do not have that figure, I

can tell you for the next five years. That is projection, I want

the real figures. I will tell you the real figures. Corporation tax

receipts up from 40 billion to 50 billion, so where is the cut? The

cutters into the rate and how would you know you would not have got more

money? Corporation tax receipts have not fallen, can we agree? Yes, there

is a cost to agreeing to reduce corporation tax. You do not know

that we know about forecasts, look at the OBR forecast in November and

talk to me about forecasts. What you make of this? I am a bit confused.

If you want to see more activity, you want to tax it less, and less

activity or use of something, you tax it more. The sugar tax makes

sense. You have talked about making sure this does not affect

entrepreneurs, I think it does and that slightly does not make sense. I

would like to see it in the context of the vision for where we are in

terms of encouraging entrepreneurs in this country, and where there has

been a rise, which is great. The Chancellor gave the game away by

talking about the fact he saw this as a mismatch which needs to be

addressed between self-employed and NICs is a cost of ?6 billion to the

Exchequer. It is not really a cost, we should turn this around and think

it is revenue, people are running this, it is their money and we are

trying to encourage them to earn more of which they will give some to

the revenue. Corporation tax is a great example, companies have the

right and they paid more revenue. That encourages them to thrive. It

is not strategically make sense which is why it was for me

disappointing. One Tory backbencher who sounded like he could be

rebelling, said Mr Hammond in the Budget yesterday hammered three

types of people who vote Tory. The self-employed, owners of small

companies, and the thrifty who save for their old age. You have hit all

three. Who was that? I am not telling you. You speak be terms as

well. Don't throw that at me. I think it is fair enough. What is

wrong with it? If people will not go on the record and stand up as I am

doing for the difficult choices we make it is worth pointing out.

Nobody has told me if we reverse National Insurance, which I would

like to do, how we pay for it. How would you pay the money not just for

cutting taxes, the personal allowance or corporation tax which

we agree is positive, but also to do things for social care, the elderly

and the vulnerable, to do stuff for training and new schools money? That

is the business of serious and credible government. It is what

Labour territory at catered. A final point. 85% of people who pay

National Insurance will be unaffected. Of the 15% affected, 60%

will benefit from the cuts. The lower paid benefit, 116,000 or

under, you will not be affected by this. -- ?16,000. This is quite a

progressive change. The big increases come from those who are

self-employed, who make a lot of money, so why are you opposing a

progressive tax change? I do not agree with that analysis, ?16,500

earnings, that is not breaking it in. Where is the money coming from?

What about the inheritance tax cut? How is it right to go ahead with

that and hitting those who generate the wealth? That does not raise the

10 billion extra for the NHS or the ?2 billion extra. You cannot have it

both ways. The inheritance tax is ?1 billion! He did that, I did the

other! Moving on, you are staying here, we are keeping you hostage. We

have not finished with you that. Now, in the lead-up to yesterday's

Budget, the Chancellor had been under increasing pressure to find

extra cash for England's Local authorities say that more

than ?4.5 billion has been cut from social care budgets since 2010,

at a time when demand is surging. Yesterday, Mr Hammond responded

to claims of a crisis by promising yet another review

of social care funding. But he also said there

would be some more money Let's have a listen

to what he had to say. Today, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am

committing additional grant funding of ?2 billion to social

care in England under Mr Deputy Speaker, that's ?2 billion

over the next three years, with ?1 billion available in '17/'18 -

that will allow local authorities to act now

to commission new care packages and forms a bridge to the better care

funding that becomes available And I'm joined now from

Central Lobby by Norman Lamb, the Lib Dems' spokesman on health,

and former Health Minister under Dominic Raab and Jonathan Reynolds

are still with us. First of all, Norman, do you welcome

the money announced by Philip Hammond for the short-term? It is

certainly better than nothing, but it is inadequate because if you

think the increase in the National Minimum Wage, the so-called national

living wage, costs an extra ?900 million in the coming year, this

really does not go anywhere near reaching the level we need to get

social care stabilised again. The health foundation, independent

organisation, reckons the gap is ?2 billion. If they are right, this

settlement inevitably means more older people will have care needs,

who don't have those met. Who will end up inevitably, unnecessarily in

hospital, increasing the burden on the NHS. It is yet another sticking

plaster and my total frustration with the Government is that rather

than lurching from crisis to crisis and diverting the crisis at last

minute in this way, surely the time has come when we need to take a once

in a generation look at the NHS care system. It was designed in the 1940s

and the needs have changed so much in the period since. I put together

a group of cross-party MPs, Conservative, Labour and Liberal

Democrats. It was not taken on board, those recommendations. We met

with the Prime Minister, she has agreed to sanction the start of a

dialogue. We will soon meet with the new health adviser but I do not have

enormous confidence the Government will take this approach. The money

first of all, ?2 billion over three years. If you take what the councils

and local government associations say, they need almost three times

that, so this is a sticking plaster and it will not meet the needs

councils say is necessary. It is a pretty big sticking plaster, ?2

billion. I agree it is a first step and nobody thinks we have got the

social care issue sorted for the long term in a sustainable way. It

is very thorny. I do think it would be a good idea to forge a

cross-party consensus on this, but the problem is if you are in

opposition and I am not this about labour, but the temptation would be

not to do the quiet and steady and sensible things of agreeing about

principles, but to criticise anything and any step to be taken.

What I would love to see, Norman is right, is Tim Farron genuinely

reaching out to the Government and saying, let's have a coalition on

that issue. Let's stick to the money. The money is important, you

said a sticking plaster and not enough. You said it was a big

sticking plaster. I said it was a first step. And you said it was a

big sticking plaster. The figures do not add up if you are sitting in a

local council and you have to deal with adult social care. ?4.6 billion

has been cut from the adult social care Budget since 2010, according to

those councils, white or you only giving ?2 billion? We have had a

wider discussion about the difficulty raising revenue, you need

to know where you cut taxes or what you cut? They are difficult

decisions and we have taken a first step and it is not a question of the

death tax I am not in favour of, but at what point you say you could cap

costs. Whether working with the private sector, they can depend what

we do, and none of this is easy stuff. So the cuts were wrong in the

first place the local government spending?

I'm not going to accept the figures put forward by the representatives

of the Local Government Association. The Government must look at these

issues in and around. Jonathan Reynolds, you have talked about more

money. Where would you find it? The capital gains tax cut from last year

and the bank levy. These are difficult decisions. Did a good

people on the front by commissioning services, worried about the safety

of adults and children and families who feel the impact of that. They

can take ?4.5 billion out of the system. Jonathan Reynolds, I had

just done the money. Let's have a look at your figures. We talked

briefly about corporation tax. Let's have a look at the projection. If

you look at the cuts, it would bring in between three 7p. How much I be

put forward as a Labour Party question what we have me completely

different choices. You pledged ?15 billion worth of spending pledges.

Even if we take that projection of corporation tax is at its highest

level of ?10 billion, you are short. Where would you find the money? It

is the bank levy and the inheritance tax cut. The priority has to be the

stability of public services. That is not the priority of this

government by any means. Should it be a priority that money should be

spent there? It should be borrowed or taxes should rise. The priority

is, we need a long-term solution. One thing which is disappointing

about the Budget yesterday, it is not visionary in terms of how we're

going to address that priority which is one among several priorities. How

does it all stuck up over the next decade or to macro, not just the

next 12 months question what our hypothecated tax? Would you back it?

Something might potentially be possible. As I said on Monday,

please not another rebuke of that is basically what we have. -- review.

In greater Manchester, we're bringing together health and social

care to do it. We need national government to show the same level to

get a long-term settlement. On a hypothecated health tax, would you

be in favour question what you want to increase income tax. We have set

up an expert panel to look at the case for this. Attacks for the NHS

and for care. People would see where money was going. -- a tax. An

independent assessment of what the system needs and people would have

confidence that their money was going on what they care and awful

lot about. A leading Conservative supported what we are arguing for. I

hope there will be a growing consensus this sort of reform is

what is needed. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Now, EU leaders are meeting in Brussels this afternoon for one

Theresa May will be there for what's almost certainly the last such

gathering before Article 50 is triggered and negotiations

proper begin on Britain's departure from the EU.

Our deputy political editor, John Pienaar, is there for us.

John, well come back to the programme. What is on the agenda

today? -- welcome back. The leaders, including Theresa May, will start

arriving now. They'll be talking about migration and picking up where

they left. At that informal summit. They will talk about the economy and

future free-trade agreements. The lobby talking about security and the

Western Balkans and Russia. -- they will be talking. Theresa May is not

staying for much longer after that. They'll be talking about the

anniversary of the EU's and entreaty of Rome. She will not be there. It

is hard to see why. It was thought generally inappropriate to have the

discussion about the togetherness of the EU just before the divorce.

Donald Tusk is the president of the European Council. That is where the

heads of state and heads of government gather. His own country,

Poland, is opposing him. What is going on here? It is a curious and

interesting feud between Donald Tusk, the president of the council,

and the Polish government. His ruling party in Poland are political

opponents of Donald Tusk. He staged a sit-in in the parliament not so

long ago. He accused Donald Tusk of supporting the overthrow of the

Government will do that is all very nasty. People like Angela Merkel and

President Francois Hollande will stay where they are. Theresa May

will no doubt try to use keep -- try to keep out of it. Nicola Sturgeon

has been talking about the second independence referendum. Let's

listen to and then I will come back to you. Within that window, I guess,

of when the outline of the UK deal becomes clear, and the UK ex-eating

the EU, I think it would be the common-sense time for Scotland to

have that choice, if that is the road we choose to go down. You're

not running out Autumn 2018? I am not ruling out anything, no. John,

Scotland's minister is talking about a second referendum in the autumn of

2018. -- First Minister. It is possible by then we will not know

the full Brexit deal and negotiations will still be going on.

I understand the Government is not minded, the British government is

not minded, to agree a second referendum until a Brexit deal is

done and dusted. Is that your understanding? No. Yes, it is you

can see why that would be. Nicola Sturgeon was keeping the possible of

a possible referendum next year wide open. You have probably seen there

has been a new opinion poll today which bases of support for and

against Scottish independence very evenly balanced indeed. Most of the

polls in recent months have been favouring the idea of staying in the

union. Nicola Sturgeon no doubt would rather have a big lead before

going for another referendum poll. She cannot afford to lose a second

time here is the key thing was that she is under pressure as well and

under pressure from the march of Brexit. If there is a Scottish

referendum after Britain is on its way and out of the European Union,

the Scottish voter would be asked, do they want to leave not only the

union and the European Union as well? Nicola Sturgeon wants to keep

up the pressure and see the polls shift she can the chance are armed.

Eye-macro thank you very much for that.

-- chance her arm. The Nice summit was a four shirt summit.

Now, last week, elections in Northern Ireland failed to resolve

Sinn Fein gained seats and Unionists no longer have an overall

The DUP are still - by one seat - the biggest party, but with

Sinn Fein's Michelle O'Neill still refusing to share

power with DUP leader Arlene Foster, there's deadlock.

The clock is ticking, as they now have three weeks to try

Yesterday, the Northern Ireland Secretary,

James Brokenshire, had a busy day - in Westminster for Cabinet,

and then off to Northern Ireland to continue talks.

Here's what he told reporters last night.

I'm not going to provide a running commentary in relation

There have been, I think, some helpful discussions that have

taken place over recent days and a real commitment that I've

discerned from the parties to get back into government,

to get back into an Executive, and therefore delivering

But I know that this won't all be plain sailing,

but underlining that sense of what we have at stake here,

the real issues that matter for Northern Ireland,

that positive sense of progression that we need to continue

to maintain that momentum, and that is my intent,

and the intent of the Government, to see that that does happen.

That is the Northern Ireland Secretary.

And we're joined now by the former Ulster Unionist leader and now

Welcome to the Daily Politics full stop talks are ongoing to try to

restore the assembly. How optimistic are you? A deal can be reached if

the major parties want to do it. So far, they are not really giving

terribly encouraging signals. The DUP still seems to be mired in the

mess they were in in the run-up to the election. As a result partly of

the heating scandal beforehand? And other things as well. At the same

time, Sinn Fein is not giving encouraging signals. Adams has

reverted to the sort of language she is using 20 years ago. Walking out

on the secretary of state is the sort of stunt that was done 20, 25

years ago. I don't think that he is in modern, grown-up politics yet.

You know a lot about what is needed to de-escalate these sort of

confrontation where the to macro sides cannot agree. Is Arlene Foster

the sticking point? -- to macro sides cannot disagree if she went,

that would be the problem solved. I am not sure they should focus

clearly on that. There is a problem. It is more about her behaviour than

anything else. There would be ways in which she could change that which

might make a difference. I don't like the way in which Sinn Fein is

saying they want to wait until the inquiry that was established to look

at that heating initiative, that it reports. That might be six, nine, 12

months away. They have lost faith, haven't they? They said they did not

like the way she was leading proceedings at Stormont. If she does

not go, I cannot see how the deadlock breaks. I'm why do people

are backing themselves into corners. We don't have very much time. I am

worried that people are backing themselves into corners. Is James

broke and share and honest broker in this? -- Brokenshire. You have to

look at the Brexit talks and the fact that eight seats are very

important in any votes that are coming up. Do you think they can be

seen as honest brokers? I would not worry too much about Parliamentary

arithmetic. As the last few weeks have shown, the Government is coming

in every time with a very large majority. While the figures might

look low, the Government has a small majority. The Government is Her

Majesty's government. It has its objectives and we know what they

are. At the present time but they need to get devolution restored in

Ireland. No problem from government in this respect. The problems are

coming from the DUP and Sinn Fein. They need to change the way they are

doing things. There does not seem to be a very clear how that might be

done. They are backing themselves into corners. It is said that all

James Nics does is waffle, waffle, waffle, and has been called a bad

day for unionism. -- Brokenshire. Nobody is in the same league as

Gerry Adams when it comes to waffle. It does not look promising though,

does it? As I say, I hope the Secretary of State has some

contingency plans. I am married to an Irishman and I should probably

say nothing about waffle. What are you implying? Nothing at all. There

is talk about unionist unity, coming together to talk as one. That is a

distraction. Choose drawing away attention from the mess she has

made. -- she is drawing away attention. Other parties do need to

address the problem, a problem they have created. If you were a betting

man, do think the deal will be reached in the three weeks? -- do

you think? I think that will be rather tough.

Iain Duncan Smith protested about the rise as well.

Now, our guest of the day, Helena Morrissey, is writing a book

Helena herself has clearly done all right for herself,

managing to combine her role as Chief Executive of a top

investment management firm with bringing up nine children.

I've come back to my old school, a place I have many memories of.

Now, when I was here, the internet was brand-new,

no-one had mobile phones, and a certain girlband

# Yo, I'll tell you what I want What I really, really want...

# What you really, really, really want #.

But although the Spice Girls were topping the charts in the late-'90s,

women were poorly represented in public life.

Less than a fifth of MPs were female.

And on the boards of the biggest companies,

It's no wonder some were calling for a bit more 'Girl Power'.

On the face of it, these Year Elevens will be entering

I want to finish college and uni, and then go into training

I plan to go into Environmental Science.

I hope to be doing something political.

Like, maybe as a Member of Parliament.

Would any of you ever see yourself as Chief Executive of a big company,

or really being at the top of your game?

As long as you work hard, you can get anywhere in life.

Could you ever see yourself being a Director in a boardroom?

But I think the most important thing is that we shouldn't start choosing

women for these jobs because they're female, just to balance the pay gap

or the gender barrier, whatever, we should be choosing them

because they're the right person for the job.

Last year, just over a third of managerial and senior

A quarter of FTSE 100 companies now have a female Director.

There's 196 female MPs, that's 30% of the Commons.

A little less in the Lords, where 26% of peers are women.

In 2016, women accounted for 28% of judges in England and Wales,

but far fewer have made it to the upper echelons.

Just one judge on the Supreme Court is female.

There has been progress, but the progress has been patchy.

There has been particularly fast and significant

However, the gender pay gap then opens up as soon

as women get into their 30s, where they might just be thinking

There has been progress on getting more women onto boards,

but most of those positions are non-exec, so they're not

the people actually making the day-to-day decisions

When it comes to exam results, the tables have turned.

Last year, 71% of female pupils got a C or above at GCSE, compared

And that trend's continuing at university, with 37% of young

women entering higher education, compared to just 27% of men.

It's, in fact, now boys who are becoming the disadvantaged,

some argue, and we're in danger of taking our eye off

Working class white boys are the bottom of the stack.

They don't qualify for any special dispensation.

They certainly don't qualify for any special initiatives.

Because the feeling is, it's impossible to be born a white

male and to be born disadvantaged, despite the facts which

Do you feel like you're about to enter a world

where there is still inequality for men and women?

There's more of a stereotype of women being bossy.

And then men, they're the strong leaders.

I think that women are really seen as pretty faces too much.

I think men just dismiss their capability because of how they look.

We have come very far and women should be,

But I think it's so important that we don't give up,

to just be like - oh, yeah, that's fine, then.

Well, there's certainly some young women in here prepared to continue

fighting for greater equality, but have us girls already

broken the glass ceiling, or is there still a lot more to do?

And we're joined now by the economist Alison Wolf.

First, to quote from your book, why is it a good time to be a girl?

First, we have had a big Spotlight on gender equality and that is

helpful in terms of raising awareness and making people think

about why is that, why have we not got equality in the 21st century? It

seems odd. And I think Smart businesses and organisations and

people are realising with difficult problems, we need more than one type

of person to solve an appetite for cognitive diversity. What is that in

English? Thinking differently. I do not think men and women are

different in every respect, but we do have different attributes. Women

tend to be empathetic. I want a mix of perspectives. The first step was

women on boards and that is a start, not the finish. And now we have got

quite a lot of momentum. It is not just about having some women in a

boys club or a man's world, but changing the world so it is more

balanced. Alison, is it a good time to be a girl? It is a fantastic time

to be an educated girl, not sure it is a fantastic time to be a girl

generally. I am very depressed by the way the feminist discussion and

of women focuses so much on how many women there are one boards and the

High Court, compared to even two generations ago, it is staggering

progress. If you look at society as a whole, you get a growing gap

between the highly educated who are more like men in many ways and other

women, who are overwhelmingly working in low paid service jobs. Is

that true of male and female? The digitally true for female. Partly

for good reasons, inequality has increased more among women than men.

And the puzzle, the challenge. It, is that the upper-middle-class,

careers are increasingly possible because we have a servant class

which is overwhelmingly female. Doing the lesser page jobs. You have

come paid to get more women on boards and have had some success, is

that more symbolic than anything? It is certainly not the end, it is a

start. We started with the boards because you could easily measure it

and it was very visible and after the financial crisis, we did not

have good oversight of companies are in the financial sector and we

needed changes. The target is 30%? As a critical mass point, ultimately

we want complete balance. I agree we need progress in all areas of

society and not just more women in very senior roles, although we have

not got parity or anywhere like that as we have in the nonexecutive

roles. But the emphasis has to be now on I think having real momentum

throughout. Yesterday was International Women's Day and there

was a sense in some areas of people feeling we were taking a step back

because we have had some developments, the election of

President Trump, leaving people wondering if we have enough positive

momentum. I am optimistic and I think sometimes and people is an

opportunity to look again at making decisions -- and upheaval is an

opportunity. But I agree with Alison. I was not surprised but

depressed that International Women's Day events focused so much on people

like us, to be brutal. I am not convinced putting an Uxbridge

educated metropolitan female on a board is such a change from an

Uxbridge educated male on the board. I feel we always will be more aware

of our surroundings and the best thing that could happen for women is

for advantage and successful women and for women to be more aware of

what is happening to people in other parts of society. I want to

emphasise this because what is happening in our economy is

increasingly shift work, part-time work, often at very difficult hours.

And they are not people who can put children in nine to five daycare,

people who can afford nannies, more likely they will be nannies. I just

feel it is predictable and depressing that those who have done

very well seem to be very much concerned with how to make things

even better for people like us. What about replacing a male metropolitan

elite with a female metropolitan elite? That is not the end game,

obviously. I think we did see some of that to begin with and people

felt it was dropped on, we have women on our board, we don't have to

do something around the rest of the population. But I want to say how

generous with their time a lot of women in senior roles are about

speaking in schools, reaching out and being a role melt all. We cannot

fix every problem, but you have to start somewhere and I feel we are

trying to show we can make a positive impact, it is not one thing

or the other. A lot of what you say is that the question of gender

inequality is inextricably intertwined with our traditional

class inequality. I think it is, I absolutely think it is, but I also

think for many women, life has in some ways become harder and many

would like to be in families where there could be a breadwinner when

the children are small, instead of being in Waitrose getting every

shift they can at 10:30 p.m.. Thank you, very interesting.

Now, this programme obviously takes its politics very seriously,

but not all politicians share our high-minded approach,

and apparently think it's a bit of a laughing matter.

So, here, for your disapproval, some laughing politicians,

starting with Theresa May at PMQs yesterday.

And we're joined now by the Times sketchwriter Patrick Kidd

and the Conservative MP Michael Fabricant.

Welcome, both. You have two laugh at some stage in politics? If you sit

in the House of Commons as I do religiously, you have to laugh or

you would go mad. Or cry! Theresa May really was throwing herself into

that. What was the hilarity about? It was a natural reaction, like

watching a rhinoceros roller-skate Philip Hammond is telling jokes! The

shoulders went like a vulture in the jungle. It was not anything that had

been said to her, Jeremy Corbyn was asking a question about local

government Finance and clearly somebody whispered to her and that

set her off. Did it looks slightly inappropriate? We saw the contrast

with Jeremy Corbyn, a serious matter, the Budget. You have never

seen Jeremy Corbyn smile, let alone laugh. I think he has smiled. He has

not much to laugh about but I am not going to be party political! Me,

party political? It is always appropriate to laugh and smile and

show your humanity and Theresa May comes over very well doing that. But

does it look great to have an outbreak of hysterics? Contextually,

it seems odd what happened yesterday. I do agree we need

politicians with a human side and with social media. The idea of

everybody walking around Po faced and not caught out at any moment

enjoying themselves, we would not want that either, so put them a bit

of slack. Do you inject humour into the boardroom? Yes, that is

essential, I think. In all walks of life. There are serious matters to

attend to, but also, if you are enjoying yourself, you tend to be

having better ideas. Not a lot of chuckles in asset management, let's

be honest! I am struggling to think of a good joke! Wendy Duet tell your

best joke and did you enjoy Philip Hammond's jokes? Mine was forced, I

wanted to show they were jolly. I did the shoulders as well. If you do

not find it funny, you do that and people think you are doing. Theresa

May, it is very nerve-racking getting these questions and some of

them you know in advance and others you do not. I have not done my

homework, but not many PMQs she has done. At the moment, it is sometimes

laughter of relief. What about the NIC announcements, were they funny?

I thought they were interesting. It was Philip's jokes. Who is there?

Philip the coffers, we need your money! You wonder what was said to

her, David Cameron was laughing once and somebody had made a joke about

Jeremy Corbyn, saying, he is good, isn't he? Yes, that is why I voted

for him. I will be back tomorrow with a range

of guests. And I will be back here tomorrow. Goodbye!

The very embodiment of the England that must emerge.