23/06/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May unveils a "fair and serious" offer to EU citizens

which would grant a new "settled status" to migrants who've lived

Police investigating the Grenfell Tower fire say

they are considering a range of criminal charges,

including manslaughter, after cladding and insulation failed

It's exactly a year since Britain voted to leave the European Union.

We're joined by leading lights from the Leave and Remain campaigns

to reflect on that momentous decision and a tumultuous

Jeremy Corbyn has proven that anti-austerity policies are popular!

And things can often get spicy when politicians come

And with me for the duration, two key players from the referendum

campaign which led to the vote exactly a year ago today.

Matthew Elliott was chief executive of Vote Leave

and Lucy Thomas was deputy director of Britain Stronger In Europe.

She is now head of Brexit advice at a PR firm.

So let's just rewind one year and remind ourselves of that moment

during the BBC's coverage when it became clear that Britain had

Well, at 20 minutes to five, we can now say the decision taken

in 1975 by this country to join the Common Market has been reversed

We are absolutely clear now that there is no way

It looks as though the gap's going to be something like 52-48,

so a four-point lead for leaving the EU, and that's the result

of this referendum, which has been preceded by weeks and months

of argument and dispute and all the rest of it.

The British people have spoken and the answer is, we're out.

Matthew Elliott, how did you feel? Elated, very tired as well. It had

been a long campaign. You are not alone, I think! And how do you feel

now? Still elated. I think that we haven't seen Project Fear, the

economy is going well, negotiations have started so we are on track. How

did you feel? The opposite, very sad, emotional, looking at what was

happening to the pound, to the market. I find it astonishing that

Matthew is still elated given that real wages have gone down. We have

had inflation and prices going up. People are already feeling squeezed.

For me, actually being involved in the campaign, I was concerned at

what happened were we to leave and what consequences be, and we still

don't know where we will end up, we barely know what the UK position is,

let alone the final outcome, and so unfortunately I am still pretty

pessimistic, but certainly that night it was a real shock, and let's

not forget that we thought, and lots of people assumed, that we would

win. So I think that that shock was real, both our internal polling,

with Nigel Farage conceding right away, and so it was both a shock and

a disappointment. Where you shocked to win? I wasn't. Ever since David

Cameron came back with his deal and Boris Johnson came on the Leave

side, I thought there was a good chance we would win. I thought --

was never overly confident though. But events have happened, dear boy,

to coin a phrase, and a lot has changed. You say you feel the same

way as you did when the result was announced. What do you make of the

tumultuous year we have had? It's been incredible and internationally

as well, the election of President Trump, and in France, the election

of president macron, so politics seems to be shaken up, and there

seems to be a big push against the establishment, a big push against

the status quo. Did you think it would have that sort of impact? Do

you think some of it stemmed from Brexit? I think it all flowed from

the antiestablishment feeling, which I think can be traced back to the

financial crisis. That led to some of the things Lucy talked about in

terms of lower wages. When we look now, after what has happened, do you

think that things have changed in people's attitude towards Brexit? I

think, in terms of whether they regret voting a certain way, first

of all, it was incredibly divisive, so I think it's unfortunate in what

it has under politics. I think families and friendships were

divided. I suppose that is nature of a referendum. It's unfortunate when,

anecdotally, you hear people saying that they voted to leave but they

didn't realise that prices would go up, or whether they would have

strawberries this week, and we have had a dramatic drop in the number of

people applying to become nurses this country from the EU, something

like 96% down. You do hear people regretting. But what I think is

interesting is that only 22% of people want to stop the Brexit

process, so there is an overwhelming consensus that we do need to get on

with it, and I entirely agree that the decision has been taken and

there is no going back. It should be got on with, but I do think, where

Matthew and I will probably disagree, that's about the terms.

Where is the mandate for what terms, and what happened in the

negotiation? Do you think the mandate has changed? Do you accept

that people are only now realising what they voted for or do you think

that they know full well what Brexit meant? I think they knew full well.

There was a poll when 70% of people wanted Brexit to be enacted, and

there is this term of the re levers, they saw the economy didn't collapse

and they are quite comfortable. So you think many remain those would

want to get on with it and that uncertainty is worse than leaving?

Very much so, they want the government to get on with it and

they like the fact that both Labour and manifesto that Labour and

Conservative manifesto is at in them.

Now, if you're watching the Daily Politics you're

a political junkie, at least we like to think that's the reason,

so you'll undoubtedly be across the full range

But if you caught Question Time last night you'll have seen something

So our quiz for today is: What happened next?

Jeremy Corbyn has proven that anti-austerity policies are popular!

The Tories and the Blairites lost that election.

We have to find ways in which to continue to put more

resources into social care in a way...

He just has to go on for longer if you shout out.

So you might as well keep quiet and let him hear what he has to say.

And at the end of the show Matthew and Lucy will give

Theresa May sat down for dinner with the 27 other EU leaders

in Brussels last night and she made a quote "fair and serious offer"

on the rights of EU citizens currently living here in the UK.

So let's take a look at what she proposed...

The Prime Minister said that, at the point when Brexit happens,

many of the EU citizens living here will be able to get

what she called "settled status" here in the UK.

That means that they would have the same rights

and entitlements as UK citizens in terms of healthcare,

benefits and pensions, according to the government.

However, EU citizens will only be guaranteed to get "settled status"

if they've been living in the UK for five years before

It's thought that the cut-off date could be any time

between March this year, when the Brexit process began,

and the end of the negotiations, which are due in March 2019.

Theresa May also said that the rights of EU citizens

will be enshrined in UK law and therefore enforced

by UK courts, not by the European Court of Justice -

that could be a potential sticking point in the negotiations.

It's not yet clear whether the offer will apply to the children

and spouses of EU citizens living here, but we're expecting

to get more details from the government on Monday.

The offer made by Theresa May last night is dependent on the EU

reciprocating with an equivalent offer for UK citizens currently

living in the EU and it's not yet clear if that will happen.

Let's talk to a familiar face, our Brussels reporter, Adam Fleming.

Adam, how has this offer gone down with other EU leaders?

It's fair to say it's been pretty lukewarm, the response to Theresa

May's fair and serious offer, as she called it. We have seen quite a feud

EU figures arriving this morning at a summit not particularly happy with

this offer. The Austrian Chancellor welcoming the fact it was made, but

saying there was a lot more work to be done. Jean-Claude Juncker, the

president of the European Commission, saying that it just

didn't go far enough. He published Europe minister tweeting that it

wasn't substantial enough. We have just had a tweet from the MEP who

will coordinate the European Parliament response to this saying

that it is just not enough. So a flavour of how this offer is going

down with people. Actually, officials are waiting to see the

detail. They are treating this as the starter rather than the main

course, and they are waiting for Monday, when more details will be

published in Parliament, and negotiations -- negotiators in

Brussels will go through it line by line. So far, we haven't had any

offer of response from the EU in terms of what they may give British

citizens living in other EU countries. Quite the opposite,

actually, sorry to correct you. The EU made its offer a couple of weeks

ago in a big position paper they set out right at the start of their

negotiating stance, when they were sitting it out, and basically be

feeling is that they have been pretty generous. They talked about

things like giving EU nationals who lived in the UK the right to bring

over a spouse or a child lives elsewhere in the EU after Brexit.

They talked about people who lived in the UK at any point being able to

come to the UK and take up their rights and, crucially, they want it

all to be guaranteed by judges in the European courts of justice. So

they say they have been very clear, they have made their proposal and

they are waiting for the detail of the British side. In terms of where

we go from here, do you think there has been disappointment on the

British side to the fact that there hasn't been universal support from

EU leaders? I think Theresa May may come away from this feeling that her

offer that she thought was there, Sirius, big and generous hasn't been

welcomed with an alloy and joy from the side. Either that or number ten

will have been expecting this because this is what happened in a

negotiation. From my point of view, this isn't really the end of it at

all, it's just the beginning of the beginning, and there will be a lot

more toing and froing about these issues, and it will be fascinating

to see what staff the EU put in their original offer that they are

willing to come from eyes on so they can move to this point. What staff

is in Theresa May's offer that she can up the anti on. At this issue

has to be sorted out right at the start because the EU has said this

is one of the priority issues, along with the Brexit Bill that have to be

sorted before negotiations can move the second phase, talking about the

future of relationships on trade and things like that with the EU and UK

after Brexit. Joining me now is the Conservative

MEP Daniel Hannan. Theresa May made it clear last night

that this offer is conditional on British citizens in the EU getting a

reciprocal deal. Would it have been better just to have made her offer

on a unilateral basis and left it with the EU to come back with a

counter offer? In practice, we have two unilateral offers an citizens

rights, so it's a technicality. I am glad she has done this. During the

referendum campaign, I canvassed more than one EU national and I said

the only change would be that they didn't vote any more in European

elections. I am pleased that this issue can give reassurance to

people. There are many EU nationals who have made their lives there and

who have been in a state of limbo and I hope they will now see there

is no threat to a change in their status. What you say that, but at

the moment it is an offer from the British government but, as said, it

is reliant on what you leaders say and do in response. And many of

them, Jean-Claude Juncker, being one, said it is not sufficient. Mark

Ritter has said that their 1000 questions left unanswered. Let's

hope we don't have to go through them all. But that isn't a

guarantee. People cannot be reassured that their future lives,

workplace and residency is guaranteed. In practice, that was

always guaranteed. The idea that we would start deporting a lot of

people... That makes it sound quite strong. It's an unthinkable

condition. This is the final confirmation of something everybody

connected with new, that we were never going to start taking away the

accrued rights. I would stress the generosity of what is on the table,

in the sense that there are three times as many EU nationals here as

there are Brits in Europe, so rather than treating people as a bargaining

chip we have decided to guarantee and take that off the table before

moving on to other issues, which I think is a very open-handed and

decent gesture. What if it isn't reciprocated? Despite the fact there

was an offer from the EU, or they set out what they would like, if it

is not reciprocated and there is a stumbling block over this issue over

who will guarantee people's rights, the European Court of Justice or

whether it will be British courts, then what happens? The negotiations

fall down. I think we stick to this offer, but I think it would be crazy

to have a bilateral deal overseen by the court of only one side. That is

saying that the captain of one team is also the referee. Imagine if I

said that all future deals would ultimately be arbitrated by the

British Privy Council. That would be ridiculous as it is only one side.

What we should do is what the EU does in its relations with every

other country, which is to have an arbitration mechanism including the

ECJ and representatives of the other side.

In the Evening Standard editorial George Osborne says that any

Europeans living here will be able to remain here and use the public

services they help to pay for, we would not need a complicated

reciprocal arrangement with Europe or provide a role for the European

Court of Justice, I think we should just do it. I think that is what

will happen. Why is it being labelled as a conditional offer? We

will see when the details are published next week but effectively

we have an offer from the EU and the UK. If you want to call that two

unilateral offers rather than a reciprocal one fine. I never thought

of as any chance of us not doing this but it is nice to have it in

black-and-white. You have said that repeatedly on the programme. Is it

wise to make two unilateral offers? Should Theresa May not wait to see

what is going to beat Alan T by other EU leaders because we are

talking about beds abroad as well? The EU has made it clear there will

not move on to talking about things like free-trade deal until this

issue is sorted out so she was right to deal with that shot away. Are you

reassured? On the face of it it seems what many EU citizens wanted.

There are questions but broadly speaking do you welcome this? Yes. I

understand why you would use it as part of the negotiation process. The

fact the EU put it off and on the table several weeks ago which was

very detailed and quite demanding in terms of what it was calling for,

this ECJ point is going to be a sticking point because the EU is

saying we do not trust you on a case-by-case basis to make these

decisions fairly, so the point about how you arbitrate, who is it both

sides will agree to? The EU will be kept cool than over the ECJ and

other issues. It is a critical point because we are talking about

people's rates than they have to be guaranteed by someone. If that is a

sticking point what happens? If it is a year's time and there is no

agreement, who is going to oversee people's rates here and abroad? We

will oversee it. You are right to say this could be a sticking point

in other parts of the talks. If the EU really does... One possibility is

the putting it on the table to take it off later but if it is going to

try to stick to this principle that it gets to be the referee as one of

the two sides are dizzying does not want a deal and that would be sad.

What you propose? Some sort of joint arbitration? Yes. ECJ judges get to

decide if that is fear or not. Whether it is the EU Canada trade

deal or the deal between the EU and others, there is an arbitration

mechanism that takes account of the two sides and it would be

extraordinary if the European Union were to say in the case of Britain

uniquely, unlike in every other day or we have done, we are going to be

judge and jury. It is insulting to say we do not have a functioning

legal process in this country. I hope the 27 governments, who are

much more pragmatic than some of these loud voices and the

commission, would say not to throw the deal out. The 27 do not all

agree. Angela Merkel welcome the offer from Theresa May but other

leaders want more in terms of the rights of spouses, and children.

None of that has been spelt out. We have not seen the detail. Could this

be a case where the 27 start to disagree over whether this offer

should be accepted? It's genuinely is a fair and generous offer. What

it is offering in terms of spouses and children, EU nationals would

have the chance to have exactly the same rights as British nationals

except for voting. It is difficult to see anybody seeing that is not

enough. That is as much as you can realistically... People living here

for five years before this unknown cut-off date will get settled status

and other Biba will be given the opportunity to continue living here

and get the status after five years. What will happen to their rights in

the interim? I assume it will carry on as now. We will have to see the

White Paper. If any EU nationals want to make a long-term commitment

to this country they are very welcome to apply for UK nationality.

We love to have people who want to make a success of their British

identity. Do you think that would be an enticement for people and also a

guarantee that they would have enough time to build up settled

status or apply for British citizenship? Some people will be on

the downside of the argument of the referendum campaign who would not be

happy with that. It comes down to people voted for. People thought

they were reducing, some people thought they were reducing the

number of migrants. We saw the number of hate crimes going up. Be

clear, there was a spike... There was not. They said there was a

spike. I am going to let you come back on it. It was related, it came

after the EU referendum, they do not know if it was a direct result or if

those people would have committed those crimes, but there was a spike

and it came down. There is a website where people are invited to logon

and advertise they have been victims hate crimes. There were an extra 31

complaints and 96 hour period. None of which led to an increase in

prosecutions and several of which were complaining about Nigel Farage.

It was people letting off steam. The police press release said it should

not be read as an increase. People are making this ludicrous claim

there was a sudden rise in the heat crimes which bears no relation...

There were more complaints but we broke down those statistics at the

time... 31 people... We will have to look at that again. You accept

claims like that are in century? There is increased animosity towards

EU migrants. I know lots of people anecdotal Lee who have been told to

go home. People walking down the road or on the tube being told, I

voted so you would go home. It may not happen everywhere but it

happens. There were three events held up as proof of as being an in

tolerant country. He is a positive attack tapas bar and the famous

anti-polish graffiti. The tapas bar was a burglary. This opposed

anti-Polish graffiti was by a Pole. Even if they were not actually

recorded as real crimes are you seeing you should dismiss the

feelings of people? It goes without saying that any acts of intolerance

or verbal violence or abuse are reprehensible. I hope we do not have

to say that. It is not the case there has been any demonstrable

increase of these attacks as a result of the referendum. We remain

one of the countries in Europe with the most positive view of

immigration, the most positive view of difference, of multiracial

marriages. It is ludicrous to be beating ourselves up like this when

there are countries that have genuine problems. Or people might

see it is important to be realistic about some of the reactions after

the referendum. In terms of the reactions of EU leaders to this

offer, were you disappointed? Do you think it does not bode well in terms

of the other areas of negotiation and getting a deal? How absurd it

would have been if Theresa May had come out and said all British

citizens living elsewhere in the EU should be adjudicated by British

courts. If she had said that people would have said how rubbish it was.

Why are people allowing the EU to have a say on this? Are you worried

about the future of the negotiations of already EU leaders are making in

your mind unreasonable objections? Doesn't bode ill for the

negotiations ahead? I am not worried. The start of the talks this

week, I was impressed with the dawn from both sides, it seemed to be

constructive and win-win. Some breaking news just as we came

on air, and a man has been charged with terrorism-related murder

and attempted murder after the incident in Finsbury Park

in London where a van was driven Darren Osborne, 47, from Cardiff,

was arrested in the early hours of Monday morning,

after the incident in which one person was killed and nine

others taken to hospital, and today the Crown Prosecution

Service have authorised charges. The Metropolitan Police have said

they will consider manslaughter charges over the fire

at the Grenfell Tower The police have confirmed

that the fire was caused by a faulty fridge freezer and also say

that the cladding on the outside of the building failed

fire safety tests. 79 people are missing or presumed

dead after the blaze destroyed 150 Let's have a listen to what one

of the lead detectives had We are looking at every criminal

offence, from manslaughter onwards. We are looking at every health

and safety and fire safety offence, and we are reviewing every

investigation, every company at the moment involved

in the building and refurbishment Let's get the latest

from our reporter Sarah Smith, We just heard from the lead

detective. One of the things raised by people affected if they feel they

have not had the true numbers of those affected or killed. Very

difficult at this particular stage. Will they be reassured by what we

have heard? We heard those numbers again today, 79 known to be dead or

missing presumed dead, nine formal identifications. She was asked

specifically about the fact people are worried there are many more. She

did not shy away from the fact she feared there would be more but they

have to be extremely careful and cannot go bandying figures around

just because there is pressure on them to admit there are more. They

have not hidden away from the fact. One of the things they were

concerned about was they would be these hidden victims. She said the

terrible reality is we may never find on identified all of those who

died in the fire. One of the concerns is that there are people

who would not naturally get in touch with the abilities, perhaps worried

about immigration status or subletting or concerned they may be

on the wrong side of the law, whom may not come forward, but she said

they have to come forward if they know anybody who was living in those

blocks or visiting, they have to come forward so they can get some

sort of realistic figures. And going through a recovering what is left in

the tower block they said that could take until at least the end of this

year. What about the range of charges the police are considering?

They have said they are looking at the full range of charges, health

and safety violations up to manslaughter. It takes a much larger

burden of Polly on my crew. They have seized documents from several

premises although it will not be specific about what premises there

are at the moment but we know their investigation continues with them

looking at all of these details. Looking at how the fire started. And

how it spread so quickly. It started because of this thread. It spread,

the fear from last week has been is it because of the cladding and

installation and they have carried out tests and said already in the

tests they have carried out the cladding and insulation failed all

of them. Communities and Local Government

Secretary Sajid Javid has written to MPs to update them

on the Government's response In the letter, he confirmed that 600

buildings had cladding that was being tested,

and so far 11 high-rise buildings in eight local authority areas had

been found to have failed those safety tests, including

buildings in Camden, This is what he had to say

in the Commons yesterday afternoon. I think it's clear that any changes

in the wake of this tragedy shouldn't just be technical

or to legislation. What happened at Grenfell Tower also

showed us all that we need We all need to rethink our approach

to social housing, and we need to reflect on the way that

successive governments have engaged with and responded

to social tenants. We don't yet know for sure

whether this disaster could have been avoided if the people

who called Grenfell Tower their home had been listened to,

but we do know that, for far too long, their voices

fell on deaf ears. So, if nothing else,

let the legacy of Grenfell be that such voices will never,

ever be ignored again. To discuss this further,

I'm joined by Russell Curtis, an architect who works for local

authorities, and from Hammersmith I'm joined

by the local Labour MP and Shadow Housing Minister,

Andy Slaughter. Welcome to both of you. Andy

Slaughter, what do you think now of the government's reaction and

response, listening to Sajid Javid, I have a letter to MPs and it is

comprehensive. Do you feel reassured that all action will be taken to

prevent another Grenfell Tower happening? The challenges for the

government keep growing, and I don't know whether they are up to them.

They were very slow in spotting that disaster relief was not happening.

That took a week longer than it should have done. We now have the

issue of cladding, and there were confused messages on that yesterday,

and just this morning, and this particularly concerns me, there is a

serious issue in a separate dashboard in a separate tower in

Shepherd's Bush last year and we learned it is down to goods

manufactured by a company, and a year on from that, we have still not

had a product recall of the tumble dryers which caused that, and 5.5

million were manufactured. These are serious challenges the government

has known about and I have seen little sign that they are taking it

as seriously as they should. Let's look at the cladding issue, which

has been talked about a lot, that could have contributed to the fire

spreading and the excellent. Police say that the Grenfell cladding

failed safety tests. Does that imply that there was not a safety test

done before that cladding was put on? There is a lot of confusion

around what these safety tests involved. The building regulations

are I think it's fairly clear, they are out of date, but that the

benchmark that we use as architects and industry professionals, to

assess the performance of a building against, and that covers all sorts

of things, fire, though more performance, all sorts of things.

But I think there is a lack of clarity in building regulations as

they stand over performance in particular circumstances. Would you

agree with Camden council, who have taken the action of removing

cladding panels from buildings they think are combustible from buildings

in their area? I think it's probably a sensible precaution. I don't think

that tall buildings are inherently unsafe and I'm not necessarily sure

that I agree with the previous comment about... Obviously, that is

an issue to look into, but there five in tall buildings frequently.

It isn't rare. The issue how quickly it spreads. If it is a concrete

faced or brick faced building, you simply don't see the spread of a

fire from one dwelling to another. It just doesn't happen because of

the way the buildings are designed. As soon as you wrap an existing

building in a new skin, effectively, which these buildings were not

intended to receive when they were originally designed in the 60s and

70s, that becomes a problem. To pick up on your earlier point about the

fridge freezer, Andy Slaughter, an investigation is being made into

that particular model, the business department is looking into that. To

come back, if we have still got Andy Slaughter... No, it looks as if we

might have lost him. Staying with you, of course, there are lots of

factors that can be contributory, but it does shine a spotlight on

fire safety precautions. Putting the cladding to one side, what about

sprinklers and fire extinguishers and alarms? If there are buildings

without these precautions, are they at risk? One of the problems is that

the reconfiguration of an existing building. Goldings from the 60s and

70s, tower blocks like this, are inherently safe. -- buildings from

the 60s and 70s. I think there is a question over if you take a building

like that and you wrap it in a new cladding to improve thermal and

acoustic performance and all that sort of thing. The problem is, are

you fundamentally changing the design of that building and, if you

do that, should you be required to install sprinklers and updated fire

alarm systems and all of that sort of thing? At the moment, building

regulations don't necessarily make that explicit. Andy Slaughter, I

think we have you back. The number of buildings that are being looked

at across the country, we could be talking about thousands of people in

tower blocks across the UK. Would you be suggesting that they all be

evacuated and rehoused whilst tests are carried out on the cladding?

Look, let's get this into perspective. There is nothing

inherently unsafe about either white goods or tower blocks but, if I

lived in a tower block which had cladding that was thought to be

dangerous, or I had a model of fridge or tumble dryer which had

been found to cause fires, I would not feel comfortable, so we have it

more seriously. This is a national emergency and disaster. The

particular model of tumble dryer that has caused many fires,

including the very serious tower block fire last year, the advice

until a couple of months ago was that he would continue to use those.

The government has a huge amount to answer for. There has been

complacency. This will continue to be raised on a daily basis in

Parliament until we get some action. In terms of the action, do you think

people should be rehoused if they are found, some of the cladding on

buildings, to have a combustible element? You can understand that

people will not feel safe to sleep at night following what happened at

Grenfell Tower, but are you saying that they should be re-homed across

the country? I commend the action that councils like Camden, and I

think and others are taking, which is not waiting but going ahead and

making those buildings safe. You can't rely on this postcode lottery

where individual councils, depending on their means and inclination, do

this. For every single tower block that we have, government is to

identify whether there is a risk and, if there is, that has to be

made safe, or we will have other events like Grenfell. Do you think

this is the point at which people should be moved out of their homes

because they are worried about what might happen, and because they don't

know the veracity of goods that might be in their tower blocks? I

don't. I think they're obviously needs to be a rigorous regime of

testing. Fires are very constipated things. There has been a lot of talk

about the cladding. -- very complicated things. That is only one

part of a larger assembly of components. I don't think that it is

healthy to focus on a particular product when it may be that they're

different configurations of that which might be particularly safe. I

think we need to take a rational assessment of it without panicking

and evacuating blocks. And we are also looking at private blocks which

may have some sort of cladding around their building and they may

be high-rise in some of it may be combustible. We don't know whether

or not that material was found that white. If we are talking about the

voices of residence in tower blocks, Andy Slaughter, we heard Sajid Javid

saying they will never be ignored. But residents were presented on

bodies and committees that were in charge of looking after buildings

like Grenfell Tower, weren't they? Social housing as a type of tenure

and social tenants have been sidelined, and this is a political

issue, because I have experienced this over 30 years in trying to

champion the rights of council and housing association tenants, and

they have been downgraded. We have not only had no building, we have

had estates demolished and sold off. If this is a sea change in

Conservative policy towards social tenants and they are now prepared to

build council and housing association houses to relieve the

appalling conditions in overcrowded areas, I welcome it. But I will

believe it when I see it because, for 30 years, there has been studied

neglect by Conservative governments and councils. Lucy Thomas, what

would you like to see happen? First of all, people have to be listened

to. If you take a step back and look at the number of people who have

been saying for a long time, we are not happy, do not have sprinklers

and fire extinguishers, do not spend a bit more money on a slightly more

expensive cladding and so on, that feels like a number of decisions

were taken either to ignore people, to put people to the back of the

queue, oh, they are complaining a bit too much, let's not listen to

them, so both in terms of retrospective decisions, but also

now in terms of the government response, our people feeling like

they are being looked after properly? Why wasn't the Army sent

down straightaway getting things sorted out, people being given

provisions and so on? It feels like it been pretty chaotic. Andy, I

think some of those in Labour have been very quick to point fingers

about what this government has done, but actually there are previous

reports and lessons that could have been learned pre-2010 from Labour

governments. There are lots and lots of questions to be answered. Do you

agree that social housing and the tenants that live in them have been

sidelined over decades? I want to see the full force of the law used

against contractors and officials if they are found to be negligent. I

think too often people get let off. This is one of those issues where

the public want the government to actually really use the full force

of the law to make sure that people are held accountable. In terms of

the guidelines you would come under as an architect doing government

contracts, in your experience, do they have less oversight? Is less

money spent? Are they less safe, broadly speaking, in the way that

Andy Slaughter has outlined? I actually think that is very true. We

have seen a move towards forms of procurement in recent years where I

think people would be surprised how little involvement architects and

other professionals have once a project start on site. This is a

product of the way in which we procure public buildings these days,

and I think it sidelines construction professionals and

communities. I think that is a real shame, this top-down approach to

estate regeneration and refurbishment. It's a tragedy.

Actually we should be engaging with residence from the outset, with

construction professionals like architects and others, to establish

what is needed and to make sure that the ambitions for each project carry

on through until it is finished. Now, it's a year since the Britain

voted to leave the EU. And what a difference

a year makes, or does it? Our two guests of the day,

Matthew Elliott from Vote Leave and Lucy Thomas from

Britain Stronger in Europe, have made two films giving

us their take on the 12 months Let's take a look,

starting with Matthew. A vote to leave will push our

economy into a recession. The most significant

event of the past year Forget Gina Miller's court case

or the passage of Article 50. Frankly, you can even forget

the general election. What's most significant is the fact

that the economy didn't go downhill, which is why 70% of voters

still want Brexit to go ahead. This is why I'm confident that

Brexit will go ahead as planned. Gerard Lyons was Boris Johnson's

chief economist when he Brexit is in the long-term best

interests of the economy. Project Fear was driven more

by politics than economic analysis. Hence we didn't have the financial

armageddon or economic collapse that In fact, the economy has held up

very well over the last year and the underlying picture,

despite the current It's true to say that the election

increased uncertainty. But, now the Brexit negotiations

are under way, people will quickly see that a win-win deal

is on the table and that the Government is committed to a full,

clean and open Brexit, which will be good for

the economy and for jobs. The Legatum Institute,

where I now work, set up a special trade commission

after the referendum. There are real opportunities

for Britain as we go We can become a global

trading partner. We can drive job creation and we can

build a strong economy. But we can actually only do this

if we leave the single market and customs union and take hold

of that global trading role. Some people, who want

Britain to stay in the EU, have used the recent election

to suggest we should stay in the single market,

but they conveniently forget that they told voters

in the referendum campaign that a vote to leave was a vote to leave

the single market. Personally, I agree

with Lucy Thomas, who is a leading light of the Remain campaign,

who talked during the referendum about the downsides of staying part

of the single market, like Norway. If we were to follow

the Norwegian EEA model, that wouldn't have a mandate and it

wouldn't achieve the things the Leave campaign say

they want to achieve, so we wouldn't be able to stop free

movement of people - Norway accepts that -

we'd still have to accept most EU rules with no say over them

at all and we'd still have to pay into the EU budget, so it's far

worse than the deal we have now. Both the Labour and Conservative

manifestos committed their MPs to a full Brexit of leaving

the single market and leaving the customs union, so it has

the overwhelming support So now it's up to the

Government to deliver. What excites me is that Brexit

is about more than treaties. It's about the kind of country

we want to live in. The general election

was certainly a bump in the road, So that was Matthew's

take, and now for Lucy. A year ago today, I was with other

Remain campaigners in a room just up there when we found out Britain had

voted to leave the EU. We always knew it would be close

but our campaign data showed us So, a year on from that

vote, where are we? Brexit talks have begun

and the clock is ticking. But the UK's position and the final

outcome are far from clear. Although people voted to leave

there was never a detailed plan And people voted Leave

for many different reasons. In fact, during the referendum,

leave campaigners revelled in the fact that they

didn't have a blueprint. One senior Brexit campaigner told me

all he had to do was get people enthused about voting to leave,

about Britain's brighter The finer details of what that

actually looks like, that is down to the politicians

to sort out. In that hastily convened government

after the referendum the new Prime Minister

and her colleagues decided amongst themselves what

Brexit would look like. Earlier this year Theresa May

spelt out their plan. We would be leaving both the single

market and the customs union. So where does that

leave plans for Brexit? Well, now the parliamentary

arithmetic matters. The government may need

to change its approach to guarantee Even some of the Conservatives'

own backbenchers are saying the general election changed

everything. The inconclusive result

from the general election actually was an instruction from the British

people to say, you know Actually, you've got

to sort this out. And that means that actually that's

down to backbench members of Parliament to be asking questions

of the government, to be listening to our constituents all the way

through this process. Leaving the EU was about

Parliamentary sovereignty. Taking back control means taking

back control into Parliament. So actually backbench MPs have

to step up to the plate and make sure we get the most effective most

sensible Brexit There is also the question

of how to avoid a Brexit Many in the business community

feel their voices have not been heard over the past year

and there is real pressure We have settled down

from the relative shock of the referendum result but one

could argue another shock in terms That gives business an opportunity,

an emboldened opportunity, to perhaps realign the debate

on Brexit and by that I mean I think just working with government,

encouraging government, pushing it if necessary,

to move away from what I think we would call a harder ideological

line to a smoother Brexit. So, a year on from the referendum

and we have started walking towards the exit door,

but the terms are Lizzie and Matthew, thank you. Do

you think that is true, the terms are all to play for? I do not think

they are. The conservative and Labour manifestos made it clear

there was to be clean and Phil Brexit and those who wanted to fudge

things and stay in the single market saw their vote share fall. It'll 5%

of voters voted for the two parties who support Brexit, leaving the

single market than the customs union. No. I have the Labour

manifesto here. Nowhere does it say we will leave the single market. It

says we will scrap the Conservatives' White Paper and

emphasise retaining the benefits of the single market and the customs

union. That is trying to retain as free as possible access. The

Conservatives want exactly the same benefits. You are saying 85% wanted

to leave the single market, that is not actually reading... It is

important to see what people voted for. What about that? If Lucy is

disputing the fact that the 85% of people who voted for Labour and

Conservatives were not looking to leave the single market and the

customs union? Elsewhere it says we will end freedom of movement. You

cannot be a member of the single market and not accept freedom of

movement so it is quite clear. John McDonnell the shadow, -- and flower

has also been clear. They said they would leave the single market.

Several people have said it could include staying in the single

market. The Labour position is a movable feast and they want to

detain as free as possible trade with the EU and it is on a spectrum.

My problem with the conservative position as they have a load of red

lines, for example must end eg see jurisdiction, which gives you all

sorts of things around the European Arrest Warrant. They have said we

will leave the customs union and the single market. Then you look at

things like Northern Ireland and think what should we do? On the

front benches you have quoted, Barry Gardner on this programme the Labour

frontbencher said if there were to be a reformed membership of the

single market, he did not think that would happen, but if they were to

change the rules completely then they might consider it. To be clear

it says on the Labour manifesto that they will be leaving the single

market and they will end freedom of movement. It does not say leave the

single market. By ending freedom of movement you have to leave the

single market. Pierced armour is beginning to talk about perhaps

there is an arrangement of talking within the customs union, isn't that

sensible? At the same time he talks about having free trade of the the

EU. You cannot set up these new free trade deals if you are part of the

customs union. As King for a mandate on Brexit as they went into the

general election they lost their majority. They have lost that

mandate, haven't they? The election in some ways was not about Brexit,

it was about other issues like public services and so-called

austerity, it was not really a Brexit election. That is how it was

built and that is how Theresa May wanted it to be viewed. Have they

not lost the mandate for the Brexit she outlined? I do not think so.

People voted for the Labour Party which pretty much wanted a clean

full Brexit. You say the Parliamentary arithmetic has changed

so what are you expecting those MPs to do, to vote down every piece of

Brexit legislation that comes into the House of Commons? No. I think

they will scrutinise it. The exact positions we are yet to see. It is

not one Big Bang. You have a separate thing on the customs union

because the government said it is so complicated we have to give it

proper Parliamentary time for scrutiny so there will be a whole

load of discussion about that customs union. Things like a border

between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, how do you get

around that? It is positive that will be a lot of time to scrutinise

these things rather than having one single possession of we must do

this. I genuinely do not know why might the numbers are. Nicky Morgan,

a remain campaigner... As were many Tory MPs... Exactly. I think 185

last time. It is probably gone down a little bit given the changes. It

is all to play for. We are yet to see what there is a majority for. No

deal is better than a bad deal is out the window. Particularly because

of the DUP and others. Transitional deal is very interesting. That was

not mentioned at all in the Queen's Speech. The length of that than the

terms will be interesting. Do you think no deal is better than a bad

deal has gone? I do not think so. You cannot go in seeing your --

unless you say you are prepared to walk away if you do not get the deal

you want. Since the election I am pleased with the more constructive

consensual torn from both sides. Do you think no deal is better than a

bad deal? Yes. You think it would be better to come out of the cannot get

the deal we want and go onto World Trade Organisation deals? Yes. You

would not go into a negotiation... Why do you think it is better to

leave without a deal than have a bad deal? If the EU said the bill for

leaving is not 100 billion euros, it is 200 billion... You would pay 100

billion? No, but of it was 200 billion I would walk away. What

should it be? You have to look at the whole range, from the bill to

freedom of movement to the role of the City of London to the trade

deal... You would be prepared to pay a reasonably high price to get

exactly the same sort of benefits David Davis talked about when we

leave the single market? Yes. You cannot put a figure on it. It does

not sound like your viewers are that far apart. Even friction and border

trade. He wants the same thing as you. He is saying we have to leave

single market. Is that not what the referendum said? People voted on

remaining or leaving the EU. People claiming they knew precisely what

everything got person voted for a... I have the gift for Matthew Elliott,

a reminder of what people voted for, a bus seeing ?350 million a week,

because that is what you and your colleagues still people who did get

back into this country for the NHS and other priorities, so making

assumptions... Have we seen the 350 million? Are you going to put that

in the bin? What has happened to the claim? Many people voted on the

basis they might get ?350 million for the NHS. Everyone involved,

myself, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, have been clear when we get the

Brexit dividend from leaving we would like to see more money for the

NHS. Is that something you are going to lobby government for? Yes. You

might get that money going to the NHS. We have seen a drop in the

number of people applying to be nurses here. Perhaps we should be it

once we have left the EU and it is done and dusted how much extra money

there has been for the NHS. I would suggest there will be less not more

with the economy going how it is going.

Now it's time for the answer to our quiz.

Let's remind ourselves of Question Time last night.

The question was - what happened next?

David Dimbleby rightly asked him to leave the audience.

Because he just has to go on for longer if you shout out.

So you might as well keep quiet and hear what he has to say.

Do we want more instability in this country?

I think you ought to leave, you know.

The One O'Clock News is starting over on BBC One now.

Andrew will be back on Sunday on BBC One at 11am

And I'll be back here on BBC Two on Monday at midday

A defenceless man killed in cold blood by your hand.