26/06/2017 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/06/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


Theresa May has just done a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party


for support in key parliamentary votes, at the cost of ?1 billion.


Every sample of cladding tested so far from England's tower blocks


How could regulation have failed so badly?


Theresa May said it was a "fair and generous offer" on the rights


of EU citizens in the UK after Brexit - EU


Will they be any more impressed when they see


Jeremy Corbyn gets the rock star treatment at Glastonbury,


but will he get as warm a welcome from his own MPs after saying that


he'd scrap Britain's nuclear deterrent if he became Prime


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


of the programme today, two MPs who can draw


an audience twice the size of Jeremy Corbyn's, just


by appearing on the Daily Politics programme.


Rock stars in your own right on Daily Politics!


Former Labour minister, and redoubtable chair


of the Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge.


And former Welsh Secretary and Conservative MP, Stephen Crabb.


First this afternoon, in the last hour or so Theresa May


has concluded a deal with the Democratic Unionist party


on a so-called confidence and supply agreement,


in which the Northern Irish party will support


The Prime Minister needs the party's MPs after failing to win an overall


Let's hear what DUP leader Arlene Foster had to say earlier in Downing


Street. Today, we have reached an agreement


with the Conservative Party on support for Government


in Parliament. This agreement will operate


to deliver a stable Government in the United Kingdom's national


interest at this vital time. Throughout these discussions,


our guiding principle has been our commitment to acting


in the national interest, in accordance with our shared


objectives for strenthening In concluding this wide-ranging


agreement, we have done so on the basis of advancing


the security of our nation, building prosperity for all,


and supporting an exit from the European Union


that benefits all parts The details of our agreement


and future working arrangements will be


published in full. Let's talk to the BBC's


Northern Ireland political editor, Mark Devenport, who is in Downing


Street. It took a while but we finally had


the deal? Obviously there was some haggling


that went on behind the scenes, whatever the Government's original


offer was, the DUP probably asking for more and ending up somewhere in


the middle. The DUP will feel they have a good deal in terms of getting


?1 billion in extra money and flexibility over the use of half ?1


billion from a previous agreement which Treasury rules had made it


difficult to spend, I don't think they necessarily got everything they


were seeking in terms of changing tax rate in Northern Ireland, only a


commitment to secure things like air passenger duty and VAT on tourism in


Northern Ireland. But they have now provided what the


Government needed, a workable majority on key votes?


Absolutely, and what they are offering is to essentially keep


Theresa May's Government in business, they will support it in


relation to the budget, votes of confidence, any vote related to the


UK's exit from the European Union because of course they were


Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, and also in relation to


any legislation brought forward as regards national security. In terms


of other matters, they have withheld the right to vote according to


whatever they decide as parliament comes up.


We are looking at pictures of the documents being signed, Jeffrey


Donaldson to the DUP, Gavin Williamson there for the


Conservatives, shaking hands on that deal. The Prime Minister not looking


entirely comfortable, I have to say, when you look at the choreography.


The DUP have, to some extent, extracted a high price, haven't


they? Yes, I think they always promised that if they held the


balance of power in a hung parliament they would look to gain


influence and extra resources for Northern Ireland and that is what


they have done. The big question now is, what will the impact of this be


on the situation back at Stormont, where the power-sharing executive


does not exist, will be as large as from Westminster be enough to


display to Sinn Fein that they should get into the power-sharing


executive with the DUP or will they see this as quite separate or


insufficient? There have already been Keith --


accusations that the Government will no longer be an honest broker in


trying to restore the power-sharing arrangement but Arlene Foster was at


pains, I thought, when she gave her statement to say that the money they


have got for the Government will be for all people in Northern Ireland,


to benefit everyone in Northern Ireland, signalling strongly to the


nationalist community that this is for everybody?


Yes, there are elements of this which will undoubtedly be welcomed


by many people in Northern Ireland, the York Street interchange in


Belfast, there have been lots of delays of work, I imagine


nationalists and unionists will be happy if they can go more smoothly


through that exchange, and also superfast broadband, another element


of the package. There is not a lot of politics in the deal that I have


seen so far, although there is a reference to the new Legacy


institutions which had been created to tackle the history of the


troubles, and that reference is the Conservatives and DUP don't want


those bodies to, in any unfair way, pursue military veterans and former


members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, so that is the two


parties probably saying something Sinn Fein would have doubts


about but so far that is the only element I can see that might be


partisan in relation to the deal. Finally, on policy commitments,


there has been some talk that the triple lock for pensioners will now


be retained, and manifesto commitment by the Conservatives but,


because of the result, there was discussion it might not stay, and


also Winter Fuel Payments for all pensioners, have you heard that both


of those things now will remain? Yes, that was bailed out by Arlene


Foster in her comments a few moments ago in Downing Street, she said the


triple lock will stay, no means testing of the winter fuel


allowance, interesting that both of those commitments were made by the


DUP in their manifesto... But is that for Northern Ireland or


the whole of the UKAs far as I understand it, having a quick look


here, she says that there will be no change, yes, I will double-check


that, no change across the United Kingdom, so what they are saying is


they are unionists, they believe in the United Kingdom and they have


looked for things in relation to the whole of the United Kingdom and they


have stuck by their manifesto, and obviously the difference between a


confidence and supply deal and formal coalition is that they have


the benefit of being able to stick to some things they said in their


manifesto and not necessarily trade things away, so that is something


where they will claim an achievement not just in Northern Ireland but


across the UK. Thank you very much.


We're joined now from Belfast by the former


Democratic Unionist Party assembly member, Alistair Ross.


Your reaction to the deal that has been announced today? I think it is


a good deal for Northern Ireland, the DUP were clear when they entered


the discussions it would be for the benefit of Northern Ireland. ?1


billion per Northern Ireland in terms of infrastructure projects,


broadband, that is positive, more money for health and education, that


is clearly positive, but I also think people will be pleased they


have been able to influence wider Government policy, as you have been


talking about, the triple lock repentance, Winter Fuel Payments,


also in terms of defence spending and of course the fact they are


allowing the Government to be formed, giving an element of


stability. One of the most important thing is, Northern Ireland point of


view is those commitments to spending are within the first two


years, so any concerned there would have been that the parliament will


not last five years is helped by the DUP making sure that those economic


commitments are made in the first two years parliament. So perhaps you


have the DUP to thank for getting the Government back on its tracks,


it now has a workable majority. Did you ever think you would see


yourself in a position where you had to rely on Ulster Unionist Party for


working in Government? It is not the outcome any of us wanted when we


embarked on the campaign nine weeks ago but the electorate have given


their verdict, they delivered a hung parliament, they cast their votes


and this is the parliament we have got. If you look at countries across


Europe which are more used to this, it happens regularly,


perhaps we are not used to it in Britain but it is the cost of doing


business, we need a Government with a functioning majority in the House


of Commons. My party does not have that majority so we do a deal with a


minor party. The Liberal Democrats did not want to discuss coalition,


Plaid Cymru didn't, so we are doing a deal with the Ulster Unionist


Party you didn't have to, you could have the country as a minority


Government, you would not have had to pay ?1 billion, which many will


say is too high a price to pay for the support of the Ulster Unionist


Party. If it allows us as the Government to do things other than


just delivering on Brexit, which is really important, but if it gives us


the opportunity of passing legislation, to renew


infrastructure, develop and improve schools and education policies, then


we will be looking back saying, actually, that was well worth it for


the taxpayer and the United Kingdom.


There is every indication it will be a slimmed down legislative programme


because it will be difficult to get things who like the bills you


outline. Margaret Hodge, the DUP has managed to extract from the


Government commitment to keeping Winter Fuel Payments for pensioners


and the triple pension, both of which were in the Labour manifesto.


Another thing Theresa May in estimated, skilled negotiators are


very practice that, she announced she had got a deal with incredible,


48 hours, and it has taken her much longer to -- much longer than to


reach the deal with the Liberal Democrats. I'm pleased they have got


back the rights for pensioners but I will say two things, ?1 billion for


Northern Ireland, what will that do to Scotland, north-east England,


Wales, places like that? And you said something which rather caught


my ear, which was the deal that was done around the agreement, and the


implications there. Is this going to be self-contained? Will we see steps


starting to undermine the Northern Ireland agreement? And Chris Patten


said yesterday this is the beginnings of the nasty party back


in the Tory party. Let's pick up on the power-sharing agreement, because


there have been reports, I don't think it has been confirmed, that


the ?1 billion would in some way be conditional on restoring


power-sharing. I don't think that it is, but it


will provide incentive, if you have a Northern Ireland executive with


additional money, it would be in the interest of all political parties


there to have a say in how it is spent. If Shane -- if Sinn Fein are


not willing to get back involved, then they would have no say. The


exchange project will not cost all of the money that has been earmarked


for investment for infrastructure projects, there is money that could


be spent in other places, and I would have thought Sinn Fein would


want to have some influence En-Nahda. The only way they can do


that is get back into government. They don't want to see Arlene Foster


as First Minister, they compared her to a crocodile that keeps asking for


more. Do you think that will help bring the two sides together?


Politicians in Northern Ireland have many issues dividing them, but the


one thing that should unite them is trying to get investments, getting


more money to tackle the waiting list in the health system, to tackle


educational underachievement, and when it comes down to the last 24


hours of negotiations here to get devolution back up and running,


these are the most significant aspects. We have not had time to


absorb this, but the money is to be spent within two years, so does that


mean a general election at the end of two years? Of course it doesn't


mean that. But does it mean more money? It means there is every


incentive for the politicians in Northern Ireland to get back to


Stormont to work out how to spend the money... But in two years they


will be asking for more money from the Government here. Well, let's see


what happens. Even if the Theresa May government lasts over this


coming period, it won't last more than two years. We're going to talk


to Damian Green later in the programme, but for now thank you


very much. The question for today


is which of these members of the House of Lords


is the odd one out? At the end of the show


we'll see if Stephen and Margaret No idea! I will be impressed if you


do! Brno. Now, over the weekend residents


in Camden were evacuated from their homes in high-rise


buildings which have failed fire safety tests following the fire


at Grenfell Tower two weeks ago. So what do we know so


far about the safety Last week, the Government


started assessing So far, they have tested 60


buildings in 14 council areas, all of which have failed


the fire-safety tests. The aluminium composite material,


or ACM, panels were fitted during a recent ?10 million


refurbishment of Grenfell Tower to These cladding panels have a foam


core made of polyethylene, surrounded by two sheets


of aluminium, which is flammable. Official building regulations


recommend that only non-combustible cores are used on buildings


over 18 metres tall. There is also an air gap


behind these panels to allow moisture to evaporate,


but safety experts say this may have caused


a chimney effect in directing the flames


up the building. installed between panels,


but it is unclear whether these barriers were fitted


in Grenfell Tower. In addition, Grenfell was not fitted


with a sprinkler system during the refurbishment,


although there is no legal requirement for local authorities


to install one in older buildings. And the Housing Minister Alok Sharma


was on BBC Breakfast this morning. We have put in place


a very clear process to make sure with a particular type of


aluminium cladding are tested. We have test facilities that


are able to test 100 samples a day, and that can be


extended if required. And we're making sure that as soon


as we find out that a building has failed and has got cladding


which is noncompliant, immediately the local


authority is informed, and they go to the building


and do the right checks. And clearly, as you have just said,


in the case of Camden, where it wasn't just cladding


but there were multiple other failures


when it came to fire safety, I have nothing but admiration


for the way that people have dealt with that who've been


affected by this. We're joined now


from Broadcasting House by the BBC's home affairs


correspondent Tom Symonds. Welcome to the Daily Politics, how


can it be that every sample that has been tested so far has failed? Well,


this is a complicated business. Just to give you a bit of the background,


all of these refurbishments are signed off under the building


regulations, and they actually state, I think slightly differently


to what you reported just then, any cladding used as to be of limited


combustibility, not noncombustible. So the kind of cladding involved and


Grenfell Tower was legal under the building regulations. Having said


that, those regulations are quite complex. The concern is that all of


those samples will have been effectively passed by the building


regulations, and now they are failing this new test. The question


is why. It is quite possible the test is much more tough than the


sorts of certification processes that the cladding goes through


before it is allowed to be used, and that is a testing regime that goes


back decades. As you say, there is perhaps now a new testing regime


that the cladding has failed, but because none of it had been tested


before it had been fitted because it was deemed OK the last time around.


That's right. Just to give you one example, we understand the way that


the testing has been done in the past is to effectively test the heat


resistance to the aluminium surface of the cladding, so the side of the


cladding. Now, if you try to test the edge of it, where the plastic


bits that is the sandwich filler, if you like, is exposed, then it is


much more likely to burn, and it is possible these new tests are testing


that edge, rather than testing the bit where the aluminium is


protecting the middle bit of the sandwich. It is complicated, as you


say, but it cannot just be about cladding. I know there is a lot of


focus there, but we have talked about sprinklers, how much of a


difference would that have made? It is not going to be just about the


cladding, that is pretty certain. Some experts are suggesting that the


design of the cladding is as dumb around the tower had a part to play,


creating a chimney effect that you talked. I think that will be


highlighted and more in the weeks to come. A sprinkler system turns a


building not into a passive fire safety system, where effectively the


fire burns out in one flat and doesn't spread, that is the theory,


but it enables you to put the sprinkler on in one flat and


evacuate the whole building, or even evacuate the whole building with the


system going. So it is a different type of safety system. But according


to the information the Government has given to councils, they say if


you have cladding that is questionable, which may burning


fires, if you also have a sprinkler system, you have a lot less to worry


about. I am paraphrasing, but that is the advice to councils at the


moment. Tom Symonds, thanks very much for bringing us up to date, we


will be hearing more about it as the inquiry gets under way. Every single


piece of cladding taken for testing has failed, is this a catastrophic


failure of building and health and safety regulations will be years?


Absolutely. I mean, it is shocking that every single


piece of cladding has come back as a fail. As we have heard, this is


extremely complicated, but nobody should lose sight of the human


element of this. We have the poorest people in the country in tower


blocks that are clad with a material that can go up in flames. There is a


reason why we have appointed a public inquiry to investigate what


happened, but we can all predict that when we get to the end of it


and find out what has gone on over a period of years in different parts


of the country, we will never go back to doing things how they were.


In terms of evacuating residents, we have heard numerous stories, not


just from Camden but councils that have decided not to, do you supplies


with councils who just say that they have to get residents out of towers


that may be at risk? I think Camden council must have had really good


reasons for deciding to start a evacuate people at 8:30 on a Friday


night, not an easy decision to take, and we don't know the detail, but


clearly a number of factors at work there, and the advice must have been


pretty overpowering. What we are witnessing is two things, if you


stand back from it, the Labour government is probably as guilty as


the Conservative government, we have all run away from regulation, tried


to deregulate, run away from inspection, and we have created,


clearly, dangerous structures. Every single one phone to be dangerous,


that is shocking, and what this has come to symbolise for me is the


inequality in society, that you put poor people into housing, and you


don't spend enough money on ensuring their safety and well-being, and


that is a scandal that we should never allowed to recur. Do you think


it is right to point the finger of blame at anyone until we know the


full facts? No, we need to know the full facts. Kensington and Chelsea,


if we can go back to the initial one, the idea that money was an


issue is not the case, they have 250 million or something and balance,


they gave their richest residents, those paying the highest council


tax, ?100 back as a bride in the run-up to the election. They had the


money to make sure... Sorry, some of the claims that we heard in the


hours and days following the tragedy, from some in your own


party, certainly some of the more aggressive online supporters of your


party, were pointing the finger at Conservatives, as capitalism, all


kinds of reasons. I don't go into that, Steve! You have admitted that


the Labour run councils have, for decades, from the test we have been


carrying out, have been using the same kind of cladding. We need to


show a bit of humility, let's not engage in... I think the Labour


government, I am not blaming the councils, I think both the Labour


government, the coalition government and the Conservative government have


prioritised money-saving and deregulation, and I think in


Kensington what was particularly distressing was any suggestion that


money was an issue, it was obviously not. Let's listen to John McDonnell,


who made this remark at Glastonbury. Is democracy working? It didn't work


if you were a family living on the 20th floor of Grenfell Tower. Those


families, those individuals, 79 so far, and there will be more, were


murdered by political decisions that were taken over recent decades.


APPLAUSE The decision...


The decision not to build homes and to view housing has only for


financial speculation, rather than for meeting a basic human need,


decisions made by politicians over decades, murdered those families...


Do you agree with John McDonnell saying that the victims of the fire


were murdered by political decisions? I agree we should listen


to the tenants, but I disagree with the language, and I think that is


the language of the hard left, which is not done in my name. Should it be


retracted? I think it was inappropriate. David Lammy has been


talking about corporate manslaughter, and we may well have


to see how the facts come out, but there may well be a case for that,


but that is a very different way of doing it. When you say not in your


name, the language of the hard left, they are leading and running your


party, they own your party, they are your party. They don't own our


party, I am expressing a different view. The Portsmouth City Council


leader said John McDonnell should withdraw the comments that residents


were murdered, but there is an awful lot of anger about. People on the


right and the left have two feel angry about what happened in the


tower block, as I said a few moments ago. It is an awful human tragedy,


and people will be held to account for it when we complete the


investigation, but the kind of language we have heard from the


Shadow Chancellor is appalling, it achieves not think, it is all about


stoking up the venom of the hard left, who wants to see Jeremy Corbyn


as Prime Minister. But don't use that as an excuse to take away from


the seriousness of the issues we are talking about, that was a remark


made at an evening meeting somewhere... It was at Glastonbury.


OK, at Glastonbury, not the most representative... Certainly very


public. The point that Margaret Hodge was making is that these


people did not feel they had a voice. Margaret is absolutely right.


They were not listened to by people, and people will argue that tragedies


like this give people a voice, sadly. And you are talking people


whose command of the English language maybe was not very good,


they were unsure of their own immigration status, so a lot of work


needs to go on in housing estate up and down the country to make sure


that tenants feel they can come forward and speak with confidence.


Let's get back to our top story, that's the deal that's been


concluded in the last hour or so with the Democratic Unionist Party.


Let's hear what former Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa


I believe that this agreement is, I think it is welcomed, it will give


an important degree of stability in relation to the UK Government. I


believe that there is nothing in it which would, you know, make it


difficult for the Stormont institutions to be re-established. I


am sure that James Brokenshire, the Secretary of State, and his team


will continue to work really hard with the Northern Ireland parties to


get the devolved institutions up and running again.


We're joined now by the First Secretary of State, Damian Green.


You must be relieved to have the DUP on-board for your workable majority?


People will be more confident the Government can get its legislative


programme through because the deal covers legislation like budgets,


national security legislation and of course the Queen's Speech. But also


the deal means that the support we give in to Northern Ireland, I hope


and expect, will make it easier to conclude a deal that allows the


parties to get back to proper democratic devolved Government,


which we all want to see in Northern Ireland. Before we get to


power-sharing, let's talk about the deal and the amount of money that


you had to give the DUP in order for them to agree to a confidence and


supply arrangement. ?1 billion is a lot of money. That is a high price


they have extracted from your Government. It is the sort of money


that has been used before to try and push the peach process and


devolution process forward in 2014 when the Stormont agreement was


signed, actually there was a package of ?2 billion. We all know Northern


Ireland has particular needs and problems because of its history and


a lot of this money is infrastructure spending and 30 years


because of the troubled infrastructure spending in Northern


Ireland was heavily and rightly devoted to security and policing so


there are other areas... If it was such a reasonable thing to do, why


has it taken so long? It took a lot longer than the coalition agreement


between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative 's, which took took


five days, this has been far longer. We have been working to the time


required to strike the deal. It was difficult to agree, wasn't it? All


agreements take time. Five days for Nick Clegg and David Cameron. We


wanted to do it in time for this Thursday's deadline on the


devolution agreement, that is the key deadline in Northern Ireland.


The key deadline was in order to get the Queen's Speech through


Parliament and the House of Commons. Some people in your party suggested


there was no need to strike a deal with the DUP at all, they're in


their mind it would risk Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street. There is


the confidence and supply deal, which gives confidence for people to


know our legislative programme will be able to get through, but there is


also the extra support, the financial deal, and as I say I think


that will be really helpful because that can be spent by the Northern


Ireland executive, not by the DUP, by... You would have given any


amount of money because otherwise you would not have been able to have


a working majority to push through a legislative programme. You can spend


all the time you like saying it is good to Northern Ireland, they would


agree to that, that is why they have signed the deal! This was about you


paying any price because you need the support. We haven't paid any


price, we deliberately decided to support in specific ways for


specific projects, helping people who have got mental health problems


and again after the troubles that is a particular issue in Northern


Ireland, just as we have said we will spend more money on mental


health throughout the country, Morsi the deals as in other parts of the


United Kingdom. Are you also pleased and grateful to the DUP in fact for


their stance and position in these negotiations to drop cutting Winter


Fuel Payments for some pensioners and maintaining the triple-lock for


pensioners? We saw what happened at the election, and the Prime Minister


has said subsequently, OK, we will listen to what people maybe didn't


want to hear from us at the election and those are two examples where


clearly people didn't want that, so we have been flexible about that.


How much will it cost to keep Winter Fuel Payments for pensioners over


the next few years? We don't know what the extra is, it cost about 2


billion a year and because we were going to consult on the level at


which we would start means testing, there isn't a baseline figure you


can work from, no hard and fast cost because it wasn't going to happen


this winter anyway because it would have been too late to have a


consultation. You don't need to save the money any more then? We need to


keep saving money, bringing the deficit down... That is not going to


help, is it, it is an extra cost? One of the advantages and sometimes


disadvantages of democracy, people get their say and we have to listen


to what people say at elections and referendums and that is what we are


doing. So austerities has gone? The idea that suddenly we have unlimited


money everywhere for everything is not true. What is true is that if


you have a consistently strong economy, which we have had for a


number of years now, you can afford to spend more money... People will


look at rising inflation, the falling pound, people will say, is


the economy as good and strong as you say if wages are not keeping up


with prices and the cost of living has gone up, and yet you can spend,


we don't yet know, of course, an unspecified extra amount on keeping


Winter Fuel Payments for wealthy pensioners? We


can spend extra money because the underlying growth rate of the


economy is strong enough to enable us to do so. We said at the


election, we pointed out that in our spending plans we had an extra 8


billion... If the economy was so strong, why did you want to make the


cuts during the election campaign? Why did you feel it was a good idea


to continue with austerity in this regard, the triple lock to a


double-lock, cutting Winter Fuel Payments, if we have such a strong


economy? All Government is a balance, you have to decide how much


money you can afford to spend without loading borrowing on future


generations... Which you are doing now. At the same time you want to


spend as much as you can on the vital public services and on parts


of the country that haven't shared in the general rising prosperity.


That is what Government is, a collection of making those choices.


Amber Rudd, Home Secretary, used the expression magic money tree when


describing Labour's policies and she may feel that is what it was, but


the Tories have now got their very own magic money tree because you are


now loading future generations. If we use the bar and the measure you


set during the election campaign to bring down costs and further reduce


the deficit, do try and make an impact on overall debt, you are


doing the exact opposite. We have a clear commitment to eliminate the


deficit by the middle years of the next decade, that was what we went


into the election with. The announcement today makes no


difference to that, that is still our target and under all the


projections of various economists, that can still be met, so we are


still aiming at that target. It is not true, and I think... What is not


true? That we will be able to cut the deficit without devastating


cuts. The economy is not growing as fast as it was the first quarter of


this year compared to last year. Inflation is going up, we have


pressures on things like the cost of inflation, public sector pay,


benefit levels... So you are advocating more spending as per the


Labour manifesto? If it were me I would advocate not cutting the


deficit as a priority. One at a time. This is why I say this is not


an open, honest conversation and if it was open and honest you would


say, we have got all these problems, we will put cutting the deficit on


the back burner. We get criticised for not cutting the deficit faster


in some quarters. George Osborne in 2010... You didn't cut it as fast as


you said you were going to. We cut two thirds of the deficit over the


past seven years, 100 billion off the deficit, and we have said we


will take a gradual reduction in deficit, which is responsible...


Isn't that putting austerities likely to the back burner here,


which is what you want? I am not quarrelling with putting the deficit


on the back burner. What I am quarrelling with is that there ought


to be openness and honesty in these discussions on these programmes for


the British people about the state of the public services, the state of


the public finances, and the ability... In the election manifesto


it committed to tens of billions of extra spending with no sign


whatsoever... I am not the Government, Damian, you are. Can I


come back to the power-sharing? You mentioned it at the beginning, how


confident are you now as a result of this deal and Arlene Foster's words


that this will be for all people in Northern Ireland that we will have a


power-sharing executive backed instalment? I am hopeful because


this is a good deal for all of Northern Ireland. We all know the


history there, I am not part of the talks over there so I don't know in


detail what has happened with the talks, but certainly this deal,


specifically because the money is there to be spent by the Northern


Ireland executive, everyone from all political persuasions in Northern


Ireland can benefit from this deal and the Northern Ireland executive


can decide how best to spend this money to support Northern Ireland's


infrastructure across the area. This, I hope, will make a positive


contribution to making sure we do get that new devolved executive in


Northern Ireland. Damian Green, thank you for coming in.


The Government is going to publish a 15-page document setting out more


details on what rights EU citizens living in the UK


That's after we got some provisional plans from Theresa May


Let's take a look at what the Brexit Secretary David Davis had


The main thrust of this is this actually gives an undertaking


to all 3 million people in this country today, they will have


rights, effectively British citizenship rights, or the same


rights, as we said, and the reason we cast it that way


is because we were getting a lot of stories coming back,


particularly from central Europe, where people were saying,


"Oh, we're going to be made second-class citizens."


No, that was the point, absolutely the point.


David Davis there. Stephen Crabb, have you been impressed with the


Government's handling of the issue? Personally speaking I would have


liked to have seen the statement we had last week about the rights of EU


citizens in the UK come earlier but we all knew we were going to get at


this point, we all knew there was going to be a very big... You might


say that but EU citizens here who are worried about their futures


might not have been so confident. Theresa May was clear she regarded


this as an urgent priority at the start


of the Brexit negotiators, she has kept good faith by doing that and we


have made that big, generous offer. I think it goes a long way to


satisfying the questions but there will need to be further negotiations


around some technical details and the crucial issue of whether there


is a role for something like the European Court of Justice in terms


of arbitrating full rights of EU citizens in the UK. Were you


surprised by the chairman of the 3 million Movement, which represents


the EU nationals living here, you says there is something slightly


pathetic about the proposal which makes no details of the


comprehensive offer tabled by the EU in their offer a little while ago? I


don't agree with that, we will see the detailed this afternoon when our


document gets published, but I think both the tone and substance of what


the Prime Minister is laying out is correct. As I say, there will need


to be further negotiation around, for example, the issue of exporting


benefits, there will be tricky discussions around that, but I think


the basic outline of a deal is there, I think our counterparts in


Europe will quickly want to do a deal on this so I have every faith


that this will be one -- this will not be one of the bigger problems of


the Brexit negotiation. Everyone has said they want to do a deal and not


use EU citizens as bargaining chips but the EU came forward with their


own proposals for EU citizens in the UK and vice versa a couple of weeks


ago. Should Theresa May have reference to that document and made


it clear whether she supported their plans or not? This is a negotiation,


they set out their position, we set out our position and doubt there


will be negotiation to maybe meet in the middle. As I said, I think the


only big area of contention will be around the issue of the European


Court of Justice and what role it may have in the right of EU citizens


in the UK. Margaret Hodge, this now seems to be certainly the beginning


of a firm offer, whether you agree it is generous or not, it is a firm


offer, we are now being able to judge for ourselves what is being


put on the table. Do you still have worries about the rights of EU


citizens that have moved here right until the triggering of Article 50?


Yes, I do, and I think again the general comment was that if you


think back ten weeks, everybody was very fearful, I think, worried about


the nature of the negotiations. You saw Theresa May last week talking to


European leaders, it was with disdain and pity. I think the power


has shifted considerably and the power now lies much more with the


Europeans and you could see that. My concerns are the rights of


relatives, that has not been spelt out. The time frame, and the


European Court. We have seen in the papers this morning that one of the


ways in which Theresa May and the Government are hoping to sell this


deal, saying, we are going to be really tough, any EU citizen who


ends up in the criminal justice system will get deported. At the


Public Accounts Committee, we looked at this issue not that long ago, and


ironically when Theresa May was Home Secretary she completely failed to


do anything about deporting people who had been imprisoned for


misdemeanours... Because presumably she couldn't? No, she could have


done. What was so shocking, Jo, I probably came on this programme to


describe at the time, she was Home Secretary, she wanted to deport


people who had been imprisoned, she increased... Isn't there a


threshold? She increased tenfold the money she put into it, she didn't


increase the number going up, worse still she let people out of prison


into the community... Your party introduced the human rights... If


she failed and we take what Margaret Hodge is saying at face value,


because as I understood there is a threshold in terms of the crimes


that have to be committed before the EU would accept their citizens


coming back if they had been imprisoned, if the threshold made it


so difficult then, what makes her think she will be better at it now?


We all recognise we need to be better at dealing with serious


criminals... But it is nothing to do with the EU if it is human rights?


That is one of the issues, getting rid of really bad eggs in this


country that should not be here. There are some human rights but the


real issue is deep in efficiency and inability of the dysfunctional


nature of our immigration system. Let's talk about one of the other


things, the rights of relatives, because the European Commission


published a paper on this last month and said any rights should apply to


current and future family members. Do you agree?


I think I do agree with it. You think? It sounds simple, the way you


present it, but it isn't when you are looking at the rights that flow


from residency in the UK in terms of access to health care, benefits and


that kind of thing. It will be something worked out around the


table. Will it be worked out soon? Obviously, it affects people and


families, and people want to know what is going to happen. For


example, does the minimum income rule, where you need to earn 18,006


under pounds a year in order to bring a spouse from outside the EU,


will that apply to EU citizens post-Brexit? -- ?18,600. We have not


yet seen the document which will be published this afternoon. But do you


think it should apply? The Government has announced a two year


grace period, which shows a large measure of good faith on the part of


the government, wanting to get this right, wanting to reassure EU


citizens that we have their interests at heart. David Davis said


yesterday he was pretty sure but not certain of a deal, securing a


free-trade agreement with the EU, did that worry you? We should be


doing everything we can to get ourselves in a position to do a


deal, because the alternative is the status quo, not an option, because


we voted for Brexit, and the other alternative is WTO rules, and I do


not think that is a good outcome for our economy and our workers.


Despite losing the election, Jeremy Corbyn has been riding high in


recent weeks, and he got a rock star reception at Glastonbury, so will he


use his new-found authority to cement the power of the left over


the Labour Party? There will be a debate at the party conference in


the autumn on whether the number of MPs needed to nominate a leadership


contender should be reduced to just 5%. It is thought it would make it


easier for a left-wing candidate to get elected. Let's see what the


Shadow Cabinet office minister had to say about this yesterday. Is


their pressure up for anyone who wants to leadership, 5% of MPs? I am


not going to express a view at the present time. Why? Whenever there is


a leadership election, it is important that every tendency is


represented on the ballot paper, and a rule which prevents a section of


the right or the left of the centre from getting on the ballot paper is


a bad rule, so it is an argument for looking carefully at how we conduct


leadership elections, and that debate can be had and ought to be


had. Margaret Hodge, Jon Trickett sounding more or less supportive of


that idea, the number of MPs needed to get a candidate on the ballot


paper would be reduced, do you think it should be? No, at the end of the


day, the leader of the Labour Party has to command the support of the


Parliamentary Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn has done quite well without


always having that support. He has done hugely well in getting young


people to vote, and people who have never voted before, but we have got


a lot of challenges to form a government. The purpose of a


political parties to get into government. What was interesting, I


didn't hear the Jon Trickett bit, but I did hear Paul Mason on one of


the programmes yesterday, talking about how Jeremy Corbyn had to


consolidate his power. I thought one of the things that Jeremy Corbyn


track to say was that he wanted to redo politics in a much more


democratic, open weight of decision-making within the party,


and he is arguing for how he can control the NEC, control leadership


elections, control the party machine, that is moving away from


the ethos and values that he originally said would mean a change


in a way he did his politics. I hope it doesn't reflect his drinking. If


it does, not a good way to go. What about the issue of Trident?


Glastonbury may be the best place to air your views as well as listen to


music! He said he would move to abolish Trident, or the renewal of


the missile system, as soon as if he became Prime Minister. Ironically on


this, I have a bit of sympathy with Jeremy Corbyn, because it is a huge


amount of money... So you are against Labour Party policy? It is a


lot of money to spend on the nuclear deterrent, but it is party policy,


it has been through conference Aberdeen times, and he has to be


committed to that as I am. -- umpteen times. I think you should


abide by Labour Party policy, particularly as a leader. He has


obviously got zero respect for official Labour Party policy if he's


briefing Michael Eavis he will be Prime Minister in six months and get


rid of Trident as soon as possible. What was interesting about that is


how long is this deal going to last? Time to look at what else is coming


up in the week and, we have had a week in one day pretty well today!


Later this afternoon, the Prime Minister will present


a detailed paper to MPs on her plan for the rights of EU citizens living


Tomorrow, the First Minister of Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon,


will make a speech in London about Brexit.


On Wednesday, Theresa May will face Jeremy Corbyn in the first session


of Prime Minister's Questions since she lost


And on Thursday, MPs will vote on the Queen's Speech,


between the Conservatives and the DUP.


We're joined now by Anoosh Chakelian from the New Statesman


Welcome to both of you, so what do you think of the deal? Well, quite


interesting, I think we were expecting vast tranches of money to


be shipped over the sea to Northern Ireland, we got a bit of that.


Fascinating list, what we were not expecting was just how much the DUP


have now ripped up UK Government policy, for example the triple lock


and Winter Fuel Payments. By my primitive calculations, that could


end up costing the Government ?15 billion. Damian Green has said that


they do not know what it will cost over time because they had not made


the calculation about which pensioners would be hit if they did


take the payments away. Will that be the headline tomorrow? It could be,


but we need to look at the ?1.5 billion as a down payment. We don't


know how much more money the DUP are going to demand in years to come, so


it could be even bigger than that 15 billion. So what about the reaction


in the Conservative Party? We spoke earlier about the relief no doubt


from the Tories, because they are now able, in theory, to go ahead


with their legislative programme. What will it do to talk of


leadership? I think it is being looked at by most Tory MPs with


severe discomfort, he likes of Stephen Crabb will say, we have got


to do this, but privately they will load it, because the DUP are not


that type of people. But there is zero alternative, the Government


needs MPs, so people like David Cameron have been quick to tweet in


support of the deal that has been done, contrary to John Major, who


was rather upset by the process. But a lot of private toe sucking, public


false friends. What about the power-sharing agreement? If it is


restored, Theresa May will be able to point to that as a success. It


looks unlikely that they will reach their deadline of Thursday, because


they have got so many things they disagreed on. They have not had a


First Minister or deputy since January, so they have been grappling


over this for a long time, and it is not getting any easier. Just because


they have a bit of money coming in does not mean that Sinn Fein are


suddenly going to be happy and start playing ball. The EU nationals, we


will get more details about that later on, has this whole discussion


been too slow about the future of EU nationals? I'm not sure if it has


been too fast or too slow, and it looks a very easy interview, just


let everyone stay, but when you get to the granular detail, for example,


there has been an embargo and Home Office breathers this morning, but


we now know a bit more, we cannot tell people until the Prime Minister


stands up, but it will be more generous in spirit than came across


on Friday, I think. Things like what you do with family reunions, and


what sort of prisoners get deported, which was a very small little nugget


that David Davis gave us. We will get more of the detail, a little bit


more welcomed in Brussels, but back here it will probably turn up a few


noses, because it is not what some people thought they were voting for.


But it is imperative, it seems the minds of the Tory leadership, to get


this done, this bit of the deal. It has been far too slow, this has


become an emotional issue, because Theresa May has not done what people


are calling for, 3 million people in this country have not told what


their fate will be since the referendum result, and we have all


of these EU leaders saying they are disappointed by what Theresa May


came up with. We saw Jeremy Corbyn at Glastonbury giving a rousing


speech at Glastonbury, he said these people must be part of our


community, so I think the damage has been done, really. If the reaction


is good from EU leaders, and you seem to imply you think it could be


if it is more generous this afternoon, will there be a question


of getting on with the rest of the negotiations? I think it will be


warmer than from the EU leaders, I do not think they will say it is a


done deal, but it must of course be remembered that it was Angela Merkel


who blocked getting any early deal for six months before Brexit


negotiation begun. But what the Prime Minister needs is she has to


show she is able to get something out of them, or she will be gone by


conference. Is that right? Not at all! Thank you very much to both of


you! Here's just time before we go


to find out the answer to our quiz. The question was which of these


members of the House of Lords Lord Palmer, Viscount Thurso,


the Marquess of Lothian, I am going to take a punt, Sandwich,


because he didn't give up his... No, you are wrong!


The Marquess of Lothian - the others are elected hereditary peers.


Michael Ancram sits in the House of Lords as a life peer,


although the Marquess of Lothian is his hereditary title.


The Earl of Ancram is the only one of those hereditary peers


who didn't get their seat in the House of Lords


That's right, they have elections in the House of Lords.


92 hereditary peers were allowed to keep their seats in the House


of Lords when the rest were kicked out back in 1999, and each time


one of those dies or retires, there is a by-election.


The voters are fellow hereditary peers,


But one Labour life peer, Lord Grocott, wants these


by-elections abolished, and he joins us now


Why do you want them abolished? You have answered your own question, the


whole thing is ridiculous! There are 90 odd hereditary peers, these


positions remain in perpetuity, and when one dies or retires, there is a


by-election, and the rules of that very according to which hereditary


peer has died or retired, and we had one last year where a Liberal


Democrat died, and the electorate to replace him in the democratic


process consisted of three Liberal Democrat hereditary peers, and there


were seven candidates on the ballot paper. So twice as many candidates


as you had electors! The sort of election that all politicians would


like! It is a world record, and the winning candidate got all three


votes. Well done! 100%, pretty good by North Korean standards! Have you


got any support for this? There is tremendous support across the House,


but I did the same thing last year, and two Conservative hereditary


peers Billy busted it out of its further progress in Parliament, and


I just hope they have got the sense not to do it again this time,


because it is beyond ridiculous. Gilbert and Sullivan would not have


dared write something like this, so I hope they see sense, maybe you


will invite them on the programme. It is the kind of thing you can do


in a private member's bill, try to get rid of a small absurdity. But it


still has to be selected and supported, you have mentioned two


corroded tree peers, are they really the only block? They are the


overwhelming block, putting down 30 of 40 amendments before committee


stage. 200 are on the list the last time I checked, and of the 200 on


the official list of potential candidates, 199 are men, and there


is one woman. Whatever your position is on equality, I think you would


probably think that really was pretty absurd in the 21st century. A


quick word from my guests, is it time for these by-elections to go?


It is a bit of a ridiculous quirk, but the reason we have ended up in


this place is because people have only tinkered, and rather than


further tinkering, like what is being proposed, we need to sit down,


a major overhaul, which will take time and probably be for a future


generation. With tinkering at the edges, all worthwhile in its own


right? I support Lord Grocott, it is always turkeys for Christmas when it


comes to the House of Lords, you never get agreement, we have tried


so often. Do the bits, get it slightly more sensible.


That is absolutely right, only a small thing, but if it makes the


world marginally better in the face of all the things we have to deal


with, it won't take very long, let's get on with it. I must say to the


viewers, it is the Marquess of Lothian, Michael Ancram, just to get


the titles right, I know these things are important!


That's all for today, thanks to our guests.


An extremely busy and interesting news day!


The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.


I'll be here at noon tomorrow with all the big


political stories of the day, do join me then, bye-bye.


Across the country, 11 million people


Download Subtitles