26/06/2017 Daily Politics

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