29/06/2017 Daily Politics

The Government survives the vote on its Queen's Speech

over public-sector pay, but life in a hung Parliament

doesn't look like it'll be easy, and ministers face further big

Politicians have just hours left to reach an agreement on restoring

power-sharing in Northern Ireland, or face direct rule

We'll be joined by the MP who has won the annual ballot to decide

which backbenchers get to propose new laws.

And it's reckoned one in three young adults now have a tattoo -

but how many of them have a tattoo of a well-known political figure?

And yes, we ask the questions we know you all care about!

With us for the duration, former Environment Secretary,

former Northern Ireland Secretary, Owen Paterson.

I think it's safe to say his main interest in tattoos

is of the military kind, but he may prove me wrong.

First today, the Government has confirmed that the retired Court

of Appeal judge Martin Moore-Bick has been chosen to lead

the public inquiry into the Grenfell Tower fire.

He'll take on one of the toughest public inquiries in recent years -

he's sure to be under huge scrutiny, and that scrutiny has already begun.

What do you make of this appointment? Of the 70-year-old

Judge? It's a good thing. The Prime Minister said she would get a public

inquiry going. He's a senior appeal judge. Was. Well, yes, he is

retired. Is the choice of the Lord Chief Justice and I think it is

really good we are getting on with it because this is just so

horrendous and there are so many questions to be asked. Yet he once

ruled that a council could rehouse the tenant 50 miles away from their

original residents. If you were a Grenfell Tower victim you wouldn't

be inspired by that, would you? Well, there are going to be a lot of

things about his previous judgments but you want a senior judge with a

proper track record, respected by the legal profession, who was going

to stuck in and get started. But he also has to have the confidence of

those who were the victims of the Grenfell Tower tragedy. I would

suggest that is more important than anything else. Not that they get to

choose him - I understand that, it's an independent inquiry. But for the

paedophile inquiry, the victims there were consulted. They had some

say, some input. They have not from Grenfell Tower. Yes, but it is not

just the people who have suffered this terrible tragedy, it is those

who are currently living in tower blocks either have to be worried.

But they are the most important. There are a lot of people today

worried where they are living so they want a proper inquiry that gets

on and get to the bottom of what happened. You can pick a couple of

judgments you don't like - you could do that with any judge, someone of

his lengthy career - but I think to have a senior judge picked by the

Lord Chief Justice is a good thing and we should get on with it. Those

who are living in tower blocks are nervous and I understand that but

this inquiry doesn't help them at all, does it? It is the confidence

of those who suffered most on that terrible night and I just wonder if

someone like this... If you think of somebody, typical British legal

establishment, double-barrelled name, Christchurch Cambridge,

70-year-old. You just wonder, does he have any empathy and

understanding of the people in Grenfell Tower? It is impossible not

to have empathy with the people in Grenfell Tower considering what

happened. It was beyond terrific. It is almost impossible to imagine what

happened and also how those affected are still suffering and will be

affected for the rest of their lives but the Lord Chief Justice has faith

in this guy. He is a retired judge and I think we need to get moving

fast because they're all of questions. Chudley time it? You and

I know years. The paedophile Ingrid has not yet done and interim report

atop the inquiry into Bloody Sunday took 20 years. There are large sums

of people in these buildings who must be worried stiff today.

The question is about one woman in the North East who has

shown her admiration for a well-known politician by

C, Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister?

At the end of the show, we will find out.

Later today, MPs have a final vote on the Queen's Speech -

that's the Government's legislative agenda for the coming two years.

It is normally one, this one is for two.

It's an important milestone for the Prime Minister,

because if she can't secure enough votes in the House of Commons

to back her programme, then the government would

So how is Theresa May going to navigate this tightrope?

Mrs May fell eight seats short of an absolute majority

at the general election, meaning she is reliant

on the support of others to govern and get legislation

The Conservatives, along with the DUP -

who have agreed to support the government on certain key bills

Labour, combined with other parties, make up 315 votes.

If you remove the Speaker and Sinn Fein - who do not take

up their seats - then the government, with the DUP, has

Last night in the Commons, Labour's first attempt to knock

They'd tabled an amendment calling for an end to the public-sector pay

cap and more money for the police and fire services in

Tonight, there will be up to three votes on the Queen's Speech.

Labour has tabled another amendment, which includes the introduction

of an energy price cap, and calls for a Brexit deal that

gives the UK the "exact same benefits" it has as a member

of the single market and customs union.

But the Government is expected to see off that challenge

and win the final vote on its Queen's Speech,

meaning it will have survived the first week in this

As we said, yesterday's debate was focused on Labour's call

for an end to the 1% cap on pay rises for public-sector workers.

How long are they going to continue to peddle hard-line austerity

when their own targets for closing the deficit

recede ever further away, raising the question

counter-productive in terms of encouraging growth?

I would say to the right honourable lady, nobody

We want to engage with you and debate with you because there

are important subjects to be discussed but we are all serious

about what has happened and what could happen in the future

My right honourable friend is presumably not wholly taken

in by the Shadow Home Secretary posturing as a defender of people's

safety when in 1989 she now famously signed an early day motion calling

for the scrapping of MI5 and the Metropolitan

The real issue the Government should be looking at is whether the police

and security services have sufficient resources

That somehow the Government can find ?1 billion to support

Northern Ireland and to support the Government keeping its own jobs

but cannot support the additional resources the police

and the emergency services need to support their jobs at this

And that's why I think the Government has to rethink.

I do declare an interest, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I was a nurse who worked from 2010 to 2015 under the pay cap.

I know exactly how difficult it is and how challenging those

finances are and most nurses I know work on their hospital bank

We will not make our decision on public sector pay until the pay

review body has reported and we will listen to what they say

and we will listen to what people in this House have said before

We're joined by the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury,

Peter Dowd, who's in the Central Lobby of

And Owen Paterson is with this in the studio. Peter Dowd, what sort of

pay rises do you have in mind now for public sector workers? Well,

what Labour in its Funding Britain's Future document, which accompanied

our manifesto, we set aside ?4 billion per year over the parliament

to help with the cap on pay in the public sector. So what kind of pay

rise with that result in? That would be on figures, it is about to

present if it all went on an equal basis. Is that to present on top of

the 1% at the moment or is it three present? This is additional. The

bottom line is, what we try to do is say, there are these bodies and we

want to move into a collective-bargaining situation so

there are these pay review bodies be to give evidence to but what we've

had so far in a sense is the Government having the pay review

bodies but for all intents and purposes ignoring everything they

say. We're not into the business about micromanaging it. There are

three sets of public sector employees - NHS, local government

and public servants of the civil service so we've got to give some

flexibility there. I understand that on the overall sum you think should

be about 4 billion a year. On average, that is another to present

a very body was to get the same but of course that probably wouldn't

happen. -- another two decent. How would you finance this? We have set

aside in that same document, ?48.6 billion spending and we match that

with tax-raising measures which went from corporation tax at ?19 billion,

tax evasion around ?6 billion, excessive pay levies. There is a

whole range of that document, totalling 48.6. In fact, it totalled

?53.5 billion to cover our commitment. So, in your view, the

extra 4 billion a year that you would be proposing for public sector

pay rises, that would be financed out of different forms of extra

taxation? It wouldn't add to the devil as it? No, it doesn't because

what we've got is that figure of 48.6 billion spending commitments,

?48.6 billion of tax-raising which is there for people to see and pour

over. Thanks for that. Stick with us. Owen Paterson, what is wrong

with this public sector pay freeze, which has gone on for a long time

now, and is projected to go on under the government... What is wrong with

a modest rise now? Advocate sensible to wait for the pay review to go

with their proposal but with the greatest respect to Peter, when we

came in 2010 we will left a letter by one of his predecessors saying,

"We have no money left," and we were borrowing ?300,000 per minute and we

are still not out of the woods, we're borrowing ?100,000 a minute so

it is tough. One that would be a case for saying they shouldn't get

more than the pay gap. Let's see what the pay review body says. They

kept talking about the lesson of corporation tax. We reduced

corporation tax from 28% to 20% and increased the amount of tax money

that came in from 44 billion to 56 billion. You say wait on the pay

review bodies but the pay review bodies are given arena by the

Treasury and arena by the Treasury follows the cap on public sector

pay. You are asking people to continue effectively to have their

pay rise by no more than 1% across-the-board at a time when

inflation is almost 3%. So you are saying to the nurses and fire

workers and public sector workers and carers up and down the land, you

are going to have another real cut in your pay. That's what it means.

And for all those in the private sector who also under pressure.

Everyone appreciates these people do incredibly important jobs - nurses,

Fireman policeman, etc. Public sector pay -- private sector pay is

rising. We are still borrowing ?100,000 a minute and we can't get

away from that. Off we go on spending money we dumped this debt

on our children and grandchildren. Average earnings are rising by just

over 2%. But it public sector pay is frozen at 1%, it means that the

private sector may still be suffering a bit of a cut but they

are not suffering as much as the public sector workers so is your

message to public sector workers today but actually, our public

finances are still in such a bad shape that you can still have no

more than the 1% cup? That's your message, isn't it? My messages wait

for the review body. I've given you the answer. We are still borrowing

?100,000 a minute and if we are going to pay more for whatever this

is it has to be borrowed or taken from tax. What does Philip Hammond

say when asked about these issues - we are not deaf. It sounds like you

have got a two year. I am waiting for the review body. What does that

mean? These are important jobs and there is a certain point where you

turn off completely and that has to be recognised and will be recognised

by the review body but you have to look at this against the background

of public finances were we still not out of the woods of the mess we were

left by Labour in 2010. Peter Dowd, let me come back to you. What would

happen if Owen Paterson was right and some of the tax rises you are

proposing, which are largely fallen corporation tax and companies which

are quite mobile, and on the top 5% of incomes, professional, well-paid

people who are pretty mobile... What would happen if you didn't raise

this extra money, that it didn't result in the funds that you thought

it would get? What would you do then?

I do not accept the premise we will not be able to raise the money. We

have done an assessment and had it independently checked and I believe

we will raise it. Owen Paterson, his words about the 6 million workers,

the government proposes over the next five years ?70 billion of tax

cuts, corporation tax, and it is about time the government got the

priority right and fund some of these public sector pay rises,

especially in the light of what they have had to do. The government

should reorganise its priorities. We reduced corporation tax from 28% and

we increase the amount of money coming in from 44 billion to 56

billion. They've never get this. They said when income tax was

reduced it cost 3 billion, actually 8 billion more came in. If you

reduce taxes you increase the cake and have more money available for

public services and it is bad when you have the hard left Labour Party

that thinks it can pay for everything by penalising the most

productive part of the economy and that hurts those public services

that need tax revenue, and you increase tax revenue by growing the

economy and reducing taxes. If public finances are so bad we cannot

get rid of the public sector pay cap, where did you find the extra 1

billion for the DUP. 102, which is a good investment in a secure economy

and sound finances, as opposed to letting Labour in which will lead to

chaos, flights to the airports, capital disappearing and diving

prospects. If you can find 1 billion for Northern Ireland with a

population less than 2 million, could you not find 4 billion for

England public sector workers, which is what it largely refers to, but

the population of over 55 million. The city deals with Scotland and

Wales and... If you can find 1 billion, White can you not find 4

billion. 1 billion for a small part of the UK, why not 4 billion for the

biggest part? We are waiting for the pay review body and the 1 billion

for the DUP who is set against the 802 spending which is a modest fee

for a sound policy, rather than Labour extracting huge amounts of

money from a small number of people, who would disappear and leave the

country. Thank you. Before we move from, the Speaker has called Labour

MP Stella Creasey's amendment on demands for women in Northern

Ireland to be given free access to abortion services in England. At the

moment they can come to England or other parts of the UK, but services

are not free and this amendment would make it free. How would you

vote on that? This is a devolved issue. These personal, moral issues

are almost all devolved. This is about women who want an abortion

coming to England and getting the service free on the same basis as

English women would get it. How would you vote on that? It is a

devolved issue. It cannot be devolved. If a parliament cannot

stop women from Northern Ireland travelling to England for an

abortion. I would have to see the amendment. These moral issues, which

the DUP come in for some flak on, they are devolved.

The Culture Secretary said she is minded to refer the proposed

takeover by 21st Century Fox, Rupert Murdoch's massive media company

based in New York, she said she is minded to refer the takeover. Fox

owns 30 odd per cent of it and wants to buy the rest of Sky it does not

own and she wants to move it to a second phase of the investigation

with the authority on the grounds of plurality. Not on advertising

standards, what is known as the fit and proper test. A delay at the very

least to Rupert Murdoch's aspirations to own all of Sky and

not just roughly a third. Back to the Queen's Speech.

There have been various other attempts to amend

the Queen's Speech in Parliament, including some on the

The Labour peer and Remain supporter Andrew Adonis tried to amend it

by regretting the decision not to negotiate continued membership

of the single market and customs union.

The reason, my lords, that Brexit is so difficult

is that the policy of withdrawal from the central economic

institutions of the European Union is so unviable, it will cause deep

and lasting damage to the UK's trade, investment

It is a hard right nationalist policy and it is no more viable

as a governing idea than the hard left socialism of Tony Benn

and Arthur Scargill in the 1970s and 1980s.

Andrew Adonis lost his vote, although it did have the support

There's also a similar amendment being put down by Labour

and Liberal Democrat MPs in the Commons today.

I'm joined now by the Labour peer Peter Hain, who believes his party

should be pushing for the UK to remain a member

I stress the word member, access is a different matter.

But first let's talk to the Labour MP Caroline Flint,

who said this week that doing so would mean staying

Caroline Flint, would you say -- what do you said to be Parliamentary

colleagues who are fighting to remain members of the single market?

We went into the election very clear leaving the EU was a settled matter

for labour and I have always believed and said it as a Remain

campaigner, if the decision was to leave, we could not remain as

members of the single market, because to do so we would have to

accept controls of freedom of movement and for those reasons I

believe as much access as possible is something we should strive for

but I do not believe you can combine being a member of the single market

and meet the wishes who voted to leave the EU in the referendum and

many Remain voters who want to change freedom of movement. I agree

we want changes to freedom of movement. Belgium poses tougher

controls on freedom of movement. You have to have a job and if you lose

it, you are given a short time before you leave Belgium to go back

to your country of origin. My main concern, this is the biggest and

richest single market in the world. If we were simply to press for

access having left it, we would have to get the agreement of 27 countries

and only one could veto and as we saw with the Canadian trade deal, a

regional parliament in Belgium tried to stop it, so that could be

difficult. I think we should negotiate exit that stays in the

single market and Customs union, which is important also for Northern

Ireland, by the way, that there are no barriers an bureaucracy and

tariffs that departing the single market would leave... Almost half

our trade is with the single market. Caroline Flint? It is interesting

hearing about the Belgian example. As I recall the same applies to

present arrangements and we should enforce as part of the arrangements

now that people come for a job but often we fail to do that and fail to

follow up when they lose work here. The British people wanted more

control over immigration which means not necessarily closing the door but

opening when we need workers and importantly training more of our

own. My worry in the language of this about the single market and

Customs union, there are people, I do not know if Peter is one, who

would like an opportunity to maybe change the result of what happened a

year ago, and discussions around the Customs union, which is about how we

trade externally and the single market are pivotal to this and I

don't believe we will have the same arrangements. It does not mean we

cannot get a deal that supports trading ambitions in the EU and

beyond, but we have to look at this as something that is a settled

matter and not be cheeky with the language used, which may be a code

for trying to stay in the European Union, that is not going to happen.

We should be clear, which is where we have to press the government, not

everything will be decided in the next two years by any stretch. We

will get the headlines but we need transition plans to provide

certainty and stability and confidence that we will not fall off

a cliff edge Mac could take ten years, people are talking about, in

which we could sort out the detail. Peter Hain, if we stay in the

customs union, we cannot do our own free-trade deals. If we stay in the

single market we are subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court

of Justice and free movement rules. Also subject to the rules and

regulations of Brussels. In what way will we have left the EU? We will

have left because it was the decision of the people. In practice

we would still be subject to everything we are subject to, the

freedoms, European Court of Justice, unable to strike free-trade deals on

our own. Imagine as Brexiteer said, they wanted to maintain trade and

they would be mad not to within the European Union, would have to

conform to the standards, the cars we export into the EU single market

have thousands of pages of standards that have to be complied with,

otherwise you have to go through the customs union bureaucracy and delays

and tariffs apply. My objective is to protect jobs and prosperity. Is

it not to get us actually to stay inside the EU, in fact? I do not

agree... That is a different matter. Not agreeing and supporting it is a

different matter. I am out to protect jobs and prosperity and

leaving the single market and Customs union, and nobody has

explained how it can be avoided, will cost jobs and prosperity. I

think we can toughen up migration controls. On the ballot paper the

single market never came up. That is not true. In many of the programmes

I did it raised the issue of the single market. Given we are being

asked to believe in the Belgian example, how many people has Belgium

sent home because they no longer had a job? Some thousands, I gather. I

don't know exactly. If this is a centre of your policy, do you need

to know? We have a bigger economy and we would work out how it

applied. The point I am making is to stay in the single market does not

mean uncontrolled migration, and it is dishonest to pretend otherwise.

There are ways of enforcing control, as for example Belgium has done. We

could even be tougher. You don't really know what Belgium has done. I

do because it is clear. I cannot give you the numbers. They are in

the thousands. You are not disputing the point I am making that you can

have tougher migration controls in the single market and protect jobs

and prosperity. I want the Nissan workers, Jaguar Land Rover workers,

having jobs protected and the best way is to remain in the single

market. Caroline Flint, you have been clear we cannot remain members

of the single market all customs union, are you confident that is the

settled policy of your front bench? I think it is. I know it is. I know

it is because I heard Keir Starmer use the language, we need access to

the single market, not talking about membership. Obviously when you are

on the doorstep in Don Valley and elsewhere, people do not say let's

talk about the single market but I know as a Remain campaign that I was

in debates where I made it clear if we left we could not be members of

the single market. Some said they wanted to stay in the single market.

Lots of things were said on all sides that were not helpful to the

debate. What I am clear about is the British people and I think a

substantial number of remain voters and recent polling shows 40% of

Remain voters are clear we should leave the European Union. They were

clear they wanted more control, which does not mean throwing out the

baby with the bath water and not having the standards currently, many

of them I suggest inspired by the UK. They do want more control which

might mean that we can come to a place where we can enjoy free

tariffs, but it might be being outside the single market we will

have I believe more control over immigration, to turn the tap on and

off when we feel their economy needs it, but also to do things like

reduce VAT on energy costs, or support some of the foundation

industry is better than they have been because of the EU.

Andrew Adonis, your Labour colleague in the Lords, says that advocate

leaving membership of the single market is "A hard right nationalist

policy". That is the policy of your party. I haven't used that term. He

has. Is he right or wrong? The consequence of doing it is we would

have to start all over again with 27 member... That was in 20 was making

adult. He said it is a hard right nationalist policy. I'm pointing

out, according to Caroline Flint, that is the policy of your party so

your party is now according to Andrew Adonis advocating a hard

right nationalist policy. I think you should ask Andrew Adonis about

that. We wanted to but he couldn't come on. That's why we have you and

we are grateful for it. I'm grateful to be here and it ought to my friend

Caroline. The point is to leave the European single market means you

then have to renegotiate Access with all in the seven members. In

addition you've got to renegotiate Access with over 50 other countries

across the world with which the single market has trade deals. This

could take years. It could cost many, many jobs. Why not stay in the

single market, change the rules in respect of migration and have a much

more secure future for Britain? People didn't vote for Brexit South

Wales I is where I knocked on doors in order to be poorer. Some of those

people are poor and the problem is, Peter, much of this, it saddens me

that we as a party didn't address these issues more fundamentally way

before we got to the referendum on freedom of movement, for example.

But part of the problem is that when people talk about the net benefits

of the EU, and I am knowledgeable about, -- I acknowledge all of that,

we fail to express those benefits so some of the pluses of having access

to cheap labour to be plumbers and everyone else coming into our homes,

for businesses to exploit that steady slow migration coming to our

shores, I'm afraid many other and communities outside our big cities

and the middle-class areas areas outside the country they were not

feeling it and they roared last year. Caroline Flint, let me ask you

this, finally. There was an amendment down to the Queen's Speech

advocating continued membership of the single market. Is Labour going

to vote against that? Well, I'm not going to be supporting a is

basically saying that anything but membership of that should be the

case and I wait to hear what my party is telling me how to vote

later on in the day but what I am saying is that I cannot support

something that ties us into something which I think undermines

and puts at risk our ongoing conversation and discussion with the

British people about how we leave the EU. Our front bench, Heather

Self, ab stained in the Lords last night on the amendment. Thank you,

Peter. Thank you both. It's deadline day for politicians

in Northern Ireland to reach an agreement on power-sharing that

would allow devolved If this afternoon's deadline

is missed, it could lead to direct While we've been on air, we have a

short statement from the Northern Ireland Secretary of State is broken

and I. Here is what he had to say. -- James Brokenshire. Much progress

has been made but a number of issues remain outstanding. I believe that a

resolution can be found and I'm urging the parties to continue

focusing all of their efforts on achieving this. UK Government will

work with the parties toward their critical objective of forming an

executive. Let's get the latest on those talks

from our Northern Ireland political Mark, is in the expectation that

there won't be an agreement today? I think so, Andrew. Even though James

Brokenshire was trying to accentuate the positive, really the political

atmosphere here is every bit as dismal as the weather at Stormont

Castle and there is a sense that the two main parties, the DUP and Sinn

Fein, have not been able to overcome their differences over what kind of

registers a provisional measure before the Irish language in the

future. -- what kind of legislative provision there should be. They are

squabbling about whether they should wear their laundry in public or keep

it private. If they can't come to an agreement and the deadline for PMS

often impasses, what then happens? Comes down to James Brokenshire to

choose his options. You could call another election and we have

election night is because we have just had the snap election but only

in the spring we had an assembly election I don't think the public

would have great deal of time for another poll may be in the autumn.

Alternatively, he could go for direct rule, appointing ministers

from London to take over the running of this place, but he knows there

will be a kickback in particular from Sinn Fein in relation to that.

The other two alternatives, if I can go into four alternatives, are

probably more likely. One is that he could potentially delay this

deadline, retrospectively legislate for a new one. Another is that he

could go into some sort of half life well -- where Westminster does a bit

of Stormont business but it is in the hands of civil service to run

this place. We shall see. I'm sure the people of Northern Ireland can't

wait for another election! Mark Devonport in a rather rainy

Stormont. Owen Paterson, you have great experience of Northern

Ireland. Would not be realistic to think that they don't get an

agreement today but at some stage they will get an agreement? It is

still a matter of time and it will happen? Or that being too

optimistic? The people of Northern Ireland are completely exasperated

and exhausted. I still go there privately and they want to get on

their businesses. As one example, we had this big campaign to corporation

tax reduced. Can only be done by devolved administration working

Stormont. That benefits every single right across Northern Ireland

because you get someone just over the border in Donegal, a small

market town, just down the road you have Londonderry, second biggest

town, which is nothing like the scale of that town because of

corporation tax. For me it is completely exasperated, if Mark

Devonport is right, it is a matter of intense interest to quite a small

minority and the last poll I saw was that more people speak Polish than

speak Irish in Ireland. I just hope that this late stage they have to

this afternoon elect a First Minister, Deputy First Minister and

the Speaker and set up an executive. You want them to get on with running

the province? Absolutely nobody in Westminster wants to bring direct

rule back. That bit I can understand! And it has worked on the

people of Northern Ireland wanted to work. Here we are, at 1240 B, there

is still time. As a former Northern Ireland Secretary of State, James

Brokenshire could the deadline? He could, yesterday it will be

interesting if Sinn Fein don't want to get into an executive. Because

they don't get their seats in Westminster they will basically be

just running district councils and they do represent a lot of people

across Northern Ireland and it would be much better if they were in the

Executive with the DUP. OK, we shall see.

When Britain leaves the EU, what will the future hold

In a moment we'll hear from our guest of the day -

he's a former secretary of state for rural affairs - but first

We've come to the Royal Norfolk show.

This is where the best of local farming is celebrated.

There is so much uncertainty over currency, which is a major

I was all for Brexit, but, after the fiasco

over the last month, I'm very worried man now.

For the past 45 years, subsidies from Europe have had

a massive part to play in how Britain farms.

And Brexit is set to change all that.

Many farmers get more than half their income from EU funding,

through the Common Agricultural Policy.

Without it, they'd go out of business.

And the government is yet to set out how it will help

Post-2022, we have no idea what funding might look like.

What we would like to see is some really good transitional

That will be affected by the trade talks that we have,

so that negotiations that are carried out by the Brexit team,

by our future trade relationship with Europe, and whether that's

a free-trade agreement, a customs union version, or something else,

But what we do want is something that gives us productivity,

it gives scope to support the environment and it gives us

scope to ensure we can grow our contribution

has been criticised for handing out millions to already wealthy

landowners and for propping up some parts of the farming industry

There is a statistic out there that the top 10% of producers

are twice as productive as the bottom 10%,

and that's something we want to close the gap on.

That's everything from R, research and development,

but also upskilling, as well as enabling investment

into storage and collaboration and those sorts of things.

So there is a lot more we could get out of our industry and I think it's

Chancellor Philip Hammond has promised to maintain the current

But, beyond that, the future for British farmers is uncertain.

Michael Gove, now back in the Cabinet as the Environment

and Rural Affairs Secretary, came to tell Norfolk farmers

Shame he didn't bring any sunshine with him.

Yeah, you could change that next time!

Do we have to accept that after the subsidies change,

that some farms are just no longer going to be viable?

One of the things about the whole guarantee that we've given

is that there will be support for farmers in cash terms,

which was day the same right up until 2022.

And as we leave the European Union, there

New opportunities for us to have an agricultural policy that

provides support to people who do the right thing environmentally.

Support from the government for those who make our countryside

beautiful and is sure that our natural

And it's also the case that we can provide support in order to ensure

that food is produced to the highest possible standards for sale

But something's got to change, hasn't it, because some

farms are so much more productive than others?

Some farms are more productive than others, but it is the case

in making a judgment about how you support farming that there

Brexit will also change the way we buy and sell farming produce

to the rest of the world and could bring opportunities

to liberalise farming and compete more successfully on world markets.

But MPs on the Environmental Audit Committee have voiced concerns.

As we form new trade agreements outside the EU,

British farmers could face increased competition from countries

that want to sell us cheaper produce, and trade agreements that

impose any taxes on UK farm exports could make it less

profitable for British farmers to export goods abroad.

Anything coming into this country has got to abide by the same

rules and regulations - the food hygiene and the health

and safety of the animals has got to be exactly the same as us,

or else it should not be allowed to come in.

That is not a fair, level playing field.

Leaving the EU will affect so many industries, but some argue farming

is really the biggest Brexit beast which has the most to lose or gain.

Emma Vardy reporting. Owen Paterson, as members of the EU, we impose

massive tariffs on agricultural produce from the rest of the world.

On dairy products, beef products, all sorts of things coming in, even

coffee coming in from Africa and so on to talk would it not be sensible,

as we leave the EU, just to get rid of these tariffs and see the price

of food fall, which would be a huge advantage to poorer people in this

country? Quite right, it would be an 8 billion injection into the British

economy, the average family would be over ?300 a year better off and

there will be advantages for coffee and Germany earns far more money

from coffee, processed coffee, because Africans of a process coffee

have to pay the higher tariff. So you're quite right, there would be

huge gains on that. The counter to that is, we will have to have a

world competitive industry. In some areas we do. We have the world

record for wheat production per acre. We are not allowed to embrace

some technologies by the EU, so we should change the emphasis and the

precautionary principle which is basically, don't get out of bed in

the morning in case you bang your head on the door and fall down the

stairs, and embrace technology. So somewhere like France, if it had the

same efficiency as the United States as maize production, it would

produce 1.9 million more tonnes of maize, or on the environment would

free up several thousand hectares for recreation. The answer is to go

absolutely fullbore using the latest technologies which will help the

environment and to encourage our farmers to diversify as happened in

New Zealand and follow the best food product that is suited to their

farm. You then look at countries like Switzerland where there is very

significant subsidy for public goods, so environmental benefits

provided by farmers in Switzerland, provided mainly by livestock farming

which, on the food production level looks insanely expensive but provide

the benefit of maintaining environments for the tourism

industry so there are all sorts of things, biodiversity, flora, fauna.

What should matter Morkel... What should matter more for a

Conservative government - trying to reduce the price of food in the

supermarkets, which benefits people on below-average incomes, or

placating the farm lobby, because they're not going to like a tariff?

You do both, you take advantage of coming out of the customs union

which benefits every citizen, everybody is better off with cheaper

food. Only if the tariffs are cut. You then say, how does it affect the

farming industry? Certain sectors of the industry can be competitive as

certainly if we are allowed to use modern technology. There will be

marginal areas where you cannot compete with world food prices that

there is a significant public good provided by the environmental parts,

such as rural tourism industry, which it is fine to give significant

public money. The Swiss paid more per head than we do under CAP. Our

food self-sufficiency has gone down and environmental output has gone

down because it's a broad blanket subsidy system that does not work.

Out of the EU do we continue multi-billion pound subsidies to the

farming industry? Not for direct food production. That is the lesson

from New Zealand. New Zealand is interesting. Is it your view or the

Conservatives view? That is clearly my expressed view. Which is not

party policy. Farmers watching might be rather worried by what you say.

I talk to farmers the whole time and people understand where I am going

whether I explain this. There is another side of it, we have 1

billion people hungry as we speak and will add 2 billion to the world

population and there is an increase in standards of living around the

world. There are massive opportunities to export. If we are

at world prices, there will be many middle of the road products such as

mince, which will suffer against world prices and to counter that you

have to get into premium product countries such as India for Scotch

Whisky, China for certain meat products and get the premium, which

is why you have to leave the customs union so we can get on and negotiate

these trade deals. The European Commission yesterday floated the

idea of reducing the money spent on the Common Agricultural Policy in

order to divert money elsewhere to make up the money they will lose

when Britain leaves. The commission is furious because they will be 10

billion short. The ex-communist countries, they came in at a low

rate subsidy compared to establish countries such as France and

Germany. I negotiated the last round of the policy and you could see this

coming down the track, when they are going to try to level up. There will

be a huge row and thank goodness we will be out of it. We can tailor

agriculture environment policy to our own industry. Do you think in

ten, 15 years from now, if you got your way, we would pay much in

subsidies to British farmers as we do now? But we would be getting

transparent goods. Iker Casillas paying a lot of money for the Hill

areas -- I can see us pay more money in the hill areas and others. In New

Zealand, they had 70 million sheep running around the hills doing

terrible soil erosion and creating water pollution and they could not

sell them and they turned into fertiliser. They stop subsidies. We

have time for a transition. They have now 21 million sheep and export

the same amount of meat. Bad news for chic? No, healthy sheep. Much

healthier, better, larger, more robust sheep and a better

environment. Good news for sheep. You heard it first the Daily

Politics. This morning saw one of the most

dramatic and keenly awaited moments Not the Queen's Speech, the Budget,

or even the Westminster I speak, of course,

of the annual draw to decide which MP has come top

in the Private Members' Bill ballot, meaning that a bill they bring

forward on a subject of their choosing has a higher

chance of becoming law. It's a bit like the draw

for the National Lottery if you'd asked Jacob Rees-Mogg

to design the set. The ballot draw for private members'

bills in the present session 461 members entered

the ballot this year. We now come to the members who get

the first pick of the Fridays And we're joined now by the winner,

the Labour MP Chris Bryant. Welcome to the programme, you came

top. What will you put forward? Those who were last shall be first

and those who were first shall be last. Every year I have put in the

ballot, I wanted it to be my old school number, 18, and this time I

have won. I cannot decide yet. I have a little list. What I would

love to do is sort out the Waspi pension injustice. That costs money.

And therefore I can't. You are not allowed to do money bills. I would

like to do ending wrapping that cannot be recycled on food. Are you

allowed? I don't know yet. I would like to do civil partnerships for

heterosexual Couples, more equality. A new offence of attacking emergency

staff, because that has been a growing problem. You been accident

and emergency? And Fire Service and people. I would like to abolish

hereditary peers from the House of Lords, for that matter abolish

hereditary titles. I would like to do land reform. Another I would like

and I might get support here, Owen Paterson, you have supported a cap

on welfare benefits for families, so why not a cap on agricultural

benefits for farmers. That is a money bill? If you put a cap on, you

are OK. You are not allowing an additional charge. I did not think

the Private Members' Bills could have anything to do with money. In

order to proceed in committee you have to have a money Bill in those

cases because almost everything has some cost implication but what you

cannot do is increase expenditure and you cannot increase a charge on

the taxpayer, but I think you can decrease it. You have asked people

on Twitter for suggestions. Do you know what you are doing? Well, you

know... They are already coming in any way, to be honest. It came as a

surprise this morning. I have until July the 19th to make up my mind and

there is an art because on the one hand, it is a capricious business

and in the end the government whips can talk bills out. There is an

issue of do I go for something that will achieve cross-party consensus

and therefore get something on the statute book, or do I advance a

cause that might not get to the statute book book makes a big point?

You have to reconcile going for something you really want might not

get and getting something you want but not as much but has a better

chance of getting through? It might end up as a small measure. There is

a lot I'd like to change in Britain but I will not be able to do that in

a single bill, because of the rules, and also because Labour does not

have a majority and I have to persuade people to turn up on a

Friday morning. The rules are such, if somebody keeps on talking and

talking, even if they talk nonsense and repeat themselves, it can be

talked out and you do not get to committee stage. Any advice? I would

go for something with cross-party support and get it through. Like

what? That is up to you. But I need your support. I'd like to your

emergency workers, that is something that is interesting. We read more

reports about this. Whether it needs legislation, I am not sure. I know

what will happen to that, the government will say it is a good

idea but does not need to be in legislation and they will talk it

out, that is the danger. Could you not put a billion to move the Daily

Politics to prime time on BBC One. And force people to watch it? Not

force them, just give us better chance! We could do a thing to force

the publication of your salary. When is that happening? At the end of

July. That is very exciting. But we will be in recess. Several Tory MPs

have asked me to present a new band rebuild, that goes back to 650 MPs

and my activists asks if we can ban letterboxes that are not flat. In

other words, the ones that go up like that. That would be a big

issue. Job King, Andrew. I understand. This is not a joke, we

have just heard that MPs will no longer have to wear a tie to ask a

question. I always thought it was unfair that women stand in the

chamber in a T-shirt and jeans and men have to wear a jacket and suit,

a jacket and tie, rather. That always seems odd. Looking very well

dressed today. Despite the heat. Interestingly, the chamber... We

have run out of time. I have to get onto the big issue of the day, even

you coming first in this lottery. Now, time to find out

the answer to our quiz. for a politician by getting

their face tattooed on her arm. C - Justin Trudeau,

the Canadian Prime Minister? Instead of asking the studio guests,

we can go to Adele Shepherd. She is struggling with her earpiece.

Can you hear me? Excuse me? It does not look like it. There is a panic.

Do you know which tattoo she got? It must be Jeremy Corbyn. It was Jeremy

Corbyn. Adele Shepherd, can you hear me? This is not going to work, I'm

afraid. We will have to give it up. She is in trouble with her earpiece.

Jeremy Corbyn should have one of her now. Which politician do you have is

tattoo? I do not have one. Adele Shepherd, can you hear me? Yes. Well

done. What a struggle. Thanks for persevering. It is probably your

first time on TV and you were bowled a fast ball with the earpiece.

Relax, just tell us why did you decide to get a tattoo of Jeremy

Corbyn and can we see it? Yes, certainly. There it is. Very

recognisable. I became a member of the Labour

Party eight months ago because I wanted to vote Jeremy Corbyn back in

as leader after the vote of no confidence but as a new member I was

not allowed to use that vote, which is another thing altogether. I met

him in Stockton. He came up and I was blown away by his... A genuine

person. I met him again at Scarborough when the election was

called and again when he came to the borough to promote our candidate for

the election. For me he represents compassion, fairness, understanding,

empathy. And that is why you got the tattoo? Absolutely. It is permanent,

what if he became Prime Minister and let you down badly, what would you

do with your arm? He could not possibly let me down because of what

he stands for and what he represents is what I am passionate about. He is

a human being, we are all flawed, we are not perfect. I'm afraid we have

run out of time and that is our fault for not getting the proper

earpiece to you. Great to talk to you and thank you for explaining

that. The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now. I'm back tonight with

Michael Portillo, Liz Kendall, Adam Klug from Momentum,

Adam Boulton, and the comedian MUSIC: Hoppipolla

by Sigur Ros