:00:37. > :00:39.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:40. > :00:42.Theresa May passes her first parliamentary test as leader
:00:43. > :00:47.of a minority government as MPs back the Queen's Speech.
:00:48. > :00:50.Jeremy Corbyn sacks three frontbenchers and loses a fourth,
:00:51. > :00:53.after a fifth of Labour MPs defy the party line to back a call
:00:54. > :00:58.for the UK to remain in the single market.
:00:59. > :01:01.The Chancellor has said people are weary of pay
:01:02. > :01:04.freezes and spending cuts, so is the era of austerity
:01:05. > :01:09.We'll hear from one economist who argues the government
:01:10. > :01:13.must stick to the plan to eliminate the deficit.
:01:14. > :01:16.And after a tumultuous week in politics, what is the really big
:01:17. > :01:19.question MPs are grappling with in parliament?
:01:20. > :01:23.I noticed yesterday, sir, that a member was allowed
:01:24. > :01:27.to ask a question in the chamber without wearing a tie.
:01:28. > :01:30.Now, I have no particular view on that, but have the rules
:01:31. > :01:44.All that in the next hour, and with me for the whole programme
:01:45. > :01:47.the joint political editor of the Guardian, Heather Stewart,
:01:48. > :01:48.and Christopher Hope, chief political correspondent
:01:49. > :01:57.He is wearing a tie, I see, in Daily Politics' rules.
:01:58. > :02:01.First today, let's discuss the economic outlook as the Brexit
:02:02. > :02:04.Before the referendum the OECD, one of the West's leading
:02:05. > :02:06.economic think-tanks, suggested that a vote to leave
:02:07. > :02:09.the EU would see the average British household worse off by ?2,200
:02:10. > :02:18.They warned of a "persistent and rising cost to the economy".
:02:19. > :02:20.But in recent days Angel Gurria, the secretary-general of the OECD,
:02:21. > :02:23.appears to have had a change of heart.
:02:24. > :02:31."The quality of life, you know, will probably remain to a very great
:02:32. > :02:35.extent as it is today, because the values
:02:36. > :02:42."There may be some things that change.
:02:43. > :02:44.We do not know to what extent - it's very early."
:02:45. > :02:49.Michael Gove Heather Stewart, this is a complete U-turn of what he said
:02:50. > :02:57.earlier? It underlines how incredibly
:02:58. > :03:00.uncertain these forecasts were. There were so many assumptions
:03:01. > :03:03.underlying the forecast last year. We had a dire forecast from the
:03:04. > :03:09.Treasury about the impact of Brexit. You had to make so many assumptions
:03:10. > :03:13.about what deal you would end up with, how long it would take, it
:03:14. > :03:17.becomes meaningless. Tiny tweaks to those make a huge difference.
:03:18. > :03:21.Because it is so difficult to forecast, one can only assume it was
:03:22. > :03:25.political scaremongering? There was a feeling of that, people ganging up
:03:26. > :03:29.and saying not to vote for Brexit because it will be a disaster. Liam
:03:30. > :03:33.Fox, David Davis, all of the Brexiteers, they are getting on with
:03:34. > :03:38.Brexit right now. Some people will say that the timing is curious. You
:03:39. > :03:45.could point to rising inflation, wages stagnating, the pound is
:03:46. > :03:50.static, but lower than it was. That is eating into the costs on imports.
:03:51. > :03:54.So, in a way, people might say the economic outlook has worsened since
:03:55. > :03:59.the referendum? Just as they change their mind, yes. Sterling fell quite
:04:00. > :04:03.shortly after the referendum. It has stayed weak and it will drive up
:04:04. > :04:07.inflation. Inflation is heading up to 3%. People will start to feel
:04:08. > :04:11.that. Will people just say they are not going to take any notice? I
:04:12. > :04:15.don't want to hark back to Michael Gove about experts, but they will
:04:16. > :04:18.say, can we trust what people are saying? They might look at the
:04:19. > :04:29.Pledge on the bus about spending a lot more money, and other claims
:04:30. > :04:32.made by the Leave campaign? All of those are right, but there are
:04:33. > :04:36.short-term blips when we get over the hurdle into Brexit and start
:04:37. > :04:43.trading with the world again. It is a longer term, five or year -- five
:04:44. > :04:47.or ten year view. There might be a view that we don't know what Brexit
:04:48. > :04:51.is going to look like. Might it be as big a change as people first
:04:52. > :04:55.thought? Quite, the election result perhaps makes us think we will not
:04:56. > :04:59.have as an abrupt change as we thought. A lot of noises coming out
:05:00. > :05:01.of government, Philip Hammond suggesting a transition period, we
:05:02. > :05:06.might end up with a closer relationship than we thought. I
:05:07. > :05:09.think that reassures some of the forecast is that we might not be
:05:10. > :05:11.looking at such an abrupt change. More on that later.
:05:12. > :05:17.The question for today is what - according to the Guardian -
:05:18. > :05:19.did David Cameron have to stop George Osborne scrapping
:05:20. > :05:26.Presumably, this is easy for you, Heather!
:05:27. > :05:33.Or d) The tradition of the Chancellor living in Number 11?
:05:34. > :05:36.Well, at the end of the show, Heather, we'll see if Christopher's
:05:37. > :05:39.been reading your paper and if he can give us
:05:40. > :05:42.So after weeks of uncertainty, Theresa May has finally
:05:43. > :05:43.got her Queen's Speech through the Commons.
:05:44. > :05:48.However, it was an uneasy time for both sides of the House.
:05:49. > :05:51.The vote on the series of bills the Government wants to become law
:05:52. > :05:54.was seen as a crucial litmus test for the minority Conservative
:05:55. > :05:56.government, and following the deal with Northern Ireland's DUP
:05:57. > :06:08.Labour backbencher Stella Creasy tabled an amendment calling
:06:09. > :06:11.for women in Northern Ireland to be able to come to England to have
:06:12. > :06:18.Abortions are illegal in Northern Ireland,
:06:19. > :06:26.and in the past, women who come to England have had to pay.
:06:27. > :06:31.The amendment had cross party support,
:06:32. > :06:35.Ministers that the passage of the Queen's Speech
:06:36. > :06:38.The Chancellor, Philip Hammond, then made this statement
:06:39. > :06:40.in the Commons following a question from Conserative backbencher
:06:41. > :06:45.I know this is a matter of great importance to members on both sides
:06:46. > :06:48.of the House and an issue which I know my colleagues
:06:49. > :06:50.on the Treasury bench have been looking for a solution to.
:06:51. > :06:53.By understanding is that my right honourable friend, the Minister
:06:54. > :06:55.for Women and Equalities, either has made, or is just
:06:56. > :06:58.about to make, an announcement by way of a letter to members
:06:59. > :07:00.of this house, explaining that she intends to intervene
:07:01. > :07:02.to fund abortions in England for women arriving here
:07:03. > :07:13.I hope the house will find that a sensible way of dealing
:07:14. > :07:22.Stella Creasy agreed to drop her amendment,
:07:23. > :07:24.following Mr Hammond's comments, and it was then the turn
:07:25. > :07:26.of Labour to get a little hot under the collar.
:07:27. > :07:29.Chuka Ummuna, a keen supporter of remaining in the EU,
:07:30. > :07:31.tabled an amendment calling for Britain to stay
:07:32. > :07:36.within the single market and the customs union.
:07:37. > :07:38.Officially, Labour high command opposed the move,
:07:39. > :07:41.arguing that they had already tabled an amendment calling for the "exact
:07:42. > :07:46.same benefits" as the EU single market and customs union.
:07:47. > :07:50.However, 101 MPs, including many Labour ones, voted
:07:51. > :07:53.for Chuka Umuna's proposal, leading to Jeremy Corbyn sacking
:07:54. > :07:55.three of his shadow ministers - Ruth Cadbury, Catherine West
:07:56. > :08:08.Deputy leader Tom Watson said he was "disappointed"
:08:09. > :08:10.at the amendment, and accused Mr Ummuna of trying
:08:11. > :08:16.We've been joined in the studio by the Conservative MP
:08:17. > :08:17.Peter Bottomley, who backed Stella Creasy's amendment
:08:18. > :08:23.on abortion funding for women from Northern Ireland.
:08:24. > :08:29.Welcome to the Daily Politics. You co-sign the amendment. The party
:08:30. > :08:33.whips must have been furious with you? I don't think so, I think many
:08:34. > :08:38.of them know it is going to come, it is just when or how. I explained
:08:39. > :08:41.even if the amendment was called and passed, it would not be a
:08:42. > :08:46.constitutional threat to the Government, it would be adding on
:08:47. > :08:49.something we would end up doing. The Supreme Court had this judgment, by
:08:50. > :08:53.the narrowest of margins, they said the Government could lawfully not
:08:54. > :08:57.have to pay, which would be their policy. The senior Northern Ireland
:08:58. > :09:01.judge said it should go ahead. The woman on the Supreme Court said it
:09:02. > :09:04.should go ahead. The others were nudging Government parliament. We
:09:05. > :09:07.have been nudged. The Government had not said it was something there were
:09:08. > :09:12.going to do at this particular time. You could have gone theory, risked
:09:13. > :09:16.the legislative programme? Some could say that, I don't think this
:09:17. > :09:19.is a constitutional issue, it is a straightforward issue of
:09:20. > :09:26.constitutional rights and equality. Why should women who have the money
:09:27. > :09:30.get an abortion, and others can't? I understand that, but at this stage
:09:31. > :09:35.of the game, where Theresa May's Government is weak, with a hung
:09:36. > :09:40.parliament, party whips would not look kindly on you? I don't look at
:09:41. > :09:44.it like that at all. It is a sign of Government strength, being able to
:09:45. > :09:48.do in one day what would have taken two months. If the climb-down, which
:09:49. > :09:51.is how it has been viewed, Philip Hammond making that statement in
:09:52. > :09:55.response to your question, it is a sign of things to come. We will see
:09:56. > :10:01.backbenchers like your good self flexing muscles? It maybe your
:10:02. > :10:07.professional duty to put that question, it is my opportunity to
:10:08. > :10:11.say that I disagree. This has not been a U-turn, it has been a move
:10:12. > :10:15.forward. We are doing now to UK residents in England what is
:10:16. > :10:20.happening to other UK residents in England. I am not disputing your
:10:21. > :10:23.viewpoint, I am talking about the strategic view within Parliament
:10:24. > :10:28.when Theresa May has a hung parliament and is relying on the
:10:29. > :10:32.loyalty of backbenchers. That is why it is a risk? The reason I don't see
:10:33. > :10:36.it the way you do, and I'm not arguing with people that try to make
:10:37. > :10:39.it appear differently, even if there was a Conservative majority of 50 I
:10:40. > :10:43.think the amendment would have been passed because there are well over
:10:44. > :10:47.50 people in the Conservative Party that believe you should make this
:10:48. > :10:51.change. It is a very simple thing of Parliament are saying to Government,
:10:52. > :10:55.now is the time, don't wait. We did that over front seat belts, a long
:10:56. > :11:00.time ago. There was cross-party unity and I think the same thing can
:11:01. > :11:02.apply to this. If I follow your logic, will Dallimore issues like
:11:03. > :11:08.this where you and your colleagues on the Tory benches will support
:11:09. > :11:11.Labour amendments, opposition party amendments, because you think they
:11:12. > :11:16.are sensible changes, even if it risks Theresa May being defeated?
:11:17. > :11:19.You need to get away from the idea that any Government defeat is a
:11:20. > :11:24.constitutional issue. This would have been a constitutional issue,
:11:25. > :11:28.wouldn't it? You say that, I see it differently. Each party wants to
:11:29. > :11:32.reduce the stakes on fixed odds betting terminals in betting shops.
:11:33. > :11:38.Poor people come in poor areas, are losing a fortune. That has been put
:11:39. > :11:42.back to autumn. It may be in autumn. If conservatives put down an
:11:43. > :11:46.amendment or a notion, other parties will support us and it will become
:11:47. > :11:50.government policy. That seems completely reasonable. That is what
:11:51. > :11:54.Parliament are for. People arguing for a National Health Service,
:11:55. > :11:57.old-age pensioners, people pushing for votes for women, they were
:11:58. > :12:01.pushing for some thing that will always happen in the end. It was how
:12:02. > :12:04.soon it would happen. You are going to flex your muscles, you are
:12:05. > :12:13.looking forward to this? This was not flexing muscles. Does it expose
:12:14. > :12:16.how weak Theresa May's position is? And how strong backbenchers are, on
:12:17. > :12:20.both sides of the house. It is so ironic that it is exactly the
:12:21. > :12:24.opposite of her intention when she went into the general election. She
:12:25. > :12:27.called it so she could have a great big personal mandate, a big
:12:28. > :12:31.majority, and could go on with her legislative programme very easily.
:12:32. > :12:36.It is quite the reverse. She has to listen very closely to different
:12:37. > :12:37.groups of backbenchers. Peter Bottomley is valiantly trying to
:12:38. > :12:53.state in his mind... Successfully! Is he convincingly? No, it shows how
:12:54. > :12:56.powerful backbenchers like Peter are going to be in the next few months.
:12:57. > :12:59.Fixed odds betting terminals, I am sure the Labour whips are getting on
:13:00. > :13:03.with that now. Had it gone to a vote, the day after day the DUP did
:13:04. > :13:12.the deal, it would have been testing early on. You have to remember that
:13:13. > :13:19.they are dealing with a Taoiseach that is gay. I think abortion will
:13:20. > :13:25.become like our law quite fast in the north. It is not about flexing
:13:26. > :13:28.muscles, it is to improve well-being. But you have a greater
:13:29. > :13:36.chance of getting your way? I would not agree with that. But it is true,
:13:37. > :13:40.isn't it? I will give an example. I went to see Theresa May about a man
:13:41. > :13:43.who had been wrongly prosecuted. She was the only person that paid it
:13:44. > :13:49.attention. I think that is the kind of person she is. She reacts to what
:13:50. > :13:53.is right and my job is to help her. I am sure she will take your
:13:54. > :13:56.generosity and keep that in mind. You mentioned one area later in the
:13:57. > :14:00.autumn that you might be pushing a proposal that you are in favour of.
:14:01. > :14:05.What other areas are you going to be presenting or supporting? The whole
:14:06. > :14:08.issue is living within our means. The idea you can spend money you
:14:09. > :14:12.haven't got, it doesn't last forever. The BBC can't do it, I
:14:13. > :14:16.can't do it and Government can't do it. Making sure we have the right
:14:17. > :14:20.balance between tax, spending and growth. You would not support
:14:21. > :14:26.getting rid of the 1% cap on public sector pay? The Government will come
:14:27. > :14:31.forward with proposals on that. What do you think? I think we should wait
:14:32. > :14:35.and see what the experts say. You must have a view? Do you have large
:14:36. > :14:39.numbers of people on low pay, or smaller amounts of people on higher
:14:40. > :14:42.pay. If you go for the second, you need a great deal of investment. On
:14:43. > :14:49.the railways, we are trying to do it, being resisted, with Labour
:14:50. > :14:53.support, by Aslef. Why should a 23-year-old teacher on ?23,000 a
:14:54. > :14:59.year be held to ransom by train drivers? You can't just give a
:15:00. > :15:03.simple answer, saying I want more pay. I want better service. If you
:15:04. > :15:09.have fewer people doing it, and like the House of Commons, why don't we
:15:10. > :15:14.have 600 MPs instead of 650? What amends would you like to see brought
:15:15. > :15:17.forward in the House of Commons that would have your support? It's a
:15:18. > :15:22.constitutional way of putting it. This change to poor women isn't a
:15:23. > :15:27.law change. What else? It is a government doing, a range of thing,
:15:28. > :15:30.I would like to see people put money into the A27 so my constituencies
:15:31. > :15:38.can get from one place to another easily. You may have a chance of
:15:39. > :15:44.getting that. If you lobby, a raft of things that are coming. Let us go
:15:45. > :15:50.back to the deal with the DUP. I mean, do you share Heidi Allen your
:15:51. > :15:55.fellow backbencher's view, she said it was a distasteful way of using
:15:56. > :15:59.fun, is she right? I wouldn't have put it that way, I don't think she
:16:00. > :16:03.is right. Anyone who has tried to get from the centre of Belfast to
:16:04. > :16:05.the airport, will know you have to spend the money to change that, I
:16:06. > :16:09.think that helping with that makes as much sense as it does in helping
:16:10. > :16:13.with the A27. If you start looking to see whether you can improve other
:16:14. > :16:17.services in Northern Ireland, either infrastructure or in other ways,
:16:18. > :16:22.that is worthwhile. Her point is you didn't need to have this deal. The
:16:23. > :16:29.Queen's Speech was passed. Had the DUP abstained, it would have pass.
:16:30. > :16:33.Did you need to do that deal I don't want to comment on the media it is
:16:34. > :16:37.better to say hidely made her speech, I made my speech earlier on,
:16:38. > :16:41.I am sorry mine wasn't as interesting. You can't set the
:16:42. > :16:45.rules. Do you not agree she has a point, it wasn't necessary do that
:16:46. > :16:49.deal and spend that 1 billion, you said you didn't watt to lose control
:16:50. > :16:52.of finances? I disagree with the point she made about the deal with
:16:53. > :16:57.the DUP, the alternative was Jeremy Corbyn trying to do a deal with the
:16:58. > :17:02.DUP which would have been more awkward. You have to look for the
:17:03. > :17:06.aleternity. I am here because you couldn't do any better. We have the
:17:07. > :17:10.DUP because they couldn't find anyone better. Do you think if this
:17:11. > :17:15.carries on it will be difficult for Theresa May to govern in the way she
:17:16. > :17:18.wants? There is a sort of feeling of instable about it, at the moment,
:17:19. > :17:22.and perhaps that will ease, perhaps we will go away for the summer in a
:17:23. > :17:26.couple of weeks' time and everything will calm down, at the moment there
:17:27. > :17:33.is a feeling that Number Ten is being buffeted. I go into Number Ten
:17:34. > :17:36.and I find it calm, she is good natured, resilient and I think she
:17:37. > :17:37.will succeed. My job is to help her. Thank you.
:17:38. > :17:41.Let's talk now about the splits in Labour over Brexit which led
:17:42. > :17:43.to the sacking of three frontbenchers last night,
:17:44. > :17:47.We did ask the Labour Party for an interview, but no-one
:17:48. > :17:48.from their front bench team was available.
:17:49. > :17:51.We also approached Labour MPs who backed Chuka Umunna's amendment
:17:52. > :17:53.calling for the UK to remain in the single market,
:17:54. > :17:55.but sadly couldn't find anyone who could talk to us.
:17:56. > :18:00.Welcome. Did you back the amendment by Chuka Umunna your colleague? No,
:18:01. > :18:03.I didn't back it. I think there is a bit of a phoney war going on here,
:18:04. > :18:08.because we are talking about the single market, and some of these
:18:09. > :18:14.other big irsures round free movement. Those are not goington to
:18:15. > :18:18.be resolved for many year, the real deal is what the transition should
:18:19. > :18:24.be about, I have proposed we should do a deal base odd the UK going into
:18:25. > :18:28.the economic area as a stepping stone to final exit. That buys time
:18:29. > :18:33.to have the discussion about the single market. I so am frustrated by
:18:34. > :18:37.the debate, it is based on among think. Are you frustrated with Chuka
:18:38. > :18:42.Umunna and his amendment, do you think that was unhelpful? I think
:18:43. > :18:47.that the front bench's amendment was a step in the right direction,
:18:48. > :18:52.talking about the exact same benefits but the problem with both
:18:53. > :18:59.that amendment and Chuka's amendment is it is not putting the transition
:19:00. > :19:05.deal front and centre, and that is why I felt fine supporting the front
:19:06. > :19:07.bench proposal, and it was a step in the right direction, but we need to
:19:08. > :19:13.really be talking about the transition deal. I did put my own
:19:14. > :19:20.amendment down on that but it wasn't selected by the speaker. So was
:19:21. > :19:25.chuck's amendment unhelpful because it exposed splits within Labour? I
:19:26. > :19:28.think that a lot of colleagues feel passionately about us retaining
:19:29. > :19:33.membership of the single market. Are they wrong? I don't think it is
:19:34. > :19:38.possible to retain full membership of the single market unless you are
:19:39. > :19:42.a member of the European Union. So again, I think that all of our
:19:43. > :19:46.amendments, whether it is front bench or backbench should be
:19:47. > :19:49.pointing in the direction of the transition deal, and moving into the
:19:50. > :19:53.European Economic Area, rather than putting the cart before the horse.
:19:54. > :19:59.Right. In these discussions. That was Chuka Umunna I think buzzing you
:20:00. > :20:03.to have a quick word. When we are... This is busy, it is my constituency
:20:04. > :20:08.office. I assume he is not coming in for case work for me. We will wait
:20:09. > :20:13.and see, I presume not. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn was right to sack the
:20:14. > :20:19.three frontbenches who defieded the party whip? I suppose I am quite old
:20:20. > :20:23.fashioned on this stuff and if you have a front bench amendment and a
:20:24. > :20:27.backbench amendment, and you are whipped in a certain way and you
:20:28. > :20:32.don't follow the whip, then I think there is only one conclusion that
:20:33. > :20:36.can be drawn from that, so yes, I, it is very #2k3wre9able but I think
:20:37. > :20:41.it has to be done. What it has done is it has -- regrettable. Gt it
:20:42. > :20:48.exposed the diLama for Labour which they haven't quite solved, how can
:20:49. > :20:51.you satisfy Leave voters in seats like Doncaster while keeping
:20:52. > :20:57.remainers in London and Cambridge onboard, because they think you are
:20:58. > :21:03.going to go out and support policies is and amendments to stay within the
:21:04. > :21:08.single market. I think the answer is the transition deal. Because... That
:21:09. > :21:12.doesn't solve the, it does not bridge the gap between those two
:21:13. > :21:17.positions and that is a dilemma for Labour. But in fact I absolutely
:21:18. > :21:22.think it does, by definition a transition deal is about building a
:21:23. > :21:26.bridge rather than jumping off a cliff, and we need a deal which gets
:21:27. > :21:30.us from where we are now into the final state of our relationship with
:21:31. > :21:34.the EU, post-Brexit and that deal has got to be something that doesn't
:21:35. > :21:37.wreck the British economy, the European Economic Area is a known
:21:38. > :21:43.quantity, a well-known package, it has existed for many year, we can
:21:44. > :21:46.drop in, it gives bids and the economy... I understand your
:21:47. > :21:50.position, I am talking about a bridge between people who want to
:21:51. > :21:53.remain in the single market and in many people's minds that means
:21:54. > :21:57.staying in the EU and those who want to leave and leave the single
:21:58. > :22:03.market, and the customs union, your transitional deal will still be
:22:04. > :22:08.leaving the EU? It will be, we have to leave the EU, and that was a
:22:09. > :22:12.Labour Party manifesto commitment, and so people are going to have to
:22:13. > :22:18.take their own view on supporting the Labour Party or not based on the
:22:19. > :22:23.fact that we had a referendum, the Leave side won and we have to move
:22:24. > :22:25.forward. Now we have to get the right Brexit and the critical
:22:26. > :22:29.element there is the transition deal. I believe that can build a
:22:30. > :22:33.bridge, between those millions of people who voted Remain but have
:22:34. > :22:39.accepted that we should leave, I think they are being called Relevers
:22:40. > :22:45.which is an awful term and those who voted Leave. That constitutes the
:22:46. > :22:49.vast majority of the country. Stay with us, I mean e to you think that
:22:50. > :22:54.there are remain voters who will feel betrayed by what they are
:22:55. > :22:59.hearing and the vote last night? They will by a mazed one in five
:23:00. > :23:04.Labour MPs, voted this amendment. They will feel that Labour's a
:23:05. > :23:09.pro-EU party and will be surprised so few backed it. Why do they think
:23:10. > :23:14.that Labour is a pro-EU party, they did say in their manifesto, no that
:23:15. > :23:17.many people will read it, where they said they would end freedom of
:23:18. > :23:22.movement, which means you are going to leave the single market at the
:23:23. > :23:27.very least and Jeremy Corbyn gave the EU seven out of ten during the
:23:28. > :23:31.referendum, so, why should they have assumed that Labour would campaign
:23:32. > :23:35.hard to remain? I don't think they have said they are going to campaign
:23:36. > :23:41.hard to remain, I don't think they are in crazy place, they have said
:23:42. > :23:48.there has been a democratic vote, we are going to leave. That, we have
:23:49. > :23:53.heard the advice of voters who say they have issues about immigration.
:23:54. > :23:55.But we would like a close trading relationship and a liberal
:23:56. > :23:59.immigration system probably, you will end up with, I don't think it
:24:00. > :24:03.is a mad place they have got themselves into. Jeremy Corbyn's
:24:04. > :24:08.true views being expressed here, many people would say he was
:24:09. > :24:12.suspicious of the EU, saw it really more of a capitalist entity run by
:24:13. > :24:17.banker, it wasn't something he supported, that is why he was luke
:24:18. > :24:24.warm during the campaign this is the line he will take. I don't want to
:24:25. > :24:28.be critical of Chuka Umunna, but ringing round, they weren't that
:24:29. > :24:33.bothered by this, they thought it was a low number and didn't do too
:24:34. > :24:37.bad. Before you go I know you are in demand Steven, but is your sort of
:24:38. > :24:42.intricate explanation of a transitional deal just a ruse to
:24:43. > :24:47.delay leaving all together? No, it is a stepping stone and it is one
:24:48. > :24:51.that, we have to get rid of this fantasy we are going to get the
:24:52. > :24:56.single market deal and the free movement deal done and ratified by
:24:57. > :25:01.27 member states by March 2019. It is a pipe dream. That is why I am
:25:02. > :25:05.trying to say to people let's get real on Brexit and have a sensible
:25:06. > :25:10.approach. On the, I think Labour is a pro European party in itself, but
:25:11. > :25:13.we are Democrats and we accept the result of the referendum with great
:25:14. > :25:17.regret, we have to leave the European Union, now we have to do it
:25:18. > :25:20.in a way that doesn't wreck the British economy and which protects
:25:21. > :25:25.our communities because if we get it wrong it will be disastrous. Thank
:25:26. > :25:30.you very much. You wanted to say briefly? I don't think that many
:25:31. > :25:33.Labour voters thought they were vote Fognini for a party that would
:25:34. > :25:36.battle to remain, there was a party that said we want to revisit Brexit,
:25:37. > :25:38.the Liberal Democrats and they didn't so do so well.
:25:39. > :25:41.The Chancellor Philip Hammond has said people are weary
:25:42. > :25:43.of years of austerity, and he's pushed back the date
:25:44. > :25:46.by which he hopes to eliminate the deficit to 2025.
:25:47. > :25:48.Our next guest, the economist Andrew Lilico, argues that
:25:49. > :25:51.while a bit of fiscal loosening is OK, there's still a long way
:25:52. > :25:53.to go to get the nation's books under control.
:25:54. > :26:10.Ten years ago, Britain's banks started going bust.
:26:11. > :26:15.One by one, they were bailed out until much of the banking
:26:16. > :26:23.Similar bailouts happened in other countries, such as Spain,
:26:24. > :26:26.In those countries, bailing out the banks lead,
:26:27. > :26:28.within four or five years, to governments going bust,
:26:29. > :26:33.followed by huge recessions, mass unemployment, very large,
:26:34. > :26:35.very rapid austerity programmes and voters
:26:36. > :26:38.In the UK, we avoided that because we acted
:26:39. > :26:42.We cut spending so the economy could grow faster, and we raised
:26:43. > :26:51.When other countries faltered, growth in the UK kept steadily on.
:26:52. > :26:55.Unemployment fell, and our government stayed
:26:56. > :27:03.accountable to you, the voters, instead of to EU or IMF lenders.
:27:04. > :27:08.Spending cuts and tax rises were more gradual than elsewhere,
:27:09. > :27:11.but precisely because our austerity programme was so gradual,
:27:12. > :27:22.Perhaps the general election shows voters are running out of patience.
:27:23. > :27:24.The deficit is down to a normal below 3% of GDP level,
:27:25. > :27:27.so there's no need to press authority much further for now.
:27:28. > :27:34.The economy may slow, as we leave the EU and as interest rates rise.
:27:35. > :27:41.Yet debts, 80% odd of GDP, that needs to be 40% by the time
:27:42. > :27:44.of the next big recession, otherwise we will quickly turn
:27:45. > :27:48.So although for the moment we don't need a lot more authority,
:27:49. > :27:50.we can't stop all together, and once Brexit is done,
:27:51. > :28:11.What makes you think that austerity is stopping all together? I didn't
:28:12. > :28:15.say it was stopping all together. You warned about it. I think we
:28:16. > :28:19.shouldn't stop it all together. I don't think we can afford do that.
:28:20. > :28:24.But that isn't a proposition I think is on the take, slowing it may be
:28:25. > :28:27.but not step toing it, are you not putting up a straw man in that
:28:28. > :28:31.sense? There are people who want to claim that the austerity programme
:28:32. > :28:35.was a mistake, and we should decide, accept it was a mistake and move
:28:36. > :28:42.away from it. I think you would find by and large there was abandonment
:28:43. > :28:45.if the Labour Party were to have won the last election, I think there is
:28:46. > :28:49.a constituency for that point of view. You sympathise with the fact
:28:50. > :28:56.that people are fed up with austerity, seven yearses of pay
:28:57. > :29:00.restraint in the public sector, people who have acted heroically in
:29:01. > :29:04.ecent events think the Government has said we have been living within
:29:05. > :29:09.our means, they certainly have and maybe others haven't. I think it is
:29:10. > :29:13.true, it is true that people have ran out of patience a bit. But once
:29:14. > :29:23.one should bear in mind it is not only the public sector, the private
:29:24. > :29:26.sector has had poor pay growth. But it has outstripped the public
:29:27. > :29:31.sector. It all comes out in the wash. Was the difference that marked
:29:32. > :29:35.beforehand, the graphs I have looked at shows that public sector pay did
:29:36. > :29:41.outstrip private sector counterparts but up to 2014 that changed around,
:29:42. > :29:43.go you think that justifies the public sector and Labour calling for
:29:44. > :29:53.that pay cap to be lifted. I think the pay cut was always a
:29:54. > :29:56.relatively crude measure. I would have personally preferred more
:29:57. > :30:02.targeted ways of putting things. As I say, I think the form of austerity
:30:03. > :30:05.we have had up to now has, by and large, come to the end of the road.
:30:06. > :30:09.I think we will have another go at it when we have got Brexit out of
:30:10. > :30:13.the way. The form that we have, I would expect over the next few years
:30:14. > :30:17.we will have a deficit somewhere between 2% and 3% of GDP each year.
:30:18. > :30:22.I think with the abandonment of the social care measures, the Winter
:30:23. > :30:25.Fuel Payments restrictions and so on, the DUP deal and the general
:30:26. > :30:29.election result, it means the Chancellor will not meet his target
:30:30. > :30:34.of reducing the deficit to below 1% of GDP and we should expect the more
:30:35. > :30:38.realistic 2% or 3% of GDP to be the main thing that happens. That is
:30:39. > :30:45.normal. It is an uncomfortably high level, but it is a normal level for
:30:46. > :30:48.a developed economy. With inflation now at 2.9% and wages not really
:30:49. > :30:55.growing much at all, certainly they have been cut in real terms, does
:30:56. > :31:02.that give more justification to slowing down austerity
:31:03. > :31:08.significantly? Poor real wage growth has been a long-term issue. More so
:31:09. > :31:13.now, because inflation is rising? Absolutely, and interest rates might
:31:14. > :31:15.go up as well. It is possible that households find that through a
:31:16. > :31:19.combination of rising inflation for now, although that might go away
:31:20. > :31:21.fairly quickly, some slowing at the time of Brexit and rising interest
:31:22. > :31:26.rates, households will find themselves more pressed. That, as
:31:27. > :31:31.much as anything, is an argument for not raising taxes more. I think it
:31:32. > :31:36.would be a mistake to think that the idea here is, instead of having
:31:37. > :31:39.further spending cuts, we want additional tax rises. Are the
:31:40. > :31:43.Conservatives getting ready to end austerity? It looks like it. The
:31:44. > :31:47.language from Philip Hammond, after the election, rather than before the
:31:48. > :31:52.election when might have been a vote winner, we have moved on from that.
:31:53. > :31:57.Our readers are concerned about tax rises. What about this posse of MPs
:31:58. > :32:03.that are supposed to have gone to Downing Street, Tory MPs, saying
:32:04. > :32:08.please remove the 1% pay cut? Well, we think that is true. We understand
:32:09. > :32:13.that is the case. You will see more of that, the left of the party
:32:14. > :32:16.flexing its muscles. To take on your point that they didn't bother this
:32:17. > :32:20.before the election because perhaps they didn't feel they had to, that
:32:21. > :32:24.will lend itself to the argument that the Tories imposed austerity
:32:25. > :32:29.for ideological reasons, rather than out of necessity? There is certainly
:32:30. > :32:35.a question about the balance between spending cuts and tax rises. Where
:32:36. > :32:38.those cuts fell. Your average public sector worker feels they have been
:32:39. > :32:43.at the sharp end of this for a very long time. I think it is less about
:32:44. > :32:46.whether it was a political project in the first place and more about
:32:47. > :32:53.how long you carry it on and who has to suffer to balance the books.
:32:54. > :32:59.Higher earners have had it capped, it is now 1% across all workers. Do
:33:00. > :33:04.you think it is ideological? That has been yard and from Labour, it is
:33:05. > :33:09.an ideological attempt to shrink the state, rather than being necessary
:33:10. > :33:13.to bring public finances on track? Absolutely not. I think it was
:33:14. > :33:18.imperative that we didn't end up going the way you saw in Spain,
:33:19. > :33:21.Ireland and Cyprus. Having taken on banking sector commitments, they
:33:22. > :33:25.were bankrupted by them. We needed to make sure the economy could grow
:33:26. > :33:29.fast enough over the next few years, that households could service debts
:33:30. > :33:32.and banks did not need to impose additional burdens on us. The
:33:33. > :33:36.evidence very strongly shows if you get public spending down, it allows
:33:37. > :33:41.the economy to grow a little bit faster. Are you disappointed it is
:33:42. > :33:45.still about 50 billion? To me, the priority was getting public spending
:33:46. > :33:48.down. If I have his appointment, it is because we haven't gone to the
:33:49. > :33:53.levels of public spending reduction that George Osborne had in mind. It
:33:54. > :33:55.is about shrinking the state? Shaking the state to allow the
:33:56. > :34:00.economy to grow faster. No doubt about that and I make no apologies
:34:01. > :34:04.for it. Doesn't it feel like popular consent for that strategy is not
:34:05. > :34:13.there at the moment? That is why MPs are going to see Theresa May.
:34:14. > :34:15.Absolutely, we didn't win. When they see a disaster like Granville, they
:34:16. > :34:20.want the state to step in, they don't want think it has withdrawn,
:34:21. > :34:26.the argument has been lost? Well, we did get the most seats, the
:34:27. > :34:31.Conservatives. But I think it is definitely the case that people have
:34:32. > :34:35.run out of patience. I think it is surprising how long people have kept
:34:36. > :34:38.patients for this. The historical evidence is what you achieve in the
:34:39. > :34:41.first three years is all you achieve. I was advocating in 2010
:34:42. > :34:46.that we had to move faster because people would run out of patience
:34:47. > :34:51.faster. I think the British public have been remarkably patient and we
:34:52. > :34:55.need to move on. On the flip side of what Andrew is saying, Labour did
:34:56. > :34:57.better than expected on an anti-austerities message, very
:34:58. > :35:02.firmly. If they can't deliver that, or it might be very difficult to get
:35:03. > :35:05.rid of austerity altogether, which is perhaps what they were
:35:06. > :35:10.suggesting, rather than slowing down, are there problems down the
:35:11. > :35:14.line? Well, first they would have to win a general election, which might
:35:15. > :35:17.be a way off. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, which looks at these
:35:18. > :35:20.things, certainly had doubts about some of the tax-raising measures
:35:21. > :35:23.that Labour had in its manifesto. They were meant to bring in large
:35:24. > :35:28.amounts of money, they probably would not bring inasmuch as they
:35:29. > :35:32.hoped. I think they face some big challenges. We were away off that.
:35:33. > :35:38.Do you have confidence the Conservatives will stay the course
:35:39. > :35:42.on their equipment commitment to eliminating the deficit and reducing
:35:43. > :35:45.debt? I think they have always talked a tougher game on that than
:35:46. > :35:50.they have delivered. I think what has happened is that they have
:35:51. > :35:55.wanted deficit reduction to continue at a steady pace that did not
:35:56. > :35:58.threaten the political accessibility of it, but was enough that we didn't
:35:59. > :36:02.get ourselves into economic trouble. I think that has been remarkably
:36:03. > :36:05.successful. People shouldn't underestimate, it is all very well
:36:06. > :36:12.criticising and saying things might have been better here, only across
:36:13. > :36:15.the Channel on countries on the continent, things have been much
:36:16. > :36:20.worse. Many people would not make a direct comparison between the UK and
:36:21. > :36:26.Cyprus or Greece? I think Spain and Ireland are very good comparisons in
:36:27. > :36:31.this situation. On the DUP, ?1 billion was found beneath the sofa.
:36:32. > :36:37.Amazingly, there was more money spare? And hundreds billions --
:36:38. > :36:42.millions more to keep it on track. It does stick in the crore for
:36:43. > :36:46.workers that are stuck on a low increase. And Winter Fuel Payments
:36:47. > :36:49.and triple locks will remain for pensions.
:36:50. > :36:51.Let's talk now to our Brussels reporter Adam Fleming,
:36:52. > :36:53.who's got the details of the latest negotiating position papers
:36:54. > :37:04.Adam, we never give you a day off, do we, on this? Tell us about the
:37:05. > :37:10.latest position papers. Is there anything new, or is it reinforcing
:37:11. > :37:13.their position on things like the European Court of Justice
:37:14. > :37:18.arbitrating over decisions? Guess what? It is immensely technical and
:37:19. > :37:21.complicated! Basically what happened is that Michel Barnier's team
:37:22. > :37:24.yesterday published six documents they sent to the member state
:37:25. > :37:28.earlier this week, that were made public for the first time on their
:37:29. > :37:33.website. They are very technical. What it boils down to is a big list
:37:34. > :37:38.of all of the things that the EU and UK will have to cooperate on around,
:37:39. > :37:43.before and after the actual date of Brexit. Thing is continuing, like
:37:44. > :37:49.what about European arrest warrant that are still outstanding, what
:37:50. > :37:52.about court cases in the European Court of Justice that have not
:37:53. > :37:55.concluded yet, what about goods that have gone on the market just before
:37:56. > :37:59.Brexit date and will still be on sale after Brexit date? Colleagues
:38:00. > :38:08.at The Financial Times got excited about what that means for the import
:38:09. > :38:14.and export of bull sperm yesterday. This idea that the Brexit deal will
:38:15. > :38:17.be overseen by a new joint committee, a UK and EU joint
:38:18. > :38:20.committee, that will hammer out disputes that arise as a result of
:38:21. > :38:24.the deal. If they cannot be solved that the committee they will be
:38:25. > :38:28.moved onto the European Court of Justice. Officials here are saying
:38:29. > :38:33.yet again that they want the ECJ to have a role overseeing the rights of
:38:34. > :38:36.EU citizens living in the UK after Brexit. Still plenty of stuff for
:38:37. > :38:40.the two mentor tussle over when they have their next set of face-to-face
:38:41. > :38:44.talks in Brussels on the 17th of July. A lot of material to get stuck
:38:45. > :38:47.into. They have obviously been very busy and keeping you busy going
:38:48. > :38:58.through those documents. I am sure you have done that with a fine tooth
:38:59. > :39:00.comb. When you look at the UK response, because this is the EU's
:39:01. > :39:02.position, are we expecting a similar response in terms of producing
:39:03. > :39:05.papers, answering each one of the stages that the EU have set out?
:39:06. > :39:07.I'll be honest, I don't actually know. When you look at what happened
:39:08. > :39:11.the previous round of negotiations, when they kicked off with the thorny
:39:12. > :39:15.issue about citizen rights, what happens to EU citizens in the UK and
:39:16. > :39:19.people from the UK living on the continent after Brexit, commission
:39:20. > :39:24.published their position paper, which was the broad outlines of what
:39:25. > :39:28.they wanted to see addressed. David Davis published his much longer
:39:29. > :39:34.paper, with his response. People are saying it goes both ways. Does this
:39:35. > :39:37.prove the EU has been quicker off the mark? They have more grasp of
:39:38. > :39:41.the detail and they are happy to publish their position and the UK as
:39:42. > :39:45.being more secretive? What is it simply that this is how you
:39:46. > :39:48.negotiate? One side has to go first and put their position, the other
:39:49. > :39:50.side adds to that position and hopefully everybody meets in the
:39:51. > :39:56.middle eventually. Thank you for that. For more coverage of the
:39:57. > :40:08.Brexit negotiations, Adam Fleming has recorded a brand-new coffin
:40:09. > :40:12.You can subscribe to the podcast on the BBC website or via
:40:13. > :40:19.Now we're often told that membership of the European Union's single
:40:20. > :40:21.market depends on the obeying the four freedoms - of goods,
:40:22. > :40:25.The government has said the UK will be leaving the single market,
:40:26. > :40:28.because to stay in would require the continuation of
:40:29. > :40:31.But on this programme yesterday, the Labour peer Peter Hain argued
:40:32. > :40:34.that it would be possible to control immigration while staying
:40:35. > :40:37.Let's hear what he had to say to Andrew.
:40:38. > :40:40.The point that I'm making is to stay in the single market does not mean
:40:41. > :40:48.There are ways of enforcing control, as for example Belgium has done.
:40:49. > :40:57.that was Peter Hain, yesterday. Catherine Barnard, professor of
:40:58. > :41:02.European Union law at the University of Cambridge joins me now. Welcome
:41:03. > :41:07.to the Daily Politics. Broadly speaking, is it possible to limit
:41:08. > :41:11.freedom of movement and remain in the single market? Absolutely. We
:41:12. > :41:15.have always had that possibility. There are two main ways. The first
:41:16. > :41:21.way is that there are what are called derogations, exceptions to
:41:22. > :41:25.the rule of free movement on the grounds of public policy, public
:41:26. > :41:29.security and public health. The UK has used them, but not very often
:41:30. > :41:33.because they are quite tricky to use. The second way, the way that
:41:34. > :41:37.Peter Hain was talking about yesterday, is that people can come
:41:38. > :41:43.to the UK to look for work. The treaty and the relevant secondary
:41:44. > :41:47.legislation envisages that. They have only got a short period of
:41:48. > :41:51.time, possibly up to six months. Then they have got to go, they have
:41:52. > :41:54.to leave the country, unless they have a reasonable prospect of
:41:55. > :41:59.showing that they have work in the pipeline. What Peter Hain was saying
:42:00. > :42:02.yesterday was that Belgium has been very proactive in removing people
:42:03. > :42:11.that do not satisfy those conditions. The UK, less so. The
:42:12. > :42:15.problem is, the UK is also not showing the data that it has been
:42:16. > :42:20.removing people. I will let you put your earpiece back in. Can you hear
:42:21. > :42:24.me? You can hold it there, they are not very reliable. Let's stick with
:42:25. > :42:28.the Belgian example. Peter Hain said thousands had been asked to leave or
:42:29. > :42:34.deported because they were deemed a burden on the economy. I think it is
:42:35. > :42:39.2000, in total. Is it an owner is processed, bureaucratic process, to
:42:40. > :42:43.do that, to actually try to expel someone? Absolutely. In fact, it is
:42:44. > :42:49.quite difficult to go down that route because there are also issues
:42:50. > :42:51.about human rights. There is a further problem of identifying those
:42:52. > :42:57.individuals. We don't have a record of who is coming into the country,
:42:58. > :43:02.and thus have not satisfy the criteria of looking for work. They
:43:03. > :43:08.don't put their heads above the parapet. Does it mean that there is
:43:09. > :43:12.some scope for extending this area of limited freedom of movement
:43:13. > :43:16.whilst in the single market? It's just that no one has ever tried very
:43:17. > :43:21.hard beyond the technicalities that you have outlined? I think that's
:43:22. > :43:25.right. In reality, certainly the research I have been doing, it has
:43:26. > :43:29.shown that most EU migrants come here because they want work. They
:43:30. > :43:33.will do all sorts of work in order to be able to stay and to pay for
:43:34. > :43:45.living here. What is interesting is that, were we to go down the EEA
:43:46. > :43:48.route, this is doing a Norway, what some people have mooted, that would
:43:49. > :43:51.mean staying in the single market, in respect of the Norway route there
:43:52. > :43:55.is an additional way of limiting free movement. That is in respect of
:43:56. > :44:01.a so-called emergency break. The emergency break says if there are
:44:02. > :44:04.really serious economic problems or regional problems, the state can
:44:05. > :44:09.limit migration. That is what the tiny state of Lichtenstein has done.
:44:10. > :44:14.Lichtenstein is smaller than the Isle of Wight, it is very concerned
:44:15. > :44:18.about migration. Therefore, it is trying to invoke these rules to say,
:44:19. > :44:23.actually, we don't want to be inundated with migrants. Theresa May
:44:24. > :44:27.says we are leaving the single market. Exploring the options
:44:28. > :44:31.outside the single market, but still finding ways to limit freedom of
:44:32. > :44:35.movement, in Lichtenstein, people may say that is not compatible. I
:44:36. > :44:40.mean, it's not a parable to the UK. Would that work, having an emergency
:44:41. > :44:46.break? The clue is in the title, it is an emergency break, it would not
:44:47. > :44:49.be forever? That's right. The reality is that politics trumps law
:44:50. > :44:53.at that point. It depends what we need. There are some sectors in the
:44:54. > :44:57.UK that are really dependent on migrant workers. It is in the UK's
:44:58. > :45:01.interest to encourage them to come. If we don't go down the EEA route,
:45:02. > :45:06.and that is what Labour and the Conservatives appear to be saying,
:45:07. > :45:09.the question is, what are the alternatives now? There is much talk
:45:10. > :45:16.about the free trade agreement, but most free trade agreements don't
:45:17. > :45:19.cover movement of persons. So, that is an issue for the UK going
:45:20. > :45:23.forward. It may be that they decide to have a more section steel, where
:45:24. > :45:28.we say that in areas like the NHS and care sector it would be possible
:45:29. > :45:32.to have more relaxed rules. If there is no deal at all, we fall back on
:45:33. > :45:39.WTO rules, World Trade Organisation, and those rules cover migration --
:45:40. > :45:42.they don't cover migration at all. It would be domestic migration rule
:45:43. > :45:43.that applies. That means visas and expense, which is quite demanding
:45:44. > :45:52.for employers. Wight If we rook at Switzerland and
:45:53. > :45:59.membership of the European free trade area, what scope is there
:46:00. > :46:03.within that organise to limit freedom of movement, and then a
:46:04. > :46:07.bilateral agreement on freedom of movement? That seems to be another
:46:08. > :46:11.possibility. It's a permutation of what we have discussed before, so
:46:12. > :46:16.you have free trade agreement which focussed on goods, but in respect of
:46:17. > :46:20.persons you have a bilateral arrangement, a deal, and that is
:46:21. > :46:26.what Switzerland has done, but as you know they have had a referendum
:46:27. > :46:29.that wanted to restrict migrant, and the problem is with these bilateral
:46:30. > :46:33.deals in the Swiss case they come as a package and as a package, that
:46:34. > :46:38.means that if they breach one, of the deals then all of the other
:46:39. > :46:41.deals cease to apply as well. The EU doesn't like the Swiss arrangement
:46:42. > :46:50.because it is complicated to work with. Thank you. Christopher hope,
:46:51. > :46:57.has the Government come to a conclusion, bearing in minds its
:46:58. > :47:00.restated its commitment, even if you did a number of the things that
:47:01. > :47:06.Catherine suggested, it would be difficult to see how you would bring
:47:07. > :47:11.down net migration from 250,000 to 100,000. Yes, quite, I was taken
:47:12. > :47:15.back to two years then, talk of emergency breaks and David Cameron,
:47:16. > :47:23.and it was so hard and you are messing round the edge, 2,000 being
:47:24. > :47:28.thrown out of Belgium isn't apmle of a dent. The ship has sailed. We are
:47:29. > :47:34.leaving the European and the single market. Businesses put a lot of
:47:35. > :47:38.pressure on the Government, and perhaps people like Philip Hammond
:47:39. > :47:44.are sympathetic to their argument we need numbers of skilled migrant
:47:45. > :47:48.workers. Even David Davis has talked about the need for continued
:47:49. > :47:54.migration, we might end up with a liberal system, but I think Labour,
:47:55. > :47:58.Labour and Tories both accept the idea people felt some kind of
:47:59. > :48:03.control was necessary, when, politicians on all sides think
:48:04. > :48:08.voters don't want freedom, sort of unfettered movement, so we might end
:48:09. > :48:13.up with a liberal regime but we have control over it. We don't know what
:48:14. > :48:22.system we are going to get. I think it will be bespoke. I think we will
:48:23. > :48:27.have our own one for farm labourers. Seasonal workers that will be
:48:28. > :48:30.different to the European Economic Area.
:48:31. > :48:33.You might remember distant cries of relief earlier this year
:48:34. > :48:35.when parliamentary clerks were told they no longer had to wear
:48:36. > :48:39.The Speaker, John Bercow, said it would help convey
:48:40. > :48:41.to the public a marginally less stuffy image of the chamber.
:48:42. > :48:43.Parliamentary tradition looks set to take another knock,
:48:44. > :48:47.as MPs are no longer required to wear a tie - as long as members
:48:48. > :48:56.Not everyone is happy with the Speaker's decision, however.
:48:57. > :49:01.Sir, I'm not really one to talk about dress sense,
:49:02. > :49:04.but I noticed yesterday, sir, that a member was allowed
:49:05. > :49:12.to ask a question in the chamber without wearing a tie.
:49:13. > :49:14.Now, I have no particular view on that, but have the rules
:49:15. > :49:22.It seems to me that as long as a member arrives in the House
:49:23. > :49:24.in what might be thought to be business-like attire,
:49:25. > :49:28.the question of whether that member is wearing a tie is not absolutely
:49:29. > :49:31.front and centre stage, so am I minded not to call a member
:49:32. > :49:40.simply because that member is not wearing a tie?
:49:41. > :49:46.We've been joined from his constituency in south london
:49:47. > :49:49.by the MP at the centre of this story, Tom Brake,
:49:50. > :49:52.and in the studio by Lucy Hume from Debretts, the authority
:49:53. > :50:02.Welcome to both of you. So, Tom, were you intending to cause such a
:50:03. > :50:11.furore or did you for get to put your tie on? I didn't forget to us
:50:12. > :50:15.my tie on, nor did I expect to to cause a furore, I heard the speaker
:50:16. > :50:19.indicate he wanted to relax the rules a bit so I acted on it. Well,
:50:20. > :50:24.so you were quick off the mark. It was the Conservative MP Peter Bone
:50:25. > :50:28.as you know who raised your decision to attend the Commons not wearing a
:50:29. > :50:31.tie. He couldn't join us today unfortunately but he aBubes every
:50:32. > :50:34.time you remove a tradition you make our Parliament look more like a
:50:35. > :50:41.County Council, does he have a point? Well, no, I don't think he
:50:42. > :50:47.does, every time you do things like not require the clerks to wear wigs
:50:48. > :50:51.Parliament becomes a bit more acceptable. The I think the nation
:50:52. > :50:56.will be relieved if Peter Bone in particular is no longer required to
:50:57. > :51:02.wear a tie, because he does choose some horrendous... I wouldn't use
:51:03. > :51:07.the word horrendous necessarily, but they are noticeable any way, maybe
:51:08. > :51:11.even garish, Lucy, do you think this downgrades the standing of our UK
:51:12. > :51:14.Parliament? I think it is an interesting clarification on the
:51:15. > :51:19.guidelines, because, as we know Parliament tends to be a bastion of
:51:20. > :51:24.tradition and protocol but it could be seen as reflecting a wider
:51:25. > :51:29.relaxation in office wear and it is in that sense it does certainly
:51:30. > :51:33.reflect the UK more widely. Do you think it adds to a modernising
:51:34. > :51:39.element of the Parliament, and we are no longer in the 19th sent, so
:51:40. > :51:45.weren't ties really just the next in line to go? Possibly so, although I
:51:46. > :51:51.think it will be a divisive decision. Not that it necessarily is
:51:52. > :51:55.a decision, John Bercow said business-like attire is required and
:51:56. > :52:02.it should be a question of respect. It will be interesting to see how it
:52:03. > :52:06.is interpreted. Will you still be dressed appropriately Tom break, how
:52:07. > :52:12.do you understand the statement business-like attire. I won't be
:52:13. > :52:16.going in in my running shorts and running vest, business attire or
:52:17. > :52:19.smart casual, who know, but, given that for instance in the chamber
:52:20. > :52:25.people are rightly in my view allowed to bring in very young
:52:26. > :52:29.babies, doesn't seem to be that revolutionary members shouldn't have
:52:30. > :52:34.to wear a tie. It is divisive do you think this move? No, it is
:52:35. > :52:39.common-sense, it was noticeable we have a few young MPs in the new
:52:40. > :52:44.intake. It is a very stuffy place, Parliament, and a number of those
:52:45. > :52:48.new MPs have remarked on the fact it is a stuffy old fashioned place,
:52:49. > :52:53.lots of people in the real world don't wear ties and they are
:52:54. > :52:59.perfectly smart. It is not a bar. It is Parliament. What next, flip-flops
:53:00. > :53:05.and shorts? How far will the Liberal Democrats go. It a workplace end a
:53:06. > :53:11.lot of people in smart workplaces don't wear ties. They put a tie on.
:53:12. > :53:17.Do you want to loosen your tie, we don't have strict rules. I can't
:53:18. > :53:22.work with out one. I think, it is the idea that it is televised.
:53:23. > :53:26.People do see MPs in the chamber doesn't that make a difference? He
:53:27. > :53:31.is not suggesting they are going to wander round in casual gear or
:53:32. > :53:35.pyjamas, they have to be smart, it is the 21st century I am not sure
:53:36. > :53:39.being smart means wearing a tie. As Christopher said it is part of the
:53:40. > :53:44.uniform, is it important to retain that? It is an interesting word
:53:45. > :53:49.uniform, at school many of us became used to wearing ties and it does, it
:53:50. > :53:54.marks a kind of cutting off point from the between the professional
:53:55. > :53:59.and personal, so, I do think it still represents that elevated level
:54:00. > :54:04.of formality and a buttons up and keeping covered, an extra layer over
:54:05. > :54:09.who we really are, whether that is good or bad remains to be seen. It
:54:10. > :54:12.has been very hot so it was probably very uncomfortable, how far are you
:54:13. > :54:18.prepared to go? I take your point you are not going to wear short, but
:54:19. > :54:22.top button, will that stay done up, will there be a certain level of
:54:23. > :54:29.suit that you would wear or is it going to be China knows and loafs.
:54:30. > :54:34.-- chinos. I think business-like means a suit and a shirt, but, for
:54:35. > :54:40.those who want, who want it, with a tie or without a tie. In, some times
:54:41. > :54:43.in the chamber, particularly when the air conditioning isn't working
:54:44. > :54:47.very well or at all, if you are there for two or three hours trying
:54:48. > :54:52.to speak in a debate, it can get incredibly stuffy, and not having to
:54:53. > :54:55.wear a tie would just make things a bit more relaxed for people and I
:54:56. > :55:01.don't think it makes it less professional. Right, well Lucy and
:55:02. > :55:07.Tom thank you for marking our cards or ties and it applies to the Press
:55:08. > :55:17.Gallery, you don't have to wear them there? I think on the websites...
:55:18. > :55:21.But Not pointing the finger there are you?
:55:22. > :55:24.Just time now for our micro-sized summary of the political week.
:55:25. > :55:30.The PM set out her proposals for EU citizens living
:55:31. > :55:32.in the UK after Brexit, with those who'd been
:55:33. > :55:35.here at least five years being offered settled status.
:55:36. > :55:37.EU officials were lukewarm to the idea.
:55:38. > :55:39.Back home, Theresa May concluded another negotiation,
:55:40. > :55:42.The Parliamentary support of their ten MPs in key votes
:55:43. > :55:51.But it worked, because the Queen's Speech, the legislative programme
:55:52. > :55:54.for this parliament, was voted through in the Commons -
:55:55. > :55:57.but only after a concession was made on abortion rights and Labour sacked
:55:58. > :55:59.few front benchers for their position on Brexit.
:56:00. > :56:02.Lots of Tories signalled they wanted an end to the public sector
:56:03. > :56:04.pay cap, but it hasn't happened - yet.
:56:05. > :56:10.And listeners of Radio 2 had the option to turn up
:56:11. > :56:13.the volume on the quiet man, Iain Duncan Smith, as he pretended
:56:14. > :56:40.I think you can have too much fun, that was funnier watching to it than
:56:41. > :56:44.listening, I suppose him and Ed Miliband have been game. If we
:56:45. > :56:48.reflect on the week past how do you think Theresa May has done? She
:56:49. > :56:53.survived only. It has been a rocky week, I think as I say she will hope
:56:54. > :56:56.to stagger on to the Parliamentary recess in the summer and hope for
:56:57. > :57:00.calmer times in the autumn. Does that mean for Jeremy Corbyn it is
:57:01. > :57:05.going to be more difficult, despite that good result, for Labour in the
:57:06. > :57:09.election, to really make a mark on what will happen in Parliament? The
:57:10. > :57:14.bubble may have been burst by the vote yesterday. I would urge Theresa
:57:15. > :57:19.May not to go walking in Snowdonia, stay at ground level, have a think,
:57:20. > :57:25.a cup of tea and have a nice holiday by the sea where it is... Where it
:57:26. > :57:29.is not dangerous for her. I don't want to make hostage to fortune, if
:57:30. > :57:33.you were going to look ahead post the summer, how do you think things
:57:34. > :57:36.will go in terms of the prospect of another election or the prospect of
:57:37. > :57:41.rebellions that will make it difficult for Theresa May, and also
:57:42. > :57:45.on the Labour side. It will be hand-to-hand fighting over every
:57:46. > :57:50.vote. We have only been back a few days and we have already seen that,
:57:51. > :57:55.and there are talks going across party line, are there Tories that
:57:56. > :57:58.Labour can work with, how can they work together, Peter Bottomley was
:57:59. > :58:03.talking about different issues he wants to make progress on. It will
:58:04. > :58:11.be a headache, tough for Theresa May. A war of attrition. Labour MPs
:58:12. > :58:18.are not pairing up with Tory ones, you will, it is not very nice. I
:58:19. > :58:20.I think her leadership is not safe yet.
:58:21. > :58:24.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:25. > :58:26.The question was what - according to the Guardian -
:58:27. > :58:28.did David Cameron have to stop George Osborne scrapping
:58:29. > :58:33.Was it the Autumn Statement, HS2, pennies and 2ps or
:58:34. > :58:36.the tradition of the Chancellor living in Number 11?
:58:37. > :58:44.Probably pennies. He is right. Well done you got the answer there.
:58:45. > :58:47.Thanks to Heather, Christopher and all my guests.
:58:48. > :58:49.Andrew will be back on Sunday on BBC One at 11
:58:50. > :58:54.And I'll be back here on BBC Two on Monday at the earlier time
:58:55. > :58:56.of 11am with more Daily Politics, which starts early to
:58:57. > :59:05.but how has it changed the way we see
:59:06. > :59:15.I don't think we know the scale of the television revolution,