13/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The husband of a woman jailed

in Iran calls on the Government

to be clear that his wife

was on holiday when

she was detained.

Why did Michael Gove

say that he didn't know

what she was doing there?

Too hard, too soft, just right.

All the old arguments re-surface

as the EU Withdrawal Bill

returns to the Commons.

As they continue to argue in

Brussels, can agreement be reached

here about the best way forward?

Theresa May thought strong

and stable would be a winning

formula in the general election -

but is it politicians

with authenticity that

have the midas touch?

And we'll hear from

the architectural historian who's

gone behind the scenes of Big Bens'

multi million pound makeover.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today a Labour MP

who's been around Westminster almost

as long as Big Ben and has never had

a makeover; Frank Field who chairs

the Work and Pensions

Select Commitee.

Also here, the equally authentic

although slightly less long-standing

Conservative MP and chair

of the Treasury select

committee, Nicky Morgan.

Welcome to both of you.

First this morning, the husband

of the British-Iranian woman,

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe,

has said the government "hasn't done

all it could have done" to secure

the release of his wife.

She was arrested during a visit

to Iran in April 2016, accused

of trying to overthrow the regime.

She says she was simply

on holiday visiting relatives.

Last week the Foreign Secretary,

Boris Johnson, was accused

of worsening Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe's

plight by saying

that she was teaching

journalists in the country -

a claim that's been seized

upon by some in Iran.

Yesterday, Boris Johnson's Cabinet

Colleague, Michael Gove,

appeared to add to the uncertainty

about what Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe

was doing there.

I don't know. One of the things I

want to stress is that...

You don't

know?

Is that there is no reason why

Nad anyone Zaghari-Ratcliffe should

be in prison in Iran so far as I

know. No evidence has been produced

suggesting she should be detained.

It appears here to be harming the

human rights of someone whose plight

necessarily moves us all.

You say

that you don't know who she was

doing. Her husband is clear she was

on holiday with her child.

In that

case I take exactly her husband's

assurance in that regard.

Responding to Michael Gove's

comments, Nazanin's husband,

Richard Ratcliffe, has written

to Foreign Office office to "remind

all Cabinet Ministers

that the Government position

is that the UK Government has

no doubt that Nazanin

was in Iran on holiday".

Mr Ratcliffe spoke to

the BBC this morning.

I wrote yesterday in fact after we

saw and I didn't catch it live the

comments, but obviously my cousins

did and they got very upset and

watched it through. Don't get me

wrong, he said some good things

about Iran. He said Nazanin is on

holiday and is innocent, it

shouldn't be for Cabinet Ministers

to be fudging it. I wrote to the

Foreign Office on an e-mail setting

out that the Government's position

was clear in Parliament that the UK

Government has no doubt that she was

there on holiday and if they could

please make sure all the Cabinet

Ministers are are aware of it.

Boris

Johnson was asked about it this

morning.

Let me say on Iran and

consular cases, they are all very

sensitive and the key thing to

understand is that we are working

very, very hard and intensively and

impartially on all those cases.

Thank you very much. See you later,

thank you.

Nicky Morgan, his

comments about the fact that Nazanin

was teaching journalists in Iran may

have worsened her situation. Your

colleague Anna Soubry has called for

him to be sacked. Do you agree with

her?

I think he should be

considering his position, yes. If I

thought sacking was going to make a

difference... I mean the important

point is the safety and security of

Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. I cannot

begin to imagine what went through

Boris Johnson and I'm afraid to say

Michael Gove's minds. We all know,

particularly after a week of

coverage that she was in the country

visiting her parents with her young

daughter, that's it, end of story.

Michael was right to say there was

no justification whatsoever for the

Iranian authorities to hold her.

How

irresponsible is it then of Boris

Johnson if it's true that he had

just not read the briefs

properly?

If that is true, and that is a big

if, I don't know, but that is

inexcusable. I've been a Secretary

of State but not a Foreign Secretary

where somebody's security is at risk

like in this case but frankly there

are times when being a Secretary of

State is not glamorous, involves

reading boxes of paper every week

and every night, that is the job you

are asked to do on behalf of your

country. If he doesn't want to do

it, somebody else should be given

the job.

Listening to him in

Brussels saying the case needs to be

handled sensitively and impartially,

what does he mean?

I have no idea. I

just don't understand why he... I

don't know what advice he is getting

that says this morning would have

been a... This morning would have

been a perfect opportunity to say, I

heard the comments of her husband,

I'm very soyry, I got it wrong and

the situation is clear, we are doing

all we can as a Government to put

pressure on the Iranian authorities

and will use everything we've got

disposal to get her out of prison.

Is he the right man to deal with

this case?

The conduct he's shown,

the way he's answered the original

question and continued it would

make, I would have thought, any

Prime Minister think, do I have the

right person as Foreign Secretary

because, sadly this is only one of a

number of cases where there are

British nationals detained around

the world but obviously Iran is a

particularly difficult area of the

world to deal with.

Richard

Ratcliffe told the BBC today that he

didn't want Boris Johnson to be

sacked because he could do more good

by actually now trying to get his

wife released. Many Labour

politicians have called for him to

be sacked, Jeremy Corbyn, Tulip

Sadiq and Sadiq Khan, Keir Starmer

however told the programme that why

he should have been fired a while

ago, we should reflect on what

Richard is saying this morning. Do

you think it would be better for him

to stay to see this through?

I think

Keir start Searle right on that. For

-- Keir Starmer is right on that.

For Boris Johnson to say this case

needs to be handled delicately seems

almost a contradiction in terms the

given his character. The role he has

played is appalling with Michael

Gove. The idea that you can, as

Foreign Secretary, without learning

your brief, do this, and then for

other Cabinet Ministers to put their

foot in your big mouth. Why didn't

Michael Gove say, this is not my

department, that the Government's

line is quite clear, I have nothing

to say on Boris Johnson's comments

this person is innocent, she was

there on holiday, but we all know

this is an evil regime that will use

her and use this maybe to increase

her sentence. I think that is

shameful and both of them, both

Michael Gove and Boris Johnson

should hang their heads in shame for

the role they've played in this.

Richard Ratcliffe has said he thinks

he should stay. They've spoken and

they feel it's perhaps his best

chance to get his wife released. But

why do you think - I know you are

not in the mind of Michael Gove -

what would be the motivation for

saying he didn't know what she was

doing there, bearing in mind there's

been so much publicity around it and

the Government's clarified the

position that she was there on

holiday. Do they know something we

don't?

Well, look, possibly and I

didn't see the clip live yesterday

morning so I don't know whether

there was something before. But as I

said, I don't know what was going

through the minds of Michael and

Boris when they said what they said.

I think it's right to listen, of

course, to Nazanin's husband up

close, he's suffering the agonies of

his wife and daughter not being

here, it must be dominating every

single second of his life. If that's

what he thinks OK, but I would say

that people sl to be very mindful of

everything they say in a case like

this.

Michael Gove in that interview

yesterday was backing up Boris

Johnson's position, saying it was

very much the Iranian authorities'

fault that this happened.

That is

right.

Of course it is.

Is this

about Michael Gove protecting his

Brexiteer colleague?

I don't think

it's about that. Undoubtedly when

you are on any kind of sofa and in

the Cabinet, you are there to stand

up and to defend your Cabinet

colleagues on the basis of

collective responsibility and

supporting each other but I think

Frank has provided a perfect script

that Michael could have used and

perhaps he'll ask you next time

Frank for advice before he goes on

the Marr programme.

What is so

worrying about this, isn't it, is

that if he was going into defend his

colleague, God help what is going to

happen when Boris Johnson's enemies

set on him. It's opened the whole

issue again which was beginning to

die down, if it could die down, but

I agree with what's been the theme

of this. I mean, the real culprit is

Iran, an evil regime. We ought to

bear that in mind. But we don't go

around making it easy for them to be

nasty to British citizens.

All

right.

For goodness sake.

All right.

Now it's time for our daily

quiz and it seems there

is no aspect of our lives

that is unaffected by Brexit.

According to reports in the press

this morning Michel Barnier

is warning that there could be

a rather awkward travel ban

if the negotiations collapse.

So what are they threatening to stop

crossing the border.

Hopefully eurocrats.

On Friday the European Commission's

Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier said

the UK had to provide "vital"

clarification on the total sum it's

prepared to pay to the EU.

He said the British need to be clear

in the next fortnight,

before the December EU Council

summit where leaders of the EU27

will judge whether or not it's time

to begin trade negotiations.

But as we approach this crucial

point in the negotiations,

what other outstanding Brexit issues

are occupying the Prime

Minister here at home?

This week the EU Withdrawal Bill

is back in Parliament -

with a controversial amendment

attached setting the

exact date of Brexit.

If it succeeds, 11pm on the 29th

March 2019 will be fixed in law

as the time the UK leaves the EU -

regardless of the state

of negotiations.

It's unclear if many

Conservatives will vote

against that amendment -

but one who will, Anna Soubry, has

called it "a very foolish mistake".

Closer to the Cabinet table

it's not clear things

are easier for Theresa May -

she's had a letter from Michael Gove

and Boris Johnson.

That's reported to say some

government departments are focusing

"insufficient energy"

on Brexit preparations...

And it apparently features a demand

that a transition deal be

a maximum of two years.

Labour have been piling

on the pressure too -

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer

has been outlining the party's

own transition amendments.

They're calling for a guaranteed

role for the European Court

of Justice during any transitional

period.

But the action isn't

all on the green benches -

today Brexit Committee chair

Hilary Benn will meet David Davis.

To discuss the release of Brexit

impact assessments into 58 different

sectors of the UK economy.

And Theresa May's hosting business

leaders from across the EU

in Number 10 Downing Street -

they want a transition deal that

preserves the status quo.

Well we can talk now about that

to our Business Editor, Simon Jack,

who is in Downing Street.

.

Welcome, Simon. Is Theresa May

going to be hearing anything from or

saying anything to these groups that

hasn't been said before?

Well, this will be the first time

that she'll speak directly to these

business groups, if you like, the

European equivalent of the CBI. She

invited them in to get their take on

how best to proceed to minimise any

damage. Basically the message is,

there is mutual self-interest here,

if there are problems at Dover, for

example, there'll be problems at

Calais and which need to work

together to minimise the problems.

The businesses want to stress the

urgency of the situation today, the

head of business Europe wrote

recently to Donald Tusk saying she

was concerned at the slow progress.

They want a transition deal, just

like their counterparts here, they

want a transitional deal arranged so

everyone will have an idea of what

it will look like by the time we

come to the December talks. Number

Ten say this is unfair, transitional

deal with the ECJ still in charge is

also stated Government policy and

when it comes to the slow pace of

progress, It Takes Two to tango or

not in this case. This is the

negotiation. That is holding them

up. The other by-product Number Ten

will be hoping for is that the

business group also go back home to

their own politicians and say, there

could be some grave damage to our

businesses as well. One German

business group said it could cost

the German automotive sector £200

billion. They need the progress and

the transitional deal agreed so they

can deal wit in December.

Interesting the point you made about

two to tan goal or not in this case

-- tango. Is there any evidence they

are pressurising their own national

governments or have done so up until

now, as well as come here to the UK

to pressurise Theresa May?

It's very

interesting view as that, I was

talking to a big German car

manufacturer recently, Theresa May

says when you go back to Angela

Merkel and tell her your concerns,

they say Angela Merkel says I have

not got the bandwidth for this at

the moment, I am trying to form a

government, speak to Brussels, not

Berlin. It seems that back channel

of isms is talking through

politicians is working particularly

well.

Nicky Morgan, Anna Soubry,

this amendment fixing the Brexit

date is three foolish, will you be

voting against it?

I haven't decided

why we are putting this date on the

face of the bill. It seems to me a

poor negotiating tactic. And you

know, the bill is not about Brexit

per se, it's about the process,

that's what government ministers

have always explain to us, it's

about process, getting the law,

rather than Brexit whether it

happens are not. It's happening, we

have had the vote, we have to your

Article 50 process, it's about how

Parliament scrutinises the law.

Why

is there a need to fix the date?

I

have four amendments, my first

tomorrow was fixing the date. Why?

It seems absurd that you would go

through this process and not have a

date when this transition would be

finished but if I could finish this,

I think the government has very big

criticisms now about the drive of

the government... Whether in fact I

mean, I've asked the government for

a Brexit Cabinet which is in

constant session to drive these

negotiations, to be doing all this

work behind the lines in Europe,

above as Mrs, what it is likely to

cost you and so on, one closes to

set the date, a second clause is to

move the legislation, regulation

over, the third is that Parliament

decides how we review that and the

fourth is a safe haven and I believe

just as tomorrow they are accepting

my first clause, when they get to

the hand-to-hand fighting in the

Lords, there is no way, no

guillotine, cut off process... They

will actually jettison most of the

spill and we will be left with a

four clause bill about getting us

out on time with the very clear

legislation in here, how we review

it...

They are worried you are going

to thwart this bill unless it is in

law?

They were worried that the

Article 50 bill wasn't going to go

through, the second reading of the

spill, ministers and those who think

Brexit is a great idea need to stop

worrying about trying to justify and

trying to hold onto the result of

the referendum, the result is there,

it's happened, this country is

leading the EU and I'm afraid to say

the Prime Minister's tone deaf, tin

eared article on Friday was

guaranteed to continue to deepen

divisions in the Conservative Party

rather than trying to heal them

which is what you should be doing. I

have won agreement with Frank on

this, the drive that is needed to

get this stuff done and all the

other things that government needs

to be doing.

Right. Why are you in a

quandary as to whether to vote

against it?

I still don't

understand, this bill has been

explained to us by ministers, David

Davis, who says Bill, you people

should have no problems with this...

What's wrong with putting an end

date on it?

That's more about

Brexit, and it happening or not

happening, I except it's happening,

we have Article 50 which is a clear

two-year process, at the end of

March 2019 we will not be members of

the EU, this is by Parliament and

the rights of Parliament. Those who

know about negotiating strategies

say it's a bad idea to put a hard

date in at the end on the face of

the bill, that's not what this bill

is designed to do.

Those who know

about negotiations and in charge of

what's going on. That's a bigger,

broader issue. Whole thing is

meandering over the place, there is

no central drive and the key fact

is, that when we withdraw, if there

is no agreement, there is no money

coming in so the empty bowls from

Poland and all the rest will be

coming up saying, where is our money

to the Germans and the Germans will

say there is no money, there's going

to be a mega- crisis. At this stage,

because they need our money, the

boot will go on to the other foot

and we need to stress that, how will

start to come do us, the nearer we

get to the final parts of the

negotiation.

There nothing to worry

about and are you happy with the

idea of no deal?

I think we should

have a proper, thought out no deal

stands, that might have to happen,

anybody going into negotiations

would have that as part of the

armoury. What worries me is, I get

no sense this is the biggest issue

facing the government.

To do this...

Really, it's the only thing they're

doing, it's part of the problem.

The

Cabinet is in constant session like

Churchill's War Cabinet.

Are there

people in the Cabinet who agree with

Nicky Morgan, recalcitrant

remainders who make this difficult?

There is a lot of people who want

these negotiations to fail but they

won't actually say so. And there are

one or two people, like Ken Clark,

who are quite honest but most people

who want the process to fail, so we

revoke the decision to come out, are

appearing to be, as I say, Wolves in

sheep clothing, saying we must make

this a better this, we must make

this a better that. The aim of many

people in Parliament still is to

thwart the process, so we don't

withdraw.

Let us talk about the

letter from Boris Johnson and

Michael Gove, wasn't appropriate to

send a letter direct Theresa May and

saying there are part of the

government but I've making

insufficient progress and there is

insufficient energy and then it

appeared in the papers? Is that the

right way to govern?

Couple of

things. Firstly ministers to write

to the Prime Minister on a private

basis, I did it to David Cameron and

I'm sure others did about them is we

particularly cared about and want to

see the government agenda. She did

have leaked? No. Should they be

directing the Prime Minister? No,

she is the Prime Minister, but they

can say this is my view. The point

about insufficient energy, I think

there is insufficient energy, the

budget coming up, that is a time for

government to show energy in other

areas. The way people vote in the

referendum will not necessarily be

addressed I Brexit, things like

economic growth, wage increase, the

government has got to show energy on

all those things.

Insufficient

energy was about preparation for

Brexit.

I have to say, there is

massive amounts of energy being

expended on Brexit, plenty of the

departments, papers circulated,

insufficient energy, the debate on

the impact assessment you talked

about at the beginning of this

piece, we were told there were 58

impact assessments, we are told they

are not there. Do you think they

exist? There are bits and pieces of

paper but I am not sure they could

be pulled together to make an impact

assessment.

Do you think there

really was... I think there is more

chance that those papers exist than

the chairman of the Tory backbench

committee has 40 names to dethrone

Mr macro which I think, I doubt

whether he's got many names at all.

But it's interesting that was a

demand for 58 political assessments

or the impact assessments on 58

sectors were asked to be produced

and then they could be produced. Is

that because they don't exist in

this order form we presume?

I think

that's exactly right.

The form they

should exist... If we take the need

for housing, the big uplift we want

in the budget. We need to link that

to say there will be a labour supply

coming in to meet that. Until we

have home-grown our own supply.

Apple then cut immigration, that

will then give us serious welfare

reforms.

We will talk about these

things in a moment.

Adding across

departments we need, we don't need

apartments trotting out the old

thing from their silos saying what

they think...

You don't think

there's a need for the impact

assessments at all? Let's talk about

labour, you the government lacks

drive to push these negotiations

forward, using labour would do a

better job with their view on Brexit

and the negotiations when Keir

Starmer said leaving the EU without

a deal would cause constitutional

disturbance?

Britain's don't have

the sort of disturbances, she said.

What is Keir Starmer doing? What I

am saying, the Prime Minister should

now go Top Gear, we should actually

have a Brexit Cabinet as we had a

War Cabinet, the Prime Minister

should offer up places to the

opposition leaders to become part of

that, to bind them in, that would

begin to tell us who is making

gestures and who is serious about

getting the very, very best move for

the country.

You agree with Sue

James Dyson who was a lead vote and

talked about Brexit, give or on the

same site when it comes to this big

decision, he said the only way to

make a success Brexit was to make it

easier to hire and fire people and

abolish corporation tax?

Do you

agree? I don't agree. I thought his

other comments about that we should

prepare for a no deal were much

more, less partial than what one

might expect from a businessman.

Normally he rises above what might

be good for his business by taking a

national interest and I don't, it

might be jolly good for his firm and

the brilliance of it but it's

certainly not good news for...

But

he also said Britain should walk

away now from negotiations, is he

right?

I think we should consider if

this farce goes on, to say there is

no money coming, you are in real

problems.

They need the money, Nicky

Morgan, don't they? There is a black

hole in the budget, that would focus

minds.

There are commitments we make

to the EU which we need to honour.

If we don't all of them, they don't

seriously start negotiating...

Not

even the 20 billion euros Theresa

May has set...

They can string so

long, once they get the money there

will be no interest in any way in

coming to an agreement.

This is

political... We will let Nicky

Morgan respond. Out there in the

country there are real people with

real jobs reliant on whether its

funding from the EU, people coming

from abroad to work, it's all very

well for people like James Dyson,

this is a secret agenda for a number

of people, it's not for the British

people want, it's not an answer to

the issues. I suspect it is obvious

what some of my colleagues would

like and I thought John Major made a

brilliant speech a few months ago

saying this is not what the billion

people want. We asked James Dyson to

appear before the Treasury Select

Committee, he was not available as

Wednesday but could appear on the

Andrew Marr Show. We very much hope

you will come back in the New Year.

Sunday meetings.

You can make your

suggestions. I have plenty of work

on Sundays, thank you.

Seven days a

week.

"Take back control of our borders"

that was the oft repeated mantra

of Brexit campaigners.

The assumption being that taking

back control would mean reducing

the numbers coming into the UK.

But should post-Brexit immigration

actually be increased?

City AM's Rachel Cunliffe thinks so.

Here's her soapbox.

Taking back control of our borders

doesn't have to mean reducing

immigration. Now that Brexit is

happening, there is an assumption

that migration numbers will

inevitably be slashed. This would be

a mistake. We don't need the number

of foreign workers to follow in

order to to honour the will of the

people who voted for Brexit, the

psychology of immigration in the

sense of anxiety and discomfort

borders feel about it isn't really

linked to levels at all. During the

EU referendum Australia's points

-based immigration system was

heralded by league heavyweights such

as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove Andy

Burnham Nigel Farage. But Australia

has three times the net migration

per capita Britain doors. In the

2016 survey just 34% of Australians

thought immigration should be

reduced. In contrast, 77% of Brits

thought immigration was too high in

a survey conduct did for the

referendum. Clearly there is a

disconnect the migration levels and

the cultural anxiety surrounding it.

But we can end free movement, take

back control and still welcome the

people we need. We should increase

numbers, especially from non-EU

countries like the US, India and

China. We should lower their wage

threshold on hiring foreign workers,

nurses and care workers for a start

and make sure all businesses have

the skills they need. This isn't a

betrayal of the Brexit vote. It's

honouring it by building immigration

system specifically for the UK. So

let's take back control of

immigration and increase it!

Rachel Cunliffe is here with us now.

Welcome. You say in the film before

the referendum 70% of Brits thought

the level of immigration was too

high, want an awful lot of lead

voters feel betrayed Britain

increases immigration post Brexit?

I

think that's what the assumption is

but look at the studies done since

the referendum, you see the anxiety

around migration numbers decreases

significantly when you point to

specific jobs, for example, 22% of

British people think that reducing

immigration should come at the

expense of the economy, for example.

86% of British people would like the

number of highly skilled migrants to

either stay the same or increase

when you start to break it down,

this general discomfort that people

have around migration doesn't

actually applies when you are

talking about specific skills we

might need.

Frank Field? I accept

that. The key reason why Donald

Trump's vote has remained is that

people did not believe he would

build a wall but he would be on a

journey to control immigration. I

think some did believe... I don't

think so, I think they thought this

man would try and do something that

other politicians had failed and

what I don't sense from the

government, they have any feel about

how they are going to implement that

promise, even if it's over the

longer term. Will people feel

betrayed? I don't think so if we

spell out the moment, we are now in

business to handle the economy. We

are looking at care workers,

building workers, we will have in

place training skills so that people

can opt for them and become part of

that labour force, only when we've

got a skills supply home grown, so

to speak. Can we start bringing down

the actual totals.

So you want to see the totals coming

down?

We know they've got up because

the total inadequacy of our labour

force here which is either that they

won't take jobs which other people

coming in will take or they don't

have the skills. This is what I was

trying to say earlier, Jo, that

Brexit and immigration policies and

a welfare reform policy goes

together. We have to have the jobs

available to put restrictions on

people's benefits to then also be

able to prom toys bring down

immigration in the long run.

Do you

accept that, that immigration would

come down and should come down in

the long-term once we have trained

enough people in Britain to do the

jobs that are currently done by

immigrants?

That is a hugely

hypothetical question, you are

talking about years or decades. When

you have a high volume of migration,

particularly from innovative

countries, entrepreneurial, they

want to start businesses, those

kinds of people create opportunities

and create new jobs and skills.

Not

the mass of people that are coming

in, they are coming in to do

semi-skilled jobs. Of course we want

those people, we want the dynamism

in our economy but the idea takes

ages to actually become a brickie

you can be trained to do the job in

13 week and can be on site. In your

second year you can be earning £150

a day.

For whatever reason, that is

not happening.

It's because of the

Government... .

Hang on. You say

it's not happening at the moment and

it would take years to actually do.

Do you want immigration to come

down?

Thereth I want there to be the

right immigration and the right

numbers for our economy. I was never

entirely convinced by this, we have

got to get it below a certain number

because that misses all the nuances.

People understand about the need for

high skilled immigration but also

low skilled. We have remarkably

almost full employment in this

country, NHS, social care,

construction industry, if we are

going to have a housing package in a

budget, all need people from abroad.

The most important thing that

happened over the summer was Amber

Rudd, the Home Secretary, asking the

mightration Advisory Council to do a

proper in-depth analysis of who we

will need to come here, which

sectors are in need of migration

most and which ones we can perhaps

train people up on over time.

That

will be one of those assessments we

haven't said yet. David Davis when

he met Michel Barnier said more

people to come if need be on

immigration won't be pulling up draw

bridge bigger pool to fish from. I

come back to the initial point that

there was a feeling that there were

people who voted in the referendum

to leave because they did want to

see numbers broadly coming down?

I'm

sure that's absolutely right, based

on conversations I've had in my

constituency, there are people who

undoubt think did that. That's

partly the politicians' failure not

to have had a debate about

immigration. The previous Labour

Government...

That...

Nobody asked

them. I think most people want to

know who is coming here, why and how

long they are coming for and also

when they are going to go home if

that is the right thing.

We talk

about an economy...

What are we

doing about training to create full

employment for British workers.

But

to you accept Labour did make a

mistake in terms of immigration?

I

was the first person to criticise to

say we should never have gone into

the deal with the accession

countries without having

restrictions on them. I mean,

there's no question about where I

hope to appear. The toughest person

on the Labour side about

immigration. But the idea that

anybody believes that we should have

a draw bridge policy to pull it up,

people need to trust the politicians

on the direction of travel and the

direction of...

You get it.

You get

it by having the policies I've been

talking about today which is

actually that you do not have a draw

bridge but you do have plans in the

longer term for more British people

to have better opportunities to take

the jobs that are being done.

In

that case when it comes to the

immigration system that is going to

be devised in the post-Brexit world,

should EU citizens have preferential

treatment after Brexit to non-EUs?

That depends on the negotiations and

the overall deal that is struck. The

it's something we should be aware

of. Undoubtedly unfortunately, some

of the leave campaigners promised a

non-EU community that actually

they'll be able to bring in many

more people because EU immigration

would be stopped. Again that is

going to be unpicked, they have to

be honest about the debate and the

trade-offs.

You are a journalist at

City AM. Britain has broadly

benefitted. Some would say your

sector's grown at the detriment to

the rest of the UK.

We have

benefitted from migration more than

perhaps other sectors have done. I

don't really hold this idea that

other people have been disadvantaged

by myingration. We are not just

talking about City workers here, we

are talking about technology,

engineering, low-skilled workers. I

don't like that term because a lot

of low-skilled or unskilled jobs

require a level of skill and clearly

those aren't necessarily skills that

we have in this country but I just

want to say that I particularly

agree with Nicky, showing that we

are in control, people just wanting

to know who, are the people, where

are they coming from and what are

they coming here for? 71% of

migrants come here either to work or

to study. They are net contributors

to the economy on the other hand

message hasn't come across.

Thank you.

So MPs reuturn to Westminster

after a short break

at the end of last week -

what's in their in-trays?

A Budget Bill for Northern Ireland,

which will allow the government

in Westminster to set spending plans

in the continuing absence

of the Stormont Assembly,

will be rushed through

the Commons this afternoon.

This evening the PM will deliver

a speech at the Lord

Mayor's Banquet in London.

Brexit battles return to the Commons

tomorrow as the first

two days of the committee stage

scrutiny of the EU

Withdrawal Bill begin.

Wednesday

will see the penultimate PMQs before

the Budget in a week's time.

The House of Commons will hold

a backbench debate on the roll-out

of Universal Credit on Thursday,

introduced by Frank Field.

The vote for the next leader

of Scottish Labour will

take place on Friday.

We're joined now by Rowena

Mason of the Guardian

and Steve Hawkes of the Sun.

Welcome to both of you. Rowena,

first of all, what do you make of

Michael Gove's comments regarding

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe yesterday?

It's an ill judged remark from a

minister about Mrs

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, earning him a

rebuke this morning. Michael Gove

said he didn't know what she was

doing in Iran and that's added fuel

to the flames of Boris Johnson

saying that she'd only been out

there training journalists when her

family maintains she was there on

holiday. Number Ten today have said

that the Government's position, the

agreed position is that she was out

there on holiday. So Michael Gove

there, departing from what was the

Government line.

Do we think Steve that Boris Johnson

is going to still be under pressure

to resign after repeated calls for

him to be sacked by both Labour and

some in the Conservative Party?

I

don't think he's going to be under

pressure to resign as much this

week. The pressure on him now is

huge to bring Nazanin back. They

were describing the sheer hell they

are going through, there is the fact

that Nazanin is being tested for

breast cancer. It was interesting to

hear Nicky a moment ago. Richard

Ratcliffe is clear, we don't need

any more stability. We need Nazanin

back and we need Boris to deliver on

that. There is a small chance for

Boris to do something to actually

salvage his reputation. That picture

of Boris coming back with Nazanin on

a plane could save him.

What about

the relationship between Michael

Gove and Boris Johnson? The two seem

to have made up obviously having

fallen out spectacularly during the

last leadership contest. They've

obviously been holding secret

monthly meetings. How dangerous is

this for the Prime Minister?

It's a

remarkable reckon sailiation really

but they have a mutual interest,

trying to push Theresa May towards a

very clean and decisive Brexit --

reconciliation. Some would call it a

very hard Brexit. It's dangerous for

the Prime Minister, that is two

senior Cabinet Ministers who were

successful in the vote leave

campaign and ultimately backed by

the public in that referendum, seem

to be throwing their weight around

sending this letter, making demands

to her and so she's in an

ex-Froomely difficult position

because on the other side the

Brexiteers are pulling her in the

other direction -- extremely

difficult position.

Eight short of

the number required to triring a

contest but how dangerous is this

for the Prime Minister?

The MPs are

ready to sign, that is a long way

from signing something. There is no

doubt that Theresa May is in an

awful lot of trouble and has to come

back to show leadership and

authority. The Government might we

can the fact that this is -- welcome

the fact that this is a Brexit

debate because it allows people to

get on the front foot. 471

amendments is incredible. She has to

show some authority and get the

budget out of the way. That is the

other thing looming. Try to get the

reshuffle and the next generation,

the new breed up. There is an

important thing happening today.

Amber Rudd is at the Centre for

Policies event talking about the

Tory party. What she says is going

to be very interesting.

The EU

Withdrawal Bill, we have discussed

it with Frank Field and Nicky

Morgan, Nicky Morgan said the

article was tone deaf and will do

nothing to heal the divisions within

the Conservative Party. What is your

reaction?

I think that high lites

how much difficulty Theresa May is

going to have getting the Bill

through unless he makes concessions

to Nicky Morgan and her colleagues

on the softer Brexit wing. Labour

think there are 13 amendments where

the Prime Minister is in danger of

losing unless she makes concessions,

on things like curbing Henry 58

powers. I think the rebels and the

rest of us are waiting to hear

whether the Government will back

down on some of these things in

order to get us through the House of

Commons.

Do you think they will back

down in order to get it through?

I

think they will. It's interesting,

Nicky's comments, sounds like she

wants a job on the Evening

Standard...

I'll ask her in a

moment!

Or whether she's going to go

for George's job. There will be some

concessions, we are hearing

rumblings that David Davis will say

something important this afternoon

when he introduces the Bill in

Parliament. . I can't see how the

Government can fail to back down on

the Henry VIII powers. There will be

some concessions I'm sure.

Thank you

very much.

So we're just nine days

until the budget -

and last minute lobbying

is in full swing.

How handy that we have the Treasury

Select Committee chair

here and the chair of the committee

scrutinising one of the big

spending departments -

work and pensions.

We are delighted that you are both

here. Frank Field, recent figures

suggest long waits in A&E have

increased by 557% in seven years,

obviously more people too. The NHS

boss says Brexit funding promises

must be honoured. To you support

more money for the NHS?

I have long

supported it and #24iing of a new

way of funding the health and social

care we need, we should do it on a

New Bay six of national insurance.

-- finding a new way of funding. A

lot of people don't think national

insurance is a tax but a

contribution. In return we need to

give people a bigger say, but to

make sure that the money from the

new scheme actually goes to the

Health Service.

But should the

Government follow through, Frank

Field, on that vote leave pledge of

giving £350 million to the NHS?

It

should follow through by, at some

stage, monies which we spend will be

returned to this country.

Monies of

that figure?

I was never part of

making those extraordinary things.

But secondly...

You signed up to the

leave requests for...

No. If you

check the record, my contribution

was very limited about getting

Labour voters out because I saw that

as the key to success.

But you would

like money to go to the NHS.

It

needs to be on a basis that we'd

only keep coming back with the

begging cap, that if we move to

something like a National Health

Service, insurance care, a scheme

based on national insurance reformed

progressive, I think the Government

would get a cheer from people,

rather than a fear.

Well, will they

get a cheer Nicky Morgan from this,

talking of public investment, one of

George Osborne's close allies says

they should end austerity. He says

voters won't buy it at another

election. Do you agree?

I think we will have to change the

economic narrative and whether the

Chancellor does it at this budget,

it ties in with the post Brexit

Britain, how we are going to boost

wages, challenge productivity or the

like of productivity that we have

seen. Of course it's very easy to

say let's take our foot off the

brake, put more money into the NHS

but we have to have a balance. There

are people working hard to pay their

taxes, are we collecting the right

taxes, I think Frank is right at

looking at social care.

Should

Philip Hamilton -- Hammond signal an

end to social care austerity?

I call

that living within our means,

balancing the books, however

undoubtedly the Chancellor has

already signalled things like public

sector pay is something he is aware

of, of course this debate about

Universal Credit, there will be

changes I think are coming but I

think the whole thing about the way

the economy, he was right in 2010,

we took some pretty tough decisions

to balance the books, it has moved

on, I think that's part of the isn't

people voted as they did in June

2016, they looked and thought we are

aware missing out, our bosses are

not giving us the money we would

like to have, we are not seen money

going into essential public

services. This is the opportunity

for government to press the reset

button.

It is about resetting the

narrative and spending more, would

you support scrapping the deficit

reduction targets?

Not completely,

whether in fact the target date gets

moved, that is a matter for the

Chancellor in terms of looking at

the balance sheet but I think it's

the right thing to aim for, we are

not... The interest payments have

been more than the whole of the

schools budget, that's not

sustainable, it cannot be right for

us as a country to continue to

borrow this morning, we've got to

continue to keep a lid on spending,

but also look at the other thing is

big investment driving economic

growth, that's the way to get things

going. Spending on housing you would

support.

Absolutely.

Mitigating the

effect of Universal Credit? Looking

at how it's done, I'm not aware of

all the numbers but of course

particularly this six-week wait

period which has been a big concern

to MPs and every body else.

To Asian

fees again, more money spent?

I have

to say I am a supporter of the

tuition fee policy, I think it's

right to raise the threshold and I

think we need to move on and look at

other things.

Briefly on universal

but credit, Frank, are you calling

for more funding for getting rid of

it?

In the longer term we want

reforms that will start on Thursday

when a cross-party motion based on

the select committee report calling

for this time limit from 6-4 weeks,

we will actually make the views of

the House of Commons felt and their

lobbyists are resolved if I was in

charge of the budget, the key think

the Chancellor has got to do, never

mind about all this technicality is

most of us can't understand. The key

thing, they have got to sound a note

of hope, there is actually

opportunities coming, particularly

on housing and particularly

protecting lower paid workers who

are not being done right to

Universal Credit.

So Theresa May thought is was all

about Strength and Stability -

but was this year's general election

really all about that slippery

political concept - authenticity.

The argument goes that Jeremy Corbyn

had it in spades - and she didn't.

The same contest had already been

played out on the other side

of the Atlantic of course.

Here, a Georgetown linguistics

professor looks at how

Hillary Clinton struggled to win

the trust of American voters:

Let's go back to when Hillary

Clinton first appeared in the public

stage, 92, the wife of the former

governor of Arkansas, now running

for President. She was about as

unaffected as a person could be, she

had simple, plain brown hair, she

held it back with a headband, she

wasn't so concerned with her

appearance. She was ridiculed, a

woman who is not concerned with her

appearance he wears a simple

headband would be unacceptable in

public life. So she did for people

seemed to want, she had her style,

added reached blonde, then she was

criticised for being manipulative,

she was trying to manipulate her

image and here, already, you see

this suspicion of she is not

authentic. Well think was authentic

they did not like that either and I

think that's emblematic of what she

faced going forward.

A clip there from a documentary

on political authenticity that airs

on Radio Four at 8.30 tonight.

It's presented by the political

scientist Professor Rosie Campbell,

who joins us now...

What makes a politician authentic?

An extremely good question.

Good,

glad I asked it. Trying to work it

out, you describe it as a slippery

concept, seems to be a mixture of

things, sometimes we think of

authenticity as consistency,

sticking with policies over a long

period but it gets mixed up with

being related book or sounding like

a normal person.

And that is my

problem, when people say

authenticity, is it about conviction

politics and principles? Jeremy

Corbyn would say he has stuck to

principles, Jacob Rees Mogg might

say he is upended because he has to

to political principles. Is it that

more in your mind than it is about

the late ability, about how someone

looks and response and that sort of

thing?

I think at its core are

perhaps that is what we are looking

for, people have lost trust and

faith in politicians to some extent

reticular Lee after the expenses

scandal and they are looking for

some kind of integrity and I think

that sticking to your principles

over time as part of that. I'm not

sure I totally agree with you over

Jeremy Corbyn, has he softened

slightly on Europe and nuclear

disarmament? There are other things

he does that seem to signal to

people he is an authentic politician

that is perhaps not so much about

his policies.

You think Jeremy

Corbyn has stuck to his principles

but in reality that has not been the

case, he has smartened up his

appearance, he wears the suit, he is

losing some of his authenticity in

order to be at Westminster?

I don't

think he's losing any of that

authenticity, his position on Europe

as James, Germany and I would be in

the same lobby, we are not in the

same lobby now, someone has changed.

It may be difficult in academic

circles to decide who is genuine and

who is authentic, it does not appear

the voters have much difficulty in

actually deciding that and I think

the study or to begin with voters.

You are doing... LAUGHTER leprosy

respond.

Voters seem to have, if you

as Conservative voters who is the

most honest and trustworthy many

more of them will say Mr macro than

Labour voters and if you look at the

number of Conservative voters who

think that Jeremy Corbyn is an

authentic guy will find that guy is

-- number is much smaller, voters

are no better than we academics at

this.

There is a positive bias but

the judgement comes through quite

clearly that they can spot

authenticity.

But even if they can

spot authenticity isn't politics

about compromise? Isn't it about

backroom and being pragmatic. Banks

it could be the most explosive

current example of all bad.

--

Brexit. I feel quite concerned

about, if we don't allow politicians

to change their mind in a considered

and reflected way over a period of

time in politics won't actually,

democracy won't function. I don't

think it necessarily means

politicians should change their mind

on the same day...

Or twice a day?

Can you faith fake authenticity?

I

am not sure you can, I think the

voters have an antenna for it, which

are duly younger voters who

described Jeremy Corbyn as appendix.

A fascinating programme I did back

at party Conference, they said that,

I think authenticity is in the year

of the beholder, they know someone

is authentic not without being able

to put their finger on it. I would

propose it's about able setting out

what they believe in and saying it

as they think it is and I think the

trouble actually with a lot of

coverage of modern politics

particularly as a minister, it's a

nightmare coming on a Daily Politics

scummy you have a government line,

you might have use of your own, a

clever interviewer will say I know

how to get it out of them and you

spend yourself and your time getting

into linguistic contortions.

That's

what people seem to think is a bad

thing about politics. Let's show you

and viewers this tweet about Donald

Trump, saying it how it is is what

he is seemingly famous for but...

That's authentic, is a popular? I

think that's the problem with the ID

of authenticity, it's slippery. On

Trump has changed his mind about

policy a great wheel. But being able

to seem relatable and to connect

with people, that's actually one way

that we pick up one intensity I

think sometimes we voters to get it

wrong, despite what you say, Frank.

The other point, you can't run as

Nicky was saying, the House of

Commons depends on people faithfully

voting for or against government,

that's how you for them to account,

you can't have 650 authentic

politicians!

That may be true. Rosi,

thank you.

Now - its chimes were briefly heard

again over the weekend to mark

Remembrance Sunday.

Big Ben is undergoing

a multi-million pound renovation

programme and Channel Four have

secured exclusive

access to the work.

In a moment we'll be joined

by the historian, Dr Anna Keay,

who presents the programme.

One of my favourite bits in any big

conservation project is when the

roof comes off, it's like the

skeleton of a foil, an amazing

thing, you feel it you never

normally get to see. It's going to

be a once in a 100 and your

opportunity to see the bare bones of

the thing.

The top of the tower is

going to be stripped down into its

original frame. Its giant hands over

four metres long, removed. The four

phases, each one large enough to

drive a double-decker bus through,

will be taken apart. And 2567 cast

an roof tiles and other parts

restored. One of the world's

best-known buildings is about to

become unrecognisable.

And Anna Keay who's the director

of Landmark Trust joins me now.

Why does this work have to be done?

Because this is a great want list

building, 150 odd years old and if

we care about it we wanted to still

be there in time and we need to look

after, it's standing there in the

elements, acid rain, wind, any thing

that any building has two content

with and it has eroded over time.

The top section is cast-iron, we

know what happens to metal, trusts

and if you go and stand behind the

clock faces you can pick the ire of.

Really? And it needs a lot of TLC.

That TLC, how difficult is it to

find people who have skills to

restore this iconic building?

That's

a big issue across all historic

buildings in this country, we see it

in my work, it's all very well

saying you want to do this stuff,

unless you can find a stonemason who

knows how to deal with a bit of

exploded limestone from 1850, it's

all talk. It's a big task and it is

a tall order on this building

because it's so big, it's not just a

small number of people come all you

need a kind of an army to deal with

that.

You need a whole team at it

for the duration? Yes. The cost of

the work has doubled is that good

value for money, Nicky Morgan?

Of

course not but the work has to be

done, it's a major landmark, you see

all the tourists, people come to

look at it, I have constituents who

bring international visitors and

they say I want to come and look of

this amazing thing. Of course you

have to keep a look on the costs but

are we weighing up the massive

earner that is economically from

people coming to look at big den,

the Houses of Parliament and other

London landmarks?

Your predecessor

started an inquiry on the total

renovation which will cost £4

billion, will continue?

The inquiry?

We will look at it but we are

waiting at the moment and over the

next steps are going to be from the

government. The House of Commons

authorities are taking a time to

consider for we are going. Have you

missed the chiming? It wasn't there,

I didn't know something you do but

if you're very close to it, and you

are on the phone, it's a nightmare.

Sorry but we will have to end it

there.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was according

to Michel Barnier what could be

stopped from crossing the border

if the Brexit negotiations fail ...

a) Wine b) Pets c) Eurocrats

or d) Cheese.

So what's the correct answer?

It is Eurocrats. I thought it was

all of them.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow

with all the big political stories

of the day...

do join me then.

Bye bye.