11/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome

to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May declares war

on plastic, as she wraps

the Conservative Party in policies

that promote conservation.

But is her new-found

environmentalism about

politics or principle?

Not such a happy New Year

for the Health Secretary,

as the NHS records its worst

performance in more than a decade.

Is more cash the answer

to the health service's woes?

They may have the most MPs,

but the Conservatives are only

the fourth biggest political party

in the UK.

Does it matter if they've fewer

foot-soldiers than their rivals?

And, leading Brexiteers pay

a visit to the EU's chief

negotiator in Brussels -

and they came bearing gifts.

But how well did the contents of

the hamper represent modern Britain?

All that in the next hour.

And with us for the whole

of the programme today,

one of the few Conservative MPs

who wasn't given a job in

Conservative headquarters this week.

But he did get the consolation

prize of a Knighthood.

Sir Graham Brady,

welcome to the programme.

Thank you very much.

First today - you can't

accuse the Government

of lacking long-term thinking.

Theresa May has launched

a 25-year plan to improve

the natural environment.

At the centre of it a commitment

to eliminate all avoidable

plastic waste by 2042.

She also wants to see plastic-free

aisles in supermarkets,

and today's announcements come

on top of an extension

of the 5p plastic bag charge

to include smaller shops,

and a ban on mirco-beads used

in cosmetic products.

Let's hear what the Prime Minister

said this morning.

In our comprehensive 25 year

environment plan, we are setting out

how we would protect and renew our

natural inheritance for the next

generation. How we will make our air

and water cleaner, and our natural

habitats more diverse and healthy.

How we will create a better world

for ourselves and our children. It's

a national plan of action, with

international ambitions. But what it

really speaks to is something much

more personal for each of us as

human beings. That is the impulse to

care for and nurture our own

surroundings.

Theresa May. Graham

Brady, I don't remember the Prime

Minister talking with such fervour

about the environment. Is this

really about principle and genuine

concern, or political expediency?

I'm sure it's genuine concern, and I

think it's something we all feel. We

all saw the pictures a few months

ago of the island of plastic in the

oceans. It's a disgrace.

oceans. It's a disgrace. I saw it

myself some years ago visiting Hong

Kong, I saw a whole tide of plastic

coming up on what would otherwise be

a beautiful beach. It's something

that is unacceptable and something

that could get worse. We must make

sure we do something to tackle it.

Do you Black Mole regulation on

companies and on consumers, to a

certain extent, to deal with this

plastics issue?

Well, I want to see

the plastic going, and I'm glad the

Government is setting a target, we

will do it by whatever means

business are to achieve it.

But do

you support more regulation and tax

-- taxes?

It is clearly unacceptable

to have this plastic building up, we

need to tackle it, it's so

unnecessary, many of us are driven

mad when we go to the supermarket

and we end up buying four apples in

a plastic packs, it's crazy.

Does it

need legal backing? If you are

driven mad by it and see it as

unnecessary, it you are prepared to

see higher taxes, should there be

legal batting and sanctions for

companies that don't abide?

I'm very

happy to see that if it proves

necessary.

What proves necessary?

I

want to see progress. If what it

takes is legislation, if what it

takes is taxation, then, yes, we

should do something about it. I want

to see a return to the paper bags at

the greengrocer, when he used to do

the twist...

Some of them still do!

25 years, that's not a very speedy

plan, is it? Nothing is going to

happen immediately. When do you want

to see progress by?

to see progress by?

The evidence of

all of these things through history

is that you set the target, a

direction. I think the public is

really quite engaged with this. I

think there's a lot of sympathy with

action to tackle this. People are

encouraged in a direction, steps are

taken, targets are set, it is quite

likely these targets will be

accelerated.

You do think 25 years

is too much of a long-term plan?

Look, it's a start, it's a

direction, like the plan to phase

out the internal combustion engine.

The fact the Government has said it

and the direction is clear is very

positive.

You obviously feel

strongly about it. Do you think it

is enough to solve the party was my

collection problem in terms of

attracting different kinds of

voters?

-- the party's election

problem. I have said before here in

the studio that pretty much

everything that could have gone

wrong did go wrong in the campaign.

But we still attracted 2.3 million

more voters and got a share of the

vote which gave Tony Blair and

Margaret Thatcher big majorities.

But you've lost your majority and

there were groups of voters...

We

lost the majority and we had much

stronger support in some parts of

the population than others. Clearly

we want to use some of these

different narratives, we want to

make clear that we are not only

talking about exit from the European

Union, as important as that is, we

want to make it clear that we do

engage with some other policy areas,

and the announcements this morning

are very important.

You feel this is

part of an electoral campaign and

strategy to attract...

Governments

are there to govern, but it is

always helpful if we do so in a way

that the the public approves of.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Yesterday, former Ukip MEP

Steven Woolfe led a delegation

of pro-Brexit business figures

in a meeting with Michel Barnier.

And to show off exactly

what Britain has to offer

after leaving the EU,

they gave the EU's Chief Brexit

Negotiator a basket containing some

of the best of Britain: The complete

works of Wiliam Shakespeare,

a biography of Winston Churchill,

and some of this country's tastiest

cuisine.

But our question for today is:

What wasn't in the hamper?

Was it Cheddar cheese?

PG Tips Eccles cakes?

Or marmite?

At the end of the show, Graham

will give us the correct answer.

I'm sure!

Now, reports last week suggested

that it had been a dire week

for the NHS in England.

Today we got the

figures to prove it.

A&E waiting times during December

in England were the worst since

the target was introduced in 2004.

Official figures show 85.1%

of patients were seen in four hours,

which is below the 95% target.

Last week, 55,000 non-urgent

operations were cancelled,

as winter pressure puts the NHS

system under strain.

And there is a growing consensus

among health care professionals that

a new long-term funding

solution for the health

service needs to be found,

and now some politicians

are joining the debate.

Tory MP Nick Boles has called

for taxes to be increased

to pay for NHS funding.

And at Prime Minister's Questions

yesterday, Andrew Murrison called

for a Royal Commission

on its future.

He proposes re-branding

National Insurance as

National Health Insurance,

with funds going

directly to the NHS.

At the same time, the NHS

Confederation has commissioned

a comprehensive study

into the funding needs

of health and social care

over the next 15 years.

And Chris Hopson, the Head of NHS

Providers, which represents

the majority of NHS Trusts

in England, had some strong

words for the Government

about the future of funding, too.

We have now reached a watershed

moment where it is clear the NHS can

no longer deliver the standards

of care set out in

the NHS consitution.

We therefore have a really

important decision to make -

do we abandon those standards,

which were incredibly hard-fought

to gain those standards

in the 2000s, or do we make

the decision on the long-term

funding of the NHS and social care

to ensure the NHS has enough money

to meet those standards?

We're joined now by the Shadow

Health Minister, Justin Madders.

I will come to you in just a moment.

First of all, Graham Brady, A&E

waiting times in England in December

were the worst on record, is that

acceptable?

Of course not, but the

NHS is doing more than it has ever

done, doing better than it has ever

done.

How can it be doing things

better if they are the worst on

record?

The real story is one of

growing demand, an ageing

population, more expensive health

care that is now available, it is

all marvellous but it creates

challenges for the NHS. And it is a

big, long term challenge that we

need to work together to try and

resolve.

It is not a long-term

challenge, it's a challenge right

now. If you listen to NHS bosses,

they are not just talking about a

winter crisis, and we have had these

crises year-on-year, they are

talking about a service that is no

longer going to be able to keep

standards safe for patients. A

watershed moment, Chris Hopson

actually said. I will ask you again,

we have known about the challenges

of an ageing population, is it

acceptable that the NHS is

struggling?

And spending continues

to increase. The core that you are

highlighting here this morning are

absolutely right -- because you are

highlighting. People are looking for

a more sustainable way of dealing

with this. I am sympathetic to the

call that was made for a Royal

commission to be established into

the future funding of the NHS. It is

a hugely important thing for us to

get right for everybody in this

country.

Right, at the top Oxford

Cancer Hospital saying they will

have to delay or cut life prolonging

treatment due to a shortage of

nurses. Is that acceptable?

These

are things that have to be

addressed. The NHS is recruiting

more doctors and nurses, we have

more than we have ever had.

But not

enough to deal with the increase in

demand and the number of elderly

patients, which we have known about.

That is about the challenges for the

health service, and also the

challenge in social care, making

sure that we omit the two things

together, something that my area of

Greater Manchester is at the

forefront, making sure that health

and social care are part of the same

picture, something which has been

established more firmly in the

reshuffle with the Department being

renamed with responsibility for

social care.

Let's look at the

solutions. Justin, what is Labour's

solution when it comes to funding

year on year?

We have been very

clear, we are hearing today quite a

lot of the people involved in the

NHS coming round to our way of

thinking, including some

Conservative MPs, it is about the

funding, at the core of it, and we

pledged at the last election that we

would put an extra £6 billion per

year in.

When would that start? I

have your manifesto here, actually

it says £5 billion for health care

being put into the budget. When?

Obviously we would have to get a

budget passed...

But in your plan,

when would that £5 billion be spent?

Well, it would be from the first

year of a Labour government. It is

about actually the long-term funding

squeeze that we have seen over the

last eight years, which has seen an

increase in funding by about 1%,

demand has gone up by about 4% per

year. We want to get it back to that

kind of love and stabilise the

situation.

£5 billion extra per year

-- that kind of level. It would have

been now if you had won that

election. The Conservatives have

said that they would increase it by

a minimum of £8 billion by 2021-22.

Do you accept that both parties are

quite close in terms of the extra

funding that is being committed?

No,

I don't. Because we would have

already be putting measures in place

now. What we are seeing at the

moment, obviously the December the

districts of the worst on record,

this is before that we got to the

appalling stories we have heard in

the last couple of weeks -- the

December that sticks. We need to

stabilise the situation now. Are

leaving in droves because they are

one down by the pressures they are

facing. We need to give them

confidence that there is a future

and hope for the NHS.

£5 billion

would have been putting immediately

by Labour. What other measures?

We

would have increased the social care

budgets, this £5 billion would have

been every single year.

You would

have increased it every year by

2021-22 by 5 billion pounds.

An

extra 5 billion every year, not on

top of that.

top of that.

Just to be clear. The

Tories committed £8 billion per

year, but not until 2021-22, and

that is the difference. You wouldn't

be doing anything and do not doing

anything right now.

There is more

money going in now, there will be

more money going in next year and

the year after, and there will be an

extra £8 billion by 2021.

Do you

think there should be over and above

what has been committed to deal with

this particular crisis.

I think we

should do what is necessary to deal

with this particular situation. It

is not for me to manage the National

Health Service, we need to manage

this situation. More money was

announced in the budget, there is a

response. The problem, Justin and I

can sit here talking about £8

billion or £5 billion whether it is

this year or next year, it is a much

more fundamental question, whether

there is a more stable way of

funding by NHS in the long term. I

think the public understand that.

Let's look at the sustainable

funding. Nick Bowles, your

colleague, has suggested it is time

for a high poverty to NHS tax that

goes directly into the health

service to page four health care in

England, do you agree with that?

--

hypothecated. I thought it was an

interesting proposition, it was

misnamed the international insurance

fund and making a National health

fun, I thought it was an interesting

idea and I would be interested to

look at it.

You might support the

idea going forward?

I might well.

Taxes might go up.

I think Nick's

point was that you might find years

where there is a surplus in the fund

and the fund can build that up,

there might be years when there was

more revenue to spend on somewhere

there might be less. It would make

it a predictable pop that the NHS

could rely on. And we could all see

where that money was coming from and

where it was going to.

Do you

support the idea of a hypothecated

tax for health care?

I am more concerned we get the money

in the system. We would reverse

corporation tax cuts, we would use

money to pay for extra funding.

That is the issue. You say it

doesn't matter what it is called but

the complaint is even if you

increase taxation, if the public

knows that extra money is definitely

going to health care, they will feel

reassured that paying it.

That is what we did, you can see the

results, greater satisfaction levels

by the time we left office.

If it wasn't hypothecated in quite

the same way. Do you support an idea

of a hypothecated tax as a long-term

solution?

The main point is we have to

increase spending on the NHS and the

only way is through increasing

taxation.

That is our position. To get all

your money from higher taxpayers and

corporations?

That is what we set out in our

manifesto. There are a number of

reasons why we wanted to have those

particular groups paying a little

more. That is a reasonable position.

What is wrong with that? You tax

higher earners too much and

companies, you get less revenue and

not more, that has been seen.

If we were to have the tragedy of a

Labour Government, the effect would

be less money available for the NHS.

This is the line trotted out every

time. It suggests we're not doing

enough to crack down on tax

avoidance which is a big issue in

itself.

That is the line trotted out by

governments in terms of tax

avoidance. So long-term funding of

the NHS, would you like to see

spending on health care go up as a

proportion of GDP, what proportion?

Up to the average of similar

countries such as Germany.

About 9.9%.

It is closer to 11% in

Germany.

That is an ideal. We need to

stabilise the situation and deal

with the demand we have got.

Looking ahead, you would be

committed to Labour increasing the

percentage of health care spending

up to 11%?

I have not made that commitment, we

have to look long-term at demands.

That is a comparison with another

country. We have to look at this

country over 20 years and plan

accordingly. That is what this

Government should have done.

Some Tories are proposing that now.

When we have looked at the figures

of 5 billion extra spending, the

Labour proposals are relatively

hardest.

What I am saying is what a lot of

people are suggesting. There is

nothing unusual about saying we have

to predict in the longer term what

demands will be on the health

service.

Should we increase our health care

spending as a proportion of GDP?

We are at the European average. We

should do what is appropriate to get

the best NHS we all depend on. It is

inevitable in the future we will be

spending a bigger percentage of GDP

on health, as the population

continues to age, more expensive new

treatments.

We all depend on it. Thank you.

And if you want to find out how your

local hospital is performing,

you can use the BBC's NHS

Tracker at bbc.co.uk/nhstracker.

Now, here's a question that might be

of interest to our guest of the day.

How big is the Conservative Party?

The answer, no-one seems to know!

It's been five years

since the party has said how many

paid members it's got.

But estimates suggest the total may

have fallen since then,

and is now around or below 100,000.

So, what is the party's future?

Does it matter?

Our Ellie has been finding out

what members themselves think.

Can you believe it's six months

since the general election?

Well, even the party that won it

have had to spend time

licking their wounds,

drowning their sorrows,

working out what went wrong.

So, what might the Tories do

differently if and when there

is another general election?

Thank you.

Happily, I've got some

people here to find out.

Hello, chaps.

Right, whose is the orange juice?

Ben Howlett lost his

seat in Bath in June.

31 now, he was one of

the Tories' youngest MPs.

He's brought some of his

Conservative chums,

all members, to have a chat.

OK, so, Ben, why did

you lose your seat?

I think the main reason

why I lost the seat

was because of the Brexit vote.

It was 70% Remain in

the constituency, so putting out

a message of strengthening our hand

in the negotiations

of the Prime Minister went

well in the beginning,

but then social care

changes happened,

and things fell apart quite

quickly after that.

The Conservatives do suffer

with this brand issue, don't they?

They are just not cool.

I see more young activists around

when we go to party conference,

in my local area, when I'm attending

regional events in

London or Yorkshire,

when we go out campaigning.

I think it's necessarily we're

not shouting about it,

we're not really concerned

about necessarily promoting

the brand of youth.

So, do you think the leadership

listens to the membership?

Certainly starting out,

I did feel a little bit

like I was just someone who was just

going to knock on doors.

Even though that's the bread

and butter of the party campaign

machine, I felt like that

didn't really matter

because those were just

the things you would do.

You know, even to the point

where sometimes there would be meals

and things at the local association,

and I wouldn't be invited

because I haven't apparently

campaigned enough.

And I thought, well,

actually that's not the way

to get me to campaign more.

I think one of the things that MPs

can do in particular,

though, is to engage

with their members more.

Because, as an MP, you are stuck

in Westminster four days a week,

and you don't have that toing

and froing with your members as much

as you do when you are a candidate.

If MPs can do more to listen

to their members by thinking

about some of the new policies,

such as I did in Bath,

that's a really great way to start

changing the way that we think

about different issues.

And you'll probably get a lot more

members in as a result.

And what do you think, Ben?

I think there's always more that any

political party can do.

I find our access to ministers,

our influence on policy doesn't

always lead to the results we want.

But I do feel that

we are listened to.

The new generation are more active,

we have figures such

as James Cleverly, Brandon Lewis,

the new chairman, and a few other

MPs who, because they came up

through the grassroots,

and a lot of them were young

at the time - again,

Ben Howlett was one of them -

they listen more to the local

association and members.

So we actually have more

activities now on a regional

and local basis than before.

OK, so you're all painting

quite a positive picture.

How positive are you about the next

general election, if and when it is?

I think we're getting there now.

Policy-wise, I completely

agree with Ben.

Also not forgetting now Michael Gove

has come in, and really,

really reformed the way we approach

animal welfare and environmental

issues, which was always

a bit of a strain for me.

As someone who is a Tory

member and activist,

it was always the part of me that

always struggled every

time we came to vote.

I'd always vote Conservative,

but there was a bit of a heavy heart

there because animal welfare

and the environment has also always

been very important to me.

We can speak now to Professor Tim

Bale who has recently published

research into the state

of the Britain's political parties.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. What

is the relative health of the

Conservative Party compared to other

parties?

It is not growing as others, Labour

has undergone a phenomenal growth

since Jeremy Corbyn took over, the

Conservatives have probably shrunk,

some reports say they are down to

70,000, smaller than the Lib Dems

and the SNP. I'll wouldn't put them

above 100,000, it has been notably

reluctant to release membership

figures for the past three years

indicating they are in trouble.

They have been reluctant. How

important is a healthy grassroots to

winning elections?

The evidence suggests in a close

race in a constituency the effort on

the ground parties can make makes a

difference. Talking about

canvassing, identifying voters,

talking about delivering leaflets,

and increasingly elections are being

fought on line where the

Conservatives have a particular

problem because of the age structure

of the party, members just don't

seem to do anywhere near as much on

Facebook or Twitter social media

than members of other parties.

Social media is critically important

in future elections. How reflective

of the attitudes of Tory members of

voters and the voters they need to

gain to win?

It is important to separate those

groups. Party members are not that

far away from people who are core

Conservative Party voters. Where

they are quite far away from is the

sort of voter they need to pick up

at the next election and elections

to come. Look at attitudes and they

are pretty authoritarian, not very

liberal, pretty traditional. As

Britain becomes more socially

liberal in part because so many more

are going to university, that could

be a problem.

Do Conservative members have less

say in the direction of their

parties and other parties

particularly now?

Absolutely. The only bright is that

being a party member gives you is

the right to select Parliamentary

candidates in your Krsticic are sick

and occasionally if there is a

leadership contest. You have no say

formally in terms of policy, which

is not the case for the Labour Party

and the Lib Dems and SNP and Green

Party, members that have a

significant say. That is something

to do with the fact that

Conservative Party members feel less

appreciated by their leadership.

Graham, how many members does the

Conservative Party have?

I do not know.

You do not want to know. I would be

very happy to know. The fact is we

don't have a central membership

register so it is difficult to have

an accurate figure. At the time of

the leadership election, it was

something around I think 100,000,

120,000, not nearly as high as it

should be. There was an interesting

question when you said is a healthy

grassroots important? I think it is

but the converse is an unhealthy

grassroots can be quite damaging as

well. One concern looking at the

Labour Party and the big growth in

the momentum membership, this block

of hard left wing people who make it

very difficult...

But we're not talking about...

Except they did much better than was

expected and got an enormously high

share of the vote, admittedly. If

you don't think the health of the

grassroots matters, let the figures

have dropped below 100,000, is it a

worry?

I want to see much stronger party

membership, being more open to the

membership, the party conference

being more of a genuine debate and

about broadcasts. Yes, I am keen on

expending -- expanding the

membership.

And giving them more power?

Certainly more of a voice, parties

must listen to their members.

Except Tim Bell says they don't

really reflect Tory voters.

He said they would rather reflect

Tory voters by the well. He said we

possibly need to look differently at

some of those we need to reach out

to. It depends where you are. My own

membership is pretty strong, the

same figure it has been for a number

of years.

I would love to see that double.

Do

you think beefing up of Conservative

headquarters in the recent

reshuffle, the appointment of 13

vice chairs, will that make a

difference?

I am less concerned about the number

and more about the quality. We have

some fantastic people involved

driving some of this process.

Brandon Lewis, I have a lot of faith

in him, James Clay is the deputy

picked out in the piece you have

just shown. So, we have a lot of

real quality coming in.

With a lot of enthusiasm. Would a

better operation at CC HQ made a

difference last year?

I think pretty much everything did

go wrong, part of that was not just

the period of the election, it was a

period where there was lack of

preparation in advance. No election

was anticipated, the point about

social media and communicating

widely, that had been allowed to

atrophy and now there is a

What about the reshuffle in general?

Could it have been more radical?

It

could have been more radical, I was

reflecting on what word I would

settle on for that.

What is it?

Oversold is probably the word. If

this reshuffle had just happened and

people were looking at it by its own

merits, people would say it was a

pretty reasonable reshuffle, with

some very good, strong moves, some

new people coming into Government,

some sensible changes. David

Lidington replacing the come

ordination role that

ordination role that Damian Green

was doing before that, for instance.

-- become ordination role. It might

not have been what the Prime

Minister had in mind, but my

highlight of the reshuffle was

Jeremy Hunt, so determined to remain

at the helm of the National Health

Service.

Did that demonstrate her

weakness?

It demonstrates something

really important, which is that

Jeremy has been so committed to the

NHS and getting it right and really

cares about that. And his

determination to stand by it.

What

does it say about the Prime

Minister, who wanted to move him?

That she was per say so but prepared

to be persuaded by him and she got

that right.

Are you pleased that the

woman who stood in the way of

grammar school expansion has gone?

I

like Justine Greening, she is a

friend and a colleague. I'm not

pleased when any of my colleagues

find themselves out of office when

they wanted to be in office. I am

also pleased to see Damian Hinds in

that job. He is a grammar school boy

from altering.

Are you hoping that

policy will be reversed? And there

will be further expansion?

I'm

hoping to see some steady progress

being made on the question of giving

parents more choice in schools, that

should include the ability to choose

selective schools where they want

to.

Nick Timothy, former adviser to

Theresa May who went soon after the

election, but it was right for

Justine Greening to go because she

apparently blocked tuition fee cuts.

Would that be right in terms of

getting rid of somebody who was

blocking reform?

I have no idea

whether that was the case, I don't

know what discussions have happened

within Government and tuition fees.

Right, this article in the Telegraph

today suggests that Nick Timothy

still speaks to the Prime Minister

and he was, along with Fiona Hill,

blamed in some part for that

election campaign. Is it appropriate

that the Prime Minister is such

close conversation with her former

advisers?

She can talk to as many

friends and advisers as she wishes,

the more people she talks to the

better.

Are you disappointed that

there will not be a Minister for no

deal attending Cabinet?

That is not

necessary, we have seen a

strengthening of the department, and

other Minister, a very capable and

strong new member coming in to the

Government Luella Fernandes. She

will be a real asset.

Would you have

liked to have seen somebody

representing that particular option,

it was felt that it would be

explored more fully by Brexiteers.

I'm not keen on ministers having a

particular policy agenda, they are

responsible for delivering the

Goverment's policy, which is strong

and clear, we are making significant

progress towards it. There result of

optimism that we will move forward

with face two in a more constructive

weight with our new partners.

Michael Gove has told Conservative

home that he fancies Damian Hinds,

the new Education Secretary, and

Gavin Williamson, the Defence

Secretary, for next Tory leader.

Do you agree with him?

I am chairman

of the 1922 Committee, I would be

returning officer in any contest

that might happen, I could not

express a preference. They are both

very good people. Looking at the

reshuffle and some of the new

members of the Government, I think

we are in a very strong position for

the future. We have got so much

talent on the Conservative benches

in the House of Commons, that is a

really positive sign for the future

of the Conservative Party and the

country.

What about the talent at

the top? Last time you in this

studio you said that Theresa May was

safe in post at the moment, is that

still your view?

I probably said at

the time, that is all that any Prime

Minister or leader of anybody is at

any time.

Do you see her fighting

the next election as leader of the

Conservative Party?

My position

remains the same, it is the view of

my colleagues that we do not want to

see a leadership election, we are

making good progress, whilst lots of

people may say at the moment Theresa

May may not lead the Conservative

Party through the next general

election, that isn't a judgment that

is going to be taken today, it will

be taking in two or three years'

time, the whole landscape might be

different then as we are merging

from the negotiations and the

agreements on Brexit.

By March 2019,

there could be a leadership contest?

Of course there could be. My view

that a successful exit from the

European Union, Britain continuing

to see strong economic growth, low

unemployment, record levels of

innovative investment as we are

seeing at the moment, it is likely

people will look at the Prime

Minister and say, she has done a

pretty good job.

What about Michael

Gove's prospects, could he be a

future leader of the Conservative

Party?

I'm not going to, it on that,

but he is doing a brilliant job at

Defra and I'm very pleased to see

the measures taken to get rid of my

group -- micro beads and what he is

doing about plastic.

Thank you.

The former Lib Dem leader

and committed Christian Tim Farron

has said he regrets saying that gay

sex was not a sin during last

year's general election.

He told Christian Radio

he was "foolish" to allow himself

to be pressured in saying something

which he didn't believe was right.

During the 2017 general election

campaign, when he was Lib Dem

leader, Tim Farron was asked

repeatedly about his religious

beliefs, and, specifically, about

whether he believed gay sex was a

Saint.

Do you think that having --

that having a gay sex was a sin.

I'm

not going to give you an answer that

question, and I will tell you why.

One's personal faith is one's

personal faith. What counts is your

actions and your beliefs in

politics.

He later said that he

didn't one people getting the wrong

impression about his views.

I don't

believe gay sex is a sin. I take the

view as a political leader, my job

is not to pontificate on the logical

matters.

Tim Farron step out as Lib

Dem leader straight after the

election, saying in a statement that

he was torn between living as a

faithful Christian and serving as a

political leader. In an interview

with Christian radio yesterday, Mr

Farron said he regretted not being

honest with himself at the time.

There are things I regret and there

was a sense in which I felt, look,

I've got to get this off my table,

what an opportunity for us. All that

they wanted to do was talk about my

Christian beliefs and what it meant

and all the rest of it. And I would

say, foolishly, and strongly,

attempted to, you know, push it away

by giving an answer that frankly was

not right.

Tim Farron.

Joining me now from

Cambridge is the writer

and commentator Anne Atkins.

And the Labour MP and former

Anglian vicar Chris Bryant.

Welcome to the studio to you, and

welcome to the programme. Shouldn't

Tim Farron have had the courage of

his convictions at the time and said

that he thought gay sex was a saint?

I think that's what he said

yesterday -- thought they sex was a

scene. It is a misleading question

and an illiberal and homophobic

question, as he pointed out

yesterday, because Christians

believe that we all seen it, seeing

is a theological term which is quite

misleading because it communicates

to people who not quite familiar

with that jargon condemnation and

judgment and looking down on people,

which is not what it means at all,

it is defined by St Paul in the

letter the Romans as falling short

in the glory of God, as Christians,

we believe that we all do that. The

fact that he was asked about a

particular minority is a very

misleading thing. If he had come out

and said, yes, I do think it is a

sin, that would have been more

misleading than what he actually did

say. What I find so disappointing

was Vince Cable's tweet after Tim

Farron step down, which was very

illiberal. He distanced himself from

Tim Farron's views and said the Lib

Dems have a long and proud history

of supporting LGBT rights. Well, so

does Tim Farron. He has a long and

proud history of supporting LGBT

rights, which is the important

thing.

In terms of your expectation

about what is considered a sin, he

told a lie, straightforwardly.

He

said he wishes he had represented

his views more truthfully.

For the

viewers, it is just to make it plain

that he said one thing that he

didn't mean, and now he has

corrected it. He lied at the time

about a fairly straightforward

question.

I think lie is an

extremely unfair term. He was caught

off balance, he said something which

subsequently...

Let me try another

term with you, he bore false

witness. You know, from the Ten

Commandments, he lied.

That is the

same thing.

Lying is a sin. If I'm

honest, I feel awfully sorry for him

because he tied himself up in knots,

by the end of yesterday I don't know

what he really thinks.

He was very

clear.

My anxiety is, I think the

Church of England, and a lot of the

church is conflicted about it as

well, on the one hand they want to

be supportive and caring towards

LGBT people. And most people I

LGBT people. And most people I think

now accept that your sexuality is

not a choice that you have made.

That is very different from 100

years ago or 200 years ago, when

everybody thought that you chose to

become a sexual. Today, the vast

majority of Christians would accept

that it is not a choice. So then the

question is whether churches want to

support people in loving

relationships or want to deprive

them and say that they are sin. Like

comeback on that, Anne?

You are

deliberately confusing two things

and you know that you. 100 years

ago, people board of the act rather

than the orientation, now people

think of the orientation.

Both,

actually.

Tim Farron himself has

made it clear that Christianity does

not condemn sexual orientation, he

himself has said that. You are being

far more illiberal than Tim Farron

was and so is Vince Cable, because

you are condemning him for, you

know, breaking one of the Ten

Commandments, he himself made clear

yesterday, as all Christians

believe, that we all break the Ten

Commandments...

Let Chris answer.

Anne, can you let me say something?

I just wanted to finish my sentence.

It was quite a long paragraph, but

anyway, I feel sympathetic towards

him because it is perfectly

legitimate for somebody to hold that

view. I disagree with them. I think

he would have been better off to

have stated what his view was.

Would

he? This is the politics of it. He

was hounded during the election

campaign over it. He was asked

repeatedly, may be fairly, do you

think it is right that he should be

hounded on this issue?

It is a

legitimate issue for voters to say,

what are your views on a variety of

issues, including there is? And how

do you bring your religious belief

into the policies that you vote for

and don't vote for? My memory, and I

may be wrong on this, but my memory

is that Tim did not vote for

same-sex marriage, third reading,

second reading of the bill.

His

voting record is absolutely... If

they are a Labour colleague of yours

in the House of Commons, if they

held those same views...

Some do. I

had a big row with Kelly wants about

this very issue. And in Labour's

case, we had said that we were

supporting civil partnerships and

gay adoption, we were supporting

that is part of that manifesto, and

Ruth Kelly was opposed to it. I said

to her, in conscience, you shouldn't

be on the front bench of the Labour

Party.

Anne, should Tim Farron have

sorted out in his mind how he should

deal with this, bearing in mind he

was the leader of a British

political party of the Liberal

Democrat party, and would know and

expect there to be questions along

these lines to test those liberal

policies? We have had the debate

about what is liberal and illiberal,

but shouldn't he have expected it

and prepared for it by the Brazil

are a far more democratic and

liberal question would have been,

what is

your records, not your

personal views. The point that he

has tried to make but nobody has

really listen to what he is saying,

is his personal views on this are

not relevant. What is relevant is

his public voting record. Because

his liberalism, you see, what is

truly...

I think that views do

matter.

Let Anne finish.

What is

truly liberal, something that has

been misattributed but his bill a

fabulous quote, what is truly

liberal is to disagree with you and

support you anyway. That is Tim

Farron's record, what his personal

views are...

You are misquoting, is

quoted for there! To defend the

right...

Before we get into this

slightly dense argument, is it

possible, as Anne has said, that you

can have personal views that you

hold there, but actually it doesn't

affect, necessarily, how you lead a

political party. You can still

support LGBT rights.

Absolutely. I

think he needed to make that clear.

Can I make the far bigger point,

which is that, actually, gay young

men and women commit suicide six

times more frequently than their

straight counterparts. Every time

somebody adds into this equation a

little bit more of the kind of

critique and criticism of,

sexuality, whether it is, sexuality

itself, in aid, sexuality, or

whether you engage in sexual acts --

whether it is homosexuality. It adds

that the sense of guilt and shame.

My anxiety for the Church of England

is, which is my church, in 200

years' time, people will say, you

got this completely and utterly

wrong, you now have a situation

where, for clergy, you are allowed

to be gay, you allowed to be in a

Sybil partnership as long as you

swear to god that it is celibate.

This is a nonsense they have got

themselves tied up in knots in.

What

about the case of the Conservative

MP Jacob Rees-Mogg? He is clear

about his views on gay marriage and

abortion, he thinks that same-sex

marriage is wrong. He tells it as it

is, that is the better way to be, is

it?

I think you should be honest and

straightforward, yes. I think that

voters actually respect people's

courage. And if you are prepared to

say, look, I personally think that

homosexuality is wrong or however

you want to frighten it, but I also

believe that the law should treat

everybody equally -- however you

want to frame it.

These people can't

hold high office, is that what you

are saying?

Well, I wouldn't vote

for them.

But can they not hold high

office?

I am not hounding anybody

out of office, I am being very

liberal. Anne can stand for election

but I'm not going to vote for her!

That's fine, I'm quite happy without

your vote, thank you very much.

There I say it, I think you are

contradicting yourself. I totally

agree with you that of course we

must support, you know, we must all

fight for people who feel suicidal

and who feel criticised and got at,

which is why I think it is the

question is self that is illiberal

and homophobic. I think the person

who has dealt with it most widely so

wisely is Justin Welby, he said he

is not going to answer it. And quite

fried, because if you answer it,

that contributes to young people

feeling judged -- quite right. What

is really important is that, to come

back to Tim Farron, his liberalism

is, he is saying, is much more

important in his political career,

and that is what he votes for, than

his personal view about certain

things where he may disagree.

Should he have been cleared the

first time he was asked and stood by

his personal view?

I think he should have done. He was

hounded at the election but because

people thought he was hiding

something.

He should not have too. Is it a fair

question to ask, do you think gay

sex is a sin?

It is a fair question. My answer to

it is, no, I don't.

Can politicians speak freely about

their faith?

This is the underlying thing that

concerns me.

There is a far more

intolerant attitude in Britain than

there used to be. People are often

intolerant of faith, religion,

political views sometimes. We should

be more open to listening.

I sympathise with that but if you

were a young person in his

constituency and went to his surgery

and you were gay and wanted to talk

about the problems you were having,

you might worry if you thought he

was going to say, sexuality is a

sin.

We will have two stop it here. We

did ask Tim Farron to come in for an

interview, but he turned us down.

Delighted that you came here

instead.

Now, the Government has a target

to bring net migration,

that's the difference

between the number of people coming

into the the UK and those leaving,

to less than 100.000.

It currently stands at 230,000.

But should students be

included in those figures?

Currently, they are,

but there's a debate

about whether they should be.

Let's speak to Nick Hillman of the

Higher Education Policy Institute.

Welcome to the programme, can you

explain what you found and how you

calculated it?

We've did a detailed survey of the

benefits to the whole UK of having

international students here, all the

rent they paid, the food they buy,

and we have calculated the costs,

and we found even after you have

taken away the costs, the UK

benefits to the tune of £20 billion

a year from the presence of so many

international students in the UK.

What do you say, should it now be

the case students are excluded from

the net migration figures?

There was a real problem if you

years ago, with bogus colleges, used

as a means of getting into the

country. The Government rightly

tackle that. It is also the case

foreign students in the UK is a huge

export success for Britain,

universities do a brilliant job

bringing money in. And we forge very

good friendships with people who go

back to their own countries, become

great successes in business. A good

for the country as long as they are

genuine degrees.

Should they be taken out other

figures?

I discussed this with a former

Immigration Minister and his answer

is the problem lies with the

statistical authorities which insist

on categorising this as part of

migration. The difficulty for the

Government is to try to change that

and present figures in a different

way makes them look very shifty. The

important thing is we are not

stopping people coming here to

study.

Is that really the justification

because the ONS tells the Government

it can't?

I welcome what Graham says about the

positive grudge which they make. But

I don't agree. What they do in other

countries is the count all the

people coming in including students

but setting migration targets, they

exclude them from the statistics for

that purpose, that is a Government

decision and target.

Mike understanding is it is a

Government decision.

-- My understanding. The Government

is doing nothing to discourage

people from coming to study in the

UK.

It sounds like you would favour if

the Government were to decide to

exclude those students from the

figures, would you support it?

I would be concerned if it would

result in universities and told not

to recruit qualified students from

studying in the UK.

Briefly, isn't the point anyone

coming in and going out should be

part of immigration statistics?

Absolutely. But not in the target. I

hope Graham will look at the Indian

press saying Britain is the least

welcoming country in the world for

international students. Yet we have

the best universities.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, what wasn't

in the hamper presented

by a pro-Brexit delegation

to Michel Barnier yesterday

to advertise British business?

Was it a) Cheddar cheese?

b) PG Tips?

c) Eccles cakes?

Or d) Marmite?

So, Graham, what's

the correct answer?

As a Lancastrian by birth, there

should be Eccles cakes but I wonder

if it is Marmite? I had a terrible

feeling maybe it is being made

somewhere else?

You were on the right track.

Eccles cakes is the answer.

Michel Barnier got an array of

British products.

Let's take a look at

the delivery yesterday.

PG Tips from Manchester, obviously,

you can't ignore that.

We have got some gin from Scotland,

by the way, that could of course be

Scotch whisky in terms of how

British it is.

We've got some wine from England.

We have got some Marmite,

I'm a huge Marmite fan.

That's Burton on Trent's best.

Fantastic English cheeses which I am

sure they will appreciate

because we have got a huge

market in cheese.

We are trying to show once

we leave the European Union,

you will have some great products

that will be able to be sold

still in Europe but we will expand.

Lucky old Michel Barnier.

Well, Steven Woolfe joins

us now from Brussels.

And here in the studio

is the commentator

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

Welcome. What made you choose those

particular products, many of which

we have in our hamper here.

What we had known from Michel

Barnier come he was a huge fan of

Shakespeare and uses quotes from

Winston Churchill. From my

perspective as a Mancunian, I grew

up with PG tips from my grandmother.

And also because it is Unilever, it

shows a positive way we can trade

with an Anglo European business to

show we would be friendly and

working with them in the future. The

idea of having modern products like

gin is to show the expansion of our

ideas in new areas. Michel Barnier

love them, he enjoyed them. I think

his team will enjoy it over the next

few weeks.

What is your problem with these

gifts?

I have no problem. British values,

Shakespeare, he was absolutely

European. There would be no

Shakespeare, Corona, Papua, Rome,

Greek stories. Let us talk about

Eccles cakes, sultanas imported. The

great thing about Britain is it has

always been open, perceptive,

curious. That is the great strength

of this country. I fear at the

moment we are retreating into a

greyness which isn't British at all.

What do you say, that this was

something of a cheap stunt to win

over Michel Barnier which it

probably won't do however generous

you were.

Of course it wasn't a cheap stunt

and his team did not accepted as

that. What he did accept was this

was an offer of friendship to open

up a negotiation and discussion with

him in an open away, and friendly

way, that is exactly what he

accepted. Anyone who understands

European politics and how you talk

to politicians here understand you

have to give them that level of

respect to have proper discussions.

We did discuss what would happen in

negotiations. We talked about the

way we wanted a positive free trade

arrangement. But to remember you

have to comply with the will of

those who voted in the referendum to

leave, and he accepted that, very

clearly, that there will be Brexit

in March 2019, and he is working

towards that.

Even the EU negotiating team are

working in some parts towards the

possibility of a no deal.

Absolutely. They are civilised

people. This is embarrassing to turn

up, there are messages here. Why

would -- How would we feel if they

turned up with pasta and pesto

because they want us to talk to them

nicely? It is a stunt.

nicely? It is a stunt. It makes it

foolish. Show some respect,

actually. I do agree that

negotiations need to be civilised

and respectful. This was a stunt and

it was making something of Britain

which Britain isn't. I am quite

embarrassed you did this.

But do you think it will help in

terms of avoiding the negotiations?

No, what will help, and I hope it

happens, is when both sides are

civilised and realise... Listen, for

centuries, blood has flown between

us and them, and we are much more

united than we seem to be thinking.

That will help. One thing pointed

out is some other products you

included are made by firms who are

worried they will be hit hard by EU

withdrawal, Marmite and PG tips made

by Unilever, the Anglo Dutch

company, warning they might have to

consolidate their headquarters away

from here. Was that a gaffe?

Of course not. You see in many

international meetings, from heads

of states, the Queen, guests are

handed over. That is how we

approached this. Not as a stunt but

as an open hand of friendship to

Michel Barnier. He was meeting for

the first time a group of important

and well spoken leaders, to express

a view across the spectrum from the

Labour Party, conservatives and

those in the centre, with Lord Digby

Jones, that we have strong support

to continue Brexit and despite those

who had turned up and seen him like

Nick Clegg and Andrew Adonis, there

will be no turning back on Brexit.

He was clear, he accepted that.

We seem to have lost him.

Philip Hammond is to tell German

business leaders in Berlin the EU

needs to clarify the post Brexit

relations it wants. Has the UK would

further than the EU?

I thought before Christmas when we

got the agreement on phase one, it

marked a sea change, it seemed much

more constructive from the EU 27.

That this is something that is

happening.

Has the UK moved too far?

No, we're

making good progress and I hope to

see constructive engagement from the

EU continuing.

We will stick this good afterwards!

Bag you for joining us from

Brussels, and here in the studio.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now.

And I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day.