15/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Its employees clean our hospitals

and maintain our railways.

Construction and outsourcing firm

Carillion goes bust -

where does that leave the people

whose wages they pay and the public

services they provide?

Ukip leader Henry Bolton

ditches his girlfriend as he tries

to cling on to the leadership

of his party.

Should her racist messages

cost him his job?

Jeremy Corbyn's grip

on the Labour Party tightens

as allies win key positions

on the party's governing body.

What does it mean for the direction

of the Labour party?

And could anything really be more

important for Europe than Brexit?

Not everything is about you, Great

Britain. Europe isn't out to get

you, we have other things to think

about on the continent, not just

Brexit.

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

are the Conservative MP

and Brexiteer Ann-Marie Trevelyan,

and Labour's Emma Reynolds

who was a firm Remainer.

First this morning, the construction

giant Carillion has announced

it is going into liquidation.

It comes after talks

between the firm, its lenders,

and the Government failed to reach

a deal to save the company.

But what next for the almost 20,000

employees the firm has in the UK,

and for all the services

they're currently providing?

Carillion is a construction

and facilities contractor,

which the Government pays around

£1.7 billion a year for a wide

range of provisions.

For example, the firm is the second

biggest supplier of maintenance

services for Network Rail.

It maintains 50,000 homes

for the Ministry of Defence.

And it manages part

of the contract for HS2.

The firm's debt pile

of roughly £900 million -

and that excludes hundreds

of millions of a pension deficit -

stems partly from three major

public-private projects,

building the Midland Metropolitan

Hospital in Birmingham,

the Royal Liverpool University

Hospital, and the new

Aberdeen bypass.

The Government's facing questions

about why it contracted Carillion

for more services after the firm

posted the first of several

profit warnings last July.

Even after the share price

plummeted, the Government awarded

Carillion part of a contract

with two other companies

to work on HS2 - a contract

worth £1.4 billion.

The Government also granted the firm

further contracts to work

on military sites and railway lines,

collectively worth hundreds

of millions of pounds.

Despite crunch talks

to save Carillion from going under,

it announced today it didn't

have the financial backing

to continue operations.

Cabinet Office minister

David Lidington said the firm's

staff would continue to be paid,

and that services would continue

to be provided either "in-house"

or by alternative contractors.

Well, earlier, David Lidington

was asked why the Government had

continued to award contracts

to Carillion even after the company

issued profit warnings.

Each department operated

on the basis of the publicly known

legal rules that govern the award

of Government contracts,

and, in the way that

I've just described,

if you look at those central

Government contracts that

were agreed which involve Carillion

post-July 2017 you will see

that they had joint-venture partners

who are there to take up the slack,

and so that risk was covered.

To get the latest on this,

we're joined by our business

correspondent Jamie Robertson.

Jamie, you heard David Lidington

there, he said Karelian's debts came

primarily from the non-public side,

is that correct?

It seems to be at

the moment. A lot of the debt was

involved in a lot of the public

projects but where the problem

comes, beside the company having

debt, but a lot of the problems come

from the fact that they were not

getting payments, payments were

being delayed on many foreign

contracts, particularly in the

Middle East, it appears. So they

have a cash probe problem weather

cannot finance their debt, then the

bank, they asked for an extra £300

million, the banks have basically

said no, and that is how we find

ourselves in the situation we are in

at the moment.

If the Government had refused

further contract back in July when

the profit warnings were posted,

what would have been the outcome?

I

think the crisis would have happened

even earlier. One of the problems

you are faced with when you have a

profit warning, how do you get out

of it? One of the best ways is to

have new profitable contracts to

give you better cash flow and some

way of financing your debt, if you

don't get those contract you will

not be able to, it will become more

difficult to finance that debt. So

in a way the fact that they were

getting new contracts with the way

of helping them but it simply wasn't

enough, the black hole, as it were,

in terms of financing the debt, was

too big.

The Number Ten spokesperson

this morning has said that

contingency measures were put in

place once that first profit warning

was released and I take your point

saying that what they needed were

new contracts to keep afloat but

clearly the contingency measures

that the Government said were in

place failed?

Yes, it is not so much

the contingency measures in terms of

keeping the project going, we will

have do see now how effective they

are at picking up the slack, picking

up the collapsed contracts, how the

Government can pick them up and how

the private sector can pick them up.

The real danger, I think we will

find, is the hiatus that occurs

between these contracts ceasing, as

it were, and being taken over either

by the public sector or private

sector, and what happens to those

subcontractors who were contracted

to do much of this work? Will they

get paid on time, will they get paid

at all? I think that is where the

problems, we simply don't know how

big a problem it is giving to be,

but we are talking about here supply

chain with something like £3 billion

a year in terms of contracts both

here in the UK and abroad, and for

of these companies who are providing

services to Carillion, being paid on

time becomes extremely important and

if you have a hiatus, a delay which

goes on for several months, you will

see some of these companies getting

into real problems.

Thank you very

much.

We're joined to discuss

this by the leader of

the Liberal Democrats,

Sir Vince Cable.

On that one point, before I go to

Ann-Marie Trevelyan, £3 billion in

the supply chain, what will happen

to those companies while they wait

to see what happens?

Well, the

optimistic outcome is the Government

takes some of these contracts

in-house, Reid tenders, the

workforce is kept together, I think

a lot of the highly skilled people

will be saved but there is

potentially massive disruption. I

think one of the things we ought to

be looking at, the Government ought

to be looking at, we have the

British bank, it is there to provide

flows of credit for small business

and trying to put in place supply

chain finances, something the

Government could and should be

doing.

Is there going to be a

significant cost to the taxpayer

well this process is going on?

There

is going to be a significant cost to

the taxpayer not least because the

taxpayer has taken on the pension

protection fund liabilities which

are massive, 600, 800 billion, the

pensioners themselves will take a

cut from that, the Government is on

the hook. What will anger people so

much is the taxpayer is going to

finish up paying a substantial bill

for this collapse while at the same

time I think the hedge funds have

pocketed 300 million effectively

gambling against Government

decisions. The chief executive of

the company whose misjudgements

caused all of this pocketed 6

million in bonuses, still being paid

a full salary. That is the kind of

injustice that does get people very

angry about the way that these

public sector contracts are run.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan, are you angry

about the fact that the taxpayer

will shoulder the burden for what

has gone wrong?

We have the pension

protection scheme to ensure that

when a private company does for

Labour we can protect pensions, that

is really important. The challenge

we have got and what concerns me,

and I have had constituents who run

subcontracting firms over the

weekend, is that we make sure that

the cash flow does not mean that

those working for Carillion

directly, those jobs will be secure,

and we must make sure and the

Government is working incredibly

hard to look at that bigger picture

and understand what the official

receiver will need in terms of

practical support to ensure those

contracts can be rolled out and that

jobs are not at risk further down

the scale.

So you will be looking

for guarantees from Government on

that?

The Government has

said this morning they will do

everything to support the official

receiver with the official

Government contract in place, so

there will be disruption, I'm sure,

but those projects are still needed

and those jobs will be supported and

financed accordingly and we will be

paying, as we were paying Carillion

before, the official receiver will

now be the person the Government is

dealing with.

What do you say to

those employees whose pensions are

going to be cut?

That is one of the

great frustrations when a private

sector company does fail, but the

fact there is the pension protection

scheme means 85% of the pension is

protected, it is one of the great

frustration and something the Prime

Minister has talked about so much,

she wants to make sure that business

works well and shareholders are

allowed to stand up to

directors when they are making poor

decisions for their employees and

shareholders.

So should the

Government have continued to Brad

contracts, quite a significant

number of contracts, to Carillion

after its first profit warning in

July?

As your business correspondent

said, the challenge for business, it

is an enormous business where cash

flow becomes a problem for some

reason and some of the Middle East

and contracts seem to be the cause

of it, continuing to work your way

through that can often work when you

bring in new contracts, providing

good service, so I think the

Government did make sure the

contingency framework was in place

because contracts brought up since

that point last summer have been in

joint venture arrangements at the

risk is mitigated.

That is the

Government's justification and we

heard our business correspondent

saying that by providing more

contracts to Carillion lustre like

it did actually keep the company

going, it would have just collapsed

earlier?

I don't really buy that,

you asked whether Ann-Marie was

angry, I am angry on behalf of the

taxpayer and the 20,000 people up

and down the country whose jobs are

at risk, including 400 in

Wolverhampton at the HQ and as you

know I am a Wolverhampton MP. I

think there are serious questions

that need answers about why they

were grunting more contracts when,

in July, there was a profit warning,

but also the Government has a right

to appoint a crown representative to

monitor what is going on in

companies such as these, this is a

company that has over 450 Government

project, it is a huge company and we

are now seeing the result,

unfortunately, not only of

incompetence of the company itself

but incompetence of the Government

in the way they have handled these

contracts.

Do you accept some of

these employees could have lost

their jobs earlier if in fact

Carillion had collapsed back in July

after that first and second profit

warning?

Who is to know exactly what

could have happened, but why didn't

the Government have a better grip of

what was happening within the

company after the profit warning?

They could have appointed this crown

representative that they have every

right to do, as far as I am aware

they did not, so they should have

known more than they did, or they

did no more and they are not telling

us,

so we need an investigation into

what they did know.

Should those

contingency measures, as they asked

Vince Cable, should they have been

more robust because it was clear

that the company was struggling, and

was it corrected to award the large

number of contract after the profit

warning?

The Government has been

clear, David Lidington and Chris

Grayling have set up of the contract

were joint venture arrangement after

the profit warning to the risk was

mitigated in that framework and that

is something that I have no doubt

the Government and official receiver

will move forward is to make sure

those contracts can roll out in a

new format but there will be

frustration which is frustrating for

everyone, particularly for those for

whom there is a lack of certainty in

the week that.

Let's look at the

broad philosophy of these contracts,

is it correct now, should the

Government continued to award these

sorts of contracts to companies like

Carillion?

Well, they can do a

certain amount in house, and

probably should do, I suspect that

the outsourcing revolution has gone

too far and as a result we are

getting in situations of this kind.

But when the Government cannot seem

to do its tendering properly it is

difficult to imagine it can run

these companies properly so we are

going to have to have a relationship

with the private sector, many very

good private companies that did not

have that kind of extreme leveraged

that Carillion had, and the

Government is going

to have to work out how to work with

them but the basic principles have

got to be that we cannot have a

situation where companies make

profit in good time and off-load

losses when they fail, we cannot

have companies that are too big to

fail, those are the basic

principles. Tendering should

probably operate more on the

principle of allowing in directly a

lot of the smaller subcontractors so

we are not overdependent on big tier

one companies of this kind.

Although

that was the case during the

coalition Government as well. You

think it now should be reduced. Do

you agree? Jeremy Corbyn says it is

unsustainable that there should not

be big private companies like

Carillion awarded these contracts,

should they all be brought in house

and publicly run?

I think it is a

question as to whether they should

all be publicly run but we should

view quite how many are tendered out

and we have to look at how this is

done. I have reservations about, for

example, Vince was talking earlier

about the level of remuneration that

was granted to the upper echelons of

this company at a time when it was

in dire straits, and it is the lower

paid people down the chain who will

suffer, and yet the former chief

executive who provided over this

mismanagement was given a 1.5

million pay-out and then there was

even more on top of that, so there

are big questions to answer as to

what exactly is taxpayers' money

going to, is it going into

remuneration for the chief

executives but then we are not

seeing services provided?

Should

some of that salary package be

clawed from Carillion? £660,000

salary paid over 12 months, £28,000

of benefits, and even more money

into his pension?

The Prime Minister has raised the

question of those huge salaries.

Should he have been paid it though?

If the shareholders are agreeing,

within the private sector framework

we have and the laws that exist at

the moment, that is an acceptable

thing for a company to do. I think

the question of whether it is enough

and whether shareholders feel they

have enough to stand up and disagree

with that, if they feel... Someone

doing a great job for a huge

organisation, running a complex set

of projects, well remunerated, I

have no...

Can you justify it to

your efficients that he continues to

get that -- constituents that he

continues to get that money now the

firm has gone bust?

He won't now it

has gone bust. The official

receiver...

He's receiving 12

months' pay, should he get all that

money in

It is a question for the

receiver to identify.

What do you

think?

Honestly, I don't think

people should be rewarded for

failure. The contact he set up is

one they have to honour at the time.

The question is whether the

shareholder empowerment is strong

enough.

Should the bonuses will be

clawed back?

I should think so. In

principal it is an absolute outrage

that that you have rewards for

failure.

It is taxpayers' money.

Let's go back to whether whether all

private-public contracts should be

brought back in house. You said

some. You disagree with your party's

leadership that they should come to

an end.

I don't know whether the

Government has capacity to provide

all of the services that are, you

know, currently contracted out. But

I agree with Jeremy Corbyn. At the

moment, what we are doing, is we are

taking the risk from the public

sector and we're putting it into the

private sector and there are some of

these companies who are taking on

this risk and see what happens in

the case of Carillion. That is not

the case for every company that's

taken on cob contracts from the

Government. Yes yes, I think this

needs looking at. I do think that

the taxpayer should be rightly angry

about what has happened in this

case.

case.

Of

It is how you reward these

contracts and who you reward them

to.

Do you think it should be

reviewed and many of these contracts

should be brought back in house?

The

Government needs to be robust. There

are these huge complex contracts.

The Government has proven itself

over decades never to be the best

organisation to run these things.

What is your solution?

Having the

private sector lead on those, you

know, is a good relationship where

it works. The question here of

whether the risk management within

the company and the directorship

failed to what was needed, it is one

we need to think about as Government

and make sure that the Government's

arrangements and the directors are

held to account early on, so that

these sort of risk failures can not

happen. That is a cash flow question

and it is one that we see. In this

instance it is a company that has

collected over a number of years an

enormous amount of Government

contracts.

Thank you.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today

is which political dining

establishment is attempting to win

a michelin star?

Is it...

A - Granita in Islington,

scene of the Blair-Brown pact.

B- Maidenhead Spice, a curry house

in Theresa May's constituency?

C - The House of Commons restaurant?

Or D - Archway Kebab, Jeremy

Corbyn's favourite falafel joint?

At the end of the show Emma

and Anne-Marie will give us

the correct answer.

It is an easy one!

Now, can you name all

the people who have led Ukip

since the referendum?

No, it's not just another quiz,

because we may be about to see

its fifth or is it seventh leader

since the EU referendum.

Henry Bolton, the current incumbent,

is hanging on for now,

but calls for the 54-year-old

to resign have grown louder

since racist messages sent

by his 25-year-old girlfriend,

Jo Marney, were published

in yesterday's Mail On Sunday.

Mr Bolton has said

that the "romantic side"

of his relationship with Ms Marney

has now ended, and he defended his

position on the Today

programme this morning.

I have been accused of poor judgment

when four days into a relationship I

didn't know what she was putting out

on direct Facebook messages and on

her twitter.

Maybe the poor judgment

was taking up with her in the way

you did as publicly as you did and

as quickly as you did.

Yes. It

happened the way that it did. There

was no intent to deceive anybody.

Indeed, the day that we realised

that we'd been photographed together

we immediately made a statement

because I had no wish to deceive

anybody or hide anything.

And we're joined now

from Shropshrie by the former

deputy chair of Ukip,

Suzanne Evans.

Welcome. Should Henry Bolton go?

Unfortunately, I think he should. I

say that with a very heavy heart

because the last thing we need is

another leadership election. We had

great hopes for Henry Bolton. He

promised us he'd be the safe pair of

hands after a very rough journey

over the last couple of years with

so many different leaders.

Unfortunately, he wasn't, was he? I

don't think he has much choice. I

think it would be better for him if

he were to resign. If he doesn't, I

fear that the special meeting that's

been called on Sunday of our

National Executive Committee, where

I gather there'll be a voice of no

confidence tabled, I suspect that

vote will be won.

You say he should

go because he's not been sensible

either. What has he actually done

wrong in your mind?

I think he's

brought the party into disrepute.

Certainly people have been kicked

out of the party for that in the

past. I think he's shown, as was

questioned on the Today Programme

this morning, I think he's shown an

astonishing lack of judgment. I

understand when he was involved in

the leadership campaign he portrayed

himself as a family man, a capable

man, a man who would do the right

thing. And I think many of us are

questioning, notwithstanding the

fact that politicians have the right

to a private life. I think if you

put yourself in the public eye, you

are held up to higher standards. I

think he has left his wife,

apparently, for a woman who is

younger than his youngest daughter,

who has turned out to hold some very

reprehensible views. I wonder what

he means by saying he's ended the

romantic side of their relationship.

Does this mean he will carry on

taking her counsel on matters? The

mind rather boggles. I think it is

all rather embarrassing. It has once

again brought the party into

disrepute. It is deeply upsetting.

What will it achieve having another

leadership contest? If he goes as

well, that will be four leaders

since the referendum, not counting

the interims. Does it just show that

you cannot get a sensible person to

run the party, to use your words?

I

absolutely dispute that. I am sure

we can. I think the problem has

actually been that Nigel Farage has

had too much influence in choosing

successive leaders of Ukip. He was a

great leader. He never really had a

successor, he's backed several

candidates. In fact he's backed all

the candidates in the last four

leadership elections we've had,

candidates who have failed. That is

a shame. His influence has meant the

wrong have been selected. We had

Diane James, who lasted 18 days and

it got worse. That.

Do you think if

he didn't have as much influence you

might be the leader of Ukip now?

I

think I might have been, yes. I

think that's right. But you know,

Nigel Farage decreed that I should

never be leader of Ukip.

So, you

will not stand if there is another

leadership election?

No. Absolutely

no point. Absolutely no point. For

the reasons I have just outlined. I

think it cost £5,000 to stand in an

election leadership for Ukip. I have

lost it once. I am not prepared to

lose it again. I have better ways to

spend my money. I think it is a

disagree for a party of the people,

so called party of the people to

charge so much for somebody to stand

in a leadership election.

Do you

remember that Nigel Farage might do

another U-turn and stand again?

He

might well. If there were a vacancy.

I gather he's ruled it out at the

moment. He'd have to weigh up his

own pros and cons. He's losing his

job as an MEP shortly. On the down

side he'd have to give up the media

career he's tried to forge for

himself.

Why are you still in the

party?

Well, you know, Jo, I don't

quit just when the going gets tough.

I still think there is a need for

Ukip in British politics. I want to

make sure we get out of the European

Union properly. Not just in name

only. That we actually do fully take

back control and lead properly. I

think we need a party like Ukip to

keep snapping at the heels of the

Government who don't always seem to

grasp the nettle and capitulate to

the EU for mine and most Ukipers

liking. It is important to keep

fighting that fight.

Thank you very

much.

Now, we've had an election result

within the last hour -

three candidates have been elected

to sit on Labour's National

Executive Committee,

which is the party's ruling body.

The three winning candidates

were all backed by the pro-Jeremy

Corbyn group Momentum -

and it's thought could change

the balance of power on the NEC

in favour of left of the party...

There were a total of nine

candidates running for three

new places on the National Executive

Committee.

The three winning candidates

were Jon Lansman, the founder

of Momentum, and two other

candidates backed

by the organisation -

Yasmine Dar and Rachel Garnham.

It's thought that the balance

of power on the NEC has now been

shifted decisvely in favour

of Jeremy Corbyn and

the left of the party.

Separately, there is also an ongoing

review into the internal democracy

of the Labour Party,

which is being carried

out by Jeremy Corbyn's

close ally Katy Clark.

The first set of proposals

from the democracy review will be

discussed by the NEC next week.

I am joined Do you think this will

shift the party further to the left?

I don't think it will do anything

other than reflect what the party is

doing. The results are reflective of

what the people think already.

It

has taken up a lot of time and

money.

With such a huge membership

now. 600,000, it was necessary to

have more representation of Labour

members on the nek. That is

something -- on the NEC. That is

something important to all in the

party.

Do you accept that?

Absolutely. The Labour Party has

always been a Broadchurch. We have

more unity of purpose, getting this

Government out of office, than we

have for some time. I had people

helping me in Wolverhampton from

across the spectrum of the Labour

Party. We all get on extremely well

and we all have a single mission and

that is to have a Labour Government

in this country rather than a Tory

Government.

You are happy it is

reflecting the membership at large?

There was an election. There were

three new members, as Michael

explained because of the extent of

the membership, we've had more

members join than ever before. I

accept that. These people have won

places on the NEC. Three out of 39

places, by the way. Let's not

over-egg the pudding. I know the

media likes to always shine a light

on the Labour Party and its

elections.

So you don't think it

will have a significant impact?

It

remains to be seen. We have a unity

of purpose that perhaps we didn't a

year ago. I think that is only a

good thing.

Is it something to cheer

about in your mind that there are

more people who are very much behind

Jeremy Corbyn's view and vision for

the Labour Party?

Well Jeremy Corbyn

has done better at the election than

many thought. We didn't win the

election. Obviously we lost the

election. We ran the Conservatives

very close. Now they have to rule

with the DUP. So, as I have said, I

think the election brought us

together as a party and a political

movement and I think that can only

be a good thing.

Jon Lansman, the

founder of Momentum said there's no

reason for any hard-working MP who

campaigns hard with their

constituents and the members of

their local party to feel nervous

about anything. That implies that

there will be a judgment made about

some MPs on mandatory reselection.

Jon has made it clear he's not in

favour of that across the board. We

should take about how we hold MPs

accountable. As Jon made clear, if

MPs engage with their constituents

and have the support of the people

they represent, which is vital in a

functioning democracy then they have

nothing to worry about.

If they

don't reflect the views of Labour

Party members perhaps from Momentum,

do they still have a right to stay

as an MP?

As far as I am concerned,

it is up to constituents in each

constituency to decide who

represents them and how.

Should

there be a debate about mandatory

reselection? Although Jon Lansman

may not want a broad based

reselection, is calling for it in

parts of London. He thinks parts

should be re-run?

I disagree with anyone who is

calling for mandatory reselection of

MPs. We have always been a broad

church and the bitterness that we

have seen over the last couple of

years and some of the rows we have

had, we need to put that behind us

and we need for the parliamentary

party, the membership and leadership

to work together, because actually

this Government is on the ropes and

that is what we should be focused

on, taking the fight to the Tories,

rather than obsessing about internal

procedures and introducing things

which will only create a division

and bitterness, so I don't think

there should be mandatory

reselection.

I can't say it either!

We did have progress from another

wing of the party who feel that this

is an attempt to take over the

Labour Party...

I hope that it

isn't, and I hope that the review

that is going on will not conclude

that we need mandatory reselection

because I think that will be very,

very bad for the sense of unity of

purpose I have talked about that has

been created during the election

campaign and since.

Jon Lansman also

wants the threshold for the next

leadership contest nominations to be

lowered, do you agree?

I think that

the current threshold is about

right. I do think that the leader of

the Labour Party needs to have the

confidence of his or her MPs, that

is important.

Do you think that or

do you agree with Jon Lansman that

it should be lowered below the 15%

to 10%, 5% or in his case scrapped

altogether?

As far as I'm concerned,

Labour MPs are there to reflect

their constituents, I would like to

see a threshold in place which means

no wing of the party is kept out...

They haven't been, have they?

It was

close with Jeremy Corbyn the first

time round. If it is left as it is,

in the future MPs on either side of

the party are left out, to me that

is important, they are there to

represent their constituents. I

think the democracy is in three

stages, we have only just had the

first, which looked a women's

membership, BME and Young Labour,

areas where we can agree more work

needs to be done, and I don't know

what is to be senior, as far as I am

concerned the 600,000 members Labour

have need to have more of a say in

the way the party functions whether

that be policy or selection of MPs,

whether it be community engagement

around the country, the more of that

the better, and I think that is what

the review will see, but whatever

happens in the review it will not be

signed off by Jeremy Corbyn, it will

go to the Labour Conference next

year and the membership at the

Conference will decide what happens

next.

The Tories have a lot to learn

about swelling the ranks of their

membership, bearing in mind,

although we cannot get a clear

figure, the Tories are probably

fallen well below 100,000 members?

With Brandon Lewis committed party

chairman, his focus is to grow that

base but also something we have seen

with Labour is that you have brought

in people who have been activists

into the membership, is something,

certainly I have hundreds of people

who are activists with me in

Northumberland but probably only 100

of them are party members, it is not

perhaps something if you support

Conservative causes you feel the

need to be part of the party to

support it in different ways, but

what is interesting in the

north-east, personally I'm not a

great fan of the hard left of Labour

and I would support a balance in the

Labour Party, I have many, many

hundreds of thousands of people

voting for me in the north-east,

Labour voters who are really not

supporting the Jeremy Corbyn

project, and that tells me something

about how you need to carry on if

you are serious about taking us on

but the reality is that voters are

frightened by that hard left

position that Jeremy Corbyn and John

McDonnell are driving forwards.

What

do you say to that?

Well, we took

Canterbury from the Tories, nobody

saw that coming, we took many seats

that were not predicted so I think

the Tories need to reflect on that.

Thank you very much.

Now, the Government has a target

to reduce net migration -

that's the difference

between the number of people leaving

and the number arriving in the UK -

to less than 100,000 a year.

The figure currently stands

at 230,000, and yesterday

on the Sunday Politics

the new Immigration Minister

Caroline Nokes was asked

whether the Government

was still committed to that target.

Why have this target of reducing net

migration to under 100,000?

There are lots of Cabinet ministers

who'd like to get rid of it.

You could have left it out

of the 2017 manifesto and got rid

of quite a headache.

You know, we had a referendum

in 2016 which sent us

a very clear message,

that people want to see

that target remain.

They want to see us reducing

immigration to sustainable

levels and we're doing exactly that.

You're right.

It was there in the manifesto.

So that is the direction of travel.

We're joined in the studio now

by Sunder Katwala whose think

tank British Future has been

involved in conducting a series

of focus groups around the country

on public attitudes to immigration.

Welcome to the Daily Politics, what

did you find?

We have been to 60

places around the country, the

largest exercise in public

engagement, we went to Wolverhampton

last year, going to Berwick in the

spring, we want to get all the

different kinds of places and while

we know some people are very pro-or

anti-immigration, we hear that

online and in the media, most people

are balanced, most people think of

the pressures on public services,

think there are games for the

economy, we have big decisions to

make now, how do you strike the

balance between what the economy

need and what the public are

confident about how what it is

managed to have a system in the

future?

When you spoke to people

across the country in the focus

groups you were doing, was the

impression that they want

immigration to come down

significantly?

The biggest issues

for people are a lack of confidence

in

control and management about

immigration and integration and a

lack of public voice in how you have

your say about that and who listened

and how it is heard. Some people

would strongly reduce immigration,

most people would say, I might

reduce some things but not other

things. Almost no people would

reduce the number of students, very

few would reduce the number of

people doing highly skilled jobs, it

is moreover division politically

about controlling low skilled

immigration and not reducing other

work. People think they want to

protect refugees but they are not

sure how well it works in practice,

what the system is like, what

integration is like, it is not one

size fits all.

Do you think the

characterisation of millions of

people voting Leave that their sole

reason behind it was to bring down

immigration, that it was wrong?

Immigration was definitely important

for a lot of people, of issues like

sovereignty were important, but

those people for whom immigration

was an issue, only a minority are

saying shut the Borders, still less

send them all back, everyone agrees

that the people here should stay.

Then there is a debate about what

control looks like. The current

target has always been missed, it

has not worked well, but can we

involve the public in what kind of

target are clear and accessible,

give them the kind of controls they

want, and can we deal with the local

impacts, which are different

everywhere about the pace of

immigration and whether it has been

handled well?

Ann-Marie Trevelyan,

listening to that, is there any

point in having the target that has

been repeatedly missed going forward

again?

The point of having a target

is having something to focus on and

Caroline Nokes made that clear...

She did, but do you agree, bearing

in mind you missed it time and time

again to bring it down to tens of

thousands...

Vicky, as a Brexiteer

who spent a very lot of time last

year campaigning for Brexit,

absolutely the message was a level

of control about immigration so we

can talk to people directly about

how it is exactly right, that lived

experience in our communities, the

need for highly skilled specialists

who are global, that is not in

question, it is understanding how we

can support, and key is to meet the

skills gap, there is a skills gap in

the UK, we must not be afraid to say

so, we must work hard investing in

that, this year the year of the

engineer, fantastic

initiative...

How do you explain, if

it is about bringing back control,

the Government missing the target

from non-EU immigration, they have

not even been able to bring that

down to the levels that would have

fitted the target?

That fits with

the skills gap question, but really

by having this focus and making sure

that if a key part...

You have had

this focus for years.

But whilst we

were still in the EU it was less

focused on Bennett needed to be,

that maybe one of the reason why so

many people chose to vote Leave,

having the question of who is here

is important to the British people.

Do you accept that the public, as

Sunder says, do not want to replace

something for nothing, they want a

target in terms of bringing back

control, if you write?

I think

Sunder is right that people have

gotten much more nuanced view

than is often explained, that there

may be two groups of people, one

very pro-immigration and one very

anti-immigration but the bigger

group of people are somewhere in the

middle. I think the Government is

wrong to focus on the number, and I

tell you why, because the more that

they missed the target, and people

do care about it, they will create

even more mistrust about whether

they can manage immigration when

they could not even hit the target

for Don EU migrants, as you pointed

out, so I think this should be a

much more nuanced conversation with

the British public than a number,

and the problem with a number is

that it creates mistrust if you

don't get that.

So he would not have

a number? You would not have a

target?

I would not have a number

and a target and I would say to

people that we have to manage the

local impacts, made sure there are

families comedian whose children

don't have English as their first

language that we need to give

schools more money to cope with

that, I would say that, actually,

and I think Sunder has done some

work on this, that when it comes to

low skilled, even with the approach

and attitude to low skilled workers,

there are nuances.

Is that white

Leave won the recommend, because

people like you are promising to

stay in the single market where

there would be no control over

immigration and you would not

control it at all?

I do not remember

saying any of that.

You said you

don't want a target.

That is

different saying I think the

Government should manage the system.

Would you have a level for net

migration?

I would not have a target

that I would miss year on year for

seven years in a row that people do

not have confidence in, no, because

it is a record of failure, setting

yourself up for failure and for even

more distrust within the public.

Do

you think that will lose more trust

from people, not having a target?

I

think you have to involve the public

now in the approach we set. Arguing

about this target now, we have to

design the system, that is what

matters. People felt this was very

important that they got to have

their say, they felt it was overdue,

they felt it was cathartic. When he

said the referendum is the end and

the Government will sort it out, one

of the important things is let's do

this every year, let's have an

annual immigration report like the

budget, that is a structure,

conversation around the country,

refer to NHS trusts and businesses

who want immigration, we have heard

about people worried about the

change, here is how we are striking

the balance, so the referendum must

not be the end of the public

involvement, we must involve the

public in the new targets.

Would you

involve the public in setting the

target?

It is an interesting

question of having an annual report

because that is what people choose

to make sure they have a way to be

heard and clearly if Government can

find a system that works and there

is a balance it would be

reflected...

If they said, we would

like 150,000, for example, like Andy

Street, in fact, who was your

conservative would you take that on

board?

We are going to take control

of all of our immigration policy and

how we manage this...

So how haven't

you managed non-EU migration when

you do have control?

It is a

question of getting the framework in

place, I like the idea of that

annual stamping of where Government

is that going forward is because it

will be ours to determine without

external influences and to set that

out very clearly so that the public

can understand how Government is

thinking and how business and public

sector is feeding into the system.

Sunder Katwala, thank you for coming

in.

Now, perfidious, petulant perhaps -

but has Brexit also revealed

the British to be pompous?

Surely not...

Here's German journalist

John Junclaussen's Soapbox.

Rule Britannia.

Hear the British lion roar.

And of course when you're not

as dignified as the Queen

or as funky as Meghan and Harry,

rest assured the rest

of the world is listening.

But when it comes to politics,

and more specifically to Brexit,

I think it's quite clear it's

the British lion who has

to do some listening.

I spend half of my life in this

country, but Brexit has brought out

something in the Brits that I hadn't

encountered before, a kind

of national egotism and a vanity.

Everywhere there's talk about the EU

wanting to punish Britain.

What's that all about?

You leave the club.

That's fine.

But if the rest of the member-states

then want to decide among

themselves what to do next,

you think they're out to get you.

Really?

You talk about 'no deal'

until the cows come home.

But if the EU only mentions 'no

deal' the Brexit Minister gets all

flustered and writes angry letters.

This is not just about you, Britain.

This is about the future

of Europe, too.

In the last 18 months,

endless line-ups of pompous

Brexiteers have warned German car

manufacturers that 'no deal'

would mean armies of newly

unemployed workers in Stuttgart

and Wolfsburg, as UK sales plummet.

What a load of nonsense.

You know what, these markets are far

more complicated than such black

and white scenarios imply.

Not everything is about

you, Great Britain.

Europe isn't out to get you.

They have other things to think

about on the continent,

not just Brexit.

So you should just get over yourself

and stop being so self-obsessed.

And John Jungclaussen joins

us now in the studio.

Protecting himself on my left. Are

you a pompous Brexiteer. I am half

French. I am a great lover of all

things European. For me it is about

trading relationships and a

different relationship with our

European neighbours. But I will

continue to love them all, as I

always have done. Has it been

self-obsessed the argument going

forward and totally miss

characterises the rest of Europe is

feeling?

I don't know. When I am in

European countries I talk very

honestly about the view I would like

my country no long tore be in the

EU. That does not negate the other

relationships.

Aren't you being rude

- pompous, you are saying we are

self-obsessed...

In a charming way.

Last summer, when after the Paris

bombings, the EU introduced new

security measures. Every single

newspaper and media article,

including the BBC were convinced

that the Europeans were doing this

that thousands of Europeans were

happily standing in queues at

airports to punish the Brits. That

is a self-obsession.

I wouldn't say

anyone would... No-one ever wrote to

me complaining about that.

How did

you feel? It was an issue,

deliberately punishing Britain

because of Brexit. Do you think the

EU is, through these negotiations,

punishing Britain?

That is a very

strange perspective. It is the...

It

is not just the media. Politicians

lined up, too.

I wouldn't have done.

I think the reality is everyone

understands the security threat...

What's the problem, the agreement

made it difficult for European

countries to manage their security.

Certain politicians made the point

that you are making now.

I

I think

it is very sad. As someone who

travels a lot, I have noticed the

fluidity between borders. I I think

it is sad if that use of those

changing, particularly when it is

security environments, have caused

those aggressive commentary, when

that is not what it should be about.

There are people who would say, why

shouldn't... You have an apology

here on air. Some may say why

shouldn't the EU punish Britain. If

Britain wants to leave, these are

negotiations. Shouldn't they be

making it difficult?

Think I the

EU's starting point is if you no

longer want to be a member of the

club, you will no longer enjoy all

of its benefits. I think that is a

rational starting point. If you are

a member of a golf club or a

political party you have certain

benefits derived from that

membership. I certainly think they

want to discourage other

member-states from going down that

particular track. But I also agree

with John that there are different

things in Europe. For example, in

Italy, where there is a general

election coming up, there is big

talk about the refugee crisis and

how it has affected Italy. In

Germany, the discussion has

obviously been, how do they form a

Government, which has been the

number one priority.

So they have

other things to think about.

Brexit

is a priority here because there is

a lot of uncertainty for business

and there are risks to our economy

if we get the wrong deal and if we

cast ourselves adrift from our

closest trading partners.

Why is

Labour pursuing a let's have our

cake and eat it policy, so that is

the policy they are trying to pursue

by not being clear about membership

of the single market or the Customs

Union?

My view is that the economy

has to come first and we are more

deeply integrated with the rest of

the European economy than any other

economy around the world. For

example, Airbus make planes. The

wings are made here in the UK. They

are taken over to France, where they

are put together with parts from

Germany. We have integrated supply

chains. If there is disruption to

those supply chains that could cause

us great difficulties for jobs,

investment and the wider economy.

This is not scaremongering. These

are issues that companies have been

raising, with the Government and

others for some time now. It is

something we need to get a handle

on.

What did you think when Jeremy

Corbyn said, leaving the EU means

you leave the single market?

Well

not necessarily, factually I don't

agree with me.

Because you would

cite Norway, for example?

Yes.

He's

rejected Nicola Sturgeon's plea,

which is saying this is the way to

go forward for a least damaging

Brexit. Should he be in talks with

the SNP?

I think the SNP are

ploughing their own Pharaoh to be

honest, frankly.

It is one you agree

with.

Yes, but one of the things

that the SNP want to do is to have a

different agreement for Scotland

than for the rest of the UK.

Scotland, thankfully, is still part

of the UK. Therefore, they will be

part of the UK deal, because that is

the case.

Should he have rejected

those meetings out of hand, Jeremy

Corbyn?

That is up to our party

leader and I respect his decision if

he has other things that are

pressing. As I say, I do think the

SNP have their own priorities. And

they are different to ours, with

regards to trying to create a

situation whereby they have their

own arrangements, which I think is

untenable, given they are part of

the UK.

They are clear about what

they want?

Yes. She has been clear.

She's always clear about what she

wants.

Has Jeremy Corbyn been

totally clear about Labour's policy?

I would like to see a different

approach, but I respect the approach

he's taking. I think there is some

discussion, I mean, in the Labour

Party right now, as to exactly what

our approach should be. I don't

think we should take thing things

off the table. That is my position.

What do you think about the idea of

a second referendum n the way that

Nigel Farage entertained?

No thank

you.

Not ever?

We had a referendum.

It was in our manifesto. The British

people gave a resounding vote. 14.4

million people voted to leave. The

Government has taken that message

very clearly and is driving

forwards, leaving the EU, which is

what we're doing. Members, you know,

of Parliament are speaking, I think

one of the interesting things about

having a much more balanced House of

Commons than perhaps was expected,

following the June election, is that

voices are genuinely being heard

from across the House and the deal

will reflect the British people in a

way that we actually should be

really proud of. I am very

comfortable. We do not need to do

anything. We are driving forwards

what was asked for last year.

Do you

think Brexit will actually happen?

Yes. I do.

In term oss the second

referendum.

referendum. Emily Thornberry said

90% would have to swing behind a

second referendum. Is that too high

for you?

I agree with her that I

don't think there is a public

appetite for a second referendum. It

was quite a scaring experience. It

was quite a divisive thing. And I

certainly don't want to see more of

Nigel Farage on telly.

Right. That is fairly clear. What do

you make of the sort of spectacle,

if you like, of different British

politicians all lining up

politicians all lining up Barnier,

and some way to influence him in

future negotiations?

That is part of

the British, the aim was to divide

and conquer, I guess. There are 27

member-states. 27 Parliaments have

to ratify whatever agreement they

reach in the end.

reach in the end. And of course

Barnie...

Are you telling me off for

my pronunciation?

He's not got

perhaps the strongest set of

characters facing him

across the table from the set out

wider is sensible.

There were impact

assessments and then minister.

Yes.

Let me break this up. Would you like

to be a fly on the fall when your

colleagues go to see Michel Barnier?

I am sure he will be thrilled to

hear their perspective.

Now, it's already shaping up to be

a busy week in Westminster -

and it's only Monday.

Here's our guide to what's

happening in The Week Ahead.

This afternoon, Cabinet Office

Minister David Lidington will make

a statement on the liquidation

of construction company Carillion.

Tomorrow, the EU Withdrawal Bill

returns to the Commons

for its third reading,

where a number of amendments

on the so-called Henry VIII

powers will be debated.

On Wednesday, Theresa May will face

questions from Opposition leader

Jeremy Corbyn and other MPs

in Prime Minister's Questions.

On Thursday, Theresa May will host

the 35th UK-French Summit

when President Macron arrives

in the UK.

It's his first visit to British

shores since being elected.

And, also on Thursday,

the latest NHS England figures

are released showing A&E waiting

times and bed availability.

We're joined now from College Green

by Emily Ashton from Buzzfeed

and Chris Hope from the Telegraph.

Sheltering there under that large

umbrella. Thank you for waiting.

It looks likely that the Justice

Secretary will order a judicial

review into the Parole Board's

decision to release John Warboys.

How usual is it for him to challenge

his own department in this way?

You

don't normally hear these things so

loudly. He's throwing himself into

it. There's been a lot of political

pressure over this. It is such a

political case. The main problem is

he was prosecuted over a number of

cases that was far below the actual

number of cases that are thought to

exist. So, we don't know what the

Parole Board decision, what was

behind it and perhaps a judicial

review is the way forward.

As Emily

said we don't know the evidence that

was presented to the Parole Board.

One of the big problems is that they

didn't inform, it seems many of the

victims. Is that also going to be a

key factor, Chris?

Yes, it will be.

In terms of politics, it will be. It

will not be a key factor whether he

is retried or goes back to prison.

We are blind to whatever the reasons

were the Parole Board came to. We

have no idea what they are. The

politics here is there's been

increased disclosure for the reasons

letting these criminals out of jail

and the victims are not told they

are being let out.

Let's move on to

the EU Withdrawal Bill. What is

happening this week?

It seems to

rumble on forever. I feel half my

life is taken up with it. Tomorrow

we have the report stage. Then the

end of the report stage and the

third reading. After that it will

pass to the Lord's at the end of the

month. I don't think we will see big

rebellions like we saw Christmas.

You will see pressure from Labour

and pressure from Scottish MPs about

devolution. The third reading is

likely to pass without the

rebellions we saw before Christmas.

We have more Tory MPs going over to

see Michel Barnier?

Quite what they

say when they meet, don't forget he

met with Nigel Farage last week. It

looks like he's reaching out to

parties. What David Davis thinks

about this, I don't know. We will

hear later what is said.

Emily, on

the NEC, the Labour elections, what

do you make of the win by Jon

Lansman and two of his colleagues?

The NEC is not a household name in

many households. It does matter to

how Labour is run and managed and

decisions going forward with

selection of candidates. So we

expected with three new places on

this board, that they would go to

the left of the party. Corbyn

supporters. Jon Lansman, the founder

of Momentum is thrilled to have got

a place. And you will see that

perhaps taking shape...

It all

depends on how he uses that power.

So the clear left were in control of

the NEC for the first time in a

while.

Thank you very much. Go and

shelter from the rain. There is time

to find out the answer from the

quiz:

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was for today

is which political dining

establishment is attempting to win

a michelin star?

Was it...

Parliament. It is good enough.

Thank you to all of our guests.

Thank you for being our guests of

the day. I will be back morning with

all the political stories. Join me

then. Goodbye.