16/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The collapse of the firm Carillion

has sent a shockwave

through Westminster.

The Government is under pressure

over the pay and jobs of workers

and the cost to the taxpayer,

while Jeremy Corbyn claims

it's a watershed moment

in British politics.

Boris Johnson doubles down

on the infamous claim the UK pays

£350 million a week to the EU.

He says it's actually a gross

underestimate and we're

handing over even more.

Germany hasn't had

one since September.

The Belgians managed without one

for more than 18 months.

As Northern Ireland marks a year

without an elected government,

we'll be asking what people

are missing out on.

If you feel you haven't

heard enough from Jacob

Rees-Mogg, then good news.

There's now a new podcast devoted

entirely to his musings.

We'll discuss this latest

stage of Moggmania.

All that in the next hour.

And with us for the whole

of the programme today

is the Conservative MP,

former minister and ardent

pro-European, Anna Soubry.

No word yet on whether she's

planning to launch her own podcast.

You've given me a very good idea.

Something to think about.

Let's start today by talking

about Boris Johnson.

The Foreign Secretary has been

speaking to the Guardian about one

of the most high-profile,

and most contentious,

claims made by the Leave campaign

during the 2016 EU referendum.

Mr Johnson tells the paper

that the original statement

on the Vote Leave battle bus,

that Britain sends £350 million

a week to the EU was wrong -

the real figure is actually higher.

He says the UK's weekly gross

contribution would rise

to £438 million by the end

of the transition period

after Brexit, which is

expected to be in 2020.

He acknowledges that the figure

doesn't include the money

we get back from the EU but says,

"We grossly underestimated

the sum over which we would be able

to take back control."

Now, I am sure this, returning to

the figure on the side of the bus...

I was so excited you said he had

admitted finally it was inaccurate.

Do you accept that the figure,

whatever it is, there have been

arguments about net and gross

figures, it is still a substantial

amount of money that Britain would

have control over?

No, people have

been conned. Surprised and

disappointed in Boris he is

perpetuating these nonsenses. I know

the figure of 350 million a week was

inaccurate because of the point you

quite rightly make of gross and net.

It does not take into account the

amount we get back. It is more

important than that. It is not extra

money going to the NHS, people were

conned about that and I'm very

disappointed that given where we

are, our Foreign Secretary, who

holds one of the great offices of

state, he is not squaring up and

being honest with the British people

and they deserve honesty.

Let us

look at the figures. You say he is

not being honest and there have been

arguments about it, as we know, but

if you look at the Office for Budget

Responsibility, it had a set of

figures and it said by 2021, the

figures in pounds per week that the

Government would have control over

would be £269 million. That may not

go to the NHS but do you accept the

British Government will have control

over a sizeable amount of money?

I

don't know, I have not looked at

these things. What you see is what

you get from me. What I do know is

that this is not going to be

additional funds going to the NHS

and that was an important part of

the trick that was played upon the

British people, that they believed

that they would somehow get this

money for the NHS and that is not

going to happen.

Why is it not going

to happen? After transition, let us

say, the Government says, actually,

we will put a lot more extra money

and we will take some of it out of

the money...

That is a different

matter. If the Government decides to

put even more, over and above the

additional billions of pounds we

have put in, health spending is at

record levels in our country.

If

they use some of the money we would

have control over...

If I can just

finished, it is really important,

one of the things people are

understanding, the reality of Brexit

is, if we do not get a great deal,

and I greatly fear we will not get

the sort of deal we are being told

we will get, in that event, our

economy is going to suffer and we

know that we only get great public

services when we have a great

economy, one of the strengths of the

Conservative government is that we

improve the economy, meaning we have

more to spend on public services.

Brexit

Brexit will hit us hard. It is

really important we do not give

people false hopes and phoney

promises, as Cabinet leave did to

win the referendum.

That was in the

campaign. -- as Leave it. Do you

accept there will be this pot of

money the Government would have

control over and it would have the

option, it may choose not to do so,

of those contributions coming back

under government control and putting

it back into the NHS?

It is not as

straightforward as that. Remember,

already Brexit has cost us billions

of pounds because the Government has

had to put money aside to spend it

to effectively deliver Brexit. The

reality of all of this, I believe,

is dawning on people and Boris is

being irresponsible to continue to

con people in this way. He should be

honest about the challenges Brexit

poses to our country.

Do you think

it is likely, that he will stop

talking about these things?

Sadly, I

feel that will not happen. I wish he

would. He is our Foreign Secretary.

This is grown-up drop stuff.

He has

to man up to the position he holds.

We will come back to Brexit in a few

minutes, surprise surprise.

Let's turn now to the story

which is dominating the news today,

that's the collapse of Britain's

second largest construction

firm Carillion.

The company employs 20,000 people

in the UK, and its work stretched

from the HS2 rail project

and military contracts

to maintaining hospitals,

schools, and prisons.

There are plenty of questions

being asked about the collapse,

from the hefty pay packets given

to the company's bosses,

to what support the Government

is giving to the firm's employees

and contractors, not to mention

the eventual cost to the taxpayer.

Our correspondent, Chris Mason,

has been following it all closely.

The Government is no doubt starting

to count the cost in more ways than

one of Carillion going under. It

said there would be no taxpayer

bailout, but what is it committed to

paying in terms of people's jobs and

wages?

A huge challenge. The

Government has said in the short

term it's focus is on ensuring the

services that Carillion is meant to

deliver can be delivered, whether

that be the provision of school

meals or cleaning hospitals. As you

say, there is the vast consequences

in the medium and long term. What

about the giant pension deficit?

What about all of the smaller firms

who were subcontractors of

Carillion, around 30,000 are

effectively customers of Carillion,

huge question marks about how they

will be paid for work they have

done. The Government has set up the

Cobra committee which met last

night, whole wave of ministers into

the Cabinet Office last night, all

over Whitehall, painting a picture

of the extent to which the tentacles

of Carillion run into all aspects of

the public sector. Cabinet has been

meeting this morning and there is a

briefing for Westminster journalists

happening right now on the Cabinet

discussions. Carillion is no doubt a

big topic. The bigger question that

has been seized upon by Jeremy

Corbyn in Labour, the question has

not been a staple of mainstream

politics for quite awhile, to what

extent should private sector firms

have a big involvement in the

delivery of public sector work? The

Tony Blair and Gordon Brown

government and Labour were

comfortable with the likes of

Carillion and others being involved

in the delivery of public services.

The coalition and the Conservatives

have been keen on that as well.

Jeremy Corbyn is very keen to say

they should be a shift away from

what he sees as that outsource first

dogma. That will be the coming

political battle, given the gap

there is between Labour and the

Conservatives on the instinct on how

it is delivered.

The other side

which will anger the public is the

issue of salaries and bonuses that

have been paid and to some extent

are still continuing to be paid to

the senior staff, executives, at

Carillion. The Department of

Business has put out the following

release asking the investigation

into directors to be fast tracked.

Do you think that will be enough to

assuage the anger of people looking

at what has been called in some

papers fat cat bonuses?

A keen

awareness in government about how

toxic it is. You have the 30,000

firms, small and medium-sized

businesses, the kind of people and

entrepreneurs every political party

but particularly the Conservatives

are keen to appeal to worried about

getting paid. On the other hand,

talk of the vast amounts of money

being paid out that senior

executives. There is a real

awareness yesterday, it will be

reflected again today, within

government, there should not be a

sense of rewards for failure, they

should not be a sense of socialising

losses while privatising huge gains

and profits. There will be an acute

awareness about how that is handled.

The Government has said it is in the

hands of the official receiver, but

you can expect the rhetoric from the

very top on this to continue to be

pretty sharp.

Thank you.

words on the subject of Carillion.

Here he is in a message

posted online last night.

In the wake of the collapse

of the contractor Carillion,

it's time to put

an end to the rip-off

privatisation policies

that

have done serious damage

to our public services,

and fleeced the public

of billions of pounds.

This is a watershed moment.

That was the Labour leader,

Jeremy Corbyn, in a message online.

So, is this a watershed

moment, as he claims,

and do the public agree?

Ellie Price has been out

with the entirely unscientific

Daily Politics moodbox to find out.

It has become a fact of life,

private companies are involved in

everything from our schools to our

prisons, railways, hospitals. Some

say when it comes to efficiency,

business knows best. Others say it

is an experiment that has run its

course. Is public ownership back in

fashion? That is what we are asking

today. Who do you want to see run

the book services, the private or

public sector?

-- the public

services. It depends on which public

services you are talking about and

how well they will be funded if it

is the public sector and how the

deal will be broken in the private

sector.

We want money to be spent

well and for the taxpayer to get

good value, go in that pocket.

The

private sector, it does not really

work and the profit motive is

overwhelming.

I think it is a

massive question, what is the role

of the public sector? How much can

be delegated to individual people to

make their own economic decisions in

life?

Thank you. Is it more

efficient if you are private

company?

It is, but efficiency comes

at a cost, that is the problem.

Prisons should revert back to

public. Trains, probably public. The

private companies seem to be greedy.

Oh, it is the rainbow! A combination

is optimal. But public.

is optimal. But public.

Oh, it is

running away!

I am in an anarchist.

How do you have a way away if you do

not have a private or public sector?

Everyone will join together as

people and we will create our own

little unions that will manage it.

There are lessons to take from the

private sector in terms of

efficiencies and that kind of thing

but on the whole, you need that kind

of thing being looked after by

someone who is not trying to make a

profit out of it.

It should be the

public sector but probably at the

moment the private sector is looking

after it better.

The day is drawn to

the close and so too is the mood

box. A number set a healthy

combination is a good idea but

overall the winner here is pretty

clear. The public sector should look

after the public services.

A fairly decisive

result in the decidedly

non-scientific moodbox there.

To discuss Carillion

and the public-private debate more

generally we're joined by Mick Cash,

General Secretary of the RMT union,

and my guest of the day,

Anna Soubry, is a former Business

Minister.

Before I come to you Mick Cash, just

on some of the fundamentals Anna

Soubry in terms of what is going to

happen to the staff make up part of

Carillion's workforce, 62% of the

work is in the private sector and

that could be thousands of thousands

of employees on private contract,

should the Government also guarantee

their salaries?

My first port of

call on this is the workforce, and

for a lot of those people they will

be very worried are about whether

they are going to get paid this week

or this month.

Only to tomorrow they

have been told.

Having been involved

in the closure remember of a

steelworks up in red car, there are

ways that Government can get

involved in things, to make sure

that months are made available so

workers are paid. These, there are

discreet methods often, we made sure

people were paid in the face of

those men not being, mainly men not

being paid.

You think as well as

guaranteeing the wages of the public

sector worker, those with public

sector worker,s, the Government

should extend that?

No, I am not

getting into that detail, what I am

saying is there will be ways that

the Government can make sure that

they do everything they can, to

ensure that those men and women, are

paid for the work they have done,

and they should use whatever levers

they have got do that. Trust me

there are ways that it can be done.

Why should employees employed by

private sector companies be bailed

out of or paid by the Government?

Depends what you mean by private

sector contracts. Carillion do a lot

of work on the railway, are they

private or public? It would be

interesting to see what you mean by

that, they have blurred the line

completely, since they have

outsourced the previous Governments

into the private and public arena, I

would ask that first question, what

do you mean by that? Ultimately, a

lot of the work actually is

guarantee by the taxpayer. It is

publicly funded. We should be

looking after those workers because

if we don't the economy is going to

suffer. Equally...

How long should

they be looked after?

We are in that

situation we we have done it before.

Banks got bailed out. We have seen

bail outs of southern and East Coast

Trains by the Government, they are

prepared to give them money, and in

fact you will find a lot of the

workers they have contracts they are

working to, the issue is the company

is no trading but there are

contracts and there is work.

There

are contracts, they are not public

sector contract in the that sense,

but if they are provided services on

the railways, do you still pay...

You will continue public sector

clear things like the delivery of

school meals, the cleaning of

hospital, things like that, for

example, in something, I have some

knowledge of, the MoD, the delivery

of the service accommodation

contracts, these contracts can be

delivered upon, because somebody

else can be found to do that work,

because that work can't and won't

stop.

Does that reassure you?

To the

point you rightly make, I think we

are in agreement about this, about

when do other sorts of contracts

cross over, into a new way that was

introduced by the last Government.

They have done wok for Network Rail

over Christmas, they work for a

private sector operators, they are

plant operator, are they going to

get paid? We don't know. One of the

aspects of this and Anna is certain

about this, I am not, I have spoken

to the chief executive of Network

Rail, to to the special manager

appointed by the administrators to

find out who is public, private and

we don't know. The lack of

repairedness by the government is

shocking.

Let us talk about that. Do

you think the Government

fundamentally dropped the ball in

its dealing with this firm over the

last six to nine months?

I don't

know, what I do know because I used

to be a Business Minister, you are

kept alert, always. We were all

alert publicly because they had a

profits warning back in junk July.

July.

So it was clear this was a

company in deep trouble.

Should they

have had more Government contracts

awarded?

That is the very difficult

question, I am not able to answer it

because I don't know enough about

it. But it would seem that this is a

very difficult one, as Government,

do you help somebody, or do you, are

you cognisant of the fact they could

be in deep trouble, in which event

it could be argued it is not a good

thing to do. I what I am confident

has happened is the Secretary of

State for Transport will have

received advice on that, if he

didn't I would be surprised.

Do you

share... You seem to be relaxed this

what happens, firms succeed and

fail. Is that the case. Is that

water shed moment? Is this different

in the way Jeremy Corbyn has

characterised it, than a major

company failing, and all of the

problems that brings.

It shows that

jous sourcing has failed. We need to

bring more back in to public hand,

if you are in the private sector,

you get wads of money, and then the

company goes bust it is the

creditor, a lot of them workers at

the sharp end who pay the price.

You

miss the point.

Have we reached the

end of the road with outsourcing? Is

it time for a review, David

Lidington seemed to imply there

should be a review.

This is my take

on thing, one of the big problems we

have, is that when we are putting

out these big contracts, they

invariably go to very big companies

and the medium and small businesses

are not included in the way they

should be. So big companies like

Carillion which had an incredible

spread of work, which I find rather

odd in any event, they get these

contracts because Government has a

responsibility to get the cheapest

price, to get value for the

taxpayer. Then what happens is they

can't deliver it -- deliver it.

Whose fault is that?

Let me explain.

I think we have a problem in the

procurement and tendering at

national and local level. It is too

much for the big company, you tend

to get what you pay for, I have some

experience from MoD. And my concern

was, because this may help you, it

will help you as well Mick, my

concern, we have to be honest...

Why

not take them back in house, if the

taxpayer is having to bail out...

What would happen is a very big

company would say we can deliver

this contract for this amount of

money. People would say we have to

go for the lowest bid, without

drilling down, remembering you get

what you pay for and then they sub

contract and sub contract so you

ended up almost in a position where

to deliver that contract

successfully was almost impossible.

I understand.

Unless you didn't pay

people decent money and you

didn't...

Making the point for

bringing it into the public sector.

It is for profit margin, they want

to make money out of of this. They

will use taxpayer money, when things

fail the taxpayer picks up the tab.

I am old enough to remember when all

of these things were in the public

sector, it didn't deliver value for

money. The Labour Party row

introduced this huge outsourcing and

rightly so, the watershed moment

this shows the drift in the Labour

Party. Back to a mashist way of

doing things about state control.

Let the market properly control...

Let him respond.

I am old enough to

remember when it was in the public

sector and I used to be employed by

Carillion Rail when they were doing

the maintenance contract for Network

Rail who brought it in house and

saved almost 400 million by bringing

maintenance in house back in 2004.

We are in that situation where we

doe that the private sector, cost

money because they have the profit

motive, they have to deal with the

shareholders, the public sector

saves money for and every bit of

money that gets spent or is earned

goes back into the service.

We are

running out of time.

I don't, I

want, if it is right to do it

inhousely do it inhouse.

Is it right

in this case to take it in house?

The private sector is out and it is

all ant state control.

Should the

private sector be involved in

delivering public services in the

way they have here, because it seems

that privatisation means profits are

privatised and losses are

nationalised.

It is about delivering

the best value for the taxpayer, the

point I was making which I

thought...

You are not. How are you?

Talk one at a time.

There is a real

role for the private sector to play,

but it has to be done in a better

way...

Moo would the private sector

want to do public sector work? To

make profit.

That is what pays your

workers' wages. That is what keeps

the economy going so we get the

great public service, that says more

about the Labour Party and the state

it is in. Back to Marxism.

So it is

Labour's fault what has happened to

Carillion. That is what has caused

it?

One question, is it your view

that everything private is bad and

public is good?

You are in that

situation where the profit motive

drives, takes Monday out of the

public sector.

Do you think the

chief executives should have his

bonus clawed back. £660,000 a year.

That is the ex-chief executive. He

has a conscience.

Should it be

clawed back.

That is up to him. He

should do the right thing, he should

know. It is absolutely, because...

Do you think he should be deprived

of that massive amount of money

You

have already paid him. I am very

pleased to see the Government is

excel rating those very strict rule

about directorers, it is important

stuff, if you are found to have done

something wrong the consequences are

huge for you as a director and

rightly so.

Thank you for coming in.

Thank you for coming in.

MPs are back debating the EU

withdrawal bill today -

that's the bill which aims to ensure

European law will no longer apply

in the UK after Brexit.

But of course what happens

in Parliament is only one part

of the Brexit process,

which is set to dominate

politics in 2018.

The Brexit negotiations

are ongoing, although at

the moment the discussions

are between officials.

A date hasn't yet been set

for the next face-to-face meeting

between the Brexit Secretary David

Davis and the EU Chief

Negotiator Michel Barnier.

Top of the agenda will be agreeing

the terms of a transition

agreement, to cover a period

of around two years.

Theresa May is also expected to host

further cabinet discussions

to hammer out what the UK's final

relationship with the EU

should look like.

And Theresa May is hoping to be

in a position to set out her vision

of that relationship in her third

major Brexit speech in February.

A meeting of the European Council -

that's the heads of government

from across the EU -

will get under way in March.

Could this be the moment

when the terms of the transition

deal will be agreed?

And both the UK Government

and the EU are hoping to reach final

agreement on separation issues

by October 2018.

It's unclear whether the future

trading relationship will be covered

by a broad political declaration

or a more detailed agreement.

And after any deal is agreed,

it will to be voted

on in the UK parliament -

and there will also be ratification

in the EU parliament

and the remaining EU countries.

On 29th March 2019, the UK

will leave the EU, and,

in theory, enter a transition

or implementation period.

The EU have said they think

that the transition deal should

end by December 2020.

Well, MEPs in Strasbourg have this

morning been debating the deal

struck at the end of last year,

concluding the first part

of the negotiations.

Our correspondent Adam Fleming

is there as usual.

S, it is important stuff,

Adam, tell us what was discussed?

The big thing today was Donald Tusk,

the President of the European

Council who chairs the summit says

the door was open for the UK to stay

in the EU, if British voters decide

to change their minds. He has said

something like this before, do you

remember last summer when he

channelled John Lennon and said a

imagine a world where there's no

Brexit. He has never said it so

strongly as this. This is what he

had to say a couple of hours ago.

If the UK Government sticks to its

decision to leave, Brexit will

become a reality, with all its

negative consequences, in March next

year. Unless there is a change of

heart among our British friends.

Wasn't it David Davis himself who

said if democracy cannot change its

mind it ceases to be a democracy, we

here on the Continent haven't had a

change of heart. Our hearts are

still open to you.

And that sentiment was enco-ed by

Jean-Claude Juncker, the Presidents

of the European Commission, who said

he hopes that message was heard loud

and clear in London. Now, what both

men said though, was that what they

really want now is for the UK

Government to provide more clarity

about what sort of relationship they

want with the EU, ahead of the

negotiations about phase two, trade,

cooperation on security and defence

and all sorts of stuff like that

which will start after another EU

summit in March.

Thank you very much. We are joined

by Nigel Evans.

Michael, what do you make of that?

I

heard it all. We have changed our

mind we decided in 1975 to vote to

stay in the European Union, and we

have changed our mind, we have

decided to come out. If in 40 odd

years the British people want to

have another say maybe we will

change our minds again. Maybe the

European Union are going to change

their minds about their approach to

how the European Union is going to

develop over the coming year, they

have problems with Poland, problems

with Hungary, economic disaster in

countries like Greece who are going

for another £5 billion bail out with

more austerity measure, they have a

huge number of problems on their

plate. I will focus on that, I know

the European Union are used to

countries voting in treaty

referendums, and when they get it

wrong being asked to vote again,

well, nobody's asking for us to vote

again other than those who want us

to stay in the European Union.

As

you say there are some, although

Nigel Farage did raise the spectre

of a second referendum even if he

was slapped down for it after.

Several MPs who supported Remain

including Anna Soubry met Michel

Barnier in Brussels. Do you think

that is a helpful contribution

I

don't know what Anna said to Michel

Barnier, whether she and Dominic

Grieve and a few others spelled out

the real issue, we voted to leave by

a clear margin, 57% of my own

constituency voted to leave. Every

one in Lancashire voted to leave.

Anna Soubry's own constituency voted

to leave and so I think it is quite

a clear message, 1.4 million

difference in the largest

participatory referendum this

country has ever seen.

All we want to do now is Levon

really good terms. I am hoping that

is what Anna was talking to Michel

Barnier about. We still want to buy

champagne from France. We still want

to trade with them.

Let us talk

about the deal. The transition needs

to be agreed before you get to the

end point of the deal. What do you

say to reports today the EU will

insist on the transition being

virtually exactly the same as the

status quo, including freedom of

movement continuing?

We will have to

see about that. It seems as if the

argument is being reopened now when

we thought the issue as far as EU

citizens in Britain and British

citizens in the EU had

been properly settled and either

stand the Polish are saying they are

unhappy with that and would rather

liked to continue in the transition

period.

You thought freedom of

movement would finish in March,

2019, and that is what you would

like Theresa May to secure?

That is

what I would like. If they want to

come and settle and have the same

rights as other EU citizens in the

UK, they can do that until then, and

the other way around.

Would you

accept those terms continuing in

transition, single market

membership, part of the customs

union, taking and accepting some

rules from the ECJ and allowing any

EU citizens coming here up until

2020 2/2-full residency rights, like

British citizens in the EU

countries, would you those terms?

I'm a pragmatist. I know the Prime

Minister and David Davis will be

negotiating up until October this

year. My own view on that is I am

not going to tie the hands of the

Prime Minister. If she is able to

negotiate a sensible deal and a

trade-off in other areas by

accepting that, I will leave it to

her, I will back the Prime Minister

in the negotiation she is currently

doing, I will not tie her hands.

What about the EU withdrawal bill?

The flagship piece of Brexit

legislation.

Another two days.

I am

sure you are looking forward to it.

The Government was defeated by Tory

rebels last month, including Anna

Soubry. Are you expecting more

trouble?

Only in the House of Lords.

Anna will let us know about what the

approach is from those who are more

pro-European than I am, but I

understand that when it gets to the

House of Lords, clearly people like

Lord Adonis and Michael Heseltine,

still fighting the last war, as far

as the referendum is concerned, they

are going to do what they can to

thwart Britain leaving the EU. It

will be an interesting battle. The

people versus the peers, the

unelected members of the House of

Lords against the sovereignty of the

British people who voted in a

referendum and we all remember that

David Cameron sent a pamphlet to

every household in the country,

costing 9 million quid, and on the

back, it said, we will respect the

will of the British people. It will

take a very brave House of Lords to

go against that.

Thank you. You went

to see Michel Barnier with others

yesterday.

We actually saw some

other people as well.

Michel Barnier

was one of the people you saw. What

did you say?

A private conversation.

The details of which I am not going

to go into. I can tell you we made

the case and we made it very clear

we want the best deal we can

possibly get but in all of our

discussions yesterday, it was very

interesting, the messages we were

getting back. There is obviously

very grave concern about whether or

not we are being realistic and

indeed whether or not people are

being properly informed as to the

reality of what is likely to be

offered. We have put ourselves in a

difficult position. We are leaving

the EU but we have tied our hands

unfortunately by the red line is the

Government set down before the

general election in June.

Except, of

course, Nigel Evans has just said,

he will not tie the Government's

hands, the status quo will remain.

The transition period is a whole

load of other stuff as well, I am

talking about the red lines the

Prime Minister laid down in the

Lancaster gate speech, no single

market, customs union, ECJ.

You

think that is a possibility, we

would remain in the single market

estimate we can't.

Sorry, by putting

down the red lines, before the

general election, which clearly we

lost our majority in, rejection of

the British people of the hard

Brexit which I think the Prime

Minister, I do not think she wanted

it, but those behind her did, they

were preparing for that, that is

what the EU withdrawal bill is

about, delivering a hard Brexit.

Things changed. But we have not

changed our red lines. What the EU

can offer us is limited because we

behind the red lines, we will not

begin to blur...

If that limits the

options available, heading towards a

hard Brexit, in your mind, the EU

withdrawal bill, will you oppose the

Government?

I did not say that,

forgive me. I am hoping that is not

what will happen and I do not

believe our Prime Minister wants

that for one moment. The difficulty

is as far as the EU is concerned,

everything is on the table, single

market, customs union, ECJ. All the

things that flow from that. Our

problem as a country is we have

reduced the options and we have not

revisited them in the wake... My own

very strong belief is that we should

put all the options back on the

table to enable decent negotiations

to carry on. In the transition

period, we really have to be honest

with people and realistic, the EU

hold the cards.

Right, of course,

the Government says that is not the

case. One commentator, Tim

Montgomerie, on Twitter, quoted

Margaret Thatcher when he saw your

picture of you and others, treachery

with a smile on its face, what do

you say to him?

I am not interested.

We were having a very good

discussion which is what the British

people want to hear.

Are you

betraying people who voted in?

I am

not interested in playing that game

of politics.

You said the Government

has tied its hand with the red lines

and you disagree, but are they not

just representing the 17.4 million

people who voted leave?

They voted

to leave the EU, we will leave the

EU, but we did not put on the ballot

paper, it was not part... What does

leave mean? One of the big problems

EU has is that our government still

has not decided what leave means.

Come on, when you go into

negotiations, how can the EU deal

with the government that has not

itself worked out what it wants?

It

is going to, and later this month,

the EU withdrawal bill will go to

the Lords. Do you agree with Nigel

Evans the Lords could perhaps

overturned some of what has been

achieved in the Commons?

The Lords

will do whatever they wish to do,

put down all sorts of amendments no

doubt.

Do you cheer them on? Michael

Heseltine, what are you hoping the

Lords will achieve?

What I want the

Lords to do is to do its job which

is to scrutinise legislation, that

is their job and I hope they will do

that. What I think is more important

than all of this is that in my

opinion the British people are fed

up to the back teeth with Brexit.

What evidence have you got for that?

I am a constituency MP, I know what

my constituents tell me. I know... I

have just been elected only six

months ago, people are fed up with

Brexit.

They would not want a

referendum on the deal or a second

referendum?

Can I just finished my

sentence? They are fed up with

Brexit and they want somebody to get

on and deliver on Brexit and they

also want and they are increasingly

concerned, as they understand the

arguments, learn more about the

reality of Brexit, they are worried,

ordinary, good people are worried...

Would they like to see a vote on the

terms of the deal? Would you support

that?

That is for the people of this

country, they are in charge, they

have to be.

A second public vote,

that would have to be parliament?

No, it comes from the people. All of

these things must come from the

people. Politicians can have their

point of view, Mr Farage has a point

of view, but it must come from the

people and they must be in charge of

the whole of the Brexit process.

They are an easy and at the moment

they have two political parties that

they do not believe represents them.

There are millions of people in the

country... 82% of them voted for

both of them in the election.

We

have to get onto other items. I am

not allowed to respond.

You have

responded quite fully.

Inflation dropped slightly

in December from 3.1% to 3%,

according to figures published this

morning, the first fall since June.

The Office for National Statistics

says it's too early to say

whether this is the start

of a longer-term reduction

in the rate of inflation,

although the Bank of England has

said it expected it to return

to the target of 2% later this year.

There was, however, little good news

for households in research published

this morning by the Institute

for Fiscal Studies, which found that

a third of the the lowest-income

households have loans and credit

card debts that outstrip

the assets they hold.

We're joined now by

Andrew Hood from the IFS.

Should the Government be worried?

It

is clearly important when thinking

about household living standards and

something government is concerned

about not just to think about their

incomes households have but also

where the income is going and in

particular, if a large chunk is

going on servicing existing debt

repayments rather than buying goods

and services, that could be a

concern.

What do you think should be

done to help those low income

households or individuals who are

taking loans to service debt? How

could the Government help them?

One

of the key the report brings to

light is that it is quite

challenging to work out exactly why

households take out debt. As you

mentioned, we look both at debt but

also that things like savings. It

turns out even though households

have assets, in a number of cases,

they still take on debt. It might be

encouraging households to for

example save more, that would not be

a panacea for the issue of problem

that among low-income households.

Thank you very much.

We're joined now by

the Shadow Treasury Minister,

Jonathan Reynolds.

What do you want the Government to

do, having looked at the report?

There are two things, stop pursuing

policies making the situation worse

for families.

Which? The freeze on

benefits, public sector pay freeze.

A long wait before you get support,

pushing people to credit or

foodbank. We also believe there are

some interventions were more

government action is required, for

instance, we set out a policy on

credit card charges. Credit cards

are useful but if you manage

long-term debt with them, clearly a

problem, there are a big group of

people who will never pay off the

principal amount of money they

borrowed. Some of that should be

capped. A big space on the market

here for the Government to do more,

as well as pursuing wider government

policies to not make the situation

worse.

On the issue of credit card

charges, do you agree with Jonathan

Reynolds there should be a cap on

the interest charge?

Not

particularly. I think the previous

government did a lot of good work

with payday loans which I was always

far more concerned about because

they were usually the company is

targeting the people with the least

amount of money.

One of the biggest

contributors to the high levels of

debt by low-income households,

people using credit cards and being

charged very high interest rates to

service the debt, for instance,

because they have not got high

enough salaries. To make ends meet.

I would like everybody to frankly

live more within their means and I

think it is really important. I

understand in difficult times, it is

a good point, people on Universal

Credit, going on to it, but I think

it is difficult, on the one hand,

you want an economy where people buy

more, you have a society which has

led to people, you can have today

what you want tomorrow. And

encouragement of credit. It is

difficult getting the balance right.

The problem is when people cannot

service the debt but it is

ultimately the responsibility of all

of us individually.

In the end, at

the to live within their means?

We

have to face the fact a lot of

people are not in a position to be

able to make those decisions because

they cannot make ends meet, an

important point to stress is if you

look at the Government's economic

plans from the Office for Budget

Responsibility, the rate of growth,

it is predicated on household debt

is going up. Quite frankly, for some

people, Anna is right, the

Government needs to do more on it,

people end up going from one lender

to another, a payday lender to a

credit card, they end up in a

terrible... The impact is huge.

That

is where we want government to do

more. You do not want the Government

to do anything about capping?

I do

not think it helps those people. One

of the things we talked a lot about

in the 2010-15 Parliament, good

cross-party work, the encouragement

of credit unions, they work in

communities with people who do not

have access to the information that

other people have and I have always

thought it was unfortunate, we never

made the progress on things like

that that I think we should have

done. A good example of good

cross-party working.

Let us look at

the broader policies, you say people

should live within their means, but

with the Universal Credit policy

being rolled out, people were

expected to suddenly work on a

monthly or six weekly basis and that

was very difficult for people being

paid weekly. In that sense, the

Government has

made it difficult for people to live

within their means.

We have changed

some of that.

Not all. What about

the quote the Government always

refers to, record levels of

employment, but wages not high

enough to meet the levels of

inflation. What should be done about

that?

That is different. We now have

a living wage.

Not keeping pace with

inflation.

Dropped.

Marginally.

That

is news to be welcomed. We have

lifted the pay cut when it comes to

the health service and we have said

we are open to the review bodies and

I accept that there is a problem

with people who are on low wages in

our country.

Should they be paid

more? Should the living wage go up?

Of course I want people to be paid

more, the way we do that is to make

sure we have a society where people

have the skills they need, to get

those better paid jobs, as our

society develops we are going to see

more automation, and that concerns

all of us, because then you could

see an impact on lower paid people,

because they won't have job, so we

need to upskill, that is really

important.

You are obviously

welcoming the fact there is record

levels of employment, but in your

mind, what could be done to make it

easier for people still on low

incomes?

Of course I welcome record

levels of employment. I want people

to have work, but we can't deny the

very valid point you made which is

for a lot of people it is low paid,

low skilled. That has led people to

have difficult lives. To raise

wages, but you have to increase

productivity, that requires

investment. It is hard to get

investment when you have the

uncertainty round something very wig

like Brexit going on, we have said

clearly there is a bigger role for

public investment, through being

clear about separating out

day-to-day borrowing from the

Government, from long-term

investment spending, that is what we

are attacked for from the

Government. There has to be a plan

to raise. If we have a Corbyn

Government God help the economy

That

is the harsh reality I agree about

investment, that is why I am

ploughed of the fact our investment

in infrastructure is at record

level, I think we are getting the

balance right.

It is not what this

country needs to...

We will have to

leave it there.

It's now been a year

since the devolved government

in Northern Ireland collapsed,

after Sinn Fein walked out

after a row about the failure

of a renewable heating scheme blamed

on the Democratic Unionist Party.

Since then, it's been

without the assembly

Since then, it's been

without the Assembly

and the executive, and most

of its functions have been carried

out by civil servants under

the supervision of Westminster.

But it's not the only example

of countries functioning

without an elected government.

Have a look at this.

It seems that size doesn't matter

when it comes to managing without a

government. Germany still doesn't

have one, after its inconclusive

federal election in September. A

blueprint for norm formal

negotiations has been agree. But it

could be months before new ministers

are in place.

The record for the longst period

without an elected Government in a

democracy was set in Belgian in

2010/11 after wrangling between

politicians led to a 589 day

stalemate. The previous record

holder was Iraq. Rip aid part by

warring clan, pirates and extremists

it is not surprising that Somalia

had no functioning Government for

almost 15 yores from the early 90s.

A the other end of spectrum the US

Government has shut down with

surprising regularly, when

Presidents have failed to agree on

funding with Congress, it means

Government workers at everything

from museums to National Parkings

and passport offices are sent home.

And Antarctica is one of the few

places on effort that permanently

lacks anything resembling a

government. It has no permanent

population or indigenous people,

apart from these little guys.

apart from these little guys.

We're joined now by Ed Turner.

He's a lecturer in politics

from Aston University.

Welcome. Do we need Government at

all?

Absolutely we do, things can be

kept ticking over for a while, so,

the trains still goes, people get

paid although that doesn't happen in

America if there is a proper shut

down. If you want to confront big

challenges you face as a country you

do need a government.

What about in

Germany, it is a big powerful

country, it hasn't got a government

since September.

That is is right.

The economy is doing well. As I say,

the regional Governments are going

strong, services are happening but

the country isn't confronting the

big challenge, a week ago I was

stalking to a senior civil servant

who said in practise no being

decisions are being taken, the

country is punching below its

weight.

No big decisions are being

taken, things are postponed, in

terms of day-to-day operating, the

systems sort of step into place,

there isn't the instability and

chaos people predict.

That is right.

In the case of Northern Ireland you

have the British Government able to

step in the the case of Germany or

Spain, Belgian you have regional

Governments, if you have fundamental

challenges you need to address you

do need to give political direction

to the Civil Service, and that

doesn't happen in you have no

established Government.

Is is there

really as much pressure to restore

this executive in terms of a time

frame, when actually it is

functioning all right without it for

the moment?

You always want

democratically elected governance,

it is fascinating. I am listening to

him. I am learning a lot. Keep

asking him.

What about the future,

would you like to see the executive

reestored as soon as possible.

Of

course, as I say do you want

democratically elected Government?

We do this thing called Purdah, we

have, ministers, everybody steps

back and it is a mark of a great

Civil Service, that things carry on,

that you want democratic Government.

What are the negative consequences

of being without a government? You

said the decisions are postponed,

important decision, is there

anything else?

Well, there is the

important point an ma made about the

legitimacy of decision, there is

something about things might get

slipped through, there was a mini

crisis in Germany, where in the

Council of Ministers, in the

European Union one acting minister

went rogue, cast Germany's vote in

favour of reviewing the vote for a

controversial pesticide. You might

see things slipped through untiler

the radar, we need politicians to

hold the Civil Service to account.

What about the example of Belgian,

not as much in the news as Germany,

but I think they hold the record in

living without a government for a

period of time. What happened there?

Well, there was a long running

disagreement about constitutional

arrangements. It looked like the

country would split, and they

managed to keep the show on the

road. At the same time there were

fundamental domestic questions about

fiscal policy they couldn't resolve

until a new Government was formed.

So they kept things going, they

managed to hold the presidency of

the European Council for some of

that time. They couldn't address

fundamental prisons because they

didn't have a government in place,

you need political cover, an

effected Government to do that.

When

politics as chaotic as it is in

Italy is it's a good idea to have

technocrats taking over?

It is a

question, but of course technocrats

imply you can take the politicsous

of decisions, but in Italy they were

taking profoundly political decision

without a democratic mandate. For

those 06 us who believe in free and

fair elections that is a problem.

fair elections that is a problem.

Jacob Rees-Mogg has become perhaps

the unlikeliest star

of the current Parliament - the

darling of the Conservative Party

conference, the subject of an online

fan movement known as Moggmentum,

and currently bookies' favourite

to succeed Theresa May as next

leader of the party.

If you're one of those who feels

they're just not hearing enough

from the MP for North East Somerset,

then I have good news.

He's agreed to take part

in a fortnightly podcast

for the website Conservative

Home called, perhaps

inevitably, the Moggcast.

Let's have a listen to him

discussing one of the biggest

domestic challenges

facing the government.

Out of decisions, but in

The other obvious area is the Health

Service, which is clearly under

strain during the winner flu

outbreak, but in reality, austerity

in the NHS for seven years of 1%

real increases is against what has

happened in its previous history,

and it is going to be very hard to

continue with moufr there are

limited resources.

continue with moufr there

are limited resources.

And Paul Goodman from the website

Conservative Home joins us now.

Is this Moggcast just him speaking,

is there any debate, you know, what

happens?

I do talk to him. There is

conversation, him and I or Mark

Wallace and I, he is my other

co-worker on Conservative Home. We

thought of offering him a column. We

have to cover the whole Tory

landscape, is one of the most

distinctive figures on the

landscape. We could have done that,

Nicky Morgan has a column, and we

could have offered one to him. I

thought what he is best known for,

is his speaking, so I will sit down

with him once a fortnight and

discuss the NHS, he wants a bit more

money for it, housing, he's all in

favour of more building on green

belt if necessary, which might

surprise, and Brexit, where he

thinks the House of Lords shouldn't

hold up with the withdrawal bill.

Is. What the most revealing thick he

has said? The most revealing thing

so far, and it came as a slight

surprise to the audience, is he said

it is going to be hard to sustain

NHS spending at this level rather

than increase it, given the

pressures on the service, that will

surprise some because he is seen as

a figure very much on the right of

the party. He dropped add broad hint

on that, so we have gone with that.

Have we reached peak Mogg in your

mind?

I have no idea. He doesn't

represent Conservative members in my

constituency or Conservative voter,

he has obviously, he is an important

player, he is a delightful man, but

I don't think that I would like

people to think Jacob represents the

modern day Conservative Party.

Why

is he so popular with so many?

I

don't know where the evidence is for

that.

According to our survey we

have a 1300 monthly panel. 70% of

them last month lined up behind the

Prime Minister's EU deal, so it is

not a bunch of...

Anybody,

But your

website is open to everybody, and if

you look at the comments on it,

there are a large number of poo who

are not members of the Conservative

Party who put comments, so to do

polls.

That is the classic mistake,

if I may say so, of, mistaken for

the thousands who read it each day.

They are not necessarily members of

the Conservative Party.

Look at the

results, if it was Ukipers or very

hard line Brexiteers you would have

7% of those who respond... In fact

70% of them, seven in ten I am sure

it's the same sort of view in your

association, you will tell me were

lined up behind the PM's deal.

He

was the darling of the party

conference?

What do you say that,

because a lot of people went to a

fringe meeting.

It was packed.

Most

Conservative Party members do not go

to conference, because in my

association most of them are at

work.

Graham Brady who would oversee

a leadership contest says he doesn't

think Jacob Rees-Mogg is a viable

candidate.

He said that himself, you

can't come from the backbench to be

Prime Minister. I find it hard to

imagine Jacob as Prime Minister, you

never know, Anna is right in once

seven, if we had the ebb website

seven days a week and all we had was

Jacob Rees-Mogg, this would be

unrepresentative of what members

think, that you have to have a mix,

that is why we have Nicky Morgan I

think works closely with Anna,

Garvin Walsh, a big critic of

Brexit.

Has he been given a big

platform?

Yes, he does not represent

the majority of Conservative voters

for sure, his view on abortion are

deeply upsetting and troubling to

many of us, both women, Conservative

women and men and they don't

represent Conservative voters or

Conservative members, and that is

very important.

Has he been given

too much of a platform?

It depends,

if you are trying to get readers you

will have Nicky Morgan to get up

your ratings.

On that, on that note

we have to end the show and say

goodbye, thank do you Anna Soubry

for beings my guest of the day.

Goodbye.