29/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome

to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May is told to 'get

a grip' by her own MPs -

so is the Prime Minister's future

at risk, and what exactly

are her critics asking for?

While all of that's going on here,

the EU is meeting to agree

its opening gambit for the next

stage of the Brexit negotiations -

we'll have all the details.

Labour's councils say the party's

ruling body has no right

to intervene in local decisions

like those in Haringey,

north London, and says it's set

a "dangerous and

alarming" precedent.

And we know the corridors of power

have seen better days -

so will MPs this week finally agree

to move out to let

the builders in to Parliament?

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today two MPs

who have temporarily located

to the slightly less delapidated

surroundings of the Daily Politics

studio - it's Cat Smith

from Labour and Bim Afolami

from the Conservatives.

Welcome to the programme.

First today, the former Education

Secretary Justine Greening,

who left the Cabinet in January,

has been setting out some

of her criticisms of the current

student finance model.

Here she is talking to the Today

programme earlier...

The fact that there's a maintenance

loan that's now replaced the grant,

and that means, I think wrongly,

to be perfectly frank,

that young people from more

disadvantaged,

poorer backgrounds are coming out,

like for like, on the same course,

with more debt than

their better-off peers.

So you think, replace the

maintenance grant, go back to the

maintenance grant,

which is about a 2 billion...

it's not a small cost, it's

about a 2 billion annual cost,

a it's significant thing to do.

I think we have to have

a student finance system

that's progressive.

Justine Greening, the former

Education Secretary. Do you agree

with her that they should be a

return to the maintenance grant,

Bim?

I have sympathy with that view

but we need to look at tuition fees

in the round. I've heard that from

my constituencies, that issue, but

the level of the fees, and the whole

system has to be looked at together.

And when you say look at it in the

round, do you have a sympathy for a

return to the maintenance grant? Do

you believe students from poorer

backgrounds have suffered due to

changes to that loan?

If you look at

participation of those students, it

is higher than it was since before

the Conservative government came

into office in 2010. I don't agree

are seeing that in the evidence, in

terms of poorer students believing

that they do want to go to

university more and more.

If you

think it has been a success, why do

you want to change it back to a

maintenance grant?

I said I have

sympathy with the idea, it needs to

be looked at in the round but we

need to look at improving the

system, there is no point in looking

at something statically, we can look

at how the system has been improved

in the future.

One way is bringing

down a relatively high interest rate

on loans. Do you support that? And,

personally, I do. It seems odd

speaking to constituents that we do

have this interest rate that is very

high. I do have a lot of sympathy

that but it needs to be looked at in

the round alongside the maintenance

grant, the level of tuition fees and

the system as a whole. How low

should interest rates be?

I don't

know, that needs to be looked at and

calculate it in accordance with the

review.

Cat, is it Labour's policy

to abolish or tuition fees?

Absolutely, the manifesto we went

into the general election on is as

it stands. We do not know when the

next election will be an policy will

continue to develop. It's

interesting, those comments on

maintenance grants. I was at the

Lancaster University meeting of the

court, the senior management at the

university plus representatives and

students. What really came across

from the students union in terms of

their presentation is students

facing a cost of living crisis.

Do

you accept numbers of students from

poorer backgrounds has not tailed

off in terms of going to university?

The facts are there but it is clear

that students who come from less

well-off backgrounds are graduating

with more debt. I do not think

anyone can argue that that is a fair

outcome from the system currently in

place.

What is the solution and

Labour's policy to historic debt

now?

During the election, we did not

have a pledge or commitment on that.

In an interview widely promoted by

certain conservatives about what

Jeremy Corbyn said, he acknowledged

it is a problem.

He said he would

deal with it, do Labour cabbie

solution on how to -- have a

solution?

We have an

intergenerational fairness issue

going on here. We have young people

going into higher education and that

is great but they are graduating

with huge amounts of debt and going

into a life where house prices have

increased but wages are kept low.

There is a real sense of unfairness

and that that holds people back.

Where would you like to see the

policy announced? It is a big issue,

as you say, and there are claims of

intergenerational unfairness. When

will Labour publicise its

will Labour publicise its policy on

how to deal with historic debt? The

next scheduled general election is

not for 4.5 years... We had to wait

that long?

I hope the next general

election is sooner and that then

they will be able to present a

policy.

All right, then.

The Prime Minister is chairing

a meeting of her cabinet

sub-committee on Brexit this

morning, where ministers

will discuss the UK's future

relationship with the EU.

But over in Brussels,

the foreign ministers

of the remaining 27 EU countries

are meeting to mark an important

point in the Brexit process,

as they finalise their negotiating

stance on the transition period

immediately after Brexit.

Also referred to as the

implementation phase,

it's the period of a few years

after we leave in March next year.

So let's look at the key issues that

will be up for negotiation.

How long will the transition last?

The UK has said about two

years while the EU has

suggested December 2020...

The EU wants the UK to continue

honouring all treaties,

free-trade agreements and other

arrangements between the EU

and other countries.

It doesn't want the UK to sign any

deals of its own, although the UK

says it can negotiate and even

signed deals to come into effect

after transition.

The EU wants freedom of movement

to continue as before,

but the government is planning

to introduce a registration system

for EU citizens coming to live

in the UK during the transition

period.

The EU wants the UK to comply

with all EU laws and regulations

during transition, including any

changes made without UK approval...

But the government has said it wants

a new mechanism to vet any

disagreements over new rules brought

in during the transition.

Our man in Brussels Adam

Fleming joins us now...

Welcome back to the programme. What

should we expect?

What we should

expect in the next few minutes is

the European affairs ministers from

the remaining 27 EU countries

arriving on the red carpet.

I've seen the Austrian

representative, the Danish and the

Barbarian. They will stop, it's an

opportunity for us to ask them

questions about the Brexit process

and shenanigans there. They will sit

down for a meeting at 3:30pm, then

they will publish their negotiation

directives, a document setting out

their positions on this transition

period, which the artist government

prefers to call an implementation

phase. Michel Barnier, the chief

negotiator, we haven't heard from

him in a little while, then he has

the green light to talk formerly

with the British government about

getting details of this

implementation phase nailed down.

The British government would like

this to be a big political agreement

about transition terms, by the time

of the neck summit of EU leaders,

which will be on the 23rd of March.

Are there any signs of agreement

between the two sides broadly on

transition?

Well, the British

government's view and the view of

British officials is these

transition guidelines have been

drawn up as a result of a request

from the UK and a speech the Prime

Minister made in Florence, she said

that she wants access to other

markets to continue on current

terms. The UK Spain, if you like, is

that these are directives drawn up

with the UK in mind. The EU say that

this is what we are offering you and

is the only way it can be done, with

UK sticking to all of the rules and

obligations that basically come with

EU membership, without being a

member of the EU. The big thing that

will have to be agreed between the

two sides in the next few weeks is

this process for dealing with issues

of mutual interest. So, for example,

fishing quotas, which will have to

be set for the year 2020 at a

meeting of fisheries ministers here

in Brussels, in December 20 19. The

UK will be bound by those fishing

quotas. But they will not have a

seat at the table, technically. A

way will have to be found to have

them nearer to the door, or a stand

at the table, rather than a seat at

the table, whatever metaphor you

want to use, so that issue of

interest can be sorted by the two

sides.

Thank you.

Let's speak now to the Belgian

MEP Philippe Lamberts,

he's a member of the European

Parliament's Brexit Steering Group

and he's in Brussels...

In your mind, how long do you think

the transition period, or the

implementation phase, will be?

Well,

I know that both UK and the European

Union want this to be short. About

two years but frankly speaking, I

would not bet too much money on

this. Looking at the number of

things that have to be negotiated

during the transition period for a

deal to be finalised, in that

period, he would need a long time --

you would need a lot more time than

the two years. You cannot be too

ideological. Some resent the only

way for the UK to keep file access

to the European single market, in

the meantime, means abiding by

regulation. It is true, it means a

number of obligations for the UK but

also a number of rights. During the

transition period. Basically, the

United Kingdom would be in a

quasi-membership status during this

transition period. It would not set

at the table where decisions are

made. I understand that it is an

uncomfortable position but you need

time to finalise the future

relationship.

Does that

quasi-status, as you say, does it

mean in terms of membership, would

you expect the UK to still

contribute to the budget, if it were

to be longer than two years, the

transition period?

It is part of the

equation. In her Florence speech,

Theresa May conceded that during the

transition, the UK would contribute

in order to secure access to the

single market. My honest assessment

of the commitment made in December,

not made any bolder in the Irish

Sea, -- no border in Ireland. Of

course, that is what negotiations

will tell us.

In that negotiation,

would you accept the fact that a

freedom of movement would change,

even during the transition period,

if the UK is developing its own

registration system, that that would

be negotiated as part of

implementation phases?

I don't

believe so, there is a large degree

of unity on the EU 27 side, that

while the UK remains fully in the

customs union, all of the

obligations that come with it,

including free circulation of

people, that stance. There isn't

really any wiggle room there. There

is a lot of wiggle room afterwards

for a future relationship but not

during transition.

And in terms of

the rules that you say that Britain

would be under the jurisdiction of

the rules made, any new roles in

terms of a transition period, with

the UK, in your mind, should it be

allowed to have an input, still, in

those roles that would then over

Britain?

Britain?

Well, certainly, if Brexit

has happened at the end of March

2019, no Brits would sit in the

European Parliament in the European

Commission college, and at European

Council yet. I think it would make

sense, that we receive nonbinding

opinions by the British government.

Also, sometimes there are very good

ideas coming out of London and we

should heed them if they make sense.

I have rejoiced at the contributions

the British governance has been

making and I will not change my mind

afterwards. The key point is that it

can be advised and requested that

they cannot be binding on the 27th.

You speak for Parliament, obviously,

as an MEP. Your view is that you

have reflected, on a number of

issues, do you think that the view

of the leaders of the country are

represented by the council?

May be,

but on transition I am less adamant

than some on this. Some say we

cannot have a longer transition

because of the current multi-annual

budget framework expires in 2020 and

it would be cumbersome to draw the

next multi-annual budget without the

UK, but with it taking into account

a British contribution but to me, it

is a nonissue. If the transition has

to be longer, it has to be longer. A

cliff edge would be bad for the EU

27 and the UK. Therefore if we need

a longer transition period, fine by

me. But I know some have been more

ideological issue on that.

Let me

bring in a Tory MP guest in the

studio, Bim, I will come back to you

in a moment. What is your reaction

to a longer transition period, if

necessary. He says he thinks it will

be, no alternative immigration

registration system during the

transition and yes, we would have to

take all new rules that come into

play while we are still in this

quasi-should roll?

I think the most interesting thing

that the gentlemen said was that he

was quite flexible and he thought

other EU states would be flexible...

Not on all of those issues.

Around

Britain having a say on certain

rules which would apply to us during

the transition period. I think that

is important. But we shouldn't be

too ideological about this. We need

to make sure that as we leave the

European Union we get it right. If

that means that in the process of

those previous, we have to accept

things that we otherwise won't

accept after that period, then we

have to do so, because I think it's

important that when we leave we do

so on the right terms in the right

way.

You would be happy to see

transition go beyond March 2021?

I

think that when you agree a time

period, we have got to stick to

that, is very important.

Why? Going

to says it will not be achievable?

A

lot of people have said a lot of

things are not achievable in this

process and they have been achieved.

We have got to work towards a date

and get it done by then.

Philippe

Lamberts, it is now evident that the

UK would not be the only country to

vote to leave the EU in a

referendum, you have no doubt heard

the French president revealing that

he believes voters in France would

do the same if given the choice -

hardly a vote of confidence in the

European Union, is it?

I do not

share that view. What I witnessed on

the ground, and not just in my home

country, is that yes, there is

resentment about many policies

carried out at European level. But

that's resentment does not translate

into a will to leave. I think the

vast majority of our citizens want

to change the set of policies that

are carried out at European level,

look at the level of inequality that

we have, for instance, people resent

asp and the EU is often seen as a

vehicle of those inequality policies

- well, we need to change that. But

it is not by chance that Marine Le

Pen lost in the French campaign, it

is not by chance that the populists

across Europe are toning down there

Eurosceptical rhetoric.

Emmanuel

Macron thought that even despite

that that French voters would vote

to leave if given a referendum?

His

opinion is the same as anyone else's

but I do not share that opinion.

Is

it the case in your mind that the EU

does have to show it is being very

tough on Britain, to deter any other

member states deciding to hold an

in-out referendum?

No. I think that

is bad policy.

is bad policy. Keeping people

together by scaremongering is not a

good policy. So, we should be fair

in our dealings with the UK and

indeed with obligations. Lack of

membership comes with benefits and

with negatives as well. So, we do

not have to make the situation worse

than it is, because I do believe

that for the UK, being out of the

single market and customs union and

being out of many co-operations with

the European Union is not a good

place to be in any think people will

realise that, without us being

forced to darken the picture. I

think it is not good policy. We

should keep an open hand, an

extended hand, and again, on the

issue of the UK having a say, I want

to be very precise, that the UK can

contribute opinions, fine, but it

cannot have a voice in the decision.

The decision is for the 27 to make.

Philippe Lamberts, thank you very

much. So, they could have a voice at

the table but it wouldn't be

binding, they would not have a

decisive say on rules from the

European Court of Justice - would

you accept that?

I think we have got

to wait and see what the negotiation

turns up. He is making the point

from the EU's perspective. The

British Government's view will be

different and we will see where we

get to.

Do you agree with the

Eurosceptics in the Conservative

Party that Philip Hammond is a block

to Brexit and should be sacked?

I

don't agree with that, I think

that's wrong. I think Philip Hammond

along with the other Cabinet

ministers who have spoken to about,

other issues are working very hard

with the Prime Minister to get the

best deal they can.

Cat, on the idea

of a second referendum, Jeremy

Corbyn has said that isn't going to

happen. Do you agree with him when

the vast majority of Labour Party

members would like to see a second

referendum?

I do agree with Jeremy

Paxman. I campaigned to remain but I

was clear when I was campaigning

that it was the referendum which

would decide and unfortunately for

me I was on the losing side but I

respect the outcome. And now we have

to deliver. But there should be

binding vote in parliament on the

final deal, and that was something

which the Labour called for.

And

what sort of customs union does

Labour want to see with the EU?

It

is obvious that the EU 27 are some

of our closest neighbours

geographically and we will want to

continue trading with them. It makes

sense to be in A customs union.

How

would that work?

This is a long way

off now and negotiations are to be

had on that. But it is important

that business in Britain can trade

with the EU 27 countries.

So, you've

got the same position, then, with

the Conservative Party on that?

No,

I think the direction of travel that

we are seeing from David Davis and

Theresa May is chaotic. Given that

it is now nearly two years since we

had this referendum, to have only

got this far, I think, is quite

irresponsible on the part of the

government.

But we do not know your

position at the moment. You say it

is chaotic, and that might be but in

terms of what you're offering, to

voters, in terms of where you would

be with the Brexit negotiations,

what is the difference in terms of

the close alignment with the EU that

some are saying within the

government and what you're offering?

Well, we don't want to see a Brexit

deal that will damage jobs in the

British economy or reduce

environmental and is workers'

rights. I think the difference

between the two parties probably

rests mostly on that there a lot of

Tory Brexiteers who want to rip up

employment rights and shred

environmental protection.

Bim, is

there any risk of that happening?

That just rubbish and wrong. In

relation to the Labour Party, their

position is chaotic. You have had

frontbenchers saying they're

definitely going to leave the

customs union, you've had Diane

Abbott saying they want a second

referendum, you have had others

staying that they should stay in the

customs union, we have had Cat now

saying that there should be A

customs union.

But they are not the

government at the moment, so can you

reassure viewers that there would

not be any ripping up of workers'

rights or employment rights, that

jobs would not be under threat?

No,

the government has never said, not

once, that we want to get rid of

employment rights or get rid of

environmental and, this is just

completely wrong and frankly it is

scaremongering from the Labour Party

for political reasons, and I don't

think that is helping this country

or anybody get the best deal with

the European Union.

I think it's

really clear that there are Tory

backbenchers who do want to see that

kind of Brexit, and what we're

seeing, and I hope we're not going

into another story here, but with

Theresa May as weak as she is as

Prime Minister, she is under immense

pressure from the backbenchers to do

these things like ripping up

employment rights and environmental

edge is.

Do you see that Britain is

at risk of becoming a vassal state,

that this idea of remaining in the

European Union in all but name is

now a real prospect, suddenly during

the transition and possibly beyond?

We have talked about the transition,

I accept that we will have to accept

certain European rules that we will

not have to afterwards. But more

generally, the government has been

clear from the beginning that we're

going to leave the single market and

leave CUSTOMS union. I don't quite

know how that makes us a vassal

state.

In terms of the modest

changes which Philip Hammond talked

about, were you worried about that?

I have to be honest I haven't seen

his speech so I should probably go

and check out what he said.

Theresa

May is not short on advice...

Theresa May isn't short on advice

from members of her own party over

how to handle Brexit,

not to mention just about every

other major area of domestic policy.

Not all of it is exactly helpful.

Brexit continues to be the big

source of public disagreement.

The chair of the European Research

Group, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

said that he was "biting his tongue"

over Philip Hammond's future,

whom he accused of disagreeing

with government policy.

While former Northern Ireland

Secretary Theresa Villiers said

the government's policy on Brexit

was is in danger of "selling out

all the people who voted to leave".

But that's not the view

of everyone in the party -

Anna Soubry tweeted...

And climate change minister

Claire Perry is revealed to have

sent a message calling critics

of the government over the EU

divorce bill "swivel-eyed men".

And it's not just Brexit

that's been providing her

critics with ammunition.

Former minister Robert

Halfon told the BBC...

And Heidi Allen accused

the "old guard" of failing

to understand "why we need

to change", adding...

To help us make sense of all of this

we're joined now by Kate McCann

of the Telegraph and Tom McTague

of the website Politico...

Welcome to both of you. Kate McCann,

how dangerous is this moment for

Theresa May - is she any more likely

to confront a leadership challenge

now that she was a few months ago?

I

think that is the biggest question,

and the longer this goes on, the

longer Theresa May lurches in some

people's eyes from one crisis to

another, actually that becomes more

likely. At the heart of this is the

number of MPs who were willing to

write to Graham Bailey to ask for a

vote of no confidence in her. At the

end of last week there was talk that

that number was around 40 and the

Magic number is 48.

I believe a

couple of other letters went in at

the weekend.

At the question really

is, even if that vote happens, are

there enough MPs in the House of

Commons who would vote against

Theresa May as the Prime Minister?

And actually I don't believe that's

the case. I think what is going on

here is that MPs want to send a

message to the Prime Minister to

say, you really need to grasp this

issue, and this vote of confidence

is a good way of threatening her

without actually really doing very

much.

It seems to me that there has

been a change in terms of the amount

of pressure being put on Theresa

May, because some of the Brexiteers,

some of the arch Eurosceptics, are

becoming increasingly nervous that

their vision of Brexit is now not

going to be delivered - how do you

see it?

It is exactly like that, it

is like a game of ping-pong, when

she veers slightly too far to the

Remain side then the Brexiteers get

up in arms and say, we need to drag

her back. And then when she goes too

far towards Boris Johnson or Jacobs

reads Mogg -- or Jacob Rees-Mogg,

then you see Anna Soubry as we have

just seen it on the TV.

But that

makes it difficult to make a big

speech following on from Lancaster

House and Florence because you're

damned if you do and damned if you

don't?

It does and this morning it

appears that big speech might be

off. We were expecting it to happen

in February and it sounds now like

it might be about security issues

and not about the future of Brexit

and the limitation period, which is

what a lot of Tory MPs wanted to see

and feel like a party needs to do in

order to set out the direction of

travel in order to settle those

Brexiteers on the backbenches who

are chomping at the bit to see what

happens next.

It is also rather

ominous when you have to send out

senior people in the party,

ministers like Matt Hancock and

David Lidington, to call for the

Tory family to come together?

Whenever you have to go for

something to come together, you know

it is not together in the first

place. This is fundamentally Theresa

May's problem and it stems back to

the election - she doesn't have a

majority in parliament to force the

issue. She can't be radical because

she has no mandate, so she has to

sit in the middle and try and

balance the two sides, and that's

how job.

Who should she fear most,

Kate?

I think at the moment the

group of Jacob Rees-Mogg is in

control of the Brexiteers on the

backbenches. We have seen from last

week how much of the agenda he is

driving at the moment. Tom is right,

there have been interventions from

Cabinet ministers and, but actually

there is a sense in the Cabinet that

although people are frustrated they

want to try and keep a lid on this.

This week we have seen the bill

coming back in the Lords and the

question is whether Tory

backbenchers are more concerned

about their party or more concerned

about Brexit. I think for people

like Jacob Rees-Mogg Brexit has

become more important than the

future of the Conservative Party,

and when that becomes the case it is

problematic for a Prime Minister who

is relying on the fact that nobody

really is due to see a leadership

contest because of the confusion it

would cause.

Let's have a listen now

to the Conservative backbencher,

speaking this morning at an event

discussing the future

of the Conservative Party.

I'm of the view that any sort

of change of leadership is not

helpful at the moment

and I don't support that.

But I do think the window

is closing, because politics can be

quite a brutal game.

The prime minister talked

about things that are brilliant,

you know, about inter-generational

unfairness, we've touched on,

as we've said, housing and so on.

But we have to deliver them,

you can't just always talk

about the speech outside number 10

Downing Street, which

was very, very good.

Well, that was Johnny Mercer as best

do you agree with him that their

window is closing on Theresa May to

get a grip of her leadership?

No, I

don't. Look, it is obvious that the

lack of a strong Parliamentary

majority is making things difficult

for the Conservative Party at the

moment. That is true. But the way to

deal with that is not to lurch and

do something ill thought out. The

way to deal with it is to continue

delivering on what we have been

delivering. I was looking at some of

the economic statistics.

Unemployment down, inflation coming

down, we're actually doing a lot of

things. Good So what do you say to

your colleagues, there are reams of

them who have been either briefing

the newspapers or tweeting out on

all sides, saying that she hasn't

got a grip of the leadership and

that she needs to do something about

it, what do you say to them?

I say to them what I'm about to say

to you, that we work together to

deliver the things that Johnny was

talking about. I accept his point

that delivery is more important than

just saying something but are we

actually doing those things? Work

with the cabinet ministers and

departments and show the country

that we can deliver the changes this

country needs.

Why are so many of

your colleagues are not convinced by

Theresa May's leadership?

You would

have to ask them.

Is there something

that you are missing or that they

are?

I think sometimes in politics,

I've only been an MP for seven

months but I've watched politics for

a long time, MPs will brief on Arran

-- will brief on an unobtrusive

nature the Sunday newspapers. If

vast majority of the Conservative

Party is still behind the Prime

Minister. That has not changed

today.

We have both sides here

briefing. You have everybody from

Nicholas Soames, to Johnny Mercer,

to Heidi Alexander Jacob Rees-Mogg,

I could go on and on. They are from

across the spectrum, within the Tory

party. They are not afraid to put

their names to the criticisms that

they have. Robert Halfon has said

that she needs to go from being

eight orders to a lion. Are all

wrong?

When you are a Conservative

member of Parliament, you have a

duty to talk about where you think

the party could improve and where

you think the government is going.

If I recall correctly, I do not

think any of those people have said

they are sending Graham Brady a

letter or any of that stuff...

But

we don't know.

we don't, and that

was by Kate was saying there have

been 40 letters... Nobody knows. I

would treat that with a large bit of

salt. What I can say is that very

few colleagues have said that they

have sent in a letter or even

intimated that that is what they are

going to do. What they seem to be

saying is that they have said look,

the government has laudable aims,

let's deliver on those and work

together as a family to deliver.

Do

you despair, at the moment? As you

say, you only came in six or seven

months ago?

It isn't what I expected

once I was selected before the

election, like many people, I

suspect like you, felt we would have

a lodgement Georgie and that isn't

the case. It's harder than I would

have thought that I worked with is

an immensely talented people and

throughout the party. I look forward

to doing that every single day.

And

Grant Shapps...

He is a very nice

guy, he is a neighbour of mine in

the constituency.

What do you think

of his suggestion that reason they

should set an exit date, that she

will not fight a general election

whatever? Would that help?

No, I do

not think a Prime Minister should

ever do that, even if they want to

set 115 years in the future. I do

not think it works. She should do

what she is currently doing and

deliver the change the country

needs.

Should she deliver a big

speech in the next few weeks on

Brexit?

What I do think is important

is the government sets out more

clearly what its position is for the

trade talks, they will start after

the transition period.

Cat,

listening to all of that, and having

no doubt read The Papers and the

numerous tweets about Theresa May's

leadership, why isn't the Labour

Party further ahead in the polls,

they are still neck and neck?

Is an

interesting conversation that you

just add there, it strikes me the

problem that Theresa May has is she

just had a parliamentary majority at

the general election but never had a

mandate within the Conservative

Party because there was never a

leadership election.

Why has Jeremy

Corbyn and the Labour Party, why

aren't they are miles ahead in the

polls? I think they are quite

good... It is neck and neck with the

Conservatives... Would you expect

them to be further ahead?

It wasn't

long ago that I remember Diane

Abbott and the programme saying that

she had closed the gap with the

Conservatives within the year, and

we did. It was laughed at at the

time but we have come forward in

leaps and bounds but the only poll

that really matters is a general

election.

Let's leave it there.

Labour leader of 70 councils have

signed a joint letter criticising

the actions of the party's ruling

body, the National Executive

Committee, after it intervened

in a controversial housing scheme

in North London.

On Thursday, the NEC, as it is

known, advised Haringey council

to pause the project,

which has split the party

in the area and is opposed locally

by the pro-Corbyn group Momentum.

The letter published yesterday

described the actions of the NEC

as "dangerous and alarming",

and "an affront to the basic

principles of democracy".

Well earlier I spoke to the Labour

leader of Newcastle Nick Forbes,

one of the signatories,

and asked him what the

problem is with the NEC

intervening in this case.

My concern is that this would have

set, if the NEC decided to

intervene, it would have set a

dangerous precedent, that in all who

did not like what a labour council

did, we have Labour councils having

to make difficult decisions on the

basis of Tory cuts at the moment.

That would mean that that brokered

escalate straight up to the NEC and

effect take the matter out of local

hands. It's entirely appropriate

that Labour groups are allowed

within the confines of the party,

the rules and the law, to get on and

do what is in the best interests of

their local constituents.

Jon

Trickett, a leading member of the

Labour Party and close to the

leadership said on the BBC Sunday

politics yesterday that the row was

a storm in a teacup. Is this all an

overreaction?

I think quite a lot of

this has become a little out of

hand. I think anyone at the NEC

would recognise, and the letter that

was signed by more than 120 group

leaders was designed to reinforce,

that local Labour groups are

accountable to their local

communities in the NEC has no

business in interfering in the

running of those Labour groups. It

was a helpful reminder, I think, on

those rules at a time when fevers

are running a little high in some

parts of the country but it is

really important that some of the

North London politics that we see

happening do not get played out in

the rest of the party, and do not

become a totem for interference in

wider Labour group policies. Because

ultimately, it's important that

local Labour groups have the

sovereignty to do what is right for

the locals constituents.

Did you

ever play your hand when you said in

the letter that it was dangerous and

alarming, and a front to democracy

and not very comradely?

That would

have been the situation if the NEC

decided to instruct Haringey Labour

group but they did not decide to do

that. They voted unanimously to

enter a period of mediation and

Andrew Quinn and myself were asked

to lead on that process. There has

been quite a lot of misreporting of

the situation. I do think, this is

where I agree with Jon Trickett, it

has become a storm in a teacup and

what we need to do is get on and do

what is in the interests of our

communities. When we have a Tory

government it will always be more

difficult and that means Labour

councils will be faced with

difficult and in some cases

unpopular things to do. That's what

we have to do in order to comply

with the law. That's what we have to

do in order to deliver the best

possible housing jobs, education and

so on.

You started this interview

saying that it set a dangerous

precedent, that Labour councils have

to take unpopular decisions and it

should not open the door to the

ruling executive overriding or

interfering with politics. If you

feel so strongly about it that you

wrote a letter stating that, why are

you now saying that yes, you also

agreed it was a storm in a teacup

and the development is being paused

and everything is OK. Which is it?

It is a helpful reminder to members

of the committee about the executive

of Labour groups and it's an

important reminder of how these

things can quickly get out of hand

if we are not careful. Therefore, it

is really important that we all

remember that we are one party and

working together, working to achieve

good things in difficult

circumstances and the Labour local

government, I speak on behalf of

them from around the country, they

are very concerned that any kind of

decision that they face at a local

level which is perceived as

unpopular may be escalated right at

the top of the party very quickly.

It is no way to run the party and

will log jam the NEC with all sorts

of local issues.

That was Nick Forbes in Newcastle.

Cap Smith, in the letter that he and

69 other leaders wrote, that the

ruling executive has no right to

legitimise the actions of locally

elected representatives, do you

agree?

They wouldn't have the power

to override a decision made by local

councillors, that's my understanding

of the situation. I do not live in

Haringey, I'm a Lancashire lass but

my understanding is that they were

Haringey councillors who asked the

NEC and ask for support on the

matter. There was discussion being

had within the Labour group and the

NEC obviously took the boat that it

took that it instructed the council

to do that...

to do that...

It's said to the

council in Haringey that it should

pause developing plans and that they

had to go through a mediation

process. I say to you again, has the

NEC, the ruling executive,

overstepped the mark an affront to

democracy, said Nick Forbes and

others, by interfering in local

politics in this way.

He also said

it was turning into a storm in a

teacup and I would be inclined to

agree with him...

You've not answer

the question, should they interfere

in any local issue or decision. As

he said, it sets a dangerous and

alarming precedent and they want

assurances that such circumstances

will not arise again.

I think the

NEC is entitled to express an

opinion if it should wish to. I

would not like it to be a habit in

doing that but this local

development will be made by

councillors in Haringey.

But the

number of people who have signed

this letter, it is the vast

majority, if not pretty much all, of

Labour's council leaders. I hope

with the shadows a coterie of State

for local government, that the NEC

and group counsel leaders can get

together -- Secretary of State for

local government.

I think he wants

to put this behind...

He did not say

that he wants to put it behind him,

he said it was a useful reminder

that the ruling executive in the

Labour Party should not impose

itself on decisions made by local

councils. Do you think local Labour

councils should be able to determine

their own policies?

Absolutely, I do

not think the NEC were imposing

it...

They did, they asked for a

pause... It has, they have called

for a pause in the mediation process

as if they do not bring about a

resolution. Would you not see that

as interference?

You can call for

anything. There are many

organisations that call for a

government to do things. The

government really does them. They

could call for Haringey to post the

development but that is a decision

for Haringey Council.

So council

should ignore what the NEC does or

advisers? Let's say they were to

start interfering and involving

themselves in local decisions up and

down the country, would you support

that?

The council can ignore what

the NEC has said, of course they

can. But I don't think it is helpful

too. It is always helpful if you can

have a conversation. Clearly there

are two schools of opinion here...

Which do you believe in? We are

talking about a principle here.

I do

not seek to have an opinion on this.

I will busy myself with representing

the constituents I have in Fleetwood

and Lancaster...

But if they were to

interfere with a decision in your

area or a neighbouring area, would

you support that?

Is important to

have a conversation, I hope we can

come out of that with one. Some

members of the Labour grip on

Haringey have an opinion, some

leaders sending in this letter as

well but I hope that we can come out

of this having had a healthy

discussion.

In future would you like

Nick Forbes and other signatories to

the letter, would you like the NEC

to step back from this sort of level

of involvement in local councils?

I

do not think the NEC has previously

made a habit of commenting on

decisions by local councils, I'm not

familiar with it, if they have. I

think the NEC should really be there

to manage the Labour Party, we are a

growing party with an increasing

membership and there's a lot of work

to be done to ensure that we are

ready to fight the next general

election.

And yesterday, when the

Labour leader was asked about

capitalism and its benefits, let's

listen to what he had to say...

Capitalism is a system that has

evolved, it is a system that is

there and can provide regulatory

control.

It is there but does it

have anything right?

It invests

mainly for its own benefit but of

course they get challenged. Isn't

that what social movement is about

and trade unions are about? Isn't

that what our democracy is about.

Jeremy Corbyn there.

Do you have

anything nice to say on capitalism

or has it only benefited themselves

or those at the top?

I've lived by

32 years so far under capitalism and

it hasn't all been bad! As a student

of politics come I never studied

academically, that was the kind of

question being thrown at Jeremy

there. But it is clear that

capitalism, if not controlled, it

can create a widening gap between

rich and poor and that is obviously

unhelpful.

In terms of what it has

done for society, is it a good thing

or a bad thing in your mind?

I would

say neither, it is what it is.

What

does that mean?

It is a system I've

lived under, and my parents

generation have. There's that

unhealthy relationship, as Jeremy

was saying in that interview,

between how civil society, trade

unions and people can challenge it

but that's not to say that I'm

particularly

wedded to those terms in general.

You get on based on your abilities

rather than the finance that you are

born into. That is the sort of side

of capitalism...

You cannot do that

under capitalism?

It is increasingly

difficult to. Social mobility has

grown to a halt in this country and

that is a concern.

Has capitalism

failed in this generation, this

decade?

No, it hasn't failed. Across the

world more and more people are being

brought out of poverty.

Are they

being brought just a little bit out

of poverty, may be a few inches

above the bottom line, as Jeremy

Corbyn said?

No. My parents come

from Nigeria and if you go to a

country like Nigeria today, it is

much better off than it was 30 years

ago, and I think a lot of that is

because of the capitalist system. At

the broader point is, is it working

as well now for everybody in this

country as it has always? And I

think that's part of what we need to

do as a government, which is dealing

with the problems around housing,

which the government has talked

about a lot, education and social

mobility and other issues, to make

sure that for this next generation,

the generation of which we are part,

we can make sure that the system we

have works for everybody, and every

part of our society.

On Friday, David Davis

visited Teesport, one

of the UK's busiest ports.

He was there to talk

about the UK government's

plan for the transition,

or implementation period, after

Brexit, as we've been discussing.

And while he was the there

he was asked to support a local

campaign for the port to be

designated as something called

a "free port" once we leave the EU.

Here's the Conservative

mayor of Tees Valley,

Ben Houchen, with his soapbox.

There's grit, and there's a real

optimism in my area.

Teesside powered

the first industrial

revolution, and it has

aspirations to do it again.

We created and we export

of the very best, including

the fabrication of the Sydney

Harbour Bridge, and in places like

Middlesbrough and Hartlepool,

we want to embrace the opportunities

of the future to make sure

that we can

make the most of them.

So I've written to

the Chancellor with

support of more than 50 major

businesses to call on the government

to pilot a free port in Teesside,

and that has the support of

businesses like Hitachi Rail,

Sirius Minerals, Liberty Steel and

Quorn Foods.

I'm calling on the powers that be

to support this plan.

Free ports are inside of

the geographical boundary of the

country, but they are considered

outside the country for customs

purposes.

That means for a car

manufacturer, they could import

products, assemble

and manufacture them,

and then export them

without

having to go through customs.

Today, the EU customs

union and the EU

state aid laws make

this almost impossible.

Brexit means Britain can

capitalise on free port

opportunities.

That means jobs,

investments and domestic

manufacturing.

It would enable great maritime

centres like Teesport to

flourish again.

I represent almost 700,000

people in the Tees Valley

and there are areas

here that voted leave

almost as much as anywhere

in the country.

This is an area that felt left

behind by the Blair and

Brown years, and it felt left behind

by the economic boom of London and

the south-east.

It's time we rebalance

the economy in

their favour.

And Ben Houchen is here in the

studio. You say the EU makes it

impossible for us to have three

ports, but there are several free

ports, or free zones, as they are

referred to, dotted around the EU.

So what is stopping the government

from doing the same and setting up

free zones?

What we are trying to

get is something much more

fundamental. Free ports in the

European Union I believe our free

zones in name only. You've got three

different programmes, you've got the

inward processing relief, Alco

processing relief and customs

warehouse relief. So it is just a

glorified customs warehouse.

But the

government could go ahead and pursue

free zones, whether you think they

are in name only, they could do it?

There have been these pseudo- free

zones in the UK but a lot of the

decided in 2012 because we decided

not to renew the licenses on the

basis that they were too complex.

So

it is the government's decision -

what would be the real benefit to

people in these areas?

A proper

Freeport is not the Freeport status

that you can get in the European

Union. It is about tax relief and

tax incentives for things like

research and development, things

like process manufacturing, so we

can get proper manufacturing jobs

back to the UK, rather than a

pseudo- customs warehouse.

We said

David Davis visited Devoy on Friday

and he said he was open-minded about

the idea but he fell short of

backing it - why do you think

they're not supporting your plan?

I

don't think they're not supporting

it us look we have been speaking

about a draft deal for the Tees

Valley and in that is a pilot for a

Freeport at Teesport.

We have been

negotiating, and ultimately because

it requires money, or at least some

tax relief in that geographical

area, it has to go to the Treasury.

And also there is the political

dimension, if the EU doesn't want

the UK to have free zones now, or

free ports, why would they want us

to have them in any trade

relationship when we leave?

The

reason I am here today is that we

need to get ahead of that game. It

might be that in the trade

discussions, we give up that right

or we align ourselves with EU to

such an extent that we can't do

this, but actually I think we should

prepare now because whenever we

leave, we will be able to activate

this on day one.

Do you think there

should be preparations made for

options like this, same as the

infrastructure at ports, for

example, depending on what is agreed

about the customs union - should the

government be investing in some of

these if a structure projects now in

preparation?

I think we should,

actually, and not just because of

leaving the EU, I just think it's a

very, very good idea. And we should

be doing everything radical and

innovative to bring the sort of jobs

and investment that you've been

talking about this country.

Money

has been set aside, of course,

planning for Brexit, have you spoken

to the Chancellor about some of that

money being used in this way?

The

campaign has only just been

launched, we've been working

behind-the-scenes for many months

and we have now got 50 major

businesses, UK and international,

supporting the campaign, and there

is now a meeting to be set up in the

near future with the Treasury to

talk about that second devolution

deal, which has Freeport status

within it.

On jobs, you cited 86,000

- where did you get the figure from?

There are those who are campaigning

for the UK to stay within the

customs union and single market who

cast doubt on that figure?

We are

working on the position that we

leave the single market and the

customs union, because you cannot do

this otherwise just the figure of

86,000 comes from the report...

That

is a Tory MP?

That is a total across

the board so in Teesport it would

not be that number but it would be

many thousands of jobs.

Are you

convinced, Cat Smith, by the idea,

the local Labour MP for Redcar

supports the free port model?

What

is interesting is that this is one

of the outcomes of devolution. If

you allow local people to start

coming up with ideas for their own

area, I find that very exciting. I

would like to see more powers given

to local communities to make

decisions, it is something I would

like to see in my area as well. Just

the idea that actually we do have

the answers outside of London, and

we should be given that opportunity.

But if Jeremy Corbyn, as he is,

suggests that Labour could form a

customs union with the European

Union, would there be a need for

free ports?

I think that is

something which would be thrashed

out in the negotiations. In terms of

what we get out of Brexit in the

end, I would like to see a fairer,

more equal country, where wealth is

shared outside of the 25 as well as

inside.

Isn't there a problem with

competition, isn't that one of the

reasons that you haven't yet had

political support in any major way,

does actually we would have

competing areas, free ports across

the country?

I think Teesport has a

unique opportunity. We have got the

development corporation, the first

male role developing corporation

outside of London. It was launched

in August and we got more than £100

million from the Chancellor in the

budget. It is actually government

policy now to support that

development corporation around

Teesport.

And what about funding? We

have had discussions about farming

subsidies, and the government would

give a certain amount of money that

would be lost from some of the

European Union funds - should it be

in the same here, Ben Houchen wants

the government to guarantee the

replacement of funds to the team

Valley after Brexit - should it?

I

don't know, it is very complex. We

will see where the chips fall down.

What I think is important is that we

make sure we invest property in

areas like the Tees Valley. I don't

know about the exact numbers but I

do think that what Ben Houchen has

been saying is very powerful.

MPs including my two guests

of the day will this week

have the chance to vote

on whether they should

move out of Parliament,

after warnings that the building

is at risk of a serious fire

if restoration works

are not carried out.

Here's Elizabeth Glinka

with as a reminder about

where they might end up.

We all know how stressful moving can

be, but when it involves 650 MPs,

800 peers and thousands of support

staff, it's even more complicated.

Keeping everybody happy -

well, that's nigh-on impossible,

but let's take a look at some

of the options.

First up sort of not really

moving at all, well,

just into another room

in the same house.

In this case one of the oldest

parts of the palace,

the 900-year-old Westminster Hall.

Less upheaval, certainly,

but period properties can be

a drain on resources.

Or if you fancy something a little

more modern and open-plan,

then how about Portcullis House?

It's the big black

building opposite Big Ben.

Completed in 2001, it houses

the offices of around 200 MPs,

and has a nice big atrium,

which might fit the bill.

Then there's the moving

in with friends option.

There are suggestions

that the Commons could sleep

on the sofa at the Department

of Health, while the Lords might be

able to borrow the spare room

at the Queen Elizabeth

Conference Centre.

Some of the more imaginative

options, including this design

for a temporary floating parliament,

by the architects Gensler,

have already been ruled out.

But there are still many calls,

including from the SNP,

for Parliament to relocate

to another part of the country.

Suggestions include Glasgow,

Birmingham Manchester.

Decisions, decisions.

Cat Smith, what would you go for,

the floating parliament or moving

out permanently or what?

We need to

remember that the Houses of

Parliament is a UNESCO World

Heritage Site, it is a popular

tourist attraction and right now

it's falling apart, and it would be

irresponsible to delay this any

longer. We need to go for the most

value for money option edit that is

going to be moving out of

Parliament, relocating, and letting

the work people move in and restore

the Houses of Parliament to the

glory that they once had.

That's

what you're going to vote for this

week - what about you, you've only

just arrived, and you're going to be

voting to kick yourself out?

Actually I've got an open mind on

this, I will be sitting in the

debate and listening to the

arguments. I can see both sides of

it. Some of my colleagues don't want

to leave because they feel that

somehow, a future government may

prevent us from coming back. There

are colleagues like Andrea Leadsom,

the Secretary of State who has been

leading this, who are very keen that

we go for a full decant option but I

will be listening to the arguments.

Because actually, can you delay any

decision any more?

No, I think we do

need to get on with it.

Thank you

Paris Match!

-- thank you very much.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The one o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon tomorrow

with all the big political stories

of the day.

Do join me then.

Bye-bye.