01/02/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

The Prime Minister, speaking

on her official trip to China,

says she will oppose a move to give

EU citizens coming to the UK full

residency rights after we've

left the European Union.

So will she win the latest battle?

MPs vote to move out of Parliament

to allow a multi-billion pound

refurbishment to take place.

But it won't happen

until at least 2025!

Will that be too late?

Should MPs with newborn

babies be able to vote

in Parliamentary debates by proxy?

We speak to one Labour MP who's just

returned from maternity leave.

And he was the man in charge

of making Ukip look good...

Not always entirely successfully!

We speak to one of Westminster's

most flamboyant characters, Ukip's

outgoing press man Gawain Towler.

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is the former Polish Foreign

Minister Radek Sikorski.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Hello.

The former Chancellor,

George Osborne, has added his weight

to calls for Britain to remain

inside the European Customs

Union after Brexit.

In her Florence speech last year,

the Prime Minister made it clear

that the Government wanted to come

out of the customs union in order

to be able to pursue

an independent trade policy.

But speaking to the Today

programme this morning,

Mr Osborne said it was a risk.

I do think we now face

a series of choices

about the kind of Brexit

we

want and we have a much clearer idea

of the consequences of, for example,

leaving with no deal with

the European Union or leaving the

customs union.

These are the choices

that the country, but above all,

Parliament now face.

And I think we should

look very, very

carefully at the advantages of, for

example, leaving the customs union

and potentially doing

a trade deal...

In the Evening Standard,

where you wrote an editorial...

Let me just finish my point.

We should look clearly

at the costs and benefits

of, for example, leaving the customs

union and doing less trade with

Europe, versus what we might gain

from doing a trade deal with America

and at the moment, the sums don't

stack up for that kind of decision.

George Osborne there. Do you agree

with him?

Yes, I think is entirely right and

he's also vindicated in his warnings

when he was Chancellor about the

long-term economic effects of

Brexit. It's going to be negative.

In what way? Because of the legal

analysis papers? Ryder because of

the government doing Brexit so there

is Ane Brun or economic effect will

this country that will be negative.

The government has said one of the

scenarios that was not included was

a bespoke deal.

It doesn't exist.

Not at the moment but you don't

think it's a possibility from the

European Union?

Britain has to

choose from the available models of

relationships. Customs union is the

turkey model, full single market

membership is the Norway model, free

trade agreement is the Canada model

and it will be one of these.

He says

the sums don't add up but the

international trade secretary Liam

Fox, who is tasked with scoping out

these free trade agreements, says

over time, although it can't be done

immediately, those free trade

agreements could replace much of any

trade that might be lost with the

EU.

His own department said that

over 15 years, it will be bad, what

will happen

will happen in 50 years is anybody's

guess.

But these were drafts, as the

government said, and forecasts have

been wrong, as you know, including

the ones that George Osborne and

David Cameron put out any immediate

aftermath of the referendum that the

economy would struggle.

But you are

leaving the largest free trade area

in the world so it doesn't quite

make sense.

Do you think the

government will change course?

I so

because any relationship short of

full membership is worse for this

country. Membership is a privileged

relationship. Britain aspired to

join, was rejected, applied again,

was then admitted and has done

extremely well. I mean, in the

1970s, Britain was not exactly a

success story. It is a shame but I

think there is still room for some

damage control. The customs union

makes sense not only for economic

reasons but also because it then

limit the number of checks that you

have to do across the island of

Ireland. So both politically and

economically, I think it is a

sensible solution.

How are EU

leaders, you no doubt keep in touch

with some of the senior politicians

across the European Union, how do

they view it from their perspective,

the pace of negotiations and the

substance of the British position so

far?

They don't. Brexit is on the

continent seen as a nuisance and a

side issue. Europe has more

important issues, like the Eurozone

providing growth in Europe --

reviving growth. The issue for

member states on the continent has

been delegated to the commission, as

far as they are concerned. The

negotiating mandate has been granted

to the chief negotiator. So far,

Britain is adjusting to that

negotiating mandate.

Although there

are noises for the Italians, for

example, who say there should be

flexible deal and we need to get on

with the trade deal so is it true to

say it is a nuisance?

It is the EU

system and successive British

governments have fallen prey the

fact that they go to capitals and

everyone is very nice and polite and

everybody likes Britain and then

just these ambassadors in Brussels,

who take instructions from their

national capitals, takes a pricing

decisions.

Do you think the

government will take any notice of

what George Osborne says, bearing in

mind he's been a thorn in the side

of the government, he's been very

critical of Theresa May, of course.

Should we listen to what he had to

say?

I'm detecting a bit of a wobble

in the Cabinet. Wasn't it a minister

who said not everything can be

achieved as far as Brexit purists

are concerned? So perhaps as the

politicians are learning what the EU

is actually about and what the

consequences will be, hopefully

realism is beginning to prevail.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Matt Hancock, the new Digital,

Culture, Media and Sport Secretary

is, as you would expect,

embracing the digital

age, so our question

for today is, what's he done?

Has he A, started a podcast,

B, created his own app,

C, become a YouTube star or

D, become an Instagram influencer?

At the end of the show, Radek

will give us the correct answer.

He is up-to-the-minute of these

things!

So, the first battle in the second

stage of the Brexit negotiations

with the EU became clear this week,

over the rights of EU

citizens arriving in the UK

during any transition period.

The remaining 27 EU member states

set out their negotiating position

on Monday, prompting a response

from the Prime Minister,

who is on a trade visit to China.

The latest immigration figures show

that the number of EU migrants

coming to the UK fell 19% to 230,000

in the 12 months since

the Brexit referendum.

And at the same time,

there was also a marked increase

in the number of EU citizens leaving

the UK, totalling 123,000.

The UK will leave

the EU in March 2019,

but there is then expected to be

a transition period

of up to two years.

As part of the Phase 1

Brexit negotiations,

which concluded in December,

the government agreed that all EU

nationals who have been in the UK

for more than five years will be

granted settled status,

giving them indefinite leave

to remain with the same access

to public services as now.

On Monday, the EU said it expects

existing rules on freedom

of movement for EU citizens to apply

in full until the end

of the transition phase.

But speaking during her trade trip

to China, Theresa May

said that she was "clear

there is a difference" between those

people who arrive prior to the UK

leaving the EU in March 2019

and those who arrive

after that date.

The government is due to bring

an Immigration Bill before

Parliament at an unspecified date

later this year.

And they have commissioned

the Migration Advisory Committee

to examine how EU migration affects

the labour market, but that is not

due to report until September.

Well, earlier, Brexit

Secretary David Davis

was answering questions from MPs.

Here's a flavour of what happened.

Can he make it clear if EU citizens

coming to the UK during

the transition period should be

eligible for settled

status?

The Prime Minister says

they will not be eligible.

Is that a red line or is

the government willing to

compromise on that?

I thought that nothing

was agreed until everything

was agreed.

Secretary of State.

Well, he's right, nothing

is agreed until everything

is agreed but the point,

what I would point out to him

is that in the joint report, which

we concluded and got

agreement on in December,

the European Union agreed

that the transition date, the end

date for ongoing permanent residence

rights, not possibilities, rights

will be March 2019.

Our Europe reporter

Adam Fleming joins us now.

A clear difference between the EU

and Britain in terms of what happens

to EU citizens and their rights

during transition.

Yeah, so it boils

down to something quite technical

which is what was actually agreed by

both sides in their joint report

that they wrote up that was signed

by Theresa May and Jean-Claude

Juncker at that dramatic week in

December. The UK points to paragraph

eight, I think it is, which says all

this kicks in, the stuff about

citizens rights, settled status,

applying for that, having to

register, that kicks in the day

after Brexit day, March the 29th,

2019. That was what David Davis was

referring to and that is what the

Brits said, "That is what we signed

up to". But the EU said if you read

paragraph five carefully, everything

can be adapted and changed and

renegotiated if it is required

during the talks about the

transition period. The EU says, yes,

you signed up to that date at that

point but things are different now

because we are negotiating a

transition period and the EU is very

clear that will be citizens rights

stuff does not kick in until the end

of the transition period, December

31, 2020 and that is the crux of the

disagreement which will have to be

hammered out by both sides in next

few weeks when they finally sit down

and start settling the terms of the

transition period. The EU is very

clear up what they are offering.

If

that is what they are saying, they

are not going to move but it is a

negotiation, as you said so do you

think there will have to be, reminds

over this on both sides?

So there

there will have to be compromised.

There's a difference of opinion in

Brussels when you ask people about

this. Some people think that was put

in a negotiating directives by

Michel Barnier at the EU and it's an

impossible ask for the UK so it is

designed to be negotiated away so

the UK can claim a win. That is the

cynical theory about what is going

on. Then you get the idealist theory

which is certainly amongst people

like MEPs in the European

Parliament, which is that free

movement is such an part of EU law,

such a fundamental thing about what

the EU is about, and that the

transition period is about the UK

signing up to lock, stock and barrel

EU law that this is absolutely

something that cannot be compromised

on so the tension between those two

ideas will be resolved in the next

few weeks and remember there is a

tension from the UK as well, yes, on

the one hand, they want to negotiate

a transition period that is good for

them and is politically palatable

back home on things like free

movement. But the longer it takes to

actually agree that transition

period, the less useful it is

because businesses want certainty

about it as soon as possible so

there is a tension within the UK

position as well.

Adam, thank you.

We're joined now by the Conservative

MP Daniel Kawczynski.

Thank you for joining us. If the UK

space in the single market and the

customs union during a transition

period, do you accept that we have

two observe the rules of the club

which includes freedom of movement?

No, not at all and it is absolutely

essential that when we pull out of

the European Union in March next

year, the free movement of people

stops. This was a very important

issue for the British people when we

voted in a referendum. They expected

us to take back control of the

borders and our immigration policy

from the moment we leave the

European Union and that is what has

to happen.

So we are going for a

sort of have your cake and eat it

which is what we want the benefits

of staying in a single market and

Customs union during the transition

period but without freedom of

movement, which, as you say, many

people voted on in a referendum?

This is part of the negotiating

process and we don't yet know the

final deal but I would say we are a

very important country, a permanent

member of the UN security council

and we have the right to negotiate

hard on behalf of the country. I was

disappointed what Radek said before

when in my view, he was being rather

disrespectful to the UK in the sense

that 95% of the world's growth is

going to come... 95% of gross is

going to come from outside the

European Union, not the European

Union and we have every right to

negotiate our own trade agreements

rather than being hamstrung by these

people.

Britain is being hamstrung

by you and colleagues in the EU, do

you understand why it is so

important?

I'm very surprised that

someone who claims to represent the

Polish community in this country

wants to limit its rights and the

rights of EU citizens and the Polish

people are the largest group in this

country to continue to live in this

country. That is a peculiar position

to take but it is the outcome of

Brexit.

Right but Britain leaves in

March next year. Surely there are

changes to the relationship that

Britain has with the EU, including

changes to the automatic right to

stay or settled status of people?

There is no automatic right to stay.

I'm EU citizen in this country and I

don't have the right of abode in

Britain. It is conditional, it is

movement of labour. I can stay here

if I have a job. If I don't have a

job and I start claiming benefits, I

can be deported from this country

after three months. If you want to

deport EU citizens who are a drain

on the public exchequer, you can do

it. You don't have to leave the

European Union.

What is your

response to changes to that during

the transition period?

It looks like

the automatic right of abode is

actually an enhancement of the

rights of some immigrants. But look,

it looks like an attempt to claim

victory where there isn't one.

What do you mean?

If you claim EU

citizens lose the right of abode....

If they haven't got the right to

have settled status, which EU

citizens have the right to claim or

apply for, will that be a red line

for the EU?

The transition period

will hopefully be quite short, two

years, then a big stumbling block,

but there are big -- bigger issues.

Is it a red line for you, if Michel

Barnier says as they've set out in

the document for the transition that

this is a must, that EU citizens

should have the right to apply for

settled status and, during the

transition period and bring family

members, will that be a red lines

are you?

It is a red line squared,

and absolutely unacceptable. You are

playing a populist card. Of course

we want to speak -- of course we

want to celebrate the contributions

of the 1 million Polish people

contributing to the society.

But you

want to diminish the rights of

anyone who comes from Poland during

the transition period?

Those people

in the UK before the referendum, the

Prime Minister has stated they have

every right to remain.

And the ones

before March 2019.

They came to the

UK under the premise they thought we

were part of the European Union. Of

course there will be changes as we

pull out of the European Union and

regain sovereignty and control.

So

people who came here when Britain

were not a member of a European

Union will be able to stay?

It was a

member in 1978 when my family came.

Lucky you.

In terms of a transitory

-- transition, it is a transition,

and Britain is supposed to be moving

to full departure from the EU in

terms of single market and customs

union if the government goes through

with what it has said, so why can

the UK not set up its own rules with

regard to free mint -- freedom of

movement?

It can, but look at the

figures more carefully. You are

counting foreign students in those

net migration figures. I attended

one of these wonderful universities,

and this is your success story but

you are portraying this as a defeat.

On that issue, should they still be

included in those figures?

This is

currently being debated within the

Conservative party.

But what do you

think? Should shoot and figures be

included?

I think they should, yes.

-- student figures.

Why? There are

many people who come here to study

who ultimately end up staying after

their studies finish. Those people

need to be taken into consideration.

We have let the people down so many

times with the figures about people

coming into the UK, and we need to

get a grip and demonstrate we have

control over our borders. As always,

Mister Sikorski is trying to have

his cake and eat it. The UK has

handed over £400 billion to the

European Union since we joined that

have been an extremely generous

country to the European junior --

European Union. We have done all

sorts of things. We have protected

Poland by sending soldiers to

Poland, and we want a NATO base

there and a strong relationship with

bilateral partners but he still

wants to give as a hard time. That

is not the way to enter a

constructive debate about the post

Brexit world.

Is this about

punishing Britain? Michel Barnier

and Jean Claude Juncker say it is

not. But it is a decision that

Britain made, so is very punitive

element?

I think this fantasy should

be realised in full, to the extent

that the radicals wanted it, so the

outcome of the experiment is no.

We

have heard the EU negotiating

opinion on the transition period. Is

there a problem that the Prime

Minister is reacting to the EU time

and again rather than setting out

her own negotiating position first?

I'm very honoured and delighted to

have joined the European research

group which Jacob Rees Mogg chairs,

and I think that group is really

instilling backbone into the entire

Conservative Parliamentary party and

we are pushing for a very clear

message to be given to us by the

government as to what sort of post

Brexit relationship they want to

have. The uncertainty at the moment

has gone on for too long, and we

need to get down to the nub of the

relationship we want. We have talked

about the Canada model which Michel

Barnier has offered us, a Canada

plus model, and that could be one of

the best solutions for us.

You said

a vacuum has been created. Do you

think Theresa May should have set

out more clearly what the end state

should be in terms of the

relationship between Britain and the

EU?

The person to blame and all of

this is David Cameron who did no

preparatory work whatsoever in the

run-up to the referendum and all of

that work should have taken place at

that time and, unfortunately, Mister

Cameron decided in his determination

to convince people to stay in the

European Union that no preparatory

work was done which is why the Prime

Minister is having to work that

hard.

He is the former prime

ministers. But do you think these

negotiations can effectively be

delivered by Theresa May?

Absolutely

and we must stand by the Prime

Minister.

Only with support from

your group rather than interference?

The group is only saying what

Theresa May outlined in the

Lancaster house speech and Florent

's speech. We are absolutely lists

because we are peddling what she

outlined very clearly in those two

speeches.

Are you worried about

drift and that Britain could still

end up being a customs union in the

EU?

Of course I am worried. But I

have every confidence in this

country 's ability to negotiate a

fair settlement with the European

Union and unfortunately there are

many people, and it seems as if

Mister Sikorski is one of them, who

wants to punish the UK for daring to

pull out of this thing which is

going to be a supranational state. I

know that in my lifetime Poland will

also potentially pull out of the

European Union.

Let's talk about

Poland, because do you support the

EU measures, the sanctions against

the governing party in Poland whom

the EU have accused of threatening

to dismantle democracy and threats

to the rule of law?

It is a tough

one. We are a club of democratic

nations and we freely trying --

signed up to the treaties which say

that the rule of law should prevail

and it is also a fundamental

principle of the European Union that

institutions in member states should

trust one another. If we could not

trust the courts in another member

state, the security of legal

interchanges between member states

become difficult.

Do you trust the

law and Justice party to do the

right thing?

They have subjugated

the Constitutional Tribunal. Poland

has no effective review of

legislation any more and politicians

have now gained influence over the

appointment of judges. Whether the

EU can usefully affect that from

outside, I have my doubts. It is a

very difficult issue.

Let's leave it

there. Thank you both for coming in.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News

website, that's bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

Today, the Commons could pass

a motion that would allow MPs

who become parents to nominate

a colleague to cast

their vote for them

when they are on parental leave.

Previously, new mums

and dads could only ask

the whips for a "pair",

where an MP from the opposing party

would also miss a vote.

One of those MPs supporting

the change is Emma Reynolds,

who has just returned

from maternity leave.

She joins us now from Central Lobby.

And I'm delighted to say she's also

brought along her baby boy, Theo!

Hello, Emma. I am sure Theo is an

avid viewer of the Daily Politics.

He is, he's one of the only -- it is

one of the only things we want.

Hello, Theo. Well done for bringing

him here. Tell us a little bit about

what would happen and how it would

change for parents like you.

The

point of today's debate is that in

our chamber we have extended rights

to mums and dads or shared parental

leave and improve maternity rights

but we have not extended those

rights to MPs. At the moment it is a

gentleman 's agreement between the

whips, and they have been generous,

but what if they stopped being

generous and what about dads as well

as mums? Today is about allowing a

new mum or dad to ask a colleague to

cash their vote as a proxy instead

of voting in that time that you take

maternity leave or parental leave --

cast their vote.

How would that

transform your life in terms of

being a mum and an MP? A lot of MPs

would be deemed to have missed votes

while they were on maternity leave

and constituents might not have

known.

Many of my colleagues who

went before me and gave birth while

they were MPs have been criticised,

and so was I, although I managed to

get them to remove it from the

website, because the reason I have a

low voting record is because I have

been maternity leave. Baby Theo was

born four days the Prime Minister

called the snap election.

Great

timing.

Yes, great timing. We were

hoping it would be late April. The

idea is you have a more formal

system for MPs so MPs who do take

maternity leave, or dad to take

parental leave are able to represent

their constituents by voting in

Parliament through one of their

colleagues.

So is it going to be

passed today, do you think?

You know

the House of Commons and the weird

and wonderful ways in which it

works. Today is just the motion and

then it has to be put forward

formally for consideration, as I

understand it.

It seems a fairly

sensible idea and will, in some

ways, bring Parliament up to the

21st century.

Indeed.

Are there

other things that could be done

though?

Of course, we could start

having votes at -- stop having votes

at 10:30pm at night, although

Parliament is a lot more friendly

than it used to be but it is still

very long hours and lots of

travelling.

You are holding on

valiantly to Theo looks like he is

trying to escape. What is it like in

Poland in Parliament there?

We have

these issues too, and I think we

should be as helpful as possible and

it does not just concerned members,

I think for voters we should be

helpful in order to include as many

people as possible so, for example,

in Poland we have the possibility of

voting by post for disabled people,

for example.

Those are other things,

and there she is whether baby, and I

see he is desperate to have a run

around in the Central Lobby. -- with

her baby. How well attended Will the

debate be to date?

Very well

attended. There are lots of people

who have given birth in office and

one of our colleagues is pregnant,

so I just want to say that if young

women are sitting at home and

thinking about pursuing a career in

politics, don't be put off by the

long hours and lack of a formal

system for maternity leave because

we want as many talented women in

politics as possible.

Are you going

to be speaking in this debate?

I

hope to be. Somebody will be looking

after Theo.

You can't take him into

the chamber? Do you think that will

ever change?

I think he would be be

fair. He's a bit of a distraction

now.

I think you are doing extremely

well.

I think we see a future

member.

What makes you say that?

He

seems to be enjoying the place.

I

wonder what it is on the other side

distracting him.

A lot of lovely

people trying to entertain him. We

are allowed to take him into the

voting lobby, so that is progress.

And as you say, because the numbers

have changed, there are more women,

but younger women and younger women

who are still having children.

Yes,

and also the New Zealand Prime

Minister who is blazing a trail. A

glass ceiling that has only been

broken by Benazir Bhutto in the

1990s. She will be the second Prime

Minister to give birth while in

office, and I think she will be an

inspiration to women across the

world, hopefully.

How these things

are becoming normalised. Thank you,

and thank you to you, Theo.

With just over a year to go

until Brexit, the outlook for EU

citizens living here in the UK

is still somewhat uncertain.

It's expected those who've been

here for more than five years

will be able to apply for permanent

residency, while newcomers will have

to register under a new scheme.

But will the UK still be a desirable

place to move to once

we're out of the EU?

And will those already

here, want to stay?

Emma Vardy's been hearing

from Polish ex-pats in Reading.

Many people from Poland have

made Reading their home,

and with all the Polish shops

and businesses that have developed

here along the Oxford Road,

in one sense, the community is well

established and well catered for.

But with Brexit around

the corner, could a lot

of this be about to change?

Let's go and find out.

Action!

Action!

Hi, my name is Greg.

When I came to England,

about ten years ago, I started

working in the hospitality industry.

And further on, I just became, like,

a supervisor in a Polish shop.

And when I found out about

the Brexit, the value of the pound

just dropped drastically.

We had to raise the prices

but I don't know what to expect

in the future, after March 2019.

The newcomers, they are not

going to get those privilege

that we get when we came here,

ten years, 15 years ago.

One strawberry.

Polish doughnuts!

Hello, my name is Anthony

and this is my wife Dinutha.

How are you feeling about Brexit?

Not very well because every food,

every price about the food

is going slowly up.

One year ago, you spend 70 quid,

now you spend 100, 120,

exactly the same products.

Do you think you will

stay beyond Brexit?

No, after the Brexit, I am thinking

everything is expensive.

If I'm not saving

the money, how living?

Where's my holiday?

Where is my...

You understand me, yeah?

Hi, my name is Anjelica.

I've been living here for ten years.

I'm a little bit worried.

We have a mortgage here.

We have one daughter.

She feels most English than Polish!

But we are still waiting,

what's happening next.

I think a lot of people

still want to come here.

But also, a lot of our

clients back to Poland.

Lots of your customers

are going back?

Yeah, yeah.

In Poland, it's much better than,

like, ten years ago.

The youngest people want back,

you know, I think to start again.

But people like me,

I think they stay here.

Many people we spoke to said

they don't think Brexit

is going to affect their right

to stay, but it's the other things,

like prices or the availability

of jobs that could make life

here less attractive in future.

Emma Vardy, there. Radek Sikorski,

the young woman in the film said

that many young people are going

back to Poland or they are staying

in Poland and not coming here. Do

you welcome that?

We have said all

along as the Polish government,

successive ones, that we want our

people back. The Polish economy is

doing extremely well. We have

shortages of labour and we are glad

that people have come here, learned

English, you know, enjoyed living in

this country but yes, we support

Polish people returning home.

How

damaging was it when new member

states, you know, the borders were

opened up and workers were welcomed

here, they came in large numbers?

How damaging was the brain drain to

Poland's prospects?

It was an act of

friendship by the Tony Blair

government but what happened was

that Britain alone in the entire

European Union opened its labour

market unconditionally which meant

that everybody and his brother in

Central Europe who wanted to try

their luck abroad came to Britain.

That is why you got the wave of over

1 million people. If you had

exercised your seven-year derogation

period, that way, you would have

spread it...

Do you think Britain

should have done that?

It was good

for us, and good for the British

economy, we refurbished London for

you.

Although many people that was

part of the reason people voted

Leave in the referendum.

In smaller

towns, the cultural change might

have been unsettling for people.

But

my question was, how bad was the

brain drain for Poland, the people

leaving?

We were doing well at that

time and now the economy is doing

even better. Wages are higher now in

Norway or Germany which are now open

to Polish labour so it was useful at

the time.

Do you accept that some

Polish citizens who may be thinking

about what to do post Brexit are

actually making those decisions not

because of the referendum vote but

because the prospects are looking

brighter elsewhere?

It is that but

also, remember, some people were

coming here not just for the money

but for the open-minded atmosphere,

the friendliness, for learning

English and some of that

friendliness seems to be less

because they are beginning to feel

less welcome.

Right, but is that a

perception because of the vote to

leave? Is there as much a driver

behind the decisions being made by

communities like the Polish

community in Britain that actually

it is time to go back to Poland and

although you say it wasn't always

about economic reasons, that would

be a big motivation to going home?

Yes, the figures reflect it. I think

Britain has benefited from the wave

and I hope we will benefit from the

wave back now.

What was the impact

on Poland when people left? You say

there was high unemployment but what

was the impact on the country?

The

remittance payments from Polish

people living in the European Union

and working were comparable to the

EU transfer payments so about 1

billion euros per month, quite a

tidy sum.

What do you say to people

like Boris Johnson who towards the

end of last year unilaterally said

that the rights of EU citizens,

including Polish citizens, will be

guaranteed whatever afterwards?

I

doubt that it will be a big issue

because we have a couple of million

British people on the continent. We

are both civilised communities. We

will treat one another in a

civilised way and on the principle

of reciprocity.

All right.

In the second historic Leave vote

of the last two years,

MPs yesterday made the decision

to move out of parliament

to make way for extensive

repairs to be carried out.

The renovation work is part

of a multi-billion-pound

modernisation project,

but won't see MPs move out

until at least 2025.

But not everyone is convinced

the move is necessary.

Mr Speaker, this debate

arguably should have taken

place about 40 years ago.

The likelihood of a major failure

grows the longer the systems

are left unaddressed.

We hear the armageddon scenario,

that we are either going to be

washed away in slurry,

burned to death or electrocuted

or something else.

And yet we have thousands

of visitors from the public

in this place every day.

I see no signs to say,

"Welcome to the death trap".

We are not only asking ourselves

and our staff but also thousands

of visitors to come to a building

which is not safe.

It might be an exaggeration to say

that Parliament is a death trap

but it is not a wild exaggeration.

Do we really want to take this

enormous political decision that

at this very difficult time

for our nation, we should move,

lock, stock and barrel,

from the iconic centre

of the nation?

This is the place

where democracy lives.

It is so easy to say we could move

elsewhere and it would still be

a parliament but it wouldn't be

the Palace of Westminster.

If you look at many of the major

houses over the last 100 years that

have fallen into disrepair,

it is nearly always because there

has been a massive fire.

I think we should take

a lesson from that,

which is that we have to be very,

very cautious in this building.

And I wouldn't want to be a member

who had voted against taking direct

and clear action now

when that fire comes.

I truly wouldn't.

That was Chris Bryant there, and he

joins us here. He backed the

amendment.

He also sat on a joint committee

tasked with investigating

the various options for repairing

the Palace of Westminster.

And the Conservative MP John Hayes,

who doesn't think parliamentarians

should be vacating the building.

Why not, John Hayes, when you just

heard Damian green, your colleagues

saying a death trap is not a wild

exaggeration?

It is so

self-indulgent, isn't it?

Is it?

We

are saying we're going to build an

alternative edifice stones to from

where we were, a replica chamber at

a cost of billions and our

constituents will say to us, and I

think they would say to themselves

in that situation, put up with the

inconvenience, be with a mess, get

on with the work, do it but for

heaven sake don't ask us to find an

alternative in the meanwhile.

You

are being self-indulgent, Chris

Bryant, and there's a big issue on

the cost the taxpayer in Times of

austerity, is it really necessary?

It is necessary, it's a UNESCO

listed building, one of the most

iconic buildings in the world. Most

other countries would look at us and

say, "You're going to let it fall

into the Thames? That's

disgraceful!" To be fair, it's not

falling into the Thames but when

politicians in the early 19th

century didn't take seriously the

concerns about fire and so on, we

had a massive fire in 1834 which

lost nearly all of the medieval

buildings and the truth of the

matter is now go if you go down to

the basement or into the roof, it is

a death trap. It is a place that

every year, the risk gets higher and

higher. We can't meet all the

standards we would impose on every

other building in the land in terms

of health and safety and disabled

access.

How responsible is your

position, John Hayes, when you

listen to that from Chris Bryant and

others and all the tales that we

hear about the sewage works, about

the building crumbling on the

outside? We see the endless

scaffolding on the outside. It is

more responsible to take a position

to stay?

I don't share the

preoccupation some of my colleagues

have with the sewers but the real

point is this, that if it is a death

trap as Chris describes, why aren't

we taking a decision that will have

an effect urgently? Why don't we get

on with the what? The way we are

talking now, we have to build

somewhere else and get -- don't move

until 2025.

There's an element of

truth to that but one of the big

problems if you've got the picture

there now, I was up in front of the

clock face yesterday morning...

You're brave.

It is cold and very

difficult work, we've got 20 major

projects including security projects

on the estate already. What I would

say to those that think we should

stay in the building while the work

is being done, it will be ten times

the amount of work that is being

done now and I know exactly what

every MP will do, they will say," I

can't hear myself think! They can't

work while they are here! They can

only work at night!" That will

quadruple the cost if we don't move

out.

If you think it is a death

trap, why aren't you moving out

immediately? If it's not until 2025,

it can't be that they dress.

We are

doing all we possibly can now to

mitigate the risk but we can't

install the full sprinter system in

the basement or the tactics and we

can't access the 98 different

columns through the building that

would carry fire very fast through

the building. We haven't even

managed to do what every other royal

palace has done since the Windsor

fire which is compartmentalise the

building. We are the only well Paris

that isn't. Firewood spread through

that building so vast, John would

not be able to run fast enough to

get away.

I think you underestimate

my speed! The truth is, Chris is

right, the work needs to be done, if

you go to any historic building,

cathedrals, large stately homes, the

Tower of London...

But they are not

full of people sitting in

Parliament.

But they are visited by

millions of people each year and

those people, and by the way, we

will be looking at the school

children who visit Parliament, they

will be locked up.

It sounds like it

be too dangerous for these people do

come and look.

The biggest danger,

the most likely way of losing the

building for generations of children

is if we have a massive fire or

other catastrophic failure such as

related to asbestos.

Let's talk

about the costs because what about

the point that if you stay while the

work goes on, it will cost more

because it will take longer?

I think

the point about that is, the report

that was brought out by the leader

of the house made two things very

clear and they were affirmed in the

cause of our considerations. The

first is the building is

structurally sound, this is the

point that Chris, with absolute

honesty, made himself. The building

is structurally sound. The second

point was that the replacement

building will did necessitate the

demolition, not the adaptation, the

demolition of Richmond house.

Which

you hate! You told me you hate it!

Tell the viewers what it is.

It's

the Department of Health, just

across the road.

It is an empty

building.

It is now, the former

Department of Health.

What is wrong

with demolishing it?

The cost will

be immense.

How much?

The argument

in the paper is more than £3

billion.

We've got to do that work

anyway because there are problems in

other parts of the parliamentary

estate, in Norman Shaw North and

South for instance, staff had to be

given inoculations against hepatitis

because they suddenly had effluent

pouring down on top of them from

drains that had broken in the roof

above. We had somebody's...

It all

sounds like a health hazard to me!

We had a car written off because a

large dog of masonry fell off --

chunk of masonry fell off onto it.

We have had years and years of

packed and meant but we've got to be

resolute now and we've made the

decision in principle yesterday.

Riazor though there was not a

massive difference, about 16 votes.

In my experience as an MP, if you

win by one vote, you win.

That is

also true but in terms of moving

out, how will it work?

The most

important thing is we in the Palace

of Westminster don't have the

capability and capacity to manage

this massive infrastructure

this massive infrastructure project.

We need to set up, as we did for the

X, a sponsor body and a delivery

authority.

The pics?

Yes, it was

delivered on time and on budget, and

I know people say it will always

overrun and all the rest of it but

in recent years, we've got better at

delivering major projects like

Crossrail on-time and on budget, I

think we can do it on time and on

budget if we make sure we have

proper, professional people doing

work.

The scale of the management of

running the programme that Chris

describes, the demolition of

Richmond house, the creation of this

alternative chamber, the edifice

that is going to be a stone's throw

from the Palace of Westminster, at

the same time, to restore the whole

of the Palace of Westminster, will

be a mammoth task.

But you have said

it's got to be done.

Yes, but it

should be done in a way that is

manageable and the way you do it

manageably is bit by bit, part by

part.

Oh, Tosh! Honestly...

But

hasn't that been going on?

It has

and look at the building.

The thing

is, we don't have any more space

than the workforce needed in the

building.

What about the people that

will be made redundant when we move?

Honestly, you said this yesterday in

the chamber and it was misleading

and wrong, but one of the things we

do need to do is because we won't

have so many Polish builders in the

UK, we need to make sure we have

trained young people in every

constituency in the land, proper

apprenticeship programmes, in the

high-tech and engineering skills we

will need and in the craft trades...

Interesting but that is slightly off

the point. In terms of how

Parliament will be run, how will it

function in this sort of new

edifice, the replacement?

We'll

probably have debates and shout at

each other and probably do exactly

the same as we await have. It will

be no different. Parliament is in

the building, it's the debate.

If

that is the case, why don't you just

move some else?

That is probably

what will happen. The truth of the

matter is that those who want to

move out, not Chris, actually, it is

very honourable about this, but

somewhat without, we heard from the

Scottish Nationalists and others

yesterday, some of them want to move

out.

And they lost.

But the key

point is this and this is the

difference between us which is a

pricing because Chris is a aesthete

and it is surprising that this

difference should arrive.

Was that a

condiment?

Take it for what it is

and let John Bennett. -- a

compliment. Take it for what it is

and let John Bennett.

Can't separate

a place from it function, the

institution from its reality. It is

not pompous, it is what people who

come to the house, who want to come

to the house, in my constituency

yesterday, feel when they get there.

I said yesterday we tread in the

footsteps of giants. We do and our

responsibility is for all those to

come and all those who came before.

Radek, what would you do? Would you

have forced a decision through on

moving out?

You are lucky to have

such a beautiful and attractive and

popular house of parliament.

Which

is falling down, it seems.

The whole

world comes to see it that these are

always decisions that inspired

tabloid fury because people feel

that democracy should be cheap.

It's

not cheap, it's £3.9 billion, which

is very expensive.

But the building

has to be maintained whatever its

function. And if you do not pay for

your democracy you will get lower

quality.

But do you think they

should move out while it is done

even if they are prepared to pay for

it?

Well, I can pledge if you have a

shortage of Polish workers we can

rally round and send your brigade.

One of the things that upsets me is

when kids come from the Rhondda

Valley or other constituents, the

disabled access in the building is

shocking. We passed laws in

Parliament to tell every other

public building in the world you had

to have full disabled access but we

don't have it in Parliament and

that's one of the things we can put

right.

Back and be done while we are

there.

It can't. There is a lot of

agreement between us.

There is and

because you don't want to move out.

The fundamental thing we agree on is

that the building must be maintained

and restored and improved. The issue

is, do you say to mine and his

constituents that we will be so

self-indulgent we don't put up with

it while we are working and I think

we should.

On that I will move you

both out of here. At no cost at all.

I am a remainder. I will be until my

dying day.

On this, you are leaving.

We are in the topsy-turvy world we

live in at the moment.

Now, behind every political party

is a faithful press officer,

there to keep things smooth

during the good times and the bad.

Last night, UKIP's long-serving

press spokesperson Gawain Towler

announced that he was "consciously

uncoupling" from the party,

which he has been with for 13 years.

During that time, the party has had

six different leaders.

Actually, eight, we think.

I'll be speaking to him in a moment,

but first, let's take a look

at Gawain in action.

# And they called it puppy love

# Oh, I guess they'll

never know....#

The number of people we've had

getting in touch, saying, "I'm

really sorry, I made a mess".

That they voted for the wrong party?

That they voted for the wrong party.

But as I say, them's

the breaks, that's

politics.

Will you still be leader

if you're not an MP?

Some Ukip leaders have

done quite well not

being in Parliament, haven't they?

# Tell them all, please

tell them it isn't fair

# To take away my only dream #.

The glamorous life of the press

officer. What was happening?

I was

pulling summary out from the drink.

They looked like they were pulling

you win.

He had been scribbling I

love Nigel on the beach and then

realised that there was a problem.

The tide was coming in, vast....

Why

are you leaving Ukip after 13 years?

I was going to leave after the

referendum that I felt some level of

stability was required with the new

leader and then the new leader, and

then the new leader, and then a new

leader and then the general

election. And in the end I've got

other things I'd like to do.

You are

not leaving because the party seems

to be on the wane?

I'm still a

member and that is not a problem.

I'm just leaving from my position.

But are you leaving your position

because you think the party is

beyond help now?

No, if I was doing

that, I'd be leaving the party. I'm

not leaving the party and I will

stay a member of the party but I

think it is about time I really got

on with something else. 13 years as

a long time, and most of it I've

forgotten already, fortunately.

Highlights?

Pulling Sam out of the

drink. Last week there was an event

to raise money for a cancer charity

because Sam died last year, and he

was one of the best of men, from

carefully, but that was a highlight,

but there have been dozens of

highlights. Fortunately, it being

Ukip, I've forgotten them.

Nigel

Farage tweeted that you always loyal

and there. Did you give your life to

the job?

Certainly a chunk of it.

It's not so much the job. I joined

because I believed in the cause and

I still believe in the cause. And

the entertainments,

the entertainments, such as floods,

have provided their moment.

Some of

the more challenging moments.

Always

good to have a porn star as one of

your candidates.

He blamed this on

the legalisation of gay marriage and

God Reeve -- God -- Godfrey Bloom

left after his sluts comment. Did

you put your head in your hands when

you heard these things?

Often, yes,

and then I had a drink and I

ploughed on.

Is that the way you got

through it?

It is the Ukip way.

Henry Bolton's girlfriend racist

messages?

This has been another

interesting period. Henry is a very

good man. The situation is as it is.

One was not expecting that and I

don't think he was. That isn't in

itself the reason I was going. I

have been planning to go for awhile,

really I have, but it has been

sticky and sticky and then I have to

make a clean break.

You simply

haven't just had enough?

This

weekend I will have the weekend off.

That will be the first in 34

weekends. It's been quite forlorn.

Henry Bolton said he would not quit

despite the pressure -- it has been

quite full on. Do you think you

should, now, sitting here?

He has

made his decision and I will not

miss the EGM for the world and I

will be working up until that point

and I will be doing that. I am

considering having a drone and may

be doing pay-per-view visit would

keep you lot out of the meeting

itself. But I think the NEC opposed

him, but remember the NEC and the

party, he came from outside an

appeal to the membership rather than

the people like me.

And you came

from the Conservative party

originally.

Yes, I'm still in

Glasgow Maryhill and I've been

through tough times before.

You have

been on a journey, no doubt about

it. But on Henry Bolton, do you not

think his decision to stay and

continue to challenge the NEC's

decision is, in the end, going to do

for the party?

Not necessarily and I

don't think that is the case. I

think Henry's strongest suit is the

cost to the party, not the financial

cost as other people suggest. The

cost to the party is having a

leadership election during a period

where if Ukip is anything it is

about prosecuting Brexit and holding

the government to account. If we

spent five months shooting ourselves

in the foot rather than holding the

government and the opposition to

account at a time when I don't think

anybody in the country knows what

either the government or the

opposition stance is on Brexit, we

at least have a clear message if we

go out and give it. We need to spend

our time having a lover leadership

election during that period --

another leadership election seems to

be the strongest alderman.

Who has

been the best Ukip leader? --

strongest argument.

What, of the

ten?

Who has been your favourite?

Obviously Nigel made the difference.

It was Nigel's Drive, charisma and

sheer work across the country over

time.

And European and Russian money

helps, of course.

Russia?

Through

sponsorship.

Prove it. That is a

serious allegation. That is a

serious allegation.

Prove it. It is

a serious allegation, Cooper-Woolley

do need to prove it. Where is your

evidence? -- you do need to prove

it.

I read it in the newspaper, so

it must be true.

Well on that, do

you think Ukip is making a mark on

the European scene?

Yes, a huge

success. A party composed of

fruitcakes, in the words of David

Cameron, it has transferred its

ideology to the ruling party and the

Conservative party has now taken

over Ukip's position on English

nationalism.

I would say on the

European level, and yes to a certain

extent, we have been an inspiration

behind the Finns party and others

across Europe where you see a rising

tide of Euro scepticism across the

continent.

But today you have

resigned from your position. Thank

you for coming onto the programme.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what has culture

secretary Matt Hancock done to show

he's ahead of the digital game.

Is it:

a) Started a podcast?

b) Created his own app?

c) Become a Youtube star?

or d) Become an

instagram influencer?

So what's the correct answer?

You have got to have a guess.

Otherwise Gawain will have a guess.

Answer B.

It is. It is an app.

Well to discuss this

exciting political foray

in to the digital scene,

we're joined by a genuine

digital native, the

journalist Marie le Conte.

What do you think? Is he keeping up

to the moment?

I do actually think,

in fairness, that it is quite a good

idea because he can speak to his

constituents, which can be useful

and from a party political point of

view as well the Conservatives have

had problems in keeping up with the

Labour Party in using social media

and reaching people. I do think it

is a good idea. I wouldn't have

called it Matt Hancock. It's a weird

name for an app.

What would you have

called it?

Anything but his name.

Because the issue is now you can get

notifications on your phone saying

Matt Hancock wants to see your

pictures or Matt Hancock has stopped

working, which is not ideal.

Not

catchy. There is a problem, the

privacy flaw.

There is. The app can

still access your pictures even if

you have said you do not want it to

do that. And also the Department for

culture, media and sport said it had

nothing to do with them so this is

Matt Hancock as a private citizen

effectively having access to your

pictures.

What does that say about

1's confidence in the digital

minister making that error?

It is an

area of policy that he is in charge

of, so not the best thing. But I

think he outsourced the making of

the app to a start-up and he

probably should have named it and

somebody could have noticed that

before it came out.

Are you going to

have your own app?

No, but I have a

million followers on Twitter.

Well

there you go, some self publicity.

Do you think it is a good idea for

politics to do?

It is necessary

these days.

You cannot not do it. In

terms of having your own app?

One

step enemy.

Who will be the audience

for Matt Hancock's app?

He wanted to

be people in the constituency but it

has been journalist mainly making

fun of it. But the journalists will

get bored eventually and then he

might get genuine constituents to

use it.

Thank you very much joining

us.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The One o'clock news is starting

over on BBC One now.

Andrew will be on This Week tonight

with Michael Portillo,

Liz Kendall, John Simpson,

Kevin Maguire and Ralf Little

from 11:45pm.

And I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day.

Bye bye.