27/02/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Forget the weather forecast -

it's a Brexit blizzard this week.

The International Trade Secretary

Liam Fox will spell out why

he thinks Jeremy Corbyn was wrong

to bring the idea of a customs union

post Brexit back in from the cold.

As the EU gets ready to release

a legal document of what was agreed

between the EU and UK on the Irish

border in December, are the two

sides further apart than we thought?

Could changes to the benefit system

coming into force next month leave

thousands of low-income

families with what amounts

to a second mortgage?

We look at the proposals.

And, as two vocal critics

of Jeremy Corbyn stand down

from key party positions,

what does the future hold

for the Labour Party?

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today,

Mayor of Bristol Marvin Rees.

Welcome to the programme.

Hello.

First, as the Labour Party

cemented its position on staying

in a customs union with the EU

yesterday, International Trade

Secretary Liam Fox is set to hit

back in a speech in London shortly.

Norman Smith is there.

Norman, what are we expecting the

international trade secretary to

say?

I think it is largely going to

be a restatement of arguments we are

familiar with, namely that by

leaving the customs union the UK

will have the ability to strike its

own free trade deals and look for

deals outside the EU, which is the

real growth area in terms of the

world economy. For many Brexiteers,

that is a golden opportunity of

Brexit, to take advantage of all of

these untapped markets. The trouble

is, into that Frey has stepped Sir

Martin Donnelly. Who is he? He is

the man who used to run Liam Fox's

department until March last year so

he was sitting next to Liam Fox,

coming up with all these plans, and

this he has taken something of all

Dr Fox's argument, saying that

leaving the customs union and single

market is such a bad idea, would be

so damaging, that a future UK

Government is probably going to have

to ask to rejoin the single market

and the customs union because, he

says, it would place a British

companies at a competitive

disadvantage with the rest of the

EU. He suggests it would deter

inward investment, that British

producers would be less competitive

because they would not have to abide

by the rigours of the internal

market and he says the UK would go

from being one of the most open

economies in the world to being one

of the most bureaucratic, and he

lists all the different bits of

regulation and paperwork British

companies will have to comply with

to export to the EU - country of

origin regulations, hygiene

regulations, security regulations,

VAT payments and, crucially, he says

that if we hope we will be able to

secure more lucrative deals outside

the EU than through the EU, we are

kidding ourselves.

If you look at where we are now,

with fair and equal access

to the very large, rich EU market,

which is nearly half

of our service and goods exports,

plus preferential access to other

markets, which gets us up

to about three fifths of our trade,

if you are going to give that up

for the promise of some bilateral

deals with markets that are much

less important to us,

well, it's like giving up a three

course meal for a packet of crisps.

It's just not equivalent.

And we have to recognise

that reality before

we take this decision.

And as if that wasn't good enough,

he also says the British

government's objective of

negotiating near frictionless trade

with the EU outside the single

market doesn't need a crack

negotiating team, he says, it needs

a fairy godmother!

But is fairly

crushing stuff, isn't it, for Liam

Fox personally, and the Government?

How will he take that on, the

international trade secretary, do

you think?

It is a fundamental

disagreement. We have already heard

a little bit from Boris Johnson when

he was asked about this, saying he

profoundly disagrees with the

analysis. They believe that the real

golden goose of Brexit are these

markets outside the EU, which we

have failed to tap into at the

moment. But let's be honest, the

timing of the speech could hardly be

worse because we have Liam Fox

making one of the keynote Brexit

speeches, the road to Brexit, we

have heard from Boris Johnson, David

Davis and a little bit from Mrs May,

we will hear more at the end of the

week. This was Liam Fox's moment and

along comes as former top civil

servant trying to debunk everything

he's got to say and why this

matters, I think, is because this

follows very obviously from Jeremy

Corbyn positioning Labour on the

side of the customs union. We know

the CBI and the IoD even seem

sympathetic to the customs union and

added on top of that we have Liam

Fox's former top man saying you

would be daft to leave the customs

union and the single market.

Thank

you, we will let you go and listen

to the speech. Marvin, Bristol voted

nearly 62 % to remain. Following on

the back of Jeremy Corbyn confirming

Labour's position of wanting a

customs union with the EU, would you

like to see him go further and say

Britain should remain in the single

market as well?

I think this is the

best we can do while not being part

of the EU so I welcome it absolutely

but it lives in our city's interest

to remain as close as we can. 88 the

centre of our exports from Bristol

go to our EU partners and I have

heard businesses in the city already

talked about losing orders as firms

on the continent begin to make

decisions that disadvantage

Bristol-based business is. What we

need at a local level is cities all

around this country to have some

certainty. One of the good things we

have got from Jeremy's speech is a

good idea of what is going to happen

and what we are not getting from

Government is any clarity about what

is on the table.

Why not push it

further? Many Labour MPs want to see

Labour say that Britain would remain

part of the single market.

We need

to respect the vote, I respect the

national referendum result but in my

own city as an elected leader, I

want to push to keep the city

connected to the European market. I

support what Jeremy is doing and we

must remain as close as we can to

protect the interests of our

businesses and all the employment

that comes with it. This argument

about sovereignty is one that I get

incredibly frustrated with. If we

impoverish people we are not more

sovereign.

What about Labour leaders

who said they wanted to take back

control?

I don't agree. The whole

argument about taking back control

is a false argument. If we

impoverish people they are not more

sovereign.

Let's leave it there.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

Post Brexit, one of Winston

Churchill's favourite tipples

is going to be sold in pint-sized

bottles - a size that Churchill

considered to be just perfect.

But which drink is it?

Is it...

A - a dry martini?

B - champagne?

C - brandy?

Or D - claret?

They look very inviting!

At the end of the show, Marvin

will give us the correct answer.

I am not an

expert!

Tomorrow, the European Commission

will agree a draft legal text that

aims to translate December's phase

one agreement in the Brexit

negotiations into a

binding legal document.

That draft will then be looked over

by the individual member states

before it's used as the basis

for further negotiations

with the UK.

You'll recall sufficient progress

was reached in December

on three main issues -

namely citizens' rights,

the divorce bill and maintaining

an open Irish border after Brexit.

But with many on all sides

claiming the deal fudged

the question of the border,

it looks set to return

to centre stage on Wednesday.

In December, the UK and EU

agreed on three options

to ensure there wouldn't be a "hard

border" in Ireland...

A new comprehensive free trade

agreement that would remove the need

for any real change at the border...

Or the UK could propose

specific technical solutions

to mitigate the need

for physical infrastructure.

Or, in the absence of other agreed

solutions, the UK would maintain

full alignment with EU regulations

on both sides of the border that

support North-South co-operation

and the all-Ireland economy.

The DUP were concerned to ensure

there was no economic border down

the Irish Sea in such a scenario.

So a paragraph was inserted

asserting there'd be no

regulatory barriers to trade

between Northern Ireland

and Great Britain.

That has led to conflicting

interpretations - with some

in the EU assuming that the logic

dictates the UK as a whole

would have to remain tightly bound

to EU rules and institutions -

institutions the UK has repeatedly

insisted it will leave after Brexit.

Some in the UK believe alignment can

mean reaching the same standards

while diverging in the exact

form of regulations

and that full alignment need only be

put in place for very specific areas

of North-South co-operation.

Well, earlier, Foreign

Secretary Boris Johnson

was on the Today programme -

and he was asked how the UK's plans

for the border would work.

We think that we can have very

efficient facilitation systems

to make sure there's no need

for a hard border, excessive

checks at the frontier

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic and, you know,

for people listening...

You think we can have, though...

There's no border...

It's not good enough

to think you can have them,

because the other side

don't believe you.

There's no border between Islington

or Camden and Westminster.

There's no border between Camden

and Westminster but when I was Mayor

of London, we anaesthetically

and invisibly took of millions

of pounds from the accounts

of people travelling between those

two boroughs without any need

for border checks whatever.

There are all sorts of things...

Come on, you can't compare two

boroughs of London with the kinds

of difference in the arrangements

that would be in place after Brexit

between the UK and the EU.

No, I think it's a very

relevant comparison.

Boris Johnson there.

Well, we can speak now

about the prospects for customs

arrangements after Brexit

to Allie Renison - she's the head

of Europe and trade policy

at the Institute of Directors.

Let's pick-up on Boris Johnson's

assertion that there is a comparison

of boarding a hard border in

Northern Ireland to those managing

the boundary between two London

local authorities. Do you agree?

I

think what the Foreign Secretary may

have been trying to do was to make

an argument to say that you can use

technology as far as is possible to

come up with some solutions. I'm not

sure the example was totally

comparable if I'm on us because you

are talking about putting a frontier

border between the UK and the rest

of the EU going forward, so I think

the scale is slightly different.

Is

a customs union, in the way Jeremy

Corbyn, the Labour leader, has

outlined, sufficient to solve the

problem of the border after Brexit?

No, it is a very important these but

is by no means what would be

necessary to guarantee frictionless

trade, simply because it deals with

the duty element of what happens

when goods cross borders, which is

the traditional way customs border

is manifest themselves but it

doesn't deal with the regulatory

architecture. These days a lot of

checks pertain not only to whether

you are paying the correct amount of

duty when a good crosses the border

but whether you are in full

compliance with the rules of the

marketed as crossing into.

So in

your mind it doesn't go far enough

to do with those issues. The joint

report talks specifically about

specific rules support North/ South

cooperation, the protection of the

Good Friday Agreement, the all

Ireland economy. Is the Good Friday

Agreement what actually counts under

those headings?

The question is also

at what point that is going to be

put into effect because effectively,

that is an insurance policy option,

ie in the absence of a great

solutions, which most people would

read as if there is no agreement,

but if it gets to that point to

understand what those areas of

alignment would have to be, you have

to spell them out and I think the

EU's point and the Republic of

Ireland thinks you need to do that

sooner rather than later, to know

what they actually are.

When people

talk about Turkey having a customs

union with the EU, how would that be

used as a model for the UK?

I think

this is along the lines of what the

IoD were proposing, working with the

government's ostensible redlines.

The aim is to show you can be in a

customs union with the EU and

negotiate meaningful trade

agreements so I think, for example,

if you look at the US, there would

be one constraint on the UK's

ability to completely negotiate if

it related to what the areas that

you shared an external tariff on, so

industrial goods, that would be

absolutely essential to avoid

introducing costly rules of origin

to apply between the EU and the UK

but it means you would have

prevented to negotiate on.

Van La

Parra metres of the Prime Minister's

like as to how speech and ongoing

negotiations, what you think is the

most likely option? -- within the

parameters.

I think it depends on

what the UK puts forward. If you

were looking at this through the

prism of convention, a customs

border everywhere else, even between

Norway and Sweden, where it is

pretty frictionless but there is

physical infrastructure on that land

border because they don't charge the

same duties on goods coming in... I

think it would be for the UK to put

its ideas on the table and if the EU

decides it is not sufficient and it

should be coming up with

counterproposals, I think the onus

is on the UK to put forward its

proposals but the EU can't be a

silent player. It has to engage on

what those proposals are.

Allie

Renison, thank you very much.

We can speak now to

Mairead McGuinness,

Vice President of the European

Parliament and Irish MEP

for the Fine Gael party

in Brussels and Sammy Wilson,

an MP for the Democratic

Unionist Party - who's

here with me in the studio.

Welcome to both of you. Do you

expect tomorrow that the draft legal

text will commit the UK to

maintaining full alignment with EU

regulations in the absence of other

solutions?

Yes, we do expect this

text to be published tomorrow and I

think that what we expect to see is

a translation of the agreement

pre-Christmas into legal text,

including that fallback position.

You've outlined in the programme the

three options. Clearly the first

option is the best, that we reach a

situation where this isn't a

problem. In the absence of that,

tomorrow I would expect that in the

legal text there is a recognition of

that third option, that if we fail

on both one and two that we have a

fallback position which secures our

concerns around the border on the

island of Ireland which shares our

concerns with the UK and in

particular my constituents that I

south of the border. Yes, tomorrow

I'll be looking at this text very

clearly and this morning I come from

a meeting with the parliament's

negotiator where they have clearly

outlined the protocol on eyelid is

key. In the future they can be no

diversions in norms, regulations and

standards between Northern Ireland

and the Republic of Ireland. That is

if you like the third option if all

else fails. I think people should

read it in that context rather than

as some members of the committee

reading it as almost a row

immediately. We need to be very

careful of how we interpret the text

tomorrow.

By full alignment, as you

have just explained, it is yours and

the EU's understanding that would be

entirely adopting or replicating

every single EU regulation.

Anything

that would avoid us having a

semblance of a border, a hard

border, any change to the

relationships to what happens on the

island of Ireland as the third and

final, if you like, offer in terms

of what should be done. But the

first and second are also on the

table and therefore from my

perspective, and I spoke this

morning in committee, I welcome a

repeat of the commitment to the

Irish issue. It was front and centre

of the discussions before Christmas.

It was one of the three priorities

and indeed we wondered whether we

would actually get to reaching

sufficient progress. We got working

with some difficulty and I know

you've got a DUP colleague and I'm

looking forward to his contribution.

They have particular concerns which

were taken on board and have to be

dealt with by the UK within the UK.

It beholds both sides of these

negotiations this week to move

forward in a positive framework.

Sammy Wilson, if the legal agreement

in the way Mairead has just

outlined, does commit the UK to

effectively remaining in the EU's

institutions as a backdrop Dunn

backstop, should the UK signed?

First of all, there's a gap in what

Mairead has outlined. The agreement

didn't just talk about the

relationship between Northern

Ireland and the Irish Republic. The

agreement, and it was signed by the

EU, also talked about the

unbreakable relationship between

Northern Ireland and the rest of the

United Kingdom. We would expect to

see that outlined in the legal

agreement, as well. They cannot pick

and choose and simply say where only

interested in the Northern Ireland,

Irish Republic relationship. They

have signed up to ensuring there

will be no change in the

constitutional position of Northern

Ireland. They've signed up to the

Belfast agreement commitments, that

bill be no change without the

consent of the people of Northern

Ireland, so therefore the legal

agreement must also reflect that

aspect of the December agreement.

Do

you accept that, Mairead?

I think

that that issue and this article,

paragraph 50, I've spoken about

paragraph 40 nine. Paragraph 50 was

an internal discussion to meet the

concerns of the DUP, who are of

course supporting the Conservative

government.

Should it be part of

this legal text?

Al just finished my

point if I may. As I see it, that is

something the UK needs to bear in

mind as to be able to deliver on. I

would rather go back to this

starting point here. We should in

this New Year and with time running

out focus on the best option, which

is option one. I would remind both

Sammy and your listeners, this

morning they were saying we wanted a

positive relationship with the UK.

That's in the interest not just of

politics but of people. And my

country on both sides of the border.

We are at this stage fighting before

we see the text and that is...

Is

that what you're doing?

I'm not...

Don't forget, it was the EU who

insisted that this had to be an

agreement. The December agreement

was an agreement that had to be

signed up by all parties. They has

to be happy with the text. We had to

be happy with the text. The text

includes paragraph 50. Paragraph 50

makes it very clear that there can

be no separation of Northern Ireland

from the rest of the UK. It is an

act of bad faith... It's an act of

bad faith is already the EU are

saying, by the way, this agreement

have 50 paragraphs but as far as the

50th is concerned, nothing to do

with us. They shouldn't have signed

up to it if that were the case.

Is

it your position, though... Kangol,

Mairead I'll come back to you. Is it

your position that you want Northern

Ireland to have a veto over the

capacity of Great Britain to

diverged?

It's not. The UK as a

whole voted to leave the EU. And the

United Kingdom as a whole should

leave the EU on the same basis.

That's not an Northern Ireland veto.

That is a UK decision. All we are

asking is that the result of the

referendum be respected. The result

of the agreement in December be

respected, and the EU and certainly

the Irish can't have the best of

both worlds, where they say, we have

to have an agreement in December and

by the way, when it comes to

February, some of those we want to

throw out the window.

Isn't it true

that this is at the door of view of

the British government? The majority

of people in Northern Ireland voted

to remain, only your party advocated

leaving. Why is it up to the Irish

or the EU to come up with a

solution? Why haven't you come up

with a solution to not having a hard

border?

We have. All those solutions

to date, the EU and the Irish have

not even been prepared to look at in

August of last year David Davis gave

a very detailed paper as to how you

can have a virtual border between

Northern Ireland and the Irish

Republic. The EU Parliament

commissioned a report from the

former director of the WTO, who also

said it was possible to have a

virtual border between Northern

Ireland and the Irish Republic. None

of those options are even being

considered. By the Irish governorate

or the argument all along has been

until we talk about the future trade

relationship, we cannot come up with

solutions technical or otherwise.

You saying the EU has already

decided that a nonstarter and some

of the solutions Sammy has spoken

about in terms of virtual border?

Can I just reissue at Sammy Wilson

of one thing? I have no desire to

see borders anywhere. The whole

reason of my being in politics as

being part of the EU is not to have

borders between people or countries,

but clearly now the UK is leaving,

and I think you were right to

reference the fact that, in Northern

Ireland, the majority voted to

remain and to some extent the DUP

vetoed that decision, I accept that

is the situation. We don't want

borders, either. What we have are

three possible solutions to a very

serious problem that I'm sure Sammy

Wilson shares my concerns about. We

need to build relationships on the

island of Ireland. They are

difficult at the moment and I agree

that any going backward, any

dividing of people psychologically

and physically, is not healthy for

the island of Ireland and the peace

process. Begin with a positive

outlook with option one and see that

in the text tomorrow, what we're

looking at is, in the withdrawal

agreement, if all else fails, we

have to have a safeguard and I think

that's in all our interests because

we don't want to be in October of

this year looking at something which

is a disaster. Prepare well and

therefore we would fail.

But you

haven't answered my question about

the solution that has been put

forward about a virtual border, a

technical solution to keep the

border as soft as possible. Do you

accept that those suggestions should

be looked into?

be looked into?

What I accept is,

and I've looked at that report, been

part of the discussion on them, what

I am arguing for, it is impossible

given the red lines of the UK, is

that the situation today, which is

the best option, should prevail.

Staying in the single market and

Customs union. Anything after that

causes me anxiety and concern.

That's why we have the fallback

option. When you say, should we

consider these other options? Our

choice, our best consideration,

should be given to have this strong

relationship. Good trading

partnership with the UK. Not to look

at technical solutions because

technical solutions do not get us

over relationships and the political

issues, which clearly still prevail

when it comes to the island of

Ireland but I think we should work

together.

That answer rests the nub

of the problem. That the Irish

insist and believe that we should

stay within the single market and

Customs union, even though the

people of the UK voted to leave. The

EU negotiators believe that, as

well, and our worry is best. That

the legal text which will be

produced tomorrow or Thursday, from

the leaks we have had so far, only

looks in detail at one option which

is the fallback option which would

require full regulatory alignment.

Because there is no interest in

negotiating on the terms that the

people of the UK have decided,

namely that we leave the EU and we

have a clean break with the EU. And

if that's the case, the legal text

will not only be unacceptable to the

DUP, I suspect it will be

unacceptable to the British

government.

Mairead, biweekly

heading towards Brickman ship? The

EU refuses to any technical

solutions and a hard border goes up

by default?

As far as I'm concerned,

as long as I'm in politics, a hard

border will not go up on the island

of Ireland. Let me say to Sammy

Wilson and am trying to be

conciliatory, I don't think we

really should be fighting over this.

Remember the farmers who voted to

leave, the DUP supporters who voted

to leave the EU. I accept their

vote, not the logic of it. They want

their lands to be processed in the

south of Ireland and sold to France.

They watched that to continue when

the UK leads the EU. If we have this

so-called managed divergences and in

fact ambitious managed divergences

have had from the UK side, how can

that happen? Let's get real, let's

get practical, let's get back to

grassroots. Solve this problem in

the interests of our people and

perhaps move the big politics to one

side.

We're running out of time,

Mairead .pl other bases of

negotiation rather than

confrontation. Sammy Wilson, given

the risks to the economy of Ireland,

because it would be devastating on

the island if there isn't a deal

that is done, is it your position

that the Irish government are acting

purely in political our faith?

Not

only political about-face, but there

are acting in a way which must be

incomprehensible to many of the

people who operate businesses in the

Irish Republic because this fixation

with the border between Northern

Ireland and the Irish Republic hides

the main issue, and that is that the

vast bulk of the Irish market is not

in Northern Ireland. They sell six

times more to the rest of the UK and

therefore concentrating on the

Northern Ireland Irish border and

wanting regulatory alignment between

those two parts of the island, are

they really saying they're prepared

to sacrifice the regulatory

alignment which we require to enable

them to sell their goods in Great

Britain but you might because if

they do I think that will be the

real devastation for the businesses.

Mairead, very briefly, Boris Johnson

says it's as easy as dealing with

the boundary between two London

Boris. You could deal with it in the

way we have a congestion charge in

the capital. Do you agree?

Well,

first of all, can I just say, there

is no bad faith on behalf of myself

as an Irish politician or my

government. I would reject that

absolutely. When it comes to Boris

Johnson's comments which I read and

heard with interest, I think Sammy

Wilson would be the first to say

that the UK is a different country

than the Republic of Ireland. We are

talking about two sovereign, UK and

the Republic of Ireland. The

comparison doesn't quite fit.

It

does it, Mairead. If you look at it

with a different tax regime, VAT,

excise duty is different. Yet

billions of pounds worth of goods

across that border, tax is paid, is

not a lorry is stopped to check the

goods because through virtual

methods, through IT, through

electronic invoicing, those taxes

are collected by both the Irish

government and the British

government. If it can work on that

basis it can work after we leave the

EU.

We have to leave it there. Thank

you both very much. Mairead, sorry,

that's the end of the interview!

Now, our guest of the day

Marvin Rees was the first directly

elected black Mayor in the UK

and he's the subject of a new film,

a biopic following his two election

campaigns in Bristol.

But, outside the city, the Mayor

isn't particularly well known.

Here at the Daily Politics we pride

ourselves on delivering public

service broadcasting at its finest -

so in that tradition, Paul Barltrop,

BBC West Political Editor has

the lowdown on Marvin the man.

May 2016 and Bristol have

elected a new mayor.

It was the start of a political

career but the culmination

of a long personal journey.

His father was Jamaican-born,

but Marvin Rees was brought up

by his mother Janet.

The pictures show an earnest,

determined child.

It was always Lego and Meccano

and there was always a structure

and a plan to everything.

You couldn't just be

sort of, you know, kids

and just see what happened -

Marvin would always want to make

the model on the front of the box.

His early years were spent

here in a flat on the Long Cross

estate in the north of the city.

It wasn't easy - there was plenty

of racism in 1970s Bristol.

As a mixed-race child

of a single mother, he had

to look out for himself

but, encouraged by her,

he showed himself to be a striver

whether at school or at sport.

In his teens he joined a youth club

and quickly made an impression.

Straightaway, he was one

of those that was polite,

smiling and so on.

And what was interesting,

then he didn't come for a couple

of evenings and his mum

then turned up with him,

catching hold of him by the ear

and saying, "Marvin's coming

to club every night."

He especially took to boxing

and ended up taking

on a future world champion.

Depending on how that fight went

that night could have changed

everything for Marvin.

He wouldn't have been a mayor,

he could well have been

a world champion boxer!

But as it happened, it

went the three rounds,

both stood there but Marvin took

a few bangs and ended up having

both his retinas detached!

So that was Marvin's career.

It started here as a young man

and he trained well to do

it, he became good.

His defence should have been better

that day and perhaps

then he'd have been OK,

but the reality is his boxing

career ended here, too!

After university, he worked

in broadcasting and, as a reporter,

often showed his desire to make

the world a better place.

Welcome to Stokes Croft

here in Bristol - we're right

in the heart of the city.

Wanting to go further,

he joined a scheme to

encourage people from ethnic

minorities into politics.

I'm here because I'm interested

in the way the country's run.

Since I was young, I had big

questions going around in my head -

why are some people so rich

while others are so poor?

He was snapped up by Labour and,

though a political novice,

he soon caught the eye

of council veterans.

In a sense, not being around

Labour was a good thing.

He brought new ideas

and he certainly wasn't

defending the status quo.

He wasn't New Labour,

he wasn't sort of representing any

sort of faction of the party,

so I thought he was just

a breath of fresh air,

to be honest with you.

Good morning, everybody.

His path to power wasn't easy -

he lost the first mayoral election.

His second campaign

was against a backdrop

of Labour's internal strife.

The day he won, Jeremy Corbyn rushed

to Bristol to congratulate him.

In the ensuing party leadership

contest, the new mayor

refused to take sides.

Well, there was massive tensions

and, behind the scenes,

there was lots of conversations

about, you know, what was

the right thing to do?

Was it to support the

leader, was it not to?

But ultimately there was a decision

to be made and I think

he made the right one!

It's harder to avoid

conflict in the chamber.

Last week, one protester let off

a flare as his Labour councillors

voted through a budget cutting

spending by millions.

Seeing a way to change his city

for the better isn't proving easy.

As you saw at the end of the film,

being mayor of Bristol has its tough

times, too, with local funding

issues a key issue. Joining us is

Chloe Westley from the TaxPayers'

Alliance. Marvin, protests, cutting

spending in Bristol, but you could

put up council tax by 6%. Why don't

you?

In our consultation on the

budget we spoke to the city about 5%

and having given our word on that

that's what we stuck to but we have

made the savings we've had to make

but we have taken many of those

in-house and I'll do my level best

to protect front line services.

The

problem is, Chloe Westley, central

Government funding has been cut to

local government to the tune of 77 %

according to the Local Government

Association so how on earth can

councils cope with providing

front-line services?

But had an

impact but we have seen a trend over

the last 20 years where council tax

has gone up steadily above inflation

and it has gone up in years where

government funding has increased so

it is nothing new, this increase in

council tax. But I have a lot of

sympathy with you, Marvin, and with

councils, because in order to reduce

the deficit and so spending the

Government has not looked at

reducing foreign aid of scrapping

HS2 reducing unnecessary spending,

it has cut local government funding,

and that is an issue of priorities.

What do you say?

We have been

incredibly inventive in the way we

have made our cuts and in our

internal processes but I think it is

a false economy, austerity. If it

impacts on our ability to invest in

children's mental health, to keep

families in their home, this is not

a cost without cost. They will turn

up somewhere else in the system,

maybe not this year or next but in

five years. Many of the things we do

at local government level are about

protecting costs to the public

purse.

And the conversations about

councils helping with the cost of

living, the people paying the

council tax families that I meet all

the time and represent. They are

left out of the conversation so you

have the local government

spokesperson and the council leader

saying, we have to put up council

tax, we can't afford it, but

families are under pressure to and

there was a lack of recognition

about the situation. There was a

survey that said 95% of councils

were going to put up council tax and

they interviewed the people that did

that survey and did not bring up the

fact that councils were but families

have to pay more.

We have at that

into account and that is why we

didn't put it at 6% that we could.

We are aware of the struggles of

families face, particularly with

this regressive tax. We've done

incredible job of engaging. We have

a budget simulator online that

anyone in the city can have their

own go at balancing our budget and

we run citywide events where we

bring people into the council house

to make sure they are participating

in the way we run the city. Local

governments have been incredibly

inventive but, actually, it is in

some sense trying to make bricks

without straw. We need investment.

It is not just about local

government. What we are talking

about his leadership of place. So

when we look at running Bristol it

is not just about the City Council

but about how we work with criminal

Justice, the voluntary sector,

business, health services.

Why did

you try and cut the council tax

reduction scheme for the poorest

households in Bristol?

Is one of the

options we had to look at. One of

the most important things we can do

in the city is protect our most

vulnerable citizens.

You wanted to

cut the council tax reduction

scheme.

Wanted is a loaded word. We

looked at the range of options

available to us to make sure we came

home with a balance.

But you you

turned at the end and didn't go

through with it.

That kind of

language doesn't help dynamic and

engaging politics.

If you are

sending a message about what you are

trying to do the people of Bristol

and the most vulnerable, dude didn't

follow through with the decision

that you would come to.

We found

other means of doing so did we saved

£800,000 a year on senior staffing

costs. I would challenge a little

bit on this challenge of U-turns and

so forth. We looked at a whole range

of things we could do to make sure

that we managed our money

responsibly. When we have a

conversation with the city and put

on our options, that was one we

didn't have to pursue.

Is that

really a decision that should be

made, whether or not to cut funding

to the locust -- poorest people in

the local constituency, all because

central government won't fund local

government properly?

Let's not

pretend they are immune from

spending cuts. There is a Vicky Boss

is. There are 500 council bosses in

the country earning more than the

Prime Minister. I think that would

be a good place to start for less

spending and I think in Bristol you

have an office in Brussels. I would

say that can probably go when we

leave the EU.

That was a

recommendation by the Conservative

group last week. At this time when

we are parting from the EU it is

absolutely essential that we are on

the world stage promoting our

businesses and the investable

opportunities in our cities. If we

stepped off the international stage

at this time when our government and

country need all the help to remain

visible, that would be a backward

step.

What did you make of your

colleague Labour MP Chris Williamson

proposing a progressive council tax

plan to hike bills for the better

off and freeze them for the poorest?

He made a speech in Bristol, too.

Before anyone makes grand statements

about the local level they need to

leader for local level and one of

the weaknesses of British politics

at the moment is that it doesn't

have the voice of local leaders in

as high regard as it should. Brexit

Westminster Brexit. The national

debate is so much about Westminster

when actually real things are being

done at the core city level.

Was

that a mistake, to make that

suggestion?

It wasn't something I

supported

Any other councils you

think would take that suggestion?

I

didn't hear a choir of support for

it. We are making sure we are

financially responsible, delivering

for our population, taking cuts in

house, but what we need is

Government to start investing in

local government it

Re-evaluation of

council tax bands, a good idea?

Potentially but on the point about

local power, there is an opportunity

here you my to change the change the

way the government is funded because

a lot of it is hand-outs from the

Government and council tax but if

you have more tax-raising powers at

a local level and about how you can

run services - a lot of it is

mandated by central government - I

think that would be a good thing

because you would be in charge of

more and people could vote based on

changes you are making and not on

what central government is telling

you to do.

Chloe Westley, thank you.

For more than 70 years,

mortgage interest support has been

available to homeowners,

usually those claiming other

benefits, who are struggling

to meet repayments.

From April, it will be replaced

by a new "second mortgage" scheme

where the Government

loans people the money -

they pay it back later

when the house is sold.

Critics say it'll force

people further into debt,

as Phil McCann explains.

Go on, we're going to

keep swinging, Lucas!

This is daily life for Susanne.

Her son Lucas has autism, attention

deficit hyperactivity disorder,

and nervous problems

causing hearing loss.

She's a single mum and a full-time

carer for Lucas and his brother.

He's full-on.

He's 24/7.

We've only just got the toilet

training under control.

He doesn't sleep.

He doesn't get the world.

So what's your world

like at the moment?

Difficult.

You can't switch off.

You have to be one step ahead

of him all the time.

Not only just to...

To...

You know, it's all

about keeping him safe.

Susanne is one of 124,000 people

who get the benefit called Support

for Mortgage Interest.

At the moment, Susanne's mortgage

interest support payments cover

around a third of the monthly cost

of her mortgage.

But soon the payments won't come

in the form of a benefit -

they'll be a loan which will have

to be paid back whenever

the house is sold.

I'm gutted.

I feel like I've been

kicked in the teeth.

You know, they're draining me

dry and I feel very...

It's made me feel very,

very vulnerable.

The government is writing to

everyone who gets the benefit now.

It means pressure's growing before

the change comes in in April.

They should pause this,

they should review this and I think

for the amount of money that they're

saving in the grand scheme

of things, again, we should go back

to a system which provides a grant

rather than a loan on top of a loan.

And for the homeowners

affected by this change,

they'll end up paying more

than they borrow - because the loan

itself will have interest.

The interest is very low

in comparison to other loans,

but nevertheless it is still a loan

secured against your house.

So if you own your own property,

or a mortgage property,

then this is really like having

a second mortgage.

The benefit costs the government

£170 million a year at the moment.

Ministers say it's reasonable

the financial help should be paid

back, but the loan will be written

off if the sale doesn't

raise enough to do that.

The only change will be

when the property is sold,

if there's sufficient equity

in the property that the taxpayer

gets to recover some of that

support that's been given,

sometimes for very,

very long periods.

But we fundamentally want

to maintain people in their homes,

so they should have no fear.

So, Susanne isn't worried

about immediate money problems,

but from April she and 124,000

others will have less to pass

on to their children.

I'm joined now by Helen Morrissey,

a personal finance specialist

at Royal London, and Kit Malthouse,

the Work and Pensions minister.

Welcome to both of you. Canon, you

can see why the Government might

want to scrap this benefit because

it seems an anomaly that the

taxpayer is helping to pay the

mortgages of 124,000 people when

billions can't even afford to get on

the housing ladder.

The issue that

we have is how these changes are

being conveyed to people. We put in

a request to the DWP for some

figures on this in January and

bearing in mind, this is a massive

change coming in April, by the end

of January out of 125,000

recipients, less than 7000 had

chosen the loan option. That worries

me because I'm wondering what

happened to the other 100,000 people

who have S M I and have not made a

decision and that is where I think

the Government needs to look at

delaying the roll-out of this to

give people time and support to make

the right decision.

It is not very

much time to make quite a dramatic

change if the figures are as Helen

says, less than fewer than 7000 have

signed up to this loan, what are you

going to do about the others?

We're

been communicating since July so we

have about 110,000 people on the as

of this morning. We have sent about

440,000 bits of paper, there have

been 38,000 phone calls, of which

275,000 have been successful so the

vast majority of people are in

conversation with the department

about whether they are going to make

a decision or not. We will be

pushing that right through to the

end of April and we have room for a

bit of flexibility at the time but

we think the vast majority of

people, 90 percentage of people,

will make a decision in time and

that is the pattern we are seeing

and we are throwing at it. Whoa are

you reassured by that?

I am not

really. You might have been making a

decision in time but whether it is a

decision they have been rushed

into... I have been looking at a lot

of forums for charities like Scope

that deal with disabled people, a

lot of them say they don't

understand it, and they have been

posted a couple of days ago. They've

think they might have to sell their

homes.

Can you guarantee not a

single family will be made homeless

by this?

The whole Berbers of the

scheme is to maintain people in

their homes so from a cosmetic point

of view, nobody would see any

change. The payments would continue

and am direct to the mortgage

company, the bank, so nobody need to

see any at all. The only changes

that whoa at the end when the house

is sold, if you make a profit, we

are asking that some of the

supporters repaid it

Given the

scheme costs £170 million, housing

benefit costs £25 billion, isn't

this an expensive way of making a

point?

It's £150 million will have

invested other services. Government

is about making these decisions. SMI

was set up in 1948 and was designed

as a temporary scheme to maintain

people in their houses. We're now

getting to a position where people

are taking mortgages into

retirement, which was never heard of

before. They were in receipt of this

were 20 or 30 years. All were asking

is in a housing market where prices

are rising rapidly, if you make a

profit, that the taxpayer recoups

some of that.

I understand your

reservations because the timing and

people haven't understood what they

would like to do, are not all of

them, but the principle at the heart

of it, do you accept that, that this

shouldn't necessarily be an asset

that is passed on to your children

if you've been receiving benefit all

the way through?

We're not calling

for this change to not happen. The

issue is how it is being

communicated.

Will you delay it was

to mark your going to go ahead.

275,000 successful calls and my

message to people is to be

reassured. The idea of the scheme is

to maintain them in their homes and

if they wish, they can continue with

the payments. The other thing to

remember is it's not a one-off

decision. You can get three, four,

five, six, two years in and decide

you don't want alone any more. We

can repay early, leave it at a

certain level and wait until the

house is sold. It's not an

irreversible decision.

What do you

think, Marvin?

If I look at the

housing crisis we have in my city,

11,500 people on the waiting list,

Private rent is out of control,

private tenancies breaking down,

resulting in homelessness. If I

wanted something to come from

government to help the macro

intervene in the market, make sure

we have stable families in settled

communities that are self maintained

with good social capital, this would

not be at. I wish there was more of

a conversation between Westminster

and the leaders of cities where real

people live to talk about what we

actually need to enable us to create

these kind of spaces that are good

for the UK.

This is part of a wider

package of welfare reform. I've just

come from a meeting with the

Secretary of State of the DWP to

talk about that, what more we can do

to work together with the Ministry

of Housing to try to improve.

And

not just talking to Westminster...

Talking to you on a regular basis

and I know they are holding Round

Tables all the time.

We have to

leave it there but thank you very

much.

Now, our guest of the day

Marvin Rees is one of

a new generation of Labour

politicians elected under

the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn.

Many Labour members and activists

see this period as one of renewal,

optimism and excitement

for the party.

But our next guest is

somewhat more pessimistic.

The former Labour MP Tom Harris has

written a new book called

Ten Years

In The Death Of The Labour Party.

It's out on Thursday.

So, what is the state

of the Labour Party and has it

changed unrecognisably

since Corbyn's election?

He joins us now from Glasgow.

Tom, welcome to the programme. Your

book has this dramatic title, but

even your conclusion is that the

party hasn't gone full dodo yet, it

hasn't died. It's a long way from

extinction, isn't it?

The title is

taken from an earlier book by my

colleague who wrote a book called

four years of the death of the

Labour Party. After that, the party

did recover. Maybe the Labour Party

will turn back to it traditional

form after Jeremy Corbyn exits the

stage. I am as you say pessimistic.

Even Corbin fans can look at the

title of the book and read it and

interpreted as they like. They could

say that that ten years that I

referred to in the title covers the

period from 2007 when Gordon Brown

made the catastrophic decision not

to hold an early general election

and then ten years later during the

June general election of 2017, when

the party arguably rose from its

deathbed and started to recover. I

am more pessimistic. I see the

current Labour Party, Corbyn's

Labour Party, as soap different from

the party of Clement Attlee and Tony

Blair. It doesn't resemble any more.

What we see now is the equivalent of

the pod people in Invasion of the

Body Snatchers of their relationship

with their victims. There really

isn't much in common.

How did you

vote in the general election?

That's

between me and the ballot box.

You

will see if you voted for the Labour

Party of which were still a member,

but you won't say which way you

voted. You talk about Jeremy Corbyn

being so different to the party of

Attlee but you must agree that the

party performed better than

expectations and the last general

election.

But what party performed

that well? The party I've been a

member of the 34 years is not a

party for example that would ever

have provided a safe haven for inti

Semites -- anti-Semites. The party I

belong to would never use bullying

as a way to get its way. The most

important thing is policy and this

is something a lot of the coverage

of the general election has not

covered. The manifesto that Corbyn

issued in 2017 was largely regarded

as fairly moderate, something

Miliband could have put his name to.

Actually the most radical and most

extreme policy that Labour put

forward wasn't even in the

manifesto. Jeremy Corbyn said during

the general election that if he

became Prime Minister he would

institute a review of policy on

Trident. There's no doubt how that

review would have concluded and we

would have ended up disarming

Trident without a political vote of

the people.

Lets me get Marvin's

response. What do you say to Tom

Harris? You've been ambiguous about

support for Jeremy Corbyn. Are you

fully signed up to the Corbyn agenda

now?

I support Jeremy as leader of

the party, but when I joined, I

joined politics quite late, as you

saw in the film earlier on. What I

didn't do was come in and say, which

gang will I join? I found a group of

people I felt were committed to

tackling inequality, delivering an

increasing economy, doing social

justice, and I joined up. That's

what I want and I want to carve out

my own space. I'm not looking to

recast myself in the mould of anyone

in the party. It's about bringing

together a range of people from

different brands who can coalesce

around a shared number of

priorities.

Do you see Tom as being

from a different tribe or faction?

I

don't know him so I wouldn't say

that. If you are committed to

economic equality, political

empowerment, then we can work

together. But clearly there's a

distinction because I don't think

all parties are on the same page

with us.

What's the for you

successful Labour leader?

To be able

to hold a range of people together

across the spectrum. That essential.

Steering Jeremy Corbyn is doing

that?

It's partly his job and people

are in the party and he's doing that

but it's up to people to stay in the

game, stay in the match. Martin

Luther King talk about creative

tensions. You have those differences

of views and comes your positions.

Why hasn't Labour won a nationwide

election since 2005?

I joined in

2006, so... I'm late to that. I

guess people across the country just

chose not to vote and have not found

the party attractive. At a local

level we've done incredibly well.

All core tent cities until last

summer were Labour run and that

again is something that happens

distribute portion at amount of

attention on Westminster and not

enough attention on the fact that

Labour is actually in power in the

major cities across the UK.

All

right. Tom Harris, thank you for

joining us.

Now, Liam Fox is speaking

in an address focusing

on the benefits of life

outside a customs union.

The International Trade Secretary

tore into Labour's plans

for a customs union with the EU

after Brexit and highlighted

the opportunities for global

trade outside the EU.

Let's have a look at

what he had to say.

We cannot let the practices

and the patterns of the past

constrain the opportunities

of the future.

We require an economic outlook that

allows us to take advantage

of the substantial opportunities

that Europe will continue to bring,

but without limiting our ability

to adapt to a changing and growing

world beyond the European continent.

The UK is perfectly placed

to partner with the economic

powerhouses of the future

and they in turn are eager

for the mutual prosperity that such

a partnership would bring.

To do this, we need the ability

to exercise a fully

independent trade policy.

We have to maximise our overall

trading opportunities from the UK

to secure the prosperity

of our people.

Joining us now is the Conservative

MP and Leave supporter Nigel Evans.

He's also a member

of the International

Trade Select Committee.

Rather helpfully! Nigel, despite

what Liam Fox has just said, his

former permanent secretary as you

will know has argued that leaving

the single market and because and

union is like rejecting a three

course meal now in favour of a

promise of a packet of crisps later.

How can you make up for such loss of

trade?

So negative. I heard what he

had to say.

It's true!

I don't

believe so. They IMF said 90% of the

growth over the next ten to 15 years

will happen outside the EU.

44% of

our export with the EU. It is an

important market to put at

risk. It

is but we won't turn our backs on

the EU. We still wants to do deals

Liam Fox has been to visit 150

countries throughout the world with

his colleagues. I was in the USA

just three weeks ago talking to some

of their congressmen. Really keen to

do a trade deal with the UK. I sat

with the trade representative of New

Zealand last week. They want to do a

trade deal with us. I think the

potential is absolutely brilliant

but if people are like his former

civil servant, who were saying how

bleak it was all going to be but yet

last year our exports went up 11%.

We have more venture capital coming

into London...

But we haven't left

the EU! But we are still part of the

EU, we haven't left. There is now

more pressure, Jeremy Corbyn has

cemented Labour's position to remain

part of the union... Customs union.

The EU 27 have so much more weight

when it comes to negotiating trade

deals than the UK on its own. It

will be much harder to do, take

longer and be more difficult to make

trade dipped -- make trade dispute.

It easier than when you are somebody

requisite in 28 countries.

A bit

more have to.

Canada took eight

years, that's still not come into

play. As far as Jeremy Corbyn is

concerned, his Orwellian doublespeak

has to be the greatest mis-selling

since PPI.

Help concerned are you

that you're pro-EU colleagues are

going to walk through the lobby with

Jeremy Corbyn on that amendment to

stay in a customs union?

I think

that would be thwarting the wishes

of the British people. Not so many

months ago, the manifesto said we

were leaving the EU. You can't stay

in a customs union website you are

chained to the EU to do all your

trade deals with you. Part of reason

people want to leave it so that we

can do trade deals with the rest the

world and the fastest growing

economies outside the EU.

That's the

point. People voted to leave the EU.

We will still be half in and half

out every part of the customs union.

They did but I find the leadership

of government on this incredibly

disappointed. I was in Brussels last

week. I got to meet the two key

characters before we'd had chance to

sit around the table with our own

government. There's been no

proactive engagement with the ten

biggest cities outside London

talking about what we need. If you'd

seen us you wouldn't be getting a

Bristol City Council perspective,

you'd be speaking to our chamber of

commerce, our universities, all

those places that are saying they

need government to be listening to

what goes on outside Westminster.

In

literally a few seconds, how much is

Theresa May under pressure to give

way?

She won't give way. To leave

the EU we need to leave the customs

union.

The answer to our quiz...

The question was...

Post-Brexit, one of Winston

Churchill's favourite

tipples is going to be sold

in pint-sized bottles -

a size that Churchill

considered to be just perfect.

But which drink is it?

I'll take that one!

It is champagne,

we gave you the answer! That's all

we've

we've got time for today. Goodbye.