01/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

So another day, another

blizzard of Brexit stories.

Plus ca change.

The Prime Minister is preparing

for her big vision speech tomorrow.

Before that she'll meet the EU

Council President Donald Tusk,

amid stark differences over Brexit

plans for Northern Ireland.

Two big retailers,

Maplin and Toys R Us,

go into administration,

putting over 5,000 jobs at risk.

Is Brexit causing a big chill

in Britain's retail sector?

And what is the picture for

the broader business environment?

The Culture Secretary announces

that the government will not

implement the second stage

of the Leveson Inquiry, ruling out

a probe into the relationship

between journalists and the police.

We'll have the latest

on this breaking story.

And fancy a pint of fizz?

One English winemaker is laying down

imperial pint bottles of sparkling

wine ready to drink once

we leave the EU.

But will it leave a bitter taste?

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is Tim Martin, founder and chairman

of the Wetherspoons pub chain.

He also campaigned for Leave

in the EU referendum campaign.

Welcome back to the programme.

First today, the Culture Secretary

Matthew Hancock has confirmed

that the Government will not

implement the second stage

of the Leveson Inquiry.

Part two had been intended

to examine unlawful action

by media organisations,

plus relations between

journalists and the police.

Speaking in the Commons this morning

Mr Hancock explained

the reason for his decision.

During the consultation 12%

of direct respondants were in favour

of reopening the Leveson Inquiry

with 66% against.

We agree, and this is

the position that we set out

in the Conservative Party manifesto.

Sir Brian, who I thank

for his service, agrees

that the inquiry should not proceed

on the current terms of reference,

but believes that it should

continue in an amended form.

We do not believe that

reopening this costly

and time-consuming public inquiry

is the right way forward.

So considering all of the factors

that I announced to the House today,

I have informed Sir Brian

that we are formally

closing the inquiry.

Matt Hancock speaking there.

Well, Mr Hancock's Shadow

in Parliament is the Deputy Labour

leader Tom Watson.

He has been at the forefront of the

campaign to push ahead with part two

of the Leveson Inquiry. This was his

response.

There is more to be gained

politically by our political parties

from standing up to the tabloid

media than bowing down to it.

And when every Conservative MP

who was then in Parliament backed

this policy, including the current

Prime Minister and the present

Secretary of State,

they didn't really mean it.

They were waiting for the wind

to change, waiting for the force

to die down, waiting for a time

when they could, as quietly

as possible, break their promises.

Well, there is another dimension

to this story because overnight

Tom Watson confirmed

that he would no longer be receiving

any donations from the privacy

campaigner Max Mosley amid a row

over a racist by-election leaflet

from 1961 that he is

said to have published.

We will explain that in a moment.

We will explain that in a moment.

Here is Tom Watson speaking

about that in the Commons.

And I think I should take

the Mosley issue head

on with your indulgence,

Mr Speaker.

If I thought for one moment he held

those views contained in that

leaflet of 57 years ago,

I would not have given

him the time of day.

He is a man, though, who,

in the face of great family tragedy

and overwhelming media intimidation,

chose to use his limited

resources to support

the weak against the strong.

Tom Watson. With me in the studio is

our political correspondent. Explain

why this is important, this

dimension to the story of Max

Mosley.

Tom Watson's office has been

part funded by the Max Mosley

family. Max Mosley is a privacy

campaigner, he has long held clashes

with some of the British tabloids.

In recent years he has been a

campaigner for tougher regulation of

them. Labour says it will no longer

take any more money from the family

over this row over this racist

pamphlets from the by-election. Max

Mosley has strongly denied any

recollection of the leaflet, though

he has admitted if it is genuine,

the content is racist. £5,000 has

been donated to Mr Watson's office,

the last donation received last

year. Now that the nation has come

to an end and the party says it is

moving away from large-scale

donations.

In terms of part two of

the Leveson Inquiry, that was a

manifesto commitment to not go ahead

with it in the Conservative

manifesto.

Yes, that is right. But

it has been an extremely heated

debate over the Leveson Inquiry. You

remember the public outcry over the

alleged victims of phone hacking by

the News of the World. There will be

many major press newspaper groups

who will be extremely happy. But the

victims who have been campaigning

who thought when David Cameron

pledged to have the second part of

Lavis that that would be it and it

would happen, they will be

disappointed.

Tom Watson took the

opportunity to accuse the government

of bearing bad news, bearing in mind

the weather.

He said the government

had capitulated and was failing the

victims of press intrusion. The

government has been cleared today,

they think there have been changes

and the press is in a different

place to where it was when all this

was happening and the things that

happened that Leveson Inquiry did

too. That is what Matt Hancock was

saying today. Tom Watson says the

victims have been failed.

Tom Watson says the victims

have been failed.

Theresa May is meeting European

Council President Donald Tusk today

to give him a sneak peek

of the themes in her big

Brexit speech tomorrow.

But hanging in the air will be

the reaction on both sides

of the Channel to the EU's draft

withdrawal agreement,

published yesterday,

which set out the Commission's view

of the legal consequences

of December's deal on the first

phase of negotiations.

It's fair to say that here in the UK

it went down like a cup of cold sick

with lots of people and not just

Eurosceptics of long-standing.

The hostile response centred around

the EU's "fallback option" to keep

the Irish border open in the event

of no deal, with the EU trying

to put it in law that

Northern Ireland would remain bound

to EU rules and regulations,

even if Great Britain

decided to go another way.

Well, yesterday at PMQs

Theresa May kicked back hard,

saying no British Prime Minister

could ever agree to an effective

border between Northern Ireland

and Great Britain.

And last night David Davis

was talking tough to his Tory

colleagues, saying that there was no

way the UK would be handing over

billions of pounds in a divorce bill

until everything was agreed

to the UK's satisfaction.

Former Prime Minister John Major

was on hand dispensing his

wisdom to the government.

he said that by the time Brexit

happened the electorate would have

changed, so Parliament had

to have a decisive

and free vote now.

Nobody can truly know what the will

of the people may then be, so let

Parliament decide or put

the issue back to the people.

John Major there.

And yesterday the government also

said EU citizens who come

here during the transition will get

indefinite leave to remain.

That was an apparent U-turn.

That was an apparent U-turn.

But in a sticking point with the EU,

the British government says British

judges must have the final say

over their rights and not

the European Court of Justice.

Well, to discuss all this we're

joined by the Conservative MP

, sorry by the Labour MP Pat

McFadden.

McFadden.

And Iain Duncan Smith.

Do you accept there was no way that

the government could sign up to a

deal to keep Northern Ireland

effectively in the EU?

The EU has

thrown down the gauntlet to the

government and they have said there

are three ways of meeting the

commitments that you, the United

Kingdom, agreed to in December.

Remember this is based on an

agreement made just a matter of

weeks ago in December where the

government agreed that there was a

common body of EU law and policy

that underpinned the island economy

between North and south and that

they would try to maintain that

either by agreement or buy this

backstop option. What we cannot have

in this debate is the government

having set out various red lines

about leaving the customs union,

leaving the single market, having no

hard border between Northern Ireland

and the Republic, and also the UK as

a whole securing the exact same

benefits, that is the phrase David

Davis used, that when those things

become difficult that we lash out

and blame everybody else. So it is

for the Prime Minister now if she

does not like the text published by

the EU yesterday to say how she is

going to squirt those circles and

meet those commitments.

Iain Duncan

Smith, what is the government

getting so het up about? We expected

this, that was what was going to be

written down in legal text on the

basis of what was agreed on Sunday.

This is the EU's pitch for what they

believe will be the final outcome.

This is one element of it, their

view is there will be no deal and no

arrangement. The government's

response is right, they have said

they do not agree with it and they

are rejecting it.

That is the

fallback option, that is not all the

options. They are setting out what

was supposedly agreed in December.

Isn't the real problem that it was

not nailed down it was kicked into

the long grass?

No, the EU has gone

for an option that is absurd. Let me

complete this. Right now there is no

need for that kind of border, that

kind of problem, no matter what the

arrangement is. I will give you

three examples. One, they are

unreported mostly by any channel,

the head of HMRC and the head of

Defra have appeared in front of a

committee and they were asked

whatever the outcome do you believe

we will have to have a hard border

with checks? They have both said no.

They believe their systems will

allow them not to do it. Second, in

the EU parliament they themselves

have produced a report in which they

said this is an opportunity for the

EU to agree a form of friction is

border with the UK, using the right

technology, and that could be

applied to the rest of the EU. They

are critical of the commission and

it is their believe there would have

to be a hard border in Northern

Ireland. Right now we do not have

one, we do not need one in the

future and it is feasible for us to

do that. That would be better for

them to put forward as the final

fallback option.

Isn't Iain Duncan

Smith right that there is bad faith

from the EU. It undermines the whole

idea of the constitutional

settlement of the UK which they know

they will not sign up to it?

We are

in a unique situation historically

here because this will be the first

time ever that Northern Ireland will

be outside the European Union with

the republic inside. In the past we

had a situation where both places

were outside the European Union. And

for 40 odd years they were both

inside. This is historically unique

and it is not simple. Secondly, this

is based upon things that we have

agreed. If we don't like the way the

European Union has worded it, then

the challenge is for us to come up

with something convincing that can

be agreed.

Hasn't the government put

forward the idea of technical

solutions? Iain Duncan Smith cited

the idea of Defra representatives

saying ways can be found, whether it

is through preclearance or

declaration before people reach the

border, but you can keep it open and

frictionless. Isn't the EU using the

political situation in Ireland and

with the UK to beat the UK and

Northern Ireland at least in the

customs union?

The fibre is

connected to the Kneebone. There is

no need for a border down the Irish

Sea because the Northern Ireland

question here is actually a

crystallisation of the question

facing the whole of the UK. It is

the essential choice before us. We

can either have a system of high

market access with minimum barriers

and all the benefits the government

says it wants to have, and that will

come with high obligations to a

common set of rules. All we can do

what I think most Brexiteers want,

which is to have low obligations,

but alongside that will come a lower

level of market access. What we

cannot have, what is an illusion

which the government must stop

pedalling, is to pretend we can have

the same market access that we have

now with a much lower set of

obligations. That is the reason

agreement is not being reached and

we have got to get off that illusion

and make the fundamental choice the

country faces.

Pat McFadden called it an allusion,

others have called it fairy

godmother thinking. Isn't it time to

accept that this mythical idea at

you and your colleagues have that

has all the benefits and keeps her

frictionless trade that means we

don't have to sign in to any of the

laws and regulations is just one?

Let's separate two elements, which

is very important. The first is what

happens at the border. There is no

need for any of these physical

checks, for delays. There is a

reason for that. There are lots of

other countries in the world that

have trade arrangements that don't

go through this process.

Even Norway

has a border weather is

infrastructure.

Because the EU

insisted that Norway had a border.

If you talk to the Norwegians they

will tell you they don't believe

they need a border.

I will let you

come on but first, on this basis of

yours, you can't blame the EU,

because there is no trust. And I put

to you that there is no trust

because they have seen the likes of

leaked letters and memos from the

Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson,

suggesting a hardwood wouldn't be

that bad and comparing that border,

or having no border, to being the

same as two London borrowers. That

is why they don't trust you and you

can't blame them.

I don't think it

is anything to do with trusted

Was

unhelpful Boris Johnson...?

The

technology exists for all sorts of

items sorry pass through two

locations through different levels

but to have been registered. All of

this can be picked up quite happily.

There are two elements. The border

issue is being used by the EU and

Ireland to try and force us into a

position. This is about negotiation,

not about trust. The other element

that Pat was talking about is about

market access. We're leaving and we

won't have

exactly the same kind of access in

that one sense but you do not know,

and we do not know, and you are

sitting here with somebody right now

who is in a business and running a

company and selling things... We

don't know how business will react.

My sense is that business will

continue to sell and trade with the

EU. Our responsibility is to ensure

we have the least amount of friction

in that but the competition is up to

British business and I believe they

will meet that challenge without a

single problem.

Will you?

Yes, we

will. I think the whole issue is

mischaracterised. I will give one

example, which is we sell copper

burg cider from

burg cider from Sweden and we sell

more than the whole of Sweden

combined, or did at one stage. It is

from a small-town in southern

Sweden. If impediments are put in

the way of trade by the EU, for the

sake of argument and we switch to

the perfectly good cider suppliers

in this country, who suffers,

in this country, who suffers, as it

is the citizens of the EU. The

people who represent them are not

elected so unlike Ian Duncan Smith

or the Prime Minister or the other

parties, they are not collected.

That is the difficulty. But it is

not the case of the UK, people like

us or get lots of stuff from all

around the world, are going to

struggle. We can immediately

eliminate the customs duties,

invisible, but everyone in the UK

pays for them.

What do you say to

that, Pat McFadden?

On the exiting

the EU select committee that Iain

Duncan Smith referred to, we take

evidence of this all the time and

what we have been told is there is

nowhere in the world which pulled

out of a customs union in the way we

are proposing to and that doesn't

result in a border, including the

border between Norway and Sweden,

which is a hi-tech border but a

border all the same and there are

checks all the same. We were even

told by somebody from Turkey

recently that their trucks are held

up for up to two days at the border,

so I think a lot of people still

need to be convinced that... This

comes down to these incompatible red

lines, where they have said they

want absolutely no border in Ireland

but they also want to pull out of

the common system of rules and

customs duties that has helped to

facilitate that over the years. The

Government has failed to square that

circle. Let me say something else -

faced with the incompatibility of

those red lines, what you see from

Boris Johnson and from others in

recent days is comments now saying a

border won't be so bad or, even

worse, openly attacking the Good

Friday Agreement. This is hugely

irresponsible and is the result of

the throwing out of these

ideological lead driven redlines.

Iain Duncan Smith, are you, as John

Major accused you and colleagues of,

boxing in the Prime Minister and

making it impossible to square that

circle to get a deal done?

No, the

Prime Minister has been very clear

on day one that she voted to remain

but recognises the vote to leave

included leaving the customs union

and single market. Let me take pact

to task. Of course there is a

border, the question we are talking

about is, it is a border where you

end up, as in this ridiculous

scenario, of queues of people not

being able to cross.

What evidence

do you have but it will be

ridiculous?

Turkey has a customs

arrangement, and entry to the

customs union, because they have

chosen to join it. Their

recommendation is not to do a deal

because these people don't stick by

it. They have queues because the EU

is imposing artificial problems at

the border. The point here is, what

we are looking for - and this is why

it is a nonsense - the EU has chosen

to discuss all these bits and pieces

before a trade arrangement.

Comes

back to the issue of trust. David

Davis, the Brexit secretary, has

said he is going to withdraw or an

egg on the contract payment of oil

spilled it docked

It is not

reneging, everything is agreed on

offering agreed. We are in the

business of only agreeing the money

with them if they are in the

business of doing the deal. They sit

down and talk about trade and as for

Pat, one last point on Pat and his

party, this is a party that stood at

the last election saying they were

guaranteeing they were leaving the

customs union, they have no renege

or as Frank Field said the other

day, ratted on that.

Briefly, Pat

McFadden, are you also ratting on

your own supporters, Leave

supporters?

It is never ratting on

Labour voters to put jobs and the

economy first. We did not sound on a

platform saying we would pull out of

the customs union, we stood on a

platform saying we would try to

maintain the benefits of the customs

union and the single market and this

week we put jobs and people's

standard of living first. We're the

Labour Party, that is what we are

for. Pat McFadden, Iain Duncan

Smith, thank you.

Well, as the politics of Brexit look

ever more complicated,

the practical implications

for business seem increasingly

difficult to fathom.

In the meantime, it's been

a difficult week on the British high

street with both Toys R Us

and Maplin Electronics

falling into administration.

The announcements follow weak

results from several big retailers,

and with the shape of the transition

agreement, let alone

the final Brexit deal

still to be pinned down,

business is looking

a little anxious.

Elisabeth Glinka has been to visit

one such firm.

If you run a business the extent to

which you worried about Brexit

probably depends on what you do.

Based in Wiltshire, this company

makes high-grade adhesives, used in

everything from pacemakers to CT

scanners and satellites. Once

manufactured, the product must be

used within 48 hours, shipped across

Europe at subzero temperatures.

I am

very worried. This business is at

risk. If we don't know how we are

going to solve the problem of

customs and how that is going to

work in the future, I don't know if

we can sustain it and we are under

pressure from our customers and

shareholders.

So if the likes of

Boris Johnson or Liam Fox says,

"Come, come, you should be more

positive, we need to be trading with

the world," what would you say?

I

would say I am positive. You don't

get to do what I do unless you are

positive and I am always optimistic.

We have grown this business from

nothing to where it is today through

optimism, planning and investment.

All those things take a positive

attitude. But if I am asked by my

customers, what are you going to do?

If I can't answer that question the

business is in trouble. It is a

fundamental question of our

existence.

Rex's company is the only

one on the European continent making

these specialised products. 85 the

scent of his sales are with the EU.

At the moment we can ship to

Barnsley just as easily as to Brad

Slava, it is just the same.

You

would be hard pressed to find a more

literal example of trade. Since

Britain voted to leave the EU

economy has continued to grow but we

haven't actually left yet and as the

deal looks uncertain, many UK firms

remain concerned about the future.

Take the Welsh fishing fleet. Well

the rest of the UK's fisherman Art

excited by the prospect of an end to

EU quotas, the well to specialise in

shellfish and so the vast majority

to France and Spain and think

difficult plea -- differently. The

Anglo Dutch giant Unilever has yet

to decide whether its future remains

in the UK and the Kfar industry's

problems are well documented.

Yesterday, a company committed to

keeping its new model in the UK.

keeping its new model in the UK.

If

you talk to the majority of the

captains of industry they are

strongly opposed to Brexit. They

believe it would be bad for the

industries but most of them are

extremely reluctant to speak out and

say so because they know half of

their customers may be in favour of

Brexit and half not.

This morning a

report from the Business Select

Committee concluded that at least

for the automotive sector, Brexit

negotiations are an exercise in

damage limitation. For small firms

like Epoxy, promises only go so far.

Our guest of the day Tim Martin

knows a bit about business

and was a leading Leave campaigner

in the EU referendum.

We're also joined by the chair

of the Business Select Committee,

the Labour MP Rachel Reeves.

Welcome to the programme and I will

come to you in a moment. First of

all, the chief executive of Maplin,

which has gone into administration,

said there was a combination of

factors but cited very clearly a

drop in the value of the pound post

the referendum.

Well, it is very

difficult to say because if you look

at VAT receipts for December they

are up 15%. Income tax was up 5% so

government receipts are very

positive.

You must accept that the

drop in the value of the pound has

hit businesses.

It has hit lots of

them in a beneficial way. It is an

automatic stabiliser, a floating

pound. It has gone up and down over

the years and that is a good thing.

The companies that -- countries that

are problems are like Greece where

they don't have the automatic

stabiliser. Some have gone up, some

have gone down to drop it is the way

it operates.

Rachel Reeves, isn't

this the normal cycle of business?

The site of the drop in value of the

pound but said there were other

contributory factors so, alone, is

it still really a step too far to

blame Brexit?

I certainly wouldn't

blame Brexit for what has happened

at Toys "R" Us and Maplin. I was

thinking back to when I was growing

up and going to toys R us was a big

treat. I remember going with my dad

and sister. But I've got two small

children and we haven't been to toys

"R" Us. I don't think it has stayed

modern. This isn't all about Brexit

but there are businesses and my

select committee today has put out a

report on the motor industry. There

are businesses struggling because of

Brexit, especially if you don't get

the sort of deal which ensures that

frictionless free-trade which allows

them to move in and out of the

country with ease and without

tariffs.

Even Toyota who have made

this announcement about building a

new car in the UK say it has to be

on the basis of being able to trade

freely with the EU.

I understand

that up to a point but the main

aspect of the EU is that it is a

customs union that puts barriers to

trade outside the union so it is

free trade for 7% of the world, the

other 93% not. So for us it will

bring prices down. For the car

industry, they will either have to

locate the parts they need from the

other 93% of the world, which will

happen in some cases, all we will

have to negotiate a deal. It is in

everyone's interest to negotiate a

deal but I think everyone is jumping

on the bandwagon of trying to

frighten the public. We are talking

about

knocking down trade barriers, not

putting them up by leaving. The

customs union should be called a

tariff barrier union.

Do you agree

with that? Tim obviously wants to

leave the customs union and doesn't

want any partnership in the way that

has been put forward and that Labour

are supporting?

If you look of a

trade deals the EU has with the rest

of the world they are facilitating

lower tariffs and more trade with

other countries.

other countries. If you look at

Labour's policy of staying in a

customs union, that will be good for

the automotive sector and many other

manufacturing sectors in particular

that rely on just in time delivery

and getting components in from other

European countries very quickly. We

went a Honda in Swindon, my select

committee, and saw vans arrived

every seven minutes to bring in

parts. There were no warehouses,

they went straight into the

production line. That wouldn't be

able to happen if you had on customs

checks, which is a risk of a heart

Brexit.

Nobody has been able to say

categorically that any trade done if

there is a deal will be replaced in

any short amount of time by trade

deals with these other countries,

even if we took the tariffs away.

Rachel and her fellow MPs will have

the power to abolish all tariffs on

incoming goods into the UK on day

one when we leave.

What percentage

of trade would that resulting?

That

would immediately result in a big

boost to the incomes of people in

the UK, said that is a good start.

Then you can negotiate with other

countries for free trade agreements

in addition.

What we will not be

able to do is get rid of tariffs

that we are exporting around the

world. For British farmers and

British manufacturing companies,

whether it is pharmaceuticals or

automated, we cannot get rid of the

tariffs other countries charge. The

risk is that it does have a boost

for consumers in the short term, but

it will put British people out of

work if they cannot do that.

I

understand the risk, the maths is

that we import more than we export.

Consumers will gain more in income

than will be lost in sales to the

EU.

We need to be selling more

things overseas to grow our

production. If we grow down your

road, we will be putting more farms

and farm labourers out of work and

more factories out of work.

That is

not true. It might be good for your

business, but it will not be good

for the other ordinary businesses.

The ordinary British worker will be

better off.

Not if they don't have a

job.

That is a scare story frankly.

If you look at Australian and New

Zealand farmers they have done

extremely well on world markets when

tariffs were abolished.

There is not

a single automotive company that

would come into our Select Committee

and say there was any reason why it

would be good for them, not a single

one.

Let's move on to immigration

because you have said EU nationals

are important to your business. How

worried are you there has been

slowing down in the rate of growth

in the number of workers coming to

the UK from the EU?

Exactly what I

said about EU workers, they are

excellent workers, and I think the

country benefits, like Australia,

New Zealand and Singapore from a

gradually rising population, with

relatively low birth rates. I would

like to see the population to

continue to rise and that is the

main benefit. I would like to see

immigration controlled by the UK

Government, not run by the unelected

oligarchs in Brussels. That is what

has wound up the population not only

in this country, but around the

world.

Would you be happy with the

idea of staying in the single

market?

The single market is an

name. I am in favour of immigration,

but I wanted controlled by the

government and not the EU and at the

moment it is controlled by people we

have not elected. Yeast immigration,

but at a controlled level.

Controlled by Rachel. Flattery will

get you everywhere. If you were in

control, would it not be better that

you were held accountable for

immigration, whether you kept levels

relatively high, maybe not as high

at the moment, and you could be

blamed for it rather than successive

British governments blaming the EU?

People want to see tighter controls

on immigration and British

Parliament and British politicians

making those decisions about who can

come in and out of the country. We

have to respect and understand those

legitimate concerns people have

about the levels of immigration in

recent years. I do think we need to

see change after the referendum, but

let's not throw the baby out with

the bath water. Let's ensure we have

frictionless, tariff free trade, but

we also need to control immigration.

A level of agreement there. Thank

you.

Thank you.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News

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

Research published today

suggests council tax rises

are on the way across England,

predicting they will be

the largest hikes for 14 years.

The Chartered Institute

for Public Finance and Accountancy

has asked all local authorities

to provide figures

for council tax rises.

The average property in England

will be paying more than £80 a year

extra in council tax when bills

arrive in April,

according to this survey.

There will be some big

regional discrepancies,

with band D properties

in the North East due to pay

an average of almost £1,800 a year.

That's more than £250

higher than the bill

for taxpayers in outer London,

according to the survey.

Here's the chief executive of Cipfa,

as it's known, Rob Whiteman.

So, the headline figure

from our research is that council

tax is going up by an average

of 5.1% across the country.

That's about £80 per year for most

households and that is the biggest

increase we've seen for 14 years.

Two of the biggest pressures that

councils face are adult social care

and children's services.

Obviously, the number of people

approaching old age has gone up

and therefore there is more

elderly care needed.

And for children's services,

there is a mixture of more children

with learning disability requirement

packages but at the same time,

the role to protect children

who are vulnerable has also seen

quite an increase, so in both those

areas councils are generally

spending more money

than they have resources to do.

I think I said a hike in £1800 a

year. When we are talking about

regional discrepancies, I meant an

average of £1800 a year. We asked if

a minister was available to talk

about this, but no one was.

about this, but no one was.

I'm joined now from Nottingham

by Alison Michalska, who runs

the adult and children's services

in that city and is also the current

president of the Association

of Directors of Children's Services.

And with me here in the studio

is the Conservative MP

Kevin Hollinrake, who sits

on the local government

select committee.

Welcome to both of you. Allison, the

Local Government Association says

that by 2020 councils will have lost

more than 85% of central government

funding compared with levels in

2013. You work on the front line

providing children's services in

Nottingham. How have the cuts

affected you?

They have had a

devastating impact up and down the

country. In Nottingham as the

government roles are reducing, and

although council tax is going up in

the poorest areas, that raises the

least money. Nottingham city is very

deprived. We have estimated around

60% of our families living in

poverty. A council tax rise raises

the least money in places like

Nottingham. Up and down the country

there is a huge increase in demand.

As money is going down from

government to provide services, the

demand is going up. The increase

across the country we have seen in

the last ten years is just shy of an

80% increase in the number of

children who are subject to a child

protection plan. They are the most

expensive services. While councils

like Nottingham are having to do

around the country is to introduce

early help and early intervention

services and that means we are not

able to help children and families

early and then they reach crisis and

that is when they need to be

intervening with our most expensive

levels of service.

You said the

council tax rises will help a bit,

but you have said it raises the

least money in some of the most

deprived areas. What do you want to

see the government doing?

We

released a policy paper at the end

of last year and what we want the

government to do is to recognise

that if it wants to be a country

that works for all people it first

and foremost needs to be a country

that works for all children. We need

a sustainable funding settlement for

children's services. By 2020 the gap

in funding for children's services

will be at least £2 billion. Without

that sustainable funding we will be

unable to provide the very effective

early help and early intervention

services, the family support, they

are the services whereby local

authorities up and down the country

are helping families to care for

themselves and their own children.

Without that what we need to do is

to respond more urgently and with

more expensive intervention

services.

As you have laid out

extremely clearly and powerfully the

local challenges that local

government needs to do, what are you

going to do about it?

I agree with a

lot. The Secretary of State did give

a four-year funding settlement in

2016. It was a real terms increase

between 2018 and 2020. Let's put it

in context in terms of our national

finances. We are spending too much,

£40 billion every year more than we

get in taxes. It was 150 billion

when we took over the economy in

2010. At the same time we have

halved unemployment and we are one

of the fastest-growing economies in

the G7.

So why are there these

problems?

Every local authority has

to look at its own costs and has to

become more efficient. Nottingham

itself, £27 million every year in

terms of efficiencies. A lot of

councils have become efficient.

They

have fulfilled what the government

has said to them, they have cut

services and spending to the bone.

There is no more and we have had a

succession of local government

representatives saying that,

Conservative, Labour, Liberal

Democrat, right across the board.

What are you going to do? It is not

enough to say look at the context,

we are spending X amount of money

when there are far more elderly

people and far more children with

complex needs. To say you will

continue cutting does not answer the

question.

I did not say that.

Nottingham will see a real terms

increase in funding over the next

two years. Beyond that there are two

things we need to do. The biggest

pressure is that 34% of spending is

adult social care and we need a

long-term sustainable model for

funding that care. We need an extra

£9.4 billion and in this spending

round we need to put more money in

in the future. I personally think we

need to look at a social solution.

The other thing we need to do, and

your clip illustrated it perfectly,

is the funding of local authorities

is totally unfair. Nottingham gets

around £800 per person per year in

terms funding, whereas parts of

London, wealthy parts of London, are

getting £1100 a year to spend. That

is not right. The government is

committed to put in a new fairer

funding reviewed to make sure all

areas get a fair amount of. Less.

Absolutely not, it will be more, but

it will be fairer, so Alison can do

a good job that she does with the

right amount of resources.

Do you

like what you have heard?

Fairer

funding that would benefit

Nottingham city, of course I like

that. But we have to be clear, it is

some of our most efficient and most

wealthy councils that are also

struggling. It is the lack of a

comprehensive tackling child poverty

strategy that is getting in the way

and it would be great if the

government could address that. Yes,

money is going up in some areas but

it is not going up anywhere near as

the level of demand and need that we

have and that is across adult and

children's' services.

You have

listened to the debate. Do you think

it is their council tax goes up,

that the government is trying to get

local government to make those

decisions to distance themselves

some would argue from painful

decisions being made at a local

level? Do you think it is my

constituents pay perhaps up to 5%

more?

There is a good case for

people like me paying more perhaps,

but I am not sure how fair council

is. What really sticks in my crore

listening to what Alison said is the

fact that we are talking about

paying 10 billion a year, and we are

paying that now to the EU. Alison

only needs 2 billion. People say

what we paid to the EU is not much,

but it should be allocated to this

country.

A Brexit point for you.

What do you say to that? It will be

interesting to see whether there is

any damage to the economy or whether

that money can be spent in other

areas and it has been promised to a

number of different areas already.

We have to look at local government

finance in isolation. It has to be

that everybody gets a fair amount

for the needs of that local area and

we have a sustainable model of care.

Should there be a re-evaluation of

council tax properties?

That is not

the problem, it is about

distributing the money more fairly.

the money more fairly.

After months without a government

following last year's

inconclusive general election,

which saw gains for

the anti-immigrant AfD,

Germany's two largest parties have

finally done a deal to form

a so-called grand coalition.

Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats

have had to make significant

concessions to Martin Schulz's

Social Democrats to make

the deal - which the SPD

had originally ruled

out - happen.

But the coalition deal

is not yet quite sealed.

The final hurdle is a vote

of the SPD's entire membership,

which concludes on Sunday.

Joining us from the German city

of Cologne via the internet

is a British SPD,

and former Momentum,

activist, Steve Hudson,

who is leading the campaign

to get his comrades to say

"nein" to the deal.

And in the studio here

is the academic and SPD supporter

Dr Isabelle Hertner.

Welcome to both of you. Steve, what

is wrong with another grand

coalition? The SPD will be in

government.

Every grand coalition up

to now we have seen the SPD support

fall significantly.

The AFD is the

Alternative fur Deutschland, the

right-wing group.

right-wing group.

Yes, they have an

anti-refugee agenda. They point to

the SPD and say, you are all the

same, and we see SPD support

crumbling. And we go through another

grand coalition there is a real

danger the SPD will cease to exist.

Let's put that to Isabel Hertner. It

hasn't worked well for the SPD. They

have suffered and it has been a long

time since the SPD was the largest

party so what is the point?

I

understand what you are saying and

it has been difficult for the SPD to

make their presence felt in

coalition. But I would still say

that they are more determined now

than ever, that when the coalition

contract was written they made some

important concessions and if they do

enter the grand coalition they are

actually holding some very important

ministries, like finance, work and

social affairs, so they can actually

make their mark.

Steve, isn't that

the point? Angela Merkel is in a

much weaker position on the SPD will

have a much more dominant role this

time.

Both major parties are

suffered massively at the last

election and both are much much

weaker. I don't agree that the SPD

had a strong hand and what is the

point in having the finance ministry

if you are not allowed to raise

taxes for the rich, not allowed to

incur any public debt, you are still

bound to a programme of public

austerity which is massively

punishing working people in Germany.

Isn't that why they are losing

support, because they haven't been

able to put forward this agenda

Steve has outlined and are seen as

betraying their roots?

Yeah, but

when you look at the coalition

contract, they are suggesting that

more money needs to be spent on the

eurozone, more solidarity for

southern European countries, against

youth unemployment and so on. So

they are actually trying to pull

their weight and if you think about

the bigger picture and the eurozone

as a whole, then I do think there is

a good case for having the SPD in a

coalition government.

Steve, the

result will be on Sunday and most

people at this point think that most

SPD members will back the coalition

so isn't this all just a bit too

late?

We will have to see. We have

seen a really extraordinary

campaign. The party conference

passed a motion guaranteeing a free

and fair debate and we've had

exactly the opposite and ended up

with the SPD leadership sending

along with the postal ballot a

3-page letter on why you should vote

yes. Online, younger members, new

members joining the party, are

streets ahead but the average age of

the SPD member is 60 and many of the

SPD we simply cannot reach online

but we have been able to reach with

the others. We don't know how it

will turn out but we are very, very

worried - how is a genuine renewal

of the SPD possible? How are we

going to turn around in former

years' time if you have been part of

another coalition with conservatives

and say, now we are different and

have something better to offer?

What

would you say?

I would say yes, it

is true and I do see your point but

in the grand scheme of things,

triggering new elections, because

that could happen, and then you

would see the SPD vanishing even

more and the far-right AFD would

come second. That's what the polls

show us. I don't know if that is a

very palatable solution for the

future of Germany and also for the

eurozone, or the European Union as a

whole. I see this very much as a

European discussion.

Steve, it is a

risky strategy, isn't it? New

elections could see more AFD

representatives in the Bundestag,

which you would be against, and the

SPD could be wiped out and you would

have gambled on your so-called

radical agenda for the SPD and

retaining their principles by not

being part of this grand coalition

only to be wiped out.

We saw that a

year ago the SPD was on twice its

current support.

Yes, but for how

long?

But why was it on that?

Answer

the first question, how long, and

then tell us why.

For a couple of

weeks. But Martin Schulz, who was

then the leader of the party,

rejected that all full programme of

welfare cuts which was the SPD

legacy from the last SPD led

government and this whole third way

politics of publishing the pool for

being poor, and when he did that the

SPD's ratings went through the roof.

That is the key. If we need to go

through a new election that is where

we've got to turn round and say to

our electorate, we are there for you

again, not the capital and the

corporations.

Isabelle Hertner, do

you think that would happen? If

there was a radical left-wing agenda

and the sort of promises being made

by Steve... You could argue that

that worked here for Jeremy Corbyn

and support for the Labour Party

increased at the last general

election, the SPD could benefit?

I

am not so sure because those people

who voted AFD, I don't think they

are going to switch to the SPD back

any time soon. A lot of them are

disgruntled Conservatives and those

people who didn't vote in the past,

so I don't see them coming in big

numbers to join the SPD. I do not

think that's going to happen and

also, there was a party on the left

of the SPD, which could mop up

further activists further to the

left and voters anywhere.

Do you

think there is a future for the

social Democratic left? You have

written a book about the British

Labour Party, the French Socialists

and the German SPD that we'd been

talking about but if you have got

the left wing party in Germany, is

there really room politically for

the SDP now?

I think the SPD has to

find its place again, and it is

squeezed. On the left is left party,

on the centre-right is the CDU,

which is moved to the left, so the

SPD's for manoeuvre is quite

limited. But I think it has a strong

case.

Isn't that the point, Steve?

If you are a real left winger, why

don't you vote for the Greens or

another party?

The Greens have

become another middle-class party.

Pol

Die Linke have been a Communist

Party and the many people are

unelectable on those grounds. The

SPD is like a football team. You

don't change your party. What has

happened as most of those people who

were SPD voters, a lot of them have

just given up voting altogether so I

don't think we will get all the AFD

voters coming straight back to the

SPD but rather that millions of

people who have given up because

they've been abandoned by the

system, told the system was rigged

against them, some have gone to the

AFD but most have given up voting.

What we saw with Labour in the last

election was all those millions of

people coming back and that's what I

want for the SPD.

All right, Steve

Hudson and Isabelle Hertner, thank

you very much. We will find out the

result very soon.

Now, avid viewers of

the Daily Politics quiz

will recall us asking this week

which Winston Churchill

tipple is set to return

in pint-sized form after Brexit.

The answer of course was champagne -

with the war-time leader said

to enjoy "an imperial pint"

of the stuff, because half

a bottle was "insufficient

to tease my brains".

I'm sure that is the same with

everybody!

Well, we couldn't have a publican -

Tim Martin - on as our guest

of the day without asking

whether Brexit will lead

to a revival of pints of bubbly.

But let's first speak to Hubert de

Billy from Pol Roger in France,

whose champagne Churchill was said

to be partial to.

Welcome to the programme. Your

family actually knew Churchill. What

exactly did he like so much about

pint sized champagne?

He loves it

because he was drinking it in

couples and he used to say that when

he was drinking a bottle, Clementine

was not happy and when he was

drinking a half bottle, he was not

happy.

So this was the absolute

perfect compromise, to have

something in between. How many

glasses do you get out of a pint

sized bottle?

A pint is exactly 56.8

centimetres, to be precise so

roughly you can have four glasses,

approximately.

Perfect for

breakfast, clearly! Is that a pint

sized bottle you have got next to

you on that table?

Yes, that is the

imperial pint, it is what he used to

drink during the war.

And pints of

champagne - were they popular before

Brussels band of the size in 1973?

Er Whipp don't forget... Yes, it was

popular before the war because after

the war a lot of business has been

through the glass, champagne through

the glass, which was something new

and it was true that the pint was

popular before the war and with the

business of champagne by the glass,

it has been decreasing slowly but

surely and champagne people, when

they

they create it, they will ask for

the imperial pint, plus the fact

that it is true that we prefer to

count in the unit of bottles so with

a bottle, among them bottles, a half

bottle, a Jeroboam is four bottles.

The imperial pint was a strange

size, I will say, in the French way

of life!

Used stick to that! Tim, do

you fancy pint sized bottles of

champagne?

I love the idea. How much

you have to admire Churchill? Not

only was he a Great War leader and a

great writer and journalist but he

actually got that much a day. He

also dictated to his secretary while

he was in the bath and so I wouldn't

fancy trying that in the modern era.

No, and I doubt that you should

suggest it any more on that basis!

Don't forget that at the same time,

Churchill used to say that the

Magnum was the best size for two

gentleman, providing that one of

them was not drinking!

Fair enough.

What about the taste? It is all

about the taste. Do those bottles

enhance the taste of drinking

champagne or not?

No. The best size

is a Magnum.

Well, you would say

that!

I will give you an example. It

is like a hotel room. If you take a

one star or a 4-star you have a bed

inside and you will sleep but not in

the same comforts. And the

percentage of air compared to widen

the Magnum is the best size.

I am

convinced. I will only drink

magnums! Do you agree it has to be

Magnum is all the way? Is this just

a gimmick?

Yes, but we like

gimmicks, interest, talk, it's Boks

Ofcom the solution and the English

like pint so let's drink champagne.

We can all dream to that! You

enjoyed that pint sized bottle,

Hubert. Thank you for joining us. As

we have been on air, Donald Tusk is

arrived at Downing Street for talks

with the Prime Minister Theresa May.

He had plenty of journalists

shouting questions at him as he went

in. Oh, to be a fly on the wall.

Some advance notice of what the

Prime Minister will be outlining in

her speech tomorrow and no doubt

some strong views on the EU's draft

document yesterday. I wonder if they

will be serving champagne at lunch,

pint-size Magnum. We will have a

special programme tomorrow from

1:30pm until 2:30pm but I am afraid

that is all we've got time for four

today. I am rather hungry for

something! Thank you for being our

guest today. Andrew has a special

This Week later with Liz Kendall,

Andrew Walmsley, did Brian bless and

David