05/03/2018 Daily Politics

Hello, and welcome

to the Daily Politics.

Has Theresa May achieved

the impossible and managed

to unite her party on Brexit?

Her latest speech seems to have

landed reasonably well,

at least on the domestic front.

But will the EU buy

into what she calls her "ambitious

and practical" vision

for the future relationship?

Donald Trump says he will impose big

tariffs on imports of steel

and aluminium to the US.

Theresa May expresses

her "deep concern" -

but what does it mean

for the special relationship once

we leave the EU?

On the domestic front,

the Prime Minister returns

to her promise to "fix the broken

housing market" with fresh action

to boost house building.

Will it work?

We'll speak to the new

housing minister.

A populist surge in

the Italian elections leaves

the traditional parties reeling.

We'll look at the rise

of anti-establishment

politics across Europe.

All that in the next hour,

and with us for the whole

of the programme today,

two of Westminster's

brightest young things -

well, youngish, at least -

Labour MP Mary Creagh

and Conservative MP Alex Burghart.

Welcome to you both.

First today...

Dismay about the prospect

of a new trade war is brewing,

after President Trump announced

plans to impose new tariffs

of 25% on steel imports

and 10% on aluminium.

He said those industries in America

had been "decimated" by decades

of unfair trade policy -

and that America couldn't

let its workers and companies be

exploited any longer.

The move was greeted by threats

of retaliation and widespread

criticism from leaders around

the world - but that seems to have

fallen on deaf ears.

Over the weekend, President Trump

doubled down on his remarks,

saying that the American steel

industry was in bad shape -

and that if you don't have steel,

you don't have a country.

Yesterday, Theresa May spoke

to the President by phone

and expressed her "deep concern"

at the proposed new tariffs -

echoing fears it could

spark a new trade war.

But the advice seems

to have gone unheeded -

President Trump tweeting hours later

that America was on the losing side

of almost all trade deals,

had been taken advantage

of for years, and that it

was time for a change.

Well, yesterday, Cabinet Office

Minister David Lidington

was on the Sunday Politics,

where he outlined the

Government's concern.

The United States is...

Is not taking an advisable course

in threatening a trade war.

Trade wars don't do

anybody any good.

We tried in Britain, in the '60s

and '70s, protecting our car

industry from competition.

That actually didn't work.

It protected inefficiencies.

We lost all our export markets,

because our competitors,

who were more competitive,

went out and gobbled those up

from us, and the car industry had

to go through a very,

very painful restructuring to get

to the success story it is now.

David Lidington there.

The problem is, Donald Trump isn't

changing his course of action. In

fact it seems to have hardened.

Trump's top trade adviser said there

would be no exceptions made in the

tariff hike. So what does the UK

Government to do?

How shall I put

this? The president has a unique way

with language and it is not always

the case that what he says at first

actually plays out as it is reported

so I am a little hesitant to make

the assumption that this is

definitely going to happen later

this week but if it does, I think it

will be quite damaging for the world

economy and I'm sure that the

President is trying to protect his

base, steel manufacturers in the US,

but I think what he will see as a

result is that the cost of living

goes up as trade barriers are put up

by other countries. As David

Lidington said, we strongly advise

the US to would going down this

route.

It has fallen on deaf ears.

Is your policy one of fingers

crossed, he just won't carry through

what he is threatening to do?

As you

have already said, we are in

dialogue with the American

presidency. It is not just a

question of one phone call and then

it is done. We are in the process of

negotiation and I'm sure the

president has some means that he

wants to achieve.

What is plan B?

Plan a is what we are still at the

moment, which is negotiation with

the US. If that doesn't work, we

will be looking to see if we can get

some special pleading for the UK and

I assume that is what ministers will

do because, as you will know, an

early draft of this proposed

arrangement was leaked to the press

and it suggested that Britain and

Canada and Mexico would all be

exempt.

But that has been dropped.

Says a full exemption has been

dropped but that is not to say that

the same tariffs would be applied to

all the countries.

What would your

special pleading include?

We are a

very close ally of the US, actually

the US don't have a problem with our

steel industry that they have with

China. They have a problem with the

steel industry as they have with the

EU. We are quite a small player in

the world of steel so I don't think

taking punitive measures against us

will necessarily achieve what he

wants.

But he has made a fairly

passionate defence of what he has

seen as decades of decline and

damage done to America's steel

industry so if he does push ahead

with a 25 the centre out on steel

imports and 10% on aluminium, would

usable retaliation?

Would depend on

what that retaliation was and I

don't really want to see the world

getting involved in a massive trade

war. I think that would be very

damaging for everybody. We do need

to take our next up very carefully.

Mary Creagh, Jeremy Corbyn, the

Labour leader, will have some

sympathy with Donald Rob, warranty,

because he is keen on advocating a

policy to protect industries here,

like steel?

I have some suburbia

with Donald Trump. I agree, if you

don't have steel then you don't have

an industrial base, in the same way

as if you don't have a chemical

sector you don't have an industrial

base either.

So do you also support

putting huge tariffs?

Of course not

and nobody wants to see a new round

of trade was. Having grown up in

Coventry, and manufacturing city in

the Midlands and 1980s, I have seen

the painful restructuring that the

car industry went through in the

1980s but what I think this is is a

brutal wake up call for the

Brexiters who have been saying that

we will do a quick fair trade deal

with Donald Trump. Canada is in a

free trade arrangement with the US.

Their steel is going to be subject

to these tariffs as well. So a free

trade deal doesn't really get us

very far and I think what Alex

hasn't said is, we will be working

with our EU partners, our voices

amplified as part of the EU in our

discussions with Donald Roger

Dock

Would usable retaliation by the

EU bloc?

Nobody wants to get that

that stage. We're seeing concerns on

the stock markets, US forces. If it

comes down to it, we should take

action with our EU partners.

It is a

wake up call in terms of a

free-trade partnership with the US.

That would not entitle Britain, it

seems, in any way to preferential

treatment.

Let's see what actually

happens later in the week. There are

signs that Canada, Britain and

Mexico may be getting a different

deal and that is because they have

very strong bilateral relationships

with the United States.

That was the

initial sanding and that has now

been dropped.

As I say, we have to

see how this will play out. What has

been ruled out is that no country

will have a complete exemption. That

is different to their not being any

special tariff for close allies.

All

right, let's leave it there.

Well, all that comes in the wake

of Theresa May's big Brexit speech

on Friday, in which she put more

flesh on the bones of what she hopes

life outside the EU will look like.

It seems to have gone

down reasonably well

on the domestic front,

and we should start to get a sense

this week of the EU's thinking.

As well as that, here's

a rundown of the other big

stories this week...

This afternoon Theresa May

will make a statement

in the Commons following her

Mansion House speech

at the end of last week.

Also this week, the

European Council will send

a set of draft guidelines

for the next phase of Brexit talks -

this could come

as early as tomorrow.

Wednesday sees Theresa May

and Jeremy Corbyn have their

weekly duel at PMQs.

On Thursday, Parliament

marks the fact that it's

International Women's Day,

with the house noting the steps

being taken to press for progress

on gender equality around the world.

Well, to walk us through a big week

for Theresa May, we can talk

to Emily Ashton from Buzzfeed,

and the Telegraph's

Christopher Hope.

They're on College Green for us.

There is no more snow! It has

finally disappeared so you are not

freezing like your colleagues last

week. Christopher, a rare outbreak

of relative unity on both sides of

the Tory party. How long can it

last?

Maybe until Tuesday. We are

doing pretty well so far. We saw

Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nicky Morgan in

our paper on Saturday saying what a

great speech it was, how uniting it

is. We are hearing... Tomorrow we

get the guidelines on negotiations

and we will see how they go. Yet

again, Theresa May says a big speech

but nothing happens for three months

and it trends downwards and

Remainers get stuck into the lack of

information and vegetables it out of

the bag again. She is taking blows

on the rope as if she is going to

fall over and never quite does, so

we have this blissful spring air,

this hardly over Brexit. Isn't it

great?

Emily, is it likely that the

amendment put down by Anna Soubry

and Ken Clarke, who are seen as art

Remainers in the Conservative Party,

an amendment to the trade bill which

will come back later this year,

which course in the UK to come into

a customs union, is there a sense

that will be dropped?

You do get a

sense it might be pushed down the

road, if not dropped altogether.

This was probably the most detailed

speech from Theresa May yet but it

really did like specifics. She talks

about managed to divert and is, we

are definitely not going to be the

single market or the customs union

but we will be in some kind of

customs arrangement and that wins

over some Remainers. We don't have

the details to know exactly what the

difference is yet so for now, Nicky

Morgan and others are quite content

to, OK, let's see how that goes, and

as you say that amendment was quite

a big deal because it could have had

a no-confidence motion attached to

it. That was the rumour.

Alex

Burghart, what was new, what was

dramatically new in that speech, or

conceded by Theresa May?

What was

lovely about the speech was the

absolute disappointment of

journalists on Sunday, who are

absolutely incapable of finding

anyone other than Michael Heseltine

to say that it wasn't up to scratch.

So what we have is a very unifying

speech, which has, at the end of

this process, this phase, pulled

together from both sides what we can

actually do, practically do...

But

what was new? What was then you

think she announced that really

moves these negotiations on?

What

moves the sun is that we have set

out very clearly what our

negotiating position is, going into

the final...

But we knew about

living a customs union and the

single market and we knew

there was going to be an element of

managed to diverging somebody wanted

technological solutions for the

Irish border. What was new?

All of

these things are going to be

extremely important as we go into

the next phase. It is now been set

by the Prime Minister on the eve of

the most important we will have a

generation and it will form the

basis of what happens. The PM has

set out that this is a negotiating

position, that both sides are going

to have to make compromises but it

enables her to deliver on the

Lancaster House speech, which is

essentially what both wings of the

Conservative Party wanted Dock

She

can only deliver, Christopher hope,

Matt Lancaster House speech if the

EU agreed what was set out in

watches on Friday, and apart from a

fat that I can't really see anything

that massively changes the dial

apart from this attempt at unifying

both sides of the party, will the EU

accepted?

They may or they may not.

They are still angling over the

border with the EU, and it would

appear now in the island of Ireland.

She said some quite new things. I

would take issue with your guest in

the studio. She talked about how 80

% of goods will travel north, south,

and not be checked across the

border, 20% might be, which might be

by CCTV cameras. Or the congestion

charge camera to grow Boris Johnson.

That was pretty new. I thought the

fact she was going to attach

financial services to the treaty

with the EU when we negotiate and

passporting is now a job. There will

be a speech on Wednesday when it

will be made clear that the EU

agreed on the TTIP to put financial

services into that deal. Why can't

they do it with Brexit?

But in a

sense we sort of knew that was the

direction of travel from the

government. What we don't get a

sense of is, is the EU going to sign

up to what they will still regard as

cherry picking in many instances

and, also, allowing the mutual

recognition until such time that

parliament chooses to divert?

You

have already seen some action from

the EU. -- reaction. You saw diva of

start, who was pretty scathing about

it. -- Guy Verhofstadt. They are a

bit baffled. You can't say I am

going to avoid a hard border in

Ireland but also one frictionless

trade. You can't say both. Where are

the details allowing that to happen?

You can't just do it to the EU and

say, can you sort this problem out

because the ball is in your court? I

think they are a bit frustrated with

the lack of detail.

Mary Creagh, in

terms of Labour

terms of Labour pub's policy, does

that solve the issue of the Irish

border?

It doesn't do they go some

way to solving it but we have to

stay in the single market if we are

to maintain a frictionless invisible

border across the island of Ireland.

I have called on Jeremy... I have

been voting to stay in the customs

union. I think a customs union is a

semantic phrase but I think we will

need to go further and faster on

this in the Labour Party but can I

do say, on the Prime Minister's

speech, she has moved from running

through fields of wheat to walking

through a cherry orchard that is not

yet in flower, let alone fruiting,

and these cherries are not on offer

from the EU.

It is a negotiation,

isn't it?

isn't it?

The aviation agency, the

medicines agency... We cannot sit

around the table and have a vote.

That is not on offer to us and I

think the key part of the speech was

the bit where she said we would have

less access to each other's markets.

That is the truth of Brexit, the

Brexit that was the exact same

benefits which was to the British

people cannot be delivered.

I am so sick of cherry and cake

metaphors.

I think the government

only ones that mentioned those

metaphors won more than one

occasion.

That's what she told

people.

The PM has said we are going

to have, you know, less free access

to each other Bosman markets.

The

exact same benefits was what we were

told.

Obviously what comes along

with this was the ability to strike

free trade deals with other

countries and jurisdictions.

Like

the US.

Yes but also countries in

the second world, New World,

developing world. Having trade deals

that will help bring down the cost

of living for people in the UK,

things we can't currently do. That

is part of the opportunity of

Brexit.

The analysis has implied so

fight wouldn't replace potential

loss of trade.

It depends on how you

do it. -- implied it wouldn't

replace.

Emily, do you think the

speech by Theresa May has somewhat

blunted Labour's announcement that

they are going to stay in a customs

union?

Yeah. Labour were obviously keen to

join Anna Soubry's Amendment. And

hopefully defeat the government and

causing the government problems. For

the Remoaners to maybe back away

from that amendment hasn't done

Labour any favours. -- for the

Remainers. It seems better

relationships in the Tory party but

we will see there's deep divides

form again.

Thank you very much --

those deep divides.

One of the crucial issues still be

resolved in the Brexit talks

is the Irish border.

In her speech on Friday, Theresa May

suggested that a hard border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic.

Perhaps by using technology and

exempting small businesses.

Which account for 80%

of cross-border trade, from checks.

Ireland's Deputy Prime Minister,

Simon Coveney, gave his reaction

on the Andrew Marr show yesterday.

I'm not sure that the European Union

will be able to support

a situation whereby 80%

of companies that trade...

Ah, well...

..North-South and South-North

will actually protect the integrity

of the EU single market,

which will be a big priority

for the EU negotiating team.

OK.

While, of course, we will explore

and look at all of the proposed

British solutions,

they are essentially a starting

point in negotiations

as opposed to an end point.

Joining me now from Belfast

is Dr Katy Hayward, an academic

from Queen's University Belfast.

She's an expert on Irish

cross-border relations

and EU integration.

Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Theresa May said on Friday she

offered not one but two separate

solutions to the Irish border issue

after Brexit and that now it's

incumbent on the EU to give those

options serious considerations. Is

she right?

We only heard on Friday a

reiteration of what she had said in

August, which is customs union

partnership and customs arrangement

which was already dismissed by the

EU as being magical thinking. It's

quite, significant that the customs

partnership idea has not progressed

any further. A customs union, you

are either in or out and the

suggestion that 80% of traders

wouldn't be subject to customs

requirement is nonsensical because

it means you are essentially saying

your border is open.

You say it's

nonsensical. At this customs

partnership that you have outlined,

it would be where we would agree to

charge the EU's tariffs on goods

heading to the continent via the UK

and we wouldn't need to check them

when moving to the UK from the EU.

What is wrong with that?

A customs

union arrangement is essentially...

You are dealing with what the UK is

saying for their country and the EU.

If you have different arrangements

between the UK and EU third

countries, you have to have

different implications for the

border, the management of that

border. It is impossible to enact

two different customs arrangements

at the same time.

Can you explain it

for our viewers? It is difficult to

imagine for all of us exactly what

it would mean in practice. Theresa

May also talks about technology

being used, which would mean there

would be a sort of invisible border

because you could preregister

companies, you could have a set of

trusted traders. Why is that not

workable?

Technology can be used to

make a customs border control more

efficient and certainly speed up

movement across a customs border and

a trusted Trader scheme is

well-established.

But it doesn't replace the need for

clarity about what that customs

border arrangement actually is. I've

described it before, you are

thinking about technology as trying

to think about the light fittings in

a house before you've even got the

planning permission for the house.

It is that planning permission, the

structures of the house that needs

much more

much more clarity. Technology does

not replace the need to enact a

customs border, it is just a means

of doing so.

When we talk about a

hardboard and everybody says they

want to avoid a hard border, is that

cameras along the 300 miles? Is it

infrastructure that would stop a

number of trucks and deliveries

coming through that border? Is that

what a hardboard looks like?

A

hardboard is felt in the differences

on either side.

-- hard border looks

like.

For example, what a business

and company has to do to move their

goods across the border and if

somebody wants to provide a service

on the other side of the border,

what they have to do to be able to

cross it. It's in those barriers,

those obstacles and difficulties

that a hard border is felt.

Not just

in terms of infrastructure. Alex,

listening to that, Katie is an

expert. She says the two proposals

being put forward by the Prime

Minister are not workable solutions.

The Prime Minister has said it is

incumbent on the government working

with the Irish government and the EU

to come up with better ideas. What

are those better ideas?

With all due

respect to Katy, I disagree. The

solution put forward by the Prime

Minister is workable.

Which one?

A

technological solution which would

enable relatively free flow of trade

across the border with a large

exemption for small traders but with

automatic... Electronic tracking for

large traders. The reason I say I

think this is workable is because

not only does it sound sensible but

in November last year, the European

Parliament's policy Department of

citizens rights and constitutional

affairs published a paper called

Smart border 2.0 where they proposed

exactly this. They looked at a range

of border arrangements including

Canada and the US who are not in a

customs union but where technology

has enabled exactly this sort of

relationship across the border. The

fact that there are people in Europe

saying this is possible and we are

saying it is possible in the UK

means this may be one way of getting

to the end point we all want to get

to, which is to have a borderless

situation with Ireland. We want

that, the EU wants that and the

Irish comment once that.

What do you

say to that?

I was commissioned with

David Fenimore to write a report for

the same committee, sat beside the

person who presented the report to

the European Parliament that it was

clear that the Smart border

technology does not avert the need

for properly enforcing a customs

border. If you are saying that 80%

of traders will not have to... Not

face any restrictions crossing the

border, you are essentially saying

you are not enacting a customs

border. This is the problem from the

EU's point of view. How do they know

that goods coming in are of a lower

standards, according to trade steals

the UK do, will not come into the EU

via Northern Ireland? This is a

serious point. In his report, and

presentation, he was clear that he

is not clear about the

particularities of the Irish case.

There is a very clear need for

distinctive arrangements in relation

to Ireland and Northern Ireland. It

was good to see Theresa May

reiterating again on Friday that the

1998 agreement has to be central to

what ever is put forward for Ireland

and Northern Ireland in the future.

Mary, you said you don't think

Labour's policy as it stands will

solve the Irish border issue either,

we would have to stay in a single

market as well. But there is no sign

that Jeremy Corbyn will sign up to

that.

I think Jeremy Hunt 's moved

onto the customs union and we could

see further movement -- Jeromy has

on to. We could see that become

clearer during the negotiation

phase. Can I go back to what Katy

has been saying, this is magical

thinking from the Prime Minister.

Katy analogy about the house is

important because the Prime Minister

can't say what she wants because to

set out what she wants would

separate the two wings of her party

in an irrevocable split. She focuses

on the means but not the what. She

talks by technological solutions,

can somebody help us with this but

she does not say what she actually

wants. I'm afraid it's another

classic example of fudge.

She has

and what she wants, and invisible

border, technological solutions --

has said what she wants. To ease

that across the border and she

doesn't want to break up the

integrity of the UK rightly or

wrongly... That is why it cannot be

down the Irish Sea.

We all want

that.

Having a customs border. What

do you mean?

She cannot say how she

will stop Northern Ireland becoming

an entry point for goods of a lower

standard and quality. Until she can

do that, all the talk of

technological solutions is for the

birds, fantasies. She meets talk

about what the customs arrangements

will be and what they will cover

before we get into cameras and

border checks -- she needs to talk

about.

We will find out the EU's

response later this week.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

For World Book Day last week,

politicians were asked

to name their favourite book

as a child - with Chancellor

Philip Hammond choosing

The Cat In The Hat by Dr Seuss.

But, according to The Times,

that's apparently only

after he was urged by Downing Street

officials to change

from his first choice.

The mind boggles.

Was that...

A - The Intelligent Investor

by Benjamin Graham?

B - Nineteen Eighty Four

by George Orwell?

C - How to Win Friends And Influence

People by Dale Carnegie?

C - How to Win Friends And Influence

People by Dale Carnegie?

Or D - The Chancellors

by Roy Jenkins?

At the end of the show,

Mary and Alex will give

us the correct answer.

And perhaps tell us their favourite

books when they were children.

Going

one and then two.

Now, you probably won't remember

much about the substance

of Theresa May's conference speech

last year, but you probably

will remember the protestor

handing her a P45 and that

awful coughing fit.

But, amid the coughs,

she did promise to put housing

centre stage of her premiership.

Well, today, she has been attempting

to do just that, unveiling new plans

to boost homebuilding.

Here she is making a cough-free

speech a little earlier.

The impact of rising prices goes

beyond the simple division

between housing haves and have-nots.

This crisis of unaffordability

is also creating a crisis of almost

literal social immobility.

Think of the skilled, experienced

worker who is offered a promotion,

but can't afford to take it up,

because it would mean

moving to a town or city

where he can't afford to live.

Think of the talented young woman

from a working-class background

who can't afford to take

an entry-level professional job,

because she wouldn't be

able to live nearby.

It's not so hard to accept that

door-opening internship in London

if your parents own a large house

in central London.

It's a much greater challenge

if you share a room with your

We'll hear from the housing minister

Dominic Raab in a moment,

but first of all, let's speak

to Hilary Newport from the Campaign

to Protect Rural England.

She is the director

of the group's Kent branch.

Welcome to the programme. Theresa

May has been speaking about a crisis

in affordability in housing that she

says is creating a crisis of almost

literally social immobility in the

country. What is wrong with this

cupboard wanting to build more

houses to address that?

Nothing is

wrong with that.

-- this government

wanting.

The crisis is of

affordability rather than

availability. We are keen to see

proper policies that makes homes

affordable for people genuinely.

What would you like to genuinely

propose?

We need to think hard about

returning to social housing because

it's impossible for people to afford

to get on the property ladder in

London or in the south-east. We need

to address proper social solutions

that will give people a decent place

to live.

Does it make it difficult

if there are restrictions being put

on the government, attempts to put

restrictions on the government as to

where they can build these hundreds

of thousands new homes they are

promising?

Certainly. The

modifications to the new planning

policy framework are suggesting we

need to pack far more homes into the

overheated Southeast and London.

That is a false hope. Simply

building more and more houses in

places already overstretched isn't

going to bring down affordability.

We need a proper social policy that

helps people.

You know that will be

an accusation levelled out to you of

Nimbyism. Where would you support a

big house-building programme?

We

support measures... We talk about

the Northern powerhouse. The

modification to the national policy

planning framework would see fewer

homes built in the parts of

north-east and north-west where

economic growth is desperately

needed.

At the moment lots of the

jobs are in the south and around the

home Counties. Will you support a

big house-building programme there?

The sort of affordability you talk

about.

We certainly accept that some

greenfield sites have to be handed

over for housing delivery but we

want proper planning policies that

allow authorities to direct

development to where it would do the

most good and the least harm. At the

moment that is very hard.

All will

just store the process?

I don't

believe it will but it developers

need to be incentivised to provide

the housing people need.

And you

reassured that the Government is not

going to tear up the green belt?

It

is difficult to see how that can

properly be enshrined when you look

at a district like Sevenoaks which

has historically high housing

targets and it is almost all green

belt so it would be hard to deliver

those kinds of target and something

has to give, either the number of

houses they are being forced to

build all the green belt, I'm

afraid, and that is simply

impossible to reconcile at the

moment.

Thank you for joining us.

Well, we can discuss this

now with the Housing

minister Dominic Raab.

Welcome to the programme.

You heard that this is about

affordability, not availability.

What do you say to that?

It is about

both but the trouble with the

Campaign to Protect Rural England is

that social housing is at its

highest demand in London on the

south-east as well and therefore if

they don't want us to build there we

are caught with a Catch-22 of their

own making. But actually, what we

are going to do is give local

authorities more tools in the box,

that is what the planning and policy

framework will do, for example to

build up a story or two, mews

houses, terraced streets, and we're

going to create more freedom for

them. But neither council level zero

local government level can we dubbed

the challenge to build more homes

for the future.

Theresa May return

to her theme with the Brexit speech

on Friday about the just about

managing and the implication of the

burning injustices that she wants to

do something about. Why has it taken

so long to get to grips with this

issue?

It has come together because

you have central government, local

authorities and the whole business

community. Every one of those has a

role to play. But if you look at

homeownership, it declined 2003 two

2014, stabilised since. If you look

at the last year, we got new homes

delivered up to 217,000, the highest

level in all but one of the last

years.

From a very, very low bar.

You're absolutely right. We have to

do more. We have the homes of

research fund...

But why haven't you

brought more affordable homes in the

last two years? If Theresa May keeps

talking about people who are

struggling and that just about

managing, why has there been

absolutely no progress in terms of

building more affordable homes?

For

example if you look at the last

seven years we have seen more

affordable homes delivered than the

previous seven years.

Let's look at

the figures. But affordable homes in

2009-10 was 58,290 and it has fallen

to 41,530, so that is a drop.

But if

you're looking over a longer term...

But I'm not.

I'm suggesting you

should.

Well, you would suggest that

but the figures have come down. They

have come down to 41,530.

I totally

accept we have to do more but

frankly, whether you're talking

about homes overall or affordable

homes, the key thing is to build up

supply and have more homes coming

onto the market, whether it is for

ownership, co-ownership or rent or

social rent and that is why planning

reform is one very important piece

of a jigsaw.

You have talked about

affordable homes and say overall

there have been more homes built.

What about council homes? If we're

talking about affordability and you

say that is critical, hammy council

homes have been built in the last

year?

I'm not sure what the figure

would be for the year alone because

I tend to look at affordable homes

in the Number Ten.

New homes for

social rent in 2016-17 worth 5380.

In 2009-10 they were 33,490. But is

a drop of over 80%.

We have to do

better.

Better? That is...

Let me

give you the answer. But as one of

the reasons why we have raised the

borrowing cut by £1 billion for

local authorities so yes, we can

build homes through the local

authorities. There is no one single

thing that is going to do this. It

is about pressure on local

authorities, a squeeze on developers

and looking at the national planning

framework and making sure the tools

are there for developers of

authorities to do the job.

But that

is not the answer. There has been no

action. There has been lots of words

and rhetoric from Theresa May but

when we try and match that rhetoric

with action, you see more can be

done. Absolutely, more can be done

but at the moment the direction of

travel has been in the totally wrong

direction.

I don't think that is

fair.

On new homes for social rent,

we're talking about people who are

just about managing...

We have the

highest number of first-time buyers

since the financial crash, a really

important statistic.

Is that the

just about managing, the people just

scraping by?

These are people who

weren't getting on the housing

ladder before but we have got to do

more. Hell to buy is being

criticised but has helped a lot of

the people who wouldn't have a

chance to get on the housing ladder,

release the public sector land, and

cutting stamp duty for important

buyers is a thing to do. We have

about half a dozen levers to get

home building up about 30% harder.

Planning reform today will deliver

that.

Would you agree that a burning

injustices and 86% drop in the

number of affordable homes that have

been built?

Look, I don't embarrass

anyone statistic that does it

justice but if you are making the

point that we need to build not just

more homes but more affordable homes

for the key workers, the nurses,

those in the private sector, I

absolutely agree. That is why we are

straining to do more and the

planning reforms, I know they are

very technical and people don't like

to get into the detail of it but we

are giving local authorities greater

tools to do the job and putting a

bit more of a squeeze on them and

saying, we can't dock this any more.

What is the squeeze? Would you put

sanctions on councils who don't meet

targets?

What they planning policy

changes today set out is putting the

squeeze on the authorities who,

let's put it like this, abdicate

their responsibility to either

provide the housing supply or get

the homes built when it is very

clear what the homes their community

need are and, at the same time, it

is not all one-way traffic. We are

putting £5 billion through the homes

infrastructure funds in production

-- providing the schools, roads, so

that wouldn't just build homes but

provide strong communities.

You have

set out proposals and I have put to

use stark figures that don't show

there has been improvement on

affordable homes and homes for

social rent but even in the

conference speech last year by

Theresa May, which was going to be

billed as a sort of housing

revolution, the price there was only

5000 more homes, affordable homes

and homes for social rent every year

for five years. Is that enough?

I

think our target is to get up to

300,000 new homes...

At his new

homes, I am talking about affordable

homes for social rented top

I think

dividing a dog is not right.

Government is saying they are the

people you want to help.

But if you

get up those new homes delivered to

the figure of 300,000 which is

long-term plan, nobody said it would

happen overnight, you bring the

affordability down for the nurse,

the teacher, the family working

extra shifts to try and settle down

and get their foot on the housing

ladder.

Heather Wheeler, the new

minister for homelessness, has said

she will resign if the figure for

the number of rough sleepers gets

worse. Will you give the same

assurance of targets are met?

Look,

I'm putting my heart and soul into

getting the new homes delivered. I'm

not going to make this all about my

reputation or what I'm doing but

what I can tell you is that on every

one of those levers, Sajid Javid,

the Secretary of State, myself and

the Prime Minister will be yanking

those levers harder to get those

homes built and that is not just the

way we provide the homes Britain

needs but make them more affordable

for precisely the people you are

talking about.

But that is a clear

assurance missed you minister and

she is putting her reputation on the

line on an issue that your

government has said is going to be

absolutely critical. Theresa May

said it is going to be at the

forefront at centre stage. You are

on the front line of the housing

minister.

The Prime Minister has

already made clear that I will be

for the high jump unless... So don't

worry about what I say. The fact we

have Heather Wheeler, and extra

housing minister, dealing with this

crucial issue of rough sleeping,

shows that commitment.

And it shows

that commitment because the number

of rough sleepers has tripled

between 2010 and 2017 from 1068 up

to 4060. It is shameful.

We have to

do much better. I have volunteered

at a housing charity in new because

a lot of people who find themselves

that awful position of the lack of a

roof over their head is the symptom

not the course. We have got to do

better.

The Tory councillor who

chairs the Local Government

Association, Gary Porta, said on

Twitter, the answer is not another

planning law shake-up but to let

councils build homes themselves. Do

you agree with him?

I can fully

signed up to the package that has

been announced today and one of the

things that comes up time and time

again, from young constituent of

mine out in Essex, their parents and

grandparents want to see more

housing made available and they want

to see it put up in a sustainable

way and it is something that has

been close to my heart for a while

and I was very pleased to hear sad

to Javad talking about it over the

weekend, the creation of new towns

and new villages, which enables

government to put the infrastructure

in, but schools in, but the roads

in, make sure the clinics are there.

That is a very positive vision for

what has and should be.

Can you sign

up to a too?

What we have is a

global crisis, I homelessness

crisis...

I have done that with

Dominic Raab but can you sign up to

the proposals announced today and

the commitment that is being made to

building more homes?

My question is,

where is the underpinning investment

coming from? What my concern is

about changes that this government

has made, for example on zero carbon

homes, these homes are going to be

around for the next 70 two 100 years

and they're not being put before

climate changed. Where is the work

on sustainable drainage? We have

homes that are without water because

of the leaks. We have to look at

this and the Government has got rid

of the decontamination grants to

tear whoa Vera Banfield cites.

Do

you support the pledge to build new

homes? It has gone up to a level

that was last reached in 2007-08.

Everybody wants to get home

ownership up and homelessness down.

The question is, who is the party

that you Chris Thomas, the Tories

with their record broken promises on

this?

We haven't got time to do

Labour's record but it wasn't very

good either.

I didn't interrupt you.

We've got more houses in every year

of a Labour government than any of

the first five years of your

government and you are only now

coming to this and there is a

collapse in the houses being built

for social rented housing. Councils

are spending £1 billion a year in

accommodation for homeless families.

You had better have a response that

before I let you go. What do you say

in response?

You have a shadow

Labour minister who says that

housing is important under Labour

leader who says all property is

theft. They voted against our stamp

duty cut for first-time buyers but

friendly, nobody gives a monkey's

what the tit-for-tat between Mary

and I years. Crucially, we all agree

on getting the affordability down

for key workers and the people on

low and middle incomes.

Dominic

Raab, thank you.

Italians have been voting

in a general election

over the weekend and

the results overnight

have delivered a hung

parliament and record backing

to anti-establishment

and far-right groups.

Our reporter, Gavin Lee,

joins us live from Rome.

Brings us up to date.

A very wet in

Rome today. A cloudy sky and a

cloudy future because we have a hung

parliament. There are different

people claiming victory. I think

right now the single party that has

the momentum, it seems, is the

5-star Movement, apropos of nothing

five years ago, a comedian with very

low EU rhetoric wanted a referendum

on the euro. To doubling of scale

that backed it up they have a hard

call on the EU, 31-year-old sharps

spoken, sharp suited man, made a

speech if you minutes ago in which

he spoke about a new start for Italy

and said he was delighted beyond

words and open to works were bottles

the move parties. They are the

single biggest party, as far as the

vote is... It is almost finished

voting now. The single biggest party

in Italy. The bigger coalition is

the centre-right, Silvio Berlusconi

back from the dead. Is a

centre-right coalition collectively

has more votes but that is because

of the hard right anti-immigration

party, the league, and its leader

today saying that he thanks John

Claude Younger of the European Union

for saying more bad things about his

party because it has helped them

getting votes. So now they have to

work at the business of who is going

to work with who, how will work, a

quick word for the people who used

to be the government building behind

me... A lot of rain just fell, as

you see! They are sodden too at the

moment because they are third,

walking wounded right now. We are

told they are not really getting

involved in coalition talks unless

they are needed.

Thank goodness you

had an umbrella! Thank you for

joining us.

Here in the studio is Matthew

Goodwin, from the Royal Institute

of International Affairs,

Chatham House.

Why aren't these results so

extraordinary?

You might say this is

just classic Italian politics,

Berlusconi is back, populists

running right that this tells us

much about where Europe is, centre

left with another disastrous

election. Following real losses for

social Democrats in Germany, the

Netherlands, France. On the other

hand, a sharp turn to the right with

Lega effectively replacing

Berlusconi as the number-1 party on

the right. A prolonged negotiation

period and fragmentation in Italy

like we saw after the elections in

the Netherlands and in Germany where

it took five months to sign the

grand coalition.

What about the rise

of the Five Star Movement and their

dominance?

They had a good election

come up to their vote from the last

election. There are interesting,

they were only founded a few years

ago by a comedian.

Beppe Grillo.

It

is ludicrous to say this is the

status quo and this is OK for

Europe, this is a shock. For a party

to take over 30% from the vote of

nowhere and to draw votes from young

people, this is interesting. In the

south of Italy, which was hit by the

refugee crisis and economic

stagnation, Five Star Movement are

doing well. April we won't get into

coalition comet will be a right wing

coalition. -- we don't think.

Their

leader won't become Prime Minister?

I don't think Luigi Di Maio will but

this is awkward that a Populist

party finished in first place, they

have symbolically won this election,

even if it might not enter into

coalition.

You could argue a manual

Macron's party was a new party of

the centre and it march to victory

in elections for the presidency and

in government -- that Emmanuel

Macron.

It came out of nowhere

almost within a year, set up a party

and took over the French...

He is

neither the far right nor the left.

Use classic mainstream. Stepped

outside of the traditional party

structures and won the Austrian

elections. In Europe, there is

historic change that we have not

seen before. The 80s and 90s, we

would not talk about things like

this.

We haven't reached a peak

populism in that case?

I have a

particular line, we are much closer

to the beginning of a new period of

volatility than the end. We have

underestimated the appeal and

potency of what these parties are

talking about. Antiestablishment but

also anchored in specific issues

like immigration and the refugee

crisis.

Is Italy in a special

situation? It has a history of

coalition governments, they have

never been that stable in the

post-war period. But because of the

migration issue which has hit Italy

very hard. Economically, they have

stagnated for ever.

The refugee

crisis hit everybody pretty hard.

They were one of the front lines.

After it effectively went through

central and eastern Europe and

Austria attention turned to Italy

when the Balkan route closed down.

The identity issue in Europe is

cutting directly across the old

traditional electorates. We have

seen it in Brexit. 140 Labour MPs

who represent pro Leave seats, this

will be difficult for the mainstream

but it is difficult for social

Democrats.

Do you accept that social

Democratic parties and centre-left

parties across Europe are having a

difficult time?

I do and they are

having that difficult time in the

United States. What is this in

response to? I think it's in

response to eight years of austerity

and almost ten years of posterity

where young people haven't been able

to get on the housing ladder, and in

Italy there is a rigid employment

structures, it is done on the basis

of recommendations, who you know. It

doesn't matter if you have a music

degree.

Why are they not seeing the

left as an answer?

They have been in

Matteo Renzi. -- in power with. They

want quick, easy solutions to

difficult and complex problems. The

traditional parties say it is

difficult but give me five years and

I will do my best, people's patience

is running thin and people think,

five years here, five years there

and I am then old. At my age, my

parents had a house and a car and a

stable job and a family and I can't

do any of those.

At the politics of

austerity to blame?

I am impressed

by Mary's Italian accent. I don't

think they are. And not in Italy.

What is happening in Italy is that

in the South, in the FT today, 55%

of under 25-year-olds are

unemployed. 600,000 people have

cross the Mediterranean.

There are

populists across Europe.

In Italy,

these are extraordinarily profound

events. We are starting to see this

played out. When I was working in

Italy 30 years ago, lived in Rome

for a year there were migrants

crossing the Mediterranean then. We

had Romani migrants living in a camp

next to where I lived. We had people

in the Central Station Square from

Eritrea, Ethiopia, as it was then.

Italy has long had migration, long

been on the front line of the

migration issue. But what happened

now is that there has been a

stagnation, rise in the cost of

living and a feeling that the old

traditional parties have not managed

to do that. Italy has been very

stable. It had right wing

governments from basically post-war

right until the fall of the Berlin

Wall.

I am not sure it has been

stable! LAUGHTER

That could be a description of

stability. Have we got time to talk

about Germany briefly? The ADL had a

strong showing for the first time at

this coalition has now been done,

the deal. Between the SPD, the

left-wing party and the CDU. How big

a problem there is the rise of the

AFD?

Unprecedented political change.

They had its worst result since

1933. They fell to 15% in the polls,

if replicated at an election would

be the worst result since the 1880s.

Populism was never supposed to

flourish because of the legacy of...

The constitution was supposed to

stop it.

It is also a country that

has historically low unemployment

and stable growing economy, as has

the Austrians, the Dutch, the Swiss.

Still, national populists have done

well because voters do not perceive

that Europe is responding to the

refugee issue in the right way. You

cannot compare immigration in the

80s and 90s to what Europe has seen

over the last two years, this is

unprecedented demographic change.

Thank you.

There has been plenty of debate over

the years with regards to altering

the structure of the House of Lords.

Should it be updated to make

it more representative

or maintain its current workings?

Journalist and author

Richard Askwith says we should

abolish the House of Lords

and replace it with a citizens'

chamber of 400 people.

Here's his Soapbox.

Five weeks ago, after years

of ducking the issue,

MPs finally voted to repair

the crumbling building they work in.

Sadly, they're still in denial

about a bigger problem.

Parliament itself needs an overhaul.

What if we tried to fix this?

What would we do, given

the chance, to remake

Parliament for today's world?

Here's my suggestion.

We expel the current occupants

of the House of Lords

and we give their chamber

to the people.

I'm not talking about

direct democracy.

Obviously, we can't put

everything to a referendum.

What I'm proposing is a people's

chamber that is a small,

representative sample

of the population as a whole with,

say, 400 members, conscripted

at random from the electoral roll,

just as jurors are.

Imagine it - everyone who votes

is eligible for selection by law

to serve in the chamber

for a fixed term.

Service is compulsory,

well-paid and prestigious.

The people's peers can wear ermine

and use titles if they want.

The financial rewards are comparable

to a decent sized lottery win.

The chamber's functions stay

the same - scrutiny, revision,

endorsement, occasional delay.

It would all take

a bit of organising.

So did National Service

and we managed that.

Some people might

resent the call up.

If so, they could apply

for exemption, but the process

would be public so, with a bit

of luck, most people would prefer

to do their civic duty than risk

the stigma of dodging it.

The overall cost might be higher

than the current House of Lords

but it would be worth it.

The prize would be a representative

second chamber whose legitimacy

was beyond question -

just as democratic as the House

of Commons but in a different way.

We're used to thinking of Lords

reform as a marginal issue.

We need to wake up.

There is a rising tide of populism

in western politics,

a clamour for direct democracy,

that poses a real threat

to representative democracy.

Parliament needs defending,

but how do we defend the upper

chamber that we have now?

It's folly to ignore populism,

it's folly to yield to it.

A people's chamber offers a radical

but viable alternative,

channelling the public's hunger

for more say in how they're

governed, yet boosting

the legitimacy of Parliament.

Fantasy?

Perhaps.

But it's more realistic

than thinking we can

carry on as we are.

And Richard Askwith joins me now.

It is a fantasy, really, isn't it? A

lovely idea, people's chamber but

there's no chance it would ever come

to fruition.

Who knows. We have

citizen's assemblies that have

worked very successfully in Iceland,

and Ireland. It is not a new idea.

Selecting people at random is, from

ancient Athens and on with it

worked.

You said it is unlikely but if

you're looking at it from inside

Westminster that is true. From

outside Westminster it is slightly

different. We have this widespread

feeling among a lot of people that

Parliament may be doesn't speak for

everyone, just the establishment.

That a big problem and danger for

MPs. Respect for MPs and trust in

MPs is dangerously and probably all

fairly low at the moment. I don't

think you can necessarily just say

we don't need to do anything about

it.

It may be that we need to do

something about it. Various attempts

have been tried, as you know.

Parliament hasn't got very far with

reforming the House of Lords. But

your comparison to jury service, how

do you think it compares in that

same way? You are talking about

people sitting in a chamber for 4-5

years.

We need to have some decent

financial rewards otherwise some

people might resent it.

As I said, we managed National

Service. You can conscript people.

The great thing about jury service,

no one questions its legitimacy. If

you find yourself in front of God,

you don't say this system is rigged,

you say this is transparently fair

-- in front of court.

Would it be

more legitimate, Mary, do have a

people's Parliament in that sense,

people chosen at random in the way

they are selected for jury service?

As opposed to unelected Lords and

ladies.

I don't want to see

unelected Lords and ladies. We got

rid of a substantial number of

hereditary peers, the last Labour

government. It has stagnated. We

have almost 800 peers and the Prime

Minister seems intent of putting

more in and getting rid of the

number of MPs which is backward

steps. The jury service is a

two-week commitment in your own town

at National Service is a one-year

commitment at the start of your

career. Asking people to leave their

families, their homes and their

cities to come down to Westminster

for a four or five year term is

problematic. We have introduced

people's peers, they can put

themselves forward if they want to.

They tend to be people who are at

its stage, late stage career. We

have an issue about who comes in,

who is represented. But I'm not sure

that this is the answer.

Are there

any elements of this idea that you

would take on board?

I have read

Richard's book. It's not as crazy as

it sounds.

Well, I didn't say it was

crazy, just all likely! LAUGHTER

I think there are a number of issues

with it.

-- just unlikely.

It would

be expensive and Richard has

acknowledged that. Lottery salaries

to get people on board.

What sort of

lottery!

Mary is looking more

interested in this.

One of the things that has impressed

me about the House of Lords of I

became an MP last year, the quality

of expertise. Sir George Young, Lord

Young, said to me in a meeting of

new MPs he said, when you are a

minister in the Commons you think,

with the civil service supports you

are probably the best informed

person in the room. When you go to

the doors, you have five former

secretaries of State, former head of

the civil service, people who have

run businesses, charities. -- go to

the Lords. You have real knowledge.

That level of scrutiny is so

important to the effective running

of government. In the book you say

you could give people training but I

think a few months of training

versus a lifetime of experience just

doesn't add up.

Thank you for coming

in.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what book -

according to the Times -

did Philip Hammond originally pick

as his favourite childhood read

before Downing Street officials

advised him to reconsider?

Was that...

A - The Intelligent Investor

by Benjamin Graham?

A - The Intelligent Investor

by Benjamin Graham?

B - Nineteen Eighty Four

by George Orwell?

C - How to Win Friends And Influence

People by Dale Carnegie?

Or D - The Chancellors

by Roy Jenkins?

So, Mary and Alex, what's

the correct answer?

Nineteen Eighty Four -

according to The Times.

I

according to The Times.

I wonder

according to The Times.

I wonder how

according to The Times.

I wonder how old

according to The Times.

I wonder how old he

according to The Times.

I wonder how old he was

according to The Times.

I wonder how old he was when

according to The Times.

I wonder how old he was when he

according to The Times.

I wonder how old he was when he did

according to The Times.

I wonder how old he was when he did

read 1984! Your favourite childhood

books?

I can't think.

Thank you.

Actually I can't think of anything

off the back of that but I'm glad

Philip Hammond advised and updated

his book.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day.

Do join me then.

Bye-bye.