Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Gavin Barwell MP, Charles Grant and Henry Newman.
Browse content similar to 05/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",
and this week her government will announce new measures to boost
the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.
After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules
it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle
tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House
is making good on his campaign promises.
As the Government gets into gear for two years
of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come
over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -
and the costs and savings once we've left.
And with me, as always, a trio of top political
journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn
They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,
So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House
of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way
Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,
with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.
Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn
will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted
Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally
Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -
blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy
The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked
about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.
The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,
and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.
Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very
difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,
Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.
We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,
But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,
we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.
That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water
torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a
situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has
drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.
What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite
plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The
only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.
Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere
else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but
Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of
the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would
like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do
something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the
main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on
Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article
50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to
abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the
North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of
our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered
policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is
divided and we represent the country, in other words we are
divided at the party as well. The other thing that was a crucial
moment this week is the debate over whether there should be a so-called
meaningful vote by MPs on the deal that Theresa May gets. That is a
point of real danger for Brexit supporters. It may well be there is
a coalition of Labour and SNP and Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for
that so-called meaningful vote that could undermine Theresa May's
negotiation. So Theresa May could have had troubles as well, not plain
sailing for her? There is no point, apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting
against Article 50, no point in Tory remainders rebelling. It would have
been a token gesture with no support. But there might be
meaningful amendments. One might be on the status of EU nationals... The
government could lose that. There might be a majority for some of
those amendments. The ins and outs of the Labour Party, it fascinates
the Labour Party and journalists. I suspect the country has just moved
on and doesn't care. You are probably quite right. To be honest I
struggled to get Labour split stories in my paper any more, the
bar is so high to make it news. Where it does matter is now not
everyone will pay huge amounts to the -- of attention to the vote on
Wednesday. But come the general election in 2020, maybe a little
earlier, every Tory leaflet and every labour constituency will say
this guy, this goal, they refuse to vote for Brexit, do you want them in
power? That is going to be really hard for them. The story next week
may be Tory splits rather than just Labour ones, we will see.
Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people
on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week
we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -
when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters
are published in the Government's new white paper.
Theresa May has promised she'll kick off Brexit negotiations with the EU
by the end of March, and after months of shadow-boxing
Ellie Price reports on the battle to come over the UK's Brexit bill,
and the likely costs and savings once we've left.
It was the figure that defined the EU referendum campaign.
It was also a figure that was fiercely disputed, but the promise -
vote leave and Britain won't have to pay into the EU are any more.
So, is that what's going to happen now?
The trouble with buses is you tend to have to wait for them
and when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the clock starts
She needs something quicker, something more sporty.
According to the most recent Treasury figures,
Britain's gross contribution to the EU, after the rebate
is taken into account, is about ?14 billion a year.
There are some complicating factors that means it can go up
or down year on year, but that's roughly how much the UK
will no longer sending to Brussels post-Brexit.
But, there are other payments that Britain will have to shell out for.
First and foremost, the so-called divorce settlement.
It is being said, and openly by Commissioner Barnier
and others in the Commission, that the total financial liability
as they see it might be in the order of 40-60 billion
The BBC understands the figure EU negotiators are likely
to settle on is far lower, around 34 billion euros,
but what does the money they are going to argue
Well, that's how much Britain owes for stuff in the EU budget that's
already signed up for until 2020, one year after we are
Historically, Britain pays 12% in contributions,
so the cost to the UK is likely to be between ten
Then they will look at the 200-250 billion euros of underfunded
spending commitments, the so-called RAL.
Britain could also be liable for around 5-7 billion euros
for its share in the pensions bill for EU staff, that's again
12% of an overall bill of 50-60 billion.
Finally there's a share of our assets held by the EU.
They include things like this building, the European Commission
Britain could argue it deserves a share back of around 18 billion
euros from a portfolio that's said to be worth 153 billion euros.
So, lots for the two sides to discuss in two years of talks.
They have a great opportunity with the Article 50 talks
because actually they can hold us to ransom.
They can say, "You figure out money, we will talk about your trade.
But until you've figured out the money, we won't," so I think
a lot of European states think they are in a very strong
negotiating position at the moment and they intend to make
The principle is clear, the days of Britain making vast
contributions to the European Union every year will end.
Theresa May has already indicated that she would want to sign back up
to a number of EU agencies on a program-by-program basis.
The Europol for example, that's the European crime
agency, or Erasmus Plus, which wants student exchanges.
If everything stays the same as it is now, it would cost the UK
675 million euros a year, based on analysis by
But there are likely to be agencies we don't choose to participate in.
If we only opted back to those dealing with security,
trade, universities and, say, climate change,
it could come with a price tag of 370 million euros per year.
Of course that's if our European neighbours allow us.
I wonder if they're going to let me in!
There will also be a cost to creating a new system to resolve
trade disputes with other nations once we are no longer part
Take the EFTA Court which rules on disputes
between the EU and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
That costs 4 million euros to run each year,
though in the Brexit White Paper published this week,
the Government said it will not be constrained by precedent
Finally, would the EU get behind the idea of Britain making some
contribution for some preferential access to its market?
The sort of thing that Theresa May seems to be hinting
at are sectoral arrangements, some kind of partial membership
Switzerland, which has a far less wide-ranging deal than Norway,
pays about 320 million a year for what it gets into the EU budget,
but it's not exactly the Swiss deal that we're after.
The EU institutions hate the Swiss deal because it is codified
in a huge number of treaties that are messy, complicated
and cumbersome, and they really don't want to replicate
Theresa May has been at pains to insist she's in the driving seat
when it comes to these negotiations, and that she's
But with so much money up for discussion, it may not be such
Sadly she didn't get to keep the car!
And I've been joined to discuss the Brexit balance sheet
by the director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant,
and by Henry Newman who runs the think tank Open Europe.
Henry Newman, these figures that are being thrown about in Brussels at
the moment, and exit bill of 40-60,000,000,000. What do you make
of them? I think it is an opening gambit from the institutions and we
should take them seriously. We listened to Mr Rogers, the former
ambassador to Brussels in the House of Commons last week, speaking about
the sort of positions the EU is likely to take in the negotiation. I
personally think the Prime Minister should be more concerned about
getting the right sort of trade arrangements, subsequent to our
departure, than worrying about the exact detail of the divorce
settlement and the Bill. They might not let them go on to trade until
they resolve this matter. Where does the Brexit bill, the cost of exit,
if there is to be one, in terms of a sum of money, where does that come
in the negotiations, upfront or at the end? The European Commission has
a firm line on this. You have to talk about the Brexit bill and the
divorce settlement before you talk about the future relationship.
Therefore they are saying if you don't sign up for 60 billion or
thereabouts, we won't talk about the future. Other member states take a
softer line than that and think you probably have to talk about the
divorce settlement and Brexit bill as the same -- at the same time as
the economic situation. If you can do both at the same time, the
atmosphere may be better natured. You have spoken to people in
Brussels and are part of a think tank, how Revista gives the figure
or is it an opening gambit? Most member states and EU institutions
believe they think it is the true figure but when the negotiations
start adding the number will come down. As long as the British are
prepared to sign up to the principle of we owe you a bit of money, as the
cheque, then people will compromise. What is the ballpark? You had a
figure of 34 billion, that is news to me, nobody knows because
negotiations haven't started but I think something lower than 60. Even
60 would be politically toxic for a British government? I think Theresa
May is in a strong position, she has united the Conservative Party. You
could expect coming into this year all the Conservative divisions would
be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she is leading a united party. Labour
Party are divided... Coogee get away with paying 30 billion? We should
give her the benefit of the doubt going into these negotiations, let
her keep her cards close to her chest. The speech he gave a few
weeks ago at Lancaster House, our judgment was she laid out as much
detail as we could have expected at that point. I don't think it's
helpful for us now to say, we shouldn't be introducing further red
line. I want you to be helpful and find things out. I would suggest if
there is a bill, let's say it's 30 billion, let's make it half of what
the current claims coming out of Brussels. And of course it won't
have to be paid in one year, I assume it's not one cheque but
spread over. But we will wait a long time for that 350 million a week or
what ever it was that was meant to come from Brussels to spend on the
NHS. That's not going to happen for the next five, six or seven years.
Everyone has been clear there will be a phased exit programme. The
question of whether something is political possible for her in terms
of the divorce settlement will depend on what she gets from the
European Union in those negotiations. If she ends up
settling for a bill of about 30 billion which I think would be
politically... No matter how popular she is, politically very difficult
for her, it does kill any idea there is a Brexit dividend for Britain.
Some of the senior officials in London and Brussels are worried this
issue could crash the talks because it may be possible for Theresa May
to accept a Brexit bill of 30 billion and if there is no deal and
will leave EU without a settlement, there is massive legal uncertainty.
What contract law applies? Can our planes take off from Heathrow?
Nobody knows what legal rights there are for an EU citizen living here
and vice versa. If there is no deal at the end of two years, it is quite
bad for the European economy, therefore they think they have all
the cards to play and they think if it is mishandled domestically in
Britain than we have a crash. But there will be competing interests in
Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, maybe quite similar of the
Nordic states, that in turn different from the French, Germans
or Italians. How will Europe come to a common view on these things? At
the moment they are quite united backing a strong line, except for
the polls and Hungarians who are the bad boys of Europe and the Irish who
will do anything to keep us happy. We should remember their priority is
not economics, they are not thinking how can they maximise trade with the
UK, they are under threat. The combination of Trump and Brexit
scares them. They want to keep the institutions strong. They also want
to keep Britain. That is the one strong card we have, contributing to
security. We know we won't be members of the single market, that
was in the White Paper. The situation of the customs union is
more complicated I would suggest. Does that have cost? If we can be a
little bit pregnant in the customs union, does that come with a price
ticket? We have got some clarity on the customs union, the Prime
Minister said we would not be part of the... We would be able to do our
own trade deals outside the EU customs union, and also not be part
of the common external tariff. She said she is willing to look at other
options and we don't know what that will be so as a think tank we are
looking at this over the next few weeks and coming up with
recommendations for the Government and looking at how existing
boundaries between the EU customs union and other states work in
practice. For example between Switzerland and the EU border,
Norway and Switzerland, and the UK and Canada. We will want is a
country the freedom to do our own free trade deals, that seems to be
quite high up there, and to change our external tariffs to the rest of
the world. If that's the case, we do seem to be wanting our cake and
eating it in the customs union. Talking to some people in London, it
is quite clear we are leaving the essentials of the customs union, the
tariff, so even if we can minimise controls at the border by having
mutual recognition agreements, so we recognise each other's standards,
but there will still have to be checks for things like rules of
origin and tariffs if tariffs apply, which is a problem for the Irish
because nobody has worked out how you can avoid having some sort of
customs control on the border between Northern Ireland and the
South once we are out of the customs union. I think it's important we
don't look at this too much as one side has to win and one side has to
lose scenario. We can find ways. My Broadview is what we get out of the
negotiation will depend on politics more than economic reality. Economic
reality is strong, there's a good case for a trade deal on the
solution on the customs deal, but Britain will need to come up with a
positive case for our relationship and keep making that case. If it
turns out the Government thinks the bill is too high, that we can't
really get the free trade deal done in time and it's left hanging in the
wind, what are the chances, how I as things stand now that we end up
crashing out? I'd say there's a 30% chance that we don't get the free
trade agreement at the end of it that Mrs May is aiming for. The very
hard crash is you don't even do an Article 50 divorce settlement from
you go straight to World Trade Organisation rules. The less hard
crash is doing the divorce settlement and transitional
arrangements would require European Court of Justice arrangements. We
will leave it there. Thank you, both.
Donald Trump's flagship policy of extreme vetting of immigrants
and a temporary travel ban for citizens of seven mainly-muslim
countries was stopped in its tracks this weekend.
On Friday a judge ruled the ban should be lifted and that it
That prompted President Trump to fire off a series of tweets
criticising what he says was a terrible decision
by a so-called judge, as he ordered the State Department
Now the federal appeals court has rejected his request to reinstate
the ban until it hears the case in full.
Well yesterday I spoke to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant
I asked him if the confusion over the travel ban
was a sign that the President's two-week-old administration
There is no chaos, you really shouldn't believe the spin, the
facts speak for themselves. 109 people on Saturday were mildly
inconvenienced by having their entry into the United States delayed out
of 325,000. So let's not get carried away with the left-wing media bias
and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000 people with visas, their visas are
no longer valid. That's another issue. You need to listen to what
I'm saying. The people who entered on the day of the executive order
being implemented worth 109 people out of 325. Whether people won't
travelling to America were affected is another matter, so there is no
chaos to comment on. Following Iran's latest missile tests,
National Security adviser Flint said the US was "Putting Iran on notice",
what does that mean? It means we have a new president and we are not
going to facilitate the rise of one of the most dangerous nations in the
world. We are jettisoning this naive and dangerous policy of the Obama
Administration to try and make the Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some
kind of counter balance to extremist Sunni groups in the region and that
they cannot continue to behave in the way they have behaved for the
last 30 years. It is a very simple message. So are there any
multilateral alliances that Mr Trump would like to strengthen?
Absolutely. If we are looking at the region, if you listen to what
President Trump has said and specifically to also the speeches of
general Flint, his national security adviser, we are incredibly vested in
seeing our Sunni allies in the region come together in a real
coalition. The so-called vaunted 66 nation coalition that was created
under the Obama administration... There was no coalition. But we want
to help our Sunni allies, especially the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come
together in a real partnership to take the fight to ISIS and groups
like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a formal multilateral alliance with
these countries. Which of the existing, formal multilateral
alliances does Mr Trump wants to strengthen? If you are specifically
talking about Nato, it is clear that we are committed to Nato but we wish
to see a more equitable burden sharing among the nations that are
simply not spending enough on their own defence so the gentleman 's
agreement of 2% of GDP has to be stuck to, unlike the, I think it's
only Six Nations that reach the standard today out of almost 30. So
he does want to strengthen Nato then? Absolutely, he believes Nato
is the most successful military alliances. You mustn't believe the
spin and hype. EU leaders now see the Trump administration as a threat
up there with Russia, China, terrorism. What's your response to
that? I have to laugh. The idea that the nation that came to the
salvation of Europe twice in the 20th century hummer in World War I
and World War II, was central to the defeat of the totalitarian... It is
not even worth commenting on. Would it matter to the Trump
administration if the European Union broke up? The United States is very
interested in the best relations possible with all the nations of the
EU am a whether the European union wishes to stay together or not is up
to the nations of the European Union. I understand that but I was
wondering what the US view would be. Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy
was quite consistent in wanting to see the EU survive, prosper and even
become more integrated. Now that doesn't seem to be the case, so
would it matter to the Trump administration if the EU broke up? I
will say yet again, it is in the interests of the United States to
have the best relations possible with our European allies, and
whether that is in the formation of the EU or if the EU by itself
suffers some kind of internal issues, that's up to the European
nations and not something we will comment on. Listening to that
answer, it would seem as if this particular president's preference is
to deal with individual nation states rather than multilateral
institutions. Is that fair? I don't think so. There's never been an
unequivocal statement by that effect by the statement. Does he share the
opinion of Stephen Bannon that the 21st century should see a return to
nation states rather than growing existing multilateral ways? I think
it is fair to say that we have problems with political elites that
don't take the interests of the populations they represent into
account. That's why Brexit happened. I think that's why Mr Trump became
President Trump. This is the connected phenomena. You are
obsessing about institutions, it is not about institutions, it's about
the health of democracy and whether political elites do what is in the
interests of the people they represent. Given the
unpredictability of the new president, you never really know
what he's going to do next, would it be wise for the British Prime
Minister to hitch her wagon to his star? This is really churlish
questioning. Come on, you don't know what he's going to do next, listen
to what he says because he does what he's going to say. I know this may
be shocking to some reporters, but look at his campaign promises, and
the fact that in the last 15 days we have executed every single one that
we could in the time permissible so there is nothing unpredictable about
Donald Trump as president. OK then, if we do know what he's going to do
next, what is he going to do next? Continue to make good on his
election promises, to make America great again, to make the economy are
flourishing economy, and most important of all from your
perspective in the UK, to be the best friend possible to our friends
and the worst enemy to our enemies. It is an old Marine Corps phrase and
we tend to live by it. Thank you for your time, we will leave it there.
Doctor Gorka, making it clear this administration won't spend political
capital on trying to keep the European Union together, a watershed
change in American foreign policy. Theresa May has made a big deal out
of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just
about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense
of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost
of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's
new white paper. The paper is expected to introduce
new rules on building Communities Secretary Sajid Javid
has previously said politicians should not stand in the way
of development, provided all options Also rumoured are new measures
to speed up building the 1 million new homes the Government promised
to build by 2020, including imposing five-year quotas
on reluctant councils. Reports suggest there will be
relaxation of building height restrictions,
allowing home owners and developers to build to the height
of the tallest building on the block without needing to seek
planning permission. Other elements trialled include
new measures to stop developers sitting on parcels of land
without building homes, land banking, and moving railway
station car parks Underground, The Government today said it
will amend planning rules so more homes can be built specifically
to be rented out through longer term tenancies, to provide more stability
for young families, alongside its proposed ban
on letting agent fees. And the Housing Minister,
Gavin Barwell, joins me now. Welcome to the programme. Home
ownership is now beyond the reach of most young people. You are now
emphasising affordable homes for rent. Why have you given up on the
Tory dream of a property owning democracy? We haven't given up on
that. The decline on home ownership in this country started in 2004. So
far we have stopped that decline, we haven't reversed it but we
absolutely want to make sure that people who want to own and can do
so. The Prime Minister was very clear a country that works for
everyone. That means we have to have say something to say to those who
want to rent as well as on. Home ownership of young people is 35%,
used to be 60%. Are you telling me during the lifetime of this
government that is going to rise? We want to reverse the decline. We have
stabilised it. The decline started in 2004 under Labour. They weren't
bothered about it. We have taken action and that has stop the
decline... What about the rise? We have to make sure people work hard
the right thing have the chance to own their home on home. We have
helped people through help to buy, shared ownership, that is part of
it, but we have to have something to say to those who want to rent. You
say you want more rented homes so why did you introduce a 3%
additional stamp duty levied to pay those investing in build to rent
properties? That was basically to try and stop a lot of the
speculation in the buy to let market. The Bank of England raised
concerns about that. When you see the white paper, you will see there
is a package of measures for Bill to rent, trying to get institutional
investment for that, different to people going and buying a home on
the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional
money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones
before said it would get pension fund money to invest in
infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is
already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see
some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the
White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to
rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other
day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money
on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We
need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large
developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable
renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%
below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it
another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of
their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what
we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or
rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable
because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white
Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power
six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new
homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year
programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.
The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the
last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new
programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,
this government has built more affordable housing than the previous
one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the
figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this
cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it
happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer
leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband
promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and
George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's
changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which
we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have
six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much
the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the
tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed
Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons
institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home
and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a
short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term
return and give families more security. You have set a target,
your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million
new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we
are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this
country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...
2015-16. You were probably looking at the new homes built. Talking
about completions in England. That is not the best measure, with
respect. You said you will complete 1 million homes by 2020 so what is
wrong with it? We use a national statistic which looks at new homes
built and conversions and changes of use minus demolitions. The total
change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the
figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1
million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three
quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1
million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't
do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this
country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions
or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.
If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,
100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am
confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It
is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes
are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the
white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there
for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove
land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should
look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We
have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million
homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken
housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green
belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,
Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.
We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now
Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead...
In the East Midlands: As MPs debate how to leave the European Union,
one businessman has a simple message for our politicians.
Here we are now, seven months on, and we still haven't sorted out that
So we are trading, and we're coming out of it.
already come out of it, but we need leadership,
And the East Midlands needs to build 20,000 homes a year to meet demand.
Could a new take on an old technology be the answer?
So how does the government solve the housing crisis?
Well, perhaps there are lessons to learn here
can produce a three-storey house a day.
Our guests this week - Andrew Bridgen, Conservative MP
for North West Leicestershire, and Toby Perkins, Labour
Well, both of our MPs had very different takes on this week's
debate in Parliament over Donald Trump's travel ban on people
Toby doesn't want Donald Trump being allowed to address Parliament.
Andrew wasn't so concerned when he spoke in the Commons.
Does my right honourable friend share my disappointment that so
many members of this house have got so used
to us not having control of
our own immigration policy that they appear to resent another
sovereign country having control of theirs?
He got quite a few groans of the opposition, but you seem relaxed at
the idea of a Trump state visit. Theresa May had the privilege of
being the first world leader to officially meet Donald Trump in the
White House, it would be crazy if, as the leader of the free world, we
didn't invite him. And especially at the moment as we are serving our
links to the EU, we are leaving the EU, our relationship and trading
relationship with the US is as important now as it has been at any
time since the Second World War. And crucially, a free trade agreement
with the USA, it will lower region of a lot of pressure on our
negotiation position with the EU to get good access to the single
moment. Was it right she made up so quickly? They had only just met, to
be fair. There's no timescale set for the visit will stop people said
it had to be delayed, but how do you delay at when a date has been fixed?
The 90 day travel ban, suspension, which has raised such Fiore, that
will be resolved. We don't know when it will be. It will be in six
months' time, it needs to be, we need to have the free trade
agreement started and finished so on the day we exit the European Union,
two years from the middle of March, that we've got that design. A of
other trade agreements, which will help our negotiating position. A
state visit by Donald Trump is on the card, Toby, you signed a motion
against President trump addressing parliament, which would form part of
that state visit. Leicester City Mayor says is not welcome, but as
Andrew says, he is the leader of our closest ally, America. Of course he
is, and he has started his leadership in the same way as he
started his, finished his campaign. This idiotic policy of arbitrary
ban, only on Muslims from seven nations, none of those nations has
been responsible for a single American death and 911. If this was
a serious policy about security, why wouldn't you include Saudi Arabia.
Just because you don't agree with him, does that mean we should stop
him from visiting this country? He's had a policy there, which has
received almost universal condemnation. Many people felt
deeply ashamed of Theresa May's craven approach, holding hands with
him as he was introducing one of the most divisive and idiotic policies
in terms of actually eradicating Muslim extremism. It adds to the
problems of extremism. Do you ignore the public outcry on the state
visit? No, but if we only invited world leaders... Clearly you are.
I've had more e-mails saying Trump must come than shouldn't. So that's
a quick poll of North West Leicestershire. If we only invited
world leaders to visit our country world leaders to visit our country
where we agreed with them, we wouldn't have any visitors at all.
It's been another week in which Brexit has dominated
But how ready is our region's economy for coping with leaving
New figures out this week found that we have areas with some
of the highest reliance in the country on EU exports.
The Centre for Cities looked at how important sales to EU countries
were as a proportion of total exports.
Mansfield had the fourth highest figure, with 67%
Leicester has 47% and Derby's figure of 25%
So, can we learn anything from Derby, and should the rest
It's a hi-tech firm exporting around the world.
EPM Technology in Derby makes carbon fibre products for
And it counts plane makers and car manufacturers
This is a fully carbon fibre structure of an
aircraft, so it weighs 200 kilos only.
And because we are using technology and
modern techniques, we produce something
The company has plans to double sales, and Brexit isn't seen
I don't see it as any different to the world.
and they are in the EU, or they are in America,
Tomorrow I'm in Italy, next week I'm in America.
Two weeks ago we were trying to construct a deal worth three
We could be in Australia this week in March.
We are a global business, we are not an
Derby's strenghs of manufacturing with major worldwide
employers means the city export nearly as much to the US as it does
Derby has three times more production for manufacturing
We are lucky to have big companies like
Rolls-Royce and Bombardier, who by happenstance do most
of the trading with non European
Is the way in which Derby is pointing the way forward, then,
We can compete successfully in areas like automotive, defence,
aeronautics, this is where our strengths lie.
It is cutting edge, high-end of manufacturing.
Good news with Derby, perhaps, but the Centre
the Cities, which compiled the report, is concerned
and cities are reliant on EU exports.
This raises the importance, really, of the government prioritising
and focusing on getting as good a deal as possible for the country
But whatever deal the politicians eventually strike, there
is a simple message from the factory floor.
Our message to politicians is very, very simple.
It's been seven months, you put the telly on and Donald Trump has
going to agree with, or you are at least going to wince
at, but he's making decisions.
We've had a decision, we voted, we've had a holiday, they
come back to Parliament, what's the plan?
It's a wake-up call for politicians, the future shape of the
economy may be uncertain, but our businesses are keen to begin
A simple matter should from Graham in Derbyshire, why is this taking so
long, and where is the plan? Theresa May has outlined what her planners
to, to get the best accessed for UK business of the single market. We
know so little, the referendum was last year. She said we will offer
the EU, the offer is on the table for free trade, exactly as we are
now. Negotiations won't start until we trigger article 50 in March. It
is up to the EU. What I will tell you now is we will be a good cop,
bad cop syndrome when David Davis been a good cup, and William Fox
come he will be stacking up the free-trade agreements. Should you be
telling this as? It'll be out there. Stacking of the free-trade
agreements, and it will sign the day we leave the EU, it will put the
pressure on them. And you think they will listen? They will because
otherwise they will realise what the next backlash against Leeds, the
German car worker, the French farmer, the Italian wine producer,
realising the EU lead will sacrifice their trade with the UK, and their
livelihoods to maintain the European structure. What do you think of as
good cop, bad cop idea? We've now had the tests of the Brexit tears,
we will get terror free access, the level of betrayal people feel if
Andrew's deal isn't achieved, it will be real and justified. I am not
convinced we will have a whole lot of trade deals lined up to sign the
minute we pull out in two years' time. But time will tell. I think we
do have a plan now but I'm concerned at what it is, I think Theresa May
has had two big strategic failures, the verses she should have told us
we weren't going to invoke article 50 until meaningful negotiations
could happen. We haven't got talks starting. Your party is pushing for
the dozens of amendments. That will hold everything up. We've only got
three days to discuss it, it won't hold it up to much. It will happen,
but this is a really significant decision. We've got people there
saying, other decisions, other countries are making decisions. It
is incredibly complicated. It will cost us a lot of money. Making sure
we get it right is more important. She made a big mistake. She's also
made a mistake by already accepting we won't be a part of the single
market. That could have been part of the negotiation. She has given up an
ace card, before we started it. She started badly, I'm concerned. If
we've stayed in the single market, we are not really leaving the EU,
we'd be in a worse position. We should have negotiated to stay in
there. It is our sovereignty and having control over our own laws.
You are mistaking being in the single market to access to it. We
still really need this really vital good trade deal with the EU. Derby
may have the least reliance on exports to the EU, but it still has
25% of exports. With the global trade, we can't ignore the EU. The
EU can't ignore us. When we leave, we will be the biggest market for EU
goods in the world. 70% of all EU exports will be coming to the UK.
And that is a leveraged position as well. The centre for cities also
points out that historically, of course, trading with your neighbour
is always far easier, isn't it? One of the statistical things, every
additional mile you travel to a new market, your business halves. Every
time you double the distance, you are trading hard. 43% of our exports
go to the EU. Getting that relationship is important, and I'm
worried we have started on a basis of already cashing in our chips.
Many people voted for this without immigration, and they thought we
would carry on trading. If we carry on treading tariff free, that will
be significant. If we don't, it won't be down to the government.
That's the problem. We are offering them tariff free trading. It will be
up to the EU to reject it. It will have a huge backlash if they tried
that, because the countries of the EU, there is formally in jobs
reliant on trade with the UK, there's 3 million jobs in the UK
reliant on trade with the EU. We are the customer. We can't give the same
benefits. Let's see, no one has ever left the EU, so let's see what we
can get. But the noises and good offstage. They're never going to be
good, you won't give away your negotiating position before you
start. The truth is... We will leave. We are losing 27 customers,
that is the reality everyone realises. Only five of the 27 we
have a trade surplus with. 22 have a huge trade deficit, 25 billion a
year with Germany alone. One of four of German cars are exported to the
UK. Do they want tariffs on automobiles? I don't think so.
Next week, it's expected the Government's long
awaited housing White Paper will be published.
A million new homes were promised by 2020, but that looks
like a target which is now out of reach.
In the East Midlands, we need 20,000 new homes
a year to meet the demands of a growing population.
As our Political Editor Tony Roe reports, could a new generation
of pre-fabricated homes be one solution?
This is Bilberry in Nottingham, a post-war estate of prefab council
houses, part of a plan by Churchill which created a million homes by
Not built to last, but some have, and they are being updated.
That's the answer nine out of ten people all
over Britain give when asked, what'S number one the country's
over Britain give when asked, what's number one the country's
this is SIG in Derbyshire, and the homes
built here are sold to developers for the high end of the market.
This line is designed to do three modules a day,
But can modular housing be a way of fixing
the housing crisis, because we are clearly
Affordable housing has really taken a bit of a dive.
And the government, I think, has also shifted away from
traditional forms of affordable housing towards things like low-cost
homeownership, which is not really the same thing.
The thing is, though, when it comes to homes,
won't people prefer something traditional?
There's people in desperate situations that will just
In fact, probably living in a prefab is
better than living in some of the dilapidated buildings there are
Because you've only got to look around this place.
They can modernise them now so they look nice,
but I don't know, I would have to see it first.
Today's traditional house-builders also have the problem
of the rising cost of building materials.
Add to that the shortage of the right skilled labour.
Bricklayer prices as well are going up.
So labour is becoming an issue, and materials as well.
Also slowing things down are austerity cuts to
Since the downturn, there's been a lack of
That's very, very evident these days.
We are trying to get things through planning, it's quite
difficult for them to deal with all the applications that are coming
Then there is the thorny issue for planners, giving
permission to build on fields in the face of local
175 homes are planned here for Ruddington.
The biggest problem for any government trying to cope with
the rising population and the demand for housing is people.
People objecting to homes being put near
Fully insulated, Wi-Fi ready, eco-friendly, this is the top
floor of a three-storey home heading to the north-east, ready to move
There's an awful lot of experience required in
putting together a process like this.
Prefabricated homes are used a lot in the continent, and America in
And it doesn't have to be low-cost homes, it could be any
It's not a technology in this country we are familiar
with, but actually if you look at what happens elsewhere, it's a major
part of the way in which people address the housing issues.
Do this for social housing, make them
affordable, and it could be a Churchill type
But it would take time to find and train
people and the companies willing to do it.
Toby, we do need thousands of new homes, would you like to see more of
these prefabricated houses in Chesterfield? I would be open-minded
to them, but you're right, there's a huge housing crisis, we are seeing
homelessness doubled, David Cameron was the Prime Minister who resided
at the smallest amount of house building of any prime ministers
since the war. We are building fewer affordable homes than we've done at
any point in the last 24 years. It is a catastrophe. Prefab houses,
they look more modern than that used to. I don't mind that, I can dig you
run Chesterfield and show you site run Chesterfield and show you site
at the side were planning permission and they aren't building houses.
Labour's strategy, people had limits of how long you can sit on land
without getting on with it. These companies online banking. That'll
come up in the White Paper, from what I've read. Andrew, they can
build these houses in a day, which you think it's a good idea, is that
one solution? Part of houses now are already prefabricated, chimney
stacks and various arches. I would be in favourites, as long as there
is no compromise in quality. Affordable does not need cheap. We
have the highest economic growth in the East Midlands in North West
Cheshire, we are computing to new houses. We competed 678 new houses,
we will complete over 700. In every constituency was doing that, we
would exceed it. We did we building after the war, why can't we do it
now? We are building them. Not just a North West Leicestershire. It is a
great place to live. You would say that. Toby, this isn't the whole
answer, the idea prefab houses, there's a lot of talk and an awful
lot of concern right now about building on the green belt. Maybe
it's time we said yes, it has do happen. People will be sympathetic
to it. I could take you around Chesterfield and show you site is
ready to be built, but people aren't building the houses on them. We can
talk about... Why has that happen? It is in their interest for that to
be a shortage. They desire the fact that the markets, that it is a
sellers market. It is in the interest to say, to keep that
shortage. After many of these developers builds, have the space,
get the planning permission, don't build the houses, get a proffered by
having proper planning permission and then sell the land on. What do
you think should happen, as Terry said... I do have some sympathy. It
will be unpopular. We've got the green surrounding, which is the most
valued bit of green space in Leicestershire. I'm trying to
prevent building there. There are things the council can do. They will
start collaborating with South Derbyshire to build the first
council houses that we built the decades to address the needs of
local people. We also hear that part of the government's proposals on
building and green belt land, which building and green belt land, which
will be revealed next week, would force councils to build on green
belt land when Brownfield land has already been used. What do you think
of that? That is one of your proposals. We are already building
700 new houses a year in North West Leicestershire. We are doing our
bit. So you're saying don't want more? We will keep building until we
have satiated the building. When a factory closes down and an area of
land is available in a town, they don't normally tell you three years
in advance they will close a factory, so it can't be incorporated
into the plan long-term, but they should be used first. Houses are
being built, maybe not in the areas under Brownfield land you would
like, but we dealt build 15,000 homes last year. That is more than
in 2008 when there was just 7000 and Labour. It is a step forward. You
look at the record of Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, David Cameron's record
was the worst. Going back to any prime is that you can name. Thanks,
Toby. We've not had a lot of houses. Time now for a roundup of some
of the other political stories My dad would spend
the whole weekend drunk. Jon Ashworth's account of being
brought up by an alcoholic moved government minister
Nicola Blackwood to tears. It requires nonpartisan
partnership, and it And I've heard all
three of those today. She promised the Leicester
South MP she would draw up a new strategy to help
children of alcoholics. Almost ?1 a week could be
added to council tax Some of that will help
pay for ?50 million Leicestershire County Council
has pledged ?50,000 to support the campaign
to save children's heart surgery at It will be used to help fund
an illegal challenge against And an unusual start
to a Leicester City Rappers Amy G and Lacky C's
song was promoting awareness of autism and Asperger's
at an adult social care meeting, That's the Sunday Politics
in the East Midlands, our thanks to Toby Perkins
and Andrew Bridgen. Next week Margot Parker
and Mark Spencer will be here. programme at another time an airport
expansion, but thank you to both of you for being here. Back to you,
Andrew. Will the Government's plan
to boost house-building Could a handful of Conservative
MPs cause problems for And what is President
Trump going to do next? You have been following the genesis
of this housing white paper. What do you make of it? I think it will be
quite spectacular, pretty radical stuff. We heard bits about beating
up on developers. I understand it will be a whack, walk, covering
every single problem with housing supply and trying to solve it. Which
means bad news if you are a huge fan of the green belt, because they will
go round that the other way by forcing large quotas on councils are
making it down to councils where they build. If you fill up your
brown space in towns they will have to trigger the exceptional
circumstances bit of the bill to beat on green belts. Beating up
developers, opening up the market for renters across the board. And
Theresa May, one of the most defining thing she could do on the
domestic agenda. I am not as excited as Tom about this. I look back to
2004, do you remember the Kate Barker report? Successive
governments, successive prime ministers have been promising to
address the housing shortage. In 2004 Kate Barker recommended
hundreds of thousands new homes. Gordon Brown talked about 3 million
new homes by 2020 in 2007. It never happens. The reason is at the end of
the day this is local politics, local councillors need to keep their
seats and they won't keep their seats if there are hugely
controversial developments locally that they support. Yes, the
government can and are proposing to overrule councils that don't back
local developments, but they may find themselves completely inundated
with those cases. I think that is the whole point of it, to take on
those NIMBY often Tory councils and force them to build. I can't think
of a better defining issue for Theresa May than sticking one in the
eye of some quite well off half Tory countryside councils. The government
gives councils a quota of homes they have to fill, if they don't have to
fill that all run out overland to fill the quota, the government then
comes in and tells them they have to built on the green belt? How is that
going to work? At the moment the green belt is absolutely sacrosanct
in British politics. They'll have to do some work on educating people on
what green belts means. Potato farms, golf courses... At the moment
the idea people have of the green belt being verdant fields needs to
be dismantled. You are right. I agree with Tom, 11 million people in
the private rental sector in the UK. In the last election more voted
Labour than conservative. This is an area where Theresa May would look to
expand her vote. The problem has always been, the same problem we
have with pension policy and why pensioners have done better than
working families in recent years. They are older and they vote more
and anything to the detriment of older people. I wonder how they will
get private money to come in on anything like this go they would
need to have a huge expansion? There is a huge amount of speculation and
one of the thing that locks up the system as you have people buying
land, taking out a stake of land in the hope that one point it may at
some point free up. At the end of the day, unless you have councils
far more willing to quickly fast track these applications, which they
won't for the reason I said before, it's a very long-term investment. Ed
Miliband proposed three-year leases in which the rent could only go up
by an agreed formula, probably the three years to give the young
families a certain stability over that period. He had a use it or lose
it rules for planning development, if you don't use it you lose the
planning rights. Somebody else gets it. The Tories disparaged that at
the time. This is at the centre of their policy now.
This is probably item number four of Ed Miliband's policy book Theresa
May has wholesale pinched in the last six months or so. Why not? I
think if you look at the change in mood across housing and planning
over the last 5-6 years, it used to be an issue very much of green belt
versus London planners. Now you have grandparents living in houses in the
countryside, knowing their grandchildren can't get on the
housing ladder any longer. Maybe a bit more intervention in the market,
tougher on renting conditions, maybe that is exactly what the country
needs. Will they meet the 1 million target? It would be a defiance of
every political thing that has happened in the last ten years. I
think Tom is right, if there is only one difference between Theresa May
and David Cameron it's the willingness of the state to
intervene. When Ed Miliband said that he was seen as communism, but
Theresa May can get away with it. How serious is this talk of a couple
of dozen Tories who were very loyal over voting for the principle of
Article 50 but may now be tempted to vote for some amendments to Article
50 legislation that they would find quite attractive? I think that
threat has certainly been taken seriously by levers. I spoke to the
campaign group Leaves Means Leave last night. The figure they
mentioned was up to 20 remaining Tories. That sounds a lot to me but
that is what they are concerned about and those Tories would come
together with Labour and the SNP to vote for that amendment. Although
that amendment sounds rather nice and democratic, actually in the eyes
of many levers that is a wrecking amendment. Because what you are
doing is giving Parliament a sort of veto over whatever deal Theresa May
brings back. What they want is the vote to be before that deal is
finalised. It isn't necessarily the case that if Parliament decided they
didn't like that deal we would just go to WTO, we would fall out of the
European Union. There are mixed views as to whether we might remain
in and things could be extended. My understanding is the people making
the amendments, they won any deal that is done to be brought to
Parliament in time, so that if Parliament fancies it it's done, but
if it does and it doesn't just mean go to WTO rules. There will be time
to go back, renegotiate or think again? The question is where it puts
Britain's negotiating hand. Nine of the options... Once we trigger
Article 50 the two negotiation begins on the power switches to
Europe. They can run out the clock and it will be worse for us than
them. I don't think either option is particularly appealing. I think what
seems like a rather Serena week for Article 50 this week isn't going to
be reflective of what will happen next. The way the government's
position is at the moment, if at the end the only choice Parliament has
is to vote for the deal or crash out on WTO rules, then even the
remainder is going to vote for the deal even if they don't like it,
because they would regard crashing out as the worst of all possible
results. Possibly. It will be a great game of bluff if Theresa May
fights off any of these amendments on Wednesday and gets a
straightforward deal or no Deal vote. I have a funny feeling this
amendment, if it's chosen, we must remember because we don't know if
they will choose this amendment, if it does go to a vote on Wednesday it
will be very tight indeed. Remember, one final thing Theresa May can do
if she gets Parliament voting against, as Isabel would have it,
she could try to get a new parliament and go for a general
election. And probably get a huge majority to do so. The Lords, it
goes there after the February recess. They are very pro-Europe,
but does their instinct for self-preservation override that? I
think that is it. A Tory Lord said this morning I will vote to block it
on a conscience measure, but you have the likes of Bill Cash, veteran
Eurosceptics, suddenly converted to the Lords reform saying is an
outrage. I doubt they will vote for their own demise, to hasten their
own demise by blocking it. What did you make of Doctor Gorka smart
fascinating. Cut from the same cloth as his boss. I thought it was
extraordinary listening to him, saying everything is going dutifully
to plan. But at the end of the day, what they are doing is what people
in America voted for Trump to do. If you look at Lord Ashcroft's polling
on why America voted for Trump, they went into this with their eyes wide
open. One of the top fears among American voters, particularly
Republican leading ones was America's immigration policy is or
could be letting in terror arrests. As far as he is concerned, he is
doing what he was elected to do. This whole year is turning into a
wonderful year long lecture series on how democracy works at a
fundamental level. I'm not sure anyone wanted it but it's what we've
got. This same in the way we've been talking about direct democracy and
Parliamentary democracy. The same is happening in America between
executive and judicial branches. We are seeing the limits of
presidential power. Regardless of the fact that people voted for Trump
they voted for senators. The judge who blocks this was appointed by
George W Bush. So-called Judge Eckert Mac so-called George W Bush!
It's fascinating we're having all these conversations now that I never
bought five years ago we would be having at such a fundamental level.
Has the media yet worked out how to cover the Trump administration or
has he got us behaving like headless chickens? He says something
incendiary and we all run over to do that and when you pick it off it
turns out not to be as incendiary as we thought? And then back doing
something and we all rush over there. Is he making fools of us? Is
exactly what he did in the election campaign. So many quick and fast
outrageous comments frontrunner on a daily basis, no one single one of
them had full news cycle time to be pored over and examined. I think
there is a problem with this. Although he keeps the upper hand,
keeps the agenda and keeps on the populist ground, the problem is it
easy to campaign like that. If you are governing in a state of
semi-hysteria, I wonder how long the American public will be comfortable
with that. They don't really want their government to be swirling
chaos all the time, as fascinating as it might be on TV. They will be
exhausted by it, I already am. I have been interviewing White House
administration official since 1976 and that is the first time someone
hasn't given me a straight answer on America supporting the EU. That is a
different world. Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two
tomorrow at midday with the Daily Politics -
and I'll be back here Remember, if it's Sunday -
it's the Sunday Politics. TV: He's not your father.
WOMAN GASPS so why not pay your TV licence in
weekly instalments, too?
Andrew Neil and Marie Ashby with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by housing minister Gavin Barwell MP who talks about the government's plan to increase housebuilding in England and protect people who rent their homes. Plus Charles Grant from the Centre for European Reform and Henry Newman from Open Europe. Donald Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka discusses President Trump's first two weeks in the White House and Ellie Price reports on the negotiations to come with the EU over Brexit. On the political panel are The New Statesman's Helen Lewis and journalists Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.