29/10/2017 Sunday Politics East

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the economic

Here in the east - garden towns,

the answer to our housing crisis

or more poorly planned developments?

And are you feeling the pinch?

You have your say.

on from the abortion act white MPs

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to the former

business minister and Conservative

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

negotiations and claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament.

Hello, welcome to

Sunday Politics East.

I'm Stewart White.

Later in the programme,

how is the economy in this region?

We asked whether the pound

in your pocket seems to go less

far than it used to,

and we had some surprising replies.

I'm quite fortunate, really,

in that I feel that I can manage

to keep getting better jobs,

and so therefore I have

kind of been protected.

With us today, Lucy Frazer -

the Conservative MP

for South East Cambridgeshire.

And Peter Marland -

the Labour leader of

Milton Keynes council.

Now, this region is one of

the fastest growing in the country.

But there aren't enough new homes

being built to keep pace

with the number of people

who want to live here.

Over the past five years,

58,000 fewer homes were built

in the east than we need.

So are garden towns the answer?

Under a new government plan

announced this year,

garden communities will receive

special funding, with a quarter

of them being built here.

So will they ever get built?

Here's Charlotte Rose.

The idea of garden towns

or cities isn't new.

In the early 1900s, social reformer

Ebenezer Howard came

up with the concept,

and in 1926 the second garden

city, Welwyn, was built.

The idea was to combine the best

of town and countryside living.

And it wasn't just

about urban planning,

but also community management.

Originally - and Letchworth

is still in that situation -

it owned all its property.

So it owned its industry,

its industrial property,

its houses and retail properties.

And all the profits from that,

from the land, from the rents,

and so on, was used to pay

for the upkeep of the town

and to provide special

services for the residents.

Where we are at the moment is right

in the middle of Howardsgate,

which is principally the main

shopping street in the town.

Garden towns were designed so people

could walk everywhere,

from their homes, to the shops,

and to their place of work.

Providing jobs was a key

part of the project.

That was the past.

At the start of this year,

the government announced plans

for 14 new garden towns and villages

on top of seven already

in the pipeline, which they say

will deliver 200,000

new homes in England.

Drive east of Welwyn,

and here in Essex there

are big plans for five

new garden communities.

These fields behind me might not

look like much at the moment,

but this site to the west

of Colchester could see the largest

of three in the north of the county.

And in fact, driving along this

road, I have seen several protest

signs saying no to West Tey.

In Essex, another 43,000 homes

could be built as part of

the North Essex Garden

communities, near Braintree,

Colchester and Tendring.

Another 16,000 homes could be built

at Gilston Garden Community

near Harlow, and 3500

at Dunton near Brentwood.

In Wisbech, 10,000

new homes are planned.

And in Northamptonshire,

a further 1500 at Deenethorpe.

Colchester was Britain's

first Roman town.

Now the area surrounding it

could see three new ones.

Supporters say this model

is the best way to create the number

of homes the government says

they must build.

I think it's the best way of giving

the community a real say in how

developments take place.

In the past, on the traditional

model, it's been down

to the developers to really put

the infrastructure, the schools,

the medical facilities and what have

you, in place when it suited them.

And we think with garden

communities, we can get that

infrastructure in first and give

the community a lot more

say in what goes on.

But there is significant

local opposition.

The railway is under strain.

And they are forecasting huge

increases in usage of the railway,

and they have no good answers on how

they're going to deal with it.

The A120 going cross-country

to Braintree is under

massive strain already.

It's not just the time it takes

queueing on that road,

it's the variability of the time.

The health service,

the Colchester General Hospital,

raised a huge stink a few weeks ago

saying, why haven't we been

consulted about this plan

for increased house-building,

because it will affect the health

service in the area.

We are already very pressed

at the Colchester General Hospital.

These are the things that

need to be addressed.

Last week the Communities Secretary

said the government should borrow

£50 billion to create

300,000 new homes.

But the Chancellor has yet

to confirm it in the budget.

And there is a warning for anyone

trying to create the new wave

of garden communities.

They need to be absolutely clear

what they are trying to create.

Because I'm not completely convinced

that enough people in government

involved with it actually understand

what a garden city is.

So can these new developments live

up to Ebenezer Howard's vision,

or will they just create more

pressure on the regions'

overstretched infrastructure?

Lucy Frazer, the last bit

was damning, wasn't it,

not enough people in Parliament

understand what a garden

city is, or garden town.

Well, I think what's really

important, and what came

across there, it's really important

for local communities to decide

how their local area should grow,

where it should grow,

how it should grow.

And it's important to

have the infrastructure as well.

So when you have significant

development in your area,

actually it's down to the local area

to have a say in that.

Railways, roads, health,

all those things were put forward

as opposition to one of them.

They are all absolutely critical,

so at the moment if you have

development you have to have,

I think, infrastructure before

you have the housing.

Because people often

will accept housing,

existing people who are there

will accept it, if they know

infrastructure is going to improve.

So you need to ensure

the roads are built,

and that there is train capacity.

That there are places in schools,

before you get there.

Sajid Javid did announce a housing

community fund of £2 billion so that

where there is infrastructure,

you will also have...

Where there is housing,

you will also have infrastructure.

Peter Marland, Milton Keynes

is building houses all the time.

You don't have any of those

problems, presumably?

We have a different set of problems.

Milton Keynes is the

fastest-growing city in the UK.

We have been for quite awhile.

We are the biggest

economy in the region

and the fastest-growing

economy the UK.

But, as you say, you are right,

actually communities really want

infrastructure before

they want development.

They want to be able

to see that the new houses

are not going to impact

on their local school.

They are going to be able

to get a GP appointment.

One of the successes

of Milton Keynes has always been

to deliver that infrastructure

before we deliver the new housing,

and that's why Milton Keynes

has been so successful.

What I fear is that the new

generation of garden

cities and garden towns,

they will just have

garden affixed to them.

and to be able to deliver them,

and in order to dampen down some

of that local opposition.

So you think they won't look like

garden towns or villages at all?

They will just be houses?

I think that's absolutely

the challenge, and the challenge

is to make sure if something

is a garden town or garden city,

that it applies those

principles of Ebenezer Howard,

applies the principles

that were at Letchworth,

Welwyn, Milton Keynes,

and actually you can't

do that on the cheap.

It needs infrastructure,

and it needs to be able

to be planned properly.

The thing is, thousands and

thousands of homes need to be built.

We have already said

we are falling behind.

You will have houses

in your constituency,

they need to go somewhere.

They do.

And it's a very difficult balance.

I do a lot of meetings

in the summer in my parishes,

I have 50 different villages,

and housing comes up

time and time again,

because everybody wants a house.

Everyone wants a house

for their child.

But nobody wants a housing estate.

And nobody wants it necessarily

in their village, which is why

we have to engage very carefully

with local communities

so that they are on board with any

housing in their community.

It's something we are doing

in East Cambridgeshire,

community land trusts,

which is a lot of engagement

with the local community,

reserving some houses for local

people who work locally,

which is something people

really, really value.

But we have got to find

homes for half a million

extra people by 2024.

They have to go somewhere.

Absolutely, and that is why

garden towns are a good

idea, because you have

density of building.

And if the local community

is on board with that then it's

a significant delivery.

But what about what he says, that it

won't be a garden town or village,

it will just be houses?

I don't have any garden towns

proposed in my constituency,

but I think where we do have

significant development,

we need to make sure that there are,

as you say, there are jobs close

by so we are not blocking

up the roads and there

are nice amenities close by.

And as I said, the infrastructure.

Of course, you are very lucky

because you have lots of jobs

in Milton Keynes as well.

So the housing is needed

to fill the jobs.

That's not the case everywhere.

You end up in a bit of a chicken

and egg situation where you can't

really build the houses

unless you have the jobs.

But actually, as you create more

jobs, you need more housing.

I think it's balancing that out.

What I really fear is we actually

end up in a situation where we fund

just garden towns or garden

developments, and actually

there needs to be a balance

between continuing to invest

in places like Milton Keynes,

because we are delivering more

houses than many of those garden

villages a year, but we need to make

sure we get that same investment.

Let's move on, shall we.

This region has one of the lowest

rates of unemployment

in the country, at only 3.9%.

So most of us are in work.

But are we paid enough?

With inflation higher than it has

been for five years,

and the prospect of a rise

in interest rates next week,

we took to the streets of Ipswich

and Milton Keynes to see if people

feel worse off than

they did ten years ago.

I am lucky enough

to have a good job.

I'm lucky enough to have

parents who gifted me some

money to buy a house.

And my daughter has grown up

and gone away, so I don't have

to pay for her any more.

So all in all, life is much better

now than it was ten years ago.

Ten years ago, a pint of lager

or a short and mixer

was a couple of quid,

and now it's doubled.

And wages have stayed the same.

I'm quite fortunate, really,

in that I feel that I can manage

to keep getting better jobs,

and so therefore I have

kind of been protected.

Definitely being a bit more thrifty

and watching every penny.

Shopping in different

places than I used to do,

because there are more bargains,

and you make your money go

further, definitely.

I haven't experienced it myself, no,

because I'm self-employed.

That's why I became self-employed.

Because my wages were not rising up

with the rate of inflation.

We've got two children

with families.

It is much more of

a struggle, really.

Things just keep going up and up,

but our money doesn't seem to go up.

It just seems to go down and down!

That film is on our facebook

and website so you can join

the discussion if you want to.

Some of you have already.

Let's talk to Michael Kitson

from the Judge Business School,

economist from Cambridge.

Why is it, do you think,

in this region it would seem people

don't feel as if it has been

difficult over the last few years?

I think you see a pattern

of responses in your film.

Overall we know real wages,

once you adjust for inflation,

have been stagnant since about 2008.

People aren't improving

their standard of living overall.

But there is a variety

of experiences.

If you have a good job,

you don't have many dependents,

you don't have many children,

you are not feeling

the pinch so badly.

If you are on low or middle income,

you have dependents, you have

children, you are feeling the pinch.

So you do see a variety

of responses.

But the overall picture is wages

are stagnant in this region

and in the country as a whole.

Do you think it's because we don't

have, in this region,

so many public sector

workers, for example?

We have a lot of support from

the public sector in this region.

We might not have many

public sector jobs.

The two cities in England

with the most number of jobs

supported by the public sector

are Oxford and Cambridge.

It's often omitted from the story.

So there's a lot of public

expenditure coming into the region,

if they are not directly

public expenditure jobs.

The big issue here, for the country

and for this region,

is to improve productivity.

Productivity is low

throughout the UK.

This region is just below

average for the UK.

If we can improve productivity,

we can pay people better wages.

That's the long-term strategy

for this government,

for any future governments,

to improve productivity,

to improve the standard of living

for everybody in this region.

Is it a management thing

or a worker thing?

I don't...

I think it's a bigger picture.

It's not just a management

thing or a worker thing.

There's many discussions about how

we increase productivity.

What we can say is we need more

investment, investment

by the private sector

and the public sector.

We need better skills.

We need people staying in education.

We need more apprenticeships,

more training.

And we need firms and governments

to adopt technology.

These are the three big drivers that

increase productivity.

Many people think productivity

is some sort of bizarre economic

concept, but it has real meaning,

because if you generate more

productivity, you have higher wages,

firms make higher profits,

and government will

generate more tax revenue.

In this region we have

lots of self-employed people.

How does that fit in?

Many people are becoming

self-employed.

You saw in your film, some people

are saying it's a good route

to increase their current income.

Of course, whether it

increases their long-term

income is another issue.

Because they are often in very

volatile occupations.

They may lose their jobs,

they may lose work or they have

long-term pensions.

The other issue is many people

are pushed into self-employment.

They have no other option.

They have very insecure jobs.

They have to take self-employment,

and they get very few

employment rights.

What we need to do is generate

long-term stable jobs.

And people who want

to be self-employed,

should be self-employed.

You shouldn't be forced

into self-employment.

The thing is, it will

change depending where

you live in this region.

Presumably South Cambridge,

both of you, have constituencies

where unemployment is low.

I have very low unemployment,

so last month only about 350 people

claimed unemployment benefits.

On the point Michael made

about on what the government needs

to do, he's absolutely right.

It's actually the things

the government is doing, investing

in our education and skills.

So the government is

absolutely ensuring we have

3 million more apprentices.

Has announced in the last budget,

we will spend 500 more

on technical education.

It's streamlining technical

obligations so employers know

what students' qualifications mean

when they are coming out.

Those are the things

we need to invest in,

and those are the things

we are actually investing in.

Is that your experience,

the government is doing well?

The doors I knock on wouldn't

necessarily say so.

I think one of the big things

during the general election

that was quite silent,

was that large proportion

of the population that are actually

feeling the squeeze for quite

a long time now.

Milton Keynes has low unemployment,

but we are in real danger I think

in this country of becoming a twin

speed economy, where it's really

good if you have a well paid,

knowledge-intensive job.

Not so good if you are working low

income, long hours on a low

income, possibly having

to take extra shifts.

Your quality of life is low.

If your quality of life

is low, I'd suspect your

productivity is low as well.

It's really, really challenging out

there for a lot of people.

Is that right, are we a two speed

economy, do you think?

We are a two speed economy.

Not only in terms of occupations,

but also in terms of regions.

This region is doing just

below average for the UK,

and that's pretty good,

because London is shooting ahead.

And many other regions

are lagging behind.

We need a much more balanced

growth strategy in terms

of not only occupations,

but in terms of across all

the regions of the UK.

But how do you do that?

Say we need this balance in Norfolk,

Suffolk, Essex, how do you get that?

You have to have a strategy

where you have to have more

investment, more education.

We have heard there are

movements in that direction.

And we need to be adopting

technology more effectively.

The problem, really,

we have at the moment is that

many of those policies,

and there are some that are there,

they have been put on the back

burner because everybody now

is focused on Brexit.

The problem is, we have had

the financial crisis

so we delayed the strategy

for long-term economic growth.

We had to deal with austerity.

Now we have Brexit,

and we have to deal

with the challenges of Brexit.

So actually many of the policies

that would generate long-term growth

and would deal with regional

imbalances, have

just been put aside.

Is that fair, Lucy?

I don't think it is fair.

Since I have been an MP, since 2015,

in every single budget

that I have been in,

there has been an amount of money

for science and technology.

But you wouldn't argue that Brexit

has put question marks over

investment for some people?

Of course, for individual companies,

and for some it's a real issue.

But I have been at businesses,

just last Friday I was at a business

in the chemical technical field.

They are exporting more outside

of Europe, and actually they see

the lower pound is an asset.

At another company, CP Foods,

they are expanding.

Another company in my constituency,

Thorlabs, that's hugely expanding.

Yes, Brexit is a challenge

for some companies.

There is some uncertainty,

particularly for those

who employ foreign workers.

But for others, it's an opportunity.

Have you noticed any Brexit changes,

because there is a lot of inward

investment in Milton Keynes?

Absolutely, but I think

there is a real danger

that we are equating GDP growth

with financial growth, and people

feeling it in their pocket.

For instance, we have done some

research in Milton Keynes,

60% of our jobs are in danger

of automation in

the next 20-25 years.

Those companies will

continue to grow.

The productivity will get better,

but the people who are employed

by those companies will not

necessarily be better off.

I think there is a disconnect

in the language we hear

about the economy growing,

that everybody will be better off.

And actually, what most people feel

about it when you knock on doors,

when you are talking to people

in the street, I think that

disconnect between what people hear

on the television about the economy

growing and how they are feeling, is

really challenging for this country.

I'm going to ask you,

and it's a very short answer,

please, but do you think technology

will take over from humans

in a lot of our industries

in this region very soon?

It will take over a lot of jobs,

not necessarily very soon.

That will create challenges

but also opportunities.

I could give you a longer answer...!

I did ask for a short one,

and thank you very much.

And now for our round up

of the political week in 60 seconds

with Deborah McGurran.

Theresa May travelled

to Norwich this week.

The Prime Minister chose

Norfolk to launch a new

report on mental health.

I'm pleased that the

Stevenson-Farmer review has shown

the importance of employers taking

seriously the issue of mental health

and mental well-being

of their employees.

Government whip and leading

Brexiteer Chris Heaton-Harris caused

controversy this week.

The Northamptonshire MP

was criticised by universities

after asking them to send him

details of their teaching on Brexit.

The leader of Northamptonshire

County Council has accused

the county's MPs of a lack

of support.

The row follows Northampton North MP

Michael Ellis's expression of no

confidence in the authority's

leadership last week.

It's disappointing that we have

ended up in this situation.

It shouldn't be happening.

But in the end, I felt I had to come

out to defend, not only me,

but some of the fantastic people

who work in the county council.

And Southend Hospital has been

in talks over moving patients,

who are recovering from operations,

to spare rooms in private houses.

Homeowners would be paid £50

per night to look after people

while they recuperate.

We've got grave concerns

about the safeguarding of both

the patients and the carers.

Lucy Frazer, brilliant

idea or bonkers?

I think that idea was

a decision of the local CCG,

the local health authority.

Good answer.

It's not a government policy.

Is it a good idea or bad idea?

I think what it shows

is that there are real challenges

in social care and we do need to get

people out of hospitals and back

into their homes and to be looked

after in their homes.

The government is looking

into and consulting on a number

of ways to do that.

And we absolutely need to do that.

So if your local hospital decided

to do that, how would you react?

It was crazy, wasn't it?

It would be a bedpan

and breakfast sort of thing.