:00:37. > :00:41.It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:42. > :00:44.Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",
:00:45. > :00:47.and this week her government will announce new measures to boost
:00:48. > :00:50.the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.
:00:51. > :01:00.After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules
:01:01. > :01:04.it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle
:01:05. > :01:07.tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House
:01:08. > :01:11.is making good on his campaign promises.
:01:12. > :01:13.As the Government gets into gear for two years
:01:14. > :01:16.of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come
:01:17. > :01:19.over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -
:01:20. > :01:25.and the costs and savings once we've left.
:01:26. > :01:28.In London, banned in 2015 from standing for public office.
:01:29. > :01:31.Is the former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman,
:01:32. > :01:44.And with me, as always, a trio of top political
:01:45. > :01:46.journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn
:01:47. > :01:50.They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,
:01:51. > :01:56.So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House
:01:57. > :01:59.of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way
:02:00. > :02:05.Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,
:02:06. > :02:08.with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.
:02:09. > :02:13.Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn
:02:14. > :02:16.will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted
:02:17. > :02:20.Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally
:02:21. > :02:23.Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -
:02:24. > :02:25.blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy
:02:26. > :02:28.The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked
:02:29. > :02:32.about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.
:02:33. > :02:36.The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,
:02:37. > :02:41.and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.
:02:42. > :02:46.Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very
:02:47. > :02:48.difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,
:02:49. > :02:52.Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.
:02:53. > :03:00.We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,
:03:01. > :03:05.But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,
:03:06. > :03:11.we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.
:03:12. > :03:18.That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water
:03:19. > :03:22.torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a
:03:23. > :03:26.situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has
:03:27. > :03:30.drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.
:03:31. > :03:35.What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite
:03:36. > :03:39.plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The
:03:40. > :03:44.only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.
:03:45. > :03:48.Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere
:03:49. > :03:55.else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but
:03:56. > :03:59.Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of
:04:00. > :04:03.the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would
:04:04. > :04:08.like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do
:04:09. > :04:13.something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the
:04:14. > :04:19.main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on
:04:20. > :04:24.Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article
:04:25. > :04:29.50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to
:04:30. > :04:32.abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the
:04:33. > :04:39.North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of
:04:40. > :04:44.our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered
:04:45. > :04:48.policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is
:04:49. > :04:50.divided and we represent the country, in other words we are
:04:51. > :04:53.divided at the party as well. The other thing that was a crucial
:04:54. > :04:58.moment this week is the debate over whether there should be a so-called
:04:59. > :05:02.meaningful vote by MPs on the deal that Theresa May gets. That is a
:05:03. > :05:09.point of real danger for Brexit supporters. It may well be there is
:05:10. > :05:12.a coalition of Labour and SNP and Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for
:05:13. > :05:17.that so-called meaningful vote that could undermine Theresa May's
:05:18. > :05:22.negotiation. So Theresa May could have had troubles as well, not plain
:05:23. > :05:27.sailing for her? There is no point, apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting
:05:28. > :05:30.against Article 50, no point in Tory remainders rebelling. It would have
:05:31. > :05:34.been a token gesture with no support. But there might be
:05:35. > :05:38.meaningful amendments. One might be on the status of EU nationals... The
:05:39. > :05:47.government could lose that. There might be a majority for some of
:05:48. > :05:49.those amendments. The ins and outs of the Labour Party, it fascinates
:05:50. > :05:52.the Labour Party and journalists. I suspect the country has just moved
:05:53. > :05:56.on and doesn't care. You are probably quite right. To be honest I
:05:57. > :06:01.struggled to get Labour split stories in my paper any more, the
:06:02. > :06:07.bar is so high to make it news. Where it does matter is now not
:06:08. > :06:12.everyone will pay huge amounts to the -- of attention to the vote on
:06:13. > :06:17.Wednesday. But come the general election in 2020, maybe a little
:06:18. > :06:20.earlier, every Tory leaflet and every labour constituency will say
:06:21. > :06:23.this guy, this goal, they refuse to vote for Brexit, do you want them in
:06:24. > :06:29.power? That is going to be really hard for them. The story next week
:06:30. > :06:33.may be Tory splits rather than just Labour ones, we will see.
:06:34. > :06:37.Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people
:06:38. > :06:40.on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week
:06:41. > :06:43.we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -
:06:44. > :06:46.when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters
:06:47. > :06:47.are published in the Government's new white paper.
:06:48. > :06:50.Theresa May has promised she'll kick off Brexit negotiations with the EU
:06:51. > :06:52.by the end of March, and after months of shadow-boxing
:06:53. > :06:56.Ellie Price reports on the battle to come over the UK's Brexit bill,
:06:57. > :06:59.and the likely costs and savings once we've left.
:07:00. > :07:01.It was the figure that defined the EU referendum campaign.
:07:02. > :07:07.It was also a figure that was fiercely disputed, but the promise -
:07:08. > :07:10.vote leave and Britain won't have to pay into the EU are any more.
:07:11. > :07:12.So, is that what's going to happen now?
:07:13. > :07:15.The trouble with buses is you tend to have to wait for them
:07:16. > :07:18.and when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the clock starts
:07:19. > :07:22.She needs something quicker, something more sporty.
:07:23. > :07:29.According to the most recent Treasury figures,
:07:30. > :07:31.Britain's gross contribution to the EU, after the rebate
:07:32. > :07:34.is taken into account, is about ?14 billion a year.
:07:35. > :07:39.There are some complicating factors that means it can go up
:07:40. > :07:42.or down year on year, but that's roughly how much the UK
:07:43. > :07:44.will no longer sending to Brussels post-Brexit.
:07:45. > :07:47.But, there are other payments that Britain will have to shell out for.
:07:48. > :07:50.First and foremost, the so-called divorce settlement.
:07:51. > :07:56.It is being said, and openly by Commissioner Barnier
:07:57. > :08:00.and others in the Commission, that the total financial liability
:08:01. > :08:03.as they see it might be in the order of 40-60 billion
:08:04. > :08:08.The BBC understands the figure EU negotiators are likely
:08:09. > :08:13.to settle on is far lower, around 34 billion euros,
:08:14. > :08:16.but what does the money they are going to argue
:08:17. > :08:22.Well, that's how much Britain owes for stuff in the EU budget that's
:08:23. > :08:25.already signed up for until 2020, one year after we are
:08:26. > :08:29.Historically, Britain pays 12% in contributions,
:08:30. > :08:32.so the cost to the UK is likely to be between ten
:08:33. > :08:41.Then they will look at the 200-250 billion euros of underfunded
:08:42. > :08:42.spending commitments, the so-called RAL.
:08:43. > :08:50.Britain could also be liable for around 5-7 billion euros
:08:51. > :08:55.for its share in the pensions bill for EU staff, that's again
:08:56. > :08:56.12% of an overall bill of 50-60 billion.
:08:57. > :08:59.Finally there's a share of our assets held by the EU.
:09:00. > :09:04.They include things like this building, the European Commission
:09:05. > :09:12.Britain could argue it deserves a share back of around 18 billion
:09:13. > :09:15.euros from a portfolio that's said to be worth 153 billion euros.
:09:16. > :09:17.So, lots for the two sides to discuss in two years of talks.
:09:18. > :09:20.They have a great opportunity with the Article 50 talks
:09:21. > :09:25.because actually they can hold us to ransom.
:09:26. > :09:28.They can say, "You figure out money, we will talk about your trade.
:09:29. > :09:31.But until you've figured out the money, we won't," so I think
:09:32. > :09:34.a lot of European states think they are in a very strong
:09:35. > :09:36.negotiating position at the moment and they intend to make
:09:37. > :09:41.The principle is clear, the days of Britain making vast
:09:42. > :09:46.contributions to the European Union every year will end.
:09:47. > :09:51.Theresa May has already indicated that she would want to sign back up
:09:52. > :09:57.to a number of EU agencies on a program-by-program basis.
:09:58. > :09:59.The Europol for example, that's the European crime
:10:00. > :10:04.agency, or Erasmus Plus, which wants student exchanges.
:10:05. > :10:07.If everything stays the same as it is now, it would cost the UK
:10:08. > :10:09.675 million euros a year, based on analysis by
:10:10. > :10:18.But there are likely to be agencies we don't choose to participate in.
:10:19. > :10:28.If we only opted back to those dealing with security,
:10:29. > :10:29.trade, universities and, say, climate change,
:10:30. > :10:32.it could come with a price tag of 370 million euros per year.
:10:33. > :10:34.Of course that's if our European neighbours allow us.
:10:35. > :10:36.I wonder if they're going to let me in!
:10:37. > :10:40.There will also be a cost to creating a new system to resolve
:10:41. > :10:42.trade disputes with other nations once we are no longer part
:10:43. > :10:47.Take the EFTA Court which rules on disputes
:10:48. > :10:50.between the EU and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
:10:51. > :10:55.That costs 4 million euros to run each year,
:10:56. > :10:57.though in the Brexit White Paper published this week,
:10:58. > :11:00.the Government said it will not be constrained by precedent
:11:01. > :11:05.Finally, would the EU get behind the idea of Britain making some
:11:06. > :11:11.contribution for some preferential access to its market?
:11:12. > :11:14.The sort of thing that Theresa May seems to be hinting
:11:15. > :11:16.at are sectoral arrangements, some kind of partial membership
:11:17. > :11:24.Switzerland, which has a far less wide-ranging deal than Norway,
:11:25. > :11:27.pays about 320 million a year for what it gets into the EU budget,
:11:28. > :11:30.but it's not exactly the Swiss deal that we're after.
:11:31. > :11:32.The EU institutions hate the Swiss deal because it is codified
:11:33. > :11:35.in a huge number of treaties that are messy, complicated
:11:36. > :11:37.and cumbersome, and they really don't want to replicate
:11:38. > :11:44.Theresa May has been at pains to insist she's in the driving seat
:11:45. > :11:46.when it comes to these negotiations, and that she's
:11:47. > :11:55.But with so much money up for discussion, it may not be such
:11:56. > :12:13.Sadly she didn't get to keep the car!
:12:14. > :12:15.And I've been joined to discuss the Brexit balance sheet
:12:16. > :12:18.by the director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant,
:12:19. > :12:20.and by Henry Newman who runs the think tank Open Europe.
:12:21. > :12:28.Henry Newman, these figures that are being thrown about in Brussels at
:12:29. > :12:32.the moment, and exit bill of 40-60,000,000,000. What do you make
:12:33. > :12:35.of them? I think it is an opening gambit from the institutions and we
:12:36. > :12:41.should take them seriously. We listened to Mr Rogers, the former
:12:42. > :12:45.ambassador to Brussels in the House of Commons last week, speaking about
:12:46. > :12:49.the sort of positions the EU is likely to take in the negotiation. I
:12:50. > :12:53.personally think the Prime Minister should be more concerned about
:12:54. > :12:55.getting the right sort of trade arrangements, subsequent to our
:12:56. > :13:00.departure, than worrying about the exact detail of the divorce
:13:01. > :13:05.settlement and the Bill. They might not let them go on to trade until
:13:06. > :13:10.they resolve this matter. Where does the Brexit bill, the cost of exit,
:13:11. > :13:15.if there is to be one, in terms of a sum of money, where does that come
:13:16. > :13:19.in the negotiations, upfront or at the end? The European Commission has
:13:20. > :13:24.a firm line on this. You have to talk about the Brexit bill and the
:13:25. > :13:26.divorce settlement before you talk about the future relationship.
:13:27. > :13:30.Therefore they are saying if you don't sign up for 60 billion or
:13:31. > :13:34.thereabouts, we won't talk about the future. Other member states take a
:13:35. > :13:37.softer line than that and think you probably have to talk about the
:13:38. > :13:42.divorce settlement and Brexit bill as the same -- at the same time as
:13:43. > :13:47.the economic situation. If you can do both at the same time, the
:13:48. > :13:51.atmosphere may be better natured. You have spoken to people in
:13:52. > :13:58.Brussels and are part of a think tank, how Revista gives the figure
:13:59. > :14:02.or is it an opening gambit? Most member states and EU institutions
:14:03. > :14:05.believe they think it is the true figure but when the negotiations
:14:06. > :14:08.start adding the number will come down. As long as the British are
:14:09. > :14:14.prepared to sign up to the principle of we owe you a bit of money, as the
:14:15. > :14:19.cheque, then people will compromise. What is the ballpark? You had a
:14:20. > :14:23.figure of 34 billion, that is news to me, nobody knows because
:14:24. > :14:28.negotiations haven't started but I think something lower than 60. Even
:14:29. > :14:33.60 would be politically toxic for a British government? I think Theresa
:14:34. > :14:36.May is in a strong position, she has united the Conservative Party. You
:14:37. > :14:42.could expect coming into this year all the Conservative divisions would
:14:43. > :14:48.be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she is leading a united party. Labour
:14:49. > :14:53.Party are divided... Coogee get away with paying 30 billion? We should
:14:54. > :14:56.give her the benefit of the doubt going into these negotiations, let
:14:57. > :15:00.her keep her cards close to her chest. The speech he gave a few
:15:01. > :15:04.weeks ago at Lancaster House, our judgment was she laid out as much
:15:05. > :15:09.detail as we could have expected at that point. I don't think it's
:15:10. > :15:12.helpful for us now to say, we shouldn't be introducing further red
:15:13. > :15:17.line. I want you to be helpful and find things out. I would suggest if
:15:18. > :15:22.there is a bill, let's say it's 30 billion, let's make it half of what
:15:23. > :15:25.the current claims coming out of Brussels. And of course it won't
:15:26. > :15:29.have to be paid in one year, I assume it's not one cheque but
:15:30. > :15:33.spread over. But we will wait a long time for that 350 million a week or
:15:34. > :15:39.what ever it was that was meant to come from Brussels to spend on the
:15:40. > :15:45.NHS. That's not going to happen for the next five, six or seven years.
:15:46. > :15:50.Everyone has been clear there will be a phased exit programme. The
:15:51. > :15:54.question of whether something is political possible for her in terms
:15:55. > :15:57.of the divorce settlement will depend on what she gets from the
:15:58. > :16:02.European Union in those negotiations. If she ends up
:16:03. > :16:06.settling for a bill of about 30 billion which I think would be
:16:07. > :16:12.politically... No matter how popular she is, politically very difficult
:16:13. > :16:17.for her, it does kill any idea there is a Brexit dividend for Britain.
:16:18. > :16:21.Some of the senior officials in London and Brussels are worried this
:16:22. > :16:25.issue could crash the talks because it may be possible for Theresa May
:16:26. > :16:30.to accept a Brexit bill of 30 billion and if there is no deal and
:16:31. > :16:37.will leave EU without a settlement, there is massive legal uncertainty.
:16:38. > :16:39.What contract law applies? Can our planes take off from Heathrow?
:16:40. > :16:45.Nobody knows what legal rights there are for an EU citizen living here
:16:46. > :16:52.and vice versa. If there is no deal at the end of two years, it is quite
:16:53. > :16:56.bad for the European economy, therefore they think they have all
:16:57. > :17:00.the cards to play and they think if it is mishandled domestically in
:17:01. > :17:06.Britain than we have a crash. But there will be competing interests in
:17:07. > :17:09.Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, maybe quite similar of the
:17:10. > :17:14.Nordic states, that in turn different from the French, Germans
:17:15. > :17:20.or Italians. How will Europe come to a common view on these things? At
:17:21. > :17:27.the moment they are quite united backing a strong line, except for
:17:28. > :17:33.the polls and Hungarians who are the bad boys of Europe and the Irish who
:17:34. > :17:37.will do anything to keep us happy. We should remember their priority is
:17:38. > :17:42.not economics, they are not thinking how can they maximise trade with the
:17:43. > :17:46.UK, they are under threat. The combination of Trump and Brexit
:17:47. > :17:53.scares them. They want to keep the institutions strong. They also want
:17:54. > :17:58.to keep Britain. That is the one strong card we have, contributing to
:17:59. > :18:02.security. We know we won't be members of the single market, that
:18:03. > :18:08.was in the White Paper. The situation of the customs union is
:18:09. > :18:14.more complicated I would suggest. Does that have cost? If we can be a
:18:15. > :18:19.little bit pregnant in the customs union, does that come with a price
:18:20. > :18:24.ticket? We have got some clarity on the customs union, the Prime
:18:25. > :18:29.Minister said we would not be part of the... We would be able to do our
:18:30. > :18:33.own trade deals outside the EU customs union, and also not be part
:18:34. > :18:36.of the common external tariff. She said she is willing to look at other
:18:37. > :18:40.options and we don't know what that will be so as a think tank we are
:18:41. > :18:43.looking at this over the next few weeks and coming up with
:18:44. > :18:46.recommendations for the Government and looking at how existing
:18:47. > :18:51.boundaries between the EU customs union and other states work in
:18:52. > :18:55.practice. For example between Switzerland and the EU border,
:18:56. > :19:01.Norway and Switzerland, and the UK and Canada. We will want is a
:19:02. > :19:08.country the freedom to do our own free trade deals, that seems to be
:19:09. > :19:13.quite high up there, and to change our external tariffs to the rest of
:19:14. > :19:17.the world. If that's the case, we do seem to be wanting our cake and
:19:18. > :19:21.eating it in the customs union. Talking to some people in London, it
:19:22. > :19:27.is quite clear we are leaving the essentials of the customs union, the
:19:28. > :19:32.tariff, so even if we can minimise controls at the border by having
:19:33. > :19:35.mutual recognition agreements, so we recognise each other's standards,
:19:36. > :19:40.but there will still have to be checks for things like rules of
:19:41. > :19:43.origin and tariffs if tariffs apply, which is a problem for the Irish
:19:44. > :19:47.because nobody has worked out how you can avoid having some sort of
:19:48. > :19:51.customs control on the border between Northern Ireland and the
:19:52. > :19:54.South once we are out of the customs union. I think it's important we
:19:55. > :20:00.don't look at this too much as one side has to win and one side has to
:20:01. > :20:04.lose scenario. We can find ways. My Broadview is what we get out of the
:20:05. > :20:07.negotiation will depend on politics more than economic reality. Economic
:20:08. > :20:24.reality is strong, there's a good case for a trade deal on the
:20:25. > :20:27.solution on the customs deal, but Britain will need to come up with a
:20:28. > :20:30.positive case for our relationship and keep making that case. If it
:20:31. > :20:32.turns out the Government thinks the bill is too high, that we can't
:20:33. > :20:36.really get the free trade deal done in time and it's left hanging in the
:20:37. > :20:39.wind, what are the chances, how I as things stand now that we end up
:20:40. > :20:43.crashing out? I'd say there's a 30% chance that we don't get the free
:20:44. > :20:48.trade agreement at the end of it that Mrs May is aiming for. The very
:20:49. > :20:52.hard crash is you don't even do an Article 50 divorce settlement from
:20:53. > :20:57.you go straight to World Trade Organisation rules. The less hard
:20:58. > :21:01.crash is doing the divorce settlement and transitional
:21:02. > :21:06.arrangements would require European Court of Justice arrangements. We
:21:07. > :21:08.will leave it there. Thank you, both.
:21:09. > :21:10.Donald Trump's flagship policy of extreme vetting of immigrants
:21:11. > :21:12.and a temporary travel ban for citizens of seven mainly-muslim
:21:13. > :21:14.countries was stopped in its tracks this weekend.
:21:15. > :21:17.On Friday a judge ruled the ban should be lifted and that it
:21:18. > :21:22.That prompted President Trump to fire off a series of tweets
:21:23. > :21:25.criticising what he says was a terrible decision
:21:26. > :21:27.by a so-called judge, as he ordered the State Department
:21:28. > :21:35.Now the federal appeals court has rejected his request to reinstate
:21:36. > :21:46.the ban until it hears the case in full.
:21:47. > :21:51.Well yesterday I spoke to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant
:21:52. > :21:54.I asked him if the confusion over the travel ban
:21:55. > :21:56.was a sign that the President's two-week-old administration
:21:57. > :22:09.There is no chaos, you really shouldn't believe the spin, the
:22:10. > :22:15.facts speak for themselves. 109 people on Saturday were mildly
:22:16. > :22:21.inconvenienced by having their entry into the United States delayed out
:22:22. > :22:30.of 325,000. So let's not get carried away with the left-wing media bias
:22:31. > :22:34.and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000 people with visas, their visas are
:22:35. > :22:38.no longer valid. That's another issue. You need to listen to what
:22:39. > :22:45.I'm saying. The people who entered on the day of the executive order
:22:46. > :22:51.being implemented worth 109 people out of 325. Whether people won't
:22:52. > :23:00.travelling to America were affected is another matter, so there is no
:23:01. > :23:05.chaos to comment on. Following Iran's latest missile tests,
:23:06. > :23:11.National Security adviser Flint said the US was "Putting Iran on notice",
:23:12. > :23:14.what does that mean? It means we have a new president and we are not
:23:15. > :23:20.going to facilitate the rise of one of the most dangerous nations in the
:23:21. > :23:28.world. We are jettisoning this naive and dangerous policy of the Obama
:23:29. > :23:32.Administration to try and make the Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some
:23:33. > :23:36.kind of counter balance to extremist Sunni groups in the region and that
:23:37. > :23:40.they cannot continue to behave in the way they have behaved for the
:23:41. > :23:46.last 30 years. It is a very simple message. So are there any
:23:47. > :23:52.multilateral alliances that Mr Trump would like to strengthen?
:23:53. > :23:56.Absolutely. If we are looking at the region, if you listen to what
:23:57. > :24:01.President Trump has said and specifically to also the speeches of
:24:02. > :24:06.general Flint, his national security adviser, we are incredibly vested in
:24:07. > :24:12.seeing our Sunni allies in the region come together in a real
:24:13. > :24:19.coalition. The so-called vaunted 66 nation coalition that was created
:24:20. > :24:23.under the Obama administration... There was no coalition. But we want
:24:24. > :24:31.to help our Sunni allies, especially the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come
:24:32. > :24:37.together in a real partnership to take the fight to ISIS and groups
:24:38. > :24:42.like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a formal multilateral alliance with
:24:43. > :24:46.these countries. Which of the existing, formal multilateral
:24:47. > :24:50.alliances does Mr Trump wants to strengthen? If you are specifically
:24:51. > :24:55.talking about Nato, it is clear that we are committed to Nato but we wish
:24:56. > :24:59.to see a more equitable burden sharing among the nations that are
:25:00. > :25:03.simply not spending enough on their own defence so the gentleman 's
:25:04. > :25:07.agreement of 2% of GDP has to be stuck to, unlike the, I think it's
:25:08. > :25:12.only Six Nations that reach the standard today out of almost 30. So
:25:13. > :25:23.he does want to strengthen Nato then? Absolutely, he believes Nato
:25:24. > :25:29.is the most successful military alliances. You mustn't believe the
:25:30. > :25:34.spin and hype. EU leaders now see the Trump administration as a threat
:25:35. > :25:40.up there with Russia, China, terrorism. What's your response to
:25:41. > :25:46.that? I have to laugh. The idea that the nation that came to the
:25:47. > :25:52.salvation of Europe twice in the 20th century hummer in World War I
:25:53. > :26:04.and World War II, was central to the defeat of the totalitarian... It is
:26:05. > :26:08.not even worth commenting on. Would it matter to the Trump
:26:09. > :26:11.administration if the European Union broke up? The United States is very
:26:12. > :26:18.interested in the best relations possible with all the nations of the
:26:19. > :26:23.EU am a whether the European union wishes to stay together or not is up
:26:24. > :26:29.to the nations of the European Union. I understand that but I was
:26:30. > :26:34.wondering what the US view would be. Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy
:26:35. > :26:38.was quite consistent in wanting to see the EU survive, prosper and even
:26:39. > :26:42.become more integrated. Now that doesn't seem to be the case, so
:26:43. > :26:47.would it matter to the Trump administration if the EU broke up? I
:26:48. > :26:50.will say yet again, it is in the interests of the United States to
:26:51. > :26:55.have the best relations possible with our European allies, and
:26:56. > :26:59.whether that is in the formation of the EU or if the EU by itself
:27:00. > :27:04.suffers some kind of internal issues, that's up to the European
:27:05. > :27:08.nations and not something we will comment on. Listening to that
:27:09. > :27:13.answer, it would seem as if this particular president's preference is
:27:14. > :27:18.to deal with individual nation states rather than multilateral
:27:19. > :27:25.institutions. Is that fair? I don't think so. There's never been an
:27:26. > :27:30.unequivocal statement by that effect by the statement. Does he share the
:27:31. > :27:35.opinion of Stephen Bannon that the 21st century should see a return to
:27:36. > :27:40.nation states rather than growing existing multilateral ways? I think
:27:41. > :27:43.it is fair to say that we have problems with political elites that
:27:44. > :27:49.don't take the interests of the populations they represent into
:27:50. > :27:55.account. That's why Brexit happened. I think that's why Mr Trump became
:27:56. > :27:59.President Trump. This is the connected phenomena. You are
:28:00. > :28:02.obsessing about institutions, it is not about institutions, it's about
:28:03. > :28:07.the health of democracy and whether political elites do what is in the
:28:08. > :28:10.interests of the people they represent. Given the
:28:11. > :28:13.unpredictability of the new president, you never really know
:28:14. > :28:18.what he's going to do next, would it be wise for the British Prime
:28:19. > :28:25.Minister to hitch her wagon to his star? This is really churlish
:28:26. > :28:29.questioning. Come on, you don't know what he's going to do next, listen
:28:30. > :28:34.to what he says because he does what he's going to say. I know this may
:28:35. > :28:38.be shocking to some reporters, but look at his campaign promises, and
:28:39. > :28:44.the fact that in the last 15 days we have executed every single one that
:28:45. > :28:49.we could in the time permissible so there is nothing unpredictable about
:28:50. > :28:55.Donald Trump as president. OK then, if we do know what he's going to do
:28:56. > :28:59.next, what is he going to do next? Continue to make good on his
:29:00. > :29:06.election promises, to make America great again, to make the economy are
:29:07. > :29:10.flourishing economy, and most important of all from your
:29:11. > :29:15.perspective in the UK, to be the best friend possible to our friends
:29:16. > :29:20.and the worst enemy to our enemies. It is an old Marine Corps phrase and
:29:21. > :29:28.we tend to live by it. Thank you for your time, we will leave it there.
:29:29. > :29:35.Doctor Gorka, making it clear this administration won't spend political
:29:36. > :29:36.capital on trying to keep the European Union together, a watershed
:29:37. > :29:39.change in American foreign policy. Theresa May has made a big deal out
:29:40. > :29:42.of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just
:29:43. > :29:45.about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense
:29:46. > :29:48.of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost
:29:49. > :29:51.of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's
:29:52. > :29:53.new white paper. The paper is expected to introduce
:29:54. > :29:55.new rules on building Communities Secretary Sajid Javid
:29:56. > :30:01.has previously said politicians should not stand in the way
:30:02. > :30:04.of development, provided all options Also rumoured are new measures
:30:05. > :30:08.to speed up building the 1 million new homes the Government promised
:30:09. > :30:10.to build by 2020, including imposing five-year quotas
:30:11. > :30:14.on reluctant councils. Reports suggest there will be
:30:15. > :30:16.relaxation of building height restrictions,
:30:17. > :30:18.allowing home owners and developers to build to the height
:30:19. > :30:21.of the tallest building on the block without needing to seek
:30:22. > :30:27.planning permission. Other elements trialled include
:30:28. > :30:31.new measures to stop developers sitting on parcels of land
:30:32. > :30:33.without building homes, land banking, and moving railway
:30:34. > :30:35.station car parks Underground, The Government today said it
:30:36. > :30:44.will amend planning rules so more homes can be built specifically
:30:45. > :30:47.to be rented out through longer term tenancies, to provide more stability
:30:48. > :30:49.for young families, alongside its proposed ban
:30:50. > :30:56.on letting agent fees. And the Housing Minister,
:30:57. > :31:05.Gavin Barwell, joins me now. Welcome to the programme. Home
:31:06. > :31:09.ownership is now beyond the reach of most young people. You are now
:31:10. > :31:13.emphasising affordable homes for rent. Why have you given up on the
:31:14. > :31:17.Tory dream of a property owning democracy? We haven't given up on
:31:18. > :31:22.that. The decline on home ownership in this country started in 2004. So
:31:23. > :31:25.far we have stopped that decline, we haven't reversed it but we
:31:26. > :31:30.absolutely want to make sure that people who want to own and can do
:31:31. > :31:33.so. The Prime Minister was very clear a country that works for
:31:34. > :31:37.everyone. That means we have to have say something to say to those who
:31:38. > :31:42.want to rent as well as on. Home ownership of young people is 35%,
:31:43. > :31:46.used to be 60%. Are you telling me during the lifetime of this
:31:47. > :31:51.government that is going to rise? We want to reverse the decline. We have
:31:52. > :31:55.stabilised it. The decline started in 2004 under Labour. They weren't
:31:56. > :32:00.bothered about it. We have taken action and that has stop the
:32:01. > :32:04.decline... What about the rise? We have to make sure people work hard
:32:05. > :32:07.the right thing have the chance to own their home on home. We have
:32:08. > :32:12.helped people through help to buy, shared ownership, that is part of
:32:13. > :32:16.it, but we have to have something to say to those who want to rent. You
:32:17. > :32:22.say you want more rented homes so why did you introduce a 3%
:32:23. > :32:25.additional stamp duty levied to pay those investing in build to rent
:32:26. > :32:29.properties? That was basically to try and stop a lot of the
:32:30. > :32:32.speculation in the buy to let market. The Bank of England raised
:32:33. > :32:38.concerns about that. When you see the white paper, you will see there
:32:39. > :32:44.is a package of measures for Bill to rent, trying to get institutional
:32:45. > :32:48.investment for that, different to people going and buying a home on
:32:49. > :32:53.the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional
:32:54. > :32:55.money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones
:32:56. > :32:58.before said it would get pension fund money to invest in
:32:59. > :33:03.infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is
:33:04. > :33:06.already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see
:33:07. > :33:11.some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the
:33:12. > :33:21.White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to
:33:22. > :33:24.rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other
:33:25. > :33:27.day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money
:33:28. > :33:29.on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We
:33:30. > :33:32.need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large
:33:33. > :33:40.developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable
:33:41. > :33:46.renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%
:33:47. > :33:49.below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it
:33:50. > :33:54.another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of
:33:55. > :33:57.their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what
:33:58. > :34:01.we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or
:34:02. > :34:05.rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable
:34:06. > :34:08.because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white
:34:09. > :34:12.Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power
:34:13. > :34:20.six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new
:34:21. > :34:24.homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year
:34:25. > :34:28.programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.
:34:29. > :34:31.The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the
:34:32. > :34:35.last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new
:34:36. > :34:39.programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,
:34:40. > :34:44.this government has built more affordable housing than the previous
:34:45. > :34:51.one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the
:34:52. > :34:54.figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this
:34:55. > :34:59.cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it
:35:00. > :35:03.happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer
:35:04. > :35:10.leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband
:35:11. > :35:14.promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and
:35:15. > :35:19.George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's
:35:20. > :35:24.changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which
:35:25. > :35:28.we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have
:35:29. > :35:33.six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much
:35:34. > :35:37.the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the
:35:38. > :35:41.tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed
:35:42. > :35:46.Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons
:35:47. > :35:50.institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home
:35:51. > :35:55.and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a
:35:56. > :35:59.short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term
:36:00. > :36:07.return and give families more security. You have set a target,
:36:08. > :36:10.your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million
:36:11. > :36:17.new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we
:36:18. > :36:20.are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this
:36:21. > :36:28.country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...
:36:29. > :36:34.2015-16. You were probably looking at the new homes built. Talking
:36:35. > :36:38.about completions in England. That is not the best measure, with
:36:39. > :36:43.respect. You said you will complete 1 million homes by 2020 so what is
:36:44. > :36:48.wrong with it? We use a national statistic which looks at new homes
:36:49. > :36:50.built and conversions and changes of use minus demolitions. The total
:36:51. > :36:56.change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the
:36:57. > :37:01.figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1
:37:02. > :37:06.million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three
:37:07. > :37:11.quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1
:37:12. > :37:15.million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't
:37:16. > :37:20.do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this
:37:21. > :37:23.country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions
:37:24. > :37:28.or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.
:37:29. > :37:34.If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,
:37:35. > :37:39.100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am
:37:40. > :37:43.confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It
:37:44. > :37:48.is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes
:37:49. > :37:54.are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the
:37:55. > :37:57.white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there
:37:58. > :38:02.for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove
:38:03. > :38:04.land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should
:38:05. > :38:10.look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We
:38:11. > :38:16.have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million
:38:17. > :38:20.homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken
:38:21. > :38:23.housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green
:38:24. > :38:27.belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,
:38:28. > :38:28.Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.
:38:29. > :38:31.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now
:38:32. > :38:34.Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead...
:38:35. > :38:44.First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.
:38:45. > :38:46.Hello and welcome to the London part of the show.
:38:47. > :38:58.public office because of electoral fraud - is the former Mayor
:38:59. > :39:00.of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, planning a comeback?
:39:01. > :39:02.Joining me for the duration of the show, Kate Hoey,
:39:03. > :39:04.Labour MP for Vauxhall, and Greg Hands Conservative MP
:39:05. > :39:06.for Chelsea and Fulham and the Minister for
:39:07. > :39:13.But first, a deal has been done between the train drivers union
:39:14. > :39:20.So, an end to months of misery for commuters, should union
:39:21. > :39:24.There does remain the issue of the RMT union who represent
:39:25. > :39:26.the guards and are still in dispute with the company.
:39:27. > :39:29.So, there should be no more all-out strikes capable of bringing
:39:30. > :39:40.Do you think the RMT should fall into line and also promised not to
:39:41. > :39:44.plan any further strikes? I'm glad I think they are going back to have
:39:45. > :39:47.more talks. I think part of the problem with this whole dispute has
:39:48. > :39:51.been there has been a reluctance from the management side to actually
:39:52. > :39:56.engage fruitfully with the RMT. I'm very close to the RMT. The RMT have
:39:57. > :40:02.supported by Parliamentary seat for some time. I just wish sometimes the
:40:03. > :40:06.media would go and talk to the ordinary members of the RMT and
:40:07. > :40:11.find... This isn't about money, this isn't about them being greedy. I
:40:12. > :40:15.welcome the fact that hopefully we will get an end to this. Because
:40:16. > :40:20.clearly the public are getting very fed up. What about the company? It
:40:21. > :40:23.had a poor record before the strikes, in terms of service and
:40:24. > :40:27.punctuality. What guarantees should be brought forward by the company to
:40:28. > :40:32.commuters that that will improve? I think this is a very costly and
:40:33. > :40:36.unnecessary strike that has gone on for far too long and has caused
:40:37. > :40:40.enormous amount of misery for commuters into London and service
:40:41. > :40:44.users in London. What about the company's role in that? I think the
:40:45. > :40:48.company has an important role in all of this but ultimately the company
:40:49. > :40:54.is trying to provide a service. Communities -- commuters are relying
:40:55. > :40:58.on that. What the strikes have done, entirely unnecessarily, have been to
:40:59. > :41:02.disrupt the services. It cost Londoners an enormous amount, the
:41:03. > :41:07.last one cost about ?300 million for the economy. You say the company or
:41:08. > :41:10.the government has no responsibility? Chris Grayling was
:41:11. > :41:17.reluctant to intervene at any point? The company, like trains without
:41:18. > :41:22.conductors, which is entirely normal practice across large swathes of our
:41:23. > :41:25.commuter railway trying to do exactly the same width thing, it's
:41:26. > :41:32.been proven to be safe. What we have here is a small trade union taking
:41:33. > :41:35.commuters hostage in driving forward their political... What you say,
:41:36. > :41:39.there was a political platform in all of this? I genuinely... If I'm
:41:40. > :41:42.on a train I like to feel there is someone that I can make contact
:41:43. > :41:46.with. I think there is a role for train guards. This is about cutting
:41:47. > :41:49.money. I think if the company had been honest about this and said from
:41:50. > :41:54.the beginning, we are trying to save money, this is nothing to do with
:41:55. > :41:59.just having a go at the RMT, there is a political undertone to this. A
:42:00. > :42:02.lot of people don't like a trade union standing up for its members
:42:03. > :42:08.and that is what the RMT has done. Should the government has intervened
:42:09. > :42:11.earlier? Yes. I don't think so. I think Chris Grayling has done a very
:42:12. > :42:17.good job throughout this. What has he done? He hasn't done anything?
:42:18. > :42:20.The trade union here has effectively taken people to ransom. Right across
:42:21. > :42:24.the whole Southern rail network all the way down to Brighton and has
:42:25. > :42:26.caused a massive disruption for the UK which is costing us all severely.
:42:27. > :42:28.Lets leave it there. A corrupt former Mayor
:42:29. > :42:31.of Tower Hamlets who ran a ruthless and dishonest campaign -
:42:32. > :42:33.that was the view of the Election Court judge who banned
:42:34. > :42:36.Lutfur Rahman from office for five But Sunday Politics London
:42:37. > :42:42.can reveal he's back. He can't stand for election,
:42:43. > :42:45.but Mr Rahman - who's always denied any wrongdoing -
:42:46. > :42:47.is allowed to actively Dan Freedman reports
:42:48. > :42:54.from Tower Hamlets. Cast into political oblivion
:42:55. > :42:59.in 2015, Lutfur Rahman - the former mayor of Tower Hamlets -
:43:00. > :43:02.is back, but for now at least, to the wider world, he is keeping
:43:03. > :43:04.quiet about it. Could you just answer
:43:05. > :43:08.a couple of questions? Are you setting up
:43:09. > :43:11.political party tonight? Last Sunday he was the star turn
:43:12. > :43:14.at a meeting which had been billed as a public one,
:43:15. > :43:17.until we showed up. I just want to ask you a quick
:43:18. > :43:21.question from the BBC. Is it about forming
:43:22. > :43:23.a new political party? As you can see, we are
:43:24. > :43:37.now being forced out. Look carefully here,
:43:38. > :43:41.and you can see the man who he's campaigning for to become mayor
:43:42. > :43:43.in 2018 - Ohid Ahmed, a long-time ally of Mr Rahman,
:43:44. > :43:50.seen here too on the right. The people of this borough
:43:51. > :43:52.have said all along, Lutfur Rahman is currently serving
:43:53. > :43:56.a five-year ban from standing for office after being found guilty
:43:57. > :43:59.of electoral fraud in the Tower The judgment in the electoral court
:44:00. > :44:06.that removed him was just overwhelming in terms
:44:07. > :44:14.of the charge against him. I put in commissioners,
:44:15. > :44:16.after discovering how appallingly he was running the council
:44:17. > :44:19.and I firmly believe he may have a future elsewhere but I don't
:44:20. > :44:24.think it's in politics. But Lutfur Rahman is still involved
:44:25. > :44:29.in politics, backing Ohid Ahmed, as their campaign
:44:30. > :44:32.material clearly shows. In it, Mr Rahman says he will do
:44:33. > :44:35.everything he can to help him The same logo features
:44:36. > :44:41.as part of an application to the Electoral Commission to form
:44:42. > :44:45.a new political party. Ohid Ahmed was very loyal
:44:46. > :44:48.to him when he was mayor, indeed he was his deputy
:44:49. > :44:52.for the first four years, and then had a place in his cabinet
:44:53. > :44:58.afterwards and was kind of unofficial campaign manager
:44:59. > :45:00.for his first mayoral term Were Ohid Ahmed to be elected,
:45:01. > :45:05.I would imagine that Lutfur Rahman would probably reappear
:45:06. > :45:07.as an adviser, there would be Both Ohid Ahmed and Lutfur Rahman
:45:08. > :45:12.declined to be interviewed by the BBC, but in a statement
:45:13. > :45:15.Mr Ahmed says of In Tower Hamlets,
:45:16. > :45:29.the people most impacted by the political upheaval here
:45:30. > :45:33.are split on their former mayor. He got away with everything so as
:45:34. > :45:37.far as I'm concerned, he's a fraud. The majority of communities
:45:38. > :45:39.don't believe that. it was a political move rather than
:45:40. > :45:44.him doing corruption. I think if he had any shame,
:45:45. > :45:47.he would hang his head and go away quietly for maybe a lifetime,
:45:48. > :45:52.reflect on his activities, the disrepute he brought
:45:53. > :45:54.to our borough, the massive expense to local community through legal
:45:55. > :46:00.and other costs, and he wouldn't be doing anything of this sort
:46:01. > :46:03.but clearly he hasn't learned. I'm sort of hopeful that the people
:46:04. > :46:06.of our borough will recognise that he led us into a dead-end
:46:07. > :46:11.and we need to move forwards. So, given his recent record,
:46:12. > :46:14.will Mr Rahman's backing turn out We made several attempts to contact
:46:15. > :46:21.Mr Rahman, inviting him or one of his associates to take part
:46:22. > :46:33.in the programme, but Kate Hoey, he is barred from
:46:34. > :46:38.standing for public office himself but what's to stop him campaigning?
:46:39. > :46:42.There's nothing to stop him campaigning. To be straight, I don't
:46:43. > :46:46.know why you are having something like this on and giving him
:46:47. > :46:50.publicity. If he wants to start another party, I just hope the
:46:51. > :46:56.people of Tower Hamlets will see through him. Legally, he's not doing
:46:57. > :47:01.anything wrong at the moment and all we are doing now is kind of giving
:47:02. > :47:07.him a lot of publicity, very free. Should he be allowed to campaign,
:47:08. > :47:12.Greg Hands? He was barred from public office but not stopped from
:47:13. > :47:17.campaigning. He was found guilty of illegal and corrupt practices less
:47:18. > :47:22.than two years ago. The Government takes this seriously. My colleague
:47:23. > :47:26.Chris Skidmore has written to the Electoral Commission, urging an
:47:27. > :47:31.urgent investigation into the party and Lutfur Rahman's role in it.
:47:32. > :47:37.There should be no role for Lutfur Rahman in British politics. Isn't
:47:38. > :47:42.that the case that even if he isn't standing himself, he is supporting
:47:43. > :47:46.someone who will stand, who no doubt shares his beliefs. That in itself
:47:47. > :47:50.is fine but people will say a man barred from office shouldn't be
:47:51. > :47:55.closely involved in the politics of someone else. I agree, I don't know
:47:56. > :48:03.how anyone could even think of voting for him. So would you support
:48:04. > :48:06.the Conservatives? Yes, I hope the Government are doing what they can
:48:07. > :48:13.to make sure the very letter of what the electoral law said, that it is
:48:14. > :48:16.carried through. But the letter of the law he is following here, you
:48:17. > :48:24.are going further, asking it to be extended. Because of the background
:48:25. > :48:29.and the serious problems caused by Lutfur Rahman in the past, and this
:48:30. > :48:33.has been going on for a long time in Tower Hamlets, I myself remember
:48:34. > :48:40.going there ten years ago to protest about Tower Hamlets selling off a
:48:41. > :48:46.statue of Clement Attlee, the founder of the Labour Party. This is
:48:47. > :48:50.very serious. All I know is John Biggs is doing a good job and if he
:48:51. > :48:54.stands again he will have a good chance of being re-elected.
:48:55. > :49:01.Isn't this the case of devolution going wrong? Too much power locally?
:49:02. > :49:07.It's a demonstration that perhaps there isn't enough real scrutiny by
:49:08. > :49:14.local people of local councils, whatever their political make up is.
:49:15. > :49:20.What about his popularity though, locally? You cannot underestimate
:49:21. > :49:27.it. Maybe this is Westminster politics trying to con send to a
:49:28. > :49:30.local community. I disagree, the offences were so serious and strike
:49:31. > :49:35.at the heart of our democratic system and it is important to have
:49:36. > :49:39.scrutiny. One of the lessons of Lutfur Rahman was his ability to
:49:40. > :49:45.avoid scrutiny and back to something we should look at. Just looking at
:49:46. > :49:51.that film, it is remarkable how many... I don't think we saw a
:49:52. > :49:55.single woman in the meeting. Very briefly there were four people who
:49:56. > :49:59.did their civic duty by bringing the case against Lutfur Rahman who now
:50:00. > :50:05.face bankruptcy. Should the Government come in to bail them out
:50:06. > :50:10.or compensate? I think that is something the Government would look
:50:11. > :50:14.at. Most importantly now the Government wants action to be taken,
:50:15. > :50:24.and investigation, we are taking this very seriously. Eric Pickles'
:50:25. > :50:27.report is taken very serious indeed. And we would invite Lutfur Rahman to
:50:28. > :50:28.come onto the programme at any time to defend himself.
:50:29. > :50:31.Last week President Trump signed an executive order restricting entry
:50:32. > :50:33.into the United States from seven Muslim countries.
:50:34. > :50:35.The Prime Minister is now facing calls to rescind
:50:36. > :50:38.or downgrade her invitation to the President for a State Visit,
:50:39. > :50:44.Here's Tanjil Rashid on the fallout in the capital.
:50:45. > :50:50.London this week, thousands turning out to protest President Trump's
:50:51. > :50:55.travel ban on people from seven Muslim countries.
:50:56. > :50:58.London is home to many people born in countries included in the ban.
:50:59. > :51:00.The Government has given assurances that British citizens
:51:01. > :51:02.will not be affected, but many Londoners
:51:03. > :51:08.More than a dozen Labour MPs representing London constituencies
:51:09. > :51:13.signed a letter this week calling on the Prime Minister to do more.
:51:14. > :51:16.There are a lot of people who are from the Somali community
:51:17. > :51:18.here living in London, from the Yemeni community,
:51:19. > :51:20.from the Iraqi community, they have friends and family
:51:21. > :51:26.They will be feeling vulnerable at this point.
:51:27. > :51:29.They are a group of people who feel disenfranchised anyway
:51:30. > :51:34.because of the increase in hate crime and Islamophobia,
:51:35. > :51:37.and as Prime Minister how does she plan to protect them?
:51:38. > :51:39.This is what the Prime Minister had to say.
:51:40. > :51:45.This Government is clear that that policy is wrong.
:51:46. > :51:49.In six years as Home Secretary, I never introduced such a policy.
:51:50. > :51:55.The Mayor of London says that is not enough.
:51:56. > :51:59.Whilst this ban is in place I don't think we should be rolling out
:52:00. > :52:02.the red carpet and having a state visit.
:52:03. > :52:06.I think it plays into the hand of so-called ISIS and Daesh.
:52:07. > :52:08.With feelings running high in London over the travel ban,
:52:09. > :52:12.how welcome will Donald Trump be when he travels to the city?
:52:13. > :52:17.The Met Police might well have their work cut out.
:52:18. > :52:19.Joining me in the studio is Lord Brian Paddick,
:52:20. > :52:28.who spent many years at the very top of the Metropolitan Police force.
:52:29. > :52:34.As a Trade Minister, tens of thousands of Londoners were born in
:52:35. > :52:38.those seven countries that are placing this ban, even with the
:52:39. > :52:42.exemptions announced this week, how does this bode for London's
:52:43. > :52:49.relationship with the regime? London has an incredibly important
:52:50. > :52:54.relationship with the United States. Across the hall of the UK a million
:52:55. > :52:59.people go to work each day for a US company, a million Americans go to
:53:00. > :53:02.work in the US for a British company. But you have seen the
:53:03. > :53:06.protests and heard what the Mayor of London says, the ban is awful, we
:53:07. > :53:11.shouldn't be rolling out the red carpet for President Trump until he
:53:12. > :53:16.lifts the ban. Boris Johnson has also said the ban is divisive and
:53:17. > :53:26.wrong but ultimately US immigration policy is a matter for the United
:53:27. > :53:31.States. When Theresa May was there last week she delivered President
:53:32. > :53:36.Trump having a 100% commitment to Nato which is a very important
:53:37. > :53:40.commitment for the UK in terms of our national interests and national
:53:41. > :53:44.security, and that is what is best served it in this. Would it be
:53:45. > :53:48.better to at least postpone the state visit? No date has been set,
:53:49. > :53:54.but I think having a state visit is a good idea. The previous two
:53:55. > :53:59.presidents have also been on state visits. Not as quickly as President
:54:00. > :54:04.Trump. But what I will say is it's the right and proper thing to do, we
:54:05. > :54:10.must engage with the new president and new administration. Isn't that
:54:11. > :54:22.the real polity, this is the leader of the New World, how most -- our
:54:23. > :54:27.most important ally. Doesn't this hamper London's relationship with
:54:28. > :54:31.the US? I think everyone has come out against the policy was elected
:54:32. > :54:39.to implement. I just think most people thought he wouldn't do it. My
:54:40. > :54:42.view is that we need to keep that relationship with the United States,
:54:43. > :54:47.crucially important, particularly as we are going to be leaving the EU.
:54:48. > :54:51.What is wonderful about this country, when the Chinese came I
:54:52. > :54:56.went out and protest it so I think what we would be able to do when he
:54:57. > :55:01.does come is show we are a nation that is able to allow peaceful
:55:02. > :55:05.protests, costing a lot of money I imagine, but nevertheless it has to
:55:06. > :55:12.happen. What are the challenges of policing the state visit like a
:55:13. > :55:16.President Trump one, Brian Paddick? It depends when he gets here. I
:55:17. > :55:21.understand it would be later this year whereas resident Obama was not
:55:22. > :55:29.invited until his third year, so why the rush? If it is a state visit,
:55:30. > :55:33.you have slow-moving horse-drawn procession is, you have got well
:55:34. > :55:38.flagged up when the procession is going to be. The policing issues are
:55:39. > :55:41.magnified. If it is an official visit, high-speed motorcades don't
:55:42. > :55:46.necessarily have to make the programme public in advance. The
:55:47. > :55:51.little easier to police. But do we really want to invite the president
:55:52. > :55:55.of the United States here for thousands, potentially millions of
:55:56. > :56:00.people to be baying for his blood? He may not want to come with that in
:56:01. > :56:04.the backdrop, but say he is coming and it's a visit with bells on in
:56:05. > :56:08.terms of what is involved as far as the police are concerned, what about
:56:09. > :56:15.the costs? What are we talking about? I think the last state visit
:56:16. > :56:20.by a Chinese President cost a million pounds. You can probably at
:56:21. > :56:25.least double that, if as I say it continues along the path that he is
:56:26. > :56:30.going and he continues to produce this very angry reaction amongst
:56:31. > :56:34.Londoners. As an experienced senior police officer, his claim is he
:56:35. > :56:39.wants to make America safe. He did say in the campaign he wanted a
:56:40. > :56:43.complete and total shutdown of all Muslims entering the US. He hasn't
:56:44. > :56:48.done that with his executive order but does it make America safe or is
:56:49. > :56:52.it counter-productive when it comes to terrorism? There's been no deaths
:56:53. > :56:56.caused in the United States by someone who was a refugee from any
:56:57. > :57:06.of the countries he has now banned people going to the United States
:57:07. > :57:10.for, but it can be used by ISIS, by Daesh, as a publicity thing. It is
:57:11. > :57:13.true the majority haven't been. There have been attacks but I'm not
:57:14. > :57:18.sure anyone died as a result of them. What about the reaction? How
:57:19. > :57:24.would you deal with it if and when he comes, if there are mass protests
:57:25. > :57:29.across London? I have been involved in the last 18 months with two state
:57:30. > :57:33.visits, the visit of the president of China and the president of
:57:34. > :57:37.Colombia. Certainly on the first one there were protests and it is
:57:38. > :57:45.entirely right that people have the right to demonstrate. Brian is right
:57:46. > :57:48.about the costs of some of these events, democracy can be expensive
:57:49. > :57:50.but it is important in our democratic system that week both
:57:51. > :57:53.invite people who we think it is in our national interest to invite and
:57:54. > :57:57.also to allow the general public if they so wish to demonstrate against
:57:58. > :58:02.them, for them, but to have that right to take part in the democratic
:58:03. > :58:09.process. Kate Hoey, why did you tweet on the day of the announced
:58:10. > :58:12.ban? You tweet it, must find out exactly how many Syrian refugees
:58:13. > :58:18.have been taken in by other Muslim countries, particularly in the Arab
:58:19. > :58:24.world. What were you saying? I was being lazy, I should have looked up
:58:25. > :58:29.in Google. I was genuinely interested. I actually got the
:58:30. > :58:38.answer back probably quicker than if I had looked up in Google from
:58:39. > :58:42.Twitter! There you go! I'm beginning to feel Twitter just attracts people
:58:43. > :58:46.who want to be incredibly nasty because I did get a lot of nasty
:58:47. > :58:50.responses to that so I don't think on a Saturday evening again I will
:58:51. > :58:57.be tweeting. Well, you have been warned by the Twitter reaction!
:58:58. > :58:58.Brian Paddick, thank you for coming in.
:58:59. > :59:01.Now it's time for the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.
:59:02. > :59:03.International news agency Thomson Reuters has agreed to pay
:59:04. > :59:05.damages to Finsbury Park mosque after wrongly claiming
:59:06. > :59:09.It admitted publishing a profile based on outdated reports,
:59:10. > :59:17.which caused banks to refuse to accept the mosque as a customer.
:59:18. > :59:20.Two women are among four senior officers who have made it
:59:21. > :59:24.onto the shortlist to be the next Metropolitan Police Commissioner.
:59:25. > :59:26.Cressida Dick, former UK counterterrorism chief at the Met,
:59:27. > :59:29.is thought to be the frontrunner for the job and would become
:59:30. > :59:33.the force's first female commissioner
:59:34. > :59:41.Heathrow and the Government have set out its proposals for the airport
:59:42. > :59:43.expansion with a national policy statement outlining domestic
:59:44. > :59:48.connectivity, and support for communities affected
:59:49. > :59:54.It also puts in place a measure to mitigate noise including a ban
:59:55. > :00:04.of six and a half hours on scheduled night flights.
:00:05. > :00:12.Neither of you are in favour of Heathrow expansion. What are you
:00:13. > :00:16.going to do to stop it? In terms of what has happened so far, as a
:00:17. > :00:21.member of the government I have the right, given by the Prime Minister
:00:22. > :00:24.to oppose Heathrow expansion. The way the government is approaching
:00:25. > :00:27.this is the right approach, in terms of consulting and making sure the
:00:28. > :00:33.people have their say and there right to say their view on Heathrow.
:00:34. > :00:36.Even if it is ignored? The importance of the night flight ban
:00:37. > :00:41.is something I have campaigned on the 20 years in Hammersmith and
:00:42. > :00:46.Fulham and Chelsea Fulham, for there to be a ban on that night flights,
:00:47. > :00:50.which this would deliver. The government said it will meet the
:00:51. > :00:54.required noise and air pollution targets and be able to proceed. At
:00:55. > :00:58.the moment when there is a former night-time ban it doesn't work and
:00:59. > :01:05.it doesn't get carried through. You just talk to anyone who lives over
:01:06. > :01:09.that flight path, 5am, 4:30am, round early and have to go around because
:01:10. > :01:13.they can't land. That has been the case for many years? Absolutely but
:01:14. > :01:18.it won't help if you have another runway. I think we have to keep up
:01:19. > :01:22.the campaign... I thought Gatwick had a much, much easier route
:01:23. > :01:27.through to getting that extra runway more quickly. But the air pollution
:01:28. > :01:31.is an important issue. It's not just about the planes but the traffic
:01:32. > :01:35.going to the airport. I'm afraid we have do stop that and do another
:01:36. > :01:38.programme at another time an airport expansion, but thank you to both of
:01:39. > :01:44.you for being here. Back to you, Andrew.
:01:45. > :01:47.Will the Government's plan to boost house-building
:01:48. > :01:50.Could a handful of Conservative MPs cause problems for
:01:51. > :01:55.And what is President Trump going to do next?
:01:56. > :02:13.You have been following the genesis of this housing white paper. What do
:02:14. > :02:18.you make of it? I think it will be quite spectacular, pretty radical
:02:19. > :02:22.stuff. We heard bits about beating up on developers. I understand it
:02:23. > :02:27.will be a whack, walk, covering every single problem with housing
:02:28. > :02:31.supply and trying to solve it. Which means bad news if you are a huge fan
:02:32. > :02:34.of the green belt, because they will go round that the other way by
:02:35. > :02:39.forcing large quotas on councils are making it down to councils where
:02:40. > :02:43.they build. If you fill up your brown space in towns they will have
:02:44. > :02:46.to trigger the exceptional circumstances bit of the bill to
:02:47. > :02:50.beat on green belts. Beating up developers, opening up the market
:02:51. > :02:56.for renters across the board. And Theresa May, one of the most
:02:57. > :03:02.defining thing she could do on the domestic agenda. I am not as excited
:03:03. > :03:08.as Tom about this. I look back to 2004, do you remember the Kate
:03:09. > :03:13.Barker report? Successive governments, successive prime
:03:14. > :03:17.ministers have been promising to address the housing shortage. In
:03:18. > :03:21.2004 Kate Barker recommended hundreds of thousands new homes.
:03:22. > :03:26.Gordon Brown talked about 3 million new homes by 2020 in 2007. It never
:03:27. > :03:30.happens. The reason is at the end of the day this is local politics,
:03:31. > :03:33.local councillors need to keep their seats and they won't keep their
:03:34. > :03:37.seats if there are hugely controversial developments locally
:03:38. > :03:42.that they support. Yes, the government can and are proposing to
:03:43. > :03:45.overrule councils that don't back local developments, but they may
:03:46. > :03:50.find themselves completely inundated with those cases. I think that is
:03:51. > :03:54.the whole point of it, to take on those NIMBY often Tory councils and
:03:55. > :04:02.force them to build. I can't think of a better defining issue for
:04:03. > :04:10.Theresa May than sticking one in the eye of some quite well off half Tory
:04:11. > :04:13.countryside councils. The government gives councils a quota of homes they
:04:14. > :04:17.have to fill, if they don't have to fill that all run out overland to
:04:18. > :04:21.fill the quota, the government then comes in and tells them they have to
:04:22. > :04:25.built on the green belt? How is that going to work? At the moment the
:04:26. > :04:28.green belt is absolutely sacrosanct in British politics. They'll have to
:04:29. > :04:35.do some work on educating people on what green belts means. Potato
:04:36. > :04:40.farms, golf courses... At the moment the idea people have of the green
:04:41. > :04:45.belt being verdant fields needs to be dismantled. You are right. I
:04:46. > :04:49.agree with Tom, 11 million people in the private rental sector in the UK.
:04:50. > :04:53.In the last election more voted Labour than conservative. This is an
:04:54. > :04:57.area where Theresa May would look to expand her vote. The problem has
:04:58. > :05:01.always been, the same problem we have with pension policy and why
:05:02. > :05:05.pensioners have done better than working families in recent years.
:05:06. > :05:12.They are older and they vote more and anything to the detriment of
:05:13. > :05:17.older people. I wonder how they will get private money to come in on
:05:18. > :05:22.anything like this go they would need to have a huge expansion? There
:05:23. > :05:26.is a huge amount of speculation and one of the thing that locks up the
:05:27. > :05:30.system as you have people buying land, taking out a stake of land in
:05:31. > :05:34.the hope that one point it may at some point free up. At the end of
:05:35. > :05:38.the day, unless you have councils far more willing to quickly fast
:05:39. > :05:42.track these applications, which they won't for the reason I said before,
:05:43. > :05:49.it's a very long-term investment. Ed Miliband proposed three-year leases
:05:50. > :05:54.in which the rent could only go up by an agreed formula, probably the
:05:55. > :05:59.three years to give the young families a certain stability over
:06:00. > :06:02.that period. He had a use it or lose it rules for planning development,
:06:03. > :06:07.if you don't use it you lose the planning rights. Somebody else gets
:06:08. > :06:11.it. The Tories disparaged that at the time. This is at the centre of
:06:12. > :06:16.their policy now. This is probably item number four of
:06:17. > :06:20.Ed Miliband's policy book Theresa May has wholesale pinched in the
:06:21. > :06:24.last six months or so. Why not? I think if you look at the change in
:06:25. > :06:30.mood across housing and planning over the last 5-6 years, it used to
:06:31. > :06:34.be an issue very much of green belt versus London planners. Now you have
:06:35. > :06:36.grandparents living in houses in the countryside, knowing their
:06:37. > :06:43.grandchildren can't get on the housing ladder any longer. Maybe a
:06:44. > :06:45.bit more intervention in the market, tougher on renting conditions, maybe
:06:46. > :06:51.that is exactly what the country needs. Will they meet the 1 million
:06:52. > :06:54.target? It would be a defiance of every political thing that has
:06:55. > :06:59.happened in the last ten years. I think Tom is right, if there is only
:07:00. > :07:01.one difference between Theresa May and David Cameron it's the
:07:02. > :07:08.willingness of the state to intervene. When Ed Miliband said
:07:09. > :07:12.that he was seen as communism, but Theresa May can get away with it.
:07:13. > :07:19.How serious is this talk of a couple of dozen Tories who were very loyal
:07:20. > :07:25.over voting for the principle of Article 50 but may now be tempted to
:07:26. > :07:30.vote for some amendments to Article 50 legislation that they would find
:07:31. > :07:34.quite attractive? I think that threat has certainly been taken
:07:35. > :07:39.seriously by levers. I spoke to the campaign group Leaves Means Leave
:07:40. > :07:43.last night. The figure they mentioned was up to 20 remaining
:07:44. > :07:45.Tories. That sounds a lot to me but that is what they are concerned
:07:46. > :07:51.about and those Tories would come together with Labour and the SNP to
:07:52. > :07:55.vote for that amendment. Although that amendment sounds rather nice
:07:56. > :07:59.and democratic, actually in the eyes of many levers that is a wrecking
:08:00. > :08:04.amendment. Because what you are doing is giving Parliament a sort of
:08:05. > :08:08.veto over whatever deal Theresa May brings back. What they want is the
:08:09. > :08:12.vote to be before that deal is finalised. It isn't necessarily the
:08:13. > :08:18.case that if Parliament decided they didn't like that deal we would just
:08:19. > :08:21.go to WTO, we would fall out of the European Union. There are mixed
:08:22. > :08:26.views as to whether we might remain in and things could be extended. My
:08:27. > :08:33.understanding is the people making the amendments, they won any deal
:08:34. > :08:37.that is done to be brought to Parliament in time, so that if
:08:38. > :08:42.Parliament fancies it it's done, but if it does and it doesn't just mean
:08:43. > :08:47.go to WTO rules. There will be time to go back, renegotiate or think
:08:48. > :08:52.again? The question is where it puts Britain's negotiating hand. Nine of
:08:53. > :08:58.the options... Once we trigger Article 50 the two negotiation
:08:59. > :09:01.begins on the power switches to Europe. They can run out the clock
:09:02. > :09:04.and it will be worse for us than them. I don't think either option is
:09:05. > :09:09.particularly appealing. I think what seems like a rather Serena week for
:09:10. > :09:13.Article 50 this week isn't going to be reflective of what will happen
:09:14. > :09:16.next. The way the government's position is at the moment, if at the
:09:17. > :09:21.end the only choice Parliament has is to vote for the deal or crash out
:09:22. > :09:24.on WTO rules, then even the remainder is going to vote for the
:09:25. > :09:29.deal even if they don't like it, because they would regard crashing
:09:30. > :09:35.out as the worst of all possible results. Possibly. It will be a
:09:36. > :09:39.great game of bluff if Theresa May fights off any of these amendments
:09:40. > :09:43.on Wednesday and gets a straightforward deal or no Deal
:09:44. > :09:46.vote. I have a funny feeling this amendment, if it's chosen, we must
:09:47. > :09:51.remember because we don't know if they will choose this amendment, if
:09:52. > :09:56.it does go to a vote on Wednesday it will be very tight indeed. Remember,
:09:57. > :10:01.one final thing Theresa May can do if she gets Parliament voting
:10:02. > :10:04.against, as Isabel would have it, she could try to get a new
:10:05. > :10:11.parliament and go for a general election. And probably get a huge
:10:12. > :10:17.majority to do so. The Lords, it goes there after the February
:10:18. > :10:26.recess. They are very pro-Europe, but does their instinct for
:10:27. > :10:30.self-preservation override that? I think that is it. A Tory Lord said
:10:31. > :10:34.this morning I will vote to block it on a conscience measure, but you
:10:35. > :10:39.have the likes of Bill Cash, veteran Eurosceptics, suddenly converted to
:10:40. > :10:43.the Lords reform saying is an outrage. I doubt they will vote for
:10:44. > :10:51.their own demise, to hasten their own demise by blocking it. What did
:10:52. > :10:55.you make of Doctor Gorka smart fascinating. Cut from the same cloth
:10:56. > :10:57.as his boss. I thought it was extraordinary listening to him,
:10:58. > :11:01.saying everything is going dutifully to plan. But at the end of the day,
:11:02. > :11:06.what they are doing is what people in America voted for Trump to do. If
:11:07. > :11:10.you look at Lord Ashcroft's polling on why America voted for Trump, they
:11:11. > :11:16.went into this with their eyes wide open. One of the top fears among
:11:17. > :11:19.American voters, particularly Republican leading ones was
:11:20. > :11:22.America's immigration policy is or could be letting in terror arrests.
:11:23. > :11:27.As far as he is concerned, he is doing what he was elected to do.
:11:28. > :11:30.This whole year is turning into a wonderful year long lecture series
:11:31. > :11:33.on how democracy works at a fundamental level. I'm not sure
:11:34. > :11:40.anyone wanted it but it's what we've got. This same in the way we've been
:11:41. > :11:44.talking about direct democracy and Parliamentary democracy. The same is
:11:45. > :11:47.happening in America between executive and judicial branches. We
:11:48. > :11:51.are seeing the limits of presidential power. Regardless of
:11:52. > :11:55.the fact that people voted for Trump they voted for senators. The judge
:11:56. > :12:02.who blocks this was appointed by George W Bush. So-called Judge
:12:03. > :12:05.Eckert Mac so-called George W Bush! It's fascinating we're having all
:12:06. > :12:10.these conversations now that I never bought five years ago we would be
:12:11. > :12:14.having at such a fundamental level. Has the media yet worked out how to
:12:15. > :12:18.cover the Trump administration or has he got us behaving like headless
:12:19. > :12:23.chickens? He says something incendiary and we all run over to do
:12:24. > :12:28.that and when you pick it off it turns out not to be as incendiary as
:12:29. > :12:32.we thought? And then back doing something and we all rush over
:12:33. > :12:39.there. Is he making fools of us? Is exactly what he did in the election
:12:40. > :12:42.campaign. So many quick and fast outrageous comments frontrunner on a
:12:43. > :12:45.daily basis, no one single one of them had full news cycle time to be
:12:46. > :12:49.pored over and examined. I think there is a problem with this.
:12:50. > :12:53.Although he keeps the upper hand, keeps the agenda and keeps on the
:12:54. > :12:58.populist ground, the problem is it easy to campaign like that. If you
:12:59. > :13:01.are governing in a state of semi-hysteria, I wonder how long the
:13:02. > :13:03.American public will be comfortable with that. They don't really want
:13:04. > :13:09.their government to be swirling chaos all the time, as fascinating
:13:10. > :13:15.as it might be on TV. They will be exhausted by it, I already am. I
:13:16. > :13:18.have been interviewing White House administration official since 1976
:13:19. > :13:22.and that is the first time someone hasn't given me a straight answer on
:13:23. > :13:24.America supporting the EU. That is a different world.
:13:25. > :13:27.Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two tomorrow at midday with
:13:28. > :13:30.the Daily Politics - and I'll be back here
:13:31. > :14:08.Remember, if it's Sunday - it's the Sunday Politics.
:14:09. > :14:22.TV: He's not your father. WOMAN GASPS
:14:23. > :14:35.so why not pay your TV licence in weekly instalments, too?