12/02/2017 Sunday Politics London


Andrew Neil and Tim Donovan are joined by Baroness Smith and Oliver Letwin. The political panellists are Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Commons Speaker John Bercow is accused of compromising his


impartiality by revealing he voted Remain in last year's EU referendum.


The EU Withdrawal Bill clears its first Parliamentary hurdle.


But will the House of Lords be quite so accommodating?


Labour's Leader in the Lords joins us live.


And we report from Stoke-on-Trent ahead of a crucial by-election


later this month, where Ukip is looking to give


In London this week, as City Hall unveils initiatives


to tackle air pollution, a clear example is being


And with me a political panel who frequently like to compromise


Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Janan Ganesh.


I'll be trying to keep them in order during the course of the programme.


So, Commons Speaker John Bercow has insisted his ability


to act impartially is not damaged by reports that he voted to Remain


The Sunday Telegraph reveals that Speaker Bercow revealed his views


in front of an audience of students at Reading University


This may not be popular with some people in this audience -


I thought it was better to stay in the European Union than not,


partly for economic reason, being part of a big trade bloc,


and partly because I think we're in a world of power blocs,


and I think for all the weaknesses and deficiencies


of the European Union, it is better to be part of that big


Speaker Bercow speaking at Reading University earlier this month. Does


he not care is this I get that impression, he knows perfectly well,


it states he has to be particularly -- Parliamentary neural. Whether


there are going to be enough votes to force him out, the question, the


last speaker wept out with the 20 vote against him. You yes to have


the command of the support across the House. There is a Deputy


Speaker, waiting, who would be superb. I think even the people who


pretend to support Macis have had enough -- Speaker Bercow have had


enough of his ways. The reason I ask whether he care, he didn't just tell


the students that he voted to Remain, he then gave them a running


commentary on all the issues that will be part of the Brexit


negotiations, workers' rights, immigration, trade policy, everyone


maternity leave got a hat tip from him. He would be a very well


prepared Brexit minister if attendance needs a colleague --


David Davis needs a colleague. I don't think this story makes his


position untenable, what does is the wired pattern of behaviour of


excessive candour on his political views, going back years, this is a


guy who when the Queen visited Parliament described her as theical


lied scope Queen. He had a running argument with David Cameron. We know


his views on Brexit, we know his views on Donald Trump. . He has


given interviews, none of the views are illegitimate but the candour


which they are expressed with is scrupulous. Given Lyndsay Hoyle is a


class accuse. He is the Deputy Speaker. And a fairly ready


replacement, whether there is more of a movement to say, maybe not


force Bercow out but acknowledge he has had a few years in the job and


the question of successor ship comes into play. Has he concluded he is


untouchable? What I can definitely say, is that he is determined to


fight this one out, and not go of his own volition, so if he goes he


will have to be forced out. He wants to stay. Which will be tough. It


will be tough. Likely as things stand. I would say this, I speak to


someone who likes the way he has brought the House of Commons to


life, held ministers to account, forced them into explain thing,


whenever there is a topical issue you know it will be in the House of


Commons. He has changed that. He has. Time has been courageous, Ied a


mire the way he has been a speaker. I would say this, during the


referendum campaign, he asked me Nick Clegg, and Peter Hitchens to


debate Brexit if his constituency. It was a packed out meeting. He


chaired it. I said don't you want to join in? He didn't. He showed no


desire to join in, he was impartial. He goes out to universities and kind


of demyth GCSEs Parliament by speaking to them in a way, he


doesn't gets credit for it and stays on after and drinks with them.


Sometimes he, you know, it is clearly a mistake to have gone into


his views retrospectively on that referendum campaign, I don't think


that, did he try and stop Article 50 from being triggered in the House of


Commons? That would be a scandal. Even that would be beyond him.


Briefly, yes or no, could you imagine Betty Boothroyd behaving


like that? Not at all. None of the recent speakers I could imagine


doing that. It is good he is different.


The bill that will allow the government to trigger Article 50


and begin Brexit negotiations was voted through


Many MPs were in a difficult position - unsure whether to vote


with their conscience, their constituency,


Europe, once such a divisive issue for the Conservatives,


is now causing major divisions inside the Labour Party.


So, let's have a look what happened in a bit more detail:


Thanks to academic research carried out since the referendum,


we now have estimates of how each individual constituency voted.


It's thought that 410 constituencies voted Leave.


On Wednesday night, the EU Notification of Withdrawal Bill


was voted through by the House of Commons.


The bill left the Labour Party divided.


Jeremy Corbyn told his MPs to respect the result


of the referendum and vote for the government's bill -


But 52 Labour MPs defied Mr Corbyn's thee-line whip


That's about a fifth of the Parliamentary Labour Party.


Of those 52 Labour MPs who voted against the bill,


the majority, 45 of them, represent seats that voted Remain.


However, seven Labour MPs voted against the Article 50 Bill,


even though their constituents voted Leave in the referendum.


The Conservative Party were much more united.


The vast majority of Tory MPs, 320 of them, voted for the bill.


Just one Conservative MP, Ken Clarke, voted against it.


His constituency, Rushcliffe in Nottinghamshire, voted Remain.


The bill will now go to the House of Lords -


peers will start debating it on Monday the 20th of February.


Joining me now is Matthew Goodwin, politics professor at


He's got a book out next month called


Brexit: Why Britain Voted To Leave The European Union.


Welcome to the programme. Has Brexit, how you voted in the


referendum and your continuing attitudes toward it, is that now


becoming the new dividing line in British politics? I think it


certainly is contributing to a new dividing line, in western politics


more generally, we know over the last ten years, that the old left


and right division has been making way for a new division, between


essentially social liberals and Conservative, and Brexit was a, an


incident a moment that really reflected that new dividing line, so


it wasn't just the case that Brexit has cut across Labour's base, it is


that dividing line, that deeper division is cutting across social


democracies more generally. Is there a possibility, no higher than that,


that it will reShane our party politics? I think it is too early to


know whether this is a fundamental long-term realignment. If we look at


what is happening in local by-election, what is happening at


by-elections, pictures a bit mixed but if you look at how some of the


Labour vote is responding, I think that potentially reflects the


possibility of a terminal decline for the Labour Party, it is going to


be incredibly difficult for Labour to win these voters back, these are


traditional working class, socially Conservative voters who are leaving


the party, don't forget, since the 1997 general election. It is not


just because of the referendum. If that was the case, Labour would


become more a party of the Metropolitan areas, and less of a


party outside of these area, is that what you are saying? What we are S


seeing across the west can social democracy that retrenchment into the


cosmopolitan, Metropolitan city area, university towns, you can


seeing in many European states populist right parties filling the


traditional socialist area, why are they doing that? Because they are


offering two message, economic and cultural protectionism. Social


Democrats are clinging to that economic protectionism but not


saying much about migration and multiculturalism and that sort of


stuff. Are there deeper forces at work than Jeremy Corbyn? He often


gets the blame for what is happening to the Labour Party now, but if you


look the way the Greek socialist party has been wiped out. The German


Social Democrats are in trouble. The Italian socialist party has lost a


referendum. The French socialist are coming close to being wiped out on


April 23rd, Labour's problems, are part of a much wider problem of


social democracy S Jeremy Corbyn is a surface problem, what I mean by


that is you could replace him tosh with another leader, they would


still have this fundamental tension within the electorate. They are


trying to appeal to two differenter reconcilable groups of voters who


think differently about the key issues of the day. It is very


difficult for any centre left party now to assemble the kinds of


coalitionses we saw in the '90s with Clinton and Blair and Schroeder.


Those days are gone. Does that explain why it is now Labour, rather


than the Conservatives, historically the party divided over the European


Union, does all of that help to explain why its Labour that now


seems, disunited over the EU? I think so, I think also that the


issue of Brexit, and the EU, is so immatly wrapped up with that issue


of immigration, if you look at who has been abandoned Labour since 2015


or the late 90s, the one thing those voters share is a rejection of the


so-called liberal consensus on EU membership and mass immigration. It


is difficult for any Labour lead eer co-bin or Clive Lewis on Dan Jarvis,


to bring those voters back unless they are going to move on that


cultural terrain. If they are not, they may not go to Ukip, they might


go to somewhere more difficult for Labour which is political apathy.


Thank you for that. Attention now shifts to the House


of Lords where peers will begin scrutinising the EU Withdrawal Bill


in just over a week. Brexit Secretary David Davis urged


the Lords "to do its patriotic duty" and resist the urge to tinker


with the legislation. Former minister Oliver Letwin


went one further - mooting the possibility


of the abolition of the Lords if it sought to frustrate


the bill in any way. Here he is posing the question


in the Commons on Thursday. Would he find time, in government


time for a debate, should the other place seek to delay beyond the end


of March the passage of our accession to Article 50, for this


House to discuss the possibility of either the abolition or full-scale


reform of the other place? And Oliver Letwin joins


me now from Dorset. Welcome back to the programme Mr Let


win. Before we come on to the Lord's, can I get your thoughts on a


matter that has been making the news this morning and John Bercow's


remarks about being a remain voter an giving something of a running


commentary on various Brexit issues, has he sqloefr stepped the mark as


speaker? -- overstepped the mark. I think this is slightly a fuss about


nothing. Every person who thinks about politics will have had some


opinion about great matters like Brexit, and I really don't see any


particular reason why his opinion shouldn't be known after the fact.


I, I was there throughout the five days of the Brexit debate, and I


have to say, I thought he was pretty scrupulously fair in the way he


handled the House, so, I, I don't really share the view that there is


some terrible thing that has been revealed this weekend. Let me come


on to what we are here to talk about, which is the Lords. Why have


you raised the threat of the abolition of the Lord for doing its


job of scrutinising what is coming out the Commons? Well, you know,


Andrew, this question of the job of the House of Lords and scrutiny, has


to be looked at carefully. There are all sorts of bills that come out the


House of Commons which are detailed things that relate to, finance, and


expenditure, and the criminal law, and all that sort of thing, and all


of that, I admire the work that the House of Lords does, as you say


scrutinising and we shouldn't use that word loosely, it means looking


carefully at the detail, line by line of complicated legislation,


hundreds of Paps in some cases, and spotting, using the considerable


expertise many, not all be many of the peers have, in any given field,


to identify things where the Commons has got it wrong in the sense that


the legislation wouldn't achieve what the Government of the day is


seeking to make it achieve. That is a serious proper role for an Upper


House and the House of Lords performs it pretty


Now this is a very different case. This is a two clause bill. The first


clause which is the operative clause says the Prime Minister should go


ahead and sign... I understand all that. We haven't got that much time,


this is becoming a monologue. There is nothing to scrutinise, Andrew.


There were plenty of amendments put before the Commons, none of them got


through, it is true. There are eight Labour amendments in the Lords, are


you resigned to this bill coming back to the Commons with amendments?


No, it should not come back with amendments. There were hundreds of


amendments literally put down in the House of Commons, they were all


drunk. They were all trying one way or another to derail the process.


This is a binary issue, should Theresa May sign the withdrawal or


not? What should the Commons do? The Commons has now voted in favour of


it. Node do should tolerate and unelected chamber forcing the


British people... The people voted in a referendum and the Commons


voted. The matter is now signed and sealed and should not be derailed by


the House of Lords. On Labour amendment wants confirmation that


when it is done, the potential Brexit agreement will be put before


parliament before any vote in the European Parliament, that has been


an agreed principle, what is wrong with that amendments? The government


has already agreed there will be a vote, but actually, what the


amendments were seeking was to give the Commons a further vote on


whether we actually leave or not. That is already decided. Neither the


House of Lords nor anybody else has a right in my view, despite the fact


I was a remain, to what the will of the British people. Nobody should


think an unelected chamber should now try to change the course of


British history by asserting amendments in a very effective on


clause bill which says go ahead and trigger Article 50. Are you


concerned that amendments by the Lords which would then have to go


back to the Commons for consideration, are you concerned


that could derail or delay the Prime Minister's timetable for Article 50?


Yes, exactly. That would be the result of a prolonged bout of


ping-pong between the two houses, or much worse, if the House of Lords


failed to give way and the Parliament act had to be used. It


would really be intolerable. It is not good for our country. Those of


us who voted remain would prefer for that not to happen. The whole


country -- it is important for the whole country that this happens in a


rapid way and allowing the government free rein to negotiate,


that is surely in all our advantages? Deed think any efforts


to abolish the House of Lords, an issue you have raised, does that


make it easier because your friend David Cameron stuffed the upper


chamber with donors, lapdogs and lingerie designers? I was among


those who advocated for many years wholesale reform of the House of


Lords, to turn it into a serious elected second chamber. I think we


should have an upper house which commands legitimacy. This is a


second issue. Here we have not got such a House and it seems to be very


clear that it should not seek to derail on delay the action which has


been mandated by the referendum, agreed by the House of Commons, and


what we want to see now is a smooth orderly effect for this bill, so it


becomes law and Theresa May can go ahead and negotiate on our behalf.


One more question on the process, if the Lords to amend the bill and it


goes back to the Commons and the Commons sends these amendments back


again, take them out, how long could this ping-pong between the two


chambers go on in your experience? It is a very, very interesting and


complicated question with the clerks of the two ends of the Palace of


Westminster not always agreeing about this. But through certain


machinations of slightly changing amendments as they go, in my


experience this could carry on for an awful long time if clever people,


and there are plenty of clever people in the House of Lords, want


to do that and that is precisely why I think we should not tolerate it.


Oliver Letwin, thank you for joining us from Dorset.


Joining me now is Labour's Leader in the House of Lords, Angela Smith.


The Commons passed this bill without any amendments... There were


changes, the government did concede a couple of points. But the


amendments did not go through. Does that put pressure on the Lords to do


the same? I think the Lords always feels under pressure to do the right


thing. When I heard Oliver Letwin, I did not know whether to laugh or


cry. We will not frustrate, we will not wreck, we will not sabotage. We


will do what David Davis said was our patriotic duty. We will


scrutinise the bill. We have at amendments from the Labour Party. We


will look at those. It depends on the government response if we vote


on those. There could be amendments asking the Commons to look again.


That is normally what we do. It is not the wrong thing to do. But if


you do this and make amendments, it then goes back to the Commons. If


the Commons rejects the Lords' amendments, what do you think will


happen? I do not see any extended ping-pong at all. It is perfectly


legitimate. We are not talking about the outcome of negotiations, we are


talking about the process. The process of engaging with Parliament


and reporting to Parliament. It would be totally responsible for


Parliament to say, off you go, Theresa May, have two years of


negotiation and come back and talk to us at the end. The has to be a


process where the government can use the expertise of parliament to get


this right. But if you do put in some amendments, it has to go back


to the Commons, they may well say they don't want those amendments and


it may go back to the Lords, could that at the very least delay the


Prime Minister's Brexit timetable? I don't think so. She said the end of


March. Time has been built in for all the normal processes. I think


Oliver Letwin and others are getting a bit overexcited. This is the


normal process. Unless the government get things right the


first time every time, the has to be this kind of process. These are


reasonable amendments. This is a Labour amendment we are talking


about here, you want a vote in the UK Parliament before any


vote in the European Parliament if and when the Brexit deal is done,


the Commons and the Lords get to vote on it first. But the government


I think have already agreed to that so what is the point? It needs to be


on the face of the bill. It is over well if the government have agreed


it. Lord dubs had an agreement about child and look what happened to


that. Does not sound as if you would go to the wire on that? It is


important it is not just about the vote at the end, you have the


ongoing engagement. If it is going to be a bad deal, we need to know


long before we get to that stage? Is it something you would hold out for?


I don't know yet. It is about how the House of Lords votes, Labour do


not have a majority, we never had a majority in the House of Lords when


we were in government. It is wrong to suggest that we cannot debate


these issues... I don't think anyone is suggesting that. They are. It is


not unfair to ask the government to ask the House of Commons to look


again to look at those issues if that is what the House of Lords


decides. Bit of the House of Commons says we looked, we are sticking with


what we voted for, we rejected every amendment by at least 30 votes on


all occasions, the Lords then have to buckle, is that what you are


saying? Some point I think it is clear the House of Commons have to


have its say. I think it is inconceivable that having had a


referendum, which was not overwhelming, but it was a clear


result, the House of Lords has no intention of sabotaging that but


there are things which are not good about the process that we think


could be improved. We have not just have the result of the referendum


which voted to leave, but we have had the will of the Commons that


passed this legislation by a majority of 372. And I am not


contesting that for a second! Could you cite a precedent for the upper


house amending a bill which passed by 372 votes in the Commons? Quite


other things will come to the House of Lords with big majorities from


the Commons and quite often the amendments we get, with that then


forward and the government sees it could do better. Though not


necessarily saying the government has got things wrong, but they could


do things better. That happens time and time again and it is not


unusual. If you were seen to thwart the referendum result and the vote


in the Commons, the elected chamber of parliament, is the threat of


abolition hanging over you? I think that is really ridiculous and


absolute nonsense. We are not tying to what the decision of the House of


Commons, we are trying to do better. It is a bit rich of the government


and Oliver Letwin to complain about getting things through in time when


the House of Commons spent -- the government spent three months trying


to debate this issue. There have been some strong questions put to


the government from the House of Lords on all sides. I don't know if


the amendments have been passed or not. I think we have a good case for


the government to get debate the point. If a traditional MP like


Oliver Letwin is calling for the abolition of the hereditary and


appointed chamber, and the Labour person like yourself was trying to


defend that, that would not be a sustainable position, I would


suggest! We saw this with the Strathclyde report as well, this is


a government like no other. It is the first Conservative government in


history not to have an automatic majority. They do not like challenge


or scrutiny. But you get my point, Labour cannot go to the wire in


defending and an elected second chamber, can it? Actually, Labour


can go to the wire in saying the government does not get it right


every time. House of Lords is going to normal processes and people like


Oliver Letwin are really getting a little bit over excited, and people


who have been anonymously briefing. Who has been anonymously briefing? I


don't know, they are anonymous! I understand people want to make


amendments, that is the role of the House of Lords, but can I just for


the avoidance of doubt, is it still your case that whatever amendments


to make, whatever may go back and forward, it is not your intention to


stop Article 50 being triggered by the end of March? I have been saying


that, exactly that for months and months and months. It is


inconceivable that an unelected House will thwart the will of the


House of Commons and a referendum on this issue. But that does not mean


we will be bullied by Oliver Letwin and others. But the triggering will


happen by the end of March? I very much suspect so unless Theresa May


has second thoughts, I suspect that will happen. Thank you.


Now, just because it's parliamentary recess next week


There are two by-elections round the corner -


one in Copeland, and another in Stoke-on-Trent Central


where the former Shadow Education Secretary,


Tristram Hunt, vacated his seat to take up a role


as Director of the Victoria Albert Museum in London.


But Labour are facing a fight to hold onto the constituency


Seconds away, Ukip's new leader has stepped into the ring


as their candidate in a by-election bout to see


At the last election Ukip came second to Labour here


But now they are confident they can land a knockout blow,


because this place is packed with people that voted to leave the EU.


70% of people voted to leave the European Union.


I'm the only candidate standing in this election


who is a true Brexiteer, who has always campaigned to leave


the EU and therefore I believe I would be the best person


But he has had to fight off allegations


he wasn't living in the constituency when he entered the contest.


Explain to me what is going on with this issue about your house?


Well, we took up the lease the day before nominations.


Everything we've done is perfectly legal and within the law.


The Labour Party are trying to get off the real issues in this election


and focus on something which is banal nonsense.


And there's been trouble as well for the Labour contender.


He's been labelled a Remoaner after he sent a series


of anti-Brexit tweets, filled with words


I can't believe I'm about to ask this question in a nursery


on a Sunday morning TV programme, but did you really tweet that


I tweeted many things about Brexit, that's tweet is out there.


It was done quite after the referendum result and it


was my way of showing my frustration at the fact that months


after the result we hadn't had anything from the government.


Theresa May had failed to produce any plan,


she had failed to give any meaningful statement


about what Brexit meant other than bland statements


about Brexit is Brexit, and it's a hard Brexit, or a soft Brexit.


The context of it was it was out of frustration.


So you didn't mean to insult the 70% of the people who live here


I never mean to insult anybody and you know,


I've made it quite clear, if I'm elected as the member


of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central, I will absolutely respect


the wishes of the people of Stoke Central.


I will make sure my vote in parliament is to trigger Article 50.


While the Tories' man has done little bit of rebranding too.


I voted Remain and I've been open about that, but my top priority


is about the economy and to ensure we still have an


Theresa May has set out clear proposal to ensure we develop


a trade relationship with Europe and make that a success.


It means the Lib Dems and the Greens are the ones battling Brexit.


Well, when the Lib Dem candidate is actually here.


The candidate is a consultant cardiologist.


He is actually at work today doing very important heart surgery.


He will be back tomorrow, back on the campaign trail working hard.


30% of people voted to Remain and nobody else


is representing them, so, you know, it is still a live issue.


It is still something people care about.


We are only at the start of the Article 50 process


We are very a clear that we are standing up for those


who want to remain in the single market, who want to protect jobs


Labour have taken people for granted in this area for a great many years.


Ukip, I'm afraid, all Ukip can offer to politics is division.


I've covered a lot of by-elections where Ukip have come second.


We'll find out if they really got Labour on the ropes this


And here is a full list of all the candidates standing


in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election.


They do atract lots of candidates. You can get that on the BBC website


as well. I was trying to think back, here we have the main opposition


party defending two seats in by-elections in the midterm of a


government. All the speculation is where the


opposition party can hold on, that is unprecedented. I can't give of an


equivalent. You wouldn't just expect them to win seats they have held


traditionally, you would expect hem to make inroads into seats held by


the other party, I wonder if they fail to hold on to just one of


these, whether it accelerates the momentum and criticism of the


leadership of the moment. I think they are interesting constituencies.


Matthew good win was talking about the left win coalition over the


years, almost being too broad for its own good, including places like


Primrose Hill and Hackney. Big university towns in Manchester,


Bristol. Diverse ethnically and included places like Stoke which are


more Conservative. With a small c. Less economically well-off, more


diverse, can the left hang on to both bits of country. Recent


evidence suggests it cannot and the opportunity for Ukip is to pick up


the second of those two types of community, the Stokes and the cope


lands. That what makes the by-elections interest I would


suggest. It is not just about Mr Corbyn's future about which we hear


too much, it is about this traditional Labour coalition, can it


still survive, particularly in places like Stoke? Europe clearly is


a test. I think it's a myth by the way that Labour are only split now,


over Europe and it has always been a Tory problem, last time I was on I


mentioned it. That is why we had a referendum in 75. That is why they


had a round then. But they were in chaos behind the scenes over what


they thought about the euro, skillful leadership can paper over


the cracks, and to address the wider issue of whether we are now in an


era where left right issues have disappeared, and there is more of a


regional divide, if you take Europe out of the equation which you can't,


but if you were able to, issues about health, transport housing do


split more left-right than a regional divide, so I think there is


still fundamental left-right issues, but Europe isn't one of them and


Europe has to be managed by a Labour leader skill fully and evidently


that hasn't happened now. How would you see the by-elections in the


current political context? Labour should be walking them, it should be


a sign of the March of the Labour Party taking on the current


Conservative Government. I don't think they raise any questions about


Corbyn's leadership because the people who put him in don't think


that winning elections matter, you have to remember this will be the


mainstream media, it will be our fault why any of those Labour


candidates don't win, the thing that is interesting is whether there is


is a role for Ukip. The argument after the referendum was Ukip has


done its job, it got the referendum, nothing to see here, I remember


speaking to put a Nuttall before he was Ukip leader, on the day after


the battle and he said this is Year Zero, where Ukip starts now, and


this, and this is the interesting thing, does, do we see this one


particular party having a role in the future? And I think it is all to


play for, they could not not have stood in this seat. They have to win


it to be an electoral force. The Labour candidate in Copeland has


made the NHS the issue for her in this, that goes into the left-right,


are we spending enough, are we not? That will be a test of what you were


saying to see if traditional left-right issue, which at the


moment would play Labour's way I would suggest, are big enough to


overcome all the things you have been talking about and Matthew has


been talking about. Maybe at this particular junction they are not,


but I don't think any of those issues will go away, and that is why


I question whether we are see the end of a historic left-right divide.


At the moment with Europe so prominent, clearly these


by-elections are unusual. And they will be a test of leadership for


Theresa May in the coming months if not at the moment, as they have been


in a way that he hasn't risen to, for the Labour leader.


We will be leave on BBC One on the night, February 23rd off back of


this week, we will bring you the result of both these crucial


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead.


First though, the Sunday Politics where you are.


This week, two of the most pressing issues currently facing the capital.


Fist, that acute shortage of housing, then a little


As the mayor begins to set out a number of initiatives to tackle


it, we look at what lessons can be learned from Paris.


Here with us this week, Paul Scully, Conservative MP


for Sutton and Cheam, and Dawn Butler, Labour


I just want to ask them one thing quickly about this


issue of social care, which is rising rapidly up


If Surrey County Council were prepared, Paul,


to withdraw their threat of 15% council tax rise for social care,


there must have been something they were offered by Government.


Are you going to be asking for something similar?


It's interesting that, you know, Surrey County Council,


they put up the 15% to a referendum, which from what I was hearing


they were clearly going to lose, and they can approach the Government


to at least acknowledge the fact it's a problem,


which they've done - cute lobbying frankly.


But what we have done in Sutton, our local council has just


passed a motion to say, well, we're not going to ask for any


more money, we're not going to change anything but we're


going to get our MPs to write a letter, which we've


already done any way, because we do want to be involved


in that conversation, because adult social care


is a hugely important issue to tackle.


Well, Brent wants Nick's number, so we can all get


To be fair, people could always vote Conservative next year.


Having a sweetheart deal isn't good enough.


Having numbers you can say, well, actually you don't have do


the referendum because we're going to sort it out.


Liverpool next door, tried to get a meeting


with the Government, at least four times, possibly more.


Liverpool tried to get a deal and they weren't


I would love to have a deal in Brent, we are short,


There is no sweetheart deal, but David Hodge has been


a senior person in the LGA, he knows how local Government works


and he will be making approaches all council leaders should


It may be I reckon many people are saying we won't see


the signs this year, but may be in subsequent years


we have to remember this and look and see what the settlements


are in future years, but we must move on.


In the Government's housing White Paper this week


were some potential remedies, no building to rent,


more pressure on developers and planners to get construction


moving faster, encouraging greater density in housing


We'll explore how far this could address the acute shortage


in the capital in just a moment, after this.


The housing market is broken, because we haven't


So says the Government's new housing White Paper.


It announces a raft of new policies to get more houses built.


All councils will be pressured to release more land


The Government says many councils haven't come up with adequate plans


Pointing to London as one of the least dense cities in western


Europe, new planning regulations will encourage developers


to pack in more homes, and also to deter low-density


housing, Londoners on incomes below ?90,000 will be entitled to buy


new starter homes at a discount of 20%, up to the value


There is also a particular emphasis on renters,


with letting agent fees to be banned.


The Government says housing policy shouldn't just be about those


We have to accept there are some people who won't be able


to own and others who will in time, but they will have


If as a government you want to have something to say to everybody,


you have got to have policies that both help people that want to own,


but also help people that are having to rent.


The housing market may well be broken, will these measures


Well, let's talk about that with James Murray,


deputy mayor for housing, and Campbell Robb, chief executive


What did you get from this White Paper, what did


It certainly signified a very big shift in Government thinking,


about where housing policy should go.


And that is very welcome in the sense that finally,


policy might start to catch up with the reality of many people's


lives who are living in the private rented sector.


For too long, successive Governments have focussed entirely on policy


That has become just a pipe dream for so many people,


particularly in London, so that is a good and welcome shift.


I think we would like to see a lot more how that is going to happen,


how that is going to be affordable, what type of rented homes


are going to be built and how they will make that happen.


In terms of a shift of view, I think that is a welcome start.


Always, I'm afraid, and that's about the poorest in society.


40% of the poorest Londoners live in the private rented sector


and this immediately won't make that much difference to their lives.


It's how we really begin to see those people who are really not just


managing, slipping into some very difficult circumstances -


rent is one of the biggest things that affects them and we need


to really get this motoring and get councils and the mayor


really working together, because otherwise, with food


and prices going up, and wages may or may not go up,


we will see a lot of people tipping into more trouble,


and that's what this housing bill needs to begin to tackle.


Why wasn't it saying, this White Paper, why wasn't it


We have seen the emphasis on affordability, though.


It is, and I think the challenge is back to politicians


round the table to make a case for how all of you really begin


to think about some of the poorest constituents in your area.


So you are not going to benefit at this stage from the terrible


rents that they paying, and the landlords.


The Government has done other things to make the conditions better,


but I really believe if we don't really begin to look at some


of the work they are doing in London on living rents and those


We need to begin to control the cost, but we also need


to look at the other side, we need to make sure people


are getting a decent wage, that the cost of other goods doesn't


So it's a whole lot of things we need to see.


So James Murray, as you start to feel your way with the mayor,


to coming up with a strategy that deals with London going forward,


what did this change for you, or what is different for you now,


I think we welcome the White Paper, you know, it shows us pointing


It shows the direction we are moving in now recognises that we need


different sorts of homes for different people, in London,


and I think what Londoners have seen is the benefit of having a mayor


and his team at City Hall, who work closely with Government,


Are you saying that because of its focus on rent?


You think there is a clear shift to the rent?


I think there is a lot of different shifts.


There is a lot of practical measures in the bill,


in the White Paper which show a slightly different emphasis,


and we are pointing in a better direction.


The proposals there which we can discuss


It was encouraging for us to hear Gavin Barwell say,


on the day the White Paper came out, that he is looking to do a bespoke


deal with us about greater devolution to London over housing


power, which means it gives us the opportunity to make sure


we have the tools we need in London to build the homes


Dawn Butler, as a Labour MP in somewhere like Brent,


I don't feel that confidence because this Government has made


so many announcements around housing, you know, over 1,000


announcement since 2010 around housing, yet still nothing


I agree the White Paper kind of signifies it is going


in the right direction, but ultimately, you know,


we need to build more homes, but they have


In Brent, houses are going for ?720,000.


130% more than the average wage, so what we need is more affordable


homes, they need to be built and we need more social housing.


This Government's ideologically committed to not building social


housing and trying to move everybody out and away from their families


and from the areas of work, like doctors and nurses


Two points, because it is Campbell's as well, there is a shift perhaps


away from ownership, and do you welcome that,


or are you absolutely wedded to the old Thatcherite


But also it is still not addressing right down at the bottom end


of the market that social, what affordable rents means


now is something pretty close to market rent.


I think in terms of the first question, I think Campbell was right


when he said this is a very rounded White Paper, looking at a range of,


I think this links in with the need for different types of private


solutions, in terms of intermediate housing, shared living,


and these kind of projects that are already happening,


But one thing that really stuck out, if you are talking


about a lot of affordability, whether it is ownership or rent,


ultimately the starting point is about building more houses,


and the thing that stuck out in the White Paper for me,


as a former councillor, was the ability for local councils


to push developers to use the planning permission


I haven't been a councillor for seven years, but there's


still developments that I was on the committee giving


planning permission for that are still sitting on a bit of paper.


You are happy this White Paper, signals it is going to be more


affordable housing for the people of your area?


If you look at the completions that have happened over


the last year under Boris, not the planning permission


by the completion, there are already a significant amount of those,


There were supposed to be 200,000 new houses built.


As I say, 38% of actual completion, but we absolutely need more,


and I think this is the start of a conversation.


That is the point about a White Paper, it is not a policy,


it's a conversation, it's consultation now


we need to get stuck into, make it not just a bit of paper,


I want to ask James Murray, what does this mean in terms


of you shifting how much or the kind of housing you will be providing


here, how much are you going to go for in terms of ownership,


how much is going to be London living rent, a third


If you look at the deal which we did with Government last November


in the Autumn Statement, where we secured ?33.15 billion,


A record for a Conservative Government.


Yes, and I think that shows you know, Londoners


have seen the benefit of when you have the mayor


and his team in City Hall working with Government to try and get


Or a Conservative Government that realises there is a problem


and spends that money, whoever is in City Hall.


The truth is everyone in London knows there


is a housing crisis, and you know, as we are working


One simple question now, say you have your affordable housing,


you have promised it is going to be, half of all the new housing


you build is affordable, of that affordable chunk,


how much will be a third of average wages in the area?


What we set out clearly on the 90,000 homes,


I can give you a precise answer on that one.


So the 90,000 homes we agreed with Government, putting


?3.15 billion towards that, around two thirds of them


are going to be for shared ownership or London living rent,


and the other third will be affordable homes to rent.


So how much will be the London living rent, that element?


That will be within the two thirds, so the 60,000.


How much of it, because that is key one that


How much are you going to be helping them?


The ones that will help people on the lowest incomes


So those which are affordable rent or social rent,


those are the ones that are helping people on the lowest incomes,


which is a question that has been brought up today.


I am nodding in the hope that everyone around this


table recognises that, and I hope it's a genuinely


consultation, because I think there is still a gap within this


White Paper about what happens to the poorest people in society,


going forward or right now, in terms of what they can


afford to rent and what they can afford to buy.


And I really think that we hope and we have lots of solutions


and proposals we will bring to Government, for London as well,


particularly because we have to recognise it is harder in London,


it is tougher, there is more need, but I think this is a really good


opportunity for everyone to sit down and say come on, let's put ideology


away from this and get on with getting some proper housing


Can I ask one thing, check one last thing,


do you agree and do you accept this is a shift away from ownership,


and thus we've been a little bit preoccupied with ownership,


allowing right to buy or putting the money into shared ownership,


There is nothing wrong with, to meet people's aspirations


to own their own home, but Campbell is absolutely right


when he started off, you know, talking about the fact we are living


in London, and it is a particular peculiarly broken market,


I'm an out of London MP and the challenges there are getting


just as tough as parts of inner London, I have a son


that is renting and we have all got the same pressures.


Thanks for you to two for coming, good to see you.


Sadiq Khan is calling for the Government to help scrap


diesel vehicles with a generous package of compensation


It would cost a tidy half a billion pounds in London alone.


The mayor claims he has the boldest plans of any city in the world


to tackle air pollution, but this report suggests it


doesn't compare to what is being done in Paris.


Not always known for being the calmest of experiences.


But getting in a car in the French capital might soon be


Take the ten lane Champs Elysees, which last Sunday you would


Once a month, all vehicles are banned and buskers


So, other than giving people a chance to boost their social


media profile, what, you may ask, is the point?


Well, the mayor of Paris is trying to say something very simple.


If this, the Champs Elysees, one of the most famous


streets in all the world, doesn't belong to the motor car,


The mayor of Paris has even said she eventually wants to see


the middle of the City out-of-bounds for every car, all the time.


With exceptions for residents, deliveries and emergency services.


The city of Paris has decided to fight the pollution in the air,


and she's doing a lot of things, many, many different projects,


but one of them is to bring the most important streets to the users


No driver has been allowed up the left or right banks


All of which starts to post big questions about how much Sadiq Khan


is doing to fight air pollution in London.


Now the mayor likes to say that London under him has the toughest


anti-air pollution measures of any major city in the world.


But, in fact, you only have to get a two-and-a-half hour train ride


from St Pancras to find our nearest major rival is doing


Both London and Paris have very similar problems with the air


quality readings you get from monitoring stations.


It means on a bad day, both cities are capable of having


the highest readings anywhere in the world, including big


In London, the mayor issues a warning but Paris


Every car now has a number, according to how polluting it is.


On the wrong day with the wrong sticker,


Paris's deputy mayor for transport told us it a system they copied


from the Germans and he thinks London will follow suit.


TRANSLATION: Berlin has shown a significant reduction


in polluting emissions, and air quality there has


There is no reason why applying this system in Paris should not


This is why we chose to pursue this path and believe


Now the mayor of Paris wants to go even further than that.


From 2020, people driving diesel cars will be banned from Paris,


The most he wants to do is introduce a charge so people can


still drive air polluting cars, but they have to pay a little extra


And in France, 60% of cars are diesel, meaning over half


of the motor cars on the road are set to be banned entirely.


As you might have guessed, it is not universally popular.


Please, don't do the same thing in London.


Think about all the drivers in their cars today.


So perhaps the real question for London is not whether Paris


is doing more to crack down than we are, but if any


of what they are doing we should be copying.


Val Shawcross is here, deputy mayor for transport.


For whatever reason the explanation might be, do you accept


that Paris is bolder, bigger, bolder, better?


No, I think they have communicated a very bold vision, which is great.


I don't think the practical steps are behind it.


I don't think the science is as strong as what we have


For example, in London, if we have pursue the programme


we are going through, by 2020 we will have


reduced the air pollution in London by at least half.


That is the date at which they are talking about doing a diesel ban


in a small area of Paris, so, you know, the programme we have


got is a very practical one and very deliverable,


and I am very confident what we will do is make


But how come, if they say they are banning all diesel vehicles


by 2020, and you're not, but charging - it will be the T


charge, ?10 or whatever it is - how come that is bolder than Paris?


Well, you know, we do actually have to go through a transition,


because we don't have the powers to ban diesel by the way,


but if we did, you would find there would be a rush


In all of this we have to balance a couple of things.


One is we don't want to increase carbon dioxide emissions,


The other thing is you have to bear in mind the entire


London, you know, the practical things that London needs to run


around usually are diesel, so what we want is to make sure


we put enough pressure on enough carrots and sticks to make sure


we transform the vehicles running around London to much cleaner


Putting money where mouth is, the mayor of Paris does put ?500


or offers ?500 as that scrappage compensation for people


You are not doing that, you are just asking the Government for it.


We have put some money into a scrappage scheme


You are in effect saying you are not going to do much.


No, and we have also, we are going through a programme


which has been announced of cleaning up every bus in London.


So by 2020, all of the buses - and a huge fleet it is in London -


will be Euro Six standard, so we have a very practical


programme that we are going through, it is legal and it has a very


But no more money will come from the mayor in terms


of private vehicles, getting us to get rid of our cars.


We have asked the Government to help us with that.


I know, but I am talking about the mayor's money.


But the Government could find the money if -


at the moment there is a fiscal incentive to people to buy diesel,


which we think is completely wrong and outdated.


If they remove that incentive and put it into a scrappage scheme,


OK, one more, pedestrianisation, well advanced in Paris,


Stickers, keeping cars out on polluted days,


We are working on a big programme, as you know, with Westminster


to look at what we can do with Oxford Street, and that is


We have got a big healthy streets programme which has been funded


in the business plan for more pedestrian and walking facilities,


So we do have some complementary measures we are putting in over


the next few years that will support this whose programme.


Are you disappointed that Paris appears to be bolder than London,


I am not disappointed, in that I know that the mayor has


some funding for instance that we will be


Some of my schools are adjacent to the north circular road


for example, and the pollution is so high, nine out of ten


in the readings, so that I am going to be applying,


with the schools, to make sure we can pull down some of these


fundings for innovative ways of combatting the pollution


I think we have to push ahead with the diesel scrappage scheme


I think the mayor and the Government has a role to play...


At a cost of ?500 million, which he said this week,


asking the Government, don't you think it's something


It has to come out of general taxation,


Yes, I think Val said that you do need to have a transition period


on this, because what I would like to see is the move


from the fiscal benefits of buying diesel as happened in the early


2000s, allowing people to move not just from a diesel car,


but hopefully to electric cars, and things like that,


I saw Blue Point London the other day and they have some really good


pioneering plans to put in more charge points,


because you have to have - if you are going to get


rid of one car you have to have an environmentally-friendly


There is no point scrapping it for the sake of scrapping it.


Are you saying that what Paris is saying is exaggerated


because they are talking a much smaller area?


Or can you name me one area where you think


currently London is bolder, further ahead than Paris?


We will be starting the T charge, the toxicity charge,


So the pre-2006 vehicles, the objective is this October,


so that is going to be very very important.


I think there is another thing about the stickers, you know.


The congestion charge, which is the technology we'll


be using in October, that the camera based technology


picks up 98% of offenders, whereas if you are using a sticker


scheme, you have to have traffic wardens, so we will have tight


We look forward to this competition continuing.


Val Shawcross, thank you very much indeed.


After the excitement and late nights in the Commons last week,


MPs are having a little break this week as we head into


But there's still plenty in the diary in the near future -


let's just remind ourselves of some key upcoming dates.


There they are. We have the two by-elections on February 23rd. The


budget is 8th March. That will be the last spring budget under this


Government because it moves to the autumn.


That round of French elections narrows the candidates, probably


about eight or nine, down to two, the two who come first and second,


then go into a play off round on May 7th. That will determine the next


President. Steve, listening to Oliver Letwin and to the Labour


leader in the House of Lords, is there any way you think that end of


March deadline for Mrs May could be in jeopardy? No, I don't. Andrew


Smith couldn't have been clearer with you they would do nothing to


block not just Article 50 but that timetable, so I would be surprised


if they don't make it. Given her, Theresa May's explicit determination


to do so, not to do so would have become a problem for her, I think


one way or another... No before this vote last week there was a vote nor


the deadline, to agree the deadline by all sides. Plain sailing do you


think? There is no serious Parliamentary resistance and it


would be a personal embarrassment, I think for the Prime Minister to name


the the end of March as the deadline and to miss it, unless she has a


good excuse. I I reckon it will change the atmosphere of politics


for the next two years, as soon as the negotiations begin, people in


our profession will hunt for any detail and inside information we can


find, thing also be leaked, I think from the European side from time to


time, it will dominate the headlines for a solid two years and change


politics. Let me just raise a possible, a dark cloud. No bigger


than man's hand, that can complicate the timetable, because the Royal


Assent on the current timetable has to come round the 13th. I would


suggest that the Prime Minister can't trigger that until she does


get the Royal Assent. If there is a bit of ping-pong that could delay


that by receive day, the last thing the Europeans would want, they have


another big meeting at the end of March which is the 60th anniversary


of the Treaty of Rome. They don't want Article 50 to land on the


table... It would infuriate everybody. My guess is she will have


done it by then, this is between the Commons and the Lords, I mean Andrew


Smith couldn't have been clearer, that they might send something back


but they didn't expect a kind of a long play over this, so. The Liberal


Democrats, they are almost an irrelevance in the Commons but not


the Lords, they feel differently. Now, we don't know yet what the


European Union negotiating position is going to be, we don't know


because there are several crucial elections taking place, the Dutch


taking place in March and then the one we put up, the French, and, at


the moment, the French one is, it seems like it is coming down, to a


play-off in the second round between Madame Le Pen who could come first


in the first round and this Blairite figure, independent, centre-leftish


Mr Macron, he may well get through and that, and the outcome of that


will be an important determine napt on our negotiations. -- determinant.


You o couldn't have two more different candidate, you have a


national a front candidate and on the other hand the closest thing


France could have you to a liberal President. With a small l. A


reformist liberal President. It would be the most French thing in


the world to elect someone who while the rest of the world is elected


elitist, to elect someone who is the son of a teacher, who has liberal


views, is a member of the French elite. It would be a thing for them


to elect a man like that which I why I see them doing it. If it is Le


Pen, Brexit becomes a minor sideshow, if it is Le Pen, the


future of the European Union is? Danger, regardless of whether we are


were in or out. I suggest if it is Mr Macron that presents some


problems. He doesn't have his own party. He won't have a majority in


the French assembly, he is untried and untested. He wants to do a


number of things that will be unpopular which is why a number of


people close to Mrs Le Pen tell me that she has her eye on 2022. She


thinks lit go to hell in a hand basket under Mr Macron. He hasn't


got the experience. What I find fascinating. It is not just all to


play for in France, it is the fact what happens in France and Germany,


not so much Holland I think but Germany later on in the year, how


much it impacts what we are going to get. How much which ex #i78 panting


on them. And at the time we are trying to, withdrawing ourself from


European politics it is fascinating how much it will affect us. You see


what Matthew was talking about earlier in the show, that what we do


know, almost for sure, is that the socialist candidate will not get


through to the second round. He could come firth but the


centre-right candidate. If we were discussing that monthing a we would


say it between teen the centre-right and the national fronts. We are to


saying that. Matthew good win who spent a time in France isn't sure Le


Pen will get into the second round, which is interesting. It is, I mean,


it is going to be as important for the future of the European Union, as


in retrospect the British 2015 general election was, if Labour had


got in there would have been no referendum. That referendum has


transformed the European Union because we are leaving and the


French election is significant. We will be live from Paris on April


23rd on the day France goings to the first round of polls. Tom Watson, he


was on The Andrew Marr Show earlier today, was asked about Mr Corbyn,


this is what he had to say. We had a damaging second leadership


election, so we've got The polls aren't great for us,


but I'm determined now we've got the leadership settled for this


parliament, that we can focus on developing a very positive clear


message to the British people So Julia, I don't know who are you


are giggling. I find it untenable that, he is a very good media


performer and he comes on and he is sitting there so well, you know,


things are bad but don't worry we are looking at what we can do to win


2020. The idea that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown were sitting in their


offices or on TV screens at this time in the electoral cycle thinking


well I wonder if we can come up with a policy the British people might


like. It is a nonsense, this is Tuesday night book zlufb. I am going


to ask you the question I was going to before. I would suggest that he


the right. The deputy Labour leader Tom Watson is violent the leadership


is settled, with one caveat, unless the Corbynistas themselves to decide


to move on Mr Corbyn, if the left of the Labour Party decides then it is


not settled. Settled. If that doesn't happen that is That would be


the worst situation if you are a Labour moderate. The Corbynistas


would be saying the problem is no Corbynism, it is Corbyn himself, if


we a younger person leading the process we can win the next general


election, which means you have another itration of this, another


five year experiment. And that is worst of all. If you are a Labour


moderate, what you want is Jeremy Corbyn contest the next general


election, possibly loses badly and then a Labour not moderate runs for


the leadership saying we have tried your way, the worst would be Corbyn


going, and a younger seven version of him trying and the experiment


being extended. I see no easy way out of this. That is why he radiated


the enthusiasm of someone in a hostage video in that interview.


Maybe he has the Stockholm Syndrome now. The Labour moderates have had


their day in the sun, two days in the sun and they lost. I suggest


they are not going to try for the hat-trick again. Is there any


indication that on the more Corbyn wing of the Labour Party, there is


now doubts about their man. Yes, just to translate Tom Watson, what


he meant was I Tom Watson am not going to get involved in another


attempted coup. I tried it and it was a catastrophe. That is question


enhe says it is set selled. It is because there is speculation on a


daily basis. I disagree, Julia said I think this lot don't care about


winning, I think they do. If the current position continue, one of


two things will happen. Either Jeremy Corbyn will decide himself


will decide he doesn't want to carry on. He half enjoys I it and half


hates it. Finds it a strain. If that doesn't happen there will be some


people round him who will say, look, this isn't working. There is another


three-and-a-half years. There is a long way to go. I can't see it


lasting in this way with politics in a state of flux, Tories will be


under pressure in the coming two years, to have opinion polls at this


level, I think is unsustainable. Final thought from you.? Yes, the


idea it St another three-and-a-half years is just madness, but the


people we are putting up at replacement for Jeremy Corbyn, and


they have been focus grouping them. Most members wouldn't know who most


of people were let alone most of the public.


Angela rain? They are not overwhelmed with leadership


potential at the moment. Very diplomatically put. Neither are the


Tories, but they happened to have one at the moment. All right. That


is it. Now, there's no Daily


or Sunday Politics for the next week But the Daily Politics will be back


on Monday 20th February and I'll be back here with the Sunday Politics


on the 26th. Remember if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics... Just back from


a very long shift at work...


Andrew Neil and Tim Donovan present the latest political news, interviews and debate and are joined by shadow leader of the House of Lords Baroness Smith and Conservative Oliver Letwin. The political panellists are Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times, Julia Hartley-Brewer from talkRADIO and journalist Steve Richards.