12/02/2017 Sunday Politics London

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...