05/03/2017 Sunday Politics London

It's Sunday Morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree

in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".

But will there be more money for social care and to ease

The UK terror threat is currently severe,

but where is that threat coming from?

We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every

Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.

What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?

The government was defeated in the Lords on its

We'll ask the Leader of the House of Commons what he'll do if peers

In London this week a shake-up in education funding could lead

to 70% of schools losing money in the capital.

All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.

Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed

to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.

Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,

so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial

statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget

for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn

There's been pressure on him to find more money

for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,

But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be

using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark

What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed

quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on

Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I

do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it

He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his

statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement

rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November

he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect

that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will

be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my

view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care

policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has

got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the

politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but

it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry

on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.

But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has

been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump

priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to

make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of

concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of

this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what

message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some

senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil

Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is

instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively

slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not

want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it

sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may

see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room

to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we

now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half

months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may

take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to

do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory

backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.

He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just

social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old

people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words

this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra

30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth

was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might

go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think

Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its

wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might

have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up

Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you

like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in

the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural

deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better

than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest

of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He

clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is

interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary

for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original

George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the

limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is

beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he

plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot

of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will

end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the

budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated

last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that

will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove

the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from

the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make

a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU

nationals living here. If the worst happened,

are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,

who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,

giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,

"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not

going to say that. So, why not end the

uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate

which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's

what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously

agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral

decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think

that is the right and fair thing to do.

And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader

of the House of Commons, David Lidington.

Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the

Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU

nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was

my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have

always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it

does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that

the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating

with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens

here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December

European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.

That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the

view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has

been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and

national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the

start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now

got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make

the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the

UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are

you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that

goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of

access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...

But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got

to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1

million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,

it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the

short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British

citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the

hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will

be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely

extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British

citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies

getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to

something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries

might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you

frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the

past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up

that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue

that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be

a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of

this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the

British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not

come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in

London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that

we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the

British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a

reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not

possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if

there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU

nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and

face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.

We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have

been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for

permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about

whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health

care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is

the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home

Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a

vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament

voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British

Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and

others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working

hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They

were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,

more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the

issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the

Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this

month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely

hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable

constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of

commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an

unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at

the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that

sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It

is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the

end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments

will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at

the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you

understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is

going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean

by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on

the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to

consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given

a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have

negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what

you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to

vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem

with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the

PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27

were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take

fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of

the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be

much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial

deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament

is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,

that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is

straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the

recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is

irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying

very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I

think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I

hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to

insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and

negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate

on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you

said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal

with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your

mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as

you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms

of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term

trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,

what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago

you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big

difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the

other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort

this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship

between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and

those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive

challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that

was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,

David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had

sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,

which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,

analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences

committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,

thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn

from those offences? For the police and the intelligence

agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think

tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge

new report which analyses every Islamism related attack

and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases

involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive

as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really

important to have an evidence base from which you draw

policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,

this the facts. This chart shows the number

of cases each year combined with a small number

of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle

of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings

in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,

before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted

for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers

started counting. What we are seeing is a combination

of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,

we know that from the security services and police statements,

but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms

of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have

facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,

documents, money. About 18% of people

were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related

to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted

of planning attacks, although the methods have

changed over time. Five or six years ago,

we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most

of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,

that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online

magazine that had specific More recently we have seen

Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife

beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have

seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her

husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received

an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing

number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence

although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out

by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,

a report says the vast Most have their home in London,

around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,

particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another

hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth

and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were

60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were

16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,

he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting

is how different each story is in many ways,

but then within those differences So your angry young men,

in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience

abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,

the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within

this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds

and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those

convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities

because they had a previous criminal record, they had

made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them

under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this

report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,

Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen

from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated

Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist

terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated

communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the

wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I

think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very

recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was

that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their

neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many

participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad

thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population

is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would

prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason

they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but

often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you

would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more

diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to

that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the

challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this

pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young

Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is

the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB

attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say

to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to

counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent

strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The

report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people

being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those

convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing

to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of

work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the

earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course

subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the

Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but

there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were

once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough

to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.

We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The

Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on

is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community

must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share

ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim

communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it

all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?

Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has

moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with

that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't

bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the

brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other

organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of

Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous

unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these

numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our

intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over

80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police

have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on

the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also

changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,

get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big

spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised

people, two or three people get together, do something together,

very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where

intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police

say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that

kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried

about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist

route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been

consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone

has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they

should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called

caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about

fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into

three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic

State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the

dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great

reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there

should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all

those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them

alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is

difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a

watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?

This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and

our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the

government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is

our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at

the border has improved. An important question. Given your

experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a

medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.

It started when I was security minister and it has been taken

seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the

Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to

take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it

Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,

but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still

Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have

been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.

Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility

said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current

It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.

On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce

that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.

Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level

of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,

coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest

So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day

government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over

But capital spending, investment on infrastructure

like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,

producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.

The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets

while finding some more money for areas under serious

pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.

We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR

predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn

Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It

is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England

has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a

growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a

year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next

year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or

four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the

OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement

three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other

forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as

everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its

growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.

It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial

year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like

that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared

to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic

policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.

That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so

close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere

between the budget and the Autumn Statement numbers. There was a nice

surprise for the Chancellor last month which looked like tax revenues

were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real

question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is

this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If

growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good

news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in

the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It

probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible

outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things

look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will

still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase

his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a

couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion

more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite

constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.

That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and

is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as

you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic

reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some

headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending

cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things

have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in

the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the

Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is

hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of

income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for

ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has

reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for

him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax

burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its

highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through

straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of

insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and

that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,

but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole

and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase

fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really

keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the

next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has

had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being

with us. 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 twenty

minutes, the Week Ahead. First though, the Sunday

Politics where you are. This week, London schools get

the best results in the country. A little later on today we will be

looking at the shake-up of the way schools are funded which is set

to see 70% of them in With me this week is Labour MP

for Hammersmith, Andy Slaughter, and the Conservative MP

for Twickenham, Tanya Mattias. Let's kick off by asking

about the budget on Wednesday. One thing, what would

you desperately like to I would like to see the government

come up with some solution to the crisis in our national health

and social care system. That is what my constituents

are saying to me is We have got cuts going through,

we have got hospital closures, beds being taken out of service,

we've got waiting lists, we've got people dying and we need

an investment in the NHS. We need an assessment first

of all about the NHS's needs. Interesting, my priorities

as Andy will know would be I've got some cross-party support,

some from your party as well I don't know that it

will come next week, but that is where I want things

to move towards. I also want protection,

as everybody does, for education, business rates, conditional relief

and Crossrail for London. Schools in a moment, but interesting

on the social care thing. There is a momentum growing here

and it is cross-party, isn't it? That means there will be

pressure on the Chancellor. What I want is not just sticking

plaster, I want a longer term strategy and I think

there is a feeling in the Commons of what I call not making it

a political football, having a strategy that

will go on for decades. There are some good practices

as we know, but everybody And that is what I want,

I want the budget to show that. Let's go onto another

one of your asks. Let's look at the issue

of schools funding. There is a shake-up of the way

schools are being funded under way and some say it could mean 70%

of schools in London lose money. The capital has been the best

funded and got the best results in recent years,

but what will happen now? The first school to be shut down

because it is judged to be failing 20 years ago, London schools

were some of Britain's worst. With the vast majority of kids even

without five good GCSEs. We came to the conclusion

that the boys attending Hackney Downs School were not

getting the quality of education they deserved and they would do

better to go elsewhere. But big investment and radical

reform in the way schools were run has helped transform education

in the capital into Today London schools

are completely transformed. They are simply the best

in the country with 80% of schools being rated either good

or outstanding by Ofsted. But could that all be

about to change? 70% of London schools are set

to lose money thanks to a shake-up That is more than any

other region in the UK. According to London councils,

schools in the capital will have to make ?360 million worth

of savings in the first year The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson

School in Islington is one of the country's top 5%

for attainment, but for how long? Each pupil here is set to lose

around ?650 in funding. The headteacher, Joe Dibb,

says there is no way you can lose that amount of cash

without education suffering. What we would have to look

at is, for example, do Do we make sure that

every teacher is teaching That will mean that they have got

less individual attention, they have got fewer resources

to actually use. We would need to think about every

subject we offer and whether in fact we could afford to run a music class

if there were only All sorts of things that are outside

the learning day by day in a classroom would have to go

and that would be reducing schools At the moment kids here get around

?7,000 a year each in funding. Like many London schools

that is well above the national average which is why the government

is changing it. What we need to do is make sure that

all schools have a fair funding. You have pointed out just

what this school is getting. I don't know the school

myself, but what I do know is that it is important

to have a fairer funding system We have not had a funding

formula for about 15 years. The amount that different local

authorities and schools get is largely based on how they looked

in the year 2000 and at the moment there is relatively

out-of-date information. By some measures the schools

with the highest funding in the country are in east

London's Tower Hamlets, but according to the local Mayor,

John Biggs, there is a very good We have the highest level of child

poverty of any local authority in the country and we have very high

costs as well, so to build a home in Tower Hamlets costs more

than anywhere else in the country. To retain staff requires us to pay

extra premiums on the wages, and we have higher incidences

of special education needs and kids in poverty who might have

challenging lifestyles But more than just the money

what will worry many parents is the threat of standards

in schools slipping back We asked for a minister to be

in that film or to join us in the studio, but no

one was available. As we know, we have

Andy and Tania here. Tania, how is this funding

formula going to affect The funding formula,

as you know we have been giving The point is the pie as it were,

which is how the formula is dividing up that core budget

while it is protected. So while some boroughs may

have a small increase, I believe Andy in your area

it is slightly decreased, I know it is the rural MPs

who are saying the formula But for me it is the core budget

that needs to increase But in London in your

borough for instance, It is not because the increase

in liability is staff pensions, the National Insurance

contributions, have all increased and that is what I am

hearing from my schools, So regardless, one thing

is the formula which people can still contribute to and consult on,

we have got a few more weeks for that, but it is the core budget,

even though it is protected. All schools are still challenged

and that is the London challenge. Yes, there is this change

to the formula which is essentially taking money from poorer areas,

like in London. In London Hammersmith has 15% free

school meals and is losing the maximum it can and the money

is essentially going But a bigger problem,

as Tanya has said, is inflation rises are not happening across this

Parliament. The net effect over the five years

of this Parliament in inner London Schools budgets have been

going up for 40 years. Under a Labour government

they were going up by 5% in real terms a year and they haven't always

been at that level, but now they are having an actual real terms

cut and the most deprived areas And it is worse than that

even because come 2020, because they effectively have got

a flaw, you can only lose so much money, after that,

and some of my schools will be 30% over-budget according

to the government, they will get no What teachers appear to be saying

is there will be maybe some impact on the curriculum,

there will be larger class sizes, but the figures involved,

we are talking 2% or 1%, they are figures they

will be able to manage. We are not looking at vast numbers

of staff being laid off. Nobody is saying that,

and the immediate issue we are debating and consulting

on, I urge viewers to go to the Department

for Education website and give them that is about this very unfair

redistribution of money from poor We hear the ISS saying that

formula is 15 years old, we have got to find a new way

and what the existing situation perhaps underestimates is the kind

of level of poverty and deprivation London has had such a focus

on issues of deprivation, so much money and so much expertise,

perhaps disproportionately, I have got schools in my

constituency where more than two thirds of the kids

are on free school meals. There is nowhere like

that in the areas where It is a very cynical,

political trick to take money from Labour and give it

to Tory constituencies. But on top of that, all schools

are suffering because they are not You are nodding, do

you agree with that point? Outer London is

predominantly Conservative. it's not...it will be

taking from one school and giving to another,

but the point about the formula, and remember we have had a previous

consultation phase which the then Secretary of State for Education did

add the mobility factors which London needed and that has

been included in this next phase, so the details of the formula

are trying to address exactly what you are saying, are trying

to address those higher needs, so I would counter that,

and you did in your clip show MPs from other areas that have

suffered in the past. I know in the debates my borough

was cited as being unfairly advantaged in the old system

because they were using such out-of-date data and the schools

that have written to me, they do not question the need

for a fairer formula. When you are looking

at the formula and London, would it seem right that people

in an area that is widely accepted as being better off and with fewer

socio-economic problems, like Richmond and Twickenham,

that that area is getting increases in funding while you are taking

funding away from inner London boroughs were the results have been

good but where the need exists. I think every person who contributes

to that consultation is going to agree with Andy

and myself and the basis of this, it's per pupil,

but it does give weight to places Also remember the special

educational needs are protected That is what I said earlier,

it is not just this redistribution What we are being told

is you will still be getting too much money and you will not

for the foreseeable future get any inflationary

increases going beyond 2020 at all and that is despair

for parents, teachers and children. More analysis emerged this week

pointing out how Brexit could affect The focus, how to maintain a skilled

workforce in the face of future immigration controls and what impact

that could have on building vital London is growing, and it

needs to build more homes To do that, the city needs skilled

construction workers. Of the 350,000 workers

in the sector, 95,000 Post-Brexit, their right to work

in the UK is now up for negotiation. The deputy mayor for housing is

worried about meeting his targets. We have very challenging

targets to meet. We know it's going to be a marathon,

not a sprint, we know it's going to be hard to get

there and I think this really underscores the fact that a hard

Brexit would make that job The construction sector

is also worried. We want to deliver more homes,

we want to supply more homes, but frankly,

without the construction workers and with imports

becoming more expensive, Those skills from the EU might be

replaced by training Londoners, but that's not quite going to plan,

according to a new report from the business advocacy

group London First. In construction, you can see over

the last years we have available from 2012 to 2014,

the number of apprenticeships completed in London have actually

fallen from 730 to 500. This is a sector that is crying

out for skilled labour. So, what did the Minister

for Housing have to say when MPs If there is a mass

exodus, if you like, I don't really want to speculate

on that because I don't think that's what's going to happen,

and the Government is very clear that our objective, as soon as

we get the negotiations under way, is to secure the status quo

for British citizens in the EU He thinks an exodus is unlikely,

but it's worth pointing out the Prime Minister has so far

refused to give assurances about EU I'm joined by the Deputy Leader

of Ukip who is the also leader of the Ukip group at

the London Assembly, Peter Whittle. Welcome to you. How do you

anticipate how do you think, I'm in the construction sector is the one

we focused on, going to meet the needs of the economy with or without

EU workers? It has always been the position of my party that EU

citizens working here and settled here should absolutely stay. I think

this is very bad of the Government and Theresa May to basically put

people in that position where they are political pawns so we think

people should stay. In other words she loses her negotiating position.

I don't think you should use people in that way. We have never deviated

from that, that basically when Brexit comes people should be

allowed to stay, but I think the main problem really, particularly in

the construction industry, is that there is a massive skills gap. The

things that have been coming out of City Hall this week somehow or

another wants to kick this tin along the road. It says yes we do have a

skills gap, and we must look at that but for the time being we need these

workers. Basically London's population has grown by 25% in two

decades. If you bring more people into build houses, where will they

live? Probably they will end up living in appalling conditions as we

have often seen. So what are you arguing should happen? You are

saying the construction workers, the people settled here now, they should

stay but you know there is a natural churn and there are people who will

stay short term and go, you would put controls on that but all of the

indicators from business groups is that will lead to serious problems

in terms of the sector of construction if you do that. What

arrangements would you put in place to allow more to come in? The point

is here is that time and again we hear this, I go back to what I have

just said, we need to train people who are here. So you would say no

more, in other words? That might not necessarily be the case. We would

have a points system, so if you need certain skills, it you need certain

skills, that is the beauty of a points system but the Government

have not really said anything about how they plan to control migration.

Of course it was a points system that Labour introduced in terms of

the migration strategy, is that what you accept we would need now? I'm

genuinely confused by all of these Brexiteers jumping through hoops

about how we don't really mean it about these EU workers, of course we

want them to stay but when you ask for commitments, they are not

forthcoming. People are voting with their feet now because of the real

uncertainty. One in six people in my constituency comes from one of the

other 27 EU... And so every other weekend when I knock on doors that

is the number one issue and people are really scared, and

understandably they are not making that commitment of this country.

What are they worried about? Because if they have been here for a long

time there will be applying for residency. Come with me one weekend

and you will see the fear and concern and despair people have is

that they feel they are not wanted in this country any more, and can be

professional people in the tech industry, is construction workers.

Do you agree? The uncertainty needs to be resolved? Absolutely, like

Andy, it is upsetting when you have EU nationals, and I had a surgery

with one of our MEPs to reassure people, and they come from all

sectors, the care sector, science, creativity. These are all sectors

where we want EU nationals to continue to come and work here, it

is for our benefit, and the sadness is that the people I have met do

have the right to remain, but they are still concerned. And the ones

you want to encourage to come in the future, how would you do it? Is it a

work permit, a points-based system? Is there an argument for regional

London work permit system? I see it sector by sector, I'm happy for a

system where there is the ease of people coming in. We do have a

problem with science recruiting people from overseas who want to

make it simple and non-bureaucratic. It's the practicality I am more

concerned about. Now we are where we are, you are someone voted for

Remain, what do you want to see in place now? I do want to see more

people trained in this country but I have got a fantastic further

education college in my constituency that trains people very well in

construction skills, they are massively downsized because their

budgets have been cut. We will need migrant EU labour, a quarter of all

construction workers in London, and the other quarter from countries

around the world. I'm afraid listening to parties like Ukip has

created this climate of fear, now crying crocodile tears about it, it

is a disgrace quite frankly. You are in the wrong argument with the wrong

person. We have always said as a party... You are Ukip

representative, aren't you? You are responsible for this climate. This

country voted to leave the EU, you cannot come to terms with that, that

is why you are so angry. My party has always said people from the EU

who live and are settled here absolutely remain. We have never

deviated from that and if the Government chooses to basically

cause indecision and uncertainty for people, that is their fault and you

should be directing it at them. Secondly, the other point I would

make... Very quickly, wrap-up. The hypocrisy is extraordinary. The fact

is as well that sooner or later we have got to seriously start training

people here to do the jobs that at the moment we are bringing people in

to do. Thank you for coming in. Now for the rest of the political

news in 60 seconds. Delays in Government backing

for a new Thames crossing are damaging the UK economy,

according to the Federation They claim delays threaten to bring

the south-east to a standstill and the crossing was creaking under

the pressure of 50 million The trust behind plans

to build the Garden Bridge across the River Thames in London

has been cleared of any financial irregularities

by the Charity Commission. The commission found

the trust had sound financial processes and the award

of contracts was robust. Southwark Council has been fined

for breaching fire safety regulations after a tower block

blaze in 2009 killed three A ?400,000 fine was reduced to

?270,000 because the council pleaded I think it was fair,

taking into account, as the judge did, all the mitigating

factors that were put forward, and I think particularly our close

working relationship with London Fire Brigade

since this incident. Thought about a river crossing. We

have talked about funding for schools. We have got a Labour Mayor

and a Conservative government, do you think London will lose out in

the coming years and it will have to rebalance it to the rest of the

country? Interesting. Obviously I did not campaign for Sadiq Khan, but

I give him credit because as soon as he was elected, cross-party MPs

wrote to him over our concerns on Heathrow and air pollution. As

London Mayor he has led very well on that and I see him as a London

Mayor. I think he will fight the corner for London, we will fight the

corner as London MPs, and I see people working together. So it is

not party political. Everyone, Labour and Tory will get the best

for the capital. Maybe it has had too much? Sadiq Khan is doing an

excellent job, but I was astonished to hear Michael Gove saying he

wished he had not cancelled the schools building programme. We do

need Housing Bill in London and we need Crossrail as well. We will be

poring over the entrails of the budget next week. Thank you very

much indeed. So the Brexit Bill is back in

the Lords next week and the Lib Dems They've ordered pizza and camp beds

to encourage their peers to keep talking all night,

only to be told by the Lord's authorities that their plans fall

foul of health and safety laws. Laws that they probably voted for.

What did you make of David Liddington's remarks on the Lords

amendments, particularly not just the one on EU nationals, but on what

is regarded as a meaningful vote at the end of the process? Let's be

clear, as ministers like to say, the meaningful vote vote is by far the

biggest thing that will happen in Parliament. It puts EU citizens into

a tiny corner. It will decide not just who is going to have the final

say on this, but who the EU is negotiating with. Is it directly

with Theresa May or is it with Parliament? Who will decide the

shape of Brexit, Parliament or Theresa May? The Lords amendment is

just the first chapter. They have voiced Theresa May to give them a

veto on everything she does, and there is a possible chance in the

Commons could uphold this amendment. The meaningful vote amendment? The

meaningful vote amendment. But is it a meaningful vote if the choice is

to either back the deal or crash out of the deal? That is what the remain

supporting MPs or hardline people who want to remain fear. What they

want is the power to be able to send Theresa May back to the negotiating

table. Why is that anathema to many Brexit supporters? They believed it

would crucially and critically undermine Theresa May's negotiating

hand and also create a long period of uncertainty for business. There

is already great uncertainty and this could extend it. The

government's position is in there was a proper, meaningful vote which

Parliament could reject what was on offer, that would be an incentive to

the EU to give us a bad deal? I think that is the fear. If you are

saying to the people you are negotiating with that that is

another authority and Theresa May will have to go back and have all of

this approved, I think it would have a very significant undermining

effect on her negotiating hand. Things change from day to day. We

are talking about 2019 and 2018 at the earliest, but if the government

lost a vote on the Brexit deal, would he not have to call in someone

else? That is why the vote will be meaningful even if the amendment on

this meaningful vote will be lost. You cannot do a deal on something as

historic as Brexit and have Parliament against you. So, whatever

form this vote takes, whenever it happens, it will be hugely

meaningful. Whatever label that is given and if she lost it she would

call a general election. She could not impose it. To call a general

election now you need a majority of MPs which she will not have, so

maybe she will not get her election after all. It would be very unlike

Labour not to vote for an election. It would be very unlike Labour not

to vote for an election. The elections to Stormont have given

a boost to the republicans and put the long term status

of Northern Ireland in some doubt. Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams

spoke to reporters Yesterday was in many,

many ways a watershed election, and we have just started a process

of reflecting what it all means, but clearly the union's majority

in the Assembly has been ended, and the notion of a permanent

or a perpetual unionist majority Is he right? Is this a watershed?

The nationalist vote in the assembly will now come to 39 and the

Unionists 38. It is only one member, but it is significant. This is a

very serious moment and because of everything else going on with Donald

Trump and Brexit it is taking a while for people here to realise

just how significant this is. Talking to someone who only recently

left a significant role in Northern Ireland politics last night, they

said they were very worried about what this means. It is likely there

will be a call for some kind of international figure to chair the

talks to try and see if there is a way of everybody working together.

All sides will probably try to extract more money from the

Treasury, but it is a very dangerous moment. Should we regard Michelle

O'Neill, who has replaced Mr McGuinness as the leader, it is she

the First Minister death probably not quite. An interesting thought.

Indeed, the daughter of an IRA man, a fascinating concept in itself. But

there are are still a large amount of MLAs who will not give Sinn Fein

what they need. But what effect does this have on the legacy of the

prosecutions and the great witchhunts which the British

Government has vowed to end. There is a majority left on the Stormont

assembly to end those. But some would keep them going for time

continuing, which is a headache for Theresa May. You have now got 27

Sinn Fein members, 28 DUP, then the SDLP bumps up the numbers a little

bit. You have got the British Government transfixed with Brexit

which has huge implications for the border between North and South in

Ireland, and the Irish government is pretty wavering as well and if there

is an election there, Sinn Fein could do well in the Dublin

parliament as well. There are a lot of moving pieces. There are and

there is a danger that we look at everything through the prism of

Brexit, but I found Friday and this weekend fascinating. Theresa May and

Scotland were Nicola Sturgeon is framing Brexit entirely through an

argument to have a second referendum on independence which she wants to

hold it she possibly can. And the Irish situation with the prospect of

a hard border with Northern Ireland voting majority to remain, quite a

substantial majority, again a few of the instability at the moment. That

We will be keeping an eye on it for sure.

Yesterday, US President Donald Trump tweeted allegations

that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered

his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.

"Terrible!", Trump wrote, "Just found out that Obama

had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.

I'm not quite sure what McCarthyism that is.

He followed up with a series of tweets comparing it to Watergate.

"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very

The sacred election process, I think at one stage he said it was a dodgy

election process, but now it is sacred.

You are frightened to go to bed at night, you do not know what you are

going to wake up to. Completely uncharted territory here. Little

more than a month ago at the inauguration they were making the

veneer of small talk and politely shaking hands. He saw Barack Obama

and Michelle off on the helicopter. You do not know what is coming next.

Is there a scintilla of evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims? Yes,

there is, although he is very muddled about it all. I will

explain. Remember what happened to Mike Flynn, talking to the Russian

and Ambassador will stop they were listening. Barack Obama does not

sign of warrants, but somebody else did. So why on earth would you not

want to listen to the president elect himself in case he might also

be breaking the law. Does that sound to you like convincing evidence or

just a supposition? I think Tom should go and work for him, that is

the most credible interpretation I have heard for a long time. Start

tweeting the case for the tweet. What is interesting about this is my

theory is he does not really like the idea of being a president. That

wild press conference he gave a couple of weeks ago there was one ad

lib that did not get repeated which was, I suppose I am a politician

now, as if he was humiliated at the idea of being a president. He likes

being the businessman with a swagger tweeting around the clock. And

campaigning again. He keeps going to what looked like campaign rallies. I

disagree with you about him not liking being president. I think he

loves the idea of being the president, but the reality is so

frustrating on every level, finding he does not have unlimited room for

manoeuvre and so many things have been put in place to stop them doing

things he would do in the business environment. We have had two more

tweets from him this morning, I guess when he woke up. Who was it

who secretly said to the Russian president, tell Vladimir that after

the election I will have more flexibility? Who was that? Possibly

Hillary Clinton. Is it true the Democratic National committee would

not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after

learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? This was all an issue in

the campaign. He is now a president. Shall I point out the flaw in Tom's

theory. They were not bugging Michael Flynn's phone, it was the

Russian Ambassador's telephone they were barking. Mr Neil, I would never

contradict you on this programme. But if you suspect there was

criminal activity going on, as there was by Michael Flynn, why would you

not want to put on a tap? I don't know. That is it for today.

I'll be back next week here on BBC One at 11am as usual.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.

But remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

The thing that's so clear is that it's 100% honest.

We're right in the middle of the action.

The remarkable story of British photography.

The only cameras that were there that day

How pioneering artists and technology