19/03/2017 Sunday Politics London

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

She faces huge political fights over Brexit, Scottish independence,

After a tumultuous political week, we'll analyse the PM's prospects.

With chatter increasing about a possible early General Election,

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign chief joins me live.

NHS bosses warn health services in England are facing "mission

impossible" and waiting times for operations will rocket,

unless hospitals are given more cash this year.

The chief executive of NHS Providers joins me live.

In London this week, a question of space.

How the need for new homes in a congested city is getting

All that to come before 12:15pm, and I'll also be talking

to the former leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg

from his party's spring conference in York.

With me here in the studio, throughout the programme,

three of the country's top political commentators:

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting their thoughts using #bbcsp.

So, the political challenges facing Theresa May are stacking up.

As well as negotiating Britain's exit from the EU,

the PM must now deal with SNP demands for a second referendum

on Scottish independence, backbenchers agitating against cuts

to school budgets, and a humiliated Chancellor forced to u-turn on a key

budget measure just one week after announcing it.

Here's Adam Fleming on aturbulent political week

Monday, 11:30am, TV crews gather in the residence of the First

Minister of Scotland, who's got a surprise.

She wants a vote on whether Scotland should leave the UK

By taking the steps I have set out today I am ensuring that Scotland's

future will be decided, not just by me, the

Scottish Government, or the

SNP, it will be decided by the people of Scotland.

Westminster, 6:25pm the same day, MPs reject

amendments to the legislation authorising the Prime Minister to

The Bill ceremonially heads to the Lords where peers abandoned

attempts to change it and it becomes law.

But Downing Street doesn't trigger Article 50 as many had expected.

Some say they were spooked by Nicola Sturgeon.

We get an e-mail from the Treasury can the

We get an e-mail from the Treasury cancelling

the planned rise in National Insurance for

the self-employed announced the budget.

It's just minutes before Prime Minister's Questions at noon.

The trend towards greater self-employment does create a

We will bring forward further proposals

but we will not bring forward increases to NICs later in this

It seems to me like a government in a bit of chaos here.

By making this change today we are listening to our colleagues

fulfil both the letter and the spirit of our manifesto tax

Thursday, 7am, Conservative campaign HQ and the

Electoral Commission fines the party ?70,000 for misreporting spending

But that's not what the Prime Minister

Because at 12:19pm she gives her verdict on a

We should be working together, not pulling apart.

We should be working together to get that

right deal for Scotland, that

So, as I say, that's my job as Prime Minister and

so for that reason I say to the SNP now is not the time.

Friday and time for the faithful to gather.

SNP activists at their spring conference

Conservatives in Cardiff to hear the Prime Minister

promote her plan for a more meritocratic Brexit Britain.

At 11:10am comes some news about a newspaper that's frankly

I'm thrilled and excited to be the new editor of The

Evening Standard and, you know, with so many

big issues in our world what

good analysis, great news journalism.

It's a really important time for good journalism that The

Evening Standard is going to provide.

There was no let-up yesterday as Gordon Brown launched proposals

Under my proposals we keep the Barnett

Formula, we keep the fiscal transfers, but we also bring the

and fisheries back to the Scottish Parliament.

And just think, all this and we're still counting down to the

What a week in politics. It has been a torrid week for the government,

Isabel Oakeshott, but does Theresa May shake it off, or is this a sign

of worse to come? We may all be feeling a bit breathless after the

events of last week and we are in for a a long war of attrition with

the SNP, Nicola Sturgeon's strategy will be to foster over lengthy

periods of time as much resentment and anger as she can in Scotland and

try to create the impression that independence is somehow inevitable.

Is Scotland the biggest challenge for Theresa May in the next year or

so? I think it probably is because if you look at how relatively easily

the Brexit bill went through on an issue where people could hardly feel

more passionate in the Commons, and actually despite all the potential

drama it has gone through quite smoothly. To go back to your

original question, she just carries on. Don't underestimate the basic

quiet and will towards Theresa May amongst the majority of Tory

backbenchers. Yes, there are difficult little issues over school

funding, sorry, it's not a little issue, it is a big one but she will

get over that and treat each thing as it comes and keep pressing on.

Has she not called Nicola Sturgeon's Bluff in that the First Minister

said I want a referendum, here is roughly when I wanted, the Prime

Minister says you're not having one. What happens next? She has done

quite well and impact the progress Theresa May made this week in

frustrating Nicola Sturgeon was evident when Nicola Sturgeon said,

OK, maybe we can talk about the timing after. Nicola Sturgeon has

already been the first one to blink. I would slightly disagree with

Isabel Oakeshott, I don't agree Scotland will be the biggest hurdle

for her. What this week showed as is Theresa May... It was a reality

bites week. Theresa May is juggling four mammoth crises at the same

time, Brexit obviously which I still think will be the biggest challenge

to get a good deal, Trump left field who popped up at GCHQ on Friday and

Scotland and the fiscal challenge, this enormous great problem, and it

reinforced the point this is not an easy time in politics. The budget is

over four years. That was one small problem, the immediate problem is

how to fill the social care crisis and the ageing demographic. This is

not normal times in British politics and Theresa May does not have a

normal workload on her plate, hence why I think we will see more

mistakes made as time goes on and as she has this almost impossible

workload to juggle. How tempted do you think the Prime Minister is to

call an early election? There is more chatter about it now. Is she

tempted and if there is will she succumb? I will answer that in a

second as Harold Wilson used to say. I want to agree, disagree with the

rest of the panel about how she has out manipulated Nicola Sturgeon this

week. I think Nicola Sturgeon expected Theresa May to say no to

her expected timetable. It would be amazing if she had said yes. She

expected her to say no but Sturgeon catalyst that will fuel support for

her cause. There is no sign of that. The latest poll this morning shows

66-44 against independence and only 13% think they would be better off

with an independent Scotland and a clear majority do not want a second

referendum. But the calculation of resistance from Westminster combined

with Brexit which hasn't started yet, I think this is her

calculation, she didn't expect Theresa May to say, sure, go ahead,

I'm sure she expected Theresa May to say no, you can't have it at your

desired timetable. On the wider point, I think Theresa May is in a

fascinating position, she is both strong because she faces weak

opposition and is ahead in the opinion polls. But faces the most

daunting agenda of any Prime Minister for 40 or 50 years, I

think. So it's a weird combination. I don't think she wants to call an

election. I don't think she has thought about how you would

manipulate it, what the trigger would be, and whether she's got the

energy and space to prepare for and then mount a campaign was beginning

the Brexit negotiation. Now, you could see the cause would be the

small majorities that will make her life hellish, which it will do.

Whether a landslide would help is another question, they can be

difficult too. But I think the problems outweigh the advantages of

going early. Do you think she would go for an early election? I don't

and I think you have to look at the rhetoric coming out of No 10 which

is so firm on this question, it is a delicious prospect for us as

commentators to think there might be an election around the corner but

they are so firm on this I can't see it happening. I agree, we are in

unanimous agreement on this one. It is superficially attractive because

she would love the big majority and she would get a lot more through

Parliament especially with Brexit. The nitty-gritty of it makes an

early General Election this year almost impossible. How do you write

a manifesto on high Brexit versus soft Brexit, it opens up a Pandora's

box of uncertainties. And there is enough with the European elections.

The EU will say are we negotiating with you or the person who may

replace you? How do you keep the Tory party united going to an

election? How do you call one, with a vote of no confidence in yourself

you may end up losing. Easy on paper but difficult in practice. We shall

see. So if Theresa May did go

for an early election this spring, The party's campaigns

and elections chief Andrew Gwynne Andrew Gwynne, the government, as we

have just been talking about, executed one of the most

embarrassing U-turns in recent history this week. It has been a

torrid time for the Theresa May government. Why are the Tories still

so chipper? The Labour Party has been on an

early election footing since before Christmas and we are preparing

ourselves for that eventuality in case that does come. That means that

we've got to get ourselves into a position whereby we can not only

challenge the government but we can also offer a valuable alternative

for the British people to choose from should that election arise. So,

would you welcome an early General Election? Well, of course, I don't

want this government to be in power so of course if there is an

opportunity to put a case to the British people as to why there is a

better way, and I believe the Labour way is the better way than of course

we would want to put that case to the country. So, would Labour vote

in the Commons for an early election? Well, of course as an

opposition, not wanting to be in opposition, wanting to be in

government should the government put forward a measure in accordance with

the Fixed-term Parliaments Act then that's something we would very

seriously have to consider. I know you would have to consider it but

would you vote for an early election or not? Well, of course we want to

be the government so if the current government puts forward measures to

bring forward a General Election we would want to put our case to the

British public and that's one of the jobs that I've been given, together

Labour Party organisation early into a position where we can fight a

General Election -- organisationally. For the avoidance

of doubt, if the Government work to issue a motion in the Commons for an

early election, the Labour Party would vote for an early election?

It would be very difficult not, Andrew. If the Government wants to

dissolve parliament, wants a General Election, we don't want the Tories

in government, we want to be in government and we want to have that

opportunity to put that case to the British people.

Are you ready for an early election? You say you have been on a war all

but since the Labour conference last autumn, but are you ready for one?

How big is the election fighting fund? We have substantial amounts of

money in our fighting fund, that is true, because not only has the

Labour Party managed to eliminate its own financial deficit that it

inherited from previous election campaigns, we have also managed to

build up a substantial fund in the off chance we have an election. We

have also expanded massively operations at Labour HQ, we are

taking on additional staff, and one of the jobs that myself and Ian

Lavery who I job share with are currently doing is to go around the

Parliamentary Labour Party to make sure that Labour colleagues have the

support and the resources that they need, should they have to face the

electorate in their constituencies. So you are on a war footing, ready

for the fight, you say you would vote for the fight, so have you got

your tax and spend policies ready to roll out? That is something the

shadow Treasury team will be discussing. One of the things is, if

there is an early General Election, the normal timetable for these

things gets fast-track because our policy decision-making body, its

annual conference, we have the national policy forum that creates

policies suggestions. You have been on a war footing since the last

Labour conference, that is what Mr Corbyn told us. So you must have a

fair idea of what policies you would fight an early election on. How much

extra per year would you spend on the NHS? Well, look, I'm not going

to set out the Labour manifesto for an election that hasn't been called.

I'm just asking you about the NHS. You must have a policy for that. We

have a policy for the NHS. So how much extra? I will not set out

Labour's tax-and-spend policies here on The Sunday Politics when there

hasn't even been election called. You said you had been on a war

footing and you are prepared to vote for one, so if you can't Tommy that,

can you tell me what the corporation rate tax on company profits be under

a Labour government -- tell me that. You will have to be patient. I have.

And wait for Mrs May to trigger an early election. If there is an

election on the 4th of May the rich would have to be issued on the 27th

of March, so that's not long to wait. If that date passes we aren't

having an election on the 4th of May and the normal timetable for policy

development will continue. All right. You lost Copeland, I think

you were in charge of a by-election for Labour, your national poll

ratings are still dire, even after week of terrible times for the

Tories. Sometimes you even lose local government by-elections in

safe seats, including in the place you are now, in Salford. How long

does Mr Corbyn have to turn this around? Well, look, the issue of the

Labour leadership was settled last year. The last thing the Labour

Party now needs is another period of introspection with the Labour Party

merely talks to the Labour Party. We are now on an election footing in

case Mrs May does trigger an early General Election. We need to be

talking to the British people are not to ourselves. So any speculation

about the Labour leadership might excite you in the media but actually

for us in the Labour Party it's about re-engaging and reconnecting

with the voters. Rather than being excited, I feel quite daunted at the

prospect of an early election. So I wouldn't get that right. Normally,

given the number of mistakes this government has made, and its

mid-term, you would expect any self-respecting opposition to be

about ten points ahead. On the latest polls this morning you are 17

behind. There is a 27-30 point gap from where you should normally be as

an opposition. Are you telling me that if that doesn't change, you

still fight the General Election with Mr Corbyn?

These are matters for the future. I believe the leadership issue was

settled last year. We have had two leadership contest in two years.

Would you seriously contemplate going into the next election, if it

is early I perfectly understand Jeremy Corbyn is your man, but if it

is not until 2020, and you are still 17 points behind in the polls, will

you go into the next election like that? There is a lot of future

looking and speculation there, I don't know what the future holds,

where the Labour Party will be in 12 months let alone by 2020 summit

cross those bridges when we come to it. My main challenge is to make

sure the Labour Party is in the best possible place organisationally to

fight an election, that's my challenge and I'm up for that to

make sure we are in the best possible place to make sure Labour

returns as many Labour MPs as possible. Thank you for joining us.

And we're joined now from the Liberal Democrats' spring

conference in York by the former Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.

Good morning. In his conference speech today, Tim Farron lumps

Theresa May with Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump. In

what way is Mrs May similar to Marine Le Pen? Of course he is not

saying Theresa May is identical to Marine Le Pen, I think what Tim

Wilby spelling out shortly in his speech is that we need to be aware

what's going on in the world, the International settlement that was

arrived at after the First World -- Second World War, that bound

supranational organisations is under attack from characters as diverse as

Vladimir Putin, Marine Le Pen and Donald Trump, and that by side in so

ostentatiously with Donald Trump and pursuing this very hard Brexit,

Theresa May appears to be giving succour to that much more

isolationist chauvinist view of the world than the multilateral approach

that Britain has subscribed to for a long time. The exact words he plans

to use are welcome to the New World order, Vladimir Putin, Donald Trump,

Marine Le Pen, Theresa May, aggressive and teenage to, anti-EU,

nationalistic. In what way is Mrs May fitting into any of that? In

what way is she similar to Vladimir Putin? I'm not aware she has

interfered with other people's elections. The clue is in the quote

you just read out, which is the world order. The world order over

the last half century or more, by the way a lesson I'm afraid we have

to learn in Europe because of the terrible bloodshed of two world was

in the space of a few decades, was based on the idea might is not

right. Strong arm leaders cannot throw their weight around. What we

have now with Putin, the populism across parts of Europe and Donald

Trump who thinks the EU will unravel is a shift to a radically different

view of the world. Mrs May doesn't think any of that. She is not

antenatal, not anti-EU, she says she wants the EU to succeed. She's not

aggressive as far as I'm aware so I'm not sure why you would lump the

British Prime Minister in with these other characters. Let me explain, by

choosing this uncompromising approach to Brexit, clearly in doing

so she, in my view, maybe not yours or others, is pursuing a self

harming approach to the United Kingdom but also pulling up the

threads that bind the rest of the European Union together, in so

ostentatiously siding with Donald Trump, somehow declaring in my view

speciously that we can make up with the trade we will lose, she's not

challenging the shift to a more chauvinist approach to world affairs

that is happening in many places. You are at your party's Spring

conference, I think we can agree any Lib Dem come back will take a long

time. Would Tory dominance be more effectively challenged by a

realignment of the centre and the centre-left? Are you working towards

that? I missed half the question but I think you are talking about a

realignment. As a cook a way to get over Tory dominance, would you want

that to happen? Are you working towards that? My view is the

recovery of the Lib Dems will be quicker than you suggest. People

often forget that even the low point of our fortunes in the last election

we still got a million more votes than the SNP, it's only because we

have got this crazy electoral system... But the SNP fight in

Scotland, you fight in the whole country! But I'm saying the way

seats are allocated overlooks the fact that 2.5 million still voted

for us. But my own view is of course there are people feeling

increasingly homeless in the liberal wing of the Conservative Party

because they are now in a party which is in effect indistinguishable

from Ukip on some of the biggest issues of the day, and homeless folk

on the rational, reasonable wing of the Labour Party. I would invite

them to join the Liberal Democrats and I would invite everyone across

parties to talk about the idea is that bind us because the Westminster

village can invest a lot of energy building new castles in the sky,

inventing new names for parties when actually what you want is for people

on the progressive centre ground of British politics to talk about the

ideas that unite them, from the dilemmas of artificial intelligence

to climate change. Do you think in your own view, can Brexit still be

thwarted or is it now a matter of getting the best terms? I think we

are in an interlude, almost a calm between two storms, the storm of the

referendum itself and the collision between the Government's stated

ambitions for Brexit and the reality of having to negotiate something

unworkable with 27 other governments. The one thing I can

guarantee you is that what the Government has promised to the

British people cannot happen. Over a slower period of time we will work

out our new relationship with the European Union. Theresa May said she

will settle divorce arrangements, and pensions, so one, negotiate new

trade agreements, new climate change policies and so on, and have all of

that ratified within two years, that will not happen so I think there

will be a lot of turbulence in the next couple of years. Will you use

this turbulence to try to thwart Brexit, to find a way of rolling

back the decision? It's not about repeating the debates of the past or

thwarting the will of the people but it is comparing what people were

promised from the ?350 million for the NHS every week through to this

glittering array of new trade agreements we will sign across the

world, with the reality that will transpire in the next couple of

years and at that point, yes it is my belief people should be able to

take a second look at if that is what they really want. A couple of

quick questions, would you welcome an early general election? I always

welcome them, we couldn't do worse than we did last time. That is

certainly true. You have a column in the Evening Standard, have you

spoken to the new editor about whether he will keep your column or

spike it? No, I wait in nervous anticipation. Can you be a newspaper

editor in the morning and an MP in the afternoon? Do I think that's

feasible? Sorry, I missed a bit. There is no prohibition, no law

against MPs being editors. They have been in the past and no doubt will

again in the future. He is taking a lot on, he is an editor, also

wanting to be an MP, a jetsetting academic in the States, working in

the city, I suspect something will give. It seems to me even by his

self-confidence standards in his own abilities I suspect he is taking on

a little bit too much. Very diplomatic, Mr Clegg, I'm sure you

will get to keep the column. Thanks for joining us.

Now, for the last six months England's NHS bosses have been

warning the health service needs more money to help it meet

But in his first Budget, the Chancellor offered

no immediate relief, and today the head of

the organisation representing England's NHS trusts says hundreds

of thousands of patients will have to wait longer for both emergency

care and planned operations, unless the Government

Warnings over funding are not exactly new.

Back in 2014 the head of the NHS in England, Simon Stevens,

published his plan for the future of the health service.

In his five-year forward view, Stevens said the NHS in England

would face a funding shortfall of up to ?30 billion by 2020.

To bridge that gap he said the NHS would need more money

from the Government, at least ?8 billion extra,

and that the health service could account for the rest by making

The Government says it's given the health service more than what it

asked for, and that NHS in England will have received

That number is disputed by NHS managers and the chair

of Parliament's health committee, who say the figure is more

like ?4.5 billion, while other parts of the health and social care budget

have been cut, putting pressure on the front line.

Last year, two thirds of NHS trusts in England finished

the year in the red, and despite emergency bailouts

from the Government, the NHS is likely to record

Meanwhile national targets on waiting times for A

departments, diagnostic tests, and operations are being

This month's Budget provided ?2 billion for social care

but there was no new cash for the NHS, leading trusts to warn

that patient care is beginning to suffer, and what is being asked

And I'm joined now by the Chief Executive of NHS

Providers in England, Chris Hopson.

Welcome to the programme. Morning, Andrew. I will come onto the extra

money you need to do your job properly in a minute but first, part

of the deal was you had to make 22 billion in efficiency savings, not a

bank that money but spend it on patient care, the front line, and so

on. How is that going? So, last parliament we realised around 18

billion of productivity and efficiency savings, we are realising

more this year so we are on course to realise 3 billion this year, that

is a quarter of a billion more than last year but all of us in the NHS

knew the 22 billion would be a very stretching target and we are

somewhat inevitably falling short. So it is 22 billion by 2,020.

Roughly. That was the time. We are now into 2017. So how much of the 22

billion have you achieved? We realised around 3 billion last year

and we will realise 3 billion this year, Court of billion more, 3.25

billion this year, so we are on course for 18-19,000,000,000. By the

2021 period? You are not that far away. The problem is the degree to

which demand is going up. We have record demand over the winter period

and that actually meant we have seen more people than we have ever seen

before but performance is still under real pressure. Let me come

onto that. When you agreed on the 22 billion efficiency savings plus some

extra money from the government, I know there is a bit of an argument

about how much that is actually worth, had you not factored in this

extra demand that you saw coming over the next three or four years?

Let's be very clear committee referred to Simon Stevens's forward

view and we signed up to it but the 22 billion was a process run at the

centre of government by the Department of Health with its arms

length bodies, NHS England and others and is not something that was

consulted on with the NHS. But you signed up to it. We always said that

the day that that Spending Review was announced, the idea that the NHS

where customer demand goes up something like four or 5% every

year, the idea that in the middle years of Parliament we would be able

to provide the same level of service when we were only getting funding

increases of 1.3%, 0.4% and 0.7%, and I can show you the press release

we issued, we always said there was going to be a gap and that we would

not be able to deliver what was required. The full 22 billion in

other words? What we said to Simon Stevens at the Public Accounts

Committee a few months ago, the NHS didn't get what it was asked for.

Today the NHS, cope with the resources it has according to you.

How much more does it need? Are reported is about 2017-18 and we

estimate that what we are being asked to do, and again, Andrew, you

clearly set it out in the package, we are a long way off the four-hour

A target and a long way off the 92%. The waiting times and

operations. How much more do you need? And we are making up a ?900

million deficit. If you take all of those into account we estimate you

would need an extra ?3.5 billion next year in order to deliver all of

those targets and eliminate the deficit. That would be 3.5 billion

on top of what is already planned next year and that would be 3.5

billion repeated in the years to come too? Yes, Andrew it is

important we should make an important distinction about the NHS

versus other public services. When the last government, the last Labour

government put extra money into the NHS it clearly said that in return

for that it would establish some standards in the NHS Constitution,

the 95% A target we have talked about and the 92% elective surgery

we have talked about. The trust we represent are very clear, they would

want to realise those standards, but you can only do it if you pay for

it. The problem is at the moment is we are in the longest and deepest

financial squeeze in NHS history. As we have said, funding is only going

up by 1% per year but every year just to stand still cost and demand

go up by more than 4%. There is clearly a demand for more money. I

think people watching this programme will think probably the NHS is going

to have to get more money to meet the goals you have been given. I

think they would also like to be sure that your Mac running the NHS

as efficiently as it could be. We read this morning that trusts have

got ?100 million of empty properties that cost 10 million to maintain, 36

office blocks are not being used, you have surplus land equivalent to

1800 football pitches. Yes, there are a number of things that we know

in the NHS we need to do better but let me remind you, Andrew, in the

last Parliament we realised ?18 billion worth of cost improvement

gains. We are going to realise another 3 billion this year, 0.25

billion more than last year so these things are being targeted. But

having that surplus land, it is almost certainly in areas where

there is a demand for housing. Absolutely. So why not release it

for housing? You get the money, the people get their houses and its

contribution and a signal that you are running NHS assets as

efficiently as you can? Tell me if I'm going to too much detail for

you. One of the reasons as to why our trusts are reluctant to realise

those land sales is because there is an assumption that the money would

go back to the Treasury and wouldn't benefit NHS trusts. You could make a

deal, couldn't you? That's part of the conversation going on at the

moment. The issue is that we would want to ensure that if we do release

land, quite rightly the benefit, particularly in foundation trusts

which are, as you will remember, deliberately autonomous

organisations, that they should keep the benefit of those land sales.

Have you raised that with the government?

Yes we have. What did they say? They are in discussions of it. We heard

somebody who moved from one job and then to another job and given a big

salary and then almost ?200,000 as a payoff. There is a national mood for

the NHS to get more money. But before you give anybody any more

money you want to be sure that the money you have got already is being

properly spent, which for us, is the patient at the end of the day. And

yet there seem to be these enormous salaries and payoffs. I've worked in

a FTSE 100 on the board of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and I

have worked in large organisations. I can look you completely straight

in the eye and tell you that the jobs that our hospital, community,

mental health and ambulance chief Executives do are amongst the most

complicated leadership roles I have ever seen. It doesn't seem to me to

be unreasonable that in order to get the right quality of people we

should pay an appropriate salary. The reality is the salaries are paid

are not excessive when talking about managing budgets of over ?1 billion

a year and talking about managing tens of thousands of staff. There

was a doctor working as a locum that earned an extra ?375,000. One of the

problems in the NHS is a mismatch between the number of staff we need

and the number of staff coming through the pipeline. What is having

to happen is if you want to keep a service going you have to use Mackem

and agency staff. Even at that cost? You would not want to pay those

amounts. But you are. The chief Executives's choice in those areas

is giving the service open or employing a locum. I'm sure you

could find a locum prepared to work for less than that. What indication,

what hopes do you have of getting the extra ?3 billion? The government

has been very clear, for the moment it wants to stick to the existing

funding settlement it has agreed. So there was nothing in the budget. Can

I finish by making one important point. Please, finish. This is the

first time the NHS has said before the year has even started that we

can't deliver on those standards. We believe, as do most people who work

in the NHS, that the NHS is on a gradual slow decline. This is a very

important inflection point to Mark, this is the first time before the

financial year starts that we say we cannot meet the targets we are being

asked to deliver and are in the NHS Constitution. We have run out of

time. Chris Hopson, thank you for being with me.

It's just gone 11:35am, 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, we've got more on Brexit and the course the Mayor wants

Then later, a look at the dimensions of our homes.

Why the need for new homes in a congested city

is getting developers to think, well, small.

Here with me thinking big, Stephen Hammond Conservative MP

for Wimbledon and Dawn Butler, Labour MP for Brent Central.

Welcome to you both. Let's start with the news late this week.

Evening Standard has a new editor. There are so many big issues in the

world, what people want are authoritative facts, good analysis,

great news journalism and it's an important time for good journalism

and The Evening Standard is going to provide it.

What did you think of that appointment? I am stunned by the

appointment, he is not qualified journalist to have such a huge role.

When I first heard it, I thought OK, fine, they will be a by-election and

then I heard there isn't going to be a by-election so he's going to have

three jobs, all well paid, one of them ?13,000 a day, one of them he

is not even qualified for. That is privilege in all its forms. I think,

is it good for London? Is it good for The Evening Standard? I hope

George Osborne will not be biased but he's not a journalist, so how

does it work? How can you have a job as an editor of a major newspaper

and not be a journalist? How does it work? So, you approve of that!

Stephen Hammond, there is life after being Chancellor. Clearly George is

a talented individual and it is a surprise to a lot of people but

against that we in London need as many people to stand up for us as we

can and I think George will insure that happens. People forget he has a

big hinterland of interest beyond just politics. He has was been a

huge supporter of the arts, and infrastructure, so those sorts of

things are the things... But so am I! Those are the key things London

need and the key thing is The Evening Standard will do. Both The

Evening Standard who wanted a high profile editor have got one, and

also George, would recognise they are not going to fall into the

stupidity trap of being biased. I think a lot of this is going to be

overstated. Presumably if people are expecting The Evening Standard to

continue to steer the same impartial and nonpartisan political stance, he

will want to surprise, would he? It's not impossible for him to be

neutral in his reporting, but I just don't know how he will fit that all

in. He's an MP, that takes up a lot of time. If it doesn't then he is

doing something wrong. He has another job on top of that and then

he is going to be editor of The Evening Standard. How will he fit

that in? What he said to the staff on Friday, of course he would put

London first, if it's good for London he will say so and if not it

would be. We can expect him to be entirely fair with Sadiq Khan, the

Labour Mayor of London. It is quite good news for Sadiq Khan because he

will want to be over fair and overcompensate. Some people worry it

might let Sadiq Khan off the hook of it. I think this is an issue. I

understand his comments to the staff on Friday were extremely impressive.

I also think, we all know who the political reporters of The Evening

Standard are who do a great job and I can't imagine George will get

involved in that. So, Dawn Butler, tell us that George Osborne is a

good editor but do it in sign language. Erm, he's an editor. This

is good, this isn't good. What's bad? Bad is this. The reason I bring

that up is of course because of this and you in the House earlier this

week. Sorry...the 18th of March marks

the 14th anniversary since the UK Government recognised

British sign language? Slightly hesitant, you almost had to

look down at your notes. I was nervous, really nervous. I hadn't

read about how you got involved in it. I learned it 20 years ago

because I worked with somebody who was deaf and I thought we needed to

be more accommodating and I thought I should learn sign language up to

level two. It was great fun. Did you see it? I didn't see it but I think

even more people have seen it because of being in the House and it

is impressive and the right thing to say. I hope the Government gave her

a good response. And a quirk of fate we had you on the programme this

week. So, let's move on. The Mayor was grilled by MPs this

week on how he's going to steer In City Hall's response

to the Government's initial Brexit blueprint, Sadiq Khan said access

to the single market was crucial, EU nationals here should

have their status clarified immediately, and an 'interim' plan

was needed in case no trade and regulatory deals are in place

in two years' time at the point The Government's Brexit Bill has

passed, clearing the path for the Prime Minister to trigger

Article 50 and negotiate Britain's exit from the EU,

but here in London many are concerned about what will come

of those negotiations. These protesters are angry

about the Government's refusal to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals to stay. We are talking about people who have

contributed to this society, who are married to British people,

who have British children, and they should not become pawns

in Theresa May's game. One in ten Londoners

were born in the EU, and they're particularly prominent

in the capital's construction They are at the heart

of City Hall's response to the Government's Brexit White Paper,

in which the mayor calls for a cast-iron guarantee to EU

nationals before negotiations. Other demands include more powers

for London over the allocation of work permits in the capital,

and continued access to the single market after Brexit,

unless and until a new trade agreement with the EU

has been reached. That would require what's been

called an interim deal, as Sadiq Khan explained

to parliament's Brexit Why not err on the side of caution

and have an interim deal should it be the case that in less

than two years we have got --not reached a deal with the EU,

so in two years and one day rather than falling off a cliff edge -

by the way a phrase used in the White Paper -

going to WTO terms, But will World Trade Organisation

rules be as catastrophic I think in the medium term,

if anything, under WTO rules the City of London could do better

than if it had a trade which might constrain it

in some sort of way. If we weren't akin to the EU

regulations, we could deregulate, there would be more competitors

and we could become more globally It will be two years of negotiations

before we know for sure. The point some MPs were making to

Sadiq Khan during that session was why talk about, what's the point of

creating an interim deal because it weakens your negotiating position,

there will be a deal, no problem. It doesn't weaken it. I've always been

told that if you fail to plan you plan to fail and Sadiq Khan is

saying we need a planned because Theresa May says she won't do a bad

deal, no deal is better than a bad deal, well actually no deal is a bad

deal. In order for London not collapse it needs to have an interim

deal so that it doesn't fall over the cliff edge, so businesses can

feel confident in doing business in London and not as they are currently

doing, talking about moving out of London. If we move businesses out of

London, remember, business is the capital, it is where economy grows.

Can you imagine if that was to collapse? Any danger of firms moving

out of London? Clearly there is a danger, and that is right Philip

Hammond and David Davies have said the same thing, which is that mini

to do two things in the first part of negotiations, to guarantee the

rights of EU citizens to live here, but what the Home Secretary said

about putting that into the repeal Bill their rights guarantees it, and

it does although we want to see a reciprocal deal. Secondly, David

Davis and Philip Hammond have said we need transitional arrangements

because it may be difficult to get a deal within two years and a lot of

people think that to be true. As the Prime Minister said, we want to

avoid the cliff edge and that's why we want the transitional

arrangements in place. The Mayor wants to create the impression... He

respects the mandate of the people, but at the same time being critical

of the status of EU workers, the lack of an internal deal... Dawn and

I both voted the same way which was to Remain but we are not fighting

that bottle any more, we are leaving the European Union and the key is

how we leave and we want to make sure there is a good deal for

London. I've been in a lot of work with financial industries to make

sure the negotiating position that would be good for them in terms of

access, potentially looking at passports, the Government

understands those and I'm pleased to see that will be at the forefront...

You're making that case on behalf of firms? I stood up at a big meeting

ten days ago to launch Brexit negotiations, I'm doing several

things with people behind the scenes. Now the decision has been

made, tell me how good the capital will be in three years' time in its

financial sector. The key thing now is to stand up and fight fire with

fire. What is going to be good? One second, firstly we have to say

London is still going to be the best place to do business in all sorts of

industries, and we need to stop other countries and companies coming

through London trying to weed people away. That is a big focus for the

Government and the mayor to talk London up. Then we need to negotiate

harder and don't forget there is quite a good reason London is so

successful, so powerful, and it's because there are all those

infrastructure in what they call the ecosystem around industries in

London and it is difficult to replicate that anywhere else. What

one is beginning to hear quietly is that certain other places realise

that and maybe to benefit to find mutual... How will this make the

capital of illegal place in five years? 40% of businesses in the UK

are already talk about leaving or moving parts of their organisation

outside of the UK. How can they come to that? We have this transitional

deal and it kicks in, and after two years if Theresa May hasn't

negotiated a deal that is better than what we have now, which is

extremely unlikely, then that's when it kicks in. So you are saying this

is disastrous. No, I'm saying we need to have a solid plan because

you need to have stability in the market. 1 million people from the EU

work in London, they need stability, so we are saying the Prime Minister

will be negotiating for two years, she will try her best and then see

what she can negotiate after that and I think it is a fair point. Fair

enough. London is one of the least densely

populated metropolises in the world. But the desperate need for more

housing may soon change that. At City Hall there are now

discussions going on about whether we should be

building more densely? Not many major city's public

transport systems run through In fact, Botany Bay in north London

is something rather special. The people here get

to enjoy more open space than in any other

part of the capital. Now, this is the least densely

populated part, not just of London, but possibly any

major city in the world. There's just 123 people living

here in every Now, there's a very

good reason for that. What that means for the rest

of London is that because you can't expand around the capital's

perimeter, the pressure everywhere When large sites do become

available, like around Battersea Power Station,

the pressure is on. More and more homes are being

squeezed into what Now, developers of course

want to make money but they also are under enormous pressure

from the politicians, who are trying to build as many homes as possible

to deal The result is that

sites like this are going to be built with incredible

density of a type that London has Millharbour, just

south of Canary Wharf. It's the most densely

populated part of the UK It's 9,000 times as dense

as the core of Enfield where we started this film,

and it's even ten times as dense This, I think, is the pattern

of the future and not only If you look in places

like Wembley and Harrow even, you begin to see not

things quite as dense as this but things that are beginning

to look more like this. The downside is that you do end up,

they certainly have here, with sometimes, if it's not really

beautifully designed, quite gloomy properties that overlook each other

and it feels crowded. And for many people,

obviously not the people who live here, but for many people this

area would probably Certainly compared with much

of the rest of London, In fact, an amazing 47%

of London is green open space - parks, woodlands,

back gardens, the lot. The sort of properties

that people like living in and stay living

in through all the phases

of the family tends It's got a front door,

it's got a street, it's got a little The Victorian houses,

very high-density, but they are flexible, they can be adjusted,

they can become offices, they can But it can be used in all

sorts of different ways. But houses aren't

what's getting built. Another vision altogether

is being put into action They're making hundreds of flats

sized just 400 square feet and Not everybody, they say,

is after a house and a garden. That is not the view

of people in their 20s, their 30s, 40s, who are absolutely

critical to the London economy and they want

a different kind of housing. They have fewer possessions,

they want to get into the centre of town faster,

they want to have buildings that So I think actually

the garden may be for a But whatever your opinion,

London is getting I'm joined by Conservative assembly

member Andrew Boff, who is chair of the London Assembly Housing

Committee. You are scrutinising what the mayor

is doing here, is that the future? Is it inevitable? It is certainly

not inevitable, and I think you will find the general consensus of all

parties that sometimes we are letting developers get away with

things and actually the kind of housing that Londoners actually

want, as was indicated in the film if you ask them, most Londoners want

to live in a terraced house with a door that opens onto the street and

a garden at the back. Curiously enough, if it is three or four

stories, that's a very dense form of housing, as dense as trying to build

up and up. Yes, more dense than people imagine but not dense enough

to answer the housing needs of the capital. Nothing will be dense

enough. In London we are stuck with a political boundary that was based

upon the travel to work area of the 1950s. It doesn't represent the

economic area that covers a lot of the south-east. We have been arguing

for a long time that the Government needs to ramp up the idea of garden

cities in the south-east to solve the problems of the south-east. It

is not just London's housing problems, in the south-east outside

of London they equally have problems. We have to start building

again and giving the opportunities for people to develop. What do you

want to see in terms of the building being done in London to meet most of

the population needs in both inner and outer London? Clearly the right

kinds of buildings are not being built and we saw in both Harrow and

Haringey where the mayor granted permission, in fact he called in two

applications, one for a 21 story tower block, another for a 17 story

tower block, where parties of all colours were against those

applications, the mayor called them in and granted them. This is another

Sadiq promise he has dropped because he said during the election campaign

tall buildings would not be granted permission if they weren't in

character of the area, and these are clearly not. Do we accept we have to

go with that dense, small, having to think about options like this so

grave is the problem? I think we have to solve the housing crisis and

to do that means you have to build up so you can have more capacity. I

think the style of the property is important, the size is important,

but I also think fundamentally it is the cost because there's no point in

building these tiny little box places for people to live in and

they are paying as much as they would for a house. Wembley was

mentioned in the clip, there's loads of high rise buildings going up, and

the infrastructure as well, that's what concerns me, that there has to

be the infrastructure to support people living there. It is not just

travel, it is doctors and shops... Should we be building more high and

dense in races like Wimbledon? They need to take their fair share?

Everybody needs to think about it in their area but it doesn't need to be

skyscrapers, as Andrew said. There's a big regeneration going on in my

area around South Wimbledon, and the maximum height, there is a mixture

of all sorts of things but up to seven story mansion blocks that will

fit in well with the local area. Also a number of town houses. The

other key thing in London is that we need to be building more and part of

that is we need to get the London land commission working on bringing

more of that public land back, and getting more councils using power

with developers to use permission in principle so we get these things

built. The other great thing that happened in the Autumn Statement was

allowing housing association is to build ten year free. 30 seconds

left, wrap-up, in a few years' time, where should we be? It sounds to me

you might want everything but we have got to house a lot of people

here. There is in the room. Some of the social problems in London are

hidden, one of the biggest problems in Dawn's constituency is

overcrowding in properties. There are over 300,000 young people being

brought up in overcrowded households, you do not solve the

issue by forcing them into tower blocks. One of the most astounding

things that came out of the interrogation of the mayor's plan is

that he has done no research into the health outcomes of different

types of building and they are profound. And you will be making

sure he does in due course. Thank you very much indeed.

And now for the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.

The Public Accounts Committee have said too much money is being paid

for the land and buildings needed for new

The chair, Meg Hillier MP, said in the constituency

of Hackney South and Shoreditch civil servants have purchased

a former police station for ?7.6 million, even though it had

been valued at 3 million six months previously.

A coroner has demanded an urgent investigation into the safety

of cycle lane blue paint after linking two deaths

Transport for London has been warned there is a risk that future deaths

will occur if it does not take action over the low grip surfaces.

A deal aimed at ending dispute between Southern Rail and the Aslef

union over driver-only trains has been agreed.

Govia Thameslink rail said both sides had secured a recommended deal

The result of the vote will be announced on the 3rd of April.

Stephen Hammond can answer this one because of the short time available.

Free Schools cost an awful lot for the space, don't they? There is

difficulty finding space for Free Schools and we are finding that in

my constituency. That is staggering and we need to look carefully at why

that scale was overpaid. There will be some value coming through at the

end. We also need to look at the definition and value of public

buildings and the fact they could be taken out of non-use into use much

more quickly we need to look at the pricing of these buildings. Thank

you both. Say goodbye. Goodbye. Back to you.

So, can George Osborne stay on as a member of Parliament

Will Conservative backbenchers force a Government re-think

And is Theresa May about to cap gas and electricity prices?

Whose idea was that first of all? They are all questions for the Week

Ahead to. Let's start with the story that is

too much fun to miss, on Friday it was announced the former Chancellor

would be the new editor of London's Evening Standard newspaper, a

position he will take up in mid-May on a salary of ?200,000 for four

days a week. But Mr Osborne has said he will not

be stepping down as MP for Tatton in Cheshire,

a job he's held since 2001, Alongside these duties,

he's also chairman of While being committed to one day

a week at Black Rock, an American asset management firm -

a part-time role that earns him Then he's polishing his academic

credentials, as a fellow at the McCain Institute,

an American thinktank, And finally as a member

of the Washington Speaker's Bureau, he also earns his keep

as an after-dinner speaker, banking around ?750,000

since last summer. So there you go. Nice little earners

if you can get them. The problem, though, is he has put second jobs on

the agenda and lots of his fellow MPs are not happy because they have

got second jobs but not making that kind of money. No, and a lot of MPs

on both sides actually are unhappy about it exactly for those reasons.

I find it a very interesting appointment. We have got these

people on the centre and centre right of politics who have been used

to power since 1997, they have been on the airwaves today, Tony Blair,

Nick Clegg, George Osborne, and they are all seeking other platforms now

because power has moved elsewhere. So Tony Blair is setting up this new

foundation, Nick Clegg refused to condemn George Osborne, Tony Blair

praised the appointment. They are all searching for new platforms.

They might have overestimated the degree to which this will be a huge

influential platform. The standard was very pro-Tory at the 2015

election but London voted Labour, it was pro-Zac Goldsmith but they

elected Sadiq Khan. It might be overestimating the degree to which

this is a hugely influential paper. But I can see why it attracts him as

a platform when all these platforms have disappeared, eg power and

government. All of these people who used to be in power are quietly

getting together again, Mr Blair on television this morning, George

Osborne not only filling his bank account but now in charge of

London's most important newspaper, Nick Clegg out today not saying

Brexit was a done deal, waiting to see what happens, even John Major

was wheeled out again today in the Mail on Sunday. They are all playing

for position. I half expect David Cameron to turn up as features

editor on The Evening Standard. Brexit and breakfast! With Mr Clegg,

did he not? I do not think this is sustainable for George Osborne, I

worked at The Evening Standard and I was there for three years, I know

what the hours are like for a humble journalist, never mind the editor.

If he thinks he can get at 4am everyday to be in the offices at 5am

to oversee the splash, manage everything in the way and edited

should he is in cloud cuckoo land. What this says to people is there is

a kind of feel of soft corruption about public life here, where you

see what you can get away with. He thinks he can brazen this out and

maybe he can but what kind of message does that send to people

about how seriously people take the role of being an MP? He must have

known. He applied for the job. The Russian owner didn't approach him,

he approached Lebedev, the proprietor, for it. He must have

calculated there would be some kickback. I wonder if he realised

there would be quite the kickback there has been. I think that's

probably right. This hasn't finished yet, by the way, this will go on and

on. How on earth does George Osborne cover the budget in the autumn? Big

budget, lots of physical changes and tax rises to deal with the messages

out of this week. You can see already, Theresa May budget crashes.

It could be worse. She's useless! Or, worse than that, me, brilliant

budget, terrible newspaper, I've never buying it again. He has

hoisted his own petard. He has not bought it properly through. It's a

something interesting about his own future calculations, if he wants to

stay on as an MP in 2020 and be Prime Minister as he has or was

wanted to be he has got to find a new seat. How do you go into an

association and say I should be an MP, I can do it for at least four

hours Purdy after editing The Evening Standard, making a big

speech and telling Black Rock how to make a big profit. The feature pages

have to be approved for the next day and feature pages are aware the

editor gets to make their mark. The news is the news. The feature is

what concerns you, what he is in your bonnet. That defines the

newspaper, doesn't it? It is not over yet. Too much 101 on

newspapers. And Haatheq at. School funding, the consultation

period ends, it has been a tricky one for the government, some areas

losing. I guess we are seeing this through the prism of the National

Insurance contributions now, it is a small majority, if Tory MPs are

unhappy she may not get her way. Talking to backbench MPs who are

unhappy the feeling is it is not going to go ahead in the proposed

form that the consultation has been on. No 10 will definitely have to

move on this. It is unclear whether they will scrap it completely, or

will they bring in something possibly like a base level, floor

level pupil funding below which you can't go? You would then still need

to find some extra money. So there are no easy solutions on this but

what is clear it is not going to go ahead in its current form. Parents

have been getting letters across the country in England about what this

will mean for teachers and so on in certain schools. It's not just a

matter of the education Department, the schools, or the teachers and

Tory backbenchers. Parents are being mobilised on this. The point of the

new funding formula is to allocate more money to the more

disadvantaged. That means schools in the more prosperous suburbs are

going to lose money. Budget cuts on schools which are already

struggling. It comes down again to be huge problem, the ever smaller

fiscal pool, ever greater demands, NHS, social care, education as well,

adding to Theresa May and Phillip Hammond's enormous problems. Here is

an interesting issue, Steve. There was a labour Leader of the

Opposition that once suggested perhaps given these huge energy

companies which seemed to be good at passing on energy rises but not so

good at cutting energy prices when it falls, that perhaps we should put

a cap on them until at least we study how the market goes. This was

obviously ludicrous Marxism and quite rightly knocked down by the

Conservatives, except that Mrs May is now talking about putting a cap

on energy prices. Yes, I think if it wasn't for Brexit we would focus

much more on Theresa May's Ed Miliband streak. Whether this

translates into policies, let us see. That bit we don't know. That

bit we don't know but in terms of argument her speech to the

Conservative conference on Friday was about the third or fourth time

where she said as part of the speech, let's focus on the good that

government can do, including in intervening in markets, exactly in

the way that he used to argue. As you say, we await the policy

consequences of that. She seems more cautious in terms of policy in

fermentation. But in terms of the industrial strategy, in terms of

implying intervention in certain markets, there is a kind of

Milibandesque streak. And there comes a time when she has to walk

the walk as well as talk the talk. They talk a lot about the just about

managing, just about managing face rising food bills because of the

lower pound and face rising fuel bills because of the rise in oil and

in other commodities. One of the two things you could do to help the just

about managing is to cut their food bills and the second would be to cut

their fuel bills. At some stage she has to do something for them. We

don't know what is going to happen to food bills under Brexit, that

could become a really serious issue. They could abolish tariffs. There

has been a lot of talking the talk and big announcements put out and

not following through so I agree with you on that but lots of Tory

MPs will have a big problem on this and the principle of

continually talking about interfering in markets, whether it's

on executive pay, whether it is on energy, at a time when Britain needs

to send out this message to the world in their view, in the view of

Brexit supporting MPs, that we are open for business and the government

is not about poking around and doing this kind of thing. Of course, you

could argue there is not a problem in the market for energy, it is a

malfunctioning market that doesn't operate like a free market should,

so that provides even Adam Smith, the inventor of market economics

would have said on that basis you should intervene. I was in Cardiff

to listen to Theresa May's latest explanation for doing this. By the

way, we've been waiting nine months, this was one of her big ideas. You

are right, let's see a bit of the meat, please. My newspaper has been

calling for some pretty hefty government action on this for quite

some time. For the just about managings? Yes and specifically to

sort out an energy market dominated by the big six, which is manifestly

ripping people off left, right and centre. Theresa May's argument in

Cardiff on Friday morning which, by the way, went down like a proverbial

windbreak at the proverbial funeral because Tories... You know what I

mean Andrew, the big hand coming into from the state telling

businesses what to do. They went very quiet indeed. They were having

saving the union and Nato but there was no clapping for that. The point

being, this is what she needs to do to prove her assault, to prove those

first words on the steps of Downing Street. We await to see the actions

taken. On that unusual agreement we will

leave it there. The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two tomorrow at

noon and everyday during the week. And I'll be here on BBC One

next Sunday at 11am. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics.