18/06/2017 Sunday Politics London

Good morning, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Not good enough - that is Theresa May's

own verdict on the response to the Grenfell Tower fire,

but that is also what a growing number are saying about her

Having failed to win a majority, Mrs May will face a daily battle

to win the votes she needs in Parliament, which is maybe why

the new Leader of the Commons has already cancelled next year's

And Labour are claiming the Government isn't legitimate.

Have they forgotten that, despite defying

all expectations in the election, they didn't actually win?

In London: The terrible Grenfell Tower fire

How could such a tragedy be allowed to happen

And with me to discuss all of that and more,

three journalists who always defy expectations - Steve Richards,

Julia Hartley-Brewer, and Tom Newton Dunn.

And they'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Theresa May's authority was already in freefall even

before her faltering handling of the appalling disaster

Yesterday she admitted the official response had not been good enough.

This morning's front pages, as well as reflecting the full

horror of that tragedy, are also full of claims

that her critics are circling and ready to pounce,

though none, as yet, have come out publicly.

Her Chancellor, Philip Hammond, was asked about the Prime Minister's

position on the Andrew Marr Show earlier.

I think what the country needs now is a period of calm while we get on

with the job in hand. We've got some very serious issues to address,

including the Brexit negotiations are just starting. Theresa is

leading the Government and I think the Government needs to get on with

his job. The you know what? I think that is what most people in the

country will think - the Government needs to get on with the day job of

Government. Get on with the day job, Tom - is that what they are saying

in private? Some are. I was at lunch with a minister on Thursday who

said, we need to get this thing sorted now because if we go one like

this with the Prime Minister without any power at all, we will end up in

a John Major situation and it will only get worse. Talking to people

this week, I don't think that is the predominant view. That seems to be

that she has to stay for the time being, at least until conference,

and possibly as far as the end of the Brexit negotiations, because

there is no real alternative, no obvious person who can come in. The

last thing they want to do now is have an unbelievably divisive

leadership contest and rip up the very thin consensus that currently

still exist on Brexit and go back to square one. Journalist in London are

now searching for whom Tom had lunch with on Thursday. Julia, is that

sustainable in public? The Prime Minister's authority was already in

free fall and she has not handled this disaster well. After the 1922

committee meeting, they said, she handled this well and can handle

this stuff. It was astoundingly poorly handled. Both practically and

in terms of PR. The question is, is she capable of changing and behaving

in a different way? Her selling point running for the leadership

was, I don't do emotion and I am steady as she goes. It has not been,

so if you don't have the touchy-feely Tony Blair David

Cameron stuff, and you don't have strong and stable, you are kind of

left with nothing. It's not that people don't want her, they just

don't want the alternative. Steve, you have studied and lived through

many of these situations that cannot go on, but often it does. For one

thing, there is a fear of an early election, where MPs will think, we

might lose our seats, so we must stop that from happening. Fear the

leadership contest by which some freakish sequence they elect another

dud. 74-79, Gordon Brown after the nonelection, and he survived several

coups. This is a hung parliament where she has lost an overall

majority, and I think there are questions about whether she herself

is ready for the mountainous, daunting assent to come. One of the

reasons that Gordon Brown succeeded and carried on, Steve, was that

other people concluded they might not be better at the big job in

hand, then the economic crisis. Is there a chance that now, for all the

criticism of her, people say, know what, she is the best handle Brexit?

They want her to carry the can for Brexit and everything. No one wants

the leadership, whether it is Boris Johnson, David Davis or anyone else,

unless they can ride up on their white steed and save the day. Also,

Brexit will not be the most beautiful experience. There will be

compromises and pain. A lot of people think, we will get her to

sign the ?50 billion cheque, someone else can come in on a white horse

and save the day. Bets from journalists are not a clever thing

to do, but are you all saying that you think she will survive for some

time? I think she will, but I'm not sure how long. Philip Hammond didn't

answer the question because he doesn't know either. I think she

will for some time. A week ago, I thought there would be an election

in the autumn. I didn't make a prediction of the election outcome,

so I didn't get it wrong, but I didn't get it right either. If she

doesn't screw up, she will probably last until the end of Brexit. For

the moment, thank you very much. Theresa May's failure to win

a majority after a disastrous election campaign has

left her critics returning to that famous phrase once used

by Norman Lamont to describe John Major - in office,

but not in power. Short of MPs and shorn

of her closest advisers, she now faces a disgruntled party,

an emboldened opposition, the start of Brexit negotiations and,

as we've been saying, claims that she has mishandled

a national crisis. When Theresa May finally visited

residents at the scene of the Grenfell Tower fire,

she was jeered by some residents, Many questions have been raised,

of course, about successive Governments' approach to fire

regulation, as well as the speed and scale of the official

response to the disaster. This crisis comes at a time

when the Prime Minister is still trying to construct

a Commons majority by securing the support of the ten MPs

of Northern Ireland's The DUP is demanding more funding

for Northern Ireland and is thought to want a series of Conservative

manifesto promises dropped. This means that Wednesday's Queen's

Speech, when the Government sets out its plans for the year, will -

in the words of one Controversial plans like reversing

the ban on opening new grammar schools, ending free lunches

at English primary schools, and the scheme designed to reform

social care funding are all likely to be scaled down or

dropped altogether. The Government has scrapped next

year's Queen's speech and is planning a rare

two-year Parliament to give more time for MPs to debate

Brexit, it says, but its critics say the Government

is running scared. Because, of course, what hangs over

everything the Government now does is the small matter

of negotiating our way out Well, to discuss all of this,

I'm joined by the newly appointed leader of the Commons,

Andrea Leadsom. Good morning, and thanks for coming

on the programme. The election seems a lifetime ago, but then, the

Conservative Party promised strong and stable leadership. It's not

unreasonable to say that you don't look strong or stable and there's

not a lot of leadership. The last couple of weeks have been extremely

devastating, and I think the real focus of the Government over the

last week since that awful tragedy at Grenfell Tower has been trying to

ensure that everything is being done for the victims. I know there has

been a big narrative about what could have been done better and so

on, but in truth, the Prime Minister has had a job to do, and she really

has focused on trying to make sure that the residents are taking care

of, and that's got to be the priority. Why did you go and meet

them to hear their anger and pain but she initially did not? I was

there as the new Leader of the House of Commons and had helped to arrange

an emergency briefing for MPs and peers the previous day, and it was

so apparent how desperately moved and sympathetic and distraught all

MPs were, right across the House. Which raises the question of why the

Prime Minister did not go. She had a job to do. Too busy? No, but she

needed to ensure that what the residents needed, sorting out bank

accounts, mobile phones, trauma counselling and accommodation, she

was trying to get a handle on all of that to make sure that those things

were taking care of. She issued a statement yesterday saying the

response was not good enough. The one nudges and winks from her

advisers that it was not done properly. Do you think the Prime

Minister did not get this right? I think we are all very conscious that

the support wasn't good enough in the first couple of days. Obviously,

all local councils are geared up to try and deal with the relief from

disasters such as this, but this is unprecedented, this is absolutely

harrowing, and I know that the council did everything they could

with massive support. People are furious, and with good reason. I

hear you say that you understand and you feel people's pain. The Prime

Minister was busy, the council did their bit, so who got it wrong?

Someone has to be held responsible. Absolutely right, and as I am trying

to explain, the council really... And I rang the chief executive to

try and give specific feedback from some of the residents. He was

absolutely trying to put the right people in place to deal with that.

We had a lot of feedback from community leaders. So the council

would be replaced? We are hearing talk of someone being drafted in to

replace them because they are not doing well enough. The Prime

Minister has decided to bring in very experienced civil servants to

improve and to add to the resources of the local council so that issues

can be addressed much more quickly and with greater experience and

precision, quite rightly. Part of the problem with what may have led

to the fire and what is happening now is that no one thinks anyone is

in charge. When you talk about who could is -- who keeps people save,

is it the council, the people who manage the block, is at the fire

brigade, the people who inspect the work, the Government? No one knows

who is in charge. In this specific case, the Prime Minister is now in

charge of the committee that is bringing together all necessary

resources, but I think you make a very good question, Nick - we do

need to understand better how we can ensure that this just cannot happen

again. By clear lines of responsibility. This is horrific.

Yes, all those lessons need to be learnt about if I may, there are two

aspects: Dealing with the very real, pressing, urgent needs of those

poor, absolutely horrified and traumatised victims, and then this

bigger question about who should be in charge and where the buck stops

and who should be in control. They are two separate issues. When you

hear the rage, and it is rage can I ask a personal question? Do you feel

shame as a politician? Of course. We all think, what could we have done

or should we have done? It's just unbearable. You know, this cannot

happen in the 21st century, and yet it has. If it weren't for this, this

would still be a huge week in politics, with the Queen 's speech

coming, a new parliament, and you have been appointed Leader of the

Commons, in charge of Government business. Why have you already,

almost your first act as Leader of the Commons, scrapped the next Queen

's speech, next year's, to make sure that the parliament last for two

years and not one, unusually? It happened in 2005 and 2010. It didn't

happen during the war or during other crises. It is the rate of

legislation rather than crises. There is a lot of legislation to go

through. And we're leaving the EU at the end of March 2019, so having a

two-year period in which to bring together parliament and Government

to really make progress with legislation that is essential to

making a real success of Brexit, there are some big advantages, it's

all a bit technical, but as you will know, select committees don't have

to ditch enquiries, bills don't have to be carried forward, and there

will be more Parliamentary time for scrutiny... The advantages, you

don't have to risk another Queen 's speech which you might lose. In

other words, having two years makes it just a little bit easier for the

Government to survive than it might otherwise be.

I want to be clear, that is not any reason for doing this. There are

plenty of opportunities if you want to speculate on problems for the

Government. The point about this two year Parliament is it enables us to

get the work of leaving the EU done, but the same time we have a

legislative programme to tackle the issues of inequality, lack of

opportunity, and we want to have a good run at that at this difficult

time. You have yet to unveil the deal with the DUP, I assume we will

see that tomorrow, we do, how many parts of the manifesto will have to

be ditched? There are lengthy conversations now with the DUP and

we share a number of interests in common, ensuring we make a success

of Brexit and there's no hard border between the Republic of Ireland and

Northern Ireland. They will brace against hard austerity, so some of

the tough things you're doing in your manifesto like scrapping all

meals in England for example, changing the social care system,

ending the winter fuel allowance for some people, they will go, won't

they? We don't ever talk about the Queen's speech in advance, the Queen

will make those announcements on Wednesday. I'm preparing people for

the fact that some of the things you said in the manifesto will have to

go? The issue is that we have an enormous job to do to make a success

of Brexit and we have huge ambitions for a social, domestic legislative

programme that will improve life opportunities and reduce

inequalities in this nation. Is that's a long winded way of saying

yes? We will prioritise those things. You went to the country and

Theresa May went to the country asking for a Brexit mandate and you

didn't get one, the country didn't give you a majority. As one of the

leading campaigners for Leave, does that make you conclude something has

to change? Overrated percent voted for parties who stood on manifestos

for leaving the EU so I don't recognise what you say that we don't

have a mandate for Brexit. We do. At the referendum last year and also

the results of the general election. As I say, over 80% of people voting

for parties that will respect the result of the referendum. Had on

television this morning Kier Starmer of the Labour Party saying he wanted

to stay in the customs union, in other words you may have a majority

for the headlines, but the detail there is no majority for, no

agreement on and what I'm really asking you is whether you will have

to reach out to find that sort of agreement. In my new job as Leader

of the House of Commons, it will be important to listen to all members

right across The House, but I think it is extremely clear that in

leaving the EU we will be taking back control of our laws, our

borders, our money, and that means leaving the single market, it means

giving up on free movement. It means taking back those laws, putting them

into UK law and being able to change them. If it takes time, in other

words if that is the agreed and objective but to take some time and

the Chancellor says, you know what, we need two or three years for

business to be clear, for there to be no so-called cliff edges, do you

say you have the time? The negotiation begins tomorrow. It is

going to be very, you know, strong on all sides, but certainly my

experience from talking to other EU politicians is that they absolutely

recognise the desire as we do for a strong partnership and for there to

be low tariff... I asked about time, and the reason is let's not use the

word speculation, the Chancellor on the television this morning said

time, no cliff edges, time. Where you have politicians across the EU

and the UK who share the desire for a successful outcome with lower

tariffs, zero nontariff barriers, free trade between ourselves, it

should be possible to meet the time frame. In other words no

transitional arrangements? I am extremely optimistic there is a lot

we can agree on. I am just saying to you, my expectation is there will be

a lot we can agree on and that will facilitate a smooth transition. It

is clear Theresa May will not be running as your leader at the next

general election, so when is the right time for the party to consider

who will be leading next? Before or after Brexit? That is absolutely a

statement I would reject. You cannot see into the future. We have seen a

lot of change in recent weeks and months. The Prime Minister has done

a fantastic job in bringing the country back to a good place since

she has been the leader and Prime Minister. She is determined to

continue... She might lead the party into another election. I don't look

into the future. Let's put it another way, do you think there is a

chance some of the Conservative will lead the Brexit negotiations? I

think the Prime Minister will lead the Brexit negotiations. She has led

preparations extremely well and determinedly on behalf of the whole

country. And in that two years for the negotiation, it may be in need

time to save can look ahead to who our next leader is. I think it is

unhelpful to speculate on the future in that way. We need a coming

together, a recognition that all people need to have their say, and

strong leadership that can take us forward. Theresa May with her

Cabinet are determined to provide that. Are you believed you didn't

get the job? I supported the Prime Minister. -- are you relieve you

didn't get the job? I am completely backing Theresa May as our Prime

Minister. Thank you for taking the time to join does.

Whilst Theresa May and the Government have been struggling

to deal with the disaster at Grenfell Tower, Jeremy Corbyn

was hailed by residents after his visit to the area on Thursday.

Is Labour properly reflecting and channelling the public's anger,

or are they exploiting it - playing political games,

I'm joined now by the Shadow Local Government Secretary and Labour's

Good morning. There is a lot of anger on the streets, much of it

understandable that other people will share, but as the main

opposition party, do you have a responsibility to calm it down

rather than turn it up? I don't think we are stirring it up, I would

hope that we have been fully responsible in reflecting the

concerns, the anxieties, the hurt and worry of those residents in

Kensington. I want to pay tribute to the community that pulls together in

the face of adversity. Can't even begin to think of the pain that

people are going through, the hurt that community is going through, and

yet they have pulled together to look after one another to do some of

the things that statutory authorities should be doing, and I

think it is right and proper that we get to the bottom of what has

happened in this dreadful tragedy, and make sure we put right

everything that needs putting right so we never, ever experienced

anything as horrific as this again. I want to talk about how that might

be done in a second. You safe Labour are coming down. Clive Lewis tweeted

Burn Neo Liberalism not People, do you think that is responsible at a

time like this? I think it is important we are measured in our

approach here. Is that measured? Clive will answer for what he has

tweeted. There is an issue here that we have had seven years of cuts to

our public services. Local authorities don't have the resources

that they need to be able to provide some of the most basic services. The

Fire Service is under resourced as well, and there are issues. This

probably isn't the time to go into them, but there are issues that need

to be resolved about how we make sure that health and safety

regulation isn't seen as a burden on business, isn't seen as unnecessary

red tape, it's about saving lives and protecting people. Your

implication, almost your statement, is austerity was the reason for the

fire. It may turn out to be true, and plenty of people believe it, but

what is your evidence for saying austerity caused this fire? I

haven't said that. I said there are number of issues here. Health and

safety regulation is one, building regulations are another. The role of

government is important in this, how local authorities are able to fund

under resourced civil contingencies emergency planning. But your leader

said if you cut local authority expenditure, the price is paid

somehow. The implication was clear that the cuts lead to the fire and

it could be that this was bad regulation, it could be that the

regulation was fine but not followed, it could be criminal

negligence, it may not turn out to be cuts at all. It could be all of

those things and the important thing is we get the inquiry. We have as

wide as possible terms of reference for the inquiry, we ensure the

residents, victims and local community have a full voice in that

inquiry and we make sure the actions which are required both that we

already know from previous incidents but also the recommendations that,

of this inquiry are acted upon. We cannot ever have situation again

where we have recommendations from previous reports that have not been

acted on by government or local government. There has been a focus

of criticism on Kensington Council but there are many Labour councils

with this kind of cladding on the residential tower blocks. Do you now

know how many it is? No, but we do know every local authority and

housing association in the country are now urgently investigating their

own housing stock and we very clearly have to know that. I have

got tower blocks in my own constituency that have recently been

re-clad and I have contacted my housing providers because I want

assurances on behalf of my constituents that they are living in

safe housing. We understand me that carried out the work in Grenfell

also carried out work in Labour run Camden so it's possible this sort of

fire, God help us that it doesn't, it might happen in another borough

and in an area where the parties opposed to austerity. Absolutely and

we have got to make sure we identify precisely which housing stock does

not meet modern requirements, does not meet the safety minimum

standards, and that we urgently put that right. We cannot ever have a

catastrophe like this again, and I have been in this job as shadow

community Secretary for four days now. It pains me to see what has

happened in Kensington. This is awful, these are human lives and we

have got to start treating people and communities with the respect and

with the humanity that they deserve. You were careful at the top to say

it's important to be responsible, what do you think the fourth of the

call for a day of rage, not by the Labour Party, the day of rage on

Wednesday and quote, the Tories have blood on their hands? I don't

associate myself with those kind of comments. I think if we are going to

do something on Wednesday it is a vigil for those people who have lost

their lives because this is a tragedy and we cannot ever have that

happen again. The reason I ask is John McDonnell, the Shadow

Chancellor, said, and I quote, I don't think this Government is a

legitimate government. Do you think it is?

In the sense that Theresa May went to the country asking for a bigger

Parliamentary majority and a mandate from the people, and she came out on

the 8th of June with no Parliamentary majority at all, so it

does raise questions about the legitimacy of this Government's

ability to put forward a programme that they stood for election on.

That is a different point. I asked a simple question: Is this a

legitimate Government? Did they win more votes and seats under the rules

and therefore is your message to anyone taking to the streets to

claim that they are not legitimate? We are a democracy, we have

elections, and the Conservatives won 42% of the vote in the election. The

Tories lost seats, and the Labour Party gain seats. We are in a

Parliamentary democracy and we will hold the Government to account for

as long as little as it survives. Why did Mr McDonnell not say what

you have said, that you will beat them in the House of Commons? He

went on to say, we need as many as 1 million people on the streets of

London. He wasn't talking about this fire, to be fair, but about a

protest planned for the start of July. He said we need a million

people on the streets of London to force the Tories out. Is that

democracy? Clearly, peaceful demonstration is part of our

democratic rights, and people feel very strongly that this Government

has lost a mandate because Theresa May went to the country asking for a

bigger majority, and the country said no. They took that majority

that she had away from her. I want to make sure we hold this Government

to account, and at the earliest opportunity defeat this Government

so that we can put into practice our positive agenda for a fairer,

better, more recall Britain that works for the many, not the few.

Thank you for joining us. Will the Government's Brexit

plans have to change following the election

after they failed to get the mandate Theresa May demanded,

leaving them with no Lots of attention has focused

on whether Britain's future does lie That makes it easy for firms

to trade within the EU, but prevents Britain

striking its own free trade deals Let's have a listen

to Labour's Shadow Brexit Secretary, Keir Starmer, and the Chancellor,

Philip Hammond, speaking earlier. Well, I think that should

be left on the table. So, we could stay

inside the customs union? We are leaving the EU,

and because we are leaving the EU we will be leaving the single

market, and by the way we will be The question is not whether we are

leaving the customs union, the question is what we put

in its place in order to deliver the objectives

the Prime Minister set out. Well, to see what two

people from the world of business make of this,

I'm joined by the former director general of the CBI and one-time

trade minister Digby Jones, and by the fund manager

Nicola Horlick. Good morning to you both. Digby,

before we get bogged down in what people should or shouldn't do in the

Government, from a business perspective, the customs union -

what exactly is it can provide does it matter to businesses? -- what

exactly is it and why does it matter to businesses? People are saying we

need to stay in the single market, but why then they say the other

words - Britain's judges don't have control over the law? The customs

union is something where you can be within a trading relationship, not

as integrated as the single market, but the big problem we will have

coming out of the single market is not tariffs, I don't think, because

that will hurt Europe, the problem is the bureaucracy, the regulatory

burden of getting goods and services across borders. Crudely, businesses

are worried about being delayed on the border by paperwork, deliberate

paperwork, perhaps, making it harder for our businesses to do business.

That is what the issue is. That is the biggest part. The other part is

that you get this sense of being in something, so that investors from

Japan, America and China who come to Britain for good reasons get the

advantage of being within this trading relationship. There are two

big downsides to it. One is that you have to pay money for it. It doesn't

come free. There is a check to write. And the second one, the big

one, in all my years at the CBI and as a Trade Minister, you find that

we are well known for trading openly around the world with good-quality

traders will stop we don't do the protectionism of America and France,

we are actually good at this. This forbid you from going around the

world and dealing with Singapore, America or China, or whoever. You

have two at brussels do it and you are forbidden from being part of the

global economy. I think that will be the big thing that stops things.

Thank you for the moment. Nicola, in the end, if you could get the

advantages of a border that was simple to do business across,

wouldn't it make sense, as Digby Jones says, to get out of the

customs union and be able to trade around the world freely, without

waiting for Brussels to do some deal that would take many years? The

problem is, striking trade deals takes many years, as we've seen.

There are many examples likely where the EU has been trying to negotiate

something, or the US has, and it takes years and then sometimes

stumbles at the last hurdle. The idea that we can suddenly strike our

own trade deals is nonsense, in my view. It will take years. We will be

cutting off our nose to spite our face if we shun the EU. There are

500 million people in the EU, including Britain, so it goes down a

bit if we come out. The point is, we can trade freely with that block

currently with no constraints. You are cheering on Labour's Kia Starmer

when he says, we are getting out of the EU, but we might be able to stay

in the customs union? As Digby said, if you stay in the customs union,

you cannot do your own trade deals. We heard from the Chancellor this

morning that there was a middle position, where we get out of the

customs union but over a period of years, to stop businesses having the

worry is that you set out, there would be some sort of transition.

Are you up for that? What business needs is certainty, boring

predictability. And the next couple of years are going to deliver

precisely the opposite. Anyone who thinks otherwise is for the birds.

If it were set out as a timetable and everyone knew that by this date,

this date and this date, things will happen, then I am up for that. We

have to make sure that people understand, and this is so

important, that the European union is big trading bloc, Nicola is

right, but it is only one. This is Asia's century, not America's or

Europe's. You have Brussels marching valiantly towards 1970. We need to

hit our wagon to the world. A civil servant used a phrase many years ago

- we don't want to chain ourselves to a corpse. He said that about

Europe. The future is elsewhere, Nicola? The fact is, it is not only

a huge area with 500 million people, but it is also very prosperous. You

would have to do an awful lot of trade deals across many territories

to actually replicate what we currently have, which is free access

to a huge trade block with no constraints, and that has been

beneficial to our economy. I want to be clear that you didn't want to

leave, and you would love to reverse it now if you could, I suspect, but

do you think it is possible to get out as the people voted for, but

still have the advantages of the customs union? I think that is very.

In or out? Yes. If you look at what happened during the election, there

has been a huge thing about 80% of people voting for parties that want

a Brexit. I don't think that's true. If you look at what happened, a lot

of younger people voted who were expected to vote, and they are

certainly not in favour of leaving the EU, the single market, the

customs union or any of it. Would be, when you describe the advantages

of the customs union, many people watching with thing, and therefore

the end of your sentence would be, and that is why we should stay in,

but you want to come out - why would you take such a risk? I think the

negotiations over the next two years should be unique. We are the fifth

or sixth biggest economy on earth. We ought to have a quality

relationship with Europe for all the reasons that Nicola has said, and

she's right, and at the same time reach out to the world. If it is

achievable along with Philip Hammond's idea of feathering over

the years, it is in Europe's interests. We need humility and less

arrogance, but we have got to get there. Briefly, what is the

nightmare, the fear, if we are not in the customs union? I believe it

will be very detrimental to our economy, and also one thing: The

fact of the matter is that Germany is in the EU. Germany does seven

times as much trade with China as we do. The idea that the EU stops as

trading with other countries is nonsense. A brief last sentence,

Digby. The German example is rubbish. They dominate the EU and

they use that as a way of enhancing their competitiveness in China. What

is true, and you are right, that is coming out of the customs union done

badly willed deny us the access we have spoken of, but done well, it

will have the best of both worlds. Thank you both very much indeed.

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.

Hello and welcome to the London part of the show.

There is only one story we are looking at today

and of course that is the terrible fire at

Grenfell Tower in Kensington, West London, that has claimed

the lives of scores of victims and shaken the capital to its core.

Who is to blame and what needs to be done to help rebuild this shattered

community and ensure that this never happens again?

Joining me to help answer some of those questions -

Emma Dent Coad who only ten days ago won her seat to become

the new Labour Member of Parliament for Kensington;

Conservative MP for Bromley and Chislehurst Bob Neill who served

as a Minister for Fire from 2010 to 2012 in the Cameron-led

Coalition government, and Jim Fitzpatrick,

Labour MP for Poplar and Limehouse, himself a former fireman for 20

years and who has also served as Minister for London.

Firstly, Emma, can I get your reaction, as the local MP,

to the terrible events of early Wednesday morning

Absolutely terrifying, and the worst thing for most of us is that this

was clearly predicted and there have been concerns flagged up for many

years by residents. As far as we can see, it was preventable, and that

adds a whole new layer of horror to the event. Jim, you were a fireman,

and you could go through endless training schedules and programmes

but nothing could prepare you for this type of event? Know, and the

best comment on that was from Danny Cotton, acting interim Commissioner

of the Fire Service, who said that in her experience, she has never

seen anything like it. It must have been absolutely shocking for the

firefighters turning up, and I can't imagine what it was like for the

victims. What is your reaction to the news? Above all, this is an

appalling human tragedy and we have to reach out to the people who have

suffered, who have lost family, possessions will stop Jim is also

right to say, thank heavens for the professionalism of the Fire Service

and the brave way in which Danny Cotton and her team responded to an

extraordinary set of events. There are huge questions about whether or

not this was preventable and what was done in the years gone by to try

and stop this kind of thing happening. Jim, you were the fire

minister from 2005 - 2006 - why didn't you ban plastic cladding? I

don't know the answer to that question. That will be asked by the

enquiry that has been set up. Everybody who has had any role at

any level in local Government or central Government, be it an elected

politician or a professional civil servant, we will be scrutinised, and

these questions will be asked, and answers will have to be given. In

2000, the House of Commons wrote a report saying that this particular

type of cladding should be banned. There had been warnings. Do you

recall from your time concerns being raised about this type of cladding,

which seems to have been absolutely central to the spreading of this

fire? I don't recall. It is over ten years ago, but there will be records

and details of all the decisions that I took, and that will be open

to complete scrutiny. What people want our answers to these questions

-- people want answers to these questions and then there will be

able to draw conclusions as to responsibility and culpability. We

have seen some horrific pictures, charred black on the outside, and

there is wide acceptance that the cladding filled with plastic is one

of the reasons the fire spread so fast. There was a review in 2012

after another tower block fire where people died in 2009 - what changed

as a result of that fire under your watch?

I made sure my chief fire adviser gave evidence to the inquest, the

inquest reported after I left government but I do know my

successor wrote to all housing providers and local authorities,

drawing attention to the inquest findings, and also guidance was

issued in 2014 on fighting fires in high-rise buildings. Plastic

cladding was banned in Germany in the 1980s, do you remember from your

time there that this is an appalling hazard and something should be done

about it? There is always discussion about changing technology, but types

of cladding change rapidly sometimes so you do need to be getting

technical guidance to update the recommendations. It is one thing the

public inquiry will have to look at, whether the recommendations were

adequate, but also whether the work was done in accordance with existing

recommendations. Philip Hammond kept mentioning the public inquiry on the

Andrew Marr Show, but it will take some time to find the evidence of

what happened here and we want answers before then. In 2009 after

the Lakanal House fire, "It is recommended high-rise buildings

consider the retrofitting of sprinkler systems", do you remember

anyone ever coming to you saying that tower blocks should be retrofit

with sprinkler systems? The recommendations from the coroner

came after I left office but my successor did write drawing that

recommendation to the attention of local authorities. The thing about

the inquiry is this, the Government have made it clear we want an

interim report quickly because people do need answers, so we need a

detailed inquiry but we should be able to get an interim report

answering some of those immediate questions as soon as possible. Emma,

does that satisfy you? Not entirely. I wrote a letter to Amber bride

which is widely available and we have made a number of points which

we need to be addressed. They are all here in my letter, certain

issues about dealing with the survivors now, and how they are to

be housed and looked after and help must be available 24/ seven. We are

still hearing stories of people not being allocated properly. There is

one woman and her child who have been moved three times since

Wednesday into different accommodation which is appalling. It

will come onto the political response and whether it was adequate

later but let's talk about safety and what could have been done before

this happened. You were on the Housing scrutiny committee at

Kensington and Chelsea, a long-term Council there, did anyone ever raise

with you the issue of sprinkler safety? I have never heard it being

discussed in relation... There is a claim it was offered to the

residents of Grenfell Tower and they had refused it, and I've spoken to

them and they say it was never refused. The issue of Grenfell Tower

when it was on the board which I left in 2012 was that it was in a

bad condition, the heating and hot water was constantly failing, people

were concerned about the electrics and Windows were leaking. The

refurbishment was welcomed to a certain extent but how it was done

was decided after me. The committee system on the council, it is a

scrutiny system, we don't make the decisions, and as a minority party

councillor you can ask all the questions you like, if there is a

vote which there is very rarely, it isn't in our hands. The Cabinet

member signs it off, he has to be content. Jim, is it acceptable that

only 1% of tower blocks have sprinklers fitted? When we know from

the Fire Brigades Union no one has ever died in Britain in a tower

blocks that was properly fitted with a sprinkler system. Sprinklers are

very effective way of controlling fires and mostly extinguishing

fires, certainly preventing them from spreading and allowing the fire

brigade time to turn up which is why sprinklers are an attractive option,

but of course the media has concentrated a lot on sprinklers and

the firefighter response and praising that, that is the tip of

the iceberg. This goes back to the building regulations and the

appropriate specification of materials, the quality of work

undertaken, the inspection of the work once it is completed to make

sure it passes muster, the maintenance of the building, and has

been raising that, and if that is done properly we don't get to a

fire. If we don't get the fire, we don't need sprinklers and

firefighters can go around educating people about fire, fitting smoke

detectors and making sure people are aware of the dangers. So sprinklers

are important, they do save lives and we should have more deployment

of sprinklers, and I am positive it will be one of the major

recommendations of this committee. People want answers as to why the

sprinklers weren't there in the first place. Your successor Brandon

Lewis said in 2014 we believe it is the responsibility of the fire

industry rather than the Government to market fire sprinkler systems.

The cost of fitting a sprinkler system may affect house building

which we want to encourage. Does that strike you as an appalling

abdication of responsibility? To say it is a responsibility of the fire

industry rather than the Government to market sprinkler systems

properly, coming after a tragedy in 2009 which was followed by a coroner

's report that concluded sprinkler systems should be retrofitted

everywhere. That is the responsibility of the Government to

set safety standards, the products are produced by the private sector

and that is the point Brandon was making but we do need to make sure

those products are available. It is a complex matter, sprinklers have a

great role to play but they don't necessarily answer every problem and

that is why in this inquiry we need to find out what happened back to

the root cause. But we don't need it to report before we get a sense and

an answer from you over whether it is the Government's responsibility

to make sure sprinklers are retrofitted. Brandon Lewis' quote is

saying it is responsibility of the fire industry rather than the

Government. Actually what the Government did was to draw the

attention of the coroner 's recommendation specifically to every

provider of social housing across the country and they have the

responsibility to fit those if they wish to do so. We need to consider

whether we should revisit the strength of that guidance. I want to

get another take on this. On Friday, our reporter

Tanjil Rashid asked David Lammy, Labour MP for Tottenham,

about the loss of a close Kadija and her family

remind me of my family in the '70s - poor, working-class, to

some extent vulnerable You've heard that the residents

were complaining to the TMO, and their complaints

were falling on deaf ears. We have got to reassess

the truth of what it needs We have got to reassess

the truth of what it means to be living in social housing, how

hard it is to get any remedy when things go wrong, the conditions

in which you live. Do you think we need to end social

housing in tower blocks? Is that something

that needs to change? Of course, there are tower blocks

in London for the very wealthy. They have external fire escapes

as well as internal ones, they have sprinkler systems, many

lifts, there are many Unless you are prepared to bring

public housing up to those standards, then it seems to me

that we need to move away from those '70s tower blocks,

we need to demolish them, to house people in different

circumstances in the city. After almost a decade

of austerity in this country, we need to

bring the state back. I'm not sure that we want

arm's-length organisations that don't take responsibility

for the people who live in their buildings, who don't

take their concerns seriously, who don't understand

what it means if the lift breaks down that you've got to get 22

floors up to the top, who don't understand

what it's like living in the to the top, who don't understand

what it's like living if the stairwells are occupied by drug

addicts during the evening and during the course of the day,

where there are no fire hoses, no alarms, no sprinklers,

where apparently fire doors are taken out

but not put back in. Why does it take a fire

to wake us up to the reality of what's

happening in the city? David Lambie MP speaking to our

reporter there. Emma Dent Coad, why are there different safety standards

for the rich? There shouldn't be, and we are hearing the difference

between guidance and regulation. Regulations have been pulled back,

and this idea we have got to get rid of the red tape. The standards

should be the same. Maintenance of Council and housing association

homes over the years has been deteriorating. I have seen that. We

are back to appalling conditions some people are living in and they

are not safe, and it is down to maintenance and funding for the

maintenance. Do you agree with David Lambie that all tower blocks without

sprinkler systems fitted should be abolished and residents should be

rehoused? I don't actually and most of my career I have spent as an

architecture historian and critic and a lot of my friends have been

writing about similar tower blocks in the past. If they are properly

maintained, and they are built to maintain fire in each unit. We have

that a few years ago, there was smoke damage but you could see it

was completely maintained. That is how it should be. If there are fire

doors, concrete frame buildings are incredibly safe but they must be

maintained properly and they didn't refurbishment is they have to

restore firebreaks. They are safe if they are maintained properly so why

aren't we maintaining our social housing to the same level as private

housing? Perhaps the issue is who is in charge. Jim, you spent many years

as a government minister in Labour years, 20 years as a fireman before

that. We seem to have a situation with ministers in charge of

regulations, councils funding an arms length management company, and

a management company paying the cheapest bidder for a refurbishment.

As of the system designed to make it easy for people to pass the buck.

That's one way of looking at it, but if the law is enforced, people don't

get chance to pass the buck. As Bob said, we see new methods of

construction being developed up all the time, new materials being used,

other countries banning particular materials. We have to keep up with

this, if we don't we fall behind at our peril. Who should take

responsibility? Because a lot of people who are very angry about this

tragedy, who are protesting on the streets, who called the Prime

Minister a coward when she tried to visit the site, they are saying no

one is taking responsibility. Who should take responsibility for the

safety of tower blocks like Grenfell of which we know there are many

others around the country? Ultimately we as parliamentarians

do, the Government does, it is their job to lay regulations that have to

be forced so the buck stops with government. People who die in fires

have historically always been the poor, the sick, the disabled, people

with addiction difficulties. The accommodation provided for them, if

it is up to the appropriate standard, they are safe. We can

improve safety all the time but we need to make sure the basics are

there to protect people in their own homes. It failed in Grenfell Tower,

the inquiry will demonstrate how the fire started. There was a scandal in

London recently with white goods exploding, manufacturers have a

responsibility to recall goods which are not fit for purpose as well.

There are whole host of issues which have to be looked at. Hopefully the

inquiry will point to that stuff. Let's turn to the political

responsibility. Bob Neill, has Theresa May's response been good

enough? I think Theresa May has accepted that overall the

Government's response has not been good enough. Theresa May was widely

criticised for not speaking to more of the victims and their families,

only to servicemen, she has subsequently seen them in Downing

Street. She then went on Newsnight, and spoke to Emily Maitlis where she

was empathetic toward the suffering of people and has been roundly

condemned in today's papers including Tory supporting papers, so

has her response been good enough? She is not one of those people

perhaps it shows emotion as openly as some of us do. Don't you think if

you are Prime Minister you need to show an understanding? Watch did do,

is she went there and have particular security advice as to

whether it was helpful for a prime ministerial visit to the scene

immediately but she sat down with people, and I saw her do that, in

difficult situations one-to-one, and she is a woman who cares. The key

thing now is to get this package of help is delivered for people. There

were questions about the Prime Minister's authority, she ordered a

stamp collection which resulted in a hung parliament. You are soft Brexit

man, a Remainer, do you think her response to Grenfell Tower has

further damaged her authority? I don't think it need do so. Some

people are making political capital out of it, I want to get on with the

job of government. The people who suffered in Grenfell Tower need

that, they don't need speculation in newspapers. We need the Government

getting on with this job on the key issues that confront the Government

as a whole. Visit Bob Neill right to say we should be focusing on people

who need most help and not politicising this issue?

People want justice, not waffle. They want straight talking. They are

not children and they want to be talked to as responsible human

being. They have been talked down to four years and their concerns have

been ignored. The very chain of events that happened was predicted.

That's horrendous, and they were ignored, infantilised and not

listened to. I won't have people talking down to the people who

elected me. Let's hear what the Communities Secretary had to say

about this this week. We will do whatever it takes,

we will take the expert advice, do whatever it takes to make those

buildings safe or make those people We have to be led by the experts,

but there can be no short Jim Fitzpatrick, are you seriously

asserting that Tory austerity is somehow to blame for this awful

human tragedy, as some on the left that said? I haven't said that, but

what is clearly worth examining, and I'm sure the enquiry will look at

it, is whether or not, going back to our fundamental point about the

maintenance of these buildings, the appropriate skills being deployed by

the workers who have been doing the construction, the right materials

being purchased that are at the right specification, all of these

things will have to be looked at. There is a rapport I think in the

Sunday Mirror this morning that the number of inspections in tower

blocks carried out by the Fire Service is down 25% between 2010 and

2017, so why has that been happening when the risk is as great if not

greater because there are more people in the country? There are

questions that will have to be answered. Whether or not it has a

direct effect will be for the enquiry to determine. Emma, briefly.

This issue has very little to do with austerity. The council has huge

reserves and I have criticised them for not spending it. We have

austerity across the country, and some in Kensington and Chelsea. The

council has been squirrelling money away are not using it where it would

be best used. After the financial crash, we spent aliens bailing out

bankers, some is in the crucial lesson this week that we don't care

when it is poor people? I don't think that is the case. We need to

learn that it is not just enough to put in place laws and regulations,

we must have an enforced properly, and that has to be done, regardless

of where people live and regardless of their circumstances. That is an

important point we need to get from this enquiry. I am glad to see that

the Government has said it will pay for legal representation for the

victims potter-mac families so that they can have their say, and that

they will have a say in the scoping -- for the victims' family so that

they can have their say. Thanks to all of you.

Even if the inferno in London had never happened, this would have been

The Brexit negotiations finally begin in Brussels tomorrow -

will ministers change their position?

The Queen's Speech, which had to be delayed,

but can the Government get its legislative agenda

Still with me, Steve, Julia and Tom. Steve, Brexit, as if it is just a

small thing this week. We have heard from the Chancellor this morning and

from Andrea Leadsom - do you detect a shift in Government debate or

still alive -- in Government approach or still a lively debate?

Philip Hammond now is in a stronger position than he could ever have

dreams who would be in -- he would be an before the election result, so

tonally, we have him now confidently saying that the focus must be on the

economy, on having some kind of deal whereby there are not bureaucrats

blocking the movement of goods and so on, but beyond that, it's not

entirely clear how he plans to use this new political muscularity. I

think that will become clearer as the talks begin, but at this point,

it all still seems fairly vague. Labour's position and the

Government's as these talks begin tomorrow. Don't you smell a rat? Do

you think, I know what they are rock to, they wanted ter at the

referendum? It is almost irrelevant what the Government says and what

they are thinking of doing. What matters is what is on the table,

hence the nonsense about soft Brexit and hard Brexit. Soc Brexit is not

Brexit and hard Brexit is not an option. Guy the Hofstadter did the

work of Nigel Farage last week when he said that we could remain but

lose the rebate. Even a slow Brexit... No, no, at the end of

March in 2019 we will be out of the EU. That is what happens. There is a

question of transition deals, which is fine. But we do not know which

Government will be in power at the time, but will they obey the will of

the people as expressed in the EU referendum, which is out of the free

market, no free movement? This argument is irrelevant, I think.

Tom, has a lot changed? Remit yes. The first compromise the Government

made on Friday, which was almost unreported on Friday because we had

so much more to talk about, Grenfell Tower being the major one, but the

Government agreed to go by the EU timetable, which is to sort out the

divorce and then move the trade deal. The other thing that changed

is the composition of the House of Commons. There is no majority for

Theresa May's version of Brexit. I think the area where there will be

room for manoeuvre is immigration. It won't be the customs union. There

will be an argument about the relationship, but it will be to

soften up this call from Theresa May for immigration controls. Jobs first

is a change in the Government position, isn't it? Tom is right

about immigration. I was told that the decision to include student

numbers in the immigration total was her view and hers alone. I think

that will be dropped now, because the Cabinet feels strong enough to

assert their different view. Every single member of that cabinet I am

told apart from her did not want that. There is an example of

refocusing. At the moment, it is not clear where that will lead. The

talks will begin, I think, in an messy way. -- in a messy way. I have

spoken to Tory MPs on the Remain site who wonder if we won't still be

in in 2019. It is not possible. The legal process has begun. We are out

of the EU at the end of that period. Transition could mean it feels very

like we are still in. All this talk about compromise and so on, it is

between members of the Cabinet and UK political parties. What matters

is what is on the table and how the British people react. During these

talks, the Government will have to compromise if they don't get to have

their cake and eat it. Brexit will be soft. Do you think there is

arithmetic that will bring a dramatic change? Bhui report this as

internal machinations in the Tory Party in the Cabinet. It is what you

can get through. We report this. She framed this election as a mandate

for her version of Brexit. When she didn't get that mandate, I know it

has become a cliche could, -- it has become a cliche, but she did not get

the mandate cheese. Let's move on to the Queen's speech. That would be a

huge story if it were not for fire and Brexit. This is a Government

without a majority vote of Andrea Leadsom said, we are just elating

next year's Queen's speech. Do you buy that? There will not be won

because they do not know whether they will have the numbers to

support it. Also, one Queen's speech and the Parliament business will be

taken up by the Great Repeal Bill. There will be no legislative time

left for the remnants left Theresa May's manifesto. She feels this

desperate need to try. There will be a housing will, no doubt and one or

two other things. Other things are dead in the water, grammar schools,

for example. Some of the more interventionist policies are forever

gone. Some people might well come an end to the ongoing new legislation

about every topic which does not make anyone's life better. We don't

know the details of the deal with the DUP, but we know it will be

focused some of it on Northern Ireland itself. There is a chance

that they see themselves as fighting austerity in the UK. You can't just

have a set of policies for Northern Ireland to keep the DUP on board

which will not apply if they seem rather rosy and benevolent to the

rest of the UK. The Barnett Formula requires more spending in Wales and

Scotland if you increase it for Northern Ireland. It is that

whatever is spent in England, there are ramifications for the other

nations of the UK. They are close to impotence, and the only question

that will be asked is, can we get this through? Therefore, they will

get it through because they won't put anything in that could be

defeated. A last thought about the fire, then. However much we say

these events are bigger, I have a feeling that the fire will dominate

when MPs gather. Have ministers done enough, and have Labour done enough

to do themselves from some of the protests, to avoid some of the

political risks involved? In the short term, Downing Street is

beginning to do enough. The Prime Minister is meeting relatives every

day now, which is beginning to abate the political crisis. The great mess

that will continue is that Labour have managed to turn this into an

anti-austerity issue, and that will live on. The organisation has been

appalling. This is about poor people's lives, at the end of the

day. The way it has been politicised they think is completely wrong. It

also raises questions about who is responsible for what. The instinct

is to blame Theresa May for the whole lot, something that wouldn't

have happened two months ago. What about the role of the local

authority? What about the invisibility of the local authority

afterwards? Which bit of our Government is responsible for what

is? That is the cause of many crises in this country. It is ruled by

committee and the bug doesn't stop with anyone. I thought, in many

ways, for those of us in our line of work, as it were, the most painful

question beyond the horrible human tragedy was to hear people say, we

don't know who to ask. That was a failure by the local council. And

you put it to Andrea Leadsom. I don't think making it the Prime

Minister will reassure people. Thank you all very much indeed.

The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at noon tomorrow,

and Andrew will be back here at the same time next week.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.