16/07/2017 Sunday Politics London

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Tim Donovan are joined by Liam Fox and Rebecca Long-Bailey. Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards are on the political panel.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 16/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


With Cabinet divisions over Brexit, spending and leadership spilling


onto the front pages, we'll be talking to international


trade secretary Liam Fox about Britain's future


Jeremy Corbyn's been to Brussels to set out


Labour's vision for Brexit - but with the party suffering its own


divisions on Europe, are they being entirely clear


And as Ukip searches for another leader, will taking an even more


hard-line stance on Islam make the party relevant again,


If Ukip goes down the route of being a party that is anti


the religion of Islam, frankly it's finished.


In London - once a year you can visit your local council


So what happened when armchair auditors in Lambeth did just that?


Yes, all of that to come, and I'm joined for all of it


by three journalists whose every word is as closely followed


And much like the Liberal Democrat leadership contest, they've


won their place on the panel because no-one else wanted the job.


It's Steve Richards, Isabel Oakeshott and Tom Newton Dunn.


First today, for a supposedly private gathering, the meeting


of the Cabinet on Tuesday has generated rather a lot of headlines,


most of them featuring Chancellor Philip Hammond.


Yesterday there were disputed claims in the Sun over what he may or may


not have said about women driving trains, and today the Sunday Times


says colleagues picked him up for describing public sector workers


as overpaid, although some dispute that version of events.


Well, Mr Hammond was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning,


and he took the unusual step of suggesting that the source


of the stories may be people unhappy at his position over Brexit.


If you want my opinion, some of the noise is generated by people


who are not happy with the agenda that I have,


tried to advance of ensuring that we achieve a Brexit


which is focused on protecting our economy, protecting


our jobs, and making sure we can have continued rising living


So what do you make of that, Isabel? The Chancellor thinks he's being


undermined by Cabinet colleagues who don't trust him on Brexit. That's


quite remarkable to say that in public. I also think it's completely


true. That's the least controversial part of it! The briefing is his


position on Brexit and also frustration on his position over


public sector pay then it is over any kind of leadership manoeuvrings.


We saw on the Andrew Marr Show that he was doubling down on the issue of


public sector pay rises. He didn't categorically deny using the words


of overpaid, in fact he reiterated the fact he sees them as whether


they are overpaid or not so I believe he did use that phrase but


clearly he's got the tone wrong and I don't think he's done himself any


favours. He's a pretty wealthy man himself, multimillionaire. He must


have some kind of political deafness if he thinks it's OK for someone in


his position to say, in a number of cases, lowly paid public sector


workers are overpaid? I think he is politically deaf, and not


emotionally intelligent. He has a great head for figures but very poor


at expressing himself. It was a crass remark over women train


drivers. He may be in the right place on some arguments, he's just


extremely poor at expressing and that's what gives his opponents the


chance to rip his head off. He should have worked out by now that


it is clear whatever... Because of the dim munition of Mrs May's


authority that whatever you see in the Cabinet now is likely to become


public in some shape or form. I think this is the profound lesson of


the story, that Cabinet discussion is almost impossible now, and


Hammond will go away this summer thinking I can't engage in a proper


debate in Cabinet because they will leak it. It sounds as if they were


having quite a grown-up conversation about public sector pay with a


spending department ministers putting the case for breaking the


cup and Hammond saying from the Treasury perspective this is what's


happening. Which is what normally happens in Cabinet. He would hope


so, not any more. He won't be able to speak his mind in Cabinet because


he knows it will be leaked and that is another sign of fragility of this


Government, when you cannot have a grown-up discussion about public


sector pay even in Cabinet, and that means Cabinet discussion which is


urgently needed on Brexit and the rest of it cannot happen in an open


way because leaking is happening. Mrs May is not exactly top of the


Pops with her own party at the moment but doesn't help her in the


fact that her Chancellor is even less top of the Pops? The key thing


is that backbenchers don't want a leadership contest at the moment.


There are a number of Cabinet ministers or more senior figures who


have been around longer who may feel this is their last chance of the


leadership and they are urgently wanting it happen now. Backbenchers


don't want it, I don't think it will happen. Will it happen? I don't


think it will. There are egos clashing in the Cabinet and also


many who just want things to stay the way they are, so they will. We


will talk more about this leadership matter later in the programme, but


let's move on. This week the government passed


another Brexit milestone when in introduced the Repeal Bill


to the Commons. It will incorporate all EU law


into the UK's domestic And although a vote on the Bill


isn't due until the autumn, the government still has plenty


on its plate when it Brexit secretary David Davis


and the EU's negotiator Michel Barnier will sit down


for another helping of Brexit negotiations in Brussels


this week. Progress now needs to be made


on some big questions. They include: the rights of EU


citizens living here, How to maintain an open border


between Northern Ireland And the size of the financial


settlement or so-called divorce bill Previous estimates have included a


figure of The British government has put no


figure on it, simply saying it This week, Foreign Secretary


Boris Johnson said the EU could "go whistle" if it was


expecting an extortionate fee Brussels wants this set


of negotiations focusing on the principles of separation


to be done by the end of the year. They can then turn to the main


event, the future trading relationship between the UK


and the EU. While the UK remains a member


of the EU customs union, it cannot But it can hold advanced discussions


with other countries. This week, Australian Prime Minister


Malcolm Turnbull said his country was very keen for a deal


as quickly as possible. And at the G20 summit, Donald Trump


said he wanted to sign a very powerful UK-US trade


deal very quickly. But as trade deals normally


take years to negotiate, it is unclear when the first ones


will be ready for post-Brexit So there will be plenty


for both sides to digest, as negotiations continue


over the summer. I'm joined


by the International Trade Your brief is to agree new free


trade deals but you cannot sign any until Brexit is done, can you even


begin proper negotiations this side of Brexit or is that illegal too? We


cannot negotiate and conclude a trade agreement but we can scope


them out. We can get our preparatory work done. We have got ten working


groups established across the world with countries from Korea to the


United States to Australia. I know scoping the out is fine, you can


talk about trade but you cannot begin formal trade negotiations


until after Brexit. No, but we have trade working agreements. Free trade


agreements are not the only thing that are in the mix as it were, they


are what people think about but we also have mutual recognition


agreements where we can reduce some of the barriers to trade, the


technical barriers, in that process. We have a number of other things


going on. We have got to get our trading schedules in Switzerland and


Geneva and the World Trade Organisation organised. We then have


40 EU free trade agreements and we have to get them ready because if we


were not to negotiate those and be ready on the first day of Brexit,


there would be huge market disruption. Although you can clearly


do a lot of technical work and you can talk till the cows come home,


there will be no free trade deals on the shelf ready to sign come March


2019 when we are leaving the EU, that's correct isn't it? Technically


there will be new ones... There will be no free trade deals ready to say


right, we are out, here is a deal I have baked earlier. Not right away


because we are not permitted to do that as part of our membership of


the European Union and one of the things I want to get is greater


freedom to be able to negotiate on behalf of the UK. That's not


possible when you are inside the customs union. There's much talk of


a transition after 2019. You told Bloomberg you didn't mind a few


months, the Chancellor this morning said it would be a couple of years.


What is it? The key thing is why would you have a transitional


arrangements, how long would it be and what would the conditions be.


For me first we have to leave the European Union in March 2019 so


there can be no case of extending EU membership. At that point as a third


country we can have a transition agreement which keeps as little


disruption as possible but it has to have an end date. You said a few


months, the Chancellor said a few years, why the difference? As the


Chancellor said, it is more a technical argument, because for


example how do we get new border equipment in place, how do we get


the arrangements for immigration put in place, but for me, you know, I've


waited a long time and campaigned long time to leave the European


Union. As long as we leave in March 2019 I'm happy, as long as we have a


time-limited transitional period to make it work for business. The


Chancellor doesn't deny the transition could take up four years.


The Brexit Secretary David Davis says it could be a maximum of three


years, you are talking months. Shouldn't you sort this out around


the Cabinet table instead of all three of you sending mixed messages?


We are dependent on for example what HMRC Tal us, how investment is


going. It's also a question of negotiating with our European


partners. We know what's involved, why are you sending out these mixed


messages? I don't have a problem with the transition period as long


as it is time-limited. It is not just the time, it is the conditions.


I want in the transitional period to be able to negotiate agreements at


that point. We cannot have a putting off over the freedom to negotiate


trade agreements. At the moment is it clear you would be able to sign


any free trade deals during a transition period? No, that's to be


negotiated. So if Mr Hammond or Mr Davies is right, up to three or four


years, it could be 2021 before you get to sign a free trade deal. We


don't now how long any would take to negotiate. They don't happen


overnight. Would you even be able to negotiate during a transition


period? I would hope so, that is one of the conditions we might set. It


is certainly something I would want to see because otherwise it makes it


much more difficult to take advantage of the opportunities that


Brexit itself would produce. Your ink will run dry before you get to


sign one of these agreements. We have a huge amount to do and it's


not just at the free trade agreement level. We have for example what we


get at the World Trade Organisation because the real game for the UK is


to get a global liberalisation in the services sector -- the real


gain. And I want to come onto that in a minute but before do, are you


group of the Cabinet ministers that seems to regularly be briefing


against Philip Hammond? No, I deplore leaks from the Cabinet, I


think my colleagues should be quiet, stick to their duties, and I expect


discipline to be effective. The only people smiling that this will be


people in Berlin and Paris. Why are people doing it? The need to have


less prosecco. They don't trust Philip Hammond, do they? I don't


think that is true. I read in the press we have very different views,


in fact our views are very similar on things like transition. I don't


know where it is coming from but I think it should stop.


But it is happening? It is happening and I think it undermines the


position of the government. We do not need an interim leader or an


alternative leader. We have a very good competent leader in Theresa


May. But he thinks it is being done by fellow Brexiteers? I do not know


who is doing it and they should stop. Let's come back to the tariff


free trade. There is much talk about that. The Chancellor says much of


our trade with the world is in services and free trade deals won't


make any particular difference. Do you agree with him? They can make a


difference. It has been estimated with the OECD that free trade deals


with the United States could add ?42 billion to our bilateral trade by


2030. There is a game to be made. In an economy like the UK which is 80%


services, what we would benefit from is a range of global liberalisation.


One example is data. We have an economy where we talk about freedom


of movement of goods and services, but you also have to have the


freedom of movement of data. One thing I would like the UK to lead on


is to look to a global agreement on that. But the talks have come to an


end. There is no great global movement. That is not true. We have


just had a multilateral agreement, the trade facilitation was signed


this year which seeks to diminish friction at customs around the world


and will add 70 billion to the economy. But it leaves plenty of


nontariff barriers in place. The moment you start to talk about these


complicated rules and regulations that hinder services, it does not


make free trade deals impossible, it makes them much more on placated and


prolonged to do. Correct? You need to look at what is happening in the


global economy. According to the OECD, in 2012, the G7 and G20


countries were operating about 300 nontariff barriers. By the end of


2015, they were operating nearly three times that number. The silting


up of growth and global trade is being done by the global economy. We


need to be looking at how we can remove some of those barriers,


because otherwise our prosperity becomes limited. Is it still your


view that no deal would be better than a bad deal? Anyone who goes


into that negotiation without that is foolish. We will not accept any


deal they will give us. That is the problem David Cameron had before the


referendum. I think our partners believed we would accept a bad deal


rather than none. But Philip Hammond has given the game away. He said no


deal would be a very, very bad outcome. The Europeans know that we


have realised no deal would be a very bad outcome. Is he right? I


think you can argue on what the outcome would be. It is very


important as a negotiating tool, and the Prime Minister is 100% right.


Those we are negotiating with, need to believe that we would walk away


rather than accept a bad deal. But if you're going to walk away you did


not say the consequences would be very, very bad. You do not agree


with the key is what is our negotiating position? You simply do


not hand it away. So he is wrong? He says very, very bad. We have to


accept we have a right to walk away and those we are negotiating with


have to understand that. No businessman would go into a deal and


say whatever the outcome, we will accept it. And no business would go


into a major negotiation with six different voices but your government


is. David Davis speaks for the government not the Sunday


newspapers. Not Philip Hammond. Philip Hammond was very clear this


morning on the issue of transition. We are leaving the single the --


market, we are leaving the customs union. Let me just quote to some


other issues. It would be good to get some clarity. Is there a


contingency plan for no deal? Yes, government departments are all


working for their contingency plans for what would happen if we got to


the end of negotiation with no deal. Why did the Foreign Secretary say


there was no plan for no deal. There are contingency plans across


Whitehall. Is he wrong or out of the loop? As dead no. There are


contingency plans and my department and other departments have


specifically been tasked... He said it this week. Well, that is not


correct. We would be foolish not to have such contingency plans. I


understand the argument, you need to bring the Foreign Secretary in. He


is only the Foreign Secretary that you would need to bring him in, I


would have thought. You want is full deal with the EU as possible. Would


you be prepared to pay for that kind of open access? It depends what you


mean by pay. We have to start with where we are with the European Union


at the moment. We already have a tariff free arrangement. I know what


we already have. The only reason why we would not continue with that is


if the politicians on the other side of the channel wanted to put


politics before economics. What they said they want an annual fee? If


they are talking about Britain continuing to pay for those


international arrangements... I am not talking about that and I think


you know I am not. If we get a full access trade deal, that they say you


have to pay an annual fee for this full access, should we pay it? I


would not want to make a public position while our negotiations are


coming on but I think you would find it difficult to square with WTO law.


Has there ever been a free trade deal where you pay the other side


for access? Not that I am aware of. Nor me. It would be unprecedented.


Are you ruling it out? I am not going to say anything. I see say we


should not have a number of different cabinet voices ahead of


our negotiations so I will not do that. We will have a


negotiation. We will try and get as free deal as possible. Let me tell


you why it is important. I know why it is important. I have another


question. You said the EU has trade deals with a number of other


countries at the moment of which we are part of, South Korea and Canada


are two examples. Will they continue to trade with us on the existing


basis, or will we have to do new deals or change these deals after


Brexit? We are negotiating with his third countries so we have something


so that deals are translated into UK law so there is no disruption to


trade. It is not clear. It is break clear. The Canada deal has not yet


been ratified by the European Union. So we do not know if we can carry on


trading with those countries which the EU has a free trade deal with on


the same basis. We have not spoken to a single country and we have


working groups with Switzerland and career which make up 82% by value.


Not a single one of those has indicated they did not want to carry


out this transitional adoption. In the case of Canada, in the case of


Singapore, where that agreement has not yet been reached by the EU, we


will have to think then about a Plan B and how we go into a bilateral


agreement. The EU now regards as may as a lame duck leader. It is true in


Brussels, Berlin and Paris -- the EU now regards Mrs May as a lame duck


leader. There is a hung parliament. Labour will not save your bacon on


Brexit. They want a quick election and they will vote to bring that


about. This election result has severely undermined Britain's


negotiating position. If you are looking at European governments,


they are looking at dealing with minority governments all the time.


They are dealing with coalitions formal and informal. The key is we


have something stronger than that. We have the will of the British


people behind us clearly expressed in the referendum that we are going


to leave the European Union, whatever Tony Blair or anyone else


says. We will leave in March 20 19. Now the job of the government is to


get the best deal and that is best done by my colleagues getting on


with their departmental work, not involving themselves in things they


do not need to be involved in, giving our backbenchers the


reassurance that we have a united Cabinet. Liam Fox, thank you.


Jeremy Corbyn went to Brussels this week to meet with the EU's


chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier.


We're told Mr Corbyn wanted to set out Labour's


But on some of the big questions - like Britain's relationship


with the single market and the customs union -


Here's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell speaking earlier.


I believe we have to try and maintain the benefits


of the customs union, and that's one of the issues


Does it mean staying inside or leaving?


Keep all the options open, keep all the options...


Under Labour we could stay inside the customs union?


We are concentrating on the objectives rather


than the structures and that seems to have a resonance


I'm joined now by the Shadow Business Secretary


Rebecca Long-Bailey, she's in our Salford studio.


Good morning to you. Good morning. If there is a snap general election


it could well be Labour negotiating Brexit, so let's try and get some


answers to some fundamental questions. Is Labour in favour of


Britain remaining a member of the single market? What we have said it


want to retain the benefits of the single market and the customs union.


We have to be flexible in our approach, we appreciate that. The


end goal is maintaining the current benefits we have because we are


standing on the edge of a cliff, quite frankly, on


that matter. But you would concentrate on remaining a member of


the single market? The machinery we use to maintain those benefits is


open to negotiation. We have got to respect the result of the referendum


and the will of the people, in terms of having greater control over our


laws and the border. If we could negotiate staying in the single


market would be fantastic but whether it is likely have to be


seen. We are looking at all the options on the table and getting


access to the single market is one of those. Everybody wants access, I


am talking about membership. It is still not clear whether you would


negotiate to remain as a member of the single market, with all the


consequences of free movement and the European Court that would follow


from that. What is your position? We want to retain the current benefits


we have is a member of the single market, but we appreciate there will


be free movement and we will lose control over our laws. That was one


of the key positions that were set out in the referendum and people


were extremely concerned about that. That has to be negotiated. If we


could negotiate membership of the single market while dealing with the


other issues, that would be great. I think that would be unlikely. We


have to look at a more flexible approach while not being a member.


Is Labour in favour of remaining a member of the customs union? Again,


the position is similar. We want to retain the benefits we have in the


customs union. We want to have our cake and eat it, as do most parties


in Westminster. So you and Boris Johnson or on the same wavelength?


We need to be flexible, not cut our nose off despite our face. I am


asking for your position. Would you be clear to be prepared to sacrifice


not being able to do free trade deals, as the price for remaining in


the customs union? We have to be extremely flexible. We should be


able to carry out and negotiate our free trade deals. You cannot do that


in the customs union? So are you in or out? That is why it is a point


for negotiation, Andrew. We want to retain the benefits of the customs


union will negotiating trade deals as we see fit. That will form part


of the negotiations themselves. We cannot cut our nose despite our face


without coming out of the customs union without any transitional


arrangements whatsoever and send businesses over the cliff. Since you


do want to keep your cake and eat it. You want to stay in the single


market but not have the obligations that go with it, stay the single


union but not do -- stay in the single market but do your own trade


deals. The opposition is untenable. That is the point of the


negotiations... To be untenable? Not to be untenable. We have


negotiations. The machinery we have whether it is through outside


agreements or whether it is about a negotiated form of an amended


settlement, that is a moot point frankly. We need to make sure we


have the same benefits. John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor,


says people would interpret remaining in the single market is


not respecting the referendum but you say it is an option to keep


open, who is right? I think he is right in what he said. It is


automatically assumed that once you leave the EU you leave the single


market and that is generally the case. I would be surprised that we


would be able to negotiate any of the concessions that we want to make


as remaining part of the single market as a member. I am not saying


it is completely off the table because stranger things have


happened, but what we need to focus on is less on the machinery and more


on the outcome. We need to make sure we retain the benefits and we


negotiate some form of agreement to deal with that.


But why would you keep an option open that would not respect the


result of the referendum? People assume that once you leave the EU


you leave the single market. That could be negotiated, but it's


extremely unlikely. I wouldn't rule anything out at this stage because


stranger things have happened and this process so far has been


extremely chaotic. But you would have to decide your negotiating


position. Saying we don't rule anything out is not a negotiating


position. We are clear on our negotiating position, we want to


retain the benefits we currently have as part of the customs union


and the single market, whether that is inside or outside is a moot


point. Rex it means Brexit, we are clear on that. -- Brexit means


Brexit. How can it, if you want to stay inside the single market and


Customs union, and you said access would entail accepting some element


of free movement. That's what you said but your manifesto was


categorical - free movement would end after Brexit, which is currently


Labour policy? The manifesto was clear free movement would end. The


point I was making at the time is there are some areas which are


extremely complex, for example the free movement of scientists. There


is an extreme state of concern regarding that, so the Government


has to look at things like that. There might have to be concession is


made in certain areas like that in order to get an associative


membership for example but the clear position overall is that free


movement would end and we are in favour of reasonable and managed


migration. We are also not in favour of the current undercutting of wages


for example through the Swedish denigration and we want to see that


end immediately because we don't think it is right company cancels


labour overseas and undercut British employees. Let me finish on another


topic. John McDonnell again, the Shadow Chancellor, said this morning


the victims of Grenfell Tower were victims of social murder. What is


social murder? I haven't spoken to John about that but what happened in


Grenfell was absolutely horrific. But were they victims of social


murder? I haven't spoken to John to understand the term but in my


constituency we have a large number of tower blocks that have the same


cladding on and people are living in fear. Following the Lakanal House


fire, the coroner made recommendations the Government


should be installing sprinklers in all housing over 30 metres high and


they haven't done that. I call on than to do that immediately whilst


also making sure the funding is available to carry out necessary


remedial works. One other issue has come light... My question is


important... When John McDonnell says that the people in Grenfell


Tower were murdered, murdered by political decisions, is he right? I


go back to the point I made earlier. I haven't discussed it with John...


Two weeks ago. The Government should have acted on recommendations. Were


they murdered? They should have acted on recommendations to retrofit


sprinklers and they didn't. There was incompetence is no question,


dereliction of duty, some terrible decisions made that resulted in that


appalling event that we saw but does that amount to murder? It is a


simple question. You could look at it case of manslaughter but the fact


is people lost their lives through a failure to conduct adequately a duty


of care. People would assume that is murder if you like, if it was taken


through the courts, and could be classified as corporate


manslaughter. It's not murder? We are going round in circles here. The


point is the Government should have acted on recommendations to retrofit


sprinklers years ago and should have looked at amending building


regulations instead of kicking the issue into the long grass time and


time again. People where I live are living in extreme fear, and we want


the Government to take action immediately. Rebecca Long-Bailey


from Salford, thank you for joining us.


You may not have noticed but Ukip - the party that once promised


and arguably delivered a political earthquake - is having


The last leader, Paul Nuttall, stood down after the party saw its vote


is one anti-Islam candidate threatening to split what's


Forget the warm prosecco, if there is any plotting going on in Ukip


about who should be in charge, it would be going on over a pint. And


there is plotting. This programme understands Ukip's ruling body could


ban one of the candidates from standing, and that is not going to


go down terribly well. Anne Marie Waters, a former Labour activist,


wants to be the next leader. She believes Ukip needs to talk more


about Islam, a religion she has called evil. She says there is


growing support for her views including among the hundreds of new


members who have joined Ukip in recent weeks. Are you anti-Islam? I


don't like the religion, no, and a lot of people get confused on Islam


and all Muslims. The religion, the Scriptures and how it is practised


in most of the world I find quite frankly abhorrent. There are


millions of people in this country who think as I do. They don't


want... And the real extreme right could rise if people are not allowed


to talk about this. Nigel Farage has already said he doesn't want to be


the leader again, but he still has a clear view of what Ukip 's macro


future should and should not hold. Ukip goes down the route of being a


party that is anti the religion of Islam, frankly it's finished. I


don't think there is any public appetite for that but it is timing


and the party would be finished. If there are some within Ukip who say


the party had already moved to the right at the last election with its


integration agenda. Banning


the burka and physically checking children for female


genital mutilation. If we don't really do something


about FGM now, we never will. Anne Marie Waters wants to go


further but also suspects The party chairman says


there will be due process according to Ukip's constitution,


including the screening process


for its leadership candidates conducted


by an external vetting company. But like the old boss,


he doesn't think Ukip should become What we're going through now


is a process where people can I'm talking about the process


we have, which I think is robust enough to protect the party,


its history, and protect its future. We have always been


about being for something, we are not against something,


and hopefully that will come through in this leadership election


so I'm excited about it. I'm not focusing on one


particular candidate. But it has got senior


party figures worried. Several MEPs have told me


the majority of their colleagues in Brussels would walk away


if Anne Marie Waters Another Ukip senior source


said there would be mass The deadline for leadership


nominations is the 28th of July. So far, around seven people have


said they intend to stand. Of course the bigger the field,


the fewer the votes required to win. One senior MEP told me it would be


the most rancorous contest the party had ever had,


amongst the least stellar cast. The man who led Ukip at its most


successful says direction is one thing but the party must also become


more professional on their current


trajectory, then they will on their current


trajectory, then they will And as I say, if Ukip withers


and Brexit is not delivered, something else will replace it


so I'm saying to what is still my party, unless you change radically,


get your act together, Whatever the direction


the new leader takes Ukip, there are already plenty who think


the party is over. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,


we'll be talking about what's next First though, the Sunday


Politics where you are. Hello and welcome, ladies


and gentlemen, to the London I'm joined for the duration


by Chris Philp, Conservative MP for Croydon South and by Neil Coyle,


Labour MP for Bermondsey did you know that once a year


you can go into your local council We caught up with some armchair


auditors who did just that that in Lambeth and found out


what they discovered. I want to start by getting


your take on the latest developments in the fallout


from the Grenfell Tower fire. Earlier this morning Andrew Marr


spoke to John McDonnell about his use of the phrase social murder to


describe what happened at the Tower, would you say that term is fair to


describe what happened? There are families still in shock about what


happened. There were clearly falls in the materials were used so those


people who must and will be held responsible for what happened and we


must look at the building regulations and find a way to make


sure this can never happen again. Isn't that kind of evocative


language helpful? If it results in the Government taking action it has


so far failed to do in retrofitting of sprinklers in tower blocks like


Southwark, there are multiple tall buildings where people are more


nervous now and would like to see their homes made safer and would


like the Government to commit to doing that so it's shining a light


on an important issue. Do you know which think of the left popularised


the term social murder? Friedrich Engels. Do you think the fact


Rebecca Long-Bailey and John McDonnell are using that kind of


language suggests they occupy a wing of the party that uses the rhetoric


you are not comfortable with? They are using that language because they


wish to focus on the family 's who lost loved ones, and they are


representing thousands of families across the country who are more


nervous about their homes. They don't see sufficient action from the


Government, they are worried building regulations are being


abused or ignored for years and they are worried about their homes.


Chris, do you think that's the right kind of language to be using? No, if


we want to look after the victims of this fire and make sure it never


happens again, because quite clearly it should never have happened in


21st-century Britain, we must make sure it never happens again. The way


we do that is not by using inflammatory words like social


murder, we do that by having a full and proper investigation and wait


and see what happens after that. There is a police investigation


going on sale if anyone is guilty of manslaughter or murder, we will find


out in due course. There will be an early interim report so lessons can


happen quickly rather than after a year or two. That's the way this


should happen, not by scoring some cheap political points so I call on


everyone to get behind the inquiries and make sure whatever they find we


take action. If there is any criminal liability like manslaughter


or murder, the police will find out and organisations will be held


responsible. But that wait and see point isn't good enough for people


who are desperate to feel more secure in their homes. If you are


living on the 22nd floor and you are nervous the Government is not


retrofitting sprinklers, that issue can be resolved aside from the


investigation, the longer inquiry into Grenfell Tower. And not saying


do nothing, and within days of that terrible fire the establishment


started testing hundreds of samples and in some cases evacuations took


place as a result so of course we need instant action and I accept


that. So when will the Government provide the funding for retrofit


sprinklers? Where Fire Services said retrofit sprinklers were required


and if the authorities didn't have money to do it, the Government


committed to helping out. The Government has said if the council


cannot afford to do essential work the Government will step in and


help. The question for you is whether, clearly you want action to


be taken, but is this kind of rhetoric actually useful in


addressing the underlying problems or does it get in the way? Lots of


people say we need a measured response and calling this horrific


tragedy a social murder doesn't help.


I'll be honest it is not language I would use but if it gets people


security to carry on living in their homes, that is the most important


part of this. The idea that there will be this fair assessment of


council resources to retrofit by a government which has cut council


budgets by 40%, it worries me. We need that money up front and not


some sort of fake assessment. This 40% cut figure is not a real figure.


I can see you two will get on, this is fantastic at max we will come


back to Grenfell again in the show. Thank you for now.


The capital is now seeing more than one acid attack every day,


causing life-changing injuries to its victims.


The increase in attacks has led to its rise up the political agenda,


and on Monday MPs will debate what can be done


There are some flashing images in Raphael Sheridan's report.


On Thursday, Londoners were shocked by a spate of acid attacks,


Two teenage males have since been arrested.


It's a rising phenomenon in the capital.


There were over 450 victims last year according to Met figures,


double the number in 2015, and it's especially


Once almost solely associated with so-called honour violence,


it's becoming increasingly widespread as criminal gangs


are thought to be switching from knives to acid.


It's easier to buy and not a crime to carry.


East Ham MP Stephen Timms is clear about what he wants to see happen.


I'd like the Minister to confirm on Monday that the possession


of acid will be an offence in the future in exactly the same


way that possession of a knife is an offence today.


I'd like the law to be changed so that sulphuric acid will only be


He will be leading a debate about this in Parliament tomorrow


in light of today's comments from the Home Secretary,


who's warned future attackers they face life behind bars.


Many Londoners will no doubt be anxious to see what MPs can do


I'm joined by Rabina Khan, an independent councillor


on Tower Hamlets council who has written on the subject.


Thank you for coming in. Why are these acid attacks so sharply


rising? I think we need to put some context to this. Acid attacks have


been prevalent in this country and they happen across the world as


well. They disproportionately affect women. Researchers showed in the


last ten years hospital ad missions have doubled because of acid


attacks. While we're having this debate and a quarter legislation,


why so late in the day? These are the questions which need to be


asked. But they have massively increased. Whether you go by


financial years or not, in 2016 there were 398 against 317 before.


In 2017 there were 452 attacks. They are rising sharply. Are they rising


or is there better resources for people reporting as well? They're


definitely has been a spike in the increase but I want to talk about


the underreporting. The under reporting about many victims who


feel they may face reprise all. I am dealing with a case of a woman and


her son in Tower Hamlets who faced an acid attack back in November 20


16. They do not want to come to the media


because they are afraid of reprisals. We need support for


victims to have the ability to report. There is a narrative in the


media that this is prevalent in parts of the South Asian community


and it is associated with an retribution, that women are attacked


because they have behaved dishonourably. For people who find


that thinking disgusting and don't understand it, what would be the


thinking behind those parts of communities? In Bangladesh there are


over 3500 acid attacks which have taken place. It happens in India and


Afghanistan and this country. This has been in Britain for a long time.


The fact we are now having this debate, the fact we are trying to


change legislation, acid attacks are prevalent in certain communities and


there is an agenda behind it. It is a terrorism agenda, trying to


control a woman in that way. But the new context to acid attacks is the


dimensions and debate around it have changed. We have gang members who


think it is easier to carry a weapon of choice which is acid. It is


easier to carry the acid than a knife, because it is an offensive


crime if you carry a knife. It is easier to disguise acid because you


can carry it around a bottle. Just picking up on what Rabina Khan has


said, why has it taken until now for the debate to be held about the shop


rising attacks? As you said, it has doubled recently. Injuring someone


with acid is already a criminal offence. You can get up to a life


sentence for carrying acid already and carrying it with intent has a


sentence of up to four years under the current law. But I must agree


with what Stephen Timms said. Effectively, acid is being used as a


weapon like a knife and in my view, it should be treated as an


equivalent. Merely carrying the worst kinds of acid like sulphuric


acid and hydrochloric acid, I think there is a case of simply carrying


that in public and offence in itself as it is with a knife already. It is


a criminal intent to carry acid with intent but you do not need a license


to buy it. Should you need a licence? I think for the most


powerful kinds of acid there is a strong case for doing that and we


will debate it in Parliament tomorrow. You cannot say you need


hydrochloric or sulphuric acid around the home. Clearly, it is


industrial or chemical. Will you be in Parliament tomorrow? Gas, and


what concerns me is whether the law has changed and whether the police


have the resources to do it. This tie was gifted to me by the mother


of a 15-year-old murdered in a knife attack. We see 80% of knife crimes


go an prosecuted. If we have the same position with acid attacks and


80% of criminals going unpunished, we are not solving anything. Does it


strike you as bizarre that we can have guidelines for knife attacks


but we do not have any more for knife attacks, while as Rabina Khan


has been arguing, it has been rising sharply for many years. Needs to


move up the agenda. The other link here is the gangs are using it. The


recent spate in north London was around my bed crime. People stealing


mopeds by using acid on the mopeds driver and then using their mopeds


to commit other crimes, in particular mobile phone thefts. The


police say they do not have the means to tackle this. There are 2500


mopeds thefts of mobile phones in the last month. Police do not have


the resources to tackle that and they say they should not chase some


mopeds drivers because of their safety. Is there a case that if


licences are required for the carrying of acid, that people will


end up buying it online instead?... We need to have the regulations and


monitor who is purchasing it. It is very EEC for young people to access


or certain members of our communities to access sulphuric


acid. My problem is while we are having the debate about changing the


legislation we are not talking about supporting the victims here. How


would you like to do that? The intent about using acid, it is not


about trying to kill, it is about to inflict humiliation. Permanent human


relation. When acid is used, it melts the face and not the skin. The


damage that is caused is very long-term. Katie Piper, whose face


was rebuilt, the doctor has commented that the acid attacks are


used to inflict painful sense of humiliation on the self, the


identity, so the psychological and emotional support needs to be in


place for victims. Some victims have had to endure 20 operations just to


be able to breathe and come out in society. Has the Home Secretary


Amber Rudd got it right when she said we need to look at life


sentences? She needs to go further. The Home Office do not collect data


on acid. The police need to be supportive and the support


organisations who support victims of acid attacks also need to be


supported. A final word on that? This is a terribly important issue.


It ruins people's lives, it is deeply disturbing that it is on the


rise and we do need to take action to halt it. Thank you for coming in.


Depending on who you want to believe, councils are either


cesspits of profligacy and waste or the cash-strapped victims


But thanks to new powers, you, the public can now do something


Since 2015, town halls have had to open up their accounts to the public


for 30 days ever year, but in Lambeth one groups' attempts


to use the powers is proving highly controversial.


We went and spoke to that resident and said, can


Meet the armchair auditors, Lambeth citizens armed


with a spreadsheet and determined to shake things up at the Town Hall.


It really started as a result that I lived next door to this estate


and there was talk about it potentially being demolished because


I read about this piece of legislation via a book called


the Silent Estate by Heather Brooke which allows people


to audit their accounts, and decided to give it a go really.


So Simon decided to rally the troops.


People like Tom here who live on the estate.


We notified Lambeth of the issues and they still


The result was a document they called the Lambeth People's Audit,


which they allege has uncovered financial mismanagement


Much of their work focuses on housing and repairs.


So just now the People's Audit wants to show us around the estate,


show some of the issues that there have been with repairs,


with drainpipes, where there has been a fire risk,


Unfortunately though, someone from Lambeth Council stopped


They said the estate regeneration is so sensitive that


television cameras are not allowed to film at all.


So instead, here are some photos that they took earlier.


One main claim in the People's Audit was the council took ?1 million


from the pot of money the council ring-fenced for council housing,


and rather than investing it in repairs, they spent it on doing


The council say that, in their words, is fake news.


The money is paying the town hall staff who work on housing.


If you had a housing office on an estate,


you would expect that to be paid for from the HRA because it's part


If you put those people in another building they're


sharing with other people, obviously, the costs are going


You'd still expect that to be paid from the HRA.


In fact, the council say the Lambeth People's Audit is not


It's being presented as something else, which is really a shame


because I do think the legislation, which lets people go in,


look at a council's accounts, see exactly how the council


is spending their money, is a really good thing.


But in this instance, I'm afraid it has been hijacked


by professional politicians who until very recently,


I think there are questions to be asked about why they have


So we put Lambeth Council's words to the People's Audit.


The People's Audit is a collection of senior politicians


from the Liberal Democrats and the Greens.


I've never been a member of a political party in my life.


Don't particularly have an intention of joining one.


Some of the members are actively involved in politics


This is George Turner, a former Lib Dem parliamentary


There are people involved who are from the Green Party,


people involved who are not a member of any party at all,


and I think there might even be a few Labour Party members.


I don't know what the party affiliation of people


involved in the group are, because it's not a concern to us.


Chris Holt has worked for the Greens.


It's all very well for Lambeth Labour to attack the people


We just want them to answer the questions.


It doesn't matter who's asking them, just answer the questions


and hopefully, we can all be satisfied.


But to avoid misunderstanding, does there need to be more


transparency on the half of the new armchair auditors,


It's really important though that we know who's


doing this sort of work, that they are as transparent


as they are demanding of the local authority, and that there are clear


parameters of how they present their information, so people can


Under the new rules, every council has to open up


Most London local authorities do it in the summer.


So if you fancy joining the ranks of the armchair auditors,


you are an MP may bring Lambeth. Would you welcome this action? I do


think there are areas where transparency needs to be greater.


For example, leaseholder charges for major works programmes is something


which continually comes up for concerns, along with planning law


and how the people are involved. Is the principle of opening up your


accounts to citizens for 30 days a good one, because you believe in


transparency, or a potentially dangerous one, because it will end


up being captured by political organisations?


There shouldn't be any problem opening up accounts, whether that's


by an alternative political party. I think in one but it is unfortunate


that appears to be opponents of the council leading part of the audit.


That is contested, it is worth saying... If we just looked at this


through what needs to be in the public domain, routinely, not just


for 30 days in the summer but routinely made available. What's the


point of this legislation if there is controversy over it and nothing


really happens? The council says we don't accept your conclusions and


that's that. I think it's a brilliant initiative. Openness and


transparency is the beating heart of our democracy. The people in Lambeth


appear to be independent, but with a few political activist as well. I


will be encouraging people in Croydon to start doing the same


things now. Clearly the National Audit Office has overall


responsibility for local government audit so if the National Audit


Office sees anything in this report, they should follow it up. The


biggest element of accountability comes in May next year with the


local council elections and if people decide their council has done


a bad job, paying for repairs that were never done, paying twice as


much as they should have done for repairs, spending money on the town


hall instead of tenants, they have an opportunity to kick out the


council next May and that's the ultimate sanction we have in a


democracy, the ballot box. It is very easy to get into administrative


bashing, but I think councils are having to be much more focused on


how they spend money, much more innovative in their partnership


working. But actually fundamentally councils don't have the resources to


deliver the services. You said the budgets have been cut by 40% and


that's not correct because the business retention has replaced


that, leaving them broadly speaking flat. Councils should not be


complaining about funding when they are paying for repairs that have


never been carried out. Was it a good idea to scrap the audit


commission in 2011 and make councils like number audited by... I think it


has been damaged in how it can do its job. I don't agree, we have the


National Audit Office overseeing it, it is wasteful duplication and I'm


glad we streamlined it. You are fantastic double act. Thank you for


coming in. My thanks to my guests


Neil Coyle and to Chris Philp, This is the last Sunday Politics


before Parliament breaks up for the summer recess, and most MPs could


definitely do with some time away from the political hothouse at


Westminster. But when they come back


in September, both the Conservatives and Labour face some big questions


over how to win an overall majority We'll talk about that in a moment,


but first let's have a look at what's been happening to Theresa May


and Jeremy Corbyn since polling day And what we are saying is the


Conservatives are the largest party. Note they don't have an overall


majority at this stage. She who dares doesn't always win.


Now let's get to work. The party that has lost in this election is


the Conservative Party. The arguments they put forward in this


election have lost. I think we need a change. That's not quite true,


Labour is a party that lost. The Government failed and her coming


over here to try to speak to... Who? Who do you want to speak to you had


your chance. Now everyone will go angry and crazy.


I think the public will want us to get the broadest possible consensus


in looking at those issues. If the Prime Minister would like it, I am


happy to furnish her with a copy of our election manifesto.


You are now playing for Arsenal! The comments we were getting back that


were passed on to me were that we were going to get a better results


than we did. Devastated enough to shed a tear? Yes, a little tear at


that moment, yes. Let's start with Mrs May. Another


day, another leadership rumour, challenge. She is tired, she wants


to fight on, she doesn't. Is this corrosive to her leadership? Hugely


corrosive. My estimation of what's really going on in the party, and


Tory MPs in Westminster, is the vast majority and by that I mean probably


around 300 don't want a contest. They want her to stay and finish


Brexit, see it through, because of the incredible Pandora's box that


would open. Who's putting these incredible column inches in the


papers? They are giant egos, they have been at this for several years


if not decades and they are keen to manoeuvre themselves into the


position to be the leader. In their own interests? Because most Tories I


speak to think the risk of another leadership election is horrendous


for them because they fear it could lead to a general election and they


will lose. The ones you are talking about, they put their own


self-interest above the interest of their party. Without a doubt. They


are funny bunch, we know them very well, but they are simply incapable


of putting their own interests underneath those of the country. The


problem for Mrs May is this won't stop. They are going to carry on


doing this I think unless she says something about her own leadership


and conference is the time to do it. She needs to spell out a timetable


for herself, when she will stay and go. She almost did that, didn't she,


in her interview with you. She came very close. I agree with almost


everything Thomas said, but those on the backbenches who don't want a


leadership contest, it's not purely for the good of the country, there


is self-interest there too and that is because they are eyeing up the


top job and they need a few years to build up a following. My view is


people like Boris Johnson 's and Amber Rudd for their own reasons


think they stand a better chance once Brexit is done. At the moment


Mr Johnson too toxic for the Remainers, Amber Rudd too toxic for


the Leavers. Last time Mrs May went walking in the hills, in Wales, she


came back and called an election. She's about to go walking in the


Swiss mountains I understand in the weeks ahead for a break. Is there


any chance she comes back and says I'm not going on with this? No


because although I think being a human being she will be deeply


traumatised by what's happened, and it will probably hit her more


intensely when she moves away for a few days from the cocoon drama of


the whole situation, you just have to keep going and she will be


walking and thinking what have I done? But she is clearly trying to


hold on and she's built up a new Number Ten. Almost an entire new


personnel in there. She's brought Damian Green in as a deputy so


there's no sign she plans to go in the short-term but leadership is


partly about a spell on us and her ministers. The fact that her


ministers, even in her interview when she was being robust in two


years, they know that she won't fight part of the next election


which means part of the spell has gone. When Tony Blair gave a date


for his departure, you could feel the power losing away from him. The


fact that assumption is there means this feverish speculation will carry


on until she goes. Let me come on to Mr Corbyn who would seem to be in a


much better position after the election. What does he now do


though? Because if you cannot provoke an election quite quickly,


you never know how long your day in the sun will be. But he does have a


mission or he and the people around him, they want to take control of


those parts of the Labour Party they don't already take control, and they


will probably do it. Absolutely, so Jeremy Corbyn has established he's a


very good campaigner. Everybody now agrees on that. Look at the clip, he


now dresses in a white shirt and a dark suit, and he actually looks I


won't say Prime Minister Arial but like he could possibly lead the


whole country. -- prime ministerial. But the whole thing is built on


protests, there isn't a fully established policy set up where he


is ready to take over the Government if this election comes. The


challenge for him is to turn the huge generation of support he's got


over protest into the ability to govern. You heard from Rebecca


Long-Bailey on Brexit alone, the party now admitting their policy is


cake and eat it, that is not electorally satisfying. Final word


from Isabel. The fact is Mr Corbyn has been a transformative figure for


the Labour Party. If and when he goes, it's not going back to normal.


It is transformative for the Labour Party and the country. I disagree


with Tom, they put forward a more detailed programme than the


Conservatives at the election and be costed it to some extent. I think to


be facing two weighs on Brexit is the only place for a Leader of the


Opposition to beat and he has been smart on that. Tony Blair when he


was a leader faced to microwaves on single currency, outside of


Parliament he seemed be more robust, but he's played it very smart. All I


would say is for Brexiteers we want more Tony Blair saying it won't


happen. You think he's such a toxic figure that whatever side he


supports damages that side? Absolutely, yes. As a leader of an


opposition party you cannot advance things. All right, we will have to


leave it there. Enjoy your summer. That's all for today, and that's


all from us until September. Remember if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics - unless it's parliament's summer


recess. But for me it is thank you and


goodbye. When I think of the world


we inhabit, everyone will think, When I think of the world


we inhabit, everyone will think, Yeah. And it wasn't,


it was done by hand over days and weeks


and months and years. It was always


a very, very deep love affair between this incredible,


wonderful, glorious music and that's why we merged


with the Liberals. ordinary people can make


a big difference.


Andrew Neil and Tim Donovan are joined by international trade secretary Liam Fox and shadow business secretary Rebecca Long-Bailey for a look at Ukip's future direction. Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards are on the political panel.