26/11/2017 Sunday Politics London

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your essential briefing

on everything that's

happening this Sunday morning

in the world of politics.

Ireland says it will "continue

to play tough until the end"

over the Irish border.

As Dublin threatens

to derail Brexit trade

talks, vice-president

of the European Parliament Mairead

McGuiness tells us why she thinks

a hard border would cause havoc.

Leading Brexiteer and former

Northern Ireland Secretary Owen

Paterson will debate with her live.

It was billed as a make or break

moment for the Chancellor -

Phillip Hammond appears to have

avoided an omni or even

a mini-shambles.

We'll get Budget reaction

from the man who last month tried

to topple Theresa May -

former Tory Chairman, Grant Shapps.

And what did the Chancellor

do for the North?

How affects it was Labour's

response?

I'll be talking to the Mayor

of Greater Manchester,

Labour's Andy Burnham.

In London, with domestic violence

on the rise would a mandatory

register for offenders help protect

women from abusive partners?

All that coming up in the programme.

So, no omni-shambles Budget.

But don't worry, if you're a fan

of the shambolic you'll

love our political panel,

Sam Coates, Zoe Williams

and Iain Martin.

Welcome to the programme.

It has been the Budget that's

dominated the political week.

There was no pasty tax

or national insurance U-turn -

but there were sharp downgrades

for growth and productivity,

offset by enough optimism

to cheer the Tory benches.

This week's Budget was billed as

a make or break for Philip Hammond.

His last effort in March contained

a manifesto-mangling national

insurance rise which lasted

barely a week.

Humiliated today, Chancellor?

Will you resign?

This time, his cheery demeanour

was perhaps designed

to confound his critics

who think his outlook on Brexit

is, well, miserable.

What he's doing is very

close to sabotage.

Regrettably, our productivity

performance continues to disappoint.

But the downbeat tone

wasn't down to Hammond,

it was the independent Office

for Budget Responsibility,

the lower productivity projections

lead to growth forecasts

of less than 2%.

Here's the new realistic forecast,

average growth of just 1.4% a year.

A slowdown that won't go away.

The Chancellor may not have

been able to drive up

productivity and growth,

but he has a cunning plan to remove

the need to drive at all.

David Cameron's old mate

Jeremy Clarkson is reported to be

less than impressed.

Jeremy Clarkson doesn't like them.

But there are many other good

reasons to pursue this technology.

So today we step up

our support for it.

Sorry, Jeremy, but definitely not

the first time you've been

snubbed by Hammond and May.

More money for the English health

service, a Brexit fund

and abolishing stamp duty

for first-time buyers

lifted the mood.

I commend this

statement to the house.

But senior figures in the NHS said

the new money was not enough

and less, in this Budget at least,

than the amount pledged for Brexit,

giving some Remainers

plenty of fun on Twitter.

It turned out the stamp duty

changes would mainly help

people selling a house,

not buying them.

Tweaks to the Universal Credit

system soothed Tory concerns,

but they didn't calm

the Labour leader.

Uncaring!

The uncaring, uncooth attitude

of certain members opposite!

Order!

Order!

And his Shadow Chancellor had

some number trouble.

How much do we now spend on paying

the interest of our national debt.

A lot.

How much?

Well, I'll give you the figure.

I'll send you a note on the figure.

You don't know?

I know the figure...

How much?

I'll send it.

Well, you tell me now.

The forecast may be sticky,

but at least the Daily Mail

had a positive outlook.

Phil was no longer

a miserable donkey.

And by the end of the week,

the Chancellor could still smile.

He might even stay in Number 11

long enough to deliver

next year's Budget.

We're joined now by the former

Conservative Party

Chairman, Grant Shapps.

Thank you very much for coming in.

No banana skin in the Budget for

Philip Hammond, but really dismal

growth prospects. What is the

government back to doing wrong?

Well, first of all, he cheered up

the backbenches by giving quite an

upbeat assessment. The economy is

still growing, the jobs factory of

Europe. Not words we are used to

hearing from Philip Hammond.

But

overall, growth prospects are really

bad, they have been significantly

downgraded.

Of course, the really

big story is the Office for Budget

Responsibility say we are going to

grow at 1.5%, not 2%. That is a real

problem. I thought Philip's

presentation of the issue was

interesting. He said this is of the

outside of our control, it is the

office of Budget response ability.

It is to do with productivity, who

knows what that is made up of? That

sort of excuses get mug from having

to do anything. There are things we

can do to attract business to this

country. You have the tax base, the

attitude towards business. We spent

quite a while looking like we were

not interested in business, business

being thought of as bad. I am

pleased to see that is changing.

You

think the few has a pro-business

attitude that wasn't there a year

ago?

We have them locked out of

Downing Street for a while, sector

leaders could not express their

concerns. Some conference speeches

that business as the bad guys rather

than job creators. That seems to

have gone and I welcome it.

Why?

Because it is not realistic to

believe that business is evil and

bad. Business people that create the

jobs for this country, the well for

this country...

But why do you think

the government but robust change the

message on that?

It is hard to know

what created that. Since the

election we have a change in

emphasis. Business leaders are now

welcomed to come and talk to the

Prime Minister and the Chancellor

about what is going on. One thing we

could do now, we are leaving Europe,

we had all of those red tape

challenges in the Coalition

Government but we always got stuck

when it got to the EU. We had to

say, we can't do anything about that

red tape. We can now go back on

that. I would like the cupboard to

go further and not just accept

figures from the Office for Budget

Responsibility. I'm actually

doubtful about that and I think that

Philip Hammond is as well. Growth of

productivity is a difficult thing to

measure. This country trades more

online than any other country in the

world. We are top of that league

table. That has to be a more

efficient way to do business. Yet it

does not seem to be reflected in

productivity.

They are forecasts,

the productivity figures. But the

middle, things could be worse, the

OBR say. The... Seems to say these

are the projections, we hope it

isn't that. Is it the Buttler's job

to do something about productivity?

The government EU has a role to

play. I started a printing business

which still exists to this day.

Uncertainty over Brexit could lead a

business like that to delay

purchasing a new press. One that is

likely to be faster, less setup

time, print stuff faster.

Uncertainty in the economy slows

that down. Of course the Government

has a role. It cannot act the way it

treats taxation, investment, it can

encourage businesses. Actually, I

suspect what the Office for Budget

Responsibility has done is said, oh,

all of this uncertainty has lead to

slower productivity and therefore we

will continue projecting forward,

almost ad infinitum. The projections

went up five years. If we can get

the Brexit uncertainty out of the

way...

That is what I was about to

say. The great uncertainty is under

Brexit. We are not entering a period

where things will be more certain

people can confidently make

investment decisions, nobody knows

what the future trading relationship

will be.

I think Government can help

with that. If you have a Government

that, at its heart, fundamentally,

is singing from the same hymn sheet,

you saw Number 10 and Number 11,

finally, a bit of banter between the

two of them, the Chancellor and the

Prime Minister, they went out on

Thursday and did a visit together.

You have a Cabinet meeting reported

from Tuesday where they are agreeing

how to go forward collectively on

Europe. If you can have the central

government working in unison, it

gives business of evidence, it gives

the economy confidence that maybe

you can get to faster growth by

having better productivity and more

inward investment.

Six weeks ago you

were calling for the Prime Minister

to stand down. You were outed as

leading a coup against her. Have you

changed your mind?

I saw your

lead-in, calling colleagues that

want to go and speak to the Prime

Minister about a perfectly sensible

subject that she herself has asked

for colleagues' opinions on, how

long should I be in this role, to

call it a plot is tabloid. The

reality is, of course colleagues

should be able to have that

conversation. We do not live in

North Korea. We shouldn't be not

allowed to express views, nor do

they disappear if you don't express

them.

You said your colleagues have

buried their heads in the sand,

hoping things would get better. It

never got better for Gordon Brown or

John Major, it will not get that for

Theresa May. Have you changed your

mind

I think that colleagues should

be allowed to have views and express

them. My views have not changed.

However, I also accept the reality

of the situation, that we are in a

very sensitive period with Brexit

negotiations. Six weeks ago is six

weeks ago. Time moves on and Brexit

negotiations wait 101. What we have

to do have is a Government that is

capable of singing from the same

hymn sheet, going to Brussels. If

you have Number 10 and Number 11 at

each other's throats, when you have

people been briefed against the

centre, whips that are more

interested in... We have mutineers

on the front of the Telegraph, 50

people that wanted not to have the

date for Brexit in the bill. I don't

happen to agree with those people.

But to have colleagues accused of

being mutineers because they have a

slightly diverted the view is

ridiculous. -- diverted view. I am

pleased what we are seeing now is an

attitude from the centre saying

let's work together, let's not

briefed against others, let's get on

and stop the country from the even

bigger danger than Brexit, a Jeremy

Corbyn government.

Stay there for a

moment. I am going to bring in the

panel. You were listening to that

interview. A change in mood towards

the Prime Minister?

Haven't seems to

have cheered up a lot. He seemed to

me like a man giving his own leaving

speech. There was a devil may care

attitude aspect, not really backed

up by what you're saying. They

wanted always. There would be OBR

figures to be nothing to do with a

Government. Unfortunately they have

revised down, there is nothing we

can really do. At the same time,

they wanted to show Conservative

policies are capable of driving

growth. They want to say,

unfortunately it is not a generous

Budget because growth figures are

revised downwards, while at the same

time saying that the OBR is often

wrong, who knows if it will be

correct. I don't think you get any

clear analysis from this.

Cake and

eat it?

The significance is not

really economic, it is political. If

you go back a week, it seemed

possible, likely even, that the

Chancellor was going to be replaced

in a reshuffle expected between now

and Christmas. He has saved his job.

His critics in other parties will

say, well, his job should be about

more than his own personal survival.

But it alters the dynamics. It means

that the government but was not

quite Chancellor, it means a

reshuffle could be less substantial

than might have been the case. It

seems the Tories have had a shocking

run over the last few months. They

were rather buoyed up by it. Not

that it was a massive success as a

Budget, it was just OK. That counts

for quite a lot at the moment.

Listening to what Grant Shapps was

telling us, it sounds like Theresa

May's job is safe as well?

I would

if she is sitting in Downing Street

wearing a badge saying Philip

Hammond saved my job? The point is,

just to pull out the camera, the

fundamentals have not changed. The

Conservatives did not win an overall

majority at the election, they still

have to deliver Brexit in an

incredibly complicated process, that

looks intractable with negotiation

difficulties, particularly with

Ireland, but also bringing the

Cabinet together over some of these

incredibly thorny issues about where

Brexit is going to end up. Although

Grant is putting a positive gloss on

it now, the conference after which

he was adjusted people might

consider her going -- after which he

suggested people might consider her

going, things have not really

changed. He says his view has not

really changed, and I think that

many of the people that Grant talks

to, they have not changed their

fundamental view about the talents

and otherwise of Theresa May. I

wonder how many people think what

Grant thinks at the moment?

We will

come back to you and ask you that.

How many people agree with you? Do

you still have the same view about

the Prime Minister?

I have said

exactly what I think. You don't have

to second-guess what I think about

all of this. Nor do I think it is

worth day by day giving a running

commentary on that. I was heartened

to see Number 10 and number 11

working together. We can make some

progress. I think that is a very

good thing. The lesson to be

learned, just because people have

diverse views, it has not been there

should be vilified. I think we were

in danger of doing that through the

whips or Number 10, or what have

you. I'm pleased to see we have a

more mature attitude coming from

Downing Street.

You once said you thought you would

make a good Prime Minister yourself,

do you still think that?

The

question was do you have the

required ability to make these

decisions and the rest of it. To

answer that question would be as if

to say I don't think she should be

doing it but that's not what I think

at all. I think this country

requires leadership which unites

particularly those involved in the

Government and I'm pleased that's

what we are now starting to get.

Grant Shapps, thanks for coming to

talk to us today.

Now, the Northern Powerhouse

was a phrase coined

by Philip Hammond's predecessor,

George Osborne.

But Theresa May has insisted

that she wouldn't be

pulling the plug on it.

So how did it fare in

this month's Budget?

Joining us now from

Salford is the Mayor

of Greater Manchester,

Andy Burnham.

Thanks for coming in. I assume you

must be very pleased with the Budget

and the amount of money delivered

for the Northern Powerhouse?

When I

came into this job I was clear I

would never play politics for the

sake of it. There was good news in

this Budget for Manchester, money

which we need very much, money to

help us tackle rough sleeping.

Again, a big priority for me. But

overall I have to say it is pretty

thin pickings for the north of

England. The headline measure on

stamp duty massively benefits the

South over the north and people here

who are suffering every day on the

rail system, our clapped-out rail

system, they didn't get any good

news in terms of electrification or

improvement of services. All we got

was an -- promise of improvement of

mobile services.

The Government is

giving new £12 million to help cover

the cost relating to the Manchester

Arena attack. You must be welcoming

of that too.

This is difficult

because I'm conscious whenever this

issue comes up, I'm conscious of the

families. We put our bid in some

time ago. The cost we have incurred

so far is 17 million and we have a

further 11 million we will incur

through the inquest process. We have

been raising that privately and I

haven't gone public on this issue

until the Prime Minister said last

week we would have the answer, and

we got that on Friday. It falls some

way short. I cannot see why the

Government is not meeting our cost

in full. As I said at the beginning,

I would never make politics out of

this issue but when we got our

answer and it wasn't good enough I

had to make our position clear. I

will be replying to the Prime

Minister saying let's sort this out

properly. I just hope we can now get

a full agreement for all of our

costs from the Government.

You've

accused the Government before of

being London centric and ignoring

other parts of the UK. Given that

you have welcomed of the spending

measures, do you feel that problem

has been addressed?

Definitely not.

The country is London centric. The

way transport investment is assessed

by the Treasury favours the areas

where there is already greater

economic growth. The system is

biased against the north and that

needs to change. In the Budget we

got a half-hearted commitment to the

rail system of the future for the

north of England but Crossrail 2,

the project in London, got more of a

thumbs up. I'm speaking for people

here who feel this has been very

unfair over decades. We have a

transport system here that is

creaking now and it is completely

congested, it isn't working for

people. The Government needs to grip

that problem much more directly. The

problem I guess with this Budget was

there's an elephant in the room and

that is the Brexit Divorce Bill.

There was a feeling for me they were

not committing money our

infrastructure cause of this thing

looming behind. To have no mention

of social care, no mention of police

funding, these were two gaping holes

at the heart of this Budget.

Surely

you think they should be making a

generous offer for the Brexit

divorce settlement? You are not

advocating that we walk away without

paying our dues?

No, my point was a

different one. It looks like the

Government is holding back on the

investment the north of England

needs until they have settled this

question, but the challenges facing

our public services and the

productivity challenge facing the

north is urgent and it is critical

we get that investment so we can

rise to the challenge of exit. I saw

this as a Budget where the

Chancellor was holding back. This

year of all years, to have no

mention of police security

counterterrorism in the Budget

seemed a monumental mistake. The

police service here has not got much

left to give. It is down to the bare

minimum and we need to see the

Chancellor bringing forward new

funding for the police in the

December settlement that it's about

to get. To have no mention of it

just seemed to me to be a major

mistake.

What did you make of Jeremy

Corbyn's response to the Budget?

I

thought it was passionate. I don't

think they will deal with the issue

of Universal Credit.

It was

passionate but was it effective?

I

think so. People want to see people

speaking with that level of

commitment, genuine concern. The

dangers are still there with

Universal Credit. Tinkering with the

waiting times I don't think will

take away the problem that it could

put more people on our streets,

huddled in doorways. The Government

needs to give a clear commitment

that we won't see people spiralling

into debt and then at the risk of

being homeless as a result of

Universal Credit roll out.

The day

after the Budget John McDonnell got

in a muddle over his figures on debt

repayment. He must -- you must have

been cringing as you watched some of

those interviews.

You always get

these interviews after the Budget. I

have sat in those positions and I

think it is partly what turns people

off politics. I'm not here

necessarily to speak for the front

bench, I thought they mounted a good

critique of the Budget. What I want

is a more wholehearted embrace of

devolution from both political

parties. The challenge the country

is facing right now is that we are

to London centric, Brexit is

looming, we need investment in the

regions and I don't think we can

bring this power back from Brussels

and then keep it all in Westminster.

We are already in overcentralised

country and its crucial the power is

passed down to places like Greater

Manchester and I want to see both

parties embracing that is part of

the response to the referendum.

I'm

not asking you to speak for the

Labour front bench, but how did it

look to you when they were

responding to it, you will know

Labour are trailing in the polls on

economic competence - did they do

enough this week to adjust people's

view as to whether or not Labour

should be put in charge of the

economy?

That is the challenge that

the Labour Party has to convince the

country it can run a stronger

economy. The Shadow Chancellor has

put investment in infrastructure

front and centre of what he's saying

and I think he's absolutely right to

do that. The country is crying out

for that transport system,

particularly here in the north that

will allow us to improve

productivity and they are not

getting that from the current

Chancellor. Looming questions about

the Divorce Bill, so therefore he

won't commit to the investment now.

What you got from the Shadow

Chancellor was a clearer analysis of

what the country needs, and I think

that's what people want to hear.

Andy Burnham, thank you for coming

in to talk to us.

Last week we had a film from Leave

campaigner Gisela Stuart on why

business will continue to prosper

across Europe after Brexit.

This week, London and Dublin have

clashed over what will

happen to the border

between Northern Ireland

and the Irish Republic -

something the EU says needs to be

resolved if Brexit negotiations

are to move onto trade next month.

So today, Irish MEP and vice

president of the European

Parliament, Mairead McGuiness,

takes us to the border to explain

why she thinks Brexit

could cause business -

and the people on the

island of Ireland -

considerable difficulties.

This is Dundalk in County Louth,

a town close to the border

with Northern Ireland,

and close to where I grew up myself.

Today, I represent the constituency

along that 310 mile border.

With the Brexit negotiations

ongoing, people along the border

are troubled by the uncertainty.

From Dundalk, you can take

a straight road to Northern Ireland

and there's no stopping.

At the last count, there are over

300 different road crossings

between the Republic of Ireland

and Northern Ireland.

The big question is,

what will change post-Brexit?

And what do we have to do to keep

the situation as it is today?

For me, there is only one way,

that the United Kingdom stays

in the customs union.

But I know the UK are

determined not to do that.

I think the negotiations

are struggling.

Not too far from the border

crossing, just south,

I caught up with beef farmer Jim

Murray.

That's the actual border

itself, just ahead.

The actual border is about

half a mile past that.

Today it is frictionless

and seamless, and invisible.

Totally.

Do think it's going to stay

that way after Brexit?

Well, I hope it will stay like that,

because were used to this.

Well, I hope it will stay like that,

because we're used to this.

I come from a time when I remember

that you couldn't actually go down

that road to access,

to do some business

in the north, because the road

was actually blocked.

Have you been reassured by any

of the political statements around

the border in particular,

basically saying that things

will stay as they are?

I haven't, really, because seamless

and frictionless borders, you know,

to me it is an oxymoron.

Because it's still a border.

I also visited George McArdle.

He's been running a haulage

company for the last 50

years with experience

of crossing the border.

What are you worried about?

We're worried about

customs and delays.

We'd be delayed a couple of hours.

Would there be costs

involved for you?

We'd be paying drivers,

the trucks lying idle.

People say that, while we have

peace, it is fragile.

It's very fragile.

Any little thing could upset

the whole thing again,

and we wouldn't like to see Brexit

be the cause of it.

We are moving from the Republic

of Ireland, just across the border,

and I'm now in Northern Ireland.

It was very smooth,

seamless and frictionless.

I suppose that's what we want to see

continue in a post-Brexit era.

Just across the border

into Northern Ireland, I caught

up with Des Fraser,

who gave me his view

about why the United Kingdom

decided to leave Europe.

First of all it was the cost.

I also felt, particularly the likes

of the slurry ban, for agriculture,

I don't think there should be

somebody in Brussels

telling us when we can

or can't spread our slurry.

What effect do you think Brexit

would have on the border?

Do you think we're going to be able

to avoid a hard border?

Getting a solution is

the difficulty, there's no doubt.

There's a harmonious

relationship, you know,

with Europe and Switzerland,

Europe and Norway, without a hard

border in existence.

It's very clear that people on both

sides of the border want the special

circumstances on the island

of Ireland to be taken into account

in the Brexit negotiations.

But can it be and will it be done

in time for the December council?

Will we resolve the conundrum

and square the circle

of an invisible border on the island

of Ireland post-Brexit?

And Mairead McGuiness

joins us now from Dublin.

The former Northern Ireland

Secretary and leading Brexiteer,

Owen Paterson, is in Shropshire.

Thank you both for joining us. Owen

Paterson, Mariad laid out her case,

does the Government have an answer

to this?

Yes, there's already an

existing border. I've been going

there since ten years ago. There's a

currency board, now a euro sterling

border, a VAT border, a corporation

tax border, and in all the time I've

been going to Northern Ireland and

the public, not a single person ever

said this presents a problem.

...

Physical border.

Through the

referendum campaign, we made it

clear there are electronic measures

and techniques, existing techniques

such as authorised economic

operators and this can all be made

to work if there is a will on the

border. It has a small amount of

trade. Northern Ireland has 80% of

its trade to the rest of the UK,

only 5% goes over the border. It

would be very easy to license

tankers that take milk over the

border as authorising economic

operators that go over every day,

they would be recognised on a

regular basis, all invoices done

electronically. It is a very small

problem if there is a will.

Let's

bring in Mairead McGuiness. Owen

Paterson sounds like he's saying

you're exaggerating the problem is

here.

I've listened to it several times

and not heard anything new. He is

right that where there is a will

there is a way. This is a serious

matter for my constituency, for the

island of Ireland and Europe. We

have not found the way. To bring up

separate currencies, OK, it is part

of the situation, but we don't have

a border in the visible sense. When

the United Kingdom remains

determined to leave the customs

union and single market, the milk

that he refers to produced in

Northern Ireland and processed in

the Republic of Ireland comes from a

country that is a third country, no

longer a member of the European

Union. There are many issues about

that. I know the fathers in Northern

Ireland are deeply concerned about

the consequences for them as daily

farmers. -- dairy farmers. They are

troubled by his insistence that he

wants to scrap many of the rules

around the food industry and

agriculture. He wants to scrap

support for agriculture. Even

farmers that voted Leave, they are

now quite perplexed about what they

are hearing from the UK side, not

just around the issue of the border,

but on the wider issues of trade.

That is where this problem really

lies, and where we will have great

difficulty. I am more troubled this

morning, because I read a quote from

Arlene Fox the trade Secretary,

saying that the border issue and the

Irish issue will not be solved until

the final stage, until we reach a

decision on trade. I hope the United

Kingdom is not holding the situation

to ransom in these negotiations. It

is far too serious and too critical.

Let's go to Owen Paterson.

May I

finish this point?

We now have a

situation on the island of Ireland

and Northern Ireland where we have

built piece and we are hoping to

maintain that. I believe that we

will and we can. Unfortunately,

there is no assembly, there are

divisions between the communities

but they are now becoming deeper. We

have to work really hard to avoid

that. Part of that is to make sure,

as Theresa May said on Friday, she

wants the situation to remain the

same as it is today, post-Brexit.

The only way to achieve that is to

stay in the customs union and single

market. That is the solution.

A lot

for you to pick up on. Let's start

with the idea that it might be

possible to come up with a final

solution to the Irish border

question after we have seen the

shape of a trade deal. EU made it

clear we cannot talk about trade

until the Irish border has been

settled?

Saw those comments were

completely ridiculous and they have

been repeated when we have done

interviews before. -- some of those

comments. The idea that Northern

Ireland will be taken out of the UK

is absurd. 78 million people voted

to leave the European Union, they

voted to leave the customs union and

the single market, and the

jurisdiction of the ECJ. The idea

that politicians in Dublin can

somehow start to force Northern

Ireland to stay, against the will of

a significant number of citizens,

within an arrangement that will not

serve the economic and you're

politically, it is really very

dangerous. Let's talk about the

peace process, I can't think of

anything more destabilising... This

is a really important point. I want

to make this point. It is really

very irresponsible politicians to

make a statement like that, saying

they are going to force and

blackmail the UK into getting a

special status for Northern Ireland

outside the rest of the UK. That is

a really dangerous thing to do and

they should stop doing it. There are

perfectly sensible, technical

solutions to the problem of the

border. We currently have complete

conformity of standards. Products

going over the border go on a very

regular basis. It is a tiny part of

trade between the Republic of

Ireland and the UK. It is a really

tiny part of trade between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland

and it is solvable by modern

methods. The idea we will go back to

old customs, with customs officials

in bridges, sticking a ladle into a

couple trickle, it is out of date.

Less than 2% of goods are inspected

physically. This is completely out

of date. -- sticking a ladle into a

tub of back-to-back.

I am disturbed

by some of those comments, to

describe that view as ridiculous is

not helpful. To suggest it is

blackmailing is appalling. The UK,

the Irish at the European Union know

we have had a difficult history. We

have worked hard politically and

financially to make sure we move

forward and we have. If the United

Kingdom does trade agreements with

other partners and goods are flowing

into Northern Ireland, we have to

watch and know where they are coming

from. That will affect businesses in

Northern Ireland, as it will affect

businesses in the European Union. I

dislike this notion, and it is

happening and happened again in this

studio this morning, that the United

Kingdom and Owen Paterson would say

if borders go up, it is our fault.

Let's be frank, because we should

be, we are neighbours and good

friends. The European Union, 28

today, we respect the democratic

decision of the United Kingdom to

leave, but I would ask you to

reflect on the reality of Northern

Ireland, where people voted to stay

because they knew the consequences

for them. Regrettably, where the

referendum was taking place, there

was no talk about the consequences

for Northern Ireland or the island

of Ireland. We are left in a

situation where, retrospectively, we

are trying to find solutions. If it

upsets your guest at the studio, I

repeated anyway, we have to be frank

with one another. The way to stay

the same on the island of Ireland,

as it is today, post-Brexit, is for

at least the United Kingdom to take

the red off the table, to stay the

customs union and single market

gives us what we have today, and

invisible border, seamless trade,

and also building at helping to keep

those relationships. The good

relationship was helped in no small

part because Ireland, the United

Kingdom and 26 other countries can

sit around a table. They sit in the

European Parliament, in the council,

and we do business because we got to

know each other. We have formal and

informal talks and relationships. We

should really strive to continue

that. It is in the interests of the

people we spoke to on the border,

those that wanted the United Kingdom

to stay, and those that might have

had a different view.

Owen Paterson,

can you see that this can be

resolved before we know the shape of

a final trade deal? The idea that

the Irish question needs to be

settled before we move on to talking

about future trading or relations?

Is that possible?

As somebody who

spent time a shadow and Secretary of

State, going very regularly to

Dublin, getting the main political

parties in on that, I appreciate the

good level of relations between the

UK and the Republic of Ireland, the

enormous benefits to so many people.

Therefore, I am absolutely dismayed

at the talk this morning, which is

completely unrealistic, expecting

Northern Ireland to be given a

separate status, outside,

effectively, the United Kingdom. 87%

of sales, purely on economics, are

within the UK. Henri

-- on economic grounds, it is crazy.

It is very dangerous. There was a

referendum at the time of the

Belfast agreement. There was

overwhelming support for it to stay

in the UK. All of the polls show

that Northern Ireland will stay very

firmly within the UK.

Very quickly,

then, one last point?

I hate to say,

but Owen may not be listening to

what I said. I said the United

Kingdom would stay in the customs

union and single market, I did not

say Northern Ireland should separate

and stay in, although that is a

potential solution, it is not the

one I said this morning. Please

respond to what I have said.

We

don't have time to respond to any of

that. It is an issue we will return

to. Thank you very much.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme, Ellie's

taken the Moodbox to Yorkshire

A big event that will make us feel

better off. But enough about Black

Friday, we also have the Budget this

week. We are asking shoppers in

Leeds what matters most to them.

First though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Jo Coburn.

Joining me for the duration,

Theresa Villiers, Conservative MP

for Chipping Barnet and a leading

Brexiteer, and Wes Streeting,

Labour MP for Ilford North,

a Remainer who sits

on the Treasury Select Committee.

Welcome to you both.

I want to start with

the Grenfell Tower fire

and the announcement

in the Budget that the Government

is pledging more money to help

with the fallout from the disaster.

Jerry Thomas reports.

In Wednesday's Budget,

the Chancellor Philip Hammond

announced more help

for the survivors of the fire

that claimed 71 lives

and made hundreds homeless.

Today I can announce we will provide

Kensington and Chelsea Council

with a further £28 million

for mental health and counselling

services, regeneration support

for the surrounding areas,

and to provide a new community space

for local residents.

I spent weeks speaking to ministers

and I'm absolutely delighted that

they've agreed to give us

£28 million today.

Following the Grenfell Tower

disaster, fire safety flaws

were discovered in hundreds

of high-rise blocks

around the country.

Mr Hammond has called on local

authorities to speed up efforts

to ensure all high-rise towers

are safe, adding any local

authorities which needed financial

help to do so should go directly

to central government.

If any local authority cannot

access funding to pay

for essential fire safety work,

they should contact us immediately.

However, BBC London has discovered

that about half of London's boroughs

had asked for financial

help to the tune of £400 million.

So far, they haven't

received a penny.

We have already approached

the Government on a number

of occasions, asked for the money

we desperately need here

in Croydon to fit sprinklers,

and been turned down.

It's promises of jam tomorrow.

We have over 130 blocks over seven

floors high and if we wanted to put

sprinklers in them for example,

we would need many millions

of pounds from the Government

and there's no sign

whatsoever of that.

The Government have said

they will not allow what they call

financial restraints to get

in the way of any essential

fire safety works.

Jerry Thomas reporting there.

Wes Streeting, do you welcome

the pledge of £28 million?

It's a significant amount of money

for Grenfell fire victims.

Of course, I mean when dealing

with a major disaster like this,

Kensington and Chelsea Council

clearly need support.

I think it's one of the parts

of the Budget speech I cheered

actually because I think it's right

that particularly mental health

support is in place.

What does concern me however

is there are still over 100 Grenfell

families still living in hotels

or temporary accommodation

and I think the least we can do

is give them a bit of longer-term

security and a home

they can call their own.

So I hope we will see

more urgent action on that

funds from government.

As you heard in the film

from Alison Butler and John Biggs,

I think lots of local authorities

across London which do have tower

blocks and want to see those tower

blocks retrofitted with sprinklers

to give residents the confidence

that if a similar disaster erupted

there would be better response.

I'm afraid that's where

the gulf between rhetoric

and reality kicks in.

Let's start with the money

going to Kensington and Chelsea.

Is that the right place

to put that money?

Should it be run by central

government rather than

the council directly?

The Government and Kensington

and Chelsea Council are working very

closely together to support

the families and deal with the

terrible aftermath of this tragedy.

So I think the academic point

about whether technically the money

is controlled by the Council

or central government

is they need to work together

to solve the problem.

It's not so much an academic point.

There has been criticism that

actually the council hasn't dealt

with it successfully and effectively

until now, so giving them

a large pot of money,

are they the right people -

not from a practical point of view -

but whether they can actually

do the job.

It's clear that Kensington

and Chelsea need help

from central government to deal

with the situation.

They have been getting it

from an early stage,

I'm sure that will continue.

Do you agree?

Yes, I mean I agree with Theresa.

Who is controlling the budget

is less important than

the outcomes for residents.

So you think they're up to the job,

Kensington and Chelsea?

Well, look, there are

clearly problems with

the previous leadership

of the council and it was right

that the leadership

of the council resigned.

In terms of the new leadership

of the council, I don't

feel close enough.

And tempting though

it is to bash a Tory council

because they are Tories,

I think they've got enough

on their plate and I certainly don't

envy the position the leader

of the Royal Borough of Kensington

and Chelsea finds herself in,

having to deal with the aftermath

of this disaster.

I think it's important we give them

the support across the political

spectrum to do the job well.

So was it helpful of your Labour

colleague, Emma Dent Coad,

as the local MP there,

to say she didn't really

trust the council to

spend the money wisely?

Well, Emma has been a lot closer

to the whole disaster than I have

and certainly for a new MP to be

confronted with this disaster

in the very first few weeks

in office is difficult,

but I think the jury is still out

on the new leadership

of Kensington and Chelsea.

I think they've got the chance

to prove themselves and the most

important thing is the residents

and making sure they get

the support they need.

What's the point, Theresa Villiers,

of the Chancellor saying,

come to us, come to me,

councils out there,

if you need funding or access

to funds in order to retrofit

sprinklers or for any fire safety,

things you need to do,

when half of London's boroughs say

they have asked for that money

and haven't got it?

Well, the Chancellor

repeated his statement that he's

made a number of times that councils

should come to central government

if they need this funding.

Now, I don't know the history

of the individual boroughs.

If they are saying they're not

getting all of their funding...

Or any of it, they say

the Government has yet

to agree to any support.

I would suggest they go back

to Sajid Javid of the DCLG

and have a further discussion.

There are divided views

about sprinklers, whether they are

the right way forward.

There will obviously need to be

a debate about what are

the best safety measures.

In part, we won't know that

for certain until the public inquiry

reports, but it is very important

for local councils if they are

worried about these issues

to continue the dialogue

with central government so they can

get the funding they need.

Do you think Philip Hammond should

guarantee that money for fire safety

for councils who ask for it?

He has sort of more or less done

that, but obviously won't give

an individual blank cheque

to each council.

They need to check these

are the right measures

and that they can be funded.

Can he be trusted to do that?

Well look, there's a gap

between rhetoric and reality.

My experience of a deputy leader

of a London borough previously

before being elected to Parliament

is that local authorities are far

better at spending their money

than central government,

and I think the Chancellor has got

to be a bit clearer

about what is up for grabs

and genuinely meeting the needs

of London boroughs.

Right, and we will obviously

closely follow the story.

Now, of all the areas the Chancellor

raised in his Budget,

the one issue that was most

anticipated in London was housing.

Tanjil Rashid has been

gauging the reaction

from the housing sector.

So today, we set out

an ambitious plan to tackle

the housing challenge.

A challenge that resonated

especially at this housing industry

event on Budget afternoon.

Councils at the sharp end

of London's housing shortage will,

following this week's Budget,

be able to borrow more to build

houses, but they say it's not

the freedom to borrow that

they'd asked for.

It's this borrowing cap that revives

really an artificial ceiling

on what we can build.

We wanted to see that lifted

for councils across London

and instead what we've heard

is there's £1 billion, it's

£1 billion for the whole of England,

councils will have to bid in.

It already sounds like a scheme

that is mired in bureaucracy

but doesn't have the sorts of cash

that is required.

The Government has scrapped stamp

duty for first time buyers

of houses under £300,000,

and for the first 300,000 on a house

costing up to half a million,

saving on average £5,000 in London.

It's a policy targeting young

people, but there are advocates

of generation rent who say it may

make things worse.

That might sound like a really great

offer for my generation of people

looking to get on the property

ladder, but actually if you look

at the Independent Office

for Budget Responsibility's

own figures, all they really say

is that will push up house prices.

In fact the saving that first time

buyers might make from not having

stamp duty will be absorbed

by house prices.

There are 270,000 sites in London

that have planning permission

but remain undeveloped.

There will now be a review into why

that's the case but there are doubts

over whether the Chancellor has

dealt with the real issue.

He has stopped short in terms

of looking at land in London

and particularly saying whether 24%,

nearly a quarter of land in London

being green belt, is the right use

of that land within the remit

of the Greater London area.

The Government had raised

expectations that this would be

a radical house-building Budget

and they have for example announced

£44 billion' worth of capital

investment in housing.

Nevertheless, the word

from the great and the good

of the housing sector

gathered here is that it wasn't

quite the slam dunk the Chancellor

had been hoping for.

Theresa Villiers, what was radical

about announcing £44 billion

for a housing package of which only

£15 billion was actually new money?

Well, it is radical,

that's a significant amount of money

and the Chancellor is determined

to provide the infrastructure

we need to enable housing

developments to go ahead.

I know in many places the anxiety

about getting planning permission

for new homes is whether the local

infrastructure can cope.

Well, with these additional

resources, it's going to be much

easier to get those planning

permissions because there

can be more confidence

that the infrastructure locally

is able to support it.

Right, with the 300,000 homes,

that's the pledge being

built by the mid 2020s.

There is a chronic

housing shortage now.

We've built around a million

new homes since 2010.

You've built 217,000

new homes this year,

that's still below the target

of 250,000 and that's

from a very low bar.

The Government is very clear

it needs to do more,

it needs to do better,

that's why we are having this review

about why planning permissions

are not being built,

but the solution is not to build

on the green belt.

Why not?

Because if we build on the green

belt, we will end up with urban

sprawl all the way to Birmingham.

That green belt is vital

to keep London breathing,

to protect London's environment.

Philip Hammond was reported

to want to announce that there

should be some building on the green

belt but Tory MPs have

stopped him doing that.

Isn't that the only way to radically

up the number of homes that

are built, by building

on the green belt?

Not at all.

There are plenty of brownfield sites

in the city that we can build on.

Do you agree?

Was it to protect the green

belt, Wes Streeting?

Well, I certainly support

the brownfield first policy.

Obviously there is scope to look

at reclassifying and redesignating

greenbelt but when you look

at the available urban land

available in London,

there is still space to build

significant numbers of new homes

but this is a supply and demand

issue, it's as simple as that.

Until we see significant investment

in supply of new homes

available to rent or buy,

we are not going to solve

London's housing crisis.

What the Chancellor announced this

week didn't come close to meeting

London's housing needs soon enough.

Did you support the abolition

of stamp duty for most

first time buyers?

In isolation, as we heard

in the package there,

all that's going to do is drive up

house prices further and offset any

benefit to first time buyers.

Although something very similar

was in the Labour Party manifesto.

And I was just going to come

onto our manifesto.

The key difference in Labour's

manifesto is that that policy

would work alongside

an unprecedented period of new home

construction outside of a post-war

period and unless you've got that

level of investment,

we need 66,000 homes

a year at least to meet

London's housing needs.

That would require 2.7 billion.

Londoners were short-changed

with just 0.5 billion

for new homes in this Budget.

So for the Budget that was meant

to be the housing Budget,

the big breakthrough,

it was a bit of a damp squib really.

What do you say about the impartial

Office for Budget Responsibility

setting out that actually all that

stamp duty abolition will do is push

up prices and actually won't help

anything like the numbers of people

the Chancellor said?

Well, they have their

views obviously.

It might have some impact on house

prices but it still means that first

time buyers have less cash to find

to get on the housing

ladder so it will help...

But the prices will be higher.

It will be helpful

but we acknowledge it's

not the whole answer.

That's why the Budget also contained

an increase in investment

in the infrastructure we need

to build more homes.

Should councils be able

to borrow large amounts

of money to build homes?

Councils already have

borrowing powers.

They have some and they are limited.

We do need to maintain caution

because ultimately those monies

have to be paid back,

but I know it's important to keep

these things under review,

and housing associations

are obviously getting more

opportunities to borrow

now than in the past

because of the reclassification

of their debt, so things

are changing and if changes

are needed in the future in relation

to local government,

I'm sure the Chancellor

will look at that.

We have to leave it there.

This week, the Office

of National Statistics published

a report that found that nationally

over 1 million domestic

abuse-related incidents

were reported to police in the year

ending March 2017.

And domestic abuse in London,

in particular, is on the rise,

accounting for one in ten reported

offences in the capital.

Now a cross-party group

from the London Assembly has called

on the government to create

a register identifying people

convicted of domestic abuse, similar

to the sex offenders register.

But is this the most effective way

to protect potential victims?

Bhavani Vadde reports, and I should

warn you that her film does contain

some distressing images.

Zoe Dronfield's story is one

of remarkable survival.

She suffered a brutal eight-hour

attack by her ex-boyfriend,

who had been stalking

and harassing her.

I just remember thuds

raining down on my head.

I had 15 separate injuries

from that attack.

It was a sustained attack with

knives involved, a meat cleaver.

I knew I had to get out of there,

I knew he was going to kill me.

After he was convicted,

she learnt that 13 other women had

also been his victims.

Since then, she's campaigned

for serial domestic violence abusers

and stalkers to be put

on a register.

He was known to the police.

It was the same force

for all of those victims

and they never picked up this

pattern and escalation.

This kind of behaviour has been

going on and it's been allowed

to escalate to almost murder.

If he was on a register,

that would mean that he would be

tracked and monitored.

Zoe's is not an isolated incident.

It's been a year since five-year-old

Alex Malcolm was beaten to death

in a park in Catford.

His killer, Marvyn Iheanacho,

was a partner of Alex's mother

who had no knowledge

of his history of violence.

It was that particularly tragic case

that prompted the London Assembly

to start a cross-party campaign

for a register of those convicted

of domestic abuse offences,

similar to the one used

for sexual offenders.

Those guilty of certain sexual

offences must keep the police

updated on their personal details,

including their address.

Assembly members are calling

on the Government to include

an equivalent system

in the forthcoming domestic

violence and abuse bill,

which is expected this

Parliamentary session.

Domestic violence and abuse

is increasing, so we need something

extra to give some added strength

to help police manage offenders

but also manage the risk,

because I think we could have

prevented that tragic murder

of that five-year-old,

and I think we can prevent repeat

abuse, violence and other

against women in the future

by having such a list.

Domestic abuse accounts for around

one in ten of all recorded

differences in London.

There's been a 15%

increase in the number

of victims in three years.

Four out of ten survivors are repeat

victims, but despite these rising

numbers there's been a 38% fall

in spending by London councils

on services designed to help those

who've suffered domestic violence.

And sufficient resources will be

key to a domestic abuse

register being effective,

according to one charity

working in the sector.

A register needs to be backed up

with a range of services that can

work directly with domestic abuse

perpetrators, and both

manage their behaviour

and control their behaviour and help

them change, so that's a mixture

of existing sanctions being used

properly and enforced consistently,

and then a range of new services

that are properly resourced

that help people change.

There is clearly a need

for more resources.

We have less than 1% of perpetrators

today who get put on any kind

of programme or anything that

helps them change.

The Home Office told us

that the publication of a domestic

violence and abuse bill will aim

to break the cycle of harm.

Measures planned for the bill

include a definition

of domestic abuse in law

and a new domestic abuse commission.

But Zoe says she will continue

to lobby for a domestic abuse

register to prevent anyone else

going through the same

ordeal as her.

Joining me now,

Sophie Walker, leader

of the Women's Equality Party.

Welcome to the programme.

The statistics were quite shocking

actually, the numbers

of domestic violence.

Would a register, though,

be the best way to protect victims

and potential victims?

Well, I'm very glad you asked that

because I think that too often

when we talk about violence

against women and girls,

we talk about the details.

A register would certainly, I think,

go some way potentially

towards helping victims

and potential victims

if it was constructed with the help

of victims in a way that is fully

funded, in a way that

incorporates police training.

But actually, when we talk

about violence against women

and girls, we talk too much

about policing it, we talk too

much about it as though

it is something we have to manage,

and we do not talk about what causes

it and how we stop it.

And what causes it is a fundamental

imbalance of power between men

and women, which comes

about because women earn less,

women have less opportunity

to participate in the economy.

It's interesting we have just been

talking about the Budget.

Year after year after year,

our Chancellor, from whichever

party, investing in physical

infrastructure rather

than the social infrastructure that

would revolutionise women's lives.

Let's pick up first

of all on the register.

Theresa Villiers, you have been

written to, presumably,

by the London Assembly.

They have written

to all MPs in London.

Do you back their cross-party

campaign for a register?

I'm open-minded

on this at the moment.

I think there is quite

a strong case for it.

We need to think it through.

I think what would make

sense is the Government

is about to consult

on its legislation on domestic

violence and abuse...

Is this going to be part of it?

I think it's worth putting

a question on this in that

consultation because we do need

to make sure we get this right.

What I would agree on,

if we do go ahead with this,

it is obviously only one part

of an effective strategy

to tackle this.

Right, but you haven't made

up your mind, you haven't signed

up to this campaign?

Not 100%.

I think we need to investigate it

thoroughly but there

is quite a credible case

for going ahead with this.

Do you agree with Sophie Walker

that it is gender inequality

that is the cause, in the main part,

of domestic abuse?

It is a very significant contributor

to the fact of this problem, yes.

Right, what are your objections to -

if you have reservations,

what are your reservations

about not signing up?

I think we need to first of all work

out the interaction with other

databases in particular.

We wouldn't want confusion

or duplication of databases

to cause complication

and undermine our ability to keep

track of these offenders.

That would be the main

point of caution.

Are you going to sign up to it?

I do support the register actually.

I think it would be a welcome

step forward and a tool

for combating domestic abuse,

but I agree with Sophie,

there are a far wider range

of issues both about structural

inequality facing women

in our society but also on domestic

abuse and domestic

violence specifically,

we heard in the film that local

government has been clobbered

by cuts and that means services

available to support victims

of domestic abuse have been up

for the chop alongside other

critical services,

and without falling into the trap

that Sophie identified earlier

of just talking about the policing

of this, you know, the fact

is the Met have lost £600 million

since 2010, another 400 million set

to follow and the policing

of domestic violence is an important

component of this.

As with other forms of serious

crime facing Londoners,

one in ten crimes in London

are domestic abuse, our ability

to effectively deal with this crime

is limited if we don't have

sufficient police resources.

Do you accept that point?

What I would like us

to be talking about,

if we are going to talk

about the details, is funding

because the commissioning model

is absolutely broken.

These services are not...

We need services not just

to support women but also

to advocate for women.

What we are losing are

the specialist services

particularly for black,

Asian, ethnic minority women,

for women with disabilities,

because the competitive tendering

process knocks them out.

So you have to be big, you have

to be able to offer a cheaper model,

those are often then generic models.

They are knocking out

the specialist services.

In Haringey alone, they've lost 14

places, three refuges have

closed one of which is...

I will put that to Theresa Villiers

in a minute, but what about men?

Men too also suffer from domestic

abuse and then the gender inequality

arguments you put forward doesn't

quite cover that's because more