10/12/2017 Sunday Politics London

Morning everyone and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith and I'll be bringing

you your essential briefing

on all the top political

stories this week.

She's done the easy bit,

now comes the hard part.

As we move on to trade

and transition talks with the EU,

just what sort of deal

is the Prime Minister aiming for?

The issue of trade across the Irish

border is likely to dominate

those talks, we'll speak

to the Northern Ireland

Secretary James Brokenshire

about what he thinks a solution

to the problem could look like.

Momentum, the group set up

to support Jeremy Corbyn,

is facing allegations it's trying

to take over the Labour

party, we'll investigate.

In London.

New figures show child poverty

is projected to rise for the

first time in a decade.

Is the government doing enough?

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to try to make

sense of is all, three journalists

who are in full alignment with this

week's political developments.

Tim Shipman, Helen

Lewis and Toby Young.

The cliche that a week is a long

time in politics has

never been more apt.

As Theresa May first appeared to be

the brink of collapse,

and then claimed victory with a deal

to allow Brexit talks to move

on to the next phase.

Deal or no deal?

The question that took

Theresa May to Brussels not

once but twice this week.

On Monday it seemed

it was all sorted.

Time to move onto talks about trade.

Then in stepped Arlene Foster.

Northern Ireland must

leave the European

Union on the same terms as the rest

of the United Kingdom.

So lunch was left to go

cold in Brussels as the

PM rushed home to try

and save the deal.

The problem ran along

the Irish border.

Did promises of regulatory

alignment mean Northern

Ireland would operate differently

from the rest of the UK?

Unionist alarm bells

could be heard in

Westminster where Theresa May

relies on their support.

While others saw their

chance to tell their own

bespoke Brexit deal.

So back to the drawing

board and a chance for

Labour to stick the boot in.

What an embarrassment.

Shambles.

The last 24 hours have

given a new meaning to

the phrase coalition of chaos.

There was a tricky

moment for the Brexit

secretary as he was quizzed over his

economic impact studies that don't

actually exist.

So there isn't one,

for example, on the automotive

sector.

On the automotive sector.

Is there one on aerospace?

No.

One on financial services?

I think the answer is

going to be no to all of

them.

Right.

By the Chancellor admitted

the Cabinet has not yet

debated future European

trading relations.

The Cabinet has had general

discussions about how Brexit

negotiations but we haven't had

a specific, er, mandate of the

position.

At Prime Minister's Questions

Brexiteers reminded the PM

they too had lines

they wouldn't cross.

Will she apply a new coat of paint

to her red lines because I

fear on Monday they were beginning

to look a little bit pink.

Talks through the night

on Thursday and

finally, white smoke.

Tweeted by Jean-Claude

Juncker's chief of staff

to signal a deal had been done.

4am Friday.

The red eye back to Brussels,

the Brexit Secretary's

face told the story of a long night.

A tweak of the words

and a deal agreed.

Sufficient progress has now

been made on the strict

terms of the divorce.

Not everyone was happy.

There are still matters

there that we would have liked

to have seen clarified.

The whole thing is a humiliation.

In a letter yesterday

Environment Secretary Michael Gove

said voters could change the deal

if they don't like it.

At the next general election.

Let's unpack a week of remarkable

political developments with our

panel.

Tim, the papers are claiming a

marvellous victory for Theresa May,

but this is a problem of her own

making she managed to dig herself

out of?

The government announced

immediately they had got a deal and

it took them two and a half weeks to

nail it down. It is worth

remembering that when she went off

to Brussels to Jean-Claude Juncker

who said, don't come here unless you

are ready to go. Theresa May kicked

him out of his office for an hour

while she begged Arlene Foster to

get in line and initially, it wasn't

happening because they hadn't nailed

it down. People say, why weren't all

these civil servants and people who

know about how to deal with these

guys, engaged in this process? The

separation between the Northern

Ireland Office and Downing Street,

the whip office was negligent and

they should have been holding hands

with the DUP and Tilly was taken

over the line. Disaster was only

narrowly averted. They were saying

earlier in the week, this is a

catastrophe and Theresa May needs to

go.

But she pulled it out in the

end. We were talking about takeover

plots, Theresa May might lose her

job and now it is a victory.

When

you are talking about this, you have

to divorce the theatre around it and

the last-minute concessions, which

will not end. The question is what

happens when the Forge recedes.

Everyone has something out of this

deal because there is no clarity.

Arlene Foster said they wanted

clarity. Both sides when they get

the clarity will be unhappy, but the

question is what they will do about

it.

Toby, both people on both sides

of the Brexit debate in the Tory

party, who are claiming they are

very, very happy. They can't all be

happy.

I am not surprised the

Brexiteers our content. There are

various things the remain as

predicted couldn't be achieved. They

thought they would be a backbench

rebellion. Now that looks like the

divorce bill will sail through. A

lot of Remainers thought the state

is of EU nationals would remain

uncertain for long time. This makes

no Deal Brexit less likely that was

always the Remainers best of

reversing the result of the

referendum.

Now we're left with the

question, what does full alignment

mean. David Davis asked that that

this morning.

It means outcomes.

It means...

If I arrived in two

cars, they are next

to each other.

Well, Northern Ireland is next

to the Republic of Ireland.

Yes, and it will have next

to regulations, it will be very

similar.

There will be some similarities.

Again, the Prime Minister

laid this out in her

Florence speech.

She said there are areas

where we will want similar

outcomes and we'll have similar

methods to achieve them.

There will be areas

where we have similar

outcomes where there will be

different methods to achieve them.

That's going to be true of a lot

of product areas, a lot of

manufacturing.

There will be areas where we want

different outcomes and

we will use different methods.

That was clear as mud, Toby, what do

you think full alignment means?

I

don't think we should spend as much

time as you seem to want to,

discussing it. As Michael Gove

clarified, it doesn't have any legal

force. It doesn't have any binding,

legal force. It hasn't got to the

stage of the treaty. It might be

difficult to unwind because it is

the basis of an agreement. But

nonetheless, it is not binding and a

lot is left to play for.

It is what

got the DUP on-board, finding a form

of words which could be what you

wanted them to.

People wanting

immigration cut without the economy

taking a hit. The same thing with

the DUP, they want to stay aligned

to prison, but they don't want their

agriculture, Northern Ireland is one

of the biggest industries, to take a

massive hit from a hard border. So

you are trying to reconcile two

contradictory impulses. That Philip

Hammond clip is extraordinary saying

the Cabinet have a discuss where

they think this ends up in the end.

That is where the row will be.

Number Ten is specifically briefing

full alignment, so we haven't solved

anything.

It is a verb, he converge,

I don't do converge, we have full

alignment. The Conservative Party

managed to get through a general

election where they had half of

their supporters hardline. This may

help them keep the show on the road.

We will be talking to all three of

you throughout the programme.

So it was the arrangements

to avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic that

threatened to scupper progress

in the Brexit talks.

And there remains confusion

over exactly what it

is that's been agreed.

Hopefully we can clarify some

of that with the Secretary of State

for Northern Ireland

James Brokenshire.

Thanks for coming in. Can we go back

to the beginning of the week and the

discussions with the DUP. Where you

involved in that?

It is worth

stressing this is a fast-moving

situation. When the Prime Minister

was in Brussels at the start of the

week, the text hadn't been agreed.

That is why we've got the conclusion

with the text effectively now being

able to go on to the second phase.

Where you part of the back and

forward between Number Ten and the

DUP?

I don't want to get into the

details, but I have been involved,

supporting the Prime Minister and

making sure we have got sufficient

progress and why we have the benefit

of moving into phase two, which is

worth we can solve the issues with

relation to Northern Ireland.

He was

a significant failure at the

beginning of the week to flight to

Brussels without the DUP agreeing on

the text.

It was a fast-moving

situation.

Why go for lunch with

Jean-Claude Juncker if there wasn't

agreed text?

It was to continue the

discussions.

The Prime Minister

didn't think she had a deal on

Monday, she went to Brussels knowing

there wasn't an agreement with the

DUP.

The text wasn't agreed, as I

have underlined on a few occasions

already in this interview. It is how

we have secured what we needed to

do. We needed to give that assurance

in relation to Northern Ireland's

constitutional status in ensuring

trade between Northern Ireland and

Great Britain could remain

unfettered. That is important and we

can now solve this on phase two.

The

agreement said there would be full

alignment with the EU in the event

of no deal. It doesn't say anything

how you will avoid a hard border if

there is a trade deal with the EU.

You are looking at paragraph 49 of

the agreement. First and foremost,

this is about securing a free trade

agreement. Secondly, if that isn't

sufficient you move onto specific

solutions to deal with the unique

circumstances of Northern Ireland.

Only through an agreed outcome, do

you move on to the issue of

alignment, which I'm sure we will

discuss further.

Your preferred

option is to have the free trade.

Absolutely.

Nothing has been solved

on how you avoid a hard border

between Northern Ireland and the

republic if you have a free-trade

deal.

We were never going to solve

this in the first phase how this

agreement, we want to secure is

firmly in Ireland's interest, given

the nature of trade between Ireland

and the whole of the United Kingdom.

That is why we go into this second

phase with confidence we can secure

the positive outcome, which is the

best way to solve this.

The Irish

Taoiseach says it is clear in which

way it is going. He says we believe

the UK and Northern Ireland will

remain in alignment with the EU. Is

that your understanding?

I think he

underlines we could come to

different arrangements. It wasn't

about the same, somehow we would

stay within the customs union, the

single market. We are not. The text

says clearly, we are leaving and

Northern Ireland will be part of

that. Having shared outcomes may

mean we may achieve that to the same

or substantially the same way, or

very differently.

It cannot be too

different if you have to maintain

this idea you don't have a hard

border between Northern Ireland and

the republic. How does this allow

you to strike free trade deals with

the United States for instance, if

you have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some of the

United States for instance, if you

have got to maintain either

alignment or come to some other

border solution?

Let's take a couple

of examples. In relation to data

daylight, have your prescription

service nor those -- north or south

of the border. How that can converge

between Ireland and the UK. Things

like agriculture.

Let's talk about

agriculture. If we were to strike a

free trade deal with the US, they

have made it clear we will have to

diverged from EU rules on some

agricultural standards, like

chlorine washed chicken, how can we

do the kind of deal the US will

insist on and still maintain these

border arrangements?

We are yet to

get into those discussions.

They

have been to London and they have

said, if we stay too closely aligned

with the EU we will be able to get a

deal with the US.

We're not going to

somehow compromise our food safety

standards to have a race to the

bottom. That is why knowing the

integrated nature of the food sector

on island, is why we said we are

proud to look at alignment with

agricultural standards.

That tie

your hands. Why does the former

Brexit minister himself say it will

handicap our ability to enter into

free-trade arrangements?

We have

difference across the United Kingdom

over some of these devolved issues.

It doesn't create barriers within

the UK market. We are compliant with

the same rules as the EU and it is

positive decisions we might take.

When it comes down to this issue,

there won't be this race to the

bottom in relation to standards.

It

is important to understand. You are

tying the government's hands in its

ability to strike the free trade

deals that was supposed to create

the optimistic post Brexit future

proclaimed by the government.

It is

why we want to yes, secure the

positive free-trade agreement, Abbas

Bogue agreement with our EU

partners, but equally, which we

don't have, the flexibility to

negotiate trade deals around the

world so have the benefit of having

to do that.

The answer to this free trade deals

is how you manage the border between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland, that has not been answered.

We've set up the framework, we've

not been able to have these

discussions yet. That's why it was

so important, where it was a really

positive achievement that Theresa

May secured by moving into phase two

where we can do just that. To look

at all these different elements we

been working hard on with the EU

that need to be solved whether

through the free trade agreement,

whether through specific

circumstances to meet these issues,

and protecting the ability from

people to move from Northern

Ireland's, into the Republic, really

importantly underlining the

significance of the Good Friday

Agreement.

The Prime Minister

significantly said no deal was

better than a bad deal. What this

means in Brussels as if there is no

do we have to stay in full alignment

with the rules and regulations, is

that the possible?

Is the document

states, nothing is agreed until

everything is agreed.

In the

situation of no deal, nothing would

be agreed and that is the

circumstance in which this deal

kicks in...?

This document doesn't

commit in that way. We are not

contemplating a notable situation.

The Prime Minister has frequently

contemplated that, saying no deal is

better than a bad deal.

I think it

says this in a good way, to secure

this positive outcome that agreement

with our EU partners. We will only

do that if it is acceptable. Under

the no deal statements that the

Prime Minister has made.

When this

agreement says, in the event of no

deal, we will maintain full

alignment, you say this doesn't mean

no deal?

This document doesn't deal

with no deal. That's what I'm

saying. Paragraph five...

So in the

absence of agreed solutions the UK

will maintain full alignment with

the rules of the customs union?

Paragraph five scissors and

agreement being reached...

So you

need an agreement before you have

absence of agreed solutions.

It is

about the three tiered approach will

take, free-trade agreements, dealing

with unique circumstances and then

moving onto the alignment issues. It

is this three tiered approach that

will inform the negotiations. This

is why I say this provides us with a

positive backdrop to go into phase

two, to get positive outcomes in

ensuring there is no barrier between

the Republic of Ireland and Northern

Ireland. I take the positive

viewpoint, around getting agreement,

securing that bright positive future

for Northern Ireland and the UK as a

whole which is what that does.

James

Brokenshire, thank you. Tim, are you

a clearer? On what has been agreed?

Much less clear. What is the scope

of this alignment issue? If you

listen to government ministers, and

David Davis earlier and James has

said nothing that contradicts that,

you are talking about big areas like

agriculture and energy. David Davis

said it would cover four areas, is

put to someone in the Irish

government has said and covered 142

areas, there's quite a big gap

between them and we haven't yet

bridged that intellectually, it

seems.

And not much clearer on what

if there is no deal.

We would crash

out which would be definitely worse

than a bad deal. An appalling

outcome. I think the whole issue of

these agricultural standards is

fascinating because it reveals the

difference between the average Leave

voter and the average person on the

right, the free trader who is not

worried about safety standards and

is fine with chlorine tipped chicken

but we no one that free-trade Dale

got bounced out of contention one

thing that revolted people with the

idea of lower animal safety

standards, food covered in bacteria

then washed in chlorine. So you have

one wing of the Tory party who are

OK with that and people who voted

Leave who are not.

Is it still on

the table, this idea of no deal?

It

has to be, until we've concluded a

deal, because otherwise our

negotiating position is weaker. In

some ways the way that we've managed

to agree on what the status of EU

National 's would-be and what the

role of the ECJ would be for eight

years after we leave, suggest that

even in the absence of a trade deal

or even a transition deal being

successfully negotiated we could

nonetheless put a minimal deal in

place which could guarantee the

rights of UK National is here and

British nationals in Europe. So in

that way it makes no deal a little

less unpalatable but I think we will

still get a deal.

Thanks for that.

Well, discussions of

what the government wants its final

deal to look like also brings

into focus what Labour's

plans would be.

Speaking this morning Labour's

Shadow Brexit Secretary Keir Starmer

argued that Britain should remain

as close to the EU as possible.

How we negotiate that agreement

with the EU is a matter for

negotiation.

It doesn't mean it's cut

and paste, but we do have a

choice, do we want to stay aligned

so we can trade successfully or do

we want to tear apart?

And I say we should stay aligned.

We are talking about

what sort of Britain we are

going to be and what the next 40

or 50 years might look like.

I don't think anybody

voted to make it

harder to trade with Europe.

Emily Thornberry, Labour's shadow

foreign affairs spokesperson, is

with me now. Thank you for coming

in. That was Keir Starmer this

morning. I don't want to put words

into his mouth or yours but I

interpret that as saying, we are not

staying in the single market, that

is not the Labour position but we

want to maintain many of the

arrangements we have with the single

market. Is that right?

We've always

said we have to accept the results

of the referendum, we have some

tests to be abided by to get a good

deal so we need to be able to get

the full advantage of access to the

single market and the customs union.

To achieve that what Keir Starmer

seemed to be saying was that was a

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU, possibly even

pay for access to the free market

and while free movement of people

wouldn't he said they should be easy

movement of people from the UK to

the EU and vice versa. Is that

really respecting the referendum

result?

We have to leave the

European Union that there's no

reason why we don't need go a long

way. It would not be respecting the

referendum and the sentiment that

has expressed during the referendum

if we did not move, after leaving

the European Union, to a system

where we had fair rules and managed

migration, so people could easily

travel across Europe and those that

we need to have an ox economy - this

we need an our economy can stay and

that will help us.

If we are staying

closely aligned to the rules and

regulations of the EU why we have no

say in the formation of those rules

how is that taking back control?

We're going to leave and it seems to

us that people wanted to leave, they

wanted some form of control over

migration and fair rules and managed

migration is what we want but they

did not vote to lose their jobs

offer their neighbours to lose their

jobs. We need to prioritise the

economy and trade when it came to

negotiations and people should be in

no doubt that our biggest trading

partner is the European Union. It

would be economically ridiculous for

us to march off into the Atlantic

and say, we are turning our backs on

the European Union. To go into deals

with them we'd need the same rules

when it came to our exporting of

carrots or anything else. If you

want to export vacuum cleaners to

Europe they need to have the same

safety standards as the rest of

Europe.

Do you think people who

voted to leave will be happy that we

would follow and mirror the rules

and regulations of EU when we have

no say in their creation now, we

become will takers and not makers?

What we've said is that we need an

interim period when we negotiate

properly and have a long-standing

relationship with EU. When it comes

to exporting goods clearly we need

the same standards and don't want to

undercut European standards, nobody

wants and implement controls, we

need all these things to be less in

Britain than in the rest of Europe,

well, some Tories do but we don't

and we are clear about that.

That

would constrain our ability to sign

free trade deals with other

countries. The more closely aligned

we stay with EU the less movement we

will have to sign a new deal with

the USA for example.

What we need is

a custom-built arrangement between

Britain and the rest of Europe. We'd

need to be in a form of the customs

union and closely aligned to the

single market and that might give us

room to make the that is something

we need to be involved in

negotiation...

That is clearly of

secondary importance to you, the

ability to strike new deals with

third countries.

We've always been

pragmatic, most of our trade has

been with EU. We're just stating a

fact and we shouldn't put the kibosh

on that.

Are you happy with the

agreement Theresa May struck this

week?

Really don't understand it.

I've looked at it, I don't

understand. I think probably what

she is doing is she's rubbed at some

of her red lines, and that's good

because you shouldn't go into

negotiations with hard red lines

like she has. I don't understand how

on one hand she is saying she's

going to align and on the other hand

will be out of the single market on

the customs union. It doesn't really

make any sense to me.

I thought that

was the position you said Labour

win, leaving the single market on

the customs union but wanting to

stay aligned to Europe and is

regulations...

They say they've

swept any form of customs union of

the table. That's what I understand.

She is swept away any suggestion

that the European Court of Justice

would have anything to do with any

rules. She seems to be busily

putting them back on the table

again. That's probably a good thing.

What a waste of time. Because

wouldn't it have been good to have

began on a pragmatic, realistic

basis and we might have got further

than we have now. We are running out

of time.

What is Labour's answer to

the question of the border between

the northern Ireland and the

Republic of Ireland, how do you

avoid hardboard?

The further we go

from the EU, the harder it is to

have a soft border. What we have

said without that a form of customs

union is a viable option. Melbourne

has come up with any other

suggestion.

This idea, it says in

the agreement that was struck with

EU in the absence of any other

agreement, this idea that we would

maintain the full alignment with the

rules and regulations come you are

satisfied that it works well for the

UK and EU and solves the border

question?

Of course there has to be

a form of alignment, of course the

European Court of Justice need staff

an ongoing relationship with British

justice in the way we put forward

rules when we are working with the

rest of the EU. Why have we denied

at all this time, it is self-evident

and continues to be so.

It is

proposed that an amendment be put

forward that would give MPs a

meaningful vote on this while there

is still time for more negotiation

rather than at the end of

negotiations, will Labour support

that?

We have always said this. From

the outset we have said, why should

parliaments across the rest of

Europe have a vote on this, and the

European Parliament have a vote, the

people of Walloons will have a lot

in it, why not the British people?

That has to be a meaningful vote. --

one at the British Parliament. They

will have to factor in what the

British Parliament thinks. And many

people in the British Parliament

will not accept no deal, for

example. If they think they are

going to come to the British

Parliament with no deal is an option

they have another think coming.

There's another amendment to the Lib

Dems want, to put forward the option

of remaining in the single market.

Vince Cable has said it is

specifically designed to flush out

the Labour Party by asking straight

out will you support this amendment

or not with the option of staying in

the single market. How would Labour

vote on that?

We are leaving the EU,

we need a custom made deal with the

EU. We need to be able to respect

the views of the British people as

expressed in the referendum and one

debate was about ensuring that we

have more control of migration.

We've been told that the four

freedoms mean we can't stay in the

single market as it currently is so

we need a different deal. Those

other things we should have focused

on rack from the outset.

Emily

Thornberry, thank you very much for

coming in this morning.

There have been a number of reports

in the press recently accusing

the Labour pressure group Momentum

of forcing serving Labour

councillors off the ballot paper

for re-election in favour

of their own candidates.

Sources close to Momentum argue

they are simply helping to reflect

the new make-up of the Labour Party.

So is there any truth

in the allegations?

Elizabeth Glinka has been

to Brighton to find out.

They say to keep your

friends close and your

enemies closer, and in

the

Labour Party in Brighton they are

very close indeed. Here, as in many

other parts of the country,

there are suggestions that Momentum

is attempting to seize control and

ultimately replace sitting

councillors with candidates of their

own choosing.

Two weeks ago Momentum won

all nine positions on the

committee which will organise

the selection of candidates

for the next City Council

elections in 2019.

Local activists have spoken

about installing the first Socialist

council in the city, the implication

being that the current Labour

council is not quite

socialist enough.

If you talk to people from Momentum,

they will say to you, we

have brought in all these

new members, they're

full of enthusiasm,

why shouldn't we have our people

moving in to take over the party,

we are the future of the party.

Is there bullying

going on in Brighton?

I think there has been.

And I think that has

predominantly been from people

outside the Labour Party

and it is not acceptable.

Wouldn't be accurate to say that

Momentum members and

some of the new Labour Party members

are mobilising against the existing

councillors?

I think there has been some chatter

about that and a lot of

that has been from those who are not

in the party at the present time.

Once people are not members

of the Labour Party,

they can't share our values

and therefore they should be

excluded from Momentum.

And that would be a way

to unify the party in

Brighton and Hove and

around the country.

As a former minister in the Blair

government you might expect of

a captain to take that view.

I spoke to a number of Labour Party

members who said they had

experienced intimidation and that

Momentum was authoritarian

and brutal to existing councillors.

None would agree

to appear on camera.

While I was in Brighton a Momentum

activist posted this video and

social media.

The faces of three Labour

councillors including the

council leader had

been superimposed.

Something I put to a local

Momentum organiser Greg

Hadfield, who is currently suspended

from the Labour Party.

I haven't seen it so I'm not

going to comment on it.

And you think that is?

I'm happy to get

back to you and have

considered view but

I haven't seen it.

I have spoken to a number of people

across the party in Brighton

and Hove, some of them tell me that

Momentum are using bullying tactics,

that the party is very divided

and they feel not able to speak up

and air their views.

They are saying that on the record?

Because I think that's

shocking smears.

What we have seen in

Brighton and Hove in the

last 18 months is a massive upsurge

in democratic, decent democratic

engagement with party members.

Anyone who says that,

first of all they are lying,

but also they don't have the best

interests of the party.

Would you like to get

rid of the current

cohort of councillors

in Brighton and Hove,

the Labour councillors.

I would love it for

members to elect the best

representatives of this

Labour Party that they can.

If that is bullying,

if that is not democratic, if that

is deselecting, then people

saying that have a very

strange view of democracy.

Overnight Labour suspended

the member who posted the video.

He denied was anti-Semitic

and issued an apology.

Away from Brighton

the deselection of Labour

councillors in Haringey

and in other London boroughs has

made the national press.

There have been deselection

is in other places as

well including Hastings

and by just aware the

former mayor is among

the casualties.

I think we need a cultural

message from the top.

Momentum clearly have a place

in the Labour movement now

although they are not affiliated

with the party

formally they have brought energy

and ideas to the party.

That is no bad thing.

But Jeremy Corbyn is not just

the party leader but the

figurehead of momentum,

he has to send a message

to all his troops,

if you like around the country,

saying perhaps, not in my name.

Having spoken to people

from across the

Labour Party in Brighton,

there are those that

will tell you that the party is more

united than ever before

and they are incredibly positive

about the future.

But on the other

side even people who

describe themselves as being

on the left say they feel despondent

and that the atmosphere can only be

described as toxic.

Well we asked Momentum if someone

could come on to discuss the issues

raised in that film but no

one was available.

Never mind, we have our panel of

experts. Helen, is it perfectly

legitimate for momentum to get their

own candidate selected. They are in

the ascendancy now, so why shouldn't

they have more candidates?

They have

a legitimate position and they are

entitled to push it forward. But it

is controlled by two Private limited

companies and the data is in the

hands of one man. They talk about

progress and the Fabians, it is

around Jeremy Corbyn as a person.

The third thing, they are very

successful in terms of making viral

videos and they are an effective,

organising force and that is why

people are so worried.

Momentum do

show the way politics is going, they

are fantastic at mobilising people,

reaching their supporters and doing

it in different ways, are centrists

in the Labour Party frightened by

their success?

Definitely and that

is why they haven't been able to put

up a better fight. To claim this is

an undemocratic, because votes have

been taken before Momentum takes

control like the Brighton & Hove

Albion are to, is absurd. It isn't

democratic because a small neo-Nazis

calls will be holding the Labour

Party to ransom. It doesn't matter

whether they can sit out at these

meetings until 2am until moderates

have to go home. It doesn't make it

a takeover, it is definitely not

democratic as it would be if Britain

First took over the Labour Party.

Is

that fair?

The problem is calling it

tiny. It isn't tiny any more. The

last lot of people campaigning on

the streets for Labour were involved

in Momentum. If you look at their

social media, 60% of voters saw a

Momentum video on their Facebook

feeds during the general election

and Momentum spent £2000 on it.

Everything else spread virally.

There is a popularity and yes they

are a bunch of old leftie Marxists,

but on the other side there is

people cheering the Jeremy Corbyn,

they have come together and it is a

powerful force and no wonder the

Blairites and motorists are worried.

It is a form of bullying?

You have

these optimistic people who want to

change the world, tied up with a

group of people who are effective

organisers and behave in a

substandard way a lot of the time.

To compare them with Britain First

is over the top. To compare it with

an organisation whose explicit

purpose is to advance racist

propaganda is unfair.

We will leave

that therefore now.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we hit the streets to find out

if people are looking on the bright

side of Brexit.

I'm with Christmas shoppers

in Basingstoke to ask,

when it comes to what we may get

in that final Brexit deal,

are you an optimist or a pessimist?

First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Jo Coburn.

And I'm joined for the duration by

Bambos Charalambous, the new Labour

MP for Enfield Southgate and

Mark Field Foreign Office minister

and Conservative MP for the Cities

of London and Westminster.

Welcome to both of you.

I want to start with Brexit

for a change, with phase one

of the negotiations out of the way,

the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan,

said he welcomed the agreement

and EU citizens living in the UK and

British people living in the EU.

But he criticised

the PM for insisting

Britain will leave the single market

and the customs union, which he said

meant it was now unlikely

they would be a deal that would work

in London's best interests.

Mark Gield in financial

services will post

Brexit London be more

successful than it is now?

We will wait and see.

I think we have to be bold come

positive, optimistic, buccaneering,

I don't deny that obviously

there are some concerns

being expressed in the City,

and therefore think it is one

of those key strategic sectors that

I think this whole move

towards alignment that we've seen

over the last 48 hours,

that has to have its part to play.

I think we will look

upon financial services,

professional services,

pharmaceuticals, biotech,

these industries which,

fragmentation is bad news of the EU

27 as much as it is that the UK.

And I think in the long term

we will want to emanate in

British law the new regulations and

directives that come from Europe.

In many ways suspect

that means being

run the table to discuss that.

There will be those key sectors

will be have alignment and will be

free our own trade deals in a range

of other areas.

In effect we will not really have

left the customs union.

For certain sectors, it will have

equivalents which will be like

staying in the customs union

but that will only apply in certain

sectors of the economy.

Bambos, freedom of movement

will end when the UK

leaves the single market and leaves

the EU will that be good, in your

mind, for London?

I think it will be a worry

because we'll need the best

people we can to work in UK, London,

because we're global city and we

need to make sure we have the jobs,

we attract people to work in the

industries we have in London

with the best jobs.

Right.

Keir Starmer has said that

staying in the customs

union should remain on the table.

Do you think remaining in the single

market and also remain on the table?

I'm not so sure.

I think the customs union

is the one that is most

important because that

provides the detail

for so many businesses that we want.

So I think the customs union is far

more important than the

single market.

Lets leave it there for the moment.

Mark will be interested

in this as minister for

Asia, the Maher of London

was on a trade mission to India

and Pakistan this week and this

is what he had to

say.

If Theresa May wants to make Brexit

a success, as I'm sure she

does, if she wants to

ensure that businesses

continue to flourish and thrive,

we continue having access

to talented people from around

the world including India,

it is in her interests

to make sure she changes

the rules and immigration.

Sadiq Khan there.

Mark, in order to actually

mitigate the challenges

of Brexit as Sadiq Khan

sees them and to attract

talent from India, do you think

there has to be more

generosity on visas?

There is already quite

a lot more generosity.

I have to say it is

a discussion I have with my

counterparts, Indian

and Pakistani ministers...

But they want more.

They do, it's obviously at people

level, educational establishments

but also highly skilled individuals

and particularly in India you have

an amazing technology sector,

going back to the time of Nehru with

technology related universities.

So yes, I think there

is something in there.

One of the great things about

watching Sadiq Khan, I think all of

us as Londoners who are cosmopolitan

are very proud of the idea of having

someone who is a Muslim out in that

part of the world, representing

London, I think it is a great trip.

The only thing I would say, one

of the difficulties he has in many

ways, it applies also to

Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone,

his predecessors, the powers

of the Mayor of London are limited.

Outside of transportation

and policing.

One of the difficulties

is, I'm sure he

will try to make the case to say

London needs a specific, special

visa deal.

The truth is that he hasn't got

the power to make such a case.

Do you accept that he is limited,

he can cheerlead from the

sidelines but he will be

reacting to policy?

I think he can make the case,

he is the leader of a global

city, and is uniquely placed to make

sure we attract people over here.

Obviously there needs to be changes

in legislation for the visas, and

that's back to the government,

if they want a Britain that works

for everybody, they need to make

sure that is dealt with.

Would you like to see further powers

devolved to the mayor,

with regards to things

like immigration?

Further powers would be a good

thing, whether immigration

would work I don't know but I think

more devolution is good for London.

Do you see the number

of visas going up

in order to do a trade deal

with countries like India

in post Brexit Britain?

Well, one of the reasons people

voted Brexit was concerns

about immigration so it is ironic

that now we are talking about more

immigration to London but I do think

more visas would be an issue.

I have constituents

that have problems who

are here doing jobs, getting

problems getting leave to remain so

we already have a talent pool in

the UK and they are struggling with

visas at present.

I would say that the issue

about immigration, you're

right, clearly a major factor

in the referendum campaign,

but I think it's the issues

about having control

of immigration, of

immigration, the reality

of course is a member

of the European Union

we had no control...

The figures could go up as a result?

If we are going to be the great

success story which I very much hope

we will be economically, if we are

going to be buccaneering and

positive and optimistic, yes,

if British business makes the case

and we are thriving,

particularly in

those global industries, then yes,

we may see more immigration

certainly coming from outside

the European Union.

That wasn't the message

people had with Brexit.

Although the messaging

in London was very different.

And will no doubt continue to be so.

Now there is a row in

Haringey over the council's

flagship policy to redevelop two

estates in partnership with a

private company and

build 6,400 homes.

It has been the focus of criticism

over fears that locals

will be priced out

of their communities.

The Northumberland Park estate

in North London, months away from

Tottenham Hotspur's billion pound

new stadium, is also one of the most

deprived areas in Britain.

Haringey Council has

developed a plan to

regenerate it and the neighbouring

Broadwater farm estate.

A 20 year project to build 6400

homes worth £4 billion.

40% of the homes are

slated to be affordable.

The plan involves the Council

partnering with a

property company,

Lendlease in a 50-50

venture known as the HDV or Haringey

development vehicle.

This has sparked protests

about privatisation and what critics

have called the social cleansing

of the neighbourhood.

The Labour-run council

say cuts to the housing

budget leave them with no

choice but to enter

into such an arrangement.

There are now doubts

about its future though

after reselection process has

seen at least 17 Labour councillors

either withdraw from May's council

elections or find

themselves deselected.

Earlier this year a resident

of Northumberland Park told

Sunday politics London

about her fears.

People have brought

their families up here.

People have got memories.

It is not just a house.

And that's not the concern

of the council, it is pure profit.

And nothing they say

is going to make me

think any different about that.

The scheme is currently

subject to judicial review.

I'm joined now by Councillor Alan

Strickland, Haringey's cabinet

member for housing until May,

when he will be stepping down.

And by the Guardian's

chief economics

commentator, who grew up

near the Northumberland Park estate.

Welcome to both of you.

First of all, Alan, you heard

in that film, the lady

saying it is just about profit.

Is that right?

Absolutely not.

This is fundamentally

about tackling our

10,000 long waiting list, 3,000

people in temporary accommodation

and unacceptable levels of poverty

and unemployment in the

Northumberland Park estate.

That's why we want to

build new homes, why

existing tenants are guaranteed

replacement homes with the same rent

and why there will be new schools,

new health centre and Major jobs

programmes.

That's what it's about.

What's your problem?

There's no social housing

target for any of the

estates in the Haringey

Development Vehicle.

There's been precious

little consultation.

What consultation there has been

on Haringey Council's

own consultancy reports has been

dire, so that three

quarters of Sam's neighbours on the

Northumberland Park estate don't

even know there's going

to be a demolition.

Meanwhile, the council's putting out

papers which has got

maps, colour-coded,

which shows streets, houses,

flats which will be knocked

down.

We don't know what

will replace them.

We have just been given a very

loose promise about 40%

affordable.

Which everybody knows in London,

doesn't mean affordable at

all.

So you don't believe

Alan when he says all

council tenants whose

existing homes are demolished,

are guaranteed to be rehoused on the

same terms?

Well, I have read...

Actually, I should thank Alan

because he spoilt a number of

weekends for me because I had to go

through the paperwork

put out by Haringey

Council.

Someone has to!

And read the difference

between what the

rhetoric is and what they have

actually agreed to.

The actual plan is shot

through with more get out

clauses that would keep

David Blaine happy.

So it doesn't include housing

association tenants.

It doesn't include

people who already owned

their own places.

So it doesn't include leaseholders.

And it doesn't include

people like shopkeepers.

Let's put that to

Alan, is that true?

No.

Are there no guarantees for those

groups of people, and if

there are, why aren't

they in your plan?

There are clear guarantees

set out in our policy.

I know Aditya has raised

the leaseholder issue before,

so I checked the policy

this morning.

It's mentioned on page two.

There are clear guarantees

for tenants, for leaseholders.

Sorry, Alan, section

5.44, I can quote you

the paragraph, I know

it so well by now.

Section 5.44 of your members'

agreement that you voted through

this summer does not

give those guarantees.

It is shot through

with get out clauses.

It also makes it clear that

all the promises you make

do not apply to estates beyond

Northumberland Park and a couple of

the others in the first tranche.

People on Broadwater Farm

Estate are not subject

to the same promises.

I think what I am

talking about is the

very clear policy the Cabinet

adopted that gives clear

guarantees for estates that

are to be regenerated.

That is there.

That is there in black and white.

We have been very,

very clear that that

trumps any other document

and lawyers have made

that very clear as well.

Can Lendlease be trusted

to regenerate the estate in the way

that you are certainly saying today?

Most councils in London have done

on big regeneration schemes is sell

land 100% to a developer and then

you only have control through the

planning committee.

What we are proposing

is a 50-50 partnership.

Half the people round

the table on that board

will be people from the council.

So we can't be forced

to do anything.

We have a lot of control

into the future and it puts the

council in the driving seat rather

than playing second fiddle.

It's a private fiddle which will not

be run by the Council, the council

do not have majority control,

they don't have the final

control over this.

And the track record

isn't great, is it,

because if you look at Lendlease,

they were given the rights to

develop an estate in Southwark

for example and there were only 82

social houses provided out of 1,200

that were demolished.

How can you promise

that won't happen again

here?

We made it clear to everybody

who bid for this that we absolutely

expect to see large

amounts of affordable

housing, new clinics,

new

schools and other things.

And Lendlease have got a good

track record of working

with the public sector,

and in fact they have built

several things for the BBC.

Where is the target

for social housing?

There is no target

for social housing.

That's a target for

affordable housing.

It's very clear, all

tenants who live on

the estate at the moment

are guaranteed replacement homes...

The problem for this...

Don't talk over each

other, go on.

The way that Alan

and his colleagues have

approached this is shot

through with contempt.

Contempt for their colleagues

who have written two

reports, fraud scrutiny committee,

contempt for the MPs, both of them

in the area have written letters

calling for an immediate halt.

Contempt for people

living on the estate

such as Sam Leggett

who

didn't even know this was happening

until it was too late.

Is not your role to always

criticise policies?

Isn't this a genuine attempt

by the council to actually meet,

let me finish the question,

to actually

meet the needs of the housing crisis

in London by doing something?

I'm from the same borough as Bambos

he's my MP, and I've written

pieces in support of what

Enfield Council has been doing

in housing which is trying to build

housing, and which is

commissioned by the council.

You are making it more

difficult with these

criticisms.

No, because I favour social

housing which is the thing

that we have most dire

need for in London.

Bambos, who is right here?

In Enfield we have

got Housing Gateway

which is acquiring properties

to house council tenants.

And we plan to do that,

why, because it takes

pressure off the huge costs we face

of temporary accommodation.

Right, but you are

actually using money the

council is raising.

The council is borrowing

the money to buy

properties.

Is that not the problem,

that actually councils need to have

of money, so that they

can invest in the sorts of housing

schemes that are needed in places

like Haringey without running

into these sorts of problems?

I think we know why

for historical reasons

there's been a reluctance from

central government, not just from

Conservative Central government...

Should that change?

I feel sorry for the situation

Alan is in, he is

almost being punished for trying

to deal with the housing crisis.

I have been an MP for 16 years.

I was a councillor in

Kensington and Chelsea

in London so effectively for 25

years I've been involved in London

politics as an elected politician.

And there's always

been a housing crisis.

And it's got a lot worse.

I think we need

imaginative solutions,

and rather than being held back

by an ideology that says,

we must have this...

We mustn't talk over the people

we're meant to be looking after,

isn't that right?

Can I come to a final question.

The regeneration

will drive up prices.

For those who already

own their own leases or

pay commercial rents.

And in that sense you will

end up driving them

out those neighbourhoods.

As I said, if you live

on one of those estates

at the moment, you are guaranteed

replacement home on the same terms.

We are working hard,

we've got a full-time team of staff

out every day talking to tenants

on these

estates.

It is not the case that we're not

listening and our desire

to do something is driven by people

saying we need more homes, more

jobs, please sort out the local

school, please get us more services,

we are being driven

by what residents are telling us.

Will you be reassured at all?

I will be reassured

when I see an actual

document which you haven't got,

I think, which says actually we have

got a social housing target which is

satisfactory and we will have a

genuine right to return not

a rhetorical right to return

which is undercut by the pieces

of paper they

sign off.

Thank you to both of you.

It's the time of year when most

children are looking forward to

being spoilt at Christmas.

But a significant

number of children in

London are doing without,

and child poverty

rates in the capital

are

projected to rise the first

time in a decade.

This special report.

This is the weekly

drop in session of

Little Village, which distributes

children's clothes and equipment

donated by local families to parents

who can't afford them.

There's a festive

feeling at the charity's

Christmas party but the majority

of parents referred here are raising

children on little or no income.

Kefara is one of those parents.

It is a struggle when you have

three kids and paying

the bills and getting food

and so on and other stuff,

so when it comes down to clothes

or items they need it's kind of hard

to find the money to

stretch for that extra.

Child poverty in London has been

decreasing for about a decade.

Currently 37% of children in London,

that's 700,000, are deemed

to be living in poverty,

meaning they miss out on what most

take for granted such as warm

clothes or decent food.

But a new study has projected that

figure will rise to 42%

or 900,000 children by 2021.

Around 70% of children in poverty

in London are in a working family.

This charity operates

in three boroughs.

Camden, Southwark and Wandsworth.

And it has seen a growing

need for its services.

It's very striking, the level

of need we are seeing,

given that we live in

London, a wealthy city.

We have mums going back to

properties which are rat-infested,

we have families coming in saying

they can't afford nappies and 40%

of the people we see

don't have a safe place

for their babies to sleep.

Formerly there was cross-party

support to end child

poverty by 2020.

That target was dropped last year

when the government introduced

new ways to measure child poverty,

including levels of family

breakdown, debt and addiction.

But the Child Poverty Action Group

says there needs to be

a credible focus

on tackling the issue.

We have no social policy

at the moment about how

to tackle child poverty,

there was due to be a government

paper on life chances

but that never came,

that was going to be a Green

paper on social justice

and that never came either.

The effect of that vacuum in policy

is that we see no effective remedies

to the child poverty rises we face.

We need to address low pay and high

housing costs and most will tackle

- most of all we need to tackle

the benefit freezes and the cuts

to benefit tax credits

and Universal Credit that

need to be remedied.

However the Centre for

Social Justice argues that welfare

reforms will help tackle the causes

of child poverty.

You've got to recognise some of

the things the government has done

that has been successful,

they've reduced the numbers

of workless households to record

lows and we know that having someone

in work in a family is the best

thing for helping a child, to ensure

the child is not in poverty.

But those working at Little Village

say that has not been the experience

for parents they've helped.

We see many families

here living on low incomes,

struggling to pay their bills,

struggling to close their children

and also in work.

The truth is that having a job

does not guarantee that

you will not live in poverty.

The government claims poverty is no

higher than it was in 2010 and that

nearly three-quarters of children

from workless families moved out

of poverty when their parents

entered into full-time work.

This may be little comfort perhaps

for families can't afford to provide

the essentials for their children.

Mark Field, how shaming is it

that by the government's

own definition 700,000 children

are living in London in poverty?

I would not use the word shaming.

All of us know as MPs that we've

got poverty in London.

That's a very large number

of children by your own

definition living in poverty.

The concern is that those

who are in work, we know that London

is an incredibly expensive

place to live.

The one thing I would say,

a lot of these statistics on poverty

tend to be relative,

it was a good point made,

let's get this Green paper,

let's get some legislation in place,

that has gone on hold.

I wouldn't deny that's been

a positive way forward.

But child poverty is expected

to rise in London...

This has not been dealt with...

We need also to recognise that

educational attainment has got

higher, in many ways London

is a city with great opportunity,

people may be born into poverty

and make their way in life and that

sense of social mobility which has

stalled in much of the country,

in London still is a positive thing.

That is not to justify

what is happening, there are some

real issues that need to be dealt

with but we still have that sense

of mobility and people

are able to get on in life

not least because of

educational attainment.

What would Labour do

to tackle this issue?

I think it's shocking that you have

37% and rising children in poverty

in one of the wealthiest capitals

in the world.

Obviously it is Mark's government's

fault that this has happened,

it is through the policies they've

introduced, things like the benefit

cap and the attack on child tax

credits and the medieval sort

of rape clause...

Would Labour reverse

all of those cuts?

If you read our manifesto...

Which I have.