17/12/2017 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone,

and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And for the last time in 2017,

this is your guide to the big

political stories making the news

this Sunday morning.

Theresa May says she's silenced

the doubters by securing a deal

for Britain in the first phase

of the Brexit negotations.

Now attention turns to the much

bigger task of deciding our future

relationship with the EU.

She'll be discussing that

with her cabinet this week,

but with so many huge unresolved

questions about life after Brexit,

can we possibly expect

seasonal goodwill to break out

across the Tory party

and the country?

And I'm here at stunning Warwick

Castle to find out whether people

here think that Labour are ready

or not ready for government,

and of course that means...

I've bought the balls.

In the capital, with Christmas

approaching, the harrowing plight

of refugees and the difficulties

London faces in trying to help.

All that coming up in the programme,

our final show of the year.

Think of it as

our early Christmas present,

one I'm afraid you can't

take back to the shops.

And joining me today,

Fleet Street's answer

to Santa's little helpers,

Tom Newton Dunn,

Camilla Tominey and Steve Richards.

Well, we began the year

talking about Brexit,

and we'll finish talking about...

you've guessed it, Brexit.

And there have been big developments

in just the past week,

which saw Theresa May go from hero

to zero, to somewhere in between.

Seasonal goodwill spread

through the Conservative Party

on Monday, when Theresa May reported

back to Parliament on her deal to

move Brexit talks on to phase two.

When people like me, Brexiteers,

look at the alternative,

namely the Labour government,

a Labour government staying

in the single market forever

and having no control over

immigration, it's amazing

how our minds are concentrated

in support of the Prime Minister.

Across these benches,

complete unanimity

in congratulating the Prime Minister

on securing this agreement.

That Christmas cheer

did not last long.

On the eve of the European

summit to ratify the deal,

the EU Withdrawal Bill was

back in the Commons.

The Government avoided defeat

on several amendments,

but then came former

Attorney General Dominic Grieve

and his call for MPs

to have a meaningful vote

on the final Brexit deal.

Brexit Secretary David Davis

tried to head off the rebellion

with a letter to backbenchers.

In the final hour,

there was a last-ditch offer.

It wasn't enough.

It's too late. I'm sorry.

You cannot, you cannot treat

the House in this fashion.

The Prime Minister suffered

her first defeat on government

business of her premiership.

The ayes to the right, 309.

The noes to the left, 305.

Labour were delighted.

The Prime Minister tried a power

grab, tried to push through the EU

Withdrawal Bill without proper

Parliamentary scrutiny and take

powers away from Parliament.

Parliament resisted tonight.

Brexit supporters were enraged.

One rebel, Stephen Hammond,

was promptly sacked

as vice-chairman of the party.

It was an embarrassment

for Theresa May, not a fatal blow.

On Thursday, she arrived

in Brussels sounding upbeat.

I'm disappointed with the amendment,

but actually the, EU Withdrawal Bill

is making good progress

through the House of Commons,

and we're on course

to deliver on Brexit.

She was applauded by leaders

of the 27 EU member states,

rewarded on Friday with a tweet

from EU Council President Donald

Tusk confirming they had agreed

to move on to phase two

of the talks.

"Congratulations,

Theresa May," he said.

Mrs May can't put her feet up

for holidays just yet.

The Cabinet will meet this week

to discuss what the future

relationship with the EU will

look like for the first time.

No one's expecting them all to be

singing from the same carol sheet.

But on Friday,

a fresh rebellion over the EU

Withdrawal Bill was headed off,

so peace on earth, or at least

within the Conservative

Party, reigns for now.

But how much longer can that harmony

exist within the Cabinet? I will

talk to the panel about next week's

discussion on the future end state

of our relations with the EU,

because it will be discussed in

Cabinet for the first time. Theresa

May writing in the papers today, she

proved the doubters wrong, is she

right?

She did in the sense that

many people thought she wouldn't get

through the first phase. They found

words to bind all parties together.

That's what she did in the first

phase. She is right in that sense.

The second phase of which this

Cabinet meeting this week will be

just an early tiptoeing on the

Touraine, it will be much more

mountainous and difficult. I suspect

the Cabinet meeting will be merely

exploring some of the themes, and

there will be, for sure, no

resolution as to what the

government's final position will be.

We have seen some themes explored

this week, Philip Hammond yesterday

in China talking about staying

within the EU rules and regulations

during the transition. We have Boris

Johnson in the papers today setting

out a vision for by virgin further

from the EU then people like Hammond

would like. Will that be aired in

Cabinet?

Are they going to be

singing from the same carol sheet...

Will they sing from the same

spreadsheet in relation to Philip

Hammond's desires? We note Boris

Johnson speaking today in the Sunday

Times, talking about the notion of

eventual self-governance and a

diverging. You have also got Michael

Gove wanting, during the transition

period, for us to be out of the

common agricultural policy, Albert

the Common fisheries policy, that

will be a difficult issue for them

to discuss. We are not even getting

onto the end trade deal, and which

direction do we want to go in? The

Prime Minister has made clear she

wants Canada plus model as opposed

to a Norway style of agreement,

which to be fair to her, she pointed

out in Florence. She said an EEA

agreement was not what was agreed,

and we don't want to be rule takers.

There is a lot to play for. Two

Cabinet meetings, one of the

subcabinet, the war committee, and

the one on Tuesday following the

parliament really address.

The

papers have gone on the idea that

Boris is setting out a different

vision of Britain after Brexit, but

is it different to Theresa May in

her Florence Beach?

Not really. This

is no different to what Boris has

said, the Sunday before Christmas,

there had to be a row -- Florence

speech. This is well established

positions, we know what they all

think, and we have all been saying

for a year and a half since the

referendum that am at some stage, it

would have to be crossed. There has

to be a big choice between a

diverging or harmonisation, because

so far, the EU has been binary about

it. It won't be solved in Cabinet

this week or next month, my bet is,

yet again, they will come up with a

fudged to present to the EU, or

Cabinet will fall apart and half of

them will have to leave. Eventually,

it will have to be grasped in the

autumn when the EU say, "You either

have to defecate or get off the

potty, because this is what is in

front of you." The third option was

interesting, at the summit on

Friday, something interesting

happened, which was the EU blinked,

they said, "Move on to trade and

transition." But we are not quite

ready to do trade. We are incredibly

United to begin with, now we don't

know what we want. We have three

months before trade starts in March

for everybody, for the British

Governor, to influence the EU 27 in

their thinking, and come up with a

great third Way, which is cake and

eat it.

And will be considerably

more corrugated than what we have

done already. Stay there, we will

come back to you during the course

of the programme.

Well, we can speak now

to the Conservative MP

for mid-Bedfordshire.

She ruffled some feathers this week

when she said that pro-European

Tories who rebelled

on the EU Withdrawal Bill

should be deselected.

Thank you for joining us. Can we

talk first about the transition, or

implementation period, two years

after we leave the EU, a number of

your colleagues have expressed a

number of serious concerns about the

idea we will be following EU rules

and regulations during that period,

how worried are you about that?

I

think everybody's concerned about

that. The important thing is, we get

this period, this transition period,

through and done as quickly as

possible. Therefore, we have to

reach agreement. The reason why it

needs to be done as quickly as

possible is because it is in

Britain's interests, it is in the

interest of business, who required

stability and security, and

confidence moving forward. We've do

need to get to this position as

quickly as possible. The rebels from

last week are going to have to

explain why, if they don't think we

should leave the Commons fishery

policy, why that would not be in

Britain's interest. There is a lot

up for debate going forward.

The

Chancellor made it clear that he

would be replicating the status quo

during this transition period. That

doesn't mean leaving the common

fisheries policy or die vaulting in

any way from EU rules. -- by

vaulting.

During his budget speech,

he himself talk about the uniqueness

of Britain. It took about my own

constituency and area, which will

become a tech corridor. So he has

highlighted areas where we can

divert, which is in high-tech. We

can do it in that area, we can do it

in my constituency, like art we do

it in other areas...

The point he

was talking about was, yesterday, he

said, we would be subject to all old

rules and regulations during that

period.

It also depends how long

that period is going to be. Most

reasonable and sensible people can

accept a period of time when we need

to have those discussions, and when

we will abide by those rules. The

problem is, what we don't want to

see is Brexit constantly kicked into

the long grass as we go further and

further forward, and Brexit never

seems to be actually happening.

There has to be an endgame.

Everybody wants to see that. If we

can't see that quickly enough, then

we do have to have these unique and

these individual situations where we

may need to pull out of certain

things sooner.

Talking about the

endgame, that is what the Cabinet

will discuss this week, we know

there will be a debate inside there,

and people like Philip Hammond the

Chancellor will argue that we stay

closely aligned to EU rules and

regulations even after we have

finally left, how worried are you

about those so-called soft

Brexiteers prevailing in Cabinet?

Gosh, do you know... I'm not sure

they will prevail. I trust Theresa

May, I trust David Davies, I trust

Amber Rudd. I trust all of the

people in Cabinet to reach an

agreement. And because what they

will be doing is reaching an

agreement in Britain's interest and

the interest of Parliament, and the

interest of Brexit. All of those

people in Cabinet stood on a

manifesto in 2017 to deliver Brexit,

and they have to do that in a way

which the British people, who

democratically exercised their vote,

would like to see. Otherwise they

will lose the support of the British

public.

You say you trust the

Cabinet to deliver Brexit, do you

trust all of your Tory MP colleagues

to do so?

Well, I hope so. Can I

just say, I know the rebels are

being lauded as he arose from whence

they not, can I tell you who the

real heroes are in all of this, they

are the Conservative MPs, not the

Labour MPs, but the Conservative MPs

who believed in Remain, who

campaigned for Remain, during the EU

referendum, but stood on a manifesto

to deliver Brexit, and they are the

people who are the unsung heroes,

who are backing the government and

backing Theresa May, and doing so

because they know that is their duty

to do so. Some of the rebels could

perhaps learn a lesson from some of

their Remain colleagues, who know

the right thing to do is to deliver

Brexit, because that was voted for a

democratic mandate.

You are being

quite Conser Liege reef, --

consulate tree, but you did at the

time tweaked that they should be

deselected and never allowed to

stand as Tory MPs again, have you

changed your mind about that?

Gosh... I don't know if I have

changed my mind, but what I meant at

the time was, most of these rebels

voted for the private members' Bill

to have a referendum. They stood on

a manifesto in 2015 to deliver that

referendum. And then they stood

again on a manifesto in 2017 to

implement Brexit. I think, to go

back on those promises, that they

were elected to honour, it is

something for their associations to

discuss and consider...

But... Have

they gone back on those promises?

They would say they still want to

intimate Brexit, they just want

Parliament to have control over that

rather than the executive.

No, I

don't believe they do. I believe

what they have deliberately tried to

do right from the moment of the

referendum result is to frustrate

and delay Brexit, and I believe this

is a very active tactic they are

using. No, I do believe they are

honouring the promise they stood on

in the 20 Zinedine manifesto. They

should put trust in David Davies and

the Prime Minister. Rather than make

life difficult for the Prime

Minister when she is leaving to go

to Brussels for further

negotiations, trust the Prime

Minister and assist the Prime

Minister. That is what they have

been elected to do. There is a

Conservative government that has

been elected on a manifesto to

deliver Brexit.

From the beginning, they have gone

out of their way to delay and

frustrate this, and they need to

stop doing it.

Anna Soubry, one of

the rebels, writing in the Mail on

Sunday, says that calls for rebels

to be deselected mean the Tories now

have their own blue momentum

movement.

I do, I am sure he does.

You

frequently voted with your

conscience, you voted against Tory

primaries does in the past and

rebelled against the whip, why is it

different?

I voted many times

against the government, I am a

self-declared rebel, but I do it at

a time, you have to choose your

rebellions carefully. What I would

say is different now is that we have

a Marxist government knocking on the

door. We have a full mandate from

the British public to deliver

Brexit, they voted for it in the

referendum. These MPs stood on that

promise in 2017, today is very

different. What happened on

Wednesday night was the rebels put a

spring in the step of Labour MPs.

The party in Jeremy Corbyn's office

could be heard in the car park

outside. It has made life difficult

for us to keep that Marxist

government out of power eventually.

They have helped Labour MPs find

their mojo one is again. We don't

want that to happen. We have an

important situation that has not

been seen since wartime. The

response ability was to support the

government.

Nadeem, thank you for

talking to us this morning.

We can speak now to one

of the leading pro-EU

Conservative MPs, Ken Clarke.

He's in Nottingham.

Thank you for joining us this

warning.

Glad to be here.

I hope you

could hear Nadine Dorries, she says

rebels, you and others, but voted

against the government on Wednesday,

are trying to reverse Brexit.

You

have succeeded in getting into all

of this personal stuff, but I do

think she is aiming it at me. I am a

member of the government that led us

into Europe and the single market, I

did not vote in the referendum, and

my constituents have no doubts about

my views. The 20 Zinedine manifesto

was produced after I had been

adopted as a candidate, no one sent

me a copy, and I haven't ever seen a

copy of it. Let's get back to the

big issues, which are how do we

preserve the future prosperity of

this country? How do we preserve a

leading position in world affairs to

look after our interest? What is the

best thing to do for the interests

of our children and our

grandchildren? All of these other

things, the right-wing newspaper

rubbish,, it is trying to get a Tory

equivalent of momentum.

Do you think

that the way to preserve the things

you talk about is to put reverse

Brexit?

I don't think we can do

that. I was in the small minority

when I voted against in -- invoking

Article 50. The party is moving

towards Brexit, the country will see

Brexit. Suddenly turning Brexit into

a proposal, we have big lorry parks,

customs officers, so different

market regulations, you know,

different rules about backing

cleaner noise, that was not what the

referendum was about. More

importantly, it will do great damage

to our economy, it could cost

thousands of jobs and make the

country much mess less attractive.

We have now got to try to reach an

agreement that produces a sensible,

sensible political and economic

future for this country in the real

world, not in the slightly childish

world of knock about politics.

How

confident are you the Cabinet will

come to that compromise when they

start to discuss things this week?

We keep having public statements,

which are rather alarming, but I am

reasonably confident that they can.

What are you alarmed by in the

public state was?

You are trying to

get me to go on about Boris, out of

line with what apply Mr has done.

But the Chancellor has a duty to

actually look after the British

economy, to make sure business is

not deterred from coming to this

country, to make sure we keep our

markets in Europe, and in the rest

of the world, as intact as we can. I

think the Cabinet will rally around

that.

Theresa May made pretty clear

in her Florence speech that what we

will leave the supermarket, the

customs unit, and there fetch you

ruled out the post Brexit future?

Lancaster House was the first time

anyone had interpreted, anyone in

authority, had interpreted the

referendum result to mean that. It

does give rise to problems. What

they have now got to address is the

problems that arise. It started with

last week, we suddenly faced

Ireland, which nobody had mentioned,

which is an insult to the people of

Northern Ireland and Republic of

Island, really we agreed then, we

must keep the border open with

regulatory convergence on both

sides. It applies to Dover and

Folkestone, and we won't get

planning permission for the lorry

parks we would need if we rush on

abandoning the single market in

March, 2019, we have brought coming.

Let's not into Gibraltar. It would

make the Irish problems looked like

a picnic. You will have a lot of

adage businesses wondering where on

earth Britain is going unless we now

interpret policy of the Florence

speech and move on from the Florence

speech, which was a big move

forward, move on from the fact that

we finally settled these three quite

simple issues that had to be settled

about our withdrawal, which could

have been months ago had it not been

for the troubles.

We need to get onto a sensible

economic future worked out by people

prepared to read the brief and who

know something about trade,

investment and business in the

modern, globalised economy.

With the

vote last week, in which Parliament

now gets a meaningful say on the

Brexit deal, do you interpret that

to mean that parliament could send

the Prime Minister back to Brussels

to renegotiate a different deal if

Parliament doesn't like it, so your

views have to be taken into account

with the final deal?

Politics in

this country is based on all

governments having to take the views

of Parliament into account. It's

difficult when Parliament is a small

majority where there is confusion,

because the issue cuts across party

lines, that makes it more difficult,

but it was a mistake to invoke the

royal prerogative, a mistake to try

and avoid Parliament revoked. In the

end, this is determining our future

for the next generation or two on

difficult issues that Parliament

will have to approve before

government can get a deal. That

should strengthen Theresa May and

David Davis's hands in the

negotiations because, just like the

other 27 negotiators, they will have

to say that they can't deliver

things which they can't get past

their own parliament.

It's been

reported this morning that Heidi

Allen, a Conservative MP who

rebelled against the government last

week, is facing threats of

deselection. You are perfectly safe

in your constituency, are you? What

do you think of the other rebels

being deselected?

I don't think my

constituents have any doubts about

my views, not all of my association

agree with me, but I have never

fallen out with anybody personally

because of political differences. I

think this is all nonsense. It's

caused by the rubbish that keeps

appearing in the right-wing

newspapers, which have completely

lost their heads over the whole

thing. It is totally absurd to say

this is helping Jeremy Corbyn, it is

weakening Theresa May and all the

rest of it. Here we are, three days

after the vote took place, and

Theresa May is no weaker and she was

after that. Jeremy Corbyn is not

marching towards Downing Street.

What we voted for is a Parliamentary

accountability of the government.

Nothing to do with blocking Brexit,

and it is utterly idiotic few of our

association members in various parts

of country start interpreting this

as the start of some sort of purge

of backbench members of conscience.

Eurosceptics have been voting

against the government for the last

30 years, and nobody on my side of

the argument has ever gone round

saying they should be expelled from

the party and sent to darkness. It

is a broad church, it is a

free-market party with a strong

social conscience, and it has been a

pro-European party for the first 50

years of my membership.

Thank you

for talking to us, and I'll come

back to the panel. He says the Prime

Minister was not weakened by that

vote, and neither was Jeremy Corbyn

emboldened. Is he right?

Not quite

right. What the vote did was point

out what we all secretly knew. She

wasn't further weakened by it, she

was weakened by the general election

result. She was always going to be

in this predicament without a

majority. That vote reminded

everybody of how weak she is and

will continue to be as this entire

Parliament passes.

The accusation

from people like Nadine Dorries is

that this helps Labour and

intentionally offers in a Corbyn

government is any truth in that?

There was a perception of truth

because of how close he got to

number ten, which took us by

surprise on election night, apart

from you, who got it right. But

equally I think there was a sense

with Theresa May's own popularity,

and recent polling is said that the

Conservatives are gaining an Jeremy

Corbyn, which is perhaps explained

by the fact that people are unclear,

despite numerous explanations by

Keir Starmer, shadow Brexit

Secretary, on the Labour opposition.

They appear to have backtracked on

their manifesto and want close

alignment, if not remaining in the

supermarket and customs union, which

is anathema to anybody who voted for

Brexit an Jeremy Corbyn and Labour,

and equally I think it's interesting

that, once we take ourselves out of

Westminster bubble, some of the talk

on the streets about Theresa May's

apparent weakness is misplaced. A

lots of people think she has shown

resilience and they appreciate she

is in a difficult political mess, in

terms of her lack of a larger

majority and the rest of it, but I

think she was pity David after

coughing gate, and I think that has

turned into grudging admiration for

the fact that she has defied the

people who said it would be

impossible and managed to get to the

second phase of negotiations.

I

think what we got with the vote was

recognition that this is a hung

parliament. In a hung Parliament,

government get defeated. . This is

new to us because we had the

coalition which a majority and the

Labour and Thatcher landslide eras,

but in the 70s, the key moments that

Labour government defeated again and

again, this one will. It's not that

she is inherently weak as a

personality, she is just in a weak

position. There was a majority

forming. It probably could have been

bigger. In favour of that amendment

last week. It will happen again

because the House of Commons is in a

different place on Europe than she

is.

Briefly.

What was fascinating is

that Nadine Dorries and those of her

like said, you weakened her, nobody

will take seriously in Brussels, but

she went and she got love oned. It

had an inverse effect. -- love oned.

Using weakness as a strength.

And you can find more Brexit

analysis and explanation on the BBC

website, at bbc.co.uk/brexit.

Let's turn now to Labour.

As 2017 draws to a close they've got

plenty to feel upbeat about,

although they could have to wait

another four and a half years

for a chance to form a government.

The party says it's ready,

but do the public agree?

Elizabeth Glinka took the entirely

unscientific moodbox

to the constituency of Warwick

and Leamington, a former

Conservative seat snatched

by Labour in June.

This week, Theresa May

faced her first defeat

in the House of Commons -

and, if you speak to Labour

activists, they will tell

you a general election could be just

around the corner, and they are more

than ready to form a government.

So we've come here to

Warwick Castle to ask people,

is Labour ready or not ready?

No, definitely not.

Why not?

I don't like the Labour leader.

It's the first time I've been asked

about politics here in the castle.

I think they are ready.

Absolutely not ready.

They don't seem to have any strong

policies and every time you hear

them arguing against the Government

they are just negative.

There's not a positive,

constructive response.

I came from a country

which was Communist for a long time.

It terrifies me when I hear

some of their ideas.

Although I don't like

the other guys, too.

LAUGHTER.

Would you say the Labour Party

is ready for government?

Yes.

I'll take that as a yes.

Sorry, Jeremy.

I remember British Rail

before it was privatised.

It was dreadful.

I would say ready.

I think that the Tory party

are totally focused on Brexit.

They are not looking at any

of the other problems,

the NHS, housing, transport,

everything else that's

going on in the country,

and I think the Labour Party

would look at those other issues.

Not ready.

Not ready.

They're not clear on their policies

and a lot of infighting,

so I just don't think they are ready

to be in charge yet.

Thank you for this.

That's OK.

There is never a knight

around when you need one.

I'd go with ready.

I think, from what we've got

at the moment, I think

give them a chance.

OK, let's go for it then.

Not ready, maybe because I don't

think the Shadow Chancellor

is at all suitable.

They can't do any worse

than what we've already got

at the moment, so I think time

for a change.

Would you say the Labour Party is

ready or not ready for government?

Interesting.

Not ready.

Why is that?

Not ready, because they are still

bickering amongst themselves.

Because I am fed up

with the Conservative government.

I feel we need a change.

OK, so why did you go for not ready?

I just don't think they have

what it takes just yet.

Well, only eight more

sleeps till Christmas,

and I'm afraid Jeremy Corbyn may not

like his present this year.

The visitors here to Warwick Castle

say that Labour is not

ready for government.

Right, better get the rest

of these presents delivered.

Elizabeth Glinka with

the decidedly unscientific

moodbox at Warwick Castle.

Well, I'm joined now

by the shadow justice

secretary Richard Burgon,

he's in Leeds.

Good morning.

Good morning, Sarah.

We were told in the summer that

Jeremy Corbyn reportedly said he

would be Prime Minister by

Christmas. It doesn't look as though

it is likely to happen. Will he be

in Number Ten by next Christmas, do

you think?

Who knows, all we can say

is we will be ready for another

general election when it take place

and we are ready to go the full

course is that needs to be the case

as well.

In order to be ready for an

election, it will be important to

have a clear position on Brexit, and

in fairness the Labour opposition

there has been some clarity in the

last couple of weeks on bad, and it

appears the wants to stay much

closer to EU rules and regulations

than the Conservative Party.

What

Labour wants to do is to reach a

position where we have a good

relationship with the EU has Brexit,

because Britain is leaving the

European Union and Labour accepts

and respect the outcome of the

referendum, and we want a post

Brexit Britain where the economy and

jobs is put first, not fixated on

structures. That is the end goal we

want to reach, will return as they

good trading relationship with the

EU and the rest of the world. --

where Britain has a good trading

relationship. And we want to protect

environmental rights and workers as

well.

The Tories would say they are

interested in those things as well

but there has to be a structure

around this when we have an in-state

relationship with the EU. Is it fair

to say you want a closer

relationship than the government is

arguing for?

We have set out the

vision of what we want in terms of

Britain post Brexit. The problem

that Theresa May as with negotiating

is that, at the same time as

negotiating with Brussels, she has

two negotiate with her backbenchers

and the extreme caucus in the

Conservative Party who are

ideological fixated on structures

and the ECJ, and that raised -- that

has really weakened her, as we saw

in Parliament.

We will have to have

answers on those questions. If you

say you are ready to form a

government within the next year,

Labour needs clear answers on these

questions about whether or not you

would ever consider a continuing

role for the European Court of

Justice, for instance.

We see it as

common sense that the ECJ should

play a role in the transition

period...

After that?

We are open

minded, because every trade deal

these institutions to protect and

oversee that deal. Seems like common

sense.

Tom Watson has said that he

wouldn't rule out a second

referendum on Brexit, and Jeremy

Corbyn a few weeks ago in Lisbon

said something similar. Would you be

in favour of a second referendum?

Labour isn't calling for a second

referendum.

But Tom Watson said he

wouldn't run it out.

It could be the

case that Theresa May caves in and

starts asking for another

referendum, I doubt that we are not

in government I can say clearly we

are not arguing for a second

referendum, and I think that was

made clear on Andrew Marr earlier

today by Diane Abbott.

Whatever the

end relationship between the UK and

EU, is it important you and to

Labour that we see lower levels of

immigration from the EU?

We want to

put the economy and jobs first and,

if you listen to the public sector

and the NHS, the care sector, they

are clear that the role EU migrants

have played and are playing is

essential to growth, essential to

the private sector, but also

essential to our NHS as well.

That

sounds like you don't want lower

levels of immigration after we

leave.

We want to put jobs and

economy first, we want fair and

reasonably managed migration, but

free movement as it is will end when

Britain leaves the EU and we will

need a new arrangement that is fair

and reasonably managed. We want to

put and the public economy first.

The Conservatives have a bad track

record of making headline grabbing

false promises on immigration but

never meeting those targets.

You are

an enthusiastic supporter of Richard

Leonard, the new leader of the

Scottish Labour Party. You have

called him an inspiring socialist in

the past. Are you hoping the UK

Labour manifesto will copy some of

his rather more radical Labour

ideas?

It is for the Scottish Labour

Party to decide Scottish policy.

But

do you want to some of his ideas

replicated nationwide?

We agree on

most things, and Richard Leonard

supported the UK wide manifesto in

2011, he enthusiastically supported

the minimum wage rise, taking

railways back into public ownership.

What about the idea for a one-off

wealth tax, 1% of the total wealth

of the richest 10% being paid?

That

is a matter for the Scottish Labour

Party.

But would you like the same

thing adopted nationwide?

Our

manifesto isn't decided by Shadow

Cabinet members making declarations

on the Sunday Politics.

But you are

allowed a view.

Our manifesto was

reached on a consensus basis, not

only the Shadow Cabinet and

Parliamentary Labour Party but with

members all over the country. We are

now the biggest political party in

Western Europe. It will be for me to

be making policy decisions live on

air. We believe in the politics of

consensus and collectivism and we

will be taking that forward with our

next manifesto.

Some viewers may not

know that, as well as being a Labour

MP, you present a heavy metal show

on your local radio station, so we

have a click to listen to.

The new album of Vallenfyre

is called Fear Those Who Fear Him,

and it's so heavy, it feels painful

to listen to, in a good way.

Let's see if you agree.

This song is by Vallenfyre and it's

called An Apathetic Grave.

METAL GUITAR RIFF.

MUSIC: An Apathetic

Grave by Vallentyre.

Clearly, you are a big heavy metal

band. Jeremy Corbyn told the NME you

listen to everything from Mahler to

piped music, but he has never

mentioned heavy metal. Can you

introduce him to some of your

favourite tracks?

I could do. Jeremy

has been on the front page of

Kerrang, and what was nice was that

he didn't pretend to like heavy

metal. It's good he set that. Far

more refreshing than when David

Cameron used to pretend to like the

Smiths.

It's coming up to 11:40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

And, remember this?

We have agreed that the government

should call a general election.

You're joking...

Not another one!

When we come back, we'll be taking

a look back at the year in politics,

and what a year it's been.

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 Sarah Jones,

Labour MP for Croydon Central,

and Bob Stewart, Conservative

MP for Beckenham.

Welcome to both of you.

I want to start today

with the Grenfell Tower fire.

This week marked six

months since the tragedy

that claimed 71 lives.

A multi-faith memorial service

was held at St Paul's Cathedral.

It was attended by

survivors of the fire.

People from the emergency services

and members of the royal family,

and the Prime Minister Theresa May.

Survivors also delivered

a petition to Number 10,

calling for Mrs May to appoint

people with an understanding

of the local community to assist

the chairman of the panel enquiry,

Sir Martin Moore-Bick.

Bob, six months on, and only 42

households have moved

into permanent new homes.

Is that acceptable, as far

as you're concerned?

It's clearly not acceptable for

the people trying to find new homes.

It's not acceptable if we can

do something about it.

And I suspect they're trying to move

heaven and earth to help.

To be honest, of course,

it's not acceptable.

It would be great if we could

actually find the homes very close

to where people want to live,

but it is difficult in London.

Right, do you accept that, Sarah,

that actually this is more

about the process of actually

finding homes in a capital city that

has a housing shortage?

I think there have been quite a lot

of failings in the way that people

have been treated since the fire.

I think the initial response

was not good enough,

and I think it took a long time

for all the agencies to come

together to really put the resources

into trying to make sure people

were housed, as well as looking

after people who were very

traumatised and needed support.

And I think the trust is not there.

And we need to try to rebuild that.

And one of the things

that we've suggested,

that others have suggested,

that survivors want,

is to have a panel of people who can

look at the enquiry and help to make

sure it reflects the diversity

of all the people who found

themselves without a home.

But I think we definitely need to be

putting more resources

into finding permanent housing.

So more money, you would

like to see, going into specifically

finding homes for people

who survived the Grenfell fire?

I think we need more

effort and more resource.

I asked the Secretary of State right

after the fire how long it would be

before people were permanently

rehoused, and he said he expected it

within a few months,

and that clearly hasn't happened.

Sarah is talking there

about the petition presented

to Number 10, in order to build

trust, because Conservative councils

from Kensington and Chelsea Council

had been asked not to attend this

week's memorial service.

What does that say about the level

of trust between the authority

and the surviving families?

I don't know.

I can't speak for them,

but I do know some MPs,

some Tory MPs, certainly went along

to try to go to that.

I didn't.

It's well away from my constituency,

but I have great sympathy

for what's happened.

Goodness, everyone wants to look

after the people that have

been hurt by this fire.

They want to get them

into decent accommodation,

decent homes as soon as possible,

but it is not easy.

It is not easy.

It's not just money,

it's more than that.

We've got to have the

available accommodation.

And there isn't available

accommodation, because look

at London, the waiting lists

to try to get into social housing.

What about the role of the Mayor,

Sarah Jones, because he could

actually take a lead,

Sadiq Khan.

Boris Johnson, his predecessor,

has criticised him for actually

failing to step up to the plate

and put more pressure on,

and he's in a position to do so.

Yeah, I think it was a very

unfortunate politicising of a very

difficult situation.

The Mayor's done everything

he possibly can, he's given a lot

of his staff to support,

he's putting in place support

for small businesses in the area

that are struggling,

he's doing all he can to make

sure people are getting

the support they need.

But actually allocating housing

to people, that is not his role.

Local authorities have to do

that, that's their job.

Right, couldn't he put more

pressure on the councils

and local authorities...

He's put on as much pressure

as he possibly can.

There is a wider issue,

which Bob rightly says,

which is the lack of affordable

housing and the lack

of housing in London.

And we need to be doing

so much more for this.

One of the really sad things

about the situation is,

people are saying, "We don't

want to go into temporary

accommodation, because we think

we will be left there for years."

And, "We don't want to turn anything

down because then we are scared

we will be intentionally homeless."

All these horrific things, which

people across London have to go

through when they're homeless,

quite rightly, people

in Grenfell are going,

"We don't want all these things

to happen to us."

And that speaks to a much bigger

problem, which is about government

investing in housing.

And Theresa May made

a personal pledge, didn't she,

to those families, about rehousing

them within a matter of weeks.

And in the end, that again,

feeds into a lack of trust

in what politicians are promising.

We all want them to be rehoused.

I'm sure she meant that

as best she could.

We all want everyone to be

put into a decent home

as soon as possible.

Has there been a failure

here on behalf of the politicians

and the authority?

There's been a failure

because we haven't got enough

accommodation for people

for emergencies like this.

People don't want to move away

from where they live, Grenfell,

they don't want to move away

from there, but there isn't

within a few blocks,

within a few streets,

there isn't the accommodation there.

People were offered places outside

and they don't want that,

so it's really difficult.

It's not just something

you can fix easily.

Well, it seems so.

We're going to have

to leave it there.

In response to the ongoing

wars in the Middle East

and their contribution

to the migrant crisis facing Europe,

the UK Government pledged

to resettle 20,000 Syrian refugees

in this country by 2020.

Matthew

According to the latest

Home Office statistics,

Home Office statistics,

London is actually the region

in the UK that has taken

in the fewest, only 400 or so,

despite surveys that show a majority

of Londoners being supportive of

refugee resettlement in the capital.

It is scenes like this that have

forced more than 5 million to flee

Syria and neighbouring countries

since the outbreak of war.

Religious persecution, ethnic

conflict, violence against women,

all have become widespread in parts

of the Middle East, and it's causing

many to look for refuge.

Leila found it in London

earlier this year under a government

scheme that resettles endangered

children and their parents.

The children die,

all the children die.

I saw my children scared

about the bomb and scared about...

He can't play on the streets.

This country, it's good

for my children and for me,

because gives us more options.

What do you make of Londoners?

Just London, just the name

London, I feel...

I can see more people

and more language, and I see

someone is not cover...

Someone that is not covered.

It's no problem.

There, this is black,

this is white, it's no problem.

Refugee charities say

there is strong support

for resettlement in London.

The population of London,

they are desperate

to welcome refugees.

We see it every single day,

with people wanting to volunteer

for us, and they are calling

on their local authorities to do

all they can to resettle refugees

into our wonderful capital.

The Government has pledged

by 2020 to take in 20,000

refugees from Syria.

So far, about half that

number have been accepted,

with London actually taking

in the fewest, only 400.

About half the local authorities

in London haven't taken in a single

refugee under the main scheme

for refugee resettlement.

Councils say it's because

existing pressures on housing

make it more difficult

in the capital than elsewhere.

According to City Hall,

the solution lies in increasing

the community sponsorship,

and that includes the Archbishop

of Canterbury, who is hosting

a family of Syrian refugees

in the grounds of Lambeth Palace.

Lambeth has been more

involved than most boroughs

in welcoming refugees,

even sending

a representative to Calais.

We've worked very closely

with the community, in particular

Lambeth Citizens Group,

and as a result of that we've been

able to manage to source housing

that otherwise would have been

unavailable for us, and it's

because of that, I think,

that we've been able to make sure

we've got more refugees coming

over to the country.

Why is the London Borough

of Lambeth devoting resources

to the resettlement of refugees,

when there is such a shortage

of housing for those

who are already living here?

Housing is a real issue,

but I think, for me

and for the politicians in Lambeth,

it's a moral case.

We can do more and we need

to help people who are living

in dire circumstances.

However, writer Douglas Murray isn't

convinced that resettlement

in London is the best way to help.

It costs around 100 times as much

to look after a migrant,

an asylum seeker in Europe,

in a country like Sweden,

or a country like Britain,

than it does to pay for them

to remain in, for instance,

Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey.

We might feel that we can pat

ourselves on the back for looking

after 400 asylum seekers here,

but that 400 asylum seekers

could become 40,000.

But Leila and her children are

just grateful to be somewhere

safe this Christmas.

Thank you for giving us

the chance, a new life.

And Happy New Year.

And joining us in the studio

is Matthew Ryder, the deputy mayor

for social integration,

whose responsibilities include

refugee resettlement in the capital.

Welcome to the programme.

Hi.

London politicians like to talk

about welcoming refugees but,

in your mind, is 400 enough?

No.

I think it would be really good

if we could do more,

and I know the councils are doing

the best they can, and City Hall

is doing the best it can,

but we have a structure,

and the way the structure is set up

means that a number of things have

to be in place before a council

can offer accommodation,

because they must do it separately

from the normal housing scheme

for people who are here already.

As a result, because of

the way the structure is set up,

it means that the housing price

in London makes it very, very

difficult to find available spaces,

so I'd like London to do more

and it's got to do its fair share.

London wants to do its fair share

but, at the moment, it's very

difficult within that framework.

We've got to find a way to make sure

the framework is more flexible

so that we don't have this problem

with housing prices.

But you say the councils

are doing what they can,

but there's a huge disparity

in terms of the numbers that

individual councils are taking.

Rightly or wrongly, some of them

have taken absolutely no one

in terms of refugees and others

have taken up to 50 or 60,

and they are in similar

parts of the capital.

You've got to be really careful

about that, because councils

are trying to do their best

in different ways.

Some are rehousing refugees

through different schemes,

or asylum seekers through different

schemes, or people who need help

through different schemes.

Some are doing it

through this scheme.

Some are supporting

community sponsorship more.

You've got to be a little bit

careful about trying to judge one

council against another just

on the sheer numbers, given

particularly because

the numbers are low, so everybody

is doing their best, but at

the moment the numbers are too low.

Are they doing their best,

or is there in some

cases just not the will?

I think it's quite hard

to second-guess councils.

I think there are councils

who are trying very hard,

but what you have to understand

when you talk about the numbers

in this problem is it's

the framework of the way

it's set up.

Various government departments

give some money to councils

for refugees, right?

What then happens is they have

to fit that into a framework

of benefit payments

and other things.

What sets the difficulty

is that the cost of housing prices

in London, it is very difficult

to fit it within that framework,

so that's why councils

are struggling to say,

we've got available places.

Putting the housing issue aside,

because yes, that seems to underline

almost everything that goes

on in the capital, why is London

lagging so far behind

the rest of the country?

Because of housing prices.

You can't say, "Put the housing

price aside," housing prices

are so much higher in London.

That is a problem.

Can I just say, the irony of this...

Sorry.

No, go on.

The irony of this is that London is,

in many ways, ideally

placed to take people.

Londoners want people

to come to London, there

are jobs and opportunities here,

and opportunities for people to feel

culturally comfortable in London,

because it is such a diverse

city, 300 languages.

We heard that in the film.

The problem is, we have this irony

that one of the best places

to settle people is

one of the hardest places

to settle people.

We've got to find a way

to get that mismatch solved.

But then, Sarah, if it is

a mismatch, and however

welcoming London may be,

is it realistic, and is it

actually something desirable

to want to house more people,

refugees coming to this country,

when there aren't the homes?

I think the point about which

scheme we are talking about is

really important here.

So Croydon, my borough,

has more unaccompanied asylum

seekers in it than any other borough

by some margin, we have over

400 that we care for...

It's zero here on the list

in terms of taking refugees.

Under that scheme,

because we have over 400

unaccompanied asylum seekers...

That's not my question.

My question is, is it desirable?

If Matthew has explained

it in the way he has,

there is a huge problem

because of housing prices,

so shouldn't people be

looking beyond the capital

to settle refugees?

This is what I'm saying,

there are over 400 children

in Croydon being looked

after the local authority

and housed via the...

funded by the Home Office,

it's a different scheme.

We come back to first

principles, which is,

what kind of country do

we want to be?

Do we want to welcome people

fleeing war and violence,

who are in fear of their lives?

Yes, of course we do.

But to the capital?

Yes, is that separate from migration

and economic migration?

Completely.

Two completely different things.

We're talking about housing

vulnerable people in exactly,

how you say, in a City,

which actually, wants

to welcome them.

Of course we must do what we can.

Should London, taking

this into account, be

taking in more refugees?

Yes, if it could.

But let's just take Bromley,

we've got 1400 people in temporary

accommodation at the moment,

3000 on the waiting list

for social housing.

Another 3000 waiting to get

onto the social housing list.

The accommodation is not there.

It is very expensive.

What Matthew's just said

is perfectly neutral

and decent, and proper.

He wants to take more people

in London, but we just can't do it

on the money we've got.

And what would it do

to community relations?

We already hear, and quite often

it is used as a bit of a stick

to beat authorities with,

that there are waiting list,

that there are families waiting

here for a long time,

waiting for accommodation,

and yet, the capital and various

authorities are being asked

to take more refugees.

I think you're

misunderstanding the scheme.

The scheme is designed to ensure

we put people in housing outside

of and away from the normal scheme

of housing people already here.

We're not talking about putting

people into the ordinary process.

Will people understand that?

That's got to be communicated.

I'm not sure...

That's your job, isn't it.

You mean, you've got

to find additional housing.

Where are we going to get

the additional housing?

I'll tell you.

The way it works is,

we have community sponsorship

and councils trying to find it.

What they're trying to do

is incentivise private landlords

to offer accommodation,

usually at a lower rent

for a short period of time,

to make sure the pieces can fit

in the package I was talking about.

Now, one of the key points we may

come onto is community sponsorship.

That's a new type of scheme.

And is it working?

Well, is it working?

It's at a really new stage,

brought in last year,

we have just had funding to have

somebody in City Hall working

on this specific point.

and six in London,

We have only 12 organisations

so far across the country

and six in London,

four are faith organisations,

but it is a new way of trying

to solve this problem by getting

communities to come together to fund

spaces, which wouldn't

ordinarily be available.

So what we need to do,

if I may say so, is find a way

to communicate that,

so that people can be reassured,

they're not bouncing people

out of accommodation.

That's good, because that

would be very difficult

for people to understand,

who have been on a waiting

list for three, four, five years.

That is the problem.

What you're going to say is, we them

to find additional accommodation,

but it's not available to you,

but you're still on the waiting list

for the normal accommodation?

Would you like to see more

of an open-door policy when it comes

to welcoming refugees to the UK

and to London?

I think what we need to watch

is what happens to all of the other

asylum seekers who come not under

this scheme as well, because I'm

on the Home Affairs Select Committee

and we did a report into looking

at what happens to

you if you come here.

And what happens is,

you're housed, in the main,

in accommodation run by Serco

or G4S, lots of cases of really

appalling accommodation -

cockroaches and damp,

all kinds of horrible things.

And you get food vouchers

of £36 a week, and you sit

there until your asylum claim

has been heard.

And because of the asylum system,

it takes such a long time.

The Home Office doesn't

have the resources to do it.

You can be there for two years.

So would it be better to actually

put some resources in housing

or settling refugees in the region?

We're going to welcome people

from countries where there is war,

and where people are fleeing.

We have more people in the world

now, fleeing and on the move,

than at any time in the past.

So we need to make sure that,

when they come here,

we give them a decent place to stay

until the decision is made,

and then they can either stay

or they have to go back.

Matthew, we've run out of time,

but thank you very much.

Thank you.

The second tallest skyscraper

in London after the Shard is due

to be built in Croydon.

The mayor has given it the green

light, but should London be building

more high-rise towers?

Jerry Thomas reports.

This is 1 Lansdowne Road, soon to be

hitting the Croydon skyline.

Other than the Shard,

it will be the tallest

building in London and,

according to the developer's

website, it will be visible all

the way from Piccadilly to Brighton.

It's a mixed use development.

It will have residential,

794 units, plus over 35,000 square

metres of office space,

plus retail, a swimming pool and

a public viewing gallery as well.

This is what the site

looks like today.

Demolition is due to start

next autumn, with the site

completed by the mid-2020s.

Views from all around the area

will be transformed.

But, of the 794 homes, only 20%

will be classed as affordable,

well below the Mayor's aim

of 50% across London.

It isn't acceptable.

The Mayor said it wasn't acceptable

in his first response

to the planning application.

What we've seen change since then

is a really minor improvement

in the level of some of the rents

that are being offered

in the 20% affordable homes.

It's gone down from the

old definition of affordable,

80% of market rate,

to the London living rent, which is

a third of local wages.

That genuinely is affordable,

but it's a tiny, tiny number

of flats in this development.

I don't think the Mayor has

pushed back enough on this.

I think it's

a poor planning decision.

If you think of all

the people living around it

in Croydon whose need

is proper social rents,

council levels of rent.

There's none of that in this tower.

It's a monument to a bad planning

decision, and they're going to have

to look at it

for many years to come.

Along with affordability,

many Londoners' top concern

about housing, in light

of the tragedy in Grenfell,

is now fire safety.

Will Londoners still be

happy to live high up

in the way they once were?

Well, people, rightly so,

are concerned about fire

in tall buildings.

The good thing about Lansdowne

is it's a purpose-built

residential building.

It's over 30 metres,

so it will be required

to have sprinklers and,

of course, before it gets anywhere

close to construction,

it will need to have met

all building regulations

and be thoroughly assessed

by trained building surveyors.

While 1 Lansdowne Road's

height will make it unique

and it may come to represent

a change in the nature of housing

across outer London.

To deal with the housing crisis,

the Mayor wants people to build

higher and more densely.

So the future of London's suburbs

could well look like this.

Sarah, it's in your constituency.

Sian Berry from the Greens

says it's a monument

to a bad planning decision.

Is she right?

I think it's quite

an interesting development.

Whether it ever gets built,

we'll wait and see but,

if you look at the context

of Croydon, it's a major transport

hub, a major economic area,

and it has been for many years,

since medieval times,

when people came and traded

from the coast up to London,

so it's going to be a major hub.

It's got lots of tall

buildings already...

Are you a fan?

I think it's fine.

I don't think it's the most

beautiful building I've ever seen,

but I think it's got affordable

housing at a level which, within

the London plan, is acceptable.

They had to go the extra mile...

Only 20% of this landmark

development, and Sadiq Khan

said it should be 50%.

When Boris Johnson was the Mayor,

his average was 13%

of new developments were affordable.

So you are saying that

is your benchmark then?

It's higher.

It's not as high as we would want it

to be, but what they had to do

was to prove in the planning meeting

that they looked at what was

possible, and they had to provide

a lot more information to City Hall

about what was possible

and feasible for that element,

and that was the level they got to.

What they did manage to do

via the Mayor was to make sure that

more of those homes will be London

living rent housing,

which is a good thing.

Bob, are you a fan of having more

tall buildings, higher density?

Is that the future for meeting

London's housing shortage?

I don't think we have

a choice, do we?

We're going to have to do that.

The fact of the matter is this

doesn't affect my constituency,

apart from making the skyline

from it of Croydon, which I think