04/02/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is the programme that

will provide your essential briefing

on everything that's moving

and shaking in the

world of politics.

Theresa May is back

after her trip to China.

But there's plenty of fire and fury

from within her own party over

Brexit and her ability to lead.

The Conservative

chairman joins me live.

Labour tells demonstrators only

it can save the NHS.

So, do the party's health

spending plans add up?

We'll talk to the Shadow

Health Secretary.

Months on from the sexual harassment

and bullying scandal that

engulfed Westminster,

we'll be asking what's happened

to plans for Parliament

to clean up its act.

And a violent scuffle at a speech

by one Tory MP has been widely

condemned.

But is it symptomatic

of a wider problem in politics?

In London, a Labour council leader

bullied out of power by the left.

That's the allegation that sparked

a civil war in the party.

All that coming up in the programme.

All that coming up in the programme.

And, as one newspaper speculates

about a 'dream team' being urged

to take over at Number 10,

we've got our own dream team

of journalists - Tom Newton Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

and Steve Richards.

And they've promised not

to plot against me...

At least until the end of the show.

So, the Prime Minister

may have been out

of the country to drum up trade but,

even from 5,000 miles away, it

must have been hard to ignore

the continuing unrest

from some in her party,

and repeated calls to be

clearer about Brexit.

Theresa May was in China this week,

where she gave President Xi Jinping

DVDs of Blue Planet as a reminder

of the dangers of plastic pollution.

Back home, Conservative MPs

gave her some advice on how to lead

the party and the Government.

Some advice was offered

to Cabinet ministers

getting restless on Brexit.

The best way they can

support her is to take a vow

of silence on the subject.

But most was for the

Prime Minister herself.

Some even aired their

thoughts in public.

I do think the window is closed

because politics can be

quite a brutal game.

When is the Government

going to stand up against the hard

Brexiteers who mainly

inhabit these benches?

She does not actually

have a majority for her

policy in her Cabinet.

It was advice of a different kind

that hit the Government

when BuzzFeed published leaked civil

service analysis suggesting that,

under various off-the-shelf trading

models, the UK would be less well

off in 15 years than

if we'd stayed in the EU.

But Brexit Minister Steve Baker

wasn't worried about the forecasts.

I think that they are always wrong,

and wrong for good reasons.

The analysis was grist

to the mill for Brexit critics,

but Theresa May probably didn't

expect one minister to pile in.

Justice Department's Phillip Lee

said the leaked report couldn't just

be dismissed and that,

if anywhere near correct,

it raised a serious question

about current Brexit policy.

But that's thinking 15 years ahead.

One former Brexit Minister George

Bridges took aim at the Government

and the House of Lords for still not

knowing what it wanted.

All we hear day after day

are conflicting, confusing voices.

Theresa May returned from China

saying she had secured £9 billion

of business deals during the trip.

Local media dubbed her Auntie May,

while International Trade Secretary

Liam Fox said her middle name

is 'resilience', claiming foreign

leaders were well aware

of Theresa May's strength.

You look at the Prime Minister

in a different way than some of,

let's say, the internal tea room

discussions in the UK do.

While at home there was speculation

about her ability to lead,

Auntie May herself was clear.

I am not a quitter.

She will be relieved the only

resignation she was offered this

week was from a minister who'd shown

up late to Parliament.

I'm thoroughly ashamed

at not being in my place,

and therefore I shall be

offering my resignation

to the Prime Minister.

But with open warfare in her party,

calls to step up her game,

and a crucial Cabinet meeting

on Brexit within days,

Theresa May knows she needs to do

something special to ensure the next

departure isn't hers.

There is plenty to talk about with

my panel of political insiders. It

feels like Theresa May's worst week

since last week that she began the

show but talking about how difficult

it was with fights within the party.

Is it even worse? It is about the

same. What is interesting, if I can

put this in some context, I am

working in a project with the Prime

Minister at the moment. Many Prime

Minister 's worry about being

deposed but it is rare to happen.

From 1968 Harold Wilson was in

trouble and he survived another

eight years. I'm not predicting...

John Major survived until the

general election. This is a constant

theme in British politics that Prime

Minister 's are rarely deposed at

the moment I work on the assumption

she will be around for some time to

come.

It is highly distracting

though. It cannot help with the

issue of the Government or wrecks it

for that matter.

All of Theresa

May's woes art of her own making. It

is about showing backbone and spine

and having a Brexit policy and

sticking with it. I find it

extraordinary we will have two

meetings with the Brexit War Cabinet

on Wednesday and Thursday of this

week to decide the Brexit policy.

She has been in office for a long

time it is a long time since the

last election. It is a total

travesty of leadership that is going

on. All of her problems are of her

own making. She could be doing with

warring factions in her party, the

opposition and all the other

threats, just to be a strong Prime

Minister. Making it clear to the

likes of Philip Hammond, you are

doubtful that he should have been

out a long time ago if she had the

will and strength to do so.

Is it

not by being ambiguous about her

position on terror, and she has been

able to remain as leader of the

Conservative Party?

Completely. I

disagree with Julia and Steve that

there is a third way in all of this.

I believe all her problems are not

of her own making. Brexit was not of

her own making. She somehow had to

try to get this through parliament

where she has no majority, where she

has eight Cabinet split and it is a

huge problem. The only reason she is

there is because she has not made a

big decision, she has not got off

the fence she is trying to keep the

ship together and compromise. As was

said in the brilliant speech in the

House of Lords, to govern is to

choose. Tony Blair said that this is

the year of choice. The next six

months will be the six months of

choices for Theresa May. User needs

to get the choices on Brexit, market

control, sovereignty, access to

huge, great big decisions. She needs

to get that past four different

hurdles was achieved to get the

Cabinet on board among her own MPs

to stay alive and stay in charge

having made those decisions. Then

she has too persuade the EU to buy

whatever it is she will sell. I find

it very, very hard indeed to think

she will get over all four hurdles

by the end of the year. Therefore I

am afraid I cannot see her as

leading the Tory Party by the end of

it.

I think it would be risky for

anyone to make any predictions. Can

I point out that 2018 was not the

year of choice?

2016 was the year of

choice. I care about what the

British electorate wants. The

British electorate made their choice

in 2016. Theresa May did not

increase her majority of the 85% of

people voted for two major parties

in the Ukip and the other parties

supported Brexit. There is a mandate

we need to get on and do the will of

the British people.

I completely

agree with Tom about these hurdles.

They are almost impossible to get

over. But that would apply to any

Prime Minister. So, you have to ask

the question, what does it solve? In

the longer term, changing leader

might give the more electoral

success, who knows? But it does not

solve getting over those hurdles you

could have Boris Johnson saying,

Britain can rule the waves. Those

hurdles will still be there.

But a

Prime Minister who knew more

about... .Mac will come back to this

later in the programme. In the

meantime we will move on.

The Home Secretary, Amber Rudd,

has been speaking this morning

to the Andrew Marr Show,

and she claimed the Cabinet

isn't as divided over

Brexit as some claim.

I have a surprise for the

Brexiteers, which is the committee

that meets in order to help make

these decisions, is meeting, as you

rightly say, twice this week,

is more united than they think.

We meet in the committee,

we meet privately for discussions.

I think we will arrive

at something which suits us all.

There will be choices to be made

within them but we all want the same

thing, which is to arrive at a deal

that works for the UK, that

looks ahead.

It's not just about protecting trade

behind us, it's about looking ahead

to what kind of country

we want to be afterwards.

We all have those

interests at heart.

And I'm joined now by the chairman

of the Conservative Party,

Brandon Lewis.

Thank you for coming in. Amber Rudd

is saying the Cabinet is more united

than people think. The parties that

he doesn't look that way from some

of the things they have heard this

week. It is your job to get them on

the same page in order to make that

happen, do you need to spell out a

vision of what Brexit will look like

so they can get behind it?

It is

like what Amber said. The Cabinet is

united behind the Prime Minister to

make sure we get a good deal for the

European Union.

We are hearing lots

of noises, complaining. They want to

know more about what the end state

will be otherwise they will row

more.

Where I disagree is all MPs,

certainly in the Conservative Party,

are united in seeing we get a good

deal on leaving the EU for the

United Kingdom.

Bernard Jenkin

saying we need to end confusion in

government. They are complaining

about the present uncertainty.

Working out what is the right deal

for the United Kingdom. In

negotiations we are having with a 27

partners who want to continue to

trade with in the European Union is

a very serious and, located piece of

work. We never said this was an easy

piece of work and it is why there

are meetings of the subcommittee in

the Cabinet going through the

details. We have the deal, the first

stage of the deal, before Christmas.

We must look to the next stage which

is agreeing the situation in the

period of translation after March

2000 and 19. The ultimate deal that

we want, for people in the United

Kingdom, after the transition period

as well.

We're all waiting with

breath. Your backbenchers, whatever

side of the other in they are on the

desperately want to know what the

end state will look like. After the

Cabinet subcommittees meet later in

the week, we get more detail?

There

are a couple of key issues. Within

Brexit we have been very clear.

We're going to leave the European

Union, and the customs union. We

want to make sure we can leave the

control of the Borders to the United

Kingdom, the Government of the

United Kingdom. When I am talking to

residents, across the country, they

also want to know that the Prime

Minister is focused on issues that

matter to people every day. They're

getting good education or housing

opportunities for people. The

knowledge and confidence there will

be growth in the economy and

security in the future as well.

It

is hard for the Dublin to get on

with that whenever such a fight

within the party among backbenchers

and senior influential people,

coming out and criticising the

party, criticising the leadership.

Until there is more clarity on

Brexit you will not be able

Brexit you will not be able to get

on with the other policies because

there is such a row in the party.

We

have a range of views, expertise and

great talent to draw on all stop

people putting their ideas forward.

Jacob is a really good example of

that. We saw what happened the other

night with the hard left doing

everything they can to try to stop

people having their safest we have

to ultimately make decisions about

what we think is right for the

country in the longer run. -- having

their say about what we have to

ultimately make decisions about.

Do

you worry whether there is a hidden

agenda?

My experience has been the

civil service in this country has

been superb. They work hard in the

best interests of the Government. It

is their job to give impartial

views. You think they do? That is

one reason why the world is envious

of our civil service and rightly so.

Our job as ministers and the

Government ultimately is to make

decisions on their behalf as you

give consideration and ultimately we

are the ones who have to make the

decisions.

Jacob Rees Mogg says they

are fiddling the figures and putting

out information that is wrong.

As

Amber Rudd herself said, one of the

most gracious and intelligent people

I know, on this, I slightly

disagree. Perhaps they are doing. In

the leaked reports, which have not

been approved and signed off by

ministers, it is about forecasts. It

does not take into account what the

final negotiation will be nor the

final decisions let alone the

domestic policy, which we are

getting on with. Making sure that

people have opportunities and

businesses can grow.

You mentioned

the scuffle at Jacob Rees Mogg was

involved in earlier in the week,

some fairly ugly scenes which no one

wants to see those that you have

plans to tackle intimidation in

political life?

We cannot allow the hard left to

create a situation where people feel

so intimidated they are not prepared

to come forward and have their say.

What we are seeing, and what we saw

in the report is actually people on

the left giving horrendous abuse to

people across the political

spectrum. I do agree, whether

someone's views are at the centre,

right or left, they should have the

freedom and knowledge they can come

forward and stand as a candidate. We

are going to change the law to make

it against the law for people to

intimidate people. But also from the

Conservative Party point of view,

internally we will have a respect

pledge that all of our candidates

will sign up to. If they breach that

cold, we will suspend them.

It's

often Labour politicians who are the

target of a lot of abuse. It is

Diane Abbott who gets far and away

the most abuse on Twitter. How can

you be sure these aren't members of

your own party or your own

supporters who are abusing left-wing

politicians?

We have to

differentiate. We should be able to

robust we have our debates. I have

debated with Diane Abbott over her

inability to get her numbers right

on police numbers. We have seen the

Shadow Chancellor... However it is

from, it is not acceptable. I will

deal with that. We need to have

good, clear, freedom of speech,

robust debate with respect and I

respect the Labour Party to do the

right thing and condemn what we saw

the other night, and see the

leadership do the right thing.

There's no evidence it had anything

to do the Labour Party.

What we do

know is when you have the Shadow

Chancellor of the country

encouraging abuse of people

individually...

He denies that. He

says he actually argues against that

and says he condemned it.

What

anybody can see, anybody can look up

what John McDonnell said. We have

not seen anyone in the senior

echelons of the Labour Party do

anything to condemn this kind of

action or come out and say they will

sign up to a respect pledge but we

will do that.

Getting back to the

Tory party, it is not just the

ructions that have erupted this

week, there has been a lot of

criticism of Theresa May's

leadership, Heidi Allen saying it

was time to get a grip and lead,

another MP said he had a profound

fear of Jeremy Corbyn becoming

leader if they don't get their act

together. It is difficult to manage

a febrile situation in which a large

number of your MPs don't seem to

want Theresa May to lead the party

into the next election.

I know Heidi

and Johnnie very well. I have heard

him be very clear that Theresa May

is the right person to lead the

country and actually Theresa May as

someone who cares passionately about

getting fairness in society,

opportunity for people...

Why do

your own MPs not appear to

understand that?

We should all be

uniting behind our leader.

Funnily

enough that is what David Lidington

said on the Andrew Marr Show last

week when he said it was time to

come together in a spirit of mutual

respect. Will they listen to you

this week, stop the sniping from the

sidelines?

I have been speaking to

colleagues and myself, what I get

consistently is they want us to be

focused on the job we should be

doing. The job I think most of your

viewers would want us to get on with

is delivering a good Brexit but also

we have a domestic agenda to

deliver, like supporting the NHS,

making sure businesses can grow,

people keeping more money in their

pocket and a country that is growing

and optimistic about its future

opportunities.

One Conservative

council got itself in trouble this

week, they run out of money in

Northamptonshire. The leader of the

council said they had been warning

the Government from about 2014 that

they couldn't cope with the level of

cuts they were facing. Did you not

listen to her?

listen to her?

Across local

government councils hopping -- ... I

do think there are more efficiencies

that can be found.

In

Northamptonshire they say they have

actually run out of money.

District

authorities can look at how they can

do more, about sharing services,

sharing senior management and saving

substantial amounts of money. I

would encourage those local

authorities to look at that

opportunity because it means they

can put more of their time and

effort and the money they do have is

focusing on giving good first-class

services.

You are of course going to

allow them to raise council tax, and

we have had warnings from other Tory

run councils as well saying they are

running out of money. It is a bit

difficult though isn't it when you

have prided yourself on low taxes

that many people are likely to see

pretty big rises in their council

tax.

We have to make difficult

decisions due to the economic legacy

we inherited. Council tax roughly

doubled under Labour, I was a

council leader where the party had

run my counsel at the time with

increases of 16% year-on-year. We

have brought that back down so we

had the council tax freeze, and I

would encourage council leaders to

look at how they spend their money.

But council taxes will be going up,

you reckon?

They will be using the

ability they have to raise it a few

percent to give good local services.

People are looking at how efficient

they are, how they are focused on

their local needs to get good

Conservative governments in May this

year.

Thank you.

Yesterday, thousands of people

marched on the rainy

streets of London to protest

against what organisers described

as a crisis in NHS funding.

The Shadow Health Secretary,

Jonathan Ashworth,

was there and told

the crowds that under Labour

there would be more money

for the NHS, higher pay for staff,

and privatisation would end.

No more PFI hospitals.

No more Carillion outsourcing,

leaving hospitals dirty and unclean,

affecting patient safety.

And we're putting Virgin Care,

and organisations like

that, on notice today.

No more suing of the NHS,

no more privatisation.

Privatisation comes to the end

with a Labour government,

as we get rid of that Lansley Act

and restore, and indeed reinstate,

a public National Health Service.

And Jonathan Ashworth is back

in his constituency in Leicester.

He joins me from there now.

Good morning. On that March you were

demanding the NHS get the funding it

needs but we have been looking back

at Labour's manifesto and you

weren't really promising very much

more money for the NHS than the Tory

government says it will deliver.

We

would be putting in an extra £5

billion into the NHS this year. You

will recall that Simon Stevens, the

head of the NHS, was asking for an

extra four billion this year. They

didn't get that in the November

budget but we would put an extra £5

billion into the NHS this year.

You

were talking about an increase of 2%

per year, more than this Government

is promising which is 1.2% this

year, but historically health

spending usually goes up by about 4%

per year and you were promising half

of that.

Yes, over 62 years it went

up by 4% but we would be increasing

expenditure quite substantially in

the NHS in the early years of the

Parliament.

But to an average of 2%

a year over the Government?

Yes but

we also said we would establish an

OBR for the health service to advise

government on long-term spending

needs of the NHS so we would have an

independent body giving us an

accurate assessment of the

demographic changes, the staffing

needs of the NHS, which would inform

future spending decisions. In the

early years of the parliament we

would be spending substantially more

on the NHS, not just for hospitals

which are overcrowded because we

have lost 14,500 beds since 2010 but

also more investment in community

health service.

It's very difficult

for you to give statistics about how

much trouble the NHS is in when you

were promising a very modest

increase in spending of 2%. Under

the last Labour government, health

spending rose by 6% per year, under

Margaret Thatcher's government it

went up by 3% a year. Your manifesto

pledge was to give the NHS on

average less money than Margaret

Thatcher did.

But we would be

allocating £5 billion for the NHS.

You say it is a modest increase, if

I could say it is substantially more

than this Government is putting into

the NHS and when you have Simon

Stevens saying the NHS needs four

billion this year, we were promising

more than that so you say it is

modest but I suggest it is a

significant level of investment

which would allow us to get waiting

lists down. They could reach 5

million under the Government. It

would allow us to deal with

overcrowded hospitals and allow us

to invest in

to invest in community health

services, stop the cuts to child and

adolescent mental health services,

allow us to recruit so we have the

nurses we need.

That is what you can

buy for £5 billion you say, is

scrapping tuition fees are better

use of the money?

I'm always going

to argue for more money for the NHS,

as someone who aspires to be the

Health Secretary.

And therefore

argue against scrapping tuition

fees?

The tuition fee pledge was a

promise made by Jeremy Corbyn and

John McDonnell when Jeremy Corbyn

run for the leadership of the Labour

Party and proved to be very popular

electorally as a pledge so I can see

why the Labour Party will be

sticking with that, but I'm always

going to be making the case for more

money for the NHS. We have seen £6

billion of cuts and

billion of cuts and other...

It is

not clear the amount of money

offered by Labour will be sufficient

to offer their aspirations in social

care.

I would say it would be.

Across the Parliament we would put

an extra £8 billion but we know we

have to look at better ways of

integrating health and social care.

The NHS was created in 1948, social

care was created as a sister service

but they have never worked together

as closely as they should. We are

older, with various different

conditions, we know the social care

system and the NHS will have to work

more closely together so we would

look at integrating properly health

and social care but that is a medium

to long-term plan, not something a

politician can deliver overnight.

It

was made clear at the rally you work

at yesterday Labour politicians

pledging no more outsourcing in the

NHS, what does that actually mean?

No more private companies of any

kind involved in healthcare at all?

What we would want to bring an end

to is the way in which, because of

the health and social care act from

for years ago, it means community

health contracts have to always be

put out to tender. Millions is

wasted, some even say billions

wasted, on the constant tendering of

contracts. We have just seen a

children's health contracts go to

virgin care in Lancashire. When

virgin care didn't win a contract in

Surrey, they forced the NHS to

settle with them out of court.

Macmillan Cancer Support have one in

Staffordshire, the Red Cross, St

John's ambulance, they all have

contracts provided for under the

very act you say you want to repeal.

You don't want these people involved

in health care delivery?

Macmillan

nurses have had a role since the

1970s. They complement what the NHS

offers so we are not talking about

ending the voluntary sector role.

This isn't just voluntary services.

No, but we are talking about private

firms where a full contract for

service delivery, say a children's

health service, is handed over to

virgin, that means the staff are

handed over, the only way virgin or

whatever that private sector company

is can make a profit is by cutting

down on terms and conditions. It

means the staff are often down

branded, knocked down a level in

terms of their pay, and we don't

believe that delivers the quality of

care children deserve and that's

what we want to end.

You talk about the long waiting

lists. Under the last Labour

government that they came in at a

time in the NHS was and a lot of

pressure and delivery used private

sector companies to work through the

backlog of people who were waiting

for operations in order to get the

waiting lists down quickly. Do you

not think that the NHS as an estate

now where you may be forced to

consider that?

The NHS has always

got extra capacity from private

service providers in that

circumstance. The Labour government

was not handing over the delivery

lock, stock and barrel for the whole

sort of health contract.

That's the

difference. But you might still buy

in services. When you say

outsourcing is finished, it doesn't

mean the whole involvement of

private companies is finished?

The

NHS will not build its own

ambulances. We will still buy from

the private sector. Without capacity

in the NHS we will buy in from the

private sector. If you want to get

the rescheduled by Easter, if you

wanted to do that, the anyway the

NHS could do that is by buying in

from the private sector. There is a

difference between spot buying in

the private sector and handing out a

complete contract. Take a really in

four example with the cleaning

contract.

I will have to leave you

on and ask you about Haringey

Council before we go. Clare Cockburn

was on the Andrew Marr show earlier

and she has been giving interviews,

talking about bullying within the

Labour Party and at council

meetings. -- Kober thought she said

she could not complain to the NEC

because she thought that was in

itself a problem. That is deeply

worrying, isn't it?

I don't know all

the ins and outs I have seen what is

in the newspapers but I used to be a

member of the National Executive

committee until 18 months ago. Clare

Kober, if there were specific

complaints, they do need to go to

the NEC and the NEC would look at

that. Various committees would look

at that very seriously.

You reached

a point when a senior member of the

party does not trust the NEC to sort

this out because she thinks they are

part of the problem and not the

answer.

I would say that the NEC, in

my experience, would look at these

things. The NEC got involved in

mediation talks. I am not a member

of it anymore but what I understand

is a substantial number of Labour

councillors in Haringey asked the

NEC to intervene I don't know the

ins and outs but it is clear there

are two sides of the story. On

specific allegations where there was

a meeting in Haringey where there

was anti-Semitic chanting in things

like that, if those people are

Labour Party members were they need

to be reported. If people are being

anti-Semitic they will be thrown out

of the Labour Party, simple as that.

Thank you.

Allegations of sexual harassment

and bullying rocked Westminster

when they emerged last autumn.

By the end of the year,

two Cabinet ministers had resigned

and several MPs from different

parties had been suspended

pending investigations.

The Government promised action,

and announced a cross-party working

group to decide what it should be.

But, so far, it hasn't

recommended anything.

Ellie Price has been finding

out what's going on.

And, just a warning, her report

includes some flash photography.

It wasn't parliament's finest hour.

Revelations of shady goings-on,

of sexual harassment in the Palace's

bars and back rooms,

of bullying in its offices.

Of course, the vast majority of MPs

and their staff were not implicated.

But it was enough that

all the party leaders agreed

something needed to be done.

We should not rest until everyone

working in Parliament can feel safe,

valued and respected.

We have a chance now to get

this right, for everyone

on the parliamentary estate.

Political leaders agreed

to set up a cross-party

working group in November.

MPs, peers, and other interested

groups have been working

on the proposals ever since.

The Leader of the House had said

she wanted the recommendations to be

voted on by Parliament

and implemented by

the end of January.

But here we are at the beginning

of February and still the report

hasn't been published.

Sources close to the working group

tell me it was held up

before Christmas and then

its scope was widened.

It was then due to be released

on Thursday but I'm told it

still needs final sign off

from the party leaders.

I've been told there is now broad

consensus among members on the group

that its recommendations

are suitably robust.

Sources close to the talks told me

there's recommendations are likely

to include a new independent

grievance procedure for staff,

consent lessons for MPs,

starting after the next general

election, a new code of conduct,

and the one most likely

to grab the headlines,

tougher sanctions, including making

easier the process to recall -

and potentially fire

- an MP.

The current situation is one

where I would face harsher sanctions

and penalties for being rude

about another MP on the floor

of the House of Commons

than I would if I were bullying

or harassing a member of staff.

I don't think that is a reasonable,

or tenable, situation,

and I think we need to give staff,

and the general public we work for,

the confidence that Parliament

is not just abiding by the law

on employment rights

and workplace rights

but actually setting a standard.

A representative from Unite is also

on the working party.

The union says its members,

who work in Parliament,

have lost faith in the system.

Our members don't have confidence

at the moment that there's

going to be enough change

in Parliament to make

a difference to the bullying

and harassment culture.

There needs to be positive

engagement with staff and encourage

them, and give them confidence that,

if they make a complaint over

bullying and harassment, that there

will be proper investigation.

And the working group

has its work cut out.

As HR experts consulted

during the process point out,

reforming the existing employment

rules in Parliament

is not straightforward.

One of the big challenges,

you've got 650 MPs, who are all

running their own offices and staff.

So, effectively, you've got 650

small firms in effect.

And the extent to which they have

had previous experience in managing

people, and running businesses,

is probably limited

in many instances.

So, that's part of the problem.

But any overhaul of the system

is unnecessary, says this MP

who has been in Parliament

for nearly 35 years.

I think, by and large,

the rules work as they are.

And, if courtesy and common sense

are applied, there is no need

for any change at all.

Yeah, there are bad

apples in the barrel.

But those bad apples tend to get

weeded out pretty fast.

And I think we could create,

if we're not careful,

a whistle-blowers charter,

a witch hunters charter.

Very difficult for a male of any age

to defend against an allegation.

I'm told the report will be

published next week,

possibly on Tuesday,

and MPs will then debate

it in the Commons.

But it may not satisfy everyone that

it's exactly what's required to put

this House in order.

It's coming up to 11:40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking about the violent

scenes after protestors interrupted

a speech by the Conservative

MP Jacob Rees Mogg, and plenty more.

First though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Norman Smith.

Joining me for the duration

of the programme,

Dawn Butler, Labour MP

for Brent Central and Shadow Women

and Equalities Secretary,

and Greg Hands, Conservative MP

for Chelsea and Fulham, and Minister

for International Trade.

Greetings to you both.

Now this week Claire Kober, Leader

of Haringey Council, announced

she was standing down from her role

amid accusations that she had

suffered sexism and bullying

from sections of the Labour Party,

creating a mood of unrest

in the run-up to the local

elections in May.

Jerry Thomas has more.

Claire Kober's announcement follows

a public row her Administration has

had with Momentum, the left-wing

campaign group, over controversial

regeneration plans in Haringey.

Momentum had urged the council

to halt a controversial £2 billion

deal with a private property

developer to build six and a half

thousand new homes.

You're gifting the land before

the people of Northumberland Park

have been consulted

about demolition.

So, what are you going to do?

What do you do then?

22 Haringey councillors

opposed to the scheme

asked Labour's National

Executive to intervene in the

scheme, which was a public-

private partnership

between the council and developers.

The NEC passed a motion requesting

the scheme be stopped

unless there was more

of a consensus.

It meant Miss Kober

could not sign off the deal.

This decision was met

with criticism from several

Labour council leaders

across the country,

who publicly backed

Haringey's leader.

Miss Kober feels she wasn't

consulted over the NEC's

ruling, which, she says

was handled very badly.

The NEC's action was unprecedented.

It was unhelpful.

I'm certainly of the view

that those in Labour local

government feel similarly to me,

over 70 council leaders came out

to say that this was an unfortunate

and unacceptable act.

I'm in no doubt that

the behaviour and actions of

certain individuals at certain times

meet the test of both sexism,

bullying and politically

intimidatory behaviour.

Her decision to stand down follows

months of acrimonious

deselection battles over

who should stand for

Labour in the borough

in May's local elections.

Joining me is Sarah Hayward,

a Labour councillor in Camden,

who was leader of Camden Council

from 2012 to 2017.

And you have written very strongly

in defence of Clare Kober.

You suggest that the Labour Party

has cannibalised her.

Meaning what?

That they have acted

in a way that has

forced her resignation.

Your package mentioned

about just how acrimonious

the selections had become there.

The NEC's actions last week did not

follow any due process.

They didn't involve members

of the Labour group,

or Clare Kober herself.

The mediation that was suggested

couldn't have worked

because of the legal

framework around local government,

and so they put Clare in an

impossible position.

But, let me put it to you.

What has happened here is she has

just lost the argument.

She has lost the argument

with the local Labour Party.

She has lost the argument

with two local Labour MPs.

She's lost the argument

with local unions

and, seemingly, lost

the

argument in the NEC, too.

That's all that's happened.

And yet, the councillors

who support the HDV in

the wards where that is to go ahead

won their selections really easily

and, as Clare wrote herself,

in resigning, these decisions are

difficult but textured,

multifaceted decisions.

They are not binary, they are not

yes or no, and they need

something a whole lot more adult,

and a recognition of the complexity,

than the binary decision

of the NEC said.

Well, let's just talk

about the NEC's role.

The NEC, at the end of the day,

has not said, no, stop.

They simply said, can you guys sit

down and try and sort this out?

That's all they've said.

Yes.

They can say that if

they want to put up

there were elections in 2014 that

mentioned refurbishment and

rebuilding of council homes.

The current Labour group got

endorsement for that.

The election period,

the administration period,

is four years until May this year.

Council officers can't take

instruction from the NEC.

They can't take instruction from

candidates who aren't elected yet.

They can only take instructions from

the elected political masters who

form the legitimate Administration

and they are for four years.

It has simply put

the Labour Party in

Haringey in an impossible position.

Dawn, the NEC has

many roles in life.

But one of its roles it

certainly does not have is to

interfere in the housing policy

of a local authority.

That is nothing to do with the NEC.

They should have

kept their noses out.

I don't think that's the case here.

You think they do have a right?

No, no.

What I first of all want to say,

and I think it's really

important to put on record, that

everybody acknowledges the important

role that there has

played in Haringey.

She took over... Jeremy Corbyn has

said nothing about her.

Everyone has

said she took over and led Haringey

at a very difficult time for that

she has done an important role.

Everyone has been on record to

acknowledge that and say she has

done great work. I am sad she is

stepping down. The NEC involvement

is because, over 20 councillors had

written to the NEC. Both the MPs had

written to the NEC and asked them to

maybe help in mediation.

The NEC

could have said, this is nothing to

do with us.

As you said earlier in

the piece, what the NEC actually did

was to say, can we pause this

question is there a way we can all

mediate and find a way through this?

Let's move on to another aspect,

which is sexism and misogyny buzzed

up such as...

Women leaders in Government

experience a huge amount of

misogyny.

Give some details so

people understand.

Claire needs to

speak for the sexism she suffered.

There are some fairly terrible

stories she has told me. I have had

senior civil servants top down at me

and talk at the chief executive who

is a man. I have had a senior civil

servant wink at me, I've had people

second-guess my opinion and try and

go over my head. I've had people go

through my male colleague when the

final decision rested with me, I

have had death threats.

Dawn Butler,

you are the Shadow Minister for

equalities and women, you are trying

to come up with some sort of

measures. When you hear that, are

you not appalled that is going on in

the Labour Party and why isn't more

being done by your leadership to

tackle it?

I have to say the

examples I gave weren't from within

the Labour Party, just to be clear.

There are examples Dawn would have

experienced as a woman in Labour

Party as well.

I don't want any

woman going through what she has

gone through and what other women

are going through in terms of when

they are in positions of power. The

Labour Party has very clear, robust

policies to deal with any sexism,

any racism.

Isn't there are much

easier solution, if it is for people

like you in your position to

denounce and condemns those carrying

out those sorts of acts against

Claire Kober?

I will denounce any

racism, sexism and bullying in a

heartbeat but it needs more than

just me or the leader denouncing it,

as he has done.

Has he?

Yes, and any

cases of sexism or bullying will be

dealt with in the strictest and

sternest terms because we have

robust procedures. I would encourage

people to report any cases because

that's how we make things better.

You are Camden councillor, the

implications for the local Labour

authorities who are now looking over

their shoulder and wondering what

the NEC will make of that.

There is

a real risk of that and I hope that

with Claire 's resignation the NEC

will take a pause and think about

the tone may want to set. Local

government is autonomous and

constituted for four year terms in

London and we need to be able to act

in the interest of our communities

without second guessing what our

party hierarchy will do. Obviously

the party will intervene if someone

acts illegally as has happened in

the 1980s or improperly according to

sexism and bullying but that's not

what happened in Haringey.

On sexism

and bullying, is this because of the

emergence of Momentum creating a

brutal culture?

I think the Labour

Party suddenly has had sexism its

entire time, I experienced sexism

when I stood for selection for

Parliament myself and I'm sure

daunted when she went through the

selection process. The atmosphere

has got very difficult within the

Labour Party since Momentum have

been on the scene.

I know the media

tries to blame everything on

Momentum, I don't think that is the

case.

What is there a culture where

people are intimidated and

frightened to speak out?

There is no

new culture and if one is developing

it will be stamped out, but local

leaders of councils like Sarah have

had to suffer because of this

Conservative government making cuts

to their budget and they are having

to do the same work for less money.

That is the elephant in the room,

the pressure on councils is because

of the cuts from Conservative

government.

Greg Hands, you have

been sitting patiently. Do you have

sympathy with Claire Kober?

I do,

she is Labour's most senior woman in

local government and she's been

hounded out by Momentum, closely

aligned to Jeremy Corbyn. Across

London we are seeing a hard left

takeover. Which I particularly

fear... We are learning now about

the councils in the run-up to the

local election, what I fear could

happen is people may vote Labour in

May and discover the council they

actually get it significantly harder

left than the Labour candidates may

think they are voting for.

Let's

stop it there because it brings us

on quite nicely.

Elsewhere in London,

another Labour local authority

leader is facing opposition

from within his own party and looks

set to be facing a political

challenge after decades in power.

Sir Robin Wales was going to be

the Labour candidate

for Mayor of Newham,

but after that result was mired

in controversy and the threat

of a legal challenge,

the party this week

kicked off a rerun

of the trigger ballot to decide

whether he'll be re-nominated.

If the field is opened up

to other candidates,

this one-time stronghold of centrist

Labour could take a different turn.

Tanjil Rashid reports.

This is Newham in 2005, desolate

brownfield in the second poorest

borough of the country. Today it is

greener, shinier, taller. The

development hasn't stopped. Newham

is changing. You can see

construction at every turn and a

canopy of cranes overlooks this

part, but one thing that hasn't

changed for 23 years has been the

man in charge, Sir Robin Wales, who

has been mayor since 2002 and

leading the council since 1995 in

one form or another. In that time

his policies have shaped the

borough.

If we look at education

performance in this borough 's 25

years ago it would have been one of

the lowest in the country and that

has been transformed. 75% of young

people going to university in Newham

don't have a parent that goes to

university which suggests they are

achieving a good level of social

mobility.

Policies focused on social

mobility have in her view left too

many behind.

Newham was keen to

attract middle-class communities to

come and live here and that this

part of the problem, it has not

prioritised housing for social needs

because it had a view it wanted to

attract a different group of people

to live in Newham.

In the last two

council elections, Labour has won

every single seat leading private

eye to call it a 1-party state.

Labour's internal selection

processes where the real battle

takes. Some councillors are

challenging their leader's

renomination to be mayor. This man

was a member of Sir Robin Wales's

cabinet but he's turned on him.

We

are standing here in an estate which

they started the counting in 2005,

there's about 389 empty units last

night and only last night they are

evicted rough sleepers in the town

centre. Here there's 300 units they

could be sleeping in and that's a

disgrace.

There have also been

concerns about what critics call the

mismanagement of the London Stadium

in which £52 million was lost.

We

have seen the centre of gravity of

London moving quite sharply

eastwards. The biggest increase in

employment in any London Borough

thanks to the success of Newham's

workplace programme and the mayor

has to take a chunk of the credit

for that success.

Both Stephen and

Sir Robin are associated with the

centrist Labour establishment now

being challenged by the rise of

Momentum elsewhere in London but

none of the councillors pushing for

Sir Robin Wales's removal are

members of the pro-Corbyn pressure

group. Inside a vote is being taken

by this branch of the Labour Party

to determine whether to renominate

the current mayor of Newham, Sir

Robin Wales. After his controversial

renomination more than a year ago,

the party is really running the

so-called trigger ballots. Even Sir

Robin Wales himself has called on

supporters to open up the nomination

to candidates other than himself.

Are you a supporter of Sir Robin

Wales?

Yes, he has done a lot of

good things within the borough.

I

have mixed feelings, put it that

way.

He has done a good job so far

in new one.

I would like to see

someone from an ethnic minority.

With only three months ago before

the council elections, Labour have

to decide soon who leads them in

Newham.

You could say it encourages

cronyism, where do you stand on 23

years, good or bad?

It should be up

to the general electorate not to

selection meetings behind closed

doors in smoke-filled rooms. If the

electorate have confidence and he's

a directly elected mayor in this

case, then I think he should put

himself to the electorate and see

what they have to say. I don't have

a problem with someone serving forum

on time.

Isn't there the loss of

energy new ideas?

I don't agree with

everything he's done but he has

introduced some real innovations in

local government. I first came

across him 25 years ago...

Has he

still got as much energy?

I think

so, I saw him last year. Certainly

what he's doing with the

regeneration, he and I launched a

big new Chinese investment in Newham

borough last year and I personally

think he's got the energy.

Dawn,

where do you stand on that and what

about the idea of having fixed terms

for council leaders?

I do agree with

Greg on the aspect of Labour in

power delivers great things in local

areas and also...

But is 23 years

too long?

The thing is we have a

selection process within the Labour

Party, all parties have a way of

selecting a candidate, then that

candidate is put to the wider

electorate to decide.

The US

president can serve two terms, good

idea for council leaders?

I think

there was previously an idea that

somebody elected should serve maybe

two or three terms and then that the

renewed, but it is in a way renewed

when you have an affirmative

nomination process.

It doesn't say

much for the calibre of local

candidates, where is the fresh blood

in the Newham Labour Party?

I don't

think that is the case. At the end

of the day you select the best

person for the job. Robin himself

has said let's have an open

selection and open it up. We just

want to go out and fight so we can

return a Labour mayor and continue

to do good things.

I wonder how many

years he would think maybe I'm going

to call it a day, but we will see

what happens to him.

Now May's local elections

are looming with some Conservatives

fearing they are facing a very

difficult time at the polls.

But just how bad could it get?

Polling at the moment suggests the

Conservatives are doing rather less

well now than they were in the

run-up to the 2014 collections on

these contests were last fought and

actually they did pretty badly in

vote share then so if they do as

badly as some of the polls have

suggested, it is possible the

Conservatives could be down to even

as low as one council at the most,

that's the worst that could happen,

more likely to be five but you never

know.

Greg Hands, let's just assume

you are going to tell me the

Conservatives will be terribly well

but the tide seems to be running out

on you in London. What do you put

that down to?

That difficult general

election last year but I'm seeing a

lot of good new candidates and

campaigns, we have had Labour

councillors...

He said you could go

down to one council.

I have been out

and about with my council candidates

in Kensington and Chelsea,

Hammersmith and Fulham, a lot of

enthusiasm and good, well-run

Conservative councils.

Are you

saying it is all hunky-dory, no

problem, because even a colleague of

yours Stephen Hammond said Rayleigh

alarm bells should be ringing about

what's happening to the Conservative

Party in London.

It's a challenging

environment but we have well-run

Conservative councils that would be

put at risk. And actually, what

would happen if some of these left

wing Momentum groups run these

councils it would be a disaster for

local residents.

Do you take any

responsibility for what appears to

be happening to the Conservative

Party in London?

I think we all take

a collective interest in the London

Conservative Party but we are

fighting hard, out there campaigning

virtually every day of the week. We

have lots of new blood.

The problem

you have, Brexit. London is an

anti-Brexit city, the Tory party is

appropriate to party, therein lies

your problem.

Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership is in favour of leaving

the customs union and single market,

it is not clear the Labour Party

represents Remain voters but the

Conservative Party represents

aspirational voters. We deliver high

quality schools and housing, all of

the things that matter to London are

better delivered under a

Conservative council.

Dawn, one of

the curiosities about the Jeremy

Corbyn leadership is he has always

been a Eurosceptic, and yet in

London, one of the most pro-EU parts

of the country, there is massive

Labour support. Let me put it to

you, because he's keeping his head

down about the fact that at heart he

is a Eurosceptic.

Where the Labour

Party has led in regards to the

vote, the Conservative government

has followed. We are the ones who

have taken a sensible approach. Greg

talks about delivering on housing,

we have a serious housing crisis in

London and it shows how out of touch

the Conservative Party is in terms

of what's going on in London. That

is why we are fighting as a Labour

Party for every single seat. We hope

we will make gains in the local

election.

Is the party basically becoming a

London party? The leaders are all

Londoners will do the biggest growth

in the bishop has been in London.

Where else is the Labour Party in

such a strong position?

In terms of

policy in what they would do, going

back to housing, Labour London

councils are not delivering on

housing. Conservative councils are

delivering on housing.

delivering on housing. With high

quality schools, Conservative

boroughs are the delivering high

quality schools.

Schools in my

constituency lost £1 million.

Ceasefire. We are running out of

time.

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Dawn and to Greg

and with that it's back to Sarah.

Thank you very much, both.

Welcome back. Our expert panel is

still with us to talk through the

week's events and what we expected,

in the near future. One thing that

made the news was a scuffle at a

university in Bristol where Jacob

Rees Mogg was interrupted by some

protesters. Let's take a quick look

before we talk about it.

Jacob Rees Mogg, who always seems to

be the centre of any story these

days but Steve, are those unusual

scenes at the University political

meeting or is that happening around

the country are not being caught on

camera and therefore we do not know

about it?

It is not that unusual and

it happens at times when politics is

at the forefront. There is nothing

exceptional about the highly charged

atmosphere of politics and students

have always chosen controversial

speakers to go to university and get

a hard time like that. Jacob Rees

Mogg is brilliant at dealing with

people like that. I have seen him at

meetings where people have come in

and he is fantastic. Very polite and

courteous. That is the way of doing

it. It is an absolute myth that

something is happening and there is

a lot going on in politics at the

moment that is disturbing. People

doing this is not justifiable and

has always happened.

The idea that

someone would come to speak at the

union and someone did not like their

views and you would put on a

balaclava and shout, fascist some at

them, and think that was acceptable.

That did not happen. I'd tell you

what also did not happen, he was not

condoned by the Shadow Chancellor.

Not condone the behaviour in

Bristol.

Apart from the fact that

John McDonnell, not Jeremy Corbyn,

has repeatedly encouraged laughter

from audiences, talking about a

violent insurrection against

politicians. He said he thinks no

Tory MP should be able to speak

publicly without having this sort of

behaviour. Condoned by a mainstream

party, effectively Deputy Leader.

I

think you meant condemns all

violence.

He says that he has not

specifically condemned this. Correct

me if I am wrong. He has not

specifically condemned this.

Brandon

Lewis was trying to say these are

elements of the hard left and trying

to make this a bit of a party

political movement. There is no

evidence that they are associated

with the Labour Party.

There is a

little bit of evidence. A lot of

these infiltrators are members of

Momentum and they consider it to

Jeremy Corbyn. It is now an official

Labour Party campaign group. Brandon

Lewis is going to jump all over this

to try to claim huge political

capital in a bit of a naughty way.

Labour frontbenchers are not

encouraging their members. There is

wider truth going on, which is

politics is basically getting more

ideological. The centre ground is

weak and has a very poor voice. The

louder are on the far left and the

far right. That is why the centre

ground have to speak up.

There is

only one party conference where your

political editor needs security

guards. There is only one another is

the Labour Party confidence. When

Brandon Lewis was here earlier and

he said the Labour Party wants to

stop intimidation in politics, it is

arguable the public order act allows

for that anyway from that nobody

wants to see people putting

themselves forward in public life

being intimidated. Is this a way of

getting political capital out of the

situation?

It is. I remember Keith

Joseph, a real innocent right-winger

going to universities and getting

worse treatment than this. I am not

justifying this treatment was it has

always gone on amongst students.

There is anger that it manifests

itself in these stupid ways but has

always gone on. He is trying to make

political capital. Linked to

Momentum, it is not clear. People

are struggling in the media to make

sense of it. It is different in

different places and its influence

is different in different places. He

is trying to make political capital

out of things that have always gone

on.

Jacob Rees Mogg is at the centre

of every story this week. He is

deeply critical of Treasury

forecasts and having a go at the

civil servants. He actually accused

civil servants in the Treasury of

fiddling the figures. It was a

remarkable thing for a senior

politician to say when they

generally pride ourselves on the

impartiality of the civil service in

this country. A former head of the

civil service, Gus O'Donnell, said

this to say.

We look at the evidence

and we go where it is.

Of course, if you are selling snake

oil, you don't like the idea

of experts testing your product.

That's what we've got,

this backlash of evidence among

experts is because they know

where the experts will go.

Julia, that is him criticising

Brexiteers who have been criticising

Treasury figures.

What do you make

of it? What is that an ageing is we

are forgetting why the Office for

Budget Responsibility was set up. It

was about the fact the Treasury and

civil servants were politicising

these budget predictions and all of

these growth predictions and it

would take the politics out of it

and set up the OBR. Why it was

accepted it was a good idea, we know

the civil service, it is ingrained

in them to be against change it has

been ingrained since time in

memorial. Everyone working for them

says they have to work against the

sluggish view of the civil service.

Brexit is the biggest change their

will take on. They go with the

facts. The same civil servants from

the Treasury are working on those

predictions. It was politicised and

utterly wrong. After the vote to

leave, they predicted there would be

5000 job losses and a recession. The

people who worked on and on this

Treasury report, they are either

completely politicised, in which

case they should go, or they are

really bad at their jobs, in which

case they should go.

It is quite

astonishing to save the Treasury has

its own political agenda.

That is

total bunkum. Civil servants have

views. They are voters that they

properly came into the civil service

because they are

because they are interested in

politics. Civil servants will and

have carried out brilliant bits of

change was that they were behind the

creation of the NHS and welfare

reforms. Everything like that was

done by civil servants. To think

civil servants do things people

disapprove of and an ideological

perspective that Julia will not like

is because they are not being given

direction by ministers for the if

ministers run civil servants

properly they will get results that

they want. Civil servants have had a

woeful leadership from the

Government about Brexit because the

Government will not get off the

fence.

They may well have to this

week. They have two meetings this

week. Will we have any further

clarity by the end of that what the

Government wants the end state to

be?

It will be what it appears to be

now, which is, you have your cake

and eat its strategy. Theresa May

will emerge from these two important

meetings and will say that we want

some kind of continued free trade

relationship with Europe but we want

to be free to make our own trade

deals. B want a soft border with

Ireland and so did be you and now we

will go in and negotiate. It seems

to me that is where the problem

begins. -- the EU. She will

begins. -- the EU. She will not a

have your cake and eat it option.

There are tensions about the

relationship with the customs union.

You mentioned her speech about an

associate membership with the

customs union.

There has been a huge

row about whether we are leaving the

customs union but could be being our

customs union question that she had

said I want is to have a customs

agreement. Why is this such a fault

line within the party?

It comes down

to the absolute epicentre all now up

of Brexit if there is such a thing.

-- nub. A senior Cabinet minister,

they said, the customs union is the

fault line driving right through the

Cabinet on Brexit. It always was and

always will be full to the customs

union is the one thing that will

either stop the Brexiteers getting

what they want out of Brexit, which

is trade deals with the rest of the

world. They remain as corrupt or

soft Brexiteers with what they want,

which is closer links with the EU.

That is why there is such strong

disagreement. There will be yet

another fudge in Cabinet because it

is too hard to make a binary

decision. That will go to the EU.

The EU will look at it and say, this

is cake and eat it verge, decide.

That is the key moment.

It is

extraordinary. -- fudge. It

certainly should not be decided now

that the idea they will decided in a

four our debate is rather unlikely.

Also if you end up with a situation

which does not explain with much

clarity, it will not stop the noises

from the rest of the party, will it?

That has been unstoppable for 30

years. That will be the constant

background hum. It is the fate of

every Tory leader to try to navigate

around that noise. Of course, Europe

has brought down the last three Tory

Prime Minister. Although earlier I

cautious about saying whether she

would fall over the next few months,

Europe is the thing that torment is

Tory leaders.

The alternative, could

a non-Brexiteer come through and

become Tory leader and then Prime

Minister have another election?

Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of

Brexit.

That's all for today.

Join me again next Sunday

at 11 here on BBC One.

Until then, bye-bye.