11/02/2018 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.

After all the waiting we're

finally going to hear

the Prime Minister's vision

for Britain's future relationship

with the European Union,

but not for another couple of weeks.

We'll look at what she might say.

Key to any agreement will be

whether we should bind our customs'

arrangements closely to the EU,

or strike out on our own.

We'll speak to leading figures

from both sides of the argument.

And Labour argue public

ownership of services

like the railways are

an "economic necessity".

We'll look at how

the policy could work

and whether it's on the right track.

In London, with local elections

looming, can Labour wrest back

control from the Conservatives

in Wandsworth after 40

years in opposition?

Who needs the Winter Olympics

when there's plenty

of thrills, spills and potential

wipeouts in the world

of Westminster.

And with me today are three experts

who may very well go off piste:

Tom Newton Dunn from the Sun,

the Guardian's Zoe Williams

and Iain Martin from the Times.

So we hear that Theresa May

will finally be giving her

vision of a Brexit deal

in the next few weeks.

The news follows Mrs May hosting two

Brexit cabinet meetings this week

in an attempt to thrash out

the government's

negotiating position.

If reports are to be believed

not much was decided,

and so there will now have to be

a team building session

at the prime minister's

country residence Chequers.

Maybe a few trust exercises

will be in order.

At the moment however we're none

the wiser and the EU's Chief

Negotiator Michel Barnier seems

less than impressed.

To start the week the EU chief

negotiator, Michel Barnier,

made a trip to Downing Street

with Brexit secretary David Davis.

Pleasantries with the PM,

but the warning was clear.

Time has come to make choice.

All week the question was,

are the Cabinet running

away from making tough

decisions on Brexit?

As America woke up, the President

took a pop at the

National Health Service on Twitter.

But was it all fake news?

The Health Secretary hit back.

The Transport Secretary,

Chris Grayling, told the Commons

that yet again the East Coast

mainline franchise had failed,

with renationalisation an option.

While tensions in the

Conservative Party on Brexit

were on full display.

One leading Tory Remainer

did not hold back.

35 hard ideological Brexiteers

who are not Tories.

It's about time Theresa May stood up

to them and slung them out.

On Tuesday, deeds and words,

MPs celebrated 100 years since

some women were given the vote.

Westminster awash with suffragette

colours purple, green, and white.

Wednesday and Thursday,

the Brexit War Cabinet settled

in for crunch talks.

They were meant to decide

what the end state should look like.

Breakthrough?

Not yet.

Also on Thursday, a leaked EU paper

warned that the UK's single market

access in the Brexit transition

period could be revoked

in the event of a dispute.

Discourteous?

The Brexit secretary thought so.

It's not in good faith.

We think it's unwise

to publish that.

The week ended as it

began, with more warnings

from Michel Barnier on Ireland,

the customs union,

and continuing EU UK disputes.

If this disagreement persists,

the transition is not a given.

So, at the end of a busy week why

not let off steam with a glass

or two of Brexit juice,

that's English sparkling wine

to you and me, at the annual

Conservative fundraiser the black

and white ball.

The highest bid of the night?

£55,000 to spend a day with the PM.

We could not afford to get her on to

this programme but we will talk to

our panel of experts to find out

what is going on behind the

headlines. Iain Martin, by now we

thought we would know more about the

government's final negotiating

position. We had two Brexit

subcommittee meetings this week.

They were meant to come to a

conclusion I thought. Are we any

further forward?

No. It is possible

this is a cunning baldric style plan

to make Britain look as confused as

possible.

A very, very cunning plan.

Very cunning. But the chances of

that are highly unlikely. It seems

the meeting has happened, there was

discussion, the Prime Minister did

not express an opinion. The Prime

Minister was more interested in

secrecy and in fear of a leak, but

it seems there was not much to leak

anyway, because there was not a

decision. Actually, the UK's closer

to a position than people commonly

understand, definitely out of the

single market, but on this crucial

question of the customs union, or a

customs agreement after, there is

still no decision taken. I think the

feeling at Westminster, people on

both sides of the argument seems to

be will someone decide, make the

case and then get stuck into the

talks which lets remember our

supposed to begin in six or seven

weeks' time.

This Brexit

subcommittee is split between

Brexiteers and Remainers. The Prime

Minister sits in the middle we

understand not really expressing a

view, that is put together for

careful political reasons but it

cannot continue, can it?

I think the

presentation at the minute cannot

come to a decision because they have

not done their homework, student

essay style crisis conclusion and in

the case of David Davis you could

believe that is true but the main

reason they cannot come together is

because of an implacable deadlock.

There is no compromise between in

the customs union or not in the

customs union. One side has to

vanquish the other. The Remainers

really have to think it would be

economic suicide to leave the

customs union but they are also

really aware that this deadlock is

grinding government to halt. It is

national duty pulling them in two

directions. They will ultimately be

the ones to say I do not want to cut

the baby in half, you have the baby.

At some point it will have to go to

the country because it is a stupid

idea to cut a baby in half expect

what will happen for the Prime

Minister who will have to make a

decision for the kind Brexit she has

advocated?

She will do that and the

danger is huge. She will have to get

off the perch at some point. We have

been sitting in these chairs for 20

months saying the Prime Minister has

to choose between prioritising

market access and prioritise and

sovereignty. That is the simple

case. You may get a bit of both out

of the EU but you will get more of

one than the other. I think

interestingly, there is a lot of

movement going on under the surface

which Number Ten are desperate not

to show any of the machinations of

it because they want to present a

complete finished article. There is

some sense of consensus growing in

the Brexit community I am told, not

to sign off on a customs union but

to sign off on a semi-single market

alignment, soap aligning with all

the single market rules on

manufactured goods is what I am told

they are beginning to agree to do,

which they feel they should do

because British companies will go

ahead and stand by all the EU

regulations because that is what

they want to continue to sell into

the EU. There are some members of

the committee who are opposed to

this. Boris Johnson is the main one.

If they do agree to allow heavily on

manufactured goods but not on

services, in other words they choose

what to Jerry picked and can agree

what to cherish pick -- cherry pick,

but if they choose what to align on

Ben Boris Johnson has do make a

decision himself.

decision himself. We could

potentially see some Cabinet

resignations and I put Boris Johnson

at the head of it in two or three

weeks' time. That is the root of the

potential compromise.

On services,

on financial services, there is not

a functioning single market. The

question comes down to manufactured

goods. A lot of the regulations have

their origins in global standards,

something like the car industry. Is

Boris Johnson going to find himself

in a position where he will die in a

ditch over trying to make the UK

diverged from globally set standards

on carburettors? It would be an

interesting position if he does.

It

sounds ridiculous but it also sounds

like the sort of thing he will do.

We will come back to this later in

the programme.

As it's still not clear

what the government wants its final

relationship with the EU will look

like, we thought we'd

try to help out by looking

in detail at the key dilemma,

when it comes to working out

a customs arrangement,

should we hug the EU close,

or break out on our own?

We've lined up two politicians

from either side of the argument

and, just for a change,

they'll be asking

the questions not me.

So I'm joined by the soon to be

former Conservative MEP and leading

figure in the Leave campaign

Daniel Hannan and by the former

Labour frontbencher and supporter

of Open Britain Seema Malhotra.

Earlier this morning we tossed

a coin to see who would go first.

Daniel Hannan won and he agreed that

he would go first.

So here with thoughts

on what our end

relationship should be.

90% of the world's economic growth

over the next 15 years will come

from outside the European Union.

Britain is a maritime nation, linked

to the world's fastest-growing

economies by language, law, culture

and kinship. But we cannot sign

trade deals, not while we are in the

EU's customs union. Staying in the

customs union after we leave, would

be the worst of all worlds. It would

give Brussels 100% of our trade

policy with 0% input from us. In

order to take advantage of Brexit,

we need to set our own regulations.

Sometimes, for reasons of economies

of scale, we might want to match

what the EU is doing. If we do want

to keep elements of the single

market, it must be through agreement

and on a case-by-case basis. In

1980, the states now in the European

Union counted for 30% of the world's

GDP. Today that figure is 15% and

falling. Britain needs to raise its

size. Our future bright, our future

is global.

Well, Seema and Dan are with me now.

And just to explain the rules.

Seema Malhotra has five minutes to

interrogate down.

This week a Tory

MP said I think the real concern

about the direction of travel when

it comes to Brexit, we are to real

crunch point and the government has

not worked out 19 months on what the

endgame is and we need to know. That

is pretty clear, isn't it? You and

others said Brexit will be easy so

why is this the case?

Nothing

worthwhile is ever easy. I do not

accept that the government has not

made it position clear. It made it

clear in Lancaster House beach and a

series of white papers since. As

Theresa May says we want to keep

control of our laws, taxes and

borders. But within that, we want to

have the closest possible

relationship with the rest of the

EU, compatible with being a

sovereign country. We want to be its

best friend and ally. We will align

with other countries but on our own

terms.

Things are not going

according to plan. You and others

said we will be keeping key

agencies. David Davis said we would

keep the agencies but now they are

leaving. The European medicines

agency is heading for Amsterdam, the

European banking agency will go to

Paris. That is 2000 highly skilled

jobs being lost from the capital.

Isn't this a high price we are

paying for certainty?

If you're that

fixated on Eurocrats jobs then you

there is something wrong with your

priorities. All of the worries we

had about job losses turned out to

be nonsense. Instead of losing half

a million, we have gained half a

million. More people are working

than ever before. I never claimed we

would be keeping these Euro agencies

in the UK. Of course if you leave

the EU you leave these Euro agencies

and you no longer have them on our

soil. We will make our own

regulations.

You are calling these

agencies Eurocrats, these are people

helping with key sectors of our

economy, scientists, those who are

experts in finance and other

sectors. I agree that Britain could

trade more with the world and we

need to, but evidence of leaks from

the government this week shows that

the impact of free trade deals

around the world will no way

compensate for the loss of trade

with the EU which a hard Brexit

would do for the UK. If you don't

believe me, you can listen to the

words of the Prime Minister who said

during the referendum we export more

to Ireland than we do to China,

twice as much to Belgium as we do to

India, it is not realistic to think

we could replace European trade than

these markets.

We export more to

Ireland than China, that is our

problem! Which is the better

long-term growth prospects?

Don't

you agree that there will be an

impact on British businesses and

families even in the short term and

isn't it right that you raise that

risk with the British people?

Obviously we want free and

frictionless trade with the EU and

the freedom to my trade deals

further of broad. EU does not have a

trade deal with US, with India and

old friends like Australia, the idea

that we cannot do trade deals and

bring benefits to this country I

think is incredibly defeatist. Are

we really saying it is a good idea

to sell more to Ireland with five

mil in people than to China with

more than a billion. -- 5 million

people.

Their study after study

which shows the proximity we have

two nations goes a long way to

determining our economic links, that

is not just the case for us but for

countries around the world. Of

course we can do more. We have a

trade surplus with the US already. I

have spoken to investors from other

countries who say they want to come

and do more in the UK but the point

is, part of the reason they do that

is because we have access and they

have access to the European markets

of 500 million people to sell those

goods as well. What do you say to

the genuine concerns from Nissan and

Honda, now even the Japanese

ambassador talking about a challenge

to the profitability of those

companies in the UK, and the threat

they may have to leave those

operations and go elsewhere?

They

made those threats during the

referendum and after the vote was in

they confirmed that not only were

they staying here but Nissan was

increasing its productivity and

activity in the UK. I think you

should look at what they are doing

rather than what they are saying.

This idea that we are defined by our

geography is an old-fashioned

18th-century way of looking at

trade. In the modern age where we

have low freight costs, the Internet

and cheap flights, geographical

proximity has never mattered less.

We are linked by language, law,

cultural, legal systems and

accountancy systems to the fastest

growing con is the planet.

I would like to ask you, you have

set all your vision for how you

would like to see our future

relationship with the EU. How

confident are you the Prime Minister

will outline a clear vision soon and

it will outline with Ewels?

She's

outlined the broad principles

already. -- with yours. Fleshing out

issues like how to make the Irish

border were, how to make the

facilitation of customs work. This

thing nobody has explained what we

can do in terms of customs is not

true. The government produced a

lengthy paper talking about how we

can do things like expand the ...

It's worth noting that both ahead of

HMR see here and his equivalent in

the Republic of Ireland have said

there is no need for a Customs

border, that companies can make

their customs declarations in the

way they make their tax

declarations. They are now

emphatically not choosing to listen

to the experts when they say they

don't need a hard order in Ireland.

Thanks.

Now it's the turn of Seema

to be grilled but first,

here's her thoughts on how

our future relationship

with the EU should look.

I respect the result of the

referendum. We need to move forward

to find a deal that protects jobs in

the economy. 43% of all of our trade

is done with the EU. Staying inside

the customs union gives us tariff

free trade access to our many new

partners. Issues surrounding

immigration and sovereignty can be

addressed while staying in the

customs union and the single market.

But on terms that we negotiate. We

can also then trade freely with

countries the EU has deals with.

Deals that we have helped negotiate.

And staying in the customs union is

key to a solution on Ireland. Our

select committee found that it is

unclear how we can avoid a hardboard

if we leave the customs union. I

agree we need reform and greater

controls on the freedom of movement,

but people did not vote to become

poorer. Let's leave the European

Union in a way that puts the

prosperity of families and

businesses first.

So as before you have five

minutes to give a grilling.

Off you go.

Two weeks ago Jeremy Corbyn says

said he was against staying in the

customs union because it is

protectionist against developing

countries, do you agree?

It's

important to balance what we do need

to see change in terms of

international trade and support for

developing countries. But also to

recognise the contribution that

being in the customs union and the

European Union has made for our

prosperity...

Do you agree with

Jeremy Corbyn?

I think that a lot

has been done to support

development, International

development...

Forgive me, that's a

different question... We're not

talking about that, do you agree

that the customs union is

protectionist against developing

countries?

It can be for those

countries that are in the customs

union. That's very understood

economics. It encourages trade

creation and development between

those countries, but it doesn't

preclude, as has been shown by the

over 60 trade agreements we have is

a European Union with countries

around the rolled, from having

strong relationships with other

countries. That's what I believe. --

countries around the world.

There

are lots of things we do not produce

ourselves. We have to impose tariffs

on oranges. In yours and my

constituencies there are not orange

plantations. Is it a reasonable

thing that to protect Mediterranean

orange growers we should be

discriminating against producers in

Africa, the Americas, developing

countries, at a cost our own

consumers?

I believe what you can do

is negotiate across the world in

terms of how you encourage greater

free trade and greater ways in which

we can trade with different nations.

That's what we do also already. We

had no Norma 's track record in

investing in farmers in Africa...

On

that point... -- we have had an

enormous track record. That means we

are giving Brussels total control of

our trade policies but we are no

longer EU members so we have no

control.

Almost 50% of our trade is

with the EU. Over 70% of the

companies... Over 70% of companies

that export to the EU, that is jobs

your constituents and my

constituents will be dependent on,

over 90% of that being small and

medium-size enterprises. They

look...

I'm not having much joy

getting answers to my questions. You

are going off on a tangent. Let me

have another go.

I'm saying we can

do both and that is what we should

be doing.

You think leaving the EU

but staying in the customs union so

Brussels controls 100% of our

Brussels controls 100% of our trade

but we have zero input... You think

that gives us more influence in

world trade than taking our own

voice and vote in the world trade

organisation and be able to do our

own deals, is that what you are

saying?

When you talk about the WTO

rules, if you look at the

government's analysis which was an

average of other studies, it shows

even in the South East if there is a

withdrawal based on...

I'm going to

have one more go to get an answer

because you are telling me lots of

interesting things which are nothing

to do with what I'm asking. Let me

have another go... The highest

tariffs imposed by the customs union

are on the items that most

negatively impact people on low

incomes, particularly food,

clothing, and footwear. They pay a

proportionately higher chunk of

their weekly Budget on these

commodities, these basic things.

They are the most badly hit. We are

clobbering poor people in this

country in order to hurt developing

nations. How can you come as a

progressive politician with a proud

history of standing up for people

who are underprivileged, now stand

there and defend a system that

forces us to give more to wealthy

French farmers than poor African

farmers, and forces the highest

bills to be paid by the lowest

income people in Britain?

I will

fundamentally disagree with you. I

believe being a member of the EU has

been fundamental for our prosperity,

for families and businesses. What

you fail to highlight is numerous

studies that show many British

families are worse off as a result

of us having had the referendum and

now the uncertainty that is

followed. People have already

suffered. -- that has followed.

You

are still not answering. Let me have

another crack at this. The countries

closest to the EU economically. The

countries that have opted to

parallel or join the single market

Norway, Switzerland, Iceland,

Liechtenstein, none of them is

interested in joining the customs

union. Why do you think that is?

They have separate arrangements.

They have arrangements with each

other. They have ways of resolving

disputes. It is like a mini European

Union in the way that they work

together. I believe that we could

consider approaching those countries

to see whether that would be an

arrangement that could work for

Britain.

That would mean leaving the

customs union, right?

Potentially

alongside how we negotiate being in

the customs union. Fundamental for

peace in Northern Ireland and the

Good Friday Agreement. It's not just

me saying that, it's the Irish

government, the head of the Irish

police, and the Irish people.

Time

is up. Thank you for your questions.

What you are advocating is not

Labour policy. Do you believe you

will change the mind of Jeremy

Corbyn?

You know there is a debate

going on in the Labour Party. That

is not unexpected, because as the

situation changes, as new facts come

to light, as we have to consider

what life will be like with the end

state post the transition, we will

have that debate. It is certainly

the case that the range of views

across the Labour Party are far less

in terms of the spectrum of what's

going on in the Conservative Party.

The fundamental issue is we have a

Prime Minister and cabinet that have

no idea about end state. They have

failed to reach any sort of

agreement after two days away this

week. And I think it is embarrassing

for us as a nation that 19 months

after the referendum we are in such

disarray.

Thank you both very much

for coming in and asking the

questions.

And those of you in the South

of England will be lucky

enough to see more of Dan Hannan

as he'll be appearing

in the Sunday Politics South

in just over ten minutes.

And you can find

more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

The recent collapse

of Carillion and the ending

of the East Coast Rail franchise

early has emboldened the

Labour Party to push its agenda

for renationalising key services

such as rail, water and energy.

But that's not all, the party

is looking into supporting local

economies by helping councils do

things like bringing

more services in house,

using local small businesses

where possible and helping to set up

new small scale energy companies.

So, is the plan workable,

and can it help Labour shed

the image that more state control

will lead to inefficiency and a lack

of innovation and investment?

Elizabeth Glinka has

travelled to Preston,

a Labour council the party

are championing as a model

for the future, to find out more.

When he visited in the 1850s car

Marks said industrial Preston might

be the staging post for an economic

revolution. It's taken 160 years but

he may have been onto. -- Karl Marx

said.

Preston described in the press

as a pilgrimage for London folk.

LAUGHTER

The Shadow Chancellor just dropping

in this week to heap praise on

Preston's new locally focused

economic plan. Nowhere is that plan

more visible than at the city's

trendy undercover market. Traders

rush to finish their new stalls

ahead of next week's reopening. The

so-called Preston model borrows

heavily from similar schemes in the

American rust belt. It installs the

virtues of keeping more services

in-house using worker let

cooperatives. And when it comes to

big contracts like the redevelopment

of this beautiful Victorian market,

they go not to the overextended big

boys like a religion but to smaller,

local firms, keeping the money in

the area. -- like Carillion but to

smaller, local firms. Matt Brown, a

local boy motivated by what he saw

as the continued decline of a once

great city, is behind this.

We came

to the conclusion that a fightback

we've got to do it ourselves. We

cannot be dependent on central

government that is cutting back on

money. The public sector is pretty

much buying locally from local

suppliers. We are looking to form

cooperatives. We're selling our own

energy in partnership with other

councils. Pensions are invested

locally. These alternatives around

the world. In American cities like

York, Cleveland, and Barcelona,

people are waking up to the fact

that we have an economy that works

for the top 1%. -- like New York and

Cleveland. And the rest of us are

basically fighting for the scraps.

Under the model the council has

spent an additional £4 million

locally since 2012. It has also

persuaded universities and hospitals

to redirect their spending towards

local suppliers. And it isn't just

Preston, a number of other Labour

authorities are trying something

new.

We have local councils now that

have set up energy companies to

provide cheaper, renewable energy

foot we have others running bus

networks. -- cheaper, renewable

energy and we have others running

bus networks. It is a way of getting

best value for money as well as

Democratic controlled of services.

Your critics might say this is

cuddly, cooperative windowdressing

for an agenda which, long-term, is

about mass renationalisation, which

you think the public would not be

keen on.

CHUCKLES

How sceptical people can be. I am a

socialist. We should share our

wealth. We have councillors going

out to get elected. When they get

elected they say they will use our

council resources locally and in

that way we can benefit local

people.

Is it back to the future? It

was revealed this week the

government may be on the brink of

renationalising the East Coast

mainline. Labour's frontbencher has

been clear about its aspiration to

renationalise not just a rail but

energy, the Post Office, and even

water. This weekend the party held a

conference to discuss the expansion

of the Preston model, but others

remain less convinced by its wisdom.

This idea is very popular nowadays,

both on the political right, people

like Trump promoting it, and on the

political left. But it is a failure

to understand the benefits of trade.

The idea you can enrich yourself

with the border. I draw a line

around an area. And somehow that

will make us better off is magical

thinking. How you become better off

is through becoming more productive.

These ideas are tricks for becoming

richer that involve boundaries. It

is an abiding fantasy, but it is a

fantasy.

The doubters may doubt, but

in a post-Carillion world labour is

convinced public opinion is pulling

in its direction.

Well, to help me to understand

more about Labour's

plans I'm joined by Labour's Shadow

Transport Secretary Andy McDonald

who's in Newcastle.

Good morning, thank you for joining

us.

John McDonnell says the plans to

re-nationalise energy, water and

rail would cost absolutely nothing.

That sounds too good to be true.

Explain how it could work?

In terms

of the rail Wales, it would bring

the railways back into public

ownership at no cost at all. -- in

terms of the railways. We would

bring them back once the franchises

expire. That would be considerable

savings of £1 billion per annum.

Then you will have to find £70

billion for the water industry,

nearly 40 billion for the National

Grid, how can that cost nothing?

Because you would be acquiring an

asset, you would be acquiring an

asset, you would be paying back the

revenues which you derive over the

businesses over time and you would

keep the costs down for the

consumer.

So you would be adding to

the national debt and you would have

to pay interest on that debt which

you would do out of the revenue you

get from the companies, but you also

say it will cost less from the

consumers that bills would come

down.

If you have £30.5 billion of

dividends paid out, if you run

things on a not-for-profit basis, it

can ensure that customers can get

the best possible returns.

That

profit might be good for customers

but it does not sound good for

paying back the interest on the

loans that you took out for buying

the organisations in the first

place?

You heard John McDonnell

express the analogy of having a

mortgage over a property. You have

acquired the assets, you have the

income derived from renting it out,

it pays the gas it and you have

still got it. It makes consulate

sent to hold those acids and make

them work for the benefit of the

citizens.

If interest rates rise,

after you bought that house and you

are renting it out, it is important

that costs can derive from the

rental income. We know that rates

can rise. There is every possibility

that the interest you will be paying

will not cover the profits and cost?

It is no different to the position

now. If water companies and energy

companies are financed, they have

those structures in place, the rate

of interest that they pay on their

financing is passed through to the

consumer ultimately.

I tell you how

it is different now, and your system

it would be passed to the taxpayer

presumably. If any of these

industries started making a loss,

who picks up the tab for that?

Have

they made a loss since they were

privatised? They have not, they have

made very great profits.

The reason

they are giving up the east Coast

franchise is because they have lost

£200 million.

That shows how the

franchising system is completely and

utterly flawed and should be

abandoned.

If the government run

East Coast Mainline lost £2 billion,

who would be on the hook, the

taxpayer?

When the government last

ran East Coast Mainline they ran it

at a profit, it brought money into

the Treasury. We have a good history

of running the railways correctly

and not having this bailout to

Richard Branson and Brian Souter and

the rest of them or seeing the

dividends and profits overseas to

the state-owned companies of

continental Europe. We want to put

an end to that and make sure we run

our railways for the benefits of the

public.

Let's look at one company,

Bristol energy which looks like the

kind of company you are advocating.

It is set up locally and has ethical

behaviour. There are no shareholders

so nobody is taking a profit out of

it. It has lost 2 million over two

years and does not expect to be

profitable until 2021. But does not

sound like a great deal for the

taxpayer if that is how you're going

to run the National Grid.

If they

are recouping the losses and they

have the trajectory of growth and

greater incomes, they will look at

that and say to successful.

The

Labour government...

They got tax

breaks, public capital to set them

up in the first instance, they were

heavily subsidised so they could go

on and enjoy the benefits of private

enterprise that does not benefit the

consumer or the taxpayer or the

citizens, however you wish to

describe it.

The consumer and the

taxpayer may be the same person but

they have a different financial

relationship with these companies.

What comes first, using any profit

or revenue you have used to acquire

these assets or cutting bills?

You

do both. If you have got that income

you can use it for those purposes.

Do cut energy bills or do you repay

the debt?

Those who have benefited

from privatisation of had the

benefit of not only using that money

to pay the debt they incurred to buy

the assets, they are now using it to

make dividend payments out to their

shareholders. It clearly can be done

and we want to be in that position

so it works for the benefit of

people and not for corporate

entities.

The shareholders are not

all millionaire individuals. A lot

of this is owned by pension funds to

which many workers pensions are

held, can you guarantee that you

will reinforce the Leave reimburse

them at full market value so that

nobody's pension will lose out?

The

market value is the market value at

the time these assets are required.

John McDonnell has made it clear

that they will be acquired at that

rate.

But not for cash, in exchange

for government bonds?

They are still

in that strong position of having

the value fully reflected. What is

happening is that not everybody is a

shareholder. It means there is

greater equity for all of the

population, not only an narrow

segment of it, surely that has got

to be for the benefit of everybody.

Thank you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Still to come:

We'll look at the implications

to the charity sector of the latest

allegations of sexual abuse

involving Oxfam staff

and the government's

promise to get tough.

First though, it's time for the

Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to the London part

of the programme, I'm Jo Coburn.

Joining me for the duration

of the show, Stephen Pound,

Labour MP for Ealing North

and Bob Neill, Conservative MP

for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Welcome to both of you.

This week, Labour's Shadow Secretary

of State for Housing, John Healy

said the government's fire safety

testing system was in chaos,

and Housing Minister Dominic Raab

was failing to offer fresh advice,

let alone fresh action

to deal with the problems.

This was prompted by the revelation

that some cladding safety

tests will have to be

redone after discrepancies.

Bob, how else would you

describe it but chaos?

I think there is a challenge we have

to deal with because there

is an awful lot of change

in the technology.

I was a Fire Services Minister

myself in the coalition,

and actually we have a very rigorous

system for testing, but we have had

new materials coming

in and new combinations of materials

and certainly, we have to make sure

the system keeps up to date

with changes in technology.

Bob calls it a challenge.

You called it chaos.

I call it lethal,

potentially murderous chaos,

but there is some good news.

Dany Cotton, who is the current

Fire Brigade Commissioner has now

been appointed to the new post

because you probably know

the Fire Service has been taken

into the Mayor's office

so there will be a Commissioner

for Fire Safety.

What will that mean in real terms?

What it will mean is oversight,

somebody in the central position

will have the authority to actually

liaise with all the local

authorities, all the people

who do the planning work,

all the people doing the risk

assessment, and finally we can keep

up with the new technology

and we can have that central body

in London with the authority

and oversight and above all,

the bank of knowledge that we need.

We have not just a situation

that Bob talks about,

but the problem Croydon and other

places, where people have bought

the leaseholds of their blocks,

the cladding has failed

and they have now been told

they have to come up with £20,000

to pay for new cladding.

The other thing we have to do

is make sure there is rigorous

enforcement of this.

You do the testing, great,

you identify concerns

and enforcement isn't done properly,

if fire doors are not kept properly

closed, things like that.

I agree you need

a holistic approach.

Do you accept, as Sajid Javid said,

whatever the legal case may be,

the moral case is clear that the tab

should be picked up

by the freeholder?

So when it comes to cladding

being replaced, once the testing has

been done to establish

there is a threat, should government

pick up the tab for any

council who needs it?

Very often the freeholder will be

a housing association

and they are the people providing

affordable housing, so let's look

at the practicalities.

That sounds like a no.

I think it is not quite simplistic.

It is easy for the Mayor to come out

with a sound bite but the reality

is we have to make this work out.

Only three out of 160

social housing towers,

were identified as unsafe and only

three of them have had

their cladding replaced.

Is that too slow?

I think it is as fast

as you can sensibly go,

given the pressures you have got.

Very often you have

to decamp people.

I think there is a lot of work

being done and the levels

of risk will vary.

Sometimes, there are other forms

of fire protection built

into the buildings as well.

I think the key thing

is to get it right.

If there is immediate risk

you have to get it right.

Today in London this weekend,

every building which has not had

cladding reviewed has fire marshals

walking round it.

We are paying for that.

This is one of the reasons why

we need to get this done quickly.

I think Sajid Javid,

I have to say, the Secretary

of State is right on this.

It is a moral issue.

But we are wasting money

on keeping an eye on something

which should not be a threat.

How easy is it to

move residents out?

It is not straightforward as we know

from Grenfell, trying to find

the right accommodation.

Grenfell Tower burnt down.

I was a housing officer in Camden,

I had three tower blocks

on Mornington Crescent.

Back in the 80s when we

renewed the cladding,

we did not move anybody out.

The people had an obstructed

view from their windows,

but you could remove

the cladding externally.

You can do it and we should do

it and Camden did it

all those years ago.

Everyone should be doing it.

To say we have to decamp people

is very, very exceptional.

You very seldom have to do that.

What you can do is Wandsworth,

they are fitting sprinklers

to all their tower blocks

over ten stories.

They have gone ahead

and done it without waiting.

We are going to talk

about Wandsworth in fact now.

The starting gun has been fired

in the campaign for the local

elections in London,

due to be held in May.

Our reporter has been to Wandsworth,

the jewel in the crown of local

Conservative government

which which Labour have high hopes

of wrestling from Tory control.

This was the tune topping

the charts last time Labour

won Wandsworth Council.

# My my, at Waterloo,

Napoleon did surrender...

But could the local elections

become the Waterloo moment

for Conservatives in the borough?

The London Borough of Wandsworth.

Over the years it has got

a reputation as a testing ground for

the nation's political inclinations.

It has been a flagship Tory council

for nearly four decades,

portrayed as a model of Conservative

efficiency in local government

and it prides itself on having

the lowest council tax

in the country.

Now the Labour Mayor of London has

declared it a top target in May.

Winning control of Wandsworth

would have great symbolic power,

and the outcome could depend

on the results of just a few

wards like this one,

Queenstown, where housing will be

a key battle ground.

One of the biggest redevelopment

in Europe is taking place

at Nine Elms, including

at Battersea Power Station,

with the newly opened

US Embassy nearby.

We are on this estate a stone's

throw from Battersea Power Station.

Aydin Dikerdem is the only

Labour councillor here.

We have council estates like these

which were run down and lacked

investment for decades.

And then all around, million pound

flats are rising up around them.

It is completely unacceptable

for Wandsworth Council to claim it

has a progressive policy on housing.

It is a pioneer of all the worst

possible housing policies

which have led to this crisis.

And Conservatives are already

campaigning and robustly

defend their record on housing.

This council has consistently built

homes and we will build 1000

new homes, 60% of which will be

affordable, aimed at people

who live in the borough

or work in the borough.

We have two regeneration programmes,

one in Battersea, one in Roehampton,

a net increase of 3000 homes,

of which 40% would be

targeted at people who live

and work in the borough.

Our key promise has been that this

is a council that charges the least

amount of tax that is necessary

to run the best quality of services.

Labour campaigners were also

doorknocking this week.

They have high hopes,

partly due to the success of this

politician at the general election.

The Tooting MP increased

her majority in what

was a marginal seat.

The party gained Battersea and

increased its vote share in Putney.

Dining out on a low council tax

will not cut it any more.

Local residents in Tooting have

said enough is enough.

The Labour group will keep

the council tax low but prioritise

where they spend it.

But it will not be plain sailing

for Labour in Wandsworth.

In the last election they won

19 seats, gaining six

from the Conservatives who won 41.

Since then, two Tories

have left the party,

meaning that in May,

Labour will need 12 more

councillors to get a majority.

And according to the Conservative

election analyst Lord Hayward,

the Tories will need to work hard

to prevent that.

There is demographic change

going on across London.

The Tories have been doing badly

relatively in London

in the last 15 or so years,

so it makes all London

boroughs under threat.

Wandsworth is one of the totemic

Tory boroughs, very much

under threat this time.

The indications are it will be

a fight of their lives.

The Conservatives are working

from a strong base,

but the Labour Party,

if I can use the word,

have momentum.

Council elections decide

who will run your local services.

The ones being held in three months

in London may have wider political

repercussions than that.

Losing control of Wandsworth

or other Tory lead councils may

mean the Prime Minister

will face her own battle

to hold on to power.

Five or six years ago, Bob,

it would have been inconceivable

that we would be discussing

the Tories losing Wandsworth.

What has gone wrong?

Well, we have not done well

in London in recent years.

You saw that in

the general election.

And the fact is London has

a young demographic,

it tended to vote Remain

in the referendum as you know as did

I, and we need to make sure

we have a message for those people.

But the other thing I would point

out though which is sometimes

forgotten, Wandsworth has got

a strong local brand

as a value for money authority

and a very well-run authority.

Throughout the Blair years,

even when Wandsworth

was returning all Labour MPs,

the people of Wandsworth voted

for Conservative councils.

I think there is a history

of drawing a distinction,

so nothing is over until it is

until it is fought.

But how worried are you?

We are taking it seriously.

We take every election seriously.

I take my borough seriously.

Every election you fight to win.

But it feels much more shaky now

than it has done for years?

For the reasons I have just

mentioned and the circumstance,

but we have a strong local message

that you heard from Ravi Govindia

and I think that people

in Wandsworth will probably draw

a distinction between the quality

of their services and next

door in Lambeth, say.

You can overestimate

the power of the influence

of the Brexit referendum,

and the fact that London is seen

as this Remainer stronghold,

when it comes to local elections

though, that is not going

to have the impact or be decisive

in the way Labour hopes?

Bob is right to talk about the black

Asian and minority ethnic community,

the increase in the Remainers

and the youth vote although

the youth thing is not...

It has been proven it was not

as dramatic as it was thought.

If you take Barnet,

Westminster and Wandsworth,

those are three boroughs

which I think will go Labour

if we keep working on it.

I think Bromley, Bexley

and Hillingdon will probably stay.

But if you look at some

of Wandsworth, the top ten boroughs

when it comes to the lowest council

tax anywhere in the country,

bizarrely seven of them

are Labour, places like Hull,

Manchester and Sandwell.

The top two Wandsworth

and Westminster.

What people are saying to me

in Wandsworth and Westminster

is it is the priority of the council

is not right.

They should not be concentrating

purely on trying to reduce

the council tax, it should be

about quality-of-life,

about services and housing.

So you do accept that the issue

of the EU referendum will not be

the priority in terms

of the campaign?

We're not voting for that.

There is a kind of a mood out

there where that is seen

as the progressive vote

and the Conservative vote is small.

Will it be enough to hold

onto the tradition of Wandsworth

having recordly low

levels of council tax?

That is part of the mix but

Wandsworth is one of the boroughs

in London which has a weekly

collection of refuse, something

people regard as important.

And as Ravi Govindia says it has

an ambitious housing programme.

There are 1000 which are council

houses and new estate regeneration.

Wandsworth are delivering

regeneration.

Momentum has taken over Haringey

and have cancelled an estate

regeneration project.

Which part is actually delivering?

How damaging is the

issue about sourcing?

Obviously, we have seen Carillion

and the loss of that company

and the public services it provides

and Wandsworth is a big

outsourcer of services?

When it is done properly and I think

Wandsworth do it properly,

I think people don't worry

who delivers the service,

providing it is a good one

and that is where I come back

to the quality of things that

refuse and environmental

services in Wandsworth,

which are among the best

of anywhere in London.

They have a good track

record on the ground.

There is a strong brand

in Wandsworth and Labour

will struggle, despite the fact

it is buoyed by what has happened

in recent years to take a council

which is seen as a stronghold

for the Conservatives?

We took the seat of Battersea very

much against the odds

in the parliamentary election last

year, but equally, the point you

make about outsourcing is crucial.

If you take a borough like Barnet

which is the easy council,

they outsource everything.

People are tired of that.

They realise there

is no accountability.

I think Wandsworth has not

gone as far as Barnet,

but it has gone too far

for most people.

I think it sticks in people's

throats and it is not just Carillion

and the possibility of problems

with Capita, it is the philosophy

of delivering local services.

How much will May's

elections be seen as a test

of Theresa May's leadership?

Inevitably national issues come

into that, but I think again

we will have a decent message,

a good message that

we can put out there.

The Prime Minister is doing a pretty

thankless task at the moment.

Delivering on what was

decided in the referendum.

At the same time we've got

to carry on the day-to-day

management of the country.

I think a lot of people

respect her for sticking to her guns

around this and putting up a tough

fight under difficult circumstances.

Is she a hindrance, though,

to your performance

in the local elections?

Not at all.

I think they want somebody who is

actually getting on with the job.

I don't see a huge amount of

affection for her on the doorstep.

I think the worrying thing

is nationally the Tories are doing

very well in the polls.

They are doing far too

well, in my opinion.

So, why isn't Labour managing

to actually outstripped

the Tories in the polls?

In London it is.

It is.

But that's been the case

for quite some time.

You're not actually

improving on that.

You're only preaching

to the converted.

1986 was the best year ever

for Labour in London.

We didn't win Wandsworth,

we didn't win Barnett.

We are doing better in London.

Possibly for reasons Bob

enunciated and possibly

for the reasons you do.

But the Theresa May factor

is the interesting one,

because I don't think

that she appears to be

dragging the party down nationally.

In London I don't see a huge amount

of affection for her.

But I think Labour must

not assume that this is

low hanging fruit that is going

to fall into our laps.

And we need to work extremely hard

to win those boroughs.

And anyone in the Labour

Party he thinks that...

You know Jim Callaghan's thing

about the sea changes

happening, they are wrong.

Everyone associates in London

is there to be fought for and won.

Nobody has a free pass this time.

-- Everyone of those seats in London

is there to be fought for and won.

Nobody has a free pass this time.

Job, if you were in charge

of the Conservative machine

in London what would you be doing?

I'd be wanting to make sure

we ramp up our activity,

both on the doorstep,

we still have a lot more

to do on social media.

Now James Cleverly, London

politician, is now in charge

of that, as deputy

chairman of our party.

We certainly need to be doubling

down on average significant

commitment to housing.

We are putting in record numbers

of investment into housing.

But we always need

to run faster on that.

And we've also got to make sure

that we are seen to be delivering

on a pragmatic Brexit,

one that works for

businesses and jobs in London,

particularly because of the big

financial services sector

that there is in London.

Coming out of the single market

and the customs union,

how will that go down?

I think we need to make

very carefully sure

that we don't do that in any way

which prejudices the position of

London as the financial centre.

A large number of

jobs would get hit.

And Labour has been no

clearer, of course,

on its Brexit policy, either.

We want to get the best

possible deal.

If that includes, at the moment,

staying within the

customs union, I personally

would sign up for it tomorrow.

We have all heard

complaints about foreigners

buying up London property, driving

up prices and leaving homes empty,

sometimes in so-called ghost towns.

-- sometimes in

so-called ghost towers.

Luxury developments that

remain uninhabited.

Now the mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has proposed to give Londoners

first dibs on new properties.

But will it increase the number

of homes available for local people?

The Mayor says he's persuaded

a group of developers to offer new

homes to Londoners first before

selling them to buyers abroad.

Research that he

commissioned found that at

least one in ten new-build homes

in London were being sold abroad.

What people really didn't like,

I think, was homes being sold

overseas before Londoners,

people living in London, were even

aware of those homes being built

or being offered for sale.

The measure would apply

to new-build under £350,000,

of which there were 6000

sold last year.

These properties will be available

to Brits for the first three months

with Londoners getting the exclusive

right to buy in the first month.

It's really not much different

from what his predecessor had.

This is a voluntary agreement.

He hasn't used the full weight

of the planning system.

It's not going to deliver much

in the way of homes for Londoners.

Especially since he

hasn't built many.

I just very much doubt whether this

is going to be effective.

The actual problem we have

is people buying homes

that they don't intend to live in.

That should be the focus of policy

and that can be done

through planning conditions.

The measure won't apply

to the luxury apartment blocks some

activists have dubbed "Ghost Towers"

for being uninhabited.

There are 26,000 luxury flats priced

at more than £1 million currently

being developed in London.

And I'm joined by Lisa McKenzie,

an academic at the London School

of economics, who is a supporter

of the radical campaigning

group Class War.

Welcome to the programme.

Just before I come to you,

how would this policy work of

giving Londoners the first chance

to get to these properties?

It depends on the

mechanism for sale.

If you simply advertise

through an estate

agent, then somebody in Shanghai

or wherever can obviously buy it

through an agent, for example.

There are ways of doing it.

So two pronged approach.

First, increasing the council tax

on empty properties,

not decreasing the council tax

on empty properties.

At the moment, after six months,

you get a reduction.

Any property that's empty

should be doubled up.

And it's...

When the properties

are built, the planning

permission is dependent upon the

final disposition of the property.

You've got to have

real social housing.

Right, but this is

voluntary, this scheme.

So it's toothless, isn't it?

At the moment...

No, no, it's pointing

in the right direction,

and we start off with a voluntary

and hopefully if it doesn't work

we will have to introduce statute.

Does it have your support?

It sounds nice on the surface.

But I don't think it actually

is practically deliverable.

And the reason is this,

he's not building the houses

in the first place.

He had a £3 billion, given

by the government to the Mayor,

as a Housing pot to deliver 90,000

houses by 2025.

He has built 9000.

Is Sadiq Khan's policy actually

disguising what really needs

to be done, as Bob says,

which is building

a volume of new homes?

Yes.

Sadiq Khan's policy is just

empty rhetoric, really.

It means nothing.

We are going to allow British

billionaires to get the

first dibs on the 50 million

towers in the Shard...

Why would it be

British billionaires?

What he's going to do is say

that the British have got

first dibs on properties in London.

But the problem is not at the top,

the problem is at the bottom.

The housing problem is really

at the bottom and it is about people

who cannot get somewhere to rent,

well, actually, not even to buy,

but to rent at a reasonable

and at a real, affordable price.

What is a real and affordable price?

Because the policy,

as I understand it,

is for properties under £350,000.

Now, that is still an awful lot

of money, but it wouldn't just be

billionaires who could afford

to buy those.

It wouldn't, no, but, you know,

for working-class people

in London that have got,

you know, a combined

income of, you know, perhaps

£30,000, they are nowhere near ever,

ever going to get on that

property ladder in London.

What would you do?

For me it's all about real,

social housing, and not even

social housing, it's

about council housing.

Council housing, local government

owned, which means we all own it.

It's almost like a cooperative,

a local cooperative.

For me it's about council housing.

I don't know why Sadiq Khan keeps

coming up with these, sort of,

empty rhetoric policies.

And it does sound like

windowdressing, to coin

a phrase from Sadiq Khan,

when actually the two

things that are important,

not enough homes are being built,

and there isn't enough

social housing.

If you look at the paper James

Murray produced a couple of weeks

ago, the Mayor's housing adviser,

he specifically talks

about the right to buy

still impacting on this.

If you built 10,000 new homes

in London tomorrow without repealing

the right to buy legislation,

within two years they'd all be gone.

I agree.

A huge problem, which is why.

In some ways Claire Kober

was actually talking some sense

in the Haringey development issue.

We're actually talking

about different forms of tenure.

My council in Ealing,

we are building housing,

but we are building them whereby

we can allocate them through housing

associations where right to buy does

not apply at the present time.

Otherwise we are building

and we are simply building

for the millionaires of tomorrow.

In terms of who can afford to buy

properties in London,

what would you call an affordable

price free London home?

-- what would you call an affordable

price for a London home?

What I was interested

in, Stephen's point

there, is Wandsworth Council.

They are targeting their affordable

housing properties for people on

incomes of 23,000, which is well

below the London average.

That's what we've got to be doing.

I'm with Stephen.

We need a mix of tenures here.

What about taking over empty

foreign-owned properties to house

the homeless, Stephen,

is that a good idea?

How would you know

they were foreign-owned?

Right, is it a good idea?

I think taking over any empty

properties is a good idea.

One of the problems

in London that we have

is that we have is we've got

overseas buyers that

are not present.

They don't live in London.

Sadiq Khan's report found almost no

evidence homes bought by overseas

buyers were left empty.

1% or less.

I think any of us who

live in London and are

walking around London,

we see the empty ghost towers.

I'm not sure what report

this is, or where he has

got the figures, or what research

they've done, but I know that

when we walk around London

there are ghost towers.

There are towers that

are with no lights switched on.

I even know people whose jobs

it is to go in and turn

the lights on and off.

I mean, what is the spectacle

of those empty multi-million pound

properties in buildings

like the Shard, when the rates of

homelessness are still

incredibly high in London?

It's the starving person

pressing their face

up against the window

of the restaurant.