Sarah Smith and Jo Coburn's guests are Seema Malhotra MP, Daniel Hannan MEP and shadow secretary of state for transport Andy McDonald MP.
Browse content similar to 11/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
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
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
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.
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.
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
No. It is possible
this is a cunning baldric style plan
to make Britain look as confused as
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
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
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. 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
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.
sounds ridiculous but it also sounds
like the sort of thing he will do.
We will come back to this later in
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
Well, Seema and Dan are with me now.
And just to explain the rules.
Seema Malhotra has five minutes to
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?
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
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
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
We export more to
Ireland than China, that is our
problem! Which is the better
long-term growth prospects?
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
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?
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?
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.
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
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?
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
Do you agree with
I think that a lot
has been done to support
Forgive me, that's a
different question... We're not
talking about that, do you agree
that the customs union is
protectionist against developing
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.
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
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...
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
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
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
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
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?
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.
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
That would mean leaving the
customs union, right?
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.
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
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
Thank you both very much
for coming in and asking the
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,
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
Preston described in the press
as a pilgrimage for London folk.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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?
they made a loss since they were
privatised? They have not, they have
made very great profits.
they are giving up the east Coast
franchise is because they have lost
That shows how the
franchising system is completely and
utterly flawed and should be
If the government run
East Coast Mainline lost £2 billion,
who would be on the hook, the
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
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.
are recouping the losses and they
have the trajectory of growth and
greater incomes, they will look at
that and say to successful.
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
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?
do both. If you have got that income
you can use it for those purposes.
Do cut energy bills or do you repay
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
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?
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
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
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,
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
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 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
Momentum has taken over Haringey
and have cancelled an estate
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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.
Which is disgraceful.
Right, but what should
be done about it?
Lena Jeger, when she was the MP
in Camden, actually
used what was called the acquired
legislation, whereby they used to go
and hammer things on the doors
and say this property appears
to be abandoned.
In fact Camden had
a huge amount of those.
I'm not so much concerned
about the ownership,
I'm concerned about
the occupation of the property.
Walk through parts of
Kensington, Chelsea, of a
night-time, there are no lights
on anywhere in there.
If a property is kept empty
quite clearly it's an
I spoke to a person the other day,
a Chinese client, who was
buying a flat I said
who are you buying it for?
She said I'm buying it
for my son when he goes to
I said how old is your son?
She said he hasn't been born yet.
On that note, that's
all we have time for.
Thank you very much and thanks
to all of my guests.
Welcome back. A few minutes ago we
were talking about plans for
renationalisation, something which
they think is a good vote winning
policy in these times. Are they
Nationalisation had a boom in
popularity. It never went out of
favour. Since the bailouts of rail
companies, since the appalling
things which happen to people who
have to get a train every day, never
mind just the south-east, it has
been a nightmare and costs are
ratcheting up. Even the water
companies are not opposing it. I
think they are pushing at an open
door and it is a worthwhile thing
for them to do.
John McDonnell says
it can be done at absolutely no cost
you would have an asset on your
government books, is that realistic?
No, that is the aspect of it. I can
see the political logic. That is the
aspect I find most confusing. This
argument that Parliament rather than
the market dictates the price at
which the acids is bought, the
signal is not just people who are in
those industries, the signal list to
all other investors in just about
everything else. If you start with
certain sectors, what will be
nationalised next? The impact that
then has on people who are investing
money in the UK is simply a dawning
realisation that what they have,
what they own, what they paid for
might be stolen or might be
Labour were fairly clear
in their manifesto, they talked
about the National Grid, water, rail
and the Royal Mail, nothing else.
someone who has been paying
attention to what John McDonnell and
Seamus Milne think, I will take
their evidence of what they have
written and said over the last 30
years rather than what they are
trying to do now to win an election.
I would not try and extrapolate what
Labour policy would be over what she
must have said, he has only been
their communications guide for a few
years, before that he was a Guardian
I'm judging people on
their record of what they have said
to Andrew Marr, what they have
written and what John McDonnell have
argued for. I simply question
whether we should accept their
guarantees when they are trying to
bargain their way into power.
Listen, nobody, it is something
which only happens to this lot of
Labour leaders, that if people
cannot critique the policy they
suggest, then critique what they
perceive to be the nefarious under
policy. The truth is, when we talk
about privatising industries we used
to talk about that, we never talked
about the outrageous bailouts they
would need, we never talked about
what they would do to actual costs,
we just talked about this in terms
of principle, do you want this
privatised with efficiency or
There problems with
some things that now Margaret
Thatcher would not say that was the
original intention. However, she and
those around her were completely
clear and explicit about that they
were prepared to privatise almost
everything. They were unambiguous.
The fairest possible reading of the
way Thatcher went about it is she
did not know how bad it would be.
She went into privatisation with the
explicit agenda of more British
people owning shares in industries
and when she went into it, 40% of
people own shares, 12 years later
We will need to leave it
there and move on.
The charity Oxfam has said
it was "dismayed by what happened"
after the accusations of sexual
exploitation by its aid workers
and now the government has said
it's going to get tough.
I'm going to afford them the
opportunity to talk to me tomorrow,
but I'm broke clear, it does not
matter if you have got a
whistle-blower hotline, it does not
matter if you have got good
safeguarding practices in place, if
the moral leadership at the top of
the organisation is not there, then
we cannot have you as a partner.
That was Penny Mordaunt talking
specifically about Oxfam against
whom there have been allegations
this week. This could have
implications for the aid sector
Yes, and that is what
Penny Mordaunt said that donors
would be put off by the likes of
giving to Oxfam because they
giving to Oxfam because they have no
idea where their money is being used
at the end of it. The thought that
your good hard earned cash could be
subsidising Oxfam executives sexual
peccadilloes, at -- abusing the
people they are supposed to be
helping is not good. Penny Mordaunt
said we should all have done more.
Where this seems to be going as who
knew what? Furthermore, who was
happy to cover up what for the
greater good? If you shine a
spotlight on abuse will it kill off
the Holborn I'm concept of
Oxfam does a lot
of good around the world.
amounts of good. Why would you want
to kill off a productive good
charity because of some horrendous
abuse going on? The political damage
for the government and we need to be
very careful, there are parallels
with for example the northern Asian
sexual grooming scandal. How much
was a blind eye turned to these
politically sensitive subject so the
greater good, for example racial
harmony, was not damaged? That will
be huge thing to unpick.
talking about the damage of donors
who donate to charities but defeat,
the government, committed huge
amount of money -- DFID. Not
everyone is happy about this. Will
this be used as a debate about
I think it is
being used as a way to reopen
debate. It should be remembered that
sexual predators use organisations.
They used boarding schools, the
church and aid programmes. They use
places with high vulnerability to
the sexual predators. Notably says
let's close down the church. It is
mistaken to say this is a taint on
the entire aid industry when the aid
industry by its nature would attract
some predatory behaviour. It is much
more important to have the
conversation about how
institutionally you prevent and deal
with the predatory behaviour rather
than turn a spotlight on the aid
industry than they should we have
any aid which is the wrong question
and has a completely obvious answer,
yes we should.
But if that is right,
if we extend that level of
understanding to Oxfam because it
does good work, why is that not
extended to the controversial
Presidents club a few weeks ago
which is now effectively shutdown
and people have given the money
Iain, the Presidents club,
there are people in Oxfam who are
not using sex workers unlike the
There were people
at that dinner who were not engaged
in the activity that the FDA accused
a few people.
But they were all
sitting there in an all male dinner
-- the FT accused people.
I am not
We cannot finish
the programme without returning to
the topic we are always talking
about and we have always been
talking about, Brexit.
talking about, Brexit. We will hear
from some other Cabinet ministers.
Explain the choreography of the
The government have come
under pressure for not saying enough
about the decisions. Boris Johnson
made it clear he would make his own
speech on the case for a liberal
Brexit, whatever that ends up
meaning. Now we learn today that it
will not just be Boris, it will be a
whole is of other Cabinet ministers
making a useful contribution in
terms of speeches, David Davis,
David Liddington, Liam Fox and
Theresa May finally at the end of
this long list.
Not Philip Hammond
or any of the arch Remainers?
don't do Brexit central jobs. You
expect the Brexit ministers
themselves to do that.
I do not
agree with that at all.
interesting is, were they always
going to do this or has the entirety
of government, now the dog is being
whacked by the tail, just to make
Boris Johnson... They have to give
him great cover by surrounding him
by others also making speeches.
a shocking waste of parliamentary
time this is?
At least we are
hearing from someone.
with speech-making is somebody comes
out and says something and then
Number Ten immediately slapped them
down. You cannot listen to the thing
you think you are listening to
because you have no idea whether it
will be contradicted the day after.
Like Philip Hammond in Davos where
he said we would only diverged
moderately from the EU and then
Number Ten contradicted him.
idea that Philip Hammond is not a
key Brexit Minister, the impact of
this is predominantly economic and
he is the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Of course he is a Brexit
They are quite worried
about the Remainers and they are
really worried about Jacob Rees-Mogg
and the hard Brexit faction who
could really bring down the Prime
Minister tomorrow if they wanted to.
And at some point, when the Prime
Minister fleshes out in a little bit
more detail her vision, she cannot
keep Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg
happy. Both of them have been vocal
this week and then the serious
problem in the Tory party?
will have to compromise at some
point. The hardest Brexiteers have
to get real and they have to realise
they have most of what they wanted.
If you said almost two years ago
that the UK would definitely be
leaving all the key institutions of
the EU, definitely be leaving the
single market, definitely be leaving
the customs union with a grey area
at around the customs agreement,
that is something that I think a lot
of pro-Brexit people have accepted
and pocketed as a good result.
the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the
party sound very unhappy about the
direction of travel and they are
complaining about all sorts of
But what is difficult to
work out is how much of that is
people positioning to shift the
argument within Cabinet, outliers
for an argument, so there is not too
much of a compromise. It is really
all a function of there not being
leadership and they're not being
someone in charge of the process.
This is going to have to be, we have
to confront this as a country at
some point and make a decision and
get on with it one way or another.
Well when they do, I am sure you
will be here to talk about it.
That's all for today.
Parliament's now on recess so I'm
afraid there's no
Daily or Sunday Politics next week,
however, do join me again a week
on Sunday at 11 here on BBC One.
Until then, bye-bye.
Sarah Smith and Jo Coburn with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Sarah examines Labour's renationalisation plans with shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald, and discusses Brexit with Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour's Seema Malhotra. The political panel features Tom Newton-Dunn of the Sun, Zoe Williams of the Guardian and commentator Iain Martin.