11/03/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics.

I'll be bringing you up to speed

on all the political

comings and goings in

Westminster and beyond.

Coming up in today's programme.

As the investigation into the nerve

agent attack in Salisbury continues,

we'll be taking to the former

Home Secretary Jack Straw

and former Security Minister,

Pauline Neville Jones.

Is there room for more spending?

Ahead of his spring statement this

week, the Chancellor Philip Hammond

has hinted austerity could be over

as he said there was "light

at the end of the tunnel".

We join the Universities minister

Sam Gyimah on what's jokingly been

called a "punishment

tour" of the country -

trying to attract students

to the Conservative Party.

Most of my friends always slander

the Conservative name saying it's

only for middle aged men who want to

benefit from themselves.

At first I

was like, I'm not going to say it.

One of my flatmates was like, if you

are not Labour, don't talk to me and

I was like OK.

In London, the Liberal Democrat

leader Vince Cable tells us why he's

confident the party can make gains

in May's local elections.

All that coming up in the programme.

And as usual we've got three

Westminster insiders who will take

us behind the headlines and tell us

what's really going on.

Today I'm joined by Tom Newton Dunn,

Dia Chakravarty and George Eaton.

The unfolding events over the past

week in the cathedral city

of Salisbury could have been taken

straight from the pages

of a spy thriller.

The poisoning of a Russian former

double agent who had passed secrets

to Britain and moved to Salisbury

after a 2010 spy swap, involved

the use of a sinister nerve agent.

It has shocked the country

with the finger of suspicion

pointing firmly at Moscow.

The big story of the week started

in Salisbury after a former

Russian double agent,

Sergei Skripal, and his daughter

Yulia and the policeman who went

to their aid all mysteriously fell

ill because an as yet

unidentified nerve agent.

12 years ago, Alexander Litvinenko

was killed by polonium 210.

Was this more Russian foul play?

Boris Johnson was quick

to retaliate, saying there could be

implications for this summer's

World Cup in Russia.

I think it will be very difficult

to imagine that UK representation

in that event could go ahead

in the normal way.

Did he mean the England team?

The Prime Minister explained.

The point the Foreign Secretary

was making yesterday was that,

depending on what comes out

in relation to the investigation

into the attack on the two

individuals that took place

in Salisbury, that it might be

appropriate for the government

to look at whether ministers

and other dignitaries should attend

the World Cup in Russia.

Russian state TV mocked the Foreign

Secretary for his comments,

but the government's

firm language persisted.

The use of a nerve agent on UK soil

is a brazen and reckless act.

This was attempted murder

in the most cruel and public way.

We still can't get through a week

without mentioning the B word

as the Chancellor delivered

the latest big Brexit speech.

He's determined to get

a good deal for the city.

We still can't get through a week

without mentioning the B word

So I'm clear not only

that it is possible to include

financial services within a trade

deal, but that it is very much

in our mutual interest to do so.

Perhaps unsurprisingly

the EU disagreed.

Also when it comes to financial

services, life will be

different after Brexit.

The EU had other things to worry

about, though, as Donald Trump put

forward his highly controversial

plan to make American steel

and aluminium great again.

Surrounded by metal workers,

the President signed proclamations

to impose a 25% tariff on steel

and a 10% tariff on aluminium

imports into the US.

The European Union has not treated

us well and it's been a very,

very unfair trade situation.

Claims of Parliamentary bullying

and sexual harassment hit

the headlines with some

of the allegations going

all the way to the top.

Back in 2010, a woman called

Kate Emms took up the position

as John Bercow's private secretary.

But she stood down from that post

after less than a year.

Her colleagues told Newsnight

that this is because Mr Bercow's

bullying left her unable to continue

in that job.

Theresa May enthusiastically

welcomed Saudi royalty

to Downing Street this week.

Mohammed bin Salman was even treated

to lunch at the Palace.

Billboards sprung up extolling

in the crown prince's virtues.

Supporters of the man

they call Mr Everything say

he is a great reformer.

But protests surrounding UK arms

sales were also highly visible

and with Saudi's intervention

in Yemen ongoing, the visit

angered Jeremy Corbyn.

British arms sales have sharply

increased and British military

advisers are directing the war.

It cannot be right

that her government...

Mr Speaker, it cannot be right

that her government is colluding

in what the United Nations says

is evidence of war crimes.

Clearly riled, Theresa May

got her own back, calling

Jeremy Corbyn out on the eve

of International Women's Day.

Can I thank the Right

Honourable Gentleman

for telling me that it is

International Women's Day tomorrow.

LAUGHTER.

I think that's what's

called "mansplaining".

Tom, Dia and George

were watching that with me.

Now some insight and analysis into

what's going on behind the

headlines. The big story of the week

is obviously the poisoning of Sergei

Skripal and whether or not Russia

was involved. A lot of people have

been quick to assume that President

Putin sanctioned this and it's a

Russian state operation but can we

be sure of that?

Reasonably sure,

yes, clearly there is no physical

proof to produce at the moment. I

think by the end of last week the

government were in no doubt that

this was ordered by the Russian

state and in particular Vladimir

Putin, who, under Russian state

rules, has to sign of all foreign

assassinations personally since rule

change in 2006. The reason I think

they are almost certain about this

is quite frankly no one else has a

motive to do that. Who would want to

do a better job in spite of analogy

on an old colonel living quietly in

Salisbury? Not the people have the

modes of delivery to do this, to

pass a nerve agent, chemical

weapons, on Britain's streets.

Thirdly, this will be the killer,

the scientific proof it was an

extremely rare nerve agent, used,

not one of the more widely available

once you see in things like Syria,

it's a rare particular type which

has only been known to be produced

in one or two laboratories in the

world, one of them is in Moscow. The

Moscow foreign spy service. What is

fascinating is not just was Vladimir

Putin responsible? It is why he

wanted us to know he was

responsible, because he left such a

massive calling card, and that has

been really bothering cabinet

ministers in the last week.

Dia, we

had from the Chief Medical Officer

who said traces of this nerve agent

has been found in the restaurant

where Sergei Skripal and his

daughter were eating and 500 people

were there at the same time and they

should wash their clothes and clean

their possessions that were with

them. There is a small rescue but

there is a risk. Frightening news

like that is what drives home to

people why it matters this is

happening in the UK.

Absolutely and

there are so many questions about

this, even before we do want to who

was doing this. That's very

important. This also questions about

how the whole thing has been

handled, seven days, and they are

now telling these terrified

residents to wash their clothes and

possessions. Is that going to be

enough? What exactly is this agent?

If we see people in scary laboratory

suits walking around, doing what

they need to do, a quarantine going

on, is it enough to say go and wash

your clothes seven days later? The

communication around it, I

understand it is sensitive, that I

think it has been dire. Really quite

woeful. If I was living in Salisbury

I would be very, very worried.

George, the UK Government, once the

investigation has finished and they

decide whether this was a

state-sponsored assassination, they

need to decide how to respond. All

we have practically heard of so far

is some rubber mats might not go to

the World Cup in Russia, presumably

will have to do come up with

something better than that --

diplomats. What can we do that

Russia will care about?

The pressure

from some Labour Party and

Conservative MPs is to introduce a

version of the Magnitsky Act, which

means it's easier to freeze the

assets of Russians suspected of

human rights abuses or corruption,

and expel them, but Britain is

severely limited and I think it's

worth asking the question why did

Russia choose this moment to target

Britain? We are set to leave the

European Union, huge burdens on

governments, stretching the

government bandwidth to its limits,

and Donald Trump and the USA who we

supposedly have a special

relationship with, is imposing

tariffs on steel and has not made

any robust intervention over this,

despite the fact he normally rushes

to tweet when there is a terrorist

attack on British soil after making

unhelpful remarks. He has not been

standing shoulder to shoulder with

Britain in this instance.

There has

been a suggestion this should come

up at the next Nato summit in

Brussels, and they could be looking

for some kind of coordinated

response from international allies.

Is that likely?

It's difficult to

see at the moment. Russia's strength

here is significant and Vladimir

Putin, such a brazen act, clearly he

does not feel Britain has the

capacity to respond. Last December,

when we were short of gas, the one

country we turn to was Russia.

We

will be back to talk about the other

stories during the programme.

The poisoning of Sergei Skripal

and his daughter carries

echoes of the murder

of Alexander Litvinenko,

the ex KGB officer who died

after drinking tea laced

with radioactive polonium 210

in a London hotel in 2006.

And this morning, his widow,

Marina Litvinenko urged Theresa May

to adopt American-style laws that

are tougher on Russia.

You need to be very selective who

you are friends with. And when you

allow people with money to come to

your country and make a business,

you need to be sure what kind of

money these people try to bring to

your country because very often this

money is stolen from Russian people

and sometimes it is a very serious

crime behind it. I'm

crime behind it. I'm absolutely

asking this question to unite this

action already done in the United

States, in Europe. I think the UK

has to do the same steps.

Joining me now from Edinburgh

is the former Home and Foreign

Secretary, Jack Straw.

Thank you very much for joining us

this morning. Do you agree that the

UK needs to introduce tougher laws,

the likes of which the US has?

I do

think we should do this now. I think

have to take this very careful

step-by-step way, so I think the

approach of Amber Rudd and her

security minister, Ben Wallace, is

the right one. Jumping to

conclusions in this situation is not

a sensible way to proceed. The other

thing we have to think about very

carefully, when it comes to those

who are saying something must be

done and if you are in government,

you get this all the time, in

situations like this, something has

got to be done, is what happens when

you have to get back to normality? I

often reflect on the sanctions were

imposed to Zimbabwe for the

different situation but there are

parallels. In retrospect, Robert

Mugabe was a very bad man, but in

retrospect I often wonder if it was

a sensible thing to do. In the end

we had to get the troops down again.

It was very tricky so people need to

think very carefully indeed. This is

on the assumption the Russian state

was behind this, which has not yet

been approved or announced.

If we do

establish that and work on the

presumption for now and I understand

your reservations, would President

Putin care if we were to try and

institute some kind of sanctions or

punishments or does it just increase

the siege mentality Russia is under

threat from the rest of the world

which in many ways bolstered his

position in advance of the elections

coming up soon?

If we were to do it

unilaterally, just the UK, he

wouldn't careful stop with the EU,

and more other major allies

including the USA, he might take

notice but frankly, I think he

regarded as a medal if we were

simply to do it by ourselves and he

knows that, post the collapse of the

Berlin Wall and the Soviet Union in

the early 1990s, there is a huge

amount of Russian money in the UK,

particularly in London, and a

Magnitsky Act won't make that much

difference to the level of

dependence of some very highly

respectable British London based

financial institutions with Russian

money.

With the Alexander Litvinenko case,

an enquiry two tiers to get to the

bottom of what happened there, and

could only conclude that it was

probably orchestrated by the Russian

state. Can you take any sort of

action on the basis of something

probably being true?

People need to

bear in mind the example of Iraq.

The evidence against Saddam Hussein

having and continuing to have

biological weapons was overwhelming.

The question came up in United

Nations Security Council

resolutions, passed unanimously.

That is what Tony Blair and I used

almost 15 years ago to persuade

people to go to war against Iraq,

and it turned out to be completely

incorrect, so you've got to be

really careful. I have the scars

literally on my back in respect of

this. In the heat of the moment,

with people in the House of Commons

and the newspapers screeching,

something 's got to be done, being

non-explicit about what... Moreover,

we shouldn't descend to the level of

the criminal justice system in the

Russian Federation or other states

like that. There are demands today

from some Conservatives to ban the

Russia Today programme.

The Shadow

Chancellor said today that he

doesn't think Labour MPs will be

appearing on there in the future.

Will you do the same?

I have not

appeared on there for some time, but

I will make a decision on my own

terms. We have to be careful about

doing that in the absence of

evidence. Far better for Britain's

position in the world to have high

standards of probity. It's better to

bear in mind that well intentioned

people who do not lie at all,

including myself, and the House of

Commons by a huge majority, and

public opinion at the time, came to

the wrong decision with respect to

whether or not Saddam Hussein still

had biological weapons on the basis

of probabilities. That is the

difficulty here. People will of

course be very impatient indeed to

have a culprit here, and obviously

stacking it up on the basis of

circumstantial evidence, you can

make a very good case that it is the

Russian state, but we need a bit of

sobriety before we come to that

conclusion. Thank God that Amber

Rudd is the Home Secretary at the

moment. Someone else I could think

of in the British Cabinet, and she

is taking a very measured approach

to this.

Here with me now is Pauline Neville

Jones, who was Security

and Counter Terrorism Minister under

David Cameron, when Theresa May

was Home Secretary.

That was fascinating, listening to

Jack Straw drawing parallels with

Iraq and what was supposedly the

evidence of chemical and biological

weapons there, saying we have to be

very careful about pointing the

finger of blame. With your security

experience, will we ever be able to

establish whether this was

sanctioned by the Russians?

I doubt

the Russian state will admit it was

involved. In order to get absolute

proof, what we needed with

Litvinenko was to have a trial.

There hasn't been a trial because

the Russians wouldn't cooperate. I

think it's right for the government

to be cautious about saying anything

now, because it mustn't be seen to

lead the investigation and therefore

damage it, but once we have

established a degree of probability

about the cause, that is the time

for action. I think the chances of

it not being connected with Russia

in some way are very low.

The means

would point to that, but what is the

motive? This is a retired agent

who's been living here for years.

Came as part of the spy as well. The

unwritten rule of espionage is that

you don't touch spies. What dangers

does he pose to the Russian regime?

I think we simply don't know the

full story. There's plenty of

evidence that the Russian regime is

pretty vicious. Even if he was part

of a swap, I don't think you can

exclude the fact that the Russian

state might decide to take action

against him.

Looking at pictures of

him and his daughter there. It's

difficult to see what threat they

posed to the Russian state. Is it

not worth considering the

possibility that they may have been

involved in something else that

isn't technically state faction --

state sanctioned?

If possible. It is

possible that the Mafia was

involved. The question is, what lay

behind the Mafia and where did the

nerve agent come from? Is it

possible to come from elsewhere than

a state laboratory? It's difficult

to imagine that the threat isn't

going to go back to Russia somehow.

Is it possible to take action

against wealthy Russian oligarchs

living in London, even if we change

the laws and bring in something like

the Magnitsky act? Mrs Litvinenko

got a letter from Theresa May, Home

Secretary at the time, saying that

we want to make sure nothing like

this happens again in the UK, and

now it has.

There are already powers

which the government can use. One of

the reasons why there was an

argument in the Commons the other

day about this so-called Magnitsky

amendment was that the government

said, we've got the powers. You may

say, we need to use these powers,

for example to investigate people

who have unexplained wealth. There

are things we can do.

These are

people who are not necessarily

linked to Putin and the regime, so

these are two distinct things.

They

are. You have to be careful how you

do this, and it requires resources.

This is a complicated job. Jack

Straw put his finger on it when he

said, we need to act in concert with

allies. This is the thing that the

Russians really are going to take

notice of. At the moment, it's fair

to say that although we are Aljaz

overtime, we have gradually

increased the pressure. With

sanctions, and Nato have increased

measures on its borders, but we

still have a great deal of

harassment from the Russians. They

are taking action in people's

politics. They are conducting cyber

attacks. We need to act as an

alliance so that the Russians really

do believe, and they seek positive

evidence of it, that action against

one is an action against all, and

collective action follows. We need

to have a strategy that brings

together what we do militarily, what

we do to protect our citizens in the

cyber sphere, what we do in

broadcasting, so we have an all

encompassing way of dealing with

Russia.

Thank you very much for

coming to talk to us.

The new Universities Minister,

Sam Gyimah, has set himself

a rather ambitious task.

Travelling up and down the country,

he's trying to attract students

to the Conservative Party.

With just one in five voters aged

between 18 and 24 voting Tory

in the 2017 election,

it's been jokingly called

his "punishment tour".

Our reporter Elizabeth Glinka

joined Sam on his visit

to Canterbury Christ Church

University.

And just to warn you,

her report contains flashing images.

Was that a youth quake?

Reports of a massive

increase in young voters at

the last general election may

have been exaggerated.

# I got the big size

12s on my feet...

Nationally, the turnout didn't

really change, but of

the young people that did vote,

a whopping 67% went for Labour.

And in a place like

Canterbury, where there

are more than 30,000 students,

it's thought that their votes played

a big part in the city

electing its first ever Labour MP.

Canterbury.

This has been Conservative

since World War I.

An extraordinary surge

in their share, up 20% here.

In general, everyone just

always seems to think

that the Conservatives are always

doing something wrong,

so even if you don't know

about the Conservatives,

all you hear, you just think

negative things about it.

Most of my friends always slander

the Conservative name, saying,

"It's only for middle-aged men who

want the benefit from themselves."

Do you think you have

to be quite brave to

say, "I am a Conservative?"

Yeah.

At first, I was like,

OK, I'm not going

to say anything to my friends,

because they will just kick off.

One of my flatmates was like,

"If you are not a Labour

voter, don't talk to me."

Labour had a lot of backing.

They had people like

AJ Tracey jumping on.

So once they see that,

everyone kind of runs

to it, like, let's vote Labour.

# Tracksuit grey, black,

blue

# I was just a hope-filled kid

like you...

AJ Tracey is just one of any number

of current music acts who publicly

endorsed the Labour Party

at the last general election,

helping to build a brand

which was apparently three times

more attractive to young voters.

To be fair, it's not

as if there was some sort of golden

era of Conservative hipsters,

but the figures suggest

things are getting worse.

And that's why the new Universities

Minister, Sam Gyimah,

is currently on a nationwide tour,

including here in Canterbury,

where he is attempting to

at least start a conversation

with a generation of voters who see

his party as old, male and stale.

Minister, this seems

a good time to jump in.

This is an incredibly difficult job,

isn't it, convincing young people

to vote Conservative?

We do have our work cut out for us,

but I think the first thing to do

is actually to be on campus.

If we allow Jeremy Corbyn to be

the only one on campus, then we only

have ourselves to blame.

Many students will say to you, well,

it's fine, you're having

a review on student fees

and many other things.

The Labour Party's promising us

they're going to get rid of fees.

We know what happens when you

promised something for free.

Numbers are going to be capped,

which means fewer people

going to university.

It's the well off that

are going to do it.

That's not what we're about.

I'm not really worried

about Jeremy Corbyn's free

for all offer, because it's not

realistic, and he can't deliver it,

and we only need to look

at countries like Scotland to see

that it's not going to work.

And what reaction are you expecting

when you head in there?

Well, I thought it might

be rowdy like PMQs.

I've no idea.

I haven't had the mob treatment

anywhere yet so far.

# Your face ain't big for my boot

# Kick up the yout

# I know that I kick up the yout...

There might not have been

a youth quake nationally,

but there was a bit of a youth quake

in Canterbury, and I want to listen

and I want to understand.

You know, we've had enough

of austerity politics.

We've had enough of student fees,

things like that, and we've seen

the NHS get less and less

funded over time.

And it's hard to

ignore those things.

You know, we are going to take

action against you.

# Bros in my ear saying

"Stormz, don't do it"

# Devil on my shoulder

I don't lack

# Hit 'em

with a crowbar, I don't scrap...

Well, lots of discussion,

some of it a bit feisty,

but did the Minister win any

hearts and minds?

He's really good at talking

to students, and he's

here to talk to everyone.

Would it make you feel differently

about voting Conservative?

I took from your comments that

you were not a Conservative voter.

Definitely not, but I did think

he made some good points,

and he was very measured.

It's quite clear that there

are a number of people here who have

been seduced by Jeremy Corbyn,

but I think the purpose of this

is to let them realise

that there is a Conservative voice,

there is a Conservative point

of view, and that as a minister

I am here to listen.

Clearly a smart man.

I'm not sure it's better

or worse to have a smart

Tory or a stupid Tory,

but he knew what he was

talking about, even though

I disagree with him.

Would it make you think twice

about voting Conservative?

No, I will never vote

Conservative in my life.

So as the sun sets in Canterbury,

there's still a long way to go.

And Universities Minister Sam

Gymiah joins me now.

A smart Tory. That is a compliment

from one of the students! Do you

think you persuaded many of them to

vote Tory?

The point of the exercise

was not to persuade people to vote

Conservative. As Universities

Minister, I'm very conscious that

students are investing a

considerable amount of money in

their education, so they should have

a voice in the corridors of power.

Gone are the days that the

Universities Minister 's spends time

with the chancellors and not the

students. Jeremy Corbyn has a voice

on the campus, and if we allow that

to continue, we only have ourselves

to blame. The starting point in the

process is listening and engaging,

rather than going in there to preach

to them about what their problems

and answers are.

You have a mountain

to climb with young people. Let's

have a look at the numbers. At the

last election, between 18 to

24-year-olds, 67% voted Labour.

Unless you can change those minds,

you have a generational problem with

voters, and you will not see

Conservative governments in the

future, unless people change their

minds.

What I am doing at the moment

is pressing, which is why the party

is beginning to engage with students

at this level. A number of things

have come up as I've travelled

around the country that we can

address. Austerity keeps coming up.

We stopped making the case for why

we had to reduce the deficit from

the extreme levels that we inherited

from the Labour Party. One man said

to me, all I have ever heard the

Conservatives talk

about is austerity. It must be your

ideology. That is clearly not the

case. It is a matter of necessity,

not ideology.

We have the spring

statement coming up next week. The

Chancellor has said this morning

that we are in a much better

financial position at the moment

then we have been, but it doesn't

sound like he's going to end

austerity. Would you encourage him

to do so?

This brings statement is

an update on the public finances.

But he is going to point further

ahead to the budget in the autumn,

and he doesn't seem to be talking

about the increased public spending

you think will attract people to the

Tories.

We are not going to say we

are going to return to discredited

economic policies of 40 years ago.

What he should be saying to young

people is that the balanced approach

that he is pursuing, in a world

where we have technological

challenge and a global market

economy, the Conservatives are

uniquely placed to deliver

prosperity for them. Another issue

that comes up is our motives. When

we talk about economic prosperity,

people feel it is for the few.

Sometimes I have to explain that the

top rate of tax has been higher

under the Conservatives, and that

the top 1% pay 20% of income tax.

They didn't know that. We need to

talk about -- we need to persuade

them that when we talk about

economic prosperity, it is their

future we are talking about.

You addressed tuition fees in the

film but look at maintenance grants

being cut by this government so the

poorer students to go to university

will lead with larger debt than

those from better off backgrounds.

When that is their experience right

now on campus, no wonder they keep

thinking you are looking after the

better off and not the

disadvantaged.

Canterbury has the

best proportion of students went

university for the first time in

their families. Many of those would

not be at university at all had we

pursue the Jeremy Corbyn policy.

Jeremy Corbyn is promising to

abolish tuition fees so that would

make it easier for students to go to

university.

Once you make university

free you can't have a current policy

we have which is that the numbers

who can go to university are capped.

At a time when the numbers were not

capped, our own history, very few

people went to university and mentor

very few poor people went

university. A consequence of the

Conservative policy is a lot of

disadvantaged people are giving to

university for the first time and we

have a student finance scheme where

you do not pay a penny as a first

burner unless you in over £25,000

and after 30 years, whatever you

have managed to pay, is written. I'm

not saying is perfect.

That very

system is replacing grants for

poorer students with loans. Why? If

you are so keen to get disadvantaged

students into universities, wide

takeaway maintenance grants?

There

is a review looking at the whole

system, but when many students

complain about the student finances,

they focus on accommodation.

Somewhere like London, landlords

want to get the years rent in

advance. That is a difficult

situation for them and the cost of

living issues, rather than assuming

we know...

There's an interest rate

on a student loan of over 6% which

is way in excess of what people are

borrowing on mortgages etc.

The cost

of living in University...

They must

be worried about it.

Whatever your

level of earnings, you pay 9% of

your income, which means higher rate

in graduates pay more to the system

but I also think to narrow the

debate on student fees, students

have a lot of interest, not all

students think student fees is their

big issue. Someone to see their

politicians care about making the

world a better place. What kind of

world they are going into, they will

get on the housing ladder, housing

is big issue for them but the

economy prospers, so I think that's

why you have got to listen and not

assume all students have the same

view and there is one answer that

deals with all the problems of every

18-21 -year-old.

Mental health keeps

cropping up. I'm sure the university

's lecturers strike came up as well.

Now students are paying £9,000 in

fees, they are consumers as well as

students, so should they get a

refund for the lessons they have not

been taught?

Universities do not pay

lecturers on the day they strike,

they should not pocket those funds,

but look at compensation for

students and there are real ways of

compensating students.

Would you

compel them to do that?

I'm not in a

position to compel them to do that.

There is the regulator for

university who has a wide-ranging

remit. I'm encouraged some

universities are taking this

seriously. Kings College London will

offer financial compensation. I

think they should look at this very

seriously. I am disappointed I am

seeing lots of petitions out there

from Durham University, a petition

of 5000 students, asking for

compensation. I want to university

to respond constructively, because

we are in the age of the student and

we are there to serve.

One quick

question, talking about Russia on

the programme so far this morning, a

story this morning in the papers

saying over £800 million has been

donated to the Tory party from

Russian link to donors since Theresa

May took over, even notice that you

wanted an arms length relationship.

Is that something that should be

discouraged in the future and should

the money be returned now?

To make a

donation to a political party in

this country you have to be a

citizen Dungannon

citizen Dungannon -- and betting

needs to be taken place. Modern

Britain is made up by people from

all sorts of places. Some groups of

people cannot participate in Aber

Democratic life to the fall, and we

have got to be clear, these are

British citizens from Russia. Not

the Kremlin donating to the

Conservative Party.

Of course not,

but there could be a question of

where those funds came from in the

first place for the wedding end up

on the front page of a Sunday

newspaper saying this much money has

been donated to the Conservative

Party, maybe it would be better to

think again where you receive your

large donations from?

It's not just

the letter of the law but vetting

should be thorough.

Sam Gyimah,

thank you very much for coming in to

talk to us.

It's coming up to 11.40.

You're watching

the Sunday Politics.

Still to come, we'll be

discussing the economy.

Is it time to end austerity?

First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Alex Forsyth.

Coming up later in the programme:

Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable

tells us why he is confident

the party can make gains

in May's local elections.

I'm joined for the duration

by Siobhan McDonagh,

Labour MP for Mitcham

and Morden, and Bob Blackman,

Conservative MP for Harrow East,

and Baroness Kramer,

Liberal Democrat Treasury

Spokesperson and former MP

for Richmond Park.

I want to start with housing.

The Prime Minister has often spoken

about the housing market -

last year she admitted

it was "broken".

This week, she donned

a hi-vis jacket and visited

a construction site in London.

She was there to deliver

a keynote speech about how

to get housing built,

and she challenged developers

to get their priorities right.

The bonuses paid to the heads

of some of our biggest developers

are based not on the number of homes

they build, but on their

profits or share price.

I expect developers to do their duty

for Britain and build

the homes our country needs.

But in London, where the housing

crisis is most acute,

council leaders rejected the idea

that local authorities

and developers were to blame.

The Labour Mayor of Lewisham,

Sir Steve Bullock,

who is also the housing spokesperson

for London Councils,

said the Prime Minister had shied

away from the one policy that

could increase house-building.

I find it really hard to understand

why the Prime Minister thinks

that a local council can force

a private developer to build out

a planning permission

which they have been given.

The single thing that would make

a difference, not just in London

but across the nation,

would be to raise the cap

on what we can spend on new housing.

The housing revenue account.

Let us borrow against

the assets that we've got.

This has stopped being

a matter of controversy

within local government.

People from all political

persuasions are now agreed that just

give us the ability to build

and we will get on and do it.

Sir Steve Bullock's views.

Let me come to you first,

Bob, if I can, on this.

So why doesn't the governor do that,

just give councils the power

to borrow and build?

Well, the reality is the government

has allocated to the Mayor of London

and London councils a record

sum of money.

£3.15 billion for the development

of housing and yet, in London,

it's the one area in the country

where the house-building

is going down instead of up.

So we've got a Mayor of London

who made all sorts of promises.

He's failing to deliver on those

promises and actuallly now we need

some action to go with the money

that the government has provided.

But you hear the council

saying actually they need

more powers to do this?

Well, it's interesting

that the Mayor of Lewisham is on.

He said he's cancelling

the compulsary purchase order around

Millwall football club

where the original idea

was to develop housing

yet his deputy Mayor says no,

the compulsary purchase

order is going forward.

That a specific case but obviously

there is a capital wide problem.

One

of the problems is we have the same

thing in Enfield, a scheme for

10,000 homes has been cancelled

effectively because of the

interference of the Mayor. Haringey,

Private partnerships seem to be

going awry because of divisions in

the Labour Party. You have got girls

caught, under challenge, old Oak

Common, huge numbers of homes can be

built -- Earls Court. Also Transport

for London to develop homes is

problematic.

I can see you shaking

your head.

What Bob knows is most of

these schemes are about building

private houses at high costs in

London where the average house is 15

times the average salary. We are

never ever going to get to the

300,000 properties the government

wants unless councils and housing

associations are allowed to build.

The last time we built that number

was 1969. Councils and housing

associations were building. We have

got the land, the policy, the paper,

the high viz jackets, the one thing

we don't have is getting our act

together and getting out there in

building.

What Theresa May has said

here if there is a duty on

developers. She is putting the onus

on the private companies to get

their act together on this and get

building. Is that not thumping

Labour would welcome?

It's part of

it but not the total. Is the most

expensive way in the world to build

your social housing for families who

can't afford to buy by planning

agreements. The cheapest and best

way to do it is to go out there and

use the land there, 40% of all empty

sites are owned by the public

sector, I think government should

force the public sector to use them

in the first place for housing.

I

can hear you, Susan, next to me.

Developers make their money by

keeping supply short and Theresa

May, the word naive is perhaps a

gentle comment on telling developers

to ignore their property interests

and go ahead and build. The power

needs to be put into the hands of

local councils. I think we could use

the GLA fund, frankly, to try

building in London but local council

levels, people need to have that

opportunity, but the onus and

pressure has to be to deliver

affordable and social housing. Where

I live, in Barnes, Richmond, I am

watching three new blocks going up

and every single one of them is

wall-to-wall luxury housing. When

you see the lights on at night,

everybody knows this story, less

than a third of the lights are on.

They are just investment properties.

The Prime Minister has made housing

a real priority for her and pledged

to build this new generation of

Council social housing to do

something about this and make home

ownership a dream for future

generations. You hear the criticism.

Siobhan is right about one thing,

the land is 40% owned by the public

sector already. The big problem is

the cost of land particularly in

London where it contributes to the

high cost. Through the relevant

agencies now, we can force that

public land to be used for housing

falls at the planning permission is

not an issue. That has been granted

by local authorities. It's getting

the housing built. We have too few

housing developers in this country.

Ten years ago, we had 2500 companies

who build houses and now down to

about ten who realistically

contribute. We have to broaden the

scope. It is all about making the

contracts and getting them in place.

In my view, in the public sector, I

think we should ignore the cost of

the land, take that out of the

equation, build the homes and then

charge rent on the cost of building

the homes and ignore the cost of the

land.

Often, in the housing debate,

we hear attacks on record of various

governments. Isn't the truth we have

a broken market and if the people

who live in London who can't afford

their homes who are suffering?

That

doesn't get a roof over any homeless

family had, we have to get out and

do it. Bob is right about the public

sector sites but in order to get

cancelled and the health service and

the prison service to do that, you

have to make it there priority --

councils. You have to say there will

be financial consequences because

without that it's never going to

happen and you can have as many

glossy report as you like but there

is a role here for government to

force public bodies to use their

land in the first place for housing.

And we have done it before.

The

housing associations are sitting on

huge amounts of money in assets and

money they could use but they don't

because they're quite comfortable.

We have to leave up there, sadly and

we can't solve the housing crisis

but we have made inroads, I'm sure.

It's been a big week

for the Liberal Democrats -

they marked the 30th anniversary

of the formation of the party, and

members are attending their annual

spring conference this weekend.

At the forefront of their concerns

will be the upcoming

local elections in May -

which their leader has said will be

crucial to rebuilding

Lib Dem influence at every

level of government.

So how will they fare in London?

Bhavani Vadde reports.

The Lib Dems are the only party

that is consistently argued

for staying in the EU.

They've put this at the heart

of the local election campaign.

This week, they've released messages

in 21 different European languages,

targeting EU nationals.

This is the first test of opinion

since the general election,

and Brexit and the impact of Brexit,

the negative hit on London,

will be a big theme.

We've had a massive increase

in our membership,

much of it in the capital,

mostly young people.

We've now got a significantly

bigger party nationally

than the Conservatives,

for example, and lots of energy,

much of it again centred

around the Brexit issue.

A key target for the party

is the Royal Borough of Kingston.

The Conservatives ended 12 years

of Lib Dem control there at the last

local elections in 2014.

This time, it's expected to be

close, with an unusually high number

of marginal wards in the borough.

It was a completely different

ball game back in 2014.

Essentially, a lot of people

were punishing us nationally

in local elections, but this time

round, I think people

are really looking at

what the local issues are.

More homes, not the luxury tower

blocks, better air quality...

The borough also voted

to remain in the EU.

I mean, I'm a politician,

and I'm bored with Brexit,

and I think actually when you talk

to people on doorsteps,

it's very much the same view.

Most people are satisfied

with the job that we are doing here.

We've invested heavily

in the infrastructure,

so we've spent more money

than we were going to on roads

and pavements and playgrounds.

Kingston is also home

to the coronation stone,

where seven Saxon kings were said

to have been crowned,

the last being Ethelred the Unready.

In old English, unready actually

means "badly advised",

so are the Lib Dems also ill-advised

to be sticking to their anti-Brexit

message when it has failed to bring

them electoral glory?

It's now becoming much more

clear what's at stake.

We've had the referendum.

I think a lot of people took

the view "let the government get

on with it, see what happens",

but we can now see

that we are going to leave

if the government gets its way,

leave the single market.

Massive implications for London and

all its service-based industries.

The party celebrated its 30th

birthday this week.

It's been a journey which saw

them rise to government,

and then punished

in the polls for their part

in that coalition.

Their record in south-west London

reflects the roller-coaster

of their electoral fortunes.

Their three London MPs hold

seats in these boroughs.

The party runs Sutton Council,

and are the main opposition group

in Kingston and Richmond -

both councils they once controlled,

and have high hopes of winning back.

The Lib Dems need local election

success to build towards whenever

the next general election is come,

so if they don't do really quite

well in London, and indeed

outside London this time,

then it will be seen as evidence

that they are simply treading water,

not making progress.

A Labour Party which has this bigger

capacity to, as it were,

send a massive message

to the government and Mrs May may be

an easier shift of votes

for die-hard remainers

than the Lib Dems.

So in this overwhelmingly remains

city, the Lib Dems have so far

failed to capitalise

on their continued

anti-Brexit stance.

Will they be able to do

so at the polls in May?

Susan Kramer, the Lib Dems failed to

capitalise on the anti-Brexit vote

at the general election, so why do

you think it might be difficult at

these -- different at these local

elections?

The highlight, Vince

Cable one Twickenham, and Ed Davey

one Kingston, which we had lost

before. So we did see a return.

But

not nationally.

I'm talking about

the specific areas you are focused

on. When we are out on the doorstep,

we find... In many of these cases,

we were a local force for many

years, so people know us there. When

we are in Kingston, we just talked

to people and we identify that three

new schools are needed, including a

special school, and we cannot let

the Conservatives take money out of

the special needs budget, and we get

a very strong response. We talk

about the housing need, and we need

affordable housing. Various projects

have been built on the Richmond

side, which have a very high luxury

content. No affordable and certainly

no social housing. There are really

big local issues.

You say you are

fighting at a local level, but the

message at the top of the party is

very much, we are an anti-Brexit

party. Are you kicking at an open

door in London?

We are

door in London?

We are an

anti-Brexit party. We do not deny

that for one second. We think that

is the best outcome. Many people

want to engage... As you know, when

we had the referendum, there was so

much that none of us knew, and now

this extraordinary complexity. The

level of damage is beginning to

become apparent. People are feeling

it in their pocket.

Isn't the danger

for the Lib Dems that if you do

campaign at an anti-Brexit message,

at a local level, councillors will

not be able to affect change,

because it is those in Parliament...

People are sending a message. They

vote locally for their councillors,

but they are getting the opportunity

to send a message to their

government.

Labour's message is

quite confused on Brexit. What are

they saying?

If people are going to

vote Labour in London, as they did

in enormous numbers last June in the

general election, they are making a

point about being anti-Brexit. They

are also making a point about

housing, because this is not just

about people on low incomes. If you

knock on the door, if it is a

private Tennant, they are almost all

virtually Labour.

Thomas, are you

going to take the flak for this in

the local elections?

Not at all. The

reality is that Conservative

councils in London have always done

a really good job of delivering high

quality services at a lower cost.

Zac Goldsmith took back Richmond

from the Lib Dems at the general

election.

We won it at the

by-election. Won by 45.

The polls

say you are going to take a right

hammering.

It will be interesting.

We are talking about the Liberal

Democrat performance. I think we

will take seats off the Lib Dems in

Sutton. I'm looking forward to

taking seeds of Labour in Harrow.

I

think you are being optimistic.

They

are one of the worst performing

councils in London and in the

country, with the third highest

level of council tax. The key point

about London election is not to be

thinking about parties, but looking

at individual councils, how they

have performed as a council, and

look at the opposition.

If you look

at the polls, there are some really

significant councils that you could

lose. The Tories really struggling

in London? Are they going to

struggle for some time? Have they

given up on the capital?

Far from

it. One of the things we have to do

is say, people have to go out on the

doorsteps and sell the benefits of

having a Conservative run council.

These national issues run through to

locally. Our local councils are

definitely suffering from the cuts

they are facing. School funding...

It isn't the school that has had to

go to its parents and say, could you

fund this? Could you help us with

that? What I am saying is, people

are feeling this byte locally

because of what is happening

nationally. The idea that they can't

send a message is a false one.

People will vote on the things that

matter to them, and it will be a mix

of national issues, a mix of Brexit.

In Richmond it's going to be

Heathrow. They are fed up of local

Conservatives being opposed to

Heathrow Airport, but living with

the party centrally being in favour

of that third runway.

Susan says it

is a mix of the local and national

in these elections, but isn't it the

case that the government has

overlooked London, because they have

been so focused on regional

devolution elsewhere. We hear a lot

about the northern powerhouse and

train links elsewhere in the

country.

In London, we got

devolution first.

Under a Labour

government, I think you will find.

In the same year that we got

elected. It was the first bill

introduced under the Labour

government in 97.

I supported the

principle of having the Mayor of

London, and I think it is the right

thing for London. As a party, we

have to continue that process of

devolution. We have the 100%

retention of business rates for

London. We've got massive amounts of

money...

We will have to leave it

there, and we will see what me and

the local election results bring.

Thank you very much.

On Tuesday, the Chancellor

will give us his Spring Statement -

he's ditched the big event

that was the Spring Budget.

Instead it'll be a run-down of

the state of the nation's finances.

So what could be in it

for London, and what would

our guests want to see?

Susan, you are the Lib Dems'

Treasury spokeswoman. Were you to be

there at the dispatch box, what

would you give for London?

I believe

we should never look at it as London

or the regions. Everybody is in need

of massive infrastructure spending.

Frankly, this government has always

insisted on counting infrastructure

spending as if it was part of the

deficit. It never should. We should

be out there borrowing because, new

rail systems, whether it is new

transport networks, all of that

should be funded despite what is

happening on a day-to-day basis. I

would be doing major investment

across the country, both London, in

the north and in the Midlands.

Labour's manifesto did promote the

idea of borrowing to invest, but you

got quite a kicking from the

Conservatives.

My personal wish from

the Spring statement is we could

have the 1.1 million pounds that the

Department of local government and

Housing gave back to the Treasury.

If they gave that back, we could

build over 20,000 prefabs on the

public land we were speaking about.

We would have 20,000 houses by the

summer.

Will that happen?

One of the

problems is that money that was

allocated to London for the Mayor of

London to use was returned,

essentially. 3.5 billion was

allocated.

He has returned money for

affordable and social housing.

You

are out campaigning for the local

elections. What are people saying

they want to hear about local

spending?

Local spending is

allocating the money most

effectively. One of the problems in

most part of London is you will see

rough sleepers on the increase,

unfortunately, and providing decent

housing for people at a price they

can afford. The differences

possibly, I have taken some action,

and on the 3rd of April, why

homeless reduction act becomes

reality and local councils will have

responsibility.

With the NHS and

social care, and London councils

have struggled through this period.

This is something that could be

tackled. Both the social care and

the funding side. The country is

ready for a dedicated tax to support

the NHS and social care. We have

asked the government if they would

put in place at least the beginning

of that, with a penny on the pound

in income taxed just literally for

the NHS and social care, and that

would take off the pressure. If the

government did just that one thing

in the spring statement, that would

genuinely change people's lives.

A

final brief thought if we can. When

the Chancellor stands up, what can

we hear from Jeremy Corbyn in

response? Will he

response? Will he just or will he

have ideas of his own?

He has plenty

of ideas, and if we could just have

that money back and build 20,000

homes for the people who need them.

I would like to see improvements to

infrastructure, like Crossrail 2. We

raise the money from income tax and

other taxes, and it will be sent to

other parts of the country. I would

like to see the money raised in

London used in London for the

benefit of Londoners. I want to see

the money we raise in taxes used in

London on big infrastructure

projects.

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Susan Kramer, Siobhan

McDonagh and to Bob Blackman.

And with that it's back to Sarah.

Welcome back.

The Chancellor's been out

and about this morning,

setting out his stall ahead

of the Spring Statement on Tuesday.

Here's what he told Andrew Marr.

There is light at the end

of the tunnel because what we are

about to see is debt starting

to fall after it's been growing

for 17 continuous years.

That's a very important moment

for us, but we are still

in the tunnel at the moment.

We have to get debt down.

We have got all sorts of other

things we want to do.

We've taken a balanced approach over

the last couple of fiscal events.

Using flexibility that we had

to continue paying down debt,

but also to provide additional

support to our public services,

to invest in Britain's future

and to reduce taxes for families

and small businesses

who are feeling the pressure.

Also appearing on the Andrew Marr

programme, the Shadow Chancellor

John McDonnell called

on the government to end

its austerity programme.

One thing he has done is he has

shifted the deficit onto the

shoulders of NHS managers, onto

shoulders of head teachers, and onto

the shoulders of local government

leaders and these Conservative

council leaders now are saying that

they are facing a financial crisis

because the government have had

cutbacks. This is not a matter of

celebration. I think he should come

into the real world because the

resolution foundation said in their

report today, 11 million people now,

not just the poorest but those just

about managing, will be hit next

month by the cuts in support they

get to the benefit system, so this

is not a matter for celebration by

any means.

To unpick what we can

expect in the spring statement and

other stories next week, the panel

are still with me. We had the

Chancellor saying there is light at

the end of the tunnel. How much

pressure does is put on him from his

own side let alone from the

opposition to spend some more money?

There's an interesting split in the

Conservatives, those who say now we

have a lemonade of the current

budget deficit on day-to-day

spending, we should take a chance to

invest heavily in infrastructure to

give the NHS more money, to spend

money on schools, and then you have

the fiscal conservatives like Philip

Hammond to say actually debt is

still 84% of GDP, we have got to

start delivering overall surplus is

not borrowing money to get it down

because we face economic economic

risks from Brexit. We know Philip

Hammond does not look optimistically

at that. And an ageing population on

those pressures, so when things

start to seem as if they are

improving, you can't reduce the

momentum.

It was interesting early

on the programme, talking to Sam

Gyimah, he said students thought

austerity was the ideological

position of the Conservative Party,

not a practical necessity. So if now

we are reaching a point where there

is potentially more money to spend,

politically would be wise?

It is

because if the Conservatives failed

to establish this narrative which

they have been trying to form long

time, under Theresa May they have

abandoned it, this idea that living

within 1's means as a country is an

end to itself, I'm not sure what

will separate them from the Labour

ideology. If they absolutely abandon

the point they have to be careful

about how they spend their money,

they could pledge 10 billion to one

sector, and the Labour Party will

pledge 100. If they cannot make that

case it is responsible to be

spending money responsibly because

otherwise if you don't pay off your

debt, it will mean higher taxes on

future generations, these students

and their children have lost that

political argument already.

The

defining political argument of this

premiership of Theresa May for the

many and not for the few, are the

fiscal messages we are hearing from

the Chancellor, do they relate to

that?

Not in the slightest. You

heard on the Andrew Marr programme,

giving a receptacle slap in the

face, the author of the just about

managing speech, Mick Timothy is

going to try to beat up the

Chancellor on behalf of the Prime

Minister's behalf, so those tensions

will remain. I think the Chancellor

is even more anal-retentive on the

purse strings at the moment simply

because of the government, the

Tories don't have a majority. That

means any single minority interest

who can scrape together ten or 12

Tory MPs, you can force the

government to do a U-turn and they

are piling up from defence spending,

a strong Tory bid coming down the

line on Universal Credit, putting

back 3 billion into it. IDS, the

socially conservative touchy-feely

end of the party, to the NHS,

tuition fees, every single one of

those minority interests will want

some sort of salvation. Now the

Chancellor announces bigger that £10

million -- £10 billion a year more

yet to play with.

Now usually at

this point we are talking about the

word Brexit and it does not come up

yet and we can't

yet and we can't ignore it it has

been a big Brexit week.

Yes, we've

heard Philip Hammond tell us

financial services will have to form

the ultimate deal we get from the

EU, and we've also heard the EU's

guidelines. They are,

unsurprisingly, taking a hard line.

Those two things have happened.

Another interesting thing, there was

an interesting appointment that

happened in the EU last

happened in the EU last week,

Jean-Claude Juncker's write man

became secretary-general of the

commission. There is a lot of

disquiet amongst the MPs about this

from across the European Union, but

also political divides within the

EU, and tomorrow they are demanding

some answers in the European

Parliament about this particular

appointment and we, the Brexit

nerds, we'll look at it very

carefully. It raises some

interesting questions and

transparency and accountability

within the European framework.

The

international trade Secretary Liam

Fox is off to Washington at the very

time the US president is threatening

tariffs on steel and aluminium and

it's an interesting one for British

government because Trump has said

allies can come and make their case

to be exempted from this and Canada

and Mexico have been, but we should

not be going separately as the UK

because we are part of the European

Union at the moment, but if we can

cut a deal, how would that go down

in Brussels?

Conservatives like Liam

Fox said for years once we are

outside the EU the advantages is we

can get beneficial trade deals with

major economies like the USA, and

now he has the chance to test Donald

Trump's words, so there's been lots

of rhetoric about Donald Trump about

you guys will get a big trade deal,

but in reality he's always been a

protectionist on trade. Will you

make an exception for Britain? Does

he think we are a significant and

economy to make that case? If Liam

Fox could get something, it would be

a win for the Brexiteers. The

government postponed the boat on a

customs union because they were

worried about losing it on the floor

of the Commons after the Labour

shift full support they can get a

concession, it would help.

A

potential windfall Liam Fox but

fraught with danger. If he gets a

deal, the EU will be furious and

that could affect the Brexit

negotiations. If he doesn't come it

will be rather embarrassing.

He

can't get a deal until 2021, an

awful long time away. We remain

within the EU's tariffs regime until

2021 because that is what we wanted.

New Year's Eve 2020. There ain't a

huge amount the government can do.

If the government could broker a

deal, there's talk of doing this,

not country by country, but the Port

Talbot manufacturers, high-density

steel used to warships, he could try

to broker some sort of exemption

with that, but it will interview

read the EU and give us an

read the EU and give us an even

worse deal. I don't think Liam Fox

I'm afraid we'll win this debate.

The big story with the Labour Party

the moment of course is the election

for their new general secretary. The

founder of momentum standing against

Jennie Formby from Unite. This is

not the left and right battle we

have been used within the Labour

Party the two very strong

significance figures from the left

of the party battling it out to take

over general secretary. Does it

matter which one of them wins and

how this proceeds for the Labour

Party?

It matters because you have

two rival conceptions about the

Labour Party should be. The view of

momentum is you need more power is

transferred to members giving

members greater influence over

policy and the trade unions still

have half of the boat on Labour

Party policy which act as a block

and gives the general secretary huge

power and then you have the Labour

Party founded by the trade unions,

we are nothing without the trade

unions, of course they have to be at

the centre of the Labour Party and

therefore it is entirely appropriate

Jennie Formby should become the new