27/11/2016 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss are joined by Jonathan Ashworth MP, Lord Paddy Ashdown, the founder of Cobra Beer Lord Karan Bilimoria, and the founder of Wetherspoons Tim Martin.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.


Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?


After the Cuban leader's death, politicians divide over his legacy.


Can the NHS in England find billions of pounds' worth of efficiency


The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.


Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms


of the eventual withdrawal deal that's struck with the EU?


Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet


minister Owen Paterson go head-to-head.


Here, the impact of the Chancellor's statement in our region.


And Labour claims the Cumbria and parts of the north-east


are being punished by the Government to the cost of millions of pounds.


And with me, Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme


Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news


of the death of Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who came


to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.


Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader


as an "historic if controversial figure" and said his death marked


Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was "a champion of social


justice" who had "seen off a lot of US presidents"


President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader


as a "brutal dictator", adding that he hoped his death


would begin a new era "in which the wonderful Cuban people


finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".


Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,


Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader


was "a hero for many" but "his legacy will be judged


I guess we had worked that out ourselves. What do you make of the


reactions so far across the political divide? Predictable. And I


noticed that Jeremy Corbyn has come in for criticism for his tribute to


Castro. But I think it was the right thing for him to do. We all know he


was an admirer. He could have sat there for eight hours in his house,


agonising over some bland statement which didn't alienate the many


people who want to wade into attacked Castro. It would have been


inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream


consensus, and I think he was right to say what he believed in this


respect. Elsewhere, it has been wholly predictable that there would


be this device, because he divided opinion in such an emotive way.


Steve, I take your point about authenticity and it might have


looked a bit lame for Jeremy Corbyn to pretend that he had no affection


for Fidel Castro at all, but do you think he made a bit of an error


dismissing Castro's record, the negative side of it as just a floor?


He could have acknowledged in more elaborate terms the huge costs. He


wanted to go on about the health and education, which if you actually


look up the indices on that, they are good relative to other


countries. But they have come at such a huge cost. He was not a


champion of criminal justice. If he had done that, it would have been


utterly inauthentic. He doesn't believe it. And he would have


thought there would be many other people focusing on all the epic


failings. So he focused on what he believed. There are times when


Corbyn's prominence in the media world now as leader widens the


debate in an interesting and important way. I am not aware of any


criticisms that Mr Corbyn has ever announced about Mr Castro. There


were four words in his statement yesterday which is spin doctor would


have forced him to say, for all his flaws. He was on this Cuban


solidarity committee, which didn't exist to criticise Castro. It


existed to help protect Castro from those, particularly the Americans,


who were trying to undermine him. And Corbyn made a big deal yesterday


saying he has always called out human rights abuses all over the


world. But he said that in general, I call out human rights abuses. He


never said, I have called out human rights abuses in Cuba. In the weeks


ahead, more will come out about what these human rights abuses were. The


lid will come off what was actually happening. Some well authenticated


stories are pretty horrendous. I was speaking to a journalist who was


working there in the 1990s, who gave me vivid examples of that, and there


will be more to come. I still go back to, when a major figure diet


and you are a leader who has admired but major figure, you have to say


it. That is the trap he has fallen into. He has proved every criticism


that he is a duck old ideologue. But he is not the only one. Prime


Minister Trudeau was so if uses that I wondered if they were going to


open up a book of condolences. I think it reinforces Corbyn's failing


brand. It may be authentic, but authentic isn't working for him.


When I was driving, I heard Trevor Phillips, who is a Blairite, saying


the record was mixed and there were a lot of things to admire as well as


all the terrible things. So it is quite nuanced. But if you are a


leader issuing a sound bite, there is no space for new ones. You either


decide to go for the consensus, which is to set up on the whole, it


was a brutal dictatorship. Or you say, here is an extraordinary figure


worthy of admiration. In my view, he was right to say what he believed.


There was still a dilemma for the British government over who they


sent to the funeral. Do they sent nobody, do they say and Boris


Johnson as a post-ironic statement? There is now a post-Castro Cuba to


deal with. Trump was quite diplomatic about post-Castro Cuba.


And Boris Johnson's statement was restrained. The thing about Mr


Castro was the longevity, 50 years of keeping Marxism on the island.


That was what made it so fascinating.


Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS


in England a real-terms funding boost of ?8 billion per year by 2020


on the understanding that NHS bosses would also find ?22 billion worth


Since last autumn, NHS managers have been drawing up what they're calling


"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,


but some of the proposals are already running into local


opposition, while Labour say they amount to huge cuts to the NHS.


Help is on the way for an elderly person in need in Hertfordshire.


But east of England ambulance call operators


they're sending an early intervention vehicle


with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.


It's being piloted here for over 65s with


When they arrive, a paramedic judges if the patient can be


treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.


Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,


taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,


So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided


The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able


to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,


to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand


where spend is, and to let us make conscientious decisions about how


best to use that money, to come up with ideas to problems


that sit between our organisations, to look at things collaboratively.


This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how


You won't find an A unit or overnight beds here any more.


The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.


What's left is nurse-led care in an NHS-built hospital.


Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went


through after broad public and political consultation


with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.


It's a notable achievement that's surely of interest to 60% of NHS


trusts in England that reported a deficit at the end of September.


It's not just here that the NHS needs to save money and provide


The Government is going to pour in an extra ?8 billion into the NHS


in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion


worth of efficiencies across the country.


In order to deliver that, the NHS has created 44 health


and care partnerships, and each one will provide


a sustainability and transformation plan, or STP, to integrate care,


provide better services and save money.


So far, 33 of these 44 regional plans, drawn up by senior people


in the health service and local government,


The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending


growth, and there are another 4-5 years on the way at least.


STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way


But with plans to close some A units and reduce the number


of hospital beds, there's likely to be a tough political battle


ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed


This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his


I wouldn't call it an efficiency if you are proposing to close


all of the beds which are currently provided for those coming out


of the acute sector who are elderly and looking


That's not a cut, it's not an efficiency saving,


All 44 STPs should be published in a month's time,


But even before that, they dominated this week's PMQs.


The Government's sustainability and transformation plans


for the National Health Service hide ?22 billion of cuts.


The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings


within the NHS, which will be reinvested in the NHS.


There will be no escape from angry MPs for the Health Secretary either.


Well, I have spoken to the Secretary of State just this week


about the importance of community hospitals in general,


These are proposals out to consultation.


What could happen if these plans get blocked?


If STPs cannot be made to work, the planned changes don't come


to pass, then the NHS will see over time a sort of unplanned


deterioration and services becoming unstable and service


The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement


but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs


are in the interests of local people.


Her Government's support will now be critical for NHS England


to push through these controversial regional plans,


which will soon face public scrutiny.


We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,


I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,


Do you accept that the NHS is capable of making ?22 billion of


efficiency savings? Well, we are very sceptical, as are number of


independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22


billion of efficiencies without that affecting front line care. When you


drill down into the 22 billion, based on the information we have


been given, and there hasn't been much information, we can see that


some of it will come from cutting the budget which go to community


pharmacies, which could lead, according to ministers, to 3000


pharmacies closing, which we believe will increase demands on A and


GPs, and also that a lot of these changes which are being proposed,


which was the focus of the package, we think will mean service cuts at a


local level. Do they? The chief executive of NHS England says these


efficiency plans are "Incredibly important". He used to work from


Labour. The independent King's Fund calls them "The best hope to improve


health and care services. There is no plan B". On the sustainable


transformation plans, which will be across England to link up physical


health, mental health and social care, for those services to


collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented


system we have at the moment is important. It seems that the ground


has shifted. It has moved into filling financial gaps. As we know,


the NHS is going through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. By


2018, per head spending on the NHS will be falling. If you want to


redesign services for the long term in a local area, you need to put the


money in. So of course, getting these services working better


together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would


have had if we had not got rid of strategic health authority is in the


last Parliament. But this is not an attempt to save 22 billion, this is


an attempt to spend 22 billion more successfully, don't you accept that?


Simon Stevens said we need 8 billion, and we need to find 22


billion of savings. You have to spend 22 billion more efficiently.


But the Government have not given that 8 billion to the NHS which they


said they would. They said they would do it by 2020. But they have


changed the definitions of spending so NHS England will get 8 billion by


2020, but they have cut the public health budgets by about 4 million by


20 20. The budget that going to initiatives to tackle sexually


transmitted diseases, to tackle smoking have been cut back but the


commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been


cut back as well. Simon Stevens said he can only deliver that five-year


project if there is a radical upgrade in public health, which the


Government have failed on, and if we deal with social care, and this week


there was an... I understand that, but if you don't think the


efficiency drive can free up 22 billion to take us to 30 billion by


2020, where would you get the money from? I have been in this post now


for five or six weeks and I want to have a big consultation with


everybody who works in the health sector, as well as patients, carers


and families. Though you don't know? I think it would be surprised if I


had an arbitrary figure this soon into the job. Your party said they


expected election of spring by this year, you need to have some idea by


now, you inherited a portfolio from Diane Abbott, did she have no idea?


To govern is to make choices and we would make different choices. The


budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like


co-operating -- corporation tax. What I do want to do... Is work on a


plan and the general election, whenever it comes, next year or in


2020 or in between, to have costed plan for the NHS. But your party is


committed to balancing the books on current spending, that is currently


John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor's position. What we are


talking about, this extra 30 billion, that is essentially current


spending so if it doesn't come from efficiency savings, where does the


money come from? Some of it is also capital. Mainly current spending. If


you look at the details of the OBR, they have switched a million from


the capital into revenue. Why -- how do you balance spending?


That is why we need to have a debate. Every time we ask for


Labour's policy, we are always told me a debate. Surely it is time to


give some idea of what you stand for? There's huge doubts about the


Government 's policy on this. You are the opposition, how would you do


it? I want to work with John McDonnell to find a package to give


the NHS the money it needs, but of course our Shadow Chancellor, like


any Shadow Chancellor at this stage in the cycle, will want to see what


the books look like a head of an election before making commitments.


I am clear that the Labour Party has to go into the next general election


with a clear policy to give the NHS the funding it needs because it has


been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.


You say Labour will always give the NHS the money it needs, that is not


a policy, it is a blank cheque. It is an indication of our commitment


to the NHS. Under this Conservative government, the NHS has been getting


a 1% increase. Throughout its history it has usually have about


4%. Under the last Labour government it was getting 4%, before that


substantially more. We think the NHS should get more but I don't have


access to the NHS books in front of me. The public thinks there needs to


be more money spent on health but they also think that should go cap


in hand with the money being more efficiently spent, which is what


this efficiency drive is designed to release 22 billion. Do you have an


efficiency drive if it is not the Government's one? Of course we


agree. We agree the NHS should be more efficient, we want to see


productivity increased. Do know how to do that? One way is through


investments, maintenance, but there is a 5 million maintenance backlog.


One of the most high risk backlogs is something like 730 million. They


are going to switch the capital spend into revenue spend. I believe


that when you invest in maintenance and capital in the NHS, that


contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking


about 5 billion the maintenance, the chief executive says it needs 30


billion more by 2020 as a minimum so that 35 billion. You want to spend


more on social care, another for 5 billion on that so we have proper


care in the community. By that calculation I'm up to about 40


billion, which is fine, except where do you get the and balance the


account at the same time? We will have to come up with a plan for that


and that's why I will work with our Shadow Treasury team to come up with


that plan when they head into the general election. At the moment we


are saying to the NHS, sorry, we are not going to give you the


investment, which is why we are seeing patient care deteriorating.


The staff are doing incredible things but 180,000 are waiting in


A beyond four hours, record levels of people delayed in beds in


hospitals because there are not the beds in the community to go to save


the NHS needs the investment. We know that and we know the


Government's response to that and many think it is inadequate. What


I'm trying to get from you is what your response would be and what your


reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi


Alexander, she had your job earlier this year, she warned of the danger


of knee jerk blanket opposition to local efficiency plans. Do you agree


with that? Yes. So every time a hospital is going to close as a


result of this, and some will, it is Labour default position not just


going to be we are against it? That is why we are going to judge each of


these sustainability plans by a number of yardsticks. We want to see


if they have the support of local clinicians, we want to see if they


have the support of local authorities because they now have a


role in the delivery of health care. We want to see if they make the


right decisions for the long-term trends in population for local area.


We want to see if they integrate social care and health. If they


don't and therefore you will not bank that as an efficiency saving,


you will say no, that's not the way to go, you are left then with


finding the alternative funding to keep the NHS going. If you are


cutting beds, for example the proposal is to cut something like


5000 beds in Derbyshire and if there is the space in the community sector


in Derbyshire, that will cause big problems for the NHS in the long


term so it is a false economy. An example like that, we would be very


sceptical the plans could work. Would it not be honest, given the


sums of money involved and your doubts about the efficiency plan,


which are shared by many people, to just say, look, among the wealthy


nations, we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than most of


the other countries, European countries included, we need to put


up tax if we want a proper NHS. Wouldn't that be honest? I'm not the


Shadow Chancellor, I don't make taxation policy. You are tempting me


down a particular road by you or I smile. John McDonnell will come up


with our taxation policy. We have had an ambition to meet the European


average, the way these things are measured have changed since then,


but we did have that ambition and for a few years we met it. We need


substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was


extraordinary that there wasn't an extra penny for the NHS in the


Autumn Statement this week. And as we go into the general election,


whenever it is, we will have a plan for the NHS. Come back and speak to


us when you know what you are going to do. Thank you.


Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations


before the end of March, but the Prime Minister must wait


for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote


If that is the Supreme Court's conclusion, the Liberal Democrats


and others in parliament have said they'll demand a second EU


referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before


And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested


that the referendum result could be reversed.


In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,


Tony Blair said, "It can be stopped if the British people decide that,


having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis


John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting


of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit


were being dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".


He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"


That prompted the former Conservative leader


Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.


He told the BBC, "The idea we delay everything simply


because they disagree with the original result does


seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."


So, is there a realistic chance of a second referendum on the terms


of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?


Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron has said, "We want to respect


the will of the people and that means they must have their say


in a referendum on the terms of the deal."


But the Lib Dems have just eight MPs - they'll need Labour support


One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.


He backs the idea of a second referendum.


But yesterday the party's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that,


"Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting


To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum


on the terms of the Brexit deal, I've been joined by two


In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,


and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister


Paddy Ashdown, let me come to you first. When the British people have


spoken, you do what they command, either you believe in democracy or


you don't. When democracy speaks, we obey. Your words on the night of the


referendum, what's changed? Nothing has changed, Andrew, that's what I


said and what I still believe in. The British people have spoken, we


will not block Parliament debating the Brexit decision, Article 50, but


we will introduce an amendment to say that we need to consult the


British people, not about if we go out but what destination we would


then achieve. There is a vast difference in ordinary people's


lives between the so-called hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Soft Brexit,


you remain in the single market, you have to accept and agree on


immigration. Hard Brexit you are out of the single market, we have many


fewer jobs... Why didn't you say before the referendum there would be


a second referendum on the terms? Forgive me, I said it on many


occasions, you may not have covered it, Andrew, but that's a different


thing. In every speech I gave I said this, and this has proved to be


true, since those who recommended Brexit refused to tell us the


destination they were recommending, they refuse to give any detail about


the destination, if we did vote to go out, it would probably be


appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft


Brexit we go to. They deliberately obscure that because it made it more


difficult to argue the case. It wasn't part of the official campaign


but let me come to Owen Paterson. What's wrong with a referendum on


the terms of the deal? We voted to leave but we don't really know on


what conditions we leave so what's wrong with negotiating the deal and


putting that deal to the British people? This would be a ridiculous


idea, it would be a complete gift to the EU negotiators to go for an


impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make


sure that Brexit does not go through. This nonsense idea of hard


Brexit and soft Brexit, it was never discussed during the referendum


campaign. We made it clear we wanted to take back control, that means


making our own laws, raising and spending the money agreed by elected


politicians, getting control of our own borders back, and getting


control of our ability to do trade deals around the world. That was


clear at all stages of the referendum. We got 17.4 million


votes, the biggest vote in history for any issue, that 52%, 10% more


than John Major got and he was happy with his record number of 14


million, more than Tony Blair got, which was 43%, so we have a very


clear mandate. Time and again people come up to me and say when are we


going to get on with this. The big problem is uncertainty. We want to


trigger Article 50, have the negotiation and get to a better


place. OK, I need to get a debate going.


Paddy Ashdown, the EU doesn't want us to leave. If they knew there was


going to be a second referendum, surely there was going to be a


second referendum, surely their incentive would be to give us the


worst possible deal would vote against it would put us in a


ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could


go and negotiate with the European Union and anyway, the opinion of the


European Union is less important than the opinion of the British


people. It seems to me that Owen Paterson made the case for me


precisely. They refuse to discuss what kind of destination. Britain


voted for departure, but not a destination. Because Owen Paterson


and his colleagues refused to discuss what their model was. So the


range of options here and the impact on the people of Britain is huge.


There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,


getting the best deal it can and go into the British people and saying,


this is the deal, guys, do you agree? Owen Paterson? It is simple.


The British people voted to leave. We voted to take back control of our


laws, our money, our borders. But most people don't know the shape of


what the deal would be. So why not have a vote on it? Because it would


be a gift to the EU negotiators to drive the worst possible deal in the


hope that it might be chucked out with a second referendum. The


biggest danger is the uncertainty. We have the biggest vote in British


history. You have said all that. It was your side that originally


proposed a second referendum. The director of Leave said, there is a


strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks


like. Your side. Come on, you are digging up a blog from June of 2015.


He said he had not come to a conclusion. He said it is a distinct


possibility. No senior members of the campaign said we would have a


second referendum. It is worth chucking Paddy the quote he gave on


ITV news, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British


people have spoken, you do what they command. People come up to me and


keep asking, when are you going to get on with it? What do you say to


that, Paddy Ashdown? Owen Paterson has obviously not been paying


attention. You ask me that question at the start. Owen and his kind have


to stick to the same argument. During the referendum, when we said


that the Europeans have it in their interest to picket tough for us,


they would suffer as well. And that has proved to be right. The European


Union does not wish to hand as a bad deal, because they may suffer in the


process. We need the best deal for both sides. I can't understand why


Owen is now reversing that argument. Here is the question I am going to


ask you. If we have a second referendum on the deal and we vote


by a very small amount, by a sliver, to stay in, can we then make it


best-of-3? No, Andrew! Vince Cable says he thinks if you won, he would


have to have a decider. You will have to put that income tax, because


I don't remember when he said that. -- you have to put that in context.


Independent, 19th of September. That is a decision on the outcome. The


central point is that the British people voted for departure, not a


destination. In response to the claim that this is undemocratic, if


it is democratic to have one referendum, how can it be


undemocratic to have two? Owen Paterson, the British government, on


the brink of triggering article 50, cannot tell us if we will remain


members of the single market, if we will remain members of the customs


union. From that flows our ability to make trade deals, our attitude


towards freedom of movement and the rest of it. Given that the


government can't tell us, it is clear that the British people have


no idea what the eventual shape will be. That is surely the fundamental


case for a second referendum. Emphatically not. They have given a


clear vote. That vote was to take back control. What the establishment


figures like Paddy should recognise is the shattering damage it would do


to the integrity of the whole political process if this was not


delivered. People come up to me, as I have said for the third time now,


wanting to know when we will get article 50 triggered. Both people


who have voted to Remain and to Leave. If we do not deliver this, it


will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the


whole political establishment. Let me put that you Paddy Ashdown. It is


very Brussels elite - were ask your question but if we don't like the


answer, we will keep asking the question. Did it with the Irish and


French. It is... It would really anger the British people, would it


not? That is an interesting question, Andrew. I don't think it


would. All the evidence I see in public meetings I attended, and I


think it is beginning to show in the opinion polls, although there hasn't


been a proper one on this yet, I suspect there is a majority in


Britain who would wish to see a second referendum on the outcome.


They take the same view as I do. What began with an open democratic


process cannot end with a government stitch up. Contrary to what Owen


suggests, there is public support for this. And far from damaging the


government and the political class, it showed that we are prepared to


listen. We shall see. Paddy Ashdown, have you eaten your hat yet? Andrew,


as you well know, I have eaten five hats. You cannot have a second


referendum until you eat your hat on my programme. We will leave it


there. Paddy Ashdown and Owen Paterson, thank you much. I have


eaten a hat on your programme. I don't remember!


It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.


Hello. in Scotland, who leave us now


The warmest of welcomes to this part of the show.


This weekend, claims that the Government have delivered


a punishment beating to Cumbria as part of penalising them


for not signing up to a devolution deal and an elected mayor.


We get a response from the northern powerhouse minister.


Attempting at least to make some sense of the Autumn Statement


and what it means for us here are the Labour MP


for Bishop Auckland Helen Goodman, Northeast liberal Democrat peer John


Shipley and Stockton Conservative councillor Matthew Vickers.


So, it was an Autumn Statement designed for ordinary working class


people and their families according to the Chancellor at least.


With an increase of the living wage, changes to universal


credit and investment in affordable housing.


So, how did it go down amongst some of its target


Minimum-wage should go up along with inflation


The cost of living is starting to go up and even if you're on a good


wage, that cost of living is starting to affect people.


Everybody should be on at least ?10 an hour.


There were things that will benefit ordinary families


in your constituency, raising the living wage,


adjusting universal credit so people can keep more of their money,


freezing fuel duty in particular will help people.


Given the state of the public finances, it wasn't bad.


I think the underlying problem was the forecast.


The economy is going to grow more slowly, so earnings


Inflation as the woman said is going to be up in the New Year.


That means that by 2021, on average, people will not


be earning as much as they were in 2008.


And that is before we come on to what the Chancellor did


Matthew Vickers, the rising cost of living is worrying


The small amount that was done in the Autumn Statement will not


compensate if inflation does rise is expected for some of the poorest


people in society and people are working on low wages as well.


I think there was the increase in the living wage, which it


I would like to have ?500 in my back pocket and that is what a full-time


I also think that the personal tax allowance, it is still there.


It is still doing a very good job for the lowest


And it is ranking up a bit and I think it is


John Shipley, the key here is that we're actually as the Chancellor


As the Chancellor said, employment is rising fast


It's part of an indication as to how well things are doing.


So, you are right about the employment levels.


The difficulty is that the pay levels that the wages and the people


receive an actually lower than we would like them to be.


Of course, this is rightly pointed out by Helen,


people will be no better off than we were 2008.


And notice the small print in the Autumn Statement.


Up two percentage points from ten to 12%.


Now, if you have got paid insurance you're going to have to pay more


Some of these things in the end just about evens out for most people.


Overall, wage levels are just too depressed.


Helen Goodman, these are only forecasts, aren't they?


A lot of people are very gloomy about the economy up to now.


Actually, those fears have not been proven true.


So it is not all necessarily going to be doom and gloom


Of course they are forecasts, but we know that the Chancellor


is freezing the universal credit tax credits and he has only taken


And that is going to take ?390 a year off 11 million families.


That is his responsibility and the actions that he is taking.


So, I think the outlook is quite gloomy and I am not really


It is true that there was a call for him to change


policies on universal credit, he didn't.


That is going to really harm these people.


Universal credit, there has been amendments to the...


Those people who are going back into work will have a little bit


extra assistance while they are getting back into work.


That won't compensate for that freeze though, will it?


It won't compensate for that freeze, but there are a lot


We are about helping those who are just about managing in work.


That is what we are delivering for people.


People who are going out early in the morning to get to work,


we're putting that living wage, we're increasing up for them.


We're giving them that personal tax allowance.


Let us look in more detail about what the Chancellor announced


and there were hopes that it might see millions invested


That is certainly something Northeast Labour MPs called


Did the reality live up to expectations?


Two roads that link our region, but not always at express speed.


They prove the centrepoint of the transport investment


The A66 from Darlington to Penrith will be dualled,


although work won't be beginning until 2020.


And although two A69 junctions will be improved,


it will remain largely single carriageway from Hexham to Carlisle.


It was also funded a case for a north-west Darlington bypass.


It was not enough to convince some that the Government was giving


The economic contribution of effective transport


infrastructure for the north-east is not recognised in the same way


in which it is recognised in London and in other areas of the south.


And that is something that absolutely has to change


if we are going to have any hope of rebalancing our economy to make


it more resilient and more distributed across the country.


The A66 decision does come across a ?300 million investment


that is about to join some sections of the A61 in Northumberland.


Even the area's Conservative MP combined praise


I will of course take the opportunity of I may Mr Chairman


to say that we are only doing about a third of what remains


All the way through to Scotland and we will continue to press


as the economic case becomes clearer for their continued duelling.


At least we had some details on roads.


There is no news on yet of any investment in railways.


Some feel plans to reopen local passenger light in places


like Wearside Northumberland will be seen as second-class.


My favourite over the next I think 20 or 30 years that most


of the money will be swamped and sucked into the vanity project


I know there are those in the region who try


and lecture is all about how important this is to the north-east.


It is going to be a drain on investment that could go


Then there is the Tyne and Wier metro.


In chaos again this week as the ageing infrastructure


MPs say the Government needs to dig deep.


The main reasons that many people are experiencing regular delays


and cancellations on the Metro is the deteriorating state of its


rolling stock much of which dates back to the 1970s and is


I urge the Minister and the Department to make


a decision about Government investment as soon as possible.


My Department is working with them to develop


I cannot give you any indications as to telling the winner will be


decided on, but I will need to listen first.


Ministers said the north did get the fair share.


The image of metro passengers queueing for a replacement bus,


Helen Goodman, the duelling of the A66, over the Pennines.


That is something that people have been campaigning


People in your constituency would be very pleased


Yes, it does go through my constituency and it is good.


But if you're trying to sell something made in Middlesbrough


in Liverpool, at the moment, you have got to go through a 30mph


zone in the suburbs of Darlington so, is going to take


There is some funding to look at that there was well.


To look at building up a case to bypass Darlington.


I think they are talking about the north of Darlington.


Not the south, which is what it ought to be.


But let us not get bogged down in the detail.


The fundamental problem is that for every ?300 spent on transport


infrastructure in our region, London gets 1,900,


To be fair, London is a much bigger place.


It is also a much more congested place.


If you are going to look to target congestion,


then London and the south-east is always into win over us, isn't it?


Well, we have had a 45% cut in the bus grant.


We have seen the problems in the film that people were having


The fact that we have not got proper public transport within the region


I have constituents in some villages who have to refuse jobs


because they cannot get to work on time.


Roads are part of the issue, but they are not the only


Some significant investment of the roads.


More to come, hopefully in terms of railways.


There will be an announcement on that later.


Given the financial situation in the state of the public finances,


It is a period over the next three to four years


where Government have got to get it's planning for the next decade


Clearly the A69 should have some kind of priority.


Think of terms of goods and exports in a post-Brexit world.


How you connect the M6 to ports on the Tyne, on the Tees?


Did you see any sign of that strategy?


I think there is a strategy emerging any transport for the north


is actually doing a lot of work which I understand is going to be


published in the spring about how the north should connect


connect by rail with HS2, but across the Pennines.


Do not forget that the trans-Pennine route is going to be


electrified by 2022, so it is not all bad news.


But I think that film that you showed was very helpful


because it showed some of the major capital projects that


Matthew Vickers, we were told that the Chancellor was going


to be investing boldly in our infrastructure.


It will not be happening for five years at least.


There is a lot of doom and gloom in the studio today.


Things like issues on transport, they involve a lot of money


and a lot of time and often a lot of political capital.


I think actually this Government is will rolling up its sleeves


When you look at the transport as a whole, transport for the north


is doing a lot of work that I think would come into fruition and coming


Another report into a bypass, another study into a road.


Transport is like a very tired football.


People say that governments just kick it down the road


Actually, my friend councillor Heseltine has been


It seemed like the dream, like it would never happen under


It is happening now on roads which have pinch points.


The one I drove past today on my way in, we were seeing an extra lane


being on bits of the road network that hold things up


Do not have any simply a tool with a view that the big


announcement in the budget was this Milton Keynes to Oxford Expressway?


There is actually a still inherent bias in the south?


Let's talk about positives for a change.


Railways in this part of the world of the franchise is gone out


Better trains coming out of better upgraded stations with more


If I was not in this studio, I was invited to go to the opening


in Darlington of a new sign for the railway.


So, we have such little investment in our region that members


of Parliament are invited to the unveiling of signposts.


What should happen to try convince everybody


North-east politicians should have to show leadership.


With the local enterprise areas have got to do that.


Because they have got to lead to Government thinking


on what the priorities are and what comes first and how


We will come to them actually in a few minutes.


First of all, the NHS is making news this week with an accident


Three north-east hospitals have caused the bait


Here are those stories and the rest of the week's news in 60 seconds.


Teaching assistants took further strike action in their ongoing


campaign against Durham council's plans to cut their wages


Emergency care at three north-east hospitals,


A E departments are being shut tonight at 8pm.


The NHS Trust says few patients use them and staff are better deployed


temporarily to the busy hospital in Cramlington.


Durham MP has criticised plans which allow a private company


to help decide if patients be referred to a specialist.


She says the scheme has gone ahead without public consultation.


A private company who has never seen the patient can overrule


the decision of the patient's GP to refer them to a specialist


Finally, Cumbria is to receive ?500,000 for repairs


The county council's been awarded the cash from the rural payments


agency to repair footpaths and other routes damaged by storm Desmond.


I don't know why we didn't include the opening of that sign.


All parties agree that economic growth in the UK has been too


concentrated in London in the south-east.


Philip Hammond this week promised to do some thing about it,


allocating more than ?500 million from his local growth fund to spend


on developing business and infrastructure in the north.


It has been claimed that those parts of the region like Cumbria


have failed to sign up to the Government's devolution deals


are being punished when it comes to how much they'll actually get.


These students at the University of Cumbria are learning


skills much sought-after by the county's employers.


And last year, the facilities here benefited from ?750,000


The students are here to a point and then they leave the county go


They do not always come back to the county.


Part of this is offering students a progression opportunity


Links to local employers, getting skills, getting the


A single local growth fund provides the Government cash to invest


in skills, infrastructure and local businesses.


Local enterprise partnerships bid for the money to invest


Up until now, LEPs in our region have been awarded ?595


This week, the Chancellor announced a further ?556 million would go


to LEPs across the whole of the north.


But we still don't know yet how much each individual area will get.


Here in Cumbria, the LEP bid for ?165 million,


But there are now fears it will get even less than it was expecting.


We were hoping possibly 30 to 40 million.


It looks as if we were going to get somewhere like 10 to 14.


Clearly, that is good to be a major limiting factor


to what we are going to be able to do.


This local MP says it is because Cumbria,


like the north-east, would not accept an elected mayor


It feels like a punishment beating, frankly.


This offer has been linked to the fact that Cumbria did not


want the devolution settlement which the Government put on the table.


The reason we did not accept that devolution settlement


is because it would do nothing for the local health service.


This appears to be a pretty Draconian measure by Government


to give us less than 10% of what we asked for and was already


When you have a directly elected structure through these male role


combined authorities, what you have that is you have a demonstration


that everyone is working together to the same economic goals and that


So, it makes sense to invest where people will come together


Unfortunately, what happens without that is that


you find different councils in different pages.


What you see is people arguing amongst themselves.


Backing Cumbria, there is some support for the idea of an elected


I'm looking at bringing a top star hotel to the area.


Mike Starkey fears his project to revamping Whitehaven will lose


out on growth funding because Cumbria and council leaders


I think people are going to put personal and party interests on one


side and put the interest of the people of Cumbria before


front of any decision that they make and I would call on all the Cumbrian


leaders to have a complete rethink and negotiate around the table


with the Government and find the best devolution


Whether that is the solution, that will have to be


Meanwhile, it is feared that the cash flow into Cumbria


Matthew Vickers, this money should be allocated on the basis


Where it can do most good, not as it appears to have been,


on whether areas sign up to the Government's packed


It is a punishment for some of these areas.


I think these combined authorities will take on responsibility


for strategic coordinated works that cross the borders


And for taking on that work, they are taking the money


If they can't rise to the standard required, if they can't work


with their neighbours, then the Government will maintain


If it is a good scheme, it is a good scheme.


Whether it has got a mayor there or whether the council


If local councillors cannot look at this strategically


and deliver what needs to be delivered with this money,


the money needs to stay with the Government


because the Government will be responsible for


Is this a fair call by the Government?


Is actually chickens coming home to roost for the councillors?


I think there has been a huge failure of political


leadership by the Labour Party in the north-east.


Equally, I think the Government has a reasonable case in saying that


you have to have accountability through the ballot box


Who actually is authorised to spend the money?


And at Tees Valley, they have got their act together.


Cornwall has a devolved deal, has no elected mayor


But they, I understand, have been told they have


This is entirely wrong because where you have a council


and Cumbria has a county council, a District Council, actually,


they should be able to take responsiblity


If you are going to commit money like this, as these two said,


if small areas are working together, they need to know that someone


If that just wasn't possible in places like the north-east


and Cumbria, where those deals just didn't take place.


But the deal that was put on the table by the Government


gave us half as much money as the south-west.


I'm sorry, I think Jamie Reid is right.


In the south-west, they vote Tory and in the north east


The biggest problem that we have at the moment is that the Government


is refusing to commit the European funds that we have


But the council leaders walked into this didn't they?


The only deal on the table, effectively.


They allowed the Government to turn around and say OK,


you didn't sign up, so we're not going to give you as much money.


It is quite hard to beat and their around the whole region.


It is difficult to see how you can have one person representing


At least you would have got more money than is being offered now.


Well, because the Government is making that choice.


It does not mean that it is the right choice.


My contention is that this is a wrong choice.


What is the one item that the Chancellor could include


next and that could aid your area in the north-east?


I will give you a think moment to think.


Productivity is lower than it should be and one of the reasons you get


out of that is by investing more machinery and training and skills.


We need to increase our rate of productivity.


If you do that you get higher profits.


You get higher tax revenues for the Government.


I agree on skills, but the overriding thing is to get


some clarity from the Government on what its negotiating


They can't agree and that massive uncertainty is one of the reasons


I think we should probably put more money into these devolved groupings


where councils are going to work together to get good,


local solutions to local problems that are beyond their


And what will they be able to do in Teesside


One of them will be fixing the bridge into Teesside Park


that is a bit of a pet project of mine.


There are a lot of local issues that people in the council know


They've not got the capacity as an individual authority,


but collectively they can do real, good things for Teesside.


We're back same time, same place next Sunday.


With a special report on how Teesside hopes to follow the example


of regions in Germany to deliver that new model


article 15 noticed this served. We have got to make sure London is


open. Thank you. Andrew, back to you.


Is Theresa May serious about curbing executive pay?


Who will be crowned Nigel Farage's successor as Ukip leader?


And can the Lib Dems pull off a by-election upset in Richmond?


So,,, on pay talk about the executive of what executives get


compared to the average worker in the company, giving shareholders


real power to vote down pay rises if they don't like them, which is


pretty much what Ed Miliband proposed in the general election in


2015. Is she serious about this? She is very serious, and the Tory party


probably does owe Ed Miliband an apology for trashing his ideas and


2015 and then putting them all up for votes in November 20 16. She is


very serious, and this all comes back to her desperate fear that


unless capitalism reforms itself and becomes more acceptable to the just


about managing or even 78% of the country who are not earning vast


wealth at anywhere near the figures you see in the City, serious things


will happen and the political sense of trust will implode. She has


already been bartered down by her own Cabinet on this. She wanted to


go further and make workers on the board mandatory. They have managed


to stop that. What will her fallback position be on workers on the board


if she is not able to get it into some claw? We would like to have


workers on the board, but whatever they do on the board there will have


no voting powers on the board. When you look at what was leaked out over


the weekend, that we should know the ratio of the top to the average and


that shareholders who own the company should determine, in the


end, the highest-paid salaries, you kind of think, what could the


possible objection be to any of that? Two things. One, I agree with


Tom that she is deadly serious about this agenda and it comes under the


banner, that sentence in the party conference speech about "It's time


to focus on the good that government can do". She is by instinct more of


an interventionist than Cameron and Osborne. But she is incredibly


cautious, whether it is through the internal constraints of opposition


within Cabinet, or her own small C Conservative caution in implementing


this stuff. Part of the problem is the practicalities. George Osborne


commission will Hutton to do a report which came out with similar


proposals, which were never implemented. It is quite hard to


enforce. It will antagonise business leaders when she's to woo them again


in this Brexit furore. So there are problems with it. And judging by


what has happened so far, my guess is that the aim will be genuinely


bold and interesting, and the implementation incredibly cautious.


Does it matter if she annoys some business leaders? Isn't that part of


her brand? Will there be problems on the Tory backbenches with it? I


think there will be and I think it does matter at this sensitive time


for when we are positioning ourselves as a country and whether


we are going to brand ourselves as a great city of business, implementing


quite interventionist policies. Any suggestion that the government can


control how much the top earners get, I think would be received in a


hostile way. What would be wrong with the shareholders, who own the


company, determining the pay of the higher hands, the executives?


Morally, you can absolutely make that argument but to business


leaders, they will not like it. Ultimately, this will not come down


to more than a row of beans. There was a huge debate about whether


there should be quotas of women on boards. In the end, that never


happened. All we get is figures. But quotas of women, for which there is


a case and a case against too, that was a government mandate. This is


not, this is simply empowering shareholders who own the company to


determine the pay of the people they hire. There is a strong moral


argument for it. Strong economic argument. But the Tory backbenchers


will not like this. The downside is that this is a world where companies


are thinking about upping sticks to Europe. No, they say they are


thinking of that. Not one has done it yet. Others have made massive


investments in this country. But is it not an incentive for those making


these threats to actually do it? In Europe, bankers' pay is now mandated


by Brussels. It is a vivid way of showing you are addressing the issue


of inequality. I think she will go with it, but let's move on to Ukip.


I think we will get the result tomorrow. There are the top three


candidates. Paul Nuttall, Suzanne Evans and on my right, John Reid


Evans. One of them will be the next leader. Who is going to win? It is


widely predicted to be Paul Nuttall and is probably the outcome that the


Labour Party fears most. Paul Nuttall is a very effective


communicator. He is not a household name, far from it, but people will


begin to learn more about him and find that he is actually quite a


strong leader. Can people Ukip together again after this shambolic


period since the referendum? If anyone can, he can. And his brand of


working collar, Northern Ukip is the thing that will work for them. Do


you think he is the favourite? It would be amazing if he doesn't win.


His greatest problem will be getting Nigel Farage off his back. He is


going on a speaking tour of North America. A long speaking tour. Ukip


won this EU referendum. They had the chance to hoover up these


discontented Labour voters in the north, and all he has done is


associated with Ukip with Farage. But Nigel Farage is fed up of Ukip


and will be glad to be hands of it. The bigger problem is money. If it


is Paul Nuttall, and we don't know the results yet, but he is the


favourite, if it is him, I would suggest that that is the result


Labour is frightened of most. To be honest, I think they are frightened


of Ukip whatever the result. Possibly with good cause. The reason


I qualify that is that what you call a shambles over the summer has been


something that goes beyond Monty Python in its absurdity and madness.


That calls into question whether it can function as a political party


when you have what has gone on. The number of leaders itself has been an


act of madness. In a context which should be fantastic for them. They


have won a referendum. There is a debate about what form Brexit should


take, it is a dream for them, and they have gone bonkers. If he can


turn it around, I agree that he is a powerful media communicator, and


then it is a threat to Labour. But he has got to show that first.


Indeed. The by-election in Richmond in south-west London, called by Zac


Goldsmith over Heathrow. Has it turned out to be a by-election about


Heathrow, or has it turned into a by-election, which is what the Lib


Dems wanted, about Brexit? We will know on Thursday. If the Lib Dems


win, they will turn it into an EU referendum. It seems incredibly


close now. The Lib Dems are swamping Richmond. They had 1000 activists


there yesterday. That is getting on for 100th of the population of the


place! If the Lib Dems don't manage to win on Thursday and don't manage


to turn it into an EU referendum despite all their efforts, it will


probably be a disaster for the party. What do you hear, Isabel? I


hear that the Lib Dems have absolutely swamped the constituency,


but this may backfire. I saw a bit of this myself, living in Witney,


when the Lib Dems also swamped and people began to get fed up of their


aggressive tactics. I understand that Zac Goldsmith is cautiously


optimistic that he will pull this one off. Quick stab at the result? I


don't know. But we are entering a period when by-elections are


acquiring significant again. If the Lib Dems were to make a game, it


would breathe life into that near moribund party like nothing else.


Similarly, other by-elections in this shapeless political world we


are in are going to become significant. We don't know if we are


covering it live on Thursday night yet because we have to find at the


time they are going to declare. Richmond are quite late in


declaring, but if it is in the early hours, that is fine. If it is on


breakfast television, they be not. I want to show you this. Michael Gove


was on the Andrew Marr Show this morning. In the now notorious


comment that I made, I was actually cut off in midstream, as politicians


often. The point I made was not that all experts are that is nonsense.


Expert engineers, doctors and physicists are not wrong. But there


is a subclass of experts, particularly social scientists, who


have to reflect on some of the mistakes they have made. And the


recession, which was predicted that we would have if we voted to leave,


has gone like a puff of smoke. So economic experts, he talks about.


The Chancellor has based all of his forward predictions in this Autumn


Statement on the economic expert forecasters. The Office for Budget


Responsibility has said it is 50-50, which is the toss of a coin. But


what was he supposed to do? You would ideally have to have a Budget


that had several sets of scenarios, and that is impossible. Crystal ball


territory. But you do wonder if governments are right to do so much


of their fiscal projections on the basis of forecasts which turn out to


be wrong. They have nothing else to go on. The Treasury forecast is to


be wrong. No doubt the OBR forecast will prove not to be exact. As you


say, they admitted that they are navigating through fog at the


moment. But he also added that it was fog caused by Brexit. So Brexit,


even if you accept that these forecasts might be wrong, is causing


such a level of uncertainty. He put the figure at 60 billion. That could


come to haunt him. He hasn't got a clue. He admitted it. He said,


Parliament mandates me to come up with something, so I am going to


give you a number. But I wouldn't trust it if I were you, he basically


said. I agree with you. The man who borrowed 122 billion more off the


back of a coin toss was Philip Hammond. It begs the question, what


does that say about the confidence Philip Hammond has in his own


government's renegotiation? Not a huge amount. I agree. Philip Hammond


quoted the OBR figures. He basically said, this is uncertain and it looks


bad, and on we go with it. It is a very interesting situation, he said.


He was for Remain and he works in a department which regards it as a


disaster, whatever everyone else thinks. I have just been told we are


covering the by-election. We are part of the constitution.


Jo Coburn will have more Daily Politics tomorrow


And I'll be back here on BBC One next Sunday at 11.


Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


to signify the Africans who were here.


The story of Henry VIII and his six wives


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss present the latest political news, interviews and debate. They is joined by shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth MP, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Paddy Ashdown, the founder of Cobra Beer Lord Karan Bilimoria, and the founder of Wetherspoons Tim Martin. The political panel comprises Isabel Oakeshott, Tom Newton Dunn and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles