18/12/2016 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.

Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum

by forcing a second vote before we leave?

Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be

pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".

Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business

It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"

but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,

Here: What does a North East and Cumbria Brexit deal look like?

People living here say their community is being destroyed

And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer

and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,

They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.

First this morning, some say they will fight

for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those

who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British

people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -

The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have

tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.

The original resolution called on the European Parliament

to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens

of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".

He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish

must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%

The amendments were proposed in October,

but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels

Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.

The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.

Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed

Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try

and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was

simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months

ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different

newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort

to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to

rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You

would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?

I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory

referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a

questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,

it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking

the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a

very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who

said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save

money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and

our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But

your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is

to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would

respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to

be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain

money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government

said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need

to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the

single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options

should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will

be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more

illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a

report about future treaty amendments down the road for years

to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side

reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will

you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the

text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if

the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you

mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,

was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of

the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European

Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of

action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and

disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to

think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you

might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be

clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European

Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am

acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating

things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out

to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are

going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the

shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,

in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is

implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about

whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because

that has to take account of the future framework of relationships

with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That

means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be

outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very

damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the

rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the

customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give

us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is

not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the

results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see

that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the

divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget

for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single

market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will

know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be

damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a

minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider

the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to

leave it there but thank you for joining us.

Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what

happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview

illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach

taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one

breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action

subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are

sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to

happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists

on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public

opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together

to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take

moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every

single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether

it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not

think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in

the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to

question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these

things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he

wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you

can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But

the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad

deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is

implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we

are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a

minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going

to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,

six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage

Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,

or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of

2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa

May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that

Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I

recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical

drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't

think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very

long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we

would stay in the customs union after Brexit.

There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff

setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at

all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it

is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the

customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the

cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a

member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would

make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs

union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as

binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would

suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to

do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that

is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his

opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in

Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury

PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is

Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the

customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the

customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is

proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do

free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade

deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment

but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade

deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line

for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought

Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to

suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an

argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he

wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet

about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country

we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,

but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look

at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is

happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I

think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it

becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we

are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this

country. So, we've had a warning this week

that it could take ten years to do a trade deal

with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand

trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first

countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal

with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told

us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film

for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High

Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined

the European Union, Now I'm in the job,

the UK is leaving. Australia supported

Britain remaining a member of the European Union,

but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,

we hope that Britain will get on with the process

of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make

the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,

Australia approached the British Government

with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,

to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian

governments have already established a working group to explore a future,

ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide

great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase

British-made cars for less We would give British

households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,

so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce

when the equivalent British or Australian households would have

access to British products Free-trade agreements

are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source

of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests

over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement

would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade

agreements are not just about trade and investment,

they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations

often work more closely together in other fields including security,

the spread of democracy We may have preferred

the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK

to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can

be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade

agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement

with the United States This is one of the reasons why

the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years

and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's

vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help

in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The

Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal

with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is

complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.

The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual

trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with

the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary

examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking

already, we have set up a joint working group with the British

Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what

questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have

formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no

free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long

and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian

agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its

access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,

is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a

scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union

and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.

But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but

one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain

leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has

always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not

happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European

Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality

which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international

relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.

It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose

that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped

out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a

free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is

about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless

you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that

case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and

that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of

negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up

nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this

free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other

than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both

free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not

think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the

UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to

Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot

of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years

is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has

made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal

is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin

and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we

returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country

rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we

will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the

transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have

other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate

would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to

achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a

free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is

more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with

China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and

they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing

with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think

Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there

is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and

the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.

So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct

barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved

in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade

system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United

Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European

Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will

try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly

commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a

free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the

Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our

present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate

against any country. The European Union's free movement means you

discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.

It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building

of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it

more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.

Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis

of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?

40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.

Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.

It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions

about air pollution, that this is a public health

emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,

But how bad is air quality in Britain really?

Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works

at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.

He has been looking into the recent claims

It's a problem and it affects people's health.

But when people start talking about the numbers

of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.

There have been tremendous improvements in air quality

There is a lot less pollution than there used to be

and none of that is coming through in the public

So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels

of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?

It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution

on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who

It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening

To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit

I asked him about the data on which these claims

They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities

First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure

29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000

I will just talk about this group for a start.

These are what are known as attributable deaths.

Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.

Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this

was based on a study of US cities and they found out that

by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had

a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.

They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying

each year for each small increase in pollution.

So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise

it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises

the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.

So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000

Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.

And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths

How much should we invest in cycling?

Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?

We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,

but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?

I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment

and for air pollution that they don't really

see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.

Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing

London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,

that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.

If you are poor and you are in social class five,

compared to social class one, that would take seven

If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.

Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all

of the cars in London and all of the road transport,

we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air

pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,

but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact

on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making

And we are joined now by the Executive Director

You have called pollution and national crisis and a health

emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are

remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the

studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the

UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air

pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if

you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is

impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of

solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is

down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which

we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from

the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is

something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.

If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of

the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really

worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe

good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far

from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is

it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the

last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health

Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they

need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if

you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if

you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities

and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very

high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors

and many studies by London University showing this to be true.

The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of

pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is

causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.

The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and

there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we

have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution

causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is

40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.

Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are

talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air

pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to

phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner

tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and

clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had

the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to

me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most

polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking

at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure

which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical

effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is

everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of

people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,

but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air

pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more

individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be

premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be

by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing

difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke

and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do

you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined

that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.

But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000

deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by

that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do

something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly

caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem

of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I

am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another

claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe

clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have

also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50

cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you

look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the

actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent

effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in

terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am

throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed

that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and

that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us

that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does

take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine

months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten

years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a

piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken

it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the

professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the

thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the

impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young

children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,

this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the

underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not

arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate

things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree

with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I

absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been

made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think

the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,

diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can

get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see

us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.

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

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

Hello, and a warm and festive welcome to your local

On the weekend before Christmas what better than to settle down

with a sherry and a mince pie and delve into the winter wonderland

My guests joining me around my imaginary log fire

are the Scarborough and Whitby MP Robert Goodwill who is also

Immigration Minister, the Labour MP for Sedgefield Phil Wilson,

and the chair of Ukip in Cumbria, Fiona Mills.

Coming up today: People living in this Northumberland

town say it's being destroyed by the pressure of new

So if not here, just where should we be building the new homes that

But let's start with social care - an issue which is rapidly turning

This week the Government came up with what it hopes will be

a short term solution - allowing local authorities to raise

council tax by up to 6% over the next two years.

But the plan was dismissed by Newcastle council's leader

Nick Forbes as a "sticking plaster on a gaping wound".

The Government seems to have finally accepted there

is a problem here but council tax is that the right solution?

Let us not forget we are investing 19.7 billion

in social care this year but of this additional funding, each 1% will

This is a substantial amount of money that

will be able to be raised by local authorities for this.

The demographic time bomb has been ticking for some time.

Over 13 years of the Labour Government nothing was done.

We are addressing the issue in terms of

You know that money was taken out of councils for social

care and the problem, here is a clear

example, Sunderland, 3% on

council tax would raise one third as much as it does in the

North Yorkshire is half as much as the wealthiest parts of London.

It does not work, the need is here but the money is

It is more expensive to establish care homes.

As was made at Prime Minister's Questions, how

effectively that money is being spent?

In some cases it is not being spent as effectively as it could be.

Phil Wilson, this is a council service, why not raise extra

More integration is needed between what

councils are doing and the NHS, bed blocking within the NHS.

Budgets are being cut by ?4.5 billion.

That was not mentioned by the Chancellor in

the Autumn Statement a few weeks ago.

What the Government is actually doing is putting the burden back

People in leafy suburbs in London are able to raise more through their

council tax than in places like Durham.

Even if we went for the full 6% it is not going to fill the

It will mean on average council tax payers in Durham will be paying

between ?60 and ?70 per year more because of doing this when in actual

fact the money is being taken out of the system centrally.

Durham is going to be losing ?30 million, 30%

Government is finding an extra ?240 million as well which they may

choose to compensate some of these councils.

They might do that but 240 million when you cut the budget by

Fiona Mills, does Ukip believe council tax

We need to look at what they are actually spending at the

moment and are we getting best value for money.

Phil mentioned we need integration between the NHS and the

public and social care to get best value for money.

I work in the NHS and I can see that.

The second reason I would say we should not

raise it through council tax is the Government's spending

We are currently spending ?12 billion per year on foreign aid and

I believe that is going to increase to 16 billion by the end of the

For the poorest people in the world...

No, we are funding the rich people in poor

We need to get our own house in order before we look to

It does not all go to the third World.

We gave a donation to Clinton foundation.

Probably needs a bit of help at the moment.

The people I saw last month at refugee camps in

Jordan are not the richest people in the world,

they were very poor people in great need.

I am proud we are putting money in that way.

But we must not forget under the last

We have given carers more money to keep

This is the legacy of trying to keep council tax bills down because money

is not there now to support social care.

Even with increases in council tax bills would be more than when we

You have to come up with a long-term solution.

Yes and Phil is right about integration across

That is something that we have not got

Are you going to have to get together with other political

Labour ducked this issue but so has your Government.

It's all about bed blocking, addressing that, which

is why I'm delighted that we are looking at this again.

There will be a White Paper in the New Year

It has got to be said the last Government,

I was Private Secretary to Andy Burnham at the time, we did

other political parties in parliament to see

cross-party agreement on this because it's such a massive issue.

?350 million of course that we were going to get

from the EU, is that going to solve the problem?

That was Boris and everybody else on the Vote Leave bus.

Yes, as soon as we do leave the EU, and I mean leave the EU, there will

Now to another big political problem that

proving tough to solve - the shortage of new homes.

The Government says it wants a million of them to be built

before the next election - although it's nowhere

But exactly where should they all go?

Developers of course want sites that are easy to build on and will prove

popular with house buyers - and that often means large

green spaces on the edge of existing communities.

But critics say that's leading to over-development in places

In the middle of Morpeth signs of Christmas make this historic

But on its outskirts a different sort of sign

The attractions of this leafy market town to

house buyers are obvious but campaigners say that character is

A short distance away more green space that's made way for

And here in another corner of the town these grounds of

a former hospital have been earmarked for a

This is where people are walking their dogs...

Showing me a field where building is planned, a resident

They want to take this green field here, that

green field there, to the north, to the south,

left to enjoy an amenity for walking dogs, playing football.

It is a great town but we are struggling.

There are traffic queues over the bridge, it takes ages to get in.

Campaigners say around 12 developments recently completed

or planned in Morpeth will

add around 3,000 to its previous stock of 6,500 homes.

Across Northumberland as a whole there is a

target for 24,000 homes over 20 years.

The council says the aim is cheaper housing and a stronger

What do you say to people in, I suppose, the honeypot towns

who say we seem to be getting more than are justified?

From my point of view housing is an economic

We have got an affordable housing crisis in places like

Young people particularly can't get on the housing ladder.

Among shoppers the affordability of the new houses are

They should be building more single person flats.

Access in and out of Morpeth is already congested in the

Environmentalists say derelict urban sites like this part of Newcastle's

West End is a positive alternative to green field construction.

But experts admit there are commercial

It comes back to supply and demand and perceived

Does a developer feel that this site is going to sell, that

they're not going to be left with part of the site unsold?

That did happen in the recession in 2007-2008.

Homes are being built here but there are

House-builders deny they are ignoring them.

Some local authorities in the north-east have policies

where to release any green field land there has to be an equivalent

Rather like Christmas presents reaction to

Everyone agrees we need more homes but is the best way to do it to

affect the quality of life in existing

towns, concentrating in

The first point is about a third third of our country

is protected in some way in National Parks.

13% of the country is in green belt which is protected and

we've seen very little, a minuscule amount built on the green belt.

But there is tremendous pressure particularly in market towns and

some of our bigger cities for development.

That's why it is important that decisions are made locally not

That could be more of a problem, if local

communities get a say because a lot of them don't want more homes?

We've got the new homes bonus in place

which means that local communities do gain through them, getting

council tax that they can use to invest in infrastructure, in

schools, and other pressures that are put on towns.

The Government has put more money in in the Autumn

Statement so they can get more money into that

for the infrastructure we

need to release land particularly looking

at brown field sites with it

Phil Wilson you have raised concerns about housing developments in your

We do need housing and I think talking to

local communities, Sedgefield is a very

rural area, what people are

concerned about, is the infrastructure in the villagers.

Where the housing is fine as long as it is affordable,

It should be built on brown field land but a lot of the

time it is not because the grants aren't there.

We need some kind of public incentive to do so.

People want to live in nice semirural

Of course they do but we've got to look at the existing

communities and what they are talking about is, do we have

Even in the situation Sedgefield village is sewage works network,

doesn't have the capacity to sustain more building?

What we have had in Sedgefield, 300 more houses, and I

can understand the local community now thinking,

There has got to be that investment not just in new housing

Fiona Mills, your party has been against a green

We need homes, we need different people

We will provide the grants. There are lots of sites and cities where

it is derelict or wasteland and if that is developed in the right way

that solves transport problems because people can walk into town

and what to their GP. and what to their GP.

People will prefer to have development on Brownfield sites

within the city. They will vote against any near

them. They possibly will do but should not people have their say? It

sounds like a recipe for never getting any houses built. Robert

Goodwill, there is pressure on the green belt, we should not be

jeopardising that? As we heard from the report the priority is on

building Brownfield sites and in some cases money is needed to clean

up these sites but people do need to buy homes and we need to build these

homes. Many people in my constituency want to stay in the

communities where they have been born and if that is not some

be able to do that. Northumberland, be able to do that. Northumberland,

developments because they are developments because they are

competing to get as many homes because it means more council tax.

It has got to be sustainable. Every time you go through their ships to

be a new housing development. I can understand that community feeling

they are inundated. Of people were part of the process then you will

get people who are prepared to accept more housing in the area. Two

councils need to stop competing? They do not need to stop competing

each other. There needs to be a process to take into account

considerations and concerns of local people.

Now we like to give you a Christmas treat here on Sunday Politics -

and what better than the week's political news lovingly wrapped?

Well Bob's been busy with the brown paper and string -

Business and education leaders have in 60 seconds.

Business and education leaders have called on Theresa May to support a

north and time devolution deal arguing it would bring growth to the

region after a wider north East deal fell through. Devolution is

happening in the Tees Valley. Tim council has been named as

Conservative candidate for mayor. Labour and Ukip well and I'd

candidates in the New Year. The Business Secretary was grilled about

what assurances were offered to Nissan Re: building and Sunderland.

I understand, we understand, the importance as part of our

negotiation to look to secure and continue that Tallis free access to

the single market. Unemployment in our region fall by 14%.

Now, this Friday it'll be six months since we voted in the EU referendum.

Well since then of course the issue has dominated political life.

But what does Brexit mean for the north?

And do voters here believe the Government is on the right

Here's some views from Cleator Moor in West Cumbria.

The people has faltered. That is what democracy is all about. You

vote and that is the result. People will not change their mind. People

in the countryside have been ignored for too long. It is time they had a

voice. They have spoken. Let it be Brexit. There does not seem to be a

clear and concise plan as to what they want to do. Realistically more

time and planning should have been put into it before we did the

referendum. Then we could see a clear plan as too, this is what is

going to happen when article 50 does gets triggered. Too much

interference with Angela Merkel. As Theresa May determined to permit

what the public want? Yes, because she does listen to everything that

people say. What the public say. You have got confidence in the Prime

Minister? I would not say that much confidence. Fiona Mills, you

campaign to leave the European Union, have they got a clear idea

what Brexit would mean for our region? It is the same for any

region, leave the European Union. The sooner we get on with it the

better. You do not worry about access to the single market? We need

access to 160 countries in the world. We do not need to be a member

of it, we do not need to pay a fee. It was crystal clear when we were

campaigning and everybody was campaigning, the Prime Minister said

everyone leaving the EU that means we read the single market. Does that

mean you do not think about the implications? We have thought about

the implications. On the league side we have done planning, there was no

planning on the Government side. They need to get on with that. Phil

Wilson, the Government has secured investment in Nissan and they have

been talking to another farm, so the dire warnings are not coming true,

there is another big drop in an apartment in the region? We have not

actually left yet. What's business wants is certainty and as far as the

the moon it is going ahead but what the moon it is going ahead but what

does it mean? Is at the same deal they will give to train building,

pharmaceuticals? It is securing cheap without tariffs? Is it? What

if we cannot get that? What if we cannot get that negotiated with the

EU? What if we do how to bring in the World Trade Organisation? In

your constituency, what's to be want Mr Mac Hitachi wanted access to the

single market to build locomotives for the European market -- Hitachi

wanted access. People voted to leave wanted access. People voted to leave

but what makes or do they want to go through? What does happen? It looks

more rosy than many people forecast. Good news we have had from The Sun.

There is as much. Jobs are coming to the region but he needs to ensure

the best possible deal that we can secure. Theresa May is the best

person to secure that deal. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland

are getting our seat at the table, are getting our seat at the table,

they are being consulted on what they need, what about regions like

this one that voted strongly for this one that voted strongly for

Brexit and are amongst the most vulnerable economically? We are

representing this region. We are going to put the case strongly for

what we need in the north-east. We need to ensure that our business can

have the best possible opportunities to do business in Europe and in the

wider world but also we need to wider world but also we need to

control the numbers are come into our country from the rest of Europe

which we have not been able to do before. How do you balance that? I

sat to a Brexit committee the other week. Business was clear they did

not want to see restrictions on immigration because they need

skilled workers. How do you balance that with the desire of many voters

to curb immigration? People coming to work in this country make a big

contribution not least to the NHS but they put pressure on local

services that is why in some cases... They do not this region.

I'd be able to control numbers coming here we can manage that enemy

we have never done before next year if we do need those skills to come

then they can come in. Tighter controls on the site might be a

problem for the north. You might need the lead controls. We are

committed to providing 3 million apprenticeships. We need people

skilled in this country to do those jobs. Often it has been too easy for

employers to recruit elsewhere rather than our own people. Where

does labour stand on immigration? One sees restrict that, the other

says do not. We have got to look again at three movement. We should

look at the basic principle which is the free movement of labour. The

people who should be coming to this country from the rest of Europe

should have a job to go to. That is fundamentally what three movement...

It is three movement as far as Labour is concerned. We need to look

at it again. We cannot just say that anybody who wants to come here can

come here. There is an issue for business. It is that we need the

skills. But where the skills are not available amongst the existing

workforce that should not be allowed to go on if we cannot get people

from elsewhere. We cannot cut off our nose to spite our face because

of big or too hard on immigration of big or too hard on immigration

businesses in this region will suffer. I agree. That is why we need

a points-based system so what we need certain skills people can come

to this country, that is what you get policy is. Phil seems to be at

odds with his leader on immigration policy because Jeremy Corbyn is

seeing three movement should continue, and Diane Abbott. What do

you make of the Labour position on Brexit, is that clear? What we can

say about it is that it is an ongoing debate. It is not clear. You

can see that Kia Starmer is being clear to see that there must be a

compromise on some kind of free movement and perhaps that is a

rechargeable -- a regional way we can do this.

And that's about it from us for this week -

We're off to deck the halls with some more holly -

Will Article 50 be triggered by the end of March,

will President Trump start work on his wall and will

Front National's Marine Le Pen provide the next electoral shock?

2016, the Brexit for Britain and Trump for the rest of the world.

Let's look back and see what one of you said about Brexit.

If Mr Cameron loses the referendum and it is this year,

will he be Prime Minister at the end of the year?

I don't think he will lose the referendum, so I'm feeling

It was clear if he did lose the referendum he would be out. I would

like to say in retrospect I saw that coming on a long and I was just

saying it to make good television! It is Christmas so I will be benign

towards my panel! It is possible, Iain, that not much happens to

Brexit in 2017, because we have a host of elections coming up in

Europe, the French won in the spring and the German one in the autumn

will be the most important. And until we know who the next French

president is and what condition Mrs Merkel will be in, not much will

happen? I think that is the likeliest outcome. Short of some

constitutional crisis involving the Lords relating to Brexit, it is

pretty clear it is difficult to properly begin the negotiations

until it becomes clear who Britain is negotiating with. It will come

down to the result of the German election. Germany is the biggest

contributor and if they keep power in what is left of the European

Union, will drive the negotiation and we will have to see if it will

be Merkel. So this vacuum that has been seen and has been filled by

people less than friendly to the government, even when we know

Article 50 has been triggered and even if there is some sort of white

paper to give us a better idea of the broad strategic outlines of what

they mean by Brexit, the phoney war could continue? Iain is right. 2017

is going to be a remarkably dull year for Brexit as opposed to 2016.

We will have the article and a plan. The plan will say I would like the

moon on a stick please. The EU will say you can have a tiny bit of moon

and a tiny bit of stick and there will be an impasse. That will go on

until one minute to midnight 2018 which is when the EU will act. There

is one thing in the Foreign Office which is more important, as David

Davis Department told me, they know there is nothing they can do until

the French and Germans have their elections and they know the lie of

the land, but the people who will be more helpful to us are in Eastern

Europe and in Scandinavia, the Nordic countries. We can do quite a

lot of schmoozing to try and get them broadly on side this year? It

is very difficult because one of the things they care most about in

Eastern Europe is the ability for Eastern European stew come and work

in the UK. That is key to the economic prospects. But what they

care most about is that those already here should not be under any

pressure to leave. There is no guarantee of that. That is what Mrs

May wants. There are a lot of things Mrs May wants and the story of 2017

will be about what she gets. How much have we got to give people? It

is not what we want, but what we are willing to give. The interesting

thing is you can divide this out into two. There is a question of the

European Union and our relationship with it but there is also the trick

the polls did to London -- there is also the polls. There is question

beyond the Western European security, that is about Nato and

intelligence and security, and the rising Russian threat. That does not

mean the Polish people will persuade everyone else to give us a lovely

deal on the EU, but the dynamic is bigger than just a chat about

Brexit. You cannot threaten a punishment beating for us if we are

putting our soldiers on the line on the eastern borders of Europe. I

think that's where Donald Trump changes the calculation because his

attitude towards Russia is very different to Barack Obama's. It is

indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit was a global story but nothing can

match and American election and even one which gives Donald Trump as

well. Let's have a look at what this panel was saying about Donald Trump.

Will Donald Trump win the Republican nomination next year.

So, not only did you think he would not be president, you did not think

he would win the Republican nomination. We were not alone in

that. And they're right put forward a motion to abolish punditry here

now because clearly we are pointless! There is enough

unemployment in the world already! We are moving into huge and charted

territory with Donald Trump as president. It is incredibly

unpredictable. But what has not been noticed enough is the Keynesian won.

Trump is a Keynesian. He wants massive infrastructure spending and

massive tax cuts. The big story next year will be the massive reflation

of the American economy and indeed the US Federal reserve has already

reacted to that by putting up interest rates. That is why he has a

big fight with the rest of the Republican Party. He is nominally a

Republican but they are not Keynesian. They are when it comes to

tax cuts. They are when it hits the rich to benefit the poor. The big

thing is whether the infrastructure projects land him in crony trouble.

The transparency around who gets those will be extremely difficult.

Most of the infrastructure spending he thinks can be done by the private

sector and not the federal government. His tax cuts overlap the

Republican house tax cuts speaker Ryan to give not all, but a fair

chunk of what he wants. If the American economy is going to reflate

next year, interest rates will rise in America, that will strengthen the

dollar and it will mean that Europe will be, it will find it more

difficult to finance its sovereign debt because you will get more money

by investing in American sovereign debt. That is a good point because

the dynamics will shift. If that happens, Trump will be pretty

popular in the US. To begin with. To begin with. It is energy

self-sufficient and if you can pull off the biggest trick in American

politics which is somehow to via corporation tax cuts to allow the

reassuring of wealth, because it is too expensive for American business

to take back into the US and reinvest, if you combine all of

those things together, you will end up with a boom on a scale you have

not seen. It will be Reagan on steroids? What could possibly go

wrong? In the short term for Britain, it is probably not bad

news. Our biggest market for exports as a country is the United States.

Our biggest market for foreign direct investment is the United

States and the same is true vice versa for America in Britain. Given

the pound is now competitive and likely the dollar will get stronger,

it could well give a boost to the British economy? Could do bit you

have to be slightly cautious about the warm language we are getting

which is great news out of President Trump's future cabinet on doing a

trade deal early, we are net exporters to the US. We benefit far

more from trading with US than they do with us. I think we have to come

up with something to offer the US for them to jump into bed with us. I

think it is called two new aircraft carriers and modernising the fleet.

Bring it on. I will raise caution, people in declining industries in

some places in America, the rust belt who have faced big profound

structural challenges and those are much harder to reverse. They face

real problems now because the dollar is so strong. Their ability to

export has taken a huge hit out of Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the

Mexican imports into America is now dirt cheap so that is a major

problem. Next year we have elections in Austria, France, the Netherlands,

Germany, probably Italy. Which outcome will be the most dramatic

for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would be a huge surprise. That is

unlikely. And if it was not Filon in France that would be unlikely. The

consensus it it will be Francois Filon against Marine Le Pen and it

will be uniting around the far right candidate. In 2002, that is what

happened. Filon is a Thatcherite. Marine Le Pen's politics --

economics are hard left. Francois Filon is as much a cert to win as

Hillary Clinton was this time last year. If he is competing against

concerns about rising globalisation and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is

a bold, brave strategy in the context so we will see. It will keep

us busy next year, Tom? Almost as busy as this year but not quite.

This year was a record year. I am up in my hours!

That's all for today, thanks to all my guests.

The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at noon tomorrow.

I'll be back here on the 15th January.

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

The most a writer can hope from a reader

West Side Story took choreography in a radical new direction.

The dance was woven into the storyline,