05/02/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Gavin Barwell MP, Charles Grant and Henry Newman.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",


and this week her government will announce new measures to boost


the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.


After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules


it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle


tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House


is making good on his campaign promises.


As the Government gets into gear for two years


of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come


over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -


and the costs and savings once we've left.


And with me, as always, a trio of top political


journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,


So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House


of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way


Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,


with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.


Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn


will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted


Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally


Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -


blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy


The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked


about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.


The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,


and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.


Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very


difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,


Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.


We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,


But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,


we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.


That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water


torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a


situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has


drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.


What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite


plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The


only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.


Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere


else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but


Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of


the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would


like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do


something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the


main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on


Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article


50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to


abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the


North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of


our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered


policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is


divided and we represent the country, in other words we are


divided at the party as well. The other thing that was a crucial


moment this week is the debate over whether there should be a so-called


meaningful vote by MPs on the deal that Theresa May gets. That is a


point of real danger for Brexit supporters. It may well be there is


a coalition of Labour and SNP and Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for


that so-called meaningful vote that could undermine Theresa May's


negotiation. So Theresa May could have had troubles as well, not plain


sailing for her? There is no point, apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting


against Article 50, no point in Tory remainders rebelling. It would have


been a token gesture with no support. But there might be


meaningful amendments. One might be on the status of EU nationals... The


government could lose that. There might be a majority for some of


those amendments. The ins and outs of the Labour Party, it fascinates


the Labour Party and journalists. I suspect the country has just moved


on and doesn't care. You are probably quite right. To be honest I


struggled to get Labour split stories in my paper any more, the


bar is so high to make it news. Where it does matter is now not


everyone will pay huge amounts to the -- of attention to the vote on


Wednesday. But come the general election in 2020, maybe a little


earlier, every Tory leaflet and every labour constituency will say


this guy, this goal, they refuse to vote for Brexit, do you want them in


power? That is going to be really hard for them. The story next week


may be Tory splits rather than just Labour ones, we will see.


Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people


on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week


we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -


when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters


are published in the Government's new white paper.


Theresa May has promised she'll kick off Brexit negotiations with the EU


by the end of March, and after months of shadow-boxing


Ellie Price reports on the battle to come over the UK's Brexit bill,


and the likely costs and savings once we've left.


It was the figure that defined the EU referendum campaign.


It was also a figure that was fiercely disputed, but the promise -


vote leave and Britain won't have to pay into the EU are any more.


So, is that what's going to happen now?


The trouble with buses is you tend to have to wait for them


and when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the clock starts


She needs something quicker, something more sporty.


According to the most recent Treasury figures,


Britain's gross contribution to the EU, after the rebate


is taken into account, is about ?14 billion a year.


There are some complicating factors that means it can go up


or down year on year, but that's roughly how much the UK


will no longer sending to Brussels post-Brexit.


But, there are other payments that Britain will have to shell out for.


First and foremost, the so-called divorce settlement.


It is being said, and openly by Commissioner Barnier


and others in the Commission, that the total financial liability


as they see it might be in the order of 40-60 billion


The BBC understands the figure EU negotiators are likely


to settle on is far lower, around 34 billion euros,


but what does the money they are going to argue


Well, that's how much Britain owes for stuff in the EU budget that's


already signed up for until 2020, one year after we are


Historically, Britain pays 12% in contributions,


so the cost to the UK is likely to be between ten


Then they will look at the 200-250 billion euros of underfunded


spending commitments, the so-called RAL.


Britain could also be liable for around 5-7 billion euros


for its share in the pensions bill for EU staff, that's again


12% of an overall bill of 50-60 billion.


Finally there's a share of our assets held by the EU.


They include things like this building, the European Commission


Britain could argue it deserves a share back of around 18 billion


euros from a portfolio that's said to be worth 153 billion euros.


So, lots for the two sides to discuss in two years of talks.


They have a great opportunity with the Article 50 talks


because actually they can hold us to ransom.


They can say, "You figure out money, we will talk about your trade.


But until you've figured out the money, we won't," so I think


a lot of European states think they are in a very strong


negotiating position at the moment and they intend to make


The principle is clear, the days of Britain making vast


contributions to the European Union every year will end.


Theresa May has already indicated that she would want to sign back up


to a number of EU agencies on a program-by-program basis.


The Europol for example, that's the European crime


agency, or Erasmus Plus, which wants student exchanges.


If everything stays the same as it is now, it would cost the UK


675 million euros a year, based on analysis by


But there are likely to be agencies we don't choose to participate in.


If we only opted back to those dealing with security,


trade, universities and, say, climate change,


it could come with a price tag of 370 million euros per year.


Of course that's if our European neighbours allow us.


I wonder if they're going to let me in!


There will also be a cost to creating a new system to resolve


trade disputes with other nations once we are no longer part


Take the EFTA Court which rules on disputes


between the EU and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.


That costs 4 million euros to run each year,


though in the Brexit White Paper published this week,


the Government said it will not be constrained by precedent


Finally, would the EU get behind the idea of Britain making some


contribution for some preferential access to its market?


The sort of thing that Theresa May seems to be hinting


at are sectoral arrangements, some kind of partial membership


Switzerland, which has a far less wide-ranging deal than Norway,


pays about 320 million a year for what it gets into the EU budget,


but it's not exactly the Swiss deal that we're after.


The EU institutions hate the Swiss deal because it is codified


in a huge number of treaties that are messy, complicated


and cumbersome, and they really don't want to replicate


Theresa May has been at pains to insist she's in the driving seat


when it comes to these negotiations, and that she's


But with so much money up for discussion, it may not be such


Sadly she didn't get to keep the car!


And I've been joined to discuss the Brexit balance sheet


by the director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant,


and by Henry Newman who runs the think tank Open Europe.


Henry Newman, these figures that are being thrown about in Brussels at


the moment, and exit bill of 40-60,000,000,000. What do you make


of them? I think it is an opening gambit from the institutions and we


should take them seriously. We listened to Mr Rogers, the former


ambassador to Brussels in the House of Commons last week, speaking about


the sort of positions the EU is likely to take in the negotiation. I


personally think the Prime Minister should be more concerned about


getting the right sort of trade arrangements, subsequent to our


departure, than worrying about the exact detail of the divorce


settlement and the Bill. They might not let them go on to trade until


they resolve this matter. Where does the Brexit bill, the cost of exit,


if there is to be one, in terms of a sum of money, where does that come


in the negotiations, upfront or at the end? The European Commission has


a firm line on this. You have to talk about the Brexit bill and the


divorce settlement before you talk about the future relationship.


Therefore they are saying if you don't sign up for 60 billion or


thereabouts, we won't talk about the future. Other member states take a


softer line than that and think you probably have to talk about the


divorce settlement and Brexit bill as the same -- at the same time as


the economic situation. If you can do both at the same time, the


atmosphere may be better natured. You have spoken to people in


Brussels and are part of a think tank, how Revista gives the figure


or is it an opening gambit? Most member states and EU institutions


believe they think it is the true figure but when the negotiations


start adding the number will come down. As long as the British are


prepared to sign up to the principle of we owe you a bit of money, as the


cheque, then people will compromise. What is the ballpark? You had a


figure of 34 billion, that is news to me, nobody knows because


negotiations haven't started but I think something lower than 60. Even


60 would be politically toxic for a British government? I think Theresa


May is in a strong position, she has united the Conservative Party. You


could expect coming into this year all the Conservative divisions would


be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she is leading a united party. Labour


Party are divided... Coogee get away with paying 30 billion? We should


give her the benefit of the doubt going into these negotiations, let


her keep her cards close to her chest. The speech he gave a few


weeks ago at Lancaster House, our judgment was she laid out as much


detail as we could have expected at that point. I don't think it's


helpful for us now to say, we shouldn't be introducing further red


line. I want you to be helpful and find things out. I would suggest if


there is a bill, let's say it's 30 billion, let's make it half of what


the current claims coming out of Brussels. And of course it won't


have to be paid in one year, I assume it's not one cheque but


spread over. But we will wait a long time for that 350 million a week or


what ever it was that was meant to come from Brussels to spend on the


NHS. That's not going to happen for the next five, six or seven years.


Everyone has been clear there will be a phased exit programme. The


question of whether something is political possible for her in terms


of the divorce settlement will depend on what she gets from the


European Union in those negotiations. If she ends up


settling for a bill of about 30 billion which I think would be


politically... No matter how popular she is, politically very difficult


for her, it does kill any idea there is a Brexit dividend for Britain.


Some of the senior officials in London and Brussels are worried this


issue could crash the talks because it may be possible for Theresa May


to accept a Brexit bill of 30 billion and if there is no deal and


will leave EU without a settlement, there is massive legal uncertainty.


What contract law applies? Can our planes take off from Heathrow?


Nobody knows what legal rights there are for an EU citizen living here


and vice versa. If there is no deal at the end of two years, it is quite


bad for the European economy, therefore they think they have all


the cards to play and they think if it is mishandled domestically in


Britain than we have a crash. But there will be competing interests in


Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, maybe quite similar of the


Nordic states, that in turn different from the French, Germans


or Italians. How will Europe come to a common view on these things? At


the moment they are quite united backing a strong line, except for


the polls and Hungarians who are the bad boys of Europe and the Irish who


will do anything to keep us happy. We should remember their priority is


not economics, they are not thinking how can they maximise trade with the


UK, they are under threat. The combination of Trump and Brexit


scares them. They want to keep the institutions strong. They also want


to keep Britain. That is the one strong card we have, contributing to


security. We know we won't be members of the single market, that


was in the White Paper. The situation of the customs union is


more complicated I would suggest. Does that have cost? If we can be a


little bit pregnant in the customs union, does that come with a price


ticket? We have got some clarity on the customs union, the Prime


Minister said we would not be part of the... We would be able to do our


own trade deals outside the EU customs union, and also not be part


of the common external tariff. She said she is willing to look at other


options and we don't know what that will be so as a think tank we are


looking at this over the next few weeks and coming up with


recommendations for the Government and looking at how existing


boundaries between the EU customs union and other states work in


practice. For example between Switzerland and the EU border,


Norway and Switzerland, and the UK and Canada. We will want is a


country the freedom to do our own free trade deals, that seems to be


quite high up there, and to change our external tariffs to the rest of


the world. If that's the case, we do seem to be wanting our cake and


eating it in the customs union. Talking to some people in London, it


is quite clear we are leaving the essentials of the customs union, the


tariff, so even if we can minimise controls at the border by having


mutual recognition agreements, so we recognise each other's standards,


but there will still have to be checks for things like rules of


origin and tariffs if tariffs apply, which is a problem for the Irish


because nobody has worked out how you can avoid having some sort of


customs control on the border between Northern Ireland and the


South once we are out of the customs union. I think it's important we


don't look at this too much as one side has to win and one side has to


lose scenario. We can find ways. My Broadview is what we get out of the


negotiation will depend on politics more than economic reality. Economic


reality is strong, there's a good case for a trade deal on the


solution on the customs deal, but Britain will need to come up with a


positive case for our relationship and keep making that case. If it


turns out the Government thinks the bill is too high, that we can't


really get the free trade deal done in time and it's left hanging in the


wind, what are the chances, how I as things stand now that we end up


crashing out? I'd say there's a 30% chance that we don't get the free


trade agreement at the end of it that Mrs May is aiming for. The very


hard crash is you don't even do an Article 50 divorce settlement from


you go straight to World Trade Organisation rules. The less hard


crash is doing the divorce settlement and transitional


arrangements would require European Court of Justice arrangements. We


will leave it there. Thank you, both.


Donald Trump's flagship policy of extreme vetting of immigrants


and a temporary travel ban for citizens of seven mainly-muslim


countries was stopped in its tracks this weekend.


On Friday a judge ruled the ban should be lifted and that it


That prompted President Trump to fire off a series of tweets


criticising what he says was a terrible decision


by a so-called judge, as he ordered the State Department


Now the federal appeals court has rejected his request to reinstate


the ban until it hears the case in full.


Well yesterday I spoke to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant


I asked him if the confusion over the travel ban


was a sign that the President's two-week-old administration


There is no chaos, you really shouldn't believe the spin, the


facts speak for themselves. 109 people on Saturday were mildly


inconvenienced by having their entry into the United States delayed out


of 325,000. So let's not get carried away with the left-wing media bias


and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000 people with visas, their visas are


no longer valid. That's another issue. You need to listen to what


I'm saying. The people who entered on the day of the executive order


being implemented worth 109 people out of 325. Whether people won't


travelling to America were affected is another matter, so there is no


chaos to comment on. Following Iran's latest missile tests,


National Security adviser Flint said the US was "Putting Iran on notice",


what does that mean? It means we have a new president and we are not


going to facilitate the rise of one of the most dangerous nations in the


world. We are jettisoning this naive and dangerous policy of the Obama


Administration to try and make the Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some


kind of counter balance to extremist Sunni groups in the region and that


they cannot continue to behave in the way they have behaved for the


last 30 years. It is a very simple message. So are there any


multilateral alliances that Mr Trump would like to strengthen?


Absolutely. If we are looking at the region, if you listen to what


President Trump has said and specifically to also the speeches of


general Flint, his national security adviser, we are incredibly vested in


seeing our Sunni allies in the region come together in a real


coalition. The so-called vaunted 66 nation coalition that was created


under the Obama administration... There was no coalition. But we want


to help our Sunni allies, especially the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come


together in a real partnership to take the fight to ISIS and groups


like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a formal multilateral alliance with


these countries. Which of the existing, formal multilateral


alliances does Mr Trump wants to strengthen? If you are specifically


talking about Nato, it is clear that we are committed to Nato but we wish


to see a more equitable burden sharing among the nations that are


simply not spending enough on their own defence so the gentleman 's


agreement of 2% of GDP has to be stuck to, unlike the, I think it's


only Six Nations that reach the standard today out of almost 30. So


he does want to strengthen Nato then? Absolutely, he believes Nato


is the most successful military alliances. You mustn't believe the


spin and hype. EU leaders now see the Trump administration as a threat


up there with Russia, China, terrorism. What's your response to


that? I have to laugh. The idea that the nation that came to the


salvation of Europe twice in the 20th century hummer in World War I


and World War II, was central to the defeat of the totalitarian... It is


not even worth commenting on. Would it matter to the Trump


administration if the European Union broke up? The United States is very


interested in the best relations possible with all the nations of the


EU am a whether the European union wishes to stay together or not is up


to the nations of the European Union. I understand that but I was


wondering what the US view would be. Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy


was quite consistent in wanting to see the EU survive, prosper and even


become more integrated. Now that doesn't seem to be the case, so


would it matter to the Trump administration if the EU broke up? I


will say yet again, it is in the interests of the United States to


have the best relations possible with our European allies, and


whether that is in the formation of the EU or if the EU by itself


suffers some kind of internal issues, that's up to the European


nations and not something we will comment on. Listening to that


answer, it would seem as if this particular president's preference is


to deal with individual nation states rather than multilateral


institutions. Is that fair? I don't think so. There's never been an


unequivocal statement by that effect by the statement. Does he share the


opinion of Stephen Bannon that the 21st century should see a return to


nation states rather than growing existing multilateral ways? I think


it is fair to say that we have problems with political elites that


don't take the interests of the populations they represent into


account. That's why Brexit happened. I think that's why Mr Trump became


President Trump. This is the connected phenomena. You are


obsessing about institutions, it is not about institutions, it's about


the health of democracy and whether political elites do what is in the


interests of the people they represent. Given the


unpredictability of the new president, you never really know


what he's going to do next, would it be wise for the British Prime


Minister to hitch her wagon to his star? This is really churlish


questioning. Come on, you don't know what he's going to do next, listen


to what he says because he does what he's going to say. I know this may


be shocking to some reporters, but look at his campaign promises, and


the fact that in the last 15 days we have executed every single one that


we could in the time permissible so there is nothing unpredictable about


Donald Trump as president. OK then, if we do know what he's going to do


next, what is he going to do next? Continue to make good on his


election promises, to make America great again, to make the economy are


flourishing economy, and most important of all from your


perspective in the UK, to be the best friend possible to our friends


and the worst enemy to our enemies. It is an old Marine Corps phrase and


we tend to live by it. Thank you for your time, we will leave it there.


Doctor Gorka, making it clear this administration won't spend political


capital on trying to keep the European Union together, a watershed


change in American foreign policy. Theresa May has made a big deal out


of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just


about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense


of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost


of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's


new white paper. The paper is expected to introduce


new rules on building Communities Secretary Sajid Javid


has previously said politicians should not stand in the way


of development, provided all options Also rumoured are new measures


to speed up building the 1 million new homes the Government promised


to build by 2020, including imposing five-year quotas


on reluctant councils. Reports suggest there will be


relaxation of building height restrictions,


allowing home owners and developers to build to the height


of the tallest building on the block without needing to seek


planning permission. Other elements trialled include


new measures to stop developers sitting on parcels of land


without building homes, land banking, and moving railway


station car parks Underground, The Government today said it


will amend planning rules so more homes can be built specifically


to be rented out through longer term tenancies, to provide more stability


for young families, alongside its proposed ban


on letting agent fees. And the Housing Minister,


Gavin Barwell, joins me now. Welcome to the programme. Home


ownership is now beyond the reach of most young people. You are now


emphasising affordable homes for rent. Why have you given up on the


Tory dream of a property owning democracy? We haven't given up on


that. The decline on home ownership in this country started in 2004. So


far we have stopped that decline, we haven't reversed it but we


absolutely want to make sure that people who want to own and can do


so. The Prime Minister was very clear a country that works for


everyone. That means we have to have say something to say to those who


want to rent as well as on. Home ownership of young people is 35%,


used to be 60%. Are you telling me during the lifetime of this


government that is going to rise? We want to reverse the decline. We have


stabilised it. The decline started in 2004 under Labour. They weren't


bothered about it. We have taken action and that has stop the


decline... What about the rise? We have to make sure people work hard


the right thing have the chance to own their home on home. We have


helped people through help to buy, shared ownership, that is part of


it, but we have to have something to say to those who want to rent. You


say you want more rented homes so why did you introduce a 3%


additional stamp duty levied to pay those investing in build to rent


properties? That was basically to try and stop a lot of the


speculation in the buy to let market. The Bank of England raised


concerns about that. When you see the white paper, you will see there


is a package of measures for Bill to rent, trying to get institutional


investment for that, different to people going and buying a home on


the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional


money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones


before said it would get pension fund money to invest in


infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is


already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see


some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the


White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to


rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other


day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money


on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We


need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large


developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable


renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%


below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it


another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of


their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what


we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or


rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable


because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white


Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power


six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new


homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year


programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.


The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the


last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new


programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,


this government has built more affordable housing than the previous


one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the


figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this


cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it


happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer


leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband


promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and


George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's


changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which


we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have


six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much


the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the


tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed


Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons


institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home


and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a


short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term


return and give families more security. You have set a target,


your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million


new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we


are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this


country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...


2015-16. You were probably looking at the new homes built. Talking


about completions in England. That is not the best measure, with


respect. You said you will complete 1 million homes by 2020 so what is


wrong with it? We use a national statistic which looks at new homes


built and conversions and changes of use minus demolitions. The total


change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the


figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1


million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three


quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1


million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't


do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this


country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions


or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.


If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,


100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am


confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It


is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes


are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the


white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there


for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove


land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should


look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We


have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million


homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken


housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green


belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,


Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead...


A Labour and Conservative MP join forces to try


and save their local hospital services - but they don't agree


With me to discuss the NHS, the Copeland by-election and that


Brexit vote in Parliament - are my guests - the Labour MP


for Houghton and Sunderland South, Bridget Phillipson.


And the Conservative MP for Hexham, Guy Opperman.


But let's kick off with Donald Trump.


There's been protests across the North East this week over


And 150 MPs think the President should be barred from addressing


Parliament when he arrives here on his state visit.


Bridget Phillipson, I didn't see your name on that Commons motion


asking for the president to be barred from Parliament.


I find Donald Trump's politics pretty offensive and what he has


done in the last few weeks are borrowed, but we don't always


get to choose who we work with and the American people have


chosen to elect Donald Trump as their president.


So I am sure that should the visit go ahead, that British people


will make their views known in their usual traditions.


That is not a matter for MPs to decide.


I can't say I will be dashing along to listen to him,


but these are matters in the hands of the government and rest


Guy Opperman, is President Trump a man deserving of that honour?


We always invite every US president to come and make


That is their decision whether they wish to do so.


But my point is that it is democracy.


This man was elected by the American people.


We need to work with him and move forward with America who is one


A state visit so soon is pretty unusual, I would say that.


It's one thing for him to come and visit the UK,


You don't need to like him, but you have to work with him.


OK. Some agreement, perhaps.


The battle lines between the parties over the health


Labour says the NHS is in crisis due to underfunding.


The Government say more money is being put into


So it's unusual, to say the least, when a Labour and a Conservative MP


join forces to try and save services which they say are under


It is usually a vicious battleground between Labour


and Conservatives but in our region, the NHS has brought two


And it matters hugely to everybody who lives in Darlington and beyond,


that we keep our hospital the way it is.


We don't want to see a downgrade of our A E,


we don't want to lose our consultant-led maternity unit.


If we were to lose certain services at Darlington Hospital,


some of my constituents would be faced with a 120-mile


round trip to get to the next available hospital.


North Tees and Stockton faces the same threat whilst James Cook


in Middlesbrough would be enhanced, providing round-the-clock


The Tees, County Durham and North Yorkshire NHS area


is projected to be ?281 million over budget by 2021.


The clinicians say the proposals are not about cutting costs.


Even if patients travel past the local hospital to get


to the specialist centre, where there are specialists


from multiple sites, the outcomes are improved.


There is a 30% reduction in mortality with that change


If we change services and provide better outcomes,


we can actually do it with less cost.


This weekend, people from across the region marched


Campaigners feel these plans are not being fully explained.


I don't think they have been clear with people.


It is absolutely disingenuous beyond belief to say that there


Ask anyone who has been to them who is a member of the public.


It is difficult because we have got to try and be open and honest


and describe what the issues are, we have also got to listen


to the public with real concerns that you have already described


and use their feedback to influence and modify


So the clinicians who drew up these hospital plans insist


they are about improving care but a near ?300 million black hole


We know it is underfunded, we know it has been mismanaged.


We know the government wasted ?3 billion reorganising the NHS


in the last Parliament that wasn't needed, hasn't worked,


hasn't given any single benefit whatsoever to patients.


We have seen that there are 10,000 more doctors,


10,000 more nurses in the NHS than there were five years ago.


So this is not just about money, this is about the design


So even when Labour and Conservative MPs can find a common


cause in the NHS locally, cross-party harmony on the issue


Guy Opperman, members of the public we saw there looking at this as NHS


Services they value being potentially lost.


What is your view of the plans and what is driving them?


I think you need to listen to the doctor who you had on your clip.


The doctor was saying this is about a clinical need


and is about making sure that the services work


I owe my life repeatedly as a patient to the NHS.


I have seen the difference it makes when you have local decision-making.


You have local clinicians making local decisions.


And the reason you have got the two MPs involved


is that they are representing their local community.


And that local community is being engaged in a process


which sees the best possible delivery of local food services.


But we have a Conservative MP opposing these plans because it is


Because there are hundreds of millions of pounds trying to be


saved in this process. You are getting it wrong.


What he is doing is that he is quite rightly standing up for his local


As are repeated MPs up and down the country.


That is making the case for how it is...


But if it is about making patients safer, what is he objecting to it?


No, he's merely saying that that particular hospital is the one


that he prefers to have those particular services rather


than any other hospital. Right, OK.


Bridget Philipson, Labour MPs want to make a with this.


-- Labour MPs want to make hay with this.


But it is not a cuts operation, it is about trying to look


at what is best for making sure that patients are safe.


There are savings to be made, that is natural, isn't it?


I think there is always a balance to strike in making sure that


you have services that are accessible to local people


But let's be clear about why these decisions are being taken.


It is because the NHS is facing an unprecedented funding crisis.


The chief executive of the NHS has been very clear that the NHS is not


getting the money it needs and the amount of funding per head


of population will be spent on each person within the NHS


Whatever the NHS say about giving the NHS the money it needs.


They are not. It is set to fall.


I will he bring you back in a second, Guy.


The point is, if you listen to Labour, no service


would ever be altered, no saving would ever be made,


everything would be kept as it is. And that is just not realistic.


Your party wasn't pledging to do that at the last election.


I think it is right that MPs represent the views


of their constituents and as we saw in that piece, local campaigners


in Darlington and other parts of the North East such as Tyneside


have got real concerns about this process and don't feel


But I think we need to be really clear about where the responsibility


It is it is with the Tory government in Westminster,


I think that sums up the labour position.


The whole point about this, this is a local decision, all right?


The reason it it is because the NHS themselves and wrote


the five-year forward view. They created this.


The government has given them more money.


Not as much as they said they wanted.


Then they have been in a position that there was a local consultation.


I just think that you need to compare the situation here.


We are engaging with the best way to provide the best


Would you accept, though, that at the moment,


they are not taking the public, the patients with them on this?


I think they are. Are they?


The whole process, the discussion that we are having, the local MP


Marches on the street, taking patients with them?


But the bottom line is this, there should be vociferous


and robust engagement with this process.


That is what we are doing, that is why beyond your programme,


-- that is why we are on your programme,


Bridget Philipson, they have been events which the public


have been invited to. Plans have been published.


Councils are getting to look at them.


Any individual changes, such as removing A E or maternity


would have to be consulted on the game.


I don't think people feel there has been.


But as I say, this is part of a much bigger picture


I think people will tell you they see it with their own eyes.


They know they are waiting longer and longer in A E.


They can't get appointments to see their GP.


Isn't some of this about tackling that?


Looking sensibly about what services you provide where and what is


It's right that would take action on things like health


inequality in the North East, that we make sure that patients get


We all want to be sure that when our loved ones


This is what this is about, isn't it?


The whole point is, this is what we are trying to do.


..to get the best possible care they need.


But this should not be about cost pressures,


this shouldn't be just about saving money.


The NHS, the Chief Executive and the Public Accounts Committee


of which I'm a member, have been very clear the NHS is not


getting the money it needs and funding per head is set to fall.


The NHS budget is going up, even you accept that?


I don't want to have an argument about figures.


In real terms, from 2018, your Minister...


I want to put one last question to Guy Opperman, which is,


shouldn't you be braver about this and say, putting more and more


money in isn't working, we need to do something different?


No, I think what we are doing is we have put more money in.


You then have to make a decision, local people, which is what this is,


But is never going to be enough and you will have


No, what you have is you have local doctors and local clinicians


making those decisions. Why?


Because the local people know best. All right.


We will see what happens with those plans as they continue.


It started as an embarrassment for the Government -


forced by the courts to hold a vote on Brexit that it didn't


But the week ended with Labour yet again in disarray after more


than 50 of its MPs - including two in our region -


defied a three-line whip imposed by Jeremy Corbyn.


Its historic landmarks are testament to our past.


But after parliament set the clock ticking on Brexit,


public and politicians are looking to the future.


For many of the region's MPs, the decision on Article


Most of them campaigned to remain in the EU but found themselves


But here in the university city of Durham, referendum opinion


The local MP says the constituency chose to stay in,


I really felt it was important for me as a member of Parliament not


to ignore the national vote whilst at the same time trying to recognise


And I felt it was very much being in between a rock and a hard


place and I thought the best face to be was abstaining.


Among local voters, differences about how MPs should respond.


They asked for the referendum, they got the answer,


At the end of the day, it was only a referendum


and it was very close and there is the argument


that it isn't really enough evidence for us to leave.


While a majority of Labour's benches join Conservatives in backing


Article 50 legislation, York's Rachel Maskell left


While a Newcastle MP also defied a leader to oppose the bill.


I voted against triggering Article 50 at this stage it


until the government tell us what their plan is and what they


are going to do to make sure our jobs and our industries


Most of the region's Labour MPs did vote for the bill


52% voted to leave the European Union, but they did not


They did not vote to leave the customs union.


There is a mandate for Britain's exit from the EU, but there is no


mandate for the manner in which we leave.


That is by the government must come to this house to inform Parliament


of its progress throughout the negotiations and we must be


For Teesside's James Wharton, extra reasons for satisfaction.


The Conservative MP introduced a private members bill


It is now very important that the government and the party,


that everyone works together, not just to make this as excess


but to respect the very clear message that the people


But the fight is still being fought in parties as well as Parliament.


This Tyneside Labour member and one-time Jeremy Corbyn


supporter, helped organise an open letter to his leader, demanding


Over 60% or 65% of the party actually voted to remain.


The majority still want us to remain.


So we need to become more clear and less confusing our message.


The UK in the saddle and setting off in a new direction.


But the battle over where that takes us is only just beginning.


Bridget Philipson, you did vote for the bill, to trigger Article 50.


But I suspect there are members of your local party who would have


I think on issues like this, you have to weigh up


what your constituents want, what you feel is in their best


interest, and the national interest but also with your conscience.


And I have been clear since the referendum that the people


of Sunderland and the people of Britain voted to leave


That was not a decision that I wanted.


I campaigned very strongly for remain.


Would you accept that your party is in a bit of a tangle,


with losing Shadow Cabinet members, people forcing the resignation


I do have real sympathy for colleagues, particularly those


strongly for remain that they feel that they want


And their constituents are telling them they don't want Britain


to leave the European Union, they still don't.


Was it a mistake to have the three line whip and force MPs


No, I don't think it's a mistake to have a whip on such an important


issue but I understand why some colleagues, especially


those in areas that took a different view to my own,


felt that they didn't want to support that.


But this is just the start of a process.


That is not to say we will accept everything the government put to us.


There must be robust debate in the Commons about the form


that this will take and we must do everything possible to protect


jobs and to protect industry in the North East.


Guy Opperman, if Labour MPs like Rachel Maskell


and Catherine McKinnell honestly think that this will damage


the prospect of their constituents, did they have every right to say,


You don't get to choose which bit of democracy


You either accept a democratic result, or you don't.


We do that with general elections, we do that with parish


council elections, we do it with referendums.


I think it is naive to then say, well, I didn't like the result,


it is entirely right that we look forward.


The country has given us the direction, we must make the best


of it and we will make a success of it.


Once they pushed into this by the type of Brexit your


government and Theresa May is pursuing, which is prioritising


immigration over the economy and those MPs say, well


if it is going to damage the prospects of my constituents,


The country has decided, we are going to make


They did not necessarily decide on the kind of Brexit


that the government put out an White Paper.


The White Paper has now been published.


I think there is a huge about a detail in there


and you have a position where we need to make a success


of this but I certainly am going to forge a head with this.


Is there anything to be concerned about in terms of jobs


and the economy if the government in the White Paper says it


will pursue the freest trade deal possible,


something which already reassured as a few weeks ago, Nissan.


I think there is still a lot to press the government on.


We haven't had a great deal of detail.


It has taken the government to come kicking and screaming


to publish this White Paper, which doesn't necessarily


tell us a great deal that we didn't know already.


I think it is really important that we remain


with the maximum possible access, tariff-free, to the single market,


that we stay in the customs union and we protect workers' rights


And I will resist anything that puts that at risk and put jobs at risk.


Guy Opperman, briefly, Nissan is going to look at this.


You have no reassurance for businesses that this


is going to be great because you have a wish


list without knowing whether you will achieve it.


Well, clearly, the country has made a decision and we have got


You can see that Nissan has very much endorsed the approach so far


and I genuinely believe that we can sort this out.


We will see what happens, because we will be


Now, nominations have closed for the by-election in Copeland.


And Sunderland's bid to be City of Culture was the talking


Here's those stories - and the rest of the week's


Labour's deputy leader, Tom Watson, was on the campaign


He told nuclear workers the party was committed to the industry,


despite Jeremy Corbyn's personal opposition to nuclear power.


Say it loud, saying it clear, refugees are welcome here!


Thousands of people gathered at Grey's Monument in Newcastle


to protest against US President Donald Trump's


A reception is being held at Westminster to promote


Sunderland's bid to be City of Culture in 2021.


MP Julie Elliott said it was all about harnessing the city's energy.


It's a brilliant place and we have got lots to offer


And also, getting people to meet people, to have


The opportunities we have got, and the things we have already got.


And finally, a 12-bed ward at Rothbury Community Hospital


Northumberland's clinical commissioning group will now carry


Bridget Phillipson, a couple of issues in there.


I'm guessing some of your constituents might think there may


be more important things for Sunderland to concentrate


on than spending time of resources on what some might criticise


I think you might get a few complaints about that


but I would say it will be fantastic for Sunderland to get this.


I think even going through the process of bidding really races


There is a lot happening and this would bring further jobs


and investment and really draw people into the city.


And given that the North East has never had a successful bid,


I think it is something that people across the Northeast can get behind.


And even if you don't win, it is worth doing?


Even though cities that are not successful, and I think Sunderland


has a really strong case, even though that bid for it,


-- even those cities that bid for it,


We have got a lot happening and this will bring further investment.


Guy Opperman, is Sunderland right to go for this?


Of course they are. End of story.


They should go for these things. You support it?


Anything good for the North East, I support.


This is something good for the North East,


we should get behind it, including you, Richard!


Now, Guy Opperman, you spent a lot of time in Copeland...


I have, I have been a times to Copeland.


All the bookies are making you favourites.


Obviously, I never bet on these things, but should


I think people should meet Trudy Harrison,


our wonderful candidate, born in Seascale, lives in Bootle...


We will not will get a chance to do that, so...


Are you going to win? I think we have was a great chance.


We have got a great candidate in Trudy and secondly,


Jeremy Corbyn and his north London antinuclear


I have to say that he has he has said this week that he does support


Suddenly he has had a volte-face and changed his mind.


You and I know he has repeatedly said he wants to decommission


all nuclear power stations including Sellafield.


I'm sure Jeremy Corbyn would not say he is anti-jobs!


Well, he's certainly anti-jobs at Sellafield,


Bridget Phillipson, win or lose, it's not great


when you are opposition and you are having to fight tooth


and nail to hold on to a seat that could be won by the government?


And we all know what happened after that.


By-elections are always tough and we are campaigning really hard.


Whatever Guy says, the Labour Party's position is really clear.


la candidate has made her views clear, we are behind the nuclear


position. -- our candidate. I look forward to joining her. It's not


good about being in a position to lose. By-elections are not always a


good indicator. In 1995, will stay by-election and then in 19 seven, or


we had a Labour government. You are accepting you are going to lose! I'm


making the point that... If Labour loses Copeland and Stowe, were very


questions for Jeremy Corbyn? The important thing in Copeland and


instead give that we are making the case about jobs... If you lose, is


Jeremy Corbyn safe? I will not get into a discussion about what might


or might not happen? This is a referendum about Jeremy Corbyn. I'm


joining this campaign and any speculation about what Orwell will


not happen is pie in the sky. Thank you very much.


Well, seven candidates are standing in the Copeland by-election


There's a full list of them all on the BBC website.


And next Sunday, we've a special programme focusing


For now it's back to Andrew for the rest of the show.


programme at another time an airport expansion, but thank you to both of


you for being here. Back to you, Andrew.


Will the Government's plan to boost house-building


Could a handful of Conservative MPs cause problems for


And what is President Trump going to do next?


You have been following the genesis of this housing white paper. What do


you make of it? I think it will be quite spectacular, pretty radical


stuff. We heard bits about beating up on developers. I understand it


will be a whack, walk, covering every single problem with housing


supply and trying to solve it. Which means bad news if you are a huge fan


of the green belt, because they will go round that the other way by


forcing large quotas on councils are making it down to councils where


they build. If you fill up your brown space in towns they will have


to trigger the exceptional circumstances bit of the bill to


beat on green belts. Beating up developers, opening up the market


for renters across the board. And Theresa May, one of the most


defining thing she could do on the domestic agenda. I am not as excited


as Tom about this. I look back to 2004, do you remember the Kate


Barker report? Successive governments, successive prime


ministers have been promising to address the housing shortage. In


2004 Kate Barker recommended hundreds of thousands new homes.


Gordon Brown talked about 3 million new homes by 2020 in 2007. It never


happens. The reason is at the end of the day this is local politics,


local councillors need to keep their seats and they won't keep their


seats if there are hugely controversial developments locally


that they support. Yes, the government can and are proposing to


overrule councils that don't back local developments, but they may


find themselves completely inundated with those cases. I think that is


the whole point of it, to take on those NIMBY often Tory councils and


force them to build. I can't think of a better defining issue for


Theresa May than sticking one in the eye of some quite well off half Tory


countryside councils. The government gives councils a quota of homes they


have to fill, if they don't have to fill that all run out overland to


fill the quota, the government then comes in and tells them they have to


built on the green belt? How is that going to work? At the moment the


green belt is absolutely sacrosanct in British politics. They'll have to


do some work on educating people on what green belts means. Potato


farms, golf courses... At the moment the idea people have of the green


belt being verdant fields needs to be dismantled. You are right. I


agree with Tom, 11 million people in the private rental sector in the UK.


In the last election more voted Labour than conservative. This is an


area where Theresa May would look to expand her vote. The problem has


always been, the same problem we have with pension policy and why


pensioners have done better than working families in recent years.


They are older and they vote more and anything to the detriment of


older people. I wonder how they will get private money to come in on


anything like this go they would need to have a huge expansion? There


is a huge amount of speculation and one of the thing that locks up the


system as you have people buying land, taking out a stake of land in


the hope that one point it may at some point free up. At the end of


the day, unless you have councils far more willing to quickly fast


track these applications, which they won't for the reason I said before,


it's a very long-term investment. Ed Miliband proposed three-year leases


in which the rent could only go up by an agreed formula, probably the


three years to give the young families a certain stability over


that period. He had a use it or lose it rules for planning development,


if you don't use it you lose the planning rights. Somebody else gets


it. The Tories disparaged that at the time. This is at the centre of


their policy now. This is probably item number four of


Ed Miliband's policy book Theresa May has wholesale pinched in the


last six months or so. Why not? I think if you look at the change in


mood across housing and planning over the last 5-6 years, it used to


be an issue very much of green belt versus London planners. Now you have


grandparents living in houses in the countryside, knowing their


grandchildren can't get on the housing ladder any longer. Maybe a


bit more intervention in the market, tougher on renting conditions, maybe


that is exactly what the country needs. Will they meet the 1 million


target? It would be a defiance of every political thing that has


happened in the last ten years. I think Tom is right, if there is only


one difference between Theresa May and David Cameron it's the


willingness of the state to intervene. When Ed Miliband said


that he was seen as communism, but Theresa May can get away with it.


How serious is this talk of a couple of dozen Tories who were very loyal


over voting for the principle of Article 50 but may now be tempted to


vote for some amendments to Article 50 legislation that they would find


quite attractive? I think that threat has certainly been taken


seriously by levers. I spoke to the campaign group Leaves Means Leave


last night. The figure they mentioned was up to 20 remaining


Tories. That sounds a lot to me but that is what they are concerned


about and those Tories would come together with Labour and the SNP to


vote for that amendment. Although that amendment sounds rather nice


and democratic, actually in the eyes of many levers that is a wrecking


amendment. Because what you are doing is giving Parliament a sort of


veto over whatever deal Theresa May brings back. What they want is the


vote to be before that deal is finalised. It isn't necessarily the


case that if Parliament decided they didn't like that deal we would just


go to WTO, we would fall out of the European Union. There are mixed


views as to whether we might remain in and things could be extended. My


understanding is the people making the amendments, they won any deal


that is done to be brought to Parliament in time, so that if


Parliament fancies it it's done, but if it does and it doesn't just mean


go to WTO rules. There will be time to go back, renegotiate or think


again? The question is where it puts Britain's negotiating hand. Nine of


the options... Once we trigger Article 50 the two negotiation


begins on the power switches to Europe. They can run out the clock


and it will be worse for us than them. I don't think either option is


particularly appealing. I think what seems like a rather Serena week for


Article 50 this week isn't going to be reflective of what will happen


next. The way the government's position is at the moment, if at the


end the only choice Parliament has is to vote for the deal or crash out


on WTO rules, then even the remainder is going to vote for the


deal even if they don't like it, because they would regard crashing


out as the worst of all possible results. Possibly. It will be a


great game of bluff if Theresa May fights off any of these amendments


on Wednesday and gets a straightforward deal or no Deal


vote. I have a funny feeling this amendment, if it's chosen, we must


remember because we don't know if they will choose this amendment, if


it does go to a vote on Wednesday it will be very tight indeed. Remember,


one final thing Theresa May can do if she gets Parliament voting


against, as Isabel would have it, she could try to get a new


parliament and go for a general election. And probably get a huge


majority to do so. The Lords, it goes there after the February


recess. They are very pro-Europe, but does their instinct for


self-preservation override that? I think that is it. A Tory Lord said


this morning I will vote to block it on a conscience measure, but you


have the likes of Bill Cash, veteran Eurosceptics, suddenly converted to


the Lords reform saying is an outrage. I doubt they will vote for


their own demise, to hasten their own demise by blocking it. What did


you make of Doctor Gorka smart fascinating. Cut from the same cloth


as his boss. I thought it was extraordinary listening to him,


saying everything is going dutifully to plan. But at the end of the day,


what they are doing is what people in America voted for Trump to do. If


you look at Lord Ashcroft's polling on why America voted for Trump, they


went into this with their eyes wide open. One of the top fears among


American voters, particularly Republican leading ones was


America's immigration policy is or could be letting in terror arrests.


As far as he is concerned, he is doing what he was elected to do.


This whole year is turning into a wonderful year long lecture series


on how democracy works at a fundamental level. I'm not sure


anyone wanted it but it's what we've got. This same in the way we've been


talking about direct democracy and Parliamentary democracy. The same is


happening in America between executive and judicial branches. We


are seeing the limits of presidential power. Regardless of


the fact that people voted for Trump they voted for senators. The judge


who blocks this was appointed by George W Bush. So-called Judge


Eckert Mac so-called George W Bush! It's fascinating we're having all


these conversations now that I never bought five years ago we would be


having at such a fundamental level. Has the media yet worked out how to


cover the Trump administration or has he got us behaving like headless


chickens? He says something incendiary and we all run over to do


that and when you pick it off it turns out not to be as incendiary as


we thought? And then back doing something and we all rush over


there. Is he making fools of us? Is exactly what he did in the election


campaign. So many quick and fast outrageous comments frontrunner on a


daily basis, no one single one of them had full news cycle time to be


pored over and examined. I think there is a problem with this.


Although he keeps the upper hand, keeps the agenda and keeps on the


populist ground, the problem is it easy to campaign like that. If you


are governing in a state of semi-hysteria, I wonder how long the


American public will be comfortable with that. They don't really want


their government to be swirling chaos all the time, as fascinating


as it might be on TV. They will be exhausted by it, I already am. I


have been interviewing White House administration official since 1976


and that is the first time someone hasn't given me a straight answer on


America supporting the EU. That is a different world.


Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two tomorrow at midday with


the Daily Politics - and I'll be back here


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


TV: He's not your father. WOMAN GASPS


so why not pay your TV licence in weekly instalments, too?


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by housing minister Gavin Barwell MP who talks about the government's plan to increase housebuilding in England and protect people who rent their homes. Plus Charles Grant from the Centre for European Reform and Henry Newman from Open Europe. Donald Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka discusses President Trump's first two weeks in the White House and Ellie Price reports on the negotiations to come with the EU over Brexit. On the political panel are The New Statesman's Helen Lewis and journalists Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles