05/03/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


Andrew Neil talks to David Lidington about Brexit and discusses the upcoming Budget with Paul Johnson of the IFS. The programme also looks at Islamist terrorism in the UK.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree


in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".


But will there be more money for social care and to ease


The UK terror threat is currently severe,


but where is that threat coming from?


We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every


Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.


What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?


The government was defeated in the Lords on its


We'll ask the Leader of the House of Commons what he'll do if peers


In the North East and Cumbria: MPs call for action to secure the future


And, after losing Copeland what other


Labour-held seats in the North are now vulnerable?


All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.


Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed


to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.


Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,


so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.


Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial


statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget


for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn


There's been pressure on him to find more money


for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,


But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be


using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark


What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed


quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on


Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I


do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it


He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his


statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement


rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November


he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect


that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will


be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my


view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care


policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has


got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the


politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but


it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry


on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.


But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has


been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump


priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to


make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of


concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of


this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what


message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some


senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil


Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is


instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively


slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not


want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it


sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may


see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room


to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we


now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half


months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may


take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to


do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory


backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.


He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just


social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old


people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words


this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra


30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth


was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might


go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think


Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its


wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might


have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up


Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you


like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in


the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural


deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better


than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest


of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He


clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is


interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary


for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original


George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the


limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is


beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he


plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot


of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will


end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the


budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated


last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that


will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU


nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove


the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from


the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make


a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU


nationals living here. If the worst happened,


are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,


who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,


giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,


"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not


going to say that. So, why not end the


uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate


which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's


what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously


agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral


decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think


that is the right and fair thing to do.


And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader


of the House of Commons, David Lidington.


Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the


Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU


nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was


my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have


always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it


does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that


the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating


with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens


here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December


European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.


That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the


view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has


been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and


national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the


start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now


got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make


the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the


UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are


you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that


goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of


access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...


But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got


to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1


million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,


it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the


short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British


citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the


hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will


be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely


extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British


citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies


getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to


something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries


might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you


frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the


past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up


that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue


that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be


a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of


this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the


British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not


come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in


London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that


we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the


British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a


reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not


possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if


there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU


nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and


face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.


We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have


been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for


permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about


whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health


care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is


the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home


Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a


vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament


voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British


Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and


others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working


hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They


were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,


more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the


issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the


Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this


month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely


hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable


constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of


commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an


unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at


the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that


sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It


is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the


end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments


will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at


the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you


understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is


going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean


by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on


the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to


consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given


a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have


negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what


you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to


vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem


with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the


PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27


were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take


fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of


the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be


much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial


deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament


is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,


that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is


straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the


recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is


irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying


very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I


think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I


hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to


insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and


negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate


on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you


said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal


with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your


mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as


you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms


of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term


trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,


what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago


you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big


difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the


other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort


this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship


between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and


those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive


challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that


was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,


David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had


sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,


which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,


analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences


committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,


thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn


from those offences? For the police and the intelligence


agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think


tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge


new report which analyses every Islamism related attack


and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases


involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive


as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really


important to have an evidence base from which you draw


policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,


this the facts. This chart shows the number


of cases each year combined with a small number


of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle


of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings


in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,


before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted


for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers


started counting. What we are seeing is a combination


of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,


we know that from the security services and police statements,


but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms


of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have


facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,


documents, money. About 18% of people


were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related


to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted


of planning attacks, although the methods have


changed over time. Five or six years ago,


we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most


of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,


that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online


magazine that had specific More recently we have seen


Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife


beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have


seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her


husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received


an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing


number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence


although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out


by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,


a report says the vast Most have their home in London,


around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,


particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another


hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth


and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were


60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were


16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,


he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting


is how different each story is in many ways,


but then within those differences So your angry young men,


in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience


abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,


the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within


this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds


and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those


convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities


because they had a previous criminal record, they had


made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them


under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this


report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,


Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen


from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated


Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist


terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated


communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the


wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I


think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very


recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was


that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their


neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many


participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad


thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population


is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would


prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason


they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but


often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you


would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more


diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to


that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the


challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this


pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young


Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is


the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB


attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say


to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to


counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent


strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The


report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people


being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those


convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing


to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of


work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the


earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course


subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the


Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but


there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were


once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough


to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.


We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The


Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on


is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community


must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share


ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim


communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it


all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?


Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has


moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with


that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't


bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the


brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other


organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of


Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous


unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these


numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our


intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over


80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police


have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on


the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also


changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,


get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big


spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised


people, two or three people get together, do something together,


very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where


intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police


say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that


kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried


about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist


route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been


consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone


has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they


should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called


caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about


fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into


three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic


State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the


dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great


reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there


should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all


those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them


alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is


difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a


watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?


This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and


our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the


government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is


our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at


the border has improved. An important question. Given your


experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a


medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.


It started when I was security minister and it has been taken


seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the


Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to


take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it


Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,


but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still


Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have


been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.


Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility


said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current


It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.


On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce


that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.


Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level


of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,


coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest


So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day


government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over


But capital spending, investment on infrastructure


like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,


producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.


The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets


while finding some more money for areas under serious


pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.


We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.


Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR


predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn


Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It


is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England


has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a


growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a


year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next


year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or


four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the


OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement


three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other


forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as


everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its


growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.


It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial


year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like


that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared


to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic


policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.


That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so


close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere


between the budget and the Autumn Statement numbers. There was a nice


surprise for the Chancellor last month which looked like tax revenues


were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real


question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is


this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If


growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good


news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in


the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It


probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible


outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things


look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will


still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase


his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a


couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion


more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite


constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.


That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and


is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as


you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic


reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some


headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending


cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things


have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in


the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the


Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is


hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of


income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for


ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has


reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for


him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax


burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its


highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through


straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of


insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and


that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,


but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole


and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase


fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really


keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the


next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has


had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being


with us. It's just gone 11.35,


you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland who leave us now Coming up here in twenty


minutes, the Week Ahead. Hello and a warm welcome


to your local part of the show. This week: after the Copeland


defeat: we look at other Labour-held seats in the north


which may be vulnerable.. Labour-held seats in the north


which may be vulnerable. And is reform of the business


rates the good news that our local high streets


so desperately need? Talking about that,


and the rest of the week's news are two Teesside MPs,


international development Minister and Stockton South Conservative,


James Wharton, and Labour MP But let's start with


Nissan's Sunderland plant and what sort of a future it might


have after Brexit. The Government says they're


optimistic they can negotiate the right deal to keep jobs


and investment on Wearside. But the company's vice president


Colin Lawther struck a more cautious note when he gave evidence to MPs


on the International Trade So we would have to look


at the degrees of change and adjust our business to take


into account whatever this Should what Nissan said this week to


that committee worry us, or is this just a business being honest about


the fact that it cannot predict every aspect of the future? There is


always some degree of uncertainty business business tries to mitigate


those risks as much as possible but what he was saying there is to be


concerning. The Prime Minister has said that no deal is better than a


bad deal but actually when it comes to Nissan and the automotive


industry and manufacturing in general, if we don't have a deal we


revert to WTO rules which means impact on exports will be having a


10% tariff slapped upon the man given that Nissan are dealing with


volume of cars with wafer thin coffee market -- that wafer thin


profit margins that could wipe out the profit they have and they would


then reconsider investing in Sunderland which is concerning for


our entire manufacturing sector. That does seem concerning, this was


an issue that we were told that post-referendum the government have


it nailed on and now it seems they will be closely watching what you


do, and if you don't deliver what they expect, uncertainty will


continue. Nissan would rightly or wrongly always say they continually


review the environment they operate in the reason they are so successful


in Sunderland is because it is so effective and productive and has


such a good workforce that won't go away. We need to ensure we get the


best deal on the right deal for the UK but we also need to respect there


has been a referendum less than one away and the British people sent a


very clear message with the largest vote for anything ever that they


want to leave the European Union and the government is now delivering on


it and it must deliver on that and it doesn't mean we are conscious of


the fact that we want to get the best possible deal. Voters in


Sunderland who voted Brexit will not thank you if Nissan starts shedding


jobs. The point is that the competitiveness disappears if you


face tariffs and the Prime Minister has been quite clear, as he says,


that no deal is better than a bad deal. Actually tariffs would work


two ways. You would see the same tariff if it apply to us, applying


on German cars, French or Italian cars. That doesn't help Nissan! Bear


market in the UK might increase significantly. It might be that as


part of the deal this is all addressed which is the situation we


want to find ourselves in. It is not a simple black or white thing. They


would have to pay any tariff for goods that they sell here and what


they sell there and it could change the market altogether. Nissan has


shown its commitment already, as James Wharton says it is an


incredibly successful business and it is unrealistic to think that they


would just shut up shop and cut back on investment purely because of some


of these factors that are on the margins. They are here to make money


and James is absolutely right, it is a productive plant and they have


invested heavily in a fantastic workforce. It is one of the most


productive plants anywhere in Europe but if they can't make money because


of 10% tariffs being slapped upon the man they don't have proper


access to the single market because, don't forget, 80% of Nissan products


are exported into the European single market, they will re-evaluate


future investment. Isn't it swings and roundabouts with tariffs? No,


you would get a boost from sterling devaluation exporting out, but a lot


of our supply chain we have to import and we would get a double


whammy when it comes to that. It is concerning for manufacturing. We


have to leave it there. We buy a lot more from Europe than we sell to


them. Now the aftershocks of Labour's


defeat at the Copeland by-election continue,


not least with debate over But where does it leave


the party in the North? Labour needs to win a series


of target seats to secure any But rather than make gains,


the experience of Copeland suggests the party could struggle to hold


onto some of those For centuries it has been a bastion


of religious authority, home to Auckland Castle,


the ancient seat of the Bishop of Durham, and when it comes


to its politics too, this town has been


a place of tradition. Bishop Auckland has had a Labour


MPs since the 1930s, with its mining and industrial


history, that's no surprise, but after the party was booted out


of another Northern stronghold, at Copeland, could a seat


like this be next? Labour's defeat in West Cumbria


was preceded by rumbles of voter discontent with Jeremy Corbyn,


and here in County Durham it wasn't Jeremy Corbyn, in my opinion,


I think, comes across as airy fairy and I honestly don't believe


that he gets what it's He doesn't come across as too posh


or upper class, he just... Living in this area,


were always been Labour, but... Well, as I say, I don't think


he's much of a leader. Do think this area


could go Conservative? I'm not too sure about that


but I think maybe Labour might have Labour's next challenge


here is to defend its council This Jeremy Corbyn supporter


insists the anti-austerity We have to have policies which will


break the cycle of poverty, which will break austerity and get


us to a point where we are doing things that make


this country function. Is Jeremy Corbyn a vote


winner or a vote loser The area's MP is more


critical of her leader. I think what Jeremy could do a bit


more effectively is be pro-industry and business


and the productive economy. That's what we are doing locally


in Durham, in our area, and I think that's what he needs


to do at a national level. If Copeland's nearly 7% swing


from Labour to Conservative happened more widely it would be enough


to unseat Labour in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland,


Darlington, Hartlepool is also a Labour


marginal, although it has There was great fear before


and after the 2015 General Election in Labour circles that Ukip


would eat into its vote, but arguably what we've seen


in the last two by-elections and a general sense of politics


is that Labour enemy is the enemy it's always been,


the Conservative Party. Local Tories say the Prime


Minister's County Durham connections I think Labour face more of a threat


from the Conservatives under Theresa May because she is from


a more ordinary background, she has spent time up here,


she lived up here for a couple of years when she was a candidate


in North West Durham. She knows her way around Consett


and that general area. It is an region famous


for its deep allegiances, but increasingly buffeted


by changing political weather. Yours is a vulnerable seat, albeit


it is Ukip in second place, not the Conservatives, is it fair to say


that you and a handful of other Labour MPs in this region will be


worried by what happened in Copeland? I don't think you can put


a gloss on Copeland, you would expect midterm into Parliament when


we want to get into government that we should be at least retaining


these kind of seats, if not massively increasing our majority,


so of course it is a concern. We need to have a good and hard look at


what happened, the reasons for this, and make sure ultimately that we


offer a manifesto and some policies that the voters of the Northeast can


really get attracted to. We will come back to solutions in a moment


and the Conservatives might be getting excited by this result.


By-elections are peculiar and this was a particularly peculiar one


because of the nuclear industry being invulnerable because of what


Jeremy Corbyn said in the past. You are not going to sweep across the


North, are you? I would not disagree with that but you would expect the


opposition party to do very well in a by-election against a parliament


that has been in power for seven years. When I look across the


north-east there are a number of seats in places like Bishop Auckland


the Conservatives could be the Conservatives could be


successful in the next election. There are three years to go but is


not just Copeland, there was a by-election this week with a big


swing to the Conservatives and ten and a half percent swing in my


are not isolated. The problem is are not isolated. The problem is


Jeremy Corbyn, you have to get rid of him. It is great for my party and


excited for the Conservatives in this region but it is bad for


democracy because he is not an effective Leader of the Opposition.


It is important for the country. We need a better leader than we have


now. One of the problems the electorate would have if we went


into another leadership contest is that we'll we are inward looking and


we are not thinking about the voters and I think that would be deeply


damaging for democracy as one of the Labour Party. We need to be outward


looking. You had some of the views of the people in Bishop Auckland, it


wasn't hard to find Labour voters with negative views your leader. He


may not be the cause of all of your party 's ills but he isn't the


solution, Izzy? It is true to say that a leader provides a town and


leadership and it is very important leadership and it is very important


to it at the top. Is that happening at the moment? I don't think you can


blame completely Jeremy Corbyn. We need to look at what else is going


on. It is policies that can really attract and motivate people of the


north-east to go out and vote. Have you been happy of the response of


Jeremy Corbyn under the people in the leadership team since the


by-election? Are they taking the lessons on board? I haven't seen any


evidence of that, if I'm honest I haven't seen them talk


about a postmortem in terms of what happens. Whether it is happening at


a level of which I am not invited, I don't know, but I think we do as a


party... This is not good enough, let's be brutally honest. The


Copeland result, and I am not blaming the staff because laboured


altering the by-election and took two months out of their lives and


worked incredibly hard, all credit to their professionalism but it is a


case of as politicians raising our game. There was an important point


which is not just Jeremy Corbyn, identity is up to the job of leading


the Labour Party and the opposition, he is a disaster, but there is a


bigger problem underlying out. In the EU referendum every Labour MP in


Teesside fought to remain and every vote taken constituency in Teesside


voted to leave. That is divisive. Most Labour voters still voted


remain. The conservative roots in this region are pretty shallow in


some places still. You need to actually win a seat in the County


Council elections in Durham in places like that and the Tees Valley


Nehra H, to prove the Conservatives are... It would be great to win the


Tees Valley Mayor and that would be a shock result but we have a great


candidate with every chance. These are the things that when I stood in


me, I had been predicted to lose my me, I had been predicted to lose my


seat twice by the BBC in both elections I have fought and the BBC


has every time said it. The BBC in this region often doesn't quite


recognise what is happening but you are an exception! The Labour Party


establishment is becoming increasingly detached from the


people who have traditionally supported it. Look at Harry Jones


has just answered that, in terms of his own political career. The


political cycle moves quickly so the notion that the Conservatives can


get complacent and arrogant is completely the wrong approach. If we


challenge and we have those policies Twenty20 is all to play for. There


is plenty of time still to discuss all of that before then.


While the recriminations over Labour's defeat continued,


the new Conservative MP for Copeland took her seat in the


Here's that and the rest of the stories making the news


Durham Tees Valley Airport should be brought back into public ownership,


so says Ben Houchen, the Conservative candidate to be


It currently 89% owned by Peel Airports, with five councils


Rival candidates say the Tory plan is unworkable.


MPs and unions have expressed their concern after Walker's crisps


announced plans to shut its Peterlee factory with the loss


Easington MP Graham Morris called it a bitter blow.


The new Conservative MP for Copeland, Trudy Harrison has


been sworn into the Commons after winning the seat from Labour


I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful


and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth,


her heirs and successors, according to law, so help me God.


And finally Sunderland has put its council tax up by nearly 5%


and announced ?46 million of new savings.


Let us talk about the Tees Valley Airport and your Conservative


candidate. This is a conservative suggestion of a private business


being taken into public hands. You prepared to back this? I think it is


great that he has put this on the agenda, it is front and square of


the mayoral election. Politicians in Teesside have been trying to ignore


the airport for years and I know because I fought a lonely battle


myself in trying to get it higher up the agenda and concerns about its


head, but it is clear that what has happened in recent years has not


been working. It is clear that something needs to change. There are


concerns about the owner, their management has not been an


unmitigated success so here is a plan to get a grip and do something


about it and save our airport so Ben Houchen deserves credit for it and I


will support him. There are other candidates! Loads of public money


then goes to the private sector under this plan and you are left


trying to revive an airport that is on its last legs, let's be honest.


Is that a responsible? Of labour were suggesting that you would be


all over it? I think we would be supporting it. Where will you get


the money from two revive the airport and get lots of hair


operators? It is currently a loss-making airport and then I will


get additional money into Teesside. There was a big opportunity to make


the airport a success. As recently as 2007 over one million passengers


a year were going through it and it has been allowed to decline, under


the watch of a company that currently has it, for whatever


reason, and it is about something was done we should put it back on


the agenda. It is a bold action to solve a problem. It is ill thought


through an absolutely appalling. The Labour Party nomination for the Tees


Valley Mayor is absolutely insane right thing in saying this will not


solve the problem. If anything, council tax payers of the local area


will have to bail it out even more figures ahead. It is losing ?2


million a year at the moment is losing market share to the likes of


Newcastle Airport so there needs to be a plan, that is true, but I don't


think that works. What is the alternative? As the Minister for the


Northern Powerhouse, you said this was a priority No what did you do


about this? We stopped it going under a few years ago but is very


difficult to make a private ownership country do what you want


to do with it. That is the point. It will not affect council tax payers


because the money doesn't come from them but you need a good long-term


strategy in place. And every engagement I had with the company


that owned it the ultimate answer was that they were in charge, they


wouldn't even rename it Teesside airport despite a huge public demand


for that. That seems to be the other way round from the usual argument


Now, there's been howls of outrage about business rates recently,


They say a new property valuation, the first for seven years,


will push up business rates and hit small traders.


But here in the North it looks like a slightly different story.


Government figures suggest business rates will fall


So is it a welcome shot in the arm for our high streets,


or could there be a sting in the tail?


Julie owns this restaurant and cafe in Whitley Bay on Tyneside


and she thinks it is about to be given a big boost,


We were paying well over ?1,000 a month for our business rates


which was actually working out more than our rent, so it


It was our biggest bill, and it's now coming in around


about ?350 a month which is just so much more manageable.


Another winner is this soft play and cafe also in Whitley Bay.


Leanne has just taken over and may be about to


What I'm paying now is ?350 a month in what I should be paid


when the new rates come in is zero, nothing, mine should


It will make a massive difference as being a small, new business,


the rates I'm paying at the moment are very, very steep.


Businesses like Leanne's and Julie's are not likely to be the only ones


The government estimates business rate will go down


across the North East by 11%, due to revaluation.


In the retail sector the estimated overall drop in the region of 16%.


For industry bills could reduce by 9%, and more firms


But not everyone is a winner and many dispute those


government estimates, and one place trying to fillet


surviving and thriving on the high street after more than 100 years.


Its owner is not convinced it will get to keep


The valuation is going to go up just near-on ?1,000


so but with having no notification, and it's due to come


into effect on April 1st, we don't know where we are,


where we stand, how much extra we are going to have to pay.


Uncertainty like that has led some to call for business rates


in their current form to be given the chop, even if firms


in the North East do well from the valuation this time.


Every time there's a change and it creates some winners,


it also creates losers because government determines


in advance how much money it wants to make out of this tax and then


just divides up which individual businesses are going


There's no other tax that works in that same way and it doesn't bear


any relation to businesses' ability to pay.


Under pressure from firms that are losing out,


the government is promising to offer extra help, but those who have done


well are hoping the whole process won't be thrown into reverse.


Iain, this looks like good news for the region, doesn't it? It is good


in many respects that businesses generally in the north will pay less


however, as Ross Smith said from the Northeast Chambers of commerce, this


is a bad tax that actually dis- incentivise is investment and


innovation. We are manufacturing sector. Businesses have to pay tax


they? In terms of business rates what is the purpose of it and how


will it incentivise businesses to invest in the latest plant and


machinery to make them more competitive? On the business select


committee we have just read juiced a support of industrial strategy and


called for a thorough review of business rates because it is


penalising those firms, particularly penalising those firms, particularly


in the manufacturing sector, who want to invest in new kit. Their tax


bill cannot be good for our ongoing competitiveness. Yourself and


colleagues are many completely about this but isn't it redistribution of


income? There was good news across the Northeast and that is welcome


but with any change there are winners and losers and there are


companies and small businesses that will be negatively affected, just as


there are unfortunately in our region, many more. There is an


appeals process and the valuation office they can go through and we


need to see where it will get to. Is that enough? There was a suggestion


of more measures? We don't know yet. We need to know what the impact is


under the stand in its totality. Many businesses still not everyone


is our winner but large numbers are and it is good for our region and a


welcome shift but we have to look at those who are not winning and not


doing better as a result make sure they get appropriate support.


Doesn't the system just need overhauling? There is an argument


all taxes have up-and-down site and all taxes have up-and-down site and


the situation that Iain alluded to is one that has compelling list to


it. We have two boost manufacturing and we need the link with local


government finance, government policy is to move to 100% of the


tension of business rates from local authorities, but if we see a drop in


the north-east it means local councils here will have even worse


figures. And that's about it


from us for this week. We're back same time,


same place next Sunday need Crossrail as well. We will be


poring over the entrails of the budget next week. Thank you very


much indeed. So the Brexit Bill is back in


the Lords next week and the Lib Dems They've ordered pizza and camp beds


to encourage their peers to keep talking all night,


only to be told by the Lord's authorities that their plans fall


foul of health and safety laws. Laws that they probably voted for.


What did you make of David Liddington's remarks on the Lords


amendments, particularly not just the one on EU nationals, but on what


is regarded as a meaningful vote at the end of the process? Let's be


clear, as ministers like to say, the meaningful vote vote is by far the


biggest thing that will happen in Parliament. It puts EU citizens into


a tiny corner. It will decide not just who is going to have the final


say on this, but who the EU is negotiating with. Is it directly


with Theresa May or is it with Parliament? Who will decide the


shape of Brexit, Parliament or Theresa May? The Lords amendment is


just the first chapter. They have voiced Theresa May to give them a


veto on everything she does, and there is a possible chance in the


Commons could uphold this amendment. The meaningful vote amendment? The


meaningful vote amendment. But is it a meaningful vote if the choice is


to either back the deal or crash out of the deal? That is what the remain


supporting MPs or hardline people who want to remain fear. What they


want is the power to be able to send Theresa May back to the negotiating


table. Why is that anathema to many Brexit supporters? They believed it


would crucially and critically undermine Theresa May's negotiating


hand and also create a long period of uncertainty for business. There


is already great uncertainty and this could extend it. The


government's position is in there was a proper, meaningful vote which


Parliament could reject what was on offer, that would be an incentive to


the EU to give us a bad deal? I think that is the fear. If you are


saying to the people you are negotiating with that that is


another authority and Theresa May will have to go back and have all of


this approved, I think it would have a very significant undermining


effect on her negotiating hand. Things change from day to day. We


are talking about 2019 and 2018 at the earliest, but if the government


lost a vote on the Brexit deal, would he not have to call in someone


else? That is why the vote will be meaningful even if the amendment on


this meaningful vote will be lost. You cannot do a deal on something as


historic as Brexit and have Parliament against you. So, whatever


form this vote takes, whenever it happens, it will be hugely


meaningful. Whatever label that is given and if she lost it she would


call a general election. She could not impose it. To call a general


election now you need a majority of MPs which she will not have, so


maybe she will not get her election after all. It would be very unlike


Labour not to vote for an election. It would be very unlike Labour not


to vote for an election. The elections to Stormont have given


a boost to the republicans and put the long term status


of Northern Ireland in some doubt. Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams


spoke to reporters Yesterday was in many,


many ways a watershed election, and we have just started a process


of reflecting what it all means, but clearly the union's majority


in the Assembly has been ended, and the notion of a permanent


or a perpetual unionist majority Is he right? Is this a watershed?


The nationalist vote in the assembly will now come to 39 and the


Unionists 38. It is only one member, but it is significant. This is a


very serious moment and because of everything else going on with Donald


Trump and Brexit it is taking a while for people here to realise


just how significant this is. Talking to someone who only recently


left a significant role in Northern Ireland politics last night, they


said they were very worried about what this means. It is likely there


will be a call for some kind of international figure to chair the


talks to try and see if there is a way of everybody working together.


All sides will probably try to extract more money from the


Treasury, but it is a very dangerous moment. Should we regard Michelle


O'Neill, who has replaced Mr McGuinness as the leader, it is she


the First Minister death probably not quite. An interesting thought.


Indeed, the daughter of an IRA man, a fascinating concept in itself. But


there are are still a large amount of MLAs who will not give Sinn Fein


what they need. But what effect does this have on the legacy of the


prosecutions and the great witchhunts which the British


Government has vowed to end. There is a majority left on the Stormont


assembly to end those. But some would keep them going for time


continuing, which is a headache for Theresa May. You have now got 27


Sinn Fein members, 28 DUP, then the SDLP bumps up the numbers a little


bit. You have got the British Government transfixed with Brexit


which has huge implications for the border between North and South in


Ireland, and the Irish government is pretty wavering as well and if there


is an election there, Sinn Fein could do well in the Dublin


parliament as well. There are a lot of moving pieces. There are and


there is a danger that we look at everything through the prism of


Brexit, but I found Friday and this weekend fascinating. Theresa May and


Scotland were Nicola Sturgeon is framing Brexit entirely through an


argument to have a second referendum on independence which she wants to


hold it she possibly can. And the Irish situation with the prospect of


a hard border with Northern Ireland voting majority to remain, quite a


substantial majority, again a few of the instability at the moment. That


We will be keeping an eye on it for sure.


Yesterday, US President Donald Trump tweeted allegations


that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered


his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.


"Terrible!", Trump wrote, "Just found out that Obama


had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.


I'm not quite sure what McCarthyism that is.


He followed up with a series of tweets comparing it to Watergate.


"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very


The sacred election process, I think at one stage he said it was a dodgy


election process, but now it is sacred.


You are frightened to go to bed at night, you do not know what you are


going to wake up to. Completely uncharted territory here. Little


more than a month ago at the inauguration they were making the


veneer of small talk and politely shaking hands. He saw Barack Obama


and Michelle off on the helicopter. You do not know what is coming next.


Is there a scintilla of evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims? Yes,


there is, although he is very muddled about it all. I will


explain. Remember what happened to Mike Flynn, talking to the Russian


and Ambassador will stop they were listening. Barack Obama does not


sign of warrants, but somebody else did. So why on earth would you not


want to listen to the president elect himself in case he might also


be breaking the law. Does that sound to you like convincing evidence or


just a supposition? I think Tom should go and work for him, that is


the most credible interpretation I have heard for a long time. Start


tweeting the case for the tweet. What is interesting about this is my


theory is he does not really like the idea of being a president. That


wild press conference he gave a couple of weeks ago there was one ad


lib that did not get repeated which was, I suppose I am a politician


now, as if he was humiliated at the idea of being a president. He likes


being the businessman with a swagger tweeting around the clock. And


campaigning again. He keeps going to what looked like campaign rallies. I


disagree with you about him not liking being president. I think he


loves the idea of being the president, but the reality is so


frustrating on every level, finding he does not have unlimited room for


manoeuvre and so many things have been put in place to stop them doing


things he would do in the business environment. We have had two more


tweets from him this morning, I guess when he woke up. Who was it


who secretly said to the Russian president, tell Vladimir that after


the election I will have more flexibility? Who was that? Possibly


Hillary Clinton. Is it true the Democratic National committee would


not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after


learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? This was all an issue in


the campaign. He is now a president. Shall I point out the flaw in Tom's


theory. They were not bugging Michael Flynn's phone, it was the


Russian Ambassador's telephone they were barking. Mr Neil, I would never


contradict you on this programme. But if you suspect there was


criminal activity going on, as there was by Michael Flynn, why would you


not want to put on a tap? I don't know. That is it for today.


I'll be back next week here on BBC One at 11am as usual.


The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.


But remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.


Andrew Neil speaks to leader of the House of Commons David Lidington about Brexit, and talks about the upcoming Budget with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Andrew also discusses Islamist terrorism in the UK with former security minister Baroness Neville-Jones, Adam Deen of the Quilliam Foundation and Tahla Ahmad of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Richard Moss presents in the north east and Cumbria.

On the political panel are the Sun's political editor Tom Newton Dunn and journalists Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

Download Subtitles