26/03/2017 Sunday Politics North East and Cumbria


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss discuss the Westminster attack with Commons leader David Lidington and head of Europol Rob Wainwright. Plus Ukip leader Paul Nuttall.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


The police believe the Westminster attacker Khalid Masood acted alone,


but do the security services have the resources and


We'll ask the leader of the House of Commons.


As Theresa May prepares to trigger Brexit, details of


Will a so-called Henry VIII clause give the Government too much power


Ukip's only MP, Douglas Carswell, quits the party saying it's "job


done" - we'll speak to him and the party's


Here: the latest view on Brexit from north east businesses.


And Labour unveils ambitious plans to re-open rail lines


and invest in the metro - but are voters listening?


And with me - as always - the best and the brightest political


panel in the business - Toby Young, Polly Toynbee


and Janan Ganesh, who'll be tweeting throughout the programme.


First, it was the most deadly terrorist attack


The attacker was shot dead trying to storm Parliament,


but not before he'd murdered four people and injured 50 -


one of those is still in a critical condition in hospital.


His target was the very heart of our democracy,


the Palace of Westminster, and he came within metres


of the Prime Minister and senior Cabinet ministers.


Without the quick actions of the Defence Secretary's


close protection detail, fortuitously in the vicinity


at the time, the outcome could have been even worse.


Janan Ganesh it is four days now, getting on. What thoughts should we


be having this weekend? First of all, Theresa May's Parliamentary


response was exemplary. In many ways, the moment she arrived as


prime minister and her six years as Home Secretary showed a positive


way. No other serving politician is as steeped in counterterror and


national security experience as she is and I think it showed. As to


whether politics is going now, it looks like the Government will put


more pressure on companies like Google and Facebook to monitor


sensor radical content that flows through their channels, and I wonder


whether beyond that the Government, not just our Government but around


the world, will start to open this question of, during a terror attack,


as it is unfolding, should there be restrictions on what can appear on


social media? I was on Twitter at the time last week, during the


attack, and people were posting things which may have been useful to


the perpetrators, not on that occasion but future occasions.


Should there be restrictions on what and how much people can post while


an attack is unfolding? I think we have learned that this is like the


weather, it is going to happen, it is going to happen all over the


world and in every country and we deal with it well, we deal with it


stoically, perhaps we are more used to it than some. We had the IRA for


years, we know how to make personal risk assessments, how to know the


chances of being in the wrong place at the wrong time are infinitesimal,


so people in London didn't say, I'm not going to go to the centre of


London today, everything carried on just the same. Because we know that


the odds of it, being unlucky, are very small. Life is dangerous, this


is another very small risk and it is the danger of being alive. I think


from an Isis Islamist propaganda point of view, it showed just what a


poor target London and the House of Commons is, and it is hard to


imagine the emergency services and local people, international


visitors, reacting much better than they did. And the fact that our


Muslim mayor was able to make an appearance so quickly afterwards


shows, I think, that we are not city riddled with anti-Islamic prejudice.


It couldn't really have been a better advertisement for the values


that is attacking. OK, thank you for that.


So, four days after the attack, what more do we know


The police have made 11 arrests, but only one remains


Here's Adam with the latest on the investigation.


According to a police timeline, that's how long it took


Khalid Masood to drive through a crowd on Westminster


to crash his car into Parliament's perimeter...


to fatally stab PC Keith Palmer, before being shot by a bodyguard


The public are leaving tributes to the dead at Westminster.


The family of PC Palmer released a statement saying:


"We would like to express our gratitude to the people


who were with Keith in his last moments and who were


There was nothing more you could have done,


you did your best and we are just grateful he was not alone."


Investigators say Masood's motive may have gone to the grave with him.


Officers think he acted alone, despite reports he spent a WhatsApp


The Home Secretary now has such encrypted messaging


There should be no place for terrorists to hide.


We need to make sure that organisations like WhatsApp,


and there are plenty of others like that, don't provide a secret


place for terrorists to communicate with each other.


It used to be that people would steam open envelopes or just


listen in on phones when they wanted to find out what people were doing,


legally, through warrantry, but in this situation


we need to make sure that our intelligence services


have the ability to get into situations like encrypted


She will ask the tech industry to suggest solutions


at a meeting this week, although she didn't rule out


But for those caught up in the attack, perhaps it will be


..not the policy implications that will echo the loudest.


We're joined now from the Hague by the Director of Europol,


the European Police Agency, Rob Wainwright.


What role has Europol played in the aftermath of Wednesday's attacks? I


can tell you we are actively supporting the investigation,


because it is a live case I cannot of course go into the details, but


to give you some context, Andrew, this is one of about 80


counterterrorist cases we have been supporting across Europe this year,


using a platform to shed thousands of intelligence messages between the


very large counterterrorist community in Europe, and also


tracking flows of terrorist finance, illegal firearms, and monitoring


this terrible propaganda online as well. All of that is being made


available now to the Metropolitan Police in London for this case. Do


we know if there is any European link to those who may have inspired


or directed Khalid Massoud? That is an active part of the inquiry being


led by Metropolitan Police and it is not for me to comment or speculate


on that. There are links of course in terms of the profile of the


attacker and the way in which he launched these terrible events in


Westminster, and those that we've seen, for example, in the Berlin


Christmas market last year and the attack in Nice in the summer of last


year, clear similarities between the fact that the attackers involved


have criminal background, somewhat dislocated from society, each of


them using a hired or stolen vehicle to deliberately aim at pedestrians


in a crowded place and using a secondary weapon, whether it is a


gun or a knife. So we are seeing a trend, I think, of the kind of


attacks across Europe in the last couple of years and some of that at


least was played out unfortunately in Westminster this week as well.


Mass and was known to the emergency services, so were many of those


involved in the Brussels, Paris and Berlin attacks, so something is


going wrong here, we are not completely across this, are we?


Actually most attacks are being stopped. This was I think at least


the 14th terrorist plot or attempted attack in Britain since 2013 and the


only one that has got through, and that fits a picture of what we see


in France last year, 17 attempted attacks that were stopped, for


example. Unfortunately some of them get through. But people on the


security services' Radar getting through, in Westminster, Brussels,


Paris and Berlin. There is clearly something we are not doing that


could stop that. Again, if you look at what happened in Berlin and at


least the first indications from what police are saying in London,


these are people that haven't really appeared on Baha'i target list of


the authorities, they are on the edge at best of radicalised


community -- on the high target list. When you are dealing with a


dispersed community of thousands of radicalised, Senate radicalised


individuals, it is very difficult to monitor them 24/7, very difficult


when these people, almost out of the blue and carry out the attacks that


they did. I think you have to find a sense of perspective here around the


work and the pressures of the work and the difficult target choices


that police and security authorities have to make around Europe. The Home


Secretary here in London said this morning it is time to tackle apps


like WhatsApp, which we believe Massoud was using, because they


encrypt from end to end and it is difficult for the security services


to know what is happening there. What do you say, are you up for


that? Across the hundreds of cases we have supported in recent years


there is no doubt that encryption, encrypted communications are


becoming more and more prominent in the way terrorists communicate, more


and more of a problem, therefore, a real challenge for investigators,


and that the heart of this is a stark inconsistency between the


ability of the police to lawfully intercept telephone calls, but not


when those messages are exchanged via a social media messaging board,


for example, and that is an inconsistency in society and we have


to find a solution through appropriate legislation perhaps of


these technologies and law enforcement agencies working in a


more constructive way. So you back that? I agree that there is


certainly a problem, absolutely. We know there was a problem, I'm trying


to find out if you agree with the Home Secretary's solution? I agree


certainly with her calls for changes to be made. What the legislative


solution for that is of course for her and other lawmakers to decide


but from my point of view, yes, I would agree something has to be done


to make sure we can apply more consistent interception of


communication in all parts of the way in which terrorists invade our


lives. Rob Wainwright of Europol, thank you very much.


Here with me in the studio now is the Leader of the House


What did last week's attack tell us about the security of the Palace of


Westminster? It told us that we are looked after by some very


courageous, very professional police officers. There is clearly going to


be a lessons learned with you, as you would expect after any incident


of this kind. That will look very carefully at what worked well but


also whether there are changes that need to be made, that is already


under way. And that is being run by professionals, by the police and


security director at Parliament... Palace authorities, we will get


reports from the professionals, particularly our own Parliamentary


security director, and just as security matters in parliament are


kept under constant review, if there are changes that need to be made as


a result, then they will need to be made. Let's look at some of the


issues it has thrown up, as we get some distance from these appalling


events when our first reaction was always the people who lose their


lives and suffer, and then we start to become a bit more analytical. Is


it true that the authorities removed armed guards from Cowbridge gate,


where the attacker made his entry, because they looked to threatening


for tourists? -- carriage gate. No, the idea that a protest from MPs led


to operational changes simply not the case. What happened in the last


couple of years is that the security arrangements in new Palace Yard have


actually been strengthened, but I don't think your view was would


expect me to go into a detailed commentary upon operational security


matters. Why were the armed guards removed? There are armed guards at


all times in the Palace of Westminster, it is a matter for the


security authorities and in particular for the police and direct


command of those officers to decide how they are best deployed. Is it


because, as some from Scotland Yard sources have reported to the papers


this morning, was it done because of staffing shortages? I'm in no


position to comment on the details of the operation but my


understanding is that the number of people available is what the police


and the security authorities working together have decided to deploy and


that they think was commensurate with the threat that we faced. Is it


not of concern that as the incident unfolded the gates were left


unguarded by armed and unarmed, they were just unguarded, so much so


that, as it was going on, a career with a parcel on a moped at was able


to drive through? -- up career. I think we will need to examine that


case as part of looking into any lessons learned, but what I don't


yet know, because the police are still interviewing everybody


involved, witnesses and police officers involved, was exactly who


was standing where in the vicinity of the murder at a particular time.


We have seen pictures, the gates were unguarded as people were


concentrating on what was happening to the police man and to the


attacker, but the delivery man was able to come through the gates with


a parcel?! You have seen a particular camera angle, I think it


is important before we rush to judgment, and we shouldn't be


pointing fingers, we need... We are trying to get to the bottom of it.


To get to the bottom of it means we have to look at what all the


witnesses and all the police officers involved say about what


happened, and then there needs to be a decision taken about what if any


changes need to be made in light of that.


We know the attacker was stopped in his tracks by the Defence


Secretary's bodyguard, where was the armed roving unit that had replaced


the armed guard at the gate? I cannot comment on operation details


but my understanding is there were other armed officers who would have


been able to prevent the attacker from getting to the chamber, as has


been alleged it would be possible for him to do. Were you aware that a


so-called table top simulation, carried out by Scotland Yard and the


Parliamentary authorities, ended with four terrorists in this


simulation able to storm parliament and killed dozens of MPs? No, that


is the first time that has been mentioned to me. You are the leader


of the house. These matters are dealt with by security professionals


who are involved, they are advised by a security committee, chaired by


the Deputy Speaker, but we do not debate operational details in


public. I'm not asking for a debate, I raise this because it's been


reported because it's quite clear that after this simulation, it


raised serious questions about the security of the palace. Actions


should have followed. What I've said to you is that these matters are


kept under constant review and that there are always changes made both


in the deployment of individual officers and security guards of the


palace staff and other plans to strengthen the hard security of the


perimeter. If you look back at Hansard December last year, they was


a plan already been brought forward to strengthen the security at


carriage Gates, looking at questions of access. Will there be armed


guards now? You need to look not just at armed guards, you need to


look at the entirety of the security engagements including fencing.


There's lots about the security we don't need to know and shouldn't


know, but whether or not there are armed guards is something we will


find out quite soon and I'm asking you if you think there should be. If


you think the judgment is by our security experts that there need to


be more armed guards in certain places, then they will be deployed


accordingly, but I think before we rush to make conclusions about


lessons to be learned from Wednesday's appalling attack, it is


important the police are allowed to get on with completing the interview


of witnesses and their own officers, and then that there is considered


view taken about what changes might need to be made and then they will


be implemented. Let me come onto the triggering of Article 50 that begins


our negotiations to exit the European Union. It will happen on


Wednesday. John Claude Juncker told Germany's most popular newspaper


that he wants to make an example of the UK to make everyone realise it's


not worth leaving the EU. What do you make of that? I think all sorts


of things are said in advance of negotiations beginning. Clearly the


commission will want to ensure the EU 27 holds together. As the Prime


Minister has said, that is a British national interest as well. She has


been very clear... What do you make of President Juncker's remark? It


doesn't surprise me ahead of negotiations but I think if rational


mutual interest is to the fore that it's perfectly possible for an


agreement to be negotiated between the UK and our 27 friends and allies


that addresses all of the issues from trade to security, police


cooperation, foreign policy co-operation, works for all


countries. The EU wants to agree a substantial divorce bill before it


will even discuss any future UK EU relations, what do you make of that?


Article 50 says the terms of exit need to be negotiated in the context


of the kind of future relationship that's going to exist between the


departing country and the remaining member states. It seems it is simply


not possible to separate those two. Clearly there will need to be a


discussion about joint assets and join liabilities but I think if we


all keep to the fore the fact we will continue to be neighbours, we


will continue to be essential allies and trading partners, then it is


possible to come to a deal that works for all size. The


question is do you agree the divorce bill first and then look at the


subsequent relations we will have or do you do them both in parallel?


Article 50 itself says they have to run together. Do you think they have


to be done together or sequentially? I think it is impossible to separate


the two but we will get into negotiations very soon and then once


David Davis is sitting down with Michel Barnier and others and the


national governments become involved too, then I hope we can make steady


progress. An early deal about each other's citizens would be a good


piece of low hanging fruit. Is the Government willing to pay a


substantial divorce bill? The Prime Minister has said we don't rule out


some kind of continuing payments, for example there may be EU


programmes in the future in which we want to continue to participate. 50


billion? We don't envisage long-term payments of vast sums of money. So


50 billion isn't even the Government ballpark? You are tempting me to get


into the detail of negotiation, that is something that will be starting


very soon and let's leave it to the negotiations. During the referendum


there was no talk from the Leave side about any question of


separation bill, now the talk is of 50 billion and I'm trying to find


out if the British government thinks that of amount is on your radar. The


Government is addressing the situation in which we now are, which


is that we have a democratic obligation to implement the decision


of the people in the referendum last year, and that we need to do that in


a way that maximises the opportunity, the future prosperity


and security of everybody in the UK. Let me try one more thing on the


Great Repeal Bill, the white Paper will be published I think on


Thursday, is that right? We haven't announced an exact date but you will


see the white Paper very soon. Let's say it is Thursday, it will enshrine


thousands of EU laws into UK law, it will use what's called Henry VIII


powers, who of course was a dictator. Is this an attempt to


avoid proper Parliamentary scrutiny? No, we are repealing the Communities


Act 1972, then put existing EU legal obligations on the UK statutory


footing, so business know where they stand. Then, because a lot of those


EU regulations will for example refer to the commission or another


regulator, you need to substitute a UK authority in place so we need to


have a power under secondary legislation to tweak the European


regulators so it is coherent. This is weather Henry VIII powers come


in. It is secondary legislation and the scope, the definition of those


powers and when they can be used in what circumstances is something the


parliament will have to approve in voting through the bill itself. And


if it is as innocuous as you say, will you accept the proposal of the


Lords for an enhanced scrutiny process on the secondary


legislation? Neither the relevant committee of the House of Lords, the


constitution committee, nor anyone else has seen the text of the bill


and I think when it comes out, I hope that those members of the House


of Lords will find that reassuring, but as I say the definition of those


powers are something the parliament itself will take the final decision.


David Lidington, thank you for being with us.


So, Ukip has lost its only MP - Douglas Carswell.


He defected to Ukip from the Conservative Party


almost three years ago, but yesterday announced


that he was quitting to sit as an independent.


His surprise defection came in August 2014 saying,


"Only Ukip can shake up that cosy little clique called Westminster".


But his bromance with Nigel Farage turned sour when Mr Carswell


criticised the so-called "shock and awful" strategy as


Then, during the EU referendum campaign last year, Nigel Farage


was part of the unofficial Leave.EU campaign, whereas Douglas Carswell


opted to support the official Vote Leave campaign.


Just last month, former Ukip leader Nigel Farage


accused Douglas Carswell of thwarting his chances


of being awarded a knighthood, writing that,


Announcing his resignation on his website yesterday,


Mr Carswell said, "I desperately wanted us to leave the EU.


Now we can be certain that that is going to happen, I have


decided that I will be leaving Ukip."


When Mr Carswell left the Conservative Party in 2014


he resigned as an MP, triggering a by-election.


"I must seek permission from my boss," he said referring


This time, though, Mr Carswell has said there will be no by-election.


We're joined now from Salford by Ukip leader, Paul Nuttall.


Welcome back to the programme. Are you happy to see the back of your


only MP? Well, do you know, I'm always sad when people leave Ukip at


a grass roots level or Parliamentary level, but I'm sad but I'm not


surprised by this. There has been adrift by Douglas and Ukip over the


past couple of years, his relationship with Nigel Farage


certainly hasn't helped, and it is a hangover from the former regime


which I inherited. I try to bring the party together, I thought I had


done that for a few months but it seems now as if I was only papering


over the cracks. Douglas has gone and I think we will move on and be a


more unified party as a result. Did Douglas Carswell jump because he


expected to be pushed out your national executive committee


tomorrow? He came before the National executive committee to


answer questions regarding issues that have come to the fore over the


last couple of months. There was the knighthood issue, the issue


surrounding the Thanet election and his comments in a book which came


out regarding Brexit. So was he under suspicion? He was coming to


answer these questions and they would have been difficult. So he did


jump in your view? No, I'm not saying he would have been pushed out


of the party but he would have faced difficult questions. What is clear


is that a fissure had developed and I'm not surprised by him leaving the


party. You have also lost Diane James, Stephen Wolf, Arron Banks,


you failed to win the Stoke by election, Mr Carswell is now a


pundit on US television, Ukip now stands for the UK irrelevance party,


doesn't it? Paul's hard us yesterday on 12%, membership continues to


rise. -- the polls had us on 12%. 4 million people voted for Ukip. Over


the summer exciting things will be happening in the party, we will


rewrite the constitution, restructure the party, it will have


a new feel to it and we will be launching pretty much the post


Brexit Ukip. Arron Banks, who used to pay quite a lot of your bills, he


said the current leadership, that would be you, couldn't knock the


skin off a rice pudding, another way of saying you are relevant, isn't


it? I don't think that's fair. I've only been in the job since November


the 28th, we have taken steps to restructure the party already, the


party is on a sound financial footing, we won't have a problem


money wise going forward. It is a party which can really unified, look


forward to the post Brexit Iraq, tomorrow we are launching our Brexit


test for the Prime Minister. If it wasn't for Ukip there wouldn't have


been a referendum and we wouldn't have Brexit. Every time you say you


will unified, someone else leaves. Is Arron Banks still a member? No,


not at this moment in time. He has been a generous donor in the past,


he's done a great job of ensuring we get Brexit and I'm thankful for that


but he isn't a member. He has just submitted an invoice of ?2000 for


the use of call centres, will you pay that? No. That should be


interesting to watch. In the aftermath of the Westminster


attack, Nigel Farage told Fox News that it vindicates Donald Trump's


extreme vetting of migrants. Since the attacker was born in Kent, like


Nigel Farage, can you explain the relevance of the remark? I


personally haven't supported Donald Trump's position on this, but what I


will say, this is what Nigel has said as well, we have a problem


within the Muslim community, it is a small number of people who hate the


way we live... Can you explain the relevance of Mr Farage's remark? Mr


Farage also made the point about multiculturalism being the


problem as well and he is correct on that because we cannot have separate


communities living separate lives and never integrating. How would


extreme vetting of migrants help you track down a man who was born in


Kent? In this case it wouldn't. Maybe in other cases it would. But,


as I say, I'm not a supporter of Donald Trump's position on extreme


vetting, never have been, so I'm the wrong person to ask the question


too, Andrew. That has probably become clear in my efforts to get


you to answer it. Let me as too, should there be a by-election in


Clacton now? Douglas has called by-elections in the past when he has


left a political party, I know certain people in Ukip are keen to


go down this line, Douglas is always keen on recall and if 20% of people


in his constituency want a by-election then maybe we should


have won. Ukip will be opening nominations for Clacton very soon.


Hold on with us, Mr Nuttall, I have Douglas Carswell here in the studio.


Why not call a by-election? I'm not switching parties. You are, you are


becoming independent. There is a difference, I've not submitted


myself to the whip up a new party, if I was, I would be obliged to


trigger a by-election. If every time an MP in the House of Commons


resigned the whip or lost the whip, far from actually strengthening the


democracy against the party bosses, that would give those who ran


parties and enormous power, so I'm being absolutely consistent here,


I'm not joining a party. It is a change of status and Nigel Farage


has just said he will write to every constituent in Clacton and he wants


to try and get 20% of constituents to older by-election. We are going


to testing, he says, write to every house in Clacton, find out if his


constituents want a by-election, if 20% do we will find out if Mr


Carswell is honourable. I'm sure they will be delighted to hear from


Nigel. There have been several by-elections when Nigel has had the


opportunity to contact the electorate we did -- which did not


always go to plan. If you got 20%, would you? Yesterday I sent an


e-mail to 20,000 constituents, I have had a lot of responses back,


overwhelmingly supported. Recently you said you were 100% Ukip, now you


are 0%. What happened? I saw Theresa May triggering article 50, we won,


Andrew. You knew a few months ago she was going to do that. On June


the 24th I had serious thought about making the move but I wanted to be


absolutely certain that Article 50 would be triggered and I think it is


right. This is why ultimately Ukip exists, to get us out of the


European Union. We should be cheerful instead of attacking one


another, this is our moment, we made it happen. Did you try to sideline


the former Ukip leader during the referendum campaign? Not at all, I


have been open about this, the idea I have been involved in subterfuge.


You try to sideline him openly rather than by subterfuge? I made


the point we needed to be open, broad and progressive to win. I made


it clear in my acceptance speech in Clacton and when I said that Vote


Leave should get designation that the only way Euroscepticism would


win was by being more than just angry natives. What do you make of


that? I am over the moon that we have achieved Brexit, unlike Douglas


I rarely have that much confidence in Theresa May because history


proves that she is good at talking the talk but in walking the walk


often fails, and I'm disappointed because I wanted Douglas to be part


of the post Brexit Ukip where we move forward with a raft of domestic


policies and go on to take seat at Westminster. Do you think you try to


sideline Mr Farage during the referendum campaign? Vote Leave


certainly didn't want Nigel Farage front of house, we know that. They


freely admit that, they admitted it on media over the past year. Nigel


still was front of house because he is Nigel Farage and if it wasn't for


Nigel, as I said earlier, we wouldn't have at the referendum and


we wouldn't have achieved Brexit because Nigel Farage appeals, like


Ukip to a certain section of the population. If our primary motive is


to get us out of the European Union, why are we having this row, why


can't we just celebrate what is happening on Wednesday? We can, but


you are far more confident that Theresa May will deliver on this


than I am. Ukip may have been a single issue pressure group ten


years ago, it wasn't a single issue pressure group that you joined in


2014, it wasn't a single issue pressure group that you stood for in


2015 at the general election, and I'm disappointed that you have left


us when we are moving onto an exciting era. What specifically


gives you a lack of confidence in Mrs May's ability deliver? Her


record as Home Secretary, she said she would deal with radical Islam,


nothing happened, she said she would get immigration down to the tens of


thousands, last year in her last year as Home Secretary as city the


size of Newcastle came to this country, that is not tens of


thousands. I think we need to take yes for an answer eventually. The


problem with some Eurosceptics is they never accept they have won the


argument. We have one, Theresa May is going to do what we have wanted


her to do, let's be happy, let's celebrate that. But let's wait until


she starts bartering things away, until she betrays our fishermen,


just as other Conservative prime ministers have done in the past.


Let's wait until we end up still paying some sort of membership fee


into the European Union or a large divorce bill. That is not what


people voted for on June the 23rd and if you want to align yourself


with that, you are clearly not a Ukipper in my opinion. So for Ukip


to have relevance, it has to go wrong? I'm confident politics will


come back to our terms but -- our turf but there will be a post Brexit


Ukip that will stand for veterans, book slashing the foreign aid bill


and becoming the party of law and order. Finally, to you, Douglas


Carswell, you say you have confidence in Mrs May to deliver in


the way that Paul Nuttall doesn't. You backed her, you were


Conservative, you believe that Brexit will be delivered under a


Conservative Government. Why would you not bite the 2020 election as a


Conservative? I feel comfortable being independent. If you join a


party you have to agree to a bunch of stuff I would not want to agree


with. I am comfortable being independent. So you will go into


2020 as an independent? If you look at the raising of funds, what Vote


Leave did as a pop-up party... We only have five seconds, will you


fight as an independent in the next general election? Let's wait and


see. Very well! Thank you both very much.


Hello and welcome to your local part of the show


This week: A future Labour government offers an ambitious plan


to re-open old rail lines and invest hundreds of millions


But amid all the party splits, is anybody listening?


I'll be asking Newcastle Central MP Chi Onwurah


But first - it's been a traumatic week at Westminster.


Party politics obviously taking a back seat given


Chi Onwura, you were in Parliament at the time. What was the experience


was locked in the chamber for five was locked in the chamber for five


hours, we felt reasonably secure, Park at certain times when we could


hear noises and shouting. But it was the shock, and particularly the


policeman, the time we knew he had been stabbed, but we didn't know he


had been killed. It was a huge shock, and just think that


Parliament was under attack, under siege, and that the blood side had


been mown down by a vicious murderer, that was obviously very


shocking. And also having constituents their staff, it is a


huge place, there was a lot of huge place, there was a lot of


uncertainty, but also a lot of gallows humour and camaraderie. I


learned a lot about many of my conservative colleagues that I


didn't know. Lord Kirkhope, you were there as well. Yes, and I was


evacuated with many others into Westminster Abbey is literally a


sanctuary for us all for quite a number of hours. And there was a


recent concern. But I must admit that I thought the police and the


authorities were calm and collected, and as a result of that, there


wasn't any panic at all, which I thought was very commendable in the


circumstances. Yes, I must add that the House of Commons and House of


Lords staff were amazing, and the doorkeepers. They were so


supportive, so helpful and saw coming. You will have time to


reflect on this and on the Jo Cox murder, reflecting on how safe you


feel as an MP and your staff as well. What is your view? Edited the


shocking and disturbing, and the shocking and disturbing, and the


difference between knowing in theory that you may be a target and feeling


it is huge. But we're going to review security but in the


constituency and in Parliament. Basically it is still the same, that


I need to be accessible, Parliament, democracy to function needs to be


open and transparent, and we do need to be accessible. And that is the


balance that we have to get right. And I don't think we can move it


much further to words more security that acts as a barrier to engagement


with the public. Lord Kirkhope, you Rob Lee see an MP as well, but wind


and opened Chrissy. Do you think things have moved on drastically


from when you were an MP. This event was exactly a year after the


atrocities in Brussels where I was actually a few hundred yards away


from where that one went off in the underground station. But I think the


important thing is that the Prime Minister got it absolutely right,


when she said we will not waver in the face of terrorism. Democracy


will prevail. And that is something that is important in the way that we


do things. And I know that working together, there was no sort of...


Politically improper people closer together, in the Lords as well as


the Commons, and I think that was important. The resolution to do what


is necessary to protect the citizens of the country and around situation.


But not to allow ourselves to be distracted. We all pay a price.


Public life, I'm sure you do as an MP. Perhaps a Lord is not quite so


important in that sense because we are not elected anymore, but we all


pay a price life being public figures. That is a fact. And the


quite dangerous. But at the same time we must not allow ourselves to


do things in such a way that we can no longer serve people. Yes, I first


entered Parliament are shocked by the police with machine guns. It was


the first time I had worked in an environment where security was so


visible. Now, obviously recognising the huge sacrifice that the police


and Keith Palmer specifically made, I find it reassuring rather than


shocking. But we do need to make sure that... As I was leaving


Parliament on Wednesday evening a police officer apologised to me for


keeping MPs waiting. Which actually made me almost want to cry in a way,


but at the same time it is very British. As parliamentarians, it is


the values that we won't uphold in Parliament, and I think that with


got to work together to make sure that we maintain that. The open


democracy that people can see and touch. And you go to review security


measures sensibly, presumably. There has to be a full review as always


when these things happen. I remember when I was in the Home Office we had


terrorism issues to deal with at that time. Life was dangerous then


as well. It is dangerous in a different way now. Probably more so,


but you learn lessons from these things. You do things. But at the


you're still sufficiently accessible you're still sufficiently accessible


to the people you need to work for will stop let's hope we're not


discussing to many more events like that in the future.


Well, despite the attacks, political business does continue.


And Labour's Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell used a visit to Newcastle


It was a significant announcement with new rolling stock


on the Tyne and Wear Metro, old railway lines re-opened


and improvements to stations in Darlington and Middlesbrough.


Yet in the face of continued party in-fighting and unrest,


is anybody listening to Labour's plans?


It's a real pleasure to be back in Newcastle. A Labour Shadow


Chancellor in Newcastle, committing to a huge investment in the region's


transport network. ?2000 per head invested in transport


infrastructure. , ?200 per head in the north-east coast that cannot be


fair. It holds back investment and holds back jobs and wages. We are


trying to give a commitment. Based on the assessment of what is needed.


That comes from local authorities, from real candidates and Mayor 's


coming forward and local MPs saying, these are the improvements we need


to generate industry and jobs. If you like railways, the commitment to


all your Christmases at once. John McDonnell promise more than ?530


million for new trains on the Tyne Wear Metro. ?300 million to reopen


another line, and a to restart us your services on the Ashington wife


and timeline. At ?400 million of improvements on Teesside. In total


more than ?1.4 billion committed in just one speech, funded through


borrowing. Welcome news for campaigners who want this freight


only line to Tyneside to come to life with passengers. We welcome


announcements from any political parties. We starve George Osborne


always talking about his Northern powerhouse, but that seemed to


finish at Leeds. Money is essential, and whichever party is in government


at the minute, we ask them to commit to funding this scheme. The biggest


investment promise was on Tyne Wear's under pressure Metro. Dog by


problems and still using trains built when Jim Callaghan was Prime


Minister. But have passengers even notice the announcement? I never


seen it. It is needed, so that they run on time. I use the Metro every


day, but I haven't heard anything about the announcement, so I can't


give you an informed opinion. Nothing. No. You have heard about


it? You're the first one. Yes, there should be investment in the Metro.


No, don't know anything about it. Nothing at all. Perhaps the messages


on getting through to most because they were's current performances


even Rob than the Metro. 15 points behind in the opinion polls and dog


by division. It looks like a long journey to power. The government's


Northern powerhouse minister was keen to pour cold water when he


visited Teesside. They come up here, tell us how terrible everything is,


then make all these promises on the back of money that doesn't exist.


They don't have the money. Nobody thinks Labour's economic plans are


credible. Judge them when they were in power. We got relatively worse


off. It has been this Conservative government that has been billions of


pounds into transport improvements. There's no question of voters and


businesses want more investment. Questions remain about whether


Labour will ever get the chance to match their rhetoric on real with


results. Chi Onwura, live's economic


reputation was trashed post 2010. Borrowing 1.4 billion to invest in


transport, which is part ?100 billion that John McDonnell wants to


put into this infrastructure bank. It is not credible, is it? The


National Infrastructure Plan will be 200 billion of public sector money


and 200 billion of private sector money which will be used for a


number of schemes. But this is fantastic news, as someone who was


here when the Metro was first built in 1981 and would love it to the


world leading as it was then, it is absolutely right. But on the


specifics, because for the last specifics, because for the last


coalition government and the Tory government and doing is borrowing


more, not to invest in our infrastructure, borrowing more


because they cannot get growth into our economy. Borrowing as a


percentage of GDP has gone up under the Tories and the coalition


government, and they are ten years late on a five-year plan. As anyone


knows, if you are borrowing to invest which gets a return. On


Friday I was at the launch of Tech nation, which is all about how the


north-east is doing fantastic new businesses in the tech sector. One


of the big issues was transport. You cannot get to Newcastle from


Middlesbrough in a decent amount of times that these companies can


attract new employers to get the skills. Transport is crucial and


investing in means a return. It was a bold, ambitious announcement. I


have pored over budgets in the last few years looking for crumbs and


investment here and there from the government. This is pretty big


stuff. I can go out and make an announcement like that because I am


just as likely to be in charge of the government as the Labour Party


is. We have put an enormous amount of money, as long as I have been in


politics, 40 years, we have been putting money into, and positively


into, the north-east and the rest of the North of England. But a lot more


going to London. Outside of London begin the second largest and per


capita public spending in the north-east. Why do we have good


transport links? Inserted with Heseltine years ago. The motorways


of the north-east are mostly as a result of Conservative government.


There are no motorways. As far as I'm aware there are. I have studied


were John McDonnell said. Amid a very unfair remark. He said that for


decades under investment by distant governments and their corporate


allies have resulted in failures in the north-east of it. Can I just


tell you that many small and medium-sized businesses around the


north-east at the moment are investing, the successes that there


have been in this area, feel those remarks to be not helpful. We should


be looking at a positive attitude to the north-east. If the Labour Party


can only come up with this stuff, I'm afraid that is not very good for


the future. Talking down the region is the accusation. We, the Labour


Party, are the champions, and particularly in Parliament, where


the idea that the Northern powerhouse go north of Osborne's


constituency is radical. And of course now he'll be focusing on


London. We recognise the huge successes, like said about the tech


sector, the health sector, our skills sector. But that is with huge


barriers, and the lack of investment in our infrastructure has held us


back. Enterprise zones, development corporations, all of that under


Conservative governments. That is all around the edges. Let us get


proper investment in infrastructure we can do the rest. The problem is,


as we saw, is anybody taking notice? as we saw, is anybody taking notice?


Given how far behind you are in opinion polls and the headlines are


about Labour divisions. I recognise that. And we certainly have not got


our media management where we need to be. But you see the increasing


division in the government, that's why there was a huge climb-down over


the budget because you cannot keep your backbench MPs online, and this


debate is now being heard in Whitehall about why I'm investing in


the South? Why do all the calculation see more figures in the


South. Ten times more investment in London in the north-east. Is that


fair? Transport specifically, undoubtedly there is more money in


London, and I agree we should spend more money, but I don't think the


Labour Party's plan, bearing in mind the whole roll call me of this


country, makes any practical sense. And we should be recognising the


great achievements of the north-east, indeed the wider


northern part of our country. That's a good thing. Encouraging people not


going on like that. We have had years of austerity, which means that


most people are worse off than they were ten years ago. We need


investment to get growth so that investment in infrastructure to give


us the growth so that we have jobs. Borrowing to invest a sensible. We


all should invest but should try to have an investment that is not just


investment by government. It has to be investment also by the private


sector, and the north-east has been very successful in recent years in


raising them and investment it is from the private sector.


Now as Theresa May prepares to trigger Brexit on Wednesday,


a survey of North East businesses this weekend suggests


many are concerned about what the future will hold.


The North East of England Chamber of Commerce questioned its members


over the last month and released the results to the BBC.


More on that now - and the rest of the week's


Asked what impact they think the UK leaving the European Union will


have on exports, 59 Northeast companies, 40% of those who


replied to the survey, said it would make things worse.


Half also thought young people's job prospects will also suffer.


Ross Smith from the Chamber gave his reaction.


Overall, this shows that government has not


convinced businesses in the north-east yet that they can


It does not mean it cannot be done, but they will have to negotiate very


hard to get the best possible deal and then


implement it effectively so that it


Sunderland is one of ten places in the UK to become


It will get over ?840,000 to restore all buildings.


Appleby in Cumbria will also receive cash.


Wansbeck MP Ian Lavery apologised for a breach in Commons


He failed to register that his former employer, the NUM, held a


And Northumberland Council has been told


to replace 90 trees chopped down in Morpork.


Les Stocker Road in business survey on Brexit. It is one survey,


admittedly, but on balance businesses so exports and the common


worsening after Brexit. That has to be worrying. It is realistic to the


extent that people are concerned about what will happen. It's no


secret of the fact that I wish in many ways people have been a


different decision last year. But they made the decision they did an


government is following it now. And the situation is that businesses and


others are nervous about the future. I think our legislators have to be


nervous about the future, but at the same time they have to find


solutions that can give confidence like to people in business, back to


people like the Chamber of Commerce. That will be a great challenge but


it is something we are facing as a result of the decision. Business


might want to see a change of direction. Pessimism might be based


on the kind of Brexit Prime Minister is pursuing. We don't know what sort


of Brexit we're going to get. She has made it clear she is going to


prioritise immigration, for instance, over access to the single


market, and she is prepared to do no deal rather than a bad deal. I guess


that is what might be influencing. I don't think it is going to work like


that. As far as I'm concerned, there will be a number of baskets of


things, all very important. Security is something I'm interested in, how


we continue close religion ships within Europe. Trade is another


matter immigration and movement of people is something clearly dictated


and what people said at the time. and what people said at the time.


Week to get that into some sort of order. It will be conjugated, no


doubt. I hope we will be able to resolve it the best way we can to


get a good result here, including for these businesses that are


undoubtedly liked all of us are at this stage are little nervous. Chi


Onwura, businesses were nervous about Brexit. We have not moved on


yet, it is still in that context, isn't it? Orders concerning about


this report is it shows that there is less confidence now following


Brexit, even though some of the economic news since Brexit has been


trailed as being better than expected. I think the simple reason


that is that the government is showing total lack of leadership. I


was not in favour of Brexit, but now that we have, now that it is


happening, we have to show leadership. She has shown a clear


direction of travel. You may not agree, but it is clear. It is


leadership off a cliff. No deal is better than a bad deal? Without even


doing the analysis of what the impact of no deal would be. There is


no understanding of what the impact of no deal is. Of course businesses


are uncertain. It is only big companies like Nissan to get the


special deals. We have not started the negotiations. We do not know


what will be offered to us and what we will have to go for in the end.


Talking about clarity, I think it Talking about clarity, I think it


would be nonsensical to suggest that we're not clear but for instance the


Labour Party is. I think there is a Labour Party is. I think there is a


lack of clarity here in certain areas because we have not started


this negotiation. A lot of people would say that the Labour Party has


not achieved a great deal in this process. It hasn't got the


government to roll back on anything. The government has shown a total


lack of willingness to listen. A total lack of understanding or


analysis. But let's be clear, we are very clear about the sort of economy


we want, we want a high skills, high wage economy with access to the


single market. The Conservative Party, their idea for a no deal


of tax haven. That is changing our of tax haven. That is changing our


economic model. There will not be a no deal situation. We will get a


deal, and that deal is going to be hard fought for, but it has to be as


good as we can get. Do you think Boris and David have the skills, the


negotiating skills? I wouldn't dream of commenting on my colleagues in


that sense. 27 nations have to agree to this. Not only that but also the


European Parliament that I have just left, they have to agree a deal at


the end of the day. Perhaps wanting would say, and this applies not just


my but others are other parties, they have to learn the realism of


what we have here, and how these decisions have to be taken and


endorsed. That in itself is a diplomatic challenge of quite a high


order. We will get through it unsure. We just have to be realistic


about the circumstances. One reason for the lack of confidence is all


the European Union nationals in the north-east working in universities


and the NHS in companies who do not know what is happening. We welcome


them and we need them and we will always keep them, I'm sure. The fact


we not guaranteeing their rights. And that's about it


from us for this week. On the BBC's Look North Facebook


account next week - we'll be talking to young people


in Sunderland about how we don't have any more time! Thank


you both for coming in, Andrew, back to you.


So yesterday the European Union celebrated its 60th birthday


at a party in Rome, the city where the founding document


Leaders of 27 EU countries were there to mark the occasion -


overshadowing it, though, the continued terrorist threat,


And on Wednesday Theresa May, who wasn't in Rome yesterday,


will trigger Article 50, formally starting


The President of the European Council, Donald Tusk,


made an appeal for unity at the gathering.


Today in Rome, we are renewing the unique alliance of free nations


that was initiated 60 years ago by our great predecessors.


At that time, they did not discuss multiple speeds,


they did not devise exits, but despite all the tragic


circumstances of the recent history they placed all their faith


Mr Tusk, he is Polish, the man that has the Council of ministers, and on


that council where every member of the EU sits he is an important


figure in what is now about to happen. We have got to negotiate our


divorce terms, we've got to agree a new free trade deal, new


crime-fighting arrangements, we've got to repatriate 50 international


trade agreements, and all of that has to be ratified within two years,


by 27 other countries. Can that really happen?! I don't think it is


inconceivable because it is in the interests of those 27 EU member


states to try and negotiate a deal that we can all live with, because


that would be preferable to Britain crashing out within two years. But I


think this is why Labour's position is becoming increasingly incoherent.


Keir Starmer has briefed today that he will be making a speech tomorrow


setting out six conditions which he wants the deal to meet, otherwise


Labour won't vote for it, but if Labour doesn't vote for it that


doesn't mean we will be able to negotiate an extension, that would


be incredibly difficult and require the consent of each of the 27 member


states, so if Labour votes against it we will just crash out, it is


effectively Labour saying no deal is better than a poor deal, which is


not supposed to be their position. Labour's position may be incoherent


but I was not asking about their position, I was asking about the


Government's position. The man heading the Badila said he wants it


ready by October next year so that it can go through the ratification


process, people looking at this would think it is Mission:


Impossible. It seems impossible to me to be done in that time. The fact


that it is 27 countries, the whole of the European Parliament as well,


there will be too many people throbbing spanners in the works and


quite rightly. We have embarked on something that is truly terrible and


disastrous, and the imagery we can have of those 27 countries


celebrating together 60 years of the most extraordinary successful


movement for peace, for shared European values, and others not


there... We were not there at the start either, and we are not there


now! And we have been bad partners while we were inside, but now that


we are leaving... They did not look like it was a birthday party to me!


I think it was, there was a sense of renewal, Europe exists as a place


envied in the world for its values, for its peacefulness, that is why


people flocked to its borders, that is why they come here. Can you look


at the agenda that faces the UK Government and EU 27, is it not


possible, in fact even likely, that as the process comes to an end they


will have to agree on a number of areas of transitional arrangements?


I think they will and they will have to agree that soon, I would not be


surprised if sometime soon there is an understanding is not a formal


decision that this is a process that will extend over something closer to


buy or seven than two years. On Wednesday article 50 will be filed


and there will be lots of excitement and hubbub but nothing concrete can


happen for a while. Elections in France in May, elections in Germany


which could really result in a change of Government... That is the


big change, Mrs Merkel might not be there by October. And who foresaw


that a few months ago? So you might be into 28 Dean before you are into


the substantive discussions about how much market access or regulatory


observance. I cannot see it being completed in two years. I could see,


if negotiations are not too acrimonious, that transitional


agreement taking place. Let's look at the timetable again. The council


doesn't meet until the end of April, it meets in the middle of the French


elections, the first round will have taken place, they will need a second


round so not much can happen. President Hollande will be


representing France, then the new French government, if it is Marine


le Pen all bets are off, but even if it is Mr Mac run, he does not have a


party, he will not have a majority, the French will take a long while to


sort out themselves. Then it is summer, we are off to the Cote


d'Azur, particularly the Bolivian elite, then we come back from that


and the Germans are in an election, it may be very messy, Mrs Merkel no


longer a shoo-in, it could be Mr Schultz, he may have to try to form


a difficult green red coalition, that would take a while. Before you


know it, it is Guy Fawkes' Day and no substance has taken place, yet we


are then less than a year before this has to be decided. It is a big


task and I'm sure Jana is right that there will be transitional


arrangements and not everything will be concluded in that two year


timetable, but in some respects what you have described helps those of us


on the Eurosceptic site because it means they cannot really be a


meaningful parliamentary vote on the terms of the deal because nothing is


going to be agreed quickly enough for them to be able to go back and


agree something else if Parliament rejects it, so when the Government


eventually have something ready to bring before Parliament it will be a


take it or leave it boat. How extraordinary that people who have


campaigned. Indeed give us our country back and say, isn't it


wonderful, we won't have a meaningful boat for our


parliamentarians of the most important... We don't know what the


negotiation, the package is, day by day we see more and more complicated


areas nobody ever thought about, nobody mentioned during the


campaign, all of which has to be resolved and the European Council


and the negotiators say nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.


You lead us into a catastrophe. There will be plenty of opportunity


for Parliament to have its say following the introduction of the


Great Repeal Bill, it is not as if there will be no Parliamentary time


devoted. The final package is what counts. We have two years to blog


about this! There was a big Proview -- pro-EU


march yesterday... I was there! Polly Toynbee was there, down to


Parliament Square, lots of people there marching in favour of the


European Union. We can see the EU flags there on flags, lots of


national flags as well, the British one. Polly, is it the aim of people


like you still to stop Brexit, or to soften Brexit? I think the aim is


for the best you can possibly do to limit the damage. Of course, if it


happens that once people have had a chance to see how much they were


lied to during the campaign and how dreadful the deal is likely to be,


if it happens that enough people in the population have changed their


minds, then maybe... There is no sign up yet. But we have not even


begun, people have not begun to confront what it is going to mean.


Wait and see. I think it is just being as close as we can. Is that


credible, do you think, to stop it or to ameliorate it in terms of the


Remainers? I think it is far more credible to try and stop it but even


then the scope is limited. It is fairly apparent Theresa May's


interpretation of the referendum is the country wants an end to free


movement, there is probably no way of doing that inside the single


market. She also wants external trade deals, no way of doing that


outside the customs unit, said the only night you can depend if you are


pro-European is, let's not leave without any trade pact, at least


let's meet Canada and have a formalised trade agreement. The idea


of ace -- of a very soft exit is gone now because the public really


did want an end to free movement and the Government really does want


external trade deals. It depends what changes in Europe. I think the


momentum behind the Remoaning movement will move away. One of the


banners I saw being held up yesterday by a young boy on the news


was, don't put my daddy on a boat. It gets a lot of its moral force


from the uncertainty surrounding the fate of EU nationals here and our


resident in the remainder of the EU and I think David Lidington is right


that it will be concluded quite quickly once negotiations start and


that will take a lot of the heat and momentum out of the remaining


movement. Why didn't Theresa May allow that amendment that said, we


will do that, as an act of generosity, we will say, of course


those European citizens here are welcome to stay? It would have been


such a good opening move in the negotiations, instead of which she


blocked it. It does not augur well. I have interviewed many Tories about


this and put that point to them but they often say the Prime minister's


job is to look after UK citizen in the EU... Bargaining chips, I think


you have to be generous and you have to wish you people in Spain and


everywhere else where there are British citizens would have


responded. The British Government did try and raise that with their EU


counterparts and were told, we cannot begin to talk about that


until article 50 has been triggered. Next week we will be able to talk


about it. How generous it would have been, we would have started on a


better note. Didn't happen, we will see what happens next with EU


citizens. That is it for today, the Daily Politics will be back tomorrow


at midday and every day next week on BBC Two as always.


And there's also a Question Time special live tomorrow


night from Birmingham - with guests including


the Brexit Secretary David Davis, Labour's Keir Starmer,


former Ukip leader Nigel Farage and the SNP's Alex Salmond -


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


Until then, remember - if it's Sunday, it's


Andrew Neil and Richard Moss discuss the Westminster attack with Commons leader David Lidington and head of Europol Rob Wainwright. Plus Ukip leader Paul Nuttall talks about Douglas Carswell about quitting the party. Panellists include Janan Ganesh from the Financial Times, Polly Toynbee from The Guardian and Toby Young from The Spectator.

Download Subtitles