12/03/2017 Sunday Politics North West

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Nina Warhurst with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 12/03/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,


ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process


We'll talk to a Tory rebel and Ukip's Nigel Farage.


Phillip Hammond's first budget hit the rocks thanks to a tax rise


But how should we tax those who work for themselves?


And remember Donald Trump's claim that Barack Obama had ordered


We'll talk to the former Tory MP who set the whole story rolling.


And in the North West, local budget reaction.


Has the Chancellor got businesses over a barrel?


Why there could be trouble brewing for Philip Hammond.


And joining me for all of that, three self-employed journalists


who definitely don't deserve a tax break.


It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme with all the carefree


abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.


BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!


So first today, the government is gearing up to trigger Article 50,


perhaps in the next 48 hours, and start negotiating Britain's


Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons


getting a "meaningful vote" on the deal Britain negotiates.


Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme


earlier this morning and he was asked what happens


Well, that is what is called the most favoured nation status deal


There we go out, as it were, on WTO rules.


That is why of course we do the contingency planning, to make


The British people decided on June the 23rd last year


My job, and the job of the government, is to make


the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.


There we have it, clearly, either Parliament votes for the deal when


it is done or it out on World Trade Organisation rules. That's what the


government means by a meaningful vote.


I think we get over obsessed about whether there will be a legal right


for Parliament to have a vote. If there is no deal or a bad deal, I


think it would be politically impossible for the government to


reject Parliament's desire for a vote because the atmosphere of


politics will be completely different by then. I take David


Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as


being the most conscientious and details sadly... And well briefed.


Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the


three Brexit ministers. It is quite telling he said what he did and it


is quite telling that within cabinet, two weeks ago he was


floating the idea of no deal at all. Being if not the central estimate


than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I


would suggest the prospect of no deal is moving up the agenda. It is


still less likely than more likely to happen. But it's no longer a kind


of long tail way out there in the distance. Planning for no deal is


the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan


for the worse case scenarios are prepared it happens. Even the worst


case scenario, it's not that bad. Think of the Jeep 20, apart from the


EU, four members of the G20 economies are successful members of


the EU. The rest aren't and don't have trade deals but somehow these


countries are prospering. They are growing at a higher rate. You are


not frightened? Not remotely. We are obsessed with what we get from the


EU and the key thing we get from leaving the EU is not the deal but


the other deals we can finally make with other trading partners. They


have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from


Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the


government to say if there is no deal, we will accept there is no


deal. We're not frightened of no deal. It was clear from what David


Davies was saying that there will be a vote in parliament at the end of


the process but there won't be a third option to send the government


back to try to get a better deal. It is either the deal or we leave


without a deal. In reality, that third option will be there. We don't


know yet whether there will be a majority for the deal if they get


one. What we do know now is that there isn't a majority in the


Commons for no deal. Labour MPs are absolutely clear that no deal is


worth then a bad deal. I've heard enough Tory MPs say the same thing.


But they wouldn't get no deal through. When it comes to this vote,


if whatever deal is rejected, there will then be, one way or another,


the third option raised of go back again. But who gets to decide what


is a bad deal? The British people will have a different idea than the


two thirds of the Remain supporting MPs in the Commons. In terms of the


vote, the Commons. Surely, if the Commons, which is what matters here,


if the Commons were to vote against the deal as negotiated by the


government, surely that would trigger a general election? If the


government had recommended the deal, surely the government would then, if


it still felt strongly about the deal, if the other 27 had said,


we're not negotiating, extending it, it would in effect become a second


referendum on the deal. In effect it would be a no-confidence vote in the


government. You've got to assume that unless something massively


changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel


fairly confident about a general election on those terms. Unless the


deal is hideously bad and obviously basso every vote in the country...


The prior minister said if it is that bad she would have rather no


deal. So that eventuality arrives. -- the Prime Minister has said. Not


a second referendum general election in two years' time. Don't put any


holidays for! LAUGHTER -- don't look any.


So the Brexit bill looks likely to clear Parliament this week.


That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared


to vote against their government on two key issues.


Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European


partners within days, but there may be some


wheeler-dealings she has to do with her own MPs, too.


Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.


The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably


But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure


the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.


Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament


a say on the deal struck with the EU before it's finalised.


But remember those numbers, they're important.


On the issue of a meaningful vote on a deal, I'm told there might have


been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from


I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion


on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses


And we expect, and intend, that this will happen before


the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.


When the government was criticised for reeling back


from when and what it would offer a vote on.


The bill then moved into the Lords, where peers passed it


And the second, that Parliament be given a meaningful vote on the terms


of the deal or indeed a vote in the event of there


The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons


Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken


the government's negotiating hand and are seeking to overturn them.


But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.


Theresa May has a working majority of 17.


On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.


At least six Labour MPs generally vote with


Plus, eight DUP MPs, two from the Ulster Unionist party


If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,


Therefore, 26 Conservative rebels are needed for the government to be


So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?


What numbers are we looking at, in terms of a potential rebellion?


I think we're looking at a large number of people who are interested


This building is a really important building.


It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.


And for it not to be involved in this momentous time would,


But he says a clear verbal statement from the government on a meaningful


vote on any deal would be enough to get most Tory MPs onside.


It was already said about David Jones.


It's slightly unravelled a little bit during


I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity


through so that we can all vote for Article 50 and get


We've have spoken to several Tory MPs who say they are minded to vote


One said the situation was sad and depressing.


The other said that the whips must be worried because they don't


A minister told me Downing Street was looking again at the possibility


of offering a vote in the event of no deal being reached.


But that its position was unlikely to change.


And, anyway, government sources have told the Sunday Politics they're not


That those Tory MPs who didn't back either amendment the first time


round would look silly if they did, this time.


It would have to be a pretty hefty lot of people changing their minds


about things that have already been discussed in quite a lot of detail,


last time it was in the Commons, for things to be reversed this time.


There's no doubt that a number of Tory MPs are very concerned.


Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory


rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.


The important thing, I think, is to focus on the fact


that this is the last chance to have a say on this.


If they're going to vote with us, Monday is the time to do it.


Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,


it will go back to the Lord's on Monday night where Labour peers


have already indicated they won't block it again.


It means that the Brexit bill would become law and Theresa May


would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.


Her own deadline was the end of this month.


But one minister told me there were advantages to doing it early.


We're joined now from Nottingham by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry.


She's previously voted against the government on the question


of whether Parliament should have a final say over the EU deal.


Anna Soubry, I think it was clear this morning from David Davies that


what he means by meaningful vote is not what you mean by a meaningful


vote. He thinks the choice for Parliament would be to either vote


for the deal and if Parliament doesn't, we leave on World Trade


Organisation rules, on a bare-bones structure. In the end, will he


accept that in the Commons tomorrow? No, because my problem and I don't


think it is a problem, but my problem, the government's problem is


that what I want is then to answer this question. What happens in the


event of their not being any deal? David Davies made it very clear that


in the event of there being no deal, Parliament would have no say. It


means through your elected representatives, the people of this


country would have no say on what happens if the government doesn't


get a deal. I think the request that Parliament should have a say on


Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I


want David to say. If he says that, I won't be rebelling. If he does...


They have refused to say that. Sorry. If he continues to say what


he said the BBC this morning, which means that the vote will be either


to accept the as negotiated or to leave on WTO rules, will you rebel


on that question but no, no, sorry, if there's a deal, Parliament will


have a say. So that's fine. And we will see what the deal is and we


will look at the options two years down the road. When who knows


what'll happen in our economy and world economy. That is one matter


which I am content on. The Prime Minister, a woman of her word has


said that in the event of a deal, Parliament will vote on any deal. I


don't difficulty. To clarify, I will come onto that. These are important


matters. I want to clarify, not argue with you. You are content that


if there is a deal, we will come under no deal in a second, but if


there is a deal, you are content with the choice of being able to


vote for that deal or leaving on WTO terms? No, you're speculating as to


what might happen in two years' time. What the options might be.


Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back


with a rubbish deal. They will either come back with a good deal,


which I won't have a problem with or they will come back with no deal. To


speculate about coming back with a deal, there is a variety of options.


I understand that that is what the Lord amendments are about. They are


about a vote at the end of the process. Do forgive me, the Lords


amendment is not the same that I've voted for in Parliament. What we


call the Chris Leslie amendment, which was talking about whatever the


agreement is, whatever happens at the end of the negotiations,


Parliament will have a vote. Parliament will have a say. The


Lords amendment is a bit more technical. It is the principle of no


deal that is agitating us. Let's clarify on this. They are


complicated matters. What do you want the government to say? What do


you want David Davis to say tomorrow on what should the Parliamentary


process should be if there is no deal? Quite. I want a commitment


from him that in the event of no deal, it will come into Parliament


and Parliament will determine what happens next. It could be that in


the event of no deal, the best thing is for us to jump off the cliff into


WTO tariff is. I find it unlikely but that might be the reality. There


might be other alternatives. Most importantly, including saying to the


government, go back, carry on. The question that everybody has to ask


is, why won't the government give My fear is what this is about is


asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately


ensuring we have no deal and no deal pretty soon and in that event, we


jumped off the cliff onto WTO tariffs and nobody in this country


and the people of this country do not have a say. My constituents did


not vote for hard Brexit. You do not want the government to


have the ability if there is no deal to automatically fall back on the


WTO rules? Quite. It is as simple as that. We are now speculating about


what will happen in two years. I want to find out what happens


tomorrow. What will you do if you don't get that assurance? I will


either abstain, or I will vote to keep this amendment within the Bill.


I will either vote against my government, which I do not do


likely, I have never voted against my government until the Chris Leslie


clause when the Bill was going through, or I will abstain, which


has pretty much the same effect because it comes into the Commons


with both amendments so you have positively to vote to take the map.


Can you give us an idea of how many like-minded conservative colleagues


there are. I genuinely do not know. You must talk to each other. I do


not talk to every member of my party. You know people who are


like-minded. I do. I am not doing numbers games. I know you want that


but I genuinely do not know the figure. I think this is an


uncomfortable truth. People have to understand what has happened in our


country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting


an agenda and I think many people are rather concerned, some


frightened, to put their head over the parapet. There are many millions


of people who feel totally excluded from this process. Many of them


voted to remain. And they have lost their voice. We have covered the


ground I wanted to. We're joined now by the Ukip MEP


and former leader Nigel Farage. Article 50 triggered, we are leaving


the EU, the single market and the customs union. What is left you to


complain about? All of that will happen and hopefully we will get the


triggered this week which is good news. What worries me a little I'm


not sure the government recognises how strong their handers. At the


summit in Brussels, the word in the corridors is that we are prepared to


give away fishing waters as a bargaining chip and the worry is


what deal we get. Are we leaving, yes I am pleased about that. You are


under relevant voice in the deal because the deal will be voted on in


Parliament and you have one MP. You are missing the point, the real vote


in parliament is not in London but Strasbourg. This is perhaps the


biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens


in the Commons that the end of the two years, the European Parliament


could veto the deal. What that means is people need to adopt a different


approach. We do not need to be lobbying in the corridors of


Brussels to get a good deal, we need is a country to be out there talking


to the German car workers and Belgian chocolate makers, putting as


much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to


come to a sensible arrangement. It is in their interests more than


ours. In what way is the vision of Brexit set out by David Davis any


different from your own? I am delighted there are people now


adopting the position I argued for many years. Good. But now... Like


Douglas Carswell, he said he found David Davis' performers this morning


reassuring. It is. And just as when Theresa May was Home Secretary every


performance she gave was hugely reassuring. She was seen to be a


heroine after her conference speeches and then did not deliver. I


am concerned that even before we start we are making concessions. You


described in the EU's divorce bill demands, 60 billion euros is floated


around. You said it is laughable and I understand that. Do you maintain


that we will not have to pay a penny to leave? It is nine months since we


voted exit and assuming the trigger of Article 50, we would have paid 30


billion in since we had a vote. We are still members. But honestly, I


do not think there is an appetite for us to pay a massive divorce


Bill. There are assets also. Not a penny? There will be some ongoing


commitments, but the numbers talked about our 50, ?60 billion, they are


frankly laughable. I am trying to find out if you are prepared to


accept some kind of exit cost, it may be nowhere near 60 billion. We


have to do a net agreement, the government briefed about our share


of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a


transitional arrangement, deal, five, ten billion, as part of the


divorce settlement? We are painted net ?30 million every single day at


the moment, ?10 billion plus every year. That is just our contribution.


We are going to make a massive saving on this. What do you make of


what Anna Soubry said, that if there is no deal, and it is being talked


about more. Maybe the government managing expectations. There is an


expectation we will have a deal, but if there is no deal, that the


government cannot just go to WTO rules, but it has to have a vote in


parliament? By the time we get to that there will be a general


election coming down the tracks and I suspect that if at the end of the


two-year process there is no deal and by the way, no deal is a lot


better for the nation than where we currently are, because we freed of


regulations and able to make our own deals in the world. I think what


would happen, and if Parliament said it did not back, at the end of the


negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports


this morning, one of your most senior aides has passed a dossier to


police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the


seat contested in the election. What evidence to you have? I read that in


the newspapers as you have. I am not going to comment on it. Will you not


aware of the contents of the dossier? I am not aware of the


dossier. He was your election strategists. I am dubious as to


whether this dossier exists at all. Perhaps the newspapers have got this


wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place


in that constituency, there are. Allegedly, he has refuted it, was it


done by your MP to give information to the Tories, do you have evidence


about? We have evidence Mr Carswell downloaded information, we have no


evidence what he did with it. It is not just your aide who has been


making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and


other seats, if the evidence was to be substantial, and if it was to


result in another by-election being called an Thanet South had to be


fought again, would you be the Ukip candidate? I probably would. You


probably would? Yes. Just probably? Just probably. It would be your


eighth attempt. Winning seats in parliament under first past the post


is not the only way to change politics in Britain and I would like


to think I proved that. Let's go back to Anna Soubry. The implication


of what we were saying on the panel at the start of the show and what


Nigel Farage was saying there would be that if at the end of the process


whatever the vote, if the government were to lose it, it would provoke a


general election properly. I think that would be right. Let's get real.


The government is not going to come to Parliament with anything other


than something it believes is a good deal and if it rejected it, would be


unlikely, there would be a de facto vote of no confidence and it would


be within the fixed term Parliaments act and that be it. The problem is,


more likely, because of the story put up about the 50 billion, 60


billion and you look at the way things are flagged up that both the


Prime Minister and Boris Johnson saying, we should be asking them for


money back, I think the big fear and the fear I have is we will be


crashing out in six months. You think we could leave as quickly as


six months. Explain that. I think they will stoke up the demand from


the EU for 50, 60 billion back and my real concern is that within six


months, where we're not making much progress, maybe nine months, and


people are getting increasingly fed up with the EU because they are told


it wants unreasonable demands, and then the crash. I think what is


happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the


bottom of the cliff to break our fall when we come to fall off that


cliff and I think many in government are preparing not for a two-year


process, but six, to nine months, off the cliff, out we go. That is my


fear. That is interesting. I have not heard that express before by


someone in your position. I suspect you have made Nigel Farage's date.


It is a lovely thought. I would say to Anna Soubry she is out of date


with this. 40 years ago there was a good argument for joining the common


market because tariffs around the world was so high. That has changed


with the World Trade Organisation. We are leaving the EU and rejoining


a great big world and it is exciting. She was giving an


interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather


than two years. I thank you both. It was Philip Hammond's first


budget on Wednesday - billed as a steady-as-she-goes


affair, but turned out to cause uproar after the Chancellor appeared


to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase


in national insurance contributions. The aim was to address what some see


as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay


more National Insurance The controversy centres


on increasing the so-called class 4 rate for the self-employed who make


a profit of more than ?8,060 a year. It will go up in stages


from 9% to 11% in 2019. The changes mean that over one


and a half million will pay on average ?240 a year


more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,


with even the Wales Minister saying: "I will apologise to every


voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto


in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip


Hammond "spite van man". The Daily Mail called the budget


"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May


said the government One of the first things I did


as Prime Minister was to commission Matthew Taylor to review the rights


and protections that were available to self-employed workers


and whether they should be enhanced. People will be able to look


at the government paper when we produce it, showing


all our changes, and take And, of course, the Chancellor will


be speaking, as will his ministers, to MPs, businesspeople and others


to listen to the concerns. Well, the man you heard mentioned


there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing


a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided


the self-employed should pay almost the same in National Insurance, not


the same but almost, as the employed will stop what is left of your


commission? The commission has a broader frame of reference and we


are interested in the quality of work in the economy at the heart of


what I hope will be proposing is a set of shifts that will improve the


quality of that work so we have an economy where all work is fair and


decent and all jobs give people scope for development and


fulfilment. The issue of taxes a small part. You will cover that? We


will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive


particular behaviours in our labour market. You approve I think of the


general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the


self-employed. Taxing them in return perhaps for more state benefits. Why


are so many others on the left against it from Tim Farron to John


McDonnell? Tax rises are unpopular and it is the role of the opposition


parties to make capital from unpopular tax rises. I think as tax


rises go this is broadly progressive. There are self-employed


people on low incomes and they will be better off. It is economic league


rational because the reason for the difference in National Insurance --


economically. It was to do with state entitlements. The government


is consulting about paid parental leave. A series of governments have


not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax


base. Self-employment is growing. But it is eroding the tax base. It


is important to address those issues. A number of think tanks have


said this is a progressive move. Yet, a number of left-wing


politicians have been against it. And a number of Tories have said


this is a progressive move and not a Tory government move, the balance of


you will pay more tax, but you will get more state benefits is not a


Tory approach to things. That a Tory approach will be you will pay less


tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.


I preferred in and policies to politics -- I prefer policies. When


people look at the policy and when they look the fact that there is no


real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,


they see it is a sensible policy. I don't have to deal with the


politics. There has been a huge growth in self-employment from the


turn of the millennium. It's been strongest amongst older workers,


women part-timers. Do you have any idea, do you have


the data in your commission that could tell us how many are taking


self-employment because they like the flexibility and they like the


tax advantages that come with it, too, or they are being forced into


it by employers who don't want the extra costs of employment? Do we


know the difference? We do, broadly. Most surveys on self-employment and


flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters


enjoy it, they like the flexibility, they like the autonomy and about a


third to one quarter are less happy. That tends to be because they would


like to have a full-time permanent job. It is not necessary that they


don't enjoy what they are doing, they would like to do other things.


And some of the protections that come with it? Yes. There are some


people who are forced into southern employees by high-risk but also some


people feel like they can't get a proper job as it were. --


self-employment by people who hire them. It is on the narrow matter of


tax revenues but if you are employed on ?32,000 the state will take over


?6,000 in national insurance contributions, that is quite chunky.


If you are self-employed it is ?2300. But the big difference


between those figures isn't what the employee is paying, it's the


employer's contributions up to almost 14%, and cupped for as much


as you are paid. What do you do about employers' contributions for


the self employed? -- it is uncapped for as much. What I recommend is


that we should probably move from taxing employment to taxing labour.


We should probably have a more level playing field so it doesn't really


matter... Explained that I thought it was the same thing. If you are a


self-employed gardener, you are a different tax regime to a gardener


who works for a gardening firm. On the individual side and on the firm


side. As we see new business models, so-called gig working, partly with


technology, we need a more level playing field saying that we're


taxing people's work, not the form in which they deliver that. That is


part of the reason we have seen the growth of particular business


models. They are innovative and creative and partly driven by the


fact that if you can describe yourself as self-employed there are


tax advantages. Coming out in June? Will you come back and talk to us?


Yes. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20 minutes,


we'll be talking to the former Tory MP who was the root


of Donald Trump's allegation I'm Nina Warhurst, coming up


in the North West... Has the Chancellor got


businesses over a barrel? That's the problem I've got


with this government at the minute - they used to be the government


of business, now they're Well, stirring things up


here in the studio are two Jeff Smith is the Labour MP


for Manchester Withington. David Mowat the Conservative


for Warrington South and also Minister responsible


for Community, Health and Care. It's budget week!


How was it for you, David? Well, I think it was


a good budget on the whole. I suppose that the things that sort


of hit me most were the growth forecasts have increased.


That means more jobs. And, as you say, I'm


the Minister for social care, so I was very pleased


that the Chancellor came up with No doubt a different


take for you, Jeff? Well, I thought it was


very disappointing? Well, I thought it was


very disappointing. Not just because of the broken


promises on national insurance, but I don't think it has


the long-term answers. I think the long-term outlook


is not as optimistic OK, and you're not alone in that


Jeff, because even some of Philip Hammond's Conservative


colleagues said that tax rises for the self-employed would hardly


have the white van man popping So was there anything


at all to toast? Well, that was more money


for social care, as David said, a bit of help for business rate


payers, and a small boost for pubs. Guess where Stuart Pollitt chose


to go to see if it's cheers Market day and


Budget day in Lancaster. All eyes on the man


controlling the money. As pints were pulled


in the Sun Hotel, the boss was as interested in business rates


as he was in beer prices. The rates on this place


have gone up ?70,000. Have you seen anything


there that helps you? No, it was a very


disappointing budget for me. There were three options


that the Chancellor mentioned. So the last one is discretionary,


so Lord knows what that means! In the same bar, two councillors -


one Tory, one Labour - The report that we had done last


year by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows we've got a ?90 billion spending gap


for adult social care and, on the figures announced today,


we're looking at perhaps ?30 million may come to Lancashire,


although we need to see I think there was some really


important things for Lancashire, particularly the ?90 million


for highways in It's money coming up from London


and, with the announcement on social care, I think that's a huge step


in the right direction. This brewery runs the Sun


and four other pubs. The rates on one of them


has gone up nearly 500%. They feel like a business


under attack. We've got the pension rights coming


soon, national minimum wage. It's hitting the traders,


the high street traders, the most - the retail and leisure sector -


the actual guys that go out there and then


there's their companies and actually And that's the problem I've got


with this government at the minute. They used to be the government


of business, now they're Well, they won't be raising a glass


here at the brewery to this budget, but what's the view across the city


for those who want to make a living, These students in the catering


college have big ambitions. Eventually, like, I want to move to


London and have my own restaurant. I really want to go ahead


and work in a kitchen, I really want to go


ahead and push myself. The Chancellor announced new money


for technical education like this, creating what some have dubbed


T-Levels for 16 to 18-year-olds. That will materialise


in '19, maybe 2020, so, I mean, that would be


a really valuable investment. The technical qualifications


are exactly what the employment But what the college needs,


like a lot of educational establishments, is more cash


to help you deliver. -- establishments, is more


cash to help it deliver. Within the schools, you'll find that


sixth form students are funded far better than a student that


comes to college. The Chancellor didn't have much


of that to dish out, but was his approach


the right recipe for this region? David, the brewery director


there summed up the attitude You;ve stopped being the government


of business, now you're I mean, he did say that


and he was concerned about business rates,


and I understand that, but I would say this that in general


the re-evaluation that's taken place, which is a net neutral thing


across the whole country, has benefited the North


and the North West Clearly, the guy that you spoke to,


in terms of the package that you did, wasn't in that place,


but in general... But there were 6000 start-ups


in Warrington last year. They will struggle, won't they,


with these increases in national insurance contribution


and also with dividends? Well, in terms of, first of all,


on the business rates point, Warrington is a net winner


on the changes to business rates that the government has brought in,


and I'm pleased about that. The point you just raised


on national insurance, um, yes, it does affect people that


are self-employed and it puts them on a similar tax bases to those


that are not self-employed and it's actually a progressive change


and it's a change that I think probably had to be made.


Does it not jar, though...? In general, those that are poorly


paid, you know, under ?20,000, But does it not jar


with the Conservative spirit of encouraging the entrepreneurial


spirit, supporting small businesses? Giving them the financial


freedom to thrive? Look, we are the party of low tax,


so we would prefer lower taxes for everybody,


but we're also the party of fair tax, and it just isn't fair


if somebody that is employed, and is earning ?30,000 a year,


is paying a significantly different amount of tax than somebody


that is self-employed and earning ?30,000 a year, possibly working


side-by-side with them. That is what the Chancellor


has been fixing. Did we need to level


the playing field? Well, I don't think it has


levelled the playing field, I think the problem is that we're


taking money from the lower and middle income earners


at the same time as we are giving ?3.8 billion in cuts


to corporation tax. And I think the Labour Party


would make different choices. I mean, the national


insurance change hits those that are paid the most.


It's a very progressive thing. And the Resolution Foundation


and others have accepted that. But what about the dividends,


tax-free dividends coming down from ?5,000 to ?2000?


Yes. That's going to affect medium


business owners, isn't it? Well, it's also a very


progressive thing. I mean, the people that are affected


mostly by that, the most by that, are those with share portfolios


outside of ISAs worth Now, if those are the people


that the Labour Party think ought to be the government's priority,


the Labour Party has changed even But why has the Federation


of Small Businesses said that this will not help Warrington's upwards


turn when it comes to business? Well, I mean, because it is a tax


increase, and there are people, like I say, who are earning ?30,000


at the moment, who are paying significantly lower amounts of tax,


because they're self-employed, than they would've been


had they been employed. But it undermines the government's


own mission for the UK to be Well, look, if I was self-employed,


and I had a historic tax anomaly, which is what it is,


that was beneficial to me, and the government took it away


from me, albeit in a progressive way, yes, I would be saying those


sorts of things too. If this was a Labour policy,


you'd be right behind it. It's redistribution, isn't it?


I don't think it is redistribution. If you take it in conjunction


with the class two abolition, then that's where you could see


it is as a redistribution, but the class twos have


already been introduced, so these changes to class four


are not really redistributed. And just going back to your business


rate question, I met with the Chorlton traders last week


in my constituency, You know, I welcome the money


that's going into the pubs for their business rate,


but it's not enough to allay the worries of the businesses


in South Manchester. They've said


it's good for businesses. I mean, the facts are,


on the business rates, it's overwhelmingly neutral and


it's overall of benefit to the North versus the South, and the reason


for that is because the change that's been made in the revaluation


follows what the properties are worth and, on the whole,


places like London have seen values And like I say, my constituency


will benefit from it. OK, I'm sure we'll be


back to that topic. Now, in the run up to the Budget,


there was one issue dominated, though -


it was that of social care. Here's how three of our MPs reacted


to the ?2 billion over three years that Philip Hammond has found


for local councils. The NHS and social care needs


between 8.5 and 15 billion, just to get by, quite frankly,


so there will be a lot of people in my constituency that'll be


worried about their future, and whether they're going to get


the care they need! The social care budget breaks down


to about ?40 per head. Yeah, but we've already got


the Better Care Fund, This is additional funding


to recognise that more needs to be done to help with social care,


and it's not just about money. I think we've talked in the past


about how we need to be more innovative about joining up


social care and the NHS together. The Chancellor is -


at the same time, it's worth bearing in mind -


giving away something like ?6 billion in tax cuts


through capital gains, through, for example,


inheritance tax cuts for people That's giveaways


he didn't need to give. He could've been spending


that money on social care. David, you are the minister


responsible for Community, Did you really think,


did the Chancellor really think that 2 billion over three years


would even touch the sides? 2 billion is the gap


that we've been asked for by the LGA and others,


in terms of meeting I was in Liverpool at


a conference on Thursday. I mean, that city is getting


an increase just by the announcement at the budget


of almost 10%, in terms of an uplift,


to its social care budgets. But because of the redistribution


of their budget, they're having to do things like get rid


of foster carers? Well, we're talking


about the budget. ?2 billion is a great deal of money


and it's going to make a great deal of difference


and, as a matter of fact, that money also, in terms


of where the allocation formula works, is a particular


benefit to the North West, because the precept


is of less benefit here. But let's talk about some


of the cuts in social care We've been told they'll have


to reduce respite care, which will put


a greater burden on carers. They'll have to increase charges


for hospital transport, reduce money for end-of-life care,


disabilities - these are important elements that affect people's lives,


their health and happiness. And all those points are right,


but Warrington, two days ago, were informed that they're getting


?4 million extra for social care, that is a significant


amount of money for any council I was responsible for


lobbying, amongst others, But Pat Wright, the councillor


in charge of social care in Warrington, says,


"No, we are at rock bottom, "we don't have enough money to do


what we want to do in order I mean, just on the facts,


42% of all councils, 42% of all councils in the country,


increased their social care budget OK, Jeff, the truth is, despite this


being desperately unpopular, the Tories are still well ahead


in the polls. Yeah, but just going back


to the social care, the King's Fund have said that we need ?2 billion


straightaway just to sustain things. Per year.


Per year. So I think probably David


is secretly disappointed this But we've taken 4.6 billion out


of social care since 2010, During the course of this


Parliament, social care In Manchester, we've had to take


?17 million out of social care. We've had to change


the criteria in Manchester. So people who were getting help


and though not getting help, -- So people who were getting help


are now not getting help, because of the actions


of this government. I mean, just on the point of fact,


Manchester has got... It is illegal for Manchester


to change the criteria. The criteria was set out


in the Care Act of 2014, which set out what the statutory


criteria are for social care, and Manchester, like every other


local authority in the country, has got a statutory duty


to provide care packages Yeah, and we used to provide extra


to the statutory duty and now, a couple of years ago,


we had to reduce that David, we've got the King's Fund,


we've got the LGA, the Conservative local councils,


the opposition, all saying... Lots of Conservative MPs


saying this is a shambles, I don't think they are saying


that post the announcement They've all said that


post announcement. Can you name which Conservative


MPs have said that since the announcement?


I think you'll struggle. We could probably find


lots of other MPs... Well, I'm sure Jeff will say it!


I will, I will! You said I was secretly


That was an extremely good settlement, in the context


of the overall public finances, which we are still trying


to pay off the deficit, and that is an overriding point


that is still there, that we inherited in 2010.


But this settlement exceeded expectations and, frankly,


I spoke to a number of stakeholders in charities and the care home


sector after the announcement that was made, and they were


pleased by this. Jeff...


And I... Sorry, yeah.


Austerity lives on - that was the message


He stood up and said this will go on, it has to go on,


44% of people think that the current way austerity is being dealt with


is unfair, but only 8% would prefer Jeremy Corbyn


And we clearly need to get our message across.


I think what is clear... What is the message?


Well, what is clear is that austerity is not working, is it?


And the government keep having to revise their figures.


They said they'd get rid of the deficit by 2015.


It now looks like it will go to at least 2022.


So the government's plan is not working.


But hang on, hang on, people don't believe there's


a credible opposition to the government, do they?


Well, so we need to communicate better, we need to make sure


that our policies will... Do you need a different leader?


Look, I don't think the public would welcome a leadership contest now,


when we've got Brexit happening, we've got lots of major problems.


I think for the Labour Party to be in the middle of a leadership


I think people would see that as a dereliction of duty


to the job we've got to do, which is to take the opposition...


And it doesn't worry you that only 8% of the public think that


McDonnell would've done a better job on the budget?


And our trailing in the polls worries me.


You know, we shouldn't hide from this, this is a problem for us,


so we just need to redouble our work and make sure that we take


I mean, Labour's position is that we need to borrow another


?500 million and presumably borrow it, if it's not from


the magic money tree. Well...


And, you know, Jeff said that we have revised the figures


this week and that is true, the Chancellor has revised


the borrowing figures this week, because the economy is growing


faster than expected, borrowing is coming down


during the rest of this Parliament more quickly than expected, that is


true, and I'm pleased about it. Jeff?


Well, we've never said we want to borrow ?500 million.


What we have said is that interest rates are at a record low,


now is the time to borrow to invest for the long term,


to invest in the infrastructure and the productivity that


would make our economy recover, because, at the moment, it's not.


So, there is some help for social care, but that leaves the small


matter of how local councils protect the rest of their services.


Kevin Fitzpatrick has an update on one council's attempts to keep


them afloat by getting local people to play their part.


Swimming pools and libraries, Sure Start centres and museums -


Swimming pools and libraries, children's centres and museums -


many have closed their doors to the public as austerity


But in Wigan, everything has remained open.


Facilities, like this one in Tyldsley, are now


It's part of a policy shift, which has seen the council reduce


costs by keeping hold of buildings, but transfering responsibility


to the community. It's become known as the Wigan Deal.


We thought that there was enough interest from groups who are already


using these buildings to take some of the responsibilities


on and we put money in there, which was like an investor save,


in terms of helping people to start up, and it's worked well


in terms of the usage now of these facilities.


Like many councils in the North West, Wigan will have lost


around 40% of its 2010 budget by 2020.


Others do now have some facilities run by volunteers,


but Wigan has handed over as many as possible.


26 community buidlings and 18 playing field


areas are now currently, or soon to be,


Under its new volunteer management team, the Sunshine House community


centre in Scholes appears to have thrived.


I think that they are doing a wonderful job.


They are giving back to the community what


You get the right person in, you know, Barbara


is doing a marvellous job at handling her staff.


I'm told I'm always talking about it.


I said, "Well, you talk about things you enjoy."


Ten times as many people now come through their doors every week


and they're expanding into an empty building next door.


We are a successful business, you know, and I think the fact


that the council give us the freedom and the opportunity to do


Last year, Lancashire County Council closed 26


In Cheshire East, four Sure Start centres have gone.


While currently, in Bury, they're considering shutting up


We would make a genuine effort to find out what people


want the council to run, what they want them to fund.


This is something that people want the council to fund,


which is why we would fight to keep this library and others.


With Manchester among other councils now following in Wigan's footsteps,


it could be that, in future, we'll see more communities running


facilities themselves, if they want to keep them.


Jeff, that put a smile on all of our faces.


What's wrong with local communities, with the community spirit being used


Well, nothing wrong with community spirit, that's great,


and my local swimming baths has been taken over by a community.


Yeah. They do a fantastic job.


But the trouble is, it's not necessarily


a sustainable solution long-term, is it?


So they are working hard to keep the bus going,


-- So they are working hard to keep the baths going,


but they are always scrambling around.


And it's happened with libraries and other committee


Groups take them over, have to work really hard,


they're always scrambling around for that future long-term funding,


and if they have a big problem, capital problem, that isn't


and if they have a big problem, a capital problem, there isn't


Say the water pump broke in our local baths,


they'd have a big problem. That's it.


It's not even the big jobs. It's the little jobs.


The tiles falling off in the swimming pool.


What happens then, David? Well...


You can't rely on people's good nature for ever.


I mean, it was a nice package. And no, you can't.


I mean, I think it's good the community steps forward


sometimes, and we've seen that with our libraries in Warrington.


Public services also do need to be properly funded and we started this


whole programme by people complaining about business rates


when, unfortunately, you know, we do have to pay rates and taxes


which, in the end, fund our public services and there's no


getting away from that, and there isn't a magic money


tree, and we just need to get the right balance.


And that's what the government are doing.


Oh, that there were a magic money tree!


With tributes to a landmark of literature and the rest


of this week's news, now here's Carol Lowe


The Vice Chair of the Wallasey Labour Party could face


Paul Davies has been referred to the party's disciplinary body


Labour and the Lib Dems in Pendle were accused of turning a blind eye


to racism amid claims of a deal with the British National Party's


Doing deals with the British National Party is utterly


repugnant and unacceptable, whether at local council


18 months after water contamination affected hundreds of thousands


of people in Lancashire, the organisation investigating says


it's still not ready to announce its findings.


500 animal deaths in less than four years, and now no license.


Councillors in Barrow ruled that South Lakes Safari Zoo


And remembering a giant of political literature.


It's 80 years since George Orwell exposed the grimness of life


for millions in The Road to Wigan Pier.


Before we go, there were concerns this week for car workers


from General Motors. PSA Group bought Vauxhall


The plant currently employs 2,000 people, making the Astra,


It's thought the group could have too many plants across Europe,


and Brexit might impact which of them ends up closing.


The problem really is that Ellesmere Port,


like the British industry, is heavily dependent on imported


It would be easier, after Brexit, to do that on the European mainland.


We'll be triggering Article 50 before we know it.


David, this is the beginning, isn't it, that we need to really about?


Well, the takeover in Ellesmere Port isn't to do with Brexit.


I mean, I voted to Remain, but the country didn't.


No, but 57% of our imports are from the EU.


And what I'm about to say, though, is that one of the things that


will benefit the competitiveness in Ellesmere Port is that


our exchange rate has gone down post-Brexit,


it's actually gone down by more than the tariffs would be,


and that would make them more competitive vis-a-vis some


of the plants in Europe that they will have to compete


But it's extremely important, and Greg Clark knows there's,


it's extremely important that we keep Ellesmere.


But there will be tariffs when it comes to import and export?


Yes, but actually, the tariffs will be lower than the exchange rate


However, I don't want to minimise it.


You know, it's vital that companies like Nissan in Sunderland,


Vauxhall in Ellesmere Port, Jaguar in Liverpool,


it's vital that all of these companies stay with us and grow


and, actually, up till now, that is what's happening.


Our economy is growing faster than anybody else


in Europe at the moment and growing faster post-Brexit.


Jeff, how do we make sure these countries are protected


-- Jeff, how do we make sure these companies are protected


in these uncertain times? Well, it's going to be difficult.


In terms of the Astra, it imports more parts, but we need an


intervention and this government helping out the car industry and


whether that is help with business rates, investment in training and


skills to improve productivity, that is how we sustain the future for the


and Greg Clark has spoken to the and Greg Clark has spoken to the


management of Ellesmere Port, and not much difference tween Jeff and


me on that. Lovely and we end on that point of agreement.


Phil McCann has the onerous task of heading to Cannes for us next


week, as local council leaders look for funding in the South of France.


Now the government plans for new grammar schools.


The Education Secretary Justine Greening was


speaking to a conference of headteachers on Friday.


They're normally a pretty polite bunch, but they didn't


Broadcasters weren't allowed into the speech,


but this was captured on a camera phone.


And we have to recognise actually for grammars, in terms of


disadvantaged children, that they have, they really


do help them close the attainment gap.


And at the same time we should recognise that


..That parents also want choice for their children and that


those schools are often very oversubscribed.


I suppose it is a rite of passage for and education secretaries to


have this at a head teachers conference book the head are usually


more polite. Isn't part of the problem, whether one is for or


against the expansion of grammar schools, the government plans are


complicated, you cannot sum them up in a sentence. The proof of that is


they can still get away with denying they are expanding grammar schools.


They will find an alternative formulation because it is not as


simple as a brute creation of what we used to know is grammar schools


with the absolute cut-off of the 11 plus. I am surprised how easy they


found it politically. We saw the clip of Justine Greening being


jeered a little bit but in the grand scheme, compared to another


government trying this idea a decade ago they have got away with it


easily and I think what is happening is a perverse consequence of Brexit


and the media attention on Brexit, the government of the day can just


about get away with slightly more contentious domestic policies on the


correct assumption we will be too busy investing our attention in


Article 50 and two years of negotiations, WTO terms at


everything we have been discussing. I wonder if after grammar schools


there will be examples of contentious domestic policies


Theresa May can slide in stock because Brexit sucks the life out,


takes the attention away. You are a supporter. Broadly. Are you happy


with the government approach? They need to have more gumption and stop


being apologetic. It is a bazaar area of public policy where we judge


the policy on grammar schools based on what it does for children whose


parents are unemployed, living on sink estates in Liverpool. It is


absurd, we don't judge any other policy like that. It is simple, not


contentious, people who are not sure, ask them if they would apply


to send their child there, six out of ten said they would. Parents want


good schools for their children, we should have appropriate education


and they should be straightforward, this is about the future of the


economy and we need bright children to get education at the highest


level, education for academically bright children. It is supposed to


be a signature policy of the Theresa May administration that marks a


government different from David Cameron's government who did not go


down this road. The signature is pretty blurred, it is hard to read.


It is. She is trying to address concerns about those who fail to get


into these selective schools and tried to targeted in poorer areas


and the rest of it. She will probably come across so many


obstacles. It is not clear what form it will take in the end. It is


really an example of a signature policy not fully thought through. I


think it was one of her first announcements. It was. It surprised


everybody. Surprised at the speed and pace at which they were planning


to go. Ever since, there have been qualifications and hesitations en


route with good cause, in my view. I disagree with Juliet that this is...


We all want good schools but if you don't get in there and you end up in


a less good school. They already do that. We have selection based on the


income of parents getting into a good catchment area, based on the


faith of the parents. That becomes very attainable! I might been too


shot run christenings for these. -- I have been.


Now, you may remember this time last week we were talking


about the extraordinary claims by US President Donald Trump,


on Twitter of course, that Barack Obama had ordered


And there was me thinking that wiretaps went out


Is it legal for a sitting President to do so, he asked,


concluding it was a "new low", and later comparing it to Watergate.


Since then, the White House has been pressed to provide evidence for this


It hasn't, but it seems it may have initially come from a report on a US


website by the former Conservative MP Louise Mensch.


She wrote that the FBI had been granted a warrant to intercept


communications between Trump's campaign and Russia.


Well, Louise Mensch joins us now from New York.


Louise, you claimed in early November that the FBI had secured a


court warrants to monitor communications between trump Tower


in New York at two Russian banks. It's now four months later. Isn't it


the case that nobody has proved the existence of this warrant?


First of all, forgive me Andrew, one takes 1's life in one's hand when it


is you but I have to correct your characterisation of my reporting. It


is very important. I did not report that the FBI had a warrant to


intercept anything or that Trump tower was any part of it. What I


reported was that the FBI obtained a warrant is targeted on all


communications between two Russian banks and were, therefore, allowed


to examine US persons in the context of their investigation. What the


Americans call legally incidental collection. I certainly didn't


report that the warrant was able to intercept or that it had location


basis, for example Trump tower. I just didn't report that. The reason


that matters so much is that I now believe based on the President's


reaction, there may well be a wiretap act Trump Tower. If so,


Donald Trump has just tweeted out evidence in an ongoing criminal case


that neither I nor anybody else reported. He is right about


Watergate because he will have committed obstruction of justice


directly from his Twitter account. Let me come back as thank you for


clarifying. Let me come back to the question. -- and thank you. We have


not yet got proof that this warrant exists, do we? No and we are most


unlikely to get it because it would be a heinous crime for Donald Trump


to reveal its existence. In America they call it a Glomar response. I


can neither confirm nor deny. That is what all American officials will


have to say legally. If you are looking for proof, you won't get it


until and unless a court cases brought. But that doesn't mean it


doesn't exist. The BBC validated this two months after me in their


reporting by the journalist Paul Wood. The Guardian, they also


separately from their own sources validated the existence of the


warrant. If you are in America, you would know that CNN and others are


reporting that the investigation in ongoing. Let me come onto the wider


point. You believe the Trump campaign including the president


were complicit with the Russians during the 2016 election campaign to


such an extent that Mr Trump should be impeached. What evidence did you


have? That is an enormous amount of


evidence. You could start with him saying, hey, Russia, if you are


listening, please release all the Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's


not evidence. I think it rather is, actually. Especially if you look at


some of the evidence that exists on Twitter and elsewhere of people


talking directly to his social media manager, Dan should be no and


telling him to do that before it happened. There is a bit out there.


The BBC itself reported that in April of last year, a six agency


task force, not just the FBI, but the Treasury Department, was looking


at this. I believe there is an enormous amount of evidence. And


then there is the steel dossier which was included in an official


report of the US intelligence committee. You've also ... Just to


be clear, we don't have hard evidence yet whether this warrant


exists. It may or may not. There is doubt about... There are claims


about whether there is evidence about Mr Trump and the Russians.


That is another matter. You claimed that President Putin had Andrew


Breitbart murdered to pave the way for Steve Bannon to play a key role


in the Trump administration. I haven't. You said that Steve Bannon


is behind bomb threats to Jewish community centres. Aren't you in


danger of just peddling wild conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I


haven't. No matter how many times people say this, it's not going to


be true -- first of all. I said in twitter I believe that to be the


case about the murder of Andrew Breitbart. You believe President


Putin murdered him. I didn't! You said I reported it, but I believed


it. You put it on twitter that you believed it but you don't have a


shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I know made assertions. What is the


evidence that Mr Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe


it. You may believe there are fairies at the bottom of your


garden, it doesn't make it true. I may indeed. And if I say so, that's


my belief. If I say I am reporting, as I did with the Fisa warrant


exists, I have a basis in fact. They believe is just a belief. I know you


are relatively new to journalism. Let me get the rules right. Andrew,


jealousy is not your colour... If it is twitter, we don't believe it but


if it is on your website, we should believe it? If I report something


and I say this happened, then I am making an assertion. If I describe a


belief, I am describing a belief. Subtlety may be a little difficult


for you... No, no. If you want to be a journalist, beliefs have to be


backed up with evidence. Really? Do you have a faith? It's not a matter


of faith, maybe in your case, that President Putin murdered Andrew


Breitbart. A belief and a report at two different things and no matter


how often you say that they are the same, they will never be the same.


You've said in today's Sunday Times here in London that you've turned


into" a temporary superpower" where you "See things really clearly".


Have you become delusional? No. I am describing a biological basis for


ADHD, which I have. As any of your viewers who are doctors will know.


It provides people with unfortunately a lot of scattered


focus, they are very messy and absent-minded but when they are


interested in things and they have ADHD they can have a condition which


is hyper focus. You concentrate very hard on a given subject and you can


see patterns and connections. That is biological. Thank you for


explaining that. And for getting up early in New York. The first time


ever I have interviewed a temporary superpower. Thank you. You are so


lucky! You are so lucky! I don't think it's going to happen again.


Please don't ask us to comment on that interview! I will not ask you,


viewers will make up their own minds. Let's come back to be more


mundane world of Article 50. Stop the killing!


Will it get through at the government wanted it? Without the


Lords amendment falling by the way that? I am sure the Lord will not


try to ping-pong this back and forth. So we are at the end of this


particular legislative phase. The fact that all three Brexit Cabinet


ministers, number ten often don't like one of them going out on a


broadcast interview on a Sunday, they've all been out and about. That


suggests to me they are working on the assumption it will be triggered


this week. This week. The negotiations will begin or at least


the process begins. The negotiation process may be difficult, given all


of the European elections. The Dutch this week. And then the French and


maybe the Italians and certainly the Germans by the end of September,


which is less predictable than it was. Given all that, what did you


make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom on her part, that we may just end up


crashing out in six months question -- fear on her part. It was not just


that that we made that deliberately organising. I want us to get on with


the deals. Everyone knows a good deal is the


best option. Who knows what is going to be on the table when we finally


go out? Fascinatingly, the demand for some money back, given the


amount of money... Net gains and net costs in terms of us leaving for the


EU. It is all to play for. That will be a possible early grounds for a


confrontation between the UK and the EU. My understanding is that they


expect to do a deal on reciprocal rights of EU nationals, EU nationals


here, UK citizens there, quite quickly. They want to clear that up


and that will be done. Then they will hit this problem that the EU


will be saying you've got to agree the divorce Bill first before we


talk about the free trade bill. David Davis saying quite clearly,


no, they go together because of the size of the bill. It will be


determined, in our part, by how good the access will be. The mutual


recognition of EU residents' rights is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss


is attracted to that subject but it is the easiest thing to deal with,


as is free movement for tourists. Money is what will make it


incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly quickly. I imagine the dominant


story in the summer will be all about that. This was Anna Soubry's


implication, members of the governors could strongly argue,


things are so poisonous and so unpleasant at the moment, the


dealers are advancing -- members of the government. Why not call it a


day and go out on WTO terms while public opinion is still in that


direction in that Eurosceptic direction? No buyers' remorse about


last year's referendum. The longer they leave it, view more opportunity


there is for some kind of public resistance and change of mind to


take place. The longer believe it, the more people who voted for Brexit


and people who voted Remain and think we didn't get world War three


will start being quite angry with the EU for not agreeing a deal. In


terms of the rights of EU nationals he and Brits abroad, by all


accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed individually. Angela Merkel is the


only person who has held that up. That will be dealt with in a matter


of days. The chances of a deal being done is likely but in ten seconds...


It would not be a bad bet to protect your on something not happening, you


might get pretty good odds? The odds are going up that a deal doesn't


happen. But, as I said earlier, the House of Commons will not endorse no


deal. We are either in an early election or she has to go back


again. Either way, you will need us! We will be back at noon tomorrow on


BBC Two ahead of what looks like being a big week in politics. We


will be back here same time, same place.


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


They're calling it an entertainment extravaganza


audience fun and frolics and outrageous shenanigans.


And I don't even know what those HONK words mean.


Andrew Neil and Nina Warhurst with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry. Guests include Matthew Taylor of the Independent Review of Employment Practices and journalist Louise Mensch. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.