29/10/2017 Sunday Politics North West

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

the international trade minister

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

The Prime

The Prime Minister says she can

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out

And in the north-west -

glass half full.

The pubs calling for a freeze

on duty to stop them

calling time for good.

preferred option?

In London 50 years

on

preferred option?

In London 50 years

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes

if you do not meet the criteria, you

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

I'm Nina Warhurst.

Coming up in the Northwest.

Glass half full, the pubs calling

for a freeze on duty to stop them

calling time for good.

The trade is struggling

at the moment because of the prices

always increasing so anything that

can help will help.

No beer in the studio this time,

but plenty of fizz in the form

of this week's guests.

Lisa Nandy is the Labour MP

for Wigan and Mark Menzies

is the Conservative MP for Fylde.

Welcome to you both.

We start this week with care homes

because figures obtained by the BBC

show that in the last year 45

private care homes in

the north-west have closed down.

29 of them residential.

16 of them nursing.

That's affected 759 residents,

many of whom were left looking

for somewhere else to stay.

Sometimes with very little notice.

Liverpool has been the hardest hit.

15 homeowners ceasing to operate

there and that's affected

more than 300 residents.

265 of them nursing home residents,

that's a third of the total.

Here is what one family told us.

We have a duty of care

to the elderly, to look

after them properly.

And it isn't happening.

Mark, duty of care isn't happening.

Paul Grant from Liverpool City

Council said this has become

a reflection of the society

that we have become now,

that we can't even look

after the generation

that we should be cherishing.

This is a hugely important subject

and I think the BBC on Thursday

evening ran a fantastic

piece on this.

One of the issues that was

highlighted was that there

were six homes in Liverpool,

three of whom were designated by CQC

as failing, another three desperate

in need of improvement and so,

with all of this, we have to make

sure it's not just about the number

of care homes but the quality

and if care homes are not delivering

they have to be closed down.

Yes, but it is about

funding as well.

They can't afford to update

because they're not

getting the funding.

Councils are telling us all the time

that because of central cuts,

they can't provide the care

they want to.

For sure, more money has gone in,

we know that, more money,

even more has to go in.

From central government?

And other sources too

but we need to get this

on a long-term framework.

Because we have to plan for adult

social care for the next generation

and we are not there yet.

Does that mean, Lisa,

going to government and saying

we need more cash or is it time

for us to take more responsibility

from an earlier age?

It's definitely partly

about the cash.

It's not right to say that

more money has gone in.

Over the last seven years

since the Tories came to power,

six billion has been taken out

of social care and the number

of publicly funded care places has

fallen by a quarter and that is one

of the major pressures in the system

and that's why actually the funding

does matter and it's welcome that

Mark is saying that more needs to go

in, but he is right too to say

that this is a wider issue about how

we fund and pay for

a demographic that is changing.

We are living longer.

It's a good thing.

It's great that we're

all surviving into a later age,

but we have to think very seriously

as a country about

how we pay for it.

How can we do that?

It can only be done

a cross-party basis.

You've seen two examples

in recent years.

First the proposals put forward

by Andy Burnham which were labelled

by the Tories as a death tax,

and killed, and then you saw

the fairly shambolic set of events

around the election that raised

concerns amongst everybody including

Labour, but were very quickly

labelled as a dementia tax

and were killed off.

The trouble is, unless you establish

a cross-party commission to deal

with this you're always

going to get this.

Do you regret that the budget has

been cut over the last seven years?

Should that be reinvested,

a cross-party agreement,

this needs to a priority?

There are positive things

which have taken place

in terms of funding so,

for example, the ability

for councils to raise 2%

levy for social care,

but more money has to go in.

And I think Lisa is partly right

in that we have to approach

this in a mature way.

The way in which particularly

the Liberal Democrats responded

by calling it a dementia tax,

yes, the manifesto launched

at the election regarding social

care was shambolically handled

on our part, but we have to make

sure that we do this in a mature way

because our old people deserve it.

OK, both agree we need

cross-party support.

And urgently as well

because this has been

going on for far too long now.

And it's not just care homes

in short supply, is it?

The Communities Secretary Sajid

Javid this week called

on the Chanecellor to borrow

£50 billion to fund

the 300,000 new homes

we need to build each year.

That was a point picked up

by the leader of the Liberal

Democrats who wanted to know

if that's happening.

Can I therefore welcome

the Communities Secretary's

statement yesterday

that the Treasury has agreed

to increase net borrowing by I think

50 billion in order to enable

this to happen?

Will he confirm that this

is government policy?

No, Mr Speaker, that's not what my

right honourable friend had said.

As the right honourable

gentleman very well knows.

I would however agree with him

that increasing activity

in the construction sector is a very

good way of creating jobs.

Ouch!

So Vince Cable and Sajid Javid put

firmly in their place.

Well, in Liverpool they think

part of the solution,

could be bringing empty homes

back into use.

So far they've reduced

that number by a third.

Claire Hamilton reports.

Three houses.

Three different ways

of bringing them back to life.

These tinned up Victorian terraces

are part of the Welsh Streets,

saved from demonstration

after a fearless battle

and being brought back

to life by this developer.

The first 20 homes were snapped up

by tenants within a weekend,

proof that good old terraced housing

are still popular.

We have an expertise

in going into neighbourhoods

which traditional house-builders

have struggled to make work.

And our expertise is in taking

redundant derelict housing stocks,

such as those that we started

with here and transforming

them into aspirational

energy-efficient houses,

which are suitable for the needs

of more modern families today.

Assembly.

Empty houses turned

into award-winning art two years ago

when the assembled collective won

a Turner prize partly for their work

renovating ten homes

in the Granby area of the city.

The community land trust

is something which is held

in trust for the community

and by the community.

And our aims are community driven

and led and to fulfil the wishes

and aspirations of that community

and to keep affordable housing.

These homes, sold for just a pound

by Liverpool City Council,

generated thousands of applications.

The scheme grabbed headlines,

but is just one of a raft

of measures the council is employing

to stop the decline

of derelict properties.

We really believe it will revitalise

areas that have stood

derelict for a long time

and it is a challenge

for those people who move in.

The house we're standing by today

is completed and as you can see,

if you look at the street,

there's a number of other houses

in works, so it's a challenge to be

living here while all this work

is going on.

But I think those people

who take that challenge,

who commit to homes for £1,

are helping us to

revitalise the city.

What it all comes down to of course

is money and with the government's

empty homes funding at an end,

councils will need to innovate to

revive enough homes to meet demand.

Mark, we did hear at Conservative

conference in between the coughs,

that pledge of £2 billion in social

housing, but that's been

described as chicken feed

by the Cambridge Housing

and Planning, considering we need

300,000 new units a year.

And that would build around 5,000.

Nowhere near.

If you use that two billion just

to build houses, then, yes,

it will build you the number

of houses you have outlined

but it is how housing associations

and councils can lock that money

to borrow against and also to use it

to leverage other developers

into the social housing sector.

And if that is done properly

you can build multiple more

houses than the number...

So should they be given the freedom

to buy land at a cheaper rate

which Labour are calling for?

I think sensibly everything

needs to put on a table.

We know for sure that

the housing market is broken.

The government has got

its White Paper, we'll see some

announcement in the budgets.

Everything has to be on the table

to fix this and it's

not just one solution.

We have to do multiple

things and quickly.

Interesting that Sajid Javid

called for this 50 billion

and the Chancellor flatly said no,

that's not happening.

Confusion then within the party?

Sajid Javid, great guy, but it's

not his job to be announcing major

spending announcements.

He is the Communities Secretary.

It's the job of the

Chancellor and the Budget.

We are coming up to the Budget,

so let's see what comes

out of the Budget.

I can't really blame

the Chancellor for that one.

Do you think it's going to be

50 billion in the Budget?

Absolutely not, but I think we will

take steps towards addressing

the housing crisis but also have

to make sure that the private sector

is building houses at a much faster

rate because at the moment

it is drip feed and

it's not acceptable.

Lisa, Labour has pledged

to build at least 100,000

council homes a year.

Where is that money coming from?

We set out quite costed details

in our manifesto about how

we would pay for that pledge,

but the point is this.

Where would it come from?

It's all very well saying

the private sector has

to pay for more housing,

but what we've seen

in areas like mine in Wigan

and across the Northwest

is when the private sector

is in the driving seat what you get

is homes that cost is around half

a million pounds that local

people can't afford.

As a consequence, what we have got

in this country now is homeownership

at its lowest rate for 30 years.

We've got rough sleepers back

on our streets and we've got nearly

80,000 families stuck

in temporary accommodation.

That's why actually

borrowing in order to invest

when interest rates are low

is an incredibly important thing.

So more borrowing?

The Tories created this crisis.

One of Jeremy Corbyn's solutions

is to bring in the rent control

and Selter have said if that

happens, landlords would sell

and Shelter have said if that

happens, landlords would sell

and the housing crisis

would exacerbate because there

would be fewer properties

on the market.

Was he wrong to promise that

at Labour conference?

I used to work for the youth

homelessness charity Centrepoint

and we had always taken the same

position as Shelter

which is still my position now.

Rent controls have a role

but only if you increase

the housing supply.

And that is the importance

of the Labour policy.

We are saying build more houses

and make sure that local authorities

have the powers to keep rents low.

Crucially, what we are not saying

is it's a national policy.

Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister

will decide to cap all rents

and the reason that's important

is the film you just

showed about Liverpool.

The problem in Liverpool of empty

homes is the exact reverse

of the problem in London

where there's just nowhere to build.

What is wrong with that?

In places oversubscribed,

where working people

can't afford to live,

put a cap on it but put a cap on it

in a reasonable way so not

challenging the free market

but ensuring people

have somewhere to live?

I'll tell you something more

important than rent controls

and that is all the other charges

that landlords are putting

on and letting agents are putting

on to people where they're asking

for six weeks holding deposits,

check-in fees, hundreds

and hundreds of pounds.

Checkout fees.

This is rip-off Britain at large.

This is why the government

in its White Paper is going

to tackle this and good.

What about social housing?

Are you going to do that?

In the 2015 election

when we proposed a whole package

of things like this,

you said Ed Miliband was living

in a Marxist universe.

So is your policy now to adopt

the Marxist universe and bring

in these checks people desperately

need to prevent them

being ripped off?

There's nothing Marxist universe

about stopping shysters

from charging people,

holding deposits and check-in

fees and all that.

That is an example of

the free market broken.

Social housing when Right

To Buy was brought in,

it was supposed to be one for one.

One was sold off and

another one was built.

That's not being enforced and that's

leading to the crisis.

It wasn't necessarily one for one.

It was about using the money

that was generated from the sale

of a property in order to reinvest.

But the Conservatives have built

council houses under six years

than the Labour Party did in 13.

It's nonsense.

It's fallen by 97%

since you came to power.

The Labour Party's housing spokesman

in London has asked the Labour Party

to apologise for its failure

on building social housing.

Absolute rubbish.

Your own spokesman has asked

Labour to apologise.

This is the case against all

of the evidence and facts to think

you've been building affordable

housing for people in this country.

Why have we got the housing crisis

seven years after you took office?

OK, we have to move on.

How many planning applications

went through last year?

We wait for the Budget to see

whether there will be

something for houses.

Right, onto events in

Mark's neck of the woods.

The chief executive

of Lancashire County Council

was told to pack her bags this week.

The Council rubber-stamped

the controversial management

restructure that also put several

senior officers out of a job.

Mike Stevens has been

following the story

closely and joins us now.

Why has this been so controversial?

This is all about the relationship

between these two people, the leader

of Lancashire County Council,

Geoff Driver, and the chief

executive, Jo Turton.

The proposals were first presented

back in July to a behind closed

doors Cabinet meeting

by Councillor Driver and he showed

them a single sheet of A4 paper,

I've got it here, and it basically

outlines plans to oust

the Chief Executive by changing her

job description to include

a requirement for formal financial

qualifications, something

which she doesn't actually have.

Now opponents of Councillor Driver

have said this is connected

to something called

Operation Sheraton which is

an ongoing fraud investigation

in which Councillor Driver and three

other men are currently on police

bail, on suspicion of witness

intimidation and perverting

the course of justice.

What is the exact alleged link

to Operation Sheraton?

It's believed Jo Turton and some

of her fellow senior officers have

given witness statements

to Operation Sheraton so some senior

figures in Lancashire including

the Leader of the Opposition,

have said that this

is Geoff Driver's way

of ousting Jo Turton.

It's his way of getting rid

of her and of course Geoff Driver

denies this and says

that's absolute rubbish.

He says this will save

the County Council millions

and millions of pounds in the long

term, however in the short

term his opponents have said this

could lead the County Council open

to serious legal challenges.

OK, so more trouble

for the County Council.

Thank you.

The former leader has said that

the restructuring is a deliberate

attempt by Geoff Driver to create

a power vacuum so is this

what we are seeing?

To consolidate his position?

Not at all.

A new Chief Executive,

somebody who is very,

very highly regarded,

has actually been

appointed yesterday.

But it's my understanding that,

far from creating a power vacuum,

it's making sure we have the right

people with the right

skills in place.

I think we have to wait

and see how this develops.

Also he chose this week's meeting

to push through a ban

on the non-stunned Halal meat,

potentially causing

community tensions.

Was this a mistake?

Not at all.

Halal is a very sensitive subject

for reasons we understand,

but I think there's a very potent

animal welfare point,

on large animals, to make sure

the animal has been stunned before

it's actually slaughtered.

It's a very emotive thing.

Even though none of the schools have

asked for it and it's

come directly from him,

it's become his flag, hasn't it?

That may be the case,

but the whole issue around animal

welfare and how animals

are slaughtered I think

is really important.

OK, maybe Lancashire's leaders

could head to the pub to thrash

things out if they can find one

that is, because around 20,000 pubs

have called time for good over

the past three decades.

One local MP says the government

needs to put a bit of tax relief

on tap in next month's budget,

as Mark Edwards explains.

I think we're on to

a winner here, Trig.

Pub culture has been ingrained

in British life for centuries.

But things have changed.

The once thriving Railway has

shunted into the sidings.

Haydock's Huntsman

is now a supermarket.

A story repeated countless times.

But that's not what villagers

here in East Lancashire

were going to allow to happen

to this, their one and only

pub, The Bay Horse.

After the pub closed last year

we discovered early this year

there were plans to convert

it into housing.

So we thought we'd buy it

ourselves before they do.

Villagers raised £500,000 to buy

The Bayhorse in less than a year.

With individual

contributions up to £50,000.

They are planning to raise a glass

to opening night next month.

The community got together.

Lots of people have

made new friends.

Upstairs in the pub today

there are volunteers

painting, decorating.

We've all come together.

It's been great

for community spirit.

We've had a fabulous pub

in the past and it's been

a really good meeting place.

We just want to have a pub

there because it's the only

one in the village.

According to the campaign

for real ale, in 1980

there were 69,000 pubs in the UK.

By 2015, it had dwindled

to less than 50,000.

Over that time the number of pints

served daily plummeted from almost

30 million to just under 11 million.

It's persuaded the West Lonsdale MP

to take an early day motion urging

the government to call time on beer

tax increases for the life

of this Parliament.

That way we'll have a chance

for those people who are drinkers

in pubs, for those people

who are selling beer, those people

who are landlords and landladies,

giving them the chance to be able

to catch up shall we say

with the underpriced competition

from the supermarkets.

Tax and VAT represent

one third of the costs

of the average pub pint.

Another 60% goes on running costs

overheads and staff wages.

Leaving about 6% profit.

For landlords lucky enough

to still have customers.

So, will Tim Farron's idea make any

difference with the average cost

of a pub pint approaching £4?

It's a big difference really

at the end of the day.

The trade is struggling

at the moment because of the prices.

It's always increasing.

Anything that can help will help.

The supermarkets are giving it away.

They think why should I pay £4.50

for a pint when I can get

it for £1.20 at home?

The rate of pub closure has

slowed according to CAMRA.

But by this time next week,

another 25 will have

sold their last pint.

25 pubs a week closing.

Breaks my heart.

Is Tim Farron right?

Should that 33% tax

on alcohol be reduced to give

pubs a fighting chance?

I think he's right actually.

My consistency in Wigan

is made up a whole series

of former pit villages.

I'm sure your consistency is very

similar with local pubs,

the community pub, is the major

institution, the glue that holds

the village together and in recent

years I've seen exactly

what Tim has seen, pubs

disappearing all over the place.

It's not necessarily

caused by things like beer

duty and higher taxes.

There are other reasons as well

but it leaves the cut-price alcohol

supermarkets offer and the fact

we've had a major recession

and people's incomes are lower.

But there were definitely things

the government could do,

including cutting business rates

and cutting beer duty

which would make a real difference.

It's time to stop punishing drinkers

especially because people drink

in a healthier way now certainly

in a less dangerous

way than they were 20 years ago?

The pub is a hub of local

communities, really important.

That was one of the reasons why

in 2013 you saw George Osborne,

then Chancellor, cutting the beer

duty, ending it and cutting beer

duty is very important.

You'll be asking the spreadsheet

filter to cut beer duty?

I have written to him on this,

asking him to make sure

that the rights of beer drinkers

are taken into account.

There are some great pubs

in your constituency.

And mine.

I've actually been

to a few in Wigan.

Next it's been a big

week at the enquiry

into abuse in Rochdale.

With that and the rest of the week's

news, is Juliette Phillips.

An alleged neo-Nazi

Christopher Lythgoe was charged

with encouragement to commit murder

in relation to the West

Lancashire MP Rosie Cooper.

The leader of Rochdale Council

is accused of lying to the public

enquiry into child abuse.

Richard Farnell's fellow Labour

councillor Peter Johnson said

he had not told the truth.

And denied knowledge

of abuse in this care home.

It means Mr Farnell

lied to this enquiry.