26/02/2017 Sunday Politics South East

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

Theresa May still has plenty on her plate,

not least a battle over Brexit in the Lords.

But after Thursday's by-election win in Copeland,

the Prime Minister looks stronger than ever.

Jeremy Corbyn's Labour saw off Ukip in this week's other by-election,

but losing to the Tories in a heartland seat leaves the party

The leader of Scottish Labour joins me live.

You look at what's happening last night in Sweden. Sweden!

of migration on Sweden, mocked for talking about the impact

This region is the gateway for human traffickers. The government has

promised to take action but is enough being done?

tax in all but four local authorities be enough to alleviate

the crisis in social care? And joining me for all of that,

three journalists who I'm pleased to say have so far not been banned

from the White House. I've tried banning them

from this show repeatedly, but somehow they just keep getting

past BBC security - it's Sam Coates, We have had two crucial

by-elections, the results last Thursday night. It's now Sunday

morning, where do they believe British politics? I think it leaves

British politics looking as if it may go ahead without Ukip is a

strong and robust force. It is difficult to see from where we are

now how Ukip rebuilds into a credible vote winning operation. I

think it looks unprofessional, the campaign they fought in Stoke was

clearly winnable because the margin with which Labour held onto that

seat was not an impressive one but they put forward arguably the wrong

candidate, it was messy and it's hard to see where they go from here,

particularly with the money problems they have and even Nigel Farage

saying he's fed up of the party. If Isabel is right, if Ukip is no

longer a major factor, you look at the state of Labour and the Lib Dems

coming from a long way behind despite their local government

by-election successes, Tories never more dominant. I think Theresa May

is in a fascinating situation. She's the most powerful Prime Minister of

modern times for now because she faces no confident, formidable

opposition. Unlike Margaret Thatcher who in the 1980s, although she won

landslides in the end, often looked like she was in trouble. She was

inferred quite often in the build-up to the election. David Owen, Roy

Jenkins, Shirley Williams. And quite often she was worried. At the moment

Theresa May faces no formidable UK opposition. However, she is both

strong and fragile because her agenda is Brexit, which I still

think many have not got to grips with in terms of how complex and

training and difficult it will be for her. Thatcher faced no

equivalent to Brexit so she is both strong, formidably strong because of

the wider UK political context, and very fragile. It is just when you

think you have never been more dominant you are actually at the

most dangerous, what can possibly go wrong? I think that the money of her

MPs they haven't begun to think through the practicalities of Brexit

and she does have a working majority of about 17 in the House of Commons

so at any point she could be put under pressure from really

opposition these days is done by the two wins inside the Conservative

Party, either the 15 Europhiles or the bigger group of about 60

Brexiteers who have continued to operate as a united and disciplined

force within the Conservative Party to get their agenda on the table.

Either of those wings could be disappointed at any point in the

next three and a half years and that would put her under pressure. I

wouldn't completely rule out Ukip coming back. The reason Ukip lost in

Stoke I think it's because at the moment Theresa May is delivering

pretty much everything Ukip figures might want to see. We might find the

phrase Brexit means Brexit quite anodyne but I think she is

convincing people she will press ahead with their agenda and deliver

the leave vote that people buy a slim majority voted for. Should that

change, should there be talk of transition periods, shut the

migration settlement not make people happy, then I think Ukip risks

charging back up the centre ground and causing more problems in future.

That could be a two year gap in which Ukip would have to survive. As

I said, Ukip is on our agenda for today.

Thursday was a big night for political obsessives

like us, with not one but two significant by-elections,

Ellie braved the wind and rain to bring you this report.

The clouds had gathered, the winds blew at gale force.

Was a change in the air, or just a weather system called Doris?

Voters in Stoke-on-Trent were about to find out.

It's here, a sports hall on a Thursday night

that the country's media reckon is the true eye of the storm.

Would Labour suffer a lightning strike to its very heart,

or would the Ukip threat proved to be a damp squib?

Everybody seems to think the result in Stoke-on-Trent would be close,

just as they did 150-odd miles away in Copeland, where the Tories

are counting on stealing another Labour heartland seat.

Areas of high pressure in both places, and some strange sights.

We knew this wasn't a normal by-election, and to prove it

there is the rapper, Professor Green.

Chart-toppers aside, winner of Stoke-on-Trent hit parade

was announced first, where everyone was so excited

the candidates didn't even make it onto the stage for the result.

And I do hereby declare that the said Gareth Snell

Nigel Farage has said that victory here in Stoke-on-Trent

But Ukip's newish leader played down the defeat,

insisting his party's time would come.

Are you going to stand again as an MP or has this

No doubt I will stand again, don't worry about that.

The politics of hope beat the politics of fear.

I think Ukip are the ones this weekend who have got

But a few minutes later, it turned out Labour had

Harrison, Trudy Lynn, the Conservative Party

That was more than 2,000 votes ahead of Labour.

What has happened here tonight is a truly historic event.

Labour were disappointed, but determined to be optimistic

At a point when we're 15 to 18 points behind in the polls...

The Conservatives within 2000 votes I think is an incredible

The morning after the night before, the losing parties

were licking their wounds and their lips over breakfast.

For years and years, Ukip was Nigel Farage,

That has now changed, that era has gone.

It's a new era, it is a second age for us.

So that needs to be more fully embedded,

it needs to be more defined, you know, and that will

We have to continue to improve in seats where we have stood.

As we have done here, we've improved on our 2015 result,

that's what important, is that we are taking steps

Can I be the first to come here today to congratulate

you on being elected the new MP for Stoke on Trent Central.

Jeremy Corbyn has just arrived in Stoke to welcome his newest MP.

Not sure he's going to Copeland later though.

Earlier in the day, the Labour leader had made clear he'd

considered and discounted some theories about the party's

Since you found out that you'd lost a seat to a governing

party for the first time since the Falklands War,

have you at any point this morning looked in the mirror and asked

yourself this question - could the problem actually be me?

In the end it was the Conservatives who came out on top.

No governing party has made a gain at a by-election

With the self-styled people's army of Ukip halted in Stoke,

and Labour's wash-out here in Copeland...

There's little chance of rain on Theresa May's parade.

In the wake of that loss in Copeland, the Scottish Labour Party

has been meeting for its spring conference in the

Yesterday, deputy leader Tom Watson warned delegates that unless Labour

took the by-election defeat seriously, the party's devastation

in Scotland could be repeated south of the border.

Well, I'm joined now by the leader of Scottish Labour,

Even after your party had lost Copeland to the Tories and with

Labour now trailing 16 points in the UK polls, you claim to have every

faith that Jeremy Corbyn would absolutely win the general election.

What evidence can you bring to support that? There is no doubt the

result in Copeland was disappointing for the Labour Party and I think

it's a collective feeling for everyone within the Labour Party and

I want to do what I can to turn around the fortunes of our party.

That's what I've committed to do while I have been the Scottish

Labour leader. This two years ago we were down the mines so to speak in

terms of losing the faith of working class communities across the

country, but we listened very hard to the message voters are sending

and responded to it. That's what I'm committed to doing in Scotland and

that's what Jeremy Corbyn is committed to doing UK wide. The

latest polls put Labour at 14% in Scotland, the Tories at ten points

ahead of you in Scotland, even Theresa May is more popular than

Jeremy Corbyn in Scotland. So I will try again - why are you so sure

Jeremy Corbyn could win a general election? What I said when you are

talking about Scotland is that I'm the leader of the Scottish Labour

Party and I take responsibility for our policies here. Voters said very

clearly after the Scottish Parliament election that they didn't

have a clear enough sense of what we stood for so I have been advocating

a very strong anti-austerity platform, coming up with ideas of

how we can oppose the cuts and invest in our future. That is

something Jeremy Corbyn also supports but I've also made it clear

this weekend that we are opposed to a second independence referendum. I

want to bring Scotland back together by focusing on the future and that's

why I have been speaking about the federal solution for the UK. I know

that Jeremy Corbyn shares that ambition because he is backing the

plans for a people's Constitutional Convention. Yes, these are difficult

times for the Scottish Labour Party and UK family, but I have a plan in

place to turn things around. It will take time though. I'm still not sure

why you are so sure the Labour party can win but let me come onto your

plan. You want a UK wide Constitutional Convention and that

lead to a new Federalist settlement. Is it the policy of the Labour

Shadow Cabinet in Westminster to carve England into federal regions?

What we support at a UK wide level is the people's constitutional

convention. I have been careful to prescribe what I think is in the

best interests of Scotland but not to dictate to other parts of the UK

what is good for them, that's the point of the people's constitutional

convention. You heard Tom Watson say there has to be a UK wide

conversation about power, who has it and how it is exercised across

England. England hasn't been part of this devolution story over the last

20 years, it is something that happened between Scotland and London

or Wales and London. No wonder people in England feel

disenfranchised from that. What evidence can you bring to show there

is any appetite in England for an English federal solution to England,

to carve England into federal regions? Have you spoken to John

Prescott about this? He might tell you some of the difficulties.

There's not even a debate about that here, Kezia Dugdale, it is fantasy.

I speak to John Prescott regularly. What there is a debate about is the

idea the world is changing so fast that globalisation is taking jobs

away from communities in the north-east, that many working class

communities feel left behind, that Westminster feels very far away and

the politicians within it feel remote in part of the establishment.

People are fed up with power being exercised somewhere else, that's

where I think federalism comes in because it's about bringing power

closer to people and in many ways it's forced on us because of Brexit.

We know the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union so we

have to talk about the repatriation of those powers from Brussels to

Britain. I want many of those powers to go to the Scottish parliament but

where should they go in the English context? It is not as things

currently stand the policy of the English Labour Party to carve

England into federal regions, correct?

It is absolutely the policy of the UK Labour Party to support the

people's Constitutional convention to examining these questions. I

think it is really important. You're promising the Scottish people a

federal solution, and you have not even squared your own party for a

federal solution in England. That is not true. The UK Labour Party is

united on this. I am going to Cardiff next month to meet with

Carwyn Jones and various leaders. United on a federal solution? You

know as well as I know it is not united on a federal solution. We

will have a conversation about power in this country. It is not united on

that issue? This is the direction of

travel. It is what you heard yesterday from Sadiq Khan, from Tom

Watson, when you hear from people like Nick Forbes who lead Newcastle

City Council and Labour's Local Government Association. There is an

appetite for talking about power. Talking is one thing. We need to

have this conversation across the whole of the United Kingdom, to have

a reformed United Kingdom. It is a conversation you're offering

Scotland, not the policy. Let's come onto the labour made of London. He

was in power for your conference. He wrote in the record yesterday, there

is no difference between Scottish nationalism and racism. Would you

like this opportunity to distance yourself from that absurd claim? I

think that Sadiq Khan was very clear yesterday that he was not accusing

the SNP of racism. What he was saying clearly is that nationalism

by its very nature divides people and communities. That is what I said

in my speech yesterday. I am fed up living in a divided and fractured

country and society. Our politics is forcing is constantly to pick sides,

whether you're a no, leave a remain, it brings out the worst in our

politicians and politics. All the consensus we find in the grey areas

is lost. That is why am standing under a banner that together we are

stronger. We have to come up with ideas and focus on the future. That

is why I agree with Sadiq Khan. He said quite clearly in the Daily

Record yesterday, and that the last minute he adapted his speech to your

conference yesterday, to try and reduce the impact, that there was no

difference between Scottish nationalism and racism. Your

colleague, and Sarwar, said that even after he had tried to introduce

the caveats, all forms of nationalism rely on creating eyes

and them. Let's call it for what it is. So you are implying that the

Scottish Nationalists are racist. Would you care to distance yourself

from that absurd claim? I utterly refute that that is what Sadiq Khan

said. I would never suggest that the SNP are an inherently racist party.

That does is a disservice. He did not see it. What he did say,

however, is that nationalism is divisive. You know that better than

anyone. I see your Twitter account. Regularly your attack for the job

you do as a journalist. Politics in Scotland is divided on. I do not

want to revisit that independence question again for that reason. As

leader of the Labour Party, I want to bring our country back together,

appeal to people who voted yes and no. That banner, together we are

stronger, that is where the answers lie in defaulters can be found. If

in response to the Mayor of London, your colleague says, let's call it

out for what it is, what is he referring to if he is not implying

that national symbol is racist? -- and that nationalism is racist? He

is saying that it leads to divisive politics. The Labour Party has

always advocated that together we are stronger. Saying something is

divisive is very different from saying something is racist. That is

what the Mayor of London said. That is what your colleague was referring

to. He did not. You would really struggle to quote that from the

Mayor of London. He talked about being divided by race. What does

that mean? I think he was very clear that he was talking about divided

politics. There is an appetite the length and breadth of the country to

end that divisive politics. That is what I stand for, focusing on the

future, bringing people back together, concentrating on what the

economy might look like in 20 years' time in coming up with ideas to

tackle it today. Thank you for joining us.

Thursday's win for Labour in Stoke-on-Trent Central

gave some relief to Jeremy Corbyn, but for Ukip leader and defeated

Stoke candidate Paul Nuttall there were no consolation prizes.

I'm joined now by Mr Nuttall's principal political

Welcome to the programme. Good morning. How long will Paul Nuttall

survivors Ukip leader, days, weeks, months? You are in danger of not

seeing the wood for the trees. Ukip was formed in 1993 with the express

purpose, much mocked, of getting Britain out of the European Union.

Under the brilliant leadership of Nigel Farage, we were crucial in

forcing a vacuous Prime Minister to make a referendum promise he did not

want to give. With our friends in Fort leave and other organisations.

Mac we know that. Get to the answer. We helped to win that referendum.

The iteration of Ukip at the moment that we're in, the primary purpose,

we are the guard dog of Brexit. Viewed through that prism, the Stoke

by-election was a brilliant success. A brilliant success? We had the Tory

candidate that had pumped out publicity for Remain, for Cameron

Bradley, preaching the gospel of Brexit. We had a Labour candidate

and we know what he really felt about Brexit, preaching the Gospel

according to Brexit. You lost. Well the by-election was going on, we had

the Labour Party in the House of Commons pass the idea of trickling

Article 50 by a landslide. Are passionate thing, the thing that

35,000 Ukip members care about the most, it is an extraordinary

achievement. I am very proud. What would you have described as victory

as? If we could have got Paul Nuttall into the House of Commons,

that would have been a fantastic cherry on the top. Losing was an

extraordinary achievement? Many Ukip supporters the Stoke was winnable,

but Paul Nuttall's campaign was marred by controversy, Tory voters

refuse to vote tactically for Ukip to beat Labour, his campaign, Mr

Nuttall is to blame for not winning what was a winnable seat? I do not

see that at all. This is counterintuitive, but Jeremy Corbyn

did do one thing that made it more difficult for us to win. Fantasy.

That was to take Labour into a Brexit position formerly. Just over

50 Labour MPs had voted against triggering Article 50. In political

terms, we have intimidated the Labour Party into backing Brexit.

How much good is it doing you? It comes to the heart

of the problem your party faces. You're struggling to win Tory

Eurosceptic voters. For the moment, they seem happy with Theresa May.

Stoke shows you're not winning Labour Brexit voters either. If you

cannot get the solution Tolisso labour, where does your Broad come

from? In terms of the by-election, it came very early for Paul. I'm

talking about the future. We have a future agenda, and ideological

argument with Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, which is wedded to the notion

of global citizenship and does not recognise the nation state. We know

he spent Christmas sitting around campfires with Mexican Marxist

dreaming of global government. We believe in the nation state. We

believe that the patriotic working class vote will be receptive to

that. Your Broad went down by 9% in Cortland. In Copeland we were

squeezed. In Stoke, we were unable to squeeze the Tories, who are on a

high. Our agenda is that social solidarity is important but we

arrange it in this country by nation and community. We want an

immigration system that is not only reducing... We know what you want. I

do not think people do. You had a whole by-election to tell people and

they did not vote for you and. When Nigel Farage said it was fundamental

that you were winner in Stoke, he was wrong? Nigel chooses his own

words. I would not rewrite them. It would be a massive advantage to Ukip

to have a leader in the House of Commons in time to reply to the

budget, Prime Minister's questions and all of that. But we have taken

the strategic view that we will fight the Labour Party for the

working class vote. It is also true that the Conservatives will make a

pitch for the working class vote might as well. All three parties

have certain advantages and disadvantages. As part of that page,

Nigel Farage said that your leader, Paul Nuttall, should have taken a

clear, by which I assume he meant tough, line on immigration. Do you

agree? He took a tough line on immigration. He developed that idea

at our party conference in the spring. Nigel Farage did not think

so? Nigel Farage made his speech before Paul Nuttall made his speech.

He said this in the aftermath of the result. Once we have freedom to

control and Borders, Paul wants to set up an immigration system that

includes an aptitude test, do you have skills that the British economy

needs, but also, and attitudes test, do you subscribe to core British

values such as gender equality and freedom of expression? We will be

making these arguments. It is certainly true that Paul's campaign

was thrown off course by, particularly something that we knew

the Labour Party had been preparing to run, the smear on the untruths,

the implications about Hillsborough. If you knew you should have

anticipated it. Alan Banks, he helps to bankroll your party, he said that

Mr Nuttall needs to toss out the Tory cabal in Europe, by which he

means Douglas Carswell, Neil Hamilton. Should they be stripped of

their membership? Of course not. As far as I knew, Alan Banks was a

member of the Conservative Party formally. I do not know who this

Tory cabal is supposed to be. He says that your party is more like a

jumble sale than a political party. He says that the party should make

him chairman or they will work. What do you see to that? He has made that

statement several times over many months, including if you do not

throw out your only MP. Douglas Carswell has managed to win twice

under Ukip colours. Should Tibi chairman? I think we have an

excellent young chairman at the moment. He is doing a good job. The

idea that Leave.EU was as smooth running brilliant machine, that does

not sit with the facts as I understand them. Suzanne Evans says

it would be no great loss for Ukip if Mr Banks walked out, severed his

ties and took his money elsewhere. Is she right. I am always happy

people who want to give money and support your party want to stay in

the party. The best donors donate and do not seek to dictate. If they

are experts in certain fields, people should listen to their views

but to have a daughter telling the party leader who should be party

chairman, that is a nonstarter. You have described your existing party

chairman is excellent. He said it could be 20 years before Ukip wins

by-election. Is he being too optimistic? There is a general

election coming up in the years' time. We will be aiming to win seats

in that. Before that, we will be the guard dog for Brexit, to make sure

this extraordinary achievement of a little party... You are guard dog

without a kennel, you cannot get seat? We're keeping the big

establishment parties to do the will of the people. If we achieve nothing

else at all, that will be a magnificent achievement. Thank you

very much. Sweden isn't somewhere

we talk about often should because this

week it was pulled into the global spotlight,

thanks Last weekend, Mr Trump was mocked

for referring to an incident that had occurred last night in Sweden

as a result of the country's open Critics were quick to point out that

no such incident had occurred and Mr Trump later clarified

on Twitter and he was talking about a report he had

watched on Fox News. But as if to prove

he was onto something, next day a riot broke out

in a Stockholm suburb with a large migrant population,

following unrest in such areas So what has been Sweden's

experience of migration? In 2015, a record 162,000 people

claimed asylum there, the second That number dropped to 29,000

in 2016 after the country introduced border restrictions and stopped

offering permanent Tensions have risen,

along with claims of links to crime, although official statistics do not

provide evidence of a refugee driven Nigel Farage defended Mr Trump,

claiming this week that migrants have led to a dramatic rise

in sexual offences. Although the country does

have the highest reported rate of rape in Europe,

Swedish authorities say recent rises were due to changes to how rape

and sex crimes are recorded. Aside from the issue of crime,

Sweden has struggled Levels of inequality between natives

and migrants when it comes Unemployment rates are three times

higher for foreign-born workers We're joined now by Laila Naraghi,

she's a Swedish MP from the governing Social Democratic Party,

and by the author and The Swedish political establishment

was outraged by Mr Trump's remarks, pointing to a riot that hadn't taken

place, then a few nights later serious riots did break out in a

largely migrant suburb of Stockholm so he wasn't far out, was he? I

think he was far out because he is misleading the public with how he

uses these statistics. I think it is important to remember that the

violence has decreased in Sweden for the past 20 years and research shows

there is no evidence that indicate that immigration leads to crime and

so I think it is far out. The social unrest in these different areas is

not because of their ethical backgrounds of these people living

there but more about social economic reasons. OK, no evidence migrants

are responsible for any kind of crime? This story reminds me after

what happened to the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris when also a Fox

News commentator said something that was outlandish about Paris and the

Mayor of Paris threatened to sue Fox News, saying you are making our city

look bad. It's a bit like that because the truth on this lies

between Donald Trump on the Swedish authorities on this. Sweden and

Swedish government is very reluctant to admit any downsides of its own

migration policy and particularly the migration it hard in 2015 but

there are very obvious downsides because Sweden is not a country that

needs a non-skilled labour force which doesn't speak Swedish. What

was raised as the matter of evidence, what is the evidence?

First of all if I can say so the rape statistics in Sweden that have

been cited are familiar with the rape statistics across other

countries that have seen similar forms of migration. Danish

authorities and the Norwegian authorities have recorded a similar

thing. It is not done by ethnicity so we don't know. And this is part

of the problem. It is again a lot of lies and rumours going about. When

it is about for example rape, it is difficult to compare the statistics

because in Sweden for example many crimes that in other countries are

labelled as bodily harm or assault are in Sweden labelled as rape. Also

how it is counted because if a woman goes to the police and reports that

her husband or boyfriend has raped her, and done it every night for one

year, in Sweden that is counted as 365 offences. Something is going

wrong, I look at the recent news from Sweden. Six Afghan child

refugees committed suicide in the last six months, unemployment among

recent migrants now five times higher than among non-migrants. We

have seen gang violence in Malmo where a British child was killed by

a grenade, rioting in Stockholm. Police in Sweden say there are 53

areas of the country where it is now dangerous to patrol. Something has

gone wrong. Let me get back to what I think is the core of this debate

if I may and that is the right for people fleeing war and political

persecution to seek asylum, that is a human right. In Sweden we don't

think we can do everything, but we want to live up to our obligation,

every country has an obligation to receive asylum seekers. But you have

changed your policy on that because having taken 163,001 year alone, you

have then closed your borders, I think very wisely, closed the border

which means 10,000 people per day at one point were walking from Denmark

in to Malmo, you rightly changed that so he realised whatever ones

aspirations in terms of asylum, it sometimes meets reality and Sweden

is meeting the reality of this. Let's respond to that. We are not

naive, we know we cannot do everything but we want to try to do

our share as we think other countries also need to do their

share. But let me say that, if you look at what the World Economic

Forum is saying about our country they show we are in the top of many

rankings, the best country to live in, to age in, to have children in,

to start into -- to start enterprise. Why have you not been so

good at integrating migrants? The unemployment rate is five times

higher among migrants than non-migrants and that's the highest

ratio of any country in the EU and the OECD, why have you not been able

to integrate the people you have brought in for humanitarian reasons?

I'm sure there are things we can do much better of course but if you

look for example at the immigration that came in the 90s from the

Balkans, they are well integrated and contributing to our society.

They are starting enterprises and working in different fields of

society, and they help our country. Why have they not got jobs, the

migrants that have come in? It takes time. In the 90s we managed it and

I'm sure we can do it again. Can I put this into some context, it is

clear Sweden has got problems as a result of the number of migrants

that come in, whether it is as bad as Mr Trump and others make out is

another matter, but perhaps I can put it into context. Malmo, which

has been at the centre of many of these migrant problems, its homicide

rate is three per hundred thousand. Chicago, 28 per 100,000. It may have

problems but they are not huge. No, they are pretty huge and I think

they will grow. The Balkan refugees into Sweden in the 90s did bring a

lot of problems and Sweden did for the first time see serious ethnic

gang rivalries. There was an upsurge in gang-related violence that has

gone on since. The situation in Malmo in particular is exaggerated

by some people, there's no doubt about that, I have been there many

times and it is undoubtedly exaggerated by some, it is also

vastly unpersuaded by the Swedish authorities. -- understated. In

2010, one in ten Jews in Malmo registered some form of attack on

them. It got so bad that in 2010 people offered to escort Jews... You

have had a good say and I have got to be fair here, what do you say to

that, Laila Naraghi? There are people trying to frame our country

in a certain way to push their own agenda. I regret that President

Trump is trying to slander our country. But what about the specific

point on Malmo? If you speak to people in Malmo and also to

different congregations, they say they are working together with the

authorities to improve this. I say again, there are a lot of people

trying to spread rumours and lies. Your situation is very like the

situation we had in Britain when we have these situations in Rotherham

and elsewhere. 1400 girls were raped in Rotherham before police even

admitted it was going on. That happened in Britain in the last

decade, a similar phenomenon. An upsurge in particularly sexual and

other forms of violence and then total denial by an entire political

class is now something that is happening in Sweden. I see it in

Swedish authorities and the denial that comes up and the desire to

laugh and dismiss Trump but he's not answer nothing and that's a painful

thing for any society to want to admit to. There are number of Swedes

who think the establishment is covering up the true statistics,

that you don't break crime down by ethnic crimes, people are suspicious

of the centre-left and centre-right parties now in Sweden. There is no

denial and no cover-up. This is what I'm speaking about when I say people

are trying to frame it in a certain way. The social unrest is not

because of the ethnical background of the people living there but

rather because of different socioeconomics conditions. There is

no research that shows immigration... But you don't do the

research into it. Swedish authorities deliberately ensure you

cannot carry out such research and after the attacks in Cologne in 2015

it was the first time then that the Swedish authorities and press

admitted that similar sexual molestation have been going on for

years in Sweden. Is it right to think, given the problem is maybe

not as bad as many people make out but clearly problems, given these

problems, is the age of mass asylum seeking for Sweden over? You have

cut the numbers by 80% coming in last year compared with 2015, is it

over while you concentrate on getting right the people that you

have there already? We want to do our share, we have done a lot and

now we are concentrating of course on integration and making sure

people get a job, and also on big welfare investments because

it's important to remember that for eight years Sweden were governed by

a government that prioritised big tax cuts instead of investment in

welfare. It may just not work. I am grateful to you both, we have to

leave it there. It's coming up to 11:40am,

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

in Scotland, who leave us now the Week Ahead, when we'll be asking

if the Government is facing defeat This is the Sunday politics in the

south-east. Coming up later, we visit a safe house for women who

have been victims of modern-day slavery. The government has promised

to take action but is enough being done to support those affected once

they go back out into the world? I am joined by the Conservative MP

four-wheeled in and Baroness Maggie Jones, who sits in the Lords for the

Whether it is an independent Whether it is an independent

high-street shop or a Hotel on the south coast, small businesses across

the south-east are worried about the changes in business rates being

introduced shortly. For many of them, there will be a significant

increase because of the high value of properties in this region. A

couple of weeks ago, a ghost house on in Eastbourne spoke to us. The

rateable value of her property has more than doubled. The price of the

property has not come up 120% and certainly the raids we are charging

for our rooms have not gone up more than five or ?10 in the whole of

that period because the market is so competitive. On Wednesday, the Green

MP Caroline Lucas put the issue to the Prime Minister. The governments

business rates hike could devastate the local economy and my Brighton

constituency. Brighton Pier is facing a 17% increase. Blanche house

Hotel, a 400% increase. Does the Prime Minister recognise that

Brighton will be disproportionately affected and will she urgently set

up both a discretionary fund to support small and micro businesses

and agree to a full review of the system? I recognise that there has

been particularly concerned that there will be some small businesses

that are particularly adversely River -- affected by the result of

this and that is why I have asked the Chancellor and the Communities

Secretary to make sure there is appropriate relief in those it

areas. So there may be some recompense in the budget next month

but no new money has been promised. We don't yet know how much

difference it would make. Can we difference it would make. Can we

agree this has been really badly handled by the government? This

happened to be the seventh year and it is an issue for some businesses

but in my constituency, overall, the rates will go down by 2.5%. Three

quarters of businesses will be better off. So, why did the Prime

Minister have to admit that recompense was needed? We do have a

quarter of businesses that will see a change and there is already a

budget to help that transitional period. I still have a number of

small businesses in my constituency who are worried about what this rate

might mean. It is right that MPs are lobbying their minister and the

Chancellor to make sure that if there are any tweaks that need to be

businesses in Brighton and elsewhere businesses in Brighton and elsewhere

are facing a rise of around 400% in their rateable values and therefore

their bills are going to increase sharply. This issue was not going to

go away. You can still appeal of the rate is as much as you have just

pointed out that the issue is that we are told these rates are sent out

and businesses know what happening. You get a real flavour of what is

happening. Three quarters of businesses will be better off. I

know, but we are talking about in the south-east they will be

disproportionately affected. There are a lot of small businesses, the

price of property is higher here. In a conservative heartland for the

large part, Harveys Brewery, a large part, Harveys Brewery, a

well-known Sussex business, they are saying that some of their smaller

outlets, smaller community pubs, they think will have two shot

because they cannot cope with this huge rise. Are you worried about

bad? I am worried. I have been visiting the pubs across my

constituency. That is why we have been lobbying the Chancellor and the

Minister to make sure that there are tweaks at the next budget statement.

Good news for Brighton. The issue was raised by the Green MP and the

Prime Minister responded. Well, she responded with sympathy but no extra

cash. I am sorry but I think it will take more than the odd tweak to

reassure some of the small businesses in Brighton and Hove. We

rely on the self-employed, small band coming businesses and it will

be devastating for them to be hit by the sorts of increases we are

talking about just when they are off and being able to employ a few more

those small businesses in particular those small businesses in particular

and it is ironic the whole way that this new business rate is being

configured to that Amazon, huge multinational, will pay less and the

small businesses are paying more. That cannot be right. Absolutely

right. We have to try and address why high-street businesses,

having to tackle competition from having to tackle competition from

Internet companies, how we can make them more profitable and more

successful going forward but having said that, there are winners and

losers and three quarters of businesses will be better off. We

rely on small businesses and they will be disproportionately affected.

As a Conservative MP in the area, this is something that increasingly

we are seeing, they are the ones having to take the fight to their

own government. Which is why we are raising above the Chancellor and the

Minister. A ?3.6 billion fund is available to help the transitional

period. I am hoping that people are listening. And if they don't? Let's

wait and see. We will have to wait and see. There is a fund in place to

help those in a transitional period, if they are struggling. Small

businesses, independent businesses, they are the lifeline of my

constituency and I will continue to campaign on their behalf. This was

an opportunity for Labour but actually it appears that Jeremy

Corbyn couldn't decide what the party 's policy on small businesses

and rateable values is. Could you enlighten us? We have been very

clear in the past that our policy is that we believe that small

businesses, we should cut the business rate. That is still our

policy, as far as I am concerned. There should be a cut for small

businesses and then a freeze. But apart from that, we need to do more

to kind of investor to actually bring in new money through national

investment bank to invest in small businesses so business rates are

just one tax... Getting back to the Labour Party, this was a lost

opportunity. This is precisely the kind of issue that you could be

fighting the government on, not believing it to the Conservative

MPs? And Caroline Lucas. All our spokespeople have been absolutely at

one with the people who have been raising concerns about the way that

the business rate is going to affect their local community. They have

spoken out about it and have been quite clear that it is not fair and

we need to have a fairer system with a longer transitional period and

extra cash. We are on record as saying that. It goes beyond that. We

need a complete revaluation of the system that we have at the moment.

Widening things out a little, there is a pattern here, we have seen it

with the schools funding issue, increasingly it feels like the

government is happy to come up with policies that will compromise their

own loyal supporters in the south-east of Inman. You worried

that will get worse? -- North -- South East of England. Business

rates are evaluated every five years. There was a bit more of a

change. The by-election results are fantastic for the Conservative

Party. We have won a Labour seat that has been held by the Labour

Party since the 1930s. It shows that not only Conservative parties were

macro policies but also our Prime Minister is reaching across to all

backgrounds. There are several policies which are angering loyal

Conservative MPs in the South East and that surely is going to be a

risk for her. The fairer funding for Miller is an issue in my

constituency and I have been campaigning hard with a number of my

neighbouring MPs to try and just make sure that it is... It is not

quite work out well for us. We are lobbying as hard as we can but the

by-election results show that we are most definitely on track in making

sure that we reach out to all corners of our country. OK, we are

going to move on. The Prime Minister has called it a barbaric evil and

promised to tackle the modern-day slave trade. Is enough being done to

support victims once they leave their dramatic experience behind and

go back into the outside world? Slavery and forced labour hidden

here in Britain today. And the main gateway for the human traffickers

and gang masters is the south-east. The victims, often from abroad, are

duped to coming to Britain on the promise of a well-paid job but when

they arrived, the reality is very different. Marina came to Kent from

Lithuania. He was hired to catch chickens on a farm like this one by

a company near Maidstone described as the worst UK gang master ever. He

says he was forced to live and work in horrific conditions. Working was

painful. the modern slave trade goes on.

Often it is sexual exploitation or forced labour in nail bars, car

washes and cannabis farms. The Home Office estimates that there are

213,000 potential victims of slavery in the UK. 2015 saw a 40% increase

in the number of people identified in the number of people identified

and liberated from trafficking. 14% of those were in the south-east. The

government has recognised that Modern Slavery Bill is on the

2015, landmark legislation was 2015, landmark legislation was

introduced to eradicate it. It was the first of its kind in Europe but

two years on, have those new laws really made a difference? And are

the victims who have escaped the trauma of trafficking and slavery

getting the support they need? This is a safe house in Kent. A haven for

up to 50 women and children, many of whom have suffered harrowing sexual

exploitation. It is almost always full. Some will have an opportunity

to flee their exploitation, if they have been put in brothels, somebody

there is a nice punter who is trying there is a nice punter who is trying

to help the individual, so they will just literally leg it with whatever

close they got on, some are very fragile. They are usually

traumatised, Bubba be crying, shaking, we have some will have

literally been violently sick on the doorstep and the stress and the

anxiety that they feel is immense. Victims can hear and other places

like it while the government investigates their cases. But once

the investigation is complete, that support stops. Campaigners say that

can be devastating for victims and they want it to change. There is no

typical victim of Modern Slavery Bill people are highly traumatised

and they will need many months of support. Others want to get back on

their feet quite quickly. I think we would want a system built around the

individual needs rather than a fixed individual needs rather than a fixed

amount of time. The government is piloting a new scheme to change the

anti-slavery charities say more anti-slavery charities say more

needs to be done. We know that many victims are leaving safe houses and

because there is no support long term provided, they are going

Gestede. We have heard police officer saying they have put victims

into safe houses three times. Each time they leave, they are then being

re-trafficked. The DeMent says it was to lead the world in combating

Modern Slavery Bill 's bid is a tough, no-nonsense line but does the

system go far enough for the victims struggling to rebuild their lives?

-- the governmental joining us is Sarah Newton, the Home Office

minister with responsibility for the issue of modern-day slavery. As we

have been hearing, just at the point when a victim is officially

recognised as that by the government, there support seems to

be quite abruptly withdrawn and that appears to be a brutal system.

Actually, that is not the case at all. The minimum amount of support

that any victim had goes into one of the safe houses and the great job

that they do like the one who had just seen in your film is 45 days

but the needs of the individual are what drive the amount of support

they are given. As was rightly said, some people want to go home actually

and we have come up with all sorts of arrangements or organisations in

Poland and Lithuania, so people can go home safely. At other times,

people will need a lot of help. On average at the moment, most people

are getting about 90 days' help. Is that enough do you think for someone

who is fragile and traumatised. In many cases, it amounts to around two

months, not 90 days. Is that enough for them to find somewhere to live

and get back out there? The average is over 90 days but it can vary

enormously. I have met somebody who has been receiving help for two

years. We really do have to look at the circumstances of the

individuals. Why then are the individuals. Why then are the

Salvation Army who are closely involved in this line of work and

the human trafficking foundation saying the government is not going

nearly far enough to give support? I really am delighted that I work with

have been really helping us to look have been really helping us to look

at how we can improve the system. It is always more that you can do to

support victims and we are utterly committed to doing that. We have

been piloting a whole new mechanism, that is just one part of the journey

that victims go on. So we have been working with a whole range of

voluntary sector organisations, looking at what more we can do.

Sorry to interrupt, we have had a look at the pilot schemes. It does

not seem to talk about becoming more victim centres. Which is what the

trafficking foundation wants the trafficking foundation wants the

government to do. There is another talk about local responsibility for

identifying victims but not actually about improving the support that you

give to them. Victims are the heart of everything we do because it is

the morally right thing to do but also it will help us secure better

convictions if those people who have been trafficked feel safe and

secure, they are far more likely to work with the police to enable us to

get more prosecutions. That is what we want to see. We want to put the

traffickers behind bars and prevent this barbaric activity happening in

the first place. And that is another area where you have a problem. The

conviction rate is pretty low. One other question I wanted to ask you

is about permission to stay in the UK. People who have been identified

as victims. The human trafficking foundation would like at least one

years permit in the United States, they are given quite generous amount

of times to stay in the country. But is not offered in the UK. Will that

change? That is actually not true at all. Depending on the country's

people have come from, there are different arrangements. Anybody who

is helping the police to secure the prosecutions we want to see has the

right to stay in the United Kingdom. The human trafficking foundation

would like longer. I think if we want... The best thing we can do is

to focus on those individual victims. While they are helping

police secure those convictions, while we are helping them to pull

their lives together, to help them go on with their lives, they have

the support they need. Sarah Newton, thank you very much for joining us.

I know this is adding that has been close to your heart, something you

have been campaigning for. The conviction rates are incredibly low.

Only one conviction from 56 individuals in Sussex. You are

dealing with incredibly vulnerable people and it takes a huge amount of

just time and encouragement to take these people forward to come and

give evidence. They are so vulnerable, so afraid, it takes a

huge amount of time and effort and we must not deny that debate at all.

According to the report, the people on the front line, time is what they

feel victims are not being given under the current system. As the

minister said, if you focus on every individual victim, you try and

support them for as long as they require that support for. And that

is what it should be about. As soon as you set a date, if it is 12

months, there is a drop-off. But I completely agree that the more

convictions we have, the more confidence victims will have to come

forward. But that requires us forward. But that requires us

working with victims and building a lot of support and encouragement.

They are so vulnerable on summary levels. I am sure you will be keen

to point out it was the Labour government which introduced the

mechanism but would you not concede... There was a lot of

cross-party support for the Modern Slavery Bill, to be honest. You

cannot accuse this governor of not tackling the issue head-on. We all

supported the bill when it was first introduced. And we are supporting a

lot of the things that the government are doing. I have to say

that I take issue with the figures that the government are quoting. I

think it is the tip of the iceberg. It is a hidden crime. As time goes

by, we will get a much better idea of the scale of this and I think we

will find it is hugely greater than the figures that are being quoted.

This is part of the problem. People are not coming forward. It is very

much a hidden... Subterfuge, and part of the reason people don't run

away or don't seek help is because they don't have confidence that they

are going to be looked after when they get into the system. And that

is another issue that I think the foundation raised in the report. The

sufficient -- the system is insufficient. People end up getting

back into being trafficked, back into the hands of the National

Referral Mechanism. Something is wrong. The Salvation Army makes a

decision on how they are funding the individual projects. Each individual

person that comes forward and seeks support, they are taken care of for

as long as they needed. It is absolutely right. If they have got

the confidence and it takes a huge a lot of courage to come forward and

try and seeks justice, we have to sure that every time they come

across someone who is an agent of the state, a police officer, they

are treated with the utmost dignity and supported through the whole

process. But that isn't the evidence that the Parliamentary enquiry had.

They heard evidence from all sorts of people who did literally drop off

at the end of the 45 days. And then they were lost in the system and

disappeared. I think there is a real crisis. I am afraid we are going to

for the news you may have missed for the news you may have missed

this week in 60 seconds. Claims that Ukip floated electoral

law during Nigel Farage is unsuccessful bid to become the

import Dutch MP in 2015 have been strongly denied by the former

leader. Hope not hate is calling for companies to investigate that money

was not declared to the electoral watchdog. The leader of Kent County

Council says proposed changes to the former are misguided and risk

creating discrepancies between Labour and schools. The changes the

think they are heading the right think they are heading the right

spot at the moment. There are still too many anomalies. Southern rail

says it has managed to run nearly 90% of train services on Wednesday

despite strike action by the RMT. The union are calling for urgent

talks with Southern rail to discuss rail guards.

As a Sussex MP, what is your assessment of the Southern rail

dispute at the moment? Is it more or less over? Cautiously optimistic. I

am hoping that asset can bring their colleagues round to their idea...

When the strikes are called off, we can go back to dealing with the

management of the train and get a better service. A quick yes or no.

Is it over? Well, the management needs sorting out and that is the

real issue. Thank you very much to both my guests this week. But is it

from us. I will be back next week. Welcome back. Article 50, which

triggers the beginning of Britain leaving the European Union and start

negotiations, is winding its way through the Lords in this coming

week. Tarzan has made an intervention, let's just see the

headline from the Mail on Sunday. Lord Heseltine, Michael Heseltine,

my fightback starts here, he is going to defy Theresa May. I divide

one Prime Minister over the poll tax, I'm ready to defy this one in

the Lords over Brexit. There we go, that's going to happen this week. We

will see how far he gets. I don't think he will get very far, I don't

think Loyalist Tory MPs and Brexiteers are quaking in their

boots at the prospect of a rebellion led by Michael Heseltine. I sense

that many Tory MPs are already moving on to the next question about

Brexit, and the discussion over how much it will cost us to come out.

The fact they are already debating that suggests to me they feel things

will go fairly smoothly in terms of the legislation. When I spoke to the

Labour leader in the Lords last week on the daily politics, she said she

was going to push hard for the kind of amendments Lord has all-time is

talking about and they would bring that back to the Commons. But if the

Commons pinged it back to the Lords with the amendments taken out, she

made it clear that was the end of it. Is that right? That's about

right. This is probably really a large destruction. There will be to

micro issues that come up in the Lords, one is on the future of EU

nationals, that could be voted on as soon as this Wednesday, and then the

main vote in the Lords on a week on Tuesday, when there is this question

of what sort of vote will MPs and peers get at the end of the Brexit

process and that is what has all-time is talking about. He wants

to make sure there are guarantees in place. The kind of things peers are

looking for are pretty moderate and the Government have hinted they

could deliver on both of them already. But they are still not

prepared... Amber Rudd said they were not prepared... They may say

yes we are going to do that but they won't allow whatever that is to be

enshrined in the legislation. The question is whether we think this is

dancing on the head of a pin. The Government have already promised

something in the House of Commons, but will they write it down, I don't

think that's the biggest problem in the world. In a sense this is a

great magicians trick by Theresa May because it is not the most important

thing. The most important thing in Brexit is going on in those

committees behind closed doors when they are trying to work out what the

next migration system is for Britain and there are some interesting,

indeed toxic proposals, but at the moment Downing Street are happy to

let us talk about the constitutional propriety of what MPs are doing over

the next eight days. It seems to me the irony is that if we had a second

chamber that can claim some kind of democratic legitimacy, which the one

we have cannot, it would be able to cause the Government more trouble on

this, it would be more robust. Absolutely. I saw the interview we

did with the Labour Leader of the Lords, they are very conscious, of

the fact they are not elected and have limited powers. She was clear

to you they would not impede the timetable for triggering Article 50

so we might get a bit of theatre, Michael Heseltine might deliver a

brilliant speech. It is interesting that Euroscepticism gun under

Margaret Thatcher in the Tory party but two offer senior ministers Ken

Clarke and Michael Heseltine are the most prominent opponents now but

they will change nothing at this point. She will have the space to

trigger Article 50 within her timetable. Let's move on. Let me

show you a picture tweeted by Nigel Farage.

That is Nigel Farage and a small group of people having dinner, and

within that small group of people is the president of the United States,

and it was taken in the last couple of days. This would suggest that if

he can command that amount of the President's time in a small group of

people, then he's actually rather close to the president. Make no

mistake about it, Nigel Farage is now to and fro Washington more

regularly than perhaps he is here. Hopefully that LBC programme is

recorded over in the state. He's not only close to the president but to a

series of people within the administration. That relationship

there is a remarkable one and one to keep an eye on. Will the main

government be tempted to tap into that relationship at any time or is

it just seething with anger? You can feel a ripple of discontentment over

this. We are in the middle of negotiating the state visit and the

sort of pomp and circumstance and what kind of greeting Britain should

give Donald Trump when he comes over later in the year. There is a great

deal of neurotic thought going into what that should look like, but one

of the most interesting things about our relationship with Donald Trump

is that there is a nervousness among some Cabinet ministers that we are

being seen to go too far, too fast with the prospect of a trade deal.

Even amongst some Brexiteer cabinet ministers, they worry we won't get a

very good trade deal with the US and we are tolerably placing a lot of

stalled by it. When we see the kind of deal they want to pitch with us

there might be some pulling back and that could be an awkward moment in

terms of our relationship, and no doubt Nigel at that term -- at that

point will accuse the UK of doing the dirty on Donald Trump. If there

was a deal, would they get it through the House of Commons? Nigel

Farage is having dinner with the president, not bad as a kind of

lifestyle but he's politically rootless, he won't be an MEP much

longer so if you look at where is his political base to build on this

great time he's having, there is one. Given that there is one I think

he's just having a great time and it isn't much more significant than

that. No? There's a lot to be said for having a great time. You are

having a great time. Let's just look, because of the dominance of

the Government we kind of it nor there are problems piling up, only

what, ten days with the Budget to go, piling up for Mrs May and her

government. The business rates which has alarmed a lot of Tories, this

disability cuts which are really a serious problem for the Government,

and the desperate need for more money for social care. There are

other issues, there are problems there and they involve spending

money. Absolutely and some people argue Theresa May has only one

Monday and that is to deliver Brexit but it is impossible as a Prime

Minister to ignore everything else. And she doesn't want to either. The

bubbling issue of social care and the NHS is the biggest single

problem for her in the weeks and months ahead, she has got to come up

with something. And Mr Hammond will have to loosen his belt a little

bit. I think he will in relation to the NHS, he didn't mention it in the

Autumn Statement, which was remarkable, and he cannot get away

with not mentioning it this time. If he mentions it, it has to be in a

positive context in some way or another and it is one example of

many. She is both strong because she is so far ahead in the opinion

polls, but this in tray is one of the most daunting a Prime Minister

has faced in recent times I think. Here is what will happen on Budget

day, money will be more money, magically found down the back of the

Treasury sofa. The projections are that he has wiggle room of about 12

billion. But look at the bills, rebels involved in business rates

suggest the Chancellor will have to throw up ?2 billion at that problem.

3.7 billion is the potential cost of this judgment about disability

benefits. The Government will try to find different ways of satisfying it

but who knows. It will not popular. I'm not sure they will throw money

at the NHS, they want an interim settlement on social care which will

alleviate pressure on the NHS but they feel... That's another couple

of billion by the way. They feel in the Treasury that the NHS has not

delivered on what Simon Stevens promised them. But here is the

bigger problem for Philip Hammond, he has two This year and he thinks

the second one in the autumn is more important because that is when

people will feel the cost living squeeze.

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

We'll be back here at the same time next week.

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