05/02/2017 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 05/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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


Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",


and this week her government will announce new measures to boost


the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.


After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules


it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle


tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House


is making good on his campaign promises.


As the Government gets into gear for two years


of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come


over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -


and the costs and savings once we've left.


The view of south-west farmers and exporters.


And with me, as always, a trio of top political


journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn


They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,


So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House


of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way


Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,


with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.


Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn


will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted


Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally


Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -


blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy


The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked


about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.


The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,


and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.


Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very


difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,


Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.


We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,


But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,


we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.


That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water


torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a


situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has


drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.


What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite


plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The


only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.


Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere


else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but


Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of


the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would


like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do


something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the


main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on


Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article


50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to


abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the


North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of


our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered


policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is


divided and we represent the country, in other words we are


divided at the party as well. The other thing that was a crucial


moment this week is the debate over whether there should be a so-called


meaningful vote by MPs on the deal that Theresa May gets. That is a


point of real danger for Brexit supporters. It may well be there is


a coalition of Labour and SNP and Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for


that so-called meaningful vote that could undermine Theresa May's


negotiation. So Theresa May could have had troubles as well, not plain


sailing for her? There is no point, apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting


against Article 50, no point in Tory remainders rebelling. It would have


been a token gesture with no support. But there might be


meaningful amendments. One might be on the status of EU nationals... The


government could lose that. There might be a majority for some of


those amendments. The ins and outs of the Labour Party, it fascinates


the Labour Party and journalists. I suspect the country has just moved


on and doesn't care. You are probably quite right. To be honest I


struggled to get Labour split stories in my paper any more, the


bar is so high to make it news. Where it does matter is now not


everyone will pay huge amounts to the -- of attention to the vote on


Wednesday. But come the general election in 2020, maybe a little


earlier, every Tory leaflet and every labour constituency will say


this guy, this goal, they refuse to vote for Brexit, do you want them in


power? That is going to be really hard for them. The story next week


may be Tory splits rather than just Labour ones, we will see.


Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people


on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week


we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -


when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters


are published in the Government's new white paper.


Theresa May has promised she'll kick off Brexit negotiations with the EU


by the end of March, and after months of shadow-boxing


Ellie Price reports on the battle to come over the UK's Brexit bill,


and the likely costs and savings once we've left.


It was the figure that defined the EU referendum campaign.


It was also a figure that was fiercely disputed, but the promise -


vote leave and Britain won't have to pay into the EU are any more.


So, is that what's going to happen now?


The trouble with buses is you tend to have to wait for them


and when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the clock starts


She needs something quicker, something more sporty.


According to the most recent Treasury figures,


Britain's gross contribution to the EU, after the rebate


is taken into account, is about ?14 billion a year.


There are some complicating factors that means it can go up


or down year on year, but that's roughly how much the UK


will no longer sending to Brussels post-Brexit.


But, there are other payments that Britain will have to shell out for.


First and foremost, the so-called divorce settlement.


It is being said, and openly by Commissioner Barnier


and others in the Commission, that the total financial liability


as they see it might be in the order of 40-60 billion


The BBC understands the figure EU negotiators are likely


to settle on is far lower, around 34 billion euros,


but what does the money they are going to argue


Well, that's how much Britain owes for stuff in the EU budget that's


already signed up for until 2020, one year after we are


Historically, Britain pays 12% in contributions,


so the cost to the UK is likely to be between ten


Then they will look at the 200-250 billion euros of underfunded


spending commitments, the so-called RAL.


Britain could also be liable for around 5-7 billion euros


for its share in the pensions bill for EU staff, that's again


12% of an overall bill of 50-60 billion.


Finally there's a share of our assets held by the EU.


They include things like this building, the European Commission


Britain could argue it deserves a share back of around 18 billion


euros from a portfolio that's said to be worth 153 billion euros.


So, lots for the two sides to discuss in two years of talks.


They have a great opportunity with the Article 50 talks


because actually they can hold us to ransom.


They can say, "You figure out money, we will talk about your trade.


But until you've figured out the money, we won't," so I think


a lot of European states think they are in a very strong


negotiating position at the moment and they intend to make


The principle is clear, the days of Britain making vast


contributions to the European Union every year will end.


Theresa May has already indicated that she would want to sign back up


to a number of EU agencies on a program-by-program basis.


The Europol for example, that's the European crime


agency, or Erasmus Plus, which wants student exchanges.


If everything stays the same as it is now, it would cost the UK


675 million euros a year, based on analysis by


But there are likely to be agencies we don't choose to participate in.


If we only opted back to those dealing with security,


trade, universities and, say, climate change,


it could come with a price tag of 370 million euros per year.


Of course that's if our European neighbours allow us.


I wonder if they're going to let me in!


There will also be a cost to creating a new system to resolve


trade disputes with other nations once we are no longer part


Take the EFTA Court which rules on disputes


between the EU and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.


That costs 4 million euros to run each year,


though in the Brexit White Paper published this week,


the Government said it will not be constrained by precedent


Finally, would the EU get behind the idea of Britain making some


contribution for some preferential access to its market?


The sort of thing that Theresa May seems to be hinting


at are sectoral arrangements, some kind of partial membership


Switzerland, which has a far less wide-ranging deal than Norway,


pays about 320 million a year for what it gets into the EU budget,


but it's not exactly the Swiss deal that we're after.


The EU institutions hate the Swiss deal because it is codified


in a huge number of treaties that are messy, complicated


and cumbersome, and they really don't want to replicate


Theresa May has been at pains to insist she's in the driving seat


when it comes to these negotiations, and that she's


But with so much money up for discussion, it may not be such


Sadly she didn't get to keep the car!


And I've been joined to discuss the Brexit balance sheet


by the director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant,


and by Henry Newman who runs the think tank Open Europe.


Henry Newman, these figures that are being thrown about in Brussels at


the moment, and exit bill of 40-60,000,000,000. What do you make


of them? I think it is an opening gambit from the institutions and we


should take them seriously. We listened to Mr Rogers, the former


ambassador to Brussels in the House of Commons last week, speaking about


the sort of positions the EU is likely to take in the negotiation. I


personally think the Prime Minister should be more concerned about


getting the right sort of trade arrangements, subsequent to our


departure, than worrying about the exact detail of the divorce


settlement and the Bill. They might not let them go on to trade until


they resolve this matter. Where does the Brexit bill, the cost of exit,


if there is to be one, in terms of a sum of money, where does that come


in the negotiations, upfront or at the end? The European Commission has


a firm line on this. You have to talk about the Brexit bill and the


divorce settlement before you talk about the future relationship.


Therefore they are saying if you don't sign up for 60 billion or


thereabouts, we won't talk about the future. Other member states take a


softer line than that and think you probably have to talk about the


divorce settlement and Brexit bill as the same -- at the same time as


the economic situation. If you can do both at the same time, the


atmosphere may be better natured. You have spoken to people in


Brussels and are part of a think tank, how Revista gives the figure


or is it an opening gambit? Most member states and EU institutions


believe they think it is the true figure but when the negotiations


start adding the number will come down. As long as the British are


prepared to sign up to the principle of we owe you a bit of money, as the


cheque, then people will compromise. What is the ballpark? You had a


figure of 34 billion, that is news to me, nobody knows because


negotiations haven't started but I think something lower than 60. Even


60 would be politically toxic for a British government? I think Theresa


May is in a strong position, she has united the Conservative Party. You


could expect coming into this year all the Conservative divisions would


be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she is leading a united party. Labour


Party are divided... Coogee get away with paying 30 billion? We should


give her the benefit of the doubt going into these negotiations, let


her keep her cards close to her chest. The speech he gave a few


weeks ago at Lancaster House, our judgment was she laid out as much


detail as we could have expected at that point. I don't think it's


helpful for us now to say, we shouldn't be introducing further red


line. I want you to be helpful and find things out. I would suggest if


there is a bill, let's say it's 30 billion, let's make it half of what


the current claims coming out of Brussels. And of course it won't


have to be paid in one year, I assume it's not one cheque but


spread over. But we will wait a long time for that 350 million a week or


what ever it was that was meant to come from Brussels to spend on the


NHS. That's not going to happen for the next five, six or seven years.


Everyone has been clear there will be a phased exit programme. The


question of whether something is political possible for her in terms


of the divorce settlement will depend on what she gets from the


European Union in those negotiations. If she ends up


settling for a bill of about 30 billion which I think would be


politically... No matter how popular she is, politically very difficult


for her, it does kill any idea there is a Brexit dividend for Britain.


Some of the senior officials in London and Brussels are worried this


issue could crash the talks because it may be possible for Theresa May


to accept a Brexit bill of 30 billion and if there is no deal and


will leave EU without a settlement, there is massive legal uncertainty.


What contract law applies? Can our planes take off from Heathrow?


Nobody knows what legal rights there are for an EU citizen living here


and vice versa. If there is no deal at the end of two years, it is quite


bad for the European economy, therefore they think they have all


the cards to play and they think if it is mishandled domestically in


Britain than we have a crash. But there will be competing interests in


Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, maybe quite similar of the


Nordic states, that in turn different from the French, Germans


or Italians. How will Europe come to a common view on these things? At


the moment they are quite united backing a strong line, except for


the polls and Hungarians who are the bad boys of Europe and the Irish who


will do anything to keep us happy. We should remember their priority is


not economics, they are not thinking how can they maximise trade with the


UK, they are under threat. The combination of Trump and Brexit


scares them. They want to keep the institutions strong. They also want


to keep Britain. That is the one strong card we have, contributing to


security. We know we won't be members of the single market, that


was in the White Paper. The situation of the customs union is


more complicated I would suggest. Does that have cost? If we can be a


little bit pregnant in the customs union, does that come with a price


ticket? We have got some clarity on the customs union, the Prime


Minister said we would not be part of the... We would be able to do our


own trade deals outside the EU customs union, and also not be part


of the common external tariff. She said she is willing to look at other


options and we don't know what that will be so as a think tank we are


looking at this over the next few weeks and coming up with


recommendations for the Government and looking at how existing


boundaries between the EU customs union and other states work in


practice. For example between Switzerland and the EU border,


Norway and Switzerland, and the UK and Canada. We will want is a


country the freedom to do our own free trade deals, that seems to be


quite high up there, and to change our external tariffs to the rest of


the world. If that's the case, we do seem to be wanting our cake and


eating it in the customs union. Talking to some people in London, it


is quite clear we are leaving the essentials of the customs union, the


tariff, so even if we can minimise controls at the border by having


mutual recognition agreements, so we recognise each other's standards,


but there will still have to be checks for things like rules of


origin and tariffs if tariffs apply, which is a problem for the Irish


because nobody has worked out how you can avoid having some sort of


customs control on the border between Northern Ireland and the


South once we are out of the customs union. I think it's important we


don't look at this too much as one side has to win and one side has to


lose scenario. We can find ways. My Broadview is what we get out of the


negotiation will depend on politics more than economic reality. Economic


reality is strong, there's a good case for a trade deal on the


solution on the customs deal, but Britain will need to come up with a


positive case for our relationship and keep making that case. If it


turns out the Government thinks the bill is too high, that we can't


really get the free trade deal done in time and it's left hanging in the


wind, what are the chances, how I as things stand now that we end up


crashing out? I'd say there's a 30% chance that we don't get the free


trade agreement at the end of it that Mrs May is aiming for. The very


hard crash is you don't even do an Article 50 divorce settlement from


you go straight to World Trade Organisation rules. The less hard


crash is doing the divorce settlement and transitional


arrangements would require European Court of Justice arrangements. We


will leave it there. Thank you, both.


Donald Trump's flagship policy of extreme vetting of immigrants


and a temporary travel ban for citizens of seven mainly-muslim


countries was stopped in its tracks this weekend.


On Friday a judge ruled the ban should be lifted and that it


That prompted President Trump to fire off a series of tweets


criticising what he says was a terrible decision


by a so-called judge, as he ordered the State Department


Now the federal appeals court has rejected his request to reinstate


the ban until it hears the case in full.


Well yesterday I spoke to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant


I asked him if the confusion over the travel ban


was a sign that the President's two-week-old administration


There is no chaos, you really shouldn't believe the spin, the


facts speak for themselves. 109 people on Saturday were mildly


inconvenienced by having their entry into the United States delayed out


of 325,000. So let's not get carried away with the left-wing media bias


and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000 people with visas, their visas are


no longer valid. That's another issue. You need to listen to what


I'm saying. The people who entered on the day of the executive order


being implemented worth 109 people out of 325. Whether people won't


travelling to America were affected is another matter, so there is no


chaos to comment on. Following Iran's latest missile tests,


National Security adviser Flint said the US was "Putting Iran on notice",


what does that mean? It means we have a new president and we are not


going to facilitate the rise of one of the most dangerous nations in the


world. We are jettisoning this naive and dangerous policy of the Obama


Administration to try and make the Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some


kind of counter balance to extremist Sunni groups in the region and that


they cannot continue to behave in the way they have behaved for the


last 30 years. It is a very simple message. So are there any


multilateral alliances that Mr Trump would like to strengthen?


Absolutely. If we are looking at the region, if you listen to what


President Trump has said and specifically to also the speeches of


general Flint, his national security adviser, we are incredibly vested in


seeing our Sunni allies in the region come together in a real


coalition. The so-called vaunted 66 nation coalition that was created


under the Obama administration... There was no coalition. But we want


to help our Sunni allies, especially the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come


together in a real partnership to take the fight to ISIS and groups


like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a formal multilateral alliance with


these countries. Which of the existing, formal multilateral


alliances does Mr Trump wants to strengthen? If you are specifically


talking about Nato, it is clear that we are committed to Nato but we wish


to see a more equitable burden sharing among the nations that are


simply not spending enough on their own defence so the gentleman 's


agreement of 2% of GDP has to be stuck to, unlike the, I think it's


only Six Nations that reach the standard today out of almost 30. So


he does want to strengthen Nato then? Absolutely, he believes Nato


is the most successful military alliances. You mustn't believe the


spin and hype. EU leaders now see the Trump administration as a threat


up there with Russia, China, terrorism. What's your response to


that? I have to laugh. The idea that the nation that came to the


salvation of Europe twice in the 20th century hummer in World War I


and World War II, was central to the defeat of the totalitarian... It is


not even worth commenting on. Would it matter to the Trump


administration if the European Union broke up? The United States is very


interested in the best relations possible with all the nations of the


EU am a whether the European union wishes to stay together or not is up


to the nations of the European Union. I understand that but I was


wondering what the US view would be. Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy


was quite consistent in wanting to see the EU survive, prosper and even


become more integrated. Now that doesn't seem to be the case, so


would it matter to the Trump administration if the EU broke up? I


will say yet again, it is in the interests of the United States to


have the best relations possible with our European allies, and


whether that is in the formation of the EU or if the EU by itself


suffers some kind of internal issues, that's up to the European


nations and not something we will comment on. Listening to that


answer, it would seem as if this particular president's preference is


to deal with individual nation states rather than multilateral


institutions. Is that fair? I don't think so. There's never been an


unequivocal statement by that effect by the statement. Does he share the


opinion of Stephen Bannon that the 21st century should see a return to


nation states rather than growing existing multilateral ways? I think


it is fair to say that we have problems with political elites that


don't take the interests of the populations they represent into


account. That's why Brexit happened. I think that's why Mr Trump became


President Trump. This is the connected phenomena. You are


obsessing about institutions, it is not about institutions, it's about


the health of democracy and whether political elites do what is in the


interests of the people they represent. Given the


unpredictability of the new president, you never really know


what he's going to do next, would it be wise for the British Prime


Minister to hitch her wagon to his star? This is really churlish


questioning. Come on, you don't know what he's going to do next, listen


to what he says because he does what he's going to say. I know this may


be shocking to some reporters, but look at his campaign promises, and


the fact that in the last 15 days we have executed every single one that


we could in the time permissible so there is nothing unpredictable about


Donald Trump as president. OK then, if we do know what he's going to do


next, what is he going to do next? Continue to make good on his


election promises, to make America great again, to make the economy are


flourishing economy, and most important of all from your


perspective in the UK, to be the best friend possible to our friends


and the worst enemy to our enemies. It is an old Marine Corps phrase and


we tend to live by it. Thank you for your time, we will leave it there.


Doctor Gorka, making it clear this administration won't spend political


capital on trying to keep the European Union together, a watershed


change in American foreign policy. Theresa May has made a big deal out


of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just


about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense


of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost


of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's


new white paper. The paper is expected to introduce


new rules on building Communities Secretary Sajid Javid


has previously said politicians should not stand in the way


of development, provided all options Also rumoured are new measures


to speed up building the 1 million new homes the Government promised


to build by 2020, including imposing five-year quotas


on reluctant councils. Reports suggest there will be


relaxation of building height restrictions,


allowing home owners and developers to build to the height


of the tallest building on the block without needing to seek


planning permission. Other elements trialled include


new measures to stop developers sitting on parcels of land


without building homes, land banking, and moving railway


station car parks Underground, The Government today said it


will amend planning rules so more homes can be built specifically


to be rented out through longer term tenancies, to provide more stability


for young families, alongside its proposed ban


on letting agent fees. And the Housing Minister,


Gavin Barwell, joins me now. Welcome to the programme. Home


ownership is now beyond the reach of most young people. You are now


emphasising affordable homes for rent. Why have you given up on the


Tory dream of a property owning democracy? We haven't given up on


that. The decline on home ownership in this country started in 2004. So


far we have stopped that decline, we haven't reversed it but we


absolutely want to make sure that people who want to own and can do


so. The Prime Minister was very clear a country that works for


everyone. That means we have to have say something to say to those who


want to rent as well as on. Home ownership of young people is 35%,


used to be 60%. Are you telling me during the lifetime of this


government that is going to rise? We want to reverse the decline. We have


stabilised it. The decline started in 2004 under Labour. They weren't


bothered about it. We have taken action and that has stop the


decline... What about the rise? We have to make sure people work hard


the right thing have the chance to own their home on home. We have


helped people through help to buy, shared ownership, that is part of


it, but we have to have something to say to those who want to rent. You


say you want more rented homes so why did you introduce a 3%


additional stamp duty levied to pay those investing in build to rent


properties? That was basically to try and stop a lot of the


speculation in the buy to let market. The Bank of England raised


concerns about that. When you see the white paper, you will see there


is a package of measures for Bill to rent, trying to get institutional


investment for that, different to people going and buying a home on


the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional


money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones


before said it would get pension fund money to invest in


infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is


already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see


some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the


White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to


rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other


day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money


on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We


need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large


developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable


renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%


below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it


another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of


their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what


we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or


rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable


because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white


Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power


six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new


homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year


programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.


The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the


last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new


programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,


this government has built more affordable housing than the previous


one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the


figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this


cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it


happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer


leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband


promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and


George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's


changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which


we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have


six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much


the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the


tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed


Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons


institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home


and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a


short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term


return and give families more security. You have set a target,


your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million


new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we


are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this


country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...


2015-16. You were probably looking at the new homes built. Talking


about completions in England. That is not the best measure, with


respect. You said you will complete 1 million homes by 2020 so what is


wrong with it? We use a national statistic which looks at new homes


built and conversions and changes of use minus demolitions. The total


change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the


figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1


million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three


quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1


million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't


do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this


country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions


or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.


If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,


100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am


confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It


is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes


are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the


white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there


for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove


land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should


look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We


have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million


homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken


housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green


belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,


Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.


We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now


Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead...


Coming up on the Sunday Politics here in the South West.


The town and country view on whether Brexit


And for the next 20 minutes I'm joined by Southwest


Labour MEP Claire Moodie, and by the Plymouth Conservative


Earlier this week hundreds of people took to the streets of Exeter,


Plymouth, Falmouth and elsewhere in protest at President Trump's


travel ban on people from seven Muslim majority countries.


They want his invitation to make a state visit to Britain revoked.


He has put out this 90 day ban against several people coming


from Muslim majority countries, and we find that extremely


nationalist and extremely racist, and altogether just disgusting.


So Oliver, that is one of your constituents.


Your view is that he should make the state visit and he should make


I think you want him to review the Nato fleet


Yes, but that is in Mayflower in 2020, when we are commemorating


the Mayflower leaving to go and found the American colonies.


And we have to remember that Donald Trump was elected


and he is just implementing what he promised to do during


We may not like that, but he is fulfilling something


which often as not politicians can get accused of not fulfilling


Do you think he should come, be invited to make the state visit?


I think there is undue haste about this invitation


It took at least two years for Barack Obama to be


I think we have only had ten days so far, of Trump,


and I wonder yet what will come between now and June


What do you make of Oliver's invitation?


I hope you're going to be pro-Mayflower 400?


I'm very enthusiastic about celebrating the fourth


But I am not sure whether Trump would necessarily, what would


He's so prolific on Twitter, we wondered whether he might respond.


The first significant step towards Britain leaving the EU


was taken this week with MPs voting to trigger Article 50.


Research released at the same time says Exeter and Plymouth export


a higher percentage of their goods and services to the rest of Europe


So are firms in those cities now looking forward to a bright new dawn


Although it looks like something out of a futuristic movie,


this is very much real life at a factory at the cutting


edge of LED technology on the outskirts of Plymouth.


But with Brexit uncertainty, there is a hint companies like this


could be forced to relocate out of the UK.


If this doesn't go well, there is not a sensible way for us


Maybe retain this as a development site


and scale production, which is always the issue


Moving to scale production could move somewhere else.


There has been millions of pounds of investment


from Germany's Deutsche Bank here, and 70% of the company's


Post Brexit there is a clear message about what is needed


If we get into a tariff war with Europe, that's


Reports this week that Exeter and Plymouth as the top two British


cities for exporting goods and services to the EU.


The Centre for Cities says around 70% of exports from these two macro


places go to Europe, mainly because of marine transport


A letter has been winging its way to the Prime Minister


from Devon's business world, highlighting this and stressing


the importance of access to a tariff free European market


2% of our exports from this county actually go to China at the moment,


as against potentially 60 to 70% into Europe.


So even if we quadruple the amount of exports we were doing to China,


if we actually saw any form of reduction on our trade to Europe,


we probably still would be worse off.


Theresa May set out her stall last month.


We will pursue a bold and ambitious free-trade agreement


And this week as the starting gun was fired on the road to Brexit,


What I have detected is a new confidence in the country,


a new positive approach, and new outward looking approach.


Business I speak to, despite all the predicted doom


and gloom, have said that they are positive


We have some fantastic products here, all of


Soft drinks, which are also not just sold here in Devon,


We have beers sold in France as well as here,


and we have crisps which are not just sold here but are doing


The south-west's burgeoning food and drink industry,


there are questions about how easy it will actually be to break


into other markets, like the US and China.


One of the beauties of being part of the European market is actually


being the ease of access to that and therefore the


If you start looking elsewhere, sure, there are opportunities


elsewhere, don't get me wrong, Brexit will produce additional


opportunities but it is the cost of those opportunities


And in Cornwall this week, attempts to tackle the uncertainty around


Brexit head-on with a second summit on the issue.


The message here echoing those in the business world,


be prepared for both the risks and opportunities.


We are also joined by the Devon cheese producer Mary Quick,


But you export I think most of your cheese to places outside the EU.


We have heard a lot of people saying that for people in your position,


the EU is a bit of a pain, its regulation being imposed


on people who don't really export very much to the EU.


First of all, the regulations for cheese tend to be


And we really appreciate all of that.


We export a bit to the EU, but about 40% is exported,


We find that the EU deal with all the nontariff barriers


we find and they deal with those very effectively.


And where I'm really concerned that we, without that support,


DEFRA does not have negotiators, as far as I am aware.


They need to develop that depth of experience.


Food and drink is 14% of UK GDP, and food and drink negotiations


are going to be undertaken by DEFRA, which is a bit scary.


I don't think they know the scale of the problem.


So you think EU membership actually helps you trade


There was an obscure example to do with cheese mite,


where the FTA in America were actually stopping


the importation of cheese, naturally rinded cheese which had


a glorious little beast called cheese mite on it,


And I'm really clear that DEFRA would just find it really difficult


even to get an appointment to talk about it.


Oliver, recently you said you now support the Prime Minister


in a clean break from the EU, which you supported remain


We have seen that Plymouth, according to this research,


is the most reliant city in Britain on exports to the EU.


You are in an interesting and arguably difficult position.


I voted for us to remain in, and I am happy to have done that,


but actually the country, and Plymouth in particular,


ended up voting substantially to come out here in Plymouth,


And I am listening to the public, as to what they made the decision


about, but this is going to be a really interesting debate which


She published earlier this week the 12 points in her white paper,


and it's going to be about making sure that we get the best deal


for Britain and that we end up making sure we can do that


Everybody would be delighted if that best deal is achieved,


and it replicates a lot of these things that business


She has made it clear, though, that she could basically walk away


That is the point presumably where your business constituents


might start leaning on you and saying,


I hope that my business constituents will come and talk to me anyway


before this happens so I can make sure it is put to the Prime Minister


But this is a business negotiation, it's a bit like playing poker,


you have to make sure you do not sell your whole line too hard


at the very beginning to make sure people are aware...


That is a good point, though some people,


we should acknowledge, think falling back on WTO


rules would be great, but nonetheless even if you don't,


isn't she right to play poker, as Oliver says?


This is going to be an incredibly complex set of negotiations.


My view is that it was said through Plessey, Mary made the very


good point that where we have had difficulties in exports,


with the BSE scandal, it was the EU institutions that


ensured European countries did not unnecessarily stop our beef.


But that has gone, we have to accept that is gone,


they are not going to be doing these negotiations for us.


But again the point being it was the EU that


supported our farmers and managed to get the Americans


There is not a settled view what Brexit looks like.


There is a Theresa May view of what Brexit looks like,


but the consequences of a Theresa May view


of what Brexit looks like is jobs going in our region.


It is also about environmental protections, employment rights,


If you had been in the Commons, you would have joined


MPs like Ben Bradshaw, voting against the


I think it is very likely I would have done, yes.


Oliver, in your case, would you like some of your


colleagues to say yes, we are voting to get the process


moving, but we will have red lines and we will not give the government


a blank cheque for any kind of Brexit?


I think there will be a number of views which are being portrayed


by a number of people around the country in which they want


to end up by making sure that we get the best deal as far as Britain


is concerned, and that is absolutely vital.


But that is not going to be helped in the way that Theresa May


OK we're moving on to a closely related topic.


You reap what you sow, as they say, and some farmers who voted to leave


the EU are now concerned what might happen once the money they receive


Johnny has been talking to farmers from across the generations


about what kind of harvest Brexit might bring.


A world of opportunity awaits British farming.


This is a once in a lifetime opportunity.


The future sounds bright, but these young farmers


say it is their future, and Andrea Leadsome


Fresh from appearing on Gareth Malone's BBC TV series


TV series The Choir, the young farmers


if the government is actually in tune with farming in the South West.


The government said it is going to give a lot


of continued support to farmers, etc, but they have not


In this area, we have relied a lot on government grants that have


come through the EU, and I don't see that the government


alone will follow it through and give it to us.


Personally I think the future is as bright as it has ever been,


in this country alone there is an extraordinary amount


of youngsters future farmers, who have got the drive and passion


to keep such a thing going, and they are not just going to walk


away from it goes the farming industry has had


back as I can remember, and it has not killed us yet


and I don't think it will kill us any time soon.


South Hams sheep farmer Andrew voted out, but what is that what replaces


I fear for the future of the small farmer.


They have enough odds stacked against them


They have enough odds stacked against them as it is without having


to deal with an unfair subsidy system which supports


It is just income support in reverse gear.


I have got this chart courtesy of Greenpeace,


when you look at it you can see how the farm subsidies are


And you can see far too much is ending up in the hands of these


In contrast, the smaller farmers just get the leftover crumbs


Unless the Conservative Party can be prised off farm


subsidy purse strings, nothing can change.


We must get a more fair impartial committee to decide


At 90, Pippa Woods has seen a lot of change in farming.


She has run her Devon farm since 1954.


Voting to remain in the EU, she now fears for the future


I can't imagine how it's going to work out,


Sometimes I feel I haven't got to worry about what's


Mary, do you accept this view is from other farmers


in the south-west that the present system seems to award dukes and rich


landowners and underfund small farmers in places


like the south-west, who struggle to make a living?


Certainly it's true that the larger the farm,


because it is on an acreage basis, the larger you are as a farmer,


the more you get the subsidy because it is on that basis.


And it is also true that, Michael Winter has just


done a wonderful report, Professor of the University


of Exeter for the Princes Trust, which shows exactly those numbers,


but also shows how small farms of all sizes can be


And that depends on how innovative, how productive, efficient.


You may be modestly saying do as I have done?


Not at all because I am well aware of what I don't do correctly,


but there are some really remarkable farmers, small and large, around


around the region, around Devon and Cornwall, many of whom do things


like diversification, wonderful food, all of that stuff.


And we probably need to do more of that, and it's also true that


part of farming will be on those commodities, where it will be


just about efficiencies, and for those farms the subsidies


OK, this is obviously got to be one of the biggest


What should the government be putting in place to replace this?


Again, farming is a good example of where all different moving pieces


in our relationship with the EU intersect because you've got


the subsidy relationship, the whole common agriculture policy


which farmers have geared up and around, and now they know


that there is two years of this programme left, they don't


know how much longer it would last after that.


Some would say it is a golden opportunity to reform it and change


Well, it might be, but what have farmers got to gear to?


You have to plan in farming, there is no indication


I saw this idea that there may be some kind of 20


UK-based government policies don't survive ministers,


The idea that there would be a stable and predictable


as the seven-year agricultural plan that comes with the EU,


and then you've got the export markets and workforce


There are all of these different things.


Oliver, you would not accept a vote of confidence from a Labour MEP,


but this is going to be a huge challenge.


It's going to be a massive challenge, and the government have


said they are going to make sure that they look after


the subsidies up until 2020, then we will see what's happening.


We've got to try and look after the smaller farmer


But what's also got to happen is we've got to try and predict


as to what the food they are producing and to where


there is going to be a surplus of it, we need to cut back,


I would argue, on the subsidy as far as those are concerned, so we can


make sure that we are producing food which is going to reflect


On the general picture, there are lots of strands to this.


But if, for the sake of argument, they lose access to migrant workers,


they lose access to the single market and subsidies, it is


The issue certainly is that if we see that immigration


is the big issue which came out of it, I think many people feel


that, and I get that feeling here in Plymouth.


If that is the issue then it makes it very difficult for us to remain


That's not going to happen, we've been told.


And the second issue is if we want to end up by having


trade deals with other countries, we're going to have to end up making


sure that we do that, I'm afraid outside the European


customs union, and that's going to be a very big issue.


That's a huge issue in terms of if we do a trade deal


with New Zealand, what's happened to our lambs?


It is time for our political round-up of the week


Anger at potential health service cuts in North Devon


Will my right honourable friend assure me she will listen


carefully to those concerns, because I want to be able


to say to North Devon that we are the party of the NHS.


Controversy over Cornwall's blue sky plan to force people to move out


The whole point of the town centre is it's for the people,


so I think they are putting vehicles before people.


The Isles of Scilly Council is warned to get on top of its finances


and told to borrow ?3 million to pay staff and suppliers.


Meanwhile Dorset councils are voting themselves out of existence,


by creating two new unitary authorities in the county.


And the rules banning dogs from Cornish beaches


We've got to strike a happy medium somewhere, and I think what has been


suggested today is probably the right way forward.


Oliver, this issue with air pollution seems interesting


because the Cornish towns are many of the ones that


have been identified, they seem to be saying that you get


a problem with the pollution being tunnelled through the main


This is the historic heart of the town, you move people out


Historically, that was an issue which has actually


It is one of the worst places for pollution as well.


And I am very interested to what the government


is going to do about all this because we had a question session


in the House of Commons in the last three or four months,


and I think that is something which we've got to do.


I went and spent a bit of time with my local GPs and I was very


taken by the number of people living in Devonport and areas


like that who have really big problems with their lungs,


and this is all about how we can make sure that we have less


pollution in our country, which is the reason why I've always


been very supportive of the issues to do with climate change.


This is something you've been looking at in the European


A lot of our air quality legislation is cross European


because our air crosses Europe, it doesn't stop at the French


Yes, it is something that is a deep concern.


Something like 50,000 people a year may suffer huge health impacts


It is a national government responsibility.


Local governments cannot solve air pollution,


national government has to put in place the support.


That's the reason why I set up for Plymouth City Council to go


That is it once again for Sunday Politics in the south-west.


programme at another time an airport expansion, but thank you to both of


you for being here. Back to you, Andrew.


Will the Government's plan to boost house-building


Could a handful of Conservative MPs cause problems for


And what is President Trump going to do next?


You have been following the genesis of this housing white paper. What do


you make of it? I think it will be quite spectacular, pretty radical


stuff. We heard bits about beating up on developers. I understand it


will be a whack, walk, covering every single problem with housing


supply and trying to solve it. Which means bad news if you are a huge fan


of the green belt, because they will go round that the other way by


forcing large quotas on councils are making it down to councils where


they build. If you fill up your brown space in towns they will have


to trigger the exceptional circumstances bit of the bill to


beat on green belts. Beating up developers, opening up the market


for renters across the board. And Theresa May, one of the most


defining thing she could do on the domestic agenda. I am not as excited


as Tom about this. I look back to 2004, do you remember the Kate


Barker report? Successive governments, successive prime


ministers have been promising to address the housing shortage. In


2004 Kate Barker recommended hundreds of thousands new homes.


Gordon Brown talked about 3 million new homes by 2020 in 2007. It never


happens. The reason is at the end of the day this is local politics,


local councillors need to keep their seats and they won't keep their


seats if there are hugely controversial developments locally


that they support. Yes, the government can and are proposing to


overrule councils that don't back local developments, but they may


find themselves completely inundated with those cases. I think that is


the whole point of it, to take on those NIMBY often Tory councils and


force them to build. I can't think of a better defining issue for


Theresa May than sticking one in the eye of some quite well off half Tory


countryside councils. The government gives councils a quota of homes they


have to fill, if they don't have to fill that all run out overland to


fill the quota, the government then comes in and tells them they have to


built on the green belt? How is that going to work? At the moment the


green belt is absolutely sacrosanct in British politics. They'll have to


do some work on educating people on what green belts means. Potato


farms, golf courses... At the moment the idea people have of the green


belt being verdant fields needs to be dismantled. You are right. I


agree with Tom, 11 million people in the private rental sector in the UK.


In the last election more voted Labour than conservative. This is an


area where Theresa May would look to expand her vote. The problem has


always been, the same problem we have with pension policy and why


pensioners have done better than working families in recent years.


They are older and they vote more and anything to the detriment of


older people. I wonder how they will get private money to come in on


anything like this go they would need to have a huge expansion? There


is a huge amount of speculation and one of the thing that locks up the


system as you have people buying land, taking out a stake of land in


the hope that one point it may at some point free up. At the end of


the day, unless you have councils far more willing to quickly fast


track these applications, which they won't for the reason I said before,


it's a very long-term investment. Ed Miliband proposed three-year leases


in which the rent could only go up by an agreed formula, probably the


three years to give the young families a certain stability over


that period. He had a use it or lose it rules for planning development,


if you don't use it you lose the planning rights. Somebody else gets


it. The Tories disparaged that at the time. This is at the centre of


their policy now. This is probably item number four of


Ed Miliband's policy book Theresa May has wholesale pinched in the


last six months or so. Why not? I think if you look at the change in


mood across housing and planning over the last 5-6 years, it used to


be an issue very much of green belt versus London planners. Now you have


grandparents living in houses in the countryside, knowing their


grandchildren can't get on the housing ladder any longer. Maybe a


bit more intervention in the market, tougher on renting conditions, maybe


that is exactly what the country needs. Will they meet the 1 million


target? It would be a defiance of every political thing that has


happened in the last ten years. I think Tom is right, if there is only


one difference between Theresa May and David Cameron it's the


willingness of the state to intervene. When Ed Miliband said


that he was seen as communism, but Theresa May can get away with it.


How serious is this talk of a couple of dozen Tories who were very loyal


over voting for the principle of Article 50 but may now be tempted to


vote for some amendments to Article 50 legislation that they would find


quite attractive? I think that threat has certainly been taken


seriously by levers. I spoke to the campaign group Leaves Means Leave


last night. The figure they mentioned was up to 20 remaining


Tories. That sounds a lot to me but that is what they are concerned


about and those Tories would come together with Labour and the SNP to


vote for that amendment. Although that amendment sounds rather nice


and democratic, actually in the eyes of many levers that is a wrecking


amendment. Because what you are doing is giving Parliament a sort of


veto over whatever deal Theresa May brings back. What they want is the


vote to be before that deal is finalised. It isn't necessarily the


case that if Parliament decided they didn't like that deal we would just


go to WTO, we would fall out of the European Union. There are mixed


views as to whether we might remain in and things could be extended. My


understanding is the people making the amendments, they won any deal


that is done to be brought to Parliament in time, so that if


Parliament fancies it it's done, but if it does and it doesn't just mean


go to WTO rules. There will be time to go back, renegotiate or think


again? The question is where it puts Britain's negotiating hand. Nine of


the options... Once we trigger Article 50 the two negotiation


begins on the power switches to Europe. They can run out the clock


and it will be worse for us than them. I don't think either option is


particularly appealing. I think what seems like a rather Serena week for


Article 50 this week isn't going to be reflective of what will happen


next. The way the government's position is at the moment, if at the


end the only choice Parliament has is to vote for the deal or crash out


on WTO rules, then even the remainder is going to vote for the


deal even if they don't like it, because they would regard crashing


out as the worst of all possible results. Possibly. It will be a


great game of bluff if Theresa May fights off any of these amendments


on Wednesday and gets a straightforward deal or no Deal


vote. I have a funny feeling this amendment, if it's chosen, we must


remember because we don't know if they will choose this amendment, if


it does go to a vote on Wednesday it will be very tight indeed. Remember,


one final thing Theresa May can do if she gets Parliament voting


against, as Isabel would have it, she could try to get a new


parliament and go for a general election. And probably get a huge


majority to do so. The Lords, it goes there after the February


recess. They are very pro-Europe, but does their instinct for


self-preservation override that? I think that is it. A Tory Lord said


this morning I will vote to block it on a conscience measure, but you


have the likes of Bill Cash, veteran Eurosceptics, suddenly converted to


the Lords reform saying is an outrage. I doubt they will vote for


their own demise, to hasten their own demise by blocking it. What did


you make of Doctor Gorka smart fascinating. Cut from the same cloth


as his boss. I thought it was extraordinary listening to him,


saying everything is going dutifully to plan. But at the end of the day,


what they are doing is what people in America voted for Trump to do. If


you look at Lord Ashcroft's polling on why America voted for Trump, they


went into this with their eyes wide open. One of the top fears among


American voters, particularly Republican leading ones was


America's immigration policy is or could be letting in terror arrests.


As far as he is concerned, he is doing what he was elected to do.


This whole year is turning into a wonderful year long lecture series


on how democracy works at a fundamental level. I'm not sure


anyone wanted it but it's what we've got. This same in the way we've been


talking about direct democracy and Parliamentary democracy. The same is


happening in America between executive and judicial branches. We


are seeing the limits of presidential power. Regardless of


the fact that people voted for Trump they voted for senators. The judge


who blocks this was appointed by George W Bush. So-called Judge


Eckert Mac so-called George W Bush! It's fascinating we're having all


these conversations now that I never bought five years ago we would be


having at such a fundamental level. Has the media yet worked out how to


cover the Trump administration or has he got us behaving like headless


chickens? He says something incendiary and we all run over to do


that and when you pick it off it turns out not to be as incendiary as


we thought? And then back doing something and we all rush over


there. Is he making fools of us? Is exactly what he did in the election


campaign. So many quick and fast outrageous comments frontrunner on a


daily basis, no one single one of them had full news cycle time to be


pored over and examined. I think there is a problem with this.


Although he keeps the upper hand, keeps the agenda and keeps on the


populist ground, the problem is it easy to campaign like that. If you


are governing in a state of semi-hysteria, I wonder how long the


American public will be comfortable with that. They don't really want


their government to be swirling chaos all the time, as fascinating


as it might be on TV. They will be exhausted by it, I already am. I


have been interviewing White House administration official since 1976


and that is the first time someone hasn't given me a straight answer on


America supporting the EU. That is a different world.


Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two tomorrow at midday with


the Daily Politics - and I'll be back here


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


TV: He's not your father. WOMAN GASPS


so why not pay your TV licence in weekly instalments, too?


Download Subtitles