12/03/2017 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

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



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


David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,


ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process


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


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


But how should we tax those who work for themselves?


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


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


In the South West: Farmers on both sides


of the Brexit debate talk about their fears for the future.


And the island paradise in a cash crisis.


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


who definitely don't deserve a tax break.


It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer


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


abandon of Katie Hopkins before a libel trial.


BBC lawyers have suddenly got nervous!


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


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


Much has been written about the prospect of the Commons


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


Brexit Secretary David Davis was on the Andrew Marr programme


earlier this morning and he was asked what happens


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


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


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


The British people decided on June the 23rd last year


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


the terms on which that happens as beneficial as possible.


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


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


government means by a meaningful vote.


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


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


think it would be politically impossible for the government to


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


politics will be completely different by then. I take David


Davies seriously. Within Whitehall he has acquired a reputation as


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


Absolutely and well travelled in terms of European capitals of the


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


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


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


than a completely plausible eventuality. It is interesting. I


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


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


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


the same as having contents insurance or travel insurance, plan


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


have higher growth than virtually every other EU country apart from


Germany. It is sensible as a negotiating position for the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


changes in the opposition before then, the government would feel


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


That depends on the number of Conservative MPs who are prepared


to vote against their government on two key issues.


Theresa May could be in negotiations with our European


partners within days, but there may be some


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


Cast your mind back to the beginning of month.


The bill to trigger Article 50 passed comfortably


But three Conservatives voted for Labour's amendments to ensure


the rights of EU citizens already in the UK.


Seven Tory MPs voted to force the government to give Parliament


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


But remember those numbers, they're important.


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


been more rebels had it not been for this assurance from


I can confirm that the government will bring forward a motion


on the final agreement to be approved by both Houses


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


the European Parliament debates and votes on the final agreement.


When the government was criticised for reeling back


from when and what it would offer a vote on.


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


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


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


The so-called Brexit bill will return to Commons


Ministers insist that both amendments would weaken


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


But, as ever, politics is a numbers game.


Theresa May has a working majority of 17.


On Brexit, though, it's probably higher.


At least six Labour MPs generally vote with


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


If all Conservatives vote with the government as well,


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


So, are there rough waters ahead for Theresa May?


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


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


This building is a really important building.


It's symbolic of a huge amount of history.


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


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


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


It was already said about David Jones.


It's slightly unravelled a little bit during


I think this is an opportunity to really get that clarity


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


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


One said the situation was sad and depressing.


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


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


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


But that its position was unlikely to change.


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


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


round would look silly if they did, this time.


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


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


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


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


Labour are pessimistic about the chances of enough Tory


rebels backing either of the amendments in the Commons.


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


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


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


Assuming the bill does pass the Commons unamended,


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


have already indicated they won't block it again.


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


would be free to trigger Article 50 within days.


Her own deadline was the end of this month.


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


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


She's previously voted against the government on the question


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


means through your elected representatives, the people of this


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


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


Parliamentary sovereignty, is perfectly reasonable. That is what I


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Personally I find it inconceivable that the government will come back


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


asked deliberately, not the Prime Minister, but others deliberately


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


country, two particular newspapers, creating an atmosphere and setting


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


biggest obstacle the British Government faces. Not what happens


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


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


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


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


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


much pressure as we can on politicians from across Europe to


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


of the European Union investment bank. Would you accept a


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


negotiation a general election would happen quickly. According to reports


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


police claiming Tories committed electoral fraud in Thanet South, the


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


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


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


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


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


wrong. Concerns about the downloading of data the took place


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


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


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


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


making allegations against the Conservatives in Thanet South and


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


happening is the government is putting in place scaffolding at the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


interesting perspective on what could happen in nine months rather


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


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


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


to contradict a Tory manifesto commitment with an increase


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


as an imbalance in the tax system, where employees pay


more National Insurance The controversy centres


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


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


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


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


more in contributions. Some Conservative MPs were unhappy,


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


voter in Wales that read the Conservative manifesto


in the 2015 election." The Sun labelled Philip


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


"no laughing matter". By Thursday, Theresa May


said the government One of the first things I did


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


and protections that were available to self-employed workers


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


at the government paper when we produce it, showing


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


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


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


there, Matthew Taylor, has the job of producing


a report into the future Welcome. The Chancellor has decided


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


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


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


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


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


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


decent and all jobs give people scope for development and


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


will, because the tax system and employment regulation system drive


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


general direction of this policy of raising National Insurance on the


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


not been good about thinking about medium sustainability of the tax


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


tax but entitled to fewer benefits as well.


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


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


real historical basis for that big national insurance differential,


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


flexible forms of employment suggest about two thirds to three quarters


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


Yes. We say goodbye to viewers


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


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


of Donald Trump's allegation Coming up on the Sunday Politics


here in the South West: The farmers fearing the Government's Brexit


plans for the industry You can't stop subsidies


at midnight 2020. We're not hearing any message


from the government. And for the next 20 minutes,


I'm joined by the Conservative MP for South West Devon Gary Streeter


and the former Labour MP for the next-door constituency


of Plymouth Moor View Alison The Bill triggering Article 50


returns to the Commons tomorrow, including the Lords' amendment


giving Parliament a meaningful vote The Government is hoping


to get that removed. I've thought about this a lot


because it's hugely important we get the best possible deal


from our negotiations with Brussels. I've come to the conclusion,


perhaps slightly perversely in my own opinion, that the best


thing is not to fetter the hand of the Prime Minister


in any way, shape or form. So just give her the authority


to trigger Article 50, get on with negotiations and bring


back the best possible deal. The vote she and the government


are offering is a vote Or we just leave


anyway with no deal? Whatever the act says,


because it's going to be very nearly the end of the two years anyway,


what ever vote Parliament has It's going to be


take it or leave it. So let's not fetter her hand at all,


give her the opportunity There are apparently a lot


of Labour Party members, including a lot of the new members,


who joined in support of Jeremy Corbyn, are very unhappy


he and the Labour Party are not opposing the Government more


vigorously or at all Keir Starmer and is doing


a superb job in Parliament. You have largely rubber-stamped


the Government's plan, haven't you? We have said she should


go ahead and trigger. I think that's


the right thing to do. However, I disagree and I think


Parliament does need to take a view on what is on the table at the end


of the two years. I don't think it fetters her hand


because she is bringing it By then, the public mood


will have changed, I think. I'm not suggesting we should throw


it all up here again. We are going to be talking


later about farming You know, those groups


will particularly want to know They sound delicious,


but the prospect of cheap chlorine-washed chickens


being imported from America as a result of a post Brexit trade


deal is worrying farmers. The Farming Minister was asked


to guarantee the chickens wouldn't find their way on to menus here,


undercutting British But he left the question open,


adding another ingredient to what some claim is an uncertain


future for UK farmers. As Anna Varle reports,


producers on both sides of the Brexit debate


are increasingly anxious about the many important issues


still to be resolved. But farmers for and against leaving


Europe are becoming more and more nervous about the new beginning


they are facing. Most of us do not want


to farm as subsidies. But you can't stop


subsidies at midnight 2020. We are not hearing any


message from Government. We are not getting confidence


from our politicians, in terms of the reassurances


that we need to be able Not only do they feel in the dark


and unable to plan for the future, there is also concern over


what happens when the subsidy system European subsidies make up around


one third of a farmer's income. So when we leave the EU,


they will stop. Now, there are some farmers


who are concerned that if we don't have a system to replace them,


this could be disastrous The impact if we have no support


payment of any description is going to be absolutely


catastrophic for Because we move from a position


where near 90-odd% of farmers were reliant on that


to keep their businesses afloat. This week, the Farming Minister gave


little to reassure the industry, saying it will be the end


of next year before he has a clear plan


as to what happens next. By the end of next year,


we would want to be in a position where we are showing greater clarity


of what was going where we are showing greater


clarity of what is going There are fears new trade agreements


could mean cheaper imports, The minister was asked to rule that


out by Devon MP Neil Parish. I'm not convinced under a trade deal


with America that you would be able You might be able to market it


in a slightly different way, but after a while, the consumer


will decide that perhaps a cheaper But at this point, George uses


wasn't ruling anything out. If we decided, for instance,


to open discussions with, for the sake of argument,


say the United States, we would have to do give consideration to things


such as consumer acceptability The minister says a trade agreement


with Europe comes first. Negotiations with other


countries will follow. But farmers like Richard Haddock


say it needs to be a level playing field for them to compete


on the world stage. If they are going to import to ours,


which they are going to try and do with negotiations,


we must have similar And, most of all, the same welfare


rules and regulations because ours are probably


the highest in Europe. The political calendar might


conflict with the farming cycle, but, for now, the future seems very


much unknown for both British farmers are very


proud of the welfare Could the minister not simply have


said, we have very high standards and in future when we are outside


the EU, we will insist that all produce meets the same standards


that British farms have to meet? Now, of course, ministers


are working on this. This is one of the


complications of Brexit. Why many people, including myself,


said in the run-up... I said this is so complicated,


to expect us to conclude everything within a couple of years


and have a trade deal with all these other countries,


we almost said it can't be done. The point is, ministers


are working on this, but it is complicated


and we won't know the shape of it There is potentially conflict


here between the desire potentially to have this trade deal in whatever


form of United States on the one hand, and of course


the farmers concerns, saying they don't want the market


flooded with cheap farm produce One of the problems


is it is supermarkets that will be making the decisions


about what products they buy in. Of course, consumers often want


the cheapest product. Irrespective of health


and safety standards. We will start our negotiations


with any country at the very highest level of health and safety


standards, but when we will end level of health and safety


standards, but where we will end Do you think it is ultimately


the consumer who should decide? Neil Parish is suggesting,


in that case, it will be a green light to all of this


cheap chlorine-washed chicken? Farmers also, the point


that was being made, need certainty. If they are planning ahead


on what produce to bring forward, what to grow and so on,


they don't want the decision that is just going to be


foisted on them and, wer are going to have a discussion


with America You're going to see people


leaving the market. You're going to see chicken farm


is closing because they perceive that they are going to be undercut


by these non-welfare We are already seeing people


thinking about stopping farming. The future of agriculture


post-Brexit is a massive topic. The other point that was drawn out


there was this issue of subsidies. We talk about the uncertainties


going into the post-Brexit era. For farmers, this is


very focused, isn't it? The vast majority of farmers rely


heavily on subsidies for the income. The vast majority of


farmers rely heavily They are facing that


just disappearing And the minister saying,


we will wait another year before we tell you what we are going


to do about it. It is three years, but yes,


after that, we might be It is clumsy and in many ways


it is the wrong thing. So there is the opportunity


to get this right. For our relationship


with what was the European Union to be much more skilful


and for the scheme for our farmers Including entry into


the marketplace of younger people, But, anecdotally, I have heard that


farmers say it is fine, but Government Ministers


are not listening to them. They are not getting past


George Eustice and not into the big If you take anything away, Gary,


perhaps that is something you should be pressing


for because that is what they want. They want to feel their


concerns are being heard. We need to get this in place over


the next two years and we've got OK, well, perhaps unsurprisingly,


George Eustice was also under pressure to reveal more about how


the South West's fishing fleets That will be an issue


for the negotiations. It depends on what you've got


to offer and what you want. I don't think he was saying that


during the campaign, It was much more


about much more fish. I think there should be,


but I want to hear the answer He was being punished


for assurances and certainty. Simply put, fishermen are saying,


and please excuse the language, we don't want to be screwed


on the way out of Europe in the same And the fact they can only take 8%


of the catch from the immediate area that we are sitting in here,


compared with some of our foreign colleagues in Europe,


they don't want to see that happen. They want to see an improvement


on that position. And the minister is giving them


no guarantees at all. The context for all of this


is that our fishermen will still want to sell at least 80%


of their produce into So the European Parliament has


already said, in that case, ideally, we want the same degree of access


that French, Spanish and Dutch And that's going to be


the incentive, isn't it? Because we export most


of our fish caught into Europe, there is going to be horse trading


to do a deal about who can Second point, conservation


will still have to be introduced by us domestically,


the same way as it is in the common fisheries policy because you cannot


just over fish PCs and leave nothing You have also got the concerns that


once Article 50 is triggered, various other ancient conventions


going back to the 1960s And those at the moment allow many


more countries to come and fish At the risk of getting very


technical, this was raised this week and it seems the Government


at the moment has no concrete plans to get out of that convention,


which apparently it Fishermen are incandescent


because they might accept there will be some access


from foreign boats, the one place they don't want


it is within the 6-12 mile limit. It will affect our


coastal communities. Gary, should the minister just say,


on this, which is entirely in our gift domestic way,


tied up a little bit in the common fisheries policy admittedly,


of course we are going to give notice we are coming out of this


thing so that foreign boats can't And probably that is


where we will end up. At the moment, I think


the government didn't expect people At the moment, I think


the Government didn't expect people Detailed plans have been put


in place in many areas, but in farming and fishing,


and off a lot of work to do. but in farming and fishing,


an awful lot of work to do. But the point of course that


Neil Parish was making in his dialogue with George Hewson


is that Neil was on the remain side of the debate, George was very much


a campaigner on the leave side. Is it not reasonable


when it is somebody like George Eustice to say,


you know, you're not You are not somebody who voted


remain and has to knuckle down and get used to it,


you are somebody who should have A lot of things were said by people


on the leave campaign which frankly In politics over the last 12 months,


we have seen a very low moment And a very close decision


which we now have to implement. There are so many complications


that it will take a very long time. The two words I recommend you will


hear a lot of in the next five Because this cannot


be done in two years. 30 miles off the Cornish coast


and running out of money. The tiny Isles of Scilly Council


is facing a cash crisis which could put important


services at risk. Councillors have voted


for cuts, and the local MP is calling on the Government


to provide more help. As John Danks reports,


it is bringing back memories of the bigger financial crisis faced


by one of the islands' most Harold Wilson loved the Isles


of Scilly so much he built A retreat from the hustle


and bustle of political life. But in contrast to this


island paradise, in 1976, Amid an economic crisis brought


on by rising unemployment and rocketing inflation,


he resigned as Prime Minister. Months later, the Labour Government


borrowed $3.9 billion from the International Monetary


Fund. Four decades on, and Wilson's


beloved Isles of Scilly face The island's small unitary authority


needing a ?3 million loan The problem is, we are not


big enough to be able OK, we have a council tax,


but because there is only 2,000 people here, it is a job


to make ends meet. Yet this tiny authority


looks after an airport, waste and water, a school,


a care home and even We have five fire engines


within a three-mile Central Government needs to notice


we have these massive structural geographical issues


which are causing us While it is a small community,


there are needs are urgent, they are pressing and they must


be resolved quickly. This week, the council approved


?600,000 worth of savings The tourist information


Centre on St Marys has lost its funding of around ?50,000,


creating uncertainty The businesses recognise


on the island that tourism is an important part


of the economy here. The businesses and visitors


themselves have to pay their way We will be putting in our funding,


as will our partners to make sure But we will always be reliant


on the council for certain services, But the owner of this holiday


apartment says maybe the council I think it would be a shame


if we ever lost our ability But then the implementation of those


policies are perhaps Others warn that handing over


the reins to an off island A lot of people do think we could be


taken over by Cornwall. Five years ago, I might have


thought the same thing. But once you are at the sharp end


of it, you realise that it It would be turned into


a beautiful bird sanctuary With a Government plan to make


councils self-sufficient by 2020, there are calls for the Isles


of Scilly to be seen If cut loose by Westminster,


they would almost certainly I obviously don't expect either


of you to have detailed knowledge of the Isles of Scilly,


you will be relieved at that. But this is arguably an extreme case


of the kind of financial dire straits that particularly small


councils are finding themselves I think the lesson is that


in the 21st-century, small councils They cannot deliver


the services that people need. And the sooner we march


towards unitary authorities throughout the south-west


and the rest of the Because the current system is a mess


and is not really working. Dorset, of course, is possibly


on the verge of that. We are waiting to see


whether the Government approves it. Devon and Somerset are pretty much


holding out against it, Yes, but I think we might see some


movement on that later on this year because I think most people now


recognise that two tier authorities, lots of confusion, double spending,


it doesn't work and we need to move The last Labour Government


was a great champion of unitaries. They come up against


an awful lot of opposition. Underlying all of this,


the Scilly Isles are a microchosm of what is going on


across the country. They cannot cope because


they are so small. A 63% cutting core funding to local


government in England is having a massive effect on authorities


the size of Plymouth. They're having to make quite


significant cuts to services. There will be others


like the Scilly Isles. Unitaries are part of the answer,


but they are not the sole answer. As we heard they are,


the Government's plan is that councils should be


supposedly self financing. Somewhere the size


of the Scilly Isles, with the revenue problems,


must be greeting that with horror? It is a special case,


I think the Isles of Scilly. Derek Thomas is fighting hard


to try to get some extra support. But don't forget, by 2020,


all of the business rates collected I don't know, I think Plymouth


could do quite well out of that. But I think Alison is making


an important point. We need larger unitary


authorities properly funded, either locally or nationally,


delivering excellent services. Actually, even after four


or five years of austerity, we've now got Devon and Plymouth


particularly still offering There is still a good quality


of service to be had locally. Now our regular round-up


of the political week in 60 seconds. Ukip's William Dartmouth


was accused of lying about his involvement


in a wind farm. Three years ago, the MEP denied


knowing about plans to have wind turbines on land he had given


to a relative. But it since emerged


he had been involved William Dartmouth says


he was ambushed and spoke More than 140,000 people have signed


a petition started by ad Devon man, calling for changes to the way


mortgages are approved. Jamie Pogson wants mortgage lenders


to make payment of rent count as proof of an individual can


meet mortgage repayments. If the law does change,


a lot of people will be able I know people who pay their rent


on time all the time, And there have been huge drops


in the number of parents from Devon and Dorset being fined


for taking their children out Some say there is too much


confusion about the policy. Some of the confusion of the term


time holiday rules appear to be Alison, there are strong feelings


in places like the south-west that parents should be able to take


children, particularly if they work Service personnel, there


was a guy I met whose job The only time he could do


it was in the school holidays. So he needs to take his


children at other times. So you would like the Government


to have their wrists slapped My starting place is that


children should be in school There are of course will be some


exceptional circumstances. I would leave it largely


to head teachers to decide. Do you think somewhere


like the south-west particularly, because of the predominance


of things like the tourism industry, lots of your Conservative colleagues


in Cornwall are unhappy with the Government's


position on this? I think the Government will probably


have to change its position. I'm not expecting the


court case to go well. I think the Government will have


to do a rethink on this issue. It's not beyond the wit of man


to come up with a scheme that works. It's a bit of a postcode


lottery, though, isn't it? The discretion of headteachers


at the moment could make it very You've obviously got


lots of different schools Free schools, academies,


local authority schools, I'm going to have to halt


this burgeoning debate Now the government plans for new


grammar schools. The Education Secretary


Justine Greening was speaking to a conference


of headteachers on Friday. They're normally a pretty polite


bunch, but they didn't Broadcasters weren't


allowed into the speech, but this was captured


on a camera phone. And we have to recognise actually


for grammars, in terms of disadvantaged children,


that they have, they really do help them close


the attainment gap. And at the same time


we should recognise that ..That parents also want choice


for their children and that those schools are often


very oversubscribed. I suppose it is a rite of passage


for and education secretaries to have this at a head teachers


conference book the head are usually more polite. Isn't part of the


problem, whether one is for or against the expansion of grammar


schools, the government plans are complicated, you cannot sum them up


in a sentence. The proof of that is they can still get away with denying


they are expanding grammar schools. They will find an alternative


formulation because it is not as simple as a brute creation of what


we used to know is grammar schools with the absolute cut-off of the 11


plus. I am surprised how easy they found it politically. We saw the


clip of Justine Greening being jeered a little bit but in the grand


scheme, compared to another government trying this idea a decade


ago they have got away with it easily and I think what is happening


is a perverse consequence of Brexit and the media attention on Brexit,


the government of the day can just about get away with slightly more


contentious domestic policies on the correct assumption we will be too


busy investing our attention in Article 50 and two years of


negotiations, WTO terms at everything we have been discussing.


I wonder if after grammar schools there will be examples of


contentious domestic policies Theresa May can slide in stock


because Brexit sucks the life out, takes the attention away. You are a


supporter. Broadly. Are you happy with the government approach? They


need to have more gumption and stop being apologetic. It is a bazaar


area of public policy where we judge the policy on grammar schools based


on what it does for children whose parents are unemployed, living on


sink estates in Liverpool. It is absurd, we don't judge any other


policy like that. It is simple, not contentious, people who are not


sure, ask them if they would apply to send their child there, six out


of ten said they would. Parents want good schools for their children, we


should have appropriate education and they should be straightforward,


this is about the future of the economy and we need bright children


to get education at the highest level, education for academically


bright children. It is supposed to be a signature policy of the Theresa


May administration that marks a government different from David


Cameron's government who did not go down this road. The signature is


pretty blurred, it is hard to read. It is. She is trying to address


concerns about those who fail to get into these selective schools and


tried to targeted in poorer areas and the rest of it. She will


probably come across so many obstacles. It is not clear what form


it will take in the end. It is really an example of a signature


policy not fully thought through. I think it was one of her first


announcements. It was. It surprised everybody. Surprised at the speed


and pace at which they were planning to go. Ever since, there have been


qualifications and hesitations en route with good cause, in my view. I


disagree with Juliet that this is... We all want good schools but if you


don't get in there and you end up in a less good school. They already do


that. We have selection based on the income of parents getting into a


good catchment area, based on the faith of the parents. That becomes


very attainable! I might been too shot run christenings for these. --


I have been. Now, you may remember this time last


week we were talking about the extraordinary claims by US


President Donald Trump, on Twitter of course,


that Barack Obama had ordered And there was me thinking


that wiretaps went out Is it legal for a sitting


President to do so, he asked, concluding it was a "new low",


and later comparing it to Watergate. Since then, the White House has been


pressed to provide evidence for this It hasn't, but it seems it may have


initially come from a report on a US website by the former Conservative


MP Louise Mensch. She wrote that the FBI had been


granted a warrant to intercept communications between Trump's


campaign and Russia. Well, Louise Mensch joins


us now from New York. Louise, you claimed in early


November that the FBI had secured a court warrants to monitor


communications between trump Tower in New York at two Russian banks.


It's now four months later. Isn't it the case that nobody has proved the


existence of this warrant? First of all, forgive me Andrew, one


takes 1's life in one's hand when it is you but I have to correct your


characterisation of my reporting. It is very important. I did not report


that the FBI had a warrant to intercept anything or that Trump


tower was any part of it. What I reported was that the FBI obtained a


warrant is targeted on all communications between two Russian


banks and were, therefore, allowed to examine US persons in the context


of their investigation. What the Americans call legally incidental


collection. I certainly didn't report that the warrant was able to


intercept or that it had location basis, for example Trump tower. I


just didn't report that. The reason that matters so much is that I now


believe based on the President's reaction, there may well be a


wiretap act Trump Tower. If so, Donald Trump has just tweeted out


evidence in an ongoing criminal case that neither I nor anybody else


reported. He is right about Watergate because he will have


committed obstruction of justice directly from his Twitter account.


Let me come back as thank you for clarifying. Let me come back to the


question. -- and thank you. We have not yet got proof that this warrant


exists, do we? No and we are most unlikely to get it because it would


be a heinous crime for Donald Trump to reveal its existence. In America


they call it a Glomar response. I can neither confirm nor deny. That


is what all American officials will have to say legally. If you are


looking for proof, you won't get it until and unless a court cases


brought. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. The BBC validated


this two months after me in their reporting by the journalist Paul


Wood. The Guardian, they also separately from their own sources


validated the existence of the warrant. If you are in America, you


would know that CNN and others are reporting that the investigation in


ongoing. Let me come onto the wider point. You believe the Trump


campaign including the president were complicit with the Russians


during the 2016 election campaign to such an extent that Mr Trump should


be impeached. What evidence did you have?


That is an enormous amount of evidence. You could start with him


saying, hey, Russia, if you are listening, please release all the


Hillary Clinton's e-mails. That's not evidence. I think it rather is,


actually. Especially if you look at some of the evidence that exists on


Twitter and elsewhere of people talking directly to his social media


manager, Dan should be no and telling him to do that before it


happened. There is a bit out there. The BBC itself reported that in


April of last year, a six agency task force, not just the FBI, but


the Treasury Department, was looking at this. I believe there is an


enormous amount of evidence. And then there is the steel dossier


which was included in an official report of the US intelligence


committee. You've also ... Just to be clear, we don't have hard


evidence yet whether this warrant exists. It may or may not. There is


doubt about... There are claims about whether there is evidence


about Mr Trump and the Russians. That is another matter. You claimed


that President Putin had Andrew Breitbart murdered to pave the way


for Steve Bannon to play a key role in the Trump administration. I


haven't. You said that Steve Bannon is behind bomb threats to Jewish


community centres. Aren't you in danger of just peddling wild


conspiracy theories? No. Festival, I haven't. No matter how many times


people say this, it's not going to be true -- first of all. I said in


twitter I believe that to be the case about the murder of Andrew


Breitbart. You believe President Putin murdered him. I didn't! You


said I reported it, but I believed it. You put it on twitter that you


believed it but you don't have a shred of evidence. I do. Indeed, I


know made assertions. What is the evidence that Mr Putin murdered


Andrew Breitbart? I said I believe it. You may believe there are


fairies at the bottom of your garden, it doesn't make it true. I


may indeed. And if I say so, that's my belief. If I say I am reporting,


as I did with the Fisa warrant exists, I have a basis in fact. They


believe is just a belief. I know you are relatively new to journalism.


Let me get the rules right. Andrew, jealousy is not your colour... If it


is twitter, we don't believe it but if it is on your website, we should


believe it? If I report something and I say this happened, then I am


making an assertion. If I describe a belief, I am describing a belief.


Subtlety may be a little difficult for you... No, no. If you want to be


a journalist, beliefs have to be backed up with evidence. Really? Do


you have a faith? It's not a matter of faith, maybe in your case, that


President Putin murdered Andrew Breitbart. A belief and a report at


two different things and no matter how often you say that they are the


same, they will never be the same. You've said in today's Sunday Times


here in London that you've turned into" a temporary superpower" where


you "See things really clearly". Have you become delusional? No. I am


describing a biological basis for ADHD, which I have. As any of your


viewers who are doctors will know. It provides people with


unfortunately a lot of scattered focus, they are very messy and


absent-minded but when they are interested in things and they have


ADHD they can have a condition which is hyper focus. You concentrate very


hard on a given subject and you can see patterns and connections. That


is biological. Thank you for explaining that. And for getting up


early in New York. The first time ever I have interviewed a temporary


superpower. Thank you. You are so lucky! You are so lucky! I don't


think it's going to happen again. Please don't ask us to comment on


that interview! I will not ask you, viewers will make up their own


minds. Let's come back to be more mundane world of Article 50. Stop


the killing! Will it get through at the


government wanted it? Without the Lords amendment falling by the way


that? I am sure the Lord will not try to ping-pong this back and


forth. So we are at the end of this particular legislative phase. The


fact that all three Brexit Cabinet ministers, number ten often don't


like one of them going out on a broadcast interview on a Sunday,


they've all been out and about. That suggests to me they are working on


the assumption it will be triggered this week. This week. The


negotiations will begin or at least the process begins. The negotiation


process may be difficult, given all of the European elections. The Dutch


this week. And then the French and maybe the Italians and certainly the


Germans by the end of September, which is less predictable than it


was. Given all that, what did you make of Anna Soubry's claim, Viacom


on her part, that we may just end up crashing out in six months question


-- fear on her part. It was not just that that we made that deliberately


organising. I want us to get on with the deals.


Everyone knows a good deal is the best option. Who knows what is going


to be on the table when we finally go out? Fascinatingly, the demand


for some money back, given the amount of money... Net gains and net


costs in terms of us leaving for the EU. It is all to play for. That will


be a possible early grounds for a confrontation between the UK and the


EU. My understanding is that they expect to do a deal on reciprocal


rights of EU nationals, EU nationals here, UK citizens there, quite


quickly. They want to clear that up and that will be done. Then they


will hit this problem that the EU will be saying you've got to agree


the divorce Bill first before we talk about the free trade bill.


David Davis saying quite clearly, no, they go together because of the


size of the bill. It will be determined, in our part, by how good


the access will be. The mutual recognition of EU residents' rights


is no trouble. A huge amount of fuss is attracted to that subject but it


is the easiest thing to deal with, as is free movement for tourists.


Money is what will make it incredibly acrimonious. Incredibly


quickly. I imagine the dominant story in the summer will be all


about that. This was Anna Soubry's implication, members of the


governors could strongly argue, things are so poisonous and so


unpleasant at the moment, the dealers are advancing -- members of


the government. Why not call it a day and go out on WTO terms while


public opinion is still in that direction in that Eurosceptic


direction? No buyers' remorse about last year's referendum. The longer


they leave it, view more opportunity there is for some kind of public


resistance and change of mind to take place. The longer believe it,


the more people who voted for Brexit and people who voted Remain and


think we didn't get world War three will start being quite angry with


the EU for not agreeing a deal. In terms of the rights of EU nationals


he and Brits abroad, by all accounts, 26 of the 27 have agreed


individually. Angela Merkel is the only person who has held that up.


That will be dealt with in a matter of days. The chances of a deal being


done is likely but in ten seconds... It would not be a bad bet to protect


your on something not happening, you might get pretty good odds? The odds


are going up that a deal doesn't happen. But, as I said earlier, the


House of Commons will not endorse no deal. We are either in an early


election or she has to go back again. Either way, you will need us!


We will be back at noon tomorrow on BBC Two ahead of what looks like


being a big week in politics. We will be back here same time, same


place. Remember, if it's Sunday,


it's the Sunday Politics.


Download Subtitles