12/03/2017 Sunday Politics South West

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.