29/10/2017 Sunday Politics South West

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the economic and

In the south-west, MPs aske

Defence Secretary about reports

Devonport's amphibious ships have

been

offered for sale to navies

in Brazil and Chile.

on from the abortion act white MPs

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

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

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

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

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

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

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to the former

business minister and Conservative

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

negotiations and claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament.

Hello, I'm Lucy Fisher.

harassment in Parliament.

Coming up on the

Sunday Politics here

in the southwest...

You don't mess with Plymouth.

You don't mess with these ships.

You don't mess with the Navy.

We are here for the country.

The fight to secure

the future of the

nation's amphibious assault ships

based in Plymouth continues.

And for the next 20

minutes and join by

Conservative MP for North Cornwall,

Scott Mann, as the leader of the

Lib Dem group on Dorset

Council, Ros Kayes.

Welcome both of you

to the programme.

Let's start with another running

story which has been

developing this week -

the row over fishing safety.

Last week we discussed

a petition that is calling

for the coastguard to launch

lifeboats as soon as a fishing

vessel fails to return home on time.

It was started after the capsizing

of Plymouth trawler Solstice last

month, in which a fisherman died.

A third fatal incident in two years,

in which campaigners say there was a

delay launching lifeboats.

On Wednesday the MP

for South East Cornwall,

Cheryl Murray, told

the

Prime Minister she had

concerns about the petition.

I believe this is

irresponsible and puts our

valiant lifeboat crews in peril.

If they don't know

where they are going.

We know this in Cornwall.

Would the Prime Minister look

at making safety grants available so

that all fishing boats can

have an AIS locator beacon on board.

This would cost well

under £4 million.

Following that, the woman

who launched a petition said she was

staggered and disappointed

by Mrs Murray's intervention.

Lifeboatmen are very brave.

They go in to face the danger

to save us and others

every day.

That is what they do.

The petition is

supported

by lifeboat men.

By fishermen, by fishermen's

families and industry

more broadly.

Scott, whose side do

you come down on?

Do you believe the petition

is irresponsible or Cheryl

Murray's response to it?

Can I first of all just

so what happened on the

Solstice is very tragic

and I think there does need

to be a review.

My minister, John Hayes,

because I sit in the

Department for Transport,

has said he will leave

no stone unturned

in

terms of looking at what

happened in Plymouth.

Because there was a delay

in launching the lifeboat, which is

why this petition has been started.

You have got the north Cornish

coast in your patch.

Do you believe this idea

they should have a beacon on

the boat instead

is the way forwards?

There should be grants to get those?

Yeah, I think that is a solution.

With GPS technology as it currently

is at the moment, and the

way it is moving forward

as rapidly as it is,

I think it's important all boats

that are on the water have beacons

to know where they are.

I had a meeting last week

with the Pew Trust, and we were

talking about ocean safety and one

of their suggestions was that it

would obviously be good for safety

but it would also be good for

illegal fishing and to look

at people smuggling.

To know where the boats

are at all times.

Ros, we did have cuts

to the coastguard only two

years ago.

Do you think that has

had any impact on this?

I do think so, and I think

it's an example of an

ill thought through process.

I can understand,

although I didn't agree

with, the cuts to the coastguard,

but I think it needed to be backed

up with funding so individual boats

can afford to buy this

equipment.

If we cannot monitor them

and we have not got proper oversight

then incidents like this are only

going to occur more frequently.

And they are tragic

and I think it is up to

the Government to try to find

a solution to prevent that.

Scott, do you accept

that there might be a

link between coastguard cuts

and the lifeboat delays?

I think there is two

separate issues.

There is a process

issue regarding how the

coastguard and the RNLI join up

together, but also an issue around

technology and how we use

technology going forward.

I would say I think this

review is welcome and I am

hoping the Minister will be able

to get the people around the table

needs to to find out exactly

what happened

in Plymouth and see if we can

improve on the services provided.

And get the lifeboat out

a bit quicker in future.

OK, now, with economists

predicting an interest

rate rise on Thursday,

mortgages could be about to get more

expensive, and even

further from the reach

of the thousands struggling

to

get on the housing ladder

here in the South West.

This week, MPs debated

a petition started by a

Plymouth man who thinks lenders

should be made to consider someone's

rent payment track

record when deciding

whether to give them

a

mortgage.

Jamie Kumar has more.

If you are looking to rent a two bed

property in Plymouth you will end up

paying on average of 700

to £800 a month for it.

All were a number of years

that adds up to a lot of

money.

But should the fact

you have been paying

rent regularly over

a

period of time be enough proof

you can afford mortgage repayments?

Well, it seems a lot

of people think it should be.

147,307, to be precise.

They signed a petition started

by Plymouth dad Jamie Pogson.

If the law does change

then a lot of people

will be able to obtain

mortgages much easier.

Because I know people that

pay their rent on time all the

time but they cannot get

accepted for mortgages.

Liz backs Jamie's idea,

after eight years of paying

rent, she is about to

buy her first property.

But she could only afford to do that

because her family has

helped with the deposit.

The mortgage payments will be

considerably less than rental.

It has taken a while

to be approved for

the mortgage, to evidence I can make

the repayments, even though I have

been paying rent for

years at a higher rate.

This week, what started off

as Jamie's angry rant on the

way to work, was making politicians

and Westminster sit up and listen.

I would like to think

that someone getting

out of bed one day

and wanting to change

the world could produce

a

situation where thousands of people

who are currently renting at the

moment might be able to buy a house

because of Jamie Pogson getting out,

tabling that petition.

It really showed the

value of this house

listening to those people

who are signing petitions.

Why aren't rental payments enough

proof you can afford

a mortgage?

UK Finance, the body representing

some lenders, says they

can take that into account, but that

on its own is not enough evidence

you can take on a large

debt and pay it back.

So they have to look at other

factors, like your credit

score, how steady your job is

and how much you can put down as a

deposit.

But there are some schemes

which allow a tenant's rental record

to contribute to their credit score.

During the debate, the minister

hinted lenders should look more

favourably on people

who pay their rent on time.

It is clear many people

still struggle to make the

first step on the housing ladder.

Credit reference agencies being able

to access data related to

prospective borrowers'

history of paying rent,

will benefit both

the

borrower but it will also

benefit the lender.

Perhaps bulkier, Jimmy wanted,

but the start, maybe, of an

important conversation.

That might one day

move lenders in the

direction he wants.

Jamie Kumar reporting.

Ros, should lenders look more

favourably on people who have

paid their rent on time

and can prove it?

In a short answer, yes.

Although I think we must

remember the reason why

people who are renting are finding

it hard to get mortgagess because

of a bottleneck in the housing

market and extremely high places,

especially in the south-west.

Which has got to do

with a failure to

build social,

affordable rented homes.

People who rent, and I have been

in both markets, have actually

a much harder credit process to go

through in order to even be allowed

to rent a house.

And often renting is more

expensive than a mortgage

anyway.

Renting is more expensive

and so if people can prove they have

a record, and I can understand

if you are taking up a bigger

mortgage but might be over a number

of years,

but if they can prove they have got

that record, yes, absolutely,

well done for the petitioner

because it

is an absolute necessity.

And it is also very

unfair people who are

renting are treated

as second-class citizens.

Not just in terms of getting

mortgages but in terms of

getting any kind of loan.

You are always asked

to tick that box,

"Do you own or do rent?"

So you do not think it would be

encouraging irresponsible lending,

to look at that?

I do not think so because I think

anybody who has been

in the rental market

for a long time and has

been a good tenant,

is as

responsible if not more

so than any mortgage holder.

Scott, do you think this

is something the Government

should be pushing for?

I think it's an excellent idea.

I think it's an excellent idea.

There is a scheme at the moment

called Rent Plus, and they have been

lobbying me quite hard to get

the definition of

affordable housing change

so people can pay rent...

So that it's actually affordable.

And then upgrade to

purchasing the home of

the back of the rent they pay.

And when you have got

people putting all

of their income into private rented

accommodation and are not able to

build that the deposit when you

could effectively get a mortgage for

half what they are paying.

Because deposits are a real problem.

There was the survey

by Halifax that said

most people are more

worried about the deposit

than about getting

the

mortgage because you cannot get

one without the other.

You actually have said

about the help to buy scheme,

the Tory

party's own, it is like sticking

a sticking plaster on a

freight train.

Well said.

Do you still stand by that?

I believe we have got

fundamental problems in the

south-west.

Many people in Cornwall have

to stretch to 13 or 14 times

their income to be able

to purchase their first home.

I think there is much

more we can do.

Some of the most

fundamental problems around

housing are the land values.

I think we need to

think more radically

about how we deal with some of that.

Like the Communities

Secretary Sajid Javid,

because there is

something going on here.

Sajid Javid wants to build

is several hundred thousand

new homes and just at the Tory party

conference Theresa May announced £2

billion for 25,000 new homes.

There is a real

discrepancy going on there

within the Government itself.

I think we need to do more

in the planning system.

I think the Government

can do so much but I

think we need to find ways

of creating new garden villages.

So we built settlements outside

of existing development boundaries.

But is that a dream?

No, I don't think it is.

I think it is genuinely achievable.

It shouldn't be right someone

has to find 50% of the

cost of their house in land value.

We should be able to bring that down

substantially and bring down the

cost to be affordable.

Ros, is that achievable?

I think it is more than just doing

stuff with the planning

system.

I think it is about allowing

councils that still have cash left

to release that money in order

to build council homes.

That has been mentioned

at the conference.

Whether it actually

transpires into reality,

let's hope it is

pushed along quickly.

I also think the idea

of using the private sector, there

are institutional investors

like Legal And General

that have some fantastic

affordable housing schemes

which they can make pay

which do not actually

need public investment

in

them.

They might need public

and the right thing to get them

kick-started.

We have hopefully got one happening

in my own patch which

will be funded by

the private sector.

There are imaginative things we can

look at but what I do not

want to see is governments

of all persuasions,

because they have done it over

the last 15, 20 years, kick

this issue into the long grass.

They have made noises about it

and haven't actually have not done

anything about it.

Can I just come in on that?

So I asked the Chancellor

this week, this

Government has introduced

a second home stamp

duty levy which places

an

additional 3% on stamp duty

for homes that are not for main

residence.

Which we have got

a lot of down here.

Indeed.

Only 3%.

We have managed to

secure a £20 million

for the south-west,

of which 5.11 is going into...

20 million is such a drop

in the ocean when you are

looking at the cost of housing.

It is 1000 new homes

in Cornwall that would not

have been built before

so

I am very pleased we have managed

to secure that and that is just one

year's worth.

OK.

The campaign to save

Devonport's amphibious ships

from the axe has been

ramping up this week.

A petition against the leaked

proposals gained 10,000

signatures.

The Conservative led

Plymouth City Council voted

unanimously to fight the plans.

Meanwhile, at Westminster,

the Defence Secretary was asked

about reports Bulwark and Albion

have already

been quietly offered

for sale to foreign navies.

Chloe Axford reports.

From the social enterprise coffee

shop to the cafe outside the

dockyard gates.

People here say the Navy is part

of Plymouth's DNA, and

losing ships like HMS Albion

and Bulwark, and their Marines,

would be unthinkable.

It does not just impact

the dockyard, it impacts the

residents, businesses around here.

So I think it would worry a lot

of people if it happened.

Arguably, much of Devonport

or Plymouth, even,

would not exist if it

wasn't for the Royal Navy.

If change is going to happen it is

probably beyond what is in our gift.

Then my plea would be we manage

that, invest in that and support

people through that.

The battle lines are now

being drawn between

those who want answers

about the ships' future

and those who dismiss reports

they are going to be scrapped

as simply speculation

and scaremongering.

Is it a case of attack

being the best form of

defence?

In the Commons, Plymouth MP

Johnny Mercer seem to think so.

As members of this

house we all have a

responsibility when it

comes to speculation.

We can essentially speculate

about anything at all.

But these are people's lives,

their jobs, and we should

base our debate around facts and not

a political

agenda.

Others on both sides of the house

bombarded defence ministers

with questions about the future

of Devonport ships.

Can I ask the Minister

to speed up this review

because there are lots of people

that are very concerned about their

jobs and the local economy Albion,

Bulwark and the Royal Marines are to

be scrapped.

But each time, the frontbenchers

took evasive action.

Once again, he seems to be

unnecessarily adding fuel to the

speculation.

Indeed perhaps even

scaremongering to his

own constituents, which I don't

think is particularly valuable.

At Wednesday's Defence

Select Committee,

Johnny Mercer was back

on

the offensive against any possible

cuts, leading to some careful

manoeuvring by the Defence Secretary

to deflect attention away from

Albion and Bulwark.

The threats have intensified.

We have to spend money dealing

with the threat from cyber as

well as finding resources

to storm beaches.

It is for the Chiefs to weigh these

priorities up and give

me the right military advice

when the decision comes.

Devonport's community

is a strong one.

This was local children

at the half term

apple day.

This week, Plymouth's Conservative

and Labour councillors

voted unanimously to defend

Devonport and the rest of the city

against any cuts.

Calling it a fight Plymouth

cannot afford to lose.

Navy contracts account for 8.5%

of Plymouth's employment and 12% of

economic output.

You do not mess with Plymouth.

You don't mess with the ships,

you don't mess

with the Navy.

We are here for the country and now

it is time for you to be

here for us.

The outcome of the Government's

national security

capability review is

expected by Christmas.

But there are already reports

the Chilean and Brazilian

navies are considering purchasing

some of the UK's amphibious ships

and frigates, leaving the outlook

for the British Navy and those who

rely on it here in Plymouth,

distinctly unsettled.

Chloe Axford reporting.

Scott, how difficult is it to get

the right position on

this?

We've heard Johnny Mercer on Monday

saying in the Commons this

was just speculation and by

Wednesday he is in a committee room

firing very hard questions

at the Defence Secretary.

What position should

we take in what position do

you take on this?

Is it just speculation?

Can we still say that?

I am pleased Johnny is firing

questions at the Defence Secretary

on this.

My understanding is it is

speculation at this point.

Why don't they just dismiss it then?

If it is not true?

This is the second part

of a Strategic Defence Review.

We have had one review

and this

is the second.

I don't know why we're having

a second one so quickly.

I think the military capability

and threat we face has not changed

significantly from the last review.

Too much money on the aircraft

carrier in Portsmouth?

I would argue the threat

we face is changing and

as an island nation we need to have

amphibious vehicles.

I would also make the point

if the issue is about

financing, I would suggest the

Defence Secretary should speak to

the Chancellor and make the case

we should be spending some of aid

budget, currently set 0.7%,

on defence, security and social

care, which I think

should be our priorities.

Ros, is that something

you would agree with?

I'm not sure I agree

with the aid budget, but I

think what we need to look at is

what moving the Navy did to Weymouth

which is in my own backyard, and I

think, looking at the employment

stats and economic contribution that

Devonport makes to Plymouth, I think

it would be really

scary for the people

of Plymouth if there

was to

be a mass disinvestment.

Reading between the

lines, what is your

judgment of it?

Do you think we can

dismiss it as speculation?

No, I don't agree with that at all.

I think that there needs to be

transparency about this and where

there is not transparency it is

because something is going on in the

background and there will be some

perhaps deals or discussions taking

place about moving funding

from one place to another.

You say that, Defence Weekly,

a highly respected

magazine in the industry suggested

there was talk in Chile and

Argentina are possibly

buying these ships.

What is your response to that?

I would say that they must be good

ships and we should keep a

hold of them.

It is important we have

all capabilities open to

us.

As we enter this world

that is changing drastically.

I would pick the case

we are an island

nation and we need to keep our

amphibious vehicles.

I should qualify myself

there, it is Chile

and Brazil that perhaps are looking

at buying our ships.

You made two points,

one was the threat,

you said, is changing.

But, two, we are an island

nation so we need to keep

our amphibious ships.

Again, those are two

opposing points of view.

If the threat is changing

and we are going to cyber warfare

you probably wouldn't need to keep

landing ships

and we would not be able

to need to land on beaches.

And in which case it

would not be very good use of

taxpayer money.

We already have a significant

amount of money that

goes into our cyber security threats

and the challenges we face with

that.

The way the army and Navy and air.

It is changing.

We should keep

the options open to us

to deal with threats we face.

That might well change

in the future but

that is my view.

I think the amount we spend

on defence, 2% of GDP,

could be increased, it could be

increased post-Brexit but could

also be increased by looking

again at the aid budget.

This has been closely

followed on Twitter and we

have had quite a lot of tweets.

David Rogers tweeted

to say, "Did anybody

question the cost impact

of

Trident on conventional forces?"

So, Ros, if we scrapped the Trident