12/03/2017 Sunday Politics South

Download Subtitles




Andrew Neil and Peter Henley with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry.

Similar Content

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



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


David Davis tells MPs to leave the Brexit bill untouched,


ahead of a week which could see Britain begin the process


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


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


But how should we tax those who work for themselves?


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


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


In the south, should the rights of EU nationals living in the UK be


guaranteed? We meet those who want 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


On today's show: Should they stay or should they go?


The EU nationals who are wrestling about whether to apply for permanent


residency now in case the Brexit negotiations don't guarantee


First, let's meet the two politicians here for the 20 minutes.


Conor Burns is the Conservative MP for Bournemouth West.


Alan Whitehead is the Labour MP for Southampton Test.


The budget wasn't even 48 hours old before the Prime Minister


was announcing a postponement of what turned out to be a rather


Increasing the national insurance contributions for self-employed.


This is just another pasty tax, isn't it?


It's a proper approach by the Chancellor that is recognising


the changes that have been made to other entitlements


There was always a quite large difference between what employed


and self-employed people paid in a national insurance because of


the difference they received in pension entitlement.


Of course, the government has moved to guarantee pension universally


to employed and self-employed and this I think is an adjustment


that reflects the changing benefits received.


But surely it is the manifesto commitment not to increase national


insurance that has caused a furore and the promise


Repeated in the manifesto, repeated by David Cameron,


we won't increase national insurance, and know it is going up.


We were very clear that we legislate for the commitments


made and that we did after the last general election.


I sat on the Finance Bill and there was not a word when we legislated


to guarantee the commitments on national insurance,


on class of national insurance, that was on that.


The manifesto commitment was not for one class,


it was for national insurance, and it is going up.


I'm prepared to dance around the head of the pin on this


but I think you need to look at the wider thing the Chancellor


was trying to achieve, which is a greater balance


between self-employed and employed people.


That gap had been very large when the benefits


gap was now diminishing and that was what the Chancellor


And the principle of keeping your promises has


It's the principle of keeping up-to-date with the with the labour


market is changing and making sure people are making an appropriate


contribution for the benefits they will receive.


No, this is dancing on the head of a pain.


There was a clear manifesto pledge at the last election


from the Conservatives that they would not have any taxes


going up and quite simply national insurance for a weight


Yes, there is a case to look at what is self employment and some


people are more appropriately self-employed and others.


It might have been prudent to look at who is self-employed and how that


works first and decide what to do afterwards because what this


increase has done is it's caught everybody who is self-employed,


from solicitors to butchers to hairdressers to people who drive


taxis to people who do deliveries, and those are all in


So you don't disagree with the principle that


self-employed people should be paying more national insurance


and you haven't made that manifesto commitment so why not say it


What I'm saying is that there is a case to look at


what self-employment consists of in a changing labour market


but it is not this case to be made at this budget to put national


insurance contributions up for everybody who is self-employed,


regardless of their actual circumstances.


What is interesting is that the Prime Minister has


started to take part in the unravelling of the budget


by saying it will be voted on until the autumn.


At that time it may be the case that a commission that has been set up


to look at what the status of self-employed is


Kicked into the long grass, possibly.


It shouldn't have happened in this way and...


The first point is, as Alan acknowledges,


the government has already appointed Matthew Taylor to look


at the self-employed as a whole to see what changes may be needed


Both in terms of additional contribution but also


The second point to make is that overall the self-employed


15% of people are self employed, over 60% of these people will be


The people who earn less than 16,000.


And that is a very, very important thing.


I think it is a regret that, at the same time as we extended


the pension entitlement, we didn't make these changes then.


I think it is a shame we disconnected them.


People would have understood there was a give as well as a take.


You know that in both our constituencies and number of people


who are the lifeblood of our local areas who are working


in local businesses, who are working in local shops,


are now far worse off than they were before the budget.


For no other reason than they are properly self-employed.


I don't agree it looks like a shambles.


I do agree we could have done a better job of explaining


But I think the changes the Chancellor made are sound.


The Brexit Bill is back in the Commons this week for the next


One of the two amendments added in the Lords and which the government


says it will remove is to guarantee the rights of EU nationals


That's not to be as many as 3 million people,


many of whom have been living here for decades.


The uncertainty they are facing has led to an unprecedented increase


in the applications for permanent residency but, as our reporter has


discovered, that represents for them a real fear for the future.


Two women, two different lives, but they both have the same concern.


I don't know what is going to happen to me.


So I would have to lead but where would I go?


I don't want to leave here because my life this year.


I've got a son, I've got stepchildren.


These anxieties and worries are widely shared among EU citizens


There are hundreds of thousands of people like them,


eager to apply for permanent residency, the guaranteed right


It might suddenly be a very hard thing that comes out of it.


There's no point sticking your head in the sand.


Elly came here in the 60s from Holland.


She's an artist and worked all her life.


The statements by the government are so heartless in a way


and ignorant sometimes, very ignorant of what


people have actually contributed to this country.


If I stay here I shall pay taxes until my dying day.


Another Dutch National has just finished her Ph.D.


in Oxford and has lived in the UK since the early 90s.


Suddenly I am looking at that I could be deported and where do I go?


We are suddenly up against needing a permanent residence card


If you want to apply for permanent residency,


It is an 85 page document that requires an awful of added


paperwork, including five years worth of P60s, historic utility


bills are and, even in some cases, a diary of all the times you may


The toll it takes emotionally and psychologically.


You spend so much time worrying about it, asking questions,


The tax people and the banks say after seven years you don't have


Now I need those papers and I haven't got them anymore.


You have to fight off anxiety because you are thinking


Permanent residency status isn't mandatory while we are still part


of the EU and experts say there is no rush to apply


but there has already been an increase in applications


There's a whole list of criteria to qualify for permanent residency.


For at least five years you need to have worked, been self-employed,


a student or self-sufficient person who has been living in the UK.


But there is a major stumbling block.


Students and self-sufficient people such as pensioners or those


who are able to support themselves financially need comprehensive


Being a student and not having the CSI, I can't apply even though


I have worked for long enough and I have got the state pension


I do not need CSI as long as I can prove my work history but I haven't


got any P60s or whatever else you need to prove and that is why


The Home Office didn't have anybody available to speak to us


but they did say there has been no change to EU immigration law


For now, it is not necessary to apply but uncertainty looms.


These two feel that since the referendum there has been a very


I thought, what has been lying under the surface that I wasn't aware of?


Suddenly you are being made to feel that you are not welcome.


But of course everyone always says, but we don't mean you.


But all the other people are just like me.


So for people like that life has changed overnight.


Our guest is from the 3 Million group.


You have also applied and have got your permanent residence.


But also having heard those voices, is it the outages that has shifted


in the country or a new experience the system that has made


I've started to realise what the Home Office rules are.


After the referendum I thought I will apply


for citizenship because I want to solidify my position.


I realised then I would have to apply for permanent residence


which was only introduced in November 2015 as a


I got rejected on a technicality, got unbelievable bureaucratic


treatment at the hands of the Home Office.


And in this process I started learning about all these people do


You can have been here for ten years but if you take a job abroad


for a couple of years your clock starts again and you


And they were saying about having to keep all the records which people


There are women whose utility bills have all been in their husband's


I know somebody who is an EU national, divorced from her British


husband, is on benefits because she has an adult disabled


son, cannot possibly afford CSI, nobody even knew about CSI.


I get really cross when the newspapers say anyone who has


been here over five years is fine because that is not actually true.


Because you got to be able to prove it and it feels


It is more than being able to prove it.


There are some people who do not qualify according


There is such a disconnect between what politicians


and the media are saying about these five years.


Peter Bone on Newsnight said, I will help you fill in the form,


totally patronising us as though it was just a question


And all the documents you have to provide.


I only qualified by the skin of my teeth because I happen to know


you have a five-year block but I took a couple of years off


It affects students and so many people but the really important


When the Home Office says you don't need to do anything,


nothing changes, it matters because immigration here


is delegated down to landlords and banks and all sorts of things


so people are struggling to get jobs, they are being turned down


for jobs, turned down for rented accommodation.


The phrase used in the report was sanctioned racism.


I know know people who are speaking French on the tube and date


gets addressed with, you need to speak English here.


Which wouldn't have happened, do you think, before the vote?


Like you say, it's sanctioned racism.


Would it be alleviated if we were told everyone


Following the referendum result, we've got to urgently and at a very


early stage regularise the position of EU nationals living in the UK


and the easiest way to do that is to say that,


if you are an EU national living in the UK at the time


of the referendum, July, then you have status


But that's not our fault that we can't do that at the moment.


If the EU were to say, yes, we will do a deal,


it is important that people are treated properly.


I think it is our fault because it is inconceivable


to my mind that we could really end up banging our fists on the table


in negotiation with the EU saying we will chuck our EU nationals out


if you don't let our nationals stay in your country or whatever.


Not only is it something we need to do the people who have lived


in the UK for years and years and years and paid their taxes


and had their lives in the UK, but also that is important


One tenth of those people working in the General Hospital


in Southampton are UK nationals and we can't conceivably throw


all those people out of the country and we ought to sort it out


at the earliest possible opportunity.


We are not going to tell people like our guest they have


It is not going to happen and we are making them feel


Firstly, the contribution that EU citizens make


to the UK is immense, it is welcome, they are an integral


part of our society, our economy, our way of life.


You are absolutely right on the question


We wanted to do this really early on.


The Prime Minister made this offer to her fellow European


Angela Merkel said, we couldn't do that until the process began.


I regret we didn't do this, the offer Theresa May


We've now been very clear that this is something we want to achieve


right up front at the beginning of the negotiations.


Of course there is no question of deporting anybody.


Goodness me, a country like Britain deporting people


So it is a hollow threat to be making to Angela Merkel anyway.


No, because these are quite complex matters.


The other point is that we have lots of British nationals living


in other European Union countries and we want at the same time


as we guarantee the rights of EU nationals living here to get them


the right to remain, we want guarantees for them too.


It's not fair because you haven't listened


They have been wanting to speak to the government and there have


been newspaper reports that they have not been


Because they want their rights guaranteed in Europe as well.


Yes, they do but they have written really strongly,


I have quotes that I can't read out now, but they have written


to say that they want us to get unilateral...


They have come to give evidence at the Brexit select committee


to say they also want unilateral rights to be given to us


because they do not want to be part of a negotiation.


Your very language to say it is down to Germany not agreeing,


you are going back to it being a negotiation.


Which bit of unilateral do you not understand


If it is not a negotiation, it's unilateral.


If you forgive me, I will absolutely defend the rights of the government


of the United Kingdom to guarantee the rights of United Kingdom


citizens living in the European Union at the same time


as those rights given to those already here


Why don't you at least guarantee the rights that are already


Why don't you say something to them about maintaining


Say something about continuing to pay for their health care?


All the concerns that the British people in Europe that we work with,


because we're not trying to just speak out on us.


The question you have posed goes to the heart of the complexity


of the mutuality of the assurances that we are seeking in negotiations.


You should just say that we should be OK.


Of course it should be because it's about pension rights to crude


entitlements and we can make sure that those living in Germany


and Spain and Portugal and France, our citizens living there,


can also get those reciprocal rights.


That has to be part of a whole agreement and Angela Merkel has been


clear that we can't do that except as part of a negotiation.


But you are still saying that it is part of a negotiation


and if Mrs Merkel, after triggering Article 50, doesn't get you XYZ


you are going to take away some of our XYZ rights


because it is a negotiation and that goes to the heart of it.


It's about getting the best rights for our citizens in the EU and EU


Let's just bring in Alan before we go.


Which ever way you cut it, if you take that line,


it is a negotiation and there is everything to gain


and nothing to lose by treating this unilaterally.


EU citizens in the UK should unilaterally have the right to stay


now and we can do that now and it should not be part


Is there any chance the government will change its mind?


No, the purpose of a negotiation is to get the best deal mutually


for our citizens in the EU and EU citizens here.


Now, our regular round-up of the political week


Air pollution in Oxford could be cut by a low emissions zone.


They go away from the Thames Valley only to discover their


Fog started to clear around government negotiations


with Surrey County Council to stop a 15% tax rise.


In a secret recording the leader referred to...


How much did the government offer Surrey County Council


Documents reveal a deal drawn up but dropped at the last minute.


There was some help in the budget for businesses whose


We've got rent increase and we've got rate increase,


Fears of a flood of sewage could delay the ?3 million


They are worried a sewer upgrade won't be ready.


I'm begging Thames Water to come and activate this process now.


I've spent several evenings this week going through the release


of documents to do with Surrey County Council


I guess all councils try and get a deal, don't they?


That is the job of government and local authorities coming


up to the settlement, is to try and get the best


I think Surrey have bargained very hard with government.


The adult social care problem is a massive one


We confronted it in Bournemouth and Poole and there was a sense


amongst all local authorities that what the government had done


to date was not enough to meet the shortfall.


The Chancellor was listening, aside from what they were talking


to Surrey about, and he recognised that an extra


?2 billion over three years for local authorities


I think that is the big issue, is the government confronting


the reality of adult social care on the ground at meeting


I will come back to you on whether or not they should have ever denied


there was any sort of arrangement that was being negotiated


but it is not a sweetheart deal for Surrey County Council.


All this is frankly more fishy than a very large plate of haddock.


So why is Jeremy Corbyn banging on about it?


It is clearly, as revealed by the e-mails and recordings,


Surrey thought they had a sweetheart deal in the bag and clearly a lot


the lines of there would be a sweetheart deal.


I have been a local authority leader in my time and I've never had that


sort of arrangement with any government minister or department.


There was a sweetheart deal in the budget.


It was ?2 billion extra for adult social care


A great sweetheart deal, a great Chancellor delivering


That's the Sunday Politics in the South.


Thank you to my guests, Conor Burns from Bournemouth,


You can keep up-to-date with Southern politics,


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.


They're calling it an entertainment extravaganza


Andrew Neil and Peter Henley with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew discusses the Brexit bill with UKIP's Nigel Farage and Conservative MP Anna Soubry. Guests include Matthew Taylor of the Independent Review of Employment Practices and journalist Louise Mensch. On the political panel are Janan Ganesh, Julia Hartley-Brewer and Steve Richards.