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.
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.