29/10/2017

0:00:38 > 0:00:40Morning, everyone.

0:00:40 > 0:00:42I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome to The Sunday Politics,

0:00:42 > 0:00:45where we always bring you everything you need to know to understand

0:00:45 > 0:00:46what's going on in politics.

0:00:46 > 0:00:50Coming up on today's programme...

0:00:50 > 0:00:52The Government says

0:00:52 > 0:00:55the international trade minister Mark Garnier will be investigated

0:00:55 > 0:00:57following newspaper allegations of inappropriate behaviour

0:00:57 > 0:00:59towards a female staff member.

0:00:59 > 0:01:04We'll have the latest.

0:01:04 > 0:01:05We'll have the latest.

0:01:05 > 0:01:08The Prime Minister says she can agree a deal with the EU and plenty

0:01:08 > 0:01:14of time for Parliament to vote on it before we leave in 2018. Well

0:01:14 > 0:01:22Parliament play ball? New evidence cast out on the

0:01:22 > 0:01:24Later in the programme: International Trade Secretary Liam

0:01:24 > 0:01:27Fox tells me how Wales should trade after Brexit, and should unused

0:01:27 > 0:01:30land in Wales be taxed if builders don't develop it?

0:01:30 > 0:01:31land in Wales be taxed on from the abortion act white MPs

0:01:31 > 0:01:34are lobbying the Home Secretary to stop the alleged harassment of women

0:01:34 > 0:01:39attending abortion clinics.

0:01:39 > 0:01:41All that coming up in the programme.

0:01:41 > 0:01:45And with me today to help make sense of all the big stories,

0:01:45 > 0:01:48Julia Hartley-Brewer, Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

0:01:48 > 0:01:50Some breaking news this morning.

0:01:50 > 0:01:52The Government has announced that it will investigate

0:01:52 > 0:01:54whether the International Trade Minister Mark Garnier broke

0:01:54 > 0:01:56the Ministerial Code following allegations

0:01:56 > 0:02:01of inappropriate behaviour.

0:02:01 > 0:02:01of inappropriate behaviour.

0:02:01 > 0:02:05It comes after reports in the Mail on Sunday which has spoken to one

0:02:05 > 0:02:06of Mr Garnier's former employees.

0:02:06 > 0:02:08News of the investigation was announced by the Health

0:02:08 > 0:02:10Secretary Jeremy Hunt on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

0:02:10 > 0:02:14The stories, if they are true, are totally unacceptable

0:02:14 > 0:02:16and the Cabinet Office will be conducting an investigation

0:02:16 > 0:02:19as to whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code

0:02:19 > 0:02:20in this particular case.

0:02:20 > 0:02:22But as you know the facts are disputed.

0:02:22 > 0:02:25This is something that covers behaviour by MPs of all parties

0:02:25 > 0:02:28and that is why the other thing that is going to happen

0:02:28 > 0:02:31is that today Theresa May is going to write to John Bercow,

0:02:31 > 0:02:35the Speaker of the House of Commons, to ask for his advice as to how

0:02:35 > 0:02:40we change that culture.

0:02:40 > 0:02:41we change that culture.

0:02:41 > 0:02:45That was Jeremy Hunt a little earlier. I want to turn to the panel

0:02:45 > 0:02:50to make sense of this news. This is the government taking these

0:02:50 > 0:02:53allegations quite seriously.What has changed in this story is they

0:02:53 > 0:02:58used to be a bit of delay while people work out what they should say

0:02:58 > 0:03:03about it, how seriously to take it. As you see now a senior cabinet

0:03:03 > 0:03:07member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with an instant response. He does have

0:03:07 > 0:03:11the worry of whether the facts are disputed, but what they want to be

0:03:11 > 0:03:16seen doing is to do something very quickly. In the past they would say

0:03:16 > 0:03:21it was all part of the rough and tumble of Westminster.Mark Garnier

0:03:21 > 0:03:25does not deny these stories, which is that he asked an employee to buy

0:03:25 > 0:03:30sex toys, but he said it was just high jinks and it was taken out of

0:03:30 > 0:03:33context. Is this the sort of thing that a few years ago in a different

0:03:33 > 0:03:39environment would be investigated? Not necessarily quite the frenzy

0:03:39 > 0:03:47that it is nowadays. The combination of social media, all the Sunday

0:03:47 > 0:03:49political programmes were ministers have to go on armed with a response

0:03:49 > 0:03:57means that you get these we have to be seen to be doing something. That

0:03:57 > 0:04:01means there is this Cabinet Office investigation. You pointed out to us

0:04:01 > 0:04:05before the programme that he was not a minister before this happened. It

0:04:05 > 0:04:09does not matter whether he says yes, know I did this or did not,

0:04:09 > 0:04:14something has to be seen to be done. Clearly ministers today are being

0:04:14 > 0:04:18armed with that bit of information and that Theresa May will ask John

0:04:18 > 0:04:22Bercow the speaker to look into the whole culture of Parliament in this

0:04:22 > 0:04:28context. That is the response to this kind of frenzy.If we do live

0:04:28 > 0:04:31in an environment where something has to be seen to be done, does that

0:04:31 > 0:04:37always mean the right thing gets done?Absolutely not. We are in

0:04:37 > 0:04:41witch hunt territory. All of us work in the Commons over many years and

0:04:41 > 0:04:46anyone would think it was a scene out of Benny Hill or a carry on

0:04:46 > 0:04:51film. Sadly it is not that much fun and it is rather dull and dreary.

0:04:51 > 0:04:56Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there is sexual harassment, but the idea

0:04:56 > 0:05:00this is going on on a huge scale is nonsense.Doesn't matter whether it

0:05:00 > 0:05:07is a huge scale or not? Or just a few instances?Any workplace where

0:05:07 > 0:05:12you have the mixing of work and social so intertwined and you throw

0:05:12 > 0:05:15a huge amount of alcohol and late night and people living away from

0:05:15 > 0:05:22home you will have this happen.That does not make it OK.It makes sexual

0:05:22 > 0:05:27harassment not OK as it is not anywhere. This happens to men as

0:05:27 > 0:05:31well and if they have an issue into it there are employment tribunal 's

0:05:31 > 0:05:35and they can contact lawyers. I do not think this should be a matter of

0:05:35 > 0:05:41the speaker, it should be someone completely independent of any party.

0:05:41 > 0:05:46People think MPs are employees of the party or the Commons, they are

0:05:46 > 0:05:49not.Because they are self-employed to whom do you go if you are a

0:05:49 > 0:05:55researcher?That has to be clarified. I agree you need a much

0:05:55 > 0:06:01clearer line of reporting. It was a bit like the situation when we came

0:06:01 > 0:06:06into the media many years ago, the Punic wars in my case! You were not

0:06:06 > 0:06:14quite sure who to go to. If you work worried that it might impede your

0:06:14 > 0:06:19career, and you had to talk to people who work next to you, that is

0:06:19 > 0:06:23just one example, but in the Commons people do not know who they should

0:06:23 > 0:06:27go to. Where Theresa May might be making a mistake, it is the same

0:06:27 > 0:06:31mistake when it was decided to investigate through Levinson the

0:06:31 > 0:06:37culture of the media which was like nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

0:06:37 > 0:06:40culture of anybody's job and the environment they are in and there is

0:06:40 > 0:06:45usually a lot wrong with it. When you try and make it general, they

0:06:45 > 0:06:51are not trying to blame individuals, or it say they need a better line on

0:06:51 > 0:06:55reporting of sexual harassment, which I support, the Commons is a

0:06:55 > 0:06:59funny place and it is a rough old trade and you are never going to

0:06:59 > 0:07:03iron out the human foibles of that. Diane Abbott was talking about this

0:07:03 > 0:07:08earlier.

0:07:08 > 0:07:11When I first went into Parliament so many of those men had been to all

0:07:11 > 0:07:18boys boarding schools and had really difficult attitudes towards women.

0:07:18 > 0:07:22The world has moved on and middle-aged women are less likely

0:07:22 > 0:07:31than middle-aged men to believe that young research are irresistibly

0:07:31 > 0:07:37attracted to them. We have seen the issues and we have seen one of our

0:07:37 > 0:07:43colleagues been suspended for quite unacceptable language.

0:07:43 > 0:07:47That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a Labour MP who has had the whip

0:07:47 > 0:07:52suspended, this goes across all parties.The idea that there is a

0:07:52 > 0:07:57left or right divide over this is absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

0:07:57 > 0:08:02the media and in a lot of other institutions if this is going to

0:08:02 > 0:08:06develop politically, the frenzy will carry on for a bit and other names

0:08:06 > 0:08:10will come out over the next few days, not just the two we have

0:08:10 > 0:08:17mentioned so far in politics. But it also raises questions about how

0:08:17 > 0:08:22candidates are selected for example. There has been a huge pressure for

0:08:22 > 0:08:27the centre to keep out of things. I bet from now on there will be much

0:08:27 > 0:08:32greater scrutiny of all candidates and tweets will have to be looked at

0:08:32 > 0:08:38and all the rest of it.Selecting candidates is interesting. Miriam

0:08:38 > 0:08:42Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says that during that election they knew

0:08:42 > 0:08:47about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems knew about it, so it is difficult to

0:08:47 > 0:08:53suggest the Labour Party did not as well.There is very clear evidence

0:08:53 > 0:08:57the Labour Party did know. But we are in a situation of how perfect

0:08:57 > 0:09:04and well-behaved does everyone have to be? If you look at past American

0:09:04 > 0:09:08presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton, these men were sex pest

0:09:08 > 0:09:12extraordinaire, with totally inappropriate behaviour on a regular

0:09:12 > 0:09:16basis. There are things you are not allowed to say if you are feminists.

0:09:16 > 0:09:21Young women are really attracted to powerful men. I was busted for the

0:09:21 > 0:09:25idea that there are young women in the House of commons who are

0:09:25 > 0:09:32throwing themselves at middle-aged, potbellied, balding, older men. We

0:09:32 > 0:09:38need to focus on the right things. When it is unwanted, harassing,

0:09:38 > 0:09:41inappropriate and criminal, absolutely, you come down like a

0:09:41 > 0:09:45tonne of bricks. It is not just because there are more women in the

0:09:45 > 0:09:49Commons, it is because there are more men married to women like us.

0:09:49 > 0:09:52We have to leave it there.

0:09:52 > 0:09:54As attention turns in Westminster to the hundreds

0:09:54 > 0:09:57of amendments put down on the EU Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

0:09:57 > 0:10:00caused a stir this week by saying it's possible Parliament won't get

0:10:00 > 0:10:03a vote on the Brexit deal until after March 2019 -

0:10:03 > 0:10:05when the clock runs out and we leave the EU.

0:10:05 > 0:10:08Let's take a look at how the controversy played out.

0:10:08 > 0:10:12And which point do you envisage Parliament having a vote?

0:10:12 > 0:10:13As soon as possible thereafter.

0:10:13 > 0:10:16This Parliament?

0:10:16 > 0:10:18As soon as possible possible thereafter, yeah.

0:10:18 > 0:10:20As soon as possible thereafter.

0:10:20 > 0:10:21So, the vote in Parliament...

0:10:21 > 0:10:22The other thing...

0:10:22 > 0:10:23Could be after March 2019?

0:10:23 > 0:10:25It could be, yeah, it could be.

0:10:25 > 0:10:27The...

0:10:27 > 0:10:28It depends when it concludes.

0:10:28 > 0:10:30Mr Barnier, remember, has said he'd like...

0:10:30 > 0:10:33Sorry, the vote of our Parliament, the UK Parliament, could be

0:10:33 > 0:10:34after March 2019?

0:10:34 > 0:10:36Yes, it could be.

0:10:36 > 0:10:38Could be.

0:10:38 > 0:10:39The thing to member...

0:10:39 > 0:10:41Which would be...

0:10:41 > 0:10:43Well, it can't come before we have the deal.

0:10:43 > 0:10:46You said that it is POSSIBLE that Parliament night not vote

0:10:46 > 0:10:49on the deal until AFTER the end of March 2019.

0:10:49 > 0:10:51I'm summarising correctly what you said...?

0:10:51 > 0:10:52Yeah, that's correct.

0:10:52 > 0:10:55In the event we don't do the deal until then, yeah.

0:10:55 > 0:10:57Can the Prime Minister please explain how it's possible

0:10:57 > 0:10:59to have a meaningful vote on something that's

0:10:59 > 0:11:04already taken place?

0:11:04 > 0:11:08As the honourable gentleman knows, we're in negotiations

0:11:08 > 0:11:11with the European Union, but I am confident that the timetable under

0:11:11 > 0:11:14the Lisbon Treaty does give time until March 2019

0:11:14 > 0:11:16for the negotiations to take place.

0:11:16 > 0:11:19But I'm confident, because it is in the interests of both sides,

0:11:19 > 0:11:22it's not just this Parliament that wants to have a vote on that deal,

0:11:22 > 0:11:24but actually there will be ratification by other parliaments,

0:11:24 > 0:11:29that we will be able to achieve that agreement and that negotiation

0:11:29 > 0:11:33in time for this Parliament to have a vote that we committed to.

0:11:33 > 0:11:35We are working to reach an agreement on the final deal

0:11:35 > 0:11:38in good time before we leave the European Union in March 2019.

0:11:38 > 0:11:40Clearly, we cannot say for certain at this stage

0:11:40 > 0:11:42when this will be agreed.

0:11:42 > 0:11:45But as Michel Barnier said, he hopes to get a draft deal

0:11:45 > 0:11:50agreed by October 2018, and that's our aim is well.

0:11:50 > 0:11:54agreed by October 2018, and that's our aim as well.

0:11:54 > 0:11:56I'm joined now by the former Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

0:11:56 > 0:11:59Benn, who is the chair of the Commons Brexit Committee,

0:11:59 > 0:12:02which David Davis was giving evidence to.

0:12:02 > 0:12:08Good morning.When you think a parliamentary vote should take place

0:12:08 > 0:12:13in order for it to be meaningful?It has to be before we leave the

0:12:13 > 0:12:16European Union. Michel Barnier said at the start of the negotiations

0:12:16 > 0:12:21that he wants to wrap them up by October of next year, so we have

0:12:21 > 0:12:24only got 12 months left, the clock is ticking and there is a huge

0:12:24 > 0:12:28amount of ground to cover.You do not think there is any point in

0:12:28 > 0:12:39having the vote the week before we leave because you could then not go

0:12:39 > 0:12:42and re-negotiate?That would not be acceptable. We will not be given a

0:12:42 > 0:12:45bit of paper and told to take it or leave it. But the following day

0:12:45 > 0:12:49Steve Baker, also a minister in the department, told our committee that

0:12:49 > 0:12:52the government now accepts that in order to implement transitional

0:12:52 > 0:12:57arrangements that it is seeking, it will need separate legislation. I

0:12:57 > 0:13:01put the question to him if you are going to need separate legislation

0:13:01 > 0:13:05to do that, why don't you have a separate bill to implement the

0:13:05 > 0:13:07withdrawal agreement rather than seeking to use the powers the

0:13:07 > 0:13:12government is proposing to take in the EU withdrawal bill.If we stick

0:13:12 > 0:13:16to the timing, you have said you do not think it is possible to

0:13:16 > 0:13:20negotiate a trade deal in the next 12 months. You say the only people

0:13:20 > 0:13:25who think that is possible British ministers. If you do not believe we

0:13:25 > 0:13:30can get a deal negotiated, how can we get a vote on it in 12 months'

0:13:30 > 0:13:34time?If things go well, and there is still a risk of no agreement

0:13:34 > 0:13:48which would be disastrous for the economy and the country, if

0:13:53 > 0:13:56things go there will be a deal on the divorce issues, there will be a

0:13:56 > 0:13:58deal on the nature of the transitional arrangement and the

0:13:58 > 0:14:01government is to set out how it thinks that will work, and then an

0:14:01 > 0:14:04agreement between the UK and the 27 member states saying, we will now

0:14:04 > 0:14:06negotiate a new trade and market access arrangement, and new

0:14:06 > 0:14:08association agreement between the two parties, and that will be done

0:14:08 > 0:14:10in the transition period. Parliament will be voting in those

0:14:10 > 0:14:15circumstances on a deal which leads to the door being open.But we would

0:14:15 > 0:14:20be outside the EU at that point, so how meaningful can vote be where you

0:14:20 > 0:14:25take it or leave it if we have already left the EU? Surely this has

0:14:25 > 0:14:31to happen before March 2019 for it to make a difference?I do not think

0:14:31 > 0:14:35it is possible to negotiate all of the issues that will need to be

0:14:35 > 0:14:40covered in the time available.Then it is not possible to have a

0:14:40 > 0:14:51meaningful vote on it?Parliament will have to have a look at the deal

0:14:51 > 0:14:54presented to it. It is likely to be a mix agreement so the approval

0:14:54 > 0:14:56process in the rest of Europe, unlike the Article 50 agreement,

0:14:56 > 0:15:00which will be a majority vote in the European Parliament and in the

0:15:00 > 0:15:02British Parliament, every single Parliament will have a vote on it,

0:15:02 > 0:15:07so it will be a more complex process anyway, but I do not think that is

0:15:07 > 0:15:13the time to get all of that sorted between now and October next year.

0:15:13 > 0:15:18Whether it is before or after we have left the EU, the government

0:15:18 > 0:15:22have said it is a take it or leave it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

0:15:22 > 0:15:29option, deal or no Deal, you say yes or no to it. You cannot send them

0:15:29 > 0:15:33back to re-negotiate.

0:15:33 > 0:15:39If it is a separate piece of legislation, when Parliament has a

0:15:39 > 0:15:44chance to shape the nature of that legislation.But it can't change

0:15:44 > 0:15:48what has been negotiated with the EU?Well, you could say to the

0:15:48 > 0:15:53government, we're happy with this but was not happy about that chukka

0:15:53 > 0:15:58here's some fresh instructions, go back in and...It seems to me what

0:15:58 > 0:16:03they want is the maximum access to the single market for the lowest

0:16:03 > 0:16:07possible tariffs, whilst able to control migration. If they've got to

0:16:07 > 0:16:11get the best deal that they can on that, how on earth is the Labour

0:16:11 > 0:16:15Party, saying we want a bit more, owing to persuade the other 27?We

0:16:15 > 0:16:19certainly don't want the lowest possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

0:16:19 > 0:16:23are taught. My personal view is that, has made a profound mistake in

0:16:23 > 0:16:29deciding that it wants to leave the customs union. If you want to help

0:16:29 > 0:16:33deal with the very serious question of the border between Northern

0:16:33 > 0:16:37Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the way you do that is to stay in

0:16:37 > 0:16:42the customs union and I hope, will change its mind.But the Labour

0:16:42 > 0:16:46Party is simply saying in the House of Commons, we want a better deal

0:16:46 > 0:16:53than what, has been able to get?It depends how the negotiations unfold.

0:16:53 > 0:16:58, has ended up on the transitional arrangements in the place that Keir

0:16:58 > 0:17:04Starmer set out on behalf of the shadow cabinet in August, when he

0:17:04 > 0:17:08said, we will need to stay in the single market and the customs union

0:17:08 > 0:17:11for the duration of the transition, and I think that is the position,

0:17:11 > 0:17:15has now reached. It has not been helped by differences of view within

0:17:15 > 0:17:19the Cabinet, and a lot of time has passed and there's proved time left

0:17:19 > 0:17:25and we have not even got on to the negotiations. -- there's very little

0:17:25 > 0:17:30time left.On phase two, the labour Party have set out six clear tests,

0:17:30 > 0:17:35and two of them are crucial. You say you want the exact same benefits we

0:17:35 > 0:17:39currently have in the customs union but you also want to be able to

0:17:39 > 0:17:43ensure the fair migration to control immigration, basically, which does

0:17:43 > 0:17:46sound a bit like having your cake and eating it. You say that you will

0:17:46 > 0:17:50vote against any deal that doesn't give you all of that, the exact same

0:17:50 > 0:17:54benefits of the single market, and allowing you to control migration.

0:17:54 > 0:17:58But you say no deal would be catastrophic if so it seems to me

0:17:58 > 0:18:01you're unlikely to get the deal that you could vote for but you don't

0:18:01 > 0:18:06want to vote for no deal?We absolutely don't want a no deal.

0:18:06 > 0:18:12Businesses have sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying that a

0:18:12 > 0:18:15transition is essential because the possibility of a no deal and no

0:18:15 > 0:18:18transitional would be very damaging for the economy. We fought the

0:18:18 > 0:18:21general election on a policy of seeking to retain the benefits of

0:18:21 > 0:18:25the single market and the customs union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

0:18:25 > 0:18:30of the shadow government that as far as the longer term arrangements are

0:18:30 > 0:18:33concerned, that should leave all options on the table, because it is

0:18:33 > 0:18:37the end that you're trying to achieve and you then find the means

0:18:37 > 0:18:42to support it. So we're setting out very clearly those tests.If you

0:18:42 > 0:18:45were to vote down an agreement because it did not meet your tests,

0:18:45 > 0:18:51and there was time to send, back to the EU to get a better deal, then

0:18:51 > 0:18:53you would have significantly weakened their negotiating hand

0:18:53 > 0:18:58chukka that doesn't help them?I don't think, has deployed its

0:18:58 > 0:19:02negotiating hand very strongly thus far. Because we had a general

0:19:02 > 0:19:05election which meant that we lost time that we would have used for

0:19:05 > 0:19:09negotiating. We still don't know what kind of long-term trade and

0:19:09 > 0:19:16market access deal, wants. The Prime Minister says, I don't want a deal

0:19:16 > 0:19:20like Canada and I don't want a deal like the European Economic Area. But

0:19:20 > 0:19:24we still don't know what kind of deal they want. With about 12 months

0:19:24 > 0:19:28to go, the other thing, needs to do is to set out very clearly above all

0:19:28 > 0:19:33for the benefit of the other 27 European countries, what kind of

0:19:33 > 0:19:36deal it wants. When I travel to Europe and talk to those involved in

0:19:36 > 0:19:42the negotiations, you see other leaders saying, we don't actually

0:19:42 > 0:19:45know what Britain wants. With a year to go it is about time we made that

0:19:45 > 0:19:51clear.One related question on the European Union - you spoke in your

0:19:51 > 0:19:55famous speech in Syria about the international brigades in Spain, and

0:19:55 > 0:19:59I wonder if your solidarity with them leads you to think that the UK

0:19:59 > 0:20:02Government should be recognising Catalonia is an independent state?

0:20:02 > 0:20:07No, I don't think so. It is a very difficult and potentially dangerous

0:20:07 > 0:20:12situation in Catalonia at the moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

0:20:12 > 0:20:17not a long-term solution. There needs to be a negotiation, and

0:20:17 > 0:20:21elections will give Catalonia the chance to take that decision, but I

0:20:21 > 0:20:28am not clear what the declaration of independence actually means. Are

0:20:28 > 0:20:32they going to be borders, is they're going to be an army? There will have

0:20:32 > 0:20:35to be some agreement. Catalonia has already had a high degree of

0:20:35 > 0:20:40autonomy. It may like some more, and it seems to me if you look at the

0:20:40 > 0:20:45experience here in the United Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

0:20:45 > 0:20:48a constitutional stand-off. And I really hope nobody is charged with

0:20:48 > 0:20:52rebellion, because actually that would make matters worse.

0:20:52 > 0:20:57Now, the Government has this week reopened the public

0:20:57 > 0:20:59consultation on plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

0:20:59 > 0:21:01While ministers are clear the £18 billion project

0:21:01 > 0:21:03is still the preferred option, new data raises further questions

0:21:03 > 0:21:04about the environmental impact of expansion,

0:21:04 > 0:21:07and offers an improved economic case for a second

0:21:07 > 0:21:08runway at Gatwick instead.

0:21:08 > 0:21:11So, with opponents on all sides of the Commons, does the Government

0:21:11 > 0:21:13still have the votes to get the plans off the ground?

0:21:13 > 0:21:18Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

0:21:18 > 0:21:22Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

0:21:27 > 0:21:29The debate over the expansion of Heathrow has been

0:21:29 > 0:21:30going on for decades.

0:21:30 > 0:21:32Plans for a third runway were first introduced

0:21:32 > 0:21:34by the Labour government in 2003.

0:21:34 > 0:21:38Then, after spending millions of pounds, finally, in 2015,

0:21:38 > 0:21:43the airport commission recommended that those plans go ahead,

0:21:43 > 0:21:46and the government position appeared to be fixed.

0:21:46 > 0:21:53But, of course, since then, we've had a general election.

0:21:53 > 0:21:56And with opposition on both front benches, the Parliamentary

0:21:56 > 0:22:00arithmetic looks a little bit up in the air.

0:22:00 > 0:22:03A lot has changed since the airport commission produced its report,

0:22:03 > 0:22:06and that don't forget was the bedrock for the Government's

0:22:06 > 0:22:08decision, that's why the government supposedly made the decision

0:22:08 > 0:22:09that it made.

0:22:09 > 0:22:12But most of the assumptions made in that report have

0:22:12 > 0:22:14been undermined since, by data on passenger numbers,

0:22:14 > 0:22:17on economic benefits, and more than anything, on pollution.

0:22:17 > 0:22:20There's demand from international carriers to get into Heathrow.

0:22:20 > 0:22:23More and more people want to fly.

0:22:23 > 0:22:26And after the referendum, connectivity post-Brexit

0:22:26 > 0:22:30is going to be absolutely critical to the UK economy, so if anything,

0:22:30 > 0:22:36I think the case is stronger for expansion at Heathrow.

0:22:36 > 0:22:38A vote on expansion had been due to take place this summer.

0:22:38 > 0:22:40But with Westminster somewhat distracted, that didn't happen.

0:22:40 > 0:22:43Now, fresh data means the Government has had to reopen

0:22:43 > 0:22:48the public consultation.

0:22:48 > 0:22:49the public consultation.

0:22:49 > 0:22:52But it maintains the case for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

0:22:52 > 0:22:58delivering benefits of up to £74 billion to the wider economy.

0:22:58 > 0:23:00And in any case, the Government says, action must be taken,

0:23:00 > 0:23:05as all five of London's airports will be completely

0:23:05 > 0:23:09full by the mid-2030s.

0:23:09 > 0:23:11Still, the new research does cast an alternative expansion at Gatwick

0:23:11 > 0:23:15in a more favourable economic light, while showing Heathrow

0:23:15 > 0:23:23is now less likely to meet its environmental targets.

0:23:23 > 0:23:27Campaigners like these in Hounslow sense the wind is shifting.

0:23:27 > 0:23:30We're feeling encouraged, because we see all kinds

0:23:30 > 0:23:32of weaknesses in the argument.

0:23:32 > 0:23:35Certainly, quite a few MPs, I think certainly Labour MPs,

0:23:35 > 0:23:38are beginning to think perhaps it's not such a great idea

0:23:38 > 0:23:40to have a third runway.

0:23:40 > 0:23:42Their MP is convinced colleagues can now be persuaded

0:23:42 > 0:23:45to see things their way.

0:23:45 > 0:23:47The Labour Party quite rightly set four key tests

0:23:47 > 0:23:50for a third runway at Heathrow.

0:23:50 > 0:23:53And in my view, Heathrow is not able...

0:23:53 > 0:23:57The Heathrow option is not able to pass any of those.

0:23:57 > 0:24:00So, I see a lot of colleagues in the Labour Party around

0:24:00 > 0:24:02the country beginning to think twice.

0:24:02 > 0:24:08And if you look at the cross-party MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

0:24:08 > 0:24:11And if you look at the cross-party MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

0:24:11 > 0:24:14protest this week, you will see some familiar faces.

0:24:14 > 0:24:16You know my position - as the constituency MP,

0:24:16 > 0:24:17I'm totally opposed.

0:24:17 > 0:24:20I think this is another indication of just the difficulties

0:24:20 > 0:24:22the Government have got off of implementing this policy.

0:24:22 > 0:24:24I don't think it's going to happen, I just don't think

0:24:24 > 0:24:25it's going to happen.

0:24:25 > 0:24:28So, if some on the Labour front bench are, shall

0:24:28 > 0:24:31we say, not supportive, what about the other side?

0:24:31 > 0:24:34In a free vote, we could have had up to 60 Conservative MPs

0:24:34 > 0:24:36voting against expansion, that's the number that is normally

0:24:36 > 0:24:37used and I think it's right.

0:24:37 > 0:24:39In the circumstances where it requires an active rebellion,

0:24:39 > 0:24:41the numbers would be fewer.

0:24:41 > 0:24:44I can't tell you what that number is, but I can tell

0:24:44 > 0:24:47you that there are people right the way through the party,

0:24:47 > 0:24:49from the backbenches to the heart of the government,

0:24:49 > 0:24:50who will vote against Heathrow expansion.

0:24:50 > 0:24:54And yet the SNP, whose Commons votes could prove vital,

0:24:54 > 0:24:56are behind the Heathrow plan, which promises more

0:24:56 > 0:24:57connecting flights.

0:24:57 > 0:25:01And other supporters are convinced they have the numbers.

0:25:01 > 0:25:04There is a majority of members of Parliament that support Heathrow

0:25:04 > 0:25:07expansion, and when that is put to the test, whenever that will be,

0:25:07 > 0:25:09I think that will be clearly demonstrated.

0:25:09 > 0:25:12Any vote on this issue won't come until next summer.

0:25:12 > 0:25:14For both sides, yet more time to argue about weather

0:25:14 > 0:25:21the plans should take off or be permanently grounded.

0:25:25 > 0:25:26Elizabeth Glinka there.

0:25:26 > 0:25:29And I'm joined now by the former Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

0:25:29 > 0:25:31who oversaw aviation policy as a transport minister

0:25:31 > 0:25:36under David Cameron.

0:25:36 > 0:25:38under David Cameron.

0:25:38 > 0:25:43Thanks for coming in. You have made your opposition to a third runway at

0:25:43 > 0:25:47Heathrow consistently clear. , have reopened this consultation but it is

0:25:47 > 0:25:51still clearly their preferred option?It is but what I have always

0:25:51 > 0:25:54asked is, why try to build a new runway at Heathrow when you can

0:25:54 > 0:25:57build one at Gatwick in half the time, for half the cost and with a

0:25:57 > 0:26:01tiny fraction of the environment will cost average is that true,

0:26:01 > 0:26:05though? Private finance is already to go at Heathrow, because that's

0:26:05 > 0:26:08where people want to do it and that's where the private backers

0:26:08 > 0:26:12want to put it. It would take much longer to get the private finance

0:26:12 > 0:26:17for Gatwick? Part of that private finance is passengers of the future,

0:26:17 > 0:26:22but also, the costs of the surface transport needed to expand Heathrow

0:26:22 > 0:26:30is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates vary between £10 billion and £15

0:26:30 > 0:26:33billion. And there's no suggestion that those private backers are going

0:26:33 > 0:26:38to meet those costs. So, this is a hugely expensive project as well as

0:26:38 > 0:26:42one which will create very significant damage.Heathrow is

0:26:42 > 0:26:45ultimately where passengers and airlines want to go to, isn't it?

0:26:45 > 0:26:50Every slot is practically full. Every time a new one comes up, it is

0:26:50 > 0:26:55up immediately, it's a very popular airport. Gatwick is not where they

0:26:55 > 0:26:59want to go?There are many airlines and passengers who do want to fly

0:26:59 > 0:27:03from Gatwick, and all the forecasts indicate that a new runway there

0:27:03 > 0:27:07would be full of planes very rapidly. But I think the key thing

0:27:07 > 0:27:13is that successive elements have said, technology will deliver a way

0:27:13 > 0:27:18to resolve the around noise and air quality. I don't have any confidence

0:27:18 > 0:27:23that science has demonstrated that technology will deliver those

0:27:23 > 0:27:27solutions to these very serious environmental limbs which have

0:27:27 > 0:27:29stopped Heathrow expansion for decades.Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

0:27:29 > 0:27:34was mentioning that people think there is a need for even more

0:27:34 > 0:27:37collectivity in Britain post-Brexit. We know that business has been

0:27:37 > 0:27:41crying out for more routes, they really think it hurts business

0:27:41 > 0:27:45expansion that we don't get on with this. More consultation is just

0:27:45 > 0:27:49going to lead to more delay, isn't it?This is a hugely controversial

0:27:49 > 0:27:52decision. There is a reason why people have been talking about

0:27:52 > 0:27:56expanding Heathrow for 50 years and it is never happened, it's because

0:27:56 > 0:28:00it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the legal processes are very complex.

0:28:00 > 0:28:05One of my anxieties about, pursuing this option is that potentially it

0:28:05 > 0:28:08means another lost decade for airport expansion. Because the

0:28:08 > 0:28:14problems with Heathrow expansion are so serious, I believe that's one of

0:28:14 > 0:28:17the reasons why I advocated, anyone who wants a new runway in the

0:28:17 > 0:28:21south-east should be backing Gatwick is a much more deliverable option.

0:28:21 > 0:28:27Let me move on to Brexit. We were talking with Hilary Benn about a

0:28:27 > 0:28:30meaningful vote being given to the House of Commons chukka how

0:28:30 > 0:28:33important do you think that is?Of course the Commons will vote on

0:28:33 > 0:28:39this. The Commons is going to vote on this many, many times. We have

0:28:39 > 0:28:42also had a hugely important vote not only in the referendum on the 23rd

0:28:42 > 0:28:46of June but also on Article 50.But will that vote allow any changes to

0:28:46 > 0:28:52it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that the Commons would be able to shape

0:28:52 > 0:28:56the deal with the vote. But actually is it going to be, saying, take it

0:28:56 > 0:29:01or leave it at all what we have negotiated?Our Prime Minister

0:29:01 > 0:29:06negotiates on our behalf internationally. It's

0:29:06 > 0:29:08well-established precedent that after an agreement is reached

0:29:08 > 0:29:14overseas, then it is considered in the House of Commons.What if it was

0:29:14 > 0:29:18voted down in the House of Commons? Well, the legal effect of that would

0:29:18 > 0:29:21be that we left the European Union without any kind of deal, because

0:29:21 > 0:29:26the key decision was on the voting of Article 50 as an irreversible

0:29:26 > 0:29:31decision.Is it irreversible, though? We understand, may have had

0:29:31 > 0:29:35legal advice saying that Yukon stopped the clock on Article 50.

0:29:35 > 0:29:39Would it not be possible if the Commons voted against to ask the

0:29:39 > 0:29:42European Union for a little bit more time to try and renegotiate?There

0:29:42 > 0:29:50is a debate about the reversibility of Article 50. But the key point is

0:29:50 > 0:29:56that we are all working for a good deal for the United Kingdom and the

0:29:56 > 0:30:01I'm concerned that some of the amendments to the legislation are

0:30:01 > 0:30:04not about the nature of the deal at the end of the process, they're just

0:30:04 > 0:30:10about frustrating the process. I think that would be wrong. I think

0:30:10 > 0:30:13we should respect the result of the referendum.Will it be by next

0:30:13 > 0:30:16summer, so there is time for Parliament and for other

0:30:16 > 0:30:19parliaments?I certainly hope that we get that agreement between the

0:30:19 > 0:30:24two sides, and the recent European summit seemed to indicate a

0:30:24 > 0:30:28willingness from the European side to be constructive. But one point

0:30:28 > 0:30:32where I think Hilary Benn has a point, if we do secure agreement on

0:30:32 > 0:30:35a transitional deal, that does potentially give us more time to

0:30:35 > 0:30:40work on the details of a trade agreement. I hope we get as much as

0:30:40 > 0:30:44possible in place before exit day. But filling out some of that detail

0:30:44 > 0:30:53is made easier if we can secure that two-year transitional deal.

0:30:53 > 0:30:59That is interesting because a lot of Brexiteers what the deal to be done

0:30:59 > 0:31:07by the inflammation period, it is not a time for that.I fully

0:31:07 > 0:31:12recognise we need compromise, I am keen to work with people across my

0:31:12 > 0:31:15party in terms of spectrum of opinion, and with other parties as

0:31:15 > 0:31:20well to ensure we get the best outcome.Let me ask you briefly

0:31:20 > 0:31:25before you go about the possible culture of sexual harassment in the

0:31:25 > 0:31:30House of commons and Theresa May will write to the Speaker of the

0:31:30 > 0:31:33House of Commons to make sure there is a better way that people can

0:31:33 > 0:31:38report sexual harassment in the House of commons. Is that necessary?

0:31:38 > 0:31:43A better procedure is needed. It is sad it has taken this controversy to

0:31:43 > 0:31:48push this forward. But there is a problem with MPs who are individual

0:31:48 > 0:31:53employers. If you work for an MP and have a complaint against them,

0:31:53 > 0:31:56essentially they are overseeing their own complaints process. I

0:31:56 > 0:32:01think a role for the House of commons authorities in ensuring that

0:32:01 > 0:32:05those complaints are properly dealt with I think would be very helpful,

0:32:05 > 0:32:09so I think the Prime Minister's letter was a sensible move.So you

0:32:09 > 0:32:13think there is a culture of sexual harassment in the House of commons?

0:32:13 > 0:32:20I have not been subjected to it or seen evidence of it, but obviously

0:32:20 > 0:32:23there is anxiety and allegations have made their way into the papers

0:32:23 > 0:32:27and they should be treated appropriately and properly

0:32:27 > 0:32:29investigated.Thank you for talking to us.

0:32:29 > 0:32:31Thank you for talking to us.

0:32:31 > 0:32:33Next week the Lord Speaker's committee publishes its final report

0:32:33 > 0:32:35into reducing the size of the House of Lords.

0:32:35 > 0:32:38With over 800 members the upper house is the second largest

0:32:38 > 0:32:40legislative chamber in the world after the National People's

0:32:40 > 0:32:41Congress of China.

0:32:41 > 0:32:44The report is expected to recommend that new peerages should be

0:32:44 > 0:32:47time-limited to 15 years and that in the future political peerage

0:32:47 > 0:32:51appointments will also be tied to a party's election performance.

0:32:51 > 0:32:54The government has been under pressure to take action to cut

0:32:54 > 0:32:57members of the unelected chamber, where they are entitled

0:32:57 > 0:33:01to claim an attendance allowance of £300 a day.

0:33:01 > 0:33:04And once again these expenses have been in the news.

0:33:04 > 0:33:07The Electoral Reform Society discovered that 16 peers had claimed

0:33:07 > 0:33:09around £400,000 without speaking in any debates or submitting any

0:33:09 > 0:33:13questions for an entire year.

0:33:13 > 0:33:16One of the Lords to be criticised was Digby Jones,

0:33:16 > 0:33:19the crossbencher and former trade minister, he hasn't spoken

0:33:19 > 0:33:22in the Lords since April 2016 and has voted only seven times

0:33:22 > 0:33:26during 2016 and 2017.

0:33:26 > 0:33:29Yet he has claimed around £15,000 in this period.

0:33:29 > 0:33:32When asked what he does in the House he said,

0:33:32 > 0:33:35"I go in and I will invite for lunch or meet with inward

0:33:35 > 0:33:36investors into the country.

0:33:36 > 0:33:39I fly the flag for Britain."

0:33:39 > 0:33:42Well, we can speak now to Lord Jones who joins us

0:33:42 > 0:33:46from Stratford Upon Avon.

0:33:46 > 0:33:51Thank you very much for talking to us. You provide value for money in

0:33:51 > 0:33:58the House of Lords do you think? Definitely. I am, by the way, very

0:33:58 > 0:34:03keen on reform. I want to see that 15 year tide. I would like to see a

0:34:03 > 0:34:08time limit, an age limit of 75 or 80. I would like attendants

0:34:08 > 0:34:13definitely define so the whole public understood what people are

0:34:13 > 0:34:19paying for and why. The £300, as a crossbencher I get no support, and

0:34:19 > 0:34:27nor do I want any, speech writing, secretarial assistance, none of

0:34:27 > 0:34:31that, and the £300 goes towards that.Whilst you are in there

0:34:31 > 0:34:36because we will talk about the reform of the Lords in general, but

0:34:36 > 0:34:40in terms of you yourself, you say you invite people in for lunch, is

0:34:40 > 0:34:43it not possible for you to take part in debates and votes and ask

0:34:43 > 0:34:49questions at the same time?Have you ever listened to a debate in the

0:34:49 > 0:35:01laws? Yes, many times.Yes, many times. You have to put your name

0:35:01 > 0:35:09down in advance and you have to be there for the whole debate.You have

0:35:09 > 0:35:13to be around when the vote is called and you do not know when the book is

0:35:13 > 0:35:17called, you have no idea when the boat is going to be called.This is

0:35:17 > 0:35:23part of being a member of the House of Lords and what it means. If you

0:35:23 > 0:35:26are not prepared to wait or take part in debates, why do you want to

0:35:26 > 0:35:31be a member? It is possible to resign from the House of Lords.

0:35:31 > 0:35:35There are many things members of the Lords do that does not relate to

0:35:35 > 0:35:40parrot fashion following somebody else, which I refuse to do, about

0:35:40 > 0:35:45speaking to an empty chamber, or indeed hanging on sometimes for

0:35:45 > 0:35:50hours to vote. There are many other things that you do. You quote me as

0:35:50 > 0:35:55saying I will entertain at lunchtime or show people around the House,

0:35:55 > 0:35:58everything from schoolchildren to inward investors. I will meet

0:35:58 > 0:36:01ministers about big business issues or educational issues, and at the

0:36:01 > 0:36:06same time I will meet other members of the Lords to get things moving.

0:36:06 > 0:36:10None of that relates to going into the House and getting on your hind

0:36:10 > 0:36:14legs, although I do go in and sit there and learn and listen to

0:36:14 > 0:36:21others, which, if more people would receive and not transmit, we might

0:36:21 > 0:36:24get a better informed society. At the same time many times I will go

0:36:24 > 0:36:29after I have listened and I am leaving and if I have not heard the

0:36:29 > 0:36:35debate, I will not vote.Voting is an essential part of being part of a

0:36:35 > 0:36:40legislative chamber. This is not just an executive committee, it is a

0:36:40 > 0:36:46legislature, surpassing that law is essential, is it not?Do you really

0:36:46 > 0:36:50believe that an MP or a member of the Lords who has not heard a moment

0:36:50 > 0:36:56of the debate, who is then listening to the Bell, walks in and does not

0:36:56 > 0:37:00know which lobby, the whips tell him, they have not heard the debate

0:37:00 > 0:37:05and they do not know what they are voting on and they go and do it?

0:37:05 > 0:37:11That is your democracy? Voting seems to be an essential part of this

0:37:11 > 0:37:15chamber, and you have your ideas about reforming the chamber. It

0:37:15 > 0:37:19sounds as though you would reform yourself out of it. You say people

0:37:19 > 0:37:23who are not voting and who are not taking part in debate should no

0:37:23 > 0:37:29longer be members of the House.I did not say that. I said we ought to

0:37:29 > 0:37:34redefine what attendance means and then if you do not attend on the new

0:37:34 > 0:37:38criteria, you do not have to come ever again, we will give you your

0:37:38 > 0:37:43wish. I agree attendance might mean unless you speak, you are going.

0:37:43 > 0:37:48Fair enough, if that is what is agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

0:37:48 > 0:37:54and sometimes I would not. If I did not, then off I go. Similarly after

0:37:54 > 0:38:0015 years, off you go. If you reach 75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

0:38:00 > 0:38:0692 members who are only there because of daddy.You are talking

0:38:06 > 0:38:09about hereditary peers. You would like to reduce the House to what

0:38:09 > 0:38:16kind of number?I would get it down to 400.You would get rid of half

0:38:16 > 0:38:19the peers there at the moment? You think you are active enough to

0:38:19 > 0:38:27remain as one of the 400?No, I said that might well include me. Let's

0:38:27 > 0:38:32get a set of criteria, let's push it through, because the laws is losing

0:38:32 > 0:38:36respect in the whole of the country because there are too many and all

0:38:36 > 0:38:40these things about what people pay for. I bet most people think the

0:38:40 > 0:38:45money you get is paid. It is not, it is re-funding for all the things you

0:38:45 > 0:38:50have to pay for yourself. But I understand how respect has been lost

0:38:50 > 0:38:55in society. Let's change it now. Let's get it through and then, yes,

0:38:55 > 0:39:00if you do not meet the criteria, you have got to go and that includes me.

0:39:00 > 0:39:02Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking to us.

0:39:02 > 0:39:05Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking to us.

0:39:05 > 0:39:07It's coming up to 11.40, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

0:39:07 > 0:39:10Coming up on the programme, we'll be talking to the former

0:39:10 > 0:39:13business minister and Conservative MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

0:39:13 > 0:39:14negotiations and claims of sexual harassment in Parliament.

0:39:19 > 0:39:23Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics Wales.

0:39:23 > 0:39:26Coming up in a few minutes, should builders be taxed if they buy

0:39:26 > 0:39:29land but don't build on it, and remember this man?

0:39:29 > 0:39:32Lord Baker of Inset days and other educational reforms tells us

0:39:32 > 0:39:41what Wales' schools and colleges could be doing better.

0:39:41 > 0:39:43But first what will trade from Wales look like after Brexit?

0:39:43 > 0:39:46We rely more heavily on the EU that the rest of the UK does,

0:39:46 > 0:39:49and manufacturing and agriculture could really suffer if tariffs

0:39:49 > 0:39:50are imposed on UK goods.

0:39:50 > 0:39:53The International Trade Secretary Liam Fox was here on Friday speaking

0:39:53 > 0:39:55to the dairy industry about how things might look.

0:39:55 > 0:39:57In a brief interview after that meeting, I asked him

0:39:57 > 0:40:01what message he'd given them.

0:40:01 > 0:40:07what message he'd given them.

0:40:07 > 0:40:07what message he'd given them.

0:40:12 > 0:40:15We have been discussing the opportunities for the United Kingdom

0:40:15 > 0:40:24in terms of global exports. It is a UK Department. I was very keen to

0:40:24 > 0:40:29talk to groups here in Wales about how we were offering help to all

0:40:29 > 0:40:34parts of the UK. As a country, we need to improve our trading

0:40:34 > 0:40:39performance quite a bit. We are actually exporting a smaller share

0:40:39 > 0:40:43of our national income than most other European countries. We need to

0:40:43 > 0:40:49improve that and we need to improve that whether or not we stayed in the

0:40:49 > 0:40:53European Union. We were talking about our global horizons. What are

0:40:53 > 0:40:56the reasons why British companies might not be exporting as much as

0:40:56 > 0:41:00others do and how can the government help remove some of those perceived

0:41:00 > 0:41:06barriers?When it comes to trade with European Union, businesses in

0:41:06 > 0:41:10Wales are more reliant on the EU than other parts of the UK. How much

0:41:10 > 0:41:17will that factor in your thinking? We want to maintain access to

0:41:17 > 0:41:20European markets, as we said, we want a full and comprehensive

0:41:20 > 0:41:24agreement with the European Union on trade. I would like that to maintain

0:41:24 > 0:41:30exactly the same sort of market access that we have today.That

0:41:30 > 0:41:35seems unlikely.The European Union has not yet begun to discuss with us

0:41:35 > 0:41:41what the trade arrangements will look like. Many of us are frustrated

0:41:41 > 0:41:44at the amount of time it is taking to get that conversation on the way.

0:41:44 > 0:41:48It is not just producers and investors, it is also global

0:41:48 > 0:41:51investors looking at Europe as a whole and they want to know what

0:41:51 > 0:41:54access Europe will get to the United Kingdom as part of that agreement

0:41:54 > 0:42:01but beyond that we also need as well as maximising our access, we need to

0:42:01 > 0:42:06maximise access to the market outside the EU itself. 90% of global

0:42:06 > 0:42:14growth in the next ten years will be outside Europe.As the UK leaves the

0:42:14 > 0:42:18European Union, you don't think that trade between Wales for example and

0:42:18 > 0:42:24the EU should be any less than it is now?Yes, we want to see a fully

0:42:24 > 0:42:26open Cobbler heads of agreement with European Union because that is in

0:42:26 > 0:42:34the interests of European consumers as well. If you think about it, the

0:42:34 > 0:42:37trade agreement we have with European Union is different to most

0:42:37 > 0:42:41agreements. In most trade negotiations, we would be a distance

0:42:41 > 0:42:45apart and trying to reduce it and get to a new status quo. In the

0:42:45 > 0:42:50European Union, we already have zero tariffs. The only thing that can

0:42:50 > 0:42:53happen is we stay the same or more slightly apart. We don't want to

0:42:53 > 0:42:58move apart.The problem is you are also aiming out to try and stop

0:42:58 > 0:43:07being such a Rose partner with the EU. Tariffs could come an issue.I

0:43:07 > 0:43:11don't think that is a problem. European Union has 40 trade

0:43:11 > 0:43:19agreements around the world that we are a party to already. Yes, we want

0:43:19 > 0:43:21to see greater trade liberalisation. We want to see global trade growing

0:43:21 > 0:43:29because it has been very slow in recent years.Just lastly, we have

0:43:29 > 0:43:33heard recently that the UK Government wants to involve the

0:43:33 > 0:43:35devolved administrations when you are looking at trade policy. What

0:43:35 > 0:43:41exactly do you mean by that?One of the discussions we are having today

0:43:41 > 0:43:47is how do we set out a consultation process as we move to new trade

0:43:47 > 0:43:51agreements that ensures that we get a four input from all parts of the

0:43:51 > 0:43:55United Kingdom, the nations and regions, and all the different

0:43:55 > 0:44:00sectors and all the different stakeholders. And one of the

0:44:00 > 0:44:03discussions we have been hanging round the country is how do we set

0:44:03 > 0:44:07that up and we want to get as wide a conversation on that as possible

0:44:07 > 0:44:11before we bring forward our proposals.

0:44:11 > 0:44:13Now should builders be taxed if they buy land

0:44:13 > 0:44:14but don't build on it?

0:44:14 > 0:44:17They've told this programme a lack of detail on a proposals

0:44:17 > 0:44:18could discourage investment.

0:44:18 > 0:44:21A "Vacant Land Tax" could be brought in by the Welsh Government to tackle

0:44:21 > 0:44:23so-called "land-banking", where developers and house builders

0:44:23 > 0:44:24buy land but don't then develop it.

0:44:24 > 0:44:27Our own Bob the Builder lookalike Carl Roberts has been

0:44:27 > 0:44:32to a site to find out more.

0:44:32 > 0:44:37to a site to find out more.

0:44:39 > 0:44:44The finishing touches are being made to the 55th and 56th and final home

0:44:44 > 0:44:50on this new housing estate. These new homes will contribute to the

0:44:50 > 0:44:567000 or so that are built every year in Wales. That figure is rising. But

0:44:56 > 0:45:00still falls way short of the estimated 12,000 that are needed to

0:45:00 > 0:45:04plug the gap between demand and supply. The Welsh Government says it

0:45:04 > 0:45:10is doing its bit to help close that gap. Earlier this month the

0:45:10 > 0:45:14government announced £340 million to support the building of 20,000

0:45:14 > 0:45:18affordable homes. Finance Secretary Mark Drakeford also announced a

0:45:18 > 0:45:22short list of four potential new Welsh taxes, one will be chosen by

0:45:22 > 0:45:25the Welsh Government to be put forward to ministers in London for

0:45:25 > 0:45:30approval. One of them is a vacant land tax but the building industry

0:45:30 > 0:45:36would like to see concrete proposals now. Details on a vacant land tax

0:45:36 > 0:45:40are vague and many within the building industry say that is

0:45:40 > 0:45:45causing some uncertainty. Now, the tax would likely focus on the issue

0:45:45 > 0:45:50of land banking and the accusation is that developers and

0:45:50 > 0:45:53house-builders accumulate large plots of land, clog up the system

0:45:53 > 0:45:58and halt the building of new homes. We definitely do not land bank in

0:45:58 > 0:46:04Wales. If a site isn't being built out after it has received a full

0:46:04 > 0:46:07implementable planning permission then something has gone wrong. And

0:46:07 > 0:46:11what we need to do is talk to the local authorities, talk to Welsh

0:46:11 > 0:46:15Government, about what it is that has gone wrong with that site.If

0:46:15 > 0:46:22land banking means not developing on land that has been granted

0:46:22 > 0:46:25permission shoot away, then it happens, then the reality is that

0:46:25 > 0:46:30they will only develop in accordance with what they will sell. You cannot

0:46:30 > 0:46:38expect them to be building houses they cannot sell. We build houses

0:46:38 > 0:46:42for people to live in. My definition is not developing a piece of land on

0:46:42 > 0:46:49purpose to drip feed the market. And we completely disagree with that.

0:46:49 > 0:46:56But we really need clarity on what industry and government mean by land

0:46:56 > 0:46:59banking.The Welsh Government told this programme that there are

0:46:59 > 0:47:03international examples of vacant land taxes being used to help

0:47:03 > 0:47:13address housing supply issues. 80% annual charge of the market price of

0:47:13 > 0:47:18the land is designed to force landowners and developers use it for

0:47:18 > 0:47:22housing and will come into force in Ireland next year. In June both the

0:47:22 > 0:47:26Federation of Master builders Cymru and the house-builders Federation

0:47:26 > 0:47:31launched a pact with the Welsh Government minister responsible for

0:47:31 > 0:47:35housing, Carl Sargeant, to help boost the supply of housing in Wales

0:47:35 > 0:47:39but both organisations have raised concerns at the introduction of a

0:47:39 > 0:47:45vacant land tax could undermine that Pat.We don't know any of the

0:47:45 > 0:47:49details yet. Until we know exactly what he was Clement are talking

0:47:49 > 0:47:51about, we can't respond to that detail but in general, something

0:47:51 > 0:47:56that taxes something that you are trying to stop or raise any money.

0:47:56 > 0:48:01It doesn't look like it is a good idea. With a national house-builder,

0:48:01 > 0:48:05you will have accommodation between investing in Wales and investing

0:48:05 > 0:48:09your money in England and if it is easier to build houses in England

0:48:09 > 0:48:12and get a return on your money then obviously people are going to make

0:48:12 > 0:48:19those choices.If the Welsh Government plan... If they plan on

0:48:19 > 0:48:24punishing that small builder for not developing that 20 homes that he

0:48:24 > 0:48:28cannot sell because of the economic downturn then ultimately that small

0:48:28 > 0:48:31house builder will just sell the land. Those houses that would have

0:48:31 > 0:48:36been built just all be built at all. I think we have to be really careful

0:48:36 > 0:48:43that we don't diss incentivise them from building. Rather than using a

0:48:43 > 0:48:49stick to beat them with, let's use carrots.I am not sure they will be

0:48:49 > 0:48:53digging up carrots here but in preparing the ground for new Welsh

0:48:53 > 0:48:56taxes, the government says it received over 300 responses from the

0:48:56 > 0:49:00public on new taxes after what it called a national debate over the

0:49:00 > 0:49:04summer. A vacant land tax and the three others being proposed will be

0:49:04 > 0:49:13built on unrefined over the coming months. -- and refined.

0:49:13 > 0:49:16One of the biggest reforms in Welsh education in decades,

0:49:16 > 0:49:18a new curriculum, will be taught in schools from 2022.

0:49:18 > 0:49:19It replaces the national curriculum established

0:49:19 > 0:49:21by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government 30 years ago.

0:49:21 > 0:49:25Well, the architect of that plan was Kenneth Baker - now Lord Baker.

0:49:25 > 0:49:27If, like me you went to school in the '80s you'd

0:49:27 > 0:49:30remember Baker Days, well you can thank him for those.

0:49:30 > 0:49:32He was recently in Wales to meet Kirsty Williams and compare notes.

0:49:32 > 0:49:42Our Education Correspondent Bethan Lewis went to meet him.

0:49:55 > 0:50:00Kenneth Baker, Mrs Thatcher 's new man in the education hot seat. Mrs

0:50:00 > 0:50:03Thatcher has chosen Kenneth Baker to be the new Education Secretary. He

0:50:03 > 0:50:07is regarded as one of the most skilful communicators in the

0:50:07 > 0:50:12government.It was 1986, the start of a three-year period of major

0:50:12 > 0:50:18reforms in education overseen by Kenneth Baker. He gave his name to

0:50:18 > 0:50:24Baker days, teacher training days in schools now known as inset days.

0:50:24 > 0:50:28Some of his innovations survived the transfer of responsibility of

0:50:28 > 0:50:33education to Welsh ministers a decade later and some didn't. School

0:50:33 > 0:50:39league tables were ditched in the early years of devolution.

0:50:39 > 0:50:42Extensively reformed stents, GCSEs and the core elements of the

0:50:42 > 0:50:48national curriculum remained. -- since. Virtually always in step

0:50:48 > 0:50:52with Margaret Thatcher when he was in her Cabinet, he has been critical

0:50:52 > 0:50:57of changes introduced by recent English education ministers and last

0:50:57 > 0:51:00month he met the Welsh Education Secretary Kirsty Williams in Cardiff

0:51:00 > 0:51:09Bay. What did you talk about, what did you discuss?She was interested

0:51:09 > 0:51:16in the curriculum. I said how we had to change the curriculum. I did say

0:51:16 > 0:51:20that I thought it was far too academic at the moment. I think that

0:51:20 > 0:51:23there should be many more different subjects under 16. Which is what I

0:51:23 > 0:51:27did with the original curriculum. Now they just concentrate on a

0:51:27 > 0:51:32narrow range of academic subjects. I don't think that is right.Did you

0:51:32 > 0:51:35get a sense that what I is happening in Wales, because there is a

0:51:35 > 0:51:38different curriculum being developed in Wales, that is more to your

0:51:38 > 0:51:46taste?I think it depends what you do with that period and when you...

0:51:46 > 0:51:50What ages you introduce certain thing. If you do that, around about

0:51:50 > 0:51:55the age of 13, 14, you have a much more technical education. And I

0:51:55 > 0:52:01think that is what she should extend up to 18. You will see a pathway

0:52:01 > 0:52:05going from 13 and 14 to get good results at 16 and even higher

0:52:05 > 0:52:09qualifications.In recent years he has been a vocal campaigner in

0:52:09 > 0:52:13favour of expanding vocational education and boosting its status.

0:52:13 > 0:52:22Every attempt to improve it since 1870 has failed because they have

0:52:22 > 0:52:28usually been killed by snobbery. The thing that is buoyed up with the

0:52:28 > 0:52:32Welsh education system and the English education system has always

0:52:32 > 0:52:39been a large amount of unskilled jobs. The only time a human hand is

0:52:39 > 0:52:42likely to have touched something you have ordered is when someone knocks

0:52:42 > 0:52:47on your door and says we have got a delivery. It is all done by

0:52:47 > 0:52:50computers and digital technique. There will be far fewer unskilled

0:52:50 > 0:52:54jobs of that sort. What are these youngsters going to do? You have to

0:52:54 > 0:52:59give them a different range of skills. Not just the exam subjects.

0:52:59 > 0:53:03But to train them to make things with their hands. To have experience

0:53:03 > 0:53:08of working as teams on projects brought in by businesses to their

0:53:08 > 0:53:12schools.And engage in problem-solving. He is behind the

0:53:12 > 0:53:17university technical colleges, academies for 14-19 -year-olds in

0:53:17 > 0:53:20England. Some questioned their success but Lord Baker is proud of

0:53:20 > 0:53:24the employment record of their students. These are academies, as

0:53:24 > 0:53:29you said. Is there scope for something similar in Wales?I would

0:53:29 > 0:53:36have thought so. If that is the policy of the government, I don't

0:53:36 > 0:53:39think it will change. And that is a pity because academies are quite a

0:53:39 > 0:53:45good idea. The local authority does not lose control in any sort of way.

0:53:45 > 0:53:48But I have spoken to the Vice Chancellor of Cardiff University and

0:53:48 > 0:53:54he knows about them and he likes them and he would like to create

0:53:54 > 0:54:01possibly an institution in his own area in the university from 14-18,

0:54:01 > 0:54:0419, call it a university technical college or whatever you will. But

0:54:04 > 0:54:08start much earlier and the university would take an interest in

0:54:08 > 0:54:13it.We are different to the English counties. We want to get our aims of

0:54:13 > 0:54:19the ground. What are you going to do about it?Back in the late 1980s,

0:54:19 > 0:54:23Kenneth Baker faced the wrath of some Welsh school teachers. These

0:54:23 > 0:54:28days his focuses mainly on the English system. He spent his early

0:54:28 > 0:54:31years is in Newport but observations on the new Welsh curriculum are now

0:54:31 > 0:54:36largely made from afar.There is good to be a big drive on Digital

0:54:36 > 0:54:40skills, there is no question about that. I would place that at the

0:54:40 > 0:54:44heart of any new curriculum.What about the practicalities of

0:54:44 > 0:54:49introducing such a major change in education? I am sure you have found

0:54:49 > 0:54:54it challenging in terms of changing the culture may be within schools

0:54:54 > 0:54:58and the practicalities of introducing a national curriculum.

0:54:58 > 0:55:03What sort of challenges is she likely to face in that regard?I did

0:55:03 > 0:55:06change virtually everything in education. I made schools

0:55:06 > 0:55:12independent and gave them their own budgets to run. And if a government

0:55:12 > 0:55:17knows that it wants to do, it can get through changes. It must take

0:55:17 > 0:55:24the parents with them, the teachers with them.Despite the major changes

0:55:24 > 0:55:29since, that advice is probably as relevant now as it was in the 1980s.

0:55:29 > 0:55:32In two days' time, we'll have the latest chapter in a long

0:55:32 > 0:55:34running saga called House of Lords reform with yet another report

0:55:34 > 0:55:36on how it should be altered.

0:55:36 > 0:55:39Many have tried to tackle the issue; all, in the last 20 years

0:55:39 > 0:55:40anyway, have failed.

0:55:40 > 0:55:42So what, if anything needs to be done about

0:55:42 > 0:55:43the 800-plus Lords a leaping?

0:55:43 > 0:55:53Jess Blair is from the Electoral Reform Society and is with me now.

0:55:55 > 0:56:00What needs to be done? What is the main problem you have with the House

0:56:00 > 0:56:04of Lords as it is at the moment?The central problem around Hawaii the

0:56:04 > 0:56:07House of Lords is failing is the fact that lords are not elected and

0:56:07 > 0:56:12cannot be held accountable for their actions. We have seen 114 lords not

0:56:12 > 0:56:21speak at all in the last year and claim £1.3 million in expenses.OK,

0:56:21 > 0:56:24isn't there the point to be made the fact that they are pointed rather

0:56:24 > 0:56:28than elected means that what you get is a body of experts because the

0:56:28 > 0:56:34House of Lords' point is to revise and see how legislation has been

0:56:34 > 0:56:40drawn up by MPs? Isn't that decades of expertise will accrue expertise

0:56:40 > 0:56:46that they bring in?Largely, they are former politicians. David

0:56:46 > 0:56:50Cameron introduced more lords in 2010. They are not necessarily all

0:56:50 > 0:56:56experts and if they are not doing their job in holding... Scrutinising

0:56:56 > 0:57:01what the element is doing then what are they doing there?If we had an

0:57:01 > 0:57:04elected House of Lords, there is a danger that you would not have

0:57:04 > 0:57:08expert at all wanting to go in because who wants to go through an

0:57:08 > 0:57:12election and maybe be kicked out? By having those experts there, that is

0:57:12 > 0:57:18a strong point. You would just have another set of MPs with elections.

0:57:18 > 0:57:24We are one of the only nations in the world that do not have an

0:57:24 > 0:57:30elected second chamber. Ultimately I think the public should be trusted

0:57:30 > 0:57:40with this decision.Do you think the public care?Yes, I think so. The

0:57:40 > 0:57:43second chamber has a crucial role. Representing the nations and regions

0:57:43 > 0:57:49across the UK.You say that people care. Lords reform, I think Lloyd

0:57:49 > 0:57:55George started this over 100 years ago and yet there it is, very little

0:57:55 > 0:57:58has changed. They're clearly isn't that much of an appetite to change

0:57:58 > 0:58:02it or else it probably would have been done by now.Really the

0:58:02 > 0:58:08expenses scandal is that, a scandal. We don't hold on a flight on what is

0:58:08 > 0:58:12going on in the Lords at the moment. At a time when public services are

0:58:12 > 0:58:19more strain, I don't understand how it's fair that they can claim £1.3

0:58:19 > 0:58:27million in expenses for doing nothing.There are some leaks to the

0:58:27 > 0:58:31newspapers this morning. Time-limited peers. In future, any

0:58:31 > 0:58:35new peers would not be able to sit for more than 15 years. That is

0:58:35 > 0:58:39short of what you want to see but would that be a good idea?It should

0:58:39 > 0:58:44be part of a package but ultimately from the leaks we have seen so far,

0:58:44 > 0:58:48the proposals will only reduce the house by about 200. We should have a

0:58:48 > 0:58:55300 member elected second chamber. Why so few? At the moment there are

0:58:55 > 0:58:58800. The leaks today would suggest there should be fewer than there are

0:58:58 > 0:59:05MPs.At the moment, we have the second largest second chamber in the

0:59:05 > 0:59:09world after China, which frankly isn't great. And 300 is about

0:59:09 > 0:59:13proportional with what other nations have.Going back to that point about

0:59:13 > 0:59:18the expertise, how do you get over that? You do have world leading

0:59:18 > 0:59:22experts in their field sitting in the House of Lords and they can look

0:59:22 > 0:59:26over this subject, that subject, and say it should be altered in that

0:59:26 > 0:59:29way.I think lords that do their jobs properly would win elections

0:59:29 > 0:59:36ultimately.But would they stand, that is the problem.It is a problem

0:59:36 > 0:59:39but I think we are the exception to the rule and they stand in other

0:59:39 > 0:59:45nations and that is not a problem. Looking at Wales, 60 Assembly

0:59:45 > 0:59:50Members at the moment. Does there need to be a second chamber there,

0:59:50 > 0:59:57revising what the legislation drawn up by the Assembly Members are?I

0:59:57 > 0:59:59think ultimately the assembly needs to be bigger and that is the first

0:59:59 > 1:00:03thing. Citizens and members of the public to have a role in

1:00:03 > 1:00:08scrutinising the assembly and making sure that what is going through is

1:00:08 > 1:00:13effective. And I think models like citizens assemblies that we have

1:00:13 > 1:00:16been trialling in Manchester, we did an assembly on Brexit, they can be

1:00:16 > 1:00:23useful.How does that work?We basically polled a number of people

1:00:23 > 1:00:27across the UK, filed a representative sample of around 52

1:00:27 > 1:00:32members, gave them impartial information on Brexit and let them

1:00:32 > 1:00:36make a decision on what recommendations they should make to

1:00:36 > 1:00:42the UK Government.It is very concerned, people have got jobs, got

1:00:42 > 1:00:47kids, they have got to go shopping, do people want to be involved in

1:00:47 > 1:00:50making those decisions as well? Do they want to leave that to the

1:00:50 > 1:00:56elected politicians?I think there is a huge appetite. When we invited

1:00:56 > 1:01:00them, every single person came along. In Ireland, they have had

1:01:00 > 1:01:05this debate around abortion and that has led to a referendum taking place

1:01:05 > 1:01:08next year. There is clearly an appetite and an impact that people

1:01:08 > 1:01:13can have on politics.You said about the Assembly Members, there should

1:01:13 > 1:01:16be more of them, we know that there is a report being written, and

1:01:16 > 1:01:20enquiry looking at it once again. Where would you come down in terms

1:01:20 > 1:01:27of numbers? How many do you think from the 60 at the moment of?We

1:01:27 > 1:01:33said around 100 B-eat would be around right. We need to look that

1:01:33 > 1:01:38any increase we can see and I think it is really vital.We have had

1:01:38 > 1:01:41quite a lot of Assembly Members come in and say that but nobody will give

1:01:41 > 1:01:45us a number. Why not?There is a panel looking at this at the moment

1:01:45 > 1:01:48and we will wait to see what the recommendations are. I think an

1:01:48 > 1:01:56increase of another 50% could have a really valuable impact. We know that

1:01:56 > 1:01:58committees are under strain and legislation is not the best it could

1:01:58 > 1:02:02be.That is another debate for another day. Thank you very much.

1:02:02 > 1:02:04That's it from me for this week.

1:02:04 > 1:02:07Don't forget about our new monthly debate programme, The Hour,

1:02:07 > 1:02:09beginning tomorrow night at 10:40 here on BBC One Wales.

1:02:09 > 1:02:11But for now that's all from me, diolch am wylio,

1:02:11 > 1:02:12thanks for watching.

1:02:12 > 1:02:16Time to go back to Sarah.

1:02:17 > 1:02:21With that, it's back to Sarah.

1:02:21 > 1:02:26With that, it's back to Sarah.

1:02:26 > 1:02:28Now, the much anticipated EU Withdrawal Bill,

1:02:28 > 1:02:32which will transfer EU law into UK law in preparation for Brexit,

1:02:32 > 1:02:36is expected to be debated by MPs later next month.

1:02:36 > 1:02:39Critics have called it a "power grab" as it introduces so-called

1:02:39 > 1:02:42Henry VIII powers for Whitehall to amend some laws without

1:02:42 > 1:02:46consulting parliament, and it faces fierce resistance

1:02:46 > 1:02:50from opposition parties as well as many on the government's

1:02:50 > 1:02:54own backbenches, with 300 amendments and 54 new clauses tabled on it.

1:02:54 > 1:02:58We're joined now by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry who has been a strong

1:02:58 > 1:03:02critic of the legislation.

1:03:02 > 1:03:07Thank you very much for joining us. Before we talk about the withdrawal

1:03:07 > 1:03:11bill, I would like to bring up with you that the Prime Minister has just

1:03:11 > 1:03:15sent a letter to the Commons Speaker John Bercow asking for an

1:03:15 > 1:03:20independent body to be established to investigate claims of sexual

1:03:20 > 1:03:24harassment in Parliament. What are your thoughts on that?A very good

1:03:24 > 1:03:29idea, sounds like a great deal of common sense. I had already this

1:03:29 > 1:03:32morning sent a request to the speaker asking for an urgent

1:03:32 > 1:03:36statement from the Leader of the House as to what could now be done

1:03:36 > 1:03:42to make sure that any complaints actually against anybody working in

1:03:42 > 1:03:45Parliament, to extend the protections that workers throughout

1:03:45 > 1:03:49the rest of businesses and in other workplaces have, they should now be

1:03:49 > 1:03:53extended into Parliament and asking for an urgent statement from the

1:03:53 > 1:03:58leader. Clearly the PM is well onto this and it is a good idea. We have

1:03:58 > 1:04:02to make sure everybody who works in Parliament enjoys exactly the same

1:04:02 > 1:04:07protections as other workers, so I welcome this.This should maybe have

1:04:07 > 1:04:12happened a long time ago. We hear stories of harassment that has been

1:04:12 > 1:04:15going on for decades, but until now it has been difficult to work out

1:04:15 > 1:04:21who you could complain to about it. It is my understanding that my Chief

1:04:21 > 1:04:25Whip and the previous deputy Chief Whip, and Milton, shared that view

1:04:25 > 1:04:30and have shared that view for some time but found it difficult to get

1:04:30 > 1:04:34all the agreement necessary. Anyway, we are where we are and we are

1:04:34 > 1:04:45making that progress, but

1:04:47 > 1:04:49my Chief Whip and the previous deputy Chief Whip wanted this done

1:04:49 > 1:04:51some time ago.That is an interesting point. Let's move on to

1:04:51 > 1:04:53the much anticipated EU withdrawal bill which will finally be debated.

1:04:53 > 1:04:56You have put your name to an amendment which is calling for a

1:04:56 > 1:04:59vote on the final agreement in essence, do you really believe that

1:04:59 > 1:05:03that will be a meaningful both offered to the Commons?Yes, if you

1:05:03 > 1:05:08look at the terms of the amendment, it would deliver exactly that. It

1:05:08 > 1:05:13would give members of Parliament the opportunity to debated and voted on

1:05:13 > 1:05:17it. It would be an effective piece of legislation and would go through

1:05:17 > 1:05:22both houses and should be done. One of the problems with this process is

1:05:22 > 1:05:26that Parliament has been excluded from the sort of debate and

1:05:26 > 1:05:31decisions that would have enabled the government to move forward in

1:05:31 > 1:05:41progress and form a consensus so we get the very best Brexit deal.We

1:05:41 > 1:05:44have been excluded, that has been wrong in my view, but by the end we

1:05:44 > 1:05:46should not be excluded. The government have made it clear that

1:05:46 > 1:05:49whilst there may well be a boat if you win on this amendment, it will

1:05:49 > 1:05:54be a take it or leave it vote. This is a deal you should accept, or

1:05:54 > 1:06:01there will be no deal.If you look at the amendment we put forward

1:06:01 > 1:06:04there will be other alternatives. This is all hypothetical because we

1:06:04 > 1:06:08want a good deal and it is difficult to see that the government would not

1:06:08 > 1:06:14bring a good deal to the House in any event. But this is hypothetical,

1:06:14 > 1:06:19it would mean Parliament would say to government, go back and seek an

1:06:19 > 1:06:25extension as we know it is there in Article 50. It is perfectly possible

1:06:25 > 1:06:29with the agreement of the other members of the EU to seek an

1:06:29 > 1:06:33extension so we continue the negotiations and we get a deal that

1:06:33 > 1:06:37is good for our country. It keeps all options open and that is the

1:06:37 > 1:06:42most important thing.How many Conservative MPs really would take

1:06:42 > 1:06:47that option in those circumstances? It is only if you get enough votes

1:06:47 > 1:06:50that you would be able to ask the government to go back and

1:06:50 > 1:07:00re-negotiate.

1:07:03 > 1:07:07Have you for that?For give me, but you are jumping way down the line. I

1:07:07 > 1:07:09am talking about an amendment that keeps the options open. I am not

1:07:09 > 1:07:12speculating as to what would happen, I am not going there, it is far too

1:07:12 > 1:07:16speculative. Let's get this bill in good shape. The principle of this

1:07:16 > 1:07:21bill is right and we need to put into British domestic law existing

1:07:21 > 1:07:26EU laws and regulations into our substantive law. We all agree that

1:07:26 > 1:07:32must happen. It is the means by which we do it that causes problems

1:07:32 > 1:07:38and we have this argument and debate about what we call the endgame.I am

1:07:38 > 1:07:41sure we will talk about this many more times before we get to that

1:07:41 > 1:07:47vote. I will turn to our panel of political experts. Listening to the

1:07:47 > 1:07:53tone of what the remainders are trying to achieve with the EU

1:07:53 > 1:07:58withdrawal bill, will be achieved? You can hear that tussled there,

1:07:58 > 1:08:03they want the maximum space and room for Parliament to have a say. But

1:08:03 > 1:08:09they have to be careful. The reason is that clock is ticking and if you

1:08:09 > 1:08:15have a situation which may seem to be more interested in finding

1:08:15 > 1:08:19different things to object to and saying no to, it is not getting a

1:08:19 > 1:08:23good deal and it does not look good for the remainders in this argument

1:08:23 > 1:08:28and they will have to come through with their proposals. I do not mind

1:08:28 > 1:08:31Parliament saying it should have a big say, but what do you do if

1:08:31 > 1:08:37Parliament says this is not good enough? The government must simply

1:08:37 > 1:08:43say, I am sorry we have run out of time. The 27 will say they cannot be

1:08:43 > 1:08:47bothered to have another round either. They have to be strong, but

1:08:47 > 1:08:52realistic about what their role in this is.Do you think the people

1:08:52 > 1:08:56putting this amendment who say they want a binding vote in parliament

1:08:56 > 1:09:00are doing it because they think Parliament should have a say or

1:09:00 > 1:09:05because they want to obstruct it? They do not think people should have

1:09:05 > 1:09:09a say in the first place, they think people got it wrong, so they need

1:09:09 > 1:09:17more clever people than the voters to have final say.Or they believed

1:09:17 > 1:09:20taking back control means Parliament should have the final say.

1:09:20 > 1:09:23Parliament said they would like to give that decision back to the

1:09:23 > 1:09:29people. This is the issue. It seems to me that people like Anna Soubry

1:09:29 > 1:09:33are trying to delay of the transition period a bit longer.

1:09:33 > 1:09:38These negotiations will take as long as they have got. The EU will take

1:09:38 > 1:09:46it to the wire and if we do not get a decent deal, and one of the

1:09:46 > 1:09:49reasons is the level of incompetence on this government's part I have to

1:09:49 > 1:09:54say and the other one will be the people who want to remain

1:09:54 > 1:10:00undermining them. They undermined the government at every single stage

1:10:00 > 1:10:04and they undermine Britain's interests.It is the timing of all

1:10:04 > 1:10:07of this that is crucial and whether the government can get a deal in

1:10:07 > 1:10:13time.There will be a meaningful vote, whether it is an shined in

1:10:13 > 1:10:18legislation or not, there cannot be an historic development as big as

1:10:18 > 1:10:24this without Parliament having a meaningful vote. I meaningful,

1:10:24 > 1:10:28having the power to either stop it or endorse it. You cannot have a

1:10:28 > 1:10:31government doing something like this with no vote in the House of

1:10:31 > 1:10:38commons. When you say it will go to the last minute I completely agree,

1:10:38 > 1:10:43but last-minute in reality means next summer. It has got to get

1:10:43 > 1:10:46through the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament and quite

1:10:46 > 1:10:53a few others as well.The trouble with invoking Parliament is if it is

1:10:53 > 1:10:58driven solely by remain, I would love to say what people in the

1:10:58 > 1:11:05league side think. I disagree with Julia, I do not think you could say

1:11:05 > 1:11:09people had their say and the terms with which we leave are left open

1:11:09 > 1:11:13and only the government should have a say in it, Parliament clearly

1:11:13 > 1:11:21should have a say in it.Do we want a good deal or not?It does not mean

1:11:21 > 1:11:27anything if you do not do it by next summer I suggest.Does that leave

1:11:27 > 1:11:31Parliament any room for changing the deal or is it simply take it or

1:11:31 > 1:11:36leave it?It will have to have that rule because it cannot simply be

1:11:36 > 1:11:39another of these binary votes were you accept the deal or no Deal.

1:11:39 > 1:11:46There has to be some space.How can a few MPs in the House of Commons

1:11:46 > 1:11:51change a deal that has been agreed by the member states?Because of the

1:11:51 > 1:11:56sequence, a huge if by the way, if they vote down the deal that the

1:11:56 > 1:12:00government has negotiated, the government will have to re-negotiate

1:12:00 > 1:12:04or there will have to be an election. This will be a moment of

1:12:04 > 1:12:06huge crisis, our government not getting through its much topped

1:12:06 > 1:12:16about...It is a mini Catalonia.I think it would be as big as

1:12:16 > 1:12:19Catalonia, but with the implication that there would have to be a

1:12:19 > 1:12:22practical change in the deal because if Parliament has not supported

1:12:22 > 1:12:28it...It is a remain fantasy that this deal can be put off and off

1:12:28 > 1:12:32until they get something that is as close to remaining as they can

1:12:32 > 1:12:37possibly get. I am very much for trying to get the best and avoiding

1:12:37 > 1:12:44the worst, but there is an unreality to that position if you keep trying

1:12:44 > 1:12:50to do it again and again, at some point people will want clarity.I

1:12:50 > 1:12:55labour putting forward a realistic proposition?I thought Hilary Benn

1:12:55 > 1:13:00was very realistic this morning, I wish he was more in the driving seat

1:13:00 > 1:13:05of Labour policy. He made clear where he disagreed and he made clear

1:13:05 > 1:13:08where he thought the negotiations had gone off track or were bogged

1:13:08 > 1:13:16down. I worry a bit about the Labour position being incoherent, but that

1:13:16 > 1:13:20is kept that way by the present leadership because as far as they

1:13:20 > 1:13:24are concerned the government is suffering enough, why should they

1:13:24 > 1:13:29have a position? Hilary Benn said we needed to have clarity about the

1:13:29 > 1:13:33timetable. It is like reading an insurance contract and finding the

1:13:33 > 1:13:36bit where you might get away with it. That is not a policy.

1:13:36 > 1:13:39That is not a policy.

1:13:39 > 1:13:40That's all for today.

1:13:40 > 1:13:42Join me again next Sunday at 11 here on BBC One.

1:13:42 > 1:13:47Until then, bye bye.

1:13:47 > 1:13:51Until then, bye bye.