Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Gavin Barwell MP, Charles Grant and Henry Newman.
Browse content similar to 05/02/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
Theresa May pledged to help people who are "just about managing",
and this week her government will announce new measures to boost
the number of affordable homes and improve conditions for renters.
After a US court suspends Donald Trump's travel ban and rules
it could be unconstitutional, one of the President's inner circle
tells me there is no "chaos", and that Donald Trump's White House
is making good on his campaign promises.
As the Government gets into gear for two years
of Brexit negotiations, we report on the haggling to come
over the UK's Brexit bill for leaving the European Union -
and the costs and savings once we've left.
And with me, as always, a trio of top political
journalists - Helen Lewis, Tom Newton Dunn
They'll be tweeting throughout the programme,
So, more anguish to come this week for the Labour party as the House
of Commons continues to debate the bill which paves the way
Last week, Labour split over the Article 50 bill,
with a fifth of Labour MPs defying Jeremy Corbyn to vote against.
Five shadow ministers resigned, and it's expected Mr Corbyn
will have to sack more frontbenchers once the bill is voted
Add to that the fact that the Labour Leader's close ally
Diane Abbot failed to turn up for the initial vote -
blaming illness - and things don't look too rosy
The Shadow Foreign Secretary Emily Thornberry was asked
about the situation earlier on the Andrew Marr show.
The Labour Party is a national party and we represent the nation,
and the nation is divided on this, and it is very difficult.
Many MPs representing majority Remain constituencies have this very
difficult balancing act between - do I represent my constituency,
Labour, as a national party, have a clear view.
We fought to stay in Europe, but the public have spoken,
But the important thing now is not to give Theresa May a blank check,
we have to make sure we get the right deal for the country.
That was Emily Thornberry. Helen, is this like a form of Chinese water
torture for the Labour Party? And for journalists, to! We are in a
situation where no one really thinks it's working. A lot of authority has
drained away from Jeremy Corbyn but no one can do anything about it.
What we saw from the leadership contest is on the idea of a Blairite
plot to get rid of him. You are essentially stuck in stasis. The
only person that can remove Jeremy Corbyn is God or Jeremy Corbyn.
Authority may have moved from Mr Corbyn but it's not going anywhere
else, there's not an alternative centre of authority? Not quite, but
Clive Lewis is name emerging, the Shadow Business Secretary. A lot of
the Labour left, people like Paul Mason, really like him and would
like to see him in Corbyn. I think that's why Jeremy Corbyn do
something extraordinary next week and abstain from Article 50, the
main bill itself, to keep his Shadow Cabinet together. That clip on
Andrew Marr, point blank refusing to say if Labour will vote for Article
50. The only way Jeremy Corbyn can hold this mess together now is to
abstain, which would be catastrophic across Brexit constituencies in the
North. The problem with abstention is everyone will say on the issue of
our time, the official opposition hasn't got coherent or considered
policy? I love the way Emily Thornberry said the country is
divided and we represent the country, in other words we are
divided at the party as well. The other thing that was a crucial
moment this week is the debate over whether there should be a so-called
meaningful vote by MPs on the deal that Theresa May gets. That is a
point of real danger for Brexit supporters. It may well be there is
a coalition of Labour and SNP and Remain MPs, Tory MPs, who vote for
that so-called meaningful vote that could undermine Theresa May's
negotiation. So Theresa May could have had troubles as well, not plain
sailing for her? There is no point, apart from lonely Ken Clarke voting
against Article 50, no point in Tory remainders rebelling. It would have
been a token gesture with no support. But there might be
meaningful amendments. One might be on the status of EU nationals... The
government could lose that. There might be a majority for some of
those amendments. The ins and outs of the Labour Party, it fascinates
the Labour Party and journalists. I suspect the country has just moved
on and doesn't care. You are probably quite right. To be honest I
struggled to get Labour split stories in my paper any more, the
bar is so high to make it news. Where it does matter is now not
everyone will pay huge amounts to the -- of attention to the vote on
Wednesday. But come the general election in 2020, maybe a little
earlier, every Tory leaflet and every labour constituency will say
this guy, this goal, they refuse to vote for Brexit, do you want them in
power? That is going to be really hard for them. The story next week
may be Tory splits rather than just Labour ones, we will see.
Theresa May has made a big deal out of her commitment to help people
on middle incomes who are "just about managing", and early this week
we should get a good sense of what that means in practice -
when plans to bring down the cost of housing and protect renters
are published in the Government's new white paper.
Theresa May has promised she'll kick off Brexit negotiations with the EU
by the end of March, and after months of shadow-boxing
Ellie Price reports on the battle to come over the UK's Brexit bill,
and the likely costs and savings once we've left.
It was the figure that defined the EU referendum campaign.
It was also a figure that was fiercely disputed, but the promise -
vote leave and Britain won't have to pay into the EU are any more.
So, is that what's going to happen now?
The trouble with buses is you tend to have to wait for them
and when Theresa May triggers Article 50, the clock starts
She needs something quicker, something more sporty.
According to the most recent Treasury figures,
Britain's gross contribution to the EU, after the rebate
is taken into account, is about ?14 billion a year.
There are some complicating factors that means it can go up
or down year on year, but that's roughly how much the UK
will no longer sending to Brussels post-Brexit.
But, there are other payments that Britain will have to shell out for.
First and foremost, the so-called divorce settlement.
It is being said, and openly by Commissioner Barnier
and others in the Commission, that the total financial liability
as they see it might be in the order of 40-60 billion
The BBC understands the figure EU negotiators are likely
to settle on is far lower, around 34 billion euros,
but what does the money they are going to argue
Well, that's how much Britain owes for stuff in the EU budget that's
already signed up for until 2020, one year after we are
Historically, Britain pays 12% in contributions,
so the cost to the UK is likely to be between ten
Then they will look at the 200-250 billion euros of underfunded
spending commitments, the so-called RAL.
Britain could also be liable for around 5-7 billion euros
for its share in the pensions bill for EU staff, that's again
12% of an overall bill of 50-60 billion.
Finally there's a share of our assets held by the EU.
They include things like this building, the European Commission
Britain could argue it deserves a share back of around 18 billion
euros from a portfolio that's said to be worth 153 billion euros.
So, lots for the two sides to discuss in two years of talks.
They have a great opportunity with the Article 50 talks
because actually they can hold us to ransom.
They can say, "You figure out money, we will talk about your trade.
But until you've figured out the money, we won't," so I think
a lot of European states think they are in a very strong
negotiating position at the moment and they intend to make
The principle is clear, the days of Britain making vast
contributions to the European Union every year will end.
Theresa May has already indicated that she would want to sign back up
to a number of EU agencies on a program-by-program basis.
The Europol for example, that's the European crime
agency, or Erasmus Plus, which wants student exchanges.
If everything stays the same as it is now, it would cost the UK
675 million euros a year, based on analysis by
But there are likely to be agencies we don't choose to participate in.
If we only opted back to those dealing with security,
trade, universities and, say, climate change,
it could come with a price tag of 370 million euros per year.
Of course that's if our European neighbours allow us.
I wonder if they're going to let me in!
There will also be a cost to creating a new system to resolve
trade disputes with other nations once we are no longer part
Take the EFTA Court which rules on disputes
between the EU and Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein.
That costs 4 million euros to run each year,
though in the Brexit White Paper published this week,
the Government said it will not be constrained by precedent
Finally, would the EU get behind the idea of Britain making some
contribution for some preferential access to its market?
The sort of thing that Theresa May seems to be hinting
at are sectoral arrangements, some kind of partial membership
Switzerland, which has a far less wide-ranging deal than Norway,
pays about 320 million a year for what it gets into the EU budget,
but it's not exactly the Swiss deal that we're after.
The EU institutions hate the Swiss deal because it is codified
in a huge number of treaties that are messy, complicated
and cumbersome, and they really don't want to replicate
Theresa May has been at pains to insist she's in the driving seat
when it comes to these negotiations, and that she's
But with so much money up for discussion, it may not be such
Sadly she didn't get to keep the car!
And I've been joined to discuss the Brexit balance sheet
by the director of the Centre for European Reform, Charles Grant,
and by Henry Newman who runs the think tank Open Europe.
Henry Newman, these figures that are being thrown about in Brussels at
the moment, and exit bill of 40-60,000,000,000. What do you make
of them? I think it is an opening gambit from the institutions and we
should take them seriously. We listened to Mr Rogers, the former
ambassador to Brussels in the House of Commons last week, speaking about
the sort of positions the EU is likely to take in the negotiation. I
personally think the Prime Minister should be more concerned about
getting the right sort of trade arrangements, subsequent to our
departure, than worrying about the exact detail of the divorce
settlement and the Bill. They might not let them go on to trade until
they resolve this matter. Where does the Brexit bill, the cost of exit,
if there is to be one, in terms of a sum of money, where does that come
in the negotiations, upfront or at the end? The European Commission has
a firm line on this. You have to talk about the Brexit bill and the
divorce settlement before you talk about the future relationship.
Therefore they are saying if you don't sign up for 60 billion or
thereabouts, we won't talk about the future. Other member states take a
softer line than that and think you probably have to talk about the
divorce settlement and Brexit bill as the same -- at the same time as
the economic situation. If you can do both at the same time, the
atmosphere may be better natured. You have spoken to people in
Brussels and are part of a think tank, how Revista gives the figure
or is it an opening gambit? Most member states and EU institutions
believe they think it is the true figure but when the negotiations
start adding the number will come down. As long as the British are
prepared to sign up to the principle of we owe you a bit of money, as the
cheque, then people will compromise. What is the ballpark? You had a
figure of 34 billion, that is news to me, nobody knows because
negotiations haven't started but I think something lower than 60. Even
60 would be politically toxic for a British government? I think Theresa
May is in a strong position, she has united the Conservative Party. You
could expect coming into this year all the Conservative divisions would
be laid bare by Gina Miller. But she is leading a united party. Labour
Party are divided... Coogee get away with paying 30 billion? We should
give her the benefit of the doubt going into these negotiations, let
her keep her cards close to her chest. The speech he gave a few
weeks ago at Lancaster House, our judgment was she laid out as much
detail as we could have expected at that point. I don't think it's
helpful for us now to say, we shouldn't be introducing further red
line. I want you to be helpful and find things out. I would suggest if
there is a bill, let's say it's 30 billion, let's make it half of what
the current claims coming out of Brussels. And of course it won't
have to be paid in one year, I assume it's not one cheque but
spread over. But we will wait a long time for that 350 million a week or
what ever it was that was meant to come from Brussels to spend on the
NHS. That's not going to happen for the next five, six or seven years.
Everyone has been clear there will be a phased exit programme. The
question of whether something is political possible for her in terms
of the divorce settlement will depend on what she gets from the
European Union in those negotiations. If she ends up
settling for a bill of about 30 billion which I think would be
politically... No matter how popular she is, politically very difficult
for her, it does kill any idea there is a Brexit dividend for Britain.
Some of the senior officials in London and Brussels are worried this
issue could crash the talks because it may be possible for Theresa May
to accept a Brexit bill of 30 billion and if there is no deal and
will leave EU without a settlement, there is massive legal uncertainty.
What contract law applies? Can our planes take off from Heathrow?
Nobody knows what legal rights there are for an EU citizen living here
and vice versa. If there is no deal at the end of two years, it is quite
bad for the European economy, therefore they think they have all
the cards to play and they think if it is mishandled domestically in
Britain than we have a crash. But there will be competing interests in
Europe, the Baltic states, Eastern Europe, maybe quite similar of the
Nordic states, that in turn different from the French, Germans
or Italians. How will Europe come to a common view on these things? At
the moment they are quite united backing a strong line, except for
the polls and Hungarians who are the bad boys of Europe and the Irish who
will do anything to keep us happy. We should remember their priority is
not economics, they are not thinking how can they maximise trade with the
UK, they are under threat. The combination of Trump and Brexit
scares them. They want to keep the institutions strong. They also want
to keep Britain. That is the one strong card we have, contributing to
security. We know we won't be members of the single market, that
was in the White Paper. The situation of the customs union is
more complicated I would suggest. Does that have cost? If we can be a
little bit pregnant in the customs union, does that come with a price
ticket? We have got some clarity on the customs union, the Prime
Minister said we would not be part of the... We would be able to do our
own trade deals outside the EU customs union, and also not be part
of the common external tariff. She said she is willing to look at other
options and we don't know what that will be so as a think tank we are
looking at this over the next few weeks and coming up with
recommendations for the Government and looking at how existing
boundaries between the EU customs union and other states work in
practice. For example between Switzerland and the EU border,
Norway and Switzerland, and the UK and Canada. We will want is a
country the freedom to do our own free trade deals, that seems to be
quite high up there, and to change our external tariffs to the rest of
the world. If that's the case, we do seem to be wanting our cake and
eating it in the customs union. Talking to some people in London, it
is quite clear we are leaving the essentials of the customs union, the
tariff, so even if we can minimise controls at the border by having
mutual recognition agreements, so we recognise each other's standards,
but there will still have to be checks for things like rules of
origin and tariffs if tariffs apply, which is a problem for the Irish
because nobody has worked out how you can avoid having some sort of
customs control on the border between Northern Ireland and the
South once we are out of the customs union. I think it's important we
don't look at this too much as one side has to win and one side has to
lose scenario. We can find ways. My Broadview is what we get out of the
negotiation will depend on politics more than economic reality. Economic
reality is strong, there's a good case for a trade deal on the
solution on the customs deal, but Britain will need to come up with a
positive case for our relationship and keep making that case. If it
turns out the Government thinks the bill is too high, that we can't
really get the free trade deal done in time and it's left hanging in the
wind, what are the chances, how I as things stand now that we end up
crashing out? I'd say there's a 30% chance that we don't get the free
trade agreement at the end of it that Mrs May is aiming for. The very
hard crash is you don't even do an Article 50 divorce settlement from
you go straight to World Trade Organisation rules. The less hard
crash is doing the divorce settlement and transitional
arrangements would require European Court of Justice arrangements. We
will leave it there. Thank you, both.
Donald Trump's flagship policy of extreme vetting of immigrants
and a temporary travel ban for citizens of seven mainly-muslim
countries was stopped in its tracks this weekend.
On Friday a judge ruled the ban should be lifted and that it
That prompted President Trump to fire off a series of tweets
criticising what he says was a terrible decision
by a so-called judge, as he ordered the State Department
Now the federal appeals court has rejected his request to reinstate
the ban until it hears the case in full.
Well yesterday I spoke to Sebastian Gorka, Deputy Assistant
I asked him if the confusion over the travel ban
was a sign that the President's two-week-old administration
There is no chaos, you really shouldn't believe the spin, the
facts speak for themselves. 109 people on Saturday were mildly
inconvenienced by having their entry into the United States delayed out
of 325,000. So let's not get carried away with the left-wing media bias
and spin. Hold on, 60,000 - 90,000 people with visas, their visas are
no longer valid. That's another issue. You need to listen to what
I'm saying. The people who entered on the day of the executive order
being implemented worth 109 people out of 325. Whether people won't
travelling to America were affected is another matter, so there is no
chaos to comment on. Following Iran's latest missile tests,
National Security adviser Flint said the US was "Putting Iran on notice",
what does that mean? It means we have a new president and we are not
going to facilitate the rise of one of the most dangerous nations in the
world. We are jettisoning this naive and dangerous policy of the Obama
Administration to try and make the Shi'ite dictatorial democracy some
kind of counter balance to extremist Sunni groups in the region and that
they cannot continue to behave in the way they have behaved for the
last 30 years. It is a very simple message. So are there any
multilateral alliances that Mr Trump would like to strengthen?
Absolutely. If we are looking at the region, if you listen to what
President Trump has said and specifically to also the speeches of
general Flint, his national security adviser, we are incredibly vested in
seeing our Sunni allies in the region come together in a real
coalition. The so-called vaunted 66 nation coalition that was created
under the Obama administration... There was no coalition. But we want
to help our Sunni allies, especially the Egyptians, the Jordanians, come
together in a real partnership to take the fight to ISIS and groups
like Al-Qaeda. But there is not a formal multilateral alliance with
these countries. Which of the existing, formal multilateral
alliances does Mr Trump wants to strengthen? If you are specifically
talking about Nato, it is clear that we are committed to Nato but we wish
to see a more equitable burden sharing among the nations that are
simply not spending enough on their own defence so the gentleman 's
agreement of 2% of GDP has to be stuck to, unlike the, I think it's
only Six Nations that reach the standard today out of almost 30. So
he does want to strengthen Nato then? Absolutely, he believes Nato
is the most successful military alliances. You mustn't believe the
spin and hype. EU leaders now see the Trump administration as a threat
up there with Russia, China, terrorism. What's your response to
that? I have to laugh. The idea that the nation that came to the
salvation of Europe twice in the 20th century hummer in World War I
and World War II, was central to the defeat of the totalitarian... It is
not even worth commenting on. Would it matter to the Trump
administration if the European Union broke up? The United States is very
interested in the best relations possible with all the nations of the
EU am a whether the European union wishes to stay together or not is up
to the nations of the European Union. I understand that but I was
wondering what the US view would be. Until Mr Trump, EU foreign policy
was quite consistent in wanting to see the EU survive, prosper and even
become more integrated. Now that doesn't seem to be the case, so
would it matter to the Trump administration if the EU broke up? I
will say yet again, it is in the interests of the United States to
have the best relations possible with our European allies, and
whether that is in the formation of the EU or if the EU by itself
suffers some kind of internal issues, that's up to the European
nations and not something we will comment on. Listening to that
answer, it would seem as if this particular president's preference is
to deal with individual nation states rather than multilateral
institutions. Is that fair? I don't think so. There's never been an
unequivocal statement by that effect by the statement. Does he share the
opinion of Stephen Bannon that the 21st century should see a return to
nation states rather than growing existing multilateral ways? I think
it is fair to say that we have problems with political elites that
don't take the interests of the populations they represent into
account. That's why Brexit happened. I think that's why Mr Trump became
President Trump. This is the connected phenomena. You are
obsessing about institutions, it is not about institutions, it's about
the health of democracy and whether political elites do what is in the
interests of the people they represent. Given the
unpredictability of the new president, you never really know
what he's going to do next, would it be wise for the British Prime
Minister to hitch her wagon to his star? This is really churlish
questioning. Come on, you don't know what he's going to do next, listen
to what he says because he does what he's going to say. I know this may
be shocking to some reporters, but look at his campaign promises, and
the fact that in the last 15 days we have executed every single one that
we could in the time permissible so there is nothing unpredictable about
Donald Trump as president. OK then, if we do know what he's going to do
next, what is he going to do next? Continue to make good on his
election promises, to make America great again, to make the economy are
flourishing economy, and most important of all from your
perspective in the UK, to be the best friend possible to our friends
and the worst enemy to our enemies. It is an old Marine Corps phrase and
we tend to live by it. Thank you for your time, we will leave it there.
Doctor Gorka, making it clear this administration won't spend political
capital on trying to keep the European Union together, a watershed
change in American foreign policy. Theresa May has made a big deal out
of her commitment to help people on middle incomes who are "just
about managing", and early this week we should get a good sense
of what that means in practice - when plans to bring down the cost
of housing and protect renters are published in the Government's
new white paper. The paper is expected to introduce
new rules on building Communities Secretary Sajid Javid
has previously said politicians should not stand in the way
of development, provided all options Also rumoured are new measures
to speed up building the 1 million new homes the Government promised
to build by 2020, including imposing five-year quotas
on reluctant councils. Reports suggest there will be
relaxation of building height restrictions,
allowing home owners and developers to build to the height
of the tallest building on the block without needing to seek
planning permission. Other elements trialled include
new measures to stop developers sitting on parcels of land
without building homes, land banking, and moving railway
station car parks Underground, The Government today said it
will amend planning rules so more homes can be built specifically
to be rented out through longer term tenancies, to provide more stability
for young families, alongside its proposed ban
on letting agent fees. And the Housing Minister,
Gavin Barwell, joins me now. Welcome to the programme. Home
ownership is now beyond the reach of most young people. You are now
emphasising affordable homes for rent. Why have you given up on the
Tory dream of a property owning democracy? We haven't given up on
that. The decline on home ownership in this country started in 2004. So
far we have stopped that decline, we haven't reversed it but we
absolutely want to make sure that people who want to own and can do
so. The Prime Minister was very clear a country that works for
everyone. That means we have to have say something to say to those who
want to rent as well as on. Home ownership of young people is 35%,
used to be 60%. Are you telling me during the lifetime of this
government that is going to rise? We want to reverse the decline. We have
stabilised it. The decline started in 2004 under Labour. They weren't
bothered about it. We have taken action and that has stop the
decline... What about the rise? We have to make sure people work hard
the right thing have the chance to own their home on home. We have
helped people through help to buy, shared ownership, that is part of
it, but we have to have something to say to those who want to rent. You
say you want more rented homes so why did you introduce a 3%
additional stamp duty levied to pay those investing in build to rent
properties? That was basically to try and stop a lot of the
speculation in the buy to let market. The Bank of England raised
concerns about that. When you see the white paper, you will see there
is a package of measures for Bill to rent, trying to get institutional
investment for that, different to people going and buying a home on
the private market and renting out. You are trying to get institutional
money to comment, just as this government and subsequent ones
before said it would get pension fund money to invest in
infrastructure and it never happened. Why should this happen? Is
already starting to happen. If you go around the country you can see
some of these builder rent scheme is happening. There are changes in the
White Paper... How much money from institutions is going into bill to
rent modular hundreds of millions. I was at the stock exchange the other
day celebrating the launch of one of our bombs designed to get this money
on. There are schemes being... There is huge potential to expand it. We
need more homes and we are too dependent on a small number of large
developers. -- to launch one of our bonds. You talk about affordable
renting, what is affordable? Defined as something that is at least 20%
below the market price. It will vary around the country. Let me put it
another way. The average couple renting now have to spend 50% of
their income on rent. Is that affordable? That is exactly what
we're trying to do something about. Whether you're trying to buy or
rent, housing in this country has become less and less affordable
because the 30-40 years governments haven't built in times. This white
Paper is trying to do something about that. You have been in power
six, almost seven years. That's right. Why are ownership of new
homes to 24 year low? It was a low figure because it's a new five-year
programme. That is not a great excuse. It's not an excuse at all.
The way these things work, you have a five-year programme and in the
last year you have a record number of delivery and when you start a new
programme, a lower level. If you look at the average over six years,
this government has built more affordable housing than the previous
one. Stiletto 24 year loss, that is an embarrassment. Yes. We have the
figures, last year was 32,000, the year before 60 6000. You get this
cliff edge effect. It is embarrassing and we want to stop it
happening in the future. You want to give tenants more secure and longer
leases which rent rises are predictable in advance. Ed Miliband
promoted three-year tenancies in the 2015 general election campaign and
George Osborne said it was totally economically illiterate. What's
changed? You are merging control of the rents people in charge, which
we're not imposing. We want longer term tenancies. Most people have
six-month tenancies... Within that there would be a control on how much
the rent could go up? Right? It would be set for the period of the
tenancies. That's what I just said, that's what Ed Miliband proposed. Ed
Miliband proposed regulating it for the whole sector. One of the reasons
institutional investment is so attractive, if you had a spare home
and you want to rent out, you might need it any year, so you give it a
short tenancy. If you have a block, they are interested in a long-term
return and give families more security. You have set a target,
your government, to build in the life of this parliament 1 million
new homes in England by 2020. You're not going to make that? I think we
are. If you look at 2015-16 we had 190,000 additional homes of this
country. Just below the level we need to achieve. Over five...
2015-16. You were probably looking at the new homes built. Talking
about completions in England. That is not the best measure, with
respect. You said you will complete 1 million homes by 2020 so what is
wrong with it? We use a national statistic which looks at new homes
built and conversions and changes of use minus demolitions. The total
change of the housing stock over that year. On that basis I have the
figures here. I have the figures. You looking I just completed. 1
million new homes, the average rate of those built in the last three
quarters was 30 6000. You have 14 more quarters to get to the 1
million. You have to raise that to 50 6000. I put it to you, you won't
do it. You're not looking at the full picture of new housing in this
country. You're looking at brand-new homes and not including conversions
or changes of use are not taking off, which we should, demolitions.
If you look at the National statistic net additions, in 2015-16,
100 and 90,000 new homes. We are behind schedule. -- 190,000. I am
confident with the measures in the White Paper we can achieve that. It
is not just about the national total, we need to build these homes
are the right places. Will the green belt remain sacrosanct after the
white paper? Not proposing to change the existing protections that there
for green belts. What planning policy says is councils can remove
land from green belts but only in exceptional circumstances and should
look at at all the circumstances before doing that. No change? No. We
have a manifesto commitment. You still think you will get 1 million
homes? The green belt is only 15%. This idea we can only fix our broken
housing market by taking huge swathes of land out of the green
belt is not true. We will leave it there, thank you for joining us,
Gavin Barwell. It is coming up to 11.40.
We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now
Coming up here in 20 minutes, the Week Ahead...
You might laugh at this old advert for Cadbury's Smash,
but could robotic innovations save Lincolnshire's agricultural
businesses, who say they are facing a Brexit skills shortage.
I can no more vote for this than I can vote against my conscience.
I can no more vote for this because it's against my values.
I can no more vote for this than I can vote against my own DNA.
Rebel, resign and abstain and rebel resign and,
resign and reshuffle, we look at our MPs' Brexit vote
We are joined today by Rosie Winterton, Labour MP
for Doncaster Central and by Jason McCartney,
So, how would you both sum up this political week?
I think one of the most important debates that many of us will have
How would you sum up the week, Jason McCartney?
I would echo that and I made a point of staying in the chamber
Really, really long day but very important and just really listened
Some thoughtful and emotional contributions from across the house.
We will hear some of those a little bit later but there are claims today
the food and farming industry in our area is facing
Almost half of businesses say they can't find enough staff.
Many are blaming a mass exodus of migrant workers
Yes, so, our new caravan area is going to come out
the back here and basically we are going to have
brand-new accommodation, very nice communal area and also
It sounds like a luxury holiday park but this will be the on-farm
It's got to be good to entice the dwindling numbers willing
to cultivate crops and keep food on our tables.
Some farmers are going to new lengths to keep workers happy.
Without migrant workers, our business would not operate,
The industry we are in and the hours and the conditions
that we working outside, you know, we have to
Mike supplies sprouts to most UK supermarkets.
Before Christmas it was touch and go whether he would meet orders
Madeleina is perfectly happy here but says many of her friends
who have returned season after season will soon
One of the people, they are going home.
A lot of them they are staying here, they are working, keeping some money
and after that they are going back to Romania to do something with it.
It is claimed that 47% of UK labour agencies are struggling to find
And farmers say they recruited 10% less staff than they actually needed
Neil Vickers has also noticed an exit post-Brexit.
Homeless migrants use his church as an emergency night shelter
when the temperatures fall below zero.
But this winter there has been 50% less needing a bed.
We have heard that people are going home because the exchange rate
is not good and so they are sending money home which is not
as much as they could send if they were working
We have heard they have gone because of threats
It is the reason why academics at the University of Lincoln have
been awarded over ?2 million of government funding to develop
The aim, to pick the crops that people don't want to,
which is fast becoming a global problem.
This is not just a UK problem, this is a worldwide problem,
so we start in California, they have had a national living wage
imposed in California, which is driving labour costs up.
The second thing with the new president, Donald Trump,
there are concerns about the availability of their labour
force, which is currently based on Mexican migrant labour
in California, so exact parallel to the UK in California.
But James Truscott says robotics is not enough.
His company handles over 350,000 tonnes of potatoes a year.
He says politicians need to introduce a permit scheme so that
businesses in food and farming can still deploy migrant workers no
I think if you are a farmer you have always needed seasonal people
to come onto your land and get the harvest in.
I suspect if they don't have that then they might have to either grow
different things that don't require people, so, you know,
it is very difficult to get a strawberry off strawberry plant
It has to be people to do that job so if those people aren't there then
For now, Madeleina says she is happy, but farmers say
as the country appears set to curb migration, they are being
forced to court it just to survive in business.
The good news is that MPs haven't been replaced by robots just yet,
so let me ask you, Rosie Winterton, how seriously should we take these
I think we should take them very seriously and I think the film that
you have shown goes to the heart of the debate we had
During the debate, I raised the issue, first of all,
of the fact that we need a proper plan for the Yorkshire and Humber
area when it comes to Brexit as David Davis has talked a lot
about bringing in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, saying what is it
that is going to happen in your nations because of Brexit,
but I want the regions to be able to have a say as well.
I want Yorkshire and the Humber to be able to look at exactly those
issues around the needs of our industries like
What requirements will it have post-Brexit in terms of migrant
workers, but also what should we be doing in the future to look
at the skills and education to fill some of the gaps
that there are undoubtedly going to be?
Unless we have a proper analysis of what will happen in our region
then we won't be able to address those problems.
At the last count we had got more than 1.5 million people
Why are some bosses complaining about a shortage of workers?
I think your film actually hit the nail on the head there.
Your company bosses were saying people want better working
conditions and they want better pay and surely they are good things,
so they are now going to have to tackle those issues to be able
to get the workforce that they need and yes I have been talking
on the train home last night to MPs from Peterborough and from
Lincolnshire and asking about this, how do people in their area feel
when maybe there is unemployment but there are people
How do we get people doing jobs and getting
the national living wage, to get a fair wage,
and good working conditions, so they can fulfil the roles
that we need, not just an agricultural industry...
Can I just say, I think Jason is absolutely right,
people want to have a say, they want to feel that their MPs
are actually feeding into the debate that I think that the government
is going to have to look at the way that the whole labour market
operates because we are seeing with the huge explosion
like zero hours' contracts we have got a very,
People who frankly and I believe that sometimes other European
countries are being exploited but we need to tackle the whole
issue of how the labour market works and Jason is right to say that
sometimes big companies need to take a look at how they are operating
because we need further training, we need skills but we need to make
sure that people are working in a fair and equitable workplace.
But when you talk to many job-seekers, they will say
they can't get jobs because the bosses want migrant
workers who are cheaper and will, let us face it, work under worse
conditions than British-born workers.
And that is creating an unsustainable economy
and I would agree with Rosie here, I saw documentaries on other
channels this week about workers in warehouses with poor hours,
That kind of sort of work in our economy is unsustainable
and it is unacceptable and these issues now have needed to be
It goes back to governments of all colours and maybe now we can
address these and Brexit is all about getting
control of these things, having a workforce that bosses
and the government and us as MPs have a say about and allowing people
a decent standard of living, decent working conditions, and these
Yes, but you both represent parties who have led governments
where there has been a huge increase in mass migration.
This huge influx of unskilled labour has come into this
country over the past ten, 15 years.
So, you are trying to shut the stable after the horse has bolted.
No, no, that's not true because actually, what we know
and I go back to why it is important that we have a plan for the region
and an analysis, we know that we are an ageing population.
We know that we are going to need, and I said this in the Commons last
week, both skilled and unskilled workers from the European Union
to be able to come in and do the sort of work.
Why do we need that when we have got more than a million unemployed?
Because we are not going to, you ask businesses about their needs
for the future and they will all say that they need people to work
at all levels, simply because even with the 1.5 million unemployed,
you are not going to be able to fill all the gaps
that there are and we need to be honest about that.
We will come back to this debate in our next discussion because one
of the region's newest MPs, Sleaford's Caroline Johnson,
You can say she summed up everything when she said,
"We asked the people and the people said out we must go."
So here are some highlights from that epic debate on Brexit.
The clerk will now proceed to read the orders of the day.
European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill.
MUSIC: 'Dance of The Knights' by Prokofiev.
I believe that the referendum is not advice but an instruction to us.
We asked the people and the people said out, so out we must go.
When we went into the European Union of the common market in the 1970s,
we also had public consent, popular consent expressed
And it would be folly in the extreme for the other place with maybe
politicians in the other place dominated by parties
who have been diminished in the elected House to try and go
against the will of this House and that will indeed I think be
a suicide bid by the other place if they try and amend and send back
And people who are not racist, not racist, still have genuine
concerns about the impact on their public services
and their jobs, pay and conditions from that unrestricted immigration.
It could be viewed that we have shut ourselves off, however the important
thing is that now the decision has been made that we do everything
in our power to prove that that is not the case.
So however painful this is now, we are leaving the European Union.
When I was elected to Parliament and took my oath of allegiance,
I changed the words to say that I would put my constituents first.
York Central voted overwhelmingly to remain in the European Union.
History has its eyes on us today, so here is my answer.
I can know more about for this than I can vote against my conscience.
I can no more vote for this because it's against my values.
I can no more vote for this than I can vote against my own DNA.
Jason McCartney, can you understand why someone like Rachel Maskell,
the York Central Labour MP, voted in the way her constituents
they wanted to remain in the European Union,
I can always understand why different members of Parliament
want to reflect local wishes and listen to their constituents
but we have to remember what this vote was all about.
You know, we all voted to have the referendum,
to let the people decide and then it was to enact the people's will.
I actually remember on the night itself I was at New College in
Huddersfield when it was the night of the referendum and many of us
actually thought the country was going to go to Remain
and I was thinking about what I would say to my constituents,
I voted Leave, but I was getting ready in my head to say
we have had the vote, we are staying and it is a question
of all coming together and moving on.
We actually voted to Leave and now it is about taking that through.
But Rosie is absolutely right, we have got a White Paper now,
we are going to have a lot of debates and votes
and it is about getting the best deal not only
for the United Kingdom, but for us as Yorkshire MPs,
for the North of England, but also take people with us,
you know, I was asked about it at a school this morning by some
of the 10-year-olds and we need to talk and communicate and reassure
people that we are going to get a good deal for the United Kingdom
and that we are leaving the European Union and keep
communicating, working together on this.
Let me ask you, Rosie Winterton, as a former Labour Chief Whip,
who was in charge of party discipline, do you accept the whole
Article 50 debate was an absolute shambles for your party?
No, look, I think what your film showed, there were very,
very strong feelings in the house last week, very emotional speeches
We in the Labour Party, yes, there are different views,
I absolutely understand that, but first of all it was right
I think it was very important that the party
through the Shadow Cabinet and the leadership had a position
and the Shadow Cabinet members kept to that or resigned if they couldn't
feel that they could support it but I don't think any party has got
a monopoly on there being strong views on both sides
But what also showed is how important it is for Parliament
to remain involved in the process because it was ludicrous
of the government to try to prevent Parliament having a say.
Mary Cray, the Labour MP for Wakefield, two thirds
of her constituency voted to Leave the EU.
Is she vulnerable at the next election?
I think Mary did what she felt was absolutely right
and people, you know, people will respect
So you are saying two thirds of voters in Wakefield will respect
I think a speech like Mary's, you could see that it
I think the public will watch that and say well, some of us might
have a different view, but however she made her feelings
very clear and she said this is what I believe is the best
But I think this is an issue where people do understand
that the country itself is split about Brexit.
Well, all parties, all parties will have their difficulties over this.
I think we're going to see some lively debates
in the Conservative Party over the next week.
The Liberal Democrats have had some MPs who...
What I would like to know, I have sometimes voted
against my party on issues like tuition fees, you are a former
Chief Whip, what do you think about the Labour whips that voted
against the three line whip, should they keep their jobs?
Well, as I say, I think that first of all...
It was absolutely right, Jeremy and the Shadow Cabinet
imposed a three line whip and said this is the position of the party.
They have made it very clear that the Shadow Cabinet
They need to then decide in view of the debates, in view of...
Would you have sacked them if they were your wits?
I can't prejudge, you know, as an ex-chief whip.
How would you have dealt with Diane Abbott, who missed
Diane Abbott was ill, so, you know, you can't say well,
It is absolutely right that there was a three line whip,
that the party had a clear vision, that the Shadow Cabinet
How you deal with other people is something for the Chief Whip
and the leader to look at but I also think it is right, you know, leave
Let us get on with having a very, very important debate
because I also think, I don't do the public particularly
because I also think, I don't think the
like at the moment for our parties to be saying well,
you know, your party is more divided than mine.
I think they want us to be saying what's going to be the best...
I think they know which party is more divided.
What is going to be best for the country.
You have opened a real can of worms there.
But anyway, we move on to get some more of the week's
Here is Trudy Scanlon with our round-up in 60 seconds.
Boston, the so-called Brexit capital of the country,
was the destination for the Brexit committee this week.
The group, led by MP Hilary Benn, is tasked with monitoring
Ukip's Jane Collins was due to visit the High Court in London to hear
what damages she must pay after libelling three rather MPs.
what damages she must pay after libelling three MPs.
The Yorkshire and Humber MEP said she was too busy to attend.
She falsely claimed that Sir Kevin Barron, John Healey
and Sarah Champion knew about child abuse in Rotherham but did nothing.
The damages will be announced tomorrow.
Hundreds of people across the region protested at the state visit
More than 1 million people have signed a petition,
started by a Leeds solicitor, which means the visit
And from Trump protests to dancing triumph, West Yorkshire MP
Yvette Cooper joined her husband Ed Balls for a lesson
in the quickstep, Gangnam-style, when his Strictly Come Dancing tour
Have you ever danced with Ed Balls at any Labour Party events?
No I haven't but it always makes you smile, doesn't it?
He has actually got a very good sense of humour.
Yeah, I am so glad that they are going round the country doing that.
And look, you know, there they were in a classroom
You will be getting free tickets at this rate!
OK, look, we don't have time to go into every aspect
of Donald Trump's foreign policy, this either question this week,
of Donald Trump's foreign policy, the question this week,
should the state visit go-ahead, Jason McCartney?
I was in Washington, DC with the Nato committee last
weekend when it was the inauguration and look, I would not
I think his personal qualities are appalling,
his attitude to women, but he has been elected
the president of the United States and we can either shout
from the sidelines or we can engage and try and persuade and cajole
and encourage him to do the right things.
I am pleased we have got the commitment on Nato and Estonia
and Lithuania have already thanked the Prime Minister for that as well.
It is incredibly difficult, isn't it, because we have had some
foreign leaders before who have come to the United Kingdom from China
and from the Middle East as well you have human rights issues
I haven't been in government but I know Rosie has as well,
you know, Tony Blair having the Chinese leader here.
I am glad I don't have to make the decision.
I have to be honest, I want us to engage but I do feel
incredibly uncomfortable about Mr Trump as an individual may
I think people are absolutely shocked by what he did.
I think it's pretty awful that he didn't warn Theresa May that
something was coming along very quickly, which would affect
I think there should be a fair amount of distance
between what happened and any planned visit.
You have got a large number of Muslim constituents
Would you boycott any public events with Donald Trump?
I am very proud represent my Kashmiri, Pakistani community.
You look across Europe, you know, what about the Burqa ban in France?
Germany have announced they are going to attack suspects,
not people who have been found guilty, attacking suspects as well.
If we are going to say no to Trump, I'll be going to say no
And I tell you what, you know, there are some people, you know,
in the Labour Party, not Rosie thank goodness,
I will take no lectures from anyone in the Labour Party
about who we engage with if the Labour Party
have a leader who engaged with the IRA, standing
I think it's important we engage with the President
Well, look, I mean I think that people were absolutely shocked
by what Donald Trump said and did and I think they felt
That is rather different from things like getting
the Good Friday Agreement put in place.
A special relationship, we expect better and that was
20th of February Parliament will debate Mr Trump.
I'm sure we will hear from you both then.
Thank you both for your time today, Rosie Winterton and Jason McCartney.
And as always, I shall hand you now back to Andrew Neil in London.
expansion, but thank you to both of you for being here. Back to you,
Andrew. Will the Government's plan
to boost house-building Could a handful of Conservative
MPs cause problems for And what is President
Trump going to do next? You have been following the genesis
of this housing white paper. What do you make of it? I think it will be
quite spectacular, pretty radical stuff. We heard bits about beating
up on developers. I understand it will be a whack, walk, covering
every single problem with housing supply and trying to solve it. Which
means bad news if you are a huge fan of the green belt, because they will
go round that the other way by forcing large quotas on councils are
making it down to councils where they build. If you fill up your
brown space in towns they will have to trigger the exceptional
circumstances bit of the bill to beat on green belts. Beating up
developers, opening up the market for renters across the board. And
Theresa May, one of the most defining thing she could do on the
domestic agenda. I am not as excited as Tom about this. I look back to
2004, do you remember the Kate Barker report? Successive
governments, successive prime ministers have been promising to
address the housing shortage. In 2004 Kate Barker recommended
hundreds of thousands new homes. Gordon Brown talked about 3 million
new homes by 2020 in 2007. It never happens. The reason is at the end of
the day this is local politics, local councillors need to keep their
seats and they won't keep their seats if there are hugely
controversial developments locally that they support. Yes, the
government can and are proposing to overrule councils that don't back
local developments, but they may find themselves completely inundated
with those cases. I think that is the whole point of it, to take on
those NIMBY often Tory councils and force them to build. I can't think
of a better defining issue for Theresa May than sticking one in the
eye of some quite well off half Tory countryside councils. The government
gives councils a quota of homes they have to fill, if they don't have to
fill that all run out overland to fill the quota, the government then
comes in and tells them they have to built on the green belt? How is that
going to work? At the moment the green belt is absolutely sacrosanct
in British politics. They'll have to do some work on educating people on
what green belts means. Potato farms, golf courses... At the moment
the idea people have of the green belt being verdant fields needs to
be dismantled. You are right. I agree with Tom, 11 million people in
the private rental sector in the UK. In the last election more voted
Labour than conservative. This is an area where Theresa May would look to
expand her vote. The problem has always been, the same problem we
have with pension policy and why pensioners have done better than
working families in recent years. They are older and they vote more
and anything to the detriment of older people. I wonder how they will
get private money to come in on anything like this go they would
need to have a huge expansion? There is a huge amount of speculation and
one of the thing that locks up the system as you have people buying
land, taking out a stake of land in the hope that one point it may at
some point free up. At the end of the day, unless you have councils
far more willing to quickly fast track these applications, which they
won't for the reason I said before, it's a very long-term investment. Ed
Miliband proposed three-year leases in which the rent could only go up
by an agreed formula, probably the three years to give the young
families a certain stability over that period. He had a use it or lose
it rules for planning development, if you don't use it you lose the
planning rights. Somebody else gets it. The Tories disparaged that at
the time. This is at the centre of their policy now.
This is probably item number four of Ed Miliband's policy book Theresa
May has wholesale pinched in the last six months or so. Why not? I
think if you look at the change in mood across housing and planning
over the last 5-6 years, it used to be an issue very much of green belt
versus London planners. Now you have grandparents living in houses in the
countryside, knowing their grandchildren can't get on the
housing ladder any longer. Maybe a bit more intervention in the market,
tougher on renting conditions, maybe that is exactly what the country
needs. Will they meet the 1 million target? It would be a defiance of
every political thing that has happened in the last ten years. I
think Tom is right, if there is only one difference between Theresa May
and David Cameron it's the willingness of the state to
intervene. When Ed Miliband said that he was seen as communism, but
Theresa May can get away with it. How serious is this talk of a couple
of dozen Tories who were very loyal over voting for the principle of
Article 50 but may now be tempted to vote for some amendments to Article
50 legislation that they would find quite attractive? I think that
threat has certainly been taken seriously by levers. I spoke to the
campaign group Leaves Means Leave last night. The figure they
mentioned was up to 20 remaining Tories. That sounds a lot to me but
that is what they are concerned about and those Tories would come
together with Labour and the SNP to vote for that amendment. Although
that amendment sounds rather nice and democratic, actually in the eyes
of many levers that is a wrecking amendment. Because what you are
doing is giving Parliament a sort of veto over whatever deal Theresa May
brings back. What they want is the vote to be before that deal is
finalised. It isn't necessarily the case that if Parliament decided they
didn't like that deal we would just go to WTO, we would fall out of the
European Union. There are mixed views as to whether we might remain
in and things could be extended. My understanding is the people making
the amendments, they won any deal that is done to be brought to
Parliament in time, so that if Parliament fancies it it's done, but
if it does and it doesn't just mean go to WTO rules. There will be time
to go back, renegotiate or think again? The question is where it puts
Britain's negotiating hand. Nine of the options... Once we trigger
Article 50 the two negotiation begins on the power switches to
Europe. They can run out the clock and it will be worse for us than
them. I don't think either option is particularly appealing. I think what
seems like a rather Serena week for Article 50 this week isn't going to
be reflective of what will happen next. The way the government's
position is at the moment, if at the end the only choice Parliament has
is to vote for the deal or crash out on WTO rules, then even the
remainder is going to vote for the deal even if they don't like it,
because they would regard crashing out as the worst of all possible
results. Possibly. It will be a great game of bluff if Theresa May
fights off any of these amendments on Wednesday and gets a
straightforward deal or no Deal vote. I have a funny feeling this
amendment, if it's chosen, we must remember because we don't know if
they will choose this amendment, if it does go to a vote on Wednesday it
will be very tight indeed. Remember, one final thing Theresa May can do
if she gets Parliament voting against, as Isabel would have it,
she could try to get a new parliament and go for a general
election. And probably get a huge majority to do so. The Lords, it
goes there after the February recess. They are very pro-Europe,
but does their instinct for self-preservation override that? I
think that is it. A Tory Lord said this morning I will vote to block it
on a conscience measure, but you have the likes of Bill Cash, veteran
Eurosceptics, suddenly converted to the Lords reform saying is an
outrage. I doubt they will vote for their own demise, to hasten their
own demise by blocking it. What did you make of Doctor Gorka smart
fascinating. Cut from the same cloth as his boss. I thought it was
extraordinary listening to him, saying everything is going dutifully
to plan. But at the end of the day, what they are doing is what people
in America voted for Trump to do. If you look at Lord Ashcroft's polling
on why America voted for Trump, they went into this with their eyes wide
open. One of the top fears among American voters, particularly
Republican leading ones was America's immigration policy is or
could be letting in terror arrests. As far as he is concerned, he is
doing what he was elected to do. This whole year is turning into a
wonderful year long lecture series on how democracy works at a
fundamental level. I'm not sure anyone wanted it but it's what we've
got. This same in the way we've been talking about direct democracy and
Parliamentary democracy. The same is happening in America between
executive and judicial branches. We are seeing the limits of
presidential power. Regardless of the fact that people voted for Trump
they voted for senators. The judge who blocks this was appointed by
George W Bush. So-called Judge Eckert Mac so-called George W Bush!
It's fascinating we're having all these conversations now that I never
bought five years ago we would be having at such a fundamental level.
Has the media yet worked out how to cover the Trump administration or
has he got us behaving like headless chickens? He says something
incendiary and we all run over to do that and when you pick it off it
turns out not to be as incendiary as we thought? And then back doing
something and we all rush over there. Is he making fools of us? Is
exactly what he did in the election campaign. So many quick and fast
outrageous comments frontrunner on a daily basis, no one single one of
them had full news cycle time to be pored over and examined. I think
there is a problem with this. Although he keeps the upper hand,
keeps the agenda and keeps on the populist ground, the problem is it
easy to campaign like that. If you are governing in a state of
semi-hysteria, I wonder how long the American public will be comfortable
with that. They don't really want their government to be swirling
chaos all the time, as fascinating as it might be on TV. They will be
exhausted by it, I already am. I have been interviewing White House
administration official since 1976 and that is the first time someone
hasn't given me a straight answer on America supporting the EU. That is a
different world. Jo Coburn will be on BBC Two
tomorrow at midday with the Daily Politics -
and I'll be back here Remember, if it's Sunday -
it's the Sunday Politics. TV: He's not your father.
WOMAN GASPS so why not pay your TV licence in
weekly instalments, too?
Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Andrew is joined by housing minister Gavin Barwell MP who talks about the government's plan to increase housebuilding in England and protect people who rent their homes. Plus Charles Grant from the Centre for European Reform and Henry Newman from Open Europe. Donald Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka discusses President Trump's first two weeks in the White House and Ellie Price reports on the negotiations to come with the EU over Brexit. On the political panel are The New Statesman's Helen Lewis and journalists Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.