05/02/2017 Sunday Politics Yorkshire and Lincolnshire


Andrew Neil and Tim Iredale with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Guests include Gavin Barwell MP, Charles Grant and Henry Newman.

Similar Content

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.

Download Subtitles