05/02/2017 Sunday Politics

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.

In London, banned in 2015 from standing for public office.

Is the former mayor of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman,

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...

have do stop that and do another programme at another time an airport

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