06/12/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Transport Secretary announces a shake-up of the railways

and promises passengers will see big improvements.

Theresa May jets in to Bahrain and promises closer

co-operation with Gulf states on defence and counter-terrorism.

The PM also says she's "ambitious" about Britain's Brexit future.

The man in charge of the EU's Brexit negotiations,

Commissioner Michel Barnier, says there'll only be time

for 18 months of talks once Article 50 is triggered

to ensure enough time for the deal to be approved.

I suspect that I will prove no more adept at pulling rabbits from hands

than my successor as Foreign Secretary has been a retrieving

balls from the back of scrums. And should senior Conservatives stop

making fun of Boris Johnson? All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole of the programme today the political

columnist Tim Montgomerie, who briefly resigned

from the Conservative Party earlier this year, before rejoining

following the referendum result. In the last hour the man in charge

of the European Union's Brexit negotiations,

Michel Barnier, has been giving his first press

conference in Brussels. He said Brexit must be

an orderly process, and that negotiations must be

completed within 18 months. All in all, there will be less than

18 months to negotiate. Once again, that is short. Should the UK notify

the Council by the end of March 2017, as the Prime Minister Theresa

May said she would, it is safe to say that negotiations would start a

few weeks later and an Article 50 agreement would be reached by

October 20 18th. -- 2018. Damian Grammaticas is our

Europe Correspondent in Brussels and was at

the press conference earlier. He also said to keep calm and

negotiate. No doubt that will negotiate -- resonate here in the

UK, but he is quite a tough cookie, Michel Barnier. Tell us about him.

Yes, he's a former French minister and former Commissioner in the

European Commission here. He is from the centre-right and has had a long

history of association with the EU and now has been put into this role

as the chief negotiator for the European Commission. By all

accounts, all descriptions of him are that he is a man who is

incredibly hard-working, always on top of his brief, very well briefed,

and a tough negotiator. I think in his press Conference we saw today

someone who was trying to exceed this sense of calm, competence,

preparing us, and he said he was convinced that the EU side -- side

were ready and it would be important when the uncertainty as quick as

possible, a little dig at the UK, really, saying that the other side

were not ready. There were quite a few knows for a better deal, and no

to an individual country by country negotiation, which we already knew

and he already repeated his phrase no to a negotiation before

notification. This is obviously one of his first explanations of the

stands he will take. Does it mean it will be very bruising, the encounter

between the UK and himself on these negotiations? I'm not sure bruising,

but if you read between the lines of what he is saying there are some

clear messages, and that is the fact that the view from the commission,

from Mr Barnier, and repeated by Angela Merkel in Germany, that there

will be no division on their side. The countries don't want to allow

themselves to be divided in these negotiations on the EU side, and the

basic fundamental freedoms and obligations of the single market as

well will not be divided. That is important, because Mr Barnier

addressed some of the questions raised in the UK recently, the idea

that the UK could get a special deal by paying into the budget. Could it

secure access to bits of the single market? What he said, and I asked

him about it, was that there could be, but only if you looked at the

existing deals in places like Norway, who pay into the budget and

accept the rules. What I think the message of that is is, no cherry

picking, no division of the freedoms of Europe, the freedom of movement

in particular, and the EU have a very principled stance, as they see

it, and they do not want to compromise on that. They do not want

the UK to start splitting that apart. Damien, thank you very much.

Is Theresa May fighting on all fronts here? That is what is going

to be happening on the EU side for David Davis, but here, there is an

opposition day debate tomorrow and the Labour Party have put down an

amendment saying they would like to see the broad plan of the

negotiations before Article 50 is triggered, and there are 15 or 20

Tory MPs who might back the amendment. Dangerous territory for

Theresa May. It is. Some of her own backbenchers, and Anna Subaru has

been mentioned, are being unhelpful. -- Soubry. I think the government

have made things clear, like saying the freedom of movement should end,

which means coming out of the single market and that they want to do free

trade agreements with America which means leaving the customs union. We

had talked last week about paying money into the EU to help lubricate

any deal and I think that is a significant point of direction. And

they signed the patented agreement, which sounds a bit obscure, but it

means they are willing to opt into something that the European Court of

Justice has authority over. So if you add up all of the little things

that have been revealed, the idea that the government has given away

quite a lot of its direction I think is false. How much influence do you

think the Remainers in the Tory party have? You mentioned Anna

Soubry, Nicky Morgan, and others, who have said, looking at the

wording of the amendment, there's nothing there I can disagree with,

there's nothing wrong with setting up the broad negotiating position.

How much trouble could they cause? You say it's unhelpful, but in the

long run? One of the reasons it is unhelpful is there are 17 elections

across Europe over the next 12 or 18 months. We don't know who the

Chancellor of Germany will be, the President of France will be, or the

Prime Minister of Italy will be, and Spain could have a change of

government. Why, despite Mr Bernier's clarity this morning, he

doesn't know which leaders will be sat around the table with him -- Mr

Barnier. We don't really know what Europe is going to expect. I think

it is perfectly legitimate for Britain to hesitate in revealing

everything until the other side of the table is clear as well. Tory MPs

should not be making it more difficult for a Tory Prime Minister.

We will see what happens tomorrow. The vote is not binding, but it

would be a defeat if she were outvoted by that motion. And the

Supreme Court is still sitting this week of course.

Now it's time for our daily quiz and it seems Chinese companies

So our question for today is, what is their latest acquisition?

Is it a) The Angel of the North?

At the end of the show, Tim will give us the correct answer.

Now, today sees the government announce new policy on integrating

It's full steam ahead for a new overhaul

of the railways being launched by Transport Secretary

He wants each new rail franchise to be run

by joint-management teams, including representatives

from both the train operating company and Network Rail.

The first franchises on track for the changes

are East Midlands Trains and South Eastern, which runs

services between London and Kent, though not until mid-2018.

that the new line linking Cambridge and Oxford, to be known

as East West Rail, will be run separately from Network Rail

A further shake-up will see a national

roll-out of pay-as-you-go smartcards across the rail network

by the end of 2018, similar to London's Oyster cards.

Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne said he "welcomed"

the plan to bring more joined up working within the industry.

the RMT general secretary, said it was a "slippery slope

to privatisation" of rail repairs and warned it could take the UK back

This morning Chris Grayling explained why

he thinks Network Rail needs to change.

Network Rail needs to change. It is too big, too monolithic, too

centralised and has not got a great track record of delivering projects

on time and on budget. What needs to happen in Network Rail is that it

needs to become more of a collection of route based businesses with local

management focusing on what is best for their own line, their own

passenger -- passengers and community. Network Rail has not

focused enough on the needs of the passenger and that will change as a

result of pushing power down to the individual routes and it will change

as a result of joining up the operations with those of the train

operators. We did ask the Department

of Transport for an interview with We've been joined from central lobby

in the Houses of Parliament by the Shadow Transport

Secretary Andy McDonald. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.

Before we get into the policy, you have an urgent question today on

this. What is your frustration with Chris Grayling's announcement via

the media? He has got form of this to be honest, as he did it with HS2

and with Southeast air capacity, so it's frustrating but people who

fought very hard about bringing this back to the Parliament and then they

have to put statements before the house. You have been out on the

airwaves criticising the announcement today, but if the plans

are so bad why is the Network Rail chief welcoming them? He doesn't

have much choice as the chief executive of Network Rail. Really?

Nicola Shaw carried out her own review at the government's behest,

and you wonder why they went all that trouble of at piece of work to

abandon the findings. I think this will just add greater complexity to

an already complex and fragmented industry. It's wholly unnecessary

and there will be costs involved. Who pays for that? The taxpayer and

the fare-paying passenger yet again. So here we are just completely

wasteful with resources. But not everyone in your party agrees with

you. One respected rail journalist, and your candidate in the recent

Richmond Park by-election, says the best railways in the world bring

together the network and train operators into companies that

operate boats. So why could that happen here? -- that operate both.

It works in Germany where they operate the infrastructure and

services, and in France to a large extent, but what we do is simply

subsidise the operations back in their home states. We do remember,

don't we, what happened with Railtrack and Ladbroke Grove and

Potters bar. The last time the private sector was involved in

safety and infrastructure. We don't want to go back to those days. But

is that a fair comparison? You said you don't have a problem with the

network and train operators being brought together into companies, so

what is your objection? It's the fact that the whole focus is about

extracting profit and value at every turn. We have franchisees wasting

money on the franchise process, and we have the operational costs, the

transactional costs and the intermission of those costs and the

profit margins which are opaque in the extreme. So there are millions

of pounds leaking out of the railway system every year into Private

entities. Why on earth should we, as taxpayers and fare-paying

passengers, be subsidising that structure? Stay with us. Tim, the

point that Andy McDonald makes that it's all about focusing on the

profit won't that damage the railways further? We have an

incredibly successful railway industry in the UK. If you look at

the station by travelling to, Waterloo, before privatisation about

100,000 people were coming into it every day and now it's a quarter of

a million. They can't cope with the numbers of people. That is why I

think the reform is a useful one. There's sometimes a clash between

the operating companies and Network Rail for the provision of

infrastructure and now they are bringing the two together which will

mean the train operating companies can get on with the work that needs

to be done more urgently themselves. But will they if there are only

looking at profit margins? If they're worried about punctuality

and hitting the targets they have to meet under the franchise agreement,

they will take that responsibility more seriously. Let's look at your

comparison to Railtrack, because it isn't exactly the same as what is

being proposed by Chris Grayling, because then the issue was

subcontracting to private companies and his proposal is about involving

train operating companies in decisions. It's not exactly the

same. Who's going to take responsibility

where there is a crossover if you are getting line that is crossover

on to others, HS2, for example, or east-west lines conflicting with a

north-south lines, who's going to take responsibility for that? Is it

Network Rail or the train operating company? We are adding more

complexity to a system that doesn't need any more. Right. Why is it

adding complexity if you are bringing them together to joint

decision-making, surely it will simplify the set-up? That's the case

that's made, but I think in - we look at the south-west alliance

where similar proposition was made, that ultimately collapsed. It did

not work out well. Let's look at history. Let's look at these

alliances and see how they functioned. They haven't. Let's look

at Railtrack and see the disaster they rendered to this nation and

people expressing sadness about bereavements on our railways, we do

not want to be there again. Looking at the east-west railway from Oxford

to Cambridge that Chris Grayling is focussing on today, this will be

privately built. And privately run. Do you reject that proposal? Well,

what I do observe is that that's the slippery slope. This is clearly the

intention for the entire network. What we are making clear is that

train operating companies will come back under public ownership as those

franchises arise. Now the case in point, Oxford to Cambridge is a

separate and distinct issue, has to stand on its own merits. The rest of

the network will be looking to bring back into public ownership. That's

Labour policy. But what about this idea it's the slippery slope towards

privatising? Look, there are many companies, virgin trains network

that are popular with customers, it's a shame that Labour still have

this private sector bad public sector, good, mantra. We saw with

Jeremy Corbyn's famous train journey when he was sat on the train and

there were seats vacant. There is a negativity towards private trains

still in the Labour Party that's unjustified and doesn't celebrate

the fact that our railways now in Britain carry these extra passengers

and are one of the safest in the world. The safety record on our

railway network is beyond comparison to almost every other nation in the

world. Do sip that? Thank goodness it is a safe railway system. Let's

look it at some incidents that have occurred, people have been dragged

down platforms, we don't want to see... No one wants to see an

increase. We don't want to compromise on safety. A record of

doing this and that's exactly what will happen on this occasion because

profit will triumph and trump over safety on every occasion. Let me

pick you up on those things. At the moment you are saying that there is

a good safety record on the railways, as it stands, but you

think that more privatisation or private money or private funding

will automatically lead to more tragic accidents? We know this is

the case, the last time this experiment was conducted that's the

outcome we had with Railtrack. You have admitted this isn't like

Railtrack? It's another modification. But it's not the same?

I grant you that, it's a modification of the same principle.

But it's a starting point. We know the ideology of the Secretary of

State, we know where he wants to be. He wants... I suppose arguably you

are being idea logical on the other side, rightly or wrongly? It's about

having the right ideology. If ideology is wrong per se... You have

to have the right conviction. You are happy if it's your ideology but

you think obviously the Government's ideology is wrong. I do. I

understand your point. If we are looking to simplify the railways and

keep them safe, wouldn't it be better to see if these changes work?

You have already made up your mind they won't. Before pushing ahead

with what would be a disruptive and complicated renationalisation

programme. Well, no, not a comply - privatisation system, that's being

proposed. Hang on. Your proposal is a renationalisation programme.

Nicola Sure talked about route-based businesses, they've gone a long way

through the benchmarking process to bring that to fruition. I would put

it the other way. Why do we not let those changes bed down and let's see

what the benefits are? It may be that people are content with what

comes out of that process. All right. Thank you very much.

She's attending a meeting of the Gulf Co-operation Council

and this morning she made a short speech on board the Royal Navy's

This week, I am in Bahrain to attend the Gulf Co-operation Council,

to reaffirm our partnership with the GCC countries

and to step up our defence and security co-operation,

to keep British citizens safe at home and abroad.

And, to ensure the stability necessary for global

Here on HMS Ocean, all of you are a vital part of Britain's

global mission and your role in our commitment to

security in the Gulf could not be more important

and you can be very proud of everything you are doing.

A little earlier I spoke to the BBC's deputy political

editor John Pienaar, who's in Bahrain reporting

I asked him how Theresa May was going to square her design for

greater co-operation with the Gulf states with well documented human

rights abuses in the region? Well, I think Theresa May, it's a fairly

simple question, she's been spending the morning and will spend tomorrow

talking to a succession of Arab leaders. You can see one of the

King's many palaces behind me, there are a number in this area, it's the

ultra upmarket housing estate, you go from one to the other. She's met

the leader, later the King of Saudi Arabia, to her these are key allies,

for Britain's strategic interest as well as the region and the world as

well as the business of those lucrative arms sales. When it comes

to human rights she argues if you are not in the room with them you

can't raise questions of human rights. Which is an answer you have

heard from Prime Ministers, but for Theresa May her time as Home

Secretary I think has schooled her into thinking that questions of

practical security outweigh liberal sensitivities and she answers those

questions pretty much full-on. She can't escape the discussions over

Brexit, not least an opposition day debate tomorrow where Labour is

going to put down an amendment calling for the Government to set

out its plans. We have also heard from the main EU negotiating person

on Brexit who has said Britain can in the get a better deal outside the

EU than it had when it was a member. What does Theresa May say to that?

Those questions follow her wherever she goes. A while ago she was aboard

HMS Ocean, the flagship of the Royal Navy here in Bahrain, the symbolism

is clear, Britain is to remain a world power after Brexit. Alliances

like those here count as well as getting a good deal in Europe.

That's a struggle too. Aboard that ship she looked like a war leader,

we are not at war but it is a struggle wherever she goes. At home

at Westminster, as you say, we are now hearing Minister after Minister

telling us that Britain may well be in the business of paying Europe for

access to the European market. She's leaving that open. She didn't put it

quite like that, she put it like this. Sometimes people look at this

as somehow the UK taking one particular model, the UK trying to

take some of the elements of membership. It's not about this sort

of Brexit or that sort of Brexit. It's about a red, white and blue

Brexit, that is the right Brexit, the right deal for Britain.

It's obviously going to be tough, tough with the EU negotiating

partners, they say at the moment they're going to make it difficult

for Britain. Yeah, everything that you hear suggests there's going to

be hard bargaining when those Article 50 talks, the talks on

leaving the EU finally get started. We are now hearing from different

ministers at different ends of the spectrum, David Davis, the Brexit

Secretary, Philip Hammond today saying we may be in the business of

give and take when it comes to paying into the EU. You heard there

a red, white and blue Brexit which means give and take. How much is

given and how much is taken, we don't know, she doesn't know and

they won't know until the talks are well under way and that will happen

when parliament gives its say. That will happen after the Supreme Court

says it's up to parliament to give its say. Theresa May struggling as

it were on so many fronts at once. Thank you.

Let me bring you some more news following on from that, about the

Government's position in terms of that debate tomorrow on the Brexit

negotiations. Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether it will try

to amend a Labour motion, that's a motion that's pushing Ministers to

reveal their stance on Brexit talks and as we discussed earlier, there

could be up to 20 or so Tory rebels backing that Labour motion. Pressed

on whether the Government would seek to amend the motion, the Prime

Minister's official spokesman said our approach to this debate and vote

tomorrow will be guided by the position we have taken thus far, we

don't intend to reveal our negotiating position ahead of

triggering Article 50 by the end of March. It looks at the moment as if

there isn't going to be an amendment but we will see.

The sudden resignation of Conservative MP Stephen Phillips

over disagreements with the Government about Brexit means

This time in rural Lincolnshire in the constituency

Voters returned a large Conservative majority

in 2015 but that was before the EU referendum.

By the end of the week there'll be a new political mix

At this family-run food supplier in Lincolnshire are some

of the 60% who backed Leave, working alongside the quarter

of its staff from Eastern Europe, equally waiting to see what kind

Obviously, Brexit's a big issue at the moment.

I think we should stick by whatever decision's been made.

In this mainly rural constituency a quarter of people are over 65

Its last Conservative MP had a majority of 24,000.

But that was before the EU referendum.

So what do voters want to see on the big issue of Brexit now?

Really it's making the best out of the decision that's been taken.

Obviously, there's got to be a good deal, but a lot just seems to be

about when are we going to make the decision at the moment,

just make the decision and get it done as quickly as possible.

Get out so we can get our borders back.

This has been a Tory stronghold but following on from what happened

in Richmond, when Brexit played a big part in the by-election there,

in this pro-Leave constituency the UK Independence Party hopes

to capitalise and is pledging to stop the Government

By having a Ukip MP, not only will it shake the Government up,

because they'll be terrified of losing other seats,

but also I will hold them to account very vocally and very strongly.

30 seconds to say why you should be voting for them this week...

But the Liberal Democrat candidate, who voted for Remain,

taking part here in a BBC radio Lincolnshire hustings at a local

academy, thinks he can offer voters an alternative.

You do have the chance to change your mind, this

You don't have to stay with your original decision.

We have met many people on the doorstep who regret voting

to leave because of the lies that were told during the Brexit campaign

Its candidate decries six years of austerity and says his party

would best protect workers' rights and the NHS.

It's the Tories running the country, supported

They're the ones running the country, they're the ones that's

We had nothing in the Autumn Statement about extra

If you want to be taken for granted by the Conservatives, vote Tory.

If you to send a message to Theresa May vote for me.

Defending the seat for the Conservatives its candidate,

out canvassing here in Ruskington, says a vote for her will ensure

When we talk about Brexit what we say to people is, you know,

Theresa May has been very clear, the country voted to leave

We're going to leave the European Union.

The best way to ensure that, if that is important to you,

is to vote for a Conservative member of parliament so that Theresa May,

the Prime Minister, has the strongest majority

With just a few days left, voters will soon decide

whether to return a Tory to Westminster, or,

like in Richmond, whether Brexit may affect a different outcome.

And on your screens now is a full list of all the candidates

running in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election.

Joining us now from Edinburgh is the polling expert

You have been kept busy recently. Defending a majority of 24,000 would

normally seem a safe bet. But following the Lib Dems win in

Richmond is anything possible? I think the truth is there is a big

difference between Richmond and Sleaford. Zac Goldsmith might have

been defend ago big majority from the last general election but this

was a constituency that elected a Liberal Democrat MP from 1997 to

2010. In contrast, Sleaford has done nothing other than ever vote for a

Conservative MP and to that extent at least a Conservative defeat here

would, I think, be a spectacular result in the way that the wasn't

quite in Richmond. That said, by-elections are never easy for

governments. The Conservatives had 56% of the vote last time. We

shouldn't be surprised if it's only just hanging on to about 40%, but

40% of the vote should be enough to win this constituency. Right. Is

there any evidence Ukip claim that they are gaining ground in the

constituency because people are impatient with the pace of Brexit,

they would say that, wouldn't they, but is there evidence of that? They

would say that, but we don't know because we have not had opinion

polls in this constituency but certainly the interesting question

that is being carried forward from Richmond is whether or not indeed

the question of Brexit is going to begin to reshape British politics.

Ukip on the one hand are going to try to appeal to the majority of

voters in this constituency who voted to Leave and say you need to

hold Theresa May's nose to the fire. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats,

OK, it's only a 38% Leave vote but they'll be looking to try to

persuade those voters who are unhappy about the vote to leave to

come across to them. Certainly given how badly they did in 2010 - 2015 in

this constituency only just saving their deposit, if there is evidence

of a Liberal Democrats revival in the wake of the Richmond result, the

party should be getting itself at minimum back into double figures so

far as percentage share of the vote is concerned.

Do you think Brexit will start to shape British politics at every

opportunity, for example in by-elections? It depends how well it

goes. The Liberal Democrats did well in Richmond Park last week but that

was where, as John said, it was a strong constituency. In the West

Country they need to win seats but the West Country was a probe leave

area and the strong stands Tim Farren is taking in the by-elections

might bring short turns a short-term dividends, but it might be a barrier

in the south-west through a Liberal Democrat combat. It's a mixed

message for all parties. For Ukip, holding the government's speak to

the fire in areas where there is a strong feeling for the league

campaign, will that be winning seats in councils, will that bring people

over to them -- leave. This is to you, John. I do apologise. I'm

looking at you, but you can't see me. Could you say it again? Could

Ukip make gains by holding the government's feet to the fire over

the place of Brexit? In constituencies like this the

Conservative vote is so large it will be difficult for Ukip to win

the seat. In a marginal, it might be possible. There is another prize

Ukip could look to, which is managing to come second and

defeating the Labour Party and there is another important question. The

Labour Party developing -- defending a poor percentage of the vote

doesn't make progress and they should do so in by-elections, but

the record in Richmond and Whitney and the two by-elections since June

20 -- disappointing that the party. The crucial battle is that if Ukip,

second they will claim they are back on the road having had a rocky six

months. If Ukip come second they might have to rethink their

strategy. They say they want to replace neighbour in the North.

Obviously Theresa May cannot afford to lose the seat because she has a

slim majority already and has lost one in Richmond. This is a must win

for the Conservatives. I think John identifies exactly the right thing

the Conservatives will be looking for. If Labour looked like they are

making no progress at all, that will give Downing Street a lot of

comfort. That is what the Tory hopes are predicated on, that the Labour

vote is so soft that come the general election the Tories will

make gains compared to the last David Cameron election victory.

With over 800 peers it's got more legislators

And that's prompted some members of the Lords to argue it should

Yesterday, peers debated the issue and here are some highlights.

The time for reform has come and it is for us to take the initiative and

work with government, not for us to wait for government to decide and

then to impose. Significantly, when the public are asked to express a

preference there is a much bigger group now demanding total abolition

rather than supporting the present unsatisfactory appointment system or

any other proposed modifications of it. So that those in this house who

continue to obstruct real democratic reform risk and increasing public

demand for a unified parliament, which me and my colleagues do not

support. This would diminish the range of expertise and using

election results to determine the numbers of this house would

encourage us to be even more political. The result, my lord, is

that it would be hard to tell apart from the House of Commons. We would

have all devices without -- all the vices without the virtues. Whereas,

if we reach consensus on what this House of Lords exists for, and unite

in promoting that purpose, I truly believe we would become more

effective. To me, it is an affront when APS says he thought his peerage

was a reward for his success as a composer and he did not expect to

attend the debate and vote on policy issues. Likewise, one adviser sent

here as lobby fodder who cannot speak, they do as I believe a

disservice. The mother of Parliaments is not mute. I believe

this house is an excellent job. It needs to be reduced in size. I agree

with many of the ideas that have been put forward by my friend Lord

Tebbit and Lord Cormack in his excellent address. This is not a

place to work out how. We've been joined by Tina Stowell,

a Conservative peer and former And also by Alan Beith,

a Lib Dem peer. The motion was agreed last night,

and some might say calling for a reduction in PAs is like turkeys

voting for Christmas. Is it? There is a general it is too big and once

you get to specific proposals will be a section of a house against all

the proposals but we are starting from the wrong end. Although the

House of Lords is too big most people don't realise that. The idea

in the public is that the House of Lords being too big is an issue is

wrong. We want to work out a way of having democracy in the House of

Lords while retaining some of its character in doing its job of making

the Commons think again when it needs to. Isn't it a start? Some

would say there's not even enough room for the if they did actually

attend all the time. -- the peers. That would be a good place to begin

reform. Everywhere is a bad place to start. Simply chopping the numbers.

Although I agree it's too large, it eggs the question, what does the

House of Lords do, how should people be elected to it -- begs -- and what

should the total size B? We had a perfectly good scheme that was

brought forward with support of all parties but the Labour Party would

not support the measures necessary to get it through. The wrong place

to start? I do think it's the wrong place to start but where we are

united is that there are some passengers we need to deal with is

the term that Lord Fowler used. And what we need to focus on is on

behaviours. Like Alan was saying about what people talk about in the

pub, they don't talk about numbers, they talk about behaviours. Do they

talk about the House of Lords at all? Probably not. And that's one of

the things that we, as an institution, have to bear in mind.

If it's not the subject of conversation they are doing their

job well. What I mean is, if you think about what the House of Lords

exists for, and I describe it as a house that exists to consummate the

House of Commons in giving people confidence in the laws that cover --

Parliament makes, and I always emphasise giving people confidence.

Because if you know, when you become a Lord, that is why you go into the

building and you going to scrutinise and revise, but why are you doing

it? That would drive your decisions on when to go, how to conduct

yourself when you are there, and also when to retire. But who is not

following those general broad rules you have outlined? You talked about

fellow passengers that need to go and people who are behaving

properly. Who are they? The reason why I think that starting with the

absolute size of the house is the wrong place to start Mrs the proper

measure that is most relevant. There are too many Lib Dems, for instance?

You can't possibly think that. I'm sure you love them one and all, but

there are a lot of Liberal Democrat peers in a house that you yourself

would like to abolish and that seems to be a great irony. As Tina herself

rightly said, and she spoke in the debate, it's not an exact copy of

the House of Commons like the last election because it would not have

the independence to make the house think again. When people talk about

the House of Lords is when we make the life of the government more

difficult, so when they voted against the tax credit cuts

everybody was talking about the Lords, and that is when we are at

our most popular. Yes, but who should make the decision about what

happens to the House of Lords? Should be the or you? I think the

House of Lords should be the place where decisions are made about its

changes and reforms -- should it be the government or you? And I believe

the House of Lords has got all the power it needs to make change

happen. It doesn't need legislation or the government. What the peers

need to do is unite in agreeing about why we exist. If there is

unity in that, the kind of behaviour is that sometimes attract criticism

would be dealt with. I think most peers who are not currently

government ministers agree on what the House of Lords is therefore, to

make the government think again, to review legislation and to make sure

we get the law right. And sometimes to bite as well as Bach, otherwise

you don't have the power to change the legislation. -- as well as Bach.

As a former member of the Cabinet and the person responsible for

getting legislation through the House of Lords, I would never

disagree that that house should not sometimes obstruct government

legislation. But not too often. Well, clearly it shouldn't be doing

it in a way that calls into question the legitimacy of it as an unelected

house alongside the elected House of Commons. The elected house should

always have the final say. The problem is that Prime Minister 's

have been stuffing the House of Lords with their charms for a very

long time, and that has caused it to become bloated and out of control. I

think that is the danger. From my work, I have to do read debates in

the House of Commons and House of Lords, and again and again, the

quality of the debate in the Lords is superior to the House of Commons.

You have largely a group of people with more experience and expertise.

That must be protected at all costs. The danger is that some of the

recent resignations and other lists from David Cameron and previous

prime ministers have been to like cronyism. It is people who are loyal

to the party rather than a cause or discipline and that will ruin the

House of Lords, I'm afraid. But at the moment I think the quality of

debate still stands good examination. On that basis, because

people will say you are over represented as a party in the House

of Lords wrap -- bearing in mind the number of MPs in the House of

Commons, are you going to vote against the triggering of Article

50? The house is unlikely to have a vote on the issue. You will

certainly want the government to set out what it's trying to achieve in

negotiations, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, customs union or no customs

union. Nobody enters into negotiations without making it

public what the objectives are. The bottom line is we would challenge

the government to do that, but the real decision on that will be taken

in the House of Commons. But if it comes to the Lords, which it would

do if there was legislation following on from what the Supreme

Court rules, even a short Bill, that would be going to be scrutinised by

you, and if it wasn't clear if we were going to stay in or out of the

single market or the customs union, would you add an amendment or try to

delay the bill? I think we would try to amend the bill. But we cannot

have a situation in which the House of Commons decides to go ahead and

the House of Lords says no you can't. I don't think anybody would

want that to happen. But that would be fair enough, wouldn't it? I think

everybody in a privileged position of power, whether you sit in the

Commons or the Lords, your own business, or in the media, everybody

needs to recognise that it is about behaviours and giving people some

reassurance that the motive behind whatever it is that people are

trying to do in order to get the best future for our country outside

the European referendum is inspired by that, but not by some political

or self-interest. What I would argue with the Lib Dems or anyone else in

the House of Lords over is that making sure that any action, when it

comes to Brexit, Article 50 or anything else, is properly and

clearly motivated that it is in the public interest. They would argue it

is in the public interest. There is no bigger public interest question

than Britain securing a good future after the negotiations. I think we

just need to recognise that people who have voted out, and I was in the

Remain campaign, but the people who voted out and are now supportive of

the change associated with Brexit, whether they voted in or out, they

are looking for those of us in great positions of power to reflect on the

way we behave and why we take the decisions we do. That sounds like a

gentle warning. It's an encouragement to do what I will do

throughout, which is to try to serve the best British interest and make

sure we get out of a process we would not have started, with an

outcome where people's jobs and livelihoods and the peace of Europe

is safely guaranteed. Thank you very much.

Nato's foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss how

the alliance can maintain peace and stability at a time

On the agenda will be not only Russian involvement in Ukraine,

but also the build-up of missiles and troops along

Ahead of today's session, Nato's Secretary General,

suggested if both sides toned down their rhetoric,

it might take some of the heat out of the situation.

I welcome any toning down of the rhetoric because I think

words matter and less aggressive rhetoric can be a first step

At the same time, words matter, but of course

Therefore, the important thing is what we see,

what kind of actions we see from the Russian side.

And we're joined now by the Conservative MP

Daniel Kawczynski, who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee.

Welcome. First of all, Tim Montgomerie, there is evidently

concern amongst the Baltic states, understandably because of where they

are, about the Russian threat. Is any talk of a new cold war an

exageration? I don't think so. If you look at some of rush why's

tactics they're deploying in the region, how they used undercover

troops to invade eastern Ukraine. How they are involved in

destabilising democracies around the world. Their interference confirmed

by intelligence agencies in America, in the US election, involved in the

WikiLeaks controversy over Hillary Clinton's emails, on a range of

fronts Russia is reverting to the behaviour that comes naturally to

Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin was trained as a KGB agent and I am

afraid you can't always teach an old dog new tricks. He is still behaving

as he did in the past. How do you deal with a power that behaves in

that way? There is no evidence to back up that Vladimir Putin is

moving towards some sort of cordial relationship with Europe, for

example? Well, I think the clip that you played is extremely important.

We met with him at the European Parliament recently and I asked how

are you going to, as Secretary General of Nato, how are you going

to lower tensions with Russia? And he talked about his experience when

he was Prime Minister of Norway and a Nato country that borders Russia.

He had in that position as Prime Minister of Norway a very pragmatic

and effective policy of dealing with Russia on the bilateral basis and I

very much hope he will use that experience to try to lower tensions

with Russia, he himself has said it's vitally important that despite

the differences we have with them, we want to ease some of the tensions

that's building up. Isn't it more than just differences and a

bilateral with authorway is one thing but dealings with Russia on a

range of issues when it's moving missiles closer, launching cyber

attacks, seeking to influence elections, makes it more difficult?

I went this summer to the Polish-Russian border and that is

already becoming the most highly militaryised part of Europe. If the

tit-for-tat deployment of missiles continues at the pace it has been,

that area of Europe will become akin to the north and south Korean

border, a no-man's-land and it will just take a spark to cause a

confrontation between the two sides. Yes, be strong and tough with them,

yes, spend more on defence but we need to engage with them to try to

build up some sort of mutual trust and respect. Otherwise we are

heading towards some sort of confrontation. Painting Russia as

the bogeyman all the time and talking about the Cold War won't

that escalate tensions? Would a different tone really, in your mind,

change the balance of relations? I think Daniel officially I think

represents Shrewsbury in parliament but has more of a record I am afraid

for representing Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and Moscow in Russia, he

Russia - he has been an apologist. If you remember the defence shield

America promised for the Czech republic and Poland, Hillary Clinton

then reset relations with Russia. The message to Russia was exactly as

Daniel has recommended, we sort of accommodate ourselves to Putin he is

aggressiveness. Since then Putin saw that as a green light, he saw

weakness and invaded Ukraine and bombs Aleppo. I am afraid the kind

of recipe that Daniel always wants us to follow in the West, to be

kinder and more indulgent to dictatorships is exactly the sort of

thing that inflames aggression and endangers peace, rather than the

reverse. You are an apologist for a dictator? Well, this is what the

likes of MrMontgomerie and others, I was called last week by a right-wing

think tank in America a trojan horse for the Kremlin. If Members of

Parliament don't dovetail into this very popular narrative which is

peddled by MrMontgomerie and others, which is these regimes are bad, they

have to be kept away, they are going to cause problems, if anybody dares

challenge that very popular and fashionable concept, as to whether

or not it is in our country's national strategic interest to

completely ostracise these countries and not have dialogue... No one's

talking about - you shouldn't misrepresent the views of your

critics. I will come back to you. His views are highly dangerous. We

need to engage with Russia. Are your views highly dangerous, what is your

alternative solution to dealing with Russia, is it containment? Well, I

think what we certainly have to be doing now is, the alternative to not

the kind of military identificationation on borders that

Daniel describes, is allowing Russia to bring in their people in green

berets and hidden essentially Russian troops to destabilise

countries like Estonia. If we do not make it clear to Russia there will

be enormous consequences for them destabilising other parts of the

world, what we will get from Putin is more of the kind of

indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations we have seen in Aleppo.

Aleppo wasn't the first time, of course, that Putin bombed civilian

populations. Before he came to power as Russian President in Chechnya,

that is how he behaved. He is a very nasty piece of work. When we have an

apologist like Daniel for him, then we are inviting further aggression.

You have dialogue. You do not have indulgence. I won't take any

lectures from Mr Montgomerie on this issue. . I am the only only British

member of parliament to have been born in Poland. I spent my childhood

listening to my grandfather about the catastrophic destruction of

Poland during the Second World War, Warsaw razeg -- razed to the ground.

All I am interested in is making sure that those frontline states

that we are Allianced to, countries like Poland are not destroyed and

devastated in another world war. What is, as I said, what is

happening with the pole border is frightening and anybody who doesn't

understand the concerns of that trajectory of conflict is wrong. May

I just say lastly, a lot of people actually, if you talk to people on

the ground, whether it's in Shrewsbury or anywhere else, they

expect politicians to go the extra mile to engage and to do whatever

they can through diplomacy. What evidence is there that has worked?

Sanctions haven't worked. There have been attempts at dialogue and

they've been rejected in many people's minds by Vladimir Putin

himself. He is only worried about his sphere of influence and he feels

under threat from the EU and that that's why he annexed Crimea and got

involved in military incursion in Ukraine. There is no evidence to

show that Vladimir Putin is interested in anything else than

increasing his sphere of influps, hence getting involved in Syria --

influence. On the basis of getting rid of Islamic State. That's the

pivotal question and we are doing a report currently on Anglo-Russian

relations. We have been doing this for the last year. The report will

be published in... What's the evidence he would respond to

dialogue? The evidence is this, our policy seems to amount to

confrontation and sanctions. The sanctions aren't working.

Interestingly, Russian trade with America, China, Brazil, and India is

at record levels. So whilst we are imposing sanctions on Russia and by

the way British companies have lost ten billion a year as a result of

these sanctions, our international competitors, the Americans, the

Chinese and Brazilians, are continuing to trade. Sanctions will

only work if their implemented by all the countries, not just western

Europe. Are you going to be out of step with your views now when we

look at President Donald Trump who, of course, has signalled friendlier

relations with Russia and Vladimir Putin. And in the end this is a new

chapter in terms of Russian relations with the rest of the

world? The article I wrote for The Times that I think you were wroting,

I am worried about the fact that Daniel's views are becoming more

popular amongst certain right-wing groups. We might be cuddling up to

Russia at exactly the wrong moment, in a sense if you look at the

Russian economy, it's a basket case. The reason why Putin is amounting

these overseas aggressions, is because he's not able to meet the

economic needs of his own people. Half the tax revenues of the Russian

state come from oil and gas. Therefore, the oil price of recent

times has meant it's been difficult for the Russian state to be stable.

So, until Russia has domestic reform it will be an unr unstable partner

for us and will continue to be aggressive overseas. Actually, the

economic isolation is more important that we continue that, because if we

don't then Russia will be able to expand its military actions. From a

moral standpoint, is there really justification of pursuing an

Anglo-Russian relationship when there are accusations of war crimes

in Aleppo, and Russians have been accused of protecting terrorists? Is

there anything to salvage from that, even if there could be improved

trade, for example, between Russia and the UK? In the deepest depths of

the Cold War, 1984, we were still, the general Secretary of the

Communist Party, we were still engaging with Russia, they were in

Afghanistan, they had occupied half of Europe, had downed a Korean

airliner the previous year, we were at heightened tensions, but at that

time Reagan invited them for talks in Washington. Thatcher invited the

next generation to discussions at Chequers. Those politicians at that

time realised the importance of no matter how difficult tensions they

needed to continue to engage... What we don't want is people like you

excusing the war crimes that are taking place in Aleppo, the human

rights abuses that are taking place in Ukraine and it's having someone

in the British parliament who seems to represent the Kremlin, more than

the British people. That's a disgrace. It's typically, because

you are losing the arcment, you try to cast people like me in a maligned

way, it's bad for democracy. We need this debate. We need this debate,

can I just say there are growing numbers now of Conservative MPs who

are joining this thought process about the importance of engaging

with Russia. No one is disputing dialogue. You are shooting at a

false target. On that, thank you very much.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was what's the latest British asset the Chinese have

Tim, what is it? Have they bought some pub chain? I think that's the

answer. You are correct. It was a good guess. What do you think about

the Chinese buying up British assets? A post-Brexit world, it's

vital we are open for overseas investment. I worry about

investments in strategic interests, but pub chains I think we can put up

with that. I'll be back at 11.30am tomorrow

with Andrew for live coverage