13/12/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

There are warnings of atrocities, as Aleppo -

where 50,000 people are thought to be trapped - falls

Has Britain and the west turned its back the people of Syria?

Train drivers on Britain's biggest rail franchise go on strike,

preventing hundreds of thousands of people getting to work.

But who is to blame - the rail company,

The Chancellor suggests that transitional arrangements

may need to be in place after we leave the EU.

So in the short term, could life after Brexit be pretty

You either love them or hate them but should the Boxing Day sales be

banned so shop workers can spend more time with their families?

All that in the next hour and I have Labour royalty with me today -

Dame Margaret Beckett, no less - former interim leader,

former deputy leader, former Foreign Secretary,

She's had more jobs in the Labour Party than there are trains running

Let's start though with the grim news from Aleppo, where Assad's

forces are on the verge of taking the city after more than four

Thousands of people are thought to be trapped in the remaining

rebel-held parts of the city amidst warnings of atrocities.

MPs have secured an emergency debate on the issue this afternoon

with calls for the UK to use its diplomatic

muscle to secure safe passage for civilians.

But has the UK still got any diplomatic muscle when it comes to

stopping the carnage in Syria? Very difficult question to answer, but

there isn't any doubt that we should be doing, and I hope the Government

is doing, everything we can, whether it is reassessing... I mean a

feature of the debate will be that it's not all that long ago that our

previous Foreign Secretary said that things like airdrops should only be

considered as a last resort, but as a number of NGOs said recently, if

this isn't the last resort and there's been no delivery of food

since November, then what is a last resort? So you would back your

labour colleague who backed airdrops? I understand why the

Government is saying how difficult it would be, but if ever there is a

time to stretch, to encourage, to fight for a political solution, and

to look at the age situation, it must be now. People say there is no

chance of a political solution, even if Aleppo hasn't already fallen into

government forces it will happen shortly, government forces and those

who support them say it will mark a turning point in this dreadful war

which will allow Bashar al-Assad to take back control of the country. If

that's the case, do you think it should happen sooner rather than

later? Well, I suppose there is an argument for that because certainly

the degree of suffering is intense. I think anybody would hesitate to

say it would be a good thing for Bashar al-Assad to be more in

control because of what is happening as people are leaving Aleppo. So

many men are disappearing and nobody knows where they are going but

nobody thinks they are going to a nice holiday camp somewhere. So it

is a terrible thing to have to consider that Bashar al-Assad might

take control and the consequences no doubt will be dire but equally

prolonging the present situation doesn't seem to be helping anybody.

You are reflecting perhaps on some of the fury from Labour MPs on your

side of the party, on the front page of the Communist newspaper, the

Morning Star. Particularly the headline on the left, final

liberation of Aleppo is in sight. Welcoming dictators liberating

Aleppo, absolute disgrace. This from Angela Smith, how can anyone claim

what is happening in Aleppo is liberation? Ian Austin, after months

of bombardment people in Aleppo face bombardment. Do you agree with them?

Yes, it's like a sick joke. Another Labour MP goes further, he says

Seamus Mill is behind the headline, he says these are your people,

Seamus, did you ask for the sickening front-page calling Russian

slaughter liberation. Do you agree with John Woodcock? I have no idea

who Seamus Milne's good friends are. I'm afraid I think it would be wise

for Jeremy to distance himself from that kind of headline because it is

almost like a sick joke. It is something you couldn't make up in a

satire magazine. Yes, because as you said, people who are trapped in the

city, there are already eyewitness accounts of atrocities as government

forces going to Aleppo and no doubt that will continue. No doubt likely

to be more. Now, up to 500,000 rail passengers

in the south of England are facing travel chaos as a strike by train

drivers paralyses Almost all trains have been

cancelled after members of the Aslef union walked out for 48

hours at midnight. Another 24-hour strike

is planned for Friday. Passengers have suffered

months of disruption, with the unions and the train

company that operates Southern services failing to reach a deal

on how services will be staffed. But while up until now it has been

conductors who have walked out, Drivers are striking as part

of the same long-running dispute over who operates the train doors

on Southern services. Southern's parent company wants

to bring in driver-only-operated trains where the driver,

rather than the conductor, opens and closes the doors

when a train pulls into a station. Unions say the on-board conductor

has a much better view of the doors But Southern says CCTV installed

in the cab means the driver can see the length of the train,

and this is already standard Govia Thameslink, which runs

the Southern franchise, A fifth of all passenger journeys

are made on GTR trains. Passengers on GTR's Great Northern

and Thameslink trains have also experienced disruption in recent

months with the company blaming cancellations on a sharp increase

in train crew sickness and a refusal Govia Thameslink are paid a fee

for running the super-franchise, with the Department

for Transport keeping fares. This is a different arrangement

to the way the rest of the rail network is run and means the cost

of all the strikes and disruption is picked up by the Government

and taxpayers, not the train firm. This morning, Transport Secretary

Chris Grayling said he had no power to stop the strike but would examine

possible changes in legislation "very carefully", adding

he was "ruling nothing in or out." And we can talk now to our news

correspondent, Leanne Brown, What's happening? Usually this

station would be ram-packed full of passengers, around 300,000 commuters

use Southern Rail services every day, but not today. As you can see,

there are rows of taxis here that would usually be being used, but

pretty quiet here this morning. I've been into the station this morning,

there are people milling around using the shopping centre but the

departure boards are blank. There is one service that it is running, the

Gatwick Express. There's quite a few people I have seen with luggage,

they seem to be using that OK, however it is a limited service and

one of the people we spoke to this morning got all the way to the

airport, missed his flight and had to come back. It seems most people

have planned ahead and they were aware of the strikes so they have

gone to social media to vent their anger instead. Many people saying

they have had to take the day off or try to work from home. One chap said

he had faced an 11 hour commute overnight to try to get to work. And

of course this isn't just affecting those commuters, it's also affecting

the larger economy as well. It is expected it will get even quieter as

the day goes on. At rush hour there certainly won't be a rush on here.

Now, a really quiet. Thank you. I'm joined now by the Conservative

MP Nick Herbert, whose constituency is served by Southern trains,

and Mick Whelan, General Secretary Mick Whelan, cancer treatment

appointments missed, jobs at risk, jobs lost, children unable to travel

to school, do you consider these acceptable consequences of the

union's industrial action? Now I have a great deal of empathy and

sympathy with the people impacted. We don't want to be here. This isn't

about money, it is purely about safety. What do you say to Mick

Whelan, he doesn't want to be here. This is not about money and it is

not their fault. Of course that is their fault because they are

striking but it cannot be about safety because a third of the trains

operated on the national network of these driver operated doors and the

irony today is that there will be drivers driving Thameslink trains,

which are run by the same company that have driver only operated doors

on the same day we have striking drivers saying the trains are not

safe. That cannot be right, if the trains were not safe they wouldn't

be allowed to be run and they have been for 13 years. Aslef told Chris

Grayling the trains could be hit with a decade of industrial action.

He says you are hell-bent on fermenting this dispute. Why should

Southern passengers have any faith that you want an end to the strike?

We have had this policy is the best part of 15 years. Of not extending

DOO. The technology that was introduced in the early 1990s was on

far shorter trains and without the footfall we have now. If you haven't

answered the question. We don't normally rush the barricades, we do

not have an industrial history... But you are prepared to have a

decade of industrial dispute about this. That is slightly out of

context. When we met, I expressed my concern with driver only operated

trains. Chris Grayling was intelligent about our concerns and I

made a comment saying it may lead, with the digital railway elsewhere,

to long-term problems. So you are digging your heels in and it could

lead to years of industrial dispute. This particular issue was fermented

by the DFT, it was a matter of public records. Peter Wilkinson who

works at the DFT said he would cause the strikes, and they have done. You

are literally setting your face against technological improvements

and progress and that is why you will continue to block and go on

strike. If you look at our record and a good well, we have helped

introduce the technological process, everything from ATO... But you are

not doing it over driver only operated trains. And has been our

policy for over a decade, and we would seek to have a safer, better

the operated railway. But it has been in use since the 1980s. The

rail safety standards board, and I have their inspection here, says it

is safe so this isn't about safety, is it? The rail safety standards

board is not an independent body. They say they have independent

inspectors. The members of the board are the managing directors of the

companies. Are they independent or not? They were set up after the

Clapham rail disaster but you don't have to take their word for it, the

independent rail network director of safety has said these trains are

safe and specifically the trains being introduced on Southern are

safe. The fact is this strike clearly has a political agenda, it

is absolutely nothing to do with pay. No pay cuts, no job losses.

There will still be guards on almost all of the trains that currently

have guards on at the moment, it is just that they are not operating the

doors so the long-suffering passengers will look at this with

dismay and asks why the whole service has been brought to a halt

today and seriously disrupted by the RMT before Aslef joined this strike

action for a period of months. It has gone on for an extended period

of time causing misery, the point is who is to blame and how can it be

sorted? You have accused him of being ideological in carrying out

the strikes but isn't it true to say that when we look into the future

the railways are expensive to run and the obvious way is to reduce

overheads with more technology coming in. Ultimately, even if you

are not cutting staff by saying driver only operated trains, you are

downgrading the role of the second person on the train with a view

presumably to phase it out. Well, the people who are going to be

on the trains are going to be able to look after passengers. They will

be safety trained. Right, will they be paid less? No. Will the jobs be

less skilled? The pay is being maintained. That's why this is so

ridiculous and frankly it is the passengers who are being put last

here. They have been losing their jobs. They have, we have suffered a

loss of contracts in my constituency. This has gone on for

months because of the industrial action that's been taking place

between the strike days and it cannot go on. Right, just to be

clear, if new people are recruited to those jobs, the second person on

the train, will they be paid less? No, my understanding is they won't

be paid less. Right. But in any case, Mick represents the drivers.

And these drivers are already driving these trains elsewhere in

the network and that's why it is so ridiculous that they're going on

strike today about the introduction of trains that these drivers already

drive. Right, well let's go back to the question of whether it is

ideological which is what Nick Herbert and the Government believe.

There are reports of unionised workers repeatedly calling in sick

or refusing to work overtime. Is unofficial sympathy action being

taken? Not to my knowledge. Not to my knowledge doesn't mean it isn't

happening, you would accept that? I can only attest to what I know. Is

ASLEF encouraging this? No. There is widespread reporting of this going

on across various lines and suburban lines in and out of London. Trains

aren't running because the staff aren't there. People are working to

rule and not doing the overtime, there are fewer trains at the

weekend. Downed stand why people would be angry? I understand why

everybody is angry. Is it happening? Not to my knowledge. ASLEF have got

an official overtime ban as well as the strike days. Right, have ASLEF

got an official over time ban? We have an overtime ban on Southern,

but at the same time what it has highlighted, because I'm getting

intrigued by the figures, 500 to 600 services it is claimed are being

cancelled because of the overtime ban. Is that happening to your

knowledge? That tells us not enough drivers are employed within the

company itself. Do you deny reports that unionised workers on other

lines are falsely reporting that trains are broken down and can't

run? Yes. You do. These are denials. Claims are being made, why do you

believe them? Well, we have heard these claims. The reason I believe

it because I have watch this service be disrupted over a period of months

and although there are issues with Network Rail and the track which

needs to be improved with investment and there are issues with the

operator, yes, as well, they were as nothing compared to this serious

disruption that was caused the moment this union action started in

April and it has not been on the strike days, it has been on the non

strike days where the staff have been working to rule and they have

been trying every means they can, legal, and bending the law, not

turning up because of the high rates of sickness to disrupt the operation

of these trains and it is the poor passengers who have been suffering.

Right. Do you accept that this is, goes beyond rail strikes? This is

about trying to protect and defend public services which is pretty well

what Mark said earlier? I wish Mark well, he just had his heart

transplant. It is openly we are not fans of the pritised railway. That

doesn't drive our ideology on safety. Safety and politics are two

different things. You accepted that you are going beyond, it is not just

the issue of safety in your mind, this is a broader campaign to

protect public services? No, this isn't a broader campaign. We

campaign continually to protect public services. I have been on

platforms with Margaret campaigning to protect public services. This

strike action is solely in relation to the fact about the imposed

extension of driver-only operated trains on Southern. Whose side are

you on Margaret Beckett? Oh, I'm a mere passengerment We all in that

sense. I have sympathy with what ASLEF are saying and I can take the

point entirely what works on shorter trains in certain circumstances

doesn't necessarily work, I mean... Do you dismiss the safety record as

well from the rail standards board? I think the thing that clouds all of

this, this is a company that has a track record of inadequateness. It

didn't hire enough staff and run the line inefficiently for a long time

and I take the point entirely that people suspect that there are people

reporting in sick when they are not really and so on, overtime, but

should you really be running any train operating company with so

small a margin that if people don't want to do overtime the thing can't

run? The company must take some responsibility for that? I have been

critical of the company for failing to recruit enough drivers in the

first place. You can hardly believe the union? We can. This situation

has been made seriously worse as a result of the union action that

started in April. It has a political agenda, the unions knew that it

would be the company that would be blamed, if they took this action,

and their goal is to have the franchise removed and to have the

railways renationalised. It is a political strike and it is the poor

passengers who are suffering as a result. Do you accept the Government

is using Southern as a test case to set a precedent and therefore, break

the grip of the unions? How can this be a test case when this policy of

modernising trains has been going on for 30 years? By the way under

Labour Governments Margaret as well. These are trains which have been

running safely day in and day out. There hasn't been any evidence of

accidents that's been caused by them. The regulator says that they

are safe. It is just an excuse. It is the excuse wants to run to run a

campaign. It is rather debunked by a publishation of letter from boj and

Chris Grayling. The letter says that Chris Grayling says, "I want to keep

it out of the hands of any Labour mayor." It is political on his side.

This service has been diabolical for months now and yes, there are issues

with Network Rail, yes there have been issues with Southern, but it is

the unions that's the principle cause of the trouble now. Nick

Herbert... Two quick points. We have been meeting with all the major

stakeholders in the industry because the technology that all these trains

rely on, we're told we can't rely on: RSSB, there was a document they

produced on their website that said that a driver on shorter trains

would only see a safety incident on 90% of the occasions. There is merit

in what we say. This is a perfectly legal strike. Chris Gray lg the

transport secretary said he will take action to stop this kind of

strike carrying on, not ruling anything in or ruling anything out.

Is he going to make this strike illegal in the future? I would

support looking at what can be done to protect essential services from

this kind of political disruption that goes on. Including banning the

strikes on these essential services? We may have to look at no strike

agreements or binding arbitration, something that protects the

passengers. They are the ones whose interests we should be putting

first. It sticks in the throats of my constituents who are fed-up with

this. Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Now, negotiations on Britain's exit from the EU are due to begin

Two years after that, we should be out.

But will be need to have transitional arrangements

to smooth our exit, or should it be our clean break.

Well, in the Treasury Select Committee yesterday,

Chancellor Philip Hammond seemed to suggest transitional arrangements

I'd just like to move on to the question of transitional

Do you think they're going to be necessary?

There is, I think, an emerging view among businesses, among regulators,

and among thoughtful politicians, as well as, I think,

probably quite a universal view among civil servants on both sides

of the English Channel, that having a longer period

to manage the adjustment between where we are now as full

members of the European Union and where we get to in the future

as a result of the negotiations that we will be conducting

would be generally helpful, would tend towards a smoother

transition, and would run less risks of disruption,

Risks to financial stability, which must be a very real concern.

That's another way of putting it, yes.

We're joined now by the Conservative MP, John Redwood.

Philip Hammond says thoughtful politicians, whoever they maybe, and

many other people now back a transition period which, he says,

would be generally helpful to have more than two years to negotiate

exact pli what Brexit will look like. Do you agree with him? I

thought a lot about this. No, I don't. We could be more optimistic.

What business tells me they are getting used to the idea. It wasn't

the vote they wanted and they want the uncertainty removed as quickly

as possible. So that argues for putting all our effort into making

sure we get a good deal and then everybody knows where they stand. I

think if we generously offer zero for zero on tariffs, say them to

them, we don't want to charge your goods service, but we have have to

if you charge our goods tariffs. They would be a massive loser and

therefore, we would end up with a good outcome. There is a mismatch

between the way you are viewing the process in terms of similar plicity

and shortness time. Even Theresa May said last month she didn't want a

cliff-edge if we came out after two years without a deal. The CBI said

that and we have had the report from the House of Lords, have they got it

wrong saying it would be impossible to do what you outlined and a free

trade with the EU would take five years? I think we can be more

ambitious and I think my model will work. There are a large number of

so-called professionals who want to slow this down and who want Britain

to negotiate with herself and what is damaging to the British position

is having lots of British voices saying this is a problem, that is a

difficulty. We now need to be a united team being optimistic and

friendly to our former partners in the EU, saying we love you, we want

to trade you, we're going to have lots of students and talented people

moving both ways across the channel, all those things will carry on and

we will offer them zero tariff trade because they would have to pay twice

as much tariff on their goods into Britain as we would pay on our goods

into the Continent. Are you one of these people who want to slow it

down? You may not be earning lots of professional fees, but would you

support a slower transitional process? That might be a solution to

what are real problems. One of the most damaging things that's

happening at the moment is that people, not perhaps John, but people

like John who campaigned for us to leave the European Union are now all

going about pretending that this will be easy, straightforward and

speedy, which it won't. One of the things that nobody ever says is that

nobody thought through how the Article 50 process would work

because nobody ever expected anyone to trigger it. It isn't just on the

British side there isn't any proper preparation, there isn't any proper

preparation. The notion it will be easy and straightforward and it will

be over and done with in 18 months is nonsense. I have had a lot of

involvement in a series of international negotiations, and it

ain't like that. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't accept John's

point entirely. If we can get certainty, where we can get

certainty, let's get it as fast as possible, but let's not kid

ourselves or pretend. What do you say to John Redwood's suggestion if

we just leave and we just offer zero tariffs, people will reciprocate and

there we will have our free trade deal? Unlikely is all I can say. On

the basis of? On the basis of negotiating in the European Union

inside and outside it. Maybe this isn't the word you would use naive

about the ease which we would get a free trade deal. Experts said it

would be more tricky... I have written lots of books and some of

the so-called experts have been mugging it up for months and they

haven't read the treaties. Peter Lilley said some transition

agreement would be absolutely normal. Is he wrong too? Well, Peter

Lilley this morning said that if you waste a lot of time negotiating your

transitional agreement it isn't necessarily easier than negotiating

the final agreement and he said let's spend our time negotiating the

final agreement. Let's make it easy for them and for us. This is not

their main preoccupation. They have huge issues they need to resolicitor

and we wish them well with that. We don't need to negotiate most things.

We send them a letter and we put through our domestic legislation

because we want to take back control of our borders and our money and our

laws and those are not negotiable with Mrs Merkel. The thing that is

negotiable with her, two things, one assets and liabilities, residual

from the European Union which fortunately don't amount to a huge

amount of money and secondly, the issue of how you trade in the future

and there are two models which are off-the-shelf. We can either do the

generous deal that I'm suggesting, carry on as we are. Which looks

unlikely at the moment? I disagree because no member state

government has said they want to impose tariffs. It doesn't sound

like Philip Hammond will follow your advice. We will wait and see. It

will be the end of March, we trust. It is important that nobody on the

continent is wanting tariffs, but the other option if they do want to

damage their trade is to go over to WTO, trade successfully with the EU

on those terms. Many hate the idea of falling off the cliff and onto

the WTO. They want free trade deals and you cannot do free trade deals

with the rest of the world of you are staying in the single market.

Can you address this point, Margaret Beckett. If we did move to World

Trade Organisation terms and tariffs, it is them not us that

would be out of pocket. But it may not be that simple. I know everybody

has been saying all the way through this... Part of what everyone should

understand is that every time you turn a corner somebody comes up with

something unforeseen which is a complication. Yesterday I was

talking to somebody who says, actually, WTO is a membership

organisation, it may not be as simple as us grandly saying we will

operate by their rules. The WTO may have something to say about that.

They probably will although I'm not sure they have rejected many

countries in their past. They welcome us as a voting member

because we will be a voice for free trade which is what they are all

about. That relationship is very good. If you just do things, quite

often you find out a lot of the fears are not grounded. But you

don't now and the WTO could react badly if they felt we were

reneging... There were far more potential problems in creating two

more countries than in leaving the EU. Liam Fox published a written

statement last week saying after we leave the EU we will try to

replicate our current obligations with countries outside the EU, does

that alarm you? Not at all. I thought it was about exciting new

deals. The purpose of the legislation we need to put through

the House of Commons is to transfer the current legislation into good

British law. Then at our leisure we can decide which of

those we want to change, for example I'm sure we want to change the

fishing rules because fishing doesn't work, whereas we all agree

we want to keep the employment protections so we will. It will be

our choice, our legislation. Right, we look forward to the months ahead.

Thank you. Now to the second part of our series

looking at the issues faced by key Government departments

in the run-up to Brexit. For today's Brexit Tracker,

we've turned our attention to the Department for Environment,

Food and Rural Affairs, The current Environment Secretary,

Andrea Leadsom, campaigned for Britain to leave the EU,

but now faces questions about how leaving will impact farming

subsidies and air quality. Behind the doors of Defra,

the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

one issue post-Brexit dominates - what to do about the common

agricultural policy. Equivalent funding has been

guaranteed until 2020, but politicians and their civil

servants need to decide what should They will be working

with the Home Office to decide how to best employ seasonal agricultural

from overseas, with ministers saying they are looking carefully at how

to ensure Britain's farms continue to get the necessary supply of

labour when crops need harvesting. As the UK looks to form new trade

deals across the world, others are eyeing up our market

for their agricultural produce. New Zealand, for example,

has said it wants a deal but wants access for its lamb and dairy

produce, currently protected Will Defra look to protect British

farmers from increased competition? Or work to ensure they can sell

their own produce in new markets? One area of reform could

be pesticide control. Farming Minister George Eustice has

said the EU's precautionary principle needs to be reformed

to allow faster authorisation. One potential clash could come over

bee-harming neonicotinoids. The UK opposed EU

restrictions three years ago. Another change under consideration

are new rules to regulate Only one GM product has

been licensed since 1998 A whole series of EU laws govern

the welfare of farm animals, including production,

transportation and slaughter. Brexit will give an opportunity

to go further on aspects of welfare blocked by the EU,

such as ending live exports. Will the UK go its own way

on air quality limits Therese Coffey said the UK

was seeking better air quality post-Brexit,

so will the Government use this These are just some of the issues

Defra Secretary Andrea Leadsom and their team have on their plates

as the Government moves ever closer to triggering Article 50 and firing

the starting gun on our exit She was on the Remain

side of the argument, and joining us is another former

Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, who was

a Leave campaigner. The Government has pledged to

maintain farm subsidies until 2020, should it continue beyond that? Yes,

I was clear through the referendum campaign that the 2.9 billion we

spend could be targeted at our own industry and our own environment to

deliver much more effect. I also said where appropriate we will have

the freedom to go further so I see huge opportunities in designing a

farming and environmental policy tailored to our own environment. So

you would like to see those industries subsidies even further?

They currently make up 60% of farm income and you would like to

subsidise it more. I see that money as a reward for farmers for the

public good they provide in environmental benefits upon which

sits a 30 billion tourist industry, but once it's all sorts of public

benefits. Margaret Beckett, do you agree with that assessment by Owen

Paterson that the subsidies for the public good that farming doors, even

if the industries themselves are not profitable. I certainly agree you

need public support for the benefit farming brings. I'm not sure we

should agree -- we would agree about where the money should go but I

accept there is a need for public support. If I was Defra I would be

worried about this pledged to keep funding going until 2020. From a

government that cut taxes all over the place. But why should people

working in other sectors and other industries paid taxes to subsidise

farms which don't make money? We have got to get our food from

somewhere. Sure, we could get it from abroad. And successive

governments have accepted that but the more we can grow ourselves the

better. There is also a question about our landscape, environment,

protection of the environment and so on which is tied in with that work.

Some of the reasons you get flooding is because of the way farming

impacts the land. Is Margaret Beckett right to be sceptical that

the Government will keep to its commitment of those subsidies until

2020. No, I was clear, I spoke to... But what about the current

government? And we are the rural party, and it is in our interest to

have a prosperous, thriving country. I think her government was a

mistake, believing there was limitless, cheap, safe food beyond

our shores. There is lots of cheap food but there's also a role for us

to have a thriving industry. The EU has an insane hostility to

technology, it is becoming the Museum of world farming. Last week I

was in a company in Germany that has stopped GM development. We will come

onto that in a moment. Won't cheap imports like lamb from New Zealand

perhaps, harm our agricultural sector? In the end it will undercut,

do farmers want that sort of free trade deal? There will be sectors

that will not be competitive but there can be government help because

there are issues you touched on, animal welfare, environmental

benefits in the hills, so I don't see the two as contradictory. George

Eustice also said we could lift EU restrictions on GM technology. Would

you support that? I wouldn't give anyone a blank cheque book for a

long time I have been impatient with the attitude to GM technology. It is

a way of doing faster in a laboratory and more efficiently what

agriculture has always done and I'm afraid within the European Union as

a whole, there is a certain kind of thing caught up with a mixture of

religious and superstitious approach to GM. I recall hearing people say

it is not natural. Agriculture is about interference with nature,

otherwise we would all be starving. Do you agree? Totally. The latest GM

is shifting genes around within a single species, accelerating

photosynthesis, which could get increased wheat yields of up to 30%.

That would be fantastic. We have seen the green revolution of growing

more food on less land, and there's still a billion people hungry on the

planet. What was shocking about my trip to Germany is they are not

developing products because it is pure witchcraft and superstition

that stops it. Very important, the bugs will carry on, there are fun

either attack wheat and we have to be ahead of them. -- there are

funguses. Now, just when you thought you'd had

enough of leadership elections, This one is in the union Unite,

the biggest and most powerful The current General Secretary,

Len McCluskey, is standing again, and this morning, Gerard Coyne,

the union's regional secretary in the West Midlands,

threw his hat into the ring. I'm really pleased to be

here and to have a number of stewards and reps who I've worked

with over the years I'm proud of the record that I've

had as the West Midlands regional secretary for the past 15 years

working alongside many of you here. But I think the time is right

for some change and I think the time It's not about the leadership that

we've had thus far although I do think that Unite has become too much

of a political commentator and not actually focussing on the direct

concerns of our membership. And our political editor

Laura Kuenssberg joins me now. What do you think of his chances of

defeating Len McCluskey? There is no question Len McCluskey is in a

strong position, he's been a huge figure in the Labour movement for

some time now and extremely loyal to Jeremy Corbyn. The scaffolding that

has propped him up at some of the toughest moments. People involved in

Jeremy Corbyn's campaign that if they can get turnout up, they have a

chance of taking him on. Turnout has been measly, in fact Len McCluskey

was elected on 20% of the 1.4 million, but they loyally turnout in

that political cork in terms of that union. So the challenge is about

turnout but we will see, it's also going to be a long fought election

and it will run officially between March and April, but here we are in

December with the contest already having begun. Len McCluskey is an

ally of Jeremy Corbyn and as a result Jeremy Corbyn has accused him

of dabbling in politics all the time, partly apparently because Len

McCluskey has been outflanked on his own left even within Unite. Could

this be a proxy for a bigger battle within the Labour Party? I think so,

and somebody said to me last night this isn't even a proxy, it is a

battle. It is important not to underestimate how important the

biggest union is, particularly in this environment when so MPs are

hostile towards the leader. In any time of trouble, Len McCluskey has

been there for Jeremy Corbyn. I remember the date Jeremy Corbyn won

the Labour leadership for the first time, round the corner in a packed

up in Westminster the first person on the stage to give him a bear hug

was Len McCluskey. It is clear from that image, but what we have seen

from the last 18 months is that Len McCluskey's sport has been vital.

Not just because of money for the Labour Party, but crucially because

the unions also have places on the National executive committee, that

is the decision-making body for the Labour Party. To many of our viewers

and members of the public, this might sound obscure but to people

inside the Labour Party on both sides, this battle could hardly be

more important. Right, the loss of Len McCluskey

would be big for Jeremy Corbyn, wrestling control from some of his

supporters on Labour's NEC could have quite an impact? T-would

certainly make him much more vulnerable and Jeremy Corbyn's

allies, some of whom I was talking to last night about this, they see

this launch of a leadership from Jeremy Corbyn as a political attack

on them. They believe that attacks from the PLP have failed. They think

this is another way, people inside the Labour Party, who have never

reconciled themselves to his leadership of trying to have a go at

Jeremy Corbyn. Now, of course, Mr Coyne says himself, he said he feels

we have had no choice, but to stand, he wants to make Unite concentrate

on the interests of its member, cabin crew, defence workers, people

who work in the auto industry, people he believes that are being

let down by Len McCluskey playing Westminster snakes and ladders. You

know, there is no question, this is the dynamic here and if there were a

change at the top of Unite that would be a very big deal, indeed. Do

you agree it could change the balance of power within Labour? I

don't think it should be about the Labour Party. I disagree with

whoever said it is about Labour and all about Jeremy. I have been a

member of Unite for more than 50 years. I have known and been a

friend of Len and Gerrard for years. I am a friend of both of them. I

won't criticise either of them. If you look at the internal dynamic and

the battle that has been played out, the loss of Len McCluskey would be a

serious blow to Jeremy Corbyn? It undoubtedly would have major

implications for the Labour Party. Nobody is doubting that. Didn't the

unions play a vital role during the 1980s when the Labour Party was

having the similar sort of battles with militant tendency at the time

and it was the moderate unions that were credited with bringing the

Labour Party back to the centre? The unions have always played a vital

role, but it has always been the case where the unions are so

important, is in helping to keep the Labour Party's feet on the ground

and help to keep us in touch with the Concerns of their members and

the wider workforce across the country rather than any involvement

which I welcome, but the involvement that they have in the party, to my

mind has been second to that. Right, but the Labour Party has gone

through a lot of turmoil recently in the last year or so, you gave a

number of interviews over the summer, some of them quite emotional

when there was pressure on Jeremy Corbyn to stand down as Labour

leader, how do you feel now about your party's fortunes after his

re-election? Well, I think, there has been a general sort of settling

down. I think everybody is very conscious of the problems that the

party has and the problems that the country has and how vital it is that

we get ourselves into fighting condition to take on a Government

which is doing so mump damage and so much Is Jeremy Corbyn harm. Learning

the lessons from the report that you wrote on what Labour could learn

from losing the 2015 election? Is he taking those on board? I think the

one thing that was in that report and that is still very important,

because we haven't cracked it yet. I don't mean that Jeremy doesn't want

to crack it yet, but we haven't got a simple clear message expressed in

few words, I would hope, that tells people what the Labour Party stands

for and what having Labour in Government would mean. It was our

biggest weakness last time. It is a weakness we still have. I don't

blame that on Jeremy. None of us have sorted. But he is the leader?

Yes, I know. It is not just down to him. It is down to him to get that

answer, yes. You I don't expect him on his own to think it Does that

feed up. Into the latest polling figures 17 points behind the

Conservatives and coming fourth in Sleaford? We didn't win in 2015

because we didn't convince people that we could handle the economy.

Now, since then, more recently, it has become more and more clear that

George Osborne's long-term economic plan was, you know, the biggest

piece of fiction around and that the Conservatives have failed to deliver

on all the economic promises that they made. So in that sense, the

ground is a bit more favourable, but we haven't yet got our act together

sufficiently to get that message across to people. Awe agree with

Diane Abbott, the gap can be closed in a year? I hope so. Will it

happen, do you think? I have been around a long time. Sometimes these

things arlittle, take a little longerment the main thing is that we

do it. If it takes more than a year, it takes more than a year.

Now, is this how you enjoy your Boxing Day?

The Boxing Day sales have become a feature of Britain's yuletide

traditions with big discounts on offer for those prepared

to queue up before dawn, but could the bargain hunters

pleasure be to the detriment of shop workers whose Christmas break

Well, an online petition calling for shops to be banned from opening

on Boxing Day has attracted more than 100,000 signatures and so was

Any proposals would only affect England and Wales.

I have moved from indifference to anger and I have done

so because all the evidence shows that poorly paid retail workers

are being exploited to fuel a national obsession,

a debt-fuelled shopping binge that in the end does

One of the difficulties with her argument though,

however supportive I might be of it, is that actually if people can't go

physically to a high street shop or an out of town shop to shop,

they will do it online on Christmas Day, on Boxing Day,

and ultimately that will take business away from the very

shopworkers whose livelihoods we're seeking to protect.

We are joined by the Shadow Business Minister Bill Esterson,

and by the consumer journalist Harry Wallop.

Welcome to both of you. What is your policy, Bill? Jo, well, on Christmas

Eve people are working later and later into the evening. People are

starting earlier and earlier on Boxing Day as well. We heard about

one person who has to be at work for 3am on Boxing Day for 5am opening

yesterday in the debate. They don't get any kind of Christmas. They have

got family commitments. Some people with children. They're putting the

stockings together when they get home late on Christmas Eve and doing

the food on Christmas Day, no Christmas and we don't think that's

good enough and there should either be an enforcement with the situation

where only those who want to work, have to work in large stores or if

that doesn't work, large stores shouldn't be allowed to happen just

as happens on Christmas Day. What's wrong with that? There are all sorts

of people who work on Boxing Day and on Christmas Day. Journalists,

railway engineers, indeed, the leisure industry which is taking

greater proportion of our disposal income than retail, so all the pubs

are open on Christmas Day... Boxing Day? Indeed, many are open on

Christmas Day. Especially when the high street is under pressure from

online. This is an important day for them. Look at the crowds of people

cueing up. Why should retail have an exception? Lots of people work on

Christmas Day and Boxing Day in the emergency services, in the NHS,s

care sector and hospitality as we just heard, but retail workers are

working hard all the way through December and they are contributing

massively to people enjoying their Christmas. It is one sector where we

can make a difference that's why it is different. Why shouldn't they

spend time with their families? It is a time of year when people would

like to be at home. At least for one day and just delay the sales, the

big rush to the 27th? Some shops don't open on Boxing Day, the market

controls this. So... It is a bit difficult to allow workers to stay

at home unless there was some intervention, surely? We have a

false idea of this being a special moment, Boxing Day and Christmas

Day. If we go back to the golder era of a Christmas Carol. There used to

be football matches. Do you have a false nostalgia? It is unfortunately

nat to use the Christmas Carol, we used to send children up chimneys as

well! This is where we should be drawing the line. What about the

petition and the response, there seems to be a lot of people in

favour of it? Of course, it is popular to legislate for people to

have an extra holiday, I don't want to go shopping on Boxing Day, I

can't think of anything worse to be in the cue at 5am to rush into an

Oxford Street store, just because it is popular, doesn't mean it is

right. I don't think it is the place of the Government to enforce a

holiday for plenty of people who want to work. Yes, many don't want

to work and if we closed shops on Boxing Day, people will still shop

and go online, who will still be working, warehouse workers for

Amazon. Thank you.

Now, in the last hour Donald Trump has confirmed his choice

He is the current Chief Executive of oil firm Exxon Mobil.

We can talk now to Sohrab Ahmari of the Wall Street Journal

What's he like? Well, I don't know him. I have met him. He is an

extremely impressive and capable executive and he managed the largest

company in the world with 160,000 employees operating in 55 countries.

So there will be a lot of objections and questions about his nomination

and I have some of those, but a lot of the anxiety in Washington and

elsewhere about the fact that he has a business background is irrelevant,

a person with a business background such as is well poised to oversea

this vast bureaucracy of the State Department and help execute

president-elect Trump's policies. But the concerns are that he has too

cosy a relationship with Vladimir Putin and his business deals are

tied up there. Surely that's not the right person then to have a healthy

global reputation as Secretary of State? That's where I have most of

my concerns. Where I'm willing to be persuaded is first of all, as a

starting point, that he needs to divest from his businesses

completely so this that there is no question of conflict of interest.

Senators, the US Senate should press him to make sure that the world view

that he represented when he was CEO of ex--on which he opposed sanctions

after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea. That's the key question, but

it doesn't, I wouldn't just say, that because of that background and

what he has had to say as CEO of ex--on, it means that he will be a

Putin stupbleg when he is Secretary of State. There will be a battle,

isn't there, politically for Mr Trump to get this accepted, by

partisan objections to this, is that right? Senator McCain and senior

Republican have objected or raised questions at least about his ability

to do the job. I would say as far as the Democrats go and the Obama

administration, which is now in the, having had the vapours about Russian

hacking and Russia's role in the world, I just think it is a bit rich

OK because this is the same administration that A, didn't arm

Ukraine so it could deter Russian aggression. Initially refused to

install missile defence sites in Poland. It is the same

administration that has overseen this withdrawal from the Middle East

that has seen Russia take America's place as the outside power. It is

rich that they are becoming such Russia hawks. Margaret Beckett, what

do you think of this appointment? Well, conflicts of interest

potential and perhaps actual are enormous, but the thing that

actually does somewhat bother me, we have had a track record sometimes in

this country of having people brought in from business to politics

and to say it doesn't always work is to put it mildly and because America

is such an enormous player with so much influence, one must hope, pray,

if you like, that Mr Trump is braver than the rest of us and that he's

going to get away it and it will work, but it seems to me to be

fraught with peril. He seems to think if you have been in business

and you know how to do a deal in your financial and personal

interest, that equips you to do everything else in life. Fingers and

everything else crossed. The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now. I'll be back at 11.30am tomorrow

with Andrew for live coverage Do join us then.

Bye-bye.