05/03/2017 Sunday Politics West

It's Sunday Morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

The Chancellor says that to embark on a spending spree

in Wednesday's Budget would be "reckless".

But will there be more money for social care and to ease

The UK terror threat is currently severe,

but where is that threat coming from?

We have the detailed picture from a vast new study of every

Islamist related terrorist offence committed over the last two decades.

What can we learn from these offences to thwart future attacks?

The government was defeated in the Lords on its

In the West - police cuts. of Commons what he'll do if peers

Our forces budgets have been squeezed for years,

but is the thin blue line now too thin?

All that coming up in the next hour and a quarter.

Now, some of you might have read that intruders managed

to get into the BBC news studios this weekend.

Well three of them appear not to have been ejected yet,

so we might as well make use of them as our political panel.

Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme.

Philip Hammond will deliver his second financial

statement as Chancellor and the last Spring Budget

for a while at least - they are moving to the Autumn

There's been pressure on him to find more money

for the Health Service, social care, schools funding,

But this morning the Chancellor insisted that he will not be

using the proceeds of better than expected tax receipts to embark

What is being speculated on is whether we might not have borrowed

quite as much as we were forecast to borrow. You will see the numbers on

Wednesday. But if your bank increases your credit card limit, I

do not think you feel obliged to go out and spent every last penny of it

He is moving the budget to the autumn, he told us that in his

statement, so maybe on Wednesday it will be like a spring statement

rather than a full-blown budget. Tinkering pre-Brexit and in November

he will have a more clear idea of the impact of Brexit and I suspect

that will be the bigger event than this one. It looks as if there will

be a bit of money here and there, small amounts, not enough in my

view, for social care and so on, possibly a review of social care

policy. A familiar device which rarely get anywhere. I think he has

got a bit more space to do more if he wanted to do now because of the

politics. They are miles ahead in the polls, so he could do more, but

it is not in his character, he is cautious. So he keeps his powder dry

on most things, he does some things, but he keeps it dry until November.

But also, as Steve says, he will know just how strong the economy has

been this year by November and whether he needs to do some pump

priming or whether everything is fine. He said it is too early to

make those sorts of judgments now. What is striking is the amount of

concern there is an Number ten and in the Treasury about the tone of

this budget, so less about the actual figures and more about what

message this is sending out to the rest of the world. I think some

senior MPs are calling it a kind of treading water budget and Phil

Hammond has got quite a difficult act to perform because he is

instinctively rather cautious, or very cautious, and instinctively

slightly gloomy about Brexit. He wanted to remain. But he does not

want this budget to sounded downbeat and he will be mauled if he makes it

sound downbeat, so he has to inject a little bit of optimism and we may

see that in the infrastructure spending plans. He has got some room

to manoeuvre. The deficit by the financial year ending in April we

now know will not be as big as the OBR told us only three and a half

months ago that it would be. They added 12 billion on and they may

take most of that off again. He is under pressure from his own side to

do something on social care and business rates and I bet some Tory

backbenchers would not mind a little bit more money for the NHS as well.

He is on a huge pressure to do a whole lot on a whole load, not just

social care. There is also how on earth do we pay for so many old

people? There is the NHS, defence spending, everything. But his words

this morning, which is I am not going to spend potentially an extra

30 billion I might have by 2020 because of improved economic growth

was interesting. You need to hold something back because Brexit might

go back and he was a bit of a remain campaign person. If you think

Britain is going to curl up into a corner and hideaway licking its

wounds, you have got another think coming. That 30 billion he might

have extra in his pocket could be worth deploying on building up

Britain with huge tax cuts in case there is no deal, a war chest if you

like. He will have more than 27 billion. He may decide 27 billion in

the statement, the margin by which he tries to get the structural

deficit down, he will still have 27 billion. If the receipts are better

than they are forecast, some people are saying he will have a war chest

of 60 billion. That money, as Mr Osborne found out, can disappear. He

clearly is planning not to go on a spending spree this Wednesday. It is

interesting in the FTB and the day, David Laws who was chief Secretary

for five minutes, was also enthusiastic about the original

George Osborne austerity programme and he said, we have reached the

limits to what is socially possible with this and a consensus is

beginning to emerge that he will have to spend more money than he

plans to this Wednesday. This is not just from Labour MPs, but from a lot

of Conservative MPs as well. People will wonder when this austerity will

end because it seems to be going on for ever. We will have more on the

budget later in the programme. Now, the government was defeated

last week in the House of Lords. Peers amended the bill that

will allow Theresa May to trigger Brexit to guarantee the rights of EU

nationals currently in the UK. The government says it will remove

the amendment when the bill returns But today a report from

the Common's Brexit committee also calls for the Government to make

a unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU

nationals living here. If the worst happened,

are we actually going to say to 3 million Europeans here,

who are nurses, doctors, serving us tea and coffee in restaurants,

giving lectures at Leeds University, picking and processing vegetables,

"Right, off you go"? No, of course we are not

going to say that. So, why not end the

uncertainty for them now? will help to create the climate

which will ensure everyone gets to say because that's

what all of us want. That is why we have unanimously

agreed this recommendation that the government should make unilateral

decision to say to EU citizens here, yes, you can stay, because we think

that is the right and fair thing to do.

And we're joined now from Buckinghamshire by the leader

of the House of Commons, David Lidington.

Welcome back to the programme. The House of Lords has amended the

Article 50 bill to allow the unilateral acceptance of EU

nationals' right to remain in the UK. Is it still the government was

my intention to remove that amendment in the comments? We have

always been clear that we think this bill is very straightforward, it

does nothing else except give the Prime Minister the authority that

the courts insist upon to start the Article 50 process of negotiating

with the other 27 EU countries. On the particular issue of EU citizens

here and British citizens overseas, the PM did suggest that the December

European summit last year that we do a pre-negotiation agreement on this.

That was not acceptable to all of the other 27 because they took the

view that you cannot have any kind of negotiation and to Article 50 has

been triggered. That is where we are. I hope with goodwill and

national self interest on all sides we can tackle this is right that the

start of those negotiations. But it is not just the Lords. We have now

got the cross-party Commons Brexit committee saying you should now make

the unilateral decision to safeguard the rights of EU nationals in the

UK. Even Michael go, Peter Lilley, John Whittington, agree. So why are

you so stubborn on this issue? I think this is a complex issue that

goes beyond the rise of presidents, but about things like the rights of

access to health care, to pension ratings and benefits and so on...

But you could settle back. It is also, Andrew, because you have got

to look at it from the point of view of the British citizens, well over 1

million living elsewhere in Europe. If we make the unilateral gesture,

it might make us feel good for Britain and it would help in the

short term those EU citizens who are here, but you have got those British

citizens overseas who would then be potential bargaining chips in the

hands of any of the 27 other governments. We do not know who will

be in office during the negotiations and they may have completely

extraneous reasons to hold up the agreement on the rights of British

citizens. The sensible way to deal with this is 28 mature democracies

getting around the table starting the negotiations and to agree to

something that is fair to all sides and is reciprocal. What countries

might take on UK nationals living in the EU? What countries are you

frightened of? The one thing that I know from my own experience in the

past of being involved in European negotiations is that issues come up

that maybe have nothing to do with British nationals, but another issue

that matters a huge amount to a particular government, it may not be

a government yet in office, and they decide we can get something out of

this, so let's hold up the agreement on British citizens until the

British move in the direction we want on issue X. I hope it does not

come to that. I think the messages I have had from EU ambassadors in

London and from those it my former Europe colleague ministers is that

we want this to be a done deal as quickly as possible. That is the

British Government's very clear intention. We hope that we can get a

reciprocal deal agreed before the Article 50 process. That was not

possible. I understand that, you have said that already. But even if

there is no reciprocal deal being done, is it really credible that EU

nationals already here would lose their right to live and work and

face deportation? You know that is not credible, that will not happen.

We have already under our own system law whereby some people who have

been lawfully resident and working here for five years can apply for

permanent residency, but it is not just about residents. It is about

whether residency carries with it certain rights of access to health

care. I understand that, but have made this point. But the point is

the right to live and work here that worries them at the moment. The Home

Secretary has said there can be no change in their status without a

vote in parliament. Could you ever imagine the British Parliament

voting to remove their right to live and work here? I think the British

Parliament will want to be very fair to EU citizens, as Hilary Benn and

others rightly say they have been overwhelmingly been here working

hard and paying taxes and contributing to our society. They

were equally want to make sure there is a fair deal for our own citizens,

more than a million, elsewhere in Europe. You cannot disentangle the

issue of residence from those things that go with residents. Is the

Article 50 timetabled to be triggered before the end of this

month, is it threatened by these amendments in the Lords? I sincerely

hope not because the House of Lords is a perfectly respectable

constitutional role to look again at bills sent up by the House of

commons. But they also have understood traditionally that as an

unelected house they have to give primacy to the elected Commons at

the end of the day. In this case it is not just the elected Commons that

sent the bill to be amended, but the referendum that lies behind that. It

is not possible? We are confident we can get Article 50 triggered by the

end of the month. One of the other Lords amendments

will be to have a meaningful vote on the Brexit deal when it is done at

the end of the process, what is your view on that? What would you

understand by a meaningful vote? The Government has already said there is

going to be a meaningful vote at the end of the process. What do you mean

by a meaningful vote? The parliament will get the opportunity to vote on

the deal before it finishes the EU level process of going to

consideration by the European Parliament. Parliament will be given

a choice, as I understand, for either a vote for the deal you have

negotiated or we leave on WTO rules and crash out anyway, is that what

you mean by a meaningful choice? Parliament will get the choice to

vote on the deal, but I think you have put your finger on the problem

with trying to write something into the bill because any idea that the

PM's freedom to negotiate is limited, any idea that if the EU 27

were to play hardball, that somehow that means parliament would take

fright, reverse the referendum verdict and set aside the views of

the British people, that would almost guarantee that it would be

much more difficult to get the sort of ambitious mutually beneficial

deal for us and the EU 27. Your idea of a meaningful vote in parliament

is the choices either to vote to accept this deal or we leave anyway,

that is your idea of a meaningful vote. The Article 50 process is

straightforward. There is the position of both parties in the

recent Supreme Court case that the Article 50 process once triggered is

irrevocable. That is in the EU Treaty already but we are saying

very clearly that Parliament will get that right to debate and vote. I

think the problem with what some in the House of Lords are proposing, I

hope it is not a majority, is that the amendments they would seek to

insert would tie the Prime Minister's hands, limit and

negotiating freedom and put her in a more difficult position to negotiate

on behalf of this country than should be the case. One year ago you

said it could take six to eight years to agree a free-trade deal

with the EU. Now you think you can do it in two, what's changed your

mind? There is a very strong passionate supporter of Remain, as

you know. I hope very much we are able to conclude not just the terms

of the exit deal but the agreement that we are seeking on the long-term

trade relationship... I understand that, but I'm trying to work out,

what makes you think you can do it in two years when only a year ago

you said it would take up to wait? The referendum clearly makes a big

difference, and I think that there is an understanding amongst real the

other 27 governments now that it is in everybody's interests to sort

this shared challenge out of negotiating a new relationship

between the EU 27 and the UK because European countries, those in and

those who will be out of the EU, share the need to face up to massive

challenges like terrorism and technological change. All of that

was pretty obvious one year ago but we will see what happens. Thank you,

David Lidington. Now, the Sunday Politics has had

sight of a major new report The thousand-page study,

which researchers say is the most comprehensive ever produced,

analyses all 269 Islamist telated terrorist offences

committed between 1998-2015. Most planned attacks were,

thankfully, thwarted, but what can we learn

from those offences? For the police and the intelligence

agencies to fight terror, Researchers at the security think

tank The Henry Jackson Society gave us early access to their huge

new report which analyses every Islamism related attack

and prosecution in the UK since 1998, that's 269 cases

involving 253 perpetrators. With issues as sensitive

as counterterrorism and counter radicalisation, it is really

important to have an evidence base from which you draw

policy and policing, This isn't my opinion,

this the facts. This chart shows the number

of cases each year combined with a small number

of successful suicide attacks. Notice the peak in the middle

of the last decade around the time of the 7/7 bombings

in London in 2005. Offences tailed off,

before rising again from 2010, when a three-year period accounted

for a third of all the terrorism cases since the researchers

started counting. What we are seeing is a combination

of both more offending, in terms of the threat increasing,

we know that from the security services and police statements,

but also I believe we are getting more efficient in terms

of our policing and we are actually A third of people were found to have

facilitated terrorism, that's providing encouragement,

documents, money. About 18% of people

were aspirational terrorists, 12% of convictions were related

to travel, to training And 37% of people were convicted

of planning attacks, although the methods have

changed over time. Five or six years ago,

we saw lots of people planning or attempting pipe bombs and most

of the time they had Inspire magazine in their possession,

that's a magazine, an Al-Qaeda English-language online

magazine that had specific More recently we have seen

Islamic State encouraging people to engage in lower tech knife

beheading, stabbings attacks and I think that's why we have

seen that more recently. Shasta Khan plotted with her

husband to bomb the Jewish In 2012 she received

an eight-year prison sentence. She's one of an increasing

number of women convicted of an Islamism related offence

although it is still overwhelmingly a crime carried out

by men in their 20s. Despite fears of foreign terrorists,

a report says the vast Most have their home in London,

around 43% of them. 18% lived in the West Midlands,

particularly in Birmingham, and the north-west is another

hotspot with around 10% Richard Dart lived in Weymouth

and tried to attend a terrorist He was a convert to Islam, as were

60% of the people in this report. He was a convert to Islam, as were

16% of the people in this report. Like the majority of cases,

he had a family, network. What's particularly interesting

is how different each story is in many ways,

but then within those differences So your angry young men,

in the one sense inspired to travel, seek training and combat experience

abroad, and then the older, recruiter father-figure types,

the fundraising facilitator types. There are types within

this terrorism picture, but the range of backgrounds

and experiences is huge. And three quarters of those

convicted of Islamist terrorism were on the radar of the authorities

because they had a previous criminal record, they had

made their extremism public, or because MI5 had them

under surveillance. To discuss the findings of this

report are the former Security Minister Pauline Neville-Jones,

Talha Ahmad from the Muslim Council of Britain, and Adam Deen

from the anti-extremist group The report finds the most segregated

Muslim community is, the more likely it is to incubate Islamist

terrorists, what is the MCB doing to encourage more integrated

communities? Its track record on calling for reaching out to the

wider society and having a more integrated and cohesive society I

think is a pretty strong one, so one thing we are doing for example very

recently I've seen we had this visit my mosque initiative, the idea was

that mosques become open to inviting people of other faiths and their

neighbours to come so we were encouraged to see so many

participating. It is one step forward. Is it a good thing or a bad

thing that in a number of Muslim communities, the Muslim population

is over 60% of the community? I personally and the council would

prefer to have more mixed communities but one of the reason

they are heavily concentrated is not so much because they prefer to but

often because the socio- economic reality forces them to. But you

would like to see less segregation? Absolutely, we would prefer more

diverse communities around the country. What is your reaction to

that? Will need more diverse communities but one of the

challenges we have right now with certain organisations is this

pushback against the Government, with its attempts to help young

Muslims not go down this journey of extremism. One of those things is

the Prevent strategy and we often hear organisations like the MCB

attacking the strategy which is counter-productive. What do you say

to that? Do we support the Government have initiatives to

counteract terrorism, of course we do. Do you support the Prevent

strategy? We don't because it scapegoats an entire community. The

report shows that contrary to a lot of lone wolf theories and people

being radicalised in their bedrooms on the Internet that 80% of those

convicted had connections with the extremist groups. Indeed 25% willing

to Al-Muhajiroun. I think this report, which is a thorough piece of

work, charts a long period and it is probably true to say that in the

earlier stages these organisations were very important, of course

subsequently we have had direct recruiting by IS one to one over the

Internet so we have a mixed picture of how people are recruited but

there's no doubt these organisations are recruiting sergeants. You were

once a member of one of these organisations, are we doing enough

to thwart them? If we just focus on these organisations, we will fail.

We -- the question is are we doing enough to neutralise them? The

Government strategy is in the right place, but where we need to focus on

is the Muslim community or communities. The Muslim community

must realise that these violent extremists are fringe but they share

ideas, a broad spectrum of ideas that penetrate deeply within Muslim

communities and we need to tackle those ideas because that is where it

all begins. Are you in favour of banning groups like Al-Muhajiroun?

Yes, it was the right thing to do and I can tell you the community has

moved a long way, Al-Muhajiroun does not have support. Do you agree with

that? Yes, but it is very simplistic attacking Al-Muhajiroun. ISIS didn't

bring about extremism, extremism brought about ISIS, ISIS is just the

brand and if we don't deal with the ideological ideas we will have other

organisations popping up. The report suggests that almost a quarter of

Islamist the latest offences were committed by individuals previous

unknown to the security services. And this is on the rise, these

numbers. This would seem to make an already difficult task for our

intelligence services almost impossible. Two points. It is over

80% I think were known, but it shows the intelligence services and police

have got their eyes open. But the trend has been towards more not on

the radar. That has been because the nature of the recruitment has also

changed and you have much more ISIS inspired go out and do it yourself,

get a knife, do something simple, so we have fewer of the big

spectaculars that ISIS organised. Now you have got locally organised

people, two or three people get together, do something together,

very much harder actually to get forewarning of that. That is where

intelligence inside the community, the community coming to the police

say I'm worried about my friend, this is how you get ahead of that

kind of attack. Should people in the Muslim community who are worried

about individuals being radicalised, perhaps going down the terrorist

route, should they bring in the police? Absolutely and we have been

consistent on telling the community that wherever they suspect someone

has been involved in terrorism or any kind of criminal activity, they

should call the police and cooperate. As the so-called

caliphate collapses in the Middle East, how worried should we be about

fighters returning here? Extremely worried. They fall into

three categories. You have ones who are disillusioned about Islamic

State. You have ones who are disturbed, and then you have the

dangerous who have not disavowed their ideas and who will have great

reasons to perform attacks. What do we do? Anyone who comes back, there

should be evidence looked into if they committed any crimes. But all

those categories should all be be radicalised. You cannot leave them

alone. Will we be sure if we know when they come back? That is

difficult to say. They could come in and we might not know. There is a

watch list so you have got a better chance. And you can identify them?

This is where working with other countries is absolutely crucial and

our border controls need to be good as well. I am not saying and the

government is not saying that anyone would ever slip through, but it is

our ability to know when somebody is coming through and to stop them at

the border has improved. An important question. Given your

experience, how prepared are away for a Paris style attack in a

medium-size, provincial city? The government has exercised this one.

It started when I was security minister and it has been taken

seriously. The single biggest challenge that the police and the

Army says will be one of those mobile, roving attacks. You have to

take it seriously and the government does. All right, we will leave it

Now, Brexit may have swept austerity from the front pages,

but the deficit hasn't gone away and the government is still

Just this week Whitehall announced that government departments have

been told to find another ?3.5bn worth of savings by 2020.

Last November the Independent office for Budget Responsibility

said the budget deficit would be ?68 billion in the current

It would still be ?17 billion by 2021-22.

On Wednesday the Chancellor is expected to announce

that the 2016-17 deficit has come in much lower than the OBR forecast.

Even so, the government is still aiming for the lowest level

of public spending as a percentage of national income since 2003-4,

coupled with an increase in the tax burden to its highest

So spending cuts will continue with reductions in day-to-day

government spending accelerating, producing a real terms cut of over

But capital spending, investment on infrastructure

like roads, hospitals, housing, is projected to grow,

producing a 16 billion real terms increase by 2021-22.

The Chancellor's task on Wednesday is to keep these fiscal targets

while finding some more money for areas under serious

pressure such as the NHS, social care and business rates.

We're joined now by Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

Welcome back to the programme. In last March's budget the OBR

predicted just over 2% economic growth for this year. By the Autumn

Statement in the wake of the Brexit vote it downgraded back to 1.4%. It

is now expected to revise that back around to 2% as the Bank of England

has again. It is speculated on the future. It looks like we will get a

growth forecast for this year not very different from where it was a

year ago. What the bank did was upgrade its forecast for the next

year or so, but not change very much. It was thinking about three or

four years' time, which is what really matters. It looked like the

OBR made a mistake in downgrading the growth in the Autumn Statement

three months ago. It was more optimistic than nearly all the other

forecasters and the Bank of England. It was wrong, but not as wrong as

everybody else. We don't know, but if it significantly upgraded its

growth forecast for the next three or four years, I would be surprised.

It also added 12 billion to the deficit for the current financial

year in the Autumn Statement, compared with March. It looks like

that deficit will probably be cut again by about 12 billion compared

to the last OBR forecast. It is quite difficult to make economic

policy on the basis of changes of that skill every couple of months.

That is one of the problems about having these two economic event so

close together. My guess is the number will come out somewhere

between the budget and the Autumn Statement numbers. There was a nice

surprise for the Chancellor last month which looked like tax revenues

were coming in a lot more strongly than he expected. But again the real

question is how much is this making a difference in the medium run? Is

this a one-off thing all good news for the next several years? If

growth and revenues are stronger, perhaps not as strong as the good

news last month, but if they are stronger than had been forecast in

the Autumn Statement, what does that mean for planned spending cuts? It

probably does not mean very much. Let's not forget the best possible

outcome of this budget will be that for the next couple of years things

look no worse than they did a year ago and in four years out they will

still look a bit worse, and in addition Philip Hammond did increase

his spending plans in November. However good the numbers look in a

couple of days' time, we will still be borrowing at least 20 billion

more by 2020 than we were forecasting a year ago. Still quite

constrained. George Osborne wanted to get us to budget surplus by 2019.

That has gone. Philip Hammond is quite happy with a big deficit and

is not interested in that. But what he is thinking to a large extent, as

you have made clear, there is a lot of uncertainty about the economic

reaction over the next three or four years. He says he wants some

headroom. If things go wrong, I do not want to announce more spending

cuts or more tax rises to keep the deficit down. I want to say things

have gone wrong for now and we will borrow. And I have got some money in

the kitty. He will not spend a lot of it now. I understand the

Chancellor is worried about the erosion of the tax base and it is

hard to put VAT up by more than 20%, millions have been taken out of

income tax, only 46% of people pay income tax, fuel duty is frozen for

ever, corporation tax has been cut, the growth in self-employed has

reduced revenues, is that a real concern? These are all worries for

him. We have as you said in the introduction to this, got a tax

burden which is rising very gradually, but it is rising to its

highest level since the mid-19 80s, but is not doing it through

straightforward increases to income tax. Lots of bits of pieces of

insurance premium tax is here and the apprenticeship levied there, and

that is higher personal allowance of income tax and a freeze fuel duty,

but at some point we will have to look at the tax system as a whole

and ask if we can carry on like this. We will have to start increase

fuel duties again, or look to those big but unpopular taxes to really

keep that money coming in to keep the challenges we will have over the

next 30 years. He is going to set up a commission on social care. He has

had quite a few commissions on social care. Thank you for being

with us. It's just gone 11.35,

you're watching the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers

in Scotland who leave us now Hello and welcome to The Sunday

Politics in the glorious West. We were promised a big cut in red

tape, but will leaving the EU really To debate that and so much

more our three guests are Conservative MP James Gray,

Labour's Thangam Debbonaire and the Avon and Somerset Police

and Crime Commissioner, We'll hear from them in a moment.

Good morning to you all. First, police forces have

taken their share of cuts over the last seven years and for much

of that time crime kept going down. But recently burglary has started

rising again in Avon So are police cuts

making us less safe? Our Home Affairs

correspondent reports. We have been up here doing revisits

on burglary victims today. Out on the beat, this is real

neighbourhood policing, the kind the public say

they want to see more of. PC Kye Hendy and PSCO

Charlotte Thompson are responding to another report of

a burglary overnight. It started in Horfield

from last November. We were seeing an increase in garage

and shed breaks for high value bicycles and it spread over

to Lockleaze and surrounding They're determined to

catch their man or woman All services are having to do more

with less, but burglary But it is also about

the public helping us. So taking a bit of responsibility

for themselves and also to make Even if you try the odd front door

they are always open. It is a polite reminder to everyone

to review their own security. Avon and Somerset have seen a 36%

increase in burglaries since 2014. Wiltshire have seen

an increase - up by 23%. But in Gloucestershire,

the figures are down by 10%. An increase in crimes puts pressure

on local teams like these. All our forces say they are feeling

the pressure of years The thin blue line is being

stretched ever further. Here in Avon and Somerset

20% of their budget has They have fewer frontline officers

than other similar forces because of the way funding

is shared out. Wiltshire Police also claimed

the Government's funding formula is bad for them meaning they can't

afford as many police Like in Avon and Somerset,

both Wiltshire Police and Gloucestershire Police,

have seen real terms In Bristol, Avon and Somerset's most

senior detective in charge of burglaries says criminals

are resorting to fishing through cat We've seen an increase in car key

burglaries where the thieves are targeting the high value cars

that on people's driveways. So in the past people would have

had their cars stolen Now with the increase

in security devices, it's impossible to steal a car

unless you've got the keys But what do the cutbacks mean

for the victims in these crimes? We have to prioritise

that the limited resources that we have got, burglary

is a priority, but we have to balance that with other serious

crime investigations particularly serious sexual offences,

offences against women and children which are also our

priorities as well. It has been a long day and whilst

many are going home, these two are off to meet another

family who have been burgled. I'm the local police officer

and this is Charlotte. I understand you've

suffered a burglary. Anna stepped out and I was putting

Isabel to bed and when I came down, I looked out the back door

and my office doors I could see that something

had happened outside. I went down and I noticed

that my road bike had been stolen. Along with some cash

that was on the side It's worrying and it is not very

nice knowing that someone has been in your house and stolen things that

you've worked hard for to pay for. They're grateful for the police's

help and when the public are asked, this kind of policing remains one

of their top priorities. Sue, as the commissioner,

is burglary one of your priorities? I think looking at all the things,

burglary is a priority, but what was said on that piece

is local neighbourhood policing So burglary as a crime

isn't a priority? The priority is protecting the most

vulnerable from harm. Where we've got reduced funding,

we have to make sure that we are problem solving

and local neighbourhood policing teams is key to that and that's why

Andy Marsh the Chief Constable and I are ring-fencing local police

teams so that they are. If there was a burglary in a big

house with posh people, The police will always go to where

the greatest risk of harm is. You haven't got your priorities

right because burglary is going up? Burglary had a spike last

year and I very publicly was disappointed in how the police

were tackling that. But there is a whole range of things

about burglary and some of them are really not easy to be able

to find solutions to. You have got an overwhelming chance

of getting away with it? They are not good enough and I have

had that conversation many times with the Chief Constable

and there is an added focus But it is not on your website -

burglary is one of my priorities. It's protecting the most vulnerable

from harm is the priority. James, the so-called party of law

and order has seen police funding cut by 22% and thousands of officers

taken out of the service. Are you surprised that

the police aren't happy? It is not about how much we spend,

it is how you spend it and Sue was correct to say

it is a question of priorities. In Wiltshire I'm asking a lot

of questions about why the police are spending ?1 million occupying 18

police officers full-time investigating whether or not

Ted Heath was a paedophile. I don't know if he was or not,

and if he was that must be exposed, but 18 police officers,

?1 million so far on a man that's I'm not certain that's the right

priority and it is not only a question about how much money

you spend, but where you spend it Would you be surprised if police

chiefs told you we are not as good a service as we used to be

because they had a 20% budget cut. Can you imagine spending

20% less on anything You look at serious sexual assaults,

that's gone up - 180% increase How much of that do you put

down to lack of funding? It's to do with the fact

that we have fewer police officers. We have a really unfair

funding formula. Under Labour domestic abuse has been

tackled in a really interesting and smart way which actually brought

down domestic homicides in certain parts of the country and that's

because we were tackling it by funding refuges and funding

rape crisis centres What would you do about tackling

burglary which is the focus I'm not happy with the Government's

cuts to police funding. I don't think it is safe and I don't

think it is appropriate and I don't like the idea of putting,

not just the most vulnerable, but also in some circumstances our

police officers at risk. What is puzzling is this -

the police are explaining No money in social care

or not enough we're told, NHS, prisons, education,

all and our infrastructure seems to be crumbling and yet,

the Government, Mrs May is 16 points ahead in the polls, how

can you explain that? What I can do is show

you what I have been doing and what my colleagues have been

doing and Labour MPs An explanation about why when

the infrastructure is crumbling. Labour isn't up there

and above the Tories? What we've got to do is focus

on exposing what the Government is doing and we have been doing that

as well as we possibly can. Labour MPs are fighting really hard

and are showing up that the social care funding is not enough

and that's creating a perfect storm in the Health Service and we had

a debate on that earlier But you have got no explanation why

you're so unpopular? I don't enter into discussions

about opinion polls. A long time ago I decided that

I wasn't going to enter into discussion about opinion polls

because I'm not really sure how I'm really unhappy about

the result in Copeland. So where is the protection

from the public? If the Conservatives are making cuts

with impunity, where is your Just this week there

was a committee that I was sitting on and James was chairing

on which James can't comment. But we tackled the Government on how

they were undermining the ban This was being snuck

through as a regulatory change quietly, but we attacked them

and got some of their MPs Sue, how much more money

would you need to make Avon and Somerset the force

you would wish it to be? If you look at what happened over

the last seven or eight years we've lost over ?110 million

because of an unfair So I want the Government to look

at a fair and transparent formula which looks at the number of people

that are in Avon and Somerset. No, one cake and if you have a fair

funding formula which means more money for Bristol,

and the west, it means less If that's not more money,

what does fair mean? Let's have the money that

we've had taken off us so money has been taken to -

this is the transition phase. Our money has gone to other forces

such as with Cumbria. We need to have the fairer

funding formula. We would have another 350 police

officers in Avon and Somerset We will have to leave it

because we've got other Now headline writers

love to describe Brexit as a political earthquake

that will shake this country But might it all prove to be

more of a tiny tremor? Local billionaire Sir

James Dyson thinks so. He brushed off leaving the EU

as a minor event before announcing a huge investment

into the West's economy. We bought Hullavington Airport which

is only a short way down the road. As votes of confidence

in Brexit Britain go, On Tuesday, billionaire inventor

Sir James Dyson gathered staff in Wiltshire to reveal he would be

doubling their numbers He bought the old RAF airfield

at Hullavington to work on the technologies of tomorrow,

whether it is for electric cars or robots, he wouldn't say,

but he was keen to stress leaving It's a comparatively small event

in a company's life. There are lots of things like

European restrictive trade practises so we have to do for example

a special vacuum cleaner for Europe, We do that and we trade

and expand our trade with the rest of the world and it would be nice

if they could reduce His frustration with red tape

follows a legal battle with Europe over labelling laws

for vacuum cleaners. It's an issue that causes sparks

to fly at the other end Nick Lockstone makes

bespoke trailers out He had his own run-in

with the EU over the size This name plate was designed

to take a three mil stamps. However EU law dictates

the minimum size is four mil. So just because the writing

was one millimetre... He's also concerned about new safety

tests, the individual vehicle assessment comes from

a European directive. For him it means taking

each new trailer for a safety That's a three hour

round trip and a ?75 fee. It's just extra regulations

that have to be met. The trailers, all the components

we use on the trailers are exactly the same, the brakes,

the wheels, the tyres, lightening, couplings,

they are all the same except now we have to jump through these extra

hurdles to get a little bit of paper He says there are already enough

checks to ensure his trailers are road worthy and the extra tests

put him off from doing Some hope for a bonfire

of red tape after Brexit. The independent think-tank Open

Europe put the cost of the 100 most burdensome rules on British business

as over ?30 billion a year. The most expensive include the UK

renewable energy strategy, the Working Time Directive,

and the temporary agency But will leaving the EU lead

to less red tape or more? This is a Valentino

Rossi balance bike. They make balance bikes for children

at this Somerset firm. Much of their business is done

on the Continent and they worry that exporting abroad could lead to two

sets of rules. One for trade in Britain

and another for Europe. If there is going to be UK standards

that are different and require additional safety testing then yes,

it's going to affect us because we're going to have to go

through all the extra cost of testing, all the extra time

and bureaucracy that's going to be involved or the certification it's

going to have, I would say, His soaring confidence is not

shared by everyone then. With just days to go

until Brexit negotiations start, and a new future is drawn up

for our country. I don't know what he's

drawing there, but I'm sure James, we were told that immigration

would come down or migration All these things are

vanishing, aren't they? We are still in the European Union

and we will be for another two years After that time, we in Westminster

will decide about red tape and will decide about migration

and decide about trade and all these things,

we will be the ones that decide and we will be listening

to Sir James Dyson and to the others Right now, Europe doesn't

listen to them at all. You can decide until you're red

in the face, but if you want to sell something to the EU,

you will have to abide So it could mean companies will have

to abide by the regulations that you've decided in the UK

and the regulations they have If you sell something to America,

you have American regulations or to Japan or to Australia

or India, or anywhere else in the world,

of course, you have to sell things in those countries in the way

they want to buy it. We will do our best to make

sure our regulations But European regulations aren't

the same as American Now you're bringing in another one

which will be UK regulations? It may or may not be depending

on what we in Westminster decide. Well, I mean James

has already said it. We're going to have to abide by many

different sets of regulations and we do now and that's

going to carry on so that's something which actually hasn't

changed and it's not changing now as you say and it's not

going to change after we leave What's important is Robin mentioned

about Working Time Directives, about the renewable energy

directive, about the temporary agencies directives, I want to carry

on protecting workers. You want workers to carry on having

rights if they're temporary workers. I'd alike us to carry on having

a renewable energy strategy. I hope that those aren't so-called

red tapes that we're chucking away. One person's red tapes is another

person's rights and I want Do you accept the fears that

were expressed during the campaign Well, as James said,

I'm going to agree with James. We haven't actually left

the European Union yet. So some of the things that some

of us warned may go wrong, they haven't happened

because we haven't left. Sir James Dyson says

it is a minor event. A lot of his exports don't go

to the European Union anyway. He's going to have to carry

on meeting different standards. He's going to have to carry

on meeting EU standards He says that but there

are other exporters In my constituency I have

the financial services sector and the creative and the tech sector

and the university, all have said they have warned me of terrible

problems ahead when we leave From the police point of view,

do you have a Brexit opinion, There are two things

that concern me. One, that we need the

European Arrest Warrant. Really important and that will be

part of the negotiations, but criminals don't recognise

borders and nor should the police, but the second thing that we have

noticed particularly within Avon and Somerset and in Bristol,

is the increase in hate crime and that has and we will

expect to see... Have you seen concrete evidence

of that happening and you can There has been an increase

and after the Brexit vote, there was a really big spike

and now that has come down, but it hasn't come down

to the level that it was before. Parts of the West, 60% for example

in Bristol voted for Brexit. And yet this was the city that

voted against Brexit? But I think the politicians

let the genie out of bottle by making racist

comments and I think that has almost given permission for other people

to show that against other people. Some did, Sue.

Most of us, didn't. Let me just move on to

another Brexit point That's the rights of people to live

in this country, EU citizens. James, should they be given that

assurance straightaway? The thing about the

debate in the lords, has been about the Europeans living

here. They haven't mentioned

the 3.8 million British people What we're saying is let's make this

the first thing that we negotiate and we'll find equal rights

for the Brits living overseas and the EU and EU

citizens living here. Let's not just make it

a one-sided deal and give Why don't we get ahead and raise

the bar straightaway by saying we are going to guarantee the rights

of EU citizens... You're giving away a good

negotiating tactic by doing that. Because you're handing away one

important negotiating at that There are people in my constituency

who come from the European Union you have been here 20 years

and who are married, who have got children and got jobs

and contribute to Bristol. At the moment they are in

terrible uncertainty. There are people from your

constituency who are living in Paris We can at least set an example

and say to those European citizens who I welcome,

who I value, come to see me in tears, I want them

to have some certainty. When they came to you in tears,

I hope you reassured. That the Labour peers have been

standing up for them The first day I held a surgery,

I had a considerable number of Europeans who came to see me

in the middle of Broadmead who were really scared and they have

put their families It's the French and Germans

who are holding out They're obviously playing hard ball

which may indicate how they're going to play the game later

on about Brexit. Why would you accept

something if they are not It's called negotiation for a reason

and we need to negotiate. That's not negotiating,

that's giving? We can't put into our legislation

something requiring the French It's about principles

and it's about fairness. Well, let's take a look

at the political week A millionaire Ukip donor,

Aaron Banks, may try to unseat The Bristol businessman

has been feuding with He says he will stand against him

at the next election. Plans to expand Cribbs Causeway have

been called in by the Government. The site has planning permission,

but has been criticised by local The Secretary of State

will now decide. There has been further pressure

to rename Bristol's Colston Hall, more than 1,500 people have signed

a petition because Edward Colston The name could change as part

of a multi-million pound revamp. And political history

was made this week. The first meeting of the body

which will eventually be Just make sure you

use its full name! It's the West of England

Combined Authority. Very catchy, one word answers

because we're short of time. The Colston Hall, should

it change its name, it The Wills building was tobacco,

they changed the name. But Whiteladies Road we're

sitting in right now, We need to involve the city in this

discussion because the city's memorial and it is the city's

decision. You're a whip and

there is speculation about whether you're

going to keep your job because Are you still going to be in work

this time next week? I'm still a whip.

Who can predict the future, not me? My thanks to my guests,

James Gray, Thangam Debbonaire Please follow us on Twitter

for latest political news You can watch the programme

again on the iplayer But for now, let's go back

to London and Andrew. need Crossrail as well. We will be

poring over the entrails of the budget next week. Thank you very

much indeed. So the Brexit Bill is back in

the Lords next week and the Lib Dems They've ordered pizza and camp beds

to encourage their peers to keep talking all night,

only to be told by the Lord's authorities that their plans fall

foul of health and safety laws. Laws that they probably voted for.

What did you make of David Liddington's remarks on the Lords

amendments, particularly not just the one on EU nationals, but on what

is regarded as a meaningful vote at the end of the process? Let's be

clear, as ministers like to say, the meaningful vote vote is by far the

biggest thing that will happen in Parliament. It puts EU citizens into

a tiny corner. It will decide not just who is going to have the final

say on this, but who the EU is negotiating with. Is it directly

with Theresa May or is it with Parliament? Who will decide the

shape of Brexit, Parliament or Theresa May? The Lords amendment is

just the first chapter. They have voiced Theresa May to give them a

veto on everything she does, and there is a possible chance in the

Commons could uphold this amendment. The meaningful vote amendment? The

meaningful vote amendment. But is it a meaningful vote if the choice is

to either back the deal or crash out of the deal? That is what the remain

supporting MPs or hardline people who want to remain fear. What they

want is the power to be able to send Theresa May back to the negotiating

table. Why is that anathema to many Brexit supporters? They believed it

would crucially and critically undermine Theresa May's negotiating

hand and also create a long period of uncertainty for business. There

is already great uncertainty and this could extend it. The

government's position is in there was a proper, meaningful vote which

Parliament could reject what was on offer, that would be an incentive to

the EU to give us a bad deal? I think that is the fear. If you are

saying to the people you are negotiating with that that is

another authority and Theresa May will have to go back and have all of

this approved, I think it would have a very significant undermining

effect on her negotiating hand. Things change from day to day. We

are talking about 2019 and 2018 at the earliest, but if the government

lost a vote on the Brexit deal, would he not have to call in someone

else? That is why the vote will be meaningful even if the amendment on

this meaningful vote will be lost. You cannot do a deal on something as

historic as Brexit and have Parliament against you. So, whatever

form this vote takes, whenever it happens, it will be hugely

meaningful. Whatever label that is given and if she lost it she would

call a general election. She could not impose it. To call a general

election now you need a majority of MPs which she will not have, so

maybe she will not get her election after all. It would be very unlike

Labour not to vote for an election. It would be very unlike Labour not

to vote for an election. The elections to Stormont have given

a boost to the republicans and put the long term status

of Northern Ireland in some doubt. Sinn Fein's leader Gerry Adams

spoke to reporters Yesterday was in many,

many ways a watershed election, and we have just started a process

of reflecting what it all means, but clearly the union's majority

in the Assembly has been ended, and the notion of a permanent

or a perpetual unionist majority Is he right? Is this a watershed?

The nationalist vote in the assembly will now come to 39 and the

Unionists 38. It is only one member, but it is significant. This is a

very serious moment and because of everything else going on with Donald

Trump and Brexit it is taking a while for people here to realise

just how significant this is. Talking to someone who only recently

left a significant role in Northern Ireland politics last night, they

said they were very worried about what this means. It is likely there

will be a call for some kind of international figure to chair the

talks to try and see if there is a way of everybody working together.

All sides will probably try to extract more money from the

Treasury, but it is a very dangerous moment. Should we regard Michelle

O'Neill, who has replaced Mr McGuinness as the leader, it is she

the First Minister death probably not quite. An interesting thought.

Indeed, the daughter of an IRA man, a fascinating concept in itself. But

there are are still a large amount of MLAs who will not give Sinn Fein

what they need. But what effect does this have on the legacy of the

prosecutions and the great witchhunts which the British

Government has vowed to end. There is a majority left on the Stormont

assembly to end those. But some would keep them going for time

continuing, which is a headache for Theresa May. You have now got 27

Sinn Fein members, 28 DUP, then the SDLP bumps up the numbers a little

bit. You have got the British Government transfixed with Brexit

which has huge implications for the border between North and South in

Ireland, and the Irish government is pretty wavering as well and if there

is an election there, Sinn Fein could do well in the Dublin

parliament as well. There are a lot of moving pieces. There are and

there is a danger that we look at everything through the prism of

Brexit, but I found Friday and this weekend fascinating. Theresa May and

Scotland were Nicola Sturgeon is framing Brexit entirely through an

argument to have a second referendum on independence which she wants to

hold it she possibly can. And the Irish situation with the prospect of

a hard border with Northern Ireland voting majority to remain, quite a

substantial majority, again a few of the instability at the moment. That

We will be keeping an eye on it for sure.

Yesterday, US President Donald Trump tweeted allegations

that his predecessor, Barack Obama, had ordered

his phones to be tapped during the election campaign.

"Terrible!", Trump wrote, "Just found out that Obama

had my "wires tapped" in Trump Tower just before the victory.

I'm not quite sure what McCarthyism that is.

He followed up with a series of tweets comparing it to Watergate.

"How low has President Obama gone to tap my phones during the very

The sacred election process, I think at one stage he said it was a dodgy

election process, but now it is sacred.

You are frightened to go to bed at night, you do not know what you are

going to wake up to. Completely uncharted territory here. Little

more than a month ago at the inauguration they were making the

veneer of small talk and politely shaking hands. He saw Barack Obama

and Michelle off on the helicopter. You do not know what is coming next.

Is there a scintilla of evidence to back up Donald Trump's claims? Yes,

there is, although he is very muddled about it all. I will

explain. Remember what happened to Mike Flynn, talking to the Russian

and Ambassador will stop they were listening. Barack Obama does not

sign of warrants, but somebody else did. So why on earth would you not

want to listen to the president elect himself in case he might also

be breaking the law. Does that sound to you like convincing evidence or

just a supposition? I think Tom should go and work for him, that is

the most credible interpretation I have heard for a long time. Start

tweeting the case for the tweet. What is interesting about this is my

theory is he does not really like the idea of being a president. That

wild press conference he gave a couple of weeks ago there was one ad

lib that did not get repeated which was, I suppose I am a politician

now, as if he was humiliated at the idea of being a president. He likes

being the businessman with a swagger tweeting around the clock. And

campaigning again. He keeps going to what looked like campaign rallies. I

disagree with you about him not liking being president. I think he

loves the idea of being the president, but the reality is so

frustrating on every level, finding he does not have unlimited room for

manoeuvre and so many things have been put in place to stop them doing

things he would do in the business environment. We have had two more

tweets from him this morning, I guess when he woke up. Who was it

who secretly said to the Russian president, tell Vladimir that after

the election I will have more flexibility? Who was that? Possibly

Hillary Clinton. Is it true the Democratic National committee would

not allow the FBI access to check server or other equipment after

learning it was hacked? Can that be possible? This was all an issue in

the campaign. He is now a president. Shall I point out the flaw in Tom's

theory. They were not bugging Michael Flynn's phone, it was the

Russian Ambassador's telephone they were barking. Mr Neil, I would never

contradict you on this programme. But if you suspect there was

criminal activity going on, as there was by Michael Flynn, why would you

not want to put on a tap? I don't know. That is it for today.

I'll be back next week here on BBC One at 11am as usual.

The Daily Politics is back tomorrow at midday on BBC Two.

But remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

The thing that's so clear is that it's 100% honest.

We're right in the middle of the action.

The remarkable story of British photography.

The only cameras that were there that day

How pioneering artists and technology