19/01/2016 Daily Politics


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 19/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.


George Osborne warned that the UK faced a dangerous cocktail


Well this morning China has reported its slowest rate of growth


So what does a bumpy ride for the global economy mean for us


The election result was a big surprise thanks to the opinion polls


Sexual assaults in Cologne have tested the German government's


response to the migrant crisis, what does it mean


And as a survey seems to show that believing in no religion has become


normal, we'll be talking about the rise of a church for atheists.


All that in the next hour and with us for the whole


of the programme today is Giles Fraser.


He's a priest in south London, the former canon of St Paul's


Cathedral, and has been described as the Church of England's "most


Let's talk about the news that has broken in the last few minutes that


the British Medical Association has announced it is to suspend the


48-hour strike action planned for next week, over the proposed new


contract the Junior doctors. Talks are continuing book on crack


progress will have to be made if action for February is to be


averted. We can talk to our correspondence Opie Richardson. Why


have they called off the strike? They are still in talks, as I


understand it. The NHS employers which represent the government and


the British Medical Association which represent the doctors have


been in talks since the first strike. We went into talks last week


on Thursday. They were in talks on Friday, yesterday and today and then


this news has come of the suspension of the strike planned for the 26th


and 27th of January next week. This two day strike were only emergency


care was going to be covered. We understand from the BMA they are


hopeful some progress will be made. They have said they need significant


progress on issues around safety and the other is issues around


unsociable hours. But they said they wouldn't have suspended the strike


unless they were hopeful that significant progress could be made.


Yes, clearly, something must have been offered by the government in


order for them to postpone it? The main sticking points, we don't know


the ins and outs of the talks being held at Acas. But the main issues


the doctors were troubled about, was the safety. They were concerned that


fines for hospitals when they made junior doctors work over the safe


hours, the maximum hours they are meant to work, were going to be


removed. The BMA said that was unsafe and they wanted those to be


kept in place. The other issue was around the unsocial hours, where


doctors get extra for working unsocial hours, late at night and on


Saturdays. So something in that area, obviously the BMA is hopeful


they have found some kind of meeting point with the government taps? But


that progress hasn't been made yet, they are still in negotiations and


they are saying and less significant progress is made, the other strike


planned for the 10th of February, which is an all-out strike, it is an


historic strike where emergency care will not be covered wide junior


doctors, that strike would go ahead. So that is the threat still looming.


Thank you very much. Relief this has been postponed or called for the


moment? Everybody will be relieved. Nobody wants to go into hospital on


January the 26th and the Beano doctors. If they are working towards


some settlement, very good indeed. I do feel sorry for the junior


doctors. They need to push back to the government are doing. They are


on the ground, they see what the problems are. I don't like the idea


the government has them over a barrel and can do what it wants. Is


this a big moment? Historically, junior doctors haven't gone on


strike because of safety issues and care of patients. Yet it has still


come to this, junior doctors out protesting, operations cancelled and


the prospect of emergency cover not being in place. It is a big


collision? I trust the junior doctors, they are on the ground and


they know what is going on. They have a sense of issues of safety and


what is workable. I trust the government less on this. I would


hope the doctors are not being abused and safety will not be


compromised because they are over a barrel and there is a moral pressure


not to take industrial action. We will bring you any more news on that


when we find out the reason, if there are any, the BMA have called


OFT this strike. Because the one in February is still in place.


Yesterday, MPs used valuable Parliamentary time to debate


whether or not Donald Trump should be banned from entering the UK.


to describe Mr Trump during the debate?


Giles will give us the correct answer.


First today, let's talk about the economy.


The Chancellor George Osborne started the year by warning that


slow Chinese growth, low commodity prices and tensions


in the Middle East would be a "dangerous cocktail" for the UK


And today we've had a series of economic indicators


Figures released overnight show that Chinese growth fell to 6.9% last


year - it doesn't sound too bad but it's the worst rate they've had


The price of oil fell to as low as 27 dollars a barrel this morning


because of oversupply and the slowdown in China and Europe


- that's good news for motorists but is also a barometer


for the overall health of the global economy.


Speaking of which, the International Monetary Fund has


downgraded its forecasts for global economic growth for this


The IMF now predicts growth of 3.4 per cent this year and 3.6 per cent


Monthly inflation figures released this morning showed inflation


slightly up - 0.1 to 0.2%, as measured


And that could mean the prospects of an interest rate rise


from the historic low of 0.5% has receded even further -


a subject being addressed by Mark Carney in a speech that's


Well let's talk now to our business correspondent Simon Gompertz he's


Not really a surprise, it could be kicked into 26 being -- 2017, and


interest rise? Since the summer, Mark Carney said around about now,


the decision on raising rates would come into sharper relief. What has


come into sharp relief is he will not push rates up for the time


being. So the question now is, when will they do it? I think the markets


are expecting it will happen early next year, as you say. Others are


still looking at the summer as a possibility. What we see here is a


result of what he calls the global environment being on the giving


economically and that has had a big effect on the UK. Whereas the United


States has started pushing up interest rates and the economy there


is more insulated against world events. We don't have that luxury if


things aren't going well elsewhere, we feel the impact. Interest rates


tend to go up when the economy starts recovering strongly, we're


not there yet. We have spoken about this unforgiving global environment,


tell us more about the impact of slowing Chinese growth and what it


might do to our economy? The Chinese economy is growing at a rate of


6.9%, which seems very high, but it is less than they hoped for. It is


something that has been anticipated. The figure isn't surprising, it is


just broadening this picture of the softening Chinese economy. I would


like to pick out from that, steel production is down. The amount of


electricity they generated power the Chinese economy is slightly down. So


you can see the effect. There is a knock on the rest of the world. You


mentioned the IMF, who also brought out the forecast. They have said the


world economy could be derailed as a result of the slower growth in China


and also worries about big emerging economies like is ill, who are


having a difficult time and the knock-on effect on us.


Well we're joined now by the Cabinet Office minister,


One of the thing the government has spoken about is dumping of cheap


steel which has effect did the industry here. Jobs have been lost.


That is a major crisis, what action has the government taken to tackle


it? It is a big challenge and it demonstrates the reality of these


international risks. What we have done is make sure... We have changed


the rules so when public projects are buying steel, they not only take


into account its price, but also the impact on the local economy. It is a


rule change we brought in a couple of months ago. It means we can look


more broadly at the impact of where public projects by steel from. Why


haven't you cut dismiss rates for the steel industry? We have brought


in a package to help those with high energy bills. The industry has been


calling for that for months, saying if you do that it will help combat


this cheap steel coming in gesture marked you can cut business rates


like any other tax cut... You haven't been prepared to do that to


help the steel industry? It is unfair because you have picked just


one specific measure. The industry has been calling for the government


to do it? We have made the changes the industry have called for and we


are in dialogue all the time with what else we can do to help. I met


representatives from the industry yesterday, to talk about what more


we can do to help. There is a broader picture that this impact on


our steel industry demonstrates, there are risks. The IMF report


shows world growth is slowing and downgraded but they have kept the


projections for UK growth unchanged. Our job in government is to have a


plan, which we have got, to protect economic security and the financial


security of families. These risks show how important it is to have


that plan. We will talk about how insulated the country is in a


moment. You could buy a stake in the steel industry, presumably the last


Labour government was right to save the banking sector, in your mind?


Yes it was, not least because of the impact on the rest of the economy.


Hence the change we have made, which is when the government buys things,


for instance, Crossrail, the biggest construction project in Europe, it


has bought almost entirely British steel. We have changed the rules so


when we are buying things with the tax payers' money, we take into


account the economic impact. Some will say you don't regard the steel


industry in the same way as the banking industry, but there are


communities that have been decimated by the steel crisis. Surely that is


of vital national concern? Why can't you doing the same, or taking


similar measures to save that industry if you still believe in a


diversify the economy with an important manufacturing industry. We


do... But you're not taking the same steps to save this industry in the


way Labour did with the banking sector? You have got to make sure


you get value for money for the taxpayers' money. You have got to do


things you can, that reasonable. We have made changes. Would you have to


make sure the nation's finances are in order. I have been on this


programme enough times talking about the fact that at the same time we


still running a deficit. We have brought it down, but we need to get


down further. And we need to tackle individual problems.


You could say that you are the ones who have been in government, as a


coalition and now as a majority government, dealing with this


deficit that still has not come down in the vay George Osborne promised


it would. So let's look at the impact of the global economy, why


did George Osborne changes June so much between the Autumn Statement in


November and his speech in Cardiff in January -- change his tune? I


don't think he did. If you look at what he said in the Autumn Statement


and listen to it, he talked about the international risks and at the


time, he said the OBR's projections for world growth were being brought


down and today, the IMF has reflected that Indy -- in the


international... He said he would make Britain the most prosperous and


secure of all the major nations in the world, and economic


national-security were at the heart of his plans. Now he says we are


facing a dangerous cocktail of threats. Was he wrong in November?


No, because in November he also said international growth was slowing.


That the pace of growth in China particularly was slowing. That there


were risks from around the world and that we had to insulate ourselves to


protect British national and economic security and, crucially, to


protect the financial security of families, families watching this at


home. So he talked about that. He also talked about, of course, our


long-term goal, a long-term plan to make Britain a prosperous place. But


there was a different tone, when you listen to both of those. There was a


totally different tone. I am trying to say, which is more accurate? Is


he now being more realistic about those exact threads that you have


just outlined and are we not as well insulated that he perhaps thought --


exact threats? No, the whole point of our economic plan is to make sure


we are protected from these risks around the world, that our economic


security and financial security of families is protected. What could


George Osborne do? If you think about what happened in the Autumn


Statement, what we did was pay down the deficit faster than we did


before. You didn't find the money down the back of the sober to do


that, did you? Part of it was used. Why wasn't all a bit used? It is


important to invest in long-term infrastructure, that is part of the


plan as well, so we smoothed the plan as well, it is all part of a


long-term economic plan, I know you have heard that phrase before, all


about protecting economic security and I think the fact today that the


IMF had downgraded world growth but kept our growth unchanged


demonstrates we are having some impact in doing that, but we have


got to be aware of the risks around the world. How do you see it now, if


you think about people's personal debt, household debt? At the moment,


a thing like a slowdown in growth in China feels a long way off but it is


clear the Government is worried. It is not a long way off, it affects us


directly. You talk about protecting us from international markets, the


problems in international markets, but the truth is your boss has been


on aeroplanes to China every other week, and India, securing all of


those deals and the problem is, and I am not an economist but from a


common-sense position, the absurd levels of growth that we have seen


in China seemed too good to be true and if it seems too good to be true,


often it is. And my fear and a lot of people's fear is the chickens


will come home to roost at some point in the next period, perhaps,


as some people are suggesting, there will be another crash coming and if


that crash comes, my fear is yet again it will be overburdened, two


big financial services industries that will be protected and people in


Port Talbot will not be protected. I think the point that you make is


incredibly important and it goes to the heart of what we are trying to


do to protect economic security in Britain, doing that by getting the


deficit down and ultimately the debt down, by supporting job creation,


and we have seen record numbers of jobs. By rebalancing the economy, I


entirely agree. When manufacturing output contracted in the most recent


figures, how are you rebalancing the economy? Geographically we are


rebalancing it by the investment in north of England in particular,


areas like where I am from in Cheshire, extra investment, as


opposed to just putting all the into London, but the rebalancing of the


economy is the work of a generation because for far too long, there has


been far too much focus on London. That was going to be the goal for


the first five years of coalition government. When you are in


government, you do what you can as fast as you can but then a problem


like the fact that growth has been too much focused in London and the


south-east is the sort of problem that you can't tackle in a short


period of time, it takes ages, and where has growth been fastest in the


last few years question mark not London and the south-east, but


outside, especially the north and north-west. Can I just get a


reaction from you to the postponement or calling off of the


next strike by junior doctors? Well, I welcome the calling off of the


strike. Has the Government compromised? I'm not that close to


the details of the talks and I only heard the news as I came in but I


think Giles was right when he said everybody would welcome the calling


off of the strikes. The strikes were unnecessary... I didn't say that. I


am saying that, because it is true and the proposals on the table from


the Government are incredibly reasonable about a seven-day NHS.


They will have to move to get this agreement. Jeremy Hunt is leading on


those negotiations but I think it was wrong for the strike to go ahead


and I am really glad they have suspended the next one. What measure


could the Government take on interest rates if there is another


global recession and we find ourselves being battered? You won't


be able to cut interest rates. That is a matter for the Bank of England


and as a strong supporter of the Bank of England, I will not get into


monetary policies. It is rightly a matter for them. Well done, good


answer. Thank you. Sensational, David,


extraordinary night if, Just even as you were


reading out those figures, you sensed cries of joy


from the Conservatives, gloom on the faces


of the Labour Party. The first is the exit poll is right


and all the polls that came out in the last 24 hours -


ours was one of 11 - all 11 showed Conservative-Labour


neck and neck. If this exit poll is


anywhere near right, this is beyond your


worst nightmares? If this exit poll is right,


Andrew, I will publicly was the run-up to last year's


surprise general election result. And the reason it was a surprise


was in part because opinion polls had consistently pointed to


a much closer result and led to endless speculation


that the country was heading As well as hanging their collective


heads in shame, the pollsters also announced an independent inquiry


and today it gave us its findings. Well, earlier, I asked the man


leading the inquiry, Professor Patrick Sturgis,


and asked him why the pollsters ended up with unrepresentative


samples, as the report concluded. The way that the pollsters


collect their samples is rather different than would


be done in the Office for National Statistics,


of for an academic survey, In those kinds of surveys,


a random sample of the population is drawn and a great deal of effort


and expense is expended in tracking down those exact people,


and by doing that, you end up with a broadly representative sample


of the whole population. The pollsters aren't


really able to do that, it's too expensive, takes too long,


and so they use a procedure called quota sampling, a method


called quota sampling, and that is based on sort of getting


more or less anyone they can, in broad terms, then weighting those


people so that they look like the population,


in ways that we know the population So we know from the census,


the sort of age distribution and the social grade distribution,


so they can sort of match the samples to look


like the population and that is generally a good


strategy, but it can go wrong and it sometimes does,


and that is what happened in 2015. But why did it go wrong


so dramatically in 2015? Because presumably, that has always


been the broad methodology for pollsters and although,


as you say, it may be too expensive to be scientific in the sense


of the Office of National to be scientific in the sense


of the Office for National Statistics, if it is going to go


is badly wrong as it did in 2015, Well, I mean, you know,


if we step back a bit and consider exactly how wrong they were,


there are a number of different ways Of course, in terms


of some of the key parts of the election, the SNP surge,


you know, the reduction in Lib Dem support, Greens,


Ukip, they got those Of course, they got the key thing


wrong, which was the lead of the Conservatives over Labour


and that is where attention, But it is fair to say that


in previous elections, they may have been wrong in certain


places, but there wasn't The Lib Dems, for example,


were overestimated by all the pollsters in 2010


but no one really cared, So I think if we look carefully


at the historical record, then the pollsters do not tend


to get every party share exactly right, and we wouldn't really


expect them to. The other is, why did it happen this


time and not in 2010? I mean, that is actually


quite hard to pin down. It is likely to be the sort of,


you know, changing in the electoral dynamics and perhaps,


as has been suggested by John Curtis and others, that there was a sort


of shift towards Labour amongst younger voters and towards


Conservatives amongst older voters, and it is those kind of demographic


shifts in party support that can lead to these kinds of errors,


if you are using the same kind of weighting procedures from one


election to the next, but if the underlying demographics


and electoral dynamics change of it, then it can leave you prone


to these kinds of errors. Well, we're joined now


by the pollster Andrew Hawkins, he's from ComRes, and by


the Labour MP Ben Bradshaw. Charles Fraser is still with us. Do


you agree with the findings? By and large, there is a big presentation


taking place this afternoon and the full findings will be published in


March, so we haven't got any more information about what the professor


has been looking at all has concluded, than you have, but what


we have seen so far, yes, there are clearly something issues. I think


the point that professor ProfesSturgis makes about voter


dynamics is a really important one, because we worked really hard in the


run-up to the election to try and get everything right, get everything


the best possible quality and there was one little thing going on in the


back of my mind from 2010, which was that in 2010, the Lib Dem surge


fizzled out on the day and I think one of the things that we have done


since the election is to model and produce our own voter turnout model,


which factors in the differences between different Democratic groups


in terms of their certainty to vote and we think that is one of the


critical points, Professor Sturgis has two reduce a report which takes


in all methodologies, all nine companies and it will apply to some


more than others -- has to produce. Did it affect the outcome in your


mind, or did it affect the strategy of the campaign if not the outcome?


We will never know whether it affected the outcome but you are


right, it massively affected the strategy of the campaign and the


whole media approach, we try to get the debate back policy and the


prospect a Conservative government, which I always thought was the


likeliest outcome, but it was impossible, given the polls. And the


whole campaign was dominated by speculation of a hung parliament,


not about the prospect of Conservative majority government and


of course that affected the campaign, we don't know if it


affected the result. Do you accept that? The polls showed what seems to


be the inevitability of a hung parliament and so the narrative was,


to some extent, about deals with the SNP, about no one party dominating


and it became about that process and not a straightforward fight between


the Conservatives and Labour. I think there is always a tension


between the shock and news value of a single pole and the long-term


trend. The long-term trend was showing that the Conservatives had


crossed over Labour's lead towards the end of 2014 and there were a


number of us polling companies that didn't have a single Labour lead in


2015. Our final press release or our final poll were showing the


Conservatives were set to win the popular vote but, it is inevitably


in the course of things, the shock headline gets the most column inches


in the newspaper. Because it was vital, in some


people's minds. Does it come down to money? Is it because you don't spend


enough money getting proper representative samples which would


have found those Conservative voters who perhaps were older and therefore


less likely to take part in what you might characterise as younger,


engaged Labour voters? There is a cocktail of causes.


Resourcing is one of those factors. If you spent 200 thousand pounds on


a poll and perhaps if you have the luxury of time as well, you will get


the answer bang on. If you spend ?5,000 on a poll, you get 1 degrees


of quality, if you spend 30,000, you get another. We shouldn't blame the


pollsters, the media organisations who commissioned these polls are


also responsible. They should commission fewer polls but spend


more. There is a conspiracy of silence between the media and the


pollsters. They have both got this wrong. The Labour Party's own


private polling, which we didn't see... Was that the fault of the


Labour Party? It was the fault of the Labour ship. -- leadership. I am


glad they got it wrong. We should trust them lest. There will be a


knock-on effect. We have all of these polls back come up and I was


thinking about this earlier, it is a bit like that it on The Voice, they


are looking at each other, are you going to do it? There is a herding


that goes on with polls. Get rid of that, and when we go and vote, we


think about the issues. But people do believe in the polls. Let's talk


about this issue of herding. Not enough variability between the


polls. The pollsters guilty of that? I don't think there is any conscious


herding back goes on. In 2010, we all adjust our methodology over


time. Most of us, if we are responsible and humble enough to


accept to correct but we do over time, look at the difference between


the outcome and polling at each election and make adjustments as we


go. If we are making the right adjustments from one election to the


other, there ought to be some similarity in the adjustments we are


making which might push is in the same direction. If the voter


dynamics change, we might collectively be making the same


mistake. It is possible, I will not deny it. Honestly, the herding


concept as a deliberate, if you like, underhand thing for the


pollsters to do, I can categorically say it doesn't happen. So don't you


have to look over your shoulder to see where the opinion of a certain


body lies? I might hold my nose and think, we will go with this, it is


different from what everyone is saying, but that is the business we


are in. There weren't many polls during that campaign apart from the


key one on the SNP. And that was the independence referendum, not the


general election. The EU referendum will be a critical moment for the


pollsters and critical moment for the media. One really interesting


factor is that methodology, there is a divergences opening up between


telephone polls and online polls. It comes back to the point about what


makes a good headline. If you publish a poll that they remain neck


and neck. The head line in the newspaper is one step closer to


leaving the EU. If the headline is 20 points ahead, the newspapers went


publish that as a splash. Briefly, will you trust polling again? Not


until they spend enough and the people who commissioned them spend


enough. And then, every Labour supporter will have to take 3% of


our ratings. I thought it was 6%? Overall it was six. We have to


acknowledge in the Labour Party, Giles might not like this, we are


six points worse than the current polling is suggesting. Thank you


both very much. The NHS is an organisation that


still, in the main, keeps records Successive governments have tried to


do something about that with major projects like digitising


patient records. But they're also looking at ways of


harnessing digital information to make us better,


as Giles has been finding out. For Formula 1 McLaren racer Jenson


Button, driving is far safer than in the days of Nikki Lauder


or Ayrton Senna, but anybody might


reasonably assume he's more likely to need a


doctor than a doctor to need him. It turns out that, thanks to


some clever chicanery trying to take the chequered flag


first can advance medical science and McLaren are at the cutting edge


of making that happen. In 1969, when McLaren's


founder was racing in this, there were only really


two ingredients to success. The quality of the car and the


quality of the driver. Nowadays, there's a third thing -


research. that means being able to take vast


amounts of data very, very fast - so much so that you can actually


apply it during the race. And there is no intrinsic reason


why, if you can harvest that kind of data from a moving racing car, you


can't take it from the human body. Doing just that is potentially


putting us on the road to recovery, but also putting doctors firmly in


control not only of diagnosing illnesses in humans as a species,


but within you as an individual, and therefore engineering care for


you as a specific machine The opportunity in the technology is


not only to predict events before they occur, but to personalise


treatment, so not doing what is best for the population but what is best


for you, but more importantly, keeping you out of expensive


health care environments where you can potentially be


monitored and action be taken without ever having


to step inside a hospital. This is an initial


testing in a pilot project called the Real-time Adaptive


Predicted Indicator of Deterioration The Government's Life Sciences


Minister insists but part of lots of new ways


technology can help the NHS. You are going to see


diagnostic digital monitoring, they know who you are


before you get there and they have your medicines


prepared for you and personalised, and an NHS, a digital NHS


that is able to monitor and measure performance and safety


across the whole system. The thing that is likely to slow


such advances down is patients their confidential help data


needs to be stored that has tended to slam


on the brakes of such ideas. Joining us now is George Freeman


the Life Sciences Minister, and Renate Samson the Chief


Executive of Big Brother Watch. Don't the upsides the digital NHS


the downsides? There are some wonderful upsides of a digital NHS.


Everything we discovered from that video shows some marvellous things


about predict Ding health care, monitoring our health as we go along


in our homes without having to go to hospital. However, we have to take


things step by step. We have had a lot of problems with the process of


digitising medical records. Medical records and our own personal health


data is a sensitive issue for a lot of people. We need to know exactly


what is going to happen, when, how and why, rather than the ever be an


assumption? Are we asked, do people realise this will happen that all


the records and personal information will be stored electronically? It is


very patchy right now. There have been problems in the past with the


data scheme. Initially people were not asked and then they were being


informed it was going to happen but where expressed concerns about it


through a leaflet to the door because it was tied up with pizza


delivery leaflets coming through. That was criticised heavily and from


my point of view, rightly so. Things have stopped, things slow down and


that there has been a re-evaluation of how to engage with the public.


There will be a lot of benefit with moving forward with digitisation. We


are becoming digital citizens. We have to accept it will happen a


little bit. But we still need to take people into consideration and


not just assume because it is perceived it is wonderful, everybody


will be happy. It is our choice what happens with our health care and


should be our choice what happens with our medical data. Thank you


very much. George Freeman, it has been patchy, do you accept that


people haven't been informed in a uniform and comprehensive way,


taking on board this pizza leaflet that was put through the door? Yes,


NHS England would accept the way they did the consultation data was


not case study in consultation. Partly for them it is so obvious a


modern NHS requires to be digital. The truth is, for individual care,


when an ambulance comes for you and you go to your doctor or to a


hospital, we want the hospital to be ready, the GP to know and to be


ready and click and look at your history and make sure we diagnose


you properly. Far too many of my constituents have to repeat all the


way down the care pathway. Medical records are stored with Treasury


tags. Why in 2015, with this fabulous NHS are we trying to run it


on paper and card board. We have to modernise the system. You said it


has been done in Apache Way, so either people have not been told


properly or the information has been shared with the parties they didn't


know about, either deliberately or inadvertently. Do you accept that? I


accept there hasn't been good in practice in the NHS. One thing we


have set out is the national data Guardian. We are determined patients


can trust the system properly. There will be independent proposals. We


have made it illegal for the use of data for insurance purposes. You


have made that are legal. We have put in place a system for giving


patients the power, ultimately with a slide button on your phone so


patients take control. When you ask patients do you want your medical


records to be use for the purpose of NHS research and better treatments,


most of the time 99% of people say yes. If it is an honour might, then


there is more good in sharing vital information and you don't have to


keep repeating the same bits of information about your symptoms and


your state of health, every time you visit the hospital? The problem is,


Digital Security cannot be guaranteed. People have been on this


programme talking about people hacking mobile phone companies and


all things. Does that mean we shouldn't have progress on it? I


don't know what progress means. It is all right to have fancy films


about racing cars, but regress is being able to stand in front of more


doctors and nurses and not technology. Technology should only


ever be a tool. People don't want to talk to the screen, they don't want


to stay at home, they often want to see people who care and understand


and listened. And the digital thing is not very good at understanding or


caring, or listening. That is not what nurses or doctors will tell


you. The patients are telling you they love the wireless telemetry the


children in cardiac recovery. The nurses will tell you they are


getting at 20 seven feet from each child which bleeps when the child


has a problem. But allows them to deliver personalised care. When an


ambulance comes, you want them to have an iPad, don't you? Isn't it a


substitute for the medical staff themselves? Because elderly people


in particular will want to see a person? No, it is there to exercise


personal clinical judgment, armed with data that is accurate and


up-to-date. If I went to my hospital, the nurses did the drug


round. Now there is an electronic prescription. The nurses say it is


brilliant. At they can spend time looking at the patient in the eye,


checking the pulse. You have made it illegal for this data to go to third


parties like insurance firms. Do they go to pharmaceutical companies?


The report is about to come back with recommendations on consent and


how we move forward. There is individual care, when the ambulance


comes at the A and the local GP. There is data for NHS patient


safety. We want to know where there is dangerous trap this and thirdly


research. In research, the vast majority of the data is consented.


Patients readily want the data used for research. It is how we allow


data to flow through the NHS. So when you arrive, people know who you


are and they know how to treat you. towards the 1.1 million migrants


who arrived in the country in 2015 have changed since


the start of the year. The men suspected of attacking women


in Cologne on New Year's Eve were "almost exclusively"


from a migration background, mainly North African and Arab,


according to officials. So what does this mean for Germany's


open-door policy on refugees? What happened in cities like Hamburg


and Cologne Here, nearly 500 women allege they


were sexually assaulted. The perpetrators said to be of North


African and Arabic origin. Despite numerous complaints to the


police, the authorities and the media were slow to report


what had happened. When the news did come out days


later, there were protests. With a background of record numbers


of refugees and migrants arriving in Germany, Angela Merkel,


they said, must do something. For her part, the Chancellor


insisted Germany would do more to make clear to migrants what was and


what was not culturally acceptable and she proposed changes to make it


easier to deport asylum seekers But she has not calmed all fears


nor silenced her critics. scuffles between pro-and


anti-immigration groups There is no doubt what happened in


Germany will colour a much wider debate


about migration across Europe. What you can't do is take away from


ordinary folk out there scenes such as Cologne and saying


to themselves in three years' time, all of these people


will have an EU passport and will be able to


come to Britain. So far, one asylum seeker


has been arrested over alleged sexual offences


in Cologne on New Year's Eve. Whatever the outcome here, a wider


question of integration and culture has been posed and, so far,


not answered. We're joined now by Raheem Kassam


from the right-wing news website 1.1 million migrants, my sources in


the European security services said it is more like 1.5 million because


they don't count over stayers or people they don't know. My question


was is it wrong for people to change their mind so dramatically as a


result of a number of incidents, in the general view towards migrants? I


don't think so, these are where the warnings were originally. At the


forefront of this, those people weren't listening. Now they have had


to see it and these people have had to go through bad situations for


these people to see the problem. There were warnings countries like


Germany wouldn't be able to cope, from people within Germany, that the


open door policy towards refugees would lead to problems. I surprised


by this change following reports of sexual assaults in Germany? The


sexual assaults are about things. That I think it has been blown out


of proportion. A few months ago I had a 16-year-old boy murder another


16-year-old boy about half a mile from my parish, from my church.


Doesn't even make the national press. This thing suddenly becomes a


way of focusing all our anxieties and so forth. Yes, incorporating


large numbers of people, and from my mind, the more the merrier, because


they are being saved from a terrible situation from Syria and North


Africa and so forth. Yes it will be difficult, but I think we should


absolutely be up for the troubles back on.


You are blaming a group of people for the action of a few bad apples.


I don't think everybody thinking every migrant in Europe. Raping


people. You had Charlie Hebdo showing the three-year-old boy who


died trying to make it over to Europe to be in their minds a bum


groper. But they do it to show how ridiculous it is and nobody is


saying all of these migrants ridiculous it is and nobody is


rapists or sexual assault is all robbers, but we are saying we don't


know who the people who are coming our. There are criminals, there are


terrorists, we know that to be a fact and it is true. And we have as


many home grown people who are born and bred in this country who are


rapists, who are criminals and why is it that we are demonising a


particular... They are called the population in general, that is what


they are called. Why not proper background checks? I don't think


that is practical. So just let them all in? Open the floodgates and let


everyone in. I have just said yes. Why do you keep on saying ISIS,


cursing these people with that? They are running away from ISIS, they are


running away from their bombs, this war that we have done too much to


stoke up and create an actually, if we close the doors on them, we are


doubling up... I didn't say close the doors, I said proper background


checks. Do you think there is a case of Islam phobia here that is sort of


masquerading as anti-migrant or anti-refugee, using the sort of


sentiments you are saying, actually, they are anti-Islam? I have a big


problem with the word Islam phobia. Being raised in a Muslim family,


having it raised against me, as you said, it is a few people in there


that might be instinctively hateful towards Islam that you are tarring a


whole anti-migration movement, said the same thing can be held back and


forth. But conflating the to does the same thing, isn't it going to be


exploited by the far right and extremist movements? I think you are


over estimating the far right, especially in Germany. They have


strict rules on what they can and can't do on their marches. 5,000


people went to the streets in Dresden, they are not allowed to


drink, shout and if they are doing that, they are kicked out. Do you


think it is a bit lazy and complacent if people do suggest this


is just Islam phobia? It is Islam phobia. It is patented it clear that


the way in which people are being targeted and the language that is


being used about Islam and Muslims is clearly provocative and, indeed,


through our Government and the Prevent strategy and all that


nonsense, it is targeting Muslims and it does not help and we have do


trust that the rule of law is blind to all that, that is how it should


be and we shouldn't be targeting Muslims. Refugees should be welcome.


Thank you, I am going to have to end it there.


We often hear people wondering if the UK is still a Christian country.


But according to a new study being presented at the British Academy


Lecture tonight, the new norm may be to have no religion at all - with a


majority of white Britons, according to the study, saying they don't


Well, that may go some way to explaining the popularity of


something called the Sunday Assembly, a gathering for


non-religious people who want a similar communal experience to going


Here's how the BBC covered the Sunday Assembly


I am, if anything, overqualified for this job!


It is said to be the first atheist church in Britain


and the service is led by a comedian called Sanderson Jones.


Let's not start handing around titles,


because I think the moment you get a title,


you are just a short distance from a robe and a silly hat.


Instead of hymns, they sing pop songs.


Instead of prayers, there is two minutes of silence.


If you wouldn't mind just closing your eyes.


And the only cross to be found here is on the first aid kit.


the Sunday Assembly has spread to other cities around the world,


and you saw one of its founders in the clip there,


the comedian Sanderson Jones, who joins us now.


So, how did you come up with this idea? Well, I left a Christmas carol


concert about ten years ago and I thought there is so much about this


I love, singing songs, coming together as a community and I am


thinking about the many things I would like to improve about myself


and helping other people but there was one bit I couldn't get excited


about, the God bit, but I am so transcendentally delighted to be


alive, wouldn't it be wonderful to come together to celebrate that.


Isn't that religion promotes people anyway? They don't necessarily


believe the words of the Scriptures, they like the pics you like, the


singing, the communal feeling and going to a meeting place. What a


great advertisement for Sunday Assembly, thank you very much, I


drink later. There is that bit like when I go to my friends who are


getting married in a church because they like the building and they talk


about it being in front of God, I can't connect, whereas we do it in a


way where everyone can connect. What are you going to do about that? It


is a real challenge. Let many flowers bloom, I am very happy and I


hope it goes well. It wouldn't really work for me and in fact, it


wouldn't really work for me because what I don't like, and you have sort


of copied, is you are charismatic atheists, see it is charismatic


theology into atheism and I am a Catholic by anaesthetics, so I like


a different sort of aesthetic. So it is quite interesting -- by aspect


it. It is a sort of Hill song charismatic type of thing but I


think it would be very difficult to reproduce and more Catholic


spirituality. Is it sustainable? So far, there are 70 in eight different


countries on three different continents. We are trying to work


out how to configure it, we had 500 people at the last one in London and


intriguingly, two Housing Association is commissioned us to


build Sunday Assembly for them because they love the community


aspect and councils are getting in touch because they say you create


community, communities that after people and I am in it for bringing


people together and I think some of them are in it for the bean


counting, but whatever works. Is it an admission that there is a failure


on the church to keep big congregations and attract new


members that this group seem to be filling? The church is losing


members and, Juno what it doesn't really bother me? -- do you know


what, it doesn't fully bother me. I am not ultimately sustained about


whether there is a lot of it. For me, God exists and that is what is


wonderful and that won't change, however many people come and go to


my church. Actually, we are doing pretty well but I am glad this is


happening, I think it is a good thing. Will you go along if you are


not busy? I do do things on Sunday, I have a slight problem there! What


is good about this is one of the things sociologically, coming


together, like church, is a good delivery system for ethics and what


you are doing is actually just copying the church's delivery system


in quite a good way. The one I look at is how mindfulness looked at


dedication and made it a secular and inclusive, we are looking at the


church, making it secular and inclusive and trying to create


something new. Thank you. There's just time before we go to


find out the answer to our quiz. Which of these words was not used to


describe Mr Trump during the debate? I don't know what poltroon means.


Battles the answer, I think it means cower. -- that was. Thank you for


all of our guests and I will be back with Andrew tomorrow with Prime


Minister's Questions. Goodbye. Let your New Year start with a bang


and visit an explosive new China.


Download Subtitles