19/01/2016 Daily Politics

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.