:00:36. > :00:38.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:39. > :00:41.The Transport Secretary announces a shake-up of the railways
:00:42. > :00:44.and promises passengers will see big improvements.
:00:45. > :00:49.Theresa May jets in to Bahrain and promises closer
:00:50. > :00:53.co-operation with Gulf states on defence and counter-terrorism.
:00:54. > :00:56.The PM also says she's "ambitious" about Britain's Brexit future.
:00:57. > :01:03.The man in charge of the EU's Brexit negotiations,
:01:04. > :01:06.Commissioner Michel Barnier, says there'll only be time
:01:07. > :01:09.for 18 months of talks once Article 50 is triggered
:01:10. > :01:17.to ensure enough time for the deal to be approved.
:01:18. > :01:26.I suspect that I will prove no more adept at pulling rabbits from hands
:01:27. > :01:27.than my successor as Foreign Secretary has been a retrieving
:01:28. > :01:29.balls from the back of scrums. And should senior Conservatives stop
:01:30. > :01:35.making fun of Boris Johnson? All that in the next hour
:01:36. > :01:39.and with us for the whole of the programme today the political
:01:40. > :01:43.columnist Tim Montgomerie, who briefly resigned
:01:44. > :01:45.from the Conservative Party earlier this year, before rejoining
:01:46. > :01:47.following the referendum result. In the last hour the man in charge
:01:48. > :01:58.of the European Union's Brexit negotiations,
:01:59. > :02:00.Michel Barnier, has been giving his first press
:02:01. > :02:01.conference in Brussels. He said Brexit must be
:02:02. > :02:03.an orderly process, and that negotiations must be
:02:04. > :02:13.completed within 18 months. All in all, there will be less than
:02:14. > :02:23.18 months to negotiate. Once again, that is short. Should the UK notify
:02:24. > :02:28.the Council by the end of March 2017, as the Prime Minister Theresa
:02:29. > :02:35.May said she would, it is safe to say that negotiations would start a
:02:36. > :02:36.few weeks later and an Article 50 agreement would be reached by
:02:37. > :02:41.October 20 18th. -- 2018. Damian Grammaticas is our
:02:42. > :02:43.Europe Correspondent in Brussels and was at
:02:44. > :02:54.the press conference earlier. He also said to keep calm and
:02:55. > :02:58.negotiate. No doubt that will negotiate -- resonate here in the
:02:59. > :03:03.UK, but he is quite a tough cookie, Michel Barnier. Tell us about him.
:03:04. > :03:12.Yes, he's a former French minister and former Commissioner in the
:03:13. > :03:17.European Commission here. He is from the centre-right and has had a long
:03:18. > :03:21.history of association with the EU and now has been put into this role
:03:22. > :03:27.as the chief negotiator for the European Commission. By all
:03:28. > :03:32.accounts, all descriptions of him are that he is a man who is
:03:33. > :03:38.incredibly hard-working, always on top of his brief, very well briefed,
:03:39. > :03:42.and a tough negotiator. I think in his press Conference we saw today
:03:43. > :03:48.someone who was trying to exceed this sense of calm, competence,
:03:49. > :03:52.preparing us, and he said he was convinced that the EU side -- side
:03:53. > :03:57.were ready and it would be important when the uncertainty as quick as
:03:58. > :04:01.possible, a little dig at the UK, really, saying that the other side
:04:02. > :04:08.were not ready. There were quite a few knows for a better deal, and no
:04:09. > :04:12.to an individual country by country negotiation, which we already knew
:04:13. > :04:18.and he already repeated his phrase no to a negotiation before
:04:19. > :04:22.notification. This is obviously one of his first explanations of the
:04:23. > :04:26.stands he will take. Does it mean it will be very bruising, the encounter
:04:27. > :04:34.between the UK and himself on these negotiations? I'm not sure bruising,
:04:35. > :04:38.but if you read between the lines of what he is saying there are some
:04:39. > :04:43.clear messages, and that is the fact that the view from the commission,
:04:44. > :04:50.from Mr Barnier, and repeated by Angela Merkel in Germany, that there
:04:51. > :04:55.will be no division on their side. The countries don't want to allow
:04:56. > :04:59.themselves to be divided in these negotiations on the EU side, and the
:05:00. > :05:03.basic fundamental freedoms and obligations of the single market as
:05:04. > :05:07.well will not be divided. That is important, because Mr Barnier
:05:08. > :05:13.addressed some of the questions raised in the UK recently, the idea
:05:14. > :05:17.that the UK could get a special deal by paying into the budget. Could it
:05:18. > :05:24.secure access to bits of the single market? What he said, and I asked
:05:25. > :05:28.him about it, was that there could be, but only if you looked at the
:05:29. > :05:33.existing deals in places like Norway, who pay into the budget and
:05:34. > :05:40.accept the rules. What I think the message of that is is, no cherry
:05:41. > :05:46.picking, no division of the freedoms of Europe, the freedom of movement
:05:47. > :05:49.in particular, and the EU have a very principled stance, as they see
:05:50. > :05:54.it, and they do not want to compromise on that. They do not want
:05:55. > :05:59.the UK to start splitting that apart. Damien, thank you very much.
:06:00. > :06:03.Is Theresa May fighting on all fronts here? That is what is going
:06:04. > :06:09.to be happening on the EU side for David Davis, but here, there is an
:06:10. > :06:12.opposition day debate tomorrow and the Labour Party have put down an
:06:13. > :06:16.amendment saying they would like to see the broad plan of the
:06:17. > :06:21.negotiations before Article 50 is triggered, and there are 15 or 20
:06:22. > :06:27.Tory MPs who might back the amendment. Dangerous territory for
:06:28. > :06:36.Theresa May. It is. Some of her own backbenchers, and Anna Subaru has
:06:37. > :06:40.been mentioned, are being unhelpful. -- Soubry. I think the government
:06:41. > :06:43.have made things clear, like saying the freedom of movement should end,
:06:44. > :06:47.which means coming out of the single market and that they want to do free
:06:48. > :06:52.trade agreements with America which means leaving the customs union. We
:06:53. > :06:56.had talked last week about paying money into the EU to help lubricate
:06:57. > :07:01.any deal and I think that is a significant point of direction. And
:07:02. > :07:05.they signed the patented agreement, which sounds a bit obscure, but it
:07:06. > :07:08.means they are willing to opt into something that the European Court of
:07:09. > :07:11.Justice has authority over. So if you add up all of the little things
:07:12. > :07:16.that have been revealed, the idea that the government has given away
:07:17. > :07:24.quite a lot of its direction I think is false. How much influence do you
:07:25. > :07:28.think the Remainers in the Tory party have? You mentioned Anna
:07:29. > :07:32.Soubry, Nicky Morgan, and others, who have said, looking at the
:07:33. > :07:35.wording of the amendment, there's nothing there I can disagree with,
:07:36. > :07:39.there's nothing wrong with setting up the broad negotiating position.
:07:40. > :07:44.How much trouble could they cause? You say it's unhelpful, but in the
:07:45. > :07:51.long run? One of the reasons it is unhelpful is there are 17 elections
:07:52. > :07:54.across Europe over the next 12 or 18 months. We don't know who the
:07:55. > :07:57.Chancellor of Germany will be, the President of France will be, or the
:07:58. > :08:04.Prime Minister of Italy will be, and Spain could have a change of
:08:05. > :08:07.government. Why, despite Mr Bernier's clarity this morning, he
:08:08. > :08:10.doesn't know which leaders will be sat around the table with him -- Mr
:08:11. > :08:16.Barnier. We don't really know what Europe is going to expect. I think
:08:17. > :08:19.it is perfectly legitimate for Britain to hesitate in revealing
:08:20. > :08:24.everything until the other side of the table is clear as well. Tory MPs
:08:25. > :08:27.should not be making it more difficult for a Tory Prime Minister.
:08:28. > :08:31.We will see what happens tomorrow. The vote is not binding, but it
:08:32. > :08:36.would be a defeat if she were outvoted by that motion. And the
:08:37. > :08:38.Supreme Court is still sitting this week of course.
:08:39. > :08:41.Now it's time for our daily quiz and it seems Chinese companies
:08:42. > :08:45.So our question for today is, what is their latest acquisition?
:08:46. > :08:47.Is it a) The Angel of the North?
:08:48. > :08:55.At the end of the show, Tim will give us the correct answer.
:08:56. > :08:57.Now, today sees the government announce new policy on integrating
:08:58. > :09:05.It's full steam ahead for a new overhaul
:09:06. > :09:06.of the railways being launched by Transport Secretary
:09:07. > :09:13.He wants each new rail franchise to be run
:09:14. > :09:15.by joint-management teams, including representatives
:09:16. > :09:21.from both the train operating company and Network Rail.
:09:22. > :09:24.The first franchises on track for the changes
:09:25. > :09:26.are East Midlands Trains and South Eastern, which runs
:09:27. > :09:32.services between London and Kent, though not until mid-2018.
:09:33. > :09:38.that the new line linking Cambridge and Oxford, to be known
:09:39. > :09:41.as East West Rail, will be run separately from Network Rail
:09:42. > :09:47.A further shake-up will see a national
:09:48. > :09:51.roll-out of pay-as-you-go smartcards across the rail network
:09:52. > :09:55.by the end of 2018, similar to London's Oyster cards.
:09:56. > :10:01.Network Rail chief executive Mark Carne said he "welcomed"
:10:02. > :10:04.the plan to bring more joined up working within the industry.
:10:05. > :10:09.the RMT general secretary, said it was a "slippery slope
:10:10. > :10:13.to privatisation" of rail repairs and warned it could take the UK back
:10:14. > :10:17.This morning Chris Grayling explained why
:10:18. > :10:23.he thinks Network Rail needs to change.
:10:24. > :10:30.Network Rail needs to change. It is too big, too monolithic, too
:10:31. > :10:34.centralised and has not got a great track record of delivering projects
:10:35. > :10:38.on time and on budget. What needs to happen in Network Rail is that it
:10:39. > :10:41.needs to become more of a collection of route based businesses with local
:10:42. > :10:46.management focusing on what is best for their own line, their own
:10:47. > :10:49.passenger -- passengers and community. Network Rail has not
:10:50. > :10:53.focused enough on the needs of the passenger and that will change as a
:10:54. > :10:56.result of pushing power down to the individual routes and it will change
:10:57. > :10:57.as a result of joining up the operations with those of the train
:10:58. > :10:59.operators. We did ask the Department
:11:00. > :11:02.of Transport for an interview with We've been joined from central lobby
:11:03. > :11:06.in the Houses of Parliament by the Shadow Transport
:11:07. > :11:13.Secretary Andy McDonald. Welcome back to the Daily Politics.
:11:14. > :11:16.Before we get into the policy, you have an urgent question today on
:11:17. > :11:23.this. What is your frustration with Chris Grayling's announcement via
:11:24. > :11:28.the media? He has got form of this to be honest, as he did it with HS2
:11:29. > :11:31.and with Southeast air capacity, so it's frustrating but people who
:11:32. > :11:37.fought very hard about bringing this back to the Parliament and then they
:11:38. > :11:41.have to put statements before the house. You have been out on the
:11:42. > :11:47.airwaves criticising the announcement today, but if the plans
:11:48. > :11:49.are so bad why is the Network Rail chief welcoming them? He doesn't
:11:50. > :11:54.have much choice as the chief executive of Network Rail. Really?
:11:55. > :12:00.Nicola Shaw carried out her own review at the government's behest,
:12:01. > :12:07.and you wonder why they went all that trouble of at piece of work to
:12:08. > :12:12.abandon the findings. I think this will just add greater complexity to
:12:13. > :12:15.an already complex and fragmented industry. It's wholly unnecessary
:12:16. > :12:20.and there will be costs involved. Who pays for that? The taxpayer and
:12:21. > :12:26.the fare-paying passenger yet again. So here we are just completely
:12:27. > :12:32.wasteful with resources. But not everyone in your party agrees with
:12:33. > :12:36.you. One respected rail journalist, and your candidate in the recent
:12:37. > :12:40.Richmond Park by-election, says the best railways in the world bring
:12:41. > :12:43.together the network and train operators into companies that
:12:44. > :12:50.operate boats. So why could that happen here? -- that operate both.
:12:51. > :12:55.It works in Germany where they operate the infrastructure and
:12:56. > :12:59.services, and in France to a large extent, but what we do is simply
:13:00. > :13:04.subsidise the operations back in their home states. We do remember,
:13:05. > :13:08.don't we, what happened with Railtrack and Ladbroke Grove and
:13:09. > :13:11.Potters bar. The last time the private sector was involved in
:13:12. > :13:16.safety and infrastructure. We don't want to go back to those days. But
:13:17. > :13:19.is that a fair comparison? You said you don't have a problem with the
:13:20. > :13:24.network and train operators being brought together into companies, so
:13:25. > :13:28.what is your objection? It's the fact that the whole focus is about
:13:29. > :13:34.extracting profit and value at every turn. We have franchisees wasting
:13:35. > :13:40.money on the franchise process, and we have the operational costs, the
:13:41. > :13:43.transactional costs and the intermission of those costs and the
:13:44. > :13:48.profit margins which are opaque in the extreme. So there are millions
:13:49. > :13:54.of pounds leaking out of the railway system every year into Private
:13:55. > :13:57.entities. Why on earth should we, as taxpayers and fare-paying
:13:58. > :14:01.passengers, be subsidising that structure? Stay with us. Tim, the
:14:02. > :14:05.point that Andy McDonald makes that it's all about focusing on the
:14:06. > :14:09.profit won't that damage the railways further? We have an
:14:10. > :14:13.incredibly successful railway industry in the UK. If you look at
:14:14. > :14:18.the station by travelling to, Waterloo, before privatisation about
:14:19. > :14:22.100,000 people were coming into it every day and now it's a quarter of
:14:23. > :14:27.a million. They can't cope with the numbers of people. That is why I
:14:28. > :14:31.think the reform is a useful one. There's sometimes a clash between
:14:32. > :14:33.the operating companies and Network Rail for the provision of
:14:34. > :14:36.infrastructure and now they are bringing the two together which will
:14:37. > :14:40.mean the train operating companies can get on with the work that needs
:14:41. > :14:44.to be done more urgently themselves. But will they if there are only
:14:45. > :14:48.looking at profit margins? If they're worried about punctuality
:14:49. > :14:51.and hitting the targets they have to meet under the franchise agreement,
:14:52. > :14:57.they will take that responsibility more seriously. Let's look at your
:14:58. > :15:00.comparison to Railtrack, because it isn't exactly the same as what is
:15:01. > :15:02.being proposed by Chris Grayling, because then the issue was
:15:03. > :15:06.subcontracting to private companies and his proposal is about involving
:15:07. > :15:07.train operating companies in decisions. It's not exactly the
:15:08. > :15:13.same. Who's going to take responsibility
:15:14. > :15:19.where there is a crossover if you are getting line that is crossover
:15:20. > :15:22.on to others, HS2, for example, or east-west lines conflicting with a
:15:23. > :15:26.north-south lines, who's going to take responsibility for that? Is it
:15:27. > :15:29.Network Rail or the train operating company? We are adding more
:15:30. > :15:32.complexity to a system that doesn't need any more. Right. Why is it
:15:33. > :15:37.adding complexity if you are bringing them together to joint
:15:38. > :15:42.decision-making, surely it will simplify the set-up? That's the case
:15:43. > :15:46.that's made, but I think in - we look at the south-west alliance
:15:47. > :15:49.where similar proposition was made, that ultimately collapsed. It did
:15:50. > :15:52.not work out well. Let's look at history. Let's look at these
:15:53. > :15:57.alliances and see how they functioned. They haven't. Let's look
:15:58. > :16:01.at Railtrack and see the disaster they rendered to this nation and
:16:02. > :16:05.people expressing sadness about bereavements on our railways, we do
:16:06. > :16:08.not want to be there again. Looking at the east-west railway from Oxford
:16:09. > :16:12.to Cambridge that Chris Grayling is focussing on today, this will be
:16:13. > :16:17.privately built. And privately run. Do you reject that proposal? Well,
:16:18. > :16:21.what I do observe is that that's the slippery slope. This is clearly the
:16:22. > :16:25.intention for the entire network. What we are making clear is that
:16:26. > :16:29.train operating companies will come back under public ownership as those
:16:30. > :16:33.franchises arise. Now the case in point, Oxford to Cambridge is a
:16:34. > :16:37.separate and distinct issue, has to stand on its own merits. The rest of
:16:38. > :16:41.the network will be looking to bring back into public ownership. That's
:16:42. > :16:52.Labour policy. But what about this idea it's the slippery slope towards
:16:53. > :16:55.privatising? Look, there are many companies, virgin trains network
:16:56. > :17:00.that are popular with customers, it's a shame that Labour still have
:17:01. > :17:04.this private sector bad public sector, good, mantra. We saw with
:17:05. > :17:10.Jeremy Corbyn's famous train journey when he was sat on the train and
:17:11. > :17:13.there were seats vacant. There is a negativity towards private trains
:17:14. > :17:17.still in the Labour Party that's unjustified and doesn't celebrate
:17:18. > :17:20.the fact that our railways now in Britain carry these extra passengers
:17:21. > :17:25.and are one of the safest in the world. The safety record on our
:17:26. > :17:31.railway network is beyond comparison to almost every other nation in the
:17:32. > :17:35.world. Do sip that? Thank goodness it is a safe railway system. Let's
:17:36. > :17:39.look it at some incidents that have occurred, people have been dragged
:17:40. > :17:43.down platforms, we don't want to see... No one wants to see an
:17:44. > :17:47.increase. We don't want to compromise on safety. A record of
:17:48. > :17:51.doing this and that's exactly what will happen on this occasion because
:17:52. > :17:54.profit will triumph and trump over safety on every occasion. Let me
:17:55. > :17:59.pick you up on those things. At the moment you are saying that there is
:18:00. > :18:02.a good safety record on the railways, as it stands, but you
:18:03. > :18:06.think that more privatisation or private money or private funding
:18:07. > :18:11.will automatically lead to more tragic accidents? We know this is
:18:12. > :18:16.the case, the last time this experiment was conducted that's the
:18:17. > :18:18.outcome we had with Railtrack. You have admitted this isn't like
:18:19. > :18:22.Railtrack? It's another modification. But it's not the same?
:18:23. > :18:27.I grant you that, it's a modification of the same principle.
:18:28. > :18:30.But it's a starting point. We know the ideology of the Secretary of
:18:31. > :18:35.State, we know where he wants to be. He wants... I suppose arguably you
:18:36. > :18:42.are being idea logical on the other side, rightly or wrongly? It's about
:18:43. > :18:46.having the right ideology. If ideology is wrong per se... You have
:18:47. > :18:49.to have the right conviction. You are happy if it's your ideology but
:18:50. > :18:54.you think obviously the Government's ideology is wrong. I do. I
:18:55. > :18:57.understand your point. If we are looking to simplify the railways and
:18:58. > :19:01.keep them safe, wouldn't it be better to see if these changes work?
:19:02. > :19:06.You have already made up your mind they won't. Before pushing ahead
:19:07. > :19:11.with what would be a disruptive and complicated renationalisation
:19:12. > :19:15.programme. Well, no, not a comply - privatisation system, that's being
:19:16. > :19:20.proposed. Hang on. Your proposal is a renationalisation programme.
:19:21. > :19:23.Nicola Sure talked about route-based businesses, they've gone a long way
:19:24. > :19:27.through the benchmarking process to bring that to fruition. I would put
:19:28. > :19:31.it the other way. Why do we not let those changes bed down and let's see
:19:32. > :19:34.what the benefits are? It may be that people are content with what
:19:35. > :19:40.comes out of that process. All right. Thank you very much.
:19:41. > :19:43.She's attending a meeting of the Gulf Co-operation Council
:19:44. > :19:46.and this morning she made a short speech on board the Royal Navy's
:19:47. > :19:52.This week, I am in Bahrain to attend the Gulf Co-operation Council,
:19:53. > :19:56.to reaffirm our partnership with the GCC countries
:19:57. > :19:59.and to step up our defence and security co-operation,
:20:00. > :20:05.to keep British citizens safe at home and abroad.
:20:06. > :20:08.And, to ensure the stability necessary for global
:20:09. > :20:14.Here on HMS Ocean, all of you are a vital part of Britain's
:20:15. > :20:17.global mission and your role in our commitment to
:20:18. > :20:19.security in the Gulf could not be more important
:20:20. > :20:24.and you can be very proud of everything you are doing.
:20:25. > :20:26.A little earlier I spoke to the BBC's deputy political
:20:27. > :20:29.editor John Pienaar, who's in Bahrain reporting
:20:30. > :20:38.I asked him how Theresa May was going to square her design for
:20:39. > :20:43.greater co-operation with the Gulf states with well documented human
:20:44. > :20:46.rights abuses in the region? Well, I think Theresa May, it's a fairly
:20:47. > :20:50.simple question, she's been spending the morning and will spend tomorrow
:20:51. > :20:54.talking to a succession of Arab leaders. You can see one of the
:20:55. > :20:59.King's many palaces behind me, there are a number in this area, it's the
:21:00. > :21:07.ultra upmarket housing estate, you go from one to the other. She's met
:21:08. > :21:12.the leader, later the King of Saudi Arabia, to her these are key allies,
:21:13. > :21:16.for Britain's strategic interest as well as the region and the world as
:21:17. > :21:19.well as the business of those lucrative arms sales. When it comes
:21:20. > :21:22.to human rights she argues if you are not in the room with them you
:21:23. > :21:26.can't raise questions of human rights. Which is an answer you have
:21:27. > :21:29.heard from Prime Ministers, but for Theresa May her time as Home
:21:30. > :21:35.Secretary I think has schooled her into thinking that questions of
:21:36. > :21:39.practical security outweigh liberal sensitivities and she answers those
:21:40. > :21:43.questions pretty much full-on. She can't escape the discussions over
:21:44. > :21:47.Brexit, not least an opposition day debate tomorrow where Labour is
:21:48. > :21:53.going to put down an amendment calling for the Government to set
:21:54. > :21:56.out its plans. We have also heard from the main EU negotiating person
:21:57. > :22:01.on Brexit who has said Britain can in the get a better deal outside the
:22:02. > :22:05.EU than it had when it was a member. What does Theresa May say to that?
:22:06. > :22:11.Those questions follow her wherever she goes. A while ago she was aboard
:22:12. > :22:16.HMS Ocean, the flagship of the Royal Navy here in Bahrain, the symbolism
:22:17. > :22:20.is clear, Britain is to remain a world power after Brexit. Alliances
:22:21. > :22:23.like those here count as well as getting a good deal in Europe.
:22:24. > :22:27.That's a struggle too. Aboard that ship she looked like a war leader,
:22:28. > :22:31.we are not at war but it is a struggle wherever she goes. At home
:22:32. > :22:34.at Westminster, as you say, we are now hearing Minister after Minister
:22:35. > :22:37.telling us that Britain may well be in the business of paying Europe for
:22:38. > :22:41.access to the European market. She's leaving that open. She didn't put it
:22:42. > :22:47.quite like that, she put it like this. Sometimes people look at this
:22:48. > :22:51.as somehow the UK taking one particular model, the UK trying to
:22:52. > :22:54.take some of the elements of membership. It's not about this sort
:22:55. > :22:57.of Brexit or that sort of Brexit. It's about a red, white and blue
:22:58. > :23:02.Brexit, that is the right Brexit, the right deal for Britain.
:23:03. > :23:05.It's obviously going to be tough, tough with the EU negotiating
:23:06. > :23:08.partners, they say at the moment they're going to make it difficult
:23:09. > :23:11.for Britain. Yeah, everything that you hear suggests there's going to
:23:12. > :23:15.be hard bargaining when those Article 50 talks, the talks on
:23:16. > :23:19.leaving the EU finally get started. We are now hearing from different
:23:20. > :23:24.ministers at different ends of the spectrum, David Davis, the Brexit
:23:25. > :23:27.Secretary, Philip Hammond today saying we may be in the business of
:23:28. > :23:32.give and take when it comes to paying into the EU. You heard there
:23:33. > :23:36.a red, white and blue Brexit which means give and take. How much is
:23:37. > :23:39.given and how much is taken, we don't know, she doesn't know and
:23:40. > :23:43.they won't know until the talks are well under way and that will happen
:23:44. > :23:45.when parliament gives its say. That will happen after the Supreme Court
:23:46. > :23:49.says it's up to parliament to give its say. Theresa May struggling as
:23:50. > :23:54.it were on so many fronts at once. Thank you.
:23:55. > :23:57.Let me bring you some more news following on from that, about the
:23:58. > :24:00.Government's position in terms of that debate tomorrow on the Brexit
:24:01. > :24:04.negotiations. Downing Street refused to be drawn on whether it will try
:24:05. > :24:09.to amend a Labour motion, that's a motion that's pushing Ministers to
:24:10. > :24:15.reveal their stance on Brexit talks and as we discussed earlier, there
:24:16. > :24:18.could be up to 20 or so Tory rebels backing that Labour motion. Pressed
:24:19. > :24:21.on whether the Government would seek to amend the motion, the Prime
:24:22. > :24:24.Minister's official spokesman said our approach to this debate and vote
:24:25. > :24:27.tomorrow will be guided by the position we have taken thus far, we
:24:28. > :24:30.don't intend to reveal our negotiating position ahead of
:24:31. > :24:34.triggering Article 50 by the end of March. It looks at the moment as if
:24:35. > :24:39.there isn't going to be an amendment but we will see.
:24:40. > :24:41.The sudden resignation of Conservative MP Stephen Phillips
:24:42. > :24:43.over disagreements with the Government about Brexit means
:24:44. > :24:45.This time in rural Lincolnshire in the constituency
:24:46. > :24:50.Voters returned a large Conservative majority
:24:51. > :24:52.in 2015 but that was before the EU referendum.
:24:53. > :25:02.By the end of the week there'll be a new political mix
:25:03. > :25:09.At this family-run food supplier in Lincolnshire are some
:25:10. > :25:13.of the 60% who backed Leave, working alongside the quarter
:25:14. > :25:16.of its staff from Eastern Europe, equally waiting to see what kind
:25:17. > :25:21.Obviously, Brexit's a big issue at the moment.
:25:22. > :25:26.I think we should stick by whatever decision's been made.
:25:27. > :25:30.In this mainly rural constituency a quarter of people are over 65
:25:31. > :25:38.Its last Conservative MP had a majority of 24,000.
:25:39. > :25:46.But that was before the EU referendum.
:25:47. > :25:49.So what do voters want to see on the big issue of Brexit now?
:25:50. > :25:52.Really it's making the best out of the decision that's been taken.
:25:53. > :25:59.Obviously, there's got to be a good deal, but a lot just seems to be
:26:00. > :26:02.about when are we going to make the decision at the moment,
:26:03. > :26:05.just make the decision and get it done as quickly as possible.
:26:06. > :26:07.Get out so we can get our borders back.
:26:08. > :26:10.This has been a Tory stronghold but following on from what happened
:26:11. > :26:13.in Richmond, when Brexit played a big part in the by-election there,
:26:14. > :26:15.in this pro-Leave constituency the UK Independence Party hopes
:26:16. > :26:17.to capitalise and is pledging to stop the Government
:26:18. > :26:23.By having a Ukip MP, not only will it shake the Government up,
:26:24. > :26:28.because they'll be terrified of losing other seats,
:26:29. > :26:36.but also I will hold them to account very vocally and very strongly.
:26:37. > :26:39.30 seconds to say why you should be voting for them this week...
:26:40. > :26:41.But the Liberal Democrat candidate, who voted for Remain,
:26:42. > :26:45.taking part here in a BBC radio Lincolnshire hustings at a local
:26:46. > :26:55.academy, thinks he can offer voters an alternative.
:26:56. > :26:57.You do have the chance to change your mind, this
:26:58. > :27:01.You don't have to stay with your original decision.
:27:02. > :27:03.We have met many people on the doorstep who regret voting
:27:04. > :27:06.to leave because of the lies that were told during the Brexit campaign
:27:07. > :27:12.Its candidate decries six years of austerity and says his party
:27:13. > :27:15.would best protect workers' rights and the NHS.
:27:16. > :27:17.It's the Tories running the country, supported
:27:18. > :27:22.They're the ones running the country, they're the ones that's
:27:23. > :27:25.We had nothing in the Autumn Statement about extra
:27:26. > :27:31.If you want to be taken for granted by the Conservatives, vote Tory.
:27:32. > :27:36.If you to send a message to Theresa May vote for me.
:27:37. > :27:39.Defending the seat for the Conservatives its candidate,
:27:40. > :27:42.out canvassing here in Ruskington, says a vote for her will ensure
:27:43. > :27:46.When we talk about Brexit what we say to people is, you know,
:27:47. > :27:49.Theresa May has been very clear, the country voted to leave
:27:50. > :27:52.We're going to leave the European Union.
:27:53. > :27:58.The best way to ensure that, if that is important to you,
:27:59. > :28:01.is to vote for a Conservative member of parliament so that Theresa May,
:28:02. > :28:03.the Prime Minister, has the strongest majority
:28:04. > :28:09.With just a few days left, voters will soon decide
:28:10. > :28:11.whether to return a Tory to Westminster, or,
:28:12. > :28:16.like in Richmond, whether Brexit may affect a different outcome.
:28:17. > :28:20.And on your screens now is a full list of all the candidates
:28:21. > :28:24.running in the Sleaford and North Hykeham by-election.
:28:25. > :28:26.Joining us now from Edinburgh is the polling expert
:28:27. > :28:37.You have been kept busy recently. Defending a majority of 24,000 would
:28:38. > :28:40.normally seem a safe bet. But following the Lib Dems win in
:28:41. > :28:45.Richmond is anything possible? I think the truth is there is a big
:28:46. > :28:48.difference between Richmond and Sleaford. Zac Goldsmith might have
:28:49. > :28:53.been defend ago big majority from the last general election but this
:28:54. > :28:58.was a constituency that elected a Liberal Democrat MP from 1997 to
:28:59. > :29:02.2010. In contrast, Sleaford has done nothing other than ever vote for a
:29:03. > :29:06.Conservative MP and to that extent at least a Conservative defeat here
:29:07. > :29:10.would, I think, be a spectacular result in the way that the wasn't
:29:11. > :29:13.quite in Richmond. That said, by-elections are never easy for
:29:14. > :29:18.governments. The Conservatives had 56% of the vote last time. We
:29:19. > :29:22.shouldn't be surprised if it's only just hanging on to about 40%, but
:29:23. > :29:28.40% of the vote should be enough to win this constituency. Right. Is
:29:29. > :29:31.there any evidence Ukip claim that they are gaining ground in the
:29:32. > :29:34.constituency because people are impatient with the pace of Brexit,
:29:35. > :29:38.they would say that, wouldn't they, but is there evidence of that? They
:29:39. > :29:41.would say that, but we don't know because we have not had opinion
:29:42. > :29:45.polls in this constituency but certainly the interesting question
:29:46. > :29:49.that is being carried forward from Richmond is whether or not indeed
:29:50. > :29:52.the question of Brexit is going to begin to reshape British politics.
:29:53. > :29:56.Ukip on the one hand are going to try to appeal to the majority of
:29:57. > :30:01.voters in this constituency who voted to Leave and say you need to
:30:02. > :30:05.hold Theresa May's nose to the fire. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats,
:30:06. > :30:09.OK, it's only a 38% Leave vote but they'll be looking to try to
:30:10. > :30:15.persuade those voters who are unhappy about the vote to leave to
:30:16. > :30:21.come across to them. Certainly given how badly they did in 2010 - 2015 in
:30:22. > :30:23.this constituency only just saving their deposit, if there is evidence
:30:24. > :30:28.of a Liberal Democrats revival in the wake of the Richmond result, the
:30:29. > :30:30.party should be getting itself at minimum back into double figures so
:30:31. > :30:35.far as percentage share of the vote is concerned.
:30:36. > :30:42.Do you think Brexit will start to shape British politics at every
:30:43. > :30:46.opportunity, for example in by-elections? It depends how well it
:30:47. > :30:49.goes. The Liberal Democrats did well in Richmond Park last week but that
:30:50. > :30:59.was where, as John said, it was a strong constituency. In the West
:31:00. > :31:04.Country they need to win seats but the West Country was a probe leave
:31:05. > :31:10.area and the strong stands Tim Farren is taking in the by-elections
:31:11. > :31:13.might bring short turns a short-term dividends, but it might be a barrier
:31:14. > :31:18.in the south-west through a Liberal Democrat combat. It's a mixed
:31:19. > :31:22.message for all parties. For Ukip, holding the government's speak to
:31:23. > :31:28.the fire in areas where there is a strong feeling for the league
:31:29. > :31:34.campaign, will that be winning seats in councils, will that bring people
:31:35. > :31:38.over to them -- leave. This is to you, John. I do apologise. I'm
:31:39. > :31:45.looking at you, but you can't see me. Could you say it again? Could
:31:46. > :31:50.Ukip make gains by holding the government's feet to the fire over
:31:51. > :31:52.the place of Brexit? In constituencies like this the
:31:53. > :31:56.Conservative vote is so large it will be difficult for Ukip to win
:31:57. > :32:02.the seat. In a marginal, it might be possible. There is another prize
:32:03. > :32:05.Ukip could look to, which is managing to come second and
:32:06. > :32:10.defeating the Labour Party and there is another important question. The
:32:11. > :32:15.Labour Party developing -- defending a poor percentage of the vote
:32:16. > :32:18.doesn't make progress and they should do so in by-elections, but
:32:19. > :32:23.the record in Richmond and Whitney and the two by-elections since June
:32:24. > :32:29.20 -- disappointing that the party. The crucial battle is that if Ukip,
:32:30. > :32:35.second they will claim they are back on the road having had a rocky six
:32:36. > :32:39.months. If Ukip come second they might have to rethink their
:32:40. > :32:44.strategy. They say they want to replace neighbour in the North.
:32:45. > :32:47.Obviously Theresa May cannot afford to lose the seat because she has a
:32:48. > :32:53.slim majority already and has lost one in Richmond. This is a must win
:32:54. > :32:55.for the Conservatives. I think John identifies exactly the right thing
:32:56. > :33:00.the Conservatives will be looking for. If Labour looked like they are
:33:01. > :33:05.making no progress at all, that will give Downing Street a lot of
:33:06. > :33:08.comfort. That is what the Tory hopes are predicated on, that the Labour
:33:09. > :33:13.vote is so soft that come the general election the Tories will
:33:14. > :33:15.make gains compared to the last David Cameron election victory.
:33:16. > :33:19.With over 800 peers it's got more legislators
:33:20. > :33:31.And that's prompted some members of the Lords to argue it should
:33:32. > :33:38.Yesterday, peers debated the issue and here are some highlights.
:33:39. > :33:48.The time for reform has come and it is for us to take the initiative and
:33:49. > :33:53.work with government, not for us to wait for government to decide and
:33:54. > :33:58.then to impose. Significantly, when the public are asked to express a
:33:59. > :34:06.preference there is a much bigger group now demanding total abolition
:34:07. > :34:09.rather than supporting the present unsatisfactory appointment system or
:34:10. > :34:16.any other proposed modifications of it. So that those in this house who
:34:17. > :34:21.continue to obstruct real democratic reform risk and increasing public
:34:22. > :34:29.demand for a unified parliament, which me and my colleagues do not
:34:30. > :34:31.support. This would diminish the range of expertise and using
:34:32. > :34:36.election results to determine the numbers of this house would
:34:37. > :34:41.encourage us to be even more political. The result, my lord, is
:34:42. > :34:49.that it would be hard to tell apart from the House of Commons. We would
:34:50. > :34:57.have all devices without -- all the vices without the virtues. Whereas,
:34:58. > :35:01.if we reach consensus on what this House of Lords exists for, and unite
:35:02. > :35:07.in promoting that purpose, I truly believe we would become more
:35:08. > :35:12.effective. To me, it is an affront when APS says he thought his peerage
:35:13. > :35:17.was a reward for his success as a composer and he did not expect to
:35:18. > :35:24.attend the debate and vote on policy issues. Likewise, one adviser sent
:35:25. > :35:28.here as lobby fodder who cannot speak, they do as I believe a
:35:29. > :35:33.disservice. The mother of Parliaments is not mute. I believe
:35:34. > :35:37.this house is an excellent job. It needs to be reduced in size. I agree
:35:38. > :35:42.with many of the ideas that have been put forward by my friend Lord
:35:43. > :35:44.Tebbit and Lord Cormack in his excellent address. This is not a
:35:45. > :35:47.place to work out how. We've been joined by Tina Stowell,
:35:48. > :35:50.a Conservative peer and former And also by Alan Beith,
:35:51. > :36:03.a Lib Dem peer. The motion was agreed last night,
:36:04. > :36:08.and some might say calling for a reduction in PAs is like turkeys
:36:09. > :36:13.voting for Christmas. Is it? There is a general it is too big and once
:36:14. > :36:16.you get to specific proposals will be a section of a house against all
:36:17. > :36:19.the proposals but we are starting from the wrong end. Although the
:36:20. > :36:24.House of Lords is too big most people don't realise that. The idea
:36:25. > :36:29.in the public is that the House of Lords being too big is an issue is
:36:30. > :36:32.wrong. We want to work out a way of having democracy in the House of
:36:33. > :36:35.Lords while retaining some of its character in doing its job of making
:36:36. > :36:39.the Commons think again when it needs to. Isn't it a start? Some
:36:40. > :36:44.would say there's not even enough room for the if they did actually
:36:45. > :36:49.attend all the time. -- the peers. That would be a good place to begin
:36:50. > :36:54.reform. Everywhere is a bad place to start. Simply chopping the numbers.
:36:55. > :36:58.Although I agree it's too large, it eggs the question, what does the
:36:59. > :37:04.House of Lords do, how should people be elected to it -- begs -- and what
:37:05. > :37:09.should the total size B? We had a perfectly good scheme that was
:37:10. > :37:11.brought forward with support of all parties but the Labour Party would
:37:12. > :37:16.not support the measures necessary to get it through. The wrong place
:37:17. > :37:21.to start? I do think it's the wrong place to start but where we are
:37:22. > :37:28.united is that there are some passengers we need to deal with is
:37:29. > :37:32.the term that Lord Fowler used. And what we need to focus on is on
:37:33. > :37:36.behaviours. Like Alan was saying about what people talk about in the
:37:37. > :37:40.pub, they don't talk about numbers, they talk about behaviours. Do they
:37:41. > :37:45.talk about the House of Lords at all? Probably not. And that's one of
:37:46. > :37:49.the things that we, as an institution, have to bear in mind.
:37:50. > :37:56.If it's not the subject of conversation they are doing their
:37:57. > :38:03.job well. What I mean is, if you think about what the House of Lords
:38:04. > :38:06.exists for, and I describe it as a house that exists to consummate the
:38:07. > :38:11.House of Commons in giving people confidence in the laws that cover --
:38:12. > :38:15.Parliament makes, and I always emphasise giving people confidence.
:38:16. > :38:19.Because if you know, when you become a Lord, that is why you go into the
:38:20. > :38:25.building and you going to scrutinise and revise, but why are you doing
:38:26. > :38:29.it? That would drive your decisions on when to go, how to conduct
:38:30. > :38:36.yourself when you are there, and also when to retire. But who is not
:38:37. > :38:39.following those general broad rules you have outlined? You talked about
:38:40. > :38:46.fellow passengers that need to go and people who are behaving
:38:47. > :38:51.properly. Who are they? The reason why I think that starting with the
:38:52. > :38:59.absolute size of the house is the wrong place to start Mrs the proper
:39:00. > :39:06.measure that is most relevant. There are too many Lib Dems, for instance?
:39:07. > :39:10.You can't possibly think that. I'm sure you love them one and all, but
:39:11. > :39:15.there are a lot of Liberal Democrat peers in a house that you yourself
:39:16. > :39:21.would like to abolish and that seems to be a great irony. As Tina herself
:39:22. > :39:28.rightly said, and she spoke in the debate, it's not an exact copy of
:39:29. > :39:31.the House of Commons like the last election because it would not have
:39:32. > :39:35.the independence to make the house think again. When people talk about
:39:36. > :39:40.the House of Lords is when we make the life of the government more
:39:41. > :39:43.difficult, so when they voted against the tax credit cuts
:39:44. > :39:47.everybody was talking about the Lords, and that is when we are at
:39:48. > :39:49.our most popular. Yes, but who should make the decision about what
:39:50. > :39:55.happens to the House of Lords? Should be the or you? I think the
:39:56. > :40:01.House of Lords should be the place where decisions are made about its
:40:02. > :40:06.changes and reforms -- should it be the government or you? And I believe
:40:07. > :40:10.the House of Lords has got all the power it needs to make change
:40:11. > :40:15.happen. It doesn't need legislation or the government. What the peers
:40:16. > :40:19.need to do is unite in agreeing about why we exist. If there is
:40:20. > :40:24.unity in that, the kind of behaviour is that sometimes attract criticism
:40:25. > :40:28.would be dealt with. I think most peers who are not currently
:40:29. > :40:31.government ministers agree on what the House of Lords is therefore, to
:40:32. > :40:36.make the government think again, to review legislation and to make sure
:40:37. > :40:40.we get the law right. And sometimes to bite as well as Bach, otherwise
:40:41. > :40:46.you don't have the power to change the legislation. -- as well as Bach.
:40:47. > :40:51.As a former member of the Cabinet and the person responsible for
:40:52. > :40:55.getting legislation through the House of Lords, I would never
:40:56. > :40:58.disagree that that house should not sometimes obstruct government
:40:59. > :41:03.legislation. But not too often. Well, clearly it shouldn't be doing
:41:04. > :41:09.it in a way that calls into question the legitimacy of it as an unelected
:41:10. > :41:13.house alongside the elected House of Commons. The elected house should
:41:14. > :41:19.always have the final say. The problem is that Prime Minister 's
:41:20. > :41:23.have been stuffing the House of Lords with their charms for a very
:41:24. > :41:28.long time, and that has caused it to become bloated and out of control. I
:41:29. > :41:33.think that is the danger. From my work, I have to do read debates in
:41:34. > :41:36.the House of Commons and House of Lords, and again and again, the
:41:37. > :41:39.quality of the debate in the Lords is superior to the House of Commons.
:41:40. > :41:44.You have largely a group of people with more experience and expertise.
:41:45. > :41:49.That must be protected at all costs. The danger is that some of the
:41:50. > :41:55.recent resignations and other lists from David Cameron and previous
:41:56. > :42:00.prime ministers have been to like cronyism. It is people who are loyal
:42:01. > :42:03.to the party rather than a cause or discipline and that will ruin the
:42:04. > :42:06.House of Lords, I'm afraid. But at the moment I think the quality of
:42:07. > :42:10.debate still stands good examination. On that basis, because
:42:11. > :42:14.people will say you are over represented as a party in the House
:42:15. > :42:17.of Lords wrap -- bearing in mind the number of MPs in the House of
:42:18. > :42:22.Commons, are you going to vote against the triggering of Article
:42:23. > :42:27.50? The house is unlikely to have a vote on the issue. You will
:42:28. > :42:33.certainly want the government to set out what it's trying to achieve in
:42:34. > :42:37.negotiations, hard Brexit, soft Brexit, customs union or no customs
:42:38. > :42:40.union. Nobody enters into negotiations without making it
:42:41. > :42:44.public what the objectives are. The bottom line is we would challenge
:42:45. > :42:48.the government to do that, but the real decision on that will be taken
:42:49. > :42:52.in the House of Commons. But if it comes to the Lords, which it would
:42:53. > :42:55.do if there was legislation following on from what the Supreme
:42:56. > :43:01.Court rules, even a short Bill, that would be going to be scrutinised by
:43:02. > :43:05.you, and if it wasn't clear if we were going to stay in or out of the
:43:06. > :43:09.single market or the customs union, would you add an amendment or try to
:43:10. > :43:13.delay the bill? I think we would try to amend the bill. But we cannot
:43:14. > :43:17.have a situation in which the House of Commons decides to go ahead and
:43:18. > :43:20.the House of Lords says no you can't. I don't think anybody would
:43:21. > :43:25.want that to happen. But that would be fair enough, wouldn't it? I think
:43:26. > :43:29.everybody in a privileged position of power, whether you sit in the
:43:30. > :43:35.Commons or the Lords, your own business, or in the media, everybody
:43:36. > :43:41.needs to recognise that it is about behaviours and giving people some
:43:42. > :43:46.reassurance that the motive behind whatever it is that people are
:43:47. > :43:51.trying to do in order to get the best future for our country outside
:43:52. > :43:59.the European referendum is inspired by that, but not by some political
:44:00. > :44:02.or self-interest. What I would argue with the Lib Dems or anyone else in
:44:03. > :44:12.the House of Lords over is that making sure that any action, when it
:44:13. > :44:15.comes to Brexit, Article 50 or anything else, is properly and
:44:16. > :44:21.clearly motivated that it is in the public interest. They would argue it
:44:22. > :44:24.is in the public interest. There is no bigger public interest question
:44:25. > :44:30.than Britain securing a good future after the negotiations. I think we
:44:31. > :44:38.just need to recognise that people who have voted out, and I was in the
:44:39. > :44:42.Remain campaign, but the people who voted out and are now supportive of
:44:43. > :44:47.the change associated with Brexit, whether they voted in or out, they
:44:48. > :44:50.are looking for those of us in great positions of power to reflect on the
:44:51. > :44:54.way we behave and why we take the decisions we do. That sounds like a
:44:55. > :44:59.gentle warning. It's an encouragement to do what I will do
:45:00. > :45:02.throughout, which is to try to serve the best British interest and make
:45:03. > :45:05.sure we get out of a process we would not have started, with an
:45:06. > :45:09.outcome where people's jobs and livelihoods and the peace of Europe
:45:10. > :45:14.is safely guaranteed. Thank you very much.
:45:15. > :45:16.Nato's foreign ministers are meeting in Brussels to discuss how
:45:17. > :45:20.the alliance can maintain peace and stability at a time
:45:21. > :45:24.On the agenda will be not only Russian involvement in Ukraine,
:45:25. > :45:27.but also the build-up of missiles and troops along
:45:28. > :45:32.Ahead of today's session, Nato's Secretary General,
:45:33. > :45:35.suggested if both sides toned down their rhetoric,
:45:36. > :45:38.it might take some of the heat out of the situation.
:45:39. > :45:42.I welcome any toning down of the rhetoric because I think
:45:43. > :45:48.words matter and less aggressive rhetoric can be a first step
:45:49. > :46:02.At the same time, words matter, but of course
:46:03. > :46:10.Therefore, the important thing is what we see,
:46:11. > :46:14.what kind of actions we see from the Russian side.
:46:15. > :46:16.And we're joined now by the Conservative MP
:46:17. > :46:23.Daniel Kawczynski, who sits on the Foreign Affairs Committee.
:46:24. > :46:31.Welcome. First of all, Tim Montgomerie, there is evidently
:46:32. > :46:35.concern amongst the Baltic states, understandably because of where they
:46:36. > :46:39.are, about the Russian threat. Is any talk of a new cold war an
:46:40. > :46:44.exageration? I don't think so. If you look at some of rush why's
:46:45. > :46:50.tactics they're deploying in the region, how they used undercover
:46:51. > :46:55.troops to invade eastern Ukraine. How they are involved in
:46:56. > :47:00.destabilising democracies around the world. Their interference confirmed
:47:01. > :47:07.by intelligence agencies in America, in the US election, involved in the
:47:08. > :47:10.WikiLeaks controversy over Hillary Clinton's emails, on a range of
:47:11. > :47:15.fronts Russia is reverting to the behaviour that comes naturally to
:47:16. > :47:20.Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin was trained as a KGB agent and I am
:47:21. > :47:23.afraid you can't always teach an old dog new tricks. He is still behaving
:47:24. > :47:29.as he did in the past. How do you deal with a power that behaves in
:47:30. > :47:34.that way? There is no evidence to back up that Vladimir Putin is
:47:35. > :47:41.moving towards some sort of cordial relationship with Europe, for
:47:42. > :47:47.example? Well, I think the clip that you played is extremely important.
:47:48. > :47:50.We met with him at the European Parliament recently and I asked how
:47:51. > :47:54.are you going to, as Secretary General of Nato, how are you going
:47:55. > :47:57.to lower tensions with Russia? And he talked about his experience when
:47:58. > :48:02.he was Prime Minister of Norway and a Nato country that borders Russia.
:48:03. > :48:09.He had in that position as Prime Minister of Norway a very pragmatic
:48:10. > :48:12.and effective policy of dealing with Russia on the bilateral basis and I
:48:13. > :48:17.very much hope he will use that experience to try to lower tensions
:48:18. > :48:20.with Russia, he himself has said it's vitally important that despite
:48:21. > :48:24.the differences we have with them, we want to ease some of the tensions
:48:25. > :48:28.that's building up. Isn't it more than just differences and a
:48:29. > :48:36.bilateral with authorway is one thing but dealings with Russia on a
:48:37. > :48:39.range of issues when it's moving missiles closer, launching cyber
:48:40. > :48:45.attacks, seeking to influence elections, makes it more difficult?
:48:46. > :48:50.I went this summer to the Polish-Russian border and that is
:48:51. > :48:54.already becoming the most highly militaryised part of Europe. If the
:48:55. > :48:59.tit-for-tat deployment of missiles continues at the pace it has been,
:49:00. > :49:04.that area of Europe will become akin to the north and south Korean
:49:05. > :49:08.border, a no-man's-land and it will just take a spark to cause a
:49:09. > :49:12.confrontation between the two sides. Yes, be strong and tough with them,
:49:13. > :49:16.yes, spend more on defence but we need to engage with them to try to
:49:17. > :49:18.build up some sort of mutual trust and respect. Otherwise we are
:49:19. > :49:23.heading towards some sort of confrontation. Painting Russia as
:49:24. > :49:28.the bogeyman all the time and talking about the Cold War won't
:49:29. > :49:34.that escalate tensions? Would a different tone really, in your mind,
:49:35. > :49:37.change the balance of relations? I think Daniel officially I think
:49:38. > :49:43.represents Shrewsbury in parliament but has more of a record I am afraid
:49:44. > :49:55.for representing Riyadh in Saudi Arabia and Moscow in Russia, he
:49:56. > :50:00.Russia - he has been an apologist. If you remember the defence shield
:50:01. > :50:03.America promised for the Czech republic and Poland, Hillary Clinton
:50:04. > :50:09.then reset relations with Russia. The message to Russia was exactly as
:50:10. > :50:14.Daniel has recommended, we sort of accommodate ourselves to Putin he is
:50:15. > :50:20.aggressiveness. Since then Putin saw that as a green light, he saw
:50:21. > :50:25.weakness and invaded Ukraine and bombs Aleppo. I am afraid the kind
:50:26. > :50:30.of recipe that Daniel always wants us to follow in the West, to be
:50:31. > :50:35.kinder and more indulgent to dictatorships is exactly the sort of
:50:36. > :50:39.thing that inflames aggression and endangers peace, rather than the
:50:40. > :50:45.reverse. You are an apologist for a dictator? Well, this is what the
:50:46. > :50:51.likes of MrMontgomerie and others, I was called last week by a right-wing
:50:52. > :50:56.think tank in America a trojan horse for the Kremlin. If Members of
:50:57. > :51:00.Parliament don't dovetail into this very popular narrative which is
:51:01. > :51:06.peddled by MrMontgomerie and others, which is these regimes are bad, they
:51:07. > :51:10.have to be kept away, they are going to cause problems, if anybody dares
:51:11. > :51:15.challenge that very popular and fashionable concept, as to whether
:51:16. > :51:17.or not it is in our country's national strategic interest to
:51:18. > :51:24.completely ostracise these countries and not have dialogue... No one's
:51:25. > :51:27.talking about - you shouldn't misrepresent the views of your
:51:28. > :51:33.critics. I will come back to you. His views are highly dangerous. We
:51:34. > :51:36.need to engage with Russia. Are your views highly dangerous, what is your
:51:37. > :51:42.alternative solution to dealing with Russia, is it containment? Well, I
:51:43. > :51:45.think what we certainly have to be doing now is, the alternative to not
:51:46. > :51:49.the kind of military identificationation on borders that
:51:50. > :51:55.Daniel describes, is allowing Russia to bring in their people in green
:51:56. > :51:59.berets and hidden essentially Russian troops to destabilise
:52:00. > :52:03.countries like Estonia. If we do not make it clear to Russia there will
:52:04. > :52:07.be enormous consequences for them destabilising other parts of the
:52:08. > :52:11.world, what we will get from Putin is more of the kind of
:52:12. > :52:15.indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations we have seen in Aleppo.
:52:16. > :52:19.Aleppo wasn't the first time, of course, that Putin bombed civilian
:52:20. > :52:24.populations. Before he came to power as Russian President in Chechnya,
:52:25. > :52:30.that is how he behaved. He is a very nasty piece of work. When we have an
:52:31. > :52:33.apologist like Daniel for him, then we are inviting further aggression.
:52:34. > :52:38.You have dialogue. You do not have indulgence. I won't take any
:52:39. > :52:43.lectures from Mr Montgomerie on this issue. . I am the only only British
:52:44. > :52:48.member of parliament to have been born in Poland. I spent my childhood
:52:49. > :52:58.listening to my grandfather about the catastrophic destruction of
:52:59. > :53:03.Poland during the Second World War, Warsaw razeg -- razed to the ground.
:53:04. > :53:07.All I am interested in is making sure that those frontline states
:53:08. > :53:10.that we are Allianced to, countries like Poland are not destroyed and
:53:11. > :53:18.devastated in another world war. What is, as I said, what is
:53:19. > :53:21.happening with the pole border is frightening and anybody who doesn't
:53:22. > :53:25.understand the concerns of that trajectory of conflict is wrong. May
:53:26. > :53:29.I just say lastly, a lot of people actually, if you talk to people on
:53:30. > :53:33.the ground, whether it's in Shrewsbury or anywhere else, they
:53:34. > :53:38.expect politicians to go the extra mile to engage and to do whatever
:53:39. > :53:42.they can through diplomacy. What evidence is there that has worked?
:53:43. > :53:46.Sanctions haven't worked. There have been attempts at dialogue and
:53:47. > :53:49.they've been rejected in many people's minds by Vladimir Putin
:53:50. > :53:55.himself. He is only worried about his sphere of influence and he feels
:53:56. > :53:59.under threat from the EU and that that's why he annexed Crimea and got
:54:00. > :54:02.involved in military incursion in Ukraine. There is no evidence to
:54:03. > :54:06.show that Vladimir Putin is interested in anything else than
:54:07. > :54:10.increasing his sphere of influps, hence getting involved in Syria --
:54:11. > :54:17.influence. On the basis of getting rid of Islamic State. That's the
:54:18. > :54:19.pivotal question and we are doing a report currently on Anglo-Russian
:54:20. > :54:22.relations. We have been doing this for the last year. The report will
:54:23. > :54:27.be published in... What's the evidence he would respond to
:54:28. > :54:31.dialogue? The evidence is this, our policy seems to amount to
:54:32. > :54:36.confrontation and sanctions. The sanctions aren't working.
:54:37. > :54:39.Interestingly, Russian trade with America, China, Brazil, and India is
:54:40. > :54:42.at record levels. So whilst we are imposing sanctions on Russia and by
:54:43. > :54:47.the way British companies have lost ten billion a year as a result of
:54:48. > :54:49.these sanctions, our international competitors, the Americans, the
:54:50. > :54:54.Chinese and Brazilians, are continuing to trade. Sanctions will
:54:55. > :54:57.only work if their implemented by all the countries, not just western
:54:58. > :55:03.Europe. Are you going to be out of step with your views now when we
:55:04. > :55:08.look at President Donald Trump who, of course, has signalled friendlier
:55:09. > :55:15.relations with Russia and Vladimir Putin. And in the end this is a new
:55:16. > :55:18.chapter in terms of Russian relations with the rest of the
:55:19. > :55:23.world? The article I wrote for The Times that I think you were wroting,
:55:24. > :55:26.I am worried about the fact that Daniel's views are becoming more
:55:27. > :55:31.popular amongst certain right-wing groups. We might be cuddling up to
:55:32. > :55:35.Russia at exactly the wrong moment, in a sense if you look at the
:55:36. > :55:40.Russian economy, it's a basket case. The reason why Putin is amounting
:55:41. > :55:44.these overseas aggressions, is because he's not able to meet the
:55:45. > :55:48.economic needs of his own people. Half the tax revenues of the Russian
:55:49. > :55:51.state come from oil and gas. Therefore, the oil price of recent
:55:52. > :55:57.times has meant it's been difficult for the Russian state to be stable.
:55:58. > :56:01.So, until Russia has domestic reform it will be an unr unstable partner
:56:02. > :56:06.for us and will continue to be aggressive overseas. Actually, the
:56:07. > :56:10.economic isolation is more important that we continue that, because if we
:56:11. > :56:16.don't then Russia will be able to expand its military actions. From a
:56:17. > :56:19.moral standpoint, is there really justification of pursuing an
:56:20. > :56:26.Anglo-Russian relationship when there are accusations of war crimes
:56:27. > :56:30.in Aleppo, and Russians have been accused of protecting terrorists? Is
:56:31. > :56:34.there anything to salvage from that, even if there could be improved
:56:35. > :56:42.trade, for example, between Russia and the UK? In the deepest depths of
:56:43. > :56:47.the Cold War, 1984, we were still, the general Secretary of the
:56:48. > :56:51.Communist Party, we were still engaging with Russia, they were in
:56:52. > :56:56.Afghanistan, they had occupied half of Europe, had downed a Korean
:56:57. > :57:01.airliner the previous year, we were at heightened tensions, but at that
:57:02. > :57:07.time Reagan invited them for talks in Washington. Thatcher invited the
:57:08. > :57:13.next generation to discussions at Chequers. Those politicians at that
:57:14. > :57:16.time realised the importance of no matter how difficult tensions they
:57:17. > :57:19.needed to continue to engage... What we don't want is people like you
:57:20. > :57:24.excusing the war crimes that are taking place in Aleppo, the human
:57:25. > :57:27.rights abuses that are taking place in Ukraine and it's having someone
:57:28. > :57:31.in the British parliament who seems to represent the Kremlin, more than
:57:32. > :57:36.the British people. That's a disgrace. It's typically, because
:57:37. > :57:40.you are losing the arcment, you try to cast people like me in a maligned
:57:41. > :57:44.way, it's bad for democracy. We need this debate. We need this debate,
:57:45. > :57:48.can I just say there are growing numbers now of Conservative MPs who
:57:49. > :57:52.are joining this thought process about the importance of engaging
:57:53. > :57:54.with Russia. No one is disputing dialogue. You are shooting at a
:57:55. > :58:00.false target. On that, thank you very much.
:58:01. > :58:04.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:05. > :58:06.The question was what's the latest British asset the Chinese have
:58:07. > :58:30.Tim, what is it? Have they bought some pub chain? I think that's the
:58:31. > :58:34.answer. You are correct. It was a good guess. What do you think about
:58:35. > :58:38.the Chinese buying up British assets? A post-Brexit world, it's
:58:39. > :58:42.vital we are open for overseas investment. I worry about
:58:43. > :58:43.investments in strategic interests, but pub chains I think we can put up
:58:44. > :58:46.with that. I'll be back at 11.30am tomorrow
:58:47. > :58:53.with Andrew for live coverage