:00:38. > :00:41.Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:42. > :00:45.Did a test of our nuclear weapons system go wrong?
:00:46. > :00:47.And, if so, should Parliament have been informed?
:00:48. > :00:50.The government is under pressure to give a full explanation to MPs.
:00:51. > :00:55.The government promises a new, more interventionist
:00:56. > :00:58.industrial strategy to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.
:00:59. > :01:03.Labour says it doesn't go far enough.
:01:04. > :01:07.Labour's First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru launch
:01:08. > :01:10.a joint Brexit plan for Wales, calling for a Norway-style model.
:01:11. > :01:21.We take a look at the most annoying phrases used
:01:22. > :01:30.by politicians and what it's doing to their credibility.
:01:31. > :01:33.All that in the next hour, and with us for the whole
:01:34. > :01:35.of the programme today, we have two women who,
:01:36. > :01:38.in the spirit of age, have marched all the way
:01:39. > :01:41.from the Palace of Westminster to our little studio across the road.
:01:42. > :01:43.Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Labour's Tulip Siddiq.
:01:44. > :01:49.Now, Prime Minister Theresa May says the government will play an "active
:01:50. > :01:51.role" British industry, as she sets out the government's
:01:52. > :01:54.industrial strategy today in Warrington.
:01:55. > :01:57.A green paper will outline broadband, transport
:01:58. > :02:05.There will also be more money for STEM, science, technology,
:02:06. > :02:07.engineering and maths subjects, and a further ?556 million for
:02:08. > :02:15.Business Secretary Greg Clark has been speaking about the strategy at
:02:16. > :02:20.Let's take a look at what he had to say.
:02:21. > :02:22.One of the big themes of our industrial strategy
:02:23. > :02:26.is to build on our great successes but also to help make sure
:02:27. > :02:31.that we drive growth in all parts of the country.
:02:32. > :02:38.We are in a catapult centre, which is there, that takes
:02:39. > :02:41.government research money to combine with industry and universities,
:02:42. > :02:45.to help small businesses prosper in the future.
:02:46. > :02:48.The industrial strategy will be committed to driving very hard
:02:49. > :02:55.to spread the opportunities right across the country.
:02:56. > :02:57.Let's talk now to our correspondent Eleanor Garnier, who's in Cheshire
:02:58. > :03:04.where the Cabinet has been meeting this morning.
:03:05. > :03:13.So what have they been discussing? Well, the meeting is still going on.
:03:14. > :03:17.I haven't been allowed in, surprisingly! I don't know how they
:03:18. > :03:21.are getting on but I do know that the meeting has started and is
:03:22. > :03:26.probably going to last for about an hour. Theresa May was whisked past
:03:27. > :03:30.in her car about 45 minutes ago and you can see the motorbikes, the
:03:31. > :03:36.police motorbikes lined up very neatly behind me at this science and
:03:37. > :03:38.technology campus, a science and innovation campus where they have
:03:39. > :03:44.come to their first-ever regional Cabinet. Really, Theresa May has
:03:45. > :03:47.come here to launch our industrial strategy but that's all about
:03:48. > :03:52.getting the country ready for Brexit. Improving productivity,
:03:53. > :03:54.boosting skills. Importantly, she says, not just in London and the
:03:55. > :03:59.south-east but across the country and that is why they are here, to
:04:00. > :04:02.make the announcement, knowing that investment in the north, the
:04:03. > :04:07.north-east and north-west, outside London and the south-east is really
:04:08. > :04:11.important. There are a few main areas, if you like, that this
:04:12. > :04:14.industrial strategy will cover. First, it's a consultation but the
:04:15. > :04:18.aims are to cut down red tape and bureaucracy. There's going to be
:04:19. > :04:21.investment regionally. The understanding that what might work
:04:22. > :04:25.best for Manchester is not necessarily what Cornwall is going
:04:26. > :04:29.to need. And thirdly, investing in skills and that is one thing that
:04:30. > :04:35.business in particular says is desperately needed. There is a huge
:04:36. > :04:39.shortage in those STEM skills, science, technology, engineering and
:04:40. > :04:44.maths and there is extra money, around ?170 million, to help boost
:04:45. > :04:47.those skills and a promise to create new technical colleges, Institute of
:04:48. > :04:52.Technology, they are calling them, up and down the country, to try to
:04:53. > :04:57.get those skills going, if you like. Once Britain leaves the EU, there is
:04:58. > :05:00.a worry that employing people from across the EU who have those
:05:01. > :05:05.specialist skills might be a bit harder for business. We had George
:05:06. > :05:09.Osborne's Northern Powerhouse and Gordon Brown used to hold regional
:05:10. > :05:14.Cabinet is outside of London and around the country. Is this kind of
:05:15. > :05:20.Theresa May's brand, if you like, post Brexit, trying to spread
:05:21. > :05:24.economic growth around the UK? It is and it is building on what she set
:05:25. > :05:27.on the steps of number ten, that she wants an economy that works for
:05:28. > :05:32.everyone and that is the big test also of this industrial strategy,
:05:33. > :05:36.not just to help companies that are already doing well, but to reach
:05:37. > :05:39.parts of the country where industries and companies are not
:05:40. > :05:44.doing so well. That is why she wants to see this investment, region by
:05:45. > :05:48.region, project by project. What is interesting about it is that it is
:05:49. > :05:52.much more active and interventionist than the industrial strategies we
:05:53. > :05:58.have seen before. I think that gives a clue to what Theresa May thinks in
:05:59. > :06:02.terms of the benefits of business working for everyone. I think she
:06:03. > :06:05.thinks in order for that success to spread to everyone, actually, the
:06:06. > :06:09.government needs to give it a bit of help, a bit of a shove to make sure
:06:10. > :06:10.the success is spread amongst the whole of the country. Thank you for
:06:11. > :06:19.joining us. Annemarie, talking of an
:06:20. > :06:24.interventionist style, Theresa May did commit herself last year to
:06:25. > :06:29.intervening to tackle excessive pay. What has she done about it? I think
:06:30. > :06:32.in all these things, she's a practical person, that is how she
:06:33. > :06:36.has always done her politics and she sees with Brexit coming and with
:06:37. > :06:40.what is a very real skills gap, particularly in STEM, we need to
:06:41. > :06:42.really actively encourage that and drawing together government
:06:43. > :06:47.leadership and business support to come together, create new centres,
:06:48. > :06:51.institutes of technology, I'm working with lots of defence
:06:52. > :06:55.businesses to look at schooling level, maths -based technologies
:06:56. > :06:58.because we need more engineers and software scientists, all that
:06:59. > :07:02.technology which is what is coming forwards needs to be absolutely a
:07:03. > :07:06.standard part of the... But I asked about some of the things she said
:07:07. > :07:10.she was going to tackle and intervene in and one of them was to
:07:11. > :07:20.tackle excessive executive pay. Why has she not done anything about it?
:07:21. > :07:22.I think the conversation has started. It is certainly kicking
:07:23. > :07:25.around the system. Again, I think she is a politician who wants people
:07:26. > :07:27.to look at the questions. She will take all the evidence she can reach
:07:28. > :07:30.a decision. She's never made a decision in a rushed manner. She has
:07:31. > :07:34.put it out there, she is committed to getting the better balance, when
:07:35. > :07:38.she talks about a country that works for everyone, she genuinely feel the
:07:39. > :07:42.disparity between the top and the bottom. So you no action has been...
:07:43. > :07:46.She will draw together the views before she makes a decision and I
:07:47. > :07:53.have no doubt she will. But action has to match the rhetoric and in
:07:54. > :07:56.terms of putting workers on company boards, she has already wrote back
:07:57. > :07:59.on that action, rightly or wrongly, was that the right decision?
:08:00. > :08:02.Personally, I think we should have a flexible system, where companies are
:08:03. > :08:05.responsible and respected through their companies and externally for
:08:06. > :08:09.the way they run their businesses. Tulip Siddiq, you would support
:08:10. > :08:13.this, presumably, Labour would support a firm industrial strategy,
:08:14. > :08:16.particularly for a Conservative government, intervening to help in
:08:17. > :08:22.areas where it has been a struggle for business to set up? Certainly, I
:08:23. > :08:25.welcome the Prime Minister's aims but I have to say an industrial
:08:26. > :08:31.strategy will only work if it is in conjunction with a larger, broader
:08:32. > :08:35.strategy for economic growth. For example? What this won't have is
:08:36. > :08:38.Theresa May going and saving individual core plants from the
:08:39. > :08:42.post-Brexit consequences because if those firms cannot find staff with
:08:43. > :08:45.the correct skills, if they are facing crippling tariffs, if they
:08:46. > :08:53.have export bureaucracy, then there is no point. For me, at the moment,
:08:54. > :08:56.what I think we really need is clarity on where the country is
:08:57. > :08:58.going, and clarity on the post-Brexit business and industry
:08:59. > :09:01.landscape would I don't feel we have at the moment. You don't want the
:09:02. > :09:05.Prime Minister pick winners, support certain companies that might need
:09:06. > :09:10.help in a post-Brexit world? I don't think you can pick and choose an
:09:11. > :09:13.environment like this. Like agriculture, for example? It has to
:09:14. > :09:17.be part of a larger great strategy, you can't pick one or two, for me
:09:18. > :09:21.and we have had no clarity on that. Do you think there will be more
:09:22. > :09:27.deals done all letters written guaranteeing future economic trade
:09:28. > :09:31.with companies like Nissan? Nissan is obviously one of the key
:09:32. > :09:34.north-east businesses and I think it was great Prime Minister listened
:09:35. > :09:38.early, to understand what their needs are, and how the free-trade
:09:39. > :09:41.arrangements we make with the EU will impact... Even if subsidies are
:09:42. > :09:45.guaranteed if there are difficulties? We need to make sure
:09:46. > :09:50.we a framework that works. Cue the praises the point that making shall
:09:51. > :09:53.be your aquatic frameworks for businesses, moving goods to and from
:09:54. > :09:56.the EU, Harrison plus possible and the great repeal bill will bring in
:09:57. > :09:59.all the existing frameworks that there is no risk businesses are
:10:00. > :10:03.stuck in limbo. They will be in the same framework is now as we move
:10:04. > :10:06.towards a free trade arrangement rather than the existing customs
:10:07. > :10:10.union we are in at the moment. Why do you think the UK is less
:10:11. > :10:13.productive than countries like France? I think one of the problems
:10:14. > :10:18.we have at the moment is the downward trend of the pound, which
:10:19. > :10:22.is down by 18%, and the growth in inflation. Why does that affect
:10:23. > :10:33.productivity of workers? I mean, I think the truth is we have not
:10:34. > :10:35.looked at the broader framework for a great strategy which the Prime
:10:36. > :10:37.Minister, picking winners and pointing them out to the media, and
:10:38. > :10:40.talking about certain companies, just isn't right for us. We need to
:10:41. > :10:42.think about wages. We are in a low-wage economy. We need to think
:10:43. > :10:45.about workers' rights, how we increase... But workers' rights are
:10:46. > :10:48.continuing as they have done. We are not getting rid of any of them at
:10:49. > :10:53.the moment or are you worried about that? I'm very worried about it. I
:10:54. > :10:57.think the speech the Prime Minister made was certainly not a plan and
:10:58. > :11:01.until I have reassurance on workers' rights, what will actually happen
:11:02. > :11:05.when we leave the single market, the confidence of businesses is going
:11:06. > :11:10.down and so is productivity. What evidence is there that confident of
:11:11. > :11:12.businesses is going down? Speak to the businesses in my constituency
:11:13. > :11:17.and London generally, they are extreme you worried about what will
:11:18. > :11:19.happen in a post-Brexit landscape. Businesses in the north-east are
:11:20. > :11:24.excited about the opportunity for exports which are not limited by EU
:11:25. > :11:28.rules and regulations. Are they excited about the fact the pound has
:11:29. > :11:32.fallen more than it ever has? If you are an exporter, it is fantastic
:11:33. > :11:35.news for them and they are taking advantage and we are seeing more
:11:36. > :11:38.jobs coming in. The challenge we have is not enough of those skilled
:11:39. > :11:42.people that we need to be able to grow those quickly enough which is
:11:43. > :11:45.why I don't think productivity can improve. We will leave it there but
:11:46. > :11:47.we will discuss this later in the programme as well.
:11:48. > :11:51.The question for today is which pastime has former
:11:52. > :11:53.Prime Minister David Cameron reportedly gone back to?
:11:54. > :11:55.Was it a) pheasant shooting, b) fox hunting
:11:56. > :12:01.At the end of the show, Anne-Marie and Tulip will give
:12:02. > :12:08.Now, MPs are calling on the Government to provide
:12:09. > :12:11.an explanation, after press reports at the weekend that a Trident
:12:12. > :12:15.nuclear missile test carried out last year went wrong.
:12:16. > :12:18.Ministers are expected to be called to answer an urgent question
:12:19. > :12:22.on the matter in the House of Commons this afternoon.
:12:23. > :12:25.But the Government has disclosed few details about the incident so far,
:12:26. > :12:33.The UK has four nuclear-armed submarines, one of which is
:12:34. > :12:43.Each can carry up to eight Trident missiles.
:12:44. > :12:47.According to The Sunday Times, a failed missile test was carried
:12:48. > :12:49.out by HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida
:12:50. > :12:54.Sources told the paper a Trident 2 D5 missile -
:12:55. > :12:56.which was unarmed - may have "veered off
:12:57. > :13:02.The Ministry of Defence has said the submarine and its crew
:13:03. > :13:05.were "successfully tested" and that the effectiveness
:13:06. > :13:09.of the Trident missile is "unquestionable".
:13:10. > :13:12.Unlike this one, previous Trident missile tests
:13:13. > :13:17.were publicised in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2012,
:13:18. > :13:20.leading to claims the reported failure was kept quiet by Downing
:13:21. > :13:25.Labour and the Scottish National Party have urged Ministers to give
:13:26. > :13:32.MPs voted overwhelmingly to renew the nuclear
:13:33. > :13:34.weapons system last July, only weeks after the reported failed
:13:35. > :13:41.Theresa May told MPs then that "Britain's nuclear deterrent
:13:42. > :13:44.is an insurance policy we simply cannot do without",
:13:45. > :13:48.in what was her first major Commons speech as Prime Minister.
:13:49. > :13:51.But did she know about the failed test at the time?
:13:52. > :13:55.Well, the Prime Minister refused to give a clear
:13:56. > :13:57.answer when she was asked that question yesterday.
:13:58. > :14:00.Did you know that misfire had occurred?
:14:01. > :14:02.I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles.
:14:03. > :14:07.I think we should defend our country.
:14:08. > :14:10.I think we should play our role in Nato with an independent
:14:11. > :14:14.Did you know about it, when you told the House of Commons?
:14:15. > :14:17.The issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons
:14:18. > :14:20.It was about whether or not we should renew Trident,
:14:21. > :14:25.whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident.
:14:26. > :14:30.There are tests that take place all the time, regularly,
:14:31. > :14:35.What we were talking about in that debate...
:14:36. > :14:44.OK, I can see I'm not going to get an answer to this.
:14:45. > :14:51.In the last few minutes, the Prime Minister's spokesman has confirmed
:14:52. > :14:54.that treason was -- Theresa May was briefed on a range of issues when
:14:55. > :14:55.she became Prime Minister, including planned nuclear tests.
:14:56. > :14:57.We did ask the Government for an interview but the Ministry
:14:58. > :14:59.of Defence told us that no-one was available.
:15:00. > :15:01.We are joined however by the Conservative MP
:15:02. > :15:09.Dr Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Select Committee.
:15:10. > :15:13.So the Prime Minister should have answered clearly that she did know
:15:14. > :15:18.on the programme yesterday? I think it would have been wiser for there
:15:19. > :15:21.to come out and say it in a straightforward way, but the real
:15:22. > :15:25.responsibility for this lies with the people that decided to cover the
:15:26. > :15:30.matter up in the first place in June. Presumably that was Downing
:15:31. > :15:34.Street. I have got to say, and I never thought I would use these
:15:35. > :15:37.terms, in fairness to the spin doctors of Downing Street, a very
:15:38. > :15:42.senior former Cameron spin doctor has rung up my office in a state of
:15:43. > :15:46.great anger, saying they never knew anything about it. They denied it.
:15:47. > :15:50.We have the grades, saying it is false to suggest the David Cameron
:15:51. > :15:55.media team tried to cover up the missile test. That just move the
:15:56. > :15:59.argument one step further back. I have got to say it was a great
:16:00. > :16:02.pleasure to convey the message to Sir Craig Oliver that he should
:16:03. > :16:07.issue a press release on the subject and I hope you will do so in detail
:16:08. > :16:14.and in-depth. But if he didn't know, did the Prime and if she knew, -- if
:16:15. > :16:18.the Prime Minister new, why didn't he make the matter public and tell
:16:19. > :16:22.his closest spin doctors? You think David Cameron might have known and
:16:23. > :16:24.didn't tell people. It seems incredible that he didn't tell his
:16:25. > :16:30.director of communications at the time. The plot gets thicker. If
:16:31. > :16:35.there was a cover-up, it occurred at the time of the abortive missiles
:16:36. > :16:38.test in June, and not in July when the vote was being held at when we
:16:39. > :16:43.had the new Prime Minister who had been in office for just a few days.
:16:44. > :16:47.But even if she had only been in office for a few days as Prime
:16:48. > :16:51.Minister, these are key pieces of information. She would have known.
:16:52. > :16:56.We now know in fact he was briefed about it. It is inconceivable that
:16:57. > :17:00.she wouldn't have been. Doesn't it betray a level of trust that he
:17:01. > :17:05.wasn't able to be clear about that when asked a direct question? -- she
:17:06. > :17:08.wasn't. I think it would be better for both Prime Minister is to be
:17:09. > :17:11.absolutely upfront about this but what you have got to remember is
:17:12. > :17:17.that this particular issue is not what the debate was all about. The
:17:18. > :17:22.debate was all about who we renew our nuclear deterrent or not? But we
:17:23. > :17:25.didn't have all the facts. But we do have all the facts in the sense that
:17:26. > :17:30.this particular missile system including the missiles that we use
:17:31. > :17:36.our shared with the Americans. And altogether, according to reports,
:17:37. > :17:44.there have been over 160 successful test firings. Are you seriously
:17:45. > :17:48.suggesting that the majority of 355 MPs would have been turned around
:17:49. > :17:52.into a vote not to renew the Trident missiles system? I am not suggesting
:17:53. > :17:56.that and I haven't put it to you. What I am suggesting is that there
:17:57. > :18:00.is a level of transparency that MPs would probably have appreciated and
:18:01. > :18:03.if that was the case, and you are so convinced they would not have been
:18:04. > :18:07.converted in terms of their viewpoint, then why not set it out
:18:08. > :18:11.clearly? I have already answered that. I have said it should have
:18:12. > :18:16.been done. But I can only assume that you may have thought there
:18:17. > :18:19.would be an inevitable row on the basis of her having to point the
:18:20. > :18:22.finger at the previous administration. The first question
:18:23. > :18:26.then would have been why was it covered up a month ago by your
:18:27. > :18:31.predecessor? Was it right for Greg Clark to say today that it would
:18:32. > :18:35.have been wrong to comment on Trident tests because it would put
:18:36. > :18:38.information in the hands of our enemies? Was it wrong for the
:18:39. > :18:42.government to publicise the successful testing of Trident
:18:43. > :18:48.missiles in 2012? That last point is the crucial one and you are right.
:18:49. > :18:52.The fact is that most information, just like with the special forces,
:18:53. > :18:55.most information about the submarines and the nuclear deterrent
:18:56. > :18:59.has got to be kept under wraps. But the fact is that when you have a
:19:00. > :19:02.missile test firing of this sort it is usually widely publicised and the
:19:03. > :19:06.sensible thing when there is an occasional mishap, and the planned
:19:07. > :19:11.aborting of a mission when something goes wrong is to be upfront about
:19:12. > :19:15.it, and then you have no issue arising out of it of significance
:19:16. > :19:17.whatsoever. You are against the renewal of the Trident missile
:19:18. > :19:23.system anyway. It wouldn't have changed your mind either way or made
:19:24. > :19:27.any material difference. I think this is deeply worrying. There was a
:19:28. > :19:32.serious malfunction in our nuclear deterrence. The Prime Minister came
:19:33. > :19:37.and told our MPs to renew this, spending ?40 billion of taxpayers'
:19:38. > :19:41.money, and when we raised concerns about how credible this was, we were
:19:42. > :19:45.dismissed. It wasn't just me. There were members from both sides of the
:19:46. > :19:50.House raising concerns about how credible it is. Should we look at
:19:51. > :19:53.other options and is it right? We were dismissed out of hand and
:19:54. > :19:57.criticised and told constantly that we didn't care about the country's
:19:58. > :20:01.security. If the Prime Minister new, which judging by that interview that
:20:02. > :20:04.you showed us, I am a politician and I know when someone is evading the
:20:05. > :20:08.question, she knew and he should have told us and she shouldn't have
:20:09. > :20:16.covered it up and he shouldn't have kept us in the dark. -- she should
:20:17. > :20:20.have told us. This is by far the most effective system in the world.
:20:21. > :20:25.Yes, but should Theresa May have been straight in terms of what she
:20:26. > :20:32.knew? But as Doctor Lewis said, in relation to the debate in July, the
:20:33. > :20:36.two are not related. But what about her interview yesterday? Should she
:20:37. > :20:39.have been straight? I hope very much that she was well briefed and it is
:20:40. > :20:43.her decision whether to discuss it or not. The point we should take
:20:44. > :20:50.away is that the Royal Navy have tested a missile every four years.
:20:51. > :20:53.This missile had just come out and they tested it. There was a problem
:20:54. > :20:58.with a missile which was not armed and it could not have caused any
:20:59. > :21:03.damage. It was a test. Our Navy and the Mariners did a cracking job to
:21:04. > :21:06.make sure they managed the situation. But this is about being
:21:07. > :21:09.straight with the electorate and MPs in the House of Commons when an
:21:10. > :21:14.issue like this is being voted on, whether or not it is directly
:21:15. > :21:20.related or not. The UK notifies other states when these tests are
:21:21. > :21:23.being carried out. Lord admirable West said the Russians would know
:21:24. > :21:30.more about the test and the misfiring of a missile that veered
:21:31. > :21:34.off course than your colleagues in the House of Commons. Can that be
:21:35. > :21:37.right? Personally I don't see a problem about whether it should be
:21:38. > :21:41.discussed and put down as a written statement in the way lots of things
:21:42. > :21:47.are. We test lots of weaponry across the board all the time and this was
:21:48. > :21:53.not a nuclear test. It was an unarmed missile test. But they
:21:54. > :21:58.announced it in 2012. It goes against the mission, if you like.
:21:59. > :22:00.Yes, that this is getting out of proportion. The challenge is whether
:22:01. > :22:04.the new Prime Minister was thoroughly made aware and your
:22:05. > :22:09.statement implies that she was but it was an historic test at that
:22:10. > :22:13.point. My question is whether she was fully briefed. I have no problem
:22:14. > :22:18.knowing that our Royal Navy is doing a fantastic job using an incredibly
:22:19. > :22:22.effective tool to keep us safe. Lord West has likened this incident to
:22:23. > :22:27.North Korea and the Soviet Union covering a missile tests that went
:22:28. > :22:33.wrong. I can see why they go wrong. I think the world's media should pay
:22:34. > :22:36.close attention. This has been highlighted because people are
:22:37. > :22:40.drawing together information in the public domain. But when that debate
:22:41. > :22:50.was going on, or was it right that this was not made clear? She made
:22:51. > :22:52.clear that this is the most sophisticated, efficient and
:22:53. > :22:57.reliable missile system that exists and it is the one we want to invest
:22:58. > :23:01.in. We have talked about the fact that Theresa May should or shouldn't
:23:02. > :23:05.have been clearer at the time but in terms of the effectiveness of the
:23:06. > :23:11.system, listening to both Dr Julian Lewis and Anne-Marie Trevelyan, are
:23:12. > :23:15.you in any doubt that it is an ineffective system, even though you
:23:16. > :23:19.don't support it? Is there any doubt in your mind that it is not
:23:20. > :23:23.effective? For me the main concern is that there was a serious
:23:24. > :23:26.function. We needed to know about it in Parliament. You cannot tell MPs
:23:27. > :23:30.to make a decision on such a serious topic without giving us the full
:23:31. > :23:33.facts. The Prime Minister covered it up and the former Prime Minister
:23:34. > :23:43.covered it up and we need an inquiry. That is a problem for the
:23:44. > :23:45.government because it does in the end allow MPs, quite rightly, like
:23:46. > :23:48.Tulip Siddiq and her colleagues who are against Trident, it causes them
:23:49. > :23:52.to doubt the honesty of the government. We must disentangle the
:23:53. > :23:57.strategic issue. If the submarines went to see with only one missile,
:23:58. > :24:03.the failure of one out of 162 would be a serious problem. In strategic
:24:04. > :24:08.terms this means very little, if anything. In terms of political
:24:09. > :24:11.straightforwardness, then it does raise an issue. Depending on what is
:24:12. > :24:14.said in the House of Commons this afternoon, maybe the defence
:24:15. > :24:19.committee as soon as tomorrow might be able to call some people before
:24:20. > :24:22.it. We will have to wait and see whether the government finally comes
:24:23. > :24:27.clean on this unnecessary row. Right. An urgent question has been
:24:28. > :24:30.asked for and has been confirmed. I don't know who will be coming back
:24:31. > :24:35.to the House of Commons to answer that question but it is going to
:24:36. > :24:41.happen at 3:30pm today, which is unsurprising. World that satisfy
:24:42. > :24:46.you? I will have to listen and see. If ministers are coming back, what
:24:47. > :24:49.would you like to hear to put this to rest? I would like to hear a
:24:50. > :24:54.straightforward timeline of when this matter was reported to the
:24:55. > :24:59.previous Prime Minister. What was decided then about covering it up.
:25:00. > :25:05.And when the present Prime Minister learned about it and for what reason
:25:06. > :25:09.she decided not to mention it in the immediate run-up to the debate. As I
:25:10. > :25:13.say, I don't think it would have made a scrap of difference to the
:25:14. > :25:15.outcome of the debate, with the stunningly large majority quite
:25:16. > :25:20.rightly in favour of keeping our nuclear weapons as long as other
:25:21. > :25:24.countries can threaten us with theirs. Thank you for coming in.
:25:25. > :25:26.For some time, we've been hearing about the increasing
:25:27. > :25:28.problems of air pollution, particularly in towns and cities,
:25:29. > :25:30.with some reports suggesting it could contribute to thousands
:25:31. > :25:34.According to the motoring journalist Quentin Wilson,
:25:35. > :25:37.one solution is to get more of us to buy electric cars,
:25:38. > :25:39.but he argues the government isn't doing nearly enough
:25:40. > :25:52.# Let's take a ride in an electric car #.
:25:53. > :25:57.Is it really happening or just another revolution that
:25:58. > :26:04.Will mainstream drivers ever buy into the electric dream?
:26:05. > :26:06.As an electric car driver, I would say the electric car
:26:07. > :26:10.revolution is coming because I'm biased.
:26:11. > :26:12.But the fact remains, we have 90,000 plug-in cars
:26:13. > :26:16.Car-makers are making more and more of them,
:26:17. > :26:21.And we have more charging points, too, nearly 12,000 in total.
:26:22. > :26:27.But some of those chargers could be a problem.
:26:28. > :26:30.This one only costs ?2 per hour but some cost ?7.50
:26:31. > :26:37.Do the maths, and it could be cheaper to drive a 50 miles
:26:38. > :26:41.But take away the incentive of lower costs, and you won't change
:26:42. > :26:46.Plus the charging network is complicated.
:26:47. > :26:48.Sometimes you need more than two cards to access
:26:49. > :26:53.And the pricing combinations are impenetrable.
:26:54. > :26:54.I counted 80 different pricing structures before
:26:55. > :27:00.And that's not helping the wider take-up of low emission
:27:01. > :27:02.cars and critically not helping improve
:27:03. > :27:11.But rapid chargers that top you up to 80% charge in 30 minutes cost up
:27:12. > :27:13.to ?40,000 to install, so companies need a return
:27:14. > :27:18.The trouble is, a kilowatt hour at home, where 90% of electric car
:27:19. > :27:22.drivers charge their cars, costs about 12p.
:27:23. > :27:24.So paying ?7.50 for just half an hour does sound
:27:25. > :27:29.like overcharging, if you'll pardon the pun.
:27:30. > :27:33.I want the government to treat the public charging network
:27:34. > :27:35.as a national asset, particularly those rapid chargers
:27:36. > :27:43.I also want them to cap electricity prices for electric cars and help
:27:44. > :27:47.Because here's the thing, if we don't make it easy
:27:48. > :27:51.for consumers to buy into the electric car revolution,
:27:52. > :27:54.it just won't happen and they'll just carry on buying diesels
:27:55. > :28:06.Expensive electricity will slow the electric car revolution down,
:28:07. > :28:12.and electric mobility is the next big thing.
:28:13. > :28:14.It's a big cycle of change, like televisions, washing machines,
:28:15. > :28:21.This isn't a liberal, left-wing environmental rant.
:28:22. > :28:24.It's simply a heartfelt plea to help clean up the air we breathe,
:28:25. > :28:30.and electric cars can help us do that.
:28:31. > :28:42.Before I come to you, I am going to come to you, Anne-Marie Trevelyan.
:28:43. > :28:47.Air pollution is contributing to 40,000 early deaths per year in the
:28:48. > :28:52.UK according to the Royal College of Physicians. Why isn't the government
:28:53. > :28:56.doing much more to get cleaner cars out there? I think there has been a
:28:57. > :29:04.real shift change in perspective in terms of appreciating the importance
:29:05. > :29:07.obviously for Tulip, who has a London constituency, where the
:29:08. > :29:09.issues are more pressing, compared to rural Northumberland, my
:29:10. > :29:18.constituency, where it is less important. You don't suffer from it
:29:19. > :29:22.at all? The comparative differences are fascinating. But the reality is
:29:23. > :29:25.that we need technology that works across the nation because we all
:29:26. > :29:30.move across the nation. It was very interesting to see Quentin's piece.
:29:31. > :29:34.The critical challenge for oral residences having a system that
:29:35. > :29:41.works where you can get to where you want to go and then get home after
:29:42. > :29:45.plugging in. -- aural areas. We have the highest levels of pollution ever
:29:46. > :29:49.recorded but if we are going to have this joint of strategy we have got
:29:50. > :29:54.to push hard for it now. I want as many charges as possible along the
:29:55. > :29:56.motorway network and in constituencies like yours because
:29:57. > :29:59.these barriers to entry are connected to the haversack of
:30:00. > :30:02.prejudices people have about electric cars and they the one thing
:30:03. > :30:07.that could really low traffic pollution in the UK so we have got
:30:08. > :30:13.to get behind it. To be fair, I saw the Secretary of State for Transport
:30:14. > :30:17.behind this and he is 100% behind this so push, push, push.
:30:18. > :30:25.Would you like to see subsidies for this? I would, 10,000 people die in
:30:26. > :30:31.London because of air pollution in one year. The take-up of electric
:30:32. > :30:34.cars has gone up by 30% of nasty as people are starting to buy them.
:30:35. > :30:37.Before we came on air, someone mentioned about charging points.
:30:38. > :30:41.There are not enough and the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said
:30:42. > :30:45.he would have 25,000 charging points before he left office and there are
:30:46. > :30:49.1000 now. I think we need to make sure we increase that as well. Do
:30:50. > :30:54.you agree with that and should it be paid for in the form of further
:30:55. > :30:56.subsidy from the government? I think we need to find... Getting the
:30:57. > :31:01.infrastructure in place is a key one. Nissan's electric car was
:31:02. > :31:06.oxidised when it first came through to the tune of ?5,000 per car to
:31:07. > :31:11.help because the reality is, on a household budget, if you can buy a
:31:12. > :31:16.?12,000 car, and you have to do find ?25,000 to buy an electric one, it
:31:17. > :31:19.is still a challenge. And a second-hand Nissan Leave can cost as
:31:20. > :31:27.little as ?5,000. It will pay for itself in two years. The messages
:31:28. > :31:30.need to go through to the public. Does that mean people don't want
:31:31. > :31:33.them because there are grants, as you say, you can get thousands of
:31:34. > :31:35.pounds. You can get all the other ?500 for anyone but there's
:31:36. > :31:38.inherited prejudice, what I call the Clarkson effect which hangs around
:31:39. > :31:43.like a bad smell, that people don't like electric cars because they are
:31:44. > :31:47.slow. It is nonsense. It is a total myth. We have 90,000 on the roads
:31:48. > :31:50.now and some very happy people out there driving them very
:31:51. > :31:55.successfully. I have been driving one for five years. In the UK, we
:31:56. > :31:58.need to be the centre of this, a driving force, creating jobs and
:31:59. > :32:02.employment, improving the air quality. We have talked about the
:32:03. > :32:05.charging points because that is an anxiety for people. It would be
:32:06. > :32:14.mine, not being able to get to a charging point or getting there and
:32:15. > :32:16.they are full. Also, charging at home when you are recharging, don't
:32:17. > :32:19.you then need some kind of off-street parking or a Garrahalish?
:32:20. > :32:23.That would be very easy if you're in a road like mine when you can't
:32:24. > :32:27.park. You can ask the council to have a plug in point in the lamp
:32:28. > :32:30.post that you can use. We need to think about this. If you have on
:32:31. > :32:33.street parking, it's a challenge but 30% of motorists out they have two
:32:34. > :32:38.cars and one of them could be electric. That is the starting
:32:39. > :32:44.point. Would you get one? If I could drive very well, I would, but I
:32:45. > :32:47.can't! OK, moving on. Are you? Richard Cribb we are looking at
:32:48. > :32:51.getting one won my very old diesel eventually dies. She is getting
:32:52. > :32:55.quite close to it now. Then we are seriously looking at it but the
:32:56. > :32:59.challenges, we live 30 miles for anywhere so we can charge it up but
:33:00. > :33:08.how far will it get us? More than 30 miles! It is the reassurance, it is
:33:09. > :33:11.the mum in me... You can do it, trust me. How green are there
:33:12. > :33:17.because we talked about the high levels of air pollution and the
:33:18. > :33:20.extra deaths but how good are electric cars for that? It is all
:33:21. > :33:24.about the quality, yes, you have make the batteries, yes, coal-fired
:33:25. > :33:29.power stations pollute but on Christmas Day, 41% of energy in the
:33:30. > :33:31.UK came from renewables and this is rising as well. Renewables are
:33:32. > :33:36.coming. So rather than obsessing about moving pollution to another
:33:37. > :33:39.place, let's think about the particulates and pollution around
:33:40. > :33:43.cities and children on our streets at pedestrian level. That is the
:33:44. > :33:48.goal we have to achieve. Would Labour make electric cars a
:33:49. > :33:51.priority? Should they? I think they should because I looked at the
:33:52. > :33:55.climate change committee's report to Parliament that says the country is
:33:56. > :34:00.in danger of failing the legal climate targets by 47% in 2030. If
:34:01. > :34:03.we are on a trend like that, I think we should do everything we can to
:34:04. > :34:06.make our country more environmentally friendly and reach
:34:07. > :34:11.those legal targets. I would certainly push Labour to make
:34:12. > :34:15.electric cars a priority. Otherwise what will we do to tackle levels of
:34:16. > :34:19.air pollution in cities? I take the point it is not your constituency
:34:20. > :34:22.but even so. This is a key part of policy and it is pleasing to hear, I
:34:23. > :34:26.know Chris Grayling has talked about it before but it is a commitment he
:34:27. > :34:30.wants to sleep and it's a matter of infrastructure from the government's
:34:31. > :34:33.point of view. It's not about environmentalism, as the film said,
:34:34. > :34:40.it is about the air we breathe and the biggest challenge to public
:34:41. > :34:43.health at the moment is a pollution. Are you confident the government
:34:44. > :34:45.will move enough on this to make a difference? I am behind the Fair Few
:34:46. > :34:49.Campaign and we have done successfully and I'm pushing for
:34:50. > :34:55.fairer fuel for electricity as well. How much will it cost? Last autumn,
:34:56. > :34:59.the government announced a ?35 million package to boost the uptake
:35:00. > :35:04.of ultralow emission cars. It's not enough. How much is necessary? Of
:35:05. > :35:07.the top of my head, I don't know but I need political will and a real
:35:08. > :35:10.resolve, to help convince the general public with test drives at
:35:11. > :35:14.shopping centres or whatever, that the cars work and that they are
:35:15. > :35:17.affordable now. The data that is coming through is that the batteries
:35:18. > :35:27.don't degrade. They last for ten years. They are reliable. You can
:35:28. > :35:29.buy them cheaply and they cost less to service, all these positive
:35:30. > :35:32.messages which are not getting through. I can't give you a figure
:35:33. > :35:35.but whatever it is, it is much less than the cost we are paying in the
:35:36. > :35:38.NHS to help all these people with respiratory diseases. It is a
:35:39. > :35:39.raindrop echoing in an ocean. I will let you go back to the car which is
:35:40. > :35:41.no doubt parked outside. It's a busy day here
:35:42. > :35:44.in Westminster and it looks set So what else is in store
:35:45. > :35:48.for the week ahead? Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court
:35:49. > :35:52.gives its verdict on whether the ruling that ministers must
:35:53. > :35:54.consult Parliament before triggering If it loses its appeal,
:35:55. > :35:57.the government is expected to produce a Bill to go
:35:58. > :36:00.through Parliament very quickly. It's a subject that's likely
:36:01. > :36:02.to come up on Wednesday, when MPs get to grill
:36:03. > :36:06.Theresa May at PMQs. Also on Wednesday, it's the last
:36:07. > :36:09.sitting in Northern Ireland's Stormont Assembly before fresh
:36:10. > :36:16.elections at the beginning of March. On Thursday, we'll get to see
:36:17. > :36:19.if the good economic news continues with the latest set of GDP figures
:36:20. > :36:25.released, and then Theresa May gets to be at the head of
:36:26. > :36:34.the queue on Friday, when she becomes
:36:35. > :36:36.the first foreign leader to meet We're joined now by Lucy Fisher
:36:37. > :36:47.from The Times and David Maddox Welcome to both of you. Lucy, the
:36:48. > :36:51.front of the queue for Theresa May, no doubt what number ten will say.
:36:52. > :36:54.Will the Prime Minister hold fire on Donald Trump's unacceptable
:36:55. > :36:58.comments, and she said they were, regarding women, so as not to
:36:59. > :37:03.imperil any free-trade deal with the US? Well, she certainly was pretty
:37:04. > :37:06.stored on the Andrew Marr show yesterday, saying she would stand up
:37:07. > :37:09.and not stand for anything an acceptable but in a way, she really
:37:10. > :37:14.needs this trade deal already some mood music from the US trip this
:37:15. > :37:18.week, not least because it could offer some leveraged with Brussels
:37:19. > :37:23.so she can say along the lines of, the US and the UK have a deal
:37:24. > :37:29.pencilled in with their tariffs. That could help Brexit terms. David,
:37:30. > :37:33.is the fact she is a female Prime Minister a big enough statement, do
:37:34. > :37:36.you think, in terms of furthering the issues, the causes she supports
:37:37. > :37:42.of equality when she meets Donald Trump? I think it is. The fact that
:37:43. > :37:46.she is one of the most important female politicians in the world
:37:47. > :37:50.certainly makes a huge statement. Actually, you know, for all the
:37:51. > :37:56.criticism of Donald Trump, she will be the first world leader he has
:37:57. > :38:02.invited. That is great for us. Certainly a change from the
:38:03. > :38:05.Democratic policy. It looks good. Let's talk about the Supreme Court's
:38:06. > :38:09.long-awaited decision which will be announced tomorrow. It is likely,
:38:10. > :38:14.one might say, to say that Parliament will get a vote. When do
:38:15. > :38:16.you think the Bill will be presented? The government has
:38:17. > :38:20.cleared the legislation scheduled next week so it is expected to be
:38:21. > :38:24.presented then. As far as we know, it will be a short Bill to allow
:38:25. > :38:28.Labour little chance to amend it. There's been a lot of confusion over
:38:29. > :38:36.what Labour will try to do. It seemed last week there would be a
:38:37. > :38:39.three line whip ordering MPs to support Article 50, respect the
:38:40. > :38:41.result of the referendum. That seems to be a bit weaker now. Jeremy
:38:42. > :38:44.Corbyn said over the weekend he would ask MPs to support it. I'm
:38:45. > :38:47.hearing that between 60 and 80 Labour MPs are set to vote against
:38:48. > :38:51.but essentially, this will be a footnote in history books. The Bill
:38:52. > :38:55.will pass, Kenneth Clarke is the only conservative who will vote to
:38:56. > :38:58.block Article 50 in the Commons. Before it becomes a footnote, let's
:38:59. > :39:02.dwell on it a bit longer in terms of what Labour might or might do in
:39:03. > :39:09.terms of whipping the vote. It is for Labour MPs because the majority
:39:10. > :39:14.wanted to remain. Many of them have Remain constituencies but many
:39:15. > :39:17.Remain voting Labour MPs also have Leave constituencies. What do you
:39:18. > :39:22.think they will do and Jeremy Corbyn will do when Article 50 comes before
:39:23. > :39:28.Parliament? It is difficult for him. In a way, I don't think it really
:39:29. > :39:33.makes much difference because the hardline Remain as will vote against
:39:34. > :39:39.Article 50, come what may. The more realistic ones will vote to allow it
:39:40. > :39:44.through. I think the real problems could come with other parties. I
:39:45. > :39:48.think the SNP are intending to put down a lot of amendments, even if it
:39:49. > :39:53.is only a four line Bill and then it gets into the Lords. I'm not sure if
:39:54. > :39:59.it is as predictable as people think. What about the single market,
:40:00. > :40:04.Lucy? What, in your mind, is Labour's position on the single
:40:05. > :40:07.market? It is very unclear. Over the weekend, Jeremy Corbyn has been
:40:08. > :40:11.talking about market access but it's unclear if that means membership.
:40:12. > :40:16.There's been a lot of toing and froing. I think there is still some
:40:17. > :40:19.confusion. Essentially, my understanding is there have been
:40:20. > :40:24.some Labour insiders doing a lot of work, in some turret in Westminster,
:40:25. > :40:27.looking at what they could actually table as an amendment regarding the
:40:28. > :40:31.single market. We would likely have too paid to remain a member. That
:40:32. > :40:35.would be a spending commitment. This is not a Bill that has any related
:40:36. > :40:40.money so they would not be able to table an amendment, which is my
:40:41. > :40:43.understanding. How do you think this will all play out, David, in terms
:40:44. > :40:50.of the by-elections we now know are going to happen towards the end of
:40:51. > :40:53.February, in Stoke-on-Trent and Copland? I think Labour are in a
:40:54. > :40:56.very dangerous position. If they come out too strongly for Remain,
:40:57. > :41:01.trying to stay in the single market is a very easy way for Ukip, in
:41:02. > :41:04.particular in Stoke, to say, actually, they want to ignore the
:41:05. > :41:08.referendum. I think they are in trouble in the by-elections anyway.
:41:09. > :41:11.I don't see them winning in Copland. It looks like the Tories will win
:41:12. > :41:16.that. It looks like a 3-way contest in Stoke Central, which obviously,
:41:17. > :41:22.Paul Nuttall is going to make a big push for Ukip. Whatever Labour do, I
:41:23. > :41:24.think they are in trouble. OK. Thank you for joining us. Have a good
:41:25. > :41:25.week. Sticking with the subject of Brexit,
:41:26. > :41:28.the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, and the leader
:41:29. > :41:30.of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood, have this morning been outlining
:41:31. > :41:35.a joint Brexit plan for Wales. The parties, along with
:41:36. > :41:37.the Welsh Liberal Democrats, have said they want to have
:41:38. > :41:39.continued participation Last week, the Prime Minister said
:41:40. > :41:44.Britain should leave the single market as she outlined
:41:45. > :41:49.her vision for Brexit. I can't believe I nearly said
:41:50. > :41:52.breakfast! Mr Jones and Ms Wood have been
:41:53. > :42:01.holding a press conference Welcome to Carwyn Jones. Wales voted
:42:02. > :42:05.for Brexit, as you know, in fact buy a bigger margin than the UK as a
:42:06. > :42:09.whole. Aren't you barking up the wrong tree? So did England but does
:42:10. > :42:12.that mean England has no right to negotiate? We have to get the best
:42:13. > :42:15.deal for Wales and the other nations in the UK. For me, it is about
:42:16. > :42:18.having a common-sense approach to immigration and freedom of movement,
:42:19. > :42:27.to get a job. It's about making sure we access the single market. 67% of
:42:28. > :42:30.our exports go into the EU. What is the government proposing to mess
:42:31. > :42:34.around with it? We will have access to the single market. Will we? I
:42:35. > :42:38.hear those in favour of hard Brexit saying it will be fine and maybe but
:42:39. > :42:41.we need more detail. We have put forward a document today. You can
:42:42. > :42:44.agree with it or not but it is a lot further than the UK Government has
:42:45. > :42:48.gone so far in what it has been able to publish. For me, what is
:42:49. > :42:54.important is that our exporters can sell on the same terms in the big
:42:55. > :42:57.European market in the future as they can now. And why are you so
:42:58. > :42:59.worried they won't be able to do that outside the single market, if
:43:00. > :43:02.access is negotiated, which other countries have done? Bear in mind
:43:03. > :43:06.that a free-trade agreement takes its also need to negotiate. It
:43:07. > :43:11.cannot be done overnight. You are citing the case of Canada, of
:43:12. > :43:16.course. Every single one. And you think that will be the same here?
:43:17. > :43:20.Absolutely. You need ratification from at least 29 different bodies in
:43:21. > :43:25.the EU itself, and in the UK, we are a union of four nations. There is a
:43:26. > :43:32.very complicated process to go through. For me, what is important
:43:33. > :43:34.is if we don't fight the -- is we don't fight the referendum, because
:43:35. > :43:37.it is done. It is finished, forget about it. It is a question of how.
:43:38. > :43:41.How do we leave in the most beneficial way possible to Wales and
:43:42. > :43:44.the other nations? It sounds like you are accepting leaving and then
:43:45. > :43:49.you want to sneak back in? Reds know, from my point of view, we are
:43:50. > :43:52.leaving the EU but how? Lots of people, like Daniel Hannan,
:43:53. > :43:55.Eurosceptics, said the Norwegian model was one we could look at. Now
:43:56. > :43:59.they are saying we don't blog about. But the Norwegian model looks pretty
:44:00. > :44:05.well, they have access to the single market, they are not in the EU. But
:44:06. > :44:10.they are in the single market and as a result, have to sign up the four
:44:11. > :44:13.freedoms. And the four freedoms include, as you know, freedom of
:44:14. > :44:19.movement of people, which the government has said they felt was
:44:20. > :44:23.the message in the vote. If you take the Norwegian model, you also have
:44:24. > :44:27.to sign up to the European Court of Justice, certainly an equivalent, in
:44:28. > :44:32.terms of a court who will oversee any disputes. So we won't have left.
:44:33. > :44:35.It is the same for free trade agreement, there has to be an
:44:36. > :44:38.independent body to resolve disputes. That is normal, in every
:44:39. > :44:42.agreement that the UK has a free-trade agreement or not, that
:44:43. > :44:47.will be the case in the future. Do you accept Norway has two sign up to
:44:48. > :44:50.free movement of people? Not in the way the UK has done, Norway has said
:44:51. > :44:54.you have freedom of movement if you have a job. On top of that, if you
:44:55. > :44:58.lose your job, you have three months to find another one or you have to
:44:59. > :45:01.leave. I think that's a rational, common-sense way of dealing with
:45:02. > :45:04.people's concerns but in a way, it makes it easy for us to recruit the
:45:05. > :45:09.doctors and nurses we need from other countries without interfering
:45:10. > :45:13.with our ability to do that. An agreement to work, what is wrong
:45:14. > :45:17.with that. Except that is not quite true because the agreement on the
:45:18. > :45:22.European economic area brings together the EU state and the three
:45:23. > :45:26.state, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, in a single market, referred
:45:27. > :45:31.to as the internal market. That covers the four freedoms entirely.
:45:32. > :45:34.The free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as if
:45:35. > :45:40.you were a member of the European Union, which is exactly what the UK
:45:41. > :45:44.is signed up to now, as is Norway. I was there a fortnight ago and listen
:45:45. > :45:48.to what they were saying to me. Which bit of it does it say, only
:45:49. > :45:52.for Norway, in terms of free movement of people, do you have do
:45:53. > :45:56.have a job? The rules actually say it is freedom of movement to work.
:45:57. > :45:59.The UK over the years was very liberal in the way it approached
:46:00. > :46:06.that. The rules say freedom of movement to get a job. There are
:46:07. > :46:09.some caveats but it is not a general freedom of movement. It is the way
:46:10. > :46:12.the UK chose to interpret that in the last few years. If we do as
:46:13. > :46:15.Norway is doing, I think that is a perfectly sensible way of dealing
:46:16. > :46:18.with people's fears. Lots of people felt their wages were not
:46:19. > :46:20.increasing. From my perspective, there's lots of reasons to that like
:46:21. > :46:30.austerity. You would still contribute to the
:46:31. > :46:34.EU, like Norway, and you would still sign up to a court, and the
:46:35. > :46:38.government has indicated it would want to bring laws back to the UK to
:46:39. > :46:43.decide, so in a sense we would not have left the EU. But we cannot have
:46:44. > :46:48.a free trade agreement with the EU without a court, Tribunal, that
:46:49. > :46:52.would arbitrate. Yes, but it would be a court of the UK Government's
:46:53. > :46:57.choosing. The laws would be made here. It is by agreement, not by the
:46:58. > :47:05.UK Government choosing. If you sign up to a free-trade agreement, you
:47:06. > :47:07.have got to agree a form of arbitration that will resolve
:47:08. > :47:09.disputes. There is no getting away from that. It is part of a
:47:10. > :47:17.free-trade agreement. But what will be so different? Norway is part of
:47:18. > :47:21.the internal model and single market. We can argue about whether
:47:22. > :47:26.the UK took a broader or more general line in terms of people
:47:27. > :47:30.coming for a job. It pays into the annual covers of the EU and it has
:47:31. > :47:34.no say over its rules. Is that what you are suggesting for the UK? UK
:47:35. > :47:38.Government will not have any say over the rules of the EU. But then
:47:39. > :47:43.you could say it is outside the single market. The question for me
:47:44. > :47:48.is this. And we accept that market on the same terms as now? It is our
:47:49. > :47:51.biggest export market by far. Can our farmers sell their lamb on the
:47:52. > :47:56.European market without it being more expensive? Our unemployment is
:47:57. > :48:00.lower than in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. That surprised me
:48:01. > :48:04.but it is true. We have done that mainly on the basis of companies
:48:05. > :48:09.coming to Wales to access that market. Britain is too small market.
:48:10. > :48:16.Any barrier is bad for us. It doesn't have to be that way. We can
:48:17. > :48:22.give respect to the people who voted. But we have got to get away
:48:23. > :48:26.from the idea that it will be fine in the end. They have got to put
:48:27. > :48:30.their backs into the idea and find a plan that will work. What do you
:48:31. > :48:34.think? I think it is right that Wales and Scotland should put
:48:35. > :48:38.forward what they think will work. Do you agree with it? There is an
:48:39. > :48:44.anxiety driving this that the idea is the doors were shut. But they do
:48:45. > :48:46.not want to be burdened with more bureaucracy and finding it more
:48:47. > :48:53.difficult to move their goods into our markets. I think there will be a
:48:54. > :48:56.very good trade arrangement that will be negotiated as a result. All
:48:57. > :49:01.those businesses want to sell their goods. It is not about nations. It
:49:02. > :49:05.is businesses and people buying and selling goods. We all know the
:49:06. > :49:08.framework they need a lower bureaucracy and no tariff framework
:49:09. > :49:12.hopefully. That is what all parties will work towards achieving
:49:13. > :49:17.otherwise somebody will suffer and nobody wants that. I agree about the
:49:18. > :49:21.access, that is crucial. But we are at the edge of a cliff. It is a
:49:22. > :49:25.worry. That is what the negotiations are about and the government has
:49:26. > :49:31.implied a transitional arrangement. What are you fearful of? Tariffs.
:49:32. > :49:35.Tariffs imposed on goods between the UK and EU. We have the unresolved
:49:36. > :49:41.issue of the border. It will be opened. There will be no of
:49:42. > :49:44.immigration in reality. How do you deal with those issues? That is the
:49:45. > :49:51.important thing. It is a corrugated divorce and it cannot be done
:49:52. > :49:55.quickly. -- a complicated divorce. It needs to be done, nobody disputes
:49:56. > :50:00.that. But it is about still attracting jobs to Wales and selling
:50:01. > :50:04.on the same terms to Europe. Do you agree with Carwyn Jones or Keir
:50:05. > :50:08.Starmer? There doesn't seem to be a clear view from Labour about what
:50:09. > :50:11.they want to do in terms of the single market? I think the clear
:50:12. > :50:15.view from the Labour Party generally and from Carwyn Jones is that we
:50:16. > :50:18.need to make sure we protect our local economies and make sure we
:50:19. > :50:21.still have access to the single market regardless of leaving. My
:50:22. > :50:24.problem with this whole thing is this is the first time I have
:50:25. > :50:29.utterly heard a Conservative MP outlined that we will have a proper
:50:30. > :50:32.trade agreement. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister. I
:50:33. > :50:37.have heard a speech in which she said she will leave the single
:50:38. > :50:44.market even though believe campaign said we wouldn't leave. They didn't
:50:45. > :50:48.actually. We have played time and again Boris Johnson and Michael Gove
:50:49. > :50:54.saying that we would definitely be leaving the single market, and so
:50:55. > :50:58.did the Remainers. And we have seen others ensuring everyone we would
:50:59. > :51:01.not leave the single market. I have seen that over and over again. You
:51:02. > :51:06.believed Daniel Hannan more than the Prime Minister at the time? I didn't
:51:07. > :51:14.believe any of the Leave campaign, especially on the extra money.
:51:15. > :51:18.Putting money into the NHS. But George Osborne and David Cameron
:51:19. > :51:22.said repeatedly that would happen. My point is it was shrouded in
:51:23. > :51:25.secrecy, the agreements that have been made. I for one want to see
:51:26. > :51:30.what the Prime Minister put before Parliament. We will be putting
:51:31. > :51:34.forward amendments and safeguarding rights. Will you vote against
:51:35. > :51:38.Article 50 being triggered? I will vote according to what is put in
:51:39. > :51:41.front of me. At this point I'm completely in the dark and I have no
:51:42. > :51:46.idea what she is putting forward and I want to see the amendments as
:51:47. > :51:49.well. What is Labour's position? We have had Keir Starmer and penny
:51:50. > :51:53.Chapman in the Brexit team saying they want an end to free movement.
:51:54. > :51:57.Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn have pretty well set the opposite. Does
:51:58. > :52:11.Labour believe in free movement continuing or does it want it to
:52:12. > :52:13.end? We want to have access and free movement but... You do want free
:52:14. > :52:16.movement? Well, I certainly do. I want to see what is put forward in
:52:17. > :52:19.terms of Parliament. Until we see a clear vision from the government,
:52:20. > :52:21.how can we put forward our opinions, amendments and safeguards? There are
:52:22. > :52:26.four things to protect. The trade agreements. We also have got to
:52:27. > :52:31.protect EU citizens living in the UK. Where is the protection for
:52:32. > :52:35.them? I see nothing for them. Do you agree with Jeremy Corbyn when it
:52:36. > :52:38.comes to freedom of movement? I have expressed my view and it is
:52:39. > :52:43.different to his but we are from the Welsh Labour Party. It is the same
:52:44. > :52:48.with the Conservatives. I am not saying it isn't. But that prevents a
:52:49. > :52:51.clear message being sent out. We have contributed to the debate today
:52:52. > :52:55.in terms of freedom of movement and what we think would be sensible.
:52:56. > :52:59.Let's have a debate on moving forward. What we have got to avoid
:53:00. > :53:03.is a situation where if we put forward something we are told we are
:53:04. > :53:06.trying to refight the referendum but we are not. Let's have other ideas
:53:07. > :53:13.coming forward rather than trying to re-fight something that happened
:53:14. > :53:16.last year. If we think freedom of movement to a job that somebody had
:53:17. > :53:21.last year is a bad idea, let's hear it. But we are past the point now
:53:22. > :53:33.when hard Brexiteers can say it will be fine. We need to get beat on the
:53:34. > :53:37.bones. Thank you. -- meat on the bones.
:53:38. > :53:39.Now let me be clear, the honest truth is this,
:53:40. > :53:43.believe me when I say that people are fed up with the way
:53:44. > :53:46.A new report argues that using phrases like "the fact is"
:53:47. > :53:49.and "I understand what you're saying but" makes people less likely
:53:50. > :53:52.The survey also found that, pay attention you two,
:53:53. > :53:54.people much preferred concise answers rather than
:53:55. > :53:58.Maybe we should have done this item at the start of the programme!
:53:59. > :54:01.We'll be discussing this in a very simple, clear way in a moment
:54:02. > :54:04.but first let's have a look at some of the worst offenders.
:54:05. > :54:29.The brutal, honest, bald, bold truth is...
:54:30. > :54:53.And believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker...
:54:54. > :54:59.Believe me, you didn't join the Conservative Party where I grew
:55:00. > :55:09.up if you wanted to be a career politician.
:55:10. > :55:12.We're joined now by John Blakey, a speaking coach and author
:55:13. > :55:20.Believe me. Welcome to the programme. We will be lifting to
:55:21. > :55:24.make sure you don't use these phrases. Who are the biggest
:55:25. > :55:28.offenders in politics? One of my favourites is probably David
:55:29. > :55:33.Cameron. He was very let me be clear, let me be very clear and let
:55:34. > :55:36.me be absolutely clear. All in the same sentence? I think we remember
:55:37. > :55:40.that from the Brexit debate and unfortunately it was followed by
:55:41. > :55:43.impenetrable economic jargon. That is the problem with these
:55:44. > :55:51.statements. They are an immediate red flag and turn off for a lot of
:55:52. > :55:54.people because they tend to proceed exactly the opposite of what we have
:55:55. > :55:57.been told. Are you guilty? I probably am. I hate when people say
:55:58. > :56:01.with all due respect and they are scathing towards their opponent
:56:02. > :56:07.before they have started. We are probably guilty of this and I am
:56:08. > :56:11.surprised we didn't feature on that! You were cringing. Do you use any of
:56:12. > :56:16.those phrases? Let me be clear, to be honest, the honest truth is...
:56:17. > :56:20.They are not phrases that spring to mind when I speak but my mother
:56:21. > :56:23.taught me something when I was growing up which is never trust a
:56:24. > :56:27.man who says trust me. And that has lived with me always in my political
:56:28. > :56:32.career. The realisation that you are trying to persuade people is what we
:56:33. > :56:35.do, so believe me is understandable. You are trying to bring people with
:56:36. > :56:40.you, but if you are presenting a case, you hope your arguments will
:56:41. > :56:45.hold water anyway. Why do nearly all politicians seem to speak in this
:56:46. > :56:48.way? I think it is habit. If you spend your life in business, as I
:56:49. > :56:51.have done, you pick up certain habits of language, and if you spend
:56:52. > :56:55.your life in Westminster, you pick up certain habits of language. We
:56:56. > :56:59.are incessant imitators as human beings and we picked this up very
:57:00. > :57:04.quickly from the people around us, and we have got to work very hard to
:57:05. > :57:08.change these habits and created different or more trustworthy
:57:09. > :57:13.impression with a cynical voting audience. Which politicians get it
:57:14. > :57:21.right? I am hesitant to say this but Donald Trump in terms of his style.
:57:22. > :57:26.Controversial! If we ignore the political policies of Donald Trump,
:57:27. > :57:31.and think of phrases like America first, then America first is simple.
:57:32. > :57:37.It is short. It is emotive and it appeals to the cares and concerns of
:57:38. > :57:41.his followers. His style, the centricity of that, the spontaneity
:57:42. > :57:46.of it and the emotive words, it has a way of engaging a certain
:57:47. > :57:50.cross-section of the population. How do you break the habit of using
:57:51. > :57:55.these phrases? Presenters are probably guilty of using some of
:57:56. > :57:58.them as well. I think we do it to give ourselves a little bit more
:57:59. > :58:03.time sometimes to think about what we are going to say, a little
:58:04. > :58:07.breather. Is that the reason? I think we are buying time. But if you
:58:08. > :58:11.think about spontaneity, a lot of people want to see if spontaneity in
:58:12. > :58:20.communication. That might mean we have got to be prepared to make this
:58:21. > :58:24.mistake. I tell my CEO clients that before they were CEO, they were a
:58:25. > :58:27.human being, and human beings are imperfect and spontaneous and we
:58:28. > :58:32.need to do more of that. Now just before we go, the answer to the
:58:33. > :58:37.quiz. Which pastime has former Prime Minister David Cameron reportedly
:58:38. > :58:41.gone back to? Pheasant shooting, fox hunting, tiddlywinks or bridge?
:58:42. > :58:50.Quickly? Tiddlywinks, I hope because it is such a good game. It is that!
:58:51. > :58:54.It is pheasant shooting! -- it isn't! And apparently saying the
:58:55. > :58:58.names Boris and Michael before he shoots them makes him feel better!
:58:59. > :59:01.Thank you for being our guests of the day. I will be back at midday
:59:02. > :59:02.tomorrow with all the big stories and that Supreme Court ruling
:59:03. > :59:05.judgment.