23/01/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

Did a test of our nuclear weapons system go wrong?

And, if so, should Parliament have been informed?

The government is under pressure to give a full explanation to MPs.

The government promises a new, more interventionist

industrial strategy to boost the post-Brexit UK economy.

Labour says it doesn't go far enough.

Labour's First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru launch

a joint Brexit plan for Wales, calling for a Norway-style model.

We take a look at the most annoying phrases used

by politicians and what it's doing to their credibility.

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

of the programme today, we have two women who,

in the spirit of age, have marched all the way

from the Palace of Westminster to our little studio across the road.

Conservative Anne-Marie Trevelyan and Labour's Tulip Siddiq.

Now, Prime Minister Theresa May says the government will play an "active

role" British industry, as she sets out the government's

industrial strategy today in Warrington.

A green paper will outline broadband, transport

There will also be more money for STEM, science, technology,

engineering and maths subjects, and a further ?556 million for

Business Secretary Greg Clark has been speaking about the strategy at

Let's take a look at what he had to say.

One of the big themes of our industrial strategy

is to build on our great successes but also to help make sure

that we drive growth in all parts of the country.

We are in a catapult centre, which is there, that takes

government research money to combine with industry and universities,

to help small businesses prosper in the future.

The industrial strategy will be committed to driving very hard

to spread the opportunities right across the country.

Let's talk now to our correspondent Eleanor Garnier, who's in Cheshire

where the Cabinet has been meeting this morning.

So what have they been discussing? Well, the meeting is still going on.

I haven't been allowed in, surprisingly! I don't know how they

are getting on but I do know that the meeting has started and is

probably going to last for about an hour. Theresa May was whisked past

in her car about 45 minutes ago and you can see the motorbikes, the

police motorbikes lined up very neatly behind me at this science and

technology campus, a science and innovation campus where they have

come to their first-ever regional Cabinet. Really, Theresa May has

come here to launch our industrial strategy but that's all about

getting the country ready for Brexit. Improving productivity,

boosting skills. Importantly, she says, not just in London and the

south-east but across the country and that is why they are here, to

make the announcement, knowing that investment in the north, the

north-east and north-west, outside London and the south-east is really

important. There are a few main areas, if you like, that this

industrial strategy will cover. First, it's a consultation but the

aims are to cut down red tape and bureaucracy. There's going to be

investment regionally. The understanding that what might work

best for Manchester is not necessarily what Cornwall is going

to need. And thirdly, investing in skills and that is one thing that

business in particular says is desperately needed. There is a huge

shortage in those STEM skills, science, technology, engineering and

maths and there is extra money, around ?170 million, to help boost

those skills and a promise to create new technical colleges, Institute of

Technology, they are calling them, up and down the country, to try to

get those skills going, if you like. Once Britain leaves the EU, there is

a worry that employing people from across the EU who have those

specialist skills might be a bit harder for business. We had George

Osborne's Northern Powerhouse and Gordon Brown used to hold regional

Cabinet is outside of London and around the country. Is this kind of

Theresa May's brand, if you like, post Brexit, trying to spread

economic growth around the UK? It is and it is building on what she set

on the steps of number ten, that she wants an economy that works for

everyone and that is the big test also of this industrial strategy,

not just to help companies that are already doing well, but to reach

parts of the country where industries and companies are not

doing so well. That is why she wants to see this investment, region by

region, project by project. What is interesting about it is that it is

much more active and interventionist than the industrial strategies we

have seen before. I think that gives a clue to what Theresa May thinks in

terms of the benefits of business working for everyone. I think she

thinks in order for that success to spread to everyone, actually, the

government needs to give it a bit of help, a bit of a shove to make sure

the success is spread amongst the whole of the country. Thank you for

joining us. Annemarie, talking of an

interventionist style, Theresa May did commit herself last year to

intervening to tackle excessive pay. What has she done about it? I think

in all these things, she's a practical person, that is how she

has always done her politics and she sees with Brexit coming and with

what is a very real skills gap, particularly in STEM, we need to

really actively encourage that and drawing together government

leadership and business support to come together, create new centres,

institutes of technology, I'm working with lots of defence

businesses to look at schooling level, maths -based technologies

because we need more engineers and software scientists, all that

technology which is what is coming forwards needs to be absolutely a

standard part of the... But I asked about some of the things she said

she was going to tackle and intervene in and one of them was to

tackle excessive executive pay. Why has she not done anything about it?

I think the conversation has started. It is certainly kicking

around the system. Again, I think she is a politician who wants people

to look at the questions. She will take all the evidence she can reach

a decision. She's never made a decision in a rushed manner. She has

put it out there, she is committed to getting the better balance, when

she talks about a country that works for everyone, she genuinely feel the

disparity between the top and the bottom. So you no action has been...

She will draw together the views before she makes a decision and I

have no doubt she will. But action has to match the rhetoric and in

terms of putting workers on company boards, she has already wrote back

on that action, rightly or wrongly, was that the right decision?

Personally, I think we should have a flexible system, where companies are

responsible and respected through their companies and externally for

the way they run their businesses. Tulip Siddiq, you would support

this, presumably, Labour would support a firm industrial strategy,

particularly for a Conservative government, intervening to help in

areas where it has been a struggle for business to set up? Certainly, I

welcome the Prime Minister's aims but I have to say an industrial

strategy will only work if it is in conjunction with a larger, broader

strategy for economic growth. For example? What this won't have is

Theresa May going and saving individual core plants from the

post-Brexit consequences because if those firms cannot find staff with

the correct skills, if they are facing crippling tariffs, if they

have export bureaucracy, then there is no point. For me, at the moment,

what I think we really need is clarity on where the country is

going, and clarity on the post-Brexit business and industry

landscape would I don't feel we have at the moment. You don't want the

Prime Minister pick winners, support certain companies that might need

help in a post-Brexit world? I don't think you can pick and choose an

environment like this. Like agriculture, for example? It has to

be part of a larger great strategy, you can't pick one or two, for me

and we have had no clarity on that. Do you think there will be more

deals done all letters written guaranteeing future economic trade

with companies like Nissan? Nissan is obviously one of the key

north-east businesses and I think it was great Prime Minister listened

early, to understand what their needs are, and how the free-trade

arrangements we make with the EU will impact... Even if subsidies are

guaranteed if there are difficulties? We need to make sure

we a framework that works. Cue the praises the point that making shall

be your aquatic frameworks for businesses, moving goods to and from

the EU, Harrison plus possible and the great repeal bill will bring in

all the existing frameworks that there is no risk businesses are

stuck in limbo. They will be in the same framework is now as we move

towards a free trade arrangement rather than the existing customs

union we are in at the moment. Why do you think the UK is less

productive than countries like France? I think one of the problems

we have at the moment is the downward trend of the pound, which

is down by 18%, and the growth in inflation. Why does that affect

productivity of workers? I mean, I think the truth is we have not

looked at the broader framework for a great strategy which the Prime

Minister, picking winners and pointing them out to the media, and

talking about certain companies, just isn't right for us. We need to

think about wages. We are in a low-wage economy. We need to think

about workers' rights, how we increase... But workers' rights are

continuing as they have done. We are not getting rid of any of them at

the moment or are you worried about that? I'm very worried about it. I

think the speech the Prime Minister made was certainly not a plan and

until I have reassurance on workers' rights, what will actually happen

when we leave the single market, the confidence of businesses is going

down and so is productivity. What evidence is there that confident of

businesses is going down? Speak to the businesses in my constituency

and London generally, they are extreme you worried about what will

happen in a post-Brexit landscape. Businesses in the north-east are

excited about the opportunity for exports which are not limited by EU

rules and regulations. Are they excited about the fact the pound has

fallen more than it ever has? If you are an exporter, it is fantastic

news for them and they are taking advantage and we are seeing more

jobs coming in. The challenge we have is not enough of those skilled

people that we need to be able to grow those quickly enough which is

why I don't think productivity can improve. We will leave it there but

we will discuss this later in the programme as well.

The question for today is which pastime has former

Prime Minister David Cameron reportedly gone back to?

Was it a) pheasant shooting, b) fox hunting

At the end of the show, Anne-Marie and Tulip will give

Now, MPs are calling on the Government to provide

an explanation, after press reports at the weekend that a Trident

nuclear missile test carried out last year went wrong.

Ministers are expected to be called to answer an urgent question

on the matter in the House of Commons this afternoon.

But the Government has disclosed few details about the incident so far,

The UK has four nuclear-armed submarines, one of which is

Each can carry up to eight Trident missiles.

According to The Sunday Times, a failed missile test was carried

out by HMS Vengeance off the coast of Florida

Sources told the paper a Trident 2 D5 missile -

which was unarmed - may have "veered off

The Ministry of Defence has said the submarine and its crew

were "successfully tested" and that the effectiveness

of the Trident missile is "unquestionable".

Unlike this one, previous Trident missile tests

were publicised in 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2012,

leading to claims the reported failure was kept quiet by Downing

Labour and the Scottish National Party have urged Ministers to give

MPs voted overwhelmingly to renew the nuclear

weapons system last July, only weeks after the reported failed

Theresa May told MPs then that "Britain's nuclear deterrent

is an insurance policy we simply cannot do without",

in what was her first major Commons speech as Prime Minister.

But did she know about the failed test at the time?

Well, the Prime Minister refused to give a clear

answer when she was asked that question yesterday.

Did you know that misfire had occurred?

I have absolute faith in our Trident missiles.

I think we should defend our country.

I think we should play our role in Nato with an independent

Did you know about it, when you told the House of Commons?

The issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons

It was about whether or not we should renew Trident,

whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident.

There are tests that take place all the time, regularly,

What we were talking about in that debate...

OK, I can see I'm not going to get an answer to this.

In the last few minutes, the Prime Minister's spokesman has confirmed

that treason was -- Theresa May was briefed on a range of issues when

she became Prime Minister, including planned nuclear tests.

We did ask the Government for an interview but the Ministry

of Defence told us that no-one was available.

We are joined however by the Conservative MP

Dr Julian Lewis, chairman of the Defence Select Committee.

So the Prime Minister should have answered clearly that she did know

on the programme yesterday? I think it would have been wiser for there

to come out and say it in a straightforward way, but the real

responsibility for this lies with the people that decided to cover the

matter up in the first place in June. Presumably that was Downing

Street. I have got to say, and I never thought I would use these

terms, in fairness to the spin doctors of Downing Street, a very

senior former Cameron spin doctor has rung up my office in a state of

great anger, saying they never knew anything about it. They denied it.

We have the grades, saying it is false to suggest the David Cameron

media team tried to cover up the missile test. That just move the

argument one step further back. I have got to say it was a great

pleasure to convey the message to Sir Craig Oliver that he should

issue a press release on the subject and I hope you will do so in detail

and in-depth. But if he didn't know, did the Prime and if she knew, -- if

the Prime Minister new, why didn't he make the matter public and tell

his closest spin doctors? You think David Cameron might have known and

didn't tell people. It seems incredible that he didn't tell his

director of communications at the time. The plot gets thicker. If

there was a cover-up, it occurred at the time of the abortive missiles

test in June, and not in July when the vote was being held at when we

had the new Prime Minister who had been in office for just a few days.

But even if she had only been in office for a few days as Prime

Minister, these are key pieces of information. She would have known.

We now know in fact he was briefed about it. It is inconceivable that

she wouldn't have been. Doesn't it betray a level of trust that he

wasn't able to be clear about that when asked a direct question? -- she

wasn't. I think it would be better for both Prime Minister is to be

absolutely upfront about this but what you have got to remember is

that this particular issue is not what the debate was all about. The

debate was all about who we renew our nuclear deterrent or not? But we

didn't have all the facts. But we do have all the facts in the sense that

this particular missile system including the missiles that we use

our shared with the Americans. And altogether, according to reports,

there have been over 160 successful test firings. Are you seriously

suggesting that the majority of 355 MPs would have been turned around

into a vote not to renew the Trident missiles system? I am not suggesting

that and I haven't put it to you. What I am suggesting is that there

is a level of transparency that MPs would probably have appreciated and

if that was the case, and you are so convinced they would not have been

converted in terms of their viewpoint, then why not set it out

clearly? I have already answered that. I have said it should have

been done. But I can only assume that you may have thought there

would be an inevitable row on the basis of her having to point the

finger at the previous administration. The first question

then would have been why was it covered up a month ago by your

predecessor? Was it right for Greg Clark to say today that it would

have been wrong to comment on Trident tests because it would put

information in the hands of our enemies? Was it wrong for the

government to publicise the successful testing of Trident

missiles in 2012? That last point is the crucial one and you are right.

The fact is that most information, just like with the special forces,

most information about the submarines and the nuclear deterrent

has got to be kept under wraps. But the fact is that when you have a

missile test firing of this sort it is usually widely publicised and the

sensible thing when there is an occasional mishap, and the planned

aborting of a mission when something goes wrong is to be upfront about

it, and then you have no issue arising out of it of significance

whatsoever. You are against the renewal of the Trident missile

system anyway. It wouldn't have changed your mind either way or made

any material difference. I think this is deeply worrying. There was a

serious malfunction in our nuclear deterrence. The Prime Minister came

and told our MPs to renew this, spending ?40 billion of taxpayers'

money, and when we raised concerns about how credible this was, we were

dismissed. It wasn't just me. There were members from both sides of the

House raising concerns about how credible it is. Should we look at

other options and is it right? We were dismissed out of hand and

criticised and told constantly that we didn't care about the country's

security. If the Prime Minister new, which judging by that interview that

you showed us, I am a politician and I know when someone is evading the

question, she knew and he should have told us and she shouldn't have

covered it up and he shouldn't have kept us in the dark. -- she should

have told us. This is by far the most effective system in the world.

Yes, but should Theresa May have been straight in terms of what she

knew? But as Doctor Lewis said, in relation to the debate in July, the

two are not related. But what about her interview yesterday? Should she

have been straight? I hope very much that she was well briefed and it is

her decision whether to discuss it or not. The point we should take

away is that the Royal Navy have tested a missile every four years.

This missile had just come out and they tested it. There was a problem

with a missile which was not armed and it could not have caused any

damage. It was a test. Our Navy and the Mariners did a cracking job to

make sure they managed the situation. But this is about being

straight with the electorate and MPs in the House of Commons when an

issue like this is being voted on, whether or not it is directly

related or not. The UK notifies other states when these tests are

being carried out. Lord admirable West said the Russians would know

more about the test and the misfiring of a missile that veered

off course than your colleagues in the House of Commons. Can that be

right? Personally I don't see a problem about whether it should be

discussed and put down as a written statement in the way lots of things

are. We test lots of weaponry across the board all the time and this was

not a nuclear test. It was an unarmed missile test. But they

announced it in 2012. It goes against the mission, if you like.

Yes, that this is getting out of proportion. The challenge is whether

the new Prime Minister was thoroughly made aware and your

statement implies that she was but it was an historic test at that

point. My question is whether she was fully briefed. I have no problem

knowing that our Royal Navy is doing a fantastic job using an incredibly

effective tool to keep us safe. Lord West has likened this incident to

North Korea and the Soviet Union covering a missile tests that went

wrong. I can see why they go wrong. I think the world's media should pay

close attention. This has been highlighted because people are

drawing together information in the public domain. But when that debate

was going on, or was it right that this was not made clear? She made

clear that this is the most sophisticated, efficient and

reliable missile system that exists and it is the one we want to invest

in. We have talked about the fact that Theresa May should or shouldn't

have been clearer at the time but in terms of the effectiveness of the

system, listening to both Dr Julian Lewis and Anne-Marie Trevelyan, are

you in any doubt that it is an ineffective system, even though you

don't support it? Is there any doubt in your mind that it is not

effective? For me the main concern is that there was a serious

function. We needed to know about it in Parliament. You cannot tell MPs

to make a decision on such a serious topic without giving us the full

facts. The Prime Minister covered it up and the former Prime Minister

covered it up and we need an inquiry. That is a problem for the

government because it does in the end allow MPs, quite rightly, like

Tulip Siddiq and her colleagues who are against Trident, it causes them

to doubt the honesty of the government. We must disentangle the

strategic issue. If the submarines went to see with only one missile,

the failure of one out of 162 would be a serious problem. In strategic

terms this means very little, if anything. In terms of political

straightforwardness, then it does raise an issue. Depending on what is

said in the House of Commons this afternoon, maybe the defence

committee as soon as tomorrow might be able to call some people before

it. We will have to wait and see whether the government finally comes

clean on this unnecessary row. Right. An urgent question has been

asked for and has been confirmed. I don't know who will be coming back

to the House of Commons to answer that question but it is going to

happen at 3:30pm today, which is unsurprising. World that satisfy

you? I will have to listen and see. If ministers are coming back, what

would you like to hear to put this to rest? I would like to hear a

straightforward timeline of when this matter was reported to the

previous Prime Minister. What was decided then about covering it up.

And when the present Prime Minister learned about it and for what reason

she decided not to mention it in the immediate run-up to the debate. As I

say, I don't think it would have made a scrap of difference to the

outcome of the debate, with the stunningly large majority quite

rightly in favour of keeping our nuclear weapons as long as other

countries can threaten us with theirs. Thank you for coming in.

For some time, we've been hearing about the increasing

problems of air pollution, particularly in towns and cities,

with some reports suggesting it could contribute to thousands

According to the motoring journalist Quentin Wilson,

one solution is to get more of us to buy electric cars,

but he argues the government isn't doing nearly enough

# Let's take a ride in an electric car #.

Is it really happening or just another revolution that

Will mainstream drivers ever buy into the electric dream?

As an electric car driver, I would say the electric car

revolution is coming because I'm biased.

But the fact remains, we have 90,000 plug-in cars

Car-makers are making more and more of them,

And we have more charging points, too, nearly 12,000 in total.

But some of those chargers could be a problem.

This one only costs ?2 per hour but some cost ?7.50

Do the maths, and it could be cheaper to drive a 50 miles

But take away the incentive of lower costs, and you won't change

Plus the charging network is complicated.

Sometimes you need more than two cards to access

And the pricing combinations are impenetrable.

I counted 80 different pricing structures before

And that's not helping the wider take-up of low emission

cars and critically not helping improve

But rapid chargers that top you up to 80% charge in 30 minutes cost up

to ?40,000 to install, so companies need a return

The trouble is, a kilowatt hour at home, where 90% of electric car

drivers charge their cars, costs about 12p.

So paying ?7.50 for just half an hour does sound

like overcharging, if you'll pardon the pun.

I want the government to treat the public charging network

as a national asset, particularly those rapid chargers

I also want them to cap electricity prices for electric cars and help

Because here's the thing, if we don't make it easy

for consumers to buy into the electric car revolution,

it just won't happen and they'll just carry on buying diesels

Expensive electricity will slow the electric car revolution down,

and electric mobility is the next big thing.

It's a big cycle of change, like televisions, washing machines,

This isn't a liberal, left-wing environmental rant.

It's simply a heartfelt plea to help clean up the air we breathe,

and electric cars can help us do that.

Before I come to you, I am going to come to you, Anne-Marie Trevelyan.

Air pollution is contributing to 40,000 early deaths per year in the

UK according to the Royal College of Physicians. Why isn't the government

doing much more to get cleaner cars out there? I think there has been a

real shift change in perspective in terms of appreciating the importance

obviously for Tulip, who has a London constituency, where the

issues are more pressing, compared to rural Northumberland, my

constituency, where it is less important. You don't suffer from it

at all? The comparative differences are fascinating. But the reality is

that we need technology that works across the nation because we all

move across the nation. It was very interesting to see Quentin's piece.

The critical challenge for oral residences having a system that

works where you can get to where you want to go and then get home after

plugging in. -- aural areas. We have the highest levels of pollution ever

recorded but if we are going to have this joint of strategy we have got

to push hard for it now. I want as many charges as possible along the

motorway network and in constituencies like yours because

these barriers to entry are connected to the haversack of

prejudices people have about electric cars and they the one thing

that could really low traffic pollution in the UK so we have got

to get behind it. To be fair, I saw the Secretary of State for Transport

behind this and he is 100% behind this so push, push, push.

Would you like to see subsidies for this? I would, 10,000 people die in

London because of air pollution in one year. The take-up of electric

cars has gone up by 30% of nasty as people are starting to buy them.

Before we came on air, someone mentioned about charging points.

There are not enough and the former mayor of London, Boris Johnson, said

he would have 25,000 charging points before he left office and there are

1000 now. I think we need to make sure we increase that as well. Do

you agree with that and should it be paid for in the form of further

subsidy from the government? I think we need to find... Getting the

infrastructure in place is a key one. Nissan's electric car was

oxidised when it first came through to the tune of ?5,000 per car to

help because the reality is, on a household budget, if you can buy a

?12,000 car, and you have to do find ?25,000 to buy an electric one, it

is still a challenge. And a second-hand Nissan Leave can cost as

little as ?5,000. It will pay for itself in two years. The messages

need to go through to the public. Does that mean people don't want

them because there are grants, as you say, you can get thousands of

pounds. You can get all the other ?500 for anyone but there's

inherited prejudice, what I call the Clarkson effect which hangs around

like a bad smell, that people don't like electric cars because they are

slow. It is nonsense. It is a total myth. We have 90,000 on the roads

now and some very happy people out there driving them very

successfully. I have been driving one for five years. In the UK, we

need to be the centre of this, a driving force, creating jobs and

employment, improving the air quality. We have talked about the

charging points because that is an anxiety for people. It would be

mine, not being able to get to a charging point or getting there and

they are full. Also, charging at home when you are recharging, don't

you then need some kind of off-street parking or a Garrahalish?

That would be very easy if you're in a road like mine when you can't

park. You can ask the council to have a plug in point in the lamp

post that you can use. We need to think about this. If you have on

street parking, it's a challenge but 30% of motorists out they have two

cars and one of them could be electric. That is the starting

point. Would you get one? If I could drive very well, I would, but I

can't! OK, moving on. Are you? Richard Cribb we are looking at

getting one won my very old diesel eventually dies. She is getting

quite close to it now. Then we are seriously looking at it but the

challenges, we live 30 miles for anywhere so we can charge it up but

how far will it get us? More than 30 miles! It is the reassurance, it is

the mum in me... You can do it, trust me. How green are there

because we talked about the high levels of air pollution and the

extra deaths but how good are electric cars for that? It is all

about the quality, yes, you have make the batteries, yes, coal-fired

power stations pollute but on Christmas Day, 41% of energy in the

UK came from renewables and this is rising as well. Renewables are

coming. So rather than obsessing about moving pollution to another

place, let's think about the particulates and pollution around

cities and children on our streets at pedestrian level. That is the

goal we have to achieve. Would Labour make electric cars a

priority? Should they? I think they should because I looked at the

climate change committee's report to Parliament that says the country is

in danger of failing the legal climate targets by 47% in 2030. If

we are on a trend like that, I think we should do everything we can to

make our country more environmentally friendly and reach

those legal targets. I would certainly push Labour to make

electric cars a priority. Otherwise what will we do to tackle levels of

air pollution in cities? I take the point it is not your constituency

but even so. This is a key part of policy and it is pleasing to hear, I

know Chris Grayling has talked about it before but it is a commitment he

wants to sleep and it's a matter of infrastructure from the government's

point of view. It's not about environmentalism, as the film said,

it is about the air we breathe and the biggest challenge to public

health at the moment is a pollution. Are you confident the government

will move enough on this to make a difference? I am behind the Fair Few

Campaign and we have done successfully and I'm pushing for

fairer fuel for electricity as well. How much will it cost? Last autumn,

the government announced a ?35 million package to boost the uptake

of ultralow emission cars. It's not enough. How much is necessary? Of

the top of my head, I don't know but I need political will and a real

resolve, to help convince the general public with test drives at

shopping centres or whatever, that the cars work and that they are

affordable now. The data that is coming through is that the batteries

don't degrade. They last for ten years. They are reliable. You can

buy them cheaply and they cost less to service, all these positive

messages which are not getting through. I can't give you a figure

but whatever it is, it is much less than the cost we are paying in the

NHS to help all these people with respiratory diseases. It is a

raindrop echoing in an ocean. I will let you go back to the car which is

no doubt parked outside. It's a busy day here

in Westminster and it looks set So what else is in store

for the week ahead? Tomorrow morning, the Supreme Court

gives its verdict on whether the ruling that ministers must

consult Parliament before triggering If it loses its appeal,

the government is expected to produce a Bill to go

through Parliament very quickly. It's a subject that's likely

to come up on Wednesday, when MPs get to grill

Theresa May at PMQs. Also on Wednesday, it's the last

sitting in Northern Ireland's Stormont Assembly before fresh

elections at the beginning of March. On Thursday, we'll get to see

if the good economic news continues with the latest set of GDP figures

released, and then Theresa May gets to be at the head of

the queue on Friday, when she becomes

the first foreign leader to meet We're joined now by Lucy Fisher

from The Times and David Maddox Welcome to both of you. Lucy, the

front of the queue for Theresa May, no doubt what number ten will say.

Will the Prime Minister hold fire on Donald Trump's unacceptable

comments, and she said they were, regarding women, so as not to

imperil any free-trade deal with the US? Well, she certainly was pretty

stored on the Andrew Marr show yesterday, saying she would stand up

and not stand for anything an acceptable but in a way, she really

needs this trade deal already some mood music from the US trip this

week, not least because it could offer some leveraged with Brussels

so she can say along the lines of, the US and the UK have a deal

pencilled in with their tariffs. That could help Brexit terms. David,

is the fact she is a female Prime Minister a big enough statement, do

you think, in terms of furthering the issues, the causes she supports

of equality when she meets Donald Trump? I think it is. The fact that

she is one of the most important female politicians in the world

certainly makes a huge statement. Actually, you know, for all the

criticism of Donald Trump, she will be the first world leader he has

invited. That is great for us. Certainly a change from the

Democratic policy. It looks good. Let's talk about the Supreme Court's

long-awaited decision which will be announced tomorrow. It is likely,

one might say, to say that Parliament will get a vote. When do

you think the Bill will be presented? The government has

cleared the legislation scheduled next week so it is expected to be

presented then. As far as we know, it will be a short Bill to allow

Labour little chance to amend it. There's been a lot of confusion over

what Labour will try to do. It seemed last week there would be a

three line whip ordering MPs to support Article 50, respect the

result of the referendum. That seems to be a bit weaker now. Jeremy

Corbyn said over the weekend he would ask MPs to support it. I'm

hearing that between 60 and 80 Labour MPs are set to vote against

but essentially, this will be a footnote in history books. The Bill

will pass, Kenneth Clarke is the only conservative who will vote to

block Article 50 in the Commons. Before it becomes a footnote, let's

dwell on it a bit longer in terms of what Labour might or might do in

terms of whipping the vote. It is for Labour MPs because the majority

wanted to remain. Many of them have Remain constituencies but many

Remain voting Labour MPs also have Leave constituencies. What do you

think they will do and Jeremy Corbyn will do when Article 50 comes before

Parliament? It is difficult for him. In a way, I don't think it really

makes much difference because the hardline Remain as will vote against

Article 50, come what may. The more realistic ones will vote to allow it

through. I think the real problems could come with other parties. I

think the SNP are intending to put down a lot of amendments, even if it

is only a four line Bill and then it gets into the Lords. I'm not sure if

it is as predictable as people think. What about the single market,

Lucy? What, in your mind, is Labour's position on the single

market? It is very unclear. Over the weekend, Jeremy Corbyn has been

talking about market access but it's unclear if that means membership.

There's been a lot of toing and froing. I think there is still some

confusion. Essentially, my understanding is there have been

some Labour insiders doing a lot of work, in some turret in Westminster,

looking at what they could actually table as an amendment regarding the

single market. We would likely have too paid to remain a member. That

would be a spending commitment. This is not a Bill that has any related

money so they would not be able to table an amendment, which is my

understanding. How do you think this will all play out, David, in terms

of the by-elections we now know are going to happen towards the end of

February, in Stoke-on-Trent and Copland? I think Labour are in a

very dangerous position. If they come out too strongly for Remain,

trying to stay in the single market is a very easy way for Ukip, in

particular in Stoke, to say, actually, they want to ignore the

referendum. I think they are in trouble in the by-elections anyway.

I don't see them winning in Copland. It looks like the Tories will win

that. It looks like a 3-way contest in Stoke Central, which obviously,

Paul Nuttall is going to make a big push for Ukip. Whatever Labour do, I

think they are in trouble. OK. Thank you for joining us. Have a good

week. Sticking with the subject of Brexit,

the Welsh First Minister, Carwyn Jones, and the leader

of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood, have this morning been outlining

a joint Brexit plan for Wales. The parties, along with

the Welsh Liberal Democrats, have said they want to have

continued participation Last week, the Prime Minister said

Britain should leave the single market as she outlined

her vision for Brexit. I can't believe I nearly said

breakfast! Mr Jones and Ms Wood have been

holding a press conference Welcome to Carwyn Jones. Wales voted

for Brexit, as you know, in fact buy a bigger margin than the UK as a

whole. Aren't you barking up the wrong tree? So did England but does

that mean England has no right to negotiate? We have to get the best

deal for Wales and the other nations in the UK. For me, it is about

having a common-sense approach to immigration and freedom of movement,

to get a job. It's about making sure we access the single market. 67% of

our exports go into the EU. What is the government proposing to mess

around with it? We will have access to the single market. Will we? I

hear those in favour of hard Brexit saying it will be fine and maybe but

we need more detail. We have put forward a document today. You can

agree with it or not but it is a lot further than the UK Government has

gone so far in what it has been able to publish. For me, what is

important is that our exporters can sell on the same terms in the big

European market in the future as they can now. And why are you so

worried they won't be able to do that outside the single market, if

access is negotiated, which other countries have done? Bear in mind

that a free-trade agreement takes its also need to negotiate. It

cannot be done overnight. You are citing the case of Canada, of

course. Every single one. And you think that will be the same here?

Absolutely. You need ratification from at least 29 different bodies in

the EU itself, and in the UK, we are a union of four nations. There is a

very complicated process to go through. For me, what is important

is if we don't fight the -- is we don't fight the referendum, because

it is done. It is finished, forget about it. It is a question of how.

How do we leave in the most beneficial way possible to Wales and

the other nations? It sounds like you are accepting leaving and then

you want to sneak back in? Reds know, from my point of view, we are

leaving the EU but how? Lots of people, like Daniel Hannan,

Eurosceptics, said the Norwegian model was one we could look at. Now

they are saying we don't blog about. But the Norwegian model looks pretty

well, they have access to the single market, they are not in the EU. But

they are in the single market and as a result, have to sign up the four

freedoms. And the four freedoms include, as you know, freedom of

movement of people, which the government has said they felt was

the message in the vote. If you take the Norwegian model, you also have

to sign up to the European Court of Justice, certainly an equivalent, in

terms of a court who will oversee any disputes. So we won't have left.

It is the same for free trade agreement, there has to be an

independent body to resolve disputes. That is normal, in every

agreement that the UK has a free-trade agreement or not, that

will be the case in the future. Do you accept Norway has two sign up to

free movement of people? Not in the way the UK has done, Norway has said

you have freedom of movement if you have a job. On top of that, if you

lose your job, you have three months to find another one or you have to

leave. I think that's a rational, common-sense way of dealing with

people's concerns but in a way, it makes it easy for us to recruit the

doctors and nurses we need from other countries without interfering

with our ability to do that. An agreement to work, what is wrong

with that. Except that is not quite true because the agreement on the

European economic area brings together the EU state and the three

state, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, in a single market, referred

to as the internal market. That covers the four freedoms entirely.

The free movement of goods, services, persons and capital, as if

you were a member of the European Union, which is exactly what the UK

is signed up to now, as is Norway. I was there a fortnight ago and listen

to what they were saying to me. Which bit of it does it say, only

for Norway, in terms of free movement of people, do you have do

have a job? The rules actually say it is freedom of movement to work.

The UK over the years was very liberal in the way it approached

that. The rules say freedom of movement to get a job. There are

some caveats but it is not a general freedom of movement. It is the way

the UK chose to interpret that in the last few years. If we do as

Norway is doing, I think that is a perfectly sensible way of dealing

with people's fears. Lots of people felt their wages were not

increasing. From my perspective, there's lots of reasons to that like

austerity. You would still contribute to the

EU, like Norway, and you would still sign up to a court, and the

government has indicated it would want to bring laws back to the UK to

decide, so in a sense we would not have left the EU. But we cannot have

a free trade agreement with the EU without a court, Tribunal, that

would arbitrate. Yes, but it would be a court of the UK Government's

choosing. The laws would be made here. It is by agreement, not by the

UK Government choosing. If you sign up to a free-trade agreement, you

have got to agree a form of arbitration that will resolve

disputes. There is no getting away from that. It is part of a

free-trade agreement. But what will be so different? Norway is part of

the internal model and single market. We can argue about whether

the UK took a broader or more general line in terms of people

coming for a job. It pays into the annual covers of the EU and it has

no say over its rules. Is that what you are suggesting for the UK? UK

Government will not have any say over the rules of the EU. But then

you could say it is outside the single market. The question for me

is this. And we accept that market on the same terms as now? It is our

biggest export market by far. Can our farmers sell their lamb on the

European market without it being more expensive? Our unemployment is

lower than in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. That surprised me

but it is true. We have done that mainly on the basis of companies

coming to Wales to access that market. Britain is too small market.

Any barrier is bad for us. It doesn't have to be that way. We can

give respect to the people who voted. But we have got to get away

from the idea that it will be fine in the end. They have got to put

their backs into the idea and find a plan that will work. What do you

think? I think it is right that Wales and Scotland should put

forward what they think will work. Do you agree with it? There is an

anxiety driving this that the idea is the doors were shut. But they do

not want to be burdened with more bureaucracy and finding it more

difficult to move their goods into our markets. I think there will be a

very good trade arrangement that will be negotiated as a result. All

those businesses want to sell their goods. It is not about nations. It

is businesses and people buying and selling goods. We all know the

framework they need a lower bureaucracy and no tariff framework

hopefully. That is what all parties will work towards achieving

otherwise somebody will suffer and nobody wants that. I agree about the

access, that is crucial. But we are at the edge of a cliff. It is a

worry. That is what the negotiations are about and the government has

implied a transitional arrangement. What are you fearful of? Tariffs.

Tariffs imposed on goods between the UK and EU. We have the unresolved

issue of the border. It will be opened. There will be no of

immigration in reality. How do you deal with those issues? That is the

important thing. It is a corrugated divorce and it cannot be done

quickly. -- a complicated divorce. It needs to be done, nobody disputes

that. But it is about still attracting jobs to Wales and selling

on the same terms to Europe. Do you agree with Carwyn Jones or Keir

Starmer? There doesn't seem to be a clear view from Labour about what

they want to do in terms of the single market? I think the clear

view from the Labour Party generally and from Carwyn Jones is that we

need to make sure we protect our local economies and make sure we

still have access to the single market regardless of leaving. My

problem with this whole thing is this is the first time I have

utterly heard a Conservative MP outlined that we will have a proper

trade agreement. I have heard nothing from the Prime Minister. I

have heard a speech in which she said she will leave the single

market even though believe campaign said we wouldn't leave. They didn't

actually. We have played time and again Boris Johnson and Michael Gove

saying that we would definitely be leaving the single market, and so

did the Remainers. And we have seen others ensuring everyone we would

not leave the single market. I have seen that over and over again. You

believed Daniel Hannan more than the Prime Minister at the time? I didn't

believe any of the Leave campaign, especially on the extra money.

Putting money into the NHS. But George Osborne and David Cameron

said repeatedly that would happen. My point is it was shrouded in

secrecy, the agreements that have been made. I for one want to see

what the Prime Minister put before Parliament. We will be putting

forward amendments and safeguarding rights. Will you vote against

Article 50 being triggered? I will vote according to what is put in

front of me. At this point I'm completely in the dark and I have no

idea what she is putting forward and I want to see the amendments as

well. What is Labour's position? We have had Keir Starmer and penny

Chapman in the Brexit team saying they want an end to free movement.

Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn have pretty well set the opposite. Does

Labour believe in free movement continuing or does it want it to

end? We want to have access and free movement but... You do want free

movement? Well, I certainly do. I want to see what is put forward in

terms of Parliament. Until we see a clear vision from the government,

how can we put forward our opinions, amendments and safeguards? There are

four things to protect. The trade agreements. We also have got to

protect EU citizens living in the UK. Where is the protection for

them? I see nothing for them. Do you agree with Jeremy Corbyn when it

comes to freedom of movement? I have expressed my view and it is

different to his but we are from the Welsh Labour Party. It is the same

with the Conservatives. I am not saying it isn't. But that prevents a

clear message being sent out. We have contributed to the debate today

in terms of freedom of movement and what we think would be sensible.

Let's have a debate on moving forward. What we have got to avoid

is a situation where if we put forward something we are told we are

trying to refight the referendum but we are not. Let's have other ideas

coming forward rather than trying to re-fight something that happened

last year. If we think freedom of movement to a job that somebody had

last year is a bad idea, let's hear it. But we are past the point now

when hard Brexiteers can say it will be fine. We need to get beat on the

bones. Thank you. -- meat on the bones.

Now let me be clear, the honest truth is this,

believe me when I say that people are fed up with the way

A new report argues that using phrases like "the fact is"

and "I understand what you're saying but" makes people less likely

The survey also found that, pay attention you two,

people much preferred concise answers rather than

Maybe we should have done this item at the start of the programme!

We'll be discussing this in a very simple, clear way in a moment

but first let's have a look at some of the worst offenders.

The brutal, honest, bald, bold truth is...

And believe you me, Madam Deputy Speaker...

Believe me, you didn't join the Conservative Party where I grew

up if you wanted to be a career politician.

We're joined now by John Blakey, a speaking coach and author

Believe me. Welcome to the programme. We will be lifting to

make sure you don't use these phrases. Who are the biggest

offenders in politics? One of my favourites is probably David

Cameron. He was very let me be clear, let me be very clear and let

me be absolutely clear. All in the same sentence? I think we remember

that from the Brexit debate and unfortunately it was followed by

impenetrable economic jargon. That is the problem with these

statements. They are an immediate red flag and turn off for a lot of

people because they tend to proceed exactly the opposite of what we have

been told. Are you guilty? I probably am. I hate when people say

with all due respect and they are scathing towards their opponent

before they have started. We are probably guilty of this and I am

surprised we didn't feature on that! You were cringing. Do you use any of

those phrases? Let me be clear, to be honest, the honest truth is...

They are not phrases that spring to mind when I speak but my mother

taught me something when I was growing up which is never trust a

man who says trust me. And that has lived with me always in my political

career. The realisation that you are trying to persuade people is what we

do, so believe me is understandable. You are trying to bring people with

you, but if you are presenting a case, you hope your arguments will

hold water anyway. Why do nearly all politicians seem to speak in this

way? I think it is habit. If you spend your life in business, as I

have done, you pick up certain habits of language, and if you spend

your life in Westminster, you pick up certain habits of language. We

are incessant imitators as human beings and we picked this up very

quickly from the people around us, and we have got to work very hard to

change these habits and created different or more trustworthy

impression with a cynical voting audience. Which politicians get it

right? I am hesitant to say this but Donald Trump in terms of his style.

Controversial! If we ignore the political policies of Donald Trump,

and think of phrases like America first, then America first is simple.

It is short. It is emotive and it appeals to the cares and concerns of

his followers. His style, the centricity of that, the spontaneity

of it and the emotive words, it has a way of engaging a certain

cross-section of the population. How do you break the habit of using

these phrases? Presenters are probably guilty of using some of

them as well. I think we do it to give ourselves a little bit more

time sometimes to think about what we are going to say, a little

breather. Is that the reason? I think we are buying time. But if you

think about spontaneity, a lot of people want to see if spontaneity in

communication. That might mean we have got to be prepared to make this

mistake. I tell my CEO clients that before they were CEO, they were a

human being, and human beings are imperfect and spontaneous and we

need to do more of that. Now just before we go, the answer to the

quiz. Which pastime has former Prime Minister David Cameron reportedly

gone back to? Pheasant shooting, fox hunting, tiddlywinks or bridge?

Quickly? Tiddlywinks, I hope because it is such a good game. It is that!

It is pheasant shooting! -- it isn't! And apparently saying the

names Boris and Michael before he shoots them makes him feel better!

Thank you for being our guests of the day. I will be back at midday

tomorrow with all the big stories and that Supreme Court ruling

judgment.