:00:34. > :00:37.Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.
:00:38. > :00:40.Can Britain be a bridge of trust between the EU
:00:41. > :00:46.Theresa May tells fellow European leaders to increase defence
:00:47. > :00:48.spending, amid doubts about the American President's
:00:49. > :00:53.But as fellow EU leaders contemplate life without Britain,
:00:54. > :00:59.The Northern Ireland Secretary says inquiries into killings
:01:00. > :01:02.during the Troubles are "disproportionately" focused
:01:03. > :01:07.Southern Rail reaches an agreement with train drivers to try
:01:08. > :01:10.and bring an end to months of damaging strike action.
:01:11. > :01:17.And Heineken is planning to take over of one of Britain's
:01:18. > :01:22.Will it leave a nasty taste or refresh the parts of the industry
:01:23. > :01:40.You knew, with Heineken, we'd work in that line! I knew it, too.
:01:41. > :01:43.All that in the next hour, and with me for the duration
:01:44. > :01:45.are Heather Stewart, political editor of The Guardian,
:01:46. > :01:47.and Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun.
:01:48. > :01:49.Think of them as the Theresa and Donald of daytime
:01:50. > :01:52.Just don't expect them to hold hands!
:01:53. > :01:57.Now speaking of Theresa and Donald, the Prime Minister is in Malta
:01:58. > :01:58.today meeting other EU heads of government.
:01:59. > :02:01.She is briefing fellow leaders on her meeting with the new American
:02:02. > :02:05.Earlier this week, another Donald - Donald Tusk, the president
:02:06. > :02:07.of the European Council - warned that Donald Trump
:02:08. > :02:10.posed a threat to the EU, alongside Russia, China
:02:11. > :02:17.Theresa May will urge those EU members which also belong to Nato
:02:18. > :02:21.to meet pledges to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence.
:02:22. > :02:24.Let's speak to our correspondent John Pienaar who's in
:02:25. > :02:38.The Prime Minister, I assume, will be emphasising how she got a 100%
:02:39. > :02:42.commitment to Nato out of the President but that also saying they
:02:43. > :02:50.have too spent 2% of GDP as a minimum on defence. How is it going
:02:51. > :02:53.down? -- have to spend. Well, she will certainly be doing that in the
:02:54. > :02:58.course of the talks today. It is such a huge part of Theresa May's
:02:59. > :03:02.mission, to maintain Britain's global clout after Brexit. Here, she
:03:03. > :03:06.will say Britain in or out of the European Union will do its bit in
:03:07. > :03:09.helping migrant crisis but also drawing on the visit last week to
:03:10. > :03:14.the White House, where she was the only in the room in Malta to see
:03:15. > :03:17.President Trump face-to-face, the first leader anywhere to get into
:03:18. > :03:20.the Oval Office for a meeting like that and drawing heavily on the fact
:03:21. > :03:25.that she drew the commitment from Donald Trump of 100% amendment to
:03:26. > :03:29.Nato and then bringing the message over here, that other Nato members
:03:30. > :03:32.have to do their bit, like Britain, in meeting defence spending
:03:33. > :03:39.obligations, 2% of national earnings. Very few European
:03:40. > :03:43.countries meet the target. Poland, Estonia, Greece, along with Britain
:03:44. > :03:47.but not to bigger countries. And it is a big ask. In some cases, a
:03:48. > :03:52.doubling of defence spending as it is at the moment. That won't go down
:03:53. > :03:56.terribly well. As for the idea of being in some way a bridge between
:03:57. > :04:00.both sides of the Atlantic, well, the relationship so far between
:04:01. > :04:04.Donald Trump and so many leaders gathered here in Malta leaves a
:04:05. > :04:07.great deal to be desired. He treats them with pretty open disdain and
:04:08. > :04:12.they look at him with something between alarm and horror. This is a
:04:13. > :04:19.mission Theresa May has to keep on pressing but it is an uphill climb.
:04:20. > :04:24.Is this an attempt by the British to insert geopolitical matters into the
:04:25. > :04:29.Brexit negotiations? Or at least, to have this as a background, subtly or
:04:30. > :04:34.maybe not so subtly, that the British are saying, "We may be
:04:35. > :04:39.leaving the EU but we are still vital to the military and
:04:40. > :04:47.intelligence capabilities of Europe, so don't treat us to badly because
:04:48. > :04:50.you need us"? It is very much a part of the message that Britain carries
:04:51. > :04:57.on and will continue to be a big strategic and military player, a
:04:58. > :05:01.prominent part of the Nato alliance. Maybe they can draw some regard and
:05:02. > :05:05.respect from former EU partners are doing so. Equally, it is not easy to
:05:06. > :05:10.see how that might work because those military, strategic and
:05:11. > :05:14.security obligations will carry on as before when we haven't a European
:05:15. > :05:18.Union so is it possible to play the strategic card to get a better deal
:05:19. > :05:22.on the economic and trade card? It's hard to see that. One leader today
:05:23. > :05:25.said trade and security are simply two different things and it's hard
:05:26. > :05:28.to see how they will overlap or that Britain could draw on its credit as
:05:29. > :05:32.a strategic power to get better trade deals when the time comes for
:05:33. > :05:36.those long-lasting negotiations. But it is about showing that Britain is
:05:37. > :05:41.a big player in the world and will continue to be so. It looks a tough
:05:42. > :05:43.gig out there in Malta in February! We will let you get on with your
:05:44. > :05:50.hardship posting. John Pienaar in Malta, there. I
:05:51. > :05:53.would suggest there's a really good chance that trade and security will
:05:54. > :05:58.overlap. We already know that the Nordic countries and the Baltic
:05:59. > :06:03.states have sent a message to Mrs May, saying thank you for getting
:06:04. > :06:07.that 100% commitment. If they are grateful for that, if there is more
:06:08. > :06:12.to be done on that score, if British lives are to be laid on the line in
:06:13. > :06:18.Eastern Europe, you can hardly then turn around and say, by the way, we
:06:19. > :06:21.are putting 25% Harris on because. I think it absolutely helps Theresa
:06:22. > :06:24.May for those conversations to be taking place and for the geopolitics
:06:25. > :06:27.and security and intelligence cooperation that she also stressed
:06:28. > :06:30.in the Lancaster house speech when she set up the exit plan. The more
:06:31. > :06:34.we talk about things and the more the conversation goes on, the
:06:35. > :06:39.harder, she hopes, it becomes for other EU States to play hardball and
:06:40. > :06:43.just talk about tariffs on products. In a sense, Mrs May needs to be
:06:44. > :06:51.agile. If it becomes clear that Donald Trump in the end doesn't
:06:52. > :06:55.really give a monkeys about Europe, then Britain's military and
:06:56. > :06:57.intelligence capabilities become all the more important because Europe
:06:58. > :07:01.will have to do a lot more for itself. If it turns out that he is
:07:02. > :07:05.willing to do some kind of deals with Europe, live up to his 100%
:07:06. > :07:11.commitment, then Britain is the pivotal part of -- partner between
:07:12. > :07:14.Europe and the United States. I totally agree and I think Theresa
:07:15. > :07:20.May has been dealt incredibly unexpected but very lucky hands.
:07:21. > :07:24.Lucky is the keyword! She is a lucky Prime Minister. Yes, and you need
:07:25. > :07:29.luck as Prime Minister, frankly, to get through Brexit but there is high
:07:30. > :07:32.here. She's on a high wire trapeze act at the moment and she needs to
:07:33. > :07:37.stay on it. She could easily play the role as the EU ambassador and
:07:38. > :07:40.look at the winds are ready, 100% Nato commitment apparently and also
:07:41. > :07:47.the Ukraine sanctions, the US ambassador, Trump's ambassador to
:07:48. > :07:50.the UN confirmed they will carry on. The former southern governor, an
:07:51. > :07:56.American Republican to watch. Two early successes Mrs May can wave
:07:57. > :07:59.around with some pride. It is also fair that some EU leaders will have
:08:00. > :08:03.looked at the pictures of her holding hands touching hands with
:08:04. > :08:06.Donald Trump and felt considerable distaste and then they saw his
:08:07. > :08:09.executive order, the refugee ban which has gone down extremely badly
:08:10. > :08:13.and parts of Europe. It's a balance. Which means that between a rock and
:08:14. > :08:18.a hard place in a way, they need America but they don't like Mr
:08:19. > :08:25.drum's America. I think the risk for Mrs May in seeming to be the
:08:26. > :08:28.Donald's voice in Europe on this is that he goes a step waiting too far
:08:29. > :08:32.on a particular issue, whether it is new sanctions against Iran, which we
:08:33. > :08:38.are told are coming today, all he does something else with China, or
:08:39. > :08:41.whatever, and it is impossible for a British Prime Minister to support
:08:42. > :08:44.that. She's already felt that when she was pressed quite aggressively
:08:45. > :08:48.on Saturday in Ankara about whether she supported the refugee ban. She
:08:49. > :08:57.tried to sidestep the question but you know other blood she did times.
:08:58. > :09:03.We were there. We both were -- we both were. I never get to leave. I
:09:04. > :09:07.sleep it! It was not a glamorous trip. That sums up the whole thing,
:09:08. > :09:10.though, while she has to be the great arbiter between Trump and
:09:11. > :09:14.Europe, she also has to be your's messenger Judd Trump and if you blow
:09:15. > :09:17.that line from Europe will give up on her completely. It is pregnant
:09:18. > :09:21.with possibility and fought with danger, I would suggest. Indeed.
:09:22. > :09:23.Foreign affairs will be more interesting than ever.
:09:24. > :09:28.As we've been hearing this week, politicians and the media can
:09:29. > :09:31.have a difficult relationship, and according to some reports
:09:32. > :09:36.in today's papers, when Jack Straw was Home Secretary in the 1990s
:09:37. > :09:42.he tried to get a certain TV programme cancelled.
:09:43. > :09:45.As you would if you were Home Secretary, obviously.
:09:46. > :09:47.So our question for today is, which one?
:09:48. > :09:49.Was it a) The Word? b) Brass Eye?
:09:50. > :09:52.c) The Midnight Hour with yours truly?
:09:53. > :09:57.At the end of the show, Tom and Heather
:09:58. > :10:07.Have you got a rough idea? I was looking at the braces. It was the
:10:08. > :10:14.early 1990s, still under the influence of Wall Street, the movie.
:10:15. > :10:16.Which is long gone now! But still watched. Anyway, let's move on.
:10:17. > :10:18.Last weekend, almost 1,000 veterans of the conflict in Northern Ireland
:10:19. > :10:23.They want Theresa May to end what they call a "witch hunt"
:10:24. > :10:30.into killings perpetrated by British security forces during the Troubles.
:10:31. > :10:33.In December, the sun splashed with news that all of the killings were
:10:34. > :10:35.being reinvestigated. But the Police Service
:10:36. > :10:38.of Northern Ireland says there is no bespoke inquiry into deaths caused
:10:39. > :10:41.by the British Army. In 2006, the Historical
:10:42. > :10:45.Enquiries Team was set up by the Police Service
:10:46. > :10:50.of Northern Ireland to review all Troubles-related deaths,
:10:51. > :10:51.including those attributed But in 2013, an independent report
:10:52. > :10:59.raised significant concerns about what it called the "different
:11:00. > :11:02.approach" taken by the Historical Enquiries Team to cases
:11:03. > :11:05.involving state involvement The report said that
:11:06. > :11:12.in investigating murder, there was no legal basis
:11:13. > :11:14.to distinguish between deaths caused by state officials and those
:11:15. > :11:20.caused by third parties, and that the HET had
:11:21. > :11:23.failed to realise this. In response, the PSNI replaced
:11:24. > :11:29.the Historical Enquiries Team with the Legacy Investigation Branch,
:11:30. > :11:35.and said it would re-examine military cases to make sure due
:11:36. > :11:42.diligence had been done. The DUP has claimed that the vast
:11:43. > :11:49.majority of the PSNI's resources are focused on reviewing killings
:11:50. > :11:54.by state forces, a criticism echoed by the Northern Ireland Secretary,
:11:55. > :11:59.James Brokenshire. But figures obtained by BBC
:12:00. > :12:02.Northern Ireland show that approximately 70% of the unit's
:12:03. > :12:05.resources are directed toward reviewing killings
:12:06. > :12:07.caused by paramilitaries. Out of more than 1,000 deaths
:12:08. > :12:09.being re-investigated, 530 are linked to republicans,
:12:10. > :12:13.271 to loyalists, and 354 Over 2,000 deaths
:12:14. > :12:31.previously examined are not That is some of the background to
:12:32. > :12:43.the story. To discuss this, we're joined
:12:44. > :12:45.from Belfast by Gerry Kelly, Sinn Fein's policing spokesman,
:12:46. > :12:56.and by Emma Little Let me come to you first, Emma
:12:57. > :13:04.Little Pengelly. We have seen the figures there. It is not focus
:13:05. > :13:08.disproportionately on the killings of the security forces. Do you
:13:09. > :13:11.accept you were factually wrong? Absolutely not, in fact, these
:13:12. > :13:15.figures confirm there is a disproportionate focus on killings
:13:16. > :13:20.and deaths by security forces because you have to place this
:13:21. > :13:25.within the context of the figures of the Troubles and deaths during the
:13:26. > :13:29.Trouble. 90% of deaths during the Troubles were caused by paramilitary
:13:30. > :13:32.organisations. Around 10% involve some kind of state involvement. In
:13:33. > :13:37.many cases, that state involvement was absolutely lawful, so for
:13:38. > :13:43.example, in the case of Loch gal, where there was an IRA unit, in the
:13:44. > :13:48.words of the organisation itself, on active duty, and they were killed by
:13:49. > :13:51.the SAS, that has been deemed to be a lawful killing. Even within that
:13:52. > :13:56.10%, it is a much smaller percentage of the overall deaths that have
:13:57. > :14:02.involved any kind of state involvement. If 70% of the PSNI's
:14:03. > :14:05.resources are being directed to deaths caused by paramilitaries, it
:14:06. > :14:09.might not be an exact percentage of the breakdowns of who was behind the
:14:10. > :14:14.deaths, but 70% does not suggest that a disproportionate level of
:14:15. > :14:18.resources is going to try and get the British Army. I think if you
:14:19. > :14:23.look specifically at the figures released by the PSNI, 40% of their
:14:24. > :14:27.resources, looking at the killings by Republicans, 30% in killings by
:14:28. > :14:30.the state. The actual figures are 60% of the deaths during the
:14:31. > :14:34.troubles were caused by Republicans and less than 10% by the state. But
:14:35. > :14:38.I also think there is another important issue to consider. The
:14:39. > :14:43.PSNI not only look at historical cases through this unit. They also
:14:44. > :14:46.support the likes of the Coroner's Court and the coroner 's court
:14:47. > :14:49.cases, and it's been a big issue here in Northern Ireland, because
:14:50. > :14:52.they have been numerous referrals by the Attorney General to the coroner
:14:53. > :14:56.'s -- to the coroner 's Court and all of those cases have a focus in
:14:57. > :15:00.relation to the state. The PSNI are also supporting that work and have
:15:01. > :15:04.told us in Northern Ireland that they are under huge pressure in
:15:05. > :15:07.terms of the workload, that they today get -- dedicated huge amount
:15:08. > :15:10.of resource to that. So in addition to these figures released by the
:15:11. > :15:15.PSNI, I will be asking them in terms of how much more resource they
:15:16. > :15:19.using. I will stop you there because Gerry Kelly has do his say. What is
:15:20. > :15:25.your response to what you have just heard?
:15:26. > :15:32.You give is the facts and you give is the difference to the perception
:15:33. > :15:36.of DUP under the British politicians. If you like,
:15:37. > :15:40.propaganda. If people are equal under law, they are equal in the
:15:41. > :15:45.law, but when James broken china joined in on this there was an
:15:46. > :15:48.attack on the Director of Public Prosecutions saying they were
:15:49. > :15:54.biased. He was then forced to put out the statistics, and there have
:15:55. > :16:00.been seven persecutions of Republican 's, free of loyalists,
:16:01. > :16:08.and three British soldiers -- three of loyalists. Then they shifted onto
:16:09. > :16:10.PSNI and blamed them, and they showed the statistics of what the
:16:11. > :16:21.enquiry teams were doing their and it works out at 30%. Let me also say
:16:22. > :16:28.that for you audience, the DUP are in the middle of it in terms of
:16:29. > :16:34.corruption and half ?1 billion. This is what the election was part. Part
:16:35. > :16:41.of this is clearly moving away the scandal -- part of this. Gerry
:16:42. > :16:44.Kelly, let's stick to this, because I'm not going into green subsidies
:16:45. > :16:50.in this interview. I am going back to Emma. I am sorry, Gerry Kelly,
:16:51. > :16:54.you both want to say too much and I need to go over the issues. Is it
:16:55. > :16:59.your position that killings by the state forces should not be reviewed
:17:00. > :17:03.at all? No, we have always said there needs to be a comprehensive
:17:04. > :17:07.link of dealing with the past, but it has to be proportionate. The
:17:08. > :17:09.figures you have quoted are not proportionate. Furthermore, it has
:17:10. > :17:18.to be placed in a context where the Thomas Minns button -- the office
:17:19. > :17:25.has to investigate this. The coroner courts are looking hundred and
:17:26. > :17:31.deaths. -- into 150 deaths. For the UK audience, if evidence came to
:17:32. > :17:35.light that a British soldier had been involved in what was regarded
:17:36. > :17:40.as an unlawful killing, would you be happy to see that soldier
:17:41. > :17:44.prosecuted? I think the concern is fundamentally here rest on the case
:17:45. > :17:48.is being re-examined. It is not a case where there is new evidence and
:17:49. > :17:54.that is investigated. That has caused a lot of concern. Secondly,
:17:55. > :17:59.there needs to be justice for all. So the answer is yes or no. What is
:18:00. > :18:04.it? My colleague indicated that he believes, and our position is, that
:18:05. > :18:09.there should be a statute of limitations point where the cases
:18:10. > :18:12.happened many years ago and were people on active duty in terms of
:18:13. > :18:17.serving their country, doing their duty. This was not premeditated. I
:18:18. > :18:23.understand that but there isn't a statute of limitations on offer.
:18:24. > :18:27.Gerry Kelly, would you be happy to see IRA operatives found guilty of
:18:28. > :18:31.killing brought to justice now for something that happened 40 years
:18:32. > :18:40.ago? We are very clear about this and I have been in jail myself.
:18:41. > :18:44.There is something in the region of 100,000 years served in jail. The
:18:45. > :18:47.law must be for everybody, and if you believe in the justice system,
:18:48. > :18:54.that is what will happen will stop whoever comes in front of the courts
:18:55. > :18:57.comes in front of the courts. The difficulty with Emma's answer is
:18:58. > :19:02.they do not want anybody from the state forces to come in front of the
:19:03. > :19:07.courts. Can I just make this last point, because she did use the
:19:08. > :19:16.example where eight people were killed. Not only were they ambushed,
:19:17. > :19:21.they were shot while still in a van, so is that acceptable behaviour from
:19:22. > :19:23.state forces? As a former Northern Ireland correspondent myself, I'm
:19:24. > :19:28.well aware there are all these incidents and I have seen through
:19:29. > :19:32.various perspectives and we haven't got time to reinvestigate that. Let
:19:33. > :19:35.me bring in Tom Newton Dunn, because you've been involved in the story.
:19:36. > :19:40.What you make of what you have heard from the politicians in Belfast? I
:19:41. > :19:46.found it interesting that Gerry Kelly didn't answer your question
:19:47. > :19:51.when you asked would you be happy to see former IRA members, like Gerry
:19:52. > :19:55.Kelly, try to block the Old Bailey, face jail and prosecution -- tried
:19:56. > :19:59.to blow up the Old Bailey. He can only say yes if he is happy to see
:20:00. > :20:03.British soldiers in their 70s and 80s being brought through the courts
:20:04. > :20:09.are something they tried to do while serving their country legally, 40 or
:20:10. > :20:14.50 years. Gerry Kelly? He is arguing that legal execution is OK. I did
:20:15. > :20:18.answer your question. I said if you believe in the justice system, and I
:20:19. > :20:21.do, everyone is equal under the law, so if evidence is brought forward,
:20:22. > :20:28.those people should go forward. But let's be frank, the idea of a
:20:29. > :20:31.witchhunt and the idea that James Brokenshire who was supposed to be
:20:32. > :20:36.neutral in the talks that were going on, that he should settle down with
:20:37. > :20:43.the DUP, because he's taken the same decision, working on propaganda
:20:44. > :20:48.instead of fact. Some people, and Tom Newton Dunn brought it up, but
:20:49. > :20:53.you tried to blow up the Old Bailey, you escaped from prison and were
:20:54. > :20:55.rearrested in Europe. You are now in government and have been in
:20:56. > :21:00.government. Many people watching this will think that it is quite
:21:01. > :21:03.surprising that you are in government but we are going to
:21:04. > :21:07.arrest British soldiers who were doing their duty in Northern
:21:08. > :21:13.Ireland. People would find that strange, would they not? I think you
:21:14. > :21:17.reported on Northern Ireland and you will be aware that there are many
:21:18. > :21:20.people who looked upon the British Army as terrorists at the time. You
:21:21. > :21:25.may entirely disagree with that but if you are looking at any conflict,
:21:26. > :21:30.as a journalist, is there not a duty to look upon it on the basis of the
:21:31. > :21:36.issues of the conflict? I'm proud of having been a Republican and having
:21:37. > :21:40.been involved in the conflict, vicious as it was on all sides. But
:21:41. > :21:43.I'm also proud of the fact that I was involved in the peace
:21:44. > :21:46.negotiations and we have brought about peace and a new system and an
:21:47. > :21:52.alternative way forward. And I will fight to support that and I have
:21:53. > :21:59.fought very the stiffer -- vociferously against those so-called
:22:00. > :22:02.dissidents. Let me ask you again, what statue of limitations? What
:22:03. > :22:10.about just saying that these were terrible times -- what about a
:22:11. > :22:12.statue of limitations? This is a new Northern Ireland, let's draw a line
:22:13. > :22:18.under it for all concerned. What would you say to that? I think there
:22:19. > :22:21.needs to be a tailored response and Gerry Kelly mentioned about
:22:22. > :22:26.everybody being equal under the law but we do have a special provision
:22:27. > :22:30.here and we did for paramilitary organisations such as the early
:22:31. > :22:34.release of prisoners. When we look at the issue of soldiers who served
:22:35. > :22:39.their country and did their duty and now, 30 or 40 years later there is a
:22:40. > :22:46.witchhunt, they should be a statue of limitations. Would you back one
:22:47. > :22:51.or not? I would back a statute of limitations. There are already
:22:52. > :22:53.special provisions for those involved in paramilitary
:22:54. > :23:00.organisations. Let me finally asked Gerry Kelly. What about a statute of
:23:01. > :23:08.limitations? A Drawing avail, would you go along with that? Emma was
:23:09. > :23:11.involved with me in terms of negotiations in terms of the Legacy
:23:12. > :23:19.structure and we've already agreed to set up the structures that will
:23:20. > :23:22.involve the parties but we always said there is an investigated
:23:23. > :23:26.process across the board. She agreed to that. Now she is taking a
:23:27. > :23:32.different position. It is clear what the DUP one. Instead of making
:23:33. > :23:37.political points, which both of you have been pretty good at this
:23:38. > :23:45.morning against each other, a statute of limitations, yes or no?
:23:46. > :23:50.My answer is no. I did say the answer right at the beginning. I
:23:51. > :23:54.didn't catch you because you are so keen to getting onto bashing the
:23:55. > :23:59.DUP. I was under the impression I was giving you some facts. We are
:24:00. > :24:02.always grateful for facts, but not alternative facts. Heather, you were
:24:03. > :24:07.listening to that, what do you make it -- make of it? It's a bit
:24:08. > :24:10.depressing. I was going to use that word. The collapse of the government
:24:11. > :24:17.over the green subsidy scheme made you feel that normal politics was
:24:18. > :24:20.being practised in Northern Ireland and we were hearing boring domestic
:24:21. > :24:23.disputes, but this is a reminder that the shadow of the troubles is
:24:24. > :24:31.very long and these things are very passionately felt. You did the
:24:32. > :24:34.splash on this, Tom. Is there fresh evidence that soldiers are being
:24:35. > :24:41.investigated? What is the situation? Here is the problem, and I'll try
:24:42. > :24:47.and make this into five seconds, because this has so much precedent.
:24:48. > :24:51.What has happened is that all the previous investigations got ripped
:24:52. > :24:55.up in 2013 when it was decided that they had been too lenient. They were
:24:56. > :25:03.going under an old ruling which allowed soldiers to open fire, and
:25:04. > :25:07.the rules of engagement said they had to judge everything they did and
:25:08. > :25:13.the criminal law. So everything got been -- under criminal law. So
:25:14. > :25:18.everything is being investigated fresh. This is going on incredibly
:25:19. > :25:21.slowly and it's only just started Army wide because they are so busy
:25:22. > :25:25.with the bloody Sunday investigation. Is that where the
:25:26. > :25:29.sense of unfairness comes from? Soldiers we deploy in urban gorilla
:25:30. > :25:35.situations, and I was involved at the height of the troubles, they are
:25:36. > :25:41.now being judged by the standards of criminal law -- guerilla.
:25:42. > :25:44.Absolutely. This is the complaint from the Army, they should be judged
:25:45. > :25:51.under wartime environment scenario, rather than a peacetime civilian
:25:52. > :25:55.environment. The other point is, the British Army keep records. Boxes and
:25:56. > :26:00.boxes of them in warehouses somewhere. They are easy to go back
:26:01. > :26:08.over and George are fresh from an RA -- armchair perspective. The IRA
:26:09. > :26:10.didn't. It is harder to go after the IRA bit easier together the soft
:26:11. > :26:11.target of the British Army. As we've already been discussing,
:26:12. > :26:14.one of Theresa May's early successes is getting that "100% commitment"
:26:15. > :26:16.from President Trump Well, another country that is keen
:26:17. > :26:19.to demonstrate its commitment is Ukraine, which has
:26:20. > :26:21.signalled its firm intention Ukraine's President Poroshenko
:26:22. > :26:24.yesterday announced he will hold a referendum
:26:25. > :26:30.on his country joining Nato. This follows a period of fierce
:26:31. > :26:32.fighting on Ukraine's eastern border, with both government troops
:26:33. > :26:34.and pro-Russian rebels Clashes intensified over the weekend
:26:35. > :26:41.and officials are warning of a humanitarian crisis in the town
:26:42. > :26:44.of Avdiivka, home to more And we can speak now
:26:45. > :27:11.to the Ukrainian Ambassador Why the referendum on Nato
:27:12. > :27:15.membership now? First when the president mentioned the idea of
:27:16. > :27:22.having a referendum on Nato, he did not say that it would be happening
:27:23. > :27:29.immediately. I think it was more to have a social opinion and also
:27:30. > :27:34.showed to the Nato alliances, because before the Russian
:27:35. > :27:38.aggression the support was about 16%, relatively low, but now after
:27:39. > :27:43.the Russian aggression when the Ukrainians realise that we did not
:27:44. > :27:48.have any more security guarantees, support for Nato is like 54%. This
:27:49. > :27:54.is not about formal membership but we are asking for,. To give you an
:27:55. > :27:58.example, Georgia had a referendum dedicated to Nato membership before
:27:59. > :28:04.the Bucharest summit, and the idea was to show to Nato partners, look
:28:05. > :28:10.what is the social support for the membership. Would you agree that
:28:11. > :28:17.this is not a time in which Nato is likely to look very kindly on
:28:18. > :28:21.Ukrainian membership? Again, we don't have any goal to ask for Nato
:28:22. > :28:25.membership. I would like to confirm that even in the law stipulating
:28:26. > :28:29.Ukrainian priorities of foreign policy it is a provision that we
:28:30. > :28:35.will be seeking tighter cooperation with Nato according to Nato
:28:36. > :28:41.standards. Again, no sentence about formal membership now. Aren't you
:28:42. > :28:45.just prodding the bear with a big stick by doing this? You mean the
:28:46. > :28:52.Russian Federation? Correct. I will respond in the way that for 23 years
:28:53. > :28:56.all previous Ukrainian leaderships were trying to do everything not to
:28:57. > :29:05.irritate Russians. We were so flexible. But now this policy of
:29:06. > :29:11.appeasing Russia has already failed. They do believe that the politicians
:29:12. > :29:16.they elected in order to implement the will of the population, if that
:29:17. > :29:20.population would like to see sometime in the future Ukraine in
:29:21. > :29:24.Nato, I think it should be implemented. Given that there are
:29:25. > :29:29.already some doubts among existing Nato members, particularly in the
:29:30. > :29:33.Baltic states and some of the East European countries, some doubts
:29:34. > :29:37.about America's commitment under Mr Trump to enforce Nato obligations,
:29:38. > :29:45.particularly the famous article five to help someone else who is another
:29:46. > :29:51.member who is invaded, it's unlikely that a Trump administration is going
:29:52. > :29:58.to jump to add Ukraine under the nuclear and Nato umbrella?
:29:59. > :30:05.We're not speaking about formal membership. Is what is the point of
:30:06. > :30:08.the referendum? As I mentioned, we're not speaking about an
:30:09. > :30:12.immediate referendum, so not this year or next year, maybe sometime in
:30:13. > :30:18.the future and again, the idea is more to show support for Nato
:30:19. > :30:22.membership in the future. This referendum, it will be organised by
:30:23. > :30:26.the government? It will be an official referendum, not just a big
:30:27. > :30:34.opinion poll? You can't do that in the east, can you? You could not
:30:35. > :30:38.have voting in East Ukraine. Of course we can organise voting in the
:30:39. > :30:42.east of Ukraine and according, like, we can organise because we have a
:30:43. > :30:48.special law on Ukrainian referendums. I don't see any major
:30:49. > :30:52.problem. Wouldn't they just blow up the ballot boxes? It is kind of laws
:30:53. > :30:56.in the east at the moment. Again, it's too premature to speak about
:30:57. > :31:00.such details. This is a general idea, to have at some point
:31:01. > :31:05.referendum. So we don't have a timing? Absolutely no timing at all.
:31:06. > :31:08.What do you make of this? It underlines the anxiety out
:31:09. > :31:11.thereabout the balance of power in the world and the influence of Trump
:31:12. > :31:18.and the vulnerabilities of those countries that are in Russiawe all
:31:19. > :31:22.wait to see how Donald Trump will play this. Indeed, we will. Whatever
:31:23. > :31:25.the referendum result, you could be guaranteed, I'm sorry to say at the
:31:26. > :31:30.moment, Nato will not touch Ukraine's desires with the
:31:31. > :31:33.proverbial stick simply because if they accept Ukraine, you immediately
:31:34. > :31:36.have a hot war with Russia under article five and Nato will have to
:31:37. > :31:41.go to war and repel Russia from eastern Ukraine. There is a view and
:31:42. > :31:48.you will be familiar with it, Ambassador, that has grown in recent
:31:49. > :31:52.years in Western Europe and even the US that in the aftermath of the
:31:53. > :31:59.collapse of the Soviet Union, Nato and the European Union word too keen
:32:00. > :32:02.to push their influence eastwards, too keen to involve the Eastern
:32:03. > :32:11.European states and the Ukraine and Georgia and so on, and that provoked
:32:12. > :32:14.the Russians to begin to take stronger action because they regard
:32:15. > :32:19.this as their near abroad and here was the West, pushing into what they
:32:20. > :32:22.regarded as their sphere of influence. That is why any
:32:23. > :32:28.possibility of Nato membership for the foreseeable future, I would
:32:29. > :32:39.suggest, is unlikely. Yes, but I have just the opposite view. I think
:32:40. > :32:43.that Ukraine, just on the... It was miscalculated and badly valued by
:32:44. > :32:46.the EU and Nato, so the idea not to charge the east of Ukraine,
:32:47. > :32:50.daughter, like the Bucharest summit showed that the West was trying to
:32:51. > :32:55.do everything also, like not to irritate Russia, not to do some
:32:56. > :32:59.resolute steps in order to provoke them and now without this
:33:00. > :33:03.provocation, without any clear commitments to Ukraine, for formal
:33:04. > :33:07.membership in the EU or Nato, still again we have a war in Ukraine,
:33:08. > :33:12.provoked by the Russian Federation. And it's getting worse. It is, as
:33:13. > :33:19.you mentioned, in your introduction, we have a city on the edge of
:33:20. > :33:26.humanitarian crisis, Avdiivka. -18 people don't have electricity, or
:33:27. > :33:30.heating. And 2000 children who have already been evacuated. Ambassador,
:33:31. > :33:33.thank you for coming in today. An issue that's slightly closer
:33:34. > :33:35.to home for some of us is the long-running dispute
:33:36. > :33:37.between Southern Railway The issue at hand was Southern's
:33:38. > :33:42.plans to transfer the power to open and close train doors from the train
:33:43. > :33:44.guards to the drivers. Yesterday came a breakthrough -
:33:45. > :33:47.the drivers's union Aslef agreed Yesterday came a breakthrough -
:33:48. > :33:49.the drivers' union Aslef agreed But the RMT, which represents
:33:50. > :33:54.the train guards, has yet to make up And today, Southern's
:33:55. > :33:58.parent company, GTR, has offered to hold more talks
:33:59. > :34:01.with the RMT in an effort to end the longest-running rail dispute
:34:02. > :34:08.since privatisation. Here is the boss of Aslef speaking
:34:09. > :34:11.yesterday. It is about safety and it is about
:34:12. > :34:16.when people write changes, because we have to remember,
:34:17. > :34:18.at the heart of this is the government and the DFT,
:34:19. > :34:21.who wrote changes into the invitation to tender
:34:22. > :34:23.that the company were then forced to put in place that put us at odds
:34:24. > :34:26.with the industry. We would hope this sends a message
:34:27. > :34:29.to everybody, every stakeholder, about what we are willing to do,
:34:30. > :34:32.how we are willing to engage. We want to engage productively
:34:33. > :34:34.and proactively but if people treat Let's speak now to our transport
:34:35. > :34:51.correspondent Richard Westcott I mentioned in an earlier interview,
:34:52. > :34:54.I had been a Northern Ireland correspondent but after that, I
:34:55. > :35:01.became an industrial correspondent! I can't remember in my day... There
:35:02. > :35:05.were strikes every day, it was the 1970s but I can never remember a
:35:06. > :35:08.dispute where you do a deal and you tell the media there is a deal but
:35:09. > :35:13.you haven't actually done a deal with the union to which the people
:35:14. > :35:18.at the centre of the dispute are members. Can you explain it? It is
:35:19. > :35:22.slightly bizarre but they have always dealt with Aslef and the RMT
:35:23. > :35:26.separately and as I understand it, Aslef are not particularly opposed
:35:27. > :35:30.to that idea either. Effectively, they had some talks a few months ago
:35:31. > :35:33.and the RMT leader turned up and then kind of got turned away at the
:35:34. > :35:37.door so there was a bit of showboating there as well. Those
:35:38. > :35:45.were ACAS talks earlier. The company has always said it wants to deal
:35:46. > :35:47.with the union separately even though they are talking about the
:35:48. > :35:50.same issue. Critically, of course, they want to get the deal with the
:35:51. > :35:52.drivers done because it is more important, really, than getting the
:35:53. > :35:54.RMT conductors deal done because when the drivers go on strike,
:35:55. > :35:57.everything stops. That is when you get the TV pictures of every single
:35:58. > :36:02.Southern train stuck in the sidings or at Brighton, not moving, but when
:36:03. > :36:06.the conductors go on strike, especially with recent changes that
:36:07. > :36:10.have come in since January, around 30% of services. So it is much less
:36:11. > :36:15.devastating to actual services. They wanted to get the drivers out of the
:36:16. > :36:18.way. I suspect they thought they were easier to deal with, because
:36:19. > :36:22.Aslef is easier to deal with than the RMT. And it takes away some of
:36:23. > :36:28.the sting from the RMT action. They are being left a bit sidelined and
:36:29. > :36:38.frozen out by the deal. If the deal is done with Aslef, but not with the
:36:39. > :36:42.drivers, and not with the current guards who are responsible for the
:36:43. > :36:48.doors, if they go on strike again because they haven't done deal, will
:36:49. > :36:52.the drivers still drive the trains? It is a bit of a wait and see, who
:36:53. > :36:55.will cross the picket line but the suggestion if they will, almost of
:36:56. > :36:58.the Wilson you are not going to get those devastating strikes like we
:36:59. > :37:04.got last time. -- or most of them will so you are not. We had an Aslef
:37:05. > :37:09.strike last month and around 70% of services ran. The changes have
:37:10. > :37:11.already happened. The guards are not guards any more, they are now called
:37:12. > :37:15.on board supervises and they are doing the job that Southern wanted,
:37:16. > :37:19.they have signed new contracts to say they are on-board supervisors
:37:20. > :37:23.now so they don't have that kind of safety critical role where a train
:37:24. > :37:27.cannot move unless there are two of them on the train. It has all kind
:37:28. > :37:29.of happened already and they have signed the contracts but the RMT are
:37:30. > :37:43.still in dispute because they were not part of the deal. And they are
:37:44. > :37:46.looking to spread it around the country as well, this is not going
:37:47. > :37:48.to just be an issue on Southern. Yes, I know it has implications for
:37:49. > :37:51.other parts of the country. Finally, is there now bad blood between Aslef
:37:52. > :37:54.and the RMT? It's a good question and they would tell me outright, but
:37:55. > :37:56.the impression I get purely from talking to people is that perhaps
:37:57. > :37:59.Aslef don't find it as easy to negotiate with the RMT in the room.
:38:00. > :38:02.That is just my impression, no one has said it to me but I don't get
:38:03. > :38:05.the impression that the two leaders particularly get on well all will
:38:06. > :38:10.work together as a team on this. The two unions signed an accord in
:38:11. > :38:14.November 2015, I think, together, saying they were opposed to driver
:38:15. > :38:17.only trains. They were working together for that may have been
:38:18. > :38:21.openly and outwardly supportive of each other in the media over the
:38:22. > :38:26.issue. I don't get the impression they particularly enjoy negotiating
:38:27. > :38:29.in the same room together, just my impression, though. Interesting, we
:38:30. > :38:33.will keep an on that. Thank you for that.
:38:34. > :38:37.If the drivers are prepared to drive the trains and they have done the
:38:38. > :38:41.deal for that, we could be in the very unusual position in which the
:38:42. > :38:46.RMT is actually going to lose an industrial dispute. I don't remember
:38:47. > :38:50.that happening in modern times. It looks like a classic management
:38:51. > :38:54.tactic of splitting the unions, doesn't it? It sounds as though the
:38:55. > :38:57.RMT's Leverett will be considerably reduced because their strikes cannot
:38:58. > :39:01.bring the network to a halt. We don't know precisely the details of
:39:02. > :39:05.the deal that has been done. I was struck by the look of its operation
:39:06. > :39:08.on the face of Francis O'Grady, the Secretary General of the TUC, and
:39:09. > :39:12.she stood outside yesterday, having had to bang their heads together of
:39:13. > :39:17.the various participants in the dispute. But it looks as though the
:39:18. > :39:20.RMT's bargaining power has been significantly reduced. Quite a turn
:39:21. > :39:30.of events if it is the case. Add your final question of if they're
:39:31. > :39:32.bad blood between Aslef and the RMT, I'm not an industrial relations
:39:33. > :39:35.expert but I think there probably is now. What do you think? If there
:39:36. > :39:38.wasn't before, I'm pretty sure there is now. We will see what happens and
:39:39. > :39:41.if the dispute is coming to an end or if it still has some mileage in
:39:42. > :39:45.it because it will set the template for a lot of other deals up and down
:39:46. > :39:50.the country involving drivers and -- driverless trains. No, that is the
:39:51. > :39:55.next one. Driverless trains is about 20 years' time! I got ahead of
:39:56. > :39:57.myself in the technology. It is coming. I didn't say it wasn't.
:39:58. > :40:00.There's trouble brewing down the pub as the Dutch brewer Heineken
:40:01. > :40:03.makes a bid to take over 1900 pubs owned by the UK pub
:40:04. > :40:06.But some of Punch Taverns' current tenants aren't happy
:40:07. > :40:10.They say Heineken may force them to sell products that don't
:40:11. > :40:12.suit their customers, and they're worried it
:40:13. > :40:16.Malachy Keane runs The Star pub in Harrow, and is one of the tenants
:40:17. > :40:28.# There's a tear in my beer Cos I'm crying for you, dear...#.
:40:29. > :40:31.The pub industry is looking at a big change.
:40:32. > :40:34.The Dutch brewer Heineken is trying to buy Punch Taverns, and a
:40:35. > :40:37.lot of people are worried about what this means
:40:38. > :40:43.I lease my pub from Punch Taverns and I'm worried about this deal.
:40:44. > :40:47.Heineken already own over 1000 pubs in the UK and if this deal goes
:40:48. > :40:53.They would be the third-largest pub company in the UK.
:40:54. > :41:01.And they like their pubs to sell their drinks.
:41:02. > :41:04.In the pubs they already own, up to 85% of what is on
:41:05. > :41:09.The most successful pubs usually have the freedom
:41:10. > :41:13.We have seen customers drink more craft beer and cask ale.
:41:14. > :41:16.How can we compete when we are not allowed to serve
:41:17. > :41:25.The bottom line is, I could be forced to sell Heineken brands no
:41:26. > :41:27.matter what my customers want to drink.
:41:28. > :41:31.It will limit choice for our regulars and I'm worried
:41:32. > :41:37.We need the government's pub regulator to stop Heineken forcing
:41:38. > :41:44.# I'm going to keep drinking until I can't move at all...#.
:41:45. > :41:50.In less than three weeks, Punch Taverns' shareholders
:41:51. > :41:54.will decide whether or not to take Heineken's offer.
:41:55. > :41:59.I've seen many landlords walk away in the 15 years that
:42:00. > :42:03.If tenants like me are forced to sell products that their customers
:42:04. > :42:06.don't want, this could be the final straw for many of us.
:42:07. > :42:12.This isn't just about what's on tap.
:42:13. > :42:15.It's about a deal that could be another nail in the coffin
:42:16. > :42:23.And Malachy Keane joins us in the studio.
:42:24. > :42:25.We asked Heineken if they would like to participate
:42:26. > :42:35.Maybe even bring a few free samples...
:42:36. > :42:38.But they weren't able to be with us today because of restrictions placed
:42:39. > :42:42.They did, however, send us a statement acknowledging that some
:42:43. > :42:45.They added: "As soon as those restrictions are lifted
:42:46. > :42:48.after completion of the deal, our priority will be to engage
:42:49. > :42:55.with licensees and build strong relationships".
:42:56. > :43:01.So, they also said that they want to have the right drinks on offer to
:43:02. > :43:09.suit the specific needs of each pub. Doesn't that give you some comfort?
:43:10. > :43:13.Not really. I think there's a lot of licensees like myself, the biggest
:43:14. > :43:16.thing is we need clarification from the pub code adjudicator, Paul
:43:17. > :43:23.Newby. This is an issue, fairly binary. A regulatory issue? Yes, and
:43:24. > :43:26.the new pub code adjudicator has failed to adjudicate, to do his job.
:43:27. > :43:30.There are other binary issues as well, which we have asked him, and I
:43:31. > :43:37.myself have a review moving forward on another issue, just to clarify
:43:38. > :43:42.the issues and he failed to do it. Have Heineken given people like you
:43:43. > :43:47.any indication of what their modus operandi would be, what their
:43:48. > :43:53.attitude would be towards the mix of their own products and third-party
:43:54. > :43:58.products and the freedoms you would have? I think we have to look at the
:43:59. > :44:03.bars and pubs model as it stands today. 85% stocking requirements of
:44:04. > :44:08.their own brands. If you were to put that into the Punch model as it
:44:09. > :44:13.stands, it would mean a lot of other brands, especially craft ale, craft
:44:14. > :44:19.lagers and cask ale, which would be taken away. It is a customer choice
:44:20. > :44:24.issue. Just at the moment, you are under the ownership, you have a
:44:25. > :44:28.lease from Punch Taverns. What products do they have that they
:44:29. > :44:33.force you to sell? Because they are not a brewer, they are a pub
:44:34. > :44:39.company, the amount of products you can get from them is very wide. So
:44:40. > :44:44.it changes when you end up being owned... By a brewery. Wheeze to
:44:45. > :44:48.call it vertical integration at university, where you have a
:44:49. > :44:53.supplier who now is the retail outlet. -- we used to call it. In
:44:54. > :44:56.regulatory law, traditionally, the monopolies commission 's and such
:44:57. > :45:03.have been hostile to that kind of arrangement. Yes. I presume your
:45:04. > :45:05.worry is that this deal might be done and it's only afterwards that
:45:06. > :45:09.you find out what the real terms are because you are getting no
:45:10. > :45:14.indication at the moment? Yes, it is a binary issue. If Paul Newby has
:45:15. > :45:21.not stepped up to the mark, we have seen this week Greene King have
:45:22. > :45:25.approached... Leave the pub regulator, that regulates this? This
:45:26. > :45:30.is not a new issue. The whole issue of the tied house and the freedom
:45:31. > :45:34.that the tied house has the products it sells is a long-running issue in
:45:35. > :45:46.your industry. If we look at it in context of the
:45:47. > :45:52.new pub code. The market only rent code which came in last July, we
:45:53. > :45:58.look at it in that context, so we have do effectively within the
:45:59. > :46:03.framework of law we have now, it should be adjudicated over. I can
:46:04. > :46:06.understand the apprehension that this could happen and it's only
:46:07. > :46:12.afterwards that you find out what is really going to go on, but you would
:46:13. > :46:17.assume that Heineken are rational and they are in for revenue and
:46:18. > :46:22.profit maximisation and that they would listen to the people that have
:46:23. > :46:26.the leasing on their advice as to what would produce that are not just
:46:27. > :46:29.say, you can't sell that, you have do sell this. They RA brewer and
:46:30. > :46:34.they want to sell the brands they produce. If they want maximisation,
:46:35. > :46:38.they will be the products they want to sell. But if people don't like
:46:39. > :46:44.this, and they leave the pub, they won't sell anything. I think the pub
:46:45. > :46:47.itself will change. The type of operation we run would be changed
:46:48. > :46:54.incredibly. It's a fascinating issue. What is your view? I was
:46:55. > :47:00.struck by hearing this tragic state of affairs. This appears to me right
:47:01. > :47:05.for some Theresa May interventionism. Standing up to the
:47:06. > :47:13.little guy against the market which appears to be ever more rail
:47:14. > :47:15.against. To Reza, come on in. I think that is right, people want
:47:16. > :47:19.their local pub to be distinctive and it is part of the character of
:47:20. > :47:25.an area and people feel strongly attached. They also feel a lot of
:47:26. > :47:30.them have become less distinctive. Yes, big corporate brands, it is all
:47:31. > :47:34.we see. If we look at the individual nature of successful pubs they have
:47:35. > :47:39.more choice. The individual operator will put his own stamp on it, but if
:47:40. > :47:42.we make them corporate bodies, exactly the same on every street
:47:43. > :47:47.corner then pubs will take another hit. You are about to get whacked by
:47:48. > :47:54.business rates. That business rates review coming up in April. Another
:47:55. > :48:01.job for blue-collar Theresa May. Is it 3000 pubs in the chain? Yes, if
:48:02. > :48:07.it goes ahead. And the timing? The integration looks like, and it does
:48:08. > :48:12.take a while, Punch Taverns will oversee the integration so maybe a
:48:13. > :48:18.year or a year and a half. And it will be interesting to see if there
:48:19. > :48:22.is intervention on the monopolies side to see of Heineken will still
:48:23. > :48:26.go for it. It would just go to show that what they are after is shelf
:48:27. > :48:30.space and bar space. They wanted the tied house. We shall keep an eye on
:48:31. > :48:31.that. Thank you for your opinion today.
:48:32. > :48:33.Now as you know, here on the Daily Politics
:48:34. > :48:36.we like to think we help you tell the signal from the noise.
:48:37. > :48:38.But with the government, think tanks and charities
:48:39. > :48:41.all claiming to have the definitive facts and figures on a particular
:48:42. > :48:44.issue, it can be difficult to know who to trust.
:48:45. > :48:46.Take the cost of a big infrastructure project, for example.
:48:47. > :48:47.On Tuesday's programme, the Conservative MP
:48:48. > :48:50.Antoinette Sandbach cited a figure on how much HS2 -
:48:51. > :48:54.train line from London to the north of England -
:48:55. > :49:01.But Labour peer Andrew Adonis took issue with the number
:49:02. > :49:11.It's not fair to say that the costs have
:49:12. > :49:14.What has happened is that big adjustments
:49:15. > :49:17.So what is the cost, now, do you think,
:49:18. > :49:20.Well, the Institute of Economic Affairs...
:49:21. > :49:26.And the Department for Transport themselves estimate it at 55
:49:27. > :49:31.The IEA is not an unbiased observer, I
:49:32. > :49:38.And we're joined now by Mark Littlewood, director
:49:39. > :49:44.of the very same Institute of Economic Affairs.
:49:45. > :49:52.It is a free market think tank, so we know it is not unbiased. I do
:49:53. > :49:57.come from a particular angle. Let's not spend too much time on that. Let
:49:58. > :50:02.me ask you the, what is your estimate or the estimate from the
:50:03. > :50:06.Institute of the cost of HS2? She was wrong what she said. We had not
:50:07. > :50:12.gone as high at 100 billion. The best guess is around 80 billion or
:50:13. > :50:15.slightly higher. It is a forecast and it is based on the typical
:50:16. > :50:21.overrun of similar infrastructure projects in the past. You assume an
:50:22. > :50:25.element of overrun? Yes, historically that is what has
:50:26. > :50:33.happened and it is a prediction. Does that 80 billion, it gets us to
:50:34. > :50:39.Birmingham, but does it get us to Manchester and also to Leeds? It
:50:40. > :50:45.should do. What we have seen is a whole range of additional things to
:50:46. > :50:49.get towns to be ready for HS2. We think there are a lot of off-balance
:50:50. > :50:52.sheet liabilities on HS2 that the government don't attach to the
:50:53. > :50:57.figures. The government number has already gone up to 55 billion and
:50:58. > :51:01.they have accepted the cost was higher than initially. This is part
:51:02. > :51:04.and parcel for major government infrastructure projects. It's
:51:05. > :51:16.extremely rare to see one, in time and on budget. HS2 is almost totally
:51:17. > :51:19.publicly funded as a project. Does that mean that given that you come
:51:20. > :51:24.from a free-market perspective that you are almost automatically biased
:51:25. > :51:30.against such projects. I wouldn't say biased, but sceptical. We have
:51:31. > :51:43.never argued that the state should spend no money, but we would say
:51:44. > :51:47.prima face, the starting point would be, if the private sector is not
:51:48. > :51:51.willing to invest in HS2 that has to raise questions. We know the private
:51:52. > :51:55.sector is willing to invest in airport expansion. You can take all
:51:56. > :51:58.sorts of views about whether that's necessary and the environmental
:51:59. > :52:01.impact, but that private money is there. But there still needs to be
:52:02. > :52:08.state money for infrastructure. In Heathrow there is. That would be a
:52:09. > :52:13.good test of viability. Is there anywhere where the private sector
:52:14. > :52:22.has built high-speed trains? Not to my knowledge. Our high-speed trains
:52:23. > :52:31.a good thing question one of the criticism is that once it comes
:52:32. > :52:35.online is that it looks like futuristic now, and we could be
:52:36. > :52:37.driving around in driverless cars, so I don't start from the
:52:38. > :52:45.presumption that high-speed rail is of itself a good thing. There is
:52:46. > :52:48.always a mixture in infrastructure spending and in recent years it's
:52:49. > :52:53.gone more your way and there is more private money that has become
:52:54. > :53:01.involved in infrastructure spending. But even in the purest of states
:53:02. > :53:05.that the IEA would approve of, like Singapore, there is big government
:53:06. > :53:09.infrastructure spending there. Surely the job of government is to
:53:10. > :53:16.provide an infrastructure that allows the market to operate more
:53:17. > :53:19.efficiently? One of the things you can look in there at, if you have
:53:20. > :53:22.the government invested in road schemes, even if it is state and
:53:23. > :53:27.taxpayer money being spent, how can you market Isaac with things like
:53:28. > :53:32.tollbooths? We have a lovely congestion charge, so the idea is
:53:33. > :53:37.that those who use for it pay for it. It's not a pure free-market
:53:38. > :53:42.system but it introduces the price mechanism. One of the dangers of HS2
:53:43. > :53:46.and other ground projects is there is another temptation for
:53:47. > :53:50.politicians to invest in legacy schemes. If you're going to spend
:53:51. > :53:54.money, maybe spend it on 200 schemes that won't be as headline grabbing
:53:55. > :53:58.and won't last the generations but will probably do more to actually
:53:59. > :54:04.ease up congestion and Sellotape the economy. Prime ministers do love the
:54:05. > :54:13.grand projects. They do, and there is a reason there is research by IEA
:54:14. > :54:15.and other places that site smaller projects Cutting commuter time in
:54:16. > :54:21.the North might help the economy more. But on the broader subject of
:54:22. > :54:24.public money, the reasonable need to be tax payers money if it's
:54:25. > :54:30.worthwhile doing is that the benefits of doing it might be felt
:54:31. > :54:33.more broadly than you would get. If it improves the economy on whether
:54:34. > :54:38.it is Manchester, Birmingham or whatever, that is more broadly felt
:54:39. > :54:45.from the people who travel on it or build it. Rather than 80 billion on
:54:46. > :54:50.HS2, I would settle for 8 million on better Wi-Fi on the existing trains.
:54:51. > :54:54.I can be highly productive on the phone on those. What people have
:54:55. > :54:59.concentrated far too much on with HS2 is speed and not capacity. We
:55:00. > :55:05.are in desperate need of another train line and more capacity. They
:55:06. > :55:08.concentrated on speed because that was the original argument of the
:55:09. > :55:12.Department for Transport. That was a mistake. They miss sold HS2 from the
:55:13. > :55:18.get go. They are going to change the name. -- they are not going to.
:55:19. > :55:21.Where would you spend public money? There is a role for the welfare
:55:22. > :55:25.state and the safety net. I don't want to live in a society weather
:55:26. > :55:32.summary through accident or even poor slips to the bottom. -- where
:55:33. > :55:35.somebody. You mention Singapore, different culture and country and
:55:36. > :55:41.has a different history, but the state should properly account for
:55:42. > :55:44.25% of national income, not 45% which is the rate. That would be a
:55:45. > :55:50.huge change. America doesn't come close to that. Singapore and Hong
:55:51. > :55:53.Kong would be the standout examples. I'm a patient man, I will wait a
:55:54. > :55:57.generation, but you are right, it would be a good change. You might
:55:58. > :55:59.have a long wait on HS2. The news this week has been
:56:00. > :56:08.dominated by just two stories - Like the week before, the week
:56:09. > :56:09.before that and next week and the week after.
:56:10. > :56:12.So much so that journalists like Tom and Heather here can't
:56:13. > :56:15.wait for the weekend - when they can just zone out.
:56:16. > :56:17.But before we let them clock off, here's Mark Lobel's look
:56:18. > :56:22.On Monday, the fallout from Donald Trump's
:56:23. > :56:24.temporary travel ban led to
:56:25. > :56:31.With a petition calling for Donald Trump's state
:56:32. > :56:33.visit to be cancelled, Jeremy Corbyn quizzed
:56:34. > :56:34.Theresa May on the issue of
:56:35. > :56:38.at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, but got this reply.
:56:39. > :56:42.He can lead a protest, I'm leading a country.
:56:43. > :56:46.Later that day, MPs overwhelmingly backed the first stage of the EU
:56:47. > :56:48.divorce bill that will allow Theresa May to get Brexit
:56:49. > :57:02.The government published its long-awaited Brexit White Paper on
:57:03. > :57:07.Plans for exiting the European Union.
:57:08. > :57:11.And back across the pond, Donald Trump mocks Arnold
:57:12. > :57:13.Schwarzenegger's ratings as his successor
:57:14. > :57:15.on The Apprentice, but the
:57:16. > :57:35.He wants to be Donald Duck? No, that's a different Donnal. You were
:57:36. > :57:40.the man who got to answer the second question at the White House. What
:57:41. > :57:43.was it like? Scary. You had a funny feeling that 200 million Americans
:57:44. > :57:47.might be watching at the same time and it was very nerve wracking but I
:57:48. > :57:53.was amazed by how brittle the ego of the man is. All I asked was, you are
:57:54. > :57:57.a bit different, Theresa May is a hard-working vicar's daughter and he
:57:58. > :58:05.is a brash TV star, and he didn't like that. Did the American press
:58:06. > :58:09.corps take it that that is how you ask questions? There was a sharp
:58:10. > :58:13.intake of breath and quite a lot of people standing up. People standing
:58:14. > :58:17.up as Theresa May came into the room which the British press certainly
:58:18. > :58:18.don't do. They stand because he is head of State.
:58:19. > :58:21.There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.
:58:22. > :58:23.The question is, according to newspaper reports,
:58:24. > :58:26.Jack Straw try to take off air in the 1990s?
:58:27. > :58:30.Was it a) The Word, b) Brass Eye, c) The Midnight Hour with yours truly
:58:31. > :58:37.Larry King live, he wanted. I think it is probably Eurotrash. Apparently
:58:38. > :58:42.his kid was watching it and he did not like it. That is the M4 today.
:58:43. > :58:45.-- the end for today. The one o'clock news
:58:46. > :58:48.is starting over on BBC1 now. I'll be back on Sunday
:58:49. > :59:01.with the Sunday Politics. I'm introducing a 20-minute
:59:02. > :59:05.time limit to antenatal calls.