03/02/2017 Daily Politics

Afternoon, folks. Welcome to the Daily Politics.

Can Britain be a bridge of trust between the EU

Theresa May tells fellow European leaders to increase defence

spending, amid doubts about the American President's

But as fellow EU leaders contemplate life without Britain,

The Northern Ireland Secretary says inquiries into killings

during the Troubles are "disproportionately" focused

Southern Rail reaches an agreement with train drivers to try

and bring an end to months of damaging strike action.

And Heineken is planning to take over of one of Britain's

Will it leave a nasty taste or refresh the parts of the industry

You knew, with Heineken, we'd work in that line! I knew it, too.

All that in the next hour, and with me for the duration

are Heather Stewart, political editor of The Guardian,

and Tom Newton Dunn, political editor of The Sun.

Think of them as the Theresa and Donald of daytime

Just don't expect them to hold hands!

Now speaking of Theresa and Donald, the Prime Minister is in Malta

today meeting other EU heads of government.

She is briefing fellow leaders on her meeting with the new American

Earlier this week, another Donald - Donald Tusk, the president

of the European Council - warned that Donald Trump

posed a threat to the EU, alongside Russia, China

Theresa May will urge those EU members which also belong to Nato

to meet pledges to spend a minimum of 2% of GDP on defence.

Let's speak to our correspondent John Pienaar who's in

The Prime Minister, I assume, will be emphasising how she got a 100%

commitment to Nato out of the President but that also saying they

have too spent 2% of GDP as a minimum on defence. How is it going

down? -- have to spend. Well, she will certainly be doing that in the

course of the talks today. It is such a huge part of Theresa May's

mission, to maintain Britain's global clout after Brexit. Here, she

will say Britain in or out of the European Union will do its bit in

helping migrant crisis but also drawing on the visit last week to

the White House, where she was the only in the room in Malta to see

President Trump face-to-face, the first leader anywhere to get into

the Oval Office for a meeting like that and drawing heavily on the fact

that she drew the commitment from Donald Trump of 100% amendment to

Nato and then bringing the message over here, that other Nato members

have to do their bit, like Britain, in meeting defence spending

obligations, 2% of national earnings. Very few European

countries meet the target. Poland, Estonia, Greece, along with Britain

but not to bigger countries. And it is a big ask. In some cases, a

doubling of defence spending as it is at the moment. That won't go down

terribly well. As for the idea of being in some way a bridge between

both sides of the Atlantic, well, the relationship so far between

Donald Trump and so many leaders gathered here in Malta leaves a

great deal to be desired. He treats them with pretty open disdain and

they look at him with something between alarm and horror. This is a

mission Theresa May has to keep on pressing but it is an uphill climb.

Is this an attempt by the British to insert geopolitical matters into the

Brexit negotiations? Or at least, to have this as a background, subtly or

maybe not so subtly, that the British are saying, "We may be

leaving the EU but we are still vital to the military and

intelligence capabilities of Europe, so don't treat us to badly because

you need us"? It is very much a part of the message that Britain carries

on and will continue to be a big strategic and military player, a

prominent part of the Nato alliance. Maybe they can draw some regard and

respect from former EU partners are doing so. Equally, it is not easy to

see how that might work because those military, strategic and

security obligations will carry on as before when we haven't a European

Union so is it possible to play the strategic card to get a better deal

on the economic and trade card? It's hard to see that. One leader today

said trade and security are simply two different things and it's hard

to see how they will overlap or that Britain could draw on its credit as

a strategic power to get better trade deals when the time comes for

those long-lasting negotiations. But it is about showing that Britain is

a big player in the world and will continue to be so. It looks a tough

gig out there in Malta in February! We will let you get on with your

hardship posting. John Pienaar in Malta, there. I

would suggest there's a really good chance that trade and security will

overlap. We already know that the Nordic countries and the Baltic

states have sent a message to Mrs May, saying thank you for getting

that 100% commitment. If they are grateful for that, if there is more

to be done on that score, if British lives are to be laid on the line in

Eastern Europe, you can hardly then turn around and say, by the way, we

are putting 25% Harris on because. I think it absolutely helps Theresa

May for those conversations to be taking place and for the geopolitics

and security and intelligence cooperation that she also stressed

in the Lancaster house speech when she set up the exit plan. The more

we talk about things and the more the conversation goes on, the

harder, she hopes, it becomes for other EU States to play hardball and

just talk about tariffs on products. In a sense, Mrs May needs to be

agile. If it becomes clear that Donald Trump in the end doesn't

really give a monkeys about Europe, then Britain's military and

intelligence capabilities become all the more important because Europe

will have to do a lot more for itself. If it turns out that he is

willing to do some kind of deals with Europe, live up to his 100%

commitment, then Britain is the pivotal part of -- partner between

Europe and the United States. I totally agree and I think Theresa

May has been dealt incredibly unexpected but very lucky hands.

Lucky is the keyword! She is a lucky Prime Minister. Yes, and you need

luck as Prime Minister, frankly, to get through Brexit but there is high

here. She's on a high wire trapeze act at the moment and she needs to

stay on it. She could easily play the role as the EU ambassador and

look at the winds are ready, 100% Nato commitment apparently and also

the Ukraine sanctions, the US ambassador, Trump's ambassador to

the UN confirmed they will carry on. The former southern governor, an

American Republican to watch. Two early successes Mrs May can wave

around with some pride. It is also fair that some EU leaders will have

looked at the pictures of her holding hands touching hands with

Donald Trump and felt considerable distaste and then they saw his

executive order, the refugee ban which has gone down extremely badly

and parts of Europe. It's a balance. Which means that between a rock and

a hard place in a way, they need America but they don't like Mr

drum's America. I think the risk for Mrs May in seeming to be the

Donald's voice in Europe on this is that he goes a step waiting too far

on a particular issue, whether it is new sanctions against Iran, which we

are told are coming today, all he does something else with China, or

whatever, and it is impossible for a British Prime Minister to support

that. She's already felt that when she was pressed quite aggressively

on Saturday in Ankara about whether she supported the refugee ban. She

tried to sidestep the question but you know other blood she did times.

We were there. We both were -- we both were. I never get to leave. I

sleep it! It was not a glamorous trip. That sums up the whole thing,

though, while she has to be the great arbiter between Trump and

Europe, she also has to be your's messenger Judd Trump and if you blow

that line from Europe will give up on her completely. It is pregnant

with possibility and fought with danger, I would suggest. Indeed.

Foreign affairs will be more interesting than ever.

As we've been hearing this week, politicians and the media can

have a difficult relationship, and according to some reports

in today's papers, when Jack Straw was Home Secretary in the 1990s

he tried to get a certain TV programme cancelled.

As you would if you were Home Secretary, obviously.

So our question for today is, which one?

Was it a) The Word? b) Brass Eye?

c) The Midnight Hour with yours truly?

At the end of the show, Tom and Heather

Have you got a rough idea? I was looking at the braces. It was the

early 1990s, still under the influence of Wall Street, the movie.

Which is long gone now! But still watched. Anyway, let's move on.

Last weekend, almost 1,000 veterans of the conflict in Northern Ireland

They want Theresa May to end what they call a "witch hunt"

into killings perpetrated by British security forces during the Troubles.

In December, the sun splashed with news that all of the killings were

being reinvestigated. But the Police Service

of Northern Ireland says there is no bespoke inquiry into deaths caused

by the British Army. In 2006, the Historical

Enquiries Team was set up by the Police Service

of Northern Ireland to review all Troubles-related deaths,

including those attributed But in 2013, an independent report

raised significant concerns about what it called the "different

approach" taken by the Historical Enquiries Team to cases

involving state involvement The report said that

in investigating murder, there was no legal basis

to distinguish between deaths caused by state officials and those

caused by third parties, and that the HET had

failed to realise this. In response, the PSNI replaced

the Historical Enquiries Team with the Legacy Investigation Branch,

and said it would re-examine military cases to make sure due

diligence had been done. The DUP has claimed that the vast

majority of the PSNI's resources are focused on reviewing killings

by state forces, a criticism echoed by the Northern Ireland Secretary,

James Brokenshire. But figures obtained by BBC

Northern Ireland show that approximately 70% of the unit's

resources are directed toward reviewing killings

caused by paramilitaries. Out of more than 1,000 deaths

being re-investigated, 530 are linked to republicans,

271 to loyalists, and 354 Over 2,000 deaths

previously examined are not That is some of the background to

the story. To discuss this, we're joined

from Belfast by Gerry Kelly, Sinn Fein's policing spokesman,

and by Emma Little Let me come to you first, Emma

Little Pengelly. We have seen the figures there. It is not focus

disproportionately on the killings of the security forces. Do you

accept you were factually wrong? Absolutely not, in fact, these

figures confirm there is a disproportionate focus on killings

and deaths by security forces because you have to place this

within the context of the figures of the Troubles and deaths during the

Trouble. 90% of deaths during the Troubles were caused by paramilitary

organisations. Around 10% involve some kind of state involvement. In

many cases, that state involvement was absolutely lawful, so for

example, in the case of Loch gal, where there was an IRA unit, in the

words of the organisation itself, on active duty, and they were killed by

the SAS, that has been deemed to be a lawful killing. Even within that

10%, it is a much smaller percentage of the overall deaths that have

involved any kind of state involvement. If 70% of the PSNI's

resources are being directed to deaths caused by paramilitaries, it

might not be an exact percentage of the breakdowns of who was behind the

deaths, but 70% does not suggest that a disproportionate level of

resources is going to try and get the British Army. I think if you

look specifically at the figures released by the PSNI, 40% of their

resources, looking at the killings by Republicans, 30% in killings by

the state. The actual figures are 60% of the deaths during the

troubles were caused by Republicans and less than 10% by the state. But

I also think there is another important issue to consider. The

PSNI not only look at historical cases through this unit. They also

support the likes of the Coroner's Court and the coroner 's court

cases, and it's been a big issue here in Northern Ireland, because

they have been numerous referrals by the Attorney General to the coroner

's -- to the coroner 's Court and all of those cases have a focus in

relation to the state. The PSNI are also supporting that work and have

told us in Northern Ireland that they are under huge pressure in

terms of the workload, that they today get -- dedicated huge amount

of resource to that. So in addition to these figures released by the

PSNI, I will be asking them in terms of how much more resource they

using. I will stop you there because Gerry Kelly has do his say. What is

your response to what you have just heard?

You give is the facts and you give is the difference to the perception

of DUP under the British politicians. If you like,

propaganda. If people are equal under law, they are equal in the

law, but when James broken china joined in on this there was an

attack on the Director of Public Prosecutions saying they were

biased. He was then forced to put out the statistics, and there have

been seven persecutions of Republican 's, free of loyalists,

and three British soldiers -- three of loyalists. Then they shifted onto

PSNI and blamed them, and they showed the statistics of what the

enquiry teams were doing their and it works out at 30%. Let me also say

that for you audience, the DUP are in the middle of it in terms of

corruption and half ?1 billion. This is what the election was part. Part

of this is clearly moving away the scandal -- part of this. Gerry

Kelly, let's stick to this, because I'm not going into green subsidies

in this interview. I am going back to Emma. I am sorry, Gerry Kelly,

you both want to say too much and I need to go over the issues. Is it

your position that killings by the state forces should not be reviewed

at all? No, we have always said there needs to be a comprehensive

link of dealing with the past, but it has to be proportionate. The

figures you have quoted are not proportionate. Furthermore, it has

to be placed in a context where the Thomas Minns button -- the office

has to investigate this. The coroner courts are looking hundred and

deaths. -- into 150 deaths. For the UK audience, if evidence came to

light that a British soldier had been involved in what was regarded

as an unlawful killing, would you be happy to see that soldier

prosecuted? I think the concern is fundamentally here rest on the case

is being re-examined. It is not a case where there is new evidence and

that is investigated. That has caused a lot of concern. Secondly,

there needs to be justice for all. So the answer is yes or no. What is

it? My colleague indicated that he believes, and our position is, that

there should be a statute of limitations point where the cases

happened many years ago and were people on active duty in terms of

serving their country, doing their duty. This was not premeditated. I

understand that but there isn't a statute of limitations on offer.

Gerry Kelly, would you be happy to see IRA operatives found guilty of

killing brought to justice now for something that happened 40 years

ago? We are very clear about this and I have been in jail myself.

There is something in the region of 100,000 years served in jail. The

law must be for everybody, and if you believe in the justice system,

that is what will happen will stop whoever comes in front of the courts

comes in front of the courts. The difficulty with Emma's answer is

they do not want anybody from the state forces to come in front of the

courts. Can I just make this last point, because she did use the

example where eight people were killed. Not only were they ambushed,

they were shot while still in a van, so is that acceptable behaviour from

state forces? As a former Northern Ireland correspondent myself, I'm

well aware there are all these incidents and I have seen through

various perspectives and we haven't got time to reinvestigate that. Let

me bring in Tom Newton Dunn, because you've been involved in the story.

What you make of what you have heard from the politicians in Belfast? I

found it interesting that Gerry Kelly didn't answer your question

when you asked would you be happy to see former IRA members, like Gerry

Kelly, try to block the Old Bailey, face jail and prosecution -- tried

to blow up the Old Bailey. He can only say yes if he is happy to see

British soldiers in their 70s and 80s being brought through the courts

are something they tried to do while serving their country legally, 40 or

50 years. Gerry Kelly? He is arguing that legal execution is OK. I did

answer your question. I said if you believe in the justice system, and I

do, everyone is equal under the law, so if evidence is brought forward,

those people should go forward. But let's be frank, the idea of a

witchhunt and the idea that James Brokenshire who was supposed to be

neutral in the talks that were going on, that he should settle down with

the DUP, because he's taken the same decision, working on propaganda

instead of fact. Some people, and Tom Newton Dunn brought it up, but

you tried to blow up the Old Bailey, you escaped from prison and were

rearrested in Europe. You are now in government and have been in

government. Many people watching this will think that it is quite

surprising that you are in government but we are going to

arrest British soldiers who were doing their duty in Northern

Ireland. People would find that strange, would they not? I think you

reported on Northern Ireland and you will be aware that there are many

people who looked upon the British Army as terrorists at the time. You

may entirely disagree with that but if you are looking at any conflict,

as a journalist, is there not a duty to look upon it on the basis of the

issues of the conflict? I'm proud of having been a Republican and having

been involved in the conflict, vicious as it was on all sides. But

I'm also proud of the fact that I was involved in the peace

negotiations and we have brought about peace and a new system and an

alternative way forward. And I will fight to support that and I have

fought very the stiffer -- vociferously against those so-called

dissidents. Let me ask you again, what statue of limitations? What

about just saying that these were terrible times -- what about a

statue of limitations? This is a new Northern Ireland, let's draw a line

under it for all concerned. What would you say to that? I think there

needs to be a tailored response and Gerry Kelly mentioned about

everybody being equal under the law but we do have a special provision

here and we did for paramilitary organisations such as the early

release of prisoners. When we look at the issue of soldiers who served

their country and did their duty and now, 30 or 40 years later there is a

witchhunt, they should be a statue of limitations. Would you back one

or not? I would back a statute of limitations. There are already

special provisions for those involved in paramilitary

organisations. Let me finally asked Gerry Kelly. What about a statute of

limitations? A Drawing avail, would you go along with that? Emma was

involved with me in terms of negotiations in terms of the Legacy

structure and we've already agreed to set up the structures that will

involve the parties but we always said there is an investigated

process across the board. She agreed to that. Now she is taking a

different position. It is clear what the DUP one. Instead of making

political points, which both of you have been pretty good at this

morning against each other, a statute of limitations, yes or no?

My answer is no. I did say the answer right at the beginning. I

didn't catch you because you are so keen to getting onto bashing the

DUP. I was under the impression I was giving you some facts. We are

always grateful for facts, but not alternative facts. Heather, you were

listening to that, what do you make it -- make of it? It's a bit

depressing. I was going to use that word. The collapse of the government

over the green subsidy scheme made you feel that normal politics was

being practised in Northern Ireland and we were hearing boring domestic

disputes, but this is a reminder that the shadow of the troubles is

very long and these things are very passionately felt. You did the

splash on this, Tom. Is there fresh evidence that soldiers are being

investigated? What is the situation? Here is the problem, and I'll try

and make this into five seconds, because this has so much precedent.

What has happened is that all the previous investigations got ripped

up in 2013 when it was decided that they had been too lenient. They were

going under an old ruling which allowed soldiers to open fire, and

the rules of engagement said they had to judge everything they did and

the criminal law. So everything got been -- under criminal law. So

everything is being investigated fresh. This is going on incredibly

slowly and it's only just started Army wide because they are so busy

with the bloody Sunday investigation. Is that where the

sense of unfairness comes from? Soldiers we deploy in urban gorilla

situations, and I was involved at the height of the troubles, they are

now being judged by the standards of criminal law -- guerilla.

Absolutely. This is the complaint from the Army, they should be judged

under wartime environment scenario, rather than a peacetime civilian

environment. The other point is, the British Army keep records. Boxes and

boxes of them in warehouses somewhere. They are easy to go back

over and George are fresh from an RA -- armchair perspective. The IRA

didn't. It is harder to go after the IRA bit easier together the soft

target of the British Army. As we've already been discussing,

one of Theresa May's early successes is getting that "100% commitment"

from President Trump Well, another country that is keen

to demonstrate its commitment is Ukraine, which has

signalled its firm intention Ukraine's President Poroshenko

yesterday announced he will hold a referendum

on his country joining Nato. This follows a period of fierce

fighting on Ukraine's eastern border, with both government troops

and pro-Russian rebels Clashes intensified over the weekend

and officials are warning of a humanitarian crisis in the town

of Avdiivka, home to more And we can speak now

to the Ukrainian Ambassador Why the referendum on Nato

membership now? First when the president mentioned the idea of

having a referendum on Nato, he did not say that it would be happening

immediately. I think it was more to have a social opinion and also

showed to the Nato alliances, because before the Russian

aggression the support was about 16%, relatively low, but now after

the Russian aggression when the Ukrainians realise that we did not

have any more security guarantees, support for Nato is like 54%. This

is not about formal membership but we are asking for,. To give you an

example, Georgia had a referendum dedicated to Nato membership before

the Bucharest summit, and the idea was to show to Nato partners, look

what is the social support for the membership. Would you agree that

this is not a time in which Nato is likely to look very kindly on

Ukrainian membership? Again, we don't have any goal to ask for Nato

membership. I would like to confirm that even in the law stipulating

Ukrainian priorities of foreign policy it is a provision that we

will be seeking tighter cooperation with Nato according to Nato

standards. Again, no sentence about formal membership now. Aren't you

just prodding the bear with a big stick by doing this? You mean the

Russian Federation? Correct. I will respond in the way that for 23 years

all previous Ukrainian leaderships were trying to do everything not to

irritate Russians. We were so flexible. But now this policy of

appeasing Russia has already failed. They do believe that the politicians

they elected in order to implement the will of the population, if that

population would like to see sometime in the future Ukraine in

Nato, I think it should be implemented. Given that there are

already some doubts among existing Nato members, particularly in the

Baltic states and some of the East European countries, some doubts

about America's commitment under Mr Trump to enforce Nato obligations,

particularly the famous article five to help someone else who is another

member who is invaded, it's unlikely that a Trump administration is going

to jump to add Ukraine under the nuclear and Nato umbrella?

We're not speaking about formal membership. Is what is the point of

the referendum? As I mentioned, we're not speaking about an

immediate referendum, so not this year or next year, maybe sometime in

the future and again, the idea is more to show support for Nato

membership in the future. This referendum, it will be organised by

the government? It will be an official referendum, not just a big

opinion poll? You can't do that in the east, can you? You could not

have voting in East Ukraine. Of course we can organise voting in the

east of Ukraine and according, like, we can organise because we have a

special law on Ukrainian referendums. I don't see any major

problem. Wouldn't they just blow up the ballot boxes? It is kind of laws

in the east at the moment. Again, it's too premature to speak about

such details. This is a general idea, to have at some point

referendum. So we don't have a timing? Absolutely no timing at all.

What do you make of this? It underlines the anxiety out

thereabout the balance of power in the world and the influence of Trump

and the vulnerabilities of those countries that are in Russiawe all

wait to see how Donald Trump will play this. Indeed, we will. Whatever

the referendum result, you could be guaranteed, I'm sorry to say at the

moment, Nato will not touch Ukraine's desires with the

proverbial stick simply because if they accept Ukraine, you immediately

have a hot war with Russia under article five and Nato will have to

go to war and repel Russia from eastern Ukraine. There is a view and

you will be familiar with it, Ambassador, that has grown in recent

years in Western Europe and even the US that in the aftermath of the

collapse of the Soviet Union, Nato and the European Union word too keen

to push their influence eastwards, too keen to involve the Eastern

European states and the Ukraine and Georgia and so on, and that provoked

the Russians to begin to take stronger action because they regard

this as their near abroad and here was the West, pushing into what they

regarded as their sphere of influence. That is why any

possibility of Nato membership for the foreseeable future, I would

suggest, is unlikely. Yes, but I have just the opposite view. I think

that Ukraine, just on the... It was miscalculated and badly valued by

the EU and Nato, so the idea not to charge the east of Ukraine,

daughter, like the Bucharest summit showed that the West was trying to

do everything also, like not to irritate Russia, not to do some

resolute steps in order to provoke them and now without this

provocation, without any clear commitments to Ukraine, for formal

membership in the EU or Nato, still again we have a war in Ukraine,

provoked by the Russian Federation. And it's getting worse. It is, as

you mentioned, in your introduction, we have a city on the edge of

humanitarian crisis, Avdiivka. -18 people don't have electricity, or

heating. And 2000 children who have already been evacuated. Ambassador,

thank you for coming in today. An issue that's slightly closer

to home for some of us is the long-running dispute

between Southern Railway The issue at hand was Southern's

plans to transfer the power to open and close train doors from the train

guards to the drivers. Yesterday came a breakthrough -

the drivers's union Aslef agreed Yesterday came a breakthrough -

the drivers' union Aslef agreed But the RMT, which represents

the train guards, has yet to make up And today, Southern's

parent company, GTR, has offered to hold more talks

with the RMT in an effort to end the longest-running rail dispute

since privatisation. Here is the boss of Aslef speaking

yesterday. It is about safety and it is about

when people write changes, because we have to remember,

at the heart of this is the government and the DFT,

who wrote changes into the invitation to tender

that the company were then forced to put in place that put us at odds

with the industry. We would hope this sends a message

to everybody, every stakeholder, about what we are willing to do,

how we are willing to engage. We want to engage productively

and proactively but if people treat Let's speak now to our transport

correspondent Richard Westcott I mentioned in an earlier interview,

I had been a Northern Ireland correspondent but after that, I

became an industrial correspondent! I can't remember in my day... There

were strikes every day, it was the 1970s but I can never remember a

dispute where you do a deal and you tell the media there is a deal but

you haven't actually done a deal with the union to which the people

at the centre of the dispute are members. Can you explain it? It is

slightly bizarre but they have always dealt with Aslef and the RMT

separately and as I understand it, Aslef are not particularly opposed

to that idea either. Effectively, they had some talks a few months ago

and the RMT leader turned up and then kind of got turned away at the

door so there was a bit of showboating there as well. Those

were ACAS talks earlier. The company has always said it wants to deal

with the union separately even though they are talking about the

same issue. Critically, of course, they want to get the deal with the

drivers done because it is more important, really, than getting the

RMT conductors deal done because when the drivers go on strike,

everything stops. That is when you get the TV pictures of every single

Southern train stuck in the sidings or at Brighton, not moving, but when

the conductors go on strike, especially with recent changes that

have come in since January, around 30% of services. So it is much less

devastating to actual services. They wanted to get the drivers out of the

way. I suspect they thought they were easier to deal with, because

Aslef is easier to deal with than the RMT. And it takes away some of

the sting from the RMT action. They are being left a bit sidelined and

frozen out by the deal. If the deal is done with Aslef, but not with the

drivers, and not with the current guards who are responsible for the

doors, if they go on strike again because they haven't done deal, will

the drivers still drive the trains? It is a bit of a wait and see, who

will cross the picket line but the suggestion if they will, almost of

the Wilson you are not going to get those devastating strikes like we

got last time. -- or most of them will so you are not. We had an Aslef

strike last month and around 70% of services ran. The changes have

already happened. The guards are not guards any more, they are now called

on board supervises and they are doing the job that Southern wanted,

they have signed new contracts to say they are on-board supervisors

now so they don't have that kind of safety critical role where a train

cannot move unless there are two of them on the train. It has all kind

of happened already and they have signed the contracts but the RMT are

still in dispute because they were not part of the deal. And they are

looking to spread it around the country as well, this is not going

to just be an issue on Southern. Yes, I know it has implications for

other parts of the country. Finally, is there now bad blood between Aslef

and the RMT? It's a good question and they would tell me outright, but

the impression I get purely from talking to people is that perhaps

Aslef don't find it as easy to negotiate with the RMT in the room.

That is just my impression, no one has said it to me but I don't get

the impression that the two leaders particularly get on well all will

work together as a team on this. The two unions signed an accord in

November 2015, I think, together, saying they were opposed to driver

only trains. They were working together for that may have been

openly and outwardly supportive of each other in the media over the

issue. I don't get the impression they particularly enjoy negotiating

in the same room together, just my impression, though. Interesting, we

will keep an on that. Thank you for that.

If the drivers are prepared to drive the trains and they have done the

deal for that, we could be in the very unusual position in which the

RMT is actually going to lose an industrial dispute. I don't remember

that happening in modern times. It looks like a classic management

tactic of splitting the unions, doesn't it? It sounds as though the

RMT's Leverett will be considerably reduced because their strikes cannot

bring the network to a halt. We don't know precisely the details of

the deal that has been done. I was struck by the look of its operation

on the face of Francis O'Grady, the Secretary General of the TUC, and

she stood outside yesterday, having had to bang their heads together of

the various participants in the dispute. But it looks as though the

RMT's bargaining power has been significantly reduced. Quite a turn

of events if it is the case. Add your final question of if they're

bad blood between Aslef and the RMT, I'm not an industrial relations

expert but I think there probably is now. What do you think? If there

wasn't before, I'm pretty sure there is now. We will see what happens and

if the dispute is coming to an end or if it still has some mileage in

it because it will set the template for a lot of other deals up and down

the country involving drivers and -- driverless trains. No, that is the

next one. Driverless trains is about 20 years' time! I got ahead of

myself in the technology. It is coming. I didn't say it wasn't.

There's trouble brewing down the pub as the Dutch brewer Heineken

makes a bid to take over 1900 pubs owned by the UK pub

But some of Punch Taverns' current tenants aren't happy

They say Heineken may force them to sell products that don't

suit their customers, and they're worried it

Malachy Keane runs The Star pub in Harrow, and is one of the tenants

# There's a tear in my beer Cos I'm crying for you, dear...#.

The pub industry is looking at a big change.

The Dutch brewer Heineken is trying to buy Punch Taverns, and a

lot of people are worried about what this means

I lease my pub from Punch Taverns and I'm worried about this deal.

Heineken already own over 1000 pubs in the UK and if this deal goes

They would be the third-largest pub company in the UK.

And they like their pubs to sell their drinks.

In the pubs they already own, up to 85% of what is on

The most successful pubs usually have the freedom

We have seen customers drink more craft beer and cask ale.

How can we compete when we are not allowed to serve

The bottom line is, I could be forced to sell Heineken brands no

matter what my customers want to drink.

It will limit choice for our regulars and I'm worried

We need the government's pub regulator to stop Heineken forcing

# I'm going to keep drinking until I can't move at all...#.

In less than three weeks, Punch Taverns' shareholders

will decide whether or not to take Heineken's offer.

I've seen many landlords walk away in the 15 years that

If tenants like me are forced to sell products that their customers

don't want, this could be the final straw for many of us.

This isn't just about what's on tap.

It's about a deal that could be another nail in the coffin

And Malachy Keane joins us in the studio.

We asked Heineken if they would like to participate

Maybe even bring a few free samples...

But they weren't able to be with us today because of restrictions placed

They did, however, send us a statement acknowledging that some

They added: "As soon as those restrictions are lifted

after completion of the deal, our priority will be to engage

with licensees and build strong relationships".

So, they also said that they want to have the right drinks on offer to

suit the specific needs of each pub. Doesn't that give you some comfort?

Not really. I think there's a lot of licensees like myself, the biggest

thing is we need clarification from the pub code adjudicator, Paul

Newby. This is an issue, fairly binary. A regulatory issue? Yes, and

the new pub code adjudicator has failed to adjudicate, to do his job.

There are other binary issues as well, which we have asked him, and I

myself have a review moving forward on another issue, just to clarify

the issues and he failed to do it. Have Heineken given people like you

any indication of what their modus operandi would be, what their

attitude would be towards the mix of their own products and third-party

products and the freedoms you would have? I think we have to look at the

bars and pubs model as it stands today. 85% stocking requirements of

their own brands. If you were to put that into the Punch model as it

stands, it would mean a lot of other brands, especially craft ale, craft

lagers and cask ale, which would be taken away. It is a customer choice

issue. Just at the moment, you are under the ownership, you have a

lease from Punch Taverns. What products do they have that they

force you to sell? Because they are not a brewer, they are a pub

company, the amount of products you can get from them is very wide. So

it changes when you end up being owned... By a brewery. Wheeze to

call it vertical integration at university, where you have a

supplier who now is the retail outlet. -- we used to call it. In

regulatory law, traditionally, the monopolies commission 's and such

have been hostile to that kind of arrangement. Yes. I presume your

worry is that this deal might be done and it's only afterwards that

you find out what the real terms are because you are getting no

indication at the moment? Yes, it is a binary issue. If Paul Newby has

not stepped up to the mark, we have seen this week Greene King have

approached... Leave the pub regulator, that regulates this? This

is not a new issue. The whole issue of the tied house and the freedom

that the tied house has the products it sells is a long-running issue in

your industry. If we look at it in context of the

new pub code. The market only rent code which came in last July, we

look at it in that context, so we have do effectively within the

framework of law we have now, it should be adjudicated over. I can

understand the apprehension that this could happen and it's only

afterwards that you find out what is really going to go on, but you would

assume that Heineken are rational and they are in for revenue and

profit maximisation and that they would listen to the people that have

the leasing on their advice as to what would produce that are not just

say, you can't sell that, you have do sell this. They RA brewer and

they want to sell the brands they produce. If they want maximisation,

they will be the products they want to sell. But if people don't like

this, and they leave the pub, they won't sell anything. I think the pub

itself will change. The type of operation we run would be changed

incredibly. It's a fascinating issue. What is your view? I was

struck by hearing this tragic state of affairs. This appears to me right

for some Theresa May interventionism. Standing up to the

little guy against the market which appears to be ever more rail

against. To Reza, come on in. I think that is right, people want

their local pub to be distinctive and it is part of the character of

an area and people feel strongly attached. They also feel a lot of

them have become less distinctive. Yes, big corporate brands, it is all

we see. If we look at the individual nature of successful pubs they have

more choice. The individual operator will put his own stamp on it, but if

we make them corporate bodies, exactly the same on every street

corner then pubs will take another hit. You are about to get whacked by

business rates. That business rates review coming up in April. Another

job for blue-collar Theresa May. Is it 3000 pubs in the chain? Yes, if

it goes ahead. And the timing? The integration looks like, and it does

take a while, Punch Taverns will oversee the integration so maybe a

year or a year and a half. And it will be interesting to see if there

is intervention on the monopolies side to see of Heineken will still

go for it. It would just go to show that what they are after is shelf

space and bar space. They wanted the tied house. We shall keep an eye on

that. Thank you for your opinion today.

Now as you know, here on the Daily Politics

we like to think we help you tell the signal from the noise.

But with the government, think tanks and charities

all claiming to have the definitive facts and figures on a particular

issue, it can be difficult to know who to trust.

Take the cost of a big infrastructure project, for example.

On Tuesday's programme, the Conservative MP

Antoinette Sandbach cited a figure on how much HS2 -

train line from London to the north of England -

But Labour peer Andrew Adonis took issue with the number

It's not fair to say that the costs have

What has happened is that big adjustments

So what is the cost, now, do you think,

Well, the Institute of Economic Affairs...

And the Department for Transport themselves estimate it at 55

The IEA is not an unbiased observer, I

And we're joined now by Mark Littlewood, director

of the very same Institute of Economic Affairs.

It is a free market think tank, so we know it is not unbiased. I do

come from a particular angle. Let's not spend too much time on that. Let

me ask you the, what is your estimate or the estimate from the

Institute of the cost of HS2? She was wrong what she said. We had not

gone as high at 100 billion. The best guess is around 80 billion or

slightly higher. It is a forecast and it is based on the typical

overrun of similar infrastructure projects in the past. You assume an

element of overrun? Yes, historically that is what has

happened and it is a prediction. Does that 80 billion, it gets us to

Birmingham, but does it get us to Manchester and also to Leeds? It

should do. What we have seen is a whole range of additional things to

get towns to be ready for HS2. We think there are a lot of off-balance

sheet liabilities on HS2 that the government don't attach to the

figures. The government number has already gone up to 55 billion and

they have accepted the cost was higher than initially. This is part

and parcel for major government infrastructure projects. It's

extremely rare to see one, in time and on budget. HS2 is almost totally

publicly funded as a project. Does that mean that given that you come

from a free-market perspective that you are almost automatically biased

against such projects. I wouldn't say biased, but sceptical. We have

never argued that the state should spend no money, but we would say

prima face, the starting point would be, if the private sector is not

willing to invest in HS2 that has to raise questions. We know the private

sector is willing to invest in airport expansion. You can take all

sorts of views about whether that's necessary and the environmental

impact, but that private money is there. But there still needs to be

state money for infrastructure. In Heathrow there is. That would be a

good test of viability. Is there anywhere where the private sector

has built high-speed trains? Not to my knowledge. Our high-speed trains

a good thing question one of the criticism is that once it comes

online is that it looks like futuristic now, and we could be

driving around in driverless cars, so I don't start from the

presumption that high-speed rail is of itself a good thing. There is

always a mixture in infrastructure spending and in recent years it's

gone more your way and there is more private money that has become

involved in infrastructure spending. But even in the purest of states

that the IEA would approve of, like Singapore, there is big government

infrastructure spending there. Surely the job of government is to

provide an infrastructure that allows the market to operate more

efficiently? One of the things you can look in there at, if you have

the government invested in road schemes, even if it is state and

taxpayer money being spent, how can you market Isaac with things like

tollbooths? We have a lovely congestion charge, so the idea is

that those who use for it pay for it. It's not a pure free-market

system but it introduces the price mechanism. One of the dangers of HS2

and other ground projects is there is another temptation for

politicians to invest in legacy schemes. If you're going to spend

money, maybe spend it on 200 schemes that won't be as headline grabbing

and won't last the generations but will probably do more to actually

ease up congestion and Sellotape the economy. Prime ministers do love the

grand projects. They do, and there is a reason there is research by IEA

and other places that site smaller projects Cutting commuter time in

the North might help the economy more. But on the broader subject of

public money, the reasonable need to be tax payers money if it's

worthwhile doing is that the benefits of doing it might be felt

more broadly than you would get. If it improves the economy on whether

it is Manchester, Birmingham or whatever, that is more broadly felt

from the people who travel on it or build it. Rather than 80 billion on

HS2, I would settle for 8 million on better Wi-Fi on the existing trains.

I can be highly productive on the phone on those. What people have

concentrated far too much on with HS2 is speed and not capacity. We

are in desperate need of another train line and more capacity. They

concentrated on speed because that was the original argument of the

Department for Transport. That was a mistake. They miss sold HS2 from the

get go. They are going to change the name. -- they are not going to.

Where would you spend public money? There is a role for the welfare

state and the safety net. I don't want to live in a society weather

summary through accident or even poor slips to the bottom. -- where

somebody. You mention Singapore, different culture and country and

has a different history, but the state should properly account for

25% of national income, not 45% which is the rate. That would be a

huge change. America doesn't come close to that. Singapore and Hong

Kong would be the standout examples. I'm a patient man, I will wait a

generation, but you are right, it would be a good change. You might

have a long wait on HS2. The news this week has been

dominated by just two stories - Like the week before, the week

before that and next week and the week after.

So much so that journalists like Tom and Heather here can't

wait for the weekend - when they can just zone out.

But before we let them clock off, here's Mark Lobel's look

On Monday, the fallout from Donald Trump's

temporary travel ban led to

With a petition calling for Donald Trump's state

visit to be cancelled, Jeremy Corbyn quizzed

Theresa May on the issue of

at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday, but got this reply.

He can lead a protest, I'm leading a country.

Later that day, MPs overwhelmingly backed the first stage of the EU

divorce bill that will allow Theresa May to get Brexit

The government published its long-awaited Brexit White Paper on

Plans for exiting the European Union.

And back across the pond, Donald Trump mocks Arnold

Schwarzenegger's ratings as his successor

on The Apprentice, but the

He wants to be Donald Duck? No, that's a different Donnal. You were

the man who got to answer the second question at the White House. What

was it like? Scary. You had a funny feeling that 200 million Americans

might be watching at the same time and it was very nerve wracking but I

was amazed by how brittle the ego of the man is. All I asked was, you are

a bit different, Theresa May is a hard-working vicar's daughter and he

is a brash TV star, and he didn't like that. Did the American press

corps take it that that is how you ask questions? There was a sharp

intake of breath and quite a lot of people standing up. People standing

up as Theresa May came into the room which the British press certainly

don't do. They stand because he is head of State.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question is, according to newspaper reports,

Jack Straw try to take off air in the 1990s?

Was it a) The Word, b) Brass Eye, c) The Midnight Hour with yours truly

Larry King live, he wanted. I think it is probably Eurotrash. Apparently

his kid was watching it and he did not like it. That is the M4 today.

-- the end for today. The one o'clock news

is starting over on BBC1 now. I'll be back on Sunday

with the Sunday Politics. I'm introducing a 20-minute

time limit to antenatal calls.