07/11/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

International Development Secretary,

Priti Patel, admits that she did

have secret meetings

with the Israeli government and -

despite what she said last week -

the Foreign Office didn't

know about it.

Is she fit to be a cabinet minister?

Boris Johnson speaks

to the Iranian Foreign Minister

after commenting on the case

of a British Citizen who's

been detained in Iran.

Has his gaffe landed her another

five years in jail?

It's twelve months since

the American public did what most

pundits had thought impossible

in electing a billionaire reality TV

star, but has Donald Trump lived up

to their low expectations

of his Presidency?

And could chimps make better

politicians than human beings?

All that coming up in the next hour.

First today, let's look

at the trouble piling up

for Theresa May as threats

to her Government emerge

from all directions.

The Prime Minister had to remind

International Development Secretary

Priti Patel of the "ministerial

code" yesterday after it was

revealed that Patel held secret

meetings with Israeli

officials, including

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,

without the PM or the Foreign

Office's knowledge.

Boris Johnson's latest verbal

blunder has been used by the Iranian

authorities to justify potentially

doubling a British

woman's prison sentence.

And Theresa May's de facto deputy,

Damian Green, has denied allegations

he had "extreme" pornography

on an office computer -

the Cabinet Office is investigating.

To, add to the PM's woes, things

aren't much better in the Commons.

The Speaker has set the Government

a deadline of tonight to publish

the Brexit impact assessments -

a series of 58 official reports

on the impact of Brexit

on Britain's economy,

which the Government had

sought to keep secret.

Amid mounting sexual harassment

claims, Commons Leader,

Andrea Leadsom is now under fire

after being accused

of failing to act on a rape

allegation by a Tory aide.

Last night the Prime Minister

announced an independent grievance

procedure for MPs' staff.

If all parties agree that should be

in place by next year.

We're joined now by the journalists

Isabel Oakeshott and Lucy

Fisher of the Times.

Welcome to both of you. Let's start

with the International Development

Secretary, Priti Patel. How much

trouble is she in 1234

in What she

has done is serious. She has been

carrying out a parallel foreign

diplomacy mission, but she has been

less than truthful with her account

of what happened. She finally

admitted that the Foreign Office

didn't know before she went off on

her holiday that she was going to

have multiple meetings with Israeli

officials. She was less than

truthful about how many of those

meetings took place and this had to

be Whittled out of her. I think her

position is tenuous at the moment.

The Foreign Secretary has obviously

been put in a difficult position by

this. She is at the moment being

saved by the fact that Theresa May

has so many other crisis going on.

Is it enough, having listened to

what Isabelle has said, is it enough

to remind the International

Development Secretary of the

ministerial code. You would have

thought that would have been

blindingly obvious in terms of this,

having 12 meetings that no one knew

about. Should she resign or be

sacked.

There will be more pressure

on her today. It is a an enormous

humiliation for the Prime Minister.

Because she met the Israeli Prime

Minister last week and didn't know

her minister has been conducting

secret meetings with him. There are

questions about the ministerial

code, if it can't be shown, said to

be the case that Priti Patel broke

it by going abroad and having these

meetings, but an MP Mark Garnier has

been accused of breaking it over

asking his Secretary to buy sex toys

when he was a backbencher.

At the

moment she is still in post. Now the

foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson and

his comments he made, because he

claims that humour is important in

diplomacy, but this is serious,

concerning a British citizen who is

at the moment in jail in Iran,

accused of spreading propaganda.

Have impact have his comments made.

It is a sense of humour failure on

the part of voters that he had such

a poor grasp of detail that he made

comments that meant this poor woman

who has been incarcerated in Iran on

a flimsy basis, he said she had been

training journalists. That is not

what he said or her employers argued

and now she could have her sentence

doubled. It is a travesty she is in

jail and I'm amazed there has not

been more fuss about it. When you

look at the details as I have, I

thought it was incredible that the

Government wasn't making more of a

song and dance of it and now the

Foreign Secretary has made her

position worse.

He is going to be

standing up in Parliament in a few

hours, Boris Johnson, and he has

already said that he doesn't want

his comments to a Commons committee

to provide any basis for further

legal action against Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe. He accepts he

could have been clearer when he made

the comments about her teaching

journalism in the Foreign Affairs

Committee. Will that be enough?

I

don't think so. The woman's husband

has made clear he should retract the

comments. We know there are serve

MPs who have stayed back --

Conservative MPs who have stayed

back. So far people have been

concerned that the case could turn

into more of a political football

and they don't want to put this

woman on further risk. She is on

hunger strike and suicidal and

Boris's comments saying he could

have been clearer, that is not good

enough. What does it say about the

state of Theresa May's Government.

You asked if chimps could make

better politicians, what a shower! I

have never seen anything like what

we are witnessing at the moment. We

have multiple scandals going on,

some more serious than others. But

all in parallel at the same time as

this government ought to be

completely focussed on its main

task, which is delivering Brexit,

which is quite enough to be getting

on with without these cock ups.

Is

it now impossible for Theresa May to

sack leading members of her cabinet,

because of the fragile situation

that the Government finds itself n

because it is a minority government

and Michael Fallon resigned and

stood down and one of her other

allies is being investigated, that

is the reason?

I think that probably

is the reason. If she can't sack

Priti Patel and Boris Johnson, it is

difficult to see in what other

position, whales it would take for

her to move. As one of her key

lieutenants, Michael Fallon,

quitting the cabinet, Damian Green

being investigated, I think next on

the sleaze allegations there will be

questions for Gavin Williamson about

what he knew when he was Chief Whip.

And finally on that, yesterday's

announcement of an independent

grievance procedure for staff, will

that be sufficient to deal with this

behaviour?

I think it is enough for

now. It is difficult to regular this

and many of the allegations we have

seen haven't concerned the

relationship between MPs and their

staff, they have been about MPs

interance with journalists and it is

a good start and we have to see how

it evolves.

Thank you both very

much. Not much for you chew over for

the next few days.

Now, the Government has

published its trade bill -

it's one of nine pieces

of new legislation in the pipeline

to prepare the ground for Brexit.

Ministers say it includes provisions

for the UK to implement existing EU

trade agreements and help ensure

firms can still access

£1.3 trillion worth

of foreign government contracts.

Let's speak to the International

Trade Minister, Greg Hands.

Welcome to the programme. The

legislation is to allow the

replication of EU trade deals into

UK law. Can you guarantee those

countries would agree to trade with

the UK on the same terms as the EU.

We are talking about two things.

First the existing EU free trade

agreements, that the UK is seeking

to transition to become UK free

trade agreements and a debate about

what future UK free trade agreements

may look like. With the first set,

what we have done is we have spoken

with all the leading counter parties

of those agreements, they're keep

for us to do this and make sure

there is continuity for businesses

in the UK and those key trading

partners. There is others there,

important trading partners. It is

about ensuring continuity for

business.

I understand that. Which

is why we have set it out. But can

you guarantee it. When Liam Fox

appeared before the committee, the

select committee, he said he has

hadn't received any indication that

the country want to change the

agreement, but he said we haven't

got an agreement. So you can't

guarantee it.

We have spoken with

all the counter parties. All of them

are keen to do this.

Being keen...

Isn't guaranteeing.

It is in our

interests and their interest to do

this process. I'm travelling and

meeting these different countries,

Liam Fox is, Mark Price did, meeting

the countries, making sure we have

that capability.

You can't negotiate

these deals and sign up to them

until after the UK leaves the EU?

These are deals the UK are already

party to, it is about transitions

them from EU deals to UK deals and

the power that is in the trade bill.

The Commons Secretary said

continuing passporting of financial

services and GM standards and

chlorine-washed chicks could be

problems. Will the Government give

way on these?

He said the US and UK

trade deal is important. But nothing

in any free trade agreement

preventing any country from having

the right to regulate the right to

make provisions in its own domestic

market as would affect all of those

things, financial services,

agricultural goods and so on. The UK

has the best standards on financial

service and animal welfare and some

of the best standards on food

safety. The UK, those standards

won't be weakened by any agreements.

Now issues in the cabinet, Boris

Johnson, the Foreign Secretary,

accepts he could have been clearer

when he told the Foreign Affairs

Committee that the British woman,

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, had been

training journalists in Iran at the

time of her arrest. Those comments

may risk her sentence being doubled

from five to ten years. Does he need

to come to Parliament, stand up and

say he made a mistake and apologise?

The most important thing is to get

Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe released.

This won't help.

Well actually,

Boris Johnson has been on the phone

to hissist Iranian counter part,

talk about that. That is...

Because

of the comments that could risk her

staying in jail longer.

He is trying

to make sure that she is released.

That is the most important thing for

the UK Government do.

No one

disputes that, should he apologise

and retract the comments.

Boris will

appear at the House of Commons and

we will have to see what he will

say.

Would you like him to say?

I

would like him to say things about

the progress in getting Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe released. That is

the most important thing is in this

case.

The most helpful thing and I will

say it again is to engage with the

Arabian authorities, in this case

Boris Johnson with uranium Foreign

Minister am talking about how we're

going to get Mrs Ratcliffe released.

That's the most important thing.

Thank you.

We're joined now for the rest

of the programme by the former Work

and Pensions Secretary,

Iain Duncan Smith.

Welcome to the programme.

Welcome to the programme.

Also here is the Shadow

International Trade Secretary,

Barry Gardiner.

Welcome to you two. We are going to

talk about trade and then I will

talk to about some of the issues in

the let's talk about the trade deal

I talked about at the beginning.

Doesn't this bill do what you want?

You get to keep the trade deals

through EU membership whilst also

leaving the EU?

Obviously, if we are

going to be leaving the EU, which we

are, and taking back control of our

trade policy, we need to ensure that

Parliament has the capacity to

properly scrutinise any trade

agreements that we enter into. Now,

our concerns about this bill are

around that scrutiny. I have said

that we will judge the bill on the

basis of whether it insists upon a

full parliamentary debate and vote

on the terms of any trade agreement,

whether there is a mandate set by

Parliament for those negotiations,

whether there is full transparency

about the text of the negotiations

and of the agreement. This is a

Government which has a reputation,

not just a reputation but actually

has actively tried to ensure that

Parliament does not have access and

does not have full time is barren

sea to trade negotiations.

Would you

have a problem with any of that,

Iain Duncan Smith?

The Government

are very happy for Parliament to

have a vote but first of all that

love an arrangement with EU to bring

before Parliament to say this is

what we have agreed, them and us.

The EU also asked to go through a

process of Parliament and about 27

other parliaments, so we got to get

this done in time. What we can't

have, however, and I understand the

opposition want to be in the

negotiations as well, but...

Some of

your own side as well.

Agreed, but

you can't have 600 MPs basically at

the negotiation table. The

Government has to get the best

arrangement possible, come back to

the House of Commons, and Parliament

can say whether they agree it's a

good deal or not. If they don't, you

know, the EU could turn around and

say that's all that's on the table,

I'm afraid.

He has misunderstood

what the trade bill is doing. The

trade bill is not simply about the

negotiations with the EU, about...

I

was only talking about that.

The

trade bill which is what Joel asked

about is about how Parliament should

be scrutinised going forward with

all its trade and investment

agreements. There we have some

really significant concerns about

the level of consultation, the level

of mandate and the scrutiny

available to Parliament. At the

moment, we have an EU scrutiny

committee which Ian, as someone who

has previously championed

Parliamentary democracy, will want

to see that scrutiny committee

powers transferred to a new

committee to oversee all

international trade agreements.

Are

you happy for each and every trade

deal the UK does once it has left

the EU, that that should be

scrutinised by Parliament?

Absolutely right. That's what the

role of Parliament is and the

structures are there already for it

to be done. I don't think there has

to be a separate group. Is already a

select committee which looks at

trade and I think the key thing is

to make sure that what happens is

Parliament gets a chance to look in

detail what is happening... Each

trade deal? Yes Parliament to have a

say.

I'm delighted he agrees. The

problem is in the trade policy White

Paper the Government has set out, if

you look at the bottom of page 28 on

that, it says we want to make

provision for a legislative

framework to enable future trade

agreements to move quickly from

signing to implementation and

ratification, which would appear to

want to bypass Parliament, as the

Government did with the agreement

where I had to assist for ten months

before we got a special secret room

set up for MPs to look at the text.

You are being a bit overly harsh on

this. I understand why.

They did

have to go to court to get Article

50 seen.

This issue is about what

the Government wants. Jamaica trade

arrangement, you want to get that

ratified as speedily as possible but

the question is, how you get it done

is important that you make a trade

agreement. The former Parliament

should be, the certain assumption

they also need to go about it as

quickly as possible. Not

deliberately dragged their feet.

That's the point of the whole bill,

which makes provision for that and

you should not over read the idea

about speed. It's not a bad thing

sometimes.

Should those 58

assessments on the effects of Brexit

on British industry be released

today?

I've never had a problem with

the details of this being released

at all because my general view is

almost everything in there is

already in the public domain.

You

can look forward to those later on?

They have to share with a select

committee.

Jo, that would be

wonderful but the Government has

refused to allow those impact

assessments on the different

sectors, how they will be affected

by Brexit, four months. We had to

introduce a motion to Parliament

last Wednesday which had an arcane

parliamentary procedure in it to

force the Government to reveal their

hand. David Davis should release

those today. He should have done it.

Months ago.

The way to do it is to

work out how the select committee

can share that information.

The idea

is to go to Hilary Benn for this.

Now let's move onto the other

story we've been talking

about this morning -

that's the rebuke for

International Development Secretary,

Priti Patel, over meetings

with the Israeli government,

including Prime Minister,

Benjamin Nethanyahu,

whilst on holiday in the summer.

Last night her department was forced

to issue a clarification

of comments she made last week.

On Friday 3rd November,

Priti Patel was quoted

in the Guardian newspaper

as follows:

However, in yesterday's statement,

the department conceeded:

In the Guardian article,

Ms Patel went on to say:

But the statement from

the department said:

Should she still be a Secretary of

State and a member of the British

Government, Iain Duncan Smith?

Yes,

but the lesson to learn here is that

if she has gone out and had these

other meetings, of course, the

Foreign Office should have known

about them. It would have been

useful for her to be accompanied on

them but the reality now is, instead

of dealing with one little bit of

it, a clearer statement should be

made at the time but I don't think,

let's get this in perspective, this

is a friendly nation. We are not

meeting in secret over something.

What is the point of the ministerial

code?

What do you mean?

It stays

there should not be a conflict of

interest between business and

pleasure in this regard, that you

have to inform the relevant

authorities and any meetings with a

foreign power, Israel falling into

that category, and the Prime

Minister and the Foreign Secretary

didn't know that the International

Development Secretary was going to

meet the Prime Minister of Israel

and held a series of meetings to

which she has then had to clarify.

Did she lie when she put out her

first statement?

No, she's had these

meetings, I assume not meetings

originally scheduled and, having had

these meetings, she is then

informing Boris Johnson what

happened.

Is that in breach of the

ministerial code?

The code should be

interpreted as informing them in

advance but that's the whole point

of having yourself accompanied, but

they may not been planned as and

came later on. Most importantly,

though, the content of those

meetings is passed back to the

Foreign Office and the Government so

they are clear and aware of what was

talked about.

But they were not, and

this is about breaching important

protocol. She said Boris knew about

the visit. The Foreign Office did

know about this, Boris knew about

the trip. Why has she had to clarify

that?

Clearly he did not know in

advance.

But she said he did. Has

she lied?

I don't know what was in

her mind when she said it. As I

understand it, he was made aware of

it and what actually took place in

those meetings but not in advance.

Are you satisfied with that?

This

Government has a problem with

transparency and clarity. It is

clear she should have inform the

Foreign Secretary before she went

but you did not. There would appear

to be a breach of the ministerial

code and she has now misled the

Prime Minister and the Foreign

Secretary and the public. Of course

this must now be investigated. Iain

Duncan Smith says maybe they were

arranged while she was out there,

these visits, but the idea the Prime

Minister of any country just here to

happen to be visiting on holiday on

some beach somewhere and says why

not pop along frock off the? You

really do need to take this

seriously -- why not pop in for a

copy? Don't pretend to the public

that this is anything other than a

serious breach.

The Cabinet

Secretary will have looked at this

and decided as a result of the Prime

Minister's request as to whether or

not there has been a breach and

whether or not it create any

particular...

The Cabinet Secretary

needs to be asked to do that by the

Prime Minister. Excuse me. Let me

finish.

I did not interrupt you.

Let

Ian respond.

You are playing silly

games. What is ready important is

what was discussed at those meetings

and that information is passed to

the Government and the Government

therefore knows any obligations that

were made if they were official. The

answer is the Government knows about

this. It quite clear therefore, if

she had not informed them before,

that was incorrect. It's been

admitted and accepted and the Prime

Minister has reprimanded therefore

that.

You feel that is enough?

Yes,

because it's not a deliberate

attempt to subvert Government

policy.

Deliberately misusing the

code. We don't know yet, do we?

That's why we need an investigation.

You think Priti Patel is not done

enough to result in their

resignation or her sacking by the

Prime Minister although an

investigation will be taking place

into whether she has bridged the

ministerial code. Let's talk about

Boris Johnson. Do you think his

behaviour as Foreign Secretary is

acceptable when he makes mistakes

over the future of a British citizen

who was imprisoned in Iran by saying

she was out there doing something

she was not?

It's a complete error

as I understand it. I don't know why

he would've said that. I wasn't at

the meeting, and I've only read the

transcript of it. My genuine sense

is he recognises now that that was

an error of judgment.

He hasn't said

that. He said he would clarify his

comments and has not said it was a

mistake.

He's been clear he did not

intend to say what he said. I don't

know why you said it. Sometimes

briefings you get, which are

confused etc, may be he got

confused.

Is he up to the job if he

can make that sort of error when it

comes to the future of a British

citizen? This is a woman in jail who

went to visit her family, has been

imprisoned by the rainy authorities,

the story has had north a lot of

coverage, it's not as if Boris

Johnson wouldn't have known about

the detail. Should he have been

across the detail, otherwise he may

made comments which could result in

her imprisonment being doubled to

ten years -- it rainier in?

There's

never excuse not getting something

right. -- Iranians are.

His wife is being held and we want

are released fourth of the most

important feature of this is the

Government puts its resources behind

getting her released and not having

a sentence increased.

You sell

yourself, it's an error, these

things have not helped the situation

of this woman. Can he as Foreign

Secretary?

Yes, new speaking

directly to the Iranian

counterparts, and he wants to make

it clear to them that the UK

Government believes that she was out

of their not for any particular

purpose other than a holiday to see

family and that is why she should be

released right now. They have no

right to hold her.

Your Brexiteer

colleagues in the Cabinet seem to be

struggling with their positions.

No

more than anybody else. I do think

Brexit is anything to do with it,

only the fact that when Boris

Johnson made a statement about this,

he is very clear that this was not a

correct statement and he has tried

to get the Iranian 's, which he has

done, to explain that is not what

the Government's position is and he

has explained we want her released.

The most important thing is to get

released at once.

Barry Gardner?

UK

Foreign Secretary should have the

confidence and competence and

capacity to way their remarks

carefully judiciously. Boris Johnson

clearly does not. He should publicly

retract the remarks. He should

apologise for them. And I know very

well, as does Ian, what Lord

Carrington would've done in such

circumstances. He should resign.

Should he resign?

Yes.

Labour says

he should resign. What do you say.

Labour call for even to resign. They

want to cause mayhem.

Do you accept

Boris Johnson has form for this. Is

this the man you want running our

foreign policy?

There is a lot of

good things that Boris is doing and

a lot of good stuff about going

around the world getting a higher

profile for the UK and presenting

our case for leaving the EU. A lot

of Foreign Office officials say it

puts a new dimension into the job.

It is not as though in the last

Labour governments and Foreign

Secretaries and others haven't made

a mistake or said something they

shouldn't.

They retract it at the

dispatch box. He should do the same.

You called for him to resign

regardless of what he does. You need

to get your act together. If you

constantly call for someone to

resign every time, its you who loses

credibility, because you play games

over this lady's life. Her life is

very important and getting her back

is really important. That is the

focus of the Foreign Office and of

the Foreign Secretary. But calling

for him to resign just compounds the

issue in the eyes of Iranians. That

is a big mistake.

The best way to

help Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is

for him to retract these remarks

publicly. A private telephone

conversation to an Iranian minister,

this is a judicial process. A

private telephone conversation

cannot overturn that. He must

correct the record...

He will

stand... Hang on he will stand up in

Parliament in the next hour or so.

Thank you.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

It turns out our guest of the day

has a rather unusual collection.

So our question for

today is, what is it?

Is it...

Stamps.

Wallpaper.

Comics.

Or Fossils

At the end of the show Iain

will give us the correct answer.

Now, beyond Boris Johnson's current

woes, his leadership

of the Foreign Office has come under

fire, including from

many in his own party.

The flamboyant Foreign Secretary's

tenure comes as Britain's foreign

policy is under increased scrutiny

as Brexit approaches

and he and Prime Minister

try to define Britain's place

in the world outside

the European Union.

This film contains some flash

photography.

This is called

diplomacy.

It is going well. It is

going well, John, thank you. I would

like to see demonstrations outside

the Russian Embassy against... Where

it the stop Stop the War coalition

at the moment? Where are they? The

relationship based on family,

kinship and common interests. In a

further sign of the importance of

that relationship I have been able

to convey the Queen's hope that

President Trump and the first lady

will visit the UK and the president

has accepted that invitation.

Good diplomacy involves talking to

all sorts of people...

Sounds like a

yes.

I'm not going to...

Are you

aware?

The defining purpose of the UN

charter is to maintain peace and

security and develop friendly

relationships among nations and

maintain co-operation in solving

problems.

And we're joined now by the man

who was the most senior civil

servant in the Foreign Office,

Simon Fraser.

He's now with the business advisors,

Flint Global and he's making

a speech today about Britain's place

in the world after Brexit.

Welcome to the programme. Do you

think Britain's foreign influence is

already diminished due to Brexit?

Yes, I think Brexit in the

short-term has created uncertainty

and has weakened our voice and there

are a number of examples. But the

real issue is that in the long-term

Brexit will affect I think our

structural position in the world and

I don't think we are thinking

seriously enough about that, our

relationships with Europe, with the

United States, how we are going to

operate in international

organisations.

How worried are you?

I'm worried in the sense that I

think the Government should focus on

it and it is important that we have

sort of well thought through,

realistic and not simplistic

approaches.

Do you agree Britain's

position in the world has already

been diminished? ?

No, I'm more

optimistic about this. Some people

can be pessimistic. I think it opens

us up to be able to make

arrangements and hold much closer

ties with various other important

count rips around the world. We will

be able to hold closer ties with

Japan and some of our common wealth

nations who welt we had left them

behind. What I do agree is, it is

important to review carefully who we

believe are our allies and friends

around the world and make it very

clear that we will establish strong

links with those and with the

European Union too. It is not about

leaving Europe. It is just leaving

the EU.

You say in your speech it is

of importance that we remain

committed to a co-operation of a

world. Why can't we do that outside

the EU?

Of course we can. I'm not

pessimistic, I'm realistic and I am

worried that people are being

simplistic. The important

relationships are with our fellow

western democracies in Europe and

United States and Japan and it is

important we don't weaken those

ties. Particularly given everything

else gone on such as the power of

China. We need to understand where

our core relationships lie.

You say

Britain has been poorly led and

those who argued for departure

offered naive visions of the future.

That will be you. Are you

simplistic.

No, I think the UK's

role has been diminished over the

years as a result of our membership

of the EU. I think that too often

much of the things we wanted to

do...

Like what?

We would have taken

a harder line on Russia and the EU

has wanted to do.

The question is

what would we have achieved.

We may

debate that, but we didn't pursue

what was in our interest.

We

mobilised the whole of the EU.

The

result is Russia had a conversation

with Germany and France, because

they would be easier on him. My

sense of this is we take to take

this in a different view. We have

been too Euro-centric and not

interested in other emerging

markets. I think our interests now

lie in establishing very strong

links with the developing nations,

particularly in the far east and

among the common wealth where, the

real markets lie and our influence

is lost.

But the markets, if I may,

the amount to 10% of our trade. The

EU and the country they have FTAs

are about 60% of our trade. We have

to keep the balance. And the other

point is about foreign policy. Those

are important relationships, but

they don't share our values and

approach to the world in the way the

countries I have mentioned do. I

don't know how keen you are on

socialism with Chinese

characteristics. My commitment to it

has its limits.

In terms of looking

ahead, do you think there is a case

of staying in the EU.

That has been

my view and I supported Remain. I

accepted the result of referendum,

we should pursue the best outcome F

the British people were to change

its mind, that is a matter for the

people. Now taking Russia and Syria,

what do you think we did being part

of EU that was better than if we had

been on our own? The point is and I

fully accept Iain Duncan Smith's

points that if you're free you can

say what you want and have a clear

position and have more freedom. But

the question is what effect can you

have in the world? When we adopt

sanctions on Syria or Russia, with

the EU, we are mobilising the

biggest market in the world. And

when we align that with the United

States we have a tremendous impact.

The UK alone would be less able to

leverage either of those powers.

Do

you accept that?

No, because that

assumes that pause we are leaving

the EU all of a sudden our

relationships with them in terms of

our interests.

But it is part of a

bloc.

The answer is that we are part

of that process. But we are not

dictated to by it. I think the same

goes with the United States. I think

that our involve Westminster the

United States could have been

stronger, I think when we look at

the Russia situation, rush is Russia

is a threat and it is a growing

threat and then it is emboldened in

Syria and defying what was meant to

be a European and American policy,

we have been made to look foolish as

a collective group. I don't hold a

massive amount of strength of view

that somehow being part of the EU

made us stronger in foreign policy.

I think the key thing is for us to

get them in the right direction, but

I think we can do better.

We will be

less able to do that if we're not in

the meetings. The idea we should

have permanent observer status in

the meetings of EU, won't give us

the ability to influence. We be more

dictated to.

We will be in a

position to say no.

How do you feel

as head of for office, if you were

if the International Development

Secretary has free lanced in

Israeli, including a meeting with

Prime Minister without telling you.

I wouldn't be happy. I think it is

important there is coherence and a

joined up approach, particularly

with countries like Israel. I share

the view that this was not the

correct way toff going about it.

How

big a breach is it?

I'm not an

expert on the ministerial code. From

my perspective I think is not a good

way of conducting diplomacy.

And

with the case of Boris Johnson and

the case of Nazanin

Zaghari-Ratcliffe, do you think it

is enough for him to say he has

clarified his comments?

I think what

this incident shows is the

importance in diplomacy of prosigs

and attention -- precision and

attention to detail. That is true

with a country like Iran, where

every word is scrutiny ised and

individuals can be caught up. It is

a shame that this lapse happened. It

needs to be clarified and effort put

into rectifying any consequences.

Thank you.

Tomorrow is the first anniversary

of Donald Trump's election

as President of the United States

and it's been quite a year for both

America's friends and enemies alike.

Mr Trump is currently on a tour

of Asia and is in Seoul

in South Korea visiting his

counterpart Moon Jae-in.

North Korea's nuclear programme

is understandably top of the list

of their discussions,

and this is what the President had

to say a few hours ago.

I believe it makes sense

for North Korea to do the right

thing, not only for North Korea

but for humanity all over the world,

so there is lots of reason,

a lot of good reason behind it.

With that, yes, I think we're

making a lot of progress.

I think we're showing

great strength.

I think they understand we have

unparalleled strength.

There has never been

strength like it.

You know, we sent three

of the largest aircraft

carriers in the world

and they are right now positioned.

We have a nuclear

submarine also positioned.

We have many things happening

that we hope, we hope,

in fact I go a step further,

we hope to God,

we never have to use.

With that being said,

I really believe that it makes sense

for North Korea to come to the table

and to make a deal that's good

for the people of North Korea

and the people of the world.

We're joined now by James Fallows,

the London Bureau Chief

of the Atlantic magazine.

How has Donald Trump done in his

first year? He's done pretty much

what you'd expect from this campaign

which is he's been out of scale of

any previous office. He's invented

new things. The people who like him

still like him, but in terms of

support he is off the scale, lower

approval ratings than anybody else.

We always held politicians account

what they stated in their

manifestos. In that sense, you

broadly think he has succeeded?

I

think he has been a logical

extrapolation of the personality he

was on the campaign platform. I

distinguish that the programmes

where every day there's a new policy

position but the person he was at

those big rallies is the person he

is throughout the world.

Which

achievements would you pick out?

That is a tough question.

Any?

The

Republicans refused to confirm

Barack Obama's nomination. That's

the biggest thing.

I don't think I

can never remember such a big clear

out of staff from the administration

as we have seen under Donald Trump.

I think most of the ambassadorships

around the world are vacant. The

assistant secretaries of State, the

real action people to get things

done, there's not even a nominee for

them. It's not that Trump has had

fewer people confirmed, he has

nominated fewer people, so there has

been a clearing out as they normally

is but no refreshing with new Apple

keys.

In terms of the staff lost,

the scandals, that has been quite a

turnover. -- new applicants. How is

the Republican party dealing with

Donald Trump because that was so

much talk at the beginning that they

were going to go along with this and

didn't have any choice, but as time

had gone on, there was more shock

from their site about some of the

things he was doing. Is that really

true?

Yes it's hard to appreciate. I

once worked for Jimmy Carter as his

speech writer for two years ago.

There's never been an experience

when members of his own party will

speak about him in such contemptuous

and dismissive ways as long as you

don't quote me, and as long as they

still plan to run for office, so

they are torn between the

recognition they have the kind of

person he is, but there is awareness

of how we can mobilise against them.

You won't be quoting them in future?

No, when they decide not to run,

suddenly they say this is a big

problem but until then, not.

Something close to your heart is

Brexit. Of course, there's great

hope there will be a trade deal and

a trade deal done quickly, certainly

on the Government's side. What is

your view on that?

I think it is

remarkable how much difficulty

Donald Trump has had getting any of

his agenda done. The health care

repeal for example, you didn't get

through. The tax cuts probably won't

go through. He requires positive

action rather than blocking

something Barack Obama did, the odds

would be against him.

It does not

bode well, does it?

I was over in

Washington about April May, and I

had meetings with a very large

number of senators, including the

Speaker of the House, and what I

found from all of them was every one

of them wanted to ensure that we

moved swiftly to a trade arrangement

and more than that there's been

three or four pieces of legislation

already gone through both houses

paving the way for that, so it isn't

actually down to him alone. The

truth is, the mood is to do this and

from Democrats as well, so the

reality is, whether or not Mr Trump

is for or against it,... Some of the

things you try to do have been his

own pet project and he's not have

the support around him.

With Brexit,

bloodied different?

People want to

get this through. The problem is

there's a hundred things Congress

should do and their minds are

concentrated now on the tax bill and

if they can have vote on this, can

it ever come up for consideration?

What about that trip by Donald Trump

to the UK?

Well, good luck to us

all.

LAUGHTER

And on that note, do come on a game.

Thank you very much.

Just an update on those

Brexit Impact statements

we were talking about.

While we have been on air Brexit

minister Steve Baker has told

the Commons that it will take

government some time to collate

and bring together this information

in a way that is accessible

and informative to the committee.

We will provide this information

to the committee as soon

as it is possible.

We currently expect this to be no

more than three weeks.

So briefly, a delay.

It's an

acceptance they will do it and I was

one of those that said just get on

and do it and I think this is what

is happening so it's the right thing

to do. I think we are in the best

position now.

All right.

Now, it's not been a great few

weeks for politicians,

of the human species at least.

So could chimpanzees and other

primates do a better job?

We ask all the big questions on this

programme.

We ask all the big questions

on this programme.

In a moment I'll be talking

to a professor of politics

who reckons chimps demonstrate

many of the same political

instincts as we do.

First here's primatologist,

Frans de Waal, on the chimp

equivalent of kissing babies.

They are literally kissing babies,

a bit like the human politicians

who hold up babies high in the air

and the male chimpanzees,

they go around tickling babies

and making clear to the females

that they are good with

babies and they can be

trusted in that regard.

Another thing that they do

is they try to collect food

and share it with everyone.

For example, Arnhem Zoo

where I used to work,

the males would try to get

into the live oak trees,

which is very difficult

because they are surrounded

by electric wire, and if they would

get in there they would break off

a lot of branches and spread them

around and everyone

would have food to eat.

In the wild, they may

try to appropriate meat that has

been hunted by other males and then

divide it and give it

to their supporters.

We're joined now by the Political

scientist, James Tilley,

who presented that programme,

Primate Politics,

on Radio 4 last night.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. The

conclusion of your rather

fascinating programme is our

political systems are similar to

that of our ape cousins?

To some

extent, yes. Chimpanzees live in

these big social groups, 50-100

individuals. There is a hierarchy,

leaders, drawn from a small pool of

chimpanzees and they change every

few years, so in the basic sense

there's politics happening there.

What's interesting is how we see it

in human society to an extent so the

politics of chimpanzee groups is

about manoeuvrings and a few

chimpanzees within these groups, in

order to become leader, there's two

ways to do that, they form

coalitions with one another, to try

to get the top job, and of course

that's very much like politicians

within parties getting together to

assume power. They also tried to

appeal to other chimpanzees within

the group which is very similar to

getting support from voters for your

proposed leadership.

So can you see

the similarity, Iain Duncan Smith,?

We are social animals. If you looked

at gorillas, it would be the same

thing for form social groups, have

leaders, and I think we are social

animals and I thought some of the

pictures thrashing around with a

stick, looked a bit like my

colleagues. Anyone in particular?

No.

Do they do it better than our

politicians?

The social intelligence

of chimpanzees are better than

humans, some would argue, and they

spend more time putting together

coalitions and perceiving one

another, so in some senses, as

politicians within groups, they are

better at it than humans.

This idea

of redistribution as part of human

and eight political organisations,

why?

It is the standard, how do you

get support? You can be liked or you

can buy it and chimpanzees tried to

do both, so being liked, they go

around kissing babies, and proving

that they are likeable characters,

just like human politicians do, but

they are also very keen on buying

support. The way you do that is

essentially you tax everybody and

redistribute those resources to the

people you want support from.

Chimpanzees do the same thing. This

chimpanzee leader in the clip

managed to sustain his leadership

for an enormous amounts of time and

what he did was they would go out

and hunt, he would steal all the

meat from the other hunters and give

it out only to his supporters which

is essentially what politicians do.

They give them back their own money.

That is what you do, Iain Duncan

Smith?

The kissing babies thing has

stop because of health and safety.

They don't have health and safety in

the chimpanzee world.

Not yet. I

wonder who was imitating whom?

I

hope they don't go down that road.

There is a system of patronage and

succession.

Yes, you also see other

Machiavellian strategies, divide and

rule, a common strategy, powers

behind the throne are very common,

so you often see a kind of older

male chimpanzee pushing forward a

younger leader, but really he's

pulling the strings on what actually

going on which is also what you

often see in Parliamentary

democracies with leaders who are

sometimes not actually powerful

themselves, but there are big

characters behind them.

Maybe you

should spend time with chimpanzees

in the wild and see what could be

learned?

Listen, my colleagues spend

enough time with each other. The

editing which frightens me now is

the Planet Of The Apes story, coming

up.

Now we are moving into fiction,

of course.

Really?

What drives

political ambition in male apes?

The

same kind of drive for dominance you

see in humans. It's not a

realisation you are going to get

success and more food, it's just you

want to be in charge just like some

humans want to be in charge and they

pretend to be the kind of people to

do that.

Thank you so much for

coming in. Fascinating.

And if want to hear the whole

of James's programme,

Primate Politics, it's available

on the BBC iPlayer and is repeated

on Radio 4 on Sunday at 9.30pm.

I know Iain Duncan Smith will put

this in his diary.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was, what does our

guest of the day collect?

Was it: Stamps?

Wallpaper?

Comics?

Or Fossils?

The correct answer is? The wallpaper

samples in my office.

Here's Ellie to explain.

Now we all know that things

in the House of Commons are not

always what they seem.

Hello, Iain Duncan Smith.

Hello.

Now these aren't

cupboards, are they?

Well, they're cupboards,

but they're not what they seem,

exactly, so why don't I show you?

They are really false cupboards

but false cupboards for a reason.

For example, here we have

inside here what I suppose

are the swatches I think you might

call them for the wallpaper

around various parts

of the Lords and of the Commons.

And that all rather

begs the question why?

This office used to be a thing

called the clerk of Works Office

and these walls were obviously

slightly fuller and they have

all these wallpaper patterns

with numbers and the numbers

were the reference numbers so that

if they needed more wallpaper

they could go and get it done.

And all of these wallpapers,

I'm told, I'm no expert on this,

have to be hand blocked.

These aren't rolls of wallpaper

you can go and buy at Homebase then?

You know what, you can search

but I don't think you'll ever find

this in Homebase at all.

The reality is it's very,

very expensive wallpaper

because it's all one-off,

so this would be one room.

And do you show off to people

when they come into your offices?

It depends who they are.

If I think it's necessary for me

to smooth them over a wee bit,

and they are looking a little bit

uneasy, I say.

"Would you like to see

something really unusual?"

There's often a hesitation

at that point as I reveal,

but the reveal is the cupboards

and that's exactly what happens.

It always tends to work actually

because it immediately brings, "Oh,

my God, what's that all about?"

Iain Duncan Smith, are you really an

expert on wallpaper?

No. The office

I occupied was many years ago a

thing called the clerk of works, one

of these titles which have

disappeared in the mists of times

and they kept their wallpaper

samples there and they would check

the number on it and then shut it

down for that I think it is all now

on computer. I don't think they are

ever really used. They are a talking

point.

So it's not your personal

collection clearly?

I know nothing

about wallpaper at all but I just

happen to know these are in my room.

Thank you for clarifying that.

The One O'Clock Mews is starting

over on BBC One now.

Thanks to our guests.

That's all for today.

Bye bye.