04/12/2017 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

Theresa May is in Brussels

for a crunch lunch with the EU

Commission president.

They're talking up

prospects of a deal,

but has the Prime Minister given too

much ground to the EU to get there?

June's election cemented Jeremy

Corbyn's position as Labour leader.

Are his supporters now seizing

the Momentum with a full-scale

takeover of the party?

Illegal drugs cause misery,

blight communities and lead to more

than 2,500 deaths a year,

but is de-criminalising them really

the answer to tackling the scourge?

Philip Hammond wants driverless cars

on Britain's roads by 2022,

but will the rules of the road

or the technology be ready?

The politicians need to be careful

they are not raising

everybody's expectations.

There is the legislation to sort

out, there is the infrastructure,

so don't go making promises that

neither they nor the car

industry can keep yet.

All that in the next hour in this

fully automated fourth generation

driverless Daily Politics!

What could possibly go wrong?

Braving the backseat today,

Labour's Alison McGovern

and the Conservative MP,

Crispin Blunt.

First this morning, the Metropolitan

Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick,

has suggested there could be

prosecutions after details

were leaked by a former police

officer of a nine-year-old

investigation into Conservative

MP, Damian Green.

He was a Shadow Home Office

Minister at the time.

Now he's Theresa May's

de-facto deputy.

He strenuously denies allegations

that he accessed pornography

on his parliamentary computer

as well as claims of

inappropriate behaviour

towards a female journalist.

A Cabinet Office investigation

into Mr Green's conduct is due to be

handed to Theresa May this week.

Do you think the police officers,

retired police officers have

breached the code of conduct?

I

think plainly and it is what

Cressida Dick said it is beyond the

pale and they are going to

investigate what the implications

are of what happened. This is

terribly important for confidence in

the police. To have people in a

place where information is held by

police officers until they retire

and might be put in the public

domain, what would you be wanting to

co-operate with the police for if

you thought you could be in that

place? This is very important and

Cressida Dick's direction is

welcome.

She has not been clear as

to what should happen to the police

officers. Should there be

prosecutions.

We want ACPO to have a

look at this. Cressida Dick has

given a steer. We may have to look

if legislation is necessary if there

is a gap in the law.

They may have

thought they were doing the right

thing and it was in the public

interest. Whistle-blowing?

If you

are going to breach your duty of

confidentiality, do we need to make

sure what the public interest test

that's got to be satisfied is. It

can't be a matter of your opinion

because you think it's OK, that that

becomes all right. It needs to be

much clearer than that.

Cabinet

Minister just teen Greening said

watching pornography at work was not

acceptable. Do you think it should

be a disciplinary offence?

Well, I

think, you know, we have to put

ourselves in the position of, you

know, anybody in an ordinary

workplace and I think Justine makes

fair and reasonable point there. The

fact is, there is an investigation

going on and I think everybody is

probably best served if that

investigation is allowed to be

concluded, but these issues about

policing and confidence are really

important. I have spent a long time

working with the Hillsborough

families. This is not just something

that affects politicians, actually,

it affects all of us if we don't

have confidence in both the police

and the process of what happens if

something goes wrong.

Right, what

about Damian Green? I mean, there

will be some and there are some in

fact who think he should fall on his

sword and do the decent thing?

It is

only because he is subject to the

investigations. Now, I agree with

Alison, we need to let the

investigations and the inquiries

take their course. That's the proper

way of behaving and people have got

to take a view at the end of that

process.

Should the Cabinet Office

inquiry be made public so we can

make a judgment for ourselves?

That

will be a judgment that Theresa May

will have to make.

Should it be

public?

I'm happy, it's a report to

her, I'm happy to let her make that

judgment. She is in a place to make

the judgment. Obviously, the default

position was that it should be made

public.

No doubt others like the

liaison committee e for example, the

committee chairs will scrutinise her

over it in the way they do

everything.

All right.

As we speak, Theresa May

is in Brussels, meeting first

with European Commission President

Jean-Claude Juncker and chief Brexit

negotiator Michel Barnier.

Later today she'll sit

down with Donald Tusk,

President of the European Council.

The diplomatic blitz is geared

toward trying to secure the outlines

of a deal on the UK's withdrawal

from the EU ahead of a crucial

summit in less than two weeks

where the leaders of the other 27

countries will decide if sufficient

progress has been made

to move on to trade talks.

So what might Theresa May

and the EU's leading figures be

discussing right now?

The EU 27 has always

said sufficient progress

is necessary in three areas.

The so-called divorce bill,

citizens' rights after Brexit

and how to maintain the open border

between Northern Ireland

and the Republic.

The BBC understands that this

weekend a broad agreement has been

made on the divorce bill the UK

will pay - thought to be between 40

and 50 billion euros.

And on EU citizens'

rights in the UK.

But there is still the potential

that the Irish Government could veto

moving on to trade talks

because it's concerned

about the future of the border

between North and South.

They want a written guarantees

from the British Government that

there'll be no hard border and no

future change to regulations

on either side.

Of course, it's not only leaders

of the EU 27 who could make life

difficult for Theresa May.

The DUP, whose votes give

the Prime Minister her parliamentary

majority, say they'll

withdraw their support

if the Government attempts

to "placate Dublin and the EU"

by treating Northern Ireland

differently to the rest of the UK.

And on her own backbenches,

some long-standing Brexit supporters

like John Redwood and Owen

Paterson, affiliated

with the group Leave Means Leave,

have called on the Prime Minister

to set out red lines over

money the UK will pay,

and the jurisdiction

of the European Court

of Justice after Brexit.

Yesterday Health Secretary Jeremy

Hunt said the party must get behind

Theresa May for without her,

there will be no Brexit.

Well, earlier Brexit Secretary

David Davis was asked how confident

he was that today's meetings

would lead to a green light to start

trade talks in December.

Well, obviously that's

what we're aiming to do.

We've put seven months of work,

both sides, into getting to this

point and we're hoping that

Mr Juncker today will give us

sufficient progress so we can move

on to the trade talks.

The decision, of course,

won't be taken until 15th December,

but that's what we're hoping

for because trade talks

are enormously important

to the United Kingdom and to Europe.

David Davis there.

Let's go to Belfast and talk to our

Ireland Correpsondent Chris Page.

Chris, you have probably seen the

MEP has told the BBC that the UK is

poised to accept a concession over

the Northern Irish border and there

will be no regulatory divergence

between the north and south of

Ireland. Does that mean that the

Northern Ireland will be treated

differently to the rest of the UK?

Well, what Philip Lambert said to

the BBC is consistent with a leak

that RTE, the Irish national

broadcaster had of a document that's

in circulation in Brussels and it

said that the absence of agreed

solutions on the border, the UK will

ensure that there continues fob no

divergence from the rules of the

internal market and Customs union

and it is understood, according to

RTE that text was later changed to

slightly instead of no divergence,

it spoke about continued regulatory

alignment on the island of Ireland.

So, this really is all about whether

Northern Ireland at least will still

continue to follow the same rules as

regards the movement of goods across

as the Republic of Ireland and if

that was the case, well then yes the

chances of the border being as open

as possible would remain high, but

if there are any checks on movement

of goods, well you would see the

return of some kind of border in

Ireland. Some visible sign of a

border. So it's a very difficult

circle to square. As regards exactly

how regulatory assignment would

work, well, there is regulations

that apply to all sorts of things in

Ireland. People think that there is

more than 140 areas of north/south

co-operation. That could be dozens

of policy areas that would be

affected by regulations, everything

from agriculture, food produce, to

pharmaceuticals. So, you're talking

about a massive amount of policy

areas there and as regards the very

basic debate seems to be had in the

negotiations all around regulatory

alignment and regulatory

divergesance, it is that that

everybody with a stake including the

Democratic Unionist Party, will be

looking at to see if it is something

that will satisfy them.

Right. What

do you think? They are critically

important in this, the Democratic

Unionist Party. Will they buy the

wording that you have just outlined

in terms of that draft agreement?

There has been no official reaction

from them yet in public or in

private, but I should think they are

carefully considering everything

that's being discussed. They made

clear they are loo the loop here and

they are just in the loop as regards

the British Government keeping in

touch with them, but the Irish

Government. So, I think, it's all

going to come down to whether or not

if there is going to be some talk of

regulatory assignment whether that's

couched in a certain language and

maybe certain caveat that will able

them to say, that doesn't mean that

Northern Ireland will be set apart

in a major way. That is the DUP's

bottom line and in the past, they

have said that no regulatory

divergence would mean it would be

inevitable, there would be some kind

of checks between Northern Ireland

and the rest of the UK. So they

wouldn't tolerate that, but it

depends if there can be some kind of

softening of the language around

that which means the DUP think it is

something that they can work with.

Chris Page, thank you.

And we can go live

to Brussels now to our

Europe Correspondent Kevin Connolly.

Intense activity at the weekend and

the feeling that 90% chance of talks

moving on this month. Following on

from this draft text that's been

leaked, do you think there is now

broad agreement even on the Irish

border issue?

Well, there is a sense

that some form of words has been

found which will keep everybody on

board for now. Don't forget, you

don't have to solve or fix the Irish

border issue now, you just have to

make a political declaration that

sufficient progress has been made.

That's why you have had this couple

of days rather than reminiscent of

the Irish peace process for people

who remember it, where you have got

phraseology about no regulatory

divergence or continued regulatory

alignment and what's the difference

between those two? You are looking

for elastic phraseology that will

somehow keep everybody happy for

now. I think that's do-able and I

think the Irish Government, while in

theory, it has a veto on the move to

trade talks, would be highly

reluctant to be put into a position

where it appeared to be using that

veto. So I think, sufficient

progress is within reach on the

Irish border. We're told it's done

on money. There are outstanding

issues on citizens rights, the

European Parliament representative

who apparently didn't see the

headlines about the 85 to 90% has

been talking about a 50/50 chance of

a deal today. There are still things

he wants on citizens rights for

those Europeans hold be left in the

UK after Brexit and he is still, I

suppose, looking for concessions and

just as the Irish Government

obviously saw this as its moment of

maximum opportunity, maximum

leverage in the process, I think

there is a feeling in Brussels that

the British side is pretty desperate

for a move to trade talks a and that

more concessions might be there to

be had. So it will be a big day

here. Will it be the definitive one?

I think there is a good chance that

the UK will get that move to trade.

Kevin Connolly, thank you very much.

Crispin Blunt are you confident

there will be a deal in two weeks?

I'm hopeful. I don't think the EU

representative doesn't have a veto.

The European Parliament has a veto

at the end of the process.

Do you

think Britain can move on to phase

two, trade talks?

I can't believe

that the Irish Government are going

to commit Harry Curie by setting up

a situation of putting the British

Government in a position to try to

agree something which it couldn't

possibly compromise on which is

creating some border down the Irish

Sea.

So they will concede in terms

of having this alignment?

The Irish

will find their way and the

elasticity of language will be

offered to them and relying on the

good intentions of the UK Government

to make sure that this border at the

end of this process is as soft as it

can be. It is not in our gift, it is

in the gift of the 27 about the

depth of the trade deal they give

us.

Are you confident this is the

point at which the Government can

see the next phase coming into view?

In the end at the moment, the Brexit

problem is consuming far too much of

Government and we can't get on to

deal with the things that people

want us to, like sorting out the

Health Service and schools. I take

issue with the idea that somehow,

the Irish Government have created

this problem, because we have been

asking in Parliament for the UK

Government to tell us what they want

for the border between Northern

Ireland and the republic.

They have

said an invisible border to

continue.

There but not there. We

can't do that until we know that the

deal is.

The key point we have

discovered today is that in the end

the language is important because

you have to keep people onboard and

you have to be diplomatic, but it

comes down to what are our policies

going to be? We have got to decide,

do we want to really move away from

the European model or we want to

stick with it. If we are prepared to

stick with it there will be a deal

available. I worry about Theresa May

being dragged off to one side by the

hard right in her party and Nigel

Farage dictating what the Brexit

should look like, rather than having

the common-sense to stick with the

mod that will we, has worked for us.

It will look like what the 27 are

prepared to negotiate with us.

So

Britain doesn't have a vision or a

view.

We want a deep free trade

agreement and we would like it to be

as deep in service as it St in

goods. It is unLukely I think our

European colleagues are going to

concede that because that is the

only area we run a trade surplus in.

It has come as a massive cost.

Let

us cut that down. Half is related to

the trans pan situation period which

would be our normal run of subsidies

S

You don't see it as a big cost?

The number doesn't come as a

surprise to me, if you have the

additional liabilities outside the

normal run of businesses, the future

leash, it seems about... --

liabilities.

Why did Boris Johnson

say go whistle on the money?

Because

at that stage numbers were being put

into the suggested at the order of

60 to 100 billion. That is, and so

effectively that would be 40-80

billion' the 20 that Theresa May may

clear -- made clear was going to

be...

You accept there is a price to

pay.

Of course there is. The country

is making a big strategic... There

are going to be up front costs and

we want the good will of our

partners going forward.

Isn't the

movement of talks on the a trade

deal, the one thing that is probably

guaranteed to kill off a likelihood

of the UK staying in the single

market?

No.

Really?

In the general

election in June I spoke to

constituents who voted leave and

remain, I think we should stay in

the single market because that will

help us get a deal done. So it is

proving. In the end we have to

decide do we want to stick with the

terms of trade that we broadly had

as part of the European Union, and

say in the single market and keep

business going in our country, or do

we want to tear it up and take a

massive risk, and you know, offer

business massive uncertainty with

the consequences for income in our

taxes, I just don't think that

people really want that in this

country.

You say people don't really

want it, for people who vote for

Brexit who see a potential deal

where we don't accept free movement

of people, we aren't subject to EU

law they will think that is fine?

What is that potential deal? If what

we are talking about is regulatory

divergence, so if we say the

policies, rip them up, that

regulatory divergence, it creates

serious problems in terms of our

relationship with the EU, that

consequently causes problems for

business, and I don't think that is

really what people...

Has she got a

point there?

It doesn't

It doesn't

take too many seconds of implication

of staying in the single market to

realise that is not an option. If

you stay in the single market after

we have left the European Union you

continue to pay the money into the

budget, you don't have any say over

the development of regulations as

they continue to operate in the

single market that thereafter. That

is not a place that a country could

put itself in.

I don't see why. We

would be talking about new

arrangement for us and have to work

out how we were going to have

influence, absolutely, but there are

problems if we just leave, we have

basically a whole complicated big

industry like the chemicals

industry, like life sciences that

relies on the regulatory

arrangements we currently have. If

we are going to rip them up and

start again Andy verge from that

European model, we have to know how

those industries are going to carry

on.

It is a British objective to get

as close to that as possible, and

the terms of that agreement are

going to be determined by our 27

negotiating partners not by us, you

can't have a future arrangement

where by the, we will subject

ourselves by the rules, and to

continue to pay...

Any deal we make,

if we make a deal, a trade deal with

anybody, with the American, with the

Chinese, we will have to commit

ourselves to rules we are not

entirely in control of. That is what

trade deals do.

That is the position

we are in at the moment.

Hang on.

To

have no input. ...

So far, so far

what exactly has the EU conceded on.

Jeremy Hunt said it's a technical

point as to whether the UCE -- ECJ

has jurisdiction.

In the transition

period I can see a role for the ECJ,

beyond that our Supreme Court is

going to have to be the Supreme

Court in the United Kingdom.

But it

looks as if it will go further than

the transition period. Would you not

accept that?

Well, that would depend

if you had specific areas of

agreement, where you thought you

needed a body that is going to be

the decision maker, you might want

to consider whether the ECJ would be

appropriate and you could have

confidence in it. Those would be

individual decisions in narrow

areas.

In terms of after second

referendum, the you think there is

any situation in which Labour would

back one.

I am really off reference

darks and partly because of the

conduct of the EU referendum and

also, the division that the Scottish

independence referendum caused. What

I would like is a general election

and I would like my party to put

forward a strong, pro-European

vision that says that the social

model we have seen in Europe, where

you have markets that are

constrained by rules and regular

losings, that is why we will have a

different negotiating sense.

I would like us to put that forward

in a general election and test our

arguments with the public. Let us

leave it there.

Let us leave it there.

Now, if you thought all the Brexit

action was on the other side

of the North Sea today,

you'd be wrong.

The Withdrawal Bill is back

in the Commons and debate turns

to who will be "taking back control"

after Brexit - Westminster

or will the devolved

institutions in Edinburgh,

Cardiff and, once it's

up and running again,

Stormont have a bigger say?

Let's talk to the SNP's Stephen

Gethins who is in Central Lobby.

What are you cob sense about the way

the bill is drafted?

We have

concerns that those powers that are

are the responsibility of the

devolved administrations we were

told would be sent back to them

without touching the sides, are

coming back to Westminster, and

Westminster will be retaining

control of those, so as well as

taking back control from Brussels,

Westminster is taking back control

from Cardiff, Belfast or Edinburgh.

The attention is not on what the SNP

is demanding.

You are to some extent

a sideshow compared to what is

happening over moving on the trade

takes.

This is a big negotiation.

But just to correct you on

something. This isn't an SNP

amendment, it was drafted by the

Scottish Government and a Welsh

Government but also, which has been

packed by the greens and the Liberal

Democrats as well as Labour here at

Westminster as well. So this is a

pan institution, cross-party

amendment, to stop that power grab

that is going on as Westminster.

And

also an attempt to frustrate the

process of the UK leading the EU.

This is about representing the

devolution process, when we joined

the European Union, the devolved add

Miguel minute stranges weren't in

place, the UK is not the same state

as 40 years ago, what our amendment

does is to respect the state, if you

like, the state we are in just now.

This isn't something coming from the

House of Commons in this cross-party

group. This is something recognised

by the House of Lords, the law

society of Scotland and various

Evers as well. There is a hole at

the heart of this H it doesn't

rerespect the process. Our amendment

seek -- change that. Clause 11 of

the bill maintains the status quo.

It would prevent the admission stray

-- administrations from changing

laws. Why does it matter whether the

powers are at recommend if you are

not going to change them? This goes

to the heart of why people weren't

understanding the role of the EU. In

the role of the EU you can go over

there, negotiate. If they come back

to Westminster, on areas that are

devolved like fishing, farming

climate change, energy and these

raft of power, Westminster will be

making the decisions. We were told

we would get the powers back without

touching the sides. It keeps the

promise made during the referendum

as well.

What changes would you make

then?

We would want to see the

Scottish Government and the Welsh

Assembly and when it is up and

running the Northern Ireland as

well. Have a full role that knows...

What changes would you make?

The

change, what we would like to see is

we would like to see our amendments

being accepted which means the

Scottish Parliament would have to

agree and the common frameworks

would have to be agreed.

Fishing and

farming.

That is an important change

to be made and represents the state

we are in.

What about respecting

leave voters in places, in fishing

and farming communities, in places

in the north of Scotland where the

leave vote was the highest. Every

local authority area in Scotland

voted to remain. Including in my own

constituency. In all of these areas

what we want to see is respect what

Vote Leave promised so if they said

these powers would come back, this

is holding the Government and

holding the ministers in vote leave

to account for the promise they made

as much as they made to even else in

the UK. The UK Government is facing

pressure from the 13 Conservative

members so the Government will

ensure the powers are returned to

Holyrood and your colleague also

claim victory.

The Scottish

Conservatives with vote for the

amendment to us their Monday where

their mouth is, show they against

the power grab back to Westminster,

do what they were elected to do so

they can businessman them today.

In

terms of what happens now, once

these amendments have passed or not

you will lose leverage in terms of

pushing for further amendment.s. One

thing that the Conservative

Government has failed to grasp, we

have torque boy as cross-party

lines. That goes for the devolved

administration, devolution is a

process.

Thank you very much. Before we move

on, we have had a response from the

Democratic Unionist Party Sammy

Wilson this is about the regulatory

alignment talked about. They say it

would be vetoed at stompt. What do

you say to that. They could pull the

plug on this.

So the Conservative

would if it is put into a position

where we have to create new

boundaries between Northern Ireland

and Great Britain. We will be United

Kingdom at the start of this process

and UK young at the end. That is why

the Irish Government about where

they try to push the British

government, because if we are driven

up a cul-de-sac where the issues

are...

You wouldn't agree to

regulatory alignment yourself.

We

have to get into the area where

there, if you like sensible

elasticity of language that can get

us to a place where the good will in

the United Kingdom and in the

Republic of Ireland, to make the

border issue work at the end of the

process when we know what the deal

is, then all that good will will

kick in and we will make the mens of

what we are presented with.

Isn't it

true, this is the last stage, the

Irish Government can exert maximum

pressure.

This is the question. I

feel terrible, actually we have got

to this point and I think a lot of

people didn't think about Northern

Ireland until too late. That is an

incredible shame and those of us who

grew up under the shadow of what

happened in the past. You know

regret that deep. I -- wish the

Tories exerted it sooner and we

could have got this dealt with

clearly, we neat regulatory

alignment. That is clear, I wish we

could have said that ages ago and

reached out to our friend in Ireland

and sorted it out a long time ago.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, Labour grandee Roy Hattersley

wrote this weekend that the party

was facing the "greatest crisis

in its history".

The cause, he says,

is the infiltration of the group

Momentum, who have taken a number

of seats on the party's

organising committees.

They are now campaigning

for their preferred candidates to be

nominated as Labour council

candidates and in target

parliamentary seats,

angering many existing Labour

councillors who are facing

deselection as a result.

One of those who has already been

deselected is the Sheffield

councillor Kieran Harpham,

and he joins us now

from our studio there.

Welcome to the programme. Why were

you facing reselection?

It's a

process ke go through as local

councillors. Every time our seats

are up for election.

And were you

expecting to be opposed?

I think I

was expect, I think you always have

to expect some resistance to your

seat.

Tell us what happened?

So, I was

short listed with five, well, five

other candidates and two reserve

candidates. Two of those candidates

I was up against got seats in other

parts of the city and then I was up

against the five that were left and

we then had a reselection meeting

about three weeks later. In which I

unfortunately lost.

How did you feel

about it afterwards?

Unhappy

obviously. I mean it's a loss of a

job. It is a loss of a stable

income, but I'm young. I'm a young

bloke. I imagine I can get a

different job. I will be standing

again in future for a council seat

somewhere else if I can.

Were you

given a reason for your deselection?

It's not typically the way that we

would do it necessarily given any

particular reason. It's a democratic

process. I was, there was about 70

members in the room at the time. So,

you know, each one of them, I

wouldn't expect each one of them to

give me a specific reason as to why

they didn't vote for me.

Do you have

any idea as to why you might not

have been reselected?

I have had my

disagreements as we all do with

various members and members of the

party at times. You know, you can

have disagreements over various

things. The Labour Party is a broad

church and not all of us agree all

the time.

One person said it was

because you weren't left-wing

enough, what do you say to that?

I

don't agree with the fact I'm not

left-wing enough. I was brought up

in a working estate in Sheffield. I

wouldn't call myself not left-wing.

That's not true.

What do you think

is happening in the Labour Party at

the moment?

I think there is

something happening in the party at

the moment. I mean we have seen the

membership increase over the last

two years. But I don't necessarily,

you know, this is a thing that

happens from time to time. My dad

was a serving councillor for 15

years. He was deselected the first

time round and had to go and stand

somewhere else.

I was going to say thank you very

much for joining us today.

Cheers.

And here in the studio now

is Aaron Bastani of Novara Media

who is also a member of Momentum.

Alison McGovern was one of the those

to resign her shadow ministerial

post in protest at Jeremy Corbyn's

leadership in 2016.

Welcome to the programme.

Aaron, why

should a long-standing councillor be

replaced by someone who has only

been a Labour member for a couple of

years?

And long may it continue.

They had disagreements and he had

disagreements with

In Haringey there was a development

which has caused a lot of

consternation, local MPs are opposed

to it, you couldn't call those

radical left Wenger entourists and a

majority of the local community and

are opposed, that has meant a number

of councillors have chosen not to

rerun or have not been reselected.

It is specific on local issues and

by the way, there are people like

Vincent Carol who signed alert in

2016 against Jeremy Corbyn, he has

not been reselected because he has

an anti-DV position.

Is this democracy in action?

We

should be talking about the need of

Local Government to have proper

adult social care and do all the

important work that they do. We fell

into the trap that George Osborne

set for us when he wanted local

councils run by Labour to be

vilified because they had to

distribute his cut. You fall into

that trap if we start kind of

allowing the Labour Party at a local

level to be torn apart because we

are kind of vilifying Labour

politicians for decisions they take.

When you are in power, sometimes you

have difficult choices to make and I

think what's gone on and when I have

read the coverage I feel like we are

falling into at times a trap set for

us by the Tories. In the end, the

Labour Party is a family. It takes

all sorts. We kind of, we have, we

let everybody have their view, but

we shouldn't behaving the

negativity, we should be getting

behind our Labour councils and

having a really good election into

May because we've got a massive

chance to send a big message to the

Tories.

If that's what is happening,

you are falling into the trap set to

you by the Conservatives?

If the

trap is winning three million extra

votes in the general election and

eight points ahead of the Tories in

the polls, again I want that trap to

get even worse. If that's what it

looks like. One sec, this is about

democratic correlation in the Labour

Party. It is observable. I would say

actually this is instrumentally

vital to a reinvigorated party

membership who feel agency, who

knock on the doors, who work so hard

that we saw in the run up to 8th

June and that has to continue if

Labour are to continue making

outstanding improvements.

And they

have, haven't they?

We had a great

performance in June and we had

people who come from all different

parts of the party working hard

together and it was brilliant. There

was a massive Brexit impact. There

was a lot of people who never voted

Labour before and voted Labour in my

patch because they wanted to send a

message to the Tories over Brexit.

The question is though, do we use

the local elections into May as a

chance to send the message to the

Tories as a chance to demonstrate

Labour's values on the doorstep or

do we spend our time, you know,

having a go at people who have to

make really hard decisions.

Is that

what's happening here? Are they

having a go?

Having read the

coverage over the weekend that's

what seems to be happening and I

would rather judge people by what

they do and how the commitment that

they have shown to their people

locally rather than there being sort

of like either Momentum or you are

this or that.

Is David Lammy a

momentum flunky

David Lammy is a

brilliant Labour MP and somebody

that I've worked with.

He backs the

anti-DVHD lobby.

What I would ask

everybody in the Labour Party to do

is treat everybody with respect and

dignity. Look at somebody's whole

record, not just on one thing they

might say or whatever, look at their

whole record and judge them by what

they do. Put the Labour Party

together and don't rip it apart.

That's the accusation that you're

ripping the Labour Party apart. Is

it right that Momentum is taking

control of the party?

Jeremy Corbyn

won over 50% of the vote both times

with the membership the first time

just under. Now what we are seeing

is that base of support is now

finding democratic reflection within

the elected offices of the party. We

are beginning with councillors.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Liz Kendall the progress candidate

in 2015 got 4.5% of the vote. I have

no problem with progress having 4.5%

of Labour's councillors. The point

is the values and the objectives

need to be of the membership need to

be reflected in our holders of

public office.

You want candidates

that reflect Momentum's objectives?

We have a first past the post system

and liberals and Social Democrats

and democratic socialists have to

work together under that system.

Do

you think people like you and who

support your objectives are being

pushed out of the party?

No, the

Labour Party is like my family. I

will be in the Labour Party or no

party. That's everything that I've

grown up with and known and I

think...

Do you not accept what is

being said that now people need to

reflect the views of the membership

and the candidates and councillors

do too?

Well, all our members have

different views about different

things and the thing I object to

here is the division of people into

two groups, you are either that or

you're that. You're Momentum or

you're not. It doesn't really work

like that. Hang on a second. People

have got different views about

different things and you shouldn't

judge people based on one fact or

who they voted for in a leadership

election that was two years ago.

Hang on, I think that's, I think

that's really foolish and I think it

is divisive. I think what we need is

to have the priorities of the

British people and I tell you what's

a ka catastrophe. What is a

catastrophe is not what some group

in the Labour Party is doing, what

is a catastrophe is this Tory

Government.

Now, they ruin lives,

blight communities and lead to more

than 2,500 deaths a year

in England and Wales.

But what's the best way of tackling

the scourge of illegal drugs?

Last month our guest

of the day, Crispin Blunt,

encouraged Theresa May

to consider de-criminalisation.

On the whole issue of prohibition

of drugs globally, can

I draw her attention to the fact

that global policy is beginning

to change and in the face

of the evidential failure

of the policy since the 1961 UN

single convention on prohibition

of narcotics drugs and will she look

at the evidence that's going

to emerge from the United States

and Canada on the legalisation

of regulation of cannabis markets

there as well as decriminalisation

in Portugal and elsewhere?

I do just have to say

to my honourable friend that I take

a different opinion from him

in relation to drugs.

I think that those who are dealing

with people who have been affected

by drugs would also do so.

I think of my constituent

Elizabeth Burton-Phillips who set-up

DrugFAM after the suicide of her son

who was a drug addict.

The work she is doing with families

who are affected because a member

of the family is on drugs

and the incredible damage that

that can do to families

and to the individual concerned.

I'm sorry I say to my honourable

friend, I take a different view.

I think it's right that we continue

to fight the war against drugs.

We're joined now by Peter Hitchens

who is an ardent opponent

of de-criminalisation.

Welcome to the programme. Just

before I come to you, Crispin Blunt

you asked the Prime Minister to look

at evidence from Portugal. What's

the strongest bit of evidence from

there?

Portugal what decrim

nationalingised as far as the users

are concerned. People right at the

bottom of the drug chain as it were.

And what they are finding is that

the public health impact you might

have expected by relaxing the law as

it applied to people who were then

found consuming drugs hasn't led to

a massive increase in drug

consumption. Indeed, as far as

deaths from opiate use are

concerned, those numbers have gone

in a positive direction and talk to

Portuguese politicians who have been

responsible, they are proud of the

changes they have made in Portugal.

It has taken, it meant their public

health position is better than it

was before they made the changes. It

is only a very small part of a wider

discussion.

Do you take that

evidence from the Portuguese model?

Anyone can look at my blog which has

been over rated by propagandists

from decriminalisation. It has not

been like the great success.

Portugal had feeble drug laws and

usage of some drugs increased. The

real place to look at is England

where the decriminal identitiesation

of drugs has been continuing in this

country since 1974ish at an amazing

rate, but never officially

acknowledged which has been an

indefensible disaster.

How would

decriminalising the drugs reverse

the trend of 2500 people dying from

the illegal use of drugs in the UK

in 2016, up from the previous year

for the fourth year in a row?

Because there are groups, whilst the

Prime Minister quoted one lady who

is a constituent who set up DrugFAM

there are other organisations

so-called Anyone's Child. Their

children have gone off to concerts

or discos and whatever and have used

ecstasy, as a lot of our young

people do when they go to these

places. Ecstasy is criminally

supplied. They don't know what's in

it it and their child died and the

issue is, if we stay with the

current position, the supply of all

these drugs remains in the hands of

criminals. How do we get to a place

where we can regulate and control

what people are going to put into

their bodies?

You are simply spouting, the

evidence is of cures these drugs are

damaging, that legalising them

doesn't make them any less damaging,

the common one tab co-and alcohol,

they are still dangerous to those

who use them, they are very much the

subject of criminal acts, so both

main planks of the argument are

feeble. What you really must

understand, Mr Blunt is

decriminalisation has taken place in

this country. In 1994 John O'Connor,

a former head of the Flying Squad

shade that cannabis was a

decriminalised drug. The damage it

does is not killing people, but it

is increasingly correlated with

serious irreversible mental illness,

there is a cynical greed campaign,

which seeks now to go to the Nketiah

stage. The realisation, advertise,

sale in supermarkets and more and

more people and their families

suffering permanent misery. ? You

say there would be health

improvements.

Our cannabis is supplied by

criminals and 90% is street cannabis

is therefore, the cannabis that is

most strongly linked to mental

illness and psychosis.

He has a good

point in that respect.

Of course it

is dangerous.

How do you make it

better health wise?

In you were in a

position where you know what you are

getting, because it is legally

supplied and it is regulated and

licensed and regular lated to

whatever standard is appropriate.

How can, do you get this stuff slfs

this comes out a Christmas cracker.

You haven't answered my point.

Don't

talk over each other.

Cigaretted are

regulated, are they safe?

No.

Tobacco is not a safe thing to

smoke.

Hang on, answer the point.

Gentleman, if you talk over each

other no-one can hear. You will get

a word in. If we look at the example

of Portugal, when they

decriminalised the possession of

drugs HIV infection and drug-related

deaths did drop. .

The Portuguese

drug problem I said was not very

great. By comparison with some other

country, my point is not about

deaths and drug use, my point, most

particularly about the billionaire

backed hugely financed campaign, to

which Mr Blunt has fallen victim to

legalise this drug so people can

make enormous out of drugs.

That is

a different work. .

Known can

maintain...

Let me let Alison in.

I

think this is is a regrettable way

to have a serious discussion, I

think that, because you keep

interrupting and it has become an

attack on Crispin whose position I

don't entirely agree with to be

honest with you, I would prefer us

to look objectivity at the science,

to marry that with ambition, for

good mental health which we are

failing to fund, and decent proper

policing by consent, which we are

failing to fund F we continue to

throw rocks at each other we will

never get to a proper policy.

Are

you just ignoring what are health

benefits that have been pointed out.

You take a different view. Will it

help deal with the scourge of drug

ruse.

I am pointing out the major

threat from cannabis, you support,

you appear...

Licensing and

regulation. And we are going to see

from the results of the Dan moving

to this place.

I was asking a

question. I don't want yet another

crossing out...

Let me from seed to

my panel. Panel. You are

interrupting me. He is in favour of

decriminalising cannabis.

The reason

being, as he is claiming it is

dangerous, I would agree it is, one

of the reasons it is more dangerous

than it needs to be because it is

surprised by criminals who don't

give a monkey about the efengt it

has on people. What I want to do at

the evidence that is going to merge

and look at the evidence of the

danger, the criminalisation of this

half a tri$tria year has done to

states like member co-and so on,

this goes wider,th a global issue.

It has passed a -- criminals who

fight and kill people in order to

maintain their market share. There

is a better and safer way of doing

this.

Shouldn't it be considered.

Even giving young people a criminal

record for possessing can bit can

ruin their lives, is it worth it.

Of

course it can, that is the idea of

having a law against cannabis

possession to deter people from

having anything to do with a drug

that can ruin their lives and has

ruined the lives of many young

people and their families. Which is

what it does. You are interrupting

me.

Should alcohol be banned.

It is

studio late. If it was being abused

now. I would be in favour of

pretending -- preventing it.

Thank

you.

That is all I get?

It was quite

a lot.

It was worth fighting for

what I got.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Now, it's Philip Hammond's birthday

and if his friends and family

were listening to his Budget last

month then perhaps they should have

bought him a new car -

a driverless one.

He's a big fan of the emerging

technology and he's said he wants

to see "fully driverless cars"

on Britain's roads by 2021.

But the motoring journalist

Quentin Wilson thinks that could be

an unrealistic ambition.

Here's his soapbox.

Driverless cars on Britain's

roads in four years?

Sounds a bit ambitious.

Let's park that vision for a moment,

and ask the question,

where are we right now?

Autonomous technology ranges

from what's called level one,

which is things like electronic

distance control that we have now,

all the way up to level five,

where the machines drive better

than the humans.

We don't have that yet,

but we do have this.

The Tesla Model S, which is level

two, and there are thousands

of these on British roads right now.

This car has auto-braking,

auto-parking, auto-steering.

It will change lanes on motorways

itself, and it will even

have a summon function.

Your garage door opens and this

car will automatically

come and find you.

It's great, but it's not level five,

where there's no steering wheel

and no human input at all.

That comes a few

years down the line.

The Government is absolutely right

to encourage this industry,

because it creates millions of jobs,

saves us all that tedious

driving time and could cut

accidents by as much as 80%.

But politicians need to be

careful they're not raising

everybody's expectations.

There's the legislation to sort out,

there's the infrastructure,

so don't go making promises that

neither they nor the car

industry can keep yet.

And also I'd recommend that they go

out and actually drive some

autonomous cars themselves.

Autonomous cars, then,

are definitely coming,

but it might be a bit premature

to trade the Escort in quite yet.

Every car manufacturer

is working on them.

They're all trying to get

to that goal of level five.

Who wouldn't want a Brave New World

where machines do all the driving?

HG Wells would be proud and he would

absolutely love this Tesla.

And Quentin Wilson joins us now.

Is too late. If it was being abused

now. I would be in favour of

pretending -- preventing it. Thank

you.

That is all I get?

It was quite

a lot.

It was worth fighting for

what I got.

Thank you.

Is it terrifying the thought of no

hands on the steering wheel?

No,

driving that was wonderful, because

you know, we have to a stage where

the thing drives itself, how ever,

we are not at the stage where we can

have cars that drive themselves

without human intervention by 2021.

Is that not possible?

No, it is

laughable. You are overpromising and

they are confused with the diesel

gate. They have lost billions in

depreciation we are destabilising

the car market. I am in favour of

Britain being at the centre. We have

to do it in a measured way. 37

million drivers don't know what to

do. Here is the dark side of this.

If we carry on pushing consumers

towards this brave New World that

doesn't exist yet, we are going to

cause a credit, a subprime credit

crash in car, because they are all

on what is known as personal

contract plans, this could cause a

real collapse in residual value, it

could affect the banks.

What if he

promised something that is

impossible.

We are talking about

timescale.

He said by 2021 he wanted

to see them on the road.

In

prototype. I don't imagine we will

be rolling round in driverless cars

by 2021.

That isn't going to happen.

But, Quentin is right.

The UK needs

to be in this place, in this

technology, it is playing with

technology of the future, we have to

get the timescale right. And

plainly, the car I have and the cars

everyone has won't depreciate in

value.

Are you excited by the idea.

I am generally excited by new

technology, there is an issue in

that in politics we saw off from

like news cycle attention deficit in

that we want to make newsy

announcement, where

industry, what people need is more

kind of steady progress, so that we

should be opening up, what we will

do about regulation and investment,

over a much longer period. Actually

over the timescale of one

Government, so we should be having

much longer timescale gus pot ticks

we are bad at that. Terrible.

Let us

look at the legal issues for you

talked about the infrastructure,

what about the legal issues, whose

fault is it if there is a crash?

That is the thing that the Select

Committee was trying to work out you

will have to have a network that is

responsible because the Geneva

Convention say you have to have a

driver behind the wheel. We have to

change that. The whole thing is the

fact you have no human input. You

won't get to that goal. We are not

going to get it in the short time. I

will be ten years before we get

level four.

How much money should be

spent on it to make it happen?

You

will need to ask someone who is more

expert. Plainly this is an area if

you have a big budget for the

country which we have and our

science budget has been increasing

despite the demands on public

expenditure, there is an area the UK

should be in.

We saw cuts to stamp

duty that will go to people who...

Is that zero sum game.

The value

accrues to people who own homes, the

reason I mention it. If we look at R

and D and investment. What the

Tories have done, is tax breaks and

not build up an investment fund that

says we have a massive wealth

inequality. Why don't we look at the

system.

We will have to finish it

there.

We have had a tweet from Donald

Tusk, he is feeling optimistic, tell

me why I like Mondays he say, mist

quoting the boom on the rats. --

boom town rats. Gets closer to

sufficient progress at December. He

is feeling positive.

He is feeling positive.

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

The One O'Clock News is starting

over on BBC One now.

I'll be here at noon

tomorrow with all the big

political stories of the day,

do join me then.

Bye-bye.