18/01/2018 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to

the Daily Politics.

President Macron is hopping over

the Channel to pay a visit

to Theresa May with the promise

of a loan of the Bayer Tapestry

and a call for greater

military cooperation.

We'll assess the strength

of the Entente Cordiale.

Taxpayers are paying billions

of pounds more for PFI

projects than they would

if they were in the private

sector, according to

the National Audit Office,

so are they a waste of money?

A deal has been made for hundreds

of thousands of Rohingya refugees

to start returning to Myanmar,

but with many voicing concerns

concerns over their safety,

we'll speak to one MP who's visited

the refugee camps in Bangladesh.

And fancy becoming an MP?

As new research shows that,

surprise surprise, not

many of us fancy it,

we'll look at what can be done

to encourage more people to say

'vote for me'!

All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole

of the programme today

is the journalist and broadcaster,

Jonathan Freedland.

Welcome to the show.

Good to be here.

Good to be here.

First this morning, tax payers

will have to pay nearly £200 billion

more for schemes set up under

Private Finance Initiatives

than in the public sector according

to the National Audit Office.

Under the schemes, private companies

build facilities like schools,

hospitals and roads,

in return for regular payments over

many years.

Let's get more on this

with Graham Atkins from

the Institute for Government.

Graham, when you look at that figure

from the National Audit Office, £200

billion more than we would have had

to pay for these things than if they

were in the public sector, doesn't

that prove that PFIs are a waste of

money?

I think that figure comes

from payments that are set to be

made but the thing is that we don't

know how much they would have cost

in the public sector and the key

point is that under a private

finance contract, a private finance

company will be set up and that will

be responsible for the financing,

building and the maintenance and if

anything goes wrong, they absorb

those losses. They can't absorb

those losses all of the time, as we

have seen in the case of Carillion.

Sometimes too much loss -- risk can

be transferred. But what we can't

see is how much we would have had to

pay if we had taken on those risks.

So you don't think that PFIs which

started under John Major and were

really turbo-charged under

successive Labour governments have

had their day?

I think the

government will continue to use PFIs

as it does look attractive if you

think the private sector can handle

the risks better. There is also an

accounting issue in private finance

and this really important issue is

that when you use private finance,

as these companies are using the

revenue themselves, these figures

don't show up in public sector debt

and these figures are used to mark

targets.

Isn't that a problem?

Gordon Brown was the one who

famously liked to support these

initiatives because it wouldn't be

on the government balance sheet, but

is that really a justification for

carrying on with these sorts of

initiatives?

I don't think it is a

justification, no. We should only

carry on with Private Finance

Initiatives better value when

spending on these issues but there

are measures the government can

take. It can be more transparent

about comparisons between different

finance options and it is worth

noting that depending on the measure

of government debt you use, if you

use the whole of government

finances, for example, some of it is

on Alan Sheets.

One point wasted

should it really be the point that

private companies who are

essentially trying to make profits

are

are responsible for essential public

sector projects.

I think sometimes

the profit motive can be helpful in

delivering these projects, in that

they are incentivised to deliver

them at the lowest possible cost.

Obviously there is a quality issue,

but I don't think the profit motive

in itself is enough for us to say

private finance is never worthwhile.

Jonathan Freedland, the point is,

with these projects have been built

without PFIs?

As a matter of

politics, they might not have been.

As you say, this was turbo-charged

in the Tony Blair, Gordon Brown here

and at the time you had a government

who were so fearful at the politics

of borrowing, so we would have had

to no longer be allergic to

borrowing to invest, as Gordon Brown

and John Major work. They were in

the corset of public spending limits

and didn't feel they could raid to

invest in schools and hospitals. I

think perhaps the politics of this

now would feel different.

How

effective would government be at

running on its own hospitals and

schools? Are we really saying it

would be efficient in every regard

compared to private companies?

There

are definitely some really big

projects where the government's

record is not good, so the NHS IT

scheme, where £12 billion went down

the drain that. When it comes to

running your local schools, we all

feel that we remember a time when

that was done and you school dinner

ladies instead of outside catering,

but they seem to have vanished fine.

This is an idea which seems to have

expanded almost beyond its reach.

There is also a fiction in this

article that they are making things

private which are not actually

private, and Carillion has revealed

that in the end, the big risk comes

back to the government, in which

case, why pretend that it doesn't?

If that is the case, the profits are

privatised and the losses are

nationalised, is it not the case

that they are not taking on risk,

the private companies?

There are a

couple of different issues here and

the first is that the risk of

delivering these projects will

always remain with the government,

as far as if a company is building a

school array hospital, the

government will not allow that to

not be delivered. But what happens

when a company goes bust, it is

important to note that Carillion

have not been bailed out, it has

been allowed to fail and there may

be a cost to the taxpayer of finding

any provider or finding somebody to

run these things, but you cannot say

the losses have been nationalised.

Isn't it the case that it has been

allowed to fail and is this really

the watershed moment Jeremy Corbyn

has talked about in terms of

public-private partnership?

That we

won't know until time has passed a

bit but the notion is that in the

end we are on the hook for these

things in that you can't get schools

and hospitals fail. Starbucks goes

bust, the government will not step

in. But in this situation, where

they are providing public goods, you

know that in the end the risk is the

taxpayer, in which case why let the

games be privatised but the losses

be socialised?

Thank you for coming

in.

Now it's time for our daily quiz.

The question for today

is which politician booked to speak

at a university event was billed

at a student event at UCL as 'like

hearing Barack Obama in 2003'?

Was it:

a) Green Party

co-leader Jonathan Bartley

b) Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson

c) UKIP Leader Henry Bolton

or d) Tory backbencher

Jacob Rees-Mogg.

At the end of the show,

Jonathan will give us

the correct answer.

So the red carpet will be rolled out

for President Macron later this

afternoon and there's lots

to talk about.

Not least his offer of a loan of the

bio tapestry. -- Bayeux tapestry.

Emmanuel Macron and Theresa May are

meeting for an Anglo-French Summit

at Sandhurst military academy.

They are expected to focus

on defence and security matters,

with Theresa May slated to announce

that Britain will send military

helicopters to join a French

campaign against extremists in north

Africa.

-- west Africa.

And the French President may try

and push the UK to join

a new European defence initiative -

the European Intervention Initiative

- aimed at closer integration

of Europe's armed forces.

The two leaders will also talk

about the migrant crisis in Calais.

During his presidential

election campaign last year,

Macron said he wanted to renegotiate

or scrap the 2003 Le Touquet

agreement which established the UK's

border controls in Calais rather

than on British soil.

And the Home Office has confirmed

that Theresa May has

revised the agreement -

by agreeing to pay the French

£44.5 million to help

with border security,

and to take more unaccompanied

children migrants with

family ties to Britain.

The French President has been

unashamed in his attempts to lure

London's financial services

across the Channel and he could

possibly make a similar pitch

to British business today.

Let's get more on this with our

Paris Correspondent, Hugh Schofield.

Has the French president got the

upper hand in this meeting, is he

riding high? Ah, we seem to have you

frozen at that key moment. We will

try to go back to him later.

With me now is the Conservative MP

Crispin Blunt, who was Chair of

the Foreign Affairs Select Committee

until the last election,

and Eric Albert, London

Correspondent for Le Monde.

Welcome to both of you. Delighted

you were here in the studio when

that happened. Crispin Blunt, has he

played a blinder against the British

government, Emmanuel Macron? He has

got 44 point £5 million and we get

the Bayeux tapestry?

I think we also

get the continuation of the border

under the Le Touquet agreement at

Calais which is very important to us

and clearly that has created big

challenges for the French and it is

right that we assist them with those

challenges which protect our

interests. The bilateral agreement

between France and Britain is going

to get more important and we will

have to invest in those

relationships with all-out European

partners in a bilateral way more

than we did as members. In exit

negotiations, the French will try to

negotiate to be hard element of

their position through those

negotiations with the attempt to

undermine the position of the City

of London.

But should the British

government have given that much

money? That is a lot of money, 45

million pounds, and your colleagues,

some of them, are calling it a

stitch up.

Since the Le Touquet

agreement in 2003 its £150 million

and that shows the size of the

British interest here in maintaining

the interest that it is. It's a

sensible subsidy in maintaining the

bilateral arrangement where we have

a very clear interest in helping the

French manage the challenge they

have on that side of the channel.

DD

French see this as a win for France?

It's in the middle, because the

alternative to Britain giving money

is the border changing side and the

refugees going to go back and

letting whatever take place in

Dover, which is what President

Macron said in the election two

years ago. The other part of the

equation is supposedly Britain

accepting some refugees, which is

something that has not been very

forthcoming for the last 15 years.

The government does accept some

refugees but you mean more?

Yes, a

bit over a year ago, Britain said

they would take at least 3000

children under 18 with links to

Britain. They have taken 200, less

than one tenth.

Does Britain have a

responsibility to take certainly the

number they said they would take,

unaccompanied child migrants from

the UK? -- into the UK?

What we have

to remember in taking child migrants

altogether, if you set up the

incentives for unaccompanied

children to try to make the journey

right across Europe to the United

Kingdom from the areas they are in

and out of the safe places and the

states around the conflict area in

Syria, you are inviting a huge

amount of trouble and you are

creating a situation where the

amount of money we've got to look

after these children can look after

ten times as many safely in the

nation is immediately adjacent to

the conflict zone, keep them safe,

get them ready and educated then to

go back into Syria. Every child we

accommodate here, that's ten

children we are not looking after

suitably there.

But should the

government take in more

unaccompanied children from Calais?

My view is that we shouldn't. This

money should go towards managing the

Calais problem. This is a European

Union problem about the management

of migration across the European

Union.

Isn't that true, that this is

about the European Union and that

actually Angela Merkel with her open

door policy provided one of the

incentives, rather than the British

government taking more?

There is no

doubt that there is some truth in

here but because of the issue is

that Syria is in trouble, Libya is

in chaos and Calais has been a

magnet for years and years and years

for people who want to come to

Britain. To put things in

perspective, the EU has 700,000

migrant refugees last year, 40,000

here in Britain. 5%. So although

Calais is impressive because that's

one place where you can cross, so

you see it, the truth is it's a tiny

number compared to the overall

thing. So some sharing of

responsibility by Britain would be

welcome, having said that, I think

it's a sensible agreement to keep

the border on that side.

No, of

course, but is Britain shirking its

responsibility?

We can be very proud

of the contribution we are making to

the support of the rescuing of these

families and children coming out of

these areas with the massive amount

of support we are putting into

countries like Jordan and Lebanon

immediately around the conflict

zone. And that's where the support

ought to go. Frankly, stealing the

best and brightest of these people

out of these countries, an element

of which German policy was based on

meeting their demographic challenge,

doesn't actually do the future of

Syria and those countries any

favours whatsoever.

How much of a bone of contention is

between France and Britain? Crispin

Blunt says the responsibility is to

provide a haven outside but close to

the countries they fled in Jordan

and Lebanon.

President Macron wants

a solution to this problem and he

does not want Calais returning to

the Jungle situation and he thinks

has the stronger hand because

Britain is in the situation where it

is needed because of the Brexit

context. So he has the stronger

hands to play.

Is this a microcosm

of what will happen in the Brexit

negotiations? Britain pays a bit of

money to get access of favourable

terms.

We need to look at the

British relationship and the Brexit

negotiations. Within the context of

the future and what is going to come

through this. The bilateral

relationship between France and

Britain will get more important to

both countries posed Brexit and we

need to invest in that, as France

needs to.

You would not pay more

money to keep their relationship?

So

the Calais issue, reinforcing the

treaty and making sure we understand

the difficulties, that is a sensible

part of the relationship between

France and the UK. We have to get

through the Brexit process and Paris

and other European cities will

compete for businesses in London and

we must expect that. Already, there

is an understanding that they are

not going to deprive London of being

Europe's pre-eminent financial

centre. And reality will strike

home. About exactly where the

balance of this relationship will

sit posed Brexit.

Should more money

be paid to France to repair the port

of Calais and the economy that has

been damaged as a result of the

Jungle?

What I can save the deal

that may be announced today, which

appears to be about the £44 million

going towards more investment in the

immigration infrastructure around

Calais, that seems the right mark as

far as I'm concerned. The UK

Government has got that right. M on

-- and taking on the responsibility

for the Calais economy has to be a

matter for the French government,

but that is significantly supported

by British tourism going into Calais

and the more secure the relationship

around Calais, the more confident

people will have in going and

enjoying time in Calais.

But the

upper hand hand in the Brexit

negotiations? If you see Emmanuel

Macron is the centre while Germany

is getting its government together.

He will not negotiate it

bilaterally. I agree, it will go

through Europe. So far, it has

helped the EU to have the upper hand

and I think it will keep going that

way. France is pretty tough on the

EU negotiations, but Germany is as

well. The two might be slightly

different, but really, the lines are

exactly the same.

Let's talk about

the military collaboration. The

Prime Minister is sending chin-ups

to Western Africa indicating that

she is warming to this idea of

joining with Emmanuel Macron to

clamp down on terrorism and

fundamentalism that. Do you support

greater military coordination?

Yes,

the UK and France similar powers

globally and increasingly, we will

find we are unable to provide the

capabilities across all of the

military spectrums and the French

plane may have a shortage in

strategic lift and helicopter

capacity we are offering them will

be immensely helpful.

It might allay

fears British defence companies who

fear they may be left out after

Brexit.

Yes, they want to know we

continue to be a military power and

power is what we have in common with

France. And the other thing, this is

one close relationship Brexiteers

will not mind and if anything,

they're glad Britain is not part of

any European army. That is something

the motion of a bilateral defence

relationship, I think they can live

with that, even if the rest of the

headlines this morning will make

them recoil, the motion of Britain

after Brexit handing over 45 million

to the French and still under

pressure to receive migrants. I just

want to challenge Crispin, we have a

good record and we should be proud

of it. Many of these child migrants

are refugees from Syria and war

zones. We did not even fulfil our

obligation to take 3,000, which was

really a tiny number and in the end

it was 300. That does not make me

feel it is a huge factor to be proud

of.

That is 30,000 more than they

are looking after in Jordan and

Lebanon.

If you decide there is a

finite...

If you think we have

infinite resources.

You could do

more for those 3,000 children.

We're

not in the same place. We always

give substantial help and sustaining

support for the international

develop and budget is the challenge.

The comment at the time said council

said they could not take any more

child migrants and that was proven

not to be the case -- the

Government. A number of councils

were still prepared to take more

child migrants unaccompanied across

Europe.

Presumably, that is

predicated on the fact they were

going to get central government

support. Taking children into care

is very expensive.

Migrants is not

the right word here. You have to do

it properly and look after them

properly.

Finally, the A&E, is this

an example of the largest -- the

largesse of the French President in

a charm offensive?

A reminder we had

been fighting each other for a long

time!

We have not forgotten!

It is

good if transporting the tapestry is

possible and I'm sure it will be and

it is great to see it coming years.

It is very good and we have to

remember there is a quid pro quo as

we have now got the French committed

very much to a Nato operation and

Hodge troops in support of the work

we are doing in Estonia and that is

all to the good.

Thank you.

Later in the programme, I'll be

speaking to Alexandre Holroyd who's

an MP in President Macron's En

Marche!

party.

And for more reporting

and analysis of Brexit,

check out the BBC News website.

That's bbc.co.uk/brexit.

Donald Trump's decision to hold back

half of a $125 million aid

instalment to Palestine has angered

many in the Middle East

and at the United Nations, with one

former UN Humanitarian Chief

claiming the move will have,

"devastating consequences

for vulnerable Palestinian refugees

across the Middle East".

So why has he done it?

Well, at the beginning of the month,

President Trump took

to Twitter to complain...

"We pay the Palestinians hundreds

of millions of dollars a year

and get no appreciation or respect."

Mr Trump went on to say:

"With the Palestinians no longer

willing to talk peace,

why should we make any of these

massive future payments to them?"

Speaking earlier this week,

US State Department spokesman

Heather Nauert called for more

countries to give

money to Palestine.

This is not aimed at punishing

anyone. The United States government

and the Trump administration

believed that there should be more

so-called burden sharing to go

around. United States has been in

the past largest single donor. We

would like other countries, other

countries that criticise the United

States for what they believe to be

our position regarding the

Palestinians, other countries that

have criticised us to step forward

and actually help to do more.

I'm joined by James Sorene,

who's the Chief Executive

of the Israeli campaign group Bicom.

James, it is not considered a

punishment by the White House and

Donald Trump, but what else can it

be if they are restricting $65

million that would have gone to

Palestinian relief?

This week, they

said they wanted to see reforms of

the way it operates and this has

been kicked around US politics for a

long time, the US is the largest

donor. And it is a puzzling

organisation. The United Nations

relief and Works agency. It is the

only agency in the world exclusively

for one group of refugees whereas UN

agency deals with refugees around

the world and trying to resettle and

rehabilitate. The prime sole purpose

of UNRA is to perpetuate a refugee

problem, it is the only refugee

organisation that allows you to

inherit refugee status as a

hereditary title.

Is that what it is

set up to do, to perpetuate a

refugee problem in the Palestinian

territories?

No, it is true it it is

this specifically for Palestinians

and it has gone on for 70 years, but

is not its fault as an agency, it is

because the problem has not been

addressed. In the years and those

problems -- those people still are

refugees wherever they are. The

persistence of the problem is the

issue rather than this persistence

of the agency which hopes to

alleviate the Palestinian issue,

well, at least deal with those

people.

$65 million is a lot of

money and it does seem when you read

the messages from Donald Trump that

it is because he is not appreciated

enough, is that a big enough

justification to withholding this

money?

They have given $60 million

and they will freeze the other 65

until they see changes. It is either

that Trump wants to punish the

Palestinian Authority, or he wants

reform, or he wants his America

first bit and say, why should we be

the biggest donors when a lot of

very Richmond list countries are

giving very little, almost nothing?

And there is a real issue that you

should be giving the money to those

with the greatest need. You were

talking about Syrian refugees, we

need to make sure British taxpayers'

money goes to those refugees and

there are questions about why a

Jordanian citizen who is a great

grandson of a Palestinian refugee,

who is a Jordanian citizen receiving

Jordanian services, why should the

British taxpayer pay for the health

and education?

Very real questions.

Let's talk about the money Donald

Trump has withheld. It is true they

are the biggest donor to the

Palestinians and in 2016, they gave

more than double what the EU

contributed so why should the US

carried out financial burden?

I

would have no problem with other

people giving to this agency,

especially the rich Gulf states but

the United States is often the

largest single donor to a range of

UN bodies and if you have an issue

with that, reform it and deal with

those agencies, do not make victims

of the poorest people in this

situation have nothing to do with

it. If there is a lack of progress

in the peace process, that is not

the fault of a child who needs a

school and Doctor in Gaza, you're

making the suffering of those people

much worse. Even if you do not have

a moral problem with that, I don't

own some politically is obviously

the risk is it will radicalise

opinion in those camps, the same

places where the first and second

problems issued from. You are

guaranteeing more hardship and more

suffering.

To accept that might be

the risk?

Those are real issues, but

it is very bloated as an

organisation with over 30,000 staff,

more than a billion in its budget

and it does not just provide health

and education. It supports

micro-finance and other training

which there are real issues, why

does it still do them? You need to

put the money at those with the

greatest need. Jonathan Wright

erases those points, though.

Do you

agree Palestinians will suffer as a

result of this money being held?

At

the money -- at the moment, they

have given the 60 million and other

countries potentially will step up

to the plate and that is what the US

once, it is not in their interest to

see suffering and the Israelis would

be concerned if there was to be

radicalisation and suffering.

The

Israelis understood she needed this

agency. From their self-interest,

just as you need the Palestinian

Authority. To maintain life in those

places.

Although Benjamin Netanyahu

has said it needs reform. What sort

of reforms are they talking about?

You could make structural reforms, I

did not know the figure of 30,000

and there is overstepping, you do

not deal with that by choking off

funding a stroke. Donald Trump's

peak that he issued his Jerusalem

Director of recognising Jerusalem as

the capital of Israel, which had no

previous -- which in no US

government in 70 years they had ever

done, and he is hurting. Outside the

Middle East, he uses for an

assistance as a political if he is

increasing the pressure like he

would have done in Manhattan

negotiating real estate deals. He

wants to squeeze his opponent, but

real people suffer and it is no way

to conduct international policy.

Is

it going to make it more difficult

for the US to be any kind of

independent arbitrator if there were

peace talks to be revived?

Trump is

clearly making clear his strategy.

He is trying to rattle the cage and

he is trying to shake up these kind

of decades long firmament in the

Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Shake

them around. There is not a peace

process at the moment, the

Palestinians are not talking to the

US. But from the US perspective,

they had been taking this can down

the road for decades. UNRRA and the

Palestinian refugees, Jerusalem, and

for those who are pro-Islam and for

those who want to face reality, it

is part of letting Trump be Trump

and shake things up which they

believe might force for instance the

Palestinian Authority "There is a

big question, the Americans have

been pushing the Palestinian

Authority to stop giving support to

terrorists in prisons and their

families, Dreamweaver and $50

million the Palestinian Authority

gives to them, maybe he is saying,

show your priorities. If you're

worried about children and

vaccinations and schools, redirect

that money.

Thank you for coming in.

When Labour attack the Government

over the current winter

crisis affecting the NHS,

Theresa May fires back

that the situations is, she claims,

a lot worse in Wales under Labour.

But is this fair?

This morning, the latest Welsh A&E

figures came out and they show that

just under 85% of patients spent

less than four hours

in emergency care.

The target is 95%.

What's more, in a letter

to First Minister Carwyn Jones,

emergency hospital consultants have

claimed safety is being compromised

"to an unacceptable degree".

Let's get more from this

with Tomos Morgan, who's

in Morriston Hospital, in Swansea.

Welcome to the programme. What are

the latest statistics tell us about

A&E in Wales?

Well, they tell us

that the situation in December just

gone is the worst winter holiday

period on record since records began

in 2009. Just under 80% of patients

being seen within the four-hour time

frame. Many more patients not being

seen within 12 hours. The worst

government target for 12 hours --

the Welsh government target for 12

hours is actually that nobody should

wait that long to be seen but as I

say, more people are having to wait

for that period. Where I am now,

Morriston is the worst performing

hospital in A&E for the four-hour

period. 60% of patients being seen

within that time frame and I spoke

to the medical director earlier run

and one of the big issues that has

been over this winter period,

pressure period, has been the influx

of people coming in with blue

related symptoms and a possible

suggestion that the situation could

worsen before it gets better.

And

doctors so concerned they have

written an open letter to the First

Minister today. What have they said?

I have expressed that their view is

that the situation in Wales is that

a critical point. One of the

signatories in particular said it

was at a crisis in Wales,

chronically under resourced and

underfunded, repairing to Welsh NHS

and social care in Wales. The letter

calls for an increase in social care

funding, a review of acute have --

acute-care hospital beds, a change

in the way Beevor ours is measured

and prioritisation to recruitment

and retention of staff. The doctors

who have signed that latter have

felt strongly enough to apologise

themselves for being able to provide

a safe and efficient emergency

service that they would like to

provide. The Welsh government have

said in response to the figures

today and to the letter that they

have increased funding over the

winter period to 60 million to help

deal with the winter pressures and

have also said that plans have been

in place but the expectation demand

has been higher than expected.

Listening to that was born Gethin,

the health and social services

Secretary in the Welsh government.

Welcome to the daily politics. That

letter from those consultants said

that health was compromised to an

unacceptable degree in Wales, the

worst it's ever been. How does it

feel to be the worst health Minister

in the UK running the worst national

health service, according to your

own consultants?

I don't think

that's what they are saying at all,

with respect. They are talking about

the pressures they face, the

pressures our patients face, going

through the health system. There is

no cause for celebration that we are

under so much pressure. This has

been a record December in the sense

that we have never had so many

people come to our emergency

departments before, we have never

seen so many people aged 85 and

over. We have also never seen,

treated and discharged so many

people before within four hours. It

shows the number of people coming

through the system. What is

interesting in the letter from the

emergency department consultant is

that they recognise that you have to

see health and social care together,

which is why their best callers for

more money into social care.

Will

you give more money in social care

spending?

We have increased social

care spending by 5:4%...

But they

have said it is not enough. They say

care is being compromised and they

need more resources.

We have

invested even more in the budget

passed this week. At the government,

we spent over half our resources on

health and social care, a rate of

spending rising faster than any

other UK nation. This isn't a lack

of commitment from the Welsh

government, it is a lack of overall

resource and that the challenge that

we all face in the United Kingdom.

But consultants in Wales have taken

this unprecedented step of writing

this letter and they say that

patient safety is being compromised.

What do you say to the 3740 patients

he waited more than 12 hours in A&E

before they were admitted or

discharged when the target time is

four hours? You are catastrophically

missing your target.

There is a real

challenge about the number of people

in our system and I don't celebrate

the fact some people are waiting far

too long. The openness about what

we're doing as we have recognised

the pressure, planned for winter, we

have extra beds in our system, --

400 extra beds in our system, and we

have put £400 million upfront and

then we realised we must do more, so

put £10 million extra in in January.

We also pressure on GPs as well,

there -- we also released pressure

on GPs as well, their part in the

system.

How bad does the crisis had

to be...

I am more than happy to

meet them and discuss the details in

their letter and discuss honestly

what we can do.

But you haven't

successfully managed the health

service, have you, taking into

account that you have, as you said,

experienced a high number of

patients coming through the doors

Costa how bad does the crisis have

to be in the Welsh NHS before

ministers like yourself actually

take response ability and say, it's

our fault?

I don't shy away from my

responsibility for the health and

social care system at all. It's also

a recognition of the unprecedented

pressures. We planned for more

activity in the winter but when you

have more than 50% increase in New

Year's Eve in a life-threatening

calls, with respect, you can't plan

for those spikes in demand. Despite

that, we continue to meet our target

for red ambulance calls, which shows

that some parts of our system are

holding up. The overall pressure is

significant. If we want to be able

to deal with what the consultants

called for, with more capacity in

our health and social care system,

that requires more resources. If we

stick with the same budget and the

same austerity coming down from

Westminster, that means significant

cuts in other public services which

will load more pressure into our

social care and health system.

You

have been running the health service

for a number of years. Is it time

for you to apologise to patients in

Wales for failing to meet these

critical targets for A&E.

I

recognise that we need to do better

and I have never shied away from

saying that. I apologise to patients

who have had their care affected and

to those who don't have the dignity

in care that we would all like to

see. These problems are not unique

to Wales. What we have to day within

Wales is take response ability for

our part of the system, the choices

we make about money with the put

into the system, the decisions we

have made about trying to keep

people out of hospital and helping

more people to get out. We need to

do more to get people out of

hospital to wear the right place for

their care and treatment is no

longer a hospital bed. That is a

focus for us here in Wales.

Thank

you very much.

Earlier this week, a deal was struck

between the Bangladesh and Myanmar

governments to repatriate hundreds

of thousands of Rohingya

who fled Myanmar following

a crackdown by the military.

Whilst both countries have pledged

the return will be voluntary,

aid agencies have expressed fears

for the safety of those

who leave the camps.

Here's Elizabeth Glinka, with more.

The Rohingya are a Muslim minority

in a country defined by its Buddhist

faith. Until last year, there were

1.3 million Muslims living in

wrecking state, a coastal region in

the west of mayhem. The Rohingya

have their own language and culture,

many of them descendants from what

was then British run India to work

on their land in the 19th century.

That led to growing tensions with

local Buddhists in the 20th century,

fearing their country was under

threat. When the military jumps to

control, the rights of the Muslim

population were eroded. They are not

recognised as citizens of man Mark

and I habitually framed as outsiders

and... In 2012, more than 100,000

Rohingya Muslims were rounded up and

putting to internment camps. The

latest exodus began in August last

year when they were attacked by

police. The government retaliated

with what they called... Medecins

Sans Frontieres said that in the

months after the clearances, nearly

7000 people including children were

killed. Amnesty International

reported widespread sexual violence

by the military against Rohingya

women and girls, while the military

-- Irma government claimed the

campaign was at the end, refugees

continued to flee over the border

into Bangladesh where 700,000

Rohingya now live in the world's

largest refugee camp. The United

Nations describes the military

campaign as a textbook example of

ethnic cleansing.

With me now is Labour MP

With me now is Labour MP

MP Rosina Alin Khan,

who's visited the refugee

camps in Bangladesh.

I went there as a medical doctor, in

that capacity, and so that I could

speak about it when I came back.

I

was shocked. I met people who had

seen their husbands mutilated, who

themselves had been gang raped, who

had had their own babies thrown onto

fires and who had had to choose

whether they try to save their

babies or escape with the children

they had.

Is this ethnic cleansing

in your mind?

No, I am calling this

a genocide. Ethnic cleansing isn't

even a crime under humanitarian law

and quite frankly what I have seen

is an atrocity and it is genocide.

How long were you there for?

I was

there for a total of five days. It

was a fact -- a packed trip. I slept

for about two hours in total, I

worked in the clinics, I went

throughout the camps with Christian

Aid to see what they were doing and

I met people fleeing over the

border.

The pictures are shocking

when you look at them fleeing over

into Bangladesh, but when you spoke

to survivors, were they expressing

any interest in returning to

Myanmar?

They were saying they would

only be willing to return to their

homeland if they could be guaranteed

security. They fled with the clothes

on their back. They left everything

and they are frightened to death of

going back because they know, as I

do, that if they were to be forcibly

repatriated, they would be going

back to their deaths.

What do you

think of the plans to repatriate

Rohingya into Myanmar?

What we are

hearing that is that if you tell

people who have been pushed out that

the solution is to go back and face

their killers and torturers and

tormentors, that doesn't feel like

any kind of solution at all. There

would have to be some kind of

radical change in that country for

them to feel safe to go back to the

very place where we have been

hearing families were burned to

death, raped and brutalised. This is

being put out a some kind of

solution and I'm sure to the people

concerned it doesn't feel like that

at all.

But is it sustainable for

them to stand Bangladesh which is

already struggling?

Bangladesh has

opened its borders and it's hard but

22% about a day she's already live

below the poverty line. Our

government are doing a great job of

supporting the Bangladeshis with

financial resources, but actually we

need to make sure that we target

Myanmar and we call it out and that

people who have been responsible for

these heinous crimes are taken to

the International Criminal Court. I

have met with Foreign Office

officials who have explained to me

how deeply complex it is on the

ground. Look, Bangladesh do need

support, that is given. But we

cannot, absolutely cannot send

people back to their deaths.

What

has been the reception from the

Foreign Office about this mounting

pressure you feel should be put on

Myanmar?

I have been met with a

variety of responses. I was very

disappointed that openly in a debate

I asked Boris Johnson to meet with

me and he said he was too busy and I

should write him a letter. I wrote

him a letter which he didn't even

respond to. I have met with Minister

Field who was helpful, but the

Foreign Office officials I have

spoken to are working incredibly

hard but do explain how complex it

is on the ground. Quite frankly, our

government are not doing enough at

this point.

What could they do?

Isn't this an international

response, not the UK Government on

their own?

Aung San Suu Kyi does have an

affinity with Britain and the

condemnation you are looking for

from the British Government for

Herbie the de facto leader of this

country who has not done anything,

it seems, to stop this when it was

happening and to put pressure on

her, I think Britain does have

leverage here. In most places, it

has to be admitted a voice from

Britain does not cut but not eyes,

but in this particular case, because

of her links to this country, it

would mean something.

But I hear

what you say. You going to go back?

Yes.

When? I am working out where to

go because I want an objective to

meet. So I am working out the

correct time, but I want to go back

in the next couple of months because

I think it is really important we

keep the pressure up. And the

British public have a track record

of being kind, generous,

compassionate and brave. And we need

to stand collectively, cross-party

on this. I'd call this out for what

it is. If we are allowing this to

happen, were next in the world? We

need to stand up and proudly say, as

the British community, that this is

wrong.

Q.

Thank you.

Who would be an MP?

Not many of us, it seems.

New research - from

the University of Bath -

has found that just one in ten

people would ever think

about becoming an MP,

and those who do are more likely

to be male, highly educated and live

in the South of England.

They found that: Just over 14%

of men have considered standing.

Which is more than double the 6.5%

of women who have thought about it.

Roughly 14% of people classed

as highly educated think

of putting themselves forward.

Compared to just under 5%

with a low level of education.

And the disparity in political

ambition also shows up as one looks

up and down the income ladder,

with 23% of those who earn over

£100,000 having thought about it,

compared to only 9%

who earn below £10,000.

So, does it really matter who

harbours dreams of elected office?

I'm joined by Layla Moran

and Gillian Keegan,

both new MPs from 2017.

Welcome to the programme. You were

brave and decided you would put

yourself forward, why?

For me, it

was about education. I am a teacher

and my background and I got

passionate about trying to change

the education system. I realised to

do that it is better to be in

government and make that pays. And I

chose a party, so I decided I wanted

to be an MP and then compared policy

to what would work and joined the

Liberal Democrats.

So you did not

have a political affinity

beforehand?

Absolutely not. I had

voted, and considered voting mainly

Labour, my dad would kill me if I

voted Tory! But I have not really

had a strong party affiliations, it

came later.

That is interesting

because there is usually a party

affinity, have you always been a

Conservative?

Yes, unusually, I'd

grew up in Knowsley in Merseyside

and there were not many

Conservatives so I really had to

think about it. I would not describe

myself as political, but come out

with a different answer to those

around you, you have had to think

about it. I always voted

Conservative and I never considered

becoming an MP, I did it because

somebody asked me to. Baroness Anne

Jenkin, and I met her in the theatre

in London in the interval. So

beware, these people are everywhere!

She did well in a short space of

time to persuade you!

She goes out

looking for, the Conservative Party

recognise they want to be more

diverse and they deliberately look

for people. For me, I have a working

class background, I am from

Liverpool comprehensive school and

did an apparent ship at 16, normal

jobs. And a Conservative. And she

just randomly said, there is a

campaign which is quite affected

because quite often, women do need

an extra push.

What was the reaction

from people around you?

They cannot

believe it's because I had gone on

to have a successful business career

and I think my parents are still

shocked I have taken a successive --

successful business career where

everybody respected me to something

where people think I am the enemy

who is coming into it for self

serving purposes and I am earning

way times more than I ever could in

any other profession. You do not get

that well regarded. And that is

possibly part of what puts people

off.

I was not that surprised by the

figures. One in ten. Did it surprise

you, did you think there were so

many more people?

No, I thought one

in ten was a lot of people, where

are they? And I would encourage them

to consider it. Now I am in, and I

still pinch myself, I really do. But

I do believe that a lot of people

will have the skills to do a really

great job and it is very clear that

when I look across the house, and I

am sorry, it is older men who are

white, still predominately, we need

the other voices, it really makes a

huge difference. To all those people

thinking about doing it, do it,

don't just think about it!

So it is

key to broaden further and much more

swiftly the make-up of the house?

Absolutely and every political party

can do better, needs to do better.

They celebrate that this is the most

diverse Parliament ever, it is still

nowhere near good enough. We need to

go out and we need to ask people to

do it. They need encouragement to

realise, yes, you can. You have the

skills, you will be great, come

along and do it.

What put you off?

You said you were persuaded by Anne

Jenkin, what might have put you off

going for it?

You have to put

yourself through the ropes to get

there. I stood in Merseyside where I

am from, so going round the streets

of Saint Helens with a blue rosette,

you know whether you want to do it

afterwards! It really does allow you

to test... Resilience! Yes, and

whether you are used to that,

because people are quite abusive

sometimes. But the majority are not,

most people are apolitical and not

that political. I would not know if

they are floating voters in that

area, but they certainly, they are

not really, politics is not at the

front of their minds.

Has it been

what you have expected?

Interesting

question. My seat was so marginal

and so far of being one at the last

election, Oxford West and Abingdon,

we were 9,500 behind and I won by

around 800, so very close. It has

been extraordinary and it is so

worth being here. You can raise big

issues, you often saying things

nobody else is saying and it can

slowly move things in the right

direction. So cynics who say there

is no point in being here, I

completely disagree, it is worth

being here.

2017 was a surprise

election, and it has heralded in a

different House of Commons which

different elections do, but even

more so because people rushed into

standing for office.

Yes, and not

always with a happy outcome, we have

two success stories here but

candidates came in whom had not been

vetted correctly like Jared O'Mara.

Remarks also about vasectomy is

which perhaps if he had gone round a

couple of states like you did, he

would not have done that! Your

experience as a teacher is

interesting, and we heard earlier

from a former doctor and it is often

people who feel frustrated and

they've feel they need to get their

weavers onto some big change and go

into government.

The Parliament.

Finally, political heroes?

Winston

Churchill is mine.

Mine is Shirley

Williams, partly because as a woman,

she had the steely determination and

she was also kind and compassionate

and she was able to marry the two

and that is extraordinary.

Thank you

both.

Thank you.

Let's get more now on President

Macron's visit to the UK.

Speaking in Downing Street a year

ago, before he became President,

Mr Macron was very open

about encouraging people

to move to France.

I reaffirm my willingness best to

have direct execution of the Brexit.

To defend French and European

interests in that, in such an

execution. In my programme, you will

have a series of initiatives to get

talented people in research in a lot

of fields working here and coming to

France. I was very happy to see that

some academics and researchers

because of the Brexit would consider

the Konta France to work, and it

will be part of my programme to be

attractive for this type of people.

President Macron one.

Let's speak to Alexandre

Holroyde, who's an MP

for President Macron's En Marche!

party.

Welcome back, how successful has

France been in attracting these

businesses and people from London to

Paris?

It is not a question of

attracting people from London to

Paris. That is what he said. It is

just attracting people to Paris. In

the last eight months since the 18th

of June when the majority came to

power is profoundly reform our

Labour markets, our tax system, the

training programmes in France so

that we can make France incredibly

attends -- attractive to end -- when

it anybody, investors in Hong Kong

or the UK. I am sure President

Macron would have said the same

thing about New York.

This is

trained to your financial services,

rightly or wrongly, from London,

which has been seen as the main

financial centre, while you been shy

about it?

I am not being shy, I am

very open that we are trying to

attract financial services and also

companies and investments and

research and students.

As Brexit the

opportunity for you to mount that

campaign further, to take advantage

of the situation with the

negotiations with Britain?

The real

challenge is unrelated to Brexit, it

is reforming and conducting through

a really ambitious transformation

programme in France. Who has a

number of problems which have not

been addressed in the last three

decades and we are addressing one by

one to make it as attractive as

possible.

Call me a cynic, many

people do, but the A&E and generous

offer from Emmanuel Macron, what

does he want in return?

It is not a

question of return. We have an

incredibly close relationship

between France and the UK which is

independent from the EU. It is an

incredibly close relationship in

defence and also in cultural

exchanges. We have a great programme

for future leaders which has been

launched last year, we have an

amazing amount of twinning between

cities in France and the UK and

these initiatives, we think they

should be pushed further, so that is

what we are doing and Bayeux

Tapestry is part of cultural

exchange because it is shared

history.

It is also part of Macron's

method and he is very effective, to

be tough with one hand, so with

Trump, he gave him a hard handshake

with one and with the other, he

invites him for Bastille Day and has

a visit in the way that Theresa May

has not been able to and he does

that effectively. He has been tough

with Theresa May about Calais and

getting wonderful headlines for this

gift of the Bayeux Tapestry.

It

seems Macron is rather good at

statehood, and he is rather young,

but he is proving he knows how to

get this good cup and bad cup game

going and he has done it again with

us and the Bayeux Tapestry.

Why

should Britain bond or pay for

improvements to the economy in

Calais which President Acra one

thing is has been damaged by the

migrant issue?

The agreement which

oversees the board it in Calais and

the French border in Dover, it has

been discussed and adapted over the

years because the challenges have

changed.

But this is over and above

the agreement, this was to go

towards funding.

This is a shared

challenge, a shared problem that we

have together that we have a border

on sides. If you think of networks

of criminals who are using this

crisis the traffic people over the

Channel, we need both countries to

work hand-in-hand. That involves

commitment from both countries

security wise and on both sides of

the Channel.

What would you like

Stallone to you as a gift in return

for the Bayeux Tapestry, at a

cultural level # -- what would you

like to be loaned to you.

I don't

know, we will wait for a gesture. I

am sure we would be delighted to

have anything sharing the fantastic

new Xeon is all over.

That is a mean

question! Sorry.

There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz.

The question was:

Which politician, booked to speak

at a student event at UCL,

was billed as 'like hearing

Barack Obama in 2003'?

Was it:

A) Green Party co-leader

Jonathan Bartley?

B) Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson?

C) Ukip Leader Henry Bolton?

Or, D) Tory backbencher

Jacob Rees-Mogg?

So, Jonathan, what's

the correct answer?

By process of illumination, I am

going to guess and the only one who

seems to have a future ahead of her

is Jo Swinson.

Well done, your

powers of deduction have worked

well, it is in fact Jo Swinson.

Despite that ambitious billing to be

like Barack Obama!

That's all for today.

Thanks to our guests.

Andrew will be on BBC One tonight.

And I'll be here again

at noon tomorrow.

Bye-bye.