26/09/2016 Newsnight


With Evan Davis. Newsnight speaks to shadow chancellor John McDonnell from the Labour Party conference in Liverpool.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/09/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



In this party, you no longer have to whisper its name, it's called


On stage in Liverpool, politics on the left


After years of running from it, Labour is now embracing it.


One of the boldest political experiments of the age.


The Shadow Chancellor is here to tell us what the S


And is this a party that can work together, or two


I hope that he can put together a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents,


but that does require Jeremy and his newly re-endorsed


mandate to reach out to the Parliamentary Labour


Party and say, I do want to work together.


And Team Sky defends Sir Bradley Wiggins' use of steroids


We can still trust Sky, we can trust in their achievements?


100%, you can trust in Sky, absolutely, 100%.


That's the very essence of why we created this team in the first


We're here, as the Labour Party is here, for its annual conference.


A changing political order is underway, entrenching.


For a taste of the different style, here is the picture


of Jeremy Corbyn, who abolished the post of shadow mental


health minister, here offering support to the campaign


Campaigning for himself to do something is a novel approach


The other strange moment was around the speech


of shadow defence secretary Clive Lewis.


Here is the footage of him, shot by ITN, just before


giving his speech, apparently being told by email


The autocue was being altered on his behalf.


His compromising tone on perhaps keeping Trident,


toned down to leave open the option of dumping it.


Some of us who live by autocue know that you must never ever


But the excuse was the one that producers use here,


they always say the boss wanted the script change made.


Well, fun and games aside, Labour is, I suppose, two parties


Last year, Labour met just after Jeremy Corbyn


Shell shock was the predominant mood among the old guard.


This year the party is again meeting just after Jeremy Corbyn has been


The mood of the old guard is weary, reluctant, resignation.


However, there is a new guard as well.


And that, to be blunt, is where the action is.


Here is where it's happening, a real buzz, affirmative ideas and


discussion on the alternative left. However this isn't the Labour Party.


It is an event organised by Momentum, nearby. Reflecting its


ambition, it is called the World Transformed. What's wrong with


politics at the moment is that it is about whether you are left wing or


right-wing, which faction, but that's not what people care about,


they care about ideas, issues that affect them. Not only is this not


the hard left, it is very soft and compassionate, but the idea that it


is left rather than just progressive I think is highly misleading.


Momentum only has 18,000 members, far fewer than the Liberal


Democrats. Think about their impact on politics. By organisation and


dedication that centrists struggled to manage from their homes, they


have changed the opposition party beyond recognition and they are


entrenching that change. A certain clarity of purpose fuelling the


organisation's drive. But then this is the visual Labour conference. It


has its moments but it is perhaps a little flat. The stands in the


exhibition area rather obviously well spaced out. It seems that the


businesses who often want to lobby and be seen at these events have


largely stayed away and many of the party malcontents are also absent.


Is there a clarity and unity of purpose here? I think we are kidding


anyone if we think that the wounds are going to be healed overnight but


there is a strong sense that we now have been reminded of the job that


we need to get on and do and what people want to see is a strong


opposition. I think there's a real desire to do things that are going


to make things happen and change in this country. An opposition to


what's going on. It would be wrong to portray this official conference


as in any way lacklustre. They can fill this enormous hall when they


need to, but the official conference has one disadvantage compared to the


leftist enthusiasts on the other side of town. Over there, they are


getting stuck into the issues, the things that matter to them. Over


here, given the different factions in the party and the trouble they


have been through, it is hard to get the conversation to move beyond who


the leader is and what the rules of engagement are. This may or may not


be the year that they managed to progress beyond that. On one measure


of Labour ship -- leadership, Labour is the biggest party in Europe.


Recovery from its traumas will not be instant. Today, John McDonnell


took to the stage, fleshing out his plans and he joins me now. So you


said that it is a government in waiting, policies on the shelf, you


must get down to the detailed implementation for those policies.


Can we start with tax? It is 37% of national income. Roughly where would


you to see that end up after five years of Labour government? One of


the reviews we are undertaking a review of tax, it is the first of


all the requirements of tax that we have but also the range of taxation


we want. That's the first stage that is taking place now. We have done a


review that we commissioned last year with HMRC looking at tax


evasion and avoidance, a lot of work on that. We reviewed HMRC as to how


it should be managed and organised. It is one of the pieces of work we


are doing. That doesn't sound like a government in waiting. I'm not


asking you to give me to the nearest 0.5%, but to the nearest 5%? Nearer


the election, you will know more. There is a sense of urgency on this


and that is why it... You can't tell me now, you've been Shadow


Chancellor for a year, you can't tell me within 5% of national income


where you think the tax burden should be? Roughly it should remain


where it is. Roughly the same as it is? Let me finish. We don't want to


pre-empt the reviews we are doing. What we have said so far is that


first of all, we are not talking about increasing income tax on


middle and low earners, we want to ensure that the corporations start


paying their way, we want to reverse some of the benefits that have been


given to the rich and we want to tackle tax evasion and avoidance. We


want to invest in the economy and we can grow the tax base. You have not


told me that you do not see the tax burden changing very much from where


it is. We will look at the tax base and we will come to conclusions


before the general election. But you must have some idea, you've been in


politics for many years, Shadow Chancellor for a year. Do you want


to see us like Sweden and France and the United States? I want to insure


that our taxation is fair. I want to make sure that it falls on those


best able to pay and that corporations pay their way. We're


not talking about your Matic increases in overall taxation but we


want to ensure that the work we do, which I promised in the Labour Party


conference last year and this year, that every instrument we use will be


tested vigorously. You raised the idea of tax in your speech today,


you cannot be taxing salaries and wages, we need to tax more on


wealth. I'm not going to expect you to tell me the details of your


wealth tax plan. We lost the review today. Will it be on housing, a


Mansion Tax? That raised 1 billion. I did not think that was going to be


very successful. In the review, we will go out and listen to people's


ideas and come back fairly quickly on that about the proposals. So you


have said you are going to move to a wealth tax and you, at no point --


at this bite, have no idea how you are going to do that? -- at this


point. We are looking at wealth and we will do it in a way that engages


with the wider community and we will come back with our proposals but the


point of the exercise, launched today, is to ensure that whatever


measure we use is rigorously tested. I thought you were a government in


waiting. The whole point of today's exercise was to say that we need to


be ready for a general election, we need policies on the shelf and


implementation plans ready. A number of areas like this, that is what we


have lost. I'm not expecting you to talk about the detail but I thought


we might get the parameters. Another area, immigration. If Labour comes


to power, would policies be adopted that would have the objective of


trying to get the overall level of net migration down? Migration is


dependent on what the economy needs and you can only determine that as


the economy develops. Take the Brexit issue, we want to ensure that


we have access to the single market. That will be associated with free


movement of Labour but that has consequences, the undercutting of


wages and pressure on public services, so we will address those


issues. Is the answer to the question is, getting immigration


down, no, it will not be your objective? It is a simple question.


The answer is straightforward. No, it wasn't. It will be based on what


the economy needs. Do you expect that to be lower? We will see how


the economy develops, it is unpredictable. We want to grow the


economy and at different stages there may be opportunities where


immigration is important to ensure that the economy grows. Many people


are worried about immigration for a different reason to the one you


emphasise, you talk about they don't like wages being undercut, being


pushed down by the arrival of competing workers. Many people are


not worried about that, they are worried about things going on in


society, change that they find difficult to digest, they see the


community and language changing. Is that a legitimate objection to


immigration? It is not an objection to immigration, people are fearful


of change sometimes and our job in government and at every level is


basically to assist people to overcome those fears and address the


issue of change. That has happened for generations. It sounds like you


won't let that be taken into account, it is just an economic


question. It is also about pressure on public services. Some of the


concerns we have heard on the doorstep, especially during the


Brexit campaign, was about housing and the health service and we can


deal with that by investing in those public services. A third one where


I'm afraid the policy is as clear as mud to me, Trident. Now, is it your


belief that when Labour goes into the next election, its policy will


be to renew Trident? The existing party policy is to renew Trident.


We've had a debate in the House of Commons which was a free vote


because we believe this was a conscience issue and as a result,


the party came to a consideration and the attitude amongst our members


is the same. We will get the right to MPs and our members who support


Trident to vote accordingly but at the same time we will enable others


to campaign against. I don't understand, let's suppose that we


have an election next year or the year after, which is not wild


fantasy, let's suppose we have an election. If I vote Labour, and by


voting for Trident or don't know? In the period until now and the general


election, we will fall our manifesto. There will be people like


me who are going to be arguing that we should have Trident and others


will argue to keep it. At the moment the majority position is to keep it


but at the same time, when we go into Parliament, this is a


conscience issue and there will be a free vote. Clive Lewis, the Defence


Secretary, has said that it is time the party stopped picking at the


scab of Trident and he said that he won't be coming back to conference


between now and the next election to try and undo the policy that you


have an Trident as things stand. Clive Lewis, the Defence Secretary,


saying he isn't coming back to look at the policy again. Is your opinion


that it is open to be discussed again? It is always open within the


Democratic process of the Labour Party for the members to raise an


issue, that is called democracy. So is Clive Lewis just speaking for


himself? What is the point of...? He says that the matter has been


decided but it is always open for the party to raise these issues and


I'm sure that will happen on a range of views. So the Defence Secretary


is confused, the Shadow Defence Secretary, confused about what the


policy is going to be an Trident? He is stating what the position is at


the moment. He has the right to review these policies and to change


these policies. Anybody in the party can campaign on these issues. Your


foreign affairs spokesman says there is an ongoing review. Is that your


understanding? Has been an ongoing review for some time. His view is he


cannot see it coming back however it is open to others in that to say


they wanted discussed again. This is a government in waiting. You're not


a government in waiting now? We need to become a government in waiting.


That means developing these policies. The Trident one makes a


real point because it does not sound like you know what the policy is


what it's going to be. There are different views within this party.


Is it conceivable you will have a policy on Trident which the leader


of your party will not publicly support? Jeremy's position is


straightforward, he does not support the renewal of Trident. But if there


is a view then that will be party policy. And when we go into that


election should we believe the policy or the belief of the leader?


The reality is, whatever happens about Trident policy and development


there will be a free vote in parliament because it is a


conscience issue. We will not know the outcome of that vote? I think


that will happen among a number of parties. It is so significant in the


minds of the people it has become a conscience issue. We are going to


keep you there and talk about party matters. Clive Lewis said you will


stick by the Nato target. That is policy. Labour Government have


consistently spent above that number. We're going to talk little


bit more. We cannot not talk about party unity because if there is none


of the latter there will not be an opportunity to implement the former.


Our political editor gave his weekend up to keep tabs.


The revolution may have some way to run but this was beyond their


imagination a few years ago. Today was the time for generosity, as John


McDonnell called on them to think about how they could change the


world. If Labour came together they could create a radically fear of


society. The world has changed, and the things Jeremy Corbyn is talking


about are the issues people are finding relevant and in their lives,


finding appropriate housing when rent is high and house ownership is


going down and house-building is at the lowest point in peacetime


Britain. We need to address the issues. There is a change in the


atmosphere as both sides peer out of the trenches. Jeremy Corbyn is


embarking on a note reach programme and his critics admit he's here to


stay. -- and our reach. There is still mutual suspicion and most of


the plotters say the need reassurance before they return to


the fore. I hope he can put together a Shadow Cabinet of all the talents.


But that does require Jeremy and his newly reimbursed mandate to reach


out to the PLP and say, I want to work together. That is why Shadow


Cabinet elections are a significant indicator. One old hand says it is


unreasonable for those who turned their back on Jeremy Corbyn to


demand elections to the Shadow Cabinet. The argument about whether


we should have that, I was elected in that process, but the PLP said,


get rid of them. Now they're saying they wanted. We've said a lot of


things, some abusive comments have been made on both sides, whether it


is some in the PLP or some in Momentum. Wipe the slate clean. Over


at the political and cultural festival organised by Jeremy


Corbyn's Pretoria guard in the Momentum movement, one supporter


said the plotters should fall into line and back their leader. I think


he will be popular once he stops being knifed in the back by the


right-wing. If you are a football manager and half the team leave the


pitch before the whistle is blown you're not going to score many


goals. But the former frontbenchers are not giving up and are working as


a group, as they say they need clarity on the contentious issue of


the selection of MPs. I could see the group going back but it would


only be worthwhile if there were signs from the leadership that they


genuinely wanted to be a government of all the talents. Also, making it


clear that the selection is not where time should be spent. It


should be spent on fighting the Tories. Ken Loach says MPs should


learn to come to terms with democracy. They are on the ballot


paper because they are chosen by the Labour Party constituency. If they


got a majority, they got that as the Labour Party. Have you got job


security for five years? Being an MP is not a job for life. Many of the


plotters are contrite and admit it was a mistake of historic


proportions. But when it comes to control of their party, the battle


is far from over. Nick is with me now. You've been out and about


today. How has this marriage guidance business gone? There was a


big moment today. You were just discussing on that issue from


Labour, nuclear disarmament. This conference may be remembered for a


stand-off on personnel. Charlie Faulkner says if Jeremy Corbyn wants


to bring back the frontbenchers he'd need to give ground on the


elections. I understand Jeremy Corbyn is prepared to send out a


pretty tough message and say he would be willing to move before


there is an agreement on Shadow Cabinet elections. No reshuffle


until after this conference concludes but evidently, Jeremy


Corbyn is saying that if he wants to appoint a Shadow Cabinet he could


appoint a very respectable and credible Shadow Cabinet tomorrow and


as per the wider front bench... There are 65 vacancies to fill and


evidently what he is saying is we could have an even more efficient


front bench if we did not have as many. You mentioned in your piece


they are organised, tell me about the organisation of the rebels, the


opposition. There is one laudable. One frontbencher said there are some


loan rules but most of them are swimming in a shawl. Their efforts


are being co-ordinated by the whips and the leadership of the PLP. What


I've learned is when that group here of a lone wolf, they see a name in


the newspapers, that person is tapped on the shoulder and given a


message, watch out because if you go in your going to undermine Tom


Watson's efforts to get Shadow Cabinet elections. Why is there a


fuss? The Shadow Cabinet has three members on the NEC and they are


watching the balance of that very carefully. John McDonnell is still


with me. Let's talk about some of these party matters. Does it bother


you that they are acting as a union? A shoal of fish tapping wolves on


the shoulder? It is a bit of a mixed message. There have always been


different complexions. I'm not aware of this analogy. The whole tenure of


this conference is about uniting and if you talk to the membership and


large amounts of the PLP, they want the party to unite, to develop the


policies that we want for a government in waiting. It would be


tempting to appoint a Shadow Cabinet of Corbynistas rebels who want to


come back. This sort of language about rebels, a number of people


have resigned, some of them want to come back. That's great. I would


welcome them all back. You see you'd welcome them all back. Some of them


have said really nasty things about the leader. Is it literally wiping


the slate clean or are there some for whom that slate is too scarred?


Yes, yes... What we've been saying is what is said on tour remains


onto! Leadership election took place, Jeremy Corbyn and increased


mandate, you put them behind. One person said he could not tolerate


his hypocrisy any longer. You're talking to someone who has also not


been very careful with his language. You said he was part of the


establishment, throwing everything, you regret that... In a campaign,


harsh words get spoken but when you come to the end of that, Democratic


decisions are made and even despite those harsh words, I was in that


green room when the announcement was made and I was extremely friendly


and comradely. Hilary Benn is a big beast of the party. It would be


great if you could get him. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn would like that?


Yell Mac I'm sure. I've worked with Hillary over the years, he was a


local ward councillor in my constituency. He is incredibly


talented and could play a vital role. You would obviously facilitate


unity if you made a compromise. I'm making cup of tea is with everyone.


That is not comprise, it is charm. One of them would be to say you


could have Shadow Cabinet elections. It has not been ruled out. How


likely do you think it is? You could click your fingers and do it. This


is the problem we've got. Any move made by Jeremy could bring some


on-site and push others away. What we've got to do is build a consensus


so we don't push people back into the corners again. That takes a


little bit of time and quite a bit of compromising. Jeremy is into


that. Who will be pushed away by compromise? Some within the party


are seeing if there are Shadow Cabinet elections, we want a role


within that, and that is the membership. But that is just one


issue, there are a whole range of issues about democratising the


party, involving members, how you elect the NEC. The other issue, the


PLP feel very strongly about it, mandatory reselection. At the moment


they can be booted out if the party does not like them. We've ruled out.


On the boundary commission, we've got the Chief Whip leading on that.


We oppose it in the court and Parliament. If it goes ahead, the


existing rules will apply. That means if an MP has a certain


percentage in a constituency, they will have the right. Even if the


membership say they want that. You plan to oppose it? Is our view is


not appropriate, we've got to overcome this problem hopefully by


defeating the boundary commission. We're trying to make sure the


existing rules apply. John McDonnell is the best in the Shadow Cabinet


but how many of the others can you name?


With some of the familiar old names not in the shadow cabinet,


it's taking time for everyone to get to know the new.


We sent Lewis Goodall out in the streets of Liverpool,


to see how well Labour's senior figures are cutting through.


This gentleman here? The Labour leader. His name? It has gone out of


my head. Do you know any members of the Shadow Cabinet? I'm going to


look like the typical stupid person. This person here? John McDonnell,


Shadow Chancellor. Pretty good. This lady? That is Diane Abbott. Do you


know him? No. And her? No. This is bad. You know her? Giving a big


speech today, do you know who that is? Who is that? Any idea? No. John


McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor. Is he changing anything? I haven't had


much luck in Liverpool but I'm hoping here will be more successful.


The Shadow Justice Secretary, what do you think of him? Not my cup of


tea. We can find out this stuff, so what is the purpose of you trying to


catch us out? Trying to demonstrate... Showing we are in it


-- showing we are ignorant but I don't think this is a very success


will argument. I'm not criticising this gentleman. He is basically


saying, you don't know who these people are, wouldn't it be more


sensible to let the MPs decide? You have done better than many of the


Labour Party members? Even the members? You should sign up, they


are just down there. Politics can be about vision,


having a clear idea Weighing up different views,


working out the best compromise. You judge whether Mr Corbyn has


the vision, we are going to discuss Two people not in the Corbyn


wing are with me. He was in the shadow


cabinet under Ed Miliband, she was in the shadow cabinet under


Jeremy Corbyn until she resigned. That was back in June. I don't know


if you heard everything John Gunnell was saying there. I wanted to know


how reassuring it was that Macdonald Donnell. He said that there would be


no mandatory reselection, is that correct? That is a positive thing to


hear and I think it is a good thing because what we need after a


bruising summer, there needs to be a reaching out and working together


and addressing some of the concerns that have been raised by the


Parliamentary Labour Party. He seemed to imply that it had already


been clarified. Is that clear to you? I hope that is the case. For


John to say that, I haven't heard it clearly before, but for John to say


that I think is important because it sends the message about hearing some


of the concerns and saying that if we are to move forward, as we need


to, to move forward in a way that means we can focus on the Tories


means that we address some of the issues that have been raised. You


have to rack set the rules as they are, we have a set of rules, the


selection of candidates, where people are coming in, new


candidates, you have to rack set that there will be no change to the


rules on parliamentary selection. Shut down the issue and frankly we


shouldn't be having any talk about the deselection of Labour MPs. The


only talk of deselection there should be is of the Conservative MPs


in the next election. Let me ask you, would you both say that you are


socialists? An embarrassed -- not embarrassed to use the word? I have


called myself a democratic socialist, because the words of


equality and fairness. But I also recognise that you need a way in


which you are developing an agenda, the language that can reach out. I


think it is positive, if we can find ways to come together, focus on


common values, that is an agenda. Democratic socialist, Socialist


democrat. Just a socialist. People watching the programme did not care


about labels, they will care about what you will do for me and my


community, how are you going to build a fairer Britain and help me


realise my ambition? I published a pamphlet on the case for socialism.


I think this is a slight distraction, the big message is


about how we invest in the future, shared prosperity, that's what it's


about and I don't want to lose focus on that. I don't think any of us do.


The conference should be about setting the agenda. Being the same


page as the British people, having an economy that works for everybody,


tackling the issues following Brexit, making sure we have the NHS


and social care that are fit for the future. You're both behaving well


and saying what the party should say. We are saying what we think. So


why don't you serve in the Shadow Cabinet? The obvious way to serve


your party, he has the mandate, you have some of the talent and ideas,


why not join the Shadow Cabinet? I'm standing to become the chair of the


House of Commons select committee but I wouldn't rule anything out.


There are a variety of ways that people can contribute. Tom Watson,


part of the way he became the deputy leader is because of the fantastic


work he did on the culture select committee, holding people like you


to account or Margaret Hodge, holding the multinationals to


account. It sounds like you are running away from serving in Jeremy


Corbyn's Labour Party, you would like an independent job. Why not


serve the new leader, he has a mandate? I haven't ruled anything


out. So you are available? I am in the election I'm standing in at the


moment. If people want to serve, I think we need people doing a variety


of things, there is not one exclusive way to contribute. There


will be people who will go back and serve on the front bench and they


will have my support. There is a bigger picture about how we have a


much better way of constructing a better way of working and dealing


with the issues that led to the leadership election. I think that is


right,... Will you serve in the Shadow Cabinet? The reason the


election to the Shadow Cabinet is that it is a win-win. You may not


win that argument. If there isn't an elected Shadow Cabinet, why don't


you serve Jeremy Corbyn? By making the point that if you want a way in


which we build bridges across the Parliamentary Labour Party, which I


want to see, between the leadership and those who have served and those


who chose not to over the last 12 months, some things may need to


change, give and take on both sides and the role of the leader is


central in changing some of the conditions. That's why having a way


for the Parliamentary Labour Party to have a stake in the success of us


as an operation, that is an important move. I think it is


important because we want to see a shift on some of the issues and also


around tackling the abuse we've seen in the party, some action to reduce


and stop that. And we need to move together constructively, that's what


the members want to see. We have a view seconds. You told me many


things you want. Chuka Umunna, what are the compromises you are -- your


wing of the party is willing to make? You have lost, you have been


trounced, you have a leader with different beliefs, what is the


compromise you are going to make for him? I think people are going to go


back and serve on the front bench. Secondly, in many respects, this


internal navel-gazing, the obsession with each other isn't going to win


us the election. The one gold everyone has agreed on is winning


the election but let me say that we're not going to do by talking to


each other about things we agree on -- the one goal. On the economy, one


reason we lost the election is our perceived economic incompetence, we


must deal with that. Just over one third of Labour voters voted against


the official position of the Labour Party, on the referendum,


principally on issues around immigration. Why don't advocate the


adoption of the approach that Ukip toque but we need an approach that


resonates with our values -- that Ukip toque. We're out of time. --


that they took. Now before we go, we've been


reporting for the last week on the controversy surrounding


the use of powerful steroid injections by one of Britain's


greatest sportsmen, Sir Bradley Wiggins,


ahead of three of his biggest races. Details of the injections emerged


after hackers released files from the international


anti-doping body Wada. What they revealed was


perfectly within the rules - but several experts and cyclists


suggested his use of a powerful drug which has been used in the past


by cheats just didn't smell good. Today the head of Wiggins' cycling


team, Sir Dave Brailsford, spoke for the first time


about the affair to the BBC's Here's Mark Daly, who's been


covering the story for us. It was 11 days ago when we first


heard about Bradley Wiggins's therapeutic use exemptions, revealed


by the suspected Russian hackers and on Newsnight we were raising


questions about this powerful drug that he was given special


dispensation to use by the cycling authorities for his asthma and


allergies. It was controversial because it is a banned drug that was


abused for years by cyclists including Michael Rasmussen, the


pro-cyclist who told us that it is one of the most potent drugs are


used. We heard from Sir Bradley Wiggins' former team doctor who said


that he was surprised that his former rider had to have such a


powerful medical intervention. Yesterday we heard from Sir Bradley


himself on the Andrew Marr show when he said that the drug was indeed for


a genuine medical condition and not for performance enhancing purposes


but that appearance raised more questions than answers for many


people and today it was so Dave Brailsford, the boss of Team Sky,


who was being questioned. He mounted a defence of his former rider and


the Team Sky processes. He said they followed advice from the team doctor


and from the specialist who examined Sir Bradley Wiggins. He may have


hoped that his intervention could draw a line under the saga but I


doubt that because there remained some issues not resolved because


four example there was no real explanation as to why it serve a


knee needed the drug in 2011, 2012 and 2013 but not in 2014. He didn't


answer the questions about the inconsistencies in Wiggins' books,


his autobiography, when he said that he had been healthy in 2012 and yet


here he is, having this powerful medical intervention. And also the


issue of whose idea this was in the first place. Was it the ear, nose


and throat specialist who he saw or did the idea come from within Team


Sky itself? That is something that can put two so Dave Brailsford today


-- Daniel. Five or six years ago, I can't pinpoint it exactly but I know


that I've seen the reports from the specialist which quite clearly state


that Bradley is suffering from a condition, he quite clearly states


that the medication he was taking was being used optimally and was


ineffective and he recommended that Bradley was given this particular


medication to alleviate his symptoms. When I read that, I've got


no reason to question the validity, the decision-making of a


professional of that stature. It goes to the authorities. It was


applied for, conveniently, just before the grand tours in three


consecutive years, so effectively it was preventative, right? He was


taking it in case. Let's be clear, a lot of TUEs in sport for asthma


sufferers, allergic reactions, etc, and the nature is that you don't


wait until you are really suffering, you have a puffer beforehand. There


are contradictions that have come out, for example talking to Andrew


Marr he said he wanted different treatment because he was struggling


in the build-up to the 2012 Tour de France but there is no reference to


that in his book and he said that he was in great health, fine form. Do


you remember any evidence of him suffering? I've known him for a long


time and I know that he has asthma and has had problems with allergies


and that has been with him for his whole career. Any regrets about him


taking that medication at those times from you? With the information


I had at the time, five or six years ago, at that moment in time, the way


it was presented and the expert opinion and the entire process, I


would make the same decision then. And with the information you have


now? We definitely reflect as we move on and we have changed our


policies, as have the authorities around TUEs, but that is a


reflection of learning and good practice and everyone's attempts to


be rigorous around the TUE process. So you have crossed the thin blue


line, the cornerstone? Not at all. The one mantra, you can ask anybody


who has been in the team, we absolutely, there is no crossing the


line, we do not go over the line. Maybe there is a grey area where you


are within the rules but perhaps you have contravened the spirit of them?


Claiming to be whiter than white but are you in a grey area? That's a


fair question in terms of the debate about that aspect and people can


have opinions. We can trust Sky and their achievements? 100%,


absolutely, 100%, that is why we created the team in the first place,


don't forget. This sport has had a difficult time in the past and the


whole reason and ambition about creating Team Sky, having worked in


this velodrome for ten years and the time, seeing young guys going out


into a world where you wanted professional teams, where you knew


that they could go and never ever be pressured to cheat or take any kind


of doping substances and that's what we tried to do. We created that team


and environment and I can guarantee you that nobody has or will ever get


put under pressure in this team to do anything outside of the rules.


Sir David Brailsford talking to Dan Roan.


We'll be back here in Liverpool tomorrow night with the latest


on Labour, but that's it for tonight, on a day


that the Shadow Chancellor pledged that under a Labour government


there would be no more Philip Greens.


We estimate there are quite few people with that name in the UK,


so if you're one of them, we suggest you don't answer the door


We will shake up how corporations work and how the economy is owned


and managed, we will clamp down on the abuses of power at the very top.


Under Labour, no more Philip Greens at all.


Expect a rather drab start to your Tuesday morning, lot of cloud, thick




Download Subtitles