:00:00. > :00:00.Time was, you would never have believed we could exist
:00:07. > :00:14.Now it's official policy that we will.
:00:15. > :00:18.We'll look ahead to how motor transport will work after 2040.
:00:19. > :00:21.But do we need to worry a little more about our oil-polluted air
:00:22. > :00:27.What the government was required to do was to prepare air quality
:00:28. > :00:30.plans which would reduce the levels of pollution in the
:00:31. > :00:35.Something which works in the next 23 years is not going to reduce those
:00:36. > :00:37.pollution levels in our towns and cities in the next
:00:38. > :00:43.We'll test the government's ideas for cleaning up our atmosphere.
:00:44. > :00:47.In the midst of a week of drama here at the White House, I'm joined by
:00:48. > :00:48.one of Donald Trump's key lieutenants, Sebastian Gorka.
:00:49. > :00:50.What has the President achieved in the
:00:51. > :00:56.Ten years ago, Anita Roddick, the environmentalist and founder
:00:57. > :00:59.of the Body Shop died, one of the most high profile victims
:01:00. > :01:04.We hear from her daughter Sam for the first time.
:01:05. > :01:08.She was pretty clear that she got it through the
:01:09. > :01:16.And, you know, I could really hear the
:01:17. > :01:26.vulnerability in her voice because my mum really feared death.
:01:27. > :01:31.Was it an announcement to which there was less
:01:32. > :01:36.A ban on petrol and diesel cars to come into effect in 2040.
:01:37. > :01:39.It was designed as an answer to what you do about air quality,
:01:40. > :01:44.As fumes are killing thousands of people a year now,
:01:45. > :01:48.Some think it is actually a distraction from
:01:49. > :01:53.But there were other measures, too, and we'll discuss those shortly.
:01:54. > :01:56.And there is a sense that regardless of what government says,
:01:57. > :01:58.we may be in the latter days of oil-driven cars.
:01:59. > :02:01.Assuming we can work out where we get all the electricity
:02:02. > :02:04.Our technology editor David Grossman has been looking
:02:05. > :02:13.at the prospects for motor transport and the air we breathe.
:02:14. > :02:25.This is what is done for electric cars up to now, the convenience of
:02:26. > :02:30.pumping 400 miles of range into a car in minutes at any one of 8500
:02:31. > :02:35.service stations nationwide but change is coming by order of the
:02:36. > :02:40.government. We have to get petrol and diesel cars off our road and
:02:41. > :02:45.make sure we deal with the problems and pollution causes and beat
:02:46. > :02:50.targets. The announcement was to divide as part of the response to
:02:51. > :02:54.the air pollution crisis. The government had been ordered by the
:02:55. > :03:00.High Court to come up with a plan to cut nitrogen dioxide. There is
:03:01. > :03:05.millions to help councils cut pollution but no diesel scrappage
:03:06. > :03:11.scheme yet. I think it is a smoke screen. What it does is helps to
:03:12. > :03:14.push us towards climate change goals, encouraging manufacturers to
:03:15. > :03:17.move away from combustion engines but we think the wind is blowing
:03:18. > :03:23.that way anyway but from the point of view of air quality, it will not
:03:24. > :03:28.do the job, we need quick measures soon. Moving from a world where we
:03:29. > :03:34.burn petrol and diesel to get about to one where we don't will be a huge
:03:35. > :03:43.journey requiring the reimagining of the transport infrastructure. We
:03:44. > :03:46.have a thriving car industry in the UK and yesterday BMW announced an
:03:47. > :03:49.electric version of the Mini to be made in Oxford. Not everyone thinks
:03:50. > :03:57.the target can be met without significant jobs moving overseas.
:03:58. > :04:05.What I am not OK with his setting up electric cars by 2040, but not
:04:06. > :04:10.developing a Nasa, we do not have the capability to manufacture,
:04:11. > :04:16.engineer and design batteries, motors, inverters, infrastructure in
:04:17. > :04:23.the UK right now. Where is this extra power going to come from? In a
:04:24. > :04:28.recent report the National Grid estimated we could require six new
:04:29. > :04:31.power stations the size of the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power
:04:32. > :04:38.station to charge these new vehicles by 2050. This is a typical example
:04:39. > :04:44.of a charge point. This company has sold 40,000 electric car charge
:04:45. > :04:50.point since 2009. Although they welcome the government announcement,
:04:51. > :04:54.they do not think it ambitious. Technology is changing 30% every
:04:55. > :04:59.year and gets 30% cheaper each year which means the electric vehicle
:05:00. > :05:03.becomes the same price as the internal combustion engine vehicle
:05:04. > :05:07.by 2020 and after that the electric vehicle becomes cheaper than the
:05:08. > :05:13.combustion engine and when you wonder how we get to mass adoption
:05:14. > :05:24.by 2030, they are cheaper and better by 2020. The move to electric
:05:25. > :05:26.vehicles is one of four big changes taking place in transport.
:05:27. > :05:30.Autonomous vehicles, smart cars, big data, will combine to change the way
:05:31. > :05:34.we get about. Taxi and ride sharing apps as well as smart routing apps
:05:35. > :05:41.promise to reduce the number of cars needed in future. Cars are used 5%
:05:42. > :05:45.of the time and 80% of the time people are driving on their own. You
:05:46. > :05:52.would not get into a plane with 80% of the seats empty. What we need to
:05:53. > :05:54.do is make the road network more efficient and give people more
:05:55. > :05:59.options and I think that is what you will see in the next 20 years,
:06:00. > :06:04.people have more options on how to get about, not necessarily thinking,
:06:05. > :06:08.I need to own a car. The speed with which technology is moving is likely
:06:09. > :06:14.to impact on every aspect of our lives. By 2040, the disappearance of
:06:15. > :06:15.diesel and petrol cars might be one of the least remarkable things to
:06:16. > :06:16.happen. We asked the government
:06:17. > :06:18.whether the Environment Secretary or any of his junior ministers
:06:19. > :06:21.was available to join us I'm joined instead to discuss this
:06:22. > :06:25.from Brighton by Caroline Lucas, And in the studio by Martin Tett,
:06:26. > :06:30.who is the Conservative leader of Buckinghamshire Council
:06:31. > :06:32.and the Local Government Association's spokesman
:06:33. > :06:45.on the environment. Caroline Lucas, are you glad we have
:06:46. > :06:50.had this announcement, the 2040 deadline, or do you think it will be
:06:51. > :06:56.history by the time we get there? I think it will be history, it is too
:06:57. > :07:01.little too late. The only reason we have had it at all is because of EU
:07:02. > :07:06.legislation and court cases forced the UK to act but other countries
:07:07. > :07:12.like Norway and Germany and India are moving more quickly than we are
:07:13. > :07:17.towards that target, looking at 2025, 20 30. In the meantime people
:07:18. > :07:22.are dying now from causes related to air pollution. It is a public health
:07:23. > :07:26.emergency and we need to see the longer term target in terms of
:07:27. > :07:31.getting diesel and petrol cars off the roads but we want to see a
:07:32. > :07:34.transformation in the transport systems and I mean massive
:07:35. > :07:43.investment in public transport as a starter. Would you have had a diesel
:07:44. > :07:47.scrappage scheme? We think a properly funded diesel scrappage
:07:48. > :07:51.scheme is part of the solution, but I think this focus on just one
:07:52. > :07:56.element does not do justice to the whole picture and we need to have
:07:57. > :08:00.nothing less than a paradigms shift where we ask bigger questions about
:08:01. > :08:05.expectations about how we get from A to B in the future. We need to
:08:06. > :08:10.redesign our towns and cities to make it easier to get about without
:08:11. > :08:19.needing a private car all the time. We ought to be making walking and
:08:20. > :08:23.cycling easier and making public transport more affordable. Martin
:08:24. > :08:26.Tett, local government has to produce local plans to get rid of
:08:27. > :08:31.local air pollution. They are dumping this on you because they do
:08:32. > :08:35.not want to put in diesel scrappage schemes that are expensive or tell
:08:36. > :08:40.diesel owners they have to pay to drive into city centres. They are
:08:41. > :08:44.dumping it on you? I welcome the fact the government has focused on
:08:45. > :08:49.this and agree with Caroline that they have been forced to do this by
:08:50. > :08:58.the legal case but it is a dangerous thing. Nitrogen dioxide is dangerous
:08:59. > :09:01.to human health and the focus is welcome and local government is
:09:02. > :09:03.ready to play its part in solving the problem. We are local to people
:09:04. > :09:08.and know the solution is required. But the devil is in the detail. You
:09:09. > :09:12.have to have the right funding available at the right time to solve
:09:13. > :09:17.these issues and that can cost money. If there is a breach in a
:09:18. > :09:21.local area and somebody can say your local plan did not deal with air
:09:22. > :09:27.pollution in this area, are you sued by the lawyers who have just sued
:09:28. > :09:31.the government and won, or the government? It is a good question
:09:32. > :09:36.and I do not know the answer but what is important is we get funding
:09:37. > :09:41.upfront and the government is talking about 40 million. 29 areas
:09:42. > :09:46.have been targeted. We have to design the right schemes to tackle
:09:47. > :09:49.this problem. It will mean more public transport, walking and
:09:50. > :09:55.cycling, redesigning roads, getting rid of speed bumps. Some will take a
:09:56. > :10:00.long time to work out. Caroline said we need to be designed towns and the
:10:01. > :10:05.way we live, that sounds longer than 2040. With great respect to
:10:06. > :10:10.Caroline, redesigning existing towns is difficult. There is an historic
:10:11. > :10:16.street scene. It is not easy. Councils can look at what can be
:10:17. > :10:19.done. There may be a requirement to look at charging in some towns in
:10:20. > :10:25.terms of entry to towns and I know the government is not keen on that.
:10:26. > :10:31.Caroline, do you accept the social change you are talking about takes a
:10:32. > :10:36.long time? It does not have too. If you look at the simplest things in
:10:37. > :10:41.many European countries where for example it is normal for most kids
:10:42. > :10:44.to get to school by walking because they have the so-called walking
:10:45. > :10:48.crocodiles where they organise kids to walk together. We could be
:10:49. > :10:54.learning so much from what has been done and already re-engineered in
:10:55. > :10:58.places like the Netherlands and Nordic countries. We need
:10:59. > :11:02.imagination and political will and together those things can take us
:11:03. > :11:07.far. This is a public health emergency and we need radical
:11:08. > :11:12.action, more than we have seen from the government so far. Caroline, can
:11:13. > :11:17.you think of anything government has ever announced on a green measure
:11:18. > :11:24.where you have not said it is too little, too late? That it needs to
:11:25. > :11:32.move further and faster? The role of the Green Party is to spur on other
:11:33. > :11:36.parties and to be more ambitious. 2040, 23 years away, right now we
:11:37. > :11:41.have kids told they cannot play in playgrounds because the air
:11:42. > :11:46.pollution is too serious, in the 21st century. We ought to be in a
:11:47. > :11:47.society where kids can play safely outside, not waiting 23 years for it
:11:48. > :11:49.to happen. Thanks. We have news tonight on the causes
:11:50. > :12:01.of the fire at Grenfell Tower. We have reported the government is
:12:02. > :12:10.conducting large-scale tests on the cladding used. We know a lot of
:12:11. > :12:15.buildings have combustible cladding. The point of these tests is to work
:12:16. > :12:16.out which designs are safe or unsafe. Chris Cooke has
:12:17. > :12:27.followed this for us. You managed to obtain the results of the first
:12:28. > :12:32.test. You have to understand you can have combustible elements outside a
:12:33. > :12:36.tall building and it can be safe, if it is properly installed, fire
:12:37. > :12:40.broke, meaning having measures to stop the fire spreading. The
:12:41. > :12:45.question is whether... Which specific sets of design should be in
:12:46. > :12:51.use on buildings which should not. The first test was on the choice of
:12:52. > :12:56.materials at Grenfell Tower, what is called a PIR foam, a combustible
:12:57. > :13:03.plastic foam, and plastic core aluminium tiles on the outside. We
:13:04. > :13:08.went to the test centre and were allowed to film them installing, we
:13:09. > :13:16.have footage of that. It gives you a sense of the scale of how big the
:13:17. > :13:21.test is. It is a tool set. What you can see, the black horizontal strips
:13:22. > :13:27.are firebreaks that are supposed to stop the fire moving vertically and
:13:28. > :13:31.the yellow strips you can see are supposed to stop the fire moving
:13:32. > :13:36.left to right. It is a test on the choice of materials used at Grenfell
:13:37. > :13:40.Tower, installed perfectly. It is not about maybe they messed up
:13:41. > :13:45.installation and did not include firebreaks. They conducted a test.
:13:46. > :13:51.You see on the footage, all the firebreaks in place. And it burned.
:13:52. > :13:57.The test was an absolute failure. What does that tell us about the
:13:58. > :14:04.building industry and the way it was using tests? How important
:14:05. > :14:11.It reveals using that choice of material would never have been
:14:12. > :14:15.acceptable, and the building industry has got into the habit of
:14:16. > :14:20.using materials on tall buildings that fundamentally should not be on
:14:21. > :14:26.them. If someone followed the simple matter of the law and did a proper
:14:27. > :14:29.test over two years ago, that cladding would never be on that
:14:30. > :14:36.building. It would never have passed? It creates a record in the
:14:37. > :14:46.system that should have stopped this. Chris, thank you very much. We
:14:47. > :14:47.will talk about those chlorinated chickens and Anglo-American trade
:14:48. > :14:50.and... Well, I'd like to say
:14:51. > :14:53.that over in the US they are talking of nothing other
:14:54. > :14:55.than the opportunities for trade with the UK,
:14:56. > :14:57.but the President has diverted attention to other things this week
:14:58. > :15:08.and again today, Emily is still over We are fresh from the press briefing
:15:09. > :15:14.where President Trump said he was going to ban transgender people from
:15:15. > :15:18.the military, he is doing what many people say as progress with LGBT
:15:19. > :15:25.rights which he promised to support after the Orlando Gay massacre. He
:15:26. > :15:30.says it costs the military too much and critics say that he is playing
:15:31. > :15:35.to his base, veterans, who don't like change, many will say this was
:15:36. > :15:40.a distraction from the other things happening this week, some
:15:41. > :15:43.successfully and others not. We had Congressional hearings investigating
:15:44. > :15:48.whether there was collusion of any kind between members of his team and
:15:49. > :15:53.the Russians and the doomed health-care bill, we have heard the
:15:54. > :15:58.Senate has voted down the straight appeal of the Affordable Care Act,
:15:59. > :16:06.they have not got rid of Obamacare and the big question of what will
:16:07. > :16:15.become jazz sessions. Sean Spicer left his job and the man in charge
:16:16. > :16:23.of communications is Anthony Scaramucci, his first interview...
:16:24. > :16:29.Tell us first of all, what we should understand about the relationship
:16:30. > :16:33.with Jeff Sessions? I think those are both principles, as the
:16:34. > :16:37.communications director it would be inappropriate to get into the middle
:16:38. > :16:43.of that, this will resolve itself over the next week and what I would
:16:44. > :16:48.say to colleagues and Cabinet members is you must understand the
:16:49. > :16:54.personality of the President, he is a straight shooter, he likes to
:16:55. > :17:00.express himself and let people know how he feels, sometimes those are
:17:01. > :17:05.tough conversations. Why is he tweeting? Letting rumours take over?
:17:06. > :17:12.He is a very tough person and I mean that in a good way, trying to use
:17:13. > :17:19.the pulpit in the Oval Office and his Presidency to execute an agenda
:17:20. > :17:24.on behalf of the people. Do I think he will stay? Wait for the
:17:25. > :17:30.President. Would like to see the chess sessions staying? I do not
:17:31. > :17:36.want to interrupt the outcome, between the Attorney General and the
:17:37. > :17:41.President. I have worked with the Attorney General on the campaign, I
:17:42. > :17:46.am huge supporter of the President and his agenda but what I would say
:17:47. > :17:51.to colleagues here is have a very tough exoskeleton, have a tough
:17:52. > :17:57.backbone and they will meet... Does that mean allowing the President to
:17:58. > :18:03.be rude to you and to basically slack you in a public forum? You are
:18:04. > :18:08.from Great Britain, I am from a town on the border of Queens, the
:18:09. > :18:14.President grew up there, we have a different communication style, it is
:18:15. > :18:17.more direct, less subtle and polite but you do not think politicians in
:18:18. > :18:23.your hometown are hitting each other? Perhaps more subtly, but I
:18:24. > :18:29.like the more open approach and one thing I cannot stand about this town
:18:30. > :18:35.is the backstabbing. Where I grew up in my neighbourhood, we stab from
:18:36. > :18:39.the front, what we are doing. To me, if you can handle the personality of
:18:40. > :18:45.the President, which I happen to love, you will do great. I will not
:18:46. > :18:52.cut you off, I will talk about front stabbing. He has been front stabbed
:18:53. > :18:58.by some of the senators who voted down the repeal of Obamacare. That
:18:59. > :19:06.is Congressional setting, conversations go on, the team of
:19:07. > :19:11.rivals, it took President Lincoln many times for the abolition of
:19:12. > :19:16.slavery, that was much tougher. Even under President Obama be voted to
:19:17. > :19:23.get rid of Obamacare, only the President kept that going and under
:19:24. > :19:29.President Trump... Aged 24 months -- 22 months. We have six months so far
:19:30. > :19:35.with the President here and think of what we're trying to achieve within
:19:36. > :19:38.just one year, the President will make it so, we will replace
:19:39. > :19:44.Obamacare, you will get a level of tax reform we have not seen since
:19:45. > :19:48.1986 and we do that within 12 months and that will be remarkable. You
:19:49. > :19:57.think you will get a health care plan... ? What kind of time frame? I
:19:58. > :20:05.am living in Washington, do you live your? You are lucky. You don't live
:20:06. > :20:09.here, what happens in Washington, people say something to your face
:20:10. > :20:13.and they don't mean it. Something else behind your back. With the
:20:14. > :20:18.President it is good leadership to say what he means to the faces of
:20:19. > :20:21.people and resolve it or not. We will either reconcile or go in
:20:22. > :20:27.different directions but everybody knows how we feel. I have had tough
:20:28. > :20:30.conversations with the President, we have known each other for a very
:20:31. > :20:35.long time and he is remarkably loyal, the loyalty has to be
:20:36. > :20:41.symmetrical and good loyalty is symmetrical, you do not want a
:20:42. > :20:46.symmetrical loyalty and the people are fed up with the city so I am
:20:47. > :20:50.calling on my friends in this city, to dial things back, support the
:20:51. > :20:57.agenda for the President because it is your long-term agenda. If you
:20:58. > :21:03.were running a campaign and somebody said, we have serious dirt on your
:21:04. > :21:06.opponent from Russia, would you take that meeting? I will stand by the
:21:07. > :21:17.President's remarks, most people would. Myself included, we are
:21:18. > :21:22.political neophytes, had Donald J Trump Junior, he is a friend of
:21:23. > :21:26.mine, I know he has done absolutely nothing wrong and he will be
:21:27. > :21:35.completely exonerated. I did not say he was naive, he is inexperienced.
:21:36. > :21:40.There is a difference, inexperience is, OK, I have some curiosity... Why
:21:41. > :21:46.would you not go to somebody who is experienced and say, should I take
:21:47. > :21:51.this meeting? If you think about how phenomenal this campaign was,
:21:52. > :21:58.skeletal staff, spending less than two thirds of what President Clinton
:21:59. > :22:03.spent, that small operation, she had thousands of the country, think
:22:04. > :22:08.about how upset the middle class people wear, I came back from
:22:09. > :22:11.London, I was with the Dean of Harvard, why Brexit? All of the
:22:12. > :22:16.elites within London said they were never going to do that and I said,
:22:17. > :22:24.have you been to a Bernie Sanders rally or Donald Trump rally? That
:22:25. > :22:28.will explain. I have been to both of those rallies and I want to bring
:22:29. > :22:31.you back onto the Russian question because this is threatening to
:22:32. > :22:37.undermine every other thing the President is trying to do. I do not
:22:38. > :22:43.believe that, it is damaging short-term because there is lots of
:22:44. > :22:48.nonsense going on because this town manufactures scandals, we
:22:49. > :22:53.manufacture fake scandals so we can disrupt people, we can hit them
:22:54. > :22:59.personally. The son of the President... I am just asking, do
:23:00. > :23:05.you not find that extraordinary? It is not the town, it is Congress. She
:23:06. > :23:11.said he had a very good feeling about Jared Kushner, incredibly
:23:12. > :23:17.honest, what is happening and I love this is the elite and the media
:23:18. > :23:21.establishment who want to hit the President with Russia every day
:23:22. > :23:25.recognise there is nothing to that Russian story. The business side or
:23:26. > :23:30.the politics side or inheritance, what part of Donald Trump... There
:23:31. > :23:37.are so many things about the President. Everybody eats
:23:38. > :23:41.cheeseburgers and pizza. What are you talking about? You are coming
:23:42. > :23:47.across as elitist, I grew up in a middle-class family with a tight
:23:48. > :23:51.budget and little to no money, I spent 30 years trying to get into
:23:52. > :23:57.the global elite to serve the President and I miss that movement,
:23:58. > :24:01.I'd tunnelled myself into the elites and we had this circular
:24:02. > :24:08.conversation about what went on. Donald Trump is not an elite? He has
:24:09. > :24:12.both, he knows how to operate in the elitist world and he has empathy for
:24:13. > :24:15.the common struggle with the middle-class people and the lower
:24:16. > :24:19.middle-class people, he has something I do not have and it is
:24:20. > :24:25.embarrassing to admit this, but I missed the movement. I grew up in a
:24:26. > :24:30.middle-class family and they did not size up the desperation taking place
:24:31. > :24:38.in my hometown. Some good news, he was very excited, he was encouraged
:24:39. > :24:42.about a trade deal with the UK. Just to get into those specifics, our
:24:43. > :24:47.environment secretary said he would not do a deal with the US if it
:24:48. > :24:52.meant accepting chlorine rinsed check-in, that is the big question
:24:53. > :24:56.in the UK, would the US administration make those
:24:57. > :25:01.concessions? We are meeting each other for the first time, I have no
:25:02. > :25:05.idea what is going on with chlorine enriched check-in. I could pretend
:25:06. > :25:10.to make something up but I will not do that but if you interview me in
:25:11. > :25:16.one week I will figure what is going on their... Will we get a trade
:25:17. > :25:23.deal? 100%, Donald Trump loves the UK. Do you want a trade deal with
:25:24. > :25:28.the UK? You don't answer the questions? Do you want a great trade
:25:29. > :25:33.deal? Of course we do. Think about the special relationship since the
:25:34. > :25:38.inception of this nation, there was a group of rich guys who said, we
:25:39. > :25:42.will break away from the other country and start our own, this was
:25:43. > :25:45.a disruptive start-up and a President is bringing it back to its
:25:46. > :25:55.roots of disruption. We will disrupt... Powders that making
:25:56. > :26:00.concessions with the UK mean? Review meet us halfway? I don't think so,
:26:01. > :26:05.he is about being fair and equal with trade, he wanted to be
:26:06. > :26:11.reciprocal and there is historical context, coming out of World War II,
:26:12. > :26:15.the US but in the Marshall plan and working with the state and
:26:16. > :26:21.treachery, we have the trade deals to align goods and services to flow
:26:22. > :26:26.freely into the US and accepted some level of viral activity to grow
:26:27. > :26:30.those middle-class groups. Last question, in the job for less than
:26:31. > :26:35.one week, give us some sense of how it feels being at the centre of the
:26:36. > :26:39.White House? I am having a lot of fun, I love my country, I told
:26:40. > :26:44.people at the press conference last week that no one has ever worked for
:26:45. > :26:51.me, I am getting collaboration to get people around me to win, I had
:26:52. > :26:55.lunch with the President today, and does it look like he is having a
:26:56. > :26:59.good time? Yes. I am here to serve at the discretion of the President,
:27:00. > :27:07.if he wants me to leave tomorrow, I will not stay. Thank you for joining
:27:08. > :27:12.me. And I am not an elitist. You can come back and call me an elitist any
:27:13. > :27:23.time you want! I apologise to your viewers! We will explain why there
:27:24. > :27:28.was a lot to unpack here and just one week into the job, we will come
:27:29. > :27:32.back when we know more. Emily, thank you very much! We have a sense of
:27:33. > :27:36.the view from the White House. Well, we got a sense of the view
:27:37. > :27:39.from the White House there. But earlier this week
:27:40. > :27:42.the talk was on trade talks. And specifically of
:27:43. > :27:43.chlorinated chicken. You can dismiss it as a mere detail,
:27:44. > :27:47.but it is the little things that Everyone agrees with the abstract
:27:48. > :27:50.principle of free trade, it's only the details
:27:51. > :27:52.they argue over. The issue of chicken,
:27:53. > :27:55.US food standards and a trade deal has already made for nuanced
:27:56. > :27:56.differences in approach See if you can spot them -
:27:57. > :28:00.first Liam Fox on this programme last night,
:28:01. > :28:12.and then Michael Gove this morning. We have no intention of reducing
:28:13. > :28:18.standards, we have said we think British standards and protection for
:28:19. > :28:23.the consumer... You will rule out chlorine washed chicken? There is no
:28:24. > :28:27.health issue, the EU said it is perfectly safe. The issue lies
:28:28. > :28:37.around some of the secondary issues of animal welfare. Chlorinated
:28:38. > :28:43.chicken? Should that we allowed? We don't need to waste time on this,
:28:44. > :28:48.yes to chlorinated chicken or no? No. I made it clear, something upon
:28:49. > :28:53.which all members of the government are agreed, we will not divert our
:28:54. > :29:00.welfare animal standards or environmental standards in pursuit
:29:01. > :29:03.of any trade deal. They could do with an alignment meeting. Chicken
:29:04. > :29:09.is just one issue, the bigger question... We will have to buckle
:29:10. > :29:12.to US pressure to trade on their terms and regulations will they
:29:13. > :29:16.sometimes boggled as? Could we persuade them to reach a deal on
:29:17. > :29:20.financial regulation allowing for more business for banks, for
:29:21. > :29:25.example? This is the stuff that determines the direction of Brexit
:29:26. > :29:26.Britain and Chris Kirk has been looking at how a deal might come
:29:27. > :29:29.together. The free trade agreement that
:29:30. > :29:32.Britain will ultimately have to negotiate with the European Union
:29:33. > :29:35.should be the easiest FTA Liam Fox's confidence
:29:36. > :29:44.about an EU trade deal, though, may be hard to square
:29:45. > :29:46.with his enthusiasm To see why, you can look
:29:47. > :29:50.at the argument about so-called Unlike the UK, the US is pretty open
:29:51. > :29:57.about its trade policy objectives. They publish an annual report
:29:58. > :30:03.on foreign trade barriers which lists for every country
:30:04. > :30:06.in the world what they would like to see addressed in any
:30:07. > :30:08.forthcoming trade agreements We know, for example,
:30:09. > :30:12.that for Britain, they are concerned about how much money we spend
:30:13. > :30:14.in subsidising We know that there are American
:30:15. > :30:22.products they wish they could get into our market - for example,
:30:23. > :30:24.genetically-modified corn, hormone-boosted beef and, most
:30:25. > :30:28.famously, chlorine-washed chicken. A critical thing to grasp
:30:29. > :30:31.is that the EU and the US disagree fundamentally about how
:30:32. > :30:36.to regulate poultry farming. Here in the EU and the UK,
:30:37. > :30:41.the approach taken by farmers is one that seeks to keep the animals,
:30:42. > :30:45.for example in chicken and poultry farming,
:30:46. > :30:48.healthy right throughout Rather than one that seeks control
:30:49. > :30:59.pathogens simply at the very end of the production process by washing
:31:00. > :31:02.the carcass in chlorine-based The thing is, though,
:31:03. > :31:05.these things are more than about, Some of them really exist to help
:31:06. > :31:15.shield European farmers So, you might think,
:31:16. > :31:19.why don't we just do away The problem is, letting in food
:31:20. > :31:27.into the UK that cannot be sold in the EU might cause us problems
:31:28. > :31:30.with the European Union. If the UK goes and signs up
:31:31. > :31:33.to a trade deal with the US before it has ironed
:31:34. > :31:36.out its own relationship with Europe and it starts accepting things that
:31:37. > :31:38.are currently banned in Europe, it makes it quite difficult
:31:39. > :31:41.to have an open border between the UK and the EU
:31:42. > :31:44.because the EU will be worried about the UK becoming a back door
:31:45. > :31:46.channel for products coming from the US into Europe
:31:47. > :31:49.via the UK but are not If we were to change our regulatory
:31:50. > :31:55.standards to allow things, for example, like chlorinated
:31:56. > :31:59.chicken into the UK off the back of a trade deal with the US,
:32:00. > :32:05.then we would find ourselves struggling really significantly
:32:06. > :32:08.to trade with the EU and, in fact, you would find a situation
:32:09. > :32:12.where hard borders would have to be established, particularly
:32:13. > :32:16.between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland because the EU
:32:17. > :32:20.would want to manage very closely the trade of goods between the UK
:32:21. > :32:25.and the EU. This is not to say that good
:32:26. > :32:28.deals for both the US But chlorinated chickens may be
:32:29. > :32:36.in a category where we have As Emily Maitlis found earlier,
:32:37. > :32:43.US farmers may build up their EU It is very premature
:32:44. > :32:47.to start talking about those kinds of negotiations,
:32:48. > :32:49.those are all things But, again, we have alternatives
:32:50. > :32:53.to chlorine currently being used that we can use,
:32:54. > :32:58.if it does come down These are things that have
:32:59. > :33:05.already been approved by the European Food Safety Authority
:33:06. > :33:08.that they use to meet domestic standards and also
:33:09. > :33:12.international standards, where we have shipped
:33:13. > :33:15.to more than 100 countries. So just to clarify, you could forego
:33:16. > :33:18.the chlorine rinsing if it meant But sometimes trade partners may
:33:19. > :33:27.have rules that force Andrew Lilico is an economist
:33:28. > :33:44.and the managing director And something of a Brexit optimists.
:33:45. > :33:50.Good evening. A lot of the Brexit optimism pins on things like free
:33:51. > :33:55.trade deals with the US. One feature. Do you accept they may not
:33:56. > :34:01.be willing to bow to our regulations and we will have to bow to theirs? I
:34:02. > :34:06.think one feature of trade deals is when you have free trade you do not
:34:07. > :34:10.have to have the same regulations and we can have regulations and sell
:34:11. > :34:15.things into the US which means they can have their way of doing things
:34:16. > :34:18.and sell things to the UK. We are used in the EU that in order to
:34:19. > :34:27.trade we have to produce everything the same way that that is not how
:34:28. > :34:30.free trade works. The point is you have a symmetry. Just to be clear,
:34:31. > :34:36.that would mean we let in chlorine rinse chicken. You would let it in,
:34:37. > :34:41.probably label it, so consumers can make their own choice. And then you
:34:42. > :34:48.say free trade can occur. Consumers can choose. If they don't want that
:34:49. > :34:54.they can buy something else. Do you think the Americans are free
:34:55. > :34:58.traders? Are they a bit like the EU? They will say, we understand you,
:34:59. > :35:04.small Britain, will buy our chicken and sell it as an alternative, but
:35:05. > :35:10.we will not let your banks trade on your terms, we will let them trade
:35:11. > :35:17.here on our terms. Historically the US have not been particularly
:35:18. > :35:23.pro-free trade. In the case of the UK, they are keen to do a deal. What
:35:24. > :35:28.President Trump wants to emphasise is he is not anti trade, he is in
:35:29. > :35:32.favour of reciprocal, symmetric agreements. He does not want
:35:33. > :35:37.agreements where you have deals with countries that have lower wages and
:35:38. > :35:43.lax standards, which leads to large trade deficits. He wants deals where
:35:44. > :35:48.it is balanced trade, you have the same kinds of standards and wages
:35:49. > :35:51.and he is keen to show he is not anti trade and will want a deal with
:35:52. > :36:00.the UK because Americans are in favour. America has not given up on
:36:01. > :36:04.global trade, so a sign? It is difficult, do you think a free-trade
:36:05. > :36:10.deal with the US would improve our trade balance with the US and we
:36:11. > :36:15.would X bought more on or would it improve their trade balance? I would
:36:16. > :36:21.hope it would be in both directions. It cannot be. I hope it increases
:36:22. > :36:27.imports and exports. What about the balance? I think he is worried about
:36:28. > :36:33.their deficit. Some people here think we need to export more and
:36:34. > :36:38.import less. Increase exports by more than imports. The main benefits
:36:39. > :36:42.to a country from trade deals are rising increase in imports Annsert
:36:43. > :36:46.Whyte is better for consumers and from the point of view to the
:36:47. > :36:51.challenge to domestic companies to face more challenge from imports,
:36:52. > :36:56.which is what the economic evidence suggests. I think we will have
:36:57. > :37:02.improved export opportunities. I don't think it can be our trade
:37:03. > :37:07.deficit improves with regard to the US and their trade surplus improves
:37:08. > :37:11.with regard to us. It is not both. I suspect you would not have an
:37:12. > :37:18.enormous change in either direction. One interesting thing to point out,
:37:19. > :37:23.a funny secret of trade, although on the UK date we believe we have a
:37:24. > :37:30.large surplus with the US, on US data they believe they have a small
:37:31. > :37:33.surplus with us. One of the implications is from the US point of
:37:34. > :37:41.view they do not think it is a problem to solve. The US and EU have
:37:42. > :37:45.negotiated their own trade deal. Do you think our deal, at the end of
:37:46. > :37:50.the process, will be better than the one the EU will sign? Probably
:37:51. > :37:55.better from our point of view. The EU may think the deal they get with
:37:56. > :38:00.the US is better from their point of view, and I suspect we will get at
:38:01. > :38:07.least a good deal from our point of view as theirs. Their deal is on
:38:08. > :38:11.offer to us. If we are in the EU, we get there deal automatically.
:38:12. > :38:15.Assuming they get the deal. We have to sign a deal that is so much
:38:16. > :38:19.better than theirs it offsets whatever reduction in trade we get
:38:20. > :38:28.from the EU. I don't think one should expect a deal with the US by
:38:29. > :38:35.itself, although it is the country which is the largest single exporter
:38:36. > :38:40.in the UK. -- I think there is a game to be made. The EU estimates
:38:41. > :38:44.the trade deal with the US should gain half a per cent of GDP and for
:38:45. > :38:49.the UK we might expect to do better in terms of the deal we might get
:38:50. > :38:53.with the US. I think the EU has shown itself it is difficult to do a
:38:54. > :38:57.deal with the US up to this point. I think we will do a deal with it
:38:58. > :39:02.quicker which might mean we gain because the US does a deal quicker
:39:03. > :39:09.and because we are doing one, they will do one with the EU, as well.
:39:10. > :39:14.Because of our unexpected guest in Washington we do not have time for
:39:15. > :39:15.the interview we promised with the daughter of Anita Roddick and we
:39:16. > :39:19.will bring it as soon as we can. Before we leave you,
:39:20. > :39:21.yet another blow for Western patriarchy was announced today
:39:22. > :39:23.when we learned that the sperm counts in North America, Europe,
:39:24. > :39:26.Australia and New Zealand have No one quite knows why it's
:39:27. > :39:30.happening, but here's a reminder # I thought that I heard you
:39:31. > :40:18.laughing Wherever you are in the UK,
:40:19. > :40:33.tomorrow is one of those "grab We have a driving area of low
:40:34. > :40:37.pressure to the west of Scotland,