26/07/2017 Newsnight


With Evan Davis. The end of petrol cars. Plus Emily Maitlis reports from Washington, Grenfell Tower, trade deals and Anita Roddick's daughter on her mother's death.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 26/07/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



Time was, you would never have believed we could exist


Now it's official policy that we will.


We'll look ahead to how motor transport will work after 2040.


But do we need to worry a little more about our oil-polluted air


What the government was required to do was to prepare air quality


plans which would reduce the levels of pollution in the


Something which works in the next 23 years is not going to reduce those


pollution levels in our towns and cities in the next


We'll test the government's ideas for cleaning up our atmosphere.


In the midst of a week of drama here at the White House, I'm joined by


one of Donald Trump's key lieutenants, Sebastian Gorka.


What has the President achieved in the


Ten years ago, Anita Roddick, the environmentalist and founder


of the Body Shop died, one of the most high profile victims


We hear from her daughter Sam for the first time.


She was pretty clear that she got it through the


And, you know, I could really hear the


vulnerability in her voice because my mum really feared death.


Was it an announcement to which there was less


A ban on petrol and diesel cars to come into effect in 2040.


It was designed as an answer to what you do about air quality,


As fumes are killing thousands of people a year now,


Some think it is actually a distraction from


But there were other measures, too, and we'll discuss those shortly.


And there is a sense that regardless of what government says,


we may be in the latter days of oil-driven cars.


Assuming we can work out where we get all the electricity


Our technology editor David Grossman has been looking


at the prospects for motor transport and the air we breathe.


This is what is done for electric cars up to now, the convenience of


pumping 400 miles of range into a car in minutes at any one of 8500


service stations nationwide but change is coming by order of the


government. We have to get petrol and diesel cars off our road and


make sure we deal with the problems and pollution causes and beat


targets. The announcement was to divide as part of the response to


the air pollution crisis. The government had been ordered by the


High Court to come up with a plan to cut nitrogen dioxide. There is


millions to help councils cut pollution but no diesel scrappage


scheme yet. I think it is a smoke screen. What it does is helps to


push us towards climate change goals, encouraging manufacturers to


move away from combustion engines but we think the wind is blowing


that way anyway but from the point of view of air quality, it will not


do the job, we need quick measures soon. Moving from a world where we


burn petrol and diesel to get about to one where we don't will be a huge


journey requiring the reimagining of the transport infrastructure. We


have a thriving car industry in the UK and yesterday BMW announced an


electric version of the Mini to be made in Oxford. Not everyone thinks


the target can be met without significant jobs moving overseas.


What I am not OK with his setting up electric cars by 2040, but not


developing a Nasa, we do not have the capability to manufacture,


engineer and design batteries, motors, inverters, infrastructure in


the UK right now. Where is this extra power going to come from? In a


recent report the National Grid estimated we could require six new


power stations the size of the proposed Hinkley C nuclear power


station to charge these new vehicles by 2050. This is a typical example


of a charge point. This company has sold 40,000 electric car charge


point since 2009. Although they welcome the government announcement,


they do not think it ambitious. Technology is changing 30% every


year and gets 30% cheaper each year which means the electric vehicle


becomes the same price as the internal combustion engine vehicle


by 2020 and after that the electric vehicle becomes cheaper than the


combustion engine and when you wonder how we get to mass adoption


by 2030, they are cheaper and better by 2020. The move to electric


vehicles is one of four big changes taking place in transport.


Autonomous vehicles, smart cars, big data, will combine to change the way


we get about. Taxi and ride sharing apps as well as smart routing apps


promise to reduce the number of cars needed in future. Cars are used 5%


of the time and 80% of the time people are driving on their own. You


would not get into a plane with 80% of the seats empty. What we need to


do is make the road network more efficient and give people more


options and I think that is what you will see in the next 20 years,


people have more options on how to get about, not necessarily thinking,


I need to own a car. The speed with which technology is moving is likely


to impact on every aspect of our lives. By 2040, the disappearance of


diesel and petrol cars might be one of the least remarkable things to


happen. We asked the government


whether the Environment Secretary or any of his junior ministers


was available to join us I'm joined instead to discuss this


from Brighton by Caroline Lucas, And in the studio by Martin Tett,


who is the Conservative leader of Buckinghamshire Council


and the Local Government Association's spokesman


on the environment. Caroline Lucas, are you glad we have


had this announcement, the 2040 deadline, or do you think it will be


history by the time we get there? I think it will be history, it is too


little too late. The only reason we have had it at all is because of EU


legislation and court cases forced the UK to act but other countries


like Norway and Germany and India are moving more quickly than we are


towards that target, looking at 2025, 20 30. In the meantime people


are dying now from causes related to air pollution. It is a public health


emergency and we need to see the longer term target in terms of


getting diesel and petrol cars off the roads but we want to see a


transformation in the transport systems and I mean massive


investment in public transport as a starter. Would you have had a diesel


scrappage scheme? We think a properly funded diesel scrappage


scheme is part of the solution, but I think this focus on just one


element does not do justice to the whole picture and we need to have


nothing less than a paradigms shift where we ask bigger questions about


expectations about how we get from A to B in the future. We need to


redesign our towns and cities to make it easier to get about without


needing a private car all the time. We ought to be making walking and


cycling easier and making public transport more affordable. Martin


Tett, local government has to produce local plans to get rid of


local air pollution. They are dumping this on you because they do


not want to put in diesel scrappage schemes that are expensive or tell


diesel owners they have to pay to drive into city centres. They are


dumping it on you? I welcome the fact the government has focused on


this and agree with Caroline that they have been forced to do this by


the legal case but it is a dangerous thing. Nitrogen dioxide is dangerous


to human health and the focus is welcome and local government is


ready to play its part in solving the problem. We are local to people


and know the solution is required. But the devil is in the detail. You


have to have the right funding available at the right time to solve


these issues and that can cost money. If there is a breach in a


local area and somebody can say your local plan did not deal with air


pollution in this area, are you sued by the lawyers who have just sued


the government and won, or the government? It is a good question


and I do not know the answer but what is important is we get funding


upfront and the government is talking about 40 million. 29 areas


have been targeted. We have to design the right schemes to tackle


this problem. It will mean more public transport, walking and


cycling, redesigning roads, getting rid of speed bumps. Some will take a


long time to work out. Caroline said we need to be designed towns and the


way we live, that sounds longer than 2040. With great respect to


Caroline, redesigning existing towns is difficult. There is an historic


street scene. It is not easy. Councils can look at what can be


done. There may be a requirement to look at charging in some towns in


terms of entry to towns and I know the government is not keen on that.


Caroline, do you accept the social change you are talking about takes a


long time? It does not have too. If you look at the simplest things in


many European countries where for example it is normal for most kids


to get to school by walking because they have the so-called walking


crocodiles where they organise kids to walk together. We could be


learning so much from what has been done and already re-engineered in


places like the Netherlands and Nordic countries. We need


imagination and political will and together those things can take us


far. This is a public health emergency and we need radical


action, more than we have seen from the government so far. Caroline, can


you think of anything government has ever announced on a green measure


where you have not said it is too little, too late? That it needs to


move further and faster? The role of the Green Party is to spur on other


parties and to be more ambitious. 2040, 23 years away, right now we


have kids told they cannot play in playgrounds because the air


pollution is too serious, in the 21st century. We ought to be in a


society where kids can play safely outside, not waiting 23 years for it


to happen. Thanks. We have news tonight on the causes


of the fire at Grenfell Tower. We have reported the government is


conducting large-scale tests on the cladding used. We know a lot of


buildings have combustible cladding. The point of these tests is to work


out which designs are safe or unsafe. Chris Cooke has


followed this for us. You managed to obtain the results of the first


test. You have to understand you can have combustible elements outside a


tall building and it can be safe, if it is properly installed, fire


broke, meaning having measures to stop the fire spreading. The


question is whether... Which specific sets of design should be in


use on buildings which should not. The first test was on the choice of


materials at Grenfell Tower, what is called a PIR foam, a combustible


plastic foam, and plastic core aluminium tiles on the outside. We


went to the test centre and were allowed to film them installing, we


have footage of that. It gives you a sense of the scale of how big the


test is. It is a tool set. What you can see, the black horizontal strips


are firebreaks that are supposed to stop the fire moving vertically and


the yellow strips you can see are supposed to stop the fire moving


left to right. It is a test on the choice of materials used at Grenfell


Tower, installed perfectly. It is not about maybe they messed up


installation and did not include firebreaks. They conducted a test.


You see on the footage, all the firebreaks in place. And it burned.


The test was an absolute failure. What does that tell us about the


building industry and the way it was using tests? How important


It reveals using that choice of material would never have been


acceptable, and the building industry has got into the habit of


using materials on tall buildings that fundamentally should not be on


them. If someone followed the simple matter of the law and did a proper


test over two years ago, that cladding would never be on that


building. It would never have passed? It creates a record in the


system that should have stopped this. Chris, thank you very much. We


will talk about those chlorinated chickens and Anglo-American trade


and... Well, I'd like to say


that over in the US they are talking of nothing other


than the opportunities for trade with the UK,


but the President has diverted attention to other things this week


and again today, Emily is still over We are fresh from the press briefing


where President Trump said he was going to ban transgender people from


the military, he is doing what many people say as progress with LGBT


rights which he promised to support after the Orlando Gay massacre. He


says it costs the military too much and critics say that he is playing


to his base, veterans, who don't like change, many will say this was


a distraction from the other things happening this week, some


successfully and others not. We had Congressional hearings investigating


whether there was collusion of any kind between members of his team and


the Russians and the doomed health-care bill, we have heard the


Senate has voted down the straight appeal of the Affordable Care Act,


they have not got rid of Obamacare and the big question of what will


become jazz sessions. Sean Spicer left his job and the man in charge


of communications is Anthony Scaramucci, his first interview...


Tell us first of all, what we should understand about the relationship


with Jeff Sessions? I think those are both principles, as the


communications director it would be inappropriate to get into the middle


of that, this will resolve itself over the next week and what I would


say to colleagues and Cabinet members is you must understand the


personality of the President, he is a straight shooter, he likes to


express himself and let people know how he feels, sometimes those are


tough conversations. Why is he tweeting? Letting rumours take over?


He is a very tough person and I mean that in a good way, trying to use


the pulpit in the Oval Office and his Presidency to execute an agenda


on behalf of the people. Do I think he will stay? Wait for the


President. Would like to see the chess sessions staying? I do not


want to interrupt the outcome, between the Attorney General and the


President. I have worked with the Attorney General on the campaign, I


am huge supporter of the President and his agenda but what I would say


to colleagues here is have a very tough exoskeleton, have a tough


backbone and they will meet... Does that mean allowing the President to


be rude to you and to basically slack you in a public forum? You are


from Great Britain, I am from a town on the border of Queens, the


President grew up there, we have a different communication style, it is


more direct, less subtle and polite but you do not think politicians in


your hometown are hitting each other? Perhaps more subtly, but I


like the more open approach and one thing I cannot stand about this town


is the backstabbing. Where I grew up in my neighbourhood, we stab from


the front, what we are doing. To me, if you can handle the personality of


the President, which I happen to love, you will do great. I will not


cut you off, I will talk about front stabbing. He has been front stabbed


by some of the senators who voted down the repeal of Obamacare. That


is Congressional setting, conversations go on, the team of


rivals, it took President Lincoln many times for the abolition of


slavery, that was much tougher. Even under President Obama be voted to


get rid of Obamacare, only the President kept that going and under


President Trump... Aged 24 months -- 22 months. We have six months so far


with the President here and think of what we're trying to achieve within


just one year, the President will make it so, we will replace


Obamacare, you will get a level of tax reform we have not seen since


1986 and we do that within 12 months and that will be remarkable. You


think you will get a health care plan... ? What kind of time frame? I


am living in Washington, do you live your? You are lucky. You don't live


here, what happens in Washington, people say something to your face


and they don't mean it. Something else behind your back. With the


President it is good leadership to say what he means to the faces of


people and resolve it or not. We will either reconcile or go in


different directions but everybody knows how we feel. I have had tough


conversations with the President, we have known each other for a very


long time and he is remarkably loyal, the loyalty has to be


symmetrical and good loyalty is symmetrical, you do not want a


symmetrical loyalty and the people are fed up with the city so I am


calling on my friends in this city, to dial things back, support the


agenda for the President because it is your long-term agenda. If you


were running a campaign and somebody said, we have serious dirt on your


opponent from Russia, would you take that meeting? I will stand by the


President's remarks, most people would. Myself included, we are


political neophytes, had Donald J Trump Junior, he is a friend of


mine, I know he has done absolutely nothing wrong and he will be


completely exonerated. I did not say he was naive, he is inexperienced.


There is a difference, inexperience is, OK, I have some curiosity... Why


would you not go to somebody who is experienced and say, should I take


this meeting? If you think about how phenomenal this campaign was,


skeletal staff, spending less than two thirds of what President Clinton


spent, that small operation, she had thousands of the country, think


about how upset the middle class people wear, I came back from


London, I was with the Dean of Harvard, why Brexit? All of the


elites within London said they were never going to do that and I said,


have you been to a Bernie Sanders rally or Donald Trump rally? That


will explain. I have been to both of those rallies and I want to bring


you back onto the Russian question because this is threatening to


undermine every other thing the President is trying to do. I do not


believe that, it is damaging short-term because there is lots of


nonsense going on because this town manufactures scandals, we


manufacture fake scandals so we can disrupt people, we can hit them


personally. The son of the President... I am just asking, do


you not find that extraordinary? It is not the town, it is Congress. She


said he had a very good feeling about Jared Kushner, incredibly


honest, what is happening and I love this is the elite and the media


establishment who want to hit the President with Russia every day


recognise there is nothing to that Russian story. The business side or


the politics side or inheritance, what part of Donald Trump... There


are so many things about the President. Everybody eats


cheeseburgers and pizza. What are you talking about? You are coming


across as elitist, I grew up in a middle-class family with a tight


budget and little to no money, I spent 30 years trying to get into


the global elite to serve the President and I miss that movement,


I'd tunnelled myself into the elites and we had this circular


conversation about what went on. Donald Trump is not an elite? He has


both, he knows how to operate in the elitist world and he has empathy for


the common struggle with the middle-class people and the lower


middle-class people, he has something I do not have and it is


embarrassing to admit this, but I missed the movement. I grew up in a


middle-class family and they did not size up the desperation taking place


in my hometown. Some good news, he was very excited, he was encouraged


about a trade deal with the UK. Just to get into those specifics, our


environment secretary said he would not do a deal with the US if it


meant accepting chlorine rinsed check-in, that is the big question


in the UK, would the US administration make those


concessions? We are meeting each other for the first time, I have no


idea what is going on with chlorine enriched check-in. I could pretend


to make something up but I will not do that but if you interview me in


one week I will figure what is going on their... Will we get a trade


deal? 100%, Donald Trump loves the UK. Do you want a trade deal with


the UK? You don't answer the questions? Do you want a great trade


deal? Of course we do. Think about the special relationship since the


inception of this nation, there was a group of rich guys who said, we


will break away from the other country and start our own, this was


a disruptive start-up and a President is bringing it back to its


roots of disruption. We will disrupt... Powders that making


concessions with the UK mean? Review meet us halfway? I don't think so,


he is about being fair and equal with trade, he wanted to be


reciprocal and there is historical context, coming out of World War II,


the US but in the Marshall plan and working with the state and


treachery, we have the trade deals to align goods and services to flow


freely into the US and accepted some level of viral activity to grow


those middle-class groups. Last question, in the job for less than


one week, give us some sense of how it feels being at the centre of the


White House? I am having a lot of fun, I love my country, I told


people at the press conference last week that no one has ever worked for


me, I am getting collaboration to get people around me to win, I had


lunch with the President today, and does it look like he is having a


good time? Yes. I am here to serve at the discretion of the President,


if he wants me to leave tomorrow, I will not stay. Thank you for joining


me. And I am not an elitist. You can come back and call me an elitist any


time you want! I apologise to your viewers! We will explain why there


was a lot to unpack here and just one week into the job, we will come


back when we know more. Emily, thank you very much! We have a sense of


the view from the White House. Well, we got a sense of the view


from the White House there. But earlier this week


the talk was on trade talks. And specifically of


chlorinated chicken. You can dismiss it as a mere detail,


but it is the little things that Everyone agrees with the abstract


principle of free trade, it's only the details


they argue over. The issue of chicken,


US food standards and a trade deal has already made for nuanced


differences in approach See if you can spot them -


first Liam Fox on this programme last night,


and then Michael Gove this morning. We have no intention of reducing


standards, we have said we think British standards and protection for


the consumer... You will rule out chlorine washed chicken? There is no


health issue, the EU said it is perfectly safe. The issue lies


around some of the secondary issues of animal welfare. Chlorinated


chicken? Should that we allowed? We don't need to waste time on this,


yes to chlorinated chicken or no? No. I made it clear, something upon


which all members of the government are agreed, we will not divert our


welfare animal standards or environmental standards in pursuit


of any trade deal. They could do with an alignment meeting. Chicken


is just one issue, the bigger question... We will have to buckle


to US pressure to trade on their terms and regulations will they


sometimes boggled as? Could we persuade them to reach a deal on


financial regulation allowing for more business for banks, for


example? This is the stuff that determines the direction of Brexit


Britain and Chris Kirk has been looking at how a deal might come


together. The free trade agreement that


Britain will ultimately have to negotiate with the European Union


should be the easiest FTA Liam Fox's confidence


about an EU trade deal, though, may be hard to square


with his enthusiasm To see why, you can look


at the argument about so-called Unlike the UK, the US is pretty open


about its trade policy objectives. They publish an annual report


on foreign trade barriers which lists for every country


in the world what they would like to see addressed in any


forthcoming trade agreements We know, for example,


that for Britain, they are concerned about how much money we spend


in subsidising We know that there are American


products they wish they could get into our market - for example,


genetically-modified corn, hormone-boosted beef and, most


famously, chlorine-washed chicken. A critical thing to grasp


is that the EU and the US disagree fundamentally about how


to regulate poultry farming. Here in the EU and the UK,


the approach taken by farmers is one that seeks to keep the animals,


for example in chicken and poultry farming,


healthy right throughout Rather than one that seeks control


pathogens simply at the very end of the production process by washing


the carcass in chlorine-based The thing is, though,


these things are more than about, Some of them really exist to help


shield European farmers So, you might think,


why don't we just do away The problem is, letting in food


into the UK that cannot be sold in the EU might cause us problems


with the European Union. If the UK goes and signs up


to a trade deal with the US before it has ironed


out its own relationship with Europe and it starts accepting things that


are currently banned in Europe, it makes it quite difficult


to have an open border between the UK and the EU


because the EU will be worried about the UK becoming a back door


channel for products coming from the US into Europe


via the UK but are not If we were to change our regulatory


standards to allow things, for example, like chlorinated


chicken into the UK off the back of a trade deal with the US,


then we would find ourselves struggling really significantly


to trade with the EU and, in fact, you would find a situation


where hard borders would have to be established, particularly


between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland because the EU


would want to manage very closely the trade of goods between the UK


and the EU. This is not to say that good


deals for both the US But chlorinated chickens may be


in a category where we have As Emily Maitlis found earlier,


US farmers may build up their EU It is very premature


to start talking about those kinds of negotiations,


those are all things But, again, we have alternatives


to chlorine currently being used that we can use,


if it does come down These are things that have


already been approved by the European Food Safety Authority


that they use to meet domestic standards and also


international standards, where we have shipped


to more than 100 countries. So just to clarify, you could forego


the chlorine rinsing if it meant But sometimes trade partners may


have rules that force Andrew Lilico is an economist


and the managing director And something of a Brexit optimists.


Good evening. A lot of the Brexit optimism pins on things like free


trade deals with the US. One feature. Do you accept they may not


be willing to bow to our regulations and we will have to bow to theirs? I


think one feature of trade deals is when you have free trade you do not


have to have the same regulations and we can have regulations and sell


things into the US which means they can have their way of doing things


and sell things to the UK. We are used in the EU that in order to


trade we have to produce everything the same way that that is not how


free trade works. The point is you have a symmetry. Just to be clear,


that would mean we let in chlorine rinse chicken. You would let it in,


probably label it, so consumers can make their own choice. And then you


say free trade can occur. Consumers can choose. If they don't want that


they can buy something else. Do you think the Americans are free


traders? Are they a bit like the EU? They will say, we understand you,


small Britain, will buy our chicken and sell it as an alternative, but


we will not let your banks trade on your terms, we will let them trade


here on our terms. Historically the US have not been particularly


pro-free trade. In the case of the UK, they are keen to do a deal. What


President Trump wants to emphasise is he is not anti trade, he is in


favour of reciprocal, symmetric agreements. He does not want


agreements where you have deals with countries that have lower wages and


lax standards, which leads to large trade deficits. He wants deals where


it is balanced trade, you have the same kinds of standards and wages


and he is keen to show he is not anti trade and will want a deal with


the UK because Americans are in favour. America has not given up on


global trade, so a sign? It is difficult, do you think a free-trade


deal with the US would improve our trade balance with the US and we


would X bought more on or would it improve their trade balance? I would


hope it would be in both directions. It cannot be. I hope it increases


imports and exports. What about the balance? I think he is worried about


their deficit. Some people here think we need to export more and


import less. Increase exports by more than imports. The main benefits


to a country from trade deals are rising increase in imports Annsert


Whyte is better for consumers and from the point of view to the


challenge to domestic companies to face more challenge from imports,


which is what the economic evidence suggests. I think we will have


improved export opportunities. I don't think it can be our trade


deficit improves with regard to the US and their trade surplus improves


with regard to us. It is not both. I suspect you would not have an


enormous change in either direction. One interesting thing to point out,


a funny secret of trade, although on the UK date we believe we have a


large surplus with the US, on US data they believe they have a small


surplus with us. One of the implications is from the US point of


view they do not think it is a problem to solve. The US and EU have


negotiated their own trade deal. Do you think our deal, at the end of


the process, will be better than the one the EU will sign? Probably


better from our point of view. The EU may think the deal they get with


the US is better from their point of view, and I suspect we will get at


least a good deal from our point of view as theirs. Their deal is on


offer to us. If we are in the EU, we get there deal automatically.


Assuming they get the deal. We have to sign a deal that is so much


better than theirs it offsets whatever reduction in trade we get


from the EU. I don't think one should expect a deal with the US by


itself, although it is the country which is the largest single exporter


in the UK. -- I think there is a game to be made. The EU estimates


the trade deal with the US should gain half a per cent of GDP and for


the UK we might expect to do better in terms of the deal we might get


with the US. I think the EU has shown itself it is difficult to do a


deal with the US up to this point. I think we will do a deal with it


quicker which might mean we gain because the US does a deal quicker


and because we are doing one, they will do one with the EU, as well.


Because of our unexpected guest in Washington we do not have time for


the interview we promised with the daughter of Anita Roddick and we


will bring it as soon as we can. Before we leave you,


yet another blow for Western patriarchy was announced today


when we learned that the sperm counts in North America, Europe,


Australia and New Zealand have No one quite knows why it's


happening, but here's a reminder # I thought that I heard you


laughing Wherever you are in the UK,


tomorrow is one of those "grab We have a driving area of low


pressure to the west of Scotland,


With Evan Davis. The government has proposed to end the sale of petrol cars by 2040. Plus Emily Maitlis reports from Washington, Grenfell Tower, trade deals and chickens, and Anita Roddick's daughter on her mother's death.

Download Subtitles