26/07/2017 Newsnight

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,