22/01/2017 Sunday Politics East


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 22/01/2017. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.


Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to visit US


President Donald Trump this week - she's promised to hold "very


frank" conversations with the new and controversial


Speaking of the 45th President of America,


we'll be looking at what the Trump presidency could hold


in store for Britain and the rest of the world.


And with the Supreme Court expected to say that Parliament should


have a vote before the Brexit process begins, we'll ask


it is like about to get harder for what Labour will do next.


it is like about to get harder for university students from


disadvantaged backgrounds? And to talk about all of that


and more, I'm joined by three journalists who, in an era


of so-called fake news, can be relied upon for their accuracy,


their impartiality - and their willingness


to come to the studio It's Steve Richards,


Julia Hartley-Brewer and Tom Newton Dunn,


and during the programme they'll be tweeting as often as the 45th


President of the USA in the middle So - the Prime Minister has been


appearing on the BBC this morning. She was mostly talking


about Donald Trump and Brexit, but she was also asked about a story


on the front of this It's reported that an unarmed


Trident missile test fired from the submarine HMS Vengeance


near the Florida coast in June The paper says the incident took


place weeks before a crucial Commons Well, let's have listen


to Theresa May talking The issue that we were talking


about in the House of Commons It was about whether or not


we should renew Trident, whether we should look to the future


and have a replacement Trident. That's what we were talking


about in the House of Commons. That's what the House


of Commons voted for. He doesn't want to defend our


country with an independent There are tests that take place


all the time, regularly, What we were talking about in that


debate that took place... I'm not going to get


an answer to this. Tom, it was clear this was going to


come up this morning. It is on the front page of the Sunday Times. It


would seem to me the Prime Minister wasn't properly briefed on how to


reply. I think she probably was, but the Prime Minister we now have


doesn't necessarily answer all questions in the straightest way.


She didn't answer that one and all. Unlike previous ones? She made it


quite clear she was briefed. You read between the Theresa May lines.


By simply not answering Andrew Marr four times, it is obvious she knew,


and that she knew before she went into the House of Commons and urged


everyone to renew the ?40 billion replacement programme. Of course it


is an embarrassment, but does it have political legs? I don't think


so. She didn't mislead the Commons. If she wanted to close it down, the


answer should have been, these are matters of national security.


There's nothing more important in that than our nuclear deterrent. I'm


not prepared to talk about testing. End of. But she didn't. Maybe you


should be briefing her. That's a good answer. She is an interesting


interviewee. She shows it when she is nervous. She was transparently


uneasy answering those questions, and the fact she didn't answer it


definitively suggests she did know and didn't want to say it, and she


answered awkwardly. But how wider point, that the House of Commons


voted for the renewal of Trident, suggests to me that in the broader


sweep of things, this will not run, because if there was another vote, I


would suggest she'd win it again. But it is an embarrassment and she


handled it with a transparent awkwardness. She said that the tests


go on all the time, but not of the missiles. Does it not show that when


the Prime Minister leaves her comfort zone of Home Office affairs


or related matters, she often struggles. We've seen it under


questioning from Mr Corbyn even, and we saw it again today. Absolutely.


Tests of various aspects of the missiles go on all the time, but


there's only been five since 2000. What you described wouldn't have


worked, because in previous tests they have always been very public


about it. Look how well our missiles work! She may not have misled


Parliament, but she may not have known about it. If she didn't know,


does Michael Fallon still have a job on Monday? Should Parliament know


about a test that doesn't work? Some would say absolutely not. Our


deterrent is there to deter people from attacking us. If they know that


we are hitting the United States by mistake rather than the Atlantic


Ocean, then... There is such a thing as national security, and telling


all the bad guys about where we are going wrong may not be a good idea.


It was her first statement as Prime Minister to put her case for


renewal, to have the vote on Trident, and in that context, it is


significant not to say anything. If anyone knows where the missile


landed, give us a call! So Donald Trump's inauguration day


closed with him dancing to Frank Sinatra's My Way,


and whatever your view on the 45th President of the United States


he certainly did do it his way. Not for him the idealistic call


for national unity - instead he used Friday's inaugural


address to launch a blistering attack on the dark state


of the nation and the political class, and to promise


to take his uncompromising approach from the campaign trail


to the White House. Here's Adam Fleming,


with a reminder of how First, dropping by for a cup of tea


and a slightly awkward exchange Then, friends, foes


and predecessors watched I, Donald John Trump,


do solemnly swear... The crowds seemed smaller


than previous inaugurations, the speech tougher then any


previous incoming president. From this day forth,


it's going to be only America first. In the meantime, there were sporadic


protests in Washington, DC. Opponents made their voices heard


around the world too. The President,


who'd criticised the work of the intelligence agencies,


fitted in a visit to the CIA. There is nobody that feels stronger


about the intelligence community And, back at the office,


in the dark, a signature signalled the end of the Obama era


and the dawn of Trump. So, as you heard there,


President Trump used his inauguration to repeat his campaign


promise to put "America first" in all his decisions, and offered


some hints of what to expect He talked of in America in carnage,


to be rebuilt by American hands and American Labour. President Trump has


already started to dismantle key parts of the Obama Legacy, including


the unwinding of the affordable care act, and the siding of the climate


action plan to tackle global warning. Little to say about foreign


policy, but promised to eradicate Islamic terrorism from the face of


the Earth, insisting he would restore the US military to


unquestioning dominance. He also said the US would develop a state


missile defence system to deal with threats he sees from Iran and North


Korea. In a statement that painted a bleak picture of the country he now


runs, he said his would be a law and order Administration, and he would


keep the innocents safe by building the border war with Mexico. One


thing he didn't mention, for the first time ever, there is a


Eurosceptic in the oval office, who is also an enthusiast for Brexit.


We're joined now by Ted Malloch - he's a Trump supporter who's been


tipped as the president's choice for US ambassador


to the EU, and he's just flown back from Washington.


And by James Rubin - he's a democrat who served


Let's start with that last point I made in the voice over there. We now


have a Eurosceptic in the oval office. He is pro-Brexit and not


keen on further European Union integration. What are the


implications of that? First of all, a renewal of the US- UK special


relationship. You see the Prime Minister already going to build and


rebuild this relationship. Already, the bust of Winston Churchill is


back in the oval office. Interestingly, Martin Luther King's


bust is also there, so there is an act of unity in that first movement


of dusts. Donald Trump will be oriented between bilateral


relationships and not multilateral or supernatural. Supranational full.


What are the implications of someone in the White House now not believing


in it? I think we are present in the unravelling of America's leadership


of the West. There is now a thing called the west that America has led


since the end of World War II, creating supranational - we just


heard supernatural! These institutions were created. With


American leadership, the world was at peace in Europe, and the world


grew increasingly democratic and prosperous. Wars were averted that


could be extremely costly. When something works in diplomacy, you


don't really understand what the consequences could have been. I


think we've got complacent. The new president is taking advantage of


that. It is a terrible tragedy that so many in the West take for granted


the successful leadership and institutions we have built. You


could argue, as James Rubin has argued in some articles, that...


Will Mr Trump's America be more involved in the world than the Obama


won? Or will it continue the process with running shoes on that began


with Mr Obama? President Obama stepped back from American


leadership. He withdrew from the world. He had a horrendous eight


years in office, and American powers have diminished everywhere in the


world, not just in Europe. That power will reassert. The focus will


be on America first, but there are foreign interests around the


world... How does it reassert itself around the world? I think the


institutions will be recreated. Some may be taken down. There could be


some new ones. I think Nato itself, and certainly the Defence Secretary


will have discussions with Donald Trump about how Nato can be


reshaped, and maybe there will be more burden sharing. That is an


important thing for him. You are tipped to be the US ambassador to


Brussels, to the EU, and we are still waiting to hear if that will


happen. Is it true to say that Mr Trump does not believe in EU


integration? I think you made that clear in the speech. He talked about


supranational. He does not believe in those kinds of organisations. He


is investing himself in bilateral relationships, the first of which


will be with the UK. So we have a president who does not believe in EU


integration and has been highly critical of Nato. Do the people he


has appointed to defend, Secretary of State, national security, do you


think that will temper this anti-NATO wretched? Will he come


round to a more pro-NATO situation? I think those of us who care about


America's situation in the world will come in to miss President Obama


a lot. I think the Secretary of State and the faculty of defence


will limit the damage and will urge him not to take formal steps to


unravel this most powerful and most successful alliance in history, the


Nato alliance. But the damage is already being done. When you are the


leader of the West, leadership means you are persuading, encouraging,


bolstering your leadership and these institutions by the way you speak.


Millions, if not hundreds of millions of people, have now heard


the US say that what they care about is within their borders.


What do you say to that? It is such an overstatement. The point is that


Donald Trump is in a Jacksonian tradition of national populism. He


is appealing to the people first. The other day, I was sitting below


this page during the address, and he said, everyone sitting behind me as


part of the problem. Everyone in front of me, the crowd and the crowd


on television, is part of the solution, so we are giving the


Government back to the people. That emphasis is going to change American


life, including American International relations. It doesn't


moving the leak back -- it doesn't mean we are moving out of Nato, it


simply means we will put our national interests first. There were


echoes of Andrew Jackson's inauguration address of 1820. That


night, the Jacksonians trashed the White House, but Mr Trump's people


didn't do that, so there is a difference there. He also said


something else in the address - that protectionism would lead to


prosperity. I would suggest there is no evidence for that in the post-war


world. He talked about protecting the American worker, American jobs,


the American economy. I actually think that Donald Trump will not


turn out to be a protectionist. If you read the heart of the deal...


This is referring to two Republican senators who introduce massive


tariffs in the Hoover administration. Exactly. If you read


The Art Of The Deal, you will see how Donald Trump deals with


individuals and countries. There is a lot of bluster, positioning, and I


think you already see this in bringing jobs by the United States.


Things are going to change. Let's also deal with this proposition.


China is the biggest loser of this election result. Let me say this:


The first time in American history and American president has set forth


his view of the world, and it is a mercantile view of the world, who


makes more money, who gets more trade, it doesn't look at the shared


values, leadership and defends the world needs. The art of the deal has


no application to America's leadership of the world, that's what


we're learning. You can be a great businessman and make great real


estate deals - whether he did not is debatable - but it has nothing to do


with inspiring shared values from the West. You saying China may lose,


because he may pressure them to reduce their trade deficit with the


US. They may or may not. We may both lose. Right now, his Secretary of


State has said, and I think he will walk this back when he is brief,


that they will prevent the Chinese from entering these islands in the


South China Sea. If they were to do that, it would be a blockade, and


there would be a shooting war between the United States and China,


so US - China relations are the most important bilateral relationship of


the United States, and they don't lend themselves to the bluff and


bluster that may have worked when you are trying to get a big building


on second Ave in Manhattan. Is China the biggest loser? I think the


Chinese have a lot to lose. Gigi and Ping was in Davos this week -- Xi


Jin Ping was in Davos. Is Germany the second biggest loser


in the sense that I understand he hasn't agreed time to see Angela


Merkel yet, also that those close to him believe that Germany is guilty


of currency manipulation by adopting a weak your row instead of the


strong Deutschmark, and that that is why they are running a huge balance


of payments surplus with the United States. American - German relations


may not be great. There is a point of view throughout Europe. You only


have to talk to the southern Europeans about this question. It


seems like the euro has been aligned to benefit Germany. Joe Stiglitz,


the famous left of centre Democrat economist, made the same case in a


recent book. In this case, I think Germany will be put under the


spotlight. Angela Merkel has shown herself to be the most respected and


the most successful leader in Europe. We who care about the West,


who care about the shared values of the West, should pray and hope that


she is re-elected. This isn't about dollars and cents. We're living in a


time whether Russian leader has another country in Europe and for


some inexplicable reason, the American president, who can use his


insult diplomacy on everyone, including Mrs Merkel, the only


person he can't seem to find anything to criticise about is Mr


Putin. There are things more important than the actual details of


your currency. There are things like preventing another war in Europe,


preventing a war between the Chinese and the US. You talk about the


Trident missile all morning, nuclear deterrence is extremely important.


It doesn't lend itself to the bluff and bluster of a real estate deal. I


understand all that, but the fact we are even talking about these things


shows the new world we are moving into. I'd like to get you both to


react to this. This is a man that ended the Bush Dynasty, a man that


beat the Clinton machine. In his inauguration, not only did he not


reach out to the Democrats, he didn't even mention the Republicans.


These are changed days for us. They are, and change can be good or


disastrous. I'm worried that it's easy in the world of diplomacy and


in them -- for the leadership of the United States to break relationships


and ruin alliances. These are things that were carefully nurtured. George


Schultz, the American Secretary of State under Reagan talked about


gardening, the slow, careful creation of a place with bilateral


relationships that were blossoming and flowering multilateral


relationships that take decades to create, and he will throw them away


in a matter of days. The final word... I work for George Schultz.


He was a Marine who stood up America, defended America, who would


be in favour of many of the things that Donald Trump and the tramp


Administration... Give him a call. His top aide macs that I've spoken


to are appalled by Mr Trump's abdication of leadership. He is


going to our radically -- he's going to eradicate extremist Islam from


the face of the year. Is that realistic? I know people in the


national security realm have worked on a plan. They say they will have


such a plan in some detail within 90 days. Lets hope they succeed. We


have run out of time. As a issues. Thank you, both. -- fascinating


issues. So Theresa May promised a big speech


on Brexit, and this week - perhaps against expectation -


she delivered, trying to answer claims that the government didn't


have a plan with an explicit wish-list of what she hopes to


achieve in negotiations with the EU. To her allies it was ambitious,


bold, optimistic - to her opponents it was full


of contradictions Here's Adam again, with a reminder


of the speech and how There are speeches,


and there are speeches. Like Theresa May's 12 principles


for a Brexit deal leading to the UK fully out of the EU


but still friendly in terms This agreement should allow


for the freest possible trade in goods and services between


Britain and the EU's member states. It should give British


companies the maximum operate within European markets


and let European businesses do She also said no deal would be


better than the wrong deal, We want to test what people think


about what she's just said. Do we have any of our


future negotiating As the European Parliament


voted for its new president, its chief


negotiator sounded off. Saying, OK, if our European


counterparts don't accept it, we're going to make


from Britain a sort of free zone or tax haven,


I The Prime Minister of Malta,


the country that's assumed the EU's rotating presidency,


spoke in sorrow and a bit of anger. We want a fair deal


for the United Kingdom, but that deal necessarily needs to be


inferior to membership. Next, let's hear


from some enthusiastic leavers, like, I don't


know, the Daily Mail? The paper lapped it up


with this adoring front page. For Brexiteers, it was


all manna from heaven. I think today means we are a big


step closer to becoming an independent country again,


with control of our own laws, I was chuckling at some of it,


to be honest, because There were various phrases there


which I've used myself again and Do we have any of those


so-called Remoaners? There will, at the end


of this deal process, so politicians get to vote


on the stitch-up, but We take the view as


Liberal Democrats that if this process started


with democracy last June, We trusted the people


with departure, we must trust them Do we have anyone from


Labour, or are you all watching it in a small


room somewhere? Throughout the speech, there seemed


to be an implied threat that somewhere along the line,


if all her optimism of a deal with the European Union didn't work,


we would move into a low-tax, corporate taxation,


bargain-basement economy on the I think she needs to be


a bit clearer about what The Labour leader


suggested he'd tell his MPs to vote in favour


of starting a Brexit process if Parliament was given the choice,


sparking a mini pre-revolt among Finally, do we have anyone


from big business here? Of course, your all in Davos


at the World Economic Clarity, first of all, really


codified what many of us have been anticipating since


the referendum result, particularly around


the I think what we've also seen


today is the Government's willingness to put a bit of edge


into the negotiating dynamic, and I Trade negotiations are negotiations,


and you have to lay out, and you have to be pretty tough


to get what you want. Although some business people


on the slopes speculated about moving some of their


operations out of Brexit Britain. We saw there the instant reaction


of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, but how will the party respond


to the challenge posed by Brexit Well, I'm joined now by the Shadow


Home Secretary, Diane Abbott. People know that Ukip and the Tories


are for Brexit. The Lib Dems are four remain. What is Labour for? For


respecting the result of the referendum. It was a 72% turnout,


very high for an election of that nature, and we believe you have to


respect that result. You couldn't have a situation where people like


Tim Farron are saying to people, millions of people, sorry, you got


it wrong, we in London no better. However, how the Tories go forward


from here has to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. Is it Shadow


Cabinet policy to vote for the triggering of Article 50? Our policy


is not to block Article 50. That is what the leader was saying this


morning. So are you for it? Our policy is not to block it. You are


talking about voting for it. We don't know what the Supreme Court is


going to say, and we don't know what legislation Government will bring


forward, and we don't know what amendment we will move, but we're


clear that we will not vote to block it. OK, so you won't bow to stop it,


but you could abstain? No, what we will do... Either you vote for or


against all you abstain. There are too many unanswered questions. For


instance, the position of EU migrants working and living in this


country. You may not get the answer to that before Article 50 comes


before the Commons, so what would you do then? We are giving to amend


it. We can only tell you exactly how we will amend it when we understand


what sort of legislation the Government is putting forward, and


in the course of moving those amendments, we will ask the


questions that the people of Britain whether they voted to leave remain


want answered. When you come to a collective view,


will there be a three line whip? I can't tell you, because we have not


seen the government 's legislation. But when you see it, you will come


to a collective view. Many regard this as extremely important. Will


there be a three line whip on Labour's collective view? Because it


is important, we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves. When we see what the


Supreme Court says, and crucially, when we see what the government


position is, you will hear what the whipping is. Will shadow ministers


be able to defy any three line whip on this? That is not normally the


case. But they did on an early vote that the government introduced on


Article 50. Those who voted against it are still there. In the Blair


years, you certainly couldn't defy a three line whip. We will see what


happens going forward. I remember when the Tories were hopelessly


divided over the EU. All these Maastricht votes and an list


arguments. Now it is Labour. Just another symptom of Mr Corbyn's poor


leadership. Not at all. Two thirds voted to leave, a third to remain.


We are seeking to bring the country and the party together. We will do


that by pointing out how disastrous a Tory Brexit would be. Meanwhile,


around 80 Labour MPs will defy a three line whip. It's too early to


say that. Will you publish what you believe the negotiating goal should


be? We are clear on it. We think that the economy, jobs and living


standards should be the priority. What Theresa May is saying is that


holding her party together is her priority. She is putting party above


country. Does Labour think we should remain members of the single market?


Ideally, in terms of jobs and the economy, of course. Ritt -ish


business thinks that as well. Is Labour policy that we should remain


a member of the single market? Labour leaves that jobs and the


economy comes first, and if they come first, you would want to remain


part of the single market. But to remain a member? Jobs and the


economy comes first, and to do that, ideally, guess. So with that, comes


free movement of people, the jurisdiction of the European, and a


multi-million never shipped thief. Is Labour prepared to pay that?


Money is neither here nor there. Because the Tories will be asked to


pay a lot of money... The EU has made it clear that you cannot


have... I am asking for Labour's position. Our position is rooted in


the reality, and the reality is that you cannot have the benefits of the


member of the European Union, including being a member of the


single market, without responsibility, including free


movement of people. Free movement, is remaining under the jurisdiction


of the European Court of Justice. Is that the Labour position? You've


said that Labour wants to remain a member of the single market. That is


the price tag that comes with it. Does Labour agree with paying that


price tag? We are not pre-empting negotiation. Our goals are protect


jobs and the British economy. Is it Labour's position that we remain a


member of the customs union? Well, if we don't, I don't see how Theresa


May can keep our promises and has unfettered access... You said


Labour's position was clear. It is! It is clear that Theresa May... I am


not asking about Theresa May. Is it Labour's position to remain a member


of the customs union? It is Labour's position to do what is right for


British industry. Depending on how the negotiations go, it may prove


that coming out of the customs union, as Theresa May has indicated


she wants to do, could prove catastrophic, and could actually


destroy some of her promises. You do accept that if we are member of the


customs union, we cannot do our own free trade deals? What free trade


deals are you talking about? The ones that Labour might want to do in


the future. First, we have to protect British jobs and British


industries. If you are talking about free trade deals with Donald Trump,


the danger is that Theresa May will get drawn into a free-trade deal


with America that will open up the NHS to American corporate... The


cards are in Theresa May's hands. If she takes us out of the single


market, if she takes us out of the customs union, we will have to deal


with that. How big a crisis for Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour


loses both by-elections in February. I don't believe we will lose both.


But if he did? I am not anticipating that. Is Labour lost two seats in a


midterm of a Tory government, would that be business as usual? I'm not


prepared to see us lose those seats, so I will not talk about something


that will not happen. Thank you. You're watching


the Sunday Politics. We say goodbye to viewers


in Scotland, who leave us now Coming up here in 20


minutes, The Week Ahead, when we'll be talking


to Business Minister Margot James about the government's


new industrial strategy and that crucial Supreme Court


ruling on Brexit. First, though, the Sunday


Politics where you are. Going underground, we reveal


the real problems in the bowels of Westminster, making the case


for moving Parliament elsewhere. I think the best thing


is if we move out completely. I don't buy into this


idea if we move out, And leading the campaign


against moving Parliament, Shailesh Vara, the Conservative MP


for North West Cambridgeshire, and with us also today,


Dr Julian Huppert for the Lib Dems, former


Cambridge MP who will fight But we start with maintenance


grants for students. If you want to go to


university this autumn, this week was the deadline


for your application. It is the first year that


disadvantaged students will no longer be able to get


a maintenance grant. They've been scrapped


by the Government and been According to the latest


figures, in this region, 35,000 students received more


than ?114 million in So, will it make a difference


when they are withdrawn? Alexi is in his second year studying


politics and sociology He receives around ?3500


a year from the Government in maintenance grants,


money to help with living costs of being at university that does not


have to be paid back. Just a few more days


and it will be over. A few more days and


we can party hard. I am from a single-parent family


and my sister and I are both at university now and it is


a huge burden on my mum. Even the maintenance


loan and grant together, there is a shortfall in terms of how


much you actually need for living, particularly now my sister doesn't


have a maintenance grant It means that there is a massive


shortfall and she's going to have to pay a huge amount more interest


when she leaves university in debt. There is concern the high levels


of debt will make some people think I think the change from grants


to loans will put off quite a few students,


particularly students Partially because they are so debt


averse and they are thinking about, once I have gone to university,


how much debt am I going Only 3% of students from the most


disadvantaged families go to top universities like these, compared


to 20% from the most well off. This is something universities


are keen to improve so will be watching with interest to see


what impact the Government's In the latest figures from 2014,


Cambridge University had 26% of students receiving


maintenance grants. For the other universities


in the east, the figures climb, and at the top on 56%


is the University of Bedfordshire. One of the Cambridge colleges


is trying to address this by introducing studentships


and a grant of up to ?9,500 a year to help with living costs of those


most in need. I want my students here in college


to be financially sound, they can participate


in all the educational activities that are happening in the college,


without any financial worries. It is not just so-called elite


universities trying to make sure Anglia Ruskin has an outreach


programme that includes speaking to sixth formers and parents


about the new student We've been presenting it to parents


and students since we've known what the system is and I've not had


a negative reaction from anyone. People take the information


and are grateful for understanding what it is and how it is put


together and it does not If you want to go to university,


the system is the system presented to you and you consider


the system you have got and you cannot wish for last


year because that is not going to be For a normal boy like Alexi,


going to King's College Cambridge is a dream come true and his hope


for the future is that other students will be able


to follow in his footsteps. For poorer people,


finance is a priority, when it comes to deciding


whether to go to university. To think about looming debt


when you are leaving, as well as the interest


you are paying on that, on that It was for me and I am sure


it is for a lot of other people too. Well, the Government


declined an interview, "We are already seeing record


numbers of disadvantaged young We have increased maintenance


support for students from the lowest Financial assistance is also


available through all universities." Well, earlier this week,


I spoke to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire


and a former Universities Minister I asked if he was happy


that enough people from disadvantaged backgrounds


were going to university. Everybody who has the potential


to benefit from going to university Historically, students


from the poorest backgrounds have not participated at the same rate


as those from more However, in the last decade or so,


albeit from a low base, there has been a significant


acceleration of access from students In fact, faster than the whole


student cohort as a whole. That has been driven in part


by nonrepayable student grants and it is in that context that


I regret the fact that What difference do


you think it will make? I think there is a risk that


students who may be not willing to take out loan finance


will be put off. In part, the Government


is compensating by increasing the overall loan finance package


that is available. It is going up by about 10% compared


to the loan plus nonrepayable grant But of course, that is


a loan you have to repay. I think it is really important


that we get the message across that there is more money


available to students whilst they are actually studying and also


that the repayments mechanisms are progressive and fair


and that you only repay when you are in work and earning


more than ?21,000 a year. It is an affordable system


and for anyone who is thinking of going to university,


it is still the best But there are mixed signals


from the Government. On the one hand, urging universities


to recruit more students from poorer backgrounds,


which is right, but at the same time, abolishing


nonrepayable grants. Being in government,


I know it from my background as a government minister,


when the last government was in power, I know you have


to make difficult choices. I would not have


chosen to abolishing Nevertheless, I think


it is important that we now are saddled with this system,


it is important we get the benefits of the system


across to potential students, particularly from the poorest


backgrounds, the fact that overall loan finance is increasing


by about 10% and the payback, once you are in work and earning,


for someone with One last message from you,


to anybody who is thinking about going to university


and cannot afford it. I would say to anyone


with the potential to benefit from going to university,


do it, it is the best The vast majority of people never


regret that decision The benefit will stay


with you right the way up, Julian Huppert, what is your


experience, you are in teaching? I think there is a real problem


for people from poorer backgrounds and while the point has been made


that people get loans which they can which they can pay off,


the thing is, if you are doing the sums, you think


about things one way. If you are a 17-year-old,


you're probably not used to the idea of having thousands of pounds


of debt sitting over you. I am worried it will have a huge


effect on people like that. When I talk to students,


many are not so concerned about what will happen in 10,


20 years, they are concerned about having enough money now to pay


for somewhere to live, for food, for drink,


for the normal parts of life. I think it is really important


to try to help, particularly people Otherwise we will continue to see


ever growing inequality. But the Government is saying


it is putting more money in, There is some money but it is loans


and it makes a big difference. While people who may own a house


are used to the idea of having a mortgage and people are not that


worried about a mortgage, they do not see it as money


they do not have and need It is very different if you are 17,


18, contemplating owing many thousands of pounds,


it has a huge effect on people. Finance a priority, we heard


that young student say, Well, first of all, these


are difficult decisions. In 2015, there was some ?1.6 billion


spent on maintenance grants. If that were to continue,


over the next decade, If you stop some poorer


families going... When tuition fees were introduced,


that was the argument that it would stop poorer


people coming forward. If you look at the figures,


again in 2015, 2015 alone, 4% more people from poorer


backgrounds entered There is that element and also


an element of fairness. What you are effectively


saying is that people who have further education,


we know that as a rule they will earn in their working life


a lot more than those who do not We are asking people who do not have


further education through taxes to pay for other people


to have an education... To have an education


which will allow them to have more I think we have to recognise


the fairness element. Firstly, the reason why


there were more people who came from poorer backgrounds


was precisely because of schemes like this that were expanded to help


fund people from poorer backgrounds. If you take that away,


we will start seeing problems. Yes, people who have a higher


education do earn more It is really useful to say


that people should... Why should people who are earning


pay for other people to go I think the point is


that the 17-year-old from a very poor background who may well go


on and earn more, if they do learn -- earn more, they will be paying


income tax, they will be paying other taxes and we should be quite


robust about collecting those, close the loopholes,


many things we have talked about before, but at that


point when someone of 17, like the man we saw,


from a single-parent family, Disadvantage against advantage,


those people from advantaged backgrounds are more likely


to have a successful life. It has always been the case


that those who have a generous wallet are going to be better off


in life in many other ways. But there is more


to life than money. What I would say to Julian


about the 17-year-old boy, he is not going to be asked to repay


that at the age of 17. There is a threshold that


when he starts working, that is when he starts to pay,


only if he is earning MPs have got a lot on their minds


at the moment, including the future of the Houses


of Parliament themselves. The building is in desperate


need of renovation. Next week, MPs will discuss a plan


to move out altogether for six years There are some strong


feelings on the matter. Mr Vara is one of those who want


them to stay where they are. We will hear from him


in a moment about why. First, we have been on a special


tour of one of the most famous Watch yourselves


as you come through. We're heading into one of the main


pipe vaults of the Palace which we are now walking through has


been completely filled with pipework, wiring,


everything you need to keep a big Practically, getting to this stuff


right at the top now is impossible because of the way we have layered


stuff on top of stuff. Everything you see here would have


to be replaced under Lots of it dates from the 1950s,


though as I said, there is stuff As you head deeper into the Palace,


start to crouch down a lot more, we are in a situation


where there is physically not enough That are 240 miles worth of cabling


and it is just chaos. We know what type of cables


they are but we do not know where they run,


what they serve and what they do. This is our current


telephone system. The real risk for us


is a catastrophic failure of the systems leading to a fire


and that fire could end up taking hold and we could lose big portions


of the building. Everything you can see down


here in the basement is visible but all of these pipes and wires end


up in the 1100 rooms we have in the Palace,


going through all the fine areas, so for us to replace this


on the upper floors means pulling the building apart,


all of those fine decorative panels would come off the wall for us


to replace the system This is just another example


of some of the crumbling conditions we have got,


down to the extreme heat Some of this is superficial,


just on the surface. At the end of the day,


we should not be putting this building through the sort


of pressures we are putting it through in terms of the environment


we are forcing it to work in. Here we are in one of the almost


forgotten courtyards of the Palace of Westminster,


on the roof. One of the oldest


courtyards we have got. You can start to see


the crumbling conditions. That is down to pollution


and generally the age. We need to get in here in this


courtyard to do the huge amount of restoration


work, conservation work. It is not just about doing


the replacement of the mechanical and electrical plant


in the basement, it is about Retaining what is an iconic


building of Britain. Under the proposals, MPs would move


into the Department of Health. The Lords would go to the Queen


Elizabeth Conference Centre nearby. The plans will be


debated on Wednesday. This is the centre of


democracy in the world, This place here, if you start


undermining the presence of MPs in Westminster,


the elected MPs, then I think we are talking


about a serious issue. You see steam pipes


near electricity cables near communications cables


and so on, it is an I think therefore that the safest


option, as well as in the end the cheapest option is to get out


of it, let the workers get on with it and then


we will have the best result I think the best thing


is if we move out completely. When the building was built 150


years ago, over a 20-year period, the peers and the commoners insisted


on operating within the ruins, if you like,


and they complained day in, day out, about the noise,


not enough being done for them, and it proved a great distraction


to the engineers. Safest and cheapest,


if they go out completely? The proposals say we should be


leaving, peers and MPs and all our staff, in six years'


time and then we would be out for another 6-8 years and they say


it would cost 3.5 billion. But those are flawed figures


because the report makes several caveats and in fact on the opening


page, it says the budget still needs significant work by professionals


to do proper costings. They do say it is going to cost


a lot more if they work around you. What I'm saying is that an eight


acre site, they should be I am not prepared to look


a constituent in the eye and say that they cannot have extra money


for whatever and yet commission ?3.5 billion to be spent


on the place where I do my work. What I would suggest is that


what they do is spend a longer time working around us and we will pay


as the work gets done and it At a time of austerity,


I do not think we should be The other thing, very important,


at this very important time in our history,


at a time of Brexit, when we are going to be wanting


new friends overseas, seeking favourable trade agreements,


do we really want to be working from a temporary House of Commons,


in the courtyard of What are our opponents


going to be saying? They will say, this is UK Plc,


doing their own thing, they will have a picture


of the temporary building and they will say, this is UK Plc


doing its own thing. We ought to be making


maximum use of this iconic It has a huge power


in terms of soft sell. Yes, it is falling apart


and work needs to be done. It is not fit to be a contemporary


parliament building. There are all sorts of ways


in which it is not good enough. I don't recall Julian ever once


complaining it was not good enough. When you have an eight acre site


that was designed... I think it is very archaic,


not fit for the way democracy should work now, the way the Chamber is set


up, the way it doesn't deal with electronics,


the inability to get Wi-Fi He says he does not want to work


in a courtyard somewhere else. I think working on a building site


would look far more ridiculous. But far more important


than the prestige is actually how much money is going to be


spent on this. It is an iconic


building, no question. I think both of those


will probably go up. I would like to see something


that is done cheaper, It is not about making MPs feel


happy in a famous building but about not wasting taxpayers'


money and getting One word from you, will the vote


go your way or against you? This is going to be


Westminster Hall where there Now for our round-up


of the political Week Schoolchildren in Ipswich


could benefit after it was named as one of the Government's


new opportunity areas. The ?70 million scheme is designed


to improve social mobility. Food producers from the region


warned MPs this week that continued free


access to migrant workers was absolutely vital


for their businesses. We absolutely would not be able


to operate without access In what might be a first,


every single Conservative MP from Bedfordshire got to their feet


at Prime Minister's Question Time, including a surprise


intervention from a key member Could I commend my right honourable


friend for her remarks yesterday, not least the constructive tone


she took towards the EU and the future of the EU in marked


contrast to others we have heard over the years from many


different quarters in the UK? And not for the first time,


Suffolk MP and Defra Minister was put in place by a helpful


Speaker, John Bercow. LAUGHTER


He praised the tone of the Prime Minister's speech, not the content.


What is important here is the fact that there were a lot of remainers


who recognise 17.4 million people voted in a particular way and we


need to get on and respect that decision. Democracy has


consequences. I think we are seeing more and more people than the macro


problems. Food producers speaking. People did vote but it was partly on


a promise we would stay in the single market and there would be


extra for the NHS. We should give people the chance to comment on the


deal. Where was the promise made about staying in the single market?


I can point you to lots of vote leave websites. It is not saying


that they will stay in it. It was a conservative manifesto commitment to


stay in the single market. We said there would be a referendum and it


would be a simple yes or no. It was in my literature. There was a


separate peace. We can have a look. The great thing about faxes we can


look at the manifesto. I would urge people to do that. -- facts. We need


a vote on the deal. Is it what people wanted? Was it a good speech?


No, I found it depressing. It will be hugely damaging for the country.


Excellent speech, set out very clearly... Very loyal! Fine macro it


made it clear to the European Union that there is something in this for


both sides. Thank you both of us for being with us this week. You can


keep in Dutch on our website. We are back


have to do this. Thank you to you both.


What exactly is the government's industrial strategy?


Will ministers lose their supreme court battle over Brexit, and,


Well, tomorrow Theresa May is launching the government's


industrial strategy - and to talk about that we're joined


by the Business Minister, Margot James - welcome to the show.


When you look at what has already been released in advance of the


Prime Minister's statement, it was embargoed for last night, it's not


really an industrial strategy, it's just another skills strategy, of


which we have had about six since the war, and our skills training is


among the worst in Western Europe? There will be plenty more to be


announced tomorrow in what is really a discussion document in the


preparation of an industrial strategy which we intend to launch


properly later in the year. Let's look at skills. You are allocating


117 of funding to establish institutes of technology. How many?


The exact number is to be agreed, but the spend is there, and it will


be on top of what we are doing to the university, technical


colleges... How many were lit bio create? We don't know exactly, but


we want to put them in areas where young people are performing under


the national average. But if you don't know how many, what is the


basis of 170 million? That is the amount the Treasury have released.


The something that is very important, we are agreed we need to


devote more resources to vocational training and get it on a par with


academic qualifications. I looked on the website of my old university,


the University of Glasgow, the Russell group universities. Its


spending budget every year is over 600 million. That's one University.


And yet you have a mere 170 million foreign unspecified number of


institutes of technology. It hasn't got equality with the academics? You


have to remember that just as you have quoted figures from Glasgow


University there are further education colleges all over the


country. The government is already spending on 16 to 19-year-olds. But


also, we are going to be adding... This is new money that is all to the


good, because we are already spending a lot. We have already


created 2 million more apprentices since 2010. That many are not in


what we would call the stem skills, and a lot come nowhere near what the


Dutch, Germans and Austrians would have. I'm not clear how another 170


million would do. You said it is more than skills. In what way is


this industrial strategy different from what Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne


did before? It's different because it is involving every single


government department, and bringing together everything that government


does in a bid to make Britain more competitive as it disengages from


the European Union. That is what the last Labour government did. They


will much more targeted interventions. Under the Labour


government, the auto industry got some benefit. A few more sectors


were broached under the coalition government. This is all about


communities all over the country, some of whom have fallen behind in


terms of wage growth and good jobs. The Prime Minister has already


announced 2 billion as a research and development priority in specific


technologies, robotics, artificial intelligence, medical technology,


satellites... So you are doing what has been done before. There is


nothing new about this. Wait until tomorrow, because there will be some


new strands emerging. It is the beginning of the dialogue with


industry and with workers, and the responses will be invited up until


April. That will inform a wider strategy that goes beyond skills. I


have moved on to beyond them. I'm slightly puzzled as to how the


government knows where to invest in robotics, when it can't even provide


the NHS with a decent IT system. Discuss. I have to say I find it


bizarre that the government is making an announcement about an


amount of money and don't know where it's going. This is typical of all


governments over all political shoes, which is total disregard for


technical education, so different from Germany, who actually invest in


the technological side. Germany has a long history. We want to emulate


some of the best of what German companies do. Siemens sponsor


primary schools, for example. We want to get a dialogue on with


business. We don't want to decide where this money is going. By the


way, it was 4.7 billion that the government has agreed to invest in


science and research, which is the most significant increase in


decades. Can you remind us what happened in Northern Ireland, when


the government invested money in state-of-the-art technology for


energy? No one needs to be reminded of that, and that is not what we are


doing. We are inviting business and industry to advise where that money


is best spent. That's very different from government deciding that a


particular technology is for the future. The government's chief


scientific adviser has determined that we will invest a huge amount in


battery technology, which should benefit the electric car industry,


and... This is taxpayers' money. Who gets it? Ultimately, business will


get it, but often only when there is a considerable amount of private


sector finance also drawn in. But who is held to account? Various


government departments at local authorities will hold this list to


account. A lot of it is about releasing private capital as well.


Thank you very much. This week, the Supreme Court, I think we know the


ruling is coming on Tuesday. And the expectation is that the judges will


say Parliament will have to vote to trigger. Is this all much ado about


nothing? Parliament will vote to trigger, and the government will win


in the Lords and the Commons by substantial majorities, and it will


be triggered? Completely. We've known that. Parliament is voted.


Everyone is pretty confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the


High Court's decision and say it has to go to MPs. There will be a bit of


toing and froing among MPs on amendments. You heard Diane Abbott's


slightly car crash interview there. The Lib Dems may throw something in,


but we will trigger Article 50 by the end of March. If it also says


that the roll of Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast should be picked up,


that could complicate matters. Absolutely. That could delay the


planned triggering of Article 50 before the end of March. Not what


they say about the Westminster Parliament, because it is clear that


it was. I never understood the furore about that original judgment,


because every MP made it clear they wouldn't block it. Even though Diane


Abbott was evasive on several fronts, she said they wouldn't block


it. You are right, if they give a vote, or give some authorisation for


the Scottish Parliament and other devolved assemblies, that might


delay the whole sequence. That is the only significant thing to watch


out for. Watch out on Tuesday. Mrs May goes to Washington. It will be


another movie in the making! I would suggest that she has a tricky line


to follow. She has got to be seen to be taking advantage of the fact that


there is a very pro-British, pro-Brexit president in the Oval


Office, who I am told is prepared to expend political capital on this.


But on the other hand, to make sure that she is not what we used to call


Mr Blair, George Bush's poodle. It is very difficult, and who would not


want to be a fly on the wall in that meeting! I can't think of anyone in


the world who would despise Mr Trump more than Mrs May, and for him, he


dislikes any woman who does not look like a supermodel, no disrespected


Mrs May. Most of it is actually anti-EU, and I think we should


capitalise it. Let's get the Queen to earn her money, roll out the red


carpet, invite him to dinner, spend the night, what ever we need...


Trump at Balmoral! Here is the issue, because the agenda is, as we


heard from Ted Malloch earlier, that this is not an administration that


has much time for the EU, EU integration or Germany. I think


Germany will be the second biggest loser to begin with. They will not


even give a date for Angela Merkel to meet the president. This is an


opportunity for Mrs May... It is a huge. It could sideline talks of the


punishment beating from Germany. The Trump presidency has completely


changed the field on Brexit. Along came Donald Trump, and Theresa May


has this incredible opportunity here. Not of her making, but she has


played her cards well. To an officially be the EU emissary to


Washington, to get some sort of broker going. That gives us huge


extra leveraged in the Brexit negotiations. People around the


world think Germany as a currency manipulator, that it is benefiting


from an underpriced euro, hence the huge surplus it runs of America, and


they think it is disgraceful that a country that runs a massive budget


surplus spends only 1.2% of its GDP on defence, and America runs a


massive deficit and needs to spend a lot more. He's going for Germany.


And what a massive shift. I think Obama was quite open, in a farewell


interview, that he felt closer to Merkel than any other European


leader. And Jamie kind of reflected that in our discussion. Yes, that's


very interesting discussion. I think she was the last person he spoke to


in the White House, Obama. And now you are getting the onslaught from


Trump. This Thatcher- Reagan imagery is dangerous, though. Blair was


hypnotised by it and was too scared to criticise Bush, because he wanted


to be seen in that light, and we know where that led. Cameron


similarly with Obama, which presented him with problems, as


Obama didn't regard him as his number one pin up in Europe. I would


put a note of caution in there about the Thatcher - Reagan parallel.


Everything Trump is doing now is different from before, so Mrs May


should not have any of these previous relationships in her mind.


That is not entirely true. Donald Trump aches to be the new Ronald


Reagan. He may be impeached first! He sees her as the new Margaret


Thatcher, and that may her leveraged with him. Thank you.


We'll be back here at the same time next week, and you can catch up


on all the latest political news on the Daily Politics,


In the meantime, remember - if it's Sunday,


It's just pain, but it doesn't feel like pain,


it feels much more violent, dark and exciting.


Join Michael Buerk as he explores the dishes fit for kings and queens.


When it comes to extravagance, few monarchs can compete with George IV.


If that was for breakfast, I dread to think what he had for dinner.


Download Subtitles