22/01/2017 Sunday Politics East

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.