04/12/2016 Sunday Politics London

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson accepts we might continue to pay EU

budget contributions even after we leave, but says

Tim Farron says his party's dramatic win in the Richmond Park by-election

is a vote against a so-called "hard" Brexit.

But do the Lib Dems really want any kind of Brexit at all?

We speak to former party leader Nick Clegg.

Ukip's new leader says he wants to "replace Labour".

Some Labour MPs are jittery because of the party leadership's

Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott joins us live.

In London, we will be looking closely at that by-election

Why did the people of Richmond Park vote the way they did?

And with me - as always - three fully paid-up members

of the metropolitan elite - although which metropolis,

Toby Young, Helen Lewis and Tom Newton Dunn, who'll be

So, the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, has accepted that

Britain might pay something into the EU budget after Brexit,

though he says there is no reason why they should be too onerous.

That was after the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU,

David Davis, suggested earlier this week that Britain would indeed

consider paying for access to EU markets after Brexit.

Here is what Mr Johnson said on the Marr Show earlier.

A lot of people will be watching, thinking -

hold on a second, after Brexit, are we are going to be paying large

amounts of money to the EU, in return for access to markets?

Well, I've given you an indication of the kind of payments that

My own view is, I see no reason why those payments should be large.

And as I say, I do see a big opportunity for us to take the money

that we're getting back and spend it on other priorities.

Toby, the papers this morning, they are awash with the minutiae of

Brexit, spinning whatever they have got depending on whether they are

Remain or Leave. Is it not getting as close to ridiculous? It does feel

a bit absurd and it is unfortunately the effect of the Government not

announcing, not declaring what its Brexit strategy is going to be.

Because the Dortmund has said it cannot do that without showing its

hand in the forthcoming negotiations, it is difficult to go

back on that -- the Government. I think we will see this fee per

speculation for months if not years. The observer is leading with a

couple of die-hard Remain Tories, not happy, surprise, surprise! The

Telegraph, in Leave paper, saying the Italian Ambassador did not say

this about Boris Johnson this week. Sky News ran the story endlessly

last week. But Toby is right, this sort of flotsam and gets in, the

Government has itself to blame. Yes, and we have now got Queen of Brexit,

dirty Brexit, white, grey, hard, soft. This is about Single Market

and that is what this is about. No wait pays more per capita into the

budget to access this European Economic Area and that is what we

need more clarity about. Not more than we do but a lot. More per

capita, I believe it is 79. It pays a what! . Boris Johnson said we do

not want to pay, only a small amount. This is the bad news that

would suggest, this is going to continue until the Government fills

the vacuum, which means not this year. No, probably not next year

either because we should not expect anything revolutionary from the

Government when Theresa May does trigger Article 50. Maybe not even

in 2018 because we will only know the shape of the deal and what we

get in 2019. They will have the alpine strategic goals. No, I don't

think they will do. They can keep going along with this line of the

best possible trade deal and controlling immigration with maybe a

couple more details of, we are prepared to consider contributions.

And on that, I would suggest the BBC is misreporting Boris Johnson. I did

not hear him at any stage this morning say he is happy with budget

contributions, he is merely happy to contribute a small schemes like

Rasmus. Contributing to the budget is different, it is paying billions

potentially into a pool of money which if you are out of the EU, you

have even less control. David Davis was talking of a bit more than that

but it wasn't specified. It is a red flag for a lot of people who thought

there would be more money to spend this country if we left the EU. The

famous figure on the bus. The more they spend in other ways, the less

there will be. That is true, but the Helen is right. It looks as though

we are beginning to glimpse a government strategy and they are

willing to pay to access the Single Market and a negotiation will partly

be about how much. One aspect often overlooked is the Article 50

negotiation is separate from a free trade negotiation. They often get

run together and we do not know if the negotiations towards agreeing a

free trade agreement can begin at the same time as the Article 50

negotiations or whether they have to wait until the Article 50

deal has been concluded before embarking on the free trade

negotiation. They have to do that, there will be speculation about what

that looks like 45, maybe ten years. I understand they intend to do it in

parallel but do not take that to the bank! That is a caveat otherwise she

would be criticising us again! After a devastating

general election, you'd be forgiven for thinking

that the Liberal Democrats were But earlier this week,

the party won a stunning by-election victory in Richmond Park,

overturning Zac Goldsmith's 23,000 The new MP, Sarah Olney,

has even gone as far as to suggest that the result paved the way

for Parliament to "override" Here she is talking

to reporters after her victory. Are you still going to vote

against Article 50, and isn't that flying in the face of what the rest

of the country voted That's the commitment

I made in my campaign. My by-election victory means I have

got a personal mandate from the voters of Richmond Park

that that is what A third of Tory Leavers

voted Liberal Democrat yesterday because they say,

hang about, this is not what we voted for, Theresa May

is taking a Ukip-ish slant They want a country that is open,

tolerant and united. It is not 48 versus 52,

it's about the country coming together behind a moderate,

progressive opposition I'm joined now by the former leader

of the Liberal Democrats and former Deputy Prime Minister,

Nick Clegg. He is now the party's

Brexit spokesman. Welcome back to the programme. Tim

Farron says Richmond is a rejection of Brexit and the 2015 General

Election, even Donald Trump, which will be news to America. In what way

does 20,000 people voting for the Lib Dems in one of the most affluent

anti-Brexit constituencies in the country mean any of that? I think

when these by-elections happen, people quite rightly both for and

against say all sorts of things which either turn out or not to be

true. I think clearly you cannot extrapolate from one part of

south-west London to the rest of the country. I heard the result in South

West Sheffield, very different in south-west London. Having spent a

lot of time in the Richmond campaign, the most significant thing

was not about the details of Article 50 and Single Market, it was a very

strong feeling among those kind of people, and there are millions

around the country, who feel that because they disagreed with the

outcome on June 23rd, they are being delegitimised and no longer entitled

to hold those views, they are shouted down as moaners and people

living in denial. It is always emotion driving these things more

than cerebral ideas. It was that emotion that came through in the

by-election. Next week, we have a by-election in a place that voted

60% to leave and I would suggest your party will not win that is, a

Brexit supporter will win that comfortably. So a big Remain

constituency votes to remain and a big Leave votes to leave. Ukip might

win and if that happens, it might reveal that as politics becomes more

defined buying Brexit, it is the parties with the clearest positions,

in this case Ukip and the Liberal Democrats, who communicate more

clearly with the public. And the mainstream parties are increasingly

divided and opaque in what they really mean. We will see what

happens. Let's look at how clear cut your party's position is. Sarah

Olney, your new MP for Richmond, will vote against triggering Article

50, what may, is that Liberal Democrat policy? No, that is her

personal mandate as the clip shows that is has a mandate she feels she

has received because that is the basis upon which she put herself

forward to the people of Richmond. You will not vote against Article

50? There are certain cases in which I would. If you got a second

referendum, you would not? If I got a second and the Government would

keep us in the Single Market, I would not. You brought this idea of

a second referendum on the deal itself. Most EU leaders do not want

us to leave and they are the ones we negotiate with. If they know there

is a vote on the terms, surely they have a massive incentive to give the

worst possible deal? This goes back to the origins of the debate prior

to the vote on June 23rd. What is haunting the nation is the fact that

the Brexit backers did not spell out what they meant. You will no doubt

quote this and that but there is no manifesto from Nigel Farage, Michael

Gove and Boris Johnson, United and coherent, not talking about

television clips watched by fractions of the electorate... On

crucial things like whether we stay in the Single Market, absolutely

not. The official Leave campaign, the framework document widely

covered by the media said, we want the supremacy of EU law and the

European Court of jurisdiction the end, we want budget contributions to

end, we want the EU's control over UK borders the end and we want the

UK to leave the common commercial policy. A way of describing the

Single Market. No, it is the Customs Union. The only person in British

politics... Plenty of leaders of the Leave campaign said they wanted to

leave the Single Market. The common commercial policy is not the Single

Market. They talk about the Single Market, they want to leave the

Customs Union as well. They want to leave the Single Market. We should

be really clear, why is it in that case that ministers from this Brexit

government do not come before Parliament now to say we stick to

what we apparently said so clearly? They did not, it was much more

opaque. We will rule out the Norway option. Let's look at what the

leaders of your side of the campaign and the leaders of the Leave

campaign said when asked about the Single Market. Can we see that now?

The British public would be voting if we leave to leave the EU and

still be the Single Market. Should we come out of the Single Market? I

think that almost certainly would be the case, yes. Do you want is to

stay inside the Single Market, yes or no? No, we should be outside the

Single Market. I said to Michael Gove, after Brexit, will we be

inside the Single Market, and he said no. He was right. We would be

out of the Single Market, that is the reality, Britain would be

quitting. Quitting the Single Market.

Where was the manifesto? Where was the document? Where was the

manifesto from the key Brexiteers, Johnson, Gove and Farrage, saying,

British people, this is what will happen if you read the European

Union. It was not there because it is not as if we were not warned.

Dominik Commons, apparently the intellectual architect of the

campaign, said it is very important we do not say what we mean. People

watching this programme will see clearly what they said. Sorry to

break this to you but what someone says to you and mumbles in admission

on the cross questioning from you in a television studio watched by a

fraction of the Electric is not the same as putting me for the British

people a clear plan. Wear with a policy documents? It is very

important because you have gone round in circles on this for weeks.

Let me explain... I am trying to get you to understand reading people in

the campaign made it clear we would leave the Single Market as members.

Why did David Steve said after the referendum, not even before, in a

post on this famous essay before he became Brexit Secretary, why did he

say he bought Single Market arrangement should continue? Why did

Greg Clark, a Minister when negotiating with Nissan, say, we are

pursuing not only trade arrangements with the rest of the European Union

free of tariffs, free of bureaucratic impediments. You know

as well as I do that you cannot have tried very bureaucratic impediments

other than being a member of the Single Market.

shutter If the second referendum also important, why didn't you

mention it? We were fighting to stay in. But you never said that if you

lost there would have to be a referendum on the deal itself? Let's

look at you said. It's quite, quite different

to any other kind of vote It's not like a general election,

however important they seem, that binds the hands of the next

Parliament, for the next five years, or set expectations

about what a government will do. Once in a generation. It is clear

now that was only a few won. If you lost, you wanted a second? This is

getting us nowhere. That is entirely consistent with saying that since

the victorious side, the Brexiteers, did not spell out to the British

public what Brexit means, and we still don't know what it means, we

still have absolutely no notion if they want to pay contributions or

not, if they want to be part of foreign policy arrangements or

not... Why didn't you say that at the time? That was the 27th of

April, one clip from the wider debate. We, as the Liberal

Democrats, are quite logically saying, since the victors in the

referendum, yes, they have a mandate to pull out of the European Union,

they did not have a mandate how to do it because they did not spell it

out to the British people. It is not a second referendum. It is the first

referendum, or it would be the first referendum on the terms of

departure. The terms of the new re-engagement with the rest of the

union. The position on soft Brexit, that we would remain a member of the

single market, right? Which means that we would accept free movement

of people, that goes with membership? It is a bit more

complicated than that, as you know. My own view is that there is plenty

of scope, if this Government was intelligent about it, to say to

other European member states, look, it is now time to grant to Britain,

in return for continued membership of the single market, the least

economically destructive form of Brexit, granted to Britain a Europe

wide migration frees. We could get that? The government EU doesn't

appear to be trying. At the moment, membership of the single market

means free movement. Norway, for instance... Norway has free

movement, it is even in Schengen. They have a legal ability to

constrain free movement. Which they haven't done. But it is their

choice, it is an entitlement. We would remain subject to the

jurisdiction of the European Court? Here is the issue with the single

market, I hear constantly, politicians and commentators, saying

it is just a day with tariffs. The most important thing, as identified

by Margaret Thatcher, is the body of rules. And that would be the

European Court? Well, if you really want to get into a... It follows the

case law. They have more discretion. They have never gone against ECJ

law? It would have to be the European Court? Whether you have a

direct Amaq one ruling, or another body, call is Mary all Paul eyecare,

if you want to trade into a single market of rules... Call it maryjane,

for all I care. You would abide by those rules. If we were to trade

inside the single market, we would do so anyway. You would stay in the

customs union? I would. I want to add up what this means. We remain

single market membership, we continue with EU contributions, free

movement of people, said the jurisdiction of the European Court,

we remain in a customs union, so we can't do most of our own trade

deals. You know what that is called? Membership of the EU. Know it is

not. There are a number of countries in the EEA, which do make financial

contributions. They have the ability for people to come in and out of the

European Union. Of course, I accept, for the hardest, hardline

Brexiteers... But this has always been the dilemma as a country. What

is right for the prosperity of future generations is not

politically convenient for the Conservative Party, what is

politically convenient to them is economically self harming. What my

party chooses is the least economically self harming future for

our children. Given that you say you accept the result, when you add up

everything that you want to happen, it is clear that you don't. You want

an arrangement of soft Brexit, very little different from the status

quo. You want a second referendum that would incentivise Europeans to

give such a bad deal that we would vote against it, and you would

encourage that? To somehow claim that the status Norway and other EEA

countries have is equivalent to membership is nonsense. They have a

common agricultural policy which is their own. You described Norway as

powerless and voiceless. But that is not my problem, that is the problem

of the Brexiteers promising, as you know, to have their cake and eat it.

They have won. I am now in opposition. With victory should come

clarity, responsibility and a duty to the country not to your own

party. These are the ones that are hoisted by their own petard. They

will claim they have an economic utopia by pulling out all the

largest single market, a single market we created under Margaret

Thatcher. It is not my problem that they cannot regard the Leeds resolve

their own dilemma that having access to the British manufactured single

market does, in one way or another, have to abide by the rules. That is

not my problem, it is theirs. Your party is called the Liberal

Democrats. Many people watching this will think maybe it is time for a

rebrand? Just drop the Democrat bit. I don't know what you are driving

at? You seem to want to fly in the face of the Democratic vote. We are

saying there are choices in how we leave. Yes, some compromises, but it

safeguards the safety, the clean environment, the jobs and prosperity

of our children and grandchildren. If it comes to the point that

anybody who suggests we put our country before the narrow lanes of

Brexiteers is shouted down, we have come to a very sorry place. Thank

you for joining us. Ukip's new leader, Paul Nuttall,

says his party can gain at least ten And he hopes to do it at the expense

of Jeremy Corbyn's Labour Party, which he says doesn't represent

working people anymore. Some Labour MPs, particularly those

in working-class Northern seats, Ellie Price has been

to Barnsley to investigate. I want to replace the Labour Party

and make Ukip the patriotic Ukip says it will take the fight

to Labour in its very heartland, places like the north of England,

places like here in Barnsley, where 70% of people voted

for Brexit and where, in the last general election,

Ukip came a strong second in two It is surely in the back

of Dan Jarvis's mind. He has been the Labour

MP here since 2011. Do you worry that they're going

to vote Ukip at the next election? We should not be complacent

about the fact that a resurgent Ukip could provide a significant

challenge for us and we have to make The big issue here is immigration,

in a town that he says He is worried Labour doesn't

currently have the answers. We are not getting it

quite right just yet, because we haven't demonstrated

to the public that we I don't think we were able to do

that in the previous parliament, and I think there is still

a specific concern that people look at us and think we don't take it

as seriously as they take it, because we can't ever afford to go

into a general election with the public thinking we don't

take the issue of Diane Abbott doesn't seem

to think there should be I think if you're trying

to achieve anything, it's useful to have a target,

because it's quite a useful waymarker as to whether you

are making progress. So, my own view is that there should

be some sort of target. I think it's a bit early to say

precisely what that should be, But my instinct is,

if you want to demonstrate to the public that you take this

very seriously, the notion that you should have some sort

of target is the right one. But the plan is to park tanks

on the lawns of places like this. Fresh from coming second in Ukip's

recent leadership contest, she is now the chair of the party's

Policy Committee. That's why we invited her to get

a taste of what people A party that sticks

for the working class people. I think they are standing

for the beliefs of the people in the north of England more

than the south of England. Her impromptu canvassing

session here went well. But the challenge for

the new leader, Paul Nuttall, will be to break the voting habits

of generations of Labour supporters. With Paul Nuttall as our new leader,

we have a real opportunity here. A Bootle man, Liverpool,

working-class accent, a guy who has grown up in the North

of England and can talk to people in a different way

than perhaps Nigel Farage did. If Nigel Farage couldn't do it

why would Paul Nuttall, who just happens to have a northern

accent, make any difference? I think with Nigel standing down

as leader, I think also there will be more people

in the front line of Ukip. I think, perhaps rightly,

we have sometimes been criticised I think that is going to change very

swiftly and very dramatically. Will you have a target

list here in the North? I think we will be looking to target

in particular those seats where there is a Labour member

of Parliament who does not want to leave the European Union,

but his constituents, or her constituents,

want to get out. They have got to be our top

priorities, particularly if we are looking at constituencies

where we ran Labour a close second Ukip came second to Labour in 44

constituencies in last That was before people in most

of those areas voted this With that in mind, Paul Nuttall

predicts his party will have There is no floor

under the Labour vote. The connection between these voters

and the Labour Party The party, for so long,

has dismissed their concerns and not That prediction is,

I think, realistic. I think that is probably a central

case, but it could be much worse. Even if it is lower,

it is still probably going to be a disaster for Labour,

because a big chunk of working class That means the seat will go Tory,

because the Tory vote stays solid, If voters here have felt

forgotten by Westminster, they may want to be careful

what they wish for. Places like this will become

a battle ground for two parties that I'm joined now by the Shadow Home

Secretary, Diane Abbott. Welcome back to the programme. We

had the new immigration statistics out this week. Let's look at the

numbers on the screen. The numbers have never been higher. 650,000

people came here, migrants, in the year, to June. Take away those that

are leaving, it comes to a net figure of 330 5000. That level of

immigration, too high, too low or about right? Any politician who

thinks you can set targets for immigration has got a fool for an

economic adviser. What the Labour Party is talking about is trying to

bear down on the reasons immigrants come here. Without setting a target,

is it too high or about right? Targets don't set a difference. I'm

not asking you to set a target, I'm asking if that is about right or

not? It reflects underlying economic conditions and we would like to

adjust those. It reflects the underlying economic situation. We

have to deal with that. Do you want to reduce immigration numbers? You

can bear down on immigration. There are two main reasons why immigrants

come here. The main one is to work. That is partly about the skills gap

in the UK, partly about the fact that predatory employers use

immigration to undercut British workers, black and white. How many

immigrants are subject to predatory employers? How many are waiting for

below the minimum wage? We don't know, because the whole point about

them working for less than the minimum wage is that it is not

properly documented. What we want to do is prosecute employers who pay

below the minimum wage. The figures for prosecution or about seven. Many

employers have been named and shamed and they have had to pay arrears to

the people that were not getting the minimum wage and they have had to

pay penalties, about ?3.5 million. It only covers about 10,000 people.

We know that the number of illegal migrants here, we have no evidence

that there are huge numbers below the minimum wage. Illegal is another

matter. But you cannot show to me whether that would make a

difference, because you don't know the numbers? Of course we don't know

the numbers. As for the people that have been named and shamed, the fact

they only cover a small number of people, that just shows how weak the

policy is. What we would do is to strengthen the factories

Inspectorate, we would ramp up penalties on people who are not...

Prosecutions on people. They paid penalties and paid arrears. But you

don't know by how much migration would reduce, even if there was full

enforcement of the minimum wage. And a lot of these people are not

migrants, they are people that were here. It is hard to see how much, if

at all, that would reduce immigration numbers?

Brexiteers The anxiety in constituencies like Bradford is the

sense they are being undercut and losing job because of migrants and

we would look to address that. He said at the last election that

Labour's manifesto which pledged to bear down on immigration numbers

were shameful. Why are you now advocating something you thought

were shameful? What I thought was shameful was the immigration

controls that did nothing for us and played very badly in some parts of

the country. You are talking about your own form of control, to bed

down is your phrase, to bed down on numbers means to control it. The

current leadership is very clear that we want to stop the

undercutting British workers and we want to stop the exploitation of

immigrants. What I think is shameful is to play a game with

anti-immigrant rhetoric. We have seen across the Atlantic where that

leads to pursue. Donald Trump. Staying on the side of the Atlantic,

you cannot tell me how many legal migrants are paid less than the

minimum wage. He said the party policy was clear but we have had a

number of statements from your party about policy. This is Jeremy

Corbyn's spokesman... Which one is Labour policy? Our

policy is fair rules and reasonable management of migration. Which one

of these three is Labour policy? Jeremy Corbyn's spokesperson, we can

discount that, Jeremy has never said anything like that. But he has been

very clear we must not play politics with migration. We discount Jeremy

Corbyn's spokesman? Yes. Emily Thornbury, is that the policy? Our

policy is fair rules and reasonable management of migration and that is

what she was saying. Clive Lewis, Shadow Business Secretary, proposes

migrants should only be allowed to come here if they belong to a trade

union is that your policy? He has gone back on that, you cannot insist

that people during a union. But we should do everything we can to

encourage people to join a union. They would not have to be a member

to join? Clive Lewis is no longer saying that. Dan Jarvis, in the

film, and other prominent Labour MP, says Labour should have a target to

cut immigration can you don't agree? I am a former home Office civil

servant and I can tell you targets never work, look at the humiliation

of the Tories, immigration is as high as it has ever been. Targets

are not the point, the point is to look at the underlying economic

issues which bring migrants to our shores. But if you were to do that

and do it successfully, what is the scale to cut the numbers? You cannot

count illegal migrants and you cannot count employers who pay less

than the minimum wage. Let me show you something you said at a fringe

event of the Labour conference in Liverpool.

It would be wrong to unnecessarily throwaway access to the Single

Market in the name of controlling migration through ending single

movement. Ending free movement. Because ending free movement has

become a synonym for anti immigrant races and the Labour Party... --

racism. The Labour Party should never be on the wrong side of that

argument. Chuka Umunna, Rachel Greaves, Ed

Balls, they have called to an end of free movement of Labour from the EU,

they all guilty of anti-immigrant racism? I am aware of what they said

and Keir Starmer and I went to Brussels last month and we spoke to

a series of spokespeople, both for the Parliament and for the

Commission on freedom of movement. And they were very clear that there

will be no deal on freedom of movement. I did not ask about a

deal, but if you are against free movement as these three Labour

colleagues are, prominent colleagues, you have said to take

that position is to be guilty of anti-immigrant racism. Is that what

they are guilty of? I am not accusing them of that, I am saying

they are not facing facts. You cannot have access to the Single

Market without freedom of movement. You can have access, just not

membership. Membership brings full freedom of movement, access does

not. I spoke with Keir Starmer to every major European Commission

spokesperson on this and they were clear there is no deal to be done on

freedom of movement. And if we negotiated a deal which appeared to

involve a condition of freedom of movement, the European Parliament

simply would not vote for it. Canada has substantial access to the Single

Market, it is not a member, but it has substantial access and there is

no freedom of movement for Canada. I am telling you you can have any

European spokesperson in the studio and ask them, can we have access

without freedom of movement? They will tell you know. Why has Canada

got a robust free trade movement agreement with the EU that does not

involve freedom of movement? Why could Britain not have that as well?

Because our geographical situation across the Channel from the European

continent is very different from Canada. Whether people like it or

not, it is not whether you or against freedom of movement or not,

it is like the weather. If the UK of the Channel from continental Europe

wants access to the Single Market, there has to be commensurate freedom

of movement. Otherwise, the European Parliament will not vote for that

deal. You understand the difference between access and membership? I

understand we could not have membership without freedom of

movement, I am puzzled as to why we could not have some degree of

access, it would have to be negotiated, but some degree of

access not involving free movement. There are about 30 countries around

the world which have substantial access to the EU and not free

movement. Europe is saying something different, you need to ask European

spokespeople into the studio and ask them why they refuse to accept there

can be a deal which involves no freedom of movement. If and when we

leave the EU, what would Labour's policy be towards immigration from

the EU? If and when we leave the EU, we would want fair rules and

reasonable management. What would that mean in practice? For instance,

we would prevent employers going to Europe to recruit directly for jobs

here without making those jobs open to British people. But we do not

know again how much that difference would make? You would have the

freedom to have a policy, would you have a policy on immigration? The

Labour Party has always had a policy. The EU. We do not have a

policy because we do not have one, when free movement comes to an end,

on what basis would we allow EU citizens to work here? On the basis

of fairness and on the basis of what is good for the economy because that

is what has been lost sight of in this debate. Your Shadow Cabinet

colleague John Healy said this week Labour just does not understand what

matters to many working class communities. Is he wrong? He is

wrong if what he's saying is that we have to right on immigration to save

seats from Ukip. My belief is if the Labour Party starts saying Ukip is

right and immigration is the course of these people's problems, if we

start to say that, that gives credence to Ukip. Thank you very

much, you made that clear, thank you.

It's just gone 11:35, 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.

First, though, the Sunday Politics where you are.

This week, later on, we are looking at why

are sensing a Brexit bonus in the capital.

Ploughing hundreds of millions into the regeneration

One Chinese company tells us why they think leaving the EU

Here this week, Chris Philp, Conservative MP for Croydon South,

and Tulip Siddiq, Labour MP for Hampstead and Kilburn.

We have to start on one story first, haven't we?

This week's by-election result in Richmond Park, in North Kingston.

The Lib Dems pulling out all the stops and succeeding

in reversing Zac Goldsmith's 23,000 majority.

The Lib Dems say it's a victory for their anti-Brexit cause.

Others say that it is not amounting to that much.

What can we read into these results, Chris Philp?

By-elections are funny things and often throw up funny results.

I suppose it's not entirely surprising that an area which voted

very heavily Remain, about 70% Remain in the recent

referendum, voted the way that they did, given that Zac

was a Brexit supporting MP and the Lib Dems were successful

in turning the by-election into a sort of mini

But, of course, we had a vote nationally across the entire country

and the Government's not going to be changing its policy simply

because one area which voted Remain in June effectively voted Remain

again, albeit by a smaller margin, only about 50%, compared to 70%.

Interesting also, the Labour vote shrank to almost nothing,

down from 12% to about 3%, also something of a surprise.

He lost his deposit, the Labour candidate, Christian Wolmar?

Look, if anyone thinks that Labour's going to do well in Richmond,

So I'm not surprised we did how we did.

This was a referendum on Zac Goldsmith and the Tories.

It's not just about Brexit, Londoners paid Zac Goldsmith back

for the divisive and, frankly speaking, bigoted campaign

that he ran against Sadiq Khan just six months ago.

Does it look as if, do you accept, does it look as if some

Labour supporters there, because the vote did go down

considerably on the 2015 election, that some of the voters there have

lent their vote and supported Liberal Democrats here,

In all honesty, I think it was just to make sure that Zac Goldsmith

didn't get elected after the way not only did he run the divisive

campaign he did against Sadiq Khan, which people still remember,

but also, I think this shows, the result shows that Heathrow

is not the number-one priority on everyone's list.

It's something that's important, but the bread and butter issues

Housing, education and Brexit, of course.

Do you accept that, that it indicates that Heathrow isn't

all that it's cracked up to be, as well as just being folly

of somebody thinking they can put something like this to the test

I'm not a fan of people randomly calling by-elections

David Davis did it, actually, about ten years ago.

The way we run our constitution is not that members of Parliament

resign and call by-elections each time they're unhappy

He was a bit foolish to have done this, was he?

Well, clearly foolish because he lost, but also,

constitutionally, it was a foolish thing to do.

It's not how we run our country, it's not how parliament

I think it was constitutionally foolish, as well as

Of course, there was no Conservative candidate on the ticket.

I think it was, I'm afraid to say, a rather personal

But it can't surely be welcome to you as a party,

trying to chart a way forward on Brexit, that this has happened

so soon and sent such an obviously clear message?

Well, as I said, Richmond voted overwhelmingly

in favour of remaining in the European Union last year.

They were overwhelmingly in favour of Eurosceptic

So they were prepared to be nuanced before.

This time, they made it absolutely clear what they wanted.

The proxy Remain vote went from 70, down to 50.

I think what is clear, Brexit, as a political issue

in our national debate, is clearly much larger now

than it was in 2015, because we are actually

So it's real and we need to work out a way of leaving

the European Union to best advantage, to make

as a great city and our country continues to produce record numbers

of jobs and continues to grow, as it has been doing.

So, it's not surprising Brexit is a bigger issue now than it was in

Something that really focused on the Conservatives, let's move on.

We've got a lot to get through and we want to move

onto the next thing as soon as we can.

Mayor on a programme that put housing to the fore.

But what happened this week to one of his key pledges,

the one claiming that half of all new homes built

More affordable housing for Londoners, one of Sidiq Khan's

50% of all housing built in London would need to be

genuinely affordable - or so he pledged

At least half of all new homes that are built, that

are given permission for, should be genuinely affordable.

50% of all new homes built in London are genuinely affordable.

But this week, it emerged that the Mayor was now

relaxing his 50% affordability target in order to give developers

Developers now only need to ensure 35% of homes built our affordable.

Developers now only need to ensure 35% of homes built are affordable.

Critics say the Mayor has broken a promise.

Here we have a Labour Mayor who enters into an election saying

he is going to build 80,000 homes a year,

and he's going to have 50% affordable homes of all those.

And we get seven months on and he issues his own press

release saying, actually, guys, I was only kidding!

Sadiq Khan has won some plaudits for his housing policy.

You have to remember we are coming from a situation where developers

were getting away with just 13% of what they were building

What we are seeing here is a promise to be much tougher with developers

Some believe his affordable housing policy is too focused on ownership

What we were promised during the election was real

action on rents for people who are struggling to afford

What we have seen today is basically a re-announcement of an existing

Tory Government scheme that's called rent-to-buy.

The things they've announced seem to be entirely aimed at people

who are well on their way to owning their own home already.

People who are slightly better off, up to ?60,000 in income,

The ability to afford a home is an issue close

Can Sidiq Khan afford to disappoint them?

Well, James Murray is here deputy mayor for housing.

Let's start with this point, if you are trying to hit 50%

and that is still a target, why do you say to developers 35%?

So, the measure about having a threshold of 35% is a first step.

It is one measure we are using straightaway, to try to raise

the amount of affordable housing in the system as we move

What you've got to understand, when you are trying to increase

the amount of affordable housing in London, is that you

have the planning tools, where threshold comes in.

You also have investment, hand in hand.

We secured, after really good negotiations with government over

the summer, ?3.15 billion, which will go into building more

That kind of money can go to housing associations, for instance,

who can build at least 50%, sometimes even 60% affordable

And, together, this moves us in that direction.

Are you saying that you can say to developers you only

have to build a third, well, not "only", because it is

still quite a lot, historically, a third that is affordable?

Because the amount of affordability you get from housing associations,

other providers, will bring the average up to 50% eventually?

Is that what you are saying that you are going to do?

If you just let me say why I think that is part of it,

I think it is really important to understand that these are first

steps in the direction that we need to take.

If you look at what we inherited, we inherited a situation where just

13% of homes given planning permission under the previous

So we all recognise it's going to take time

But what we've done is we have come up with a way of increasing

the amount of affordable housing, ahead of the new London plan,

which is going to come out in draft next year,

trying to increase the amount of affordable housing even

I think what is really interesting, if you look at the reaction

to what we came out with this week, you had someone from Shelter in your

We also had Tony Pidgley, from Berkeley Homes,

saying he can make this work, he can live with what were saying.

Well, I imagine he will be very happy he is not

My point is, if you have Shelter and developers,

and the big housing associations, all saying, you know what,

this is ambitious but practical, that is a good way to take it on.

You will know that what Shelter also say is that it was absurd to make

the claim that you could go to 50% affordability straightaway

and give that impression in an election campaign.

Just allows people like me to constantly saying

it is a broken pledge, or a pledge that has now been shoved

I think we have been clear, right from day one,

It's going to take time to get there.

Day one from the mayoralty, do you mean?

But the point I'm making, about the pledge he made

during the campaign, which was going to be

We hit the ground running, anybody comes forward with a plot,

we want half of all of these homes to be affordable.

In the manifesto, it said we were going to set

We said we were going to work with boroughs and others

It's very clear, upon taking office, you realise quite how rock bottom

it is, in terms of the amount of affordable housing

What we have done over the last six months is work together

with councils of all different political backgrounds,

with the Government, with home-builders, with housing

associations, with everyone across London, and Londoners

themselves, to work out how to increase the amount

of affordable housing towards a long-term target of 50%.

The kind of stuff we are talking about today is a first step.

It is a few measures we are going to use to get

the amount of affordable housing up quickly.

Let me double-check whether, by the end of this term,

this mayoral term, you will be heading 50% affordability.

You're talking about first steps, presumably final step will be

We are going to have a draft London plan coming out next year,

which is going to set out this overall target of 50% and how

But this is early first steps we can do to move in that direction.

I think it is really, really important to understand

that the planning threshold, this minimum threshold,

getting up to 35 and beyond, is a way of moving up from the 13%

which we inherited and it works hand-in-hand with the funding.

You know, the ?3.15 billion, towards 90,000 affordable homes.

?3.15 billion from the Conservative government.

I know Andrew Boff makes the point he does, but you have

You can't just go from 13, 13% in the last year

of Boris Johnson's mayoralty, to 50%, straightaway.

Over the eight years of Ken Livingstone's

mayoralty and the eight years of Boris Johnson's mayoralty,

there were affordable homes in the low 30s,

I think it was 31 under Boris Johnson, 33 under Ken Livingstone.

Everybody told Sadiq Khan during the campaign that 50%

was completely unachievable, but he chose to then

claim he would hit 50%, for reasons of electoral expediency.

No wonder people lose trust in politicians.

And he didn't say he would aspire to it, or get to it over

some period of time, he said he would amend the planning

Isn't this a slight problem, Tulip, that this happened to you?

You must have had the impression, people in your constituency felt

there was a pledge and it was going to happen pretty quickly?

I will not take any lectures from the Conservative Party

were approved last year - these are the facts -

Sadiq Khan has done more in six months of being Mayor, in terms

of affordable housing, fighting the Conservative

Government, which I watched until he got the ?3.5 billion.

He was Conservative Mayor, with a Conservative government.

Your government recognises this because it has given them money,

expressly the 15,000 affordable homes each year.

Boris Johnson, by the way, delivered 31% of affordable homes

so I'm proud it's a Conservative government which is delivering

affordable housing, while it's a Labour Mayor who is shamefully

Are you proud of this Conservative government that's

I am really proud of the work that we've done with the Government

You know the slogan - 'A city for all Londoners.'

Well, that really means it's working with everyone across London.

So what that means in practice is working with councils

This is about us taking leadership here, working

Even after you've been so aggressive!

All right, well, you know we'll be returning to it often.

For the moment, thanks very much indeed.

Some have been predicting that Brexit will drive away the foreign

money that has flowed into London in the past decade,

but what is the attitude among Chinese investors in particular,

who've taken such a keen interest in opportunities in the capital?

Since the summer, the 60% of Londoners who voted to remain

A spike in racist attacks, a collapsing pound,

But if you want to look for it, there's plenty of good news as well.

The falling pound, well, it makes things expensive for us,

but people around the world have just been handed a massive

It means we had a boom in tourism this summer,

and there are lots of signs that people are willing to invest

30,000 jobs are set to be created just across the water

from City Airport, in the Royal Albert Docks,

Designed as an Asian business hub, it covers a 35-acre site,

The planning permission guarantees that 40% of jobs

will go to local people, and the first buildings

Now, all of this has been a long time coming.

ADP, the company in charge, first got involved in the site in 2008.

Planning permission was signed off in 2014, but the money was only

signed off last month, when four Chinese banks approved

Now, ABP said that Brexit, far from being a hindrance

in getting that money, was actually a help.

Chinese, or the Asian, and in fact the Asian world think

post-Brexit has now finally come and is a very good idea.

They see surely the exchange rate going down.

Certainly, it is 10% discount on most of the purchases, and makes

them more interested in investing in London, especially

But also, surely, to expand their business in London.

We are always happy when business is doing good and I see that the UK

The local MP is the Remainer Stephen Timms, who says he had been worried

It is about Chinese and other businesses coming into Europe

for the first time and wanting to trade with the whole of Europe.

Obviously, there's a question mark at the moment about what exactly our

future trading relationship with the rest of Europe

So I'm pleased that the project is going ahead.

As you say, the currency change has helped.

But I think it does reflect a wider confidence.

Last year, Britain literally laid out the red carpet

for the Chinese President Xi and promised a new era

The more we trade together, the more we have a stake

But rather than a gateway into the EU, something at the root

of all this is that the Chinese see London as the way

The Chinese government have taken a long-term view that

London is their gateway into the world's

So perhaps the most interesting thing that's going on - and has been

going on for the last four or five years now - is how China

is investing in the ecosystem of the City of London.

But the Chinese are also snapping up London property.

This is Spire London, a new Chinese-owned block,

set not just to be the tallest building in Canary Wharf,

but the biggest residential tower in Western Europe.

According to one estimate, Chinese companies are investing

?4 billion in London property this year, up by a third on the year

before, making them - some reckon - the beast investors in the capital

Some of it is down to the fact that, actually,

So actually, there's a big desire from developers in China to actually

expand their market reach and actually identify

Last summer, the Chinese stock market crashed.

Some property is proving hard to sell, and putting your money

into London still looks like a safe bet.

Perhaps the question is, for how long?

And, Tulip, do you accept that kind of optimistic picture?

Well, you know, we need investment in London, obviously,

and I'm glad that Sadiq Khan has made it clear that London

But if you're asking me whether I'm optimistic about the future

of the country in light of Brexit, I'll be honest and say

We haven't seen any kind of plan from the Conservative

All I know is that Brexit means Brexit, but I don't actually

know what that means, and I know the notes from an aide

I'd like to hear a long-term plan from the Conservative Government

Maybe it could mean cake, having cake and eating it.

Look at this Chinese businessman saying...

I think this is one of many investments that we need to look at.

And I do think he's being a bit too optimistic, in my opinion.

I'm glad he's investing, we need homes.

An independent IPPR report said we need 50,000 homes in the capital

But do I really think this is going to achieve it,

Well, I obviously, like Tulip, welcome the Chinese investment

in regenerating parts of East London.

I welcome the fact that they're investing in building houses

and that they're willing to look through Brexit, as Nissan did,

to I hope a prosperous future ahead, providing we get

One thing that just does slightly concern me is the idea that some

of these developments get sold, the apartments get sold

And I would like to see an emphasis placed on selling those houses

to first-time buyers in London, who are struggling to get

And that's an area which I would like to see...

But what about the point we're hearing a lot,

that people, the Chinese, wouldn't come and set up

their European headquarters here - and that was a plan particularly

on that site in East London - because of Brexit?

Well, it looks like he's quite happy.

It does look like he's quite happy and I'm delighted by that.

And I'm delighted by Nissan's plans in Sunderland.

And I hope that if we do get this negotiation right -

and it will be difficult, by the way - I hope we see many more

international companies using London and using the United Kingdom

I just wonder whether it's a kind of early sign of the kind

of flexibility that international business and huge capital ends up

Well, if we can adopt it and work in London, I'd be delighted,

because no-one cares about London more than London MPs

But it depends on what happens with other investments.

This is one of many, as I've said, but I do want to make sure

And I'd echo Chris Philp's words actually about making sure that

homes are not sold off to foreign developers and to foreign

homeowners, who buy it and don't live in the homes and take it

Now for the rest of the political news - in 60 Seconds.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan has unveiled a ?7 million programme to give young

Londoners the skills to access jobs in the capital's digital,

The Mayor's Digital Talent Programme will have a particular focus

on boosting the proportion of women and black and minority ethnic

Further rail disruption flagged up this week.

London Underground office staff have voted for industrial action over

And the train drivers' union Aslef looks set to strike on December 13th

over their opposition to driver-only

Paramedics are not being dispatched to thousands of 999 calls,

as London Ambulance Service struggles to cope with a record

The service revealed that crews were not being sent

to about 2,500 patients a week, to enable it to target resources

Chris, you've been instrumental in helping get a limited amount

of compensation for people coming through Southern.

No end to this industrial action, though.

Your government needs to intervene and sort it out, doesn't it?

Well, the compensation is a small step in the right direction,

but we need to take urgent action to upgrade the points

And the RMT and Aslef need to end their completely pointless

strike that's inflicting misery on hundreds of thousands

Getting to that board and the leadership of the company

and saying, come on, get together and find a solution.

Well, I mean, the RMT have already accepted the drivers will open

and close doors from January, so they're striking over something

They should call off the strike immediately,

And, of course, Sadiq Khan was the person who was going to end

all the kind of Tube strife in future.

The Government needs to sit down and talk to people

What I would say to you is that people don't strike lightly.

If they strike, it's because it's a last resort

But he said he was going to reduce it.

It looks like it's all going to start happening again.

Well, the Government needs to play a role as well, and Sadiq

I mean, we all need to come together and make sure this doesn't happen,

because it severely does disrupt commuters and their travels.

OK, to you both, thanks very much indeed for coming in.

The Government's Supreme Court appeal against

And, are the Lib Dems "back in the game"?

The Italians have this constitutional referendum today,

Matteo Renzi says if he loses, he will resign and that will spark a

political crisis on top of the potential banking crisis, 18% of

Italian bank loans on non-performing so they will not be paid back. He

needs a 40 billion bailout and for complicated reasons, he cannot do

it. By tomorrow morning, Italy could be the European story and not

Britain. Britain is an age long forgotten problem in the world. We

have had Trump, Italy and also Austria. Italy has long been the

forgotten eurozone crisis about happen. It is not banking but also

sovereign debt, they have a ridiculous deficit and this is what

Mr Renzi is trying to tackle with constitutional reform. I do not

think it is a necessary given that just because Renzi loses the

referendum which he could do, he is behind in the polls, he will resign.

Politicians have a funny way of digging themselves out of holes. He

said he would resign and then he said he would not and now he is

saying he is again. The Italian President who appoints the Prime

Minister might talk him out of it. If it is against, the signal it

sends to the markets is that Italy cannot reform itself. And so the

chances of ever getting on top of a sovereign debt which is 135% of

Italy's GDP, in an economy that has not grown since it joined the euro,

that would be a strong signal to the markets. There is an echo of David

Cameron's slightly back me or sack me approach to the EU referendum. A

loan is 56 words long. Incredible. A bundle of reforms on the original

idea of cutting the number of people in the second chamber and increasing

the speed of legislation. It has turned into a confidence vote in

Renzi. Before they stopped polling and they have two in the run-up to

something like this, it looked like the No vote was quite for a head, so

the insurgency vote. Given the record of the polls, I guess Renzi

should go to bed early because he has won! A poll early today said the

public will losing confidence in pollsters, surprise surprise.

Another reason it would mean a financial crisis if there is a vote

of no is that the Five Star Movement which would put up a candidate at a

general election, which there could be, depending on what the President

decides to do, the likelihood is the Five Star Movement might win. One of

their policy commitments is to hold a referendum about whether Italy

remains in the euro. And they will campaign against, so that is no

comfort to the markets. Italian polls do not close until ten o'clock

our time, 11 o'clock in Italy and we will get exit polls earlier. The

South, we think, will be very much a No vote and the North could be

different. By the morning, we will have a clear-cut idea. Meanwhile,

the Supreme Court he is the appeal from the Government on Article 50

and what the role of Parliament should be. It is not look like we

will get a decision until January. I would suggest this Supreme Court

ruling will be quite historic in that, I get the impression the

judges intends to lay down quite clear parameters on what Executive

powers are. They are taking it very seriously, instead of a panel of

three judges, there is a bank of them. They acknowledge this is big.

And it could be a slight anticlimax. There is a majority for this very

simple bill, passing Article 50. Labour have said they will try to

amend it but they will not block it. You might end up with enormous rage

about these unelected judges and they might make their ruling and

there is a simply -- there is a simple bill which passes. The

interesting thing is the process. It will lay out a historical precedent

for years and years to come by the Supreme Court. The Sunday Telegraph

this morning said that the Government was ready with a very

short Bill saying, this House votes to trigger Article 50. Words to that

effect. Can it get away with that? I think it probably can because no MP

and no political party really wants to be seen to stand on the way of

Brexit quite yet. The Government whips I have spoken to and other

opposition party leaders, they all say the fight is on the great repeal

Bill and not less. There is one really interesting thing that has

happened as a result of this great legal fight which we expect the

Supreme Court will hide -- will hold at the High Court verdict. It is

already significantly softening the Government's view on Brexit as we

discussed earlier. Talking about a grey or a less hard Brexit. You look

at what David Davis said in the House of Commons on Thursday about

painting the budget contributions, still keeping some element of

freedom of movement. There is a really important thing, if you want

to get something through the House of Commons to trigger Article 50,

you have to have the numbers with you and there is not a majority for

a hard Brexit. You do wonder in a way wider government, unless it

wants some kind of authoritative, historic statement one way or

another on this, why if it has got the votes as they are saying, it did

not just go and trigger Article 50. After it lost in the lower court. I

think it is concerned about a bill to trigger Article 50 being amended

and the process being frustrated by the opponents of Brexit. There is a

risk the Supreme Court will refer the decision to the European Court

of Justice. Earlier this week, the most senior British member of the

ECJ, said it had ultimate authority when it came to Article 50 and the

Supreme Court may take that view as well and refer it. From the point of

view of Brexit, nothing could be better than Britain and its

powerlessness expose and we have to see permission from a European court

to leave the European Union and if Theresa May wanted to trigger a

second general election before the ECJ has ruled, that would be the

second referendum that Nick Clegg and others have been wishing for and

I think the Brexiteers would win that hands down. We shall see,

interesting development if that does go to the macro 3. Earlier, we

listened to Diane Abbott on immigration -- Diane Abbott. There

was a bit on Diane Jarvis we did not put in about Mr Jarvis and his

reaction to Diane as Shadow Home Secretary, let's listen to that.

She is the Shadow Home Secretary, so this whole issue of immigration,

she is the mouthpiece for Labour, is she robust enough?

Well, all of us in the Labour Party who believe this

is an important issue - which I hope would be

pretty much everybody - have an absolute responsibility

to discuss this in a very grown-up way.

But I cannot lose sight of the fact that in my constituency

and around the country, and I've spoken to thousands

of people about it, immigration is a very important issue.

I think the proof of the pudding always will be in the eating.

Dan Jarvis, we thought you would like to see that! Did we learn

something about Labour's immigration policy this morning? Definitely, it

is no secret Labour backbenchers are unhappy with the leadership on an

enormous range of issues. What is more interesting is the view of

Diane Abbott that Labour should defend the principle of immigration,

not the view of Kai Di sky blue is an John McDonnell, the other close

advisers of Jeremy Corbyn. There is a split within the people around

Jeremy Corbyn and so absolutely we did learn something. We learned

about the split? We're not miracle workers, we did not learn about the

policy! It is close to Christmas, I can as for a present! The fact that

there is a split on the Labour frontbench is probably not news so I

argued there was nothing we learned at all! What was amazing about that

Diane Abbott interview, she was able to contradict or dismiss or offend

five different members of the Labour front bench. I counted John Healy,

Keir Starmer, Clive Lewis, Emily Thornberry and Jeremy Corbyn's

spokesman. That is extraordinary and that also will not make news because

we think that is now normal. It will not make column inches of the great

volcano on the front bench. Brief but before we finish on the Liberal

Democrats? The danger of the Richmond Park by-election victory

for Labour and the resurgence of the Liberal Democrats is that they now

become the official opposition and they will move into that space which

Labour has essentially vacated by being leaderless. I have got the

Labour calendar, I got you a present for 2017. Great photographs of Keir

Hardie and the founding of the health service. Thomas Attlee.

Homosexuality being legalised and decriminalised in 1967. Funnily

enough, no picture of Tony Blair, the man that won more elections for

Labour. Just a little thing and made the first which was the year that

Tony Blair won an election. Liberal Democrats, you can see it, on this

day under Tony Blair, Labour win a landslide general election. 20th

anniversary. Sarah Olney is the new MP for Richmond. I interviewed her

in the middle of the night. Just after she had won, and she gave an

interview to LBC and we thought you would like to see a clip of that.

They voted for a departure, but not a destination.

You know, there was no clear manifesto for what happened to,

you know, our membership of the Single Market, or what...

The Remain campaign said we were going to leave

Every single leading member of the Remain campaign said a vote

to leave the EU was a vote to leave the Single Market.

I'm really sorry, but Sarah has to leave now.

Sarah, if you want to be an elected Member of Parliament,

I think you should probably be able to answer some simple

Can you get Sarah back on the line, please?

There you go, always helpful to have a PR man! At least Nick Clegg did

not do that today. No, he took his punches and heat threw some back.

Yes, he stood his ground well. Lib Dems, is this significant or not?

There are not many seats like Richmond were 72% voted to remain.

But there are many were Labour could be squeezed, it is a tactical

anti-Tory vote and the best place for that is Lib Dems. For tips on

strategy, the Lib Dems potentially think they have 40% is now flocking

to them who voted Remain and it does not add up in constituency seats,

especially in the south-west where they lost their seats. It is a

Brexit area and they will not win them back there. It gives the Lib

Dems something distinctive to say. Completely, they have a big yellow

flag right in the middle of British politics and they have not had that

for seven, eight years. We will leave it there, thank you.

We will have more politics throughout the week.

That's all for today, I'll be back at the same time next weekend.

Remember - if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.

Does it hurt you to touch the control? Yeah.

To sign my name would be an incredible thing.

'Graham needs a better way to communicate.

'What if the best brains in Britain could help to fix your life?'

You know you're doing it for the right reasons, so you keep going.

Gah! Did it just work? It's life-changing.