:00:38. > :00:40.It's Sunday morning, and this is the Sunday Politics.
:00:41. > :00:44.Theresa May will be the first foreign leader to visit US
:00:45. > :00:46.President Donald Trump this week - she's promised to hold "very
:00:47. > :00:49.frank" conversations with the new and controversial
:00:50. > :00:56.Speaking of the 45th President of America,
:00:57. > :01:00.we'll be looking at what the Trump presidency could hold
:01:01. > :01:06.in store for Britain and the rest of the world.
:01:07. > :01:09.And with the Supreme Court expected to say that Parliament should
:01:10. > :01:12.have a vote before the Brexit process begins, we'll ask
:01:13. > :01:18.Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott what Labour will do next.
:01:19. > :01:21.In the capital, a ?2 billion regeneration scheme in north London.
:01:22. > :01:24.Is a public-private partnership the best way,
:01:25. > :01:39.And to talk about all of that and more, I'm joined by three
:01:40. > :01:41.journalists who, in an era of so-called fake news, can be
:01:42. > :01:45.relied upon for their accuracy, their impartiality -
:01:46. > :01:48.and their willingness to come to the studio
:01:49. > :01:54.It's Steve Richards, Julia Hartley-Brewer
:01:55. > :02:01.and Tom Newton Dunn, and during the programme they'll be
:02:02. > :02:04.tweeting as often as the 45th President of the USA in the middle
:02:05. > :02:15.So - the Prime Minister has been appearing on the BBC this morning.
:02:16. > :02:17.She was mostly talking about Donald Trump and Brexit,
:02:18. > :02:20.but she was also asked about a story on the front of this
:02:21. > :02:24.It's reported that an unarmed Trident missile test fired
:02:25. > :02:30.from the submarine HMS Vengeance near the Florida coast in June
:02:31. > :02:38.The paper says the incident took place weeks before a crucial Commons
:02:39. > :02:42.Well, let's have listen to Theresa May talking
:02:43. > :02:48.The issue that we were talking about in the House of Commons
:02:49. > :02:52.It was about whether or not we should renew Trident,
:02:53. > :02:55.whether we should look to the future and have a replacement Trident.
:02:56. > :02:58.That's what we were talking about in the House of Commons.
:02:59. > :03:00.That's what the House of Commons voted for.
:03:01. > :03:05.He doesn't want to defend our country with an independent
:03:06. > :03:13.There are tests that take place all the time, regularly,
:03:14. > :03:21.What we were talking about in that debate that took place...
:03:22. > :03:28.I'm not going to get an answer to this.
:03:29. > :03:35.Tom, it was clear this was going to come up this morning. It is on the
:03:36. > :03:39.front page of the Sunday Times. It would seem to me the Prime Minister
:03:40. > :03:46.wasn't properly briefed on how to reply. I think she probably was, but
:03:47. > :03:49.the Prime Minister we now have doesn't necessarily answer all
:03:50. > :03:57.questions in the straightest way. She didn't answer that one and all.
:03:58. > :04:04.Unlike previous ones? She made it quite clear she was briefed. You
:04:05. > :04:09.read between the Theresa May lines. By simply not answering Andrew Marr
:04:10. > :04:12.four times, it is obvious she knew, and that she knew before she went
:04:13. > :04:19.into the House of Commons and urged everyone to renew the ?40 billion
:04:20. > :04:22.replacement programme. Of course it is an embarrassment, but does it
:04:23. > :04:28.have political legs? I don't think so. She didn't mislead the Commons.
:04:29. > :04:34.If she wanted to close it down, the answer should have been, these are
:04:35. > :04:37.matters of national security. There's nothing more important in
:04:38. > :04:44.that than our nuclear deterrent. I'm not prepared to talk about testing.
:04:45. > :04:49.End of. But she didn't. Maybe you should be briefing her. That's a
:04:50. > :04:54.good answer. She is an interesting interviewee. She shows it when she
:04:55. > :04:58.is nervous. She was transparently uneasy answering those questions,
:04:59. > :05:04.and the fact she didn't answer it definitively suggests she did know
:05:05. > :05:08.and didn't want to say it, and she answered awkwardly. But how wider
:05:09. > :05:13.point, that the House of Commons voted for the renewal of Trident,
:05:14. > :05:18.suggests to me that in the broader sweep of things, this will not run,
:05:19. > :05:24.because if there was another vote, I would suggest she'd win it again.
:05:25. > :05:29.But it is an embarrassment and she handled it with a transparent
:05:30. > :05:35.awkwardness. She said that the tests go on all the time, but not of the
:05:36. > :05:39.missiles. Does it not show that when the Prime Minister leaves her
:05:40. > :05:44.comfort zone of Home Office affairs or related matters, she often
:05:45. > :05:51.struggles. We've seen it under questioning from Mr Corbyn even, and
:05:52. > :05:54.we saw it again today. Absolutely. Tests of various aspects of the
:05:55. > :06:00.missiles go on all the time, but there's only been five since 2000.
:06:01. > :06:04.What you described wouldn't have worked, because in previous tests
:06:05. > :06:12.they have always been very public about it. Look how well our missiles
:06:13. > :06:20.work! She may not have misled Parliament, but she may not have
:06:21. > :06:24.known about it. If she didn't know, does Michael Fallon still have a job
:06:25. > :06:31.on Monday? Should Parliament know about a test that doesn't work? Some
:06:32. > :06:37.would say absolutely not. Our deterrent is there to deter people
:06:38. > :06:42.from attacking us. If they know that we are hitting the United States by
:06:43. > :06:47.mistake rather than the Atlantic Ocean, then... There is such a thing
:06:48. > :06:52.as national security, and telling all the bad guys about where we are
:06:53. > :06:56.going wrong may not be a good idea. It was her first statement as Prime
:06:57. > :07:02.Minister to put her case for renewal, to have the vote on
:07:03. > :07:06.Trident, and in that context, it is significant not to say anything. If
:07:07. > :07:09.anyone knows where the missile landed, give us a call!
:07:10. > :07:12.So Donald Trump's inauguration day closed with him dancing
:07:13. > :07:14.to Frank Sinatra's My Way, and whatever your view on the 45th
:07:15. > :07:17.President of the United States he certainly did do it his way.
:07:18. > :07:20.Not for him the idealistic call for national unity -
:07:21. > :07:22.instead he used Friday's inaugural address to launch a blistering
:07:23. > :07:25.attack on the dark state of the nation and the political
:07:26. > :07:30.class, and to promise to take his uncompromising approach
:07:31. > :07:34.from the campaign trail to the White House.
:07:35. > :07:38.Here's Adam Fleming, with a reminder of how
:07:39. > :07:46.First, dropping by for a cup of tea and a slightly awkward exchange
:07:47. > :07:55.Then, friends, foes and predecessors watched
:07:56. > :08:02.I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear...
:08:03. > :08:06.The crowds seemed smaller than previous inaugurations,
:08:07. > :08:11.the speech tougher then any previous incoming president.
:08:12. > :08:18.From this day forth, it's going to be only America first.
:08:19. > :08:43.In the meantime, there were sporadic protests in Washington, DC.
:08:44. > :08:47.Opponents made their voices heard around the world too.
:08:48. > :08:49.The President, who'd criticised the work of
:08:50. > :08:53.the intelligence agencies, fitted in a visit to the CIA.
:08:54. > :08:57.There is nobody that feels stronger about the intelligence community
:08:58. > :09:09.And, back at the office, in the dark, a signature signalled
:09:10. > :09:14.the end of the Obama era and the dawn of Trump.
:09:15. > :09:21.So, as you heard there, President Trump used his
:09:22. > :09:23.inauguration to repeat his campaign promise to put "America first"
:09:24. > :09:26.in all his decisions, and offered some hints of what to expect
:09:27. > :09:43.He talked of in America in carnage, to be rebuilt by American hands and
:09:44. > :09:47.American Labour. President Trump has already started to dismantle key
:09:48. > :09:51.parts of the Obama Legacy, including the unwinding of the affordable care
:09:52. > :09:57.act, and the siding of the climate action plan to tackle global
:09:58. > :10:01.warning. Little to say about foreign policy, but promised to eradicate
:10:02. > :10:06.Islamic terrorism from the face of the Earth, insisting he would
:10:07. > :10:12.restore the US military to unquestioning dominance. He also
:10:13. > :10:16.said the US would develop a state missile defence system to deal with
:10:17. > :10:21.threats he sees from Iran and North Korea. In a statement that painted a
:10:22. > :10:26.bleak picture of the country he now runs, he said his would be a law and
:10:27. > :10:32.order Administration, and he would keep the innocents safe by building
:10:33. > :10:37.the border war with Mexico. One thing he didn't mention, for the
:10:38. > :10:40.first time ever, there is a Eurosceptic in the oval office, who
:10:41. > :10:43.is also an enthusiast for Brexit. We're joined now by Ted Malloch -
:10:44. > :10:46.he's a Trump supporter who's been tipped as the president's
:10:47. > :10:48.choice for US ambassador to the EU, and he's
:10:49. > :10:51.just flown back from Washington. And by James Rubin -
:10:52. > :11:02.he's a democrat who served Let's start with that last point I
:11:03. > :11:09.made in the voice over there. We now have a Eurosceptic in the oval
:11:10. > :11:12.office. He is pro-Brexit and not keen on further European Union
:11:13. > :11:18.integration. What are the implications of that? First of all,
:11:19. > :11:23.a renewal of the US- UK special relationship. You see the Prime
:11:24. > :11:27.Minister already going to build and rebuild this relationship. Already,
:11:28. > :11:32.the bust of Winston Churchill is back in the oval office.
:11:33. > :11:37.Interestingly, Martin Luther King's bust is also there, so there is an
:11:38. > :11:43.act of unity in that first movement of dusts. Donald Trump will be
:11:44. > :11:54.oriented between bilateral relationships and not multilateral
:11:55. > :11:59.or supernatural. Supranational full. What are the implications of someone
:12:00. > :12:05.in the White House now not believing in it? I think we are present in the
:12:06. > :12:09.unravelling of America's leadership of the West. There is now a thing
:12:10. > :12:17.called the west that America has led since the end of World War II,
:12:18. > :12:26.creating supranational - we just heard supernatural! These
:12:27. > :12:31.institutions were created. With American leadership, the world was
:12:32. > :12:35.at peace in Europe, and the world grew increasingly democratic and
:12:36. > :12:40.prosperous. Wars were averted that could be extremely costly. When
:12:41. > :12:44.something works in diplomacy, you don't really understand what the
:12:45. > :12:48.consequences could have been. I think we've got complacent. The new
:12:49. > :12:54.president is taking advantage of that. It is a terrible tragedy that
:12:55. > :12:59.so many in the West take for granted the successful leadership and
:13:00. > :13:07.institutions we have built. You could argue, as James Rubin has
:13:08. > :13:11.argued in some articles, that... Will Mr Trump's America be more
:13:12. > :13:19.involved in the world than the Obama won? Or will it continue the process
:13:20. > :13:25.with running shoes on that began with Mr Obama? President Obama
:13:26. > :13:31.stepped back from American leadership. He withdrew from the
:13:32. > :13:35.world. He had a horrendous eight years in office, and American powers
:13:36. > :13:40.have diminished everywhere in the world, not just in Europe. That
:13:41. > :13:45.power will reassert. The focus will be on America first, but there are
:13:46. > :13:51.foreign interests around the world... How does it reassert itself
:13:52. > :13:55.around the world? I think the institutions will be recreated. Some
:13:56. > :14:01.may be taken down. There could be some new ones. I think Nato itself,
:14:02. > :14:05.and certainly the Defence Secretary will have discussions with Donald
:14:06. > :14:09.Trump about how Nato can be reshaped, and maybe there will be
:14:10. > :14:14.more burden sharing. That is an important thing for him. You are
:14:15. > :14:18.tipped to be the US ambassador to Brussels, to the EU, and we are
:14:19. > :14:23.still waiting to hear if that will happen. Is it true to say that Mr
:14:24. > :14:33.Trump does not believe in EU integration? I think you made that
:14:34. > :14:41.clear in the speech. He talked about supranational. He does not believe
:14:42. > :14:45.in those kinds of organisations. He is investing himself in bilateral
:14:46. > :14:50.relationships, the first of which will be with the UK. So we have a
:14:51. > :14:56.president who does not believe in EU integration and has been highly
:14:57. > :15:01.critical of Nato. Do the people he has appointed to defend, Secretary
:15:02. > :15:05.of State, national security, do you think that will temper this
:15:06. > :15:13.anti-NATO wretched? Will he come round to a more pro-NATO situation?
:15:14. > :15:18.I think those of us who care about America's situation in the world
:15:19. > :15:23.will come in to miss President Obama a lot. I think the Secretary of
:15:24. > :15:28.State and the faculty of defence will limit the damage and will urge
:15:29. > :15:33.him not to take formal steps to unravel this most powerful and most
:15:34. > :15:39.successful alliance in history, the Nato alliance. But the damage is
:15:40. > :15:44.already being done. When you are the leader of the West, leadership means
:15:45. > :15:50.you are persuading, encouraging, bolstering your leadership and these
:15:51. > :15:54.institutions by the way you speak. Millions, if not hundreds of
:15:55. > :15:56.millions of people, have now heard the US say that what they care about
:15:57. > :16:06.is within their borders. What do you say to that? It is such
:16:07. > :16:15.an overstatement. The point is that Donald Trump is in a Jacksonian
:16:16. > :16:18.tradition of national populism. He is appealing to the people first.
:16:19. > :16:23.The other day, I was sitting below this page during the address, and he
:16:24. > :16:27.said, everyone sitting behind me as part of the problem. Everyone in
:16:28. > :16:31.front of me, the crowd and the crowd on television, is part of the
:16:32. > :16:36.solution, so we are giving the Government back to the people. That
:16:37. > :16:39.emphasis is going to change American life, including American
:16:40. > :16:48.International relations. It doesn't moving the leak back -- it doesn't
:16:49. > :16:53.mean we are moving out of Nato, it simply means we will put our
:16:54. > :16:56.national interests first. There were echoes of Andrew Jackson's
:16:57. > :17:02.inauguration address of 1820. That night, the Jacksonians trashed the
:17:03. > :17:05.White House, but Mr Trump's people didn't do that, so there is a
:17:06. > :17:11.difference there. He also said something else in the address - that
:17:12. > :17:18.protectionism would lead to prosperity. I would suggest there is
:17:19. > :17:24.no evidence for that in the post-war world. He talked about protecting
:17:25. > :17:26.the American worker, American jobs, the American economy. I actually
:17:27. > :17:34.think that Donald Trump will not turn out to be a protectionist. If
:17:35. > :17:40.you read the heart of the deal... This is referring to two Republican
:17:41. > :17:49.senators who introduce massive tariffs in the Hoover
:17:50. > :17:53.administration. Exactly. If you read The Art Of The Deal, you will see
:17:54. > :17:57.how Donald Trump deals with individuals and countries. There is
:17:58. > :18:02.a lot of bluster, positioning, and I think you already see this in
:18:03. > :18:07.bringing jobs by the United States. Things are going to change. Let's
:18:08. > :18:14.also deal with this proposition. China is the biggest loser of this
:18:15. > :18:21.election result. Let me say this: The first time in American history
:18:22. > :18:29.and American president has set forth his view of the world, and it is a
:18:30. > :18:33.mercantile view of the world, who makes more money, who gets more
:18:34. > :18:38.trade, it doesn't look at the shared values, leadership and defends the
:18:39. > :18:40.world needs. The art of the deal has no application to America's
:18:41. > :18:46.leadership of the world, that's what we're learning. You can be a great
:18:47. > :18:50.businessman and make great real estate deals - whether he did not is
:18:51. > :18:55.debatable - but it has nothing to do with inspiring shared values from
:18:56. > :18:59.the West. You saying China may lose, because he may pressure them to
:19:00. > :19:06.reduce their trade deficit with the US. They may or may not. We may both
:19:07. > :19:09.lose. Right now, his Secretary of State has said, and I think he will
:19:10. > :19:14.walk this back when he is brief, that they will prevent the Chinese
:19:15. > :19:18.from entering these islands in the South China Sea. If they were to do
:19:19. > :19:22.that, it would be a blockade, and there would be a shooting war
:19:23. > :19:27.between the United States and China, so US - China relations are the most
:19:28. > :19:30.important bilateral relationship of the United States, and they don't
:19:31. > :19:35.lend themselves to the bluff and bluster that may have worked when
:19:36. > :19:40.you are trying to get a big building on second Ave in Manhattan. Is China
:19:41. > :19:56.the biggest loser? I think the Chinese have a lot to lose. Gigi and
:19:57. > :20:02.Ping was in Davos this week -- Xi Jin Ping was in Davos.
:20:03. > :20:08.Is Germany the second biggest loser in the sense that I understand he
:20:09. > :20:16.hasn't agreed time to see Angela Merkel yet, also that those close to
:20:17. > :20:19.him believe that Germany is guilty of currency manipulation by adopting
:20:20. > :20:23.a weak your row instead of the strong Deutschmark, and that that is
:20:24. > :20:29.why they are running a huge balance of payments surplus with the United
:20:30. > :20:34.States. American - German relations may not be great. There is a point
:20:35. > :20:38.of view throughout Europe. You only have to talk to the southern
:20:39. > :20:42.Europeans about this question. It seems like the euro has been aligned
:20:43. > :20:48.to benefit Germany. Joe Stiglitz, the famous left of centre Democrat
:20:49. > :20:55.economist, made the same case in a recent book. In this case, I think
:20:56. > :20:59.Germany will be put under the spotlight. Angela Merkel has shown
:21:00. > :21:04.herself to be the most respected and the most successful leader in
:21:05. > :21:09.Europe. We who care about the West, who care about the shared values of
:21:10. > :21:14.the West, should pray and hope that she is re-elected. This isn't about
:21:15. > :21:19.dollars and cents. We're living in a time whether Russian leader has
:21:20. > :21:25.another country in Europe and for some inexplicable reason, the
:21:26. > :21:27.American president, who can use his insult diplomacy on everyone,
:21:28. > :21:34.including Mrs Merkel, the only person he can't seem to find
:21:35. > :21:37.anything to criticise about is Mr Putin. There are things more
:21:38. > :21:42.important than the actual details of your currency. There are things like
:21:43. > :21:45.preventing another war in Europe, preventing a war between the Chinese
:21:46. > :21:52.and the US. You talk about the Trident missile all morning, nuclear
:21:53. > :21:57.deterrence is extremely important. It doesn't lend itself to the bluff
:21:58. > :22:00.and bluster of a real estate deal. I understand all that, but the fact we
:22:01. > :22:04.are even talking about these things shows the new world we are moving
:22:05. > :22:09.into. I'd like to get you both to react to this. This is a man that
:22:10. > :22:16.ended the Bush Dynasty, a man that beat the Clinton machine. In his
:22:17. > :22:19.inauguration, not only did he not reach out to the Democrats, he
:22:20. > :22:26.didn't even mention the Republicans. These are changed days for us. They
:22:27. > :22:29.are, and change can be good or disastrous. I'm worried that it's
:22:30. > :22:36.easy in the world of diplomacy and in them -- for the leadership of the
:22:37. > :22:40.United States to break relationships and ruin alliances. These are things
:22:41. > :22:47.that were carefully nurtured. George Schultz, the American Secretary of
:22:48. > :22:51.State under Reagan talked about gardening, the slow, careful
:22:52. > :22:56.creation of a place with bilateral relationships that were blossoming
:22:57. > :22:59.and flowering multilateral relationships that take decades to
:23:00. > :23:05.create, and he will throw them away in a matter of days. The final
:23:06. > :23:09.word... I work for George Schultz. He was a Marine who stood up
:23:10. > :23:13.America, defended America, who would be in favour of many of the things
:23:14. > :23:19.that Donald Trump and the tramp Administration... Give him a call.
:23:20. > :23:23.His top aide macs that I've spoken to are appalled by Mr Trump's
:23:24. > :23:31.abdication of leadership. He is going to our radically -- he's going
:23:32. > :23:36.to eradicate extremist Islam from the face of the year. Is that
:23:37. > :23:39.realistic? I know people in the national security realm have worked
:23:40. > :23:46.on a plan. They say they will have such a plan in some detail within 90
:23:47. > :23:51.days. Lets hope they succeed. We have run out of time. As a issues.
:23:52. > :23:55.Thank you, both. -- fascinating issues.
:23:56. > :23:58.So Theresa May promised a big speech on Brexit, and this week -
:23:59. > :24:00.perhaps against expectation - she delivered, trying to answer
:24:01. > :24:03.claims that the government didn't have a plan with an explicit
:24:04. > :24:06.wish-list of what she hopes to achieve in negotiations with the EU.
:24:07. > :24:08.To her allies it was ambitious, bold, optimistic -
:24:09. > :24:10.to her opponents it was full of contradictions
:24:11. > :24:13.Here's Adam again, with a reminder of the speech and how
:24:14. > :24:18.There are speeches, and there are speeches.
:24:19. > :24:22.Like Theresa May's 12 principles for a Brexit deal leading
:24:23. > :24:25.to the UK fully out of the EU but still friendly in terms
:24:26. > :24:29.This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade
:24:30. > :24:31.in goods and services between Britain and the EU's member states.
:24:32. > :24:37.It should give British companies the maximum
:24:38. > :24:40.operate within European markets and let European businesses do
:24:41. > :24:48.She also said no deal would be better than the wrong deal,
:24:49. > :25:04.We want to test what people think about what she's just said.
:25:05. > :25:06.Do we have any of our future negotiating
:25:07. > :25:11.As the European Parliament voted for its new
:25:12. > :25:19.president, its chief negotiator sounded off.
:25:20. > :25:21.Saying, OK, if our European counterparts don't accept
:25:22. > :25:24.it, we're going to make from Britain a sort
:25:25. > :25:26.of free zone or tax haven, I
:25:27. > :25:33.The Prime Minister of Malta, the country that's assumed the EU's
:25:34. > :25:36.rotating presidency, spoke in sorrow and a bit of anger.
:25:37. > :25:40.We want a fair deal for the United Kingdom, but
:25:41. > :25:50.that deal necessarily needs to be inferior to membership.
:25:51. > :25:53.Next, let's hear from some enthusiastic
:25:54. > :25:58.leavers, like, I don't know, the Daily Mail?
:25:59. > :26:01.The paper lapped it up with this adoring front page.
:26:02. > :26:05.For Brexiteers, it was all manna from heaven.
:26:06. > :26:08.I think today means we are a big step closer to becoming
:26:09. > :26:10.an independent country again, with control of our own laws,
:26:11. > :26:16.I was chuckling at some of it, to be honest, because
:26:17. > :26:20.There were various phrases there which I've used myself again and
:26:21. > :26:25.Do we have any of those so-called Remoaners?
:26:26. > :26:27.There will, at the end of this deal process,
:26:28. > :26:31.so politicians get to vote on the stitch-up, but
:26:32. > :26:34.We take the view as Liberal Democrats that
:26:35. > :26:36.if this process started with democracy last June,
:26:37. > :26:40.We trusted the people with departure, we must trust them
:26:41. > :26:47.Do we have anyone from Labour, or are you all
:26:48. > :26:48.watching it in a small room somewhere?
:26:49. > :26:56.Throughout the speech, there seemed to be an implied threat that
:26:57. > :26:59.somewhere along the line, if all her optimism of a deal
:27:00. > :27:01.with the European Union didn't work, we would move
:27:02. > :27:03.into a low-tax, corporate taxation, bargain-basement economy on the
:27:04. > :27:07.I think she needs to be a bit clearer about what
:27:08. > :27:14.The Labour leader suggested he'd tell
:27:15. > :27:17.his MPs to vote in favour of starting a Brexit process if
:27:18. > :27:19.Parliament was given the choice, sparking a mini pre-revolt among
:27:20. > :27:25.Finally, do we have anyone from big business here?
:27:26. > :27:34.Of course, your all in Davos at the World Economic
:27:35. > :27:44.Clarity, first of all, really codified what many of us have been
:27:45. > :27:46.anticipating since the referendum result,
:27:47. > :27:47.particularly around the
:27:48. > :27:51.I think what we've also seen today is the Government's
:27:52. > :27:54.willingness to put a bit of edge into the negotiating dynamic, and I
:27:55. > :27:59.Trade negotiations are negotiations, and you have to lay out, and you
:28:00. > :28:01.have to be pretty tough to get what you want.
:28:02. > :28:03.Although some business people on the slopes speculated
:28:04. > :28:06.about moving some of their operations out of Brexit Britain.
:28:07. > :28:24.We saw there the instant reaction of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn,
:28:25. > :28:27.but how will the party respond to the challenge posed by Brexit
:28:28. > :28:30.Well, I'm joined now by the Shadow Home Secretary, Diane Abbott.
:28:31. > :28:39.People know that Ukip and the Tories are for Brexit. The Lib Dems are
:28:40. > :28:44.four remain. What is Labour for? For respecting the result of the
:28:45. > :28:48.referendum. It was a 72% turnout, very high for an election of that
:28:49. > :28:52.nature, and we believe you have to respect that result. You couldn't
:28:53. > :28:56.have a situation where people like Tim Farron are saying to people,
:28:57. > :28:59.millions of people, sorry, you got it wrong, we in London no better.
:29:00. > :29:07.However, how the Tories go forward from here has to be subject to
:29:08. > :29:12.parliamentary scrutiny. Is it Shadow Cabinet policy to vote for the
:29:13. > :29:16.triggering of Article 50? Our policy is not to block Article 50. That is
:29:17. > :29:23.what the leader was saying this morning. So are you for it? Our
:29:24. > :29:28.policy is not to block it. You are talking about voting for it. We
:29:29. > :29:33.don't know what the Supreme Court is going to say, and we don't know what
:29:34. > :29:36.legislation Government will bring forward, and we don't know what
:29:37. > :29:43.amendment we will move, but we're clear that we will not vote to block
:29:44. > :29:51.it. OK, so you won't bow to stop it, but you could abstain? No, what we
:29:52. > :29:55.will do... Either you vote for or against all you abstain. There are
:29:56. > :29:58.too many unanswered questions. For instance, the position of EU
:29:59. > :30:03.migrants working and living in this country. You may not get the answer
:30:04. > :30:07.to that before Article 50 comes before the Commons, so what would
:30:08. > :30:12.you do then? We are giving to amend it. We can only tell you exactly how
:30:13. > :30:16.we will amend it when we understand what sort of legislation the
:30:17. > :30:19.Government is putting forward, and in the course of moving those
:30:20. > :30:23.amendments, we will ask the questions that the people of Britain
:30:24. > :30:29.whether they voted to leave remain want answered.
:30:30. > :30:37.When you come to a collective view, will there be a three line whip? I
:30:38. > :30:42.can't tell you, because we have not seen the government 's legislation.
:30:43. > :30:48.But when you see it, you will come to a collective view. Many regard
:30:49. > :30:53.this as extremely important. Will there be a three line whip on
:30:54. > :30:59.Labour's collective view? Because it is important, we shouldn't get ahead
:31:00. > :31:03.of ourselves. When we see what the Supreme Court says, and crucially,
:31:04. > :31:07.when we see what the government position is, you will hear what the
:31:08. > :31:14.whipping is. Will shadow ministers be able to defy any three line whip
:31:15. > :31:19.on this? That is not normally the case. But they did on an early vote
:31:20. > :31:25.that the government introduced on Article 50. Those who voted against
:31:26. > :31:29.it are still there. In the Blair years, you certainly couldn't defy a
:31:30. > :31:36.three line whip. We will see what happens going forward. I remember
:31:37. > :31:39.when the Tories were hopelessly divided over the EU. All these
:31:40. > :31:46.Maastricht votes and an list arguments. Now it is Labour. Just
:31:47. > :31:58.another symptom of Mr Corbyn's poor leadership. Not at all. Two thirds
:31:59. > :32:03.voted to leave, a third to remain. We are seeking to bring the country
:32:04. > :32:09.and the party together. We will do that by pointing out how disastrous
:32:10. > :32:18.a Tory Brexit would be. Meanwhile, around 80 Labour MPs will defy a
:32:19. > :32:23.three line whip. It's too early to say that. Will you publish what you
:32:24. > :32:28.believe the negotiating goal should be? We are clear on it. We think
:32:29. > :32:34.that the economy, jobs and living standards should be the priority.
:32:35. > :32:39.What Theresa May is saying is that holding her party together is her
:32:40. > :32:46.priority. She is putting party above country. Does Labour think we should
:32:47. > :32:50.remain members of the single market? Ideally, in terms of jobs and the
:32:51. > :32:55.economy, of course. Ritt -ish business thinks that as well. Is
:32:56. > :33:00.Labour policy that we should remain a member of the single market?
:33:01. > :33:04.Labour leaves that jobs and the economy comes first, and if they
:33:05. > :33:11.come first, you would want to remain part of the single market. But to
:33:12. > :33:19.remain a member? Jobs and the economy comes first, and to do that,
:33:20. > :33:23.ideally, guess. So with that, comes free movement of people, the
:33:24. > :33:29.jurisdiction of the European, and a multi-million never shipped thief.
:33:30. > :33:35.Is Labour prepared to pay that? Money is neither here nor there.
:33:36. > :33:44.Because the Tories will be asked to pay a lot of money... The EU has
:33:45. > :33:51.made it clear that you cannot have... I am asking for Labour's
:33:52. > :33:56.position. Our position is rooted in the reality, and the reality is that
:33:57. > :34:00.you cannot have the benefits of the member of the European Union,
:34:01. > :34:03.including being a member of the single market, without
:34:04. > :34:07.responsibility, including free movement of people. Free movement,
:34:08. > :34:16.is remaining under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. Is
:34:17. > :34:21.that the Labour position? You've said that Labour wants to remain a
:34:22. > :34:25.member of the single market. That is the price tag that comes with it.
:34:26. > :34:31.Does Labour agree with paying that price tag? We are not pre-empting
:34:32. > :34:36.negotiation. Our goals are protect jobs and the British economy. Is it
:34:37. > :34:46.Labour's position that we remain a member of the customs union? Well,
:34:47. > :34:55.if we don't, I don't see how Theresa May can keep our promises and has
:34:56. > :35:04.unfettered access... You said Labour's position was clear. It is!
:35:05. > :35:10.It is clear that Theresa May... I am not asking about Theresa May. Is it
:35:11. > :35:16.Labour's position to remain a member of the customs union? It is Labour's
:35:17. > :35:20.position to do what is right for British industry. Depending on how
:35:21. > :35:25.the negotiations go, it may prove that coming out of the customs
:35:26. > :35:31.union, as Theresa May has indicated she wants to do, could prove
:35:32. > :35:36.catastrophic, and could actually destroy some of her promises. You do
:35:37. > :35:43.accept that if we are member of the customs union, we cannot do our own
:35:44. > :35:49.free trade deals? What free trade deals are you talking about? The
:35:50. > :35:54.ones that Labour might want to do in the future. First, we have to
:35:55. > :35:59.protect British jobs and British industries. If you are talking about
:36:00. > :36:03.free trade deals with Donald Trump, the danger is that Theresa May will
:36:04. > :36:11.get drawn into a free-trade deal with America that will open up the
:36:12. > :36:16.NHS to American corporate... The cards are in Theresa May's hands. If
:36:17. > :36:20.she takes us out of the single market, if she takes us out of the
:36:21. > :36:26.customs union, we will have to deal with that. How big a crisis for
:36:27. > :36:31.Jeremy Corbyn will be if Labour loses both by-elections in February.
:36:32. > :36:40.I don't believe we will lose both. But if he did? I am not anticipating
:36:41. > :36:45.that. Is Labour lost two seats in a midterm of a Tory government, would
:36:46. > :36:48.that be business as usual? I'm not prepared to see us lose those seats,
:36:49. > :36:52.so I will not talk about something that will not happen. Thank you.
:36:53. > :36:53.You're watching the Sunday Politics.
:36:54. > :36:56.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland, who leave us now
:36:57. > :36:59.Coming up here in 20 minutes, The Week Ahead,
:37:00. > :37:01.when we'll be talking to Business Minister Margot James
:37:02. > :37:04.about the government's new industrial strategy and that
:37:05. > :37:07.crucial Supreme Court ruling on Brexit.
:37:08. > :37:20.First, though, the Sunday Politics where you are.
:37:21. > :37:25.A little later on, we'll be looking at a ?2 billion scheme to regenerate
:37:26. > :37:29.Tottenham in north London, an unusual collaboration
:37:30. > :37:31.between the council and a private consortium -
:37:32. > :37:36.will there be room for people on low incomes who need to rent affordably?
:37:37. > :37:39.Eager to hear the views on that in a moment from our guests this
:37:40. > :37:42.week: Gavin Barwell, Conservative MP for Croydon Central,
:37:43. > :37:44.the Minister for London and Minister for Housing.
:37:45. > :37:48.And Karen Buck, Labour MP for Westminster North,
:37:49. > :37:50.in a borough which never fails to engage our interest
:37:51. > :37:57.First, though, to the news that Surrey County Council wants to put
:37:58. > :38:01.up its council tax by 15 percent this coming year so it can afford
:38:02. > :38:03.to care for the elderly, and adults and children
:38:04. > :38:10.It's the social care 'crisis' which is coming to exercise
:38:11. > :38:17.Should London's councils follow Surrey's lead?
:38:18. > :38:20.Presumably, Surrey County Council had seen that they need the money
:38:21. > :38:23.and don't have it, and they are right to try and raise
:38:24. > :38:26.It's a decision by local people in Surrey.
:38:27. > :38:29.The Government has put protections in there so that if
:38:30. > :38:31.councils want to increase council tax by large amounts, they have got
:38:32. > :38:34.to go to their electorate and get their permission.
:38:35. > :38:36.The Government has put extra money into social care in
:38:37. > :38:39.There are real pressures, I wouldn't deny it, but
:38:40. > :38:42.we need to make sure that all councils learn from the best and
:38:43. > :38:45.reform the system so that it works well.
:38:46. > :38:49.And absolutely no problem with London councils, if they feel they
:38:50. > :38:52.haven't got enough money, feel free to put the council tax up higher?
:38:53. > :38:54.I don't want to see big council tax increases,
:38:55. > :38:57.but the law allows them if they feel that's what they want
:38:58. > :39:03.to do, and it gives people the right to say
:39:04. > :39:10.to their council, no, we don't want to see a huge
:39:11. > :39:12.increase in our bill, so it is a judgment
:39:13. > :39:17.What your instinct when you hear a Conservative-run council
:39:18. > :39:20.like Surrey saying it needs to put up the council tax by 15%?
:39:21. > :39:22.They are not going to be lying about the
:39:23. > :39:30.Would you support it if they need that?
:39:31. > :39:32.Personally, I don't think council tax increases at that level
:39:33. > :39:36.As I said, the Government has put extra money into
:39:37. > :39:39.social care in this settlement, but it is a choice by them as
:39:40. > :39:42.councillors and a choice of people in Surrey about whether they backed
:39:43. > :39:46.I can imagine what Gavin would be saying
:39:47. > :39:48.if this was a Labour council, or a Labour Government.
:39:49. > :39:51.It is first-class trolling by Surrey council, because
:39:52. > :39:52.strong political point, saying
:39:53. > :39:55.to the Government that you have failed to provide for social care.
:39:56. > :39:58.As we know, social care is not only under huge stress.
:39:59. > :40:00.The Government since 2010 has taken ?4.5 billion
:40:01. > :40:03.But it is actually what has happened to social care
:40:04. > :40:07.that lies behind the current crisis in the health service.
:40:08. > :40:12.But would you say to any London councils, we need
:40:13. > :40:15.more for social care, feel free to put your council tax up
:40:16. > :40:18.I think council tax is the wrong vehicle for this.
:40:19. > :40:23.Perfectly reasonable to put up the kind of
:40:24. > :40:25.modest inflation rises that the Government allowed for last
:40:26. > :40:30.year, but to let local councils take the strain of what is
:40:31. > :40:32.fundamentally not a very progressive form of tax is wrong.
:40:33. > :40:37.The national Government should get together,
:40:38. > :40:40.and we should be trying to have the kind of...
:40:41. > :40:44.It doesn't cover local taxation for local services.
:40:45. > :40:52.Why not be serious about recognising the
:40:53. > :40:54.importance and show the commitment to dealing with it by saying this
:40:55. > :40:57.is an income tax or hypothecated national insurance matter, not a
:40:58. > :41:03.Karen stood on a manifesto in the last election where Labour
:41:04. > :41:05.was not promising any extra funding for local Government.
:41:06. > :41:10.It is not what they said at the last election.
:41:11. > :41:12.The Government both last year and this year in the settlement
:41:13. > :41:15.has tried to provide extra money for social care,
:41:16. > :41:19.It is not all about money, and I think councils can do more
:41:20. > :41:24.They are not very good at dealing with these issues.
:41:25. > :41:26.There are challenges, which I wouldn't deny,
:41:27. > :41:29.but we need to get a mixture of extra funding in the system, and
:41:30. > :41:34.A lot of talk about money today, as you will see.
:41:35. > :41:36.Now, big plans going down in north London.
:41:37. > :41:39.Haringey Council is teaming up with a private consortium
:41:40. > :41:42.of developers for a ?2 billion regeneration of Tottenham and Wood
:41:43. > :41:46.It's a fairly unusual set-up in terms of scale alone.
:41:47. > :41:49.And, at the outset, it's worrying a lot of people who are concerned
:41:50. > :41:52.that it will drive out the poorest in the community.
:41:53. > :41:55.After the riots here five and a half years ago,
:41:56. > :42:01.Back then, the need for regeneration was a common refrain.
:42:02. > :42:09.We do not gift people's houses to a private developer
:42:10. > :42:11.and say, you can demolish these and build new houses...
:42:12. > :42:14.On Tuesday night, a large group of campaigners
:42:15. > :42:17.protested at a council meeting here in Haringey.
:42:18. > :42:20.The meeting was about plans for a ?2 billion deal
:42:21. > :42:23.which would see the council partner up with a private developer to
:42:24. > :42:30.the Broadwater Farm and Northumberland Park estates,
:42:31. > :42:36.You are gifting the land before the people of Northumberland Park
:42:37. > :42:38.have been consulted about demolition.
:42:39. > :42:52.This is a protest against the council handing over seven
:42:53. > :42:56.council estates, 500 shops and businesses,
:42:57. > :42:58.and the redevelopment of Wood Green town centre
:42:59. > :43:05.A lot of these companies have been set up in recent years.
:43:06. > :43:09.This is the biggest one, I think, that any local authority has set up.
:43:10. > :43:12.The move by the Labour-led council is also opposed by the local branch
:43:13. > :43:15.of Momentum activists, not far from Jeremy Corbyn's
:43:16. > :43:21.Sam has lived on the Northumberland Park estate for more than 30 years.
:43:22. > :43:26.We've been promised three times here that we were going to get a kitchen.
:43:27. > :43:29.Now they say, "Oh, well, maybe we will just knock it all down."
:43:30. > :43:31.People have brought their families up here.
:43:32. > :43:38.It's a home, it's where you've got memories.
:43:39. > :43:40.You've got old people who want to actually
:43:41. > :43:47.You've got young people who feel safe here.
:43:48. > :43:50.But that's not the concern of the council.
:43:51. > :43:53.It's just pure profit, and nothing they say is going to make me
:43:54. > :43:58.Residents are concerned that the changes that
:43:59. > :44:01.are going to be made will mean that property prices go up,
:44:02. > :44:03.and people who have lived there for 30-odd years are
:44:04. > :44:06.no longer going to be able to afford to live there.
:44:07. > :44:09.Can you give them any guarantees that that's not the case?
:44:10. > :44:11.We've been very clear with residents that
:44:12. > :44:14.affordable housing would be reprovided,
:44:15. > :44:16.and people would be given a new home in the same area,
:44:17. > :44:20.The problem is not unique to Haringey.
:44:21. > :44:23.Right across London you have a estates in
:44:24. > :44:24.need of regeneration, councils that don't have
:44:25. > :44:27.any money, so they get involved with developers.
:44:28. > :44:29.But that brings the risk of gentrification,
:44:30. > :44:33.and people who've lived in an area for decades being turfed out
:44:34. > :44:37.I think what we've done too often in the past in the country
:44:38. > :44:39.is that local authorities and the public sector
:44:40. > :44:43.generally have sold off land, sold off assets, and then just
:44:44. > :44:47.This is an opportunity actually for the council
:44:48. > :44:50.to stay really involved in shaping the area, and ensuring that,
:44:51. > :44:58.as the area develops, the dividends go not
:44:59. > :45:01.just to a private developer, but to the public sector, to the borough
:45:02. > :45:06.So if they get it right, I think there's
:45:07. > :45:10.I think it's an interesting model, and a model that other boroughs
:45:11. > :45:12.are already exploring, and one we'll see a lot more of.
:45:13. > :45:14.Despite all these assurances, for residents,
:45:15. > :45:18.I have no idea what's going to happen,
:45:19. > :45:22.where I might have to go, if I'll be able to afford it...
:45:23. > :45:33.Sam Leggatt there, fearing for the future.
:45:34. > :45:35.Karen Buck, a Labour authority which isn't filling some
:45:36. > :45:38.local people with much confidence about what's going to happen through
:45:39. > :45:41.These big regeneration schemes are daunting.
:45:42. > :45:47.We've seen some pretty chequered examples, including the Barnett
:45:48. > :45:49.We've seen some pretty chequered examples, including the Barnet
:45:50. > :45:52.scheme, so I understand that people feel worried and anxious about
:45:53. > :45:56.In Westminster, we have a couple of these big schemes going on
:45:57. > :45:58.as well, and they haven't worked out too well.
:45:59. > :46:01.I think regeneration clearly has to happen.
:46:02. > :46:03.We need new house-building, to upgrade and improve the homes in
:46:04. > :46:07.I'm not going to get involved in the micro detail
:46:08. > :46:09.of the Haringey scheme because I don't know enough
:46:10. > :46:11.about it, but I think that the councils are between
:46:12. > :46:15.They want to re-provision some of the housing
:46:16. > :46:17.stock, they want to improve the quality of some of it.
:46:18. > :46:23.Have we moved to a consensus, a post-conflict world in
:46:24. > :46:26.terms of housing, where you know except some of the basic principles
:46:27. > :46:35.There's a certain amount of money, we want a
:46:36. > :46:37.certain amount of affordable housing, but we want a lot of
:46:38. > :46:42.This is something that has Sadiq has come out...
:46:43. > :46:45.In consultation at the moment, I want to see such
:46:46. > :46:47.schemes going ahead with no loss of social
:46:48. > :46:48.housing, because that is a
:46:49. > :46:52.It is a genuine worry that when the lower cost
:46:53. > :46:58.homeownership properties, the leasehold properties and so
:46:59. > :47:01.forth, when they are rebuilt, it will often be at a higher value.
:47:02. > :47:05.But of local authorities need to build than
:47:06. > :47:09.they need to improve their stock, and the Government isn't funding any
:47:10. > :47:11.money for them, they don't have that many choices.
:47:12. > :47:14.Have the details of this scheme come across your desk?
:47:15. > :47:17.Not yet, but I think there are likely to be
:47:18. > :47:20.The Government is giving money to estate regeneration.
:47:21. > :47:23.I think they are likely to bid for some of that
:47:24. > :47:28.In effect, the council has retained a kind of Freehold, I
:47:29. > :47:31.But the profits are being divided equally as
:47:32. > :47:35.Why can't the council keep the land but put out the contract to
:47:36. > :47:39.build these homes with more money from you guys to ensure there is
:47:40. > :47:42.I think it makes great sense to try to bring in
:47:43. > :47:46.You can get more done, given the amount of Government
:47:47. > :47:49.The problem here, it seems to me, is making
:47:50. > :47:50.sure that you take the
:47:51. > :47:57.We desperately need more homes in London.
:47:58. > :48:00.I think also it's good to have a mixture of different types
:48:01. > :48:02.of housing together in one area, so
:48:03. > :48:05.But what you've got to do if you are a
:48:06. > :48:07.council taking forward the schemes is, you've
:48:08. > :48:08.got to engage with the
:48:09. > :48:11.I think you showed a moving film there, with
:48:12. > :48:13.people saying, I don't know if I will still
:48:14. > :48:18.Do you want to get involved in this guarantee and say, I want you to
:48:19. > :48:21.make sure that no tenant is moved out or changes the conditions of
:48:22. > :48:24.They stay in the same kind of property?
:48:25. > :48:27.We have published our guidance to councils, and we say
:48:28. > :48:30.that engagement right at the start of the process with the people that
:48:31. > :48:35.I think it's important that people who want
:48:36. > :48:37.to stay in an area can do
:48:38. > :48:40.There was a scheme recently in Southwark which failed on the CPO
:48:41. > :48:43.because they weren't able to reassure some of the leaseholders
:48:44. > :48:47.People have roots in these communities, and if
:48:48. > :48:50.they are forced to move because prices, they often can't stay
:48:51. > :48:53.anywhere that area, so you got to get those details right.
:48:54. > :48:54.But the principle that we desperately need
:48:55. > :48:57.more homes in London, and that some of these estates offer an
:48:58. > :49:00.opportunity to renovate what is there and provide new housing...
:49:01. > :49:02.So he approves of this kind of model -
:49:03. > :49:06.I think absolutely that the consultation is critical.
:49:07. > :49:07.I think that the guarantee that people
:49:08. > :49:11.should be able to return to their area on equivalent tenancy and
:49:12. > :49:19.I think it's vital we keep not just social housing...
:49:20. > :49:21.Can I just check on this - you don't make it
:49:22. > :49:25.essential that they return at an equal level.
:49:26. > :49:27.You're not interfering at that level, are you?
:49:28. > :49:29.Our clear advice is that people should have,
:49:30. > :49:32.and not everyone will want to return to the same place...
:49:33. > :49:34.But they want to stay in the same area.
:49:35. > :49:36.People might want to change what they have.
:49:37. > :49:39.But if people do want to return to that community in whatever kind of
:49:40. > :49:41.housing, we should be trying to support that.
:49:42. > :49:44.What I want is the schemes to go forward as quickly as
:49:45. > :49:47.possible, and the key to that is not to have this kind of resistance.
:49:48. > :49:50.When you get people concerned, it delays the process and we don't get
:49:51. > :50:04.The local connection doesn't apply to Westminster,
:50:05. > :50:06.but I will take that up separately with Gavin.
:50:07. > :50:08.Yes, you can talk after the recording.
:50:09. > :50:13.Now - "London's stalling" is the title of the London Assembly
:50:14. > :50:15.report out this week which highlights the economic
:50:16. > :50:16.impact of the worsening congestion in the capital.
:50:17. > :50:19.There are calls for modifications to the congestion charge
:50:20. > :50:21.in the short-term, and the suggestion that we need
:50:22. > :50:23.to move to more sophisticated road-pricing in the long term.
:50:24. > :50:31.Congestion in the capital - it's getting worse.
:50:32. > :50:33.According to TfL figures published last month, the
:50:34. > :50:35.average speed of traffic in central London has fallen to 7.8 mph.
:50:36. > :50:37.The congestion charge was introduced in
:50:38. > :50:46.It will take some finessing, but I do think congestion charge is going
:50:47. > :50:50.It's caused a reduction in private car
:50:51. > :50:53.usage, but that's been cancelled out by the rise in delivery and private
:50:54. > :50:56.hire vehicles, and more space is being taken up by cycle lanes.
:50:57. > :50:58.According to a new report by the London Assembly
:50:59. > :51:00.Transport Committee, congestion is costing London ?5.5
:51:01. > :51:06.So the committee is recommending the Mayor looks into
:51:07. > :51:08.extending road pricing throughout London, not just the centre.
:51:09. > :51:10.It should also be more targeted so road
:51:11. > :51:13.users pay more for using busier roads at busy times.
:51:14. > :51:20.But is a more sophisticated congestion charge
:51:21. > :51:25.The current technology is more than a decade old, and one
:51:26. > :51:30.expert says it could take some time to update it.
:51:31. > :51:32.The form of road charging that the committee is
:51:33. > :51:35.talking about requires the authority to know not just when you are
:51:36. > :51:37.driving but where you are driving and how far.
:51:38. > :51:40.So they are going to need all the things that basically
:51:41. > :51:42.your car knows about itself, with modern telemetry,
:51:43. > :51:45.but at the moment, your car keeps that knowledge to
:51:46. > :51:51.If that knowledge is going to be shared with Transport For
:51:52. > :51:54.London, you, the driver, need to know that it is accurate,
:51:55. > :51:57.safe and fair, and that's going to require a
:51:58. > :52:00.new transmission system, a new billing system -
:52:01. > :52:03.that could cost a lot of money - and a way of making sure
:52:04. > :52:05.that your personal privacy is protected.
:52:06. > :52:10.And getting the money and the technology may take even longer
:52:11. > :52:15.than it does to drive through London at rush-hour.
:52:16. > :52:17.I'm joined by the chair of the London Assembly
:52:18. > :52:18.Transport Committee, which authored the report,
:52:19. > :52:20.Liberal Democrat assembly member Caroline Pidgeon.
:52:21. > :52:24.A little bit more detail about potential changes to
:52:25. > :52:29.Currently it's not fit for purpose, and you only have to look
:52:30. > :52:32.We have gridlock on our streets, and not just in the
:52:33. > :52:34.centre, more and more, across the whole capital.
:52:35. > :52:36.Would you extend the zone for starters?
:52:37. > :52:38.In the short term, the congestion charge, the
:52:39. > :52:41.So, rather than a flat rate, you could
:52:42. > :52:44.Would you put it back out to the Western
:52:45. > :52:46.extension, which I think the Liberal Democrats once opposed?
:52:47. > :52:48.As a committee, we have said we would
:52:49. > :52:50.like to focus in the short term on reforming
:52:51. > :52:54.make it fit for purpose so that we don't encourage people to drive
:52:55. > :52:57.around the zone the whole day and just play one fee.
:52:58. > :53:00.around the zone the whole day and just pay one fee.
:53:01. > :53:02.In the longer term, to tackle congestion, the
:53:03. > :53:05.Mayor needs to look at road pricing, needs to look at tackling congestion
:53:06. > :53:08.If you are an occasional car user at the
:53:09. > :53:11.weekend, you won't really be penalised, but if you insist on
:53:12. > :53:13.using your card day after day across London,
:53:14. > :53:15.using your car day after day across London, you are going
:53:16. > :53:19.And we have to do something, because the cost to
:53:20. > :53:22.I will come on to that in a second, but on
:53:23. > :53:25.the congestion charge, could you do variable rates on that?
:53:26. > :53:27.In different parts of London, is that for you
:53:28. > :53:34.That's one of the things you could look at.
:53:35. > :53:38.We have said to the Mayor, you have to look at this
:53:39. > :53:40.as an option as part of your transport strategy.
:53:41. > :53:43.Work with the boroughs, work with groups to find a
:53:44. > :53:45.system that works, but the status quo was not an option.
:53:46. > :53:49.And we have also suggested other things, like
:53:50. > :53:50.changing night-time deliveries and also stopping people
:53:51. > :53:52.having personal deliveries to their workplace.
:53:53. > :53:55.In certain places, we should be looking at that.
:53:56. > :53:58.There's a reason historically why we don't do that.
:53:59. > :54:01.You'd have to work with residents, but vehicles are quieter now, and
:54:02. > :54:06.Also look at personal deliveries, people
:54:07. > :54:08.having online shopping delivered to their workplace.
:54:09. > :54:10.How would you distinguish between that stuff that
:54:11. > :54:14.was arriving in a delivery van for a workplace which was for work?
:54:15. > :54:16.There's so many vehicles going round.
:54:17. > :54:19.There has been a 20% increase in vans on our roads
:54:20. > :54:21.taking online deliveries, so we're saying actually, if Transport For
:54:22. > :54:24.London worked and opened up click and collect at their tube stations,
:54:25. > :54:27.you could have any parcel delivered there, pick it up on the way home.
:54:28. > :54:30.You wouldn't clog up the train with it, but actually,
:54:31. > :54:32.it would relieve some of that pressure in central
:54:33. > :54:35.You've got to do something, and that's why we've
:54:36. > :54:37.given the Mayor a range of really bold options.
:54:38. > :54:39.Let's pick up on the road pricing thing.
:54:40. > :54:41.Just briefly, presumably the technology might be
:54:42. > :54:43.there now, but is the cost just ridiculously stratospheric?
:54:44. > :54:46.We think, with the Mayor bringing in the ultralow emissions zone, he
:54:47. > :54:49.needs to make sure the technology he is bringing in there can also be
:54:50. > :54:53.We believe it is there, and he could use that as
:54:54. > :54:57.Gavin, what do you feel about the issue of road pricing?
:54:58. > :54:59.Should we stay as we are with the congestion
:55:00. > :55:04.I agree with Caroline - doing nothing is not an
:55:05. > :55:08.In terms of the health impact on Londoners and also the
:55:09. > :55:10.economic impact on London, we can't just allow this congestion problem
:55:11. > :55:14.I think we need to look at a range of solutions.
:55:15. > :55:16.That could certainly be about looking at
:55:17. > :55:18.how we evolve the policy the Mayor has on congestion charge.
:55:19. > :55:20.He has freedom to look at things already
:55:21. > :55:24.You wouldn't rule out at this stage if
:55:25. > :55:26.he feels he needs to extend it west else?
:55:27. > :55:28.What we're doing needs to be driven by the evidence.
:55:29. > :55:30.We need to look at where the congestion
:55:31. > :55:33.They are not uniform across London, so if
:55:34. > :55:35.it's evidence-driven, I think we should look at it
:55:36. > :55:39.But I would also say it shouldn't just be about penalising
:55:40. > :55:43.There are things we can do to improve our road network.
:55:44. > :55:45.In my borough, the problems are often a
:55:46. > :55:46.key pinch points that you could address.
:55:47. > :55:51.What do you think about the principle of road pricing,
:55:52. > :55:53.which could be variable amounts, with the technology, depending on
:55:54. > :55:55.which road you are using and at what time.
:55:56. > :55:57.Right now, I am not attracted to that.
:55:58. > :56:00.I think there are other things you can do to address the
:56:01. > :56:04.We could look at adapting the congestion charge, we could look
:56:05. > :56:07.at technology, and I think we can look at improvements to pinch points
:56:08. > :56:10.Caroline and her committee are right to provoke a
:56:11. > :56:13.From a Government point of view, we agree
:56:14. > :56:15.that congestion on London's roads is a serious
:56:16. > :56:18.people's health and in terms of our economy.
:56:19. > :56:19.He raises a point about provoking debate.
:56:20. > :56:22.What is going to come of this report, and what do you
:56:23. > :56:25.The Mayor is developing his transport
:56:26. > :56:28.strategy, so we hope he looks at putting it in his strategy,
:56:29. > :56:30.but also influencing Government going
:56:31. > :56:32.This isn't just all the evidence we had.
:56:33. > :56:35.We also did a survey of 1000 Londoners, and 50% of
:56:36. > :56:37.them said they would support some sort of road pricing.
:56:38. > :56:39.Two thirds said they would change their
:56:40. > :56:43.You never objected and supported Ken Livingstone when he wanted to extend
:56:44. > :56:46.the congestion charge - do you think that was a mistake
:56:47. > :56:52.No, I think the congestion charge was an incredibly brave thing
:56:53. > :56:56.I think what we want to do, and this was very much the case,
:56:57. > :56:59.even in 2003 when it was coming in, where you would look to having a
:57:00. > :57:01.smarter, more flexible scheme as the technology
:57:02. > :57:04.Of course, Caroline is completely right
:57:05. > :57:07.- there will be times and places where you might want to discourage
:57:08. > :57:16.We were talking ten years ago that it might
:57:17. > :57:19.just be the beginning of something more sophisticated.
:57:20. > :57:22.Don't you want to be the type of administration
:57:23. > :57:27.that starts a look at this seriously?
:57:28. > :57:30.The Mayor has a lot of power to do this.
:57:31. > :57:32.He is not asking, as far as I can see...
:57:33. > :57:35.We want to know you are not going to object to
:57:36. > :57:42.As I said, I want to be driven by the evidence, and I'd like to see
:57:43. > :57:44.a solution that looks at trying to improve
:57:45. > :57:48.what technology can do, but also looking at how weird that policy
:57:49. > :57:55.Caroline, thank you very much for coming in.
:57:56. > :58:02.Now, it's time for the rest of the political news in 60 seconds.
:58:03. > :58:05.The Mayor Sadiq Khan has won the safety of Londoners could be put
:58:06. > :58:07.at risk if the Government cuts funding for the Metropolitan
:58:08. > :58:12.If it's the case that the Government makes any further cuts in our budget
:58:13. > :58:14.than we have already been told about, we cannot keep
:58:15. > :58:18.Residents in Winchester Avenue, West London, have discovered
:58:19. > :58:20.that their road has been linked to a possible clearance
:58:21. > :58:23.in a Government report looking at the impact of a third
:58:24. > :58:27.The road runs next to the M4 and could be demolished to allow
:58:28. > :58:29.the widening of the motorway bringing traffic in
:58:30. > :58:34.The Government should at least be coming out with its detailed
:58:35. > :58:36.road network proposals, and that is indeed what I've called
:58:37. > :58:43.A report from the London assembly police and crime committee has said
:58:44. > :58:46.Notting Hill Carnival, which attracts 1 million visitors
:58:47. > :58:50.a year, poses a real risk to public safety.
:58:51. > :58:58.The committee said overcrowding and the rise in violent crime
:58:59. > :59:15.In a controversial departure from normal practice, we won't deal with
:59:16. > :59:20.those issues. Ask the question about housing. We were talking about the
:59:21. > :59:24.need to let people return to communities. Westminster Council
:59:25. > :59:27.announced they were going to start discharging the homelessness duties
:59:28. > :59:30.outside of London, as far as the Midlands. I would like to see the
:59:31. > :59:35.Government tell them they can't do that. We have already said to
:59:36. > :59:39.councils that they should place locally in the borough where
:59:40. > :59:42.possible. We need -- what you're talking about is evidence of the
:59:43. > :59:47.housing problem that we've got, that for 30 or 40 years we haven't built
:59:48. > :59:54.enough homes. Are they wrong to do what they are doing in Westminster?
:59:55. > :00:02.We have to stop that. We have given a record level of funding for
:00:03. > :00:08.affordable housing. You will keep an eye on it and may make a ruling? The
:00:09. > :00:10.long-term solution is to get more housing built so councils don't
:00:11. > :00:13.have to do this. Thank you to you both.
:00:14. > :00:23.What exactly is the government's industrial strategy?
:00:24. > :00:27.Will ministers lose their supreme court battle over Brexit, and,
:00:28. > :00:39.Well, tomorrow Theresa May is launching the government's
:00:40. > :00:42.industrial strategy - and to talk about that we're joined
:00:43. > :00:50.by the Business Minister, Margot James - welcome to the show.
:00:51. > :00:57.When you look at what has already been released in advance of the
:00:58. > :01:03.Prime Minister's statement, it was embargoed for last night, it's not
:01:04. > :01:07.really an industrial strategy, it's just another skills strategy, of
:01:08. > :01:14.which we have had about six since the war, and our skills training is
:01:15. > :01:18.among the worst in Western Europe? There will be plenty more to be
:01:19. > :01:22.announced tomorrow in what is really a discussion document in the
:01:23. > :01:26.preparation of an industrial strategy which we intend to launch
:01:27. > :01:35.properly later in the year. Let's look at skills. You are allocating
:01:36. > :01:41.117 of funding to establish institutes of technology. How many?
:01:42. > :01:47.The exact number is to be agreed, but the spend is there, and it will
:01:48. > :01:50.be on top of what we are doing to the university, technical
:01:51. > :01:56.colleges... How many were lit bio create? We don't know exactly, but
:01:57. > :02:00.we want to put them in areas where young people are performing under
:02:01. > :02:07.the national average. But if you don't know how many, what is the
:02:08. > :02:11.basis of 170 million? That is the amount the Treasury have released.
:02:12. > :02:16.The something that is very important, we are agreed we need to
:02:17. > :02:22.devote more resources to vocational training and get it on a par with
:02:23. > :02:28.academic qualifications. I looked on the website of my old university,
:02:29. > :02:33.the University of Glasgow, the Russell group universities. Its
:02:34. > :02:41.spending budget every year is over 600 million. That's one University.
:02:42. > :02:46.And yet you have a mere 170 million foreign unspecified number of
:02:47. > :02:51.institutes of technology. It hasn't got equality with the academics? You
:02:52. > :02:55.have to remember that just as you have quoted figures from Glasgow
:02:56. > :02:59.University there are further education colleges all over the
:03:00. > :03:08.country. The government is already spending on 16 to 19-year-olds. But
:03:09. > :03:13.also, we are going to be adding... This is new money that is all to the
:03:14. > :03:18.good, because we are already spending a lot. We have already
:03:19. > :03:22.created 2 million more apprentices since 2010. That many are not in
:03:23. > :03:27.what we would call the stem skills, and a lot come nowhere near what the
:03:28. > :03:33.Dutch, Germans and Austrians would have. I'm not clear how another 170
:03:34. > :03:38.million would do. You said it is more than skills. In what way is
:03:39. > :03:50.this industrial strategy different from what Mr Cameron and Mr Osborne
:03:51. > :03:51.did before? It's different because it is involving every single
:03:52. > :03:54.government department, and bringing together everything that government
:03:55. > :03:57.does in a bid to make Britain more competitive as it disengages from
:03:58. > :04:03.the European Union. That is what the last Labour government did. They
:04:04. > :04:07.will much more targeted interventions. Under the Labour
:04:08. > :04:12.government, the auto industry got some benefit. A few more sectors
:04:13. > :04:16.were broached under the coalition government. This is all about
:04:17. > :04:21.communities all over the country, some of whom have fallen behind in
:04:22. > :04:27.terms of wage growth and good jobs. The Prime Minister has already
:04:28. > :04:34.announced 2 billion as a research and development priority in specific
:04:35. > :04:38.technologies, robotics, artificial intelligence, medical technology,
:04:39. > :04:43.satellites... So you are doing what has been done before. There is
:04:44. > :04:48.nothing new about this. Wait until tomorrow, because there will be some
:04:49. > :04:51.new strands emerging. It is the beginning of the dialogue with
:04:52. > :04:58.industry and with workers, and the responses will be invited up until
:04:59. > :05:03.April. That will inform a wider strategy that goes beyond skills. I
:05:04. > :05:08.have moved on to beyond them. I'm slightly puzzled as to how the
:05:09. > :05:14.government knows where to invest in robotics, when it can't even provide
:05:15. > :05:19.the NHS with a decent IT system. Discuss. I have to say I find it
:05:20. > :05:22.bizarre that the government is making an announcement about an
:05:23. > :05:27.amount of money and don't know where it's going. This is typical of all
:05:28. > :05:33.governments over all political shoes, which is total disregard for
:05:34. > :05:41.technical education, so different from Germany, who actually invest in
:05:42. > :05:47.the technological side. Germany has a long history. We want to emulate
:05:48. > :05:52.some of the best of what German companies do. Siemens sponsor
:05:53. > :05:58.primary schools, for example. We want to get a dialogue on with
:05:59. > :06:03.business. We don't want to decide where this money is going. By the
:06:04. > :06:08.way, it was 4.7 billion that the government has agreed to invest in
:06:09. > :06:12.science and research, which is the most significant increase in
:06:13. > :06:17.decades. Can you remind us what happened in Northern Ireland, when
:06:18. > :06:20.the government invested money in state-of-the-art technology for
:06:21. > :06:27.energy? No one needs to be reminded of that, and that is not what we are
:06:28. > :06:32.doing. We are inviting business and industry to advise where that money
:06:33. > :06:38.is best spent. That's very different from government deciding that a
:06:39. > :06:43.particular technology is for the future. The government's chief
:06:44. > :06:48.scientific adviser has determined that we will invest a huge amount in
:06:49. > :06:54.battery technology, which should benefit the electric car industry,
:06:55. > :07:00.and... This is taxpayers' money. Who gets it? Ultimately, business will
:07:01. > :07:05.get it, but often only when there is a considerable amount of private
:07:06. > :07:13.sector finance also drawn in. But who is held to account? Various
:07:14. > :07:18.government departments at local authorities will hold this list to
:07:19. > :07:25.account. A lot of it is about releasing private capital as well.
:07:26. > :07:32.Thank you very much. This week, the Supreme Court, I think we know the
:07:33. > :07:36.ruling is coming on Tuesday. And the expectation is that the judges will
:07:37. > :07:41.say Parliament will have to vote to trigger. Is this all much ado about
:07:42. > :07:45.nothing? Parliament will vote to trigger, and the government will win
:07:46. > :07:49.in the Lords and the Commons by substantial majorities, and it will
:07:50. > :07:54.be triggered? Completely. We've known that. Parliament is voted.
:07:55. > :07:58.Everyone is pretty confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the
:07:59. > :08:07.High Court's decision and say it has to go to MPs. There will be a bit of
:08:08. > :08:12.toing and froing among MPs on amendments. You heard Diane Abbott's
:08:13. > :08:16.slightly car crash interview there. The Lib Dems may throw something in,
:08:17. > :08:23.but we will trigger Article 50 by the end of March. If it also says
:08:24. > :08:28.that the roll of Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast should be picked up,
:08:29. > :08:33.that could complicate matters. Absolutely. That could delay the
:08:34. > :08:37.planned triggering of Article 50 before the end of March. Not what
:08:38. > :08:42.they say about the Westminster Parliament, because it is clear that
:08:43. > :08:47.it was. I never understood the furore about that original judgment,
:08:48. > :08:52.because every MP made it clear they wouldn't block it. Even though Diane
:08:53. > :08:57.Abbott was evasive on several fronts, she said they wouldn't block
:08:58. > :09:01.it. You are right, if they give a vote, or give some authorisation for
:09:02. > :09:06.the Scottish Parliament and other devolved assemblies, that might
:09:07. > :09:12.delay the whole sequence. That is the only significant thing to watch
:09:13. > :09:17.out for. Watch out on Tuesday. Mrs May goes to Washington. It will be
:09:18. > :09:22.another movie in the making! I would suggest that she has a tricky line
:09:23. > :09:27.to follow. She has got to be seen to be taking advantage of the fact that
:09:28. > :09:32.there is a very pro-British, pro-Brexit president in the Oval
:09:33. > :09:36.Office, who I am told is prepared to expend political capital on this.
:09:37. > :09:49.But on the other hand, to make sure that she is not what we used to call
:09:50. > :09:52.Mr Blair, George Bush's poodle. It is very difficult, and who would not
:09:53. > :09:56.want to be a fly on the wall in that meeting! I can't think of anyone in
:09:57. > :10:01.the world who would despise Mr Trump more than Mrs May, and for him, he
:10:02. > :10:12.dislikes any woman who does not look like a supermodel, no disrespected
:10:13. > :10:15.Mrs May. Most of it is actually anti-EU, and I think we should
:10:16. > :10:20.capitalise it. Let's get the Queen to earn her money, roll out the red
:10:21. > :10:28.carpet, invite him to dinner, spend the night, what ever we need...
:10:29. > :10:32.Trump at Balmoral! Here is the issue, because the agenda is, as we
:10:33. > :10:38.heard from Ted Malloch earlier, that this is not an administration that
:10:39. > :10:41.has much time for the EU, EU integration or Germany. I think
:10:42. > :10:46.Germany will be the second biggest loser to begin with. They will not
:10:47. > :10:54.even give a date for Angela Merkel to meet the president. This is an
:10:55. > :11:03.opportunity for Mrs May... It is a huge. It could sideline talks of the
:11:04. > :11:09.punishment beating from Germany. The Trump presidency has completely
:11:10. > :11:13.changed the field on Brexit. Along came Donald Trump, and Theresa May
:11:14. > :11:19.has this incredible opportunity here. Not of her making, but she has
:11:20. > :11:24.played her cards well. To an officially be the EU emissary to
:11:25. > :11:29.Washington, to get some sort of broker going. That gives us huge
:11:30. > :11:33.extra leveraged in the Brexit negotiations. People around the
:11:34. > :11:38.world think Germany as a currency manipulator, that it is benefiting
:11:39. > :11:42.from an underpriced euro, hence the huge surplus it runs of America, and
:11:43. > :11:48.they think it is disgraceful that a country that runs a massive budget
:11:49. > :11:53.surplus spends only 1.2% of its GDP on defence, and America runs a
:11:54. > :11:59.massive deficit and needs to spend a lot more. He's going for Germany.
:12:00. > :12:04.And what a massive shift. I think Obama was quite open, in a farewell
:12:05. > :12:09.interview, that he felt closer to Merkel than any other European
:12:10. > :12:16.leader. And Jamie kind of reflected that in our discussion. Yes, that's
:12:17. > :12:21.very interesting discussion. I think she was the last person he spoke to
:12:22. > :12:27.in the White House, Obama. And now you are getting the onslaught from
:12:28. > :12:32.Trump. This Thatcher- Reagan imagery is dangerous, though. Blair was
:12:33. > :12:36.hypnotised by it and was too scared to criticise Bush, because he wanted
:12:37. > :12:42.to be seen in that light, and we know where that led. Cameron
:12:43. > :12:45.similarly with Obama, which presented him with problems, as
:12:46. > :12:52.Obama didn't regard him as his number one pin up in Europe. I would
:12:53. > :12:57.put a note of caution in there about the Thatcher - Reagan parallel.
:12:58. > :13:02.Everything Trump is doing now is different from before, so Mrs May
:13:03. > :13:08.should not have any of these previous relationships in her mind.
:13:09. > :13:15.That is not entirely true. Donald Trump aches to be the new Ronald
:13:16. > :13:19.Reagan. He may be impeached first! He sees her as the new Margaret
:13:20. > :13:27.Thatcher, and that may her leveraged with him. Thank you.
:13:28. > :13:32.We'll be back here at the same time next week, and you can catch up
:13:33. > :13:34.on all the latest political news on the Daily Politics,
:13:35. > :13:38.In the meantime, remember - if it's Sunday,
:13:39. > :14:16.It's just pain, but it doesn't feel like pain,
:14:17. > :14:39.it feels much more violent, dark and exciting.
:14:40. > :14:45.Join Michael Buerk as he explores the dishes fit for kings and queens.
:14:46. > :14:50.When it comes to extravagance, few monarchs can compete with George IV.