0:00:39 > 0:00:41Morning, everyone.
0:00:41 > 0:00:43I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome to The Sunday Politics,
0:00:43 > 0:00:45where we always bring you everything you need to know to understand
0:00:45 > 0:00:47what's going on in politics.
0:00:47 > 0:00:51Coming up on today's programme...
0:00:51 > 0:00:53The Government says
0:00:53 > 0:00:55the international trade minister Mark Garnier will be investigated
0:00:55 > 0:00:58following newspaper allegations of inappropriate behaviour
0:00:58 > 0:01:00towards a female staff member.
0:01:00 > 0:01:05We'll have the latest.
0:01:05 > 0:01:09The Prime Minister says she can agree a deal with the EU and plenty
0:01:09 > 0:01:15of time for Parliament to vote on it before we leave in 2018. Well
0:01:15 > 0:01:20Parliament play ball? New evidence cast out on the economic and
0:01:20 > 0:01:23environmental case for Heathrow expansion. I do political tectonics
0:01:23 > 0:01:29shifting away from the government's preferred option?In London 50 years
0:01:29 > 0:01:33on from the abortion act white MPs are lobbying the Home Secretary to
0:01:33 > 0:01:39stop the alleged harassment of women attending abortion clinics.
0:01:39 > 0:01:42All that coming up in the programme.
0:01:42 > 0:01:45And with me today to help make sense of all the big stories,
0:01:45 > 0:01:49Julia Hartley-Brewer, Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.
0:01:49 > 0:01:51Some breaking news this morning.
0:01:51 > 0:01:53The Government has announced that it will investigate
0:01:53 > 0:01:55whether the International Trade Minister Mark Garnier broke
0:01:55 > 0:01:57the Ministerial Code following allegations
0:01:57 > 0:02:02of inappropriate behaviour.
0:02:02 > 0:02:06It comes after reports in the Mail on Sunday which has spoken to one
0:02:06 > 0:02:07of Mr Garnier's former employees.
0:02:07 > 0:02:09News of the investigation was announced by the Health
0:02:09 > 0:02:11Secretary Jeremy Hunt on the Andrew Marr show earlier.
0:02:11 > 0:02:15The stories, if they are true, are totally unacceptable
0:02:15 > 0:02:17and the Cabinet Office will be conducting an investigation
0:02:17 > 0:02:20as to whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code
0:02:20 > 0:02:21in this particular case.
0:02:21 > 0:02:23But as you know the facts are disputed.
0:02:23 > 0:02:26This is something that covers behaviour by MPs of all parties
0:02:26 > 0:02:29and that is why the other thing that is going to happen
0:02:29 > 0:02:32is that today Theresa May is going to write to John Bercow,
0:02:32 > 0:02:36the Speaker of the House of Commons, to ask for his advice as to how
0:02:36 > 0:02:41we change that culture.
0:02:41 > 0:02:45That was Jeremy Hunt a little earlier. I want to turn to the panel
0:02:45 > 0:02:50to make sense of this news. This is the government taking these
0:02:50 > 0:02:54allegations quite seriously.What has changed in this story is they
0:02:54 > 0:02:58used to be a bit of delay while people work out what they should say
0:02:58 > 0:03:04about it, how seriously to take it. As you see now a senior cabinet
0:03:04 > 0:03:08member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with an instant response. He does have
0:03:08 > 0:03:11the worry of whether the facts are disputed, but what they want to be
0:03:11 > 0:03:16seen doing is to do something very quickly. In the past they would say
0:03:16 > 0:03:21it was all part of the rough and tumble of Westminster.Mark Garnier
0:03:21 > 0:03:25does not deny these stories, which is that he asked an employee to buy
0:03:25 > 0:03:30sex toys, but he said it was just high jinks and it was taken out of
0:03:30 > 0:03:34context. Is this the sort of thing that a few years ago in a different
0:03:34 > 0:03:39environment would be investigated? Not necessarily quite the frenzy
0:03:39 > 0:03:47that it is nowadays. The combination of social media, all the Sunday
0:03:47 > 0:03:50political programmes were ministers have to go on armed with a response
0:03:50 > 0:03:57means that you get these we have to be seen to be doing something. That
0:03:57 > 0:04:02means there is this Cabinet Office investigation. You pointed out to us
0:04:02 > 0:04:05before the programme that he was not a minister before this happened. It
0:04:05 > 0:04:10does not matter whether he says yes, know I did this or did not,
0:04:10 > 0:04:14something has to be seen to be done. Clearly ministers today are being
0:04:14 > 0:04:18armed with that bit of information and that Theresa May will ask John
0:04:18 > 0:04:22Bercow the speaker to look into the whole culture of Parliament in this
0:04:22 > 0:04:28context. That is the response to this kind of frenzy.If we do live
0:04:28 > 0:04:31in an environment where something has to be seen to be done, does that
0:04:31 > 0:04:37always mean the right thing gets done?Absolutely not. We are in
0:04:37 > 0:04:41witch hunt territory. All of us work in the Commons over many years and
0:04:41 > 0:04:46anyone would think it was a scene out of Benny Hill or a carry on
0:04:46 > 0:04:52film. Sadly it is not that much fun and it is rather dull and dreary.
0:04:52 > 0:04:56Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there is sexual harassment, but the idea
0:04:56 > 0:05:00this is going on on a huge scale is nonsense.Doesn't matter whether it
0:05:00 > 0:05:08is a huge scale or not? Or just a few instances?Any workplace where
0:05:08 > 0:05:12you have the mixing of work and social so intertwined and you throw
0:05:12 > 0:05:16a huge amount of alcohol and late night and people living away from
0:05:16 > 0:05:22home you will have this happen.That does not make it OK.It makes sexual
0:05:22 > 0:05:27harassment not OK as it is not anywhere. This happens to men as
0:05:27 > 0:05:31well and if they have an issue into it there are employment tribunal 's
0:05:31 > 0:05:36and they can contact lawyers. I do not think this should be a matter of
0:05:36 > 0:05:41the speaker, it should be someone completely independent of any party.
0:05:41 > 0:05:46People think MPs are employees of the party or the Commons, they are
0:05:46 > 0:05:50not.Because they are self-employed to whom do you go if you are a
0:05:50 > 0:05:56researcher?That has to be clarified. I agree you need a much
0:05:56 > 0:06:02clearer line of reporting. It was a bit like the situation when we came
0:06:02 > 0:06:07into the media many years ago, the Punic wars in my case! You were not
0:06:07 > 0:06:14quite sure who to go to. If you work worried that it might impede your
0:06:14 > 0:06:19career, and you had to talk to people who work next to you, that is
0:06:19 > 0:06:23just one example, but in the Commons people do not know who they should
0:06:23 > 0:06:28go to. Where Theresa May might be making a mistake, it is the same
0:06:28 > 0:06:31mistake when it was decided to investigate through Levinson the
0:06:31 > 0:06:38culture of the media which was like nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the
0:06:38 > 0:06:41culture of anybody's job and the environment they are in and there is
0:06:41 > 0:06:46usually a lot wrong with it. When you try and make it general, they
0:06:46 > 0:06:51are not trying to blame individuals, or it say they need a better line on
0:06:51 > 0:06:55reporting of sexual harassment, which I support, the Commons is a
0:06:55 > 0:06:59funny place and it is a rough old trade and you are never going to
0:06:59 > 0:07:04iron out the human foibles of that. Diane Abbott was talking about this
0:07:04 > 0:07:08earlier.
0:07:08 > 0:07:12When I first went into Parliament so many of those men had been to all
0:07:12 > 0:07:19boys boarding schools and had really difficult attitudes towards women.
0:07:19 > 0:07:22The world has moved on and middle-aged women are less likely
0:07:22 > 0:07:32than middle-aged men to believe that young research are irresistibly
0:07:32 > 0:07:37attracted to them. We have seen the issues and we have seen one of our
0:07:37 > 0:07:43colleagues been suspended for quite unacceptable language.
0:07:43 > 0:07:47That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a Labour MP who has had the whip
0:07:47 > 0:07:52suspended, this goes across all parties.The idea that there is a
0:07:52 > 0:07:58left or right divide over this is absurd. This is a cultural issue. In
0:07:58 > 0:08:03the media and in a lot of other institutions if this is going to
0:08:03 > 0:08:07develop politically, the frenzy will carry on for a bit and other names
0:08:07 > 0:08:11will come out over the next few days, not just the two we have
0:08:11 > 0:08:18mentioned so far in politics. But it also raises questions about how
0:08:18 > 0:08:23candidates are selected for example. There has been a huge pressure for
0:08:23 > 0:08:28the centre to keep out of things. I bet from now on there will be much
0:08:28 > 0:08:32greater scrutiny of all candidates and tweets will have to be looked at
0:08:32 > 0:08:39and all the rest of it.Selecting candidates is interesting. Miriam
0:08:39 > 0:08:43Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says that during that election they knew
0:08:43 > 0:08:47about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems knew about it, so it is difficult to
0:08:47 > 0:08:53suggest the Labour Party did not as well.There is very clear evidence
0:08:53 > 0:08:58the Labour Party did know. But we are in a situation of how perfect
0:08:58 > 0:09:05and well-behaved does everyone have to be? If you look at past American
0:09:05 > 0:09:09presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton, these men were sex pest
0:09:09 > 0:09:12extraordinaire, with totally inappropriate behaviour on a regular
0:09:12 > 0:09:16basis. There are things you are not allowed to say if you are feminists.
0:09:16 > 0:09:21Young women are really attracted to powerful men. I was busted for the
0:09:21 > 0:09:26idea that there are young women in the House of commons who are
0:09:26 > 0:09:32throwing themselves at middle-aged, potbellied, balding, older men. We
0:09:32 > 0:09:38need to focus on the right things. When it is unwanted, harassing,
0:09:38 > 0:09:42inappropriate and criminal, absolutely, you come down like a
0:09:42 > 0:09:45tonne of bricks. It is not just because there are more women in the
0:09:45 > 0:09:50Commons, it is because there are more men married to women like us.
0:09:50 > 0:09:53We have to leave it there.
0:09:53 > 0:09:55As attention turns in Westminster to the hundreds
0:09:55 > 0:09:58of amendments put down on the EU Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has
0:09:58 > 0:10:01caused a stir this week by saying it's possible Parliament won't get
0:10:01 > 0:10:04a vote on the Brexit deal until after March 2019 -
0:10:04 > 0:10:06when the clock runs out and we leave the EU.
0:10:06 > 0:10:08Let's take a look at how the controversy played out.
0:10:08 > 0:10:12And which point do you envisage Parliament having a vote?
0:10:12 > 0:10:14As soon as possible thereafter.
0:10:14 > 0:10:17This Parliament?
0:10:17 > 0:10:19As soon as possible possible thereafter, yeah.
0:10:19 > 0:10:20As soon as possible thereafter.
0:10:20 > 0:10:21So, the vote in Parliament...
0:10:21 > 0:10:23The other thing...
0:10:23 > 0:10:24Could be after March 2019?
0:10:24 > 0:10:26It could be, yeah, it could be.
0:10:26 > 0:10:27The...
0:10:27 > 0:10:29It depends when it concludes.
0:10:29 > 0:10:31Mr Barnier, remember, has said he'd like...
0:10:31 > 0:10:34Sorry, the vote of our Parliament, the UK Parliament, could be
0:10:34 > 0:10:35after March 2019?
0:10:35 > 0:10:37Yes, it could be.
0:10:37 > 0:10:39Could be.
0:10:39 > 0:10:40The thing to member...
0:10:40 > 0:10:42Which would be...
0:10:42 > 0:10:44Well, it can't come before we have the deal.
0:10:44 > 0:10:46You said that it is POSSIBLE that Parliament night not vote
0:10:46 > 0:10:50on the deal until AFTER the end of March 2019.
0:10:50 > 0:10:51I'm summarising correctly what you said...?
0:10:51 > 0:10:53Yeah, that's correct.
0:10:53 > 0:10:56In the event we don't do the deal until then, yeah.
0:10:56 > 0:10:58Can the Prime Minister please explain how it's possible
0:10:58 > 0:11:00to have a meaningful vote on something that's
0:11:00 > 0:11:05already taken place?
0:11:05 > 0:11:08As the honourable gentleman knows, we're in negotiations
0:11:08 > 0:11:11with the European Union, but I am confident that the timetable under
0:11:11 > 0:11:15the Lisbon Treaty does give time until March 2019
0:11:15 > 0:11:17for the negotiations to take place.
0:11:17 > 0:11:20But I'm confident, because it is in the interests of both sides,
0:11:20 > 0:11:23it's not just this Parliament that wants to have a vote on that deal,
0:11:23 > 0:11:25but actually there will be ratification by other parliaments,
0:11:25 > 0:11:30that we will be able to achieve that agreement and that negotiation
0:11:30 > 0:11:33in time for this Parliament to have a vote that we committed to.
0:11:33 > 0:11:36We are working to reach an agreement on the final deal
0:11:36 > 0:11:39in good time before we leave the European Union in March 2019.
0:11:39 > 0:11:41Clearly, we cannot say for certain at this stage
0:11:41 > 0:11:43when this will be agreed.
0:11:43 > 0:11:46But as Michel Barnier said, he hopes to get a draft deal
0:11:46 > 0:11:51agreed by October 2018, and that's our aim is well.
0:11:51 > 0:11:55agreed by October 2018, and that's our aim as well.
0:11:55 > 0:11:57I'm joined now by the former Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary
0:11:57 > 0:11:59Benn, who is the chair of the Commons Brexit Committee,
0:11:59 > 0:12:03which David Davis was giving evidence to.
0:12:03 > 0:12:08Good morning.When you think a parliamentary vote should take place
0:12:08 > 0:12:14in order for it to be meaningful?It has to be before we leave the
0:12:14 > 0:12:17European Union. Michel Barnier said at the start of the negotiations
0:12:17 > 0:12:21that he wants to wrap them up by October of next year, so we have
0:12:21 > 0:12:25only got 12 months left, the clock is ticking and there is a huge
0:12:25 > 0:12:29amount of ground to cover.You do not think there is any point in
0:12:29 > 0:12:40having the vote the week before we leave because you could then not go
0:12:40 > 0:12:42and re-negotiate?That would not be acceptable. We will not be given a
0:12:42 > 0:12:45bit of paper and told to take it or leave it. But the following day
0:12:45 > 0:12:49Steve Baker, also a minister in the department, told our committee that
0:12:49 > 0:12:53the government now accepts that in order to implement transitional
0:12:53 > 0:12:57arrangements that it is seeking, it will need separate legislation. I
0:12:57 > 0:13:01put the question to him if you are going to need separate legislation
0:13:01 > 0:13:05to do that, why don't you have a separate bill to implement the
0:13:05 > 0:13:08withdrawal agreement rather than seeking to use the powers the
0:13:08 > 0:13:13government is proposing to take in the EU withdrawal bill.If we stick
0:13:13 > 0:13:16to the timing, you have said you do not think it is possible to
0:13:16 > 0:13:21negotiate a trade deal in the next 12 months. You say the only people
0:13:21 > 0:13:25who think that is possible British ministers. If you do not believe we
0:13:25 > 0:13:31can get a deal negotiated, how can we get a vote on it in 12 months'
0:13:31 > 0:13:35time?If things go well, and there is still a risk of no agreement
0:13:35 > 0:13:49which would be disastrous for the economy and the country, if
0:13:54 > 0:13:57things go there will be a deal on the divorce issues, there will be a
0:13:57 > 0:13:59deal on the nature of the transitional arrangement and the
0:13:59 > 0:14:02government is to set out how it thinks that will work, and then an
0:14:02 > 0:14:04agreement between the UK and the 27 member states saying, we will now
0:14:04 > 0:14:06negotiate a new trade and market access arrangement, and new
0:14:06 > 0:14:08association agreement between the two parties, and that will be done
0:14:08 > 0:14:10in the transition period. Parliament will be voting in those
0:14:10 > 0:14:16circumstances on a deal which leads to the door being open.But we would
0:14:16 > 0:14:20be outside the EU at that point, so how meaningful can vote be where you
0:14:20 > 0:14:26take it or leave it if we have already left the EU? Surely this has
0:14:26 > 0:14:32to happen before March 2019 for it to make a difference?I do not think
0:14:32 > 0:14:36it is possible to negotiate all of the issues that will need to be
0:14:36 > 0:14:41covered in the time available.Then it is not possible to have a
0:14:41 > 0:14:52meaningful vote on it?Parliament will have to have a look at the deal
0:14:52 > 0:14:55presented to it. It is likely to be a mix agreement so the approval
0:14:55 > 0:14:57process in the rest of Europe, unlike the Article 50 agreement,
0:14:57 > 0:15:00which will be a majority vote in the European Parliament and in the
0:15:00 > 0:15:03British Parliament, every single Parliament will have a vote on it,
0:15:03 > 0:15:08so it will be a more complex process anyway, but I do not think that is
0:15:08 > 0:15:14the time to get all of that sorted between now and October next year.
0:15:14 > 0:15:18Whether it is before or after we have left the EU, the government
0:15:18 > 0:15:22have said it is a take it or leave it option and it is the Noel Edmonds
0:15:22 > 0:15:30option, deal or no Deal, you say yes or no to it. You cannot send them
0:15:30 > 0:15:34back to re-negotiate.
0:15:34 > 0:15:39If it is a separate piece of legislation, when Parliament has a
0:15:39 > 0:15:44chance to shape the nature of that legislation.But it can't change
0:15:44 > 0:15:48what has been negotiated with the EU?Well, you could say to the
0:15:48 > 0:15:53government, we're happy with this but was not happy about that chukka
0:15:53 > 0:15:59here's some fresh instructions, go back in and...It seems to me what
0:15:59 > 0:16:03they want is the maximum access to the single market for the lowest
0:16:03 > 0:16:07possible tariffs, whilst able to control migration. If they've got to
0:16:07 > 0:16:11get the best deal that they can on that, how on earth is the Labour
0:16:11 > 0:16:16Party, saying we want a bit more, owing to persuade the other 27?We
0:16:16 > 0:16:20certainly don't want the lowest possible tariffs, we want no tariffs
0:16:20 > 0:16:24are taught. My personal view is that, has made a profound mistake in
0:16:24 > 0:16:29deciding that it wants to leave the customs union. If you want to help
0:16:29 > 0:16:33deal with the very serious question of the border between Northern
0:16:33 > 0:16:38Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the way you do that is to stay in
0:16:38 > 0:16:43the customs union and I hope, will change its mind.But the Labour
0:16:43 > 0:16:46Party is simply saying in the House of Commons, we want a better deal
0:16:46 > 0:16:54than what, has been able to get?It depends how the negotiations unfold.
0:16:54 > 0:16:58, has ended up on the transitional arrangements in the place that Keir
0:16:58 > 0:17:04Starmer set out on behalf of the shadow cabinet in August, when he
0:17:04 > 0:17:08said, we will need to stay in the single market and the customs union
0:17:08 > 0:17:11for the duration of the transition, and I think that is the position,
0:17:11 > 0:17:16has now reached. It has not been helped by differences of view within
0:17:16 > 0:17:20the Cabinet, and a lot of time has passed and there's proved time left
0:17:20 > 0:17:25and we have not even got on to the negotiations. -- there's very little
0:17:25 > 0:17:31time left.On phase two, the labour Party have set out six clear tests,
0:17:31 > 0:17:36and two of them are crucial. You say you want the exact same benefits we
0:17:36 > 0:17:40currently have in the customs union but you also want to be able to
0:17:40 > 0:17:43ensure the fair migration to control immigration, basically, which does
0:17:43 > 0:17:47sound a bit like having your cake and eating it. You say that you will
0:17:47 > 0:17:51vote against any deal that doesn't give you all of that, the exact same
0:17:51 > 0:17:55benefits of the single market, and allowing you to control migration.
0:17:55 > 0:17:58But you say no deal would be catastrophic if so it seems to me
0:17:58 > 0:18:02you're unlikely to get the deal that you could vote for but you don't
0:18:02 > 0:18:07want to vote for no deal?We absolutely don't want a no deal.
0:18:07 > 0:18:12Businesses have sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying that a
0:18:12 > 0:18:15transition is essential because the possibility of a no deal and no
0:18:15 > 0:18:18transitional would be very damaging for the economy. We fought the
0:18:18 > 0:18:21general election on a policy of seeking to retain the benefits of
0:18:21 > 0:18:26the single market and the customs union. Keir Starmer said on behalf
0:18:26 > 0:18:30of the shadow government that as far as the longer term arrangements are
0:18:30 > 0:18:33concerned, that should leave all options on the table, because it is
0:18:33 > 0:18:37the end that you're trying to achieve and you then find the means
0:18:37 > 0:18:42to support it. So we're setting out very clearly those tests.If you
0:18:42 > 0:18:46were to vote down an agreement because it did not meet your tests,
0:18:46 > 0:18:51and there was time to send, back to the EU to get a better deal, then
0:18:51 > 0:18:53you would have significantly weakened their negotiating hand
0:18:53 > 0:18:58chukka that doesn't help them?I don't think, has deployed its
0:18:58 > 0:19:02negotiating hand very strongly thus far. Because we had a general
0:19:02 > 0:19:05election which meant that we lost time that we would have used for
0:19:05 > 0:19:10negotiating. We still don't know what kind of long-term trade and
0:19:10 > 0:19:16market access deal, wants. The Prime Minister says, I don't want a deal
0:19:16 > 0:19:20like Canada and I don't want a deal like the European Economic Area. But
0:19:20 > 0:19:25we still don't know what kind of deal they want. With about 12 months
0:19:25 > 0:19:29to go, the other thing, needs to do is to set out very clearly above all
0:19:29 > 0:19:33for the benefit of the other 27 European countries, what kind of
0:19:33 > 0:19:37deal it wants. When I travel to Europe and talk to those involved in
0:19:37 > 0:19:42the negotiations, you see other leaders saying, we don't actually
0:19:42 > 0:19:46know what Britain wants. With a year to go it is about time we made that
0:19:46 > 0:19:52clear.One related question on the European Union - you spoke in your
0:19:52 > 0:19:55famous speech in Syria about the international brigades in Spain, and
0:19:55 > 0:20:00I wonder if your solidarity with them leads you to think that the UK
0:20:00 > 0:20:03Government should be recognising Catalonia is an independent state?
0:20:03 > 0:20:07No, I don't think so. It is a very difficult and potentially dangerous
0:20:07 > 0:20:13situation in Catalonia at the moment. Direct rule from Madrid is
0:20:13 > 0:20:18not a long-term solution. There needs to be a negotiation, and
0:20:18 > 0:20:22elections will give Catalonia the chance to take that decision, but I
0:20:22 > 0:20:28am not clear what the declaration of independence actually means. Are
0:20:28 > 0:20:32they going to be borders, is they're going to be an army? There will have
0:20:32 > 0:20:36to be some agreement. Catalonia has already had a high degree of
0:20:36 > 0:20:40autonomy. It may like some more, and it seems to me if you look at the
0:20:40 > 0:20:45experience here in the United Kingdom, that is the way to go, not
0:20:45 > 0:20:48a constitutional stand-off. And I really hope nobody is charged with
0:20:48 > 0:20:53rebellion, because actually that would make matters worse.
0:20:53 > 0:20:57Now, the Government has this week reopened the public
0:20:57 > 0:21:00consultation on plans for a third runway at Heathrow.
0:21:00 > 0:21:01While ministers are clear the £18 billion project
0:21:01 > 0:21:04is still the preferred option, new data raises further questions
0:21:04 > 0:21:05about the environmental impact of expansion,
0:21:05 > 0:21:07and offers an improved economic case for a second
0:21:07 > 0:21:08runway at Gatwick instead.
0:21:08 > 0:21:11So, with opponents on all sides of the Commons, does the Government
0:21:11 > 0:21:14still have the votes to get the plans off the ground?
0:21:14 > 0:21:23Here's Elizabeth Glinka.
0:21:27 > 0:21:29The debate over the expansion of Heathrow has been
0:21:29 > 0:21:31going on for decades.
0:21:31 > 0:21:33Plans for a third runway were first introduced
0:21:33 > 0:21:35by the Labour government in 2003.
0:21:35 > 0:21:38Then, after spending millions of pounds, finally, in 2015,
0:21:38 > 0:21:44the airport commission recommended that those plans go ahead,
0:21:44 > 0:21:47and the government position appeared to be fixed.
0:21:47 > 0:21:50But, of course, since then, we've had a general election.
0:21:50 > 0:21:54The Government have lost their Commons majority.
0:21:54 > 0:21:57And with opposition on both front benches, the Parliamentary
0:21:57 > 0:22:01arithmetic looks a little bit up in the air.
0:22:01 > 0:22:04A lot has changed since the airport commission produced its report,
0:22:04 > 0:22:07and that don't forget was the bedrock for the Government's
0:22:07 > 0:22:09decision, that's why the government supposedly made the decision
0:22:09 > 0:22:10that it made.
0:22:10 > 0:22:13But most of the assumptions made in that report have
0:22:13 > 0:22:15been undermined since, by data on passenger numbers,
0:22:15 > 0:22:18on economic benefits, and more than anything, on pollution.
0:22:18 > 0:22:21There's demand from international carriers to get into Heathrow.
0:22:21 > 0:22:24More and more people want to fly.
0:22:24 > 0:22:27And after the referendum, connectivity post-Brexit
0:22:27 > 0:22:30is going to be absolutely critical to the UK economy, so if anything,
0:22:30 > 0:22:36I think the case is stronger for expansion at Heathrow.
0:22:36 > 0:22:39A vote on expansion had been due to take place this summer.
0:22:39 > 0:22:41But with Westminster somewhat distracted, that didn't happen.
0:22:41 > 0:22:44Now, fresh data means the Government has had to reopen
0:22:44 > 0:22:50the public consultation.
0:22:50 > 0:22:53But it maintains the case for Heathrow is as strong as ever,
0:22:53 > 0:22:58delivering benefits of up to £74 billion to the wider economy.
0:22:58 > 0:23:01And in any case, the Government says, action must be taken,
0:23:01 > 0:23:05as all five of London's airports will be completely
0:23:05 > 0:23:10full by the mid-2030s.
0:23:10 > 0:23:12Still, the new research does cast an alternative expansion at Gatwick
0:23:12 > 0:23:16in a more favourable economic light, while showing Heathrow
0:23:16 > 0:23:24is now less likely to meet its environmental targets.
0:23:24 > 0:23:28Campaigners like these in Hounslow sense the wind is shifting.
0:23:28 > 0:23:31We're feeling encouraged, because we see all kinds
0:23:31 > 0:23:33of weaknesses in the argument.
0:23:33 > 0:23:36Certainly, quite a few MPs, I think certainly Labour MPs,
0:23:36 > 0:23:39are beginning to think perhaps it's not such a great idea
0:23:39 > 0:23:41to have a third runway.
0:23:41 > 0:23:43Their MP is convinced colleagues can now be persuaded
0:23:43 > 0:23:46to see things their way.
0:23:46 > 0:23:48The Labour Party quite rightly set four key tests
0:23:48 > 0:23:51for a third runway at Heathrow.
0:23:51 > 0:23:54And in my view, Heathrow is not able...
0:23:54 > 0:23:58The Heathrow option is not able to pass any of those.
0:23:58 > 0:24:01So, I see a lot of colleagues in the Labour Party around
0:24:01 > 0:24:03the country beginning to think twice.
0:24:03 > 0:24:09And if you look at the cross-party MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow
0:24:09 > 0:24:12And if you look at the cross-party MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow
0:24:12 > 0:24:14protest this week, you will see some familiar faces.
0:24:14 > 0:24:16You know my position - as the constituency MP,
0:24:16 > 0:24:18I'm totally opposed.
0:24:18 > 0:24:21I think this is another indication of just the difficulties
0:24:21 > 0:24:23the Government have got off of implementing this policy.
0:24:23 > 0:24:25I don't think it's going to happen, I just don't think
0:24:25 > 0:24:26it's going to happen.
0:24:26 > 0:24:29So, if some on the Labour front bench are, shall
0:24:29 > 0:24:32we say, not supportive, what about the other side?
0:24:32 > 0:24:35In a free vote, we could have had up to 60 Conservative MPs
0:24:35 > 0:24:37voting against expansion, that's the number that is normally
0:24:37 > 0:24:38used and I think it's right.
0:24:38 > 0:24:40In the circumstances where it requires an active rebellion,
0:24:40 > 0:24:42the numbers would be fewer.
0:24:42 > 0:24:45I can't tell you what that number is, but I can tell
0:24:45 > 0:24:47you that there are people right the way through the party,
0:24:47 > 0:24:50from the backbenches to the heart of the government,
0:24:50 > 0:24:51who will vote against Heathrow expansion.
0:24:51 > 0:24:55And yet the SNP, whose Commons votes could prove vital,
0:24:55 > 0:24:56are behind the Heathrow plan, which promises more
0:24:56 > 0:24:58connecting flights.
0:24:58 > 0:25:02And other supporters are convinced they have the numbers.
0:25:02 > 0:25:05There is a majority of members of Parliament that support Heathrow
0:25:05 > 0:25:08expansion, and when that is put to the test, whenever that will be,
0:25:08 > 0:25:10I think that will be clearly demonstrated.
0:25:10 > 0:25:12Any vote on this issue won't come until next summer.
0:25:12 > 0:25:15For both sides, yet more time to argue about weather
0:25:15 > 0:25:22the plans should take off or be permanently grounded.
0:25:26 > 0:25:27Elizabeth Glinka there.
0:25:27 > 0:25:30And I'm joined now by the former Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,
0:25:30 > 0:25:32who oversaw aviation policy as a transport minister
0:25:32 > 0:25:38under David Cameron.
0:25:38 > 0:25:43Thanks for coming in. You have made your opposition to a third runway at
0:25:43 > 0:25:47Heathrow consistently clear. , have reopened this consultation but it is
0:25:47 > 0:25:51still clearly their preferred option?It is but what I have always
0:25:51 > 0:25:54asked is, why try to build a new runway at Heathrow when you can
0:25:54 > 0:25:58build one at Gatwick in half the time, for half the cost and with a
0:25:58 > 0:26:02tiny fraction of the environment will cost average is that true,
0:26:02 > 0:26:06though? Private finance is already to go at Heathrow, because that's
0:26:06 > 0:26:09where people want to do it and that's where the private backers
0:26:09 > 0:26:12want to put it. It would take much longer to get the private finance
0:26:12 > 0:26:17for Gatwick? Part of that private finance is passengers of the future,
0:26:17 > 0:26:22but also, the costs of the surface transport needed to expand Heathrow
0:26:22 > 0:26:31is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates vary between £10 billion and £15
0:26:31 > 0:26:34billion. And there's no suggestion that those private backers are going
0:26:34 > 0:26:39to meet those costs. So, this is a hugely expensive project as well as
0:26:39 > 0:26:43one which will create very significant damage.Heathrow is
0:26:43 > 0:26:46ultimately where passengers and airlines want to go to, isn't it?
0:26:46 > 0:26:50Every slot is practically full. Every time a new one comes up, it is
0:26:50 > 0:26:56up immediately, it's a very popular airport. Gatwick is not where they
0:26:56 > 0:26:59want to go?There are many airlines and passengers who do want to fly
0:26:59 > 0:27:03from Gatwick, and all the forecasts indicate that a new runway there
0:27:03 > 0:27:08would be full of planes very rapidly. But I think the key thing
0:27:08 > 0:27:13is that successive elements have said, technology will deliver a way
0:27:13 > 0:27:19to resolve the around noise and air quality. I don't have any confidence
0:27:19 > 0:27:23that science has demonstrated that technology will deliver those
0:27:23 > 0:27:27solutions to these very serious environmental limbs which have
0:27:27 > 0:27:29stopped Heathrow expansion for decades.Jim Fitzpatrick in the film
0:27:29 > 0:27:35was mentioning that people think there is a need for even more
0:27:35 > 0:27:38collectivity in Britain post-Brexit. We know that business has been
0:27:38 > 0:27:41crying out for more routes, they really think it hurts business
0:27:41 > 0:27:45expansion that we don't get on with this. More consultation is just
0:27:45 > 0:27:49going to lead to more delay, isn't it?This is a hugely controversial
0:27:49 > 0:27:52decision. There is a reason why people have been talking about
0:27:52 > 0:27:56expanding Heathrow for 50 years and it is never happened, it's because
0:27:56 > 0:28:01it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the legal processes are very complex.
0:28:01 > 0:28:05One of my anxieties about, pursuing this option is that potentially it
0:28:05 > 0:28:09means another lost decade for airport expansion. Because the
0:28:09 > 0:28:14problems with Heathrow expansion are so serious, I believe that's one of
0:28:14 > 0:28:18the reasons why I advocated, anyone who wants a new runway in the
0:28:18 > 0:28:22south-east should be backing Gatwick is a much more deliverable option.
0:28:22 > 0:28:28Let me move on to Brexit. We were talking with Hilary Benn about a
0:28:28 > 0:28:30meaningful vote being given to the House of Commons chukka how
0:28:30 > 0:28:33important do you think that is?Of course the Commons will vote on
0:28:33 > 0:28:39this. The Commons is going to vote on this many, many times. We have
0:28:39 > 0:28:43also had a hugely important vote not only in the referendum on the 23rd
0:28:43 > 0:28:47of June but also on Article 50.But will that vote allow any changes to
0:28:47 > 0:28:52it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that the Commons would be able to shape
0:28:52 > 0:28:56the deal with the vote. But actually is it going to be, saying, take it
0:28:56 > 0:29:01or leave it at all what we have negotiated?Our Prime Minister
0:29:01 > 0:29:07negotiates on our behalf internationally. It's
0:29:07 > 0:29:09well-established precedent that after an agreement is reached
0:29:09 > 0:29:15overseas, then it is considered in the House of Commons.What if it was
0:29:15 > 0:29:19voted down in the House of Commons? Well, the legal effect of that would
0:29:19 > 0:29:22be that we left the European Union without any kind of deal, because
0:29:22 > 0:29:27the key decision was on the voting of Article 50 as an irreversible
0:29:27 > 0:29:32decision.Is it irreversible, though? We understand, may have had
0:29:32 > 0:29:35legal advice saying that Yukon stopped the clock on Article 50.
0:29:35 > 0:29:39Would it not be possible if the Commons voted against to ask the
0:29:39 > 0:29:42European Union for a little bit more time to try and renegotiate?There
0:29:42 > 0:29:51is a debate about the reversibility of Article 50. But the key point is
0:29:51 > 0:29:57that we are all working for a good deal for the United Kingdom and the
0:29:57 > 0:30:01I'm concerned that some of the amendments to the legislation are
0:30:01 > 0:30:04not about the nature of the deal at the end of the process, they're just
0:30:04 > 0:30:10about frustrating the process. I think that would be wrong. I think
0:30:10 > 0:30:14we should respect the result of the referendum.Will it be by next
0:30:14 > 0:30:16summer, so there is time for Parliament and for other
0:30:16 > 0:30:19parliaments?I certainly hope that we get that agreement between the
0:30:19 > 0:30:25two sides, and the recent European summit seemed to indicate a
0:30:25 > 0:30:28willingness from the European side to be constructive. But one point
0:30:28 > 0:30:33where I think Hilary Benn has a point, if we do secure agreement on
0:30:33 > 0:30:36a transitional deal, that does potentially give us more time to
0:30:36 > 0:30:41work on the details of a trade agreement. I hope we get as much as
0:30:41 > 0:30:45possible in place before exit day. But filling out some of that detail
0:30:45 > 0:30:53is made easier if we can secure that two-year transitional deal.
0:30:53 > 0:30:59That is interesting because a lot of Brexiteers what the deal to be done
0:30:59 > 0:31:07by the inflammation period, it is not a time for that.I fully
0:31:07 > 0:31:12recognise we need compromise, I am keen to work with people across my
0:31:12 > 0:31:16party in terms of spectrum of opinion, and with other parties as
0:31:16 > 0:31:21well to ensure we get the best outcome.Let me ask you briefly
0:31:21 > 0:31:25before you go about the possible culture of sexual harassment in the
0:31:25 > 0:31:30House of commons and Theresa May will write to the Speaker of the
0:31:30 > 0:31:33House of Commons to make sure there is a better way that people can
0:31:33 > 0:31:38report sexual harassment in the House of commons. Is that necessary?
0:31:38 > 0:31:43A better procedure is needed. It is sad it has taken this controversy to
0:31:43 > 0:31:48push this forward. But there is a problem with MPs who are individual
0:31:48 > 0:31:54employers. If you work for an MP and have a complaint against them,
0:31:54 > 0:31:57essentially they are overseeing their own complaints process. I
0:31:57 > 0:32:02think a role for the House of commons authorities in ensuring that
0:32:02 > 0:32:05those complaints are properly dealt with I think would be very helpful,
0:32:05 > 0:32:10so I think the Prime Minister's letter was a sensible move.So you
0:32:10 > 0:32:14think there is a culture of sexual harassment in the House of commons?
0:32:14 > 0:32:20I have not been subjected to it or seen evidence of it, but obviously
0:32:20 > 0:32:24there is anxiety and allegations have made their way into the papers
0:32:24 > 0:32:27and they should be treated appropriately and properly
0:32:27 > 0:32:30investigated.Thank you for talking to us.
0:32:30 > 0:32:32Thank you for talking to us.
0:32:32 > 0:32:34Next week the Lord Speaker's committee publishes its final report
0:32:34 > 0:32:36into reducing the size of the House of Lords.
0:32:36 > 0:32:39With over 800 members the upper house is the second largest
0:32:39 > 0:32:41legislative chamber in the world after the National People's
0:32:41 > 0:32:42Congress of China.
0:32:42 > 0:32:45The report is expected to recommend that new peerages should be
0:32:45 > 0:32:48time-limited to 15 years and that in the future political peerage
0:32:48 > 0:32:52appointments will also be tied to a party's election performance.
0:32:52 > 0:32:55The government has been under pressure to take action to cut
0:32:55 > 0:32:58members of the unelected chamber, where they are entitled
0:32:58 > 0:33:02to claim an attendance allowance of £300 a day.
0:33:02 > 0:33:05And once again these expenses have been in the news.
0:33:05 > 0:33:07The Electoral Reform Society discovered that 16 peers had claimed
0:33:07 > 0:33:10around £400,000 without speaking in any debates or submitting any
0:33:10 > 0:33:14questions for an entire year.
0:33:14 > 0:33:17One of the Lords to be criticised was Digby Jones,
0:33:17 > 0:33:20the crossbencher and former trade minister, he hasn't spoken
0:33:20 > 0:33:23in the Lords since April 2016 and has voted only seven times
0:33:23 > 0:33:26during 2016 and 2017.
0:33:26 > 0:33:30Yet he has claimed around £15,000 in this period.
0:33:30 > 0:33:33When asked what he does in the House he said,
0:33:33 > 0:33:36"I go in and I will invite for lunch or meet with inward
0:33:36 > 0:33:37investors into the country.
0:33:37 > 0:33:40I fly the flag for Britain."
0:33:40 > 0:33:43Well, we can speak now to Lord Jones who joins us
0:33:43 > 0:33:47from Stratford Upon Avon.
0:33:47 > 0:33:51Thank you very much for talking to us. You provide value for money in
0:33:51 > 0:33:58the House of Lords do you think? Definitely. I am, by the way, very
0:33:58 > 0:34:03keen on reform. I want to see that 15 year tide. I would like to see a
0:34:03 > 0:34:09time limit, an age limit of 75 or 80. I would like attendants
0:34:09 > 0:34:13definitely define so the whole public understood what people are
0:34:13 > 0:34:20paying for and why. The £300, as a crossbencher I get no support, and
0:34:20 > 0:34:28nor do I want any, speech writing, secretarial assistance, none of
0:34:28 > 0:34:32that, and the £300 goes towards that.Whilst you are in there
0:34:32 > 0:34:36because we will talk about the reform of the Lords in general, but
0:34:36 > 0:34:40in terms of you yourself, you say you invite people in for lunch, is
0:34:40 > 0:34:44it not possible for you to take part in debates and votes and ask
0:34:44 > 0:34:49questions at the same time?Have you ever listened to a debate in the
0:34:49 > 0:35:01laws? Yes, many times.Yes, many times. You have to put your name
0:35:01 > 0:35:09down in advance and you have to be there for the whole debate.You have
0:35:09 > 0:35:13to be around when the vote is called and you do not know when the book is
0:35:13 > 0:35:17called, you have no idea when the boat is going to be called.This is
0:35:17 > 0:35:23part of being a member of the House of Lords and what it means. If you
0:35:23 > 0:35:27are not prepared to wait or take part in debates, why do you want to
0:35:27 > 0:35:32be a member? It is possible to resign from the House of Lords.
0:35:32 > 0:35:36There are many things members of the Lords do that does not relate to
0:35:36 > 0:35:41parrot fashion following somebody else, which I refuse to do, about
0:35:41 > 0:35:45speaking to an empty chamber, or indeed hanging on sometimes for
0:35:45 > 0:35:50hours to vote. There are many other things that you do. You quote me as
0:35:50 > 0:35:55saying I will entertain at lunchtime or show people around the House,
0:35:55 > 0:35:58everything from schoolchildren to inward investors. I will meet
0:35:58 > 0:36:02ministers about big business issues or educational issues, and at the
0:36:02 > 0:36:07same time I will meet other members of the Lords to get things moving.
0:36:07 > 0:36:11None of that relates to going into the House and getting on your hind
0:36:11 > 0:36:14legs, although I do go in and sit there and learn and listen to
0:36:14 > 0:36:21others, which, if more people would receive and not transmit, we might
0:36:21 > 0:36:24get a better informed society. At the same time many times I will go
0:36:24 > 0:36:29after I have listened and I am leaving and if I have not heard the
0:36:29 > 0:36:36debate, I will not vote.Voting is an essential part of being part of a
0:36:36 > 0:36:41legislative chamber. This is not just an executive committee, it is a
0:36:41 > 0:36:46legislature, surpassing that law is essential, is it not?Do you really
0:36:46 > 0:36:50believe that an MP or a member of the Lords who has not heard a moment
0:36:50 > 0:36:57of the debate, who is then listening to the Bell, walks in and does not
0:36:57 > 0:37:01know which lobby, the whips tell him, they have not heard the debate
0:37:01 > 0:37:05and they do not know what they are voting on and they go and do it?
0:37:05 > 0:37:11That is your democracy? Voting seems to be an essential part of this
0:37:11 > 0:37:16chamber, and you have your ideas about reforming the chamber. It
0:37:16 > 0:37:20sounds as though you would reform yourself out of it. You say people
0:37:20 > 0:37:23who are not voting and who are not taking part in debate should no
0:37:23 > 0:37:30longer be members of the House.I did not say that. I said we ought to
0:37:30 > 0:37:34redefine what attendance means and then if you do not attend on the new
0:37:34 > 0:37:39criteria, you do not have to come ever again, we will give you your
0:37:39 > 0:37:44wish. I agree attendance might mean unless you speak, you are going.
0:37:44 > 0:37:49Fair enough, if that is what is agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak
0:37:49 > 0:37:55and sometimes I would not. If I did not, then off I go. Similarly after
0:37:55 > 0:38:0115 years, off you go. If you reach 75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have
0:38:01 > 0:38:0792 members who are only there because of daddy.You are talking
0:38:07 > 0:38:09about hereditary peers. You would like to reduce the House to what
0:38:09 > 0:38:16kind of number?I would get it down to 400.You would get rid of half
0:38:16 > 0:38:20the peers there at the moment? You think you are active enough to
0:38:20 > 0:38:27remain as one of the 400?No, I said that might well include me. Let's
0:38:27 > 0:38:33get a set of criteria, let's push it through, because the laws is losing
0:38:33 > 0:38:36respect in the whole of the country because there are too many and all
0:38:36 > 0:38:40these things about what people pay for. I bet most people think the
0:38:40 > 0:38:46money you get is paid. It is not, it is re-funding for all the things you
0:38:46 > 0:38:51have to pay for yourself. But I understand how respect has been lost
0:38:51 > 0:38:56in society. Let's change it now. Let's get it through and then, yes,
0:38:56 > 0:39:01if you do not meet the criteria, you have got to go and that includes me.
0:39:01 > 0:39:03Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking to us.
0:39:03 > 0:39:06Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking to us.
0:39:06 > 0:39:08It's coming up to 11.40, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
0:39:08 > 0:39:11Coming up on the programme, we'll be talking to the former
0:39:11 > 0:39:13business minister and Conservative MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit
0:39:13 > 0:39:17negotiations and claims of sexual harassment in Parliament.
0:39:17 > 0:39:26First though, its time for the Sunday Politics where you are.
0:39:29 > 0:39:32Hello and welcome to the London part of the show.
0:39:32 > 0:39:33I'm Anita Anand.
0:39:33 > 0:39:35Joining me for the duration Ellie Reeves, Labour MP
0:39:35 > 0:39:38for Lewisham West and Penge who won her seat earlier this year,
0:39:38 > 0:39:40and Conservative MP Bob Blackman who has been sitting
0:39:40 > 0:39:42in his Harrow East seat for seven years.
0:39:42 > 0:39:44Welcome to you both.
0:39:44 > 0:39:47Friday saw the 50th anniversary of the abortion act and even though
0:39:47 > 0:39:51it has been legal for half a century every day women still run a gauntlet
0:39:51 > 0:39:54trying to have this procedure done.
0:39:54 > 0:39:57In Ealing groups of women have been standing outside one
0:39:57 > 0:40:01particular abortion clinic for the past 23 years.
0:40:01 > 0:40:04Allegedly, according to the women who use this service,
0:40:04 > 0:40:07they are suffering name-calling, they are being shown distressing
0:40:07 > 0:40:11images and they are being filmed by those who attend.
0:40:11 > 0:40:15Now the local MP Rupa Huq along with over 100 co-signatories,
0:40:15 > 0:40:19including four party leaders, has written to the Home Secretary
0:40:19 > 0:40:24calling for legislation which would introduce buffer zones
0:40:24 > 0:40:26around abortion clinics and pregnancy advisory bureau
0:40:26 > 0:40:29to help protect those attending.
0:40:29 > 0:40:31Rupa Huq is with us now.
0:40:31 > 0:40:34First of all, talk me through this.
0:40:34 > 0:40:36Why did you feel the need to organise this letter?
0:40:36 > 0:40:39I've been a resident for 45 years of Ealing and I've
0:40:39 > 0:40:40seen these protesters.
0:40:40 > 0:40:43Initially it was the anti-abortion people and they sort
0:40:43 > 0:40:46of have rosary beads, they have these medically inaccurate
0:40:46 > 0:40:48pictures of foetuses and dolls.
0:40:48 > 0:40:51It's very disturbing for me as a member of the public.
0:40:51 > 0:40:54I am a mum, my kid goes to his theatre group down there,
0:40:54 > 0:40:55it is difficult to explain.
0:40:55 > 0:40:59There is a park there, a lot of residents have contacted me.
0:40:59 > 0:41:01First of all, as I say I was seething with rage
0:41:01 > 0:41:02as a normal civilian.
0:41:02 > 0:41:05Then since I have become an MP I have been contacted
0:41:05 > 0:41:06by loads of constituents.
0:41:06 > 0:41:08This thing went to Ealing Council.
0:41:08 > 0:41:12It only needs 1500 signatures to be granted a hearing at the council.
0:41:12 > 0:41:13It had 4000.
0:41:13 > 0:41:15People are complaining about the quality of life.
0:41:15 > 0:41:19So what exactly are you asking for?
0:41:19 > 0:41:22You sort of said buffer zone but what does that mean in reality?
0:41:22 > 0:41:24It is just intimidatory for the women who want to have,
0:41:24 > 0:41:26as you pointed out, a completely legal operation.
0:41:26 > 0:41:28But what is a buffer zone?
0:41:28 > 0:41:32Maybe 150 metres or something, you could draw a zone around it.
0:41:32 > 0:41:34At the moment women can't get in the door of these
0:41:34 > 0:41:37clinics because people are blocking their entrance.
0:41:37 > 0:41:41We also have the counter protesters now and as you pointed out
0:41:41 > 0:41:43with technology it's live streamed and Facebook live.
0:41:43 > 0:41:46So what happens if somebody is protesting, and let's not forget
0:41:46 > 0:41:49these are people who believe to their very bone marrow
0:41:49 > 0:41:52that there is a moral issue at stake here,
0:41:52 > 0:41:56what happens if they cross over into the buffer zone?
0:41:56 > 0:41:59Is this not something that will have to be policed at all times?
0:41:59 > 0:42:02I mean they have it in America in 14 different states, they have it
0:42:02 > 0:42:03in Australia and Canada.
0:42:03 > 0:42:07If you drew it wide enough, then the distance of 150 metres
0:42:07 > 0:42:09would be so far that every woman walking through
0:42:09 > 0:42:12could not be policed.
0:42:12 > 0:42:15At the moment it is at the gates of these clinics where people
0:42:15 > 0:42:18are told they are going to hell, they have these rosary
0:42:18 > 0:42:20beads and teddy bears and they call them Mum.
0:42:20 > 0:42:23I accept the point that the women will find this very upsetting
0:42:23 > 0:42:27but is there not an issue of freedom of speech here?
0:42:27 > 0:42:30I said a moment ago that these people believe this,
0:42:30 > 0:42:34this is their faith which is informing their behaviour.
0:42:34 > 0:42:37If you stop them from expressing that faith, are you not also flying
0:42:37 > 0:42:40in the face of free speech in this country?
0:42:40 > 0:42:43We do have a long and honourable tradition of free-speech
0:42:43 > 0:42:47and protests brought about a lot of changes, but if you want
0:42:47 > 0:42:49to protest and pick on vulnerable women outside a clinic,
0:42:49 > 0:42:51it's not the place to do it.
0:42:51 > 0:42:53Come to Parliament where there are 650 legislators.
0:42:53 > 0:42:55They have been to my office and they have unfurled these
0:42:55 > 0:42:58gruesome banners outside my office which again is picking on women
0:42:58 > 0:43:00who speak out on these things.
0:43:00 > 0:43:04But at least that is slightly better directed than at the clinic.
0:43:04 > 0:43:05Let's talk to other people here.
0:43:05 > 0:43:07Did either of you sign the letter?
0:43:07 > 0:43:08No.
0:43:08 > 0:43:10And why did you not sign the letter?
0:43:10 > 0:43:13I was only made aware of the letter just recently,
0:43:13 > 0:43:15but I do think there is a slippery slope here.
0:43:15 > 0:43:17The fact is we do have freedom of speech, we have
0:43:17 > 0:43:20freedom of association.
0:43:20 > 0:43:24Now, if people are using violence or are literally obstructing
0:43:24 > 0:43:27the access, that is one thing.
0:43:27 > 0:43:32But equally if people are peacefully protesting and peacefully
0:43:32 > 0:43:35demonstrating and wishing to speak to people going into...
0:43:35 > 0:43:37Would you have a problem with verbal assault,
0:43:37 > 0:43:40photos being shown to women?
0:43:40 > 0:43:42These are women in a most vulnerable state.
0:43:42 > 0:43:44They are going to do something which is emotionally
0:43:44 > 0:43:45very charged for them.
0:43:45 > 0:43:47Absolutely.
0:43:47 > 0:43:51Do they need this kind of treatment on the way to one of the most
0:43:51 > 0:43:53important appointments they will have in their lives?
0:43:53 > 0:43:57Clearly we could discuss the issue of abortion,
0:43:57 > 0:44:00but what is important here is if enough people disagree
0:44:00 > 0:44:04with having a demonstration, then do we ban those demonstrations?
0:44:04 > 0:44:11Do we ban the right to actually say something about the issue?
0:44:11 > 0:44:13Ellie Reeves, did you sign it?
0:44:13 > 0:44:16I didn't sign it, but would happily sign it retrospectively.
0:44:16 > 0:44:19We didn't have a chance to speak this week but I completely 100%
0:44:19 > 0:44:20agree with the letter.
0:44:20 > 0:44:21Do you worry about Bob's point?
0:44:21 > 0:44:24You have to be allowed to speak what you feel in this country,
0:44:24 > 0:44:27it is a free country even if you do not agree
0:44:27 > 0:44:30with what they say, they should have the right to say it?
0:44:30 > 0:44:33I think there are places to protest and I don't think outside the clinic
0:44:33 > 0:44:36where someone is accessing medical care, confidential and legal
0:44:36 > 0:44:40treatment, is the right place for that protest to take place.
0:44:40 > 0:44:43They could hold a protest outside Parliament and in many
0:44:43 > 0:44:46of the other public spaces.
0:44:46 > 0:44:48I understand that is how you feel, but should there be
0:44:48 > 0:44:52legislation to that effect?
0:44:52 > 0:44:55Should that be something that you have a buffer zone to prevent?
0:44:55 > 0:44:58It needs to be policed, it needs to be enforced.
0:44:58 > 0:45:01I believe there should be a buffer zone in these circumstances,
0:45:01 > 0:45:04given that women are accessing confidential, legal
0:45:04 > 0:45:07and medical care.
0:45:07 > 0:45:11They should be able to do so without being put
0:45:11 > 0:45:14in fear, without feeling harassed and intimidated.
0:45:14 > 0:45:16Rupa Huq, the slippery slope argument that Bob put,
0:45:16 > 0:45:19if somebody then uses this as a template to say it
0:45:19 > 0:45:22will be the political views of the right or the left,
0:45:22 > 0:45:25I don't like them, I would like to have an exclusion zone
0:45:25 > 0:45:28around me and they could use this as a template to follow,
0:45:28 > 0:45:33does that not worry you?
0:45:33 > 0:45:36I don't think it's right or left, it's right or wrong.
0:45:36 > 0:45:39There are 113 people from all different parties,
0:45:39 > 0:45:41Jeremy Corbyn and Zac Goldsmith are not usually united
0:45:41 > 0:45:43on most things, but they have both signed this.
0:45:43 > 0:45:46A lot of people have clinics in their seats because they know
0:45:46 > 0:45:47what goes on there.
0:45:47 > 0:45:50I think Ellie makes a good point, with any other NHS
0:45:50 > 0:45:53procedure you would do that in anonymity, wouldn't you?
0:45:53 > 0:45:56So, why do you have people in your face from both sides?
0:45:56 > 0:45:59That includes the pro-choice people, I would ban them as well.
0:45:59 > 0:46:01OK, we will follow this with great interest.
0:46:01 > 0:46:02Thank you very much for coming in.
0:46:02 > 0:46:0514 years ago, the congestion charge was introduced to London
0:46:05 > 0:46:07in an effort to deter Londoners from driving into
0:46:07 > 0:46:09the centre of town.
0:46:09 > 0:46:11Now the current Mayor, Sadiq Khan, has introduced the T charge,
0:46:11 > 0:46:14or toxicity charge, aimed at older, more polluting vehicles.
0:46:14 > 0:46:20The aim is to improve the quality of London's air.
0:46:20 > 0:46:23So, is this a transformative step in the battle against air pollution
0:46:23 > 0:46:25or a largely ineffectual initiative that penalises the poor?
0:46:25 > 0:46:28Jerry Thomas has more.
0:46:28 > 0:46:31Since Mayor Sadiq Khan's T charge came into force on Monday,
0:46:31 > 0:46:34drivers of older, more polluting vehicles have had to pay almost
0:46:34 > 0:46:37twice as much to drive into the central London
0:46:37 > 0:46:40congestion charging zone.
0:46:40 > 0:46:48Vehicles that do not comply with the so-called Euro 4 exhaust
0:46:48 > 0:46:52standard must pay an additional £10 on top of the existing £11.50
0:46:52 > 0:46:54congestion charge, making a total of £21.50.
0:46:54 > 0:46:57Most vehicles registered before 2006 are likely to be affected.
0:46:57 > 0:47:01What I am in favour of is encouraging people
0:47:01 > 0:47:04to change their behaviour, so they stop driving the most
0:47:04 > 0:47:06polluted vehicles and move into either public transport,
0:47:06 > 0:47:08walking, cycling or cleaner forms of cars and vans.
0:47:08 > 0:47:13But not everyone is convinced.
0:47:13 > 0:47:15Opponents of the scheme say it disproportionately penalises
0:47:15 > 0:47:19London's poorest drivers.
0:47:19 > 0:47:22The Federation of small business warned...
0:47:22 > 0:47:25Conservatives
0:47:25 > 0:47:29on the London Assembly have questioned whether any
0:47:29 > 0:47:39of this pain is worth it, claiming the scheme is ineffectual.
0:47:39 > 0:47:42The Mayor's own body Transport for London said in its October 26
0:47:42 > 0:47:45assessment of the T charge that the impact on air pollution
0:47:45 > 0:47:48would be low and as a result the impact on Londoners' health
0:47:48 > 0:47:49would only be a negligible positive.
0:47:49 > 0:47:52However, this T charge is best understood as a stepping stone.
0:47:52 > 0:47:54In 2019, City Hall will introduce a scheme called the ultralow
0:47:54 > 0:47:56emissions zone, which will bring in even stricter conditions
0:47:56 > 0:47:58on polluting vehicles.
0:47:58 > 0:48:00Jerry Thomas reporting.
0:48:00 > 0:48:02Let's talk about this, and we have Conservative
0:48:02 > 0:48:04Assembly member Shaun Baily.
0:48:04 > 0:48:07You are not too impressed with this initiative, why not?
0:48:07 > 0:48:11No, because it is going to be ineffectual.
0:48:11 > 0:48:14If it was going to have an impact on the quality of air
0:48:14 > 0:48:16on London positively, we would support it, but it is not.
0:48:16 > 0:48:18The Mayor's own figures suggest that.
0:48:18 > 0:48:21The only people it will have an impact on is on those people
0:48:21 > 0:48:25who are not well enough off to buy a new car or to replace the van
0:48:25 > 0:48:26they use for their business.
0:48:26 > 0:48:28That is what the Mayor should be focusing on.
0:48:28 > 0:48:31There are many other things he could have done with this money
0:48:31 > 0:48:33and it would be much more effective.
0:48:33 > 0:48:35We have heard from Friends of the Earth who say
0:48:35 > 0:48:36it is one small step.
0:48:36 > 0:48:40They don't say it is a useless step, they say it is one step
0:48:40 > 0:48:41and we need a lot more.
0:48:41 > 0:48:43Why not take the first step and the rest follow?
0:48:43 > 0:48:45Because it's an irrelevant step.
0:48:45 > 0:48:48Again, if this was going to change the air quality positively,
0:48:48 > 0:48:51I would support it, but it is not going to do that.
0:48:51 > 0:48:54What it's going to do is penalise people who just do not
0:48:54 > 0:48:55have the funds to change that.
0:48:55 > 0:49:01When you think of London you think of large businesses.
0:49:01 > 0:49:03Most businesses in London are tiny and this is the difference
0:49:03 > 0:49:06between them existing or not and the employment they provide
0:49:06 > 0:49:07will just disappear with them.
0:49:07 > 0:49:09It is just too small to make a difference.
0:49:09 > 0:49:12Would you go as far as to say, Tokyo for example, they said
0:49:12 > 0:49:15no more diesel cars, get them all off the road,
0:49:15 > 0:49:16from tomorrow no more on the road.
0:49:16 > 0:49:18Is that what you are advocating?
0:49:18 > 0:49:20The government has already put that through for 2040...
0:49:20 > 0:49:21In 2040?
0:49:21 > 0:49:24People are coughing and spluttering and suffering from asthma right now.
0:49:24 > 0:49:26Let's deal with this properly.
0:49:26 > 0:49:282040 gives people, families, time to change their car.
0:49:28 > 0:49:31A car is the second biggest investment that most families ever
0:49:31 > 0:49:35have the trouble to make, that is one thing.
0:49:35 > 0:49:38We have an ultralow emission zone that was suggested by the former
0:49:38 > 0:49:40Mayor Boris Johnson that would make a 50% cut.
0:49:40 > 0:49:42That is what we should concentrate on.
0:49:42 > 0:49:45Let me go back to the dateline that you are talking about,
0:49:45 > 0:49:482040 was the date you talked about.
0:49:48 > 0:49:51There are people right now, and I believe you yourself have
0:49:51 > 0:49:54asthma, they have no choice but to breathe the air,
0:49:54 > 0:49:57they have no choice in this, they have to go about their lives,
0:49:57 > 0:49:59they live in London, what are you saying to them?
0:49:59 > 0:50:02Tough luck until 2040 nothing is going to get better for you.
0:50:02 > 0:50:06What I am saying is London's air is bad, but it has been improving
0:50:06 > 0:50:07for the last 10-15 years.
0:50:07 > 0:50:09The former Mayor talked about new laws that would come
0:50:09 > 0:50:12in in 2020 that would give a 50% cut.
0:50:12 > 0:50:14Also the Mayor could do something about the buses
0:50:14 > 0:50:17that are the single biggest polluters.
0:50:17 > 0:50:20Ellie, let's talk about this because TfL have looked at it
0:50:20 > 0:50:24and they have said it is a pebble in the sea, it does not make any
0:50:24 > 0:50:25difference, so why do it?
0:50:25 > 0:50:28Why penalise people who have the least on the road?
0:50:28 > 0:50:32I think it is important to take action now and it is a step
0:50:32 > 0:50:34in the right direction.
0:50:34 > 0:50:37When we look at figures such as one in ten young people in London now
0:50:37 > 0:50:41suffering from asthma and levels of air pollution going to
0:50:41 > 0:50:44have an impact on life expectancy, I think it is right that the Mayor
0:50:44 > 0:50:46has taken action now in relation to this.
0:50:46 > 0:50:49There is more that could be done, for example pressing the government
0:50:49 > 0:50:52for a vehicle scrappage scheme.
0:50:52 > 0:50:54And I think these things are all really, really important,
0:50:54 > 0:50:57and we're bbuilding up to the ultralow emission zone as well.
0:50:57 > 0:51:00But he makes a very good point - this actually tinkers around
0:51:00 > 0:51:02the edges with small vehicles, and people who own those small
0:51:02 > 0:51:05vehicles and rely on them for work are going to be
0:51:05 > 0:51:06penalised very heavily.
0:51:06 > 0:51:07This doesn't touch corporation...
0:51:07 > 0:51:12The biggest polluters of all in this city are untouched by this.
0:51:12 > 0:51:15But I think it's important to look at it along with ultralow emission
0:51:15 > 0:51:20zone, as well as things like retrofitting buses and making
0:51:20 > 0:51:23sure that no new diesel taxis are licensed from 2018 -
0:51:23 > 0:51:25these are all really, really important steps taken
0:51:25 > 0:51:28together that will improve the quality of air in London.
0:51:28 > 0:51:31I'm not saying you drive a banger, but you do drive a diesel vehicle -
0:51:31 > 0:51:35are you just going to happily park up for the sake of the air,
0:51:35 > 0:51:37or are you going to go kicking and screaming...?
0:51:37 > 0:51:39Well, I can tell you, I virtually never drive
0:51:39 > 0:51:40into central London.
0:51:40 > 0:51:41I use the Underground on a regular basis.
0:51:41 > 0:51:43I use buses occasionally.
0:51:43 > 0:51:45I virtually never use my car to come into central London.
0:51:45 > 0:51:49Very rarely, anyway.
0:51:49 > 0:51:52I think the key point is that what you do in these circumstances
0:51:52 > 0:51:55is, you give people adequate notice.
0:51:55 > 0:51:59Most people who are reasonably well-off change their vehicle
0:51:59 > 0:52:02probably every five or six years, and they can afford to do so.
0:52:02 > 0:52:05The problem we have here is that a number of small businesses
0:52:05 > 0:52:08and people who can't afford to change their car are going to be
0:52:08 > 0:52:09hit with this charge.
0:52:09 > 0:52:11They drive into London because they've got to.
0:52:11 > 0:52:12They don't join a queue willingly.
0:52:12 > 0:52:13OK.
0:52:13 > 0:52:16They're already paying the congestion charge,
0:52:16 > 0:52:19and this just doubles the amount of money they've got to pay to go
0:52:19 > 0:52:20about their lawful business.
0:52:20 > 0:52:23Well, this is not a story that's going to go away.
0:52:23 > 0:52:24Thank you very much for coming in.
0:52:24 > 0:52:27This week, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick,
0:52:27 > 0:52:29was in New York City just a few
0:52:29 > 0:52:32days after the President of the United States, Donald Trump,
0:52:32 > 0:52:34was tweeting his concern about rising crime in the UK.
0:52:34 > 0:52:37So, is there anything we can learn here in London
0:52:37 > 0:52:40from them across the pond?
0:52:40 > 0:52:44Andrew Cryan reports.
0:52:44 > 0:52:46For many, New York in the 20th century was almost
0:52:46 > 0:52:49synonymous with crime.
0:52:49 > 0:52:51They were on the street with heroin.
0:52:51 > 0:52:53Now, the police come, they can't get through the wall.
0:52:53 > 0:52:56You hand your money in, they will hand you the heroin.
0:52:56 > 0:52:59Since peaking in 1990, recorded crime in the city
0:52:59 > 0:53:01has fallen by over 80%.
0:53:01 > 0:53:04Now, broadly speaking, across the Western world
0:53:04 > 0:53:06in the last 25 years,
0:53:06 > 0:53:09crime has been falling everywhere - London, New York or everywhere else.
0:53:09 > 0:53:11But if you're comparing us and New York City,
0:53:11 > 0:53:14there are two things you can say for sure.
0:53:14 > 0:53:17One is that the fall in crime in New York has been spectacular,
0:53:17 > 0:53:19much more so than here.
0:53:19 > 0:53:24And also, in the last few years here in London,
0:53:24 > 0:53:28that dip in crime has reversed, and in fact, more crimes are now
0:53:28 > 0:53:33being recorded by the police.
0:53:33 > 0:53:35That spike is particularly in violent street crime.
0:53:35 > 0:53:38For example, in a wave of offences committed by gangs on mopeds.
0:53:38 > 0:53:41In fact, in some ways, crime in London may now be
0:53:41 > 0:53:42higher than in New York.
0:53:42 > 0:53:46I think the best evidence suggests that homicide and serious violence
0:53:46 > 0:53:49continue to be much higher, I mean, very significantly
0:53:49 > 0:53:53higher in New York City.
0:53:53 > 0:53:57I think the interesting one in London is that it does seem that
0:53:57 > 0:54:00burglary and other forms of property crime are probably higher and quite
0:54:00 > 0:54:03possibly quite a lot higher in London than they are in New York
0:54:03 > 0:54:05City.
0:54:05 > 0:54:07Some attribute New York's success to this man,
0:54:07 > 0:54:09former police commissioner Bill Bratton.
0:54:09 > 0:54:11We're showing in this city, and in many American cities,
0:54:11 > 0:54:13that police do count, police can control crime,
0:54:13 > 0:54:15police can reduce crime.
0:54:15 > 0:54:19And most importantly, police can prevent crime.
0:54:19 > 0:54:21New York pursued a strategy of targeting minor offences,
0:54:21 > 0:54:29known as the broken windows policy.
0:54:29 > 0:54:31And it begins with combatting actually small crimes,
0:54:31 > 0:54:34things like the smut peddler in Times Square, things like those
0:54:34 > 0:54:37men who would come and forcibly in a way clean your car
0:54:37 > 0:54:39and then essentially coerce you into paying them.
0:54:39 > 0:54:43Teenagers skipping the lines on subways and so forth.
0:54:43 > 0:54:46By stopping those, you begin to bring order to these communities,
0:54:46 > 0:54:48and then the bigger crimes go down as well.
0:54:48 > 0:54:52But in London last week, it emerged that under the Met's
0:54:52 > 0:54:54new crime assessment policy, with the theft of a property
0:54:54 > 0:54:56worth less than £50, there would be no
0:54:56 > 0:54:57further investigation.
0:54:57 > 0:55:00With car crime, if there is no forensic or video evidence
0:55:00 > 0:55:05to identify a suspect, the same applies.
0:55:05 > 0:55:08And from now on, if a suspect isn't identified on CCTV 20 minutes either
0:55:08 > 0:55:11side of the offence, there will be no further inquiry.
0:55:11 > 0:55:15Well, that saddens me, because rank and file police
0:55:15 > 0:55:17officers believe they should deal with everything
0:55:17 > 0:55:19that is put in front of them.
0:55:19 > 0:55:22And I don't know how you can start gauging who has the police
0:55:22 > 0:55:23there and who doesn't.
0:55:23 > 0:55:25It's a very, very difficult area.
0:55:25 > 0:55:28I understand fully why my management have come out with this,
0:55:28 > 0:55:31because they can only do a certain amount with what they've got.
0:55:31 > 0:55:33And the biggest problem is that everyone is being hamstrung
0:55:33 > 0:55:36because of the financial situation.
0:55:36 > 0:55:38Scotland Yard has seen £600 million taken out of its budget,
0:55:38 > 0:55:42leading to a fall in police numbers.
0:55:42 > 0:55:46I met the commissioner of the NYPD recently,
0:55:46 > 0:55:50and he told me that he had 35,000 police officers to police New York.
0:55:50 > 0:55:52In London, we're seeing police officer numbers coming down,
0:55:52 > 0:55:55and because of the funding situation we're in, we are at a real risk
0:55:55 > 0:55:57of numbers in London dipping below 30,000.
0:55:57 > 0:56:00So, when we compare London and New York, we need to compare
0:56:00 > 0:56:02capacity and resources.
0:56:02 > 0:56:05But as much as the number of police, is it a matter of what they do?
0:56:05 > 0:56:12In New York, lots of police time is spent
0:56:12 > 0:56:15In New York, lots of police time is spent on so-called community
0:56:15 > 0:56:17policing, where officers work a small, dedicated
0:56:17 > 0:56:19patch of their own.
0:56:19 > 0:56:21If you compare neighbourhood policing with the fire
0:56:21 > 0:56:24brigade style of policing, where the police only ever turn up
0:56:24 > 0:56:25when something bad has
0:56:25 > 0:56:27happened, people don't get to build that trust,
0:56:27 > 0:56:29they only ever see the police with the blue lights,
0:56:29 > 0:56:33in a hurry, in a rush, potentially having to use force on people.
0:56:33 > 0:56:35So, people's perceptions of the police themselves become
0:56:35 > 0:56:38distorted and you end up in a bit of a nasty spiral where people
0:56:38 > 0:56:40don't trust the police, they don't report things
0:56:40 > 0:56:42to the police and the police themselves start to think,
0:56:42 > 0:56:44do the community even want us here?
0:56:44 > 0:56:46But although many are concerned by the spike in recorded offences
0:56:46 > 0:56:49in London, the numbers are only on their way back up
0:56:49 > 0:56:51to where we were a few years
0:56:51 > 0:56:54ago, and still a very well long way off New York in the 1980s.
0:56:54 > 0:56:59Well, we have with us now former deputy assistant commissioner
0:56:59 > 0:57:02of the Met and now Lib Dem peer Lord Paddick.
0:57:02 > 0:57:05So, let's talk about this American lesson.
0:57:05 > 0:57:08What is it that we learn from them, what SHOULD we learn from them?
0:57:08 > 0:57:11Well, anybody who's been to New York will see a lot more
0:57:11 > 0:57:13uniforms on the street.
0:57:13 > 0:57:16Although the Met has been very good, despite the budget cuts,
0:57:16 > 0:57:18at keeping police officer numbers up, the number of police community
0:57:18 > 0:57:23support officers, for example, has a significantly reduced.
0:57:23 > 0:57:27So, in New York, you've got about 6,000 more equivalents
0:57:27 > 0:57:31to police community support officers than you have in London.
0:57:31 > 0:57:34And you have about 2,000 more police officers.
0:57:34 > 0:57:36And I think in terms of what might be perceived
0:57:36 > 0:57:38as control of the streets, reassuring, uniformed
0:57:38 > 0:57:43presence on the streets, that we're a lot worse off
0:57:43 > 0:57:45in London than we are in New York.
0:57:45 > 0:57:49Is it just about numbers or is it also about ethos?
0:57:49 > 0:57:52You have there a thrownback to the Bill Bratton days,
0:57:52 > 0:57:54broken windows, zero tolerance, that you come down hard
0:57:54 > 0:57:56on the little things, so then you fine-tune
0:57:56 > 0:58:00the bigger behaviours.
0:58:00 > 0:58:03Is that not what we should be looking at, as a change of ethos,
0:58:03 > 0:58:05because that's been resisted time and time again in London?
0:58:05 > 0:58:08There is a lot of misunderstanding about what happened in New York
0:58:08 > 0:58:11at the time of this broken windows theory.
0:58:11 > 0:58:14A lot of money was spent in terms of improving the urban environment,
0:58:14 > 0:58:17cleaning up the graffiti.
0:58:17 > 0:58:20A lot of money was put into drugs courts, a lot
0:58:20 > 0:58:24of money was put into...
0:58:24 > 0:58:27But also a lot more arrests for minor offences as well?
0:58:27 > 0:58:29There was an extremely large amount of public spending
0:58:29 > 0:58:30on all aspects of not
0:58:30 > 0:58:32only defeating crime but the causes of crime.
0:58:32 > 0:58:37But you won't dispute that the number of arrests also
0:58:37 > 0:58:38went up substantially?
0:58:38 > 0:58:40The number of arrests went up, the number of complaints
0:58:40 > 0:58:43of racism against the New York police went up -
0:58:43 > 0:58:44it wasn't without cost.
0:58:44 > 0:58:46So, the thing is to put more boots on the street -
0:58:46 > 0:58:48- boots cost money.
0:58:48 > 0:58:50Let's talk to our friends here about this.
0:58:50 > 0:58:52Do you agree that this is a service that is desperately
0:58:52 > 0:58:55in need of more funds, desperately in need
0:58:55 > 0:58:57of more officers?
0:58:57 > 0:58:59Well, clearly, in London we've had 32,000 police officers generally
0:58:59 > 0:59:01speaking for quite an extended period of time.
0:59:01 > 0:59:03The previous mayor safeguarded those views.
0:59:03 > 0:59:09I think the other two things we've got to to look at is, London
0:59:09 > 0:59:12as the capital city, we have obviously counter...security
0:59:12 > 0:59:17and counter-extremism and counter-terrorism acts.
0:59:17 > 0:59:19So, that funding is important, and actually we're being
0:59:19 > 0:59:23short-changed on that right now.
0:59:23 > 0:59:26I think we need cross-party to encourage the government to give
0:59:26 > 0:59:27more money on that.
0:59:27 > 0:59:28OK.
0:59:28 > 0:59:30But the actual police officers on the beat,
0:59:30 > 0:59:32the key is getting them out on the streets
0:59:32 > 0:59:34and really ensuring they do the job.
0:59:34 > 0:59:36But you think we have enough and they should just be
0:59:36 > 0:59:37out and more visible.
0:59:37 > 0:59:3832,000, yes.
0:59:38 > 0:59:40I think our police officers do a fantastic job,
0:59:40 > 0:59:42but they're facing a situation
0:59:42 > 0:59:44where there's been 600 million worth of cuts since 2010,
0:59:44 > 0:59:45there's another 400 million
0:59:45 > 0:59:46of cuts in the pipeline.
0:59:46 > 0:59:50There's the risk of police officers in London falling below 30,000
0:59:50 > 0:59:52for the first time since 2003.
0:59:52 > 0:59:55These are huge issues.
0:59:55 > 0:59:57I get loads of e-mails from my constituents worried
0:59:57 > 1:00:00and fearful about the situation, with police not
1:00:00 > 1:00:03being on the streets.
1:00:03 > 1:00:07We know that PCSOs have been reduced by 70%.
1:00:07 > 1:00:09The reason we're talking about this is because the Donald has been
1:00:09 > 1:00:11tweeting, as the Donald does.
1:00:11 > 1:00:15But he was talking about terror going up.
1:00:15 > 1:00:18Terror has put a different kind of pressure on the police
1:00:18 > 1:00:19here in London, has it not?
1:00:19 > 1:00:22The Parsons Green incident, 500 dedicated officers were taken
1:00:22 > 1:00:23off other things to put on that.
1:00:23 > 1:00:26In this world, what number of extra police do we need to face
1:00:26 > 1:00:29all the things that go on anyway, but also the extra
1:00:29 > 1:00:35level of terror threat?
1:00:35 > 1:00:38Two issues here, first of all, the Met has national
1:00:38 > 1:00:41responsibilities, which, in New York those responsibilities
1:00:41 > 1:00:44are taken on by the FBI.
1:00:44 > 1:00:47Also, when it comes to terrorist incidents, whilst the Home Office
1:00:47 > 1:00:49gives some compensation for the immediate investigation
1:00:49 > 1:00:52of that offence, the reassurance, the massive reassurance operation,
1:00:52 > 1:00:55putting more armed officers at transport hubs and that sort
1:00:55 > 1:00:57of thing, is not compensated.
1:00:57 > 1:01:00We are short of time.
1:01:00 > 1:01:03The person who does the number crunching up at No 11
1:01:03 > 1:01:05will want to know what figures he needs to put aside,
1:01:05 > 1:01:07what number of police
1:01:07 > 1:01:09officers would be the right number here for London -
1:01:09 > 1:01:10what would you say?
1:01:10 > 1:01:13We need to restore safer neighbourhood teams to the level
1:01:13 > 1:01:15that they were at ten years ago in London,
1:01:15 > 1:01:19to provide a reassurance to the public and to provide
1:01:19 > 1:01:22intelligence about terrorism
1:01:22 > 1:01:25to the authorities, to reduce the risk of radicalisation.
1:01:25 > 1:01:27Somebody uncharitable might say, you're a Lib Dem,
1:01:27 > 1:01:28they were in coalition
1:01:28 > 1:01:31when these numbers were cut - what would you say to that?
1:01:31 > 1:01:34Cuts had to be made across the public sector in order
1:01:34 > 1:01:35to balance the books.
1:01:35 > 1:01:37They have gone far too far.
1:01:37 > 1:01:38Are the books balanced now?
1:01:38 > 1:01:40That's why in our manifesto we pledged more money
1:01:40 > 1:01:42for policing, an increase in trhe budget for policing,
1:01:42 > 1:01:44more than any other party.
1:01:44 > 1:01:47OK, well, listen, thank you very much.
1:01:47 > 1:01:50Just very quickly, would you be able to go back to your constituents
1:01:50 > 1:01:53and say, I want you to pay more tax to have more police
1:01:53 > 1:01:55officers on the street?
1:01:55 > 1:01:57I think the police precept could be raised, but equally,
1:01:57 > 1:02:00the Mayor of London could actually use some of the £2.3 billion
1:02:00 > 1:02:02of unallocated assets, reserves that he could use
1:02:02 > 1:02:03on spending on more police.
1:02:03 > 1:02:05In a word?
1:02:05 > 1:02:07Well, the council tax precept for policing has already gone up,
1:02:07 > 1:02:10but national government does need to find the money to go into police.
1:02:10 > 1:02:12OK.
1:02:12 > 1:02:13Thank you very much.
1:02:13 > 1:02:16Well, my thanks to Brian, and also to my guests of the day
1:02:16 > 1:02:18Ellie Reeves and Bob Blackman.
1:02:18 > 1:02:27With that, it's back to Sarah.
1:02:27 > 1:02:29Now, the much anticipated EU Withdrawal Bill,
1:02:29 > 1:02:33which will transfer EU law into UK law in preparation for Brexit,
1:02:33 > 1:02:37is expected to be debated by MPs later next month.
1:02:37 > 1:02:40Critics have called it a "power grab" as it introduces so-called
1:02:40 > 1:02:43Henry VIII powers for Whitehall to amend some laws without
1:02:43 > 1:02:47consulting parliament, and it faces fierce resistance
1:02:47 > 1:02:50from opposition parties as well as many on the government's
1:02:50 > 1:02:55own backbenches, with 300 amendments and 54 new clauses tabled on it.
1:02:55 > 1:02:59We're joined now by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry who has been a strong
1:02:59 > 1:03:03critic of the legislation.
1:03:03 > 1:03:07Thank you very much for joining us. Before we talk about the withdrawal
1:03:07 > 1:03:12bill, I would like to bring up with you that the Prime Minister has just
1:03:12 > 1:03:16sent a letter to the Commons Speaker John Bercow asking for an
1:03:16 > 1:03:20independent body to be established to investigate claims of sexual
1:03:20 > 1:03:25harassment in Parliament. What are your thoughts on that?A very good
1:03:25 > 1:03:29idea, sounds like a great deal of common sense. I had already this
1:03:29 > 1:03:33morning sent a request to the speaker asking for an urgent
1:03:33 > 1:03:36statement from the Leader of the House as to what could now be done
1:03:36 > 1:03:42to make sure that any complaints actually against anybody working in
1:03:42 > 1:03:45Parliament, to extend the protections that workers throughout
1:03:45 > 1:03:50the rest of businesses and in other workplaces have, they should now be
1:03:50 > 1:03:54extended into Parliament and asking for an urgent statement from the
1:03:54 > 1:03:59leader. Clearly the PM is well onto this and it is a good idea. We have
1:03:59 > 1:04:02to make sure everybody who works in Parliament enjoys exactly the same
1:04:02 > 1:04:07protections as other workers, so I welcome this.This should maybe have
1:04:07 > 1:04:12happened a long time ago. We hear stories of harassment that has been
1:04:12 > 1:04:16going on for decades, but until now it has been difficult to work out
1:04:16 > 1:04:21who you could complain to about it. It is my understanding that my Chief
1:04:21 > 1:04:26Whip and the previous deputy Chief Whip, and Milton, shared that view
1:04:26 > 1:04:30and have shared that view for some time but found it difficult to get
1:04:30 > 1:04:35all the agreement necessary. Anyway, we are where we are and we are
1:04:35 > 1:04:47making that progress, but
1:04:47 > 1:04:49my Chief Whip and the previous deputy Chief Whip wanted this done
1:04:49 > 1:04:52some time ago.That is an interesting point. Let's move on to
1:04:52 > 1:04:54the much anticipated EU withdrawal bill which will finally be debated.
1:04:54 > 1:04:56You have put your name to an amendment which is calling for a
1:04:56 > 1:04:59vote on the final agreement in essence, do you really believe that
1:04:59 > 1:05:03that will be a meaningful both offered to the Commons?Yes, if you
1:05:03 > 1:05:08look at the terms of the amendment, it would deliver exactly that. It
1:05:08 > 1:05:13would give members of Parliament the opportunity to debated and voted on
1:05:13 > 1:05:17it. It would be an effective piece of legislation and would go through
1:05:17 > 1:05:23both houses and should be done. One of the problems with this process is
1:05:23 > 1:05:27that Parliament has been excluded from the sort of debate and
1:05:27 > 1:05:31decisions that would have enabled the government to move forward in
1:05:31 > 1:05:41progress and form a consensus so we get the very best Brexit deal.We
1:05:41 > 1:05:44have been excluded, that has been wrong in my view, but by the end we
1:05:44 > 1:05:47should not be excluded. The government have made it clear that
1:05:47 > 1:05:50whilst there may well be a boat if you win on this amendment, it will
1:05:50 > 1:05:55be a take it or leave it vote. This is a deal you should accept, or
1:05:55 > 1:06:01there will be no deal.If you look at the amendment we put forward
1:06:01 > 1:06:05there will be other alternatives. This is all hypothetical because we
1:06:05 > 1:06:09want a good deal and it is difficult to see that the government would not
1:06:09 > 1:06:14bring a good deal to the House in any event. But this is hypothetical,
1:06:14 > 1:06:20it would mean Parliament would say to government, go back and seek an
1:06:20 > 1:06:25extension as we know it is there in Article 50. It is perfectly possible
1:06:25 > 1:06:30with the agreement of the other members of the EU to seek an
1:06:30 > 1:06:33extension so we continue the negotiations and we get a deal that
1:06:33 > 1:06:38is good for our country. It keeps all options open and that is the
1:06:38 > 1:06:43most important thing.How many Conservative MPs really would take
1:06:43 > 1:06:47that option in those circumstances? It is only if you get enough votes
1:06:47 > 1:06:51that you would be able to ask the government to go back and
1:06:51 > 1:07:04re-negotiate.
1:07:04 > 1:07:07Have you for that?For give me, but you are jumping way down the line. I
1:07:07 > 1:07:10am talking about an amendment that keeps the options open. I am not
1:07:10 > 1:07:13speculating as to what would happen, I am not going there, it is far too
1:07:13 > 1:07:16speculative. Let's get this bill in good shape. The principle of this
1:07:16 > 1:07:22bill is right and we need to put into British domestic law existing
1:07:22 > 1:07:27EU laws and regulations into our substantive law. We all agree that
1:07:27 > 1:07:32must happen. It is the means by which we do it that causes problems
1:07:32 > 1:07:38and we have this argument and debate about what we call the endgame.I am
1:07:38 > 1:07:42sure we will talk about this many more times before we get to that
1:07:42 > 1:07:48vote. I will turn to our panel of political experts. Listening to the
1:07:48 > 1:07:54tone of what the remainders are trying to achieve with the EU
1:07:54 > 1:07:59withdrawal bill, will be achieved? You can hear that tussled there,
1:07:59 > 1:08:03they want the maximum space and room for Parliament to have a say. But
1:08:03 > 1:08:09they have to be careful. The reason is that clock is ticking and if you
1:08:09 > 1:08:16have a situation which may seem to be more interested in finding
1:08:16 > 1:08:20different things to object to and saying no to, it is not getting a
1:08:20 > 1:08:24good deal and it does not look good for the remainders in this argument
1:08:24 > 1:08:29and they will have to come through with their proposals. I do not mind
1:08:29 > 1:08:32Parliament saying it should have a big say, but what do you do if
1:08:32 > 1:08:38Parliament says this is not good enough? The government must simply
1:08:38 > 1:08:44say, I am sorry we have run out of time. The 27 will say they cannot be
1:08:44 > 1:08:48bothered to have another round either. They have to be strong, but
1:08:48 > 1:08:52realistic about what their role in this is.Do you think the people
1:08:52 > 1:08:57putting this amendment who say they want a binding vote in parliament
1:08:57 > 1:09:00are doing it because they think Parliament should have a say or
1:09:00 > 1:09:05because they want to obstruct it? They do not think people should have
1:09:05 > 1:09:10a say in the first place, they think people got it wrong, so they need
1:09:10 > 1:09:17more clever people than the voters to have final say.Or they believed
1:09:17 > 1:09:20taking back control means Parliament should have the final say.
1:09:20 > 1:09:24Parliament said they would like to give that decision back to the
1:09:24 > 1:09:30people. This is the issue. It seems to me that people like Anna Soubry
1:09:30 > 1:09:34are trying to delay of the transition period a bit longer.
1:09:34 > 1:09:38These negotiations will take as long as they have got. The EU will take
1:09:38 > 1:09:46it to the wire and if we do not get a decent deal, and one of the
1:09:46 > 1:09:50reasons is the level of incompetence on this government's part I have to
1:09:50 > 1:09:54say and the other one will be the people who want to remain
1:09:54 > 1:10:01undermining them. They undermined the government at every single stage
1:10:01 > 1:10:04and they undermine Britain's interests.It is the timing of all
1:10:04 > 1:10:08of this that is crucial and whether the government can get a deal in
1:10:08 > 1:10:14time.There will be a meaningful vote, whether it is an shined in
1:10:14 > 1:10:19legislation or not, there cannot be an historic development as big as
1:10:19 > 1:10:24this without Parliament having a meaningful vote. I meaningful,
1:10:24 > 1:10:28having the power to either stop it or endorse it. You cannot have a
1:10:28 > 1:10:31government doing something like this with no vote in the House of
1:10:31 > 1:10:38commons. When you say it will go to the last minute I completely agree,
1:10:38 > 1:10:43but last-minute in reality means next summer. It has got to get
1:10:43 > 1:10:46through the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament and quite
1:10:46 > 1:10:54a few others as well.The trouble with invoking Parliament is if it is
1:10:54 > 1:10:59driven solely by remain, I would love to say what people in the
1:10:59 > 1:11:06league side think. I disagree with Julia, I do not think you could say
1:11:06 > 1:11:10people had their say and the terms with which we leave are left open
1:11:10 > 1:11:13and only the government should have a say in it, Parliament clearly
1:11:13 > 1:11:22should have a say in it.Do we want a good deal or not?It does not mean
1:11:22 > 1:11:27anything if you do not do it by next summer I suggest.Does that leave
1:11:27 > 1:11:31Parliament any room for changing the deal or is it simply take it or
1:11:31 > 1:11:36leave it?It will have to have that rule because it cannot simply be
1:11:36 > 1:11:40another of these binary votes were you accept the deal or no Deal.
1:11:40 > 1:11:46There has to be some space.How can a few MPs in the House of Commons
1:11:46 > 1:11:52change a deal that has been agreed by the member states?Because of the
1:11:52 > 1:11:57sequence, a huge if by the way, if they vote down the deal that the
1:11:57 > 1:12:00government has negotiated, the government will have to re-negotiate
1:12:00 > 1:12:04or there will have to be an election. This will be a moment of
1:12:04 > 1:12:07huge crisis, our government not getting through its much topped
1:12:07 > 1:12:16about...It is a mini Catalonia.I think it would be as big as
1:12:16 > 1:12:19Catalonia, but with the implication that there would have to be a
1:12:19 > 1:12:23practical change in the deal because if Parliament has not supported
1:12:23 > 1:12:29it...It is a remain fantasy that this deal can be put off and off
1:12:29 > 1:12:33until they get something that is as close to remaining as they can
1:12:33 > 1:12:38possibly get. I am very much for trying to get the best and avoiding
1:12:38 > 1:12:44the worst, but there is an unreality to that position if you keep trying
1:12:44 > 1:12:50to do it again and again, at some point people will want clarity.I
1:12:50 > 1:12:56labour putting forward a realistic proposition?I thought Hilary Benn
1:12:56 > 1:13:01was very realistic this morning, I wish he was more in the driving seat
1:13:01 > 1:13:05of Labour policy. He made clear where he disagreed and he made clear
1:13:05 > 1:13:09where he thought the negotiations had gone off track or were bogged
1:13:09 > 1:13:17down. I worry a bit about the Labour position being incoherent, but that
1:13:17 > 1:13:21is kept that way by the present leadership because as far as they
1:13:21 > 1:13:25are concerned the government is suffering enough, why should they
1:13:25 > 1:13:30have a position? Hilary Benn said we needed to have clarity about the
1:13:30 > 1:13:33timetable. It is like reading an insurance contract and finding the
1:13:33 > 1:13:37bit where you might get away with it. That is not a policy.
1:13:37 > 1:13:39That is not a policy.
1:13:39 > 1:13:41That's all for today.
1:13:41 > 1:13:43Join me again next Sunday at 11 here on BBC One.
1:13:43 > 1:13:48Until then, bye bye.