29/10/2017 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the economic and

environmental case for Heathrow

expansion. I do political tectonics

shifting away from the government's

preferred option?

In London 50 years

on from the abortion act white MPs

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to the former

business minister and Conservative

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

negotiations and claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament.

First though, its time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Anita Anand.

Joining me for the duration

Ellie Reeves, Labour MP

for Lewisham West and Penge

who won her seat earlier this year,

and Conservative MP Bob Blackman

who has been sitting

in his Harrow East

seat for seven years.

Welcome to you both.

Friday saw the 50th anniversary

of the abortion act and even though

it has been legal for half a century

every day women still run a gauntlet

trying to have this procedure done.

In Ealing groups of women have been

standing outside one

particular abortion clinic

for the past 23 years.

Allegedly, according to the women

who use this service,

they are suffering name-calling,

they are being shown distressing

images and they are being filmed

by those who attend.

Now the local MP Rupa Huq along

with over 100 co-signatories,

including four party leaders,

has written to the Home Secretary

calling for legislation

which would introduce buffer zones

around abortion clinics

and pregnancy advisory bureau

to help protect those attending.

Rupa Huq is with us now.

First of all, talk me through this.

Why did you feel the need

to organise this letter?

I've been a resident for 45

years of Ealing and I've

seen these protesters.

Initially it was the anti-abortion

people and they sort

of have rosary beads,

they have these medically inaccurate

pictures of foetuses and dolls.

It's very disturbing for me

as a member of the public.

I am a mum, my kid goes

to his theatre group down there,

it is difficult to explain.

There is a park there, a lot

of residents have contacted me.

First of all, as I say

I was seething with rage

as a normal civilian.

Then since I have become an MP

I have been contacted

by loads of constituents.

This thing went to Ealing Council.

It only needs 1500 signatures to be

granted a hearing at the council.

It had 4000.

People are complaining

about the quality of life.

So what exactly are you asking for?

You sort of said buffer zone

but what does that mean in reality?

It is just intimidatory

for the women who want to have,

as you pointed out,

a completely legal operation.

But what is a buffer zone?

Maybe 150 metres or something,

you could draw a zone around it.

At the moment women can't get

in the door of these

clinics because people

are blocking their entrance.

We also have the counter protesters

now and as you pointed out

with technology it's live streamed

and Facebook live.

So what happens if somebody

is protesting, and let's not forget

these are people who believe

to their very bone marrow

that there is a moral

issue at stake here,

what happens if they cross over

into the buffer zone?

Is this not something that will have

to be policed at all times?

I mean they have it in America in 14

different states, they have it

in Australia and Canada.

If you drew it wide enough,

then the distance of 150 metres

would be so far that every woman

walking through

could not be policed.

At the moment it is at the gates

of these clinics where people

are told they are going to hell,

they have these rosary

beads and teddy bears

and they call them Mum.

I accept the point that the women

will find this very upsetting

but is there not an issue of freedom

of speech here?

I said a moment ago that these

people believe this,

this is their faith

which is informing their behaviour.

If you stop them from expressing

that faith, are you not also flying

in the face of free speech

in this country?

We do have a long and honourable

tradition of free-speech

and protests brought about a lot

of changes, but if you want

to protest and pick on vulnerable

women outside a clinic,

it's not the place to do it.

Come to Parliament where there

are 650 legislators.

They have been to my office

and they have unfurled these

gruesome banners outside my office

which again is picking on women

who speak out on these things.

But at least that is slightly better

directed than at the clinic.

Let's talk to other people here.

Did either of you sign the letter?

No.

And why did you not sign the letter?

I was only made aware

of the letter just recently,

but I do think there

is a slippery slope here.

The fact is we do have

freedom of speech, we have

freedom of association.

Now, if people are using violence

or are literally obstructing

the access, that is one thing.

But equally if people are peacefully

protesting and peacefully

demonstrating and wishing to speak

to people going into...

Would you have a problem

with verbal assault,

photos being shown to women?

These are women in a most

vulnerable state.

They are going to do something

which is emotionally

very charged for them.

Absolutely.

Do they need this kind of treatment

on the way to one of the most

important appointments

they will have in their lives?

Clearly we could discuss

the issue of abortion,

but what is important

here is if enough people disagree

with having a demonstration,

then do we ban those demonstrations?

Do we ban the right to actually say

something about the issue?

Ellie Reeves, did you sign it?

I didn't sign it, but would happily

sign it retrospectively.

We didn't have a chance to speak

this week but I completely 100%

agree with the letter.

Do you worry about Bob's point?

You have to be allowed to speak

what you feel in this country,

it is a free country

even if you do not agree

with what they say, they should

have the right to say it?

I think there are places to protest

and I don't think outside the clinic

where someone is accessing medical

care, confidential and legal

treatment, is the right place

for that protest to take place.

They could hold a protest outside

Parliament and in many

of the other public spaces.

I understand that is how you feel,

but should there be

legislation to that effect?

Should that be something that

you have a buffer zone to prevent?

It needs to be policed,

it needs to be enforced.

I believe there should be a buffer

zone in these circumstances,

given that women are accessing

confidential, legal

and medical care.

They should be able to do

so without being put

in fear, without feeling

harassed and intimidated.

Rupa Huq, the slippery slope

argument that Bob put,

if somebody then uses this

as a template to say it

will be the political views

of the right or the left,

I don't like them, I would

like to have an exclusion zone

around me and they could use this

as a template to follow,

does that not worry you?

I don't think it's right or left,

it's right or wrong.

There are 113 people

from all different parties,

Jeremy Corbyn and Zac Goldsmith

are not usually united

on most things, but they

have both signed this.

A lot of people have clinics

in their seats because they know

what goes on there.

I think Ellie makes a good

point, with any other NHS

procedure you would do that

in anonymity, wouldn't you?

So, why do you have people

in your face from both sides?

That includes the pro-choice people,

I would ban them as well.

OK, we will follow this

with great interest.

Thank you very much for coming in.

14 years ago, the congestion charge

was introduced to London

in an effort to deter Londoners

from driving into

the centre of town.

Now the current Mayor, Sadiq Khan,

has introduced the T charge,

or toxicity charge, aimed at older,

more polluting vehicles.

The aim is to improve

the quality of London's air.

So, is this a transformative step

in the battle against air pollution

or a largely ineffectual initiative

that penalises the poor?

Jerry Thomas has more.

Since Mayor Sadiq Khan's T charge

came into force on Monday,

drivers of older, more polluting

vehicles have had to pay almost

twice as much to drive

into the central London

congestion charging zone.

Vehicles that do not comply

with the so-called Euro 4 exhaust

standard must pay an additional £10

on top of the existing £11.50

congestion charge,

making a total of £21.50.

Most vehicles registered before 2006

are likely to be affected.

What I am in favour

of is encouraging people

to change their behaviour,

so they stop driving the most

polluted vehicles and move

into either public transport,

walking, cycling or cleaner

forms of cars and vans.

But not everyone is convinced.

Opponents of the scheme say it

disproportionately penalises

London's poorest drivers.

The Federation of small

business warned...

Conservatives

on the London Assembly have

questioned whether any

of this pain is worth it,

claiming the scheme is ineffectual.

The Mayor's own body Transport

for London said in its October 26

assessment of the T charge

that the impact on air pollution

would be low and as a result

the impact on Londoners' health

would only be a negligible positive.

However, this T charge is best

understood as a stepping stone.

In 2019, City Hall will introduce

a scheme called the ultralow

emissions zone, which will bring

in even stricter conditions

on polluting vehicles.

Jerry Thomas reporting.

Let's talk about this,

and we have Conservative

Assembly member Shaun Baily.

You are not too impressed with this

initiative, why not?

No, because it is going

to be ineffectual.

If it was going to have an impact

on the quality of air

on London positively,

we would support it, but it is not.

The Mayor's own

figures suggest that.

The only people it will have

an impact on is on those people

who are not well enough off to buy

a new car or to replace the van

they use for their business.

That is what the Mayor

should be focusing on.

There are many other things

he could have done with this money

and it would be much more effective.

We have heard from Friends

of the Earth who say

it is one small step.

They don't say it is a useless step,

they say it is one step

and we need a lot more.

Why not take the first step

and the rest follow?

Because it's an irrelevant step.

Again, if this was going to change

the air quality positively,

I would support it, but it is not

going to do that.

What it's going to do is penalise

people who just do not

have the funds to change that.

When you think of London you think

of large businesses.

Most businesses in London are tiny

and this is the difference

between them existing or not

and the employment they provide

will just disappear with them.

It is just too small

to make a difference.

Would you go as far as to say,

Tokyo for example, they said

no more diesel cars,

get them all off the road,

from tomorrow no more on the road.

Is that what you are advocating?

The government has already put

that through for 2040...

In 2040?

People are coughing and spluttering

and suffering from asthma right now.

Let's deal with this properly.

2040 gives people, families,

time to change their car.

A car is the second biggest

investment that most families ever

have the trouble to make,

that is one thing.

We have an ultralow emission zone

that was suggested by the former

Mayor Boris Johnson that would make

a 50% cut.

That is what we should

concentrate on.

Let me go back to the dateline that

you are talking about,

2040 was the date you talked about.

There are people right now,

and I believe you yourself have

asthma, they have no choice

but to breathe the air,

they have no choice in this,

they have to go about their lives,

they live in London,

what are you saying to them?

Tough luck until 2040 nothing

is going to get better for you.

What I am saying is London's air

is bad, but it has been improving

for the last 10-15 years.

The former Mayor talked

about new laws that would come

in in 2020 that would give

a 50% cut.

Also the Mayor could do

something about the buses

that are the single

biggest polluters.

Ellie, let's talk about this

because TfL have looked at it

and they have said it is a pebble

in the sea, it does not make any

difference, so why do it?

Why penalise people

who have the least on the road?

I think it is important to take

action now and it is a step

in the right direction.

When we look at figures such as one

in ten young people in London now

suffering from asthma and levels

of air pollution going to

have an impact on life expectancy,

I think it is right that the Mayor

has taken action now

in relation to this.

There is more that could be done,

for example pressing the government

for a vehicle scrappage scheme.

And I think these things

are all really, really important,

and we're bbuilding up to

the ultralow emission zone as well.

But he makes a very good point -

this actually tinkers around

the edges with small vehicles,

and people who own those small

vehicles and rely on them

for work are going to be

penalised very heavily.

This doesn't touch corporation...

The biggest polluters of all in this

city are untouched by this.

But I think it's important to look

at it along with ultralow emission

zone, as well as things

like retrofitting buses and making

sure that no new diesel taxis

are licensed from 2018 -

these are all really,

really important steps taken

together that will improve

the quality of air in London.

I'm not saying you drive a banger,

but you do drive a diesel vehicle -

are you just going to happily park

up for the sake of the air,

or are you going to go

kicking and screaming...?

Well, I can tell you,

I virtually never drive

into central London.

I use the Underground

on a regular basis.

I use buses occasionally.

I virtually never use my car to come

into central London.

Very rarely, anyway.

I think the key point is that

what you do in these circumstances

is, you give people adequate notice.

Most people who are reasonably

well-off change their vehicle

probably every five or six years,

and they can afford to do so.

The problem we have here is that

a number of small businesses

and people who can't afford

to change their car are going to be

hit with this charge.

They drive into London

because they've got to.

They don't join a queue willingly.

OK.

They're already paying

the congestion charge,

and this just doubles the amount

of money they've got to pay to go

about their lawful business.

Well, this is not a story

that's going to go away.

Thank you very much for coming in.

This week, the Metropolitan Police

Commissioner, Cressida Dick,

was in New York City just

a few

days after the President

of the United States, Donald Trump,

was tweeting his concern

about rising crime in the UK.

So, is there anything we can

learn here in London

from them across the pond?

Andrew Cryan reports.

For many, New York in

the 20th century was almost

synonymous with crime.

They were on the street with heroin.

Now, the police come,

they can't get through the wall.

You hand your money in,

they will hand you the heroin.

Since peaking in 1990,

recorded crime in the city

has fallen by over 80%.

Now, broadly speaking,

across the Western world

in the last 25 years,

crime has been falling everywhere -

London, New York or everywhere else.

But if you're comparing

us and New York City,

there are two things you can

say for sure.

One is that the fall in crime

in New York has been spectacular,

much more so than here.

And also, in the last few

years here in London,

that dip in crime has reversed,

and in fact, more crimes are now

being recorded by the police.

That spike is particularly

in violent street crime.

For example, in a wave of offences

committed by gangs on mopeds.

In fact, in some ways,

crime in London may now be

higher than in New York.

I think the best evidence suggests

that homicide and serious violence

continue to be much higher,

I mean, very significantly

higher in New York City.

I think the interesting one

in London is that it does seem that

burglary and other forms of property

crime are probably higher and quite

possibly quite a lot higher

in London than they are in New York

City.

Some attribute New York's

success to this man,

former police commissioner

Bill Bratton.

We're showing in this city,

and in many American cities,

that police do count,

police can control crime,

police can reduce crime.

And most importantly,

police can prevent crime.

New York pursued a strategy

of targeting minor offences,

known as the broken windows policy.

And it begins with combatting

actually small crimes,

things like the smut peddler

in Times Square, things like those

men who would come and forcibly

in a way clean your car

and then essentially coerce

you into paying them.

Teenagers skipping the lines

on subways and so forth.

By stopping those, you begin

to bring order to these communities,

and then the bigger crimes go

down as well.

But in London last week,

it emerged that under the Met's

new crime assessment policy,

with the theft of a property

worth less than £50,

there would be no

further investigation.

With car crime, if there is no

forensic or video evidence

to identify a suspect,

the same applies.

And from now on, if a suspect isn't

identified on CCTV 20 minutes either

side of the offence,

there will be no further inquiry.

Well, that saddens me,

because rank and file police

officers believe they should

deal with everything

that is put in front of them.

And I don't know how you can start

gauging who has the police

there and who doesn't.

It's a very, very difficult area.

I understand fully why my management

have come out with this,

because they can only do a certain

amount with what they've got.

And the biggest problem is that

everyone is being hamstrung

because of the financial situation.

Scotland Yard has seen £600 million

taken out of its budget,

leading to a fall in police numbers.

I met the commissioner

of the NYPD recently,

and he told me that he had 35,000

police officers to police New York.

In London, we're seeing police

officer numbers coming down,

and because of the funding situation

we're in, we are at a real risk

of numbers in London

dipping below 30,000.

So, when we compare London

and New York, we need to compare

capacity and resources.

But as much as the number of police,

is it a matter of what they do?

In New York, lots of

police time is spent

In New York, lots of police time

is spent on so-called community

policing, where officers

work a small, dedicated

patch of their own.

If you compare neighbourhood

policing with the fire

brigade style of policing,

where the police only ever turn up

when something bad has

happened, people don't get

to build that trust,

they only ever see the police

with the blue lights,

in a hurry, in a rush, potentially

having to use force on people.

So, people's perceptions

of the police themselves become

distorted and you end up in a bit

of a nasty spiral where people

don't trust the police,

they don't report things

to the police and the police

themselves start to think,

do the community even want us here?

But although many are concerned

by the spike in recorded offences

in London, the numbers are only

on their way back up

to where we were a few years

ago, and still a very well long way

off New York in the 1980s.

Well, we have with us now former

deputy assistant commissioner

of the Met and now Lib Dem

peer Lord Paddick.

So, let's talk about

this American lesson.

What is it that we learn from them,

what SHOULD we learn from them?

Well, anybody who's been

to New York will see a lot more

uniforms on the street.

Although the Met has been very good,

despite the budget cuts,

at keeping police officer numbers

up, the number of police community

support officers, for example,

has a significantly reduced.

So, in New York, you've got

about 6,000 more equivalents

to police community support officers

than you have in London.

And you have about 2,000

more police officers.

And I think in terms

of what might be perceived

as control of the streets,

reassuring, uniformed

presence on the streets,

that we're a lot worse off

in London than we are in New York.

Is it just about numbers

or is it also about ethos?

You have there a thrownback

to the Bill Bratton days,

broken windows, zero tolerance,

that you come down hard

on the little things,

so then you fine-tune

the bigger behaviours.

Is that not what we should be

looking at, as a change of ethos,

because that's been resisted time

and time again in London?

There is a lot of misunderstanding

about what happened in New York

at the time of this

broken windows theory.

A lot of money was spent in terms

of improving the urban environment,

cleaning up the graffiti.

A lot of money was put

into drugs courts, a lot

of money was put into...

But also a lot more arrests

for minor offences as well?

There was an extremely large

amount of public spending

on all aspects of not

only defeating crime

but the causes of crime.

But you won't dispute

that the number of arrests also

went up substantially?

The number of arrests went up,

the number of complaints

of racism against the

New York police went up -

it wasn't without cost.

So, the thing is to put more

boots on the street -

- boots cost money.

Let's talk to our friends

here about this.

Do you agree that this

is a service that is desperately

in need of more funds,

desperately in need

of more officers?

Well, clearly, in London we've had

32,000 police officers generally

speaking for quite an extended

period of time.

The previous mayor

safeguarded those views.

I think the other two things we've

got to to look at is, London

as the capital city,

we have obviously counter...security

and counter-extremism

and counter-terrorism acts.

So, that funding is important,

and actually we're being

short-changed on that right now.

I think we need cross-party

to encourage the government to give

more money on that.

OK.

But the actual police

officers on the beat,

the key is getting them out

on the streets

and really ensuring they do the job.

But you think we have enough

and they should just be

out and more visible.

32,000, yes.

I think our police officers

do a fantastic job,

but they're facing a situation

where there's been 600 million

worth of cuts since 2010,