14/01/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith and this

is the Sunday Politics -

your inside briefing on all the big

political stories happening

in Westminster and beyond.

Coming up on today's show.

The decision to release serial sex

attacker John Worboys...

Does the Government now "look more

like the country it represents"?

After a tricky reshuffle, we speak

to one of the new faces sitting

around the Cabinet table -

the immigration minister

Caroline Nokes.

Does the Government have a clearer

idea about what our future

relationship with the EU

should look like?

And for that matter,

does the Labour Party

have a settled view?

The Shadow International Trade

Secretary will be here.

In London as the BBC's McMafia

enthralls TV audiences, we look

behind the headlines at global

money-laundering in the capital.

All that coming up in the programme.

And sitting around our top

table today, I'm joined

by some familiar faces.

We tried a reshuffle

of our own but they simply refused

to budge: Tom Newton Dunn,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

and Steve Richards.

Now, after a pretty bumpy 2017,

Theresa May actually went

in to the Christmas break

in relatively good political health.

So, what better way to kick off 2018

than by shaking up her top team

and reasserting her authority?

But as she found this week, things

don't always go according to plan.

If you're going to carry out major

surgery on your Government, you need

to be sure the prognosis is good.

It was a picture of health

to begin with, a fresh,

new team at Party HQ,

but before long, complications

arose.

Justine Greening, who's had a rocky

time at Education, decided

she'd had enough.

She quit the Government

rather than accept a

sideways move.

While Jeremy Hunt refused

to budge from his job at

Health.

He even left his meeting having

added social care to his job

title.

There was a fresher look among

the junior ministerial ranks.

But when the new Cabinet met

on Tuesday morning, it looked...

Well, very much like the old one.

Normally loyal Conservative grandee

Nicholas Soames asked, "Is that it?"

The state of the NHS

then caused more pain.

Dozens of senior doctors wrote to

the Prime Minister saying conditions

in some hospitals were

becoming intolerable.

Patients were dying prematurely.

We have now clearly reached

the point where the NHS

cannot meet the standards

of care that we would,

all of us in the NHS,

ministers included, want to provide.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

pressed on the bruise.

We know the Prime Minister

recognises there is a

crisis in our NHS,

because she wanted to sack

the Health Secretary last week

but was too weak to do it.

Mr Corbyn announced his own

reshuffle towards the end of the

week, with a surprising

return to the front

bench for Clive Lewis,

who

has been cleared of sexual

harassment claims.

While two other Labour

MPs, Kelvin Hopkins and

Ivan Lewis, have been referred

to an independent disciplinary

panel over allegations

of sexual misconduct.

On Friday, US President Donald Trump

raised the temperature, cancelling

his visit to the UK next month

to open the new American Embassy.

Calling the decision to relocate

the building to an off

location is a bad deal.

His friends on this side

of the pond suspected

there were other reasons

for his decision.

Just maybe, Sadiq Khan,

Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party

planning mass protests, maybe those

optics he didn't like the look of.

Nigel Farage also set

pulses racing with this:

I'm reaching the point

of

thinking that we should

have a second referendum because...

On what?

On EU membership.

The whole thing?!

Of course, of course.

The Conservatives

hope focusing on the

environment will bring

the party back to health.

The Prime Minister teamed up

with her new eco-warrior

Environment Secretary, Michael Gove,

to crack down on the use of

plastics.

We must reduce the demand

for plastic, reduce the number of

plastics in circulation

and improve our recycling rates.

It all seems strangely

reminiscent of someone who

once said, vote blue, go green.

In another tricky

week that's left the

PM looking a little

green around the gills.

Now, let's pick up on a story

which broke overnight: the new

Justice Secretary David Gauke

is considering a judicial review

of the decision to release

the serial sex attacker

John Worboys on parole.

Earlier this month the Parole Board

announced that he would be released

under strict licence conditions.

He was jailed in 2009 for a minimum

of eight years for drugging

and sexually assaulting 12 women.

However, it's thought he may have

carried out as many as 100 rapes

and sexual assaults on women

in London in the early 2000s.

I will take this to the panel first.

This is obviously a very emotive

case, and people get very worked up

about it, but the politics of the

Justice Secretary, Tom, asking for a

judicial review against the body

which is really under the

supervision of his own department,

this gets a little odd.

Justice

Secretary criticises Justice

Department shock. There is a whiff

of panic in the Government over this

now. I think David Gauke's decision

is emblematic of that. For whatever

reason, the Government have found

themselves on the wrong side of

public opinion on this. An appalling

mass serial rapist is about to be

let out of prison this week, having

served less than ten years for

crimes most of which he wasn't even

prosecuted for. They have seven or

eight days to do this judicial

review, and David Gauke has only

done it because he is under pressure

from other Cabinet ministers. The

entire Justice Department and

justice policy has really been

interested for up to seven years

because the Tory Government really

can't make up its mind between a

liberal justice establishment is

based on rehabilitation and less

time in prison and the more

traditional Tory authoritarian lock

them up and throw the key away

system, and the consequence is

today's decision. You have had five

Justice Secretary is, from the king

of soft justice himself, Ken

of soft justice himself, Ken Clarke,

and now David Gauke, so perhaps it's

no huge surprise that the system is

now in a bit of a mess.

If Tom is

right that the Government are

playing catch up on John Worboys

because of the huge public outcry,

is it nonetheless the right thing to

do?

It seems to me the parole board

breached their own rules. The

victims have a right to make

representations. We know that some

of the victims whose cases were

brought, and again, he is not

convicted as a serial rapist because

those cases one brought to court, a

decision made by Kia Starmer, then

the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The other fundamental issue is a lot

of what Tom was saying, that the

Tory Government is out of touch, as

I think all of the establishment and

party leaders are. Is this

ridiculous nonsense that someone is

released halfway through a sentence,

if you are sentenced to ten years or

whatever, you should be serving the

full sentence, and maybe six months

off for good behaviour, or better

still, more years on for bad

behaviour. I think the British

public think the justice system is

an absolute joke, and they think

that because it is.

You raise an

interesting point about what the

public care about versus what is

debated at Westminster. We spent an

enormous amount of last year talking

about Brexit, to the exclusion of

most other things. A few other

issues have raised their heads this

week, Steve. First and foremost, the

NHS has been causing more than a few

political problems for the

Government.

If Brexit wasn't

swamping everything, this would be

the overwhelming issue. Voters are

much more concerned about this than

anything else, with good cause. At

some point, there will have to be a

grown discussion about funding of

the NHS and how we pay for it.

Whether that will be possible in the

current climate I doubt. But I don't

think it's entirely impossible

because I think the crisis will

intensify. In a way, that has been

overlooked, that 2017 election

partly accepted miraculously in

British politics that to get

improvements in some services you

have to pay for it. So, maybe there

will be a grown-up debate, but don't

hold your breath. In the meantime,

it will be an issue that Theresa May

will have to keep at least one eye

on, as well as trying to negotiate

the impossible with Brexit.

At PMQs,

the Prime Minister said the NHS was

the best prepared it had ever been,

and doctors were saying that

patients were dying prematurely. In

the short-term, political damage

absolutely. The tanks are parked on

Labour territory there. The general

consensus in the country is not that

they trust the Tories on the NHS,

which is a big issue for them. A lot

of the problems are down to the fact

that we're getting older and living

longer, and there are amazing

treatments, operations and drugs

that can keep us alive. We see it as

a problem but it is a wonderful

miracle of modern science and

medicine and we should be grateful

for such problems.

The big news was

that we were going to get a

Government that looked more like the

rest of the country in the

reshuffle. It turned out not to be

quite as dramatic as some of us

expected. Was it a Government fail?

Depends how you define fail. It has

taken a few days for the penny to

drop, though I had my suspicions on

the night when some of the 20 15th

intake got no promotions at all. It

was a tell-tale sign. Was it a

success in that it stored to the top

of the buildings? Not really, she

just rearranged the deckchairs on

the Titanic. Caroline Noakes was

attending Cabinet rather than being

a full cabinet minister, but the

Theresa May managed to fend off the

vultures coming for her by

absolutely wilfully, it now appears,

failing to put key rivals into key

positions, people like Rory Stewart,

Dominic Raj, some of the 2015ers? It

was a public fail but digging in

privately.

Well, listening to all that is my

first guest, Caroline Nokes.

She was promoted to immigration

minister in the reshuffle this

week and, in that role,

now attends Cabinet.

Congratulations on the new job. You

are presumably part of the making

the Government look more like the

country. Did the Prime Minister

achieve that?

I think she did. Look

at the whip's offers, where there

are more women than ever before. I

remember coming in in 2010 and

looking at a wet's office that was

really mail.

Why can't we have 50-50

women in the Cabinet?

We are heading

in the right direction, there are

two more women in the Cabinet.

Even

the Scottish Government has a policy

of 50-50 in the Cabinet - surely

it's possible?

We started from a

very low base of women, even

elected. I think we're doing a

fantastic job of encouraging more

women to come forward, and from more

diverse backgrounds. It is a work in

progress but we are headed in the

right direction.

right direction. People like Kerry

bad not, who went to the same

university as I did, the University

of Sussex, hardly a breeding ground

for Tory politicians.

In the

Government, there are 3% non-white

people - not very representative?

We

have done a good job of attracting

more diverse people to come and

stand the rise in the Government.

Our messages, -- our message is,

we're working hard to make sure that

those bright, young women from

diverse backgrounds have a chance.

You know, it's a process, isn't it?

We are all climbing up the ladder. I

think the Cabinet looks better than

it did. I have always advocated more

women in Parliament, and the last

debate I did was about getting more

women to stand in politics, and that

really matters.

The big news this

morning is the idea that the Justice

Secretary may take a judicial review

against the release of John Worboys.

What is your view on that? Should do

just this minute himself be taking

judicial review is against this kind

of decision?

We will look at the

victims of Worboys and we want them

to get the support they need and to

see that justice is being done. It

is absolutely right that David Gauke

is looking at a judicial review.

None of us feel happy with the

parole board decision. This is a man

who served less than ten years, and

it's a horrific number of victims.

We can't see the parole board's

decision or the reasoning for it.

The Government could change that at

a stroke and allow them to publish

it. Should they?

The Justice

Secretary is reviewing the process,

which is important. We want people

to have confidence. Our justice

system is a very old and proud one.

Let's not undermine it. Let's make

sure we get the right decisions in

place.

Lets get onto your own brief,

your new brief on immigration. It

means you inherit the target of

reducing net migration to the tens

of thousands. The last five

ministers have failed, will you do

it?

The last

it?

The last five

it?

The last five ministers

it?

The last five ministers have

it?

The last five ministers have seen

it?

The last five ministers have seen

the trajectory heading down, the

last figures we saw in the summer

show it dropped significantly.

It

dropped slightly, 14,000 lower than

when you came to power in 2010,

overall net migration at 240 4000.

We want to make sure this is a

brittle open for business, that the

brightest and best can come here to

work and study. We are listening to

the universities and to business via

the immigration advisory

committee...

So if we are open to

business and the brightest and best

come here why have this target of

reducing net migration to less than

100,000? Lots of Cabinet ministers

would like to get rid of it. You

could have lifted and the 2017

manifesto and got rid of quite a

headache.

We had a referendum in

2016 which sent a clear message that

people want that target to remain,

they want to see as reducing

immigration to sustainable levels

and we are doing just that. It is in

the manifesto so that is the

direction of travel.

Immigration

from outside the EU, you claimed

that once we leave everything will

change with freedom of movement, but

net migration from outside the EU

which you have complete control over

now, it's over 100,000 in and of

itself. Why hasn't that been tackled

in the seven years that this has now

been a target?

We are attacking it,

and we are doing this I have a

banking measures you have heard

about this week, working to make

sure that those with bank accounts

and are not here legally have those

Fresnel cursive necessary, that is

important, we have a raft of

measures but the current Home

Secretary and the previous one have

been clear on this, we will get

these numbers down and do it in a

manageable and sustained way.

It is

not what business one. The Tory

mayor Andy Street says the target

should be more like 150,000 so

businesses can attract people with

the skills they need and George

Osborne says this is economic and

made illiterate because we need

higher migration and that --

economically illiterate.

Which is

why we are listening to the

committee which will report in

September which will give a solid

expert economist's view on what

migration levels should be. But it

was in the manifesto, we are

determined to head in that direction

and bring immigration down to a

sustainable level.

If you're

immigration advisor comes to you and

says somebody like Andy Street is

right we need around 150,000 coming,

will you change it? Because this was

a manifesto promise to get it down

to under 110,000 a year, so what

will that looked like if you have

disabled we didn't get it right.

Am

not going to prejudge.

I and asking

what you will do with their view

because you are stuck with this

promise of reducing immigration to

tens of thousands, there's not much

you can do if they oppose that.

You

are telling someone who has been in

the job less than a week that she

should make a decision on the hoof

in a TV studio! Not a chance. What I

need to do is listen to the experts

and come up with the direction of

travel that satisfies those who

voted Believe in the referendum,

that satisfies businesses, like the

brilliant Russell group University

and the one in Southampton on the

edge of my constituency can still

attract the best students. This is a

really difficult complicated area.

He mentioned the need to attract the

brightest students. While other

numbers of students coming to

Britain to study included in the net

migration figures? You could help

yourselves quickly by taking them

out of it. Just about every Cabinet

member wants them removed from

official figures, why are they

there?

The O M as determinate

students should be included because

they are here for more than 12

months. We must make sure we have

the public services that support

them. Many of them go home after

their study as they should but it is

important that we work with the

immigration advisory committee to

get the right answers.

You are happy

about students being included in the

migration figures?

And happy we've

got 24% more coming to our

universities than we had in 2010.

I'm happy that we are attracting a

great calibre of student here, I'm

equally happy that our former

feminists are cracked down on bogus

colleges and close them because we

want bright students to come here

and in the -- that our former Prime

Minister cracked down on bogus

colleges and closed them.

Button

back to the panel, Steve Camille

can't envy the new Immigration

Minister being tasked with reducing

immigration to a level that no other

Immigration Minister has been able

to achieve.

I don't envy you, I

don't know your Private view but I

do note that most Cabinet ministers

don't want student numbers to be

part of the total figure and Theresa

May alone is still pressing this.

I've just been doing a series about

a David Cameron. He made a series of

targets which were never met, as you

said in the interview. Good luck

with that. Lots of people I meet now

who were in favour of Brexit, like

farmers, pleading, as you will know,

for cheap Labour from Eastern Europe

to continue. They don't want to fill

in loads more forms to get them. So

there's a lot of talk

there's a lot of talk about Nimby

free movement and you have a tough

brief.

Julia, should net immigration

be reduced to tens of thousands, is

it important to the public?

I find

it bizarre they asked to a target

they've never done anything to

reach, certainly the immigration

levels that they were able to

control under the coalition and

David Cameron on his own, the

numbers can't be controlled

completely, they never even came

close, it was more than double,

about 250,000. I find this row about

students strange. If you live in the

country for three or four years you

need somewhere to live, you'll be

getting buses and trains, might need

to go to the hospital, is that the

idea that these people don't exist

because they are not here

permanently? And some of them do

stay. It's ridiculous. We need a

sensible debate. Brexit wasn't about

ending immigration. It was about us.

Like virtually every other country

in the world choosing who gets to

come here. If you are qualified and

have a skill we need we would love

to have you, come on in, the water

is lovely! But if we just want cheap

Labour subsidised by the taxpayer

with a housing benefit, to do jobs

not paid enough, then I don't think

we should. When it comes to farmers

we should pay more for...

Julia has

given quite a good explanation of

why the target was set up and should

probably stay because if there is no

target, then cheap Labour will

continue to flow in because it's the

easiest thing for business to do. If

you are limited in who you can bring

in new might turn to the indigenous

British population and start hiring

them to do decent jobs they are

perfectly capable of doing.

The

panel will be staying with us

throughout the programme. Thank you

to Caroline Nokes, the Immigration

Minister, for coming in.

Now with all the other stuff that's

been going on this week,

you might be concerned we'd

forgotten about the small

matter of Brexit.

But don't worry, it's

still very much on the agenda.

Having sealed a deal

on the divorce talks,

the focus is now shifting

to the future relationship.

The EU says we can only

have an 'off-the-shelf' model,

like the deals with Norway

or Canada; but the UK Government

says we can be far more ambitious,

as Elizabeth Glinka reports.

# Do you have the time #

To listen to me whine?#.

In her Florence speech,

Theresa May made it

clear that when it comes

to

trade negotiations with the EU,

the UK isn't looking for any

off-the-shelf kind of deal.

It wants something

special and bespoke.

I'm optimistic about

what we can achieve

by finding a creative solution

to a new economic relationship that

can support prosperity

for all our peoples.

Before Christmas, the senior

official in charge of Brexit

told the Cabinet that

when it comes to that

creative solution,

they

should start thinking in terms

of three baskets, what some people

are calling managed divergence.

The Institute for

Government has been

looking at what it means.

Three baskets corresponds

to the three areas

that Theresa May spoke

about in her Florence speech.

We have full alignment,

where we will continue to

meet the same outcomes

in the same way as we do now.

Regulatory equivalence

is where we will

continue to meet the same

outcomes as the EU

but might go about it

in a

slightly different way.

And then the final basket

around divergence,

where we will go about things

in a different way and may choose

to take completely different

outcomes at the

end of it.

OK, so if we were to look

at particular industries, say

something like aviation, maybe

workers' rights, we might put them

in this basket because we are saying

not much is going to change.

It would be very difficult to put

whole industries and whole sectors

in specific baskets.

If you take agriculture,

for example, state aid

and how much overall we can

subsidise our farmers may well sit

in full alignment, whereas issues

about agricultural and environmental

protection standards,

we could continue to

meet the same goals

but

by different means, and they can sit

in the middle basket.

Whereas, actually,

exactly what we subsidise

our farmers for could be completely

up to the UK and sit in the

divergent basket.

So it would be very difficult

to put single sectors

in single baskets.

If the UK is looking

for a high degree of access

to the single market,

then the EU will expect

lots of things ending up in the full

alignment basket,

whereas the UK will probably want

to try and pull as much as possible

into the regulatory

equivalence basket.

Of course, the point of all this

is is to remind the EU that

when it comes to these negotiations,

the UK is in a unique position

because currently we

are completely in sync.

It's in the interests of Britain

and the EU to get on

together.

People are thinking that it's

a binary thing, we are either

in the EU or we're out, that it's

night and day, but it isn't.

The point about

managed divergence is

that it does give us

much more flexibility.

We can decide for ourselves

which bits we want to keep

and which bits we want

to amend or get rid of.

And I think...

I think that's a huge opportunity.

Philip Hammond and

David Davies have been

on a charm offensive

in Germany this week,

so just how are those very British

baskets going down in

Brussels?

There is a concern that the UK

will take a shopping basket,

pick off the elements of the major

trade agreements the EU has secured

with third countries,

take all those together.

It gets the UK very close to full

membership of the single

market without any of

the obligations, so I think

they view managed divergence

as another way in

which the UK either hopes to cherry

pick or have its cake and eat it.

All member states will

agree that they can't

set a precedent with

the

UK that then sets internal

challenges for themselves over the

medium to longer term.

Now, what goes into

these baskets remains a

bit of a mystery, but of course,

there are deadlines because the next

round of talks is due to get under

way

this spring.

And you

can find more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

With me now is the Shadow

International Trade

Secretary, Barry Gardiner.

Welcome to the programme, thank you

for coming back. We were learning

about the different baskets, full

alignment, regulatory alignment.

Labour say you want to give all the

benefits and the single market so

presumably want to stay as much in

alignment as we do already?

What

we've said is that the government

have said we could have all the

benefits and we will hold them to

that.

To do that, we must keep most

of what we can in the full alignment

basket?

We want to make sure we get

as much of the benefits as we

currently have once we have left the

EU.

You can't do that and diverged.

Absolutely. That's the point.

Diverges from that, whether through

a trade deal with another country or

whether it is simply because we want

to deregulate our standards in the

UK is going to cause a problem with

maintaining the sort of trade we

have with Europe. It's going to

cause that economic bond. But we

want to make sure we have a Brexit

that is for jobs, for the economy

and that's why we see the benefits

of the single market, the benefits

of the customs union, and swipe we

said we wouldn't rule is off the

table. Whereas the government

precisely said it would. And that is

the red lines that Theresa May put

in place that are now causing her

all these other problems.

They've

caused a few problems in policy for

Labour as well because the closer

you want to stay to single market

rules, if we've loved the single

market because that is government

policy, more alignment would have --

if we've left. That is us accepting

rules we had no say in making, a

state you have described as being a

vassal state.

These other uses we

really have to resolve. Because you

are right, once we leave the EU that

means we are not a member of the

single market. It doesn't mean we

can't trade into the single market,

of course we can. We can do that in

the same way that Norway does. But

our economy is very different from

that of Norway. And what we need to

be sure about is when we are making

our rules in this country we are

doing it as close as possible to

maintain the trade and the economic

benefits we get in the European

Union.

There have been reports this

week that Labour is working on a

policy that would involve staying in

the customs union. The Robert Peston

programme on ITV...

That could not

be the case. I'm sorry to correct

you on a technicality. But once you

leave the EU you leave the treaties

and it is the treaties that create

the customs union. So we could not

be a member of the customs union.

You could be remember of a customs

union, which is what Jeremy Corbyn

was talking about on TV this

morning.

He was talking about the

transition period immediately after

leaving the EU. That has been our

position for many months. We were

the ones that said, in that

transitional period, we want the

status quo. We want to maintain

things that are... We want to

maintain a customs union and single

market during that transition.

Let's

talk about the future after the

transition period. Let's look at

what you said you thought were the

consequences.

consequences. Do you still agree

with that?

I was specifically

referring to, and if you go back on

that quote a little bit, you will

find we were talking about the

turkey situation, which was a

customs union agreement with the EU.

That would be a very bad end point

for us, because it would mean that

the European Union ended up doing

all the negotiations for trade for

the UK. We would have to open our

markets to any other company in --

any other country they made an

agreement with. But that country

would not have to liberalise its

markets and open itself up to our

goods and services.

The common

commercial policy is what governs

all of this and binds us in with

these trade treaties. The UK

Government say they want to leave

that. Is that the Labour position?

We will be...

Would you like to join

something similar once we are no

longer members of the EU?

I already

said, we believe that the benefits

of what we currently have should be

maintained as much as possible, and

that means that whilst we cannot

stay in the customs union, we should

not have a turkey style customs

union agreement, because that would

be an asymmetrical relationship with

any trading partner. What we do see

as a possibility, and it is what we

have not ruled out, which is to have

a new customs union with the

European Union, and that is

something very interesting wave

which in paragraph 31 of the

cross-border trade taxation bill

which came in on Monday from the

Government, and which we debated

them, they have actually put

provision for that, a new customs

union, where we would be an equal

member.

But you cannot possibly

believe that you can have the

benefits of being in a reformed

customs union relationship with the

EU and still have total freedom to

make new trade deals. You have said

you don't want anything which

precludes us from making independent

trade agreements with some of our

bigger partners.

Let's be clear

about the nexus of problems we are

trying to solve the run work our way

through. You have, within the

referendum, a clarity that people

were voting for certain political

issues, whether that was in terms of

immigration, regaining sovereignty,

or simply not paying money into

Europe. All of these were things

people thought they were voting for.

If you were to be in a relationship

in which some of those continued to

be the case, where we were rule

takers and not rule setters, as

Norway is at the moment, and they

are told they have no right to

decide what the rules are going to

be, that is a political problem

which many people in this country

would feel, what was the referendum

all about if we don't achieve that?

Let's...

Just let me... I don't

think it's clear, the problems we

are trying to solve. We want to

maintain a maximum economic benefit,

to get the economic benefit of the

jobs that we currently get from the

trading relationship we have in a

customs union and in a single market

with the European Union. But to do

that respecting the referendum will

of the people for those political

objectives.

We understand that

point.

Labour has to bring back the

42 purse -- the 52% under 48%.

We

understand need to move you on to

something else. We have heard the

new Tory chairman Brandon Lewis say

today that if any... He wants new

Tory candidates to sign up to a

respect pledge that they will

conduct themselves on Twitter and in

what they say in a respectful way,

otherwise they will be removed as

candidates.

Of course, that's right.

Jeremy Corbyn said that Labour

should do it too. It raises

questions about some Labour MPs.

Jarrod O'Mara, for example, who has

had the whip suspended.

An

investigation is being conducted, as

is appropriate, within all the

procedures of our party. Absolutely

right, suspended.

Because of remarks

he made about women and homophobic

comments. Then you look at the

Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell,

against whom no action has been

taken, and he has said a number of

things, but one of them which has

been heavily criticised is that he

wanted... Well, he agreed with

people who wanted to see Esther

McVeigh lynched. We have the audio

of this. Let's listen and then we

will ask you about it.

I was up in

Liverpool a fortnight ago...

And obviously, he used a word that

we won't be saying on TV, but is

that respectful language?

It is not

language I would have used. Earlier

today, you have been quoting remarks

that were made by the President of

the United States which were deeply

offensive and unacceptable.

Yes.

Hang on.

But this is about the

Labour Party...

And you quoted. The

point I am making is that he was

quoting what someone else was

saying, and I would not have chosen

to do that.

He was clearly quoting

with approval, not reporting it.

The

underlying issue which the

Conservatives have been trying to

cover up through all the smear on

John McDonnell, Esther McVeigh, who

was a Department for Work and

Pensions minister, and at a time

when she was in charge of work and

pensions as a minister, her company

had been reported for breach of

health and safety guidelines. She is

one of the ministers, and for that

reason...

Jeremy Corbyn said we

should stick to policies and use

respectful language. That wasn't

respect.

That's what I'm doing now,

and I'm trying to make the

underlying political point about

what's going on here. She was in

charge of a department in which she

was responsible for health and

safety when her own company which

she was a director of, a

construction company, they had been

suspended, their work had had to be

suspended twice within three months

for breach of those health and

safety guidelines, putting workers

at risk in her own company. She is

also somebody...

We will have to

leave it there. Thank you very much

for that. It is coming up to

11:40am. You're watching the Sunday

Politics. Coming up:

The future of the Ukip leader

is in doubt after his girlfriend

is suspended from the party

for racist remarks.

I'll be speaking

to the Ukip Chairman.

First though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Ellie Price.

Coming up later: As the BBC drama

series continues to captivate

television audiences,

we look behind the headlines

at the real problem of global money

laundering in the capital.

Joining me for the duration

of the show, the Labour MP

for Ealing Central and Acton,

Rupa Huq who is Co- Chair

of the All-Party Parliamentary Group

on Anti-Corruption and Bob Neill,

Conservative MP for Bromley

and Chislehurst, who chairs

the Justice Select committee.

Now, according to a highly critical

report published this week,

passengers on Southern,

Thameslink and Great Northern

Services have suffered the worst

rail disruption in the UK,

with Londoners and London

commuters bearing the brunt.

The National Audit Office said

the UK's largest rail franchise,

GTR, has not provided

value for money.

Jerry Thomas has more.

The report found that the services

had been the worst n the network

is

--on the network

since Govia Thameslink took over

the routes and at worst only two

thirds of trains arrived on time,

60% of delays on

the GDR network were due to

industrial action or lack of crew.

And nearly 40% of delays were down

to poor infrastructure.

The Department for

Transport is being

blamed for not ensuring that

adequate staffing available before

awarding the franchise.

Transport Secretary

Chris Grayling responded

to the criticism in

the House of Commons.

What I do apologise for is

that we were not able to avoid the

extraordinarily ill-judged actions

by the trade unions who caused

massive trouble for passengers.

in

The report went on to say

that the Government

should learn lessons

from

the case when it sets up other rail

franchises in the future.

lessons for franchises in the future

- I think commuters would probably

rather have action now. A sort of

apology from the Transport

Secretary, but the buck passed to

the unions. What do you think is

going on, and shouldn't he or the

Government take more responsibility?

Chris was right to make the point

about the behaviour of the unions,

which I think was absolutely

unacceptable in that case, but there

are other problems, and there is an

issue with the way the franchises

were drawn up in the first place. He

does have an opportunity now to

change the make-up of those

franchises. I have said the same

thing about south-eastern, my own

franchise, which I think is too big.

This one, an enormous geographic

franchise, doesn't make any sense.

As well as doing what the Government

is doing, they should revise the

geographic spread of the franchises

to make them smaller. I don't think

you can get a grip on something that

size. The other thing I suggest we

could do is to split off the

suburban elements of the franchise

and integrate those more closely

with TEFL. You could sensibly do

those things.

Blame for the unions,

Rupa?

I agree with Bob that this

franchises to a unwieldy. Northern,

Southern, Thames Link, bits of

Gatwick Express. It is too big for

one company. They have said when it

comes up again in 2021 they will

break it up. Rather than the unions,

I think it is the way we run our

railways. I think we have to put

train and track together and put the

whole lot in public ownership. As

Bob says, it covers from

Peterborough to Portsmouth.

The

problem is, we feel there is a blame

game giving on, the Government

blaming the unions, the unions

blaming the train companies. We need

something done and soon, and the

Government has suggested it is not

going back to

going back to TFL.

They should

ensure closer operational working

between TFL and whoever gets the new

franchise. I still think they should

break up the franchises. Putting

train and track together, I agree on

that. That could be done in the

context of a new franchise. I don't

agree with bringing it into public

ownership was not I commuted when it

was British rail. I have been a

commuter for 40 years. The myth that

there was a good British rail is

exactly that. It was terrible,

absolutely awful.

We don't have to

go to a 70s model, you could do a

European style one.

The reason I

favour privatisation is that you

ought, if the company fails, you

should take the camp franchise of

them.

There is a French company that

took over from a Dutch company. They

sold off the depot to Canadians. It

seems weird that all these other

foreign franchises can do it but not

us.

We will have to leave it there.

We will watch this story.

This week the Mayor faced questions

from the London Assembly

about his draft annual budget.

Londoners will be finding out just

how much he's investing

in the public services he funds.

Bhavani Vadde has more.

It's that time of year

when the mayor's metaphorical

piggy bank is opened up.

He has a pot of nearly £16 billion

at his disposal for the

next financial year.

Sadiq Khan is currently

being grilled by the

London Assembly on his spending

plans for the public services that

he funds, such as transport,

the Fire Service, the work

of City Hall and policing.

He's had time to bed into the job.

This is his second annual

budget and he's decided to

raise his share of council tax,

unlike his predecessor, Boris

Johnson, who held it down.

While police spending

fell under Boris

Johnson, Sadiq Khan is using his

council tax hike to maintain

spending on police operations

at around £3.3 billion.

The issue that stands out

above all others in this

budget is funding for

the Metropolitan Police Service.

Keeping Londoners safe

is my top priority.

Despite this, next year

there will be 2000 fewer police

officers in the capital.

The mayor has dropped the strategic

target of 32,000 officers

which has been in place since 2012.

He says that is due to government

funding cuts in the face of

increasing costs.

The government has forced

the Met to make £600

million of cuts over

recent years already.

And the announcement on funding

from the Policing Minister

before Christmas was

just smoke and mirrors.

The Mayor, instead of taking

ownership of his own actions, is far

too quick to blame

everybody under the sun.

Whether it be his predecessor,

or if he can't find reasons to blame

him it will be the government

or the man on the moon

or anybody else but himself.

The Mayor has the power to move

funds around the GLA group, and

he has not done so.

So he could've maintained police

officers numbers at a higher

level and he hasn't.

He's putting money into

the London Fire Brigade

rather than the police.

And they will be putting

that money straight

into their reserves.

So they won't be spending it

on operational duties

at all.

Transport is the other big

issue in this budget.

Overall spending for

Transport For London

will drop slightly to around

£9.5 billion, and this mayoral

budget has highlighted some

concerning pressures

on TFL finances.

So we've seen the mayor over

the last year cut some of the

buses across London.

We are seeing fewer buses

on bus routes right

across the capital.

And yet his budget has

a line, saying we're

going to get more revenue

in from passengers on buses.

It doesn't stack up.

TFL is expecting to receive

£900 million less in money

from passenger fares than was

projected in the mayor's budget just

two years ago.

And TFL's level of borrowing

last year just over £12

million is more

than its total budget.

That means debt repayments

of about £500 million in the next

year alone.

You do need to invest in services

in order to get income for

the future.

And one of the biggest pieces

of investment that is

under way at the moment is of course

the development of Crossrail, the

Elizabeth Line, parts

of which will start running

at the end of this year.

So there will be a huge uplift

in our passenger income.

This is a draft budget

that is due to be finalised

next month.

The mayor seems to have cross-party

support from Assembly

members on raising his share

of council tax to fund policing.

But there are questions

over whether he

is making the best use of the rest

of the money in his piggy bank.

Joining us, Professor Tony Travers,

leading expert in Local Government

from the London School of Economics.

Hello, Tony. You have seen plenty of

these budgets in your time, what do

you make of this one?

There are

definitely a number of things knew

about it, we heard about them in the

film. One is the decision not to

increase police spending

significantly but to stop the

reduction in police spending that's

been going on for a number of years.

Police grants have been cut not only

in London and that has left police

spending lower than it was six or

eight years ago. What we have is a

clear signal that the mayor is

willing to push up council tax, a

precept he sets, to stop fat

reduction. It won't lead to a big

increase in police spending. The

same is true of the Fire Brigade.

He

has obviously worked out that it is

palatable to lift council tax but

you want see more bobbies on the

beat.

Not only the mayor and the

government, they have both agreed

that council tax must go up to pay

for, as I say, not a big increase in

police spending but at least to make

sure it doesn't fall any further.

However much politicians in

different parties will argue that it

is the other's case it's true that

politicians and the mayor on the

same side to put up council tax, not

massively to increase police

spending but to stop it falling any

more.

Rupa, let me bring you in on

this. The Mayor of London has

somewhat blamed central government

for spending cuts. Yet it has been

his choice to scrap the strategic

target of 32,000 police officers on

the beat.

In the film you pointed

out £600 million of savings as they

are your euphemistically called.

There are more coming. We have a

government clever at displacing

these cuts. Even in Ealing, we have

now got fortnightly bin collection.

No one came into politics to do any

of that stuff. But when everything

is being stretched thinner people

are doing more and more with less

and less, he's boxed into a corner

and is running out of options. This

is why the precept has to be raised,

a courageous thing to do because

Boris wouldn't do it.

The government

is responsible for 70% of funding of

the Met. Four terror attacks last

year, not a good look, is it, to cut

funding.

The government has

protected police spending as a

global figure. Precisely because of

the terrorist threats more spending

has to go on to those

counterterrorist issues, that has

made less available, what we

sometimes call more local policing.

I think that just reflects the

pleasures we have as a society --

the pressures. I think it's a bit

rich for the mayor to blame

government and ask them for more

money when you look at his draft

budget figures there are £40 million

not allocated. He needs to get his

own budget in order. He isn't good

at budgeting. He still hasn't

actually worked out what he will do

with £50 million of money. It

doesn't give you much confidence in

the approach he is adopting.

Back to

transport, we talked about fair

revenues going down. Something to

worry about? The mayor and his team

talk about the opening of the

Elizabeth Line and Crossrail.

They

were going to open and bring in

extra fares, it will have to because

part of the funding of Crossrail is

to be paid for by borrowing, and

that borrowing will now need to be

surfaced from you in. Even before

Crossrail opened this been a big

reduction in yield fares to TEFL

compared with what was projected a

few years ago. Some of it will be

because of their fees, some will be

because of fares on tubes, as well

as the National rail system have

begun to fall and nobody was

predicting that.

What do you put

that down too.

Different patterns of

work, people are responding to the

strikes discussed earlier. Lots of

reasons. But I think there's

probably a bigger change going on in

society about how people work and

where they choose to live. And TfL

and all of us will have to cope with

the fact that fair income may not

grow as it has done for many years

and that will be a challenge for

TfL.

Rupa, how will TfL cope?

He's

kept his promise of freezing fares,

generally the Labour Party and

generate the first is a campaign

about this going up. We had to

differentiate this year.

It's only a

partial promise.

He couldn't

possibly keep his original promise.

He's been attacked for doing that

because people say these

improvements won't happen, I think

he's done it the right way.

That

freeze will cost £450 million over

several years.

Our constituents...

On the go via story we had last

summer, some of the first account

have gone up over 12% since

Christmas.

In consequence of this

partial fare freeze, we have seen

consolations in other projects like

the cancellation of 27 new trains on

the Jubilee and Northern minds. It's

going back to the old Gordon Brown

approach to budgeting.

approach to budgeting. You've got

Sadiq Khan saying, we are borrowing

to invest. That's what Gordon Brown

did and what a mess that got us

into. Not clever budgeting.

George

Osborne slashed the TfL grant... We

will have to leave it there,

unfortunately although we do like to

argue about a budget. Tony, thank

you for joining us.

The BBC's latest hit drama series

McMafia charts the rivalry

between Eastern European organised

crime factions - and London,

it suggests, is right

in the thick of it.

Tanjil Rashid has more.

London, at the heart

of a nefarious Eastern

European organised

crime networks, that's

the picture painted

by the

BBC drama McMafia in which Russian

gangsters launder their money

through the City's financial sector.

And how accurate is it?

This man was for many years

at the front line in

the fight against money-laundering

from Eastern Europe and he says...

Very simply very accurate.

Typically ends up in

London indirectly, in the

sense that the assets

are British-based,

and that's typically property

through foreign-owned companies.

London is the world's foreign

exchange capital and there's this

huge network of asset management

companies and corporate service

providers, professional services,

the lawyers, the accountants.

There has been increasing

scrutiny of the City's

role in laundering money

from Eastern Europe.

Last year, a Guardian

investigation showed that

three-quarters of $1 billion

of questionable money had passed

into UK bank accounts over

a four-year period.

All of the major London-based

high street banks were

involved.

One of the strangest causes

of the situation is that rich

criminals are attracted to London

not because the capital is somehow

lawless, but precisely

for the opposite reason,

because the rule of law

is

so strong here that they know

that they can count on London's

authorities to protect their private

property, their ill-gotten gains.

And that's why they

choose London as the

ultimate destination

to launder all their money.

The question is what London's

lawmakers going to do about

it.

One good measure the government

could take would be to ensure that

there are prosecutions of the

companies which are in effect front

companies that allow to be laundered

through them in the United Kingdom.

The number of cases that

have been prosecuted

is very small indeed,

and

we require, I would suggest,

more energy from the UK

authorities to pursue those

companies.

In Russia they call

everyone a gangster.

So what.

He's a businessman.

But McMafia's portrait

of Russian gangsters

at large in London

is

disputed by the Russian government.

In a statement the embassy told us

they believe it is misleading and

wrong.

"If anything, a Russian citizen

in the UK is much less

likely to be imprisoned

than an average British resident."

Tanjil Rashid reporting.

We're joined by Russia

expert Luke Harding,

who last year in The Guardian

exposed the alleged role of London's

banks in laundering Russian money.

Hello Luke. It is a good watch for a

Sunday night, but how accurate is

it?

Is pretty good, the Russian

gangsters back-ups a little

overblown, but the underlying thesis

that London is the most corrupt

place in the planet is too, not

because of gangsters running round

in Westminster but we allowed

through, our banks, lawyers, real

estate agents, and every so often we

will publish this material, we'll go

and see the National crime agency

and they will say it's a bit

difficult, the perpetrators are far

away, we'd like to do something but

we can't. That's not a sensible

place to be.

Collusion from the

Russian government, you've suggested

in the past, people are making

money.

It's not happening far away,

it's an our doorsteps. Walk around

West London and you can see it. It

is firms registered at Companies

House in London, one around the

corner which processed $9 billion,

they have posh sounding names and

look OK but they are owned by

mysterious entities in the Cayman

Islands, the British Virgin Islands

and so on. Often this money goes to

British Overseas Territories. The

government could force these

territories to publish a register of

who owns what but for reasons that

escape me, they don't.

Reds find

out. Even TV drama writers are

making money out of this.

It's a

consequence of London being a global

city which brings a downside as well

as an upside. And because it is a

comparatively safe place. The

government have taken a number of

measures. As far as the National

Crime Agency is concerned we've

recently strengthened the links

between that and the Serious Fraud

Office by having a specific national

economic crime unit which can toss

those agencies and pull them

together more effectively. Secondly

a change in the law has made it

easier to prosecute cases of

corruption when they occur abroad

but the perpetrators are here,

that's a big step in the right

direction. And thirdly we have

greater transparency than most

places when it comes to registering

ownership. And we've got an

agreement with the overseas

territories now, they will have

central measures of ownership and

although they are not all published

openly they do make all those

details are available to any law

enforcement agency on request. A

major step in the right direction.

There's more we could do, we should

continue to be vigilant and look

more at some of those bogus

companies based here, but more

resources into those issues.

Rupa

you up on the parliamentary group

against corruption, we have heard

that the rule of law protects some

of these people, shouldn't it be

used to pursue them?

The programmers

section but there's no smoke without

fire and this culture of secrecy due

to restrictions, there's £86 million

of property, or, more than that,

isn't it.

Lots of money, think of a

number!

£10,000 alone in the borough

of Westminster, where we are now,

6000 in Kensington and Chelsea, of

these properties, we don't really

know who owns them. Because in these

secrecy jurisdictions of the company

and we don't know that the

individuals are, we could have

greater transparency.

Rupa seems to

know who they are.

With respect to

Bob, it's not good enough, the

others is agencies, they say that

they are overwhelmed and people in

the banks say there's so much of

this stuff, it's like trying to play

whack a croc. The way to do this

publicly is shine a light on them

and end the culture of offshore

secrecy that is blighting this

country. Also going through

Scotland. A lot of Scottish schemes

in Glasgow and places like that,

it's not just London. David Cameron

was keen to do something about this

because his late father was an

offshore. But from Theresa May I've

seen nothing.

She has tried to get an

international group. If you move it

from the British Virgin Islands to

Delaware, one of the US

jurisdictions, there is far less

transparency than in the UK.

Is it a

lack of political will?

I think this

Government has dragged its feet. We

have a strategy that came out at the

end of last year, but we need proper

legislation. David Cameron, remember

he did that whole summit about it,

and he said, let sunlight be the

best disinfectant, but there has

been very little action.

He had an

anti-corruption Summit but two

months later was out of office.

Very

briefly, Bob, enough being done?

You

can never do enough. I think we have

taken valid and important steps.

Events that have happened since

David's time have rather crowded out

some of the political agenda, but

that doesn't mean we shouldn't

return to it.

I have to stop you

all.

That's all we have time for.

My thanks to Rupa to Bob

and to Luke and with that,

it's back to Sarah.

Earlier we were talking about

comments made by John McDonnell

about Esther McVeigh. The Labour

Party had been in touch to say that

Mr McDonnell did not quote with

approval, and that comments made in

Parliament confirm that. We have

been contacted also by the office of

Kier Starmer, previously the

Director of Public Prosecutions,

saying he had nothing to do with the

decision about John Worboys, and we

are also happy to make that crystal

clear. On to other news...

Ukip has suspended the girlfriend

of the party leader, Henry Bolton,

after reports that she made racist

remarks about Prince Harry's

fiancee Meghan Markle.

In text messages to a friend,

Jo Marney described black people

as "ugly" and said "her seed"

would "taint our royal family".

Ms Marney has apologised,

and said that comments had been

taken out of context.

Paul Oakden, Ukip's party chairman,

joins us from Birmingham.

Can Henry Bolton carry on as leader

after this?

I think it is very clear

that Henry is increasingly in a

position where he has some difficult

decisions to make. He knows that. He

and I have spoken regularly over the

weekend, as recently as this

morning. I know he is focused on

those decisions today. He intends on

making those decisions today, and

I'm sure that whatever he does will

be in the best interests of the

party.

It sounds like you expect him

to resign by the end of the day.

Not

at all. He is in a situation that he

would rather not be in, which he

acknowledges, but I believe he has

the party's best interests at heart

and that is what he will focus on.

Would the party's best interests be

served by him standing down as

leader?

It would be best served by

the membership having the

opportunity to have their say. Henry

acknowledges there has been an error

in judgment, and it is now for the

party membership and ruling body to

make a determination on whether they

feel Henry is the best person to

lead them into what will be an

incredibly crucial 12 months for

Brexit. The thing that matters

beyond Ukip and everything else.

If

he doesn't decide by the end of the

day that he will stand down, when

will the NEC meet?

A week today. I

want to be clear - Henry is not

deciding whether he will or won't

resign today. He's deciding what he

can do to help remedy this

situation. As leader, he will play

the leading role in making this

better, clearly needs made better,

and a lot of people take their lead

from him. The party is represented

by its governing body, which will

meet a week today. If he is still

the leader Robbie today, they will

meet at that point and collectively

make a decision about what to do

going forward.

It doesn't sound like

he has your support.

Far from it. My

job is to make sure that our

thousands of members, who joined not

because of the leader's Private life

but because of Brexit, and we will

not deliver Brexit on our own. Now

that Tony Blair is running around

with Lord Adonis and Nick Clegg

trying to ride roughshod over

democracy, we need a grand coalition

of all those groups that fought on

the League side to come together to

see the journey home. That is the

priority.

It is a huge distraction

if you're leader is having to fend

off the stories about his private

life.

It is true that we need to be

behind our leader 100% in taking

that battle forward. That is

absolutely key. Whether or not the

party decides it is willing to give

that support to Henry is for the

party decide. My role as German as

to make sure they have the ability

to voice their opinion. I have every

confidence that our national

executive committee will do what is

in the interests of the party, and I

have every confidence that that is

what our leader will seek to do.

Whatever the situation, I am

confident that a week tomorrow, the

party will be in fine form to take

that to the Remain establishment.

Thanks for joining us.

Let's pick up on that with the

panel. What do you think the

prospects are for the Ukip leader?

Based on that, it has Monty Python

moment. He will do what is best for

the party, but that best... This is

symptomatic of a wider crisis for

Ukip. I've lost count of the number

of leaders they've had.

Five in 18

months.

Three of them were Nigel

Farage!

He will probably be back

again. They were a powerful vessel

for delivering that referendum, but

it is a lesson for people wanting to

start political parties - it was a

fragile vessel. The fragility is are

now being exposed in this impossible

nightmare they have. They can't even

find a credible leader. They have

not resigned over principles, they

have resigned in bizarre

circumstances, time and again.

One

of them only lasted days.

And that

is not bad going on the basis of

what could happen in the future. It

shows that it is difficult to set up

a credible, serious political party.

And they have become incredible.

On

a more serious note, Paul Oakton was

saying that it is more important

than ever to have people are giving

the Ukip case as we go through the

process of Brexit. As a party, can

they do that? Or do people think

that

that with the referendum done and

dusted, Ukip are finished?

We have

seen that in their election results

since. He was a credible leader, a

background in the police, working in

the EU, the Armed Forces. I don't

want to live in Soviet Russia or

modern-day North Korea where people

have guilt by association. He hasn't

made these racist remarks.

She has