21/01/2018 Sunday Politics London

Morning, everyone, and welcome

to the Sunday Politics.

I'm Sarah Smith.

And this is your essential briefing

to everything that's happening this

morning in the world of politics.

Big fines for bosses who take

bonuses from firms with black holes

in their pension funds -

will the Prime Minister's promise

help the Government get

back on the front foot

after the collapse of Carillion?

Leading Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg

says the Lords risk fundamental

reform if they obstruct the passage

of the EU Withdrawal Bill.

Arch-remainer Lord Adonis

says that's their job.

We'll bring the MP

and the peer together.

Henry Bolton fights to save his job

after a week of damaging headlines

about his relationship

with a 25-year-old model.

We'll be talk to

the Ukip leader live.

Will it be his last

interview as party leader?

In London, knife crime is on the

rise. Could the solution lie in

Scotland where it is treated as a

public health issue?

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today, our regular

gaggle of experts providing

the inside track on all the big

stories - Tom Newton Dunn,

Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

First this morning, Theresa May

is proposing what she's

calling tough new rules

to penalise company executives

who try to line their own pockets

by putting their workers'

pensions at risk.

"An unacceptable abuse,"

she says, "that will end."

Her comments come as the Government

attempts to seize the initiative

after the collapse of the giant

construction, services

and out-sourcing company, Carillion,

which went into liquidation

on Monday with debts

of around £1.5 billion.

One of Britain's biggest

construction firms, Carillion,

has been put into liquidation.

20,000 workers face

an uncertain future.

Carillion employed people providing

essential services in our schools,

hospitals, railways and prisons.

They had to be told they would be

paid when they turned

up to work on Monday.

Let me be clear that all employees

should continue to turn up to work

confident in the knowledge

that they will be paid

for the public services

that they are providing.

The firm had around 450

contracts with government,

on top of private work

and overseas projects.

Some of those had been handed

to the company after it issued

profit warnings last year.

Prime Minister, why were contracts

awarded to Carillion

despite the warnings?

Labour and the unions

wanted answers.

Why did the Government

not heed the warnings?

Why did they continue to give

billions of pounds of contracts

to a company that the City

were backing against in 2013?

That's the real question.

And it's emerged the firm's former

chief executive, Richard Howson,

who left the firm last year,

received £1.5 million in pay

and bonuses in 2016,

while many ordinary employees face

the prospect of being laid-off

and a huge black hole

in the company's pension scheme

could result in their

pensions being slashed.

Subcontractors who hadn't been paid

for weeks were warned they might get

just 1p for every pound

they are owed.

Some warned that they too

might go to the wall.

We are not really a business

of a size that can trade

through that without some form

of support from the Government.

If it's not forthcoming, I think

ourselves and lots of businesses

like us will probably go

out of business.

In the wake of the collapse...

For Labour though, this was not just

about the failure of one company.

By Monday night, Jeremy Corbyn had

taken to social media.

At Prime Minister's Questions,

he pressed the point home.

This is not one isolated case

of government negligence

and corporate failure.

It is a broken system.

Virgin and Stagecoach's management

of East Coast Trains,

Capita and Atos' handling

of disability assessments,

and security firm G4S's failure

to provide security at the Olympics

were all examples, according

to Jeremy Corbyn, of the private

sector failing the public sector.

These corporations, Mr Speaker,

need to be shown the door.

We need our public services

provided by public employees

with a public service ethos

and a strong public oversight.

As the ruins of Carillion lie

around her, will the Prime Minister

act to end this costly racket?

Theresa May pointed out

it was the Blair and Brown

governments that signed

many of the big public-private

partnership deals and she suspected

there was something else behind

the current Labour leadership's

hostility to the private sector.

But what Labour oppose isn't just

a role for private companies

in public services but the private

sector as a whole.

This is a Labour Party that has

turned its back on investment,

on growth, on jobs.

A Labour Party that will always put

politics before people.

So, under a Labour government,

how far would their

nationalisation plans go?

Would every binman, builder

and even bankers have to be

employed by the state?

Carillion's collapses the big story

of the week and it will continue to

have political consequences I will

talk through now at the panel. Tom

Newton Dunn, presumably the caps of

Carillion has prompted this promise

from Theresa May that she will

punish bosses who continue to take

bonuses when they have black holes

in the pension fund, is this

something new?

This is our

expectation, the Prime Minister has

acted dramatically as a response to

the collapse of Carillion last week.

The problem as I recall a party

conference speech she gave in

October, 2016, the citizens of

nowhere, calling out a rotten

corrupt apples across the country

then, Philip Green who presided over

the collapse of BHS, leaving a

massive pensions black hole, an

entire year and a bit has passed and

no apparent government action. I

fear Theresa May with the bold words

in the new look Observer this

morning, action today, still action

tomorrow.

It is what people want to

hear?

Certainly people do want to

hear it, although they are amazed it

has not happened before. Jeremy

Corbyn is playing this beautifully.

There is a much more worrying bigger

picture here for the Conservatives.

The opportunity they have created

for Jeremy Corbyn to underline his

case that unfettered free markets do

not work and somehow or other

Carillion symbolises everything that

is wrong about the system, as we

heard him say in the clip. I do not

think most voters are particularly

ideological, they just want things

to work. But if the Government is

seen to be incompetent on this

scale, it creates a vacuum for the

leader of the Labour Party to put an

ideological spin on it and he is

doing it very effectively.

The Prime

Minister is right when she says more

of these PFI contracts were signed

under Blair and Brown than under

subsequent Tory governments, but now

you have a Jeremy Corbyn Labour

Party in opposition, they do not

have to shoulder the blame for that?

Jeremy Corbyn oppose them at the

time. The late 1970s in reverse,

that is what we are seeing. Bowman

the minority Labour government being

torn apart. Now we have a minority

Conservative government being

challenged by tidal waves which put

them on the defensive all the time.

We have not time to go through other

examples, but just on this one,

Theresa May is quite well equipped,

as Tom said, from the beginning, she

taught the language of intervention

and corporate governments, coming

after the bad people in the private

sector, but because of the lack of

action to follow it up and because

Jeremy Corbyn genuinely believes in

these things, it is much easier for

him to swim with these tidal waves

than her lead in this deeply

pressurised minority government.

We

have been talking to all three of

you through the programme, let us

pick up on Carillion with the Shadow

Attorney General, Labour's Shami

Chakrabarti. Labour have been very

critical of the Government's

response to the collapse of

Carillion, what would Labour have

done differently this week if you

had been in government?

I think what

we would do and what we will do, as

soon as we are in government, is

look in a far more fundamental way

at PFI, outsourcing, and by the

way...

We will get on the principles

of this, but if you had won the

election in 2017, it would have been

a Labour government handling the

collapse, what would have been

different in your response?

We would

not have left it so late, we would

not have bailed out a company that

already had raised serious warning

signals in the City, we would not

have allowed them to get into

subcontracting with, for example,

Cerco, worth millions of pounds,

profit warnings against that company

too.

Cerco are a big government

provider, should they be looking at

all of their contracts with the

likes of Cerco who have also issued

profit warnings?

You do have to look

at all of the arrangements and the

subcontracting arrangements. It is

not because I am ideological leap

opposed to the private sector, it

will be smaller private sector

companies suffering from nonpayment.

Should the Government help? The man

running the small business in the

film saying they might go to the

wall.

Quite possibly. But with

accountability. It is all very well

for Mrs May to say she will sting

the big executives, there has to be

ministerial responsibility as well.

One of my concerns is that when

vital public services of a kind

almost constitutional, for example,

prisons, get contracted out, what

you are actually devolving as

ministerial responsibility,

something goes terribly wrong, in a

vital utility, a matter of security,

infrastructure, and ministers, of

whatever colour, put up their hands

and say, it is wicked executives.

What we need is ministerial

responsibility, oversight, of course

we want a thriving private sector,

but some vital services need to be

run by public servants and with

ministers held to account.

Sometimes

when you hear Labour Shadow

ministers talking, it sounds as

though they want to take absolutely

everything back into public

ownership.

That is not the case. I

believe in a mixed economy and I

know my colleagues do too but there

are times when some things need to

be in public hands. That will

include on constitutional grounds

talking about people's human rights,

basic security, and it will also

mean sometimes when you have a big

organisation and outsourcing is used

to grind down the working conditions

of some workers and break down the

sense of community solidarity.

Where

is it appropriate for private

contracts?

For example, there are

some things that the private sector

probably does better. When you're

running a police force, you are

unlikely to say, we will make the

motorbikes for the police officers

better than BMW. Maybe you will but

I doubt it will happen any time

soon.

You need to look at this. What

about cleaning in offices and police

stations? Should that be run by the

police or outsourced?

Maybe

hospitals are better example because

cleanliness in a hospital is quite

often a matter of life and death.

Sometimes it is better even for

something that seems not a core

service like claiming to be in

public hands. You need to look at

this on a case-by-case basis.

You do

not have many examples of where it

is appropriate for private companies

to be involved. Prisons and

probation, what about catering in

prisons, does that have to be in

public hands?

What you want to do is

look at the quality of the service,

the quality of the conditions, for

the people working there, and to see

what would be best value for the

public and for the public purse. It

is not ideological, but in some

cases, principles are at stake.

We

are left with the problem here of

workers worried about pensions,

working for Carillion and

subcontractors who might not get

paid. If the Government work to talk

about putting taxpayers' money into

helping out those people or those

companies, would the Labour Party

object?

We would want to look at the

conditions of spending public money?

In principle? It is not the fault of

the subcontracting small companies

they will not get paid.

Indeed, but

if you decide to spend public money,

for example, to help the smaller

businesses, you want accountability

in response. You

in response. You might well want to

legislate to give priority to

pension funds, for example, over

shareholders who have not done their

job of corporate governance in these

cases.

Moving on to talk about

something else, if you don't mind,

the serial six attacker, this time

last week we were sitting here

talking about the fact the Justice

Minister said he would launch a

judicial review and now he will not

because it has little chance of

succeeding. Should the Government be

pursuing a judicial review?

My view

at the time, I held my tongue about

it because I am used to politicians

wading in in a knee jerk way when

there is a case of this kind, my

view is that if there is to be a

judicial review of the parole board

decision, the best person to bring

such a review would be a victim

because the chances are their best

arguments would be under the Human

Rights Act which gives rights to

victims and not to politicians.

Crowdfunding attempt to raise money

to do that perhaps?

If the Justice

Secretary wants to make a name for

himself with this as a new Justice

Secretary, he might better give his

attentions to making sure the people

have decent levels of legal aid so

they can vindicate their rights

under the Human Rights Act. In

relation to the case of John Worboys

and the crisis of public confidence,

that it is in danger of creating, we

could do with an end review of the

whole case, from the moment a young

woman

woman went to the police and was not

believed to the moment this release

decision was made arguably with the

lack of transparency and involvement

of victims.

He was prosecuted for

offences against 12 women and we

know there were almost 100 other

women who came forward. The CPS said

there was not enough evidence and

they cannot revisit that decision,

if there was not enough evidence

then, there will not be enough now.

I am not second-guessing the

particular CPS decision is because I

am not in a position to do that but

there are issues for the whole

system from the moment that a woman

went to the police and was not

treated with the respect she

deserved, to victims.

Kier Starmer was director of

prosecutions at the time and he said

he didn't have any involvement in

the decision-making behind it.

Nor

did his predecessor.

But he should

have done, shouldn't he? He has

prosecuted for only 12 cases, the

DPP should be involved in that.

My

argument is this whole

story on this whole case and the

numbers of women involved and

frankly the anxiety this decision

has caused to women who weren't even

victims means there needs to be an

end to end review of how the system

has worked in this case, from the

moment a woman went to the police

and was arguably not believed in was

made without the input of victims

who I would expect to be given

notice and the opportunity to make

representations to the parole board.

There's a story running in the

Sunday Times this morning about

Momentum and saying they are trying

to deselect 50 Labour MPs. The fact

of the matter is whether have been

Parliamentary selections, momentum

candidates have... Do you think

actually the Parliamentary Labour

Party should better

Party should better reflect Jeremy

Corbyn's Labour Party?

Momentum is

not prioritising the selection of

some candidates over others. They

are part of the Labour movement that

has always had various strands

within it. What is exciting to me is

not exciting to the Sunday Times,

fair enough, but we have a

Democratic party becoming more

democratic. I...

There is still a

massive disconnect between those who

sit in Parliament and those who have

joined since Jeremy Corbyn became

leader.

I think these things become

exaggerated. I have noticed people

uniting around purposes, not least

the scandal around Carillion. I

don't really spot this red Menace in

the way other people do. It's a

democratic party, and most popular

movement of about 600,000 people and

I think that something to be

optimistic about.

Thank you for

talking to this morning.

Momentum haven't been that

successful so far.

I think it has

been overblown on the basis of the

evidence. You quoted the procedure

is taking place so far, they haven't

prevailed that often and in the

Sunday Times this morning they

resorted to the example of Haringey

Council where there are a lot of

specific local issues. At this point

it is unclear whether the selection

will become the overwhelming theme

over the next few years in the

Labour Party. It might do but the

evidence so far is it is much more

nuanced than some papers are

suggesting.

Three new Momentum

members on the NEC this morning, is

it going to make a difference do you

think?

A huge difference because

Corbyn and his wing of the party can

now do precisely what they want, as

long as they have the union muscle

behind them during conference votes,

then the party and any which way he

wants to run it is his. I disagree

with Steve, the difference in

language Jeremy Corbyn and his close

associates were using after the NEC

elections this week on mandatory

reselection is, Shami wasn't asked

if she believed in them, Rebecca

Long-Bailey was, and they refused to

rule them out and say they were a

bad thing. In my view, it is without

doubt that Corbyn will at some stage

try to reshape the Parliamentary

party more in his image and you may

argue why should he not do that.

Shami was saying the party is much

more united around Jeremy Corbyn and

when we see a story like Carillion

it is easier for him to get the

backing of the Parliamentary party.

I think that's right. How unpleasant

and ugly and divisive is it to have

the story is out, whether or not

they are completely accurate or

whoever is briefing, I think it

looks very bad on the atmosphere of

the Parliamentary party. Where I do

think Shami has a good point is on

the size of the Labour membership.

600,000, the Conservatives can only

dream of getting a fraction of

dream of getting a fraction of this,

so clearly there is a big problem

for the Tory party there in matching

what Labour is doing.

We should ask,

mandatory reselection for Labour

MPs, are you in favour, Shami?

Any

democratic process should be across

the board and for everyone. Where

MPs are doing a good job, including

working with their membership, and

you have to work with your

membership to get the vote out in

the Labour Party, that relationship

works well and I think that

relationship will only work better

into the future. I have been all

over the country to all sorts of

CLPs campaigning, and you would be

surprised at the number of places

where there is a very happy

relationship between the MP and the

party regardless of the particular

strand they come from.

Thank you for

that.

Now, the Government's flagship

Brexit legislation -

the EU Withdrawal Bill -

hasn't always had the easiest

of times in the House of Commons,

but this week, MPs voted to send it

through for consideration

in the House of Lords.

A number of peers having expressed

concern about the so-called Henry

VIII powers the bill grants

to ministers to make changes to some

laws without parliamentary scrutiny.

And of course, a number

of peers are dismayed

about the process of Brexit itself.

So, are we likely to see more

dramatic attempts to change

the Bill in a chamber full

of unelected lawmakers?

Ellie Price has been

taking their temperature.

Stop Brexit!

You'd think a bill that sought

to enshrine EU law into British law

after Brexit would be popular

with the pro-Remain

crowd in Parliament.

But when the Withdrawal Bill cleared

the Commons this week,

one Tory Remain-supporting MP said

he hoped the House of Lords would

make an enormous amount of changes.

Good lord, what are they up to?!

I think what will happen

is that the Government will suffer

a series of defeats,

which will reduce the power

of ministers to do things

without proper scrutiny,

and put in place a sensible series

of votes - both in Parliament

and the people at the end

of the process - so that when we do

get an end point to Brexit,

people can say that it's

been done properly.

So a second referendum

is on the table?

It's definitely on the table.

You would expect a Lib Dem

to say that, but some Tory

peers want changes too.

If it comes to the situation

where it looks as if what people

voted for cannot be delivered,

then we have to decide how

best to move forward.

I don't believe the House of Lords

is trying to block Brexit at all.

I think what the House of Lords

is doing is its constitutional duty.

So anyone hoping the House of Lords

will deliver a fatal blow to Brexit

will be disappointed,

but so too will anyone hoping

that the Withdrawal Bill will come

out of there unchanged.

So what is all the fuss about?

The extent of the Government taking

powers to itself while giving

powers to Parliament,

Henry VIII powers, this issue,

of course, about the kind

of protections we've had under EU

law that we've contributed

to for consumer protection,

workplace protection,

environmental issues,

they are coming into UK law

and that's what this bill does

but it needs to make sure they're

protected in UK law; they can't just

be overturned the next day.

There has to be a mandatory

process to do that.

But this was the reaction when some

elected MPs over in the Commons

voted against aspects

of the Withdrawal Bill,

causing a government defeat.

One of their own colleagues even

talked of treachery.

Another MP, Jacob Rees-Mogg,

this week said the laws would face

reform if it tried to frustrate

the democratic will of the people.

So is the chamber full of unelected

Remainers playing with fire?

Since I've been leader

in the House of Lords,

for just over two years,

what I've found is every time

someone doesn't agree

with something we're doing,

they will get quite

hysterical about "take

away their powers," it's almost

an off-with-their-heads moment.

But you know, there is quite

prescribed powers we do,

we take them seriously

and responsibly, and,

if there are changes

we think should be made,

we will send them back

to the House of Commons.

And even one of the lesser-spotted

Brexit-supporting

Lords isn't worried.

There are a number of lords

are in cahoots with Messrs Tusk

and Juncker in trying to persuade

the British people that they made

a grave mistake when they voted

to leave Brexit, and I have no doubt

they will have a bit

of fun doing that.

But on the big issues,

like whether we should

have a second referendum,

the Lords voted by a majority

of more than 200 against that last

year; or if you look at the Commons

vote where the majority was over 200

against remaining in the single

market and the customs union,

I think the Lords will look

to the elected House and do

what they're good at,

which is to consider the detail.

Of course, one of the biggest

differences between the Lords

and Commons is the presence

of nearly 200 crossbenchers -

members who aren't in a party

and don't take the whip,

and they include some

of the most distinguished legal

minds in the country.

And debate over the bill's

constitutional implications may well

lead to more than one showdown

with the Commons.

It's worth remembering

that the Corporate Manslaughter

and Corporate Homicide Bill went

back and forth between the two

Houses seven times only a few years

ago, and that was just an aspect

of the criminal justice system,

it wasn't about the biggest decision

this country is taking since 1945.

So I think people need to be

a little bit relaxed about that.

Like the MPs on the Green

benches of the Commons,

the Lords on their red benches

agreed to trigger Article 50.

But the Lords, like the Commons,

is split on what Brexit

should actually look like.

There may be some toing and froing,

or ping-pong as it's known around

here, but pretty much everyone

agrees the Lords can't

and won't block the bill,

and it will go through,

probably, by the end of May.

Ellie Price reporting.

Well, to discuss this,

we're joined from Somerset

by the MP Jacob Rees-Mogg.

This week he was elected

chair of the influential

European Research Group,

made up of Brexit-backing

Conservative backbenchers.

And in the studio, we're

joined by Andrew Adonis.

He's a Labour peer who resigned

from his role as a Government

adviser last month over

its Brexit strategy.

Lord Adonis, you have made your

opposition to Brexit clear, recently

describing it as a national list

spasm that can be stopped. Do you

think the EU Withdrawal Bill is the

opportunity to stop Brexit?

I agree

this is the biggest decision the

country will take since 1945. I do

not think the Lords can stop it,

this is an issue for the people. It

started with the people in a

referendum and my view is the final

sites should go to the people. The

critical issue over the coming

months will be the relationship

between the House of Lords and the

House of Commons in seeing people

have the final say.

When you say

people have the final say, you are

talking about a second referendum?

The first referendum on Mrs May's

terms on departure of the EU, not a

rerun of the referendum two years

ago because when we have that we

didn't know what the terms would be.

We are a democracy, we engage the

people, this is the biggest decision

since 1945 and the people should

have the final say.

Let me bring in

Jacob Rees-Mogg on that, you are

confident we will have a Brexit deal

that will look attractive to most of

the electorate so presumably you

wouldn't be too worried about the

second referendum on the terms of

the deal?

I think the ambition of

the Lords in putting forward a

second referendum is to try to stop

tax it, and Lord Adonis has been

clear about that. He said only

yesterday he wanted to delete all of

the clauses of the Withdrawal Bill.

We have had a referendum, then a

general election where both main

parties backed the referendum

results. I think if somebody wants a

second referendum they should win a

general election first, campaigning

for one, rather than getting

unelected peers to use it as a

stratagem to obstruct Brexit. It is

noticeable Lord Adonis and others

have not called for a second

referendum on other things

referendum on other things like the

Scottish vote.

Lord Adonis, you have

sent you will make the Government's

life an absolute misery over the EU

Withdrawal Bill which sounds as if

you are using it as a stick to beat

a policy or a decision you don't

like rather than your real role

which is legislative scrutiny.

There's a huge amount of scrutiny to

do. The powers which ministers are

given in this bill is without

precedent in a single piece of

legislation, they have order making

powers over the whole sphere of

legislation that was previously

enshrined in European law so if the

House of Lords doesn't pay attention

to that it's not doing its job.

Coming back to Jacob's remarks,

Jacob himself has been a

supporter of the second referendum.

In the House of Commons in 2011 he

himself set out a case for a

referendum on the terms of departure

from the European Union if the

electorate voted first time around

to set the process in train. Jacob

is contradicting his own position.

You are shaking your head, Jacob

Rees-Mogg.

That is simply inaccurate. There was

a proposal for a referendum to begin

a process of negotiating

nonmembership, to give them a

mandate, and he would come back with

what he achieved, and there would be

a referendum on the result. The

Prime Minister decided to have a

straightforward referendum, in or

out. Lord Adonis is speaking about

discussion before the referendum

terms were set, then they were set,

everyone knew what they were voting

for, to leave the EU, it was clear

that meant leaving the single market

and the customs union. I put a dent

Lord Adonis, he would not be calling

for a second referendum had Remain

won.

That is completely untrue. We

did not know what the terms were.

The Conservative manifesto for the

election before said we would stay

in the single market. These are

Jacob's words, in the House of

Commons, in 2011, it might make

sense to have the second referendum

after the renegotiation is

completed...

He says he is talking

about Cameron's renegotiation that

he went to before.

Exactly the same

principle applies now. We are seeing

the terms Mrs May is coming back

with, it is absolutely right that

people should have a safe and it

should not be Jacob Rees Mogg and

Brexit ideologues deciding what the

terms are.

The difficulty with this

is that people decided in a

referendum, the general election

manifestos of both parties committed

to carrying out the result of the

referendum, if Lord Adonis wants to

put his case forward, he should try

to stand for election, something I

do not think he has ever done, win a

general election campaigning to

reverse the result. Unelected peers

should not try to frustrate the will

of the British people, as now

expressed in two Democratic votes.

On that, you have been issuing some

veiled threats this week, saying the

House of Lords would get into

difficulties if they try to

frustrate Brexit, what do you mean

by that?

I think what Baroness Smith

is saying is very sensible, the

House of Lords will abide by the

Constitutional conventions, it will

look to revise, I have concerns

about some of the Henry VIII powers

myself, a perfectly reasonable thing

for the Lords to look at in its

normal constitutional role. But if

the House of Lords gets into a 1909

position of peers against the

people, the people win and the Lords

need to be aware of that, they need

to observe the constitutional norms

and then everything will carry on.

The Lords need to be aware that what

might happen to them in those

circumstances, that government could

flood the Chamber with 200 new Tory

peers?

It is already pretty flooded,

but yes, you would have to have a

deluge on top of a flood. The House

of Lords has to abide by the

constitutional norms, otherwise the

Prime Minister would be perfectly

entitled to use reserve powers to

create more peers. I hope that will

not be necessary. This is a

conditional, not something I am

calling for.

What he is doing is

threatening the Lords, Brexit

ideologues who will stop at nothing

to get Brexit through without the

people the final say. He is dodging

the issue because nobody is talking

about the House of Lords asserting

itself against the people. The issue

which it will come down to resist

the House of Lords invites the House

of Commons, Jacob and his

colleagues, themselves to reach a

decision again on the issue of

whether they should have a

referendum on the final terms. It is

not anti-democratic, it is the

proper expression of democracy and

the House of Lords. It is something

which Jacob himself has supported in

the past, no longer convenient for

him to recognise that fact, but

people's past does catch up with

them. Nigel Farage has come to

support a referendum on Mrs May's

Brexit deal because he realises it

is inevitable. As people realise the

gravity of this decision and the

fact Parliament itself is not in a

great place to take it because there

has been a referendum. The case for

a referendum on Mrs May's terms will

be unstoppable and the House of

Lords will play an important

democratic role in inviting the

House of Commons to reach a decision

on that.

Jacob Rees Mogg, it would

be ironic if the British

constitution is working its way with

the House of Lords making its

revisions sending it back to the

Commons, for you to argue against

that, when what you wanted was for

us to take control back of our own

government.

I am all in favour of

taking back control and decisions

being made in the House of Commons

with the Lords acting as a revising

Chamber. You have to understand the

motives, they are trying to obstruct

Brexit. Lord Adonis said the

decision to leave for is as big a

mistake as appeasement in the 1930s,

almost hysterical reaction to the

Brexit decision, and they are using

it as a strategy to frustrate

Brexit. What they should do is not

used the unelected Lords but they

should campaign in a general

election if they have to campaign to

do it as the Labour Party notably

didn't in 2017, to call for a second

referendum and reverse the result,

but they do not have the courage

because they know the British people

are not with them.

One slightly

different thing before we finish,

are you excited the buyer tapestry

is coming to Britain, you don't

think it is maybe a bit cheeky of

the French celebrating something to

a celebrating the Norman victory

over the British?

over the British?

-- Bayeaux

tapestry. I think it is a splendid

gesture. We could send them a

fragment of the union Jack from

Nelson's ship at Trafalgar to remind

them that by and large we win the

battles.

Some people have suggested

we send Jacob but Bayeaux tapestry

is much more recent in its views.

On

the big issue of Brexit... We will

have to leave it there, Jacob Rees

Mogg, Lord Adonis, thank you for

that.

And you can find

more Brexit analysis

and explanation on the BBC website,

at bbc.co.uk/Brexit.

It's coming up to 11.40am.

You're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to embattled Ukip

leader Henry Bolton ahead

of his make-or-break meeting

with the party's executive.

First, though, it's time for

the Sunday Politics where you are.

Hello and welcome to

the London part of the show.

I'm Jo Coburn.

Joining me for the duration of

the programme, Jackie Doyle-Price,

Conservative MP for Thurrock,

and Sarah Jones, Labour MP

for Croydon Central.

Welcome to both of you.

Under Sadiq Khan, London has

witnessed an enormous

surge in knife crime.

Offences are up by almost

a third on a year ago.

Having enjoyed good poll ratings

in his honeymoon period in office,

the mayor now finds himself under

real pressure for the first time.

But could an answer to the problem

be found north of the border,

in Scotland, where ten years ago,

after being faced with similar

levels of violence on the streets,

the Government started to treat

knife crime as a health issue?

The result appears to have been

a dramatic improvement

and the Met Police Commissioner,

Cressida Dick, says the capital

should now follow suit.

But what exactly would

it mean in practice?

Andrew has been to

Scotland to find out.

The back half of the 20th century

saw Scotland, and Glasgow

in particular, become victim

to an epidemic of knife crime

which claimed hundreds of lives.

This is Desmond.

He witnessed knife violence

first-hand from a very young age

and eventually became an offender

as well, before turning

his life around.

I was brought up with

a mother on drugs.

Her partners were always violent,

so it was always knives

getting thrown about or scissors,

like kitchen knives.

I was only a kid, so they are scary,

that is protection to them,

so a knife will protect me.

Like people say, if you carry

a knife, you intend to use it.

If you throw a knife

at someone for a fight,

I either use it at them or they take

it off me and they use it on me,

so I was in a fight in Glasgow,

I was selling drugs.

And someone tried to

take my drugs off me.

I had to pull my knife out.

It was the first time I went to use

it and I was scared.

"I need to show them

I am not scared."

So I just stabbed the guy.

But I didn't stab him...

I didn't know where I was going

to stab him, but I stabbed him

and I stabbed him in the side

and I stabbed him and I thought,

it wasn't as bad as

what I thought it was.

I thought, I can do that again.

I don't know what the feeling was,

but it was like power.

For years, people tried

and failed to find a solution.

A little over a decade ago,

things in Scotland had

got incredibly serious.

A report by the United Nations found

that it was the most violent country

in all of the developed world.

You were three times more likely

to be assaulted if you were a Scot

than if you were American.

And 30 times more likely

than if you were Japanese.

But since then, there has been

a remarkable change.

Since the mid-noughties,

the murder rate has halved.

Crimes involving handling

an offensive weapon are down by two

thirds and violence is at the lowest

rate for nearly half a century.

All of this has happened at the same

time that something called a public

health approach has been taken

to the issue.

Fundamental to that change

was a group of medics.

We were all seeing huge numbers

of people coming through hospital

doors who had been injured

as a result of violence and we felt

that we wanted to do

something about that.

The World Health Organization had

recently recommended trying

to understand violence

as if it was a disease.

If you get involved in a situation

where your friends are involved

in violence, it's likely to spread

throughout your friend group

and we had a big problem ten years

ago with young people hanging

about in gangs and that was just

something that became expected

of that kind of social structure.

So it's kind of like an infection.

And the public health approach means

using scientific methodology

to treat violence like a virus.

Essentially, the public health

approach involves trying to decide

what your problem is,

so you obviously need some

data and some analysis.

You then have a look

at what interventions might work

to deal with the problem and then

test them out.

And if they work, you scale them up

and try to reach as many people

as you possibly can.

It was an idea taken up

by the Scottish authorities,

helped by a new body called

the violence reduction unit.

The new approach tied together

schools, hospitals, youth services -

whowever could be shown to make

a real difference.

The key thing here is to recognise

that if you want to tackle the issue

of violent crime and knife crime

in particular is not to simply think

it is about increasing the sentences

for individuals who are convicted

of these crimes, that it is simply

about more policing.

The criminal justice system has

an important part to play,

but the key to it is preventing it

from happening in the first place.

That is about working with young

people who maybe get

involved in violent crime,

maybe carrying knives, so trying

to understand exactly why

they are carrying knives and why

they think they need to get

involved in violence.

And what you can do to prevent them

from getting involved

in it in the first place.

Now part of that solution

is Des who we met at

the beginning of this report.

He has been going around schools,

warning young people away

from the path he took.

Life is a circle.

As long as one person can change,

that one person can help someone

else change and just go

round in a circle.

The more people that we get to help

people, the more people that we can

get to give someone a helping hand,

you can change the world.

Less violence, less crimes, less

people in prison, less drug using.

And here in London,

people are taking notice.

Met Police Commissioner Cressida

Dick this week taking part

in a hunt for knives

in front of TV cameras,

she says that we too

should be following a public health

approach to the problem,

just like Scotland has.

But whether we can manage

the scale and success

of the Scottish experiment

is a different question altogether.

I am joined in the studio

by Teme from Forefront,

an organisation which helps young

people to escape a life of violence.

And the deputy mayor for policing

and crime, Sophie Linden.

Welcome to both of you.

Sophie Linden, first of all,

are you signed up to adopting this

public health approach?

Absolutely.

I mean, this is...

We have learnt the lessons

from Scotland and from

elsewhere, such as New York.

We published a strategy to tackle

knife crime last year where we very

clearly put a public health agenda

into the middle of it.

We can only tackle knife crime

if it is not just around policing

and the criminal justice service,

as the package says,

but by working with schools,

families, communities

and with the health service.

So how much money have you pledged

to actually financing

and working in this way?

In the face of massive

government cuts across England

and Wales and in London,

schools are facing a £99 million

funding gap next year alone,

the mayor is investing in putting

money upfront in terms

of preventative work

with young people, but also

investing in policing.

But frankly, that's not

going to be enough.

The Government needs to step up

and reverse the cuts.

London has seen 30 youth centres

close over the course

of the last administration.

This is having a real impact

on the lives of young people.

Could the mayor be

contributing more?

Would you like to see Sadiq Khan

pledging more money,

before you go to central government?

In the face of really

large government cuts,

the mayor is putting the money

in that he can, but it's not

going to fill that gap.

The Government needs to step

up, if it is serious

about tackling violence.

How much money do you think

is required to fund a successful

public health approach?

Well, we know, after years

of underfunding, that 30 youth

centres in London have closed,

that's about 13,000

places for young people.

As I have said already,

schools are facing a funding gap...

Sure, but what sort of money

are you talking about?

Well, we need to look at exactly

what filling that gap

and what we have done is we have put

money in and invested money

into services and in policing

and we need the Government to step

up and put the money

where it is needed.

Jackie Doyle-Price, should

the Government be putting,

central government, real cash behind

this sort of approach?

What is a crisis in terms

of knife crime in London?

The reality is, the Government can

only spend as much money as it

collects from people, taxpayers.

Therefore, we need to make

the choice about how we spend it.

What I would say, however,

is that investing in this kind

of programme actually saves,

because we obviously take

cost out of policing,

if we can actually get

the behavioural change,

but it will take time to actually

embed a system where we are changing

young people's behaviour

and people are spending less

activities carrying knives.

Right, but you would

then see more funds?

You would like to see more funds

going from central government

because, in the long term,

it would save money?

We need to be smarter

about how we spend.

Have you, Sophie,

visited the violence

reduction unit in Glasgow?

I have met the present

leader of the violence

reduction unit in Glasgow.

We've certainly looked at it

when we were developing

the knife crime strategy

and many of the things

they have been doing,

and they have been doing them

for years, and that is very,

very important, there are not

short-term solutions to this.

Do you think it is important

you went up there and actually

learnt the lessons face-to-face

and see the unit in operation?

We are always keen to learn lessons

and we will always make

sure we can learn them.

Right, are you going to set up

a violence reduction unit along

the same sorts of lines?

We have a specific unit

within the mayor's office of police

and crime looking at violence

and across London.

Of course, Scotland is very

different to London.

We have 32 boroughs and we have

different mechanisms

and governments, but absolutely,

we want to make sure

that we have this public health

approach alongside really

good, effective enforcement.

What is your reaction?

This is obviously the sort

of rhetoric and warm words

you want to hear from the police,

but do you think this is the real

action that is needed to tackle

knife crime in this way?

I have personally visited the VRU

in Scotland and I think we have

learned a lot of lessons but we're

implementing them, we are not

putting them in practice.

In terms of endorsing a public

health approach, that is one thing,

but actually taking the steps

required to implement

the public health approach,

that is something different

which I do not think we have seen

enough movement towards that yet.

Do you think the commitment

is there to do something?

I think a lot of people have made

a commitment publicly.

If we can see this endorsed

on paper, through the strategies

and policies, then we can have more

faith that it might take shape.

One of the problems,

Sophie, historically,

has been a lack of trust

between black and minority

ethnic communities and

the police in London.

What are you doing to improve that?

So, just in terms of the policing,

we are reintroducing neighbourhood

policing which I think is very

important aspect of ensuring that

local communities know that

police and the police

know their local community.

But also, we have got a commitment

and we already have about 300

Metropolitan Police officers

in the secondary schools of London

working with young people

so that the first engagement

and encounter with the police is not

in that confrontational situation.

One of the things that I think

the community finds very difficult

is the issue of stop and search.

Why are black people four times more

likely to be stopped and searched?

We recognise some of

the complexities around stop

and search and some of the worries

young people have in London

around stop and search,

but stop and search is an effective

tactic for keeping knives

and weapons off the street.

And what the mayor and myself have

been saying, and the commissioner,

the commissioner said this week

and I was there on the knife sweep

that you filmed, is you should

expect an increase in

stop and search over

the next coming months.

Where there is an increase in knife

crime and an increase in violence,

you should expect an increase

in stop and search.

With more black people

being stopped, disproportionately.

What's important is that stop

and search is done effectively,

it is done in an intelligence-led

way and to ensure it is

those people who are...who

we have got intelligence

of carrying knives that are stopped

and searched in an appropriate way

and in the right way.

Temi, do you welcome

an increase in stop and search?

No, I don't, I think

when campaigners and activists

like myself make these comments

about stop and search, sometimes

they can be misinterpreted.

We are not saying that

in the interactions where weapons

are found and removed that stop

and search is bad, we are saying

a blanket roll-out every

time we see the figures

to say there's an increase

in violence, that the only

approach we have is a rapid

increase in stop and search,

that's not effective.

And I will just say one thing

about that relationship

between young people,

particularly young black

people and the police,

and I've made this argument before.

These young people, when they feel

their lives are under threat,

they are not calling the police.

There is no trust or relationship

for them to use the police

as the conflict reduction

they are supposed to be.

So the increase in stop

and search, that just further

erodes that relationship.

Do you accept that?

I absolutely recognise

we have an issue with certain

sections of young people,

not just black young people but some

white young people as well,

where trust and confidence

is an issue.

And stop and search is one

of the motivating factors.

Stop and search can

be an issue in that.

What matters is that it's done

effectively but what also matters

is that there's good transparency

and accountability and officers

are held to account.

Body worn video, which has been

rolled out across London,

is a game changer in this

because both sides have a record

of the interaction.

It is reducing

complaints as we speak.

Do you support the shift

towards an increase in stop

and search again, Sarah?

I think what we have to do is look

at this in the round, right?

So what do we want London to be?

We want London to be the safest city

in the world, don't we?

That's what we want it to be.

We want people to come here,

to live here, to be content

and our greatest asset...

No one would disagree with that.

Our greatest asset in doing

that is our young people.

They are the ones that

are going to create the society

we want to live in.

So, should stop and search be

increased on the streets of London?

So, just to finish, the first aim

is to enable our young people to be

the wonderful people they can be

and to achieve what they want

to achieve, and to have

safe and happy lives.

Part of the policing aspect of this

is stop and search, of course it is,

but it's a much bigger problem

and it's more about schools.

The number of expulsions has

gone up dramatically.

What happens to those

children in London?

What is it like to be

a young person in London?

What messages are we giving them

that all we are going

on about is the kind of crimes

and not their ability to do

what they want to do?

So the public health

approach they have done

in Scotland that has taken ten,

15 years, that looks at every single

aspect of young people's lives

and says what we need to put

in place, surely that's the right

approach and that's where you start.

So is the Mayor,

Sadiq Khan, correct?

Do you support his policy

shift increasing stop

and search again rather

than taking the holistic approach?

Exactly as Sophie said,

it is a very complicated issue

and you have got to be super careful

to try to take the

community with you.

To me, we have to look at

the results stop and search bring.

So at the moment, something like one

in three stop and searches,

they find something which shows

they are targeting appropriately.

Back in the day, that was like one

in ten, which was far worse,

and led to huge understandable

conflict in our community.

So we need to do it properly,

and there's a role to it but it's

nowhere near the biggest part

of the solution.

Temi, one of issues is that reducing

stop and search doesn't seem

to have increased trust,

so in a way it hasn't

solved the problem.

When stop and search was cut,

when it was reduced,

it hasn't led to this better

relationship between black

and minority ethnic

communities and the police.

I completely agree with you. Let me

be blunt about it.

You're not just going to do one

tactic that is going to reverse

decades of mistrust and a bad

relationship that's

been constructed.

It's an intergenerational problem,

it's a historical problem,

so stop and search is a continuation

of the sus laws we saw decades ago.

Young people know this,

their communities have

had problems with it,

their parents have had problems

with it, their grandparents had

problems with it and therefore

it's going to take more than just

this one action to build the trust

again between these communities.

Jackie Doyle-Price, do you think

it is right to move away

from s sort of criminal justice

style approach to a purely public

health approach in the way

they did in Scotland?

I wouldn't see it as

either/or actually.

Given that it takes time to embed

behavioural change which a public

health approach is designed

to achieve, you've got

to have a programme

of enforcement alongside that.

It is carrot and stick

at the end of the day.

It is so serious because of

the numbers that we are talking

about and the tragedies we see every

week or so on the evening news,

particularly over Christmas

and New Year period.

Do you think there need to be

tougher mandatory sentences

for carrying knives?

If there was tougher sentences,

you know, and that worked,

there would be no crime

in America, right?

If we just locked people up

and that was the solution,

everything would be fixed.

We've got a binary decision to make,

either things carry

on as they are and knife crime goes

up and down as it does,

or we do something about it

and the only way to look

at it is to look at it

from a point of view of poverty,

aspiration, inequality,

jobs, mental health,

education, and put all

of those pillars in place.

Right, do you agree with that?

Well, as with all things,

we tend to, when it falls

into criminal activity,

that's where society

has failed so the more

you can intervene early

to prevent these things,

that's absolutely

the right way to go.

Right, because do you accept,

Sophie, that the problem

here is that actually a lot

of the young people in London

are more frightened of being

attacked and injured with a knife

than they are about going to prison?

So when we were developing

the knife crime strategy

which we published last year,

and it is actively being delivered

at the moment, we spoke

to many young people,

in prison and out of prison,

and they told us they were worried

and scared about carrying a knife.

I absolutely agree with Sarah

and with Jackie and Temi that this

has to be much wider.

It is not as the film said,

it's not simply criminal justice

or simply enforcement.

They have their place,

they are important.

Sentencing, stop and search

enforcement, but we have to get

to the root causes, and in order

to do that we have to really face up

and the Government has to face up

to the fact the cuts and the money

coming out of those vital

services is really impacting

on young people's lives.

But I say again, we can only spend

what we collect from taxpayers

and that's causing tough choices

and decisions to be made,

but we have to decide

what our priorities

are and what we need to tackle.

I would say tackling violence

is an absolute priority.

Sophie and Temi, thank you both

very much for coming in.

With the demise of the construction

and private public service provider

Carillion, just how will London cope

in shoring up the damage done

to transport, libraries, prisons,

police training and much more?

And should the capital be calling

time on outsourcing such public

services to private companies?

Jerry Thomas has this.

Since it went bust on Monday,

Carillion's vast network

of operations across London have

been left in the lurch.

They were involved in

the construction of more than 1000

homes in the capital,

in what may be a blow to

the Mayor's house-building target.

One of Carillion's largest public

sector contracts was a £12 million

refurbishment St Helier's

Hospital in south London.

The authorities have acted to ensure

the continuation of services,

but it's sparking a debate

about the merits of PFI contracts.

A National Audit Office report this

week said hospitals built under PFI

contracts cost 70% more

than if the Government

borrowed the money itself.

Carillion was responsible

for maintaining some

of London's largest prisons,

from Pentonville to Wandsworth.

Even before the company failed this

week, the conditions in the prisons

they ran had been severely

criticised by the independent

monitoring board.

Meanwhile library services

in Croydon that have been

run by Carillion have

been brought in-house.

The Mayor has questioned

whether contracts such as these

should have been given

in the first place.

There needs to be an urgent

investigation into all that went

on with relation to new contracts

given by the Government

to Carillion, when everyone else

appeared to know this company

was in danger.

A collapse of this magnitude may

well make it more difficult

for the Government to justify

outsourcing in the future.

Sarah, the collapse of Carillion,

this major construction company,

involved in building 1,000 homes

at the time of liquidation,

how is that going to affect

Sadiq Khan's housing target?

We need to investigate exactly

where they are involved,

what the contracts are and what can

be done about it, and the Government

has to step in and do

all of the right things in terms

of making sure where there is public

sector contracts but also

where there's private sector

contracts because these are people's

jobs and livelihoods, and,

you know, that people's jobs

are protected and

the work gets done.

I think there's a big job of work

to do first and foremost to make

sure we are building the things

we need to build.

Network Rail has a lot of contracts

with Carillion, and in Croydon

we desperately need some upgrades

to our train lines because it's

falling over as it is,

and if we don't get that investment,

people won't be able to get to work

and everything will grind to a halt

so we need to sort this out.

Setting up a taskforce

but going much further in terms

of making sure people's jobs

and pensions are supported as well.

I've had e-mails, I don't know

about you, from people who've got

Carillion pensions who are really

worried about what's

going to happen to them.

Jackie, do you think

there is a philosophical argument

now to have that there should be

an end to big public sector

contracts, delivering vital services

being given to a private company

like Carillion in the future?

I wouldn't go anywhere

near as far as that, Jo,

but I think there is an issue

about how we manage

public sector contracts.

I spent five years on the Public

Accounts Committee and saw a lot

of these contracts up close,

and I think there is an issue

about how some departments

manage contracting out.

We could be a whole

lot better at this.

I think we've ended up with a system

which has tended to generate big

monopolies in the private sector

doing public sector work,

and there are a lot of risks

associated with that.

If there's any learning

to be done from this,

I think that's the lesson we need

to really act on.

Right, do you accept

that the Government's defence

is they don't want to put a private

firm going bust, the cost

of that, onto the taxpayer,

on to the London taxpayer?

I think we've got to look

at the cost of lots of these massive

contracts that are costing

the taxpayer lots of money

in the first place and I think

we need to have a look at how

we do this.

Should it end, then,

that relationship...

Should public contracts be given

to private companies

like Carillion in the future?

I think there's a balance to be

struck, and as Jeremy Corbyn said,

where things are failing we need

to look at that but in the main

we want public sector contracts

to be within the public sector.