18/12/2016 Sunday Politics South East

Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.

Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.

Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum

by forcing a second vote before we leave?

Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be

pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".

Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business

It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"

but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,

And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer

and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,

They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.

First this morning, some say they will fight

for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those

who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British

people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -

The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have

tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.

The original resolution called on the European Parliament

to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens

of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".

He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish

must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%

The amendments were proposed in October,

but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels

Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.

The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.

Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed

Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try

and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was

simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months

ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different

newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort

to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to

rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You

would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?

I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory

referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a

questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,

it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking

the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a

very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who

said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save

money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and

our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But

your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is

to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would

respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to

be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain

money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government

said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need

to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the

single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options

should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will

be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more

illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a

report about future treaty amendments down the road for years

to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side

reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will

you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the

text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if

the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you

mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,

was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of

the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European

Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of

action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and

disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to

think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you

might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be

clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European

Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am

acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating

things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out

to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are

going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the

shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,

in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is

implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about

whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because

that has to take account of the future framework of relationships

with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That

means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be

outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very

damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the

rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the

customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give

us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is

not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the

results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see

that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the

divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget

for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single

market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will

know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be

damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a

minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider

the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to

leave it there but thank you for joining us.

Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what

happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview

illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach

taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one

breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action

subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are

sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to

happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists

on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public

opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together

to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take

moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every

single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether

it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not

think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in

the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to

question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these

things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he

wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you

can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But

the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad

deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is

implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we

are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a

minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going

to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,

six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage

Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,

or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of

2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa

May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that

Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I

recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical

drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't

think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very

long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we

would stay in the customs union after Brexit.

There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff

setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at

all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it

is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the

customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the

cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a

member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would

make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs

union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as

binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would

suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to

do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that

is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his

opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in

Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury

PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is

Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the

customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the

customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is

proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do

free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade

deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment

but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade

deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line

for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought

Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to

suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an

argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he

wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet

about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country

we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,

but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look

at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is

happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I

think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it

becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we

are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this

country. So, we've had a warning this week

that it could take ten years to do a trade deal

with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand

trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first

countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal

with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told

us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film

for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High

Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined

the European Union, Now I'm in the job,

the UK is leaving. Australia supported

Britain remaining a member of the European Union,

but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,

we hope that Britain will get on with the process

of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make

the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,

Australia approached the British Government

with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,

to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian

governments have already established a working group to explore a future,

ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide

great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase

British-made cars for less We would give British

households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,

so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce

when the equivalent British or Australian households would have

access to British products Free-trade agreements

are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source

of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests

over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement

would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade

agreements are not just about trade and investment,

they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations

often work more closely together in other fields including security,

the spread of democracy We may have preferred

the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK

to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can

be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade

agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement

with the United States This is one of the reasons why

the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years

and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's

vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help

in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The

Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal

with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is

complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.

The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual

trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with

the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary

examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking

already, we have set up a joint working group with the British

Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what

questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have

formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no

free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long

and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian

agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its

access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,

is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a

scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union

and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.

But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but

one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain

leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has

always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not

happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European

Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality

which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international

relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.

It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose

that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped

out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a

free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is

about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless

you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that

case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and

that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of

negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up

nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this

free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other

than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both

free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not

think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the

UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to

Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot

of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years

is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has

made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal

is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin

and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we

returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country

rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we

will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the

transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have

other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate

would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to

achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a

free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is

more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with

China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and

they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing

with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think

Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there

is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and

the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.

So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct

barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved

in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade

system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United

Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European

Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will

try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly

commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a

free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the

Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our

present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate

against any country. The European Union's free movement means you

discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.

It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building

of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it

more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.

Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis

of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?

40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.

Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.

It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions

about air pollution, that this is a public health

emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,

But how bad is air quality in Britain really?

Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works

at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.

He has been looking into the recent claims

It's a problem and it affects people's health.

But when people start talking about the numbers

of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.

There have been tremendous improvements in air quality

There is a lot less pollution than there used to be

and none of that is coming through in the public

So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels

of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?

It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution

on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who

It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening

To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit

I asked him about the data on which these claims

They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities

First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure

29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000

I will just talk about this group for a start.

These are what are known as attributable deaths.

Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.

Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this

was based on a study of US cities and they found out that

by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had

a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.

They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying

each year for each small increase in pollution.

So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise

it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises

the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.

So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000

Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.

And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths

How much should we invest in cycling?

Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?

We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,

but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?

I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment

and for air pollution that they don't really

see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.

Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing

London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.

If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,

that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.

If you are poor and you are in social class five,

compared to social class one, that would take seven

If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.

Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all

of the cars in London and all of the road transport,

we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air

pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.

There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,

but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact

on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making

And we are joined now by the Executive Director

You have called pollution and national crisis and a health

emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are

remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the

studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the

UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air

pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if

you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is

impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of

solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is

down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which

we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from

the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is

something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.

If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of

the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really

worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe

good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far

from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is

it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the

last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health

Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they

need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if

you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if

you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities

and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very

high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors

and many studies by London University showing this to be true.

The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of

pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is

causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.

The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and

there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we

have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution

causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is

40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.

Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are

talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air

pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to

phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner

tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and

clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had

the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to

me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most

polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking

at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure

which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical

effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is

everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of

people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,

but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air

pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more

individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be

premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be

by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing

difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke

and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do

you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined

that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.

But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000

deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by

that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do

something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly

caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem

of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I

am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another

claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe

clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have

also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50

cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you

look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the

actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent

effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in

terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am

throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed

that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and

that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us

that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does

take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine

months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten

years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a

piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken

it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the

professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the

thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the

impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young

children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,

this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the

underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not

arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate

things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree

with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I

absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been

made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think

the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,

diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can

get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see

us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.

It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now

I'm Julia George and this is the Sunday Politics

Coming up later: Hanging out at the youth club -

but might these teenagers soon be hanging out on the street?

We'll take a look at proposals in Brighton and Hove to drastically

cut the money that goes to youth services.

Joining me today to discuss this and other stories are the Labour

leader of Brighton and Hove City council, Warren Morgan.

And Tim Loughton - Conservative MP for neighbouring

Let's start with an update on Southern Trains.

And the worst rail disruption in 20 years.

For three days this week, the rolling stock stood

still as drivers from the Aslef union walked out.

Transport Secretary Chris Grayling insists the Government doesn't

have the power to step in and has hinted at a change in the law that

could make this kind of industrial action more difficult in the future.

The government needs to step in and resolve it because it's

It's absolutely disgraceful and I think the PM needs to get

involved because people are losing jobs and it is completely

I don't really get the point of us of it any more.

It's really aggravating and something needs to be done

Again, ruined my journey to work so now I have to find

What's the impact, would you say, on your constituents?

This is the biggest single issue any MP in Sussex and South London

Daily dozens and dozens of e-mails, tweets of yet another disastrous day

I quoted at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday a specific

case of a constituent on life-saving cancer drug trials who has to get to

University College Hospital Who had to leave at the crack of dawn,

and expensive taxi that day, just to get to London for that.

People are losing their jobs, people are not getting to school

and colleges and now we hear that employers are not recruiting people

This is a devastating effect on constituents.

None of us underestimate the impact of this.

Warren Morgan, exactly the same question.

In Brighton and Hove, what telling you?

They are saying it is affecting our economy.

Obviously, we're very reliant on retail, on tourism,

They require really good links to London to provide that custom,

those links to business and it is having an effect.

We'll see some of the figures for that in the coming weeks.

Let's talk about the politics of all of this.

Your government says it's powerless to intervene, but, increasingly,

passengers don't seem to believe that.

The group of passengers marched to the Department for Transport this

week calling for answers from Chris Grayling.

One of them is quoted in the papers as saying,

"We are at breaking point if he fails to act.

Well, I've been pretty measured in my criticism of the government

and the Department for Transport of them management of this and now

to the unions who are completely responsible for these unnecessary

strikes which are causing such mayhem at the moment.

What the government is going to do is look at legislation about making

sure this sort of complete disruption, holding hundreds

of thousands of commuters to ransom, can't happen in the future.

That doesn't do anything for this particular dispute, though, does it?

Not immediately, but that legislation could go

What the government has also suggested and what I've said

all along, frankly this franchise is too big to manage.

I do think GTR up to managing it so I think we've got to see a change

in our franchise as soon as possible in the New Year.

But none of this will get the service back to normal

while as left and RMT continue on this crazy strike

about whose switches the button for the doors whilst,

at the same time, you can travel from London to Brighton on a Thames

link train driven by Aslef who operate the doors,

calling at the same stations on the same lines.

For goodness sake, let's suspend the strike action and talk

about any safety concerns, residual it's and get back to some

Just to come act to the politics with Warren Morgan for a moment.

The Prime Minister is calling on direct

She wants Jeremy Corbyn to call up what she referred to as his friends,

the rail union bosses, and to get them to call

It's quite a shocking abdication of a government's authority when it

says it's the opposition that should resolve a strike.

When you're elected to office, as I been in Brighton and Hove,

you have the responsibility to resolve these kinds of dispute.

They should strip Govia Thameslink Rail of their franchise.

The Mayor of London has offered to have the service run by transport

for London and that would be an interim solution.

If the government can't deliver this...

They are the ones in power and should take responsibility.

If he can't handle it then Chris Grayling should go.

The trouble is there is not a queue of people wanting to take on that

TFL, for everything you say, is just not big enough to be able

to deal with the largest train franchise in the country.

And I have no problem with taking the franchise away from them, GTR,

but somebody has got to run the railways and it will end up

with a Department for Transport running it where everyone

is criticising their not fit for purpose.

How does this end, for the people watching today who have had enough?

Everyone has got to be around the table as they are

Then I think the franchise needs to be restructured in the New Year

and more investment to sort out the hold-ups.

Also, we need to find the rail operators when they're not

bringing a decent service and I have a private members bill

on Tuesday which is changing the whole conversation system

which might give a sense of urgency to GTR that this really has got

to be resolved than they need to run a reliable system for the passengers

for the passengers that absolutely depend on it for the everyday lives.

I hope we are all not talking about it in January.

For the rest of today's programme today we're going to look at funding

for the oldest and the youngest people in our communities.

We've been hearing this week that adult social care is teetering

Will it eventually become every family for itself?

Are politicians doing anything meaningful to protect the most

Well let's examine this week's announcements.

The government told local authorities they can bring forward

council tax rises over the next two years, and a transfer of ?240

Here's the Labour leader speaking at PMQs this week.

The Prime Minister doesn't seem to be aware that 4.6 billion was cut

from the social care budget in the last Parliament

and that her talk of putting it on to local governments

2% of council tax is clearly a nonsense.

95% of councils used this social care precept and it raised less

than 3% of the money they planned to spend on adult social care.

We see many councils around the country that have taken

the benefit of social care precept and have seen the result

of more people accessing social care and needs being met.

Sadly, there are also some councils across the country,

some Labour councils, who haven't taken that opportunity

where we do see a worst performance in relation to social care.

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition at

Warren Morgan, the government says you and other council leaders can

pull in more council tax more quickly to pay for good care

It's a sticking plaster for a gaping wound.

We can raise an extra ?1 million through this extra 1% that's been

bought forward from the end of Parliament to fund social care.

We've got increases in social care costs of ?7 million

Our total social care bill is ?150 million.

We only bring in ?125 million in total from council tax.

On top of that, we had to run 700 other services.

It is just not possible, nor sustainable.

This isn't a problem with Labour councils.

It's a problem for top tier authorities, county councils,

You've given us the figures for last year of ?8.7 million overspend,

sorry, that's the East Sussex council and yours is 3.8 million.

We've seen a lot of care homes close.

The BBC have said that one in five care homes is at risk of closure

Costs have risen because of the national living wage,

funding has not replaced that and the government is simply passing

the buck to local councils, as it has done with so many

other services, and said, this is your problem.

You raise the tax from local people, you take the blame, you take

OK, this extra council tax, which Jeremy Corbyn referred

All the Communities Secretary has done is given local authorities

the opportunity to take an extra 3% over two years rather

I don't think it's a con, but I agree with Warren that it's

Taking the politics aside, successive governments have

Social care for increasingly aged adult population is the single

biggest challenge to local governments and we've got

to grasp the nettle, come up with a long-term solution

as to how we finance it for a population that is getting

older, how we integrated much better than what's going on in hospitals.

Some parts of the country are doing it better.

There are 24 local authorities responsible for 50% of those older

people in hospital who could be discharged but there's not

If you take somewhere like Worthing, four and a half percent

of the population is over the age of 85.

People come to Worthing and live for a long time

because it's a great place, but those people place extra demands

West Sussex is not only dealing with a large elderly population,

but a very old, elderly population as well and it can only

Let's throw party politics out and sit here and say,

Look at countries like France where there is an obligation

I think you can be prosecuted if you don't visit your elderly parents in.

We need a properly funded, integrated social care and health

We've got a think tank in Brighton and Hove that

looking at and integration, looking at good examples

Of course, no solution can happen without adequate funding.

I and the Leader of the Opposition have called for money that's

earmarked for tax cuts for multinationals to be put

So much for throwing party politics at the window in this discussion!

Is it about redistributing some of the money that is

A couple of weeks ago on the programme we had the Work

and Pensions Secretary who said the pensions triple lock only

People have looked at that as a possible source of more money

It may be a combination of all of those things because there

Absolutely I think families could step up to do more

but they need to be supported to do that.

So if we want older people to be able to stay in their own homes

or close to their own families they need to have the support from

But we are wasting money at the moment.

It cost something like ?1300 to have someone in an Acute Hospital bed

when they could be at a residential home or supported in their own homes

if we integrated or joined up the system so much better

So, what's the impact of all of this on young people?

Well, in Brighton and Hove they're struggling to keep on top

of the cost of elderly care, and the draft budget

for next year includes deep cuts to youth services.

They say they come here because they feel they belong.

I never used to get out of the house.

My friend took me there once and I made friends.

It helps socialise with younger people.

I think I've grown more as a person since coming here.

This centre kind of functions as a home for a lot of people.

Some of Brighton's most vulnerable teenagers come to the Brighton youth

centre and drop-in groups like it, but these initiatives

face an uncertain future as the city council plans to cut

A move that could wipe out almost all of this kind of support.

If you weren't able to go to the youth centre,

Or I'd be on the streets with people that I shouldn't be with.

That's where I'd probably see myself.

The future generation needs this to be helped.

I think it gives a lot of people the skills to go into adulthood

and I think cutting something that is as intrinsic as this

is to youth culture I think is doing a disservice to young people

I've got friends here and got to take part in similar

activities that I would never have even considered.

The proposals affect 11 different youth groups,

eight of which operate as the Brighton and Hove Youth

Collective, a group of charities that together work with almost 3,000

young people a year in some of the most deprived

Almost ten years ago, Sophie was one of them and now

she works on to youth projects and says it was intervention

from youth workers that helped her find her way.

I think that youth work has pretty much changed my path

For me, at 14, I was vulnerable like a lot of young people

are and like a lot of young people will continue to be,

which is why I think youth work is really important because we go

Brighton and Hove City Council is struggling to balance the books

and needs to save ?24 million next year.

By pulling the funding from these groups, the City Council could

save some ?1.3 million over the next three years.

But youth workers say they're concerned about the

long-term impact of the move which they fear could leave some young

people at risk of joining gangs, left on the streets are exposed to

the dangers of drugs, alcohol and crime.

Community preventative services, that's what we see

ourselves providing, and I fear that if those start

disappearing then young people's problems and

challenges will become greater, they will still need to access other

services such as statutory mental health services or social services

and the cost will admit we be greater to the local authorities.

And is not just happening in Brighton.

Research by the union Unison says in the last six years

youth services in the UK have been cut by ?387 million.

Back in Brighton, a petition has been

launched and demonstrators have protested against the proposed cuts,

but with council budgets so tight, is there any alternatives?

Joining us now from Brighton is the Leader of the Green Party

She ran Children's Services for the council and has spent 35

Let us go straight to the Labour leader of the Council and ask why

the drastic cuts to youth services are being made. Because we've had

six years of very drastic cuts from the government and for some of these

absolutely vital services that provide a long-term saving, there is

no scope for those any more. If it wasn't youth services we would be

looking at early intervention, nurseries or children centres and

got ?24 million of cuts to make this got ?24 million of cuts to make this

year and there simply are aren't the scopes to do that. So he is saying

he has no choice, broadly. Can you see why he feels that? Yes, I was

involved in the council so I know it's a difficult choice to be made

across council budgets. I know the chair and the co-chair of the party

and the city but we need to look again at youth work because it's

such a vital service to young people. It gives them somewhere to

go and something to do and adults who aren't parents or teachers to

talk to. The support that is offered is vital to some of the most money

trouble young people in our city and trouble young people in our city and

it's a fairly small budget -- vulnerable people.

A lot of people have spent time trying to bid for the money and we

also have in-house services which are vital as well. We haven't a huge

amount of time. If you think it such a small amount, where would you cut

that from the budget instead? It's about looking across the whole

council budget and not just at children's services. I would urge

Councillor Morgan to talk to the other parties to look at what other

money might be available and the government is the main problem. They

are spending over ?1 million on the National citizenship service which

only deals with 15 and 16-year-olds and a small number across the

country and it is not being taken out widely. There are other choices

to be made. Let me put that pointed to him. Sue Shanks thinks the

argument is with your government. As argument is with your government. As

is always the case and she doesn't come up with an alternative for

funding. I was a minister for children and young people and

produced a document about the future of youth and I think it's

short-sighted where there have been cuts to youth services. I helped to

design a service that is the biggest single youth volunteering service in

the country at the moment and it's a fantastic project for many young

people and we want to have younger people coming in to put fair for

their national citizen service as well. I understand why you want to

defend that, but let's stay closer to home. Darren Morgan, the

teenagers affected by the cut cuts and the children don't have a

they're an easy target. As with they're an easy target. As with

early years services, what we wanted to do and see mentioned are planned

to transfer it to the voluntary sector, that should have happened

three or four years ago. I would ask see why she didn't begin the process

earlier. We've run out of time. We're making savings from a whole

range of 700 council services but we've now got to make some pretty

desperate savings to balance the books by March. Unison is calling

for youth services to become statutory in the same way that

I have some sympathy with that. The I have some sympathy with that. The

trouble is that youth services needed to be reformed. What certain

parts of the country have done is bring together local authorities

with voluntary organisations and businesses as well to come up with

youth sounds and services that young people want to use at times when

they want to. Into many parts of the country, youth services were not

very user-friendly for use as well. We saw how user-friendly the

services were. Is there any hope for those people who feel their youth

centres are just a complete lifeline for them? We'll keep working as long

as we possibly can to try and keep them going. I was a trustee at a

club in my ward for eight years and know the value of really good

universal open offer youth services and I would urge anyone in the city

who can help us out to step in and trying keep their sentences going.

And your last thought on this? -- to keep those services going. I think

open access services are vital and the money deduced collective gets

brings in extra money but our own in-house service is also important.

We've undervalued youth service in this country for a long time and a

lot of people who go to them will tell you how valuable they are. Just

time for some other news you may have missed in 60 seconds.

The MP for Becks Hill and Battle says many schools in his

constituency will be worse off under new government plans for school

funding. It comes after a long-running campaign by MPs in

Sussex calling for a fairer system. He says he wants a meeting to

discuss the proposals. I didn't expect that I would see a reduction

as well. Kent MP has for government support to stop lorries parking

Mid Kent asked by Minister to Mid Kent asked by Minister to

support her campaign. The government shares the desire to ensure we don't

see this parking of lorries across Kent and it's something the

government is working on and we'll find a solution.

Travellers in Brighton and Hove say they are being unfairly targeted by

new powers being given to the City Council next month. And that a new

order, people can be fined ?75 for pitching tents or caravans without

permission. That's all we've got time

for from the South East this week My thanks to our guests,

Tim Loughton and Warren Morgan. We will be back in January

with coverage of all the south east Will Article 50 be triggered

by the end of March, will President Trump start work

on his wall and will Front National's Marine Le Pen

provide the next electoral shock? 2016, the Brexit for Britain and

Trump for the rest of the world. Let's look back and see what one of

you said about Brexit. If Mr Cameron loses the referendum

and it is this year, will he be Prime Minister at the end

of the year? I don't think he will lose

the referendum, so I'm feeling It was clear if he did lose the

referendum he would be out. I would like to say in retrospect I saw that

coming on a long and I was just saying it to make good television!

It is Christmas so I will be benign towards my panel! It is possible,

Iain, that not much happens to Brexit in 2017, because we have a

host of elections coming up in Europe, the French won in the spring

and the German one in the autumn will be the most important. And

until we know who the next French president is and what condition Mrs

Merkel will be in, not much will happen? I think that is the

likeliest outcome. Short of some constitutional crisis involving the

Lords relating to Brexit, it is pretty clear it is difficult to

properly begin the negotiations until it becomes clear who Britain

is negotiating with. It will come down to the result of the German

election. Germany is the biggest contributor and if they keep power

in what is left of the European Union, will drive the negotiation

and we will have to see if it will be Merkel. So this vacuum that has

been seen and has been filled by people less than friendly to the

government, even when we know Article 50 has been triggered and

even if there is some sort of white paper to give us a better idea of

the broad strategic outlines of what they mean by Brexit, the phoney war

could continue? Iain is right. 2017 is going to be a remarkably dull

year for Brexit as opposed to 2016. We will have the article and a plan.

The plan will say I would like the moon on a stick please. The EU will

say you can have a tiny bit of moon and a tiny bit of stick and there

will be an impasse. That will go on until one minute to midnight 2018

which is when the EU will act. There is one thing in the Foreign Office

which is more important, as David Davis Department told me, they know

there is nothing they can do until the French and Germans have their

elections and they know the lie of the land, but the people who will be

more helpful to us are in Eastern Europe and in Scandinavia, the

Nordic countries. We can do quite a lot of schmoozing to try and get

them broadly on side this year? It is very difficult because one of the

things they care most about in Eastern Europe is the ability for

Eastern European stew come and work in the UK. That is key to the

economic prospects. But what they care most about is that those

already here should not be under any pressure to leave. There is no

guarantee of that. That is what Mrs May wants. There are a lot of things

Mrs May wants and the story of 2017 will be about what she gets. How

much have we got to give people? It is not what we want, but what we are

willing to give. The interesting thing is you can divide this out

into two. There is a question of the European Union and our relationship

with it but there is also the trick the polls did to London -- there is

also the polls. There is question beyond the Western European

security, that is about Nato and intelligence and security, and the

rising Russian threat. That does not mean the Polish people will persuade

everyone else to give us a lovely deal on the EU, but the dynamic is

bigger than just a chat about Brexit. You cannot threaten a

punishment beating for us if we are putting our soldiers on the line on

the eastern borders of Europe. I think that's where Donald Trump

changes the calculation because his attitude towards Russia is very

different to Barack Obama's. It is indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit

was a global story but nothing can match and American election and even

one which gives Donald Trump as well. Let's have a look at what this

panel was saying about Donald Trump. Will Donald Trump win the Republican

nomination next year. So, not only did you think he would

not be president, you did not think he would win the Republican

nomination. We were not alone in that. And they're right put forward

a motion to abolish punditry here now because clearly we are

pointless! There is enough unemployment in the world already!

We are moving into huge and charted territory with Donald Trump as

president. It is incredibly unpredictable. But what has not been

noticed enough is the Keynesian won. Trump is a Keynesian. He wants

massive infrastructure spending and massive tax cuts. The big story next

year will be the massive reflation of the American economy and indeed

the US Federal reserve has already reacted to that by putting up

interest rates. That is why he has a big fight with the rest of the

Republican Party. He is nominally a Republican but they are not

Keynesian. They are when it comes to tax cuts. They are when it hits the

rich to benefit the poor. The big thing is whether the infrastructure

projects land him in crony trouble. The transparency around who gets

those will be extremely difficult. Most of the infrastructure spending

he thinks can be done by the private sector and not the federal

government. His tax cuts overlap the Republican house tax cuts speaker

Ryan to give not all, but a fair chunk of what he wants. If the

American economy is going to reflate next year, interest rates will rise

in America, that will strengthen the dollar and it will mean that Europe

will be, it will find it more difficult to finance its sovereign

debt because you will get more money by investing in American sovereign

debt. That is a good point because the dynamics will shift. If that

happens, Trump will be pretty popular in the US. To begin with. To

begin with. It is energy self-sufficient and if you can pull

off the biggest trick in American politics which is somehow to via

corporation tax cuts to allow the reassuring of wealth, because it is

too expensive for American business to take back into the US and

reinvest, if you combine all of those things together, you will end

up with a boom on a scale you have not seen. It will be Reagan on

steroids? What could possibly go wrong? In the short term for

Britain, it is probably not bad news. Our biggest market for exports

as a country is the United States. Our biggest market for foreign

direct investment is the United States and the same is true vice

versa for America in Britain. Given the pound is now competitive and

likely the dollar will get stronger, it could well give a boost to the

British economy? Could do bit you have to be slightly cautious about

the warm language we are getting which is great news out of President

Trump's future cabinet on doing a trade deal early, we are net

exporters to the US. We benefit far more from trading with US than they

do with us. I think we have to come up with something to offer the US

for them to jump into bed with us. I think it is called two new aircraft

carriers and modernising the fleet. Bring it on. I will raise caution,

people in declining industries in some places in America, the rust

belt who have faced big profound structural challenges and those are

much harder to reverse. They face real problems now because the dollar

is so strong. Their ability to export has taken a huge hit out of

Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the Mexican imports into America is now

dirt cheap so that is a major problem. Next year we have elections

in Austria, France, the Netherlands, Germany, probably Italy. Which

outcome will be the most dramatic for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would

be a huge surprise. That is unlikely. And if it was not Filon in

France that would be unlikely. The consensus it it will be Francois

Filon against Marine Le Pen and it will be uniting around the far right

candidate. In 2002, that is what happened. Filon is a Thatcherite.

Marine Le Pen's politics -- economics are hard left. Francois

Filon is as much a cert to win as Hillary Clinton was this time last

year. If he is competing against concerns about rising globalisation

and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is a bold, brave strategy in the

context so we will see. It will keep us busy next year, Tom? Almost as

busy as this year but not quite. This year was a record year. I am up

in my hours! That's all for today,

thanks to all my guests. The Daily Politics will be back

on BBC Two at noon tomorrow. I'll be back here

on the 15th January. Remember, if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. The most a writer

can hope from a reader West Side Story took choreography

in a radical new direction. The dance was woven

into the storyline,