27/11/2016 Sunday Politics South West

It's Sunday morning and this is the Sunday Politics.

Was Fidel Castro a revolutionary hero or a murderous dictator?

After the Cuban leader's death, politicians divide over his legacy.

Can the NHS in England find billions of pounds' worth of efficiency

The Shadow Health Secretary joins me live.

Should we have a second Brexit referendum on the terms

of the eventual withdrawal deal that's struck with the EU?

Former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown and former Conservative cabinet

minister Owen Paterson go head-to-head.

And with me, Tom Newton Dunn, Isabel Oakeshott and Steve Richards.

They'll be tweeting throughout the programme

Political leaders around the world have been reacting to the news

of the death of Fidel Castro, the Cuban revolutionary who came

to power in 1959 and ushered in a Marxist revolution.

Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson described the former leader

as an "historic if controversial figure" and said his death marked

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said Castro was "a champion of social

justice" who had "seen off a lot of US presidents"

President-elect Donald Trump described the former Cuban leader

as a "brutal dictator", adding that he hoped his death

would begin a new era "in which the wonderful Cuban people

finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve".

Meanwhile, the President of the European Commission,

Jean-Claude Juncker, said the controversial leader

was "a hero for many" but "his legacy will be judged

I guess we had worked that out ourselves. What do you make of the

reactions so far across the political divide? Predictable. And I

noticed that Jeremy Corbyn has come in for criticism for his tribute to

Castro. But I think it was the right thing for him to do. We all know he

was an admirer. He could have sat there for eight hours in his house,

agonising over some bland statement which didn't alienate the many

people who want to wade into attacked Castro. It would have been

inauthentic and would have just added to the sort of mainstream

consensus, and I think he was right to say what he believed in this

respect. Elsewhere, it has been wholly predictable that there would

be this device, because he divided opinion in such an emotive way.

Steve, I take your point about authenticity and it might have

looked a bit lame for Jeremy Corbyn to pretend that he had no affection

for Fidel Castro at all, but do you think he made a bit of an error

dismissing Castro's record, the negative side of it as just a floor?

He could have acknowledged in more elaborate terms the huge costs. He

wanted to go on about the health and education, which if you actually

look up the indices on that, they are good relative to other

countries. But they have come at such a huge cost. He was not a

champion of criminal justice. If he had done that, it would have been

utterly inauthentic. He doesn't believe it. And he would have

thought there would be many other people focusing on all the epic

failings. So he focused on what he believed. There are times when

Corbyn's prominence in the media world now as leader widens the

debate in an interesting and important way. I am not aware of any

criticisms that Mr Corbyn has ever announced about Mr Castro. There

were four words in his statement yesterday which is spin doctor would

have forced him to say, for all his flaws. He was on this Cuban

solidarity committee, which didn't exist to criticise Castro. It

existed to help protect Castro from those, particularly the Americans,

who were trying to undermine him. And Corbyn made a big deal yesterday

saying he has always called out human rights abuses all over the

world. But he said that in general, I call out human rights abuses. He

never said, I have called out human rights abuses in Cuba. In the weeks

ahead, more will come out about what these human rights abuses were. The

lid will come off what was actually happening. Some well authenticated

stories are pretty horrendous. I was speaking to a journalist who was

working there in the 1990s, who gave me vivid examples of that, and there

will be more to come. I still go back to, when a major figure diet

and you are a leader who has admired but major figure, you have to say

it. That is the trap he has fallen into. He has proved every criticism

that he is a duck old ideologue. But he is not the only one. Prime

Minister Trudeau was so if uses that I wondered if they were going to

open up a book of condolences. I think it reinforces Corbyn's failing

brand. It may be authentic, but authentic isn't working for him.

When I was driving, I heard Trevor Phillips, who is a Blairite, saying

the record was mixed and there were a lot of things to admire as well as

all the terrible things. So it is quite nuanced. But if you are a

leader issuing a sound bite, there is no space for new ones. You either

decide to go for the consensus, which is to set up on the whole, it

was a brutal dictatorship. Or you say, here is an extraordinary figure

worthy of admiration. In my view, he was right to say what he believed.

There was still a dilemma for the British government over who they

sent to the funeral. Do they sent nobody, do they say and Boris

Johnson as a post-ironic statement? There is now a post-Castro Cuba to

deal with. Trump was quite diplomatic about post-Castro Cuba.

And Boris Johnson's statement was restrained. The thing about Mr

Castro was the longevity, 50 years of keeping Marxism on the island.

That was what made it so fascinating.

Before the last election, George Osborne promised the NHS

in England a real-terms funding boost of ?8 billion per year by 2020

on the understanding that NHS bosses would also find ?22 billion worth

Since last autumn, NHS managers have been drawing up what they're calling

"Sustainability and Transformation Plans" to make these savings,

but some of the proposals are already running into local

opposition, while Labour say they amount to huge cuts to the NHS.

Help is on the way for an elderly person in need in Hertfordshire.

But east of England ambulance call operators

they're sending an early intervention vehicle

with a council-employed occupational therapist on board.

It's being piloted here for over 65s with

When they arrive, a paramedic judges if the patient can be

treated immediately at home without a trip to hospital.

Around 80% of patients have been treated this way,

taking the strain off urgently-needed hospital beds,

So the early intervention team has assessed the patient and decided

The key to successful integration for Hertfordshire being able

to collaboratively look at how we use our resources,

to have pooled budgets, to allow us to understand

where spend is, and to let us make conscientious decisions about how

best to use that money, to come up with ideas to problems

that sit between our organisations, to look at things collaboratively.

This Hertfordshire hospital is also a good example of how

You won't find an A unit or overnight beds here any more.

The closest ones are 20 minutes down the road.

What's left is nurse-led care in an NHS-built hospital.

Despite a politically toxic change, this reconfiguration went

through after broad public and political consultation

with hospital clinicians and GPs on board.

It's a notable achievement that's surely of interest to 60% of NHS

trusts in England that reported a deficit at the end of September.

It's not just here that the NHS needs to save money and provide

The Government is going to pour in an extra ?8 billion into the NHS

in England, but it has demanded ?22 billion

worth of efficiencies across the country.

In order to deliver that, the NHS has created 44 health

and care partnerships, and each one will provide

a sustainability and transformation plan, or STP, to integrate care,

provide better services and save money.

So far, 33 of these 44 regional plans, drawn up by senior people

in the health service and local government,

The NHS has been through five years of severely constrained spending

growth, and there are another 4-5 years on the way at least.

STPs themselves are an attempt to deal in a planned way

But with plans to close some A units and reduce the number

of hospital beds, there's likely to be a tough political battle

ahead, with many MPs already up in arms about proposed

This Tory backbencher is concerned about the local plans for his

I wouldn't call it an efficiency if you are proposing to close

all of the beds which are currently provided for those coming out

of the acute sector who are elderly and looking

That's not a cut, it's not an efficiency saving,

All 44 STPs should be published in a month's time,

But even before that, they dominated this week's PMQs.

The Government's sustainability and transformation plans

for the National Health Service hide ?22 billion of cuts.

The National Health Service is indeed looking for savings

within the NHS, which will be reinvested in the NHS.

There will be no escape from angry MPs for the Health Secretary either.

Well, I have spoken to the Secretary of State just this week

about the importance of community hospitals in general,

These are proposals out to consultation.

What could happen if these plans get blocked?

If STPs cannot be made to work, the planned changes don't come

to pass, then the NHS will see over time a sort of unplanned

deterioration and services becoming unstable and service

The NHS barely featured in this week's Autumn Statement

but the Prime Minister insisted beforehand that STPs

are in the interests of local people.

Her Government's support will now be critical for NHS England

to push through these controversial regional plans,

which will soon face public scrutiny.

We did ask the Department of Health for an interview,

I've been joined by the Shadow Health Secretary,

Do you accept that the NHS is capable of making ?22 billion of

efficiency savings? Well, we are very sceptical, as are number of

independent organisations about the ability of the NHS to find 22

billion of efficiencies without that affecting front line care. When you

drill down into the 22 billion, based on the information we have

been given, and there hasn't been much information, we can see that

some of it will come from cutting the budget which go to community

pharmacies, which could lead, according to ministers, to 3000

pharmacies closing, which we believe will increase demands on A and

GPs, and also that a lot of these changes which are being proposed,

which was the focus of the package, we think will mean service cuts at a

local level. Do they? The chief executive of NHS England says these

efficiency plans are "Incredibly important". He used to work from

Labour. The independent King's Fund calls them "The best hope to improve

health and care services. There is no plan B". On the sustainable

transformation plans, which will be across England to link up physical

health, mental health and social care, for those services to

collaborate more closely together and move beyond the fragmented

system we have at the moment is important. It seems that the ground

has shifted. It has moved into filling financial gaps. As we know,

the NHS is going through the biggest financial squeeze in its history. By

2018, per head spending on the NHS will be falling. If you want to

redesign services for the long term in a local area, you need to put the

money in. So of course, getting these services working better

together and having a greater strategic oversight, which we would

have had if we had not got rid of strategic health authority is in the

last Parliament. But this is not an attempt to save 22 billion, this is

an attempt to spend 22 billion more successfully, don't you accept that?

Simon Stevens said we need 8 billion, and we need to find 22

billion of savings. You have to spend 22 billion more efficiently.

But the Government have not given that 8 billion to the NHS which they

said they would. They said they would do it by 2020. But they have

changed the definitions of spending so NHS England will get 8 billion by

2020, but they have cut the public health budgets by about 4 million by

20 20. The budget that going to initiatives to tackle sexually

transmitted diseases, to tackle smoking have been cut back but the

commissioning of things like school nurses and health visitors have been

cut back as well. Simon Stevens said he can only deliver that five-year

project if there is a radical upgrade in public health, which the

Government have failed on, and if we deal with social care, and this week

there was an... I understand that, but if you don't think the

efficiency drive can free up 22 billion to take us to 30 billion by

2020, where would you get the money from? I have been in this post now

for five or six weeks and I want to have a big consultation with

everybody who works in the health sector, as well as patients, carers

and families. Though you don't know? I think it would be surprised if I

had an arbitrary figure this soon into the job. Your party said they

expected election of spring by this year, you need to have some idea by

now, you inherited a portfolio from Diane Abbott, did she have no idea?

To govern is to make choices and we would make different choices. The

budget last year scored billions of giveaways in things like

co-operating -- corporation tax. What I do want to do... Is work on a

plan and the general election, whenever it comes, next year or in

2020 or in between, to have costed plan for the NHS. But your party is

committed to balancing the books on current spending, that is currently

John McDonnell, the Shadow Chancellor's position. What we are

talking about, this extra 30 billion, that is essentially current

spending so if it doesn't come from efficiency savings, where does the

money come from? Some of it is also capital. Mainly current spending. If

you look at the details of the OBR, they have switched a million from

the capital into revenue. Why -- how do you balance spending?

That is why we need to have a debate. Every time we ask for

Labour's policy, we are always told me a debate. Surely it is time to

give some idea of what you stand for? There's huge doubts about the

Government 's policy on this. You are the opposition, how would you do

it? I want to work with John McDonnell to find a package to give

the NHS the money it needs, but of course our Shadow Chancellor, like

any Shadow Chancellor at this stage in the cycle, will want to see what

the books look like a head of an election before making commitments.

I am clear that the Labour Party has to go into the next general election

with a clear policy to give the NHS the funding it needs because it has

been going through the largest financial squeeze in its history.

You say Labour will always give the NHS the money it needs, that is not

a policy, it is a blank cheque. It is an indication of our commitment

to the NHS. Under this Conservative government, the NHS has been getting

a 1% increase. Throughout its history it has usually have about

4%. Under the last Labour government it was getting 4%, before that

substantially more. We think the NHS should get more but I don't have

access to the NHS books in front of me. The public thinks there needs to

be more money spent on health but they also think that should go cap

in hand with the money being more efficiently spent, which is what

this efficiency drive is designed to release 22 billion. Do you have an

efficiency drive if it is not the Government's one? Of course we

agree. We agree the NHS should be more efficient, we want to see

productivity increased. Do know how to do that? One way is through

investments, maintenance, but there is a 5 million maintenance backlog.

One of the most high risk backlogs is something like 730 million. They

are going to switch the capital spend into revenue spend. I believe

that when you invest in maintenance and capital in the NHS, that

contribute to increasing its productivity. You are now talking

about 5 billion the maintenance, the chief executive says it needs 30

billion more by 2020 as a minimum so that 35 billion. You want to spend

more on social care, another for 5 billion on that so we have proper

care in the community. By that calculation I'm up to about 40

billion, which is fine, except where do you get the and balance the

account at the same time? We will have to come up with a plan for that

and that's why I will work with our Shadow Treasury team to come up with

that plan when they head into the general election. At the moment we

are saying to the NHS, sorry, we are not going to give you the

investment, which is why we are seeing patient care deteriorating.

The staff are doing incredible things but 180,000 are waiting in

A beyond four hours, record levels of people delayed in beds in

hospitals because there are not the beds in the community to go to save

the NHS needs the investment. We know that and we know the

Government's response to that and many think it is inadequate. What

I'm trying to get from you is what your response would be and what your

reaction will be to these efficiency plans. Your colleague Heidi

Alexander, she had your job earlier this year, she warned of the danger

of knee jerk blanket opposition to local efficiency plans. Do you agree

with that? Yes. So every time a hospital is going to close as a

result of this, and some will, it is Labour default position not just

going to be we are against it? That is why we are going to judge each of

these sustainability plans by a number of yardsticks. We want to see

if they have the support of local clinicians, we want to see if they

have the support of local authorities because they now have a

role in the delivery of health care. We want to see if they make the

right decisions for the long-term trends in population for local area.

We want to see if they integrate social care and health. If they

don't and therefore you will not bank that as an efficiency saving,

you will say no, that's not the way to go, you are left then with

finding the alternative funding to keep the NHS going. If you are

cutting beds, for example the proposal is to cut something like

5000 beds in Derbyshire and if there is the space in the community sector

in Derbyshire, that will cause big problems for the NHS in the long

term so it is a false economy. An example like that, we would be very

sceptical the plans could work. Would it not be honest, given the

sums of money involved and your doubts about the efficiency plan,

which are shared by many people, to just say, look, among the wealthy

nations, we spend a lower proportion of our GDP on health than most of

the other countries, European countries included, we need to put

up tax if we want a proper NHS. Wouldn't that be honest? I'm not the

Shadow Chancellor, I don't make taxation policy. You are tempting me

down a particular road by you or I smile. John McDonnell will come up

with our taxation policy. We have had an ambition to meet the European

average, the way these things are measured have changed since then,

but we did have that ambition and for a few years we met it. We need

substantial investment in the NHS. Everyone accepts it was

extraordinary that there wasn't an extra penny for the NHS in the

Autumn Statement this week. And as we go into the general election,

whenever it is, we will have a plan for the NHS. Come back and speak to

us when you know what you are going to do. Thank you.

Theresa May has promised to trigger formal Brexit negotiations

before the end of March, but the Prime Minister must wait

for the Supreme Court to decide whether parliament must vote

If that is the Supreme Court's conclusion, the Liberal Democrats

and others in parliament have said they'll demand a second EU

referendum on the terms of the eventual Brexit deal before

And last week, two former Prime Ministers suggested

that the referendum result could be reversed.

In an interview with the New Statesman on Thursday,

Tony Blair said, "It can be stopped if the British people decide that,

having seen what it means, the pain-gain cost-benefit analysis

John Major also weighed in, telling a meeting

of the National Liberal Club that the terms of Brexit

were being dictated by the "tyranny of the majority".

He also said there is a "perfectly credible case"

That prompted the former Conservative leader

Iain Duncan Smith to criticise John Major.

He told the BBC, "The idea we delay everything simply

because they disagree with the original result does

seem to me an absolute dismissal of democracy."

So, is there a realistic chance of a second referendum on the terms

of whatever Brexit deal Theresa May manages to secure?

Lib Dem party leader Tim Farron has said, "We want to respect

the will of the people and that means they must have their say

in a referendum on the terms of the deal."

But the Lib Dems have just eight MPs - they'll need Labour support

One ally is former Labour leadership candidate Owen Smith.

He backs the idea of a second referendum.

But yesterday the party's deputy leader, Tom Watson, said that,

"Unlike the Lib Dem Brexit Deniers, we believe in respecting

To discuss whether or not there should be a second referendum

on the terms of the Brexit deal, I've been joined by two

In Somerset is the former Lib Dem leader Paddy Ashdown,

and in Shropshire is the former Conservative cabinet minister

Paddy Ashdown, let me come to you first. When the British people have

spoken, you do what they command, either you believe in democracy or

you don't. When democracy speaks, we obey. Your words on the night of the

referendum, what's changed? Nothing has changed, Andrew, that's what I

said and what I still believe in. The British people have spoken, we

will not block Parliament debating the Brexit decision, Article 50, but

we will introduce an amendment to say that we need to consult the

British people, not about if we go out but what destination we would

then achieve. There is a vast difference in ordinary people's

lives between the so-called hard Brexit and soft Brexit. Soft Brexit,

you remain in the single market, you have to accept and agree on

immigration. Hard Brexit you are out of the single market, we have many

fewer jobs... Why didn't you say before the referendum there would be

a second referendum on the terms? Forgive me, I said it on many

occasions, you may not have covered it, Andrew, but that's a different

thing. In every speech I gave I said this, and this has proved to be

true, since those who recommended Brexit refused to tell us the

destination they were recommending, they refuse to give any detail about

the destination, if we did vote to go out, it would probably be

appropriate to decide which destination, hard Brexit or soft

Brexit we go to. They deliberately obscure that because it made it more

difficult to argue the case. It wasn't part of the official campaign

but let me come to Owen Paterson. What's wrong with a referendum on

the terms of the deal? We voted to leave but we don't really know on

what conditions we leave so what's wrong with negotiating the deal and

putting that deal to the British people? This would be a ridiculous

idea, it would be a complete gift to the EU negotiators to go for an

impossibly difficult deal because they want to do everything to make

sure that Brexit does not go through. This nonsense idea of hard

Brexit and soft Brexit, it was never discussed during the referendum

campaign. We made it clear we wanted to take back control, that means

making our own laws, raising and spending the money agreed by elected

politicians, getting control of our own borders back, and getting

control of our ability to do trade deals around the world. That was

clear at all stages of the referendum. We got 17.4 million

votes, the biggest vote in history for any issue, that 52%, 10% more

than John Major got and he was happy with his record number of 14

million, more than Tony Blair got, which was 43%, so we have a very

clear mandate. Time and again people come up to me and say when are we

going to get on with this. The big problem is uncertainty. We want to

trigger Article 50, have the negotiation and get to a better

place. OK, I need to get a debate going.

Paddy Ashdown, the EU doesn't want us to leave. If they knew there was

going to be a second referendum, surely there was going to be a

second referendum, surely their incentive would be to give us the

worst possible deal would vote against it would put us in a

ridiculous negotiating position. On the contrary, the government could

go and negotiate with the European Union and anyway, the opinion of the

European Union is less important than the opinion of the British

people. It seems to me that Owen Paterson made the case for me

precisely. They refuse to discuss what kind of destination. Britain

voted for departure, but not a destination. Because Owen Paterson

and his colleagues refused to discuss what their model was. So the

range of options here and the impact on the people of Britain is huge.

There is nothing to stop the government going to negotiate,

getting the best deal it can and go into the British people and saying,

this is the deal, guys, do you agree? Owen Paterson? It is simple.

The British people voted to leave. We voted to take back control of our

laws, our money, our borders. But most people don't know the shape of

what the deal would be. So why not have a vote on it? Because it would

be a gift to the EU negotiators to drive the worst possible deal in the

hope that it might be chucked out with a second referendum. The

biggest danger is the uncertainty. We have the biggest vote in British

history. You have said all that. It was your side that originally

proposed a second referendum. The director of Leave said, there is a

strong democratic case for a referendum on what the deal looks

like. Your side. Come on, you are digging up a blog from June of 2015.

He said he had not come to a conclusion. He said it is a distinct

possibility. No senior members of the campaign said we would have a

second referendum. It is worth chucking Paddy the quote he gave on

ITV news, whether it is a majority of 1% or 20%, when the British

people have spoken, you do what they command. People come up to me and

keep asking, when are you going to get on with it? What do you say to

that, Paddy Ashdown? Owen Paterson has obviously not been paying

attention. You ask me that question at the start. Owen and his kind have

to stick to the same argument. During the referendum, when we said

that the Europeans have it in their interest to picket tough for us,

they would suffer as well. And that has proved to be right. The European

Union does not wish to hand as a bad deal, because they may suffer in the

process. We need the best deal for both sides. I can't understand why

Owen is now reversing that argument. Here is the question I am going to

ask you. If we have a second referendum on the deal and we vote

by a very small amount, by a sliver, to stay in, can we then make it

best-of-3? No, Andrew! Vince Cable says he thinks if you won, he would

have to have a decider. You will have to put that income tax, because

I don't remember when he said that. -- you have to put that in context.

Independent, 19th of September. That is a decision on the outcome. The

central point is that the British people voted for departure, not a

destination. In response to the claim that this is undemocratic, if

it is democratic to have one referendum, how can it be

undemocratic to have two? Owen Paterson, the British government, on

the brink of triggering article 50, cannot tell us if we will remain

members of the single market, if we will remain members of the customs

union. From that flows our ability to make trade deals, our attitude

towards freedom of movement and the rest of it. Given that the

government can't tell us, it is clear that the British people have

no idea what the eventual shape will be. That is surely the fundamental

case for a second referendum. Emphatically not. They have given a

clear vote. That vote was to take back control. What the establishment

figures like Paddy should recognise is the shattering damage it would do

to the integrity of the whole political process if this was not

delivered. People come up to me, as I have said for the third time now,

wanting to know when we will get article 50 triggered. Both people

who have voted to Remain and to Leave. If we do not deliver this, it

will be disastrous for the reputation and integrity of the

whole political establishment. Let me put that you Paddy Ashdown. It is

very Brussels elite - were ask your question but if we don't like the

answer, we will keep asking the question. Did it with the Irish and

French. It is... It would really anger the British people, would it

not? That is an interesting question, Andrew. I don't think it

would. All the evidence I see in public meetings I attended, and I

think it is beginning to show in the opinion polls, although there hasn't

been a proper one on this yet, I suspect there is a majority in

Britain who would wish to see a second referendum on the outcome.

They take the same view as I do. What began with an open democratic

process cannot end with a government stitch up. Contrary to what Owen

suggests, there is public support for this. And far from damaging the

government and the political class, it showed that we are prepared to

listen. We shall see. Paddy Ashdown, have you eaten your hat yet? Andrew,

as you well know, I have eaten five hats. You cannot have a second

referendum until you eat your hat on my programme. We will leave it

there. Paddy Ashdown and Owen Paterson, thank you much. I have

eaten a hat on your programme. I don't remember!

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

hello, coming up on the Sunday in Scotland, who leave us now

hello, coming up on the Sunday Politics in the south-west. The

Chancellor has given ?1 million for the restoration of this old market,

but has his Autumn Statement -- hopes for more than 1000 new jobs in

the region? For the next 20 minutes enjoined by Conservative MP Gary

Streeter and Labour MEP clear midi. Welcome back. The tautness MP Sarah

Woollaston, chair of the health search committee, attacked the

government for its decision not to increase social care funding in the

Autumn Statement. With four Cornish care homes at the centre of a BBC

panorama investigation this week, the Prime Minister was asked what

she was doing to improve standards of care. Let us look at what the

Labour Party did in their 13 years. They said they would deal with

social care in the 1997 manifesto, introduced a Royal commission in

1999, a Green paper in 2005, said they sort it in 2007, and another

green paper in 2009. 13 years and they did nothing. Clear, she went on

to say this Conservative government is actually doing things like

introducing social care premiums. We saw in the last government that they

were effectively ?4.9 billion worth of cuts to social care. So the point

of getting social care right is the joined up nature. Everybody has

talked about it for years. Yes, the question was what is being done, and

it is much more that needs to be done to Pool B services together.

saw from the investigation into saw from the investigation into

those care homes in Cornwall, not only the problems that add existing

system, but also the human outcomes of those problems. And that is why

it is vital the government does more to address this. Did you shower

Sarah Wallace and's disappointment there was not something significant

on it? -- Wollaston. This has been talked about for the last two

decades, and sciences enabling more babies to stay alive than ever

before, often with serious medical issues. Lots of elderly people

living on, needing medical attention. The cost of health and

social peer is going up every year, and we have not yet found the right

formula to meet the rise in demand. On Tuesday, the report commissioned

by David Cameron on the feature of the region -- future of the region's

railway, it is a big wish list with a big price tag attached. Attention

will now be focused on the MPs in the region to see if and when they

deliver. It is nearly three years since

storms left the rail line at Dawlish dangling in midair. But this week

there was a sense of deja vu. Once again the region's rail links are

cut off from the rest of the country. Flooding here at Paoli

Bridge means trains are not able to run between Devon and Somerset. We

are four beaks into winter, it is a bit ridiculous, what will happen?

They are not spending enough on infrastructure in this country. That

is never anything proactive done, it is always reactive. Passengers

should then be pleased that Council and business leaders presented their

case for more rail investment to ministers in London this week. But

for the peninsula rail task force, which should have been a Railtrack,

ended up being a road trip instead. They will be doing ?2.5 billion

worth of improvements, an alternative -- including an

alternative route at Okehampton, and ?1.5 billion to knock 40 minutes off

the journey time to Penzance. Yesterday the peninsula rail task

force launched its report which was commissioned following the storm

severing Devon and Cornwall Police might vital rail link. Minutes

before the Autumn Statement, the Prime Minister raised hopes that the

money could be forthcoming. Can I ask he exercises a little more

patience and listens very carefully to what my right honourable friend

the Chancellor says? But after that build-up, the Chancellor had nothing

new to say. MPs were left clinging to the ?10 million for a Dawlish

study that they had already been promised the week before. It is up

to the Tory MPs to find their backbone and start fighting hard

ball. Not just nice words and saying yes, please. Why do they keep voting

tens of billions of pounds for HS2 going up north, when we do not even

have railway system equal to the 20th century, let alone the 21st?

The challenge they face is that passenger numbers are much higher in

other parts of the country. Saudi government more than incentive to

invest in the South East and North West, where the population density

is greater. Also, it is not always clear whether rail provides the

quickest service for the region's passengers. A study into the

disruption caused by the closure of the line at Dawlish struggled to

find businesses that suffered because of it. We tend to use

passenger surveys asking them about the extent to which their journeys

have been elongated, whether they have actually cancelled any of the

journeys they have done. It has been difficult in the Dawlish case

because on certain occasions the real replacement services are

slightly faster than traditional rail. It will be at least two years

before flood protection work at Cowley Bridge meanwhile the

consultation on schemes to protect Dawlish from the elements continues.

But this week the Torbay MP Kevin Foster admitted that a government

commitment to fund improvements could be two years further down the

line. Gary, a statement which was heavily

trailed to be all about infrastructure, which it was if you

live in Birmingham, Leeds, but nothing for the south-west. The 20

year plan was only handed in to government on the Tuesday. But that

timing was delivered it, just before the Autumn Statement. Yes, but no

one expected the Autumn Statement to respond to it 24 hours later. We got

extra money for infrastructure spending, and we have got to make

sure we get our fair shower here in the south-west, but now we have a

plan. We are saying to government that we know exactly what we want,

and it is now time to stand and deliver. Lobbying over the next six

and 12 months it will be fierce. The Transport Secretary is coming out to

the region next Friday. He will be fiercely lobbied by me and others,

and the narrative needs to be told. We have got to start again, but we

will. You have indicated in the past that you might vote against HS2.

When does that cut-off tipping point come? I will do whatever it takes to

get our fair shower of funding to increment the 20 year plan. I am on

record for saying that and I will deliver on its. I am not sure we

need to vote on HS2 ever again. The legislation has gone through, they

are now just getting on with the planning and building of it. I can

promise you my highest commitment between now and the next general

election in four years is to make sure we deliver on promises and

commitments to getting a 21st century rail link for the

south-west. Then is lobbying on this as a local MP. But there is no

evidence that a Labour government would be delivering on this. -- Ben.

It is up to the Tory Government. I was pushing for this as well because

there was a commitment from labour around some of the rail

infrastructure. But the point being, I hope Gary gets his way because we

have seen too often, yes, whichever government is in, the infrastructure

of the south-west has come second to the infrastructure that people talk

about for up north in the country. And we desperately need to be

prioritised. The fact that people have to drive up to present a rail

plan is just a sad indictment of the lack of investment. In terms of the

pace of this and the intensity of lobbying, we have reached the stage

which is impossible to say, as it has been, we will wait for this

report, wait for that report. They are all on the desk of the

government now. On our debate on Tuesday, my final words where they

is a time for promises, and a time for delivery. Isn't it a really big

ask for the government to provide something to make sure it does not

fall into the sea, and then 1.5 billion to shorten journeys beyond

London? Resilience is vital, and we will get more investment in

resilient issues. On-board connectivity, that is what the

business community want, so they can be on their computers from Penzance

to Paddington, which has got better, but it is not good enough. Reducing

journey times, that is the big one. We heard about bigger populations,

more passengers in other regions. Particularly for Labour, you will

have your eye on the heartlands in the North and Midlands. As I say, it

is about the infrastructure, the investment we need down here. My job

as a Labour politician representing the south-west of England is to

fight for the importance of investing in that infrastructure.

Because without it, we have seen all the difficulties we have. The

south-west feels something like it is a very long way away from London,

and we are not taken into account. But would not have the volume of

passengers on the trains and the number of voters, which is relevant

because it is political. We have a lot of capability down in the

region, so we have ability to do things digitally, to develop the

kind of digital economy down here, but sooner or later you do have that

necessity for the hard infrastructure from people to be

able to get easily between centres, as well as goods, very quickly, was

the Prime Minister badly briefed, she was building people up for

something in the statement? Yes, she was. They got that wrong. OK. It was

not just rail campaigners who were disappointed, the region's local

enterprise partnerships were holding their breath to see if they would

get the funding they asked for to grow the economy. It is still

unclear, but it looks certain to be a poor outcome which could threaten

the creation of more than 1000 new jobs.

One of the few real tangible examples of where the Chancellor put

his hand in his pocket and pulled out some real money for the

south-west was a ?1 million investment for a new digital

creative space in the old market Hall, here in Devonport. Is it fair

to say this ?1 million was something of a surprise? It was, indeed. We

haven't a sort of slight inkling that it might be possible, -- we

had. But it was a surprise, and there was a lot of delight in the

office. When it opens in 2018, the ?5 million scheme will reach space

for learning, skills, events research, and the first 15 metre

by and large the Autumn Statement by and large the Autumn Statement

had a hollow ring to it. 191 million for growth in the region, that was

just a fraction of what was hoped for. The ?191 million will be handed

to six local enterprise partnerships in the greater south-west. We do not

know how it will be divided, and an even split would be just under ?32

million each. Of the three in a region, Dorset would not say how

much they have asked for. We do know that Cornwall and the Isles of

Scilly bid for ?127 million. They do not yet know what they will get.

Devon and Somerset bid for ?109 million. They reckon they could

receive as little as 15 to ?20 million of that. Probably about 30

projects have been anticipated as part of the bigger funding pot that

had been applied for. If we only going to get a lower amount of

money, and this is still subject to negotiation, then it might be that

we're only going to build less than ten of those, which is hugely

?109 million bid for Bevan and ?109 million bid for Bevan and

Somerset could have created up to 1500 jobs, but if they only receive

the ?20 million they are expecting, then the new jobs figure could fall

to 300. The final figure should become clear in the coming months,

but business leaders here in the far south-west are worried we will get

less money because councils are refusing to have an elected mayor.

Secretary Sergei Javid Saint clear Secretary Sergei Javid Saint clear

on a visit to the region that if there was no mere there would be...

Sajid Javid. They visit Athens between what some areas receive and

what others receive. Those willing to accept a, it is expected they

will get more than others. -- to accept a mayor.

To discuss this we're joined by John Hart, Conservative leader of Devon

County Council, intimately involved in the Devon and Somerset devolution

bed. All players are adamant they will not have a mayor. In refusing

to accept a mayor, if you denying investment to the region, which is

happening now? They are trying to finalise those local authorities

that are prepared to run with a mayor. And what they are saying to

them is you have got to come forward with some plans. Those of us with a

strong combined authority have been told we have got to hang on, we are

next in line. A few weeks ago, the meeting with the secretary, he was

clear that in order to these even greater investment would need to

have a mayor. But that is wanting us to join together as one unit, which

is impossible. Going back to the mayor for a minute. I said to the

Minister bluntly, you're talking about us having a mayor. We have 17

local authorities working together closely. The amount of money putting

up in front of us is not worth us arguing about. Givers the powers and

we can get the job is done. On this growth fund money it seems perfectly

clear that in terms of this money being awarded now, those areas which

have agreed to a mayor will get better funding. We do not know that.

But what we do know is that in the south-west we're getting over ?190

million out of a 1.8 million pot. 500 million of that is going into

the Midlands, so we are being done down. You made the point about

centres of population and economic activity, and we do not score as

highly as other regions. I am still optimistic that this region will get

a good deal out of the growth deal. But we know the total pot, and if

that is divided equally, it could be about 30 million each, which is far

short. We never get everything we ask for. People were talking about

15 to 20 million, a few days ago, but we will get more. But it is

massively less than the pot they have asked for. And when you see

what Devon and Cornwall need three quarters of the total pot. Let us

wait and see. What is your view of an elected mayor, I got the

impression you were coming round to the idea? Most members of Parliament

saying it is a matter for the local authorities, and we have been

working with them behind the scenes. An excellent bid has been put

forward, and it is unfortunate that is not getting more attention from

government. The minister replied during your debate, praised the MPs,

but said it is not evident the unity is shared down the tree of local

government. It might be worth reflecting whether that has an

impact on the long-term development. We wrote one letter to the minister,

I wrote a second one after the Exeter meeting. We have written a

third one yesterday because there was nothing in the Autumn Statement

referring to the Devon and Somerset area. We are waiting for a reply.

Clear, the whole business of mayor started under Labour, and I do --

ironically it is Labour councils who have been rushing to accept the

government's offers, and in Conservative offices, they do not

want it. I would not dream on responding on behalf of John and

other colleagues. The crucial part which has been touched on is the

powers that go with the position. It is the powers and the money, so

being able to deliver change, what it seems with some of these

proposals is there is talk about the position, but not about what the

position will do for people and how the change will be affected. If you

create a position with nothing behind it, you are actually creating

something to fail. John, would you possibly go for this week mayor, the

Bristol area has decided on? I am opposed to the concept. If we turn

out for a mayor per Devon and Somerset, there would be a 10%

turnout for voting time now for the regular round-up of the week. -- 10%

turnout for voting. Southwest Ukip MEP William Dartmouth

wades into the debate about who wades into the debate about who

should be the UK's ambassador to the US. Nigel Farage is the most

patriotic person I know. He would be not just the obvious appointment,

but the outstanding appointment. Cornwall's air ambulance gets ?1

million in the Autumn Statement. The money comes from the fines

levied on banks. Torbay could get its own lottery. The council wants

to set up an online drop to find things it is struggling to pay for.

One ticket a week, ?1 a time, we One ticket a week, ?1 a time, we

think the concept is good but simple. Should Jersey's prisoners be

allowed to vote? And south-west councils are praised

for protecting bees. Friends of the Earth wants others to follow the

lead. We want to determine national action to ban pesticides harmful to

bees. Clear, you work alongside North

Nigel Farage and William Dartmouth as MEPs. Is Nigel Farage ambassador

material? I don't think so. I don't think there are many people who

would suggest diplomacy was at the top end of his skills. But this

suggestion he does seem to have -- this suggestion he seems to have

close links with Donald Trump and his entourage, that could be useful.

But the job of the ambassadors to represent the British people's

interests in Washington, and Nigel Farage has a very narrow base and a

narrow set of interests. I do not see that he is a man, I would not

want him to be representing me. It seems that pantomime season has come

early this year, I do not know why anyone takes it seriously! He would

be the ambassador of Outer Mongolia, but not Washington! Just before we

hand you back to London, you would like to apologise for saying last

week that Cheryl Murray was a fan of a new constituency crossing the

Devon and Cornwall Police. She has asked us to make it clear that while

she supports the government's plan for new boundaries, she feels

unhappy about the change. That is the Sunday Politics in the South

have got to make sure London is open. Thank you. Andrew, back to

you. Is Theresa May serious

about curbing executive pay? Who will be crowned Nigel Farage's

successor as Ukip leader? And can the Lib Dems pull off

a by-election upset in Richmond? So,,, on pay talk about the

executive of what executives get compared to the average worker in

the company, giving shareholders real power to vote down pay rises if

they don't like them, which is pretty much what Ed Miliband

proposed in the general election in 2015. Is she serious about this? She

is very serious, and the Tory party probably does owe Ed Miliband an

apology for trashing his ideas and 2015 and then putting them all up

for votes in November 20 16. She is very serious, and this all comes

back to her desperate fear that unless capitalism reforms itself and

becomes more acceptable to the just about managing or even 78% of the

country who are not earning vast wealth at anywhere near the figures

you see in the City, serious things will happen and the political sense

of trust will implode. She has already been bartered down by her

own Cabinet on this. She wanted to go further and make workers on the

board mandatory. They have managed to stop that. What will her fallback

position be on workers on the board if she is not able to get it into

some claw? We would like to have workers on the board, but whatever

they do on the board there will have no voting powers on the board. When

you look at what was leaked out over the weekend, that we should know the

ratio of the top to the average and that shareholders who own the

company should determine, in the end, the highest-paid salaries, you

kind of think, what could the possible objection be to any of

that? Two things. One, I agree with Tom that she is deadly serious about

this agenda and it comes under the banner, that sentence in the party

conference speech about "It's time to focus on the good that government

can do". She is by instinct more of an interventionist than Cameron and

Osborne. But she is incredibly cautious, whether it is through the

internal constraints of opposition within Cabinet, or her own small C

Conservative caution in implementing this stuff. Part of the problem is

the practicalities. George Osborne commission will Hutton to do a

report which came out with similar proposals, which were never

implemented. It is quite hard to enforce. It will antagonise business

leaders when she's to woo them again in this Brexit furore. So there are

problems with it. And judging by what has happened so far, my guess

is that the aim will be genuinely bold and interesting, and the

implementation incredibly cautious. Does it matter if she annoys some

business leaders? Isn't that part of her brand? Will there be problems on

the Tory backbenches with it? I think there will be and I think it

does matter at this sensitive time for when we are positioning

ourselves as a country and whether we are going to brand ourselves as a

great city of business, implementing quite interventionist policies. Any

suggestion that the government can control how much the top earners

get, I think would be received in a hostile way. What would be wrong

with the shareholders, who own the company, determining the pay of the

higher hands, the executives? Morally, you can absolutely make

that argument but to business leaders, they will not like it.

Ultimately, this will not come down to more than a row of beans. There

was a huge debate about whether there should be quotas of women on

boards. In the end, that never happened. All we get is figures. But

quotas of women, for which there is a case and a case against too, that

was a government mandate. This is not, this is simply empowering

shareholders who own the company to determine the pay of the people they

hire. There is a strong moral argument for it. Strong economic

argument. But the Tory backbenchers will not like this. The downside is

that this is a world where companies are thinking about upping sticks to

Europe. No, they say they are thinking of that. Not one has done

it yet. Others have made massive investments in this country. But is

it not an incentive for those making these threats to actually do it? In

Europe, bankers' pay is now mandated by Brussels. It is a vivid way of

showing you are addressing the issue of inequality. I think she will go

with it, but let's move on to Ukip. I think we will get the result

tomorrow. There are the top three candidates. Paul Nuttall, Suzanne

Evans and on my right, John Reid Evans. One of them will be the next

leader. Who is going to win? It is widely predicted to be Paul Nuttall

and is probably the outcome that the Labour Party fears most. Paul

Nuttall is a very effective communicator. He is not a household

name, far from it, but people will begin to learn more about him and

find that he is actually quite a strong leader. Can people Ukip

together again after this shambolic period since the referendum? If

anyone can, he can. And his brand of working collar, Northern Ukip is the

thing that will work for them. Do you think he is the favourite? It

would be amazing if he doesn't win. His greatest problem will be getting

Nigel Farage off his back. He is going on a speaking tour of North

America. A long speaking tour. Ukip won this EU referendum. They had the

chance to hoover up these discontented Labour voters in the

north, and all he has done is associated with Ukip with Farage.

But Nigel Farage is fed up of Ukip and will be glad to be hands of it.

The bigger problem is money. If it is Paul Nuttall, and we don't know

the results yet, but he is the favourite, if it is him, I would

suggest that that is the result Labour is frightened of most. To be

honest, I think they are frightened of Ukip whatever the result.

Possibly with good cause. The reason I qualify that is that what you call

a shambles over the summer has been something that goes beyond Monty

Python in its absurdity and madness. That calls into question whether it

can function as a political party when you have what has gone on. The

number of leaders itself has been an act of madness. In a context which

should be fantastic for them. They have won a referendum. There is a

debate about what form Brexit should take, it is a dream for them, and

they have gone bonkers. If he can turn it around, I agree that he is a

powerful media communicator, and then it is a threat to Labour. But

he has got to show that first. Indeed. The by-election in Richmond

in south-west London, called by Zac Goldsmith over Heathrow. Has it

turned out to be a by-election about Heathrow, or has it turned into a

by-election, which is what the Lib Dems wanted, about Brexit? We will

know on Thursday. If the Lib Dems win, they will turn it into an EU

referendum. It seems incredibly close now. The Lib Dems are swamping

Richmond. They had 1000 activists there yesterday. That is getting on

for 100th of the population of the place! If the Lib Dems don't manage

to win on Thursday and don't manage to turn it into an EU referendum

despite all their efforts, it will probably be a disaster for the

party. What do you hear, Isabel? I hear that the Lib Dems have

absolutely swamped the constituency, but this may backfire. I saw a bit

of this myself, living in Witney, when the Lib Dems also swamped and

people began to get fed up of their aggressive tactics. I understand

that Zac Goldsmith is cautiously optimistic that he will pull this

one off. Quick stab at the result? I don't know. But we are entering a

period when by-elections are acquiring significant again. If the

Lib Dems were to make a game, it would breathe life into that near

moribund party like nothing else. Similarly, other by-elections in

this shapeless political world we are in are going to become

significant. We don't know if we are covering it live on Thursday night

yet because we have to find at the time they are going to declare.

Richmond are quite late in declaring, but if it is in the early

hours, that is fine. If it is on breakfast television, they be not. I

want to show you this. Michael Gove was on the Andrew Marr Show this

morning. In the now notorious comment that I made, I was actually

cut off in midstream, as politicians often. The point I made was not that

all experts are that is nonsense. Expert engineers, doctors and

physicists are not wrong. But there is a subclass of experts,

particularly social scientists, who have to reflect on some of the

mistakes they have made. And the recession, which was predicted that

we would have if we voted to leave, has gone like a puff of smoke. So

economic experts, he talks about. The Chancellor has based all of his

forward predictions in this Autumn Statement on the economic expert

forecasters. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said it is 50-50,

which is the toss of a coin. But what was he supposed to do? You

would ideally have to have a Budget that had several sets of scenarios,

and that is impossible. Crystal ball territory. But you do wonder if

governments are right to do so much of their fiscal projections on the

basis of forecasts which turn out to be wrong. They have nothing else to

go on. The Treasury forecast is to be wrong. No doubt the OBR forecast

will prove not to be exact. As you say, they admitted that they are

navigating through fog at the moment. But he also added that it

was fog caused by Brexit. So Brexit, even if you accept that these

forecasts might be wrong, is causing such a level of uncertainty. He put

the figure at 60 billion. That could come to haunt him. He hasn't got a

clue. He admitted it. He said, Parliament mandates me to come up

with something, so I am going to give you a number. But I wouldn't

trust it if I were you, he basically said. I agree with you. The man who

borrowed 122 billion more off the back of a coin toss was Philip

Hammond. It begs the question, what does that say about the confidence

Philip Hammond has in his own government's renegotiation? Not a

huge amount. I agree. Philip Hammond quoted the OBR figures. He basically

said, this is uncertain and it looks bad, and on we go with it. It is a

very interesting situation, he said. He was for Remain and he works in a

department which regards it as a disaster, whatever everyone else

thinks. I have just been told we are covering the by-election. We are

part of the constitution. Jo Coburn will have more

Daily Politics tomorrow And I'll be back here on BBC One

next Sunday at 11. Remember - if it's Sunday,

it's the Sunday Politics. to signify the Africans

who were here.