27/11/2016 Sunday Politics South West


Similar Content

Browse content similar to 27/11/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



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.


Download Subtitles