29/10/2017 Sunday Politics South

Morning, everyone.

I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome

to The Sunday Politics,

where we always bring you everything

you need to know to understand

what's going on in politics.

Coming up on today's programme...

The Government says

the international trade minister

Mark Garnier will be investigated

following newspaper allegations

of inappropriate behaviour

towards a female staff member.

We'll have the latest.

The Prime Minister says she can

agree a deal with the EU and plenty

of time for Parliament to vote on it

before we leave in 2018. Well

Parliament play ball? New evidence

cast out on the economic

In the South:

cast out on the economic and

Should there be some sort of statute

of limitations

on prosecuting Armed Service

personnel for crimes

allegedly committed

as part of their active duty?

on from the abortion act white MPs

are lobbying the Home Secretary to

stop the alleged harassment of women

attending abortion clinics.

All that coming up in the programme.

And with me today to help make sense

of all the big stories,

Julia Hartley-Brewer,

Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

Some breaking news this morning.

The Government has announced

that it will investigate

whether the International Trade

Minister Mark Garnier broke

the Ministerial Code

following allegations

of inappropriate behaviour.

It comes after reports in the Mail

on Sunday which has spoken to one

of Mr Garnier's former employees.

News of the investigation

was announced by the Health

Secretary Jeremy Hunt

on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

The stories, if they are true,

are totally unacceptable

and the Cabinet Office will be

conducting an investigation

as to whether there has been

a breach of the ministerial code

in this particular case.

But as you know the

facts are disputed.

This is something that covers

behaviour by MPs of all parties

and that is why the other thing

that is going to happen

is that today Theresa May

is going to write to John Bercow,

the Speaker of the House of Commons,

to ask for his advice as to how

we change that culture.

That was Jeremy Hunt a little

earlier. I want to turn to the panel

to make sense of this news. This is

the government taking these

allegations quite seriously.

What

has changed in this story is they

used to be a bit of delay while

people work out what they should say

about it, how seriously to take it.

As you see now a senior cabinet

member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with

an instant response. He does have

the worry of whether the facts are

disputed, but what they want to be

seen doing is to do something very

quickly. In the past they would say

it was all part of the rough and

tumble of Westminster.

Mark Garnier

does not deny these stories, which

is that he asked an employee to buy

sex toys, but he said it was just

high jinks and it was taken out of

context. Is this the sort of thing

that a few years ago in a different

environment would be investigated?

Not necessarily quite the frenzy

that it is nowadays. The combination

of social media, all the Sunday

political programmes were ministers

have to go on armed with a response

means that you get these we have to

be seen to be doing something. That

means there is this Cabinet Office

investigation. You pointed out to us

before the programme that he was not

a minister before this happened. It

does not matter whether he says yes,

know I did this or did not,

something has to be seen to be done.

Clearly ministers today are being

armed with that bit of information

and that Theresa May will ask John

Bercow the speaker to look into the

whole culture of Parliament in this

context. That is the response to

this kind of frenzy.

If we do live

in an environment where something

has to be seen to be done, does that

always mean the right thing gets

done?

Absolutely not. We are in

witch hunt territory. All of us work

in the Commons over many years and

anyone would think it was a scene

out of Benny Hill or a carry on

film. Sadly it is not that much fun

and it is rather dull and dreary.

Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there

is sexual harassment, but the idea

this is going on on a huge scale is

nonsense.

Doesn't matter whether it

is a huge scale or not? Or just a

few instances?

Any workplace where

you have the mixing of work and

social so intertwined and you throw

a huge amount of alcohol and late

night and people living away from

home you will have this happen.

That

does not make it OK.

It makes sexual

harassment not OK as it is not

anywhere. This happens to men as

well and if they have an issue into

it there are employment tribunal 's

and they can contact lawyers. I do

not think this should be a matter of

the speaker, it should be someone

completely independent of any party.

People think MPs are employees of

the party or the Commons, they are

not.

Because they are self-employed

to whom do you go if you are a

researcher?

That has to be

clarified. I agree you need a much

clearer line of reporting. It was a

bit like the situation when we came

into the media many years ago, the

Punic wars in my case! You were not

quite sure who to go to. If you work

worried that it might impede your

career, and you had to talk to

people who work next to you, that is

just one example, but in the Commons

people do not know who they should

go to. Where Theresa May might be

making a mistake, it is the same

mistake when it was decided to

investigate through Levinson the

culture of the media which was like

nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

culture of anybody's job and the

environment they are in and there is

usually a lot wrong with it. When

you try and make it general, they

are not trying to blame individuals,

or it say they need a better line on

reporting of sexual harassment,

which I support, the Commons is a

funny place and it is a rough old

trade and you are never going to

iron out the human foibles of that.

Diane Abbott was talking about this

earlier.

When I first went into Parliament so

many of those men had been to all

boys boarding schools and had really

difficult attitudes towards women.

The world has moved on and

middle-aged women are less likely

than middle-aged men to believe that

young research are irresistibly

attracted to them. We have seen the

issues and we have seen one of our

colleagues been suspended for quite

unacceptable language.

That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a

Labour MP who has had the whip

suspended, this goes across all

parties.

The idea that there is a

left or right divide over this is

absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

the media and in a lot of other

institutions if this is going to

develop politically, the frenzy will

carry on for a bit and other names

will come out over the next few

days, not just the two we have

mentioned so far in politics. But it

also raises questions about how

candidates are selected for example.

There has been a huge pressure for

the centre to keep out of things. I

bet from now on there will be much

greater scrutiny of all candidates

and tweets will have to be looked at

and all the rest of it.

Selecting

candidates is interesting. Miriam

Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says

that during that election they knew

about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems

knew about it, so it is difficult to

suggest the Labour Party did not as

well.

There is very clear evidence

the Labour Party did know. But we

are in a situation of how perfect

and well-behaved does everyone have

to be? If you look at past American

presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton,

these men were sex pest

extraordinaire, with totally

inappropriate behaviour on a regular

basis. There are things you are not

allowed to say if you are feminists.

Young women are really attracted to

powerful men. I was busted for the

idea that there are young women in

the House of commons who are

throwing themselves at middle-aged,

potbellied, balding, older men. We

need to focus on the right things.

When it is unwanted, harassing,

inappropriate and criminal,

absolutely, you come down like a

tonne of bricks. It is not just

because there are more women in the

Commons, it is because there are

more men married to women like us.

We have to leave it there.

As attention turns in

Westminster to the hundreds

of amendments put down on the EU

Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

caused a stir this week by saying

it's possible Parliament won't get

a vote on the Brexit deal

until after March 2019 -

when the clock runs out

and we leave the EU.

Let's take a look at how

the controversy played out.

And which point do you envisage

Parliament having a vote?

As soon as possible thereafter.

This Parliament?

As soon as possible

possible thereafter, yeah.

As soon as possible thereafter.

So, the vote in Parliament...

The other thing...

Could be after March 2019?

It could be, yeah, it could be.

The...

It depends when it concludes.

Mr Barnier, remember,

has said he'd like...

Sorry, the vote of our Parliament,

the UK Parliament, could be

after March 2019?

Yes, it could be.

Could be.

The thing to member...

Which would be...

Well, it can't come

before we have the deal.

You said that it is POSSIBLE that

Parliament night not vote

on the deal until AFTER

the end of March 2019.

I'm summarising correctly

what you said...?

Yeah, that's correct.

In the event we don't do

the deal until then, yeah.

Can the Prime Minister please

explain how it's possible

to have a meaningful vote

on something that's

already taken place?

As the honourable gentleman knows,

we're in negotiations

with the European Union, but I am

confident that the timetable under

the Lisbon Treaty does give time

until March 2019

for the negotiations to take place.

But I'm confident, because it is in

the interests of both sides,

it's not just this Parliament that

wants to have a vote on that deal,

but actually there will be

ratification by other parliaments,

that we will be able to achieve that

agreement and that negotiation

in time for this Parliament

to have a vote that we committed to.

We are working to reach

an agreement on the final deal

in good time before we leave

the European Union in March 2019.

Clearly, we cannot say

for certain at this stage

when this will be agreed.

But as Michel Barnier said,

he hopes to get a draft deal

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim is well.

agreed by October 2018,

and that's our aim as well.

I'm joined now by the former

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

Benn, who is the chair

of the Commons Brexit Committee,

which David Davis was

giving evidence to.

Good morning.

When you think a

parliamentary vote should take place

in order for it to be meaningful?

It

has to be before we leave the

European Union. Michel Barnier said

at the start of the negotiations

that he wants to wrap them up by

October of next year, so we have

only got 12 months left, the clock

is ticking and there is a huge

amount of ground to cover.

You do

not think there is any point in

having the vote the week before we

leave because you could then not go

and re-negotiate?

That would not be

acceptable. We will not be given a

bit of paper and told to take it or

leave it. But the following day

Steve Baker, also a minister in the

department, told our committee that

the government now accepts that in

order to implement transitional

arrangements that it is seeking, it

will need separate legislation. I

put the question to him if you are

going to need separate legislation

to do that, why don't you have a

separate bill to implement the

withdrawal agreement rather than

seeking to use the powers the

government is proposing to take in

the EU withdrawal bill.

If we stick

to the timing, you have said you do

not think it is possible to

negotiate a trade deal in the next

12 months. You say the only people

who think that is possible British

ministers. If you do not believe we

can get a deal negotiated, how can

we get a vote on it in 12 months'

time?

If things go well, and there

is still a risk of no agreement

which would be disastrous for the

economy and the country, if

things go there will be a deal on

the divorce issues, there will be a

deal on the nature of the

transitional arrangement and the

government is to set out how it

thinks that will work, and then an

agreement between the UK and the 27

member states saying, we will now

negotiate a new trade and market

access arrangement, and new

association agreement between the

two parties, and that will be done

in the transition period. Parliament

will be voting in those

circumstances on a deal which leads

to the door being open.

But we would

be outside the EU at that point, so

how meaningful can vote be where you

take it or leave it if we have

already left the EU? Surely this has

to happen before March 2019 for it

to make a difference?

I do not think

it is possible to negotiate all of

the issues that will need to be

covered in the time available.

Then

it is not possible to have a

meaningful vote on it?

Parliament

will have to have a look at the deal

presented to it. It is likely to be

a mix agreement so the approval

process in the rest of Europe,

unlike the Article 50 agreement,

which will be a majority vote in the

European Parliament and in the

British Parliament, every single

Parliament will have a vote on it,

so it will be a more complex process

anyway, but I do not think that is

the time to get all of that sorted

between now and October next year.

Whether it is before or after we

have left the EU, the government

have said it is a take it or leave

it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

option, deal or no Deal, you say yes

or no to it. You cannot send them

back to re-negotiate.

If it is a separate piece of

legislation, when Parliament has a

chance to shape the nature of that

legislation.

But it can't change

what has been negotiated with the

EU?

Well, you could say to the

government, we're happy with this

but was not happy about that chukka

here's some fresh instructions, go

back in and...

It seems to me what

they want is the maximum access to

the single market for the lowest

possible tariffs, whilst able to

control migration. If they've got to

get the best deal that they can on

that, how on earth is the Labour

Party, saying we want a bit more,

owing to persuade the other 27?

We

certainly don't want the lowest

possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

are taught. My personal view is

that, has made a profound mistake in

deciding that it wants to leave the

customs union. If you want to help

deal with the very serious question

of the border between Northern

Ireland and the Republic of Ireland,

the way you do that is to stay in

the customs union and I hope, will

change its mind.

But the Labour

Party is simply saying in the House

of Commons, we want a better deal

than what, has been able to get?

It

depends how the negotiations unfold.

, has ended up on the transitional

arrangements in the place that Keir

Starmer set out on behalf of the

shadow cabinet in August, when he

said, we will need to stay in the

single market and the customs union

for the duration of the transition,

and I think that is the position,

has now reached. It has not been

helped by differences of view within

the Cabinet, and a lot of time has

passed and there's proved time left

and we have not even got on to the

negotiations. -- there's very little

time left.

On phase two, the labour

Party have set out six clear tests,

and two of them are crucial. You say

you want the exact same benefits we

currently have in the customs union

but you also want to be able to

ensure the fair migration to control

immigration, basically, which does

sound a bit like having your cake

and eating it. You say that you will

vote against any deal that doesn't

give you all of that, the exact same

benefits of the single market, and

allowing you to control migration.

But you say no deal would be

catastrophic if so it seems to me

you're unlikely to get the deal that

you could vote for but you don't

want to vote for no deal?

We

absolutely don't want a no deal.

Businesses have sent a letter to the

Prime Minister saying that a

transition is essential because the

possibility of a no deal and no

transitional would be very damaging

for the economy. We fought the

general election on a policy of

seeking to retain the benefits of

the single market and the customs

union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

of the shadow government that as far

as the longer term arrangements are

concerned, that should leave all

options on the table, because it is

the end that you're trying to

achieve and you then find the means

to support it. So we're setting out

very clearly those tests.

If you

were to vote down an agreement

because it did not meet your tests,

and there was time to send, back to

the EU to get a better deal, then

you would have significantly

weakened their negotiating hand

chukka that doesn't help them?

I

don't think, has deployed its

negotiating hand very strongly thus

far. Because we had a general

election which meant that we lost

time that we would have used for

negotiating. We still don't know

what kind of long-term trade and

market access deal, wants. The Prime

Minister says, I don't want a deal

like Canada and I don't want a deal

like the European Economic Area. But

we still don't know what kind of

deal they want. With about 12 months

to go, the other thing, needs to do

is to set out very clearly above all

for the benefit of the other 27

European countries, what kind of

deal it wants. When I travel to

Europe and talk to those involved in

the negotiations, you see other

leaders saying, we don't actually

know what Britain wants. With a year

to go it is about time we made that

clear.

One related question on the

European Union - you spoke in your

famous speech in Syria about the

international brigades in Spain, and

I wonder if your solidarity with

them leads you to think that the UK

Government should be recognising

Catalonia is an independent state?

No, I don't think so. It is a very

difficult and potentially dangerous

situation in Catalonia at the

moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

not a long-term solution. There

needs to be a negotiation, and

elections will give Catalonia the

chance to take that decision, but I

am not clear what the declaration of

independence actually means. Are

they going to be borders, is they're

going to be an army? There will have

to be some agreement. Catalonia has

already had a high degree of

autonomy. It may like some more, and

it seems to me if you look at the

experience here in the United

Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

a constitutional stand-off. And I

really hope nobody is charged with

rebellion, because actually that

would make matters worse.

Now, the Government has this

week reopened the public

consultation on plans for a third

runway at Heathrow.

While ministers are clear

the £18 billion project

is still the preferred option,

new data raises further questions

about the environmental

impact of expansion,

and offers an improved

economic case for a second

runway at Gatwick instead.

So, with opponents on all sides

of the Commons, does the Government

still have the votes to get

the plans off the ground?

Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

The debate over the expansion

of Heathrow has been

going on for decades.

Plans for a third runway

were first introduced

by the Labour government in 2003.

Then, after spending millions

of pounds, finally, in 2015,

the airport commission recommended

that those plans go ahead,

and the government position

appeared to be fixed.

But, of course, since then,

we've had a general election.

The Government have lost

their Commons majority.

And with opposition on both front

benches, the Parliamentary

arithmetic looks a little bit up

in the air.

A lot has changed since the airport

commission produced its report,

and that don't forget

was the bedrock for the Government's

decision, that's why the government

supposedly made the decision

that it made.

But most of the assumptions

made in that report have

been undermined since,

by data on passenger numbers,

on economic benefits, and more

than anything, on pollution.

There's demand from international

carriers to get into Heathrow.

More and more people want to fly.

And after the referendum,

connectivity post-Brexit

is going to be absolutely critical

to the UK economy, so if anything,

I think the case is stronger

for expansion at Heathrow.

A vote on expansion had been due

to take place this summer.

But with Westminster somewhat

distracted, that didn't happen.

Now, fresh data means

the Government has had to reopen

the public consultation.

But it maintains the case

for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

delivering benefits of up

to £74 billion to the wider economy.

And in any case, the Government

says, action must be taken,

as all five of London's airports

will be completely

full by the mid-2030s.

Still, the new research does cast

an alternative expansion at Gatwick

in a more favourable economic light,

while showing Heathrow

is now less likely to meet

its environmental targets.

Campaigners like these in Hounslow

sense the wind is shifting.

We're feeling encouraged,

because we see all kinds

of weaknesses in the argument.

Certainly, quite a few MPs,

I think certainly Labour MPs,

are beginning to think perhaps it's

not such a great idea

to have a third runway.

Their MP is convinced colleagues

can now be persuaded

to see things their way.

The Labour Party quite

rightly set four key tests

for a third runway at Heathrow.

And in my view,

Heathrow is not able...

The Heathrow option is not able

to pass any of those.

So, I see a lot of colleagues

in the Labour Party around

the country beginning

to think twice.

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

And if you look at the cross-party

MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

protest this week, you will see

some familiar faces.

You know my position -

as the constituency MP,

I'm totally opposed.

I think this is another indication

of just the difficulties

the Government have got off

of implementing this policy.

I don't think it's going to happen,

I just don't think

it's going to happen.

So, if some on the Labour

front bench are, shall

we say, not supportive,

what about the other side?

In a free vote, we could have had up

to 60 Conservative MPs

voting against expansion,

that's the number that is normally

used and I think it's right.

In the circumstances where it

requires an active rebellion,

the numbers would be fewer.

I can't tell you what that

number is, but I can tell

you that there are people right

the way through the party,

from the backbenches

to the heart of the government,

who will vote against

Heathrow expansion.

And yet the SNP, whose Commons

votes could prove vital,

are behind the Heathrow plan,

which promises more

connecting flights.

And other supporters are convinced

they have the numbers.

There is a majority of members

of Parliament that support Heathrow

expansion, and when that is put

to the test, whenever that will be,

I think that will be

clearly demonstrated.

Any vote on this issue

won't come until next summer.

For both sides, yet more time

to argue about weather

the plans should take off

or be permanently grounded.

Elizabeth Glinka there.

And I'm joined now by the former

Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

who oversaw aviation policy

as a transport minister

under David Cameron.

Thanks for coming in. You have made

your opposition to a third runway at

Heathrow consistently clear. , have

reopened this consultation but it is

still clearly their preferred

option?

It is but what I have always

asked is, why try to build a new

runway at Heathrow when you can

build one at Gatwick in half the

time, for half the cost and with a

tiny fraction of the environment

will cost average is that true,

though? Private finance is already

to go at Heathrow, because that's

where people want to do it and

that's where the private backers

want to put it. It would take much

longer to get the private finance

for Gatwick? Part of that private

finance is passengers of the future,

but also, the costs of the surface

transport needed to expand Heathrow

is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates

vary between £10 billion and £15

billion. And there's no suggestion

that those private backers are going

to meet those costs. So, this is a

hugely expensive project as well as

one which will create very

significant damage.

Heathrow is

ultimately where passengers and

airlines want to go to, isn't it?

Every slot is practically full.

Every time a new one comes up, it is

up immediately, it's a very popular

airport. Gatwick is not where they

want to go?

There are many airlines

and passengers who do want to fly

from Gatwick, and all the forecasts

indicate that a new runway there

would be full of planes very

rapidly. But I think the key thing

is that successive elements have

said, technology will deliver a way

to resolve the around noise and air

quality. I don't have any confidence

that science has demonstrated that

technology will deliver those

solutions to these very serious

environmental limbs which have

stopped Heathrow expansion for

decades.

Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

was mentioning that people think

there is a need for even more

collectivity in Britain post-Brexit.

We know that business has been

crying out for more routes, they

really think it hurts business

expansion that we don't get on with

this. More consultation is just

going to lead to more delay, isn't

it?

This is a hugely controversial

decision. There is a reason why

people have been talking about

expanding Heathrow for 50 years and

it is never happened, it's because

it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the

legal processes are very complex.

One of my anxieties about, pursuing

this option is that potentially it

means another lost decade for

airport expansion. Because the

problems with Heathrow expansion are

so serious, I believe that's one of

the reasons why I advocated, anyone

who wants a new runway in the

south-east should be backing Gatwick

is a much more deliverable option.

Let me move on to Brexit. We were

talking with Hilary Benn about a

meaningful vote being given to the

House of Commons chukka how

important do you think that is?

Of

course the Commons will vote on

this. The Commons is going to vote

on this many, many times. We have

also had a hugely important vote not

only in the referendum on the 23rd

of June but also on Article 50.

But

will that vote allow any changes to

it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that

the Commons would be able to shape

the deal with the vote. But actually

is it going to be, saying, take it

or leave it at all what we have

negotiated?

Our Prime Minister

negotiates on our behalf

internationally. It's

well-established precedent that

after an agreement is reached

overseas, then it is considered in

the House of Commons.

What if it was

voted down in the House of Commons?

Well, the legal effect of that would

be that we left the European Union

without any kind of deal, because

the key decision was on the voting

of Article 50 as an irreversible

decision.

Is it irreversible,

though? We understand, may have had

legal advice saying that Yukon

stopped the clock on Article 50.

Would it not be possible if the

Commons voted against to ask the

European Union for a little bit more

time to try and renegotiate?

There

is a debate about the reversibility

of Article 50. But the key point is

that we are all working for a good

deal for the United Kingdom and the

I'm concerned that some of the

amendments to the legislation are

not about the nature of the deal at

the end of the process, they're just

about frustrating the process. I

think that would be wrong. I think

we should respect the result of the

referendum.

Will it be by next

summer, so there is time for

Parliament and for other

parliaments?

I certainly hope that

we get that agreement between the

two sides, and the recent European

summit seemed to indicate a

willingness from the European side

to be constructive. But one point

where I think Hilary Benn has a

point, if we do secure agreement on

a transitional deal, that does

potentially give us more time to

work on the details of a trade

agreement. I hope we get as much as

possible in place before exit day.

But filling out some of that detail

is made easier if we can secure that

two-year transitional deal.

That is interesting because a lot of

Brexiteers what the deal to be done

by the inflammation period, it is

not a time for that.

I fully

recognise we need compromise, I am

keen to work with people across my

party in terms of spectrum of

opinion, and with other parties as

well to ensure we get the best

outcome.

Let me ask you briefly

before you go about the possible

culture of sexual harassment in the

House of commons and Theresa May

will write to the Speaker of the

House of Commons to make sure there

is a better way that people can

report sexual harassment in the

House of commons. Is that necessary?

A better procedure is needed. It is

sad it has taken this controversy to

push this forward. But there is a

problem with MPs who are individual

employers. If you work for an MP and

have a complaint against them,

essentially they are overseeing

their own complaints process. I

think a role for the House of

commons authorities in ensuring that

those complaints are properly dealt

with I think would be very helpful,

so I think the Prime Minister's

letter was a sensible move.

So you

think there is a culture of sexual

harassment in the House of commons?

I have not been subjected to it or

seen evidence of it, but obviously

there is anxiety and allegations

have made their way into the papers

and they should be treated

appropriately and properly

investigated.

Thank you for talking

to us.

Thank you for talking to us.

Next week the Lord Speaker's

committee publishes its final report

into reducing the size

of the House of Lords.

With over 800 members the upper

house is the second largest

legislative chamber in the world

after the National People's

Congress of China.

The report is expected to recommend

that new peerages should be

time-limited to 15 years and that

in the future political peerage

appointments will also be tied

to a party's election performance.

The government has been under

pressure to take action to cut

members of the unelected chamber,

where they are entitled

to claim an attendance

allowance of £300 a day.

And once again these expenses

have been in the news.

The Electoral Reform Society

discovered that 16 peers had claimed

around £400,000 without speaking

in any debates or submitting any

questions for an entire year.

One of the Lords to be

criticised was Digby Jones,

the crossbencher and former trade

minister, he hasn't spoken

in the Lords since April 2016

and has voted only seven times

during 2016 and 2017.

Yet he has claimed around

£15,000 in this period.

When asked what he does

in the House he said,

"I go in and I will invite for lunch

or meet with inward

investors into the country.

I fly the flag for Britain."

Well, we can speak now

to Lord Jones who joins us

from Stratford Upon Avon.

Thank you very much for talking to

us. You provide value for money in

the House of Lords do you think?

Definitely. I am, by the way, very

keen on reform. I want to see that

15 year tide. I would like to see a

time limit, an age limit of 75 or

80. I would like attendants

definitely define so the whole

public understood what people are

paying for and why. The £300, as a

crossbencher I get no support, and

nor do I want any, speech writing,

secretarial assistance, none of

that, and the £300 goes towards

that.

Whilst you are in there

because we will talk about the

reform of the Lords in general, but

in terms of you yourself, you say

you invite people in for lunch, is

it not possible for you to take part

in debates and votes and ask

questions at the same time?

Have you

ever listened to a debate in the

laws? Yes, many times.

Yes, many

times. You have to put your name

down in advance and you have to be

there for the whole debate.

You have

to be around when the vote is called

and you do not know when the book is

called, you have no idea when the

boat is going to be called.

This is

part of being a member of the House

of Lords and what it means. If you

are not prepared to wait or take

part in debates, why do you want to

be a member? It is possible to

resign from the House of Lords.

There are many things members of the

Lords do that does not relate to

parrot fashion following somebody

else, which I refuse to do, about

speaking to an empty chamber, or

indeed hanging on sometimes for

hours to vote. There are many other

things that you do. You quote me as

saying I will entertain at lunchtime

or show people around the House,

everything from schoolchildren to

inward investors. I will meet

ministers about big business issues

or educational issues, and at the

same time I will meet other members

of the Lords to get things moving.

None of that relates to going into

the House and getting on your hind

legs, although I do go in and sit

there and learn and listen to

others, which, if more people would

receive and not transmit, we might

get a better informed society. At

the same time many times I will go

after I have listened and I am

leaving and if I have not heard the

debate, I will not vote.

Voting is

an essential part of being part of a

legislative chamber. This is not

just an executive committee, it is a

legislature, surpassing that law is

essential, is it not?

Do you really

believe that an MP or a member of

the Lords who has not heard a moment

of the debate, who is then listening

to the Bell, walks in and does not

know which lobby, the whips tell

him, they have not heard the debate

and they do not know what they are

voting on and they go and do it?

That is your democracy? Voting seems

to be an essential part of this

chamber, and you have your ideas

about reforming the chamber. It

sounds as though you would reform

yourself out of it. You say people

who are not voting and who are not

taking part in debate should no

longer be members of the House.

I

did not say that. I said we ought to

redefine what attendance means and

then if you do not attend on the new

criteria, you do not have to come

ever again, we will give you your

wish. I agree attendance might mean

unless you speak, you are going.

Fair enough, if that is what is

agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

and sometimes I would not. If I did

not, then off I go. Similarly after

15 years, off you go. If you reach

75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

92 members who are only there

because of daddy.

You are talking

about hereditary peers. You would

like to reduce the House to what

kind of number?

I would get it down

to 400.

You would get rid of half

the peers there at the moment? You

think you are active enough to

remain as one of the 400?

No, I said

that might well include me. Let's

get a set of criteria, let's push it

through, because the laws is losing

respect in the whole of the country

because there are too many and all

these things about what people pay

for. I bet most people think the

money you get is paid. It is not, it

is re-funding for all the things you

have to pay for yourself. But I

understand how respect has been lost

in society. Let's change it now.

Let's get it through and then, yes,

if you do not meet the criteria, you

have got to go and that includes me.

Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking

to us.

Lloyd Jones, thank

you for talking to us.

It's coming up to 11.40,

you're watching the Sunday Politics.

Coming up on the programme,

we'll be talking to the former

business minister and Conservative

MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

negotiations and claims of sexual

harassment in Parliament.

Welcome to Sunday Politics South.

harassment in Parliament.

My name's Peter Henley.

harassment in Parliament.

On today's show, should there be

a statute of limitations to protect

Armed Forces personnel

from being pursued through

the courts for crimes allegedly

committed as part of their active

service, sometimes

decades after the event?

First, let's meet the two

politicians here for

the rest of this programme.

Louise Goldsmith is

the Conservative leader

of West Sussex County Council.

Hello, Peter.

And Paul Harvey is the leader

of the Labour group

on Basingstoke and Deane Council.

Hi, Peter.

This week, there was a warning that

leisure centres could go

the same way as libraries,

and the Local Government Association

saying that council-owned sports

halls and swimming pools are getting

old and tired from lack

of investment, with many coming

to the end of their 25-year life.

You are under financial pressure,

but we don't want to lose

leisure centres, do we?

No, they are really important,

but perhaps we shouldn't call

them leisure centres.

We should call them wellbeing

centres, particularly

focusing on the healthy mind

and the healthy body.

But if they're not being

refurbished, if we are not having

that modern approach,

maybe involving the health

service in some of this,

which it seems it's not,

according to the LGA...?

I think the LGA could have expanded

on that, and involving ourselves,

who are responsible for public

health as a county council, and also

the primary health care CCGs,

to look at the overall

package for people.

I think that is the future for that.

Is that a possible revenue stream?

That's what they were suggesting,

that maybe in the Budget

the Chancellor could say,

let's put some of the money

the way of councils.

He's not going to do

it though, is he?

What we've got to look at is how

we support our people in our

communities using our buildings

is the best way, and also

focusing on the healthy mind

and the healthy body,

and we don't do that alone anymore.

We do it with districts

and boroughs, we do it

with health partners,

and that's probably

where I think we should

put our energies for the future.

It's all sensible, building

for the future, but it's

not happening, is it?

Councils are under so much pressure.

We've got adult social

care budgets being cut,

children's services budgets

being cut, and leisure

services is down the pecking

order, of course it is,

and that's a problem.

If you see what a leisure centre

does, it is there for leisure

and it's also there for health.

The amount of school

swimming lessons that take

place in leisure centres,

the amount of healthy active life

classes that take place,

that GPs refer people to with heart

complaint and so on,

the actual activities that take

place in leisure centres are right

at the heart of the community.

The Government does

want infrastructure

investment, doesn't it?

It needs to put its money

where its mouth is, and it is

obsessed with the austerity agenda.

I'm sorry, there has just been,

and you should know there's been

a big infrastructure fund.

People have bid for that,

we've bid for that.

Why is the LGA saying

what it is saying?

What's going to happen?

Are you going to spend money?

We are not closing one library.

We are going to be investing

in our libraries for our community,

and it's a new way of

looking at things.

Why is adult social care being cut?

I'm sorry, you talking over me.

We've just got to look

at the money we've got,

the assets we've got and really

focus on delivering

to our residents.

It's a new challenge,

but it's fantastically exciting.

We can do it working

together in partnership.

But you haven't seen

the money, have you?

Look at the cuts to adult social

care and look at what's happening

to our youth centres and children's

services, school

budgets are being cut.

Look at what is happening to our

children's centres, being closed.

We are seeing the fabric

of our communities being directly

impacted by these cuts and,

I'm sorry, the Government

is not putting its money

where its mouth is.

Paul would say that.

We are saying, this is reality,

we need to deliver and build

strong communities.

We will use our assets and work

with partners to deliver

in a different way but to continue

delivering those services.

Now, the latest of the region's

large-scale opportunities for retail

therapy opened its doors this week.

The Westgate Centre in Oxford

replaces a shopping centre

dating back to the '70s.

At 800,000 square feet,

it's got space for 100 shops,

25 restaurants and a cinema -

although, on opening day,

only 62 of the units

were actually ready for business.

It's said the rest will be starting

up before Christmas.

The expectation is that it will pull

in 15 million people a year

and provide 3,500 jobs.

Maybe ironically, maybe ominously,

on Friday, the CBI produced a report

saying that high-street sales

are falling at their fastest

rate since the height

of the recession in 2009,

so have all these large-scale

retail developments

actually missed the boat?

I'm joined by retail

consultant Keith Slater.

Westgate, very well received,

even though it's taken

a long time getting there.

But it's the last

of its type, isn't it?

Online sales, apart

from anything else.

There have been major

changes in the way shopping

malls have developed,

right from when you go back

to the MetroCentre in Newcastle,

which was one of the first ones,

and they were all out of town,

whereas the Westgate is actually

in the centre of Oxford.

There have been virtually no

out-of-town developments over

the last five to ten years

and the only other major mall

development has been

in the centre of Leeds.

So people have been saying,

can we bring people back

into town and city centres,

rather than take them out of them?

Are we getting a bit dependent

on shops to do this work for us?

Restaurants are part of this,

I suppose, but don't we want housing

to make city centres more than just

somewhere to spend money?

Absolutely, and there are flats

alongside the Westgate element.

And you've got to have shops

to pay for it nowadays.

You do, because the business

rates obviously generate

quite a lot of income,

and that goes to the local

authorities and national government

to be able to put back to local

authorities, so that space can

generate a lot for the city.

Is it zero-sum?

Is it taking it away

from somewhere else?

Or does a new development

like that for Oxford,

and maybe the tourism that comes

in - and has done for Bicester, it's

done amazing things for Bicester -

is it taking it away

from somewhere else?

It all depends on the state

of retail at the time.

At this point in time,

and the CBI survey is normally

a little bit volatile,

so that's not maybe the best

indicator, the Office

of National Statistics figures

for September were quite

reasonable but, yes,

a lot of money is going to have

to come from somewhere

else, and is it going

to come from Reading,

Milton Keynes or Bristol?

Right.

The CBI survey is sort of one

of confidence as well,

because it is saying to people,

50% of them said it looks

like things are not so good,

compared to 15 saying

things are improving.

A lot of the big retailers have been

saying that for a long while.

Next have been saying

for a year that it was worried

about what was going

to be happening.

M&S has not been doing

particularly well.

The supermarkets, and again

this is where the Office

of National Statistics figures

are strange, supermarkets and food

shopping was down in September

on the year before by nearly 3%,

let alone what it was down

in volume, whereas high-street

clothing shopping was up nearly 8%,

mainly because the high street

wasn't discounting quite so much.

It's all about discounts, isn't it?

We've talked about local authority

budgets, but people's

personal budgets are under

pressure, aren't they?

They are, and of course the major

fall in sterling back after Brexit

was agreed last year has meant

that the prices of our imports -

a lot of our clothing

comes from China -

have gone up significantly,

and that tends to be passed

to the consumer fairly quickly.

So, have we got a strong

economy or not?

It's a simple question.

I know you're going to

differ on this as well.

I think things are

incredibly complex.

Everyone is holding

their breath on Brexit.

Which way is it going to go.

Are we going to have a deal?

Is there going to be

a positive result?

So there's uncertainty.

And the interest rate changes that

may well be coming down the line

will have an impact in so many areas

of people's lives.

OK, but you go to the Westgate

and you see people spending money

and the clamour to get into those

shops and the amount

of money being spent -

that's a strong economy.

And inflation is causing

a significant amount of issues

for people whose wages are just not

keeping up with inflation so, yeah,

people are spending money,

and there are many people who aren't

spending money equally.

It's not as simple as saying that.

There are many people

out there who genuinely

are having their household budgets

really squeezed by what's going on.

It isn't rosy for everybody,

and we need to understand that.

You could go to the city centres

and see the flashy shops and say

that everything was wonderful but,

as Paul points out, a lot of people

are less than just about managing.

I think we've got a certain amount

of inflation coming through,

and we've had deflation for quite

a long time.

We were told it was a blip

but it hasn't been.

But people are going out.

They are probably being a little

more cautious because times are not

quite so certain as they were,

and you see this as a cycle

with shopping, but you've

also got to invest.

In West Sussex, we are investing

in Burgess Hill, a very

big retail area there,

to meet the demand of the 5,000

houses that are being built.

Worthing, we are looking

at quite exciting plans,

and I think it's important

to have the town centre managers

there to make sure that towns

are vibrant and bring people in,

because shopping isn't just

about shopping any more -

it's about an experience,

it's about eating out,

about having a coffee.

And our towns have got

to develop to meet that,

otherwise people will go elsewhere.

I think that's spot on.

I think the town centre

having investment, seen

as the centre of the community

is really important.

The danger is - for example,

in Basingstoke, we have this threat

of an out-of-town-centre retail park

that's being supported

by the council.

It's a couple of miles up the road.

The potential is it's going to strip

£30 million of business

out of our town centre.

It's going to kill our town centre.

We don't want that.

We want a vibrant, strong

town centre, exactly

as Louise describes,

that is generating

positive economics.

But if there's a lot

of investment in Basingstoke,

as Keith is saying, not zero-sum,

it could bring stuff

into Basingstoke.

You would hope it would,

but we're being told

by all the retail experts,

they are saying to us, look,

if you have this happen,

this out-of-town retail experience

is going to draw people out

of your town centre.

What you want is a vibrant,

strong town centre that brings

people in to spend their money

in the town centre.

Has that happened in

Oxford, with Bicester?

It hasn't really happened, is it?

Bicester has been

an amazing success.

You were telling me

best in the world.

Bicester has the highest

sales density of any

shopping mall in the world.

Our average high street takes about

£4,000 per square metre per year.

Bicester Village takes £30,000

per square metre per year.

I couldn't get these two to say,

but is the economy strong or not?

They've got their own opinions.

What do you think?

I think retailing is quite

strong at the moment,

but people are worried.

They want to know what's going to be

happening for the future.

Are we going to see sterling

carrying on being at low

values against the dollar,

which is what affects the prices

of imports from China?

Are they going to be faced

with more increased costs,

because we had a major business rate

revaluation of a lot

of retail properties.

It's a very complex way

of valuing the business rates

value for a retail store,

and a lot of them

pay a lot of money.

The problem is that we then

finish up with cloned high

streets that look the same,

whereas what we need for our high

streets to be vibrant is more

of the independent shops.

In Oxford, hopefully,

a big increase in supply

is going to lead to maybe

the colleges, which own a lot

of the rest of the high street

in Oxford, looking at their rents

and saying, if we can

bring down our rents -

Next and River Island have already

moved from Cornmarket Street,

that property is now empty

-

can the college that actually owns

it look at the rent and say,

if we bring the rent down,

can we bring in an independent

and make it something different?

Could be an exciting time,

and a lot more tourists.

That's not such a good thing.

Sorry, we've run out of time to go

further into that, but thank you.

It does help the economy,

and the economy is doing well.

OK, you say, but you say not.

I think there's an awful lot

of hesitation, isn't there?

We've seen many instances in recent

years of Armed Forces personnel

being prosecuted for alleged crimes

committed in Bosnia, Iraq, even

Northern Ireland decades previously.

But, with several of those cases

being abandoned amid claims that

they'd been politically motivated

or brought by ambulance-chasing

lawyers, is it time for some sort

of statute of limitations?

Our Berkshire reporter,

Patrick O'Hagan, has this report.

The brutality of war can

leave lifelong scars.

For some, those scars are physical.

For others, they are buried deep

in the psyche, leading

to behaviour that most of us far

from the battlefield

would deem appalling.

Sometimes, that behaviour can

trigger court action -

some of it spurious,

some of it genuine.

Earlier this year, the Government's

own £60 million investigation

into the actions of British troops

in Iraq was shut down because of

ambulance-chasing lawyers.

I am affronted by those

who would use public money,

vast amounts of it, in creating

bogus claims which hound veterans,

sometimes into old age.

One genuine case highlights

the difficulty of judging

what's right and wrong.

Sergeant Blackman was shown shooting

an injured Taliban insurgent.

He was later found guilty of murder

but, after a campaign,

his conviction was reduced

to manslaughter, allowing

him to be released.

He had suffered

horrendous combat stress.

Cases like this are thankfully rare.

That shouldn't disguise the fact

that, for many returning from war,

mental health is a huge problem.

I've served in Bosnia in '97...

John Riding-Woods had just joined

the Royal Logistics Corps

when he stepped off a plane

and into the hell that was Bosnia.

He was only 17.

I was there during the elections

and the end of the ethnic cleansing.

Some of the things I saw as a very

young and impressionable man

still live with me today.

For me, it was not what I'd seen

the adults do to each other,

it's what had been done to children

that couldn't defend themselves.

John left the Army two years ago,

when his regiment was disbanded,

but his PTSD has left him struggling

to adapt to life back in Andover.

He is now being helped

by Forces Re-engineered,

which teaches veterans to repair

cars and bikes.

He's getting his life back together

but, like many in the forces,

he is angry that one day he may be

judged by those who have never

walked in his shoes.

Various circumstances that you can't

even think of or fathom.

Your mind goes completely.

These people that are sitting there,

deciding that, yes, we're now

going to take this person to court

has had years to sit

there and rip our decisions apart,

that we make in split seconds,

without being there,

without having to be

in the same situation to us.

The British Army spent 30 years

in Northern Ireland.

PTSD had barely been heard

of when Newbury's MP

Richard Benyon was stationed

there with the Royal Green Jackets.

He's deeply saddened that soldiers

struggling with the stresses

of what they saw back then

are still being

questioned by lawyers.

One individual who is in his late

70s was involved in a firefight

in which a suspected terrorist died,

and he has been

questioned over 20 times.

He is in poor health and was taken

early one morning to Exeter Airport

and flown to Belfast

for questioning under caution.

You know, this is wrong.

Here at Combat Stress,

they support former servicemen

and women struggling

with mental health.

Nearly 3,000 Iraq and Afghan

veterans rely on them.

The traumas that people have to come

here and actually start

to unpick and work through,

the idea that some of those might

also actually be exacerbated

by perhaps people being pursued

through the courts, I think,

is taking their trauma

to a whole other level,

and it would add significant

pressure and I think could tip

people really over the edge.

Later this week, Richard Benyon

will introduce a bill

which will tell lawyers they can

only bring a case against

a former soldier within ten

years of the offence.

If some terrorists have been let

off, for goodness' sake,

our Armed Forces should be allowed

to live their lives into old age

feeling appreciated for what they've

done, not criminalised.

I don't want to be waking up one day

and finding a letter

on my doorstep saying,

you are now being taken to court

for things that I've done.

I would think that I'm being let

down by the people that

were in power and are not

in power any more.

There's got to be something

put somewhere to say

look, enough is enough.

Paul Harvey, what do you think

of Richard Benyon's bill?

He puts it fairly plainly.

He says terrorists have been let off

- why pursue servicepeople?

I think he's identified

a really important issue,

which is this whole notion

of the vexatious litigation that

goes on, and I think

the Government needs to...

The statute of limitations debate,

I think, is difficult,

because of the nature of our society

and the rule of law and the nature

of the approach that we take

as a liberal democracy,

and what we expect as

a society in that context.

However, the issue is real

and genuine, where you have lawyers

chasing after our Armed Forces.

The Government can take action

and should take action specifically

against those that do that,

and the way they go about it,

that kind of legislation

I think is very legitimate,

and that's where

the focus should be.

Lawyers always get it in the neck.

I've heard people...

Some of their practices are quite

disgraceful in this respect.

Right, and that is being dealt with.

But I have heard also people

who served in the forces saying,

we work as hard as we can

to maintain the highest

possible standards...

Exactly.

And everybody has to be

held to account in that

situation, don't they?

And that's absolutely important,

because we have one of the most

professional Armed Forces

in the world.

We put our Armed Forces

into incredible situations

when we ask them to go and do war

and do conflict and take

part in international

operations around the world,

and we have a responsibility to them

that the leadership they have

is the best it can be,

that the quality of the equipment

they have is the best it can be,

the rules of engagement,

the objectives, that

what we ask of them is right

and they are equipped to do the job

in every possible way

we can give them.

When they come home,

we look after them, we support them,

their families, too.

If they've done something

wrong, we let them off

if it's gone too long?

The rule of law applies.

The rule of law

is important in this.

When we go out into the world stage,

we go out there taking the values

that are important to us with us -

the rule of law, all of those

elements in terms of the rules

of engagement that we have

as an Armed Forces operating

on an international

stage, if you like.

The quality that we display in that

environment is important,

but we cannot also take away

from what we are asking them to do.

War is dangerous, it is complex,

there are split-second,

instant decisions that they take.

They are in danger, their lives

are in danger in many cases and,

in those circumstances,

they need the back-up that they have

from the Government,

their own military leadership

and as a society, when we ask them

to do that on our behalf.

Louise, it's fair to say

that those of us who haven't

been there have no idea.

You and I have no idea,

if you've been 24 hours

in a battlefield fighting,

the impact that that has,

not only today but tomorrow.

And we owe a huge amount

to all our servicepeople.

I think we've got the best

forces in the world.

And I think that they are well lead.

And we owe them a huge debt.

It's not just about the serving men

and women, it's about the families

that go behind them because,

without those families and that

back-up, they are nothing.

But somebody will go

out of their front door

on Friday afternoon,

say goodbye, particularly

with the Iraq war, and nobody

could actually be sure if they're

going to come back,

if they're going to come back

seriously injured or what.

We are asking people to live

with that, to serve and care

for us and protect us,

and as I say we all have a huge duty

of care to make sure

that they are supported

and respected, not only when there

are battles but every day.

We would not be sitting

here without all of those people

that gave up their lives.

We are still in the centenary period

for that terrible war of wars.

We've had several more.