Sarah Smith and Arwyn Jones's guests are Seema Malhotra MP, Daniel Hannan MEP and shadow secretary of state for transport Andy McDonald MP.
Browse content similar to 11/02/2018. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!
Morning, everyone, and welcome
to the Sunday Politics.
I'm Sarah Smith.
And this is the programme that
will provide your essential briefing
on everything that's moving
and shaking in the
world of politics.
After all the waiting we're
finally going to hear
the Prime Minister's vision
for Britain's future relationship
with the European Union,
but not for another couple of weeks.
Key to any agreement will be
whether we should bind our customs'
arrangements closely to the EU,
or strike out on our own.
We'll speak to leading figures
from both sides of the argument.
And Labour argue public
ownership of services
like the railways are
an "economic necessity".
We'll look at how
the policy could work
and whether it's on the right track.
and whether it's on the right track.
and whether it's on the right track.
Who needs the Winter Olympics
when there's plenty
of thrills, spills and potential
wipeouts in the world
And with me today are three experts
who may very well go off piste:
Tom Newton Dunn from the Sun,
the Guardian's Zoe Williams
and Iain Martin from the Times.
So we hear that Theresa May
will finally be giving her
vision of a Brexit deal
in the next few weeks.
The news follows Mrs May hosting two
Brexit cabinet meetings this week
in an attempt to thrash out
If reports are to be believed
not much was decided,
and so there will now have to be
a team building session
at the prime minister's
country residence Chequers.
Maybe a few trust exercises
will be in order.
At the moment however we're none
the wiser and the EU's Chief
Negotiator Michel Barnier seems
less than impressed.
To start the week the EU chief
negotiator, Michel Barnier,
made a trip to Downing Street
with Brexit secretary David Davis.
Pleasantries with the PM,
but the warning was clear.
Time has come to make choice.
Time has come to make choice.
All week the question was,
are the Cabinet running
away from making tough
decisions on Brexit?
As America woke up, the President
took a pop at the
National Health Service on Twitter.
But was it all fake news?
The Health Secretary hit back.
The Health Secretary hit back.
The Transport Secretary,
Chris Grayling, told the Commons
that yet again the East Coast
mainline franchise had failed,
with renationalisation an option.
While tensions in the
Conservative Party on Brexit
were on full display.
One leading Tory Remainer
did not hold back.
35 hard ideological Brexiteers
who are not Tories.
It's about time Theresa May stood up
to them and slung them out.
On Tuesday, deeds and words,
MPs celebrated 100 years since
some women were given the vote.
Westminster awash with suffragette
colours purple, green, and white.
Wednesday and Thursday,
the Brexit War Cabinet settled
in for crunch talks.
They were meant to decide
what the end state should look like.
Also on Thursday, a leaked EU paper
warned that the UK's single market
access in the Brexit transition
period could be revoked
in the event of a dispute.
The Brexit secretary thought so.
It's not in good faith.
We think it's unwise
to publish that.
The week ended as it
began, with more warnings
from Michel Barnier on Ireland,
the customs union,
and continuing EU UK disputes.
If this disagreement persists,
the transition is not a given.
So, at the end of a busy week why
not let off steam with a glass
or two of Brexit juice,
that's English sparkling wine
to you and me, at the annual
Conservative fundraiser the black
and white ball.
The highest bid of the night?
£55,000 to spend a day with the PM.
£55,000 to spend a day with the PM.
We could not afford to get her on to
this programme but we will talk to
our panel of experts to find out
what is going on behind the
headlines. Iain Martin, by now we
thought we would know more about the
government's final negotiating
position. We had two Brexit
subcommittee meetings this week.
They were meant to come to a
conclusion I thought. Are we any
No. It is possible
this is a cunning baldric style plan
to make Britain look as confused as
A very, very cunning plan.
Very cunning. But the chances of
that are highly unlikely. It seems
the meeting has happened, there was
discussion, the Prime Minister did
not express an opinion. The Prime
Minister was more interested in
secrecy and in fear of a leak, but
it seems there was not much to leak
anyway, because there was not a
decision. Actually, the UK's closer
to a position than people commonly
understand, definitely out of the
single market, but on this crucial
question of the customs union, or a
customs agreement after, there is
still no decision taken. I think the
feeling at Westminster, people on
both sides of the argument seems to
be will someone decide, make the
case and then get stuck into the
talks which lets remember our
supposed to begin in six or seven
subcommittee is split between
Brexiteers and Remainers. The Prime
Minister sits in the middle we
understand not really expressing a
view, that is put together for
careful political reasons but it
cannot continue, can it?
I think the
presentation at the minute cannot
come to a decision because they have
not done their homework, student
essay style crisis conclusion and in
the case of David Davis you could
believe that is true but the main
reason they cannot come together is
because of an implacable deadlock.
There is no compromise between in
the customs union or not in the
customs union. One side has to
vanquish the other. The Remainers
really have to think it would be
economic suicide to leave the
customs union but they are also
really aware that this deadlock is
grinding government to halt. It is
national duty pulling them in two
directions. They will ultimately be
the ones to say I do not want to cut
the baby in half, you have the baby.
At some point it will have to go to
the country because it is a stupid
idea to cut a baby in half expect
what will happen for the Prime
Minister who will have to make a
decision for the kind Brexit she has
She will do that and the
danger is huge. She will have to get
off the perch at some point. We have
been sitting in these chairs for 20
months saying the Prime Minister has
to choose between prioritising
market access and prioritise and
sovereignty. That is the simple
case. You may get a bit of both out
of the EU but you will get more of
one than the other. I think
interestingly, there is a lot of
movement going on under the surface
which Number Ten are desperate not
to show any of the machinations of
it because they want to present a
complete finished article. There is
some sense of consensus growing in
the Brexit community I am told, not
to sign off on a customs union but
to sign off on a semi-single market
alignment, soap aligning with all
the single market rules on
manufactured goods is what I am told
they are beginning to agree to do,
which they feel they should do
because British companies will go
ahead and stand by all the EU
regulations because that is what
they want to continue to sell into
the EU. There are some members of
the committee who are opposed to
this. Boris Johnson is the main one.
If they do agree to allow heavily on
manufactured goods but not on
services, in other words they choose
what to Jerry picked and can agree
what to cherish pick -- cherry pick,
but if they choose what to align on
Ben Boris Johnson has do make a
decision himself. We could
potentially see some Cabinet
resignations and I put Boris Johnson
at the head of it in two or three
weeks' time. That is the root of the
on financial services, there is not
a functioning single market. The
question comes down to manufactured
goods. A lot of the regulations have
their origins in global standards,
something like the car industry. Is
Boris Johnson going to find himself
in a position where he will die in a
ditch over trying to make the UK
diverged from globally set standards
on carburettors? It would be an
interesting position if he does.
sounds ridiculous but it also sounds
like the sort of thing he will do.
We will come back to this later in
As it's still not clear
what the government wants its final
relationship with the EU will look
like, we thought we'd
try to help out by looking
in detail at the key dilemma,
when it comes to working out
a customs arrangement,
should we hug the EU close,
or break out on our own?
We've lined up two politicians
from either side of the argument
and, just for a change,
they'll be asking
the questions not me.
So I'm joined by the soon to be
former Conservative MEP and leading
figure in the Leave campaign
Daniel Hannan and by the former
Labour frontbencher and supporter
of Open Britain Seema Malhotra.
Earlier this morning we tossed
a coin to see who would go first.
Daniel Hannan won and he agreed that
he would go first.
So here with thoughts
on what our end
relationship should be.
relationship should be.
90% of the world's economic growth
over the next 15 years will come
from outside the European Union.
Britain is a maritime nation, linked
to the world's fastest-growing
economies by language, law, culture
and kinship. But we cannot sign
trade deals, not while we are in the
EU's customs union. Staying in the
customs union after we leave, would
be the worst of all worlds. It would
give Brussels 100% of our trade
policy with 0% input from us. In
order to take advantage of Brexit,
we need to set our own regulations.
Sometimes, for reasons of economies
of scale, we might want to match
what the EU is doing. If we do want
to keep elements of the single
market, it must be through agreement
and on a case-by-case basis. In
1980, the states now in the European
Union counted for 30% of the world's
GDP. Today that figure is 15% and
falling. Britain needs to raise its
size. Our future bright, our future
Well, Seema and Dan are with me now.
And just to explain the rules.
Seema Malhotra has five minutes to
This week a Tory
MP said I think the real concern
about the direction of travel when
it comes to Brexit, we are to real
crunch point and the government has
not worked out 19 months on what the
endgame is and we need to know. That
is pretty clear, isn't it? You and
others said Brexit will be easy so
why is this the case?
worthwhile is ever easy. I do not
accept that the government has not
made it position clear. It made it
clear in Lancaster House beach and a
series of white papers since. As
Theresa May says we want to keep
control of our laws, taxes and
borders. But within that, we want to
have the closest possible
relationship with the rest of the
EU, compatible with being a
sovereign country. We want to be its
best friend and ally. We will align
with other countries but on our own
Things are not going
according to plan. You and others
said we will be keeping key
agencies. David Davis said we would
keep the agencies but now they are
leaving. The European medicines
agency is heading for Amsterdam, the
European banking agency will go to
Paris. That is 2000 highly skilled
jobs being lost from the capital.
Isn't this a high price we are
paying for certainty?
If you're that
fixated on Eurocrats jobs then you
there is something wrong with your
priorities. All of the worries we
had about job losses turned out to
be nonsense. Instead of losing half
a million, we have gained half a
million. More people are working
than ever before. I never claimed we
would be keeping these Euro agencies
in the UK. Of course if you leave
the EU you leave these Euro agencies
and you no longer have them on our
soil. We will make our own
You are calling these
agencies Eurocrats, these are people
helping with key sectors of our
economy, scientists, those who are
experts in finance and other
sectors. I agree that Britain could
trade more with the world and we
need to, but evidence of leaks from
the government this week shows that
the impact of free trade deals
around the world will no way
compensate for the loss of trade
with the EU which a hard Brexit
would do for the UK. If you don't
believe me, you can listen to the
words of the Prime Minister who said
during the referendum we export more
to Ireland than we do to China,
twice as much to Belgium as we do to
India, it is not realistic to think
we could replace European trade than
We export more to
Ireland than China, that is our
problem! Which is the better
long-term growth prospects?
you agree that there will be an
impact on British businesses and
families even in the short term and
isn't it right that you raise that
risk with the British people?
Obviously we want free and
frictionless trade with the EU and
the freedom to my trade deals
further of broad. EU does not have a
trade deal with US, with India and
old friends like Australia, the idea
that we cannot do trade deals and
bring benefits to this country I
think is incredibly defeatist. Are
we really saying it is a good idea
to sell more to Ireland with five
mil in people than to China with
more than a billion. -- 5 million
Their study after study
which shows the proximity we have
two nations goes a long way to
determining our economic links, that
is not just the case for us but for
countries around the world. Of
course we can do more. We have a
trade surplus with the US already. I
have spoken to investors from other
countries who say they want to come
and do more in the UK but the point
is, part of the reason they do that
is because we have access and they
have access to the European markets
of 500 million people to sell those
goods as well. What do you say to
the genuine concerns from Nissan and
Honda, now even the Japanese
ambassador talking about a challenge
to the profitability of those
companies in the UK, and the threat
they may have to leave those
operations and go elsewhere?
made those threats during the
referendum and after the vote was in
they confirmed that not only were
they staying here but Nissan was
increasing its productivity and
activity in the UK. I think you
should look at what they are doing
rather than what they are saying.
This idea that we are defined by our
geography is an old-fashioned
18th-century way of looking at
trade. In the modern age where we
have low freight costs, the Internet
and cheap flights, geographical
proximity has never mattered less.
We are linked by language, law,
cultural, legal systems and
accountancy systems to the fastest
growing con is the planet.
I would like to ask you, you have
set all your vision for how you
would like to see our future
relationship with the EU. How
confident are you the Prime Minister
will outline a clear vision soon and
it will outline with Ewels?
outlined the broad principles
already. -- with yours. Fleshing out
issues like how to make the Irish
border were, how to make the
facilitation of customs work. This
thing nobody has explained what we
can do in terms of customs is not
true. The government produced a
lengthy paper talking about how we
can do things like expand the ...
It's worth noting that both ahead of
HMR see here and his equivalent in
the Republic of Ireland have said
there is no need for a Customs
border, that companies can make
their customs declarations in the
way they make their tax
declarations. They are now
emphatically not choosing to listen
to the experts when they say they
don't need a hard order in Ireland.
Now it's the turn of Seema
to be grilled but first,
here's her thoughts on how
our future relationship
with the EU should look.
I respect the result of the
referendum. We need to move forward
to find a deal that protects jobs in
the economy. 43% of all of our trade
is done with the EU. Staying inside
the customs union gives us tariff
free trade access to our many new
partners. Issues surrounding
immigration and sovereignty can be
addressed while staying in the
customs union and the single market.
But on terms that we negotiate. We
can also then trade freely with
countries the EU has deals with.
Deals that we have helped negotiate.
And staying in the customs union is
key to a solution on Ireland. Our
select committee found that it is
unclear how we can avoid a hardboard
if we leave the customs union. I
agree we need reform and greater
controls on the freedom of movement,
but people did not vote to become
poorer. Let's leave the European
Union in a way that puts the
prosperity of families and
So as before you have five
minutes to give a grilling.
Off you go.
Two weeks ago Jeremy Corbyn says
said he was against staying in the
customs union because it is
protectionist against developing
countries, do you agree?
important to balance what we do need
to see change in terms of
international trade and support for
developing countries. But also to
recognise the contribution that
being in the customs union and the
European Union has made for our
Do you agree with
I think that a lot
has been done to support
Forgive me, that's a
different question... We're not
talking about that, do you agree
that the customs union is
protectionist against developing
It can be for those
countries that are in the customs
union. That's very understood
economics. It encourages trade
creation and development between
those countries, but it doesn't
preclude, as has been shown by the
over 60 trade agreements we have is
a European Union with countries
around the rolled, from having
strong relationships with other
countries. That's what I believe. --
countries around the world.
are lots of things we do not produce
ourselves. We have to impose tariffs
on oranges. In yours and my
constituencies there are not orange
plantations. Is it a reasonable
thing that to protect Mediterranean
orange growers we should be
discriminating against producers in
Africa, the Americas, developing
countries, at a cost our own
I believe what you can do
is negotiate across the world in
terms of how you encourage greater
free trade and greater ways in which
we can trade with different nations.
That's what we do also already. We
had no Norma 's track record in
investing in farmers in Africa...
that point... -- we have had an
enormous track record. That means we
are giving Brussels total control of
our trade policies but we are no
longer EU members so we have no
Almost 50% of our trade is
with the EU. Over 70% of the
companies... Over 70% of companies
that export to the EU, that is jobs
your constituents and my
constituents will be dependent on,
over 90% of that being small and
medium-size enterprises. They
I'm not having much joy
getting answers to my questions. You
are going off on a tangent. Let me
have another go.
I'm saying we can
do both and that is what we should
You think leaving the EU
but staying in the customs union so
Brussels controls 100% of our
Brussels controls 100% of our trade
but we have zero input... You think
that gives us more influence in
world trade than taking our own
voice and vote in the world trade
organisation and be able to do our
own deals, is that what you are
When you talk about the WTO
rules, if you look at the
government's analysis which was an
average of other studies, it shows
even in the South East if there is a
withdrawal based on...
I'm going to
have one more go to get an answer
because you are telling me lots of
interesting things which are nothing
to do with what I'm asking. Let me
have another go... The highest
tariffs imposed by the customs union
are on the items that most
negatively impact people on low
incomes, particularly food,
clothing, and footwear. They pay a
proportionately higher chunk of
their weekly Budget on these
commodities, these basic things.
They are the most badly hit. We are
clobbering poor people in this
country in order to hurt developing
nations. How can you come as a
progressive politician with a proud
history of standing up for people
who are underprivileged, now stand
there and defend a system that
forces us to give more to wealthy
French farmers than poor African
farmers, and forces the highest
bills to be paid by the lowest
income people in Britain?
fundamentally disagree with you. I
believe being a member of the EU has
been fundamental for our prosperity,
for families and businesses. What
you fail to highlight is numerous
studies that show many British
families are worse off as a result
of us having had the referendum and
now the uncertainty that is
followed. People have already
suffered. -- that has followed.
are still not answering. Let me have
another crack at this. The countries
closest to the EU economically. The
countries that have opted to
parallel or join the single market
Norway, Switzerland, Iceland,
Liechtenstein, none of them is
interested in joining the customs
union. Why do you think that is?
They have separate arrangements.
They have arrangements with each
other. They have ways of resolving
disputes. It is like a mini European
Union in the way that they work
together. I believe that we could
consider approaching those countries
to see whether that would be an
arrangement that could work for
That would mean leaving the
customs union, right?
alongside how we negotiate being in
the customs union. Fundamental for
peace in Northern Ireland and the
Good Friday Agreement. It's not just
me saying that, it's the Irish
government, the head of the Irish
police, and the Irish people.
is up. Thank you for your questions.
What you are advocating is not
Labour policy. Do you believe you
will change the mind of Jeremy
You know there is a debate
going on in the Labour Party. That
is not unexpected, because as the
situation changes, as new facts come
to light, as we have to consider
what life will be like with the end
state post the transition, we will
have that debate. It is certainly
the case that the range of views
across the Labour Party are far less
in terms of the spectrum of what's
going on in the Conservative Party.
The fundamental issue is we have a
Prime Minister and cabinet that have
no idea about end state. They have
failed to reach any sort of
agreement after two days away this
week. And I think it is embarrassing
for us as a nation that 19 months
after the referendum we are in such
Thank you both very much
for coming in and asking the
And those of you in the South
of England will be lucky
enough to see more of Dan Hannan
as he'll be appearing
in the Sunday Politics South
in just over ten minutes.
And you can find
more Brexit analysis
and explanation on the BBC website,
The recent collapse
of Carillion and the ending
of the East Coast Rail franchise
early has emboldened the
Labour Party to push its agenda
for renationalising key services
such as rail, water and energy.
But that's not all, the party
is looking into supporting local
economies by helping councils do
things like bringing
more services in house,
using local small businesses
where possible and helping to set up
new small scale energy companies.
So, is the plan workable,
and can it help Labour shed
the image that more state control
will lead to inefficiency and a lack
of innovation and investment?
Elizabeth Glinka has
travelled to Preston,
a Labour council the party
are championing as a model
for the future, to find out more.
When he visited in the 1850s car
Marks said industrial Preston might
be the staging post for an economic
revolution. It's taken 160 years but
he may have been onto. -- Karl Marx
Preston described in the press
as a pilgrimage for London folk.
The Shadow Chancellor just dropping
in this week to heap praise on
Preston's new locally focused
economic plan. Nowhere is that plan
more visible than at the city's
trendy undercover market. Traders
rush to finish their new stalls
ahead of next week's reopening. The
so-called Preston model borrows
heavily from similar schemes in the
American rust belt. It installs the
virtues of keeping more services
in-house using worker let
cooperatives. And when it comes to
big contracts like the redevelopment
of this beautiful Victorian market,
they go not to the overextended big
boys like a religion but to smaller,
local firms, keeping the money in
the area. -- like Carillion but to
smaller, local firms. Matt Brown, a
local boy motivated by what he saw
as the continued decline of a once
great city, is behind this.
to the conclusion that a fightback
we've got to do it ourselves. We
cannot be dependent on central
government that is cutting back on
money. The public sector is pretty
much buying locally from local
suppliers. We are looking to form
cooperatives. We're selling our own
energy in partnership with other
councils. Pensions are invested
locally. These alternatives around
the world. In American cities like
York, Cleveland, and Barcelona,
people are waking up to the fact
that we have an economy that works
for the top 1%. -- like New York and
Cleveland. And the rest of us are
basically fighting for the scraps.
Under the model the council has
spent an additional £4 million
locally since 2012. It has also
persuaded universities and hospitals
to redirect their spending towards
local suppliers. And it isn't just
Preston, a number of other Labour
authorities are trying something
We have local councils now that
have set up energy companies to
provide cheaper, renewable energy
foot we have others running bus
networks. -- cheaper, renewable
energy and we have others running
bus networks. It is a way of getting
best value for money as well as
Democratic controlled of services.
Your critics might say this is
cuddly, cooperative windowdressing
for an agenda which, long-term, is
about mass renationalisation, which
you think the public would not be
How sceptical people can be. I am a
socialist. We should share our
wealth. We have councillors going
out to get elected. When they get
elected they say they will use our
council resources locally and in
that way we can benefit local
Is it back to the future? It
was revealed this week the
government may be on the brink of
renationalising the East Coast
mainline. Labour's frontbencher has
been clear about its aspiration to
renationalise not just a rail but
energy, the Post Office, and even
water. This weekend the party held a
conference to discuss the expansion
of the Preston model, but others
remain less convinced by its wisdom.
This idea is very popular nowadays,
both on the political right, people
like Trump promoting it, and on the
political left. But it is a failure
to understand the benefits of trade.
The idea you can enrich yourself
with the border. I draw a line
around an area. And somehow that
will make us better off is magical
thinking. How you become better off
is through becoming more productive.
These ideas are tricks for becoming
richer that involve boundaries. It
is an abiding fantasy, but it is a
The doubters may doubt, but
in a post-Carillion world labour is
convinced public opinion is pulling
in its direction.
Well, to help me to understand
more about Labour's
plans I'm joined by Labour's Shadow
Transport Secretary Andy McDonald
who's in Newcastle.
Good morning, thank you for joining
John McDonnell says the plans to
re-nationalise energy, water and
rail would cost absolutely nothing.
That sounds too good to be true.
Explain how it could work?
of the rail Wales, it would bring
the railways back into public
ownership at no cost at all. -- in
terms of the railways. We would
bring them back once the franchises
expire. That would be considerable
savings of £1 billion per annum.
Then you will have to find £70
billion for the water industry,
nearly 40 billion for the National
Grid, how can that cost nothing?
Because you would be acquiring an
asset, you would be acquiring an
asset, you would be paying back the
revenues which you derive over the
businesses over time and you would
keep the costs down for the
So you would be adding to
the national debt and you would have
to pay interest on that debt which
you would do out of the revenue you
get from the companies, but you also
say it will cost less from the
consumers that bills would come
If you have £30.5 billion of
dividends paid out, if you run
things on a not-for-profit basis, it
can ensure that customers can get
the best possible returns.
profit might be good for customers
but it does not sound good for
paying back the interest on the
loans that you took out for buying
the organisations in the first
You heard John McDonnell
express the analogy of having a
mortgage over a property. You have
acquired the assets, you have the
income derived from renting it out,
it pays the gas it and you have
still got it. It makes consulate
sent to hold those acids and make
them work for the benefit of the
If interest rates rise,
after you bought that house and you
are renting it out, it is important
that costs can derive from the
rental income. We know that rates
can rise. There is every possibility
that the interest you will be paying
will not cover the profits and cost?
It is no different to the position
now. If water companies and energy
companies are financed, they have
those structures in place, the rate
of interest that they pay on their
financing is passed through to the
I tell you how
it is different now, and your system
it would be passed to the taxpayer
presumably. If any of these
industries started making a loss,
who picks up the tab for that?
they made a loss since they were
privatised? They have not, they have
made very great profits.
they are giving up the east Coast
franchise is because they have lost
That shows how the
franchising system is completely and
utterly flawed and should be
If the government run
East Coast Mainline lost £2 billion,
who would be on the hook, the
When the government last
ran East Coast Mainline they ran it
at a profit, it brought money into
the Treasury. We have a good history
of running the railways correctly
and not having this bailout to
Richard Branson and Brian Souter and
the rest of them or seeing the
dividends and profits overseas to
the state-owned companies of
continental Europe. We want to put
an end to that and make sure we run
our railways for the benefits of the
Let's look at one company,
Bristol energy which looks like the
kind of company you are advocating.
It is set up locally and has ethical
behaviour. There are no shareholders
so nobody is taking a profit out of
it. It has lost 2 million over two
years and does not expect to be
profitable until 2021. But does not
sound like a great deal for the
taxpayer if that is how you're going
to run the National Grid.
are recouping the losses and they
have the trajectory of growth and
greater incomes, they will look at
that and say to successful.
They got tax
breaks, public capital to set them
up in the first instance, they were
heavily subsidised so they could go
on and enjoy the benefits of private
enterprise that does not benefit the
consumer or the taxpayer or the
citizens, however you wish to
The consumer and the
taxpayer may be the same person but
they have a different financial
relationship with these companies.
What comes first, using any profit
or revenue you have used to acquire
these assets or cutting bills?
do both. If you have got that income
you can use it for those purposes.
Do cut energy bills or do you repay
Those who have benefited
from privatisation of had the
benefit of not only using that money
to pay the debt they incurred to buy
the assets, they are now using it to
make dividend payments out to their
shareholders. It clearly can be done
and we want to be in that position
so it works for the benefit of
people and not for corporate
The shareholders are not
all millionaire individuals. A lot
of this is owned by pension funds to
which many workers pensions are
held, can you guarantee that you
will reinforce the Leave reimburse
them at full market value so that
nobody's pension will lose out?
market value is the market value at
the time these assets are required.
John McDonnell has made it clear
that they will be acquired at that
But not for cash, in exchange
for government bonds?
They are still
in that strong position of having
the value fully reflected. What is
happening is that not everybody is a
shareholder. It means there is
greater equity for all of the
population, not only an narrow
segment of it, surely that has got
to be for the benefit of everybody.
Thank you for talking to us.
It's coming up to 11.40,
you're watching the Sunday Politics.
Still to come:
We'll look at the implications
to the charity sector of the latest
allegations of sexual abuse
involving Oxfam staff
and the government's
promise to get tough.
Welcome to Sunday Politics Wales. In
a few moments, is the party over for
Ukip? Or will next week was that
meeting marked a new beginning.
Their leader in Wales, Neil
Hamilton, will be here live. But
first, one of Wales's top criminal
barristers says the criminal justice
system has hit a crisis point.
Andrew Taylor says problems over
disclosure of evidence and a major
forensic provider going to the wall
has caused a crisis of confidence.
He wants this -- warned this may
lead to guilty people going free and
innocent people being locked up.
The criminal justice system is a
complex machine. As many parts
working together to uphold the rule
of law, making sure the guilty end
up behind bars of the innocent go
free. But it is a system that is in
crisis. So says Andrew Taylor. He
spent decades as a barrister, acting
as defence and many high-profile
cases from sexual offences to
When I was qualifying as a barrister
many years ago, a very famous judge
said there was not a better country
in the world in which to be
arrested. In other words, we should
have confidence in the police, the
judges, the courts and the criminal
justice system. I think that was
But I think, if you was around
today, he would have second
thoughts. And his main concern is
disclosure. The duty on police and
prosecutors to disclose evidence to
defence lawyers. Liam Allen had the
case against him dropped police
failed to disclose key evidence in
his rape trial.
I have come across on occasions to
numerous for me to specify what we
have been writing to the police and
the CPS, time after time, saying my
client says that you will find
evidence on a phone, you will find
evidence on social media. Very
often, we're told, well, we've
looked and we can't find it. Do you
really expect us to go trawling
through 4000 text messages or 400
hours of CCTV?
Now the woman in charge has ordered
an urgent review of all rape and
serious assault cases in Wales and
It is a crisis for all sorts of
reasons and judges are warning now,
if we don't do something about it,
juries may very well decide, we
can't really convicted this person
because we can't be sure that the
police have done their job properly
and every piece of evidence has
properly been reviewed.
Just over a week ago one of the
largest private forensic providers
went bust. It oversaw 2000 cases of
30 forces including rape, murder and
serious drug crime. It covered
everything from DNA to drug testing.
Andrew Taylor said, the fallout
could not be more serious. Those
cases are going to be delayed. It
may well be that she exhibits are
lost or destroyed. It will delay
justice and still nine justice for
The former Labour crime and police
Minister now wants answers from
We don't know what is
going to happen to the work they do.
That is about DNA, it's about
evidence, it's about murders
committed about domestic violence,
it's about burglary evidence.
We don't know what's happening to
that. The Home Office is to
supporting and working closely with
police to accept into temporarily
banned the forensic work and protect
But there was something else that is
worrying barristers. With Government
cuts to both the police, the CPS, to
legal aid and to general funding
across the board in terms of
probation, and outside agencies and
feed into the system, the system is
not so much creaking, I think, as
almost coming to the point where we
can't cope any more.
This very issue made top billing at
Prime Minister's Questions this
During the period the Prime
Minister was Home Secretary 2.3
billion was cut from police budgets.
These spectra of Constabulary warns
neighbourhood policing risks being
eroded and the shortage of
detectives is at a national crisis.
Does the Prime Minister think the
Inspectorate are scaremongering?
This is a Government that is
protecting police budgets. I would
like to remind the Right Honourable
gentleman that the Labour Party's
former Shadow Home Secretary, now
the police and crime commission of
Greater Manchester, himself said
that the police could take up to 10%
cut in their budgets.
Whilst attempted child, MP Mr Davies
is a former police officer.
Small money is not the answer. I
don't think it is at crisis point at
all. Criminal Justice is growing
through system, is going through a
period now some difficulty. And I
think that is more down to the
organisations that work within it as
opposed to any sort of funding issue
that people like to think or alleges
So it is not down to funding cuts?
No, I don't get is down to funding
cuts. I think some of the issues
that we have these days with
disclosure, and we've seen it in
some of the rape cases, that is more
a training issue.
You will find perhaps in the
long-term the conviction rate
dropping, less being charged, and a
dual crisis of innocent people going
to prison while guilty walk away.
And many more across the system are
warning that if the Government
doesn't action now, the cogs may
We've all heard the argument that
Wales could make more of her natural
resources in terms of generating
energy. In a lecture this week
Professor Calvin Jones from Calvin
University will be talking about
what options are practical and
beneficial to local people. When I
met him I asked whether capitalising
on these resources with a view to
making a profit on the energy they
create, was possible.
It is very difficult to imagine a
situation where you had a very large
Welsh owned company, muscling have a
presence in keeping some of that
money locally. In the fashion that
we did years ago. So, you know, yes,
it is feasible that we did have a
publicly owned nuclear power
station. There was not enough money
in Wales to make that happen so, you
know, we will probably be stuck for
something which, even if it is not
private, will be guaranteed at UK
level. In many of the best sites
have already been snapped up by
internationally owned firms. That is
not much left, really, for the
public to get involved in for Welsh
companies to get involved.
What would your message be to
politicians who say we need more
tidal lagoons, even. Need to be
generating the energy. As we could
be, you know, we could be making the
most of that.
What would your message be? You need
to think very carefully about what
sorts of benefits you expect from
the those so, yes, when you have
big, new capital investments such as
the lagoon or such, get lots of jobs
while it is being built. Then, once
it's built, they will be a few
hundred jobs, maybe. The nuclear
power station will have a few
hundred jobs in it. The lagoon have
a few dozen jobs looking after it,
probably. So, all right, a few
hundred jobs is important. Our
research recently suggested that
their appropriate moves a couple of
thousand people working in it across
Wales. Got a workforce of something
around 1 million people is a couple
of thousand is nothing. See would
get the employment benefits in the
long term that you might hope for.
Some sectors, lagoon is one, give
you the possibility of innovation
and are indeed benefits which we
might be at able to catch in Wales.
Different from nuclear where all the
Air India and all the IP is held
outside the UK let alone Wales. So
for lagoon you can imagine, tied
lagoon could be persuaded to let an
equity to the Welsh Government in
return for some sort of financial
assistance. In holding company, not
this one. So if it was part owned by
the Welsh Government or some other
Welsh entity then you could see the
possibility, of being a part of the
cluster. The Iraqi number of
opportunities that I think. But
think ownership is key. Only some of
this stuff and this capital is the
first stage to exploiting those
One of the other point I been
reading of the last few days is Uber
talking about since devolution, on
the UK level, things have not
It is not necessarily by design. But
I think a few things have coalesced
and in Cardiff, as it was already,
it was the most important city in
Wales. And when you take a new
institution which, because of the
way the initial devolution act, had
to take responsibility effectively
from below. The UK Government did
not give the Welsh Assembly
Government much at the start under
Assembly much to do. It became like
a big local authority. So a decision
floating at Cardiff and other
places. If you combine that, with
the devolution settlement, which is
changing slowly, with a political
context which is very insecure,
which may be doesn't want power to
go beyond Cardiff Bay once it comes
down from Westminster or comes up.
When you get a situation where, you
can have a strong political call to
Wales, and there was debate over
where the Assembly should go and we
did some work on this in the late
90s about where we would put an
Assembly in Cardiff. On top of that
what you get is, I mean, I remember
a similar discussion about where the
new millennium Stadium should go.
There are several options we were
looking at. But it ended up in
Cardiff. And when you lay on top of
that a new, obviously museums and
galleries, the site in Cardiff,
organisations moving from North
Cardiff, the periphery of Wales,
North Cardiff, down to the centre of
Wales in the centre of the square,
and you lay top public investment on
top of the strong economic
infrastructure in the city, they
tend to be in Cardiff. So you lay
those things on top of what you have
is, in where's me think of Wales as
the country, it looks more like the
UK than it does somewhere like
Switzerland, which are separate
financial and economic and political
centres. Germany which is very
strong Southern economic heart of
Berlin and bond, the capital cities
of recent times in the North. The
US, game, Washington, New York, Los
Angeles. We look like Paris and
France the UK. That is the point.
What does that do? You think, in
Wales, does seem strange that to the
North there is not a single national
institution. Nothing north of the
Maybe the football Museum. We might
But what does that do, do you
think? The idea people, people in
the North, who think, as you've been
saying, it all goes down to goes
down to the south.
I have lots of arguments about this
because there is a point of view
that says that, Wales are so small
that you have to put all your eggs
in the Cardiff basket because that
is the only way we can get
visibility and get noticed. And then
there is a kind of trend of thought
that says that actually, spreading
national institutions, spreading
activity will generally around Wales
is more important. Those things are
very different to reconcile. It
comes down to a value judgment on
what I think it comes down to is
whether you think it matters if
Wales gets noticed or not. That is a
very subtle thing because it doesn't
matter if the London media talk
about Wales? Doesn't matter if big
factories, big investors around the
world look around and don't notice
doesn't matter if we're on various
other world stages? My attitude has
always been, if we get, domestic
stuff right, from run the country
properly, if we develop a
functioning set of Welsh identities
which we can genuinely sign up to in
terms of... Because the Welsh are
all different we can all do with the
Scots seem to do. If you make that
work can become confident and that
would get noticed for own merits
rather than trying to get noticed
because of the flashes of our
buildings, which are victimising
Cardiff, when you look at it now
underway Cardiff has developed, it
has become a very generic property
led development story. There's not
much in Cardiff now that looks
distinctive of different in terms of
other cities in the UK. And those
divisions, there has been debate
obviously in the region and how that
should work, it comes down to a
value judgment. Economic theory,
economic evidence won't really tell
you which one works. Because
countries are all different and you
have two decide which one of those
divisions you feel more akin to.
Plenty to think about two with
Professor Alvin Jones from Cardiff
University. You give us had a torrid
time of it recently both that a UK
wide level and perhaps here in
Wales, too. The British party will
have extraordinary general meeting
next week to discuss the position of
the leader, Henry Bolton. He refused
to quit last month despite being
told to go by the party befuddling
committee. Will things kick off
again or will we enter a period of
calm? Ukip's Wales and Welsh leader
is Neil Hamilton. What we think of
next week in what will happen to
Henry Bolton who was on the Andrew
Marr and grant this morning, defied
Camille stand up to, he would try
and stay on as leader.
Do you think you can? It depends who
turns up at this extraordinary
general meeting in Birmingham. There
are people who live in far-flung
places you'll find it difficult to
get there. Almost MEP, lots of
branch chairman is, and members are
against him. I don't see how we can
survive and it is a great shame that
he is continued.
Why is him as delusional? He thinks
he can survive by vote of the
members but I don't think he is
going to be successful in that boat.
And it is most unfortunate that
we've had this merry-go-round farce
entirely because of his private life
which he continues to launder
Other than his private life, would
you be happy with him or would you
It is inconceivable. Because the
leader measure of followers. And
when all your elected members of
Aberdeen stew, see what is left to
He would be your sixth in a year.
If you can't Nigel Farage a couple
of times you are on five or six. It
seems farcical that you are going to
leader after leader after leader and
doing nothing else, it seems.
This is partly a function of the
fact that Nigel Farage was a super
dominant leader himself and didn't
bring on any potential alternatives.
Of another party gone through
similar structures. Look at the
Tories over the last 20 years. They
had leader after leader in the early
part of the century.
Not quite at this rate.
Nevertheless, the point is the same.
I think that, after next Saturday,
would have somebody like Gerard
Batten who is the MEP for London and
has been there since 2004, has been
the Ukip party member since the
party was founded.
We need a team leader now. It is not
just the leadership, to the point of
Ukip. Now that you've got Brexit,
peoples into question why is there
need for Ukip and that's why we're
seeing this turn of leadership,
because the bizarre to it?
It is certainly true that lobby
blood left Ukip thinking the job was
done after the referendum. I think
that is a mistake, as you know, in
elections in Wales in the general
election we still have a full
programme of domestic policies as
well. We are very different from all
the other parties and keeping within
the party will provide the cosy
Cardiff Bay consensus. The only
party who will oppose expansion of
the Assembly, want tough controls of
immigration, who once significant
cuts to the aid Budget, he wants to
democratise the health service, the
only party in Wales who believes in
grammar schools. There are lots of
things that you could stand for
quite apart from Brexit.
At the Assembly election you got 13%
of the vote. Last year were down to
2% of the vote in Wales a law
student bossing everyone of the 32
constituencies where you stood. You
may well list the things you want to
achieve the people maybe aren't
That is certainly true. We found it
difficult against all the baffling
noise in the background from Ukip
central to get our message across.
But I think, with some effective
leadership, we can show, and at the
Wales is going to be the shop window
after the MEPs disappear next year,
because the Cardiff Assembly is the
only parliamentary institution which
you'll then be represented. I think
we showed, day in and day out in the
Assembly, how effective we can be as
a professional group.
That is the message read more
generally. What kind of a I shown to
the rest of Ukip? One member walked
with the coach were relevant, and
others not joining the group, Gareth
Bennett been banned from speaking
for a while because of some of the
comments he made.
As a shop window, it is not ideal,
is it? I don't agree with you about
that. Nathan Gill took his bat
because was frustrated ambition for
the want of my job as the leader, my
colleagues voted for me instead.
You couldn't keep within the fold,
could you? He resigned. I didn't
force. He chose to become an
independent of the remaining eight
Ukip member. Mark success obviously
saw his future more the Conservative
Party. The Tories don't want him.
They won't allow them to join the
party somebody was going to say the
-- save his skin that way but he's
been sapping mistaken.
I don't know whether Mark reckless
would have taken the decision that
he did if he had realised the
Conservative Party would not allow
him to join. He naturally assumed
that he would be able to be a
The point I'm trying to make is, you
are saying the party in the Assembly
in Wales would be a shop window and
the point I'm making is, other than
petty squabbling, comments which are
deemed to be, you know, not what
should be set in the Assembly,
there's not much to be said about
what Ukip has achieved.
I don't agree at all about Gareth
Bennett and what Gareth Bennett said
in the Assembly struck a chord I
think that many people in the wider
That maybe but it shows that Ukip is
breaking the Cardiff Bay consensus.
And we will go on breaking that
consensus as well.
Showing that we're the only party
that poses political correctness in
all its forms. We heard Henry Bolton
this morning saying that Ukip, over
the past year, has lost hundreds of
members every month on a UK level.
Is that something you are seeing in
Wales as well? It isn't, actually.
Wellesley fight in a domestic
political conflict. He was appointed
as well because we are in the
Assembly on a feed every civil day,
articulating the feelings and views
of people who are not represented by
the other parties. So this is what I
mean by saying that Ukip will be the
shop window in Wales which looks out
from the rest of the United Kingdom.
It is very concerned, maybe, that
the main opportunity for Ukip now
will come from a failure of Brexit?
One thing you don't really want to
see is a failure of Brexit.
I certainly don't want to see a
failure of Brexit. But isn't that
the main way back for Ukip on the UK
I think there was a campaign for a
second referendum it would lead to
an immediate change. Of course there
will be lots of details on the we
would be very keen to ensure is not
going to, by the back door, bring us
Brussels back in the game. Weird to
see the future for Ukip in a
domestic United Kingdom and the
Welsh context and I believe that
there a real scope for Ukip because
we are the only party.
When you look Brexit only see things
like the Treasury forecast saying
that a hard Brexit could bring Wales
9.5% worse off than it would
otherwise have been, doesn't worry
you at all about what might be
The Treasury is a haunt of
remainders. There has been
manoeuvres against the Prime
You talk about Ukip been divided,
look at the Cabinet and they are
squabbling like rats in a sack. On
something which really matters, the
future of Britain as an independent
nation. We don't have those couples
inside Ukip on matters of policy.
All of our problems ultimately go
back to personalities.
But on the policy issues we are
absolutely united on the need for an
then, you'd think after Saturday
will be there, you'll be voting for
Bolton to be out.
I will be voting against Henry
Bolton and so will my colleagues.
Thank you very much for coming in.
We will see how that goes. That is
it from us. We will take a short
break next week but we are back in a
fortnight. Wales lives will be here
Wednesday at 10:30pm and you can
always follow us on Twitter. For
now, that is all from
always follow us on Twitter. For
now, that is all from me.
I said how old is your son?
She said he hasn't been born yet.
On that note, that's
all we have time for.
Thank you very much and thanks
to all of my guests.
Welcome back. A few minutes ago we
were talking about plans for
renationalisation, something which
they think is a good vote winning
policy in these times. Are they
Nationalisation had a boom in
popularity. It never went out of
favour. Since the bailouts of rail
companies, since the appalling
things which happen to people who
have to get a train every day, never
mind just the south-east, it has
been a nightmare and costs are
ratcheting up. Even the water
companies are not opposing it. I
think they are pushing at an open
door and it is a worthwhile thing
for them to do.
John McDonnell says
it can be done at absolutely no cost
you would have an asset on your
government books, is that realistic?
No, that is the aspect of it. I can
see the political logic. That is the
aspect I find most confusing. This
argument that Parliament rather than
the market dictates the price at
which the acids is bought, the
signal is not just people who are in
those industries, the signal list to
all other investors in just about
everything else. If you start with
certain sectors, what will be
nationalised next? The impact that
then has on people who are investing
money in the UK is simply a dawning
realisation that what they have,
what they own, what they paid for
might be stolen or might be
Labour were fairly clear
in their manifesto, they talked
about the National Grid, water, rail
and the Royal Mail, nothing else.
someone who has been paying
attention to what John McDonnell and
Seamus Milne think, I will take
their evidence of what they have
written and said over the last 30
years rather than what they are
trying to do now to win an election.
I would not try and extrapolate what
Labour policy would be over what she
must have said, he has only been
their communications guide for a few
years, before that he was a Guardian
I'm judging people on
their record of what they have said
to Andrew Marr, what they have
written and what John McDonnell have
argued for. I simply question
whether we should accept their
guarantees when they are trying to
bargain their way into power.
Listen, nobody, it is something
which only happens to this lot of
Labour leaders, that if people
cannot critique the policy they
suggest, then critique what they
perceive to be the nefarious under
policy. The truth is, when we talk
about privatising industries we used
to talk about that, we never talked
about the outrageous bailouts they
would need, we never talked about
what they would do to actual costs,
we just talked about this in terms
of principle, do you want this
privatised with efficiency or
There problems with
some things that now Margaret
Thatcher would not say that was the
original intention. However, she and
those around her were completely
clear and explicit about that they
were prepared to privatise almost
everything. They were unambiguous.
The fairest possible reading of the
way Thatcher went about it is she
did not know how bad it would be.
She went into privatisation with the
explicit agenda of more British
people owning shares in industries
and when she went into it, 40% of
people own shares, 12 years later
We will need to leave it
there and move on.
The charity Oxfam has said
it was "dismayed by what happened"
after the accusations of sexual
exploitation by its aid workers
and now the government has said
it's going to get tough.
I'm going to afford them the
opportunity to talk to me tomorrow,
but I'm broke clear, it does not
matter if you have got a
whistle-blower hotline, it does not
matter if you have got good
safeguarding practices in place, if
the moral leadership at the top of
the organisation is not there, then
we cannot have you as a partner.
That was Penny Mordaunt talking
specifically about Oxfam against
whom there have been allegations
this week. This could have
implications for the aid sector
Yes, and that is what
Penny Mordaunt said that donors
would be put off by the likes of
giving to Oxfam because they
giving to Oxfam because they have no
idea where their money is being used
at the end of it. The thought that
your good hard earned cash could be
subsidising Oxfam executives sexual
peccadilloes, at -- abusing the
people they are supposed to be
helping is not good. Penny Mordaunt
said we should all have done more.
Where this seems to be going as who
knew what? Furthermore, who was
happy to cover up what for the
greater good? If you shine a
spotlight on abuse will it kill off
the Holborn I'm concept of
Oxfam does a lot
of good around the world.
amounts of good. Why would you want
to kill off a productive good
charity because of some horrendous
abuse going on? The political damage
for the government and we need to be
very careful, there are parallels
with for example the northern Asian
sexual grooming scandal. How much
was a blind eye turned to these
politically sensitive subject so the
greater good, for example racial
harmony, was not damaged? That will
be huge thing to unpick.
talking about the damage of donors
who donate to charities but defeat,
the government, committed huge
amount of money -- DFID. Not
everyone is happy about this. Will
this be used as a debate about
I think it is
being used as a way to reopen
debate. It should be remembered that
sexual predators use organisations.
They used boarding schools, the
church and aid programmes. They use
places with high vulnerability to
the sexual predators. Notably says
let's close down the church. It is
mistaken to say this is a taint on
the entire aid industry when the aid
industry by its nature would attract
some predatory behaviour. It is much
more important to have the
conversation about how
institutionally you prevent and deal
with the predatory behaviour rather
than turn a spotlight on the aid
industry than they should we have
any aid which is the wrong question
and has a completely obvious answer,
yes we should.
But if that is right,
if we extend that level of
understanding to Oxfam because it
does good work, why is that not
extended to the controversial
Presidents club a few weeks ago
which is now effectively shutdown
and people have given the money
Iain, the Presidents club,
there are people in Oxfam who are
not using sex workers unlike the
There were people
at that dinner who were not engaged
in the activity that the FDA accused
a few people.
But they were all
sitting there in an all male dinner
-- the FT accused people.
I am not
We cannot finish
the programme without returning to
the topic we are always talking
about and we have always been
talking about, Brexit.
talking about, Brexit. We will hear
from some other Cabinet ministers.
Explain the choreography of the
The government have come
under pressure for not saying enough
about the decisions. Boris Johnson
made it clear he would make his own
speech on the case for a liberal
Brexit, whatever that ends up
meaning. Now we learn today that it
will not just be Boris, it will be a
whole is of other Cabinet ministers
making a useful contribution in
terms of speeches, David Davis,
David Liddington, Liam Fox and
Theresa May finally at the end of
this long list.
Not Philip Hammond
or any of the arch Remainers?
don't do Brexit central jobs. You
expect the Brexit ministers
themselves to do that.
I do not
agree with that at all.
interesting is, were they always
going to do this or has the entirety
of government, now the dog is being
whacked by the tail, just to make
Boris Johnson... They have to give
him great cover by surrounding him
by others also making speeches.
a shocking waste of parliamentary
time this is?
At least we are
hearing from someone.
with speech-making is somebody comes
out and says something and then
Number Ten immediately slapped them
down. You cannot listen to the thing
you think you are listening to
because you have no idea whether it
will be contradicted the day after.
Like Philip Hammond in Davos where
he said we would only diverged
moderately from the EU and then
Number Ten contradicted him.
idea that Philip Hammond is not a
key Brexit Minister, the impact of
this is predominantly economic and
he is the Chancellor of the
Exchequer. Of course he is a Brexit
They are quite worried
about the Remainers and they are
really worried about Jacob Rees-Mogg
and the hard Brexit faction who
could really bring down the Prime
Minister tomorrow if they wanted to.
And at some point, when the Prime
Minister fleshes out in a little bit
more detail her vision, she cannot
keep Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees-Mogg
happy. Both of them have been vocal
this week and then the serious
problem in the Tory party?
will have to compromise at some
point. The hardest Brexiteers have
to get real and they have to realise
they have most of what they wanted.
If you said almost two years ago
that the UK would definitely be
leaving all the key institutions of
the EU, definitely be leaving the
single market, definitely be leaving
the customs union with a grey area
at around the customs agreement,
that is something that I think a lot
of pro-Brexit people have accepted
and pocketed as a good result.
the Jacob Rees-Mogg faction of the
party sound very unhappy about the
direction of travel and they are
complaining about all sorts of
But what is difficult to
work out is how much of that is
people positioning to shift the
argument within Cabinet, outliers
for an argument, so there is not too
much of a compromise. It is really
all a function of there not being
leadership and they're not being
someone in charge of the process.
This is going to have to be, we have
to confront this as a country at
some point and make a decision and
get on with it one way or another.
Well when they do, I am sure you
will be here to talk about it.
That's all for today.
Parliament's now on recess so I'm
afraid there's no
Daily or Sunday Politics next week,
however, do join me again a week
on Sunday at 11 here on BBC One.
Until then, bye-bye.
Until then, bye-bye.
Sarah Smith and Arwyn Jones with the latest political news, interviews and debate. Sarah examines Labour's renationalisation plans with shadow transport secretary Andy McDonald, and discusses Brexit with Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan and Labour's Seema Malhotra. The political panel features Tom Newton-Dunn of the Sun, Zoe Williams of the Guardian and commentator Iain Martin.