29/10/2017

0:00:37 > 0:00:39Morning, everyone.

0:00:39 > 0:00:41I'm Sarah Smith, and welcome to The Sunday Politics,

0:00:41 > 0:00:44where we always bring you everything you need to know to understand

0:00:44 > 0:00:45what's going on in politics.

0:00:45 > 0:00:49Coming up on today's programme...

0:00:49 > 0:00:51The Government says

0:00:51 > 0:00:54the international trade minister Mark Garnier will be investigated

0:00:54 > 0:00:56following newspaper allegations of inappropriate behaviour

0:00:56 > 0:00:58towards a female staff member.

0:00:58 > 0:01:04We'll have the latest.

0:01:04 > 0:01:07The Prime Minister says she can agree a deal with the EU and plenty

0:01:07 > 0:01:14of time for Parliament to vote on it before we leave in 2018. Well

0:01:14 > 0:01:24Parliament play ball? New evidence cast out on the

0:01:24 > 0:01:24In cast out on the

0:01:24 > 0:01:24In the cast out on the

0:01:24 > 0:01:24In the West, cast out on the

0:01:24 > 0:01:25In the West, the cast out on the

0:01:25 > 0:01:25In the West, the University cast out on the

0:01:25 > 0:01:27In the West, the University challenge to. There are more cause

0:01:27 > 0:01:28for the head of Bath University

0:01:29 > 0:01:32on from the abortion act white MPs are lobbying the Home Secretary to

0:01:32 > 0:01:38stop the alleged harassment of women attending abortion clinics.

0:01:38 > 0:01:41All that coming up in the programme.

0:01:41 > 0:01:44And with me today to help make sense of all the big stories,

0:01:44 > 0:01:47Julia Hartley-Brewer, Steve Richards and Anne McElvoy.

0:01:47 > 0:01:50Some breaking news this morning.

0:01:50 > 0:01:52The Government has announced that it will investigate

0:01:52 > 0:01:54whether the International Trade Minister Mark Garnier broke

0:01:54 > 0:01:55the Ministerial Code following allegations

0:01:55 > 0:02:01of inappropriate behaviour.

0:02:01 > 0:02:04It comes after reports in the Mail on Sunday which has spoken to one

0:02:04 > 0:02:05of Mr Garnier's former employees.

0:02:05 > 0:02:07News of the investigation was announced by the Health

0:02:07 > 0:02:09Secretary Jeremy Hunt on the Andrew Marr show earlier.

0:02:09 > 0:02:13The stories, if they are true, are totally unacceptable

0:02:13 > 0:02:15and the Cabinet Office will be conducting an investigation

0:02:15 > 0:02:18as to whether there has been a breach of the ministerial code

0:02:18 > 0:02:19in this particular case.

0:02:19 > 0:02:21But as you know the facts are disputed.

0:02:21 > 0:02:24This is something that covers behaviour by MPs of all parties

0:02:24 > 0:02:28and that is why the other thing that is going to happen

0:02:28 > 0:02:31is that today Theresa May is going to write to John Bercow,

0:02:31 > 0:02:34the Speaker of the House of Commons, to ask for his advice as to how

0:02:34 > 0:02:40we change that culture.

0:02:40 > 0:02:44That was Jeremy Hunt a little earlier. I want to turn to the panel

0:02:44 > 0:02:49to make sense of this news. This is the government taking these

0:02:49 > 0:02:52allegations quite seriously.What has changed in this story is they

0:02:52 > 0:02:57used to be a bit of delay while people work out what they should say

0:02:57 > 0:03:02about it, how seriously to take it. As you see now a senior cabinet

0:03:02 > 0:03:07member out there, Jeremy Hunt, with an instant response. He does have

0:03:07 > 0:03:10the worry of whether the facts are disputed, but what they want to be

0:03:10 > 0:03:15seen doing is to do something very quickly. In the past they would say

0:03:15 > 0:03:20it was all part of the rough and tumble of Westminster.Mark Garnier

0:03:20 > 0:03:24does not deny these stories, which is that he asked an employee to buy

0:03:24 > 0:03:29sex toys, but he said it was just high jinks and it was taken out of

0:03:29 > 0:03:33context. Is this the sort of thing that a few years ago in a different

0:03:33 > 0:03:38environment would be investigated? Not necessarily quite the frenzy

0:03:38 > 0:03:46that it is nowadays. The combination of social media, all the Sunday

0:03:46 > 0:03:48political programmes were ministers have to go on armed with a response

0:03:48 > 0:03:56means that you get these we have to be seen to be doing something. That

0:03:56 > 0:04:00means there is this Cabinet Office investigation. You pointed out to us

0:04:00 > 0:04:04before the programme that he was not a minister before this happened. It

0:04:04 > 0:04:09does not matter whether he says yes, know I did this or did not,

0:04:09 > 0:04:13something has to be seen to be done. Clearly ministers today are being

0:04:13 > 0:04:17armed with that bit of information and that Theresa May will ask John

0:04:17 > 0:04:21Bercow the speaker to look into the whole culture of Parliament in this

0:04:21 > 0:04:27context. That is the response to this kind of frenzy.If we do live

0:04:27 > 0:04:30in an environment where something has to be seen to be done, does that

0:04:30 > 0:04:36always mean the right thing gets done?Absolutely not. We are in

0:04:36 > 0:04:40witch hunt territory. All of us work in the Commons over many years and

0:04:40 > 0:04:45anyone would think it was a scene out of Benny Hill or a carry on

0:04:45 > 0:04:50film. Sadly it is not that much fun and it is rather dull and dreary.

0:04:50 > 0:04:55Yes, there are sex pests, yes, there is sexual harassment, but the idea

0:04:55 > 0:04:59this is going on on a huge scale is nonsense.Doesn't matter whether it

0:04:59 > 0:05:06is a huge scale or not? Or just a few instances?Any workplace where

0:05:06 > 0:05:11you have the mixing of work and social so intertwined and you throw

0:05:11 > 0:05:15a huge amount of alcohol and late night and people living away from

0:05:15 > 0:05:21home you will have this happen.That does not make it OK.It makes sexual

0:05:21 > 0:05:26harassment not OK as it is not anywhere. This happens to men as

0:05:26 > 0:05:30well and if they have an issue into it there are employment tribunal 's

0:05:30 > 0:05:34and they can contact lawyers. I do not think this should be a matter of

0:05:34 > 0:05:40the speaker, it should be someone completely independent of any party.

0:05:40 > 0:05:45People think MPs are employees of the party or the Commons, they are

0:05:45 > 0:05:49not.Because they are self-employed to whom do you go if you are a

0:05:49 > 0:05:54researcher?That has to be clarified. I agree you need a much

0:05:54 > 0:06:00clearer line of reporting. It was a bit like the situation when we came

0:06:00 > 0:06:06into the media many years ago, the Punic wars in my case! You were not

0:06:06 > 0:06:13quite sure who to go to. If you work worried that it might impede your

0:06:13 > 0:06:18career, and you had to talk to people who work next to you, that is

0:06:18 > 0:06:22just one example, but in the Commons people do not know who they should

0:06:22 > 0:06:26go to. Where Theresa May might be making a mistake, it is the same

0:06:26 > 0:06:30mistake when it was decided to investigate through Levinson the

0:06:30 > 0:06:36culture of the media which was like nailing jelly to a wall. Look at the

0:06:36 > 0:06:39culture of anybody's job and the environment they are in and there is

0:06:39 > 0:06:45usually a lot wrong with it. When you try and make it general, they

0:06:45 > 0:06:50are not trying to blame individuals, or it say they need a better line on

0:06:50 > 0:06:54reporting of sexual harassment, which I support, the Commons is a

0:06:54 > 0:06:58funny place and it is a rough old trade and you are never going to

0:06:58 > 0:07:03iron out the human foibles of that. Diane Abbott was talking about this

0:07:03 > 0:07:07earlier.

0:07:07 > 0:07:10When I first went into Parliament so many of those men had been to all

0:07:10 > 0:07:17boys boarding schools and had really difficult attitudes towards women.

0:07:17 > 0:07:21The world has moved on and middle-aged women are less likely

0:07:21 > 0:07:31than middle-aged men to believe that young research are irresistibly

0:07:31 > 0:07:36attracted to them. We have seen the issues and we have seen one of our

0:07:36 > 0:07:42colleagues been suspended for quite unacceptable language.

0:07:42 > 0:07:46That is a point, Jarrod O'Mara, a Labour MP who has had the whip

0:07:46 > 0:07:51suspended, this goes across all parties.The idea that there is a

0:07:51 > 0:07:57left or right divide over this is absurd. This is a cultural issue. In

0:07:57 > 0:08:02the media and in a lot of other institutions if this is going to

0:08:02 > 0:08:06develop politically, the frenzy will carry on for a bit and other names

0:08:06 > 0:08:10will come out over the next few days, not just the two we have

0:08:10 > 0:08:16mentioned so far in politics. But it also raises questions about how

0:08:16 > 0:08:22candidates are selected for example. There has been a huge pressure for

0:08:22 > 0:08:26the centre to keep out of things. I bet from now on there will be much

0:08:26 > 0:08:31greater scrutiny of all candidates and tweets will have to be looked at

0:08:31 > 0:08:38and all the rest of it.Selecting candidates is interesting. Miriam

0:08:38 > 0:08:42Gonzalez, Nick Clegg's wife, says that during that election they knew

0:08:42 > 0:08:46about Jarrod O'Mara and the Lib Dems knew about it, so it is difficult to

0:08:46 > 0:08:52suggest the Labour Party did not as well.There is very clear evidence

0:08:52 > 0:08:57the Labour Party did know. But we are in a situation of how perfect

0:08:57 > 0:09:03and well-behaved does everyone have to be? If you look at past American

0:09:03 > 0:09:08presidents, JFK and Bill Clinton, these men were sex pest

0:09:08 > 0:09:11extraordinaire, with totally inappropriate behaviour on a regular

0:09:11 > 0:09:15basis. There are things you are not allowed to say if you are feminists.

0:09:15 > 0:09:20Young women are really attracted to powerful men. I was busted for the

0:09:20 > 0:09:24idea that there are young women in the House of commons who are

0:09:24 > 0:09:31throwing themselves at middle-aged, potbellied, balding, older men. We

0:09:31 > 0:09:37need to focus on the right things. When it is unwanted, harassing,

0:09:37 > 0:09:40inappropriate and criminal, absolutely, you come down like a

0:09:40 > 0:09:44tonne of bricks. It is not just because there are more women in the

0:09:44 > 0:09:49Commons, it is because there are more men married to women like us.

0:09:49 > 0:09:51We have to leave it there.

0:09:51 > 0:09:54As attention turns in Westminster to the hundreds

0:09:54 > 0:09:56of amendments put down on the EU Withdrawal Bill, David Davis has

0:09:56 > 0:09:59caused a stir this week by saying it's possible Parliament won't get

0:09:59 > 0:10:02a vote on the Brexit deal until after March 2019 -

0:10:02 > 0:10:04when the clock runs out and we leave the EU.

0:10:04 > 0:10:07Let's take a look at how the controversy played out.

0:10:07 > 0:10:11And which point do you envisage Parliament having a vote?

0:10:11 > 0:10:12As soon as possible thereafter.

0:10:12 > 0:10:16This Parliament?

0:10:16 > 0:10:18As soon as possible possible thereafter, yeah.

0:10:18 > 0:10:19As soon as possible thereafter.

0:10:19 > 0:10:20So, the vote in Parliament...

0:10:20 > 0:10:21The other thing...

0:10:21 > 0:10:23Could be after March 2019?

0:10:23 > 0:10:24It could be, yeah, it could be.

0:10:24 > 0:10:26The...

0:10:26 > 0:10:27It depends when it concludes.

0:10:27 > 0:10:30Mr Barnier, remember, has said he'd like...

0:10:30 > 0:10:32Sorry, the vote of our Parliament, the UK Parliament, could be

0:10:32 > 0:10:34after March 2019?

0:10:34 > 0:10:35Yes, it could be.

0:10:35 > 0:10:37Could be.

0:10:37 > 0:10:38The thing to member...

0:10:38 > 0:10:40Which would be...

0:10:40 > 0:10:42Well, it can't come before we have the deal.

0:10:42 > 0:10:45You said that it is POSSIBLE that Parliament night not vote

0:10:45 > 0:10:49on the deal until AFTER the end of March 2019.

0:10:49 > 0:10:50I'm summarising correctly what you said...?

0:10:50 > 0:10:52Yeah, that's correct.

0:10:52 > 0:10:54In the event we don't do the deal until then, yeah.

0:10:54 > 0:10:56Can the Prime Minister please explain how it's possible

0:10:56 > 0:10:58to have a meaningful vote on something that's

0:10:58 > 0:11:03already taken place?

0:11:03 > 0:11:07As the honourable gentleman knows, we're in negotiations

0:11:07 > 0:11:10with the European Union, but I am confident that the timetable under

0:11:10 > 0:11:13the Lisbon Treaty does give time until March 2019

0:11:13 > 0:11:15for the negotiations to take place.

0:11:15 > 0:11:18But I'm confident, because it is in the interests of both sides,

0:11:18 > 0:11:22it's not just this Parliament that wants to have a vote on that deal,

0:11:22 > 0:11:24but actually there will be ratification by other parliaments,

0:11:24 > 0:11:29that we will be able to achieve that agreement and that negotiation

0:11:29 > 0:11:32in time for this Parliament to have a vote that we committed to.

0:11:32 > 0:11:35We are working to reach an agreement on the final deal

0:11:35 > 0:11:37in good time before we leave the European Union in March 2019.

0:11:37 > 0:11:40Clearly, we cannot say for certain at this stage

0:11:40 > 0:11:42when this will be agreed.

0:11:42 > 0:11:44But as Michel Barnier said, he hopes to get a draft deal

0:11:44 > 0:11:50agreed by October 2018, and that's our aim is well.

0:11:50 > 0:11:53agreed by October 2018, and that's our aim as well.

0:11:53 > 0:11:55I'm joined now by the former Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary

0:11:55 > 0:11:58Benn, who is the chair of the Commons Brexit Committee,

0:11:58 > 0:12:01which David Davis was giving evidence to.

0:12:01 > 0:12:07Good morning.When you think a parliamentary vote should take place

0:12:07 > 0:12:13in order for it to be meaningful?It has to be before we leave the

0:12:13 > 0:12:15European Union. Michel Barnier said at the start of the negotiations

0:12:15 > 0:12:20that he wants to wrap them up by October of next year, so we have

0:12:20 > 0:12:24only got 12 months left, the clock is ticking and there is a huge

0:12:24 > 0:12:28amount of ground to cover.You do not think there is any point in

0:12:28 > 0:12:39having the vote the week before we leave because you could then not go

0:12:39 > 0:12:41and re-negotiate?That would not be acceptable. We will not be given a

0:12:41 > 0:12:44bit of paper and told to take it or leave it. But the following day

0:12:44 > 0:12:48Steve Baker, also a minister in the department, told our committee that

0:12:48 > 0:12:51the government now accepts that in order to implement transitional

0:12:51 > 0:12:56arrangements that it is seeking, it will need separate legislation. I

0:12:56 > 0:13:00put the question to him if you are going to need separate legislation

0:13:00 > 0:13:04to do that, why don't you have a separate bill to implement the

0:13:04 > 0:13:07withdrawal agreement rather than seeking to use the powers the

0:13:07 > 0:13:12government is proposing to take in the EU withdrawal bill.If we stick

0:13:12 > 0:13:15to the timing, you have said you do not think it is possible to

0:13:15 > 0:13:20negotiate a trade deal in the next 12 months. You say the only people

0:13:20 > 0:13:24who think that is possible British ministers. If you do not believe we

0:13:24 > 0:13:29can get a deal negotiated, how can we get a vote on it in 12 months'

0:13:29 > 0:13:34time?If things go well, and there is still a risk of no agreement

0:13:34 > 0:13:48which would be disastrous for the economy and the country, if

0:13:53 > 0:13:56things go there will be a deal on the divorce issues, there will be a

0:13:56 > 0:13:58deal on the nature of the transitional arrangement and the

0:13:58 > 0:14:00government is to set out how it thinks that will work, and then an

0:14:00 > 0:14:03agreement between the UK and the 27 member states saying, we will now

0:14:03 > 0:14:05negotiate a new trade and market access arrangement, and new

0:14:05 > 0:14:07association agreement between the two parties, and that will be done

0:14:07 > 0:14:09in the transition period. Parliament will be voting in those

0:14:09 > 0:14:14circumstances on a deal which leads to the door being open.But we would

0:14:14 > 0:14:19be outside the EU at that point, so how meaningful can vote be where you

0:14:19 > 0:14:25take it or leave it if we have already left the EU? Surely this has

0:14:25 > 0:14:31to happen before March 2019 for it to make a difference?I do not think

0:14:31 > 0:14:34it is possible to negotiate all of the issues that will need to be

0:14:34 > 0:14:40covered in the time available.Then it is not possible to have a

0:14:40 > 0:14:51meaningful vote on it?Parliament will have to have a look at the deal

0:14:51 > 0:14:53presented to it. It is likely to be a mix agreement so the approval

0:14:53 > 0:14:56process in the rest of Europe, unlike the Article 50 agreement,

0:14:56 > 0:14:59which will be a majority vote in the European Parliament and in the

0:14:59 > 0:15:02British Parliament, every single Parliament will have a vote on it,

0:15:02 > 0:15:07so it will be a more complex process anyway, but I do not think that is

0:15:07 > 0:15:13the time to get all of that sorted between now and October next year.

0:15:13 > 0:15:17Whether it is before or after we have left the EU, the government

0:15:17 > 0:15:21have said it is a take it or leave it option and it is the Noel Edmonds

0:15:21 > 0:15:28option, deal or no Deal, you say yes or no to it. You cannot send them

0:15:28 > 0:15:33back to re-negotiate.

0:15:33 > 0:15:38If it is a separate piece of legislation, when Parliament has a

0:15:38 > 0:15:43chance to shape the nature of that legislation.But it can't change

0:15:43 > 0:15:47what has been negotiated with the EU?Well, you could say to the

0:15:47 > 0:15:52government, we're happy with this but was not happy about that chukka

0:15:52 > 0:15:58here's some fresh instructions, go back in and...It seems to me what

0:15:58 > 0:16:02they want is the maximum access to the single market for the lowest

0:16:02 > 0:16:06possible tariffs, whilst able to control migration. If they've got to

0:16:06 > 0:16:10get the best deal that they can on that, how on earth is the Labour

0:16:10 > 0:16:15Party, saying we want a bit more, owing to persuade the other 27?We

0:16:15 > 0:16:18certainly don't want the lowest possible tariffs, we want no tariffs

0:16:18 > 0:16:23are taught. My personal view is that, has made a profound mistake in

0:16:23 > 0:16:28deciding that it wants to leave the customs union. If you want to help

0:16:28 > 0:16:32deal with the very serious question of the border between Northern

0:16:32 > 0:16:36Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, the way you do that is to stay in

0:16:36 > 0:16:42the customs union and I hope, will change its mind.But the Labour

0:16:42 > 0:16:45Party is simply saying in the House of Commons, we want a better deal

0:16:45 > 0:16:52than what, has been able to get?It depends how the negotiations unfold.

0:16:52 > 0:16:57, has ended up on the transitional arrangements in the place that Keir

0:16:57 > 0:17:03Starmer set out on behalf of the shadow cabinet in August, when he

0:17:03 > 0:17:07said, we will need to stay in the single market and the customs union

0:17:07 > 0:17:10for the duration of the transition, and I think that is the position,

0:17:10 > 0:17:15has now reached. It has not been helped by differences of view within

0:17:15 > 0:17:19the Cabinet, and a lot of time has passed and there's proved time left

0:17:19 > 0:17:24and we have not even got on to the negotiations. -- there's very little

0:17:24 > 0:17:30time left.On phase two, the labour Party have set out six clear tests,

0:17:30 > 0:17:34and two of them are crucial. You say you want the exact same benefits we

0:17:34 > 0:17:38currently have in the customs union but you also want to be able to

0:17:38 > 0:17:42ensure the fair migration to control immigration, basically, which does

0:17:42 > 0:17:46sound a bit like having your cake and eating it. You say that you will

0:17:46 > 0:17:50vote against any deal that doesn't give you all of that, the exact same

0:17:50 > 0:17:54benefits of the single market, and allowing you to control migration.

0:17:54 > 0:17:57But you say no deal would be catastrophic if so it seems to me

0:17:57 > 0:18:01you're unlikely to get the deal that you could vote for but you don't

0:18:01 > 0:18:06want to vote for no deal?We absolutely don't want a no deal.

0:18:06 > 0:18:11Businesses have sent a letter to the Prime Minister saying that a

0:18:11 > 0:18:14transition is essential because the possibility of a no deal and no

0:18:14 > 0:18:17transitional would be very damaging for the economy. We fought the

0:18:17 > 0:18:20general election on a policy of seeking to retain the benefits of

0:18:20 > 0:18:24the single market and the customs union. Keir Starmer said on behalf

0:18:24 > 0:18:29of the shadow government that as far as the longer term arrangements are

0:18:29 > 0:18:32concerned, that should leave all options on the table, because it is

0:18:32 > 0:18:36the end that you're trying to achieve and you then find the means

0:18:36 > 0:18:41to support it. So we're setting out very clearly those tests.If you

0:18:41 > 0:18:45were to vote down an agreement because it did not meet your tests,

0:18:45 > 0:18:50and there was time to send, back to the EU to get a better deal, then

0:18:50 > 0:18:52you would have significantly weakened their negotiating hand

0:18:52 > 0:18:57chukka that doesn't help them?I don't think, has deployed its

0:18:57 > 0:19:01negotiating hand very strongly thus far. Because we had a general

0:19:01 > 0:19:04election which meant that we lost time that we would have used for

0:19:04 > 0:19:08negotiating. We still don't know what kind of long-term trade and

0:19:08 > 0:19:15market access deal, wants. The Prime Minister says, I don't want a deal

0:19:15 > 0:19:19like Canada and I don't want a deal like the European Economic Area. But

0:19:19 > 0:19:24we still don't know what kind of deal they want. With about 12 months

0:19:24 > 0:19:28to go, the other thing, needs to do is to set out very clearly above all

0:19:28 > 0:19:32for the benefit of the other 27 European countries, what kind of

0:19:32 > 0:19:36deal it wants. When I travel to Europe and talk to those involved in

0:19:36 > 0:19:41the negotiations, you see other leaders saying, we don't actually

0:19:41 > 0:19:44know what Britain wants. With a year to go it is about time we made that

0:19:44 > 0:19:50clear.One related question on the European Union - you spoke in your

0:19:50 > 0:19:54famous speech in Syria about the international brigades in Spain, and

0:19:54 > 0:19:58I wonder if your solidarity with them leads you to think that the UK

0:19:58 > 0:20:01Government should be recognising Catalonia is an independent state?

0:20:01 > 0:20:06No, I don't think so. It is a very difficult and potentially dangerous

0:20:06 > 0:20:12situation in Catalonia at the moment. Direct rule from Madrid is

0:20:12 > 0:20:17not a long-term solution. There needs to be a negotiation, and

0:20:17 > 0:20:20elections will give Catalonia the chance to take that decision, but I

0:20:20 > 0:20:27am not clear what the declaration of independence actually means. Are

0:20:27 > 0:20:31they going to be borders, is they're going to be an army? There will have

0:20:31 > 0:20:34to be some agreement. Catalonia has already had a high degree of

0:20:34 > 0:20:39autonomy. It may like some more, and it seems to me if you look at the

0:20:39 > 0:20:44experience here in the United Kingdom, that is the way to go, not

0:20:44 > 0:20:47a constitutional stand-off. And I really hope nobody is charged with

0:20:47 > 0:20:52rebellion, because actually that would make matters worse.

0:20:52 > 0:20:56Now, the Government has this week reopened the public

0:20:56 > 0:20:58consultation on plans for a third runway at Heathrow.

0:20:58 > 0:21:00While ministers are clear the £18 billion project

0:21:00 > 0:21:02is still the preferred option, new data raises further questions

0:21:02 > 0:21:04about the environmental impact of expansion,

0:21:04 > 0:21:06and offers an improved economic case for a second

0:21:06 > 0:21:07runway at Gatwick instead.

0:21:07 > 0:21:10So, with opponents on all sides of the Commons, does the Government

0:21:10 > 0:21:12still have the votes to get the plans off the ground?

0:21:12 > 0:21:22Here's Elizabeth Glinka.

0:21:26 > 0:21:28The debate over the expansion of Heathrow has been

0:21:28 > 0:21:29going on for decades.

0:21:29 > 0:21:32Plans for a third runway were first introduced

0:21:32 > 0:21:33by the Labour government in 2003.

0:21:33 > 0:21:37Then, after spending millions of pounds, finally, in 2015,

0:21:37 > 0:21:42the airport commission recommended that those plans go ahead,

0:21:42 > 0:21:46and the government position appeared to be fixed.

0:21:46 > 0:21:48But, of course, since then, we've had a general election.

0:21:48 > 0:21:52The Government have lost their Commons majority.

0:21:52 > 0:21:55And with opposition on both front benches, the Parliamentary

0:21:55 > 0:22:00arithmetic looks a little bit up in the air.

0:22:00 > 0:22:03A lot has changed since the airport commission produced its report,

0:22:03 > 0:22:05and that don't forget was the bedrock for the Government's

0:22:05 > 0:22:07decision, that's why the government supposedly made the decision

0:22:07 > 0:22:09that it made.

0:22:09 > 0:22:12But most of the assumptions made in that report have

0:22:12 > 0:22:14been undermined since, by data on passenger numbers,

0:22:14 > 0:22:17on economic benefits, and more than anything, on pollution.

0:22:17 > 0:22:20There's demand from international carriers to get into Heathrow.

0:22:20 > 0:22:22More and more people want to fly.

0:22:22 > 0:22:25And after the referendum, connectivity post-Brexit

0:22:25 > 0:22:29is going to be absolutely critical to the UK economy, so if anything,

0:22:29 > 0:22:35I think the case is stronger for expansion at Heathrow.

0:22:35 > 0:22:38A vote on expansion had been due to take place this summer.

0:22:38 > 0:22:40But with Westminster somewhat distracted, that didn't happen.

0:22:40 > 0:22:43Now, fresh data means the Government has had to reopen

0:22:43 > 0:22:48the public consultation.

0:22:48 > 0:22:52But it maintains the case for Heathrow is as strong as ever,

0:22:52 > 0:22:57delivering benefits of up to £74 billion to the wider economy.

0:22:57 > 0:22:59And in any case, the Government says, action must be taken,

0:22:59 > 0:23:04as all five of London's airports will be completely

0:23:04 > 0:23:08full by the mid-2030s.

0:23:08 > 0:23:11Still, the new research does cast an alternative expansion at Gatwick

0:23:11 > 0:23:15in a more favourable economic light, while showing Heathrow

0:23:15 > 0:23:22is now less likely to meet its environmental targets.

0:23:22 > 0:23:27Campaigners like these in Hounslow sense the wind is shifting.

0:23:27 > 0:23:29We're feeling encouraged, because we see all kinds

0:23:29 > 0:23:31of weaknesses in the argument.

0:23:31 > 0:23:34Certainly, quite a few MPs, I think certainly Labour MPs,

0:23:34 > 0:23:37are beginning to think perhaps it's not such a great idea

0:23:37 > 0:23:40to have a third runway.

0:23:40 > 0:23:42Their MP is convinced colleagues can now be persuaded

0:23:42 > 0:23:44to see things their way.

0:23:44 > 0:23:46The Labour Party quite rightly set four key tests

0:23:46 > 0:23:49for a third runway at Heathrow.

0:23:49 > 0:23:52And in my view, Heathrow is not able...

0:23:52 > 0:23:56The Heathrow option is not able to pass any of those.

0:23:56 > 0:23:59So, I see a lot of colleagues in the Labour Party around

0:23:59 > 0:24:02the country beginning to think twice.

0:24:02 > 0:24:07And if you look at the cross-party MPs supportin this anti-Heathrow

0:24:07 > 0:24:11And if you look at the cross-party MPs supporting this anti-Heathrow

0:24:11 > 0:24:13protest this week, you will see some familiar faces.

0:24:13 > 0:24:15You know my position - as the constituency MP,

0:24:15 > 0:24:16I'm totally opposed.

0:24:16 > 0:24:19I think this is another indication of just the difficulties

0:24:19 > 0:24:21the Government have got off of implementing this policy.

0:24:21 > 0:24:24I don't think it's going to happen, I just don't think

0:24:24 > 0:24:25it's going to happen.

0:24:25 > 0:24:27So, if some on the Labour front bench are, shall

0:24:27 > 0:24:30we say, not supportive, what about the other side?

0:24:30 > 0:24:33In a free vote, we could have had up to 60 Conservative MPs

0:24:33 > 0:24:35voting against expansion, that's the number that is normally

0:24:35 > 0:24:37used and I think it's right.

0:24:37 > 0:24:39In the circumstances where it requires an active rebellion,

0:24:39 > 0:24:40the numbers would be fewer.

0:24:40 > 0:24:43I can't tell you what that number is, but I can tell

0:24:43 > 0:24:46you that there are people right the way through the party,

0:24:46 > 0:24:48from the backbenches to the heart of the government,

0:24:48 > 0:24:50who will vote against Heathrow expansion.

0:24:50 > 0:24:53And yet the SNP, whose Commons votes could prove vital,

0:24:53 > 0:24:55are behind the Heathrow plan, which promises more

0:24:55 > 0:24:56connecting flights.

0:24:56 > 0:25:00And other supporters are convinced they have the numbers.

0:25:00 > 0:25:04There is a majority of members of Parliament that support Heathrow

0:25:04 > 0:25:07expansion, and when that is put to the test, whenever that will be,

0:25:07 > 0:25:08I think that will be clearly demonstrated.

0:25:08 > 0:25:11Any vote on this issue won't come until next summer.

0:25:11 > 0:25:13For both sides, yet more time to argue about weather

0:25:13 > 0:25:20the plans should take off or be permanently grounded.

0:25:24 > 0:25:25Elizabeth Glinka there.

0:25:25 > 0:25:28And I'm joined now by the former Cabinet minister Theresa Villiers,

0:25:28 > 0:25:30who oversaw aviation policy as a transport minister

0:25:30 > 0:25:37under David Cameron.

0:25:37 > 0:25:42Thanks for coming in. You have made your opposition to a third runway at

0:25:42 > 0:25:46Heathrow consistently clear. , have reopened this consultation but it is

0:25:46 > 0:25:50still clearly their preferred option?It is but what I have always

0:25:50 > 0:25:53asked is, why try to build a new runway at Heathrow when you can

0:25:53 > 0:25:57build one at Gatwick in half the time, for half the cost and with a

0:25:57 > 0:26:01tiny fraction of the environment will cost average is that true,

0:26:01 > 0:26:04though? Private finance is already to go at Heathrow, because that's

0:26:04 > 0:26:08where people want to do it and that's where the private backers

0:26:08 > 0:26:11want to put it. It would take much longer to get the private finance

0:26:11 > 0:26:16for Gatwick? Part of that private finance is passengers of the future,

0:26:16 > 0:26:21but also, the costs of the surface transport needed to expand Heathrow

0:26:21 > 0:26:29is phenomenal. I mean, TfL estimates vary between £10 billion and £15

0:26:29 > 0:26:33billion. And there's no suggestion that those private backers are going

0:26:33 > 0:26:38to meet those costs. So, this is a hugely expensive project as well as

0:26:38 > 0:26:42one which will create very significant damage.Heathrow is

0:26:42 > 0:26:44ultimately where passengers and airlines want to go to, isn't it?

0:26:44 > 0:26:49Every slot is practically full. Every time a new one comes up, it is

0:26:49 > 0:26:55up immediately, it's a very popular airport. Gatwick is not where they

0:26:55 > 0:26:58want to go?There are many airlines and passengers who do want to fly

0:26:58 > 0:27:02from Gatwick, and all the forecasts indicate that a new runway there

0:27:02 > 0:27:06would be full of planes very rapidly. But I think the key thing

0:27:06 > 0:27:12is that successive elements have said, technology will deliver a way

0:27:12 > 0:27:17to resolve the around noise and air quality. I don't have any confidence

0:27:17 > 0:27:22that science has demonstrated that technology will deliver those

0:27:22 > 0:27:26solutions to these very serious environmental limbs which have

0:27:26 > 0:27:28stopped Heathrow expansion for decades.Jim Fitzpatrick in the film

0:27:28 > 0:27:33was mentioning that people think there is a need for even more

0:27:33 > 0:27:36collectivity in Britain post-Brexit. We know that business has been

0:27:36 > 0:27:40crying out for more routes, they really think it hurts business

0:27:40 > 0:27:44expansion that we don't get on with this. More consultation is just

0:27:44 > 0:27:48going to lead to more delay, isn't it?This is a hugely controversial

0:27:48 > 0:27:51decision. There is a reason why people have been talking about

0:27:51 > 0:27:55expanding Heathrow for 50 years and it is never happened, it's because

0:27:55 > 0:28:00it's a bad idea. So, inevitably the legal processes are very complex.

0:28:00 > 0:28:04One of my anxieties about, pursuing this option is that potentially it

0:28:04 > 0:28:07means another lost decade for airport expansion. Because the

0:28:07 > 0:28:13problems with Heathrow expansion are so serious, I believe that's one of

0:28:13 > 0:28:16the reasons why I advocated, anyone who wants a new runway in the

0:28:16 > 0:28:20south-east should be backing Gatwick is a much more deliverable option.

0:28:20 > 0:28:26Let me move on to Brexit. We were talking with Hilary Benn about a

0:28:26 > 0:28:29meaningful vote being given to the House of Commons chukka how

0:28:29 > 0:28:32important do you think that is?Of course the Commons will vote on

0:28:32 > 0:28:38this. The Commons is going to vote on this many, many times. We have

0:28:38 > 0:28:41also had a hugely important vote not only in the referendum on the 23rd

0:28:41 > 0:28:45of June but also on Article 50.But will that vote allow any changes to

0:28:45 > 0:28:51it? Hilary Benn seemed to think that the Commons would be able to shape

0:28:51 > 0:28:55the deal with the vote. But actually is it going to be, saying, take it

0:28:55 > 0:29:00or leave it at all what we have negotiated?Our Prime Minister

0:29:00 > 0:29:05negotiates on our behalf internationally. It's

0:29:05 > 0:29:08well-established precedent that after an agreement is reached

0:29:08 > 0:29:13overseas, then it is considered in the House of Commons.What if it was

0:29:13 > 0:29:18voted down in the House of Commons? Well, the legal effect of that would

0:29:18 > 0:29:20be that we left the European Union without any kind of deal, because

0:29:20 > 0:29:25the key decision was on the voting of Article 50 as an irreversible

0:29:25 > 0:29:31decision.Is it irreversible, though? We understand, may have had

0:29:31 > 0:29:34legal advice saying that Yukon stopped the clock on Article 50.

0:29:34 > 0:29:38Would it not be possible if the Commons voted against to ask the

0:29:38 > 0:29:41European Union for a little bit more time to try and renegotiate?There

0:29:41 > 0:29:50is a debate about the reversibility of Article 50. But the key point is

0:29:50 > 0:29:55that we are all working for a good deal for the United Kingdom and the

0:29:55 > 0:30:00I'm concerned that some of the amendments to the legislation are

0:30:00 > 0:30:03not about the nature of the deal at the end of the process, they're just

0:30:03 > 0:30:09about frustrating the process. I think that would be wrong. I think

0:30:09 > 0:30:12we should respect the result of the referendum.Will it be by next

0:30:12 > 0:30:15summer, so there is time for Parliament and for other

0:30:15 > 0:30:18parliaments?I certainly hope that we get that agreement between the

0:30:18 > 0:30:24two sides, and the recent European summit seemed to indicate a

0:30:24 > 0:30:27willingness from the European side to be constructive. But one point

0:30:27 > 0:30:32where I think Hilary Benn has a point, if we do secure agreement on

0:30:32 > 0:30:35a transitional deal, that does potentially give us more time to

0:30:35 > 0:30:39work on the details of a trade agreement. I hope we get as much as

0:30:39 > 0:30:43possible in place before exit day. But filling out some of that detail

0:30:43 > 0:30:52is made easier if we can secure that two-year transitional deal.

0:30:52 > 0:30:58That is interesting because a lot of Brexiteers what the deal to be done

0:30:58 > 0:31:06by the inflammation period, it is not a time for that.I fully

0:31:06 > 0:31:11recognise we need compromise, I am keen to work with people across my

0:31:11 > 0:31:14party in terms of spectrum of opinion, and with other parties as

0:31:14 > 0:31:20well to ensure we get the best outcome.Let me ask you briefly

0:31:20 > 0:31:24before you go about the possible culture of sexual harassment in the

0:31:24 > 0:31:29House of commons and Theresa May will write to the Speaker of the

0:31:29 > 0:31:32House of Commons to make sure there is a better way that people can

0:31:32 > 0:31:37report sexual harassment in the House of commons. Is that necessary?

0:31:37 > 0:31:42A better procedure is needed. It is sad it has taken this controversy to

0:31:42 > 0:31:47push this forward. But there is a problem with MPs who are individual

0:31:47 > 0:31:52employers. If you work for an MP and have a complaint against them,

0:31:52 > 0:31:56essentially they are overseeing their own complaints process. I

0:31:56 > 0:32:00think a role for the House of commons authorities in ensuring that

0:32:00 > 0:32:04those complaints are properly dealt with I think would be very helpful,

0:32:04 > 0:32:09so I think the Prime Minister's letter was a sensible move.So you

0:32:09 > 0:32:12think there is a culture of sexual harassment in the House of commons?

0:32:12 > 0:32:19I have not been subjected to it or seen evidence of it, but obviously

0:32:19 > 0:32:23there is anxiety and allegations have made their way into the papers

0:32:23 > 0:32:26and they should be treated appropriately and properly

0:32:26 > 0:32:28investigated.Thank you for talking to us.

0:32:28 > 0:32:30Thank you for talking to us.

0:32:30 > 0:32:33Next week the Lord Speaker's committee publishes its final report

0:32:33 > 0:32:35into reducing the size of the House of Lords.

0:32:35 > 0:32:37With over 800 members the upper house is the second largest

0:32:37 > 0:32:39legislative chamber in the world after the National People's

0:32:39 > 0:32:40Congress of China.

0:32:40 > 0:32:43The report is expected to recommend that new peerages should be

0:32:43 > 0:32:46time-limited to 15 years and that in the future political peerage

0:32:46 > 0:32:50appointments will also be tied to a party's election performance.

0:32:50 > 0:32:53The government has been under pressure to take action to cut

0:32:53 > 0:32:56members of the unelected chamber, where they are entitled

0:32:56 > 0:33:00to claim an attendance allowance of £300 a day.

0:33:00 > 0:33:03And once again these expenses have been in the news.

0:33:03 > 0:33:06The Electoral Reform Society discovered that 16 peers had claimed

0:33:06 > 0:33:09around £400,000 without speaking in any debates or submitting any

0:33:09 > 0:33:12questions for an entire year.

0:33:12 > 0:33:15One of the Lords to be criticised was Digby Jones,

0:33:15 > 0:33:18the crossbencher and former trade minister, he hasn't spoken

0:33:18 > 0:33:22in the Lords since April 2016 and has voted only seven times

0:33:22 > 0:33:25during 2016 and 2017.

0:33:25 > 0:33:28Yet he has claimed around £15,000 in this period.

0:33:28 > 0:33:31When asked what he does in the House he said,

0:33:31 > 0:33:34"I go in and I will invite for lunch or meet with inward

0:33:34 > 0:33:36investors into the country.

0:33:36 > 0:33:39I fly the flag for Britain."

0:33:39 > 0:33:41Well, we can speak now to Lord Jones who joins us

0:33:41 > 0:33:45from Stratford Upon Avon.

0:33:45 > 0:33:50Thank you very much for talking to us. You provide value for money in

0:33:50 > 0:33:57the House of Lords do you think? Definitely. I am, by the way, very

0:33:57 > 0:34:02keen on reform. I want to see that 15 year tide. I would like to see a

0:34:02 > 0:34:08time limit, an age limit of 75 or 80. I would like attendants

0:34:08 > 0:34:12definitely define so the whole public understood what people are

0:34:12 > 0:34:18paying for and why. The £300, as a crossbencher I get no support, and

0:34:18 > 0:34:26nor do I want any, speech writing, secretarial assistance, none of

0:34:26 > 0:34:31that, and the £300 goes towards that.Whilst you are in there

0:34:31 > 0:34:35because we will talk about the reform of the Lords in general, but

0:34:35 > 0:34:39in terms of you yourself, you say you invite people in for lunch, is

0:34:39 > 0:34:43it not possible for you to take part in debates and votes and ask

0:34:43 > 0:34:48questions at the same time?Have you ever listened to a debate in the

0:34:48 > 0:35:00laws? Yes, many times.Yes, many times. You have to put your name

0:35:00 > 0:35:08down in advance and you have to be there for the whole debate.You have

0:35:08 > 0:35:12to be around when the vote is called and you do not know when the book is

0:35:12 > 0:35:16called, you have no idea when the boat is going to be called.This is

0:35:16 > 0:35:22part of being a member of the House of Lords and what it means. If you

0:35:22 > 0:35:26are not prepared to wait or take part in debates, why do you want to

0:35:26 > 0:35:30be a member? It is possible to resign from the House of Lords.

0:35:30 > 0:35:34There are many things members of the Lords do that does not relate to

0:35:34 > 0:35:39parrot fashion following somebody else, which I refuse to do, about

0:35:39 > 0:35:44speaking to an empty chamber, or indeed hanging on sometimes for

0:35:44 > 0:35:49hours to vote. There are many other things that you do. You quote me as

0:35:49 > 0:35:54saying I will entertain at lunchtime or show people around the House,

0:35:54 > 0:35:57everything from schoolchildren to inward investors. I will meet

0:35:57 > 0:36:01ministers about big business issues or educational issues, and at the

0:36:01 > 0:36:06same time I will meet other members of the Lords to get things moving.

0:36:06 > 0:36:09None of that relates to going into the House and getting on your hind

0:36:09 > 0:36:13legs, although I do go in and sit there and learn and listen to

0:36:13 > 0:36:20others, which, if more people would receive and not transmit, we might

0:36:20 > 0:36:23get a better informed society. At the same time many times I will go

0:36:23 > 0:36:28after I have listened and I am leaving and if I have not heard the

0:36:28 > 0:36:34debate, I will not vote.Voting is an essential part of being part of a

0:36:34 > 0:36:40legislative chamber. This is not just an executive committee, it is a

0:36:40 > 0:36:45legislature, surpassing that law is essential, is it not?Do you really

0:36:45 > 0:36:49believe that an MP or a member of the Lords who has not heard a moment

0:36:49 > 0:36:55of the debate, who is then listening to the Bell, walks in and does not

0:36:55 > 0:36:59know which lobby, the whips tell him, they have not heard the debate

0:36:59 > 0:37:04and they do not know what they are voting on and they go and do it?

0:37:04 > 0:37:10That is your democracy? Voting seems to be an essential part of this

0:37:10 > 0:37:15chamber, and you have your ideas about reforming the chamber. It

0:37:15 > 0:37:18sounds as though you would reform yourself out of it. You say people

0:37:18 > 0:37:22who are not voting and who are not taking part in debate should no

0:37:22 > 0:37:29longer be members of the House.I did not say that. I said we ought to

0:37:29 > 0:37:33redefine what attendance means and then if you do not attend on the new

0:37:33 > 0:37:37criteria, you do not have to come ever again, we will give you your

0:37:37 > 0:37:43wish. I agree attendance might mean unless you speak, you are going.

0:37:43 > 0:37:48Fair enough, if that is what is agreed, yes. Sometimes I would speak

0:37:48 > 0:37:54and sometimes I would not. If I did not, then off I go. Similarly after

0:37:54 > 0:38:0015 years, off you go. If you reach 75 or 80, off you go. Why do we have

0:38:00 > 0:38:0592 members who are only there because of daddy.You are talking

0:38:05 > 0:38:08about hereditary peers. You would like to reduce the House to what

0:38:08 > 0:38:15kind of number?I would get it down to 400.You would get rid of half

0:38:15 > 0:38:19the peers there at the moment? You think you are active enough to

0:38:19 > 0:38:26remain as one of the 400?No, I said that might well include me. Let's

0:38:26 > 0:38:31get a set of criteria, let's push it through, because the laws is losing

0:38:31 > 0:38:35respect in the whole of the country because there are too many and all

0:38:35 > 0:38:39these things about what people pay for. I bet most people think the

0:38:39 > 0:38:44money you get is paid. It is not, it is re-funding for all the things you

0:38:44 > 0:38:50have to pay for yourself. But I understand how respect has been lost

0:38:50 > 0:38:55in society. Let's change it now. Let's get it through and then, yes,

0:38:55 > 0:39:00if you do not meet the criteria, you have got to go and that includes me.

0:39:00 > 0:39:02Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking to us.

0:39:02 > 0:39:04Lloyd Jones, thank you for talking to us.

0:39:04 > 0:39:07It's coming up to 11.40, you're watching the Sunday Politics.

0:39:07 > 0:39:09Coming up on the programme, we'll be talking to the former

0:39:09 > 0:39:12business minister and Conservative MP Anna Soubry about the Brexit

0:39:12 > 0:39:23negotiations and claims of sexual harassment in Parliament.

0:39:23 > 0:39:25Hello and welcome to Sunday Politics, here

0:39:25 > 0:39:27in the glorious west of England.

0:39:27 > 0:39:31I hope you remembered to put your clocks back.

0:39:31 > 0:39:33Well, coming up this week, just how much do university

0:39:33 > 0:39:35bosses deserve to be paid?

0:39:35 > 0:39:38How does £500,000 sound?

0:39:38 > 0:39:41It's what the vice-chancellor of the University of Bath gets.

0:39:41 > 0:39:47And now she is under increasing pressure to stand down.

0:39:47 > 0:39:50Well, I'm joined this week by two MPs who are worth every penny

0:39:50 > 0:39:52of our generous appearance fees, which is nothing.

0:39:52 > 0:39:54They do it because they love you.

0:39:54 > 0:39:57They are the Conservative MP for Cheltenham Alex Chalk.

0:39:57 > 0:40:00As well as the Lib Dem MP for Bath, Wera Hobhouse.

0:40:00 > 0:40:05Welcome to you both.

0:40:05 > 0:40:07Let's start with the latest developments over Brexit.

0:40:07 > 0:40:11Wera, do you think there is going to be a deal or not?

0:40:11 > 0:40:14I think it looks more and more as if the government is struggling

0:40:14 > 0:40:17to come up with a deal in time that we can all vote on it.

0:40:17 > 0:40:23That is obviously the democracy that we want to see back in Britain.

0:40:23 > 0:40:25If Parliament will not be able to vote on the deal,

0:40:25 > 0:40:35there is going to be a big disaster.

0:40:35 > 0:40:38Do you think your friends in Europe have got any intention

0:40:38 > 0:40:39of giving us a deal?

0:40:39 > 0:40:42I don't think it is up for our friends in Europe to set

0:40:42 > 0:40:43the timetable entirely.

0:40:43 > 0:40:45But they are not compromising the are they?

0:40:45 > 0:40:48I think the government has got also cards in their hand

0:40:48 > 0:40:49that they can put on the table.

0:40:49 > 0:40:51I'd say the first thing would be moving towards

0:40:52 > 0:40:53a solution on the money.

0:40:53 > 0:40:56How much would you pay?

0:40:56 > 0:40:59I wouldn't want to put a sum on the table.

0:40:59 > 0:41:00Come on.

0:41:00 > 0:41:0120 billion?

0:41:01 > 0:41:0230 billion?

0:41:02 > 0:41:0440?

0:41:04 > 0:41:06It is about headlines that the government is making

0:41:06 > 0:41:08in order to reassure their European partners that the British

0:41:08 > 0:41:16government is actually going to stick to its commitment.

0:41:16 > 0:41:19Alex, do you think there is going to be a deal or not?

0:41:19 > 0:41:21Well, I'm much more positive than they are actually.

0:41:21 > 0:41:24I think if you listen to the mood music that is coming

0:41:24 > 0:41:27from Angela Merkel, Donald Tusk, it is quite clear that they think

0:41:27 > 0:41:31it's in the interest of the EU 27 as well as in the interest of the UK

0:41:31 > 0:41:33and it seems to be, as I say, far more positive.

0:41:33 > 0:41:36So, yeah, I'm pretty optimistic and I'm optimistic that December

0:41:36 > 0:41:39will be the time when they indicate that we can move on to that

0:41:39 > 0:41:41second stage, which, as little as two weeks ago,

0:41:41 > 0:41:43people were thinking might never happen.

0:41:43 > 0:41:45But across the channel they look at Britain and they see

0:41:45 > 0:41:48the government apparently all over the place with different factions

0:41:48 > 0:41:50and they think, well, let's push for a harder settlement

0:41:50 > 0:41:52than we might otherwise get because they are

0:41:52 > 0:41:53so divided among themselves.

0:41:53 > 0:41:55Look, I think sometimes these things are overblown.

0:41:55 > 0:41:57Of course there are differences of emphasis but the government

0:41:57 > 0:42:00and the Cabinet are absolutely united around the Florence speech.

0:42:00 > 0:42:03There is a real sense of mission and solidity and, you know,

0:42:03 > 0:42:06I think we're in good shape and I think from December we're

0:42:06 > 0:42:07going to negotiate a deal.

0:42:07 > 0:42:09That's only a month away so we shall see.

0:42:09 > 0:42:12We must move on because I think we might be talking about Brexit again.

0:42:12 > 0:42:13Just a thought.

0:42:13 > 0:42:16A former Labour minister weighed into the row over the head

0:42:16 > 0:42:17of Bath University's pay this week.

0:42:17 > 0:42:19Dame Glynis Breakwell has attracted widespread criticism

0:42:19 > 0:42:21for her pay packet of nearly £500,000 plus perks.

0:42:21 > 0:42:25Well, now Lord Adonis has offered to do her job for free and to sell

0:42:25 > 0:42:32up her grace and favour house and give the money to the students.

0:42:32 > 0:42:34Is your pay justified, Professor Breakwell?

0:42:34 > 0:42:37It's a question she hasn't yet publicly answered.

0:42:37 > 0:42:39Under attack for months, Glynis Breakwell was escorted

0:42:39 > 0:42:41away after a meeting of Bath University's

0:42:41 > 0:42:46governing council.

0:42:46 > 0:42:48They had just announced changes.

0:42:48 > 0:42:50She will stand down from the committee which sets

0:42:50 > 0:42:53the pay of senior staff and there will be

0:42:53 > 0:42:54a governance review.

0:42:54 > 0:42:55Reaction was mixed.

0:42:55 > 0:42:56Too little, too late.

0:42:56 > 0:42:59If they were serious about it they could have done this years ago.

0:42:59 > 0:43:03They could have had some proper transparency,

0:43:03 > 0:43:05they could have brought in staff and students to look

0:43:05 > 0:43:08at the performance of the Vice Chancellor.

0:43:08 > 0:43:11It is not something that we are proud of, it is damaging

0:43:11 > 0:43:14to the University's reputation.

0:43:14 > 0:43:16And the fact that they are taking these steps

0:43:16 > 0:43:18is really positive to see.

0:43:18 > 0:43:22He knows there is a lot more to be done to placate students angry

0:43:22 > 0:43:28at how their fees are being spent.

0:43:28 > 0:43:30We talk about it a lot and it's just anger.

0:43:30 > 0:43:33No one really agrees with the fact that she gets paid to much.

0:43:33 > 0:43:37I do think it's a bit of an outrage that she's earning so much really

0:43:37 > 0:43:40because as it's in the news a lot at the moment, public sector

0:43:40 > 0:43:41pay is kind of limited.

0:43:41 > 0:43:44And seeing as though we are paying nine grand a year, yeah,

0:43:44 > 0:43:45it's a bit of a sting.

0:43:45 > 0:43:54After months of adverse publicity about her pay,

0:43:54 > 0:43:57expenses and interest-free car loan and the grand house

0:43:57 > 0:43:59she lives in rent-free, there are calls for her to go.

0:43:59 > 0:44:02My own view is that the Vice Chancellor should now stand down.

0:44:02 > 0:44:05Get the University back onto an even keel, recruit a successor,

0:44:05 > 0:44:07sell this multi-million pound house in the middle of Bath,

0:44:07 > 0:44:10which the university has no reason for owning at all.

0:44:10 > 0:44:12Give that money back to student and then I think the reputation

0:44:12 > 0:44:15of the University will rapidly recover because it has very good

0:44:15 > 0:44:16academic staff, very good students.

0:44:16 > 0:44:18It is being held back by the Vice Chancellor

0:44:18 > 0:44:21and the scandal over her salary and that of other top managers.

0:44:21 > 0:44:22Others are more understanding.

0:44:22 > 0:44:24For while student numbers have risen rapidly,

0:44:24 > 0:44:30universities must compete hard.

0:44:30 > 0:44:33There are many universities that have seen their numbers drop,

0:44:33 > 0:44:34as other universities have grown.

0:44:34 > 0:44:37And this University in particular has seen growth so, yes,

0:44:37 > 0:44:40we're doing quite well but that will be at the cost of other

0:44:40 > 0:44:41universities around UK.

0:44:41 > 0:44:44Does that mean then you think it's justified to have salaries

0:44:44 > 0:44:46as high as £450,000?

0:44:46 > 0:44:49I think that salary is high but that would be for Bath University

0:44:49 > 0:44:53to determine as to whether or not it's the right salary.

0:44:53 > 0:44:57He gets no fancy house and his pay is almost half that amount

0:44:57 > 0:45:00but he will still have to explain it when the government's new regulator,

0:45:00 > 0:45:03the office for students, starts work in January.

0:45:03 > 0:45:09Universities in the future will have to justify

0:45:09 > 0:45:12paying their Vice Chancellors more than the Prime Minister.

0:45:12 > 0:45:20But places like this aren't the only publicly funded organisations

0:45:20 > 0:45:22with senior staff earning more than £150,000 a year.

0:45:22 > 0:45:25From local government and the police to the NHS,

0:45:25 > 0:45:26there are plenty of high earners.

0:45:26 > 0:45:28In the West, Avon and Somerset's Chief Constable earns £154,000.

0:45:28 > 0:45:31Swindon borough council's chief exec gets £164,000 and some NHS

0:45:31 > 0:45:32consultants in Bristol are paid £230,000.

0:45:32 > 0:45:42But but as for it in the £450,000 mark, nationally, the BBC's

0:45:45 > 0:45:47But as for hitting the £450,000 mark, nationally, the BBC's

0:45:47 > 0:45:49director-general is among the few who do.

0:45:49 > 0:45:52Overall, though, top pay has come down across most of the public

0:45:52 > 0:45:53sector in recent years.

0:45:53 > 0:45:59That is largely as a result of falling funding.

0:45:59 > 0:46:01Something universities with their growing student numbers

0:46:01 > 0:46:02have not experienced.

0:46:02 > 0:46:05I'm pleased to say I'm joined by Professor Len Shackleton

0:46:05 > 0:46:07from the free-market think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs.

0:46:07 > 0:46:10He has written in defence of the amount vice chancellors are paid

0:46:10 > 0:46:11and he's in Westminster for us.

0:46:11 > 0:46:13Thanks for coming on.

0:46:13 > 0:46:17Is Dame Glynis worth every penny?

0:46:17 > 0:46:19Well, I think that's not for me to decide,

0:46:19 > 0:46:29it's not for the Twitter storm to decide.

0:46:29 > 0:46:32I think it's for the governing body at Bath University to decide

0:46:32 > 0:46:33and it's up to them.

0:46:33 > 0:46:36I really don't like the way in which people are being picked

0:46:36 > 0:46:40on and it's very interesting, of course, in another part

0:46:40 > 0:46:45of the woods people moan about the gender pay back

0:46:45 > 0:46:48and so forth got a lady here who is one of the highest

0:46:48 > 0:46:51earning vice chancellors in Britain and of course she's been attacked.

0:46:51 > 0:46:54Vice chancellors in the UK earn just a fraction of what comparable people

0:46:54 > 0:46:56do in the United States, Canada, Australia, you name it.

0:46:56 > 0:46:59So, yeah, I think she's probably worth what she gets but as I say,

0:47:00 > 0:47:01it's not my job to decide this.

0:47:01 > 0:47:02It's not your job either.

0:47:02 > 0:47:03No.

0:47:03 > 0:47:06But she is running a charity, so it's not a business

0:47:06 > 0:47:12that can go bust.

0:47:12 > 0:47:17And the students, the customers, are taking out huge loans worried

0:47:17 > 0:47:19whereas she's got an interest-free loan for a car.

0:47:19 > 0:47:22Well, talking about cars of course, I mean, cars are a very

0:47:22 > 0:47:24expensive consumer item, cost as much as university places

0:47:24 > 0:47:27but we don't insist that the chief executive of car companies are paid

0:47:27 > 0:47:29no more than the Prime Minister.

0:47:29 > 0:47:33So, you know, it depends how you pick these things.

0:47:33 > 0:47:36Remember, universities are not in the public sector,

0:47:36 > 0:47:38they're not recognised as being public sector by the OECD,

0:47:38 > 0:47:39by international measurements.

0:47:39 > 0:47:43They are private bodies and really, when we lay down this kind of thing,

0:47:43 > 0:47:45we should be really careful I think.

0:47:45 > 0:47:47OK, don't go away, I shall come back to you.

0:47:47 > 0:47:49Alex, do you agree?

0:47:49 > 0:47:56Its free-market economics and she's worth it.

0:47:56 > 0:47:57No, Professor Shackleton, with respect, has got it

0:47:57 > 0:47:59completely wrong to suggest their private bodies.

0:47:59 > 0:48:02He ignores the fact that the tax puts in, through teaching fees,

0:48:02 > 0:48:04through research fees, well over £10 billion a year.

0:48:04 > 0:48:07And when you consider that students as well as putting

0:48:07 > 0:48:09in that kind of money, it's absolutely right that

0:48:09 > 0:48:11universities should have to justify, not just to themselves,

0:48:11 > 0:48:16but publicly as well those sorts of things.

0:48:16 > 0:48:18but publicly as well those sorts of fees.

0:48:18 > 0:48:21And my instinct is something like over £500,000, that is very,

0:48:21 > 0:48:24very difficult to justify and people just got to get real.

0:48:24 > 0:48:25He says it's up to the University.

0:48:25 > 0:48:27Well, I don't think that's good enough.

0:48:27 > 0:48:30I mean, it's all very well for them to justify it to themselves

0:48:30 > 0:48:33but I think the public rightly expects some kind of transparency

0:48:33 > 0:48:36so that we can know that given that public money is going in,

0:48:36 > 0:48:40billions and billions of scarce public resources,

0:48:40 > 0:48:42that where there is exceptional pay, there is exceptional

0:48:42 > 0:48:43justification.

0:48:43 > 0:48:45And that has got to be a public judgment.

0:48:45 > 0:48:46Let's hear from Wera.

0:48:46 > 0:48:47She is your constituent.

0:48:47 > 0:48:48She is.

0:48:48 > 0:48:50So are you going to defend her?

0:48:50 > 0:48:52I have never wanted to pick on an individual.

0:48:52 > 0:48:54It is about the governance structure of the University.

0:48:54 > 0:48:56And we need independent oversight and good governance

0:48:56 > 0:48:59so that the remuneration panel can make a decision that is

0:48:59 > 0:49:00open and transparent.

0:49:00 > 0:49:03So it is not about picking on individuals, it is

0:49:03 > 0:49:13about the governance.

0:49:14 > 0:49:15She's really been pillared in the press

0:49:15 > 0:49:17and virtually everywhere about this, actually.

0:49:17 > 0:49:18Do you think it crushes a woman?

0:49:18 > 0:49:19Oh, an interesting point.

0:49:19 > 0:49:20I don't think so.

0:49:20 > 0:49:23I think it is because her pay is exceptionally high and one

0:49:23 > 0:49:27of the highest in the country.

0:49:27 > 0:49:29It is important to stress that the success of a University,

0:49:29 > 0:49:31is not just down to one person.

0:49:31 > 0:49:33The success of the University is down to the lecturers,

0:49:33 > 0:49:35the support staff and the students themselves.

0:49:35 > 0:49:38So just to justify that higher pay because it is believed that one

0:49:38 > 0:49:40person has made that success of the University

0:49:40 > 0:49:41is also not correct.

0:49:41 > 0:49:49Let's go back to Professor Shackleton.

0:49:49 > 0:49:52Do you think that vastly overpaid is the point that Alex is putting

0:49:52 > 0:49:57in and the government pays in billions into universities.

0:49:57 > 0:49:59Well, government doesn't pay directly from a large chunk

0:49:59 > 0:50:02of what universities do and, you know, a large proportion of

0:50:02 > 0:50:03students now our overseas students.

0:50:03 > 0:50:06We compete in world market and I think we need people

0:50:06 > 0:50:08who are able to take on challenge.

0:50:08 > 0:50:10I just repeat the point that universities are not

0:50:10 > 0:50:13in the public sector.

0:50:13 > 0:50:16Whereas the BBC for example is and Andrew Neil and Fiona Bruce

0:50:16 > 0:50:26and John Humphrys and all these people are paid a lot more

0:50:27 > 0:50:28than Glynis Breakwell.

0:50:28 > 0:50:29Sergei think that is justified?

0:50:29 > 0:50:30By the same token?

0:50:30 > 0:50:33How can you condemn one section and not another?

0:50:33 > 0:50:34I'm not condemning any of them.

0:50:34 > 0:50:36She was also on the remuneration committee.

0:50:36 > 0:50:37She has stood down now.

0:50:37 > 0:50:38Of the University.

0:50:38 > 0:50:40So they sat around, I guess, and said, well, look,

0:50:40 > 0:50:43I'm going to set your pay, your pay, your paid.

0:50:43 > 0:50:44Now you've got to set mine.

0:50:44 > 0:50:45I'll go outside.

0:50:45 > 0:50:49That doesn't sound terribly transparent or clear to me.

0:50:49 > 0:50:54Well, that may be an issue which is worth suing

0:50:54 > 0:50:56Well, that may be an issue which is worth pursuing

0:50:56 > 0:50:58and the governance requirements etc looking up time time.

0:50:58 > 0:51:01But there are other highly paid vice chancellors who don't benefit

0:51:01 > 0:51:02from those kind of arrangements.

0:51:02 > 0:51:06I come back to, this is an international market.

0:51:06 > 0:51:07British universities have to compete big-time...

0:51:07 > 0:51:10Yeah, but there's also places, you mentioned the United States

0:51:10 > 0:51:15and Canada, but there are places like Poland which will be

0:51:15 > 0:51:17and Canada, but there are places like Poland which won't be

0:51:17 > 0:51:18paying that sort of money.

0:51:18 > 0:51:20Well, yes, that's our comparator, is it, Poland?

0:51:20 > 0:51:22Well, what is wrong with that?

0:51:22 > 0:51:23We have independent universities.

0:51:23 > 0:51:25Polish universities are controlled by the state.

0:51:25 > 0:51:31British universities have a long tradition of independence and not

0:51:31 > 0:51:34and autonomy and I think that's what we ought to preserve rather

0:51:34 > 0:51:37than having some jumped up proconsul deciding that we should not pay

0:51:37 > 0:51:39anybody more than an arbitrary figure of £150,000.

0:51:39 > 0:51:42OK, thank you for your contribution but I am going to give the final

0:51:42 > 0:51:44word on this to Alex.

0:51:44 > 0:51:46The Conservatives are all free-market people,

0:51:46 > 0:51:49so it's just not quite clear why you don't let the free

0:51:49 > 0:51:51market take its course.

0:51:51 > 0:51:55Well, the proper balance to strike if to say is you want to justify

0:51:55 > 0:51:59exceptional pay because you want to attract people from

0:51:59 > 0:52:02overseas or whatever, that's fine but do it publicly.

0:52:02 > 0:52:08What is not acceptable is for each university to set its own rules

0:52:08 > 0:52:10with effectively mates sitting around a table deciding

0:52:10 > 0:52:11who's going to get what.

0:52:11 > 0:52:13They should be open and transparent.

0:52:13 > 0:52:16If there needs to be a payment above £150,000, just make the case.

0:52:16 > 0:52:19And if it's a good case, no doubt it will be justified.

0:52:19 > 0:52:20OK, we must move on.

0:52:20 > 0:52:23It was where I began my career all those years ago,

0:52:23 > 0:52:25on locals newspapers, writing for the newspapers

0:52:25 > 0:52:27and keeping the town

0:52:27 > 0:52:30informed about what's going on in their parish.

0:52:30 > 0:52:34But does the digital revolution threaten to put an end to all that?

0:52:34 > 0:52:38It was one of the big topics at this week's BBC Future Of News debate

0:52:38 > 0:52:42and Robin Markwell was there.

0:52:42 > 0:52:45And now, over to a conference at one of the big national

0:52:45 > 0:52:46newspapers, The Daily Sketch.

0:52:46 > 0:52:48At the head of the table sits the editor.

0:52:48 > 0:52:50On his left, the managing editor.

0:52:50 > 0:52:52Fleet Street in its prime.

0:52:52 > 0:52:58Newspapers hot off the press couldn't be handed out fast enough.

0:52:58 > 0:53:01Several editions a day were rushed out to a grateful reading public.

0:53:01 > 0:53:03And they are distributed in places as far away

0:53:03 > 0:53:06as Lands End to a news-hungry public.

0:53:06 > 0:53:09In proportion to our population, the sale of newspapers in Britain

0:53:09 > 0:53:12is greater than that of any other country in the world.

0:53:12 > 0:53:16That was then, this is now.

0:53:16 > 0:53:18Read all about!

0:53:18 > 0:53:22300 local papers closed in the last decade!

0:53:22 > 0:53:2617 alone during this summer, says Press Gazette.

0:53:26 > 0:53:31This month, two Gloucestershire papers, which have been printing

0:53:31 > 0:53:33daily editions since the 1870s, switched to printing weekly.

0:53:33 > 0:53:38The reason, they're sliding circulation.

0:53:38 > 0:53:40The Gloucester Citizen and the Gloucestershire Echo's

0:53:40 > 0:53:44sales now hover around a mere 8,000 copies.

0:53:44 > 0:53:46The paper's owners say the future lies with a younger,

0:53:46 > 0:53:51larger audience online.

0:53:51 > 0:53:55People look at newspapers like they look at red phone boxes.

0:53:55 > 0:53:59Like they look at Route Master buses.

0:53:59 > 0:54:02There is a nostalgia about a golden era of newspapers

0:54:02 > 0:54:05but from my perspective as a journalist it

0:54:05 > 0:54:07never really existed.

0:54:07 > 0:54:09And I think we just have to accept that,

0:54:09 > 0:54:13with the death of the pound note,

0:54:13 > 0:54:16at some point in the future there might be a move from a print

0:54:16 > 0:54:20product into a new evolved form of delivering local news.

0:54:20 > 0:54:24In a BBC debate this week on the future of news,

0:54:24 > 0:54:27she went on to predict even her weekly paper may no longer

0:54:27 > 0:54:29exist in 20 years' time.

0:54:29 > 0:54:33From a quick straw poll, it was easy to see why.

0:54:33 > 0:54:35So how many people here have bought a local newspaper

0:54:35 > 0:54:38this week last week?

0:54:38 > 0:54:41Would you raise your hand?

0:54:41 > 0:54:44A very small minority.

0:54:44 > 0:54:45One former Citizen paperboy-turned-politician worries

0:54:45 > 0:54:47the decline

0:54:47 > 0:54:50of the paper may mean a decline in journalism.

0:54:50 > 0:54:53He says he's seeing fewer journalists covering council

0:54:53 > 0:54:58meetings once their bread and butter of news.

0:54:58 > 0:55:00Over the years, the journalists have been disappearing.

0:55:00 > 0:55:09First from the sub committees, then from the major committees

0:55:09 > 0:55:11now from the council meetings.

0:55:11 > 0:55:13At the last council meeting, there was no journalist

0:55:13 > 0:55:15there from the Gloucester Citizen.

0:55:15 > 0:55:18And what they've been relying on more and more is cutting

0:55:18 > 0:55:21and pasting of press releases coming out of the council and you don't get

0:55:21 > 0:55:27the digging around that you got in the old days from journalists.

0:55:27 > 0:55:29We have local journalists on the ground, in the communities

0:55:29 > 0:55:32that they are living in as well as reporting on.

0:55:32 > 0:55:34I can't comment on what other traditional print

0:55:34 > 0:55:35publishers are doing.

0:55:35 > 0:55:38But certainly in my newsroom, in the newsrooms within

0:55:38 > 0:55:44the region that I work, we have a patch reporters.

0:55:44 > 0:55:51We have caught reporters, we have dedicated political reporters.

0:55:51 > 0:55:55We have agenda reporters looking into investigative stories.

0:55:55 > 0:55:57If there are fewer journalists asking the right questions,

0:55:57 > 0:55:59knowing where to get the information, knowing how

0:55:59 > 0:56:02to dig and delve for it, and trained in matters of law

0:56:02 > 0:56:03and so on.

0:56:03 > 0:56:04Unless there is a professional cohort of journalists

0:56:04 > 0:56:06holding power to account, then the problem quite

0:56:06 > 0:56:11clearly will be that democracy will be the loser.

0:56:11 > 0:56:21With even editors predicting their newspapers are heading

0:56:22 > 0:56:25the same way as the trusty old red phone box, should we consign them

0:56:25 > 0:56:28to history now or do we risk leaving traditional readers short-changed?

0:56:28 > 0:56:31Well, I for one, love red telephone boxes and local newspapers

0:56:31 > 0:56:33but there will soon be highlights from the BBC debate

0:56:33 > 0:56:34on our BBC website.

0:56:34 > 0:56:41Now, the freelance journalist Phil Chamberlain was also

0:56:41 > 0:56:44there and he's head of the School of Journalism at the University

0:56:44 > 0:56:45of the West of England.

0:56:45 > 0:56:46Welcome along, thanks for coming.

0:56:46 > 0:56:49Is it the beginning, do you think, of the end for printed news?

0:56:49 > 0:56:50No.

0:56:50 > 0:56:53And I worked with Rachel at the Bath Chronicle back

0:56:53 > 0:56:56in the day and I'm hoping to turn out graduates who will be

0:56:56 > 0:56:59working in print products for a number of years yet.

0:56:59 > 0:57:02I think we may have thought that radio was going to be killed off

0:57:02 > 0:57:04by television and yet it flourishes in different forms.

0:57:04 > 0:57:07I also think that if you look at the way print products

0:57:07 > 0:57:10are thriving in areas such as Private Eye and specialist

0:57:10 > 0:57:12magazines like that, that do extremely well and things

0:57:12 > 0:57:14like the Voice series in Bristol that have been delivering

0:57:14 > 0:57:16a particular product to a very specific audience.

0:57:16 > 0:57:22I think they're really thriving.

0:57:22 > 0:57:24There are real opportunities.

0:57:24 > 0:57:26But the days of mass circulation of local evening

0:57:26 > 0:57:28newspapers, for example, is gone, isn't it?

0:57:28 > 0:57:31I think the market has changed enormously by thing to say

0:57:31 > 0:57:34that it is going to go the same as red phone boxes I think

0:57:34 > 0:57:35is too pessimistic.

0:57:35 > 0:57:38I think actually there is a future just in myriad different forms.

0:57:38 > 0:57:42Wera, does it matter if people don't read the local news?

0:57:42 > 0:57:45I think there is definitely still a place for good local journalism.

0:57:45 > 0:57:48Whether that is delivered in print paper or that is

0:57:48 > 0:57:51delivered digitally online.

0:57:51 > 0:57:54I think the point that was made about democracy and how we report

0:57:54 > 0:57:57on local council meetings, that is a very important point.

0:57:57 > 0:58:00But I do believe very good journalism can be done

0:58:00 > 0:58:02through digital media.

0:58:02 > 0:58:06In fact, at the Bath Chronicle, we just got a very young reporter

0:58:06 > 0:58:08who is going to get a reward.

0:58:08 > 0:58:11For doing exactly that, videos and clips.

0:58:11 > 0:58:12What is his name?

0:58:12 > 0:58:14Sam Petherick.

0:58:14 > 0:58:19Congratulations to you.

0:58:19 > 0:58:21Alex, what do you reckon?

0:58:21 > 0:58:24I mean, if people don't want to read what's going on in councils,

0:58:24 > 0:58:26parish councils, then there's no point in sending

0:58:26 > 0:58:28reporters along to it.

0:58:28 > 0:58:31Yeah, but I knew at distinguishing between two things.

0:58:31 > 0:58:33There is definitely a huge appetite for local news.

0:58:33 > 0:58:36So in Cheltenham, people are really interested in what's going on.

0:58:36 > 0:58:38But they're not because they are not buying the Echo.

0:58:38 > 0:58:40They might not be necessarily buying the print media

0:58:40 > 0:58:43but they are increasingly consuming media, as I am, I very rarely

0:58:43 > 0:58:46actually buy a printed copy of newspapers but I do look

0:58:46 > 0:58:47at things on a tablet.

0:58:47 > 0:58:48That appetite is still there.

0:58:48 > 0:58:52So what the market has got to do is work out how to deliver it.

0:58:52 > 0:58:59I do deprecate the loss of daily newspapers,

0:58:59 > 0:59:02I'm quite nostalgic for them and I know they serve an important

0:59:02 > 0:59:04community purpose because people go to see the newsagent

0:59:04 > 0:59:06except but you can't hold back the tide.

0:59:06 > 0:59:09But I do think that the market will continue to meet that demand

0:59:09 > 0:59:10because it is certainly there.

0:59:10 > 0:59:13Are the big media companies prepared to invest in the local journalism?

0:59:13 > 0:59:15Because in the days when they were earning millions of pounds,

0:59:15 > 0:59:18when they had all the classified ads and the estate agent adds,

0:59:18 > 0:59:23when they had all the classified ads and the estate agent ads,

0:59:23 > 0:59:25why didn't they then bring in star writers,

0:59:25 > 0:59:28paid them large salaries and build up a real editorial base?

0:59:28 > 0:59:30I think this funding issue is key.

0:59:30 > 0:59:32Alex talked about the market we're probably operating

0:59:32 > 0:59:36in different forms of markets.

0:59:36 > 0:59:38You've got people like Google and Facebook who have a different

0:59:38 > 0:59:41kind of business model and that perhaps earning in some ways off

0:59:41 > 0:59:43the backs of the products that newspapers are putting out.

0:59:43 > 0:59:45Actually, local newspaper companies are profitable,

0:59:45 > 0:59:46they are very profitable.

0:59:46 > 0:59:47They have always been profitable.

0:59:47 > 0:59:49It is how they choose to spend that.

0:59:49 > 0:59:51They have got very high profit margins.

0:59:51 > 0:59:53Supermarkets have very low profit margins and make

0:59:53 > 0:59:54enormous profits as well.

0:59:54 > 0:59:58It's about how they wish to organise their model.

0:59:58 > 1:00:00Newspapers are profitable, it's just how they choose

1:00:00 > 1:00:01to spend that as well.

1:00:01 > 1:00:10You've got differing economic models if you like competing,

1:00:10 > 1:00:13so you might have bloggers who are doing it out of love

1:00:13 > 1:00:18and then you've got professional, if you like in inverted commas...

1:00:18 > 1:00:20So you need that core of professionals, don't you,

1:00:20 > 1:00:22otherwise you could get a load of fake news.

1:00:22 > 1:00:23Absolutely.

1:00:23 > 1:00:26And I think that is exactly the place for good local journalism.

1:00:26 > 1:00:28And a paper like our local paper, the Bath Chronicle,

1:00:28 > 1:00:31is a trusted brand and people want to get their information

1:00:31 > 1:00:32from a trusted brand.

1:00:32 > 1:00:34Trust I think is key.

1:00:34 > 1:00:35That is a real sellable commodity I think.

1:00:35 > 1:00:37I think that will be just as important.

1:00:37 > 1:00:39We have to leave it there.

1:00:39 > 1:00:41Unlike newspapers, we can't just print an extra page.

1:00:41 > 1:00:42Our time is up.

1:00:42 > 1:00:44And there's always news on local television.

1:00:44 > 1:00:46You've done your bit for the Bath Chronicle today.

1:00:46 > 1:00:47They'll be thrilled.

1:00:47 > 1:00:49What about the Gloucestershire Echo?

1:00:49 > 1:00:52And the Echo, and the citizen and evening Post.

1:00:52 > 1:00:54Before we go, just time for our round-up of the political

1:00:55 > 1:01:01week with our Robin.

1:01:01 > 1:01:03It was a bleak week for the Council in Swindon.

1:01:03 > 1:01:06Around 400 jobs are to go, that's 15% of its workforce as it

1:01:06 > 1:01:10adjusts to funding cuts.

1:01:10 > 1:01:12The NHS dismissed rumours that Cheltenham's downgraded A&E

1:01:12 > 1:01:15might eventually close.

1:01:15 > 1:01:18There have been concern from councillors following a pilot

1:01:18 > 1:01:20scheme to transfer some orthopaedic patients to the

1:01:20 > 1:01:26Gloucestershire Royal.

1:01:26 > 1:01:29perhaps it's the first male MP in the chamber, I too very proudly

1:01:29 > 1:01:30paint my nails today.

1:01:30 > 1:01:33The Bristol MP Darren Jones sported nail polish in the Commons.

1:01:33 > 1:01:36It was part of the police's let's nail it campaign.

1:01:36 > 1:01:43It's targeted at modern slavery in places like nail bars.

1:01:43 > 1:01:44Ruby!

1:01:44 > 1:01:47And there was disappointment for that Cheltenham MP

1:01:47 > 1:01:50in the Westminster dog of the year awards.

1:01:50 > 1:01:52His pooch, Ruby, failed to place.

1:01:52 > 1:01:54Second spot went to the member for Taunton Deane

1:01:54 > 1:01:55and her beagle, Bonnie.

1:01:55 > 1:02:04Both were rescued dogs in need of new homes.

1:02:04 > 1:02:06Oh, what a week.

1:02:06 > 1:02:09Well, we're off to paint our nails.

1:02:09 > 1:02:12My thanks to all my guests for joining me here but now

1:02:12 > 1:02:15we will return to London and Sarah, who is waiting for us.

1:02:16 > 1:02:25With that, it's back to Sarah.

1:02:25 > 1:02:28Now, the much anticipated EU Withdrawal Bill,

1:02:28 > 1:02:31which will transfer EU law into UK law in preparation for Brexit,

1:02:31 > 1:02:36is expected to be debated by MPs later next month.

1:02:36 > 1:02:39Critics have called it a "power grab" as it introduces so-called

1:02:39 > 1:02:41Henry VIII powers for Whitehall to amend some laws without

1:02:41 > 1:02:45consulting parliament, and it faces fierce resistance

1:02:45 > 1:02:49from opposition parties as well as many on the government's

1:02:49 > 1:02:54own backbenches, with 300 amendments and 54 new clauses tabled on it.

1:02:54 > 1:02:57We're joined now by the Conservative MP Anna Soubry who has been a strong

1:02:57 > 1:03:01critic of the legislation.

1:03:01 > 1:03:06Thank you very much for joining us. Before we talk about the withdrawal

1:03:06 > 1:03:11bill, I would like to bring up with you that the Prime Minister has just

1:03:11 > 1:03:15sent a letter to the Commons Speaker John Bercow asking for an

1:03:15 > 1:03:19independent body to be established to investigate claims of sexual

1:03:19 > 1:03:24harassment in Parliament. What are your thoughts on that?A very good

1:03:24 > 1:03:28idea, sounds like a great deal of common sense. I had already this

1:03:28 > 1:03:31morning sent a request to the speaker asking for an urgent

1:03:31 > 1:03:35statement from the Leader of the House as to what could now be done

1:03:35 > 1:03:41to make sure that any complaints actually against anybody working in

1:03:41 > 1:03:44Parliament, to extend the protections that workers throughout

1:03:44 > 1:03:49the rest of businesses and in other workplaces have, they should now be

1:03:49 > 1:03:52extended into Parliament and asking for an urgent statement from the

1:03:52 > 1:03:57leader. Clearly the PM is well onto this and it is a good idea. We have

1:03:57 > 1:04:01to make sure everybody who works in Parliament enjoys exactly the same

1:04:01 > 1:04:06protections as other workers, so I welcome this.This should maybe have

1:04:06 > 1:04:11happened a long time ago. We hear stories of harassment that has been

1:04:11 > 1:04:14going on for decades, but until now it has been difficult to work out

1:04:14 > 1:04:20who you could complain to about it. It is my understanding that my Chief

1:04:20 > 1:04:24Whip and the previous deputy Chief Whip, and Milton, shared that view

1:04:24 > 1:04:29and have shared that view for some time but found it difficult to get

1:04:29 > 1:04:33all the agreement necessary. Anyway, we are where we are and we are

1:04:33 > 1:04:45making that progress, but

1:04:46 > 1:04:48my Chief Whip and the previous deputy Chief Whip wanted this done

1:04:48 > 1:04:51some time ago.That is an interesting point. Let's move on to

1:04:51 > 1:04:53the much anticipated EU withdrawal bill which will finally be debated.

1:04:53 > 1:04:55You have put your name to an amendment which is calling for a

1:04:55 > 1:04:58vote on the final agreement in essence, do you really believe that

1:04:58 > 1:05:02that will be a meaningful both offered to the Commons?Yes, if you

1:05:02 > 1:05:07look at the terms of the amendment, it would deliver exactly that. It

1:05:07 > 1:05:12would give members of Parliament the opportunity to debated and voted on

1:05:12 > 1:05:16it. It would be an effective piece of legislation and would go through

1:05:16 > 1:05:21both houses and should be done. One of the problems with this process is

1:05:21 > 1:05:25that Parliament has been excluded from the sort of debate and

1:05:25 > 1:05:30decisions that would have enabled the government to move forward in

1:05:30 > 1:05:40progress and form a consensus so we get the very best Brexit deal.We

1:05:40 > 1:05:43have been excluded, that has been wrong in my view, but by the end we

1:05:43 > 1:05:46should not be excluded. The government have made it clear that

1:05:46 > 1:05:49whilst there may well be a boat if you win on this amendment, it will

1:05:49 > 1:05:54be a take it or leave it vote. This is a deal you should accept, or

1:05:54 > 1:06:00there will be no deal.If you look at the amendment we put forward

1:06:00 > 1:06:04there will be other alternatives. This is all hypothetical because we

1:06:04 > 1:06:07want a good deal and it is difficult to see that the government would not

1:06:07 > 1:06:13bring a good deal to the House in any event. But this is hypothetical,

1:06:13 > 1:06:18it would mean Parliament would say to government, go back and seek an

1:06:18 > 1:06:24extension as we know it is there in Article 50. It is perfectly possible

1:06:24 > 1:06:28with the agreement of the other members of the EU to seek an

1:06:28 > 1:06:32extension so we continue the negotiations and we get a deal that

1:06:32 > 1:06:36is good for our country. It keeps all options open and that is the

1:06:36 > 1:06:41most important thing.How many Conservative MPs really would take

1:06:41 > 1:06:46that option in those circumstances? It is only if you get enough votes

1:06:46 > 1:06:49that you would be able to ask the government to go back and

1:06:49 > 1:07:00re-negotiate.

1:07:03 > 1:07:06Have you for that?For give me, but you are jumping way down the line. I

1:07:06 > 1:07:08am talking about an amendment that keeps the options open. I am not

1:07:08 > 1:07:12speculating as to what would happen, I am not going there, it is far too

1:07:12 > 1:07:15speculative. Let's get this bill in good shape. The principle of this

1:07:15 > 1:07:21bill is right and we need to put into British domestic law existing

1:07:21 > 1:07:26EU laws and regulations into our substantive law. We all agree that

1:07:26 > 1:07:31must happen. It is the means by which we do it that causes problems

1:07:31 > 1:07:37and we have this argument and debate about what we call the endgame.I am

1:07:37 > 1:07:41sure we will talk about this many more times before we get to that

1:07:41 > 1:07:46vote. I will turn to our panel of political experts. Listening to the

1:07:46 > 1:07:52tone of what the remainders are trying to achieve with the EU

1:07:52 > 1:07:57withdrawal bill, will be achieved? You can hear that tussled there,

1:07:57 > 1:08:02they want the maximum space and room for Parliament to have a say. But

1:08:02 > 1:08:08they have to be careful. The reason is that clock is ticking and if you

1:08:08 > 1:08:14have a situation which may seem to be more interested in finding

1:08:14 > 1:08:18different things to object to and saying no to, it is not getting a

1:08:18 > 1:08:22good deal and it does not look good for the remainders in this argument

1:08:22 > 1:08:27and they will have to come through with their proposals. I do not mind

1:08:27 > 1:08:31Parliament saying it should have a big say, but what do you do if

1:08:31 > 1:08:37Parliament says this is not good enough? The government must simply

1:08:37 > 1:08:42say, I am sorry we have run out of time. The 27 will say they cannot be

1:08:42 > 1:08:47bothered to have another round either. They have to be strong, but

1:08:47 > 1:08:51realistic about what their role in this is.Do you think the people

1:08:51 > 1:08:56putting this amendment who say they want a binding vote in parliament

1:08:56 > 1:08:59are doing it because they think Parliament should have a say or

1:08:59 > 1:09:04because they want to obstruct it? They do not think people should have

1:09:04 > 1:09:09a say in the first place, they think people got it wrong, so they need

1:09:09 > 1:09:16more clever people than the voters to have final say.Or they believed

1:09:16 > 1:09:19taking back control means Parliament should have the final say.

1:09:19 > 1:09:22Parliament said they would like to give that decision back to the

1:09:22 > 1:09:28people. This is the issue. It seems to me that people like Anna Soubry

1:09:28 > 1:09:32are trying to delay of the transition period a bit longer.

1:09:32 > 1:09:37These negotiations will take as long as they have got. The EU will take

1:09:37 > 1:09:45it to the wire and if we do not get a decent deal, and one of the

1:09:45 > 1:09:48reasons is the level of incompetence on this government's part I have to

1:09:48 > 1:09:53say and the other one will be the people who want to remain

1:09:53 > 1:09:59undermining them. They undermined the government at every single stage

1:09:59 > 1:10:03and they undermine Britain's interests.It is the timing of all

1:10:03 > 1:10:06of this that is crucial and whether the government can get a deal in

1:10:06 > 1:10:13time.There will be a meaningful vote, whether it is an shined in

1:10:13 > 1:10:18legislation or not, there cannot be an historic development as big as

1:10:18 > 1:10:23this without Parliament having a meaningful vote. I meaningful,

1:10:23 > 1:10:27having the power to either stop it or endorse it. You cannot have a

1:10:27 > 1:10:30government doing something like this with no vote in the House of

1:10:30 > 1:10:37commons. When you say it will go to the last minute I completely agree,

1:10:37 > 1:10:42but last-minute in reality means next summer. It has got to get

1:10:42 > 1:10:45through the European Parliament and the Westminster Parliament and quite

1:10:45 > 1:10:52a few others as well.The trouble with invoking Parliament is if it is

1:10:52 > 1:10:57driven solely by remain, I would love to say what people in the

1:10:57 > 1:11:04league side think. I disagree with Julia, I do not think you could say

1:11:04 > 1:11:09people had their say and the terms with which we leave are left open

1:11:09 > 1:11:12and only the government should have a say in it, Parliament clearly

1:11:12 > 1:11:21should have a say in it.Do we want a good deal or not?It does not mean

1:11:21 > 1:11:26anything if you do not do it by next summer I suggest.Does that leave

1:11:26 > 1:11:30Parliament any room for changing the deal or is it simply take it or

1:11:30 > 1:11:35leave it?It will have to have that rule because it cannot simply be

1:11:35 > 1:11:39another of these binary votes were you accept the deal or no Deal.

1:11:39 > 1:11:45There has to be some space.How can a few MPs in the House of Commons

1:11:45 > 1:11:50change a deal that has been agreed by the member states?Because of the

1:11:50 > 1:11:56sequence, a huge if by the way, if they vote down the deal that the

1:11:56 > 1:11:59government has negotiated, the government will have to re-negotiate

1:11:59 > 1:12:03or there will have to be an election. This will be a moment of

1:12:03 > 1:12:06huge crisis, our government not getting through its much topped

1:12:06 > 1:12:15about...It is a mini Catalonia.I think it would be as big as

1:12:15 > 1:12:18Catalonia, but with the implication that there would have to be a

1:12:18 > 1:12:21practical change in the deal because if Parliament has not supported

1:12:21 > 1:12:27it...It is a remain fantasy that this deal can be put off and off

1:12:27 > 1:12:32until they get something that is as close to remaining as they can

1:12:32 > 1:12:37possibly get. I am very much for trying to get the best and avoiding

1:12:37 > 1:12:43the worst, but there is an unreality to that position if you keep trying

1:12:43 > 1:12:49to do it again and again, at some point people will want clarity.I

1:12:49 > 1:12:55labour putting forward a realistic proposition?I thought Hilary Benn

1:12:55 > 1:12:59was very realistic this morning, I wish he was more in the driving seat

1:12:59 > 1:13:04of Labour policy. He made clear where he disagreed and he made clear

1:13:04 > 1:13:07where he thought the negotiations had gone off track or were bogged

1:13:07 > 1:13:16down. I worry a bit about the Labour position being incoherent, but that

1:13:16 > 1:13:19is kept that way by the present leadership because as far as they

1:13:19 > 1:13:23are concerned the government is suffering enough, why should they

1:13:23 > 1:13:29have a position? Hilary Benn said we needed to have clarity about the

1:13:29 > 1:13:32timetable. It is like reading an insurance contract and finding the

1:13:32 > 1:13:35bit where you might get away with it. That is not a policy.

1:13:35 > 1:13:38That is not a policy.

1:13:38 > 1:13:39That's all for today.

1:13:39 > 1:13:42Join me again next Sunday at 11 here on BBC One.

1:13:42 > 1:13:46Until then, bye bye.