:00:41. > :00:42.Morning, folks, and welcome to the Sunday Politics.
:00:43. > :00:44.Hard line remainers strike back at Brexit.
:00:45. > :00:47.Are they trying to overturn the result of June's referendum
:00:48. > :00:50.by forcing a second vote before we leave?
:00:51. > :00:53.Australia's man in London tells us that life outside the EU "can be
:00:54. > :00:57.pretty good" and that Brexit will "not be as hard as people say".
:00:58. > :01:00.Could leaving the EU free Britain to do more business
:01:01. > :01:06.It's been called "disgusting, dangerous and deadly"
:01:07. > :01:09.but how polluted is our air, how bad for our health,
:01:10. > :01:16.In London rough sleeping has doubled over the last six years.
:01:17. > :01:29.We join the outreach workers and the MP looking for answers.
:01:30. > :01:32.And with me in the Sunday Politics grotto, the Dasher, Dancer
:01:33. > :01:35.and Prancer of political punditry Iain Martin,
:01:36. > :01:44.They'll be delivering tweets throughout the programme.
:01:45. > :01:50.First this morning, some say they will fight
:01:51. > :01:53.for what they call a "soft Brexit", but now there's an attempt by those
:01:54. > :01:56.who campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU to allow the British
:01:57. > :01:59.people to change their minds - possibly with a second referendum -
:02:00. > :02:03.The Labour MEP Richard Corbett is revealed this morning to have
:02:04. > :02:05.tried to amend European Parliament resolutions.
:02:06. > :02:07.The original resolution called on the European Parliament
:02:08. > :02:11.to "respect the will of the majority of the citizens
:02:12. > :02:26.of the United Kingdom to leave the EU".
:02:27. > :02:31.He also proposed removing the wording "stress that this wish
:02:32. > :02:34.must be respected" and adding "while taking account of the 48.1%
:02:35. > :02:46.The amendments were proposed in October,
:02:47. > :02:50.but were rejected by a vote in the Brussels
:02:51. > :02:51.Constitutional Affairs Committee earlier this month.
:02:52. > :02:54.The report will be voted on by all MEPs in February.
:02:55. > :02:56.Well, joining me now from Leeds is the Labour MEP who proposed
:02:57. > :03:06.Good morning. Thanks for joining us at short notice. Is your aim to try
:03:07. > :03:11.and reverse what happened on June 23? My aim with those amendments was
:03:12. > :03:15.simply factual. It is rather odd that these amendments of two months
:03:16. > :03:21.ago are suddenly used paper headlines in three very different
:03:22. > :03:26.newspapers on the same day. It smacks of a sort of concerted effort
:03:27. > :03:32.to try and slapped down any notion that Britain might perhaps want to
:03:33. > :03:37.rethink its position on Brexit as the cost of Brexit emerges. You
:03:38. > :03:42.would like us to rethink the position even before the cost urges?
:03:43. > :03:47.I get lots of letters from people saying how one, this was an advisory
:03:48. > :03:53.referendum won by a narrow majority on the basis of a pack of lies and a
:03:54. > :03:57.questionable mandate. But if there is a mandate from this referendum,
:03:58. > :04:00.it is surely to secure a Brexit that works for Britain without sinking
:04:01. > :04:05.the economy. And if it transpires as we move forward, that this will be a
:04:06. > :04:09.very costly exercise, then there will be people who voted leave who
:04:10. > :04:14.said Hang on, this is not what I was told. I was told this would save
:04:15. > :04:16.money, we could put it in the NHS, but if it is going to cost us and
:04:17. > :04:33.our Monday leg, I would the right to reconsider. But
:04:34. > :04:36.your aim is not get a Brexit that would work for Britain, your aim is
:04:37. > :04:39.to stop it? If we got a Brexit that would work for Britain, that would
:04:40. > :04:42.respect the mandate. But if we cannot get that, if it is going to
:04:43. > :04:44.be a disaster, if it is going to cost people jobs and cost Britain
:04:45. > :04:48.money, it is something we might want to pause and rethink. The government
:04:49. > :04:54.said it is going to come forward with a plan. That is good. We need
:04:55. > :05:01.to know what options to go for as a country. Do we want to stay in the
:05:02. > :05:03.single market, the customs union, the various agencies? And options
:05:04. > :05:10.should be costed so we can all see how much they cost of Brexit will
:05:11. > :05:14.be. If you were simply going to try and make the resolution is more
:05:15. > :05:22.illegal, why did the constitutional committee vote them down? This is a
:05:23. > :05:28.report about future treaty amendments down the road for years
:05:29. > :05:36.to come. This was not the main focus of the report, it was a side
:05:37. > :05:42.reference, in which was put the idea for Association partnerships. Will
:05:43. > :05:49.you push for the idea before the full parliament? I must see what the
:05:50. > :05:57.text is. You said there is a widespread view in labour that if
:05:58. > :06:00.the Brexit view is bad we should not exclude everything, I take it you
:06:01. > :06:07.mean another referendum. When you were named down these amendments,
:06:08. > :06:12.was this just acting on your own initiative, or acting on behalf of
:06:13. > :06:19.the Labour Party? I am just be humble lame-duck MEP in the European
:06:20. > :06:24.Parliament. It makes sense from any point of view that if the course of
:06:25. > :06:27.action you have embarked on turns out to be much more costly and
:06:28. > :06:32.disastrous than you had anticipated, that you might want the chance to
:06:33. > :06:37.think again. You might come to the same conclusion, of course, but you
:06:38. > :06:43.might think, wait a minute, let's have a look at this. But let's be
:06:44. > :06:46.clear, even though you are deputy leader of Labour in the European
:06:47. > :06:54.Parliament, you're acting alone and not as Labour Party policy? I am
:06:55. > :06:58.acting in the constitutional affairs committee. All I am doing is stating
:06:59. > :07:02.things which are common sense. If as we move forward then this turns out
:07:03. > :07:06.to be a disaster, we need to look very carefully at where we are
:07:07. > :07:12.going. But if a deal is done under Article 50, and we get to see the
:07:13. > :07:17.shape of that deal by the end of 2019 under the two-year timetable,
:07:18. > :07:22.in your words, we won't know if it is a disaster or not until it is
:07:23. > :07:28.implemented. We won't be able to tell until we see the results about
:07:29. > :07:36.whether it is good or bad, surely? We might well be able to, because
:07:37. > :07:40.that has to take account of the future framework of relationships
:07:41. > :07:43.with the European Union, to quote the article of the treaty. That
:07:44. > :07:48.means we should have some idea about what that will be like. Will we be
:07:49. > :07:51.outside the customs union, for instance, which will be very
:07:52. > :07:57.damaging for our economy? Or will we have to stay inside and follow the
:07:58. > :08:00.rules without having a say on them. We won't know until we leave the
:08:01. > :08:04.customs union. You think it will be damaging, others think it will give
:08:05. > :08:09.us the opportunity to do massive trade deals. My case this morning is
:08:10. > :08:12.not what is right or wrong, we will not know until we have seen the
:08:13. > :08:16.results. We will know a heck of a lot more than we do now when we see
:08:17. > :08:20.that Article 50 divorce agreement. We will know the terms of the
:08:21. > :08:24.divorce, we will know how much we still have to pay into the EU budget
:08:25. > :08:29.for legacy costs. We will know whether we will be in the single
:08:30. > :08:34.market customs union or not. We will know about the agencies. We will
:08:35. > :08:37.know a lot of things. If the deal on the table looks as if it will be
:08:38. > :08:43.damaging to Britain, then Parliament will be in its rights to say, wait a
:08:44. > :08:47.minute, not this deal. And then you either renegotiate or you reconsider
:08:48. > :08:52.the whole issue of Brexit or you find another solution. We need to
:08:53. > :08:57.leave it there but thank you for joining us.
:08:58. > :09:03.Iain Martin, how serious is the attempt to in effect an wind what
:09:04. > :09:08.happened on June 23? I think it is pretty serious and that interview
:09:09. > :09:13.illustrates very well the most damaging impact of the approach
:09:14. > :09:19.taken by a lot of Remainers, which is essentially to say with one
:09:20. > :09:21.breath, we of course accept the result, but with every action
:09:22. > :09:25.subsequent to that to try and undermine the result or try and are
:09:26. > :09:30.sure that the deal is as bad as possible. I think what needed to
:09:31. > :09:35.happen and hasn't happened after June 23 is you have the extremists
:09:36. > :09:41.on both sides and you have in the middle probably 70% of public
:09:42. > :09:47.opinion, moderate leaders, moderate Remainers should be working together
:09:48. > :09:54.to try and get British bespoke deal. But moderate Leavers will not take
:09:55. > :09:59.moderate Remainers seriously if this is the approach taken at every
:10:00. > :10:08.single turn to try and rerun the referendum. He did not say whether
:10:09. > :10:13.it was Labour policy? That was a question which was ducked. I do not
:10:14. > :10:19.think it is Labour Party policy. I think most people are in a morass in
:10:20. > :10:22.the middle. I think the screaming that happens when anybody dares to
:10:23. > :10:27.question or suggest that you might ever want to think again about these
:10:28. > :10:31.things, I disagree with him about having another referendum but if he
:10:32. > :10:34.wants to campaign for that it is his democratic right to do so. If you
:10:35. > :10:40.can convince enough people it is a good idea then he has succeeded. But
:10:41. > :10:45.the idea that we would do a deal and then realise this is a really bad
:10:46. > :10:52.deal, let's not proceed, we will not really know that until the deal is
:10:53. > :10:55.implemented. What our access is to the single market, whether or not we
:10:56. > :10:59.are in or out of the customs union which we will talk about in a
:11:00. > :11:04.minute, what immigration policy we will have, whether these are going
:11:05. > :11:09.to be good things bad things, surely you have got to wait for four, five,
:11:10. > :11:13.six years to see if it has worked or not? Yes, and by which stage
:11:14. > :11:17.Parliament will have voted on it and there will be no going back from it,
:11:18. > :11:22.or maybe there will. We are talking now about the first three months of
:11:23. > :11:30.2019. That is absolutely the moment when Parliament agrees with Theresa
:11:31. > :11:41.May or not. One arch remain I spoke to, and arch Remainiac, he said that
:11:42. > :11:49.Theresa May will bring this to Parliament in 2019 and could say I
:11:50. > :11:54.recommend that we reject it. What is he on or she? Some strong chemical
:11:55. > :12:00.drugs! The point is that all manner of things could happen. I don't
:12:01. > :12:06.think any of us take it seriously for now but the future is a very
:12:07. > :12:10.long way away. Earlier, the trade Secretary Liam Fox was asked if we
:12:11. > :12:13.would stay in the customs union after Brexit.
:12:14. > :12:19.There would be limitations on what we would do in terms of tariff
:12:20. > :12:25.setting which could limit the deals we would do, but we want to look at
:12:26. > :12:29.all the different deals. There is hard Brexit and soft Brexit as if it
:12:30. > :12:34.is a boiled egg we are talking about. Turkey is in part of the
:12:35. > :12:41.customs union but not other parts. What we need to do is look at the
:12:42. > :12:45.cost. This is what I picked up. The government knows it cannot remain a
:12:46. > :12:50.member of the single market in these negotiations, because that would
:12:51. > :12:53.make us subject to free movement and the European Court. The customs
:12:54. > :12:58.union and the Prime Minister 's office doesn't seem to be quite as
:12:59. > :13:02.binary, that you can be a little bit in and a little bit out, but I would
:13:03. > :13:07.suggest that overall Liam Fox knows to do all the trade deals we want to
:13:08. > :13:11.do we basically have to be out. But what he also seems to know is that
:13:12. > :13:17.is a minority view in Cabinet. He said he was not going to give his
:13:18. > :13:26.opinion publicly. There is still an argument going on about it in
:13:27. > :13:28.Cabinet. When David Liddington struggled against Emily Thornbury
:13:29. > :13:32.PMQs, he did not know about the customs union. What is apparent is
:13:33. > :13:39.Theresa May has not told him what to think about that. If we stay in the
:13:40. > :13:45.customs union we cannot do our own free trade deals. We are behind the
:13:46. > :13:50.customs union, the tariff barriers set by Europe? Not quite. Turkey is
:13:51. > :13:55.proof of the pudding. There are limited exemptions but they can do
:13:56. > :14:03.free trade with their neighbours. Not on goods. They are doing a trade
:14:04. > :14:07.deal with Pakistan at the moment, it relies on foreign trade investment
:14:08. > :14:11.but Europe negotiates on turkey's behalf on the major free-trade
:14:12. > :14:15.deals. This is absolutely why the customs union will be the fault line
:14:16. > :14:19.for the deal we are trying to achieve. Interestingly, I thought
:14:20. > :14:24.Liam Fox suggested during that interview that he was prepared to
:14:25. > :14:29.suck up whatever it was. I think he was saying there is still an
:14:30. > :14:37.argument and he intends to win it. He wants to leave it because he
:14:38. > :14:41.wants to do these free-trade deals. There is an argument in the cabinet
:14:42. > :14:47.about precisely that. The other thing to consider is in this country
:14:48. > :14:50.we have tended to focus too much on the British angle in negotiations,
:14:51. > :14:54.but I think the negotiations are going to be very difficult. You look
:14:55. > :14:58.at the state of the EU at the moment, you look at what is
:14:59. > :15:05.happening in Italy, France, Germany, look at the 27. It is possible I
:15:06. > :15:09.think that Britain could design a bespoke sensible deal but then it
:15:10. > :15:16.becomes very difficult to agree which is why I ultimately think we
:15:17. > :15:18.are heading for a harder Brexit. It will be about developing in this
:15:19. > :15:22.country. So, we've had a warning this week
:15:23. > :15:25.that it could take ten years to do a trade deal
:15:26. > :15:27.with the EU after Brexit. But could opportunities to expand
:15:28. > :15:29.trade lie elsewhere? Australia was one of the first
:15:30. > :15:32.countries to indicate its willingness to do a deal
:15:33. > :15:34.with the UK and now its High Commissioner in London has told
:15:35. > :15:37.us that life outside the EU He made this exclusive film
:15:38. > :15:53.for the Sunday Politics. My father was the Australian High
:15:54. > :15:55.Commissioner in the early 70s when the UK joined
:15:56. > :15:58.the European Union, Now I'm in the job,
:15:59. > :16:06.the UK is leaving. Australia supported
:16:07. > :16:08.Britain remaining a member of the European Union,
:16:09. > :16:11.but we respect the decision that Now that the decision has been made,
:16:12. > :16:17.we hope that Britain will get on with the process
:16:18. > :16:21.of negotiating their exit from the European Union and make
:16:22. > :16:24.the most of the opportunities that Following the referendum decision,
:16:25. > :16:31.Australia approached the British Government
:16:32. > :16:33.with a proposal. We offered, when the time was right,
:16:34. > :16:36.to negotiate a free trade agreement. The British and Australian
:16:37. > :16:42.governments have already established a working group to explore a future,
:16:43. > :16:45.ambitious trade agreement once A free trade agreement will provide
:16:46. > :16:57.great opportunities for consumers Australian consumers could purchase
:16:58. > :17:02.British-made cars for less We would give British
:17:03. > :17:08.households access to cheaper, Our summer is during your winter,
:17:09. > :17:14.so Australia could provide British households with fresh produce
:17:15. > :17:18.when the equivalent British or Australian households would have
:17:19. > :17:25.access to British products Free-trade agreements
:17:26. > :17:37.are also about investment. The UK is the second-largest source
:17:38. > :17:42.of foreign investment in Australia. By the way, Australia also invests
:17:43. > :17:48.over ?200 billion in the UK, so a free trade agreement
:17:49. > :17:51.would stimulate investment, But, by the way, free-trade
:17:52. > :17:56.agreements are not just about trade and investment,
:17:57. > :18:00.they are also about geopolitics. Countries with good trade relations
:18:01. > :18:04.often work more closely together in other fields including security,
:18:05. > :18:07.the spread of democracy We may have preferred
:18:08. > :18:21.the UKto remain in the EU, We may have preferred the UK
:18:22. > :18:24.to remain in the EU, but life outside as we know can
:18:25. > :18:26.be pretty good. We have negotiated eight free-trade
:18:27. > :18:29.agreements over the last 12 years, including a free-trade agreement
:18:30. > :18:31.with the United States This is one of the reasons why
:18:32. > :18:43.the Australian economy has continued to grow over the last 25 years
:18:44. > :18:46.and we, of course, are not Australia welcomes Theresa May's
:18:47. > :18:56.vision for the UK to become a global We are willing to help
:18:57. > :19:25.in any way we can. Welcome to the programme. The
:19:26. > :19:29.Australian government says it wants to negotiate an important trade deal
:19:30. > :19:35.with the UK as efficiently and promptly as possible when Brexit is
:19:36. > :19:40.complete. How prompt is prompt? There are legal issues obviously.
:19:41. > :19:46.The UK, for as long as it remains in the EU, cannot negotiate individual
:19:47. > :19:51.trade deals. Once it leaves it can. We will negotiate a agreement with
:19:52. > :19:56.the UK when the time is right, by which we mean we can do preliminary
:19:57. > :20:02.examination. Are you talking now about the parameters? We are talking
:20:03. > :20:05.already, we have set up a joint working group with the British
:20:06. > :20:08.Government and we are scoping the issue to try to understand what
:20:09. > :20:15.questions will arise in any negotiation. But we cannot have
:20:16. > :20:21.formally a negotiation. Until the country is out. Why is there no
:20:22. > :20:24.free-trade deal between Australia and the European Union? It is a long
:20:25. > :20:31.and tortuous story. Give me the headline. Basically Australian
:20:32. > :20:37.agriculture is either banned or hugely restricted in terms of its
:20:38. > :20:41.access to the European Union. So we see the European Union, Australia's,
:20:42. > :20:47.is a pretty protectionist sort of organisation. Now we are doing a
:20:48. > :20:50.scoping study on a free-trade agreement with the European Union
:20:51. > :20:55.and we hope that next year we can enter into negotiations with them.
:20:56. > :21:01.But we have no illusions this would be a very difficult negotiation, but
:21:02. > :21:06.one we are giving priority to. Is there not a danger that when Britain
:21:07. > :21:10.leaves the EU the EU will become more protectionist? This country has
:21:11. > :21:15.always been the most powerful voice for free trade. I hope that does not
:21:16. > :21:21.happen, but the reason why we wanted Britain to remain in the European
:21:22. > :21:27.Union is because it brought to the table the whole free-trade mentality
:21:28. > :21:29.which has been an historic part of Britain's approach to international
:21:30. > :21:35.relations. Without the UK in the European Union you will lose that.
:21:36. > :21:38.It is a very loud voice in the European Union and you will lose
:21:39. > :21:44.that voice and that will be a disadvantage. The figure that jumped
:21:45. > :21:47.out of me in the film is it to you only 15 months to negotiate a
:21:48. > :21:52.free-trade deal with the United States. Yes, the thing is it is
:21:53. > :21:58.about political will. A free-trade agreement will be no problem unless
:21:59. > :22:03.you want to protect particular sectors of your economy. In that
:22:04. > :22:08.case there was one sector the Americans insisted on protecting and
:22:09. > :22:12.that was their sugar industry. In the end after 15 months of
:22:13. > :22:17.negotiation two relatively free trading countries have fixed up
:22:18. > :22:21.nearly everything. But we had to ask would be go ahead with this
:22:22. > :22:27.free-trade agreement without sugar west we decided to do that. Other
:22:28. > :22:31.than that it was relatively easy to negotiate because we are both
:22:32. > :22:34.free-trade countries. With the UK you cannot be sure, but I do not
:22:35. > :22:40.think a free-trade agreement would take very long to negotiate with the
:22:41. > :22:45.UK because the UK would not want to put a lot of obstacles in the way to
:22:46. > :22:49.Australia. Not to give away our hand, we would not want to put a lot
:22:50. > :22:55.of obstacles in the way of British exports. The trend in recent years
:22:56. > :23:00.is to do big, regional trade deals, but President-elect Donald Trump has
:23:01. > :23:05.made clear the Pacific trade deal is dead. The transatlantic trade deal
:23:06. > :23:09.is almost dead as well. The American election put a nail in the coffin
:23:10. > :23:14.and the French elections could put another nail in the coffin. Are we
:23:15. > :23:17.returning to a world of lateral trade deals, country with country
:23:18. > :23:25.rather than regional blocs? Not necessarily. In the Asia Pacific we
:23:26. > :23:29.will look at multilateral trade arrangements and even if the
:23:30. > :23:32.transpacific partnership is not ratified by the Americans, we have
:23:33. > :23:38.other options are there. However, our approach has been the ultimate
:23:39. > :23:43.would be free-trade throughout the world which is proving hard to
:23:44. > :23:47.achieve. Secondly, if we can get a lot of countries engaged in a
:23:48. > :23:53.free-trade negotiation, that is pretty good if possible. But it is
:23:54. > :23:58.more difficult. But we do bilateral trade agreements. We have one with
:23:59. > :24:03.China, Japan, the United States, Singapore, and the list goes on, and
:24:04. > :24:11.they have been hugely beneficial to Australia. You have been dealing
:24:12. > :24:15.with the EU free deal, what lessons are there? How quickly do you think
:24:16. > :24:21.Britain could do a free-trade deal with the EU if we leave? Well, there
:24:22. > :24:25.is a completely different concept involved in the case of Britain and
:24:26. > :24:31.the EU and that is at the moment there are no restrictions on trade.
:24:32. > :24:35.So you and the EU would be talking about whether you will direct
:24:36. > :24:40.barriers to trade. We are outsiders and we do not get too much involved
:24:41. > :24:46.in this debate except to say we do not want to see the global trade
:24:47. > :24:50.system disrupted by the direction of tariff barriers between the United
:24:51. > :24:56.Kingdom, the fifth biggest economy in the world, and the European
:24:57. > :25:01.Union. Our expectation is not just the British but the Europeans will
:25:02. > :25:05.try to make the transition to Brexit as smooth as possible particularly
:25:06. > :25:10.commercially. Say yes or no if you can. If Britain and Australia make a
:25:11. > :25:14.free-trade agreement, would that include free movement of the
:25:15. > :25:20.Australian and the British people? We will probably stick with our
:25:21. > :25:24.present non-discriminatory system. Australia does not discriminate
:25:25. > :25:29.against any country. The European Union's free movement means you
:25:30. > :25:33.discriminate against non-Europeans. Probably not.
:25:34. > :25:36.It could lead to a ban on diesel cars, prevent the building
:25:37. > :25:39.of a third runway at Heathrow, and will certainly make it
:25:40. > :25:41.more expensive to drive in our towns and cities.
:25:42. > :25:43.Air pollution has been called the "public health crisis
:25:44. > :25:45.of a generation" - but just how serious is the problem?
:25:46. > :25:59.40,000 early deaths result from air pollution every year in the UK.
:26:00. > :26:06.Almost 10,000 Londoners each year die prematurely.
:26:07. > :26:12.It seems at times we can get caught up in alarming assertions
:26:13. > :26:14.about air pollution, that this is a public health
:26:15. > :26:18.emergency, that it is a silent killer, coming from politicians,
:26:19. > :26:26.But how bad is air quality in Britain really?
:26:27. > :26:30.Tony Frew is a professor in respiratory medicine and works
:26:31. > :26:32.at Brighton's Royal Sussex County Hospital.
:26:33. > :26:34.He has been looking into the recent claims
:26:35. > :26:40.It's a problem and it affects people's health.
:26:41. > :26:42.But when people start talking about the numbers
:26:43. > :26:45.of deaths here, I think they are misusing the statistics.
:26:46. > :26:50.There have been tremendous improvements in air quality
:26:51. > :26:54.There is a lot less pollution than there used to be
:26:55. > :26:58.and none of that is coming through in the public
:26:59. > :27:02.So what does Professor Frew make of the claim that alarming levels
:27:03. > :27:05.of toxicity in the air in the UK causes 40,000 deaths each year?
:27:06. > :27:08.It is not 40,000 people who should have air pollution
:27:09. > :27:10.on their death certificate, or 40,000 people who
:27:11. > :27:15.It's a lot of people who had a little bit of life shortening
:27:16. > :27:21.To examine these figures further we travelled to Cambridge to visit
:27:22. > :27:26.I asked him about the data on which these claims
:27:27. > :27:31.They come from a study on how mortality rates in US cities
:27:32. > :27:38.First of all, it is important to realise that that 40,000 figure
:27:39. > :27:44.29,000, which are due to fine particles, and another 11,000
:27:45. > :27:52.I will just talk about this group for a start.
:27:53. > :27:56.These are what are known as attributable deaths.
:27:57. > :28:00.Known as virtual deaths, they come from a complex statistical model.
:28:01. > :28:03.Quite remarkably it all comes from just one number and this
:28:04. > :28:07.was based on a study of US cities and they found out that
:28:08. > :28:11.by monitoring these cities over decades that the cities which had
:28:12. > :28:17.a higher level of pollution had a higher mortality rate.
:28:18. > :28:23.They estimated that there was a 6% increased risk of dying
:28:24. > :28:28.each year for each small increase in pollution.
:28:29. > :28:31.So this is quite a big figure, but it is important to realise
:28:32. > :28:34.it is only a best estimate and the committee that advises
:28:35. > :28:40.the government says that this figure could be between 1% and 12%.
:28:41. > :28:43.So this 6% figure is used to work out the 29,000
:28:44. > :28:49.Yes, through a rather complex statistical model.
:28:50. > :28:54.And a similar analysis gives rise to the 11,000 attributable deaths
:28:55. > :29:01.How much should we invest in cycling?
:29:02. > :29:04.Should we build a third runway at Heathrow?
:29:05. > :29:07.We need reliable statistics to answer those questions,
:29:08. > :29:12.but can we trust the way data is being used by campaigners?
:29:13. > :29:16.I think there are people who have such a passion for the environment
:29:17. > :29:18.and for air pollution that they don't really
:29:19. > :29:25.see it as a problem if they are deceiving the public.
:29:26. > :29:27.Greenpeace have been running a campaign claiming that breathing
:29:28. > :29:29.London's air is the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day.
:29:30. > :29:35.If you smoke 15 cigarettes a day through your adult life,
:29:36. > :29:37.that will definitely take ten years off your life expectancy.
:29:38. > :29:40.If you are poor and you are in social class five,
:29:41. > :29:42.compared to social class one, that would take seven
:29:43. > :29:47.If you are poor and you smoke, that will take 17 years off your life.
:29:48. > :29:50.Now, we are talking about possibly, if we could get rid of all
:29:51. > :29:53.of the cars in London and all of the road transport,
:29:54. > :29:56.we could make a difference of two micrograms per metre squared in air
:29:57. > :30:01.pollution which might save you 30 days of your life.
:30:02. > :30:04.There is no doubt that air pollution is bad for you,
:30:05. > :30:07.but if we exaggerate the scale of the problem and the impact
:30:08. > :30:10.on our health, are we at risk of undermining the case for making
:30:11. > :30:20.And we are joined now by the Executive Director
:30:21. > :30:39.You have called pollution and national crisis and a health
:30:40. > :30:43.emergency. Around the UK are levels increasing or falling? They are
:30:44. > :30:53.remaining fairly static in London. Nationally? If you look at the
:30:54. > :30:59.studies on where air pollution is measured, in 42 cities around the
:31:00. > :31:03.UK, 38 cities were found to be breaking the legal limit on air
:31:04. > :31:08.pollution so basically all of the cities were breaking the limit so if
:31:09. > :31:11.you think eight out of ten people live in cities, obviously, this is
:31:12. > :31:15.impacting a lot of people around the UK. We have looked at in missions of
:31:16. > :31:25.solvent dioxide, they have fallen and since 1970, nitrogen dioxide is
:31:26. > :31:32.down 69%. Let me show you a chart. There are the nitrogen oxides which
:31:33. > :31:37.we have all been worried about. That chart shows a substantial fall from
:31:38. > :31:41.the 1970s, and then a really steep fall from the 1980s. That is
:31:42. > :31:48.something which is getting better. You have to look at it in the round.
:31:49. > :31:56.If you look at particulates, and if you look at today's understanding of
:31:57. > :32:05.the health impact. Let's look at particulates. We have been really
:32:06. > :32:10.worried about what they have been doing to our abilities to breathe
:32:11. > :32:15.good air, again, you see substantial improvement. Indeed, we are not far
:32:16. > :32:23.from the Gothenberg level which is a very high standard. What you see is
:32:24. > :32:29.it is pretty flat. I see it coming down quite substantially. Over the
:32:30. > :32:32.last decade it is pretty flat. If you look at the World Health
:32:33. > :32:37.Organisation guidelines, actually, these are at serious levels and they
:32:38. > :32:41.need to come down. We know the impact, particularly on children, if
:32:42. > :32:44.you look at what is happening to children and children's lungs, if
:32:45. > :32:50.you look at the impact of asthma and other impacts on children in cities
:32:51. > :32:53.and in schools next to main roads where pollution levels are very
:32:54. > :32:58.high, the impact of very serious. You have many doctors, professors
:32:59. > :33:04.and many studies by London University showing this to be true.
:33:05. > :33:08.The thing is, we do not want pollution. If we can get rid of
:33:09. > :33:13.pollution, let's do it. And also we also have to get rid of CO2 which is
:33:14. > :33:17.causing climate change. We are talking air pollution at the moment.
:33:18. > :33:21.The point is there is not still more to do, it is clear there is and
:33:22. > :33:26.there is no question about that, my question is you seem to deny that we
:33:27. > :33:31.have made any kind of progress and that you also say that air pollution
:33:32. > :33:38.causes 40,000 deaths a year in the UK, that is not true. The figure is
:33:39. > :33:48.40,000 premature deaths is what has been talked about by medical staff.
:33:49. > :33:52.Your website said courses. It causes premature deaths. What we are
:33:53. > :33:57.talking about here is can we solve the problem of air pollution? If air
:33:58. > :34:02.pollution is mainly being caused by diesel vehicles then we need to
:34:03. > :34:05.phase out diesel vehicles. If there are alternatives and clean Turner
:34:06. > :34:09.tips which will give better quality of air, better quality of life and
:34:10. > :34:13.clean up our cities, then why don't we take the chance to do it? You had
:34:14. > :34:20.the Australian High Commissioner on this programme earlier. He said to
:34:21. > :34:26.me earlier, why is your government supporting diesel? That is the most
:34:27. > :34:32.polluting form of transport. That may well be right but I am looking
:34:33. > :34:38.at Greenpeace's claims. You claim it causes 40,000 deaths, it is a figure
:34:39. > :34:43.which regularly appears. Let me quote the committee on the medical
:34:44. > :34:53.effects of air pollutants, it says this calculation, 40,000 which is
:34:54. > :34:56.everywhere in Greenpeace literature, is not an estimate of the number of
:34:57. > :35:00.people whose untimely death is caused entirely by air pollution,
:35:01. > :35:05.but a way of representing the effect across the whole population of air
:35:06. > :35:10.pollution when considered as a contributory factor to many more
:35:11. > :35:20.individual deaths. It is 40,000 premature deaths. It could be
:35:21. > :35:24.premature by a couple of days. It could me by a year. -- it could be
:35:25. > :35:25.by a year. It could also be giving children asthma and breathing
:35:26. > :35:34.difficulties. We are talking about deaths. It could also cause stroke
:35:35. > :35:43.and heart diseases. Medical experts say we need to deal with this. Do
:35:44. > :35:51.you believe air pollution causes 40,000 deaths a year. I have defined
:35:52. > :36:01.that. You accept it does not? It leads to 40,000 premature deaths.
:36:02. > :36:05.But 40,000 people are not killed. You say air pollution causes 40,000
:36:06. > :36:10.deaths each year on your website. I have just explained what I mean by
:36:11. > :36:14.that in terms of premature deaths. The question is, are we going to do
:36:15. > :36:19.something about that? Air pollution is a serious problem. It is mainly
:36:20. > :36:23.caused by diesel. If we phased diesel out it will solve the problem
:36:24. > :36:28.of air pollution and deal with the wider problem of climate change. I
:36:29. > :36:36.am not talking about climate change this morning. Let's link to another
:36:37. > :36:41.claim... Do you want to live in a clean city? Do you want to breathe
:36:42. > :36:47.clean air? Yes, don't generalise. Let's stick to your claims. You have
:36:48. > :36:51.also said living in London on your life is equivalent to smoking 50
:36:52. > :36:58.cigarettes a day. That is not true either. What I would say is if you
:36:59. > :37:01.look at passive smoking, it is the equivalent of I don't know what the
:37:02. > :37:04.actual figure is, I can't remember offhand, but it is the equivalent
:37:05. > :37:11.effect of about ten cigarettes being smoked passively. The question is in
:37:12. > :37:16.terms of, you are just throwing me out all of these things... I am
:37:17. > :37:20.throwing things that Greenpeace have claimed. Greenpeace have claimed
:37:21. > :37:25.that living in London is equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes a day and
:37:26. > :37:28.that takes ten years off your life. Professor Froome made it clear to us
:37:29. > :37:32.that living in London your whole life with levels of pollution does
:37:33. > :37:37.take time off your life but it takes nine months of your life. Nine
:37:38. > :37:41.months is still too much, I understand that, but it is not ten
:37:42. > :37:45.years and that is what you claim. I would suggest you realise that is a
:37:46. > :37:50.piece of propaganda because you claim on the website, you have taken
:37:51. > :37:53.it down. I agree it has been corrected and I agree with what the
:37:54. > :37:59.professor said that maybe it takes up to a year off your life, but the
:38:00. > :38:03.thing is, there are much more wider issues as well, in terms of the
:38:04. > :38:09.impact on air pollution, and in terms of the impact on young
:38:10. > :38:13.children. We can argue about the facts... But these are your claims,
:38:14. > :38:18.this is why I am hitting it to you. It does not get away from the
:38:19. > :38:22.underlying issue that air pollution is a serious problem. We are not
:38:23. > :38:27.arguing for a moment that it is not. Do you think the way you exaggerate
:38:28. > :38:32.things, put false claims, in the end, for of course we all agree
:38:33. > :38:38.with, getting the best air we can, you undermine your credibility? I
:38:39. > :38:41.absolutely do not support false claims and if mistakes have been
:38:42. > :38:46.made then mistakes have been made and they will be corrected. I think
:38:47. > :38:50.the key issue is how we are going to deal with air pollution. Clearly,
:38:51. > :38:57.diesel is the biggest problem and we need to work out a way how we can
:38:58. > :39:00.get away from diesel as quickly and fast as possible. Comeback and see
:39:01. > :39:02.us in the New Year and we will discuss diesel. Thank you.
:39:03. > :39:05.It's just gone 11.35, you're watching the Sunday Politics.
:39:06. > :02:08.We say goodbye to viewers in Scotland who leave us now
:02:09. > :02:22.Will Article 50 be triggered by the end of March,
:02:23. > :02:25.will President Trump start work on his wall and will
:02:26. > :02:30.Front National's Marine Le Pen provide the next electoral shock?
:02:31. > :02:52.2016, the Brexit for Britain and Trump for the rest of the world.
:02:53. > :02:56.Let's look back and see what one of you said about Brexit.
:02:57. > :02:59.If Mr Cameron loses the referendum and it is this year,
:03:00. > :03:02.will he be Prime Minister at the end of the year?
:03:03. > :03:08.I don't think he will lose the referendum, so I'm feeling
:03:09. > :03:17.It was clear if he did lose the referendum he would be out. I would
:03:18. > :03:22.like to say in retrospect I saw that coming on a long and I was just
:03:23. > :03:28.saying it to make good television! It is Christmas so I will be benign
:03:29. > :03:34.towards my panel! It is possible, Iain, that not much happens to
:03:35. > :03:37.Brexit in 2017, because we have a host of elections coming up in
:03:38. > :03:40.Europe, the French won in the spring and the German one in the autumn
:03:41. > :03:45.will be the most important. And until we know who the next French
:03:46. > :03:51.president is and what condition Mrs Merkel will be in, not much will
:03:52. > :03:56.happen? I think that is the likeliest outcome. Short of some
:03:57. > :04:03.constitutional crisis involving the Lords relating to Brexit, it is
:04:04. > :04:07.pretty clear it is difficult to properly begin the negotiations
:04:08. > :04:11.until it becomes clear who Britain is negotiating with. It will come
:04:12. > :04:14.down to the result of the German election. Germany is the biggest
:04:15. > :04:19.contributor and if they keep power in what is left of the European
:04:20. > :04:25.Union, will drive the negotiation and we will have to see if it will
:04:26. > :04:30.be Merkel. So this vacuum that has been seen and has been filled by
:04:31. > :04:33.people less than friendly to the government, even when we know
:04:34. > :04:38.Article 50 has been triggered and even if there is some sort of white
:04:39. > :04:43.paper to give us a better idea of the broad strategic outlines of what
:04:44. > :04:50.they mean by Brexit, the phoney war could continue? Iain is right. 2017
:04:51. > :04:57.is going to be a remarkably dull year for Brexit as opposed to 2016.
:04:58. > :05:02.We will have the article and a plan. The plan will say I would like the
:05:03. > :05:06.moon on a stick please. The EU will say you can have a tiny bit of moon
:05:07. > :05:12.and a tiny bit of stick and there will be an impasse. That will go on
:05:13. > :05:18.until one minute to midnight 2018 which is when the EU will act. There
:05:19. > :05:23.is one thing in the Foreign Office which is more important, as David
:05:24. > :05:26.Davis Department told me, they know there is nothing they can do until
:05:27. > :05:31.the French and Germans have their elections and they know the lie of
:05:32. > :05:35.the land, but the people who will be more helpful to us are in Eastern
:05:36. > :05:39.Europe and in Scandinavia, the Nordic countries. We can do quite a
:05:40. > :05:44.lot of schmoozing to try and get them broadly on side this year? It
:05:45. > :05:48.is very difficult because one of the things they care most about in
:05:49. > :05:53.Eastern Europe is the ability for Eastern European stew come and work
:05:54. > :05:57.in the UK. That is key to the economic prospects. But what they
:05:58. > :06:02.care most about is that those already here should not be under any
:06:03. > :06:08.pressure to leave. There is no guarantee of that. That is what Mrs
:06:09. > :06:12.May wants. There are a lot of things Mrs May wants and the story of 2017
:06:13. > :06:17.will be about what she gets. How much have we got to give people? It
:06:18. > :06:23.is not what we want, but what we are willing to give. The interesting
:06:24. > :06:26.thing is you can divide this out into two. There is a question of the
:06:27. > :06:34.European Union and our relationship with it but there is also the trick
:06:35. > :06:39.the polls did to London -- there is also the polls. There is question
:06:40. > :06:43.beyond the Western European security, that is about Nato and
:06:44. > :06:50.intelligence and security, and the rising Russian threat. That does not
:06:51. > :06:54.mean the Polish people will persuade everyone else to give us a lovely
:06:55. > :06:59.deal on the EU, but the dynamic is bigger than just a chat about
:07:00. > :07:02.Brexit. You cannot threaten a punishment beating for us if we are
:07:03. > :07:07.putting our soldiers on the line on the eastern borders of Europe. I
:07:08. > :07:12.think that's where Donald Trump changes the calculation because his
:07:13. > :07:20.attitude towards Russia is very different to Barack Obama's. It is
:07:21. > :07:24.indeed. Mentioning Russia, Brexit was a global story but nothing can
:07:25. > :07:29.match and American election and even one which gives Donald Trump as
:07:30. > :07:32.well. Let's have a look at what this panel was saying about Donald Trump.
:07:33. > :07:34.Will Donald Trump win the Republican nomination next year.
:07:35. > :07:47.So, not only did you think he would not be president, you did not think
:07:48. > :07:52.he would win the Republican nomination. We were not alone in
:07:53. > :07:57.that. And they're right put forward a motion to abolish punditry here
:07:58. > :08:02.now because clearly we are pointless! There is enough
:08:03. > :08:07.unemployment in the world already! We are moving into huge and charted
:08:08. > :08:11.territory with Donald Trump as president. It is incredibly
:08:12. > :08:18.unpredictable. But what has not been noticed enough is the Keynesian won.
:08:19. > :08:25.Trump is a Keynesian. He wants massive infrastructure spending and
:08:26. > :08:30.massive tax cuts. The big story next year will be the massive reflation
:08:31. > :08:36.of the American economy and indeed the US Federal reserve has already
:08:37. > :08:42.reacted to that by putting up interest rates. That is why he has a
:08:43. > :08:45.big fight with the rest of the Republican Party. He is nominally a
:08:46. > :08:51.Republican but they are not Keynesian. They are when it comes to
:08:52. > :08:55.tax cuts. They are when it hits the rich to benefit the poor. The big
:08:56. > :08:59.thing is whether the infrastructure projects land him in crony trouble.
:09:00. > :09:04.The transparency around who gets those will be extremely difficult.
:09:05. > :09:09.Most of the infrastructure spending he thinks can be done by the private
:09:10. > :09:16.sector and not the federal government. His tax cuts overlap the
:09:17. > :09:21.Republican house tax cuts speaker Ryan to give not all, but a fair
:09:22. > :09:25.chunk of what he wants. If the American economy is going to reflate
:09:26. > :09:30.next year, interest rates will rise in America, that will strengthen the
:09:31. > :09:35.dollar and it will mean that Europe will be, it will find it more
:09:36. > :09:38.difficult to finance its sovereign debt because you will get more money
:09:39. > :09:45.by investing in American sovereign debt. That is a good point because
:09:46. > :09:50.the dynamics will shift. If that happens, Trump will be pretty
:09:51. > :09:56.popular in the US. To begin with. To begin with. It is energy
:09:57. > :10:02.self-sufficient and if you can pull off the biggest trick in American
:10:03. > :10:07.politics which is somehow to via corporation tax cuts to allow the
:10:08. > :10:11.reassuring of wealth, because it is too expensive for American business
:10:12. > :10:14.to take back into the US and reinvest, if you combine all of
:10:15. > :10:21.those things together, you will end up with a boom on a scale you have
:10:22. > :10:26.not seen. It will be Reagan on steroids? What could possibly go
:10:27. > :10:31.wrong? In the short term for Britain, it is probably not bad
:10:32. > :10:35.news. Our biggest market for exports as a country is the United States.
:10:36. > :10:39.Our biggest market for foreign direct investment is the United
:10:40. > :10:43.States and the same is true vice versa for America in Britain. Given
:10:44. > :10:47.the pound is now competitive and likely the dollar will get stronger,
:10:48. > :10:53.it could well give a boost to the British economy? Could do bit you
:10:54. > :10:58.have to be slightly cautious about the warm language we are getting
:10:59. > :11:03.which is great news out of President Trump's future cabinet on doing a
:11:04. > :11:06.trade deal early, we are net exporters to the US. We benefit far
:11:07. > :11:11.more from trading with US than they do with us. I think we have to come
:11:12. > :11:17.up with something to offer the US for them to jump into bed with us. I
:11:18. > :11:27.think it is called two new aircraft carriers and modernising the fleet.
:11:28. > :11:31.Bring it on. I will raise caution, people in declining industries in
:11:32. > :11:35.some places in America, the rust belt who have faced big profound
:11:36. > :11:40.structural challenges and those are much harder to reverse. They face
:11:41. > :11:46.real problems now because the dollar is so strong. Their ability to
:11:47. > :11:49.export has taken a huge hit out of Ohio, Michigan and Illinois. And the
:11:50. > :11:56.Mexican imports into America is now dirt cheap so that is a major
:11:57. > :12:04.problem. Next year we have elections in Austria, France, the Netherlands,
:12:05. > :12:09.Germany, probably Italy. Which outcome will be the most dramatic
:12:10. > :12:17.for Brexit? If Merkel lost it would be a huge surprise. That is
:12:18. > :12:25.unlikely. And if it was not Filon in France that would be unlikely. The
:12:26. > :12:28.consensus it it will be Francois Filon against Marine Le Pen and it
:12:29. > :12:38.will be uniting around the far right candidate. In 2002, that is what
:12:39. > :12:49.happened. Filon is a Thatcherite. Marine Le Pen's politics --
:12:50. > :12:53.economics are hard left. Francois Filon is as much a cert to win as
:12:54. > :12:59.Hillary Clinton was this time last year. If he is competing against
:13:00. > :13:07.concerns about rising globalisation and his pitch is Thatcherite, it is
:13:08. > :13:13.a bold, brave strategy in the context so we will see. It will keep
:13:14. > :13:21.us busy next year, Tom? Almost as busy as this year but not quite.
:13:22. > :13:24.This year was a record year. I am up in my hours!
:13:25. > :13:26.That's all for today, thanks to all my guests.
:13:27. > :13:29.The Daily Politics will be back on BBC Two at noon tomorrow.
:13:30. > :13:31.I'll be back here on the 15th January.
:13:32. > :13:34.Remember, if it's Sunday, it's the Sunday Politics.
:13:35. > :14:16.The most a writer can hope from a reader