11/09/2016 The Andrew Marr Show

Political leaders don't get much of a honeymoon.

Theresa May has barely got her feet under the desk and she finds

Liam Fox mouthing off about fat and flabby business,

a juicy row splitting the Tories over grammar schools, and chilly

rebukes from the Japanese and Americans over Brexit.

Amber Rudd, Home Secretary and enthusiastic Remainer,

is now tasked with crunching immigration numbers

And Owen Smith - is this man really more electable

as a future prime minister than Jeremy Corbyn?

I've also been talking to the man who led

the BBC during its most troubled, scandal-hit years.

Mark Thompson, now running the New York Times, warns

the Government against politicising broadcasters.

Here to play us out, the cult Scottish rock band

Teenage Fanclub, back after a six year break.

I know what I'm feeling # I can't show it

# At these feelings don't go away #. Among our paper

reviewers this morning, two feisty columnists -

Peter Hitchens from the Mail on Sunday and

the Guardian's Polly Toynbee. Plus Gisela Stuart, a leading Labour

light in the Leave campaign. All that after the news, read this

morning by Maxine Mawhinney. Health service leaders in England

are warning that the cash crisis The chief executive of NHS

Providers, Chris Hopson, writes in the Observer newspaper

that the health service can no longer deliver what's being asked

of it with the money available. But the Department of Health says it

has provided the NHS in England with the funding it requested,

as Steven Godden reports. It's been a week that's

highlighted the difficulties Figures that showed record levels

of delayed discharge and a continuing trend of missed

targets on waiting times Now the body representing hospitals

is warning that the service has reached tipping point due

to a lack of funding. The language from NHS Providers

is stark, describing balancing the books while maintaining

standards for patients Comparing past with present,

they say that three years ago 5% Within the same time frame,

they say the percentage of hospitals missing A waiting time targets has

jumped from 10% to 90%. The organisation say

many of its members, chief executives of hospitals,

mental health trusts and other NHS services,

want to sound a warning bell that they cannot maintain standards

on the money they're getting. But the Department of Health say

it's giving the NHS in England the ?10 million it asked

for to plan its own future. In return, it says it

rightly expects patients More than 100 people

are reported to have been killed by intense air strikes in Syria,

shortly before a ceasefire Opposition activists

say dozens were killed Fighting is due to

stop tomorrow night. The Labour Party has suspended

a prominent donor who likened Jeremy Corbyn's leadership team

to Hitler's stormtroopers. Michael Foster made the comparison

in a Sunday paper last month, after failing to stop Mr Corbyn

from being allowed to stand Mr Foster said the Mail on Sunday

had added the word Investigations have begun

into the death of a parachutist, who crash-landed on a parked

car on a housing estate The woman's chute failed to open

fully and she became tangled Police say the

49-year-old had jumped Durham Police, the Health

and Safety Executive and the British Parachute

Association will investigate. Fire-fighters in New York have been

marking the 15-year anniversary of the September the 11th terrorist

attacks at a memorial service. 343 firefighters were

among the 3,000 killed when suicide bombers hijacked

four passenger jets. Hundreds of family members listened

as the firefighters' If you look at the papers, it is

very clear that the political season has started again properly. We are

going to talk to Chris Hopson, the NHS board behind this story. A few

stories about the Paralympics and grammar schools. Grammar schools the

splash in the Sunday Times. But HS2 is in trouble again. Its boss has

just quit it is spiralling out of control, many people think, in terms

of funding, so that is a challenge for Theresa May. The Keith Vaz story

on the front page as well, and the Keith Vaz story all over the Mail on

Sunday. His wife has given an interview. I forgive the betrayal,

she says. And the Sunday Mirror... There are many other stories in the

Sunday papers which we will cover but we are going to start with

grammar schools because this is the story running through every single

paper, virtually. There was a column by a certain Peter Hitchens on the

subject in the Mail on Sunday. Rejoicing over the extraordinary

fact that Mrs May has copied me. I enjoyed her using my long tried

slogan that we already have school selection in this country, but by

house price, something I have been saying for as long as I can

remember, which demolishes the argument that selection will be

reintroduced if you bring grammar schools back. You think it filters

its way into the prime minister's subconscious? Somehow or other. I

never thought she'd do it. I see the hand of Nick Timothy, her adviser,

in this, who was a grammar school man. This is going to be a really

big event in terms of education. The Sunday Times is a big splash. They

have, and they say that councils are beginning to draw up plans for

grammar schools, which I very much hope they do, and this will be the

test of whether people can actually open new selective schools in large

numbers and whether they can be made to succeed in the Britain of today.

I think it is very possible but it is going to be a fight because there

are an awful lot of people with very strong interests who are opposed to

it. And there is a big division in the Tory party. Polly Toynbee, you

must be pretty dismayed by this. Peter is the great Guru of bringing

back the 50s, so I'm not surprised you're in heaven over this, but what

is really important about the British education system is that the

top after is pretty darn well and has done better and better. The

problem is in the bottom half and bringing back grammar schools does

nothing about the tail end problem, particularly the bottom 20%. Is this

what the Observer story refers to? The head of the private schools

association is saying that it is going to be a huge boost for private

schools because what happens is, when you have segregation those

middle-class children who don't get into grammar schools don't want to

go to secondary moderns, so there is a big boost in sending them to

private schools. There is also a big boost in primary private schools, so

the people get tuition. That is the most extraordinary nonsense. The

complete remaking of the private schools in this country, many of

which were on their way to extinction in the early 1960s, was

the closing of grammar schools. That's not true. I was privately

educated, under the big surge of interest. In recent years... In

Germany, where they've never got rid of selective state schools, there

are practically no... Because of the increasing success, under both

Labour and the Tories, the better results for state schools against

conferences, the proportion going to private school... You were educated

in Germany. Private schools never got anywhere in Germany because if

you went to a private school in Germany, your parents were very rich

and you were so not with it that you couldn't even hack it in the state

sector, so what you got to do is a different culture. I'm a burning MP,

where the King Edward foundation schools remain a complete

combination of some fee-paying, some non-free paying. They've now got

some 25 the of their intake on free school meals, they are opening

university teaching schools, and the real problem, as Jeremy Corbyn says

this article, is that we need to address investing in the children

and making education at all levels accessible. The West Midlands has a

shortage of 45,000 primary school places. Why pick an ideological

argument at this stage which, to me, does not address the problems on the

ground, and that is because of not enough teacher training. Our

national failure has largely been as a result of the collapse of good

secondary education in the state system and if we don't address, it

will get worse. Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, attacked the

policy straightaway, saying it was weird. Is there a real division in

the Tory party? Most of them couldn't care less. Many of them are

privately educated and many of them know little about education. The

truth is, nobody in the British education system benefited from the

grammar schools being destroyed. The people who were in them suffered,

the people in secondary moderns didn't do substantially better. Tell

us about the politics of this. We thought that Theresa May was a safe

pair of hands. She's done something remarkably reckless with a grammar

school policy. I've warmed to her all the more! We have to stop

grammar schools now and get the other stories don't. The NHS story

is really important. This is very important because you have a very

senior figure, you're speaking to Chris Hopson, who represents the

main hospital providers, saying they can't continue like this. 80% of

them in deep debt and being told they've got to bring those debts

down and the funding is going to drop very severely in the two years

before the next election. The public needs to know this, that either we

need to ration services or we'd eater much lower quality of

standard. It is time for people to realise that we can't keep going

like this. It needs more money. The NHS has never had as low a level of

funding in terms of an increase each year. Some people will say that

every year the NHS says there a crisis and, actually, life goes on.

This is a pre-Autumn Statement piece of financial flag-waving and we

shouldn't take too seriously. The Treasury must be very alarmed that

technically the Department of Health lost its budget, which is almost

unique, this year. It would bust it hugely next year unless they get

more money. I think it is not just shroud waving. It is remarkable the

NHS has done as well as it has with the funding it has had. After all,

Gisela, the NHS is about to get ?350 million a week more as we leave the

EU. First of all, we have to leave the EU and until and unless we do,

we can make none of these decisions. At once that happens, that money can

go to the NHS? I was a health minister in the Blair government and

I know that it makes a real difference but you also need to have

some structural change in terms of social care because... Versus story

in the Observer paper suggesting that people like you have abandoned

this pledge. What we came onto the change Britain organisation, we were

a cross-party group that said we want to leave the EU, which would

give us the right to make choices and priorities and for me, the

priorities was the NHS and you need to be able to implement that. The

Tories who stood in front of ?350 million promise won't deliver on a?

First of all we've got to leave and then we can make the decision and,

to many of us, the priority is the NHS. Iain Duncan Smith and a whole

bunch of people straight after Brexit said, or we never really

meant it. That big loss you stood in front of, people believed there was

going to be 350 million more. The cue stick 350 miles long and that

was said during the campaign. People don't always tell the truth in

campaigns. We have a Mail on Sunday campaign about Boris Johnson, who is

backing this new group featuring Gisela. That are supposedly trying

to push misses me towards a higher Brexit, rather than the very soft

one people suspect she wants. -- push Theresa May towards. There is a

big problem here, which the French must have noticed by now, that we

can't make our minds at what we want. The problem with the story is

that Boris Johnson's actual words aren't terribly striking or

hard-core or inflammatory or indeed anything. A resource that problem

with Boris Johnson. You analyse what he says, rather than what he appears

to be. You had David Davis for the first time standing up in front of

the dispatch box, in charge of these negotiations, saying it was most

improbable we would stay in the single market and Number Ten had to

slap him down, saying it is a personal view. What minister has a

personal view from the dispatch box? The chaos... We've got Liam Fox, as

well, rubbishing British business, yet he's meant to be representing

them. For the first time in our national history, we have a

government which does not believe in its principal policy and this is

going to cause endless acrobatics. Is that why we now have, this

morning, a new organisation? We do, it is in the Sun. An article,

the essences, were you a Remainer or were you a Leaver? The British

people have decided to leave... Hold their feet to the fire, is that the

purpose? Both things, to remind people what the referendum was

about. More importantly I'm probably one of the few to have negotiated

with Whitehall giving the Constitution and even when you have

politically agreed it becomes technically very complex. I think we

need to bring together the ideas, make sure it gets implemented but

above all the referendum showed some real divisions in this country. It

really flagged them up. And for the Labour Party to be able to respond

to all these areas that voted to leave, I think we need to come

together and work on their interest... There is are those of

us, the 48%, want to stay as close as possible to Europe, and your lot,

Boris's lot who want a hard exit. The bad losers party will do

everything it can to stop this from happening and it may well succeed.

Listen to Polly, she may well be, I'm afraid, the voice of the future!

There's a moment on the so far! I want to look at two other stories...

We as politicians have a responsibility to bring people

together, not complain about divisions. You just said, launching

a more decisive group. If you don't mind, two more stories. Liam Fox

said, fat and flabby British business. Maybe he was right. There

is a politically correct kind of sense of outrage that everyone is

expressing. I'm not in any position to call anyone else fat and flabby!

Nor am I. Imagine you are going around the world trying to get good

deals and you say, Frankie our business people are rubbish. That's

not a good start. The final story, Peter, Christmas is threatened, we

are told. There seem to be two better stories underneath this, the

Cabinet split and ahead of the HS two departs. I dislike political

correct is as the next man but I don't feel that Christmas is in any

danger at the moment. Thank you all very much. A fascinating review. We

got through the main stories and least! -- at least.

An autumn of crisis looms for the health service,

The warnings are coming from the group representing leaders

Their chief executive Chris Hopson joins me now.

Chris, is this not the usual financial shroud waving before an

ordnance statement, the NHS somehow always muddle through. Think there

are three different things this time. If you look at the performance

statistics, despite the incredibly hard work of the stuff we are under

the greatest pressure we have been for a generation. And we are

struggling to make the money work this year and yet it is an increase

of 3.8%. Next year it will go down to 1.4 and the year after, 0.3, the

year after that 0.7. And NHS cost and demand goes up by 4% aegis we've

got a huge gap coming. And it's not as saying it, it's the chief

executives on the front line of community ambulance trusts and

mental health services who say they cannot make this add up any longer.

So either the NHS gets new money either through taxes or a new levy

or you will have to cut and Russian services. What kind of things should

be rationed? I think we already know the answer, we have already seen in

the next few months, the beginnings and these choices that need to be

made so we have a clinical commissioning group in the

north-west that effectively said it needed to post them all nonurgent

operations for four months. Another crackdown on people who smoke or

people who are obese? The example I was going to give you. We can also

give examples from our side of the House, Hospital trusts are having to

close services and we also have trusts who say the only way to make

the money add up is to cut the workforce. All things done by other

public services, it's really different than the NHS... People

should be aware that it's about to happen in the NHS. This is why we

just made it clear and unequivocal statement from the front line, the

people responsible every day for overseeing safe delivery of care,

what they say very clearly is they can't provide the right quality of

care and meet the performance standards on the money that is

available and something will have to give. We need to have a proper

debate about what should give rather than pretending the gap does not

exist or leaving it to each individual area to decide what

should give. And unusual point in the history of the NHS as there is a

new policy for the NHS, it should go seven days. Can I ask, given the

money you have, is this seven-day NHS deliverable? Think Jeremy Hunt

and others have made a strong case for it but it is not possible to

deliver it on the current level of staff and money we have. If

something has to give at the moment, and we are doing what we can, it

cannot cover important new policies like seven-day services. If that did

not happen would the Junius doctor strike go away? It is interesting.

If you ask the junior doctors why they are so angry it's because of

the pressure they are under. The reason they are under pressure is

because we cannot provide the quality of service and meet the

standards on the money we have available. Less than one year ago

after the last settlement you said that the ?10 billion up front that

Jeremy Hunt and Simon Stevens had negotiated was a great success. You

suggested that the NHS could go forward so why, less than one year

later, do you say you are on a cliff edge? We're not saying we are on a

cliff edge, we say that we always see a long-term decline in the NHS

and we want to warn about it. It was glass half full, glass half empty,

if you look to other public services the NHS did better than that and did

so because of the case we made but we were clear that it would never be

enough. So, no seven-day NHS plus more money from general taxation, is

that what you want? We don't want to make it sound as if we are not

meeting our responsibilities. All our chief executives know they have

to deliver stretching service tigers and stretching productivity, they

are signed up to that, what they are not signed up to is being asked to

deliver the impossible and being chastised when they inevitably fall

short. Ministers would say it's not the amount of money going in, it's

the mismanagement, especially of work by agency workers when the

bills drop it in another country. If we just had 5% of hospitals in

deficit or missing their A E target it might be argued that some

managers were not different. But when you have 94% of hospitals

missing the A standard and of 80% in financial deficit that is clearly

a system problem. Not a problem of bad management. And those in NHS

leadership, some would like to pretend that this is all do to front

line incompetence, fantastic staff, lions led by donkeys! It is not as

simple as that. It really is. Thank you for joining us. -- it very

rarely is. Yesterday, it was pretty nice

in Scotland and much of the North That's supposed to change this

coming week, with rumours of a late heatwave - though whether that means

actual blue skies or simply hot Nick Miller in the weather

studio will elucidate. You're right, Andrew, it will be

unusually hot for the time of year this week, they will be sunshine to

go with that, today we have lost the grim down south and for much of the

UK it will stay dry to the day with further sunny spells, looking good

on the start line of the great North run, the runners will appreciate

some patchy cloud and the sun will disappear behind it occasionally

although it will move up a view more degrees from now. We will lose early

mist and fog we've had across southern and eastern England in

particular and apart from one isolated to show the day looks dry.

This is the way it looks at 4pm today. The one spots in south-east

England reaching 21 Celsius, maybe 22, wherever you are, -- the warm

spots. It will feel pleasant. A strengthening southerly wind of

western Britain into Northern Ireland, western Scotland into the

Western Isles, you can see a weather system close by which will move in

this evening with heavy rain and severe gales. Tomorrow we will see

the threat of outbreaks of rain for western parts of Scotland and

Northern Ireland, elsewhere, the sunshine is hazy, turning warmer,

temperatures rising and by some places could see 31 Celsius. That

would be the first time we'd have seen that in the UK in over 40

years! Thank you. Tomorrow, it will be a year

exactly since Jeremy Corbyn Mr Corbyn remains the favourite

to be re-elected in two weeks' time unless one man, my next

guest, can stop him. Owen Smith, why did Labour lose the

last election? Because we were not seen by the country as a credible

alternative to the Tories. We were telling a sensible clear story, we

were not having a sensible clear story on the economy and other

things and that's what we've got to become again. Yet you are suggesting

more expenditure, you're not attacking sharply to the left? I'm

not saying we need higher tax rates for ordinary basic rate payers, I

would give them a tax break by cutting back on the pension tax

relief but what I have said is that the wealthiest 1% in this country

ought to pay a little bit more to the introduction of a wealth tax.

The 50p rate, yes... That's for the 1%, people earning over ?150,000

ago. Not ordinary taxpayers. ?3 billion for the 50p tax rate and a

further ?3 billion for the wealth tax. Enough to cover you huge

expanse in public spending? ?200 billion is a vast amount. The ?200

billion is borrowing. At a point when interest rates are lower than

they have been for 300 years I think it

is right for us to borrow. The Tories agree because in their recent

leadership contest several proposed what I am proposing. Less generous,

?100 billion of borrowing through issuing what they called long dated

government kilts and no economist in the country has disagreed with me

about that. The IMF disagrees with you about how much the 50p tax rate

would raise, they say it is a much smaller amount. And these big taxes,

unless they savage and bite on people's property and pensions and

stock market chairs and so forth do not tend to raise the money people

expect. We argued about this at the time, didn't we? Looking back, it is

clear that people did take money earlier or defer payment and we

would have got ?3 billion more if we had kept that tax rate at 50%. We

argued about this, I argued as Shadow Exchequer Secretary at the

time and most people agreed we would get ?3 billion a year extra, all the

tax I'd mention would allow me to spend extra money on the NHS over

the spending period. In terms of the Labour election it sounds like

rivers Dutch auction where you saying ?200 billion and John

McDonnell says no, ?500 billion if much higher public spending is the

answer to the problems. Why is he right and you are wrong? That's the

difference between me and Jeremy and John, credibility is the problem. I

have said explicitly how we would raise the money no economist in the

country has disagreed with me about this. We do it all the time. John

McDonnell says he wants to raise 500 billion and will do throughout

through increasing the productivity and the economy and getting tax

avoidance done? Tax avoidance will raise maybe ?30 billion if we are

lucky and John is talking about increasing productivity to half a

trillion over a five-year period, incredible. We've got to understand

numbers and I don't think John does sometimes. Another area where you

differ from Jeremy Corbyn, your attitude to Brexit. I don't

understand what you are saying, you think the British should have

another chance to think about it possibly at a general election? My

theory is simple. We don't instantly need a second referendum, we need to

reach the point where we know what Brexit means. We've been debating

this morning. Theresa May says Brexit means Brexit, I suspect in

its worst terms and conditions and will be opening up the NHS... With

respect you can do nothing about it. Next Article 50 will be triggered,

the Prime Minister has been clear about it on this program- next year,

and she has no plans for an election until 2020. If it is triggered next

year we will leave in 2019. If you were elected as Labour Prime

Minister in the next election it would all be over, what would you

do? If she were to trigger article 50

before the public knows what the Brexit dealers, that would be a

dereliction of duty on her part. She's already negotiating with the

USA, Australia, Japan, about trade deals. She's already thinking, I'm

sure, about what sort of changes to works' right-centre on condition she

will want to impose. It is being said she will finish that's

revolution. Once we know what the deal is, that is the point at which

we have an extra democratic moment in Britain and I would go into a

general election with Labour arguing we should stay in because the terms

of the deal are not what was promised to the British public. It

is overwhelmingly likely that she does what she says she's going to do

and trigger article 50 next year. At which point, it is finished.

Negotiations start, we even 2019. You become Labour prime minister in

2020, perhaps, and then what do you do? Apply for Britain to rejoin the

EU or shrug your shoulders and say it's all over? It is hard to answer

because it is hypothetical. At that point if we'd gone into a further

recession, if we had the prospect of another ten years of Tory austerity,

if they were saying the price for our staying out is opening up the

NHS to private sector competition, worse terms and conditions, more

flexibility, less red tape, as the Tories would no doubt the bit --

daub it, but I think the responsible thing for a Labour government to do

would be to say, we are better off in the European Union? Reapply?

Hypothetically. The trouble with reapplying is it would take a long

time and we would have to accept the euro and Schengen. Potentially but

we're getting into hypothetical is built on hypothetical. They've not

said definitively... A couple of weeks ago there were -- they were

briefing might be 2019 before they trigger article 50. The likelihood

is you would become prime minister in a situation where we had already

left the EU and you would say that in your view a sensible thing might

be to reapply for membership? Depending on what it looks like. I'm

an internationalist and a collaborator and cooperated. I want

Britain to be part of the European Union. If it is a Labour and

reapply, what does that say for all those Labour Party people who voted

to leave the EU? There has been a survey done by an academic that

suggests that something like seven out of ten Labour constituencies

probably voted to leave, and in massive numbers, in the north-east

of England and the Midlands. They will look at Owen Smith and say,

hold on, he is ignoring what we chose to do, he is not taking this

seriously, and that makes him less electable than, for instance, Jeremy

Corbyn. Again, it depends when this happens because if we've got into a

further recession, if the NHS is on its knees, as it is right now, if

we've got the prospect of more Tory austerity, I think we will be

telling a very different story to the British people and I think

people in those northern cities don't want more reductions in their

livelihoods. They want to see investment in their communities and

Labour, at some point in the future, may make a really strong case to

stay in the EU. Your fundamental pictures that Jeremy Corbyn is less

electable than Owen Smith. What possible evidence do you have of

that? -- fundamental pitch is. He has been addressing huge crowds on

country, at rallies, people go to get selfies for him. I was quite

interested by seeing some of the Facebook pages saying that they

can't the BBC by saying they were Owen Smith fans, only to turn up and

support Jeremy. You can't mistake mass movement... 300,000 people have

joined the Labour Party since he became leader. It is the biggest

party in Europe and that is all his achievement. Doesn't it show he has

mass appeal? He has mass appeal to a small section of the electorate. The

reality is that 12 million people are what we need in the Labour

movement voting Labour in Tory seats and Labour Seat. I don't think

Jeremy can bring that along. If you look at the polls and how I appeal

to a much broader cross-section of society, because of the extra

credibility that I think I can bring to this. I suggest I'm in a better

position to win those votes. Final question, on a scale of one to ten,

how likely are you to win? Ten, absolutely. Never answer 7.5. Always

say ten. Thank you very much indeed. Mark Thompson's time

as Director-General of the BBC coincided with some

of the corporation's most turbulent and troubling times,

the worst of which was, of course, After eight years at the top

of the BBC, Thompson was appointed CEO of the New York Times and has

been living in the US ever since. He was back in London recently

and he came in to discuss his In it, Mark Thompson claims that

language is central to everything that's going wrong

in modern politics. It's my view that although there

never was a Garden of Eden, there was never a perfect moment,

but a number of things have happened - essentially

disruption in politics, the break-up of the monopoly

of the big parties. Disruption of media,

the accelerating effects of media, and the accelerating effect

of digital, social All of these things taken together,

I think, are producing something So it's basically short soundbites,

language that is too crude, too aggressive, stopping people

watching and the rest of us from thinking properly about the big

political issues ahead of us? I think also the way

in which we're struggling now to figure out the authority

which expertise brings. This country has had enough

of experts, Michael Gove told us. I thought Michael Gove's statement

was very telling, that people have Modern government is built

on technocracy, it is built on expertise, and it's

a very big step to say, though I'm sure Gove

is onto something, that many people have simply stopped

listening to experts. On the one hand we had

the Prime Minister saying that leaving the EU would put a bomb

under the economy and the Chancellor saying that we'd have an austerity

budget and a very, very tough time to come, really it was going to be

the plagues of Egypt visited on Britain if we dared to leave

the EU, and on the other side we had people like Michael Gove

and Boris Johnson talking about ?350 Certainly wild exaggeration

and presenting possibilities I thought overall,

I thought the Brexit side... I thought "take back control"

and "independence day" represented a kind of victory

on the Brexit side. They found pithy, clear benefits you

could encapsulate in a few words. Isn't that good politics,

framing your argument, finding Sure but I think, you know,

in previous generations, There was a time when newspapers

printed extensive extracts When I started at the BBC,

yes, there'd be the headline, "the lady's not for turning,"

but beneath the headline there would be two or three other

extracts and precis of what else Margaret Thatcher said,

in that case, to the And what's happened is,

it's concentrated, in my view, down so that all many voters hear

is just these few phrases. Do you think the BBC

is partly culpable? Well, I certainly believe -

and what's troubling about what's happened is -

despite the BBC and despite this extraordinarily large

journalistic organisation, I think we are getting into trouble

in the UK in the way we talk There are immense forces at play

in politics and media. At its best, I think

the BBC does try very, very hard to bring context

and explanation to the way it does journalism and one of the reasons

for having a really strong, powerful, broad BBC is to make

sure that the national And of course referendums change

things completely because here, on the newspaper review

and all the rest of it, we had to balance Brexit

versus non-Brexit in every case. Referendums present, I think,

very difficult, possibly even, under the current rules,

insuperable problems They are going to cease to exist

the day the vote happens and you've got to treat them

as if they are exactly equally balanced in the polls and,

in a sense, if one side produces an eminent economist and the other

side produces, you know, Coco the clown, they're sort of treated

as if they're somehow equal. So I think there may

be a case for looking at the rules for how referenda

are covered in broadcasting. This is the first time we've had

a chance to talk since the biggest scandal that hit the BBC I think

probably ever, the You were clear at the time that

you knew nothing about the sexual allegations against him but given

that BBC people were investigating and did know about them,

was it right that the guy at the top of the organisation,

the director-general, didn't know? The normal routine when I

was director-general - I'm sure it's still today -

would be that every investigation that's under way which is likely

to be serious would be written and there was a system for getting

it up so I would know about it and I think I knew about

virtually all of them. I wasn't, as it happens,

informed about this one. Helen Boaden, who was head of news

at the time, does say I think it's absolutely common

ground that the formal way of doing it did not happen and certainly

I knew absolutely nothing, even about the existence

of an investigation, until sometime after the decision

had been taken to stop the investigation, but I think

I should have been told. Do you look back on that

episode as a low moment? Well, I think that it's clearly

a matter of great regret It's a terrible story

but an incredibly important story They had information

and in the end... I mean, I understand,

I absolutely believe, as Nick Pollard said in his inquiry,

that it was done, again, in good faith, that the editor

decided not to proceed with that investigation as a matter

of great regret. And behind that, obviously,

the terrible things Jimmy Savile did in relation to his BBC appointment

and many other public organisations is, I think, one of the most

shocking stories I've ever heard. We have a new governance,

of course, of the BBC now, a new organisation to take

over from the BBC Trust, and about almost half the people

on that are going to be appointed I think it's not desirable

that the majority of people in what is essentially going to be

the key decision-making body of the organisation,

with editorial decisions inevitably coming up,

that the majority should be only And I hope that over the coming

weeks a way will be found... There are many ways

in which you could have the Government nominating

but the independent There are lots of ways

it could be solved. I don't think the British

public want the BBC to be a government-controlled

organisation. I'm not suggesting that's

what the Government has in mind They should think

again on the detail? Remember, we're talking

about a moment where the public at large are really

suspicious of elites. It's really important

that the Government's arrangements I was talking to Mark Thompson a

little earlier and, as you may have noticed, with a different type on!

-- tie. One of the most prominent

and passionate campaigners for the Remain side in the EU

referendum was Amber Rudd. Although she lost that campaign,

she was one of the big winners after the vote, becoming

the new Home Secretary - apparently the fastest rise of any

minister since since She now finds herself in charge

of that most fraught of issues in the post

Brexit era - immigration. She's with me now for her first

major interview since her promotion. Can we start with immigration and

the big issues? Do you accept that in the end, it's a balance between

access to markets and restricting immigration, as the British public

seem to want? You have to balance those two things? I put it slightly

differently. What I do think that the British public voted for was to

make sure that we reduce immigration from the EU. We have to find a way

of doing that and I wouldn't necessarily say that what it needs

to do is to do with the single market but what I would say is we

have to work out how we can do that while promoting and protecting the

economy. What they voted for was to take back control, which implies

that you as Home Secretary, in a few years, post-Brexit, if you wanted

to, would have absolutely nobody migrating from the EU into this

country. You could have a complete slams door if you wanted to. You're

absolutely right. Once we leave the EU, we will have complete control

over who comes into the UK from the EU and who doesn't, with one or two

provisos. First of all, it is going to be reciprocal, we have to work

out what is going to be in the UK's interests, going to the EU, and what

works our economy, making sure we get the right balance, looking

across the whole spectrum is what is going to be the guiding principle.

And you are absolutely committed to the tens of thousands target on

immigration? I'm completely committed to making sure that we

reduce it and yes, tens of thousands, although it will take

some time. I would like to ask about how you are going to do that.

330,000 people immigrated into this country last year, of which more

than half were from none EU countries. You do have control

there. If you are going to get to the tens of thousands, you are going

to have to radically cut that number, so can I ask you first of

all about family reunions. Is that going to stop? I can't tell you

which portion of which area of immigration we'll drive down more

than the other. Why not, given that you have control over this now?

Because we are going to be entering into a negotiation with the EU. I'm

not asking about the EU side, I must go about the none EU side. 40,000

visas were given last year for family reunions. If you're going to

get down to tens of thousands overall, you have to stop that,

don't you? No, we don't have to stop that. The tens of thousands is a net

amount is there are people who leave and people who come here so when you

look at the out of the book appeared, you have to let off the

people who have left. The net figure of hundreds of thousands -- tens of

thousands is what we are looking at. The gross figure might be hundreds

of thousands? Indeed it might be, you would expect it to be if you are

netting it off. A much bigger number are the 100 thousand plus visas for

students coming into this country. A lot of worry in India and other

countries that this will be closed off. What assurance can you give

people about the future of student visas from none EU countries? What

we've looked at is how we can make sure that the students who come here

are coming here for real courses. We've already closed up to 900 bogus

callers are just -- colleges and are raising the level you have to start

earning want to be the university so you make a real benefit to the UK if

you stay here. We are looking at a number of options but students do

make an important contribution. There will be no blanket ban

students coming into the UK but we are looking at bringing down the

numbers overall. Net grows, if you want to do

something about family reunions or student fees it is hard to see how

you will hit your target. Can we move to the EU side of the argument?

Thousands of people coming in, Philip Hammond has said that top

bankers or so forth might be excluded from any ban, what about

other groups like senior academics, people running research institutes,

scientists working in the UK, will they be banned from coming in or a

special case? Andrew, it's too early for me to answer those

specific questions. I know you want a running commentary on negotiations

now! But and not in a position to do that. We want the best of the

economy, driving immigration numbers down that keeping people who add to

the economy. If you can't dramatically reduce non-EU you will

have to move hard on EU emigration as the Brexit vote suggested people

want. Thousands of people working in the NHS will born inside the EU and

we depend on specialised doctors and nurses of all kinds in the NHS, are

you saying that in future they will not come from the EU? The Prime

Minister has said we want to protect the people who work here and in the

future we will be guided by making sure that we support the people who

come to the UK who add value to the economy. I can't tell you how that

will be implemented but I can tell you that is the guiding principle.

One last area, a very important one, this government is committed to

building houses and construction projects. People in charge of the

contest construction industry says it can't happen if they don't get

the expect ease from the rest of the EU. I don't see us cancelling

projects, building in the UK is incredibly important and one

principle will be working with Greg Clark in the industrial strategy

department to make sure we tailor our requirements for bringing people

in from the EU who can add value. I think this is the point that people

want when they voted on June 23, make sure that people who come to

the UK add value to the economy. OK, many areas depend on migration at

the moment, we've talked about construction, the NHS University,

the City but a lot of restaurants and coffee shops and such. As

secretary he will have to negotiate getting the right and of migration

to allow others to without offending those people who do not want

migration at all. And who have said we will not have an Australian

-based point system. Surely inevitably you will have to have a

system for work permits? He'll have to say the construction industry

needs a certain number of electricians, we will let in that

number, that will be how it will have to work. You're right, we ruled

at the points system because it doesn't work. There was non-EU

system in the past and it wasn't effective. Whether we could look at

work system or another system is something my department is looking

at, at the moment. What could another system be? Work permits?

That does have value, we are not ruling anything out at the moment.

Another story related to this, the European Commission is working on

European version of the system that the Americans use for visas if you

pay a bit of money, you apply online before you go there and they suggest

that once we have left the EU that will apply to all non-volley

countries like ours and Turkey and Libya and Japan, - non-EU countries.

So any British citizens wanting to visit European countries even to

visit relatives or work, they will have to get a Visa or pay money.

Your reaction? It is a reminder that this is a two way negotiation. The

European Commissioners may be considering alternatives and they

will be considering their negotiation with us just as we are

with them and I will make sure that what we get is on the best interests

of the UK. Will you be offended, will you try to stop that, many

people would be surprised if they had to pay money online before they

could go to France. And not think it is desirable yet I do not rule it

out because we need a free hand to get the best negotiation. Today

Boris Johnson has lent his name to an organisation to push for Brexit.

He seems to feel there needs to be a ginger group inside the cabinet.

Your reaction? I found the Cabinet is pretty united. Obviously there

was a robust debate in which I had my moments, before the referendum.

Now that we are sitting in Cabinet everyone is focused on delivering

what the Prime Minister wants. Lets remind everyone of your most robust

moment, one of your most vivid is one in the campaigns! As a bodice,

he's the life and soul of the party but he is not the man you want

driving your home is the end of the evening -- as for Boris. This is a

very serious choice we have to make. And now this man, presumably drunk

in charge of the car, is the Foreign Secretary. Has he been veering

everywhere since he took the job? He's not the driver, Theresa May is

the driver. The rest of us are in the car! Is she heckling from the

back seat? She's clear that we are focused in the same direction and we

will all do what she directs. He's driving the Foreign Office, given

what you said in the campaign and given what he said how hard is it

for you to join hands and work together in government? Frankly it

doesn't feel difficult because we all take the view that the public is

delivered this verdict, we live in a democracy and it is for us is

government to deliver on that as well as we can. He is hard Brexit

and you are soft Brexit. That is oversimplifying. We all delivering

on what the Prime Minister has asked as a result of the referendum. Do

you regret some of the things you said in the campaign? Is they might

be a half ?1 billion increase in energy bills if we left the EU, that

scaremongering? I don't think it is helpful to go over what was said.

What I think is more helpful is for people like myself who perhaps

believed that at the time to try to work to mitigate those damages by

funding opportunities. So you no longer think we will face a half ?1

billion increase in energy bills? I think it depends on the steps you

take after certain result. We've taken those steps, we have a Brexit

department, a trade Department, none of these things were proposed at the

time, as a government we will make sure we take the right steps, not

only to make this work but to make a success of it. Let me turn to

another issue at the front of your agenda, the child abuse inquiry. You

said, when the most recent chair, Judge Lowell got up, left, she had

gone for personal reasons because she thought lonely. She produced an

eight page, angry detailed account of an inquiry that is running out of

control, too wide, badly organised and badly managed. And you, the new

phase of the government, should have the courage to pull the plug on it.

I don't agree with that. I read her letter, it did say at the end that

chief felt it lonely, her family still in New Zealand so I used a

word that she had used. Four chairs for this inquiry in as many years.

It is a difficult job, I've appointed Alexis Jay who I think

will do a good job of taking it forward. I want to say, it's not all

about what we've done in the past and building on some of the things

that the former Foreign Secretary put in place, it's about making sure

children are protected going forward, this began meeting with

Sadiq Khan to look at potential systems which Jordan who have been

abused can be looked after. We are piloting two schemes which will look

after 200 children a year, we believe. It is about making sure we

learn from the child-abuse scandals of the past and that we act now. A

practical suggestion, actually helping people. The danger of

inquiries is that they too ambitious, all set up in the emotion

the moment with a very, very wide ranging inquiry into all aspects of

child abuse come into schools, institutions, everywhere, it is too

big and should be narrowed and focused otherwise it will disappoint

everyone including victims. Don't agree. I spoke to the victims who

have a panel, I spoke to the experts and to Alexis Jay who is now taking

on the chair. It is a huge inquiry but incredibly important, if you

remember when the scandal 's first started to hit the country was

shocked so it is right we have something on this scale. You are a

senior Cabinet minister so I can ask you about the seven-day NHS row

going on, you just heard it said that it was no longer possible to

deliver such an operation given the strain the NHS is under. I don't

think he's right. We set out that we would deliver it in our manifesto,

the Health Secretary and government consulted Simon Stevens asked what

skill of money was needed and we've delivered on it. We know it is a

challenge... So what's gone wrong? I'm not sure anything has gone wrong

on the scale that he is putting forward, I'm sure we will hear more

from him on that. The that we must engage with the energetic

leadership. I am proud of the NHS. They've delivered 4000 more

operations and aces 2010, and most people anecdotally save their

experience has been good. Grammar schools, and enthusiast? Absolutely

but not back to the 1950s, now, where parents have a choice of

schools, art schools... No sheep and goats then. I said before that you

were the fastest rising politician to a high office since the war, any

sense of vertigo? Not at all, a tremendous sense of responsibility.

This was meant to be a disaster until Theresa May showed that it

would not be. Will you travel in her shoes, so to speak? I hope to build

on what she's done and focus on things of my own especially working

with the vulnerable, I hope that will be my particular area of

omission and support. Amber Rudd, thank you for talking to us.

And that's all we have time for today, we'll be back next week

when my guests will include Liberal Democrat Leader Tim Farron.

Until then we will leave you with music from one of the great

Back after a six-year hiatus with a new album called Here,

they play us out with one of their classic singles.

This is Teenage Fanclub, Glasgow's finest, with

#It gives me pain when I think of you

# And the things together that we'll never do

# At first it's cold and then it's hot

# Tried to be someone that I know I'm not

# I remember you, lines on your face

# Sharing a moment in the perfect place

# Deep in your eyes and inside your head

# And I try to reach you when I'm in my bed

# Nothing is greater than to be with you