:00:00. > :00:00.of the redundancies expected at the port Talbot site. And coming up, we
:00:00. > :00:19.explore the growing murky for robotic pets. -- the growing market.
:00:20. > :00:32.Welcome to our look ahead to the morning's papers. The front pages,
:00:33. > :00:36.starting with the express. It leads with Britain's future in the EU,
:00:37. > :00:44.saying there is growing support for Britain to leave. The Telegraph, the
:00:45. > :00:47.main headline, GP waiting lists. It says 10 million patients struggle to
:00:48. > :00:53.get appointments and record numbers wait over a week. The times, the
:00:54. > :00:58.plans of David Cameron to integrate Muslim woman into mainstream society
:00:59. > :01:01.including English classes for migrants. The Guardian, plans by the
:01:02. > :01:06.NHS to watch a sugar attacks on British hospitals. The Daily Mail,
:01:07. > :01:10.mounting pressure on Scotland Yard to apologise to award at Bramall
:01:11. > :01:18.after child abuse allegations were dropped. -- to Lord Bramall. We
:01:19. > :01:21.start with an interesting front page on the Sun about Jeremy Corbyn's
:01:22. > :01:31.idea for the Trident submarine fleet. There fears, trapped a
:01:32. > :01:37.missile. It has a hat on.
:01:38. > :01:42.It is not a very good pun. Not one of their best.
:01:43. > :01:47.They have not got a lot to work with. We can tell what they think of
:01:48. > :01:52.it. We can, but it is wilfully
:01:53. > :01:58.misunderstanding. The subject of Trident is up for review, many
:01:59. > :02:03.options are being considered, we don't know what all of them, but one
:02:04. > :02:09.of them is to to avert potential job losses from scrapping Trident. That
:02:10. > :02:14.has come up, whereby you would retain the capability that you would
:02:15. > :02:19.not actually have the warheads. The capacity to fire them, but not the
:02:20. > :02:24.actual warheads. Which is not as daft as it sounds, as long as you
:02:25. > :02:29.are still within Nato. It depends what kind of nuclear deterrent you
:02:30. > :02:33.want. I thought he was a principled
:02:34. > :02:37.unilateralist who wanted nothing to do with nuclear weapons because they
:02:38. > :02:45.are a moral abomination. To say that in an -- the event of a war we are
:02:46. > :02:50.here to fire them if you need is two, that is not unilateralism. And
:02:51. > :03:01.it's a nonsense of the point of having Trident. Trident has a ship
:03:02. > :03:04.permanently and patrolling so that within minutes it can act in a
:03:05. > :03:09.crisis. But if you don't have bombs on the submarine cannot act within
:03:10. > :03:13.minutes. So the idea of an immediate response from Britain within Nato is
:03:14. > :03:17.undermined, so it does not serve anyone.
:03:18. > :03:22.It is wilfully misunderstanding the conversation, not you, I hasten to
:03:23. > :03:26.add... I am sympathetic to him try to find
:03:27. > :03:30.a way through this. It is almost as if, you would have
:03:31. > :03:34.to be not to get rid of Trident. Yet all defence officials have in saying
:03:35. > :03:43.that Trident is not an effective deterrent -- you would have to be
:03:44. > :03:48.nuts. It is not a deterrent to the risks we face such as terrorism, it
:03:49. > :03:54.is an obsolete counter to that. So let's try to find alternatives.
:03:55. > :03:56.Because claiming that Trident is an effective deterrent is a redundant
:03:57. > :04:01.conversation. The Telegraph asks whether it would
:04:02. > :04:10.be any kind of deterrent at all. It probably wouldn't. He is trying
:04:11. > :04:13.to deter the Blairites from revolting against him. I like the
:04:14. > :04:18.fact he is a man of principle. I don't share them but it is good to
:04:19. > :04:22.have somebody who has got some. What a pity, having won the massive
:04:23. > :04:25.mandate he cannot say, I don't believe we should have nuclear
:04:26. > :04:29.weapons, they did not help us out in the Falklands, the Gulf War, Iraq,
:04:30. > :04:34.they are no longer needed, the Cold War is over, my promises to get rid
:04:35. > :04:39.of them. There are trade unions worried about jobs. MPs who
:04:40. > :04:42.represent the yards that house Trident. Of course they don't want
:04:43. > :04:48.to get rid of them. So why not to say, you know what, I'm taking a
:04:49. > :04:57.bold stance, that is rid of the nukes -- to get rid of.
:04:58. > :05:01.The times, Cameron tells Muslims women must integrate, is this a good
:05:02. > :05:05.thing, or interference where it is not needed?
:05:06. > :05:10.It is hard to tell, I have not seen the editorial. I am in two minds
:05:11. > :05:14.about this. On the one hand many people are concerned that there are
:05:15. > :05:18.people in the country who have not integrated into western
:05:19. > :05:23.understandings of women's rights. And the idea that because society is
:05:24. > :05:25.too worried about saying something politically incorrect that it will
:05:26. > :05:31.not challenge things which go against not just Western tradition
:05:32. > :05:34.but also our laws, when it comes to things like female genital
:05:35. > :05:38.mutilation. It is right that the government should say to new
:05:39. > :05:43.immigrants, there is a list of standards of behaviour we expect. On
:05:44. > :05:46.the other hand, having said that, a defining principle of being British
:05:47. > :05:50.is that you are left alone unless you break the law. And when Cameron
:05:51. > :05:58.says he wants to overturn what he says is passive tolerance, I think
:05:59. > :06:01.he is overturning a cornerstone of the relationship between the British
:06:02. > :06:04.individual and the state, which is that you are left alone unless you
:06:05. > :06:08.break the law. I find it hard to stomach, coming
:06:09. > :06:17.from Cameron, specifically targeting Muslim woman. He is simultaneously
:06:18. > :06:22.closing woman's refuge centres. For female victims of domestic abuse. So
:06:23. > :06:27.you suddenly care about women now? Muslim women? I think you would
:06:28. > :06:29.probably find that most people who migrate to the UK wants to learning
:06:30. > :06:34.good. But a lot of them haven't. This
:06:35. > :06:37.would surely at least give a woman the option of knowing what was out
:06:38. > :06:42.there, what opportunities exist for them...
:06:43. > :06:47.But those opportunities are not out there from him, that is the point,
:06:48. > :06:49.he has not provided opportunities, schools for learning
:06:50. > :06:53.foreign-language is quite the opposite, those services are being
:06:54. > :06:57.cut along with everything else. If you provided that access you could
:06:58. > :07:00.then say, are you aware of this resource? They cannot cut it and
:07:01. > :07:05.then say they should be getting access to it at the same time.
:07:06. > :07:09.The Telegraph, millions waiting longer to see a GP. I feel I have
:07:10. > :07:13.been reading these headlines for a long time. Is it getting worse or
:07:14. > :07:16.staying the same? I don't know if it is getting worse
:07:17. > :07:20.but more than 10 million patients are struggling to gain appointment.
:07:21. > :07:26.Again I think this is related to cuts. If you cut social services you
:07:27. > :07:32.but an additional burden on the NHS which would not otherwise be there.
:07:33. > :07:39.And as you say this is a continuous story about the NHS struggling in
:07:40. > :07:44.the face of an onslaught and being squeezed by cuts to cope with an
:07:45. > :07:51.expanding demand. But I think this story is slanted in a way to suggest
:07:52. > :07:55.that people want surgery to be open out of hours on the weekends. And,
:07:56. > :08:01.you know, therefore that should be made possible. I don't think it is
:08:02. > :08:07.slanted. From reading it. That is where it is going.
:08:08. > :08:11.But if it is slanted I would not have a problem with that, because it
:08:12. > :08:16.highlights an unacceptable rise of people waiting a couple of weeks.
:08:17. > :08:19.And picks up on the fact that receptionists can be rude. There are
:08:20. > :08:24.issues of funding and there are issues of management.
:08:25. > :08:30.And issues of manners. Manners as well. There are some
:08:31. > :08:35.reports showing that do not match what people expect from the NHS.
:08:36. > :08:38.This is partly due to very generous contracts that Labour negotiated.
:08:39. > :08:41.Partly due to the fact that there aren't staff at weekends, which is
:08:42. > :08:45.what the government is trying to work with right now, either way,
:08:46. > :08:49.funding, yes, but I think this points to questions about how people
:08:50. > :08:52.manage their surgeries. Should we not change the
:08:53. > :08:58.expectations of doctors? That it won't be 9-to-5? GPs, I mean.
:08:59. > :09:01.Because of course, in hospitals, many doctors claim they work
:09:02. > :09:04.round-the-clock. I don't get this suggestion that GPs
:09:05. > :09:13.are saying they don't seem to need to work extra hours. But then used
:09:14. > :09:16.to be more funding. If they are overstretched they will start making
:09:17. > :09:22.mistakes, which no body wants. The express, the headline, Britain
:09:23. > :09:25.is ready to quit the EU. Huge boost for the leave campaign. Whereas this
:09:26. > :09:31.boost come from? A new opinion poll giving a
:09:32. > :09:40.cessation of 6-point lead to the exit. I am thrilled by that. Why?
:09:41. > :09:45.Because I want to leave the EU. I have my cards on the table. If you
:09:46. > :09:49.read on page five, the express makes a link between the desire of people
:09:50. > :09:52.to leave and they sort of foreign policy crisis taking place in
:09:53. > :09:57.Europe. Refugee crisis, the terrorist attacks. That is
:09:58. > :10:01.interesting because pro Europeans could argue that being a member of
:10:02. > :10:04.the EU actually helps when it comes to security, but they could also
:10:05. > :10:07.argue that because we are not members of the Schengen zone we are
:10:08. > :10:12.outside of the issue of how one deals with refugees. Britain is
:10:13. > :10:16.already cauterised from that. It is frustrating for somebody who wants
:10:17. > :10:20.to see the EU debated on the basis of economics because I think there
:10:21. > :10:25.is a business case for leaving. But also on the basis of sovereignty. It
:10:26. > :10:27.is frustrating, I fear this referendum will be all about
:10:28. > :10:33.immigration and terrorism. It really should not be.
:10:34. > :10:38.That is the way that the far right has presented it, to be fair.
:10:39. > :10:42.I don't think it is the far right doing it.
:10:43. > :10:47.We can argue about the definition but people are reacting to austerity
:10:48. > :10:54.and the threat of terror and a perceived threat of migrant drains
:10:55. > :10:58.on jobs and resources, which actually is a fair and of fear, a
:10:59. > :11:03.time of austerity, has a few worried about your job, you will be worried
:11:04. > :11:07.about somebody taking it. But they are not the target, migrants are not
:11:08. > :11:11.the target. I would personally rather we stayed in Europe but made
:11:12. > :11:15.it more democratic and accountable. And progressive. Because I do think
:11:16. > :11:19.freedom of movement is important. And I think the baseline of work
:11:20. > :11:26.-labour arrangements we have aren't And I think the baseline of work
:11:27. > :11:28.-labour arrangements we have -- are great, and if we didn't have them,
:11:29. > :11:35.this government would very quickly take them away.
:11:36. > :11:42.The NHS to introduce a sugar tax. Internally. Not dependent on the
:11:43. > :11:45.Treasury. How will they do it? Sorry, really rude, but I just want
:11:46. > :11:48.to throw in, because I'm so staggered by this, it is the
:11:49. > :11:52.weirdest front page I have ever seen.
:11:53. > :11:57.Tell us why in a moment. Rachel, tell us what they are planning.
:11:58. > :12:01.It will be internal, only operational in hospitals, which I
:12:02. > :12:04.worry will only affect visitors like us who come in and want a sugary
:12:05. > :12:08.snack. So they will make a sugary snacks in
:12:09. > :12:12.the cafe too expensive to bother with?
:12:13. > :12:18.Yes, yes. But I think it is more of a statement, you know, this is what
:12:19. > :12:22.the government should be doing. A potential advisory thing. I don't
:12:23. > :12:38.know how impactful discount to be. Why is it a weird front page?
:12:39. > :12:42.The colour. I am not being odd! But it looks like clip art. It is a
:12:43. > :12:45.weird nonstory about the NHS charging you a bit more for
:12:46. > :12:51.something in the cafe. Is it not about obesity, all of us
:12:52. > :12:55.eating too much sugar... ? Well that is nice but I don't
:12:56. > :12:58.suppose the idea of a tax for sugar echoes in terms of intake the
:12:59. > :13:03.British consume far less sugar than they have done since the 1970s. The
:13:04. > :13:08.intake is way down. The reason we are fat and abuses because we do not
:13:09. > :13:13.exercise. We are not moving. This will simple punish poorer people, it
:13:14. > :13:19.is a kind of VAT, a cost added onto your Coca-Cola. What we really
:13:20. > :13:24.should be doing to people, the NHS, saying to people, get out, stop
:13:25. > :13:29.driving around, sitting at your desk all day, exercise.
:13:30. > :13:37.We actually agree! On a lot of things!
:13:38. > :13:39.I don't know about a lot of things! We got through it. Still to come,
:13:40. > :13:54.President Obama hails the deal with