25/01/2016 Daily Politics


25/01/2016

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 25/01/2016. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!

Transcript


LineFromTo

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

:00:36.:00:39.

Should big companies like Google pay more in tax?

:00:40.:00:43.

Labour certainly thinks so, and so too does Boris Johnson.

:00:44.:00:46.

Google's already said it will pay ?130 million in back tax,

:00:47.:00:49.

The Government has confirmed it's considering taking in up to 3,000

:00:50.:00:56.

unaccompanied child migrants who've made their way to Europe

:00:57.:00:58.

The in campaign claims British business is better off

:00:59.:01:06.

Surprise, surprise, those who want to leave say that's a load

:01:07.:01:15.

And MPs warn charities to put their house in order

:01:16.:01:18.

and bring to an end unscrupulous fund-raising tactics.

:01:19.:01:25.

And former Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary,

:01:26.:01:38.

George Osborne is coming under fire over

:01:39.:01:44.

the internet giant's deal to pay ?130 million in back taxes.

:01:45.:01:49.

A number of Labour MPs, including the Shadow Chancellor

:01:50.:01:51.

John McDonnell, have argued it's not nearly enough

:01:52.:01:53.

and Google have been let off the hook.

:01:54.:01:57.

Here's the Chancellor discussing the deal over the weekend.

:01:58.:02:02.

An important principle in our system is that people's tax affairs

:02:03.:02:05.

are confidential between themselves and our independent HMRC.

:02:06.:02:09.

But the fact that Google are paying taxes, I think,

:02:10.:02:12.

These were taxes on profits made when there was

:02:13.:02:16.

Now to have Labour politicians complaining about it is a bit rich.

:02:17.:02:26.

Can George Osborne really claim this as a success? I think it is success,

:02:27.:02:34.

progress, but only a start of progress. As George said, they paid

:02:35.:02:40.

no tax at all in the past few years. The new profit diversion tax is

:02:41.:02:45.

putting a message to companies that if they sell goods and services to

:02:46.:02:50.

people in the UK and make a profit, they should be taxed on the profits

:02:51.:02:54.

in the UK and Google will now pay up, and it needs to pay more and in

:02:55.:02:59.

the future its full share. You admit it is not paying its full share.

:03:00.:03:11.

Absolutely right. This is a good start, but only a start. There are

:03:12.:03:15.

other companies who have to pay up what they should have been paying

:03:16.:03:19.

and make sure that from now on they are paying their full share of tax

:03:20.:03:24.

in the UK. It is better than paying no tax in terms of being taxed on

:03:25.:03:29.

profits, which happened under Labour. It does not send a good

:03:30.:03:33.

signal that you can get away with paying 2% of tax on sales. 2013,

:03:34.:03:47.

Google had sales around ?4 billion in the UK and only paying 130

:03:48.:03:50.

million over ten years. Why did they not pay under Labour? This review

:03:51.:03:54.

was conducted. The conclusion ?130 million is OK, it is not good

:03:55.:03:58.

enough. A lot of people are struggling at the end of January to

:03:59.:04:03.

do their tax return and are not able to chat with HMRC to say, maybe I

:04:04.:04:12.

will pay ?1000 this year. They have to pay what is their fair share. Was

:04:13.:04:17.

it a mistake Labour did not pressure companies like Google at the time?

:04:18.:04:22.

Is it rich for John MacDonald to start squealing about not enough

:04:23.:04:26.

pressure being put on when none was put on under Labour? -- John

:04:27.:04:34.

McDonnell. Not enough tax was paid in that period but for George

:04:35.:04:39.

Osborne to say it is a success, a good start, it is a start but not a

:04:40.:04:46.

good start. It does not send a good signal to companies in those

:04:47.:04:49.

discussions that they can get away with a tax bill of this size. If

:04:50.:04:54.

these are what is called a sweetheart deal, in other words they

:04:55.:05:00.

make a deal and pay some tax earned on profits, but not the full out, it

:05:01.:05:05.

looks as if it has been signed and sealed with HMRC? I do not like cosy

:05:06.:05:11.

deals and there needs to be greater transparency, all companies are

:05:12.:05:18.

subject to it. There was a grey area over many years using on the face of

:05:19.:05:23.

its legal devices not to pay tax and stop allowed by successive

:05:24.:05:32.

governments. It is the chance's fault and responsibility. It is the

:05:33.:05:36.

government instructing HMRC as to how tough they should be. We need to

:05:37.:05:40.

ensure they are treated in the same way as other taxpayers in this

:05:41.:05:44.

country and a measure of success will be in future years that Google

:05:45.:05:54.

and the rest pay more tax. How much should they be paying? 20%. They

:05:55.:05:59.

should be paying the full corporation tax. It is not good

:06:00.:06:04.

enough to say we employ a lot of people and pay a lot of national

:06:05.:06:09.

Insurance, so do others. It is to do with complex arrangements they have

:06:10.:06:14.

put in place to minimise tax. It is diverted profits are unfairly.

:06:15.:06:20.

Starbucks have changed headquarters from benevolence to the UK and we

:06:21.:06:25.

need to see more of that going on. Rachel, would you call for action

:06:26.:06:29.

against these companies in terms of a boycott? There was a

:06:30.:06:34.

people'sprotest against Starbucks. It is up to people to decide. I am

:06:35.:06:40.

not going to advocate picking on one company or another, it is up to

:06:41.:06:44.

people to decide. With the living wage, eight campaign I have

:06:45.:06:49.

advocated, one of the great things is that you get a mark to say, I am

:06:50.:06:55.

a living wage employer. We can decide as consumers if we want to

:06:56.:06:59.

spend money in a shop that pays the living wage or not and there should

:07:00.:07:04.

be something like that on whether you pay your fair share of tax so we

:07:05.:07:09.

can make informed decisions as consumers. We pay tax on what we

:07:10.:07:14.

earn which pays for schools, hospitals, roads and trains. Google

:07:15.:07:19.

benefit from those things and do not pay in. Boris Johnson has said the

:07:20.:07:25.

same. Consumers have a part to play. There was a BBC programme about a

:07:26.:07:32.

village in Wales. Declaring itself a fair tax village. Working out it

:07:33.:07:36.

could avoid tax by underhand means but does not want to do it.

:07:37.:07:42.

Companies, as part of their marketing promotion, should show

:07:43.:07:45.

they are paying a fair share of tax in the UK and do it legitimately and

:07:46.:07:50.

therefore you can buy things safely from it. They have a responsibility

:07:51.:07:55.

to ensure we have a tax code that means people have to pay their fair

:07:56.:07:59.

share will stop you cannot blame the companies, the government has to get

:08:00.:08:05.

a grip and make sure everybody pays tax, especially the biggest company.

:08:06.:08:11.

130 million is not a grip. It is a drop in the ocean.

:08:12.:08:13.

Tatler Magazine has published the Tatler List -

:08:14.:08:17.

a run down of 623 people who they claim really matter.

:08:18.:08:20.

However, there also appears to be an even more glaring omission.

:08:21.:08:25.

So our question for today is, according to Tatler,

:08:26.:08:28.

At the end of the show, Tim and Rachel, who I'm afraid

:08:29.:08:42.

are also not on the list, will give us the correct answer.

:08:43.:08:46.

We don't even have the date of the referendum on Britain's

:08:47.:08:53.

membership of the EU yet, but already there are squabbles

:08:54.:08:55.

between the campaigns around figures.

:08:56.:08:59.

The latest disputed statistic is around whether British firms

:09:00.:09:02.

Stuart Rose, chairman of Britain Stronger in Europe,

:09:03.:09:10.

says the EU is worth an average of ?670,000 in extra trade to every

:09:11.:09:15.

UK business exporting or importing within the bloc.

:09:16.:09:19.

He used data published by the Centre for European Reform think tank,

:09:20.:09:23.

which found UK goods trade with the EU was 55% higher

:09:24.:09:26.

However, one campaign group on the other side -

:09:27.:09:32.

Vote Leave - said this was nonsense and in fact,

:09:33.:09:35.

the single market has failed to have a significant impact

:09:36.:09:37.

They point to research by think tank Civitas,

:09:38.:09:44.

who found membership of the EU has had "no discernable benefit" for UK

:09:45.:09:49.

exports, proved "not far short of a disaster" for Britain.

:09:50.:09:51.

There are other disputed figures, too.

:09:52.:09:56.

Britain Stronger in Europe say Britain's EU membership costs a net

:09:57.:10:00.

But Vote Leave put the cost at ?350 million a week by using

:10:01.:10:09.

I might have left the million off the last one.

:10:10.:10:17.

And Britain Stronger in Europe say 13% of laws are made in Brussels,

:10:18.:10:20.

whereas Vote Leave put this figure much higher, between 65-75%.

:10:21.:10:23.

Let's talk now to Will Straw, who's the executive director

:10:24.:10:25.

And to Robert Oxley, who's head of media for Vote Leave.

:10:26.:10:29.

Welcome. Stuart Rose says membership is worth an average of 670,000 to

:10:30.:10:38.

British businesses, how do you calculate that? Based on an

:10:39.:10:44.

independent study that the centre has done. They looked at the impact

:10:45.:10:49.

of being part of the European Union against not being in the EU and of

:10:50.:10:54.

what it has meant for trade performance which they think has

:10:55.:10:58.

given a 55% boost and if you take the number, divided by the number of

:10:59.:11:05.

trading businesses in UK. This is looking at goods,. Services, and you

:11:06.:11:11.

get an average figure of 670,000 per business. It will be bigger for some

:11:12.:11:21.

and smaller further for others. It is theoretical. It is based on real

:11:22.:11:27.

numbers, taking an estimate. You are right, looking at the impact of

:11:28.:11:31.

being in the EU and it is the case that the other side will put

:11:32.:11:37.

something else across. The overwhelming majority of businesses,

:11:38.:11:41.

big and small, entrepreneurs and more established businesses, are

:11:42.:11:45.

saying it is in Britain's interests to be in the EU, certainly of the

:11:46.:11:50.

trade, low prices and jobs it creates and investment. Let's

:11:51.:11:55.

broaden the argument and look at what our businesses and others

:11:56.:11:58.

saying about the benefits of being in the EU. Not all businesses say

:11:59.:12:02.

that but if you look at the figures in terms of it being a model, that

:12:03.:12:07.

is how you come up with the calculations, it is powerful,

:12:08.:12:11.

?670,000 to British business, you would not match that if these UK

:12:12.:12:20.

came out? I do wonder what it is about is the European centre for

:12:21.:12:27.

reform. You do not think it is an independent model? You can pick a

:12:28.:12:29.

number that focuses on trade and it laws exports and services which make

:12:30.:12:35.

up a large part of the economy. If you look at the overall British

:12:36.:12:42.

exports, British exports to the EU, about 45%, it is declining, as is

:12:43.:12:48.

the share of the world GDP. There are numbers that show the EU is a

:12:49.:12:52.

declining relevance to the British market. You do not dispute the

:12:53.:12:56.

numbers themselves, you say there are other things you can look at? It

:12:57.:13:01.

is a case of which facts you cherry pick. If you look at a truly

:13:02.:13:06.

independent report today, is says the EU has been dismal for export

:13:07.:13:11.

growth for the UK. If you take the safe option, a free-trade deal, that

:13:12.:13:17.

the European centre for reform in this report, which is two years old,

:13:18.:13:23.

they say a free-trade deal would happen. We will get onto the

:13:24.:13:28.

free-trade deals. If you say it would be a disaster if Britain left

:13:29.:13:33.

the EU, it is true to say that bilateral deals could be set up,

:13:34.:13:38.

have been set up by other countries, and there has been no reason for the

:13:39.:13:44.

EU not to set up bilateral treaties that would equal the sort of money

:13:45.:13:48.

we currently make. This is where the debate needs to go, what is it that

:13:49.:13:53.

those wanting to leave want Britain's trading relationship to

:13:54.:13:58.

be? Like Norway, Switzerland, that have access to the single market but

:13:59.:14:04.

accept free movement. Let's stick to trade. If they did on the basis of

:14:05.:14:08.

the countries you just mentioned, do you agree they would be able to...

:14:09.:14:13.

British business would benefit to the tune of the figures you are

:14:14.:14:19.

talking about. We have no idea what trade deals would be negotiated. The

:14:20.:14:24.

United States trade representative said if we left the EU there would

:14:25.:14:29.

not be a trade relationship between the UK and US, they are only dealing

:14:30.:14:35.

with countries such as the EU. Other countries are coming together to act

:14:36.:14:43.

as a bloc and get a better deal for consumers. What evidence they have

:14:44.:14:47.

that countries in the EU like Germany and France would give us a

:14:48.:14:52.

deal that is as good as it is at the moment? Why wouldn't they? How will

:14:53.:14:59.

you persuade... Can I come back? I will when Robert has come in. I am

:15:00.:15:04.

sure there is every chance of setting up a bilateral arrangement

:15:05.:15:07.

but you cannot guarantee it and do not know how long it will take.

:15:08.:15:13.

In the world are death and taxes but if you look at the Independent

:15:14.:15:18.

reports, not just the Eurosceptics, they are clear that every incentive

:15:19.:15:23.

is there, for a free-trade deal. We can save the ?350 million... It's a

:15:24.:15:28.

risk. It's not, it is a decision we have to take if we vote to leave.

:15:29.:15:32.

The message from the Britain stronger in Europe campaign is that

:15:33.:15:35.

no better relationship as possible. We are saying we have this

:15:36.:15:40.

relationship with the EU which cost us ?350 million per week, enough for

:15:41.:15:44.

a new hospital. It limits democracy because it takes decisions away from

:15:45.:15:47.

Westminster and means politicians are less accountable. It hurts

:15:48.:15:51.

people in their pockets in terms of Mauritz pensive goods. It takes the

:15:52.:15:55.

decisions away. I think actually, we could leave and do the free-trade

:15:56.:15:59.

deals in the same way that Chile and Peru have done them but we could

:16:00.:16:03.

also do them outside of the EU with those global, emerging markets which

:16:04.:16:08.

we are limited from. I think we can go for a bit more than July and

:16:09.:16:11.

Peru. We can go for the best of both welcome in the EU, getting the best

:16:12.:16:14.

deal from the single market but also new deals with countries like India

:16:15.:16:18.

and America. We will get those on much better terms as a group of 500

:16:19.:16:23.

million consumers than we would as 65 million consumers. The cost of EU

:16:24.:16:29.

membership, fascinating as it is, before you continue, the difficulty

:16:30.:16:33.

is getting objective facts. Perhaps it is impossible. In the end, won't

:16:34.:16:37.

it just come down to people's hearts in this particular issue? I think

:16:38.:16:43.

that is a real problem. Listening to these two exchange facts, and

:16:44.:16:45.

another fact I heard this morning is that when the EU does trade deals

:16:46.:16:49.

with other countries, there's bigger growth by countries like Switzerland

:16:50.:16:52.

and Norway with those countries rather than with the EU. We can

:16:53.:16:58.

interpret statistics in any way. But the problem is, Mr and Mrs Smith in

:16:59.:17:02.

one Acacia Ave in Worthing are going to be confused by this and at the

:17:03.:17:06.

end of the day, we need to have a proper, frank debate based on fact

:17:07.:17:10.

and not scare stories about what might happen. They are... Neither of

:17:11.:17:18.

these gentlemen, I put to you, are lying. It is about how you view...

:17:19.:17:23.

Truths. The economics. Are they telling the truth when it comes to

:17:24.:17:28.

statistics? Part of the problem is you don't know what the

:17:29.:17:32.

counterfactual is. We don't know what things would be like if we were

:17:33.:17:36.

outside the European Union. But then I think people would be taking a

:17:37.:17:40.

huge risk if we did come out. The Prime Minister, the Vote Leave

:17:41.:17:46.

groups don't know what the world would be like if we were outside. If

:17:47.:17:50.

I was a business or I worked for a business, I would be very concerned

:17:51.:17:55.

about leaving and what it would mean for my job if I traded with Europe

:17:56.:17:59.

but not just with Europe, as well if you trade with the US, are we going

:18:00.:18:03.

to get those trade relationships we have before? Also, if we are going

:18:04.:18:07.

to have access to free markets, that we have at the moment, the reality

:18:08.:18:11.

is we are going to have to pay into the system so that the extra

:18:12.:18:16.

hospital a week won't just be there. Finally, let me say that we will

:18:17.:18:19.

also still be subject to the free movement rules that Norway and

:18:20.:18:24.

Switzerland and others are. If we were to go down the same route as

:18:25.:18:29.

Norway and Switzerland... Without knowing that, it's a massive risk.

:18:30.:18:34.

Do you feel as uncertain over the prospect, if it were to happen? No,

:18:35.:18:39.

I can see there is a future for the UK outside of the EU. I'm not scared

:18:40.:18:44.

about that. I've not made my mind up because I'm waiting for what the

:18:45.:18:48.

deal is going to be. Because it is though substantive? The way I look

:18:49.:18:52.

at it and where I see a problem with this argument, I was at an EU

:18:53.:18:55.

negotiation this morning, is that it's not just about what is good for

:18:56.:18:59.

the UK and Europe. It has to be about what is good for the whole of

:19:00.:19:02.

the EU. The point that Robert makes is right, the share of the GDP is

:19:03.:19:08.

60% of what it was in 1990. There are risks, not just in coming out

:19:09.:19:12.

but in staying in an increasingly uncompetitive, shrinking... This is

:19:13.:19:17.

post-Euro crisis and of course the current migration crisis and you can

:19:18.:19:22.

why people would have concerns. Can I ask you about something

:19:23.:19:25.

specifically, the number of laws that are made in Brussels. You put

:19:26.:19:31.

the figure at 13%. Where do you get the figure? The House of Commons

:19:32.:19:34.

library. You could not get much more independent. It is only part of the

:19:35.:19:40.

rule book. They are talking about a thing called directives. Those are

:19:41.:19:43.

the ones where the House of Commons looks at the rules which come out of

:19:44.:19:47.

the EU that the UK has to put through Parliament. There's a lot of

:19:48.:19:50.

EU rules, many more than the directives, which go straight into

:19:51.:19:54.

law. If you look at the wider EU rule book, the things which don't go

:19:55.:19:59.

through Parliament, don't get scrutinised or a chance to discuss

:20:00.:20:05.

how we're to implement... That is 65%. How much of an impact do they

:20:06.:20:11.

have on the UK? A lot of EU wide regulations won't necessarily have

:20:12.:20:14.

any major impact on the UK and they would have been the sort of thing

:20:15.:20:19.

the UK would have passed anyway. When you pass the regulation like

:20:20.:20:22.

that, they do a cost impact assessment. It puts it close to ?70

:20:23.:20:26.

billion, excluding the kind of regulations like on green issues and

:20:27.:20:32.

working time directive is which I know you are going to talk about.

:20:33.:20:36.

Are you being misleading? The problem with this ultimate is that

:20:37.:20:38.

it only looks at one side of the equation, the cost. But what the

:20:39.:20:42.

government will do in bring in any regulation is look at the cost

:20:43.:20:46.

benefit analysis, the benefits of the regulations. Regardless of the

:20:47.:20:50.

figure, decide would love to get rid of the regulations that protect

:20:51.:20:54.

workers, that give us paid holidays, maternity and paternity leave. One

:20:55.:20:58.

person's cost is another's benefit. We need to be cattle entering the

:20:59.:21:01.

figures around and look at the entire picture. -- need to be

:21:02.:21:07.

careful. That is the question, you talk about regulations and you never

:21:08.:21:10.

say what they are and they could be regulations that a lot of people

:21:11.:21:14.

value. I said specifically I was excluding the ones on green and

:21:15.:21:17.

social employment. If we are going to talk about where these decisions

:21:18.:21:23.

should be made, in Brussels or Westminster, we will probably

:21:24.:21:25.

disagree outside of the EU debate about how certain rules are done in

:21:26.:21:28.

this country but the point is, we don't get to vote for the people who

:21:29.:21:32.

make those decisions. Thank you for joining us. We could go on forever!

:21:33.:21:34.

Now to the timing of the EU referendum.

:21:35.:21:36.

Yesterday on the Andrew Marr Show, Scotland's First Minister Nicola

:21:37.:21:38.

Two reasons why I would not be in favour of a June referendum.

:21:39.:21:43.

One, you might interpret it as being a bit selfish

:21:44.:21:46.

but the Scottish election is in May, and indeed the Welsh,

:21:47.:21:49.

Northern Irish and London elections are in May.

:21:50.:21:52.

To have a referendum campaign starting in parallel would be

:21:53.:21:55.

disrespectful to those important elections.

:21:56.:21:58.

You still have seven weeks after that.

:21:59.:22:02.

But given the statutory campaign period for the UK

:22:03.:22:05.

referendum, you would undoubtedly start to confuse the issues.

:22:06.:22:10.

The second reason is that I think it would be better for David Cameron

:22:11.:22:13.

to leave more time between, if he does

:22:14.:22:17.

get a deal at the February European Council, to leave more time

:22:18.:22:20.

between the deal and the point of decision.

:22:21.:22:22.

One of the big problems I see for the In campaign at the moment

:22:23.:22:25.

is that as far as David Cameron is concerned,

:22:26.:22:29.

it is very much focused on these narrow issues of renegotiation.

:22:30.:22:31.

In actual fact, if the In campaign is going to prevail,

:22:32.:22:34.

it is going to have to become a positive in principle

:22:35.:22:37.

campaign about why it is better for the UK to stay within

:22:38.:22:40.

Nicola Sturgeon, there. She has got a point, hasn't she, Tim, over the

:22:41.:22:52.

timing? She has a point and I agree that we don't want the EU referendum

:22:53.:22:57.

mixed up with Scottish, London and Welsh elections. But I agree with

:22:58.:23:00.

her for very different reasons. I want to have a referendum as late as

:23:01.:23:04.

possible. The Prime Minister has offered a referendum by the end of

:23:05.:23:08.

2017. This is a once in a generation opportunity to try to get some kind

:23:09.:23:17.

of closure over what has been a very unhappy relationship over many years

:23:18.:23:19.

between Europe and the British people. I want to make sure that

:23:20.:23:21.

there are not, the day after the referendum result if it is a narrow

:23:22.:23:24.

majority to stay in, we have got a lot of people saying, "You had

:23:25.:23:28.

another 18 months, you could have negotiated for even better deal, why

:23:29.:23:32.

didn't you go to the wire?" I don't want people to have the use of

:23:33.:23:35.

crying foul that it was not a genuine vote. It has to be a genuine

:23:36.:23:39.

vote and he has to go to the 11th hour to get the best deal for the UK

:23:40.:23:43.

and the future of Europe. Do you think he is keen to have it in June,

:23:44.:23:47.

to rush it, as you would see it, because it is his best chance of

:23:48.:23:53.

winning to stay in on his so-called re-negotiated settlement? There's

:23:54.:23:56.

lots of factors and clearly the Prime Minister wants a Yes vote. But

:23:57.:24:01.

he think that is his best chance? He thinks he can get some low hanging

:24:02.:24:04.

fruit and I think he will get things which will surprise people as well,

:24:05.:24:07.

now and let's have the vote to dispel the uncertainty he's on --

:24:08.:24:11.

afraid. But I don't think it will cut the mustard if we get a narrow

:24:12.:24:15.

vote in favour and the argument will go on, not just within the

:24:16.:24:17.

Conservative Party but the country as I thought which is not good for

:24:18.:24:21.

the stability of Europe for years coming forward. Is there a

:24:22.:24:26.

legitimacy question if he does go as early as June? He says he could have

:24:27.:24:28.

a settlement and then wants to put that to the people as quickly as

:24:29.:24:38.

possible. If there's a settlement, I think we have the vote. In June?

:24:39.:24:41.

Yes, not for political reasons but because I think it's the right thing

:24:42.:24:44.

to do. If you are a business and you are deciding whether to invest in

:24:45.:24:47.

Leeds or Madrid, then we want to resolve that question of whether we

:24:48.:24:52.

are in the European Union or not. Uncertainty is bad for business and

:24:53.:24:55.

bad for the people who work for business. I think, let's resolve the

:24:56.:24:59.

uncertainty. We have been going on about a referendum for years now.

:25:00.:25:03.

Everyone knows it is coming. Let's get the deal. Let's hope it is as

:25:04.:25:09.

good as possible for Britain. And then let's get on and make the

:25:10.:25:12.

decision because that is in the best interests of the country, whatever

:25:13.:25:17.

the decision. Does it put your campaign at a disadvantage if it is

:25:18.:25:21.

in June? Absolutely not, we prepared for the earliest date expected and

:25:22.:25:25.

June is likely, for the reason that the Prime Minister does not want

:25:26.:25:28.

much good of his trivial renegotiation. You don't know what

:25:29.:25:33.

it is yet! They have made their mind up and the rest of us are waiting to

:25:34.:25:37.

see. You have said you will stay in no matter what. And you want to

:25:38.:25:41.

leave. We see the maximum of what it will achieve and we saw that in the

:25:42.:25:45.

Donald Tusk letter. We will be ready for June. The grassroots campaigning

:25:46.:25:49.

we have got, we had 100 Fifty St stalls in January and they will

:25:50.:25:53.

deliver the leaflets and the In campaign will have to rely on

:25:54.:25:58.

Goldman Sachs to paper their leaflets. They're probably not bad

:25:59.:26:02.

people to pay for it. Are the hedge funds supporting them? It's a race

:26:03.:26:06.

to the bottom if we criticise each other's donors. People have an

:26:07.:26:09.

interest in it. Goldman Sachs have given us money because they have

:26:10.:26:13.

done the economic analysis. I appreciate that. They have shown the

:26:14.:26:17.

economic impact which is at risk from the referendum that their

:26:18.:26:20.

research. We will have directions and I'm sure you will as well from a

:26:21.:26:24.

wide range of people so let's not get silly. Whichever side of the

:26:25.:26:27.

argument it seems you actually stand, it is important, which may

:26:28.:26:30.

then make your point about waiting so long difficult for some bigger

:26:31.:26:35.

businesses. Waiting another 18 months to get an absolutely

:26:36.:26:37.

definitive, that was the best possible deal we could do, take it

:26:38.:26:41.

or leave it, I think is worth waiting for. Whichever way they go,

:26:42.:26:47.

they would like the uncertainty to be resolved. Let me ask another

:26:48.:26:51.

question because we are not entirely certain in terms of Parliamentary

:26:52.:26:53.

process whether there would be an option for MPs, if they did not like

:26:54.:26:59.

the idea of a June referendum because of the reasons Nicola

:27:00.:27:02.

Sturgeon said all because of the reasons you have said, is there any

:27:03.:27:07.

way Parliament could stop it? I presume we could. There is. It sets

:27:08.:27:13.

out a timetable but presumably if the majority of MPs did not like how

:27:14.:27:16.

it was panning out we could force a vote to overturn the legislation.

:27:17.:27:20.

But the likelihood of there being a majority of unlikely because Labour

:27:21.:27:24.

would not vote against timings for the reasons Nicola Sturgeon said. I

:27:25.:27:28.

don't know what Labour's position would be but my position is, once

:27:29.:27:32.

the Prime Minister has got the renegotiation, whatever it brings,

:27:33.:27:35.

we should get on and take the decision to the people. At the end

:27:36.:27:38.

of the day, the people will decide. We should give them the chance.

:27:39.:27:42.

Thank you for joining us. I'm sure we will see you gentlemen again.

:27:43.:27:44.

Now, a committee of MPs has warned charities that their fund-raising

:27:45.:27:46.

activities could be controlled by law -

:27:47.:27:48.

unless a new voluntary regulator succeeds in cleaning up the sector.

:27:49.:27:52.

The regulator is being set up following last summer's scandals,

:27:53.:27:55.

when unscrupulous fund-raisers were accused of targeting

:27:56.:27:59.

Let's talk now to the chairman of the Public Administration

:28:00.:28:03.

Committee, Bernard Jenkin, who's in Central Lobby.

:28:04.:28:09.

Welcome back to the daily politics. Why isn't there going to be a state

:28:10.:28:17.

regulator? Why are you leaving the second -- sector to regular it

:28:18.:28:23.

itself? That is what the outcome of the Everington Review recommended

:28:24.:28:26.

and that is the recommendation the government has accepted. Really, it

:28:27.:28:31.

will be a terrible indictment of charity trustees themselves if they

:28:32.:28:34.

really can't run their charities without a state regulator for

:28:35.:28:38.

fundraising. Why should they be given another chance? We've had all

:28:39.:28:42.

these dreadful stories of the old and vulnerable being targeted and

:28:43.:28:46.

particularly the case of Olive Cooke, who ended up killing herself.

:28:47.:28:52.

Should they have another chance? Be careful because it is not

:28:53.:28:55.

necessarily that the fundraising activities charities led to that

:28:56.:28:59.

suicide. But the important issue here is that you can't regulate

:29:00.:29:08.

charities to have good trustees by state regulation. We have all this

:29:09.:29:11.

financial regulation and we still finished up with badly run banks.

:29:12.:29:16.

Regulation does not of itself make people behave better. What we need

:29:17.:29:21.

to communicate is what people's responsibilities as charities, and

:29:22.:29:24.

charity trusts, actually are, that they understand the regulations and

:29:25.:29:27.

in this case, the case of the charities that we interviewed, it is

:29:28.:29:32.

quite clear that trustees did not know what was going on. That is not

:29:33.:29:36.

an excuse. They have learned some lessons and we must make sure that

:29:37.:29:39.

the lessons are implemented across all charities, particularly large

:29:40.:29:44.

ones that have very high value fundraising efforts. What about the

:29:45.:29:49.

bad practices? What specifically have you been looking at? What do

:29:50.:29:56.

you want to see change? There was a complete lack of data control. We

:29:57.:29:59.

have the Information Commissioner in front of six training how unhappy he

:30:00.:30:03.

was, and maybe he needs new powers and we recommend that we look at

:30:04.:30:07.

that. We want the government to look at it. But the Information

:30:08.:30:11.

Commissioner as a statutory regulator should be more on the

:30:12.:30:15.

ball, tackling the buying and selling of data without people's

:30:16.:30:18.

consent, the abuse of the Telephone preference service, when people

:30:19.:30:21.

think they have opted out of cold calling, and they find they are

:30:22.:30:24.

still subject to it. What we found with charities, not so much the

:30:25.:30:29.

charities but the contractors that they had employed, actually, there

:30:30.:30:33.

was a very cavalier attitude to the rules, even the statically rules.

:30:34.:30:36.

These were rules to be got around as best they could because they had

:30:37.:30:39.

financial targets to try to raise as much money as possible. So you ended

:30:40.:30:43.

up with a training lesson in one of these companies about how to get

:30:44.:30:48.

money out of a 90-year-old -- 98 he rolled woman, even if she was saying

:30:49.:30:53.

she was confused and vulnerable. -- 98-year-old woman. It is outrageous

:30:54.:30:57.

and the charity's trustees were appalled as soon as they found out.

:30:58.:31:00.

But they should have known what was being done in their name.

:31:01.:31:06.

You say you have no doubt most charities do not engage in this

:31:07.:31:16.

conduct. Do you think people might now be less willing to give money to

:31:17.:31:21.

them? That is what has happened with more people less inclined to give

:31:22.:31:26.

money over the telephone. The effect of failing to manage fundraising

:31:27.:31:30.

properly for these charities has damaged the whole sector. That is

:31:31.:31:35.

why these leading charities themselves are most keen to put

:31:36.:31:38.

these things right and learn lessons. If they learn lesson is, we

:31:39.:31:42.

are talking about the major charities namely, if they do, the

:31:43.:31:46.

statutory regulator will not be necessary. It will be an indictment

:31:47.:31:50.

of trustees if it becomes necessary. Do you welcome the conclusions of

:31:51.:31:58.

the committee? Is it the right way, to self regulate? We have to give

:31:59.:32:02.

the charity industry a chance to get their house in order because if they

:32:03.:32:06.

don't the biggest losers will be those who rely on the charities,

:32:07.:32:10.

whether it is vulnerable children, people suffering cancer. They will

:32:11.:32:17.

thing, I will not give money if this is the way they behave and it sounds

:32:18.:32:22.

like some charities are acting like big corporate, rather than meeting

:32:23.:32:28.

their purpose. They have to get their house in order. I accept what

:32:29.:32:32.

Bernard Jenkin has said, let's give them the opportunity to do that, but

:32:33.:32:35.

if they don't, government has to come in. Do you agree it is the last

:32:36.:32:44.

chance, and has its damaged their reputations in the minds of

:32:45.:32:46.

constituents? Absolutely it has, to have this on the front page of

:32:47.:32:51.

newspapers. It has to be the last chance saloon. They do an excellent

:32:52.:32:57.

job but aggressive fundraising has no place. People need to be able to

:32:58.:33:02.

opt out and know they can safely opt out and they need a clear code of

:33:03.:33:07.

conduct about vulnerable people who are more amenable to handing over

:33:08.:33:13.

money without knowing what it is about. It needs to be transparent

:33:14.:33:17.

and the charity commissioner has to get teeth and ensure charities who

:33:18.:33:22.

abuse the code of conduct, there are consequences. The trustees need to

:33:23.:33:26.

know what is going on in their charities. Why not go for a

:33:27.:33:31.

regulator? The charities are losing money, and if people do not have

:33:32.:33:37.

enough faith... ? It is about having good trustees who do their jobs

:33:38.:33:42.

properly and you cannot legislate for those things. Let's give them an

:33:43.:33:48.

opportunity. It might be a few charities are behaving in this way

:33:49.:33:52.

and giving everybody a bad name, so give them an opportunity, as the

:33:53.:33:56.

report says, but government and parliament should step in if that is

:33:57.:34:03.

the way we have to go. Let's give them an opportunity to get their

:34:04.:34:06.

house in order. How big an issue is it? Do you get a post about this? I

:34:07.:34:12.

get people coming to my surgery complaining about the aggressive

:34:13.:34:17.

tactics. I have a big elderly population and many give to charity

:34:18.:34:22.

and so it is a big issue. If I get cold calls from charities, I say the

:34:23.:34:27.

amount I give is diametrically linked to the number of cold calls I

:34:28.:34:31.

get so you better get off the phone quick. You can understand why

:34:32.:34:37.

charities market. They need money for the people they support, but

:34:38.:34:40.

they need to be responsible and put their values into practice.

:34:41.:34:43.

Let's have a look at what's in store for us this week.

:34:44.:34:46.

This afternoon, David Cameron meets his Irish

:34:47.:34:48.

counterpart, Enda Kenny, in Downing Street.

:34:49.:34:49.

And Open Europe will be hosting

:34:50.:34:53.

They'll be simulating EU reform and Brexit negotiations.

:34:54.:35:01.

the Prime Minister and Jeremy Corbyn face each other across

:35:02.:35:05.

the despatch box for their regular dose of PMQs.

:35:06.:35:09.

And it's thought the French electricity generator EDF

:35:10.:35:13.

will make a final decision on whether to build

:35:14.:35:15.

two new nuclear reactors at Hinkley Point.

:35:16.:35:18.

a new book on Jeremy Corbyn hits the bookshelves,

:35:19.:35:23.

entitled Comrade Corbyn: A Very Unlikely Coup.

:35:24.:35:29.

And let's talk now to Chris Hope from the Daily Telegraph

:35:30.:35:31.

On Google, can George Osborne hail his deal as a success? He can try.

:35:32.:35:48.

At the weekend he desperately tried to say he was clearing up Labour

:35:49.:35:51.

loose change that had not been collected. It is small out of the

:35:52.:35:57.

billions Google are said to have made in this country. There will be

:35:58.:36:01.

questions in Parliament about this and Treasury questions and we are

:36:02.:36:06.

looking at HMRC with Google, called to give evidence and explain how

:36:07.:36:12.

they got to this ?130 million, the round number, to sort out a

:36:13.:36:18.

difficult PR exercise for Google. Whether George Osborne can claim

:36:19.:36:23.

credit, when HMRC is separate from policymakers, I doubt it. I sense

:36:24.:36:29.

cynicism! On George Osborne, teaming up with Bill Gates on a plan to wipe

:36:30.:36:34.

out malaria, is this staging his move towards number 10? I think with

:36:35.:36:40.

George Osborne everything has to be seen in the round and everything

:36:41.:36:45.

fits together. It is a different George Osborne we have seen in

:36:46.:36:50.

recent weeks, more confident, and a lot of Tory MPs are wondering if

:36:51.:36:55.

their differences, not just whether problems will come up, but how he

:36:56.:37:00.

rolls with the punches. What he is doing today is effectively slipping

:37:01.:37:04.

into a labour cloak, Labour beforehand have stood with Bill

:37:05.:37:08.

Gates, have announced billions of pounds for malaria, and now it is

:37:09.:37:14.

George Osborne doing it. The calculation I think he is making is

:37:15.:37:19.

problems will occur, but if he manages to overtake Labour's

:37:20.:37:27.

position, there are Tory MPs who will forgive a lot if he can

:37:28.:37:30.

guarantee them a electoral success in years to come. Carrying on on

:37:31.:37:33.

that theme, there is a timing issue. There is the EU referendum. Also

:37:34.:37:40.

what will happen with the economy and any fears of a downturn, at

:37:41.:37:45.

least being buffeted by global issues means that he needs to sort

:37:46.:37:51.

it out sooner rather than later. He cannot wait. We are looking at

:37:52.:37:56.

George Osborne, leader in 2019 and by that point the economy could be

:37:57.:38:01.

tanking. It is not looking great at the moment. George Osborne has been

:38:02.:38:06.

cutting, by then it will be nine, ten years, and the public will not

:38:07.:38:12.

forget. He will have to do this touchy-feely stuff, beating Bill

:38:13.:38:17.

Gates, to decontaminate the George Osborne brand. That is the challenge

:38:18.:38:23.

for his image makers. The Labour leader visited Calais and broadly

:38:24.:38:28.

called for Britain to take in more asylum seekers. To act more like

:38:29.:38:33.

Germany. How will that stand with the general population? He has

:38:34.:38:43.

phased quite a few Labour MPs suggesting this issue is out of

:38:44.:38:46.

touch with a population, especially swing voters, labour feels it did

:38:47.:38:50.

not connect with in the election and now wants to attempt to win over.

:38:51.:38:54.

The other problem Labour MPs are starting to ask more about is

:38:55.:39:04.

whether they understand what will happen with the leadership of the

:39:05.:39:09.

party. Only a week ago he appeared on the Andrew Marr programme talking

:39:10.:39:12.

about the nuclear deterrent and the new idea of boats with no nuclear

:39:13.:39:17.

warheads. Some Labour MPs are starting to feel as if they do not

:39:18.:39:22.

know where they stand. That said, from Jeremy Corbyn's point of view,

:39:23.:39:28.

his was a side of the party that felt it was badly treated by the

:39:29.:39:33.

Labour leadership for a long time. They feel they have done a lot to

:39:34.:39:38.

bring people of different views with them. And issues. Jeremy Corbyn will

:39:39.:39:46.

no doubt argue this visit has coincided with discussions about

:39:47.:39:50.

whether the UK should take more child refugees. Is he beginning to

:39:51.:39:55.

air of the sort of issues and put pressure on the government? Tim

:39:56.:40:01.

Farron from the Lib Dems started this off and Jeremy Corbyn is

:40:02.:40:05.

getting involved. Great images, walking through a refugee camp. It

:40:06.:40:11.

looks the right mood. An interesting quote today, Jeremy Corbyn saying we

:40:12.:40:16.

have been too defensive on immigration and speaking up why it

:40:17.:40:20.

is good for public services, a step change. And the last election, the

:40:21.:40:27.

mugs we tried to get the Labour candidates to pose with, they would

:40:28.:40:32.

not do it. Jeremy Corbyn is asking why we are embarrassed about

:40:33.:40:36.

immigration? I do not think it will do any good with the swing voters

:40:37.:40:40.

who do not want to hear that. Should asylum seekers waiting in France be

:40:41.:40:49.

welcome to bring? Save the children have said Britain should take 3000

:40:50.:40:55.

unaccompanied children from Europe into the UK. The longer we

:40:56.:40:59.

prevaricate and delay, the more children will fall into the hands of

:41:00.:41:04.

traffickers and will be abused. The priority should be to take those

:41:05.:41:10.

3000 unaccompanied children. But not more asylum seekers or refugees,

:41:11.:41:16.

migrants, who are already in Europe? It is important to distinguish

:41:17.:41:21.

between asylum seekers and migrants. We are talking about asylum seekers

:41:22.:41:25.

and one of the problems in the camps, the applications are not

:41:26.:41:27.

being processed and more pressure has to be put on the French to

:41:28.:41:34.

process asylum claims. If people have immediate family in the UK,

:41:35.:41:41.

they should be looked at passionately. -- compassionately. As

:41:42.:41:48.

is the case. At the moment you have these people in subhuman conditions,

:41:49.:41:52.

frankly, in camps in France, and they are not in the system. Either

:41:53.:41:57.

France has to process the claims or the United Nations needs to. That

:41:58.:42:01.

should not detract from the issue about taking these 3000. Jeremy

:42:02.:42:07.

Corbyn also said Britain should follow the example of Germany, that

:42:08.:42:11.

has let him 1 million migrants. Just last year. Should bring do the same?

:42:12.:42:20.

I think we have got to be careful about public reaction and about what

:42:21.:42:24.

we can absorb as a country. We should do our fair share. Is that

:42:25.:42:29.

fair share of the 20,000 the government has agreed to? It should

:42:30.:42:35.

go further than that with the 3000 children. Not what Jeremy Corbyn

:42:36.:42:40.

suggests, to take hundreds of thousands of migrants who have come

:42:41.:42:44.

from Syria and Iraq. The priority now should be the children not

:42:45.:42:49.

accompanied, who unless we take action are left to the traffickers

:42:50.:42:53.

and abusive people who are taking advantage of them. Should the Prime

:42:54.:43:03.

Minister say yes to the proposal by Save The Children charity to take

:43:04.:43:06.

the 3000 unaccompanied children? There is a humanitarian case for

:43:07.:43:14.

that. It is fraught with problems. You need to sort out how these

:43:15.:43:17.

children have got there, that they are genuinely alone. They are not

:43:18.:43:26.

going to fall in the hands of sex traffickers, people traffickers and

:43:27.:43:29.

other abuses. There is the issue we have a record number of children in

:43:30.:43:33.

care in the UK, the highest number in 35 years and a shortage of foster

:43:34.:43:40.

carers. We need to find places with specialist support here and there

:43:41.:43:45.

are practical considerations. From the humanitarian point of view we

:43:46.:43:47.

are probably going to have to do something. Do you think you should

:43:48.:43:56.

do something? We have a duty of care to children in appalling

:43:57.:44:00.

circumstances. The Prime Minister's policy is right to focus on refugees

:44:01.:44:06.

taking them from refugee camps around Syria. It is Germany who has

:44:07.:44:13.

unilaterally suspended European immigration laws and caused this

:44:14.:44:17.

crisis and now there is a backlash against this across Europe. We must

:44:18.:44:23.

not be drawn into that. On that, our European governments right to have

:44:24.:44:27.

put up their own temporary borders to deal with this crisis? You can

:44:28.:44:32.

understand why they are doing it and also this is why it must be

:44:33.:44:36.

resolved. Unless it is resolved about who takes what share, they all

:44:37.:44:41.

end up in Greece, Italy. Should Britain have taken part in a quota?

:44:42.:44:48.

No. On the children... Before the children came up there was a

:44:49.:44:52.

proposal for a quota system. If everybody had taken a quota of

:44:53.:44:56.

refugees and migrants, as you said, it would not have led to this

:44:57.:45:04.

situation. We need to work with European countries to ensure that

:45:05.:45:07.

people take their fair share. I do not think a quota system. On the

:45:08.:45:11.

issue of children, Tim says we need to ensure they do not fall into the

:45:12.:45:14.

hands of traffickers, the longer we delay on the decision the more

:45:15.:45:19.

likely they are to fall in the hands of traffickers. I recognise the

:45:20.:45:23.

point you make, we need to make sure their places. 3000 children is five

:45:24.:45:28.

per constituency which means in my city of Leeds, just under 40. And we

:45:29.:45:35.

have 10,000 foster carers less. When you talk about fair share, asked

:45:36.:45:40.

more than any other European nation are paying more than our fair share

:45:41.:45:44.

of aid to people displaced from Syria. ?1.2 billion, doing a great

:45:45.:45:50.

job over many years looking after people in difficult circumstances in

:45:51.:45:54.

places like Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, to avoid this exodus of

:45:55.:45:59.

people, risking their lives. It is not working! They are still coming.

:46:00.:46:06.

There would have been more and if Germany had not unilaterally opened

:46:07.:46:12.

its doors, suspended Schengen and the Dublin Convention, we would not

:46:13.:46:15.

have this crisis now. If they had spent the money on the ground

:46:16.:46:20.

looking after people closer to Syria, we would not be in this

:46:21.:46:21.

position now. Let's talk about the border control

:46:22.:46:29.

guards because the president of the Czech Republic has called for 5000

:46:30.:46:34.

soldiers to bolster the continent's border control. Would you support

:46:35.:46:39.

British soldiers going? If that is what is needed to protect the

:46:40.:46:42.

borders but also, there's a reason why these people are flowing in,

:46:43.:46:45.

because they are fleeing terror. I would say on this point about we are

:46:46.:46:49.

spending a lot of money, we are also spending a lot of money taking

:46:50.:46:52.

military action and we also need to deal with the root causes of the

:46:53.:46:56.

problem. So you would support a border... The problem of terror. We

:46:57.:47:02.

have to deal with the reasons why these people... But the crisis is

:47:03.:47:07.

now and that was one of the proposals so would you support

:47:08.:47:11.

Britain sending soldiers to a border patrol on the continent? I think if

:47:12.:47:14.

we are just keeping people out, we're not dealing with the problems

:47:15.:47:19.

we are facing. We have both got to provide the support for countries

:47:20.:47:22.

that really are on the front line, obviously in Syria but also Lebanon

:47:23.:47:26.

and in the camps, to make sure that the camps and the countries who are

:47:27.:47:34.

supporting refugees are living in humanitarian conditions so they are

:47:35.:47:38.

not forced to leave those countries. But also, when they get here, that

:47:39.:47:43.

they are not then exploited as many children are being at the moment.

:47:44.:47:48.

Rachel has said that there needs to be some kind of assistance. Would

:47:49.:47:54.

you support Rajesh soldiers or British personnel -- British

:47:55.:47:57.

soldiers or British personnel effectively defending the Schengen

:47:58.:48:00.

zone? What is it going to look like in practice quest to mock fortress

:48:01.:48:04.

Europe, will we have British soldiers on the beaches of Greece

:48:05.:48:07.

with guns drawn, saying, "You are not coming off those boats"? How,

:48:08.:48:13.

practically, can this happen? We and Europe should be doing a lot more,

:48:14.:48:16.

dealing with places like Turkey which is a safe country, to work out

:48:17.:48:20.

why those people are risking their lives to come across from Turkey to

:48:21.:48:25.

Greece in most cases in the first place. I'm not sure how placing a

:48:26.:48:29.

lot of soldiers on the beaches in Greece or Italy is going to solve

:48:30.:48:33.

the problem at all. Is Jeremy Corbyn were Prime Minister, we would be

:48:34.:48:38.

talking about much bigger numbers... It's irresponsible. He would like to

:48:39.:48:43.

do the same as Angela Merkel. Would that be responsible? I don't think

:48:44.:48:47.

we should have an open border policy. So he is wrong. I don't

:48:48.:48:52.

think we should have that whether it is asylum seekers or economic

:48:53.:48:58.

migrants. The reality is, there are pressures on public services in this

:48:59.:49:00.

country and there are pressures on wages and homes and all the west of

:49:01.:49:05.

it -- rest of it. You have do have clear rules on asylum and economic

:49:06.:49:09.

migrants. It was a pretty cheap of the city star by Jeremy Corbyn over

:49:10.:49:13.

the weekend, going to the campus. The questions he should be asking is

:49:14.:49:17.

why are their 6000 people camped around Calais? Why are the French

:49:18.:49:21.

authorities, under EU law, not processing them, seeing if they have

:49:22.:49:24.

a legitimate claim and dealing with them rather than allowing them to

:49:25.:49:27.

delude themselves into thinking there is some paved with gold

:49:28.:49:30.

situation in the UK when most of them will have no natural right to

:49:31.:49:34.

be here? Allowing them to live in squalid conditions under a full

:49:35.:49:37.

spring is quest Jamaat he was not asking those questions. It is about,

:49:38.:49:42.

"Of course, we will take more", which is irresponsible and

:49:43.:49:46.

impractical will stop I agree that they need to be processed. But was

:49:47.:49:50.

it irresponsible of Jeremy Corbyn to go there, was it a stunt? I don't

:49:51.:49:55.

think it was a cheap publicity stunt. I think it is right that

:49:56.:49:59.

someone in a position of responsibility like Jeremy Corbyn

:50:00.:50:01.

can see for himself the situation because then you can take a more

:50:02.:50:06.

informed decision about it. But I do think it is important that we don't

:50:07.:50:12.

have an open border policy. That is not right for people who are already

:50:13.:50:17.

here. But there is something practical we could do. We need to

:50:18.:50:21.

build a cross-party consensus on this, but we Jeremy Corbyn, the

:50:22.:50:25.

Prime Minister and the backbenchers about these 3000 children. We can do

:50:26.:50:32.

something about it. But just saying of course we are going to take lots

:50:33.:50:35.

more is completely not right. That is why I have tried to focus on...

:50:36.:50:40.

And create more resentment in the UK. Is it because you are

:50:41.:50:44.

embarrassed by what Jeremy Corbyn has said? I think we are perhaps on

:50:45.:50:48.

the cost of doing something which is the right thing to do, taking

:50:49.:50:51.

unaccompanied children which is a moral responsibility and something

:50:52.:50:54.

we can build cross-party support on. Do you think that will happen? You

:50:55.:51:01.

said at the beginning... I think we are moving there because it is

:51:02.:51:04.

clearly... I'm not dodging it but it is clearly under discussion with the

:51:05.:51:06.

comments from Justine Greening yesterday. It would be odd if

:51:07.:51:10.

something did not happen now. Let's talk about the wristbands, asylum

:51:11.:51:14.

seekers in Cardiff are being made to wear wristbands in order to receive

:51:15.:51:19.

food. You think it's appalling? Yes. Why do these problems keep

:51:20.:51:22.

occurring? We have the red doors issue, again marking up those people

:51:23.:51:26.

who will receive food vouchers or help. Why is this happening?

:51:27.:51:31.

Common-sense needs to be used here. To use tactics that smack of the

:51:32.:51:36.

Nazis about putting badges on people is completely unacceptable. We have

:51:37.:51:40.

lots of technology, give them a smart card so they can get food

:51:41.:51:44.

vouchers. This is what happens when you stop thinking about people as

:51:45.:51:48.

humans. They are humans like the rest of us. To treat people in this

:51:49.:51:52.

way is despicable and has to stop. We will no doubt hear from the

:51:53.:51:55.

government what the decision will be.

:51:56.:51:56.

Labour has still not faced up to why it lost the last general election,

:51:57.:52:00.

according to one of their former pollsters.

:52:01.:52:01.

In an exclusive interview on yesterday's Sunday Politics,

:52:02.:52:03.

Deborah Mattinson said she was "very concerned" that lessons were not

:52:04.:52:06.

being learnt, and that the recent report by Margaret Beckett

:52:07.:52:08.

was apologetic, defensive, and didn't shine a light

:52:09.:52:10.

Here's a flavour of what she had to say our reporter,

:52:11.:52:14.

I think it was a whitewash and a massive missed opportunity.

:52:15.:52:19.

I feel very concerned that the lessons will

:52:20.:52:21.

I can't see how they will be learned.

:52:22.:52:24.

If this report does not address those

:52:25.:52:30.

issues, then I'm not sure when they would be addressed.

:52:31.:52:32.

No political party has a divine right to exist.

:52:33.:52:37.

Unless Labour really listens to the voters that it must persuade,

:52:38.:52:41.

it stands no chance of winning the next

:52:42.:52:43.

Deborah Mattinson, there. You have just come back after a few weeks...

:52:44.:52:55.

Well, after maternity leave. What is it like being back? All change!

:52:56.:53:03.

We've noticed that! Have you been welcomed back by Jeremy Corbyn? You

:53:04.:53:06.

came up to my constituency in Leeds over Christmas and New Year because

:53:07.:53:10.

we were affected by the floods and people were very pleased to see him.

:53:11.:53:15.

What about you? Have you been welcomed back? You were an

:53:16.:53:19.

important, senior figure. We've been working closely together on the

:53:20.:53:22.

issues of flood defences, insurance and things affecting my

:53:23.:53:26.

constituents. You are not in the Shadow Cabinet. Are you happy with

:53:27.:53:35.

the decision? Yes, I'm on the Treasury Select Committee and

:53:36.:53:37.

enjoying my work. Being in the Shadow Cabinet is a 20 47

:53:38.:53:39.

commitment. I did not vote for Jeremy Corbyn and I've got a family.

:53:40.:53:42.

You have to throw everything into it in the Shadow Cabinet and are not

:53:43.:53:45.

willing to make that sacrifice at that time in my life. Do you agree

:53:46.:53:49.

with your colleague Michael do that the party has been fighting its so

:53:50.:53:52.

intensely it has not been able to fight the Tories? That's right, it's

:53:53.:53:56.

true. We are focusing inwardly on issues which don't really resonate

:53:57.:54:00.

with the public about Trident, for example. We should be focusing on

:54:01.:54:06.

issues that really matter to people, like, for example, the fact that

:54:07.:54:12.

Britain is incredibly exposed to the financial turbulence going on around

:54:13.:54:15.

the world at the moment because the economy has not been properly

:54:16.:54:18.

rebalanced after the financial crisis. Who do you blame, if we are

:54:19.:54:23.

talking about -- for talking about the wrong issues, things that don't

:54:24.:54:27.

resonate with people? The leadership of the party have to take

:54:28.:54:30.

responsibility for that. They've opened up the issue of Trident, that

:54:31.:54:35.

was not an issue in the country. Because it is the party policy to

:54:36.:54:41.

renew it? Yes, jobs depend on it but most importantly, our national

:54:42.:54:43.

security depends on it. We should have learned those lessons in the

:54:44.:54:48.

1980s. But the Labour Party membership are keen to have a look

:54:49.:54:53.

at it again. At the Labour Party conference, we reaffirmed our

:54:54.:54:57.

commitment to renewing Trident. This is pressure which is coming from the

:54:58.:54:59.

leadership and not from the grassroots of the party. The longer

:55:00.:55:04.

we spend debating these internal issues about how we select the

:55:05.:55:11.

leader, Trident, the Falklands, the less time we are spending debating

:55:12.:55:15.

things that really matter to people around their living standards, about

:55:16.:55:20.

their schools and hospitals. Really, that is a dereliction of duty. Our

:55:21.:55:24.

duty as an opposition party should be holding the government to account

:55:25.:55:28.

and also setting out an alternative agenda. We have got good things to

:55:29.:55:32.

say on that. John McDonnell did a good job at the weekend. But they

:55:33.:55:37.

are being drowned out, you feel... Yes, by internal debate. Michael

:55:38.:55:44.

Dugher said that Jeremy Corbyn had to pass a series of tests in May,

:55:45.:55:48.

the elections, particularly in Scotland where Labour completely

:55:49.:55:53.

failed. Do you think that if he does not pass those tests, he could face

:55:54.:55:57.

a leadership challenge? I hope that we do pass those tests and I hope

:55:58.:56:01.

that we are winning back seat. But there's no evidence of it at the

:56:02.:56:05.

moment. Could Jeremy Corbyn face a leadership challenge if the party

:56:06.:56:10.

failed to make ground? Don't underestimate Jeremy Corbyn, he won

:56:11.:56:13.

support in the Labour Party and drew people into the Labour Party with

:56:14.:56:17.

what he said. He now needs to capture that, get those campaigners

:56:18.:56:21.

and supporters out on the doorstep, and take that fresh approach to

:56:22.:56:25.

politics which actually, people are crying out for, translated onto the

:56:26.:56:28.

doorstep and we will do that by focusing on issues which matter to

:56:29.:56:32.

people. If we do that, we can win back seat in May in Scotland and

:56:33.:56:36.

Wales and win back the London may rotate and seats around the country.

:56:37.:56:40.

Should some of your colleagues who would describe themselves as

:56:41.:56:43.

moderates stop criticising Jeremy Corbyn and let him get on with it? I

:56:44.:56:47.

think most people are letting Jeremy Corbyn get on with it. But they are

:56:48.:56:55.

criticising... To be fair, Michael Dugher wanted to serve in the Shadow

:56:56.:56:58.

Cabinet but he was sacked from his position. I think he and others have

:56:59.:57:06.

a right to say they think -- where they think it is going on. But

:57:07.:57:09.

people like Andy Burnham and Hilary Benn, who did not vote for Jeremy

:57:10.:57:12.

Corbyn are getting stuck in and taking the campaign to the Tories.

:57:13.:57:16.

We have to focus on the issues that matter to people. The government

:57:17.:57:19.

making big mistakes but we are not in a position to capitalise. Do you

:57:20.:57:24.

think you are not in this position to capitalise on those because the

:57:25.:57:27.

former pollster, Deborah Mattinson said the report into why the party

:57:28.:57:31.

lost the election was a whitewash? I don't think it was a whitewash. I

:57:32.:57:36.

think Margaret Beckett's report focused clearly on the issues I

:57:37.:57:43.

heard on the doorstep. I thought that Labour could and would win the

:57:44.:57:46.

general election so I got it wrong. But we were hearing the messages on

:57:47.:57:49.

the doorstep about labour not dealing with the deficit, letting

:57:50.:57:51.

too many immigrants in, that we were too soft on welfare and we did not

:57:52.:57:54.

have strong enough leadership. We heard the messages over and over

:57:55.:57:57.

again and that is what Margaret Beckett identified in the report.

:57:58.:58:02.

Deborah Mattinson said you was apologetic and offensive and she did

:58:03.:58:05.

not face up to the seriousness of the problem and has not made the

:58:06.:58:09.

research public that Deborah Mattinson did. Should she? I think

:58:10.:58:13.

Margaret Beckett's report was good and focused on the four things which

:58:14.:58:17.

I think are the reasons we lost the election. If we address and face the

:58:18.:58:20.

challenges, we can win again and we need to.

:58:21.:58:22.

There's just time before we go to find out the answer to our quiz.

:58:23.:58:25.

The question was who is not on the Tatler list of who reallty

:58:26.:58:28.

Is it a) Ed Miliband, b) Nick Clegg, c) Boris Johnson,

:58:29.:58:32.

Nick Clegg? Ed Miliband. You are both wrong. Jeremy Corbyn was not on

:58:33.:58:39.

the list. That's all for today.

:58:40.:58:42.

Thanks to our guests. Particularly, these two, who were

:58:43.:58:48.

not on the Tatler list! I'll be here at noon

:58:49.:58:52.

tomorrow with Liz Kendall.

:58:53.:58:55.

Download Subtitles

SRT

ASS