12/04/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

After the Business Secretary Sajid Javid says

the Government is willing to co-invest in the Port Talbot

steelworks to keep it open, MPs hold an emergency debate

on the crisis facing the UK's steel industry.

as the new Work and Pensions Secretary.

We'll assess the challenges he faces on welfare reform.

The Government's ?9 million pro-EU leaflet

starts dropping through letterboxes across the UK - and provokes

a wave of hostility on the Conservative backbenches.

And the most unlikely star of musical theatre - Jeremy Corbyn.

We take a peak at Corbyn The Musical, which opens tonight.

# I didn't sell out, I didn't live in

# You need a hero, you got Corbin #. All that in the next hour

and with us for the whole of the programme today is the former

Conservative MP and Work What's life like on the outside?

It's not quite 24/7, seven days a week, so slightly more time back to

myself, but pursuing things that I want to do with a view, which I've

always said, to go back into the housing 2020. Obviously I love

place. You must've been surprised at the time. There can't have been much

time to plan for life outside because this was a night when the

Tories, your party, did better than most people expected but you lost

your seat. It wasn't a surprise. If you followed the Merseyside

election, the fact that it's taken me ten years to win their... It was

always going to be a difficult seat for a Conservative minister to win

on Merseyside. But interestingly, I did actually increased my vote by to

present from when I won in 2010. I got 2000 extra votes. So it was

interesting, the tactics that Labour used both in rural western Chester,

the only two seats they won, and that was that the Greens aligned and

did a deal with Labour not to stand in Wirral West, otherwise I would

have won because I would have taken 3%. It was a couple of hundred

votes. It was very, very close because it went to a recount or sub

I think you asked for a recount on the night. I didn't ask but it did

go because it was so close. We won actually on the vote but it was the

flood of postal votes that came in that changed it and hence there was

a recount. You must be missing the place if you want to be involved

again in politics? I said on the night that I wanted to come back.

There I was, part of the government that had delivered 2 million more

people into work, part of their team and I'd had a wonderful time there.

I'd taken ten years to get into politics because I wanted to go back

to my home turf, Merseyside, which, for anybody, is a tough place to be,

but you got to love the area, love the place, so yes I do aim to be

back in 2020 but it's a long journey and a tough journey so we'll see

what happens. In the meantime? Taking up most of my time at the

moment is an organisation that I'm working with with the British

Transport Police authority and I work with inner-city children on

careers, an role models, on how to get their foot in the door, so

supporting people with career options and that is something I've

done for 15 years and I'm able to carry that on. It's good to have you

here, Esther McVey, and we'll talk more about your previous brief.

And today we're giving you a different kind of teaser -

I said to him he didn't write off the mortgage of the won the

taxpayers were helping to pay for at Oxford.

I didn't receive a proper answer then.

That was the Labour MP Dennis Skinner speaking in the House

At the end of the show Esther will, I'm sure, give us the correct

In the next hour, MPs will begin an emergency debate

on the UK steel industry, after Tata Steel announced a month

ago that they would be selling their UK plants.

Yesterday, the company confirmed the sale of its Scunthorpe plant

to Greybull Capital for a token ?1, and the Business Secretary

Sajid Javid told the Commons that the Government was working very

hard to find a buyer for the Port Talbot

Among options being considered, he said, was the possibility

of co-investing with a buyer on commercial terms.

Last month, Tata announced its intention to sell the plant

and its wider UK assets, rather than to close it.

Since then, I have continued to meet with its executives

I've been joined in this by my right honourable friend the Secretary

of State for Wales and my right honourable friend

And we've secured assurances that Tata will be a responsible seller

and will allow appropriate time to find a buyer.

The formal sales process begins today.

I've been in contact with potential buyers,

making clear that the Government stands ready to help.

This includes looking at the possibility of co-investing

We've been joined from Central Lobby in the Houses of Parliament

The Port Talbot steelworks are in his constituency.

And we did ask the Department for Business for an interview

with a minister about this, but none was available.

Stephen Kinnock, watched you make of Sajid Javid's statement yesterday?

Were you surprised by his suggestion of co-investing in the Port Talbot

plant? Well, it left more questions than answers. I think we need

clarity on what that means. We pushed the Secretary of State in the

debate for more clarity and it didn't really come. I think we

should just be absolutely clear that we need to do everything that we can

now to get a good buyer for the business but if that doesn't work,

the Government has to be ready to step in with a time bound, costed

nationalisation, just to ensure that enough time is in place for a good

buyer to come forward. What does co-investment mean to you, then? Is

that really fulfilling some of the objectives that you've just ate it?

There would perhaps be some time bound investment by the government

until either a full-scale buyer could be found or, at least, it was

becoming profitable again? There's a range of actions they can take, from

giving a soft loan to Tata Steel to helping with energy cost, with our

rent D, even to stepping on the pension. -- with research and

develop. This lack of clarity is not helping the sales process. We need

to ensure that we maximise the attractiveness of the deal for

potential buyers and the shambolic approach that we've seen from the

Government so far was compounded yesterday by what the Business

Secretary said. We need that clarity and in the debate today we need to

see a really clear statement. What does he mean by co-investment? What

is the Government prepared to do? What is it not prepared to do?

Potential buyers out there need to know and the customer base that they

currently have for the Tata Steel business really needs to know. How

long do you think this process can go on for, this search for a buyer?

There will come a point, weren't there, when Tata will say it's

enough? My understanding is that they are offering two blocks of

eight weeks now, so a total 16 week process with expressions of interest

in the first period and then Judah the gems on preferred buyers in the

second. If you look at the sale of Long kart product in Scunthorpe,

that took nine months at least from end to end. This 16 week process is

very tight and one of the reasons it is so tight is because the

government has been asleep at the wheel and has been having the

conversation is an advance that it should have been having, knowing

that a possible so was coming. Sajid Javid should have been with me in

Mumbai. Instead, he was jetting off to Australia, so I think that shows

the priorities were not right and they have been asleep at the wheel.

But it did come as a bolt out of the blue. Nobody was expecting the

announcement from Tata Steel. Well, hang on. Yesterday sided Davitt said

both the all-party group and in the debate that he was one that

persuaded Tata Steel not to close but to go for a sale. -- Sajid Javid

said. How can he say that it came as a bolt out of the blue and then try

to claim the credit for something yesterday, waste on long-term

negotiations? Something in this just doesn't add up. But what's also

worrying is that I pressed the Secretary of State yesterday. What

is he doing to daughter Nissan, Jaguar Land Rover, Honda, the key

customer base that is the lifeblood of the Port Talbot steelworks and

all of the steelworks across the country? The answer was very

wishy-washy. He needs to pick up the phone and start reassuring that

customer base and his lack of action on that was very worrying. But how

do you make this industry appear more attractive, as you said? How do

you make it attractive to a potential buyer if, in the

long-term, it's just not going to be viable? What evidence do you have

that it will ever be viable if there was going to be a continuation of

cheap Chinese steel imports? On the cheap imports, what we also need is

a government that is prepared to stand up. The, rather than roll out

the red carpet for Beijing. They have been blocking the European

Commission's attempts to make anti-dumping measures more

effective, so there is one big problem there. The trading... There

isn't a level playing field and that's because the British

Government have been blocking that. But in the broader picture, steel is

a cyclical industry. If you look at the weakness of the pound, that's

already helping the numbers to go on the right direction for the British

Steel industry. The energy intensive industries compensation package is

also helping. So this ?1 million a day figure that gets bandied around

is no longer the case. We're moving in the right direction. We've got a

fantastic workforce, making the best steel that money can buy. We've just

got to back the industry, give it a level playing field, a chance to

compete, and it will. If you talk to customers like Jaguar Land Rover,

Honda, Nissan, they are getting the best service and the best product

money can buy but we need the Government to help in an -- step in

and make that happen. Has the Government been asleep at the wheel?

Did Sajid Javid not do enough, early enough, to stop this happening? From

what I know about Sajid Javid, he's a very shrewd operator and if he

says that it was a surprise what was announced in Mumbai... Cos, yes, he

had been dealing... Should he have been there? That's for him to

decide. I don't know what he was doing in Australia that could have

been bringing in work to the country. But I think it's important

that those words are vague to a degree, and I'll tell you why. He's

got to be very careful that Europe doesn't intervene, say this is state

aid and then rule out a deal, so the fact that he's said co-ownership on

a commercial basis... He has got to say those things. The fact that he

will be on the phone constantly, saying who is interest rate? What

can we do? And keeping those words vague to attract as many people as

possible. Should this steelworks be saved, what may, because it's such

an important part of our manufacturing? What you do whenever

you go into any deal is say, how do we make it work? What are the things

we need? We need something for the local community, something for the

industry, we need to make sure it is workable, and how do we get the best

deal for everyone? That is the Government, taxpayers, all of the

supply chain, whether it's the car industry, British Aerospace, but

first and foremost you think, what do we do to stabilise the situation?

What do we do to attract as many people as possible to want to buy

this and go forward? Should they do something about pension liability?

Should they be doing more, the Government, to bring down energy

costs, which is what labour and the industry have been calling for?

There are many layers to that. The 2008 climate change but was brought

in, which is now making these energy bills so onerous, that Labour

brought in, because was looking at climate change. You have to look at

flexible to. You have to look at tariffs. We can't have Chinese

dumping cheap steel in the UK. Should there be tariffs put on

Chinese imports? I think that's something we have to look at, as we

look at the flexibility for everything. Stephen Cain, Labour has

called for this debate. What more are you hoping to achieve? --

Stephen Kinnock. We are looking for clarity on what co-investment means.

We are looking for a proper U-turn on this position on anti-dumping is

the Government simply hasn't done enough on that, and we're looking

for a real extension of support to Tata steel to get them beyond this

16 week period, because I don't think that it's long enough. What we

need really, overall, is a sense that the Government is actually

stepping up to the plate and standing up for British Steel,

rather than rolling out the red carpet for Beijing. Stephen Kinnock,

thank you. Now, Work and Pensions

Secretary Stephen Crabb will give his first major speech

in the job this afternoon. He took over from Iain Duncan Smith,

who resigned over proposals in the Budget to cut the personal

independence payment What are the main issue Stephen

Crabb has to deal within his new role?

The new Work and Pensions Secretary has already

dealt with one major issue at the top of his in-tray.

Last month he confirmed that controversial disability cuts

to personal independence payments would be scrapped.

That leaves a ?4.4 billion hole in the budget -

but will he resist more cuts to welfare?

Then there's Universal Credit - his predeccessor Iain Duncan Smith's

The project aims to streamline existing working-age benefits

into a single monthly payment - but it is six years behind schedule.

And critics say "salami slicing" of the project leaves it at risk

of failing to achieve its key aim of incentivising people into work.

Crabb is expected to use his first speech today to outline

plans to tackle "the root causes of poverty".

But does this mean further changes to the welfare system?

I'm joined by Owen Smith, Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary.

Before I come to you, Esther, do you share the concerns of Iain Duncan

Smith around salami slicing? Has it been cut too much? What we are

looking at is the juxtaposition between what all the changes are. I

think that is the right position. How can you have extra taxes for

some people and benefit cuts for others. What is affordable for the

whole country? Other departments are looking for money. Whether it was

the Department of Health wanting more money, transport, the arts, you

have got to say how do we get the best deal for those people looking

at the budget? In the context of the budget, George Osborne was wrong for

more money to be taken from the welfare budget when tax breaks were

given to better off people, do you think? He stated clearly in the

manifesto going into the election which people voted on and delivered

a Conservative government on, they knew there were going to be these

changes to the benefit system. Actually, the government and the

country voted on that and elected a Conservative government on the back

of that. You said you didn't think it was fair in that overall

envelope, the juxtaposition, was the word you used, making more cuts to

some disabled payments when as you said in the manifesto it said there

were going to be tax breaks. Was Iain Duncan Smith right? Then the

government came back and said, actually, hence you had George

Osborne and Stephen Crabb coming to the house and saying we are going to

relook at this. We have changed our mind. That is how democracy works,

how grown-ups were, they had the strength of character to come

forward and say we are going to change those things but be mindful

of the fact that country had only just voted in a government on those

pledges that they had put forward merely months before. Grown-up

politics by the government? They made a mistake, they said, and they

changed it. They changed it in respect of the PIP cuts, and that is

very welcome and that is largely because of the fast we made of it.

And Iain Duncan Smith's resignation? If he had really been concerned

about the plight of disabled people, he could have resigned on many

different occasions. He put through millions of pounds of cuts for

disabled people. Esther is right that the Tory party said they were

going to cut ?12 billion for disabled people, they didn't say

they were going to cut universal credit for people out of work, 10

billion coming from them, the other big losers have been the disabled

and I don't think that was clear to the country. Nor have they succeeded

in getting down welfare spending, it has gone up under the Tories. Did

you know where those cuts were going to be? We couldn't get any minister

to say where the axe would fall. Did you know? You wouldn't know. That is

when you come forward with all of the plans. I wouldn't and I didn't

know the specifics on that. Did you ever feel under pressure? Iain

Duncan Smith said, too often my team have been pressured to make cuts.

What you do at a time when there are more outgoings than there is money

coming into the country, like in any business, household, government, you

say, how can we make our budget work? Every department, including

DWP, would have been asked what the options were to get the spending

down. You would have looked at where the money was needed into the

support. We got 2 million people extra people into work when I was

working there. Where you ever pressured as part of that team to

make cuts to working age benefits? Pressured? You say, what are the

options and the whole team sets about giving a whole array of

options. Some of these you would say, these make the numbers work but

we don't want to do these. Right the way across to what you can do. Every

department would have done that and every department would be

challenging for more money. Health, transport, education, you have to

sit in there and justify your stance. Iain Duncan Smith did

incredibly well for the duration you was there, fighting on behalf of

disabled and unemployed people to get the best deal. Remember, we were

left as a government without any money, as we so well know. Do you

think people would trust a Labour government under Jeremy Corbyn to

tackle the welfare budget? Yes because we would tackle the

underlying problems. Low wages, high rents, inability to get into decent

jobs. The living wages coming in. But it will not offset the cuts for

low paid people brought by cuts in tax universal credit. It is going to

offset by five times any uplift for a full-time worker on the new

national living wage. So you wouldn't support any cuts? You would

look at the underlying causes of poverty. I certainly wouldn't be

cutting the budget for disabled people. I would be reversing the

bedroom tax. That has been a pernicious and discriminatory policy

and I would be looking to make work pay in this country and get back to

the fundamentals that universal credit was meant to address and has

been undermined by the cuts. It is revealing that Esther, a minister in

the DWP, didn't know that ?12 million of cuts were going to fall

on working people and the disabled. I am incredulous that she didn't

know that. What do you say to that? You know how budgets are done and

you go forward with a whole array... You go forward with a whole array of

ways which you are going to do that. Obviously, that was in the budget

the year later, what was going to happen. Can I just say that what we

did the entire time was balance up the support that went people to get

into a job. You said it was a mistake to make the cuts that were

proposed by George Osborne into disability benefit. The budget was

always going up, the only difference was in the rate. It was just not

increasing at the rate it was. I listen to the words that are bandied

about carelessly, that wasn't what happened. Looking at universal

credit, can still work? What they are setting out, what they are

intending to do, yes. This will be Stephen Crabb's position to go

forward and make sure it works. The whole narrative and motivation to

get people back in work. It is six years behind schedule and it no

longer incentivise is people to find work. The Office for Budget

Responsibility has significant concerns about the scheme. It feels

like a fell project before it has got underway. It was always a very

slow roll-out and started at the end of the last parliament. It is not

six years behind. The premise of what it is about, how it is going to

be rolled out, obviously, the combinations of different people's

lies, has to be worked through. You are confident it is going to be

rolled out in the way you envisaged under Stephen Crabb? I am not there

now, ... You have an expertise. You would need the people involved to

explain where it is going. Do you think it will happen? I hope that it

does and I will be cheering on Stephen Crabb all the way. You have

root and branch review of universal credit. What does that mean? I went

to old, at the heart of the biggest experiment, 30,000 people have been

an universal credit for a while. It is clear that, talking to people on

it, it is not working. The system is not perfect by any means. But it is

a good idea. I fundamentally support the notion that you simplify and get

rid of disincentives. The problem is, it was meant to be a better

resourced system than the current one. It was meant to be ?2 billion

more generous than what we had. It is now ?5 billion less generous.

They got rid of some of the cliff edges, at 16 weeks for example, but

anybody... 16 hours, rather than weeks. There is always going to be

imperfections. They have got rid of some minor problems around 16 hours

but everybody is going to be worse off, on average, ?1500 per year

worse. Single mothers in particular are going to be even bigger, 2.5

?3000 worse off per year. Iain Duncan Smith said some cuts would

the justified if they could protect some pension benefits? He is wrong

to say that the Labour government didn't do even more than they

proposed. It is a false choice. There are other ways we can improve

the system. They didn't have to take the decision to cut corporation tax,

cut capital gains tax, those things cost billions of pounds and they

could make different decisions. Instead, they can't yet say, PIP and

it tells you everything you need to know about their priorities. Stay

with us. The tax returns of our leaders have been put under the

microscope. The Chancellor and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn released

their tax returns yesterday just as Jeremy Cameron -- just as David

Cameron faced Parliament for the first time since the Panama papers

were published. Mr Speaker, I accept

all of the criticisms for not responding more quickly to these

issues last week. But as I said, I was angry about

the way my father's memory was being We should think carefully before

abandoning completely all taxpayer confidentiality in this

House, as some have suggested. If this were to come

in for MPs, people would also ask for a similar

approach for those who ask us questions, those who run large

public services or lead local government or, indeed, those

who edit the news programmes or The Prime Minister has attacked tax

dodging as immoral but he clearly failed to

give a full account of his own involvement

in offshore tax havens until this week,

or to take essential action... Or to take essential action to clean

up the system, whilst at the same time blocking

wider efforts to do so. We risk seeing a House of Commons

which is stuffed full of low achievers,

who hate enterprise, hate people who look

after their own family and who know absolutely

nothing about the outside world. The biggest multinational

company earns more income in a single week

than the combined incomes Now, the Prime Minister has spoken

about transparency before and today and that is why many of us

across this House, from all parties, want to make sure that the country

by country information that multinationals will be obliged

to provide to HMRC should be put Has David Cameron succeeded in

putting this issue to bed? I don't think it will be put to bed for a

long time because people do want to know that your thoughts, words and

deeds all aligned. Talking about trust and integrity and

authenticity. What we have got here now through technology is the

ability to find out some of these things. Therefore, transparency and

being able to justify what you are doing and saying will be at the four

and I don't see that going for some time yet. It is a national motion to

want to know what you're saying is really what you are doing.

Transparency will be the most important thing for a little while,

I think, going forward. Do you think it is right for anybody who wants to

be prime ministers Chancellor to publish their tax returns? I think

it is probably the way of the world going forward. We won't be like King

Canute on the shore saying, hold that back. I am a conservative if

you look at market forces, it is probably the next market force

coming forward is transparency. You can't run, you can't hide, this will

be the shape of things to come. Did they miss handle it with the drip,

drip effect of number ten giving one statement that David Cameron had to

clarify and expand. Was it a mistake?

He said that himself. He said wasn't his finest hour. He's done

everything right. Is done every been legal. But equally, it was a big

shift that he was introducing in a relatively short base of time, that

no Prime Minister before him has had to do. He changed that. I can see

the reticence and he said he was defending his father but, as he

says, it wasn't his finest hour and he should have been quicker doing

what he did. What does it say about politicians' ability to govern by

publishing their tax return? Not a lot, I think, is the truth. I've

heard lots of suggestions that Churchill's tax returns and affairs

were pretty murky. I'm sure many readers through the ages have not

been great at managing their personal finances and yet managed to

have a public role that stands up to scrutiny. I think it's a

destruction, to be honest. I'm happy to publish mine if I need to but I

think it is truly a destruction from the wider issues that this affair

has exposed about the way in which our tax system internationally has

become divorced from nation states. Taxes are there in order to be able

to allow us, as politicians, to gather in the money to run essential

public services, and if we've got a supranational set of tax rules and

tax dodgers and tax avoidance, tax havens at the heart of these, and

Britain at the heart of organising that, we are undermining our ability

to the services that people in the or Pontypridd need or want. So I

think there is a massive cultural issue at the heart of this. But the

genie is out of the bottle. Do you think Labour should really be

pressing this further, so that we do, and have seen now, the

Chancellor's tax return, Jeremy Corbyn's found and published his.

Should we be seeing every senior politician? Calls by the SNP for the

Cabinet to publish theirs. Do you want to see that? I don't think that

would add a huge amount. The newspapers would love it and there

would easily be public interest in it. Would you constituents like it?

My only income is my Parliamentary salary so if I publish mine, it

would be extremely tedious for everyone. You could work it out

right now. I've got no problems with doing it. But I think that is a

destruction and some in the Conservative Party might like it to

be a distraction from the bigger question we're trying to address.

The newspapers might like it to be a bigger destruction. Let's get down

into the weeds about to file their returns on time or who earned a

little bit extra. But, actually, that is distracting from the much

bigger question about how we reform internationally our tax system, such

that countries can run properly and governments can govern properly. Is

it a problem if you have a government that is imposing

austerity, which you are busy supported as part of that

government, and then revealed in their tax returns that maybe they

are benefiting from tax planning or minimising their taxes? Is there a

contradiction at the heart of that? First of all, what I was about and

what the Conservative Party was about is living within your means,

so it's not all stared at it. It's if you can't afford that, how way

you going to bring more money into the country to be able to afford it,

or how you going to do without it? Service austerity, it wasn't that.

It was, how do you live within your means? This government has taken 4

million people out of paying tax, those low earners. That's right. At

the same time, they have brought in more money from people and companies

paying into the tax system and that's right. The top 10% now are

paying more than they've ever played. They are now paying 50% into

the system. It might not be going as quick as people might like and there

might still be more money that could be brought in but it is a process

from start to finish and this government has done a lot in getting

more taxing from those people who can afford it and those who can't

not having to pay tax. I think S2 is doing a good job of trying to defend

the indefensible. The two big issues are this cultural problem of tax

avoidance and crucially, the other thing... What is the difference

between tax avoidance and tax planning, as somebody said

yesterday? ISA our tax planning, rather than tax avoidance. Where do

you draw the line? You have to understand that there have to be not

what we've got right now, which is one rule for people who may be put a

few quid into an ice or into their pension, and one rule for the

super-rich, like the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

These are the very people who benefit from having the wherewithal

and the skills on the money to take advantage of this nexus of tax

havens across the world and we've got to address that. Which is legal.

Perhaps that's the problem. That we have allowed to grow up like Topsy

this combo gated web of tax avoidance and people like the Prime

Minister, the super wealthy, can take advantage of it and ordinary

people in my constituency could never dream of it. Just one thing.

What he did was correct and he paid his tax on what was a unit trust

and, actually, unit trusts are not only used by the trade unions but

also by the guardian, pension funds, so careless words... I'm not care

less, I'm careful. You weren't because this was about saving money

and he's paid all his tax. Should the system need to change? Yes,

that's what we are doing. He is trying to make sure there is greater

transparency, that people with beneficial owners are now being

exposed but this is something that will take time and I agree with you

- people who can afford to pave more money into the tax system to support

people who can't is the right way to go and that's what Conservatives

believe in as well as the Labour Party. Thank you.

Conservative backbenchers have called it an "insult" to voters,

and an action worthy of Robert Mugabe.

The decision by David Cameron to authorise a Government leaflet

to be sent to everyone in the country, setting out why

the Government backs Britain remaining in the EU.

We'll discuss the ?9 million leaflet in just a moment.

First, though, here's a flavour of the debate in the House

Whether the United Kingdom should remain in or leave

the European Union is a huge decision for this country.

It is right that this should be a decision for the British

people as a whole and, equally, it is right that people

have the facts in front of them and understand the reasons

for the Government's recommendations before they go to the poll.

Does the Minister agree with me that some of the reaction to this

publication has been more about trying to silence

the arguments for remaining than trying to counter them?

Does my right honourable friend agree that it is an absurd

proposition that the government of the day is not entitled to form

an opinion or policy on the role of the government

in the modern world, or is not allowed to communicate

the reasons for having that policy to the electorate?

Does the Minister accept that this is not so much Project Fear

as Project Slightly Worrying, because it's been dumbed down?

But isn't it an abuse of public money, an insult to the electors,

and does he realise it's going to drive many more

The Minister will try as hard as he can to bluster this

but the reality is that the public will see through it

and they will realise that this is deeply, deeply unfair.

Furthermore, I was very fortunate enough to get my copy of the leaflet

this morning and I was slightly disappointed that it was printed

Had it been printed on something a bit more absorbent,

then at least my constituents would have been able to put it

As a member of the Council of Europe, part of my responsibility

is election observing and I go round and I have a look

at the conduct of the campaign prior to polling day,

and if I witnessed in any of the countries that I go

to the sort of spiv Robert Mugabe antics that I've seen by this

government, then I would condemn the conduct of that election

We've been joined now by the Conservative MP Nigel Evans,

who you saw there at the end of those clips, and by James

McGrory, chief campaign spokesman for Britain Stronger in Europe.

Welcome to both of you. So there is the leaflet. Not really for

absorbent purposes. But why shouldn't the Government explain

their official position? Well, we hear that David Livingstone is

saying 85 is under the public want more information for stock they want

more information from both sides, not just one of the sites. When he

says the Government is giving its view, part of the government is in

favour and part of the government actually wants to leave. There are

six Cabinet ministers campaigning to leave the EU. There are a lot of

ministers and half the Parliamentary backbenchers want to leave the EU.

But those Cabinet ministers that you mentioned are voting against the

Government's position and that's the official position, isn't it? As I

mentioned in that piece right at the end, and I toned it down, as you may

have seen. I was very, very calm. Calmer now. I'm a member of the

council of Europe. I will be very shortly going to Serbia to observe

their Parliamentary elections and I'll be looking at the run-up to the

election, as well as how the conduct of the poll takes place on the

Sunday. And if things come to my attention whereby the Government is

promoting itself, spending money on pushing itself, as opposed to the

other side, then I'm not going to say it's fair. And that's what it

all comes down to. People want more information but they wanted from all

sides so why didn't the Government just allow both sides to have more

money to spend instead of, I've got to say, spending ?9 million of

taxpayers' money, when I've got potholes into the row. That's where

the money should be going, not on this. ?9 million is an awful lot of

money and there will be an awful lot of taxpayers who will say, I didn't

want it spent on that. It works out at about 30p per household. Believe

campaigns will get money to spend on their own leaflets. -- the Leave

campaigns. The Government has a right to articulated position. The

Government is firmly on the side of remaining in the EU. But did they

have to do it in this leaflet here, which is a fairly weighty, you might

call it, in terms of leaflets, anyway, spelling out that the

government believes are voting to remain in the EU is the best

decision for the UK. It's a fairly weighty issue. At an important

issue. There's a lot to the issue. Jobs, the economy, our place in the

world, security. There's a lot to get through and it's a relatively

small leaflet when you think of the big debate we're having in this

country. People want to hear from their government on a range of

things. The Government spends millions of pounds communicating

with the public, whether it's on welfare, health, Home Office

policies. They're doing it on what I would argue is the biggest issue

facing the country today. It's not worthy of Robert Mugabe, though, is

it. Was that not an overreaction? Absolutely, but it was emphasis to

make a point, which is that it is loading the dice, and part of the

problem is that if it is a tight result in favour to remain, a lot of

people are going to say, "Hold on, this was an unfair election and the

dice was loaded in favour of the Government". They are tried to make

out that these are all facts. They're not. They are opinions.

There is no mention in this document that we've got a ?60 billion deficit

with the rest of the EU and that's one of the reasons they will want to

carry on trading with us. There is not a hope in hell that Angela

Merkel is going to say, we don't want to sell Britain BMWs and

Mercedes. Did you complain about it when they did it in the Scottish

referendum. I didn't realise they were doing it for the Scottish

referendum but I understand why the Scots felt so angry about it. They

did it twice and I didn't see any Conservative MPs complaining them

because you were on the same side of the argument. You don't like the

fact that your Conservative government has taken a different

position from yourself. They should be allowed to to give it that the

people. Why not give ?9 million to the other side to do the same?

Because the Government is a neutral. The Government has a clear position.

Nigel doesn't like it. What about the issue of fairness? In the

campaign, both sides get an equal amount of taxpayers' money to spend.

But you've got an extra 16 page leaflet. Because the government

isn't a neutral actor. The Bank of England... I don't spend ?9 million

in doing so. I don't mind Cameron come the dispatch box and saying, "I

want to stay in," but what I do resent is the dispatch box and

saying, "I want to stay in," but what I do resent is the spending of

?9 million. If you weren't making outrageous claims about your own

government, comparing them to Robert Mugabe, when they did it in

Scotland... You say that this looks as if they're giving facts and you

disagree with some of the facts, but this has also been put through

people's letterboxes, UK and the European Union - the facts. And,

actually, when you read it, in very small print, which I could hardly

read, it's been sent by vote leave. This also gives the impression that

that that is a factual document was top they should have made it clearer

that it was from Vote Leave. I haven't read that. You can have that

copy as a gift from me. You are still doing the same thing as you

complain about on the other side. Vote Leave paid for this, taxpayers

paid for that. But is the crucial difference. If you feel so strongly

about taxpayers' money being used, would you say that the Leave side

shouldn't take a grant for their own leaflets? It's not ?9 million. If

it's being delivered to every person... How can it be cheaper? Why

don't you allow the Leave campaign to raise a further 9.3 million from

subscribers and then they'd be able to use that to get the message out?

It's not really in my gift. Would you do it? Of course not because he

wants it loaded for the Remain side. Is this about the process all the

arguments? It's about the process of getting the units across. People

need the information. I agree with that. There are people sitting at

home without the faintest idea whether we should be in or out. They

probably feel a bit perplexed that a Prime Minister who, just a few weeks

ago, said that if he didn't get a deal he would be believing the --

leading the cannot relieve campaign, and now Armageddon if we leave. Does

the Government have a right to be putting leaflets out like this? I

was surprised that a couple of facts were left out, like the deficit with

Europe, and also the cost of membership, so for something that

was meant to be a fact sheet, I would've thought those two key

points should have been there. They were omitted because they wouldn't

have gone in the camera crew remain campaign's favour but I think

individuals want a sense of fair play. If the polls are as tight as

people say they are, 50% would have wanted some more information. When

you were at the DWP, you didn't articulate the opposition's position

in your press release. There wasn't a referendum. There was an

opposition who was doing exactly the same and we had the exact same

period of time. You pulled out. You've put out an extra leaflet.

Comfortingly, we've got weeks and weeks of this to go. You can take

that with you, Nigel. Thank you very much.

Most new MPs in the 2015 intake have settled

returned to parliament after taking time off to fight breast cancer,

with which she was diagnosed shortly after her election

The Labour MP over-turned a majority of 11,000 to win her Bristol West

Here she is in action on the campaign trail.

If you didn't know, my name is Thangam Debbonaire

and I'm the Labour candidate to be the member

I've got to say, this is one of the most exciting cities to live

Any newcomers in the audience today, that's you guys at the back,

I can really recommend this fantastic city.

Now, she is here with us. You've been back a couple of weeks. How

have you been settling in? My hair doesn't look like that any more! I

wouldn't say it has been painless because I am still suffering

post-operative pain but I have had a warm welcome from colleagues and

members of staff across the house. It is a little difficult because I

don't know the entrances and exits but I am getting there. How

different is the atmosphere from June last year? I was caught up in a

very strange environment having won a seat with a reasonable majority

but discovering we weren't the party of majority in parliament. That was

just as I discovered I had breast cancer. I carried on working as I

was being treated but all in the constituency. How supportive have

your constituency and Parliamentary colleagues been? Brilliant. I think

I've had the time to read all the briefings about all the debates.

There were times watching debates I thought I was the only person who

had watched all the debates and read all the briefings and the Daily

Politics every day. Who was the most helpful? I had help from all across

the house. I wouldn't want to pick one single person out. I really was

quite overwhelmed about how good a place it was to working with a

serious illness. Do you think remote working from Westminster can be

done? I think it can be considered. I'm hoping that in the process of

changing premises we consider things like voting and in second and -- and

in certain circumstances I could have voted, having read everything

about the issue and the only thing I couldn't do was to vote. It was

frustrating that there was no mechanism. Having that degree of

time to study all the topics as serious as they are, do not think it

should be an option that if people are not able to come, they could do

it remotely? The technology is there. You followed all the debates

and had the information to hand, so I think it should be an option. I

would also say in defence of doing it in person, when I was there, I

asked why we were still doing it. It is your only time to see all of the

secretaries of State, the Prime Minister, etc. But if you are happy

to give that up because you want to do it because it is so important to

be at home, then you can. It is the 21st century, we should find

different ways to meet with our colleagues. I was able to pick up

the phone and call and e-mail colleagues. I do believe in debate

in the house but I think it is an issue and I would like it to be

considered as part of parliamentary reform. Can I just say, what a huge

inspiration, they you are, everybody welcome you back. Just as a woman

coming back, living through that and being in parliament, all credit to

you. And you were actually promoted to Shadow Minister for culture,

media to, -- and sport. I am doing the art and culture bit because I am

not familiar with sport! My constituency is a very arty area. I

am a professional cellist. I come from a family of musicians. I am

going to enjoy it. I think it was a good move to appoint someone to a

brief lecture you know something about it. A revolutionary idea! It

is great to have you back. Nice to meet you.

It's Jeremy Corbyn as you've never seen him - an all singing,

all dancing sensation on the London stage.

We're not talking about the man himself - of course -

but the actor who plays the lead role in Corbyn, the Musical,

a new off-west end musical comedy about the Labour Leader's

supposed motorbike holiday through East Germany

Here's Giles with a sneak peak ahead of tonight's opening night.

If I don't hear back, I'm going to go to the council

and have the lleylandia ripped down and shoved right...

# They said I couldn't do it, they said I couldn't win

# There'd never be a PM called Jeremy Corbyn

# Now I am in power, the clouds will disappear

# The sun will shine upon us, hope will conquer fear...#

A satire about Jeremy Corbyn, his fans should like this.

# The world's in my hands, sleep safe at night

# Now you're with the left, we're getting it right

# I didn't sell out, I didn't give in

# You needed a hero, you got Corbyn.#

# Taking on big business, I'll supertax the banks

# I've got rid of the bedroom tax and cancelled all the tanks

# I don't live at Chequers, my palms are never greased

# I've opened up the state rooms to migrants from the East.#

Whilst Labour is the focus, no party or person escapes ridicule.

# Women only carriages, a manifesto vow

# All children have to learn about the works of Chairman Mao

# My career was always stalling, now I am in the driving seat

# Today the red flag's flying above ten Downing St.#

It has Diane Abbott, President Putin, and Jeremy Corbyn

portrayed and it always helps if you pick a lead actor who,

# You needed a hero, you got Corbyn.#

I don't really have such a big beard but I've got...

I think I'm a little more handsome but, who knows?

But here's the key, he's no fan of singing the praises of one

side and bashing the hell out of the other.

No one is safe, everyone is getting some stick from somewhere.

Whether you're in power or you're not in power.

I think the most important thing is that it will,

But it's worth noting that some of the characters are, in real life,

political characters, so how do you avoid caricature?

I've studied a lot of how Diane speaks, her mannerisms,

funnily enough, I think we share a few, so...

Yeah, it's been a really interesting process trying to put

And, on top of the music, there are the odd video inserts.

Mr President, what does this have to do with, sexuality?

Here's the bizarre thing, I'm not only covering it for

the Daily Politics, somehow I'm in it.

And if you're remotely interested in my fate,

And we've been joined by the two writers behind this production -

Why, Jeremy Corbyn the musical? I don't think there is anybody else in

British politics who would justify it. The reaction was astonishing. We

sold out all the tickets in record time. I think it may be because of

the subject matter. What gave you the idea, making it a musical, as

well? Very few politicians have such a colourful back story. Jeremy

Corbyn travelled a lot, went abroad with Diane Abbott, allegedly, to

East Germany. It is very interesting that the young Jeremy Corbyn

probably found it a fitting place to be. How long did it take to write?

About six months. The plot outline took about 20 minutes but then an

awful lot of work after that. Putting the flesh on the bones.

Exactly. It was really quite intense. We didn't realise quite how

much work it would be. Here we are, the day we start this evening,

opening night, we are running off to continue doing things

behind-the-scenes. It is a huge amount of work. You have finished

it? It is not like a Budget Statement? Yes, but there was time

to put in a joke about Jeremy Corbyn finding his tax return. Are you

going to see it? I think I will. It looks fantastic. Is it a comedy. A

fun night, people will go. A few years ago, I went to see Tory Boys,

by the National youth Theatre and that was a fantastically

entertaining night. We have invited him. It pokes fun but it is not

mean. He didn't even reply which wasn't very kind. He might once he

has seen an interview. It could be lit a suicide for him to come so he

could come in a couple of weeks. It is described as James Bond meets the

Kama Sutra, why? We had to Celtic it's! There is a nuclear plotline

and a bit of romance. -- sell tickets. We also invited Diane

Abbott but she hasn't been in touch either. We would be delighted to

send over tickets on a motorbike courier. Any chance of it being

transferred to the West End? We would love it and this is our first

play and we don't really know what we are doing. If you know how to do

it, given as a call. You know who to write to. Giles had a cameo role.

Was he right? I couldn't possibly say. He isn't here today, I think

that says everything. There's just time before we go to

find out the answer to our quiz. The question was -

what happened next? He didn't write off the mortgage of

the one the taxpayers were helping to pay for at Oxford.

I didn't receive a proper answer then.

Well, he wouldn't withdraw dodgy from dodgy David, so obviously John

Burke, the Speaker of the house, it was in the first time he's been

injected, so he left the chamber, not to be able to return for the

rest of the day. I must ask the honourable gentleman

to withdraw the word... Under the power given to me

by standing order number 43, I order the honourable member

to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder

of this day's sitting. Were you surprised? Were you

surprised that he refused to retract it? No. He is one of the great

characters of the house. He is formidable and he's not going to

change. He's in his 80s and he's not going to change and doubt. That's

what happened. If you say something that isn't acceptable behaviour in

the house, then you will be sent off. Card. Off you go. He was never

going to retract it. The speaker did seem to send him away with sadness

rather than anger. He is always so thoughtful when you have to deliver

something like that so precisely. Thank you