07/06/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

David Cameron and Michael Gove trade blows - again -

with competing claims over the cost of leaving the EU,

What are the Labour arguments for leaving or remaining?

Gisela Stuart goes head to head with Chuka Umunna.

A new artwork is unveiled in parliament celebrating

A new artwork is unveiled in Parliament celebrating

the Suffragettes' struggle for votes for women.

And Giles rolls up his sleeves and takes the strain

as he joins the annual Lords versus MPs tug-of-war competition.

and with us for the whole of the programme today,

the former shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna.

So, another busy morning on the EU referendum campaign trail.

David Cameron has just been making a speech where he,

once again, focused on latest warnings on leaving the EU.

speaking about the "economic reality check"

from the World Trade Organisation this morning.

Instability, jobs and investments lost.

Instability, jobs and investment lost.

That is the very clear message from today and this is an

economic reality check for our country.

And it doesn't come from people with an axe to grind,

but from credible, independent experts.

People who either have real skin in the game in terms of jobs

or investment, or whose job it is to warn about risks

to the world economy or global trade.

The Prime Minister's warnings followed a letter

from Vote Leave campaigners Michael Gove and Boris Johnson,

who argued that the UK could deport

more EU criminals back to the continent

They highlighted 50 cases in which, they say, the EU and European Courts

Here's the Justice Secretary speaking in an interview earlier.

We're certainly not trying to scare anyone, we're absolutely

emphasising the importance of taking back control.

If we leave the European Union, then we can have a greater degree

of security and safety in this country and we can ensure

that the laws we enforce and the way in which we treat criminals

are what I believe the British people would like to see.

I am sure that the British people would want to ensure that if someone

who has committed a crime and is a foreign national has

completed their sentence, that we can deport them,

rather than have them remain here, act as a cost to the taxpayer

and as a potential further danger to fellow citizens.

We've been joined by the Conservative MEP

and Leave campaigner, Dan Hannan.

Welcome to the Daily Politics. If we left the EU, we would be able to

more easily deport EU criminals. I think that is rubbish, we have the

benefit of the European arrest warrant, which over the last six or

seven years has enabled us to deport and remove other 6,500 criminals

back to their countries of origin. We have actually been able to bring

people back here to face justice under the European arrest warrant,

including one of the people who attempted to add to the bombing that

we saw in 2005 and that is before you look at the prisoner exchange

agreements we have got and the criminal exchange system. What about

the 50 cases cited by the Leave Campaign, where European Court

blocked the extradition of those criminals to their respective EU

countries? Well, if you look at the broad swathe of the figures, they

have cited a number, we have cited 130 times that number. No one has

said the system is perfect, I have never argued that the EU is perfect,

but who argue that if we came out it would make it easier to remove these

criminals is completely untrue, not least because of course you would

have to negotiate new arrangements with each of the remaining 27 member

states. The director of Euro poll has said there are likely to be at

least the same number of British criminals abroad as foreign crumbles

in the UK, so we would have to welcome back our criminals, how does

that make us safer? We know who they are and we would be able to deal

with them. That doesn't make us any safer. There has always been a

international system for cooperating like this, the International

convention, the Hague Convention, time spent in another country as

part of your sentence and all of it predates the EU and will carry on.

But we say that handing people Makabu its power to the same people

that brought us the Schengen area and so on -- are we safe are handing

over the power to these same people. They may have interest in power at

heart and in case of the 50 cases cited today, they are an cases of

people who have been convicted and at the expiry of their sentence

cannot be removed from this country. But you do accept we would have to

welcome back UK criminals who have committed crimes abroad in the EU? I

would have thought it people have committed crimes are not being

deported, of course it is a two-way thing but people would regard it as

a sensible system. How many of the criminals released today currently

pose a threat to UK citizens? Usually, the deportation begins at

the expiry of a sentence, so one assumes the majority have been

released. So you don't know? I don't know how many have Bindaree

arrested... How many currently pose a threat? That is what you have

said. Dominic Crabb was asked the same question and how many currently

pose a risk to EU citizens and you cannot say. But of all of them who

either haven't all have been released, all of them. These of 50

illustrative cases. I am not saying it is a total of 50, there are many

more. We have picked 50 cases going from some high profile murderers,

like the boy who murdered Philip Lawrence, the headteacher, down to

some of let's call the middle ranking cases, salts and rapes and

so on. These are not just 50 cases, these are 50... But 130 times that

have been removed. But you're not saying that without the European

arrest warrant there would be no extraditions or international

treaties? The question is how long it would take to put into place

alternative arrangements and whether we would have the same arrangements

that we have now if we were to come out. That is 27 other countries, you

would have to negotiate new arrangements with them. That would

take some time and who is to say we would get the same arrangements? The

truth of the matter is you don't know. You

saw a constituent whose life was ruined because of a false accusation

brought under the European arrest warrant. He spent three years under

house arrest in Athens, 11 months in one of the nastiest prisons in

Europe for what was clearly a case of mistaken identity. He had gone

out celebrating his A-levels. By the time he was finally cleared, the

people with whom he had been celebrated had finished their

degrees. Isn't this about control, that it would be better if the UK

control the destiny and fatal criminals rather than Brussels or

transport? Well, following negotiation, the uncertainty in this

area has been cleared up, which gives us greater power to ensure

people are brought to justice here and to remove people but on this

issue of control, one of the biggest problems with the Leave Campaign is

that they argue all of the problems that we have, whether it is

migration, foreign criminals, from the EU or not, all of these problems

can be sold by us leaving, and that is for the birds. Take the migration

issue, the central issue for voters leave, the migration crisis was not

caused by the European Union, it was caused by huge and stability in the

Middle East and Africa. We are not saying all of the problems will

disappear, we are arguing that in an uncertain world, it must be more

secure to take back control so we can mitigate the risks ourselves,

rather than passing power to people... We will finish it there

because we will come onto the issues of migration and immigration.

The Times today reports that former Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls

was spotted at the Stoke Newington Literary Festival over the weekend.

C) singing the Diana Ross and Lionel Richie classic

At the end of the show, Chuka will give us the correct answer.

Or seen dead. I won't do that. Thank God -- or seeing it.

we've heard a lot from the Remain side

about the risks of leaving the EU.

Brexit, they say, would be a "leap in the dark",

the cause of a "DIY recession" and could even lead to war.

But now the Leave campaign is trying to turn the tables and focus

Let's take a look at what they've been saying.

They argue that remaining in the EU means we will be permanently tied to

They say we'll have to hand over more money to the EU in the future,

as the UK's growth continues to outstrip other member states.

And they say that EU treaties mean we are potentially liable

Leave campaigners also argue that remaining

in will lead to ever-higher levels of immigration.

They say we'll see even more immigration after countries

And it's also claimed that high immigration is a particular risk

to low-paid workers, as more and more people

Staying in the EU is also said to threaten our national security,

because we can't stop dangerous people entering the country.

Leave campaigners point the finger at the European Court of Justice,

which they say sometimes blocks the UK from deporting

And they say that plans for an EU Army will undermine both NATO

Dan Hannan are still with us. Let's start with national-security, what

evidence is there that we will see an EU army any time soon? The

commission describes it as a strategic necessity. The commission

is not a wacky Federalist think tank, they initiate registration.

Jean-Claude Juncker almost every time he opens his mouth says we need

this urgently and the Spanish Government, they are all pushing it.

Heavily times have we been through this, where we hear British

ministers saying no one is proposing it, it is just chitchat... It hasn't

happened, of course. That is what we were told about the euro. But it

hasn't happened. When people say no one is talking about it, it is no

one except the people running the EU. It is clear they wanted, that is

the point Dan Hannan is also trying to make, there is a will for it to

happen in parts of the European Union, you can't dispute that is

what makes you sure it won't happen? There is a mixture of use but

certainly not a consensus for a European army and as ever with Dan

Hannan, he always quote the European Commission, yes, they are

bureaucrats, they are civil servants, and in the end, the people

who make the decisions for laws in the European Union are MEPs like

that and the European Council, they have to sign off any legislative

proposal and I do not see it happening. A clear majority of MEPs

are in favour of a European army and a clear majority in the Council. If

there is a clear majority of MEPs in the European Parliament, even if

there are a number of member states and David Cameron has said today

that we have a rock-solid veto on a European army, you can't

categorically say it will never happen. There is a veto. But how

many states are needed to vote on the European army? What you see is

miffed after myth peddled. One minute they say there will be a

European army and we say we have a veto, they say it doesn't matter,

forget about that, there will be an army. They assert that Turkey will

join the European Union and we have a veto on whether they do. You can't

function this whole campaign legitimately, can you, on the idea

of what might happen, on the fears of people about Turkey, for example,

the poster that said 80 million Turks are coming to the UK, which is

patently not true at the moment? Can you do the same in issues of trust

over the European army? I say to people look at what is happening

now, look at the past record. How many times have we seen British

prime ministers saying they are going to go and veto this or that. I

can remember Tony Blair saying it. I remember discussing it with you on

the programme, the time when this Prime Minister said he is not going

to pay the extra prosperity surcharge, I am furious, I will not

pay it and of course, he ended up having to pay. On this issue of the

European army, I have heard Dan and others and I think Dan joined the

European Parliament when I was still at school and they have all been

threatening a European army because the horrible bureaucrats in Brussels

want to create a European superstate and it has not happened. Let's look

at some of the claims made by your side. Let's have a look at the

Eurozone bailouts and whether the UK would be obliged or compelled to

contribute to it, because we know it is absolutely not true, the Prime

Minister says, but the reality check agrees in this case with the Remain

Campaign. The UK will not pay for future eurozone bailouts, it has

been agreed and in addition, the deal from February, which will be

implemented in the UK votes to stay, reinforces this and states the UK

will be reimbursed if the general EU budget is used for the crisis. That

sounds pretty clear. So once again, go on the basis of what we have seen

rather than what we have been promised. We were

given a cast-iron guarantee that we would not be required to bail out

any of the eurozone countries because we kept our currency. At the

next General Election -- last General Election, the Prime Minister

made a big deal of it. And in June last year, when it became clear they

needed the money for the Greek bailout, we became stung. The

bridging loan. The Prime Minister described it as a flagrant breach of

what is promised. The old saying, fool me once, shame on me, for me

twice, shame on me. will use the Treaty of Rome says

that all member states can be called on to help any individual member

state that might find itself in severe difficulties, from a natural

disaster or the migrant crisis, for example. So that could involve the

UK bailing out a Eurozone country. Let's be clear, the UK will not

contribute to a Eurozone bailout. We are not in the Eurozone. And we have

a veto on increases in the European budget. These guys can muddy the

water all they like and pick out little things and say because an

inch as been given there are, a mile or be given away and we are going to

contribute all this money. It won't happen. It is only a matter of time

before the crisis hits France or Italy. You know that. You want be

dragged into it is a fantasy. Let's pick up on the budget. -- that you

won't be dragged into it is a fancy C. The fiscal framework that comes

up every seven years, there are individual negotiations that Britain

does not have a veto over. It can be passed by qualified majority voting,

so in between those two .7 years, the budget can go up and Britain

wouldn't be able to stop it. Britain has stopped increases in the budget

in the past, and it can in the future. Let me make this point. I

think there is a fair point in relation to what happens if there is

a complete contrast of the in the Eurozone. What does happen? Go back

to when Greece was on the precipice of potentially coming out. There was

no question at that time that we would be contributing into the

bailout, but people anticipated that if Greece came out there would be a

severe humanitarian situation in Greece, not least because of the

economy collapsing more than it has already done. In that situation, I

don't think even Dan would advocate that the UK shouldn't play some

part. At the idea that we would pay into a bailout is for the birds. It

won't happen. Right, what about the idea of the budget? Is it true that

Britain does have a veto every seven years by those negotiations, but on

the annual negotiations they don't? Yes. And for the first time ever in

17 years that I have been in the parliament, they have postponed the

discussion of the mid-term review until after the referendum. It was

due at the start of the year and they said, let's not try to me

horses. They are doing this in area after area. The attack on commercial

ports, the budget hike, all of these things are being held back for the

event of the stay vote that Remain vote. -- in the event of a Remained.

They are banning hairdryers and toasters. The higher powered one.

They will find a lot of the ones they are currently buying are now

banned. Is that because of safety regulations? It has been postponed

until after our referendum. It was lifted from the agenda at the last

minute and deferred. You are saying that they have banned these

electrical appliances, and it turns out they happened at all. So you

won't be able to use a hair dryer if we stay in the EU? All of these

things have been deferred. In your case, it might not be such a

problem! Let down finish the point. The plans for ports is opposed by

every port owner. That went through every British -- that went through.

Every MEP voted against. And they have deferred until after the

summer. There is so much stuff being held back. Every single port owner

is against it. You may think it is funny. I am not laughing. You're the

one making it up as you go along. Every MEP and owner are posted. You

are now making light of it and saying it doesn't matter. You are

saying our ports will be shut down? They will face a commercial

disadvantage. Let's see what happens in a few weeks. Thank you for coming

in. This afternoon, the European

Commission is expected to outline new measures to reduce the numbers

of migrants attempting to make the journey

across the mediterranean Reports suggest the Commission

will propose offering some Middle Eastern and north-east

African countries extra cash and visa liberalisation in return

for their cooperation in stopping Dan Hannan is staying for this bit.

What is being proposed precisely, Damien? We don't know the details.

They have been debating this morning in the commission, nailing down what

they want to release. The full the tiles will come out very shortly. We

understand that the broad brush is that this is the latest part of the

EU's migration strategy to tackle the migration crisis. We have seen

what happened in Greece and Turkey with the deal there. What the

commission is saying is that building on that sort of template,

that experience, not exactly what has happened there, but similar,

because they say it has been successful and we have seen a

dramatic reduction in numbers, they are looking at a similar thing with

African and Middle Eastern countries. That means essentially

these partnerships that they are talking about, which boils down to

trying to get the countries of origin, the source countries that

the migrants come from, and the countries they pass through to do

more to restrict the flows. In return, the EU would offer financial

help with things like putting up a fund for development projects in

some of those countries in Africa, more money for border controls, for

trying to help those transit companies deal with things and put

in more border controls, and ultimately offer greater

partnerships in terms of access to the European Union for legal

migration, so that would be people who would be able to get work

permits to work in the EU. We're not talking huge numbers. The current

numbers under this blue card scheme that exists for skilled migrants is

about ten - 12,000 per year, but talking about that is going up to

between 30000 and 100,000 a year of skilled migrants able to come in.

These are promises that would be given down the line and they

promised preferential trade. Briefly, have you had any

conversations with these countries themselves? Are they eager for these

deals and partnerships to happen to deal with the migrant crisis? The

difficulty with a lot of this is that many of the countries that are

key to this are very difficult for the EU to deal with. Libya, of

course, is the key transit point for the route to Italy, which is the

biggest issue facing the EU at the minute. The numbers coming through

that route are far greater than the numbers crossing from Turkey to

Greece, but there is no Government, no authority in Libya for the EU to

deal with at the minute with whom they could implement something like

this. That is a problem. It is a problem for the EU to try to deal

with countries like Sudan and Eritrea, which are source countries

but which have human rights concerns in terms of doing a deal. The focus

initially will perhaps be more on places like Jordan, Lebanon, and

then perhaps some West African countries. Thank you. Can this work

with these countries, particularly those who don't have governments

that we can deal with? It is welcome that we have these developments. I

hope they work. In the end, I hope this this is something -- this is

something that is a cross-border issue and we can deal with it on our

own. The other issue is an skewering there is sufficient aid closer to

the countries of origin for these refugees so that they don't actually

have to make the dangerous trip, or they don't feel the pull to make

that trip. This is why they want to try and replicate the deal that they

have done with Turkey - it has worked. Talking about the countries

of origin is our way of not facing the question. Do you disagree? I

spent a lot of last summer volunteering in a hostility in Italy

dealing with underage migrants were crossing the Mediterranean. -- in a

hostel in Italy. Buy what about turning them away? They are coming

because of rising wealth and aspiration. The telephones and

technology that make it possible to cross the Sahara in a way that there

are subsistence -- that there is subsistence farmer grandparents

could not. They have not... People are coming through alternative

routes, either through Hungary or whatever. Do you think it could

work? The real problem the EU had was that it invited people in, and

because it had the Schengen zone, and there was no responsibility for

each country, there was a perverse incentive to waive people through to

the next jurisdiction. This has been the problem all along, and the

question for Britain and everyone else is, we can see that the EU is

being convulsed by these twin crises. Could the UK deal with a

better alone? Yes. Are we going to make them our problems or are we

going to reorient towards the rest of the world? Voting to stay in is

not the same as... We are not part of the Schengen passport - free

zone. There is a big contradiction in what Dan is saying. He is saying

all these people are coming because of the pull on the wealthy get in

the Eurozone, and on the other hand he is telling you the Eurozone is a

basket case. That is why they are heading here. Because the UK -- the

the EU is a basket case? In the final weeks before the EU

referendum, we have been showcasing the arguments for Leave and Remain

made by members of different In a moment, we'll hear

from the Labour MP and chair of the Vote Leave campaign,

Gisela Stuart. First, here's Labour's Shadow

Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, with the Labour case for remaining

in the EU. The peaceful and prosperous Europe

we are part of today is a far It is a Europe of cooperation that

has brought jobs, investment and growth,

that enables us to work, And that cooperation is exactly

what the next generation is going to rely on to deal

with the challenges that Making sure our economy

is strong so that we can pay for our NHS, dealing with

the movement of people because of conflict and climate

change, keeping us safe, and making the most

of the Walking away from Europe

isn't going to help our children and our grandchildren

to manage the change that they are What will is continuing

to work with our neighbours in Europe,

and we're good at it. Britain has always been

an It is why we have such

influence around the This is not a vote about the past,

it is a vote about our future. Let's secure that future

by voting Remain. That was Hilary Benn. And here is

Gisela Stuart, with the Labour case for leaving the EU.

The EU once promised a social Europe defending Labour's values.

Today, the left make up only a third of

those running the EU, which is dominated by the leaders

of the right, even the far right, and their

George Osborne, Goldman Sachs, the CBI, the

Institute of Directors - it is a Tory-EU elite,

campaigning first to remain part of their EU that they

But if we vote Leave, we take back control.

We would be better off if we used the ?350 million

that we send to the EU each week to build the NHS.

We would be safer if we controlled our borders and protected

our public services by not ratifying TTIP.

protected from the Eurozone's austerity that has left a

generation of young people without work.

And we would be fairer if we

end the discrimination in our immigration system and end the

erosion of wages in our poorest communities.

We can build a better future based on Labour values, but

only if we vote Leave and take back control.

And Gisela Stuart is here with us now.

Welcome back to the Daily Politics. First of all, Chuka Umunna, this

idea, you must accept surely, that there are more people competing for

relatively low-paid jobs that depresses wages, which is bad news

for a lot of your voters and that is a result of EU migration? I don't

quite accepted the way you have put. I have huge respect for Gisela, who

is a friend and we agree on so many things, but on this, we

fundamentally disagree, as do the overwhelming majority of MPs in the

Labour Party. Are you saying it doesn't depress wages for the

low-paid, EU migration? I would not disagree that it has posed

difficulties in the Labour market, but what I would say is that in the

end, if you want to prevent depression in wages, you need to get

a good national minimum wage going up and properly enforce it, which

the current Government isn't doing and secondly, a lot of people, when

I have had this discussion, so these people are taking our jobs. The idea

that if the people who supposedly are taking the jobs, when they go,

others can step in, is for the birds. The big problem we have in

the Labour market is we are not equipping people with the right

skills, technical vocational skills and apprenticeships to make it. The

big thing the EU does, not only is it a big wealth and jobs generator,

the countries representing over 600 members, the important thing is that

we have a flaw in terms of jobs and workers' rights across the European

Union that prevents British workers being played off against French

workers or German workers or any others. Do you accept the great

strides that have been paid by the EU and UK workers enjoy the workers'

rights passed by the EU and compelled the Government to actually

put them into statute? I am kind of puzzled by this historical analysis.

If you look at workers' rights in the United Kingdom, they have been

far more progressive than the rest of the European Union. Many of the

rights which are now even more generous in the United Kingdom

started well before then. Equal pay for women goes back to Made In

Dagenham and Barbara Castle and all those things. We now have European

Court of Justice rulings, things like the right to strike will be

curtailed in the interest of the full movement. Which ruling? The

Viking ship the case. Brendan Barber contended, Alan Johnson did. So the

rightward coverlet of the right to strike would be withdrawn? The

European Court of Justice made it clear that if you want to strike,

the interests of the European Union overrule the interests... This is a

once in a generation decision on how we conduct ourselves in the future

and who should make the decisions. The eurozone at the moment has

enormous youth unemployment. They can only resolve it with the

eurozone or deeply integrates as a political institution. We will be

collectively better off if our economies are more successful. The

eurozone has to go one way and our future is a different way. I used to

be an employment lawyer for the best part of a decade and if you look at

temporary worker rights, anti-discrimination rights,

anti-discrimination... All of those things derive from EU legislation

but the principal point I made to Gisela, which is having this floor

and a standard set of rights across 28 member states, stops that race to

the bottom where our rides could potentially be set off against

German or Polish employees. And on the eurozone, because Gisela brought

it up, let's be clear, we are not a member of the eurozone, but being

part of the single market, let's not forget, it is our biggest customer,

44% of our exports Kovach, creates jobs. Look at the chairman of

Hitachi, employs 41,000 people in our country, developing trends in

the north-east, it is clear that if we let the EU, it would affect

investment decisions. Can we come back to certain things? The lowest

paid at the moment, the Bank of England says for every 10% of

immigration, 2% of the wages are suppressed. We have big companies

are able to not train workers because they can fish from an

enormous big pool of workers across the European Union who are prepared

to work for very low wages. The Labour Party today makes a case

about workers' rights, let's come back to that, workers' rights are

any meaningful if you have got a job, that is the really important

thing. Let Gisela finish a point. May I just finished? If you go back

to the workers' rights and employment record, what I found in

the United Kingdom, what has produced good workers' rights and

feathers have been strong trade unions and strong Labour governments

and even the most right-wing Tory governments have been unable to undo

this. Minimum wage, remember the great evening whether Labour

Government introduced it? If you want progressive social rights and

employment, you make sure you have a Labour Government. I think we are

both agreed that a Labour Government is a way to creating a more

progressive... Do you think a Labour Government will not come in so you

need the EU? For all of the claims how we need to take control, the

national minimum wage is an example of how we do and Gisela is right, we

need strong trade unions but the overwhelming majority of trade union

representing the overwhelming majority of members want to stay in

the EU. The US trade deal, do you support that deal? Not in its

current form, it needs to change. I have said let's wait and see and I

have spoken to the current trade Commissioner about this and to the

previous one and the idea that our socialist colleagues in Government

in France, social Democratic colleagues in Sweden and the new

Socialist Government in Portugal, potential coalition partners in

Spain, would sign off on agreement that is detrimental to promoting

equality and public services... The report from the European

Parliament's policy Department has predicted that more than a million

EU citizens will be forced out of work as a direct result of TTIP,

including 150,000 in the UK, which is why Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn

is vetoing it. But let's be clear, we don't have a final agreement.

Hillary Clinton isn't terribly keen. Will jobs be lost as a result of

TTIP? It is not agree Jed. Transparency, regulations levelling

up and down and it implies that a different US state to get the value

back in the UK. We do not have formal final agreement, the

presumptive Democratic nominee doesn't agree with it and nor does

our Government. So it sounds like it will not happen whether we stay in

or out of the EU? No, but TTIP illustrate something important.

Don't you find it troubling that we don't even see the text?

Negotiations are going somewhere else. Two thirds of the Governments

that will make the decisions are no right or centre-right governments,

so workers' rights are not at the top. Even Germany is unhappy with

TTIP. Big companies can take Government to court, which will

seriously undermined the NHS. Are we going to agree? It sounds like there

will be an awful lot of opposition. Westminster Parliament have no say

in this until the end, so I am against big vested interest making

deals behind doors where we as elected representatives are only

dealt with at the end of it. But it is untrue to say Parliament hasn't

had a say. Once you get the text put before European Council, the

democratically elected Government of United Kingdom and governments of

all other member state countries will have an input. The idea that

when is published and we have to accept it, is totally untrue. But to

take control means to vote Labour and we can make decisions about

this. Well, you got the last word. She didn't, you just butted in

again! In the last hour, Mike Ashley -

the founder and boss of one of Europe's biggest sports

retailers, Sports Direct - has been questioned by MPs

on the Business Select committee, about claims that thousands

of his warehouse workers have effectively been paid below

the minimum wage. Here was Mike Ashley

being questioned by MPs a little You are the founder of the company,

you have grown this company you wouldn't be impartial

when it comes to this. Do you need somebody independent

to look at this with I can agree with you that in some

ways, I am not the right person, because I am not an expert

in every area of employment. Obviously, it is not my field

of expertise, it is not So, yes, there could be other people

that you could have said would have been better qualified than me

to do it. In terms of what you have been doing

in regards to this review, are there some things you have found

out that you didn't Some things have come as a bit

of an unpleasant surprise, yes. Could I also ask, in terms

of the allegations that were made in December about searches,

you were talking about bottlenecks, do you accept that the company

was effectively paying workers On that specific point for that

specific bit of time, yes. When people are searched at the end

of the working shift, If I clock off at five o'clock

and it takes five or ten minutes, would I be paid for those

extra ten minutes? You shouldn't take five or ten

minutes, that is point. We now talk to Kate Andrews from

the Institute Of Economic Affairs, and of course, Chuka Umunna,

who was Labour's Shadow Business Secretary 2011-2015 and has also

worked as an employment lawyer. He is still here with us. Kate

Andrews, is it right that the businessmen like Mike Ashley should

come before a committee of MPs and be grilled? If it is suspected he is

up to illegal behaviour, then yes, probably. Anybody, even if they

support the surveillance, should be deeply uncomfortable with the way

Sports Direct has handled this issue with employees having to strip down

to see if they have potentially stolen anything. Very uncomfortable

there. But if you look back to the original story, when the Guardian

reported it, they reported the surveillance issue and that

employees were penalised if they turned up late, cuts to their wages,

and they acted like it was the same thing and this is what I am

fundamentally concerned about. Employees have the right to enter

into any voluntary contract with the employer as long as it is legal and

we should rightly question whether or not Sports Direct has invaded on

people's privacy with the surveillance issue, but suggesting

an employer cannot have penalties for people is being later work and

overstep by the Government. Other things were cited, people talking on

mobile phones when on shift, people breaching quite basic levels of

behaviour that actually the public might think is totally acceptable.

Director to enact. I tabled an urgent question on this in December

in relation to whether or not Sports Direct were complying with

obligations to pay the national minimum wage, which interlinks

because there was the question of whether people were being paid for

the time they sent being body searched, so to speak, and I am

pleased that HMRC appear to have vindicated the concerns that I and

other MPs raised, because it seems an agreement to compensate employees

will time they should have been paid has been reached, that has just come

out on the website for the BBC before I came into the studio. But

there are things that companies are able to do in the law and there are

things that we all expect of companies, as citizens, in our

economy and in society and specifically, because I am aware of

how litigious some of these CEOs and chair people can be and I'm sure the

BBC are as well, so let me reserve my comments for the companies as

opposed to the people running them, but I think what we have seen

through the working practices of Sports Direct but also recent events

at BHS is the ugly underbelly of capitalism, where people are treated

appallingly badly. But that is not the same as being treated in an

illegal fashion. But my argument... Look, I think British business on

the whole treats its employees very well indeed and has a huge amount

and contributes a huge amount but the problem with practices like this

is, look, there are lots of things the law allows us to do but we

choose not to do them because we care for our fellow citizens and

human beings. Let's look at the moral code, then, do you feel

comfortable with that or is it, as reported, that shares have fallen in

Sports Direct because of the negative publicity, by 45%. In a

way, the market will make a decision is bad practice is going on? Well,

talking about the underbelly of capitalism, it is blatantly ignoring

the fact that the market has spoken on the issue and when illegal

behaviour is suggested, people do appear in front of bodies publicly

and are held to account, but what this Government wants to do in the

Labour movement is crack down on... Do they have the choice, when it

comes to zero hours contracts, it may sue people but many do not have

a choice. It suits politicians to say people are being treated

unfairly but look at the facts and what employees have to say when it

comes to zero hours contracts. 60% of people are satisfied or very

satisfied with the contract, 2% higher than the average full-time

worker. Nine out of ten on zero hours contracts say they do not want

more working hours, often students or parents raising children, who

want flexibility. The Government uses examples like Sports Direct,

admittedly a bad example, but they want to come in and bring sweeping

regulation to stop people from having flexibility that they want.

Have you ever worked a zero-hours contract? No, but my friend has. Are

you saying that they don't suit anyone? Know, and I didn't say it

when I was Shadow Business Secretary. I have seen data as to

whether people are satisfied or not but I don't accept the

characterisation of those figures and how they have been put forward.

Let's look at the reality. There are lots of people who have been on

zero-hours contracts, and it means that you don't know when your next

shift will come. It means it is very hard, for example, to get a

mortgage, because you do not have stable income. I don't think there

is an issue with politicians. You say that politicians use us. I

represent 100,000 people and I have constituents who come to me about

the way they are treated and the instability in their lives because

of zero-hours contract. Would you ban them? I wouldn't, but they need

to be tightened up a lot more. You can be required to be on call,

you're not offered a shift and you do not get paid anything. It is

unacceptable. Is it better than not having a job? You would clearly

rather have a job. But if you don't have any hours that pay you a

salary, some people would question the benefit. Chuka has questioned

the figures unsatisfied and very satisfied. It seems unlikely that

that number of people would favour in security. If Chalker has other

figures, he is welcome to share them. I am sure they are accurate.

It has been said that you could not be just from that that everyone is

happy being on a zero-hours contract. This is what we get from

Government politicians who know -- you think that they know best

possible society. You're suggesting that those people shouldn't have the

same opportunities because you are uncomfortable. I speak for

constituents who come into my surgery. I represent people and have

a mandate. If you want to get to the heart of the problem, you need to

address the fact that the economy is stagnant and there are not enough

full-time jobs. If you were to lower taxes and bring in investment, you

and I could be on the same page. For people who want full time jobs, they

should be able to have them. But we are not addressing those who want

the flexibility. You are probably -- you're just condemning capitalism.

Kate, thank you very much. 150 years ago today,

John Stuart Mill presented a petition in Parliament,

calling for votes for women. It was seen as the start

of the women's suffrage movement. To celebrate, MPs are unveiling

a new artwork in Westminster Hall later this evening, and it's called

New Dawn. Our Ellie has been given

an exclusive sneaky peak. New Dawn is about celebrating

all the women that fought for the vote,

and having it above the entrance to

St Stephens's, that's where all the women would have come in originally

at the time of the protests, and these are the steps

that they would have walked through, where

they were It is a very powerful

position to put the 180 different glass discs,

New Dawn has taken over a year to It is the first time a piece

of abstract art has been commissioned for permanent display

in Parliament, and MPs have been overseeing some of

the crucial points in the creative process,

and even When 14-year-old girls go around

Parliament, they see that Parliament is a place for them,

because if they were just to wander around, they would see lots

of commemorations of men, lots of They would see a statue

to Margaret Thatcher and a couple of busts,

but otherwise, they would be wondering

why it was such an alien Once all the glass was made,

the final piece was set up and tested in a warehouse in

West London, again, in front of an And even those involved

were taken aback. I hadn't visualised how

going to be, and it was only ten minutes ago

that I first saw it, and

When we first heard about Mary's concept, I'm not sure that any of us

appreciated that it would take kilometres of wiring

and the complexity of programming, but I think it is

something that is going to work fantastically well and be a proper

monument to the suffragettes in Parliament.

There is a reason for the technology, and it's not just

The whole thing is linked to the height of the River

Thames, so as the tide changes, this sequence will change.

We have settings for high tide, low tide and

It was a struggle that lasted more than 70 years, now a permanent

reminder for the hundreds of thousands of people who fought so

And the artist who designed and made the artwork,

It's beautiful. I haven't seen it in situ, but explain to me the discs.

OK. When I first started my residency in Parliament in 2014, I

went to look at the archives to build up an idea of the movement,

and to understand about women's suffrage. The first place I went to

was the Act Room, in Parliament, and it's an incredible space, filled

with hundreds of thousands of scrolls on vellum. I wanted to

include that within the artwork. That is what they represent? Yes.

And legislation and laws related to the suffragette movement. Have you

seen a? I haven't, and I am looking forward to. I think we take a

granted many of the rights that people have today, and there is a

degree of casual sexism, dare I say, Parliament. It shows that although

we have made great strides forward, we have some way to go. I looked at

some of the history of this, and the first meeting of the Parliamentary

Labour Party, and admittedly our meetings are blithely on a Monday...

They are at the moment! They are. But on the agenda was to look at how

to ensure that we got the ball from women in this country. Of course, it

was part of a wide coalition of people. The thing that in terms of

other installations, sculptures and bus that are there, that it does

still feel like a bastion of maleness? I have been over two years

now, and I was surprised that it doesn't feel like that to me. I

think there is another face of Parliament where everyone who works

within the building, it is very different from what I think people

perceive on the outside. But that is just my own interpretation and how I

felt while I was in Parliament. One of the things that was mentioned

that I didn't understand was that the installation changes with the

tides. Yes. How does that work? All the glass this could have LED lights

behind and they are individually driven -- all the glass desks have

LED lights. Why did you do that? All of the pictures and posters that I

discovered during my research said that you could not hold back the

tide of change, so I wanted to include that element in the artwork,

but I also wanted it to be a living artwork and relevant to women now

and what is happening within Parliament now. I wanted it to speed

to young women and ourselves. And the public can see it? All the time.

You can get tickets, go online to the parliamentary box office, and

then you can see it. Thank you for coming in.

There are plenty of events in the annual parliamentary calendar

worth getting into your diary - the Queen's Speech, the Budget,

And of course, the Lords versus MPs tug-of-war contest.

And in case you missed it, Giles went along to check out

Like pancakes and pet dogs, Parliament has its annual

traditions. The tug-of-war for Mike Millen Cancer support is one such

event, now 30 years old. And it comes with bells on. Some bubbles,

bugles, no strings attached, and of course, there is plenty of rope. If

you fancied the PM pulling against Mr Corbyn, I'm afraid not. I had

gone along merely to observe, when the House of Lords came calling.

Have I been ennobled? Once the ladies did the... Their best to beat

the ladies that are... I rushed back to the office to change. So it came

to pass that their Lordships and I took to the field of bad dreams, and

I appraise the Commons opposition. Is it rude to say that the MPs have

some rather large people? Ready, Paul! -- pull! Eight years. They

have done it. My help was not enough. Dam, that's exhausting. It

is, however, the taking part and not be winning that counts, and I was

proud to be part of the only occasion it is OK for politicians to

go won the pole. Great endline! We have been joined

by the Lib Dem peer Lord Addington, and the Conservative MP Graham

Evans. Was it the weight of the Commons that did it? Absolutely. I

would not say you were large, but you look quite beefy. We had the

largest member of the law steam and the smallest member of the Commons.

Do you blame Giles for losing? I would blame everyone but myself

because I am a politician. Was it your first time? It was my sixth

time. I would like to think we are pulling together for a good cause.

Why did you not take part? I wasn't asked. Next year. Was this your

first time? I am a veteran of the first time it happened, 29 years

ago. We won for the first few years where we had this battery of people

who spent their time wrestling cals on farms who would turn up and win.

-- wrestling cattle. Do you do any practice? Politics and tug-of-war

are both team games. Thank you, gentlemen. You deserve a

lie down. There's just time before we go

to find out the answer to our quiz. According to the Times,

what was Ed Balls up to at a London or d) tweeting about himself?

Richie classic, Endless Love, I think it was Endless Love, wasn't

it? It was. On that note, thank you for being my guest.

Thanks to Chuka Umunna and all my guests.

The one o'clock news is starting over on BBC One now.

I'll be back at 11.30 tomorrow with Andrew for live coverage