13/06/2016 Daily Politics

Hello and welcome to the Daily Politics.

The Remain Campaign wheel out the big guns, clearing the desks

for a set-piece speech from Gordon Brown as they attempt

to shore up Labour support for staying in the EU.

The Leave Campaign focuses on claims that officials have been

considering granting visa-free travel to the UK for Turkish

citizens, with one Cabinet minister Priti Patel suggesting 100,000 extra

migrants will come to the UK if Turkey joins the EU.

MPs insist the former boss of BHS Sir Philip Green must answer

questions in parliament about his role in the

We'll hear from select committee chairman Frank Field.

And if you're fed up with blue-on-blue arguments

over the EU referendum, stay tuned for a bit

of green-on-green, as we hear the green party arguments

And with us for the whole of the programme today,

the former chair of the Public Accounts Committee,

the Labour MP and Remain supporter Margaret Hodge,

of the Public Administration Committee, the Conservative MP

So, less than two weeks to go before referendum day

and the two campaigns are pulling out all the stops.

The Leave campaign is focusing on immigration and the possibility

of visa-free travel for Turkish citizens,

while the Remain campaign are handing Gordon Brown

the spotlight in an attempt to shore-up Labour voter support

We'll discuss immigration in a moment.

look at what the former Labour Prime Minister

Gordon Brown is making a speech this afternoon,

a vote to remain would allow the UK to champion five key policies

when it assumes the presidency of the EU in 2017.

The former PM says there could be EU-wide reforms that

resulted in 500,000 new jobs in the UK

He says a UK EU presidency could also improve living standards

through energy price cuts and action on environmental policy,

and that an EU strategy could be pursued to crack down

Mr Brown says workers on zero-hours contracts could have protections

and that greater co-operation on cross-border policy could help

relieve pressure on public services in areas with high levels

Speaking this morning, the leader of the Labour In For Britain

campaign, Alan Johnson, insisted Labour was fully behind

We have struggled to get into the media and I don't

A story of unity is less interesting than a story of disunity and Cabinet

colleagues knocking seven bells out of each other.

And we've struggled, frankly, to break into that blue-on-blue.

As I mentioned, we've been making this positive case for Europe

We haven't had the kind of coverage and a Loughborough University study

shows starkly that Labour representation in the media, 4-6%?

That was Alan Johnson. Why has it taken so long for the Labour Party

to realise that many of its core supporters particularly in northern

constituencies are either voting to leave the EU or will stay at home? I

think there's always been concerned about immigration, and what I'm

distressed about and I hope Bernard can come back on it, I'm up for a

conversation on immigration, I've been open to it for the last ten

years or so. But what I do object to is that this referendum on Europe is

being turned into a referendum on immigration and I think what you are

seeing is that I'm afraid of those people who want us to withdraw from

Europe are grasping at this straw, a really important issue to my

constituents, and people up and down the country, and trying to turn that

into the main issue. But you do admit... The one thing I was going

to say, Bernard, I hate false promises. I just hate it. People out

there alone with it and that's why people are moving away from politics

and distrusting politicians and this false promise you're somehow going

to magically cut through issues on migration when they get out of

Europe is simply a false promise. Answer that first but what you say

to that? I don't think anybody saying there was a magic wand but

what we do know is you can't control migration from the EU unless you

leave the EU. David Cameron stood up in front of the Conservative

conference and said he was going to address that in Europe, he won't

take no for an answer and there was absolutely no reform on the freedom

of movement in the EU. The only way to address that is to Vote Leave.

The idea that this is some kind of straw in the wind and irrelevant to

the debate, this referendum is about who governs and the fact is, the

British government and the British Parliament cannot govern our borders

with regard to European migration. I'm going to stop you there. We are

going to talk about immigration in a moment but you set out your stores

on this issue of immigration which we will deal with in a few minutes.

Gordon Brown is promising many things. We just outlined them, jobs,

cutting energy prices. He's not in a position to promise anything. He's a

former Prime Minister and we don't have a Labour government. What will

his intervention be? Here's someone who has a lot of credibility on the

international stage and what he did in the 2008 economic shock was

absolutely stunningly wonderful in working with international

colleagues, and he is setting out a positive agenda. I go to my

constituents every week and I held coffee afternoons in a ward by ward

bases and when the campaign started, they were quite interested. Last

week, when I said we should talk about Europe, everybody says, oh no,

and they want to talk about local issues. I think they have been

turned off by the negativity, the false promises, the exaggeration on

both sides and what Gordon is trying to do today is that a positive

agenda of how we can use Europe to tackle some of the very tricky

things. Here's a politician and can make statements and hopefully those

us who leave will then grasp the opportunity to change the world in

the way he has done. I think infrastructure and develop it is

really important. I think getting a European wide response to the

pressures that come from migration is important for size think working

on the environment is hugely important. Do you accept that Labour

has not been very present in this campaign in terms of the Remain

side? Whose fault is that? Yes, it's partly our fault and it's partly the

focus has been on the blue split. If this is the week in which we are now

focusing on the Labour Party coming forward, setting a positive agenda,

thank goodness. Do you think Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonald could have

done more? I think they could have come out early and do more but they

are out now and other people are out there, Alan Johnson, at last, some

women out there. There's been hardly any women in this campaign the

Cooper, Harriet Harman, talking about the benefits of Europe. And

the danger which could occur, the risks we could take if we vote

Brexit. One Labour MP said to me in her constituency, a northern

constituency with white working-class supporters, they've

not had a Labour message, they don't know what it is and when they hear

it, they don't like it. Out come back to this game. I think what has

happened now, I'm sorry, Bernard, that's my view, in desperation, too

many people have outrageously exploited the very complex issue of

immigration with a simplistic answer, get out of Europe, and

suddenly all the challenges we face around immigration, that is just not

true. Let's have a series discussion about immigration. When I talk to my

constituents, and I say to them, but is a false prospectus, they come

back to immigration and I can understand why, if you want to win

your vote for that what you do but I don't dig at a good way to do

politics and I don't like it. What about Gordon Brown, he did something

similar in the Scottish independence referendum and in the end, maybe

partly because of him, the people of Scotland voted to stay within the

union. How important is his intervention? David Cameron and

George Osborne only resorted Gordon Brown because they were desperate

and I think they are desperate now. There's blue on blue excuse, we

could have red on red, ask Frank Field what he's been saying about

immigration, they have been saying Labour MPs saying the same thing at

immigration as the rest of the other campaigners. The real problem the

Labour Party have is this a sensation amongst many colleagues

but you're not really representing your voters because they are the

people hit by this tide of very cheap labour coming in from Eastern

Europe which is completely unchecked for the why haven't wages gone up in

this recovery since 2008 banking crisis? Because there's an unlimited

supply of cheap labour and we've had masses of it. Answer that and then

we move on. We are much more united. Those Labour MPs. What about

supporters, Margaret Hodge? You'd not squared up to the issue of

immigration with them? I have been talking about immigration since the

BNP won 12 seats in Barking and Dagenham 2006. I think I understand

the issue as people feel it and I think what is so deeply unfair,

Bernard, you promise somehow that you will cut the numbers yet,

yesterday on the Andrew Marr show, Nigel Farage, where would you cut

the numbers? Will you allow families to come together? Will you stop the

Spanish and Portuguese nurses in my local hospital coming here? Of

course not. Will he 's top universities recruiting students

open air? Of course not. Will you kill a tourism industry? Of course

not. Stop making false promises and start addressing the issue. Let me

speak. People in my constituency feel the pressures of immigration

and school places, hospital places, start investing there. Let Bernard

answer for that what level would you like to see it coming down to? David

Cameron said we should not have EU migrants coming up the mess the job

to go to. That was one of his negotiation things. Most of them

have. Gordon Brown said British jobs for British workers. If it's 184,000

against 88,000, in terms of migrants from within the EU and those from

outside, you would increase the ones who come from the outside which

means they would still be similar levels? It's not about deciding what

the immigration policy should be but this... Let me finish, this is about

making British members of Parliament accountable for what immigration

policy is decided instead of being imposed by the EU. Let's go on to

immigration and Turkey has loomed large over the referendum campaign.

Will the country ever join the European Union - and if it

did, what would that mean for immigration?

It is a debate that reared its head again yesterday,

with new revelations about what the repercussions

of the deal between the EU and Turkey over Syrian

Leaked documents from the UK Embassy in Turkey raised

the possibility of visa-free travel for "special passport holders"

That usually applies to civil servants and their family members.

The document was sent in response to the EU deal with Turkey allowing

visa-free travel to inside Europe's Schengen area,

of which the UK is not a member, in return for accepting

Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Theresa May said

any suggestion of changes to the visa rules was

That didn't stop Justice Secretary and Leave campaigner Michael Gove

claiming yesterday that this was yet more evidence that the UK

was "actively working" towards Turkey's EU entry,

something the Prime Minister David Cameron dismissed

as a "complete red herring", saying there "is no prospect of

But Migration Watch today released estimates that if Turkey joined

the EU, then around 100,000 Turkish migrants could head to Britain

a year, with total net migration under those circumstances

And Alp Mehmet from Migration Watch joins us now.

Let's just put Turkey to one side for a moment. Your forecast for the

next 20 years is that net migration will be around 250,000, 60% of it

coming from the EU. That is of course lower than current levels of

migration, isn't it? It is and we are assuming that there will be some

impact from measures that are applied as we move ahead, but,

looking at what might happen in a low scenario and comparing that with

a high scenario, we have gone through the middle and said that it

will be around 265,000 net. That is the figure of fact that the Office

for National Statistics is also working on. The use that as their

high net migration scenario, so it's not so outlandish and that,

effectively, means it leads to around 500,000 people a year

additional to our population largely driven by migration. That's why it

needs to be addressed. It is 330,000 or around that and you

are talking about a significantly lower number. If Turkey does join

the EU over the next 20 years, let's say, your report suggests around

100,000 Turks would head to the UK every year. How do you calculate

that figure? We looked at what happened with remaining ins, with

Polish people, for example, where we made some forecasts in 2004. -- with

remaining in people. -- Romanian. We used the same methodology. Week

unpaid salary levels, the number of people already here, the Turkish

diaspora, according to the then Turkish Prime Minister, there are

around 400,000 who already. Taking these factors into account, we think

around 100,000 a year, once they are fully in, is not an unreasonable

figure. Alp Mehmet, thank you very much. Bernard Jenkin, David Cameron

has described Turkey as a red herring in this debate. Is he right?

He has flip-flopped on this. When he has been with the Turkish president,

he is saying how he is going to pave the way from Ankara to Brussels and

then he's saying, not until the year 3000. It's a bit difficult to note

it took it is government policy for Turkey to join the EU. It is but

Wendy of thing Turkey will join the EU in current circumstances? The

current assumption is that Turkey would join sometime in the 2020s and

the current restrictions on Turks would be lifted during the late

2020s. That doesn't seem unreasonable. Why did you put a

poster out saying Turkey is joining the EU? Because there is a process

which Turkey is already engaged with which is about joining the EU. But

saying Turkey is joining the EU sound like it will happen next week.

Are we going to have another referendum before Turkey joins the

EU if we stay in? This is the only referendum we are going to get. If

we don't want to be in an EU with Turkey, you have to Vote Leave. What

is the likelihood of Turkey joining the EU at all? Their first

application was made in 1987 and you would have to have the say so and

approval of the 28 member state of the European council and you know,

and everyone knows, that large number of those countries will never

agree to it. But it is the policy of the British Government for Turkey to

join the EU. But do you accept that people like France, Germany will

have access to? EU history is littered with assurances of things

that would blow the happen and there may happen. I remember John Major

saying he didn't think the single currency would ever happen and it

went ahead. So you do believe that Turkey, despite those criteria, you

think... It is the policy of the United Kingdom government that

Turkey should join the EU. Should the Remain campaign have just been a

bit more upfront about this? To say that, yes, this is the policy of the

British Government, David Cameron did say he wanted to pave the road

from Ankara to Brussels, and clearly there is work going on behind the

scenes, as, perhaps, there should be with the Foreign Office, rather than

trying to be done to didn't happen? This is Project Via. It is ironic

that the Leave campaign have been banging on and on... That wasn't my

question. This is Project Fear. You heard it from Bernard's mouthed. If

you don't want Turkey to join, vote to leave. This is Project Fear. Hang

on a minute, Bernard. Your key government ministers, the Prime

Minister, your Prime Minister, a Conservative Prime Minister, the

Home Secretary, your Home Secretary, a Conservative Home Secretary, the

Foreign Secretary... At Margaret Hodge, what is the answer to my

question in terms of being upfront? It is true that it is government

policy, it is also true that money is being spent on developing that

policy, whether it happens next year or not for 25 years. If you'd been

more upfront about that, do you think there would have been more

honesty on your side of the debate? No, because it is equally true that

it is taking so long to negotiate the terms of the Turkish entry into

Europe that it is so far down the line that by the time it happens,

Turkey will have changed so much as a community, and of course the whole

world will have got smaller. Your government completely underestimated

the forecast of migration. I agree with that. Margaret Hodge said that

was wrong and there would be a seven-year transition period and

that's only if all those hurdles were overcome. Is there going to be

another referendum? No, there isn't. You don't know. This is the only

referendum we've got. I would like Turkey to be in the European Union,

I just don't want to be in the European Union with Turkey. Why use

immigration, which is a very conflict issue, which you won't

control by getting out of Europe, why use that as the issue? Because

since the banking crisis, since the eurozone crisis, immigration has

rocketed from the European Union. It is out of control and your voters

think, who is accountable for this? Immigration is democracy,

immigration is the economy. It is said in their living standards,

their access to public services and you know that and your party has

abandoned your voters. That's why Ukip is in second place. I think

immigration is a hugely important issue, a very complexes should. I

think your pretence that you can control it by getting out of Europe

is dishonest. And I think the really important issue, which we haven't

thought about this morning on Europe, is what it will do two jobs,

what will do to growth, what will do to prosperity. Are on Home

Secretary, who is in favour of Remain, said, "It is harder to

control immigration as a member of the EU". What have you got to say to

that? Can I just ask, briefly, on that point, let's just put the

levels to one side because, in a way, you can't guarantee what the

levels would be, either. This is about how we decide our immigration

policy, who decides it. Let's talk about the point that Margaret just

raised about jobs, about the level of growth, some of which is down to

levels of migration and migrant workers here and the argument that

they contribute, many of them, to the economy and help to grow that

economy. What will happen if levels of migration were to go down, let's

say, to 80,000 a year? What would happen to the economy? What we are

talking about is a points -based immigration system, like we already

have for those coming from outside the EU. So why have we got more

people coming from outside the EU? If it is working so successfully,

why has it gone up. We have started to get them under control. I was

just going to say... Let Bernard answer my question. We can still

choose to admit the people we think are going to be good for our

economy. Has that worked? Not particularly well. It was introduced

by the last Labour government and we're trying to make it work better.

We could also introduce work permits for people coming from the EU, which

is what we used to have. They didn't require visas to come on holiday,

they could easily come here to study, but if they're going to stay

here to work, they had to have a work permit. Then you would be

crowding out people who have to look after their families here, who have

to pay housing costs here, who can't afford to take low-paid jobs. So you

would want higher levels of migration but from different parts

of the world? Not necessarily higher levels of migration but the point

is, we wouldn't have the downward pressure on wages. Even the chairman

of the Remain campaign said, if we leave the European Union... We

haven't heard from him again, have we? Wages will rise, he told the

Treasury Select Committee. On Turkey, Margaret Hodge, isn't the

problem that it is symbolic? That even if Turkey can't join now and

never joined in the foreseeable future, it does symbolise for a lot

of people, particularly Labour voters, if we are talking to you

about your own party, about the numbers of people from the EU who

could be legible to come to the UK, and that frightens people. -- be

eligible. I think what frightens people is not so much people coming

in, it's that when they come in, they jump the queue, they jump the

queue into the benefits system, they jump the queue into... But we know

that they don't claim benefits, they are working, as you keep saying.

What concerns people, Jo... I have a constituency where there is huge

concern about immigration and I think I understand where they are

coming from. If your community changes, if the goods are sold in

your shop changes, if your neighbours change, that causes some

concern and then you think, I can't get my benefit, I can't get my

house, I can't get my school plays, I can't get in my hospital. That

causes concern, so pretending - and this is what makes me so crossed-

that you deal with those concerns by pretending you can cut numbers when

you won't... We can't if we stay in the EU. It is nothing to do with the

EU. The figures at the moment, more are coming from outside. Even if you

got out of the EU, you would end up having to have the Portuguese,

Spanish nurses, having the European students coming here. You would end

up wanting European tourism, so the idea that you can control it is a

false promise. Let me come back to it and to that but just broadly, on

Turkey, because there has been a deal done, that they have

successfully controlled level of migration through Turkey and into

Europe, through one route, do we not know Turkey some concession because

otherwise they said they'll open the floodgates. This is a very serious

point. We are playing with fire here, Europe. Turkey is a very

important member of Nato and we are effectively promising Turkey

membership of the EU. We are not promising membership at the moment.

It is these free travel. The whole offer to Turkey was to be

integrated. That's why they are offering these are free travel. If

this is not going to happen, playing fast and loose with a country that

is half in the Muslim world and on the edge of this very, very

destabilised area... Should there not have been a deal done on Turkey?

Well, trying to push the migration crisis on to Turkey, bribing Turkey

to do with the migration crisis and keep the migrants themselves, this

is a very dangerous game and it is being played for reasons of European

politics and we've seen European politics blow up in Ukraine very

badly because of the incompetent EU foreign policy. I hope we are not

seeing something seriously going on in Turkey to dock we are going to

have to move on at that point. The so-called Islamic State group

has claimed responsibility for the deadliest mass shooting

in recent US history. The attack at the Pulse nightclub

in Orlando began at around 2am local 50 people were killed

and a further 53 were injured. The gunman has been identified

as 29-year-old US He took hostages after an initial

exchange of fire He was then shot dead hours later

after a full police assault We can talk now to Tom Rogan,

a foreign policy columnist for the National Review,

who joins us from Washington. Tom, tell us the latest in terms of

response in Washington. Great to be with you. This morning, there is a

mixture of obviously great sorrow in terms of the media reporting, in

terms of people attending events, especially LGBT of events around the

country. But the political dynamic, as well. Hillary Clinton from the

Democratic party is focusing on course for a gun ban in terms of

assault rifles. Donald Trump is talking about doubling down on his

ban on Muslims and he's just told Fox cut through news earlier this

morning that "We need to look very strongly at the mosques" so there is

this dichotomy in the political dynamic that is spurring fourth.

Because in this case this is a home-grown terrorist, a Muslim, but

a home-grown terrorist. Has that focused people's political and ten

I'm more sharply as a result? -- and I think it has. I don't think

Americans have fully come to terms with it yet. It is a change to the

landscape and it is the brutality and the durability of that

brutality, in the sense that this attack went on for many hours. I

think it is something that has shocked people to the court. What

about the gun laws? President Obama, when these tragedies do happen, does

always refer to the fact that it is so easy in the United States to buy

things like assault rifles. Will it actually make any difference? Will

this time be any different to previous times? One of the things I

think it is quite hard... I grew up in the UK but as an American who

grew up in the UK, it is different in terms of how people understand

it. The motion of firearms, both in American culture and in people's

everyday lives in terms of hunting but also security of home, is

something very imbued. And so the administration, yes, with Hillary

Clinton, will push for that. They will try to make it an issue going

forwards but I think it's going to be very hard for them because

ultimately, when it comes down to the crunch moment about legislation

in Congress, because of things like concern about magazine capacity

limits on handguns, the momentum and the public opinion actually centres

towards not reforming the law. Because of the divisiveness within

American politics, particularly seen through the prism of the

presidential campaign with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, as you

mentioned, that is now going to, I presume, be used to further divide

that same community along the lines of Trump and Clinton.

Yes, this is the issue we have, it's likely Donald Trump will try to use

this to push down on his stance, in terms of bands -- bans and whatever

he means by looking into the mosques. The difficulty is, the real

thing you can do here, I, for example, argue for a more concerted

effort to dealing with Isis more quickly, because of the inspiration

quite frankly that their power they get from different groups around the

world, recruiting people on the periphery of society in Western

countries, but ultimately, in the domestic sense, the FBI and its

partners in terms of local law enforcement in alignment with the

intelligence community and foreign partners like the British

intelligence services, that's how you do with terrorism and the

political dynamics ultimately our campaign fodder in what is going to

be an extremely bitter campaign. Your viewers may think they've seen

about its going to get much, much more heated. I'm sure it will be.

Thank you very much. We've been joined in the studio by

Douglas Murray, associate director of the Henry Jackson Society,

a foreign affairs think tank. Thank you. In a sense, he was a lone

wolf and you're never going to completely be able to protect

communities from lone wolves with guns. No, not you could burn to be

able to. There are certain things you can do -- no, you're not going

to be able to do. You can make things harder. You need to have an

ideology, you need to have the compulsion to act in a violent way

on that ideology and the means to carry out an attack. In America,

it's a lot easier to get the means, that we shouldn't be too sacrosanct

about this. It's not illegal to get a Kalashnikovs in France but still

possible for the people who did it there. It's a lot easier in the USA.

The interesting thing so far about this is the Islamic State

connection, which is clearly not just for this young man but for a

lot of people, provided the ideological component of this. It

has given the opportunity for people like this murderer and terrorist, to

believe they are part of a bigger thing, believe they are part of a

movement. There's always been ideologists, left-wing and

right-wing, that drive people, their report this young man was mentally

unstable, that drive people to do these things so with anything

particularly special about being in accordance with Isis? We've seen a

lot of gun massacres in the USA and is usually an enormous interest in

the nippy ideology of the person has been propelled by. I'm very stuck in

cases like this, let me give you a quick example, if this government

had turned out to be from a Christian background, inspired by

some far right Christian group, by now the media in the UK, USA and

around the world will be looking at who he knew, which church he

attended, what preachers who listen to and what his contacts where. Will

they not be doing that here? It's striking how little of that has been

going on. It's the same in 2009. Let me just finish this point quickly.

Only two months ago, in Orlando, Florida, there was a scandal not

really picked up in the media, a preacher went to one of the main

mosques in Orlando, a Shia preacher from Manchester, and said, he

teaches this particular thing, homosexuals not only can be killed

but must be killed now. He said you have to kill the gays now. As I say,

if this had been a Christian preacher saying this, we would be

all over this stuff. People want to say mentally ill because it an

Islamic issue. Do you think that's true? We are finding this very

difficult because criticising fellow Christians is very much easier than

criticising somebody else's religion, but I think we've got to

get over this squeamishness and call a spade a spade. You think there is

a squeamishness? I feel part of it, it's understandable, I'm a Christian

myself and one hesitates to judge other people's religions, but you

just need to read Ed Hussain, the Islamist, a ten-year-old but, and

how you cannot say these attacks are nothing to do with Islam. And we've

got to get this lamb, the Islamic religion better to police itself,

huge efforts are being made in this country to do this, by the way,

amongst the communities, but they find themselves it difficult to talk

about. And you find it difficult to talk about it, Margaret Hodge? To

think there was more extremist ideology, taken in some part from a

slam even though most Muslims are not violent? I was going to make

that point. I talked to my Muslims, I have eight mosques in my

constituency and I talk about any extremism or fundamentalism emerging

amongst the young people? I think it's important to talk about it, of

course, it's a really tough issue to tackle but I got to come back to the

USA. I look at the figures this morning because I knew we would be

talking about it. 176 mass killings in this calendar year alone since

January 2013, there have been 1122 killings from mass killings, whether

it ideological in America, that has got to be done with a gun laws. I

said that at the outset. Do you think there's any evidence, even if

Hillary Clinton decides to adopt it for her presidential campaign, will

it make any difference to what is an extremely powerful and embedded gun

lobby in the states? This particular attack is primarily not about the

gun lobby but about Islamic conflict. If he had not had a gun,

he wouldn't be able to do that damage. Let's deal with the gun

issue. Will it ever be dealt with on the basis of politics? I wouldn't

have thought so. It's an American issue for Americans to deal with. I

wish they would make it harder to get assault rifles. People are

treating this as if this is in isolation. A couple of months ago a

poll was released about the attitudes of British muslins. That

poll said 52% of British Muslims want homosexuality to be made

illegal in Britain. Not on board with gay marriage, not cool with

civil partnerships, but make it illegal to be gay. That is a clear

line from that belief held by a majority of British Muslims to

somebody walking into a nightclub and gunning down people for being

games and it's time Islamic leaders around the world and in this country

except they're responsible at this hate. This comes back to be able to

say what British law is under way it stands. Is enough being done by

politicians like you to go in there and say not acceptable to condemn

homosexuality? I agree with that. It's an issue of changing cultures.

I go into my mosques and women sit on one side and amends on the other,

I find that does not fit in with my values. And I talk about it and say

why other women there? I haven't talked about sexuality. Perhaps I

should. I will take that away and think about that. Certainly, within

the Labour Party now, when we are thinking about anti-Semitism and how

that has risen, that raises a whole lot of difficult issues for us.

These are tough issues which we should talk about and we should be

clear at the British values on tolerance and equality, whatever

your gender, whatever the issue, ought to be paramount in UK society

so I'm with you on that. And you agree, not countering enough senior

people from perhaps outside and within the religion can sing that

ideology? Don't undress to how difficult that is. We now have laws

that make it almost illegal for comedians to make homophobic jokes,

OK? If those laws were applied to preachers in mosques, and the police

went in to deal with these crimes, I mean, just think about the tinderbox

you would be lighting. We need more understanding. We need to extend as

much support as we can to moderate Muslim people who believe in

integrating their religion into the values of our society, so it would

help them to isolate extremists. The extraordinary thing about the world

of Islam, particularly Wahabi Islam, is how exclusive it is and how you

are either a good Muslim or not. And it is like the most extreme forms of

Christianity. Except that Christianity has never, you know, we

don't have the violence... Douglas Murray, thank you.

Let's take a look now at how the political week

Tomorrow Jeremy Corbyn will give a speech putting forward the case

He'll be joined by union leaders Frances O'Grady and Len McCluskey.

Then in the afternoon, former Mayor of London Ken Livingstone

will be questioned by MPs about anti-Semitism.

On Wednesday it's the turn of Sir Philip Green,

the former owner of BHS, to go in front of MPs

to explain his involvement in the store closing down.

On Friday, MPs on the home affairs committee are publishing

And to end the week, Andrew Neil interviews his final guest,

Iain Duncan Smith, on - what else? - the EU referendum.

Joining me now to discuss the week ahead

is Rafael Behr of the Guardian, and Isabel Hardman

Welcome to both of you. Not long to go now. Gordon Brown making a speech

today as part of the Labour remained rebranding, it's a bit late, isn't

it? Gordon Brown will be hoping not and the Prime Minister will be

hoping not, as well, because what essentially has happened is towards

the end of last week, when the official Remain Campaign started to

get very nervous about the way things were going and what they

found is, while a lot of Conservative voters can be minded to

support the European Union, there's a big problem with the Labour vote

and what I have essentially done, then sit down on Friday to think

about what to do and they decided to more less clear the pitch at the

beginning of this week to get the Labour a load of Labour people out

to say, in case you realise, the Labour position is to support the

membership of the EU and this gets to a big cultural problem the Labour

Party has witches, traditionally, in any kind of vote, there's lots of

areas where you have Labour voters, and they just turn out in droves and

point them to the polling booth and say, you know what to do. But they

are doing something different, they don't want to stay in the EU? They

will hope it's not too late. Isabel Hardman, Jeremy Corbyn and John

McDonnell, it seems, have not been present enough when you look at the

statistics in terms of who is made more speeches, had more appearances,

it been left, it seems, to some of the former Labour leader is if we

look at Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman. Also there's a

postmortem of Labour's failed campaign on this. Alan Johnson also

will come in for criticism because he's barely been visible and he's

the leader for the Labour in campaign for that we barely had

speeches, read anything from him and I'm not sure what he's been doing to

infuse those Labour voters and that's exactly what you were

supposed to do, to take the role some thought Jeremy Corbyn could not

necessarily do because he's quite sceptical about Europe even though

he's officially campaigning to stay in. What about June 24? At the

weekend, there was talk about pensions and a triple lock, David

Cameron saying it could be at risk, but that government policy whether

we are in or out of the EU. Gordon Brown talk about jobs created if we

stayed in the EU. We do seem to be now squarely in what does happen on

June 24 in terms of manifestos and election promises. That point about

pensions is quite interesting because it's a wider argument that

the Remain people are trying to say, there would be less money for

everything. One interesting thing in this campaign is a whole frame of

politics and the economic argument before the EU referendum was about

fiscal crisis, I think we've more or less close that but can now and as a

whole new chapter. The league campaign says we have a huge amount

of money to spend on hospitals and schools and David Cameron saying the

leader spent on pensions. You will find a different structure to the

way the whole argument goes on about priorities and what the product of

governing Britain will be regardless of the result and that throws

anything up in the air. Who will be in charge then? Will it be Remain or

Leave? There's a big push to keep David Cameron even if there is a

Vote Leave. Many MPs think it would be a good idea for the country but

it would be very difficult for David Cameron to have authority as Prime

Minister, given he is made warnings like Brexit will put a bomb under

the economy. How will he reassure people that exactly what's happening

and how we carry out the wishes of the British people? We don't

necessarily know what model of Brexit he would go for and you would

have to work with those who campaigned for Leave to work on that

so it would be very tricky and it's quite significant he's had to talk

about that already and it shows he's not in the plate in his campaign

where he helped to be at this stage. Thank you to both of you.

If you've been following the news coverage of BHS, you'll know

that the former owner of the chain of high street stores,

Sir Philip Green, is refusing to appear in front of a House

of Commons committee to answer questions

Sir Philip said on Friday that he's not prepared to participate

with the evidence session this Wednesday, unless its chairman,

Sir Philip says Mr Field is biased and is conducting a trial by media.

Another MP on the committee, Richard Fuller, told Andrew Neil

yesterday there would be consequences if Sir Philip

I've always said that we have to wait for him to come and answer

What we've seen in the last few weeks is very serious

concerns about his behaviour and the behaviour of his directors.

If he doesn't come, I think, at that stage then, within the rules

of how you can be stripped of an honour, I think the committee

would very seriously look at that, yes.

At this point we had hoped to be joined by the chair of the Work

and Pensions Select Committee, Frank Field, but sadly he hasn't

But, of course, I have you to instead. So what are the sanctions,

Bernard Jenkin, that can be brought to bear on someone like filigree and

if he doesn't turn up? It is very serious to be in contempt of

Parliament but he would be subject to contempt of Parliament

proceedings. -- someone like Philip green. If he refuses to take part,

there are no criminal sanctions, no fines, but his reputation is in

tatters and the idea that he could retain his knighthood or anything

like that... It's stupid, actually, because he can come to the

committee, he is free to speak, he is free to say whatever he likes so

long as he is not actually misleading parliament. He is not

going to be constrained about what he says about other people for fear

of being sued and it is to its advantage to attend and the idea

that Ranville, of all people, is not open-minded and evenhanded, he is

picking on... I don't come under the same category as Frank. But he has

made a valid point, I think, by saying, if you've already made up

your mind, and you have lots of sessions where people said, we bang

to rights before we even appear, why should they appeared before what

they feel are biased proceedings? Goal but I think our sections are a

bit stronger than Bernard suggested. Until the 1880s, when people refused

to do something that the House of Commons ruled, we would take them

through the House of Commons and they would have a little period of

surgery to reflect. That sounds very ominous! They were

locked up in a room. You can't do that now, can you? Why not? It has

never been removed. Because of the Human Rights Act. We are not talking

about the EU referendum on the Human Rights Act. Go bye-bye think it has

been a great week of Parliament. The hearings that were held in front of

Ian Wright, what a fantastic... And you are talking about Mike

Ashley. You would never have got it in a court of law. You would never

have got Mike Ashley admitting in a court of law that he was not paying

minimal wage and the strength of the informality... But they've got to

turn up. If they think you are biased and have made up your mind,

and Frank field has even put up figure on the amount he should pay,

why should he turn up? It is to Philip Green's advantage of the ends

up. This is not a judicial process and is not going to result in any

consequences, judicial consequences for him, as a result of this. Not

even the Financial Conduct Authority, the department for trade

and industry, they cannot use what he says in that committee against

him in any way whatsoever. That is the advantage of the select

committee. Do you think he will turn up? I think he will and I agree with

Bernard. If he doesn't... You are going to lock him away? I'm going to

lock him away in Big Ben and take his knighthood. He would be served

with a rich. It happened Arthur Scargill. If you are running away

from a writ for Parliament, what have you got left of your

reputation? Lets leave it there. Philip Green, I hope you are

watching. Interviews with big

names are a mainstay But how do the big interviewers make

sure their grillings on TV In the latest of a series

of films about how BBC news programmes are put together,

Adam's gone behind the scenes of some of the BBC's

flagship political shows. Up the road at Broadcasting House,

it's rush hour as politicians arrive On first, Andrew Marr with a line-up

that includes the Mayor of London, the former head of MI6

and the Justice So sometimes you simply say what's

on your mind and sit Sometimes you have to really hit

them hard and carry on pursuing something they don't

want to talk about. Every interview is different,

but I'm basically there to get the interviewee to say the most

interesting things to two million plus people watching

that they can say on that day. Sometimes it doesn't go brilliantly,

like this interview with Boris. I'm going to tell you what I'm

going to cover. There are times when something more

than the intellectual give-and-take that we're looking for creeps

into the relationship with I try to look people in the eye

and ask always the obvious questions Right, off to the third floor to see

Pienaar Politics on 5 Live. RADIO: First for breaking news

and the best live sport. Even though his name

is in the title of the show, JP insists interviews

are never about him. You start from the position

that we are impartial Once you recognise there's no place

for your own prejudices and your own personal take

on things, it's not interesting Once you start from there,

all of your questions fall into the necessary category

and they make sense. You don't let any politician

just say what they have You test them or what's

the point of being there? What's the point of asking

questions? OK, it's 11 o'clock so time to go

to the basement again for The Sunday Politics

with Andrew Neil. Andrew is grilling the leader

of the Scottish Conservatives The catchphrase he uses when he's

prepping for interviews A team of researchers works

through what will be the best lines to follow,

do the fact-based research, go through all the documents, make sure

we know what we're talking about. I do the same myself,

I do a lot of research myself. We bring the two together

and we try to build a reputation for basing our interviews

on the facts and getting the politicians of all parties

to address the facts. And that's it for Sunday morning

with my much, much, much, much, Interviewing an interviewer

about interviewing. And you can see all Adam's films

about how the BBC ensures fairness In the final few weeks before

the referendum on 23rd June, we have been showcasing

the arguments for remaining in the EU and leaving it

in a series of short films. Today we're looking at how Green

supporters are approaching the vote. In a moment we'll hear

from the Green MP Caroline Lucas First, though, here's

the Green activist Mark Hill, Most of the political parties tell

us that we should remain in the European Union but just look

at the opinion polls. And many of those expecting to vote

Leave will therefore be Green We are reminding voters

that we are all in this together and we take this decision

collectively as citizens whatever Our key argument is that the major

parties all want us to stay in, claiming that we can reform

the European Union from within. We simply say that the

European Union is beyond reform. Protectionism against developing

countries, savage austerity in Greece and mass unemployment

amongst youth are the results, so look at our website which show

what left-wing figures like Tony Benn have had to say

about the European Union. Because to come and speak

at a public meeting, And here's Caroline Lucas,

former leader of the Green Party, with her case for remaining

in the EU. Now, it was so good we thought we'd

play you twice! We will try and bring new Caroline Lucas's in just a

moment but we've been joined in the studio by Mark Hill, the leader of

the Green KEN DOHERTY: Leaves campaign. -- the

green leaves campaign. And by the deputy leader

of the Green Party Shahrar Ali. Surely it is better to negotiate as

part of the major trading bloc than alone? I would say no. I would say

that the results on issues like climate change have been very mixed.

The emissions trading scheme has been less successful than some of

the projects that the government has undertaken unilaterally. Bilateral

treaties work extremely well. It would be wrong to say that the

European Union has been uniformly unsuccessful but there are certainly

many environmentally related responsibilities which it has not

exercised well. But are you really saying that Britain would have done

better at some of those targets than by being part of the EU? I suggest

that we should be very conscious of what the EU decides but not be ruled

by a. What do you say, Sharar Ali? With the greatest respect, I think

anybody who really understands green ethos, green ideology and the green

movement, we are through and through internationalists. That's why we are

firmly arguing for staying in the EU but not unreformed. Wheelie great

reform. But some of the things where we need cross border reform,

collaboration, climate change is one of the biggest issues of our time.

We've had an agreement amongst international leaders and it is much

much easier now for us to get EU leaders together and to try and make

the steps that are necessary, like 107 renewable energy by 2050. These

are not things that can be done unilaterally or bilaterally, and the

EU has been tremendous on environmental legislation generally.

Is Mark misguided, and is he very representative in terms of other

Green Party supporters? Unlike most parties, we have an official,

democratically decided position. People are able to dissent from that

but once it is decided I think it is great for the party to be

demonstrating the unity of that decision. However, I think it is

doubly problematic for Green is to be proposing and except for the EU.

This is one of the areas where we have proportional representation. We

have a far better mandate in the European Parliament than we do in

our own UK Parliamentary institutions. Caroline Lucas, first

past the post, one by 1 million voters. We are very aware that we

are standing for a referendum and reform to stay in. The House of

Lords, and an elected institution, we can't equate that institution

with the European Parliament, a farm more do credit regime. This seems to

go against some of the core principles of being a member of the

Green Party. I don't think so and for a long time the Green Party was

very ambivalent about the EU and that was part of a tradition that

existed across the left, including towering figures like Tony Benn. If

you look at the polls now, the Leave campaign would appear to be ahead.

That's empty can be on the back of disgruntled Conservatives and Ukip

supporters. -- that simply cannot be. Everybody that is arguing for

relief is ultimately against their political party and it would appear

from the breakdowns of the opinion polls that people on the left are

going to be roughly 30% or more voting for Leave in spite of what

you say, and I would claim that a lot of people are doing this

precisely for internationalist reasons, because they would like to

engage more deeply with the wide array of countries outside be you

that need our contact. One of the things Mark Reyes was about

austerity, because the policy since the crash has been pro-austerity,

rightly or only, and that in itself would not be a Green Party

printable. That definitely great against Green Party ethos and we've

been railing against austerity measures in this country, but that

isn't to say that people facing massive unemployment in Greece or or

facing those kinds austerity measures shouldn't get a bit of

solidarity from us. It is partly about what kind of people you want

to be, do you want to pull up the drawbridge and be Englanders or do

we want to express solidarity with our European colleagues and

neighbours and say, actually, we're with you and we're going to help

you, even if, as a relatively rich country, it is going to cost a

slightly more? I think the people of this country are very prepared to do

things not just for their own sake but for others to. We are sorry we

are unable to show the Caroline Lucas clip as promised but you can

watch it online on our website. Gremlins obviously exist.

Thanks to Margaret, Bernard and all my guests.

I'll be back here on BBC Two tomorrow at noon with

MUSIC: Send My Love (To Your New Lover) by Adele